Catholic military chaplains

  • Thread starter Thread starter ajg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MonteRCMS said:
Air Force Gets Creative to Tackle Pilot Shortage | Military.com

Actually, if you read the article … it is with great reluctance that relaxation of some requirements is being discussed.

http://www.businessinsider.com/air-...-back-for-a-year-to-fix-pilot-shortage-2017-8

Here's how bad the Air Force's pilot shortage really is - We Are The Mighty

One of my younger friends was “rejected” for pilot training but found a home in “alternate combat”, retired as a Lt. Col.

Air Force May Approve Enlisted Pilots for First Time in 75 Years | Military.com
Click to expand...
The USAF scrapped the thought of enlisted pilots. That is not happening and has been pulled off the table. Also pulled off the table was bringing back warrant officers. So neither of them are going to happen.

They have recalled some retirees as instructors and as midlevel commanders so we’ve seen a slight increase in what my friend calls “flying colonels” (he’s now considered one). It’s rare to see a lieutenant colonel (USAF O5) or a full bird colonel (USAF O6) in the cockpit - but it’s becoming more common now. We need their experience in the left seat (the command pilot seat).
 
Last edited:
warrant officers used to fly helicopters in the army

never so in the navy; only officers handle our birds…

warrant officers in the navy mostly run our powerful ship engines…

does the chair force even have any helicopters?


😉
 
Yep.

We have H1 Hueys and the Pave Hawk. And they’re ours, not the Army’s.
 
MonteRCMS said:
Instead of lengthening commitment time, train many more pilots with shorter commitment times, recruiting anyone who can perform instead of insisting on the perfect physical specimen recruits.
Click to expand...
The catch is that it is expensive to train a pilot. In the mid 80s, it had already crossed $1M (then again, this is small next to any of today’s planes).

Very short commitments also mean very bottom-heavy with junior officers.

When I was dealing with this (the 80s), both the AF and Navy were six years, although they counted a bit differently (I think Navy was five from wings, after a bit more than a year, while the AF was a striaght six, but it’s been a while).

At the, Naval recruiters emphasized that you were a naval officer first and a pilot secondly, as your warfare designation; the AF recruiters told you you would be a pilot first, with more flight hours than the navy and the hours lasting far longer into your career.

Neither had a problem filling out their slots with boys with 20/20 vision back then.

hawk
 
dochawk said:
The catch is that it is expensive to train a pilot. In the mid 80s, it had already crossed $1M (then again, this is small next to any of today’s planes).

Very short commitments also mean very bottom-heavy with junior officers.

When I was dealing with this (the 80s), both the AF and Navy were six years, although they counted a bit differently (I think Navy was five from wings, after a bit more than a year, while the AF was a striaght six, but it’s been a while).

At the, Naval recruiters emphasized that you were a naval officer first and a pilot secondly, as your warfare designation; the AF recruiters told you you would be a pilot first, with more flight hours than the navy and the hours lasting far longer into your career.

Neither had a problem filling out their slots with boys with 20/20 vision back then.

hawk
Click to expand...
Totally true.

Well, it depends on how much training they get.

And how much training they need.

Seriously.

One of my friends was taken out of a 4-engine jet transport [ C-141 ] to fly an O-2 Cessna push-pull twin prop FAC [forward air controller ] job. And when his year was up, my friend was so aggressive, he was unable to fly transports.

He flew below the tree tops … and when he landed, “his” standard approach to land was to fly at full throttle at the control tower cab and pull straight up into a hammerhead turn, got zero airspeed, lowered the gear, and landed. When they reported him, he said what can you possibly do to me that is worse than the job I have? … [zero survival rate]. But he only got hit twice. And survived.

Another friend flew a tour in F-105’s with HUGE losses and then a tour in F-4’s … retired as a Major.

You can train a C-17 pilot more cheaply than you train an F-15 pilot.

A C-17 pilot does not need air-to-air combat maneuvering or fighter electronic stuff and you can start with training via Embry Riddle or one of the other contract schools. Although C-17’s refuel in mid-air.

And you can use cadet steps.

Anyway, I blame the USAF powerpoint rangers in the Pentagon for the USAF problems.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
You can train a C-17 pilot more cheaply than you train an F-15 pilot.

A C-17 pilot does not need air-to-air combat maneuvering or fighter electronic stuff and you can start with training via Embry Riddle or one of the other contract schools.
Click to expand...
The USAF would completely disagree with you on that.

The C-17 is a more capable and more complex of an airframe than you’re giving her credit for. Combat drops, skid landings, skid drops, unimproved (read: complete dirt and sand) landings and takeoffs, short landings/takeoffs, Arctic landings and takeoffs…all with a full payload of materiel, pax, or patients.

NVG takeoff and landing, evasion training, weapons school (yes, she’s a weapons system) and specialization…we do far more with our big boys over just land and take off.

I have friends who are fighter drivers and friends who are moose drivers. The fighter guys, who escort the moose in and out of the hot zone, are actually blown away by what that airframe can do and does do on a daily basis.

UPT (undergraduate pilot training) is the exact same for both pilots. SUPT (specialized UPT) costs millions, and both have a 12 year commitment now.
 
Last edited:
My Army infantry friends are blown away by what the C-130 and C-17 pilots do.
 
MonteRCMS said:
Another friend flew a tour in F-105’s with HUGE losses and then a tour in F-4’s … retired as a Major.
Click to expand...
He did write two books before he died.

Ed Rasimus.

www.amazon.com

Ed Rasimus: books, biography, latest update

Follow Ed Rasimus and explore their bibliography from Amazon's Ed Rasimus Author Page.
www.amazon.com





click here google you tube thuds F-105 Thunderchiefs and their Pilots in Action - 1966 - YouTube

Title is “There Is A Way” Joe Tarpley
 
Last edited:
C-130 gunship.

Nuff said.

Although the C17 can also blast off the “Angel of Death” when she’s so equipped.

I also forgot - one of my moose driver friends is a SOLL-II qualified guy - Special Operations Low Level - and flew with that squadron at Charleston twice in his earlier career. SOLL-II is highly specialized and only a few are selected (he was SOLL-II in the 141 and when he transferred he requaled for the 17). He was bomber qualified (too tall to fly fighters), but actually chose the C-141 knowing the C-17 was coming - and it was completely for what that plane can do.

I love that plane. I wanted to fly her in the worst way - I saw the first one delivered to Altus land on our airfield flown by the then CSAF Ron Fogelman, and I’ve been smitten ever since. The base I’m currently at does 34% of the airlift mission for the entire USAF, including the DOD’s only nuclear transport mission (this is all on wiki so nothing secret about it), and I love it here because of our connection to that mission.

I have walked around deployed locations thinking how “this is the city the C17 built, and the city the C17 will take home”. Yes, the C5 moves a lot, but the backbone of our airlift mission is the C17.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
Anyway, I blame the USAF powerpoint rangers in the Pentagon for the USAF problems.
Click to expand...
I still blame the USAF powerpoint rangers in the Pentagon for the USAF manpower problems.

Absolute lack of imagination and creativity.

They want the same approach they used to use.

The world has changed.

Instead of a cockpit crew with “interns” observing … and learning … they have reduced the size to a minimum number. That is airline behavior.

Instead of overworking pilots, they could creatively recruit pilots and assign them part-time to grad schools so the pilots wouldn’t burn out as part of their duty and to give them the opportunity to keep their families together.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
My Army infantry friends are blown away by what the C-130 and C-17 pilots do.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah - troop and materiel drops. That’s mind boggling how they train to drop a Humvee from a few thousand feet directly on an X.
 
MonteRCMS said:
40.png
MonteRCMS:
Anyway, I blame the USAF powerpoint rangers in the Pentagon for the USAF problems.
Click to expand...
I still blame the USAF powerpoint rangers in the Pentagon for the USAF manpower problems.

Absolute lack of imagination and creativity.

They want the same approach they used to use.

The world has changed.

Instead of a cockpit crew with “interns” observing … and learning … they have reduced the size to a minimum number. That is airline behavior.

Instead of overworking pilots, they could creatively recruit pilots and assign them part-time to grad schools so the pilots wouldn’t burn out as part of their duty and to give them the opportunity to keep their families together.
Click to expand...
YES!!! Yes yes yes.

Leave of absence is one thing currently being tossed around. They’re also anteing up for full FAA certifications (currently the pilots pay out of pocket for this) for Reservists and Air National Guard pilots so these guys get their training from us, still owe us the time, and yet can go out and live their lives as well.

There’s also effort to drop what the pilots call queep - which is excessive extra duties and other insanity that keeps them out of the cockpit. And they’re developing a sort of non-command track, which will allow those who want to spend their careers in the cockpit over being administrative and commanders more leeway in doing so.

They’ve been slow to move, but I think our new CSAF(Chief of Staff of the Air Force) is making a huge difference.
 
Pup7 said:
YES!!! Yes yes yes.

Leave of absence is one thing currently being tossed around. They’re also anteing up for full FAA certifications (currently the pilots pay out of pocket for this) for Reservists and Air National Guard pilots so these guys get their training from us, still owe us the time, and yet can go out and live their lives as well.

There’s also effort to drop what the pilots call queep - which is excessive extra duties and other insanity that keeps them out of the cockpit. And they’re developing a sort of non-command track, which will allow those who want to spend their careers in the cockpit over being administrative and commanders more leeway in doing so.

They’ve been slow to move, but I think our new CSAF(Chief of Staff of the Air Force) is making a huge difference.
Click to expand...
Once upon a time they had Aviation Cadets.

Long long ago.

But they trained a lot of pilots, some of whom became instructors and some became operations pilots.

Additional duties.

Division commander called me … moi … because there was a problem with a civilian runway and miles miles away. He had a crew of 24/7 alert pilots THERE … but he called me. His pilots knew the problem but he called me … made no sense. I was not allowed to visit his pilots … sterilized? … sanitized?.. Additional duties. Piles and piles of additional duties.

www.airforcetimes.com

Air Force cuts 'queep' training requirements in half

The Air Force is planning to cut some of its most commonly-required -- and often repetitive or unnecessary -- training programs in half.
www.airforcetimes.com www.airforcetimes.com
 
Last edited:
Close the inner ring and the outer ring of Pentagon offices.

EVERYBODY wants to work where the “action is” … in the main office.

When we have 10 million people in uniform … fine.

But the total today is what ? One million? Plus 300,000 national guard?

Number of bases and ships is fractionally what it used to be.

We don’t need all those people who work in the Pentagon to manage them.
 
Last edited:
Approximately 23,000 military and civilian employees and about 3,000 non-defense support personnel work in the Pentagon.

If we are short 2,000 pilots … well, I would bet dollars to donuts you could find 2,000 pilots in that building … that you could “liberate”.

Yank 'em out of those bureaucrat chairs.
 
Pup7 said:
He was bomber qualified (too tall to fly fighters), but actually chose the C-141 knowing the C-17 was coming - and it was completely for what that plane can do.
Click to expand...
We got told about an F-4 jock the Navy converted to P-3 duty.

Who got into a dogfight.

Similar but more maneuverable Soviet plane got on his six–and carried AA missiles.

He managed to get on the commie’s six and stay they (half an hour? I forget) until fighter support arrived.

He stressed the airframe so far out of spec that damage was visible to the eye by the time he landed.

hawk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top