USAF News and Discussion

ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Terran said:
Civil aviation has also had issues with finding pilots. The short term shifts won’t fix that. It seems to me like some major shifts have to happen at younger ages. Perhaps an expansion of the CAP program might help. More automated cargo and civil aviation in the longer term also seems necessary.
Click to expand...
G'day Terran welcome to the forum. I see that you're a long time lurker here so you're aware of all the usual things.

I think that as far as commercial aviation is concerned we may be entering a new normal that will be different from the pre COVID-19 normal. Many questions remain unanswered and air travel, especially international air travel, may not return to pre COVID-19 levels for years. If that is the case I would suggest that military aviation may have less problems attracting and retaining aircrew.
 
Terran

Terran

Well-Known Member
Thank you for the welcome.
first point we have seen a “New normal” like this before post 9/11 When civil aviation tanked due to security concerns. However they bounced back. It’s just a matter of clearing up travel bans and making sure to make the potential passengers Feel the birds are clean. I point out that the other civil industry hit by this has been the cruise liners. They are already taking huge reservations for the second half of the year it wouldn’t be hard to imagine civil flights having the same. It may start regionally but it will bounce back. Air travel is the most efficient means we have for long range travel. The problem is we have two sides sharing the same critical Human Resources, a skilled worker in the form of the pilot. The military might pick them up short term but long term the civil side pays more and less stress.
The critical factors are. How many trained pilots and flight crew are there as it stands?
How many experienced pilots are leaving due to age or no longer able to meet the requirements?
How many nuggets are entering the cycle?
How many are being drawn off to civil aviation? How many are coming into the civilian side as new pilots? (The latter is increasing more and more less civil aviation is dependent upon old fighter jocks.)
In the long run the short term jump of pilots to the military will be just that if you are depending solely on snagging furloughed airline pilots.

That Is the heart of my comments.
To solve the Pilot problem longer term means trying to change things more fundamental to the aviation industry and military aviation. Get younger pilots not just though the Military Academy’s but Aviation training in general. Hence the Civil Aviation Patrol which was supposed to be the USAF gett’em young side. That might also require changing how some flights are flown And contracts to flight crew are written to allow more flexibility for pilots in industry and military. That might mean changing larger aircraft to drones. I doubt that last one would fly for passenger air but do you really care if the FED EX/UPS/USPS/DHL bird is a manned plane or an unmanned one if you ship something? That would also work for aspects of military logistics, not every military freight flight needs to land on a short unpaved field Or on an aircraft carrier those that fly from large US bases to large US bases often have a ready landing way.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Terran said:
That Is the heart of my comments.
To solve the Pilot problem longer term means trying to change things more fundamental to the aviation industry and military aviation. Get younger pilots not just though the Military Academy’s but Aviation training in general. Hence the Civil Aviation Patrol which was supposed to be the USAF gett’em young side. That might also require changing how some flights are flown And contracts to flight crew are written to allow more flexibility for pilots in industry and military. That might mean changing larger aircraft to drones. I doubt that last one would fly for passenger air but do you really care if the FED EX/UPS/USPS/DHL bird is a manned plane or an unmanned one if you ship something? That would also work for aspects of military logistics, not every military freight flight needs to land on a short unpaved field Or on an aircraft carrier those that fly from large US bases to large US bases often have a ready landing way.
Click to expand...
I think you mean the Civil Air Patrol, which while it does include a cadet programme for youths 14 through 21, has a adult programme as well which includes licensed civil aviation pilots and access to aircraft. BTW the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) was actually founded just before the US entry into WWII and performed defense missions in the American theatre like ASW patrols, etc. The idea behind the founding was not to draw youths to the USAF (which did not exist yet) but to leverage civil aviation if war were to break out.

As for using larger drones to deliver air cargo... Just how large do you really imagine this would be? There are small drones being trialed for 'local' delivery in Christianburg. VA but hat has a per trip load limit of 1.5 kg, with a max range of ~10 km. If you are talking about replacing commercial air cargo jet liners with drones, there would first need to be drones with the range, cargo volume and weight capacities of commercial cargo jets. The FAA in the US might have some issues authorizing aircraft of that size to operate in US airspace along with passenger airliners.
 
Terran

Terran

Well-Known Member
I stand corrected.
Yet that is basically what my point is to try and fast track the next generation of pilots. Get more JR high and High school kids into the aviation track and behind the stick and the Military will have more pilots. Blackswan events are short term.

Most modern Airliners are already Fly By Wire which is the first step it’s just getting the system to take off and land fully autonomous which they are almost doing now. Which of course means getting the FAA and other regulators on board to approve.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Terran said:
I stand corrected.
Yet that is basically what my point is to try and fast track the next generation of pilots. Get more JR high and High school kids into the aviation track and behind the stick and the Military will have more pilots. Blackswan events are short term.

Most modern Airliners are already Fly By Wire which is the first step it’s just getting the system to take off and land fully autonomous which they are almost doing now. Which of course means getting the FAA and other regulators on board to approve.
Click to expand...
Does the USAF have any NCO pilots? AFAIK there have not been any pilots in the regular USAF who are authorized to fly military aircraft (drones not included) who are not commissioned officers since the USAF was founded. This is important because a bachelor's degree is a prerequisite for getting an officer's commission. What all this boils down to, is that while a programme like the CAP's Cadet programme could certainly inspire cadet members to seek join the USAF, either enlisting after graduating high school or after college (which might or might not include ROTC), the starting age for pilot candidates is unlikely to be younger than 21.
 
Terran

Terran

Well-Known Member
No they haven’t had them in a long time. However like the other services if you have a Batchelor you can get a officers commission.
However if you can accelerate people in to the aviation sciences then there is your corps.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Terran said:
No they haven’t had them in a long time. However like the other services if you have a Batchelor you can get a officers commission.
However if you can accelerate people in to the aviation sciences then there is your corps.
Click to expand...
If more middle school/high school students join programmes like the CAP as cadets, that could lead to more personnel seeking to serve in the USAF. However, if the objective is to rapidly expand the pool of candidates for pilot training, then the CAP IMO is not going to be of much use even if it were to be wildly successful at drawing in more middle school to high school aged participants.

US high school graduates are usually between 17 and 19 years old at time of graduation from high school. It would typically take another four years for them to graduate from college with a bachelor's degree which would put the person between 21 and 23 typically. At this point they could become eligible for a commission if they took the proper steps in college or enlisted and then went through OCS. All participation in the CAP as a cadet might do is increase the cadet's interest and knowledge of aviation, as well as possibly some customs and protocols of the service. It would not waive some of the basic requirements to become an officer, or accelerate a cadet's ability to meet those basic requirements, and it would not enable enlisted to become Air Force pilots.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Full rate production for the KC-46 has been pushed out to 2024. I think MRTTs must be looking very attractive. A split buy with MRTTs for the Pacific and KC-46s for the rest of the world should have been an option.

www.airforcemag.com

KC-46 Full-Rate Production Pushed Back to 2024 | Air & Space Forces Magazine

USAF has delayed the KC-46’s full-rate production decision milestone until 2024 as the next-gen tanker works issues with its Remote Vision System.
www.airforcemag.com www.airforcemag.com
 
OPSSG

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
swerve said:
The USAF must be very unhappy that it had to buy the wrong aircraft . . .
Click to expand...
Serves them right for not going with the EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45 — that won the KC-X RFP on 29 February 2008, but over-turned by the GAO in favour of Boeing’s KC-46.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I believe the Feb 2008 bid came about only after Senator McCain objected to a Boeing lease plan prior to 2008. Also, the KC-45 would have been built in Alabama. Sadly, high performance lobbying beats high performance products.
 
Terran

Terran

Well-Known Member
Lockheed Martin and Airbus were talking about the A330MRTT a while back so it’s not a total kill per say. However any US adopted system would have to be at least assembled in the US as per the Berry Amendment.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
John Fedup said:
I believe the Feb 2008 bid came about only after Senator McCain objected to a Boeing lease plan prior to 2008. Also, the KC-45 would have been built in Alabama. Sadly, high performance lobbying beats high performance products.
Click to expand...
McCain objected on good grounds. The contract negotiation was corrupt. The USAF personnel evaluating the aircraft acted as if they were Boeing rather than USAF staff, e.g. "Go Boeing!" & the like as e-mail signatures . . . . The head had got Boeing jobs for herself (paying over twice as much as her USAF job), her daughter (who was unqualified) & son-in-law.

She'd also done favours for Boeing on other contracts (e.g. grossly overpaying), & passed them confidential information from rivals, e.g. EADS. She went to prison, losing her Boeing job. The Boeing CFO also went to prison.

The contract couldn't be allowed to stand.

The really stupid thing is that Boeing already had the contract, & if it had played it straight, it would have kept it. At the time the KC-767 was the only realistic candidate, & that was recognised: Boeing was awarded a sole-source contract. The only thing in question was the contract terms, & Boeing paid bribes to get terms so good that they aroused suspicion.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
OPSSG said:
Serves them right for not going with the EADS/Northrop Grumman KC-45 — that won the KC-X RFP on 29 February 2008, but over-turned by the GAO in favour of Boeing’s KC-46.
Click to expand...
The contract award was not overturned in favour of the Boeing KC-46 entry. It was overturned because the contract needed to be re-competed. The complaint Boeing made about the contract award, which the GAO investigated and found to be valid, was that the then EADS/Northrup Grumman entrant based off the A330 MRTT was favoured over the Boeing entrant based off the smaller B767 because the A330 MRTT could carry more fuel aboard. The issue with that is that under the terms of either the RFP or RFT (I forget which one it was) the ability to carry 'extra' fuel was not considered an advantage which is at least part of the reason why Boeing offered an aircraft based off the B767 when Boeing could have using the larger B777 as a base, had the company known that more fuel would have been considered 'better'.

swerve said:
McCain objected on good grounds. The contract negotiation was corrupt. The USAF personnel evaluating the aircraft acted as if they were Boeing rather than USAF staff, e.g. "Go Boeing!" & the like as e-mail signatures . . . . The head had got Boeing jobs for herself (paying over twice as much as her USAF job), her daughter (who was unqualified) & son-in-law.

She'd also done favours for Boeing on other contracts (e.g. grossly overpaying), & passed them confidential information from rivals, e.g. EADS. She went to prison, losing her Boeing job. The Boeing CFO also went to prison.

The contract couldn't be allowed to stand.

The really stupid thing is that Boeing already had the contract, & if it had played it straight, it would have kept it. At the time the KC-767 was the only realistic candidate, & that was recognised: Boeing was awarded a sole-source contract. The only thing in question was the contract terms, & Boeing paid bribes to get terms so good that they aroused suspicion.
Click to expand...
That person, Darleen Druyun was a civilian employee of the USAF, with the title of Principal Deputy Undersecretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. Going through her history after the fact, it seems as though she had been involved in irregularities involving gov't payments to then McDonnell Douglas back in 1993, prior to the merger with Boeing. The main issue I have with the outcome of her involvement is that I feel she ended up getting a relatively minor, slap on the wrist type punishment. Less than 10 months in Federal prison, USD$5,000 fine (her Boeing signing bonus was USD$50,000), three years supervised release and 150 hours of community service. Aside from wanting to have someone who misused and abused their authority for profit actually get punished, I would also want the outcome to serve as an object lesson to those who follow and might be tempted to use their authority for their own, as opposed to the nation's benefit.
 
Terran

Terran

Well-Known Member
Back on the Tanker talk.
www.thedrive.com

Air Force Says These Are Its Options For Hiring Private Aerial Refueling Companies

Between its aging KC-135 and KC-10 tanker fleets and problems with the new KC-46A, the Air Force is facing a worrying tanker gap.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
The USAF apparently has been thinking about how to fill the gap. In summary. They came up with five options but not all of them seem like they fix the problems.
  1. Let Contractors fly USAF Tankers
  2. Sell Contractors used Tankers
  3. Let Contractors buy used tankers from abroad.
  4. Let Contractors build new tankers from existing aircraft.
  5. Let Contractors buy new tankers from abroad
They key point on this is the boom tankers. The USN and USMC have contracts for probe and drogue already and those are way to get. Like the Navy and Marines if they went this route it would be purely for non combat missions.

Now it should be obvious the problem with #1 and #2. The key issue is not a pilot shortage although that is an issue it’s a tanker shortage. KC46 isn’t ready yet. Despite being based off an established and proven platform for tanking the KC46 isn’t living up to what it should be. The existing tankers in USAF The KC135 and KC10 are old. Wearing out. Letting civilians fly them doesn’t solve that issue for #1 and selling them as surplus doesn’t for #2. The same old birds in new paint with new pilots doesn’t keep the wings from falling off. #3 runs into the same deal. only so many nations have boom types and most are KC135 Or KC707 with a slightly different boom that they don’t make parts for anymore. They have been used for years and warn in. It’s like buying a rental car.

#4 come in Conversation of an existing commercial aircraft like surplus 767 and A330 or A310 is an option but again that might require some major investment.
#5 is what I mentioned before. Where Lockheed Martin and Airbus were offering A330MRTT as both builder and operators.
 
Terran

Terran

Well-Known Member
@Terran Content deleted. Copying and pasting without any commentary by the poster is against the rules.

Ngatimozart
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top