Okay I'm following now, is the limited flight hours based on the current budget? Would a larger flying budget lead to quicker burn though of airframes?
Not really. Besides, yearly flying rates is a delicate balance between procurement of parts (linked to our National Procurement budgets managed by DGAEPM), maintenance capacity (linked to maintainers and their own qualifications), POL prices and fleet Estimated Life Expectancy (linked to Capital procurement - You fly more, your aircraft will last you less time and require a replacement sooner). Each fleet is allocated a number each year based on that balance. IIRC, most fleets, in the recent past under-flew their allocations (or at least the RCAF did as a whole). Merely increasing flying hours will not fix the issue - you still need people flying those hours. And in order to fly productive hours, we need Instructor Pilots, which we are short on. IPs are already close to burnout and increasing their workload will just push them out, IMO.
Not about to argue (a lot) with guys in the field (we get that a lot from the grunts in the arty forums) but, correct me if I'm wrong here: with respect to a given airframe there's basic instruction in just the operation of the airframe and then more complex instructions on it's operational/combat use, correct? And secondly, is there a formal course for teaching a 2-ship lead or 4-ship lead or is this conducted at the operational squadron more or less as OJT?
That is correct. There are formal courses to teach wingmen, 2-ship leads, 4-ship leads (we call those "tactical levels")and there is a different qualification to assess their combat readiness in those positions. A year's worth of flying is a balance between giving guys some "free" time in the aircraft to learn without supervision (we call that Continuous Training - CT. People fly in the position they are qualified to do) and banging away at upgrades (we call those upgrades an X board, in reference to the board with the syllabus on it, and once a mission is completed, we X it out). There are different philosophy on who and when to upgrade. My take on it is to put people on the upgrade syllabus as soon as they are mature enough and tactically ready.
Given our mission set is expansive (Defensive Counter Air, NORAD (which is subdivided in incepteption of Dangerous Military Aircraft, Operation Noble Eagle (airliners) and counter-narcotics), Close Air Support, Scene Commander/Armed Recce and self-escort strike), it is a really difficult balance to be had. You want people to practice in their tactical level in scenarios that go beyond what was taught on the syllabus but we also need to push people through the upgrade programs to replace people leaving. 3 years on Squadron is not nearly enough to get a good return on investment.
Would we not benefit from having a separate trade for those staff positions to keep pilots and crew on the front lines?
Yes but not all positions. Certain positions, such as positions within the Fighter Capability Office (Directorate of Air Requirements for Fighters) or at 1 Canadian Air Division (such as positions within the Senior Staff Officer Fighter shop), NORAD and NATO need an intimate understanding of the aircraft, the tactics and the environment we operate into. Having said this, there is a lot of fat indeed but in the last 4 years, we have eaten that fat. We have issues filling what we consider our "core" positions.
