The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[Loachman]

Increasing the number of Pilots - a problem that I identified here before - requires time and effort. Recruiting and selection time, four years (wasted) at RMC, and a couple of years in the flying training mill. Increased throughput will be required at each stage, especially in Portage, Moose Jaw, and Cold Lake. More hours on the aircraft in each location, and more instructors, and more cost - or else another flying community gets robbed, and all are already short.

This whole imperial decree is a lie based upon faulty assumptions, or faulty assumptions based upon a lie.

It is unnecessary, illogical, and wasteful.

Perhaps if we could convince the Sun King that the F35 has a lower carbon footprint because it only has one engine, he might do the right thing.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Increasing the number of Pilots - a problem that I identified here before - requires time and effort. Recruiting and selection time, four years (wasted) at RMC, and a couple of years in the flying training mill. Increased throughput will be required at each stage, especially in Portage, Moose Jaw, and Cold Lake. More hours on the aircraft in each location, and more instructors, and more cost - or else another flying community gets robbed, and all are already short.

This whole imperial decree is a lie based upon faulty assumptions, or faulty assumptions based upon a lie.

It is unnecessary, illogical, and wasteful.

Perhaps if we could convince the Sun King that the F35 has a lower carbon footprint because it only has one engine, he might do the right thing.

I heard a rumour that the F35 was actually solar powered. True?

 

[dapaterson]

There are plenty of pilots; the problem is that they are not treated as a specialist occupation.  Given the training cost, the majority of pilots should be in flying positions, not in HQs doing staff jobs.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

There are plenty of pilots; the problem is that they are not treated as a specialist occupation.  Given the training cost, the majority of pilots should be in flying positions, not in HQs doing staff jobs.

Stop that.

Next thing, you will be suggesting that the nearly 40 percent of dentists in the CF be taken out of their staff jobs and see actual patients...

 

[Loachman]

There are staff positions that require Pilots, plus the generic anybody-positions. If Pilots are pulled out of staff positions, who fills them? (As I doubt that excessive HQ positions will be reduced). Why should others have to fill more staff positions? Why should Pilots lose the professional development value? How many of these staff Pilots are fighter guys?

There are a few non-Pilots in Pilot staff positions already. We have two.

How many extra techs are kicking around in non-tech jobs?

From where do the extra YFR costs come? Who goes short to cover those?

And where is the solid justification for any of this?

"We must get back to peacekeeping".

"There must be some peace to keep somewhere".

"Our party will look bad if we can't find any peace to keep".

"We won't buy the F35".

"It's the best option in reality, so we have to come up with a cunning plan to delay the inevitable, or find a weasel-way to push another aircraft despite the fact that it will cost more and provide less capability".

"Our party will look bad if we admit our error".

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Actually Loachman, this is where you and I part company.

We spend anywhere between $2-7 million per pilot getting them useful to the military. Pilots should, on average, spend more time in Sqns flying, not less.

If that means a few dozen fewer pilots make it to GO, I can live with that.

 

[Infanteer]

Is a Pilot useful to the CAF because he knows how to fly a plane, or because he know how to plan, sustain and apply airpower?

 

[dapaterson]

Perhaps we need to move from a pilot occupation to a pilot branch; the majority would be pilot NCMs, who spend the majority of their career flying, with a small number of pilot officers, who fly less than the NCMs, but who do the institutional leadership function on top of flying.  That also eliminates the degree requirement for most pilots, as an added bonus.

 

[Good2Golf]

Perhaps we need to move from a pilot occupation to a pilot branch; the majority would be pilot NCMs, who spend the majority of their career flying, with a small number of pilot officers, who fly less than the NCMs, but who do the institutional leadership function on top of flying.  That also eliminates the degree requirement for most pilots, as an added bonus.

Certainly one branch of the pilot occupation could make that work, but light blue would never let that happen...I think...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Is a Pilot useful to the CAF because he knows how to fly a plane, or because he know how to plan, sustain and apply airpower?

Both, but we probably have too many pilots trying to do the later, or working in tasks entirely unrelated to combat flying.

Back on topic- unless there are going to be big changes made to how we recruit and train pilots and technicians, there is basically no chance of having a Super Hornet Sqn stand up in 4 years. Unless we plan on shutting some other capability down to free up people.

 

[vonGarvin]

I'm sitting over here wondering why I spent four years to be an infantry platoon commander when I ended up being an infantry platoon commander for a year.  Then I spent 10 weeks learning how to be a mortar platoon commander and ended up being a mortar platoon commander for 2 years. 


TL;DR: bring back the CF 104

 

[dimsum]

Perhaps we need to move from a pilot occupation to a pilot branch; the majority would be pilot NCMs, who spend the majority of their career flying, with a small number of pilot officers, who fly less than the NCMs, but who do the institutional leadership function on top of flying.  That also eliminates the degree requirement for most pilots, as an added bonus.

I think that horse has fled the barn already.  Aside from the US Army Warrant Officers, no other military I can think of has anyone other than commissioned Officers flying manned aircraft (RPAs are different.) 

I totally agree with that concept and I think it'll work (again) with Navigators as well, if they are winged as Sergeant (or Warrant) Pilots/Navs, but I can't see senior officers signing off on that. 

 

[kev994]

Flying the aircraft is the easy part, we can teach any numpty to fly an airplane in ~500 hours, the decision making is where pilots make or break it. I'm not insinuating that is an NCM less capable at making a decision than than someone with a degree in basket weaving, and certainly I know great pilots who joined before a degree was a requirement, but that is where the logic of the degree is going to come in.

 

[Old Sweat]

Speaking from the dangerous position of having a little bit of knowledge and not enough information, let me toss in my recollection of another approach. When I came through the system as an officer cadet in 1960-1961 the RCAF had an approach for aircrew production that was broadly similar to what the RAF had used pre-Second World War. A fair number of aircrew came through ROTP and had permanent commissions; however a large number, perhaps a majority, were officers with short service commissions who had joined from high school to learn to fly. These folks qualified through the common aircrew training system and then served in operational squadrons for something like, I guess, five years. They could apply for a permanent commission but the acceptance rate was very low. The army used to recruit a number, especially in the artillery and service corps, to eventually become aviators. These were enrolled as captains and proceeded on Officer Candidate Program (OCP) with the officer cadets recruited off the street.

The army was making noises about doing something similar with most of we OCP plugs being career-limited to captain. In practice ROTP retention was not sufficient to fill the more senior army requirements and most of us did better than that, but I digress.

The wheels came off the wagon with integration as Hellyer and the like were not impressed with a very expensive aircrew training program that then tossed out a large number of its graduates just when they were at a peak of ability and experience. Thus all at once the air force found itself with a large number of pilots with permanent commissions and some hard choices as well as not enough non-flying jobs. I don't know how many want to move to staff jobs and progression and how many would prefer to stay flying as long as possible. The options have pluses and minuses, but whatever course is adopted does not, in my opinion, have an obvious edge over the others, or else we would not be having this debate.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Would air reserve pilots work? Move the majority of pilots into the reserves once they hit Captain, give them sufficient training simulator and wheels up time to stay qualified, but take away  the flying desks and useless postings/tasks. Dedicate, say, 2/3 of the fighter fleet to air reserve? Same number of aircraft available, just fewer full time pilots and many, many more part time pilots. Also, open up opportunities for pilots to go and fly with foreign air forces on exchange role.  That way they keep up a constant cycle of pilots in training and pilots that are qualified.

 

[Good2Golf]

I think that horse has fled the barn already.  Aside from the US Army Warrant Officers, no other military I can think of has anyone other than commissioned Officers flying manned aircraft (RPAs are different.) 

UK AAC...

 

[dimsum]

UK AAC...

I stand corrected  :-[

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Would air reserve pilots work? Move the majority of pilots into the reserves once they hit Captain, give them sufficient training simulator and wheels up time to stay qualified, but take away  the flying desks and useless postings/tasks. Dedicate, say, 2/3 of the fighter fleet to air reserve? Same number of aircraft available, just fewer full time pilots and many, many more part time pilots. Also, open up opportunities for pilots to go and fly with foreign air forces on exchange role.  That way they keep up a constant cycle of pilots in training and pilots that are qualified.

It might work in some fleets but not ours IMO.  There already are some exchange positions now.

sorry but this isn't the fix.

 

[Rifleman62]

Interesting web page.

http://robdavistelford.co.uk/webspace/raf_bc/

Aircrew ranks, the Second World War:

Whilst processing large tracts of aircraft loss and casualty data I noticed that many RCAF airmen who became casualties at Sergeant, Flight Sergeant or Warrant Officer rank subsequently appeared in official data as Pilot Officer or a higher. Whilst it is not uncommon for an airman's commission to have happened so shortly before his death that Squadron records did not reflect the change, this anomaly was far too common for RCAF airmen to have been coincidence. Guessing that this 'lightning quick' commission was effected to afford a widow or dependant an improved pension, I queried the matter with Canadian officialdom. Stephen Harris, Acting Director and Chief Historian of the Directorate of History and Heritage, National Defence, Canada, replies:-

"The Canadian Minister of National Defence for Air, Chubby Power, believed all aircrew should be commissioned but could not achieve this goal because of limitations on commissioning contained in the BCATP agreement (Empire Air Training Scheme in UK). We negociated for, and received, higher commissioning rates in the May 1942 conference -- and some increases thereafter. Aircrew who were captured were "off the books", in a way, and it was Canadian policy to commission them so that they went of officer PW camps. For some Canadian aircrew, especially those serving on RAF squadrons, the time delay between their commissioning and the notification of the RAF squadron concerned could be considerable. Even for those serving on RCAF squadrons there could be a delay: when Mynarski took off, he had been promoted but his squadron did not know it. Thus he was wearing WO insignia, but his VC was issued to reflect his commissioned rank. All that is preamble to the answer we can give re: casualties. We have never found policy. We are aware of practice, but have never found policy. And it certainly wasn't universal: there wasn't the same urgency in commissioning air gunners." (October 2012)

 

And:

Rank differences, and comradeship

It was common for a pilot to be of Non-commissioned rank (Sergeant, Flight Sergeant or Warrant Officer) with a commissioned officer as navigator or bomb-aimer. The pilot was captain of the aircraft irrespective of rank (except in some RCAF and Polish units), and most crews, in the air, had a first-names policy. The correct "form" was that an NCO saluted an officer in his crew the first time they met every day and after that rank was ignored, unless there was a senior officer about. Certainly most crews went off to the pub together, regardless of rank

Whilst it was considered fine for a pilot to socialise with another pilot, or an air gunner to mix off-duty with other air gunner pals, it was regarded as unnatural for a pilot to socialise frequently with a navigator from another crew, or for any member of a crew to regularly associate with an airman of a different category from another crew. This sounds weird, but illustrates the comradeship and bond between members of a crew. They were "all in it together", as most often their fate as a crew was combined.

In a typical instance of the comradeship of airmen, dozens of aircrew had arrived at the local pub and a new barmaid had refused to serve the sergeants and flight-sergeants, insisting that the lounge bar was for officers only. All the non commissioned ranks had immediately departed for the public bar, and to a man, the officers had set down their pints and followed them, leaving the lounge deserted and the men in the packed public bar breathing by numbers. Quietly informed of the situation by the senior flight-commander, the pub's owner had hurriedly rushed downstairs from his supper and put the barmaid right. Offering his apologies to the aircrew, the situation was restored to normal.

 

[Loachman]

Would air reserve pilots work? Move the majority of pilots into the reserves once they hit Captain, give them sufficient training simulator and wheels up time to stay qualified, but take away  the flying desks and useless postings/tasks. Dedicate, say, 2/3 of the fighter fleet to air reserve? Same number of aircraft available, just fewer full time pilots and many, many more part time pilots. Also, open up opportunities for pilots to go and fly with foreign air forces on exchange role.  That way they keep up a constant cycle of pilots in training and pilots that are qualified.

I have posted about this before.

To have a successful Reserve Force operation, one has to have sufficient numbers of Reservists matched with sufficient suitable equipment and infrastructure.

We have two fighter bases. Both are far-removed from sufficiently-sized pools of ex-Regular Force Pilots and Techs, who, if they seek other flying/maintenance jobs post-release, tend to live around major population centres with large airports, none of which have hangar space, other infrastructure, or ranges and suitable airspace to support fighter operations.

Exchange positions as a solution? They are expensive, and we have to offer something at least as good to the other exchanges in return. How does that fit your model?

Flying the aircraft is the easy part, we can teach any numpty to fly an airplane in ~500 hours, the decision making is where pilots make or break it. I'm not insinuating that is an NCM less capable at making a decision than than someone with a degree in basket weaving

Then what are you insinuating?

How do the current and previous crops of Pilots achieve this decision-making ability that you seem to feel would be lacking in NCO Pilots? Neither rank nor commission automatically confer that, or guarantee it.

We expect NCOs to make complex decisions all of the time, and they generally manage to do so quite well - no less so than Officers - with no degree, no commission, and for less pay.

Sergeants command tanks, for example. It takes some brains to be able to do that well.

Our Observers in the Kiowas were Artillery and Armoured (and a few Infantry and Combat Engineer) Sergeants (and some Warrant Officers). They were very intelligent, very experienced, and carefully-selected people who had to perform to an extremely high standard to pass their demanding Observer course. They could easily have been given the Driver (Air) course and done at least as well as the commissioned Pilots. Most of those that I flew with made it to Chief Warrant Officer and some took commissions later. They were a very impressive bunch.

certainly I know great pilots who joined before a degree was a requirement, but that is where the logic of the degree is going to come in.

What "logic" is there in requiring a degree in order to be a Pilot? How does a degree in a completely unrelated field make anybody a better Pilot?

Subtle hints: "None" and "It does not".

Put a Corporal and an Officer Cadet through the same selection and training process, and you'll have two people with remarkably similar abilities.

And, yes, the British Army was training Corporal Pilots a few years ago, who would rapidly be promoted to Sergeant. I am not sure if they still train at the Corporal rank, but they certainly still have Sergeant Pilots.

I would not push that model on the whole CF flying operation, but it makes a lot of sense for Tac Hel.