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

[FJAG]

This is irrelevant. The RMC/ROTP pipeline is established and training establishments are running at full capacity. Removing the requirement for a degree would only lead to an increased wait time or delays in recruitment (by 4-5 years).

If the pipeline is full and you are short of pilots, you need a new pipeline.

 

[markppcli]

If the pipeline is full and you are short of pilots, you need a new pipeline.

Which means more instructor pilots, for which we need more pilots, and we could outsource but guess where they'd be hiring from?

 

[FJAG]

Which means more instructor pilots, for which we need more pilots, and we could outsource but guess where they'd be hiring from?

Mark. I don't know what it means. I've been out for over fifteen years. But I just keep hearing over and over again from the folks who are still there about their woes. Then I look up this article from 2018 which says the RCAF is short pilots and maintainers. It's not a new issue. Its been 7-8 years (probably many more) and we're still in the same position.

Any money-making industry that would consistently fail to meet targets (or even worse set targets which do not solve the problem) for that long would have fired its management team years ago and gone back to address the issue by the short and curlies and overhauled the system from the ground up. There are clearly systemic problems. Nope. I can't tell you what they are - retired, remember. Can't tell you how to solve them, either. But sometimes the people working inside the system can't see the forest for the trees while those standing on the edge looking in can not only see the whole forest but can also see that it isn't healthy.

I sometimes wonder - and I'm not saying that I'm right in this - but I wonder if bundling the three services into one wasn't a mistake and that the big hulking mass in Ottawa, by having to look at all issues but from one level removed, simply isn't agile enough to either see or react in a timely manner.

 

[MilEME09]

Which means more instructor pilots, for which we need more pilots, and we could outsource but guess where they'd be hiring from?

Atleast for F35 its international training centers in Italy and the US, so we can lean on instructors from partner nations too

 

[childs56]

Mark. I don't know what it means. I've been out for over fifteen years. But I just keep hearing over and over again from the folks who are still there about their woes. Then I look up this article from 2018 which says the RCAF is short pilots and maintainers. It's not a new issue. Its been 7-8 years (probably many more) and we're still in the same position.

Any money-making industry that would consistently fail to meet targets (or even worse set targets which do not solve the problem) for that long would have fired its management team years ago and gone back to address the issue by the short and curlies and overhauled the system from the ground up. There are clearly systemic problems. Nope. I can't tell you what they are - retired, remember. Can't tell you how to solve them, either. But sometimes the people working inside the system can't see the forest for the trees while those standing on the edge looking in can not only see the whole forest but can also see that it isn't healthy.

I sometimes wonder - and I'm not saying that I'm right in this - but I wonder if bundling the three services into one wasn't a mistake and that the big hulking mass in Ottawa, by having to look at all issues but from one level removed, simply isn't agile enough to either see or react in a timely manner.

I think lack of outside experience being able to influence and used for face value is hurting the military. You are correct the over and over again is accomplishing nothing. You have to expect that from a group of people who know nothing else. Empire building diminishes any and all forward movement, this is one place where the CF has built a large empire of support in order to provide support for themselves. We need people on the front lines, not only learning to fight, but how to improve our overall situation. Be it the tech side, industry standards, training, recruiting etc.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I sometimes wonder - and I'm not saying that I'm right in this - but I wonder if bundling the three services into one wasn't a mistake and that the big hulking mass in Ottawa, by having to look at all issues but from one level removed, simply isn't agile enough to either see or react in a timely manner.

I dont think you need to wonder about that one.

 

[markppcli]

Mark. I don't know what it means. I've been out for over fifteen years. But I just keep hearing over and over again from the folks who are still there about their woes. Then I look up this article from 2018 which says the RCAF is short pilots and maintainers. It's not a new issue. Its been 7-8 years (probably many more) and we're still in the same position.

Any money-making industry that would consistently fail to meet targets (or even worse set targets which do not solve the problem) for that long would have fired its management team years ago and gone back to address the issue by the short and curlies and overhauled the system from the ground up. There are clearly systemic problems. Nope. I can't tell you what they are - retired, remember. Can't tell you how to solve them, either. But sometimes the people working inside the system can't see the forest for the trees while those standing on the edge looking in can not only see the whole forest but can also see that it isn't healthy.

I sometimes wonder - and I'm not saying that I'm right in this - but I wonder if bundling the three services into one wasn't a mistake and that the big hulking mass in Ottawa, by having to look at all issues but from one level removed, simply isn't agile enough to either see or react in a timely manner.

What i mean is that any out sourced training center just ends up hiring pilots as instructors, which means we have more senior pilots poached. I understand where you're coming from, but there tends to be an attitude of just saying "well fix it," without understanding that increasing throughput while maintaining operations is a very tough ask. No one is suggesting the forest is healthy, we're pointing out the difficulties inherent in the solution and why its not a quick fix.

 

[Fabius]

In general terms the next 10 years are going to see major changes across all our elements, equipment and organization.
Leadership keeps saying that maintaining operations is the main effort but that’s going to run into a hard reality.
Operations may have to take a backseat to modernization for several years, so as too be “ready” with the modernized forces.

It will be interesting to see if the most upper leadership can organize modernization across the elements such that Cdn contributions are maintained by different elements as the others enter a higher modernization tempo (P8s deploying instead of frigates etc.) or if we can use reserves to create time to allow regular units to modernize (more a army thing)

 

[Halifax Tar]

Operations may have to take a backseat to modernization for several years, so as too be “ready” with the modernized forces.

Did you keep a straight face when you typed that ? lol

 

[Fabius]

Interesting thing is by prioritizing “operations” and “readiness” what is actually being prioritized is routine peacetime operations.
If you think that Major Combat Operations are going to breakout in the next 5 years, prioritizing peacetime operations over modernization will result in your forces being less ready, effective and efficient for major combat.

If leadership (CAF, DND,GoC) actually think that war is on the horizon they would be better off emphasizing modernization.

 

[Quirky]

If leadership (CAF, DND,GoC) actually think that war is on the horizon they would be better off emphasizing modernization.

CAF's priority has been, and will always be, culture and DEI. Modernization, training and combat capability are a distant second.

 

[YZT580]

Mark. I don't know what it means. I've been out for over fifteen years. But I just keep hearing over and over again from the folks who are still there about their woes. Then I look up this article from 2018 which says the RCAF is short pilots and maintainers. It's not a new issue. Its been 7-8 years (probably many more) and we're still in the same position.

Any money-making industry that would consistently fail to meet targets (or even worse set targets which do not solve the problem) for that long would have fired its management team years ago and gone back to address the issue by the short and curlies and overhauled the system from the ground up. There are clearly systemic problems. Nope. I can't tell you what they are - retired, remember. Can't tell you how to solve them, either. But sometimes the people working inside the system can't see the forest for the trees while those standing on the edge looking in can not only see the whole forest but can also see that it isn't healthy.

I sometimes wonder - and I'm not saying that I'm right in this - but I wonder if bundling the three services into one wasn't a mistake and that the big hulking mass in Ottawa, by having to look at all issues but from one level removed, simply isn't agile enough to either see or react in a timely manner.

undoubtedly is a factor but Occam's razer theory would suggest that Ottawa just didn't want to spend the money to do it right.

 

[GR66]

Which means more instructor pilots, for which we need more pilots, and we could outsource but guess where they'd be hiring from?

I continue to contend that part of the problem is that our fighter fleet is too small. It doesn't provide a large enough pool of pilots to cover all of our operational, training and administrative needs. While it may be difficult to get to that point I bet that a fleet closer to 130-150 aircraft would have less difficulty meeting our non-operational pilot requirements once we get crewing (and obviously techs) to that new baseline.