USAF WO program being considered ((no pilots)

[havoc]

Air Force Eyes Bringing Back Warrant Officers After Decades-Long Absence | Military.com (https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/02/06/air-force-eyes-bringing-back-warrant-officers-after-decades-long-absence.html)

Air Force officials are considering bringing back warrant officers and may start creating a training program this year, reversing a decision from 65 years ago when the service ended that grade, according to a planning document obtained by Military.com.

The three-page planning order says that "great power competition" -- Defense Department lingo for escalating defense spending and resources against adversaries such as China -- is underscoring the need to resurrect warrant officers, the corps of highly technical service members who are above the enlisted ranks but below the commissioned officer ranks.

"The service must examine new ways to develop and retain a highly capable, technologically capable corps of air-minded warfighters," the document says. "To fully leverage the technical depth and breadth of talent of our airmen and cultivate the strategic advantage USAF technicians have historically provided, we will make the necessary preparations to re-establish a WO [warrant officer] corps and deliver foundational training for designated WO-1 candidates."

The planning order, which originated from Air University and was dated Jan. 26, was marked controlled unclassified information, a term used for unclassified but protected information.

Rose Riley, a Department of the Air Force spokeswoman, declined to comment on the document but noted that next week is the Air and Space Forces Association's Warfare Symposium in Colorado, a conference where Air Force officials often make policy announcements and speak with members of the press.

"There's nothing we have to offer on that," Riley said. "Anything related to the [secretary of the Air Force's] plans for re-optimizing for great power competition will be announced next week."

Warrant officers are used by the other service branches as highly technical subject matter experts and single-track leaders. They typically come from the enlisted ranks.

The Air Force had warrant officers when it spun off into a separate service branch in 1947, a role it had inherited from the Army (https://www.military.com/army).

According to the Warrant Officer Historical Foundation (https://warrantofficerhistory.org/WO_Prog_Other_Svc.htm), the Air Force discontinued the grade in 1959.

"They determined that structure, training and retention needs were best served by eliminating their warrant officer program," the Warrant Officer Historical Foundation said on its website. "There were approximately 4,500 Air Force warrant officer authorizations when this decision was made."

The last active-duty Air Force warrant officer was CWO-4 James H. Long, who retired in 1980, according to the foundation.

The last Air Force Reserve warrant officer, CWO-4 Bob Barrow, retired from the ranks in 1992, and was honorarily promoted to CWO-5. He is still the only person in the Air Force ever to hold that grade.

It does not appear, per the document, that the new warrant officer program would be producing pilots.

The Air Force's January planning document details what it will take "to develop a concept of operations (CONOP) to establish a training pipeline to reintroduce a USAF non-aviation warrant officer (WO) program as a technical corps NLT October 2024."

The Air Force has previously shot down (https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/09/17/air-force-again-shoots-down-proposal-make-warrant-officer-pilots.html) the idea of using warrant officers as a way to fill the ongoing pilot shortage with aviators. In 2018, Air Force officials said at a conference that the Rand Corp. think tank was tasked with looking at the idea but its study did not recommend it, Military.com reported.

If the training program is successful and occurs, it would be "effectively delivering foundational training for up to 200 junior WO-1s per year and up to 50 senior warrant officers WO-2s -- WO-5s with officer's commissions per year to build and sustain a WO corps."

Candidates to become warrant officers could come from the active-duty, Air National Guard (https://www.military.com/national-guard) and reserve, according to the pre-decisional document.

[Lonewolf_50]

It's been a few years, but I remember a program the US Navy had to train senior enlisted as UAV operators. Not sure if that's still going. As the increase of UAV ops has become a normal thing, that's probably where the manpower is coming from for that billet. There was a time in the USAF where pilots were being assigned to "fly" UAVs (predator, et al) which may or may not have worked out in the end. (Been to long since my old buddy Butch retired from the powder blue personnel world).

We also had, in the USN 40 years ago, the flying limited duty officer program,FLDO, when we had a pilot shortage in the USN (and the Reagan administration was trying to build a 600 ship fleet that never solved the manpower issue so it didn't happen).
FLDO would get winged and then commit to a 3 year instructor tour. They were not warrant officers. They were usually enlisted maintenance pros or aircrewmen who competed for a chance at becoming a pilot. They got commissions, and eventually had the chance to convert to regular commissions. Some did and some did not.
The warrant officer idea has been tossed up a few times in the Navy but has not yet stuck.
I wish the Air Force luck with this. Solving their manning shortage has been a moving target for a while.

[havoc]

89 when they were phasing out the bufff gunners there was discussion on having flying Sgts as Buff Copilots,

They would not be upgraded to Aircraft Commander which put a wrinkle in the program as they could be the most experienced pilot on board as the hours built.

[Lomon]

Does that mean they are going t rename Chief Master Sgt who are E9(or OR9 in NATO) - or invent a new grade at E10 just to try and be one better than everyone else?

[Avtur]

Recognizing that this thread is US centric, but...So the simple exam question is (answers in one concise sentence / bullet form, without thread drift): "What are the explicit reasons that Non-Commissioned Aircrew are not allowed be a Pilot (or WSO) in the current RAF / RN?"

[trim it out]

Recognizing that this thread is US centric, but...So the simple exam question is (answers in one concise sentence / bullet form, without thread drift): "What are the explicit reasons that Non-Commissioned Aircrew are not allowed be a Pilot (or WSO) in the current RAF / RN?"
Beards fine, NCOs driving? Absolutely not.
Reciprocal for the Army.

:rolleyes:

[langleybaston]

Recognizing that this thread is US centric, but...So the simple exam question is (answers in one concise sentence / bullet form, without thread drift): "What are the explicit reasons that Non-Commissioned Aircrew are not allowed be a Pilot (or WSO) in the current RAF / RN?"

False logic: how about "why are all pilots and WSOs commissioned?"

[Biggus]

I thought the RAF requirement that all pilots and navs (WSOs na!), and indeed AEOs, had to be commissioned officers started out with the widespread arrival of nuclear weapons - or is that an urban myth?

[Corporal Clott]

The RAF requirement is covered well by the excellent book by ‘Jeff’ Jefford - Observers and Navigators (and other non-Pilot Aircrew in the RFC, RNAS and RAF). The real reason was to attract the right calibre of individual to fly, command and with the potential to reach into the upper echelons of the RAF. Simple as that. Society was changing post WW2 and the ‘lure’ of being a SNCO was not big enough to attract the right folks. They even developed a kind of ‘sub officer cadre’ with the 1946 Aircrew Scheme, with their own messes and rank badges (Aircrew Cadet, Aircrew 3rd Class, 2nd Class, 1st Class and Master Aircrew) - this was to try and attract again without needing to put through Officer training. Winston Churchill had always insisted on using SNCO rank to attract the right calibre of folks to become Aircrew, however, it was a temporary measure and by 1946 the new scheme came in. It lasted until 1950 as it was highly unpopular too and they reverted to Aircrew Cadet, Aircrew Sgt, Aircrew FS and Master Aircrew - they remain to this day for WSOps in non-Pilot roles.

The odd thing is that if you pay SNCO Pilots the same rates of flying pay (or RRP(F) these days), like the British Army do, then they end up MORE expensive than Officer Pilots! So what is the point? Officer Pilots only become more expensive as senior Flt Lts and when you take the early expense of SNCO Pilots, it evens out about 16-20 years in. Only really when an officer promotes to Sqn Ldr do they really pull away from the SNCO Aircrew pay.

That’s an abridged version of Jeff’s book, but I recommend it as a great read and an absolute mine of excellent, well researched information and proper facts: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Observers-Navigators-Other-Non-pilot-Aircrew/dp/1909808024

[trim it out]

The odd thing is that if you pay SNCO Pilots the same rates of flying pay (or RRP(F) these days), like the British Army do, then they end up MORE expensive than Officer Pilots! So what is the point? Officer Pilots only become more expensive as senior Flt Lts and when you take the early expense of SNCO Pilots, it evens out about 16-20 years in. Only really when an officer promotes to Sqn Ldr do they really pull away from the SNCO Aircrew pay.

That’s an abridged version of Jeff’s book, but I recommend it as a great read and an absolute mine of excellent, well researched information and proper facts: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Observers-Navigators-Other-Non-pilot-Aircrew/dp/1909808024
Fortunately the MOD have put in a cost saving measure by not paying anyone who started flying training after 2017/2018(?) any flying pay for their first 6 years :)

[The B Word]

Fortunately the MOD have put in a cost saving measure by not paying anyone who started flying training after 2017/2018(?) any flying pay for their first 6 years :)

Not cost saving - that is fake news. It was re-profiled to pay more later and less earlier. Kind of makes sense in that you pay at the points when folks have traditionally have left the Service and not too much soon after they have trained. Obviously, for some, the wait to finish that training has taken a couple of years longer than the scheme planned for. You can read the details in the AFPRB report from 2017: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81e3dced915d74e34009b4/58422_Armed_Forces_Pay_Web_Accessible.pdf

When you plot out the old initial/middle/top/enhanced rates against the new Tier 1, Tier 2 and the £70k Retention Payment (which is now two £40k lump sums) then you see that there was no cost saving. When I looked at it in 2017 as it was announced, I did exactly that and worked out it cost more over a 20 year career than the previous scheme. After 20 years then most are either PAS/PES(A) or climbing up through OF3/OF4 pay scales anyway.

The thing that sucked the dog of death for many was that 2017 was the beginning of the misfiring start of UK MFTS. That saw many with delayed or stalled flying training. As the new scheme relied on start of flying training points and OCU completions (although the latter was the same for the legacy scheme to kick off flying pay), then the delays caused frustrations for those caught up in it. However, at the other end of the demographic those already on Middle, Top and Enhanced Rate RRP received a much welcomed enhancement to their pay packet with the new Tier 2 rates, whilst some also got £70k payments they were not expecting. Thus the scheme was viewed as unfair by some and great by others as there were winners and losers - not great!

[iRaven]

The new Defence Aircrew Remuneration Review (DARR) is due out this year according to last year’s UK Armed Forces pay review. It’ll be interesting to see if that sorts the ‘winners and losers’ out.

Going back on topic. Here is why the proposed roll out of direct entry WO SNCO Pilots by the UK Army Air Corps makes little financial sense:
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1795x866/img_8350_83264138d4e6dcd18d3fb830770c65d7f0caa8f9.jpeg



https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1810x1225/img_8351_b559022135bb139808b26ea49b10f0cac9452590.jpeg

You can see that if the Officer Pilots and Soldier Pilots are paid the same RRP(F) - which they are - then the cost of OR8/OR9 Soldier Pilots is way more than Officer Pilots. Which seems a bit odd when often the quote of “it’s cheaper” is banded about!

[iRaven]

Even on the current scheme, the OR6 Sgt Pilot is on £44k and the OF1 2Lt is on £38k. So the financial argument for NCO Pilots doesn’t stack up in my view.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1293x1130/img_8352_ad99fd72ca03fa1fc80b9ee04befe71d288950a2.jpeg

[trim it out]

Not cost saving - that is fake news. It was re-profiled to pay more later and less earlier.
And those that leave as soon as they can (because the job is mind numbing with all the extra curricular nonsense that is done to fill time when there are no serviceable aircraft) receive no flying pay, so in those instances it is cheaper. I don't have the stats for how many leave at the OCU+6 years now but it will be interesting to see how the first generation of aircrew on the new system respond when they get to the 6 year point.

Regarding the DARR, the pay spines haven't been announced as far as I know. If I was to use common sense, the entry rates won't be anywhere near the OR8 Supp 4 levels quoted there. Those are relating to soldiers that have 15+ years of service. I think the entry rates for Aviation Warrant Officer or whatever is decided on will be akin to OR6 Supp 4 + a level of RRP(F) all bundled into one a la PES(A). Those of us on legacy will just enter at a level similar to what we're on now, as people do when they go on to PES.

The whole reasoning behind DARR is to separate the rank from the pay.