Questions:

What is it about the B-2 that requires so much more training hours than the B-1 or B-52?

F-15E/Fs fly more than any other fighter. Can their training requirements really be so high? Shouldn't their mission require about
the same training hours as an A-10? What are they doing that A-10 aircrew are not that requires the extra hours?

When will be get rid of the AV-8Bs, and their super super high cost-per-flight-hour ($39,000 per hour is more than an F-15 or a KC-10).

Anything else leap out at you?

C-2s flew 228 hours per plane in 2020.
C-5s flew 330 hours per plane in 2020.
C-17s flew 560 hours per plane in 2020.
C-130H flew 242 hours per plane in 2020.
C-130J flew 458 hours per plane in 2020.

B-1s flew 110 hours per plane in 2020.
B-2s flew 272 hours per plane in 2020.
B-52s flew 188 hours per plane in 2020.

F-15C/Ds flew 160 hours per plane in 2020.
F-15E/Fs flew 279 hours per plane in 2020.
F-16s flew 161 hours per plane in 2020.
F-18Es flew 247 hours per plane in 2020.
F-18Gs flew 218 hours per plane in 2020.
F-35s flew 196 hours per plane in 2020 (all makes).
AV-8Bs flew 188 hours per plane in 2020.
A-10s flew 268 hours per plane in 2020.

MH-53 flew 255 hours per helicopter in 2020.
UH/HH-60 flew 138 hours per helicopter in 2020.
MH-60R flew 371 hours per helicopter in 2020.
V-22s flew 148 per craft in 2020.
AH-64s flew 176 hours per helicopter in 2020.


https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... 3-106217-1

Are you really comparing a VSTOL, often deployed from small assault carriers, type which is now ageing, with a widely used though also mature but built in much larger numbers conventional fighter and a converted airliner?
What ‘leaps out’ is a lack of context.

GDB wrote:

Are you really comparing a VSTOL, often deployed from small assault carriers, type which is now ageing, with a widely used though also mature but built in much larger numbers conventional fighter and a converted airliner?
What ‘leaps out’ is a lack of context.

If I'm the Marine Corps, I might have to decide if I'd rather have another hour of a KC130 (cheaper) or F-35B (about the same) or an AV-8 (less capable). That's a decision the real Marine Corps makes all the time (in peace).

I'm trying to say that the AV-8B is a very small plane with limited capabilities that costs an awful lot to fly.

But really I just thought the operating hours per plane was interesting, and was wondering if anyone had any observations.

I didn't know that an F-18E flies 175% of the hours of an F-15C. Maybe ground attack requires 75% more training than air-to-air??

kitplane01 wrote:

GDB wrote:

Are you really comparing a VSTOL, often deployed from small assault carriers, type which is now ageing, with a widely used though also mature but built in much larger numbers conventional fighter and a converted airliner?
What ‘leaps out’ is a lack of context.

If I'm the Marine Corps, I might have to decide if I'd rather have another hour of a KC130 (cheaper) or F-35B (about the same) or an AV-8 (less capable). That's a decision the real Marine Corps makes all the time (in peace).

I'm trying to say that the AV-8B is a very small plane with limited capabilities that costs an awful lot to fly.

But really I just thought the operating hours per plane was interesting, and was wondering if anyone had any observations.

I didn't know that an F-18E flies 175% of the hours of an F-15C. Maybe ground attack requires 75% more training than air-to-air??

It was an improvement on what started as an experimental aircraft, which became a specialized attack type for the RAF in NW Europe from 1969, procured with maritime mods and simplified avionics for the USMC in 1972.
A maritime multi role version with the RN effectively won a war 8000 miles from home in 1982, silencing its many detractors who usually came from the ‘not invented here’ view. With a 95% availability from small carriers in the harsh South Atlantic conditions.

The AV-8B being a second generation version, deployed from the mid 80’s. With greater range/payload and updated avionics but still evolved from the experimental Hawker Kestrel.
Not seeing the correlation with the F-35, much less a tanker version of the C-130.

Apples and oranges don’t come close.

GDB wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

GDB wrote:

Are you really comparing a VSTOL, often deployed from small assault carriers, type which is now ageing, with a widely used though also mature but built in much larger numbers conventional fighter and a converted airliner?
What ‘leaps out’ is a lack of context.

If I'm the Marine Corps, I might have to decide if I'd rather have another hour of a KC130 (cheaper) or F-35B (about the same) or an AV-8 (less capable). That's a decision the real Marine Corps makes all the time (in peace).

I'm trying to say that the AV-8B is a very small plane with limited capabilities that costs an awful lot to fly.

But really I just thought the operating hours per plane was interesting, and was wondering if anyone had any observations.

I didn't know that an F-18E flies 175% of the hours of an F-15C. Maybe ground attack requires 75% more training than air-to-air??

It was an improvement on what started as an experimental aircraft, which became a specialized attack type for the RAF in NW Europe from 1969, procured with maritime mods and simplified avionics for the USMC in 1972.
A maritime multi role version with the RN effectively won a war 8000 miles from home in 1982, silencing its many detractors who usually came from the ‘not invented here’ view. With a 95% availability from small carriers in the harsh South Atlantic conditions.

The AV-8B being a second generation version, deployed from the mid 80’s. With greater range/payload and updated avionics but still evolved from the experimental Hawker Kestrel.
Not seeing the correlation with the F-35, much less a tanker version of the C-130.

Apples and oranges don’t come close.

I already knew the history.

What I was curious about is ... how long do the Marines plan to keep the AV-8s?

And I wonder why AV-8s only fly 70% as many hours as the A-10. I would have thought the AV-8 mission would require MORE trainging than the A-10, not less.

kitplane01 wrote:

GDB wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

If I'm the Marine Corps, I might have to decide if I'd rather have another hour of a KC130 (cheaper) or F-35B (about the same) or an AV-8 (less capable). That's a decision the real Marine Corps makes all the time (in peace).

I'm trying to say that the AV-8B is a very small plane with limited capabilities that costs an awful lot to fly.

But really I just thought the operating hours per plane was interesting, and was wondering if anyone had any observations.

I didn't know that an F-18E flies 175% of the hours of an F-15C. Maybe ground attack requires 75% more training than air-to-air??

It was an improvement on what started as an experimental aircraft, which became a specialized attack type for the RAF in NW Europe from 1969, procured with maritime mods and simplified avionics for the USMC in 1972.
A maritime multi role version with the RN effectively won a war 8000 miles from home in 1982, silencing its many detractors who usually came from the ‘not invented here’ view. With a 95% availability from small carriers in the harsh South Atlantic conditions.

The AV-8B being a second generation version, deployed from the mid 80’s. With greater range/payload and updated avionics but still evolved from the experimental Hawker Kestrel.
Not seeing the correlation with the F-35, much less a tanker version of the C-130.

Apples and oranges don’t come close.

I already knew the history.

What I was curious about is ... how long do the Marines plan to keep the AV-8s?

And I wonder why AV-8s only fly 70% as many hours as the A-10. I would have thought the AV-8 mission would require MORE trainging than the A-10, not less.

You wonder why two different aircraft platforms, with different operating environments, missions, and deployment routines, with different maintenance requirements, in two different military branches, utilize different amounts of training hours? This isn't even an apples to oranges comparison. There are untold amounts of reasons why one uses more training hours than others. A lot of A-10's are in reserve and national guard units, so they have more reason to use the time they have in order to keep their funding going. Active duty units probably don't deploy nearly as often as the Marines do, and they don't do sea duty tours. This means they can run more hours. Since the A-10's are land based, they would likely have less maintenance down time because they aren't in a corrosive environment full of salty ocean air. The airframe itself is orders of magnitude less complex than the AV-8, so maintenance is likely less intensive.

The AV-8's are mostly (as far as I know) in active duty units. They probably do cruise rotations often, which places the aircraft in a corrosive salt environment and in an environment where the operating procedures are more likely to cause damage to the air frame. Carrier landings, even in a VTOL aircraft, put a lot of stress on the airframe that results in maintenance. The AV-8 is a seriously complex aircraft, which means maintenance probably takes much longer for the same task.

So we haven't even talked about the mission profiles they do and we've got all these reasons that the flight hours are different. You're trying to find a correlation between many different things that can't be correlated. It's like trying to compare the amount of hours an F1 car drives in a month versus a semi truck.

You’re making a huge assumption, incorrectly in my opinion, that training is the driver of flight hours. It isn’t, it’s budgets. Training is the base argument driven by experience levels, aircraft mission, training areas, exercise deployments, etc. Then it all goes into budget line items and “meat” becomes sausage as each service community fights for their piece of the pie. Congress fails to fully fund the request, services readjust, try to reprogram money, address shortfalls, look at experience levels. If one weapon system has lots of junior pilots, they might get more O&M money for training. Another system is shrinking and has more experienced crews, their money moves to fill the hole in the junior system.

Reserves have typically had lots of training money because that’s their mission—training for war. AD Heavies for example have less training money because they fly ASIF (or whatever this decades term is) on airlift missions.

The C-5 was once the most experienced plane in MAC, everyone had prior -141 or -130 time. That reversed in the 1990s as the C-17 started growing, lots of pilots were transitioning to the plane, they got money for training, the C-5 was last decade’s plane, crew force became younger, less experienced, a fact that showed in incident stars. Budgets run the services, not talking points like training time.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You’re making a huge assumption, incorrectly in my opinion, that training is the driver of flight hours. It isn’t, it’s budgets. Training is the base argument driven by experience levels, aircraft mission, training areas, exercise deployments, etc. Then it all goes into budget line items and “meat” becomes sausage as each service community fights for their piece of the pie.

That is my picture, just what you wrote. But I don't believe Congress writes line items for "F-16 flying" and A-10" flying or "123rd Squadron flying". I'm not sure, and I just spent 5 minutes reading and searching the actual text of the budget passed by congress and didn't see it (but it's a HUGE MESS). Why do you think the opposite?

Either way I always hoped that for combat aircraft the military leaders and Congress allocated training dollars (and therefore flight hours) to approximatly balance training needs. And "direct ground support (A-10)" seems to require less training than "direct combat support plus flying off a boat (AV-8B)".

AFineUsername wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

GDB wrote:

It was an improvement on what started as an experimental aircraft, which became a specialized attack type for the RAF in NW Europe from 1969, procured with maritime mods and simplified avionics for the USMC in 1972.
A maritime multi role version with the RN effectively won a war 8000 miles from home in 1982, silencing its many detractors who usually came from the ‘not invented here’ view. With a 95% availability from small carriers in the harsh South Atlantic conditions.

The AV-8B being a second generation version, deployed from the mid 80’s. With greater range/payload and updated avionics but still evolved from the experimental Hawker Kestrel.
Not seeing the correlation with the F-35, much less a tanker version of the C-130.

Apples and oranges don’t come close.

I already knew the history.

What I was curious about is ... how long do the Marines plan to keep the AV-8s?

And I wonder why AV-8s only fly 70% as many hours as the A-10. I would have thought the AV-8 mission would require MORE trainging than the A-10, not less.

You wonder why two different aircraft platforms, with different operating environments, missions, and deployment routines, with different maintenance requirements, in two different military branches, utilize different amounts of training hours? This isn't even an apples to oranges comparison. There are untold amounts of reasons why one uses more training hours than others. A lot of A-10's are in reserve and national guard units, so they have more reason to use the time they have in order to keep their funding going. Active duty units probably don't deploy nearly as often as the Marines do, and they don't do sea duty tours. This means they can run more hours. Since the A-10's are land based, they would likely have less maintenance down time because they aren't in a corrosive environment full of salty ocean air. The airframe itself is orders of magnitude less complex than the AV-8, so maintenance is likely less intensive.

The AV-8's are mostly (as far as I know) in active duty units. They probably do cruise rotations often, which places the aircraft in a corrosive salt environment and in an environment where the operating procedures are more likely to cause damage to the air frame. Carrier landings, even in a VTOL aircraft, put a lot of stress on the airframe that results in maintenance. The AV-8 is a seriously complex aircraft, which means maintenance probably takes much longer for the same task.

So we haven't even talked about the mission profiles they do and we've got all these reasons that the flight hours are different. You're trying to find a correlation between many different things that can't be correlated. It's like trying to compare the amount of hours an F1 car drives in a month versus a semi truck.

So educate me (I'm not being snarky, I'm actully interested).

What is it that A-10s do that AV-8s don't do that requires more training hours? Because AV-8s have "the boat" as an additional training requirement.

And if the problem is lack of working aircraft in peacetime, makes you wonder about availability during the increased demands of wartime.

kitplane01 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You’re making a huge assumption, incorrectly in my opinion, that training is the driver of flight hours. It isn’t, it’s budgets. Training is the base argument driven by experience levels, aircraft mission, training areas, exercise deployments, etc. Then it all goes into budget line items and “meat” becomes sausage as each service community fights for their piece of the pie.

That is my picture, just what you wrote. But I don't believe Congress writes line items for "F-16 flying" and A-10" flying or "123rd Squadron flying". I'm not sure, and I just spent 5 minutes reading and searching the actual text of the budget passed by congress and didn't see it (but it's a HUGE MESS). Why do you think the opposite?

Either way I always hoped that for combat aircraft the military leaders and Congress allocated training dollars (and therefore flight hours) to approximatly balance training needs. And "direct ground support (A-10)" seems to require less training than "direct combat support plus flying off a boat (AV-8B)".

Common phrase, Hope is not a Strategy.

The line items are Operations & Maintenance; pretty loose after that in breaking it down by MAJCOM or service. My wing got about 4100 flight hours for 56 UE pilots. 1100 had to be “[email protected] by flying ASIF (TWCF) live missions- scheduled channel, SAAM, contingency, etc. The apx 3,000 hours of O&M were for training crew as reservists, a mix of training missions and local proficiency flights (touch and goes). About 1/3rr was purely local proficiency for instrument/landing currency which was driven by training tables—so many landings and approaches per training period.

In long past in TAC, the F-100 and A-10 training events were fairly similar, but what took a 1.6 hour sortie in the Hun took 2.2 in Hawg. Our ranges were pretty distant. The tables are based on notional time per event, but reality interferes.

Again, it’s all driven budgets and maintaining them and the empire they represent, not strictly by how long it takes or how training time is flown. Squadron schedulers and commanders know their crews and manage their progress and proficiency.

kitplane01 wrote:

AFineUsername wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I already knew the history.

What I was curious about is ... how long do the Marines plan to keep the AV-8s?

And I wonder why AV-8s only fly 70% as many hours as the A-10. I would have thought the AV-8 mission would require MORE trainging than the A-10, not less.

You wonder why two different aircraft platforms, with different operating environments, missions, and deployment routines, with different maintenance requirements, in two different military branches, utilize different amounts of training hours? This isn't even an apples to oranges comparison. There are untold amounts of reasons why one uses more training hours than others. A lot of A-10's are in reserve and national guard units, so they have more reason to use the time they have in order to keep their funding going. Active duty units probably don't deploy nearly as often as the Marines do, and they don't do sea duty tours. This means they can run more hours. Since the A-10's are land based, they would likely have less maintenance down time because they aren't in a corrosive environment full of salty ocean air. The airframe itself is orders of magnitude less complex than the AV-8, so maintenance is likely less intensive.

The AV-8's are mostly (as far as I know) in active duty units. They probably do cruise rotations often, which places the aircraft in a corrosive salt environment and in an environment where the operating procedures are more likely to cause damage to the air frame. Carrier landings, even in a VTOL aircraft, put a lot of stress on the airframe that results in maintenance. The AV-8 is a seriously complex aircraft, which means maintenance probably takes much longer for the same task.

So we haven't even talked about the mission profiles they do and we've got all these reasons that the flight hours are different. You're trying to find a correlation between many different things that can't be correlated. It's like trying to compare the amount of hours an F1 car drives in a month versus a semi truck.

So educate me (I'm not being snarky, I'm actully interested).

What is it that A-10s do that AV-8s don't do that requires more training hours? Because AV-8s have "the boat" as an additional training requirement.

And if the problem is lack of working aircraft in peacetime, makes you wonder about availability during the increased demands of wartime.

Well, AD Marine flyers probably spend less time flying to ranges than an A-10 reserve unit. If your deployed with a MEU, the AV-8 guy can launch, hit the training site in 10 minutes, land, rearm and cycle again pretty quickly. Probably do 3 sorties in the time the A-10 guy drones to a range 150nm away.

Lots of “down” planes would be instantly “up” if the balloon goes up. WRSK kits in

Another thing to consider that all "training" flights aren't actually training. That's just the phrase that they use in peacetime. C17s flying deploying units around the world is included. So are P8s tracking Russian or Chinese subs. So are Alaskan Air Command fighters that patrol the border and the Bering Strait. Those are real-world patrol missions, not sometime just thrown together to keep pilots current.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You’re making a huge assumption, incorrectly in my opinion, that training is the driver of flight hours. It isn’t, it’s budgets. Training is the base argument driven by experience levels, aircraft mission, training areas, exercise deployments, etc. Then it all goes into budget line items and “meat” becomes sausage as each service community fights for their piece of the pie.

That is my picture, just what you wrote. But I don't believe Congress writes line items for "F-16 flying" and A-10" flying or "123rd Squadron flying". I'm not sure, and I just spent 5 minutes reading and searching the actual text of the budget passed by congress and didn't see it (but it's a HUGE MESS). Why do you think the opposite?

Either way I always hoped that for combat aircraft the military leaders and Congress allocated training dollars (and therefore flight hours) to approximatly balance training needs. And "direct ground support (A-10)" seems to require less training than "direct combat support plus flying off a boat (AV-8B)".

Common phrase, Hope is not a Strategy.

The line items are Operations & Maintenance; pretty loose after that in breaking it down by MAJCOM or service. My wing got about 4100 flight hours for 56 UE pilots. 1100 had to be “[email protected] by flying ASIF (TWCF) live missions- scheduled channel, SAAM, contingency, etc. The apx 3,000 hours of O&M were for training crew as reservists, a mix of training missions and local proficiency flights (touch and goes). About 1/3rr was purely local proficiency for instrument/landing currency which was driven by training tables—so many landings and approaches per training period.

In long past in TAC, the F-100 and A-10 training events were fairly similar, but what took a 1.6 hour sortie in the Hun took 2.2 in Hawg. Our ranges were pretty distant. The tables are based on notional time per event, but reality interferes.

Again, it’s all driven budgets and maintaining them and the empire they represent, not strictly by how long it takes or how training time is flown. Squadron schedulers and commanders know their crews and manage their progress and proficiency.

Just to be super clear … did Congress decide your particular unit got that many hours or did some military commander allocate you that many hours from a larger budget? And what happened if you used more $$$ in fuel or parts than planed for your hours?

johns624 wrote:

Another thing to consider that all "training" flights aren't actually training. That's just the phrase that they use in peacetime. C17s flying deploying units around the world is included. So are P8s tracking Russian or Chinese subs. So are Alaskan Air Command fighters that patrol the border and the Bering Strait. Those are real-world patrol missions, not sometime just thrown together to keep pilots current.

True. That’s why I’m not asking about C17s. I would be surprised if av8s or a10s were getting assigned operational tasks (unless Tucson hates Phoenix more than I realize).

Coming from a UK perspective I did not consider the factor of active and reserve air arms.
GF well described how USMC first used their AV-8B’s in op Desert Storm.
Lots of little things and some not so little all have a bearing on flying hours and costs.

kitplane01 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

That is my picture, just what you wrote. But I don't believe Congress writes line items for "F-16 flying" and A-10" flying or "123rd Squadron flying". I'm not sure, and I just spent 5 minutes reading and searching the actual text of the budget passed by congress and didn't see it (but it's a HUGE MESS). Why do you think the opposite?

Either way I always hoped that for combat aircraft the military leaders and Congress allocated training dollars (and therefore flight hours) to approximatly balance training needs. And "direct ground support (A-10)" seems to require less training than "direct combat support plus flying off a boat (AV-8B)".

Common phrase, Hope is not a Strategy.

The line items are Operations & Maintenance; pretty loose after that in breaking it down by MAJCOM or service. My wing got about 4100 flight hours for 56 UE pilots. 1100 had to be “[email protected] by flying ASIF (TWCF) live missions- scheduled channel, SAAM, contingency, etc. The apx 3,000 hours of O&M were for training crew as reservists, a mix of training missions and local proficiency flights (touch and goes). About 1/3rr was purely local proficiency for instrument/landing currency which was driven by training tables—so many landings and approaches per training period.

In long past in TAC, the F-100 and A-10 training events were fairly similar, but what took a 1.6 hour sortie in the Hun took 2.2 in Hawg. Our ranges were pretty distant. The tables are based on notional time per event, but reality interferes.

Again, it’s all driven budgets and maintaining them and the empire they represent, not strictly by how long it takes or how training time is flown. Squadron schedulers and commanders know their crews and manage their progress and proficiency.

Just to be super clear … did Congress decide your particular unit got that many hours or did some military commander allocate you that many hours from a larger budget? And what happened if you used more $$$ in fuel or parts than planed for your hours?

Congress gives the MAJCOM funds broken in buckets, flying time comes out of O&M appropriated funds bucket. Then, the funds are allocated by MAJCOM finance. There’s a MAJCOM-level formula, mostly driven by weapon system pilot training needs. For example, Pilot currency table calls for 2 instrument approaches and landings per month. That’s 0.5 hours per pilot per month times the pilots in the wing (65-ish in C-5 wings). Then, there’s a allocation for circling and visual approaches; overwater sorties. It’s formula-based, not comman discretion until it’s gets given to the wing scheduling office.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Common phrase, Hope is not a Strategy.

The line items are Operations & Maintenance; pretty loose after that in breaking it down by MAJCOM or service. My wing got about 4100 flight hours for 56 UE pilots. 1100 had to be “[email protected] by flying ASIF (TWCF) live missions- scheduled channel, SAAM, contingency, etc. The apx 3,000 hours of O&M were for training crew as reservists, a mix of training missions and local proficiency flights (touch and goes). About 1/3rr was purely local proficiency for instrument/landing currency which was driven by training tables—so many landings and approaches per training period.

In long past in TAC, the F-100 and A-10 training events were fairly similar, but what took a 1.6 hour sortie in the Hun took 2.2 in Hawg. Our ranges were pretty distant. The tables are based on notional time per event, but reality interferes.

Again, it’s all driven budgets and maintaining them and the empire they represent, not strictly by how long it takes or how training time is flown. Squadron schedulers and commanders know their crews and manage their progress and proficiency.

Just to be super clear … did Congress decide your particular unit got that many hours or did some military commander allocate you that many hours from a larger budget? And what happened if you used more $$$ in fuel or parts than planed for your hours?

Congress gives the MAJCOM funds broken in buckets, flying time comes out of O&M appropriated funds bucket. Then, the funds are allocated by MAJCOM finance. There’s a MAJCOM-level formula, mostly driven by weapon system pilot training needs. For example, Pilot currency table calls for 2 instrument approaches and landings per month. That’s 0.5 hours per pilot per month times the pilots in the wing (65-ish in C-5 wings). Then, there’s a allocation for circling and visual approaches; overwater sorties. It’s formula-based, not comman discretion until it’s gets given to the wing scheduling office.

Thanks for the knowledge!

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Congress gives the MAJCOM funds broken in buckets, flying time comes out of O&M appropriated funds bucket. Then, the funds are allocated by MAJCOM finance. There’s a MAJCOM-level formula, mostly driven by weapon system pilot training needs. For example, Pilot currency table calls for 2 instrument approaches and landings per month. That’s 0.5 hours per pilot per month times the pilots in the wing (65-ish in C-5 wings). Then, there’s a allocation for circling and visual approaches; overwater sorties. It’s formula-based, not comman discretion until it’s gets given to the wing scheduling office.

Ah yes, the "different pots of money" funding streams... the bane of every aviator and IMPAC card holder DOD-wide. The very reason why the entire C-17 squadron just got brand new North Face luggage for the third time this year while they burn circles for hours to hit their flight hour goal. Of course, your own squadron has all new plasma screens on the wall, but can't buy toilet paper and has only 9 flight hours from 20 August to the end of the FY. Meanwhile, your trougher buddy who is on his 3rd straight year of burning MPA money as AD FTU guest help has to come back to reality because active duty switched the funding stream from FE's to pilots. RPA? Nope, that well is dry. 16 tps and 12 UTAs per quarter is all you get.

Don't forget the Wing management curtailing pay statuses in June because they can't budget to the FY. "Oh, you thought those were YOUR Annual Tour days? Looks like you won't be needing those anymore"

Funny story, I was ADO in 2001 at an AFB near Boston. There was little airlift requirements that year and the entire command was loaded up with unburned flight hours in the budget. Got to fly out the budget! I actually got an RTW trip approved from AFRC as “opportune lift” thru KSUU, PHIK, YSRI, and on thru CENTCOM. The happy crew departed for Travis on 9/10. Oops.

Second story, ferrying A-10s to depot from UK for INS mod. Seven of us, one -135; third week of September. Tanker has boom problems, headed home for GFK, leaving us to drink the Lajes club dry until the new FY to fly a tanker out to bring us to the east coast. Oct 2nd we’re greeted by a 2-ship cell who hands off to another 2-ship cell at about 40N 40W. No tankers, then no shortage of flying tankers. I still have that hangover.

LyleLanley wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Congress gives the MAJCOM funds broken in buckets, flying time comes out of O&M appropriated funds bucket. Then, the funds are allocated by MAJCOM finance. There’s a MAJCOM-level formula, mostly driven by weapon system pilot training needs. For example, Pilot currency table calls for 2 instrument approaches and landings per month. That’s 0.5 hours per pilot per month times the pilots in the wing (65-ish in C-5 wings). Then, there’s a allocation for circling and visual approaches; overwater sorties. It’s formula-based, not comman discretion until it’s gets given to the wing scheduling office.

Ah yes, the "different pots of money" funding streams... the bane of every aviator and IMPAC card holder DOD-wide. The very reason why the entire C-17 squadron just got brand new North Face luggage for the third time this year while they burn circles for hours to hit their flight hour goal. Of course, your own squadron has all new plasma screens on the wall, but can't buy toilet paper and has only 9 flight hours from 20 August to the end of the FY. Meanwhile, your trougher buddy who is on his 3rd straight year of burning MPA money as AD FTU guest help has to come back to reality because active duty switched the funding stream from FE's to pilots. RPA? Nope, that well is dry. 16 tps and 12 UTAs per quarter is all you get.

Don't forget the Wing management curtailing pay statuses in June because they can't budget to the FY. "Oh, you thought those were YOUR Annual Tour days? Looks like you won't be needing those anymore"

I use my AT days before they even think about taking them back... haha take that

kitplane01 wrote:

Questions:

What is it about the B-2 that requires so much more training hours than the B-1 or B-52?

F-15E/Fs fly more than any other fighter. Can their training requirements really be so high? Shouldn't their mission require about
the same training hours as an A-10? What are they doing that A-10 aircrew are not that requires the extra hours?

When will be get rid of the AV-8Bs, and their super super high cost-per-flight-hour ($39,000 per hour is more than an F-15 or a KC-10).

Anything else leap out at you?

C-2s flew 228 hours per plane in 2020.
C-5s flew 330 hours per plane in 2020.
C-17s flew 560 hours per plane in 2020.
C-130H flew 242 hours per plane in 2020.
C-130J flew 458 hours per plane in 2020.

B-1s flew 110 hours per plane in 2020.
B-2s flew 272 hours per plane in 2020.
B-52s flew 188 hours per plane in 2020.

F-15C/Ds flew 160 hours per plane in 2020.
F-15E/Fs flew 279 hours per plane in 2020.
F-16s flew 161 hours per plane in 2020.
F-18Es flew 247 hours per plane in 2020.
F-18Gs flew 218 hours per plane in 2020.
F-35s flew 196 hours per plane in 2020 (all makes).
AV-8Bs flew 188 hours per plane in 2020.
A-10s flew 268 hours per plane in 2020.

MH-53 flew 255 hours per helicopter in 2020.
UH/HH-60 flew 138 hours per helicopter in 2020.
MH-60R flew 371 hours per helicopter in 2020.
V-22s flew 148 per craft in 2020.
AH-64s flew 176 hours per helicopter in 2020.


https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... 3-106217-1

Do you think the average number of flight hours equals the flight hours per pilot? The pilot pool for one type per aircraft could be bigger than the other.

LordTarkin wrote:

I use my AT days before they even think about taking them back... haha take that

3D chess. But what about that sweet, mythical 'Round the world' good deal trip that you're banking your AT days for?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Funny story, I was ADO in 2001 at an AFB near Boston. There was little airlift requirements that year and the entire command was loaded up with unburned flight hours in the budget. Got to fly out the budget! I actually got an RTW trip approved from AFRC as “opportune lift” thru KSUU, PHIK, YSRI, and on thru CENTCOM. The happy crew departed for Travis on 9/10. Oops.

Second story, ferrying A-10s to depot from UK for INS mod. Seven of us, one -135; third week of September. Tanker has boom problems, headed home for GFK, leaving us to drink the Lajes club dry until the new FY to fly a tanker out to bring us to the east coast. Oct 2nd we’re greeted by a 2-ship cell who hands off to another 2-ship cell at about 40N 40W. No tankers, then no shortage of flying tankers. I still have that hangover.

And it's moments like those, years later, that help you realize there were a lot of good times had!

Dutchy wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Questions:

What is it about the B-2 that requires so much more training hours than the B-1 or B-52?

F-15E/Fs fly more than any other fighter. Can their training requirements really be so high? Shouldn't their mission require about
the same training hours as an A-10? What are they doing that A-10 aircrew are not that requires the extra hours?

When will be get rid of the AV-8Bs, and their super super high cost-per-flight-hour ($39,000 per hour is more than an F-15 or a KC-10).

Anything else leap out at you?

C-2s flew 228 hours per plane in 2020.
C-5s flew 330 hours per plane in 2020.
C-17s flew 560 hours per plane in 2020.
C-130H flew 242 hours per plane in 2020.
C-130J flew 458 hours per plane in 2020.

B-1s flew 110 hours per plane in 2020.
B-2s flew 272 hours per plane in 2020.
B-52s flew 188 hours per plane in 2020.

F-15C/Ds flew 160 hours per plane in 2020.
F-15E/Fs flew 279 hours per plane in 2020.
F-16s flew 161 hours per plane in 2020.
F-18Es flew 247 hours per plane in 2020.
F-18Gs flew 218 hours per plane in 2020.
F-35s flew 196 hours per plane in 2020 (all makes).
AV-8Bs flew 188 hours per plane in 2020.
A-10s flew 268 hours per plane in 2020.

MH-53 flew 255 hours per helicopter in 2020.
UH/HH-60 flew 138 hours per helicopter in 2020.
MH-60R flew 371 hours per helicopter in 2020.
V-22s flew 148 per craft in 2020.
AH-64s flew 176 hours per helicopter in 2020.


https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... 3-106217-1

Do you think the average number of flight hours equals the flight hours per pilot? The pilot pool for one type per aircraft could be bigger than the other.

I've never seen that data. If there are more A-10 pilots per plane than AV8s, that would be interesting. I don't know where to find such data.

LyleLanley wrote:

LordTarkin wrote:

I use my AT days before they even think about taking them back... haha take that

3D chess. But what about that sweet, mythical 'Round the world' good deal trip that you're banking your AT days for?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Funny story, I was ADO in 2001 at an AFB near Boston. There was little airlift requirements that year and the entire command was loaded up with unburned flight hours in the budget. Got to fly out the budget! I actually got an RTW trip approved from AFRC as “opportune lift” thru KSUU, PHIK, YSRI, and on thru CENTCOM. The happy crew departed for Travis on 9/10. Oops.

Second story, ferrying A-10s to depot from UK for INS mod. Seven of us, one -135; third week of September. Tanker has boom problems, headed home for GFK, leaving us to drink the Lajes club dry until the new FY to fly a tanker out to bring us to the east coast. Oct 2nd we’re greeted by a 2-ship cell who hands off to another 2-ship cell at about 40N 40W. No tankers, then no shortage of flying tankers. I still have that hangover.

And it's moments like those, years later, that help you realize there were a lot of good times had!

Absolutely, great memories with some great crews. I still see my first squadron commander yearly, 45 years later.

kitplane01 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Questions:

What is it about the B-2 that requires so much more training hours than the B-1 or B-52?

F-15E/Fs fly more than any other fighter. Can their training requirements really be so high? Shouldn't their mission require about
the same training hours as an A-10? What are they doing that A-10 aircrew are not that requires the extra hours?

When will be get rid of the AV-8Bs, and their super super high cost-per-flight-hour ($39,000 per hour is more than an F-15 or a KC-10).

Anything else leap out at you?

C-2s flew 228 hours per plane in 2020.
C-5s flew 330 hours per plane in 2020.
C-17s flew 560 hours per plane in 2020.
C-130H flew 242 hours per plane in 2020.
C-130J flew 458 hours per plane in 2020.

B-1s flew 110 hours per plane in 2020.
B-2s flew 272 hours per plane in 2020.
B-52s flew 188 hours per plane in 2020.

F-15C/Ds flew 160 hours per plane in 2020.
F-15E/Fs flew 279 hours per plane in 2020.
F-16s flew 161 hours per plane in 2020.
F-18Es flew 247 hours per plane in 2020.
F-18Gs flew 218 hours per plane in 2020.
F-35s flew 196 hours per plane in 2020 (all makes).
AV-8Bs flew 188 hours per plane in 2020.
A-10s flew 268 hours per plane in 2020.

MH-53 flew 255 hours per helicopter in 2020.
UH/HH-60 flew 138 hours per helicopter in 2020.
MH-60R flew 371 hours per helicopter in 2020.
V-22s flew 148 per craft in 2020.
AH-64s flew 176 hours per helicopter in 2020.


https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... 3-106217-1

Do you think the average number of flight hours equals the flight hours per pilot? The pilot pool for one type per aircraft could be bigger than the other.

I've never seen that data. If there are more A-10 pilots per plane than AV8s, that would be interesting. I don't know where to find such data.

I don't know either, but it seems far more logical conclusion based on that data then yours, that the individual pilots actually flew more. Correct me if I am wrong, but the NATO-norm is still 180 training flight hours per year per pilot right? Operational issue's not counted.

Dutchy wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Do you think the average number of flight hours equals the flight hours per pilot? The pilot pool for one type per aircraft could be bigger than the other.

I've never seen that data. If there are more A-10 pilots per plane than AV8s, that would be interesting. I don't know where to find such data.

I don't know either, but it seems far more logical conclusion based on that data then yours, that the individual pilots actually flew more. Correct me if I am wrong, but the NATO-norm is still 180 training flight hours per year per pilot right? Operational issue's not counted.

The NATO norm is also 2% of GDP. I think both are more aspirational than required.

kitplane01 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I've never seen that data. If there are more A-10 pilots per plane than AV8s, that would be interesting. I don't know where to find such data.

I don't know either, but it seems far more logical conclusion based on that data then yours, that the individual pilots actually flew more. Correct me if I am wrong, but the NATO-norm is still 180 training flight hours per year per pilot right? Operational issue's not counted.

The NATO norm is also 2% of GDP. I think both are more aspirational than required.

Sure, I would not be surprised the US (and more countries) actually maintain this norm to keep its aircrew current and trained.

Also depends on flight time coding. In the US MIL, each flight has a code for the mission—initial training, continuation training, operational support, combat, combat support, etc. It’s a long list and it, in the end, relates to which bucket of money the funding comes from. I take 3 pilots out on a local pro, it’s a T-3x; the next day we depart for ETAR, it’s an O-xx. The first would be attributed to training, the second would be from the ASIF bucket. So, if a pilot gets 120 hours of T-xx time, that’s what you’re talking about in funding. If he then flies 500 hours of O-xx time, it is invisible to the funding you’re looking at. My nephew has about 11 years of operational flight status in USN MH-60s and over 2,600 hours. Of course, proportionately the USMIL does lots of operational flying. I flew with retired US Army guys with over 10,000 hours in 21 years.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Also depends on flight time coding. In the US MIL, each flight has a code for the mission—initial training, continuation training, operational support, combat, combat support, etc. It’s a long list and it, in the end, relates to which bucket of money the funding comes from. I take 3 pilots out on a local pro, it’s a T-3x; the next day we depart for ETAR, it’s an O-xx. The first would be attributed to training, the second would be from the ASIF bucket. So, if a pilot gets 120 hours of T-xx time, that’s what you’re talking about in funding. If he then flies 500 hours of O-xx time, it is invisible to the funding you’re looking at. My nephew has about 11 years of operational flight status in USN MH-60s and over 2,600 hours. Of course, proportionately the USMIL does lots of operational flying. I flew with retired US Army guys with over 10,000 hours in 21 years.

I gotta ask. What's the ratio of flying to paperwork? Or flying to useless paperwork?

And do small-fast-jets get lots of O-xx time?

kitplane01 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Also depends on flight time coding. In the US MIL, each flight has a code for the mission—initial training, continuation training, operational support, combat, combat support, etc. It’s a long list and it, in the end, relates to which bucket of money the funding comes from. I take 3 pilots out on a local pro, it’s a T-3x; the next day we depart for ETAR, it’s an O-xx. The first would be attributed to training, the second would be from the ASIF bucket. So, if a pilot gets 120 hours of T-xx time, that’s what you’re talking about in funding. If he then flies 500 hours of O-xx time, it is invisible to the funding you’re looking at. My nephew has about 11 years of operational flight status in USN MH-60s and over 2,600 hours. Of course, proportionately the USMIL does lots of operational flying. I flew with retired US Army guys with over 10,000 hours in 21 years.

I gotta ask. What's the ratio of flying to paperwork? Or flying to useless paperwork?

And do small-fast-jets get lots of O-xx time?

Fighter guys got lots of O-xx time in Afghanistan, Iraq, Northern and Southern Watch; less nowadays. Paperwork can be useless and useful.

“Paperwork” that ensures and documents training, provides audit trails and the means to show compliance can be very NOT useless. See the sad tale of the Russian military that employed lots of lying and no real effort to stop it. Militaries can easily be undermined if they lack the means to prove effectiveness. OPRs, while looked down as stupid, do tell tales despite flowery BS language. There are key phrases that employed means career ending chance at promotion.

The real useless stuff is non-duty-related training—of which Congress loves.