Solving the U.S. military shortage of combat pilots is going to take more than just paying them more money, senior aviation officers told Congress Tuesday.
In testimony before a House subcommittee, uniformed representatives of all four services said they were finding it harder to retain experienced pilots. But the Air Force, with the most planes, has the biggest problem.
“As we closed fiscal year 2016, the total force, including our active guard and reserve components, was short 1,555 pilots. Of this amount, the total force was short 1,211 fighter pilots,” said Air Force Lt. Gen. Gina Grosso, deputy chief of staff for Manpower and Personnel Services.
The Army reported it was short 731 regular Army pilots for the period 2010 to 2017, due to spending caps.
“Out of necessity we’ve prioritized short-term readiness over long-term recruiting and training,” said Army Director of Aviation Maj. Gen. Erik Peterson. “We simply could not afford to train the number of new pilots we need to sustain a health force.”
Grosso testified that the cost of training a single Air Force pilot to fly a fifth generation fighter plane is $11 million, and said a 1,200-pilot shortage translates into a $12 billion capital loss for the Air Force.
The panel of three generals and one admiral all gave similar accounts: While an unprecedented hiring spree by the nation’s airlines was one reason military pilots were voting with their feet, that wasn’t the biggest factor behind the exodus of pilots once they finish their 10-year commitments and are at the peak of their skills.
Two bigger factors are lack of flying hours, and the demands of the job and the strains that put stress on family life.
So while the services are in some cases paying retention bonuses of up to $35,000 to compete with civilian airlines, the officers said the critical need is for funding for more flying hours, more spare parts, and better maintenance facilities.
“It would allow our pilots to do what they want to do, which is to fly,” said Vice Adm. Vice Robert Burke, chief of naval personnel.
California Democrat Rep. Jackie Speier questioned whether the military was seeking to “throw money at the problem,” but Rep. Steven Russell, R-Okla., said the cost-benefit ratio was a no-brainer.
“Once again, we go chasing around that the $35,000 is some astronomical figure, when the reality is that’s competitive to what the airlines are providing to very junior pilots in the course of their careers,” Russell said. “And yet it takes $11 million to train to their first combat mission. Now I’m not a mathematics major or a rocket scientist, but $11 million or $35,000 … it seems like a good investment.”
All the military services have programs designed to try to turn around the trend by paying retention bonuses, and increasing the quality of life, but most depend on Congress passing a full budget for this fiscal year, along with a supplemental to address readiness shortfalls that are retraining pilots by keeping them grounded.
But it is unclear if Congress will act anytime soon, and the officers warned that failure to pass a budget would make a bad problem much worse.
“We won’t be able to execute the bonuses that we would like to,” testified Marine Lt. Gen. Mark Brilakis, deputy commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.
“We will by summertime have to basically have to idle 24 flying squadrons, and then on top of that with the lack of spares and repair parts we are going to take a step backwards on the readiness efforts we have done.”
