Comments by "Comm0ut" (@Comm0ut) on "Military Aviation History" channel.

@blockheadgreen_ Anyone not familair with Eric Brown should learn about him if they're an aircraft enthusiast. No other pilot came remotely close to the variety of airframes he tested.
16
@pxatm Much of current retention is poor pay and that's calculated since if the problem were considered serious Uncle would fix it with MONEY. These things are cyclic and far from new, dating as far back as the USAF and USN aviation existed. Today manning is not a national priority. When it becomes that SRBs are the usual fix and skyrocket. The manning battle is always a "compensation vs. procurement" funding battle and procurement always wins, with bonuses and the economy greatly affecting retention. Any competent maintainer in 2023 can get good civilian or DoD jobs without being in the military so many do. There is nothing new under the sun and it was not different before I enlisted in '81 or after I retired in 2007. I consider the current situation a "Hollow Force" era like that after Saigon fell ('75) through the early Reagan administration buildup, but we're not at the "buildup" phase yet.
3
The Iraqi Air Force under Saddam were trained and equipped based on USSR standards and the results spoke for themselves. US technology has drastically improved since I was fixing F-16s at KKMC (and those F-16s are long retired, later Blocks being far different despite external resemblance to the novice). US flying hours per pilot have been drastically reduced to save money and fleet age is far older than in 1991, but training quality and ability to generate high sortie RATES remain. (Sortie rates should get more love but they don't excite spectators who don't really care about operations, just their shiny object fantasies.)
2
@petervautmans199 That is very nice but Swedish missions and funding constraints are much different. US OPSTEMPO is far greater than that purely defensive, dispersed mission. Much love for Sweden but there is no comparison to a tiny population whose armed forces mission requires dispersed defense and US power projection. Sweden has only a bit over 200 aircraft of which roughly 100 are fighters. That's less than the complement of two three-squadron US bases. Sweden is not required to generate the high sortie rates expected of US forces and doing so dispersed would be quite difficult. It's mission (at which it should excel if war breaks out) is limited to border defense, minimizing own-side losses while taking out as many Russian aircraft as practical, and holding down its own area while high sortie rate forces with heavier throw weight take the fight eastward. Compare orders of battle and missions. As an experienced maintainer of 26 years on fighters while conscripts CAN be quite useful to get seriously skilled requires years of immersion.
1
Russian air defense prestige is now a contradiction in terms. Neither proffered explanation is good look so I find it hilarious. Replacing experienced crew will be time consuming and future crew will be rightly nervous.
1