i/i unclrssified eeeeeemhheemhe meeeeeeeeee ...d-r156 894 impact of th b i draw on sac bomber rated...
TRANSCRIPT
D-R156 894 IMPACT OF TH B I DRAW ON SAC BOMBER RATED MANNING i/i1986-1989(U) AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLL MAXWELL AFB ALL W STONE 1984 ACSC-85-2625
UNCLRSSIFIED F/G 5/9 NL
mEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEmhhEEmhEEEE|hEEEE|hEEEnnnnEnnnnEnnEIIEEEnnnnn
1. L 2
Lg 32-
N
9
1ii i I:: u~i==
Ill11111 mumll 11111.2_--I'l' * ~~140 2.0
Jfl1.25 III~ 1.
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS 1963-A
L7
q , -.-.-.. :.:.,.-. --,.. .:...,.:, . - ., ... ,. . ..-- .. -.= - ..... . ..--. --.
0
Lfl
I-t
AIR COMMANDAND
STAFF COLLEGEDTICSELECTE
_ STUDENT REPORTBIMPACT OF* THE 8~-1 DRAW ON SAC BOMB4ER
RFATED MA~NNING t986-19899
MAJOR LEE W. STONE 8 5 -262 5
-p "insights into tomorrow"~
A A
Aprve o pbi reeasel 85 06 24 0 31 9
S
DISCLAIMER
The views and conclusions expressed in thisdocument are those of the author. They arenot intended and should not be thought torepresent official ideas, attitudes, orpolicies of any agency of the United StatesGovernment. The author has not had specialaccess to official information or ideas andhas employed only open-source materialavailable to any writer on this subject.
This document is the property of the UnitedStates Government. It is available fordistribution to the general public. A loancopy of the document may be obtained from theAir University Interlibrary Loan Service(AUL/LDEX, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, 36112) or theDefense Technical Information Center. Requestmust include the author's name and completetitle of the study.
This document may be reproduced for use inother research reports or educational pursuitscontingent upon the following stipulations:
-- Reproduction rights do not extend toany copyrighted material that may be containedin the research report.
-- All reproduced copies must contain thefollowing credit line: "Reprinted bypermission of the Air Command and StaffCollege.
-- All reproduced copies must contain thename(s) of the report's author(s).
-- If format modification is necessary tobetter serve the user's needs, adjustments maybe made to this report--this authorizationdoes not extend to copyrighted information ormaterial. The following statement must
* accompany thv mod i fied document: "Ad;jpredIrom Air Command and Staft Research Report
entit led ___bit I Iby-" (author)
-- This notice must he included with anyreprodured or adapted portions of thisdocument
"0- " " " " " " ' .L ' " . i "" ' . ,L . '. .Z E . ' Z ,'. .Z , ,' .'
REPORT NUMBER 8 5- 26 2 5
TITLE IMPA~CT OF THE B-1 DRAW ON SAC B~OMBER RATED MA~NNING
AUTHOR(S) MAJOR LEE W. STONE
FACULTY ADVISOR MAJOR MA~RI:' M. WA~RNER
SPONSOR M(vIriOF JAMES L. Pf)CHMANN, [AD SA/DPXF,
Submitted to the faculty in partial fulfillment ofrequirements for graduation.
AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE
AIR UNIVERSITY D IMAXWELL AFB, AL 36112 ELECTE
JUL 898
B
* UrVEL 11-3'3 1F-'I ELI
SECURITY CLASSIIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE1. AEP( Al Sk -URITY CLASSIIICAI ION 1U. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
*- jrjCL~K~J FTED7. SEC-R!T1 CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. 01STRI BUTI /AD MUzf6~L
2b ZJEC.-ASSIII-CATIO)N/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE D~rkumUhie
a fFORVING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
% AME OG PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFIC E SYMBOL 7a. NAME OP MONITORING ORGANIZATION* (Iflapplicobie)
b, CORI!SS It' 'lull' J~d /it' COde I 7b. ADDRESS (City, State and ZIP Code)
as NAME oF F~UNDING SPONSORING 8b. OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBERORGAN IZA TION (if applicable)
I f %'r I." F
Ek ADDRESS ,;) lull and /11/ ... leI 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NOS ______ ___
Hff . d ' n ~-i .PROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNITELEMENT NO NO ~ NO. NO.
11 TITLE 'Include Securit Clossa ficotion)1MF'FfCT OF T4 IE B DY I2F-W ON SIC BOMER
12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)
13. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14DAEORPRT(yr. Al.l, Day) 15. PAGE COUNT
PROM _ __ T 0 4IAE FRPR
46 sUiPPLEMENTAPY NOTATION.1 Trhi r-AFEL' M-iNN IN '1 11? 9 ?
___7 _ COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS IContilnue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)
F IEL D~~~R SUB.GH
19 A BS Tr PaC T i,' I, ri ~eursv f 'Icessarv and iden tify by block numnberl
+II f: c: 'Irc c lnri--t tI1 -I. I I r o k.. c-:.; D. r
rl E ( r c Sl -) b(unrib(oor cc,( e-Ld I, cn II c-. I.'.'I T E
~~~~~~~~~- e n Ic h. . i I -'r i I cr i 1.1 e i. irI
c)~ I r - . I T Le t
11 ~ ~ ~ ~ : ti I. . ..c.1) eC
t- '> r Iw f.lL 1 l
DO FORM 1473, 83 APR EDITION OF I JAN 13 1; S SOLE Tf-NO HSPG-SC OF THIS PAG
6'.. * . *..
IM PACT OF THE B-1 DRA W
ON
SAC BOMBER RATED MANNING
198- 19S9
A RESEARCH FAPEF:
Presented to
I"he :-.t, of the Graduate Division
Tr-ov State University
In Partial Fulfillment
-_.te Requir-ements for- the Degree
"o+..Ma"- - o Sc ence in Personnel Management
by
Lee W. Stone
Fall 1984
N .%
- -__ ___ __ ___ __ __PREFACE
The E--1 will be 4intecirated into the SA~C inventory' from
t'-i 1-1roU g h t 1 P, The addition of these air-craft will provide
~ilinfit cant1 grtr capabi itv for the manned bomber leg of
* ~ -? L?.TRIAD.p Howjever. as vqith the i ntroduction of an.. new
-- q/t ein there w11bp significant turmoil.
1- repoart vwil1 i dentify~ maior problems arid shortfalls
t e cn p~ E? (.r t e d t. c, c,(- cut.tr w i t h i n t he ra t ed p er s c:n ne 1
TI w-ill be accompjlished byv establishini a set of
* ;v ~ ~1 (J'; bout the rie;<.t 4 years. combining them with Current
.erw.ac-fnrel trend- :;nrd appi yinq them to the future. These
iai-tors_ vwi 1 projec~t where the manning levels of the particular
r~zo~eShould be if no change=- occur. This study provides a
f r T-,E?'r-r , h i.cf- c:anr bo.- u.pdated to g ive an accur ate mann ing
I . rcihctthe ent Le B--i pr-ocram. This paper Al so
v.? i t.,r :'.i r i i7 nit, fifr(rjd aI.. j..I, (: r tc t i. on to bie t a I.en to
F (n .r meant to be all
in- ~ TI~eh vr prc .ide a starting point for more
;-Id der -4 1 e-i aa1 vs s. The focal ooi nt for- this
i j rn i ~ -- Sgr 'r9F:,.F. InClLirieS on B--I personnel
H ~r'd~~eE ~hu Idbe directed to that off ice.
71
-,,,,,. .
--. . . .-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
! . *- .... . .hr-u. . . . ..,*
-' ___________CONTINUED_______
Addi ticOri~zl1','. thi materi. is being I:Ubmitted to the
Saci'd f .--)f Tr,. State LIni ver =it%, in oarti al ful -f .1.11 ment of "Ira
r e(lui rement= for- the Master c)f S-cience Dear ee 1Fersonne!
111 zi cj em n t
T c( dr I i t p to c,, p pr e s M' g qr-3t i t Udr-: t o. spon sor , i;.m-
j vw+? M: nm f I . f co, I hi ass sI t an c. e t 1h1r q I I .'t t. 1, pr epi f.i c)n
c o t his £ jor W WI t ho0Ut h i s e f f or t i 0 or W 0ol .d Fit. I- c
besen noss-ible.
i'),3
I-LfP
ABOUT THE AUTHOR ____ ___ i__
Majcir Stone is a 1970 graduate of Xavier University in
Cincinnati. Ohio. He received his commission in June 1972 from
If .... Training School (OTS) and entered Undergraduate
LIa°.i.- i...t r Traini ng (UJNT) in July of that year. After
gra oC.uatA -n from UNT and Navigator Bombardier Training (NBT) in
1"7. e was assioined to the 320r Bomb Winq at Mather AFB,
aLi-f:ori.. There he .erved as a B-52 Navigator, Stan/Eval
I,.:gntr and Radt:. r N '. q<tor . He w.-s-.. then assigoned to the 4
r1 iL...t Wing at Al ndr:r :,r, AFB. Gulam i n 197 . There he served
as a P- 42 Radar N,igcatcr , Stan,.Eva.1 Radar Navigator and as
Wi.nig Target Stud, Officer. In ALgust of 1981, Major Stone was
I..f ,(P t o the DCES Pers.onnel at Headquarters SAC. His first
d t- .as as Chief of the Bomber Career Development Section. In
E2 he- waE a .i..ed a Chief. Aircraft and Support Anal'ysis
nr in the Direc:t or ale of Fersonnel Plans. There he served
t - , ,n F foal : _t for Rated P ers nel Di str i bti.ill on and
1 ,. He wao:; r,:c ,::]. t io (etre-rml. ne futuire force
;ii nEi :' p fI l : Lh of t !. ,'- and eni ] t.-lled ners inr l.
ie M,., ,mber of both the SAC B-1 worki ng group and SAC B-1
u Tv in.i
CONTINUED__
Major Stone is a graduate of SOS and wil]. complete his
Master of Science Degree in Personnel Management cocurrentl
with Air Command and Staff Co.lege.
',.. 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
------ -- - -- - ---- --- --- --- --- ---
tie A1 I1 uwthr -------- --- - - - -- ----- --- i.
LHN faF O lE strtior T. .---- ----.--.-----.----- *--*--.---- 1
.:uCt,e Summr, -F--------------------- - ..------------ "X
C~iHAP~T-ER ONE - INTRO'. DUCTION -------------------------.................
CHAFPTEP TWO - BACKGROUND .... . .............. ..........
CH(:H ER THFEE- METHFODO[.FY ----- ---------------
P , I F!' " . 'O.JEC" [ ( 12
!l: i ; , t (1 I: I .Ii i ()I' 1. &.3*
1E ff FLai'Qpc N-at , ru- MI{ jf..Z - ---- 2o;i tl . Ii .,e. : e me 1 ... ......... - .. 24
C;HAP ! ER F IVE - B-52 FREC;OMMENDA-1I ONG ...................... 3
LHHF M PEFF. ----- 1 --- uolw----ONS---- ---------- 2Radar Navi at , r-. - igat r ----------------------- 3.Me:trtni- War{ar-e ier Of. ... 37
CHA T EF Sl 'E I - F -1Ci.p : . .....----- -- -.. . .. ....--- 42
' '
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS jFIGURE 2-1 - CCTS Crew Selection Criteria ........... .
FIGURE 2-2 - Unit Crew Selection Criteria--------------
FIGURE 4-1 - B-52 irnpacts - Filot . . .. . . L
FIGURE 4-2 - 9-52 Impacts - Co-Pilot -....................... 17
F IGURE 4-7- - B-52 Impacts - Radar Navigator ........-
F ['GURE -1-4 -- -52 Impacts-" NaVL-at------ ------- ---- 21
FI I..JURE 1- - -52 Eiperience Im[(.- :tI - ,r.............1 I-F I HIRE 1- 7 - 52- 2 E, E9 per i en c- E.) lir::t- Fi - Na j.(.O---- ----
F IGURE 4-9 -- S - S2 E; pert encoe I mpccts - EWDJ 2 7
F* I BFIE ~-I -~ D-f5 Revi secd IP ~l: ilot- - 7. 1.>
FIGURE 5-2 - B-52 Revised Impq.ct. - Co-Pilot---------
F ICURE 5 - P-52 Revised IcpaActs - Radar Nay .......--
F I E 5-4 -4 -52 Revised Impacts -- Navig.. ..........-.. .. 6I
FTI3UFE 5- : - 8-52 Revi.ed Emnactn, -- EO... .
jIll iI
.. _ r . . . -. - - . .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A<. Part of our College mission is distribution of the-r students' problem solving products to 1)oi)
' , sponsors and other interested agencies toenhance insight into contemporary, defense
" related issues. While the College has accepted this
product as meeting academic requirements for". - graduation, the views and opinions expressed or
implied are solely those of the author and should"/ ~not be construed as carrying official sanction.
-iJ~bt.s ito tomorrow"
RI1AO1T NUMBERAl. I tt()R(S) v v:r vi -ru.
TITIE .: 0.,- IF IIF P -- D ',FYW C)N SAC RATED MANNING1 -, 9
. t- , hndred wil.l . r ra:t wi].]. be added to the Airnr ,::m FY 85 throuri FY 8 Ratd er-sonniel to
-r- t + e p-.aned rc, im SA,)C bomber" resources Ear-i.",i i ? , .. tr ( r-f this 1mpact :t a rece -aar' to adjust
, -e p1 -,r i- or rder- to mai the B-1 with minireal impact'-,, ' Inc] - - 1 - e iS ,
It.. nb. 't..-. t re:rE~_.< e rt est- ab lish the niumbers and, F.-- k t a :4 LIri, ad P-1I f author- izatiori= that
dir n t- Fe- 1 oirrmh CLurrent and• it'!'' , :,l I-':it~ ~l r7 . . .err .c- e~.. .nii ~ mi E h
p . k i t- t l ir c r P- r t.. i t e Ir 2 m i o
I I F I I r I e,: .:. I 11, I h : i i h f,.-:;tS ' I ' .r I : c1 i 'itI f -() Yit FY .I r IU :1h F'r , ..
*~~~~~~~E t _J t~r ?'re nivIr~n t . :L17 1 1En£ni t.t,, • ~ f :i; , •, r : ',. ,rd ..:,RP ?r i:cv :, ,,r2 thefkt, w i.1 hc- :, cucnsi stp.ntf
E- - : r i T e h I r n:; e c: (tD i r.; f -,: hin ed .- t-hv4r ti 31 qrith wj ] i -hof the prc!..ic t::..0 s t iTu of
• , - r [ I n ri , arid the T.:i .. t ed i p t (::).f the E-.-e
r c__- L t r. : .
-7 7 % 177 7 07 w :-_ -,: : 7 7 7
Chapr: 4
In cr der to r c j eLt mann i n b' ''cnd FY 85, 1 n . rat es anrd
..t.1 ci. R ..ated Servic:e (TASF:) data had to be e-tab i shed
I hrc c - the per-i od. Retenti or :r all r-ew posi t ins is
i t r ,' I I y tIie K Lh hE t in recetr hiotor - - va. it I a he un tc)
,, - , -:II .- F 1 e -:J- er r .-- ? i .ha -h - I - - i-- .to , n -- t
iv- o;eme iL pay r O par. i lit a.d a. ri- ;., hi rshc:pi ..'mp tans ' ,
"Ws adecl ire ifl retention rates (14:10-1 - 10-19).- For thewsm
pr a cc :Kn JRc TARS r at~e o-f 17 near ve<rsu 'tihZLe acuarrent 1 Sear
in usBed througi~hott. This prov-uidea a mi ddl1e ground piroject ion
t hat :n mare acl aelv acl ignoed to a 5 'year hi atari nl 3''aveaeE
7: 4 . Lossies to the su~ippojrt of core ac-quaremrents: a]lso
i n( ucA pr <wit a ia n :: D -] mnc- i ) .S arid grnu. i t-a. r whi ch -r
* H '. > I .. - -i. .. *.-- ls mu i 1 5I - 1 A (Fi-''i ,-:) nd. i' .% I
'1 '! , , > ! *1 ( ,
-. . ... ", . r: * . . s . * '..,- .. 'W 'r''' I ... W T .
OIL LE th C Lt I EO1 P.L , for P-Il nl,:"' i le C e
f rIt' -
I' F L ( t ;. -1e tr- I I t iCe 1 1 c~l)r
W ram-'e. co MER he1 atibuted tol rebci -nc acetions
e,-di be comleI t b. end F'Y' 7. (lddi teonal lv proble.5-i
- .~ mitt. is ev! of the B-52 resouc~i:e.
-.v , ir. I ... ! *- .1 r"- c, m -e .or each c r ew (: . . r aU , : - t
'' : 1Il. .1 1 1341 . 1 1:PC I l q 1-tF f Lred as coper i eceC d in h 3t.
!, tee's - MT t---' :, .-. Th : b mpac: d of the B--i ii raw onr
>b L shed I -el s of B-52? enper ienLce is shown i n
I.. --1- hr- h 1-- f-cr each crew position e:--I Th e
ipn/ D.- - -*. -n.eri n ced pes-onnFlel Fl acefl; ar & are d]epic (1te rd
[F mrjVJ -!.:talH linea arnd h ighliighted along the
I . P lch anId co--p ilo t as; w'el1 ac racda-r andl'
- ~~1 .. .- et .? 511 I., Co1 (Jj ,~~- I~ :L'u.j tics I JY e 517'
-4
,,.,- - ,, . 6 - . . . . . .
manpower increases shown in requ i-emerit 1:7--. - "-2). T.o
of the si>x months were adjusted f or pro ,ectec earl. a.ircraft
delivery and four months were adjusted for the length of the
CCTS. This factor was figured throughout the draw for each
crew position. Based on training capability and information
available at end FY 34l no attrition has been figured fror the
B-i. Entitlements for rebasing actions in FY W6 and FY 87' we-e,
4igured in order to allow for perszonnel to be in place in th
-,stem during the r-e-location o-f the -52'. Add tionally
spe- ic assumpti.ons were made for eac h crew posi . r.ion af 4.oCtod
b' the B-i draw.
Appendix. 1 provides a proposed long term manning game
plan. Figures 4-1 through 4-5 are the manning projec:tions for
the impact of the B-I draw on B-52 resources. They are baseed
an the assumptions in Chapter 7 and 4, and are reflected in
Ap:endi," 1. In each case the graph starting point is the end
.f FY 85. The FY dates shown across the bottom o:f the graph
r epresen t the end of the respect i ve f i sc:al years. The zero
line at the center of the graph represents the 100%". manning of
the SAC core requirements. The numbers along the left side of
Me graph represent the plus or minus manning relative to 10M%.
This i - a" aggregate look at the core force. trairing and staff
.e:uremen _s*. These figur-es are cumul ative and reflec:t end
P - I wtrr "n.r~t r (::,+ , . ... i h. a t "I.
1 0
ats? tj i * .. :: ir" z. i o "ec omy' of .ca. a] v Ithe- B I
, I* i -. . c , ti . a th the B 1 b'u I dup ther-e w:l b he
:i, A! u h i i , .-l L'i-ph K it : . .-r c not curr ent]. I r . -.e f.d
I ,: v . 1 - z i I'n*d 4 th E i , i th .- .W e. t "- Prnorai r w W
'7V 0 M1 , ko Com Ond MiOi)hi i Researc:: a Dr e tl orlm'ntT o e ;c :, -": t,.... o: . . r, r,:-n
.... a , v . er If ,e n T erer:ie" , the economy o-f -sca I
," - StIFMS. -. 'aed Lv B--52 reloca.io n have been finiured anr
,:..nli ,d agcaiLnst currently unpro ected B-1 authorizations.
l ". r i no aggregate increase or decrease in B-52 or B-I
A. h i 'ations over FY 85 projections. This will, in fact,
led in overall balance of optimistic UFT projections. This is
"vei.ar from the personnel perspective in order to have the
n,-..w people available to fil]. requirements as they are
n :rder tu make projections that would be accurate, yet
fl i dent if. when the personnel should be "in system",
.z] assumpticns had to be made. Each B-52 crew position
z' wn chatr-acteri-ti,:s, i vet certain assumotions concerning
1- Pt.h-rioxat ion fIactoring were common to them a]... In order
wher the inn act would actually occur in the personnel
. r.oh,.ghut the draw. the B-1 crew authorizations were,.
all . W" avi- 'r., e In; i- -earl ver'..s, the I 'imr;r , r ri . 1
-. • * ..... ..'o.. .. .. .. .. .. .,...... '.- - - - - - - ---'.' ., .''.''.,,,, . - -- . --,, .:,- . . ' . ,:,,-,"."
_akan to manage the resou-c:e and can .d der:t -, ,dustments to
those ac:tions that may be necessary when appljEd te the f LAt re+
The specific numbers for this paper will be orojected
usi-ig assumptions found in the Air- Force Manpower and Fersonrnei
Center (AFMFC/RORJ.E) FY 85 game plan. Undergraduate Navioitor
Training (UNT), Undergraduate Pilot Trai ning (UP-) and
Iec-ronic War-fare Training (EWT ) 1nputs are applied a,: per -hLe
September 84 rated management conference as shown in the Ratecd
Management Docurent (171: 7-1 - 8-6). Due to the inaccuracy of
and inability to figure a consistent "washout" rate, no
underproduction figure was applied to these rates. This
creates a "best case" projection based solely on Undergrad.tate
Flight Training (UFT) a&Cquisitions. These acquisitions are
sioupwhat balanced as the B--I authori..ati -ns are applied.
As wi th auth~ori :ati ens f r- any ar ge : r, rea e i n manpower
the B-.I authorizations have been ti me phased from 1985 198.
In r conjuction with aircraft deli very. Personrel to fiIl thes;e
authorizations will need to be in the pipeline and,or in
training before these authc izations become ef fe.ti~ve. In
order to plan for this discrepancy, certain assumptions have
* been made.
Throug reba . Q E 8-.52 a jrcr aft to et ab 1. 1t, F. 1 I
8
" "" +" o- -'° .' .+ " .°+ " • " -'°+" " o m, .......................... '...."....,.........,...........................................................,..., .
METHODOLOGY
1 In order to create a system of projections, certain
* .- G~umpt:Lons are necessary. It is not possible to predict each
nu'ance that may happen up to 4 years in the future. But. by
.a.1. zir-g today' s trends. the specifics that are known, and
utI] IZlng assumptions based on the best available information,
LL i po.ssible to identify trends for the future.
Spcfically, in order to project B-52 resources into the
foki-.~t through the B-1 draw, it was necessary to take the best
,nfu..;ation available today, and combine that with a series of
A.E-,Lt3i ons about the B-1 draw.
Thi- start ing poinit for these projections is the end FY 94
*~ ~ m-k" statist i cs as shown i n thI e c:-ore r equ iriement s as well1 as
* I to totasl Air Force manning pi;cure (6:--). Combined with the
iAFMFC FT 285 manning "gamne plan". (2:--) the information shows
whpe e :A was at the end FY 24 and where it should be at the
erd of FY 85. This data includes the proposed actions to be
7
iI
9'':"- (8:--....
1he addi tion of the B-i will create a slq , 2.rnt imi:s.. t
on the B-52 an F-B I-.ll bomber weapon sy;stem:. - In t l ,-S.
pri2mary years o'" the B--I build, Air Force (AF) bomber pals.t L.
requirements will increase approximately 207 and aggregate AFS°
bomber, navigator requiremeits will increase approximate,ly 15%.
Due to other factors such as weapon system currencyi and
population demographics, however, the major source for the B-I -
has been narrowed to SAC core requirement manning. When
appl.ied t:, these requirements, the percentages increase to 29%
p I,:ft1 and 22 . nav i ga t.or t. huS showi ng the true impa,::t on SAfC
Thisu impact and its timing must be deter-mi ned in order for
planners to take the appropriate actions. As the primary
eources of- rated personnel to man the B--I. both the B-5 2 and Ithe FPB--III will experience turbulence associated with this
( draw. Though each i 3 part of the aggregate bomber weapon
- -lter,. the problems this draw will create are unique to each
crew pc-:a t. in and t-erefore must: be analyzead separate) y.
[I, .
, :.'.- .- :,.:'-.: _:'.'< ." .. : : " ...- -.- '-. r-. -. ,. ::. . _:.:: _-:,: -: : '€ ? . ,; ,.'- -" - ,' . . . .. . .,. ..
-~~T le ! - T le T - - . %v ..
::ZZ,
CCTS CREWS
* T~ 11 -1I OT HR'SlE 01~ Y F '. III
T D 5AC Bo b ( er 1
(Figure '2-1)
Tlh)L- f (:31 1WOF c secn L- ect ion proc(-es::= for uni t creis iji 11 beg in
' -.-:uummer of !..9615. Succeeding selection boards will. be
-1 !.J F-10~ coi ncif-dent with CCTS training avail abil1itv and
41 (.:Y. f'equi remprit- f(:r- unit crevi selection reshown in Fig ilre
UNIT CREWS
FO I TON SOURCE TOT HRS YRS IN SAC
c f t Cmdr SAC 1800
Other 2000ic NI/A
S(~C 750~
Other .50
ISO9K S AC C) C)
C-3 A Cl
(Figure 2--C)
- r'wc c r -1reoQlirements will primarily come from
-F u --D r :.'-er r eso.rcres This incldes the
9 ; -j. H--r AC ,-u. -training arid staff reUi renents. Thy.n
05
: :7. P q i e e~ - -r u i r w s l c io a e s o n i i ,r
B AC IC)ROUJN D
tt i nQ i n J i..n e 198,5. S AC w 1). 1. r e ---v . ye t he i r sB 3-1 B' f
sc-hedUl ed 100 ai Lrcraft buyt,. Alli r crk f t wilI I L- aqu L re d
thr-Ouoh1- FY 83 with- hepri myar rowt r.) te cfm FY '8d~ th r rm:u:
F Y 99..2 T h e B- IB w II b e b 4 ed at D e s A FP TX:r. El I1s aw crl-t.h
(-'FD.,, 2 ) Cr 7.1nd F o)r- I:A (FI B N D: I'c con r ii F- 1. C3 c rf r t. E-c
, i! 1.,14 IR ")' .~di tr. im:, h per'-: )d ci.~ ~c: LUhc P: -. c i ith I I
lannn i no ic ~- i- on fo th vq a ioeF i I1 b e i n twt, o p ha e s
Th sirt t cc. .ct on for Combat Cr-c-w Trainig School (EC C
dt'and the sekondl isa the selec~tion -for -fol low-on cr-ews.
The cC]. ct i on or-o(:ess for t he CCTO incAtr- 4c. or a 4r c to.
* aedurin-g the -Fall. of 1984. CCOTS :a-'1 ect -icn ior E-r i. er ta e ac
r-: h C., i- n FI Q or I -* I. (~ e
7S
:Dtr ci f i c Lei-mJ nol ogy and anachr-onisms ar-e used throukgho..tt
t h i. t;:r~ k The c~o .provided in Appendix 4 ShoulAd aid th--e
.id e r twi 1h term fami It i -at i on.
(HO SAC), in conjunction with the airstaff and Headquarters Ai-
Force Manpower and Personnel Center (HO AFMP'C) , has been
involved in a concerted effort to correctly size the persc-neI
requirements that must be available for this draw. SAC has
taken the associated measures necessary to insure properly
trained and experienced personnel are available for the B-I,
without serious adverse impacts on supplyi ng weapon systems.
The research and projections set forth in this paper
* reflect an end Fiscal Year (PY) 84 "snapshot" of current and
projected requirements. his work further reflects the
personnel inputs, retention and movement within the Air Force
for the period through FY 89. The B-I growth is treated as a
straight force add with any economy of scale gained in the B-52
resource during this period factored as unprojected
req Ui r emen t s.
This paper- provides a projection framew4ork for SAC bomber
force manning. Specific numhers are sub ject to change.
However, based on the methodology and known factors at thi
time, key trends are identifiable. This paper will attempt to
identify those trends and shortfalls in the manning of the B-I.
Additionally, it will highlight the associ ated impacts on the
sot.urcing weapon system and provide possible sourcing
a I t er-nat ies and their asc iat:ed i pac: .
-. t e - a
Chapter Prie'
-. INTRODUCTION
fOn Leptember 4. 1984 the first B-IB went on display at its
i ' l.t in Palmdale, California. This aircraft was five months
&.heAd of schedule and the indications are that Rockwell
In terr,;t-ional ma, remain ahead of schedule throughout
:r :idut.: i. on of the entire fleet of 10(]) aircraft. (1: 59-65)
Eac-h B--1B will be operated by a crew of four officers:'ilc, O), Co-Pilotf(Cf) Offensive Systems Operator(OSO), and
Defen:.i,- e Svstems Operator (DSO). The basic rated officer
requirements for this aircraft have been determined to include:
+r-ce, training, and staff needs. Of particular concern is not
c:,nl , the additi.onal number of manpower requirements, but also
it:, ,- ,--e.ed acquisi t ton schedul e,, This rapid gr-owth will
hri I( a 1 r cr 3 t, and the associated manpower aLuthor i-at ior"hs
0.hE.- Strategic Air Command (SAC) inventory in under f(ur '
CC? C
.'A ,ce A~tgu.st Cf 198., Headquarters Strategic Air Coren, and
i::~~~.. ...- . . . .-. ........... : .........-........----..............--........ -...... ......... :.-""' " -," " " " '"'' . ,,: ","' " "- -:'-' .:,, . '- ; ., ,, : .:". ,,-'.', ,--* .. ;,,-
CONTINUED_
for oi ]ot ma-. inl ude LJF'T graduate's. FAI Fct ATE returnees,:5 I :t "o--Pi .ot ,or other command e,per 1 enr:ed pe s - 1in€ .
.- h h i; .hift wil.] pr.vide qcreater Iong term uE tai y,bi11t,.-:- . per i en,:e b . me and hi gher 1. -7 e per- e P , e I e wel-a.
": '. " d.r navig ator resoLrces are ,ro jected to be .:le tV1
, . : I. .the B-1 Etaff a znd trai nin rerqtbire-i? ni j , o.w . "".Hup.r. an with the pi lot resourc.e, i t. wi 1 l be rece-'--a ,' t W--- - t force draw from 95% B-52 radar navig 1c -at-or to 6.....% P-.. '
radar a,igator, 5% FB--111 radar na'.igator and 0% B-52-r. Additionall ., it mav ultimatel, be nee.;ar . lo
s hi . NT accessions from other weapon systems to the B-52-eanure. Shifting of these resources will allow e'.peraiernc:ingo:f the radar navigator resource and lowering of the upgrader ,t,- r equired to SU-tstain the force.
' Crclusion: This work and these projections are based onend FY 94 data. Throughout the B--1 draw it will be necessaryto update personnel plans and actions. By constantl, updating
rpl ctons and actions that can be taken, the B-1 will bemom,,aced K-. the be-t quali. . fi. ed personnel from the B-52 andP-.--1 1i, wi thout Eeriou adver.e impact toc. those w.eapon sy.'s:-t. ems.
0 °
. .----- *.....*----..-- ---- ---------------------
_CONTINUED
III. Findings: The draw against the B-5w will create asignificant impact on each crew position. Even by drawino d3writhe SAC bomber support of Air Force reQuirements, there will b -
difficulty maintaining SAC manning at 100, and still suppl, .gthe B-i with 95% B-52 personnel. Based on the most optimistic.upgrade capability, FY 87 still shows all bomber crewi positions>going below one hundred percent manning for SAC force, tr Uininoand staff requirements. Lowered UNT and UPT rates preventsignificant recovery through FY 89 for the pilot/co-oilc.,t andradar navigator/navigator resources. The orojected eiperence
e'elos of the pilot/co-pilot resource will receive the greatestimpact during this draw. The mid FY 87 projection shows theaggregate pilot experience below command established minimumsand not goinq above during the rest of the period studied.--- Based on current policies and projections. radarn avi gat or/navi gator manning will a]:o he gu, -C:cantly
. impacted. Current measures, such as decr si o c reerbroaderning and pr ioritization for- the SA C :, fC. will t remi.AlnneIre:essar,'. Each of the measures necessar. to curtail careerbroadening and limit upward mobility of pitLot-. and nav:iqa,:r.can create additional adverse impact on retention furthercompounding the problems forecast. The least impact isprojected on the Electronic Warfare Officer position. Priorfront loading of personnel, no internal upgrade to another crewposition and smaller resource size, all allow greaterflelibility manning this resource. Every projection yearexcept FY 87 shows SAC EWO resources able to be manned at orabove one hundred percent. E'xperience levels of this re-our-c-eare also projected to remain well above desired levels. Theprojected 5 percent draw again-t the FB--ittl pLilot and radarnavi gator resource will be supportable. However, closemonitoring of FB-itt resource levels within SAC and thrru,_4houtthe Air Force will continue to be necessar -..
I V. Re:: o m m en do.-_t i o rs In oirder to nu pP. Dl I. t ! e P. 1. w lt 31 it
, her I ' '(d, e r F-. J n- . (:)n ' . P) ( . , i s r P<''i''I ew. I,. r] I o' w'I l~~~e ::~i~ : f t, (-..,d :, I. ing inl V:Y !]' U;; ." - 2 :: p ,). i . (I .: ?:., w t i,
'. b e t .w) up1)C~rt , the P.i- I -i,i ,rnd P -,i4 fi. - i ' rn ' E t.pri. . is t ,,'" . J~~i ret ,,- I .',- p'' irpn 4... Hcit'. cr :-r , lvt : ,'cI l (, iI ,, r' I:s ,.: . ', hi ,,
HPit' c hipI; -hed ' l.he end ot F 1 -21. it will *e ,- w;:;r, . ' r t . . 1.'
1 , r.. . ;D t ( t.::)ser D"- t IIe 'a t. e q C., ,' .:.r I r t E. t : rther catec1r ( TI A ( 1)" ' r, -.trr .M'4i
' . . - .. . . . . . .
-' I , :- ..--.-'--------------------------"--,"--------." -" " --.. ... ,''.---'-'.----.- ''.---'-- - -- ,..%
•, .1-" ... .:- i r l. " .Tc, I e -.: 2 t ocEI , :: I cIi L
:ft: t f1 1. 1;:o- .1J t 1PUF- p er ,ear . 'd d I L) on :I pi c o
F, fo.pr. td I.- t t oii H I Q II in enI-f t 1 n Itr ,) r F I . 1Lit
F I ' .. ..h..r 'A thT .- ,.,.-- pi. 1o t:etUrn i nl tic re
-m~i..f r 01 1V F ori p C) r to t± S:I d e t Ie- C.01' e. fn
r in d Ezl. c)1 C; ' -n e et Ur n S we ire f I iU r e d -An ik 1. V t' S1A:
ire rt h be in 1 to da w d ownr S C s, ap por L of
er al L r- Force replUi rernent d uri ng the B-i 1 draw(.
0
'~~~~ch-) c-apr f h gr rew force i.s czarecer broadened
-Iro -Areas.c 0Llt'--j j- ef core f orce. tr -i n ing and staf+f
-i.1.., G m C-2 I a .. t n in FY 9 . these pr e-i t ions have
-. f:: :: f 1 to iojn.-.:::ore r I.i.rFn,.ent of 160. -rd h e s e1 no I. ;,
t o0 r i i n lr Forr : i.n t i [F e f Tec hro 1 c)c g Y AF IT) A (t r
-2 ' :- 4,u 1 :r e :... n p rFe s-,ear ,::. F: c:i r . t e- (.(I,- T m r- ) In -ofr' 0, 51: rFi],
E ".-d iF . .a t t:: ri 11E P ated Su p Ie m. en t ao h - o r C t ft
".*' L.4 i -. j m t". r e d c?'pz.,r- "L"te t 1 * 3 i n t ' D e nt- len a - ed
e tr Per I I.,i no.. F.: q A-i. r-uem ent s (0Fe R Lo the Spec ..
q a e nr.' 30( t .c'the ra This outf 1W ow1 depender t
. o? t..,r-, et r heo e.ti o r f gure a de:: b:iinae i n
o
tI:-- .er S 2 ptar e' r vE-r F Y '5 Ie els. n . mpALercnave
t t~ C.rt -fi .f Csa is e ~ f t thI-ie iAb] i Ii i ! , F in
0
i"Z : l~'..r ECI .3 f1,3,* .. * . .*-ore r .**L >-€ -*t *.]: 16"
Th se rl ].,.
PiQOt main1ng. Additionally, the B-1 will. c'eate an even mr-
signi fiacant i mpact to this resource. Based on the max imt
upgrade capability o z the B-52 pilot resource as shown, current
levels of pilot outflow are not sustainable through the B-1
growth.
The specific annual draw from the B-52 is still to be
determined. However, as previously stated, the general impact
on the SAC core can be estimated. These projections utilize
the authorization time phasing previously described, and figure
',5B 13-5-2 pilot supporL of B-1 requirements. These include
known forc-e training and staff requirements for aircraft
commanders, and exclude co-pilot requirements.
B-52 co-pilot support is figured at 100% of B-I co-pilot
requirements starting in FY 86. This crew position is not as
o'latile to project as the pilot position. There is little
movement of this resource from the core due to initial flying
,commitments, lack of experienc:e and the limited positions
,Vva ,iL l.e for non - aircraft commanders.
Retention and outflow of co--pi lots is relatively stable.
There is no significant change in the loss rates, cross-flow t,:
Air Training Command (ATC) and outflow reflected in these
pr- ,ertion (2:--i . In acdition, these pr-o.jec:tiors reflect 11')
14
0 : - ... -i ._:I . 'C . 2 ., J] .2 _?'- k .: :: : 2 : ' ", .'.': , .. : :, / '? ' .: .",- i l° '
w - .rvr w- . - w-w-- r r r - crc .... ' ,xw C J-~ub.t .... ~.c.. 7. v-zr'. urn'... v-...-.r r. C .-. . . . C .~ . . -
..~Z!ir +Ia~ to p i. I ot annual I y and the L'FT i ripLits are ratea f i c~Ltred
S
I
S
1 ~:~j
0
L
L6I
01H-
096r
'-ElC
AL
Ic
criU-
Lo -. 3-
r-r
-Flc
Lo -C Cp
- . '.- '-.. -
Historically, radar navigator iOss rates 5id pr:)mllt .P
rates to colonel have been relatively stable. Even though
coverall retention has been high and has peaked, TARS data fc:or
the radar navigator position has not reflected great chan.jes.
These projections. then, reflect TARS of 13 years versus the
current TARS of 13. 2 (1:4-7). Changes have ocCUrred, howe'ver,
in navigator upgrade (NUP) rates.
Rec:ent ,::hanges in trainrvig capabilities have shown a
significant increase in upgrades from navilator to radar
nav igator. As with the pilot upgrade rates, these projection-.
reflect the maXimum capability, and show 150 NUPs per year ts'
radar navigator. Currently, there is a deficit in core radar
navigator manning and career broadening has been limited
(7: -- ) .
On t f 1 ow from core r adar navi g at or pc tio,:-o s 1 imi ted .
The SAI staff ha been pr-iori i ed at 9% (1 1 :" of po s-i t )i s
in f i I 1 ed) (I0: . These projection s refl.o: _t the v ac:ai.:t .
t h r oug hout t.-(glie . I dr aw. In addition, ou l- (:. to [i on ,i::r e
r equiL rements i fi gitred at 7"U pr 'ear "ver ui- 7/9 retUrris .. - ,
i r,ju e, s j- i ' -h P -"2 pi 1 ot , a . -fle(w t a I au-- Ic:'ow n 5,:I
1 I.:
0
-- .- .. .. .. -- -'-. . .- " --': . -.-, . --' ." . . " . . . "- - " - " - -" " , - '"
: . -f L tr c,:.ce t, ui r-ement--. The speci f i,: out i 1 o-w per
,u I .l ei rdL crt or, t. he reti.irns Iut the b3 i c t. rer d 1 1.
Ih- - ', r ;d-- i t i . o r- w . . . be t 1 1? 1. m,-'. 'Li' r u t or
L (ff cen.i e (0 0) pc-i-tion. T h e he le pr-. ec t:Lo1,- I Iect.
<:S'- P .. RN and -. FB-.-ill RN support of 00 force, training and
t-, t r-equiremen t s (3: --. Backfi ls for- the radar navigator
<. ic come thr ouqh the previously mentioned navigator
Ihf? ye i v Li . pr o ect, ons. shown i n Fi qL -ur e 4-, and 4-4.
I ro Ati r e,::t ia'v: gator suppor ,Iof the P--I r-eqir rum.nt .
, i f L he C :). . ot * here i . i t tle movement of i -- r-eoLIrCe-,
o: , o - r, eq ti r-ements and retent i on and outf low of n1a.Vi gators
relat vely stable. There is no significant change in the
,IDi: r.tes, croEss flow to ATC and outflo+ reflected in these
i::,rct. on : -- . In addition. these projections reflect the
,5.J mum capabi1 i ty -f 150 upgradez to radar navi gator per year
and e programmed UNT input rates reflect no attr tion (5:--)
19
-- . * r t.
KU Z-v -T-1--
LM -c I
LA TC
/-0v.60/
00
rn-C
-PMon
I r~ "CLf
WI L
ELEICTRONIC -tzW-.F:FF:E OF E
Th--e 8-2El 2c.tro)ni, Warfares Off i oer. ENDW,*'') Y4.1I eth
mlaior ';uul..r cc fu.r iny 4-c Yne S es Oe t~ S)~o
The graph shown in Fig qfire 45 ef1 c 01.tciprtf-unII
p o,:,i t ion-, Os with Lhe rcet of the bomber- navigator- + orce,
retenti on aid promotion to col onel h--ave beenr- laievsaLie
Hstorical TARS data does not v,,ar-y si gnif+i cantl1y and the*F-7;gqregate navi gat-or TARS data of 13 ea7 is used for tfice
nro~ections (12:4--7).
The projecta o-ns further- reflect an o)Utf.low O+ 509 EWO a: p-er-
viear t r- or i ri ot-ce r e qui i c-Em entA.-s ( J. ri :: 1u i n.t (l i rS I!: II-ME.R
r. c and r- etutr- na o-f '5'5 Pei C r ,ar, , i aai r) 0 r-a i &IN l t o c0ilL
Separati on (DOE;). grounding and promoti on- to col onel '(0 -) hae
been f i p-ured at 81,q in line with the FY> 85 NFL? S'"amne Plan
(2:.-- Inputs to suIpport this system ar-e fr-om ENT andre at
no- under- pr-oducti on fi cur-es.
. . .. . . . - . ..
Fool CM -r -P u C3 W%.i p m m
ru U-
-P-
6I110h111 Hw
'Mu.
M~n rMLD-C k Cn
EXPERIENCE LEVELS
E'perience levels will also be a problem that will
prirnarily affect the pilot and c:o-pilot positions. Figures 4-6
thr ough 4-8 show the sourcing impacts as reflected in
experience levels of the resource (3:--). They are displayed
on the graphs as the minimum experience level percentages
established by HO SAC., and the projected experience level
percentage of the particular resource. The bomber pilot force
is impacted the greatest due to the large sourcing problem and
the fact that the pilot/co-pilot resource is the primary draw
for two crew positions (F/CF) in the B-I. This aggregate
res-.ource will supply the B-I pilot force, training and staff as
viell as the co-pilot crew force.
The pilot and navigator graphs show the aggregate impact
of this draw on the combined pilot/co-pilot and the combined
radar navigator/navigator resources. The EWO experience graph
show ' the least impact. This is primarily due to the early
"front 1oadirnq" of the resource, and the fact that this is a
.1,igle -seat ior.37itinon without an in system upgrade to another
24
I~J M
cn -p
my,
g J -
ED
p -
W-WIVI
I-
fL3 La3
ru r -- c Pu
re I mz
ru -j-I
wZ-c 6C 13H
WZI.W L63.
. ,J " . ." .... , - ' L ,- ' .. :7 r '- - .i . .. - .I. I c'.J , T : -
I K. .- VT F Pro - .1 KE iT ci r i L. ,
n:. o:; l,",-. P o 4,,,- : e n W!c :] F. P4 thr'oLual- the Endc: o'f FY 3-8,
- . :.,. .addi ti F 9 F . .-. 1 1 1 .i .:t - and 4C)' adcl I ± cr
F P I " M nM-. in tre A r F c w r tr-,- . 1 . - l 1 r o .lis
,,' -c;- - . '". 9 , , :: i orej ( - .) This wil].] create . c t..
LI :.. ' "1 ., . L:.t i - be i. 1 L r P . , ,..2 the Air ) , 3[ y'$ .
, -L, .Ci' ..: '-or requirre.ent , 'uLcterr &C:--. - T h i :i
a 2 Ii:.) .. cats t h s I ii l -e-ar gr up for the :::. L it-
. , ' . -,4ir tc r:-ce the FB1- 11.1 LFI.po]r~t o-f o'vera. 1
" ... ... r ... t ti :e cJ f the SAC" core.
Tii -ccni nThif ina the F-111 i.l eventually
S.. -n .FC ' ". T !F term -u-t"i abi i "- -fr the weapc'n .sictrerm.
.- -Y , : - of !me r-,es-ource will continue to be
F. .... i,' m- .i IF . i -Sired manrln r; l s ]n W .I sa l
S '-a. . j 5 1 -( e f- r 5-otr.f.ete -fcDi. I (:.) arid F Nh
' -, U- ."; iEEi I te ii I.Arm gaIme plan shown i Fi Append ..
I. - r. n . .' Fr. oi c 'E.? fi (:- me n ELc.J or -. : E-i- ta .ra i
rs I J' (: f 2- -4.
"T -' :1' ' --. - ....a r ..mc ,- f tie FIB--. 1 1 1 re.ori e i a hawed on
F. . -. .i ' : " h[i' :lF ~c'l-4- . P 2].-F' i i piil.
ChacterA
FE- 11,
-1h ce grub] em:- fzAr. 2 ng the FIB--Il1 in SUPPert (-J -he I B-Iar1
ci ~ ~ d' ft -xan lcif erent than thos of the T-CI. The f i:e caP
is sui n F i ca-ntlyv small1er than the B-52, as i s the traininqiI-C
u -p Mi 1 i t/of the weapon s-ystem. Currently, the FEF:--itt 1 syste m
t-. aIle t o t ra3.in 14 in it ial1 q UaIif+i ca t ion p il1o ts and RNsF as
'ci as i::requal if ication pilot=- and RNs per year (5: --
1 hi - tota .l trainrlin capability of 4C0 per year liits the
I. ] it. ) suApply personnel ote2-ta ela u~ nLc
we pn cySternl cm a ci as,, to d a; ' ~].Th i t ratrn -vr p -o lc a
Fi Iurthet he compcirnded dui-iring the AVIQ L on w indei r i :a Li on
,r jqr -im APiMF F sta-.ir ti1ng in FI Ye5a th ie aij rc: r -f- t arec u p'.1ira d e c
Ir 'F iori +- o t hez.e grub I femE; the sen i or itv u-f t:he ge:e-o rnr i el
d wji t h t he FIB-l P { . .1fUr th e r compounds an>c. Mac: 1no 2,r,
(Ir-iil iQ3-82 the avrae new ir-n put to the FE2 - I ii if -an '2d
rrmidc- ce captain to~ Jurlir. c ma. -or. Thie'>-tv-y
C-1 hi i .p Keen 1 r-wereci (12:2-2) li~t t the.. ro] muf Vh
II
H am
6CC I NJl
* - . , " * . ' .* " "-.* " ° ' - " - " . - . ? - - % - - - - r " t " . . .. .
EWO
The Electronic Warfare Officer provides SAC': most
fla.ible position from which to source the B-1. "ThrougHh .he
r 1 c tons in Chapter 4. and repeated i n Figure b 5, sho10 I' ,
bn1g the most critical year for B-52 manning, ar. s i-t in
oLutflow, return to the core or EWT production can alleviate
that situation. As with the other crew positions, careful
monitoring will be necessary through the entire draw. However,
the fact that this is a single seat position supplying a single
.- I DSO position greatly simplifies the sourcing problem.
Additionally, actions taken in 1984 that internally shifted
arCLeqsions to the EWT line, provide a larger source of trained
FW(L, to draw upon for the B--i ( 10:
37
I I I I I7.
cmp u r pI2 0 c c m
-. 2C=
ro I
ca-.2
cc I II Iu C= u pm
0 C2 0 0 0 0I
mI
Ln
6fll
CC319V
co-I
B~-52. The more junior navigator sourcing will provide greater
long term sLJ tainability of the B-I OSO position.
The~se action will lead to a balanced RN and Nav force
through the draw. As shown in these graphs, by 1989 there
should be sufficient B-52 RN resources to begin to cut back on
the increased upgrade rates or possibly accept an overall core
na.0igatcr deficit and begin to fully man the staff. It must
further be remembered, that these are recommended actions.
However, any further decrease in outflow to career broadening
ss;ignments {.-ould create a significant impact on retention and
[imit the fkut.u'-e potential of these officers for long-term
sernor Air Frrce ]eadership.
-!4
" -.
R0 DAR NOY GATOR .'N. 'IGA- GOR
I h Innj t ', i i. ;il bomt:er r,'c'"ni)L.r-i: r? th s' .1t 1( r , , I di . tL'J i
I ' l I I 'fl VI (J 'At U r r a t,' q . t. l( t p (.1 t . l .I I f At4 , t 1. , 1 1 I
n 1':>34 t o al ig. r the rE0sour e for Lhe R-1 dr -Aw. 1tf.,
Src(ude st af f pr i or it i at ion , increases in UNT a i:.rv arid
ca' eful monitoring of RN outflow to non-SAC req,_Jremnert
(.'i::--). However, as the projections in the previous chapter
show, other actions will be likely.
As with the B-52 pilot, adjustments in the B-1 draw from
t-he RN position can have a significant effect. Experience
-,?qkiired and the s ingle nature of the OSO pos i-(on willl 1 ,1 f
-llow direct accession from UNT during the init -ia. Ft-I dr- ,.
However, as shown in Figures 5-7 and 5-4, by hi. fti ng the :rev
draw from 95"1 B-52 RN and 5% FB-1 RN to 65% B-52 RN, C0% B-5
N and 5% FB-1I1 RN, the impact or the aggregate 8-52 navigator
manning levels is significantly lessened. Additionally, the
g.raphs also show an increase of 15 basic navigator acce:isions
over FY 84 projected levels starting in 1986. This will
require additional accessions through increased UNT pr-oduction,
a shift from produict ion schedu]ed for other comnand:., or
:irternal SAC shifting of UNT or EWT pre-pipel ine a,: ces'.oils.
F-urther., by sourcing from the navigator as well as the radar
na,,igator position, the overall impact will be less on the
-- . ".-,--? .--" ..-- °.. . -" - --- ..- " --.-. ..': .- • . :--: ? -: ,..'. -'.';.-:'.}'? -:.].-. .-... ..-.. . . . .,-. .-.. . . . .,.. . . . . . . .-.-. .- '
UPCE Ln
Iwo
-F'C
mmq 04HC13-C C13
MI.-
I- cu m
"'>:: ,-,re.c en-s ar y.
SOther areas for' study are prioritization of the pilot
t: a f ff rq u:rI e ImeIat and reduc:'t i on of broader"i i ic assignments.
Ea:h of these reduces career progression options and may
ultimatel y impact on retention and promotion. Further, these
options will ultimately limit SAC's capability to provide
-iroper experience for the Air Force's future leaders.
Pilot eperience and seasoning begins as a co-pilot. The
pmr. ections shown in Figure 5-2 ref 1 ect a shift in the B-I crew
d :r-w from 1.(C) B-52 c:o-pilot to 5(-.% B-52 co-pilot. 5()/ other.
I h .S t I I f t :'. LT t.. M,.t&e. l y i rrovi ce the loncg term sustainbi 1
boI..h systenti: will reqUire. Ey changing the mix, the draw will
he 1 e s agaJ ns.t the B-52. Additionally, the change to 50%
-" .other will allow various experience from other- aircraft to
erter the B-I at an earlier point. This other category may
i. n:l'...de UFT graduates, FAIPs, ATC returnees, 1-M
:i] a ts, -:i rite!s and resources from other weapon systems. This
va,.ied cix m-,/ provide long term sustainability and will
ur ther irnoide a higher experience level for the B-I with less
mi:a ~t I. i.:. B.-T._. Fur'ther fhi {t. irng of UFT acc:esssi o rs fri
kvt LP .,. i .I:iv. ; wl I iicr:'a.e the C1 e -I a .[-5 C p.iI (I:t
mian.i . LIlHlfe. ic r, ar-n add j t i onal i nf 1 LU of UFTs will fur t her
,fCiL ld M-t F rC:-).d,' c:i t picm b.om et t Ir ai. r , i nq p or i em
('4% -....
S * . . '.. . . .!
:1 7.* .7 - 7M, 7 - or 77M. M6 V: . -i-.--- -- a-
ultitmately man the B-I. This chapter updates the pro jecLiOWr-:
using the assumptions previously outlined except as indicated
bel, ow. Appendi% 2 provides a revised long term game plan using
dal-. and changes outlined in this chapter.
PILOT/CO-PILOT
Figure 5-1 reflects a shift in the B-I draw from the B-52
aircraft commander resource. Rather than the previ ou_- 95%
B:-52, 5% FB-111 mix, this projection reflects a change to 95.
B-52, 5% FB-1II manning of the B-I staff and training
requirements and a 70% B-52, 5% FB-111 and 25% other force mix
(8:--.). The "other" category may include other aircraft
experience, including ATC., FAIP: 15., etc. This small sourcing
shift brings the manning levels c:loser to 100% and within
manageable level_ for the personnel system to maintain by
individual assignment actions. The specific actions to be
worked must be carefully monitored and worked in 1985, in order
to insure that the proper resource is placed in other than SAC
core requirements to be drawn upon at a later date.
Other options that remain available include increasing t:he
rate cf return of resources outside core requirements.
However, year group demographics and careful stodv may show
that those available in large numbers are not the type of
resource that can provide the experience and sustain;'ability
'29
- , -. -. . . ,....... . ,... . .. .. - .- .- .. . . . . ". ',-. .. ----.....- ;> :> .- .
Chapter 5
E-5 RECOMMENDATIONS
As previoury stated, the projections set forth in this
paper are based on a series of assumptions. They reflect the
effect of today's trends that. left unchanged, will impact
through the 1B-I draw. However, small changes in the inout from
-*-L UFT and the controlled outflow to non-SAC requirement/return to
*-'" hi~i reiremert ratios will. enable SAC to man the B-I withokit
c3dd L I j onal mannirig impact to the other bomber
weapon :iystems. The author makes the following recommendatio.nsba~,ed on an end FY 84 look. These recommendations provide a
series of options that are not meant to be all inclusive, but
r-&ther to- show the flexibility that is available to man the B-I
4rom current and projected rated resources.
Se 'er.l options are available to the planners at HO SAC.
f"I or jr ,, omC i. nat. i on rf icreased UFT rates, staff
•I a or I L ; " r; * a shi ft i n D. 1 sourc: rig mi,, 1 h fti ng of UFT
I, r ;dc:: 1 k:n from tanker to bomber aircraft. or- an even further
I~~~~ v i t1 i F r c-u (_( r-emen ts ma,- be 'ed to
28
.....................................................
* - . * * . . . . . . . . . . . .
• - - . - S -" ... - _' "- ". ". °-, ', '' ' >' ' '- - "' '- '. .-" .
L63
Lfl\
El?
'4 Lii-aiC
zEli ml
I EliI EJacmI46
* . . . .
.% t~a~ a a~* ~ ~ 0... J.. ~ S .4. .. . . .n. 2 -M.~
to reflect a 25% turnover of per-sonnel in non-SAC requiremenQ,
per 'ear. These personnel will be returned both to flvi , d.t,
ii a ed on requali{ication capability and direit to i.,- vff
9;,0).: 1 i t T. Ihe support. of the B.1 i.s taspzd OIL ti) r r, r n.l! ,
er . . The B-I draw has been adjusted c-onsistent wi- -h the
-assumptions inr Chapter 3. DOS rates were adjusted from 1985
rates to more accurately reflect the demographics of the 'year
groups involved (2:--). Finally, support of non-SAC
requir-ements is reflective of the available personnel above
100% manning. Throughout the period, based on these
assumptions, it is possible to maintain the FB-ill at 100%
manning (shown as 0 in annual total row).
here are significant problems that fac e the FR-1i
re'm:ource through the B-i draw. Limited training c apabil ity
.furLher impacted by the AMP program significant]'. ronstrains
personnel movement within and to outside the weapon system.
Yet, the FB-II will be able to support the B-I at a 5% rate.
Closoe plann ing and monitoring of this resource throughout the
B-i draw will continue to be necessary. However, based on the
information available at the end of FY 84, the F-ll1 will be
A-.bl to be manned at 100%, Support outside the (:ore
r eq ir emer-t , and the associated car-eer devel 1opmnrt. though at
reduced rate, and still support the necessary B--I dr a' Lit ,h
(1minimal impact on core requirement manning.
41
0
"" " '" """" " ' "" '" "" "- . - i .; . . . .. 'v . . ."• °.. ..- ..-. ' . - .° . "
Chapter 7
CONCLUSION
Manning of the B-I will not be a simple task. There will
be no one simple solution to the many and complex problems that
lie ahead for the Strategic Air Command. The bomber pilot
position is projected to be short in overall manning and
ex:perierce. The already short bomber radar navigator manning
-iture in n;ot projected to improve significantly. The only
r:r-w positior that should survive the B--I draw with minimum
Lmpact is the electronic warfare officer position. However,
actions have been and can be taken to further improve this
-"outlook. Recently, increased co-pilot and navigator upgrade
capability, close monitoring of losses to SAC core requirement
manning and increased UFT accession levels have all improved
the manning outlook for the B-I's primary sourcing aircraft,
the D-52. However, close scrutiny of this resource will remain
r e Ptsar y.
As the Air Forces newest weapon system, the B-I must be
ma-red with the most qualified rated officers available. The
-2 will provide the largest portion of those officers. An,
42
I~.: i .! -. -: .... - -., -. ..,,-.. , -. . . .-....: -.- -, .. ...., .. ....- --- -..... .,... ... . .
dr s of ihe magnitude proposed, against a weapon system xthca, t
a51-,:rAft coIncurrently scheduled to phase out of the flv/fr1>.i ;,
Wi1.1 create serious impacts. The potential of these impact-
ha-: .-een and will continue to be lessened.
FB-IIl support of the B--I will be limited based on its
i-r- iring capabilities. However, consistent with manning
prubI. oms wi thi n that system, C: lose resource management . il
:i t r che to be necessary in order to maintain manning 1evels,
SLuVpIy personnel for the B--I and still provide significant
-areer opportunities.
As shown through this paper, there are options available
to both man the B-i and still maintain viable, experienced B-52
and FEB-ill forces. Each of the projections shown here will
chan--e many times between now and the rollout of the last B-i.
Ho'e','er, any adverse trend identified early enough can be
r: u-unt er 3c: ted.
Options suAch as a shift in UFT rates or production,
out IJow frrom or return to core requirements, and changes in
* upcrade rates can all be adjusted and meshed to provide an,
,:(3pt:Lmum manning picture for the weapon systems affected. The
ev proper manning during the rapid B-I growth is the
-cr'J-nued in depth knowledge of the resource and futtre
reC4uIrements by the SAC staff, AFMPC staff, and the air staf.
47
-------• .',,~ii L ~ ~ ~ .. *
-.-. - iT ' --
.__ _ _ _ _BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Canan. James W. "The Magnificant B-IB" Air ForceMagazine. November 1984., pp. 59-65.
2. HOAFMPC/AFMPCROR3E. "Manning Game Plan." Briefing,Fall 1984.
U. HQAFMPC /AFMFCROF. "B-I Impacts." Briefing, Fall 1984.
4. HOSAC/DOTPB. Background gained through conversations,meetings, briefings and papers during FY 84.
5. HOSA/C'DorTA. Background gained through conversations,meetings, briefings and papers during FY 84.
6. HOSAC,'DPRO. "Rated Officer Manning." Worksheet, 2 October1984.
7. HQSAC/DPRO. Background gained through conversations,meetings, briefings and papers during FY 84.
8. HQSAC/DFXFA. "Pre-RDTM B-IB Manning Conference Minutes."August 1984.
9. HOSAC/DPXPA. "Rated Management Update." Briefing. June1984.
10. HOSAC/DPXFA. Background gained through conversations,meetings. briefings and papers during FY 84.
': 1. HOSAC.XPMR. "B-I Rated Requirements. " Worksheet, 7 Apri].198:3.
12. U.S. Department of the Air Force: HO SAC United States AirForce. FB-111 Air Crew Training. SACR 51-111.Offutt AFB, Nebraska 68113: 31 December 1983.
I7. U.S. Deoartment of the Air Force: HO United States AirForce (XOO). Rated Manaqement Document. Volume I.Washington, D.C.: II September 1984.
Force (XOO). Rated Management Document. Volume II.
Washinqton. D.C.: 11 September 1984.
44
, -- -- -- 7-7. . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES
Appendi.. 1 B-52 Projected Game Plan ------------- 46
Appendi 2 - B-52 Revised Projected Game Plan ------ 49
Appendi- 2 - FB-111 Projected Game Plan ------------ 52
Appendi 4 - Glossary 55
45
0
SI . - .-
APPEND I X I
E,. 2FROJECTED GAME PLAN
P ILOT CO PILOT RAD/NAV NAV EWO
FY 85
FY84 INP C) 68 -5 127 48
INPUT 3.06 15l 229 150 157
PU.F'./N U P -110 -150
*RBSG ENT 0
To P-.1 ---18 -39 -8
DOS --85 -15 -. 99 -15 -81
NON-.-SAC -171 --. 5 -70 -0 -50
'85TOT 7 2 68 16 89 66
FY 86
FY85 INF'.2 68 16 89 66
I NPUT 36 150 229 150 165
PUP /NUP -110 -150 0
RBSG ENT -12 -12 -12 -12 -12
TO P-i -- 2 -41 -75 -71
-15 -99 -1- -81
NON--SAC 160 -25 -70 -25 -50.
8. TOT --1.1 15 -I 1 17
46
, .-..",. " ." .- '.=. -. -. C ."j"j., ";:.: "- . .'v ,-.• .-. --'.. .-.. .... v "." '-" ,.-,- "- '. . .-. ."."- -
Vy-' 87i
F: Y86 INF' -11 15 --11 .1
I NFLIT 306 150 2296 .50 165
F'UF'/ NUF' -11 C) -150
PBSG ENT -12 - 12 -12
TO B-I -69 -44 -73 -56
DOS -85 -15 -99 -13 -81
NON-SAC -160 -25 -7C) -25 -50
"7TOT -1 -41 -36 -i1 -17
FY 88
F'YV7 INF' --T1I -41 -36 -11. -- 17
I NPUT 3C)6 135 229 150 165
F'UF'/NUF' -11 C) -15)
RBSG ENT 24 24 24 24 24
TO B--1 -39 -20 -43 25
DOS -85 -15 -99 -13 -81
NON-SAC -160 -25 -70 -25 --. C)
S'88TOT 15 -52 5 ..--25 16
47
% % %
FY 89
FY8 I NP 15 -52 5 -25 16
I NFUT .306 1:2 229 150 165
FUF/ NUF -I 10 - 150
TO B--lT. -2c 30-2
DOS -5 -5 -99 -3 -1V
NON-SAC -160 -2 -70 -25 -50
'86*.TOT* 41 -90 35 -63 2
48
N- - - ---- . -.-. . . . . . .
-. . - -- - - -T -" I -: - - sm i-' t o- - - -N -" w l ' i I %' ' J "
APPENDIX 2
B-52 REVSE3D PROJECTED GAME PLAN
PILOT CO PILOT RAD/NAY NAY END*
FY 85
FY84 I NP 68 -5 2 48
INPUT 306 15o 229 150 157
F'UP / NUF -11 -) -150
RBSG ENT 0
To B-1 -18 -39 -8
DOS -85 -15 -99 -15 -81
NON-SAC -1 7 1 -25 -70 -2. . 50
85TOT 32 68 16 89 66
FY 86
FY85 INF 32 68 16 89 66
INPUT 306 15o 229 165 165
PUF/NUP -110 -150 Q0
FE:SG ENT -12 -12 -12 -12 -12
TO -. -82 -41 -61. -IA . 71
DOS -85 -15 -99 -t -81
NON-SAC -160 C-70 -25 -5
'86TOT -1 15 3 40 1 -
49
,V { - :' - .-
L :
FY 87 ]FY86 INF -- 15 3 40 17
INPUT 3'06 1L.u 229 165 165
UP/NUF' - 1I. ) -15 0
RBSG ENT -- 12 -12 -12 -12 -12
TO B- 1 -57 -2 -57 -16 -56
DOS .--85 -15 -99 -13 -81 jNON--SAC -160 -25 -70 -25 -50
'87TOT -9 -19 -6 -11 -17 1FY 88
FY87 INP -9 -19 -6 -11 -17
INPUT 236 135 29 150 165
PUFP'/NUF' -110 -150
RBSG ENT 24 24 24 24 24
TO - -35 -10 -36--7 -25
DOS -85 -15 -99 -13 -81
NON-SAC -- 160 -25 -70 -25 -50-.)
'88TOT 41 -20 42 _ 16
50
FY 89
FY88 INP 41 -20 42 326
NPUT 306 132 229 15C 165
FUF/NUP -110 -15C)
RBSG ENT
TO B---I -35 -i0 -' _ -25
DOS -85 -15 -99 -13 --81
NON-SAC - 160 -25 -70 -25 f
89TOT 67 -48 72 -70 25
51
I 4,4 .* ' " = , , ," .' -. . . . , , . - ,. , • • ; . X V .. ,
APPEND I X 7.
FB-I1 PROJECTED GAME PLAN
PILOT RAD/NA,'
FY94 INF' -8 -1
I NPUT 14 1.4
RETURNS 26 26
To B-1 -4
DOS -9 -16
NON--SAC -19 -it 1
.....T 0 T C')
FY 01 1-1
FY85 INF' C) 0
INPUT 14 14
RETURNS 18 12
TO B-1 -6 -3
DOS -14 -12
NON--SAC -12 -1,
:36T 0T )
5p
'4.-,
S
:. -,
FY 3387
F --Y,: 36 1 N P ))
I N UT r14 14
RETUJRNS 18 1
TO P-1 -7-4
DOS -14 -1
NON-SAC -15 -10C
'R7TOT C) C
FY 8-9
FY87 INF C) C
I NFUIT 14 :14
RrETURNS1 2
TO B -i -
DOS --14-1
NON-SAC -16 -12
'88TOT C 0
F7Y 39
F Y 138 3 1 F 0
I F4 r.'U" rS 14 14
RETURNS 13 12
TO B"- 1 -2
DOS -14 -12
NON-SAC -16 -12
"89TOT C) C)
54
S- -GLOSSARY'
0 f At ECmdr - Aircraft Commander/Pilot
AF-T - Air Force Institute of Technology
A F MF., 'FORE - Bomber Assignments aranch of HQAFMPC
ASTRA - Air Staff Training Program
ATC -- Air Training Command
* CCTS - Combat Crew Training School/Squadron
,.- Core Requirements - Requirements in the MAJCOM specific, + -t~t~t r-e. (e.g. SAC)
P - Co-p i 1 ot
1Oc)' Date of separation from the Air Force
DS] Defensive Systems Operator
Eco:riomv of scale - Authorizations savings through largerrather than miltiple organizations.
EWO -- Electronic Warfare Officer
EL.)F Electronic Warfare Training
* 0 - First Assignment Instructor Pilot from ATC
Aircrew positions plus flying Squadir+,F, commanders and*:+upor :1 on-, officers (f:i -5).
f " F I s : aI 'Y (,.: a r"
CJame F1.-.in - One ,'ear manning plan for- a specri rated~~nir _ e
H 0FrFiT -. Headquarters Air Force Manpower and Personnel, er
HOSAF - Headquarters Strategic Air Comntnd
05
0
"" CONTINUED'
IDSO - Instructor Defensive Systems Operator
IOSO - Instructor Offensive Systems Operator
IF - Instructor Pilot
MAJCOM Major Command
NUP - Navigator in upgrade to radar navigator
OSO - Offensive Systems Operator
PME - Professional Military Education
PUP . Co-pilot in upgrade to pilot
FPB Ent Rebasing Entitlements - Additional personnelfqgured fofr aircraft rebasing actions.
RN - Radar Navigator
Rated - A pilot or navigator qualified officer not ingrounded status
Rated Supplement - Rated Officers serving in non rated career
fields
R & D - Research and Development
*l SOA - Special Operating Agency
* O5FRF -- Special Officer Personnel Requirements
S taf f - Supervisoi-/o'erlead positions e:C:luding flying55qLdr or',commanders and operations officer's (1-7:7-5)
""-R Total Active Hated Service
Training - Instructor positions plus flying training squadroncomi-iianders and operations officers (13:3-5)
t10
56
:-;'..:. . ;. . ... , .. ... .................... .-.-.. ;.? -.. ,... ... .......... .............. ,....- ... ... -..... .. ......
______________ONTINUED
UJFT -- UndergradUate Flight Training
U'l Undergraduate Nav igator Training
UFPT -- UndergradUate Pilot Training
* 57
FILMED
8-85
* DTIC