THE 24 DREW PER PA S Blunting the Spear Why Good People Get Out Brian T. Stahl Lieutenant Colonel, USAF Air University Steven L. Kwast, Lieutenant General, Commander and President School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Thomas D. McCarthy, Colonel, PhD, Commandant and Dean AIR UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIR AND SPACE STUDIES Blunting the Spear Why Good People Get Out Brian T. Stahl Lieutenant Colonel, USAF Drew Paper No. 24 Air University Press Air Force Research Institute Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama Project Editor Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jeanne K. Shamburger Stahl, Brian T., 1978– Copy Editor Blunting the spear : why good people get out / Brian T. Stahl, Sandi Davis Lieutenant Colonel, USAF. pages cm. — (Drew paper, ISSN 1941-3785 ; no. 24) Cover Art, Book Design, and Illustrations Includes bibliographical references. Daniel Armstrong ISBN 978-1-58566-237-1 Composition and Prepress Production 1. United States. Air Force—Recruiting, enlistment, etc. 2. Air Vivian D. O’Neal pilots, Military—Salaries, etc.—United States. I. Title. II. Title: Print Preparation and Distribution Why good people get out. Diane Clark UG883.S73 2014 358.4'1114—dc23 2014038721 AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Published by Air University Press in March 2015 AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS Director and Publisher Allen G. Peck Editor in Chief Oreste M. Johnson Managing Editor Demorah Hayes Design and Production Manager Cheryl King Air University Press 155 N. Twining St., Bldg. 693 Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6026 [email protected] http://aupress.au.af.mil/ Disclaimer http://afri.au.af.mil/ Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily repre- sent the official policy or position of the organizations with which they are associated or the views of the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, Air Force Research Institute, Air University, United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. This publication is cleared for public release and unlimited distribution. AFRI This Drew Paper and others in the series are available electronically Air Force Research Institute at the AU Press website: http://aupress.au.af.mil. ii The Drew Papers The Drew Papers are award-winning master’s theses selected for publica- tion by the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (SAASS), Maxwell AFB, Alabama. This series of papers commemorates the distinguished career of Col Dennis “Denny” Drew, USAF, retired. In 30 years at Air University, Colonel Drew served on the Air Command and Staff College faculty, directed the Airpower Research Institute, and served as dean, associate dean, and pro- fessor of military strategy at SAASS. Colonel Drew is one of the Air Force’s most extensively published authors and an international speaker in high demand. He has lectured to over 100,000 students at Air University as well as to foreign military audiences. In 1985 he received the Muir S. Fairchild Award for outstanding contributions to Air University. In 2003 Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands made him a Knight in the Order of Orange-Nassau for his con- tributions to education in the Royal Netherlands Air Force. The Drew Papers are dedicated to promoting the understanding of air and space power theory and application. These studies are published by the Air University Press and broadly distributed throughout the US Air Force, the Department of Defense, and other governmental organizations, as well as to leading scholars, selected institutions of higher learning, public-policy insti- tutes, and the media. iii Please send inquiries or comments to Commandant and Dean School of Advanced Air and Space Studies 125 Chennault Circle Maxwell AFB, AL 36112 Tel: (334) 953-5155 DSN: 493-5155 [email protected] iv Contents List of Illustrations vii Foreword ix About the Author xi Acknowledgments xiii Abstract xv 1 Introduction: Dear Boss 1 Overview 5 Problem and Hypothesis Statements 7 Objectives 8 Methodology 9 2 Rightsizing and Requirements Explained 13 Budgeting and Planning Processes 13 Requirements and Challenges 16 What Do the “Best” Look Like? 21 Methods of Retention 24 Retention since 2000 29 Environmental Influences 31 Summary 32 3 The Fighter Community 37 Is There a Retention Problem in the Fighter Community? 39 What Are the Risks for the Fighter Community? 47 Findings and Summary for the Fighter Pilot Community 48 4 The Bomber Community 55 Is There a Retention Problem in the Bomber Community? 56 What Are the Risks for the Bomber Community? 65 Findings and Summary for the Bomber Pilot Community 67 5 The Remotely Piloted Aircraft Community 75 Is There a Retention Problem in the RPA Community? 78 What Are the Risks for the RPA Community? 86 Findings and Summary for the RPA Pilot Community 88 v CONTENTS 6 Synthesis and Statistical Results 95 7 Conclusions and Recommendations 105 Summary 105 Air Force 107 Combat Air Forces 111 Fighter Community 113 Bomber Community 115 RPA Community 117 Epilogue 121 Appendix A Capt Ron Keys’s Dear Boss Letter 125 Appendix B 2009 Dear Boss Letter 129 Appendix C Gen Mark Welsh’s E-mail to USAFE Fighter Pilots 137 Appendix D Pilot Retention Survey 139 Appendix E Pilot Retention Survey Solicitation E-mail 143 Abbreviations 145 Bibliography 149 vi CONTENTS Illustrations Figure 1 Communities of interest 6 2 Influential variables 8 3 Influential variables for the fighter community 9 4 Influential variables for the fighter community with solutions 10 5 Aviator career incentive pay scheduling 26 6 Aviation continuation pay take rates 30 7 Pilot losses 30 8 Fighter pilot losses 40 9 Fighter pilot ACP take rates 41 10 Bomber pilot losses 57 11 Bomber pilot ACP take rates 58 12 Increased ACP payout effect on retention 64 13 Effect of airline hiring on ACP take rates 65 14 Projected distribution of UAS demographics 79 15 RPA pilot ACP take rates 80 Table 1 Required flying hours for “experienced” qualification by community 18 2 Example of flying hours required for upgrades 20 3 WIC entry requirements by community 22 4 Total survey solicitations/responses by MWS and PME school 39 5 ACP take rate comparison between all rated communities and the fighter community 42 6 ACP take rate comparison between all rated communities and fighter major weapon systems 42 7 Fighter pilot retention variables 44 8 Fighter synthesis 49 vii CONTENTS Table 9 ACP take rate comparison between all rated communities and the bomber pilot community 59 10 ACP take rate comparison between all rated communities and bomber major weapons systems 60 11 Bomber pilot retention variables 61 12 Bomber synthesis 67 13 ACP take rate comparison between all rated communities and the RPA community 81 14 ACP take rate comparison between all rated communities and individual RPA systems 82 15 RPA pilot retention variables 83 16 RPA synthesis 88 17 Univariate test comparing mean scores on pilot retention for fighter, bomber, and RPA communities 95 18 Pairwise comparison of pilot responses to community retention problems 96 19 Synthesis of influential variables among fighter, bomber, and RPA communities 97 20 Test of between-subjects effects by community and money/ACP 98 21 Pairwise comparison by community and money/ACP 99 22 Test of between-subjects effects on the best rated officers leaving active duty 100 23 Correlation of best leaving active duty 100 24 Senior leader understanding of retention problem 101 25 Increased understanding of retention and its impact on future Air Force leadership 102 26 Univariate test comparing influential variables over time 102 27 Pairwise comparison of responses pertaining to when the best pilots decide to leave compared to ADSC completion 103 28 Total survey solicitations/responses by MWS and PME school 106 29 Synthesis of influential variables among fighter, bomber, and RPA communities 108 viii Foreword The Air Force loves to measure “stuff”; however, the “stuff” that gets mea- sured does not always yield the information required for sound decision mak- ing. For example, the Air Force has historically chosen to reduce pilot short- ages by using longer active duty service commitments and bonus payments. No one, however, questioned the effectiveness of this approach to see if it ac- tually addressed the reasons pilots separated from the Air Force—no one, that is, until now. In this study, Lt Col Brian Stahl questions this approach by asking why many of the best aviators in the Air Force separate before they become eligible for retirement. He challenges the “common sense wisdom” of the Air Force by questioning the idea that one need only throw money at the problem to fix it. In doing so, he forced me to recall the adage oft attributed to Ben Franklin that “nothing is so uncommon as common sense.” His challenge proves to be a worthy one. Using a combination of rated-officer retention reports, survey data, and interviews, he addressed three key issues in his research. First, he asked if there really was a retention problem in the combat air forces (CAF). Next, he wanted to know what risks were associated with poor retention in the CAF. Finally, he sought solutions the Air Force could employ if indeed retention was a problem. His study examined three pilot groups in the CAF: fighters, bombers, and remotely piloted aircraft (RPA). His surveys and interviews ex- panded the retention discussion beyond compensation issues and included Air Force identity, promotion and recognition, family/family stability, opera- tions tempo, and “others.” He found that the lack of exit and retention surveys that explored a range of issues at different times in a rated officer’s career—not just at separation— gave the Air Force an incomplete understanding of retention issues, both in terms of what those issues were and when they became problems.