Air Force needs more fighter pilots for more airpower, report says
A Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies report released this month examining the service's 'pilot crisis' recommends the Air Force grow and train its active component combat air forces, retain experienced pilots in the Air Force reserve component — such as the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve — and increase the production of fighter aircraft to bolster its battle capabilities.
The think tank warned of a potential future in which the service is unable to meet the demands of warfare due to pilot shortages and airmen's inability to effectively engage in aerial combat.
'Experienced pilots have better survivability rates and mission outcomes in combat and confer those benefits to their less experienced wingmen,' the report said. 'The Air Force's combat pilot experience levels continue to drop as the service suffers from ongoing budget-driven force cuts and reduces opportunities that are essential to pilot career progression.'
One source of the pitfall is the overall divesting of the service's infrastructure and force structure, the report said.
In 2024, the service fell short of its airmen goal by nearly 1,850 pilots. Of those positions that needed to be filled, 1,142 were fighter pilot billets.
Currently, the number of pilot retirements outnumber the number of recruits, according to the report.
However, these manpower struggles aren't new for the Air Force.
The service has encountered difficulty fulfilling pilot positions over the last few years for a myriad of reasons, including military flight instructor shortages and a reduced fleet, Air Force Times previously reported.
Perennial pilot paucity puts Air Force in precarious position
The institute also called for an increase in the production rate of fighter aircraft, such as the F-35A and F-15EX, as an influx of jets means more training opportunities for fighter pilots.
'The U.S. Air Force's combat aircraft inventory is the smallest that it has ever been in its history,' the report said.
In 2024, there were roughly 160 bombers and over 2,000 fighter aircraft in the fleet. By comparison, the report states, there were 422 bombers and over 4,000 fighter aircraft during the Cold War. The report attributed the decline to infrastructure divestment.
The service's fleet is also aging, as each aircraft's age averages between 30 and 50 years old, with many lacking the attributes and capabilities necessary for peer-level conflicts, according to the report.
Further, collaborative combat aircraft, or unmanned aerial vehicles that utilize artificial intelligence, have raised questions about what the future of aerial combat will look like, as well as what shifts in technology and resources are necessary to accomplish evolving war fighting goals. But the report argues autonomous capabilities are unproven and cannot replace human fighter pilots in combat situations, even casting doubt on AI's decision-making abilities.
'Despite advances in artificial intelligence, autonomy will continue to have limitations and vulnerabilities that humans do not share — namely, the ability to decide and operate appropriately when presented with novel, unexpected, surprising, or ambiguous data,' the report said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
10 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Land mines, a Cold War horror, could return to fortify Europe's borders
Recent moves by Poland, the three Baltic states and Finland — and a vow by President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine — to quit a mine ban treaty that came into force in 1999 won't result in any immediate surge in the use of antipersonnel mines. Formally leaving the treaty is a six-month process. But the recent rush of countries rejecting a pillar of the post-Cold War order has outraged antimine campaigners. Advertisement 'We are furious with these countries,' said Tamar Gabelnick, director of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which in 1997 won a Nobel Peace Prize for its work clearing antipersonnel weapons and its role as the driving force behind the Mine Ban Treaty, known as the Ottawa Convention. 'They know full well that this will do nothing to help them against Russia,' Gabelnick said, dismissing a retreat from the global accord as 'just political games' by officials trying to present themselves as defenders of national security. Advertisement Senior military officials in at least three of the five countries whose parliaments recently voted to withdraw from the treaty have said in the past they saw little military utility in reviving antipersonnel mines. The weapons mostly kill civilians and offer limited defense against modern mechanized armies. The war in Ukraine 'changed everything,' said Veronika Honkasalo, a left-wing member of the Finnish parliament who is opposed to leaving the treaty, a move supported by an overwhelming majority of her fellow legislators in a recent vote. Because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, she added, 'people got really scared because we have a 1,300-kilometer border with Russia and long history of war with our neighbor.' Of the European countries that share a land border with Russia, only Norway has stayed steadfast in its commitment to the Mine Ban Treaty. The treaty, according to the United Nations, led to the destruction of more than 55 million antipersonnel mines. The weapons were widely used in the Cold War era, in conflicts in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Myanmar, and many other countries, but continued to kill people long after fighting ended. Eighty percent of the casualties from antipersonnel mines are civilians, many of them children, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which estimates that the number of people killed or maimed each year has fallen to around 3,500 from more than 20,000 over the last two decades. 'It is a horrible weapon,' Honkasalo said. Russia, the United States, China, and a few other countries never signed up to the Ottawa Convention, but more than 160 others did. Advertisement Mary Wareham, a campaigner against antipersonnel mines who was involved in treaty negotiations in the 1990s, said the announced departures were a setback after decades of work to limit civilian casualties. They also 'set a terrible precedent,' she added, for the stability of a vast edifice of international law governing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the conduct of war itself. 'Once an idea gets going it picks up steam,' said Wareham, who is the deputy director of the crisis, conflict and arms division at Human Rights Watch. 'Where does it stop?' The push by countries near Russia to leave the treaty started last year after a visit to Ukraine by Laurynas Kasciunas, then the defense minister of Lithuania. Told by Ukrainian military officers that the ban on antipersonnel mines made it difficult to hold back Russian troops, he called for a review of their use by Baltic states. 'I understand the concerns about antipersonnel mines — they've caused immense suffering in many places,' he said in an interview. But, Kasciunas added, claims that they are of little military use are untrue. 'They do not directly stop a mechanized division, but they force the enemy to either take significant risks or commit time and resources to clearing operations,' he said. Russia's widespread use of antipersonnel mines played a significant in role in blunting a major Ukrainian offensive in 2023. In March, the defense ministers of the three Baltic states and Poland, all members of NATO, said their countries needed to pull out of the mine ban accord because 'military threats to NATO member states bordering Russia and Belarus have significantly increased.' Finland said in April that it, too, wanted out. Advertisement Ukraine, which formally joined the treaty in 2006, initially saw little reason to revive the use of antipersonnel mines. But, after its failed 2023 offensive and Russia's increasing reliance on foot soldiers to lead assaults, it decided they were needed. In an early blow to the treaty, the Biden administration last year approved supplying Ukraine with American antipersonnel mines. Zelensky this month announced he had signed a decree to withdraw Ukraine from the Ottawa Convention because Russia, never a party to the treaty, was 'using antipersonnel mines with utmost cynicism.' This article originally appeared in .
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ford's Intensifying Recall Crisis: A Red Flag for Investors?
U.S. legacy automaker Ford F is racking up recalls at a troubling pace in 2025, raising serious concerns about quality control and rising costs. In just the first five months of the year, Ford issued 81 recalls, exceeding the 67 recalls logged in all of 2024. These actions have impacted over 4 million vehicles, and notably, 80 of them required physical inspections or repairs, as over-the-air updates weren't enough, pointing to deeper quality and design flaws. June was no different, and this month has again brought quality issues that are hard to ignore. At this rate, Ford is on track to become the most recall-prone automaker in the United States this year. The most recent recall involves more than 200,000 vehicles due to a rearview camera failure. A software malfunction can cause the camera to show a blank or frozen image, increasing the risk of crashes. The recall spans a wide range of models—including Explorer, Maverick, Mustang, F-150, and Transit Connect—built between 2018 and 2024. That's just one of the many recalls of late. Recently, it also issued a recall for five units of the 2025 F-150 Lightning due to a brake fluid leak. Late last month, Ford recalled 130,000 Lincoln Aviator SUVs over parts that could detach while announcement came just days after a separate Ford recall was reported by the NHTSA. Ford had recalled 197,000 Mustang Mach-Es due to a rear seat entrapment risk. While Ford is leading the recall count, other auto biggies like General Motors GM and Nissan Motor NSANY have faced issues too—but not on the same scale. Ford's closest peer, General Motors, recently recalled 40,000+ Chevrolet Blazer EVs over potential rear brake wiring corrosion. General Motors issued a recall for airbag inflator defects in several Sierra and Silverado models, but the total impact was under 2,000 vehicles. Japan's Nissan issued a major recall involving models like the Rogue, Altima, and Infiniti QX50 due to engine bearing defects that could lead to engine failure. Still, the total volume and frequency of recalls at Nissan are far below Ford's 2025 numbers so far. While auto giants are facing recall issues, Ford is on a completely different level. And that's what investors need to be paying attention to. Recalls aren't just bad press—they're expensive. From repair logistics and parts replacement to labor costs and dealership reimbursements, each recall eats into margins. Ford has already warned of over $5 billion in losses this year from its EV division. Now, it's also staring down a mountain of potential warranty and recall-related expenses, which could put pressure on its financials even further. Last year, Ford struggled with warranty costs and hoped 2025 would bring relief. Instead, the quality perception around the brand is deteriorating. If these trends continue, Ford risks losing both market share and consumer trust. What It Means for Ford Stock Ford is already under pressure—from EV transition costs to tariff risks—and now, its growing recall count is adding to the strain. While the company continues to roll out new models, those launches risk being overshadowed by ongoing quality concerns. For investors, this isn't just another bump in the road. If Ford can't address these reliability issues soon, the damage may extend beyond margins—it could erode long-term confidence in the brand. Over the past year, shares of Ford have lost around 10% over the past year, underperforming the industry. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research From a valuation standpoint, F trades at a forward price-to-sales ratio of 0.29, way lower than the industry. It carries a Value Score of A. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Take a look at how Ford's EPS estimates have been revised over the past 60 days. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Ford currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Ford Motor Company (F) : Free Stock Analysis Report Nissan Motor Co. (NSANY) : Free Stock Analysis Report General Motors Company (GM) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Miami Herald
40 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Ford Ends Employee Pricing But Launches Aggressive New Incentives for July
As Americans braced for the worst-case scenario in light of President Trump's 25% tariffs on foreign auto imports, Ford announced a new promotional campaign called "From America, For America" aimed at alleviating some of the fears that would have kept once-eager car buyers from purchasing new cars. While other automakers like Hyundai, Genesis, and Nissan sent letters to dealers and/or launched programs that promised their dealers and customers that their vehicles' MSRPs would not increase until June, Ford did something slightly different. The Dearborn-based automaker not only bolstered its homegrown, "made-in-America" image by reaffirming its manufacturing roots, but also introduced an employee pricing program that proved to be popular with its buyers. Following three months of employee pricing discounts, Ford is entering the third quarter and the second half of 2025 with a bang, as it introduces a new pricing scheme to attract value-conscious buyers to the beacon of the Blue Oval. In an announcement on July 8, the automaker said that in place of the employee pricing program, it will follow up by offering no-interest financing for 48 months, with no money down and no payments required for the first 90 days on most Ford and Lincoln cars. In a blog post on Ford's website, Rob Kaffl, Ford's director of U.S. sales and dealer relations, said that the company came up with the program after hearing from its dealers that "more customers could benefit if we could reduce the upfront, out-of-pocket expense to buy or lease a vehicle," adding that other everyday expenses are disincentivizing buyers from a new set of wheels. "Many families have seen their savings go toward higher mortgage rates and summer travel costs," he said. "They want a new vehicle but also want options that allow them to forgo an upfront down payment." The "0-0-0 summer sales event," as Ford calls it, begins on July 8 and follows a very successful sales program for the automaker. According to newly released Ford sales data, the employee pricing campaign has successfully gotten more people into new vehicles. Year-over-year sales of Ford and Lincoln vehicles shot up by 14% in Q2 2025, while their market share jumped by 1.8 percentage points. In a statement on July 1, Ford said sales in the second quarter were bolstered by strong pickup and hybrid sales, even as EV sales took a 31% dip. According to the automaker, Q2 2025 was the best second quarter for the ever-popular F-series truck since 2019, while its smaller brother, the Maverick, saw its best sales quarter since its 2021 debut. "We blew the doors off the overall industry with our second-quarter sales," Andrew Frick, president of Ford Blue and Model e, said in a statement. "Customers continue appreciating our broad powertrain choices [...] and our Ford Motor Company: From America, For America commitment." It should be said that the fine print does contain some potential deal-breaking caveats that could drive some buyers away from taking potential purchasing actions. They include the fact that the Triple Zero deal is excluded from 2024 model year Ford Raptor vehicles, Maverick, Ranger, non-ICE versions of the Transit, non-XL Super Duty pickups, F-150 Lightning, and Mustang Mach-E. Additionally, the Triple Zero deal is not eligible to be used on 2025 model year Ford Raptor vehicles, Maverick, Ranger, Transit, Super Duty, and popular cars, including the Bronco Sport, Bronco, Expedition, and the Lincoln Navigator. Not only does Ford state that buyers are responsible for tax, title, license, and dealer fees, but they also mention that "Not all buyers will qualify" for the advertised Triple Zero deal. This is important to note, as data from Edmunds states that 0% finance deals are incredibly rare, accounting for just 0.9% of new-vehicle loans in Q2 2025, the lowest share Edmunds recorded since 2004, and down from 1% in Q1 2025 and 2.9% in Q2 2024. However, despite this, Ford's action shows that it is willing to work to make its vehicles more accessible to buyers, as affordability will become more of a consideration going into the second half of the year. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
