Leaderboard

If I can't trust a guy to keep his hands out of his pockets, how can I trust the same guy to get bombs on target? Or turn the key in the silo when ordered? Or make a patty melt correctly at the chow hall? Or properly scan an ID at the gate? Or create a CBT correctly? Or install a flight control component correctly? Or monitor a satellite orbit? Or any other number of critical life or death functions worldwide that would be placed in immediate jeopardy and instant peril......all due to one singular guy on the other side of the planet in the middle of nowhere, who isn't able to keep his hands out of his pockets? Luckily, he was caught in time. And the aforementioned duties, as well as a host of others, were saved just in the nick of time; and can continue to operate at their robust pace. We can't afford to let ourselves get this close to the brink again. This is how wars start.

Wow... People commenting on the article are saying what a great leader he was. Can't be that great of a leader if he is blaming "the silent airman" for not speaking up as the reason he had to resign. Dear Col Stanley and other senior managers lurking around, people don't speak up because: 1. They don't trust that you care. 2. They don't trust that you will do the right thing based on the environment you have fostered. 3. # 1 & 2 Wow, just wow. Good guy lost? And the "movie" is over? Whatever dude, get over yourself.

News Commentary: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/25/sailors-leaving-navy-over-stress-on-social-issues-/#ixzz2xAoI57ef https://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/03/26/admiral_we_need_to_talk_officers_white_paper_on_jos_jumping_ship_warns_navys_leader Original USNI Article: https://blog.usni.org/2014/03/20/keep-a-weather-eye-on-the-horizon-a-navy-officer-retention-study The abstract: My highlights: His recommendations follow and are essentially the inverse of the warnings listed above. Foster trust through better and more honest communications, re-instate bonuses for critical career fields/assignments, shifting focus away from administrivia/queep towards the mission, improve transparency and usability of personnel systems, and others. He also recommends some changes to personnel processes regarding promotion and command that I believe are specific to the Navy. In all, this was one of the best papers I've ever read on the topic. You could read the whole thing if you want, but it's about 20 pages, and I think the excerpts above capture everything relevant to the AF.

I am at my wits end.....this is total ######ing bullshit.....make a goddamn decision and let us all know one way or the other. The Air Force leaders and I use that term very loosely owe that to us. I would never want to go to war with any of these incompetent POS we have as "leaders"......they would get us killed. Sorry for the rant but enough is ######ing enough already!!!

How could they not hate us, all us mission types do is call with our "questions" seeking "answers." The unmitigated audacity of us!

Don't ever go to Vegas...

The best part of the CBM MPF is how they handle every PCS like it's the first one they've ever seen... At a base that PCSs 450+ students/year

Well, being accused of trafficking automatic weapons and missiles from Islamic groups in the Pacific is kind of a big deal! Getting rid of an anti-rights politician and guy who is trying to bring missile launchers into the US sounds like 2 wins for the price of 1.

Ding dong the witch is dead! Edit: It's a bloodbath over here. Four Sq/CCs, two DOs, Chief of OGV, plus the OG/CC and CD are going to be off the base within the next 48 hours. Around 85 missileers will face NJP with 5 or so going to court martial. Apparently there were missile flight commanders that had emails direct from the OG/CC saying that they would do whatever was required to score 100% on their testing. A lot of changes are going to be driven by this. Some of the top ones on Alston's list are the establishment of an aircrew style eval process (17-mo cycle, MQF closed book, and open book testing), and the establishment of a Helo OG. This would put the helo squadrons under an aviation leadership instead of the missile OGs. Each of the three helo squadrons would be OPCON and ADCON to this OG at FE Warren and Minot/Malmstrom would be GSUs. Hopefully this drives some change in the missile wings for the better.

I believe that my esteemed colleague of the tiny Cessna flying persuasion is trying to say that our senior managers have failed utterly at this program so far. Does anyone know for sure that they're not going to be told by some AFPC E-5/GS-7 that they're somehow ineligible? Does anybody know what criteria they're going to use in order to select from among those eligible? Does anyone know when or how they'll find out about the next several years of their life? Without being able to answer these reasonable and essential questions, we are nowhere after three months. As we stumble around in the dark as effectively as we can, let's not forget it's pathetic that there is no light.

And here's the ever-so-inspiring resignation letter from the wing commander: https://timesfreepress.com/news/2014/mar/27/nuke-missile-base-commanders-resignation-letter/ In classic missile fashion, instead of taking personal responsibility, he blames the crew force: One would think the "leadership team" would be able to proactively ID and fix problems within their own wing without a BRAA point-out from a mystical "silent Airman," but I guess it's the crew force's fault for not diming themselves out. And the "I told you so" part. The whole letter sounds more like one final admonishment from the WG/CC instead of a mea culpa.

From OR: "I want to thank you for your interest in the Oregon Air National Guard (ORANG). We are extremely excited about the quality and quantity of candidates who applied for this year’s UPT board. Unfortunately, we need to postpone this year’s UPT board until the fall of 2014. This recent decision was based on communication with the National Guard Bureau, Air Force Air Combat Command and the F-15 Replacement Training Unit. ORANG had anticipated sending two individuals to UPT in the spring of 2015. Now the earliest we can expect a class date is the fall of 2016 (over a one-year delay). In light of this information, we do not feel it is appropriate to offer someone a UPT slot this spring and then keep them “in limbo” for well over two years. The exact date of our fall 2014 UPT board is being deliberated. I thank you for the time and effort put into preparing your UPT package. Your application will be added to our master data base, and will be considered for a UPT board this fall. If you need to submit more current information, we will gladly accept updates to your application. Please monitor our website for the most current information, and thank you for your interest in the Oregon Air National Guard"

I assume CAF is Conventional Air Force? Interesting, I bet that actually works out nice since you probably get a bit more flight time in those first three years and you'd be on AD pay. I bet positions like that are a bit more rare considering that the unit has to wait quite a bit longer to get some return on their investment.

Or draft, coordinate, and publish a PSDM correctly?

Duh, he can't do any of those things. They all require hands, which we said were in his pocket. You can't turn the key with your hands in your pocket. Case closed!

This coupled with the video that Liquid posted in the other thread, specifically about the idea of making your subordinates feel safe, seems to be a move in the right direction? Is there any review taking place at the other bases? Especially in light of the.. creative tools used to pass inspections? Also, in light of this Will there be any repercussions to those "leaders" who came before the current fall-guys? Those things happen, then we'll know the AF is serious. Otherwise.. same old song and dance.

Well, at least they have tater tots!

Aggressors, I doubt it. Training units do, you go to another unit for seasoning (3+) years then back to the training unit.

The deferential treatment that AF leaders get has always baffled me. It seems like when a guy pins on O-6 he becomes a demi-god with respect to how the underlings treat him. It only perpetuates the Emperor with no clothes syndrome. The O-6's I most respect as people were down to earth and didn't want any of the pomp and circumstance. One told me if I ever told MX that an O-6 was flying again and had the glad hand parade meet him at the aircraft he'd Q-3 me. Another deployed as a squadron commander just because he wanted to deploy with the boys again and give his commanders a break, same guy would reply to a squadron all email to mock me about my LT choice to spend a stupid amount of money on car stereo equipment that I was trying to sell. He would also attend all naming ceremonies and toss out horrible names with the best of em. One AFSOC General would swing by the Pedro compound just to hang with the 60 guys and swap war stories because he used to fly the same bird. Why are guys like this handed a posse of tag alongs based on protocol, and why does the system promote the pomp? Our leaders should be approachable people, if an O-6 expects different treatment based on his/her exalted rank, something is wrong. I would argue that treatment should make any normal person uncomfortable, if it doesn't that person has failed as a leader.

My original thought was that you're a fvcking idiot, but then I thought about you're last comment. Let's not get into a petty, ego-fueled name calling internet argument. There's no winners there, only losers. So lets breakdown the original post by Buddy Spike and then the follow up comment by HeloDude. Some chick gets filmed potentially putting her baby in harms way because she perceived a state of inadequate respect. Regardless of your personal biases or political leanings, I think everyone can agree that she put her own selfish interests far above those of her child. A major cultural figure recent was caught on camera misspelling the title of an iconic piece of modern music. One in which the title is spelled out as a part of the chorus. One on which said major cultural figure is "renown" for his oratory skills. It's a humorous counterpoint to the fact he speaks in public everyday and should be more comfortable doing so. In relation to the BuddySpike's post, I believe that HeloDude was make the joke that the mother was looking for RSPECT instead of RESPECT. He made a relevant, topical comment on the original post with a widely televised verbal SNAFU. I don't believe there was anything inherently racist in such an action. If it was a video of #43 making one of his numerous 'mis-speaks', it would have been just as on point and humorous. By using the racism charge at the drop of a hat, it weakens the impact it makes, a la crying wolf. Let's save the racism card for actual racism and not blow this out of proportion.

Fulda Gap in the era of Power Point.... Russians will be having Crepes in Paris before we get the damn slides for the counter attack AMB revised for the 7th time. The XO says we didn't use the Brigade standard format.

NNNERRRRRRRRRRRDS!!!!

You realize how many 12X stereotypes you just validated here, yes...?

It's not about how much money you save the DOD, how many Airmen you prosecute for sexual assault, or how many suicide attempts you prevent. While those, and many other goals are worthy of pursuing, they should be pursued because they enhance warfighting capabilities, not because they are the goal in and of themselves. The view from the trenches is that too many leaders have lost the forest through the trees and have become obsessed with chasing whatever metric happens to be hot right now. If we would just focus on the mission, all of the things that are important to mission accomplishment will become obvious, and all of the things that aren't will fade into the background.

Just as I would never trivialize the sacrifices or challenges our airmen faced in Vietnam or WWII, I would expect our officers to not trivialize the sacrifices and challenges our military has faced since 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Air Force crews have not experienced anywhere near the losses we did in previous wars, but our military has suffered sufficient losses to not be marginalized by reminiscing of better times when fighter pilots felt more appreciated. We shouldn't hope for the times when air to air combat and incredible losses resulting from ground to air fires define our Air Force's worth, contribution and legacy. We should be proud of the asymmetrical advantage we provide our nation as we engage this enemy during this time. And we should be very careful about marginalizing our military's most recent combat experiences to our joint partners. Our Air Force exists today, with significant investment of taxpayer dollars, so we don't have to experience the challenges and losses that we experienced in WWII and Vietnam. It is foolish to wish for "real air combat" and losses to fix our problems and define our worth. My Dad flew Huey gunships during two tours in Vietnam and my grandfather flew B-17s in Europe. There was plenty of admin bullshit and useless bureaucracy then. Robin Olds rebelled against the same. Don't view the past through rose colored glasses and think we are so much worse than we were in the good old days when aircraft were shot down, ground forced needed Beyer air support and morale was high. Especially when it pisses off those who sacrifice, kill and serve.

I agree with you that the AF mission in GWOT is vital and not without risk. I've been on a few sporty ones myself both in Iraq and Afghanistan, but always in the mighty Viper and not in the C model as you assume. Did you see a photo of me in Cosmo or something? Combat loss = directly attributable to the enemy (shot down, crashed while engaging enemy) Number of manned aircraft combat losses in GWOT 2001-2008 = 3 (1 x A-10, 1 x F-16, 1 x MH-53). Not sure how many we've lost '09-present but I'm pretty sure there's a couple more. Source: https://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/January%202009/0109world.aspx Number of manned aircraft combat losses in Vietnam 1964-1973 = 2,251 Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War Would you really look a Thud or Jolly Green driver from 'Nam in the eye and tell him your missions during GWOT were "intense"? I wouldn't. Combat, real combat, hardens a fighting force and makes it very focused on just one thing: killing the enemy. We are not, despite your objections to the contrary, engaged in this type of combat, nor are we focused on killing the enemy. The Air Force is focused on SAPR, diversity, inclusion, CBTs, SOS, masters degrees, VSP, BRAC, and sequestration. Seriously, go to www.af.mil and you'll see what we're focused on. It's going to take real vision and leadership to regain our fighting focus. Gen. Welsh may be able to swing the pendulum a bit, but he's one of the few that get it and he's having to fight his own people to get it done. I'm incredibly proud to be in the Air Force. But if we're not careful the next war may catch us with our pants down.

Nothing I have said trivializes any of our service, including my own. I'm quite proud of it, actually. My concern is the prevention of losses in the next major conflict. Since we don't have the tempering process of intense combat to keep us focused, we will need bold, forceful leadership to cut through the bullshit that has filled the vacuum during 10+ years of a low-intensity conflict and keep us focused on fighting and winning the next war. Right now we are failing at that, miserably. If you can't see the bullshit that I speak of, perhaps it is you that is wearing the rose-colored glasses.

Hi. I'm back. Those piss drunk cox in my FSS forwarded my a TERA approval for a TSgt Barbarosa. What a goat rope. Man, these dudes are PISSING ME OFF. F U C K !!!!