Miles 69

This is interesting, by removing Gp/CCs we will remove the requirement for our O-6s to command twice (we are the only service that does that). This will give the USAF more opportunity to develop O-6s. My question is, while developing O-6s is a good thing (aka more staff experience, I know that sounds blasphemous, but, trust me we get our ass handed to us because we as operators do touch n go's on staff and we lose out in the one and 2 circle pentagon fights at the joint level because of it.) but it is at the expense of command experience. Currently, having Gp/CCs stay put for 2 yrs gives the organization continuity and much needed guidance while letting O-6s have the opportunity to lead Sq/CCs. The best WG CCs I've worked with had the opportunity to learn how to lead senior leaders as GP/CCs. We've now taken that away. There are also plenty of span of control questions. in the 80s and early 90s this was the way things were we had a Base Commander (MSG/CC) a DO (OG/CC) and a DM (MXG/CC). I assume the old Gp Staff Jobs (mainly Ops and Mx Stan Eval) will fall under the new COS position or under the DO/DM position? To me this looks like the COS position will get all the stray cats that were at the group, and all of Wing Staff. And according to this article some Intel and Comm bubbas. What's there role, is it to be the shit filter from the MAJCOM A2 and A6 and I guess they'll come out of hide (aka OSS and Comm Sq losing bodies). This is has similarities to an Army BCT. As they have lettered staffs. But they fight and deploy as a BCT so that's needed. We don't as a wing, even though the announcement said this setup will enable the WG/CC to integrate better down range (that's not gonna happen.)

IDE/SDE in residence

So your really talking about O-4s and the avg promotion rate to Maj from 1989-2013 was 89% so you've got to really be an unlucky jet not to make Maj (not saying it doesn't happen, I know some good dudes that got passed over but it wasn't because they didn't do the Christmas Party), so your real beef is IDE. Because if you get IDE you will make O-5 and if you get SDE you make O-6. And Yes I agree the DT boards should pick IDE selects. If I was king you wouldn't be allowed to be selected for IDE off of your Majs board. If you think about it 20-25 % of Capts that get selected for Maj are also getting selected for LT COL (promotion rate to Lt Col is 99% if you are an in res IDE grad) based off of 9 yrs of work and if they are rated their people leadership resume isn't that thick. Additionally some of those guys then throttle back as a Maj cause they know they've got it made to Lt Col.

Multiple A1 studies have been done on whether there should be separate promotion boards (I actually had to do one while I was on staff), the latest one I remember was a RAND study that the AF requested to find out why RPA pilots were not getting promoted, one of the factors was because they were unable to go to SOS due to mission demand and they were penalized on their O-4 Board for not completing SOS. So why not have separate boards Here's why: The analysis always proves that rated officers would actually fare worse at O-5 and O-6 if you had separate promotion boards because, by-law you can never promote higher than your actual requirement and if you have separate promotion boards then aviators could only get promoted based on the requirement for rated officers for example, from the study I lead, the requirement for Rated O-6s in FY-12 was 33% and support was 54 % but Rated bubbas were promoted at rate of 47% (more than the requirement). If you had separate boards Rated O-6s could only be promoted at a rate of 33%. Consequently, BPZ is far worse from 1998-2012 Rated officers made up only 37% of the Officer force but they averaged way over 50% of the BPZ selects.

Sorry for the long post but as the creator/owner of this data I thought it was my place to explain what the purpose of these slides and what’s the desired effect. BLUF: The intent of these slides is so I can show the TX, SD, CA, OK congressional delegation, the great work we are doing and beg and plead for more money. These are programmatic slides the staff uses to present to pencil pushing number crunchers who only care about the bottom line. Congress often asks, how much do you cost me and what are your results? Right or wrong, these slides are examples of how we on the staff translate combat airpower into dollars. Absolutely they are skewed to make the Bone look good. Almost every MDS PEM on the staff has slides like these, they range from $/DPI based on certain weapons (bomber guys use these) to Investment $ / combat sortie usage (A-10 guys use these). Viper and Strikes don’t need slides because everyone up on the hill loves them already. So when you start to operationalize these slides by asking about sortie duration, loiter time and what type of weapon is needed to create the desired effect, you can easily shoot holes in them. Remember that’s not the intent of the slide. The only true telling indicator in this data is the AFTOC CPFH. Most people quote CPFH #s from AFI 65-503, those numbers are much less because they do not include some Depot Level Repair or contractor logistic support (LO platforms live and die off of this). Basically the old school CPFH #’s you’ve heard all of your life are basically reimbursement costs, i.e what we’d charge Paramount for using CAF platforms in a new movie. AFTOC data is the true indicator. With regards to your original argument; will the LRS-B be cheap, and what will go to the bone yard 1st the Bone or the Buff? Continue to speculate, but I’ll tell you this, if sequestration happens, it won’t matter because your debate will be the equivalent of just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

There is a massive shortage of Test WSOs at EDW right now. I'd get with Gyro and ask them if you are eligible and what are your chances. If you don't know who Gyro is, Lost or G-Dot can point you in the right direction.