Lord Ratner

Wait till you're a two-year captain and do the ACSC online masters program Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I am. Not deployed, just stationed overseas. Others have done it. If your deployed there's even less uncertainty, but the regulation is fairly straight forward.

I assume you're referring to my MC-12 time (were you there when I was? ). I loved what we did there. The direct support to the ground pounders, be it convoy overwatch or more direct support during hostilities, was amazingly rewarding. Way more of a "I'm part of the fight" feel than my time as a FAIP or tanker pilot. But while the individual experience of the MC-12 was very rewarding, I can't say it did much for my (and others') opinion of the overall military effort. I think (purely speculative) that's what we're seeing today. People still believe in the mission of their unit or the MWS, but not in what it is being used for. Maslow's higher needs can't be fulfilled this way, making it harder to have a high-functioning organization. The U.S. chose to have an all volunteer force. That means it has to run it (in many ways) like other voluntary operations. Telling people their opinions and feelings are misguided (or selfish!) is a failure of empathy, and thus a failure of leadership. Say what you will about the conflict between empathy and the "killing people and breaking their stuff" military badass mindset, it matters. Especially when fewer people think their integrity, service, excellence, and lives are being spent on worthwhile endeavors, the bond between leader and follower is even more critical.

I'm using the term (senior officer, not senior leadership as you said) loosely. Sq command is the first level of meaningful organizational leadership.

Perhaps it is the organization that has lost its way. I believe that the overwhelming majority of the people on this board and the AF believe what you said, that putting the mission first is also protecting your family. But that implies "the mission" involves a threat to our country and our way of life. The very existence of this conversation is evidence that some members doubt that connection. Nowhere else in America do leaders blame groups of disenfranchised employees for their collective disgruntlement. It violates nearly every theory of organizational leadership, many of which the AF teaches. AF leaders have the burden of their choices potentially leading to death, not an easy or remotely common consideration for a leader to accept. Unfortunately there is almost no accountability for the less dramatic organizational leadership decisions made everyday by senior officers (O-5 and above) who-- by the very nature of our promotions and assignments system-- have no experience in the position they are in. Manning problems are never the peons' fault.

Mostly anecdotal. VSP for one. Since then, the people I know who are not taking the bonus or opting out of their next assignment have been the ones with strats and school slots. The guys and gals I know these days who are positive about taking the bonus and making it to retirement no matter what are (not all, but mostly) worker bees, at best. Five years ago when I would tell someone the bonus was a raw deal, most would look at me like I was nuts. Now it's rare to talk to someone who is sure about taking it, while passers abound. This is supported by data, at least.

I'm hoping there is some sarcasm in that statement... Not really. If people have been voting with their feet under Welsh, it should continue or accelerate under less empathetic leadership. Those who wish to stay and make rank should have an easier time doing so, especially since those who leave these days seem disproportionately from the higher performers. Quality of life may get worse, but there are plenty of people willing to endure anything for the faintest chance of being a colonel. Fewer people means better odds.

That's not even the half of it. The guy will operate with blinders on with regard to ops tempo and personnel issues, taking the "you should just be happy to be here" approach. The shallowness of his advocation for Airmen will dwarf Nortie's. In short: with the manning issues we are facing and will continue to face, there couldn't be a worse choice in terms of retention. Good news if you want to stay in and get promoted. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I disagree on one point. Not getting promoted does not mean the same thing and reneging on the contract (even if that is the end goal). You don't need to get promoted for the AF to keep you in, they can continue you should they choose. Forcing promotion on someone who doesn't want it is silly, and only an organization that habitually mismanages personnel through stubbornness and inexperience could fail to recognize that. If you don't want people with bright futures sabotaging their careers, ask yourself why the system is making them that way, and fix it. Or don't. The nice thing about the military is that very, very few leaders are ever truly accountable for their organizational management decisions.

18 year olds don't come to these views on their own. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I was stumped on the gravity explanation, so I agree that's a cred killer, but not the radio calls. If you've done any flying around Turkey you know they aren't the most honest controllers with their airspace boundaries. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

That is the last thing I expected him to say. It's nice to see the pre-2008 Chris Matthews return, even if only for a minute. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Never seen or heard of it Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Because FAIP is thought of as an alpha tour. Going from FAIP to transient UAV pilot would mean they have zero experience in a normal community on their third tour. Unless they are planning to permanently assign FAIPs to UAVs... Which would be truly brutal. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

We are quite successfully criminalizing human interaction. On the flip side, this shows that SAPR training works in some respects. Teach a bunch of 18 and 19 year olds that uncomfortable, unpleasant, or unwanted interactions are actually "violence" and "assault," and they will believe it. The pendulum is already swinging the other way in the college world, the military should follow soon enough. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Sounds about right. She pretends for a living, why should anything she says make sense? Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

What did blunt do? Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Are you making a living, middle class wage off of it? If so, good on you. I've always wondered how hard that would be to get into. One of the only downsides to being stationed overseas is the access (and price) to the movies. For what it's worth, your post about the movie lost me with all the parenthesis and "Oscar-nominated" add ins. Expected for an IMDB plot summary, but not a no-shit review from a human. Also, there is no such thing as an astonishing cast, unless they managed to resurrect Ghandi or George Washington to be in it. /unsolicitedfeedback Good on you for getting into that gig. I'm jealous.

What's the new gig?

I was trying to guess what numb nuts was quoting a movie trailer without reading the username. Figured Huggy had just discovered Movie Phone and was trying to impress us with his cinema knowledge. Are spammers really making forum accounts now just to post adverts?

Absolutely. My point isn't that flying is devoid of any leadership, but that the idea that what makes one a great leader at the tactical level necessarily translates to being great at the organizational level, is flawed. Look at Welsh. Seemingly a great leader at the wing-and-below level (according to others, I was not around in those days), but not making a huge dent at the top. Sure, I'd love to have AF leaders from the squadron up who are shit-hot in the jet and organizational wizards. I'd choose that guy ten out of ten. But wherever they are, we can't seem to find them. And the military system of job-jumping and hole-filling doesn't lend itself to identifying and positioning those officers who have the skills and experience to manage massive organizations. There's a reason airlines aren't run by pilots and sports teams aren't run by the best athletes. Of course, we like to argue that the military is too different to the civilian world to compare, but the pilots that lead the AF have to deal with cyber, maintenance, acquisitions, space, finance, etc. All areas which they are not tactical experts. I think a squadron commander of a flying squadron should be a flying expert, because the squadron is narrowly focused on that task, and it matters to the majority of the people under him/her. I'd rather have my Group/Wing and above leadership allow me to focus on being a flying expert while they deal with the actual purpose of their position.

You only get more money if you are taking the "9" (long bonus) year bonus instead of the five (short bonus). The short bonus is five years from signing. So you get $125k no matter what. The long bonus is until 20 years of aviation service. Depending on when AFPC gets the bonus out and how long the process takes, it could be 6-12 months between your initial ADSC ending and starting the bonus (either one). By doing the early eligible program you avoid this delay and your new commitment starts immediately after your initial ADSC expires. For the short bonus that means taking the early option will reduce your mandatory AD time by whatever the processing delay is for the on-time bonus. But since damn near everyone who takes the short bonus stays until retirement, this isn't as big a deal. For the long bonus your earliest retirement date won't change since it is based on when you started flying, not a set time after signing the bonus paperwork. But by signing early your bonus starts immediately after the initial ADSC ends, instead of 6-12 months later, and you get bonus money for those months. So TL;DR: For the short bonus, early eligibles can get an earlier separation date. For the long bonus, early eligibles get more money.

I think we agree more than you think What would you say the highly transferable skill set is? You think the CEO deals with payroll and recruiting of unskilled labor? I'll bite. How does a combat sortie in a fighting falcon impart organizational leadership skills? Wing commanders aren't really the ones tagged to be in the lead aircraft of a 50-ship bomber formation. That's the sq/cc job, right? Are you implying that one cannot be a good leader without being a good pilot? That leaves quite a few career fields out of luck I have seen very little connection between leadership and flying. Admiration, respect, sure. But running an organization of hundreds is not in the same realm... At least that's what I think

I know a few commanders who were "total bros" when they were captains and majors, then went full crazy when given command. And I know more than a few captains who are great dudes, but I worry about what they will be like as commanders. Leadership is hard, if it weren't for the fact I have virtually zero chance of command, I'd be worried about myself being in power as well. Unfortunately the pilot world doesn't rate and promote based on leadership abilities and experience. Since there are too many officers and not enough leadership positions, we use program management and education as discriminators. But what most of us want, a return to a flying focus, doesn't enhance leadership ability either. I think there is a huge credibility boost a squadron commander gains from being proficient in the jet, but at the group and above level I don't think flying ability helps any more than being an exec or getting DG at SOS. I don't know the right answer, but there is a reason civilian corporations hire CEOs and presidents from outside the company. Ford doesn't need the best design engineer or riveter at the helm. Leadership is a skill unto itself, and it cannot be nurtured or measured through other actions and skills.

I've been told by those who sat on the recent O5 board that AFPAK hands was consistently ignored, and the packages (and associated LtCol hopefuls) suffered for it.