BuddhaSixFour

Obviously there's no universal Active Duty experience or AD service member. Some people will love it. Some will hate it. Got it. My heartburn with an ADSC longer than the current one is that you're asking a 22-year old to go all-in on the bulk of their professional life without any reasonable understanding of what that entails or what the opportunity costs really are. Some will get lucky and love it. Good for them. But the others will be trapped for no reason other than its hard to predict who you'll be or what your life circumstances will be a decade down the road. How is the Air Force supposed to build a leader/follower relationship built on trust when the AF's first move is to take adavantage of youthful naïveté and dream chasing for its own cynical ends? I understand the investment it takes to build a pilot, and that you need a guaranteed return if you're going to put in that effort and resources, but there's an upper limit to what it's morally reasonable to ask someone to agree to with no way out and no recourse. At some point it becomes predatory. I really consider the 10-year ADSC as at the upper limit. Hopefully it's just talk and we can get back to figuring out how to encourage quality people to stay rather than trapping them when they just don't know any better.

Agreed. My point is that's the real problem. Fix that (I know, easier said than done... trust me, I get it) and other options come into play for dealing with the retention issue, up to and including accepting high turnover.

I'm an outsider to this whole thing, but it seems like its a problem with training capacity. It sounds like a grueling job. In the end, do what you can do to make it better, but sometimes you just have to plan for high-turnover rates. If you have sufficient training capacity, who cares if 70% of your hypothetical enlisted drone operators go to the civilian sector at the end of five years as long as the 30% remaining, plus whatever long-term officers you have are enough to teach the new guys, maintain institutional knowledge, and lead the unit? Fix the user interface (which by all accounts is abysmal) so the things are easier to learn, and work to boost your throughput. If they do the job well for five years then leave, figure out how to make them cheaper without sacrificing performance. Enlisted operators are a perfectly reasonable option for that type of solution.

Corporate governance... HR, supply chain management, finance, securities law, recruiting, project management... we're talking about some highly talented people that do more than yell, "Go team!" all day. Yes, I do. I think making payroll and recruiting labor are very much on the mind of many, many CEOs. Presumably we're talking about leading flying organizations, so yes. Stay on topic. No, it isn't. Most SQ/CC's couldn't do that reasonably. That's the problem I'm trying to point out. I think that a SQ/CC should be capable of that, and a Group/CC or Wing/CC should be capable of at least flying in that bomber formation. When we're talking about a flying unit, they're not distinct, either. Yes, there are plenty of skills required to run a large organization that are distinct from flying, but I'm happy to expect both out of real leaders. Excellence in all we do, right? When all you've got to choose from is a crappy pilot whose a good organizational manager, and a great pilot who can't keep a project on track, by all means, choose the organizational manager to command. Just know that you're picking between the lesser of evils, not striving to build a robust fighting force. The goal should always be to find someone talented enough to do both. That's a leader.

I fundamentally disagree. A CEO can move from industry to industry because large portions of what big corporations do is independent of their field. It's not that a CEO possesses some sort of magical universal leadership skill. It's that they have a deep, highly transferable skill set in corporate management and happen to be good leaders to boot. They may not be the best riveter, but he/she better damn well know what riveters do, how to get that riveter paid, attract and train other good riveters, and manage the supply chain to provide them with rivets. Leadership without action or other skills means you are at best qualified to be the Vice President of your local Toast Masters Club. I would also say that flying... particularly in combat as part of a team... is better leadership development than most things. There is, however, a separate issue of learning to navigate the Air Force bureaucracy. Unfortunately, that's a fundamental skill required for serving effectively at higher ranks. Don't conflate leadership and rank. I do agree with you that there is a point where flying talent matters less, but I think the line should be higher than you put it. Through the Wing/CC, leaders need to be reasonably proficient and at least solidly above average as aircrew (pilots, navs, whatever). I have no desire to pretend to be the leader of a unit I can't take into combat... period. " Good luck, boys! I signed your high-risk ORM and I'll write some mean Single Mission Air Medals for you if... er... when you get back!" said Robin Olds never. But starting at the DO-level, I see how quickly everything else drowns out flying and how after a few years, our "leaders" just aren't proficient enough to do it any more. They make the reasonable and responsible decision to let go of flying except during training lines with high illumination and an instructor at the controls. It is not their fault. It is how we've chosen to make things work. It is, however, bullshit. "You don't need to be a good pilot to be a good leader," is a lie a shitty pilot once told to keep their career on track. Unfortunately, someone who didn't understand the difference between "leader" and "administrative wonk" believed them. Now, we've forgotten what we've lost. We will remember someday.

It sounds like there are a lot of deployed staff positions that are just a waste of everyone's lives and could just be eliminated. But some of them are probably justifiable as necessary *if* a contingency kicked off even if they're a total life suck otherwise. For those, I propose BSF's trademarked "Deploy from Home" concept. For the first two weeks of your 180-day PowerPoint extravaganza, you deploy, drop your bags off, and learn what your job would be if you ever had to do it. Then, rather than having your life wasted with busy work, you fly home, use the magic of the Internet to stay plugged in, and go about your normal life on a 12-hour mandatory recall. We wouldn't even need to move your bags. Just drop you on any available flight. At the end of your tour, if nothing happens, your stuff gets shipped back to you. Yeah, it would kill your leave plans for 6 months, but the deployment was going to do that anyways. Would it work for every job? No. Could it work for a lot? Probably. Just a thought.

A self-reliant spouse is incredibly helpful, and consider part of your flight pay to be "not there to fix it myself, call a repair guy" penalty money.

Dear Senior AF Leader Who Finds Themselves At Al Udeid For a Few Days, Please decline your DV billet and demand that you be put in a random CC billet. After waking up in the middle of the night to balls of mold pelting your face and throwing out your towel and uniforms, because the mold stink won't come out, give the order to burn the CC to the ground. Having stayed in both, I can honestly say sleeping in a tent less than a hundred yards downwind of the Kandahar pooh pond was preferable. Fermenting sh&t might stink, but it doesn't breed in your lungs. Sincerely, BSF P.S. - They have these things called "dehumidifying air conditioners." I'm not even sure where we came by non-dehumidifying ones. It's a pretty standard feature. If new buildings are a bridge too far, just replace the A/C units as they fail due to mold injestion. You were going to buy a new one anyways.

I've had a lot of fun at exercises where I slept in the hangar and ate MREs. If it's good enough for the grunts of the world, I'm fine with it. If your exercise is joint, plan to check your attitude at the door or you're going to make a really sh@tty impression. As to the question, $50k for five years would be more tempting. $50k to 20 years would be much harder to ignore. Throw in some free MREs...

Nob Hill north of Central Ave if square footage and school quality aren't big deals. The convenience is unbeatable, easy access to the whole city, and I like the older houses. It's fine that everyone from base has this weird idea that crime is worse or that it's all hipsters and hippies, because I'm $450/mo under BAH and can ride my bicycle to work in half the time it takes to drive from Rio Rancho. That being said, the foothills and the NE Heights have several good neighborhoods. If you need 5 bedrooms, RR is the way to go. If you want a lot of land, go east mountains, but an O-3/O-4 can afford an acre or two near the river in the North Valley or Corrales if you want kind of a cool combination of rural-but-still-urban.

Right now, most initial quals do not come from Rucker.

So you posted it online for the world to see in order to not stir the pot? The "Dear Boss"-style letter should be left to those with experience, credibility, and literary talent. Probably not your buddy.

I'm trying to guess their rationale. Starting with the most friendly option and ending with the most cynical: Great job, team! Glad you're sticking around. Here's your money early. Keep up the great work. Maybe if we give people more opportunities to accept (i.e. a longer window), more of them will. If we can get people to commit earlier, that will help out with force management over the next few years. If sequestration continues, it will be harder to come up with the money in FY '15, so let's move some of that bill to FY '14. That way we can still pay the remainder that accept in FY '15. If sequestration continues, it will be impossible to come up with money in FY '15, so let's lock-in as many pilots as we can while we can. We're going to need to raise the bonus to meet retention goals, but why pay everyone more? The "I was going to stick around anyways" crowd will bite off early on the current, lower rate. That way, when we raise the bonus next year, we know we're actually targeting the "if the bonus is good enough" crowd, thereby meeting our numbers while saving money. My bet is a combination of #2, #3, and #4. Only #6 would really be a trick.

There are limits -- the law and policies issued by higher ranking commanders. Dumb as it may seem, if it's neither illegal nor in violation of directives, then yes, they can do what they want. Should they? That's a different question.

The problem is that we only talk about **individual** integrity when we say "Integrity First." However, **institutional** integrity is more than just the sum of individual integrities. It's institutional integrity that we lack because we don't treat it as it's own objective. Gen Welsh means what he says, and the next CSAF may well mean what he says if he decides to change it back. Neither would be violating their personal integrity, but the next CSAF would be violating the Air Force's institutional integrity. If we're going to build institutional integrity, commanders and staffs (read AFPC) need to realize that sometimes they're going to need to help other people keep their promises, even when it means doing something they might not have otherwise done. That can be a new commander keeping the word of the previous one, a senior commander standing by the decisions of a subordinate commander, or simply throttling back on change for changes sake. We need to make that an articulated goal if we're going to stop making liars out of honest leaders and build more faith in Big Blue.

Having instructed early stage guys from all three sources, it doesn't matter. Tilt rotors are tilt rotors. Addressing the relative strengths and weaknesses from each pipeline (and they all have systemic strengths **and** weaknesses) amounts to a few hours of focused instruction. The individual matters far more than their prior experience.

But those 200 extra steps represent at least 80 ACSC and AWC papers creating such a rats nest of pseudo-academic citation loops that everyone involved is clearly a better leader for having participated in the process. Remember, wars are won through a detailed understanding of the AU Style Guide... That and a cursory understanding of Clausewitz.

Lots of good stuff. I'll add: - A SQ/CC cannot lead from your office. Remind the Wing/CC you can't lead from his. - If you request anything non-trivial after 1400 and ask for it before 1000 the next day, you just tasked a CGO to stay until 8 PM to do it. It took him until 1530 to find out about it, and he'll need to have it in someone's inbox by 0800 for it to clear the wickets to get back to you. If necessary, do it. Just be cognizant. - If you have a civilian Deputy CC, be skeptical of them. They might be a source of continuity, but they are a tremendous source of inertia. Unless you convince him otherwise, the day you leave, your favorite project is dead in the water. - You have far more power to make things worse than to make them better. Work hard to improve things, but focus on the low-hanging fruit first. Minor process improvements that make day-to-day life better are more actionable and over time have a bigger impact than your grandiose vision. - We know what we're doing. If there's something we don't get, explain it to us... Then trust us to once again know what we're doing. - Know what you know and what you don't know. If you've never flown an MDS under your command, don't pretend to understand it. If you've never served in a crew position under your command, don't pretend to understand it. Bring your experience to the table, but respect the experiences of the people around you.

Not likely. You could do the work in four months, but you'll have delays getting signed up for each applied course. It's about two weeks after you finish a CBT course before you can start the applied. My bet is you could get about 2/3s done with about two-months to go once you got home.

1) The key to being a great combat pilot is to believe in your own infallibility while retaining the ability to learn from mistakes*. 2) Seek to practice knowledgable aggression. Aggression without knowledge is recklessness. Knowledge without aggression is passivity**. Lacking both is pure weakness.*** <cynicism> * - Which was the key to running a dictatorial regime in "1984". Compartmentalization... Doublespeak... Same difference. ** - But it does qualify you to prattle on about Air Power doctrine in the ACSC correspondence course materials. *** - ORM is a good tool, but it should be used to build knowledge. Too many people let it become an excuse to lose their aggression. It should make you smarter and more aware so you can push harder, not turn you into a p***y. </cynicism> Edit: Spelling.

Liquid, if you are who I think you are, I'm buying you a beer for that one next time we cross paths. If you're not who I think you are, someone is going to get a free beer. Its worth the risk.

I've had this discussion with people in person, and I've realized that there is a massive fighter/bomber squadron echo chamber going on where everyone agrees that all of this is some sort of travesty witch hunt against tradition and culture. Just realize that to much of the rest of the Air Force (Liquid, 17D_Guy), just about anyone you'll ever work with in a joint environment, and the entirety of the outside world, you look like stupid frat boys at best. Maybe this is all misguided emphasis, and maybe this is important enough to you that you don't care, but you should be 100% aware of that before continuing.

I want to see a system where 3's require no comment. 2 or 4 requires a justifying comment from the rater. 1 or 5 requires a comment from the senior rater. Add in Noonin's normalization process, and I think you have a tough to game system. It would need to address the "stellar unit" where you do actually have a cluster of top performers where a rater really should be giving a lot of 4's and 5's. You do that by not just looking at the rater's average (though that would weight the heaviest), but also the senior rater, wing, and MAJCOM averages. Call it 40% rater, 30% senior rater, 20% wing and 10% MAJCOM for a starting guess. If you really want to get fancy, you compare a rater's feedback to the future performance of the ratee. Raters with a good track-record for their judgement could get extra weight. Rater's who give 5's to guys who later flame out get dinged.

Lots of people get it. They're just Captains. There isn't a single person, anywhere in the Air Force at all, over the rank of O-4 who could be described as having "grown up" in the age of the personal computer, and you don't get a solid group of them until you go down to O-3. The ages and year groups just don't work out. That isn't to say there aren't some tech-savvy early adopters O-5 or above, but in my experience, not many. Senior leadership might recognize the importance of this whole internet thing, and, to their credit, work hard to figure it out, but that doesn't mean they get it just yet. We'll get there, but we're still a decade and a half out from having the first O-7 born post-1980.

We need to give up the metaphor of a "form", as though in the modern digital era character counts and "two-pages" mean anything. We use acronyms and incomprehensible language for two reasons: 1) Once upon a time someone had to write performance reports on a typewriter. 2) When you force bad communication, it becomes really easy to hide bullshit. Those are both really bad reasons to recreate OPRs in some wonky document viewer program rather than using the flexibility electronic records should provide. Not sure what a bullet means? Click the expand button to see a plain english description. Not sure about an acronym? Mouse over. Had a kick ass year? Write 20 bullets. No so much? Put down a good 5. One line not enough? Add an explanatory paragraph. PRF time? Click your best 10, then let your boss revise the list, on up to your senior rater. You're a board member and you want to see an officer's strats? Click "Show Strats". Want to see if a senior rater is speeding? View all of their submitted strats for this year group. Tired of printing out records for promotion boards? Here's an iPad. All of that becomes easy if we just get away from the idea that OPRs are a sheet of paper and instead think of them as information. For my next rant, TAFs, METARs, and NOTAMs written as though we were still paying to send them via teletype...