Liquid

Thanks for clarifying. Now I feel like an hyper-sensitive little b*tch. I'll get over it.

Lesson learned. No matter how much you think you know, someone always knows more. I stand corrected. The 30mm on the Jordanian AC-235 is not/not a roll on system. The gun is removable if you don't want the drag. ATK is developing a roll on 30mm system for AC-27J and a roll on 105mm system for C-130s. They have the capability to put a roll on 30mm on CN-235, but the aircraft pictured above is not. Thanks Tank.

The Jordanian CN-235 30mm is on a pallet that rolls on the aircraft. The gun and pallet are removable.

WTF? I use the screen name "Liquid" so I can speak and listen in an unofficial capacity. Why would I create a sock puppet screen name that described what I did to make a comment I could easily make with my current name? I only post under this name. I will continue to do so until some anonymous coward posts my bio and allows other anonymous haters to attack me professionally. I'll be surprised if congressman posts here again. Have some respect for what makes this forum useful (the fact we don't put our signature block and contact info at the bottom of each post).

We deployed plenty of contractors to Iraq and currently have thousands deployed to Afghanistan. State Department deploys contract civilian security all around the world. Sure, we should keep military support capability for contingencies, maybe in CRGs, but we don't need military support at all installations.

A few weeks ago I made a statement to a room full of senior AF leaders that we were making a big mistake paying contractors and civilians to fix and fly aircraft in combat while we keep active duty support personnel, including band members, comm, CE, firefighters, finance, etc. I said an Air Force that pays civilians to fix and fly aircraft will soon end up in the Army. I didn't get a slow clap, or any supporting fires, but it felt good to say it to a bunch of senior decision makers. We should cut, contract and civilianize all support functions before we cut combat power and our core missions. Our support functions are vitally important, but they don't have to all be military. We should contract all housing, CDCs, fire departments, base security, FSS, DV airlift, protocol, CE, base comm, base logistics and most our health care. Contracts keep costs down, quality up, allow for competition, hold people accountable and leverage corporate experience, technologies and responsiveness. And you don't pay for full benefits and retirement for non-combat/non-critical Air Force capabilities, so it is cheaper in the long run.

^ Agree.

If you really want to talk about requirements, programming and capabilities, head on over to A5K or shoot me a note on SIPR. We are not going to go into the depth you want on this message board.

It does make more sense to do it that way. I suspect the cuts will be too large to allow for holding it against those who aren't team players. Cutting 25k people in a few years is something we haven't seen before. This will be ugly no matter how much sense goes into it.

Wonder away. You don't know what you are talking about.

I think the targets will change a lot this year and the uncertainty will justifiably piss a lot of people off. I do think they will exhaust all possible voluntary measures before they hit the involuntary actions. I'll continue to serve until they tell me it is time to retire. Until then, I will do everything I can to defend this country, take care of Airmen and make our Air Force better. I think I've got a few more years to go. Hope you are enjoying life on the outside.

I am fascinated by this criticism that the AF doesn't care about people. Organizations and policies don't care about anything. Caring is a very human emotion, and senior leaders, civilian and military, absolutely care about Airmen. We spend a staggering amount of money on our Airmen and their dependents. We resource billions of dollars to taking care of Airmen and their families. Commanders and shirts spend endless hours dealing with Airmen issues. CSAF is genuinely concerned with Airman issues and convinces virtually everyone who has met him that he really does care. Find another company, or government agency who cares about their employees more than the AF. Congress cuts defense spending, HQ AF cuts personnel to meet fiscal constraints and meet mission demands, and you think Big Blue doesn't care about you or any of "us"? Pretty please, with sugar on top, clean the ing car. We care, stop your whining, you ing baby. Aren't you out yet?

Yeah, that is some messed up shit. I think it was more that we didn't want them more than we couldn't "afford' them. USASOC has no plans to modify the C-27J, only to use them for airdrop training. No doubt they will eventually look at tricking it out for multi-role, but when that happens, it will be time to move it back into the AF. Limited spare parts and high contract mx costs will challenge the small program. Industry is developing some great armed capability on AC-27J and CN-235. Saw a Jordanian CN-235 with AGM-114, 2.75 rockets and roll on 30mm gun with MX-15i the other day. Great aircraft.

Not sure what you are talking about. The Army will get the 8 x MC-12W they requested. This is independent of the 33 going to AFSOC and was agreed upon by OSD, DA, HAF and USSOCOM. Why do you think this doesn't make sense in your smart ass way?

I've heard early in the new year, but it seems like everything is taking longer than planned. This is long overdue and should have been done years ago. Not sure, haven't seen the actual proposed policy, but I think the intent is to send everyone to residence and minimize the double tap. I would expect it to not apply to you as they would send you in-residence regardless of whether you have done correspondence or not.

To meet budget reductions driven by the Budget Control Act, HQ AF decided to cut force structure over the FYDP, around 25k airmen. This was driven by the desire to protect F-35, KC-46 and long range strike, and the fact personnel are very expensive. Niche capes, weapons system sustainment, facilities and other modernization programs all took significant hits. We need BRAC and a real roles and missions assessment amongst services, but unfortunately those initiatives are not informing FY14, FY15 or FY16. CSAF and SECAF wanted to give six months notice to Airmen impacted by the reductions, mostly enlisted. The December announcements, without the appropriate details, were intended to inform the masses about the possibilities of involuntary separation as soon as possible. I think CSAF and SECAF are genuinely concerned about the Airmen that will be impacted by these force structure reductions and they want to provide direct, timely and relevant information to their force. Unfortunately, the analysis is not complete and A1/AFPC does not know where we can take cuts yet. So we probably told too many people that they may be eligible for voluntary separation or involuntary separation, causing angst and uncertainty in our force. The reality is that we can't cut 25k Airmen without significantly impacting our missions and those who want to continue to serve. This next year will be challenging, as we assess and announce those AFSCs and year groups that we will cut. There will certainly be those who wish to separate, but unfortunately are in undermanned, critical positions where we can't afford to release people from the commitment/contract agreed upon with the taxpayer investment in training and experience. There will also be talented Airmen who wish to continue serving, but are in overmanned, less critical career fields we must accept risk in to meet end strength targets. This uncertainty in military service is unusual and somewhat unfair, but is driven by recent fiscal realities and political decisions much more than senior leader desires. These next few years will be very challenging for all services. Hopefully we will continue to have talented and dedicated men and women willing to tolerate the uncertainty, danger, inadequate pay/benefits and many days away from home to defend this great nation from those who wish us all catastrophic harm. The funding may be reduced and the change may be hard to bear, but the global threat to our nation is not diminishing. Many serve to serve, in whatever capacity is required, for as long as required. Others do what is best for them. Many are somewhere in between. This balance has worked well for years. Hopefully this will work out too.

You have the opportunity to engage with a congressman about an important issue and this is the best you come up with?

MC-12Ws are being divested by ACC and AFSOC is getting them at no cost. Not the perfect replacement for the U-28, but a great value. The MC-12s will be modified to match U-28 capes and they will have more range with the safety margin an additional engine provides. There are better twins for manned ISR, but none that make as much fiscal sense in these rough budget times. AC-27J was a SOCOM initiative that was killed in budget drills. The technology investment was moved to the MC-130W and is buying down risk and schedule for the ACJ. 8 x C-27Js the AF is divesting will go to USASOC and I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up in AFSOC a few years from now.

Still waiting for CSAF decision on a proposed policy that prohibits completion of SOS in-correspondence prior to attending in-residence. Correspondence would be required if attending in-residence is not possible, but double tapping or requiring correspondence as a pre-requisite would be prohibited. Hopefully it will be official soon, lots of traction.

No. I was referring to Tony Carr's criticism that generals have not spoken out against the bill. There is a difference between writing your congressman and publicly speaking out against a bill, and using disparaging language to attack supporters of the bill. And I never said or implied anyone used contemptuous words on this anonymous blog.

Piss off Rusty. That was an uninformed cheap shot. You don't know how I lead or what impact I have had. I read Tony's blog and agree with most of what he says. He is intelligent, articulate and has recent AF leadership experiences that make his insights valuable. I disagree with his assertion (15 Dec blog post) that generals have let down their force by not speaking out against this bill. Senior leaders and all officers should refrain from participating in the political process and they should refrain from disparaging congress. Specifically, active duty officers must not "Allow or cause to be published in partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause." Article 88 of the UCMJ prohibits officers from using contemptuous words against congress, POTUS, SECDEF or SECAF. When asked by congress, senior leaders should give their best military advice. According to Tony, and what I have also heard, congress did not ask CJCS or service chiefs for their advice before they proposed cutting retirement benefits. Retired Lt Cols like Tony are much more effective veteran advocates in the political process than generals can be. Hopefully Tony's efforts will result in this disturbing reduction in retirement benefits being removed from the current budget law. He makes very good arguments for why our civilian leadership should not break faith with the brave and selfless military members who serve this nation so well. My guess is that congress will reinstate the COLA increases early next year, long before the cuts impact retirees. edit: Corrected leaving out "not" before "speaking out".

Damn, I hit a nerve here. I wasn't really thinking about casual talk, I was talking about doing the ATP and interview prep in the pilot shop. In my squadron, the pilot office was not that big. Several computers, a couch, a fridge, some desks a big white board. The pilot shop where you checked the schedule, your currency, your v-file and your pubs. We did not allow the pilot shop to become the airline prep office. If anyone started hanging around the pilot shop and talking about their airline hiring process, it distracted from our mission and was considered unprofessional. The "no-notice ground eval" was the evaluator pilots, me included, changing the discussion from airlines to systems and procedures and reminding those that were considering separating that we had a mission to do. There is a difference between talking about it with your friends, and doing the whole process in the open while influencing and distracting those who are not participating in the airline transition. Many people here have posted how many people in their squadrons are talking about the airlines and prepping for their airline future in the squadron. They use that observation to point out how f*cked up the AF is and how out of touch I am. After a long explanation about how we should not threaten or discredit anyone who chooses to separate after fulfilling their commitment, I added that the planning shouldn't happen at work. I am not in the squadron anymore and I have no influence on what happens in the pilot shops. But I think there should be someone who keeps the pilots focused on the mission, professional development and the technical expertise required to fight wars more than future civilian employment.

Great points Champ. I completely agree that we have been trampling good people for 12+ years with high ops tempo and stupid ass rules. I suspect the Chief and SecAF are using the bored descriptions to highlight to congress and the people the absurdity of cutting flying hour programs and readiness. We pay for the aircraft and the people, can't cut them in reduced budgets, and have to cut how much we fly them. The justifiable fear of a hollow force, one too large to keep ready, is a big concern. Maybe bored sounds better to them than disgruntled, discouraged or disgusted. Throughout my career I have tried to attack the problem of too many stupid rules. I rarely put out any policy memos or additional restrictions to current guidance. I always made sure everyone understood the waiver authority and who had the authority to violate policies and guidance. In our current compliance at all costs climate, we have lost the art of bending the rules and operating in the gray area. Most guidance can be interpreted to your advantage. 10 JAGs will give 10 different recommendations, so you need to have a JAG focused on the mission and willing to articulate why you interpreted guidance to get the mission done. We need to know and teach the difference between not checking to make sure nukes are on your aircraft and knowing when to violate policy to save money, mission and lives. Unfortunately, with the current global threats and challenges and continued fiscal constraints, it isn't going to get easier in the future. I agree that we need to cut the mindless, queepy work and put the fun back into the squadrons. That fun just can't include strippers, porn and cute word games anymore.

Is this the same advice you give your subordinate officers and enlisted? What would you tell the SSgt gunner that was being screwed over by his supervisor? That they have little recourse and they will lose?

Nobody cares what you talk about on your airline job. You should not be paid to work on your next job while at work on active duty. Do that on your own time. Yeah, yeah, we have transition programs. Do it then too. It is incredible how many people bitch about how hard it is to find the time to knock out AAD/PME/DTS/CBTs/fill in the blank additional duties and how much is distracts from their -1 studies, warfighting focus and professional development, but think it is perfectly fine to surf the net, network and bullshit about their ATP and interview. Make up your ing minds. But make sure you do the job the taxpayer expects you to do first. When I was a Captain and encountered pilots chatting about their airline prep in the pilot office, I would give them a no-notice ground eval to check their systems knowledge and combat readiness. It was amazing how fast that reduced the around time and set the standard that we actually focused on at work. Remember, while you are planning your next career, there are plenty of other people in the squadron that will be there for a long time and could actually benefit from your experience more than hearing the details of how and why you are separating.