nsplayr

This. Have seen tons of dudes asking about how to get picked up for the 6th SOS, AIS, Olmstead, white jets, green door, etc. etc. Should we not be having those discussions either? And if it's ok to talk about moving on into those kinds of things, it should also be perfectly ok to talk about getting picked up by the airlines or B-school or Home Depot or whatever else is out there in the civilian world. I agree that people shouldn't be spending an inordinate amount of time doing non-work related stuff while "on the clock" so to speak but to say it's totally inappropriate for people to discuss it at all (with the threat of a no-notice ground eval) is kind of a jack-booted response. Absolutely...not even specifically for liquid but for most senior leaders. Most come off as intelligent and well meaning, I agree with a lot of what they say and are trying to do, but then there's something said that's so far out of left field that I do a double-take and end up wondering WTF. Seen way more of this than plain bad apples, most senior leaders I think suffer from being out of touch more than being ill intentioned or bad at their jobs. I think, as it's been pointed out, that the Chief's message in saying this was to Congress, not to the Airmen. It's an easy story to tell Congress that his pilots are getting "bored" because Congress shit the bed and couldn't come up with a predictable enough flow of money to keep everyone flying at a reasonable rate. Don't think CSAF would, in a message to us, start to think we're bored after a decade plus of war. Amen...I'm still a fan of the military as a career choice and think I could have a good career if I choose to stay, but the grass looks greener on the other side at his point and I can't say I've been exactly incentivized to stay by any of the AF's terrible personnel management decisions. I'm just not buying the idea that I need to participate in a choose your own adventure novel where I'm a character rather than the reader nor do I buy into even an ounce of guilt for punching at the end of my commitment. +1 that I'd take a pay cut to get even an small degree of control over my career path, which ironically is exactly the situation I'm expecting to get as a civilian starting next year. I've got 100 pilots in my squadron Bob, 100. No shit..the whole building is the "pilot shop." Your techniques of trying to contain any pot-stirring talk of airline hiring don't really work under those circumstances. Just a thought to add to what I said above; unless someone crosses the line and isn't doing his or her job they should be free to talk about whatever they want in terms of their future career options. Totally disagree. I brought up, in private, a very specific issue that liquid has the ability to affect and he told me that he'd look into it and try to make things better. Exactly what I'd expect from a good leader and I hope he's able to make a positive difference. Don't knock someone specifically unless you've taken a problem to them personally and they've refused to act or even acknowledge the issue. I get that most of us here are fairly jaded with our leaders' ability to hear the concerns of the common man and act but generalizing about one person who actually had the balls to spend time mixing it up with us here seems like the shoe doesn't fit.

My old DO is working for SW and loving life. Did his training while on terminal leave late last year. Great dude BTW, deserves every minute of it.

This concept of "shoes" or more fully "shoe clerks" gets misconstrued around here a lot. A shoe is not one by virtue of their position, being rated or not, being an officer or enlisted, etc. A shoe is someone who is more concerned with logic-defying compliance with obscure BS, a commitment to poor customer service, and generally a lackluster attitude characterized by "not my problem," whining to their boss when corrected, and not being a team player. I've met some shoe clerk support and medical guys who give me the run around whenever I'm trying to get something done, and I've met plenty of shoe clerk pilots and CSOs who are a huge PITA to deal with in the ops squadron. This isn't just another an ops vs support battle, in fact many leaders who are shoe clerks also happen to be pilots simply because most senior leaders in the AF are pilots. Hope that clarifies what people are talking about when they use that term. As a counter point, have you seen the IG at the 1 SOW? It's an island of misfit toys if I ever saw one. Some are there deservedly after squadron commanders flicked some boogers elsewhere, some are just kinda stuck. But it's not the kind of organization I want to side with vs a squadron, group or wing commander. What I've seen is that some CGO/FGO types have the courage to call BS and some Commanders listen. Others don't and at the lower level go along to get along and at the leadership level they continue implementing policies that are completely asinine. Subordinates have to have the courage to "PID BS" as my sq/cc put it, but leaders also have to have the courage to ask for candid feedback and take it on the chin once in a while when they're leading their troops down the wrong path. The biggest problem I see is that as a CGO you can highlight something to your DO or CC, he may fully agree and advocate for the right policy to his chain, but somewhere between the squadron level and the 3-star, good advice dies a slow and quiet death. I don't think it's malicious, I know good friends on the HQ staff that are working hard to make things work better, but the level of bureaucracy is just astounding even in an "agile, SOF organization" and it insulates senior leaders from the working man in a way that fosters bad decision making. Technology has made it worse since even when we're spread out across the globe senior leaders can demand "micro information" at a moment's notice and expect to be able to control the battlefield Minority Report style rather than giving their intent and allowing front-line leaders to execute to the best of their ability. Maybe that's something that can be solved with more dialogue like you see here. I was disappointed that the AFOSC/CC's online "crossfire" or whatever it's called isn't a two-way street, but more a 1-way street where leadership can ask things and subordinates jump through their ass to answer first. It's a good and encouraging start, but more senior leaders need to take the plunge and elicit specific feedback from the Captain flying the line or the SSgt turning the wrench. Two-way communication I think is way undervalued and we have to do something to break the disconnect that CGO and below-level folks feel from their leaders.

Good info to share, especially since you're living with it, thanks. My view isn't that we should reduce overall benefits since, like you said, it's healthcare (and to a lesser extent pay), not pensions that are hurting the DOD financially. My biggest point is that our current retirement system does absolutely zero for 80% of those who serve; it only ends up benefiting the 20% who stay to the full 20+. While we do need to incentivize career officers and enlisted troops to stay until 20 and beyond, a retirement system with a huge delayed vesting time isn't nearly the best way to do it. Give people targeted bonuses, more choice and input in their career path, and the ability to exit and re-enter service throughout their career and you'll do a much better job keeping the right people. Right now the 20 year military retirement is the best retirement plan in the country, hands down, no debate there. It requires a lot of sacrifice and those who do earn it earn every penny. But what it's not is the best system for the vast majority of those who honorably serve. I'm arguing you can have a system that not only serves career troops better by providing a better QOL throughout rather than just one big carrot at the end and numerous kicks in the balls until then, but one that provides something other than a firm handshake to those who decide to leave before 20. Maybe the fed LEO plan isn't perfect in its particulars, maybe it's not generous enough to keep the talent the military needs, it's just a starting point an an opening argument for a system that's fully fleshed out and is judged as a good deal for those serving honorably in a fed LEO role. Do we need the vesting period to be longer than 5 years? When do you start collecting? How do you prevent perverse incentives to stay until 25 but being useless (i.e. ROAD)? IDK, open for debate. Honestly I'm not even on the bandwagon of wanting to save money by redesigning the mil retirement, I really just want a better program that gives a good benefit to many more veterans rather than an amazing benefit to few. Why can't we even just add TSP matching? Shouldn't we be encouraging young officers and enlisted troops to save for their retirement rather than just promise them Uncle Sam will cut them a check if they stick around long enough? Put the vest period for matching funds at 5 years to capture more time and a second look from your support officers and first term Airmen with relatively short enlistments. Our system isn't fundamentally broken and I don't expect it to change, especially since it would take an act of Congress, but it's worth talking about at least.

That's the idea You can do all that without the definite need for self-contained 5th gen fighters off of a short boat. Especially considering the "getting shit together" time of the Army and Air Force aren't exactly as dire as you imagine. And especially considering that you're saying that 4-6 F-35Bs off a single short boat would do the job. Let's be honest, if you need 5th gen fighters to survive a high-threat environment or take out 4th or 5th gen enemy air, we're gonna dedicate more resources to the problem than a single LHD. It just doesn't add up to me why 4-6 F-35Bs is a game-changer to the Marine Corps capabilities considering the extreme cost. If we need more, bring in the big boys (CVNs, Air Force, etc.), if we don't need all that then the Corps can be perfectly positioned to provide a larger quantity of lower-tech air that can do a lot of good for the guys on the ground or in the Ospreys. Really bad example...guess what we have a shit load of nearby in S. Korea and Japan...oh yea, the Air Force. And if you're kicking down the door of N. Korea you'd better believe a CVN or two will be nearby carrying more 5th gen squids as well as your long-boat Marines in C models (future scenario obviously). We can agree to disagree on the likelihood of the scenario you're suggesting. It's the only reason to continue funding the enormously expensive F-35B program the way I see it. I'm sure these arguments are had in the Pentagon regularly and with less tact.

The Super T or a similar platform can carry everything needed for the mission I've talked about, has much greater persistence to actually cover the ground forces rather than do a fly by, dump it's bomb, and return to the boat, and as you mentioned, can do "all the crap we could have used in the last decade." News flash, we're still gonna be doing much of "all that crap" and the MEU is actually a really good instrument for doing that type of lower intensity stuff. Have you been to Africa? South America? Philippines? The stuff we're doing there or could do there should be the bread and butter of a post-Iraq and Afghanistan Marine Corps. Plus FW (even the much derided prop-driven variety) can keep up with the V-22s and has the legs to escort them in and remain overhead, traditional helicopters can't as you've pointed out in justifying why you need a jet. The Marines aren't buying shit, the American tax payer is buying everything. We can afford a lower cost platform, hell, we can afford way more of them, and you get about 69% of the capes you want and 100% of the capes I think you actually need. The F-35B is hurting the entire F-35 program at large, just for the pipe dream of "needing" 4x 5th gen fighters to launch off of a short boat to do OCA. Want vs need. You do need a CAS platform to escort V-22s and provide armed overwatch for Marine boots on the ground. The country needs a ready, forward-deployed combined arms force to respond to contingencies, the vast majority of which are low-intensity (disaster relief, embassy evac, downed aircrew, FID, COIN, support for SOF, etc.). You don't need a stealth super-plane to land vertically and launch AMRAAMS at soviet fighters. That's not what the Marine Corps was designed to do and that's not what the nation needs the Marines Corps to do.

Count it! Loved Vol 1, read it a few months back. You can borrow all three for free if you have Amazon Prime (which I do), but glad to own all 3 for the low low price of $0. Cheers to the author, he's certainly deserving of payment for his funny and memorable writing.

FERS for law enforcement and Congress is 1.7% up to 20 years and 1% thereafter. That nets you 44% of your Top-3 at a 30 year retirement and 34% at 20. Sounds worse (it is), but you also vest at 5 years and they match TSP up to 5%* during your entire career. That deal would work out far better for the 80% of veterans who will never retire and would IMHO still be enough to get you the high quality career officers the military needs. It's still a pension which good luck finding that in the private sector these days. * - the calculation is a little more complicated, but if you contribute 5%, the gov matches 5%. Uncle Sam kicks in 1% regardless of what you do, so if you're worried about them "touching your paycheck" you still get something you're not getting right now.

Let's just agree to disagree. From my point of view, if you have unlimited money then yes, let's give Marine Air (the air force of the navy's army, right?) 5th gen fighters that can launch off of short boats so when that one crazy scenario where you're doing a TRAP into a sophisticated IADS that's unified against us and the CVN or nearest AF base is just too damn far away and there's no way to delay for 6-9 hours...great, do it. I'm arguing that A) that scenario is relatively unlikely, and especially B) we can no longer afford to plan for every exotic scenario that has multi-billion dollar solutions courtesy of Lockheed. What I'm proposing isn't a risk-free solution but the risk can be mitigated. At this point canceling the F-35B would only affect the Marines, and I've argued that we could give Marine Air airplanes that could accomplish the vast majority of it's intended mission for a fraction of the cost. I'd give my left nut to fly the Super T on those kinds missions. Use the savings to both buy that fleet as well as bolster the A and C models so if the above scenario does happen, you guys have your 5th gen air cover. Hell, that air can even be "organic" so your Marine O-6 can blow his load because Marines will be flying C models off the big boat. Win-win-win. The Marines are great, I grew up 5 mins from Quantico and I know lots of great Americans serving in the Corps. That being said, I'm still unconvinced that your (the Marines) want is my (the nation's) need.

How do we give the warfighter and the nation a better product: cancel the B model F-35 ASAP. Recap that money to bolster the A and C models and use the rest to do #2 below. How do we give the Marines air: buy an armada of lower tech airplanes that can provide a great deal of capability and an insanely low cost compared to the F-35B. What to replacing the harrier with: Light attack/strike i.e. OV-10 or Super T type aircraft. Not only can we afford a ton of them compared to a jet, they can fly on your short boats and they don't suck in every way imaginable. Had to take another dig at the Harrier, sorry, it's pretty easy. Not sure what replacing the hornet has to do with this conversation...replace the hornet with the C model F-35 as fragged. This is the enduring sticking point...you believe that we "need" OCA, DCA, EA, LO, 5th gen, etc. I do not believe that Marine Air needs any of those things. Any environment where you would need those things, we'll have the big blue Navy and/or the Air Force and/or coalition partners in the fight as well. You openly say the Marines don't play well with others, I think your mindset doesn't play well with others; the Marines can go it alone doctrinally, but IMHO they likely never will because we can project enough power to make every fight a joint and combined fight. Where I can see the Marines actually using the MEU capability is in the litany of situations where the lower cost, lower tech options will more than suffice in escorting V-22s, conducting ISR and overwatch, and providing supporting air-to-ground fires. Perfect fit with the TRAP concept, embassy evac, contingency response (Benghazi-esq attacks), disaster relief, etc. That's where the MEU provides the bang for the buck...if we're kicking the door into Syria or Iran or N. Korea and really need 5th gen fighters you've got two other services that pretty much do that shit for a living. Like I and others have argued before, the B model is a nice to have, not a need to have. It's incredibly expensive, you'll have them in very small quantities anyways, and the capabilities it provides aren't essential to the concept of the MEU. Good debate and thanks for providing a Marine perspective.

My disagreement is over what that capability is. You say it's LO 5th gen fighters off a short boat, I disagree that we really need that. We can get, in my view, a ton of capability to support Marines coming ashore from a lower-tech platform that is capable of launching off of your current boats. To me if you get 69% of the capability for 10% of the cost that's a good value*. *Values WAG'd Not to be flippant, but to support the national defense. Let's configure it in the way that best supports our national interest, and part of that is considering cost and value. If we had unlimited money, which we basically did for about 10 years, we could buy the most high-tech military weapons our minds could imagine and our hands could produce. Under different circumstances, which I'd argue we're living in now, you have to take a harder look at value and leave no sacred cows. IMHO, the F-35B could be cancelled, we could use some of the savings to buy a whole fleet of OV-10s or Super Ts to give to the MAGTF, and could use the remaining 90% of the money saved and put it toward un-f*cking the F-35A and C. Yea, that pretty much does nail it. Despite my above arguments, the F-35 in general, and the -B model most likely, will happen because we as a country have mastered the idea of "too big to fail." We can't afford to let the F-35 fail so we won't. I just wish we could see that cutting the B model could be a net positive that would both help the budget and help the other models survive with less cost.

Yea, that's my argument. The author is more credible and makes it more convincingly than I would or could. Yes, I understand that. Disagree, no need to speak slowly. It's a cape that would be awesome to have. Trust me, I'd love to have a do-it-all super plane that can jump off of a helipad at max ord/fuel, evade the enemy's radar and blow up their shit. I'd even be happy to let the Marines fly it. I just don't think we're A) able to afford it and on top of that, B) I don't think the F-35B delivers on that. Your need is my want, and while I want that capability I'd rather have the guaranteed capabilities of an OV-10 or Super T forward-deployed than wait and hope and pray that the F-35B works out ok. And the OV-10 and Super T aren't single-role airplanes; honestly neither are the A-10 or especially the KC-10 but I digress... Yes. On the other hand, we can and should fight today's war and capabilities we need right f*cking now are available at a cost we can afford. I'm willing to let the F-35C continue to mature and that can be our bo-at launched airplane of the future.

False. As Champ kindly points out, I am a nav (the horror!) but check out what this guys has to say. BL: Although it sounds great in a world where $$ is no object and we can overcome any technical problem, I just don't see the fundamental need for launching 5th gen fighters off of the Corps' small carriers. Not at the price we're paying for that capability. I get that the Marines want organic air and they can have organic air, in a lower-tech package that we can actually afford produce successfully. The author proposes OV-10s or Super Ts, airplanes I think would fit a lot of bills in both the Marine Corps and the Air Force. Unfortunately for the "bigger is better" U.S. military mindset there seems to be a ton of reluctance toward using anything less than the most high-tech solution.

I don't think a lot of people are doubting the value of the Marines or what they bring to the fight. The point is to me that while the theory of a STOVL fighter is great, the execution still sucks. The harrier sucks balls in real-life execution from my narrow view of having worked with them and the F-35B appears to be another train wreck of execution. The fact that the B model is so derided inside of an entire program that is totally F-ed six ways from Sunday is notable.

$69 dollars

Re-read what I wrote. While I believe politicians of every stripe tell frequent "half truths," give rosy projections, and some outright lies, it's still wrong. Tell the people what you want to do, how you want to do it, and be honest about how you think things will turn out. Don't dumb down your message to a bumper sticker phrase, especially when failing to be specific or nuanced makes what you're saying untrue.

How do you view employers who are cutting employee hours so they don't have to cover their health insurance costs? Are you fuming mad at them for being less productive then they otherwise would be? Many have said they're doing so to avoid new government mandates, not because business conditions dictate that employee hours be cut. It's the exact same principle. Those companies are responding to the incentives presented to them, just like individuals do. Like HeloDude said, don't hate the player, hate the game, and I agree for the most part. The goal is to design a system that has the right incentives because in the end, the government isn't broadly powerful because of what it does or buys itself in the public sector, it's more because it has the power to set the rules that ultimately influence private sector behavior. Part of the purpose of Obamacare was to reform the health insurance market and get away from bare-bones, catastrophic plans. The fact that those plans are going away is not a glitch, it's a feature. Agree or disagree, but it's dumb to argue that it was an unintended consequence. The administration screwed up the messaging here badly; they promised that you could keep your insurance if you liked it and yet designed the law to crowd out of the market plans that didn't cover a broad range of service that the government determined constituted "adequate insurance." While this dishonestly only applies to about 4-5% of the population, it was still wrong to frame it like they did and they're seeing the political backlash right now. What they should have done, in my opinion, is to argue up front that Obamacare would reform the insurance marketplace for the better, getting rid of plans that have huge out of pocket costs, don't cover preventative care, and have yearly and lifetime caps that can leave you high and dry in an emergency. That argument was made, but not strongly enough and it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker quite as well as "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance." That's part of the inherent problem with politics influencing policy making; policy making is complex, nuanced, and should be conducted in a rational way after consulting a broad array of experts in the appropriate field. Politics is an expensive a dog fight between bitter, rival factions and broadcast to a generally uninformed and uncaring audience. It leads to the need for quick, simple messages that resonate and you end up with nearly every politician telling some pretty big half-truths (at best) in order to communicate their message. How exactly is this fundamentally different than what happens under Obamacare? The government provides tax credits to offset the cost of private health insurance for people who make too much for meidcare, up to 400% of the poverty line. That's applicable to families of four making between $23K and $94K, i.e. much of your middle class. Can you explain the difference between that and what the author of the article is proposing?

Honestly this has been the case since Pakistan got the bomb. The Saudis likely paid for some of the development and the world always kind of assumed that if Shia Iran got the bomb that Sunnis (i.e. Saudi and Pakistan) would stick together and respond in kind.

I haven't experienced a jackbooted flying hours program in my corner of AFSOC like some other guys are referencing but something along the same lines was the 1 SOW directive to "not ferry extra fuel." So, while that sounds fine, that translated into, "don't put that you landed early for 'training complete' on your Form 40" because that meant you carried extra gas on that sortie and if you knew that training would be complete early, you should have taken off with less gas. What does that all mean for the line O-3 handed the keys for an airplane...don't freaking land early because the O-6 reads all the Form 40s and will shit on your SQ/CC if you carried extra gas. All of this was extra hilarious in my community because the total, max-weight fuel onload for a U-28 is probably in the range of what a herc will piss away just leaking on the ramp but I digress...good intentions I'm sure form the Wing, which somehow got translated to "you must fly out your fragged hours regardless of the status of your training" down at the level of execution. So while I can't complain too much since we get tons of hours and typically have put them to good use training our young aircrew, there are ways common sense is still being squashed from on high that don't leave a lot of room for disagreement from a CGO perspective.

Quick note about your assumptions...my advice is never spend time away from your family unless you absolutely have to. You'll probably be deploying enough in the near future that you'll wish you could have the time back. Nav school is hard work and you don't want to suck but there is absolutely no reason why you won't have time to spend with your family. Bring them, you won't regret it. Obviously I don't know all the particulars of your situation (wife working a great job, kids in school, etc.) but my general life advice is to spend as much time as possible with the ones you love. You give up a lot of opportunity to do that while in the service, no reason to make it worse than it needs to be. Good luck!

This sounds great...so great in fact why don't we do it for all officers? This is the kind of thing that's totally within the Chief's purview and would certainly lend itself to a huge positive legacy. You'd find out real quick which middle-of-the-pack-on-paper guys are busting their ass and running the squadron and which shinny pennies are self-centered d-bags or just coasting by on previous high strats. Like you said, peer reviews are often illuminating and if I was a Commander at any level I'd want that information in deciding how to rack and stack my troops. This is one charge that I don't agree with...haven't seen it that much in our MAJCOM. Some leaders are much better than others at decentralized execution (i.e. "micro information" is exactly the same as micro management FYI) but I've seen good combat leadership both at the squadron level, group level and wing level. The current AFSOC OG and WG equivalent leaders in Afghanistan are solid; didn't get up in our shit too much and had a strong emphasis on accomplishing the mission. Came by the TOC and congratulated us on a successful combat mission rather than to yell at some LT about a baseball hat (gasp!) found stored inside a life support locker...it was refreshing and awesome. My biggest issue with the way we're being led, since I've been around at least and in my community, is poor management. I'm not sure how much of this is coming from on high (i.e. 3-star + and Congress), but just hands-down piss poor management of people. Leadership to me has a lot to do with personality and character and not everyone is George Patton nor needs to be. I can handle people who are average leaders and good managers, we'll get the mission done and there's plenty of other layers of leadership within a flying squadron. But competent, passable management can and should be taught before an officer is a SQ/CC or above and that has been really lacking in many, many cases.

It's just another piece of the "whole person" pie, but it's an important piece. As Chuck said, it can help explain the timing of an AAD or a lack of "community involvement." The bigger picture to me though is it shows who's been on the front lines actually carrying out the mission of the USAF. Combat time, total flight time, combat support, whatever...all that should be important because aren't we supposed to be flying, fighting and winning? Max time isn't everything or the most important thing in evaluating future leaders but it is what I would consider an important piece of an aviator's records that should be considered by the board at least as much as some of the other BS factors that we all bitch about.

Yea, because f*ck free speech! Well said.

There's a way to look at your total hours and total combat hours in comparison to every aviator in the Air Force. Seen it myself...not sure if it's a tool on portal or what. Gotta ask the guy who showed me. Good to hear that metrics related to, ya know, flying and combat are mattering more!

"Everyone is an adult who volunteered to serve their country. Thank you for that...along with the privilege of having one of the best professions in America, you now have shouldered the responsibility to act like an adult who is payed directly by the American taxpayers. Do you job, do it well, don't waste anyone's time, work well with your peers regardless of your personal opinion of them, and above all accomplish our critical mission. If you feel like you have ever been treated as anything other than an adult and a valuable asset to our national security, come and talk to me directly and I will address the situation with you personally and take swift and direct action as appropriate. In addition, see my policy memo which gives specifics on some pretty obvious behavior that will not be tolerated (i.e. drinking & driving, racism, pornography on GOV property, etc.)" Yep, wouldn't ban any of that stuff if it didn't interfere with the mission and was dealt with at the appropriate level. As other posters have pointed out, you enter a never-ending slippery slope when you try to outlaw very specific things...there's always something else the kids will think up next. I learned this from my 2 year old...it's futile to attempt to ban specific behavior (Don't eat crayons!) because she'll just start putting them up her nose next and, damn, I didn't tell her specifically not to do that. You set the example, lead with a firm but fair attitude, and give those you're leading a frame of acceptable standards within which they can operate freely. Is it probable that she will start putting crayons in her socks within my "acceptable frame?" Sure, been there done that, but at the end of the day such lesser offenses aren't detracting from my mission to run a successful family and I'm willing to appreciate her creative BFMing of my authority up to a certain point. I cannot legislate naughtiness out of a 2 year old and you sir cannot legislate sex or anything related to sex entirely out of the American culture of your airmen. Attempting to do so will be a waste of time and will just piss everyone off. Then again I don't have to CYA my parenting style to Congress like you guys do so...I'll chalk it up to that. My message to first-term airmen is relatively the same as I put in quotes above, perhaps with a little more detail or sternness to disuade anyone from choosing to f*ck around and not respect my authoritah. I though most of this was common sense...