Muscle2002

Looking at his bio, it would appear that he washed out of the demo upgrade. ETA: This is merely speculation

Beyond maximizing the remaining years of service before mandatory retirement, why does the USAF need to make GOs so early? If by accelerating an officer, the service necessarily truncates meaningful joint time, and that lack of joint time is a reason the USAF often loses to the other services in filling key joint GO billets, then would it not make sense to slow the timeline ever-so-slightly? Superficially, the reasoning for a pole year at 24 years reads like a tautology. The USAF needs GOs at the 24-year point because it needs GOs at the 24-year point.

I will take a look. I enjoyed his American Airpower Strategy in the Korean War.

I likely worded my argument poorly regarding the educational background of the early USAF leaders. My point, and the intended use of a counterfactual was to suggest that had those leaders spent time in real educational programs instead of PME, maybe one would have emerged to question the legitimacy of area bombing, unescorted bombing, industrial web-theory, etc. In other words, I think less PME, and instead real education, could have been influential. My statement that there was a blind faith in "strategic bombing" was likely hyperbolic. Nevertheless, it took until 1944 for AAF leaders to understand that the trope, "the bomber will get through," was completely wrong. Moreover, despite the fact that leaders adjusted techniques in bombing (see The Science of Bombing by Wakelam), many still adhered to the idea that relentless bombing would break the morale of the German people, which has been shown not to be true (see Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare by Tami Biddle Davis). Still, strategic bombing was effective, just not in the way that advocates promised. Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction argues this point quite well. BTW, thanks for the suggested reading. I have not read that book, but Ehler's book on the Mediterranean air campaign was fantastic. I mention all of that not to get into a pissing contest either (I, like you, want substantive discussion as well), but to suggest that maybe had some leaders been exposed to a real educational program, where critical thinking was emphasized, they may have had enough exposure to ideas that would cause them to challenge the doctrine of the time. I was fortunate to be selected for SAASS, but I was not the first nor last to attend without going to IDE in-residence. I did get credit for IDE through another program, which likely helped my case. ETA: My omission of history was unintentional. I included the humanities, which history, IMO, is a part.

Your examples are highly contingent upon the context in which those men operated. The organizational inertia and blind faith in "strategic bombing," only emboldened by WWII, gave considerable momentum to the bomber tribe. Given the burgeoning Cold War, in which the Soviets tested the A-bomb in 1949 followed by thermonuclear weapons in 1953, is it any surprise that SAC grew the way it did? LeMay did great things, but one could assert that he and the organization were a product of the times. Practical experience is important, make no mistake, but does it not seem reasonable to suggest that the AF is highly experienced at fighting the current conflicts, yet airpower has made a negligible impact on achieving political objectives (note: I am not saying that the USAF has not done well at the tactical level, we most certainly have). Certainly, the service has rarely received concrete policy aims, but if few will question the efficacy of current strategy, how does the nation exit a morass or achieve sustainable ends? Operational experience provides the necessary data for testing the various ideas on how to use airpower, but formal education (outside of PME) may be a good way to provide the historical and theoretical background necessary to see patterns from the past that are salient to the present. I am not advocating that we should copy from history's examples, but they do provide insight. This insight may not come from frontline experience. I think we would agree that the "right" kind of education should be emphasized. I also agree that formal PME is lacking. If I were CSAF, I would try to send more officers to civilian graduate programs in the IR, Security Studies, Politics, Economics, and other social science/humanities fields, while reducing the number of times officers had to attend military PME. I think it is quite telling that the number one thing people find valuable from ACSC and AWC is that it provided an opportunity to make new friends. When I tried to get credit for IDE, some tried to dissuade me stating that I was passing on networking opportunities. There was no mention about how I would learn new ideas or become better educated. Their reasoning convinced all-the-more that I could skip IDE. SAASS, in contrast, was different. I made friends, but the educational experience was, in my opinion, fantastic, and well worth the year away from the line (obviously, my case was somewhat of an anomaly because I did not have to go to IDE in-residence).

From the AU website: Multi-Domain Operational Strategist (MDOS) concentration is a selective yearlong advanced concentration specializing in developing leaders who understand the employment of multi-domain operational maneuver to counter future A2/AD threats during the period 2025-2035 . This concentration focuses on improving critical thinking and problem solving skills at the operational level of war. It prepares selected students for future operational and command assignments requiring advanced knowledge ofthe capabilities, methods, and challenges associated with operations within and across six domains (electromagnetic spectrum, space, air, land, maritime, and human). MDOS is based on student potential to contribute to their seminars and the overall goals of the concentration. You can see that there are a lot of buzzwords in the description (i.e. strategist, human domain, etc). Basically, one learns about operational planning and the operational level of warfare.

Your impression is not that far off based on what the staff expressed to us. The SAASS selection board looks at an applicant's ROP and ranks accordingly. Based on the initial ranking, the faculty will then review each applicant's writing sample to ensure there are no major red flags present. Assuming that the writing samples and board rankings cohere, the list should mirror the original list. There are some attempts to balance the class based off of AFSC. People tend to apply for the MDOS elective based off of the assumption that being in the program will help their chances. Realistically, the data do not seem to support that assumption. MDOS does expose one, however, to a small selection, and only superficially, of the works that will be read in SAASS.

The regs may say they're the same, but MAWS is essentially an NCSC elective that adds two months to NCSC whereas the other three schools are 11 months and entirely distinct from an IDE program.

Gotcha.

Last year, I was able to see my selection folder in PRDA about two weeks after getting my PRF back from the SR.

For those in the know, how is the current real estate market in Vegas? I've seen that prices have come up from the bottom but I've also read that these prices came up quickly due to outside investors. Is the area likely to have another drop or do you think the market stabilized? Any other gotchas I should be aware of? My family and I are moving there this summer and are debating between renting and buying.

I really think it depends on what you value. If learning a language (assuming you don't already know Spanish) and gaining some experience with our joint brethren is valuable to you, then do it. IMO, I would take the opportunity.

Even if the SR doesn't nominate, folks can still be tagged to go. Previous squadron had two who were not nominated due to manning yet both are going. this summer

Therein lies the problem: if the policy aims are not attainable or reasonable, then no level of effort will secure the ends. Forcing some of those experienced operators into school and staff may actually be the remedy for the ills of the AF. People with firsthand experience working to influence strategy...seems valid.

I'd be careful though in recommending that we let the pendulum swing too far the other way. Remember, some of the criticism of current policy/strategy is that we have folks making decisions who lack a deep understanding of the underlying problems (the debate over how to handle ISIS is but one example) involved in each situation. There's something to be said about folks who take the time to think deeply every once in a while.

LJ, how did you view those who received PME credit for such programs as AFIP, TPS, Olmsted, etc? The AF seems to be moving away from granting credit, so I wonder if IDE/SDE credit is looked upon in an unfavorable fashion.

On the BPZ side, I know a handful who were picked up early with just a P, which again supports the idea that the board looks at the whole record.

I don't see the B-2 and U-2 communities asserting that companion training is useless because they cannot fly above 50,000' or 24+ hour missions in a T-38. Your post indicates an assumption that companion training must be directly related to the MWS mission for it to be worthwhile. That is incredibly myopic.

Two recommendations: "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay about the Battle of Britain "The X-15 Rocket Plane: Flying the First Wings into Space" by Michelle Evans about the X-15 program

Valid, I think TPS graduate personnel managers consider QOL secondary to bridging manning gaps. The overarching intent, gathered by many, is to admit rated aircrew into TPS earlier (quality allowing, of course) in order to get longer first test tours and more opportunities to send a select few to PM jobs later with the intent to build a pool of potential future SMLs.

This. Given the push to get younger pilots in, this will likely be the new norm. I wrote a recommendation for a guy who, like you, was a month or two over the limit by class start date. His waiver was denied. AFTC wants to get more mileage from their test pilots, which is only possible by taking younger ones.

I'm slated to have my final out from my base this Friday with one travel day authorized for travel to the new base. Our MPF is somewhat dysfunctional and decided to tell me today that my final out was moved up a day due to an MPF functional on Friday. Of course, had I had more than four days to plan, I would have reserved lodging and coordinated a multitude of other outprocessing/departure prep items, but now am up a creek. I pushed back and convinced the Airman that Thursday was untenable, so he'll meet with me on Friday. My question: I'm somewhat concerned based on this MPF's past performance that I'll show up Friday to a ghost town, thus I'm considering moving my final out to late Thursday. Since we cannot leave until Saturday morning due to lodging and other reasons, will I be charged leave since I outprocessed my base on Thursday and showed to the new one on Saturday with only one travel day allotted?

This. I've sat as a recorder for a non formal training FEB (i.e. guy was Q3'd after finishing the FTU) and helped another officer as the recorder for a B-course washout before the FEB waiver was approved. In both cases, the time from initiating proceedings to a final determination was around 5-6 months.

I wouldn't say that a TPS grad recommendation is the golden ticket, however, there is a reason why the recommendation form asks the write whether they graduated from TPS. In my experience, it almost always is better to have someone who knows you well write for you rather than a Wg/CC or GO if you cannot get a grad to do it. When you read the recommendation, you can tell if the person just signed a form pre-filled by the candidate (because it lacks a personal touch) which calls into question how well the writer knows the candidate. Blunt feedback: a 2.6 GPA is not great when the average select has around a 3.6-3.7 GPA. The minimum is 3.0 according to the application requirements. However, you demonstrated you can hack advanced engineering via your M.S. I would try to highlight your success in the graduate program in your application. Regarding the waiver status: call the office after you submit the waiver to check the status. You're not going to piss anyone off to ask as long as you don't bug them. It's your career, so you have the right to know. If you feel uncomfortable doing that, then ask your CC to track that info down.

In the past, pilots were told if their waiver request was approved/denied We just had a brief from the AFTC/CC where this sentiment was echoed. One correction, they didn't decrease the time on station (TOS) requirement but are, as you said less likely to waive the TAFCS requirement. Shack!