Rufus

There’s a tanker squadron actually doing a lot of that right now. No more exec shop. Extra civ in CSS and 4 new contractors for scheduling, training and Stan/Eval. Flight commanders are responsible for their people and put them up for awards if they’ve earned them. 1206s are only written for those who get pushed out of squadron. Half of the squadron building is being converted to classified space. Interested to see if the flyers flock to the vault now with this new found time and freedom. I suspect the cultural change will have to be supported by more than just one rogue commander. Otherwise, it’ll always die after the Change of Command. It’s much easier for outsiders to come in and assume the tanker crew members are too dumb and lazy to care about combat airpower and to reinstitute the culture of “make it happen” and low expectations (i.e. just get your beans done). Turns out both assumptions are wildly incorrect and to the detriment of the entire strike package. The more situationally aware and knowledgeable of the various mission sets tankers are, the more effective the force as a whole. Not sure I follow why we have to reject “professional development” in your vision (e.g. Safety school, AIS, Professional flying organization involvement, etc). Professional development comes in many forms and can absolutely make you a better officer/aviator. Maybe you’re talking about PME? No need to try to convince me PME is broken—100% agree. Oh...and agreed...volunteering should be 100% personal choice and not reportable to the AF in any fashion...including awards.

Fact

Sounds like a conversation that needs to happen in the squadron. Building combat capability is the primary purpose of any AF squadron. We can blame competing requirements all day long, but until your commanders take personal risk in order to prioritize what matters, we’ll continue to perpetuate these tactical myths and forget that there’s an enemy preparing to take us out. By the way—no snark intended. It’s a legit question. Though I’d love to see a commander fired for saying no to the queep and getting his crews into the vault. Also, there’s ample opportunity for crews to study downrange. That’s simply a matter of coordination.

If this is what your WOs are telling you at your base, you have a serious problem. Good tanker planning leverages both off-board capabilities and tactical situational awareness to place you as close to your receiver’s objective area as the CFACC’s ALR permits. Your job is to identify and mitigate risk, not to stay outside the WEZ. When was the last war the tankers were able to remain that far away? Hint: probably not in your lifetime. RWR and LAIRCM don’t make you tactical. Neither does flying low to the ground or using high bank angles. And in our most important missions, you’ll never be able to rely on the AWACS to be able to provide you timely threat information. If you’re a tanker crew dog, you need to get back into the books and ask more questions. The next enemy won’t be polite enough to forgive you your flawed logic—and as far as we know our amazing new fighters and bombers haven’t learned how to fly without fuel yet.