Boss, I quit...

[Murph]

Anybody else read the comments on the Small Wars Journal page?

Mostly a lot of "boo hoo USAF guy, cry me a river" from the Army types who populate the page -- it strikes me that it's this perspective that is the precise reason we're in the position we're in (and obviously inspired this latest Dear Boss) -- people who fundamentally do not understand what the actual unique capabilities of the USAF are with respect to National Strategy, and because of that lack of understanding see advocacy of that position as out-of-step with the current wars.

It's the very reason that the SECAF and CSAF were fired.

Interesting you say that, considering the author's opinions are in direct contradiction of the latest NSS and QDR.

[sky_king]

If Walt Disney got it, why can't we?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paY6y87rrpE

I just spend 1 1/2 hours watching that. Pretty good actually.

[Skitzo]

Might I also introduce into evidence that our flight commander said fuck the lesson plan, here's what you guys need to learn about early airpower. And then he proceeded to show us this legendary piece of cinematic history.

Our flight still finished last place in the reindeer game competition that is SOS but at least one instructor got it... and if only one SOS instructor gets it, then my faith is at least restored for a little bit.

[herkbum]

If Walt Disney got it, why can't we?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paY6y87rrpE

Got an iPad-friendly link or the name to look up on YouTube?

[Ram]

Now, 3 letters later, it just looks like the most recent petulant whine-session from some random privileged Air Force fighter pilot who didn't get enough mints on his pillow last night. Well, that's the perception anyway.

Hey you: Get in the vault and realize that we're on the brink of becoming the world's 2nd (or 3rd) best combat air force.

Also, Gulf War 1 was over 20 years ago.

[Magnum]

Hyperbole aside, if the US government depends that much on people staying in, and there's some sort of threat of loss of capability looming in the future, then I'm not seeing a whole lot of good faith coming from the other side of the table. Part of that is because Air Force pilots seem to have a habit of grossly overestimating their individual value to the service. There are more than enough true blue patriots, kool aid drinkers, and camofare addicts that are willing to stay in no matter what. After that, the AF can fill in the gaps by throwing money at people who were less than stellar at civilian life. But give me a break, global trade isn't going to plummet because F-16's are projected to be at 90% manning the next FY or something.

Regarding the newest Dear Boss letter, whatever effect it had has been diminished to almost zero. Nobody cares anymore that you hate the CSAF or senior leadership. At least, in 1974, it was about as new and shocking as nailing a list of demands to a cathedral door and starting a new religion. Now, 3 letters later, it just looks like the most recent petulant whine-session from some random privileged Air Force fighter pilot who didn't get enough mints on his pillow last night. Well, that's the perception anyway.

First of all, I don't know a single fighter pilot that is reaching their commitment and not either getting out completely or transitioning to the ANG / Reserve. Of course, that's not to say there aren't people staying in, just none that I know of. Additionally, the only people I know who drink the blue kool-aid are douche bags. Kool-aid drinkers of the past have been promoting themselves for years which is why we find ourselves in a mis-managed Air Force with no traditions, no morale, and without the foresight to realize that the wars of today may not be the same as the wars of tomorrow.

As for your filling the gaps comment, do you really want less than stellar civilians flying in the USAF? I like to think that combat pilots are the top 1% for a reason. Please refrain from any Occupy Air Force comments...

By the way, Ram is right on. If you haven't seen the emerging / already here threat, it's pretty eye opening. The training advantage we have been accustom to in the past is becoming marginalized as is our equipment.

[Guest]

Magnum, you drunk?

[billy pilgrim]

Part of that is because Air Force pilots seem to have a habit of grossly overestimating their individual value to the service. .

I agree with you on a individual basis this is true, but as an institution as a whole I completely disagree. Here's why on the fighter side:

The USAF is able to train about 300 fighter pilots a year. So about two years and ($3-4M) after someone starts UPT they show up at their ops squadron. Of course after MQT they still can only fly on someone's wing as a wingman. The issues of course is that you need flight leads in the formation and so by having too many wingman you are limited. Just like, I imagine, having a squadron full of copilots. Another year or two and around 300 hours ($2-4M worth of flight time) they go through upgrade and become a flight lead. The are not "experienced" until 500 hours, so closer to the last year of their tour, then on to an ALFA tour and then back to the jet and start again as a wingman and progress again through the upgrades. (faster this time of course). This is when you'll finally start to get quality instructor pilots, at around the 1,000 hour mark or so.

The point being is that to have a cadre of IP's as well as experienced flight leads - the backbone of a healthy fighter squadron, it takes probably a decade to get there for one pilot (and $7-10M). Once the balance gets all jacked up, you can't just make more - there's no one to train them in the squadrons. No one to fly with the new wingman, too few IP's to put people through upgrade. You've lost the operational expertise. It becomes an insurmountable, can't get there from here problem which takes a long time and a ton of money to fix.

So yes, individually we are all just "cogs in the machine" - I am 100% sure no one cares if I stay or leave the service. I do however, think there are underlying issues that don't show up on paper unless you know what to look for. Issues that are easily hidden. If we wait until they become apparent, it will be FAR too late. We'll end up with a few squadrons of fifth generation jets with pilots who fly as many hours annually as some of the countries that we used to make fun of in the vault. Hopefully they fare better than the gunless F-4 in the nam with it's new fangled AIM-7 (8.9% pK with 229 fired).

Right now there are not enough jets for these pilots to fly (due to F-22 numbers, F-35 delays and 4th gen retirement). It is my personal opinion that we are driving down the same pre-vietnam road of over-reliance on technology over training. I think that the way forward is more pilots that are able to train in more reliable (maybe slightly less performing) aircraft than a few that fly far less in a "bullet-proof" and "unrivaled" fifth gen jet.

When you stop letting fighter pilots fly, or stick them in UAV's, most will want to get out. All pilots like to fly, if the same thing was happening on the heavy side which has happened in the past five years on the fighter side you'd hear the exact same sentiments. The details here are different, but I think on that accord we're pretty much all the same.

Edited May 19, 2012 by billy pilgrim

[Danger41]

Regarding the newest Dear Boss letter, whatever effect it had has been diminished to almost zero. Nobody cares anymore that you hate the CSAF or senior leadership. At least, in 1974, it was about as new and shocking as nailing a list of demands to a cathedral door and starting a new religion. Now, 3 letters later, it just looks like the most recent petulant whine-session from some random privileged Air Force fighter pilot who didn't get enough mints on his pillow last night. Well, that's the perception anyway.

Perceptually, this is right on. And perception is reality.

I think every community has been getting driven into the ground. Look at the TDY rates for MAF bubbas and they're gone like 250+ days a year. AFSOC is gone all the time. But (once again with the perception thing), they aren't putting out these letters and perpetuating the whiny, kid in the corner stomping his feet stereotype that fighter guys are doing.

I know that wasn't the authors intent, but it's how people are viewing it. I (personally) know we need more dedicated air superiority assets. We need more money/better training for evolving threats at the tactical level. There's a myriad of things we need to maintain the level of dominance we've had in the past, but the biggest threat we have is budgetary issues. And the nearest rock for the budget folks is their constituency demanding to see a black number instead of a red one at the bottom of the sheet - combat capability be damned.

[guineapigfury]

Perceptually, this is right on. And perception is reality. I think every community has been getting driven into the ground. Look at the TDY rates for MAF bubbas and they're gone like 250+ days a year. AFSOC is gone all the time. But (once again with the perception thing), they aren't putting out these letters and perpetuating the whiny, kid in the corner stomping his feet stereotype that fighter guys are doing. I know that wasn't the authors intent, but it's how people are viewing it.

The difference is that those of us in the MAF never operated under the misconception that any one gave a shit about us; that's why you don't see any of these letters from the tanker/airlift side of the house.

[Duck]

The difference is that those of us in the MAF never operated under the misconception that any one gave a shit about us; that's why you don't see any of these letters from the tanker/airlift side of the house.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right thar!

[Day Man]

I don't care who you are, that's funny right thar!

It's funny because it's true.

[Hacker]

The difference is that those of us in the MAF never operated under the misconception that any one gave a shit about us; that's why you don't see any of these letters from the tanker/airlift side of the house.

What's interesting is that, even though the "Dear Boss" letters deal with an individual symbolically tellling the leadership why he, personally, is not staying in, the letters have ultimately not been inspired by pilots who suddenly realized that Big Blue did not give a shit about them. Although we're all sold this bill of goods about how well we're going to be taken care of when we're in our commissioning sources, I think that anyone who has been around the block long enough as the authors of these letters have has all ready long since lost faith in their romantic notions the the AF cared about taking care of them as individuals or as part of the team.

From my perspective, these letters have always been about losing faith in the AF's execution of the mission and not what it was doing for the people attempting to execute that mission. These letters are from pilots who once believed that the AF cared about the mission, and are realizing that, via the actions described in the letters, that Big Blue really doesn't. The letters complain about the symptoms of a service that is losing it's ability to execute combat airpower, and furthermore doesn't really care that it is.

I obviously can't speak for the MAF guys, but as a fighter dude I can say for me personally that the realization that the AF organizationally doesn't actually prioritize execution of combat airpower is heartbreaking. It's a huge letdown. It creates a lot of serious cynics. Now I know why, when I was a punk Lt and Captain, all of the Majs and Lt Cols running around the squadron were perpetually pissed off and crusty.

I can see for some folks, that realization would cause them to write letters like this out of frustration.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Hacker

[Danny Noonin]

From my perspective, these letters have always been about losing faith in the AF's execution of the mission and not what it was doing for the people attempting to execute that mission...The letters complain about the symptoms of a service that is losing it's ability to execute combat airpower, and furthermore doesn't really care that it is.

Exactly right

[Guest]

The comments about whining fighter pilots is interesting. Fighter pilots are self centered, no doubt. Most come by that as part of their nature and the community/culture/USAF and nature of the job amplify that.

These letters are a bit different, as Hacker points out.

While everyone downrange is at risk, fighter guys (and helo guys) talk about killing and being killed every day. Risk is more real and the frustration is too. Fighter guys need to believe they will be supported and allowed to play to win or it just doesn't seem worth it.

[Fud]

Perceptually, this is right on. And perception is reality.

I think every community has been getting driven into the ground. Look at the TDY rates for MAF bubbas and they're gone like 250+ days a year. AFSOC is gone all the time. But (once again with the perception thing), they aren't putting out these letters and perpetuating the whiny, kid in the corner stomping his feet stereotype that fighter guys are doing.

I know that wasn't the authors intent, but it's how people are viewing it. I (personally) know we need more dedicated air superiority assets. We need more money/better training for evolving threats at the tactical level. There's a myriad of things we need to maintain the level of dominance we've had in the past, but the biggest threat we have is budgetary issues. And the nearest rock for the budget folks is their constituency demanding to see a black number instead of a red one at the bottom of the sheet - combat capability be damned.

I think the problem lies in the presentation of the past three letters, and who the adressees were. In the book Sierra Hotel, it mentions that, then Capt, Ron Keys was assigned the task of compiling inputs to give to the TAC commander, Gen. Creech. He wrote a draft letter, dropped it on the squadron secretary's desk, and headed to a TDY in Alaska. However, the letter was never combined with any other letter and happened to make it to the general's desk in the same form as the draft. Upon return from his TDY, Keys was called on the carpet for the letter, but Gen Creech wanted to hear how he was going to fix those problems and carry on.

A few important points I see here:

1. All of the past letters, except Key's letter, has not been directly addressed to an USAF Flag Officer. Even though Gen. Welsh wanted inputs, I have yet to hear any significance come out of that action. I am not in his command yet, and I highly respect him as a person and an officer. This is not to say that no action was taken, but it did not have the same effect as Key's letter to Gen Creech. We can write in climate assessment surveys all day long, and I have seen commanders at the sq/gp/wg levels fired over enough negative comments.

2. In this day and age, if an O-3 wrote a letter to an O-7 and above, he would be run out of the service in a heart beat after receiving at least an LOR or punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ. The words would be viewed as disrespect/contempt towards senior officials and so on. I have no doubt in my mind this is the case, since we are a much more politically correct service than we were in the past. I'm glad the general had the foresight to keep him around, but I respect the big brass balls that Keys has.

3. I agree with a comment made earlier about making this a personal decision to leave the service. My mantra is this, "If serving my country is no longer equitable to me and my family, it will erode my ability to serve before self, and be excellent in all I do". Family and mission have to change priorities on occasion, but that is the nature of the beast.

[Champ Kind]

Family and mission have to change priorities on occasion

No way. Never.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Champ Kind

[Hacker]

Family and mission have to change priorities on occasion

No way. Never.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Is this a sarcastic comment, or do you really believe that the priority is "always" family?

That's like the "safety is the priority" discussion; if safety was really the priority, we would never raise the gear handle. If family was really the priority, we'd never leave the house to do our jobs.

[Fud]

Is this a sarcastic comment, or do you really believe that the priority is "always" family?

That's like the "safety is the priority" discussion; if safety was really the priority, we would never raise the gear handle. If family was really the priority, we'd never leave the house to do our jobs.

I guess a better word would be that priorities often have to shift. As much as I'd love to say the family is first all the time in my life, it does not mean that I will not go to work and perform the mission I'm assigned. Mission, in reality, almost always trumps family (i.e. deployments, TDYs, PME, etc...).

Another good quote I like is from a former squadron commander. He said "If you retire from the service and have no family to spend it with, you are doing it wrong." I guess I used a poor word choice.

[Cap-10]

I think everyone agrees that the mission is first...when the flag goes up you grab your bag and deploy, child's graduation / wedding anniversary be damned!

The reason people get ( I got) out is when, in their opinion, the pro's of the job / hacking the mission no longer outweigh the con's of being gone and the effect it has on the loved ones who stay behind for 6 months / 365 at a time.

For me, it was the easiet choice I've ever made...guess that makes me a quitter!

Cheers,

Cap-10

[billy pilgrim]

Pile-on (fixed for BQZip01) to the family work balance...

I've been reading some history lately - specifically WWII, Vietnam and Afghanistan. There seems a marked difference on the mentality of those who fought in each conflict.

The "all in" mentality seemed to evident in WWII across the board - to the extent of some people eagerly volunteering to get to the fight and do their part. Leaving family was seen as a necessity and not questioned or really thought about.

In Vietnam, although there were frustrations with the politics of the conflict (No bombing of SAM sites under construction - YBGSM!) I still get the feeling that a lot of the pilots directly saw the effect they were having by dropping iron on the bad guys. Because of this, again I think because they saw that what they were doing was necessary - even if it was to help out the other guys in the squadron or the guys on the ground more so than the Vietnamese. I just read Palace Cobra - Ed volunteered for another 365 to get back to the fight... and that was in a conflict with a LOT of casualties.

In Afghanistan, after ten years at war I think it becomes frustrating for the guys on the ground who will go nine months or longer away from their families and probably count on one hand the number of times they shoot their weapon in combat. When it becomes harder to see the impact you are personally having, the personal sacrifices of being away from ones family become harder to justify to yourself.

I think for most it's not an aversion to danger or a lack of patriotism it's the lack of seeing a positive effect of their sacrifice.

I would bet that most pilots would be less frustrated saying good bye to their families if the flag went up in a major conventional conflict than they do when they're off to a 365 at the Died.

Edited May 22, 2012 by billy pilgrim

[BQZip01]

Pylon to the family work balance...

Uh...Pile-on?

[Smokin]

I think everyone agrees that the mission is first...when the flag goes up you grab your bag and deploy, child's graduation / wedding anniversary be damned!

I'm not so sure; how many times have you heard the new slogan of "people first, mission always"?

[ThreeHoler]

I'm not so sure; how many times have you heard the new slogan of "people first, mission always"?

It's not new. It was stolen from the Army.

[Hacker]

I'm not so sure; how many times have you heard the new slogan of "people first, mission always"?

It's an idiotic saying that is just another symptom of the overall loss of focus in the US military.

We're in the military and our job is to fight wars. Mission is first, period. When time and effort allows, then everything else.

And, yes, like Cap-10, I have been on deployments (like OIF in 2003) where people had to miss the births of their children so the squadron could go to war.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Hacker