Clark Griswold Posted January 2, 2015 Posted January 2, 2015 Not sure exactly what's wrong with the AF but here's an example of what was right about it from back in the day. Mission first, bureaucratic bullshit second. Spies Helped the USAF Shoot Down a Third of North Vietnam’s MiG-21s The American pilots had to keep the NSA in the dark
Royal Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 The AF weighs option of hiring contractors for the aggressor mission. The U.S. Air Force fleet of planes and pilots is stretched so thin, the service is considering hiring private military corporations flying supersonic jets to train its fighter jocks in mock air combat. The Air Force is being forced to consider such desperate measures because it doesn’t have enough fighter jets and trained aircrew to fly missions where they would simulate enemy warplanes—also called “red air” in military slang. Due to budget cuts and investments in ultra-expensive gear, the Air Force was forced to disband one of its three so-called Aggressor squadrons that fly frontline jets like the Boeing F-15C Eagle and Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon that are painted in enemy colors and use enemy tactics. The reason for the new initiative? Pure desperation, say more than a half-dozen senior Air Force officials. “The red air situation is a mess,” one senior Air Force told The Daily Beast. “There are Band-Aid fixes being applied to areas around the community, but it’s not enough.” It’s a sign of the system-wide stress the Air Force is now under. Thirteen years of war, combined with unwise investments in underperforming stealth jets, has put the service in a bind. There just aren’t enough planes—or pilots—on hand to fulfill the Air Force’s many missions. “Demand for our services is way, way up. But we are meeting those demands today with the smallest Air Force in our history,” Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James told reporters Jan. 15. “And when you couple that smaller force against the backdrop of austere budgets, and with the huge demand, what we have is we have a total force that is under significant strain.” As for outsourcing red air, not everyone is sold on the move—but most agree the Air Force has little choice. “The short answer is that contractor-provided red air is overpriced and underwhelming, but at the end of the day there isn’t much choice in utilizing it,” another senior Air Force official told The Daily Beast. The Air Force is soliciting pricing information for how much it would cost for contractors to fly 180 training sorties over a two-week period later this year. “Although this is a one-time trial, there is potential for this trial to grow into multiple requests per year or an annual contract for X number of weeks of support throughout the year,” reads an Air Force document posted on the government’s Federal Business Opportunities website.
Dupe Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 The AF weighs option of hiring contractors for the aggressor mission. Seems like a good idea to me to partially solve the 11F mess. I'm not sure why contractor-flown red air has to be "underwhelming."
Jughead Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Seems like a good idea to me to partially solve the 11F mess. I'm not sure why contractor-flown red air has to be "underwhelming." Agreed. My question, though, is how this would save money. Save 11F bodies to fill other billets, sure--but save money? I doubt it, at least not in anything less than a complete actuarial sense--and probably not even then....
Dupe Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Agreed. My question, though, is how this would save money. Save 11F bodies to fill other billets, sure--but save money? I doubt it, at least not in anything less than a complete actuarial sense--and probably not even then.... I think it would. Every mil that you flip over to a contractor means less base-support needed. Let the contractor handle dental plans, flight records, HR, etc. Not only are our long-term costs expensive, the AF's "overhead rate" is wildly expensive. The real problem comes in the colors of money. We'll be asking ACC to pay up as part of their operations bill as opposed to having some of the costs hidden deep in the MilPers fund or base operating support costs. The funding levers just don't shift that easily, so likely ACC is eating it somewhere else. *This conversation is a sign that I've been in the AF for way too long.... Edited January 21, 2015 by Dupe
Blue Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Seems like a good idea to me to partially solve the 11F mess. I'm not sure why contractor-flown red air has to be "underwhelming." I think the "underwhelming" part is that the best contractor-provided red air I'd going to be an A-4 with a few gee-whiz upgrades.
Dupe Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) I think the "underwhelming" part is that the best contractor-provided red air I'd going to be an A-4 with a few gee-whiz upgrades. My impression of the article was that this was GOCO: Government-owned, contractor operated. A contractor would operate AF-owned F-16s over a two week period. Here's what came out of ACC: Head Quarters Air Combat Command desires a ROM to acquire commercial air services adversary air support training ("Red Air" or Dissimilar Aircraft Combat Training) from 4th generation fighter aircraft capable of Mach 1.0+ and equipped with: Radar, Radar Warning Receivers (RWR), and Electronic Attack (EA) systems. Desired level of support: - 10x8 support for a two week period (10 flying days) (180 sorties) at Nellis AFB - 1.5 planned ASD sorties to support a 45 minute vulnerability window - Ability to flex flying window to support AF requirements not to exceed a 12 hour daily flying window. - All aircrew must have a minimum Secret clearance and current SSBI investigation - Provide necessary personnel, transportation, maintenance support, and supplies I don't see how industry would spin-up for a two week push, then spin down again. There needs to be the promise of on-going work. Edited January 21, 2015 by Dupe
Prosuper Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 I don't see how industry would spin-up for a two week push, then spin down again. There needs to be the promise of on-going work. Been contracting for awhile, no way I would sign on for this, it will take just 4 weeks to get boots on the ground after 6 months just recruiting guys with the skill set to do this, plus who is going to spend the money for 2 weeks for pilots type cert. It has to be 2 years with year to year options. Since I don't wear stripes anymore you got to pay me big to sign on for this.
dvlax40 Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 is this not something that could be shifted to reserve/guard units first? the reserve guys get proficiency, the AF gets lower overhead agressor squadrons 1
HossHarris Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 I'm guessing a lot of commenters don't actually know what aggressors squadrons do, should do, and used to do. The red air aspect is only a small part of the overall job. Damn near anyone can fly red air to varying degrees of effectiveness. Aggressor squadrons are different for a reason. 1
Champ Kind Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 To add to the list: -Duty titles that include the words "Assistant Deputy..." -Random exec/aide taskings from the AFPC robot with requirements/preferences for WOs. Really?
MC5Wes Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 The 64th and 65th AGRS had Traditional and ART Reservists from the 926th Group the two years I was there. My first and only TFI unit.
Dupe Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 I'm guessing a lot of commenters don't actually know what aggressors squadrons do, should do, and used to do. The red air aspect is only a small part of the overall job. Damn near anyone can fly red air to varying degrees of effectiveness. Aggressor squadrons are different for a reason. Besides adding CGO & FGO numbers to support strats of WIC instructors, 422 dudes, and T-birds, I'm not sure I understand why aggressors must be military. Contracting out, creating more technician spots, or making GS positions all seem like valid ways to fill the aggressor need while mitigating the very real 11F manpower problem.
17D_guy Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 I was thinking there were TTP's and intel on the enemy the aggressors had that normal's didn't.
SuperWSO Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 Know the threat, teach the threat, replicate the threat. That is the mission. There have been and still are Aggressors serving in TFI units in the 57th ATG.
Herk Driver Posted January 24, 2015 Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) https://hamptonroads.com/node/741563WTF? What role playing were they doing that led to this? Edited January 24, 2015 by Herk Driver
herkbum Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 WTF? What role playing were they doing that led to this? And it's an AE SQ at that!
BB Stacker Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) I'm too lazy to go dig up the report (I think it may have been mentioned earlier in the thread), but the whole situation was an absolute clown show. The training in question was supposed to be related to AE's job....which as you might expect has nothing to do with hostage negotiation or rescue. Someone with rank had a good idea fairy moment and decided that the training needed "plussing up," so they directed a couple of (I'm assuming Med Group) CGOs and SNCOs who were in charge of the training syllabus to basically call an audible on the last day of training. The CGOs/SNCOs in question had something like less than 24 hours to come up with the "plussing up" of the training. The CGOs/SNCOs had zero training on any real training development process, much less something as fluid as a hostage negotiation and/or rescue, so they were basically winging it. They came up with a plan that involved a climax featuring driving a Humvee in close proximity to a whole bunch of people (my memory is fuzzy but I think it was something about the hostage takers driving into the compound to deliver the hostage back to US forces or something). Unsurprisingly, the mixture of untrained individuals operating heavy equipment in close proximity to a gaggle of personnel in a scenario that was not well designed and loosely controlled resulted in something getting out of whack and someone getting run over. BL the Col in question is probably lucky that no one preferred charges against her because the situation leading up to the death of the SSgt was some serious dereliction of duty shit. The fact that no one had the sense to call knock it off at any point in the process reflects pretty poorly on everyone involved. Edited January 25, 2015 by BB Stacker
uhhello Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 https://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/ExecSum2013/GAIB%2C%20HMMWV%2C%20Montana%2C%2029%20Nov%2012.pdf
Herk Driver Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) https://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/ExecSum2013/GAIB%2C%20HMMWV%2C%20Montana%2C%2029%20Nov%2012.pdfThat's not it but I can dig around and find it. Thanks ETA: https://www.amc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-141202-003.pdf Edited January 25, 2015 by Herk Driver
uhhello Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) That's not it but I can dig around and find it. Thanks Weird. I just grabbed the first one that mentioned hmmv in it. I know I read the whole report but it's not up on the site anymore. Found it on the AMC site https://www.amc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-141202-003.pdf Edited January 25, 2015 by uhhello
17D_guy Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 ...Someone with rank had a good idea fairy moment and decided that the training needed "plussing up,"... It's amazing how much of this crap goes on today in the financially constrained/deployment heavy environment we're in. Some old-POS SNCO/FGO thinks the AF is babying the Amn/NCOs/CGOs these days and need toughing up. All my Amn are working harder, longer hours, with less support and funds than ever before. But somehow we're soft and don't know how hard it was back in the day, so additional training's got to take place. On top of the resiliency/CAF/Safety/etc days. Some idiot thinks additional support should be offered because it's a "nice to have" or throws us under the bus because we "won't" support an additional 5K customers without additional manning. God, I wish I was making that last one up. As a prior-enlisted, and old looking, officer I get rolled into this soft crowd, that doesn't understand how "hard" it was in the late 90's thru '07. It usually doesn't go well for that individual. 1
sqwatch Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 It usually doesn't go well for that individual.
17D_guy Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) Note - interactions mentioned before were face-to-face. I subscribe to the arguing on the internet w/ retards rule. Edited January 26, 2015 by 17D_guy
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now