What's wrong with the Air Force?

[matmacwc]

20 hours ago, Homestar said:

Stopping the PCS madness is a great idea. 5 years should be the standard. All a typical pilot needs till he goes to ACSC are jobs at/below the Wing level anyway. All that can be done in one place. If you want to move after 5 years but before 10 look for a job in a squadron somewhere else and get hired there. Let Sq/CCs hire their squadrons. I'm sure there are tons of problems with this idea. 

Somebody old tell us why this didn't work in the 90's, I know we have tried it and it was a disaster.

[ViperMan]

20 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Another special pay for shitholes for 0 to 3 years, bonus for staying beyond three years.  

Bottom 1/3rd requested bases get a base pay bonus of 10%.  Sign up for a 5 year hitch at Turdshit AFB and get years 4 & 5 with a bonus + 10% base pay.  Make the bonus appreciable, at least 6 o 12k per year, with increasing pay for tenure at Base X.

Coming at it from a perspective of someone with rug rats, steer money to these bases for great housing-facilities-schools (On base DODS or contract schools if the local schools are abortions or grants for local school improvements if it could be done legally).

Not saying this from hate but there could be other incentives to encourage movement at appropriate times rather than stagnation at garden spots.  You could require the desirable spots to fill X % of 365s first with some caveats to ensure they get sometime in the sun or beach before a 365 to somewhere not so nice.

Less desirable bases would then have at least one attractive amenity (or several if you implement that plus a bonus pay).

I agree that incentive pay would fix the issue for some folks (like with those whose personal desires align with the assignment, such as having rug rats).

Using myself as a data point, however, I can tell you that right now I make right around a $100K/yr, and there are contractors that the AF pays ~$180K/yr - to do a similar job at Holloman. If that extra $80K (~10x the bonus amount you suggest) was offered to me as "Holloman incentive", it still would not be enough for me to move there. So I get that I'm a data point of one, but I'm telling you that the AF could double the money, and it wouldn't affect my calculus. IMO, to a great, MANY people, it's all about location, location, location, and with the way BAH, and COLA is designed, no one at any base should be hurting financially, so it's not like someone would really need that extra money. Just my 2 cents.

I think the AF does have to get creative when it comes to solving their problems, re: your X% of 365s suggestion. On that note, specifically, however, I think 179s/365s need to be drastically reduced, and beyond that, the AF needs to keep a long-term (i.e. career-long, 20+ year) list of those who have done such tours - and ensure everyone who hasn't done one, stays closer to the top than ANYONE who hasn't - including HPOs. A lack of transparency and fairness when it comes to 179s/365s is a major factor I think leads people to bail.

20 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Excellent that the article's main point wasn't just to slow the roll on PCSing, but that the incurred service commitment for a mandatory PCS was the issue. 100% agree...when faced with A) accept PCS and add to my overall ADSC or B) punch, I took the red pill.

To solve the problem of massing folks in desirable locations, you do what every other large organization on earth does: leverage incentives. Pay more for less favorable locations. Offer career benefits for accepting tours in less favorable locations. Also you probably just accept that quality at those less favorable locations is going to inevitably be lower due to the trend of people with their heads screwed on straight will choose more favorable life conditions for their families.

On the career benefits side, I think there could be stuff done in that regard. Something like every 3 years you spend at Holloman (sorry to keep piling on), nets you 4 years of service (YOS) - meaning you get pay raises earlier, get more time subtracted off your commitments/ADSCs, AND get to retire early. Costly? You bet - but such places already are costly in terms of attrition. Soooooooo, costly is a given at this point. Two tours at Holloman? Cool, you get sanctuary at 16 YOS, and get to retire at 18 - with a 20 year retirement.

1 hour ago, cantfly said:

We all know Uncle Sam doesn't want anything to cost Big Blue a dime. If I'm going to step in front of a GO and say I would like more homesteading options for aviators and for you to restructure a base from each MAJCOM on a 4 year basis would be more reasonable. Sir/maam, this won't cost you a dime, but save money and pilots in the long run. His/her ears might perk up. 

When you talk about costing the AF more money not dealing with iron on the ramp, golf courses, or pools you are going to lose.

Maybe after your commitment ends, you are authorized to submit a "Wish List" of places the AF cannot send you period. And the AF must give you one of your top 3 assignment preferences. The list must be honored by AFPC. Almost like having seniority in the airlines. I came up with this idea because the problem is the high time guys leaving after their commitment is up. Not saying this idea won't screw over the younger guys. But it would be a far better incentive to me.

Yeah, I like it. Maybe give certain assignments/bases "point values." Lock up a Can-Kun tour, get 100 points; rock a non-vol AFPAK hands, clear 500; soak up Spang/Aviano, pay -200. Next assignment drop, whoever has the most points, gets first dibs. This flies directly in the face of how the AF stacks the deck, but it would solve LOTS of problems - I can almost guarantee it. Every point you get to the end of your career with, the AF pays out 1000-to-1.

Edited May 2, 2017 by ViperMan

[Lawman]

I would worry about timing any sort of adverse location bonus to a specific amount of time.

That's way too easy of a "fix" for assignments to accomplish where they simply PCS two guys from two separate crap locations at the year X-1 day mark to the other guys crap location (and vice verse).

Then they get to pretend the PCS cost nothing and that they "saved the service money" in not paying out a bonus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ViperMan]

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

I would worry about timing any sort of adverse location bonus to a specific amount of time.

That's way too easy of a "fix" for assignments to accomplish where they simply PCS two guys from two separate crap locations at the year X-1 day mark to the other guys crap location (and vice verse).

Then they get to pretend the PCS cost nothing and that they "saved the service money" in not paying out a bonus.

Valid. Which is why any such system should be implemented on a "continuous" vs "discrete" basis. A day at a time would likely solve the issue: 3 days in Holloman, 4 days-of-service (*DOS) - new acronym, first coined right here. Then, at worst, dudes get screwed out of one days' time. At its core, this is the exact same issue, and root cause (IMO), that led to the design of the 179.

Edited May 3, 2017 by ViperMan

[brickhistory]

2 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Somebody old tell us why this didn't work in the 90's, I know we have tried it and it was a disaster.

You rang?

Homesteading is great for some who get their base of preference.  Not so much for the Minot/Cannon/etc folks.  If you want to move those folks, where do you put them?

Same for overseas return folks.  Where do you put them?

What do you do with joint-spouse folks?  Special needs?  Pretty soon the pipeline gets clogged up beyond recognition.

And for the current up or out construct, how do you show career progression for a dude who flies the line at Base X for 5 years?  Not defending or attacking the premise, just stating the institution's viewpoint of the issue. 

Lots of butthurt when the bright shinys got to have their cake and assignment too, but Joe Bag o' got the sticks followed by a remote.

 

Also, Congress drives the train for budget and MILCON.  They simply don't care about efficiency or QOL.  They care about votes and the what the various Committees of 50 or other vampires do for them.  Not about you who most likely isn't a resident, i.e., a voter of their anyway.  You'll be gone a few years and Joe Local will still be there expecting to make his money off Uncle Sam's troops.

You are a commodity.

Vote with your feet accordingly.

[ViperMan]

35 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

You rang?

Homesteading is great for some who get their base of preference.  Not so much for the Minot/Cannon/etc folks.  If you want to move those folks, where do you put them?

Same for overseas return folks.  Where do you put them?

What do you do with joint-spouse folks?  Special needs?  Pretty soon the pipeline gets clogged up beyond recognition.

And for the current up or out construct, how do you show career progression for a dude who flies the line at Base X for 5 years?  Not defending or attacking the premise, just stating the institution's viewpoint of the issue. 

Lots of butthurt when the bright shinys got to have their cake and assignment too, but Joe Bag o' got the sticks followed by a remote.

Also, Congress drives the train for budget and MILCON.  They simply don't care about efficiency or QOL.  They care about votes and the what the various Committees of 50 or other vampires do for them.  Not about you who most likely isn't a resident, i.e., a voter of their anyway.  You'll be gone a few years and Joe Local will still be there expecting to make his money off Uncle Sam's troops.

You are a commodity.

Vote with your feet accordingly.

That's what I see, too. Hill to Holloman? No fvcking way. You HAVE to close bases.

Yeah, that. Your choices are your only currency.

Edited May 3, 2017 by ViperMan

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, ViperMan said:

... it still would not be enough for me to move there...

I think the AF does have to get creative when it comes to solving their problems, re: your X% of 365s suggestion. On that note, specifically, however, I think 179s/365s need to be drastically reduced, and beyond that, the AF needs to keep a long-term (i.e. career-long, 20+ year) list of those who have done such tours - and ensure everyone who hasn't done one, stays closer to the top than ANYONE who hasn't - including HPOs. A lack of transparency and fairness when it comes to 179s/365s is a major factor I think leads people to bail.

Understood, I was at a Northern Tier base years ago and money would not be enough to go back there, a shit load of money maybe.  Ultimately it is time, you're never going to get more of that and I understand the low to negative desire to spend it at a base in the middle of BFE.

Concur - push back on the COCOMs on staff requirements and give credit where credit is due.  

On a related note to, an idea to reward 365s, a volunteer could be rewarded with a follow on already decided, ex:  365 to A-Stan with follow on to Hickam, 365 to the Died with follow on to Peterson, etc...

There would have to be a data driven argument to convince the AF of the upside for them versus the current method of 365 requirement matching, this should be a survey project for an AU student... 

Edited May 3, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[FlyinGrunt]

Having firsthand experience with rural inbred vampires feeding off Uncle Sam's troops, and seeing the coming exodus tsunami firsthand as well, I ask if the Nation will soon be forced to choose between its federally funded rural welfare and the all-volunteer force.

NSplayer, you are committing the classic corporate finance error of throwing good money after bad sunk costs re: Cannon.  All that matters is future earnings, and we both know that the massive retraining bill caused by attrition quickly dwarfs the cost of building that capacity at other, nicer bases.

If the Nation wants to prevent the loss of the vast majority of combat airpower (meaning pilots and other aircrew) then they will pressure their Congresscritters to act.  If they value their welfare kickbacks, they can act accordingly . . . and face the consequences when the draft comes back.  Even stop-loss cannot work forever.

For those saying "that can never happen," go re-look at Fingers' breakdown of pilots produced vs. airline demands over the next decade.  He's not wrong.  I predict that attrition of 90% or more is totally possible over that time period - and where would that leave the Nation with no one to fly the jets?

[pawnman]

12 hours ago, ViperMan said:

 

I think the AF does have to get creative when it comes to solving their problems, re: your X% of 365s suggestion. On that note, specifically, however, I think 179s/365s need to be drastically reduced, and beyond that, the AF needs to keep a long-term (i.e. career-long, 20+ year) list of those who have done such tours - and ensure everyone who hasn't done one, stays closer to the top than ANYONE who hasn't - including HPOs. A lack of transparency and fairness when it comes to 179s/365s is a major factor I think leads people to bail.

 

I thought the 365 list was exactly this - based solely on short-tour return date, which starts with the date you entered the service until you get a short tour.  And it moves forward one day for every day you spend deployed.  Is that not how 365s are decided?

[ThreeHoler]

I thought the 365 list was exactly this - based solely on short-tour return date, which starts with the date you entered the service until you get a short tour.  And it moves forward one day for every day you spend deployed.  Is that not how 365s are decided?

Two words: DAV codes.

[ViperStud]

55 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I thought the 365 list was exactly this - based solely on short-tour return date, which starts with the date you entered the service until you get a short tour.  And it moves forward one day for every day you spend deployed.  Is that not how 365s are decided?

When my porch dude told me I was top 10 before I separated a few years back, he was careful to note that over half of those dudes ahead of me could be protected at any given time: school, staff, PCS, aide-de-camp, etc. Keeping the Hippos moving frequently between those duties protects them. When they are vulnerable, a pepper-grinder deployment is often loaded even if several months out to keep said dude for even getting consideration for a BS 365.

The process is anything but objective. 

[nsplayr]

6 hours ago, FlyinGrunt said:

NSplayer, you are committing the classic corporate finance error of throwing good money after bad sunk costs re: Cannon.  All that matters is future earnings, and we both know that the massive retraining bill caused by attrition quickly dwarfs the cost of building that capacity at other, nicer bases.

To be clear, I'm not personally advocating for keeping Cannon open due to the massive MILCON investments that have been made there in the last 5 years, I'm just saying that's the reality. 

Cannon is a massive vacuum on a relatively small command, strategically sucking good talent right out the door. Never too late to correct a bad mistake, but the Air Force and Congrrss more importantly are rarely if ever willing to offer a full mia culpa and spend the kind of $$ necessary to make things right.  

Personally I would love to see the 33rd SOS specifically relocated to the top couple of floors of Freedom Tower in NYC so they could rain reightous payback on some of the terrorists that would love to see another 9/11.

Hell, if they made a 4-year RPA tour in NYC come with complementary season tickets to the professional sports team of your choice (many to choose from), I'm sure you'd have a few more volunteers compared to being exiled in rural New Mexico.

Edited May 3, 2017 by nsplayr

[cantfly]

I was looking at some AFPC slides regarding selection for 365s. They look at the following: STRD, number of short tours, prior time puts you out of your year group, and TAFMSD.

 

[Weezer]

As far as RPA bases, there's no reason not to have an RPA flying squadron at every base in the AF.

[Guardian]

As far as RPA bases, there's no reason not to have an RPA flying squadron at every base in the AF.

F that. If that happened that would give big blue the ability to more easily send everyone to an RPA assignment against their will.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[cantfly]

12 minutes ago, Weezer said:

As far as RPA bases, there's no reason not to have an RPA flying squadron at every base in the AF.

RPAs are great for terrorist. They have yet to be truly tested against a real adversary's military that can actually counter our punches. Operation Allied Force... cough..cough

 

[tac airlifter]

Just now, cantfly said:

RPAs...... have yet to be truly tested against a real adversary's military that can actually counter our punches. 

I keep hearing that.  So what? 

[cantfly]

3 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

I keep hearing that.  So what? 

So what? I wasn't even a pilot when OAF kicked off in the late 90s. However, I was doing intel at a certain federal agency. Talk to an old intel troop with knowledge about the operation or go to a vault and garner some SA on the subject. Those guys were well trained and took down an F-117. It wasn't luck...

[Lawman]

So what? I wasn't even a pilot when OAF kicked off in the late 90s. However, I was doing intel at a certain federal agency. Talk to an old intel troop with knowledge about the operation or go to a vault and garner some SA on the subject. Those guys were well trained and took down an F-117. It wasn't luck...

 

I'm guessing by the timeline you just suggested your not exactly in the loop with the current goings on.

 

 

Given where UAS exist in the active targeting cycle and the targeting cycle it's self, the necessity/history of work of guys developing TTPs for the scenario described, and the current daily validation of them doing a lot more than just thump guys in man dresses who have at best a ZPU.... yeah drones have actually been doing a hell of a lot of proving themselves.

 

I guarantee you right now there is a drone orbiting somewhere that 20 years ago some Intel troop or planner would have said "we can't sent anything but the 117 there...."

 

And they are only getting more refined and supported.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tac airlifter]

22 minutes ago, cantfly said:

So what? I wasn't even a pilot when OAF kicked off in the late 90s. However, I was doing intel at a certain federal agency. Talk to an old intel troop with knowledge about the operation or go to a vault and garner some SA on the subject. Those guys were well trained and took down an F-117. It wasn't luck...

Again, so what?  So we have RPAs that won't survive (you assume) near-peer contested airspace?  They're RPAs; we can afford to lose a few.  Also, they aren't designed for that; they're designed to do exactly what they are doing now.  So why do you care that  RPAs haven't been "truly tested against a real adversary's military that can actually counter our punches?"  I don't care if they get tested in that environment or not, we paid for them to do what they're doing now (talking here about the 1/9).  I don't understand the point of your comment, hence I asked you to elaborate by asking you "so what?"

Regarding your "go to a vault and garner SA" line: what do you think that adds to the conversation?  I'm not impressed by your comments about yourself.

Edited May 3, 2017 by tac airlifter

[ViperStud]

1 hour ago, cantfly said:

I was looking at some AFPC slides regarding selection for 365s. They look at the following: STRD, number of short tours, prior time puts you out of your year group, and TAFMSD.

 

While technically that's correct, once someone becomes "hot" for a remote that still doesn't mean they'll get tasked with one. AFPC won't slip someone already on a VML or fragged for school soon, they'll simply find the next unlucky dude for the 365. Also, high-vis hand-picked short tours (general's aide, etc) are typically ID'd a little further out and, once matched to a specific person, keep them safe from the random 365 tasking. A bright & shiny won't be derailed from their mentor's game plan simply because the STRD/TAFMS math made them "hot" on the 365 list. 

[Guardian]

While objectively that's how it should work.....subjectively it doesn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Guardian]

As far as RPA goes they have proven themselves for the fight that they do. The current RPA structure doesn't allow for a non permissive environment to do that mission. So you are both right. RPA are extremely valuable, expensive, and human cost intensive. And RPA are not currently cut out for a near peer war.

And in no way shape or form should RPA be at every base. Also bases are away from major populations more often than not for a reason. The military doesn't want to intrude on the local populace and vice versa. As much as I would like to be stationed in downtown anywhere it's not likely on purpose.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Lawman]

As far as RPA goes they have proven themselves for the fight that they do. The current RPA structure doesn't allow for a non permissive environment to do that mission. So you are both right. RPA are extremely valuable, expensive, and human cost intensive. And RPA are not currently cut out for a near peer war.

 

And in no way shape or form should RPA be at every base. Also bases are away from major populations more often than not for a reason. The military doesn't want to intrude on the local populace and vice versa. As much as I would like to be stationed in downtown anywhere it's not likely on purpose.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

I honestly think if we could metaphorically hold a gun to their head and make them actually BRAC, it might not go the way most would want.

 

Votes are votes, and those nice locations with the functioning economies of a metro area don't really need or in many cases want us. Plus as stated earlier a military base is a huge landmass of developable (meaning valuable) property that could line a lot of pockets. Those outlier installations 3 exits down from the edge of nowhere don't really attract anything but social welfare votes.

 

I'd see them more likely to tell us enjoy Cannon/Polk/Fallon/etc while they close and repurpose the Mcdills of the force structure if you made them chose between option A/B.

[BashiChuni]

35 minutes ago, cantfly said:

If you don't want to garner more knowledge about the past then don't. Studying past conflicts prepares you for those in the future. There are rules on this forum we must adhere to and I enjoy having a clearance.  I'm not going to have OSI looking for me to prove a point. Go to the vault.

I love guys like you that tell others "go to the vault". 

Hilarious bro. If you knew tac airlifter you'd realize how ridiculous you sound. Even not knowing him you sound ridiculous.