What's wrong with the Air Force?

[pawnman]

11 hours ago, brabus said:

School, undesirable attached jobs, undesirable PCSs, higher 365 threat, a command they don’t want, etc. I’m just the messenger, not saying these are my opinions. 

No flyers are going to be forced into a command without applying for one.  It's possible they'll apply for command and get one they didn't really want... But they aren't going to be SQ/CCs without applying for it.

[tac airlifter]

27 minutes ago, pawnman said:

No flyers are going to be forced into a command without applying for one.  It's possible they'll apply for command and get one they didn't really want... But they aren't going to be SQ/CCs without applying for it.

Some communities are “all in” meaning there is no applying for command.  

[brabus]

11 hours ago, pawnman said:

No flyers are going to be forced into a command without applying for one.  It's possible they'll apply for command and get one they didn't really want... But they aren't going to be SQ/CCs without applying for it.

I know a couple who were given the choice of command or separate. 

[17D_guy]

12 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Some communities are “all in” meaning there is no applying for command.  

Cyber is all in now.  Which means you can roll of a ops unit, taking the fight to the enemy

and doing cool things.

And roll into command a communications cyber squadron at Tinker fixing email and cell phones.

https://tenor.com/NsbZ.gif

Edited March 9, 2019 by 17D_guy

[Homestar]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

I know a couple who were given the choice of command or separate. 

Explain yourself (in a Stewie voice).

Did these guys apply for command, get accepted, then not want the command they were assigned?

I've never heard of a non-vol commander.  I have heard of command-selects get non-vol'd to deployed command.  But that's different entirely.

Or are we talking about different O-5 communities?

[pawnman]

13 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Some communities are “all in” meaning there is no applying for command.  

I've never heard of this in the aviation community.  I've seen it in support and MX, but flying squadrons have enough officers to pick and choose.  I've rarely seen flying squadron commanders who weren't BTZ, and I don't think I've ever seen one that wasn't a school graduate.

[tac airlifter]

14 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I've never heard of this in the aviation community.  I've seen it in support and MX, but flying squadrons have enough officers to pick and choose.  I've rarely seen flying squadron commanders who weren't BTZ, and I don't think I've ever seen one that wasn't a school graduate.

I’m estimating here, I think we’re about 70/30 IPZ SQ/CC over BPZ for ops sq commanders in AFSOC.  And about 60/40 school grad versus not.  Those numbers are pure anecdotal guesses from my niche view.  Also everyone is considered for command unless you specifically opt out.

That said, even if you make the list you might not be matched within AFSOC.  If you aren’t matched, you can still be offered any number of commands outside AFSOC but there’s no blowback in turning one of those down.  

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

I’m estimating here, I think we’re about 70/30 IPZ SQ/CC over BPZ for ops sq commanders in AFSOC.  And about 60/40 school grad versus not.  Those numbers are pure anecdotal guesses from my niche view.  Also everyone is considered for command unless you specifically opt out.

That said, even if you make the list you might not be matched within AFSOC.  If you aren’t matched, you can still be offered any number of commands outside AFSOC but there’s no blowback in turning one of those down.  

Clearly I joined the wrong community for career progression.

[brabus]

10 hours ago, Homestar said:

Explain yourself (in a Stewie voice).

Did these guys apply for command, get accepted, then not want the command they were assigned?

I've never heard of a non-vol commander.  I have heard of command-selects get non-vol'd to deployed command.  But that's different entirely.

Or are we talking about different O-5 communities?

No application, offered 2-3 CC options, which they didn’t want any of them, so they left AD. WG/CC said take the “last option” or you can retire to one of them, and the same except here’s a shit sandwich 365 to the other (he separated at 18 years).

I know this is hard to believe from a CAF perspective (pawnman’s experience is CAF standard), but it certainly happens elsewhere.

[SuperWSO]

19 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Cyber is all in now.  Which means you can roll of a ops unit, taking the fight to the enemy

and doing cool things.

And roll into command a communications cyber squadron at Tinker fixing email and cell phones.

https://tenor.com/NsbZ.gif

And it shows.  A cyber CC got fired in Germany this year for behavior that was baffling.  I dont understand how some of these people develop such an overdeveloped sense of entitlement.

Cyber is one of the only communities that share a problem with the pilot world: high training/entry requirements, and a robust market outside the military willing to pay for talent.  The thrash incurred moving people from DCO, to OCO to Enterprise and back to Comm Flight just drives more to industry.

[SFG]

38 minutes ago, SuperWSO said:

Cyber is one of the only communities that share a problem with the pilot world: high training/entry requirements, and a robust market outside the military willing to pay for talent.

The other community being doctors... but then they get bonuses commensurate with their training and the outside market. Seems to work for them. So weird.

[Bergman]

10 hours ago, brabus said:

WG/CC said take the “last option” or you can retire to one of them, and the same except here’s a shit sandwich 365 to the other (he separated at 18 years).

This sort of thing has been standard for a decade or longer.  And management wonders why people are bailing to the airlines in droves...and those that stay (or can’t leave yet) are stuck working for the dregs that are left.  

This may be my new rule for an air force career:  RUN!  Fucking run!!  Management doesn’t deserve your sacrifice.

(the old rules being:

1. Timing is Everything

2. Life isn’t fair

3. There is no justice)

Edited March 9, 2019 by Bergman

[Danger41]

So word around the camp fire is that it’s official that the next AFSOC CC is the one and only Jim Slife. My interactions with him were very minor, but the reputation is atrocious. Anybody have any better info or is this news appropriately placed in the “What’s Wrong with the Air Force” thread?

[BashiChuni]

Where can I sign the bonus!?

[DirkDiggler]

1 hour ago, Danger41 said:

So word around the camp fire is that it’s official that the next AFSOC CC is the one and only Jim Slife. My interactions with him were very minor, but the reputation is atrocious. Anybody have any better info or is this news appropriately placed in the “What’s Wrong with the Air Force” thread?

It’s official, was announced by the DoD on Thursday. 

[matmacwc]

13 hours ago, Danger41 said:

So word around the camp fire is that it’s official that the next AFSOC CC is the one and only Jim Slife. My interactions with him were very minor, but the reputation is atrocious. Anybody have any better info or is this news appropriately placed in the “What’s Wrong with the Air Force” thread?

How fighter guys felt when Norty Schwartz was nominated, I went to an AF Ball where he was the guest speaker......that was atrocious.  

[Clark Griswold]

5 hours ago, matmacwc said:

How fighter guys felt when Norty Schwartz was nominated

What did you (fighter guys) expect after Buzz would not get with the program (grow, stabilize and mature the RPA enterprise, accquire Light Attack, etc...) and put a greater percentage of institutional focus/effort/comment/resources/etc... on the fight we were in then (still are) instead disproportionately focusing on the next big fight?  

Particularly after some of the public comments by Gates, his boss?  He didn't have to shift the whole of the AF to the counter-insurgency fight at the time but he sure as hell could have shown he "got it" and had a better plan to answer his boss' priorities 

Not saying that he (Buzz) or any other CSAF should not have that in his cross check but we shift focus at times as required to shoot the pop-up 3m target and then return to the 25m target looming...

No particular love for Norty nor strong dislike, could have done better IMHO but the "fighter general" community needed some feedback.

[FlyinGrunt]

What I REALLY want to know is how/why Slife was creeping on my linkedin about 2 weeks ago.

Of all the people, you'd think he'd know how to use Private Mode . . .

I've been completely out since July.

Edited March 10, 2019 by FlyinGrunt

[di1630]

...the "fighter general" community needed some feedback.

Back in ‘07 timeframe I remember when I supported the COIN mentality wondering why we wanted so many -22’s.

12 years later I eat my words. We’ve seemed to learn nothing, still bogged down in the Stan. Still have supersonic A/A fighters and low level swept wing supersonic bombers spinning holes instead of light attack.

A lot of criticism from many corners back then was based on the belief we had competent decision makers elsewhere.

Now we’ve worn out our fighter fleet, short F-22’s and thinking about buying new F-15’s.

Hindsight


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, di1630 said:

Back in ‘07 timeframe I remember when I supported the COIN mentality wondering why we wanted so many -22’s.
12 years later I eat my words. We’ve seemed to learn nothing, still bogged down in the Stan. Still have supersonic A/A fighters and low level swept wing supersonic bombers spinning holes instead of light attack.
A lot of criticism from many corners back then was based on the belief we had competent decision makers elsewhere.
Now we’ve worn out our fighter fleet, short F-22’s and thinking about buying new F-15’s.
Hindsight

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Yup - I have since moved on from that idea...

The economic exchange between belligerents in war is perhaps the most dehumanizing metric but always relevant.

The fact our leaders then and to some extent now keep trying to keep the future at arms length and will not wholly reconfigure the AF when there are multiple systemic problems bordering on failures is indicative we need an outsider, empowered to fundamentally reform to change, not holding breath.

[Danny Noonin]

Harrumph.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sprkt69]

7 hours ago, di1630 said:

Back in ‘07 timeframe I remember when I supported the COIN mentality wondering why we wanted so many -22’s.

12 years later I eat my words. We’ve seemed to learn nothing, still bogged down in the Stan. Still have supersonic A/A fighters and low level swept wing supersonic bombers spinning holes instead of light attack.

A lot of criticism from many corners back then was based on the belief we had competent decision makers elsewhere.

Now we’ve worn out our fighter fleet, short F-22’s and thinking about buying new F-15’s.

Hindsight


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

In 2007, did you take into account TAMI21 and the near zeroing of 11F production in the name of reasons? 

[Sprkt69]

1 hour ago, BeerMan said:

I'm on the fence about Light Attack. There is no way OSD would have purchased enough light attack back in 2008 in the quantities needed to reduce the Ops Tempo for other fighter squadrons to dial back. BCA made sure of that. Do you think Light Attack would have changed our behavior in any of the AORs? I don't think so. Now it's too little, too late for our National Security Strategy and it doesn't rank high enough on the priority list in its current form. 

Assuming a good enough number of LA purchased, I doubt it would have changed any behavior down range. However, I would say it would have some pros and cons. Pros, major cost savings. Especially if you forward deploy aircraft with ground units like it should be. Also it would have saved much of the fighter/bomber fleets in terms of wear and tear. Side bonus, if properly trained, forward deploying into a true joint environment would help repair the Army/Air Force relationship.Cons, higher risk of losing an aircraft/aircrew and the political fallout associated with that

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, BeerMan said:

I expected responsible long term decisions that were made on the basis of maintaining the United States' ability to defend itself and its allies.

The decision to end F-22 production (by Sec Gates) and the direction to get 60 ISR CAPs remain two extremely short sighted decisions that have had a significant negative impact, and have placed the Air Force and the United States in the strategically "high risk" position we are in today. I agree with what di1630 stated above.

Even at 350 F-22s (instead of ~700 planned or the 180 we ended up with) you would have twice the number of F-22s squadrons (two more wings), and probably twice the F-22 B-Course production capability. It's debatable, but I think you would have been able to retire the F-15C (~2020), we avoid the whole "retire the A-10" debacle, and you would have developed a much more robust 5th Gen fighter and maintenance force. You reduce your pilot and maintainer absorption problem, and have a positive impact on the retention problem. (diversified assignment options, Eagle guys don't  just ping between overseas England and Japan, increased F-16 and F-15E opportunities in the F-22, and you have a lot more F-22 pilots to go straight to the F-35). Overall you have a more capable force, and hedged a lot of the risk in the F-35. Do I want guys to fly a new F-15X vs a 40 year old F-15C, hell yeah, but it blows my mind that we're going to buy 12 of them in 2020 to try and address a capacity issue. OSD did it to us. Bold leadership means standing up for what you believe in. Hell, maybe they (OSD) made what they thought was the best decision at the time, but right now it sure as hell looks like it was a poor decision.   

It has taken us a DECADE (2009-2019) to "grow, stabilize, and mature the RPA enterprise." The insatiable demand for 60 CAPs? All that did was create programs like TAMI 21, and crush the will of 11F/11Ms in the 2004-2010 timeframe, and create the false notion that leadership can watch the war through a soda straw and hold decision authority at the highest level. This has directly impacted the current retention crisis we are in with 11Fs. We learned that again in 2013 when we could have ended OIR before it started had we gone on the offensive, but instead we held back, played whack a mole and 5 years later we're "closing up shop" even though were aren't going anywhere. It will go on.   

Add the Budget Control Act of 2011 on top of those poor decisions and it's no wonder the Air Force (and really the Army and the Navy but for different reasons) have the force structure, retention, and unbalanced strategic skills challenges facing them today. Now a lot would have happened between then and now, but love or hate Buzz he actually had the foresight to think ahead. Gates and OSD put us on this path, and Congress and the Executive branch kept us there. Again, easy to look back in hindsight, but Buzz was right. 

I'm on the fence about Light Attack. There is no way OSD would have purchased enough light attack back in 2008 in the quantities needed to reduce the Ops Tempo for other fighter squadrons to dial back. BCA made sure of that. Do you think Light Attack would have changed our behavior in any of the AORs? I don't think so. Now it's too little, too late for our National Security Strategy and it doesn't rank high enough on the priority list in its current form. 

Likewise on decisions to defend the US and its Allies so I will still hold Buzz and other CSAFs to some account (and other Chiefs of other branches, DoD officials, etc...) for not building a portion of their respective forces to run marathons versus sprints.  

No hate for Buzz (or his predecessor Jumper) but legitimate critique IMHO, not saying that his push for more Raptors was wrong in the long-term but that his inability or inactivity in reacting to his boss' number one priority (the immediate fight) caused the rift that put a lot of bad blood between Congress/OSD and the AF, ultimately wounding the AF's long term priorities and not effectively meeting civilian leadership's priorities. 

Even if you think your boss has it wrong and you've made your case to the contrary but to no avail, you can either quit or come up with a way to execute his priorities in what you think is the best overall way possible.  His priorities get met and you give him an acceptable way to let you meet what you think is the long term strategy for the AF, in this case it would be extended Raptor production, likely at the expense of something else but you take action.  Buzz was right that we needed more Raptors but was wrong in that he didn't say "I hear you boss, we need to be ready for the future and win the fight today.  We need more Raptors and meet the COIN/LIC air mission(s), here's how we do it boss..."

We need at least 350+ Raptors, get a supplemental appropriation and/or let me reprogram these resources and curtail X capability.

60 CAPs, X above our steady state? Need you to get a supplemental appropriation and/or let me reprogram these resources and curtail X capability.  

Etc...  Life is about choices boss, choose to print mo' money or divest stuff you don't need.

As to Light Attack, I think it would have helped if robustly executed to meet the operational need to replace the 4/5 gen in permissive environments and strategic need to keep them training / conserved for the big fight(s).  Robust means probably an acquisition of 200 tails and crewed at 3.0 to absorb aircrew, sustain rotations, spread operational experience, etc... It would also mean buying a platform legitimately capable of replacing a 4/5 gen in the wheel, i.e. a Scorpion rather than a relatively short range, short endurance, fixed architecture platform.

What's done is done.

[ATIS]

On 3/9/2019 at 6:02 PM, Danger41 said:

So word around the camp fire is that it’s official that the next AFSOC CC is the one and only Jim Slife. My interactions with him were very minor, but the reputation is atrocious. Anybody have any better info or is this news appropriately placed in the “What’s Wrong with the Air Force” thread?

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/743377/brigadier-general-brad-m-sullivan/

Just wait.  I will weep for you if this happens. 

ATIS