What's wrong with the Air Force?

[jice]

1 hour ago, Breckey said:

The NAF needed to die 3 decades ago. As soon as we had email there was no reason to have a middle man at took the guidance from the Wings and gave it to the MAJCOM. 

There’s also value in NAFs that own missions that are inseparable but distributed across multiple organizations. DCGS & U-2 under the 16th AF (formerly 25th). Having a CC to slap the table with force of law (who isn’t shouldering the the MAJCOM/CC role) is important 

That said: in that case in particular (and I’d suspect in most cases in general), why the fvck are we organized so that two parts of the same machine (front and back end of a system) only touch at the NAF and on operational sorties?

[Sua Sponte]

Not having a NAF/CC makes the Convening Authority for General Courts Martial the MAJCOM/CC, which would be a job within itself.

[nsplayr]

Growing up in AFSOC, I never knew exactly what the 23rd Air Force did. During my time at HRT it was activated in 2008, then inactivated in 2013 and I think literally nothing changed. Good job everyone; at least they fixed the glitch quickly on the bureaucratic time scale, which closely rivals the geologic time scale in most orgs.

[Bigred]

‘Mildenhall model’, if approved, is doing away with the groups, creating a pseudo A-staff under the wing, and moving some maintenance back into the ops squadron. 
 

It’s basically what I saw in the Navy for 15 years, and it does have goods and bads, but if it pushes some waiver authority and go/no-go decisions to the SQ/CC level, it’ll be a really good thing. 

[Breckey]

2 hours ago, jice said:

There’s also value in NAFs that own missions that are inseparable but distributed across multiple organizations. DCGS & U-2 under the 16th AF (formerly 25th). Having a CC to slap the table with force of law (who isn’t shouldering the the MAJCOM/CC role) is important 

The nuclear enterprise has something similar. Shouldn't the integration piece be the job of COCOM/MAJCOM staff? Re-distribute the billets to non-NAF staff.

[FLEA]

Even with things like the DCGS, that is an Enterprise architecture that is equivalent to a group of wing. In combat they would ideally be nestled under the same operational control and the combatant commander's air component commander owns and directs both of them. With the U-28 it's tricky because SOCOM is its own combatant command and AFSOC has their own DGS as well. However they could be organized under the air component of a JTF also. I guess what I would forward going forward is removing NAFs or NAF functions that soley exist to fulfill an administrative role and in the rare case they exist they should exist to provide an Air Force GO to a combatant commander who needs that because his Air Forces are large enough to warrant it. 

Edited July 13, 2020 by FLEA

[war007afa]

NAFs became the place to hide personnel when PBD720 pushed hard on the staff cuts for the Pentagon and MAJCOMs. Most of the NAFs liaise with a COCOM (notable exceptions) which makes it easy to validate the billets when it comes time to slash some more flesh off of the bone, leaving them immune in many cases to losing bodies.

Don’t a lot of the rated NAF positions still get to fly? In MAJCOMs or other staffs it’s rare to be able to continue to fly while doing the staff gig. 

[jice]

7 hours ago, Breckey said:

The nuclear enterprise has something similar. Shouldn't the integration piece be the job of COCOM/MAJCOM staff? Re-distribute the billets to non-NAF staff.

If you’re talking tactical integration, it should happen outside this type of relationship at the USAFWC.
For administrative relationships: I’m all for the flattest organization possible, but in this particular case I don’t think the MAJCOM the right answer. Let’s be real: ISR is always going to be a red-headed stepchild in ACC. BUT ALSO! More important than being the center of attention, ISR needs to be responsive to the needs of ACC. (Why it makes sense to live there.) That said, having the 25th Air Force provides a balance. The two star has a seat at tables that ISR (now cyber and EA as well) wouldn’t otherwise occupy, and ACC can still make demands of their subordinate org in an absolute sense. (Rather than making it a MAJCOM/DRU unto itself.)

Now! If we really wanted to make a better structure, we’d dissolve the 480th ISRW and align its component parts with the collectors and customers. That, or suddenly pluck all WSOs up into their own wing with their own rules, own schedules, and admire why B-52s, B-1s, F-15Es, and the rest are suddenly not able to employ effectively.  Ever shown up in the mission area an hour after takeoff only to discover that most of your airplane’s crew is out hiking 1,400 miles away?

[SurelySerious]

10 minutes ago, jice said:

That, or suddenly pluck all WSOs up into their own wing with their own rules, own schedules, and admire why B-52s, B-1s, F-15Es, and the rest are suddenly not able to employ effectively.  Ever shown up in the mission area an hour after takeoff only to discover that most of your airplane’s crew is out hiking 1,400 miles away?

That about describes the mental status of most WSOs, physically present in the airframe or not, so it’s been demonstrated at multiple RF vuls. 
 

 

Shots fired!

[jice]

59 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

 

Shots fired!

You’re on your own! 

[FLEA]

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/07/14/airman-died-after-his-chute-opened-while-he-was-still-plane-says-new-report.html/amp

 

"In addition to improper parachute assembly, the head of Air Force Special Operations Command said deficiencies and lapses in judgment across the community contributed to the accident.

The command "prioritized operations over in-garrison training and predictable deployment scheduling, resulting in stressed units across the command and leaders accepting unnecessary risk for the sake of mission completion," according to a news release accompanying the report."

 

 

W--T--F--???

I feel like that is a cop out by Slife. Was he really going to promote the next squadron commander who said he had no troops to deploy to a billet because they were tired and didn't have predictable schedules? Yeah ok mate ...

[viper154]

The SIB has some more insightful information. 

[Skitzo]

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/07/14/airman-died-after-his-chute-opened-while-he-was-still-plane-says-new-report.html/amp
 
"In addition to improper parachute assembly, the head of Air Force Special Operations Command said deficiencies and lapses in judgment across the community contributed to the accident.
The command "prioritized operations over in-garrison training and predictable deployment scheduling, resulting in stressed units across the command and leaders accepting unnecessary risk for the sake of mission completion," according to a news release accompanying the report."
 
 
W--T--F--???
I feel like that is a cop out by Slife. Was he really going to promote the next squadron commander who said he had no troops to deploy to a billet because they were tired and didn't have predictable schedules? Yeah ok mate ...

Slife hit the nail on the head. I was part of the team doing the audit on STS training and evals. The lack of standardization was gross.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Skitzo said:

Slife hit the nail on the head. I was part of the team doing the audit on STS training and evals. The lack of standardization was gross.

I feel like my beef is more in his lack of initiative to take any responsibility for the situation. I haven't read the SIB yet however I think blaming a squadron commander for prioritizing operations is a bit short winded. Unless the Sq/CC was delibertly cooking the books on his training I fail to see how a community that prides it's culture in doing whatever it takes to get the mission done is solely responsible for this tragedy. 

[Skitzo]

I feel like my beef is more in his lack of initiative to take any responsibility for the situation. I haven't read the SIB yet however I think blaming a squadron commander for prioritizing operations is a bit short winded. Unless the Sq/CC was delibertly cooking the books on his training I fail to see how a community that prides it's culture in doing whatever it takes to get the mission done is solely responsible for this tragedy. 

Shortly after the “stand down,” Gen Cartier the A3 was reassigned to 19AF/CV, normally an O6. Gen Martin was announced as the new A3 as soon as he could be back from Afg. Gen Martin is Special Warfare by trade.

 

This didn’t happen until May but it was the immediate response.

[SurelySerious]

“The term warrior, as a brand marketing term for militaries in western democracies, should be permanently junked; it sells an impossible image for soldiers, marines, airpeople, and sailors to live up to while preventing the civilian population from executing its oversight function.”

How many times is that in the stupid creed again, for a force where like 5% of people do war fighting and 80% sit behind a desk?

[1:1:1]

6 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

How many times is that in the stupid creed again, for a force where like 5% of people do war fighting and 80% sit behind a desk?

I'm not sure how the author of that article managed to use so many words and still say nothing intelligible. Any clue what she was getting at? 

The only thing I learned is that we should be saying "airpeople" instead of airmen and that warrior culture is another form of white fragility and toxic masculinity. God help us in the next war.

[SurelySerious]

3 hours ago, 1:1:1 said:

I'm not sure how the author of that article managed to use so many words and still say nothing intelligible. Any clue what she was getting at? 

The only thing I learned is that we should be saying "airpeople" instead of airmen and that warrior culture is another form of white fragility and toxic masculinity. God help us in the next war.

Yeah it’s pretty simple: the image of warrior isn’t helpful in recruiting when most of your people don’t do that thing because you’re probably not reaching the diverse people you need to do modern skill sets that have nothing to do with being a Ranger. Like all the cyber/comm functions that there are probably people who are really good at that we don’t attract because they don’t even bother because most marketing is of dudes running around kitted out in a desert. 
 

Yeah, the airpeople is stupid and whatever about the bodywash marketing, but the point is real. The AF is still going to get the 10% of the people it needs to actually go do combat in the skies and whatnot if it were to more accurately assess itself as mostly not-special-operators. Even the Army is 50% support.
 

Taking warrior out of the creed (Or just getting rid of said creed) would not be the end of the world you’re trying to paint. It would probably help the 90% of desk jockeys embrace what they actually do and maybe take some pride in their work so I don’t have to learn finance every time I go TDY. 
 

 

Edit, and totally unrelated to the main point, this is one of the better explanations of the basic governmental relationship from citizen to the military:

“I loaned away my power and right to violence to a section of government in return for protection.  The military gets to be violent FOR ME in order to reduce violence overall.  As part of that same contract, I need to have a role in oversight so that loan of my power isn’t abused and that my tax money is spent smartly.  I execute this role by voting for representatives (as a US citizen, that’s my Congressperson, Senators, and the President) so I can go spend my time doing other things.³  

This relationship means the military in western democracies are managing up to the people they are responsible to: their (mostly) civilian citizens.⁴  As a result, they have very different communications goals than a company trying to complete a transaction.  Because of this militaries need to make sure that citizens care in an empathetic manner and have a vague understanding of the issues involving the military, so that when I go to the ballot box, or (dare I say) call or write to one of my representatives, I should have vague ideas about the military if they want me to advocate a policy preference.  In return, my representatives are supposed to tell my military what to do on my behalf and provide for its needs.  Otherwise, I won’t ever develop opinions that I can act on about, say, if the F-35 is a boondoggle⁵ or should dress shoes be made of plastic for military uniforms.   And I especially need to understand these issues when my country goes to war and deploys soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors somewhere.”

Edited July 22, 2020 by SurelySerious

[M2]

Definitely worth a read (click on the title for the full article)...

Farewell to Ned Stark

Col. Jason Lamb, AKA Col. “Ned Stark,” is a career intelligence officer who in 2018, began writing a series of provocative columns for Air Force Times and War on the Rocks about leadership development in the Air Force and where it had gone wrong. They went viral, sparking debate across the service, and even prompting Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein to offer him a job. Though Lamb ultimately decided not to join Goldfein’s team, he revealed his identity last year and consulted with Air Force leadership on personnel issues. He is retiring July 31, and now lives in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
 

[Sua Sponte]

Great read!

[Sprkt69]

12 hours ago, SurelySerious said:Taking warrior out of the creed (Or just getting rid of said creed) would not be the end of the world you’re trying to paint. It would probably help the 90% of desk jockeys embrace what they actually do and maybe take some pride in their work so I don’t have to learn finance every time I go TDY. 

Wouldn’t that just embolden the support function of the AF to support even less than they are now?

[SurelySerious]

2 minutes ago, Sprkt69 said:

Wouldn’t that just embolden the support function of the AF to support even less than they are now?

As opposed to having them focus on being “warriors” instead of doing their job? I say have them take ownership of what they actually are. 

[jice]

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

As opposed to having them focus on being “warriors” instead of doing their job? I say have them take ownership of what they actually are. 

This. Especially this when viewed through the recruiting lens you mention above.

Right now we end up with officers populating the support world who joined in response to a call to be great leaders of men, to be warriors different than the corporate world, to be basically special operations desk pilots... meanwhile, people with a genuine interest in HR go to work at FedEx (or some other highly rated HR department in a company larger than the Air Force.)

I’d way rather have somebody interested in the work than somebody interested in achieving some perverted model of self-actualization that requires special military attributes of office work. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by jice

[1:1:1]

Be that as it may, no HR professional or accountant signs up to work for Deloitte for a year in Southwest Asia, another year in Korea and 3 years in Clovis, NM. 

Until the Air Force is willing/able to shed it's largest detriment to QOL -- bad locations -- it will not be competitive in recruiting professionals who want to reap the rewards of excelling in a particular career field. It has to focus on the one thing that makes it unique: service. 

I also struggle to see how further divorcing the MSG from the Ops Group will benefit anyone.

[FLEA]

4 hours ago, 1:1:1 said:

Be that as it may, no HR professional or accountant signs up to work for Deloitte for a year in Southwest Asia, another year in Korea and 3 years in Clovis, NM. 

Until the Air Force is willing/able to shed it's largest detriment to QOL -- bad locations -- it will not be competitive in recruiting professionals who want to reap the rewards of excelling in a particular career field. It has to focus on the one thing that makes it unique: service. 

I also struggle to see how further divorcing the MSG from the Ops Group will benefit anyone.

Why does everyone think Korea is a bad assignment!?!?!?