What's wrong with the Air Force?

[nsplayr]

37 minutes ago, McJay Pilot said:

Honest question, have you read the book?

Starship Troopers? Yes. It was ok, not my fav of the genre but still a classic obviously. I actually prefer the movie!

The Forever War by Joe Haldeman is excellent and IMHO superior to Starship Troopers; well worth your time if you haven’t read it.

Edited June 6, 2023 by nsplayr

[McJay Pilot]

5 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Starship Troopers? Yes. It was ok, not my fav of the genre but still a classic obviously. I actually prefer the movie!

The Forever War by Joe Haldeman is excellent and IMHO superior to Starship Troopers; well worth your time if you haven’t read it.

Fair enough!

Forever War was great, Forever Peace was meh… interesting concept though.

[ClearedHot]

Can this internal review help shrink the Air Force’s pilot shortage?

“Do all the pilot positions we have on staff actually require a pilot, or does it require someone with operational expertise?” Brown said.

Slife the non-combat knife now doing extreme damage to the Air Force Writ large instead of just AFSOC.

I know most pilots don't want to go to a staff job, sitting at a desk especially in the five sided wind tunnel can be pure drudgery.  HOWEVER, if we don't put pilots, especially seasoned experts who know what it is like in those key staff positions, then the REMFs will make decisions about the equipment you get and how you operate.  It is always good to look at resource allocation--especially the expensive ones--but airmanship and the ability to speak like an operational airmen does not come easily.  It takes years to develop.  The Air Force has evaluated where they needed pilots/operators in the past, and it has been to its severe detriment. 

Here are some examples:

1.  ALOs--We first removed fighter pilots/WSOs from the ASOS communities, then pretended we could advise Army leadership on the best use of Airpower.  The result has been an Air Liaison community with no tactical airborne experience, no real weaponeering ability, and an Army that dismisses their advice even more than before. 

2.  Staffs-- Air Force first used retired pilot/WSO contractors to fill positions, but is now even using engineers, program managers, and others who, while probably competent on many levels, have no business speaking about Airpower capabilities, selling Airpower capabilities, and funding the same.  Many decisions are now made by Airmen who have only learned about Airpower through schooling and relative proximity. 

3.  Inexpensive yet relevant platforms--when we killed all of the Tactical Air Support Squadrons with their OV-10s/O-2, we killed a great pilot absorption capability, a great way to season aviators for pennies.  The aircraft's tactical relevance diminished by the day, but their operational/strategic value was immense.  Yes, we cut the pilot requirement down, but hurt even more the pilot creation capability. and the overall Airmanship of the Air Force.   

There is a reason why pilots run the Air Force, why WSOs/CSOs exercise a great operational influence over the direction of the Air Force.  Not because of the universal management badge of wings, but because IT IS WHAT THE AIR FORCE DOES.  Many have been the companies that have lost their ways as they turned the reigns over to CFOs and Program Managers...Just ask Boeing. 

Again, I know most of you clowns don't want to do a staff job, it is a necessary evil.  If we don't put people who know what it is like to fling themselves into the air in a metal frame full of fuel and munitions and take said crate into combat, then the contracting officer who was CGO of the year for leading the savings bond drive is going to determine your future.
 

[brabus]

The amount of asshattery on staff is astounding, it’s 69,000 worse without pilots holding people accountable, getting shit done, “mentoring” the REMFs on what actually needs to be done and why their ideas are fucking retarded, etc. A better fix is remote staff work, which the ANG is slowly coming around to. Not everyone can be remote, but a lot of pilots wouldn’t mind staff much if they could stay living where they want, still fly regularly, etc. I know a couple guys have done this on AD as well. Loosen the grip on the “it’s always been this way” thought and things would be better.

[Blue]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Can this internal review help shrink the Air Force’s pilot shortage?

3.  Inexpensive yet relevant platforms--when we killed all of the Tactical Air Support Squadrons with their OV-10s/O-2, we killed a great pilot absorption capability, a great way to season aviators for pennies.  The aircraft's tactical relevance diminished by the day, but their operational/strategic value was immense.  Yes, we cut the pilot requirement down, but hurt even more the pilot creation capability. and the overall Airmanship of the Air Force.   

This is something that always got me - particularly when looking at the back at the evolution of the Air Force aircraft inventory from the 1950s to today.

Ostensibly, the Air Force is supposed to be the nation's military experts in flying and fixing aircraft.  By definition, we should have a lot of airplanes, and a lot of pilots.

Yet, at every turn, we shun bringing on any fleet that is "different," or hasn't had the blessing of the larger defense establishment.  We park C-27Js, we drag our feet with things like the AT-6 and the A-29 until the programs die a merciful death, and we strive to retire planes like the A-10.  At the same time, we have the absurdly large "winner take all" competitions like the F-35 that lock us into one airframe for decades.

There is always a lot of hand-waving that goes on about "efficiencies of scale," and "we need to retire this fleet in order to fund development of this new fleet," etc.  I think the reality is that defense decisions are driven by what's best for defense companies.  And with budget's being finite, the Lockheeds and Boeings of the world don't want to see the Air Force budget going towards feeding hundreds of C-27s, AT-6's, AT-29s, OV-10s, or anything else.  When times are flush, those fleets would take away from the money available for their leviathan defense programs.  When times are lean, someone in government might dare make an argument that maybe we could get by with a couple fewer F-35s, and instead plug the gap with AT-29s at a fraction of the cost.

A lot of words to say I think "Inexpensive yet relevant platforms" are something the Air Force sorely needs, and used to have.  But they're gone, and I don't think they're ever coming back.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Blue

[Dogs-N-Guns]

GS staff has become the commander by committee. Too many times I've heard the commander won't support anything unless JA, XP, FM etc, signs off on it.

[Biff_T]

1 hour ago, Blue said:

I think the reality is that defense decisions are driven by what's best for defense companies.

This 

Edit:  Imagine how much money we could save if instead of using regular sized aircraft,  we made everything to 1/4 scale and staffed the squadrons full of midgets.   Thinking outside the “box”.    We save money, have less of a footprint and we get to add another group of marginalized people to the fight.  

Edited June 18, 2023 by Biff_T
More nonsense from Biff

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, Blue said:

A lot of words to say I think "Inexpensive yet relevant platforms" are something the Air Force sorely needs, and used to have.  But they're gone, and I don't think they're ever coming back.

Not entirely gone 👑

[Majestik Møøse]

I have a theory that a lot of our problems are due to a wrong perception of how things degrade. A lot of people think problems get worse on a continuous slope, kind of like flying an ILS. In reality, it’s an exponential degradation that’s not particularly detrimental for a long time, but by the time you realize it has failed the cost to fix it becomes astronomical.

Think of a shingle roof, car paint, the back deck boards, even your personal health. They don’t degrade by an even 5% every year, it’s more like above 90% for 20 years, then 85%, 65%, then falling apart.

That’s the same with pilots on staffs and experienced pilot manning overall. We’re at the 65% part of the slope. The USAF telling itself that it was “good enough” for the last decade is like ignoring the worn patches on the roof just because it hasn’t leaked yet. Shortly, there will be a dozen leaks and the whole thing will need replacing along with fixing the rotten trusses and moldy drywall. That costs more than just paying to replace the roof before the leaks started.

Modern aircraft programs take 20 years to develop, and if your best guys that would’ve been the program managers, strategists and tactical leaders all left from 2015-present, then you have medium-talent guys in a lot of big spots. Getting back in front of that curve will cost way more than if we’d never let it approach the cliff in the first place. But it didn’t look so bad at the time, so those CSAFs don’t look like they caused it.

The $50k bonus is hanging onto the tail and patching leaks. To correct the problem, double it at least, and your best guys will start staying. Most pilots I’ve met with mission-focused drive love doing big things for their platform and America, but have doubts when the USAF forces a financial decision to do those world-changing things.

I believe that a war vs China will also degrade for one side or the other on that same curve above - and that the degradation is extremely dependent on air power, so I’m not sure how our country can accept anything less than keeping their best pilots both operational and on staff.

[GKinnear]

@clearedhot
@brabus

Necessary evil indeed. Aside from the expertise angle, the Data Engineers, O-5 retired-now-GS, or worse contractors don't have any skin in the game.

It's easier to make a "bad" decision when you don't have to answer the mail later on, or look the bros in the eyes.

At least the 12x communities have that going for them.

@dogs-n-guns

While I've routinely gotten a JA or IG opinion before moving out, I've also relied on my own decision making after getting their risk assessment. "Legally sufficient" doesn't always equal the right thing for the Airman, Squadron, or the Force...that's why Commanders get paid to do the job.

But to your point, some individuals may choose to stop at that point. YMMV

Sent from my SM-N976V using Baseops Network mobile app

[Biff_T]

On 6/5/2023 at 6:04 PM, McJay Pilot said:

Honest question, have you read the book?

"Just the Cliff Notes" - High School Biff replying  to English teacher.  Lol

 

[di1630]

It’s sad that the only officers that can perform operationally are a majority pilots. Pilots succeed in roles they aren’t trained or even familiar with simply because they are federally people who can succeed in a variety of situations,

This goes all the way back to recruiting and the low standard we have for non rated officers.



Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[brabus]

It could be the quality of recruits, but I could also see it heavily being the non-rated world discourages free thinking/critical thought while encouraging binary thinking and zero mission ownership. This is not a problem in at least portions of other services. Hell, the USMC officers I’ve worked with from the “shoe clerk” MOS have more mission-focused/get it done attitudes than the entire non-rated AF combined. 

[Majestik Møøse]

Pilots succeed at things because that’s how they became pilots in the first place. Take the top 40% of USAFA guys, the top 20% of ROTC/OTS, keep stratifying them through track select and drop night, re-flow the FTU washouts, give the remaining top 6.9% millions of dollars of high speed decision making skills, knowledge, and experience and then spend more millions to upgrade the best ones of those to IP and Patch…and then let them separate and fill their old staff positions with the aforementioned bottom 60-80% guys. The Air Force spends $20M each to produce guys that have survived 12 years of stratified tiers and is willing to let them walk away because they think they can replace them with non-pilots. Incompetence at best.

[Swizzle]

When it comes, stop-loss gonna' get ugly...quickly, because that button will get pressed when an option if in present rated status. Then the next 'intellectual' round begins. Stay frosty friends.

[nsplayr]

11 hours ago, brabus said:

It could be the quality of recruits, but I could also see it heavily being the non-rated world discourages free thinking/critical thought while encouraging binary thinking and zero mission ownership. This is not a problem in at least portions of other services. Hell, the USMC officers I’ve worked with from the “shoe clerk” MOS have more mission-focused/get it done attitudes than the entire non-rated AF combined. 

It’s this 100%. The AF gets top talent across AFSCs when compared to the other services or especially the general population, but the system most non-rated folks are operating in beats any innovation, mission-focus, or adaptability out of the vast majority of folks.

I know several highly competent lawyers, engineers, loggies, etc. who have succeeded & thrived in dynamic jobs in the civilian world after leaving the Air Force because they could not stand the BS their career fields shoehorned them into for 4-7 years. 

Edited June 20, 2023 by nsplayr

[dream big]

17 hours ago, brabus said:

It could be the quality of recruits, but I could also see it heavily being the non-rated world discourages free thinking/critical thought while encouraging binary thinking and zero mission ownership. This is not a problem in at least portions of other services. Hell, the USMC officers I’ve worked with from the “shoe clerk” MOS have more mission-focused/get it done attitudes than the entire non-rated AF combined. 

I wonder how much of that is engrained in their culture “Every Marine is a rifleman”; not to mention all officers go through the basic infantry school. I’m not advocating that non rated go through pilot training but there has got to be some middle ground. More ops focused Wing Kings that drive all groups towards common operational objectives would be a start. 

[Bigred]

16 minutes ago, dream big said:

I wonder how much of that is engrained in their culture “Every Marine is a rifleman”; not to mention all officers go through the basic infantry school. I’m not advocating that non rated go through pilot training but there has got to be some middle ground. More ops focused Wing Kings that drive all groups towards common operational objectives would be a start. 

It totally is. They get the kick in the junk of essentially ‘mission first’ from the very get go. As buddies of mine put it ‘the rifleman is the focus and has the support of the entire Corps’

As much as it’d stroke our egos even more, imagine how the AF would run if we had something similar ‘the pilot is the focus and has the support of the entire Air Force’.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Bigred

[Skitzo]

It totally is. They get the kick in the junk of essentially ‘mission first’ from the very get go. As buddies of mine put it ‘the rifleman is the focus and has the support of the entire Corps’
As much as it’d stroke our egos even more, imagine how the AF would run if we had something similar ‘the pilot is the focus and has the support of the entire Air Force’.

Right, but how do you operationalize that? I think it would require a huge shift in BMT, we’d have to get Airmen in aircraft, flying, in simulators etc. That would be extremely resource intensive.

In my sq/cc tour to Africa I got to see the USN, Army and the USAF all in new light and have to say that I don’t think any one service does it “better.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bigred]

57 minutes ago, Skitzo said:

Right, but how do you operationalize that? I think it would require a huge shift in BMT, we’d have to get Airmen in aircraft, flying, in simulators etc. That would be extremely resource intensive.

In my sq/cc tour to Africa I got to see the USN, Army and the USAF all in new light and have to say that I don’t think any one service does it “better.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even more difficult than resource, it’s be a culturally intensive shift for the Air Force. I actually think that’d be the more difficult hurdle. 

[Dogs-N-Guns]

I thought about this before. Every airmen a pilot. Voluntary, but give every airmen $5K-$10K towards PPL costs. Bring back Aeroclubs. Too bad none of this will happen. I completed my PPL at the aeroclub on base and was selected for UPT on an active duty board.

[Majestik Møøse]

Tough problem. This forum has lamented “every airman a warrior” before because the perception was that services were just as important as Ops. Perhaps a shift to “if the jets you see taking off and landing can’t find and kill the ballistic missiles, they will kill you and your friends, so we need to make sure the force generation is smooth and efficient” might work.

[frog]

On 6/19/2023 at 10:49 PM, brabus said:

It could be the quality of recruits, but I could also see it heavily being the non-rated world discourages free thinking/critical thought while encouraging binary thinking and zero mission ownership. This is not a problem in at least portions of other services. Hell, the USMC officers I’ve worked with from the “shoe clerk” MOS have more mission-focused/get it done attitudes than the entire non-rated AF combined. 

The problem circles right back to rated leadership. In 18 years as a CE officer, wing commanders have rarely asked about work happening on the airfield or major infrastructure. I am never asked about CE deployment capabilities or readiness, which is the primary purpose of uniformed engineers. I do get asked about making the grass look better on an almost weekly basis. What message does that send to your organization?

One thing the Marines and Army have done is mostly civilianize their installation support activities (think CDC, fitness center, etc), which allows their support echelons to better focus on how they support the no kidding primary mission.

2 hours ago, Dogs-N-Guns said:

I thought about this before. Every airmen a pilot. Voluntary, but give every airmen $5K-$10K towards PPL costs. Bring back Aeroclubs. Too bad none of this will happen. I completed my PPL at the aeroclub on base and was selected for UPT on an active duty board.

Great idea. I feel like my PPL experience, while nothing like that of military trained pilots, provides significant context for what is important and why.

[brabus]

@frog You’re not wrong, but also being a truly mission-focused wing/cc who calls out failure and demands ops-like performance out of the MXG/MSG gets shitcanned in 6.9 sec in this AF. So they ask about the grass instead. Ultimately your rated leadership failure is happening at the O7+ level. Of course there are careerist douche wing/cc who stand on their own lack of merit, but hard to be a stand out warrior leader at the O-6 level and not get fired when you’ve got the crop of GOs that exist today.

[Danger41]

Another example of the frozen middle, in my opinion. The GO’s are pushing ACE, empowering junior Airmen, etc and then young bucks want to run with it, but they get stymied with the aforementioned crap. I hate it and personally have never bought into the narrative that support functions are so inept and only aviators are worth a crap. It’s nature vs. nurture where as young pilots you’re constantly bludgeoned to make decisions, be the HMFIC, meritocracy via performance with assignments, etc. Support O’s are told to follow regulations and not fuck up, all while in a very resource constrained environment. It’s going to produce different outcomes.

Ive always been a fan of the Marines TBS. I don’t think the AF needs to go that extreme, but even something cheesy showing how a days frag is filled in a combat environment and how all the various pieces tie together. Get the young Finance O out on the flight line for a day helping the hydro guys in an MC-130 in 100° heat for 12 hours and that’ll help contextualize why pay issues are important.  Have the rated guy go around with a CE crew fixing random shit and how they prioritize while under strength in personnel to fix what will help launch those sorties etc. 

And don’t make it ASBC 2.0