What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Danger41]

I’m a fan of the Academies and think they should exist as a means to produce the top caliber of Officer for our military branches. What I see coming out of USAFA is a bunch of cynical weirdos that seem to have gotten an accelerated education on bitching about everything, knowing the levers to pull for career advancement, and (in a sad amount of grads) a lack of warrior spirit that I can only assume isn’t inculcated at the Zoo*. That last point is my main gripe with USAFA. Not to discount the academic rigor and the outputs of that such as the AC-130 gun fairings mentioned above, but IDGAF about that. I want Officers with a warrior mentality produced there, not big brain nerds. If you can make both, perfect. Some folks can do both. However, the masses can’t and if you have to favor one over the other, pick the warrior side. 
 

*This doesn’t apply to all grads. Some of the best I’ve seen are Academy grads.

[Biff_T]

3 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

Slife has (at least IMO) a long list of flaws.  I personally know a couple guys that flew with him, and, to his credit, none of them said he was a shitty pilot.

No one will. 

Just because you have golden hands doesn't make you a good general officer. 

I flew with a couple AFSOC O-6s in my life.  They were always good sticks and some were cool as fuck in the cockpit.  But my god, they shouldn't have been leading outside of a squadron level.  

[DirkDiggler]

12 minutes ago, Biff_T said:

No one will. 

Just because you have golden hands doesn't make you a good general officer. 

I flew with a couple AFSOC O-6s in my life.  They were always good sticks and some were cool as fuck in the cockpit.  But my god, they shouldn't have been leading outside of a squadron level.  

I think we’re actually in agreement here.  I would agree that just because someone is great at their primary crew position doesn’t mean they’re a great officer/leader.  The best Sq/CCs I’ve had all happened to be extremely credible in the airplane; I know guys in other Sqs who have had CCs that were great in airplane but shit leaders.

At least in my corner of AFSOC most guys/gals are willing to call out leaders who are bad sticks.  Reference Sock Puppet as a prime example.  Didn’t stop him from making O-6 mind you, but everyone acknowledged he was a bad pilot with great paperwork.

 
I’d also argue that just because a guy isn’t a bro or great fun to hang out with outside the cockpit doesn’t mean they’re a bad leader, people/leaders come in all flavors.

Curious, which AFSOC O-6s specifically did you fly with that you felt were good pilots but bad leaders?

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, FourFans said:

  If you're going to make an argument against them, please do.  But put some meat behind it.  Otherwise, pull your head out of the sand and do some observing.

I didn't make an argument, I made an observation.  Your entire post apparently was written on a presumption of what I said, versus the words I actually said.  
 

if you're going to defend USAFA based on the critical thinking it produces in graduates, I recommend using said critical thinking during dialogue; less irony that way.  Or continue providing an emotional reply to things I didn't say, it's certainly amusing.

[Biff_T]

20 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

I think we’re actually in agreement here.  I would agree that just because someone is great at their primary crew position doesn’t mean they’re a great officer/leader.  The best Sq/CCs I’ve had all happened to be extremely credible in the airplane; I know guys in other Sqs who have had CCs that were great in airplane but shit leaders.

At least in my corner of AFSOC most guys/gals are willing to call out leaders who are bad sticks.  Reference Sock Puppet as a prime example.  Didn’t stop him from making O-6 mind you, but everyone acknowledged he was a bad pilot with great paperwork.

 
I’d also argue that just because a guy isn’t a bro or great fun to hang out with outside the cockpit doesn’t mean they’re a bad leader, people/leaders come in all flavors.

Curious, which AFSOC O-6s specifically did you fly with that you felt were good pilots but bad leaders?

I won't call them out personally  in the forum.  I still respect them. 

 Most were from the 53, a few from the MC community.. good fucking pilots (the best AF  pilots) but weirdos in the sunshine.  I repspect the bad leaders as good pilots...

Shit I didn't even make Major. BUT Loved flying... I admit I needed to stay at the tactical level.  Others (not always your top pilots) are meant for the bigger picture decisions.  

Not throwing spears at the 53 or MC communities, 99 percent were awesome but for some reason there were a few selected for O-6, when I was in, that seemed a little narcissistic.  Once again, great pilots but you can't bang 1C's your whole life. 

 

Edited January 1 by Biff_T
Clarification

[Biff_T]

21 hours ago, Biff_T said:

They were always good sticks and some were cool as fuck in the cockpi

I know nice guys get you killed.   By cool in the cockpit, I mean i'd fly a shitty mission with them and not worry..

Not that we'd drop acid (or shrooms) and pull fire hanldes in flight just because... @brabus

Edited January 1 by Biff_T
Afterthought

[FourFans]

4 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I didn't make an argument, I made an observation.  Your entire post apparently was written on a presumption of what I said, versus the words I actually said.  
 
if you're going to defend USAFA based on the critical thinking it produces in graduates, I recommend using said critical thinking during dialogue; less irony that way.  Or continue providing an emotional reply to things I didn't say, it's certainly amusing.

Interesting. True you made an observation…one that clearly stated that you observed no benefit from the academies…which implies that you see no benefit to having the academies. Perhaps I was making a stretch in seeing that implication. Ok. We’ll use your yardstick for the sake of discussion.

When did I say anything at all about critical thinking as a product?

So you must be evaluated by precisely the words you say, but you get to imply where and when you like in evaluating others arguments?

There’s a word for that style of argument: Pedantic


Can we please leaving the childish discussion style behind?

I get it, you didn’t see a benefit for having the academies. I simply provided you demonstrated benefits for our service from having the academies.

As to critical thought and a warrior mentality that others have mentioned, that’s a trickier subject. I would argue that those traits cannot actually be inculcated by an institution, only fostered. I went to the zoo. I don’t think it explicitly taught me either of those. Rather the environment provided the opportunity for both to grow and become stronger. You can’t make a coward brave or an idiot savvy, but you provide the opportunity for them to grow in those direction if they so choose. It’s a fine, but important distinction.

I think the reason we largely don’t observe those traits as stronger in academy grads is because the shitty grads get all the press, and the good ones fly under the radar until rare extraordinary events thrust them into the limelight. That makes it very difficult to judge the quality of the process without very acute observation.

I won’t judge if I was a good leader or not. That’s for those I served with to decide. I did observe that most people were surprised when they found out I was a grad though. I attribute that largely to the reputation built by asshats who let everyone know where they came from. I think the same was true of most of the other grads that I observed and thought were good. They flew under the radar, did their job well, lead well, and people were surprised when they found out they were grads.

That level of nuance is why I find it sad to see sweeping observations like: “I don’t see a benefit for the academies.” It appears to expose a lack of earnest curiosity to find truth.

Perhaps if you fail to see a benefit, it wasn’t because there is no benefit, but because you weren’t actually looking for it.

Edited January 1 by FourFans

[BashiChuni]

FF what squad were you in at the Academy?

[Lord Ratner]

5 hours ago, Danger41 said:

What I see coming out of USAFA is a bunch of cynical weirdos that seem to have gotten an accelerated education on bitching about everything, knowing the levers to pull for career advancement, and (in a sad amount of grads) a lack of warrior spirit that I can only assume isn’t inculcated at the Zoo*.

And you think ROTC is spitting out anything different? Nonsense.

 

I taught pilots from every commissioning source. They were all fucking morons with the exception of one group, the prior-enlisted. 

 

Maturity, confidence, and wisdom come from experience, and experience requires independence. The prior-e's weren't smarter. Most were actually dumber, and well aware of it, but they knew how to make decisions on their own and act in a professional, non-college non-frat non-dorm environment. That's why they got picked over the other enlisted who didn't mature as well or as much. The academy kids knew how to study in a way that made pilot training easier, but that only gets you into the jet. Good hands were agnostic of the commissioning source.

 

Once the zoomies and ROTC dorks had a little unsupervised life under their belts, the groups were mostly indistinguishable. But I suspect the academy sets the example that ROTC lives up to. I mean the programs themselves, not the cadets in them. After all, we never sent Zoomies to the ROTC programs (that I know of), but they sure did send them to us. 

[Biff_T]

15 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

The prior-e's weren't smarter. Most were actually dumber, and well aware of it,

This.

Not only am I client, I'm also the prior-e club president.  

It would be sad f it wasn't so true.  

Edited January 1 by Biff_T
Words are hard

[FourFans]

A little humility goes a long way.  Almost every mustang I knew, if not outright humble (most of them), at a bare minimum knew when and where to turn that switch on.

A solid argument can be made that all officers should be enlisted first, a la Robert Heinlein.  If nothing else it’s a solid thought experiment.

Edited January 1 by FourFans

[Danger41]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

And you think ROTC is spitting out anything different? Nonsense.

 

I taught pilots from every commissioning source. They were all fucking morons with the exception of one group, the prior-enlisted. 

 

Maturity, confidence, and wisdom come from experience, and experience requires independence. The prior-e's weren't smarter. Most were actually dumber, and well aware of it, but they knew how to make decisions on their own and act in a professional, non-college non-frat non-dorm environment. That's why they got picked over the other enlisted who didn't mature as well or as much. The academy kids knew how to study in a way that made pilot training easier, but that only gets you into the jet. Good hands were agnostic of the commissioning source.

 

Once the zoomies and ROTC dorks had a little unsupervised life under their belts, the groups were mostly indistinguishable. But I suspect the academy sets the example that ROTC lives up to. I mean the programs themselves, not the cadets in them. After all, we never sent Zoomies to the ROTC programs (that I know of), but they sure did send them to us. 

I didn’t say anything about intelligence. I don’t doubt USAFA grads rank high on that. Having said that, I accomplished commissioning 16x faster than you at OTS so as a vastly superior intelligence, you should listen to me*. 

I agree with everything you said about independence and experience. In that case, why the hell isn’t an Academy grad getting that prior to showing up? They should absolutely smoke UPT in all aspects because (as a tax payer) I want Academy graduates to be BAMF at their jobs. Pilot candidates should show up with a bunch of time in T-6’s or something else to advance them through UPT quicker**. I could care less about their ability to do advanced engineering math (systems engineering anyone?) I say this as a DO in AFMC that’s full of Test Pilots who do all this math as part of the course and then never do it again because we evolved past the slide rule. 

And the Academy absolutely sets the standard for commissioning sources. If it didn’t, shutter the place yesterday.

Regarding @FourFanscomment about prior E’s, I agree in theory but reality is very different (and I’m the son of a prior E pilot). In my career, the drastic poles of Officer quality were with the prior E’s. Fantastic or giant turds and everything in between. Off the top of my nugget, I can think of 6 O’s doing UCMJ and criminal type offenses and 3 were prior E, 1 Academy, and 2 were from classic military ROTC schools (VMI and VT). I don’t think that means anything big picture, just interesting. Maybe it proves that my 16x accelerated course didn’t spend enough time on not being a criminal turd. I got pretty good at flicker ball though.

 

*I applied to and got appointments to all 3 service academies and was really wrestling between being a pilot, SEAL, or SF officer (I even took 4 years of French to prepare). I ended up going to my state college to play football and OTS but I’d be lying if I hadn’t thought “what if” about going to an academy. If that doesn’t prove that I was a dipshit 18 year old, I don’t know what does. 
 

**The obsession with fairness and whatever at UPT is super gay. I don’t care at all about fairness in UPT assignments. If USAFA grads get tons of extra training by getting into USAFA, good on them. I only got picked up for OTS because I was a CFII so UPT went well for me. That wasn’t fair for most of my classmates that didn’t have much experience. With how much money gets poured into a cadet at USAFA, for them to show up and find out they don’t have hands is a serious waste of money.

[nsplayr]

14 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Well, to be accurate, he’s an 11S, but I get your point.  Slife the knife.

HeloDude coming in defending the upstanding honor of 11Hs everywhere like...😂

 

[nsplayr]

12 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

Slife has (at least IMO) a long list of flaws.  I personally know a couple guys that flew with him, and, to his credit, none of them said he was a shitty pilot.

His apprentice however...

[dream big]

On 12/30/2023 at 10:36 PM, Sua Sponte said:

Stop rewarding social activism in the military. If that isn't done, then the service academies will continue down this wokeness path. Oh yeah, the dipshit former Macdill Wg/CC who wrote that "Dear White Colonels" article is at USAFA, figures.

Soon to be Brig Gen…enough said 

[FourFans]

3 hours ago, Danger41 said:

*I applied to and got appointments to all 3 service academies and was really wrestling between being a pilot, SEAL, or SF officer (I even took 4 years of French to prepare). I ended up going to my state college to play football and OTS but I’d be lying if I hadn’t thought “what if” about going to an academy. If that doesn’t prove that I was a dipshit 18 year old, I don’t know what does.

Along with the rest of the post...in all sincerity, we throw a lot of shit around here when in reality we were all highly motivated, highly excitable teenagers who wanted to go do cool shit and serve our country.  Turning 40 only helps us lose sight of that perspective.

Thank you for doing what you're doing in AFMC.  I've heard that can be a dodgy place to be in leadership.  I've also heard things like "if you can dream it, we've figured out how to do it"   Yeah, AFMC does some really cool shit.  But I digress

I'm no academy apologist.   USAFA is currently ALL KINDS of fucked up.  But the idea it represents to America's young bright and shining warriors hasn't faded a bit.  The warrior mentality will always be attracted to hardship and challenge.  It's the job of we sage warriors to make sure the institutions don't drift.  Thankfully, that impulse is not provided in the realm of internet discussion forums.

We gain a lot of perspective as we get older with one bold exception: We often fail to remember what the world looked like when we were 18 and making life impacting decisions.  

That insight should inform our vision as we get older.  Elite institutions should always be upheld regardless of how imperfect we find out that they are (and always were) as we gain the perspective of age.  America's youth should always be challenged to do difficult things for the fact that difficulty cultivates character, and in real eye-gouging, life altering combat, character is critically important.  Designing those preparatory challenges and environments is what being old is all about.  Sadly the vast majority of our sages have decided that retirement and golf is more important.  Regardless, I stand by the fact that elite American institutions still do push that button quite well, and I'll continue to challenge the vision of those who see those institutions as worthless.

Edited January 1 by FourFans

[Biff_T]

22 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I want Officers with a warrior mentality produced there, not big brain nerds

This.  Fo sho 

Edit: Or a warrior with a big fucking brain.  I'll take a few of those please.  

Edited January 1 by Biff_T
Afterthought

[Biff_T]

On 12/30/2023 at 1:55 PM, HU&W said:

www.biffsunicornfartpowereddildos.com

Yeap.  Lol.  Piss, shit and fell down reading this. 

Most Excellent! 

[Biff_T]

12 hours ago, nsplayr said:

HeloDude coming in defending the upstanding honor of 11Hs everywhere like...😂

 

@HeloDude is 100% correct.  Thank you Sir!   Biff 11H

[LookieRookie]

Was CAT-5 the OG that scraped the CV-22 on tree canopies on approach and made it go away for himself?

[DirkDiggler]

28 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

Was CAT-5 the OG that scraped the CV-22 on tree canopies on approach and made it go away for himself?

Yes

Technically he didn’t make it go away, he was Q3’d for it by the 1st SOW/CC, then Col Slife.  Obviously it didn’t impact his career any.

[Boomer6]

Idk if it’s funnier if he was named CAT-5 before or after he knocked down all of those trees 🤔

[HuggyU2]

How did he get the Cat5 callsign?

[Danger41]

5 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

Yes

Technically he didn’t make it go away, he was Q3’d for it by the 1st SOW/CC, then Col Slife.  Obviously it didn’t impact his career any.

That’s how I remembered it as well. He then said something how everyone needs a Q3 for some reason since he’d given out dozens.

[DirkDiggler]

1 hour ago, HuggyU2 said:

How did he get the Cat5 callsign?

Isn’t a call sign, it’s a nickname coined by some guys in the 15th when he was the DO & CC.  Came from his habit of rolling into offices in the unit, completely upending/wrecking everything and leaving nothing but destruction in his wake.  See Danger’s above comment as an example, when he was a Sq/CC he gave out 34 commander directed Q3s.