What's wrong with the Air Force?

[dream big]

2 hours ago, Hacker said:

I started my career as a MX officer before I went to UPT, and quite frankly learned more about leadership during that time I was in charge of 100-ish people than I did in the majority of the rest of my career as a flyer.

The unfortunate truth is that leading a 30-aircraft LFE as a Mission or Package Commander is not the same type of leadership skill.

I think both types of leadership skills are necessary to be a senior leader in this organization.  The problem is, leading that LFE package and supervising 200 jokers are both full time jobs.  Focus too much on one and the other takes the hit.  This is why we get limited leadership opportunities as aviators.  

[Sprkt69]

1 minute ago, Weezer said:

Do you mean as far as knowing what they are, or connecting their squadrons to the bigger mission, or both?  Either way, that sucks.

Both. 

[Weezer]

Just now, Sprkt69 said:

Both. 

Like I said...that sucks.  And those commanders suck.

So I might as well come out of the closet:  I'm not a pilot or even an operator.  I'm an MSG guy (CE) who cares about where the AF is headed.  These forums seem to have pretty good gouge on what the nuts and bolts of the rated force is thinking.

When people ask me how I like my job, it's mixed.  I like the technical nerdery, but I always wish I was working more directly with operations.  It's kind of like working at Microsoft...unclogging toilets.  It's cool to say I work at Microsoft, but...

I'm not sure if I'll ever be a squadron commander...I got to be a deputy for a year overseas.  Tried my best to bust my a$$ to make the mission happen, and also make sure our Airmen understood the impact they were having on the mission.  It wasn't easy...the MSG has its own kind of salt...but I tried to do my best.

Now I'm on Joint Staff working plan sourcing, as I said.  If we were sitting down at a bar, what would you say to me that I can do to help?

[VMFA187]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Maintenance officers have very little training in hands on mx/technician skills.  

I can't speak to the way the AF trains their Mx officers, but the USMC sends them to school for 4-6 weeks to learn their trade. That is considerably more than the two days of six hours of powerpoint training I received before I took over airframes, the same that all pilots receive when working in maintenance on this side of the house.

[tac airlifter]

Good discussion.  I often hear some version of "the AF sucks at training tactical officers for leadership, we do it too late compared to the Army" or similarly worded observations.  But you can be a technically proficient Army soldier as a 2LT, and OJT the details of soldiering while also leading 100 folks and learning that skillset; at least according to Army infantry folks I know.  You can't do the same with an AF pilot; it takes years to grow a new pilot into a value added member of the SQ.  That necessarily takes away early career opportunities to experience leading large organizations.  Bottom line, spend an officers first 1-6 years leading people or honing airmenship (which involves tactical leadership).  We can do one of those things, not both.

In my opinion, this whole conversation speaks to the need for formally tracked AF officer aircrew paths.  I think you should fly your full first operational tour then track either leadership (JQO, AF support functions, etc.) or tactical (which again, involves leadership of a different type).  Some formal bifurcating of career trajectories would be a win-win for an individuals career aspirations and force management issues writ large.  Too much time is spent by the system forcing people to do things they don't want, while willing volunteers for the same things become frustrated.  We could solve that problem while deliberately growing folks into what they want and what the system needs.  

Great ideas at fixing these issues are out there and well know.  The biggest obstacle is how to start.  What authorities are required to initiate a change this large?  Who are the stakeholders that need to be convinced, and can we speak intelligently to studies predicting the second and third order effects of said proposed change?  What principals need to be philosophically aligned?  What cabal of GOs will force this issue by socializing a consistent message at all internal & external levels?  Those questions are the meat & potatoes of making any big change in a bureaucracy, and answers are totally lacking therefore change of this scope is not forthcoming.  

[Hacker]

1 hour ago, VMFA187 said:

I can't speak to the way the AF trains their Mx officers, but the USMC sends them to school for 4-6 weeks to learn their trade. That is considerably more than the two days of six hours of powerpoint training I received before I took over airframes, the same that all pilots receive when working in maintenance on this side of the house.

There's zero technical training in the MX officer school, nor is any allowed on the job.  

Once I was back from AMOC, I actually tried to get a Job Qualification folder started so I could get trained to perform some wrench-turning tasks.  That got squashed rather quickly from QA, who could find no AFI authorization for a 21A AFSC to receive such training or qualification.

[Weezer]

46 minutes ago, Hacker said:

There's zero technical training in the MX officer school, nor is any allowed on the job.  

Once I was back from AMOC, I actually tried to get a Job Qualification folder started so I could get trained to perform some wrench-turning tasks.  That got squashed rather quickly from QA, who could find no AFI authorization for a 21A AFSC to receive such training or qualification.

So much for leading from the front.  Good on you for trying.

[VMFA187]

54 minutes ago, Hacker said:

There's zero technical training in the MX officer school, nor is any allowed on the job.  

Once I was back from AMOC, I actually tried to get a Job Qualification folder started so I could get trained to perform some wrench-turning tasks.  That got squashed rather quickly from QA, who could find no AFI authorization for a 21A AFSC to receive such training or qualification.

That's insane. I found the best way to connect with my Marines when I was Airframes OIC, well second to taking one or two of them to the gym with me, was walking out to the flight line and asking what they were doing, then having them show me how to do it.

That's a big difference between AF and Navy/USMC aviation - If it doesn't say we can't do it, then we can. We actually had a WSO Powerline OIC who got his turn qual to start the jets for Mx turns. The CO at the time actually wanted him to get a taxi qual so he could go do high power turns. He had this elaborate plan of setting up a course with cones out on the flight line and everything. Ultimately the WSO decided against it.

[Champ Kind]

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Good discussion.  I often hear some version of "the AF sucks at training tactical officers for leadership, we do it too late compared to the Army" or similarly worded observations.  But you can be a technically proficient Army soldier as a 2LT, and OJT the details of soldiering while also leading 100 folks and learning that skillset; at least according to Army infantry folks I know.  You can't do the same with an AF pilot; it takes years to grow a new pilot into a value added member of the SQ.  That necessarily takes away early career opportunities to experience leading large organizations.  Bottom line, spend an officers first 1-6 years leading people or honing airmenship (which involves tactical leadership).  We can do one of those things, not both.

In my opinion, this whole conversation speaks to the need for formally tracked AF officer aircrew paths.  I think you should fly your full first operational tour then track either leadership (JQO, AF support functions, etc.) or tactical (which again, involves leadership of a different type).  Some formal bifurcating of career trajectories would be a win-win for an individuals career aspirations and force management issues writ large.  Too much time is spent by the system forcing people to do things they don't want, while willing volunteers for the same things become frustrated.  We could solve that problem while deliberately growing folks into what they want and what the system needs.  

Great ideas at fixing these issues are out there and well know.  The biggest obstacle is how to start.  What authorities are required to initiate a change this large?  Who are the stakeholders that need to be convinced, and can we speak intelligently to studies predicting the second and third order effects of said proposed change?  What principals need to be philosophically aligned?  What cabal of GOs will force this issue by socializing a consistent message at all internal & external levels?  Those questions are the meat & potatoes of making any big change in a bureaucracy, and answers are totally lacking therefore change of this scope is not forthcoming.  

Great post, as usual.

I have to wonder, though:  if we got rid of up-or-out, how many willing volunteers would you have to get on the "leadership" track?  I see the current status quo as officers checking boxes so as not to show their cards too early and retain maneuvering airspace as they chip away at their ADSC.  If up-or-out went away, I can't imagine there would be a large line of people waiting to deal with the things that a Sq/CC has to deal with in the current environment, not to mention the non-flying path that must be taken to get there. 

[Duck]

That's insane. I found the best way to connect with my Marines when I was Airframes OIC, well second to taking one or two of them to the gym with me, was walking out to the flight line and asking what they were doing, then having them show me how to do it.

I did the same thing as a Mx DO. The kids loved trying unsuccessfully to try and teach an officer to safety wire and turn wrenches. So when I told them I appreciate what they do, it seemed to mean more to them. Never saw the Sq/CC leave the office unless he was going to rub elbows with the Group.

You may actually be my brother from another mother... I was adopted so it's possible...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[ThreeHoler]

There's zero technical training in the MX officer school, nor is any allowed on the job.  
Once I was back from AMOC, I actually tried to get a Job Qualification folder started so I could get trained to perform some wrench-turning tasks.  That got squashed rather quickly from QA, who could find no AFI authorization for a 21A AFSC to receive such training or qualification.

I used to go out on the ramp as a Wing Safety dude and talk to MX about their jobs and learn from them about my airplane.

MX NCO leadership was pissed. "Stop spying on our troops." Line MX guys were shocked a flier cared about them/their jobs.

[BFM this]

3 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

That's insane.

That's Big Blue.

 

[BFM this]

9 hours ago, Weezer said:

I have no doubt every general in the AF can operate their weapon system effectively and I have no doubt they can tactically lead. 

Dude, you would be shocked at how false this speculation is.  More and more OGs these days with fewer hours than the CGO IPs that they "lead".  The typical exceptions have a patch on their arm, and a few others just maintain IP qual/proficiency just because they are good shit, bit they're going quickly the way of the dodo.

[Sprkt69]

12 minutes ago, BFM this said:

Dude, you would be shocked at how false this speculation is.  More and more OGs these days with fewer hours than the CGO IPs that they "lead".  The typical exceptions have a patch on their arm, and a few others just maintain IP qual/proficiency just because they are good shit, bit they're going quickly the way of the dodo.

Weezer, in the CAF if you are out of the jet for a prolonged time or don't fly consistently to RAP(8-10 sorties depending on experience) or beyond you will lose your tactical proficiency. Hence why squadrons generally have to assign an experienced IP to the O-7+ pilots that want to go fly.  A lot of times the O-6s and some command bound attached O-5s need a seeing eye Captain to keep things legit or to just mission plan.

[Toro]

11 hours ago, Weezer said:

I have no doubt every general in the AF can operate their weapon system effectively and I have no doubt they can tactically lead. 

Having instructed Senior Officer requalification courses in the Strike Eagle, I can say this is almost entirely false.

[dream big]

3 hours ago, BFM this said:

Dude, you would be shocked at how false this speculation is.  More and more OGs these days with fewer hours than the CGO IPs that they "lead".  The typical exceptions have a patch on their arm, and a few others just maintain IP qual/proficiency just because they are good shit, bit they're going quickly the way of the dodo.

Last two wing commanders at a previous AMC base had about as much hours as a low time Capt IP.   They were both basic mission qual'd (did not maintain mission/tac qual) 

[Weezer]

I apologize profusely for assuming those designated as leaders in our service could operate their weapons systems.

Is it fair to say that most could at one time operate a weapon system to some degree of competence?

[Weezer]

17 minutes ago, joe1234 said:

(where their worth is measured in ability to contribute to the war)

Why would you not measure everyone in this way?

[ThreeHoler]

I apologize profusely for assuming those designated as leaders in our service could operate their weapons systems.
Is it fair to say that most could at one time operate a weapon system to some degree of competence?

Some but not many in the MAF.

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

I apologize profusely for assuming those designated as leaders in our service could operate their weapons systems.

Is it fair to say that most could at one time operate a weapon system to some degree of competence?

Not all of them.  I've had senior leaders who were quite possibly the worst aviators I've ever met, and i instruct at the FTU.

[matmacwc]

2 hours ago, joe1234 said:

I get that it's the military, and pissing contests/butthurt fragile egos/red tape dominate the entire way of life, but.... why can't we just have flyers/ops be in charge of flying and running wars and battle staffs, and then have support guys dickfight each other over school, volunteer crap, and high vis non operational staff gigs.

Its the bullshit fake equality that needs to go. Anyone who no-shit flies, fights, plans, runs, or deters the air war needs to be put in one box (where their worth is measured in ability to contribute to the war), and the people-herders need to be put in another box and be measured by their ability to support the mission.

Do that, and I promise you, you would see more young flyers burning the midnight oil to come up with insane new innovative ways to win wars, rather than writing bullshit essays for a degree that has no relevance to their job.

I see somebody is starting to grow up, your statement has problems liking boxing people in, but on the right track.

[Clark Griswold]

Rhetorical and honest question, what are we using the skill as a military aviator for in determining AF leadership?

Is it proof of intelligence, strategic thought, knowledge of modern warfare, understanding of historical lessons, wisdom to apply these as required, etc...?  

Is it a filter or braking system / requirement to ensure that individuals have enough time and experience and a record to judge and predict future performance at now directing and leading the Air Force in operations?

I ask as I agree with the sentiment of disgust that many of the cadre of modern AF leaders have mediocre or little skill, knowledge or even interest in their tactical art but at some level, high tactical personal proficiency may not be required to be a great strategic or enterprise leader.

My analogy would be Nick Saban, whether you're an Alabama fan or not, he's a great coach, but he only played two years as defensive back at Kent State before then going on to becoming a great leader in his profession.  He demonstrated skill by playing at the college level and then moved to leadership.  Credentials established and he was given a chance to prove he could not only perform but lead.

Now I am not in anyway arguing for that kind of fast tracking for AF leadership but we have to step back and honestly ask as this person can fly his jet or lead this formation great but are those skills indicative themselves of a good leader of the AF?  

It is supposed to be a building process, Operational to Tactical to Strategic ability with demonstration of skill leading to the next level but that is not what we have.  

Unfortunately I think it is a combination of dedication to admin obsession and personal connections that are markers for leadership; there is no truly objective factor(s) as those are manipulated to some degree to give the desired result but I'm not cynical not one bit...

Edited May 19, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[hatedont]

 

20 hours ago, Hacker said:

There's zero technical training in the MX officer school, nor is any allowed on the job.  

Once I was back from AMOC, I actually tried to get a Job Qualification folder started so I could get trained to perform some wrench-turning tasks.  That got squashed rather quickly from QA, who could find no AFI authorization for a 21A AFSC to receive such training or qualification.

VMA187 is right in the perspective of you don't need to be out their turning wrenches to be a great leader for your maintenance troops. You being visible on the flight line at times and ensuring your airmen are not being pushed to the limit would go far further in my opinion rather than turning a wrench. As an airman, chances are you are getting in my damn way. You can watch, but still learn the job is tedious.

Before cold weather hits, make sure your airmen are outfitted properly. On a snow day, I would walk around the flight line and ensure those airmen are in fact equipped to handle the elements. If someone didn't have gloves, I would give them mine. Then go find out why SrA Mitts wasn't issued any gloves. This isn't something you teach to officers in AFROTC or the USAFA. Leading by giving a damn goes far further with the E's.

Some pilots are too focused on you having to be great at what the person underneath you is doing in order be an effective leader. I don't see Bill Gates writing code for programs. There are different ways to be an effective leader and you don't have to know in detail how to perform a persons job to be successful.

18 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

I used to go out on the ramp as a Wing Safety dude and talk to MX about their jobs and learn from them about my airplane.

MX NCO leadership was pissed. "Stop spying on our troops." Line MX guys were shocked a flier cared about them/their jobs.

Always ask "mother may I" before going around E's who do not fall under your chain of command. You could have talked to their commander and CMSgt first about what you wanted to do. I would be protective of my airmen as well if WG Safety was always hanging around. I don't know what are your intentions. You could be like the guy Herbert from Family Guy disguised as WG Safety. I believe in communicating your intentions and we don't teach officers how to do this enough. 

Edited May 19, 2017 by hatedont

[Toro]

8 hours ago, Weezer said:

I apologize profusely for assuming those designated as leaders in our service could operate their weapons systems.

Is it fair to say that most could at one time operate a weapon system to some degree of competence?

Hit or miss.  The only GO who I have for frame of reference for this question is Mark "Grace" Kelly, a previous Sq/CC who actually refutes my point.  If you look at his bio, the reason he counters this stereotype is right there in his duty history.  Save for one year at ACSC, he flew for the first 20 years of his career.  I was constantly impressed at his tactical proficiency when he was my Sq/CC.  He would develop completely non-standard CT sorties to get us to go out and try new and challenging tactics.  I remember sitting in the bar and listening to him talk about his Aussie F-18 exchange tour and he was drawing out schematics to the Hornet's radar on a bar napkin - from a system he hadn't used for five years.

He is the exception, not the norm.  Too many of the young officers who are fast tracked for leadership commit to that objective at the expense of tactical proficiency.  For them, the queep takes priority over 3-1 and meetings take priority over flying.  Without a solid foundation, there isn't much to build on, and when you take them out of the cockpit for years on end, the result is somebody who needs an experienced handler whenever he goes to fly.

[hatedont]

Hit or miss.  The only GO who I have for frame of reference for this question is Mark "Grace" Kelly, a previous Sq/CC who actually refutes my point.  If you look at his bio, the reason he counters this stereotype is right there in his duty history.  Save for one year at ACSC, he flew for the first 20 years of his career.  I was constantly impressed at his tactical proficiency when he was my Sq/CC.  He would develop completely non-standard CT sorties to get us to go out and try new and challenging tactics.  I remember sitting in the bar and listening to him talk about his Aussie F-18 exchange tour and he was drawing out schematics to the Hornet's radar on a bar napkin - from a system he hadn't used for five years.

He is the exception, not the norm.  Too many of the young officers who are fast tracked for leadership commit to that objective at the expense of tactical proficiency.  For them, the queep takes priority over 3-1 and meetings take priority over flying.  Without a solid foundation, there isn't much to build on, and when you take them out of the cockpit for years on end, the result is somebody who needs an experienced handler whenever he goes to fly.

 

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/3-star-air-force-may-need-even-bigger-pilot-retention-bonuses

 

Nowland said that when he first entered a fighter squadron as a lieutenant in 1990, he was told his job was to study and become the best F-15 pilot he could be. He threw himself into learning all about the then-new AIM-120 air-to-air missile. 

 

"That took hours and hours and hours back in the vault," Nowland said. "Why? Because I didn't have to do DTS [Defense Travel System]. When I had orders, I had people that helped me get from point A to point B. 

 

Lt. Gen. Nowland best quote, "In my personal opinion, we lost our way when we started running the Air Force like a business," Nowland said. "Producing a pilot is not a business decision. It is a capability for America."

 

applause... applause... applause 🤗