What's wrong with the Air Force?

[17D_guy]

4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

I remember that.  

Everything that doesn't fit some mold I have yet to perfectly visualize that the Bobs in charge think is right is always under the gun regardless if it is chump change in terms of money, personnel and trouble while adding value that is either not readily quantifiable like induced crew retention for military only opportunities, morale or military flight, tactics and leadership development.

Bean counting a-holes with low experience in operations, intensive military training (participation in mil exercises, mission qual tng, etc..) or formal qual training don't realize that quantity of experience has a quality all its own.  Just the shear number of sorties a mil pilot flies is going to put him/her/it (for the wokesters) into unforseen circumstances, hopefully rise to the occassion, learn something and debrief it to their peers so they all get stronger. 

Repetitions build experience, proficiency and confidence.  That confidence is the basis of a good pilot so they can use more their nugget when things are not as planned, excrement hits the fan or they need to help a member of the team who is trouble/not as strong.

Rant complete.  Buy cool iron AF and get your mojo back.

We face the same thing now.  We've got 'operational' GO's who don't think certain exercises are a good idea because they're not operational enough.  Like...wtf. 

[Hacker]

On 3/11/2020 at 10:17 PM, Clark Griswold said:

What that lead in experience would be for these already rated dudes coming from a non-fighter assignment would be is the $64,000 question

It is important to also remember that the guys who crossflowed in the 90s were all UPT T-38 trained.

There's an additional data set of rotary-wing background guys who were hired by a couple of the A-10 ANG units in the 2003-2006 timeframe, most of whom also struggled substantially in IFF (and I understand performed similarly in Hog FTU).  Again, based on the guys I flew with as an IFF IP, their struggles were not a talent issue but an experience issue.

There's a small subset of guys in the heavy world currently who were assigned out of the T-38 track 8-10 years ago, and the number in the RPA community who came from 38s is an even smaller sliver.

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Hacker

[brwwg&b]

2 hours ago, Hacker said:

There's a small subset of guys in the heavy world currently who were assigned out of the T-38 track 8-10 years ago, and the number in the RPA community who came from 38s is an even smaller sliver.

If you want to just pull from communities, then why not BUFF/B-1 guys to fighters and AMC guys to AFGSC? At least the A-G weaponeering, SAM threat knowledge etc is there for the bomber dudes, and they are 90%+ T-38 trained as it is

[Clark Griswold]

On 3/14/2020 at 10:25 PM, 17D_guy said:

We face the same thing now.  We've got 'operational' GO's who don't think certain exercises are a good idea because they're not operational enough.  Like...wtf. 

Not operational enough?  What the hell do they want?  A mash up of Iwo Jima, Gettysburg and the Tet Offensive to make it tough enough?

3 hours ago, Hacker said:

It is important to also remember that the guys who crossflowed in the 90s were all UPT T-38 trained.

There's an additional data set of rotary-wing background guys who were hired by a couple of the A-10 ANG units in the 2003-2006 timeframe, most of whom also struggled substantially in IFF (and I understand performed similarly in Hog FTU).  Again, based on the guys I flew with as an IFF IP, their struggles were not a talent issue but an experience issue.

There's a small subset of guys in the heavy world currently who were assigned out of the T-38 track 8-10 years ago, and the number in the RPA community who came from 38s is an even smaller sliver.

Copy that.

Thinking about a better cross-flow program (x to fighters), I'd probably have the program mainly look at applicants that came from other specialized communities that could give some transferable skills and experience to make the accepted applicants more likely to succeed.

B-2, U-2, Light Attack, etc... and alluding to the mil adversary program @HuggyU2 mentioned earlier, that might be a first stop for an accepted applicant, ADAIR first then based on that performance as an wingman, moving on to a B course in a pointy nose.

If possible, I'd try to synch the CTP programs, Light Attack, Chase Plane and mil ADAIR.  Might end up with a jack of all trades, master of none but that might be ok in the big picture.  Scorpion would be my choice as I think it could probably fulfill the majority of requirements for all and more than all for some (particularly light attack).  This could avoid the original sin of specialized programs, small fleet size and expensive/risky logistics with support over the life of the airplane.

[Springer]

Waaay back in the day UPT grads that received FAC assignments (O-2/OA-37) were guaranteed a fighter after a 3 yr DM tour.  I was a flight/CC and my guys went to F-15/F-16/A-10.  Most are airline capts now but one retired as Wing/DO at Cannon. 

[HuggyU2]

47 minutes ago, Springer said:

Waaay back in the day UPT grads that received FAC assignments (O-2/OA-37) were guaranteed a fighter after a 3 yr DM tour.  I was a flight/CC and my guys went to F-15/F-16/A-10.  Most are airline capts now but one retired as Wing/DO at Cannon. 

You're right!  I completely forgot about this track out of UPT.  I worked with a number of these guys that went on to successful fighter careers having done exactly what you stated.  

Case in point:  Brig Gen (later Lt Gen) Bob Otto.  Started in the O-2, and then off to the Eagle after 2-3 years in the Duck.  Great pilot, officer, and American.  

p.s.  what's an OA-37 ???

Edited March 16, 2020 by HuggyU2

[JeremiahWeed]

2 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

p.s.  what's an OA-37 ???

T-37 with:

Stronger wings, 3x hard points per side

Tip tanks

GAU-2 mini-gun in the nose

T-38 (J85) non afterburning engines

Beefed up gear

Better, FAC style radio suite

Cooler paint job

[AirGuardianC141747]

On 3/11/2020 at 7:40 PM, 12xu2a3x3 said:

would love to hear him speak unencumbered about this.

Briefed BG Orcutt several times before I retired from the AOC at Tyndall. He seemed a nice enuff guy, but behind the scenes he didn’t want any of us calling each other by our call signs and he made it known when 1st AF Bossman wasn’t anywhere to be seen. What a PC bend over or whatever you want to call it. 1st AF Boss didn’t care... he used our call signs. Cucumbered would be fine with me, 😐 sorry that wasn’t too funny...

[jice]

8 hours ago, Springer said:

Waaay back in the day UPT grads that received FAC assignments (O-2/OA-37) were guaranteed a fighter after a 3 yr DM tour.  I was a flight/CC and my guys went to F-15/F-16/A-10.  Most are airline capts now but one retired as Wing/DO at Cannon. 

What’s old is new again.  (Albeit slightly more ed up and delayed by bureaucracy... and I imagine an MC-12 to be significantly less exciting than O-2 flying.) The McDozen folks who flowed to fighters should all be through their B-courses now.  What are the reviews there?  The crossflows from all sources who I’ve interacted with haven’t been top of the class, nor the bottom. None have washed out that I’m aware of. 
 

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Thinking about a better cross-flow program (x to fighters), I'd probably have the program mainly look at applicants that came from other specialized communities that could give some transferable skills and experience to make the accepted applicants more likely to succeed.

B-2, U-2, Light Attack, etc... and alluding to the mil adversary program @HuggyU2 mentioned earlier, that might be a first stop for an accepted applicant, ADAIR first then based on that performance as an wingman, moving on to a B course in a pointy nose.

If possible, I'd try to synch the CTP programs, Light Attack, Chase Plane and mil ADAIR. 

Note here: if we want to crossflow, it should be a continuously operating system. In times of max throughput required, or when you need to balance year groups, open the valve. Otherwise, keep a trickle going so that 1) we don’t have to invent a “process” as an aid to avoid decision making and 2) the CAF knows what to do with/how to instruct these people. (Hint: in most cases if your root cause is related to somebody’s personal history, you’re likely two assumptions and a stereotype off the instructional fix.)

Next note: Not sure if you intend to sync airframes or units themselves. Airframes: great. Units: WRT light attack, absolutely not. Light attack is a combat role, and folks going into combat deserve dedicated training to stay alive. 

I do think ADAIR and CTP are likely compatible, given sufficient resources. I’d love to see somebody plop down a 20+ airplane squadron of jets at Beale to service the U-2’s CTP needs while also serving as ADAIR for Fresno, Klamath, Portland, and Nellis. You’d need a cadre of IFF/ADAIR instructors and enough fighter/Adair wingmen to meet demand (you couldn’t expect robust BVR/WVR threat rep with dual qual’d folks alone), but a shared fleet could be beneficial for everybody.  
 

WRT ADAIR as a stopping point in crossflow: there just isn’t time, unless you want to severely restrict opportunities for promotion/leadership for those folks. Officership and potential to lead isn’t explicitly tied to quals, but credibility and perception of that person’s value to a fighter squadron are. Rip the bandaid off and fully crossflow or borrow them for ADAIR then send them back.

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by jice

[brabus]

11 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Thinking about a better cross-flow program (x to fighters),

What problem are we trying to solve? We don’t have a fighter pilot shortage in general, we have a shortage of experienced IPs/guys on staff. The last thing we need is more inexperienced fighter pilots. Retainment is the only way to actually solve the issue; everything else are just half-assed attempts to bandaid the sinking ship because the AF accepts the fact it’s not willing to do things that will actually retain those with 10+ years of fighter experience. 

[Hacker]

9 hours ago, JeremiahWeed said:

T-37 with:

Stronger wings, 3x hard points per side

Tip tanks

GAU-2 mini-gun in the nose

T-38 (J85) non afterburning engines

Beefed up gear

Better, FAC style radio suite

Cooler paint job

I think @HuggyU2 is interested in the difference between the A-37 and the OA-37.

My understanding, just like the A-10 and OA-10, is that they are the same aircraft, but designated differently for mission/accounting purposes at the top organizational levels.

A little bit like the difference between the U-2R and TR-1, but for different reasons.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Hacker

[Hacker]

On 3/11/2020 at 4:17 PM, Magellan said:

Here is an example of a heavy to fighter guy that seemed to do well enough for himself.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/611899/brigadier-general-daniel-j-orcutt/

None of the things I posted implied that a fighter crossflow guy would not be successful.  I certainly don't believe that, and I know a number of crossflow guys who made outstanding fighter pilots and leaders, Danno being one of them.

I was saying that a specific sample of people from a specific timeframe who crossflowed didn't all share those same levels of success, and that those statistics should be considered in evaluating the success of such a program, and equally considered when contemplating doing it again in the future. It would be ludicrous to develop policy based on statistical outliers.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Hacker

[Clark Griswold]

14 hours ago, jice said:

What’s old is new again.  (Albeit slightly more ed up and delayed by bureaucracy... and I imagine an MC-12 to be significantly less exciting than O-2 flying.) The McDozen folks who flowed to fighters should all be through their B-courses now.  What are the reviews there?  The crossflows from all sources who I’ve interacted with haven’t been top of the class, nor the bottom. None have washed out that I’m aware of. 

Note here: if we want to crossflow, it should be a continuously operating system. In times of max throughput required, or when you need to balance year groups, open the valve. Otherwise, keep a trickle going so that 1) we don’t have to invent a “process” as an aid to avoid decision making and 2) the CAF knows what to do with/how to instruct these people. (Hint: in most cases if your root cause is related to somebody’s personal history, you’re likely two assumptions and a stereotype off the instructional fix.)

Next note: Not sure if you intend to sync airframes or units themselves. Airframes: great. Units: WRT light attack, absolutely not. Light attack is a combat role, and folks going into combat deserve dedicated training to stay alive. 

I do think ADAIR and CTP are likely compatible, given sufficient resources. I’d love to see somebody plop down a 20+ airplane squadron of jets at Beale to service the U-2’s CTP needs while also serving as ADAIR for Fresno, Klamath, Portland, and Nellis. You’d need a cadre of IFF/ADAIR instructors and enough fighter/Adair wingmen to meet demand (you couldn’t expect robust BVR/WVR threat rep with dual qual’d folks alone), but a shared fleet could be beneficial for everybody.  

WRT ADAIR as a stopping point in crossflow: there just isn’t time, unless you want to severely restrict opportunities for promotion/leadership for those folks. Officership and potential to lead isn’t explicitly tied to quals, but credibility and perception of that person’s value to a fighter squadron are. Rip the bandaid off and fully crossflow or borrow them for ADAIR then send them back.

Good stuff and agree on the idea of a constant cross flow program, variable to the needs of the AF.

As to the synch idea, airframe only.  Said airframe would need to be fairly adaptable to be able to cover all those missions to a minimally satisfactorily level, particularly ADAIR  and Chase Ship as I imagine the customers for those services want something more than a fat kid to fight against or keep up with them.  I like Scorpion but it probably would need a hot rod version of the baseline jet to meet those missions in a useful way.

L-159/39NG would likely be the next best choice for an already existing platform considering total cost and capabilities required.

Shared fleet idea is not bad if the investment is/was there.  Copy on ADAIR not being able to be stopping point, I think borrowing for ADAIR might be more palatable to Big Blue but they have already written a check for contract ADAIR, but one can advocate on BO...

The tyranny of aircraft fleet economics makes this a difficult idea to sell to the Bobs, I'm guessing if you could torture the numbers and get the costs down per tail/hour, you could argue for a 150-175 tail fleet for CTP, ADAIR, Light Attack, Chase Ship, Flight Based Training Platform, Test Platform, etc... figure you buy 160 L-159/39NGs at average $20 mil with all the goodies (radars, pods, sensors, etc) , program 500 hours per at $3,000 comes to some reasonable numbers for a multi-use, multi-mission platform.

11 hours ago, brabus said:

What problem are we trying to solve? We don’t have a fighter pilot shortage in general, we have a shortage of experienced IPs/guys on staff. The last thing we need is more inexperienced fighter pilots. Retainment is the only way to actually solve the issue; everything else are just half-assed attempts to bandaid the sinking ship because the AF accepts the fact it’s not willing to do things that will actually retain those with 10+ years of fighter experience. 

I would say two problems, short term needs to the 11F/11A communities and long term needs to change the culture of the AF.  If we want leaders and managers to not myopically focus on queep and realize the point of all of this is to generate airpower to perform X mission then we need more dudes to a experience a culture/execute a mission that probably focuses less on bullshit and more on delivering the mission / winning the fight.  

I say probably as I have never been in a fighter/attack unit but having interacted with different fighter dudes at different times in different places, they did as a group display a less queepy mindset and I think that experience of single seat flying or at least often single seat flying in a dynamic mission or training environment causes some mindset shift.  Particularly when you execute a mission where significant threat from the enemy exists and the pressure/expectation to perform is high as you are employing weapons against enemies often close or inter-twinned with friendlies, don't screw it up.

Not infatuated or a fighter groupie, I'm happily married to my heavy aircraft in a monogamous hetero-crew relationship but I think if there were a mechanism to let some reasonable number of dudes who tracked Heavy, FAIP, RPA, Bomber but wanted a fighter/attack jet to work hard, prove their mettle, meet a legit requirement and then serve in a tactically minded flying community (training or operational), I believe it would pay dividends in morale, retention and cultural renewal in some parts of the Air Force.  

Don't doubt your point about retention of dudes who tracked fighters right out of the gate from SUPT but I see this idea as the one of many simultaneous efforts to return the AF to course.

Airplane porn just because...

[HuggyU2]

22 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

p.s.  what's an OA-37 ???

Sorry for the confusion.  I was just trying to be sarcastic and funny, and figured that anyone that looked at my avatar would chuckle. 

Edited March 17, 2020 by HuggyU2

[MC5Wes]

OA-37B My favorite aircraft to work on.

[Springer]

On 3/16/2020 at 10:36 PM, HuggyU2 said:

Sorry for the confusion.  I was just trying to be sarcastic and funny, and figured that anyone that looked at my avatar would chuckle. 

Huggy I was wondering how long it would take them to catch on.  You better be using my checklists! 

TDY to Honduras.  The Hondurans were transitioning from the F-86 to the A-37!

Edited March 18, 2020 by Springer

[Springer]

7 hours ago, MC5Wes said:

OA-37B My favorite aircraft to work on.

Nice! Panama?

[Bigred]

An ‘almost’ what’s wrong with the Air Force. 
 

Mother Blue doesn’t recognize the Navy SERE C course to the extent that an AFI actually says Navy SERE C attendees have to do the full on AF SERE C course. I fell into that category, yay me. 
 

Well, turns out there’s a DoD instruction that says only one level C course in a person’s lifetime, so I dodged that bullet. 
 

Only posting because the SERE Chief at the MAJCOM knew the DoDI existed but didn’t pull his insistence that I attend the full SERE C course until I pointed out the DoDI. Mf’er.

[brabus]

On 3/17/2020 at 1:06 AM, Clark Griswold said:

would say two problems, short term needs to the 11F/11A communities and long term needs to change the culture of the AF.  If we want leaders and managers to not myopically focus on queep and realize the point of all of this is to generate airpower to perform X mission then we need more dudes to a experience a culture/execute a mission that probably focuses less on bullshit and more on delivering the mission / winning the fight

I like the sentiment,  but there is not an 11F need for more new guys as stated previously. Secondly, the fighter community is not a social change mechanism - putting people here for that reason is right out.

Why is it that the MAF is so incapable of getting out from under queep and refocusing on the mission? I’ve heard this from many heavy friends - I feel for you guys, and I’ve felt some pain as a “customer.” There are tons of good dudes in the MAF who have the right mindset, yet they appear unable to cause a shift...what’s stopping them? I assume it’s a cultural problem that could change with mission-focused DO, SQ/CC, OG/CC, etc. who aren’t pussies. Why is no one who fits that bill making it to these positions? a cross flow doesn’t solve that...maybe the MAF needs a coup; anyone there have any favors they could call in with the Clintons?

2 hours ago, Bigred said:

Only posting because the SERE Chief at the MAJCOM knew the DoDI existed but didn’t pull his insistence that I attend the full SERE C course until I pointed out the DoDI. Mf’er

1st step in the shoe clerk playbook - deny common sense until a person can prove to you directly from one of YOUR regs that they’re right. Definitely one of the top things wrong with the military. 

[Sua Sponte]

7 hours ago, Bigred said:

An ‘almost’ what’s wrong with the Air Force. 
 

Mother Blue doesn’t recognize the Navy SERE C course to the extent that an AFI actually says Navy SERE C attendees have to do the full on AF SERE C course. I fell into that category, yay me. 
 

Well, turns out there’s a DoD instruction that says only one level C course in a person’s lifetime, so I dodged that bullet. 
 

Only posting because the SERE Chief at the MAJCOM knew the DoDI existed but didn’t pull his insistence that I attend the full SERE C course until I pointed out the DoDI. Mf’er.

Welcome to the Air Force.

[JeremiahWeed]

On 3/17/2020 at 1:36 AM, HuggyU2 said:

Sorry for the confusion.  I was just trying to be sarcastic and funny, and figured that anyone that looked at my avatar would chuckle. 

Yep - I'm a dumass.  No one has every held me up as the most observant and I'm staying true to that. 🙄

[Clark Griswold]

18 hours ago, brabus said:

I like the sentiment,  but there is not an 11F need for more new guys as stated previously. Secondly, the fighter community is not a social change mechanism - putting people here for that reason is right out.

Why is it that the MAF is so incapable of getting out from under queep and refocusing on the mission? I’ve heard this from many heavy friends - I feel for you guys, and I’ve felt some pain as a “customer.” There are tons of good dudes in the MAF who have the right mindset, yet they appear unable to cause a shift...what’s stopping them? I assume it’s a cultural problem that could change with mission-focused DO, SQ/CC, OG/CC, etc. who aren’t pussies. Why is no one who fits that bill making it to these positions? a cross flow doesn’t solve that...maybe the MAF needs a coup; anyone there have any favors they could call in with the Clintons?

1st step in the shoe clerk playbook - deny common sense until a person can prove to you directly from one of YOUR regs that they’re right. Definitely one of the top things wrong with the military. 

The MAF leaders and managers obsess over it because the queep grows usually with rare periods where it is cut.  Just by the sheer size, visibility of the reports generated by the execution of queep and use of the measure of execution of queep, that is where or where a lot of the non-mission, myopic focus comes from.  Much easier to put on a PPT slide 98% compliance with X beans vs. the X number of vingettes of the MAF crews doing a good job on the mission but missing X not worth a damn beans.  One is an easily transmitted slogan, the other a nuanced story requiring time to ingest.

Other things at play also, the execution of primarily support mission to combat forces necessitates a certain level of rigidity in execution to be predictable and reliable to our customers of said support missions.  That rigidity can sometimes be chaffing as at the tactile level, the crew might see a better way to do something but at the macro level that efficiency could be disruptive to the macro goal of stable, reliable, predictable service...  that could just be the nature of the beast in the MAF but it can also imbue in managers/leaders a lot of shut up and color answers to legitimate questions/critiques from the line, this again could feed into the mindset.

I also think that this is a product of 20+ years of continuous operations serving the same or similar missions in the same or similar locations/theaters.  AMC got into a rut, where the DOs and ADOs were just constantly and are still trying to fill the rotations leading to a widget production mentality at their level and a time to make the donuts mentality at the line level.  This monotony or cadence wore down a lot of the positive aspects I think over time of AMC.  I offer no solution but only that lament as it may have been/probably is just necessary as that is where the mission just is/was. 

[brabus]

Sounds like the key is inflexibility/lack of room to be free-thinking and problem solve. A few years ago when I had some direct interaction with AMD, they had zero interest in helping solve some real problems, the excuses abounded. The primary one that pissed me off was talking about how the crews wouldn’t be able to hack it...bullshit, i’d sat up front with several and had plenty of time to BS; the crews would have risen to the occasion and won...but AMD wasn’t in it to win it, they were there to make donuts and nothing else. As I think back to all my experiences with the MAF, it is very frustrating to think about all the good dudes who are held back by AMD, TACC, etc. 

[Chuck17]

23 hours ago, brabus said:

There are tons of good dudes in the MAF who have the right mindset, yet they appear unable to cause a shift...maybe the MAF needs a coup...

We’re working on it....

There won’t be a sea change overnight. The change will be generational. It’s a guerrilla war ongoing inside the MAF. Takes longer than you’d expect and there’s a lot of resistance - mostly by senior level and GS management. 

There’s also a significant portion of most MAF communities who want to do nothing more than ILS to a full stop and pad airline applications. Malaise can be contagious, especially when the economy is good.

Furthermore you have a significant portion of Star-wearing leadership (And this their minions as well) which values EXPOSURE over EXPERTISE. Note I didn’t say ‘experience’ over expertise. In the MAF they want you exposed to all things MAF - mile wide and inch deep. They don’t care at all about big Air Force things or the application and control of Air Power as an integrated warfighting force, or expertise in employment. Just do MAF things and you’ll lead one day.

Expertise is not valued as much as “MAF-exposure.“ 

The problem with that logic is that the CAF runs the Air Force. Literally the language of the service is that of the CAF. The vast majority of wings are CAF wings. The vast majority of GOs are CAF GOs. In the CAF when you show up in a new community, they wonder WTF is wrong with you that you got voted off the island. In the MAF if you become an expert, they scoff you for “only knowing one mission set.” It’s bizarre.

The MAF scoffed the CAF for years, only wanting to build their mobility empire in the cornfields of southern Illinois, but the reckoning is coming...

There’s a whole new service out there looking for another four-star, and there’s a lot of the staff function at both ACC and AMC getting gobbled up by the Air Staff... The MAFs lack of integration with the rest of the USAF will be its demise if we aren’t careful. That’s what many of us are working to fix, though that work and the results are seen by some as “un-MAF-like” endeavors....

Brought to you by your friendly (old) neighborhood Weapons Officer. 

Now... Get off my lawn, this grass is delicious.

Chuck

[pawnman]

47 minutes ago, Chuck17 said:

In the CAF when you show up in a new community, they wonder WTF is wrong with you that you got voted off the island. In the MAF if you become an expert, they scoff you for “only knowing one mission set.” It’s bizarre.

I think you've got a rather rosy picture of the CAF.  We don't often crossflow people to other airplanes, but the best way to succeed in a CAF community is to leave the community for literally anything else - school, staff, white jets, ALO, one of those one-off jobs like SAM-1 at Red Flag.  Literally the best way to get promoted and become a commander is to spend less time in a combat squadron than your competition.