What's wrong with the Air Force?

[FLEA]

29 minutes ago, Blue said:

I believe that's referred to as a "false dilemma," or more accurately, a "false choice."  In other words, "a deliberate attempt to eliminate several options that may occupy the middle ground on an issue."

I'm certainly no expert, but you can't tell me with a straight face that the United States Air Force, with it's ~$160 Billion yearly budget, had no other option than choosing between retiring the A-10 and the Personnel Hunger Games.

I believe it to an extent, there were certainly other options but personnel cost make up almost 50% of the annual budget. People are the most expensive weapon system we own. 

[Sua Sponte]

32 minutes ago, Blue said:

I believe that's referred to as a "false dilemma," or more accurately, a "false choice."  In other words, "a deliberate attempt to eliminate several options that may occupy the middle ground on an issue."

I'm certainly no expert, but you can't tell me with a straight face that the United States Air Force, with it's ~$160 Billion yearly budget, had no other option than choosing between retiring the A-10 and the Personnel Hunger Games.

That ~$160 Billion yearly budget gets eaten up pretty fast when you were planning on retiring a MWS to buy another MWS, but you're going to keep both MWS's, which involves the associated aircrew/maintenance/support personnel, training for said personnel, R&D, construction on support buildings (hangars, sim buildings, etc), and other associated costs. Oh yeah, you're buying that KC-46 thing too, upgrading the KC-135, buying more C-130J's, etc. You are mandated by Congress to keep aircraft, keeping people over 100% manning, which people are your most expensive asset, is going to really eat away at your budget.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Sua Sponte

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

That ~$160 Billion yearly budget gets eaten up pretty fast when you were planning on retiring a MWS to buy another MWS, but you're going to keep both MWS's, which involves the associated aircrew/maintenance/support personnel, training for said personnel, R&D, construction on support buildings (hangars, sim buildings, etc), and other associated costs. Oh yeah, you're buying that KC-46 thing too, upgrading the KC-135, buying more C-130J's, etc. You are mandated by Congress to keep aircraft, keeping people over 100% manning, which people are your most expensive asset, is going to really eat away at your budget.

Then we make a Deal with the Devil / Congress... we swap MWS's out but keep at least most of the people and adapt the facilities at those locations losing/gaining MWS's as required to make it politically feasible.  

We want to retire the A-10 so let us buy a less expensive new Attack platform and retrain a majority percentage of the total force that flies and supports it, show them you save X dollars in the long run.  We want to retire the E-8, ok we want to buy a new C2/ISR/ELINT/EA/etc... but we want this new platform that saves Y dollars over the long run.

There's a chance that we will gain or retain some capabilities that the AF institutionally thinks it can do without but in acquiring new iron with lower operational costs and potentially lower manpower costs, it enables wiggle room in future budgets to get more of the higher priority toys.

@FLEA brought up the other elephant in the room, the cost of MILPERS.  It's grown about 65% proportionately since the early 2000's IIRC from the last article I read on it.  If we don't figure out the best way to compensate adequately, contain the rate of compensation and benefits to include benefits for dependents the DoD is going to end up as pension and healthcare organization with some weapons programs too.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Clark Griswold

[jazzdude]

If we don't figure out the best way to compensate adequately, contain the rate of compensation and benefits to include benefits for dependents the DoD is going to end up as pension and healthcare organization with some weapons programs too.

So how do you get people to stay in (or join in the first place)? Can't reduce ops tempo. Can't increase bonuses. I guess you could kick all the dependants to the market for healthcare to save money. You could also cut BAH so it no longer covers renters insurance and only 95% of the expected housing cost and make the member pay the rest out of pocket, while divesting yourself of maintaining base housing and contracting it out to the lowest bidder. You could cut retirement and make the member take on market risk for their retirement.

[SocialD]

14 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Can't reduce ops tempo. 

 

We can, leaders just won't make the decisions to cut the bullshit deployments.

[Sua Sponte]

2 minutes ago, SocialD said:

We can, leaders just won't make the decisions to cut the bullshit deployments.

This. How often do commanders say no? Of course they write their little op-ed in the base paper saying the one time they pushed back, but it's very rare. That's a sign of looking weak, especially when Congress is telling you to do something.

[Clark Griswold]

48 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

So how do you get people to stay in (or join in the first place)? Can't reduce ops tempo. Can't increase bonuses. I guess you could kick all the dependants to the market for healthcare to save money. You could also cut BAH so it no longer covers renters insurance and only 95% of the expected housing cost and make the member pay the rest out of pocket, while divesting yourself of maintaining base housing and contracting it out to the lowest bidder. You could cut retirement and make the member take on market risk for their retirement.

 

That is not easy question(s) to answer. 

My answer/solution to the problem of unsustainable benefits for retirees and dependents is stop digging that hole.  At some point say everyone who joins after this date will have these choices of retirement plans and dependents would be covered under these choice of plans.  Choices to retirement/benefits being ones that likely will be similar to ones in the private sector but with sweetners to encourage recruitment/retention.  But they would and will have to be less expensive than what we have now. 

The private sector gave up on lifetime defined benefit systems about 25 years ago, the government (fed and state) follows the lead of the private sector, it just takes longer for them to change.

If we wanna get serious about fixing this liability in the DoD financial obligations, we should look at buy out packages for members for whom it makes sense, if they are young, responsible and financially savvy it could work for both parties.  Buy outs would be generous and paid to achieve the long term goal of changing the financial direction of the DoD's pension & healthcare liabilities, pay a good bit up front to the members to save money in the long term. 

I'm not ecstatic about any changes to the retirement & benefits systems but I know that it has to be done.  Our lifetimes are much longer than when the systems were designed, the array of services is much greater and more expensive, we are mainly a married military now versus mostly single young men and politicians who usually think short term and implement programs / increases regardless whether they have a plan to actually pay for it leaving it to others to figure out to pay for it set this problem in motion.

The future will be more taxes, less benefits and more risk transferred to the individual to pay for the accumulated irresponsibility of past generations.  The inevitable change to the DoD pay & benefit system is just a manifestation of that.  Not trying to be Debbie Downer but I'm realistic.  Getting to work earlier on this will make it less onerous in the long run.

32 minutes ago, SocialD said:

We can, leaders just won't make the decisions to cut the bullshit deployments.

Yup, but we have to extend that idea further.  I like going to Germany TDY as much as the next dude but they are an example of where we don't need to be forward deployed or based.  Wealthy nations of the developed world used to the USA providing a lot or most of the military deterrence keeping them safe, prosperous and free will have to step up or get used to being intimidated by regional bullies. 

As to bullshit deployments specifically, the best appetite suppressant for that is additional pay for the deploying members paid by the requesting Combatant Command.  More for the member and keeps the Command from growing herds of Power Point rangers.

[war007afa]

4 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

This. How often do commanders say no?

Hardly ever, and we pushed the HAF to create a standardized and streamlined process for them to do it. 

”No” is a 4-letter word...

[SocialD]

4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

As to bullshit deployments specifically, the best appetite suppressant for that is additional pay for the deploying members paid by the requesting Combatant Command.  More for the member and keeps the Command from growing herds of Power Point rangers.

 

I'm not just talking individual BS deployments, I'm talking sending full up fighter squadron aviation packages to go fly CT on the other side of the globe.  My last two "deployments"  were completely worthless and did nothing but kill morale.  We used to have to tell people no for deployments because we had some many volunteers, no we're having to force people to deploy.  I get the idea behind these "presence maintaining TSPs," but we are fucking broke and morale is in the shitter.  Cut those out, flow us into real combat deployments and you will spread out deployment cycles for everyone.  We came home from our 2nd straight TSP and were already schedule for our third, just 19 months away.  Our local leadership called whomever controls that flow and basically said, if you send us on another TSP, "I won't have pilots to fill the trip."  ...and he was right.

 

This also has a negative impact on retaining the amazing talent that we have in Guard MX.  These deployments have killed more marriages than all our combat deployments (in my 19 years in the same Guard unit) combined.  The AD has fucked away their retention so bad that they're now tagging a shit ton of our (non-flying) officers and enlisted leadership to go run AD shops overseas for 6 months.  Dudes are deciding it's just not worth it to stick around.  

[di1630]

Buckle up kids. 5 yrs of an airline slump means good retention and if you thought big blue gave less than two f-cks about treating your time and family well before when people could bail, now watch as people have no options.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Clark Griswold]

16 hours ago, SocialD said:

I'm not just talking individual BS deployments, I'm talking sending full up fighter squadron aviation packages to go fly CT on the othr side of the globe.  My last two "deployments"  were completely worthless and did nothing but kill morale.  We used to have to tell people no for deployments because we had some many volunteers, no we're having to force people to deploy.  I get the idea behind these "presence maintaining TSPs," but we are fucking broke and morale is in the shitter.  Cut those out, flow us into real combat deployments and you will spread out deployment cycles for everyone.  We came home from our 2nd straight TSP and were already schedule for our third, just 19 months away.  Our local leadership called whomever controls that flow and basically said, if you send us on another TSP, "I won't have pilots to fill the trip."  ...and he was right.

This also has a negative impact on retaining the amazing talent that we have in Guard MX.  These deployments have killed more marriages than all our combat deployments (in my 19 years in the same Guard unit) combined.  The AD has fucked away their retention so bad that they're now tagging a shit ton of our (non-flying) officers and enlisted leadership to go run AD shops overseas for 6 months.  Dudes are deciding it's just not worth it to stick around.  

Copy

I'm not sure it's a conspiracy against the ARC but AD seems to want to drive it into the dirt by overuse of some of its capabilities / units.  Why I suppose is to grow the AD by the return of resources and iron, seems short sighted and myopic so it might be true. 

With the airline and broader economy problems this may be less problematic for the members of the ARC as employment is better than unemployment but still if the units are burned out, back off.  Unless it is responding to a contingency that we deem necessary to intervene militarily, just be unpredictable and execute said deterrence TSP later.  Short notice, short duration airpower demos can likely accomplish the same deterrent effect for less cost and less stress on the force.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Clark Griswold

[GKinnear]

17 hours ago, SocialD said:

I'm talking sending full up fighter squadron aviation packages to go fly CT on the other side of the globe

You'd be surprised about how much HAF/ACC actually pushes back against the Joint Staff...but we all have a boss, even at that level. JOINT is spelled ARMY so we're fighting a cultural battle in some regards.

[SocialD]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

  Short notice, short duration airpower demos can likely accomplish the same deterrent effect for less cost and less stress on the force.

 

Shack! 

 

16 minutes ago, GKinnear said:

You'd be surprised about how much HAF/ACC actually pushes back against the Joint Staff...but we all have a boss, even at that level. JOINT is spelled ARMY so we're fighting a cultural battle in some regards.

 

Ya, sending us to the fucking arctic (northern tier Europe) in the dead of winter made great sense.  Between inlet icing, ridiculous amounts of snow and no fucking tacan within 275 miles, we ended up weather cancelling more than we actually flew (no shit >50% attrition)....despite our best efforts to get USAFE waivers for wx reqs.  We actually had to send guys to the sims in Spang just so we could actually get our sorties for the month because guys were going non-CMR.  We were there 2 months before we even knew there was an A-team on the other side of base who might want to integrate with us.  So ya, you're probably right, that has Army written all over it!  

But hey, this guy has over 175,000 hyatt points and another 150,000 points with another major chain and platinum status with both.  I'm single/no kids so I'm always up for an adventure.  That said, our last two trips were both divorce magnets and morale killers.  Hate to see that happen for trips that feel like you're having zero impact on anything, all while having road block after road block when you try to have a positive impact.

Time to open beer another beer and get off my lawn!

[Muscle2002]

1 hour ago, GKinnear said:

You'd be surprised about how much HAF/ACC actually pushes back against the Joint Staff...but we all have a boss, even at that level. JOINT is spelled ARMY so we're fighting a cultural battle in some regards.

I thought spelling JOINT, A-R-M-Y was just hype until I spent the last year in school with them.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Muscle2002

[Bigred]

19 hours ago, SocialD said:

We came home from our 2nd straight TSP and were already schedule for our third, just 19 months away. 

I’m jealous of you having 19 months between deployments. 

[SocialD]

31 minutes ago, Bigred said:

I’m jealous of you having 19 months between deployments. 

 

Join the Guard.  Wait, didn't you just transfer to the Guard? 

[Bigred]

23 minutes ago, SocialD said:

 

Join the Guard.  Wait, didn't you just transfer to the Guard? 

Nope, transferred to active duty but I’m OCONUS so I’m avoiding the true AMC shenanigans for now. Just gotta play the long con and make it to retirement. 

[zachbar]

As a lieutenant, I spent a month shuttling cargo out of an airfield somewhere hot and desert-like to shut a base down during a “drawdown,” only to fly to the same ICAO as an AC to deliver infrastructure to support a less politically visible mission. I’d say that about sums up what’s wrong with the military as a whole. Policy has to change above the DOD level before it starts to feel better, in my opinion. Shutting down qweep deployments will help, but it won’t solve anything long term. I honestly thought my non-flying deployment to Incirlik was a nice break from the grind. It was 4 months of my commander telling me to do my job and don’t ing bother him if things were going well. Got more drinking and reading done than I ever have in my life!

[SurelySerious]

13 minutes ago, zachbar said:

As a lieutenant, I spent a month shuttling cargo out of an airfield somewhere hot and desert-like to shut a base down during a “drawdown,” only to fly to the same ICAO as an AC to deliver infrastructure to support a less politically visible mission. I’d say that about sums up what’s wrong with the military as a whole. Policy has to change above the DOD level before it starts to feel better, in my opinion. Shutting down qweep deployments will help, but it won’t solve anything long term. I honestly thought my non-flying deployment to Incirlik was a nice break from the grind. It was 4 months of my commander telling me to do my job and don’t ing bother him if things were going well. Got more drinking and reading done than I ever have in my life!

Agree. The public policy end game of what is our strategy and how does the mil fit into it has been confusing since roughly 2002. 
 

Someone older will probably say it goes back further. 

[FLEA]

8 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Agree. The public policy end game of what is our strategy and how does the mil fit into it has been confusing since roughly 2002. 
 

Someone older will probably say it goes back further. 

A lot of it is our civilian leadership expectation of what we can accomplish. They can't take no for an answer and culturally, Americans are poor at setting priorities. We will list our priorities but then we just decide to find a way to do everything anyway. 

Regarding joint and the Army, they simply don't understand the cultural differences of the Air Force. There is no shortage of manpower on the Army side and when they have a problem their solution is to just throw people at it until it's solved. Institutionally, Army GOs are not aware that Air Force personnel are niche trained in highly technical fields and we are overall a smaller force. So when the Army says "we are going to go to 24 hour ops and move this massive force from X to Y" they can't understand why the AF can't just do the same thing. 

[GKinnear]

15 hours ago, SocialD said:

Words

Maybe my own bias got me. When I see "deployment" and "CT" in the same sentence, I immediately assume the sandbox.

I'll add a caveat that the AF fights the JS on CENTCOM deployments...sometime successfully, sometime not. Why are they fighting going to the desert, so they can go to Europe and Asia. I guess the things change, the more they stay the same.

[jrizzell]

Agree. The public policy end game of what is our strategy and how does the mil fit into it has been confusing since roughly 2002. 
 
Someone older will probably say it goes back further. 

We we’re in Vietnam for 20 years...and still have bases in Korea. I’m not sure the military has ever been good at “end game” strategy; besides occupation

[Lawman]

We we’re in Vietnam for 20 years...and still have bases in Korea. I’m not sure the military has ever been good at “end game” strategy; besides occupation

Yet most of Kuwait is still built out of tents.

Long term planning is hard in an organization where leaders only reap the rewards they are present for and think little of what they do now effecting anything further than 18 months out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hindsight2020]

Perpetual war is not the bug, it's the feature. 

The mission is pork barrel baby, we're just the patsies. 

There's a few people in life I'd take a bullet for, none of them currently populate our 3 branches of federal government.

Edited May 16, 2020 by hindsight2020
memes. need more memes

[SocialD]

On 5/15/2020 at 6:56 PM, joe1234 said:

Wait, is that a thing? Like you get long term MPA orders just to go run some squadron's training shop?

 

Remember this is NOT pilots (yet), this is mostly enlisted leadership all over base including a few LRS & MX officers.  It's not totally uncommon for random people around base to get tagged with 6-month deployments during the ACS/RCP/AEF (whatever we call it these days) window.  What's different is they tagged 40+ from mx, which I have never seen before, nor have I ever seen them tag our MX officers.  But yes, all the MX folks I've talked to are being individually deployed to run shops at various bases within the AOR.  Apparently the AD is short on senior enlisted folks. 

On the plus side, they tagged about 4 our our Chiefs on base.  Soooooo...with an increase in Guard E-9s, you might see a significant decline in Chiefing incidents at your favorite deployed hotspots.  🤣