FY 14 Force Management Program (RIF, VSP, TERA)

[Champ Kind]

My guess is it has something to do with the fact that the people who want out are not the people the AF wants to get rid of.

But I thought the AF was experiencing record high retention. That's what I keep hearing from my "senior leaders" in multiple forums, at least.

Unfortunately, the analysis is not complete and A1/AFPC does not know where we can take cuts yet.

In all seriousness: isn't this A1's J-O-B? How could they roll out of a program without knowing where we could take cuts? Absolutely mind boggling.

[Danny Noonin]

To be fair, Chang did mention this was coming back in June or July

Stop giving that clown credit. CSAF has been saying this in public for months along with the rest of the GOs. Major Chang gets no credit for merely repeating the PUBLIC statements of GOs.

[Goblin]

Amen. Hacking the mish' only...no more queep!!!

Edit to add:

We received an email yesterday saying to expect to hear around the 31st as to which AFSCs will be meeting the FSB this summer, for those of us 3-6 year officers that fall into that category. I'd be willing to bet none of the pilot types will be safe (except maybe 11F's), but that's just me...

I was told through the grapevine that the FSB won't cancel any UPT ADSCs. Whether that's true or not has yet to make itself clear though.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skitzo]

There are ways to make smart cuts. Do we really need a SARM shop with 5-6 personnel to input into a program what we physically mark on a paper MAR? Probably not. I like 1COs... Don't get me wrong but one person maybe two to provide backfill and supervise the audit process... But like a lot of things in the Air Force we simply perpetuate a system of wasteful duplication of data entry.

Finance. Can we just eliminate finance? Can we contract it out to Lockheed Martin? Why can't I login to a virtual finance upload a copy of my orders and receive my DLA? Better yet the system should serve the member as soon as mypers has orders avail it should flow those orders to the agencies needing them. Sorry for the derail.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theat6bisasham]

There are ways to make smart cuts. Do we really need a SARM shop with 5-6 personnel to input into a program what we physically mark on a paper MAR? Probably not. I like 1COs... Don't get me wrong but one person maybe two to provide backfill and supervise the audit process... But like a lot of things in the Air Force we simply perpetuate a system of wasteful duplication of data entry.

Finance. Can we just eliminate finance? Can we contract it out to Lockheed Martin? Why can't I login to a virtual finance upload a copy of my orders and receive my DLA? Better yet the system should serve the member as soon as mypers has orders avail it should flow those orders to the agencies needing them. Sorry for the derail.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh you haven't heard the rumint? Most shoe clerks think pilots just sit around at the squadron bar all week when they aren't flying. The new plan involves having all the rated folks have 'real' jobs instead of additional duties. Instead of voting officer and scheduling, you will be a finance officer and a mission support guru 4 days out of the week. Those ice cream cones won't lick themselves people - get to it!

[fyi this is real…]

[Warrior]

 

 

[fyi this is real…]

Prove it...if you're not joking, I'm applying for vsp.

[Skitzo]

We (1 SOW) already have rated folk filling AMU leadership positions. We don't have the ability to release rated people for career broadening assignments. So on a limited scale this actually sounds appealing. Just don't make it duties at. It would never work that way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DUNBAR]

My guess is it has something to do with the fact that the people who want out are not the people the AF wants to get rid of.

I think that's a legit answer if we were downsizing 15-20% of the force. The fact that we are downsizing 8% at the most over the course of several years does not, IMO, justify the current situation.

Look, I know I have become a tedious broken record on this topic. All I ask is that the AF stays good to their word and does this with volunteers to the greatest extent possible. I think it can be easily done without losing all of our fighter pilots, doctors and cyber warriors.

[DFRESH]

Oh you haven't heard the rumint? Most shoe clerks think pilots just sit around at the squadron bar all week when they aren't flying. The new plan involves having all the rated folks have 'real' jobs instead of additional duties. Instead of voting officer and scheduling, you will be a finance officer and a mission support guru 4 days out of the week. Those ice cream cones won't lick themselves people - get to it!

[fyi this is real…]

At least this way our travel vouchers would actually get paid and broke shit would get fixed.

[HU&W]

Oh you haven't heard the rumint? Most shoe clerks think pilots just sit around at the squadron bar all week when they aren't flying. The new plan involves having all the rated folks have 'real' jobs instead of additional duties. Instead of voting officer and scheduling, you will be a finance officer and a mission support guru 4 days out of the week. Those ice cream cones won't lick themselves people - get to it!

[fyi this is real…]

So what would this look like? Flying squadrons with just IP's, EP's, and new guys. The rest of the base run by folks who are actually involved in the operational mission of the base?

[magnetfreezer]

 

We (1 SOW) already have rated folk filling AMU leadership positions. We don't have the ability to release rated people for career broadening assignments. So on a limited scale this actually sounds appealing. Just don't make it duties at. It would never work that way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LRS/DO and FSS/CC and DO are all rated here. Helps get the non-school select FGOs who can't be sent to staff a career broadening job (while letting them still fly as instructors) instead of piling them up at the OSS. You can keep them in the ops squadrons but there are only so many ADO slots since they've all been FLT/CCs (not to mention the FLT/CC jobs need to be reserved for arriving FAIPs).

[C-21.Pilot]

That's why I claim that being a flying Major up until the day I retire isn't such a bad thing after all….

[Champ Kind]

I almost want to post this idea and rationale as to why it would actually be better on shoeclerks.net (AKA AF Times Forums) just to see the flame war that would ensue.

[magnetfreezer]

 

Magnet have you seen operators in those positions improving things? How has it worked out?

 

Things are slowly improving, at least in the sense of having someone to call if something needs fixing. Changing the culture/ mentality to one of proactivity will take longer. There is no way a PCA should take over a month to process after the OPR closes out and the secretary submits it.

A huge problem in the support (and ops world as well) is over centralization. Functionals at MAJCOMs or above write inappropriate things into AFIs, not knowing the impact it will have on base level ops. This combined with MICT/oversight flavor of the month leads to situations where even the WG/CCs hands appear tied. For example, I shouldn't have to beg someone at ACC to approve a comm request for a mission system that requires 15 seconds to change configuration at base level but the discretion has been taken away from the local CS.

Liquid, if you're still out there looking for good COAs/solutions, publish the intent of AFIs (risk to be mitigated) and allow CCs/leaders at all levels to waive them for mission success if there is an alternate plan for mitigation.

[HU&W]

words

My first reaction was against the idea, but you bring up some good points. Obviously, specialties that require specific lengthy training or certification couldn't be filled this way, but many management jobs could easily be. As a former MSG type myself, I can tell you that very little of what I, and many of my counterparts, did required a specific skillset. The most important things were a basic understanding of the mission, decent leadership and admin skills, the ability to read and interpret the AFI's that governed your job, and most especially good NCO's.

I would argue that mid-level rated Captains would make great flight commanders in places like Supply, Vehicle Ops/Mx, Security Forces, Base Comm, Services, Force Support, Aerial Port, POL, Aircraft Mx, etc... Arguably, rated Majors should easily fill similar DO positions and possibly even squadron commands. If you're proficient at your operational job, there's nothing wrong with filling one of these positions and stepping to fly from there. It would, however, require a fundamental shift in our cultural paradigm.

[Skitzo]

 LRS/DO and FSS/CC and DO are all rated here. Helps get the non-school select FGOs who can't be sent to staff a career broadening job (while letting them still fly as instructors) instead of piling them up at the OSS. You can keep them in the ops squadrons but there are only so many ADO slots since they've all been FLT/CCs (not to mention the FLT/CC jobs need to be reserved for arriving FAIPs).

Wait so the people leading the support of the force are actually people providing the force?

This sounds like one of the best ideas I've heard of. First order of business is no more training days unless declared by the whole wing. Where is here?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Liquid]

Liquid I'm sure other career fields will complain (with a good reason) that we're taking their leadership opportunities, but you have to cut people and it ain't going to be pilots/operators. I mean you could actually mentor people outside of your squadron about flying.

A few weeks ago I made a statement to a room full of senior AF leaders that we were making a big mistake paying contractors and civilians to fix and fly aircraft in combat while we keep active duty support personnel, including band members, comm, CE, firefighters, finance, etc. I said an Air Force that pays civilians to fix and fly aircraft will soon end up in the Army. I didn't get a slow clap, or any supporting fires, but it felt good to say it to a bunch of senior decision makers.

We should cut, contract and civilianize all support functions before we cut combat power and our core missions. Our support functions are vitally important, but they don't have to all be military. We should contract all housing, CDCs, fire departments, base security, FSS, DV airlift, protocol, CE, base comm, base logistics and most our health care. Contracts keep costs down, quality up, allow for competition, hold people accountable and leverage corporate experience, technologies and responsiveness. And you don't pay for full benefits and retirement for non-combat/non-critical Air Force capabilities, so it is cheaper in the long run.

[magnetfreezer]

 

Wait so the people leading the support of the force are actually people providing the force?

This sounds like one of the best ideas I've heard of. First order of business is no more training days unless declared by the whole wing. Where is here?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The northern bomber base that doesn't fly cruise missiles around.

[Fuzz]

Words

If understand correctly the Army already does this, once you make mid-level captain in the combat arms area you can "branch" to a non-combat arms area for the rest of your career.

[BitteEinBit]

A few weeks ago I made a statement to a room full of senior AF leaders that we were making a big mistake paying contractors and civilians to fix and fly aircraft in combat while we keep active duty support personnel, including band members, comm, CE, firefighters, finance, etc. I said an Air Force that pays civilians to fix and fly aircraft will soon end up in the Army. I didn't get a slow clap, or any supporting fires, but it felt good to say it to a bunch of senior decision makers.

We should cut, contract and civilianize all support functions before we cut combat power and our core missions. Our support functions are vitally important, but they don't have to all be military. We should contract all housing, CDCs, fire departments, base security, FSS, DV airlift, protocol, CE, base comm, base logistics and most our health care. Contracts keep costs down, quality up, allow for competition, hold people accountable and leverage corporate experience, technologies and responsiveness. And you don't pay for full benefits and retirement for non-combat/non-critical Air Force capabilities, so it is cheaper in the long run.

^This...

Not to mention the continuity by not switching out a seasoned Airman for a new Airman every 2-4 years. Seems like personnel and finance functions are always operating at the "new Airman in training" capacity and we never really get to the "competent Airman" capacity because as soon as SSgt Schmukatelli gets to that level, we PCS him and bring in A1C Effengee. Sure, we'd probably need some expeditionary types that could deploy downrange, but with the technology we have these days, you don't need a lot of them downrange to get things done.

Not having to fund full benefits and retirements piece is key with contractors....

[Cell Dweller]

I think what BeerMan is talking about may be an effect of the Force Management Program. Retention of support personnel may be drastically affected if the service cuts down on the size/number of support units. If it is done right, then the quality support officers will be retained, and the lower quality officers will be release.

In reality, since the AF has not demonstrated a good way of evaluating performance, headhunting will ensue, and some of the quality folks will get cut or leave, leaving knuckle-draggers behind who will later be competing for leadership slots with more highly retained career fields. If aircrew (according to the sustainment matrix) are more well retained, then they will probably compete better on paper, and take the DO and CC support slots over the mediocre remains of the support career fields. Either way, it will be an imperfect process of downsizing.

[Techsan]

We should contract all housing, CDCs, fire departments, base security, FSS, DV airlift, protocol, CE, base comm, base logistics and most our health care. Contracts keep costs down, quality up, allow for competition, hold people accountable and leverage corporate experience, technologies and responsiveness.

I agree, all except DV airlift. Do we really want the lowest bidder to fly around our senior leaders (except maybe CODELs)? Not to mention losing the flexibility you would have from an AF crew. I could see a Netjet type operation not moving the mission because something wasn't in their contract.

[MD]

The Air Force is probably not going to Force Shape many pilots, they need us.

The minute you think you are "needed" by the AF, is the minute you open yourself up for disappointment.

The AF doesn't even know what it needs at any given time.

A few weeks ago I made a statement to a room full of senior AF leaders that we were making a big mistake paying contractors and civilians to fix and fly aircraft in combat while we keep active duty support personnel, including band members, comm, CE, firefighters, finance, etc. I said an Air Force that pays civilians to fix and fly aircraft will soon end up in the Army. I didn't get a slow clap, or any supporting fires, but it felt good to say it to a bunch of senior decision makers.

We should cut, contract and civilianize all support functions before we cut combat power and our core missions. Our support functions are vitally important, but they don't have to all be military. We should contract all housing, CDCs, fire departments, base security, FSS, DV airlift, protocol, CE, base comm, base logistics and most our health care. Contracts keep costs down, quality up, allow for competition, hold people accountable and leverage corporate experience, technologies and responsiveness. And you don't pay for full benefits and retirement for non-combat/non-critical Air Force capabilities, so it is cheaper in the long run.

Problem is, you're forgetting that many of those support positions are combat power, in the sense that you have to be able to deploy them to the bases where our frontline forces are in order to provide the needed support. You can't contract all fire protection personnel (or all CE, Comm, Log, etc) as civilians, because you can't freely deploy the civilians in civilian status to combat or combat zones; you need to have X percentage of military personnel in these fields for this reason. To make it easiest to deploy them, they also have to be active duty as opposed to Reserve. Even in the fire protection field right now, the vast majority of firefighters AF-widein all components are GS civilians, around 50%+ last I checked. And that balance seems to work well with having the rest available as military to be fully deployable, even at a moments notice. While it'd be nice to go civilan in many of these fields and there are many gains from it, there are also a number of legal limitations.

Edited December 29, 2013 by MD

[Champ Kind]

I agree, all except DV airlift. Do we really want the lowest bidder to fly around our senior leaders (except maybe CODELs)? Not to mention losing the flexibility you would have from an AF crew. I could see a Netjet type operation not moving the mission because something wasn't in their contract.

For some of the DVs and their handlers I've had the privilege of transporting, nothing would please me more than to see them getting passage on "lowest bidder" outfits. In fact, if it were possible to have an organization lower than the lowest bidder, that would be even better.

[BB Stacker]

A few weeks ago I made a statement to a room full of senior AF leaders that we were making a big mistake paying contractors and civilians to fix and fly aircraft in combat while we keep active duty support personnel, including band members, comm, CE, firefighters, finance, etc. I said an Air Force that pays civilians to fix and fly aircraft will soon end up in the Army. I didn't get a slow clap, or any supporting fires, but it felt good to say it to a bunch of senior decision makers.

We should cut, contract and civilianize all support functions before we cut combat power and our core missions. Our support functions are vitally important, but they don't have to all be military. We should contract all housing, CDCs, fire departments, base security, FSS, DV airlift, protocol, CE, base comm, base logistics and most our health care. Contracts keep costs down, quality up, allow for competition, hold people accountable and leverage corporate experience, technologies and responsiveness. And you don't pay for full benefits and retirement for non-combat/non-critical Air Force capabilities, so it is cheaper in the long run.

Contractors or GS/WG AF civilians? Because there can be a pretty big difference between the two. I would agree that some of those functions could and should be contracted (many already are are many bases, like housing) but as someone who has spent the past year dealing with a contracted logistics organization (as well as contracted maintainers), you need to be careful what you wish for with contractors. I would agree though that the greater evil is having contractors fly and fix aircraft downrange.

As for the idea to just throw rated personnel into all support leadership positions....man, y'all don't have a clue. First off, there is a rather inflated view here of just how much large organization leadership ability your average rated mid level Captain is going to have. For every one good one that I've met there's another 5 who were absolute clowns when it came to that. In their defense, why would they need that skillset at that point in their careers? They've spent their first 6-9 years in the AF responsible for being tactically proficient at flying a plane and with whatever ancillary duties they got stuck with, not with rolling in the door on day one as a butter bar and being put in charge of a 150+ person flight. And before you say "leadership is leadership," it's not, not when you're talking about the difference between leading and managing 200 people versus a 20 person "flight" in an ops unit. Second, unless we cut out the insane amount of queep that exists within the support world, y'all are either going to be doing a lot less flying or your duties as Flt/CC are going to be significantly neglected, because there aren't enough hours in the day. Even if we cut out the queep, there's a lot more work in many of those career fields than I think many of you think to be the case.

I know the counter-argument will be "Well, those are our future senior leaders, when will they develop those skills?" I'm not sure what the answer to that is, but it sure as hell isn't to throw them into the MXG and MSG worlds at their 7 year point. I do think that the idea to throw non-school select Majors at the 12ish year point into support squadrons as DOs might have more merit, but even then you'll need to judicious with who you put where...the idea of some of the non-select ops Maj's I've met being thrown into an AMXS/MOO position is making me laugh pretty hard.

Problem is, you're forgetting that many of those support positions are combat power, in the sense that you have to be able to deploy them to the bases where our frontline forces are in order to provide the needed support. You can't contract all fire protection personnel (or all CE, Comm, Log, etc) as civilians, because you can't freely deploy the civilians in civilian status to combat or conbat zones; you need to have X percentage of military personnel in these fields for this reason. To make it easiest to deploy them, they also have to be active duty as opposed to Reserve. Even in the fire protection field right now, the vast majority of firefighters AF-wide are GS civilians, a little over 50% last I checked. And that balance seems to work well with having the rest available as military to be fully deployable, even at a moments notice. While it'd be nice to go civilan in many of these fields and there are many gains from it, there are also a number of legal limitations.

Fire was actually the one I was thinking of when I brought up AF civilians (AFETS would be another), since everything I've heard indicates that the civilian/bluesuiter mix seems to be working pretty well. The big thing with contractors and legal/contractual limitations is response time...sure, you can deploy them (I think that if there's one thing the past 12 years have demonstrated it's that we can deploy contractors), but you aren't necessarily going to have the quick response that you may need in certain situations and you may not have the flexibility you need at the deployed location, depending on how the contract is written. The obvious response to that is "make sure the contract is written the way we want it"...hoo boy, if it was only that easy.

Edited December 29, 2013 by BB Stacker