Next Chief of Staff

[08Dawg]

On 2/27/2016 at 1:21 AM, xaarman said:

I think people are suspicious because they've been swindled before. If it lasts through the next CSAF or two (next 4-8 years) it'll be culturally ingrained by the next generation that you won't need one. Until then...

That, and it comes off your Career Data Brief/SURF/whatever...a year out from a PRF being written with a new CSAF likely in that time frame?  Yeah, I'm finishing mine.  Absolutely no trust that the pendulum won't swing rapidly back the other direction in the next year or two. 

[Guardian]

My favorite Lori (Gen Robinson) moment, In a former job I was taking care of some transit F-15's from Eglin RONing at KTIK. I had the lead plane which had an O-6 flying it. As soon as I had it shut down and the pilot debriefed a very attractive ( 552 ACW CC) woman wearing flip flops and Daisy dukes comes up and gives a very warm welcome to the O-6. Needless to say that F-15 was the farthest thing from the mind of that pilot.   Maybe it's time we had an non pilot in charge, if it's her I'm sure at the end of tenure when she retires she will be successful as with every other job she held.  

 

I'm sorry, but how did Robinson fit into your story? Was she the attractive woman? If so, I suggest you need to lose the beer goggles.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have to say that I kinda think I fall on the same side of the fence as ihtfp06

Interesting screen name too. I happen to have a patch that I use to wear under my name tag. I think it was something like that. Ifhtfp

[yankeetango]

McDewsh, hell no. Robinson gets my vote.

[tac airlifter]

Anyone know when a decision will be announced?

[Duck]

Robinson just got selected for Northern Command. Guess she's out. Can I just resign my commission if McDew is picked?

[Bode]

I've only heard rumors of how bad McDew is, how much suck will we be in with him?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Azimuth]

13 minutes ago, Lstcause257 said:

I've only heard rumors of how bad McDew is, how much suck will we be in with him?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I bet Blues Monday reappears.

[Champ Kind]

14 minutes ago, Lstcause257 said:

I've only heard rumors of how bad McDew is, how much suck will we be in with him?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you see Gen Hyten pop up for an assignment other than CSAF, get very worried.

1 minute ago, Azimuth said:

I bet Blues Monday reappears.

That will be the least of our problems.

[General Chang]

Gen McDew is a highly-respected senior General at the highest levels of the Pentagon.  We should be so lucky for President Obama/ Secretary Carter to nominate him.

[Jaded]

I sat in a 5 hours mandatory "professionalism" seminar this week where they referenced mcdew multiple times as an example of what we should all strive to be. 

[herkbum]

Gen McDew is a highly-respected senior General at the highest levels of the Pentagon.  We should be so lucky for President Obama/ Secretary Carter to nominate him.

Trolling 2 threads now?

[tac airlifter]

Chang, thank you for coming back.  I haven't yet agreed with any of your posts but representing the official big blue opinion is appreciated.  I mean that.  But for what it's worth, "respected at the pentagon" doesn't have any credibility with me or the other rank and file.  The established leadership cadre, our most professional and highly educated in history, has been losing wars the past 15 years.  Win something and their professional accolades might matter.  Till then they are just a bunch of losers trying the same thing over and over wondering why it won't work while our enemies gain ground.

McDew recently came to ACSC.  Privately he said he does not think he will be CSAF next because the person who will be nominated already knows.  Whatever that cryptic statement means.....

i will say he gave about the most professional and articulate statements I've heard from any senior officer.  Not that he was amazing, most of them just aren't impressive.

[SnapLock]

3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Chang, thank you for coming back.  I haven't yet agreed with any of your posts but representing the official big blue opinion is appreciated.  I mean that.  But for what it's worth, "respected at the pentagon" doesn't have any credibility with me or the other rank and file.  The established leadership cadre, our most professional and highly educated in history, has been losing wars the past 15 years.  Win something and their professional accolades might matter.  Till then they are just a bunch of losers trying the same thing over and over wondering why it won't work while our enemies gain ground.

McDew recently came to ACSC.  Privately he said he does not think he will be CSAF next because the person who will be nominated already knows.  Whatever that cryptic statement means.....

i will say he gave about the most professional and articulate statements I've heard from any senior officer.  Not that he was amazing, most of them just aren't impressive.

Have to disagree with you somewhat here.  Even though I have almost zero faith in our senior leaders I do believe that if they were unbounded and actually able to conduct military operations without b.s. ROE and political games that we would be winning most if not all of these "wars".  I have faith in the Air Force's ability to break stuff and kill people effectively in spite of our "management" generals.  

Edited March 19, 2016 by SnapLock

[Duck]

To put it nicely, McDew majors in the minors. But damn will we all look so impressive and shit in our blues.

[SurelySerious]

To put it nicely, McDew majors in the minors.

Par for the course.

[tac airlifter]

7 hours ago, SnapLock said:

Have to disagree with you somewhat here.  Even though I have almost zero faith in our senior leaders I do believe that if they were unbounded and actually able to conduct military operations without b.s. ROE and political games that we would be winning most if not all of these "wars".  I have faith in the Air Force's ability to break stuff and kill people effectively in spite of our "management" generals.  

You're certainly entiltiled to your opinion, but all my experience says otherwise.  Most of the BS ROE you lament originates from the military itself.  Rules on top of rules to make extra special certain we get no where near any red lines.  And there will never be war without "Political games."  Never.  War is a political action, and even the super rare total war scenarios like WW2 were suffocatingly political.  Good senior leaders need to find a way to adapt and overcome political obstacles as we do in tactical scenarios; that's the GO fight and they mostly suck at it.  Might be they have to take a stand and get fired if the true obstacle really is a politician.  How often does that happen, versus how often a line guy makes the ultimate sacrifice?

There are definitely some military leaders who are tearing shit up and held back from above.  LTG Thomas said in an interview recently that he is told no 9 out of 10 times.  He also admits we are losing badly across the board.  He is a leader and not a manager, one of few.  Leadership like him is the only reason I've stayed in the AF.  We have one like him who posts here sometimes.

Most of our management has a graduate degree in risk aversion.  They got their rank by being the guy who never took a chance and always found a reason to say no, thus avoiding any incidents on their watch while simultaneously leveraging career ending paperwork on the few who take a chance that doesn't work out.  I was drowning in those types when I was in AMC, and they absolutely got people killed.... More on that if you care.  They are the reason we have failed to follow up any gains and consequently stay mired in indecisiveness.  

Ive seen the same thing in AFSOC, though to a lesser degree.  But we are losing.  It's someone's fault, and that someone is not the folks on the line doing the fighting.  It's the people "highly respected at the pentagon" because that respect is gained making life easy on bureaucrats.

[uhhello]

7 hours ago, SnapLock said:

Have to disagree with you somewhat here.  Even though I have almost zero faith in our senior leaders I do believe that if they were unbounded and actually able to conduct military operations without b.s. ROE and political games that we would be winning most if not all of these "wars".  I have faith in the Air Force's ability to break stuff and kill people effectively in spite of our "management" generals.  

Yeah we just need to bomb them more

[Prosuper]

Looking at McDew's bio, at least you can say is that he knows the stark terror of getting a heavy KC-135A using water injection off the ground being assigned as an company grade to Loring and Castle. 

Edited March 19, 2016 by Prosuper
grammar

[Homestar]

Ah yes. The KC-135A. Built back when man thought he could burn water. 

[Guardian]

Was it as hard to land as the 135R?

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Most of our management has a graduate degree in risk aversion.  They got their rank by being the guy who never took a chance and always found a reason to say no, thus avoiding any incidents on their watch while simultaneously leveraging career ending paperwork on the few who take a chance that doesn't work out.  I was drowning in those types when I was in AMC, and they absolutely got people killed.... More on that if you care.  They are the reason we have failed to follow up any gains and consequently stay mired in indecisiveness.  

Bullseye.

A long tome but worth the effort on this subject, we've been here before and how people disconnected, indifferent, conniving and self-centered can ensure at best mediocrity and at worst defeat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Bright_Shining_Lie

[DirkDiggler]

15 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

McDew recently came to ACSC.  Privately he said he does not think he will be CSAF next because the person who will be nominated already knows.  Whatever that cryptic statement means.....

i will say he gave about the most professional and articulate statements I've heard from any senior officer.  Not that he was amazing, most of them just aren't impressive.

I find that interesting.  When talked to us last year at ACSC he didn't impress me or anyone else in my flight.  His leadership story/vignette was really poor, his ideas on what CGOs should be focusing on also were way off target in my opinion.

[mcbush]

5 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I was drowning in those types when I was in AMC, and they absolutely got people killed.... More on that if you care. 

Wouldn't mind reading up on some of those stories if you're willing to share them.

[Duck]

Was it as hard to land as the 135R?

You are obviously being sarcastic, but to answer your question anyways.

No. It only got difficult when the AF decided to put new engine pods on them. GE (?) told them to put the gearbox on the side of the pod like you see on modern day 737s (would cost around $10K more per jet IIRC) but the Air Force would rather just scrape pods and then hang the crews. Cuz that's leadership.

[Guardian]

Was it as hard to land as the 135R?

You are obviously being sarcastic, but to answer your question anyways.

No. It only got difficult when the AF decided to put new engine pods on them. GE (?) told them to put the gearbox on the side of the pod like you see on modern day 737s (would cost around $10K more per jet IIRC) but the Air Force would rather just scrape pods and then hang the crews. Cuz that's leadership.

Nope. Just being inquisitive. . Thanks for the answer.