What should the Air Force be if it is so broken now?

[Weezer]

1 minute ago, dream big said:

 The issue is these staffs becoming so bloated that you send an experienced pilot to the Died for a year to work powepoints.  I think that kind of misuse of manpower is what people get mad about, and rightfully so.

Absolutely...staff should do its function, just like the operators and supporters.  Staffs became a milestone to have in your record, so staffs bloated up to "give more people the experience."  I've been on a few staff assignments, and I worked banker's hours on all of them (and had time for workouts in the middle of the day).  Staff should be a full-time job same as anything else...and not just the self-licking ice cream cone type of job...they should be value added or they shouldn't exist.

[ClearedHot]

12 hours ago, Weezer said:

Unpopular opinion:  more rated dudes in staff positions where they can impact the AF's organize/train/equipping of airpower role as well as the COCOM/DoD employment of airpower role.  I'm in a directorate on the Joint Staff that has a big role in what units are deployed and when.  There are 9 AF officers...only 3 are aircrew.  None are pilots.  How do you expect the staffs that have input into the concerns raised on this forum if they are devoid of rated officers?

In my opinion, the AF got away from a focus on the flyer because it reduced the amount of flyers (specifically CAF flyers) on staffs.  It had to do that because there weren't enough flyers, which was only exacerbated by the loss of focus on the flyer/mission.  It's a downward spiral

Having served staffs from MAJCOM, HAF, to OSD I have not seen the bloating of rated officers that is continually mentioned, actually quite the opposite.  We absolutely MUST have a rated influence in the training, equipping and strategy development apparatus, again we MUST have that influence.  The bloating I have seen is with civilian and contractors who continuously shuffle and delay paperwork between multiple redundant offices. 

[Weezer]

3 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Having served staffs from MAJCOM, HAF, to OSD I have not seen the bloating of rated officers that is continually mentioned, actually quite the opposite.  We absolutely MUST have a rated influence in the training, equipping and strategy development apparatus, again we MUST have that influence.  The bloating I have seen is with civilian and contractors who continuously shuffle and delay paperwork between multiple redundant offices. 

Concur.  Although I think you need civilians in offices that require continuity over the long run, they should not be the ones steering the ship, and they should not be the majority of the office.

You also need rated officers outside the 3 shop.  Probably wouldn't be bad to have some non-flyers in developmental positions within 3/5 shops as well...get the MSG dudes a taste of everything that goes into Ops and Plans and I think it'll bear fruit...just not anywhere they can drive the bus [faster] off a cliff.

[ThreeHoler]

Having served staffs from MAJCOM, HAF, to OSD I have not seen the bloating of rated officers that is continually mentioned, actually quite the opposite.  We absolutely MUST have a rated influence in the training, equipping and strategy development apparatus, again we MUST have that influence.  The bloating I have seen is with civilian and contractors who continuously shuffle and delay paperwork between multiple redundant offices. 

You mean like certain people holding up 10-page AFIs for several years because they just can't be bothered to read them and concur?

[BFM this]

On 4/18/2017 at 8:47 PM, Weezer said:

Unpopular opinion:  more rated dudes in staff positions where they can impact the AF's organize/train/equipping of airpower role as well as the COCOM/DoD employment of airpower role.  I'm in a directorate on the Joint Staff that has a big role in what units are deployed and when.  There are 9 AF officers...only 3 are aircrew.  None are pilots.  How do you expect the staffs that have input into the concerns raised on this forum if they are devoid of rated officers?

In my opinion, the AF got away from a focus on the flyer because it reduced the amount of flyers (specifically CAF flyers) on staffs.  It had to do that because there weren't enough flyers, which was only exacerbated by the loss of focus on the flyer/mission.  It's a downward spiral.

Is it wasted time as far as flying gates and experience?  Sure.  Is it wasted time as far as making the AF more pilot/warfighter focused?  Absolutely not.

Additionally, open up non-rated command positions to rated officers.  Does an FSS squadron need to be commanded by an FSS officer?  Nope...all the technical expertise resides with the NCO technicians.  Put a pilot in charge, and you'll get that mission focus that seems noticeably absent.

Of course, all of this is dependent on fixing the pilot shortage, which is dependent on fixing these issues, and so on...

I'd also say make every officer who isn't bona fide pilot qualified...all the dudes with air sickness and bad eyes...spend their first assignment flying RPAs.  Every Marine's a rifleman...why not every Airman an operator of some sort?  Then when they track over to a mission support assignment, they'll have more of a mission focus.  You'll free up the more physically qualified to fly manned aircraft as a bonus.

While a lot of these ideas can be dismissed within contemporary lines of thinking, the scope of the problem demands consideration of some pretty stretched thinking.

Our way forward is going to be a massive upheaval, along the lines of Sierra Hotel mixed in with some senior leadership Darker Shades of Blue.

[FlyinGrunt]

So before I speak too soon . . . remind me, who wrote Darker Shades of Blue?

[ThreeHoler]

So before I speak too soon . . . remind me, who wrote Darker Shades of Blue?

Tony Kern

[Clark Griswold]

On 4/19/2017 at 10:23 AM, ClearedHot said:

Having served staffs from MAJCOM, HAF, to OSD I have not seen the bloating of rated officers that is continually mentioned, actually quite the opposite.  We absolutely MUST have a rated influence in the training, equipping and strategy development apparatus, again we MUST have that influence.  The bloating I have seen is with civilian and contractors who continuously shuffle and delay paperwork between multiple redundant offices. 

This.

Both really but especially the cancerous growth of civilian & contractors in areas of the directorates where by their duties they are making decisions that should only be made by military members.

Paying for them from MILPERS I believe would be the appetite suppressant needed to cure that.

[Skitzo]

I would happily march into an FSS for even an Ops Officer gig. The problem has and always will be how people with little perspective on how they support being led by people who by no fault of their own have no perspective.

All they can fall back on is the regulations. They have no context.

That way you wouldn't have decisions like the following: The FAC outlaws PFTs conducted by unit UFPMs to other unit members because the FAC itself has seen a decrease in traditional appointments and can't justify their manning. Meanwhile the MPF is open only a half a day because they don't have manning to support walk-ins all day.

Couldn't you reapportion that manning from the FAC to the MPF to better support?

You shouldn't need a specific AFSC to lead many organizations aside from perhaps the med group.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Duck]

Exactly! Since we all know that the FAC was merely a force shaping tool to begin with and had absolutely nothing to do with making our Air Force "fit to fight" lol. It's time to force shape that shop and put those cats to work on filing my travel voucher and doing my adls training for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[brickhistory]

It costs how much to train a zipper-suited sun god?

How many short of requirements are we now?

And the argument is that wings are a universal leadership badge?

With another argument is that guys want to do what they are actually trained, at great expense, to do and fly?

And you want Big Blue, having spent that kind of money, to put rated in all the support areas that suck?

It would seem we have done that in the past and yet we are still where we are today.  In fact, you can argue since the senior leadership is still nearly all rated officers, that they are not hacking the mission to include, especially, support.  If the wing commander is a pilot, why does his MPF suck?

Just a different perspective and/or be careful what you wish for...

[17D_guy]

Well,

In cyber we got a Viper driver as the 24 AF/CC and it has been fantastic for getting us towards operational and really getting the rest of the "3" community to pay attention.  Doubly so for the awful network that's been flogged for years that's just been blamed on "Comm." for not doing well enough.  When the bag-wearer tells the 4-stars, "You've deferred MX on the network, doing spot fixes only, for a decade."  People listen.  Watching him tell SES's that he didn't care if their pet application had 4-star support, he's in charge of cyber ops and running Server 2003 wasn't allowable anymore, was fantastic.  Doubly so w/ Gen Bender backing him up.  Far cry from the awful space-O's who're somehow also considered "ops."

Having worked with EWO community and how it works/attacks in the "the cybers" has really helped me develop something approaching an operational mindset.  Unfortunately, they're stuck with Intel in 25AF now, but we're all headed to ACC and can hopefully break them into cyber.

Cyber NEEDS operational (re: rated) leaders to come over and teach us, advocate for us, and point out and ostracize the support-minded fucks who're holding everything back.  We need those leaders as Maj's, so we can educate our junior O's, and not try to convert these Col's who grew up in traditional Comm and scoff whenever I point out how flyers operate and say, "This is cyber, we're different."

For example -

"We need an office or something to coordinate these teams movements when they head out to do missions/sorties."  I say that sounds like a scheduling office, and should be done in the wing/units responsible and not as a staff function.  Just like a flying wing does.  Reply was, "Well, this is different.  We've got to coordinate clearances, and sometimes they go overseas.  A lot more than a flying scheduling office does."  Not. Fucking. Kidding.

Having to deal with CC's saying they're unsure if their "Mission Ready" presented crew is experienced enough to do a tasked operation.  Watching them disregard our WIC's inputs out-of-hand because they don't align with Group leadership's plans.  Sq CC's not knowing what their people do, or their own processes for execution.  Saying people on cyber crew need crew rest...CREW REST.  They use flying ops AFI's for it.  

K, getting to work pissed for a Saturday.  Later all.

PS: I hate this job.

[dream big]

14 hours ago, Skitzo said:

I would happily march into an FSS for even an Ops Officer gig. The problem has and always will be how people with little perspective on how they support being led by people who by no fault of their own have no perspective.

All they can fall back on is the regulations. They have no context.

That way you wouldn't have decisions like the following: The FAC outlaws PFTs conducted by unit UFPMs to other unit members because the FAC itself has seen a decrease in traditional appointments and can't justify their manning. Meanwhile the MPF is open only a half a day because they don't have manning to support walk-ins all day.

Couldn't you reapportion that manning from the FAC to the MPF to better support?

You shouldn't need a specific AFSC to lead many organizations aside from perhaps the med group.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And the OPS group ;)

[dream big]

3 hours ago, Duck said:

Exactly! Since we all know that the FAC was merely a force shaping tool to begin with and had absolutely nothing to do with making our Air Force "fit to fight" lol. It's time to force shape that shop and put those cats to work on filing my travel voucher and doing my adls training for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Yepp, and and any reasons we need NCOs handing out towels in the gym? And let's be honest, most base gyms don't even hand out towels! Why not hire civilians to run the gym while these NCOs can make sure my PCS orders aren't consistently months late.

[cantfly]

I read an article saying AF leadership essentially knows more than Congress about saving money. Our AF leaders want to BRAC bases to save money and there is a way to do it without congressional approval. Is it true the AF can just remove all the assets from a base and cause the gates at the base to shutter? Or would politicians push back?

I remember a buddy telling me there is a community who thinks they are going to get the new KC-46 at their base. On base however, everyone from the rank of AB to Col know it's a joke and will never come to fruition. When people in the community ask about the tanker, it's hard for AF members not to laugh hysterically.

I think he said the runway at the base is falling apart too. I assume if you are going to get a new mission, that would be the first thing fixed.

 

Edited April 22, 2017 by cantfly

[Weezer]

3 hours ago, cantfly said:

I read an article saying AF leadership essentially knows more than Congress about saving money. Our AF leaders want to BRAC bases to save money and there is way to do it without congressional approval. Is it true the AF can just remove all the assets from a base and cause the gates at the base to shutter? Or would politicians push back?

 

 

To an extent, a base commander can declare facilities and real estate excess, which triggers a process to divest them.  The problem is the people:  moving more than 20 or so positions from a location (off the top of my head) triggers a Congressional notification, at which time they can move to do something about it...maybe.  Moving airframes/weapons systems triggers the same notifications.

[Duck]

To an extent, a base commander can declare facilities and real estate excess, which triggers a process to divest them.  The problem is the people:  moving more than 20 or so positions from a location (off the top of my head) triggers a Congressional notification, at which time they can move to do something about it...maybe.  Moving airframes/weapons systems triggers the same notifications.

So 19 people at a time and 1095 day flying deployments to other CONUS bases.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[WAG]

Maybe a bit too big picture (and probably mentioned already) but perhaps DoD should consider consolidating and centralizing common support functions throughout the enterprise (Finance, Public Affairs, Contracting, JAG/OSI/NCIS, Chaplain, Medical...maybe I'm off base with some of these but you get it).  Make these similarly-themed support agencies leaner and harness the remaining manpower to assist operational agencies in each branch where there are shortfalls.  

JTFR, UCMJ, Medicine/Dentists, Journalists..honestly, how much of that stuff needs to be branch specific?  And if it is...why?  And God knows how many civilians/contractors come with those pieces for each service.

Hell, why do our aspiring officer candidates need to go through 5 different applications, congressional interviews, and selection processes for each service academy? Everything about the government seems so damn bloated and superflous!  

I'm sure its been said before but stuff like this could help not only our Air Force, but our overall national defense and spending.

Edited April 23, 2017 by WAG
meh

[Fuzz]

We tried that already with Fianance and Comm and it's been a shitshow. Local Comm and Finance squadrons got gutted to centralize "support" now they don't have the manpower or authority to deal with issues. 

[ThreeHoler]

We tried that already with Fianance and Comm and it's been a shitshow. Local Comm and Finance squadrons got gutted to centralize "support" now they don't have the manpower or authority to deal with issues. 

What Fuzz said. Piss poor idea.

There is more than $125B in annual waste in the AF. But our "leaders" had the report shitcanned instead of fixing the waste.

[WAG]

8 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

8 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

I know you only meant it as an example, but the overwhelming cost of the application process for the academies is on the applicant, not the service (mailing things, traveling for interviews with Congressional leaders/servicemembers).

Mostly concerned about the manpower cost dedicated to that process.

[General Chang]

On April 22, 2017 at 10:46 PM, brickhistory said:

It costs how much to train a zipper-suited sun god?

How many short of requirements are we now?

And the argument is that wings are a universal leadership badge?

With another argument is that guys want to do what they are actually trained, at great expense, to do and fly?

And you want Big Blue, having spent that kind of money, to put rated in all the support areas that suck?

It would seem we have done that in the past and yet we are still where we are today.  In fact, you can argue since the senior leadership is still nearly all rated officers, that they are not hacking the mission to include, especially, support.  If the wing commander is a pilot, why does his MPF suck?

Just a different perspective and/or be careful what you wish for...

Are you kidding me Brick?  The only chance we have in this forsaken state of affairs is to put Operators in key positions of influence throughout the "1" community.  All levels, Lt Col through Lt Gen.  I know many rated Cols, 1* & 2* who would enact real change through radical personnel policy changes, given the chance.

Once rated officers take back these key positions of influence on staffs, particularly in the "1," we may have a fighting chance.

The thought that pilots in key staff positions is a waste of training and money is extremely short-sighted.  

We promote way too many non-rated officers to O-6 and above as it is.

[LookieRookie]

2 minutes ago, General Chang said:

Are you kidding me Brick?  The only chance we have in this forsaken state of affairs is to put Operators in key positions of influence throughout the "1" community.  All levels, Lt Col through Lt Gen.  I know many rated Cols, 1* & 2* who would enact real change through radical personnel policy changes, given the chance.

Once rated officers take back these key positions of influence on staffs, particularly in the "1," we may have a fighting chance.

The thought that pilots in key staff positions is a waste of training and money is extremely short-sighted.  

We promote way too many non-rated officers to O-6 and above as it is.

Did you sign in your wrong account?

[Guest]

Did you sign in your wrong account?

LMAO. Come clean Chang, what's your normal username?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nunya]