Do you think your MWS affects career opportunities/progression?

[Stitches]

I have often heard that it's a fighter pilot's air force so I was curious to see if y'all thought certain MWS get overlooked for opportunities like exchange tours, promotions, etc. Or are some MWS favored for those kinds of things?

Edited July 12, 2020 by Stitches

[pawnman]

I think so, but less because it's a "fighter pilot's Air Force" and more due to manning in individual MWSes.  In the B-1, it's almost impossible to get picked up for a special program or staff job unless you're coming directly out of in-residence PME.  We just don't have the people to man the flying squadrons, especially the FTU.  Meanwhile, BUFF guys are getting staff jobs, special jobs, etc...maybe some of it is because they can keep flying while on the staff at Barksdale.  That then ripples into promotion statistics....B-1 WSOs have the worst promotion rate of any rated officers, largely because they can't escape flying the line to do any kind of career broadening while their BUFF brethren do.

[TnkrToad]

19 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I think so, but less because it's a "fighter pilot's Air Force" and more due to manning in individual MWSes.  In the B-1, it's almost impossible to get picked up for a special program or staff job unless you're coming directly out of in-residence PME.  We just don't have the people to man the flying squadrons, especially the FTU.  Meanwhile, BUFF guys are getting staff jobs, special jobs, etc...maybe some of it is because they can keep flying while on the staff at Barksdale.  That then ripples into promotion statistics....B-1 WSOs have the worst promotion rate of any rated officers, largely because they can't escape flying the line to do any kind of career broadening while their BUFF brethren do.

BLUF: hell yes, it's a fighter pilot's Air Force.

By Pawnman's logic, MAF pilots (& CSOs even more so) should be running the Air Force, due to how "overmanned" the community is/has been. Obviously, the AF overstates MAF manning--ask any tanker or airlift bubba from the past decade or two how overmanned their flying units really were, relative to OPSTEMPO--but being on the right side of the AF's "Red Line/Blue Line" charts should give MAF folks a huge advantage when it comes to career development opportunities. I have no experience and few special insights into the RPA community, but in talking with some friends, this is likewise true with the 18Xs. Plenty of 18Xs who've done their time in ops units, who could fill CAF staff billets, but they're not allowed to do so, because that would give them too much of a career advantage. 

BTW, the historical record backs up my personal experience: fighter pilots running the Air Force is old news. Fighter, attack, pursuit, or observation (read single-seat) pilots led the Air Force and its antecedents (Army Air Service, Army Air Corps, Army Air Forces) from the air arm's establishment in the First World War until the first born-and-bred bomber pilot--Gen John Ryan took over in 1969. Fighter pilots took control of the service again in 1982, when fighter pilot Gen Charles Gabriel took over. So for the past century or so, fighter pilots have been running the Air Force for all but about 17 years (1969-1982, as discussed above; and 2008-2012--when Norty Schwartz, a SOF pilot, ran the service). Schwartz only got the job because SecDef Gates fired Buzz Moseley over the fighter pilot's all-too valid advocacy for buying substantially more F-22s. 

Note: I don't include Curt LeMay (CSAF from '61 to '65) as a bomber pilot, because he spent the first 8 years of his career flying fighters. 

It is still very much a fighter pilot's Air Force, with predominantly fighter pilot senior leaders taking care of their own tribe. 

TT

[FLEA]

18 minutes ago, TnkrToad said:

BLUF: hell yes, it's a fighter pilot's Air Force.

By Pawnman's logic, MAF pilots (& CSOs even more so) should be running the Air Force, due to how "overmanned" the community is/has been. Obviously, the AF overstates MAF manning--ask any tanker or airlift bubba from the past decade or two how overmanned their flying units really were, relative to OPSTEMPO--but being on the right side of the AF's "Red Line/Blue Line" charts should give MAF folks a huge advantage when it comes to career development opportunities. I have no experience and few special insights into the RPA community, but in talking with some friends, this is likewise true with the 18Xs. Plenty of 18Xs who've done their time in ops units, who could fill CAF staff billets, but they're not allowed to do so, because that would give them too much of a career advantage. 

BTW, the historical record backs up my personal experience: fighter pilots running the Air Force is old news. Fighter, attack, pursuit, or observation (read single-seat) pilots led the Air Force and its antecedents (Army Air Service, Army Air Corps, Army Air Forces) from the air arm's establishment in the First World War until the first born-and-bred bomber pilot--Gen John Ryan took over in 1969. Fighter pilots took control of the service again in 1982, when fighter pilot Gen Charles Gabriel took over. So for the past century or so, fighter pilots have been running the Air Force for all but about 17 years (1969-1982, as discussed above; and 2008-2012--when Norty Schwartz, a SOF pilot, ran the service). Schwartz only got the job because SecDef Gates fired Buzz Moseley over the fighter pilot's all-too valid advocacy for buying substantially more F-22s. 

Note: I don't include Curt LeMay (CSAF from '61 to '65) as a bomber pilot, because he spent the first 8 years of his career flying fighters. 

It is still very much a fighter pilot's Air Force, with predominantly fighter pilot senior leaders taking care of their own tribe. 

TT

This is the truth and you don't need to look any further than PME options, many of which are only exclusive to fighter pilots and have high vis follow-ons at a specific staff billet. Fighter pilots also have more command oppurtunities and other big stepping stones to promotions. It sucks but your trajectory in the AF is largely determined by your flying performance in year one of commissioning. 

Edit: Surprisingly I don't actually care and I'm not bitter about this. The longer I stay on the AF the more disfunctional I realise it is and I don't really have the desire to stay on and help unfuck it anyway. So it's probably better I'm shooting for BTZ to civilian. 

Edited July 12, 2020 by FLEA

[12xu2a3x3]

8 minutes ago, FLEA said:

It sucks but your trajectory in the AF is largely determined by your flying performance in year one of commissioning.

It didn't used to. There were guys flying F-100Fs as Misty's that had been MATS/MAC fliers, but that's just the flying part of the problem. No matter how much this idea is highlighted and carefully articulated it will never actually be addressed. It's a lament for a retired O-6 to tell you how bad the Air Force is at managing talent though they by their own admission will admit they essentially did nothing to ameliorate that fact when they had the chance.

[FLEA]

29 minutes ago, 12xu2a3x3 said:

It didn't used to. There were guys flying F-100Fs as Misty's that had been MATS/MAC fliers, but that's just the flying part of the problem. No matter how much this idea is highlighted and carefully articulated it will never actually be addressed. It's a lament for a retired O-6 to tell you how bad the Air Force is at managing talent though they by their own admission will admit they essentially did nothing to ameliorate that fact when they had the chance.

It's why I firmly reject the idea that we are the world's greatest AF. And I'm not saying that in a void. I've worked extensively with 22 partner nations now. Some of the most phenomenal officers I've met were Korean, Australian, British and Italian. We may have the most powerful AF but I think that speaks more to our industry than to us as an organization. But I think its a stretch to say we have the best trained, best mentored, most well managed talent. I think globally, officers in the USAF are probably only slightly above average. 

[di1630]

It's why I firmly reject the idea that we are the world's greatest AF. And I'm not saying that in a void. I've worked extensively with 22 partner nations now. Some of the most phenomenal officers I've met were Korean, Australian, British and Italian. We may have the most powerful AF but I think that speaks more to our industry than to us as an organization. But I think its a stretch to say we have the best trained, best mentored, most well managed talent. I think globally, officers in the USAF are probably only slightly above average. 

It’s not our officer quality, it’s our overall culture that makes us superior to most other Air Forces.

Let’s face it, 10% of the USAF keeps the other 90% afloat. If you’ve gone to shoe flag, you understand that there are many piss poor officers.

I too have worked with partner nations. Their great officers in our great culture works out well. Sadly, I’ve seen their great officers get crushed by their home country crappy military culture.

I think about 50% of USAF officers (mostly on the support side) are A. overpaid for their contribution and B. Probably non-essential to our success in reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[SurelySerious]

26 minutes ago, FLEA said:

It's why I firmly reject the idea that we are the world's greatest AF. And I'm not saying that in a void. I've worked extensively with 22 partner nations now. Some of the most phenomenal officers I've met were Korean, Australian, British and Italian. We may have the most powerful AF but I think that speaks more to our industry than to us as an organization. But I think its a stretch to say we have the best trained, best mentored, most well managed talent. I think globally, officers in the USAF are probably only slightly above average. 

I’d temper that a little on just being technically capable. I’ve also worked with a lot of partner nations, and the general ability of them to organize tactically is low. And our ability there isn’t because of industry, it’s complex training environments and expectations. 
 

Edit: that being said, with respect to current AF and career progression, there’s nothing in the AF today I want to do beyond the rank of Captain. So there’s definitely something off. 

Edited July 12, 2020 by SurelySerious

[Danger41]

5 hours ago, Stitches said:

I have often heard that it's a fighter pilot's air force so I was curious to see if y'all thought certain MWS get overlooked for opportunities like exchange tours, promotions, etc. Or are some MWS favored for those kinds of things?

A story from the U-28 within AFSOC. The U-28 flies more combat hours annually than every other AFSOC MWS combined. This was brought up for bullet writing on OPR/PRF and the Bob said that those hours are “different” and “don’t count as much” as a CV-22 guy. Also, the U-28 community hasn’t been around long enough to get a purebred Sq/CC (about to change) and above. As such, it’s natural for the single engine doctor plane with some sensors on it to be pushed to the side in favor of AC/MC-130 or CV-22 people. 
 

Additionally, not a single DFC has been rewarded to a U-28 aircrew member. There are many, many missions where Draco crews have done outstanding work to save friendlies on the ground and some fantastic work in the counter VEO fight, but no DFC. Reason? “They’re just doing their job”. This includes the most meritorious military sortie of the entire year in the entire Air Force (https://www.afsoc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2020763/u-28a-draco-crew-receives-2018-mackay-trophy/). During that same time, over 2 dozen AC-130 crew members were awarded DFC’s (https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/05/14/distinguished-flying-crosses-awarded-to-23-ac-130-crew-members/). Those guys absolutely deserved to be recognized for their awesome job on the referenced missions. However, it’s just an interesting comparison. I think a big part of the lack of Draco recognition comes from classification of certain missions, but it’s still unfortunate.

U-28 people get school and other jobs, but there is definitely a outsider feel to the community. I don’t have a quantifiable comparison, unfortunately. However, the mission satisfaction and impact you get to have against some really bad people is amazing. 

Edited July 12, 2020 by Danger41

[brabus]

6 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

However, the mission satisfaction and impact you get to have against some really bad people is amazing. 

Fuck yeah...that’s about the only thing that will matter to anyone when they’re having a beer on their porch at age 69, unless they were a careerist douche, then they’re drinking zima on their porch alone, lamenting “their” staff job they never got. There are lots of bros who probably should have been given a DFC, etc., but what went down was glossed over as “just doing their job.”

The good, and even the bad, memories are all that matter in the end, not what job was held, school attended, or even airframe flown. Here’s to wiping shitbags off the face of this earth!

[Hawg15]

5 hours ago, Stitches said:

I have often heard that it's a fighter pilot's air force so I was curious to see if y'all thought certain MWS get overlooked for opportunities like exchange tours, promotions, etc. Or are some MWS favored for those kinds of things?

It is. US warfare is all about the troops on the ground, and the point of the Air Force is providing kinetic firepower to maintain air superiority and support them. It’s no different than the Marine Corps and Army prioritizing infantry and the Navy being run by surface warfare officers.
 

That being said, a pilot in general is on a better track than other officers, as they should be. It wont really affect anything promotion wise unless you want to have some stars. If you stay in long enough you’re almost guaranteed some random O-5 billet, it just may not be command.
 

But no one likes school or staff anyways. Doing your mission and sitting in the bar with your bros having a jack and coke is what makes being a pilot in any airframe great. 

[Swizzle]

Absolutely MWS affects career opportunities; however, as a rule of thumb, not absolute rule.

Big MWS = more opportunities but more competition, and typically more relesability later in career for different options/paths.

Smaller MWS = fewer competitors however not necessarily less opportunities, depends how far apart the asset is spread. Positions like staff, test, DETs, etc. vary in size, location, and impact. 

For both types of MWS, big amd small fleet: Look at mission, typical TDY locations (i.e. MSN/CC or DET/CC), etc. Opportunities abound in the next few years due to high attrition in the near past. Some briefs now say whomever, Officer-wise, is still in-service in mid-2020's will command whether they like to or not. Don't know if COVID change that on a macro level or not, but do know several (~10) who are staying in for lack of outside opportunities. FGOs will bloat the next few years for this reason surely, and Aircrew Retention TF/CC recently, publicly said this.

LD/HD assets typically experience personnel burnout, attrition, and therefore little releasability when you want it. LD assets have people jump ship for better opportunities on the outside.

[ThreeHoler]

MAJCOM matters more than MWS. If you wind up in AMC you can plan on at least a 10% lower chance of promotion to O-5 than any other MAJCOM.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Sua Sponte]

The MAF has always had boner for T-Tail airlifters in leadership positions. The running joke at the KC-135 FTU was if you’re the #1 tanker guy in the wing, you were #15 guy in the wing behind all the C-17 drivers.

Getting rid of Phoenix programs would be a positive in the MAF.

[CDAWG]

MAJCOM matters more than MWS. If you wind up in AMC you can plan on at least a 10% lower chance of promotion to O-5 than any other MAJCOM.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I feel ya.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dream big]

3 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

The MAF has always had boner for T-Tail airlifters in leadership positions. The running joke at the KC-135 FTU was if you’re the #1 tanker guy in the wing, you were #15 guy in the wing behind all the C-17 drivers.

Getting rid of Phoenix programs would be a positive in the MAF.

This. Phoenix is an absolute waste of talent management.  If you are an expert in your craft (and you don’t need to go to the WIC to be so), you can probably figure out how to run the mobility machine without flying “other” missions.