Next CSAF?

[SumPoorBastard]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/17/joints-chiefs-lorem-ipsum-lorem-ipsum-00092130

Just saw this article about candidates for CSAF. I know there is the MAF v. CAF argument and its surprising that the 2 people they mention have MAF backgrounds. Both seem to have legit credibility with TPS. Just curious on the opinions of the forum.

Edited April 25, 2023 by SumPoorBastard

[dream big]

3 hours ago, SumPoorBastard said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/17/joints-chiefs-lorem-ipsum-lorem-ipsum-00092130

Just saw this article about candidates for CSAF. I know there is the MAF v. CAF argument and its surprising that the 2 people they mention have MAF backgrounds. Both seem to have legit credibility with TPS. Just curious on the opinions of the forum.

Surprised to see Van Ovost on there, they don’t usually make Combatant Commanders Service Chiefs. She is a credible leader and got where she is on her own merit but it wouldn’t surprise me if she becomes CSAF so they can play the “first female Chief of Staff” drum, she has already been in some of the White House’s PR stunts. 

I would offer Gen Minihan as most qualified for the job given our current pacing threat and his resume out West. However, he is a disruptive leader (in a good way, little over the top but effective)…that level of leadership selection doesn’t reward anyone but yes men (or women or whatever).

Fingers was a bit disruptive, a lot of good changes happened under him especially with regards to talent management. Gen Brown just seems to keep the lights on and not make any waves. 

[Guardian]

Fingers was a douche. Probably still is.

[herkbum]

I’m just curious how this administration will use this to conduct the next social experiment.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Biff_T]

CAF over MAF.  Not that I know anything (I'm serious).   I'm not trying to crush egos (definitely would love to crush some Eggos) but I want a killer in charge.   I want someone who knows the threats and how to defeat them.  Fighter, bomber and special ops dudes have a far better understanding how to employ weapons (weapons that kill) than mobility dudes.  In my opinion, its harder to learn how to kill than how to drop off cargo.  No offense to AMC dudes.  Thats just my honest opinion.  A person who started learning how to defeat enemy air defenses and employ weapons as a Lt is going to have a huge advantage over a tanker pilot who learned these things by getting a crash course in CAF later on in life.  

Edited April 25, 2023 by Biff_T
Spelling bee failure

[FLEA]

51 minutes ago, Biff_T said:

CAF over MAF.  Not that I know anything (I'm serious).   I'm not trying to crush egos (definitely would love to crush some Eggos) but I want a killer in charge, not support personnel.    I want someone who knows the threats and how to defeat them.  Fighter, bomber and special ops dudes have a far better understanding how to employ weapons (weapons that kill) than mobility dudes.  In my opinion, its harder to learn how to kill than how to drop off cargo.  No offense to AMC dudes.  Thats just my honest opinion.  A person who started learning how to defeat enemy air defenses and employ weapons as a Lt is going to have a huge advantage over a tanker pilot who learned these things by getting a crash course in CAF later on in life.  

Honestly, I think this matters very little. Van Ovost makes A LOT OF SENSE. A robust knowledge of SEAD isn't going to win the South China Sea. That is literally the smallest problem set there and I'm certain any given weapons officer at any given F-35 squadron is more than capable of solving that for any given MPC. 

What is much more problematic, and why VO makes so much sense is the logistical problem in the Pacific and the fact that we have a smaller tanker and airlift fleet than we've had historically while planning to fight a war in 5 years thats going to take place over a greater geographic area than any war we've fought in the last 70 years. In in 99% of that geographic area, there is 0 ground lines of communications, effectively incapacitating 1/3 of the entire logistics enterprise. (In reality much more since ground transport can move more stuff cheaper than air or sea transport) Never mind the fact that on any given day any of those key islands we might rely upon for solving that logistics nightmare might just be not there thanks to China's latest advances in missile technology. 

I know you're a fighter dude and love blowing shit up, but lets face it--if we leave that problem to a Viper dude, there's likely going to be several hundred other fighter dudes sitting on an alert ramp with no gas and no weapons. It would literally take a year and a half for a CAF guy to even get caught up to understanding the problem, much less being able to put any foot forward on defining a solution. Yes learning SEAD and weapons is cool, but what I really need someone to know is what are the primary lines of communication, how many tons of freight can they move, how quickly, during what times of year, how much staging is needed for every single supply depot, what is the capacity at every supply depot before overage and need cargo forward.... Theres an economics side to it, what does it mean when a major port in Singapore puts down a paddock for renovation? How many other supply nodes does that effect on the first, second and third order? I'm not saying any of it is hard and a fighter guy couldn't pick it up. Its not even a tanker versus fighter thing since I'm almost certain most tanker bros cant speak to this. Its more the fact that VO is leaving TRANSCOM and has already spent years untangling the requisite knot in her own head space. 

If we accept that China is the next big war, and its happening in 5 years, which seems to be on repeat among senior staffs now--then positioning of WRM needs to start happening now and that's not something I think another CQB could handle. He did his big effort which was bringing on the whole AGILE Wing thing. That was a great move to lower the logistics burden and apply some redundant C2. But I honestly think VO is in the best position to solve the next big problem and why a COCOM/CC would be tapped for a Chief role rather than even the AMC commander. 

Edited April 25, 2023 by FLEA

[Biff_T]

7 minutes ago, FLEA said:

I know you're a fighter dude

Dont give me that much credit, I'm just a mouth breathing rotorhead that never gets invited to the parties.  Lol. 

But in all seriousness, FLEA you make some good points. It's obvious that I never made it out of the tactical planning phase of being an officer.  In the end, whoever is in charge is going to surround themselves with knowledgeable people to make up for any shortcomings.  

[FLEA]

21 minutes ago, Biff_T said:

Dont give me that much credit, I'm just a mouth breathing rotorhead that never gets invited to the parties.  Lol. 

But in all seriousness, FLEA you make some good points. It's obvious that I never made it out of the tactical planning phase of being an officer.  In the end, whoever is in charge is going to surround themselves with knowledgeable people to make up for any shortcomings.  

No worries mate and sorry for the mix up. I agree everyone loves a blood thirsty war dog when going to combat, but I have no doubt that a solid ACC commander can pick up the slack from a motivational standpoint while VO works on lobbying congress to get some much needed money to the right programs earlier than another candidate might. 

[Pooter]

I'm not sure if any CSAF is going to solve the pacific range/gas/logistics problem regardless of background.  The "do more with less" trend the entire Air Force has succumbed to in the last 20 years has eroded the sheer numbers of crews and jets in both the MAF and CAF available to project power at scale on the literal other side of the world. Those numbers were baked into the cake long ago and we are not producing pilots or airframes fast enough to dig out of that hole.

 

I think beating the war drum over China is pretty silly because:

a) war with China sounds like a really really bad time. It won't be a Middle East mud hut turkey shoot

b) China has proven they're shrewd strategists who work the long game.
 

We have this funny obsession with the next five years but China has demonstrated they have a far longer strategic attention span.  Are any of our leaders talking about a 2049 plan? Because China is.
 

Delaying a hypothetical conflict only benefits them and if their manufacturing continues at present pace, they just have to wait until intervention becomes completely unpalatable to the west. And that gives their public influence campaigns more time to work. They may very well be able to "re-unify" without ever firing a shot.  

[GKinnear]

[mention=78553]FLEA[/mention] I havent seen that he retiring, so I'm putting my money on Wilsbach...I think he knows a thing or three about logistics in the Pacific.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Baseops Network mobile app

[FLEA]

11 minutes ago, GKinnear said:

[mention=78553]FLEA[/mention] I havent seen that he retiring, so I'm putting my money on Wilsbach...I think he knows a thing or three about logistics in the Pacific.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Baseops Network mobile app


 

I worked under Wilsbach while he was 7AF commander actually. Going to be honest and your experience may vary.... but I wasn't particularly impressed.....

[Stoker]

The fact that Minihan isn't on the short list for CSAF is why he sent that memo out. If you're not winning the game, try to play a different game.

[Blue]

On 4/25/2023 at 12:31 AM, SumPoorBastard said:

I know there is the MAF v. CAF argument and its surprising that the 2 people they mention have MAF backgrounds. Both seem to have legit credibility with TPS.

 

On 4/25/2023 at 3:38 AM, dream big said:

Surprised to see Van Ovost on there, they don’t usually make Combatant Commanders Service Chiefs. 

I would offer Gen Minihan as most qualified for the job given our current pacing threat and his resume out West.

 

On 4/25/2023 at 12:43 PM, Biff_T said:

CAF over MAF.  I want a killer in charge.   I want someone who knows the threats and how to defeat them.

 

On 4/25/2023 at 1:34 PM, FLEA said:

But I honestly think VO is in the best position to solve the next big problem and why a COCOM/CC would be tapped for a Chief role rather than even the AMC commander. 

 

2 hours ago, GKinnear said:

I havent seen that he retiring, so I'm putting my money on Wilsbach...I think he knows a thing or three about logistics in the Pacific.

Real talk now - The current administration has a laser-like focus on identity politics, and no where is this more evident than in their political appointments, particularly in the high profile positions.  And it doesn't get much more high profile than a service chief.

The talk about qualifications and experience of different candidates is laughable.  The next CSAF is going to be chosen based on which box they check.  Given the current field, I assume it's going to be "First Female CSAF."

[LookieRookie]

Besides CSAF’s job is to train/equip/organize, they aren’t combatant commanders.

[Boomer6]

7 hours ago, GKinnear said:

[mention=78553]FLEA[/mention] I havent seen that he retiring, so I'm putting my money on Wilsbach...I think he knows a thing or three about logistics in the Pacific.

Sent from my SM-N976V using Baseops Network mobile app


 

I no joke laughed for a bit when I read this. Idk how much time you’ve spent in PACAF, but the dumpster fire meme comes to mind when considering their “logistical prowess”

Edited April 27, 2023 by Boomer6

[nsplayr]

I know next to zero about any of these potential next CSAFs if CQB is elevated to Chairman, but I did get a picture with VO 15 years ago when she was the WG/CC at Randolph and I was graduating nav school. Would be cool to see her all the way up there as CSAF when I'm still just a lowly crew dawg 😅

[Danger41]

I legit feel bad for CSAF candidates that are anything but straight, white fighter pilot males. If one of them gets picked (happened to Gen Brown), everyone will glom onto their skin color/gender/orientation. I can’t imagine how demoralizing that would be to have served for almost 40 years and everyone assumes you only made it as the diversity hire. 

[Boomer6]

7 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I legit feel bad for CSAF candidates that are anything but straight, white fighter pilot males. If one of them gets picked (happened to Gen Brown), everyone will glom onto their skin color/gender/orientation. I can’t imagine how demoralizing that would be to have served for almost 40 years and everyone assumes you only made it as the diversity hire. 

Imagine how horrible it would be when you prove them all right by doing a mediocre job. Or worse, focusing on DEI instead of solving other actual problems.

[GKinnear]

18 hours ago, FLEA said:

I worked under Wilsbach while he was 7AF commander actually. Going to be honest and your experience may vary.... but I wasn't particularly impressed.....

 

11 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

I no joke laughed for a bit when I read this. Idk how much time you’ve spent in PACAF, but the dumpster fire meme comes to mind when considering their “logistical prowess”

I've never been west of Travis, or east of Manas (R.I.P.)...so your insight is enlightening, thank you. 

I don't necessarily disagree with the posts regarding the other candidates.  I was making an assumption that the 4-star with the recency of experience would be the best pick.

The Ops vs. Logistics experience is an interesting argument.

[FLEA]

Quote

I don't necessarily disagree with the posts regarding the other candidates.  I was making an assumption that the 4-star with the recency of experience would be the best pick.

That was the path CQB followed (7AF->PACAF->CSAF) but its a bit of a jump to suggest that experience as a PACAF or even a USAFE CC yields a thorough understanding of the theater logistics. Under US doctrine we decouple most of the logistics functions from the geographic elements under geographic combatant commanders. So why Ramstein does have some USAFE C-130s at its disposal, their nesting is designed more to support commander priorities that would be otherwise ignored by TRANSCOM who is planning at a global level. So for example, if you are going to perform a JFEO as the USAFE Commander, you would probably want to use your C-130s rather than petitioning TRANSCOM to add it somewhere in their list of priorities--to which you would get a response that's something like: "we will deliver 1/4 of your troops next week, and then a few more the week after, and then the rest the week after that." Well that's not really how JFEOs work..... so clearly that's not really useful. 

When hiring at the executive level, competence becomes less of an issue because almost all of our O9/10s are probably competent to lead HQ AF. Heck, probably even a few high speed O8s. They have decades of experience in organizational leadership by this point. So a more important facet that comes into play, in my opinion anyway, is suitability/fit. Who is the right commander to lead right now? Specifically, who has the expertise to solve a pressing problem, and be able to articulate that problem to congress in a detailed enough manner that they can secure money for it. At the end of the day, the CSAF's role is to get money. That is really all he/she is--a sales person. 

[GKinnear]

21 hours ago, FLEA said:

That was the path CQB followed (7AF->PACAF->CSAF) but its a bit of a jump to suggest that experience as a PACAF or even a USAFE CC yields a thorough understanding of the theater logistics. Under US doctrine we decouple most of the logistics functions from the geographic elements under geographic combatant commanders. So why Ramstein does have some USAFE C-130s at its disposal, their nesting is designed more to support commander priorities that would be otherwise ignored by TRANSCOM who is planning at a global level. So for example, if you are going to perform a JFEO as the USAFE Commander, you would probably want to use your C-130s rather than petitioning TRANSCOM to add it somewhere in their list of priorities--to which you would get a response that's something like: "we will deliver 1/4 of your troops next week, and then a few more the week after, and then the rest the week after that." Well that's not really how JFEOs work..... so clearly that's not really useful. 

When hiring at the executive level, competence becomes less of an issue because almost all of our O9/10s are probably competent to lead HQ AF. Heck, probably even a few high speed O8s. They have decades of experience in organizational leadership by this point. So a more important facet that comes into play, in my opinion anyway, is suitability/fit. Who is the right commander to lead right now? Specifically, who has the expertise to solve a pressing problem, and be able to articulate that problem to congress in a detailed enough manner that they can secure money for it. At the end of the day, the CSAF's role is to get money. That is really all he/she is--a sales person. 

Again, great points that I agree with from both academic and personal experience.  I'd offer though that the PACAF/CC is at least familiar with the airspace/basing/overflight issues in the region that will certainly affect the logistics air bridge.

ACE is a logistics fight, so that may be the decider.

So IMO, there's the calculus; regional Ops (pro) / regional Logistics (mid) vs. global Logistics (pro) / potential "1st Female Service Chief" (pro).

Personally, the I sim'd/flew every Monday during the last non-bomber/fighter CSAF tenure so I wouldn't have to wear blues.  Lt GKinnear is hoping history doesn't repeat itself.

[Biff_T]

7 hours ago, GKinnear said:

Personally, the I sim'd/flew every Monday during the last non-bomber/fighter CSAF

Good old George McFly.  That was the gnarliest haircut ever worn by a military officer.  I saw him one time out of uniform several years before he was the CSAF.  I was drunk by a pool during an ATA event, we were supposed to be going to meetings but a fellow boom and myself decided to get day drunk (I loved being a boom) and he (haircut) walked by in civies.  I started to make fun of him outloud before someone let me know he was a general.  This was a few years before he was the CSAF.  Lol.   

Edit:  I thought he was a hotel worker with special needs.   

Edited April 28, 2023 by Biff_T
Afterthought

[General Chang]

GVO will not be Chief of Staff.  She is retiring out of this job.

[filthy_liar]

On 4/25/2023 at 11:31 AM, herkbum said:

I’m just curious how this administration will use this to conduct the next social experiment.

herkbum got it.  The rest of you have been duped.

[Danger41]

On 4/27/2023 at 5:20 AM, Boomer6 said:

Imagine how horrible it would be when you prove them all right by doing a mediocre job. Or worse, focusing on DEI instead of solving other actual problems.

With the constant stream of bitching from this site with the force ran by straight white male fighter pilots, maybe it’s time to put the gay Jewish black chick tanker pilot in there.

This is obviously satire. No way a Tanker pilot should be CSAF.