Promotion and PRF Information

[HeloDude]

14 hours ago, bennynova said:

I think next CSAF is Robinson.... female and Cyber.   

 

Probably time for both honestly...

Trump is anti-women, so clearly this will not happen...

[Sling Blade]

23 minutes ago, Duck said:

Literally, this just happened to me as well. PCS’d in between boards.

Did you decline the ADSC for the PCS and get sent anyway?  My situation is similar.  I'm about to be up for a new assignment with a little over two years to go.  I was passed over on the first board with no paperwork to get me on the second one.  I'm trying to stay where I'm at until I can separate.  I thought declining the training ADSC would do the trick, but it sounds like some folks have been moved with less useful time at their follow on assignment than I'll have.

[Guardian]

True but she did start / serve as aircrew and then went on to other domains we operate in, breadth in experience / knowledge is better for overall leadership & management of the institution.

Just my two cents but she sounds like what we should be developing for senior leadership.

Experience with a broad range of operations versus specialized.

The days of the bomber / fighter / pilot only general should be gone.

It should be the Operations General with a broad based career to have the 50,000’ view.

Said as a proud pilot but we are not the only place in AF where senior leadership should come from

There have been plenty of people that go to different assignments or jobs not because of the breadth of experience or career broadening but because they were the sticky booger to get flicked. Not saying she is one but I am cautious of leaders who have what appears to be an amazing record on paper. Doesn’t mean they are a good leader. O’s and E’s alike. Some of the worst people I have met in this Air Force are senior officers and enlisted. Not saying she isn’t deserving but because she is a she and has had different assignments doesn’t necessarily make her the right choice. Especially have to be cautious in the day and age of AF PC police. Where they will do anything to look inclusive even if it’s the wrong choice.

[dream big]

12 hours ago, Fireball said:

So do we support the creation of separate Cyber and Space Forces? 

I think there is a lot of validity to create a separate cyber/space force.  Not an expert in either, so maybe the cyber/space folks could speak up; but it sounds like that would be a way for each domain to secure the attention and funding it needs.  Sometimes I think the Air Force has a culture of trying to do too much instead of focusing on being a master of set domains.

[bennynova]

Agree, dream big.  Space and cyber are our next biggest domains and I think we are WAY behind in cyber security.  And we are way behind inbwhere we should be with security too.  Some of our biggest barriers to operations and meetings are set imposed security queep.    

 

We are are probably doing well in space, but cyber trumps all and can negatively affect everything.  

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, Guardian said:

There have been plenty of people that go to different assignments or jobs not because of the breadth of experience or career broadening but because they were the sticky booger to get flicked. Not saying she is one but I am cautious of leaders who have what appears to be an amazing record on paper. Doesn’t mean they are a good leader. O’s and E’s alike. Some of the worst people I have met in this Air Force are senior officers and enlisted. Not saying she isn’t deserving but because she is a she and has had different assignments doesn’t necessarily make her the right choice. Especially have to be cautious in the day and age of AF PC police. Where they will do anything to look inclusive even if it’s the wrong choice.

No doubt that has and continues to happen.  The booger fling is a real phenomenon and it is right to beware someone at certain points in their career and they have not attained certain quals/certs as that is possibly indicative of buck passage.  

My only knowledge of her capability is second hand from when she was being initially discussed as a candidate prior to Fingers, consensus was she was a good egg.  

My two cents, if the AF was operations / leadership focused vice problem mitigation / management focused, those on the path to leadership would be identified at around the 8-10 year point in their careers, recruited and selected, then sent to other communities to develop a cadre with a broad but not shallow depth of understanding of how air, space and cyber power are delivered for the Joint Force as a total effort.  

They would say the current AF does this now, not so much IMO.

[Duck]

Did you decline the ADSC for the PCS and get sent anyway?  My situation is similar.  I'm about to be up for a new assignment with a little over two years to go.  I was passed over on the first board with no paperwork to get me on the second one.  I'm trying to stay where I'm at until I can separate.  I thought declining the training ADSC would do the trick, but it sounds like some folks have been moved with less useful time at their follow on assignment than I'll have.

Nah actually I moved to my #1 choice on my ADP short notice to help out the functional and be closer to my dying father-in-law. Best case scenario, I get out in 3-4 months. Worst case I end up spending the next 2 years in a nice location where my wife can be with her family. Win-win.

[brabus]

15 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

True but she did start / serve as aircrew and then went on to other domains we operate in, breadth in experience / knowledge is better for overall leadership & management of the institution.

Just my two cents but she sounds like what we should be developing for senior leadership.

Experience with a broad range of operations versus specialized.

The days of the bomber / fighter / pilot only general should be gone.

It should be the Operations General with a broad based career to have the 50,000’ view.

Said as a proud pilot but we are not the only place in AF where senior leadership should come from

I get your point, but remember what a colossal fuck fest happened when Libya kicked off and a tanker general was in charge. Not a slight against tanker bros, but we all have our place. What would have happened had a cyber general been in charge? Either it would have been worse, or they would have had more sense/humility and stepped aside and let the CAF guys take the reigns. The latter being better, but still shows the inadequacy of placing the wrong experience in a position.

That said, cyber is extremely important and a huge problem (and capability) for us. They should be their own force; the AF is holding on much like the Army held onto the air corps. Let the cyber experts run their domain without a pilot thinking they know better/think they can effectively make the calls...it goes both ways.

We are the AIR Force as Matt pointed out, keep it that way and split off the domains to a separate service that while complimenting air, should not be under our services purview. Same with the Army, get their grubby fingers out of the cyber pot as well. 

Edited December 25, 2017 by brabus

[Clark Griswold]

38 minutes ago, brabus said:

I get your point, but remember what a colossal fuck fest happened when Libya kicked off and a tanker general was in charge. Not a slight against tanker bros, but we all have our place. What would have happened had a cyber general been in charge? Either it would have been worse, or they would have had more sense/humility and stepped aside and let the CAF guys take the reigns. The latter being better, but still shows the inadequacy of placing the wrong experience in a position.

That said, cyber is extremely important and a huge problem (and capability) for us. They should be their own force; the AF is holding on much like the Army held onto the air corps. Let the cyber experts run their domain without a pilot thinking they know better/think they can effectively make the calls.  

That's the rub, how do you actually execute your reform so you don't open up another can of worms.

To reference the example you cited and to expand on the idea of a generalist leader, some part of the career experience would have to be combat operations to lead/command combat operations.

Mission commanding combat aviation?  Bomber/Fighter/Attack/Strike/EW/ISR with Kinetic Finish/JTAC experience required but that leader also having direct experience in mobility/logistics/cyber/intel is best.  

Mission commanding cyber operations?  Cyber experience required but that leader also having aviation/intel/ndo/space/etc... is best.

We should broaden the opportunity for cross flow between career paths for those we believe will be able to use that direct experience and knowledge in likely roles as senior leaders.  

More opportunities for heavy dudes to flow to bombers/cyber/ndo/etc... (fighters & attack also if it is appropriate and meets the needs of the AF) if said heavy guy is identified and assessed based on his/her operational performance and intellectual capability to be an effective combat leader.

Opportunities for fighter/bomber/attack dudes identified as future leaders to flow for an operational assignment to heavies/rpa/isr/cyber/ndo/space without it being a black mark or viewed as a demotion to broaden their experience so as senior leaders, they effectively lead the team in delivering air/space/cyber power.

Opportunities for cyber/space/ndo/battlefield airmen to crossflow into aviation/mx/logistics/etc...

Right now we have leadership dependent on having a team around them to be the expert in X field to give them advice on how to bring all the elements together to deliver air/space/cyber power.  It works but IMO, having a career policy that encourages/guides broadening for those recruited/selected for a leadership path after proving themselves in the first operational community is better.

Edited December 25, 2017 by Clark Griswold
forgot one point

[17D_guy]

Merry Christmas you filthy animals.  A mod should probably move this conversation to the Cyber thread, but I'll give my brief thoughts here, then expand there if moved. 

No, cyber should not be a separate service right now.  Probably not for another decade.  Most of the Sr Leaders are former Comm-O's who jerk themselves off about being operators, without instilling operational discipline in their units.  You ever have a flying Grp/Sq CC not do what was ordered by an operational CC/NAF and not get kicked in the dick?  Happens all the time in Cyber. 

I will say Ops is Ops, and a Ops minded cyber-bro should be able to figure out how to plan/lead a conventional mission, just the same for a flier planning a cyber mission.  I've watched Wedge do it, it's about enabling the team...not the individual.  Cyber is very much a team sport.

As is now, Offensive/Defensive Cyber as a SOCOM like force makes most sense.  DoDIN-Ops (AFNET) needs to die in a fire.  Our cybersecurity is both better (AF operators) and worse (PMO's, acquisitions) than you'd think.  Most younger cyber guys thinks it needs to be a separate force, most older don't seem to care.  There's a good band of us around the '07-'11 year groups that see it the way I mentioned above.

[sqwatch]

Merry Christmas you filthy animals.  A mod should probably move this conversation to the Cyber thread, but I'll give my brief thoughts here, then expand there if moved. 

The mods are all drinking egg nog and playing with their Christmas presents you nerd.

[Bender]

[quote post="437079" timestamp="1514202387" name="xaarman" userid="
I was at a UPT base and resumed flying 4-5x a week.


Pfft...thanks for the help. My "additional duties" are beyond stupid and I still fly 4-5 for them.

What the were you doing all day?

Bendy

[Disco_Nav963]

Robinson is/has always been an ABM and has never been Space/Cyber. Most of this discussion is mental masturbation.

[dream big]

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

That's the rub, how do you actually execute your reform so you don't open up another can of worms.

To reference the example you cited and to expand on the idea of a generalist leader, some part of the career experience would have to be combat operations to lead/command combat operations.

Mission commanding combat aviation?  Bomber/Fighter/Attack/Strike/EW/ISR with Kinetic Finish/JTAC experience required but that leader also having direct experience in mobility/logistics/cyber/intel is best.  

Mission commanding cyber operations?  Cyber experience required but that leader also having aviation/intel/ndo/space/etc... is best.

We should broaden the opportunity for cross flow between career paths for those we believe will be able to use that direct experience and knowledge in likely roles as senior leaders.  

More opportunities for heavy dudes to flow to bombers/cyber/ndo/etc... (fighters & attack also if it is appropriate and meets the needs of the AF) if said heavy guy is identified and assessed based on his/her operational performance and intellectual capability to be an effective combat leader.

Opportunities for fighter/bomber/attack dudes identified as future leaders to flow for an operational assignment to heavies/rpa/isr/cyber/ndo/space without it being a black mark or viewed as a demotion to broaden their experience so as senior leaders, they effectively lead the team in delivering air/space/cyber power.

Opportunities for cyber/space/ndo/battlefield airmen to crossflow into aviation/mx/logistics/etc...

Right now we have leadership dependent on having a team around them to be the expert in X field to give them advice on how to bring all the elements together to deliver air/space/cyber power.  It works but IMO, having a career policy that encourages/guides broadening for those recruited/selected for a leadership path after proving themselves in the first operational community is better.

Breadth is not always a good thing, in fact most here would be very hesitant to agree to this “cross-pollination” of sorts.  Phoenix Mobility in AMC (where airlift guys fly tankers and vice versa) has been a disaster.  Both the airlift and tanker communities have ended up with careerist toads who have no idea what they are doing.  This isn’t to say that knowledge of other career fields isn’t critical as a strategic leader; but the depth and knowledge of being an expert in your career set goes a long way in developing a credible combat leader.  

Another hesitation is the creation of the HPO “high potential officer” caste.  I believe the Air Force has been doing away with this concept, and rightfully so.  For instance, we no longer have school selects.  There is no way of knowing whether someone as a Captain would be a good strategic leader.  The HPO lists, and believe me, they are out there, have created a class of untouchable “rising stars” regardless of performance while ignoring potentially strong leaders that didn’t fit a certain mold.  

Edited December 26, 2017 by dream big

[sqwatch]

From the perspective of this very middle of the road officer, I have been in the company of some very big brained dudes who performed commensurate with their IQs in combat and as leaders and were identified as captains. Maybe bureaucracies don’t do a good job at quantifying this on paper via the “HPO” track or whatever they call it, but as sure as BQZips mom swims after troopships, they were identified early as being above their peers in leadership ability and I’m glad they were as the AF got it right in those instances. I’m sure some sniveling whiners bitched about their success out of jealousy, but bitches gonna bitch- always.

Also, ma Robinson is an ABM for fvcks sake.

[xaarman]

7 hours ago, Bender said:

[quote post="437079" timestamp="1514202387" name="xaarman" userid="
I was at a UPT base and resumed flying 4-5x a week.


Pfft...thanks for the help. My "additional duties" are beyond stupid and I still fly 4-5 for them.

What the were you doing all day?

Bendy

What plane?

 

Edited December 26, 2017 by xaarman

[flyusaf83]

From Gen Robinson’s bio:

She has “more than 900” hours in the E-3 and the E-8.

I’m an E-3 pilot.  For an ABM, 900 hours is about 2 years of flying the line in the E-3.  She has been in the AF for 35 years.  She also has zero air medals and zero combat hours. I know 1Lt ABMs with a more impressive flying resume than that.

Lots of staff, school, and command though.  She was put on this path long ago, before she flew much.  Makes you wonder about how we develop our senior managers.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/108119/general-lori-j-robinson/

[sqwatch]

What plane?

 

The plane responsible for this sleepless night in the alert shack on Christmas Day- vipers

[sqwatch]

From Gen Robinson’s bio:
She has “more than 900” hours in the E-3 and the E-8.
I’m an E-3 pilot.  For an ABM, 900 hours is about 2 years of flying the line in the E-3.  She has been in the AF for 35 years.  She also has zero air medals and zero combat hours. I know 1Lt ABMs with a more impressive flying resume than that.
Lots of staff, school, and command though.  She was put on this path long ago, before she flew much.  Makes you wonder about how we develop our senior managers.
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/108119/general-lori-j-robinson/

Nah, I don’t wonder. She did well under the last administration and I can only assume given her success that she did pretty well. I have a biased opinion that someone who is responsible for the air strategy in the pacific should be a warrior, but WGAF what I think. If I wanted my opinion to matter, I should have done better in SOS. chucking Spears at someone for not having combat time seems lame. Luck and timing got me mine.

However, I do wonder about navs (or ABMs) who don’t wear glasses- I heard somewhere that they’re not to be trusted.

[Clark Griswold]

8 hours ago, dream big said:

Breadth is not always a good thing, in fact most here would be very hesitant to agree to this “cross-pollination” of sorts.  Phoenix Mobility in AMC (where airlift guys fly tankers and vice versa) has been a disaster.  Both the airlift and tanker communities have ended up with careerist toads who have no idea what they are doing.  This isn’t to say that knowledge of other career fields isn’t critical as a strategic leader; but the depth and knowledge of being an expert in your career set goes a long way in developing a credible combat leader.  

Another hesitation is the creation of the HPO “high potential officer” caste.  I believe the Air Force has been doing away with this concept, and rightfully so.  For instance, we no longer have school selects.  There is no way of knowing whether someone as a Captain would be a good strategic leader.  The HPO lists, and believe me, they are out there, have created a class of untouchable “rising stars” regardless of performance while ignoring potentially strong leaders that didn’t fit a certain mold.  

True and this career path would not be for everyone.  

If it were CSAF Clark Griswold this program would only be open at the O-4 (selects included) and only based on nomination at the OG/SQ level or possibly by the wisdom of the crowd, allow nominations anonymously of peers that are believed to be the right guy and bypass the filter of the admin/queep/company man filters at various middle levels.

Just to home in on one of your comments and to echo it, a strategic leader.  That's what I am arguing for, a program/policy to only begin the long process of recruiting and developing a strategic leader vs another company man.

[magnetfreezer]

Breadth is not always a good thing, in fact most here would be very hesitant to agree to this “cross-pollination” of sorts.  Phoenix Mobility in AMC (where airlift guys fly tankers and vice versa) has been a disaster.  Both the airlift and tanker communities have ended up with careerist toads who have no idea what they are doing.  This isn’t to say that knowledge of other career fields isn’t critical as a strategic leader; but the depth and knowledge of being an expert in your career set goes a long way in developing a credible combat leader.  
Another hesitation is the creation of the HPO “high potential officer” caste.  I believe the Air Force has been doing away with this concept, and rightfully so.  For instance, we no longer have school selects.  There is no way of knowing whether someone as a Captain would be a good strategic leader.  The HPO lists, and believe me, they are out there, have created a class of untouchable “rising stars” regardless of performance while ignoring potentially strong leaders that didn’t fit a certain mold.  

Good thing AFGSC didn't copy both those initiatives. Phoenix/Striker crossflow also hurts the bleeding instructor manning since (on the Striker side at least) the year groups we send are guys who have been instructors for 1-2 years and get crossflow guys who won't upgrade for that same length of time

[dream big]

11 hours ago, flyusaf83 said:

From Gen Robinson’s bio:

She has “more than 900” hours in the E-3 and the E-8.

I’m an E-3 pilot.  For an ABM, 900 hours is about 2 years of flying the line in the E-3.  She has been in the AF for 35 years.  She also has zero air medals and zero combat hours. I know 1Lt ABMs with a more impressive flying resume than that.

Lots of staff, school, and command though.  She was put on this path long ago, before she flew much.  Makes you wonder about how we develop our senior managers.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/108119/general-lori-j-robinson/

Nailed it.  Look, when I was in PACAF while she was CC, she was very well liked.  I’m not knocking her as a leader and she very well could kick ass as CSAF.  However, when I see her (and many others) with less hours than a mid level Captain, it makes me wonder what their priorities were that helped them get to where they are.  

Anyone who has been a scheduler understands who the “Penguins” are.  They were the folks who would ask to be taken off flights for: masters homework, volunteer work, Air Force ball meetings, etc.  While flying hours don’t translate to strategic leadership; we peons are just untrusting of someone who rose up the ranks without excelling at their primary duty.  After the leadership clown shows from San Antonio to the Died, can you blame us?

[Disco_Nav963]

Along the lines of what BeerMan was saying, hours counts can be misleading when it comes to ABMs since they can do hard time in CRCs and air defense. In her case, she didn't make it to a flying assignment until year 10 of her career. That lasted for two years and not counting episodic flying at the Weapons School (which for ABMs I believe only happens during ME/WSINT) she didn't have another one until she was an OG/CC. Yet she was absolutely in the ops mainstream of her career field for that first decade... Unlike (to make a negative comparison) Gen Klotz, the first AFGSC/CC, who bounced around different fellowships, advanced degree programs, and exec gigs before he made it to a missile squadron.

[dream big]

28 minutes ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

Along the lines of what BeerMan was saying, hours counts can be misleading when it comes to ABMs since they can do hard time in CRCs and air defense. In her case, she didn't make it to a flying assignment until year 10 of her career. That lasted for two years and not counting episodic flying at the Weapons School (which for ABMs I believe only happens during ME/WSINT) she didn't have another one until she was an OG/CC. Yet she was absolutely in the ops mainstream of her career field for that first decade... Unlike (to make a negative comparison) Gen Klotz, the first AFGSC/CC, who bounced around different fellowships, advanced degree programs, and exec gigs before he made it to a missile squadron.

Valid points, I didn’t think of the CRC duty aspect of ABMs.  I apologize for contributing to the thread drift from cyber all the way to whether Robinson is fit to be CSAF! 

[Duck]

I wish we would all get back on topic and reassure Duck that he will in fact be a twice passed over Capt.