Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/25/2017 in all areas

  1. 20 points
    I'll add my two cents (and some more). Soooooo not everyone on this board agrees with Tony Carr's perspective on the USAF - see his editorial on the Thunderbird mishap from last June and (if you know ANYTHING), you'll know that that piece was designed to elicit an emotional response, did nothing to satisfy public curiosity about the event, shed no new light on the event, and was literally the journalistic equivalent of throwing $hit at a wall - in the name of smearing the AF (cause he thinks it's fun, IMO). After that post I was honestly not sure whether or not to take him seriously any more - and I don't. He was a previous safety guy who "had F-16 experience" but yet he wrote it as someone would who lacked a military flying background. His response to my analysis (http://disq.us/p/1ejpsoe) of his editorial was dismissive, and when presented with facts, he avoided the issue. I don't consider him value-added at this point - as I do this message board. I think he's a semi-talented, own-press-reading, bitter, (ret) Lt Col who has nothing better to do with his time than sport bitch on the internet. I think lots of people agree with that sentiment, and while he can sometimes come close the mark, I don't think (in general) he is that interesting any more. On that note, and to your question, I don't think the root cause of the USAF's current crisis has much to do with leadership in a traditional sense, but then again, I was never one who drank the AF koolaid that would have all its officers believe that leadership is the panacea to every and all problems. No, sometimes, people make poor decisions and it's not because they are poor leaders. And sometimes, it doesn't matter who's at the seat, there can be (and are) systemic issues in an organization which have far greater effects. Pinning it all on "toxic leadership" is what someone who is still pissed at a lot of previous superiors does when he is no longer subject to their rule. That said, if you choose to orient yourself in such a way, then I suppose that everything can be boiled down to poor leadership (not toxic), but I think there are more systemic issues as to why the USAF is in its current state, and when viewed in that light, will lead to more fruitful changes. 1. 179s: Look a troop in the eye, and tell them that the reason they're going down range for 179 days (vs 180 or more) has nothing to do with the USAF's policy of granting short-tour credit for deployments of longer length (sts). http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/112915/air-force-normalizes-short-tour-credit-policy/. IMO, there is only one reason such a policy could exist, and it is to screw airmen out of a medal, deployment credit, make it easier for the personnel machine to send them downrange again sooner, or whatever. Justifications along the lines of "well, we will need to be able to deploy them again" do not hold water. All airmen who were getting short-tour credit for 180+ day deployments were playing by the same rules, and were all on the same "list". What shifting a policy did while we were in the middle of a war, was create two groups of people - those who had deployed for >181 and <365 who got credit, and those who did not - that is a ripple in the system, and though it may not have an immediately visible consequence, it certainly has an effect and was unfair to lots of people. So, that's one example of something wrong, which has nothing to do with anyone wearing < 4 stars on their shoulders. But toxic leadership? Maybe, but by only one person - not a culture of it. 2. RIFs/Force-shaping: During my time in the USAF, I "survived" two RRFs (I think, maybe, I can't remember at this point). One occurred shortly after I finished the B-Course. The U-S-A-F sent me, a fighter pilot, paperwork that suggested I may not be retained, literally immediately after I finished soaking up the better part of $5M in training costs/taxpayer money and with nearly 10 years of commitment remaining. IMO, this was done in the name of "social justice" - an example of a policy enacted to make everyone feel like they're on the same page and are all of equal value. Was I actually concerned I was going to be force-shaped? Nope. But this is an example of something that is wrong with the AF at a cultural level. Fixing this would go a long way toward re-orienting the AF in the correct direction, but (I get it) it would cause A LOT of teeth-gnashing with the REMFs, and that is a merge I highly doubt the AF wants to buy - because we MUST be socially just, we absolutely must be (sarcasm). 2a. In 2011, the USAF got rid of 157 Majors who should have been allowed to retire: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/25/military-advocates-decry-illegal-early-terminations-of-157-air-force-majors/ http://nation.time.com/2012/01/03/air-force-firing-for-effect/ This occurred, and then (almost immediately), the USAF sought to be granted TERA (and was given it) in order to "slim down": http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/467816/eligible-officers-enlisted-members-offered-early-retirement/ http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/483997/af-opens-additional-tera-vsp-windows/ http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/467713/af-announces-additional-force-management-programs-to-reduce-force-size/ https://federalnewsradio.com/retirement/2016/01/greg-rinckey-air-force-officers-demand-reinstatement/ Does that not cause one to scratch their head (who said head)? Look a troop in the eye and tell them this is not the apex of hypocrisy and short-sighted decision making. If you ask me, this is an instance of breaking faith with people. And before we cry uncle and say "well we're subject to civilian leadership decisions", I don't remember any stars falling on their swords over that one. GOs should have been resigning up and down the chain over that one. Again, like it or not, when people witness decisions like this, it affects their "matrix" and they then re-evaluate their criteria for staying in the AF for the long haul. What this sequence of decisions made clear was that a member's continued service was arbitrary, and subject to the flavor of the month. That is not going to be good enough for most people who are investing the most valuable years of their working lives towards a successful career, and I think this has had a direct and lasting affect on morale and retention. Again, this is an example of a policy decision that created two classes of people: those who served > 15 years and were not given a retirement, and those who were. 3. Shortly on the pilot bonus: the fact that it hasn't change in what, 20+ years, communicates a lot - if not directly, then indirectly. All the hand-wringing about increased amounts being just around the corner is a little pathetic, and is obviously being done from a reactionary perspective. This should have been addressed YEARS ago, because the Airline hiring wave is NOT a surprise. 4. Focus: This, to me, boils down to what the USAF should be focused on. IMO, it is high-time that "space" and "cyber" became their own separate service (or perhaps services). Much like the USAF growth out of the Army benefited both branches, I think another, modern version of that evolution needs to take place with those two realms so they can get the focus they need, and we can get ours. No, space is NOT a continuation of the "air domain", and neither is cyber. There, I said it. Sure, they abut, but so does the surface of the sea/Earth, with the sky, yet we have different branches dedicated to those domains. IMO the AF is in love with the idea of being a one-sized fits all solution to all problems (or maybe they're addicted to the money, IDK). That last point will lead me to #5. 4a. It was suggested on other message boards that more 11X presence is needed throughout the AF - from staffs, to the FSS. I fully agree with this sentiment, and would happily displace an FSS Maj or Lt Col (while remaining on flying status) and run that shop/unit. Would I be there everyday? Nope, but I wouldn't need to be. See, it's all about policy and setting an expectation. The USAF for far too long has been ceding ever more control to those who don't have to cross a wire. Why is this? Do we really need a finance-trained, specialized Maj/Lt Col to run the finance shop? Really? Does that person even know how to operate DTS or whatever else? And even if they do know how, do they? I highly suspect they fill more of figure-head roll; a leader of those units could easily come from an 11X background and provide actual, bonafied leadership. I would go so far as to say that in order to command anything, you should have to be a rated officer. Yes, this caps non-rated officers - tough shit. Go get wings. 5. This is likely an unpopular opinion on this board, but the biggest mistakes we have recently made (as a nation) have been the strategic errors of invading Iraq in 2003, the "how" of invading Afghanistan in 2001, and then the subsequent withdrawal from Iraq in whenever we actually did it. Bottom line on this one, is that the USAF leadership (at the time) should have thrown down a firm "no" when the Army demanded we play in the conflict for as long as we have, as should have the Navy. Drones and snake eaters? You bet. Multi-million dollar fighter jets, the full capes of the world's greatest AF burning holes in the sky, US Navy billion-dollar aircraft carriers? No way. We have WAY over-extended ourselves in these conflicts and have NOTHING to show for it. Well, except a military full of equipment that is falling apart at a time when we least need it. I fully grasp that we were sent to war by our civilian leadership, but not calling a goat by its name isn't solving the problem. No, AFPAK Hands will not succeed. Not because of lack of awesome people and their concerted and earnest efforts, but because the strategic context of its goal is illogical and nonsensical. No amount of Air University PHD-research-papering will make it so. The point of the military is to kill people and break their shit; not to nation-build before a war is won. Advising people who don't want what we want isn't the answer - if there's one thing I learned from my experiences, combined with the 'cross cultural competency' assigned by ACSC, it's that. The sooner our "leadership" - of whatever flavor and level - wake up and recognize this, the better. We have poured (and continue to pour) far too much in time, resources, blood, and money into an unwinnable situation. We need to get back to defining realistic, measurable goals, by which we can actually measure a 1 or 0, we can start counting those. I would much prefer to hear from our leadership that the new, stated goal in Afghanistan is to never allow a Taliban, or al Qaeda sponsored/sympathetic government to take root - and leave it at that. We're not interested in standing up a government there; we're not interested in building girls' schools there; we're not interested in teaching air advisers how to read the JP 3.09-3. We are interested in shooting Hellfires off of drones at anyone associated with the Taliban or al Qaeda for the next 1000 years - that's it. This section has run on way too long, but to sum up: our current strategy only exists because we misunderstand who and what type of people we are fighting. 6. HPO lists, etc. This category is all about creating "classes" of people. The military has always been a good 'ol boys club, and it always will be. Formalizing it in Excel spread sheets, and choosing people while they are Captains is what has created and perpetuated a perception that it literally doesn't matter what you do if you're not on that list. It is nothing more than playing favorites, and creates an environment that leads people to separate - now there's some "leadership". I ultimately believe that more transparency in the assignment and promotion system will go a long way to correcting a lot of the AF's current problems as well. I could, and might, write more, but until next time, if you haven't read this article, the author hits on some extremely relevant points: https://philipgmorrison.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/its-your-move-the-dilemma-of-incurred-commitment-in-the-modern-job-market/. - ViperMan
  2. 15 points
    Meh, I disagree nsplayer. I enjoyed the show while it lasted. More importantly, I will tell anyone who listens with what is wrong with the Air Force. Some I have solutions for and for others I am at a loss on how to fix. Actually Chang, the persona that you portrayed here, although completely overdone, are the sum total of the sentiments that are causing people to head for the door. What causes disappointment? Unrealized expectations. I think you have to start there. The last 10 or so years have been really tough on the CGOs. We came into the AF after 9-11 being told that the #1 priority of the AF is lethality, yet we are held to a completely different standard of measurement. I was an '08 commissionee from ROTC and worked my butt off to get to UPT, 38s and hopefully to a fighter, just to be told that there was no where for us to go except RPAs and AMC. Big disappointment, but whatever, I press on. Get to my AMC unit and less than a year later I am writing a RRF for my 1st of 2 RIF boards. Meanwhile my fighter brethren (the 30 or so they created in my whole year group) were now considered undermanned. On my 4th deployment, my CC calls me to tell me that he has to get me on the next VML otherwise an RPA may be non-vold must-fill from AFPC. I end up going to T-6 UPT, my dream job at the time. While I am in PIT I face the #2 RIF/VSP of my career, while my 11F brothers (whoever is left) are now critically manned. I get sat down by my T-6 SQ/CC and told that although my record is outstanding, my career field (11M) is 175% manned and I haven't even completed PIT yet, so prepare for the worst/hope for the best. Also, we are cutting for the next 5 years. I go out and get my dream job, and apply for Palace Chase only to be denied because now even though my career field is still overmanned, the AF as a whole is short on pilots. Me, I still keep kicking @ss, pulling down #1 Sq/OG strats and moving my way up in the Sq. Get tasked with a 6 month non-flying deployment to some $hithole to be underemployed and a job that would have actually been better to have been CONUS doing (timezone differences). Somewhere in there my family (wife+kids) made up their mind that we were done getting jerked around, so I have been making my way to the door ever since. After 10 years of stellar service, 5 deployments, missing years of my kids lives, I get called a quitter and told that I have no future in my Sq. I could write a lot more, but I just don't care to relive it anymore. I hate the fact that the AF made me fall out of love with something that I fought so hard to be apart of. I have seen this organization change in just the 10 years I've been in and it is unrecognizable. I sincerely want the AF to get better and be better, so let me know if you have any questions. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums
  3. 5 points
    Don't waste your time on Chang...now, for something more entertaining. FLBP Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums
  4. 3 points
    Quote for posterity. My younger self would have never believed that to be possible.
  5. 2 points
    Why don't you guys come down to Miramar? We have plenty of ramp space...
  6. 2 points
    God bless HPOs! I literally didn't do anything my last year in the AF. Every time I was asked to do something, I would say "I can't help you, but I'm sure Capt HPO can help". They will get the credit either way, might as well let them do the work. On a side note, after being pushed around by scheduling, marveling at the ineptitude of my union, or sitting through a painful red-eye, I come back here and realize just how much better my life is now. I am thankful.
  7. 2 points
    God bless Katy Perry
  8. 2 points
    Liquid is a credible SOF GO who has asked that his privacy be respected to enable candor. I wish he posted more.
  9. 2 points
    You have no credibility here to ask serious questions and receive serious responses. Your trolling is A+, but the downside of all those grins is that no one takes you seriously, nor should they. I highly encourage everyone else to either move along or make this thread a new chive image repository for morale purposes. To Chang: re-cage your attitude and approach, delete your account, GFY and have a great Air Force day.
  10. 2 points
    When you guys lose your shit over a troll, it makes me think you are retards. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  11. 2 points
  12. 2 points
    Vampires can't see their own reflection in a mirror.
  13. 1 point
    It's been around for a few years. They talk about ending it, and then it keeps going... the information you'll get depends on who your recruiter is. If yours is saying it's not happening anymore, call another one and ask. Each recruiter runs their little area of the country and not all have the desire (or ability) to stay up on everything that is going on in AFRC. As for the unsponsored track itself, basically, AFRC acts as your hiring agency. They foot the bill for your FC1 and they'll go ahead and assign you OTS/TFOT dates, even though you don't have a unit inside of AFRC who has sponsored you yet. For the sake of this description, a unit doesn't "hire" you. They sponsor you. Basically they go to AFRC and say "I want this guy/gal", hence... sponsorship. So, the gig with unsponsored is that you've got from now until the day you start UPT to find a home inside of AFRC. If you don't have one by drop night? They'll place you "at the needs of the Air Force Reserve". Which, if you run the numbers... is like 95% other-than-fighters. Again, if you want to roll the dice or simply don't care? It's an awesome program that quite honestly can't be beat. But if you're chasing an airframe or location in particular? Playing with fire. At least in my opinion.
  14. 1 point
    Just got an e-mail with an interview invite from the 101ARW (Bangor, ME). Looks like there will an interview session next weekend and then another one sometime after that for people with scheduling conflicts.
  15. 1 point
  16. 1 point
    I did. We're supposed to find out tonight or tomorrow morning who made it to the in-person interviews.
  17. 1 point
    He's not against helping the US on the ground. If the Army is in an unsustainable position, though, grinding air resources at the problem without clear, achievable, measurable objectives merely keeps those soldiers in the same position longer vs realigning objectives (we are generally better at surgical excision of terrorist structures vs whole scale nation building)
  18. 1 point
    You guys realize there's nothing inherently SOF about a plane right?
  19. 1 point
    D: All of the above Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums
  20. 1 point
    Simple Jack. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  21. 1 point
    Forrest Gump, Ernest Goes to Camp, or Sling Blade retarded?
  22. 1 point
    But...but who is going to tell the Wing King that his MPF sucks, especially as a bag wearer? "There we go zipper suited sun gods being mean to the ABU wearers again. Everyone wears ABUs when not actively flying and mandatory Friday fun runs to build morale"...there's 95% historical precedence for that..
  23. 1 point
    It's only a matter of time before the service does something to "screw" someone over, even O-6s.. A wise Commander once told me, "you can only ask for people to chose either their family or the Air Force so many times before the Air Force loses" Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums
  24. 1 point
    My info is a year or so old... But it's correct. I called every fighter unit in the Reserves and I talked to some awesome pilots while I was looking at the Reserves and none of those units were hiring. The B-52 unit in Barksdale was an exception apparently, as my recruiter said they were hiring at some point. Most units told me straight-up that they don't hire off the street, only prior-service. If you want to tread that Reserve path, I'd recommend finding the Officer Accessions Recruiter (OAR) near the units you're talking about. In my case, I wasn't near any and my recruiter didn't have any contact info for them. I called the OAR covering Utah for instance... and he was able to give me contact info for the Fighter unit there. Same for TX, etc. The only fighter unit that has hired off the street was the A-10s at Whiteman/Moody. They posted an opening last year or so on guardreservejobs.com. Don't fall into the unsponsored nonsense. If you just want to fly heavies in the Reserves and don't care where? It's a hell of a program. Those of us chasing pointy jets? Nope.
  25. 1 point
    That was like some epic level trolling. He carried it on for well over a year. Bravo Chang! Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums
  26. 1 point
    My money is on a pilot trolling everyone.
  27. -1 points
    Ok guys, serious post for once (yeah, shut-up haters; you loved it the past couple of years). Tony recently published an article on his site about dealing with toxic leaders to fix the Air Force. I look around my aviation community (remaining unnamed to protect the guilty), and I just don't see it. Guess I'm either lucky, clueless, or one of the culprits (again, shut up haters. Actually trying to be serious here). Who's in a community out there that actually breeds multiple toxic leaders? Is there a root cause or is it a conglomeration of problems? Is your community on the upswing or trending downward? Conversely, who is in a community with leadership that really "gets it" from Sq CCs on up? What are they doing right to sustain the greatness of your aviation community? Really think about these answers. They could make a difference.
  28. -2 points
    UPT is toxic. It's full of guys who were "screwed over" in their previous community. Now they are mentoring all the young folks on why the Air Force sucks. Sounds like a great recipe.
×