Jump to content
Baseops Forums

Chuck17

Supreme User
  • Content Count

    642
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Chuck17 last won the day on March 20

Chuck17 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

328 Excellent

About Chuck17

  • Rank
    Gray Beard

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Close to home...

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. To be fair, this has been corrected in the AFI. There is definitely a nuance to the report language however. Here’s the guidelines I’ve been given (from an O-9) and what I’ve been using ever since: 1. NEVER strat anyone “top 10% of xxx” - put a number on it. 2. Typically strat only the top 10-15% of your folks. 3. Dont strat as FGOs or CGOs - strats rate folks against groups of Peer rank (xx of xx LtCols, Captains), Peer Job (x of xx Flt/CCs), Peer specialty (x of xx IPs) - in that tiered order of preference. 4. Exception: If you don’t get stratted against the other Sq/CCs when you’re a Sq/CC - you’re not in the running. Put another way: if you have a report as a Sq/CC that strats you as a LtCol instead of a Sq/CC... especially in your second year of command... then you’re not in the top - even if you’re the #1 LtCol as a 2nd year Sq/CC, that’s a second tier strat and it sends a message. 5. Push lines - they include Job, School, Staff/Command (whichever is next). You cannot push Sq/CCs as Wing/CCs - but you can push them as Vice/Group CCs (i.e. the next step). 6. Other than a top strat, Ownership - as in “personal-note on the OPR-style-wording” is the best possible message relayed on an OPR. If your senior rater says “My x/xx Captains” that’s good. If they rewrite a top or bottom line to say: “Read carefully: the most talent, maturity, and leadership I’ve seen in a Major in 28 years: a must for Sq/CC, then JS & SDE” - that draws attention. 7. GOs know when there’s speeding on OPRs or PRFs. If they see it, they’ll call the speeder out on it - or they will disregard the records that individual pushed to the board. I’ve seen both happen (epic asschewing!) and it doesn’t work out well. So you if you know what to look for, you‘ll know where you stand. Some dudes have flat out amazing records - theyve DGd everything, did the WIC, always been number 1, went to IDE, etc etc. Theyre unicorns. The vast majority have records that build... You get to a base, turn a few heads, the next year you upgrade, get a strat, maybe get a group job, then get a wing strat, etc etc. Almost nobody shows up and starts pulling #1s out the gate. They instead build a record of performance and a reliable reputation. Guess which cohort the vast majority of the GOs come from? Unicorns burn out; they rarely stay. The service is run by high performing dudes who were always in the running but not quite preordained as the next CSAF. Anyone who says otherwise hasn’t seen their records. YMMV, but there’s a method to the madness. Chuck
  2. Shack. But, but, but... distributed operations! MICAP! Landing on dirt strips and beaches and highways! Pit n Go sorties galore for our four ship of F-35s launching out of some wide spot in the road! How will we get them gas, ammo, parts If we don’t have this capability, etc!? If we don’t have/own/operate/control this platform and OPCON we’ll lose against the (insert scary ultra-capable near peer military force and/or next shithole militia dudes on motorbikes with SA-7s and AKs here) ! Always entertaining what comes out ACC/AFSOC/Army when it comes to this topic - if they could just get the funding and pilots to fly them. Airlift is no different than any other airpower asset - high demand, low density. Every air/ground commander doesn’t need their own, every TF doesn’t need their own; prevalence for misuse is high. For the niche, it works; on the whole, not so much... This one won’t get solved by big blue. USAF will leave airlift to the airlifters instead of dreaming up ways everyone can get their own perfectly tailored airlift support. Chuck
  3. The CNO is considering it because the POTUS is considering it. The guy can tell which way the wind is blowing, and knows this POTUS gives not one shit about interventions from his seat down to that level, especially in the Navy - already been demonstrated. Chuck
  4. We’re working on it.... There won’t be a sea change overnight. The change will be generational. It’s a guerrilla war ongoing inside the MAF. Takes longer than you’d expect and there’s a lot of resistance - mostly by senior level and GS management. There’s also a significant portion of most MAF communities who want to do nothing more than ILS to a full stop and pad airline applications. Malaise can be contagious, especially when the economy is good. Furthermore you have a significant portion of Star-wearing leadership (And this their minions as well) which values EXPOSURE over EXPERTISE. Note I didn’t say ‘experience’ over expertise. In the MAF they want you exposed to all things MAF - mile wide and inch deep. They don’t care at all about big Air Force things or the application and control of Air Power as an integrated warfighting force, or expertise in employment. Just do MAF things and you’ll lead one day. Expertise is not valued as much as “MAF-exposure.“ The problem with that logic is that the CAF runs the Air Force. Literally the language of the service is that of the CAF. The vast majority of wings are CAF wings. The vast majority of GOs are CAF GOs. In the CAF when you show up in a new community, they wonder WTF is wrong with you that you got voted off the island. In the MAF if you become an expert, they scoff you for “only knowing one mission set.” It’s bizarre. The MAF scoffed the CAF for years, only wanting to build their mobility empire in the cornfields of southern Illinois, but the reckoning is coming... There’s a whole new service out there looking for another four-star, and there’s a lot of the staff function at both ACC and AMC getting gobbled up by the Air Staff... The MAFs lack of integration with the rest of the USAF will be its demise if we aren’t careful. That’s what many of us are working to fix, though that work and the results are seen by some as “un-MAF-like” endeavors.... Brought to you by your friendly (old) neighborhood Weapons Officer. Now... Get off my lawn, this grass is delicious. Chuck
  5. This kinda thing is all that collection of oxygen thieves is good for. Chuck
  6. This, along with uniforms and the logo, are the main things being talked about outside the USSF launch team, actually. (Not even joking. If you can’t do something impactful, better do something visible...). So far the lead contenders are “Vangaurds”, and “Sentinels”. Sounds a bit space-adventurey/2001-ish if you ask me. Im surprised they aren’t considering other options... Chuck
  7. IPZ only, starting with the (now May scheduled) O5 board.... no more BPZ. And the Five year window (Once in place) starts on your fragged IPZ as well. These are big changes for the better for the service. Maybe we will gain some credibility in the joint world... They are So big In fact that the way I heard it was the “Senior Statesmen” (retired four stars) started lobbying the CSAF to slow or reverse the train... because, by god the promotion system (which hadn’t changed this substantially since 1986) worked for them. They were told their input was welcome and appreciated, but the train has left the station (AKA decision-made...). Chuck
  8. I guess .... I don’t really know what your buddy expected her to do about it? I’d expect my boss to tell me to “figure it out” too... You’ll find that GOs rarely, if ever, have answers - let alone the power (Or intestinal fortitude) to sweep away problems all by themselves. They want solutions, on a platter. They’re so busy they only have time to process and decide, they don’t do the work, fix the thing, write the email, etc. The staffs do. GOs endorse, present, champion, award, coord on, etc etc. Asking for engagement better benefit the organization (or them) somehow, or it’ll die on the vine. I'm not being critical - I’m trying to highlight how you work the bureaucracy for your own interest. Im also not endorsing this particular GOs actions... simply telling it how it is. Chuck
  9. Of course it can - and, as I originally posted, the info I have is it’s going to a five year window. Don’t care if you want to shoot holes in that information brother, do what you like. All I’m passing is that’s the brief I saw. Take it or leave it. Chuck
  10. No... keep going. ‘‘(d) LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES SPECIFIED.— The number of opportunities for consideration for promotion to be afforded officers of an armed force within a competitive category for promotion to a particular grade, as specified or modified pursu- ant to any provision of this section, may not exceed five opportunities.“ Chuck
  11. Source on the change to the five year window? It's in the NDAA. Read for yourself: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr5515/BILLS-115hr5515enr.pdf go to section 507 subsection 649d. As to the rest, I'll leave it at "very important meeting slides." The products of the system by and large DO think it works, because it produced them (we had that conversation with one of them who was adamant there was nothing wrong with it). Yet the CSAF also sees how many people have been relieved of squadron, group, and wing command under his tenure. That's part of the logic. Something is not working... now theres a way to make a small change, hopefully for the better. Strats won't go away - they'll always be there in some form. Large organizations love easy to digest quantification of potential and performance. Nature of the beast... Change is hard, slow, messy and can only be driven by failure or strong (authoritative... bold...) leadership. We have an outgoing CSAF who wants to lead and leave a legacy, and a new SecAF with an open mind. The timing works... short of a crisis, only strong leadership will suffice. Chuck
  12. Should be changed (kinda) by the end of next year - promotion window will go to a five year block. That's right five looks where you are eligible, no more BPZ, IPZ, APZ. CSAFs main hangup is going to the five year look vs killing BTZ altogether (USMC) vs limiting BTZ to one each per grade for O5/O6 (Army). Time will tell how it falls out, but my gut is he will push toward using what the law authorizes for the service secretaries to use (five year window). The info backing up he change is pretty amazing - we don't retain BTZ superstars at anywhere near the rate we retain on time dudes... so the data is showing we invest lots of time, money, leadership opportunity in these folks, and they bounce by the 25 year point. Which makes sense considering when the old "pole year" was - if they don't make GO, they retire... so we end up pushing people and weeding out other potential leaders to end up holding an empty bag when the shiney pennies retire... thereby calling into question the entire logic of how we position and choose leaders. ...You get promoted earlier, you get more opportunities... Either way, the 'BTZ' tag will be removed from SURFs/records. You'll just be promoted earlier should that be the case. The end result will likely not change much, but there won't be a moniker hanging on anyone's record. Chuck
  13. Bold prediction: Once the GOs return from CORONA, this program will die a quiet death... The E-pilots will be offered officer commissions or retraining, and Congress will get told how unsustainable an idea this was. Chuck
  14. WOW. Normally responses are somewhat bell curving with a vocal minority dominating the comments, both good and bad. No wonder this guy got canned (results are required to be briefed up the chain). This report is astounding. Chuck
  15. Okay.... Im saying there will be an end of August bump based on the list going public, no comment on the quality of dudes - going merely a comment on the data. Chuck
×
×
  • Create New...