Jump to content
Baseops Forums


Supreme User
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Chuck17 last won the day on January 13

Chuck17 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

280 Excellent

About Chuck17

  • Rank
    Gray Beard

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Close to home...

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Great example of how draft NDAA language (pre-markup, void of concurrence of the services) can get leaked and grow a narrative of its own. WTF does that mean? It means they’re drafting the next budget and someone slipped this in. That’s it. While not discounting the need, this isn’t a done deal. In fact, the official AF position as sent back to Congress surprisingly differs in many ways from the fanboy cherry-picking of information in the article. This one has to bake some more... Chuck
  2. Generally BPZ w/DP select rates hover between 25-33%. Have DGs? Been a DO (for BPZ to LtCol)? WIC? School in-res? SAASS? Been an Exec/ADC for a three star or higher? OTY Award wins at Wing or AF level? Does your PRF have a strat in the bottom line? Is it signed by a GO? — chances trend higher with those markers. (FWIW I recently saw the PRF of the CJCS’s Exec for BPZ to Col... had a DP from the Chairman and didn’t get picked up early - so it’s not ALL about recent performance or who signed your report - the record has to be there and consistent - but it helps) If not, then have a realistic expectation for your DP and we will see you IPZ. Chuck
  3. Tons of maneuver room, but I don’t think this is going to end well. Delays, cutbacks, more delays, goldplate until its unaffordable — Tried and true Pentagon tactics. We missed the window to get this thing made. The LAA might show up in AFSOC but that’ll be the extent. This thing is still on the books for one reason: John McCain. Big blue woulda killed it long ago if it coulda. It has nothing to do with mission, and everything to do with money and politics. And cuts are coming — when we start moving money around to dry out and repair Offutt, and/or once the decision is made to “warm status” Tyndall - ala Homestead... even faster if we have to cut flying hours to pay for border wall construction. All options are on the table at this point. It’s going to be a bumpy year. Not sure LAA has much altitude or airspeed left. Chuck
  4. TTX for this is going on now at Randolph. Expect table slap at Fall Corona if it all goes well. The Army’s figured it out, can’t be that hard. Also two line PRFs. #execLove Chuck
  5. Youre going to have to explain what you mean by “direct effects.” If I take an 29 ship of C-17s loaded with a brigade from the 82d, wrap them in a gorilla package of SEAD/Strike/CAS/ISR, and send them north of the DMZ to seize an airfield, that has “direct effects” on the enemy. They teach that at the WIC... Or do you mean “weapons effects” when you say “direct effects”? If so, I’d say that limiting the WIC education to the employment of guns/bombs/missiles/radars is a Blue-4 level of understanding of the employment of airpower. The WIC is not about that (beyond Core One/Two academics...) it’s way more. Your post is littered with double speak and lack of understanding of not only what the Weapons School teaches and produces but of the operational-level employment of American airpower. But it takes time and experience to comprehend how much one doesn’t know, especially about other MWS’s, employment, tactics, etc. and I’m far from an authority... Just trying to give you a view of what the WIC sees - take it or leave it. It’s already been said - the WIC isn’t all about weapons employment. If the name is all that matters to you, I don’t really know what to tell you and you certainly don’t want to hear it from me. Chuck
  6. You’re gonna have to explain what you mean by “political posturing” brother. Your post says having experts is good, having schools is good, but you’re hung up on the “Weapons” piece of it? Then you loop in the quip about ISR... and it tells me you don’t know what youre taking about. And there’s no argument. The really interesting one is cyber. Those guys can have devastating effects... does what they employ classify as a weapon? Should they have a Weapons School? You’ll be hard pressed to find a warfighting commander willing to go to war without them... As a commander I want to be able to have go to guys there when the shit hits the fan. I can look at the squadron/AOC/Staff, see the patches and universally across the USAF it’s understood what the patch means, what those guys do, what those guys know. From personal experience, when ops were being planned and despite the expertise in the squadron, I pulled in the patches first and everyone else second. Thats all we are talking about, and it’s the only piece about going to the WIC that matters. Getting hung up on the “Weapons” piece of Weapons School is missing the forest for the first tree seen. Chuck
  7. Ignorance is bliss. As for the rest... feel free to PM me, happy to pass the elevator speech on why having people in all communities who are experts in their MWS - as well as know a thing or two about how everyone does their job to support and integrate their MWS - is an Air Power force multiplier for the USAF. If you don’t think that’s a good idea, yeah, I’d say you’re stupid. I’ll even back it up with historical examples of ops where fighter and bomber guys tried to plan mobility operations and fucked it all up... because “it’s just moving cargo / dropping paratroopers / air refueling.” (AKA “admin”, so how hard can it be, right??) And... for the record, there was a separate Air Mobility Weapons School run outta the Expeditionary Center at McGuire. Gen Jumper - a fighter pilot - closed it and rolled it into the WIC in the mid 2000’s. Chuck
  8. And the very worst people I’ve worked for have been crossflow dudes. The point? As was said, Heuristics are bullshit; judge the individual. *break break* ... and curtail the Phoenix Reach program. You want to fix shit in AMC then stop the fixation on guys who know little about a lot, and start building expertise. While there’s value in having SOME breadth, save the generalism for the generals. AMCs obsession with breadth baffles me (and pretty much everyone outside AMC). I’ve watched guys my entire career pursue “broadening” over expertise - and actually tout how little they know about how many things as some kinda strength... THAT is bullshit (and there are more than a few nauseating general officers out there spewing the same nonsense). Truly oblivious and out of their depth... When the balloon goes up you don’t call in the generalists. Chuck
  9. Minor point/Quibbling: Or until you make LtCol at which point a DOS is established automatically at the 28 year point. Chuck
  10. No coincidence that it happened right after Corona and following LtGen Grosso’s departure from A1... Hopefully the uptick continues. Chuck
  11. You don’t actually expect the AF to not screw this up do you...? That said, I’ll ask my contact in the 1 if they’ve considered that timeline in the guidance rollout. Likely not. Change is slow. Chuck
  12. The alternative? Nothing changes, commanders don’t rack and stack, and that everyone gets promoted? Serious question. I’ll tell you as a Sq/CC I spent more time taking care of people on reports than was required. But yeah there was a rack n stack and it didn’t always end up fair in my opinion. I don’t think there can be any other way as things stand. I also don’t think we do it right... but if you don’t change the way EVERYONE does it then doing it right doesn’t matter because you screw your people. (I.e. The only way the Enlisted force got away from firewall fives was to change the entire system) The above-center-below rating system will require some caveat I’d think, some that the Army and USMC have stipulated in varying degrees. First, all reports for each rank close on the same date (common reporting period) - although this will drive its own issues as there’s a huge difference between new guy captain wingman and old guy star on his wings WIC instructor pilot / mission commander. Second, that there is zero access to the individuals previous reports - what you did during the period of report is all that counts - no halo effect, “this guy was great last year” or “this guy was lousy last year” bias. (This, as has been identified, presents its own challenges and there’s questions of realistic expectations too). I’d say these changes have a lot of growing up to do before they are ready for prime time, so don’t hold your breath - my guess is two or three years before we see movement, though A1 states otherwise. As to the PRF, Id think the recognition that all the work put into those things is wasted is a good thing. I’d expect that change almost immediately. There’s a lot of unanswered questions, but less meaningless work is a good development. Edit: one additional I need to add after looking at my notes. Allegedly, the LAF category at promotion boards is going to be split. Pilots will compete against pilots and so on... Caveat: I’d expect quotas (i.e. ceiling to number of promotions per year) to follow in trail. So aircrew got what they wanted (a good thing, I think), now we will see how long it takes for us to start bitching about it... Chuck edited: to add the bit about promotion boards
  13. Understood. It's also a retirement ceremony and can be as much or as little as required wrt the presentations -- the retiree still gets all the paperwork from the current Prez. The So What is that it ain't about YOU (as the commander), it's about the retiree. This particular commander saw something that wasn't there, and ultimately got relieved for his reaction to it. It's a pattern... Better CYA than push the envelope - even in perception. It's pathetic - indicative of a guy focused more on the queep and looking good (similar to accosting people for walking across the grass - zing!) than shit that actually matters. Chuck
  14. Rumor out of Corona is this was discussed in detail and ADSCs for advanced flying training are going away as a result. Not sure on the timeline, but AFPC has for implementation. Logic: atrocious numbers of dudes balking at upgrade over the three year ADSC requirement, and most of them are or are going to be under an ADSC for PCS anyway, so why are they being forced to sign paperwork that's ultimately hurting combat readiness ? We shall see I guess.... Chuck
  • Create New...