Jump to content

What's wrong with the Air Force?


Catbox

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jaded said:

Fair enough. I guess I've just seen a lot more of group commanders sitting in meeting after useless meeting, and not a lot of ordering troops to their death.

100% agree.  I get more inspiration out of watching a TedTalk on youtube than I do listening to the same old, tired rhetoric of a kool-aid spewing O-6/above.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, guineapigfury said:

Let's take people with zero miltary experience and start them as Group Commanders, what could possibly go wrong?  There is a much better fix mentioned in the article: filling these hard to fill spots with GS personnel.  That solves the pay issue and mitigates the lack of military experience by keeping them out of uniform.

Weird...plenty of companies can succeed by hiring CEOs from outside the company, or even outside the industry, but there's no way the military can possibly make it work...

Doesn't this also neatly circumvent the problem of the box-checking, risk-averse micro-managers getting picked up for these command slots?  Might be nice to have some folks willing to take a risk because 1. they don't have 20+ years already invested and 2. they have a cushy fall-back position if they fail.  We constantly piss and moan about the wrong people being placed in leadership positions, due to the incentives the Air Force puts into place.  Is it so outlandish to think that people who have not been subjected to the same incentives their entire careers may come up with different solutions?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would aggravate the problem of risk aversion.  If you start hiring CCs off the street you're reducing the number of slots for career officers.  Now they're squabbling over an ever shrinking piece of the pie.  The rational response is to micromanage your people so nothing ever goes wrong on your watch.  Why develop your people, we'll just hire leaders from Facebook.  YGBFSM.  If you want to see how this concept would work out, look at the nonstop clown orgy that is the MQ-9 community.  Good people flying the line with little to no hope of career advancement led by shiny penny outsiders without relevant experience ... it's going as well as the retention numbers indicate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are reducing the number of slots for career officers, but opening up those slots to officers who say, served for 6 years, got out, got an advanced degree, worked in the civilian world for a while, and who want to serve in the military again. That potentially actually reduces pressure on officers at all levels, because a single bad promotion board doesn't end your career (since you could get out and back in again.)

I don't really think that the MQ-9 community is a very good example. It's a horrible train wreck of a disaster for so many reasons that simply blaming it on outsiders really paints an incomplete picture IMO.

It would be cool to have more commanders who simply wanted that job, rather than see it as a stepping stone to the next job.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think letting people come back in from civilian life to take what maybe the single most important job in the USAF (SQ/CC) would breed enormous resentment.  If we want people to gain experience and come back, we should expand the sabbatical program.  If the sabbatical becomes normalized and valid path for high performers to take (analogous to a school slot), I have no objection.  If that took the form of going in residence to a top notch civilian school to get a relevant degree, that could be an amazing benefit for the Air Force.  However, I'm not sure that separating and reentering would or should give people any extra looks at promotion other than slipping a couple yeargroups to the right.

You're right that MQ-9s are dysfunctional for a multitude of reasons, but outsider leadership is one of the very few variables we can actually control.  RPA commanders of any sort should have to be 11Us or 18Xs with at least 1000 RPA hours.  Also, to the max extent possible they need to have some blood on their hands (N/A for Global Hawks).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, guineapigfury said:

I think letting people come back in from civilian life to take what maybe the single most important job in the USAF (SQ/CC) would breed enormous resentment.  If we want people to gain experience and come back, we should expand the sabbatical program.  If the sabbatical becomes normalized and valid path for high performers to take (analogous to a school slot), I have no objection.  If that took the form of going in residence to a top notch civilian school to get a relevant degree, that could be an amazing benefit for the Air Force.  However, I'm not sure that separating and reentering would or should give people any extra looks at promotion other than slipping a couple yeargroups to the right.

You're right that MQ-9s are dysfunctional for a multitude of reasons, but outsider leadership is one of the very few variables we can actually control.  RPA commanders of any sort should have to be 11Us or 18Xs with at least 1000 RPA hours.  Also, to the max extent possible they need to have some blood on their hands (N/A for Global Hawks).

"2"

By hiring from the outside you will create resentment, especially from the guy who was right there ready to take over and then didn't get the job.  I know that might not be bad but I think the resentment and back biting that would occur would undercut the "O-6 wonderboy" from the civilian world.  Either way I also think credibility would be an issue.  The first misstep or not knowing what ### acronym means would surely create a lack of trust and confidence in the leader who was already at a disadvantage.  I can't imagine how many people would be talking about their O-6 who just isn't "one of them" or who "just doesn't get it" because they came from the civilian world.  

Overall this is a really bad idea.  

I think the key to fixing the leadership problems is making leaders based off of credibility, i.e. job performance in their primary duty and demonstrated integrity and leadership ability.  NOT automatically choosing the IDE in-res grad who has been away from the jet for the last 3-4 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually really like the idea of the sabbatical program.  LIkewise, being able to leave active duty and move the the reserve and back again.

I think the biggest thing is killing the golden path, early or on-time, up or out system.  

Then again, O-6 pay is shit compared to what a comparable job pays working for Lockheed

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad that someone is interested in change that is sorely needed (pension reform, the end of "up or out", fighting the idea of only one ideal career path, ease of movement between active & reserve status, etc...) but I don't think this (direct lateral entry at O-6 level) could happen except in some limited career fields (some cyber, medical, legal, maybe some intel, etc..) but in terms of operations (kinetic but also direct support to kinetic capability missions) I think that is a disaster waiting to happen.  

It has an odor of desperation to it, not a strong one but I can smell it.  Our institutional culture is sick and therefore we have to call in true outsiders, insert them directly into senior rank structure and hope that somehow their talent is universal and that will fix it, just seems like naive hope and that is not a COA.

The real solution is to "fix the glitch" and that glitch is a huge swath of officers and senior NCOs that have little operational experience / perspective / concern but high administrative focus & authority.  I realize that there are lots of other parts of the AF that are not operations and they are important, important that they support and not hinder operations.  One way they hinder operations is by growing excessive amounts of leadership in their fields which will give them an outsized influence in the policy and strategy of the AF as an institution.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

The real solution is to "fix the glitch" and that glitch is a huge swath of officers and senior NCOs that have little operational experience / perspective / concern but high administrative focus & authority.  I realize that there are lots of other parts of the AF that are not operations and they are important, important that they support and not hinder operations.  One way they hinder operations is by growing excessive amounts of leadership in their fields which will give them an outsized influence in the policy and strategy of the AF as an institution.  

For some institutional change, perhaps start with AFIs.  Cut/chop/eliminate.  Some have plenty of useful guidelines like an MEL, some are used as ammo against one another.  For example, the uniform AFI can change to, "Wear a uniform.  Here are the ones we have."  Take away the shoe ammo.

Lower the waiver level of all AFIs after they've been chopped of the stupidness.  Why the fuck a multi-star general is listed as the waiver level of so much stupid shit is well beyond me. Again, removing shoe ammo.

That's all for now.

Out

  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

For some institutional change, perhaps start with AFIs.  Cut/chop/eliminate.  Some have plenty of useful guidelines like an MEL, some are used as ammo against one another.  For example, the uniform AFI can change to, "Wear a uniform.  Here are the ones we have."  Take away the shoe ammo.

Lower the waiver level of all AFIs after they've been chopped of the stupidness.  Why the fuck a multi-star general is listed as the waiver level of so much stupid shit is well beyond me. Again, removing shoe ammo.

That's all for now.

Out

amen.gif

Not a bad place to start.  Cut, clarify and simplify to prevent the Shoe Clerk game of obscure rule making / quoting when they find it convenient to prevent the use of common sense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2016 at 7:31 AM, disgruntledemployee said:

For some institutional change, perhaps start with AFIs.  Cut/chop/eliminate.  Some have plenty of useful guidelines like an MEL, some are used as ammo against one another.  For example, the uniform AFI can change to, "Wear a uniform.  Here are the ones we have."  Take away the shoe ammo.

Lower the waiver level of all AFIs after they've been chopped of the stupidness.  Why the fuck a multi-star general is listed as the waiver level of so much stupid shit is well beyond me. Again, removing shoe ammo.

That's all for now.

Out

When Gen Creech took over what was TACC at the time, he directed his staff to scrap at least half of the AFIs.  He believed the AFIs were stifling innovation and creative problem-solving.  Whenever one of his staff would protest, Gen Creech would tell them that he had faith in the judgement of his subordinate commanders.

See, I did learn something useful from the online ACSC.

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking hard about this one.  Every way I look at it, I don't see how having civilians cross in at the O6 or higher-level is going to translate to meaningful change for Cyber.  

I've got Cyber O6's that I know now agitating for meaningful changes: real mission assurance, real network advancements, etc.  They can't get it done and they've been in the system the whole time!  What's some civilian with no history, contacts and context going to bring?  Dear Lord.. if he/she starts on staff without ever having supported an operational mission... the hate we get now will only be magnified because the leader only isn't in touch... they've NEVER been in touch.

We aren't like civilian companies where we can dump one vendor for another.  We're beholden to DISA for services.  We're beholden to our MAJCOM/NAF for mission requirements.  We're beholden to AFSPC/24AF for "cyber mission requirements."  Finally we're beholden to the IMSC for... something.

Couple the serious mission challenges to the promotion and "up-or-out" and you're going to demoralize the cyber force.  We've already got enough problems with not having a career cyber person in cyber leadership.  Now you're going to shift some of these few O6 slots to civilians coming in?  How exactly am I supposed to believe there's any credibility at all with AF Cyber Leadership if this happens?  It's already difficult enough as it is and I've been told very good things about the folks in charge.

Finally I don't know many "cyber leadership" civilians who could do well on our PT systems.

Hire civilians as non-line tech advisers, increase the industry internship opportunities, allow more sabbaticals, develop/promote Technical MS programs (AFIT doesn't count), provide mid-level (vs high-level) cyber leadership/operations training (less demanding CNODP/Cyber WIC) and get some damn career cyber leadership visible to the force.

 

I will note none of these even start to address the problem with current GS-civilians who are retired O's and SNCO's who refuse to do anything meaningful to move Cyber into the current decade.  For them the AF hasn't changed since the day it retired, and by God it'll be the same when they retire again in 10/20/30 years.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hire civilians as non-line tech advisers, increase the industry internship opportunities, allow more sabbaticals, develop/promote Technical MS programs (AFIT doesn't count), provide mid-level (vs high-level) cyber leadership/operations training (less demanding CNODP/Cyber WIC) and get some damn career cyber leadership visible to the force.

 

I will note none of these even start to address the problem with current GS-civilians who are retired O's and SNCO's who refuse to do anything meaningful to move Cyber into the current decade.  For them the AF hasn't changed since the day it retired, and by God it'll be the same when they retire again in 10/20/30 years.

This sounds like an actual actionable plan, when coupled with shedding the dead weight you mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

This sounds like an actual actionable plan, when coupled with shedding the dead weight you mentioned.

Thanks.  I do need to add that the tech-advisor thing will have to be closely structured and monitored.  As in -

no previous federal service at or above a certain level
2 year max stint before a "cooling off" period
ensure no single company/org is sourcing a lot of individuals
easily fire-able, moveable, and easy for an individual to quit

I think the last one would be mitigated by the fact that there's no career to ruin.  You tell the thanks for their service, they get on social media about why they were unjustly terminated, etc.  Congress is going to listen if you let a former VP of Facebook go for a stupid reason.
 

Otherwise it'll be the same thing as when those Generals were coming back as "leadership consultants" while allegedly hawking their contractor gig merchandise.  How much money do those fuckers need.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 8:23 PM, 17D_guy said:

Thanks.  I do need to add that the tech-advisor thing will have to be closely structured and monitored.  As in -

no previous federal service at or above a certain level
2 year max stint before a "cooling off" period
ensure no single company/org is sourcing a lot of individuals
easily fire-able, moveable, and easy for an individual to quit

I think the last one would be mitigated by the fact that there's no career to ruin.  You tell the thanks for their service, they get on social media about why they were unjustly terminated, etc.  Congress is going to listen if you let a former VP of Facebook go for a stupid reason.
 

Otherwise it'll be the same thing as when those Generals were coming back as "leadership consultants" while allegedly hawking their contractor gig merchandise.  How much money do those fuckers need.....

Sidebar:

Question for a Cyber guy, has it been thought about or discussed in the Cyber community to develop proprietary software (OS) and/or hardware for the AF, military or government agencies that is custom built to be the most secure it could possibly be?  We build our own aircraft, why not for all or some requirements (Secret, TS, etc..) have a proprietary system only possessed by US government institutions to limit vulnerability by keeping it's details as tightly kept as can be? 

Just a random question but our computer systems are pretty much constantly under attack by hackers from governments and non-government actors, then why not invest X billions for a system as secure as it can technically be rather than just a computer(s) / OS we get out of a GSA catalog?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silicon Valley and Redmond are very good at what they do and have already spent uncounted billions on the problem over many years. I don't see a magic check to Lockheed or any other player suddenly showing the pros what's up. The best they would do would be a system that was secure by virtue of the fact it was worthless and didn't do anything so there was nothing on it of value. Imagine trying to use Governet Explorer on you govOS computer to look up a how-to for GoverPoint. 

I'm sure lots of work goes into focusing on really important things that are limited in scope (key infrastructure, communications, etc). But a general purpose compute stack? I vote no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Sidebar:

Question for a Cyber guy, has it been thought about or discussed in the Cyber community to develop proprietary software (OS) and/or hardware for the AF, military or government agencies that is custom built to be the most secure it could possibly be?  We build our own aircraft, why not for all or some requirements (Secret, TS, etc..) have a proprietary system only possessed by US government institutions to limit vulnerability by keeping it's details as tightly kept as can be? 

Just a random question but our computer systems are pretty much constantly under attack by hackers from governments and non-government actors, then why not invest X billions for a system as secure as it can technically be rather than just a computer(s) / OS we get out of a GSA catalog?

 

Lots of ways to address this question.  But the short answer is: sure it's been discussed, but as BuddaSixFour has pointed out, highly skilled technical organizations have spent trillions of dollars developing software and it's still buggy.  The gov't and/or one of it's contractors isn't going to do better.  There's always a new hack that people can't plan for.

And that's a good thing.  This cyber stuff moves too fast for development the USAF way.  Look at the problems w/ the F35 software and that's a very specific set of design parameters.  Now imagine that for everyone's different set of desktop boxes and the USAF/DoD directing the fix.  We'd lose a few GDPs worth of cash w/ nothing to show.

Also, there's already products out there that provide serious security (ex. SE Linux) w/ NSA contributions.  On our 2 normal networks Win7/10 is fine.  Properly administrated they're fantastic operating systems.  Are they currently properly administrated, no.  Is that my cyber-bro's fault, partially.

But, at the end of the day all this tech stuff is cool.. but it's the bag-o-meat sitting at the keyboard that's going to screw it up.  We all hate the stupid LARPing CBT we have to do annually, but it's at least made people ask me if something was stupid.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, BuddhaSixFour said:

Silicon Valley and Redmond are very good at what they do and have already spent uncounted billions on the problem over many years. I don't see a magic check to Lockheed or any other player suddenly showing the pros what's up. The best they would do would be a system that was secure by virtue of the fact it was worthless and didn't do anything so there was nothing on it of value. Imagine trying to use Governet Explorer on you govOS computer to look up a how-to for GoverPoint. 

I'm sure lots of work goes into focusing on really important things that are limited in scope (key infrastructure, communications, etc). But a general purpose compute stack? I vote no. 

Good points.

9 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

 

Lots of ways to address this question.  But the short answer is: sure it's been discussed, but as BuddaSixFour has pointed out, highly skilled technical organizations have spent trillions of dollars developing software and it's still buggy.  The gov't and/or one of it's contractors isn't going to do better.  There's always a new hack that people can't plan for.

And that's a good thing.  This cyber stuff moves too fast for development the USAF way.  Look at the problems w/ the F35 software and that's a very specific set of design parameters.  Now imagine that for everyone's different set of desktop boxes and the USAF/DoD directing the fix.  We'd lose a few GDPs worth of cash w/ nothing to show.

Also, there's already products out there that provide serious security (ex. SE Linux) w/ NSA contributions.  On our 2 normal networks Win7/10 is fine.  Properly administrated they're fantastic operating systems.  Are they currently properly administrated, no.  Is that my cyber-bro's fault, partially.

But, at the end of the day all this tech stuff is cool.. but it's the bag-o-meat sitting at the keyboard that's going to screw it up.  We all hate the stupid LARPing CBT we have to do annually, but it's at least made people ask me if something was stupid.

 

Knowledge increased and thanks for your take.

But just because as a "bag of meat" you don't like the fact I chat with hot Russians just looking to send me $20 million from a Nigerian prince while simultaneously needing to verify my credit card information on a website with .ru at the end of the URL all on my gov computer, don't think I will fall for some phishing scam...

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 8:49 PM, 17D_guy said:

There's always a new hack that people can't plan for.

Slightly off-topic (but not by much) - I wonder how many people noticed that there were six separate links to six separate incidents in that sentence...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On June 25, 2016 at 0:49 PM, 17D_guy said:

 

Lots of ways to address this question.  But the short answer is: sure it's been discussed, but as BuddaSixFour has pointed out, highly skilled technical organizations have spent trillions of dollars developing software and it's still buggy.  The gov't and/or one of it's contractors isn't going to do better...

This cyber stuff moves too fast for development the USAF way.  Look at the problems w/ the F35 software and that's a very specific set of design parameters.  Now imagine that for everyone's different set of desktop boxes and the USAF/DoD directing the fix.  We'd lose a few GDPs worth of cash w/ nothing to show.

 

We did this in medical with the electronic health record called AHLTA and it's widely despised.  The AF Surgeon General stated it was the John Deer tractor on the information super highway.  It has cost in excess of 4 billion and due to the way we have to program money to fix and update we can't keep up.  This was a DoD platform and it's now getting dumped (online since 2006ish) for a commercially contracted platform.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...