Jump to content

What's wrong with the Air Force?


Catbox

Recommended Posts

I apologize profusely for assuming those designated as leaders in our service could operate their weapons systems.
Is it fair to say that most could at one time operate a weapon system to some degree of competence?


Some but not many in the MAF.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

I apologize profusely for assuming those designated as leaders in our service could operate their weapons systems.

Is it fair to say that most could at one time operate a weapon system to some degree of competence?

Not all of them.  I've had senior leaders who were quite possibly the worst aviators I've ever met, and i instruct at the FTU.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, joe1234 said:

I get that it's the military, and pissing contests/butthurt fragile egos/red tape dominate the entire way of life, but.... why can't we just have flyers/ops be in charge of flying and running wars and battle staffs, and then have support guys dickfight each other over school, volunteer crap, and high vis non operational staff gigs.

Its the bullshit fake equality that needs to go. Anyone who no-shit flies, fights, plans, runs, or deters the air war needs to be put in one box (where their worth is measured in ability to contribute to the war), and the people-herders need to be put in another box and be measured by their ability to support the mission.

Do that, and I promise you, you would see more young flyers burning the midnight oil to come up with insane new innovative ways to win wars, rather than writing bullshit essays for a degree that has no relevance to their job.

I see somebody is starting to grow up, your statement has problems liking boxing people in, but on the right track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhetorical and honest question, what are we using the skill as a military aviator for in determining AF leadership?

Is it proof of intelligence, strategic thought, knowledge of modern warfare, understanding of historical lessons, wisdom to apply these as required, etc...?  

Is it a filter or braking system / requirement to ensure that individuals have enough time and experience and a record to judge and predict future performance at now directing and leading the Air Force in operations?

I ask as I agree with the sentiment of disgust that many of the cadre of modern AF leaders have mediocre or little skill, knowledge or even interest in their tactical art but at some level, high tactical personal proficiency may not be required to be a great strategic or enterprise leader.

My analogy would be Nick Saban, whether you're an Alabama fan or not, he's a great coach, but he only played two years as defensive back at Kent State before then going on to becoming a great leader in his profession.  He demonstrated skill by playing at the college level and then moved to leadership.  Credentials established and he was given a chance to prove he could not only perform but lead.

Now I am not in anyway arguing for that kind of fast tracking for AF leadership but we have to step back and honestly ask as this person can fly his jet or lead this formation great but are those skills indicative themselves of a good leader of the AF?  

It is supposed to be a building process, Operational to Tactical to Strategic ability with demonstration of skill leading to the next level but that is not what we have.  

Unfortunately I think it is a combination of dedication to admin obsession and personal connections that are markers for leadership; there is no truly objective factor(s) as those are manipulated to some degree to give the desired result but I'm not cynical not one bit...

Edited by Clark Griswold
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

20 hours ago, Hacker said:

There's zero technical training in the MX officer school, nor is any allowed on the job.  

Once I was back from AMOC, I actually tried to get a Job Qualification folder started so I could get trained to perform some wrench-turning tasks.  That got squashed rather quickly from QA, who could find no AFI authorization for a 21A AFSC to receive such training or qualification.

VMA187 is right in the perspective of you don't need to be out their turning wrenches to be a great leader for your maintenance troops. You being visible on the flight line at times and ensuring your airmen are not being pushed to the limit would go far further in my opinion rather than turning a wrench. As an airman, chances are you are getting in my damn way. You can watch, but still learn the job is tedious.

Before cold weather hits, make sure your airmen are outfitted properly. On a snow day, I would walk around the flight line and ensure those airmen are in fact equipped to handle the elements. If someone didn't have gloves, I would give them mine. Then go find out why SrA Mitts wasn't issued any gloves. This isn't something you teach to officers in AFROTC or the USAFA. Leading by giving a damn goes far further with the E's.

Some pilots are too focused on you having to be great at what the person underneath you is doing in order be an effective leader. I don't see Bill Gates writing code for programs. There are different ways to be an effective leader and you don't have to know in detail how to perform a persons job to be successful.

18 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:


I used to go out on the ramp as a Wing Safety dude and talk to MX about their jobs and learn from them about my airplane.

MX NCO leadership was pissed. "Stop spying on our troops." Line MX guys were shocked a flier cared about them/their jobs.

Always ask "mother may I" before going around E's who do not fall under your chain of command. You could have talked to their commander and CMSgt first about what you wanted to do. I would be protective of my airmen as well if WG Safety was always hanging around. I don't know what are your intentions. You could be like the guy Herbert from Family Guy disguised as WG Safety. I believe in communicating your intentions and we don't teach officers how to do this enough. 

Edited by hatedont
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Weezer said:

I apologize profusely for assuming those designated as leaders in our service could operate their weapons systems.

Is it fair to say that most could at one time operate a weapon system to some degree of competence?

Hit or miss.  The only GO who I have for frame of reference for this question is Mark "Grace" Kelly, a previous Sq/CC who actually refutes my point.  If you look at his bio, the reason he counters this stereotype is right there in his duty history.  Save for one year at ACSC, he flew for the first 20 years of his career.  I was constantly impressed at his tactical proficiency when he was my Sq/CC.  He would develop completely non-standard CT sorties to get us to go out and try new and challenging tactics.  I remember sitting in the bar and listening to him talk about his Aussie F-18 exchange tour and he was drawing out schematics to the Hornet's radar on a bar napkin - from a system he hadn't used for five years.

He is the exception, not the norm.  Too many of the young officers who are fast tracked for leadership commit to that objective at the expense of tactical proficiency.  For them, the queep takes priority over 3-1 and meetings take priority over flying.  Without a solid foundation, there isn't much to build on, and when you take them out of the cockpit for years on end, the result is somebody who needs an experienced handler whenever he goes to fly.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hit or miss.  The only GO who I have for frame of reference for this question is Mark "Grace" Kelly, a previous Sq/CC who actually refutes my point.  If you look at his bio, the reason he counters this stereotype is right there in his duty history.  Save for one year at ACSC, he flew for the first 20 years of his career.  I was constantly impressed at his tactical proficiency when he was my Sq/CC.  He would develop completely non-standard CT sorties to get us to go out and try new and challenging tactics.  I remember sitting in the bar and listening to him talk about his Aussie F-18 exchange tour and he was drawing out schematics to the Hornet's radar on a bar napkin - from a system he hadn't used for five years.

He is the exception, not the norm.  Too many of the young officers who are fast tracked for leadership commit to that objective at the expense of tactical proficiency.  For them, the queep takes priority over 3-1 and meetings take priority over flying.  Without a solid foundation, there isn't much to build on, and when you take them out of the cockpit for years on end, the result is somebody who needs an experienced handler whenever he goes to fly.

 

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/3-star-air-force-may-need-even-bigger-pilot-retention-bonuses

 

Nowland said that when he first entered a fighter squadron as a lieutenant in 1990, he was told his job was to study and become the best F-15 pilot he could be. He threw himself into learning all about the then-new AIM-120 air-to-air missile. 

 

"That took hours and hours and hours back in the vault," Nowland said. "Why? Because I didn't have to do DTS [Defense Travel System]. When I had orders, I had people that helped me get from point A to point B. 

 

Lt. Gen. Nowland best quote, "In my personal opinion, we lost our way when we started running the Air Force like a business," Nowland said. "Producing a pilot is not a business decision. It is a capability for America."

 

applause... applause... applause 🤗

 

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Rhetorical and honest question, what are we using the skill as a military aviator for in determining AF leadership?

Is it proof of intelligence, strategic thought, knowledge of modern warfare, understanding of historical lessons, wisdom to apply these as required, etc...?  

Is it a filter or braking system / requirement to ensure that individuals have enough time and experience and a record to judge and predict future performance at now directing and leading the Air Force in operations?

I ask as I agree with the sentiment of disgust that many of the cadre of modern AF leaders have mediocre or little skill, knowledge or even interest in their tactical art but at some level, high tactical personal proficiency may not be required to be a great strategic or enterprise leader.

My analogy would be Nick Saban, whether you're an Alabama fan or not, he's a great coach, but he only played two years as defensive back at Kent State before then going on to becoming a great leader in his profession.  He demonstrated skill by playing at the college level and then moved to leadership.  Credentials established and he was given a chance to prove he could not only perform but lead.

Now I am not in anyway arguing for that kind of fast tracking for AF leadership but we have to step back and honestly ask as this person can fly his jet or lead this formation great but are those skills indicative themselves of a good leader of the AF?  

It is supposed to be a building process, Operational to Tactical to Strategic ability with demonstration of skill leading to the next level but that is not what we have.  

Unfortunately I think it is a combination of dedication to admin obsession and personal connections that are markers for leadership; there is no truly objective factor(s) as those are manipulated to some degree to give the desired result but I'm not cynical not one bit...

Good words, I think it is somewhat of a filter and check that they have the right mentality. In addition, to lead tactical aviators, you are making a lot of tactical decisions (FEASCAPs, changing regs, ranking for upgrades, backing up your crews when an incident happens). To have credibility in those decisions you need to either have the experience to understand what you are talking about or listen to subordinates who are the experts, since most can't seem to do the latter they need the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Rhetorical and honest question, what are we using the skill as a military aviator for in determining AF leadership?

Is it proof of intelligence, strategic thought, knowledge of modern warfare, understanding of historical lessons, wisdom to apply these as required, etc...?  

Is it a filter or braking system / requirement to ensure that individuals have enough time and experience and a record to judge and predict future performance at now directing and leading the Air Force in operations?

I ask as I agree with the sentiment of disgust that many of the cadre of modern AF leaders have mediocre or little skill, knowledge or even interest in their tactical art but at some level, high tactical personal proficiency may not be required to be a great strategic or enterprise leader.

My analogy would be Nick Saban, whether you're an Alabama fan or not, he's a great coach, but he only played two years as defensive back at Kent State before then going on to becoming a great leader in his profession.  He demonstrated skill by playing at the college level and then moved to leadership.  Credentials established and he was given a chance to prove he could not only perform but lead.

Now I am not in anyway arguing for that kind of fast tracking for AF leadership but we have to step back and honestly ask as this person can fly his jet or lead this formation great but are those skills indicative themselves of a good leader of the AF?  

It is supposed to be a building process, Operational to Tactical to Strategic ability with demonstration of skill leading to the next level but that is not what we have.  

Unfortunately I think it is a combination of dedication to admin obsession and personal connections that are markers for leadership; there is no truly objective factor(s) as those are manipulated to some degree to give the desired result but I'm not cynical not one bit...

There's a lot to be said for your leadership to understand the challenges, stresses, and limitations of your job.  How does a commander know who is the #1 IP if he doesn't have enough knowledge in the jet to tell good instruction from bad instruction?  How does a SQ/CC or OG/CC make sound decisions regarding things like waivers, or exercises, or sortie turn patterns if they haven't been subjected to any of them for over a decade?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, hatedont said:

VMA187 is right in the perspective of you don't need to be out their turning wrenches to be a great leader for your maintenance troops.

I was just relating that anecdote in response to his question about it.  That story happened when I was a 2Lt in 1995 -- I figured the rest of that out relatively well in the intervening 22 years leading to now, mostly thanks to CMSgt Arnao and SMSgt Bussell, who grabbed my young, dumb butterbar self by the collar and taught me how to lead maintainers.  Those are the leadership lessons I was referring to in my previous two posts in this thread.

Edited by Hacker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, hatedont said:

Lawmakers again push for more flexibility with military moves

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/pcs-moves-flexibility-bill-reintroduced

This is great start and all, but how about homesteading? 

Probably a non-starter.  For every person at a good location who they retain through homesteading, they'll lose someone who is dying to escape from a shithole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, ihtfp06 said:

Probably a non-starter.  For every person at a good location who they retain through homesteading, they'll lose someone who is dying to escape from a shithole.

After my commitment is up give me my base of preference no matter where I want to go for 4 years or a 1-2 year bonus. You can't take both. One or the other. Stop trying to hand out 365s at the end of a career or commitment which causes people to become more jaded. Base of preference for the old guys or a 1-2 year bonus and you might give guys something to look forward to in my opinion.

Edited by hatedont
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnetfreezer said:

Good words, I think it is somewhat of a filter and check that they have the right mentality. In addition, to lead tactical aviators, you are making a lot of tactical decisions (FEASCAPs, changing regs, ranking for upgrades, backing up your crews when an incident happens). To have credibility in those decisions you need to either have the experience to understand what you are talking about or listen to subordinates who are the experts, since most can't seem to do the latter they need the former.

 

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

There's a lot to be said for your leadership to understand the challenges, stresses, and limitations of your job.  How does a commander know who is the #1 IP if he doesn't have enough knowledge in the jet to tell good instruction from bad instruction?  How does a SQ/CC or OG/CC make sound decisions regarding things like waivers, or exercises, or sortie turn patterns if they haven't been subjected to any of them for over a decade?

Valid points and my argument / point is one of a matter of degrees, I'm not sure if it (the level of personal operational skill determined to be necessary for an AF leader to have to be creditable) can be uniformly captured across all platforms be they manned/unmanned, aircraft, missiles, space, MX, logistics, intel, etc... but it's like the difference between art vs. pornography, you know when you see it. 

The AF is not structured this way but if I had my druthers we would define the purpose of a tour or billet more explicitly than we do now with a somewhat specific career goal expressed for the member and his / her leadership to work towards.  This assignment is to build operational skill and experience, this tour is to develop your operational leadership, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, hatedont said:

I don't see Bill Gates writing code for programs.

From the mid-70's to at least the mid-90's, Bill Gates brilliance in writing code spawned and then carried Microsoft.  As he developed from a tactical leader to a strategic leader, the time and energy he had put into coding became infinitely valuable to him.  It provided a bedrock of experience, enabling him to evaluate COAs developed by his underlings, and move the business forward.  He may not have proficiency in today's programming languages (I don't know, maybe he does) but he's a master at the language of his profession, at leading and guiding the code writers that he once was.

Barring a few crazy outliers, a person doesn't master the language of war without first having been a participant in combat, and not the 'everyone's a warrior' or 'I only had 3 beers a day at the died' kind.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HU&W said:

He may not have proficiency in today's programming languages (I don't know, maybe he does) but he's a master at the language of his profession, at leading and guiding the code writers that he once was.

Bill Gates was no Steve Jobs. Steve had his fingers all in the kool aid. But after his death, Apple's innovation died. I would insert Steve into your example as a better example. And I refuse to buy an iPhone.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, hatedont said:

Bill Gates was no Steve Jobs. Steve had his fingers all in the kool aid. But after his death, Apple's innovation died. I would insert Steve into your example as a better example. And I refuse to buy an iPhone.

No, he wasn't.  Early on, Gates needed Jobs vision, and Jobs needed Gates proficiency.  Steve Jobs had a natural gift for connecting the dots, and for connecting Gates work to the average person's need.  After they split, the readily stole/acquired/supplanted/and even subsidized one another's work for decades.  Jobs is definitely a better model for visionary strategic leadership combined with tactical ignorance.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HU&W said:

No, he wasn't.  Early on, Gates needed Jobs vision, and Jobs needed Gates proficiency.  Steve Jobs had a natural gift for connecting the dots, and for connecting Gates work to the average person's need.  After they split, the readily stole/acquired/supplanted/and even subsidized one another's work for decades.  Jobs is definitely a better model for visionary strategic leadership combined with tactical ignorance.

So true, Bill Gates is the one who actually saved Apple by funding them. Competition is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Champ Kind said:


Because that doesn't matter. Third tier strat, at best.

"That' doesn't matter"...until it's time to pick your flight lead for night one, or deciding who is leading your Red Flag push, or otherwise executing your most challenging sorties.

 

It's not about the strat...it's about being able to recognize that performance in others.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

"That' doesn't matter"...until it's time to pick your flight lead for night one, or deciding who is leading your Red Flag push, or otherwise executing your most challenging sorties.

 

It's not about the strat...it's about being able to recognize that performance in others.

I was being sarcastic and whole-heartedly agree with you.

I don't think that type of expertise is recognized or rewarded in the current state of affairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Champ Kind said:


Because that doesn't matter. Third tier strat, at best.

The only strats/awards I've gotten are pilot/IP.  Those mean more to me than any CGO strat/award fruitified by volunteering at the CGOC bullets.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...