Jump to content
Catbox

What's wrong with the Air Force?

Recommended Posts

VMFA187    79
5 hours ago, Fuzz said:

I find the ratio of pilots that are capable combat aviators higher in the AD side

Capable of combat or combat proficient?

If it is the latter, is that not warranted? If it's the former, why were they there in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SocialD    385
10 hours ago, Fuzz said:

I find the ratio of pilots that are capable combat aviators higher in the AD side, that doesn't mean we don't have shitty pilots. Most AFRC and guard I've come across haven't cracked the 3-3 or 3-1 in years. That doesn't mean there aren't phenomenal pilots in the reserves or guard and with the flood of people moving from AD to the other side the mindsets are changing for the better.

Ha, what do you mean by mindsets are changing for the better?  Making the Guard more like AD?  That's working out well for AD...  

Wrt 3-3/3-1... Maybe in your community. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JeremiahWeed    117
12 hours ago, Fuzz said:

I'm sure it varies by community but the guard and reserves from my experience provide an MWS qualified pilot sure but that doesn't usually mean a combat ready or capable pilot.

Yeah, I'm with VFMA-187 on this. Big difference between combat ready and capable.

Can't speak to heavy units, but from a fighter perspective, I think you're off base.  Before I retired from the guard, with the exception of three guard babies, low time guy in my squadron had 2000+ hours.  I don't know if every guy "cracked 3-1 or 3-3" buy they could all fly the shit out of the jet.  Unless I chose to go light in a month, I usually flew as much if not more as a traditional than I did on AD.  

But, the thing to remember is the guard isn't supposed to provide a combat ready pilot tomorrow.  It's a pool of mostly high time guys who have the experience base to be away from the jet for a few weeks or fly limited sorties.  It's never been expected that an ANG unit would be the equivalent of a AD unit for day to day ops.  If they're needed for combat ops, they're going to spin up quickly and be both combat ready and capable.

  • Upvote 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flaco    94
6 hours ago, JeremiahWeed said:

But, the thing to remember is the guard isn't supposed to provide a combat ready pilot tomorrow.  It's a pool of mostly high time guys who have the experience base to be away from the jet for a few weeks or fly limited sorties.  It's never been expected that an ANG unit would be the equivalent of a AD unit for day to day ops.  If they're needed for combat ops, they're going to spin up quickly and be both combat ready and capable.

That is rapidly changing. After 10+ years of NGB and NGAUS leadership yelling from the rooftops, "We're just like active duty! Give us money! Give us equipment!", the guard has truly become the "operational reserve" that our senior leaders begged for. Of course they never considered the consequences.

Most Guard babies that are airline eligible will be out of the Guard in the next 5 years, leaving only recently separated active duty and a few deployment-avoiding lifers who crave the opportunity created by the vacuum to make General at NGB or state staff. The culture will continue to shift toward an active duty-lite mindset - "90 day TSPs are nothing compared to the 180's I did on active duty!"

The younger guard babies will be sorely disappointed by the few stories they remember hearing of how good the Guard used to be, and they too will punch at their earliest opportunity for the airlines.

Federalization complete, the Guard will no longer be a proud collection of state militias comprised of local citizen soldiers, but rather a stopping point for those separating active duty, who have little knowledge of unit history or interaction with the local community.

The active duty's culture and retention problems have already become the Guard's culture and retention problems, merely lagging by a few years.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FlyinGrunt    163

Cantfly, that Business Insider article is so on-point with the Air Force it's breathtaking.  I'd say all 9 apply.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cantfly    10

What if the AF permitted officers to homestead for a certain period of time? Granted it would cost you say an extra year commitment wise for each year over 4 years. Or you receive two opportunities to homestead during a career... something along those lines.

Wouldn't this reduce the costs for the AF during peak PCS season over the summer months? More people would probably get their HHG on time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1111    37
50 minutes ago, cantfly said:

What if the AF permitted officers to homestead for a certain period of time? Granted it would cost you say an extra year commitment wise for each year over 4 years. Or you receive two opportunities to homestead during a career... something along those lines.

Wouldn't this reduce the costs for the AF during peak PCS season over the summer months? More people would probably get their HHG on time.

Homesteading = good idea

Charging me extra ADSC for QOL issue like that = bad idea as folks continue to leave

 

AF upper management fooked up royally, it is time to pay the piper. Homesteading without incurring additional ADSC  is one of the many easy fixes

Edited by 1111
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cantfly    10
20 minutes ago, 1111 said:

Homesteading = good idea

Charging me extra ADSC for QOL issue like that = bad idea as folks continue to leave

 

AF upper management fooked up royally, it is time to pay the piper. Homesteading without incurring additional ADSC  is one of the many easy fixes

I'm brainstorming because we all know the only way to fix our issues is through honest feedback and actually implementing what we want.

I thought of the extra year added on after every 4 years because I can't have a select few homesteading and clogging up the pipeline at great locations where others may want to PCS. Or we could cap homesteading at 5-6 years max. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bergman    229
On 4/29/2017 at 10:19 PM, Fuzz said:

I'm sure it varies by community but the guard and reserves from my experience provide an MWS qualified pilot sure but that doesn't usually mean a combat ready or capable pilot.

You're joking, right?!

 

You did caveat your comment so I'll give you that.  Which community are you referring to, because in my limited experience the ARC bubbas are full-up and have 2-3 times more experience as well.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nsplayr    599

Not sure if this has been posted on BO.net before, but I agree with this:

https://philipgmorrison.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/its-your-move-the-dilemma-of-incurred-commitment-in-the-modern-job-market/

BLUF: frequent PCSing leads to unnecessary separations, even for "free agents" who could otherwise punch more or less immediately

Completely true in my sample size of 1. My departure from AD was driven by a PCS, yet I likely would have stayed on at least a little while beyond my ADSC had I remained in place.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mcbush    88

The monetary and personnel costs associated with the PCS grind are massive. DoD spent $4.3B reshuffling its people in FY14, which is up 13% since 2001 even though the number of moves is down 12% over the same span, meaning that total costs are up 28% on a per-move basis. The AF sees a disproportionate amount of that cost too, since airmen, and AF officers especially, are the costliest segment of the DoD to move.

Per AFPC's own statistics, we're also PCSing our officers every 37 months on average, despite the assignments reg stipulating 48 months as the standard. If you crunch the numbers, you'll find out that Big Blue could save close to $100M per year if it did nothing but follow its own damn AFI WRT TOS before PCS's. That doesn't even begin to account for the added value in QoL, the likely increase in retention, etc. 

Here's the GAO report if anyone's interested. Assignments AFI is 36-2110.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MooseAg03    127

They sure as hell follow that 4 year TOS minimum when you get sent to RPA purgatory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homestar    360

Stopping the PCS madness is a great idea. 5 years should be the standard. All a typical pilot needs till he goes to ACSC are jobs at/below the Wing level anyway. All that can be done in one place. If you want to move after 5 years but before 10 look for a job in a squadron somewhere else and get hired there. Let Sq/CCs hire their squadrons. I'm sure there are tons of problems with this idea. 

Edited by Homestar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ViperMan    129
58 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Not sure if this has been posted on BO.net before, but I agree with this:

https://philipgmorrison.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/its-your-move-the-dilemma-of-incurred-commitment-in-the-modern-job-market/

BLUF: frequent PCSing leads to unnecessary separations, even for "free agents" who could otherwise punch more or less immediately

Completely true in my sample size of 1. My departure from AD was driven by a PCS, yet I likely would have stayed on at least a little while beyond my ADSC had I remained in place.

Pile on: I fully agree with the author, and the main factor he discusses - incurred service commitment for a PCS - was at least 60% of my decision to separate. No shit. I'm also on board with those who say slowing the PCS beast would save the government (DOD) a lot of money that is wasted literally shuffling one Captain/Major with the next.

That said, what is the solution to the "clog" that would occur in places like Hill, Hawaii, Phoenix, Spang, Aviano, when you have other "less desirables" that are in the mix such as Holloman, Cannon, Creech, et al? Of course one man's trash is another's treasure, but there would certainly be an ever-growing population at the garden spots, and dwindling pops at the shitholes. What's the fix to keep manning "balanced"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clark Griswold    506
32 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Pile on: I fully agree with the author, and the main factor he discusses - incurred service commitment for a PCS - was at least 60% of my decision to separate. No shit. I'm also on board with those who say slowing the PCS beast would save the government (DOD) a lot of money that is wasted literally shuffling one Captain/Major with the next.

That said, what is the solution to the "clog" that would occur in places like Hill, Hawaii, Phoenix, Spang, Aviano, when you have other "less desirables" that are in the mix such as Holloman, Cannon, Creech, et al? Of course one man's trash is another's treasure, but there would certainly be an ever-growing population at the garden spots, and dwindling pops at the shitholes. What's the fix to keep manning "balanced"?

Another special pay for shitholes for 0 to 3 years, bonus for staying beyond three years.  

Bottom 1/3rd requested bases get a base pay bonus of 10%.  Sign up for a 5 year hitch at Turdshit AFB and get years 4 & 5 with a bonus + 10% base pay.  Make the bonus appreciable, at least 6 o 12k per year, with increasing pay for tenure at Base X.

Coming at it from a perspective of someone with rug rats, steer money to these bases for great housing-facilities-schools (On base DODS or contract schools if the local schools are abortions or grants for local school improvements if it could be done legally).

Not saying this from hate but there could be other incentives to encourage movement at appropriate times rather than stagnation at garden spots.  You could require the desirable spots to fill X % of 365s first with some caveats to ensure they get sometime in the sun or beach before a 365 to somewhere not so nice.

Less desirable bases would then have at least one attractive amenity (or several if you implement that plus a bonus pay).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nsplayr    599
53 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Pile on: I fully agree with the author, and the main factor he discusses - incurred service commitment for a PCS - was at least 60% of my decision to separate. No shit. I'm also on board with those who say slowing the PCS beast would save the government (DOD) a lot of money that is wasted literally shuffling one Captain/Major with the next.

That said, what is the solution to the "clog" that would occur in places like Hill, Hawaii, Phoenix, Spang, Aviano, when you have other "less desirables" that are in the mix such as Holloman, Cannon, Creech, et al? Of course one man's trash is another's treasure, but there would certainly be an ever-growing population at the garden spots, and dwindling pops at the shitholes. What's the fix to keep manning "balanced"?

Excellent that the article's main point wasn't just to slow the roll on PCSing, but that the incurred service commitment for a mandatory PCS was the issue. 100% agree...when faced with A) accept PCS and add to my overall ADSC or B) punch, I took the red pill.

To solve the problem of massing folks in desirable locations, you do what every other large organization on earth does: leverage incentives. Pay more for less favorable locations. Offer career benefits for accepting tours in less favorable locations. Also you probably just accept that quality at those less favorable locations is going to inevitably be lower due to the trend of people with their heads screwed on straight will choose more favorable life conditions for their families.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lawman    289
Excellent that the article's main point wasn't just to slow the roll on PCSing, but that the incurred service commitment for a mandatory PCS was the issue. 100% agree...when faced with A) accept PCS and add to my overall ADSC or B) punch, I took the red pill.

To solve the problem of massing folks in desirable locations, you do what every other large organization on earth does: leverage incentives. Pay more for less favorable locations. Offer career benefits for accepting tours in less favorable locations. Also you probably just accept that quality at those less favorable locations is going to inevitably be lower due to the trend of people with their heads screwed on straight will choose more favorable life conditions for their families.

 

It would be an amazing concept for the services to actually offer a hardship location pay to some of the spectacular locations stateside like Polk or Minot.

 

I get prioritizing cost of living adjustments but BAH is designed to handle that, what isn't handled is money to make being 7 hours away from anything and any family in the middle of the desert.

 

 

Another factor I would say all the service branches need to see is what there actual needle is at with the constant game of "that's where you're PCS'ing enjoy the sandwich I gave you." I can count on one hand the number of people told to go to crap location that threatened to drop their papers and leave that didn't, but I can count at least 15 guys that are out for the same reason. How many times does HRC have to lose that fight while still calling themselves successful before somebody tries to make a change. Maybe treating people eligible for retirement/guard/etc like they have no option but to take the hand dealt isn't a good policy to stick to when you're simultaneously facing a manpower shortage.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HU&W    603
37 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

To solve the problem of massing folks in desirable locations, you do what every other large organization on earth does: leverage incentives. Pay more for less favorable locations. Offer career benefits for accepting tours in less favorable locations. Also you probably just accept that quality at those less favorable locations is going to inevitably be lower due to the trend of people with their heads screwed on straight will choose more favorable life conditions for their families and so you close them down because you can't staff them.

fify

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nunya    206
19 minutes ago, Lawman said:

How many times does HRC have to lose that fight...

I think we're at 2 now?

hillary-clinton-laughing.jpg

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nsplayr    599

We're not saying likely, but answering, "What should be done?"

Also Cannon specifically ain't closing...AFSOC pumped so much money into MILCON it would be irresponsible to close it now. Lots of improvements on base and some in town which are nicer than before, but since the location isn't changing my recommendation is some kind of incentive pay scheme to try to keep people from punching when those orders drop.

Same can be said of at least half a dozen other garden spots although I fully agree that if the taxpayers haven't recently sunk millions into undesirable bases, they should be closed. BRAC is needed and I'm pretty sure wanted by Big Blue management in order to pay for fleet recap and other priorities.

Edited by nsplayr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prozac    229

I take issue with any argument that says the AF can't afford something. Bullshit. The Air Force will prioritize bleeding edge technology fighters over everything else. If solving personnel issues means one less F-35, they'll take the jet every time. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFM this    310
4 hours ago, cantfly said:

Have you guys lost your damn minds? You all know the AF is NEVER going to offer incentive pay to live in a less than desirable area. There is an all out assault on BAH already. The AF can't afford it in general. If the officers were to receive incentive pay then the E's would as well. 

I would rather push to shut down the bases out in the middle of nowhere, than receive incentive pay. Correlating people leaving the AF after being stationed at one of these bases would provide more ammunition than anything else.

Word is that Creech AIP is getting turned back on per last years CPIP.

Never say never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFM this    310
4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Also Cannon specifically ain't closing...AFSOC pumped so much money into MILCON it would be irresponsible to close it now. Lots of improvements on base and some in town which are nicer than before,

Dude, that has not been a player in any previous closing decisions.  In fact, as pointed out in previous threads (too lazy to search) signed MILCON projects proceed even AFTER closing decisions.  Reference the brand new commissary and hospital that were opened on Chanute  right before they shuttered the place.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
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


×