Jump to content

What's wrong with the Air Force?


Recommended Posts

If you could find a Cyber 3 or 4 star, please let me know.

ANG is worried. They have cyber smart LT Cols and below. There are a few o-6s that get it but almost no Generals, and little opportunity for those o-6s to move up. That is why the ANG is trying to stand up some Cyber Ops Groups. They need some Generals who get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm deployed and busy. I still check the forum to see what's new. I'm tired of reading posts from whiners who continue to bitch and moan about not being required to get an AAD until Col. Drama quee

Just as I would never trivialize the sacrifices or challenges our airmen faced in Vietnam or WWII, I would expect our officers to not trivialize the sacrifices and challenges our military has faced si

So the draft outline for the script for Top Gun 2 has leaked (probably Trump and/or Russians.  Same thing, right?):     "TOP GUN 2:  This Time It's Non-Gender Specific"   Having be

Posted Images

ANG is worried. They have cyber smart LT Cols and below. There are a few o-6s that get it but almost no Generals, and little opportunity for those o-6s to move up. That is why the ANG is trying to stand up some Cyber Ops Groups. They need some Generals who get it.

Exactly this. I think there's one career Cyber 2-star and a few 1-stars. That's just.. baffling to me given the "IT Innovations" and push in the Cyber realm we've had for over 6 years now. Yes.. there are some awful O5/6's in Cyber. Some that don't get it, some that think tech for tech is a good thing, some that think Cyber is the mission in flying wings, and some overly focused on metrics or building that after-the-AF consulting gig.

But there's some that get it. Yet we're still stuck here.. waiting for them to percolate through the system, through the boxes, and "grooming." Meanwhile.. there's a legit fight, (I hate classifying it as a war), taking place in Cyber.

Note - I'll never be one of these guys. The AF has made it plainly clear I'm too old (35, 16 yrs TAFMS). Pretty much any prior-E for Cyber isn't going to be in the pipe for the leadership track give the <9 years service & Capt pinned-on requirement for our WIC and NSA partner programs. Additionally, we're still stuck in the "must have a STEM degree for Cyber" nonsense.

Which is just.. frustrating. All I want to do is build this corps and culture and I'm pretty sure I'm going to be locked out of that.

But - timing, luck and lack of justice prevail as always. I'm proud of how far we've come given the massive hurdles we put in our own way.

Have a good 4th you Glorious bastards.

Edit: Wanted to add the power of Cyber made this possible at our last Wing CC Call - the best question (also on Reddit)

lY7RCQa.jpg

Edited by 17D_guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

The next HAF/A3 will be the first non-rated ops chief for the Air Force. Thoughts? Does it matter what the A3's background is? As a space guy, I'm happy. I imagine there are some aircrew in the Pentagon that are not as thrilled.

New A3

Gen Raymond Bio

Unless something has changed since I retired, someone awarded a missile badge is rated.

Regards, RF

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly this. I think there's one career Cyber 2-star and a few 1-stars. That's just.. baffling to me given the "IT Innovations" and push in the Cyber realm we've had for over 6 years now. Yes.. there are some awful O5/6's in Cyber. Some that don't get it, some that think tech for tech is a good thing, some that think Cyber is the mission in flying wings, and some overly focused on metrics or building that after-the-AF consulting gig.

But there's some that get it. Yet we're still stuck here.. waiting for them to percolate through the system, through the boxes, and "grooming." Meanwhile.. there's a legit fight, (I hate classifying it as a war), taking place in Cyber.

Note - I'll never be one of these guys. The AF has made it plainly clear I'm too old (35, 16 yrs TAFMS). Pretty much any prior-E for Cyber isn't going to be in the pipe for the leadership track give the <9 years service & Capt pinned-on requirement for our WIC and NSA partner programs. Additionally, we're still stuck in the "must have a STEM degree for Cyber" nonsense.

Which is just.. frustrating. All I want to do is build this corps and culture and I'm pretty sure I'm going to be locked out of that.

But - timing, luck and lack of justice prevail as always. I'm proud of how far we've come given the massive hurdles we put in our own way.

Have a good 4th you Glorious bastards.

Edit: Wanted to add the power of Cyber made this possible at our last Wing CC Call - the best question (also on Reddit)

lY7RCQa.jpg

I was at that CC call as well. I know some people thought the whole anonymous survey thing was more gimmick than anything else. But I actually liked it...especially the question about whether or not we have enough time in the work day to actually accomplish our daily workload. Hopefully the willingness to put that out there is an indication that the new boss "get's it". I guess we'll see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless something has changed since I retired, someone awarded a missile badge is rated.

Regards, RF

Yeah, but you have to make "air quotes" with your fingers when you say they're "rated."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at that CC call as well. I know some people thought the whole anonymous survey thing was more gimmick than anything else. But I actually liked it...especially the question about whether or not we have enough time in the work day to actually accomplish our daily workload. Hopefully the willingness to put that out there is an indication that the new boss "get's it". I guess we'll see.

Don't want to get to much into specifics. But it was totally anonymous and none of them were planted. All unanswered questions are being sent to him and he's engaging as best he can. He didn't shy away from the hard ones (Mon not a down day). So, there's that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless something has changed since I retired, someone awarded a missile badge is rated.

Regards, RF

Nope, they're not rated anymore. Although, missileers do still wear flight suits. Both space (13S) and missiles (13N) fall under non-rated ops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, they're not rated anymore. Although, missileers do still wear flight suits. Both space (13S) and missiles (13N) fall under non-rated ops.

Wow, do I feel out of touch. Next thing you know, someone is going to tell me the "Eagles" disbanded or that the Raiders moved back to Oakland.

Thanks for bringing me into the 21st Century Digger.

Regards, RF

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could find a Cyber 3 or 4 star, please let me know.

Not there yet, but Zabel and Higby grew up in Cyber and have the right mindset. My money's on Higby as the 1st Cyber 4 star

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/467026/brig-gen-patrick-c-higby.aspx

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108886/brigadier-general-sarah-e-zabel.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the "right mindset" for cyber? It seems like its somewhere between "outsource everything" and "our cyber platforms are major weapons systems for which people should be qualified on, we should plan for, and should be organized like operational units/systems." Those are two very different extremes, and I don't see the overall strategery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comm support should be "outsourced" to organizations that are better equipped to handle bulk IT infrastructure. Offensive and defensive Cyber operations should be treated as an MWS and organized like any other ops unit. The problem is, what gets called operations in cyber varies greatly based on background. Installing mcafee and monitoring the local network, to some, is defensive cyber ops. That is basic comm support, not cyber ops. When people go out and represent comm support as cyber operations, it creates a lot of confusion and the real ops units lose credibility. Someone who has the right mindset, in my opinion, is focused on advancing our operational capabilities in the cyber domain.

ETA: What's wrong with many leaders across the Air Force is a fundamental lack of understanding of the domains in which we operate. Air, space, and cyber are as unique as land and sea, or sea and air. Yes, they are very much integrated, but they also have very different challenges and threats. There are campaigns being waged in space and cyber every day that have nothing to do with air. We could lose air superiority by losing space or cyber. We could lose space superiority by losing air or cyber. I know that sounds cheesy, but it's true. The mindset that everyone in the Air Force exists to generate sorties is ridiculous. Space wings have mission support groups that enable the space ops groups to do their business. Same with cyber. Space and cyber wings are not mission support to air wings. That mindset needs to change.

Edited by Gravedigger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Comm support should be "outsourced" to organizations that are better equipped to handle bulk IT infrastructure. Offensive and defensive Cyber operations should be treated as an MWS and organized like any other ops unit.

Agreed. I'm not a cyber or space guy. But its hard to take legitimate offensive/defensive warfighting cyber capabilities seriously when they're lumped in the same category as your local comm focal point that works 0900-1500 Monday-Thursday w/ Friday closed for training. That's just my limited perspective, though.

Edited by VTguy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Comm support should be "outsourced" to organizations that are better equipped to handle bulk IT infrastructure. Offensive and defensive Cyber operations should be treated as an MWS and organized like any other ops unit. The problem is, what gets called operations in cyber varies greatly based on background. Installing mcafee and monitoring the local network, to some, is defensive cyber ops. That is basic comm support, not cyber ops. When people go out and represent comm support as cyber operations, it creates a lot of confusion and the real ops units lose credibility. Someone who has the right mindset, in my opinion, is focused on advancing our operational capabilities in the cyber domain.

ETA: What's wrong with many leaders across the Air Force is a fundamental lack of understanding of the domains in which we operate. Air, space, and cyber are as unique as land and sea, or sea and air. Yes, they are very much integrated, but they also have very different challenges and threats. There are campaigns being waged in space and cyber every day that have nothing to do with air. We could lose air superiority by losing space or cyber. We could lose space superiority by losing air or cyber. I know that sounds cheesy, but it's true. The mindset that everyone in the Air Force exists to generate sorties is ridiculous. Space wings have mission support groups that enable the space ops groups to do their business. Same with cyber. Space and cyber wings are not mission support to air wings. That mindset needs to change.

Very much agree with Gravedigger. Don't have time for a good reply now, but hope to soon. The confusion can be seen just in our AFSCs 17D & 17S. The AFOCD hasn't been updated with the new AFSC's, still has 17DA/B shreds.

I think I've posted this before, but here's our Career Field Education & Training Plan (CFETP). I was going to provide some more docs, but it was taking awhile. Just read through a few of those pages and realize.. all the training's the same. You break from UCT into your AFSC and if you go keyboard-ninja (17S) spend 24-36 months getting trained. Very similar to Ops (specifically Electronic Warfare Officers) in missions, planning and (somewhat) upgrades.

But.. the career path pyramid (pg. 14) is still the same for 17S officers, still expected to move after 3 years, same 4-year commitment. ACC/A6 said they were going to make a decision this year about how to treat the AFSC's for once and all. Too many support guys flowing over to lead Ops Sq's with no training, guys coming of keyboard ninja jobs to run AFCERT IA inspection teams to verify your COMSEC accounts.

Edited by 17D_guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

... but here's our Career Field Education & Training Plan (CFETP)

Haha...do you think 11X's even know what that is?

But.. the career path pyramid...

Ooh...tell us more. I'm not even fucking sure there is a single 11X Career Field Manager. There's the wheel...who's got it? aMS Robot, here to serve...MQ-1 for you, MQ-9 for you, ...I like you...White Jet for you, MQ-1 for you...

Back to fixing Cyber...that IS important. Let's at least do that here...

Bendy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha...do you think 11X's even know what that is?

Ooh...tell us more. I'm not even ######ing sure there is a single 11X Career Field Manager. There's the wheel...who's got it? aMS Robot, here to serve...MQ-1 for you, MQ-9 for you, ...I like you...White Jet for you, MQ-1 for you...

Back to fixing Cyber...that IS important. Let's at least do that here...

Bendy

CFETPs exist in the flying world. Flight Engineers, Boom Operators, and Loadmasters have CFETPs that rated folks should be aware of. Although training is still dictated by formal course syllabi and Vol 1s, CFETPs still play a role in how that training is developed and how skill levels are awarded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CFETPs exist in the flying world. Flight Engineers, Boom Operators, and Loadmasters have CFETPs that rated folks should be aware of. Although training is still dictated by formal course syllabi and Vol 1s, CFETPs still play a role in how that training is developed and how skill levels are awarded.

I didn't say they didn't (there is more to the flying world than 11X) and I agree they should be aware, however I don't think they are all that aware. Working knowledge of the Vol 1/2 is enough of a bridge most of the time.

My point was CFETPs and career planning aren't really things 11X does much of. You can add multitudes of acquisition, Intel, etc. to your list alongside enlisted aircrew. 11X just doesn't seem to feel the need to manage much of anything...we can't even figure out the difference between Core ID and RTDM is.

I add 11X Career Field Managers to my list of, "Honestly, what do you do all day?".

Bendy

Edited by Bender
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you consider UP -> MP -> AC -> IP -> EP career progression, sure...

Never mind, everything is perfect in 11X world I guess.

I'm going to go volunteer for something now,

Bendy

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Just more proof that military promotions are becoming more about your genitals and the color of your skin and less about your merit...

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/pentagon-promotes-lean-groups-boost-women-leadership-122906058.html

The feminization of the Air Force (and I assume the other services) has been going on for some time now. 

I think it was a couple years ago that I looked at the male vs. female promo rates to O-4, O-5 and O-6 for the previous four or five promo boards. Bottom line, I figured out that though promo rates for females only seemed slightly higher than those for males, the cumulative differences over multiple promo cycles added up. I calculated that a female O-3 had 37.3% chance of making O-6, and a male O-3 had a 30.2% chance. That means that females were 24% more likely to eventually make O-6 than their male counterparts. Anecdotally, it often seems like the high-power dual-military couples I know, the husband separates/retires and flies for the airlines, while the wife stays in, due to her greater Air Force career prospects. This is crazy to me, since (again in my experience--that's all I can speak to) I've not found females to be substantially better officers/aviators than their male counterparts--they're certainly not 24% better. With clearly more emphasis from senior leaders on pushing/promoting based on gender and other factors, I can only assume that the disparity will only increase. This social engineering has gotta stop. 

TT

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just more proof that military promotions are becoming more about your genitals and the color of your skin and less about your merit...

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/pentagon-promotes-lean-groups-boost-women-leadership-122906058.html

Everyone knows officers don't get promoted on merit .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...