What should the Air Force be if it is so broken now?

[hindsight2020]

3 hours ago, 12xu2a3x3 said:

Going guard enlisted to active duty upt stud, I feel everyday like I'm driving the sole car toward Washington in Independence Day.

Nah, don't feel that way. If the Guard/Reserve didn't give you a conduit to get wings before you got too old, then no harm no foul in taking the devil's path. You gotta do what you gotta do. You'll have to do your time in AD, but you're getting in in a time of unprecedented upt fighter slots, compared to 10 years ago, if that is your thing. When I went through it was coal in everybody's socks.

That said, recognize that in time you'll grow to experience many of the dynamics people are leaving for. As long as you're open minded about the idea that priorities change with life, you won't be caught surprised by any of this. 

[FlyLow]

On 4/14/2017 at 5:53 PM, NKAWTG said:

Opt for a technical track and know you'd max out at O-4/O-5 and won't need to worry about school or command.  Or aim for the command track with the ability to jump back to the technical one when it doesn't work out.       

No.  If you fail at the command track I don't want you coming back to me as a disappointed (now permanent) O-4 with no flying time because you *were* on the command track.  Choose your fate:  Tech or Command.  Bloom where you're planted, or GTFO.

[Hacker]

1 minute ago, FlyLow said:

No.  If you fail at the command track I don't want you coming back to me as a disappointed (now permanent) O-4 with no flying time because you *were* on the command track.  Choose your fate:  Tech or Command.  Bloom where you're planted, or GTFO.

Well, that's certainly going to fix the morale problem.

As if there weren't already enough distrust and animosity between line folks and leadership...

[FlyLow]

6 minutes ago, Hacker said:

Well, that's certainly going to fix the morale problem.

As if there weren't already enough distrust and animosity between line folks and leadership...

Okay, I see your point.  But take a look at the WO model in the Army.  If you're a commissioned officer and decide to revert to warrant, you don't get to revert to W4...  W2 (maybe).  So maybe if you're on the leadership track and decide to switch, there needs to be a credibility-building period.  I guess you either have a qual or don't (IP), so a guy reverting to the tech track as an O-4/O-5 and no IP qual still has an uphill battle.

[FlyLow]

Fix the USAF:

1) Dramatically cut staffs. Group staff all the way to HAF staff.  Force manpower back to the squadron.  Mandate a "no larger than" size (with some minimal flexibility) based upon the number of subordinate units.  Weak leaders have big staffs.

2) On OPRs/PRFs, eliminate staff experience as an indicator of success and replace it with squadron experience.  Good staff officers *do not* necessarily make good commanders.  Use the USMC aviation model of pushing people you don't want in your squadron, to the Group/Wing staff.  Keep all your most credible people at the squadron level and make sure the machine rewards them for their competency.

3) +1 on the technical track.  Make tech track guys your tactical experts and upgrade them early to IP/EP/WIC.  Command track guys should seek the advice of their tech experts and stay out of their way in combat.

4) +1 on base consolidation.  More facilities mean more staffs, more ancillary duties, more shoe clerks, and move moves.  All of which dilute the quality of our force.

5) +1 on separate rated promotion boards.  I should not have to compete for promotion with a guy who requires no technical expertise to do his job.  I think it's pretty easy to see why he has time for volunteer bullets and I don't.

6)  Work out a fair way to have all OPRs close out at the same time.  Stratify everybody.  Eliminate thin slicing.  Strat against all those with whom you complete for promotion (i.e. #5/15 of my 2005 officers).

 

Edit: I <3 spelling.

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by FlyLow

[Lord Ratner]

You need to ask yourself what bought the 1,000 lb gorilla down on the backs of the flying community?
I remember a former female Lt Col who was prior enlisted. She told me the people who treated her the worst at the Pentagon was a certain "flying community." As a personnelist, she was sharp and I loved garnering advice from her. A lot of people have said this about a certain community in the AF behind closed doors. Maybe they are conspiring against this community? When I come to this forum and read the future CSAF may not be a pilot makes me wonder if we caused our own downfall. Is the support side rising against us (conspiracy theory)?
What squadron had a complaint filed against them by their SARM office for inappropriate material? When you get turned in by the SARM office you have really rubbed a bunch of E's responsible for your flight hours and flight pay the wrong way. 
A certain community was spinning up a different branch to fly their platform. Someone thought passing around a dildo and placing it into flight bags was hilarious. Reach for your thermos only to pull out a dildo. Well, those professional officers of a different branch didn't think it was funny and filed a complaint.
We all know what caused leadership to come down on us. You just can't crap all over the people who support us for one. Two, we all need to know there is a time and place to be a professional. When a different branch complains about a dildo prank you have to do some soul searching as a community. 
 

Between this and the thread where you complain that Junior officers and enlisted are too open with those that outrank them, you seem like you'd be on the General Chang side of the debate. But then your username, and other posts where you lay waste to the Air Force make it seem like you'd be more on the BaseOps.net-regular side of the debate.

Do you know Ryan Ryanerson (spelling)? Also known here as PickYourBattles or PYB. You remind me of him. Furious at the Air Force (and authority in general), so he figured he'd fit in well with the people here. But aside from being super awkward socially, he was cross with the AF for completely different reasons, and often 180-off on actual leadership issues in the Air Force, like, I dunno, saying a big problem we face is Junior officers being too comfortable talking to senior officers.

I guess ultimately I'm saying that you're wrong. But also that I get the vibe you're more mad at "leadership" for not inviting you into their club, and that you'd sell all of us out in a microsecond if they ever gave you the invite.

But I have no clue who you are, so who knows?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[matmacwc]

43 minutes ago, FlyLow said:

 

3) +1 on the technical track.  Make tech track guys your tactical experts and upgrade them early to IP/EP/WIC.  Command track guys should seek the advice of their tech experts and stay out of their way in combat.

 

Leaders stay out of the way in combat, it should not be that way!  But I 100% agree with you.

[FlyLow]

Leaders stay out of the way in combat, it should not be that way!  But I 100% agree with you.

 

I know, right?

 

The Sq/CC can be Chalk-2. But FL should be a tech track guy. Just like Army aviation.

[17D_guy]

6 hours ago, FlyLow said:

Fix the USAF:

1) Dramatically cut staffs. Group staff all the way to HAF staff.  Force manpower back to the squadron.  Mandate a "no larger than" size (with some minimal flexibility) based upon the number of subordinate units.  Weak leaders have big staffs.

2) On OPRs/PRFs, eliminate staff experience as an indicator of success and replace it with squadron experience.  Good staff officers *do not* necessarily make good commanders.  Use the USMC aviation model of pushing people you don't want in your squadron, to the Group/Wing staff.  Keep all your most credible people at the squadron level and make sure the machine rewards them for their competency.

6)  Work out a fair way to have all OPRs close out at the same time.  Stratify everybody.  Eliminate thin slicing.  Strat against all those with whom you complete for promotion (i.e. #5/15 of my 2005 officers).

Big fan of 2 & 6.  I think the only thing holding this back is the fact that #1-3 or so management coveted and it would force leadership to be honest with everyone about where they stand.  However, that's a problem with the culture overall that's got to get fixed.  Had a Ops Sq CC who was re-strating everyone quarterly.  We've done it with E's...why are we waiting for O's?

However, for #1.  I don't know, I'm on a staff now and we're just not manned for anything Big Blue, AFSPC, CYBERCOM, etc. requires us in a timely manner.  It's staff, so I'm not working late on queep.  I want peeps to flow back to Sq's easier (because: #1 it's the right thing, and #2 I want to) but we really need that experience at staff.  Doubly so for our Cyber Operators.  I don't know how you guys do it in other staffs, what's it like if a mobility guy comes into a fighter area?  That's about what we got now with everyone (including me) coming in to get cyber-stink on them.  Granted, we're so new it's just how it is, but we could really use a ton more people.

For #1 I would suggest streamlining staffs to produce bare requirements (Group-> SAF) and killing the rest.  We've done a portion of this with additional duties at Sq's...we need to keep moving that requirement up and up.  If you're justifying your existence with busy(staff) work...go home.  If you're not making the operators life better...go home.  

[BFM this]

24 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

However, for #1.  I don't know, I'm on a staff now and we're just not manned for anything Big Blue, AFSPC, CYBERCOM, etc. requires us in a timely manner. 

That is THE problem, but from the opposite perspective.  HHQ, all the way down to the wing level, simply have no concept of the time tax they levy with each good idea the fairy shits downhill.  Oh, we need to crunch training squares sideways to fit this slide deck narrative?  No worries, have the Ops Groups cull the data. CAF days?  Of course!  To many O&M days anyway.  And the list goes on.

YES: cut staffs and make leaders lead without worrying about straight quotation marks, or otherwise superfluous bs.  

Three execs including a Patch for one OG.  That's when I knew the train had come off the rails.

[HU&W]

10 hours ago, FlyLow said:

6)  Work out a fair way to have all OPRs close out at the same time.  Stratify everybody.  Eliminate thin slicing.  Strat against all those with whom you complete for promotion (i.e. #5/15 of my 2005 officers).

I strongly agree with this one.  As horribly as the new enlisted rating system (SCOD/Forced Distribution) was bungled during rollout, it's becoming a good system.  I would like to see something very similar at the O level.  

1.  SCOD OPR's to coincide with PRF timelines.  

2.  Each signatory on the OPR gives two strats with a denominator equal to their total rating pool, a professional strat (#7/121 Captains) and a technical strat by AFSC (#21/25 11S3M).  The whole pool gets stratted, and there would be a 200/200.  Of course, the flight/cc's pool would be tiny, the sq/cc's would be much larger, and the group or wg/cc would be extremely large.  

3.  Allocate promotions by career field requirements and give the promotion board authority to the DTs.

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, BFM this said:

...HHQ, all the way down to the wing level, simply have no concept of the time tax they levy with each good idea the fairy shits downhill...  

Three execs including a Patch for one OG.  That's when I knew the train had come off the rails.

This +169,000.  

The growth in queep is directly tied to there being no feedback mechanism to the good idea fairy from on high being able to task out a fool's errand that consumes time, resources and any remaining faith in the Air Force as a mission focused organization.  

No cost to the tasker, just TMT that good idea and let the minions handle it.

MAJCOMs and NAFs are supposed to function as shit screens but of late a lot of FOD has been getting thru or they're in cahoots and the cycle of data gathering to gather data to analyze the data we gathered but need to gather again for no clear reason continues...

3 execs + 1 WIC grad?  Who the hell is this guy, Xerxes?

10 hours ago, FlyLow said:

F3) +1 on the technical track.  Make tech track guys your tactical experts and upgrade them early to IP/EP/WIC.  Command track guys should seek the advice of their tech experts and stay out of their way in combat.

4) +1 on base consolidation.  More facilities mean more staffs, more ancillary duties, more shoe clerks, and move moves.  All of which dilute the quality of our force.

On technical tracks... same problem, different century...

ACSC paper from back in the day, 1988, why the AF continues to navel gaze and not take action when this needed change has been identified and discussed for decades is incredible.

Worth a scan/read:

CAREER PILOTS - ONE FIX FOR THE PILOT RETENTION PROBLEM 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a192791.pdf

Base consolidation has been mentioned several times and deserves a look by the powers that be:

Pick 5, look for states with multiple bases ripe for consolidation or loss of only one and focus on the worst real estate.

[MechGov]

Base consolidation has been mentioned several times and deserves a look by the powers that be:

Pick 5, look for states with multiple bases ripe for consolidation or loss of only one and focus on the worst real estate.

Totally agree, but ANG and AFRC bases need to be considered there.

I know, I know...capabilities for a fraction of the cost. Just please explain why a Wing is needed to support an undersized flying squadron located a few miles away from a major base with all of the infrastructure in place. Because Title 32?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Clark Griswold]

5 minutes ago, MechGov said:

Totally agree, but ANG and AFRC bases need to be considered there.

I know, I know...capabilities for a fraction of the cost. Just please explain why a Wing is needed to support an undersized flying squadron located a few miles away from a major base with all of the infrastructure in place. Because Title 32?

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

Valid point - if the AD takes a hair cut then as a Total Force, the ARC will get a little off the top also.

Keeping up with the same idea of what this hypothetical round of BRAC should be (limited, politically realistic and focused on capability consolidation to shed excess infrastructure) - pick 5 ANG/AFRC bases or Wings to consolidate to another ARC facility or AD base.

Some headaches likely but when we are estimated to have 20% excess infrastructure, somethings gotta give.

[Sprkt69]

53 minutes ago, MechGov said:

 

Totally agree, but ANG and AFRC bases need to be considered there.

I know, I know...capabilities for a fraction of the cost. Just please explain why a Wing is needed to support an undersized flying squadron located a few miles away from a major base with all of the infrastructure in place. Because Title 32?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

Prob for the same reason that TFI works so well. I mean look how amazing Hill and a Kirtland are, finely tuned war machines those 

[HuggyU2]

When looking to consolidate real estate, I believe some of you may not be thinking through the implications of congested airspace.  And increasing the size or amount of SUA is not a task that happens in a few months.  

 

 

[ViperStud]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/google-hr-boss-advise-prevent-best-people-quitting-human-resources-tips-tricks-a7676731.html

 

Interesting insight from leadership at a massively successful company - one that has to answer to people (shareholders) in a way the AF does not.  When your superiors answer to no one but a revolving door (on ~4 year schedules) of bereaucrats playing their own cards in the political arena, is it any surprise the system lacks true leadership?

His first point is far more poignant when you subtly replace "with" with "for" and his second point is spot-on: reference AFPAK hands, meaningless 365s, straight quotation marks, OPR/EPR hell - the list goes on and on. 

[pawnman]

7 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

When looking to consolidate real estate, I believe some of you may not be thinking through the implications of congested airspace.  And increasing the size or amount of SUA is not a task that happens in a few months.  

 

 

The B-1 community at least could consolidate at Ellsworth and shut down Dyess.  They expanded the Powder River MOA until it's now almost twice as big as NTTR, but without the giant container in the middle that will get you sent home.  All that's missing is a range.

[magnetfreezer]

26 minutes ago, pawnman said:

The B-1 community at least could consolidate at Ellsworth and shut down Dyess.  They expanded the Powder River MOA until it's now almost twice as big as NTTR, but without the giant container in the middle that will get you sent home.  All that's missing is a range.

Technically true, but the large amount of concessions FAA/locals/reservations/etc forced on the AF over the process Huggy referenced resulted in almost 50% of the airspace being closed to LL, and the "huge airspace" is actually 4 airspaces that you can only join once a quarter for LFEs. And then the fighters don't want to play (understandably) since it's capped at FL260. Still better than Lancer though.

[pawnman]

17 minutes ago, magnetfreezer said:

Technically true, but the large amount of concessions FAA/locals/reservations/etc forced on the AF over the process Huggy referenced resulted in almost 50% of the airspace being closed to LL, and the "huge airspace" is actually 4 airspaces that you can only join once a quarter for LFEs. And then the fighters don't want to play (understandably) since it's capped at FL260. Still better than Lancer though.

True, it is four different airspaces...but that means the different squadrons would be able to book different airspace and be assured of deconfliction.  I know the biggest reason people in the community hate the FTU assignment so much is because it's in Abilene TX.  Not to mention the facilities at Ellsworth are so much nicer.

[SocialD]

10 hours ago, MechGov said:

Totally agree, but ANG and AFRC bases need to be considered there.

I know, I know...capabilities for a fraction of the cost. Just please explain why a Wing is needed to support an undersized flying squadron located a few miles away from a major base with all of the infrastructure in place. Because Title 32?

 

Case in point...McEntire ANGB.  The fact that they're not co-located with Shaw or vice versa, lets you know that politics will make consolidation a hopeless dream.  

Many states could easily consolidate their ANG squadrons to one location without too much of an impact on operations (like Huggy mentions).  Unfortunately, consolidation means losing out on many of the things that make a stand alone ANG wing so great.  

Edited April 17, 2017 by SocialD

[JarheadBoom]

Quote

What should the Air Force be if it is so broken now?

- It should be a place where, when the 4-star-wearing HMFIC of the entire goddamn Air Force says "We are no longer doing xxxxx, because we no longer have the time/budget/manning to continue doing that", xxxxx fucking STOPS.  Not the current model of *xxxxx stops for some, but continues for others because reasons* bullshit.

- It should be a place where, when someone with "CC" in his/her job title says "I know CSAF said we don't ____________ anymore, but this SQ/WG/MAJCOM will continue to ____________, because I said so", that person is fucking FIRED.  Immediately.

- It should be a place where trainees, whether E or O, aren't force-fed the "You MUST aspire to be the CSAF/CMSAF or you're a worthless piece of shit!" mentality.

- It should be a place where Command E-9s wouldn't dream of saying something as fucking ludicrous as "If you're in this room, and you aren't maneuvering to take my job, you're wrong".

Edited April 18, 2017 by JarheadBoom
format

[Stitch]

18 hours ago, JarheadBoom said:

- It should be a place where, when the 4-star-wearing HMFIC of the entire goddamn Air Force says "We are no longer doing xxxxx, because we no longer have the time/budget/manning to continue doing that", xxxxx fucking STOPS.  Not the current model of *xxxxx stops for some, but continues for others because reasons* bullshit.

- It should be a place where, when someone with "CC" in his/her job title says "I know CSAF said we don't ____________ anymore, but this SQ/WG/MAJCOM will continue to ____________, because I said so", that person is fucking FIRED.  Immediately.

- It should be a place where trainees, whether E or O, aren't force-fed the "You MUST aspire to be the CSAF/CMSAF or you're a worthless piece of shit!" mentality.

- It should be a place where Command E-9s wouldn't dream of saying something as fucking ludicrous as "If you're in this room, and you aren't maneuvering to take my job, you're wrong".

Spot fucking on! Well said JarheadBoom, well said!

 

[Weezer]

Unpopular opinion:  more rated dudes in staff positions where they can impact the AF's organize/train/equipping of airpower role as well as the COCOM/DoD employment of airpower role.  I'm in a directorate on the Joint Staff that has a big role in what units are deployed and when.  There are 9 AF officers...only 3 are aircrew.  None are pilots.  How do you expect the staffs that have input into the concerns raised on this forum if they are devoid of rated officers?

In my opinion, the AF got away from a focus on the flyer because it reduced the amount of flyers (specifically CAF flyers) on staffs.  It had to do that because there weren't enough flyers, which was only exacerbated by the loss of focus on the flyer/mission.  It's a downward spiral.

Is it wasted time as far as flying gates and experience?  Sure.  Is it wasted time as far as making the AF more pilot/warfighter focused?  Absolutely not.

Additionally, open up non-rated command positions to rated officers.  Does an FSS squadron need to be commanded by an FSS officer?  Nope...all the technical expertise resides with the NCO technicians.  Put a pilot in charge, and you'll get that mission focus that seems noticeably absent.

Of course, all of this is dependent on fixing the pilot shortage, which is dependent on fixing these issues, and so on...

I'd also say make every officer who isn't bona fide pilot qualified...all the dudes with air sickness and bad eyes...spend their first assignment flying RPAs.  Every Marine's a rifleman...why not every Airman an operator of some sort?  Then when they track over to a mission support assignment, they'll have more of a mission focus.  You'll free up the more physically qualified to fly manned aircraft as a bonus.

[dream big]

43 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Unpopular opinion:  more rated dudes in staff positions where they can impact the AF's organize/train/equipping of airpower role as well as the COCOM/DoD employment of airpower role.  I'm in a directorate on the Joint Staff that has a big role in what units are deployed and when.  There are 9 AF officers...only 3 are aircrew.  None are pilots.  How do you expect the staffs that have input into the concerns raised on this forum if they are devoid of rated officers?

In my opinion, the AF got away from a focus on the flyer because it reduced the amount of flyers (specifically CAF flyers) on staffs.  It had to do that because there weren't enough flyers, which was only exacerbated by the loss of focus on the flyer/mission.  It's a downward spiral.

Is it wasted time as far as flying gates and experience?  Sure.  Is it wasted time as far as making the AF more pilot/warfighter focused?  Absolutely not.

Additionally, open up non-rated command positions to rated officers.  Does an FSS squadron need to be commanded by an FSS officer?  Nope...all the technical expertise resides with the NCO technicians.  Put a pilot in charge, and you'll get that mission focus that seems noticeably absent.

Of course, all of this is dependent on fixing the pilot shortage, which is dependent on fixing these issues, and so on...

I'd also say make every officer who isn't bona fide pilot qualified...all the dudes with air sickness and bad eyes...spend their first assignment flying RPAs.  Every Marine's a rifleman...why not every Airman an operator of some sort?  Then when they track over to a mission support assignment, they'll have more of a mission focus.  You'll free up the more physically qualified to fly manned aircraft as a bonus.

You bring up an excellent point.  We all gripe about lack of mission focus and non-rated not supporting us but how many of us would be willing to go be the FSS commander or work on staff? I sure as hell would bitch about it haha! But at the end of the day, those pilots that do stay in do need to do their part to ensure there is mission focus and part of that is leading from the front up on the staff and orienting the ABU wearers to the real mission.  

I don't think the issue is that guys who stay in have to work staff.  The issue is these staffs becoming so bloated that you send an experienced pilot to the Died for a year to work powepoints.  I think that kind of misuse of manpower is what people get mad about, and rightfully so.