Leaderboard

Rookie mistake...won't happen again.

Below are my somewhat brief interpretations of the recent Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing on military retirement ( https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/recent-changes-to-the-us-military-retirement-system ). 25:30 - Chairman Levin appears fairly determined to repeal the COLA cut. 28:15 - Sen Inhofe is also dedicated to at least pursuing grandfathering if not repeal. 40:30 - ADM Winnefeld encourages grandfathering existing benefits at this time, and then pursuing curtailment/adjustments later after more study (COLA-cuts remaining an option). Essentially, he recommends not increasing any benefits for the indefinite future because our current compensation is well above the absolute minimum and money saved would be much better spent on equipment and training, because we're so darn good at spending that money efficiently. 47:30 - Dep SECDEF Fox also prefers essentially freezing benefits at current levels and then considering fundamental, radical changes. She recommends viewing AD compensation and retirement benefits as two separate halves that can have somewhat independent solutions. Changes to retirement benefits likely won't be pursued by the DoD until after the MCRM report is published. 52:00 - Conjecture of where to pay for repeal of COLA, which costs about $6B. Are you serious? Congress pulled benefits to pay for non-DoD programs and spending goals. Why do retirees need to find the money that Congress spent? Pull from DoD totals, but not other retiree programs. 1:00:00 - Dep SECDEF Fox nearly repeats the sentiments of ADM Winnefeld at 40:30. 1:03:00 Sen Manchin recommends actually performing the audit the DoD before cutting retirement benefits. The DoD has been required to perform an annual audit for the last decade, but it has never actually done one. We have no genuine, verified report of exactly how money is spent despite the congressional mandate to do it. Apparently the Marine Corps passed an audit recently, but they are the only ones to ever do it, and only just now. The DoD Comptroller actually doesn't anticipate we can complete an audit until 2017. Sen Manchin apparently is a fucking genious and deserves a damn medal. 1:05:00 - Dep SECDEF Fox & ADM winnefild cite Sen Inhofe's graphic that auditing and spending corrections would be a small portion of total spending and are dwarfed by personnel costs. I'm gonna call that bullshit, as the later testimonies by the lobbying groups prove. Also, nearly every contracting program in existence is specifically designed to bilk the budget. Until contracting is fixed, this is wasted time, which Sen Manchin also addresses. Christ, Sen Manchin is a goddamn brainiac. Lastly, Sen Manchin recommends further usage of the Guard to reduce AD budgeting. 1:10:00 - Sen McCain heavily stresses and promotes grandfathering existing personnel. God-bless that crotchety, old man. 1:15:00 - Putting it all together, TriCare will probably the main pressure point and will get some major cuts at some point in the future. 1:20:00 Sen Wicker correctly emphasizes the negative impact of COLA-cuts. He also does a good job at not getting more support from the DoD for not pushing for repealing the cuts for all personnel (not just medical-retirees, survivors, other exempt, etc.). This guy gets it and remembers the lies that were part of the sequestration and Affordable Care Act promises. 1:27:30 Sen Kaine again agrees to repeal COLA-cuts, then defends the BBA because its the first real budget weve had in four years. I see both sides of the argument, but it was still a bad rush job, and its fairly indefensible. He has some good bi-partisanship approaches, in that its really spineless rhetoric. 1:35:15 Sen Ayotte repeats that nobody in DoD, SASC, HASC, etc. were consulted, and totally disagrees with Sen Kaine. Shes usually pretty opinionated (remember the A-10 and SECAF James confirmation?), but I at least agree with her here. She then hammers the effect of a highly mobile military career and the difficulty in the post-service work career. Shes pretty on-point with the differences in retirement against a normal civilian life and why military benefits are justified. Also, she briefly mentions the O-7+ retirement plans that are astoundingly generous, but doesnt elaborate too much. GO pay should really be heavily scrutinized (and cut) in my opinion. 1:44:00 Sen Reed is pretty boring and doesnt say anything new or interesting. 1:52:15 Sen Fischer asks if the DoD has consulted any lobbying / consulting groups. ADM Winnefeld states they havent coordinated anything yet. Sen Fischer recommends coordination first. 1:56:00 - Dep SECDEF Fox states AD compensation freezes will be a part of FY2015. 2:04:00 - Sen Hagan favors grandfathering. 2:06:30 Sen Graham mirrors Sen Kaines sentiments of getting a budget done. He then pushes for coordination with interest groups. He keeps assuming personnel costs account for half of the total DoD Budget (something many groups dispute). 2:11:00 Sen Graham wants an assessment what percent of GDP is spent on DoD. He believes we need some version of heavy cost-cutting to DoD budget continue for the next 10 years (or so). His approach is not terribly friendly to the DoD. 2:14:15 - Sen Blumenthal also supports immediate repeal. 2:21:45 - Sen Vitter highlights that only the military retirees had a cut to benefits and no other federal retirees (namely civilians) had any cuts. Good point. 2:23:30 - Sen King is split on whether the undebated budget was a good idea, as he opposes the COLA cuts, but is also surprised that a budget was indeed passed. 2:57:00 - The woman sitting behind Dr. Chu is astoundingly unattractive. I just needed to comment on that. 2:59:15 Sen Levin again urges for repeal. 3:00:00 - The interest groups state that they each have met with the MCRM at least once and are pleased with the membership of the commission. Sen Levin encourages that any organization which hasnt yet meet with the commission be given that chance. 3:06:00 - Sen Inhofe brings a quick unique discussion about prioritization of retirement pay/benefits and national defense priorities. I wont try to summarize it here, but if you are considering watching it, it is certainly worth a few minutes of your time. 3:15:30 - Sen Ayotte opens with the same comment as Sen Vitter, how only the military gets the cut and nobody else. The witnesses comment on the numerous other past and proposed cuts to benefits, primarily in medical care/TriCare. Good comments by Sen Ayotte. 3:26:00 - God, that woman is ugly. 3:28:00 Sen Graham comments on the value of e-mails and other communication to Congressmen heavily sways focus and opinions of those congressmen. He then defends the existing retirement benefits as a fair and that it should not be cut. He lastly asks the groups to meet with Senators not on the SASC to discuss the impacts of sequestration on personnel readiness. Continuation of above: The written statements below are heavily abridged as many of the arguments are repeated multiple times through other statements and testimony. You can read the full statements via the links below, but know that most are pretty long. https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Fox-Winnefeld_01-28-141.pdf https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Tilelli_01-28-14.pdf Holy shit, this is a great testimony. Anybody AD officer who isnt an MOAA isnt a member should be. This guy has certainly earned the support.

OK, so I missed the anniversary by one day (technically it was released yesterday, 29 Jan); but raise your glasses for one of the best and most accurate military movies of all time! 7 Strange but True Facts About 'Dr. Strangelove' at 50 Cheers! M2

Didn't they get flight suits; that wasn't enough? What's next, Bronze Stars. Edited: I can't critically think after Mons Venus.

This is the shit we talk about all the time. The shit the AF thinks is important for a future leader (I won't spell them out...again) only gets you so far...eventually you have to learn to connect with people to REALLY lead them! That means more than just managing spreadsheets and virtual commanders calls via e-mail. Connect with your people so that you don't have to yell at them to motivate them to work for you. I think this is only the beginning...we have 10 years of promoting douchebags with no character or personality, and they keep continuing to rise through the ranks. I don't know the guy, but I know his type. These kinds of guys are power hungry and just don't know how to use it once they get there. They have no character so they lead by fear knowing that most everyone will at least respect their rank if not the person. How do we keep promoting these guys? On the other hand, we are bringing in a new batch of "Generation ME" people who don't respect rank as much, so now not only do they not respect the person or the rank, they are also sensitive and easily offended. This means future leaders are going to have to be charismatic, have personalities, and actually connect with their people beyond the spreadsheet. MOST GOs I've met are very charismatic and are generally easy to talk to, especially while they're playing politics to get that next star....but somehow we sometimes let douchebags with no personality get through. I'll say it again, there are some great managers out there who are smart and know how to work politics and get things to help the organization. We need those people in senior positions...we just need to keep them behind the scenes and don't let the attempt to lead or interact with people. All my opinion of course...with a little malt beverage spin...

Just as an aside, Vetter may be "cheap and easy" but on BODN all "cheap and easy" references should more properly be directed at BQZip's mom.

Chang... we are most definitely not in the same Air Force. This has noting to do with good vs bad Commanders, it has to do with a mindset at the O-6 level and above that isn't going to change anytime soon. I am extremely cynical when it comes to sweeping changes even made from the CSAF that involve a complete mindset change of every Commander below him. Years ago as a young OG Exec I sat in a rack and stack meeting as a fly on the wall for an upcoming O-4 board back when the AAD was masked. The very specific guidance was that the AAD was to be masked and not considered or even seen by the Wing CC... when the rack and stack was complete and pushed up from the 4 flying Sq CCs and the OG/CC there was not a single individual without an AAD ranked above anyone who had one (and it was an openly discussed discriminator). My immediate "lesson learned/mentorship" passed to every co-pilot I flew with was no matter what anyone said about AADs or SOS in correspondence from that point out not being required (including the Sq CC) was just get it done because it was being used as a discriminator even if they said it wasn't. I've had several terrible Commanders and I've had several fantastic Commanders. One of the best Commanders I ever had was my last OG/CC who told me countless times sitting in his office shooting the shit at the end of the day how much of an incredible waste of time and effort it was for us to be getting useless AADs and doing PME in correspondence and said it was certainly taking away from us being better pilots... but his rack and stack was the same as the OG/CC above because if it wasn't his folks couldn't compete with the rest of their AF peers. That is the stage that has been set over the past 10 yrs and it probably won't be changing anytime soon. You call it cynical, I call it reality. He thought it was bullshit, but guess what... he knew everyone who had their AAD complete, their PME complete (and when they completed them) and yes, whether they signed the bonus or not. I know this because I was the one who had to get all of that info for him and put it on a nice little excel sheet by year group. I heard the horror stories of the 90s from all the old guys when I first came in, I saw the lines around the corner at the MPF for the first VSP, I saw the 157 get booted at 15 yrs with non-continuation (several were good friends of mine), I saw the complete disaster of the last VSP/RIF where we kicked out some fantastic pilots just to be "fair" to other AFSCs because we are all equal and like everyone else I am sitting back and watching the current fiasco of Force Shaping where the rules are actually changing several times a day to the point where even the folks at AFPC who are running the thing don't know what is going on... forgive me for not having great trust in the system right now just because some Troll (read Chang) is coming on here telling the passengers on the Titanic to just go back to their rooms and don't worry about the little chunks of ice on the deck! This has nothing to do with good Commanders and bad Commanders... I have plenty of good friends who are sitting Sq CCs right now and they are pulling their hair out over this mess. As Liquid said, I really hope the CSAF can pull this off correctly... but even if the Boss told every co-pilot in my Sq to their face that getting an AAD wasn't required; they'd all know they need to get it done anyway because we've all seen this movie before and the ending doesn't change. We have an actual leader as a Chief right now... hopefully some of the other GOs and O-6s start to follow his example. Most of the guys out there just want to be inspired... its been a while!

At least they have weed, tater tots, and the answers to the test.

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Sullivan_01-28-14.pdf Continuation of above: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Delaney_01-28-14.pdf https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Chu_01-28-14.pdf This entire record is highly cerebral and is much more focused on ends over means. A highly interesting read, but he doesnt do a great job of convincing the panel one way or the other except to say permanent changes shouldnt be made in individual moments of crisis. Statements to the Committee for the record without an attendee: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/NMFA_SASC_COLA_testimony_01-28-14.pdf https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/TAL_Statement_on_COLA_Reductions_SASC_01-28-14.pdf

https://blog.beretta.com/beretta-usa-to-locate-new-manufacturing-facility-in-tennessee Beretta is opening a new manufacturing facility in Tennessee... good for Beretta. They are one step closer to leaving Maryland, which is good.

They shouldn't have written the reg allowing base leadership levels to restrict the wear of this stuff further in the first place....it's like dad saying "yes" but "only if your older brother lets you"

Think Liquid meant in regards to the message board... Edit: Holy shit 1000th post. Kind of like when your car hits 100k miles... over 11 years?

Too many words. Did not read.

No, it's your commissioning ADSC, i.e. ROTC, USAFA, OTS....

A few good points from the most recent AF Times article. Secretary James and Defense Secretary Hagel seem to get it. I've been out of that career for some time, but recently ran into an older capsule jockey who was about to retire. His words exactly "It sucked back then, and I'm sure it sucks worse now". Sadly, I agree with him, however, ICBM duty could be one of the best assignments in the AF. A few highlights from the article: "The Air Force doesn't incentivize good work by airmen, but instead has created a culture that places an emphasis on perfection and punishing anything less" Agree wholeheartedly. I remember hearing about signs at all the bases that said perfection was the standard. You would constantly see the "shiny pennies" have field deviations swept under the rug, while other less fortunate people would be raked over the coals. You were also never taught the timing standards for evaluations, but were expected to perform flawlessly in an evaluation without them. These folks are set up for failure. "Micromanagement needs to be replaced by a culture of empowerment" Don't agree as there is not a lot of 'empowerment' a missile officer can have in the field. The checklist oriented nature of the job does not allow for much leeway, but this is a good thing. The micromanagement can be fixed by the purge I mention below. "The missile forces need better funding..." I'll believe it when I see it, but I don't think this will happen. I also don't think it is necessary to have PRP pay or anything like it. We were often compared to sub crews, but their job is much more dangerous and they are away from home far longer. If they get incentive pay, good for them, but the missile cops, MX, chefs, and FMs (all enlisted) should be paid more first. It is tough to expect young people to be motivated when they are in such remote locations. I don't have numbers, but am willing to bet DUIs are higher at the northern tier bases than at the lower ones. "The forces have lost a distinction between training and testing." Huge 2 on this one. There is no reason for monthly proficiency testing the way it currently is. In my end of tour brief with my CC, I mentioned the test bank concept and how it should be implemented. He said it would never happen. Each wing, at least when I was there, had different testing. It was especially difficult when you had an inspection come through where the tests were from different wings. There is literally no standardization across the testing shops and one failure means you're garbage. This type of testing should be scrapped. This should be step one. If completed, morale will nearly be fixed. The next part of the equation is fixing the management problem at these bases. As I stated before, the "rot" mentioned in this career field starts at the top. There is a severe lack of quality leadership at the top of the 13N career field, and there needs to be a purge similar to that accomplished at the end of WWII. This will send a message to the young officers in a positive way.

Do we have so many GO billets that we can't find individuals with both competence and character? While I think there are too many billets, it may be more of an issue in how GOs are selected in the first place. I'm sure focusing more on "character" will break the problem out into a nice neat measureable metric that will nip this quick. Clearly expectations need to be set, it's unfair to change expectation midstream. If it is clear that the exec must remind the general to wipe his ass when he finishes pooping, then the exec should remind the general to wipe his ass when he walks out of the office stating he's on his way to take a massive dook. If he doesn't, well...he's not really a very good exec. I kid, kind of...regardless, no one deserves to be treated poorly. Especially by someone that is about as vetted by the military system as they can be. This (and the numerous other examples) are a horrendous disgrace and direct reflection on huge systemic issues that need to be addressed (even if at the expense of short-term morale moves). Bendy EDIT: Never mind...This person did not complete IDE or SDE in-residence. Clearly an outlier here, an especially strange occurrence as well, since the SOS DG really should have help pull through all of these troubles. Seriously though: "B-52 co-pilot, standardization and evaluation instructor copilot"...come on now....is that a real thing? A B-52 Stand/Eval Instructor Co-pilot? Is someone fucking pullin' my leg and shitting in my cheerios at the same time right now? That is a wicked cool ass duty title, I would have known right then this one was destined for the stars.

so, have we determined the verbiage of what to put for VSP apps? and misc or sec af approved program?

I'll be honest, my morale would be increased so much more by eliminating the queepy bullshit we have to do (check in the box PME, ect) rather than the token gesture of running shoes and some velcro backed cloth. I see this as the easy thing to do for a quick artificial boost in our morale. Meanwhile no one is stepping up and dealing with the serious shit.

The coolest part of this thread is Champ offering thoughts on the same topic nine years later

I read the report. All allegations substantiated. This GO sounds like a complete asshole. DoD will show they are serious about fixing this unacceptable culture of toxic, entitled and morally bankrupt GOFOs only when they start firing their bosses for not knowing how shitty they really are. 360 degree feedback can't start soon enough.

You are a total ass clown. Have some SA. This is a forum of aviators, most--but not all--of whom are young. Of course you won't find in-depth understanding of strategic nuclear missile issues with them. So what? And that's really "tiresome" for you? Get a grip. Will I find an in-depth understanding of SEAD, ISR, or airlift in the ranks of CGO missileers? Of course not. So what kind of troll rolls into an internet forum of aviators to blast them for that lack of in-depth understanding or for making "flippant, blow hard comments"? That's what the damn internet is for! Are you new? And given the complete and total clown act that has been the nuclear community lately, I find it particularly curious that you would take that opportunity to go offensive on other communities that have not been in the news lately. You guys are clueless.

Looks like morale Mon-Thur nametags are a go.

Remember that kid in your ROTC det that was scared of taking any courses that remotely resembled math and majored in underwater basketweaving? Today he is that personnel officer at AFPC coming up with the manning numbers.

So much for peace in the Middle East. The Black Crowes and a Flock of Seagulls had to ruin it for everyone.... Guess that's what it sounds like, when doves cry...

Here's my input to the "great debate"... I admit that if I had a choice, an A-10 (or A-10-like) capability for a CAS mission would usually be my first choice in a survivable environment. However, that doesn't mean that it's an absolute requirement. I know I'm a bit dated, but out of my 250+ FAC missions in the OV-10 (Vietnam), 125 or more of them did CAS support at some point during the 3-4 hour sortie. I don't recall a single one of them resulting in the good guys being overrun due to poor CAS capability. Only one resulted in a friendly fire casualty and that was because the idiot stood up to get a picture of a Mk82 hitting the bad guys about 75 meters away (the ground CC's immediate comment was something like "Never mind, it'll save me the time it would take to beat his stupid ass to death"). The point of this is that we did great CAS work nearly every day with no A-10s. I worked F-100s, F-4s, A-4s, A-7s, A-1s, A-6s , VNAF A-37s, and F-5s, AC-119s, AC-130s, and even some AH-1Gs and UH-1Cs (gunship variants), plus my own pitiful ordnance, of course. Most of the work was in the 100-300 meter range, but some as close as 30 meters. In some cases, the sheer power of the 30mm may have been a detriment...the 7.62 was actually safer to use and plenty good enough in terms of killing power with less collateral damage potential. Each platform had its good and bad points, and had to be used carefully to maximize impact on the bad guys and minimize threats to the friendlies. For instance, a light platform with small ordnance (like an A-37 with 7.62 and 250lb slicks) I generally started working close with guns and backed up about 10m a pass until it was safe to use the 250s. When I had a couple of A-6s (usually VMA 225 out of Danang...really good at CAS!) I'd put one or two mk82s as close as possible to slow the action, then start dropping sticks of five or six (remember, they has 28 bombs each) behind the bad guys about 300m then march the sticks forward about 25m a stick. It didn't take long for the bad guys to figure out they were soon to be caught between a wall of bombs and fire from the friendlies, and they backed out fast. It might have helped that the first sticks tended to take out upper management, watching from the rear, early in the game! In general, F-100s were not too bad, since CAS and other close support was a large part of their mission, and the Marine A-4s and F-4s were very good at CAS since that was almost all they did (especially the A-4s from Chu Lai). They averaged between 20-40 CAS sorties a month and were very good because of their sortie rate. On the other hand, the AF F-4s from Danang (Gunfighters) were usually terrible, but that's because most of them only flew a real CAS sortie once or twice a month. I hated to use them closer than 200m. The VNAF guys were pretty good, too, but most of them had been flying for a decade, with the leads frequently having 1000-2000 combat sorties (mostly CAS) over a decade or more. Navy (mostly A-7s) was my last choice, mostly because they rarely did actual CAS, and I saw them infrequently which lowered my confidence in their abilities. As a matter of fact, my feeling is that good CAS may be less about the airframe than the pilot experience in the cockpit (and maybe about the guy directing the situation (air or ground FAC, or whatever the current nomenclature is). The Marine F-4/AF F-4 comparison is a good example. Just a thought...

Are you talking about Cannon or the Air Force in general. Either way the answer is yes.

I think it's more of an individual issue, than what rank that person has. When you say Officers are you including non-rated Officers? Because non-rated Officers are just as bent on uniform corrections than anyone else. What I don't understand is there's an AFI that says what you can and can't do dress & appearance wise. And for the past 13-years I've adhered to it and haven't had much issues about it. Why is it such a big deal? Do you follow your MDS's Vol 1, 2, and 3? Why not follow this AFI as well?

2Lt? A1C? You just outed yourself….

Glad to help-- the extremely limited O-2/O-3 perspective on display in many parts of this thread (with a few exceptions) seems largely due to the fact that many of the commenters are UMB-wearers with ZERO experience/knowledge in nuclear weapons issues...which is getting tiresome. My point was/is that unfortunately the nuclear problems go beyond a simple policy change at unit level. Again, this will require a fundemental rethink of nuclear policy to determine the continued relevance of the mission (which won't happen with the current administration). The resulting vector will govern in large part how many ICBMs we need, and how we will modify training, equipping and operating that force in the future. For the record (and JQuintana), uninformed, flippant, blowhard comments by elitists whose perspective and experience appear to not extend beyond any missions other than their own, and who largely believe themselves "too good" to perform ICBM duty don't add anything to the conversation, either. It's a myopic view of national security policy in general, and the AF's role in it in particular. Lesson over, young "studs". Go ahead and go back to your dart game and ripping each other's flightsuit patches off at the bar... K