deskjockey

Waldo, send me a PM with your .mil and I'll be happy to chat with you about being a flying DATT. Been there recently. It's a great job, but may not be what you think it is, and is certainly not for everyone...especially in Africa.

Huggy, thanks for taking the time to tell us about your friend and his son. My heart breaks for his family and the U-2 Community.

Female? WTF does that have to do with anything? Also, as a man who has flown both the 130 and the 135 for about 1000 hours each as two of my first 4 aircraft (and who has loved both of them)..I feel qualified to say the 130 mission set is much more complicated. She (whomever she is), will be fine if she's a good leader.

Coming left needs to put "Once an Eagle" on his summer reading list. If anyone needs my quals...I'm an EP on books. Also been an IP in 3x USAF aircraft and an AC in another. Because that matters. Oh, and the 135 is hard to land for the first 25-50 landings...and the sim doesn't accurately simulate that phase, FWIW.

Allow me to sum up what Liquid just said. "It could be worse." This, for those who don't know, is the unofficial AMC motto. Don't like your deployment rate? "It could be worse, you could be flying a C-xx!" Missing your kids birth? "It could be worse, I missed the conception!" Etc etc etc...for 12 years I've heard it. I think this is the root of our problems...the guys flying the line are saying "it could be better". Those at the top continue to say, "it could be worse". And the implied statement is. "So I don't need to fix it because so and so has it worse".

I'd love to help you…but, Rule #1 says never talk to the "fourth estate".

The only three C-12 units that aren't associated with the Embassy/Mil-group are at Yokota, Alaska, and a very small group of FTU/Test ops pilot at Edwards. The entire community is small...I don't know numbers, but I'm guessing less than 60 Air Force pilots world wide in all units. If there are general questions about the flying and/or RAS/PAS, let me know on the board (the SAF/IA portal page has great info for attaches and RAS/PAS so look there first). If you have other questions (as Chief SaH seemed to have) specific to your situation and the attache/DSCA gig, please let me know your .mil.

Chief S, PM me your .mil (and smil if you want more details). BL though, most embassy C-12 jobs are also attachés. There are some DSCA locations, but the total numbers are small for both. Your best shot at either of these options is through the RAS/PAS route (just search for that on the portal if you don't understand how those programs work).

I think what Liquid is experiencing now is a great form of 360 feedback...what if every boss was required to maintain a forum like this and address the troops concerns? The boss clearly wouldn't be anonymous, but the troops could maintain anonymity and call him or her out on the BS thoughts, encourage them to have some real balls, and make them aware of issues and/or success within their organizations. The AF would probably find a way to f it up but maybe a contractor could do the job. Also, an aside... slackline and any other new selects, be careful saying things like, "I'm going to school, I'll probably be running a squadron someday.". You'll have a better time at Maxwell or wherever you're going, and none of your bros want to hear you say it, even though they tell you how you're going to be chief of staff all the time. (plus, unless you're BPZ there is probably still a less than 50% chance...) YMMV, but that's just some humble advice from someone who was once in your shoes and probably said similar things. It is great to see dudes who engage on forums like this get picked up though, congrats. Back to your regularly scheduled complaints and ACP questions. What's the over-under on when it'll come out this year? edit: I spell goodd

If you look at the increments the previous (2012 board) will run out of O-5 Selects in December and the 2013 board's Majors will start being promoted... I don't think there is a reason for the AF to delay the 2014 O-5 board, but stranger things have happened. (BTW the 2011 Major's board still has about 10-11 months until they run out of line numbers)

Slack...people are just saying that this dude is just trolling. He's the one who went off book and exposed himself as a troll. Calling names like "pilot pussies" really isn't the way to have a discussion (especially with a bunch of pilots). It also exposed him as someone who is clearly pretending to be someone he's not. He mentions some generals' names and uses first person so everyone assumes he's on the inside. He goes with it...he mentions statistics without giving any...and finally, he uses a screen name with the word General in it. Either he's the worst leader the AF has or he's not who he implies he is. Either way, not worthy of engagement. I can't believe you guys are trating him any different than any other troll. I'm with the others, ignore the dude and he'll go away.

You boys are really allowing this troll to get to you too much...he's clearly just trying to push your buttons. There is no way 1) he is anything other than washed up middle management. 2) means anything he says I recommend hitting ignore ASAP.

Based on the commentary on the PRF thread, this guy is a sham. He's just trying to stir the pot. Either that or he's not playing with a full deck...either way, not worth your time.

Classy. I think we can close the book on this troll. Nothing to see here...move along.

This is the most revealing anecdote and response in this board to date. Assuming Gen Chang is who he alludes to being and not a troll... Wrapped up in the response to someone who, for whatever reason, had to complete a useless AAD in order to continue to serve and be promoted is all that is wrong with the AF. 1)box checking 2) lack of mission focus 3) careerism 4) and most of all, poor, seeemingly impotent, leadership, reliant on platitudes and dismissive of anyone who doesn't reflect their image of a good officer. A better response: Maul, thank you for your service. (better to lead with that rather than the sanctimonious way in which Chang used it) You faced a tough situation. You would have certainly gone to ACSC based on the select status. However, because of timing, I'm sure you know that any chance for a BPZ would be eliminated. Congrats though, as an in-res school dude you have a great shot at O-6. You can stay tactically relevant and hopefully continue to lead from the front. This is a great example of how choosing not to check the Air force approved boxes can bite you. While I don't agree with the system completely, it is the world we live in for now. (while working to change it). Good luck, enjoy school, and get back to the fight soon.

Corporate World perspective: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/want-to-be-ceo--what-s-your-bmi--174101605.html Without extenuating circumstances (i.e. the SQ/CC can't pass the run), I tend to agree with Grave, but it raises other questions. If you're firing CC's for failing a PT test, would you also fire them for a Q3? A speeding ticket? I'm sure the GP or WG/CC made his policy clear when the various CCs were hired.

Carpet cleaning?

I also attended the MAF-pocolypse brief. A lot of good info, but I had to laugh at their assumptions in the airline hiring. They started out by saying that they couldn't compare this "boom" to the last hiring boom because circumstances are different (global nature of the hiring boom/10 year ADSCs/economy/more) I can see where they're coming from, but they seemed to dismiss those previous events as ANY indicator of what may happen. They then went on to present the projections of global hiring...and summarily dismissed them as irrelevant. I'll use round numbers for ease of the example, these ARE NOT the actual numbers presented. 1) 100,000 hires over the next 5 years. 2) BUT, 30,000 of them are overseas and no Air Force pilots would take those, so we don't count them.... 3) and 20,000 of them are at the regionals and those are restructuring and going away, so we don't count them either. 3) Plus we assume a less than 1:1 replacement, so you can eliminate about 10,000 more. Conclusion: We're back down to 40,000, which is really kinda normal...so it's no big deal! That whole assuming away the overseas airlines and regionals made me laugh. The other thing I took out of it was the difficult nature of A1s job. The only solution to the problem is to restructure the CAF training pipeline, increasing cockpits in the line squadrons to increase absorption, reduce staff and other requirements, and more major changes that A1 can not make. Short of those major changes there is no solution. In addition, even if those changes are made today, there will still be a huge bathtub over the last 4-5 years which will be with us for the next 20. Finally, don't expect a MAF-CAF transition due to the real limfac being the FTUs. Someone should request the slides and post them here. (I'm too lazy)

This almost belongs in the WTF thread because it is so out of character for our fearless leaders- the Air Force is actually fixing something it messed up almost a decade ago. I am both impressed and scared this will be messed up somehow. From the AF Force development Facebook page: SQUADRON SUPPORT--HELP IS ON THE WAY: As you may be aware, the Air Force is continually looking at how to best provide support to our commanders and Airmen. Accordingly, our efforts led us to move additional support back to the squadron level in the form of Unit Orderly Rooms. When fully implemented, a typical squadron will have support staff with at least one personnel specialist and one administrative/knowledge operations manager. Larger squadrons will also have additional personnel and administrative specialists to include unit training managers and full time unit deployment managers. Group staffs will include an administrative/knowledge operations manager and a resource advisor. We are confident the reestablishment of the Orderly Room will go a long way to allow our Squadron Commander and First Sergeants to focus on the mission while simultaneously ensuring superior support to our Airmen in these critical programs. While many of details are still being worked, anticipate smaller units receiving help first beginning in FY13.

AdV: I agree with Darth/Hacker. Your dividing line of OSW/ONW is a little awkward. I think the changes in culture tie more to the focus of the mission and organizational behavior which gives power and influence to the community who is most critical to the mission (and effectively parlays that role). It started with the switch to an independent AF, then SAC, moved to the fighter pilots, then to the MAF and AFSOC, I think that may be a better way to define the change. At each turn, the new guys or other community was scoffed at by the former kings of the hill. If you want to stick to threat/conflict change, I think Allied force is really your dividing line...maybe even Desert Storm (as the last war of the Cold War period...it was fought with massed force and everyone did their traditional roles) Since Desert Storm, roles and missions have been in transition. Air to air mission fighting for relevance, "tactical MAF", appearance of RPA, helos doing dustoff missions, etc. Reminds me of Vietnam when SAC struggled because the BUFFs were doing missions they never thought they would. This larger identity crisis drives the RPA battle. Maybe you should take an RPA and sink the Ostfriesland...

Nobody I like laughing at more than me...and that's funny right there. ...cheers

I got a little carried away with the RPG thing. Exaggeration for effect... Good kill. There is a middle ground between the full understanding that actually puckering for a threat brings and complete ignorance...I'm hoping that Dave is closer to the former. I don't think he was comparing reacting to a no shit threat to driving to work. Rather suggesting both involve some threat. (which I agree with, but I think the level of driving threat is so small it is irrelavent and distracts from his overall argument.) I like your broader point about the permissive environment coloring an entire generation of AF and navy's view of combat. I feel like that could have a bearing on the discussion as a whole ( culture change or temporary lull in air threat?). AdV...thoughts?

Yeah, I started to write that you should qualify your argument to say that specific airframes (and I was going to single-out tankers) have a similar operating environment in the AOR and are therefore at equal risk no matter where they are. Then I actually thought about it...Combine the high ops-tempo (flying every or every other day with no mission planning save 1 hour before step), real or perceived pressure to go, long missions with rapidly changing weather and limited divert options, servicing (yep, that's what I said) aircraft who are involved in action that sometimes presses them to or beyond their bingo to a runway, which then presses the tanker to stretch, shitty comms in the AOR... ...you get my point. There is an increased risk...to everyone relative to their home station ops. Apply that same criteria to others and the differences only get more dramatic up to and including the helo guys taking rounds on a daily basis. There is still a distinct place for a medal and/or acknowledgement of the increased risk that combat brings. Do I wish the Pedros and others who take way more risk than the tankers and strat airlifters would get a little more recognition, sure...but I know to most of them, the knowledge that we all know they have brass ones is enough. ...no change required. So that's point #1...there is a difference for the guys in the air, both mobility and combat assets. Now for your threat at home argument I do not discount the possibility of terrorists in Clovis or Vegas increasing the threat...but that same thing is true for anyone who puts on the uniform at home in this age of global terrorism. For you to tie it to RPAs and part of the requirement for a cultural shift that "unites the tribes" is non sequiter (Termy can Google that). We already acknowledge the increased threat, however impotently, with the GWOT ribbon. Unless I am unaware of multiple plots involving targeted assassinations of RPA pilots (which is possible and not discussable here), I can point to Ft. Hood, Little Rock recruiting, and many more to say that trying to use this as part of your argument is not a great idea. Plausible usually doesn't come up as part of a good argument unless you're a defense attorney on TV. I'm just trying to help you refine your argument by pointing out that it's clearly the weak point. Look how much time you've spent defending that now, rather than talking about what you want to.

Yep, that was unfortunate, and received equally emotional replies and name calling from the gallery. (within ROE maybe...) He did come on here and try to get the proper argument to the front...much to the confusion of some. I think it's a valid discussion that should be taken on at ACC or higher and is a segment of a larger discussion on QOL for these guys. The standard answer has always been, "suck it up, you get to go home and bang your wife." That's a soda-straw look at the difficulty faced by these guys. It needs to change and reflects the equally flawed unofficial standard answer of, "Stop complaining, It could be worse". As for the article, I wish he would have eliminated the chaff from his writing and drilled more into the psychological impacts, tying that to an overall QOL problem (then offered solutions...which medals could have been a small part of) ...must be his crappy education. (note:sarcasm)

1) Good on him for coming on here to discuss. I've never been sentenced to fly the shipping container, but have some friends who were in on the ground level and have never left. We've talked at length about the price payed by those who execute the RPA misison. In many cases where you stand depends on where you sit, but I would hope that those who throw stones take some time to really think about what these guys go through, it's real on a lot of levels, and especially painful for those who didn't choose it. Not too many, including this author, are looking for pity...what they want is a better system. 2) Attacking his experience or details/semantics of his biography don't really help or make whatever point you think you're making -by extension: if we limit the people who can comment on combat to those who have seen actual AAA (as opposed to small arms fire or curtain fire?) or "guided" SAMs (are you counting optically guided RPGs or IR MANPADs...or even other missiles that could be RADAR guided but were shot ballistically?) There's a very small amount of people who can comment, and it would be really boring. I don't think that's a qualification for commenting on combat, nor is getting shot at by anything or killing someone. Bringing it up simply detracts from the argument. If you stick to the narrow definition of qualification to speak given previously, stop reading. If you broaden it to "allow" small-arms, RPGs or ballistic shots...or (better yet) think it doesn't matter, as I do, read on to my actual discussion on topic. 3) The real question isn't personal/physical danger...it's the act of killing those who want to kill Americans. The conscious decision to push a button and end the life of another human is not one without cost to the individual doing the killing. The miles don't change that (hand-to hand/face to face combat has differences) There is no difference in dropping a bomb from Xthousand feet or launching a cruise missile from hundreds of miles away vs. the thousands he is at. He distracted from his primary argument in the manner he raised his question, but it doesn't minimize the discussion. There needs to be better systemic recognition of the folks who are KILLING for their country, and by extension risk killing non-combatants, feeling the pain of watching Americans die live on TV, and having to deal with that in an environment where the rest of the world may be a little too normal. (kill someone then go to Wal-Mart because the wife needs apples?) Whether you sleep well at night or not, no matter how you justify it, there is a cost to killing. Anyone who says differently has either not done it, and/or not thought about it too deeply. Does killing define combat or is there more. I fall on the side of killing=combat based on the psychological results. 4) medals are simply an example of a way for the system to acknowledge this action and the sacrifice involved. An Air Medal is not correct...nor is Aerial achievement medal in my opinion. There is a distinct lack of a person in the air. Bronze star? (I'll refrain from the obvious jokes here) I don't think that's right either. There should be something different and new...the battlefield has changed, our terminology, culture, and by extension the system of reward and recognition must change as well. Thoughts?