Chuck17
-
Posts
693 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Chuck17
-
-
Tons of maneuver room, but I don’t think this is going to end well. Delays, cutbacks, more delays, goldplate until its unaffordable — Tried and true Pentagon tactics. We missed the window to get this thing made.
The LAA might show up in AFSOC but that’ll be the extent. This thing is still on the books for one reason: John McCain. Big blue woulda killed it long ago if it coulda. It has nothing to do with mission, and everything to do with money and politics.
And cuts are coming — when we start moving money around to dry out and repair Offutt, and/or once the decision is made to “warm status” Tyndall - ala Homestead... even faster if we have to cut flying hours to pay for border wall construction.
All options are on the table at this point.
It’s going to be a bumpy year. Not sure LAA has much altitude or airspeed left.
Chuck
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, ihtfp06 said:
Great. They really need to just break pilots out of the LAF for promotion purposes.TTX for this is going on now at Randolph. Expect table slap at Fall Corona if it all goes well. The Army’s figured it out, can’t be that hard.
Also two line PRFs. #execLove
Chuck
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, raimius said:
Probably stated my opinion in a better way than I put it.
It is partially semantics. Unarmed infil/exfil, Intel gathering, refueling, etc. are all important functions, but I would argue that they are not employing weapons to fulfill those functions. I can see EW and offensive cyber, as they can disable enemy systems directly.
Calling a school that teaches tactics for an unarmed aircraft/system that does not have direct effects on the enemy a "weapons school" rings hollow to me. I call it political posturing because that is how you get the tactical experts in some communities to be taken seriously (e.g. people look for patches). The patch and title of "weapons school grad" gives a base level of commonality and familiarity across communities.
Yes, when I meet AMC dudes who have a patch, I assume they are good at their jobs. What I don't think to myself is "wow, what an impressive weapon" when I look at a KC-135.
To me it fits in with the "everyone a warrior" idea. Not everyone is a warrior. That doesn't diminish their value. We need docs, logisticians, engineers, network admins, etc, etc. If you are in uniform, you should have training in combat skills, but that's for contingencies in most AFSCs.
Youre going to have to explain what you mean by “direct effects.”
If I take an 29 ship of C-17s loaded with a brigade from the 82d, wrap them in a gorilla package of SEAD/Strike/CAS/ISR, and send them north of the DMZ to seize an airfield, that has “direct effects” on the enemy. They teach that at the WIC...
Or do you mean “weapons effects” when you say “direct effects”? If so, I’d say that limiting the WIC education to the employment of guns/bombs/missiles/radars is a Blue-4 level of understanding of the employment of airpower. The WIC is not about that (beyond Core One/Two academics...) it’s way more.
Your post is littered with double speak and lack of understanding of not only what the Weapons School teaches and produces but of the operational-level employment of American airpower. But it takes time and experience to comprehend how much one doesn’t know, especially about other MWS’s, employment, tactics, etc. and I’m far from an authority... Just trying to give you a view of what the WIC sees - take it or leave it.
It’s already been said - the WIC isn’t all about weapons employment. If the name is all that matters to you, I don’t really know what to tell you and you certainly don’t want to hear it from me.
Chuck
-
8
-
8
-
-
1 hour ago, raimius said:
Having tactical experts is a great idea. Calling all .mil aircraft "weapons" and having "weapons schools" for each muddies the waters, IMO.
As of 4-5 years ago, AF UH-1s had zero mounted weapons, just armed pax. We had plenty of tactics to make that work. Having a "Weapons School" would have been a misnomer. Having a school to teach and refine those tactics would have been nice though.
Having some sort of place to teach tactics is a good thing, I just think it's dumb political posturing that every community wants a "Weapons School" to do that. IMO it dilutes the seriousness of the task when transport and ISR communities have to argue that they are weapons.
You’re gonna have to explain what you mean by “political posturing” brother.
Your post says having experts is good, having schools is good, but you’re hung up on the “Weapons” piece of it? Then you loop in the quip about ISR... and it tells me you don’t know what youre taking about.
And there’s no argument. The really interesting one is cyber. Those guys can have devastating effects... does what they employ classify as a weapon? Should they have a Weapons School? You’ll be hard pressed to find a warfighting commander willing to go to war without them...
As a commander I want to be able to have go to guys there when the shit hits the fan. I can look at the squadron/AOC/Staff, see the patches and universally across the USAF it’s understood what the patch means, what those guys do, what those guys know. From personal experience, when ops were being planned and despite the expertise in the squadron, I pulled in the patches first and everyone else second.
Thats all we are talking about, and it’s the only piece about going to the WIC that matters.
Getting hung up on the “Weapons” piece of Weapons School is missing the forest for the first tree seen.
Chuck
-
3
-
9
-
-
15 hours ago, Tank said:
...maybe I’m the stupid one...
Ignorance is bliss.
As for the rest... feel free to PM me, happy to pass the elevator speech on why having people in all communities who are experts in their MWS - as well as know a thing or two about how everyone does their job to support and integrate their MWS - is an Air Power force multiplier for the USAF. If you don’t think that’s a good idea, yeah, I’d say you’re stupid.
I’ll even back it up with historical examples of ops where fighter and bomber guys tried to plan mobility operations and fucked it all up... because “it’s just moving cargo / dropping paratroopers / air refueling.” (AKA “admin”, so how hard can it be, right??)
And... for the record, there was a separate Air Mobility Weapons School run outta the Expeditionary Center at McGuire. Gen Jumper - a fighter pilot - closed it and rolled it into the WIC in the mid 2000’s.
Chuck
-
15 hours ago, ihtfp06 said:
The very worst people I’ve worked for in AMC have been patches.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkAnd the very worst people I’ve worked for have been crossflow dudes. The point? As was said, Heuristics are bullshit; judge the individual.
*break break*
... and curtail the Phoenix Reach program.
You want to fix shit in AMC then stop the fixation on guys who know little about a lot, and start building expertise. While there’s value in having SOME breadth, save the generalism for the generals.
AMCs obsession with breadth baffles me (and pretty much everyone outside AMC). I’ve watched guys my entire career pursue “broadening” over expertise - and actually tout how little they know about how many things as some kinda strength... THAT is bullshit (and there are more than a few nauseating general officers out there spewing the same nonsense). Truly oblivious and out of their depth...
When the balloon goes up you don’t call in the generalists.
Chuck
-
1
-
3
-
-
9 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:
But we (as officers) have an Indefinite separation date until we raise our hand and say we want to quit. Am I totally wrong?
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkMinor point/Quibbling: Or until you make LtCol at which point a DOS is established automatically at the 28 year point.
Chuck
-
Base/Wing/MWS?
Chuck
-
1
-
-
On 10/22/2018 at 12:50 PM, LookieRookie said:
New ADSC reg dated 22 October on e-publishing today. All ADSCs for IQ/RQ/IPUG/PIT are gone.
No coincidence that it happened right after Corona and following LtGen Grosso’s departure from A1... Hopefully the uptick continues.
Chuck
-
1
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, pcola said:
By immediately, do you mean to hint that the next O-5 board could see this new PRF? PRFs are due already in Jan, so most are already spinning up the processes.
Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile appYou don’t actually expect the AF to not screw this up do you...?
That said, I’ll ask my contact in the 1 if they’ve considered that timeline in the guidance rollout. Likely not. Change is slow.
Chuck
-
19 hours ago, matmacwc said:
Awesome, this does nothing for the secret rack and stack that WILL take place behind every members back.
The alternative? Nothing changes, commanders don’t rack and stack, and that everyone gets promoted? Serious question.
I’ll tell you as a Sq/CC I spent more time taking care of people on reports than was required. But yeah there was a rack n stack and it didn’t always end up fair in my opinion. I don’t think there can be any other way as things stand. I also don’t think we do it right... but if you don’t change the way EVERYONE does it then doing it right doesn’t matter because you screw your people. (I.e. The only way the Enlisted force got away from firewall fives was to change the entire system)
The above-center-below rating system will require some caveat I’d think, some that the Army and USMC have stipulated in varying degrees. First, all reports for each rank close on the same date (common reporting period) - although this will drive its own issues as there’s a huge difference between new guy captain wingman and old guy star on his wings WIC instructor pilot / mission commander. Second, that there is zero access to the individuals previous reports - what you did during the period of report is all that counts - no halo effect, “this guy was great last year” or “this guy was lousy last year” bias. (This, as has been identified, presents its own challenges and there’s questions of realistic expectations too). I’d say these changes have a lot of growing up to do before they are ready for prime time, so don’t hold your breath - my guess is two or three years before we see movement, though A1 states otherwise.
As to the PRF, Id think the recognition that all the work put into those things is wasted is a good thing. I’d expect that change almost immediately. There’s a lot of unanswered questions, but less meaningless work is a good development.
Edit: one additional I need to add after looking at my notes. Allegedly, the LAF category at promotion boards is going to be split. Pilots will compete against pilots and so on... Caveat: I’d expect quotas (i.e. ceiling to number of promotions per year) to follow in trail. So aircrew got what they wanted (a good thing, I think), now we will see how long it takes for us to start bitching about it...
Chuck
edited: to add the bit about promotion boards
-
2
-
-
18 hours ago, Homestar said:
I've seen many retirees receive letters from former (living) presidents, but I've never seen them replace the current president's letter.
From the article: "The day of the ceremony, Owens learned about the airman’s plans to include the presentation of a certificate from Obama, but not current President Trump. Owens felt this was disrespectful to Trump, and assumed the airman was planning to make the ceremony “a political statement” that would make Owens “look like a fool.”
Still seems like a toxic commander, and it was probably a good thing he was removed.
Understood. It's also a retirement ceremony and can be as much or as little as required wrt the presentations -- the retiree still gets all the paperwork from the current Prez. The So What is that it ain't about YOU (as the commander), it's about the retiree. This particular commander saw something that wasn't there, and ultimately got relieved for his reaction to it. It's a pattern... Better CYA than push the envelope - even in perception. It's pathetic - indicative of a guy focused more on the queep and looking good (similar to accosting people for walking across the grass - zing!) than shit that actually matters.
Chuck
-
3
-
-
Rumor out of Corona is this was discussed in detail and ADSCs for advanced flying training are going away as a result.
Not sure on the timeline, but AFPC has for implementation. Logic: atrocious numbers of dudes balking at upgrade over the three year ADSC requirement, and most of them are or are going to be under an ADSC for PCS anyway, so why are they being forced to sign paperwork that's ultimately hurting combat readiness ?
We shall see I guess....
Chuck
-
1
-
-
On 10/5/2018 at 9:44 AM, Darth said:
Just so as to educate the masses - In part this guy died on his sword over a retirement certificate being signed by the former president. Getting said cert signed by a former Prez is perfectly allowed, there's even a how-to on the AFPC website:
RECOGNITION FROM FORMER PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES
While not part of the required items for presentation, retiring Airmen or their supervisors may request, if desired, recognition from former Presidents of the United States. Those interested in recognition from former President Obama may submit requests online. For other former Presidents, contact the applicable Presidential Library. Recognition from a former President is typically a letter of appreciation, which may be presented during the Airman's retirement ceremony; however, this is not authorized to be used in place of the current President's recognition certificate, DD Form 2542, or letter of appreciation.
Each Presidential Library will have unique requirements for submitting requests, so interested parties should contact them well in advance of the retirement ceremony for specific instructions.
The more you know ! In the words of a former POTUS, " Don't do dumb shit."
Chuck
-
Some good changes coming wrt PRFs and OPRs outta Corona.... the table was slapped, but the timeline wasn't determined, so hold on to your butts.
1. Two line PRFs. It was determined through survey that the majority of board and MLR members use the top and bottom lines to make their determination.... So they're moving on that - two lines is all you get. If you've seen the form for command consideration, it's similar. Line 1: this dude is great because reasons. Line 2: #x of XX, absolutely promote etc.
2. Strats on OPRs are going away (like EPRs) - instead they are replaced with a by-commander recorded top-middle-bottom designation (or like the army, above, in, below center of mass), with a redesign of the form. Commanders ratings of their people will be tracked, so they only get X amount of each rating and if commanders are grading heavier or too light that will be recorded and reported at THEIR next promotion board... Undetermined: timeline for implementation, mainly because this style of rating is going to drive toward rating all of each rank at the same time, which is going to cause thrash as it did on the E side.
Chuck
-
3
-
3
-
-
On 9/28/2018 at 8:30 AM, Sua Sponte said:
As expected...
Chuck
-
On 9/30/2018 at 11:04 PM, Fuzz said:
We’ve been specifically told that the OCP guidance does not apply to the two piece flight suits. We aren’t allowed to wear A2CU outside of flight duties.
There are dudes wearing A2CUs on the HAF and Joint Staff... to work in the Building - GOs included! If your local leadership isn’t letting you wear them based on the 1 Oct wear dates, someone is making up guidance...
While that may very well be the case, and their prerogative, it is outside the intent. 1 Oct wear dates apply to any and all previously issued OCP variants and those being issued now. It’s a uniform like any else. YMMV on what constitutes “flight duties” (he said remembering how everyone played Dodge Blues-Monday during the Schwartz regime...)
Chuck
-
1
-
-
On 9/21/2018 at 8:46 AM, tac airlifter said:
For your first point, if I’m paraphrasing correctly- “he’s saying something dumb but he has to, otherwise he’ll be dismissed” is illogical. He should say the truth, and if the truth gets him dismissed then get dismissed. Am I misinterpreting you chuck? You usually say smart things, but excusing senior leaders for saying dumb shit by reasoning that ‘they have to’ is intellectual rubbish and enabling bankrupt leadership.
To your second point, that we must diversify thought and experience, I will disagree he was talking about ideological diversity. He mentioned there are too many white males so he was obviously wanting to diversify me out of the squadron. But I’m also curious why diversity is so sought after as an objective and why you think we need to diversify. Is there some proof that more diverse militaries are more lethal and more prone to success? I missed the ‘diversity as a decisive advantage’ chapters in Sun Tzu and Clausewitz. If diversity of skin color = battlefield success I’m interested in the evidence.
It’s illogical, or you just don’t like it? Come on man...
I’m saying that this SECAF would castrate anyone who doesn’t carry the diversity message, and old man Holmes toed the line. Questions?
Right or wrong (no matter how poorly delivered) he has a point. I’ve been in homogenous MPCs and OPTs (by MWS/Service) and seen the shitshow firsthand. And I’ve been in those more diverse in background and experience and seen things get brought up that leadership was missing. That’s all the evidence I need. YMMV. You wanna get hung up on skin color or sex parts just because leadership is, that’s on you.
Want diversity of background, ethnicity, wealth, education? Then grow it. In the meantime, we need to continue building the best replacements we can, regardless of who they were or are - so long as theyre the best.
Nobody gives a damn about skin color when the balloon goes up.
Chuck
-
1
-
1
-
-
I think we all need to remember that those statements were essentially made under duress - at AFA - and saying anything other than what he said would have been met with dismissal.
To the point, we need to diversify thought and expertise, background and education. Not necessarily parts or skin color. If you want that, you have to build that - which starts with recruiting. The service recruited a white male majority pilot force - it always has, because for 70+ years that’s who flew - and we can’t point the finger anywhere but ourselves. Want to change it? You have to grow it.
All that was poorly wrapped into what was said at ATA - because some people can think on their feet and some can’t...
Chucks, Ducks and Adders don’t give a damn about skin color or what parts you have.
Chuck
edits: clarity
-
3
-
-
He should be - but we all know a charge is as good as a conviction on this kinda stuff these days.
Chuck
-
8 hours ago, Right Seat Driver said:
Wasn't he an aide de camp for a 4-star? If so, that's what got him BTZ. Not AFPAK.
Yup, but he was on time.
He was a superstar volunteer for this program though, did his years overseas, and did well enough to get a wing command opportunity.
Chuck
-
5 hours ago, HossHarris said:
Pederast
I can neither confirm or deny, just part of the joke.
Chuck
-
14 hours ago, cragspider said:
Yeah, from what it sounds like none of the MAJCOM A1’s where coorded on the new AFI. So maybe that’s why they are reviewing it? Who knows, but you are correct it is the letter of the law.
Not totally accurate... the MAJCOMs cut on this change. And because there are next to no bag-wearers working in A-1s, many MAJCOMs sent no comments. The few that did send back critical non-concur’s were effectively ignored.
Part of this problem is that from the top-down the manpower/personnel folks have been allowed to do their jobs from strictly a manpower/personnel perspective, and completely decoupled from the pulse of the force. This started most recently in the James era (last bag-wearing A-1 was LtGen Sam Cox, who fought James and lost) and has continued, filtering down to the MAJCOMs. The willful ignorance of current ops in the -1’s the last couple of years has been astounding. What’s worse is nobody’s stopped the madness...
But when the only bag-wearer you’re accountable to is the CSAF, it should surprise nobody that this happened. How can the lowest level of integration be the four-button-in-charge...?!
All that said, this is exactly as it appears to be - an extension of your Service Commitment by other means (*or means other than stop-loss) based on the data available for the demographics the AF targeted for “retention.” It was 100% intentional.
Occam’s Razor, not Hanlon’s Razor... I’m happy to be proven wrong, but I don’t think that’s the case.
Chuck
edit: clarity
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, war007afa said:
Email sent from COMAFPC to organizations stated current take rate for initial eligible pilots was sub-27%. So there’s that...
Sounds like the approximate percentage of dudes that get picked up for major's school (which includes an ADSC of 3 years post-school). So... the only dudes that are staying are dudes that are staying anyway.
At least that's what I see in those numbers.
Chuck
-
1
-
Promotion and PRF Information
in General Discussion
Posted
Generally BPZ w/DP select rates hover between 25-33%.
Have DGs? Been a DO (for BPZ to LtCol)? WIC? School in-res? SAASS? Been an Exec/ADC for a three star or higher? OTY Award wins at Wing or AF level? Does your PRF have a strat in the bottom line? Is it signed by a GO? — chances trend higher with those markers.
(FWIW I recently saw the PRF of the CJCS’s Exec for BPZ to Col... had a DP from the Chairman and didn’t get picked up early - so it’s not ALL about recent performance or who signed your report - the record has to be there and consistent - but it helps)
If not, then have a realistic expectation for your DP and we will see you IPZ.
Chuck