tac airlifter

A "Definitly promote" in the push line, or a DP? I'm assuming you weren't selected?

Good discussion. I often hear some version of "the AF sucks at training tactical officers for leadership, we do it too late compared to the Army" or similarly worded observations. But you can be a technically proficient Army soldier as a 2LT, and OJT the details of soldiering while also leading 100 folks and learning that skillset; at least according to Army infantry folks I know. You can't do the same with an AF pilot; it takes years to grow a new pilot into a value added member of the SQ. That necessarily takes away early career opportunities to experience leading large organizations. Bottom line, spend an officers first 1-6 years leading people or honing airmenship (which involves tactical leadership). We can do one of those things, not both. In my opinion, this whole conversation speaks to the need for formally tracked AF officer aircrew paths. I think you should fly your full first operational tour then track either leadership (JQO, AF support functions, etc.) or tactical (which again, involves leadership of a different type). Some formal bifurcating of career trajectories would be a win-win for an individuals career aspirations and force management issues writ large. Too much time is spent by the system forcing people to do things they don't want, while willing volunteers for the same things become frustrated. We could solve that problem while deliberately growing folks into what they want and what the system needs. Great ideas at fixing these issues are out there and well know. The biggest obstacle is how to start. What authorities are required to initiate a change this large? Who are the stakeholders that need to be convinced, and can we speak intelligently to studies predicting the second and third order effects of said proposed change? What principals need to be philosophically aligned? What cabal of GOs will force this issue by socializing a consistent message at all internal & external levels? Those questions are the meat & potatoes of making any big change in a bureaucracy, and answers are totally lacking therefore change of this scope is not forthcoming.

Interesting point. You felt that event was adequately explained and the loss of life satisfactorily accounted for? That's a rhetorical question; I would not equate current events to Benghazi but I suppose that speaks to the increased polarization we're experiencing in our country.

There's always one black swan that bucks conventional wisdom. I can't explain it.

Fine with me. If the investigation finds nothing inappropriate, do you think the democrats will concede the point, or demand further investigations?

3.4% BPZ. There's one pilot with a P and no IDE that made BPZ, good for him!

I'm headed to the Paris air show in late June, anyone else going?

Based on opinion, not knowledge. Technically it is feasible now. In my opinion, "should we do it" and "will we invest in it" discussions will surmount any pure technical capability discussion. As mentioned previously, if we are moving toward more autonomy there are easier and cheaper targets I'd expect to be prosecuted before going straight to the most difficult. What do you think?

Done. Be prepared for an epic thread revival on 01 Jan 2033 when I collect.

I totally disagree, I don't think RPA airline ops are anywhere feasible within the next 30 years. We still have humans with flashlights backing airliners out of parking, driving baggage carts and pushing drink carts down the aisle.

So what's the bet exactly? Because I'll bet a 20YO bottle of scotch the US is NOT fighting in AFG 15 years from now. "Still in" lacks depth of meaning, we have embassies all over the world, on purpose, so we might very well still be in AFG from that perspective. But we aren't fighting there anymore, and if we are I will mail you a bottle of Scotland's finest.

All good points, not to mention forward basing with the teams we support builds relationships which both enable ops that might not otherwise happen and improve the quality of deliberatly executed ops. Manned ISR is an absolutely essential part of current and future operations. Unmanned is huge value added, but these capabilities compliment rather than replace each other. I know plenty of guys who have crossed between manned and unmanned ISR and they unanimously share these opinions. Dual sensor manned ISR isn't going to be replaced by single sensor unmanned. Take binoculars and a VSLIM, check in w/ GFC as sensor 3, profit.

Dude, it all makes perfect sense. You just need to spend some time in the NSA vault in Maryland.

Again, so what? So we have RPAs that won't survive (you assume) near-peer contested airspace? They're RPAs; we can afford to lose a few. Also, they aren't designed for that; they're designed to do exactly what they are doing now. So why do you care that RPAs haven't been "truly tested against a real adversary's military that can actually counter our punches?" I don't care if they get tested in that environment or not, we paid for them to do what they're doing now (talking here about the 1/9). I don't understand the point of your comment, hence I asked you to elaborate by asking you "so what?" Regarding your "go to a vault and garner SA" line: what do you think that adds to the conversation? I'm not impressed by your comments about yourself.

I keep hearing that. So what?

Valid, my mistake. "Agency employee" Still falls into my WTF category!

FBI agent marries ISIS terrorist.

I'm neither deployed nor at AFSOC staff. It's bloated. As you know, staff experiences vary. Mine may be anomalous. But I've been at a major HQ for a year and have yet to see any rated person used for their rated expertise. I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but it's hard to hear statements like yours about how AFSOC is hurting for pilots. We need an audit, especially of joint billets. sorry for the thread drift.

I get it, but as an AFSOC pilot wasting my time on a useless staff I hate hearing this. We have plenty of pilots, we just aren't employing them correctly which ironically is driving more of them to leave, thus worsening the "pilot manning pinch" which is entirely self-inflicted. If the USAF said "we need pilots who can and want to fly light attack airplanes; volunteers who meet xxxx criteria will be released from less important jobs" they'd have plenty of volunteers, and my guess is the machine would keep humming along just fine. That bloated staff manning is prioritized above a genuine combat need is further proof current leadership is incapable of fixing the retention problem.

Liquid is a credible SOF GO who has asked that his privacy be respected to enable candor. I wish he posted more.

What the hell are you talking about bro?

Tribalism seems sustainable. Their agrarian lifestyle seems sustainable, at least at a subsistence level. If the country remains a poor backwater, we don't really care so long as international terrorists don't base there, right? What do you think we should be doing differently, on a strategic engagement level?

Concur all. But the people who could change it are the same people who have benefited by it and see no reason to change it. Is this an un-fixable problem?

The 24 pole year is not the same for all services, and is unique to the AF. Awesome post, thanks for contributing your first hand perspective. Regarding your point about seeing the tragedy of our AFG mission up close, I'd love to hear more anecdotes or experiences from yourself or other hands.

Well I've maxed out my downvotes on the same guys, two days in a row. That's a new one. I have noticed he up votes his own posts which is a classy move. At least he's not taking the bonus, so you have that going for you AF.....