What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Weezer]

19 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Reading fail on my part, I thought someone was saying the AF did this and I was generally wondering which community.

STOs/CROs probably do this, as do security forces and some elements in CE.  Maintenance and LRS, I think, get good opportunities to lead sections/flights.  However, when an Army/USMC captain is a company commander, he/she actually has UCMJ command authority.  AF flight commanders (I'm sure there are exceptions) cannot issue Article 15s, etc.  Being an actual commander on g-series orders is an order of magnitude different level than supervisory flight "commander."

I think fliers/space dudes are at a huge disadvantage when they are suddenly thrust into Wing command.  MXG officers get a pretty decent exposure to both supporting flying operations and the mission support side (through dealing with so many Airmen).  MSG officers co-exist in a multi-function group of 6 different types of squadrons.  Most fliers/space Os go from operations squadron commander of their primary type of squadron, to operations group commander of their primary type of group, to Wing commander of everything there is.  And its all well and good to lead through your Group/CCs, until something comes out of left field that catches you off guard because you couldn't read the tea leaves because it's a whole other language (contracting, for example).

[Guest]

I think an interesting way to prepare pilots for command would be to do away with or substantially cut the MX officer career field and have fliers voluntarily rotate through for a 2-3 year assignment. It would give fliers an early opportunity to see if command is for them or not. It sure would function better than our current system where we end up with leaders who know when to use straight vs curly quotation marks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Weezer]

18 minutes ago, ihtfp06 said:

I think an interesting way to prepare pilots for command would be to do away with or substantially cut the MX officer career field and have fliers voluntarily rotate through for a 2-3 year assignment. It would give fliers an early opportunity to see if command is for them or not. It sure would function better than our current system where we end up with leaders who know when to use straight vs curly quotation marks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oooorrrr...you could incorporate maintenance back into OGs and have it be a legit leadership position and still fly.

[VMFA187]

4 hours ago, Weezer said:

Oooorrrr...you could incorporate maintenance back into OGs and have it be a legit leadership position and still fly.

It's a difficult life to balance leading 30-40 maintainers who do something you have no training in, while also perfecting your skill in the air and learning flight leadership.

Not un-doable, but difficult.

[dream big]

8 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Having run around the higher levels of a Sq a few times now, this is the feeling I get from most 1st time CC's in Comm/Cyber.  I don't know how you fliers do it, but unless our O's dig into the many areas of a Sq (finance, civ relations, first shirt issues, etc.) we get no experience from it.  My last boss was great, and brought me into a lot of the CC's issues...but I'd say that was the exception.

The MAJCOM Sq/CC courses are a joke.  Last boss said it was basically "Call the Command Post if there's a suicide/rape/assault/etc." with little else about dealing with being a commander, working with other commanders, etc.

Can you give an example of this grooming/preparing?

Exec, weapons school, Phoenix programs (AMC side,) auto stratifications in the top 5% regardless of job performance, new job every 4 months, very little actual flying to focus on career stuff.  

[sqwatch]

In the Army, a 22 year old 1 or 2Lt is a platoon leader in command of 30-50 people.  As a 26 year old Capt he/she is a Company Commander leading 100-200 people.  Then later, after lots of experience already leading, they get Battalion Command as an O-5.  So when an Air Force officer gets their first true command experience as an O-4/5, an Army or Marine counterpart has had multiple command tours by that time.  They get experience as commanders at a very early age dealing with all the associated issues but in gradually increasing levels of responsibility.  
 

Sounds like a MX officer in the Air Force


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fuzz]

From talking with leadership here in AMC, it seems that the OSS/CC position is being highly looked at for future upper leadership because it deals with so many non-rated careers fields similar to what a WG/CC might have to deal with.

[dream big]

27 minutes ago, Fuzz said:

From talking with leadership here in AMC, it seems that the OSS/CC position is being highly looked at for future upper leadership because it deals with so many non-rated careers fields similar to what a WG/CC might have to deal with.

My old OSS/CC would have loved that...when he got the job (he's a flyer) he told me point blank that it was the JV SQ/CC position to the flying squadron commander; and that was pretty much his off ramp to "tier II" colonel billets, whatever that meant.  Pretty sure he's trying to bail for the airlines now.

[HU&W]

When I was a logistics 2Lt, I led a flight of over 200 people.  I dealt with unbelievable discipline issues, a multi-million dollar budget, and complex daily issues regarding the mission of my flight.  Had I remained in that silo, instead of switching to pilot, I would have been extremely well prepared to lead large complex organizations.  I also would have been woefully ignorant of how to integrate and employ airpower at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels and do the mission our service exists to do.

We are not the Army, where the weapons system is people.

Edited May 18, 2017 by HU&W

[Chuck17]

18 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

The MAJCOM Sq/CC courses are a joke.  Last boss said it was basically "Call the Command Post if there's a suicide/rape/assault/etc." with little else about dealing with being a commander, working with other commanders, etc.

Recently attended one - and had the exact opposite experience. It included some of the best one-on-one mentoring of my entire career, and has facilitated further discussion since then. 

Half-assing it sucks and I'm sorry to hear that not all are created equal. Like anything else, you get out what you put in - for the individual and the command, it seems.

Chuck

[Hacker]

I started my career as a MX officer before I went to UPT, and quite frankly learned more about leadership during that time I was in charge of 100-ish people than I did in the majority of the rest of my career as a flyer.

The unfortunate truth is that leading a 30-aircraft LFE as a Mission or Package Commander is not the same type of leadership skill.

[Weezer]

7 hours ago, HU&W said:

We are not the Army, where the weapons system is people.

Can't do much with that weapon system without effectively leading and managing people...I'm pretty sure there are countless examples on this very forum of how the AF has failed to manage people.  It doesn't do well to have billion dollar weapons systems sitting idle because all of our pilots have walked out the door because no one's doing leadership above the tactical level.  I have no doubt every general in the AF can operate their weapon system effectively and I have no doubt they can tactically lead.  It's the leadership of large and complex organizations that we're often missing. 

6 hours ago, BeerMan said:

I usually get a blank stare, and words to the effect of..."I don't care about that stuff, that's your job." 

This infuriates me. 

Support functions are important. Hell, OCA-Escort is a support function. I think increased leadership opportunities outside the cockpit are important, but we shouldn't forget that a package lead, mission commander, or weapons officer (speaking from a CAF perspective) does a whole lot of leading and does/should apply that leadership experience. Somewhere in the last 10-20 years in the Air Force and DoD we decided to downplay that experience; at our detriment in my opinion. 

Don't be an asshole, but we need to stop downplaying tactical leadership. Working well with others, not being a jerk, as well as leading, planning, executing, and debriefing with 300 other aviators to get better after flying a 40 v 60 is pretty relatable to leading a squadron. Just one man's opinion...

 

The problem is not lack of tactical leadership.  But, we're not translating that tactical leadership into the large organization management skills that are required to run the AF.  As a result, all of that tactical leadership is heading out the door.

Quick side note, though...other services graduate to operational and strategic leadership much earlier than we do.  As a result, we are behind when we sit on joint staffs.  Joint staffs (specifically COCOMs) are what does the strategic and operational planning to fight the nation's wars.  Those plans are what drives the demand for the combat power the AF provides.  We need to make sure we're dialed into the bigger picture, while maintaining tactical expertise.

It is garbage that some mission support O's are not dialed into the mission of our service...the questions you give above are pretty easy ones (although a non-pilot can't be a JFACC).  I will say that the more successful ones who have risen to Sq/CC level and above that I've met are well aware of these things and don't lose an opportunity to connect their squadron mission with the wing and theater mission.  I wouldn't expect them to know how to but an OCA package together, but knowing the acronym should be something they learned way back in per-commissioning, or at least ASBC/SOS.

[Duck]

I started my career as a MX officer before I went to UPT, and quite frankly learned more about leadership during that time I was in charge of 100-ish people than I did in the majority of the rest of my career as a flyer.
The unfortunate truth is that leading a 30-aircraft LFE as a Mission or Package Commander is not the same type of leadership skill.

I second this unfortunately. I spent my year casual as the DO for a Mx Tech Training Sq. The only person who outranked me was the SQ/CC as a Maj. I had around 500 Amn, NCOs, SNCOs and civilians reporting to me as a 2LT. The job was billeted for an O-3 but the person who was supposed to do the job was dealing with long term medical issues and I never even met them the whole year.

The stuff I saw and dealt with shocks all my bros when we BS over beers. I'm talking getting drunk with hand sanitizer, gangbangs, amateur porn, suicidal airmen, kiddie porn and drug busts to name just a few.

That's not to mention supporting the Perm Party guys and gals who made the squadron run.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[HeloDude]

11 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

It's a difficult life to balance leading 30-40 maintainers who do something you have no training in, while also perfecting your skill in the air and learning flight leadership.

Not un-doable, but difficult.

Maintenance officers have very little training in hands on mx/technician skills.  

[HU&W]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

Can't do much with that weapon system without effectively leading and managing people...I'm pretty sure there are countless examples on this very forum of how the AF has failed to manage people.  It doesn't do well to have billion dollar weapons systems sitting idle because all of our pilots have walked out the door because no one's doing leadership above the tactical level.  I have no doubt every general in the AF can operate their weapon system effectively and I have no doubt they can tactically lead.  It's the leadership of large and complex organizations that we're often missing. 

I expected that response, and you are right, that's where we're weak.  That still doesn't make large masses of people the AF weapons system, nor does it equate the background required to manage those large masses of people with the background required to win wars.  It takes a whole lot more than learning the acronyms in ACSC to understand integrating airpower.  Also, you can't just have the Air Force GENERAL officer delegate the portion of a war that involves fighting to his/her Combat SME that happens to be a pilot.

[Weezer]

16 minutes ago, HU&W said:

I expected that response, and you are right, that's where we're weak.  That still doesn't make large masses of people the AF weapons system, nor does it equate the background required to manage those large masses of people with the background required to win wars.  It takes a whole lot more than learning the acronyms in ACSC to understand integrating airpower.  Also, you can't just have the Air Force GENERAL officer delegate the portion of a war that involves fighting to his/her Combat SME that happens to be a pilot.

I get it that airpower is more than just acronyms.  But integrating airpower is also more than just airpower.  Personal example:  my job right now involves plan sourcing on a joint staff.  Every single joint officer up here, regardless of service, understands that A-10s do CAS...the pointy end of the spear.  Easy.  The ground pounders make sure that they have JTACs as integral part of their units, and the JMD guys make sure there's the requisite number of 11F dudes on the JTF staff.  The integrating I get to do is going back on all those TPFDDs and adding in the shaft to the spear...everything from maintenance, to logistics, to medical, to engineering.  There are very few AF functional capabilities that stand alone.

The AF as a whole (not just the operational side, as Beerman pointed out) does a pis-poor job of integrating our vertical stove-pipes such that our field grade officers, who are our face to the joint staffs (which actually fight wars, since services just organize, train, and equip, if I remember my ACSC correctly) understand how to do that.

[dream big]

8 hours ago, BeerMan said:

Exactly! When I hear people complain about how the CE, Mx, LRS, Comm, etc, Lt or Captain has been leading 20-200 people for the last 10 years I ask them a few questions.

"Do you know what a Combined Air Operations Center is?"

"What is Dynamic Targeting?

"What is Defensive Counter Air?"

"What is a JFACC and do you want to be one?"

"How do you feel about our Command and Control capabilities in CENTCOM?"

"How about the Asia Pacific region?"

"Have you ever heard of a Flanker, a Long Range SAM, or an AWACS?"

I usually get a blank stare, and words to the effect of..."I don't care about that stuff, that's your job." 

This infuriates me. 

Support functions are important. Hell, OCA-Escort is a support function. I think increased leadership opportunities outside the cockpit are important, but we shouldn't forget that a package lead, mission commander, or weapons officer (speaking from a CAF perspective) does a whole lot of leading and does/should apply that leadership experience. Somewhere in the last 10-20 years in the Air Force and DoD we decided to downplay that experience; at our detriment in my opinion. 

Don't be an asshole, but we need to stop downplaying tactical leadership. Working well with others, not being a jerk, as well as leading, planning, executing, and debriefing with 300 other aviators to get better after flying a 40 v 60 is pretty relatable to leading a squadron. Just one man's opinion...

 

Cheers,

Beerman

I wish you could teach a lesson or two to a former SOS commander who was griping that bag wearers only care about tactics and don't really know how to lead. He's a 1-star now by the way 

[Sprkt69]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

  I will say that the more successful ones who have risen to Sq/CC level and above that I've met are well aware of these things and don't lose an opportunity to connect their squadron mission with the wing and theater mission.  I wouldn't expect them to know how to but an OCA package together, but knowing the acronym should be something they learned way back in per-commissioning, or at least ASBC/SOS.

I couldn't even begin to count how many times I have found this to not be the case.

[Weezer]

Just now, Sprkt69 said:

I couldn't even begin to count how many times I have found this to not be the case.

Do you mean as far as knowing what they are, or connecting their squadrons to the bigger mission, or both?  Either way, that sucks.

[dream big]

2 hours ago, Hacker said:

I started my career as a MX officer before I went to UPT, and quite frankly learned more about leadership during that time I was in charge of 100-ish people than I did in the majority of the rest of my career as a flyer.

The unfortunate truth is that leading a 30-aircraft LFE as a Mission or Package Commander is not the same type of leadership skill.

I think both types of leadership skills are necessary to be a senior leader in this organization.  The problem is, leading that LFE package and supervising 200 jokers are both full time jobs.  Focus too much on one and the other takes the hit.  This is why we get limited leadership opportunities as aviators.  

[Sprkt69]

1 minute ago, Weezer said:

Do you mean as far as knowing what they are, or connecting their squadrons to the bigger mission, or both?  Either way, that sucks.

Both. 

[Weezer]

Just now, Sprkt69 said:

Both. 

Like I said...that sucks.  And those commanders suck.

So I might as well come out of the closet:  I'm not a pilot or even an operator.  I'm an MSG guy (CE) who cares about where the AF is headed.  These forums seem to have pretty good gouge on what the nuts and bolts of the rated force is thinking.

When people ask me how I like my job, it's mixed.  I like the technical nerdery, but I always wish I was working more directly with operations.  It's kind of like working at Microsoft...unclogging toilets.  It's cool to say I work at Microsoft, but...

I'm not sure if I'll ever be a squadron commander...I got to be a deputy for a year overseas.  Tried my best to bust my a$$ to make the mission happen, and also make sure our Airmen understood the impact they were having on the mission.  It wasn't easy...the MSG has its own kind of salt...but I tried to do my best.

Now I'm on Joint Staff working plan sourcing, as I said.  If we were sitting down at a bar, what would you say to me that I can do to help?

[VMFA187]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Maintenance officers have very little training in hands on mx/technician skills.  

I can't speak to the way the AF trains their Mx officers, but the USMC sends them to school for 4-6 weeks to learn their trade. That is considerably more than the two days of six hours of powerpoint training I received before I took over airframes, the same that all pilots receive when working in maintenance on this side of the house.

[tac airlifter]

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.  

[Hacker]

1 hour ago, VMFA187 said:

I can't speak to the way the AF trains their Mx officers, but the USMC sends them to school for 4-6 weeks to learn their trade. That is considerably more than the two days of six hours of powerpoint training I received before I took over airframes, the same that all pilots receive when working in maintenance on this side of the house.

There's zero technical training in the MX officer school, nor is any allowed on the job.  

Once I was back from AMOC, I actually tried to get a Job Qualification folder started so I could get trained to perform some wrench-turning tasks.  That got squashed rather quickly from QA, who could find no AFI authorization for a 21A AFSC to receive such training or qualification.