What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Guardian]

That was a good article on the backstory of that video.  Thank God for dudes not compromised by the system doing the right thing.
I hope this guy got sent an autographed copy on his birthday.

Do tell. Who is that and what’s the back story?

[Clark Griswold]

9 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Do tell. Who is that and what’s the back story?

He was not a fan of the A-10:  https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2015/04/10/two-star-fired-for-treason-rant-against-a-10-supporters/

 

[Blue]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

He was not a fan of the A-10:  https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2015/04/10/two-star-fired-for-treason-rant-against-a-10-supporters/

 

Currently retired and (unsurprisingly) working for Lockheed.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Blue

[Bobby]

Treason...

[brickhistory]

3 hours ago, Blue said:

Currently retired and (unsurprisingly) working for Lockheed.

Those F-35s aren't going to sell themselves here or abroad...

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, Blue said:

Currently retired and (unsurprisingly) working for Lockheed.

They all go back to the mothership at some point 

Going to a point in the article referenced above on the backstory and the mid 2010's effort to divest the A-10, I watched the exchange between McCain and and Welsh:

https://www.airforcetimes.com/video/2016/03/03/mccain-slams-usaf-chief-welsh-on-a-10-effectiveness/

I understand Welsh's point that he really didn't get a chance to make as McCain was cutting him off, we have X dollars total in the Dept of the AF appropriation, that X is always less than missions/things we need to do or buy, so some don't get done or bought.  He should have turned that into give me more and I will save it, BCA be damned.  If you're not going to give me more money, give me more authority over the AF appropriation to re-program resources and fix the glitch.  You're a 4 star chief of a branch, you're not going anywhere but to retirement after this, fight the good fight and even if you don't win, you'll make great TV making a politician squirm when you retort to his sophistry with a solution.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Clark Griswold

[Sua Sponte]

Rat works for Boeing because he knew he was blacklisted from every major. 

[Sua Sponte]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

They all go back to the mothership at some point 

Going to a point in the article referenced above on the backstory and the mid 2010's effort to divest the A-10, I watched the exchange between McCain and and Welsh:

https://www.airforcetimes.com/video/2016/03/03/mccain-slams-usaf-chief-welsh-on-a-10-effectiveness/

I understand Welsh's point that he really didn't get a chance to make as McCain was cutting him off, we have X dollars total in the Dept of the AF appropriation, that X is always less than missions/things we need to do or buy, so some don't get done or bought.  He should have turned that into give me more and I will save it, BCA be damned.  If you're not going to give me more money, give me more authority over the AF appropriation to re-program resources and fix the glitch.  You're a 4 star chief of a branch, you're not going anywhere but to retirement after this, fight the good fight and even if you don't win, you'll make great TV making a politician squirm when you retort to his sophistry with a solution.

Welsh spoke to all the SNCO’s at Altus when I was there back in 2013-2014. It was just him, Chief Cody, and the SNCOs. He flat out said he loved the A-10, it was the first fighter he flew, but he couldn’t afford it. Every career field he had manned over 100%, he had to pay for out of hide, which is why he did the Great Hunger Games, Congress told him to STFU that he was keeping the A-10, getting the F-35...so the only thing he could do was cut personnel. Pretty tough place to be put in, and a good example of how one can be the CSAF and still be told by civilians to STFU and color on how their branch was goin to run.

[Right Seat Driver]

Welsh spoke to all the SNCO’s at Altus when I was there back in 2013-2014. It was just him, Chief Cody, and the SNCOs. He flat out said he loved the A-10, it was the first fighter he flew, but he couldn’t afford it. Every career field he had manned over 100%, he had to pay for out of hide, which is why he did the Great Hunger Games, Congress told him to STFU that he was keeping the A-10, getting the F-35...so the only thing he could do was cut personnel. Pretty tough place to be put in, and a good example of how one can be the CSAF and still be told by civilians to STFU and color on how their branch was goin to run.

I get it, but the execution was piss poor. I had just PCSd to EGUN just before Christmas 2013 and got a phone call telling me to show up the next day for a CC call to announce the AF would cut 36,900 people ASAP.

There’s no real way to win other than being honest with the troops.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[SurelySerious]

43 minutes ago, Right Seat Driver said:

 

I get it, but the execution was piss poor. I had just PCSd to EGUN just before Christmas 2013 and got a phone call telling me to show up the next day for a CC call to announce the AF would cut 36,900 people ASAP.

There’s no real way to win other than being honest with the troops.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

 

They gave him 3 years over which to make the cuts, and he screwed the pooch by making them all in the first year...which then made us short people a year later when surprise the needs changed. That was unsat. 

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

Welsh spoke to all the SNCO’s at Altus when I was there back in 2013-2014. It was just him, Chief Cody, and the SNCOs. He flat out said he loved the A-10, it was the first fighter he flew, but he couldn’t afford it. Every career field he had manned over 100%, he had to pay for out of hide, which is why he did the Great Hunger Games, Congress told him to STFU that he was keeping the A-10, getting the F-35...so the only thing he could do was cut personnel. Pretty tough place to be put in, and a good example of how one can be the CSAF and still be told by civilians to STFU and color on how their branch was goin to run.

Yup - it (the DoD) is treated by both sides as a jobs program setting up the inevitable real needs vs. political/parochial interests. 

It's easy for me as a nobody and not having been in his position but if you get to that pinnacle and are asked to put 10 lbs of shit in a 5 lbs sack, fall on your sword and say no.  Don't rationalize that you'll mitigate it by working it out as best you can on the inside, just tell them no and on the way out make your thoughts known. 

Now, all that is when you are at the pinnacle and not every other time at your career when you are given piss and told to make it lemonade am I saying to throw in the towel and quit, like pornography versus art, you know it when you see it.

[jazzdude]

They gave him 3 years over which to make the cuts, and he screwed the pooch by making them all in the first year...which then made us short people a year later when surprise the needs changed. That was unsat. 

Wasn't the 1 year vs 3 year cuts driven by the SECAF?

[pawnman]

43 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

7 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

They gave him 3 years over which to make the cuts, and he screwed the pooch by making them all in the first year...which then made us short people a year later when surprise the needs changed. That was unsat. 

Wasn't the 1 year vs 3 year cuts driven by the SECAF?

Yep.  Selfie Queen Debbi James decided that we were going to save more money by making all the cuts as soon as we could.  

Even if you buy that argument, it was still wildly mismanaged.  People denied VSP or TERA because they were "too critically manned", while others in the same AFSCs were forced out even though they wanted to stay.  Telling people just before Christmas that they may be losing their jobs, but "don't worry about it, just enjoy the holidays".  Gutting entire career fields so badly that we still haven't recovered almost a decade later.

[panchbarnes]

I am pretty certain the manpower cuts were unrelated to the a-10 debacle. The cuts were mandated for all the service branches and started in late 2013.   For the af it was accelerated because Debbie's hiring was based on her downsizing experience with saic. She wanted to show the world she was a pro at downsizing.   I had so much hope for Welsh when he came on board, but I didn't see much leadership from him. He promised the officers a vector but never produced one because he got sidetracked with the sexual harassment scandals.   He passively aggressively got rid of blues Monday. Just generally stayed out of controversies.   The force definitely accelerated the downward spiral under his regime with the focus on volunteering and selfie queen tours.  It was sickening.

[Blue]

11 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Welsh spoke to all the SNCO’s at Altus when I was there back in 2013-2014. It was just him, Chief Cody, and the SNCOs. He flat out said he loved the A-10, it was the first fighter he flew, but he couldn’t afford it. Every career field he had manned over 100%, he had to pay for out of hide, which is why he did the Great Hunger Games, Congress told him to STFU that he was keeping the A-10, getting the F-35...so the only thing he could do was cut personnel. Pretty tough place to be put in, and a good example of how one can be the CSAF and still be told by civilians to STFU and color on how their branch was goin to run.

I believe that's referred to as a "false dilemma," or more accurately, a "false choice."  In other words, "a deliberate attempt to eliminate several options that may occupy the middle ground on an issue."

I'm certainly no expert, but you can't tell me with a straight face that the United States Air Force, with it's ~$160 Billion yearly budget, had no other option than choosing between retiring the A-10 and the Personnel Hunger Games.

[FLEA]

29 minutes ago, Blue said:

I believe that's referred to as a "false dilemma," or more accurately, a "false choice."  In other words, "a deliberate attempt to eliminate several options that may occupy the middle ground on an issue."

I'm certainly no expert, but you can't tell me with a straight face that the United States Air Force, with it's ~$160 Billion yearly budget, had no other option than choosing between retiring the A-10 and the Personnel Hunger Games.

I believe it to an extent, there were certainly other options but personnel cost make up almost 50% of the annual budget. People are the most expensive weapon system we own. 

[Sua Sponte]

32 minutes ago, Blue said:

I believe that's referred to as a "false dilemma," or more accurately, a "false choice."  In other words, "a deliberate attempt to eliminate several options that may occupy the middle ground on an issue."

I'm certainly no expert, but you can't tell me with a straight face that the United States Air Force, with it's ~$160 Billion yearly budget, had no other option than choosing between retiring the A-10 and the Personnel Hunger Games.

That ~$160 Billion yearly budget gets eaten up pretty fast when you were planning on retiring a MWS to buy another MWS, but you're going to keep both MWS's, which involves the associated aircrew/maintenance/support personnel, training for said personnel, R&D, construction on support buildings (hangars, sim buildings, etc), and other associated costs. Oh yeah, you're buying that KC-46 thing too, upgrading the KC-135, buying more C-130J's, etc. You are mandated by Congress to keep aircraft, keeping people over 100% manning, which people are your most expensive asset, is going to really eat away at your budget.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Sua Sponte

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

That ~$160 Billion yearly budget gets eaten up pretty fast when you were planning on retiring a MWS to buy another MWS, but you're going to keep both MWS's, which involves the associated aircrew/maintenance/support personnel, training for said personnel, R&D, construction on support buildings (hangars, sim buildings, etc), and other associated costs. Oh yeah, you're buying that KC-46 thing too, upgrading the KC-135, buying more C-130J's, etc. You are mandated by Congress to keep aircraft, keeping people over 100% manning, which people are your most expensive asset, is going to really eat away at your budget.

Then we make a Deal with the Devil / Congress... we swap MWS's out but keep at least most of the people and adapt the facilities at those locations losing/gaining MWS's as required to make it politically feasible.  

We want to retire the A-10 so let us buy a less expensive new Attack platform and retrain a majority percentage of the total force that flies and supports it, show them you save X dollars in the long run.  We want to retire the E-8, ok we want to buy a new C2/ISR/ELINT/EA/etc... but we want this new platform that saves Y dollars over the long run.

There's a chance that we will gain or retain some capabilities that the AF institutionally thinks it can do without but in acquiring new iron with lower operational costs and potentially lower manpower costs, it enables wiggle room in future budgets to get more of the higher priority toys.

@FLEA brought up the other elephant in the room, the cost of MILPERS.  It's grown about 65% proportionately since the early 2000's IIRC from the last article I read on it.  If we don't figure out the best way to compensate adequately, contain the rate of compensation and benefits to include benefits for dependents the DoD is going to end up as pension and healthcare organization with some weapons programs too.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Clark Griswold

[jazzdude]

If we don't figure out the best way to compensate adequately, contain the rate of compensation and benefits to include benefits for dependents the DoD is going to end up as pension and healthcare organization with some weapons programs too.

So how do you get people to stay in (or join in the first place)? Can't reduce ops tempo. Can't increase bonuses. I guess you could kick all the dependants to the market for healthcare to save money. You could also cut BAH so it no longer covers renters insurance and only 95% of the expected housing cost and make the member pay the rest out of pocket, while divesting yourself of maintaining base housing and contracting it out to the lowest bidder. You could cut retirement and make the member take on market risk for their retirement.

[SocialD]

14 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Can't reduce ops tempo. 

 

We can, leaders just won't make the decisions to cut the bullshit deployments.

[Sua Sponte]

2 minutes ago, SocialD said:

We can, leaders just won't make the decisions to cut the bullshit deployments.

This. How often do commanders say no? Of course they write their little op-ed in the base paper saying the one time they pushed back, but it's very rare. That's a sign of looking weak, especially when Congress is telling you to do something.

[Clark Griswold]

48 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

So how do you get people to stay in (or join in the first place)? Can't reduce ops tempo. Can't increase bonuses. I guess you could kick all the dependants to the market for healthcare to save money. You could also cut BAH so it no longer covers renters insurance and only 95% of the expected housing cost and make the member pay the rest out of pocket, while divesting yourself of maintaining base housing and contracting it out to the lowest bidder. You could cut retirement and make the member take on market risk for their retirement.

 

That is not easy question(s) to answer. 

My answer/solution to the problem of unsustainable benefits for retirees and dependents is stop digging that hole.  At some point say everyone who joins after this date will have these choices of retirement plans and dependents would be covered under these choice of plans.  Choices to retirement/benefits being ones that likely will be similar to ones in the private sector but with sweetners to encourage recruitment/retention.  But they would and will have to be less expensive than what we have now. 

The private sector gave up on lifetime defined benefit systems about 25 years ago, the government (fed and state) follows the lead of the private sector, it just takes longer for them to change.

If we wanna get serious about fixing this liability in the DoD financial obligations, we should look at buy out packages for members for whom it makes sense, if they are young, responsible and financially savvy it could work for both parties.  Buy outs would be generous and paid to achieve the long term goal of changing the financial direction of the DoD's pension & healthcare liabilities, pay a good bit up front to the members to save money in the long term. 

I'm not ecstatic about any changes to the retirement & benefits systems but I know that it has to be done.  Our lifetimes are much longer than when the systems were designed, the array of services is much greater and more expensive, we are mainly a married military now versus mostly single young men and politicians who usually think short term and implement programs / increases regardless whether they have a plan to actually pay for it leaving it to others to figure out to pay for it set this problem in motion.

The future will be more taxes, less benefits and more risk transferred to the individual to pay for the accumulated irresponsibility of past generations.  The inevitable change to the DoD pay & benefit system is just a manifestation of that.  Not trying to be Debbie Downer but I'm realistic.  Getting to work earlier on this will make it less onerous in the long run.

32 minutes ago, SocialD said:

We can, leaders just won't make the decisions to cut the bullshit deployments.

Yup, but we have to extend that idea further.  I like going to Germany TDY as much as the next dude but they are an example of where we don't need to be forward deployed or based.  Wealthy nations of the developed world used to the USA providing a lot or most of the military deterrence keeping them safe, prosperous and free will have to step up or get used to being intimidated by regional bullies. 

As to bullshit deployments specifically, the best appetite suppressant for that is additional pay for the deploying members paid by the requesting Combatant Command.  More for the member and keeps the Command from growing herds of Power Point rangers.

[war007afa]

4 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

This. How often do commanders say no?

Hardly ever, and we pushed the HAF to create a standardized and streamlined process for them to do it. 

”No” is a 4-letter word...

[SocialD]

4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

As to bullshit deployments specifically, the best appetite suppressant for that is additional pay for the deploying members paid by the requesting Combatant Command.  More for the member and keeps the Command from growing herds of Power Point rangers.

 

I'm not just talking individual BS deployments, I'm talking sending full up fighter squadron aviation packages to go fly CT on the other side of the globe.  My last two "deployments"  were completely worthless and did nothing but kill morale.  We used to have to tell people no for deployments because we had some many volunteers, no we're having to force people to deploy.  I get the idea behind these "presence maintaining TSPs," but we are fucking broke and morale is in the shitter.  Cut those out, flow us into real combat deployments and you will spread out deployment cycles for everyone.  We came home from our 2nd straight TSP and were already schedule for our third, just 19 months away.  Our local leadership called whomever controls that flow and basically said, if you send us on another TSP, "I won't have pilots to fill the trip."  ...and he was right.

 

This also has a negative impact on retaining the amazing talent that we have in Guard MX.  These deployments have killed more marriages than all our combat deployments (in my 19 years in the same Guard unit) combined.  The AD has fucked away their retention so bad that they're now tagging a shit ton of our (non-flying) officers and enlisted leadership to go run AD shops overseas for 6 months.  Dudes are deciding it's just not worth it to stick around.  

[di1630]

Buckle up kids. 5 yrs of an airline slump means good retention and if you thought big blue gave less than two f-cks about treating your time and family well before when people could bail, now watch as people have no options.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app