What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Clark Griswold]

16 hours ago, SocialD said:

I'm not just talking individual BS deployments, I'm talking sending full up fighter squadron aviation packages to go fly CT on the othr 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.  

Copy

I'm not sure it's a conspiracy against the ARC but AD seems to want to drive it into the dirt by overuse of some of its capabilities / units.  Why I suppose is to grow the AD by the return of resources and iron, seems short sighted and myopic so it might be true. 

With the airline and broader economy problems this may be less problematic for the members of the ARC as employment is better than unemployment but still if the units are burned out, back off.  Unless it is responding to a contingency that we deem necessary to intervene militarily, just be unpredictable and execute said deterrence TSP later.  Short notice, short duration airpower demos can likely accomplish the same deterrent effect for less cost and less stress on the force.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Clark Griswold

[GKinnear]

17 hours ago, SocialD said:

I'm talking sending full up fighter squadron aviation packages to go fly CT on the other side of the globe

You'd be surprised about how much HAF/ACC actually pushes back against the Joint Staff...but we all have a boss, even at that level. JOINT is spelled ARMY so we're fighting a cultural battle in some regards.

[SocialD]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

  Short notice, short duration airpower demos can likely accomplish the same deterrent effect for less cost and less stress on the force.

 

Shack! 

 

16 minutes ago, GKinnear said:

You'd be surprised about how much HAF/ACC actually pushes back against the Joint Staff...but we all have a boss, even at that level. JOINT is spelled ARMY so we're fighting a cultural battle in some regards.

 

Ya, sending us to the fucking arctic (northern tier Europe) in the dead of winter made great sense.  Between inlet icing, ridiculous amounts of snow and no fucking tacan within 275 miles, we ended up weather cancelling more than we actually flew (no shit >50% attrition)....despite our best efforts to get USAFE waivers for wx reqs.  We actually had to send guys to the sims in Spang just so we could actually get our sorties for the month because guys were going non-CMR.  We were there 2 months before we even knew there was an A-team on the other side of base who might want to integrate with us.  So ya, you're probably right, that has Army written all over it!  

But hey, this guy has over 175,000 hyatt points and another 150,000 points with another major chain and platinum status with both.  I'm single/no kids so I'm always up for an adventure.  That said, our last two trips were both divorce magnets and morale killers.  Hate to see that happen for trips that feel like you're having zero impact on anything, all while having road block after road block when you try to have a positive impact.

Time to open beer another beer and get off my lawn!

[Muscle2002]

1 hour ago, GKinnear said:

You'd be surprised about how much HAF/ACC actually pushes back against the Joint Staff...but we all have a boss, even at that level. JOINT is spelled ARMY so we're fighting a cultural battle in some regards.

I thought spelling JOINT, A-R-M-Y was just hype until I spent the last year in school with them.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Muscle2002

[Bigred]

19 hours ago, SocialD said:

We came home from our 2nd straight TSP and were already schedule for our third, just 19 months away. 

I’m jealous of you having 19 months between deployments. 

[SocialD]

31 minutes ago, Bigred said:

I’m jealous of you having 19 months between deployments. 

 

Join the Guard.  Wait, didn't you just transfer to the Guard? 

[Bigred]

23 minutes ago, SocialD said:

 

Join the Guard.  Wait, didn't you just transfer to the Guard? 

Nope, transferred to active duty but I’m OCONUS so I’m avoiding the true AMC shenanigans for now. Just gotta play the long con and make it to retirement. 

[zachbar]

As a lieutenant, I spent a month shuttling cargo out of an airfield somewhere hot and desert-like to shut a base down during a “drawdown,” only to fly to the same ICAO as an AC to deliver infrastructure to support a less politically visible mission. I’d say that about sums up what’s wrong with the military as a whole. Policy has to change above the DOD level before it starts to feel better, in my opinion. Shutting down qweep deployments will help, but it won’t solve anything long term. I honestly thought my non-flying deployment to Incirlik was a nice break from the grind. It was 4 months of my commander telling me to do my job and don’t ing bother him if things were going well. Got more drinking and reading done than I ever have in my life!

[SurelySerious]

13 minutes ago, zachbar said:

As a lieutenant, I spent a month shuttling cargo out of an airfield somewhere hot and desert-like to shut a base down during a “drawdown,” only to fly to the same ICAO as an AC to deliver infrastructure to support a less politically visible mission. I’d say that about sums up what’s wrong with the military as a whole. Policy has to change above the DOD level before it starts to feel better, in my opinion. Shutting down qweep deployments will help, but it won’t solve anything long term. I honestly thought my non-flying deployment to Incirlik was a nice break from the grind. It was 4 months of my commander telling me to do my job and don’t ing bother him if things were going well. Got more drinking and reading done than I ever have in my life!

Agree. The public policy end game of what is our strategy and how does the mil fit into it has been confusing since roughly 2002. 
 

Someone older will probably say it goes back further. 

[FLEA]

8 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Agree. The public policy end game of what is our strategy and how does the mil fit into it has been confusing since roughly 2002. 
 

Someone older will probably say it goes back further. 

A lot of it is our civilian leadership expectation of what we can accomplish. They can't take no for an answer and culturally, Americans are poor at setting priorities. We will list our priorities but then we just decide to find a way to do everything anyway. 

Regarding joint and the Army, they simply don't understand the cultural differences of the Air Force. There is no shortage of manpower on the Army side and when they have a problem their solution is to just throw people at it until it's solved. Institutionally, Army GOs are not aware that Air Force personnel are niche trained in highly technical fields and we are overall a smaller force. So when the Army says "we are going to go to 24 hour ops and move this massive force from X to Y" they can't understand why the AF can't just do the same thing. 

[GKinnear]

15 hours ago, SocialD said:

Words

Maybe my own bias got me. When I see "deployment" and "CT" in the same sentence, I immediately assume the sandbox.

I'll add a caveat that the AF fights the JS on CENTCOM deployments...sometime successfully, sometime not. Why are they fighting going to the desert, so they can go to Europe and Asia. I guess the things change, the more they stay the same.

[jrizzell]

Agree. The public policy end game of what is our strategy and how does the mil fit into it has been confusing since roughly 2002. 
 
Someone older will probably say it goes back further. 

We we’re in Vietnam for 20 years...and still have bases in Korea. I’m not sure the military has ever been good at “end game” strategy; besides occupation

[Lawman]

We we’re in Vietnam for 20 years...and still have bases in Korea. I’m not sure the military has ever been good at “end game” strategy; besides occupation

Yet most of Kuwait is still built out of tents.

Long term planning is hard in an organization where leaders only reap the rewards they are present for and think little of what they do now effecting anything further than 18 months out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hindsight2020]

Perpetual war is not the bug, it's the feature. 

The mission is pork barrel baby, we're just the patsies. 

There's a few people in life I'd take a bullet for, none of them currently populate our 3 branches of federal government.

Edited May 16, 2020 by hindsight2020
memes. need more memes

[SocialD]

On 5/15/2020 at 6:56 PM, joe1234 said:

Wait, is that a thing? Like you get long term MPA orders just to go run some squadron's training shop?

 

Remember this is NOT pilots (yet), this is mostly enlisted leadership all over base including a few LRS & MX officers.  It's not totally uncommon for random people around base to get tagged with 6-month deployments during the ACS/RCP/AEF (whatever we call it these days) window.  What's different is they tagged 40+ from mx, which I have never seen before, nor have I ever seen them tag our MX officers.  But yes, all the MX folks I've talked to are being individually deployed to run shops at various bases within the AOR.  Apparently the AD is short on senior enlisted folks. 

On the plus side, they tagged about 4 our our Chiefs on base.  Soooooo...with an increase in Guard E-9s, you might see a significant decline in Chiefing incidents at your favorite deployed hotspots.  🤣

 

 

 

[JTsundevil]

Was reading this article, they talk a lot about how retention revolves around keeping FGO’s in staff positions? My understanding after lurking the forums for a while was that almost all pilots want to stay flying and don’t want a staff job. They even say that since the Air Force has “cut” staff positions and kept Majors and LT Cols flying the FGO Manning has gone to 750 over. Is this the Air Force not understanding its people again, or am I missing something? https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/07/07/heres-where-the-air-forces-pilot-shortfall-is-the-worst/

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

 

 

[jazzdude]

 

 

 

Was reading this article, they talk a lot about how retention revolves around keeping FGO’s in staff positions? My understanding after lurking the forums for a while was that almost all pilots want to stay flying and don’t want a staff job. They even say that since the Air Force has “cut” staff positions and kept Majors and LT Cols flying the FGO Manning has gone to 750 over. Is this the Air Force not understanding its people again, or am I missing something? https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/07/07/heres-where-the-air-forces-pilot-shortfall-is-the-worst/

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

 

 

 

The staffs have been gutted for several years now, which hid the outward pain of the pilot shortage initially.

 

My bet is the overage on FGOs makes up for the bathtub of senior Captains/instructors exacerbated by sequestration cuts and the great RIF of '14. Pair that with a low bonus take rate among the FGOs, and now you've got majors that can punch if they get an assignment they don't want, which in theory should help them stay flying the line.

 

So the AF keeps an FGO instructor which helps the experience problem at the line/operational units, but the staffs get short falled again, maybe with even deeper cuts.

 

Also with that, we've pretty much divested Navs on AD, which means the pilot force had to pick up the rated staff positions that used to be filled with Navs.

 

I think the AF is finally realizing it's in a graveyard spiral regarding pilot retention, but the operational pressure to keep pulling back on the stick (ie not let up on operational tempo and taskings) keeps tightening that spiral.

 

[JTsundevil]

 
 
 

 
The staffs have been gutted for several years now, which hid the outward pain of the pilot shortage initially.
 
My bet is the overage on FGOs makes up for the bathtub of senior Captains/instructors exacerbated by sequestration cuts and the great RIF of '14. Pair that with a low bonus take rate among the FGOs, and now you've got majors that can punch if they get an assignment they don't want, which in theory should help them stay flying the line.
 
So the AF keeps an FGO instructor which helps the experience problem at the line/operational units, but the staffs get short falled again, maybe with even deeper cuts.
 
Also with that, we've pretty much divested Navs on AD, which means the pilot force had to pick up the rated staff positions that used to be filled with Navs.
 
I think the AF is finally realizing it's in a graveyard spiral regarding pilot retention, but the operational pressure to keep pulling back on the stick (ie not let up on operational tempo and taskings) keeps tightening that spiral.
 

I’m very naive when it comes to big picture stuff. But if everything is still working in the AF without pilots filling staff jobs, does the AF really need pilots to fill staff slots? I understand people (pilots for example) don’t like leaders without flying experience/job knowledge making the big decisions. But it seems to me there might be some correlation between staff jobs being gutted, and FGOs staying in? Again, just picking that up from the article. I could be way off. I was prior-E and in college now so I have zero knowledge on this level of thinking. Just trying to gain a better understanding. Thanks for the reply.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Skitzo]

I’m very naive when it comes to big picture stuff. But if everything is still working in the AF without pilots filling staff jobs, does the AF really need pilots to fill staff slots? I understand people (pilots for example) don’t like leaders without flying experience/job knowledge making the big decisions. But it seems to me there might be some correlation between staff jobs being gutted, and FGOs staying in? Again, just picking that up from the article. I could be way off. I was prior-E and in college now so I have zero knowledge on this level of thinking. Just trying to gain a better understanding. Thanks for the reply.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

The problem with not having pilots on staff is that the positions either go unfilled and the staff makes bad decisions because lack of perspective or they are filled with GS civilians that turn into folks more interested in maintaining the status quo than fixing problems of the units. Worse yet they play good idea fairy on how to solve problems that aren’t problems.

I was in Stan/Eval at HQ AFSOC.

[SurelySerious]

26 minutes ago, Skitzo said:

The problem with not having pilots on staff is that the positions either go unfilled and the staff makes bad decisions because lack of perspective or they are filled with GS civilians that turn into folks more interested in maintaining the status quo than fixing problems of the units. Worse yet they play good idea fairy on how to solve problems that aren’t problems.

I was in Stan/Eval at HQ AFSOC.

That’s the big downfall of not having the conduit of current info and an advocate at staff, definitely. 
 

Especially at SAC, the dinosaurs don’t want to fund anything that bombers didn’t have in ‘Nam, because they don’t need that shit to gravity bomb. 
 

Some people want staff tours, some don’t. The AF is still very bad at listening to its people to figure out who is who. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by SurelySerious

[Sprkt69]

1 hour ago, Skitzo said:

The problem with not having pilots on staff is that the positions either go unfilled and the staff makes bad decisions because lack of perspective or they are filled with GS civilians that turn into folks more interested in maintaining the status quo than fixing problems of the units. Worse yet they play good idea fairy on how to solve problems that aren’t problems.

I was in Stan/Eval at HQ AFSOC.

It’s a testament to the few in staff that can get anything accomplished. Staff just seems to be unable to get out of its own way the vast majority of the time.

[jazzdude]

I’m very naive when it comes to big picture stuff. But if everything is still working in the AF without pilots filling staff jobs, does the AF really need pilots to fill staff slots? I understand people (pilots for example) don’t like leaders without flying experience/job knowledge making the big decisions. But it seems to me there might be some correlation between staff jobs being gutted, and FGOs staying in? Again, just picking that up from the article. I could be way off. I was prior-E and in college now so I have zero knowledge on this level of thinking. Just trying to gain a better understanding. Thanks for the reply.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

There's probably some correlation between low staff numbers and retaining FGOs. My bet is not filling staffs initially probably bought some time to put in a longer term fix, but those fixes should've been done years ago. Instead, the can got kicked down the road.

Outside factors also matter, and there's some RAND studies that show that pilot retention ebbs and flows with the availability of outside opportunities (aka airline hiring). People got tired of the AF, and started getting out. Staffs got shortfalled to keep the mission happening, but the trickle out kept going. Then the airline hiring wave started, and was followed very closely by the great RIF of '14 (I guess you can argue which actually started first). The severe cuts combined with great outside opportunities meant pilots had options, and if they didn't want to take an assignment (primarily to staff, as that's typically the next assignment once the UPT commitment expired), they could turn down an undesirable assignment. AFPC pressed to test initially (and did so with 365s as well), but we're losing experienced officers bailing late in their careers.

Everything looks like it's running, and today's mission is getting done. But eventually, we'll have to pay the price. Staffs should be providing guidance to wings, and handling the longer view for planning for the enterprise, but a lot of stuff has been done poorly or just kicked down to the wings to figure it out on their own.

Do you need rated on staffs? Maybe, maybe not. Having rated officers in key positions within the staff brings the experience and understanding of being out on the line to the staff, and should help temper any good idea fairies. Assuming that the rated person going to staff is a good dude/dudette and credible. It'd be difficult to build that level of experience without having that rated ops experience, though it looks like the AF is trying to do this via the multi domain operators (13O). The important thing is having an understanding of the challenges that face the wings/squadrons/line pilot face

It's kinda like driving your car; you don't have to do any preventative MX, and your car will run fine, until one day it doesn't.

[panchbarnes]

Think big picture Joint level.  It saddens me to see Force Support O5 working FMS cases or non-pilots reciting buzzwords about weapon systems to Joint planners and Foreign partners.  Our international allies look to us for expert advice, do you really want non-pilots spew bullshit to these allies?  We need experienced and knowledgeable rated guys at the Joint level!

[jazzdude]

Think big picture Joint level.  It saddens me to see Force Support O5 working FMS cases or non-pilots reciting buzzwords about weapon systems to Joint planners and Foreign partners.  Our international allies look to us for expert advice, do you really want non-pilots spew bullshit to these allies?  We need experienced and knowledgeable rated guys at the Joint level!

There's one of the big issues-how do you get FGOs to want go to the staffs?

And unfortunately, we're so far behind the power curve on pilot retention that even if a pilot FGO wanted to go to a particular staff, they may not be released to go.

The bonus used to solve that problem via an ADSC (they don't have to want to go, but are bound by contact to go where the AF needs), but the take rate has been low for years.

I think the AF had it's eye on the joint realm, and hence the huge emphasis on pole year (whether that's right or wrong is a different discussion). We've had a pretty good proportion of AF GOs at the joint level.

[FLEA]

36 minutes ago, panchbarnes said:

Think big picture Joint level.  It saddens me to see Force Support O5 working FMS cases or non-pilots reciting buzzwords about weapon systems to Joint planners and Foreign partners.  Our international allies look to us for expert advice, do you really want non-pilots spew bullshit to these allies?  We need experienced and knowledgeable rated guys at the Joint level!

Shack. Aircrew (not just pilots) are the war fighters of the AF. Could you immagine an Army staff with 0 infantry, armor or artillery expereince. 

A lot of people disdain staff but in all honesty some people really love and thrive in it. For the first time in your military career you get to think big picture/strategic and you can help shape some very large plans across an Enterprise. Definitely not for everyone but for the people that are beat to death from being line IPs year in and out, it offers a welcome change of pace with a new an enhanced skill set.

Is it for everyone? Probably not. But when has reducing the number of oppurtunities in a career field ever helped that career field thrive. We need to keep doors open not close them. The pilot retention crisis isnt about people wanting staff, not wanting staff, not wanting RPAs, wanting more UPT jobs, whatever.... The key thread to all of this is that it's really about people wanting a wide array of oppurtunities and a slight a bit of control to vector themselves to where their own interest lie.