Jump to content

What's wrong with the Air Force?


Catbox

Recommended Posts

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Hacker said:

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.

So much for leading from the front.  Good on you for trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Hacker said:

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.

That's insane. I found the best way to connect with my Marines when I was Airframes OIC, well second to taking one or two of them to the gym with me, was walking out to the flight line and asking what they were doing, then having them show me how to do it.

That's a big difference between AF and Navy/USMC aviation - If it doesn't say we can't do it, then we can. We actually had a WSO Powerline OIC who got his turn qual to start the jets for Mx turns. The CO at the time actually wanted him to get a taxi qual so he could go do high power turns. He had this elaborate plan of setting up a course with cones out on the flight line and everything. Ultimately the WSO decided against it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

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.  

Great post, as usual.

I have to wonder, though:  if we got rid of up-or-out, how many willing volunteers would you have to get on the "leadership" track?  I see the current status quo as officers checking boxes so as not to show their cards too early and retain maneuvering airspace as they chip away at their ADSC.  If up-or-out went away, I can't imagine there would be a large line of people waiting to deal with the things that a Sq/CC has to deal with in the current environment, not to mention the non-flying path that must be taken to get there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's insane. I found the best way to connect with my Marines when I was Airframes OIC, well second to taking one or two of them to the gym with me, was walking out to the flight line and asking what they were doing, then having them show me how to do it.

I did the same thing as a Mx DO. The kids loved trying unsuccessfully to try and teach an officer to safety wire and turn wrenches. So when I told them I appreciate what they do, it seemed to mean more to them. Never saw the Sq/CC leave the office unless he was going to rub elbows with the Group.

You may actually be my brother from another mother... I was adopted so it's possible...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.


I used to go out on the ramp as a Wing Safety dude and talk to MX about their jobs and learn from them about my airplane.

MX NCO leadership was pissed. "Stop spying on our troops." Line MX guys were shocked a flier cared about them/their jobs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Weezer said:

I have no doubt every general in the AF can operate their weapon system effectively and I have no doubt they can tactically lead. 

Dude, you would be shocked at how false this speculation is.  More and more OGs these days with fewer hours than the CGO IPs that they "lead".  The typical exceptions have a patch on their arm, and a few others just maintain IP qual/proficiency just because they are good shit, bit they're going quickly the way of the dodo.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BFM this said:

Dude, you would be shocked at how false this speculation is.  More and more OGs these days with fewer hours than the CGO IPs that they "lead".  The typical exceptions have a patch on their arm, and a few others just maintain IP qual/proficiency just because they are good shit, bit they're going quickly the way of the dodo.

Weezer, in the CAF if you are out of the jet for a prolonged time or don't fly consistently to RAP(8-10 sorties depending on experience) or beyond you will lose your tactical proficiency. Hence why squadrons generally have to assign an experienced IP to the O-7+ pilots that want to go fly.  A lot of times the O-6s and some command bound attached O-5s need a seeing eye Captain to keep things legit or to just mission plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Weezer said:

I have no doubt every general in the AF can operate their weapon system effectively and I have no doubt they can tactically lead. 

Having instructed Senior Officer requalification courses in the Strike Eagle, I can say this is almost entirely false.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BFM this said:

Dude, you would be shocked at how false this speculation is.  More and more OGs these days with fewer hours than the CGO IPs that they "lead".  The typical exceptions have a patch on their arm, and a few others just maintain IP qual/proficiency just because they are good shit, bit they're going quickly the way of the dodo.

Last two wing commanders at a previous AMC base had about as much hours as a low time Capt IP.   They were both basic mission qual'd (did not maintain mission/tac qual) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that it's the military, and pissing contests/butthurt fragile egos/red tape dominate the entire way of life, but.... why can't we just have flyers/ops be in charge of flying and running wars and battle staffs, and then have support guys dickfight each other over school, volunteer crap, and high vis non operational staff gigs.

Its the bullshit fake equality that needs to go. Anyone who no-shit flies, fights, plans, runs, or deters the air war needs to be put in one box (where their worth is measured in ability to contribute to the war), and the people-herders need to be put in another box and be measured by their ability to support the mission.

Do that, and I promise you, you would see more young flyers burning the midnight oil to come up with insane new innovative ways to win wars, rather than writing bullshit essays for a degree that has no relevance to their job.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize profusely for assuming those designated as leaders in our service could operate their weapons systems.

Is it fair to say that most could at one time operate a weapon system to some degree of competence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...