What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, ViperMan said:

... it still would not be enough for me to move there...

I think the AF does have to get creative when it comes to solving their problems, re: your X% of 365s suggestion. On that note, specifically, however, I think 179s/365s need to be drastically reduced, and beyond that, the AF needs to keep a long-term (i.e. career-long, 20+ year) list of those who have done such tours - and ensure everyone who hasn't done one, stays closer to the top than ANYONE who hasn't - including HPOs. A lack of transparency and fairness when it comes to 179s/365s is a major factor I think leads people to bail.

Understood, I was at a Northern Tier base years ago and money would not be enough to go back there, a shit load of money maybe.  Ultimately it is time, you're never going to get more of that and I understand the low to negative desire to spend it at a base in the middle of BFE.

Concur - push back on the COCOMs on staff requirements and give credit where credit is due.  

On a related note to, an idea to reward 365s, a volunteer could be rewarded with a follow on already decided, ex:  365 to A-Stan with follow on to Hickam, 365 to the Died with follow on to Peterson, etc...

There would have to be a data driven argument to convince the AF of the upside for them versus the current method of 365 requirement matching, this should be a survey project for an AU student... 

Edited May 3, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[FlyinGrunt]

Having firsthand experience with rural inbred vampires feeding off Uncle Sam's troops, and seeing the coming exodus tsunami firsthand as well, I ask if the Nation will soon be forced to choose between its federally funded rural welfare and the all-volunteer force.

NSplayer, you are committing the classic corporate finance error of throwing good money after bad sunk costs re: Cannon.  All that matters is future earnings, and we both know that the massive retraining bill caused by attrition quickly dwarfs the cost of building that capacity at other, nicer bases.

If the Nation wants to prevent the loss of the vast majority of combat airpower (meaning pilots and other aircrew) then they will pressure their Congresscritters to act.  If they value their welfare kickbacks, they can act accordingly . . . and face the consequences when the draft comes back.  Even stop-loss cannot work forever.

For those saying "that can never happen," go re-look at Fingers' breakdown of pilots produced vs. airline demands over the next decade.  He's not wrong.  I predict that attrition of 90% or more is totally possible over that time period - and where would that leave the Nation with no one to fly the jets?

[pawnman]

12 hours ago, ViperMan said:

 

I think the AF does have to get creative when it comes to solving their problems, re: your X% of 365s suggestion. On that note, specifically, however, I think 179s/365s need to be drastically reduced, and beyond that, the AF needs to keep a long-term (i.e. career-long, 20+ year) list of those who have done such tours - and ensure everyone who hasn't done one, stays closer to the top than ANYONE who hasn't - including HPOs. A lack of transparency and fairness when it comes to 179s/365s is a major factor I think leads people to bail.

 

I thought the 365 list was exactly this - based solely on short-tour return date, which starts with the date you entered the service until you get a short tour.  And it moves forward one day for every day you spend deployed.  Is that not how 365s are decided?

[ThreeHoler]

I thought the 365 list was exactly this - based solely on short-tour return date, which starts with the date you entered the service until you get a short tour.  And it moves forward one day for every day you spend deployed.  Is that not how 365s are decided?

Two words: DAV codes.

[ViperStud]

55 minutes ago, pawnman said:

I thought the 365 list was exactly this - based solely on short-tour return date, which starts with the date you entered the service until you get a short tour.  And it moves forward one day for every day you spend deployed.  Is that not how 365s are decided?

When my porch dude told me I was top 10 before I separated a few years back, he was careful to note that over half of those dudes ahead of me could be protected at any given time: school, staff, PCS, aide-de-camp, etc. Keeping the Hippos moving frequently between those duties protects them. When they are vulnerable, a pepper-grinder deployment is often loaded even if several months out to keep said dude for even getting consideration for a BS 365.

The process is anything but objective. 

[Guest nsplayr]

6 hours ago, FlyinGrunt said:

NSplayer, you are committing the classic corporate finance error of throwing good money after bad sunk costs re: Cannon.  All that matters is future earnings, and we both know that the massive retraining bill caused by attrition quickly dwarfs the cost of building that capacity at other, nicer bases.

To be clear, I'm not personally advocating for keeping Cannon open due to the massive MILCON investments that have been made there in the last 5 years, I'm just saying that's the reality. 

Cannon is a massive vacuum on a relatively small command, strategically sucking good talent right out the door. Never too late to correct a bad mistake, but the Air Force and Congrrss more importantly are rarely if ever willing to offer a full mia culpa and spend the kind of $$ necessary to make things right.  

Personally I would love to see the 33rd SOS specifically relocated to the top couple of floors of Freedom Tower in NYC so they could rain reightous payback on some of the terrorists that would love to see another 9/11.

Hell, if they made a 4-year RPA tour in NYC come with complementary season tickets to the professional sports team of your choice (many to choose from), I'm sure you'd have a few more volunteers compared to being exiled in rural New Mexico.

Edited May 3, 2017 by nsplayr

[cantfly]

I was looking at some AFPC slides regarding selection for 365s. They look at the following: STRD, number of short tours, prior time puts you out of your year group, and TAFMSD.

 

[Weezer]

As far as RPA bases, there's no reason not to have an RPA flying squadron at every base in the AF.

[Guardian]

As far as RPA bases, there's no reason not to have an RPA flying squadron at every base in the AF.

F that. If that happened that would give big blue the ability to more easily send everyone to an RPA assignment against their will.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[cantfly]

12 minutes ago, Weezer said:

As far as RPA bases, there's no reason not to have an RPA flying squadron at every base in the AF.

RPAs are great for terrorist. They have yet to be truly tested against a real adversary's military that can actually counter our punches. Operation Allied Force... cough..cough

 

[tac airlifter]

Just now, cantfly said:

RPAs...... have yet to be truly tested against a real adversary's military that can actually counter our punches. 

I keep hearing that.  So what? 

[cantfly]

3 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

I keep hearing that.  So what? 

So what? I wasn't even a pilot when OAF kicked off in the late 90s. However, I was doing intel at a certain federal agency. Talk to an old intel troop with knowledge about the operation or go to a vault and garner some SA on the subject. Those guys were well trained and took down an F-117. It wasn't luck...

[Lawman]

So what? I wasn't even a pilot when OAF kicked off in the late 90s. However, I was doing intel at a certain federal agency. Talk to an old intel troop with knowledge about the operation or go to a vault and garner some SA on the subject. Those guys were well trained and took down an F-117. It wasn't luck...

 

I'm guessing by the timeline you just suggested your not exactly in the loop with the current goings on.

 

 

Given where UAS exist in the active targeting cycle and the targeting cycle it's self, the necessity/history of work of guys developing TTPs for the scenario described, and the current daily validation of them doing a lot more than just thump guys in man dresses who have at best a ZPU.... yeah drones have actually been doing a hell of a lot of proving themselves.

 

I guarantee you right now there is a drone orbiting somewhere that 20 years ago some Intel troop or planner would have said "we can't sent anything but the 117 there...."

 

And they are only getting more refined and supported.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tac airlifter]

22 minutes ago, cantfly said:

So what? I wasn't even a pilot when OAF kicked off in the late 90s. However, I was doing intel at a certain federal agency. Talk to an old intel troop with knowledge about the operation or go to a vault and garner some SA on the subject. Those guys were well trained and took down an F-117. It wasn't luck...

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.

Edited May 3, 2017 by tac airlifter

[ViperStud]

1 hour ago, cantfly said:

I was looking at some AFPC slides regarding selection for 365s. They look at the following: STRD, number of short tours, prior time puts you out of your year group, and TAFMSD.

 

While technically that's correct, once someone becomes "hot" for a remote that still doesn't mean they'll get tasked with one. AFPC won't slip someone already on a VML or fragged for school soon, they'll simply find the next unlucky dude for the 365. Also, high-vis hand-picked short tours (general's aide, etc) are typically ID'd a little further out and, once matched to a specific person, keep them safe from the random 365 tasking. A bright & shiny won't be derailed from their mentor's game plan simply because the STRD/TAFMS math made them "hot" on the 365 list. 

[Guardian]

While objectively that's how it should work.....subjectively it doesn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Guardian]

As far as RPA goes they have proven themselves for the fight that they do. The current RPA structure doesn't allow for a non permissive environment to do that mission. So you are both right. RPA are extremely valuable, expensive, and human cost intensive. And RPA are not currently cut out for a near peer war.

And in no way shape or form should RPA be at every base. Also bases are away from major populations more often than not for a reason. The military doesn't want to intrude on the local populace and vice versa. As much as I would like to be stationed in downtown anywhere it's not likely on purpose.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Lawman]

As far as RPA goes they have proven themselves for the fight that they do. The current RPA structure doesn't allow for a non permissive environment to do that mission. So you are both right. RPA are extremely valuable, expensive, and human cost intensive. And RPA are not currently cut out for a near peer war.

 

And in no way shape or form should RPA be at every base. Also bases are away from major populations more often than not for a reason. The military doesn't want to intrude on the local populace and vice versa. As much as I would like to be stationed in downtown anywhere it's not likely on purpose.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

I honestly think if we could metaphorically hold a gun to their head and make them actually BRAC, it might not go the way most would want.

 

Votes are votes, and those nice locations with the functioning economies of a metro area don't really need or in many cases want us. Plus as stated earlier a military base is a huge landmass of developable (meaning valuable) property that could line a lot of pockets. Those outlier installations 3 exits down from the edge of nowhere don't really attract anything but social welfare votes.

 

I'd see them more likely to tell us enjoy Cannon/Polk/Fallon/etc while they close and repurpose the Mcdills of the force structure if you made them chose between option A/B.

[BashiChuni]

35 minutes ago, cantfly said:

If you don't want to garner more knowledge about the past then don't. Studying past conflicts prepares you for those in the future. There are rules on this forum we must adhere to and I enjoy having a clearance.  I'm not going to have OSI looking for me to prove a point. Go to the vault.

I love guys like you that tell others "go to the vault". 

Hilarious bro. If you knew tac airlifter you'd realize how ridiculous you sound. Even not knowing him you sound ridiculous. 

 

[Lawman]

Because I gave you a date of my previous career field, you assume I'm not in the loop?

When there is icing and thunderstorms in theater, manned aircraft still launch. If it ain't icing or storms trying to kill me, its a controller going an RPA went lost link and we don't know where they are as you say internally WTF and start scanning outside the jet.

 

Because it shows a lack of honesty on some of the more interesting things RPAs have been doing recently and are doing right now. There is plenty going on right now today with drones and other tools that resembles far more closely the scary scenarios than the permissive scenario of putting a predator orbit over a mud hut in Afghanistan for days on end.

 

Everybody wants to scream "RPAs aren't mature for the near peer fight" well after 15 years of coin-centric warfare neither is probably 60% of the military. The Army has only just been getting its shit in a sock to do Brigade level maneuver warfare again. I've been in units where my senior NCOs don't know how to put up a GP medium because up until now they've never had to.

 

But if you or others want to sit here and pretend that the RPA structure from tactical to strategic is just gonna throw up it's hands and say "we can't play" either you're inventing a scenario that doesn't exist or ignoring the laundry list of other systems/players/platforms that are going to be just as screwed or have to work around just as many issues in the nightmare worst case WWIII fight.

 

 

 

[cantfly]

4 minutes ago, Lawman said:

 

Because it shows a lack of SA on some of the more interesting things RPAs have been doing recently and are doing right now. There is plenty going on right now today with drones and other tools that resembles far more closely the scary scenarios than the permissive scenario of putting a predator orbit over a mud hut in Afghanistan for days on end.

Everybody wants to scream "RPAs aren't mature for the near peer fight" well after 15 years of coin-centric warfare neither is probably 60% of the military. The Army has only just been getting its shit in a sock to do Brigade level maneuver warfare again. I've been in units where my senior NCOs don't know how to put up a GP medium because up until now they've never had to.

But if you want to sit here and pretend that the RPA structure from tactical to strategic is just gonna throw up it's hands and say "we can't play" either you're inventing a scenario that doesn't exist or ignoring the laundry list of other systems/players/platforms that are going to be just as screwed or have to work around just as many issues in the nightmare worst case WWIII fight.

 

 

When the AF starts sending the E's to RPAs, they will be responsible for crashing them all. Doing every pilot a huge favor. I would sign off on a medal for that.

[BashiChuni]

35 minutes ago, cantfly said:

Would you rather me say get on NSA net because nobody here has access to it unless you are based in Maryland?

I didn't think "get into the vault" could be trumped but this post does it 

[mcbush]

3 hours ago, cantfly said:

When the AF starts sending the E's to RPAs, they will be responsible for crashing them all. Doing every pilot a huge favor. I would sign off on a medal for that.

I don't think anyone has any idea what you're talking about anymore. 

[tac airlifter]

2 minutes ago, mcbush said:

I don't think anyone has any idea what you're talking about anymore. 

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

[Homestar]

4 hours ago, Guardian said:

While objectively that's how it should work.....subjectively it doesn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I always assumed they had a dart board in the 365 office and tacked a list of names up and threw a dart when they got put in a bind. I was hit with a 365 with just 10 years of service because I happened to check a bunch of boxes on the line remarks for the position. I was probably the only one on a 365 without prior E experience in that little corner of Afghanistan. 

Edited May 3, 2017 by Homestar