What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Sua Sponte]

At this point, I think PA is intentionally doing that to confuse our adversaries.

[Swizzle]

2 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

At this point, I think PA is intentionally doing that to confuse our adversaries.

Very gracious of you for the benefit of the doubt. 

[disgruntledemployee]

Maybe its a him/she/sher/theyz sorta identity thing.  Planes have feelings too.

[HuggyU2]

Revisiting the AF Mortuary Affairs emblem debacle of a few years ago...

It appears they didn't go with the draft that had the F-16 silhouettes replacing the Flankers.  They simply got rid of all airplanes on the emblem. 

[Scooter14]

Revisiting the AF Mortuary Affairs emblem debacle of a few years ago...
It appears they didn't go with the draft that had the F-16 silhouettes replacing the Flankers.  They simply got rid of all airplanes on the emblem. 

I might be wrong, but I don’t think you’re supposed to have a specific aircraft type on any sort of organizational insignia.

I don’t know why, maybe if your unit goes into conversion or starts flying a different airplane… I don’t know but, I do remember that as being a thing.

Maybe the patch Nazis at the heritage center called them out on their F-16s after the aviation community called them out on their SU 27s?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[filthy_liar]

On 10/26/2022 at 2:07 PM, StoleIt said:

E-9 Stories?

My opinion, which is going to be surprise surprise highly unpopular - is that we should not have E-9s or E-8s in the Air Force.  In the AF officers do the fighting.  Sure, there are some exceptions but by and large the officers (aircrew) are what the exord is providing to meet the wartime requirement.  

So we need support to meet the demands of the aircrew, just like infantry needs support.  But the difference is, in the AF, the infantry is all officers (exceptions noted).  So unlike the Army, we don't need high ranking enlisted to support the requirement (aircrew).  In the Army and Marines, you have a boatload of enlisted in the fight.  Actually fighting.  So it makes sense that you have high ranking enlisted guiding those troops.  Not so in the AF.  I flew in combat and called in a few airstrikes on the ground in the AF while supporting Armies, and I never once, in any of those situations, needed an E-8/9 who had not only not done what I did and the Armies were doing, but didn't even understand it.

I think this is why we have the Leadership in the Deid thread.  AF officers just accept that we are just like every other branch and need some senior Es to look like the other services.  In my experience that has gone horribly wrong.  On the ground side if you ever wanted to ID someone who was not in the fight and therefore more concerned about reflective belts and other nonsense, you just pointed to an E8/9.  Same was true in garrison.  My anecdotal experience.  I've had an awful lot of non aircrew officers disagree with me on this and maintain that MSgt/CMSgts are gold. 

[FLEA]

30 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:

My opinion, which is going to be surprise surprise highly unpopular - is that we should not have E-9s or E-8s in the Air Force.  In the AF officers do the fighting.  Sure, there are some exceptions but by and large the officers (aircrew) are what the exord is providing to meet the wartime requirement.  

So we need support to meet the demands of the aircrew, just like infantry needs support.  But the difference is, in the AF, the infantry is all officers (exceptions noted).  So unlike the Army, we don't need high ranking enlisted to support the requirement (aircrew).  In the Army and Marines, you have a boatload of enlisted in the fight.  Actually fighting.  So it makes sense that you have high ranking enlisted guiding those troops.  Not so in the AF.  I flew in combat and called in a few airstrikes on the ground in the AF while supporting Armies, and I never once, in any of those situations, needed an E-8/9 who had not only not done what I did and the Armies were doing, but didn't even understand it.

I think this is why we have the Leadership in the Deid thread.  AF officers just accept that we are just like every other branch and need some senior Es to look like the other services.  In my experience that has gone horribly wrong.  On the ground side if you ever wanted to ID someone who was not in the fight and therefore more concerned about reflective belts and other nonsense, you just pointed to an E8/9.  Same was true in garrison.  My anecdotal experience.  I've had an awful lot of non aircrew officers disagree with me on this and maintain that MSgt/CMSgts are gold. 

I spoke at an ROTC career night recently. I got dropped jaws from the cadre when I told the cadets that I would never recommend a 2Lt "just trust" their SNCO's. I know SOOOOOO many Lt's that got burned because they "trusted the SNCO's." That advice is given under the pretense that you are going to put a Lt in an organization that is baseline successful and not dysfunctional. I know a 1Lt 13M who was given a flight command in a flight that was in a separate facility from the rest of the squadron and completely lacked discipline and decorum. Her flight chief convinced her it was "ok, that it "wasn't a training environment anymore" and things didn't have to be "exact." Not how her commander felt when they failed a surprise SAV for multiple safety related violations. She was fired and issued discipline for dereliction. No one cared that her E-8 or whatever mentored her to do that. 

Edited January 26, 2023 by FLEA

[filthy_liar]

Yea, you brought up a lot of good points there. My ex was personnel/services.  Her perspective on senior NCOs is 180 from mine.  Unlike me she was dropped into some kind of an enormous flight as a 2lLt.  And her first sq command as a major was at Kunsan where they dealt with all kinds of crap that I didn't have to deal with when I sat in the seat.  But even then after the earloads of here's what happened today, it was always "My chief advised me to do this." And when I got in the seat I figured - this isn't that hard, here's what we're going to do.  I didn't need a chief or a SMSgt.  Didn't need any sergeant.

In case I don't log in tomorrow, I've been murdered by ProSuper.

[FLEA]

26 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:

Yea, you brought up a lot of good points there. My ex was personnel/services.  Her perspective on senior NCOs is 180 from mine.  Unlike me she was dropped into some kind of an enormous flight as a 2lLt.  And her first sq command as a major was at Kunsan where they dealt with all kinds of crap that I didn't have to deal with when I sat in the seat.  But even then after the earloads of here's what happened today, it was always "My chief advised me to do this." And when I got in the seat I figured - this isn't that hard, here's what we're going to do.  I didn't need a chief or a SMSgt.  Didn't need any sergeant.

In case I don't log in tomorrow, I've been murdered by ProSuper.

I'm confused was Prosuper your wife or your chief?

[filthy_liar]

He's the SNCO that will be the accused if I am murdered tomorrow.  I talked a lot of shit about SNCOs.  

[Guest nsplayr]

Maybe you’ve just interacted with a lot of bad ones 🤷‍♂️

I’ve seen a few great ones, a lot of good ones, and some bad ones. Not unlike officers. YMMV.

I, like you, have never needed a SNCO to advise me on much as an aircrew member unless they are part of the crew (FE/Boom/Load/Sensor/etc.), but that changes quite a bit when/if you take Command or are otherwise in charge of a large group of enlisted airmen. In those cases I 100% want a great SNCO by my side.

My biggest WTF in this general area was the need for a First Shirt in an ops squadron that was  96.9% officers. Our only enlisted were CSS and ARMS. The shirt literally did nothing relevant AFAIK and any issues I had as an LT or Capt needed to be taken to my flt/cc, the DO or CC to be solved, not the random one-off MSgt with a triangle on his sleeve…

[filthy_liar]

13 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

I’ve seen a few great ones, a lot of good ones, and some bad ones. Not unlike officers. YMMV.

Fair one.  My moves did vary, but I acknowledge that in some circumstances E8s and 9s might be valuable.  But I'm under duress. The ProSuper thing.  He actually might kill me.  And that's another thing about SNCOs,,,

 

[dream big]

3 hours ago, filthy_liar said:

My opinion, which is going to be surprise surprise highly unpopular - is that we should not have E-9s or E-8s in the Air Force.  In the AF officers do the fighting.  Sure, there are some exceptions but by and large the officers (aircrew) are what the exord is providing to meet the wartime requirement.  

So we need support to meet the demands of the aircrew, just like infantry needs support.  But the difference is, in the AF, the infantry is all officers (exceptions noted).  So unlike the Army, we don't need high ranking enlisted to support the requirement (aircrew).  In the Army and Marines, you have a boatload of enlisted in the fight.  Actually fighting.  So it makes sense that you have high ranking enlisted guiding those troops.  Not so in the AF.  I flew in combat and called in a few airstrikes on the ground in the AF while supporting Armies, and I never once, in any of those situations, needed an E-8/9 who had not only not done what I did and the Armies were doing, but didn't even understand it.

I think this is why we have the Leadership in the Deid thread.  AF officers just accept that we are just like every other branch and need some senior Es to look like the other services.  In my experience that has gone horribly wrong.  On the ground side if you ever wanted to ID someone who was not in the fight and therefore more concerned about reflective belts and other nonsense, you just pointed to an E8/9.  Same was true in garrison.  My anecdotal experience.  I've had an awful lot of non aircrew officers disagree with me on this and maintain that MSgt/CMSgts are gold. 

I get your point but a good E-8 or E-9 can be worth their weight in gold if: the unit has a lot of enlisted personnel which most units above the squadron level and above do, the associated officer is not a giant pussy and utilizes them correctly, and the E-8 or E-9 is a good dude/gal that mentors and looks after the young people and doesn’t care about mustache length and ball caps.

[Bigred]

3 hours ago, filthy_liar said:

My opinion, which is going to be surprise surprise highly unpopular - is that we should not have E-9s or E-8s in the Air Force.  In the AF officers do the fighting.  Sure, there are some exceptions but by and large the officers (aircrew) are what the exord is providing to meet the wartime requirement.  

So we need support to meet the demands of the aircrew, just like infantry needs support.  But the difference is, in the AF, the infantry is all officers (exceptions noted).  So unlike the Army, we don't need high ranking enlisted to support the requirement (aircrew).  In the Army and Marines, you have a boatload of enlisted in the fight.  Actually fighting.  So it makes sense that you have high ranking enlisted guiding those troops.  Not so in the AF.  I flew in combat and called in a few airstrikes on the ground in the AF while supporting Armies, and I never once, in any of those situations, needed an E-8/9 who had not only not done what I did and the Armies were doing, but didn't even understand it.

I think this is why we have the Leadership in the Deid thread.  AF officers just accept that we are just like every other branch and need some senior Es to look like the other services.  In my experience that has gone horribly wrong.  On the ground side if you ever wanted to ID someone who was not in the fight and therefore more concerned about reflective belts and other nonsense, you just pointed to an E8/9.  Same was true in garrison.  My anecdotal experience.  I've had an awful lot of non aircrew officers disagree with me on this and maintain that MSgt/CMSgts are gold. 

I’m taking a swag and will assume you’ve been in ops squadrons most of your career?

In my whopping 3.5 years in the Air Force, I’ve gathered that ops squadrons tend to have minimal to virtually zero enlisted. There’s not much need for an E-8/9 when there may only be 4-5 E’s running around.

Contrast that with mx, force support, SF, and you have a ton of enlisted to few officers. The E-8/9 needs to be there 

Having run a maintenance department where I had ~200 enlisted working for me, a good SNCO was a godsend. E-8/9s definitely have a place. 

Edited January 26, 2023 by Bigred

[FLEA]

1 minute ago, Bigred said:

I’m taking a swag and will assume you’ve been in ops squadrons most of your career?

In my whopping 3.5 years in the Air Force, I’ve gathered that ops squadrons tend to have minimal to virtually zero enlisted. There’s not much need for an E-8/9 when there may only be 4-5 E’s running around.

Contrast that with mx, force support, SF, and you have a ton of enlisted to few officers. The E-8/9 needs to be there 

Having run a maintenance department where I had ~200 enlisted working for me, a good SNCO was a godsend. E-8/9s definitely have a place. 

Not all ops squadrons. AWACS squadrons for instance will be nearly half enlisted. MQ-9s are just shy of half. 

The big difference though is quality. Enlisted aircrew FOUGHT hard to get there because they disliked working on a flight line in 120 degree heat and love telling ladies at the local club that they're practically like pilots when they show their flight suit photos. So they usually work hard to not fuck it up although you still get your occasional special cases. 

This was something I needed a non flying officer to mentor me on when I went to an org and had a handful of non-flyers. Gave them way too much leash and often regretted it. 

To clarify my earlier remarks, telling ROTC cadets to not trust their SNCOs, ended the discussion by telling them to not blindly trust their SNCOs. Definitely get their advice and inputs but you know who else is charged with mentoring CGOs in official guidance? The squadron commander. When things don't pass the smell test, flight commanders shouldn't feel a pressure to not approach the squadron commander for inputs because they should "ask their SNCOs." Definitely ask them first, but as we say in aircrew, "trust but verify." 

[filthy_liar]

8 minutes ago, Bigred said:

I’m taking a swag and will assume you’ve been in ops squadrons most of your career?

In my whopping 3.5 years in the Air Force, I’ve gathered that ops squadrons tend to have minimal to virtually zero enlisted. There’s not much need for an E-8/9 when there may only be 4-5 E’s running around.

Contrast that with mx, force support, SF, and you have a ton of enlisted to few officers. The E-8/9 needs to be there 

Having run a maintenance department where I had ~200 enlisted working for me, a good SNCO was a godsend. E-8/9s definitely have a place. 

I'll take a swag and say you have no  clue how to run a maintenance squadron.

 

[Bigred]

2 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:

I'll take a swag and say you have no  clue how to run a maintenance squadron.

 

Never said squadron, and never said it was in the Air Force. I’ve been in the military over 20 years.
 

My point about good SNCOs still stands. 

[herkbum]

I'll take a swag and say you have no  clue how to run a maintenance squadron.
 

Do you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[filthy_liar]

8 hours ago, herkbum said:

Do you?

I certainly do not.

To BigRed - apologies for the caustic response.  Good points on the squadrons with mostly enlisted - my ex saw it the exact same way.  I will say though, that I was in 2 ASOS's which were mostly enlisted....and I was not at all impressed with the SNCOs.  And don't get me started on my 1st Shirt.  Or my super for that matter.

[brwwg&b]

On 1/25/2023 at 9:53 PM, Scooter14 said:

I might be wrong, but I don’t think you’re supposed to have a specific aircraft type on any sort of organizational insignia.

I don’t know why, maybe if your unit goes into conversion or starts flying a different airplane… I don’t know but, I do remember that as being a thing.

Maybe the patch Nazis at the heritage center called them out on their F-16s after the aviation community called them out on their SU 27s?

It's funny - I was actually part of the convo with their team. When they realized they needed to update the emblem, they asked for input, and had a specific idea of F-16 flyover to "rectify" their mistake.

I had (begrudgingly) scoured their regs, and in fact used the "specific aircraft" (which is not allowed - exactly for the reason Scooter14 said; that it doesn't "stand the test of time") as another argument point to them for updating the patch. When I mentioned that changing it to an F-16 doesn't fix that part of the problem, they said "oh no, we DO want that aircraft on there" I guess we're beholden to living life one step at a time...

I'd even made a design with "darts" which would've preserved the missing man portion of the patch, at least. YCMTSU

[Pooter]

Totally off topic but I spent 9 hours writing 1206's for annual awards today for people who don't event want them. That is more hours than I have flight time in the last two months, and I am (supposedly) a CMR instructor pilot in the CAF.

We are going to lose the next war. 

[Swizzle]

39 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Totally off topic but I spent 9 hours writing 1206's for annual awards today for people who don't event want them. That is more hours than I have flight time in the last two months, and I am (supposedly) a CMR instructor pilot in the CAF.

We are going to lose the next war. 

 

[Prosuper]

On 1/25/2023 at 9:04 PM, filthy_liar said:

Yea, you brought up a lot of good points there. My ex was personnel/services.  Her perspective on senior NCOs is 180 from mine.  Unlike me she was dropped into some kind of an enormous flight as a 2lLt.  And her first sq command as a major was at Kunsan where they dealt with all kinds of crap that I didn't have to deal with when I sat in the seat.  But even then after the earloads of here's what happened today, it was always "My chief advised me to do this." And when I got in the seat I figured - this isn't that hard, here's what we're going to do.  I didn't need a chief or a SMSgt.  Didn't need any sergeant.

In case I don't log in tomorrow, I've been murdered by ProSuper.

I'm still trying to figure out why I had mx officers. Here have some rope, let me know if you need some more. Dang! what happened to that guy, he was only here two weeks, Darn! I didn't even know his name. Only thing he said to me I'm a Cal Berkley Graduate and I'm smarter than you. Boy Howdy did he impress the shit out of me.

The only ones I ever needed were O-5's and above. If I was King of the USAF, my plan was how Chuck Yeager started his career as a commissioned officer. He started as rated mx officer who flew all the FCF's and OCF's. Maybe it should go to the way the Naval Ops sq does it, pilots have to do leadership on the ground by leading mx troops. If your name was on the side of the jet, it was your responsibility to write the Crew Chiefs EPR and make sure he gets an end of tour medal. Rated Majors would run mx and hopefully by the time they get their own CC job they understand health of the fleet and just not sortie count.

MX and Cop Sq's are huge and have very busy First Sgt's, if you know you know, historically those guys are treated like shit and are pounded with constant extended 12 hour shifts with no days off. Which to leads to why they are always undermanned because no one reenlists, the enlistee raises his hand the first time, but his family reenlists. Also bring back Warrant Officer, that way a technically shit hot E-5 or E-6 doesn't have to eat shit from the Top 3 so they get a decent board score.

I retired an E-7 but I knew I would never be a Chief due to that I could never get off the flight line. Most of my fellow senior E's were nothing but backstabbing apple polishers, they were given jobs off the flight line just to get them out of the workflow because they suck. Unfortunately, they were the ones who made Chief due to showing they had diverse career broadening assignments, in reality they were getting moved every 6 months due to effing up that section they had to move them. Plus, their EPR was written in way that he was a water walker and not the Charlie foxtrot he was. The good ones were kept on the line and were manipulated by the Chiefs to make sure they stayed on the line making the Wing King money. 

My only shot of getting off the line was interviewing for a Wing Safety job. My incentive was a slot for the NTSB crash investigation course if I got that job. The Vice Wing CC interviewed me and told me then to report back Monday. This was a Thursday and started doing PCA paperwork. Friday morning get called into the Chiefs office, got told you're not going anywhere. He told me point blank you will be on that flight line with a brick and schedule to make sure we make that schedule. I'm sure if I was milk toast maintainer, I would have gotten that job because the guy who got it sure was.

[Guest nsplayr]

7 hours ago, Pooter said:

Totally off topic but I spent 9 hours writing 1206's for annual awards today for people who don't event want them. That is more hours than I have flight time in the last two months, and I am (supposedly) a CMR instructor pilot in the CAF.

We are going to lose the next war. 

ChatGPT is your friend if you're not naturally a fast/good writer. It actually writes OPR bullets decently well too FWIW!

https://chat.openai.com/chat?__cf_chl_tk=V88BMIuijuogiyXcV1k9NlD92Ejq6vAwVhZ973JmnrY-1674822321-0-gaNycGzNCJE

Examples:

• Flew 300+ combat hrs with exceptional proficiency, guaranteed success in high-priority missions & target neutralization
• Planned & executed large-scale INDOPACOM exercise, unique strategic impact, trained multiple coalition units & improved readiness

Obviously they're not perfect, but if you need to write a bunch of stuff of low-average quickly it is a great tool. With the narrative format being used more and more, it'll be even better.

[SocialD]

7 hours ago, Pooter said:

Totally off topic but I spent 9 hours writing 1206's for annual awards today for people who don't event want them. That is more hours than I have flight time in the last two months, and I am (supposedly) a CMR instructor pilot in the CAF.

We are going to lose the next war. 

 

I feel this so much right now.  In the last week, I've probably spent 9+ hours just trying to get a single PRF through the wickets for a promotion board.  The DOD about lost a .gov laptop through the window (yeetus computus!). 

I could write a page or two on how all the issues in this process are great metaphor for how we're doing.  Small example, I call the phone number that the rejection e-mail told me to call for help.  They say, "oh sorry, we can't help you with that issue and we can't transfer you to the people who can, you must go through mypers (which means you can't talk to a human)."  WTF, why even list the number!?   

In other news, anyone know a fix date so our e-mail doesn't lock up/shut down every time I accidentally mouse over the persons name?  Or a fix date on when my flight pay will actually pay out correctly...in 2018, I was told it would be 2020, so we got that going for us!  

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

- Flew 300+ combat hrs with exceptional proficiency, guaranteed success in high-priority missions & target neutralization

 

Don't you mean...

 

-Flew 330 cbt hrs w/excptnl prof; gurnt'd success in high-prof msns & tgt neutr'ztion; 100% CMDREUCOM obj met!