ClearedHot Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Boohoo she is too special to deploy and fill many of the countless staff jobs!! This notion that we need everyone back to run the program is hogwash. The program will run with or without you. You are not anymore intricate to the mission than the next guy. If you die, we will have someone to step right in and carry on the mission. So please stop. Ugh...we can always count on you to fart in church and blame grandma. No one is saying she is too important to deploy, just that not everyone has a job that deploys. Under what logic would you deploy a person trained to do a rear area job that has nothing to do with combat or combat support? Plain and simple the acquisition corps is trained to procure things, to work with defense companies and lawyers to make sure the government is getting what it paid for...and from what I've seen as of late, we have not done the best job with a lot of programs, so why pull the only knowledgable people we have just to say they deployed. We are trying to fix the system so we get what we need and have it delivered on cost and WORKING, so it is not about someone being too important, it is about continuity and knowledge. Besides, in what capacity would you deploy someone like this, do you want to train Acquisition Capt's and Maj's to guard TCNs? How many times have we heard people bitch about everyone being called a "warrior"? II know it sucks that some of us have deployed 69 times since this mess started, but it doesn't make sense to deploy people who shouldn't be there just to make it all feel even. You ARE a warrior, own it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champ Kind Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Plain and simple the acquisition corps is trained to procure things So..... What about aircrew that are trained to fly airplanes that are/have deployed to in lieu of billets that have nothing to do with flying operations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I know some of that has happened, I don't know the what has happened in all cases. It is my understanding that among aviators, very few were pulled to serve in true "in lieu of" billets. There were cases that made sense to me...such as an EWO, was pulled to support convoy operations I can at least see a connection. However, I disagree with sending an aviator to manage a guard tower construction project (I've heard rumblings that a few FAIPs were diverted to these tasks). Again, not saying she is too important, just don't see any value in her presence there unless it was an urgent national need to A body in place. Also, to be fair, you have to look at her period of service. She came in to the Air Force in 1980...how many Aviators were deployed into "in lieu of " billets during the 80's and 90's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Ugh...we can always count on you to fart in church and blame grandma. No one is saying she is too important to deploy, just that not everyone has a job that deploys. Under what logic would you deploy a person trained to do a rear area job that has nothing to do with combat or combat support? Plain and simple the acquisition corps is trained to procure things, to work with defense companies and lawyers to make sure the government is getting what it paid for...and from what I've seen as of late, we have not done the best job with a lot of programs, so why pull the only knowledgable people we have just to say they deployed. Hang on a second. We have spent hundreds of billions in acquistion activity downrange. We cannot account for billions. Not a couple thousand, fucking billions. There is a place for someone like her. No fucking excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muscle2002 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 So..... What about aircrew that are trained to fly airplanes that are/have deployed to in lieu of billets that have nothing to do with flying operations? Of course it goes both ways (sts)-- there's a handful of TPS grads deployed to non-flying, non-test, non-acquisitions billets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Hang on a second. We have spent hundreds of billions in acquistion activity downrange. We cannot account for billions. Not a couple thousand, fucking billions. There is a place for someone like her. No fucking excuses. Acquisitions? You mean like 50 dump trucks of gravel at K2? There is a HUGE difference between our contracting folks buy shit from the locals and an Acquisition officer buying a major weapons system from a foreign government. Besides, nothing even close to that happened in her time of service. In her time frame? Of course it goes both ways (sts)-- there's a handful of TPS grads deployed to non-flying, non-test, non-acquisitions billets. Makes no sense...I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Acquisitions? You mean like 50 dump trucks of gravel at K2? Is that what you think I mean? WTFO? There is a HUGE difference between our contracting folks buy shit from the locals and an Acquisition officer buying a major weapons system from a foreign government. Really? HUGE as in all caps HUGE? Thanks for the lesson. Don't know how I would ever have known that to be true. And that's not what I'm talking about. Besides, nothing even close to that happened in her time of service. Nothing? Regardless, I am responding to your generalization about the complete lack of opportunity or need. Billions. Unaccounted for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Is that what you think I mean? WTFO? Really? HUGE as in all caps HUGE? Thanks for the lesson. Don't know how I would ever have known that to be true. And that's not what I'm talking about. Nothing? Regardless, I am responding to your generalization about the complete lack of opportunity or need. Billions. Unaccounted for. LOL...Slow your roll, I'm not trying to poke the bear, just voice an opinion...Christ brother have a bourbon on me. The Billions unaccounted are not from the acquisition accounts and you know it...Perhaps we could have sent her over as a BGen to manage the rebuilding of the electrical grid or other areas where the money leaked like it was in a sieve. In her period of service I can't honestly can't think of an big ACQ programs we ran at deployed locations...I guess I am wrong. Bottomline, not trying to hang my hat on defending here, just another opinion on why every single person in the Air Force hasn't done 69 tours in the shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 The Billions unaccounted are not from the acquisition accounts and you know it... Not saying all are. I'm saying some are, and we both know that is true. Again, some billions is a lot. Bottomline, not trying to hang my hat on defending here, just another opinion on why every single person in the Air Force hasn't done 69 tours in the shit. Fair enough. In the context of what the guys are commenting about here...every person having to do "69 tours in the shit" and someone becoming a 4 star having done 0.0 tours is not quite the same thing. Telling guys to own their warrior status is not required, they do that just fine and they're proud of it. they also know the sacrifice of multiple tours downrange and the pressure to get things like SOS and AAD accomplished without the luxury of spending years at MIT drinking beers at Fenway and ultimately making the rank of General. Telling them to ignore the fact that people can have a remarkable career without more than the minimum exposure to the bad deals can come off as out of touch, which you're not. Just trying to help a brother out. As a minimum, it is worthy of notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afnav Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I can see how acquisition types do most of their business CONUS, That is especially true for most of her career. I also know that a lot of non-operators deploy. I'd say most (55% or so) of the CAOC when I was there were non-rated folks. The only thing I have to say about that part of it is this - if Big Blue was going to emphasize the shit out of being an 'expeditionary' Air Force, creating a 4-star that has never deployed certainly is a mixed signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The only thing I have to say about that part of it is this - if Big Blue was going to emphasize the shit out of being an 'expeditionary' Air Force, creating a 4-star that has never deployed certainly is a mixed signal. Make no mistake about it--this nomination is purely political on the part of the administration. I'm not saying she can't do the job, but what makes her better than all the other guys available who are more well rounded--ie rated with acquisition experience and combat/deployment time? The administration wants more gender and racial diversity in the upper ranks--again (for all the liberals on here), not saying she can't do the job, but is she really the most qualified?...or just in a position to become the first female Air Force 4 star General? We all rant and make comments when the Air Force likes to point out "First all female tanker crew", "First all female F-15 2-Ship over Afghanistan", blah blah blah...this is just another example, except that it's really high vis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recut Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) It seems the main gist (on this thread) defending a 4-star gen with limited or no deployment/combat experience points back to promoting an expert in a specific career field. So, why does the AF insist that we operators get "breadth and depth" by leaving our flying jobs? Oh yeah, make sure you get those flying bullets off of your OPR as you progress, too. I would argue the literal meaning of General = has experience across the board and has done things that subordinate-ranking people look up to. For aircrew, I think that's where some of the WTF factor stems. Edited February 11, 2012 by Recut 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Texan Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Glad to see affirmative action is still alive and well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest one Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 It is not like they made her the CENTCOM Commander. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swizzle Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Acquisitioners (proper term?) have opportunities to deploy because one is my friend. She has deployed for three 180's in seven years and says that's average at her unit. Interesting is that they're so undermanned (reference their bonus) they rear-deploy the people who are medically DQ'd or the like, and think it was in Ohio somewhere...perhaps the nominated General has rear-deployed as short, stateside TDY? Also from that linked report is this snippet. Acquisitions/Contracting wants a big dog in the fight... "Furthermore, the Gansler Report identified a lack of general/flag officers in the acquisition workforce. While this was focused toward the Army, the Air Force is actively building the contracting general officer pool with a five-year plan, which manages high-achieving senior officers. Our Contracting Developmental Team is also identifying and vectoring select company grade and field grade officers for deliberate developmental assignments based on the potential of their records to date. This should result in several officers from the contracting career field being competitive at the general officer selection board." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dupe Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Make no mistake about it--this nomination is purely political on the part of the administration. I'm not saying she can't do the job, but what makes her better than all the other guys available who are more well rounded--ie rated with acquisition experience and combat/deployment time? The scary reality is that there simply isn't a rated dude with combat time, the experience in acquisitions, and the logistics / MX exposure to handle all of AFMC right now. Would I like to see more operators become AFMC program managers? Hell yeah...but those kind of jobs fill no squares for bros. The complaints from the CAF can't both be "Stop filling so many jobs with rated guys where others can do it" and "Send more guys to staff." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The scary reality is that there simply isn't a rated dude with combat time, the experience in acquisitions, and the logistics / MX exposure to handle all of AFMC right now. Would I like to see more operators become AFMC program managers? Hell yeah...but those kind of jobs fill no squares for bros. The complaints from the CAF can't both be "Stop filling so many jobs with rated guys where others can do it" and "Send more guys to staff." They're called Test Pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muscle2002 Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 They're called Test Pilots. Dupe's well aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I cannot comment on her, but in my experience we need less of the non-essentials deploying as it is. Too many bored Chiefs out here already minding their time by being the uniform police. Nothing like being told you need to shave after spending 12-14 hours doing your "primary duties" including flying. Thanks Chief... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guineapigfury Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) I cannot comment on her, but in my experience we need less of the non-essentials deploying as it is. 2. If you aren't actually needed downrange, all you're doing is costing the taxpayers $500,000 per year, which is about 10 airmen give or take. I don't begrudge anyone not deploying if they aren't needed there. Edited: Decided I was over the line. Edited February 11, 2012 by guineapigfury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CAVEMAN Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Ugh...we can always count on you to fart in church and blame grandma. No one is saying she is too important to deploy, just that not everyone has a job that deploys. Under what logic would you deploy a person trained to do a rear area job that has nothing to do with combat or combat support? Plain and simple the acquisition corps is trained to procure things, to work with defense companies and lawyers to make sure the government is getting what it paid for...and from what I've seen as of late, we have not done the best job with a lot of programs, so why pull the only knowledgable people we have just to say they deployed. We are trying to fix the system so we get what we need and have it delivered on cost and WORKING, so it is not about someone being too important, it is about continuity and knowledge. Besides, in what capacity would you deploy someone like this, do you want to train Acquisition Capt's and Maj's to guard TCNs? How many times have we heard people bitch about everyone being called a "warrior"? II know it sucks that some of us have deployed 69 times since this mess started, but it doesn't make sense to deploy people who shouldn't be there just to make it all feel even. You ARE a warrior, own it. Say what you may, a BGEN in acquisitions can use a career broadening tour in the desert. Acquisition Captain and Majors can work in the JOC. We don't have Capt or Maj anywhere guarding TCN's so no need for that. Yeah, I am a warrior but your arguement against deploying the acquisition folks just does not make it. I have never worked acquisitions and don't feel sorry for them. You obviously did and see the need to defend them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Make no mistake about it--this nomination is purely political on the part of the administration. I'm not saying she can't do the job, but what makes her better than all the other guys available who are more well rounded--ie rated with acquisition experience and combat/deployment time? The administration wants more gender and racial diversity in the upper ranks--again (for all the liberals on here), not saying she can't do the job, but is she really the most qualified?...or just in a position to become the first female Air Force 4 star General? Wait... what? Are you saying Obama's administration is behind this? Doesn't the Senate confirm GOs? Isn't the Senate a Republican majority? Major disconnect if you're blaming the Obama administration on this one. Sure she may have been nominated by the President (on the recommendation of the Sec Def and SECAF), but it falls on the Senate to confirm or deny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockheedFix Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Isn't the Senate a Republican majority? No. The House is. "Dirty" Harry Reid is still the Senate Majority Leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Wait... what? Are you saying Obama's administration is behind this? Doesn't the Senate confirm GOs? Isn't the Senate a Republican majority? Major disconnect if you're blaming the Obama administration on this one. Sure she may have been nominated by the President (on the recommendation of the Sec Def and SECAF), but it falls on the Senate to confirm or deny. Wow...as much as I disagree with your usually displayed political views here, you usually have your sh1t straight. But this is an epic fail. Twice. The President nominates, i.e., Obama, with the recommendation no doubt from the SECDEF and/or SECAF, sent this lady's name up for confirmation. The Senate has a Democrat majority, hence the gridlock. But only the GOP-controlled House gets the blame for the shenanigans. Takes two, in this case, three groups to govern. This lady has been a career ACQ type. She may, in fact, be the best qualified to be the AFMC/CC. Historically, a flyer has been this MAJCOM's boss as well as every other one. And how has that worked out considering the b1tching about the various processes? At that level, it about executive ability. They either have it or not. I don't know her, I have nothing against her personally or professionally, she is, however, as near a thing to a human wookie as I've ever seen in a public role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 No. The House is. "Dirty" Harry Reid is still the Senate Majority Leader. You're right. Obvious brain fart this morning. Standing by for deserved shellacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now