Jump to content

FY 14 Force Management Program (RIF, VSP, TERA)


AOF_ATC

Recommended Posts

Boss, you said it right there. This is going to be ugly. There will be no good way to make these cuts ESPECIALLY if A1 is behind the power curve already. Looks like we'll be using the bean counter approach (i.e. we need to make cuts, just start cutting people) and undoubtedly, the way they'll implement that will be of course who they consider "quality" folks based on PFT scores, PME, AAD, etc. All that is great, but those are people who probably weren't going to get out. On the other hand, you have another demographic of "quality" folks who do have PME, AAD, no PT failures in whom the AF has mucho $$$ invested who will separate because there are higher paying, more stable opportunities on the outside that can use their AF funded talents...these are your normal attrition folks and they may not separate using voluntary means or they may not be eligible at this time, but rest assured, they plan to separate (ref the number of rated VSP applications by folks who have already expressed their intent to separate at some point). Some may be quality, some not. Between the two demographics, I think the AF will see a bigger reduction than what they are actually anticipating.

What scares me most about these upcoming cuts is that they weren't planned (or maybe they were all along, Chang knew about it MONTHS ago), so now the magic formula that A1 uses to determine manpower requirements has 25K less people in it which may or may not include the normal attrition. I'm guessing the majority of the 25k "quality cuts" will be involuntary separations (the rated force is a whole other issue aside from this). I've said this before and I'll say it again, when you have higher than normal retention rates due to a down economy and you reduce manpower to exactly what (you think) you need to sustain operations (in this case 25K less since it wasn't "planned" nor is it exactly known from where the cuts will come), and then you have an improving economy and retention rates go back to normal, you will end up with a severe shortage of personnel. I understand, these things are hard to predict, but we already know it is coming...we just don't know to what degree.

I'll make another prediction. The Air Force will cut too much via involuntary separations, normal attrition rates will continue, OPSTEMPO will not decrease, and we will work the shit out of the remaining force until we burn them out. We'll still get the job done, probably not as pretty as we could, but we'll create a hollow force and everyone will act surprised that this happened, wash, rinse, repeat. This is going to be "do more with less" at a level we've never seen before. I hope I'm wrong, but more importantly for me, I hope I don't have to relive it for the third time in my career.

To be fair, Chang did mention this was coming back in June or July, albeit with no details whatsoever. But what kills me is the fact that AFPC has been working this for the better part of a year, and they STILL can't put forth a coherent plan in an orderly and informative manner that doesn't leave absolutely everyone scrambling to try to figure out what big blue has in store for them. I don't even think they took that long to plan and execute the damn raid to kill bin laden, and that included building an entire scale mock up of his compound.

As for your prediction about cutting too many folks, I have no doubt that you are correct. But really, who cares? We'll just throw money at the problem and poof, problem solved. Hell, in 6-7 years they will probably offer bonuses for guys to come back to active duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is it has something to do with the fact that the people who want out are not the people the AF wants to get rid of.

But I thought the AF was experiencing record high retention. That's what I keep hearing from my "senior leaders" in multiple forums, at least.

Unfortunately, the analysis is not complete and A1/AFPC does not know where we can take cuts yet.

In all seriousness: isn't this A1's J-O-B? How could they roll out of a program without knowing where we could take cuts? Absolutely mind boggling.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen. Hacking the mish' only...no more queep!!!

Edit to add:

We received an email yesterday saying to expect to hear around the 31st as to which AFSCs will be meeting the FSB this summer, for those of us 3-6 year officers that fall into that category. I'd be willing to bet none of the pilot types will be safe (except maybe 11F's), but that's just me...

I was told through the grapevine that the FSB won't cancel any UPT ADSCs. Whether that's true or not has yet to make itself clear though.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are ways to make smart cuts. Do we really need a SARM shop with 5-6 personnel to input into a program what we physically mark on a paper MAR? Probably not. I like 1COs... Don't get me wrong but one person maybe two to provide backfill and supervise the audit process... But like a lot of things in the Air Force we simply perpetuate a system of wasteful duplication of data entry.

Finance. Can we just eliminate finance? Can we contract it out to Lockheed Martin? Why can't I login to a virtual finance upload a copy of my orders and receive my DLA? Better yet the system should serve the member as soon as mypers has orders avail it should flow those orders to the agencies needing them. Sorry for the derail.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are ways to make smart cuts. Do we really need a SARM shop with 5-6 personnel to input into a program what we physically mark on a paper MAR? Probably not. I like 1COs... Don't get me wrong but one person maybe two to provide backfill and supervise the audit process... But like a lot of things in the Air Force we simply perpetuate a system of wasteful duplication of data entry.

Finance. Can we just eliminate finance? Can we contract it out to Lockheed Martin? Why can't I login to a virtual finance upload a copy of my orders and receive my DLA? Better yet the system should serve the member as soon as mypers has orders avail it should flow those orders to the agencies needing them. Sorry for the derail.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh you haven't heard the rumint? Most shoe clerks think pilots just sit around at the squadron bar all week when they aren't flying. The new plan involves having all the rated folks have 'real' jobs instead of additional duties. Instead of voting officer and scheduling, you will be a finance officer and a mission support guru 4 days out of the week. Those ice cream cones won't lick themselves people - get to it!

[fyi this is real…]

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We (1 SOW) already have rated folk filling AMU leadership positions. We don't have the ability to release rated people for career broadening assignments. So on a limited scale this actually sounds appealing. Just don't make it duties at. It would never work that way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is it has something to do with the fact that the people who want out are not the people the AF wants to get rid of.

I think that's a legit answer if we were downsizing 15-20% of the force. The fact that we are downsizing 8% at the most over the course of several years does not, IMO, justify the current situation.

Look, I know I have become a tedious broken record on this topic. All I ask is that the AF stays good to their word and does this with volunteers to the greatest extent possible. I think it can be easily done without losing all of our fighter pilots, doctors and cyber warriors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh you haven't heard the rumint? Most shoe clerks think pilots just sit around at the squadron bar all week when they aren't flying. The new plan involves having all the rated folks have 'real' jobs instead of additional duties. Instead of voting officer and scheduling, you will be a finance officer and a mission support guru 4 days out of the week. Those ice cream cones won't lick themselves people - get to it!

[fyi this is real…]

At least this way our travel vouchers would actually get paid and broke shit would get fixed.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh you haven't heard the rumint? Most shoe clerks think pilots just sit around at the squadron bar all week when they aren't flying. The new plan involves having all the rated folks have 'real' jobs instead of additional duties. Instead of voting officer and scheduling, you will be a finance officer and a mission support guru 4 days out of the week. Those ice cream cones won't lick themselves people - get to it!

[fyi this is real…]

So what would this look like? Flying squadrons with just IP's, EP's, and new guys. The rest of the base run by folks who are actually involved in the operational mission of the base?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We (1 SOW) already have rated folk filling AMU leadership positions. We don't have the ability to release rated people for career broadening assignments. So on a limited scale this actually sounds appealing. Just don't make it duties at. It would never work that way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LRS/DO and FSS/CC and DO are all rated here. Helps get the non-school select FGOs who can't be sent to staff a career broadening job (while letting them still fly as instructors) instead of piling them up at the OSS. You can keep them in the ops squadrons but there are only so many ADO slots since they've all been FLT/CCs (not to mention the FLT/CC jobs need to be reserved for arriving FAIPs).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Magnet have you seen operators in those positions improving things? How has it worked out?

 

Things are slowly improving, at least in the sense of having someone to call if something needs fixing. Changing the culture/ mentality to one of proactivity will take longer. There is no way a PCA should take over a month to process after the OPR closes out and the secretary submits it.

A huge problem in the support (and ops world as well) is over centralization. Functionals at MAJCOMs or above write inappropriate things into AFIs, not knowing the impact it will have on base level ops. This combined with MICT/oversight flavor of the month leads to situations where even the WG/CCs hands appear tied. For example, I shouldn't have to beg someone at ACC to approve a comm request for a mission system that requires 15 seconds to change configuration at base level but the discretion has been taken away from the local CS.

Liquid, if you're still out there looking for good COAs/solutions, publish the intent of AFIs (risk to be mitigated) and allow CCs/leaders at all levels to waive them for mission success if there is an alternate plan for mitigation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

words

My first reaction was against the idea, but you bring up some good points. Obviously, specialties that require specific lengthy training or certification couldn't be filled this way, but many management jobs could easily be. As a former MSG type myself, I can tell you that very little of what I, and many of my counterparts, did required a specific skillset. The most important things were a basic understanding of the mission, decent leadership and admin skills, the ability to read and interpret the AFI's that governed your job, and most especially good NCO's.

I would argue that mid-level rated Captains would make great flight commanders in places like Supply, Vehicle Ops/Mx, Security Forces, Base Comm, Services, Force Support, Aerial Port, POL, Aircraft Mx, etc... Arguably, rated Majors should easily fill similar DO positions and possibly even squadron commands. If you're proficient at your operational job, there's nothing wrong with filling one of these positions and stepping to fly from there. It would, however, require a fundamental shift in our cultural paradigm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 LRS/DO and FSS/CC and DO are all rated here. Helps get the non-school select FGOs who can't be sent to staff a career broadening job (while letting them still fly as instructors) instead of piling them up at the OSS. You can keep them in the ops squadrons but there are only so many ADO slots since they've all been FLT/CCs (not to mention the FLT/CC jobs need to be reserved for arriving FAIPs).

Wait so the people leading the support of the force are actually people providing the force?

This sounds like one of the best ideas I've heard of. First order of business is no more training days unless declared by the whole wing. Where is here?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liquid I'm sure other career fields will complain (with a good reason) that we're taking their leadership opportunities, but you have to cut people and it ain't going to be pilots/operators. I mean you could actually mentor people outside of your squadron about flying.

A few weeks ago I made a statement to a room full of senior AF leaders that we were making a big mistake paying contractors and civilians to fix and fly aircraft in combat while we keep active duty support personnel, including band members, comm, CE, firefighters, finance, etc. I said an Air Force that pays civilians to fix and fly aircraft will soon end up in the Army. I didn't get a slow clap, or any supporting fires, but it felt good to say it to a bunch of senior decision makers.

We should cut, contract and civilianize all support functions before we cut combat power and our core missions. Our support functions are vitally important, but they don't have to all be military. We should contract all housing, CDCs, fire departments, base security, FSS, DV airlift, protocol, CE, base comm, base logistics and most our health care. Contracts keep costs down, quality up, allow for competition, hold people accountable and leverage corporate experience, technologies and responsiveness. And you don't pay for full benefits and retirement for non-combat/non-critical Air Force capabilities, so it is cheaper in the long run.

  • Upvote 23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wait so the people leading the support of the force are actually people providing the force?

This sounds like one of the best ideas I've heard of. First order of business is no more training days unless declared by the whole wing. Where is here?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The northern bomber base that doesn't fly cruise missiles around.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few weeks ago I made a statement to a room full of senior AF leaders that we were making a big mistake paying contractors and civilians to fix and fly aircraft in combat while we keep active duty support personnel, including band members, comm, CE, firefighters, finance, etc. I said an Air Force that pays civilians to fix and fly aircraft will soon end up in the Army. I didn't get a slow clap, or any supporting fires, but it felt good to say it to a bunch of senior decision makers.

We should cut, contract and civilianize all support functions before we cut combat power and our core missions. Our support functions are vitally important, but they don't have to all be military. We should contract all housing, CDCs, fire departments, base security, FSS, DV airlift, protocol, CE, base comm, base logistics and most our health care. Contracts keep costs down, quality up, allow for competition, hold people accountable and leverage corporate experience, technologies and responsiveness. And you don't pay for full benefits and retirement for non-combat/non-critical Air Force capabilities, so it is cheaper in the long run.

^This...

Not to mention the continuity by not switching out a seasoned Airman for a new Airman every 2-4 years. Seems like personnel and finance functions are always operating at the "new Airman in training" capacity and we never really get to the "competent Airman" capacity because as soon as SSgt Schmukatelli gets to that level, we PCS him and bring in A1C Effengee. Sure, we'd probably need some expeditionary types that could deploy downrange, but with the technology we have these days, you don't need a lot of them downrange to get things done.

Not having to fund full benefits and retirements piece is key with contractors....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what BeerMan is talking about may be an effect of the Force Management Program. Retention of support personnel may be drastically affected if the service cuts down on the size/number of support units. If it is done right, then the quality support officers will be retained, and the lower quality officers will be release.

In reality, since the AF has not demonstrated a good way of evaluating performance, headhunting will ensue, and some of the quality folks will get cut or leave, leaving knuckle-draggers behind who will later be competing for leadership slots with more highly retained career fields. If aircrew (according to the sustainment matrix) are more well retained, then they will probably compete better on paper, and take the DO and CC support slots over the mediocre remains of the support career fields. Either way, it will be an imperfect process of downsizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should contract all housing, CDCs, fire departments, base security, FSS, DV airlift, protocol, CE, base comm, base logistics and most our health care. Contracts keep costs down, quality up, allow for competition, hold people accountable and leverage corporate experience, technologies and responsiveness.

I agree, all except DV airlift. Do we really want the lowest bidder to fly around our senior leaders (except maybe CODELs)? Not to mention losing the flexibility you would have from an AF crew. I could see a Netjet type operation not moving the mission because something wasn't in their contract.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Air Force is probably not going to Force Shape many pilots, they need us.

The minute you think you are "needed" by the AF, is the minute you open yourself up for disappointment.

The AF doesn't even know what it needs at any given time.

A few weeks ago I made a statement to a room full of senior AF leaders that we were making a big mistake paying contractors and civilians to fix and fly aircraft in combat while we keep active duty support personnel, including band members, comm, CE, firefighters, finance, etc. I said an Air Force that pays civilians to fix and fly aircraft will soon end up in the Army. I didn't get a slow clap, or any supporting fires, but it felt good to say it to a bunch of senior decision makers.

We should cut, contract and civilianize all support functions before we cut combat power and our core missions. Our support functions are vitally important, but they don't have to all be military. We should contract all housing, CDCs, fire departments, base security, FSS, DV airlift, protocol, CE, base comm, base logistics and most our health care. Contracts keep costs down, quality up, allow for competition, hold people accountable and leverage corporate experience, technologies and responsiveness. And you don't pay for full benefits and retirement for non-combat/non-critical Air Force capabilities, so it is cheaper in the long run.

Problem is, you're forgetting that many of those support positions are combat power, in the sense that you have to be able to deploy them to the bases where our frontline forces are in order to provide the needed support. You can't contract all fire protection personnel (or all CE, Comm, Log, etc) as civilians, because you can't freely deploy the civilians in civilian status to combat or combat zones; you need to have X percentage of military personnel in these fields for this reason. To make it easiest to deploy them, they also have to be active duty as opposed to Reserve. Even in the fire protection field right now, the vast majority of firefighters AF-widein all components are GS civilians, around 50%+ last I checked. And that balance seems to work well with having the rest available as military to be fully deployable, even at a moments notice. While it'd be nice to go civilan in many of these fields and there are many gains from it, there are also a number of legal limitations.

Edited by MD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, all except DV airlift. Do we really want the lowest bidder to fly around our senior leaders (except maybe CODELs)? Not to mention losing the flexibility you would have from an AF crew. I could see a Netjet type operation not moving the mission because something wasn't in their contract.

For some of the DVs and their handlers I've had the privilege of transporting, nothing would please me more than to see them getting passage on "lowest bidder" outfits. In fact, if it were possible to have an organization lower than the lowest bidder, that would be even better.

  • Upvote 5
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...