panchbarnes Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) Virtual Town Hall today w/ new SECAF. This ought to be interesting. Let's hope there is enough bandwith to accomodate everyone. http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/467898/afs-top-leader-to-host-online-town-hall.aspx WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The Air Force’s newest and most senior leader will hold a service-wide, online town hall meeting Jan. 9 at 3:30 p.m. EST, addressing issues relevant to today’s Airmen. Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James will answer questions from Airmen at the Pentagon, and also speak to her goals and priorities as the service’s 23rd secretary. Viewers can live stream the town hall at www.af.mil/live.aspx, and a recording will be posted on www.af.mil for those who are not able to watch live. James was formally sworn in Dec. 20 in the Pentagon, making her the second female in Air Force history to serve in the role. Edited January 9, 2014 by PanchBarnes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B52gator Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Would ya? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WheelzUp Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Good God man! Resounding NO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bender Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Oh for fuck sakes…Here’s what I just heard: If it’s attainable within “mission requirements” we’ll cut the active duty force by 25, 000 this year. Do you have any understanding of the current, or more importantly future “mission requirements”? Let’s get her thoughts on cyber: “On the move…important and growing…I have no well defined vision…seems like we ought to be in the lead…certainly important…yeah I don’t know anything about cyber…next” At least I have someone else to answer this for me, “You mind fielding this one for me, it’s a hard one”. I’m not sure what you guys are going to do, but HQ has a great plan for reductions of such magnitude…“mitigate” by eliminating vacant billets (mentally shown via facial expression “Fuck, why didn’t I think of that”). Enough of this asking me shit…that’s hard. “What would you change?” “Oh…good…good one…” “What am I going to change? Nothing, I’m just hear to field the softballs if you can manage to speak without a water. I don’t really have anything to say, but I do have a water I’m going to hold up in front of all you dry throated MF’ers. Burn!” “Okay…the pain of having no answers has worn off and I’ve decided to try another question…shoot: Retirement changes?” I saw this one coming, I’ve got this one… “Clearly, the growth in the cost of [retirement] benefits has been large.” “Definitely changes a coming…but only for new recruits” “Damn it, that already happened?” “That gripes me.” (Not said but should have been, “Huh, the growth of O&M costs are completely disproportionate to Mil Pers outlays? What fucking service is this again? The Army is worse? Oh, the Air Force…that’s good. Which appropriation category was that again?” “Anyone have an easier one?” “Great…moving on.” “How do we make civil service more enticing to younger people” Easy, dumb ass…we’ll “talk it up more”. Yeah, and “no more furloughs”….”I hope, cause you know I’m not in charge of that.” “What am I in charge of again?” I should have just given in and fallen asleep in the middle of that…or did I? Bendy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panchbarnes Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) You missed the part where the civilian lady in black asking for change with the current communication practices; except she couldn't say if it's too much, too little, or not detailed enough. She just wanted change. It was awkward, yet hilarious at the same time. Edited January 10, 2014 by PanchBarnes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17D_guy Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Oh for fuck sakes…Here’s what I just heard: If it’s attainable within “mission requirements” we’ll cut the active duty force by 25, 000 this year. Do you have any understanding of the current, or more importantly future “mission requirements”? Let’s get her thoughts on cyber: “On the move…important and growing…I have no well defined vision…seems like we ought to be in the lead…certainly important…yeah I don’t know anything about cyber…next” Well at least she's in lock step with HAF on this one. They had a "cyber town hall" where they discussed the survey they sent to all 17D's. Number on gripe... what she just said. Too bad that 15yr retirement is too much of a cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 You missed the part where the civilian lady in black asking for change with the current communication practices; except she couldn't say if it's too much, too little, not detailed enough. She just wanted change. It was awkward, yet hilarious at the same time. Lol, that and the big guy who sounded winded just by standing up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panchbarnes Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Well at least she's in lock step with HAF on this one. They had a "cyber town hall" where they discussed the survey they sent to all 17D's. Number on gripe... what she just said. Too bad that 15yr retirement is too much of a cut. That's because if you are O-4+ then you are probably too old to understand cyber. Most cyber dudes in charge pretend to know cyber and make decisions based on the old COMM mindset. Some may be willing to listen and defer to the sharp CGOs/NCOs. The probelm is then their vision/mindset gets pulled down to the tactical level because those sharp CGOs/NCOs like to be down in the weed. Then there is the problem with the cyber chain of command. At this point, cyber is just a big money grab and job security for many people. Gen Welsh was right when he said he wanted to wait and see before dumping more $$ into cyber. The new 2-star in charge of cyber seems like a good dude though.. Edited January 10, 2014 by PanchBarnes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 That's because if you are O-4+ then you are probably too old to understand cyber. Most cyber dudes in charge pretend to know cyber and make decisions based on the old COMM mindset. Some may be willing to listen and defer to the sharp CGOs/NCOs. The probelm is then their vision/mindset gets pulled down to the tactical level because those sharp CGOs/NCOs like to be down in the weed. Then there is the problem with the cyber chain of command. At this point, cyber is just a big money grab and job security for many people. Gen Welsh was right when he said he wanted to wait and see before dumping more $$ into cyber. The new 2-star in charge of cyber seems like a good dude though.. Easy Nancy, some of us O-4+ fighter dudes were EE degree dudes and kept up with it. I love the idea of shutting down the bad guys with computers, less death for everyone, but sometimes a GBU-31 is the ONLY way take care of something. Good luck throwing your mouse at a bad guy. Did I just open myself up to a cyber attack? Dammit..... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panchbarnes Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Not bashing engineers or any particular AFSC at all. I was talking about the lack of a strategic vision. This is a difficult subject to explain over an open forum so I'll just stop here. I agree with you regarding the GBU-31, many cyber dudes can't comprehend or willing to accept that fact. Edited January 10, 2014 by PanchBarnes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUNBAR Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Did she really say they intend to cut the active force by 25K this year? That's pretty big stuff and quite different than the CSAF saying we MAY have to cut 25K over 5 years depending on our funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17D_guy Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 That's because if you are O-4+ then you are probably too old to understand cyber. Most cyber dudes in charge pretend to know cyber and make decisions based on the old COMM mindset. Some may be willing to listen and defer to the sharp CGOs/NCOs. The probelm is then their vision/mindset gets pulled down to the tactical level because those sharp CGOs/NCOs like to be down in the weed. Then there is the problem with the cyber chain of command. At this point, cyber is just a big money grab and job security for many people. Gen Welsh was right when he said he wanted to wait and see before dumping more $$ into cyber. The new 2-star in charge of cyber seems like a good dude though.. I would have to agree. Even though I'm older, all the bosses talk about making us Ops.. which means checklists and maintenance actions. No mind set, not effects focused which you can do even as a B-shred in base comm. I blame AFSPC. Metrics are often, "how many tickets did you close" instead of, "Can they mission plan/work/be happy." I will caveat that i'm not an A shred, so perhaps I'm missing out. I'm too old for all the cool programs (15-yrs in a month). However, they sure aren't treating us like ops, nor are we getting any info about the future of the career field. The 2-star did seem cool. I did appreciate the brief. I am excited about the future. We also have some good Cyber (old-comm) dude coming up to 24AF leadership. Hopefully we'll get the last strand of Space/Missiles (we're cyber too guys!) out of there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panchbarnes Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Did she really say they intend to cut the active force by 25K this year? That's pretty big stuff and quite different than the CSAF saying we MAY have to cut 25K over 5 years depending on our funding. I thought she didn't say 25K for sure but it was a possibility. Of course my connection kept dropping during the force management discussions. Our leadership here has been telling us to expect the 25K cut upfront for over a month now, so it's been consistent. I understand them not wanting to put people thru the RIF boards year after year. The downside is how do they know that 25K is the right number? The budget landscape changes every year so the pendulum could swing the other way next year. If a major war breaks out next year, do they just recall everyone back to active duty? Without cutting the non-mission essential requirements (TIB, AF-level athletics, end of the year spending, commercial sponsorship) I just don't see an honest attempt to save $$. I often wonder how much of this proposed 25K cut is self-inflicted to make a political statement? This also reminds me of when Gen Moseley came out and stated his desire to cut people for the Raptors. How did that work out? Edited to ask the question: For the longest time we planned for the ability to conduct 2 simultaneous wars, that kind of went away a couple of years ago. What's the current goal and how will the 25K cut affect that goal? Edited January 10, 2014 by PanchBarnes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertschu Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Easy Nancy, some of us O-4+ fighter dudes were EE degree dudes and kept up with it. Obviously there are O-4+s both in and out of the cyber community that get it, but in my experience, the majority of people in cyber leadership and staff positions don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Without cutting the non-mission essential requirements (TIB, AF-level athletics, end of the year spending, commercial sponsorship) I just don't see an honest attempt to save $$.This. So much this. All of my this, right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitteEinBit Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) I thought she didn't say 25K for sure but it was a possibility. I understand them not wanting to put people thru the RIF boards year after year. The downside is how do they know that 25K is the right number? I recall her saying "UP to 25K, which could actually mean less than 25K" but that it would be front loaded. I ask the same question about the 25K number...it seems so nice and round...almost like it was pulled out of someone's ass... I'm guessing the 25K is a number someone came up with to make a point. If AFPC doesn't even know who to cut yet, it certainly means they haven't planned any of this out. They are making cuts and then making "strategery" based on what we have left. Good luck when the next war kicks off. On the other hand, when you look at what percentage of folks in the AF have actually deployed, it should be relatively easy to decide who to cut if your new "strategery" is mission focused with limited manning. Personally, I'd keep my senior wartime experience and dump the noobs who didn't deploy because they didn't have to or because they avoided it...but that's just me. I realize it is a little more complicated than that. But, when AFPC still masks deployment history (experience) on boards, they kind of shoot themselves in the foot. It is all about school experience, and that will definitely help us in the next war. It is a real life Revenge of the Nerds. Edit: I can never f*cking just post an initial post without some "grammers" Edited January 10, 2014 by BitteEinBit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TarHeelPilot Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Personally, I'd keep my senior wartime experience and dump the noobs who didn't deploy because they didn't have to or because they avoided it...but that's just me. I realize it is a little more complicated than that. Yes, but then they are backfilled by more noobs from tech school who have never deployed and you're back in the same situation. Why not throttle back on accessions temporarily? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitteEinBit Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Yes, but then they are backfilled by more noobs from tech school who have never deployed and you're back in the same situation. Why not throttle back on accessions temporarily? Agree. CSAF thinks that is not good for the force however. He believes it makes more sense to cut experience and keep bringing in the noobs. I don't understand his rationale, but I don't have to...he makes those calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Edited to ask the question: For the longest time we planned for the ability to conduct 2 simultaneous wars, that kind of went away a couple of years ago. What's the current goal and how will the 25K cut affect that goal?Check the NSS and NDS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Did she really say they intend to cut the active force by 25K this year? That's pretty big stuff and quite different than the CSAF saying we MAY have to cut 25K over 5 years depending on our funding. That's what we were told at a WG/CC call about a week ago. The AF is looking to make all the cuts up front and save that money going forward so sequestration will be slightly less painful for the next five years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sqwatch Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Did she really say they intend to cut the active force by 25K this year? That's pretty big stuff and quite different than the CSAF saying we MAY have to cut 25K over 5 years depending on our funding.At our AF officer call, they told is that the plan was to be done with the cuts this year. Rip the band-aid off and at the end of the year, we have what we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitteEinBit Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Check the NSS and NDS. The Air Force part of the NSS and NDS was planned with the 25K as part of the strategy...we'll now have to re-evaluate our plan using 25K less and restrategerize. So, right now there is no plan...but we're working on it. We are learning as we go....even though we learned this same lesson 20 years ago and then again 10 years ago.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComingLeft Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 At our AF officer call, they told is that the plan was to be done with the cuts this year. Rip the band-aid off and at the end of the year, we have what we have. This is the same logic taught in business schools, cut quicker and deeper than you need to once. It sucks, but people adapt and overcome. Everyone talking about quitting or getting fired for 5 years is terrible for the force. Right or wrong we get back to business quicker, e.g. you would write an OPR and a RRF each year. If it was too much, we recall people back to AD. It is a world of two Air Forces, the rated world is hurting, especially Fighters, Rescue and RPAs. I wonder how much including 11Ms on the VSP/RIF eligibility matrix is a shell game so the AF can claim they cut pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panchbarnes Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 This is the same logic taught in business schools, cut quicker and deeper than you need to once. It sucks, but people adapt and overcome. Everyone talking about quitting or getting fired for 5 years is terrible for the force. Right or wrong we get back to business quicker, e.g. you would write an OPR and a RRF each year. If it was too much, we recall people back to AD. It is a world of two Air Forces, the rated world is hurting, especially Fighters, Rescue and RPAs. I wonder how much including 11Ms on the VSP/RIF eligibility matrix is a shell game so the AF can claim they cut pilots. In response to your first point, the Air Force is not a business or a corporation and we are not out to make money to please the shareholders. It's foolish to blindly follow private sector business practices (downsizing, lean engineering, six sigma, TQM) just because you learned it for your masters degree. Businesses can hire and fire at will, but we can't due to our unique standards and requirements. Businesses like to look to the military for leadership lessons and best practices and it should not be the other way around. Now to your second point, it's actually a world of "insert large number here" Air Forces. We have to make everyone happy and "Fly, fight, win...in Air, Space, Cyberspace, ISR, Finance, Medical, CE, and etc." Everything and everyone is a weapon system or an operator. At the end of the day, we are an "Air Force" and there should be nothing wrong with preserving the flying mission. I've heard on a couple of occasions from non-rated O-6s that pilots only make up 2% of the Air Force and therefore it's not an important part of the "Air Force" anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17D_guy Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Yes, but then they are backfilled by more noobs from tech school who have never deployed and you're back in the same situation. Why not throttle back on accessions temporarily? Latest news I saw was OTS board this year will only consider engineers/scientists and will consist of a single board. Not at work, so I can't source, apologies. 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