Taking back the AF

[brickhistory]

The 67th out at Kadena uses the "COCK" callsign.

Yep. When I first got involved with my c/s issue with the FAA, I thought it might be a 67th at a Flag or some such, but it was the SCANG. Imagine, another COCK up....whodathougt?

[HeloDude]

Wasn't sure the best place to put this but the discussion thread seemed to be the best after using the search function....

Female general nominated for 3rd star

Staff report

Posted : Monday Nov 16, 2009 17:32:46 EST

Maj. Gen. Janet C. Wolfenbarger has been nominated for appointment to the rank of lieutenant general and assignment as vice commander of Air Force Materiel Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, the Defense Department announced Monday.

If confirmed by the Senate, Wolfenbarger will become the Air Force’s most senior female officer. Lt. Gen. Terry Gabreski currently holds the distinction but is scheduled to officially retire Jan. 1 as vice commander of Air Force Materiel Command.

Right now, Wolfenbarger is the director of intelligence and requirements at Materiel Command. She leads the directorate that develops technology and materiel solutions, and provides science and technology intelligence to the command’s senior staff members, according to the Air Force.

Wolfenbarger entered the Air Force Academy with the first class of women in 1976 and was commissioned a second lieutenant in 1980, according to her official biography.

The general began her career in acquisition as an engineer at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. Besides assignments at Electronic Security Command and Air Force Systems Command, Wolfenbarger has held several positions in the F-22 System Program Office at Wright-Patterson, has served as the F-22 Lead Program Element Monitor at the Pentagon and was the B-2 System Program Director for the Aeronautical Systems Center. She also has commanded the ASC’s C-17 Systems Group, Mobility Systems Wing, and was director of the Air Force Acquisition Center of Excellence.

Wolfenbarger has two master of science degrees — one in aeronautics and astronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass., and one in national resource strategy from National Defense University at Fort Lesley J. McNair in Washington, D.C.

Among Wolfenbarger’s awards and decorations: Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters, Air Force Commendation Medal, Air Force Achievement Medal and Air Force Organizational Excellence Award with silver oak leaf cluster.

Wolfenbarger was promoted June 26 to major general.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/11/airforce_female_senior_officer_111609w/

Just thought it was worth the discussion--I know not everyone in the Air Force is in the ops world, but take a look at her ribbon stack--not one short tour or any type of deployment ribbon (that I can tell). We're promoting people to 3 stars who have no clue what it is like to actually be where the war is happening. So the Air Force wants me to be a more 'well rounded' officer, so in addition to all my flying, currencies, checkrides, additional duties, TDY's/Deployments, the Air Force also wants me to get a masters degree, complete all my PME in correspondence and then later compete for residence, and oh, if I can learn a language and do 500 hours of community service a year that would be great too.

Here's also a link to her bio: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=8209

Anyone think this has anything to do with our current administration? I'm just sayin...

[old crow]

take a look at her ribbon stack--not one short tour or any type of deployment ribbon (that I can tell). We're promoting people to 3 stars who have no clue what it is like to actually be where the war is happening.

Here's also a link to her bio: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=8209

Holy crap! I had more ribbons than her as a 1Lt.

[discus]

How would you like to wake up next to this in the morning??

[Dupe]

Just thought it was worth the discussion--I know not everyone in the Air Force is in the ops world, but take a look at her ribbon stack--not one short tour or any type of deployment ribbon (that I can tell). We're promoting people to 3 stars who have no clue what it is like to actually be where the war is happening. So the Air Force wants me to be a more 'well rounded' officer, so in addition to all my flying, currencies, checkrides, additional duties, TDY's/Deployments, the Air Force also wants me to get a masters degree, complete all my PME in correspondence and then later compete for residence, and oh, if I can learn a language and do 500 hours of community service a year that would be great too.

Here's also a link to her bio: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=8209

Anyone think this has anything to do with our current administration? I'm just sayin...

Acquisition officers typically don't deploy...especially at her level. Some Lts are going down range, but AFMC is actually somewhat smart about arguing that these people, for the most part, serve no usefull purpose down-range. That's alot more than can be said for most of the dudes stuck at the CAOC. There is a fate worse than combat for an Acq Officer...that fate is Defense Acquisition University classes and continually required Career Learning Points on top of all the other crap that everyone else in the AF has to do. The grass isn't neccessarily greener for Acq Officers....

[brabus]

There are some things that can't be unseen...

[JarheadBoom]

Just thought it was worth the discussion--I know not everyone in the Air Force is in the ops world, but take a look at her ribbon stack--not one short tour or any type of deployment ribbon (that I can tell). We're promoting people to 3 stars who have no clue what it is like to actually be where the war is happening.

She's been a manager her whole career... and that's fine. We won't be seeing her as the next ACC commander or anything like that (hopefully...), so why not make a person who spent their career in AFMC, the vice of AFMC?

Now what really piqued my curiosity was this:

Posted : Monday Nov 16, 2009 17:32:46 EST

Maj. Gen. Janet C. Wolfenbarger has been nominated for appointment to the rank of lieutenant general and assignment as vice commander of Air Force Materiel Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, the Defense Department announced Monday.

<snip>

Wolfenbarger was promoted June 26 to major general.

So she got her second star in June, and will get her third star, presumably, in January '10???

6 months TIG for promotion from O-8 to O-9. Gotta be a peacetime record...

[busdriver]

I don't really see a problem with promoting an acquisitions expert to the head acquisitions position. If she had a history of fucking the ops side of things, sure bad news. On the other hand, what if you have an acquisitions type that has always been a champion of the ops world, wouldn't you want that person at the helm to ensure we get the shit we need? It really comes down to the individual, and in the case of AFMC I really don't see why a rated officer has to rule that particular roost, they just need to have the proper focus. I've never really thought of the engineering types as clerks, more like star trek geeks who make science fiction, science reality.

[HeloDude]

I don't really see a problem with promoting an acquisitions expert to the head acquisitions position. If she had a history of fucking the ops side of things, sure bad news. On the other hand, what if you have an acquisitions type that has always been a champion of the ops world, wouldn't you want that person at the helm to ensure we get the shit we need? It really comes down to the individual, and in the case of AFMC I really don't see why a rated officer has to rule that particular roost, they just need to have the proper focus. I've never really thought of the engineering types as clerks, more like star trek geeks who make science fiction, science reality.

Guess I see a test pilot being a better manager on acquisition programs than someone who has no clue what the end user truly wants and needs. To be a test pilot, you have to have the engineering/science background as well the ops background--hence a more well rounded leader and manager of these programs and commands.

My reason for stating that I need to go to get my masters, do my PME, etc is because the Air Force wants us to be more 'well rounded rated officers'. So who makes a better leader of let's say the AFMC CV position?--I say it's someone who is well rounded in their specific career field as well as someone who understands what end users want and need in the field. Also, has anyone ever met one of these acquisition types? I had a couple in my SOS flight and though they were great guys, most of them had no clue how the operational world works and even admitted that they sometimes don't get the job exactly done right because they don't always know/understand what the end user really wants, their concerns, etc.

Just my thoughts...but yes, bad on discus for posting her picture. Everyone quickly go look at the boobs thread to prevent blindness--technique only.

[zrooster99]

Acquisition officers typically don't deploy...especially at her level. Some Lts are going down range, but AFMC is actually somewhat smart about arguing that these people, for the most part, serve no usefull purpose down-range. That's alot more than can be said for most of the dudes stuck at the CAOC. There is a fate worse than combat for an Acq Officer...that fate is Defense Acquisition University classes and continually required Career Learning Points on top of all the other crap that everyone else in the AF has to do. The grass isn't neccessarily greener for Acq Officers....

You ever upgrade to AC, IP or EP and then work to maintain that knowledge base... You ever read a 1700 page dash 1? That takes a lot of continuous study "on top of all the other crap that everyone else in the AF has to do" AND you still get to deploy.

I'm not trying to start a pissing contest here, it's just that having to go back to school is not that bad of a fate and it's definitely not worse than having to deploy all the time.

There are plenty of positions that any AFSC could fill in the AOR and acquisitions could help take some of the load off the rest of us by helping to fill them.

Edit: for clarity

Edited November 17, 2009 by zrooster99

[Stunna]

As someone who spent 4 years under AFMC, I can tell you this: along with all the extra acquisitions stuff the leaders there do, they also have to coordinate with their civilian counterparts (Directors), and the local union for the various bases they may preside over. It's pretty tough for them to actually get things done, and they tend to not have as much real 'power' as leaders in other commands. I actually had one of my Colonels come to me right before he changed assignments, to see how my retraining was progressing, and he admitted he didn't like the position he was in, wished he could have done more for us while he was there, and was sure he'd never get a star because he'd ruffled too many civilian feathers. AFMC is a whole other world, with 'a freakin million civilians'...

My only real question in all this is, what's the big freaking deal? Why is the headline that a woman is being promoted, and that she'll be the highest ranking woman? So what?

[Dupe]

Guess I see a test pilot being a better manager on acquisition programs than someone who has no clue what the end user truly wants and needs. To be a test pilot, you have to have the engineering/science background as well the ops background--hence a more well rounded leader and manager of these programs and commands.

For the most part, the leadership positions at the flight test squadron level all the way up through ops group, wing, and center levels are TPS grads. By contrast, program offices are very rarely led by a rated guys. Instead, civilian or military acquisitions professionals traditionally lead those groups. There may not even be a rated guy in the program office, which explains why sometimes the acquisitions officers don't understand our requirements. The AFMC/CC is a Viper pilot (non TPS-grad) while the vice is an acquisitions officer. I think its the right mix for my command.

Also, has anyone ever met one of these acquisition types? I had a couple in my SOS flight and though they were great guys, most of them had no clue how the operational world works and even admitted that they sometimes don't get the job exactly done right because they don't always know/understand what the end user really wants, their concerns, etc.

I work with these folks quite often. They are super-smart on how to manage a program and pull all the contractual strings and levers to keep a program on cost, schedule, and performance. However, they are in no way educated on what your particular airframe or system does other than sometimes a quick capes brief. If you ever find yourself in a flight-test position (OT, AFOTEC, DT, etc), going to the requirements and planning meetings is the most valuable thing you can do as a flight tester. Sure, it may be boring as all hell... but it adds the operator's inputs early in a program's life cycle to ensure that you don't get garbage out in the end. There are all kinds of flight test jobs out there, and many don't require any flavor of patch.

[PPTninja]

Disclaimer - just an ROTC cadet with no real experience. But I noticed that a lot of new commissionees going into acqusitions have to first spend a tour in an ops related AFSC. My APAS at the det is an acqusitions officer who's first assignment was Mx school and then served as a regular Mx officer for a tour and is now officially a acquisitions officer. I think the program is called OpEx (operational experience?). But anyways, she said the reason for the program is specifically to ensure that those acqusitions types do have some knowledge of what the user needs.

Edited November 17, 2009 by Hokadet

[Gravedigger]

Disclaimer - just an ROTC cadet with no real experience. But I noticed that a lot of new commissionees going into acqusitions have to first spend a tour in an ops related AFSC. My APAS at the det is an acqusitions officer who's first assignment was Mx school and then served as a regular Mx officer for a tour and is now officially a acquisitions officer. I think the program is called OpEx (operational experience?). But anyways, she said the reason for the program is specifically to ensure that those acqusitions types do have some knowledge of what the user needs.

That is true, and there are also career broadening jobs for the 6X's to fill as Captains and such. However, most of these are MX, Intel, and Space and Missiles. Mx gives a pretty good idea of what aircrews need, but it's still not enough. It works great for Space systems acquisitions, where they actually fill a space operations billet, but you can't send a 6X to pilot training for a 3 year assignment; and since most Air Force acquisitions are aircraft, there still needs to be a balance of operators and acquirers.

The Air Force is starting to move away from having rated commanders of absolutely everything, so expect to see non-fliers in a lot more leadership positions. If everyone sticks to what they know best, but also works together to get a good end product, we can be successful.

[busdriver]

While based on principle I'd rather have a pilot is charge of just about everything in the AF, I just don't see why an acquisitions type automatically falls into the fold of people who just don't get it. I don't know this lady from Eve, so I'm not gonna automatically paint her with the shoe clerk brush since she hasn't deployed. She may very well deserve it, but I just don't know, that's my only point.

[Marjackson82]

That is true, and there are also career broadening jobs for the 6X's to fill as Captains and such. However, most of these are MX, Intel, and Space and Missiles. Mx gives a pretty good idea of what aircrews need, but it's still not enough. It works great for Space systems acquisitions, where they actually fill a space operations billet, but you can't send a 6X to pilot training for a 3 year assignment; and since most Air Force acquisitions are aircraft, there still needs to be a balance of operators and acquirers.

The Air Force is starting to move away from having rated commanders of absolutely everything, so expect to see non-fliers in a lot more leadership positions. If everyone sticks to what they know best, but also works together to get a good end product, we can be successful.

Would it make any sense to make an acquisitions officer tour (sort of how Marine pilots do a FAC tour)? That way you have the users making the decisions of what to purchase?

[outbreak]

Guess I see a test pilot being a better manager on acquisition programs than someone who has no clue what the end user truly wants and needs. To be a test pilot, you have to have the engineering/science background as well the ops background--hence a more well rounded leader and manager of these programs and commands.

Yeah, but test pilots don't necessarily know what the end-user needs either. I've flown with test crews (not for tests, just repositioning aircraft) and the higher-ups seem to have a long test career, and haven't really been in ops for a long time (the O-5 I flew with had been a Test Pilot for well over a decade). Sure, they know the aircraft inside and out, and have a lot of hours. They can take the airplane to its limits and beyond, and do it well, but they haven't deployed in years, if ever.

I've never really thought of the engineering types as clerks, more like star trek geeks who make science fiction, science reality.

That's pretty much what I gathered.

[ClearedHot]

Yeah, but test pilots don't necessarily know what the end-user needs either. I've flown with test crews (not for tests, just repositioning aircraft) and the higher-ups seem to have a long test career, and haven't really been in ops for a long time (the O-5 I flew with had been a Test Pilot for well over a decade). Sure, they know the aircraft inside and out, and have a lot of hours. They can take the airplane to its limits and beyond, and do it well, but they haven't deployed in years, if ever.

That is why you accomplish OT&E with Combat Ready, highly experienced folks who HAVE deployed. OT&E is run separate and is meant to find the employment bugs that the help accomplish the mission better. Pure flight test guys out of TPS are more concerned with keeping the lowest common denominator in a squadron from departing the aircraft into a smoking hole in the ground.

[ExBoneOSO]

That is why you accomplish OT&E with Combat Ready, highly experienced folks who HAVE deployed. OT&E is run separate and is meant to find the employment bugs that the help accomplish the mission better. Pure flight test guys out of TPS are more concerned with keeping the lowest common denominator in a squadron from departing the aircraft into a smoking hole in the ground.

"2" on the OT testing..the EDW crowd does the Developmental Test (DT) stuff, making sure the system meets whatever performance specs are written by the contractor. Successful passing of DT testing doesn't necessarily mean the system meets the user requirements...in other words, it may look great, and "meets requirements", but it can't perform the mission. Example: back when the Bone first came out, the EW gear worked great on the test bench..didn't work worth a crap on the jet.

[BattleRattle]

Not sure if this is the best place to put this...

Wolfenbarger receives fourth star, assumes leadership of AFMC

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123304906

Her af.mil bio is already updated with her 4-star picture--they didn't waste any time.

[BFM this]

Not sure if this is the best place to put this...

Wolfenbarger receives fourth star, assumes leadership of AFMC

http://www.af.mil/ne...sp?id=123304906

Her af.mil bio is already updated with her 4-star picture--they didn't waste any time.

Ok, so in the spirit of this thread, is this a good or bad thing? Is the ice cream cone just continuing to lick itself, or is there hope? Will she do anything to get us a tanker/F-35/CSAR platform/for the love of god stop the flow of flatscreen TV's (is that even an AFMC thing?)?

The obligitory first-female________ PA drivel doesn't bode well, but lets see if there's something positive:

"I promise I will serve in my role as AFMC commander with my absolute best effort,"

[Fud]

While based on principle I'd rather have a pilot is charge of just about everything in the AF

I'm not a flyer, yet I hope to always see a pilot at the reigns. I'd especially hate to see a conehead in charge.

Would it make any sense to make an acquisitions officer tour (sort of how Marine pilots do a FAC tour)? That way you have the users making the decisions of what to purchase?

It's funny, because we don't determine what truly gets purchased. Congress does that, and we've had multiple issues since Boyd's phenomenal influence on the F-16 acq process.

Ok, so in the spirit of this thread, is this a good or bad thing? Is the ice cream cone just continuing to lick itself, or is there hope?

It truly doesn't matter if it is a good or a bad thing, because nobody will ever ask us what we think. She is there, and someone obviously trusts in her leadership ability. I wish her the best, and sincerest congratulations. However, I'd love to see her be a part of the solution of fixing the service along with Gen. Welsh.

[frog]

Ok, so in the spirit of this thread, is this a good or bad thing? Is the ice cream cone just continuing to lick itself, or is there hope? Will she do anything to get us a tanker/F-35/CSAR platform/for the love of god stop the flow of flatscreen TV's (is that even an AFMC thing?)?

The obligitory first-female________ PA drivel doesn't bode well, but lets see if there's something positive:

Neither, there is no hope regardless of the AFMC/CC's ops experience, or lack thereof. Acquisitions problems start in Congress, and it doesn't get better as the shit flows downhill. Just my jaded opinion, only.

Regarding flatscreens, there is no one to blame except your squadron, group, and wing commanders for wasting valuable taxpayer money.