An different article on a USAF leader

[71KILO]

WTF are you talking about? Blinded by the blue? Because I'm an academy grad and like to support my alma mater? You've got to be kidding me dude. I have insisted on here multiple times that currently there are plenty of strong, positive things going on with our leadership and our service, both AF active duty, guard, and reserve. Are there some issues and does some crappy leadership get through? Of course. But currently we're the top fighting force in the world and that just doesn't happen by magic. It's the hard work of the enlisted force, the junior officers, and of course the leadership that directs them in that direction. I think you're blinded - blinded by pessimism. Continuous negative people as yourself are the problem, and the jerk is you! Look for positive aspects in both your leadership and your career or get out, we don't need dudes like you to get to a leadership position...we need optimism.

I thought about reponding point-by-point but what's the use? My career is doing great due to my optomism, hard work, dedication, and especially the great Os and Es in my unit despite the lack of quality leadership. I'm optomistic about the new uniform. Sure glad someone had so much time on there hands while I was TDY. Shut-up zoomie! You are a tool. nuff said. stow the boom

 

[milplt]

Scrapdog - so why are you ANG instead of AD?

By the way, you were half right - we are the best fighting force because of those doing the fighting - period. And we haven't gone against the powerhouses, yet. That is despite the leadership. The leadership that makes our fighting forces do countless hours per year of mandatory on-line training (AF Records management, suicide prevention, computer security, etc. - what are all of the other ones). Despite the leadership that prefer criminal charges against those that make honest mistakes in the fog/friction of war. (By the way, FEB's are for gross errors as an aircrew - criminal charges are for criminal intent). Speaking of criminal intent - despite the leadership that rewrite (actually, have the board president rewrite - it's allowed) safety reports to scrub any findings damning to the establishment. Despite leadership that prevents upgrades a few years ago to the Eagle to make the F-22 look that much more necessary. Despite the leadership that allows pilots to continue flying with 13 Q-3's in an FEF. Despite leadership that makes it impossible (ok, 99.9% impossible) to wash a single UPT student out. Despite leadership that allows every support office to build their very own castles out of their support shops - makes the book Catch-22 look like a case study in today's USAF. Despite the creation of the RAP system to make sure we stay proficient, then the blatant fat-pencil logging to prevent the next level up knowing how bad our sortie count really is (so, how many JMO's did you all log vs. how many your flew). It's either important enough to stay on the list and fly, or not important enough to be off the list - either way, we can't have shortfalls going to the numbered AF every quarter. Despite the AMC leadership more worried about the patches, scarves, and take-off times than about the crew who will do whatever it takes to get the gas to the receiver. We're good, but is not because of the leadership. It is because of us (or actually those younger than me, now), and we need to recognize that and run our own "training program" to make sure that the standards stay high despite the actions of the top. At least there were a few vocal dudes at Dover when they were deciding who was going to get the next IP slot, although it would have been nice had they been a little more vocal and gotten the leadership to go their way.

 

[Scrapdog]

Scrapdog - so why are you ANG instead of AD?

By the way, you were half right - we are the best fighting force because of those doing the fighting - period. And we haven't gone against the powerhouses, yet. That is despite the leadership. The leadership that makes our fighting forces do countless hours per year of mandatory on-line training (AF Records management, suicide prevention, computer security, etc. - what are all of the other ones). Despite the leadership that prefer criminal charges against those that make honest mistakes in the fog/friction of war. (By the way, FEB's are for gross errors as an aircrew - criminal charges are for criminal intent). Speaking of criminal intent - despite the leadership that rewrite (actually, have the board president rewrite - it's allowed) safety reports to scrub any findings danging to the establishment. Despite leadership that prevents upgrades a few years ago to the Eagle to make the F-22 look that much more necessary. Despite the leadership that allows pilots to continue flying with 13 Q-3's in an FEF. Despite leadership that makes it impossible (ok, 99.9% impossible) to wash a single UPT student out. Despite leadership that allows every support office to build their very own castles out of their support shops - makes the book Catch-22 look like a case study in today's USAF. Despite the creation of the RAP system to make sure we stay proficient, then the blatant fat-pencil logging to prevent the next level up knowing how bad our sortie count really is (so, how many JMO's did you all log vs. how many your flew). It's either important enough to stay on the list and fly, or not important enough to be off the list - either way, we can't have shortfalls going to the numbered AF every quarter. Despite the AMC leadership more worried about the patches, scarves, and take-off times than about the crew who will do whatever it takes to get the gas to the receiver. We're good, but is not because of the leadership. It is because of us (or actually those younger than me, now), and we need to recognize that and run our own "training program" to make sure that the standards stay high despite the actions of the top. At least there were a few vocal dudes at Dover when they were deciding who was going to get the next IP slot, although it would have been nice had they been a little more vocal and gotten the leadership to go their way.

Mil - interesting points, and indeed a lot of the stuff you say is pretty close to being on the mark! I hate filling out my rap sheet over and over, or doing my suicide prevention crapola online, or worrying about scarves and patches (more of a factor when I was on active duty). However, we have to do a lot of mundane things for accountability. The rap sheet is for filling training squares to ensure each flyer gets his currency to be ready to fight. The decision to pencil whip it is up to the individual pilot, that's where integrity comes into play...and if a squadron commander is forcing you to do something unethical, then that's where you need to use your gut feeling and professionalism that makes you an air force officer and take it up the chain of command. Anyway, I won't address each point you mention, but they are good points. My opinion is while a lot of the system is not ideal, there has to be a system there for some type of accountability. We can't just go out on the ramp, start the jet, and go fly. Now, I challenge you to change the system if you're not happy with it, and that's the beauty of it - with good leadership (which we have a lot of), they will listen to your ideas and our system of accountability will continue to improve. I know, now I'm waxing philosophical...

On a seperate note - no matter how many upgrades the F-15 got, it will NEVER be close to an F-22 (that's where the stealth, supercruise, etc...comes into play and that's for another day and on another thread). Trust me on this, I just finished 3 weeks of doing red air support with them. When an F-22 is on its game, there is absolutely no comparison between an F-15 and an F-22, no matter how many upgrades you throw on the mighty Eagle.

Me personally - I was AD, but palace chase'd early to the Guard for family reasons.

 

[milplt]

The whole F-22 vs. the F-15 is a completely different matter. Obviously, the F-22 is an outstanding machine and we need it against an emerging threat. My point was that the leadership sacrificed our combat capabilities in the late '90's by preventing upgrades (other than software) to the Eagle to make the F-22 look more needed. Lives were potentially risked for a political goal. We could have bought the Python IV and a new CMD system much earlier. They were sending us to combat with APG-63's, AIM-9M's and 24 flares when better systems were readily available.

Now, I do have a problem with scrapping 500 of our front-line fighters for 100 F-22's. There are obviously still (and will be) low-intensity conflicts where numbers are good. If we are running our high numbers of aircraft into the ground now, wait until we fly a smaller number of aircraft even more.

I think the senior leadership does the most damage with their acquisition purchases (Tanker lease, etc.). And it isn't just the USAF, every service has it's gold-plated systems. I would love to see a single USAF senior leader that treats the taxpayer funds as if it were his own. Look at how much money we are wasting in the middle of a war with these BRAC moves. I know that BRAC is above our USAF leaders, but they only enacted a bunch of the recommendations that the USAF passed up. I am not anti-USAF, I am still in it, and if I didn't care it wouldn't bother me. But, I think that we need to recognize that it can be better than status-quo. The first step in fixing a problem is recognzing that you have one.

By the way, their are plenty of good officers, but too few are willing to fall on their swords to do the right thing. Perhaps the most under-rated officer in the modern AF is John Boyd. Not only was he the best fighter pilot of his time, he sacrificed it all to do what is right. That man is the stereotype of the officers I wish we had more of - if you are in the AF and haven't read his story, you need to. By the way, it took the USMC to give him the credit that was due. - they recognized the warrior in him and not the threat to staff officers that the AF saw him as.

 

[71KILO]

Scrapdog - so why are you ANG instead of AD?

By the way, you were half right - we are the best fighting force because of those doing the fighting - period. And we haven't gone against the powerhouses, yet. That is despite the leadership. The leadership that makes our fighting forces do countless hours per year of mandatory on-line training (AF Records management, suicide prevention, computer security, etc. - what are all of the other ones). Despite the leadership that prefer criminal charges against those that make honest mistakes in the fog/friction of war. (By the way, FEB's are for gross errors as an aircrew - criminal charges are for criminal intent). Speaking of criminal intent - despite the leadership that rewrite (actually, have the board president rewrite - it's allowed) safety reports to scrub any findings danging to the establishment. Despite leadership that prevents upgrades a few years ago to the Eagle to make the F-22 look that much more necessary. Despite the leadership that allows pilots to continue flying with 13 Q-3's in an FEF. Despite leadership that makes it impossible (ok, 99.9% impossible) to wash a single UPT student out. Despite leadership that allows every support office to build their very own castles out of their support shops - makes the book Catch-22 look like a case study in today's USAF. Despite the creation of the RAP system to make sure we stay proficient, then the blatant fat-pencil logging to prevent the next level up knowing how bad our sortie count really is (so, how many JMO's did you all log vs. how many your flew). It's either important enough to stay on the list and fly, or not important enough to be off the list - either way, we can't have shortfalls going to the numbered AF every quarter. Despite the AMC leadership more worried about the patches, scarves, and take-off times than about the crew who will do whatever it takes to get the gas to the receiver. We're good, but is not because of the leadership. It is because of us (or actually those younger than me, now), and we need to recognize that and run our own "training program" to make sure that the standards stay high despite the actions of the top. At least there were a few vocal dudes at Dover when they were deciding who was going to get the next IP slot, although it would have been nice had they been a little more vocal and gotten the leadership to go their way.

AGREE AGREE AGREE. Dude you said it! Sounds like Dover and my tanker base run about the same way. What is it about AMC?

 

[71KILO]

they will listen to your ideas and our system of accountability will continue to improve. I know, now I'm waxing philosophical...

Mister negativity here: Get real! That is the most ideological thought I've ever heard. Lets take a poll. How many of you guys got your squadron commander, OG, or WG/CC to actually listen? (crickets chirping...) They are all trying to keep away from contreversial issues so they can get promoted. It's pathetic. The quality guys depart the fix prior to the EFC 99% of the time.

 

[milplt]

Too late for me to edit my last post, but I have a link to a good, quick rundown on John Boyd: http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c455.htm.

 

[Gorilla]

Too late for me to edit my last post, but I have a link to a good, quick rundown on John Boyd: http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c455.htm.

John Boyd is one of the most fascinating characters to have ever worn the uniform. There is no denying his brilliance. He has been compared to Sun Tzu and Clauswitz. There is a memorial to him at one of the major Marine land-war colleges... think of that, the Marines paying homage to an AIR FORCE officer!

That said, Boyd was wrong in one critical area. Despite what people say, history shows he had a streak of Luddite in him. His idea of the ultimate fighter was something that could turn up it's butt, equipped with simple systems and a gun, maybe some heaters. He had no faith in technologies lke Radar, AMRAAM, RPV's, etc.

We need to focus on several spots on the technology spectrum. I personally think a mix of 3 fighter types would be best. Have a small core of super-capable F-22's and F-35's. The next type would be Boyd's machine, the original super-dogfighter like the YF-16. The third needed type would be an A-10 CAS/FAC type of aircraft. Boyd promoted very specialized platforms, and I agree with him there. Trying to make an AC "do it all" doesn't work well. Remember "Jack of all trades, master of none." There is a grain of truth there.

 

[milplt]

Boyd's technical claims are not why I appreciate his service, my appreciation of Boyd lies in his willingness to do what was right. No one claims that he was 100% absolutely correct in his opinions, but absolutely no one can claim that he did anything solely to advance his career. He didn't latch on to any golden system or concept for advancement - his ideas were borne 100% by the desire to do what is right and win wars, the same as Billy Mitchell. His concern was ensuring the fewest US lives were lost in future conflicts, that's it.

As far as his reluctance to embrace technology, I believe that he was slow to acknowledge emerging technologies. Today, proven technologies would have probably found a place in his theories. And I also feel that Boyd's approach to technology was way ahead of his contemporaries who were too quick to embrace the newest gadgets - and subsequently put no gun in the F-4 in favor of the almighty missile, etc. Even McPeak was quoted as saying that one of his regrets was that he let himself be talked into putting a gun in the F-22. A gun is a great weapon (albeit of last resort for the F-22) for strafing an appropriate target of opportunity such as troops in contact and no one else is around to help.

 

[fishalaska]

got to sit in on a OG staff meeting a couple of months ago, 2+ hours to give a 5 minute brief on aircrew training. Of that two hours there was the five minutes for my brief, about 10 minutes and two slides on what aircraft/crews were flying what missions and their status, and the rest of the time was spent on OPR/EPR and awards and decs.

Trend item. Same meeting different base.