Air Force lags on sending spy planes to combat zones

[Richard]

A recent Time article on the SecDef emphasizes his (1) impatience with stasis and (2) his emphasis on getting the necessary tools to the war-fighters vs the former SecDef's focus on big ticket, Cold War type projects. Here's just another example of his pragmatism and this focus on his part.

Richard's $.02

Air Force lags on sending spy planes to combat zones
Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY, 1 Jun 2009

The Air Force has failed to deploy new spy planes to Afghanistan and Iraq even though Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made it a priority to rush the aircraft to troops in combat, according to interviews with military officials and documents.

Gates is concerned that the delivery of the planes to Afghanistan will be "out of synch" with 21,000 troops being sent there by President Obama for a summer offensive against Taliban insurgents, said Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesman. The planes are two to three months behind schedule, according to the Air Force. "The bottom line is that Secretary Gates is impatient when it comes to getting war fighters the tools they need to be successful," Morrell said.

The twin-engine spy planes are the backbone of Project Liberty, a program Gates began in July 2008. He directed the Air Force to buy 37 commercial planes and equip them with cameras and sensors to track insurgents. The planes, which carry a crew of four, are intended to complement the Predator and Reaper drones that beam video images of insurgent activity to troops in combat and to commanders worldwide by satellite.

The first plane was scheduled to be deployed April 15, and about four of them by June, Air Force documents show. To date, none has been deployed.

The first plane will be used on a mission before mid-June, said Air Force Brig. Gen. James Poss, director of intelligence for the Air Combat Command. He estimated that 30 of the planes will be in Afghanistan and Iraq within a year.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/militar...hooModule_News

[Defender968]

The SecDef is right on the money IMHO, the AF is not focused on this fight, never have been, and I personally don't think they ever will be. Unfortunately this is just one of many, many, standing issues with the AF, and is a large part of why I chose to leave.

You can see their complete lack of understanding of our current wars in their officer PME (professional military education). In Squadron Officer School, (a course for CPT's coming up on Major who will presumably be squadron commanders) they spend a grand total of 3 minutes on UW, and that was in the form of a very, very short blurb on Mao, and IIRC it was in context of the his effects on Vietnam, they didn't even bother to tie it into OIF/OEF.

Considering we've been fighting UW for the past 7 years you'd think maybe they'd put a little thought into that.

[Utah Bob]

Yup. It isn't glamorous air-to-air fighting. It isn't multiple warheads. It.'s a grunt war and they want Migs vs Phantoms
The AF needs some new thinking at the top. Maybe Gates will help them with that.

[Richard]

Here's the Time article on the SecDef. Sounds like my kind of guy.

Richard's $.02

Robert Gates: The Bureaucrat Unbound
Joe Klein, Time, 28 May 2009

A few weeks ago, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates trooped up to Capitol Hill to answer questions about the new Pentagon budget. This is an unseemly spectacle under the best of circumstances. Even reasonable members of Congress have been known to empretzel themselves shamelessly, attempting to defend weapons the Pentagon doesn't want or need, but which provide jobs for their constituents. Usually, they win, too. It is just too difficult for a Secretary of Defense to argue against shiny new weapons systems with subcontractors in 46 states, even if they are fantastically over budget and designed to counter a missile threat that the Soviets never perfected 30 years ago.

But this is a different year, and Gates is a different sort of Defense Secretary. He warned the legislators that each decision was "zero sum." Any money that went to things he didn't want would come out of programs necessary to support the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Undaunted, the legislators pressed their case — especially the Republicans, who seemed convinced, as one said, that the Pentagon budget was part of a nefarious Obama Administration plot: "Fiscal restraint for defense and fiscal largesse for everything else." Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona was very concerned about anti-missile defense — a gold-plated pipe dream, if there ever was one — and especially a product dramatically called the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. To which Gates replied, in a manner so casually dismissive that Franks seemed to shrivel in his seat, "I would just say that the security of the American people and the efficacy of missile defense are not enhanced by continuing to put money into programs ... that are essentially sinkholes for taxpayer dollars."

And as for that kinetic contraption, it was a "five-year development program, in its 14th year, not a single flight test, little work on the third stage or the kill vehicle, etc., etc., no known launch platform ..."

Rat-a-tat, Gates continued on, in that flat, unassuming Kansas twang that screams: No bull here. The next day, testifying on the Senate side, Gates performed a similar anti-missile evisceration of Senator Jeff Sessions, who responded, "I'd say you were ready for that question."

After a quietly impressive career in government that has spanned more than 30 mostly Republican years, Robert Gates is suddenly seeming almost, well, charismatic. He reeks authority. He is, according to several sources, the most respected voice in National Security Council debates. The President is said to love his unadorned manner. Much of which is attributable to the fact that, in the self-proclaimed twilight of his public career, Gates has emerged as that most exotic of Washington species — the bureaucrat unbound, candid and fearless. He tells members of Congress what he really thinks about their pet programs. He upends Pentagon priorities, demotes the military-industrial hardware pipeline and promotes the immediate needs of the troops on the front line. He fires high-ranking subordinates without muss or controversy — an Air Force secretary and chief of staff who didn't agree with him on the need to end production of the F-22 aircraft; the commandant of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, who presided over disgraceful conditions; even a well-respected general like David McKiernan, a conventional-warfare specialist unsuited for the asymmetrical struggle in Afghanistan.

When, in a recent conversation, I noted that he seemed gleefully outspoken these days, Gates offered a twinkly smile and said, "What are they going to do, fire me?"

In truth, Gates has been bulletproof ever since George W. Bush lured him from Texas A&M University to replace the disastrous Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. His mission, Gates said, was "to put Iraq in a better place," which is a spectacular understatement. Iraq was falling apart in late 2006, and Gates found the Defense Department in paralytic denial. His nonstop effort to reform the institution — abetted by military rebels who had been cast into the outer darkness by the powers that were — is a great untold story of the war on terrorism.

"If you ever get a chance to interview Donald Rumsfeld," a retired four-star general told me in 2005, "ask him two questions and see which one lights up his eyes. Ask him what our force posture should be toward China 10 years from now. And then ask him what tactical changes we should make on the ground in Iraq as a result of the last three months of combat. I'll bet you anything, he gets more excited about China."

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...901342,00.html

[The Reaper]

Klein certainly will not be perceived as an impartial observer. What a hack.

OTOH, if the NKs or the Iranians launch a weapon against us, and all we have to defend ourselves is the remnants of a defunded missile defense program, perhaps his perspective might change.

It occurs to me that a major strike against a metropolitan area will kill far more Dims than Republicans. Could save welfare dollars as well.

TR

[swpa19]

TR:

Youve REALLY got to come out of your shell. You should learn to say whats on your mind.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Utah Bob

Yup. It isn't glamorous air-to-air fighting. It isn't multiple warheads. It.'s a grunt war and they want Migs vs Phantoms
The AF needs some new thinking at the top. Maybe Gates will help them with that.

He did already, fired the secretary and the chief last year which is the first time both have been removed at the same time since the AF’s inception and I think the first of any service; that shows the depth of the problems. Even in replacing the top two it won't matter, they'd have to fire nearly everyone above the rank of Major to have an effect, they’d lose a couple of good officers in the process, but even with such drastic measures I'm not sure it would make a difference, it's just too broken a culture IMO.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Defender968

The SecDef is right on the money IMHO, the AF is not focused on this fight, never have been, and I personally don't think they ever will be. Unfortunately this is just one of many, many, standing issues with the AF, and is a large part of why I chose to leave.

You can see their complete lack of understanding of our current wars in their officer PME (professional military education). In Squadron Officer School, (a course for CPT's coming up on Major who will presumably be squadron commanders) they spend a grand total of 3 minutes on UW, and that was in the form of a very, very short blurb on Mao, and IIRC it was in context of the his effects on Vietnam, they didn't even bother to tie it into OIF/OEF.

Considering we've been fighting UW for the past 7 years you'd think maybe they'd put a little thought into that.

Let me get this straight, instead of staying within the system to try and do something to change it, you decided to bail? Yes I realize that change is slow, and too often there are many hurdles to overcome, but that is why I chose to say in, instead of getting out. The Airmen that rely on me to cover their backs, and provide them leadership, as well as someone taking spears from the leadership, so they don’t have to, are more important to me than some of the senior officers I have to deal with on a daily basis. Getting change for the airmen is what is important to me, and I luckily am in a position where maybe I can influence that. Had a gotten out a couple of years ago, when I had the opportunity, because I didn't agree with the way things were going, would only have left my airmen hanging out to dry.

You made your decision to leave, but don't bag on the rest of the AF because of choices you made in your life.

As far as being focused on this fight, you are so very sorely mistaken!!! I have 3/4s of my office deployed right now in 1 year ILO taskings with the Army, and they were charged up about it. My second year long deployment with the army will more than likely begin in the next few months.

In my career field alone, we have more people deployed with Army units than with AF ones. We can't meet the need of all the people the Army is asking for because they have seen what professional, well trained personnel are being provided to them by the AF.

Last time I checked, the AF mission was to fly, fight and win. Nowhere in our doctrine does it talk about being imbedded with Army or Marine personnel in ground units. Yet that is what we are doing, and you sit here and say the AF isn't doing enough, and doesn't understand the fight.

Each service has its core competencies, and granted, in this war, at this time, our core competencies don't necessarily match up 100% to the needs in this war. Yet we are finding ways to make things work. May not be to the level you all wish we were at, but let me ask you a fair question. If in our next war it is predominantly air/sea how quickly do you think the army can change course and start providing needed personnel to the other services, in a mission set you had never needed or trained for? Because it was the mission of a sister service.

So before you start bagging on the tens of thousands of troops out there working side by side with the Army and Marines, and no not all of them are REMF working at nice locations such as Al Udied, maybe just maybe you should take a deep breath. WE ARE ALL IN THIS FIGHT. Each service with its own mission sets that compliment the others.

This is a ground war, so it would stand to reason that it would be dominated by the Army and Marines. The next one may not be that way. The next one may be of a nature, where you all are happy that we didn't take our entire focus off the "next" war to concentrate on the current one. No one knows what the future holds, but to think that we have fought the last conventional war just isn't very smart thinking in my book.

I can GUARANTEE you there is probably more to this story than is being discussed. Nowhere in any of the articles have I seen, has it stated the AF is in actual POSSESSION of said aircraft, and are not doing what they are told to do with it. Has it ever occurred to you that there may be problems in the procurement system? That the AF does not have these assets yet, to be deployed? We all know the procurement system sucks, whether you are in the AF or another branch of the service. Given all of the attention it has gotten on the Hill lately, maybe, just maybe they are dotting their i's and crossing their t's

As for your comments about UW, when exactly did you attend SOS or ACSC? I was in SOS immediately following 9-11, so I will grant that UW was not a topic we covered at length, at least going by the syllabus. As far as ACSC, when I took it via correspondence 5 years ago it was covered fairly in depth.

Amazingly the AF sends some of it officers to other schools than ACSC for IDE, and UW was something I took multiple classes on and wrote numerous papers for. I can't say what in residence ACSC teaches since I didn't attend, but I will be sure to ask my buddies if UW is covered in 3 minutes. I will get back to you on that one.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on what a shitty service the AF is and how out of touch we are in the current fight.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Defender968

He did already, fired the secretary and the chief last year which is the first time both have been removed at the same time since the AF’s inception and I think the first of any service; that shows the depth of the problems. Even in replacing the top two it won't matter, they'd have to fire nearly everyone above the rank of Major to have an effect, they’d lose a couple of good officers in the process, but even with such drastic measures I'm not sure it would make a difference, it's just too broken an culture IMO.

Yeah, let's throw the baby out with the bathwater, that's the ticket. Glad you are willing to acknowledge there are a couple of O-4s worth saving, although the rest of us just really suck at our jobs.

[Defender968]

As far as being focused on this fight, you are so very sorely mistaken!!! I have 3/4s of my office deployed right now in 1 year ILO taskings with the Army, and they were charged up about it. My second year long deployment with the army will more than likely begin in the next few months.

In my career field alone, we have more people deployed with Army units than with AF ones. We can't meet the need of all the people the Army is asking for because they have seen what professional, well trained personnel are being provided to them by the AF.

Afchic I did not say the AF wasn't fighting the war, or that components of it weren't focused on and currently fighting the war, I said that the AF as a whole is not focused on this fight, and I can and will if you like argue that on any level you want.

I know the AF is in the fight I had tons of airmen who have spent 3-5 years in country 6 months at a time over the past 8 years. One of my desk sergeants had never seen a Christmas with his 6 year old daughter because he's been in the same bucket for the past 8 years. With all that being said IMO our current UW fights are not what the AF leaderships is focused on, hell their focus, again IMO isn't even fighting the conventional fight, it's making more generals.

If they were truly focused on the profession of arms then you wouldn't have all the issues the AF is suffering. F-15's with the wings falling off, nukes flying willy nilly around the friendly skies, KC-135's that are older than the pilots who fly them with no replacement in sight, not enough ISR assets in country as said by the SecDef TWICE, a procurement system that according to the SecDef is completely broken etc, and the list goes on and on. These are not simply isolated incidents again IMO, they are a symptom of a greater problem, a completely broken culture IMO.

Understand afchic I fought for my troops every day I wore an AF uniform, but the conclusion I came too is that I could only make a change in the AF if the leadership above me is willing to listen, and they’re not. They believe they know it all and I believe that’s across the board. I personally witnessed it at the 5 bases I was assigned too both CONUS and OCONUS at every level from SQ to Wing and well beyond, and why not after all they know better than the subject matter experts after all that’s why they have the universal management badge. If you’d like examples I can provide them by the dozens. The straw that broke the preverbal camel’s back for me was when two AF officers one O-5 and one O-6 placed their careers above the life of an Army soldier, he died, and at least in part because they refused to violate a ridiculous policy that didn’t pass the common sense or CNN tests. And those two weren't even pilots. I decided frankly when I go to war I want the men and women above me to have the moral courage to do what’s right regardless of how hard it is, and to maybe understand the fight we’re in. After all Integrity and Service before self would dictate doing the right thing even when it’s not easy, but that’s not the AF way.

Originally Posted by afchic

Let me get this straight, instead of staying within the system to try and do something to change it, you decided to bail?

Now as to your specific questions respectfully I take nothing from your service don’t presume to take anything from mine, I left a completely broken organization after trying for 4 years to make a change at a the wing level, but for the reasons above change isn’t in the cards I further chose to get in the fight instead of shuffling papers in an office, while my observations may not be pleasant to you they are none the less based in hard facts and my personal observations. Your experience maybe different, but I find it hard to believe I had the raw luck to run into every bad leader in the AF at base after base after base. The law of averages just wouldn’t support that. I can say I’ve met more real leaders in 6 months in the Army than I saw in my 12 years of AF affiliation.

The Airmen that rely on me to cover their backs, and provide them leadership, as well as someone taking spears from the leadership, so they don’t have to, are more important to me than some of the senior officers I have to deal with on a daily basis.

What you’re doing is noble, and I would count you in with the few good officers I’ve met in the AF, but that doesn’t mean that the system isn’t broken. If they’re doing the right thing for the mission and the country then they shouldn’t be taking spears, but you and I both know they will over silly nonsense because it affects the boss, because again what he cares about is getting promoted not what is good for the org. I can give you a perfect example that validated my decision to leave. I had a ROAD senior NCO who was hurting the unit, been ROAD as long as I’ve been there, and from what I understand wasn’t worth a crap before I got there. I mentored, counseled, briefed, and disciplined him for 4 years trying to make him functional, no joy, so over the past 3 years I built up quite a file on him LORs LOCs, etc, finally his reenlistment comes up, and I’ve got plenty to back denying it, I go through the whole process, my boss who has known this individual for 8 years concurs and whole heartedly agrees that the NCO needs to retire, we push the paperwork up, and what does the Wing King do, looked at all the justification I submitted, looked at the recommendation of 2 of his officers one a squadron commander and the other his ATO with 12 cumulative years of experience with said NCO and refused to sign off on it, why you ask, I don’t know he refused to say, I can only surmise it was because he didn’t want to make waves as his star is on the rise.

You made your decision to leave, but don't bag on the rest of the AF because of choices you made in your life.

My decisions on my life have nothing to do with the issue plaguing the AF, I simply chose to pursue serving in another capacity again you may not like my views or observations, but that doesn’t make them any less accurate.

Last time I checked, the AF mission was to fly, fight and win. Nowhere in our doctrine does it talk about being imbedded with Army or Marine personnel in ground units. Yet that is what we are doing, and you sit here and say the AF isn't doing enough, and doesn't understand the fight.

The fact that the pilots have been dropping 2K bombs in cities is just a little clue that the AF doesn’t understand the fight, the fact that the SecDef has said twice in the past year that we need more ISR assets in theater and the AF hasn’t acted shows they don’t understand the fight, the fact that UW isn’t even in the curriculum in SOS shows the AF doesn’t understand the fight.

Each service has its core competencies, and granted, in this war, at this time, our core competencies don't necessarily match up 100% to the needs in this war. Yet we are finding ways to make things work. May not be to the level you all wish we were at, but let me ask you a fair question. If in our next war it is predominantly air/sea how quickly do you think the army can change course and start providing needed personnel to the other services, in a mission set you had never needed or trained for? Because it was the mission of a sister service.

I agree making things work is what needs to happen, flexibility is the key to airpower right, what I don’t agree with is not fully utilizing your current capabilities, AF Security Forces is a perfect example, AF leadership has been ignoring their capabilities and in fact their training and doctrine for the past 7 years, and to the detriment of both the overall wars and the AF mission to fly fight and win, I’m not going to go into specifics here but I’d be happy to PM you the details if you’d like.

The next one may be of a nature, where you all are happy that we didn't take our entire focus off the "next" war to concentrate on the current one. No one knows what the future holds, but to think that we have fought the last conventional war just isn't very smart thinking in my book.

I agree we should be prepared to fight the next war even if it’s a conventional one, but the AF as a whole isn’t looking towards that very well either, if they were they’d have a new tanker in the works, after all the fighters can’t do their jobs if they can’t get to the fight, and yet that’s on the back burner well behind the JSF and F-22, and why, because the Generals are mostly fighter pilots and they want their new toys, don’t mention the fact that they could have simply purchased the F-16 block 60 and had a more capable aircraft than what we and pretty much anyone outside of Israel currently has, instead they have thrown Billions to get the cool toys that they want.

Continued...

[Defender968]

I can GUARANTEE you there is probably more to this story than is being discussed. Nowhere in any of the articles have I seen, has it stated the AF is in actual POSSESSION of said aircraft, and are not doing what they are told to do with it. Has it ever occurred to you that there may be problems in the procurement system? That the AF does not have these assets yet, to be deployed? We all know the procurement system sucks, whether you are in the AF or another branch of the service. Given all of the attention it has gotten on the Hill lately, maybe, just maybe they are dotting their i's and crossing their t's

As a matter of fact I’m 100% sure there are problems in the procurement system I’ve seen them up close and personal as I was a 64P for a short while, but doing what works means fixing those problems and getting the assets where they need to be, how long did it take to get the B-24 or B-17 into the fight in WWII, less then 3 years each, granted the technology was much simpler but they made it happen. Anything is possible if there is a will to make it happen, the lack IMO is the will to make it happen at the highest levels.

As for your comments about UW, when exactly did you attend SOS or ACSC? I was in SOS immediately following 9-11, so I will grant that UW was not a topic we covered at length, at least going by the syllabus. As far as ACSC, when I took it via correspondence 5 years ago it was covered fairly in depth.

I was in SOS in Feb last year, maybe it’s in there now, but I doubt it, they’re still focused on flickerball, Chennault and WWII, just over a year ago a full 7 years into the UW fight.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on what a shitty service the AF is and how out of touch we are in the current fight.

As I said before there are lots of great people doing great things in the AF, I never claimed otherwise, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a healthy organization or that it is focused as an organization on the fight, it simply means there are extraordinary people making the mission happen in spite of the system rather than because of it, that is in fact what I saw during my time in the AF.

Afchic I’m all for esprit de corps, but I’m also for calling the baby ugly when it is, and I did so when I was in the AF, and I will continue to do so now, regardless of weather it hurts yours or anyone elses feelings. You want to make a change in the AF, I say good luck to you, truly I hope you do, it's badly needed, but you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

[Richard]

I can GUARANTEE you there is probably more to this story than is being discussed. Nowhere in any of the articles have I seen, has it stated the AF is in actual POSSESSION of said aircraft, and are not doing what they are told to do with it. Has it ever occurred to you that there may be problems in the procurement system? That the AF does not have these assets yet, to be deployed? We all know the procurement system sucks, whether you are in the AF or another branch of the service. Given all of the attention it has gotten on the Hill lately, maybe, just maybe they are dotting their i's and crossing their t's)

Mississippi Air National Guard receives first MC-12 aircraft
Air Combat Command Public Affairs, 28 Apr 2009

The Mississippi Air National Guard's 186th Air Refueling Wing welcomed the arrival of the first MC-12W yesterday at Key Field, Meridian, Miss.

The arrival of the aircraft is part of the agreement between the Air Force and Air National Guard to establish a temporary MC-12 mission qualification training detachment.

The MC-12 is the Air Force's newest intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platform, which was fielded under an ambitious timeline to meet ground support requirements for today's fight.

The program, known as Project Liberty, the MC-12 is an Air Combat Command asset, fielded to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility to serve critical roles in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

"The Air National Guard is excited to be a part of this important mission and to play a critical role in providing this needed capability to today's fight," said Gen. Craig R. McKinley, Air National Guard director.

Temporarily basing the MC-12 training location in Mississippi provides several benefits. The 186th ARW is able to immediately support the mission and they bring more than 12 years of manned ISR experience from their RC-26 work in the counterdrug program, as well as multiple overseas deployments in support of OIF and the fight against terror.

In addition, avoiding the need to send active-duty instructors to the training location will reduce the strain on active-duty manpower and save money in travel costs.

"The Adjutant General, Maj. Gen. William L. Freeman Jr., and I are very proud that the 186th Refueling Wing was chosen for this very important mission," said Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. "This wing has shown success time after time because of the dedication and professionalism of its officers and Airmen."

http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123146478

Looks as if they're being deliverd - now what? I suspect delays due to some other issues such as train up, admn/log support, tech support, etc.

Richard's $.02

[AngelsSix]

Seems like a lot of what is happening is political wrangling, IMO. The AF and the Army both have more in the fire than they can handle, both services are deploying people at an exponential rate. This isn't about aircraft or missions, this is about someone's pride at their "program" not being used or adopted. Too damn bad. We all want our programs to get adopted. If it were up to me, I would cut funding to a bunch of stuff to give the boots on the ground more equipment. But then again, I would also get rid of a whole lot of DEAD WEIGHT the military is currently letting stay in. There are a LOT of people in the military right now that cannot run a half mile. Time to start looking at the leadership to set the example.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Defender968

As a matter of fact I’m 100% sure there are problems in the procurement system I’ve seen them up close and personal as I was a 64P for a short while, but doing what works means fixing those problems and getting the assets where they need to be, how long did it take to get the B-24 or B-17 into the fight in WWII, less then 3 years each, granted the technology was much simpler but they made it happen. Anything is possible if there is a will to make it happen, the lack IMO is the will to make it happen at the highest levels.



I was in SOS in Feb last year, maybe it’s in there now, but I doubt it, they’re still focused on flickerball, Chennault and WWII, just over a year ago a full 7 years into the UW fight.



As I said before there are lots of great people doing great things in the AF, I never claimed otherwise, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a healthy organization or that it is focused as an organization on the fight, it simply means there are extraordinary people making the mission happen in spite of the system rather than because of it, that is in fact what I saw during my time in the AF.

Afchic I’m all for esprit de corps, but I’m also for calling the baby ugly when it is, and I did so when I was in the AF, and I will continue to do so now, regardless of weather it hurts yours or anyone elses feelings. You want to make a change in the AF, I say good luck to you, truly I hope you do, it's badly needed, but you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

I guess my thoughts to you are this: When I was a Captain, I had many of the same thoughts you did. I can remember sitting around with my buddies, cursing the decisions of those above us, because we didn't think they "got it".

It is something all CGOs do, and will continue to do. It is part of "growing up" in the military.

Now that I am no longer an O-3, have about 8 years more experience and a couple of promotions under my belt, I see things differently. I no longer would make the decisions now, that I did then, as a flight commander. I have gained experience that shows me that as a young officer, many of us have a very focused vision, on one thing or another. As we gain experience and rank, the appature changes.

I am not saying the AF senior leadership always makes the right decision, because I know that they don't. But they have a much different perspective on things than those of us at the flight/squadron/group level. I am sure that you will agree that when it is your name going on things, you have a tendency to provide them a different perspective.

I have been in the AF now for 36 years (AF Brat) and although at times I get quite frustrated, I still think it is a SUPERB organization, that is going through a rough time right now. I am not at a point where I am ready to sell it down the river.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by afchic

I guess my thoughts to you are this: When I was a Captain, I had many of the same thoughts you did. I can remember sitting around with my buddies, cursing the decisions of those above us, because we didn't think they "got it".

Respectfully afchic when you were a CGO we were involved in Southern/Northern watch, for those who were "deploying" they went to PSAB or Kuwait and sat around for 3 months every couple of years to support the no fly zones. At that time US military personnel for the most part were not dying on the battlefield and especially not because of AF officers decisions on the ground, at that time the biggest danger was getting sunburned at the PSAB pool.

We are living in a different time, now decisions a CE officer commanding a base in Iraq makes can and HAS cost AMERICAN LIVES and can significantly impact the mission, both the flying mission and the ground mission. The problems I have seen are not simply senior officers making decisions that I don’t understand or that I don’t agree with, they are problems of integrity, they are problems stemming from failing to understand basic leadership, they are problems from failing to understand the profession of arms and warfare in general especially UW warfare, they are problems so pervasive that I have seen them at EVERY base I’ve been assigned to in the past 8 years, and if you haven’t seen them at your bases I think you’re either the luckiest person in the AF or that you simply weren’t paying attention, but even if you haven’t seen them with your own eyes you have seen them in the news.

Originally Posted by afchic

It is something all CGOs do, and will continue to do. It is part of "growing up" in the military.

Now that I am no longer an O-3, have about 8 years more experience and a couple of promotions under my belt, I see things differently. I no longer would make the decisions now, that I did then, as a flight commander. I have gained experience that shows me that as a young officer, many of us have a very focused vision, on one thing or another. As we gain experience and rank, the appature changes.

So basically afchic what you’re saying is it’s not that I’ve observed the symptoms of a broken culture/organization, it’s that I’m too young and my 12 years of experience just aren’t enough to understand it, and that we CGO’s just like to bitch until we grow up, copy…. strong argument . It might even hold water if I were a brand new Lt, but as I would pin on Major this year had I not chosen to leave I’m not nearly as young and dumb as a cherry butter bar. I’ve also seen and done a few things, and most importantly I pay attention and look a little deeper than what’s on the surface. I disagree with you that the aperture changes with experience and rank, the aperture doesn’t change it simply widens.

Originally Posted by afchic

I am not saying the AF senior leadership always makes the right decision, because I know that they don't. But they have a much different perspective on things than those of us at the flight/squadron/group level.

Perspective, so you want to chalk it up to different perspectives, ok then let’s talk some specifics because I like to present my perspective using specifics not just generalizations. You said the AF’s mission is to FLY, fight and win right. My perception is that if a flying wing goes 3 years without the first documented check ride, then goes through an inspection and gets caught with 0 documentation of check rides, and the entire wing is grounded as a result, maybe someone should be held accountable and that person should probably be above the rank of Capt, maybe a group or wing commander, or is my vision to focused there?

Maybe I just don’t understand discipline at the O-6 level, so let’s look at the 2/3 star level, so in this “scenario” let’s say a flight Surgeon O-6 Med Group Commander calls his wing commander’s boss and respectfully and tactfully, but very clearly advises said General that his Wing/CC’s behavior had become more and more erratic, and that he was not comfortable certifying his flight physical. Think about what it would take to make that phone call, jumping the chain of command to ground a sitting Wing/CC because the Doc believed him to be unsafe, and oh by the way I personally witnessed his highly erratic behavior as did many, many, other junior and senior NCOs and Officers. Shortly after that report, a 2 Star and a 3 Star in the Wing/CC’s chain visited the base (both within a 24 hr period), and witnessed the behavior first hand for themselves, but instead of removing said commander they allowed him to get another eval, which was done by his son in law (no bias there), who shockingly certified him good to go, this Wing/CC was allowed to stay in command for another year until his retirement and the doc who did the hard right was forced to retire. On top the same WG/CC was filing bogus travel vouchers, not just a little fudging here and there, he was filing vouchers for trips he never took and was forcing his subordinates to sign off on the travel vouchers. One of those subordinates reported said behavior and was told not to worry about it. That same Wing/CC presided over the wing who hadn’t done/documented a check ride in 3 years for the first 24 months of those three years. Do these sound like just a problem with my perception to you or maybe a symptom of a bigger problem?

These aren’t obscure stories I read on AF times, or heard about on the net, I witnessed these in person in the past 3 years at 1 base, and they aren’t even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to lack of accountability within the AF or lack of focus on the mission when it comes to the AF as an organization that I have personally witnessed in my short career. I can give you literally dozens of other scenarios that I saw or was effected by over the past 8 years.

But no one has to take my word for it, the news headlines in the past 2 years alone demonstrate my points very clearly. Want to talk about flying nukes around? How much do you know about nuclear surety? I don’t know if you understand the security requirements for a PL1 asset but I do. Do you know how many people have to screw up to get a live nuke out of a bunker and onto a bird, think that was just another isolated little screw up that got the chief of staff and the secretary fired, or is there maybe a much bigger problem?

Originally Posted by afchic

I have been in the AF now for 36 years (AF Brat) and although at times I get quite frustrated, I still think it is a SUPERB organization, that is going through a rough time right now. I am not at a point where I am ready to sell it down the river.

Afchic you can continue thinking it’s a Superb organization that’s you’re prerogative, nothing I say is going to change your opinion, I got that already, but your opinion is not the only one.