PDA

View Full Version : Air Force Warrant Officer Program



WALLY3430
03-26-2013, 10:47 PM
So...to biggy-back on Mr. Dorr's article on reinstating warrant officers in the Air Force---what say you?

I'm all for it--let me tell you why. I'm a MSgt RPA sensor operator. Love the job, would love to do it all day everyday. That's pretty much what I did day in and day out for two years. Then I got a line for MSgt. As soon as that happened I was moved to a leadership position within the squadron. My flight hours immediately dropped by about 75% and my administration responsibilities increased about...300%. Love the flying portion, hate the admin portion. But it doesn't have to be like that. Make a path for enlisted to become warrant officers. For RPA sensor operators in particular, they have experience in combat from the right seat, seems logical that they would be able to perform flying the aircraft from the left seat. For those SNCOs that are interested in becoming a enlisted leader, fine, we need those guys too. I think they should focus 100% on that though---no more flying if they choose that route. In my opinion, it's unsafe to put a dude in the seat for a CAS/TIC situation when he only flies a couple hours a month. Combat skills erode quickly. For the warrant side, those are your SMEs, your go-to, your technical experts. Keep them engaged in the mission and keep them out of the leadership/administrative/queep arena. For the officers....since we'd have warrants around, the manning requirements would be less, they could go back to fly manned aircraft. And I'm no bean counter, but I'm thinking this would save the AF money in the long run. Win Win...happy happy happy. Thoughts?

bcoco14
03-26-2013, 11:31 PM
WO's, RPA, "flying" left/right seat,flight hours, unsafe, combat... this has all the parts needed to be a shit show. I can't wait

Robert F. Dorr
03-27-2013, 12:13 AM
Alas, Avenger is quoting the wrong article. Thanks to WALLY3430 for the favorable comment.

strataboomer
03-27-2013, 02:00 AM
So...to biggy-back on Mr. Dorr's article on reinstating warrant officers in the Air Force---what say you?

I'm all for it--let me tell you why. I'm a MSgt RPA sensor operator. Love the job, would love to do it all day everyday. That's pretty much what I did day in and day out for two years. Then I got a line for MSgt. As soon as that happened I was moved to a leadership position within the squadron. My flight hours immediately dropped by about 75% and my administration responsibilities increased about...300%. Love the flying portion, hate the admin portion. But it doesn't have to be like that. Make a path for enlisted to become warrant officers. For RPA sensor operators in particular, they have experience in combat from the right seat, seems logical that they would be able to perform flying the aircraft from the left seat. For those SNCOs that are interested in becoming a enlisted leader, fine, we need those guys too. I think they should focus 100% on that though---no more flying if they choose that route. In my opinion, it's unsafe to put a dude in the seat for a CAS/TIC situation when he only flies a couple hours a month. Combat skills erode quickly. For the warrant side, those are your SMEs, your go-to, your technical experts. Keep them engaged in the mission and keep them out of the leadership/administrative/queep arena. For the officers....since we'd have warrants around, the manning requirements would be less, they could go back to fly manned aircraft. And I'm no bean counter, but I'm thinking this would save the AF money in the long run. Win Win...happy happy happy. Thoughts?

First and foremost your not flying....

grimreaper
03-27-2013, 02:02 AM
So...to biggy-back on Mr. Dorr's article on reinstating warrant officers in the Air Force---what say you?

I'm all for it--let me tell you why. I'm a MSgt RPA sensor operator. Love the job, would love to do it all day everyday. That's pretty much what I did day in and day out for two years. Then I got a line for MSgt. As soon as that happened I was moved to a leadership position within the squadron. My flight hours immediately dropped by about 75% and my administration responsibilities increased about...300%. Love the flying portion, hate the admin portion. But it doesn't have to be like that. Make a path for enlisted to become warrant officers. For RPA sensor operators in particular, they have experience in combat from the right seat, seems logical that they would be able to perform flying the aircraft from the left seat. For those SNCOs that are interested in becoming a enlisted leader, fine, we need those guys too. I think they should focus 100% on that though---no more flying if they choose that route. In my opinion, it's unsafe to put a dude in the seat for a CAS/TIC situation when he only flies a couple hours a month. Combat skills erode quickly. For the warrant side, those are your SMEs, your go-to, your technical experts. Keep them engaged in the mission and keep them out of the leadership/administrative/queep arena. For the officers....since we'd have warrants around, the manning requirements would be less, they could go back to fly manned aircraft. And I'm no bean counter, but I'm thinking this would save the AF money in the long run. Win Win...happy happy happy. Thoughts?

How would this save the AF money? They would either have to convert existing manpower billets to WO's (which would create a shortage of enlisted) or create entire new manpower billets for the WO's. In the current fiscal climate, neither is going to appeal to anyone. You would have better luck selling a ketchup popsicle to an eskimo wearing white gloves.

WALLY3430
03-27-2013, 02:49 AM
How would this save the AF money? They would either have to convert existing manpower billets to WO's (which would create a shortage of enlisted) or create entire new manpower billets for the WO's. In the current fiscal climate, neither is going to appeal to anyone. You would have better luck selling a ketchup popsicle to an eskimo wearing white gloves.

Well..my thought process says replace a officer with a warrant officer=money saved. More difficult and expensive to find a officer pilot than it is to find an enlisted sensor operator. I've had a couple officers agree that warrants are the way to go for replacing officers flying RPAs--"patch" wearers at that. And in the "current fiscal climate", the RPA world is still growing.... OR...we could just continue down this road of piling on the SNCOs/NCOs plates of tasks and expect perfection when they FLY a combat air patrol (zero room for anything less than 100%). Nothing happens without discussion first and people bitching (ex. tuition assistance). But perhaps WOs is not the way to go---I'd like to see it considered at least.

WALLY3430
03-27-2013, 02:52 AM
don't get you're panties in a bunch strata. Keep on your tanker track....let RPAs deal with the bad guys firing on friendlies. Don't really care if you call it flying, operating, driving, chair flying or whatever you can come up with. We know what we do.

imnohero
03-27-2013, 03:24 AM
How would this save the AF money? They would either have to convert existing manpower billets to WO's (which would create a shortage of enlisted) or create entire new manpower billets for the WO's. In the current fiscal climate, neither is going to appeal to anyone. You would have better luck selling a ketchup popsicle to an eskimo wearing white gloves.

I have to agree with Grim. There is no authorized billets, manpower, administration, promotion system, rating system, etc. to bring back warrant officers. All of that costs money, which we don't have.

Then you have to consider what WOs would mean "politically" to officers...the ones that are in charge, or want to be in charge. Basically, they won't allow it.

But for sake of argument let's say there is the money and the desire to create WO positions in the AF again. Does it actually makes sense and will it actually save money or make for better mission performance? I would argue that it doesn't. And I suspect that Big Blue would agree with me.

In short, AF Warrant Officer is not going to happen.

Quixotic
03-27-2013, 03:33 AM
don't get you're panties in a bunch strata. Keep on your tanker track....let RPAs deal with the bad guys firing on friendlies. Don't really care if you call it flying, operating, driving, chair flying or whatever you can come up with. We know what we do.

We all know what you don't do, fly.

WALLY3430
03-27-2013, 03:46 AM
At least we're talking now! Yep, I get that it costs money to save money and it would be difficult bringing back WOs after many decades of absence. I agree with the "politics" part, that would be a major roadblock, but I will say that that type of mindset is changing, albeit slowly. For your last comment, I can say it's much easier and effective to concentrate on one area than to be spread out. I'd rather do extended mission planning or get smart on new software changes...but I cannot (unless I work 14 hour days everyday) because the rest of the day is filled with short taskers/meetings/discussions/ect...and they MUST be done. Another example....would you take the Wing King and put him in the seat for in-depth/complicated missions? Maybe yes.....but I guarantee there is an instructor watching his every move. Point is, he can't be 100% good-to-go (without assistance) for a combat mission. And understandably since 99% of the time he's busy leading the wing and all the tasks that go with it. But that happens at all levels...down to the Amn. The way I see WOs is that they're more focused on the mission---and we need more mission focused dudes. Thanks for the comments imohero....and nothing changes without commenting.

grimreaper
03-27-2013, 06:30 AM
Well..my thought process says replace a officer with a warrant officer=money saved. More difficult and expensive to find a officer pilot than it is to find an enlisted sensor operator. I've had a couple officers agree that warrants are the way to go for replacing officers flying RPAs--"patch" wearers at that. And in the "current fiscal climate", the RPA world is still growing.... OR...we could just continue down this road of piling on the SNCOs/NCOs plates of tasks and expect perfection when they FLY a combat air patrol (zero room for anything less than 100%). Nothing happens without discussion first and people bitching (ex. tuition assistance). But perhaps WOs is not the way to go---I'd like to see it considered at least.

So we are going to bring in an entire new rank structure just for RPAs?

What officer billets are you proposing be given up for this idea?

Robert F. Dorr
03-27-2013, 08:37 AM
How would this save the AF money? They would either have to convert existing manpower billets to WO's (which would create a shortage of enlisted) or create entire new manpower billets for the WO's. In the current fiscal climate, neither is going to appeal to anyone. You would have better luck selling a ketchup popsicle to an eskimo wearing white gloves.

I wonder if anyone other than Wally read the column .. ? No, not just for RPAs. Not even primarily for RPAs, although they would fit well. Almost no costs involved.

CrustySMSgt
03-27-2013, 10:46 AM
Well..my thought process says replace a officer with a warrant officer=money saved. More difficult and expensive to find a officer pilot than it is to find an enlisted sensor operator. I've had a couple officers agree that warrants are the way to go for replacing officers flying RPAs--"patch" wearers at that. And in the "current fiscal climate", the RPA world is still growing.... OR...we could just continue down this road of piling on the SNCOs/NCOs plates of tasks and expect perfection when they FLY a combat air patrol (zero room for anything less than 100%). Nothing happens without discussion first and people bitching (ex. tuition assistance). But perhaps WOs is not the way to go---I'd like to see it considered at least.

First, I'll give you that if this was given serious consideration, it would have money, as the difference between WO & O pay flips pretty quick in favor of WO's being cheaper. But I don't see the powers that be making massive O cuts in favor of Es.

There are PLENTY of 100% no-fail missions in the Air Force that don't get the pampered princess treatment aircrews do. Let a maintainer go all night without sleep and jack up a MANNED aircraft... but no one is turning down his/her bed at night and putting a mint on their pillow and tucking them in. How about those troops on the ground you're supporting. Bet the didn't have a "DO NOT DISTURB - CREW REST" sign on their foxhole... but if they doze off, their whole platoon could pay the price.

If you don't want the responsibilities and PAY of a SNCO, you should have colored in "A" for every question and walked out the testing room door in 2 minutes. Not like you're the first person to make MSgt in your job, so you knew what you were getting in to...


At least we're talking now! Yep, I get that it costs money to save money and it would be difficult bringing back WOs after many decades of absence. I agree with the "politics" part, that would be a major roadblock, but I will say that that type of mindset is changing, albeit slowly. For your last comment, I can say it's much easier and effective to concentrate on one area than to be spread out. I'd rather do extended mission planning or get smart on new software changes...but I cannot (unless I work 14 hour days everyday) because the rest of the day is filled with short taskers/meetings/discussions/ect...and they MUST be done. Another example....would you take the Wing King and put him in the seat for in-depth/complicated missions? Maybe yes.....but I guarantee there is an instructor watching his every move. Point is, he can't be 100% good-to-go (without assistance) for a combat mission. And understandably since 99% of the time he's busy leading the wing and all the tasks that go with it. But that happens at all levels...down to the Amn. The way I see WOs is that they're more focused on the mission---and we need more mission focused dudes. Thanks for the comments imohero....and nothing changes without commenting.

Did you SERIOUSLY just compare your duties as a MSgt to that of the Wing Commander?!? :jaw
It is a good thing your "flight" duty uniform doesn't include a helmet, as they'd have a hard time finding one big enough for that head of yours!

TJMAC77SP
03-27-2013, 10:47 AM
This thread topic is like a case of herpes.........

It appears, is a pain in the ass and then fades for awhile, only to reappear again.

Bob, I haven't read the article yet as I no longer subscribe to the AFT but will figure out a way to do so. Don't get your hopes up that you will convince me that there will be any benefit to the AF as a result of returning WOs to the service. Lots of benefits to the indviduals who can go that route but don't see it for the AF. Again, this has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum but maybe you have come up with an idea hundreds before you haven't.

BRUWIN
03-27-2013, 10:53 AM
For RPA sensor operators in particular, they have experience in combat from the right seat, seems logical that they would be able to perform flying the aircraft from the left seat. For those SNCOs that are interested in becoming a enlisted leader, fine, we need those guys too. I think they should focus 100% on that though---no more flying if they choose that route. In my opinion, it's unsafe to put a dude in the seat for a CAS/TIC situation when he only flies a couple hours a month. Combat skills erode quickly. For the warrant side, those are your SMEs, your go-to, your technical experts. Keep them engaged in the mission and keep them out of the leadership/administrative/queep arena. For the officers....since we'd have warrants around, the manning requirements would be less, they could go back to fly manned aircraft. And I'm no bean counter, but I'm thinking this would save the AF money in the long run. Win Win...happy happy happy. Thoughts?

Do you get your flight suit tailored?

JD2780
03-27-2013, 11:49 AM
100% agree with Wally. Bring on the warrants. Let the SNCOs go into leadership positions instead trying to both and sucking at both. Whether he is actually flying or not isnt the issue. TACPs have wanted warrants for a while for many of the same reasons.

Shortage of enlisted? Oh you mean while they're cutting us anyhow?

Chief_KO
03-27-2013, 12:07 PM
The cheer "Bring Back WOs" is usually followed by "Bring Back Buck Sgt"!...apparently the only solution to a "problem" is to reinstate a rank structure that proved itself unnecessary. Can a SNCO be the "operational expert", "operational leader", and "administrative manager"? YES perhaps not all three at the same time, but any solid SNCO knows when to step and and step out of those roles. The problem I've seen with WOs in the other services...since they do not typically get the second two duties (leader/manager) they burrow into that operational expert role. Rather than train their replacement, they hold all the secrets of the trade close to their vest (job security). IF you are truly the best at your ops job you will pass that onto as many Airmen as possible understanding that dozens or hundreds will be as good (or better) than you were. Want to remain behind the console, keep turning that wrench, waving cars through the gate, working the help desk, digging the ditch...like said before, choose "A" on the PFE/SKT and rest assured that you will remain where you are.
IMO, as the RPA world expands I see more left seat positions filled by enlisted. As a taxpayer, I'd much rather pay for 3 SrA than 1 officer when the duties of that position do not demand a bachelors degree level of education. Of course the corporate AF will fight against that...but with FAA regulations changing and Congress holding the purse strings...it will be a tough argument.

Chief_KO
03-27-2013, 12:07 PM
The cheer "Bring Back WOs" is usually followed by "Bring Back Buck Sgt"!...apparently the only solution to a "problem" is to reinstate a rank structure that proved itself unnecessary. Can a SNCO be the "operational expert", "operational leader", and "administrative manager"? YES perhaps not all three at the same time, but any solid SNCO knows when to step and and step out of those roles. The problem I've seen with WOs in the other services...since they do not typically get the second two duties (leader/manager) they burrow into that operational expert role. Rather than train their replacement, they hold all the secrets of the trade close to their vest (job security). IF you are truly the best at your ops job you will pass that onto as many Airmen as possible understanding that dozens or hundreds will be as good (or better) than you were. Want to remain behind the console, keep turning that wrench, waving cars through the gate, working the help desk, digging the ditch...like said before, choose "A" on the PFE/SKT and rest assured that you will remain where you are.
IMO, as the RPA world expands I see more left seat positions filled by enlisted. As a taxpayer, I'd much rather pay for 3 SrA than 1 officer when the duties of that position do not demand a bachelors degree level of education. Of course the corporate AF will fight against that...but with FAA regulations changing and Congress holding the purse strings...it will be a tough argument.

JD2780
03-27-2013, 12:14 PM
TACPs run into this problem quite often. You have a SMSgt getting hassled for going TDY all the time for currency or losing his skills for not going TDY all time and keep those skills sharp. If we had WOs you would have guys with experience staying there longer. Once again, to many SNCOs oppose it because they wouldn't be the top dogs just with limited skills. They won't admit to the lessening of the skills because of pride.

Not holding my breath for reason to come since we can't even get pt and uniforms right.

JD2780
03-27-2013, 12:14 PM
TACPs run into this problem quite often. You have a SMSgt getting hassled for going TDY all the time for currency or losing his skills for not going TDY all time and keep those skills sharp. If we had WOs you would have guys with experience staying there longer. Once again, to many SNCOs oppose it because they wouldn't be the top dogs just with limited skills. They won't admit to the lessening of the skills because of pride.

Not holding my breath for reason to come since we can't even get pt and uniforms right.

imnohero
03-27-2013, 12:27 PM
Re: Cost

The initial implementation cost has to be weighed against the "savings" of having a WO in place of an officer. But remember, that WOs will also be replacing enlisted positions as well. Wally wants a WO in place of a MSgt, that costs more, not less. When you consider this AF wide, I expect that the long term savings don't out weight the implementation costs.

SomeRandomGuy
03-27-2013, 12:55 PM
Re: Cost

The initial implementation cost has to be weighed against the "savings" of having a WO in place of an officer. But remember, that WOs will also be replacing enlisted positions as well. Wally wants a WO in place of a MSgt, that costs more, not less. When you consider this AF wide, I expect that the long term savings don't out weight the implementation costs.

You are correct this propsal would be cost neutral at best and most likely more expensive. Wally's idea is somewhat confusing. At first he said he wanted to get rid of the officer billets in RPA and send them back to flying real aircraft. Then he mentioned creating warrant officer billets and allowing people who were MSgts to become warrant officers. If the officer billets are re-aligned and enlisted become warrant officers that actually creates more positions not less and is more expensive. If the officer billets are eliminated it costs money in severance pay to get rid of the officers. After that you are still paying a warrant officer for a job that was capably being done by people in many cases who were E5-E7.

I disagree with the idea of the AF having Warrant officers. Anyone who says it creates any tangible cost savings is wrong. The only way Warrant Officers are cheaper is if current officer billets are eliminated and those same people are "downgraded" in rank to warrant officers. Since we all know that would never happen there is no way for Warrant Officers to be a cheaper route. Anyone advocating Warrant Officers is normally envisioning current enlisted competing for the billets. No matter how you slice it that is a cost increase not a cost savings.

TJMAC77SP
03-27-2013, 12:59 PM
There is absolutely no doubt it would be more expensive. It's wishful thinking and a math failure to think otherwise.

JD2780
03-27-2013, 01:05 PM
Math failure yet operation success.

CrustySMSgt
03-27-2013, 01:26 PM
You are correct this propsal would be cost neutral at best and most likely more expensive. Wally's idea is somewhat confusing. At first he said he wanted to get rid of the officer billets in RPA and send them back to flying real aircraft. Then he mentioned creating warrant officer billets and allowing people who were MSgts to become warrant officers. If the officer billets are re-aligned and enlisted become warrant officers that actually creates more positions not less and is more expensive. If the officer billets are eliminated it costs money in severance pay to get rid of the officers. After that you are still paying a warrant officer for a job that was capably being done by people in many cases who were E5-E7.

I disagree with the idea of the AF having Warrant officers. Anyone who says it creates any tangible cost savings is wrong. The only way Warrant Officers are cheaper is if current officer billets are eliminated and those same people are "downgraded" in rank to warrant officers. Since we all know that would never happen there is no way for Warrant Officers to be a cheaper route. Anyone advocating Warrant Officers is normally envisioning current enlisted competing for the billets. No matter how you slice it that is a cost increase not a cost savings.

He did kind of jump back and forth. I was going with his statement that the enlisted folks who are doing the sensor operators (or anyone that's got more than 100 hours of xbox/PS time) could move to the other seat as a WO. This would cut officer billets, which would be cheaper than keeping Os in that seat. Given the Army's example (success? Can't say that for sure, as I haven't been around that community) in having WOs in aviation, the model is already there. Isn't going to solve his other issue, that on the SO side you'll still have those who get promoted and are given additional responsibility commensurate with your grade.

SomeRandomGuy
03-27-2013, 02:01 PM
He did kind of jump back and forth. I was going with his statement that the enlisted folks who are doing the sensor operators (or anyone that's got more than 100 hours of xbox/PS time) could move to the other seat as a WO. This would cut officer billets, which would be cheaper than keeping Os in that seat. Given the Army's example (success? Can't say that for sure, as I haven't been around that community) in having WOs in aviation, the model is already there. Isn't going to solve his other issue, that on the SO side you'll still have those who get promoted and are given additional responsibility commensurate with your grade.

Correct, if the warrant officers are enlisted moving up and the officer billets are eliminated then it does save money. The only problem is you lose the previous officer billets. Considering the Air Force is run by officers I highly doubt they would agree to that. It also means that we have to separate some officers who we have already invested money to train.

Specifically related to RPAs we could have saved money if we had originally kicked the program off with warrant officers as the pilots and not officers. Trying to go back and change that now would require a signifigant investment and the cost savings could not be realized until years down the road. The only problem is what Mr. Dorr always says. It is not really a cost savings unless money is returned to the treasury. The reason being is because of the "use or lose" budget requirement. Anytime the DoD saves money on one program they automatically have to spend it somewhere else so it never actually becomes a cost savings.

imnohero
03-27-2013, 02:25 PM
Math failure yet operation success.

How? What about a WO makes them better at operations than the current enlisted and officers doing the job?

I get the argument that a WO is a "career task specialist" vs. a O6/E7 (and up)...but that argument assumes that the AF NEEDS high ranking task specialists instead of up coming captains and SSgts.

If the argument is that it requires 10-15 years of experience to be "really good" at a particular job...and that some missions require more than just "good"...that doesn't require the AF to reinstate WO grades. It may require them to have a cadre of "really good" airman for particular missions (by coding or shreadout), but to say that some few missions or specialties require a special rank doesn't make sense.

JD2780
03-27-2013, 02:45 PM
How? What about a WO makes them better at operations than the current enlisted and officers doing the job?

I get the argument that a WO is a "career task specialist" vs. a O6/E7 (and up)...but that argument assumes that the AF NEEDS high ranking task specialists instead of up coming captains and SSgts.

If the argument is that it requires 10-15 years of experience to be "really good" at a particular job...and that some missions require more than just "good"...that doesn't require the AF to reinstate WO grades. It may require them to have a cadre of "really good" airman for particular missions (by coding or shreadout), but to say that some few missions or specialties require a special rank doesn't make sense.

Because you have SNCOs that are trying to be dual hatted and can't be. You can maintain your skills as well as you should AND be the senio enlisted person in a squadron. I can't speak for the rest of the AF but as far as TACPs go there would be a huge benefit to having WOs. To many SNCOs lose the needed skills because they're focusing on the squadron management portion, as they should be. However, they deploy and try to actively control aircraft when they're "current" not certainly not proficient. Heck I remember specifically a couple SNCOs during their evals getting pissed because their stuff wasn't ready and through atrophy of skills made several mistakes loading their equipment with required data. The reason being he was the sq sup busting his ass in that role and not taking enough time to stay proficient on tasks. When the SNCO DOES attempt to stay proficient on the skills the CC gets pissy because he isn't around because he is out in the vehicle bay stay proficient on skills. With the new technology being slammed down our throats if you aren't repeatedly using it before deployment you'll screw it up during deployment when it counts.

No way does it take 10-15 yrs to be good at a job. Shouldnt take more than a few yrs. It takes constantly doing the job to maintain skills. You can't do that when you're trying to assist in running a squadron.

That's how.

Pullinteeth
03-27-2013, 02:58 PM
So let me see if I have this straight... The prevailing consensus seems to be that Officer slots should be converted to Warrant Officer slots and Enlisteds should move into those slots (thereby also reducing the Enlisted slots?). IF that is what happened, it would obviously save some money... Instead of paying an Officer Officer pay, you would pay an Enlisted Warrant Officer pay. The Enlisted would get more, the Officer would get bent...

Anyone see ANY possible senario when Officers (General Officers no less) would recommend cutting their fellow Officers so that Enlisteds could get paid more? They certianly wouldn't demote an Officer to a lowly Warrant Officer....

TJMAC77SP
03-27-2013, 04:29 PM
Because you have SNCOs that are trying to be dual hatted and can't be. You can maintain your skills as well as you should AND be the senio enlisted person in a squadron. I can't speak for the rest of the AF but as far as TACPs go there would be a huge benefit to having WOs. To many SNCOs lose the needed skills because they're focusing on the squadron management portion, as they should be. However, they deploy and try to actively control aircraft when they're "current" not certainly not proficient. Heck I remember specifically a couple SNCOs during their evals getting pissed because their stuff wasn't ready and through atrophy of skills made several mistakes loading their equipment with required data. The reason being he was the sq sup busting his ass in that role and not taking enough time to stay proficient on tasks. When the SNCO DOES attempt to stay proficient on the skills the CC gets pissy because he isn't around because he is out in the vehicle bay stay proficient on skills. With the new technology being slammed down our throats if you aren't repeatedly using it before deployment you'll screw it up during deployment when it counts.

No way does it take 10-15 yrs to be good at a job. Shouldnt take more than a few yrs. It takes constantly doing the job to maintain skills. You can't do that when you're trying to assist in running a squadron.

That's how.

That is true to varying degrees throughout the career field. E-8s and E-9s usually don't get paid to do the same things they did as an E-5 or E-6. I don't know why they should be perceived that way.

As an E-8 if I had to run patrol for a night I suppose I could manage but I guarantee I wouldn't be as effective as the young troop who did it every night. My job was at that time different. I had to know what that troop was required to do, make sure he had the proper training to complete his tasks and was logistically supported to the degree necessary. It has been that way forever and will remain so forever. I just don't see that as an argument for reducing the NCO corps further (and by definition reducing the number of those E-8s and E-9s who ARE still needed to do the 'admin' tasks that any unit and/or specialty generate (and won't diminish one bit by converting some of the SNCO billets to WOs).

JD2780
03-27-2013, 05:34 PM
That is true to varying degrees throughout the career field. E-8s and E-9s usually don't get paid to do the same things they did as an E-5 or E-6. I don't know why they should be perceived that way.

As an E-8 if I had to run patrol for a night I suppose I could manage but I guarantee I wouldn't be as effective as the young troop who did it every night. My job was at that time different. I had to know what that troop was required to do, make sure he had the proper training to complete his tasks and was logistically supported to the degree necessary. It has been that way forever and will remain so forever. I just don't see that as an argument for reducing the NCO corps further (and by definition reducing the number of those E-8s and E-9s who ARE still needed to do the 'admin' tasks that any unit and/or specialty generate (and won't diminish one bit by converting some of the SNCO billets to WOs).

You could manage. That's sums it up right there. Also when the E-8 is getting the same amount in special duty pay and can't perform to the same level as the E-5 he should hang it up. Now if we had WOs you would have that seasoned experience along with proficiency. We could use fewer chiefs and fewer generals thats for sure. Places like nellis you can't take shit without bumping into a chief.

grimreaper
03-27-2013, 05:58 PM
You could manage. That's sums it up right there. Also when the E-8 is getting the same amount in special duty pay and can't perform to the same level as the E-5 he should hang it up. Now if we had WOs you would have that seasoned experience along with proficiency. We could use fewer chiefs and fewer generals thats for sure. Places like nellis you can't take shit without bumping into a chief.

So it sounds like outside of a few career fields, there is no need for WO's. I don't know very many career fields where E-8s and E-9s are doing the same job as they did as an E-5 or an E-6. They aren't supposed to and that's the way it was designed to be.

JD2780
03-27-2013, 06:02 PM
So it sounds like outside of a few career fields, there is no need for WO's. I don't know very many career fields where E-8s and E-9s are doing the same job as they did as an E-5 or an E-6. They aren't supposed to and that's the way it was designed to be.

Is just how it would benefit TACPs. I wouldn't expect the AF to change it for 1% of the AF. Those E-8s are simply doing it to hold on to something they aren't and to keep that SDP coming in.

grimreaper
03-27-2013, 06:08 PM
Is just how it would benefit TACPs. I wouldn't expect the AF to change it for 1% of the AF. Those E-8s are simply doing it to hold on to something they aren't and to keep that SDP coming in.

Can't say that I wouldn't be doing the same thing if it was me, but maybe big AF needs to clarify the the role of E-8s in the TACP world. Not that it's a big money saver, but less people collecting SDP is something.

JD2780
03-27-2013, 06:13 PM
Can't say that I wouldn't be doing the same thing if it was me, but maybe big AF needs to clarify the the role of E-8s in the TACP world. Not that it's a big money saver, but less people collecting SDP is something.

BAM!!!! Especially since we finally I have junior officers in our community. Our former E-7s jumped ship to get back into and make the same money as the E-7. Granted no SDAP but still making the same amount as they were before.

However, eventually those same O-1/2 and 3s will progress out of operations as well.

SomeRandomGuy
03-27-2013, 06:33 PM
Is just how it would benefit TACPs. I wouldn't expect the AF to change it for 1% of the AF. Those E-8s are simply doing it to hold on to something they aren't and to keep that SDP coming in.

I bet you those same people complain all the time about Pilots in staff positions cathing a few flying hours to maintain their flight pay.

JD2780
03-27-2013, 06:48 PM
I bet you those same people complain all the time about Pilots in staff positions cathing a few flying hours to maintain their flight pay.

That doesn't happen at an ASOS but I could see the hypocrisy coming from those individuals. I also think that is BS.

When TACPs get a staff job many dont retain their SDAP. However, that zipper suites does while working at an ASOS and has 0 flight hours for 3 yrs. He has his hours though. Another way to save money. Stop flight pay when you stop flying.

TJMAC77SP
03-27-2013, 07:32 PM
You could manage. That's sums it up right there. Also when the E-8 is getting the same amount in special duty pay and can't perform to the same level as the E-5 he should hang it up. Now if we had WOs you would have that seasoned experience along with proficiency. We could use fewer chiefs and fewer generals thats for sure. Places like nellis you can't take shit without bumping into a chief.

I get what you are saying and don't disagree but that sounds like there is an issue with the AFI's (or the people) that manage the special duty pay not in the rank structure of the Air Force. If these SNCOs (and officers for that matter) aren't performing the tasks which the special duty pay calls for then they shouldn't be getting it.

JD2780
03-27-2013, 07:55 PM
I get what you are saying and don't disagree but that sounds like there is an issue with the AFI's (or the people) that manage the special duty pay not in the rank structure of the Air Force. If these SNCOs (and officers for that matter) aren't performing the tasks which the special duty pay calls for then they shouldn't be getting it.

There is an issue with the SNCO not staying proficient on the tasks required yet deploying and having my customer, the army, believing he is proficient at it because he is a TACP. When in fact he isn't as proficient as he should be.

I know this isn't a one size fits all thing. TACPs have been asking for this for years. Big AF has finally given us officers that weren't just there for a staff tour. So that is a glimmer of hope. With the sequester going on all wishes and wants are off the table anyhow.

imnohero
03-27-2013, 11:46 PM
Is just how it would benefit TACPs. I wouldn't expect the AF to change it for 1% of the AF. Those E-8s are simply doing it to hold on to something they aren't and to keep that SDP coming in.

Right.

Like I said, even if it would be needed for one or two career fields, the AF isn't going to reinstate WO grades.

Airborne
03-28-2013, 12:25 AM
Right.

Like I said, even if it would be needed for one or two career fields, the AF isn't going to reinstate WO grades.

We all live in our own little corner of the AF but I think many career fields could benefit from it.

strataboomer
03-28-2013, 12:26 AM
So...to biggy-back on Mr. Dorr's article on reinstating warrant officers in the Air Force---what say you?

I'm all for it--let me tell you why. I'm a MSgt RPA sensor operator. Love the job, would love to do it all day everyday. That's pretty much what I did day in and day out for two years. Then I got a line for MSgt. As soon as that happened I was moved to a leadership position within the squadron. My flight hours immediately dropped by about 75% and my administration responsibilities increased about...300%. Love the flying portion, hate the admin portion. But it doesn't have to be like that. Make a path for enlisted to become warrant officers. For RPA sensor operators in particular, they have experience in combat from the right seat, seems logical that they would be able to perform flying the aircraft from the left seat. For those SNCOs that are interested in becoming a enlisted leader, fine, we need those guys too. I think they should focus 100% on that though---no more flying if they choose that route. In my opinion, it's unsafe to put a dude in the seat for a CAS/TIC situation when he only flies a couple hours a month. Combat skills erode quickly. For the warrant side, those are your SMEs, your go-to, your technical experts. Keep them engaged in the mission and keep them out of the leadership/administrative/queep arena. For the officers....since we'd have warrants around, the manning requirements would be less, they could go back to fly manned aircraft. And I'm no bean counter, but I'm thinking this would save the AF money in the long run. Win Win...happy happy happy. Thoughts?

Here is a thought.....join the rest of the Career Enlisted Aviators.......as a Sq Superintendent I still had to fly (often off station, not at home in a box) as I was a MR evaluator. It is your responsibility as a SNCO to be able to handle these responsibilities. It is also your responsibility to make sure your proficient as well as handle your Sq Admin duties....sometime that meant weekends or holidays. It is what it is.....you got promoted so now it is on you to learn how to manage those responsibilities. Not totally different than a lot of others AFS's.....

strataboomer
03-28-2013, 12:27 AM
That doesn't happen at an ASOS but I could see the hypocrisy coming from those individuals. I also think that is BS.

When TACPs get a staff job many dont retain their SDAP. However, that zipper suites does while working at an ASOS and has 0 flight hours for 3 yrs. He has his hours though. Another way to save money. Stop flight pay when you stop flying.

Flight pay has to do with a person meeting their flight gates. Don't hate the player

JD2780
03-28-2013, 12:53 AM
Flight pay has to do with a person meeting their flight gates. Don't hate the player

Yea so you can not fly for yrs and still not get it yet I go non-cmr and I'm supposed to fork it over. Miss a jump in a quarter pay up. Flight pay developed by flyers for flyer ears. Strat you're a gas pumper at 22k. Now go fuel a fighter to help the ground guy!!!

I get the gate hour BS and that's all it is. Is BS. You guys do have sweet photo ops though.

WALLY3430
03-28-2013, 12:53 AM
Wow, seems someone operational outside of RPAs understands the issue. Wish more understood....without attacking those with thoughts on how to fix it...

JD2780
03-28-2013, 12:54 AM
Here is a thought.....join the rest of the Career Enlisted Aviators.......as a Sq Superintendent I still had to fly (often off station, not at home in a box) as I was a MR evaluator. It is your responsibility as a SNCO to be able to handle these responsibilities. It is also your responsibility to make sure your proficient as well as handle your Sq Admin duties....sometime that meant weekends or holidays. It is what it is.....you got promoted so now it is on you to learn how to manage those responsibilities. Not totally different than a lot of others AFS's.....

Once again you're in a flying sq. Different than ASOS. Different job.

WALLY3430
03-28-2013, 01:00 AM
You hit it Grim. That's the problem---upper enlisted are forced to perform BOTH roles due to operational necessity. But when they do, don't expect them to be great at either.

JD2780
03-28-2013, 01:03 AM
You hit it Grim. That's the problem---upper enlisted are forced to perform BOTH roles due to operational necessity. But when they do, don't expect them to be great at either.

Start thinks hes is.

strataboomer
03-28-2013, 01:15 AM
Yea so you can not fly for yrs and still not get it yet I go non-cmr and I'm supposed to fork it over. Miss a jump in a quarter pay up. Flight pay developed by flyers for flyer ears. Strat you're a gas pumper at 22k. Now go fuel a fighter to help the ground guy!!!

I get the gate hour BS and that's all it is. Is BS. You guys do have sweet photo ops though.

Yah we do have a sweet a picture window!

strataboomer
03-28-2013, 01:16 AM
Start thinks hes is.

Just the standard I hold myself too.....if I tell the young folks in the squad, I damn we'll better be able to do it myself.

WALLY3430
03-28-2013, 01:20 AM
Oh thx for that mentorship strata. Bitter much? BL, BOTH jobs get done (if they didn't, I'd be fired). But, there's not enough time in the day to be good at both (SEFE/SUP). It's amazing how some SNCOs can just crap out time to complete everything. If you can, good for you---more power to you---you're one of the guys that wins awards! If you're satisfied with that great, but I'd like to see other ideas at least discussed. Rather than push out the old line "suck it up" or "deal with it", wouldn't it be more productive to "deal with it" AND fine a better way of doing business? Who knows, maybe a fix comes out of it.

strataboomer
03-28-2013, 01:29 AM
Oh thx for that mentorship strata. Bitter much? BL, BOTH jobs get done (if they didn't, I'd be fired). But, there's not enough time in the day to be good at both (SEFE/SUP). It's amazing how some SNCOs can just crap out time to complete everything. If you can, good for you---more power to you---you're one of the guys that wins awards! If you're satisfied with that great, but I'd like to see other ideas at least discussed. Rather than push out the old line "suck it up" or "deal with it", wouldn't it be more productive to "deal with it" AND fine a better way of doing business? Who knows, maybe a fix comes out of it.

I am not bitter at all....both jobs have to get done and one has to be creative. I would fly on the weekends....made the week easier. If I had to give a check, I would make sure it was either a early sortie or have the evaluatee fly on the weekend. I had a good ops super that allowed me to deal with people issues and he dealt with ops. Find a strong number 2 and let them roll with issues.

JD2780
03-28-2013, 01:31 AM
Strat I see what you're saying. It's just in TACP units its a differing story.

strataboomer
03-28-2013, 01:34 AM
Strat I see what you're saying. It's just in TACP units its a differing story.
I do understand....different requirements etc. Not belittling you all in any way. Thanks for what you do....I will stick to my hotels and crew rest sign :). Cheers

Airborne
03-28-2013, 03:44 AM
Yea so you can not fly for yrs and still not get it yet I go non-cmr and I'm supposed to fork it over. Miss a jump in a quarter pay up. Flight pay developed by flyers for flyer ears. Strat you're a gas pumper at 22k. Now go fuel a fighter to help the ground guy!!!

I get the gate hour BS and that's all it is. Is BS. You guys do have sweet photo ops though.

I know what you are saying but lets keep things clear for the RFDs of the world. You dont actually have to "pay up" if you dont jump. You just dont get paid. And with the grace period you only have to jump twice a year.

JD2780
03-28-2013, 10:10 AM
That's what I meant. You don't get paid. However you get your hours you can not fly for 3 yrs. I can 1000 times but I missed one the next quarter I don't get my money.

Rule 3 only works if your CC signs off on it.

TREYSLEDGE
03-28-2013, 10:49 AM
(sorry for the long post)

I work in a Joint Unit with several Army personnel including a Pilot CWO4 and Special Forces CWO4. Here’s some insight into how the Warrant Officers are utilized, from their point of view.

Warrant Officers are primarily used as the technical advisors for units and programs, they don’t actually do the technical job very much (i.e. turning wrenches, etc.) and manage general programs like Safety. The Army Aviation career field is the only one where warrant officers can do their primary duty (flying) for their entire career. Even in Special Forces, warrant officers will only be “operational” until they are a CWO3, then they fill staff jobs and provide planning advice. Army SNCOs are still experts in their career fields and the leaders in their Platoons, Companies, etc.

My opinion on how WOs may or may not fit into the Air Force (I don’t have detailed knowledge of all AFSCs so I may be completely wrong):
WOs in the AF wouldn’t reduce the responsibilities (technical or leadership) of SNCOs. They would give them and the flight/squadron leaders an advisor to help with program management. The only current fiscally feasible way to create WOs is to downgrade current officer positions. Since most officers aren’t technical experts (outside of operations units), at least not nearly as much as NCOs/SNCOs, you’re really eliminating leadership positions. Now that may be what the AF needs, but I don’t think it will work in most career fields. Especially in Support and Maintenance where many times the only officers in the squadrons are in leadership positions.

The most logical use of WOs would be in the operations fields (pilots, missileers, etc.) where there is a larger pool of officers in the specific AFSC so that transferring the positions to WOs wouldn’t degrade the pool of potential commanders and senior officer positions too much. Even then the AF has many fewer pilots per airframe than the Army so I don’t think the number of WOs in the AF could be anywhere near how many are in the Army (which isn't much, estimated as same number of E-9s). The Army really only has about 5-10 types of aircraft. The AF has 10 times that many types of aircraft if not more.
Most other career fields don’t have large enough numbers to justify changing officer positions to WO. For support career fields you wouldn’t have enough for the flight and squadron command positions or have a large enough pool to produce and pick good leaders from.

Also, the pilot CWO4 says he thinks the Army is able to keep WOs as pilots for a long time because there isn’t a large need for helicopter pilots in the civilian world. But fixed wing pilots have many more opportunities to fly commercially and make way more money than a WO. He himself is a C-12 pilot and got out to fly for the airlines (he was pulled back on active duty for two years and goes back this fall). So that could be a retention problem for WO pilots.

So, I think WOs could work for a few select career fields in the Operations world and save some money. As for technical experts, I think we already have that in many areas with our outstanding civil service employees. In my career field we have civilians at every level that provide the continuity, technical expertise and train Airmen. From Deputy Squadron commanders to shop foremen who work with the shop NCOICs.

TREYSLEDGE
03-28-2013, 11:41 AM
More info from my Army CWOs, only Pilots can go straight into the Warrant officer ranks without military experience. All other career fields are usually E-6s before being selected for WO. If the AF did something similar (which they should if they are to be used as technical experts per the Dorr article and the original author of this thread) then it seems that you would be paying someone more to not have the leadership responsibility.

The more I think of it, Army WOs (except for pilots) seem a lot like AF civilians who can be easily deployed.

CrustySMSgt
03-28-2013, 12:25 PM
More info from my Army CWOs, only Pilots can go straight into the Warrant officer ranks without military experience. All other career fields are usually E-6s before being selected for WO. If the AF did something similar (which they should if they are to be used as technical experts per the Dorr article and the original author of this thread) then it seems that you would be paying someone more to not have the leadership responsibility.

The more I think of it, Army WOs (except for pilots) seem a lot like AF civilians who can be easily deployed.

Great info, thanks!

jdwalker
11-07-2013, 09:08 PM
In Signal, which is Army-speak for IT and communications, the Warrant Officer *is* the technical expert and *is* doing the technical job, for the most part. If in command, the Chief is commanding a Signal detachment.

jdwalker
11-07-2013, 09:21 PM
CrustySMSgt, if you think of Army WOs as AF civilians who can be easily deployed, then you were working with some bar wearers who needed to get out. The Army Chief Warrant Officer is a professional Soldier who gets the job done, not a civilian. We adhere to the same standards as any other Soldier. You can't put out a civilian for failing a physical fitness test or being fat, but I certainly could be put out for doing either of those two things. My direct boss is a Lieutenant Colonel, and if I were EVER to step out of line I'm sure he would say something to me. My boss, the COL, is always instructing me on how to behave as the officer that I am.

Sorry you had to work with substandard warrants.

Juggs
11-07-2013, 09:30 PM
CrustySMSgt, if you think of Army WOs as AF civilians who can be easily deployed, then you were working with some bar wearers who needed to get out. The Army Chief Warrant Officer is a professional Soldier who gets the job done, not a civilian. We adhere to the same standards as any other Soldier. You can't put out a civilian for failing a physical fitness test or being fat, but I certainly could be put out for doing either of those two things. My direct boss is a Lieutenant Colonel, and if I were EVER to step out of line I'm sure he would say something to me. My boss, the COL, is always instructing me on how to behave as the officer that I am.

Sorry you had to work with substandard warrants.

As an AF JTAC I worked with warrants from different MOSs. Some most intelligent and professional guys I know. Some do get a hooligan streak in them, but it's fun to watch. I've got some buddies from controlling days that went on to become warrants. I wish the AF would bring some over.

TREYSLEDGE
11-08-2013, 12:12 PM
CrustySMSgt, if you think of Army WOs as AF civilians who can be easily deployed, then you were working with some bar wearers who needed to get out. The Army Chief Warrant Officer is a professional Soldier who gets the job done, not a civilian. We adhere to the same standards as any other Soldier. You can't put out a civilian for failing a physical fitness test or being fat, but I certainly could be put out for doing either of those two things. My direct boss is a Lieutenant Colonel, and if I were EVER to step out of line I'm sure he would say something to me. My boss, the COL, is always instructing me on how to behave as the officer that I am.

Sorry you had to work with substandard warrants.

Actually, I wrote the post you referenced. And I may have written it poorly, but I was not trying to disparage WOs. I was trying to show that most of the civilians I work with are technical experts and the go-to guys for the toughest problems and many of them work in the shops and at leadership levels, but aren't full military members so they can't deploy. I was trying to compare the WOs to Air Force civilians in terms of expertise and importance to the mission. As you say a WO "is a professional soldier who gets the job done," just as I can say my civilians are professional craftsmen and leaders who get the job done. And if they step out of line I will say something to them and remind them how Shop Foremen and Flight Commanders should behave. Of course, I have a lot more red tape to go through for discipline issues.