PDA

View Full Version : What exactly is the duties of LRS or Logistics personnel?



jondstewart
09-22-2013, 10:44 PM
An old friend of mine worked logistics and wore blues to work every day. Yet my contractor job I have now at Alaska radar sites has logistics as part of it and I'm basically required to fill out 1149's for items to be shipped and have to go to the warehouse to band, bag, tag, and ship items, and place 1149's on the boxes, paletize the items if a C130 picks them up, but f a DC6 comes, I'm saved from that headache

So is Air Force logistics more of an admin job, supply or both?

SomeRandomGuy
09-22-2013, 11:17 PM
An old friend of mine worked logistics and wore blues to work every day. Yet my contractor job I have now at Alaska radar sites has logistics as part of it and I'm basically required to fill out 1149's for items to be shipped and have to go to the warehouse to band, bag, tag, and ship items, and place 1149's on the boxes, paletize the items if a C130 picks them up, but f a DC6 comes, I'm saved from that headache

So is Air Force logistics more of an admin job, supply or both?

I hate to be a grammar Nazi but shouldn't the title be "What exactly are the duties...

Gonzo432
09-22-2013, 11:28 PM
I did A LOT of different things as a Supply troop long before somebody had the bright idea to lump Supply, Trans and the Loggies into one organization. Before Supply merged the pencil-pushers with the box-kickers in 94 there was probably 20 different work centers. I've done Stock Control, Equipment Management (pre-regionalized Supply) a little MICAP, Materiel Control for Radars, did WRSK kits and MRSP, WRM (HARVEST EAGLE and WPAR) in Korea, drove all kinds of fork-lifts and I've done plenty of low-profile pallets too.

Drackore
09-23-2013, 08:44 AM
I thought the job of LRS was to train me and my troops to do their job.

BOSS302
09-23-2013, 10:42 AM
I thought the job of LRS was to train me and my troops to do their job.


http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/595544/boom_goes_the_dynamite_mousepad-p144940284085477415trak_400_medium.jpg

AFbiatch
09-23-2013, 01:38 PM
I thought the job of LRS was to train me and my troops to do their job.

I am an Air Transporter in an LRS squadron, and we train people on base how to do things like build pallets for air transport, hazardous materials stuff and other mobility things for exercises, but our main job is to supports the Fighters when they deploy to exercies, then when they come back, we go to their location and send them back. You are correct in some of us do train others on how to do their job.

loggie94
09-23-2013, 01:53 PM
For the old hats, it is a combo of the Supply, Transportation, and Log Plans squadrons. Much of the supply work has regionalized (at least with respect to parts stocking, MICAP tracking, etc), but still lots to do at base level in warehousing, individual equipment, mobility warehouse, fuel (airfield and ground support). The trans piece covers Vehicle Ops, Vehicle Mx, fleet management, Traffic Management Office (household goods, base cargo, packing and crating), and rounds out with Log Plans (base/unit deployments, receptions, etc). Usually the Aerial Ports are a seperate squadron, but most have a couple Aerial Porters in the squadron to help with unit deployment training. Some LRS squadrons - especially in the deployed environment - have an Aerial Port flight added on to the LRS section as well.

- that's most of the highlights, anyway...

And my appologies to all the new folks for not using Materiel Management instead of Supply. Old habbits die hard.

socal1200r
11-04-2013, 10:52 AM
An old friend of mine worked logistics and wore blues to work every day. Yet my contractor job I have now at Alaska radar sites has logistics as part of it and I'm basically required to fill out 1149's for items to be shipped and have to go to the warehouse to band, bag, tag, and ship items, and place 1149's on the boxes, paletize the items if a C130 picks them up, but f a DC6 comes, I'm saved from that headache

So is Air Force logistics more of an admin job, supply or both?

An Army quartermaster officer that I used to work with gave the best definition of what a loggie does. He said, "when you've got the enemy sighted in on your battle rifle, and you take a breath, calmly exhale, and gently squeeze the trigger, the difference between that rifle going "BANG" and "click" is logistics."

imported_DannyJ
11-04-2013, 02:47 PM
Sadly the LRS' duties are a moving target. LROs in general get a raw deal. They have to be thoroughly versed in about 6 different AFSCs, when supply by itself is enough to fill volumes; so of courses you get quite a few that don't know all that much about some areas they are charged with commanding.

The major issue on the whole logistics front is that they are robbing our manning and expecting computer programs to be as efficent as the bonkers amount of people it is replacing. These are big AF decisions. MXS, among a ton of other functions, are now having to learn a lot of the LRS functions, because we don't have the manning to do what is really needed with the folks we have.

#1 problem? Supply has an ASVAB requirement of 43 admin, which only SFS has a lower requirement. Any expectation that we get the caliber of folks we really need is just hilarious.

Gonzo432
11-04-2013, 04:15 PM
Sadly the LRS' duties are a moving target. LROs in general get a raw deal. They have to be thoroughly versed in about 6 different AFSCs, when supply by itself is enough to fill volumes; so of courses you get quite a few that don't know all that much about some areas they are charged with commanding.

The major issue on the whole logistics front is that they are robbing our manning and expecting computer programs to be as efficent as the bonkers amount of people it is replacing. These are big AF decisions. MXS, among a ton of other functions, are now having to learn a lot of the LRS functions, because we don't have the manning to do what is really needed with the folks we have.

#1 problem? Supply has an ASVAB requirement of 43 admin, which only SFS has a lower requirement. Any expectation that we get the caliber of folks we really need is just hilarious.

AFEMS did that back in 1995. They robbed the base-level Equipment Mgt Sections (remember those?) to pay for a program that actully created more work than the microfiche (remember those??) that were replaced.

43 Admin? That's what it was in 1985 when the pencil-pushers, box-kickers and computer room pukes were all seperate AFSCs. We had punch-cards then too.

socal1200r
11-05-2013, 06:24 PM
I was an enlisted Mapper (2T2), then an Aerial Porter (605), before I got my commission and became a Transportation Officer. Then, they combined a bunch of career fields (Aerial Port, Supply, Fuels, Vehicle Mgmt) into the LRO career field. I did the requisite re-training, but refused to wear the LRO badge. I considered myself a Transporter first and foremost, and that's the badge that I wore. So instead of having functional area experts, we suddenly became a "jack of all trades, master of none". To me, it was stupid to combine those career fields into one, but I imagine it made it easier on folks that sourced UTCs, because now an LRO could fill all kinds of positions (in theory). I'll be the first to admit that I really don't know squat about Supply and Fuels, can wing it in Vehicle Mgmt, but my strengths are on the Ramp. After the first couple of deployments under the LRO construct, it became obvious that they needed an SEI for that AFSC, to distinguish what functional areas they actually are qualified/experienced in. God forbid you're standing up an airfield in some austere place, put in a UTC for an LRO, and get someone with no Port experience. For example, I should've been something like an LRO-T, for Transportation, and it could've been just as easy to distinguish the others. But if they did that, what would've been the purpose of an LRO designation in the first place, lol!

loggie94
11-06-2013, 06:13 AM
I was an enlisted Mapper (2T2), then an Aerial Porter (605), before I got my commission and became a Transportation Officer. Then, they combined a bunch of career fields (Aerial Port, Supply, Fuels, Vehicle Mgmt) into the LRO career field. I did the requisite re-training, but refused to wear the LRO badge. I considered myself a Transporter first and foremost, and that's the badge that I wore. So instead of having functional area experts, we suddenly became a "jack of all trades, master of none". To me, it was stupid to combine those career fields into one, but I imagine it made it easier on folks that sourced UTCs, because now an LRO could fill all kinds of positions (in theory). I'll be the first to admit that I really don't know squat about Supply and Fuels, can wing it in Vehicle Mgmt, but my strengths are on the Ramp. After the first couple of deployments under the LRO construct, it became obvious that they needed an SEI for that AFSC, to distinguish what functional areas they actually are qualified/experienced in. God forbid you're standing up an airfield in some austere place, put in a UTC for an LRO, and get someone with no Port experience. For example, I should've been something like an LRO-T, for Transportation, and it could've been just as easy to distinguish the others. But if they did that, what would've been the purpose of an LRO designation in the first place, lol!

You and me both.... LRO-T -- I wish. While I understand the institutional goal of getting the supply, trans, and log plans officers to play nice together, it really has made for some sticky situations in deployed environments. I understand the side that says we don't need to be masters of it all, and need to just be leaders, etc. etc. etc... But from personal experience, it sure wasn't comfortable as a deployed ELRS squadron commander going toe-to-toe with a Maintenence Group Commander over supply issues when I hadn't been in a unit with an aircraft parts role in 10 years. First of all - I'd forgotten a lot of it in ten years and second, the whole construct had all changed since I had done it 10 years prior.

My hope is that it will be easier for the next generation of LORs who only know the LRS world. But still, they have a whole lot to learn and not much time to do it before they're expected to be effective leaders.

AFbiatch
11-06-2013, 12:27 PM
I was an enlisted Mapper (2T2), then an Aerial Porter (605), before I got my commission and became a Transportation Officer. Then, they combined a bunch of career fields (Aerial Port, Supply, Fuels, Vehicle Mgmt) into the LRO career field. I did the requisite re-training, but refused to wear the LRO badge. I considered myself a Transporter first and foremost, and that's the badge that I wore. So instead of having functional area experts, we suddenly became a "jack of all trades, master of none". To me, it was stupid to combine those career fields into one, but I imagine it made it easier on folks that sourced UTCs, because now an LRO could fill all kinds of positions (in theory). I'll be the first to admit that I really don't know squat about Supply and Fuels, can wing it in Vehicle Mgmt, but my strengths are on the Ramp. After the first couple of deployments under the LRO construct, it became obvious that they needed an SEI for that AFSC, to distinguish what functional areas they actually are qualified/experienced in. God forbid you're standing up an airfield in some austere place, put in a UTC for an LRO, and get someone with no Port experience. For example, I should've been something like an LRO-T, for Transportation, and it could've been just as easy to distinguish the others. But if they did that, what would've been the purpose of an LRO designation in the first place, lol!

I am currently a 2T2 with my package in for OTS trying to go LRO. HOpefully I will get it and I want to wear my 2T2 badge with my Rigger wings.