PDA

View Full Version : More Nuc Enterprise Shenanigans



Kicker47
01-10-2014, 06:51 PM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/09/22245986-officers-at-us-nuclear-missile-base-suspended-in-illegal-drugs-case?lite

Here we go again... :grumpy:

Chief_KO
01-11-2014, 04:09 AM
Regarding the "morale decline" of the key-turners...
When I thought of getting commission way back as a SrA in 1984, my commander (I was in SAC) told me that I would probably end up in a silo. Back then it was not a "Top Gun" duty...constantly training, prepping, be evaluated on a job you prayed to _____ (entity of your choice) you would never have to do. In attempts to build morale the different colored flight suits were used, leather jackets were issued, etc. My CC told me then it was a crappy job, but you would leave with at least a Master's if not a PhD (back when both were a rarity). The only thing that kept that whole world (Nuke Triad) alive and well was the fact that the USSR had the same.
Once the wall fell, B-52s were off alert, Looking Glass was grounded, SAC disbanded and the ol' generation of "SAC Warriors" were replaced by disgruntled "Space Cadets" and prior-E officers who thought they would be able to "lead Airmen" rather than read, re-read, and read again a checklist.
No one should really be surprised.

technomage1
01-11-2014, 07:51 AM
Well, that's one way to deal with low morale I guess. Until you get caught. Really not an effective long term strategy.

BISSBOSS
01-11-2014, 08:50 PM
As I have said in the past...

The USAF is simply realizing the returns on the time, money, attention are general care and feeding invested in the Nuclear Enterprise over the past few decades.

Neglect to pay your light bill and don't be surprised to come home to a very dark house.

-BB-

technomage1
01-11-2014, 09:44 PM
I guess the probe got extended to 10 officers now.

http://news.msn.com/us/air-force-drug-probe-grows-to-10-officers-6-bases

Gonzo432
01-11-2014, 10:03 PM
Spice and X. Of all the places in the world where I really don't want people to be on spice and X, a nuclear launch facility is pretty close to the top of the list.

BRUWIN
01-11-2014, 11:11 PM
MOrale is fine. It was in an article in the AF Times today. So everybody needs to STFU about it.

technomage1
01-16-2014, 02:38 AM
And the hits keep coming...

34 nuclear officers were involved in cheating a profiency exam. 16 cheated, and the rest knew about the cheating but did not report it.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/politics/air-force-nuclear-scandal/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Badger
01-16-2014, 02:54 AM
The drug and cheating scandals overlapping with each other are going to let this nuke enterprise crisis reach a critical mass. I wonder if this is going to open a serious debate about the sustainability of the nuclear triad and the end of the Air Force nuclear mission.

crwchf16
01-16-2014, 04:50 AM
Curtis Lemay is rolling over in his grave right now. :mmph
We all know or at least have a pretty good idea of the problems the nuke force is facing; low morale, few opportunities for advancement or PCS, etc. The good news is a solution for this has been available all along. Look at what SAC did for certifications and proficiency when it was around: Zero-notice ORIs to verify the real-world readiness of its units, fast promotions for those who made and exeeded the standards and equally fast demotions for those who did not and recognition for those who actually gave a damn about their jobs. Why can that not be implemented again?

technomage1
01-16-2014, 05:14 AM
Curtis Lemay is rolling over in his grave right now. :mmph

No kidding. I know I guy who is in SFS there. Instead of drawing a weapon at the armory they have to go to the chow hall to draw a ham sandwich.

Google "Curtis LeMay ham sandwich" if you don't get this reference.

technomage1
01-16-2014, 09:38 AM
My head hurts. When will it stop?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/16/us/military-nuclear-scandals-timeline/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

crwchf16
01-16-2014, 11:51 AM
This fiasco will stop when leadership stops deluding itself that their people are all thrilled to be where they are. These news articles that just keep coming prove otherwise! If you're a commander and you really want to know how things are in your unit then show up at your units unannounced and ask hard and uncomfortable questions of all your people, not just the leaders. Then question the answers you get, especially the ones from people who say they are happy. Get in their face. Ask them why they are happy or unhappy and listen to the answers. Make them prove to you that they are not just giving you a company line to get rid of you. Then take what action you must based on what you just learned.
Another idea would be even more effective but take a lot longer and potentially be a lot riskier. A commander could quietly bring someone new into the squadron to be his covert eyes and ears. Make no mistake; this is not like what OSI had in mind when they tried to enlist weasels at the Academy. Actions like that would only destroy what little morale is left. Instead this person would be a career officer, NCO or airman who can "PCS-in" and after a few months to learn the true condition of the unit and then give the commander an honest, no-BS feedback of what is really going on and why and most importantly, what must be done to fix it. The goal here is to not be the squadron rat and burn people already at the end of their rope. The goal is to get the true condition of the unit rather than the polished facade that commanders are usually served during their visits. Actually, after giving this some thought, this sort of in-depth look should be applied to all units across the Air Force and not just the poor souls in GSC. Would it be a comfortable and easy thing to do? Hell no! But the only way to fix problems like this is to stop pretending that there isn't a problem.

BOSS302
01-16-2014, 12:08 PM
At least no one almost nuked Goldsboro, NC, again...

Kicker47
01-16-2014, 01:15 PM
A commander could quietly bring someone new into the squadron to be his covert eyes and ears. Make no mistake; this is not like what OSI had in mind when they tried to enlist weasels at the Academy. Actions like that would only destroy what little morale is left. Instead this person would be a career officer, NCO or airman who can "PCS-in" and after a few months to learn the true condition of the unit and then give the commander an honest, no-BS feedback of what is really going on and why and most importantly, what must be done to fix it. The goal here is to not be the squadron rat and burn people already at the end of their rope. The goal is to get the true condition of the unit rather than the polished facade that commanders are usually served during their visits. Actually, after giving this some thought, this sort of in-depth look should be applied to all units across the Air Force and not just the poor souls in GSC. Would it be a comfortable and easy thing to do? Hell no! But the only way to fix problems like this is to stop pretending that there isn't a problem.

I've seen Missile Wing civilians try to do this...give honest feedback to the commanders. Most were crusty-old retired missile maintenance SNCOs that would tell the commander straight up that things were bad, or mistakes were being made. Sayings like "talking to a brick wall", "bad decisions", "unrecoverable mistakes", and "screw them if they won't listen to us" were way too common.

I worked with a GS in Minot that used to say "send everyone O-4 and above in the Group to the Golf Course for one day, and leave us retirees in charge. When they come back, the shit'll be running the right way."

I'm starting to reconsider my decision to request a PCS back up north. On one hand, I'd like to be "part of the solution" and try to bring some sense back in...but on the other hand, I know it will be a very, very, very frustrating situation, and I'm not sure it's worth it. PCSing back up to Minot or Malmstrom is basically accepting that your life will be nothing but "putting out fires", 16-18 hours a day, seven days a week.

BISSBOSS
01-16-2014, 04:19 PM
Well...

Big Blue is starting to react...

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=9395475

I'm gonna go make some popcorn!

-BB-

BISSBOSS
01-16-2014, 04:20 PM
No kidding. I know I guy who is in SFS there. Instead of drawing a weapon at the armory they have to go to the chow hall to draw a ham sandwich.

Google "Curtis LeMay ham sandwich" if you don't get this reference.

I believe the General's response was "We didn't have one crew, not one crew, in the entire command who could do a professional job."

Good reference!

-BB-

SomeRandomGuy
01-16-2014, 04:21 PM
Well...

Big Blue is starting to react...

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=9395475

I'm gonna go make some popcorn!

-BB-

Popcorn?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v28/greeneyesparklex/GIFs/2crt7gi.gif

imported_chipotleboy
01-17-2014, 01:19 PM
Best career advice I ever got was from my AFROTC Detachment Commander (an old SAC hand) who steered me away from a missile slot into a technical slot. He explained I could always volunteer for missiles later, if that's what I really wanted to do. But once I got into missiles, I would never leave. You can always sense the sadness in a missilier who is on a career broadening assignment. They see how much better life is outside of the silos, and they know they have to go back.

And for completeness ... worst career advice I ever got was from my mother. She suggested that I major in accounting like my two older brothers, so I could save a little money by reusing their books. I love my mother, but no way that was going to happen. I'd had hand-me-downs all my life, I wasn't going to let them dictate my career path.

Port Dawg
01-18-2014, 06:18 AM
If I was a general, I would never forecast my arrival anywhere.....i'd fly in using Space Available data masked, and see how I got treated on that system, and show up around my commands to see what REALLY goes on. (This is just an ideal) I think it's hilarious that everytime a DV comes through, everyone is doing nothing, work ceases. They probably think we aren't busy at all, nobody is stressed....everytime someone gets asked, how do you like it here, they just say. "Good sir" everything is GREAT.

Building a culture of "Yes" men....the downfall of the USAF. There are respectable ways to disagree....

I never understood why LCAP, ORI, or any other type of inspection would be a "Notice" inspection. Why even do it? We've had time to Church our stuff up and actually train people.

Gonzo432
01-18-2014, 11:29 AM
If I was a general, I would never forecast my arrival anywhere.....i'd fly in using Space Available data masked, and see how I got treated on that system, and show up around my commands to see what REALLY goes on. (This is just an ideal) I think it's hilarious that everytime a DV comes through, everyone is doing nothing, work ceases. They probably think we aren't busy at all, nobody is stressed....everytime someone gets asked, how do you like it here, they just say. "Good sir" everything is GREAT.

Building a culture of "Yes" men....the downfall of the USAF. There are respectable ways to disagree....

I never understood why LCAP, ORI, or any other type of inspection would be a "Notice" inspection. Why even do it? We've had time to Church our stuff up and actually train people.

YEARS ago I remember someone doing this. I'm wanting to say it was Gen Viccellio but I might be wrong. He'd have been TAC/LG in those days, they new he was on base when the aircraft parked. He always asked young troop about what they were doing (when you show up unannounced people are actually doing stuff) and what they needed to do their jobs better.

Airborne
01-18-2014, 12:18 PM
If I was a general, I would never forecast my arrival anywhere.....i'd fly in using Space Available data masked, and see how I got treated on that system, and show up around my commands to see what REALLY goes on. (This is just an ideal) I think it's hilarious that everytime a DV comes through, everyone is doing nothing, work ceases. They probably think we aren't busy at all, nobody is stressed....everytime someone gets asked, how do you like it here, they just say. "Good sir" everything is GREAT.

Building a culture of "Yes" men....the downfall of the USAF. There are respectable ways to disagree....

I never understood why LCAP, ORI, or any other type of inspection would be a "Notice" inspection. Why even do it? We've had time to Church our stuff up and actually train people.

At one point in time, that General was a 2LT jumping through the same hoops when a general came through. Unfortunately they probably forgot what it was like and most human males are corrupted by absolute power so the point is moot. But you have to think that they know. Theyre not that stupid.

BISSBOSS
01-18-2014, 03:08 PM
If I was a general, I would never forecast my arrival anywhere.....i'd fly in using Space Available data masked, and see how I got treated on that system, and show up around my commands to see what REALLY goes on. (This is just an ideal) I think it's hilarious that everytime a DV comes through, everyone is doing nothing, work ceases. They probably think we aren't busy at all, nobody is stressed....everytime someone gets asked, how do you like it here, they just say. "Good sir" everything is GREAT.

Building a culture of "Yes" men....the downfall of the USAF. There are respectable ways to disagree....

I never understood why LCAP, ORI, or any other type of inspection would be a "Notice" inspection. Why even do it? We've had time to Church our stuff up and actually train people.


When I was in USAFE, I augmented the IG on a number of "No Notice" inspections... Easy to do at a Main Operating Base, but some sites in Europe are owned by the Host Nation so you can't just Roll up on them or "Pop out of a giant cake" with a team! Besides... MOST NSIs are WELL publicized events and bases STILL tank them. IMHO, it wouldn't make a difference if the Generals or the inspection teams showed up with little or no notice.

The REAL issue is the Air Force continues to act as if there is no problem in the face of the mounting evidence to the contrary. It boggles the mind the think about it and now that I'm retired I can hardly understand how the system functioned while I was in! I was in USAFE and we did the Nuke thing too... We had our share of SNAFUs but NEVER to this extent (and I was in USAFE for a LOOOOONG time).

Until the AF acknowledges that there is a serious problem in the Nuclear Enterprise AND takes steps to determine the TRUE source(s) and address them instead of treating these symptoms, I am certain that this is not the last scandal we will see.

-BB-

crwchf16
01-19-2014, 03:30 AM
Until the AF acknowledges that there is a serious problem in the Nuclear Enterprise AND takes steps to determine the TRUE source(s) and address them instead of treating these symptoms, I am certain that this is not the last scandal we will see.

-BB-

BB you nailed it on the head. I guess then the only question that remains for us lowly enlisted guys is what do we do to keep up our end of the bargain and make sure the job is done in the end?

ChiefB
01-19-2014, 09:26 AM
The identified problems are no different than they were back in the "good old days" of USAFE, SAC, TAC and CINCPAC and now of Global Strike Command. I was on the IG and NSI teams of USAFE, SAC and CINCPAC and the problems now were the same back in the day. All the Nuclear combat commands had these problems and cheating on tests was exposed on many an occasion.


We also had many an occasion of "test compromise" because IG teams of various commands got lazy and complacent and were negligent in test updating or making unique tests for each unit visit. Consequently "community memory" came into play and facsimile tests were concocted and passed around the commands.

"Gaming the system" just like in HS or College now, and was back then, a time tested method for staying competitive and holding your own. Anyone who doubts this fact is kidding themselves. Look at the recent academic cheating scandals at the Service Academies for example.

We all know of or have participated in the use of "crib sheets", "palm notes", "cuff cues" or some sort of "Gaming the System" in our educational experience. The services are no different. And, you can bet your bottom dollar that it goes on in each and every nook and cranny of the so called "Nuclear Enterprise", including the vaunted SSNs and SSBNs. It has ever been so.


The big challenge for the oversight and inspection systems we have in place for measuring the performance, knowledge and expertise of our Nuclear forces is first to recognize the fear of failure they engender in our personnel and the impetus that fear provides for them to cheat.


The answer is to provide a minimum of or elimination of closed-book, 100% passing rate tests, and a maximum of on-site observation of hands-on performance completing actions driven by thoroughly vetted emergency actions checklists and procedures.


IG testing at the closed-book, 85% passing rate is more than adequate in measuring matters that must be committed to memory. Local training/testing could remain at 100% for the purpose of identifying difficult knowledge areas and poor performers, but this 15% leeway would allow for human nature (hiccups, etc.) under the gun of inspectors.


It's known that some IG inspectors tend to write closed book exams that are rent with gotchas, whether they will admit that or not. The IG exams must be thoroughly vetted by independent officials that have the power to require changes to tricky, fuzzy or obtuse questions.

IG inspectors themselves need to be thoroughly vetted in the areas of attitude, expertise and motivation. The AF IG used to have a school for inspectors but not all command inspection personnel attended. Command Inspector Schools need to be formed to teach proper inspection techniques, test writing, observation methods and inspector conduct.


The use of untrained/unschooled command inspector augmenters should cease. Identified augmenters should be properly schooled in inspection techniques and inspector conduct.


Unit officials need to be closer to the operation on a day-to-day basis. Nothing these young officers were doing is not the fault of poor leadership and lack of acceptable oversight.


Open blast doors, cheating on tests, compromised documents, drug use and poor individual performance fall squarely in the areas of leadership failure, supervision failure, and training failure, resulting in individual malfeasance, dishonesty and malaise.


The AF sooner or later must recognize that junior officer poor performance and conduct is driven by the environment and attitude provided and shown by ill equipped and ineffective supervision and unit leadership.


Wholly inadequate command interpretation and resolution of the underlying poisonous climate, and attitude and the unresolved, inadequate career opportunity path of it's junior officers, assigned to this country's most powerful and destructive deterrent forces, needs to be readdressed and solved at the highest levels of command authority.

Gonzo432
01-19-2014, 03:36 PM
The identified problems are no different than they were back in the "good old days" of USAFE, SAC, TAC and CINCPAC and now of Global Strike Command. I was on the IG and NSI teams of USAFE, SAC and CINCPAC and the problems now were the same back in the day. All the Nuclear combat commands had these problems and cheating on tests was exposed on many an occasion.


We also had many an occasion of "test compromise" because IG teams of various commands got lazy and complacent and were negligent in test updating or making unique tests for each unit visit. Consequently "community memory" came into play and facsimile tests were concocted and passed around the commands.

"Gaming the system" just like in HS or College now, and was back then, a time tested method for staying competitive and holding your own. Anyone who doubts this fact is kidding themselves. Look at the recent academic cheating scandals at the Service Academies for example.

We all know of or have participated in the use of "crib sheets", "palm notes", "cuff cues" or some sort of "Gaming the System" in our educational experience. The services are no different. And, you can bet your bottom dollar that it goes on in each and every nook and cranny of the so called "Nuclear Enterprise", including the vaunted SSNs and SSBNs. It has ever been so.


The big challenge for the oversight and inspection systems we have in place for measuring the performance, knowledge and expertise of our Nuclear forces is first to recognize the fear of failure they engender in our personnel and the impetus that fear provides for them to cheat.


The answer is to provide a minimum of or elimination of closed-book, 100% passing rate tests, and a maximum of on-site observation of hands-on performance completing actions driven by thoroughly vetted emergency actions checklists and procedures.


IG testing at the closed-book, 85% passing rate is more than adequate in measuring matters that must be committed to memory. Local training/testing could remain at 100% for the purpose of identifying difficult knowledge areas and poor performers, but this 15% leeway would allow for human nature (hiccups, etc.) under the gun of inspectors.


It's known that some IG inspectors tend to write closed book exams that are rent with gotchas, whether they will admit that or not. The IG exams must be thoroughly vetted by independent officials that have the power to require changes to tricky, fuzzy or obtuse questions.

IG inspectors themselves need to be thoroughly vetted in the areas of attitude, expertise and motivation. The AF IG used to have a school for inspectors but not all command inspection personnel attended. Command Inspector Schools need to be formed to teach proper inspection techniques, test writing, observation methods and inspector conduct.


The use of untrained/unschooled command inspector augmenters should cease. Identified augmenters should be properly schooled in inspection techniques and inspector conduct.


Unit officials need to be closer to the operation on a day-to-day basis. Nothing these young officers were doing is not the fault of poor leadership and lack of acceptable oversight.


Open blast doors, cheating on tests, compromised documents, drug use and poor individual performance fall squarely in the areas of leadership failure, supervision failure, and training failure, resulting in individual malfeasance, dishonesty and malaise.


The AF sooner or later must recognize that junior officer poor performance and conduct is driven by the environment and attitude provided and shown by ill equipped and ineffective supervision and unit leadership.


Wholly inadequate command interpretation and resolution of the underlying poisonous climate, and attitude and the unresolved, inadequate career opportunity path of it's junior officers, assigned to this country's most powerful and destructive deterrent forces, needs to be readdressed and solved at the highest levels of command authority.

But ChiefB, I just read on op-ed in last week's AF Times that said the Rand study was nuts, morale is great and tater tots were an acceptable substitute for effective leadership. The op-ed was written by someone in leadership,,,, at a Missile Wing,,, who if you're right,,, I see says the blind man!

Seriously, great post Chief.

waveshaper2
01-19-2014, 04:28 PM
Anytime there is a breakdown in the Nuclear Enterprise it must be totally Reinvigorated. The reinvigoration process can only be effectively accomplished by senior personnel assigned to Global Strike Command (the more the better). This type corrective action requires senior personnel to click their heels together three time and parrot the pretentious phrase "Reinvigorate the Nuclear Enterprise" over and over until all is well once again. A large helping of tater tots is also a big plus.

BURAWSKI
01-19-2014, 04:38 PM
Another problem I see is that our civilian leadership doesn't take the Nuclear Program as serious as it did during the Cold War. I don't get the feeling that our President really believed in winning the last war (after reading the latest book DUTY, by the former Defense Secretary Robert Gates). To him, it wasn't about winning, but how it looked politically. I really think the problem rests at the top; these problems now are just the result of what our senior civilian leadership projects toward the military. As an aside, I never once heard the President talk about his desire, or the need for, the United States to win in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Also, how many senior military officers have been relieved from major commands over the past 5 years? Probably more than you can count, so that should tell you something about the relationship between the civilian leadership and the pentagon.

fufu
01-19-2014, 05:00 PM
The identified problems are no different than they were back in the "good old days" of USAFE, SAC, TAC and CINCPAC and now of Global Strike Command. I was on the IG and NSI teams of USAFE, SAC and CINCPAC and the problems now were the same back in the day. All the Nuclear combat commands had these problems and cheating on tests was exposed on many an occasion.


We also had many an occasion of "test compromise" because IG teams of various commands got lazy and complacent and were negligent in test updating or making unique tests for each unit visit. Consequently "community memory" came into play and facsimile tests were concocted and passed around the commands.

"Gaming the system" just like in HS or College now, and was back then, a time tested method for staying competitive and holding your own. Anyone who doubts this fact is kidding themselves. Look at the recent academic cheating scandals at the Service Academies for example.

We all know of or have participated in the use of "crib sheets", "palm notes", "cuff cues" or some sort of "Gaming the System" in our educational experience. The services are no different. And, you can bet your bottom dollar that it goes on in each and every nook and cranny of the so called "Nuclear Enterprise", including the vaunted SSNs and SSBNs. It has ever been so.


The big challenge for the oversight and inspection systems we have in place for measuring the performance, knowledge and expertise of our Nuclear forces is first to recognize the fear of failure they engender in our personnel and the impetus that fear provides for them to cheat.


The answer is to provide a minimum of or elimination of closed-book, 100% passing rate tests, and a maximum of on-site observation of hands-on performance completing actions driven by thoroughly vetted emergency actions checklists and procedures.


IG testing at the closed-book, 85% passing rate is more than adequate in measuring matters that must be committed to memory. Local training/testing could remain at 100% for the purpose of identifying difficult knowledge areas and poor performers, but this 15% leeway would allow for human nature (hiccups, etc.) under the gun of inspectors.


It's known that some IG inspectors tend to write closed book exams that are rent with gotchas, whether they will admit that or not. The IG exams must be thoroughly vetted by independent officials that have the power to require changes to tricky, fuzzy or obtuse questions.

IG inspectors themselves need to be thoroughly vetted in the areas of attitude, expertise and motivation. The AF IG used to have a school for inspectors but not all command inspection personnel attended. Command Inspector Schools need to be formed to teach proper inspection techniques, test writing, observation methods and inspector conduct.


The use of untrained/unschooled command inspector augmenters should cease. Identified augmenters should be properly schooled in inspection techniques and inspector conduct.


Unit officials need to be closer to the operation on a day-to-day basis. Nothing these young officers were doing is not the fault of poor leadership and lack of acceptable oversight.


Open blast doors, cheating on tests, compromised documents, drug use and poor individual performance fall squarely in the areas of leadership failure, supervision failure, and training failure, resulting in individual malfeasance, dishonesty and malaise.


The AF sooner or later must recognize that junior officer poor performance and conduct is driven by the environment and attitude provided and shown by ill equipped and ineffective supervision and unit leadership.


Wholly inadequate command interpretation and resolution of the underlying poisonous climate, and attitude and the unresolved, inadequate career opportunity path of it's junior officers, assigned to this country's most powerful and destructive deterrent forces, needs to be readdressed and solved at the highest levels of command authority.

Great post ChiefB. The truth is this: In the last 10 years, the focus of leadership has been the appearance of the military and less about the ability. The focus has gone from experts in job knowledge to PT, making ancillary trng slides pretty, wingman days, training days, fun runs and other BS that doesn't make us better at our primary duties. When that priority of leadership isn't job performance, until something does bad, then the people aren't going to focus on it either!

We have so many "duties" that are "equally important" that how is a person to expected to prioritize which one is the most important. I came in 1999. The first CBT was coming online...IA Trng. Now, I have almost 50 CBTs, plus inclass annual training, plus pre-deployment training....and I have to go to Sq PT 3x a week and we have a Sq policy of a mock PT test before your actual PT test. Then, I have to do DTS, vMPF paperwork, and god knows what else...like volunteering, TOP 3 meetings, AFSA meetings, ALS Grads, Wing awards ceremonies.

All these things tax our time, especially our free time. When you are that task saturated, things will be missed. Why does mass car manufacturing work so well? Cause ONE guy installs [lug nuts?] all day, every day. He knows the fastest, most efficient way of doing it. He isn't responsible for any other car part.

Its time to REDUCE the training, stop the waste!(like reporting data to AMC thru 3 different avenues!), we are task saturated.

OtisRNeedleman
01-19-2014, 05:37 PM
Lot of good points here.

I would first start by getting rid of the term "nuclear enterprise" and replace it with "nuclear strike mission". I don't know what idiot devised the term "nuclear enterprise" but whoever it was needs to go paint rocks, or do something useful.

The USAF is - at least it was during the days of my AAF (Adult Air Force) - a warfighting organization. The AAF mission statement was: To fly and fight. Simple and to the point. Everything anyone did in the AAF contributed to one or the other. Now I have no idea what this AF's mission statement is.

Warfighting organizations do not have enterprises. Warfighting organizations have missions. The role of the ICBMs is nuclear strike. That's why they were built. That's why we have them. ICBMs are a valuable part of the nuclear triad.

A large part of a person's or unit's morale is derived from the fact that they are a part of something worth doing. When I was an instructor, I didn't think I was just reading lesson plans. I knew I was helping build the future of signals intelligence and contributing to our nation's security and safety. Worth doing? You bet.

Maybe the CSAF, or someone else who really cares about something besides that next promotion or plum assignment, should just go to the ICBM bases and do the following:

1. Have a town hall or three with the missile crews. Start off by saying, "Folks, we've neglected you as people over the years, but we're gonna fix it, starting here and now. You are no longer part of the nuclear enterprise. You are part of our nation's sword and shield as part of the nuclear strike mission. " Then you show a video of just why the ICBM force has meant so much to our country, and, by extension, the Free World, over the years. Matter of fact, having a robust nuclear strike force is one reason you rarely hear the term Free World used any more.

2. Then it's Q and A time. Questions and answers are noted.

3. Later, the CSAF sits down with his Global Strike Command top leaders and tasks them to develop a roadmap to getting the ICBM crews' morale back on track, giving careful consideration to all suggestions, ideas, complaints, and criticisms garnered from the town halls. The CSAF also says nobody at the table is PCSing or will be considered for promotion until things are fixed.

4. The CSAF gets the roadmap and tracks the implementation thereof.

Oversimplified? Yes. Does it need to be done? The answer is self-evident.

Otis

Okie
01-19-2014, 05:52 PM
Chief B said what I was trying to say in the other thread, only more eloquently.

Otis, let's just skip over your #1 suggestion. Speaking as if I were a missileer (I'm not), I don't need to see a stupid video, and I don't need some big-wig who doesn't give a crap about me blowing sunshine up my exhaust telling me how important I am. Don't tell me you care; SHOW me. Leadership has shown they are WOEFULLY out of touch with the people in this mission. A sign of good faith would be to let go of the "Transmit" button and listen for a change. This brings us to your #2 - Q&A. Find out the problems - straight from the field - and work the big ones first. The more you show you care, the more trust you will build.

Just mi dos centavos,
Okie

BISSBOSS
01-19-2014, 06:44 PM
IG inspectors themselves need to be thoroughly vetted in the areas of attitude, expertise and motivation. The AF IG used to have a school for inspectors but not all command inspection personnel attended. Command Inspector Schools need to be formed to teach proper inspection techniques, test writing, observation methods and inspector conduct.


The use of untrained/unschooled command inspector augmenters should cease. Identified augmenters should be properly schooled in inspection techniques and inspector conduct.

ChiefB... Agreed! The AF has gone a long way towards just that!

The Air Force Inspection Agency (AFIA) now certifies ALL Nuke IG person ell and in USAFE at least, Augmentee inspectors were certified by AFIA as well.. At least I know I was.

-BB-

OtisRNeedleman
01-19-2014, 07:03 PM
Chief B said what I was trying to say in the other thread, only more eloquently.

Otis, let's just skip over your #1 suggestion. Speaking as if I were a missileer (I'm not), I don't need to see a stupid video, and I don't need some big-wig who doesn't give a crap about me blowing sunshine up my exhaust telling me how important I am. Don't tell me you care; SHOW me. Leadership has shown they are WOEFULLY out of touch with the people in this mission. A sign of good faith would be to let go of the "Transmit" button and listen for a change. This brings us to your #2 - Q&A. Find out the problems - straight from the field - and work the big ones first. The more you show you care, the more trust you will build.

Just mi dos centavos,
Okie

Okie,

I recommend showing the video because I believe many of our younger missileers are not up on their history. They need to know the background of the force they are part of, and why their service today is still important.

I agree the missileers need to be shown someone cares. Showing someone cares, in my opinion, starts by someone showing up. Having the CSAF show up to discuss your needs is a start, and right now I don't believe his presence in such a town hall can be delegated. And I fully agree with you that management - they are not leaders at all - is pathetically out of touch with those who are carrying out the mission.

Our difference are of style, not of substance.

Otis

Chief_KO
01-19-2014, 07:29 PM
General Lemay was CINCSAC (not COMSAC) for eight years. When he took over it was pathetic (see the earlier Ham sandwich reference). By the time he left SAC it was top dog. Owning 2/3 of the nuclear triad, owning the refueling fleet, personnel being "SACimsized" for their entire career. The sole purpose of the DOD, USAF, SAC back then was to deter the Soviet Union and if that were to fail it was Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) time. We had enough nukes to blow up planet earth 20 times over and they did too.
Thank God (or deity of your choice), MAD never happened. Sure, we did have non-nuclear actions (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, etc.) during the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and SAC did not always "play well" with TAC/PACAF/USAFE forces. As a child/teen I clearly remember "Nuclear Fallout Shelter" signs on schools, duck and cover drills under our desks & hallways in the 60's -70's.
We won the Cold War, the wall fell, the Soviet Union (while an enemy, it was a contained & identifiable enemy), exploded into dozens (or more) nations, states, tribes, factions, etc. We took planes off alert, grounded 24/7 airborne command post, changed the targeting of missiles from Moscow to who knows where (I guess either Gilligan's Island, Amelia Earhart's crash site, or Jimmy Hoffa's grave).
SAC, TAC, MAC became ACC & AMC, and the nuke mission was split between ACC & AFSPC...yeah THAT made a lot of sense...
We were "fat dumb & happy" for 10 years, then came 9/11.
Now the sole purpose of the DoD, USAF is to deter aggression from some guys (or gals, or children, or animals) that fly planes into places, blow up planes, blow up sporting events, blow up markets, restaurants, etc. or to kill them where they stand before they can do said actions.
We had the visible, tangible, touchable support of the American people to do so for about 1 year after 9/11...then it eroded for a multitude of reasons.
Now we are more interested in giving everyone (inside and outside our borders (which are more porous than a spaghetti strainer)) $benefit$ so they will like us. Our own courts strike down efforts to only strip search "persons of interest" because it is profiling, etc. etc. etc.

Sad to say this, but I think the overwhelming majority of the country is totally unaware and unsupportive of our nuclear mission and would desire to continue the efforts to dismantle it all together.

Airborne
01-19-2014, 07:42 PM
General Lemay was CINCSAC (not COMSAC) for eight years. When he took over it was pathetic (see the earlier Ham sandwich reference). By the time he left SAC it was top dog. Owning 2/3 of the nuclear triad, owning the refueling fleet, personnel being "SACimsized" for their entire career. The sole purpose of the DOD, USAF, SAC back then was to deter the Soviet Union and if that were to fail it was Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) time. We had enough nukes to blow up planet earth 20 times over and they did too.
Thank God (or deity of your choice), MAD never happened. Sure, we did have non-nuclear actions (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, etc.) during the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and SAC did not always "play well" with TAC/PACAF/USAFE forces. As a child/teen I clearly remember "Nuclear Fallout Shelter" signs on schools, duck and cover drills under our desks & hallways in the 60's -70's.
We won the Cold War, the wall fell, the Soviet Union (while an enemy, it was a contained & identifiable enemy), exploded into dozens (or more) nations, states, tribes, factions, etc. We took planes off alert, grounded 24/7 airborne command post, changed the targeting of missiles from Moscow to who knows where (I guess either Gilligan's Island, Amelia Earhart's crash site, or Jimmy Hoffa's grave).
SAC, TAC, MAC became ACC & AMC, and the nuke mission was split between ACC & AFSPC...yeah THAT made a lot of sense...
We were "fat dumb & happy" for 10 years, then came 9/11.
Now the sole purpose of the DoD, USAF is to deter aggression from some guys (or gals, or children, or animals) that fly planes into places, blow up planes, blow up sporting events, blow up markets, restaurants, etc. or to kill them where they stand before they can do said actions.
We had the visible, tangible, touchable support of the American people to do so for about 1 year after 9/11...then it eroded for a multitude of reasons.
Now we are more interested in giving everyone (inside and outside our borders (which are more porous than a spaghetti strainer)) $benefit$ so they will like us. Our own courts strike down efforts to only strip search "persons of interest" because it is profiling, etc. etc. etc.

Sad to say this, but I think the overwhelming majority of the country is totally unaware and unsupportive of our nuclear mission and would desire to continue the efforts to dismantle it all together.

Im in the military and all I know about it is that I dont want to get orders to anywhere that has it. I, too, would be supportive of shutting the program down, or severely cutting it. As someone who came of age in post Cold War yet pre 9/11 America what am I supposed to know about the nuclear enterprise (outside of the NCOA/PDG drivel) and how it does it affect me as an American on a daily basis? Are your feeling more nostalgic since you cut your teeth during those SAC days?

Okie
01-19-2014, 08:37 PM
Okie,

I recommend showing the video because I believe many of our younger missileers are not up on their history. They need to know the background of the force they are part of, and why their service today is still important.

Ah. In that context, OK, but let's show that video in PME and commissioning sources as well. Let's not limit it to just the missileers. My visceral reaction was because I have been subjected to numerous "feel-good" or "spirit" videos, and they turn me off.

OtisRNeedleman
01-19-2014, 10:15 PM
Ah. In that context, OK, but let's show that video in PME and commissioning sources as well. Let's not limit it to just the missileers. My visceral reaction was because I have been subjected to numerous "feel-good" or "spirit" videos, and they turn me off.

Sounds good to me.

Chief_KO
01-19-2014, 11:11 PM
Im in the military and all I know about it is that I dont want to get orders to anywhere that has it. I, too, would be supportive of shutting the program down, or severely cutting it. As someone who came of age in post Cold War yet pre 9/11 America what am I supposed to know about the nuclear enterprise (outside of the NCOA/PDG drivel) and how it does it affect me as an American on a daily basis? Are your feeling more nostalgic since you cut your teeth during those SAC days?

Not really nostalgic, just putting forth the facts that for at least 20+ years (I'll start with the Cuban Missile Crisis) it was truly US vs USSR, from the space race to the Olympics (1972 Mens Basketball & 1980 Miracle on Ice), to the Cold War (with "domino wars" in Korea, Vietnam). I don't remember how often we did duck and cover in school (probably 1-2 times a year), but the Civil Defense sirens would sound every Saturday at noon. I can't see us returning to a similar mindset and "all in" with regards to GWOT, etc. Heck, we couldn't even keep the name GWOT...we had to spin off into OEF, OIF, OND, OCO, etc.
So, like you even said...you would support shutting it down or severely cutting it. So, if even those in uniform don't see the mission need, the issues go farther than the gates of FE Warren, Malmstrom, Minot, Barksdale, or Grand Forks.

BURAWSKI
01-19-2014, 11:45 PM
President Obama indicated a desire to rid our arsenal of nuclear weapons (but to be fair, so did Reagan, and Bush 41). The whole concept is looked at differently today then 30-40 years ago. It reminds me of the Space Program. I can remember when our government was behind it but today it isn't the case. That may be a big part of the problem.

TomTom093
01-20-2014, 01:46 AM
Here's a great article I read today regarding how units improved in WWII when poor performance wasn't tolerated (I can't post links yet, so you'll have to copy/paste)

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-failure/309148/

ChiefB
01-20-2014, 05:51 AM
Here's a great article I read today regarding how units improved in WWII when poor performance wasn't tolerated (I can't post links yet, so you'll have to copy/paste)

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-failure/309148/

You are correct, TT093... It is a great article and this is one of the best observations I have read about how leadership continues to survive despite failing to lead:

"Bizarrely, the tactical excellence of enlisted soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan may have enabled and amplified the strategic incompetence of the generals in those wars, allowing long-running problems in the military’s leadership culture to reach their full expression. The Army’s combat effectiveness let its generals dither for much longer than they could have if the Army had been suffering clear tactical setbacks. “One of the reasons we were able to hold on despite a failing strategy, and then turn the situation around, was that our soldiers continued to be led by highly competent, professional junior officers and noncommissioned officers whom they respected,” Sean MacFarland, who as a brigade commander in Ramadi in 2006 was responsible for a major counterinsurgency success, said at a 2010 Army symposium on leadership. “And they gave us senior officers the breathing space that we needed, but probably didn’t deserve, to properly understand the fight we were in.”

"MacFarland’s point is rarely made, and worth pausing over, because its implications are far-reaching. Consider a U.S. military at the other extreme—tactically mediocre and manned with unmotivated troops. In such a circumstance, it is hard to imagine the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan being allowed to meander for years without serious strategic review and redirection. Yet meander they did, at the cost of many thousands of lives—both American and Iraqi. Unless something changes at the top, it is not hard to see our future wars devolving into similarly rudderless messes, held together by the rank-and-file troops, who bear the heaviest costs."


I see a similar problem in the "Nuclear Enterprise" as it exists today in our Air Force.

Thanks a lot for pointing out the article.

ChiefB
01-21-2014, 04:00 PM
An excerpt from The NY Times published in the AF Early Bird Brief today shows the multiple incidents of misbehavior by the commissioned missile force as they act out their frustration and discontent with the "Nuclear Enterprise" as it operates today. Hello, Papa Air Force... is anyone really listening?

"A RAND Corporation study, reported by The A.P. in November, found “burnout” among launch officers and broader behavioral issues, like sexual assaults and domestic violence. It said that in 2011 and 2012, court-martial rates in the nuclear missile force were more than twice as high as in the overall Air Force; written reprimands for rule violations and other misbehavior were also higher."

"The nuclear force is afflicted by morale problems because its mission has lost cachet in an era when the nation’s focus is on terrorism and cyber threats. Experts say the Air Force has made it hard for missile operators to transfer into cyber, drone or space operations, which have more potential for promotion.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is willing to consider additional incentives to bolster these troops."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/opinion/whats-happening-with-the-air-force.html?_r=1

The SECDEF better be listening because this problem is just going to get worse before it will get better. The acting out by the junior officers involved has been one big cry for help and so far adequate solutions have not been found or all the noise is going in a tin ear.

Additionally a GSC Command senior officer has set an example of public intoxication, lack of couth and inappropriate association all in front of a world-wide audience in Russia. His being relieved and reassigned without punitive judgment was a demonstration of tolerance for the absurd and lack of "Officership" that I'll wager will not be duplicated in the adjudication of his junior brethren of this "Nuclear Enterprise" scandal.

BISSBOSS
01-21-2014, 04:05 PM
An excerpt from The NY Times published in the AF Early Bird Brief today shows the multiple incidents of misbehavior by the commissioned missile force as they act out their frustration and discontent with the "Nuclear Enterprise" as it operates today. Hello, Papa Air Force... is anyone really listening?

"A RAND Corporation study, reported by The A.P. in November, found “burnout” among launch officers and broader behavioral issues, like sexual assaults and domestic violence. It said that in 2011 and 2012, court-martial rates in the nuclear missile force were more than twice as high as in the overall Air Force; written reprimands for rule violations and other misbehavior were also higher."


"The nuclear force is afflicted by morale problems because its mission has lost cachet in an era when the nation’s focus is on terrorism and cyber threats. Experts say the Air Force has made it hard for missile operators to transfer into cyber, drone or space operations, which have more potential for promotion.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is willing to consider additional incentives to bolster these troops."



The SECDEF better be listening because this problem is just going to get worse before it will get better. The acting out by the junior officers involved has been one big cry for help and so far adequate solutions have not been found or all the noise is going in a tin ear.

Additionally a GSC Command senior officer has set an example of public intoxication, lack of couth and inappropriate association all in front of a world-wide audience in Russia. His being relieved and reassigned without punitive judgment was a demonstration of tolerance for the absurd and lack of "Officership" that I'll wager will not be duplicated in the adjudication of his junior brethren of this "Nuclear Enterprise" scandal.


Concur.

Couldn't have said it ANY better!

The AF is GREAT at treating symptoms...

-BB-

Chief_KO
01-21-2014, 04:37 PM
From Military Times article: "Last week, Hagel made the first visit to a nuclear missile launch control center by a Pentagon chief since 1982."

Hmmm 31 years....

BISSBOSS
01-21-2014, 05:18 PM
From Military Times article: "Last week, Hagel made the first visit to a nuclear missile launch control center by a Pentagon chief since 1982."

Hmmm 31 years....

31 years indeed...

I don't see how Missile Officers could get any other message other than "You guys are in a part of the Air Force no one want to deal with".

It will be VERY interesting to see what Big Blue's next move will be. The next actions taken by AF Leadership may indicate whether or not the AF is moving towards finding and correcting the root cause of the problems.

-BB-

Chief_KO
01-21-2014, 06:50 PM
And now it appears those outstanding missileers might be seeing their pay increased!
Yeah, that (and the new & improved burgers & tots) will fix the problems...

BISSBOSS
01-21-2014, 07:09 PM
And now it appears those outstanding missileers might be seeing their pay increased!
Yeah, that (and the new & improved burgers & tots) will fix the problems...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjkr2T5yuNs

-BB-

BURAWSKI
01-22-2014, 02:35 AM
My service is Navy and I think there are similar situations occurring as well. A few years ago there was a cheating scandal involving senior enlisted, but I am unsure what is like now. I remember Navy Nuclear Power as being up there with SEALS and special operations. Based on the state of the Navy today I couldn't begin to speculate on what the state of nuclear weapons on submarines would be.

imported_chipotleboy
01-23-2014, 07:34 PM
An excerpt from The NY Times published in the AF Early Bird Brief today shows the multiple incidents of misbehavior by the commissioned missile force as they act out their frustration and discontent with the "Nuclear Enterprise" as it operates today. Hello, Papa Air Force... is anyone really listening?

"A RAND Corporation study, reported by The A.P. in November, found “burnout” among launch officers and broader behavioral issues, like sexual assaults and domestic violence. It said that in 2011 and 2012, court-martial rates in the nuclear missile force were more than twice as high as in the overall Air Force; written reprimands for rule violations and other misbehavior were also higher."

"The nuclear force is afflicted by morale problems because its mission has lost cachet in an era when the nation’s focus is on terrorism and cyber threats. Experts say the Air Force has made it hard for missile operators to transfer into cyber, drone or space operations, which have more potential for promotion.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is willing to consider additional incentives to bolster these troops."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/opinion/whats-happening-with-the-air-force.html?_r=1

The SECDEF better be listening because this problem is just going to get worse before it will get better. The acting out by the junior officers involved has been one big cry for help and so far adequate solutions have not been found or all the noise is going in a tin ear.

Additionally a GSC Command senior officer has set an example of public intoxication, lack of couth and inappropriate association all in front of a world-wide audience in Russia. His being relieved and reassigned without punitive judgment was a demonstration of tolerance for the absurd and lack of "Officership" that I'll wager will not be duplicated in the adjudication of his junior brethren of this "Nuclear Enterprise" scandal.

And then there is the adult response to the situation...which is voting with your feet. That's what one of my engineers did last year. He was a top-notch AFIT grad who did a career broadening assignment as a missilier that was supposed to be a career-enhancing "good deal". What he experienced was enough to say "no thanks" after completing his ADSC for the "good deal". He's now a highly-paid contractor.

BURAWSKI
01-23-2014, 07:53 PM
Just saw this in today's headlines:

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140123/NEWS05/301230016/SecDef-Hagel-ordering-full-review-nuclear-force

It appears to be getting worse. At least the civilian leadership recognizes that there is a problem with the Nuclear Force.

Juggs
01-23-2014, 10:49 PM
Curtis Lemay is rolling over in his grave right now. :mmph
We all know or at least have a pretty good idea of the problems the nuke force is facing; low morale, few opportunities for advancement or PCS, etc. The good news is a solution for this has been available all along. Look at what SAC did for certifications and proficiency when it was around: Zero-notice ORIs to verify the real-world readiness of its units, fast promotions for those who made and exeeded the standards and equally fast demotions for those who did not and recognition for those who actually gave a damn about their jobs. Why can that not be implemented again?

You mean he is rolling over again.

Sunshine52
01-23-2014, 11:35 PM
To provide a little perspective from the bomber side of the nuclear mission, "cheating" isn't solely reserved for the ICBM force. During my 12+ years as nuclear certified aircrew at both Minot and Barksdale, in ACC and now AFGSC, I can tell you that "cooperate and survive" was, and still is, a mantra of the nuclear aircrews.

Specifically, monthly and recurring Nuclear testing for aircrews is done as a crew. All five members sitting together at a table as testing occurs to simulate the situation on the aircraft were we to find ourselves flying a nuclear mission. Although discussion and conversation is allowed amongst individual crews during testing, as it would be on the aircraft, discussions between two different crews is not permitted. Or so the story goes. In reality, tables are arranged such that cooperative testing occurs between crews sitting at neighboring tables. As one crew reaches a conclusion or answer they announce to the table "Looks like we're executed" or "our free release window closes at 01/1123". Ostensibly, this announcement is only to the other members of their crew sitting at their table, but in reality, it's audible enough that neighboring tables also hear the answer. As each individual table comes to their own conclusions, it's a good way to cooperativley check answers amongst all crews in the room. If you don't get the same answer as your neighboring table, it's time to go back and scrub your work to see if you've made an error.

Another common "cheating" tactic during aircrew testing is to take advantage of the poor cleaning job done on decode documents used between testing sessions. As crews test we generally use laminated decode documents and grease pencils/markers to write down message traffic. As calculations are made, and answers determined, we use the laminated sheets to write down the numbers and/or answers. At the end of testing, aircrew are supposed to wipe clean their own laminated sheets so the crews in following sessions can reuse them. However, it's not uncommon to get a laminated sheet that was only superficially wiped clean so they appear clean at first glance, but when looked at closely, calculations and answers are still visible. When the following sessions show up, and they begin their own decodes and calculations, they can see the results from the morning session.

There are other "cheating" TTPs out there, but those are the two most common.

I will also say that this "cheating" isn't necessarily malicious. It's not like all the people at the table are shouting out the answers for the neighboring tables, but it's understood that if you hear an answer from the neighboring table, you keep that in your mind as you check your own. Same goes with the cleaning of the decode sheets. It's not like the aircrew are purposely leaving calcualtions and work on the sheets, but since it's usually a rush job to get the sheets cleaned and the next session in, its common to find poorly cleaned sheets. So when you do your own claculations and the same number appears on the sheet from the previous session, you know you've probably got the right answer.

The reality is things are significantly worse now than they were when I first started. Senior leadership thinks that things are getting better because they stood up AFGSC and have a "focus" on the mission. Horse s*&^. Fact of the matter is that 12+ years ago, we had better resources, more personnel, and less tangential BS to detract from our mission. You want to know why SAC was so good at the nuclear mission? It's because that's all they did. They didn't do All Calls every other week, they didn't do SARC training, they didn't deploy every 18 months, they didn't do mandatory PT, and they certainly didn't spend days writing OPR bullets or award packages.

I'd also point out that aircrew and missileers now have to know so many different kinds of mission sets and weapons that it's impossible to be an expert on any of them. And yet senior leadership keeps telling us the standard is "perfection". Has anyone ever done their job perfectly every day? Do senior leaders sit in their offices and make perfect decisions every day? If they can't be perfect every day, then how can they expect us to be perfect every day?

Add to this the climate of fear and retribution that now permeates the nuclear force and it's no surprise there are morale problems. One mistake by you or a subordinate and your career is over. Minot is known as the place careers go to die for a reason. How do you think that plays on morale to know you have a greater chance of having your career ended while in a nuclear assignment than in any other job/location in the Air Force?

Bottom line, there are systemic and structural problems that permeate the entire nuclear enterprise that are beyond the abilities of Airmen, SNCO's, Capt's, LtCol's and Col's to fix. There is too much too do, too much to know, too many distractions and too few people and resources for the guys on the flightline and in the silos to be "perfect". And knowing we're being set up to fail by the very senior leadership that proclaims we're valuable and important is why morale sucks and will continue to be so.

BURAWSKI
01-24-2014, 12:39 AM
To provide a little perspective from the bomber side of the nuclear mission, "cheating" isn't solely reserved for the ICBM force. During my 12+ years as nuclear certified aircrew at both Minot and Barksdale, in ACC and now AFGSC, I can tell you that "cooperate and survive" was, and still is, a mantra of the nuclear aircrews.

Specifically, monthly and recurring Nuclear testing for aircrews is done as a crew. All five members sitting together at a table as testing occurs to simulate the situation on the aircraft were we to find ourselves flying a nuclear mission. Although discussion and conversation is allowed amongst individual crews during testing, as it would be on the aircraft, discussions between two different crews is not permitted. Or so the story goes. In reality, tables are arranged such that cooperative testing occurs between crews sitting at neighboring tables. As one crew reaches a conclusion or answer they announce to the table "Looks like we're executed" or "our free release window closes at 01/1123". Ostensibly, this announcement is only to the other members of their crew sitting at their table, but in reality, it's audible enough that neighboring tables also hear the answer. As each individual table comes to their own conclusions, it's a good way to cooperativley check answers amongst all crews in the room. If you don't get the same answer as your neighboring table, it's time to go back and scrub your work to see if you've made an error.

Another common "cheating" tactic during aircrew testing is to take advantage of the poor cleaning job done on decode documents used between testing sessions. As crews test we generally use laminated decode documents and grease pencils/markers to write down message traffic. As calculations are made, and answers determined, we use the laminated sheets to write down the numbers and/or answers. At the end of testing, aircrew are supposed to wipe clean their own laminated sheets so the crews in following sessions can reuse them. However, it's not uncommon to get a laminated sheet that was only superficially wiped clean so they appear clean at first glance, but when looked at closely, calculations and answers are still visible. When the following sessions show up, and they begin their own decodes and calculations, they can see the results from the morning session.

There are other "cheating" TTPs out there, but those are the two most common.

I will also say that this "cheating" isn't necessarily malicious. It's not like all the people at the table are shouting out the answers for the neighboring tables, but it's understood that if you hear an answer from the neighboring table, you keep that in your mind as you check your own. Same goes with the cleaning of the decode sheets. It's not like the aircrew are purposely leaving calcualtions and work on the sheets, but since it's usually a rush job to get the sheets cleaned and the next session in, its common to find poorly cleaned sheets. So when you do your own claculations and the same number appears on the sheet from the previous session, you know you've probably got the right answer.

The reality is things are significantly worse now than they were when I first started. Senior leadership thinks that things are getting better because they stood up AFGSC and have a "focus" on the mission. Horse s*&^. Fact of the matter is that 12+ years ago, we had better resources, more personnel, and less tangential BS to detract from our mission. You want to know why SAC was so good at the nuclear mission? It's because that's all they did. They didn't do All Calls every other week, they didn't do SARC training, they didn't deploy every 18 months, they didn't do mandatory PT, and they certainly didn't spend days writing OPR bullets or award packages.

I'd also point out that aircrew and missileers now have to know so many different kinds of mission sets and weapons that it's impossible to be an expert on any of them. And yet senior leadership keeps telling us the standard is "perfection". Has anyone ever done their job perfectly every day? Do senior leaders sit in their offices and make perfect decisions every day? If they can't be perfect every day, then how can they expect us to be perfect every day?

Add to this the climate of fear and retribution that now permeates the nuclear force and it's no surprise there are morale problems. One mistake by you or a subordinate and your career is over. Minot is known as the place careers go to die for a reason. How do you think that plays on morale to know you have a greater chance of having your career ended while in a nuclear assignment than in any other job/location in the Air Force?

Bottom line, there are systemic and structural problems that permeate the entire nuclear enterprise that are beyond the abilities of Airmen, SNCO's, Capt's, LtCol's and Col's to fix. There is too much too do, too much to know, too many distractions and too few people and resources for the guys on the flightline and in the silos to be "perfect". And knowing we're being set up to fail by the very senior leadership that proclaims we're valuable and important is why morale sucks and will continue to be so.

This has to be the most clearest comment I've seen on this. Unfortunately this also applies to most other communities in all of the services nowadays. I think it really is getting worse. I have been called a has been who doesn't know what the hell I am talking about because I am not on active duty and have no clue what the real military is like. I beg to differ though. True, I don't have the insight of actually being active duty, but I gotta tell you, I believe I have it about right when it comes to assessing the true state of morale. I also wouldn't survive in today's military. Sorry to say that I would either be forced out on either a court-martial, PT failure, or drummed out for being a (what is that one?, oh yeah!) a non-team player who doesn't support the MISSION (never mind the MISSION has nothing to do anymore with the operational side of the house, or for that matter, your actual JOB!

BURAWSKI
01-24-2014, 12:50 AM
Also, I forgot to say that I really think General Curtis Lamay would be considered over-rated in today's Air Force. If he were on active duty today I don't think he would last at all; he had to be one of the most politically-incorrect generals I ever read about. I would have enjoyed working for him.

wxjumper
01-24-2014, 03:06 AM
You know the situation is bad when you receive a CNN breaking news alert on the matter. lol, an "independent review" which basically mean somebody is given 6 months to write a report (turns into a year after they ask for an extension), the report is published, and then not much of anything happens. ohh, it will probably cost the tax payers a few million duckets.


Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is ordering an independent review of the nation's nuclear force following allegations of misconduct involving officers, the Pentagon said on Thursday.

The most recent scandal involved 34 Air Force officers entrusted with maintaining U.S. nuclear missiles who are accused of cheating on a competency test or turning a blind eye to the cheating. It was uncovered during a drug possession investigation at multiple air bases in the United States and overseas.

Another recent case involved a U.S. general who oversaw nuclear weapons who was relieved of his duties after he boozed, fraternized with "hot women" and disrespected his hosts during an official visit to Russia.

For complete coverage of breaking news, go to CNN TV, CNN.com and CNN Mobile.

Bunch
01-24-2014, 03:10 AM
Apparently they have ran out of tater tots...

BURAWSKI
01-24-2014, 03:26 AM
That Op-Ed is what I would call disinformation.

Bunch
01-24-2014, 04:36 AM
You know the situation is bad when you receive a CNN breaking news alert on the matter. lol, an "independent review" which basically mean somebody is given 6 months to write a report (turns into a year after they ask for an extension), the report is published, and then not much of anything happens. ohh, it will probably cost the tax payers a few million duckets.


Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is ordering an independent review of the nation's nuclear force following allegations of misconduct involving officers, the Pentagon said on Thursday.

The most recent scandal involved 34 Air Force officers entrusted with maintaining U.S. nuclear missiles who are accused of cheating on a competency test or turning a blind eye to the cheating. It was uncovered during a drug possession investigation at multiple air bases in the United States and overseas.

Another recent case involved a U.S. general who oversaw nuclear weapons who was relieved of his duties after he boozed, fraternized with "hot women" and disrespected his hosts during an official visit to Russia.

For complete coverage of breaking news, go to CNN TV, CNN.com and CNN Mobile.

Nah... I think this is the type of case in which a report is hastily put together a few lower level officers and SNCO's are fired and senior leaders call "mission accomplished" only to have the same thing blowing up a few years down the road.

OtisRNeedleman
01-24-2014, 01:54 PM
That Op-Ed is what I would call disinformation.

Nah, I call it bullshit.

OtisRNeedleman
01-24-2014, 02:14 PM
To provide a little perspective from the bomber side of the nuclear mission, "cheating" isn't solely reserved for the ICBM force. During my 12+ years as nuclear certified aircrew at both Minot and Barksdale, in ACC and now AFGSC, I can tell you that "cooperate and survive" was, and still is, a mantra of the nuclear aircrews.

Specifically, monthly and recurring Nuclear testing for aircrews is done as a crew. All five members sitting together at a table as testing occurs to simulate the situation on the aircraft were we to find ourselves flying a nuclear mission. Although discussion and conversation is allowed amongst individual crews during testing, as it would be on the aircraft, discussions between two different crews is not permitted. Or so the story goes. In reality, tables are arranged such that cooperative testing occurs between crews sitting at neighboring tables. As one crew reaches a conclusion or answer they announce to the table "Looks like we're executed" or "our free release window closes at 01/1123". Ostensibly, this announcement is only to the other members of their crew sitting at their table, but in reality, it's audible enough that neighboring tables also hear the answer. As each individual table comes to their own conclusions, it's a good way to cooperativley check answers amongst all crews in the room. If you don't get the same answer as your neighboring table, it's time to go back and scrub your work to see if you've made an error.

Another common "cheating" tactic during aircrew testing is to take advantage of the poor cleaning job done on decode documents used between testing sessions. As crews test we generally use laminated decode documents and grease pencils/markers to write down message traffic. As calculations are made, and answers determined, we use the laminated sheets to write down the numbers and/or answers. At the end of testing, aircrew are supposed to wipe clean their own laminated sheets so the crews in following sessions can reuse them. However, it's not uncommon to get a laminated sheet that was only superficially wiped clean so they appear clean at first glance, but when looked at closely, calculations and answers are still visible. When the following sessions show up, and they begin their own decodes and calculations, they can see the results from the morning session.

There are other "cheating" TTPs out there, but those are the two most common.

I will also say that this "cheating" isn't necessarily malicious. It's not like all the people at the table are shouting out the answers for the neighboring tables, but it's understood that if you hear an answer from the neighboring table, you keep that in your mind as you check your own. Same goes with the cleaning of the decode sheets. It's not like the aircrew are purposely leaving calcualtions and work on the sheets, but since it's usually a rush job to get the sheets cleaned and the next session in, its common to find poorly cleaned sheets. So when you do your own claculations and the same number appears on the sheet from the previous session, you know you've probably got the right answer.

The reality is things are significantly worse now than they were when I first started. Senior leadership thinks that things are getting better because they stood up AFGSC and have a "focus" on the mission. Horse s*&^. Fact of the matter is that 12+ years ago, we had better resources, more personnel, and less tangential BS to detract from our mission. You want to know why SAC was so good at the nuclear mission? It's because that's all they did. They didn't do All Calls every other week, they didn't do SARC training, they didn't deploy every 18 months, they didn't do mandatory PT, and they certainly didn't spend days writing OPR bullets or award packages.

I'd also point out that aircrew and missileers now have to know so many different kinds of mission sets and weapons that it's impossible to be an expert on any of them. And yet senior leadership keeps telling us the standard is "perfection". Has anyone ever done their job perfectly every day? Do senior leaders sit in their offices and make perfect decisions every day? If they can't be perfect every day, then how can they expect us to be perfect every day?

Add to this the climate of fear and retribution that now permeates the nuclear force and it's no surprise there are morale problems. One mistake by you or a subordinate and your career is over. Minot is known as the place careers go to die for a reason. How do you think that plays on morale to know you have a greater chance of having your career ended while in a nuclear assignment than in any other job/location in the Air Force?

Bottom line, there are systemic and structural problems that permeate the entire nuclear enterprise that are beyond the abilities of Airmen, SNCO's, Capt's, LtCol's and Col's to fix. There is too much too do, too much to know, too many distractions and too few people and resources for the guys on the flightline and in the silos to be "perfect". And knowing we're being set up to fail by the very senior leadership that proclaims we're valuable and important is why morale sucks and will continue to be so.


Good to hear from the bomber side of the house.

Wish the CSAF would read this thread. I like to think he would be impressed at just how much people are concerned and how much people care, not just about the nuclear mission, but the AF.

Sadly, the AF's success is despite the "leadership", not because of it. Been that way for as long as I can remember. Can count the real leaders I had over 21 years of active duty on two hands, with fingers left over. And it's been a one-mistake AF for officers for as long as I can remember, but at least when I was on active duty a mistake made by a subordinate didn't kill your career. Guess we hadn't learned from the North Koreans yet.

What bothers me the most is that the obvious fix - use common sense, stop the rise of the social work aspect of the AF and the military in general, take care of the people - isn't going to happen unless and until something truly terrible happens. And that's a shame.

Sunshine52
01-24-2014, 07:19 PM
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is ordering an independent review of the nation's nuclear force following allegations of misconduct involving officers, the Pentagon said on Thursday.

The most recent scandal involved 34 Air Force officers entrusted with maintaining U.S. nuclear missiles who are accused of cheating on a competency test or turning a blind eye to the cheating. It was uncovered during a drug possession investigation at multiple air bases in the United States and overseas.



The actual number is 69 officers implicated. In addition, besides "cheating", some falsified official statements.

Chief_KO
01-24-2014, 07:28 PM
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is ordering an independent review of the nation's nuclear force following allegations of misconduct involving officers, the Pentagon said on Thursday.

The most recent scandal involved 34 Air Force officers entrusted with maintaining U.S. nuclear missiles who are accused of cheating on a competency test or turning a blind eye to the cheating. It was uncovered during a drug possession investigation at multiple air bases in the United States and overseas.



The actual number is 69 officers implicated. In addition, besides "cheating", some falsified official statements.

They had to change the report to avoid any sexual harassment charges

Sunshine52
01-28-2014, 08:52 PM
They had to change the report to avoid any sexual harassment charges

So now they're saying the number is 'approximately double the 34 originally stated'. Guess that means 69 without getting in trouble with sexual harrassment.

ChiefB
01-29-2014, 02:58 AM
Maybe the SECDEF is reading our forums... ya think?

A refresher: "The big challenge for the oversight and inspection systems we have in place for measuring the performance, knowledge and expertise of our Nuclear forces is first to recognize the fear of failure they engender in our personnel and the impetus that fear provides for them to cheat.


The answer is to provide a minimum of or elimination of closed-book, 100% passing rate tests, and a maximum of on-site observation of hands-on performance completing actions driven by thoroughly vetted emergency actions checklists and procedures.


IG testing at the closed-book, 85% passing rate is more than adequate in measuring matters that must be committed to memory. Local training/testing could remain at 100% for the purpose of identifying difficult knowledge areas and poor performers, but this 15% leeway would allow for human nature (hiccups, etc.) under the gun of inspectors.


It's known that some IG inspectors tend to write closed book exams that are rent with gotchas, whether they will admit that or not. The IG exams must be thoroughly vetted by independent officials that have the power to require changes to tricky, fuzzy or obtuse questions." (This Forum post #25)

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140128/NEWS05/301280019

"Hagel has raised the possibility of reconsidering the way ICBM launch crews are tested."

“We have a pretty significant and tight and unforgiving test curriculum and regimen that I’m not sure doesn’t need to be explored and examined in some detail,” Hagel told a news conference on Friday.

“Obviously, our standards can never be compromised,” he said. “This is a business of error-free management. And when you connect that with the high standard expectation at every test you take, if you don’t make a 100 percent on every test, then you’re eventually in a position where you probably minimize your chance for advancement.”

Hagel added: “We’re going to take a look at how we train and continue to train and test all these young people who have this great responsibility.”

Good idea, Mr. Secretary... good luck.

imported_KnuckleDragger
01-29-2014, 05:35 AM
What about the drugs?

BURAWSKI
01-30-2014, 04:35 PM
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/30/air-force-nuclear-cheating-scandal-expands-to-92-officers/

Not sure if anyone has seen the latest headlines that made international news as reported by CNN. It appears this scandal is widening and the Air Force is looking at a major black eye. And as if the scandal in San Antonio wasn't enough. It could signal the sign of bigger problems not only within the U.S. Air Force but throughout the military. I do know this scandal is affecting my service, the Navy as well.

imnohero
01-30-2014, 07:31 PM
LOL. Officers apparently aren't the paragons of virtue and discipline that makes them extra-special enough to be in charge of turning a key. This is like one of those key-stone cops, parody movies. If the AF isn't the laughing stock of the pentagon right now, they should be. Maybe pointing and laughing will get the CSAF off his ass, nothing else seems to.

waveshaper2
01-30-2014, 09:20 PM
What's more popular then cheating in Global Strike Command? Answer; Taking the 5th.
What AFSC in Global Strike Command currently is even busier/more stressed then ICBM Launch Control Officers? Answer; ADC officers.

ChiefB
01-31-2014, 04:24 AM
"Last week, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced a 60-day review (http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140123/NEWS05/301230016/SecDef-Hagel-ordering-full-review-nuclear-force) of the ICBM force, including bringing in Navy officials to review best practices. Officials had their first meeting Wednesday and reaffirmed their confidence in the nuclear community, James said."

To add to the service humiliation the SECDEF feels the Navy should review our AF procedures. General Lemay is spinning in his grave... I will bet on that.

"Getting to the bottom of problems with the nuclear community is James’ top priority, Hagel said Friday during her public swearing-in ceremony at the Pentagon, held one month after she officially took office."

The one month, after she officially took office, delayed swearing in, is certainly a good example of organizational competence and how they do official business up at the 5-sided palace.

With the complete failure of GO leadership at the GSC level and the poor leadership and personnel management at the organizational level, is it any wonder that junior officers at the missileer level are acting out and flailing around like high school boys/girls?

These junior officers learned and practiced their occupational bad habits and acting out techniques under the noses of their wing superiors, trainers and supervisors. Hello AF, what's the big mystery?

IMHO, no amount of incentives, awards or feel-good gimmicks will fix this problem until a mature, fair, and capable leadership environment is provided.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140130/NEWS/301300016

wxjumper
01-31-2014, 05:35 AM
Not surprised at all. Ex-launch officers who are no longer in the Air Force so they don't have to fear reprisal have been saying in the press the last couple weeks that it was unfair these 32 (at the time when it was only 32) are being singled out because EVERY single Officer did this due to the ridiculous rules the Air Force has.

If the Air Force keeps on digging, pretty soon they'll be able to implicate every last one of them. Even that dumb broad who wrote that blue kool aid paper at ACSC.

ChiefB
01-31-2014, 05:44 AM
Our friend "TAK" found this review by AF leadership as briefed to the press:

http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5362

Bunch
01-31-2014, 05:47 AM
If the Air Force keeps on digging, pretty soon they'll be able to implicate every last one of them. Even that dumb broad who wrote that blue kool aid paper at ACSC.

Agree 100%

ChiefB
01-31-2014, 06:06 AM
Not surprised at all. Ex-launch officers who are no longer in the Air Force so they don't have to fear reprisal have been saying in the press the last couple weeks that it was unfair these 32 (at the time when it was only 32) are being singled out because EVERY single Officer did this due to the ridiculous rules the Air Force has.

If the Air Force keeps on digging, pretty soon they'll be able to implicate every last one of them. Even that dumb broad who wrote that blue kool aid paper at ACSC.

Lets be real... this is a "system" problem and will be found throughout the NE from severe to moot depending on the skills of differing leadership styles and personalities. This is only the tip of this iceberg, wait 'till what's below the surface, surfaces.

"With an eye toward avoiding further surprises, Hagel's planned Pentagon summit meeting with top officers, as well as other actions announced Thursday, include participation by Navy officials responsible for their portion of the nuclear arsenal."

"The Navy has not suffered any recent reported lapses or failures within its nuclear submarine force, but Kirby said Hagel believed it would be imprudent for him not to examine the entirety of the arsenal."

"What the secretary wants to know," Kirby said, "is what else don't I know" about problems inside the force."

See:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140123/NEWS05/301230016/SecDef-Hagel-ordering-full-review-nuclear-force

imported_KnuckleDragger
01-31-2014, 06:42 AM
Our friend "TAK" found this review by AF leadership as briefed to the press:

http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5362

Good read.

92 involved with cheating(just at Malstrom AFB alone).

13 involved with drugs(still investigating....)

:no:

BURAWSKI
01-31-2014, 01:40 PM
Good read.

92 involved with cheating(just at Malstrom AFB alone).

13 involved with drugs(still investigating....)

:no:


What I like about this SECDEF as compared to Rumsfeld is that this guy isn't arrogant enough to think he has a handle on the magnitude of the problems plaguing all of the military. He is smart enough to recognize that he doesn't know exactly what the problems are but will systematically investigate until he does and able to fix it.

imported_chipotleboy
01-31-2014, 01:56 PM
Someone please explain to me why this mission can't be transferred to the Guard and Reserve.

Kicker47
01-31-2014, 04:19 PM
Someone please explain to me why this mission can't be transferred to the Guard and Reserve.

I would think it has to do with PRP.

I'm finding these articles incredibly amusing, as all of the issues, ideas, and problems that those of us in the Nuc Enterprise have been saying for the last 10+ years are now being talked about. From these articles, you'd think all this stuff is new.

Here's a little game we used to use on people when Big AF announced the "Nuc Enterprise" as their "#1 Priority". Go to af.mil and start reading the news headlines...count how many you go through until you reach a story about something done in relation to the Nuc Enterprise that is not a negative. :biggrin

Mcjohn1118
01-31-2014, 11:17 PM
Someone please explain to me why this mission can't be transferred to the Guard and Reserve.

Just today, over on the AF Times page, The National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force released their report confirming what most of us thought they would recommend to Congress: Transfer a ton of stuff to Guard and Reserve. I participated in one of their sessions in Columbus, OH. Ever member on the board was pro-Guard/Reserve and that is not a bad thing. Here is one part of the article (forgive me for not providing the link): Shifting the component mix from 69-31 active to reserve mix to a 58-42 mix could yield savings of $2 billion per year in manpower costs without any total force reduction, the report found. That could be achieved by moving large amounts of the ISR, cyber, space and ICBM missions into the Reserve.

BURAWSKI
01-31-2014, 11:38 PM
Just today, over on the AF Times page, The National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force released their report confirming what most of us thought they would recommend to Congress: Transfer a ton of stuff to Guard and Reserve. I participated in one of their sessions in Columbus, OH. Ever member on the board was pro-Guard/Reserve and that is not a bad thing. Here is one part of the article (forgive me for not providing the link): Shifting the component mix from 69-31 active to reserve mix to a 58-42 mix could yield savings of $2 billion per year in manpower costs without any total force reduction, the report found. That could be achieved by moving large amounts of the ISR, cyber, space and ICBM missions into the Reserve.

After WWI and WWII the military downsized quite a bit; I'm not sure about the reserve components. Also, right after WWI the higher ranking officers were "demoted" back to their ranks prior to the start of the hostilities (i.e, you had generals going back to LTCOL's or whatever they held before). Then the Military Industrial Complex started during the 1950's making the business of war a corporate effort and turning the military into a business of war. Our military wasn't meant for war to be run like a business, which seems to be what the leadership has been trying to do. It makes sense to "downsize" the military and augment many of these programs into the reserves. After all, we have to stop treating war as a business and start utilizing the military as it should be, and not a company for profit. It has gotten so bad that their is no longer a warrior mindset, it is corporate thinking with a business as usual attitude.

John Jameson
02-01-2014, 01:05 AM
“Obviously, our standards can never be compromised,” he said. “This is a business of error-free management. And when you connect that with the high standard expectation at every test you take, if you don’t make a 100 percent on every test, then you’re eventually in a position where you probably minimize your chance for advancement.”

Hagel added: “We’re going to take a look at how we train and continue to train and test all these young people who have this great responsibility.”

Good idea, Mr. Secretary... good luck.

Ironically, the guy they just appointed to head 20AF is the epitome of demanding 100% perfection in everything. I had the misfortune to work for him when he was a wing commander and when things didn't go "perfectly" (according to him), life was un-fun to say the least. He had every unit commander shaking and quaking that they would be fired at a moments notice for the most minor infraction i.e. the PowerPoint slide was the wrong shade of blue. Seems to me it's guys like him that have driven this nuke bus right off the cliff.

Gonzo432
02-01-2014, 01:23 AM
What I like about this SECDEF as compared to Rumsfeld is that this guy isn't arrogant enough to think he has a handle on the magnitude of the problems plaguing all of the military. He is smart enough to recognize that he doesn't know exactly what the problems are but will systematically investigate until he does and able to fix it.

What I don't like about this SECDEF is that I am infinitely more qualified for his job than he is. When it comes down to it he's a shake and bake grunt who went on to be a politician and picked up a BA in History along the way. Maybe that makes me arrogant too, but my resume is more impressive than Mumbles'.

ChiefB
02-01-2014, 05:07 AM
"Air Force brass: Culture of fear led to missileer cheating"

Ya think?

How about a poorly-supervised culture whose leaders look the other way because that's how they did it.

How about a culture where mid-level supervisors cook the books to keep their jobs?

How about a system that puts their most junior/immature officers in the hot seat with the most responsibility, (unlike the rated community that has a mix of mid-level to junior officers in the cockpit and ranking officers that stay qualified into their senior years)?

How about a system that has little upward mobility whereas the rated side of the house is the primary pool of future AF leaders?

How about looking at the stagnation, boredom and monotony of continuously monitoring a non-event?

This 50 plus year enterprise needs a top to bottom review of relevancy, methodology, manning, training, supervision and leadership.

See: http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140131/NEWS/301310004

OtisRNeedleman
02-01-2014, 05:49 AM
Our friend "TAK" found this review by AF leadership as briefed to the press:

http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5362


ChiefB, they can talk all they please but it means nothing to me until something is actually accomplished. Have this funny feeling some cosmetic changes will be made but overall things are still going to suck for the missile people.

ChiefB
02-01-2014, 05:58 AM
ChiefB, they can talk all they please but it means nothing to me until something is actually accomplished. Have this funny feeling some cosmetic changes will be made but overall things are still going to suck for the missile people.

I agree, and what's really out there hasn't surfaced yet...

Gonzo432
02-01-2014, 10:12 AM
I agree, and what's really out there hasn't surfaced yet...

I was going to reply with, "It's going to get worse?" Then I thought about the Deputy Ops Group/CC referring to his people as "rot" and that op-ed by the former Missile Sq/CC (Rand is nuts, morale is great, taters tots, YIPPEEEE!!!) and with this passing as leadership,,, whoa boy this could be worse than what we've already seen.

Mcjohn1118
02-01-2014, 12:19 PM
Here's one idea: Shut-down, at least temporarily, the ICBM portion of the triad. We will still have our bombers and subs. Believe me, the subs are the true giants. No one knows where they are. Anyway, once the launch facilities are down, then a full on review can be done. But not by the AF; maybe an independent group of retired Enlisted folks. We'll get to the bottom of this. An in-depth look from the bottom up not top down. Ask the missile chefs and facility managers what they see as the problem. Ask the cops and maintainers. ***Side Bar***In 2000, I was assigned to FE Warren and it was my first nuke experience as a cop. Anyway, until 2003, we were aligned under the Operations Group and our squadron CCs were missile officers. One reason was because this gave the missile crew officers a chance to lead enlisted members. It was horrible, in my squadron anyway. Maybe it was better in other squadrons. But the missile officers I worked with wouldn't listen to enlisted leaders because they already knew the answers in their mind and it appeared they didn't care too much what we thought. Then a miracle happened and we stood up SF Groups again.***Side Bar Over*** Anyway, we hear from the SECAF and SECDEF there needs to be a review; they caught wind of some morale issues when they were there. Look folks, these people were there for a day. We need a 2-3 month review. The only issue is while the E's will speak out, the O's will not because of fear or because they already know the answers. Ask the Sq CCs from 2003 when they worked for then Col Weinstein, 90 OG CC. They were scared then and now this guy is their 20 AF CC with 2-buttons on his collar.

John Jameson
02-01-2014, 01:25 PM
Ask the Sq CCs from 2003 when they worked for then Col Weinstein, 90 OG CC. They were scared then and now this guy is their 20 AF CC with 2-buttons on his collar.

yep. Ol' Jack Weinstein terrorized the unit leadership as a wing king too. Any deviations from the checklist/script and it was the end of the world. So many stories about Jack...

waveshaper2
02-01-2014, 02:02 PM
My gut feeling is that if a root cause analysis was conducted to determine when the downfall of the Nuclear Enterprise began it would lead back to the General McPeak timeframe (the demise of SAC and TQM).

Gonzo432
02-01-2014, 02:13 PM
yep. Ol' Jack Weinstein terrorized the unit leadership as a wing king too. Any deviations from the checklist/script and it was the end of the world. So many stories about Jack...

I knew him when he was DIRSPACEFOR at the Deid CAOC in 2005. I never had any issues with him, but a bud of mine who knew him at Vandenberg pretty much described him as OCD to the nth power.

BRUWIN
02-01-2014, 04:22 PM
Here's one idea: Shut-down, at least temporarily, the ICBM portion of the triad. We will still have our bombers and subs. Believe me, the subs are the true giants. No one knows where they are.

Leave it to the Navy? No way...those yahoos would screw that all up.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-01-2014, 04:41 PM
Here's one idea: Shut-down, at least temporarily, the ICBM portion of the triad. We will still have our bombers and subs. Believe me, the subs are the true giants. No one knows where they are. Anyway, once the launch facilities are down, then a full on review can be done. But not by the AF; maybe an independent group of retired Enlisted folks. We'll get to the bottom of this. An in-depth look from the bottom up not top down. Ask the missile chefs and facility managers what they see as the problem. Ask the cops and maintainers. ***Side Bar***In 2000, I was assigned to FE Warren and it was my first nuke experience as a cop. Anyway, until 2003, we were aligned under the Operations Group and our squadron CCs were missile officers. One reason was because this gave the missile crew officers a chance to lead enlisted members. It was horrible, in my squadron anyway. Maybe it was better in other squadrons. But the missile officers I worked with wouldn't listen to enlisted leaders because they already knew the answers in their mind and it appeared they didn't care too much what we thought. Then a miracle happened and we stood up SF Groups again.***Side Bar Over*** Anyway, we hear from the SECAF and SECDEF there needs to be a review; they caught wind of some morale issues when they were there. Look folks, these people were there for a day. We need a 2-3 month review. The only issue is while the E's will speak out, the O's will not because of fear or because they already know the answers. Ask the Sq CCs from 2003 when they worked for then Col Weinstein, 90 OG CC. They were scared then and now this guy is their 20 AF CC with 2-buttons on his collar.

Ask the chefs and facility managers?

Ask them what? About the quality of ranch dressing or the wattage of the lightbulbs in the latrines?

If I was in your chain of command, I'd have you piss tested for making that post.

Plus, you want to bring in a bunch of retired enlisted dinosaurs to conduct a review?

No thanks, those old guys would focus on a bunch of irrelevant crap and would be a big pain in the ass to get out in the missile field with their old man scooters and reaching sticks.

Mcjohn1118
02-01-2014, 04:53 PM
Ask the chefs and facility managers?

Ask them what? About the quality of ranch dressing or the wattage of the lightbulbs in the latrines?

If I was in your chain of command, I'd have you piss tested for making that post.

Plus, you want to bring in a bunch of retired enlisted dinosaurs to conduct a review?

No thanks, those old guys would focus on a bunch of irrelevant crap and would be a big pain in the ass to get out in the missile field with their old man scooters and reaching sticks.

Like the Carl the janitor in the Breakfast Club, the chefs and FMs are the eyes and ears of the institution. They know everything that happens on the MAF. As for retired Es or old folks conducting reviews, it's better than asking officers to conduct a review of their own. We'll learn nothing.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-01-2014, 05:05 PM
Like the Carl the janitor in the Breakfast Club, the chefs and FMs are the eyes and ears of the institution. They know everything that happens on the MAF. As for retired Es or old folks conducting reviews, it's better than asking officers to conduct a review of their own. We'll learn nothing.

You should have said that you are drawing your knowledge from a 1980s Brat Pack movie. By all means, let's implement your zany madcap ideas at once.

BURAWSKI
02-01-2014, 05:17 PM
Well the status quo isn't working either. Something needs to be done and the Nuclear Force can't be relied upon to police themselves. His point is valid in that somebody from the outside needs to come in and take a look at this. Also, at least he's kicking around suggestions on how to improve this situation instead of criticizing ideas. I am not throwing stones at the Air Force because I know that the Navy is having problems too, but aren't being publicized. Our nuclear submarines may run silent and deep but problems are festering that haven't been well publicized until a disaster hits. A previous poster said it best: This is just the tip of the iceberg.

ChiefB
02-02-2014, 11:47 AM
The SECDEF contacted the missile crews from an E4B returning from talks in Europe and asked questions and listened to the crew's concerns. He certainly impressed the crews.

I'd be interested to know how many times the missile crews had ever been contacted, on the job, by their unit section, squadron, wing leaders inquiring about their quality of life, work conditions or other concerns, up to this point.

I'd also be interested to hear why they didn't participate in the test cheating and what did they think was the motivation for others that did?

This SEDEF hasn't forgotten from whence he came. You can sense it in his reaction to this mess. I'm more impressed every day. I have to admit, I didn't think he had the credentials, when selected, but I'm coming around.

See: http://www.malmstrom.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123378794 (http://www.malmstrom.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123378794)

OtisRNeedleman
02-02-2014, 08:52 PM
The SECDEF contacted the missile crews from an E4B returning from talks in Europe and asked questions and listened to the crew's concerns. He certainly impressed the crews.

I'd be interested to know how many times the missile crews had ever been contacted, on the job, by their unit section, squadron, wing leaders inquiring about their quality of life, work conditions or other concerns, up to this point.

I'd also be interested to hear why they didn't participate in the test cheating and what did they think was the motivation for others that did?

This SEDEF hasn't forgotten from whence he came. You can sense it in his reaction to this mess. I'm more impressed every day. I have to admit, I didn't think he had the credentials, when selected, but I'm coming around.

See: http://www.malmstrom.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123378794 (http://www.malmstrom.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123378794)

Chief, I hear you, but talk is cheap. Until I hear of substantial improvements in morale of those carrying out the AF ICBM nuclear mission I don't pay much attention to who calls whom.

Sunshine52
02-02-2014, 10:05 PM
Mark my words, after several weeks of "investigations" and bottom up reviews, the AF will fire all or most of; the 341st WG/CC, OG/CC and some SQ/CCs, the new 341st leadership will say all the right AF things (integrity first, we care about you, etc), they will then pass an inspection with flying colors and the AF will call the problem resolved.

Until the next embarrassment in 9-15 months.

What the AF fails to realize is that the cultural and systemic problems facing the nuclear enterprise aren't a result of recent problems at the wing level. They are problems at the O8+ level and have been manifesting themselves in the culture that senior leadership itself has been developing since 2007.

If the AF really wants to send a message and start fixing things, pull the former Commanders of Global Strike Command, 20th AF and 8th AF out of their new staff jobs (or retirement) and discipline them for the problems that are now so obvious. Klotz, Kowalski, Carpenter, and Schwartz bear much more responsibility for what's going on than some O5 who's been in the job at the Wing or Squadron for 4 months.

But if one things been made abundantly clear over the past 7 years, the AF is much better at finding scapegoats than holding those actually responsible accountable.

BURAWSKI
02-02-2014, 10:26 PM
Holding people accountable is the problem. But holding the right people accountable is what is not happening. You are right in that the accountability has to apply to those at the top as well as everyone else. That isn't happening. I hate to get politics involved but I have to say that our politicians are not held accountable either. Either is Congress.

OtisRNeedleman
02-03-2014, 02:50 AM
Mark my words, after several weeks of "investigations" and bottom up reviews, the AF will fire all or most of; the 341st WG/CC, OG/CC and some SQ/CCs, the new 341st leadership will say all the right AF things (integrity first, we care about you, etc), they will then pass an inspection with flying colors and the AF will call the problem resolved.

Until the next embarrassment in 9-15 months.

What the AF fails to realize is that the cultural and systemic problems facing the nuclear enterprise aren't a result of recent problems at the wing level. They are problems at the O8+ level and have been manifesting themselves in the culture that senior leadership itself has been developing since 2007.

If the AF really wants to send a message and start fixing things, pull the former Commanders of Global Strike Command, 20th AF and 8th AF out of their new staff jobs (or retirement) and discipline them for the problems that are now so obvious. Klotz, Kowalski, Carpenter, and Schwartz bear much more responsibility for what's going on than some O5 who's been in the job at the Wing or Squadron for 4 months.

But if one things been made abundantly clear over the past 7 years, the AF is much better at finding scapegoats than holding those actually responsible accountable.

O-8+ level? I'd say O-5+ level, from reading the recent op-ed in AF Times. As I understand it, the field-grade officers in the missile field have grown up entirely within that field. So chances are if you are a missile unit commander, you are no stranger to eating your own young.

Having said that, sadly must agree with you the right things will be said, some heads will roll, some cosmetic changes will occur and things will slide right back to the way they were, if not worse.

Then everyone will be "shocked, shocked" when the next scandal happens, as you said, in the next 9-15 months.

And in the end it will be the poor crew people and support people who had their hopes raised for a while, dashed again, with the despair continuing to eat away, like a cancer, at the nuclear MISSION.

Seriously, if I were Chuck, I'd mandate the term "nuclear mission" be used instead of the term "nuclear enterprise". Ain't like we sell those nukes. If we ever have to, we'll drop them on or shoot them at an enemy at no charge to the recipient. And whoever thought up the term "nuclear enterprise"....please...go buy a clue somewhere.

ChiefB
02-03-2014, 04:50 AM
Mark my words, after several weeks of "investigations" and bottom up reviews, the AF will fire all or most of; the 341st WG/CC, OG/CC and some SQ/CCs, the new 341st leadership will say all the right AF things (integrity first, we care about you, etc), they will then pass an inspection with flying colors and the AF will call the problem resolved.

Until the next embarrassment in 9-15 months.

What the AF fails to realize is that the cultural and systemic problems facing the nuclear enterprise aren't a result of recent problems at the wing level. They are problems at the O8+ level and have been manifesting themselves in the culture that senior leadership itself has been developing since 2007.

If the AF really wants to send a message and start fixing things, pull the former Commanders of Global Strike Command, 20th AF and 8th AF out of their new staff jobs (or retirement) and discipline them for the problems that are now so obvious. Klotz, Kowalski, Carpenter, and Schwartz bear much more responsibility for what's going on than some O5 who's been in the job at the Wing or Squadron for 4 months.

But if one things been made abundantly clear over the past 7 years, the AF is much better at finding scapegoats than holding those actually responsible accountable.

Looks like the AF thinks differently on "leadership":

"341st Missile Wing Public Affairs Office staff

1/10/2014 - MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, Mont. -- Col. Robert W. Stanley II, 341st Missile Wing commander, was nominated by the president Jan. 8 for promotion to brigadier general.

Nominations for Stanley, along with 30 other Air Force officers, will now be sent to the U.S. Senate for confirmation. Included in those nominations is another name familiar to Malmstrom, Col. Stephen L. Davis, former vice commander here."

(Ref provided by TAK)

Gonzo432
02-03-2014, 09:58 AM
Looks like the AF thinks differently on "leadership":

"341st Missile Wing Public Affairs Office staff

1/10/2014 - MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, Mont. -- Col. Robert W. Stanley II, 341st Missile Wing commander, was nominated by the president Jan. 8 for promotion to brigadier general.

Nominations for Stanley, along with 30 other Air Force officers, will now be sent to the U.S. Senate for confirmation. Included in those nominations is another name familiar to Malmstrom, Col. Stephen L. Davis, former vice commander here."

(Ref provided by TAK)

When two Pave Hawks crashed at Nellis (killing 12) in 1998, both the Wing and OG CCs (Lay and New??) went on to make BG after ignoring concerns about safety. Unfortunately this looks like par for the course to me Chief. These guys go away and do staff work from a cubicle for a while, then get promoted after the smoke has cleared. The Internet has improved memory, this seems to be overlooked.

OtisRNeedleman
02-03-2014, 01:58 PM
Looks like the AF thinks differently on "leadership":

"341st Missile Wing Public Affairs Office staff

1/10/2014 - MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, Mont. -- Col. Robert W. Stanley II, 341st Missile Wing commander, was nominated by the president Jan. 8 for promotion to brigadier general.

Nominations for Stanley, along with 30 other Air Force officers, will now be sent to the U.S. Senate for confirmation. Included in those nominations is another name familiar to Malmstrom, Col. Stephen L. Davis, former vice commander here."

(Ref provided by TAK)
However, I have seen people nominated for that first star not get that star. Know a guy, former student of mine, great guy who was nominated for his first star. His nomination sat in some Pentagon bozo's inbasket while an investigation went on about a Starbucks on base when he was the base king. Investigation took a long time, nothing came out of it. By that time the nomination had expired - they apparently have time limits on them. Instead of being concerned about a renomination the guy just said "fuck it" and retired as a full bird. AF lost someone who should have ended up wearing at least two or three stars.

So just because someone is nominated it doesn't mean that star, or next star is going to show up. These scandals haven't fully played out, in my opinion.

imported_KnuckleDragger
02-03-2014, 02:00 PM
However, I have seen people nominated for that first star not get that star. Know a guy, former student of mine, great guy who was nominated for his first star. His nomination sat in some Pentagon bozo's inbasket while an investigation went on about a Starbucks on base when he was the base king. Investigation took a long time, nothing came out of it. By that time the nomination had expired - they apparently have time limits on them. Instead of being concerned about a renomination the guy just said "fuck it" and retired as a full bird. AF lost someone who should have ended up wearing at least two or three stars.

So just because someone is nominated it doesn't mean that star, or next star is going to show up. These scandals haven't fully played out, in my opinion.

Doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be nominated in the first place.

**Not talking about your buddy**

OtisRNeedleman
02-03-2014, 02:01 PM
Doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be nominated in the first place.

I fully agree. Just means that the star isn't always a slam-dunk.

imported_chipotleboy
02-03-2014, 02:07 PM
Here's one idea: Shut-down, at least temporarily, the ICBM portion of the triad.

I'll let you in on a secret...the launch facilities aren't really connected to anything. Do you seriously think we would trust our national security to a bunch of pajama wearing Lieutenants?

The ICBMs are actually controlled by a computer in Cheyenne Mountain. I learned this from watching a movie. It explains why we're not allowed to play games on our office computers.

imported_chipotleboy
02-03-2014, 02:14 PM
Doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be nominated in the first place.

**Not talking about your buddy**

I've seen that too. I had a BG wing commander who was one of the O-6s disciplined by Fogleman after the '94 Black Hawk shootdown. New CSAF gets appointed and the guy's career is resuscitated. He gets command of two wings, the second of which came with a star. And while other wing kings were being fired if they had a Class 1 mishap, our guy lost five jets, including two on a training mission in which he was flying, and nothing happens to him. Must be nice to have the CSAF as your pal.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-03-2014, 02:39 PM
I've seen that too. I had a BG wing commander who was one of the O-6s disciplined by Fogleman after the '94 Black Hawk shootdown. New CSAF gets appointed and the guy's career is resuscitated. He gets command of two wings, the second of which came with a star. And while other wing kings were being fired if they had a Class 1 mishap, our guy lost five jets, including two on a training mission in which he was flying, and nothing happens to him. Must be nice to have the CSAF as your pal.

My memory is hazy on this, but didn't Fogleman resign over a dispute about holding commanders accountable for lax security at Khobar Towers?

I had time to look it up, here is a link:

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA519105

Mcjohn1118
02-03-2014, 03:16 PM
I'll let you in on a secret...the launch facilities aren't really connected to anything. Do you seriously think we would trust our national security to a bunch of pajama wearing Lieutenants?

The ICBMs are actually controlled by a computer in Cheyenne Mountain. I learned this from watching a movie. It explains why we're not allowed to play games on our office computers.

Nice historic reference to War Games. Well played. In all seriousness, when I was at FEW, there were a few military folks I worked with that were convinced there were no nukes in the ground. Their theory was based on the fact that it takes a PhD to design them, a bachelor's or master's to launch them but a HS diploma for some pimply faced 19 year old to maintain or secure them. One would always say, "You can train someone to think a pen is a nuke. They never saw one before so how do they know what's real or not?"

imported_chipotleboy
02-03-2014, 04:54 PM
My memory is hazy on this, but didn't Fogleman resign over a dispute about holding commanders accountable for lax security at Khobar Towers?

I had time to look it up, here is a link:

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA519105

Foglemen pointed out that the deaths at Khobar were the result of enemy action, unlike the case of the Black Hawk Shootdown and the Fairchild B-52 crash. Also, the wing commander at Khobar Towers had tried repeatedly to get security upgraded, but was stonewalled by the Saudis and the US State Department. There was quite a paper trail backing him up. Fogleman's resignation not only had to do with Khobar, but also with the Kelly Flinn case. He wanted to let the justice system take its course, but Widnall wanted the case to go away. I think he said something in his going away message that he felt he was out-of-touch with the political leadership and didn't want that to negatively affect the Air Force.

If you want an interesting read on the whole accountability thing, I recommend Joan Piper's book on the Black Hawk Shootdown. Her daughter was a Lt on the first helo to be shot down. We're coming up on the 20 year anniversary, and I thought I'd revisit that event that had a huge impact back in the day. After the event, I interacted with a few of the senior officers involved in the case, and this helped me understand the politics I had to cope with.

imported_chipotleboy
02-03-2014, 04:57 PM
Nice historic reference to War Games. Well played. In all seriousness, when I was at FEW, there were a few military folks I worked with that were convinced there were no nukes in the ground. Their theory was based on the fact that it takes a PhD to design them, a bachelor's or master's to launch them but a HS diploma for some pimply faced 19 year old to maintain or secure them. One would always say, "You can train someone to think a pen is a nuke. They never saw one before so how do they know what's real or not?"

A few years back, I read a book by a Soviet defector (pen name 'Viktor Suvorov') who claimed the same things about their Strategic Rocket Forces. He claimed most of their ICBM warheads were inert, or chemical, or radiological. He said their nuclear industry was in such shambles that there was no way they could produce the plutonium needed for their warhead requirements.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-03-2014, 05:26 PM
A few years back, I read a book by a Soviet defector (pen name 'Viktor Suvorov') who claimed the same things about their Strategic Rocket Forces. He claimed most of their ICBM warheads were inert, or chemical, or radiological. He said their nuclear industry was in such shambles that there was no way they could produce the plutonium needed for their warhead requirements.

Their silo-based fleet had serious problems and a large portion of the silos were never launch ready. It had more to do with them being unable to maintain the environmental control systems in each silo. Keeping them at the right temperature and humidity was a struggle for them.

I've heard stories about silos flooded with water after the Cold War ended and the period of neglect during the Yeltsin era.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-03-2014, 05:32 PM
Foglemen pointed out that the deaths at Khobar were the result of enemy action, unlike the case of the Black Hawk Shootdown and the Fairchild B-52 crash. Also, the wing commander at Khobar Towers had tried repeatedly to get security upgraded, but was stonewalled by the Saudis and the US State Department. There was quite a paper trail backing him up. Fogleman's resignation not only had to do with Khobar, but also with the Kelly Flinn case. He wanted to let the justice system take its course, but Widnall wanted the case to go away. I think he said something in his going away message that he felt he was out-of-touch with the political leadership and didn't want that to negatively affect the Air Force.

If you want an interesting read on the whole accountability thing, I recommend Joan Piper's book on the Black Hawk Shootdown. Her daughter was a Lt on the first helo to be shot down. We're coming up on the 20 year anniversary, and I thought I'd revisit that event that had a huge impact back in the day. After the event, I interacted with a few of the senior officers involved in the case, and this helped me understand the politics I had to cope with.

The Fairchild B-52 crash was so damn sad and so unnecessary. One hotdog pilot killed all those guys, for nothing.

You'd think we learned from that but we lost a C-17 a few years later under identical circumstances practicing for a air show.

jmb27
02-03-2014, 05:51 PM
Nice historic reference to War Games. Well played. In all seriousness, when I was at FEW, there were a few military folks I worked with that were convinced there were no nukes in the ground. Their theory was based on the fact that it takes a PhD to design them, a bachelor's or master's to launch them but a HS diploma for some pimply faced 19 year old to maintain or secure them. One would always say, "You can train someone to think a pen is a nuke. They never saw one before so how do they know what's real or not?"

As a maintainer I always heard a lot of that. When I was 20 years old I was driving a truck larger than most commercial trucks across the interstate, from the silo to the base, in a convoy with up to 10 nukes in the back. Most trucking industries wouldn't have considered me old enough to drive produce the same distance.

BURAWSKI
02-04-2014, 01:24 AM
How the heck are you expected to maintain morale and willingness to go the extra mile when you start reading things like this:

http://www.govexec.com/defense/2014/01/dont-be-fooled-military-benefits-are-chopping-block/77804/

Here is how I see it. If the civilian leadership doesn't respect the troops then how can they expect any real loyalty in return? With the cutting of all of these benefits there is less of an incentive to stay. No wonder there is a problem with the Nuclear Force. There is a lot of anxiety out there about all this and I think it is finally filtering into the Nuclear Community.

OtisRNeedleman
02-04-2014, 03:35 AM
How the heck are you expected to maintain morale and willingness to go the extra mile when you start reading things like this:

http://www.govexec.com/defense/2014/01/dont-be-fooled-military-benefits-are-chopping-block/77804/

Here is how I see it. If the civilian leadership doesn't respect the troops then how can they expect any real loyalty in return? With the cutting of all of these benefits there is less of an incentive to stay. No wonder there is a problem with the Nuclear Force. There is a lot of anxiety out there about all this and I think it is finally filtering into the Nuclear Community.

Reading the story and the comments, I saw one very good thought. Why is Congress so hot to cut military benefits, when they never discuss cutting the many and varied types of welfare payments? Military benefits are earned through service and sacrifice. To get welfare, you don't have to earn anything. You don't even have to make much of an effort. Just be under a certain income level, whether you cannot or will not work, or for whatever reason. I'm sure there are far more people on the various types of welfare than there are active duty and retirees combined. Cut the welfare payments/benefits the recipients do NOTHING to earn instead of cutting military benefits, which military members work to earn, sometimes at the risk of their lives.

ChiefB
02-04-2014, 05:31 AM
The element in this fiasco that deeply concerns me is that within all these proposed military budget cuts, future equipment and missions are playing a much bigger role in strategic thinking than the manpower that sustains, supports, protects, operates and ultimately accomplishes that mission.

Personnel availability, readiness and morale are unquestionably the most strategically/tactically pertinent portions of the military's arsenal and war fighting capability. There is no weapon system or mission that does not depend on the GI.

To prepare for future conflicts or contingencies, of course we must fit adequate manpower resources to the missions and our budget. There must be a lean and qualified manpower resource tied to those missions. Not an inadequate, unsupported, unmotivated and disgruntled cadre of hangers-on waiting for fair treatment, eventually.

The Nuclear Enterprise is just an example of an old system, with trimmed budgets, poorly supported, inadequately led, and a mission that is lamely defended by political minions and vocal hacks alike.

It is a clear example of allowing a significant mission and personnel to be neglected at our own peril in favor of gee-wiz, futuristic, mega-billion projects that are flashes in the pan and retired to the bone-yard way before their "projected" shelf-life along with forced separation of all their mission/support personnel.

This silly cycle of build up of manpower to fight dirty wars on terror, to man sophisticated systems of intel, ops and defense then to slash personnel and benefits as a prelude to getting fit and equipped for future conflicts may sound reasonable to some.

However, what happens when future calls for personnel to man these new missions are not responded to by the sons and daughters of mistreated Americans that have been there, and done that and the general populace that has witnessed the weapon system versus personnel bias of the Military Industrial Complex?

Most military veterans are watching this treatment of their successors and decreases proposed in their own benefits and in great numbers are currently cautioning their extended families against military service and careers. You can bet the bank on that.

Stalwart
02-04-2014, 09:41 AM
Reading the story and the comments, I saw one very good thought. Why is Congress so hot to cut military benefits, when they never discuss cutting the many and varied types of welfare payments? Military benefits are earned through service and sacrifice. To get welfare, you don't have to earn anything. You don't even have to make much of an effort. Just be under a certain income level, whether you cannot or will not work, or for whatever reason. I'm sure there are far more people on the various types of welfare than there are active duty and retirees combined. Cut the welfare payments/benefits the recipients do NOTHING to earn instead of cutting military benefits, which military members work to earn, sometimes at the risk of their lives.

Having worked there (Congress) for a year and a half on a veterans issues portfolio, defense portfolio and budget & appropriations portfolios I would say that no one is really "hot" to cut military benefits, but it is an easy place to find a huge amount of money that effects a relatively small portion of the populace (much smaller than those who receive welfare etc.)

In essence once a public entitlement program starts, it is very hard to ever stop it since it is part if the income package for that family and the legislators who craft the law become concerned about the perceptions of them taking money from people who need it. This is not saying that military retires don't need their earned benefits either, but they are a much smaller constituency. I will say that when meeting with many of the groups who represent military families -- they could do a better job in picking who they have represent them on the hill -- an abrasive demeanor may work great in the military but on the Hill it is a quick way to get people to tune out whatever cause (no matter how valid) they represent.

A close military example I can find is COMRATS/BAS etc. -- money paid to provide subsistence for the service member (not their family.) it used to be that if the member deployed and was receiving meals at government expense BAS stopped. Many military families thought this was unfair since it took away an entitlement when the service member deployed -- even though they were getting fed by the government and not eating at their residence. Eventually steam got behind the movement and the policy changed.

Chief_KO
02-04-2014, 12:09 PM
The AF will soon be able to find the single common factor all these "fine" officers have in common...they all ate the same Tater Tot/Cheesburger combo cooked by SrA Jessie Snuffy.

Snuffy will be court martialed, convicted, reduced to E-1, and sentenced to five years at Leavenworth. All the officers will be allowed to recertify, receive new flight suits (with special "I aced my test" morale t-shirts), new leather jackets, and be promoted on schedule.

imnohero
02-04-2014, 12:24 PM
Funny stuff, Chief

BISSBOSS
02-04-2014, 07:01 PM
Oops..!

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/navy-probing-alleged-cheating-nuke-reactor-work

Well... This CAN'T be good - Either.

-BB-

BURAWSKI
02-04-2014, 07:15 PM
Oops..!

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/navy-probing-alleged-cheating-nuke-reactor-work

Well... This CAN'T be good - Either.

-BB-

The Navy has their own problems with regard to Nuclear Power. I know one issue, among others, is the assigning of female Sailors to submarines. So along with the abolition of DADT it is another problem that the Submarine Service has to deal with, to the breaking point I'm afraid. It has been my experience that mixed gender crews will always be a problem no matter how you cut it. That being said, submarines are an entirely different story altogether due to the close quarters required for extended periods with no break. It is truly a perfect storm in the making and since the integration has recently begun there will be ramifications. In this regard the Navy didn't have a choice because the decision to integrate was not a Navy decision, it came from outside. I don't believe these problems with the Nuclear Force are just happening, they have been festering for years. While I am not condoning it, the cheating is a sympton of a bigger problem, in my opinion.

ChiefB
02-05-2014, 12:00 AM
Oops..!

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/navy-probing-alleged-cheating-nuke-reactor-work

Well... This CAN'T be good - Either.

-BB-

Although a bunch of senior NCOs (30) is involved here, the second shoe has yet to drop. As unforgiveable as cheating in this training environment is, there still is more to come. We will just have to wait as it dribbles forth to the "surface".

Meantime, I find it interesting that the Navy, that is Adm. John M. Richardson, director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, "said that anyone in the naval nuclear power program — either in a training setting or aboard a ship at sea — who is caught cheating would usually be removed from the program and "generally" would be kicked out of the Navy".

So far, the USAF has spoken only of "taking corrective action".

The difference between the two incidents is one involved instructor trainee SNCOs at a Nuclear propulsion school and the other involves certified Nuclear Missile Control Officers at operational ICBM sites.

Additionally the SNCO that ratted his mates out will have highlighted to the rest of the services that no longer will an in-house cheating mafia be able to circumvent integrity, honesty and honor while those that don't join their cabal, stand up.

Junior Airmen and Sailors will be closely watching this fiasco while snickering about the apparent pomposity and performance of their so-called "leaders".

Now Army NCOs and Senior Officers are the subject of criminal fraud investigation involving millions of $: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/us/politics/wide-reaching-army-recruiting-fraud-described-by-investigators.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20140205&_r=0

My bet is that no service will be untouched when this wave of scandals subsides.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-05-2014, 11:57 AM
Great article in the Washington Post today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fine-print-for-air-force-officers-waiting-for-the-nuclear-attack-can-be-a-bore/2014/02/03/f2f1de26-8a97-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

Kicker47
02-05-2014, 01:32 PM
Great article in the Washington Post today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fine-print-for-air-force-officers-waiting-for-the-nuclear-attack-can-be-a-bore/2014/02/03/f2f1de26-8a97-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

Glad to see someone calling out the "medals" and the AFGSC 28-day Blog as being pretty much useless. The blog thing is so obviously a knee-jerk reaction, it's almost insulting. :no:

BURAWSKI
02-05-2014, 01:48 PM
Glad to see someone calling out the "medals" and the AFGSC 28-day Blog as being pretty much useless. The blog thing is so obviously a knee-jerk reaction, it's almost insulting. :no:

That blog and the suggestion of the awarding of a "medal" is prima facie evidence of denial that any real, systemic problems exist within the community. In other words, the leadership is clueless on what to do to resolve the situation and explains the reason they are in reactive mode. Anyone for more tater tots?

BISSBOSS
02-05-2014, 01:49 PM
Glad to see someone calling out the "medals" and the AFGSC 28-day Blog as being pretty much useless. The blog thing is so obviously a knee-jerk reaction, it's almost insulting. :no:


I love it:

"They’re told what they’re doing is vital and necessary, although their own service treats them as second-rate colleagues while it dotes on and promotes those piloting aircraft."

The HELL you say...!?!

-BB-

Kicker47
02-05-2014, 02:01 PM
This is why I think they need to interview former operators, maintainers, cops, and the like. No matter how much they swear up and down that "what you say in this room won't leave this room", there will still be some guys that say "we'd sure like to get some medals and maybe see some more stories about us on af.mil." rather than rat on their bosses or question higher HQs. They need to talk to people that have worked there, but are no longer in that chain of command, that will honestly tell them what the problems are without any thought of career impacts or relationships. I don't care how much they promise anonymity, human nature is to not be completely free with telling them how terrible something is, especially when you have to see the same people day in and day out.

I had a sq commander bring me in to his office during my PCA outprocessing, and he told me "Ok, you're EPR is signed, you final-out on Monday, you're free and clear...tell me what you see as problems in this unit." I tried to give him honest answers, but declined to "name names", because bottom line is that I'm still on the base.

Gonzo432
02-05-2014, 02:28 PM
Lets just make sure I'm tracking here: send a PA puke out to a launch facility for 28 days to Tweet, blog, Facebook, etc. on how great my job is here at BF Wyoming/Montana/ND?? And a medal that is basically the Missile Ops badge I'm already wearing? That clown better not eat my tater tots!!

Now a counter-blog to bash the officicial blog,,, there are possibilities there!

BISSBOSS
02-05-2014, 02:44 PM
Although a bunch of senior NCOs (30) is involved here, the second shoe has yet to drop. As unforgiveable as cheating in this training environment is, there still is more to come. We will just have to wait as it dribbles forth to the "surface".

Meantime, I find it interesting that the Navy, that is Adm. John M. Richardson, director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, "said that anyone in the naval nuclear power program — either in a training setting or aboard a ship at sea — who is caught cheating would usually be removed from the program and "generally" would be kicked out of the Navy".

So far, the USAF has spoken only of "taking corrective action".

The difference between the two incidents is one involved instructor trainee SNCOs at a Nuclear propulsion school and the other involves certified Nuclear Missile Control Officers at operational ICBM sites.

Additionally the SNCO that ratted his mates out will have highlighted to the rest of the services that no longer will an in-house cheating mafia be able to circumvent integrity, honesty and honor while those that don't join their cabal, stand up.

Junior Airmen and Sailors will be closely watching this fiasco while snickering about the apparent pomposity and performance of their so-called "leaders".

Now Army NCOs and Senior Officers are the subject of criminal fraud investigation involving millions of $: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/us/politics/wide-reaching-army-recruiting-fraud-described-by-investigators.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20140205&_r=0

My bet is that no service will be untouched when this wave of scandals subsides.

Agreed... We "bag" on the AF (mostly) in this forum but the truth of the matter is that more that probably, each of the services has serious decay at their leadership core. It is to be expected at this point in time as the Gov't has continually cut back on funding and end strength numbers while increasing operations and roles.

It's like they say: Fast, Cheap or Good... Pick TWO!

-BB-

ChiefB
02-05-2014, 11:05 PM
Great article in the Washington Post today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fine-print-for-air-force-officers-waiting-for-the-nuclear-attack-can-be-a-bore/2014/02/03/f2f1de26-8a97-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

My answer to that article full of errors:

"Walter Pincus writes a thought provoking piece, however his facts are flawed."

" In August 2007, the scandal was a B-52 flying cross-country with six nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missiles, but that was a maintenance problem. A year later, it was four ICBM warheads mistakenly sent to Taiwan. Then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates fired Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff T. Michael Moseley."

The weapons on the B-52s were not "armed" but inert. The items mistakenly sent to Taiwan were switches not "warheads".

"Russia is the only major nuclear threat to our missiles, and because of the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, there are regular and unannounced U.S. inspections of Moscow’s ICBMs all the time, making a surprise first strike attack against the United States inconceivable."

To identify Russia as the "only major nuclear threat to our missiles" is to misidentify the threat as only to our missiles and not our country or populace. I can assure you that Russia's targeting includes a hell of a lot more than "our missiles". Even if Pincus meant "counter" to our missiles, he alludes to no other "major" threat. I beg to differ, again. We have the People's Republic of China and that other dangerous threat of the juvenile Emperor of North Korea. When it comes to nukes, there is no "minor" threat. That's why we continue to provide a convincing, substantial, up and ready, nuclear alert deterrent.

BURAWSKI
02-05-2014, 11:55 PM
Why don't I ever read about these logical, sane and cogent assessments coming from the people who should be in the know, and on active duty?

TomTom093
02-06-2014, 12:04 AM
Great article in the Washington Post today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fine-print-for-air-force-officers-waiting-for-the-nuclear-attack-can-be-a-bore/2014/02/03/f2f1de26-8a97-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

Keeping that in mind, is there really a solution to their morale problem? Short of a nuclear war, leadership can do whatever they want but it won't fix the fact that these men and women will never do the job they are trained and tasked to do.

ChiefB
02-06-2014, 01:08 AM
Keeping that in mind, is there really a solution to their morale problem? Short of a nuclear war, leadership can do whatever they want but it won't fix the fact that these men and women will never do the job they are trained and tasked to do.

Yes, you could provide a career path that included unit/NAF/MAJCOM/National command post/center ops, ABNCP ops, NMCC ops, Ops Plans and numerous leadership roles in these areas. It's done, some, now but should be expanded. In short, give the missileers a diversified future and career. But, first you must provide them adequate and competent leadership.

ChiefB
02-06-2014, 01:44 AM
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Concerned that ethical problems inside the military might run deeper than he realized, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered service leaders Wednesday to add urgency to their drive to ensure "moral character and moral courage" in a force emerging from more than a decade of war."

The SecDef is finally getting the message. But bringing in only the retired Flags will not get him the insight into the shenanigans that have been underway for decades.

Just reading the military scuttlebutt and associated papers of recent months, it's clear that an abused military can act out in many embarrassing ways regardless of rank or position.

You can't wear troops out conducting wars and skirmishes constantly for decades on end at the same time make their careers into quicksand with cutbacks, roll backs, force reduction, pay cut here, benefit cut there, jerk them around through the VA, close or threaten to close there facilities, uproot their families, affect family schooling, jobs, medical care and general station in life and think you are going to have a bunch of happy campers to continue to kick around. Not going to happen. There will be consequences.

The task is to recognize the cause and affect corrective action at that level, first. The military deserves some measure of stability and good leadership with a solid future not a life of confused existence at the whim of technocrats and bureaucrats competing for dollars and position.

See ref by TAC: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/hagel-orders-renewed-focus-military-ethics

Absinthe Anecdote
02-06-2014, 11:07 AM
My answer to that article full of errors:

"Walter Pincus writes a thought provoking piece, however his facts are flawed."

" In August 2007, the scandal was a B-52 flying cross-country with six nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missiles, but that was a maintenance problem. A year later, it was four ICBM warheads mistakenly sent to Taiwan. Then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates fired Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff T. Michael Moseley."

The weapons on the B-52s were not "armed" but inert. The items mistakenly sent to Taiwan were switches not "warheads".

"Russia is the only major nuclear threat to our missiles, and because of the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, there are regular and unannounced U.S. inspections of Moscow’s ICBMs all the time, making a surprise first strike attack against the United States inconceivable."

To identify Russia as the "only major nuclear threat to our missiles" is to misidentify the threat as only to our missiles and not our country or populace. I can assure you that Russia's targeting includes a hell of a lot more than "our missiles". Even if Pincus meant "counter" to our missiles, he alludes to no other "major" threat. I beg to differ, again. We have the People's Republic of China and that other dangerous threat of the juvenile Emperor of North Korea. When it comes to nukes, there is no "minor" threat. That's why we continue to provide a convincing, substantial, up and ready, nuclear alert deterrent.

I sent Mr. Pincus an email and I hope he runs a correction. However, I still think it was a great article and I hope he writes a few more on this.

waveshaper2
02-06-2014, 01:50 PM
I sent Mr. Pincus an email and I hope he runs a correction. However, I still think it was a great article and I hope he writes a few more on this.

Additional note; It is correct that these nuclear weapons were not armed-the proper classification/description would be they were unarmed (transport mode not released/fired/functioned in anger mode). Also these nuclear weapons were not inert-they had live center warhead subassemblies (Live Physics Packages) installed.

DWWSWWD
02-06-2014, 02:09 PM
Got a tasker today, due today. A very short E-mail chain started with Gen Welsh and asked us to identify things that we are doing to "reset culture and reinforce Core Values." He is puttting something together for SecAF. We did this once before after the nuc thing. Anyone remember back to basics? It got off to a very strong start and petered out quickly. I think at the time, we were a well compensated, well cared for, much appreciated force and the message implied, "We're taking care of you, but you have to do your part." Not sure that approach would work today.

ChiefB
02-07-2014, 06:03 AM
Got a tasker today, due today. A very short E-mail chain started with Gen Welsh and asked us to identify things that we are doing to "reset culture and reinforce Core Values." He is puttting something together for SecAF. We did this once before after the nuc thing. Anyone remember back to basics? It got off to a very strong start and petered out quickly. I think at the time, we were a well compensated, well cared for, much appreciated force and the message implied, "We're taking care of you, but you have to do your part." Not sure that approach would work today.

Someone needs to answer with the question: Who says it's a unit workplace fixable problem? Who, at the senior level is considering this...?

"You can't wear troops out conducting wars and skirmishes constantly for decades on end at the same time make their careers into quicksand with cutbacks, roll backs, force reduction, pay cut here, benefit cut there, jerk them around through the VA, close or threaten to close there facilities, uproot their families, affect family schooling, jobs, medical care and general station in life and think you are going to have a bunch of happy campers to continue to kick around. Not going to happen. There will be consequences."

"The task is to recognize the cause and affect corrective action at that level, first. The military deserves some measure of stability and good leadership with a solid future not a life of confused existence at the whim of technocrats and bureaucrats competing for dollars and position."

Gonzo432
02-07-2014, 10:47 AM
Got a tasker today, due today. A very short E-mail chain started with Gen Welsh and asked us to identify things that we are doing to "reset culture and reinforce Core Values." He is puttting something together for SecAF. We did this once before after the nuc thing. Anyone remember back to basics? It got off to a very strong start and petered out quickly. I think at the time, we were a well compensated, well cared for, much appreciated force and the message implied, "We're taking care of you, but you have to do your part." Not sure that approach would work today.

"Fix the USAF" would have been less vague, but no doubt too big of a task to be taken in one piece. What kind of suspense is on that "reset and fix" tasker? To do it right you may need a time machine. Call DARPA.

Gonzo's prediction: This will involve entities that will employ a lot of contractors. Parking lots will be filled with Corvettes and Harleys. Mission creep will set in, nothing will happen. That's how we "fixed C2" after all.

Chief_KO
02-07-2014, 12:22 PM
Once it was no longer U.S. vs U.S.S.R the entire ICBM world lost its luster. For 30+ years the entire U.S. (if not the entire world) hinged on what the superpowers were doing.

Regarding the silo world being a "dead end" my CC told SrA_KO that way back in 1984 when I wanted to pursue commissioning and asked him about the various non-flying officer positions. It pretty much has always been a world within itself, assignments from hole to hole (with SAC HQ, AWC, NAF, etc. in between). But when you emerged from the ground after 20 years you had a laundry list of formal education, masters, PhDs (when very few did). Of course there were a lot more holes back then and the entire SAC structure took great care of its people knowing they must to maintain morale.

Once the wall fell the bombers were off alert, ICBMs no longer targeted at Moscow. The wind was out of their sails and USAF turned their back on this mission (shunned one might say).

technomage1
02-07-2014, 09:23 PM
You can't wear troops out conducting wars and skirmishes constantly for decades on end at the same time make their careers into quicksand with cutbacks, roll backs, force reduction, pay cut here, benefit cut there, jerk them around through the VA, close or threaten to close there facilities, uproot their families, affect family schooling, jobs, medical care and general station in life and think you are going to have a bunch of happy campers to continue to kick around. Not going to happen. There will be consequences.


Amen to that. If you want loyalty you have to exhibit it first. Today's AF doesn't give a fig about its people and it shows. If you know that if you are gone for one mistake, for one injury, or even if they simply decide to cut, you don't stick you neck out far enough to learn to take risks, either with your health or with your career.

It can be fixed. Stop making the PT test the be all, end all to an airmans career. Start emphasing job performance and reward those who do well, not the ones who kiss the best rear end. Focus on the basics, not the pretty stuff.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-07-2014, 10:24 PM
Amen to that. If you want loyalty you have to exhibit it first. Today's AF doesn't give a fig about its people and it shows. If you know that if you are gone for one mistake, for one injury, or even if they simply decide to cut, you don't stick you neck out far enough to learn to take risks, either with your health or with your career.

It can be fixed. Stop making the PT test the be all, end all to an airmans career. Start emphasing job performance and reward those who do well, not the ones who kiss the best rear end. Focus on the basics, not the pretty stuff.

Really?

You are going to link this to the PT test?

Come on, Techno!

The PT test is so fucking easy to pass; if you have an ounce of dedication to a personal exercise regime, you should be able to pass it, even with an injury. Frankly, it does make me doubt the credibility and dedication of those who can not pass the AF PT test.

There are Marine and Army amputees that can smoke their PT tests, and I would imagine that we have some AF combat wounded who have recovered and are able to out perform the minimum standards.

All these people with mysterious shin splints and lower back injuries need to buckle down and pass the damn test or find another job.

technomage1
02-07-2014, 11:44 PM
Really?

You are going to link this to the PT test?

Come on, Techno!

The PT test is so fucking easy to pass; if you have an ounce of dedication to a personal exercise regime, you should be able to pass it, even with an injury. Frankly, it does make me doubt the credibility and dedication of those who can not pass the AF PT test.

There are Marine and Army amputees that can smoke their PT tests, and I would imagine that we have some AF combat wounded who have recovered and are able to out perform the minimum standards.

All these people with mysterious shin splints and lower back injuries need to buckle down and pass the damn test or find another job.

It's just another excuse to f people & it's overly emphasized. I could take a dump in the CCs front seat and get into less career impacting actions than a PT failure, and that's just poor policy and a source of stress for some.

I have never failed but that stupid test stresses me out for weeks prior. And yes, I work out regularly & my score is excellent. It still freaks me out since my career is over with a failure. A twisted tape and it's over.

BURAWSKI
02-08-2014, 12:28 AM
It's just another excuse to f people & it's overly emphasized. I could take a dump in the CCs front seat and get into less career impacting actions than a PT failure, and that's just poor policy and a source of stress for some.

I have never failed but that stupid test stresses me out for weeks prior. And yes, I work out regularly & my score is excellent. It still freaks me out since my career is over with a failure. A twisted tape and it's over.

He has a valid point on that one. I do know that in the Navy the PRT is utilized as a "force-shaping" tool, not so much to really ensure Sailors are living a healthy lifestyle. It sounds like the Air Force is the same way. It may be fairly easy to pass but I agree that too much emphasis is placed on it. A zero tolerance for failure doesn't strike me as completely fair. Careers never used to end for failing a PRT but in today's Air Force it sounds like that is the case. The other services view PRT differently. The Marines for example incorporate the PRT into their training and is conducted on a daily group level with everyone participating. The same goes for the Special Forces and SEALS.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-08-2014, 12:49 AM
He has a valid point on that one. I do know that in the Navy the PRT is utilized as a "force-shaping" tool, not so much to really ensure Sailors are living a healthy lifestyle. It sounds like the Air Force is the same way. It may be fairly easy to pass but I agree that too much emphasis is placed on it. A zero tolerance for failure doesn't strike me as completely fair. Careers never used to end for failing a PRT but in today's Air Force it sounds like that is the case. The other services view PRT differently. The Marines for example incorporate the PRT into their training and is conducted on a daily group level with everyone participating. The same goes for the Special Forces and SEALS.

Are you suggesting that if a Marine can not pass their PT test it isn't a big deal? I'm calling bullshit on that. I worked more than half my career in joint-service intel operations and I know that when a Marine is substandard on a PT test, they have their whole unit on their ass. A Marine who can't pass PT, does not have a bright future.

I am a little confused by your post, so forgive me, if you are saying something different.

I do agree that the Marine Corps makes PT a fundamental part of their duty; however, I retired from the Air Force in 2007 and for the last three years of my service, each unit I was in, did unit PT three times a week.

It is 2014, and PT being stressed in the Air Force is nothing new. The Air Force gave adequate time ramping up to the new standard of accountability, before they started taking adverse actions on failures of the PT test.

I don't think those who are complaining have much of a valid claim that they are being fucked over.

It was a slow train coming.

BURAWSKI
02-08-2014, 01:00 AM
I'm not suggesting anything. Just posting an opinion.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-08-2014, 01:42 AM
I'm not suggesting anything. Just posting an opinion.

I apologize, because I did jump on your throat. I am sorry about that.

Honestly, I am worried about that, because I didn't understand what your point was.

Please explain again, the point you were making, because I missed it.

PS

I got off on the wrong foot with you a few threads ago, and, again, I am sorry about that.

BURAWSKI
02-08-2014, 01:45 AM
I apologize, because I did jump on your throat. I am sorry about that.

Honestly, I am worried about that, because I didn't understand what your point was.

Please explain again, the point you were making, because I missed it.

PS

I got off on the wrong foot with you a few threads ago, and, again, I am sorry about that.


Don't worry about it. I read your posts and agree with most of them, but we all have differing opinions on various topics. As for the above posting I guess I really wasn't trying to make a point about it. It really was just my opinion based on the experiences I had.

wxjumper
02-08-2014, 04:32 AM
Really?

You are going to link this to the PT test?

Come on, Techno!

The PT test is so fucking easy to pass; if you have an ounce of dedication to a personal exercise regime, you should be able to pass it, even with an injury. Frankly, it does make me doubt the credibility and dedication of those who can not pass the AF PT test.

There are Marine and Army amputees that can smoke their PT tests, and I would imagine that we have some AF combat wounded who have recovered and are able to out perform the minimum standards.

All these people with mysterious shin splints and lower back injuries need to buckle down and pass the damn test or find another job.

I don't think his point was that the PT test is hard to pass. The point is that now PT scores are becoming the main factor used in stratification. It is not about passing or failing anymore, it is all about your final number now. Commanders now want PT scores when doing their strats, deciding who gets what schools, looking for his next exec, etc. So getting an 85 on the test (10 points above "standards") is not good enough anymore, not if you want a good strat or get the good schools. You need to get in the 90s, the higher the better. The PT Test is no longer about passing or failing, it is about how good you can score.

The main problem with that is the AF PT Test actually does a horrible job at measuring ones fitness. For example, if you are a petite male, it is far far easier to get a 90+ score on the PT test. Somebody who is much more fit then that person may only be able to max out in the upper 80s due to the way the waist measurement is factored into the final score. The test overall is more of an indicator of who looks better in a uniform then who is more or less fit.

waveshaper2
02-08-2014, 08:16 AM
I don't think his point was that the PT test is hard to pass. The point is that now PT scores are becoming the main factor used in stratification. It is not about passing or failing anymore, it is all about your final number now. Commanders now want PT scores when doing their strats, deciding who gets what schools, looking for his next exec, etc. So getting an 85 on the test (10 points above "standards") is not good enough anymore, not if you want a good strat or get the good schools. You need to get in the 90s, the higher the better. The PT Test is no longer about passing or failing, it is about how good you can score.

The main problem with that is the AF PT Test actually does a horrible job at measuring ones fitness. For example, if you are a petite male, it is far far easier to get a 90+ score on the PT test. Somebody who is much more fit then that person may only be able to max out in the upper 80s due to the way the waist measurement is factored into the final score. The test overall is more of an indicator of who looks better in a uniform then who is more or less fit.

The PT test is following along the same path as the Nuclear Test/cheating fallout and due to the PT programs misplaced level of relative importance the PT test will/has caused similar problems. The topic here could easily be; More PT Shenanigans.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-08-2014, 10:21 AM
I don't think his point was that the PT test is hard to pass. The point is that now PT scores are becoming the main factor used in stratification. It is not about passing or failing anymore, it is all about your final number now. Commanders now want PT scores when doing their strats, deciding who gets what schools, looking for his next exec, etc. So getting an 85 on the test (10 points above "standards") is not good enough anymore, not if you want a good strat or get the good schools. You need to get in the 90s, the higher the better. The PT Test is no longer about passing or failing, it is about how good you can score.

The main problem with that is the AF PT Test actually does a horrible job at measuring ones fitness. For example, if you are a petite male, it is far far easier to get a 90+ score on the PT test. Somebody who is much more fit then that person may only be able to max out in the upper 80s due to the way the waist measurement is factored into the final score. The test overall is more of an indicator of who looks better in a uniform then who is more or less fit.

Excellent use of rhetoric!

Your petite male, someone who does not have a bunch of fat hanging over their belt, will undoubtedly score higher than the unmentioned and undescribed fat-ass in your post.

My suggestion, put down the fucking burrito, and go run a few laps around the track, like the rest of us petite males.

wxjumper
02-08-2014, 11:30 AM
Excellent use of rhetoric!

Your petite male, someone who does not have a bunch of fat hanging over their belt, will undoubtedly score higher than the unmentioned and undescribed fat-ass in your post.

My suggestion, put down the fucking burrito, and go run a few laps around the track, like the rest of us petite males.

You must be one of those petite 5'6" males that has had an inferiority complex their whole life. So they like to brag about their high score on the Air Force "look good in a uniform" test despite being lapped on the 1.5 mile run by more normal sized people.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-09-2014, 02:42 PM
You must be one of those petite 5'6" males that has had an inferiority complex their whole life. So they like to brag about their high score on the Air Force "look good in a uniform" test despite being lapped on the 1.5 mile run by more normal sized people.

No, I always out perform you fatties in any arena. As a general rule of thumb, we petite males, go longer, faster, and harder than you Dinty Moore types.

Trying to blame the problems in the missile field on the PT program is about the lamest thing that I've seen posted on this form in a very long time.

If anything, being fit and trim, makes you have more self confidence and much less likely to cheat on tests.

wxjumper
02-09-2014, 03:11 PM
No, I always out perform you fatties in any arena. As a general rule of thumb, we petite males, go longer, faster, and harder than you Dinty Moore types.

Trying to blame the problems in the missile field on the PT program is about the lamest thing that I've seen posted on this form in a very long time.

If anything, being fit and trim, makes you have more self confidence and much less likely to cheat on tests.In your dreams Pee Wee Herman. btw, I don't think I attached my off-topic tangent on the PT Test to anything in the missle career field. I'm sure there are some Kate Moss looking males that cheated on that test too. But hey, at least they had a great score on the Air Force "look good in a uniform have nothing to do with actual fitness" test, so they will probably just get an LOC, sent back to work, and get promoted below the zone with the rest of the petites.

Juggs
02-09-2014, 03:32 PM
No, I always out perform you fatties in any arena. As a general rule of thumb, we petite males, go longer, faster, and harder than you Dinty Moore types.

Trying to blame the problems in the missile field on the PT program is about the lamest thing that I've seen posted on this form in a very long time.

If anything, being fit and trim, makes you have more self confidence and much less likely to cheat on tests.

Please I beat so many little skinny bitches in the he AF. We rucked the. Hickam wing "warrior" run and still spanked all those kids that way 170. Little skinny bitches!!!

Absinthe Anecdote
02-09-2014, 03:40 PM
In your dreams Pee Wee Herman. btw, I don't think I attached my off-topic tangent on the PT Test to anything in the missle career field. I'm sure there are some Kate Moss looking males that cheated on that test too. But hey, at least they had a great score on the Air Force "look good in a uniform have nothing to do with actual fitness" test, so they will probably just get an LOC, sent back to work, and get promoted below the zone with the rest of the petites.

Someone before you tried linking this to PT, but you jumped on it too.

The PT test is an accurate measure of of physical fineness, and I seriously doubt any fit and trim people cheated on those tests.

If you'd quit eating garbage like Hamburger Helper and Screaming Yellow Zonkers, you might be able to improve your fineness score and look a little better in uniform. Then you wouldn't be so quick to talk smack about us model airmen.

When you jump out of an airplane to predict the weather, or whatever it is that your moniker describes, do you really think all of that flubber around your waist is helping you or the mission?

No, the extra weight wastes fuel and could put the aircrew in jeopardy of not making it back to base after they drop your ass off.

Plus, that extra burning of fuel harms the environment; not to mention all the extra methane you add to the atmosphere because you insist on eating crap like Hot Pockets, Funyuns, and Andy Capp's Hot Fries.

Try thinking of the environment the next time you stop by the Shoppette to clear out the entire Frito-Lay shelf.

Not only will your digestive system thank you, but so will the rest of the air breathing citizens of the planet.

wxjumper
02-10-2014, 03:07 AM
Someone before you tried linking this to PT, but you jumped on it too.

The PT test is an accurate measure of of physical fineness, and I seriously doubt any fit and trim people cheated on those tests.

If you'd quit eating garbage like Hamburger Helper and Screaming Yellow Zonkers, you might be able to improve your fineness score and look a little better in uniform. Then you wouldn't be so quick to talk smack about us model airmen.

When you jump out of an airplane to predict the weather, or whatever it is that your moniker describes, do you really think all of that flubber around your waist is helping you or the mission?

No, the extra weight wastes fuel and could put the aircrew in jeopardy of not making it back to base after they drop your ass off.

Plus, that extra burning of fuel harms the environment; not to mention all the extra methane you add to the atmosphere because you insist on eating crap like Hot Pockets, Funyuns, and Andy Capp's Hot Fries.

Try thinking of the environment the next time you stop by the Shoppette to clear out the entire Frito-Lay shelf.

Not only will your digestive system thank you, but so will the rest of the air breathing citizens of the planet.


fail

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s717GWYisJI/UO9xhVaPrGI/AAAAAAAAFcQ/S0dPs4ebuLY/s640/who_wants_to_be_a_millionaire-12950.jpg

technomage1
02-10-2014, 12:40 PM
Anytime you emphasize programs outside of core requirements to do a job you run the risk of diluting those core competencies. There are only so many people and so many hours in the work week. If you have all your people pulling weeds in the parking lot they're not, by definition, doing their assigned duties (unless that happens to be weed pulling). Spend too many hours weed pulling and you won't be able to accomplish whatever your mission is.

That goes for PT, CBTs, volunteerism and education. Each of these things, if taken in the proper proportion, don't add up to enough to impact the mission. But if all you care about and reward is the above - and not the core competencies that make the mission happen - you will fail. It may take a while as you screw over those with integrity who actually care about the job and sacrifice themselves to make the mission happen - but eventually you will run out of people willing to take the hit. They're going to shift their focus to the outliers instead of the main core competencies because that is what the chain emphasizes and that is what is rewarded. When that happens the mission - your main reason for being here - suffers. It doesn't matter what AFSC you're in or what base you're at that will hold true.

The AF has completely lost the plot as to what is important and is accordingly suffering as a result. This will not stop until the priorities change.

Stalwart
02-10-2014, 06:00 PM
I know one issue, among others, is the assigning of female Sailors to submarines. So along with the abolition of DADT it is another problem that the Submarine Service has to deal with, to the breaking point I'm afraid.

I don't think the assigning of women to submarines made anyone cheat on an exam. So far the most serious incident with women on submarines has been the COB that commited adultery and fraternized with one, or the 2 or 3 (females) that falsified a travel claim.

Also, I have heard nothing about the abolition of DADT creating incidents in the submarine force -- probably because the current generation is a bit more open minded and accepting than you or I were when we were 18-22 year olds.

BURAWSKI
02-10-2014, 07:25 PM
I don't think the assigning of women to submarines made anyone cheat on an exam. So far the most serious incident with women on submarines has been the COB that committed adultery and fraternized with one, or the 2 or 3 (females) that falsified a travel claim.

Also, I have heard nothing about the abolition of DADT creating incidents in the submarine force -- probably because the current generation is a bit more open minded and accepting than you or I were when we were 18-22 year olds.

You're right. Not directly anyway. But I meant to say that it is the way and manner in which these decisions are made which causes instability, and does not help the situation and becomes another source of anxiety. The decision to assign women to submarines was made in a vacuum, despite what the Pentagon is saying. The Navy was not ready for it at this time, but the decision had already been made, regardless of the consequences being considered. I know my opinion is debatable so I am not arguing with you about it. I am just saying that the way these decisions are made shows a clear lack of concern and respect for the troops. You know, the people who actually have to do the work. Funny, my career took a big hit defending people that worked for me. But anyway, it is the same with DADT, another decision that while not necessary made in a vacuum, doesn't help with stability. I could be wrong and probably am about this, but don't you think these changes are being made too fast? It seems to me that the military has been used more as a social experiment. Also, I don't believe our leadership has the interest of the troops in mind at all. It is all about the money. Read some of these posts and that will tell you where the morale is. No wonder the Nuclear Force is having problems. It seems to me that no one making the decisions has a real, genuine concern for the welfare of the troops. I have to ask myself, do they really care? I think the military is being used a tool for whatever agenda is on the table at the time. In the end I understand that serving in the military is a sacrifice, but the kind of sacrifices that are being asked of the military don't appear to be all that necessary to me. It is only a matter of time before most of our benefits our eroded to the point of not being worth it.

B. M. BURAWSKI
Chief Yeoman, U.S. Navy (Ret.)

Stalwart
02-10-2014, 07:46 PM
I could be wrong and probably am about this, but don't you think these changes are being made too fast? .

No, I don't. The military had to be told to desegregate as well. I think on many issues if left on our own timeline we would not have made it happen for some time. I am not saying just charge ahead without thinking, but both women on submarines and the abolition of DADT were directed with very ... very adequate timelines to make necessary changes. Some poeple ignored what was coming, and are now feeling pain as a result. The biggest resistance is from a really small group. The vast majority of Submariners I know could care less about women on subs or DADT going away, they are more concerned about having funding for repairs and training, adequate manning to avoid port and starboard watches and getting quality time with thier family. My father (a man of his era) flat out did not want me having 'black' friends ... thought it was wrong. As a teenager, homosexuality was something I wasn't accepting of, but am more accepting now. The newest generation of service members really don't care if someone is LGBT ... it is just not regarded the same way; the people with the problem are those who fail to realize it is not 1970, 80, 90 any more.


It seems to me that the military has been used more as a social experiment.

No argument that social experimentation have directed by Congress, but I won't say that has been our primary role.


Also, I don't believe our leadership has the interest of the troops in mind at all. It is all about the money.

I would disagree, all of the leadership I have inteacted with either at the command, service-level or at my current job (4-star staff) are concerned; but also have to operate in the environment they are given. As far as it being about money, In some ways it is ... without funding there are no ships, planes, tanks or weapons ... no pay increases, no tuition assistance ... pretty much nothing. Many people bemoan a General or Admiral who seems political; but politics and getting the funding for thier services is part of their jobs.

BURAWSKI
02-10-2014, 07:51 PM
No, I don't. The military had to be told to desegregate as well. I think on many issues if left on our own timeline we would not have made it happen for some time. I am not saying just charge ahead without thinking, but both women on submarines and the abolition of DADT were directed with very ... very adequate timelines to make necessary changes. Some poeple ignored what was coming, and are now feeling pain as a result. The biggest resistance is from a really small group. The vast majority of Submariners I know could care less about women on subs or DADT going away, they are more concerned about having funding for repairs and training, adequate manning to avoid port and starboard watches and getting quality time with thier family. My father (a man of his era) flat out did not want me having 'black' friends ... thought it was wrong. As a teenager, homosexuality was something I wasn't accepting of, but am more accepting now. The newest generation of service members really don't care if someone is LGBT ... it is just not regarded the same way; the people with the problem are those who fail to realize it is not 1970, 80, 90 any more.



No argument that social experimentation have directed by Congress, but I won't say that has been our primary role.



I would disagree, all of the leadership I have inteacted with either at the command, service-level or at my current job (4-star staff) are concerned; but also have to operate in the environment they are given. As far as it being about money, In some ways it is ... without funding there are no ships, planes, tanks or weapons ... no pay increases, no tuition assistance ... pretty much nothing. Many people bemoan a General or Admiral who seems political; but politics and getting the funding for thier services is part of their jobs.


Ok, I just think differently about it. I just feel I have some legitimate reasons for coming to some of my conclusions. But I won't debate you about it. I understand your position.

Stalwart
02-10-2014, 08:09 PM
Ok, I just think differently about it. I just feel I have some legitimate reasons for coming to some of my conclusions. But I won't debate you about it. I understand your position.

I am sure you do, and am not saying you or your reasons are 'wrong' ... I am pretty sure we can disagree and not be disagreeable ;)

We can both (& all) agree that the nuclear force is having issues, some of them I think really need a deep dive to examine. Some of it is plain ol' stupidity that has probably been around for a while and not widely reported. The current issue with the cheating on tests in Charleston alarmed me since it was A LOT of senior enlisted that are implicated ... people I HAVE to be able to trust, whose NUC bonuses are about what I make in base pay in a year ... if they are guilty they should be dealt with harshly.

Gonzo432
02-11-2014, 09:36 AM
I saw this a minute ago. Two photojournalists and a broadcaster from the Air Force Public Affairs Agency here are gearing up for a 28-day trek ... Better stock up on tater tots. Its not just a PA-puke, there's three of them!

New AF Global Strike Blog

http://www.military.com/military-report/new-af-global-strike-blog?ESRC=miltrep.nl

Kicker47
02-11-2014, 02:18 PM
I saw this a minute ago. Two photojournalists and a broadcaster from the Air Force Public Affairs Agency here are gearing up for a 28-day trek ... Better stock up on tater tots. Its not just a PA-puke, there's three of them!

New AF Global Strike Blog

http://www.military.com/military-report/new-af-global-strike-blog?ESRC=miltrep.nl

I'm on the fence with this AFGSC Blog thing. On one hand, it's nice to see some positive press, and see some hard-workin' folks get their time in the spotlight. On the other hand, it's so obviously a knee-jerk reaction to the problem that it's a bit insulting.

I equate it to when the LA Kings were in the Stanley Cup finals a few years ago. There were no hockey stories in the LA papers, then, all of a sudden, there were lots of hockey stories in the paper. LA fans were like "Hey, great, hockey stories in the papers...but where were you guys all season?"

It's like being a curling fan. For three years and 11 months, people look at you like you have cats growing out of your nose if you try to talk curling, but every four years, for about a month, there's curling on the TV, in the papers, on the internet...and people are all like, "Oh, I love curling, go USA!" :tsk

Absinthe Anecdote
02-11-2014, 02:45 PM
I agree, the AFGSC blog does seem a little shallow and late at this point. I'd like to see AFGSC do something a bit more concrete, like sponsoring a Sherpa to climb Mt Everest and place a AFGSC coin on the peak in the name of integrity.

John Jameson
03-28-2014, 12:46 AM
From the latest article on AF Times about the recent firings:

Commanders in missile squadrons were found to micromanage and place too much of an emphasis on perfection, leading to ethical issues and cheating.

Ironic that the guy doing the firing fits the description of micromanager and overbearing perfectionist to a tee. More of the standard AF GO protection society. Who do they think taught these FGOs how to do business in the nuc world? Head-in-sand much CSAF? Your nuc GOs need to move on to (Ret) status.

Capt Alfredo
03-28-2014, 12:53 AM
I am pretty surprised that none of the former unit commanders were reprimanded, since the cheating has been going on for years. And by the way, firing is a strange term. None of these people was forced to retire. The one guy who retired did so on his own volition.

John Jameson
03-28-2014, 12:58 AM
I am pretty surprised that none of the former unit commanders were reprimanded, since the cheating has been going on for years. And by the way, firing is a strange term. None of these people was forced to retire. The one guy who retired did so on his own volition.

The former unit commanders are at AWC extolling the virtues of tater tots. They are untouchable and will soon be nuc GOs.

jetteraf
03-28-2014, 01:04 AM
Ironic that the guy doing the firing fits the description of micromanager and overbearing perfectionist to a tee. More of the standard AF GO protection society. Who do they think taught these FGOs how to do business in the nuc world? Head-in-sand much CSAF? Your nuc GOs need to move on to (Ret) status.

From 2003-2005 General Weinstein was the ops group commander at Warren. The impossible expectation of perfection was a complaint brought up in a unit climate survey. His answer was that perfection was expected in nuclear operations. Little wonder he was despised by his troops, and it's pretty hypocritical that he is relieving officers for fostering this exact same atmosphere. Wonder if his bosses know how he did business when he commanded a missile unit...

John Jameson
03-28-2014, 10:54 AM
Wonder if his bosses know how he did business when he commanded a missile unit...
I think so, but he's a GO, so he must be protected. I did find it interesting that a former subordinate commander of his recently got his third star ahead of ol' Jack.

OtisRNeedleman
03-28-2014, 07:53 PM
From 2003-2005 General Weinstein was the ops group commander at Warren. The impossible expectation of perfection was a complaint brought up in a unit climate survey. His answer was that perfection was expected in nuclear operations. Little wonder he was despised by his troops, and it's pretty hypocritical that he is relieving officers for fostering this exact same atmosphere. Wonder if his bosses know how he did business when he commanded a missile unit... I have the sad feeling his bosses don't care. They just want to get this behind them until the next scandal hits, which it assuredly will.

BISSBOSS
04-01-2014, 02:30 PM
Tak referencing is not allowed.

Max Power
04-01-2014, 06:39 PM
TakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTa kTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakT akTakTakTakTakTak

BISSBOSS
04-01-2014, 07:59 PM
I don't think I'll EVER be able to "Unsee" that Gif.

Thanks coach.

-BB-

AF Comm Guy
04-03-2014, 01:55 PM
From 2003-2005 General Weinstein was the ops group commander at Warren. The impossible expectation of perfection was a complaint brought up in a unit climate survey. His answer was that perfection was expected in nuclear operations. Little wonder he was despised by his troops, and it's pretty hypocritical that he is relieving officers for fostering this exact same atmosphere. Wonder if his bosses know how he did business when he commanded a missile unit...

It looks like General Weinstein isn't the only guy throwing people under the bus. Col Stanley, the outgoing 341st Wing Commander decided to throw all the blame on the cheaters without addressing the underlying problem of why they were cheating. I added a few comments in red.

"Subject: A Lesson to Remember

Wing One Colleagues,

Over the past few months, we have been forced to navigate through some of
the roughest waters most of us have ever experienced professionally (I guess we're in the Navy now). We've
seen the reputation of our beloved wing, and America's ICBM mission tarnished because of the extraordinarily selfish actions of officers entrusted with the most powerful weapon system ever devised by man. As you are now learning, the ramifications are dire. Many lives will be permanently changed as a result.

But, this costly lesson must not be in vain.

The lesson? Had just one solitary Airman spoken up for integrity, our leadership team would have been able to take action immediately. (They had been complaining about the impossible standards but you, your predecessors and bosses ignored the problem so they did what was needed to keep their jobs and avoid punitive actions.)

Tragically, peer pressure and the fear of being an outcast prevailed. As a result, the misconduct had to be inadvertently discovered by OSI agents.

Think of how different the narrative would be had the silent Airman just come forward. That Airman would now be lionized as a hero for casting aside his or her own fear of being made an outcast by a few inadequate peers. That Airman would have single-handedly preserved the honor and dignity of Malmstrom and all the wonderful people who make up this incredible wing.
But it didn't happen. Wrong won out over right... the voice of integrity was silenced... and the good guy lost at the end of the movie. (That Airman would have helped us keep a lid on this and I might have gotten my star.)

This is a wake-up call for everyone who has lost their sense of right and wrong, for those who have become cynical, and for those indoctrinated by modern society to acquiesce when faced with bad behavior. (Interseting. Labor rights advocates who worked for safer environments, more reasonable hours and better pay have been accused of exactly the same thing.)

"All that is necessary for evil to flourish, is for good people to do nothing." (If you are going to require 100% perfection on proficiency tests then you should apply the same standard to yourself when quoting historical figures such as Edmund Burke.) I highlighted this old axiom as the main point of my change of command speech a little over a year ago. I implored our formations of Airmen that it never be said of Malmstrom that "we did nothing" in the face of evil. I can't imagine a more vivid reinforcement of that lesson than what we're going through now.

As your wing commander, it occurs to me that I've been blessed with the opportunity of a lifetime. It's been one I neither expected nor deserved. (You'll get no argument from me on that last point.)

Our amazing Airmen and their families, the astoundingly supportive community, and the successes of Wing One have far outweighed the bad. Just being allowed to be a small part of your lives is a memory that Cheryl and I will cherish forever. But, like all things of great value, such blessings come with equally great costs. I represent this wing to the world, and we let the American people down on my watch. (Most of the American people don't care. You let down the people you command by not fixing what was wrong. Also, please don't use your wife as some kind of persecution shield.)

With that realization, and the genuine hope that my action will stir even the most apathetic hearts to action, I have decided to volunteer my resignation from this post effective immediately. This request has been accepted. I have also requested, and been approved for, retirement from the United States Air Force. If this sacrifice by Cheryl and me influences just one Airman to stand up for what's right the next time they are confronted by immorality, it will have been worth every tear and sleepless night. (There you go with the wife thing again.)

But, I do have one last command: Each and every one of you must now give your full allegiance, support, and enthusiasm to your new commander. I know that you will forge an even stronger team than the one we were so carefully building.

It's been the highest honor of my career to serve with the 341st Missile Wing and the Great Falls Community. You will always occupy a special place in our hearts.

Col S.

ROBERT W. STANLEY II, Colonel, USAF
Commander, 341st Missile Wing
Malmstrom AFB, Montana"

Tank82
04-03-2014, 04:06 PM
AF Comm Guy, I can see how it looks that way, but I can tell you Col Stanley is (was) the best wing commander I've ever had. There was absolutly nothing he could have done to prevent all of this. The "expectation of perfection" is not just a problem in nuclear operations, it's a problem throughout the entire Air Force.

Frankly, the blame should rest on the cheaters. I can tell you from being stationed here, they did not cheat because they were worried about how a "less than perfect" score would affect their career. They cheated because it was easy to do so and it made their lives easier, period. You have to remember, the reason they were caught was because two out of the four main "test providers" were under investigation for drug use. These officers were the ones who let the wing down, not Col Stanley.

And yes, he does mention his family a lot, but he has mentioned them at almost every all-call or mass gathering I have attended. He realizes he would not be the person he is today without his family. I just think the whole "using his wife as a persecution shield" is streching to find things.

While I can see how you may think Col Stanley is placing the blame on others instead of himself, I respectfully dissagree with the comments in your post.

Max Power
04-03-2014, 04:30 PM
Tak referencing is not allowed.


tak referencing is not allowed

Seriously? I guess I will comply comrade Moderators.

Gonzo432
04-03-2014, 04:30 PM
Tak referencing is not allowed.

In the last century a certain country's leader would have artists remove individuals from paintings to make it as if they never existed.

Big Blue
04-03-2014, 06:23 PM
AF Comm Guy, I can see how it looks that way, but I can tell you Col Stanley is (was) the best wing commander I've ever had. There was absolutly nothing he could have done to prevent all of this. The "expectation of perfection" is not just a problem in nuclear operations, it's a problem throughout the entire Air Force.

Frankly, the blame should rest on the cheaters. I can tell you from being stationed here, they did not cheat because they were worried about how a "less than perfect" score would affect their career. They cheated because it was easy to do so and it made their lives easier, period. You have to remember, the reason they were caught was because two out of the four main "test providers" were under investigation for drug use. These officers were the ones who let the wing down, not Col Stanley.

And yes, he does mention his family a lot, but he has mentioned them at almost every all-call or mass gathering I have attended. He realizes he would not be the person he is today without his family. I just think the whole "using his wife as a persecution shield" is streching to find things.

While I can see how you may think Col Stanley is placing the blame on others instead of himself, I respectfully dissagree with the comments in your post.

Absoultely concur with your assessment. He was THE best Wing CC I have ever had the pleasure to work for in 20+ years. He was cut from a different cloth and would have made an excellent General because he was in touch with the people and truly cared about their welfare. He despised rule breakers and would have dealt with them swiftly had he known. It is unfortunate that he was swept up in this since he is ultimately responsible. I understand that those who don't know him might think differently but I can assure you that letter was written from the heart. I wish him all the best.

TJMAC77SP
04-04-2014, 03:46 PM
TakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTa kTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakTakT akTakTakTakTakTak

Damn.............you beat me to it.

Reminds me of a day on the Opie and Anthony radio show. They were, at the time, on the same terrestrial radio network as Howard Stern. Evidently Stern forced the network to include in O&A's contract that his name (no part of his name) could be said on air. They had a story about a guy whose first name was Howard and when one of them said it, the name was 'bleeped'. This set them off and they commenced to utter "Howard" for about a minute, at the end of which one them said, "that was longer than 45 seconds so I know it got on the air". The delay function only works for a maximum of 45 seconds. Sometimes you have to shine a light on the bullshit.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-04-2014, 04:19 PM
Damn.............you beat me to it.

Reminds me of a day on the Opie and Anthony radio show. They were, at the time, on the same terrestrial radio network as Howard Stern. Evidently Stern forced the network to include in O&A's contract that his name (no part of his name) could be said on air. They had a story about a guy whose first name was Howard and when one of them said it, the name was 'bleeped'. This set them off and they commenced to utter "Howard" for about a minute, at the end of which one them said, "that was longer than 45 seconds so I know it got on the air". The delay function only works for a maximum of 45 seconds. Sometimes you have to shine a light on the bullshit.

I used to be a big fan of Howard and would occasionally listen to O&A and I remember that little feud. I always thought the feud was manufactured by the radio network to generate higher ratings for both shows.

Tak is certainly not Howard Stern, and I am certain he has changed his ISP to get a fresh IP address and is back on here under a new name.

Not that I care, I'd welcome him back at this point, just as long as he doesn't start calling himself The Godfather again.

Since I started one rumor, I'll start another one. A large number of Tak supporters emailed him their passwords and Tak now has access to about two dozen accounts and is routinely responsible for about half the posts on this forum on any particular day.

You can tell a Tak post by counting the number of words and then multiplying them by the number of letters in the previous post, then take the square root of that number and divide it by 3.14, if the result is an integer, then it is a Tak post.

Max Power
04-04-2014, 04:22 PM
You can tell a Tak post by counting the number of words and then multiplying them by the number of letters in the previous post, then take the square root of that number and divide it by 3.14, if the result is an integer, then it is a Tak post.

And his post looks like a haiku.

DWWSWWD
04-04-2014, 04:24 PM
Regarding "The Power of One", letter that the Colonel wrote, I got it from my CCM with some words to our taking a knee and thinking about integrity and using the Colonel's words to inspire us, blah, blah. I replied that I thought we should always think about core values in our operations and that I appreciated his words. I added that the letter he included, in my opinion, was absolute bullshit. That 77 of the 98 officers were Lieutenants and there is NO WAY that ONE of them never said, "Hey, are we sure this is OK?" No way there wasn't one Airmen that gave the "leadership team", the opportunity to "take action immediately." I don't doubt that the Colonel is a good guy. He probably gave some good words while in the seat, he probably had a beer at the club with some of the sled dogs but regarding this little conundrum, he's full of shit.

Mjölnir
04-04-2014, 04:46 PM
You can tell a Tak post by counting the number of words and then multiplying them by the number of letters in the previous post, then take the square root of that number and divide it by 3.14, if the result is an integer, then it is a Tak post.

I will try that sometime.


And his post looks like a haiku.

LOL

TJMAC77SP
04-04-2014, 07:28 PM
I used to be a big fan of Howard and would occasionally listen to O&A and I remember that little feud. I always thought the feud was manufactured by the radio network to generate higher ratings for both shows.

Tak is certainly not Howard Stern, and I am certain he has changed his ISP to get a fresh IP address and is back on here under a new name.

Not that I care, I'd welcome him back at this point, just as long as he doesn't start calling himself The Godfather again.

Since I started one rumor, I'll start another one. A large number of Tak supporters emailed him their passwords and Tak now has access to about two dozen accounts and is routinely responsible for about half the posts on this forum on any particular day.

You can tell a Tak post by counting the number of words and then multiplying them by the number of letters in the previous post, then take the square root of that number and divide it by 3.14, if the result is an integer, then it is a Tak post.

I have heard that he is a supporter of Gloria Steinem as well

ChiefB
04-12-2014, 04:38 AM
Absoultely concur with your assessment. He was THE best Wing CC I have ever had the pleasure to work for in 20+ years. He was cut from a different cloth and would have made an excellent General because he was in touch with the people and truly cared about their welfare. He despised rule breakers and would have dealt with them swiftly had he known. It is unfortunate that he was swept up in this since he is ultimately responsible. I understand that those who don't know him might think differently but I can assure you that letter was written from the heart. I wish him all the best.

I appreciate your view of the Colonel but looking at the big picture, from my orbit, it seems quite significant that, unbeknownst to him, almost 100 of his officers were derelict, dishonest and or ill equipped to lead.

Now I know a missile wing is vast and complex and junior officers can be skillful in their deception and clever in their malfeasance and middle managers are adept at "padding the books" but... drugs, lies, mass circumvention of classified directives, cheating and general conduct unbecoming within his wing don't exactly scream of normality.

Any good leader would develop a feedback chain that would keep a busy commander abreast and knowledgeable of the "health" of his unit, not just the good but the bad and the ugly. It is without question that some outside the chain of culprits in this drama knew of the "rot" that was festering in his wing. It is, without a doubt tragic that none of those who knew felt safe to correct the situation or to elevate the knowledge of the situation to the command level.

The commander is ultimately responsible for the health of his unit, it's preparedness and it's integrity. This commander and subordinate leaders accepted the responsibility and were tragically, found wanting.

imported_Sgt HULK
04-14-2014, 10:43 AM
I appreciate your view of the Colonel but looking at the big picture, from my orbit, it seems quite significant that, unbeknownst to him, almost 100 of his officers were derelict, dishonest and or ill equipped to lead.

Now I know a missile wing is vast and complex and junior officers can be skillful in their deception and clever in their malfeasance and middle managers are adept at "padding the books" but... drugs, lies, mass circumvention of classified directives, cheating and general conduct unbecoming within his wing don't exactly scream of normality.

Any good leader would develop a feedback chain that would keep a busy commander abreast and knowledgeable of the "health" of his unit, not just the good but the bad and the ugly. It is without question that some outside the chain of culprits in this drama knew of the "rot" that was festering in his wing. It is, without a doubt tragic that none of those who knew felt safe to correct the situation or to elevate the knowledge of the situation to the command level.

The commander is ultimately responsible for the health of his unit, it's preparedness and it's integrity. This commander and subordinate leaders accepted the responsibility and were tragically, found wanting.

I would assume that during your time chief you yourself may have been in charge of some folks who were the very same as you described unbeknownst to you. While on paper your statement is absolute and correct, the reality is these things happen and the very best at the top feel the wrath as the span of control isnt what it once was in our kindler gentler USAFCO

BISSBOSS
04-15-2014, 01:35 PM
I appreciate your view of the Colonel but looking at the big picture, from my orbit, it seems quite significant that, unbeknownst to him, almost 100 of his officers were derelict, dishonest and or ill equipped to lead.

Now I know a missile wing is vast and complex and junior officers can be skillful in their deception and clever in their malfeasance and middle managers are adept at "padding the books" but... drugs, lies, mass circumvention of classified directives, cheating and general conduct unbecoming within his wing don't exactly scream of normality.

Any good leader would develop a feedback chain that would keep a busy commander abreast and knowledgeable of the "health" of his unit, not just the good but the bad and the ugly. It is without question that some outside the chain of culprits in this drama knew of the "rot" that was festering in his wing. It is, without a doubt tragic that none of those who knew felt safe to correct the situation or to elevate the knowledge of the situation to the command level.

The commander is ultimately responsible for the health of his unit, it's preparedness and it's integrity. This commander and subordinate leaders accepted the responsibility and were tragically, found wanting.

The truth of the matter (IMHO) is that MOST Commander's in the Nuke world are hoping to LEAST) break even or (at BEST) make a good/great showing during their stint "in the chair" at a Nuke Unit.

In my experience, those that are the most engaged are FORCED to rely on the integrity and word(s) Officers and Senior NCOs who run the day to day operations in their units. They are ill-equipped to make an independent evaluation of the unit's effectiveness or readiness.

NOW, that's not to say that the Boss is absolved of responsibility. I'm merely attempting to highlight HOW the process is structured to cycle Commanders through, get that box checked and move them up and along. Eventually, they run into a bad/failed NSI rating and top out or they are promoted to just about one grade over their heads...

AGAIN - Just my opinion...

-BB-

ChiefB
04-21-2014, 09:27 AM
I would assume that during your time chief you yourself may have been in charge of some folks who were the very same as you described unbeknownst to you. While on paper your statement is absolute and correct, the reality is these things happen and the very best at the top feel the wrath as the span of control isnt what it once was in our kindler gentler USAFCO

The truth is as you say if I was to be told now that this was a fact... then. But, since it never happened to me I would have to chalk that fact up to my never having been a commander or a supervisor of commissioned officers and being very fortunate otherwise.

In my 31 years, I however, did lead a considerable cadre of enlisted personnel in many varied career fields from aircrew members, firefighters, command & control and SP Non-Coms. There surely were incidents of corrupt behavior and malfeasance among those led. I did deal with those that came to my attention whether by personal observation, via snitches, or official surfacing of skullduggery. Admittedly, I suspected there was a "tip of the iceberg" reality to my complete confidence in full knowledge of that undersea reality.

As an IG team inspector on three different Major Commands I was exposed to all matter of irregular behavior at inspected units that surfaced regularly while on visits. Some were found by individual inspectors and some of the most egregious behavior was surfaced by unit personnel informing via the confidential interviews conducted during IG visits.

As a Senior Enlisted Advisor (SEA) to an AF Commander in an Army unit overseas, I got involved in the removal of a very respected Chief and his return to his home unit in disgrace. That incident became shockingly personal and the most bizarre circumstance in all of my time in the AF.

This is all to say that I was surely more fortunate than the commander referenced above but I also realize that the fortunes of leaders are always tied to those led and as complete an awareness as possible of their lot in life.

The great preponderance of those I led, mentored, taught or supervised were good, hardworking and honest and they made my job a joy on more occasions than I have time or the inclination to iterate here. I do have occasion to think of them and smile, often.

I thank you for your comments, Hulkster.

Gonzo432
04-21-2014, 03:25 PM
The truth is as you say if I was to be told now that this was a fact... then. But, since it never happened to me I would have to chalk that fact up to my never having been a commander or a supervisor of commissioned officers and being very fortunate otherwise.

In my 31 years, I however, did lead a considerable cadre of enlisted personnel in many varied career fields from aircrew members, firefighters, command & control and SP Non-Coms. There surely were incidents of corrupt behavior and malfeasance among those led. I did deal with those that came to my attention whether by personal observation, via snitches, or official surfacing of skullduggery. Admittedly, I suspected there was a "tip of the iceberg" reality to my complete confidence in full knowledge of that undersea reality.

As an IG team inspector on three different Major Commands I was exposed to all matter of irregular behavior at inspected units that surfaced regularly while on visits. Some were found by individual inspectors and some of the most egregious behavior was surfaced by unit personnel informing via the confidential interviews conducted during IG visits.

As a Senior Enlisted Advisor (SEA) to an AF Commander in an Army unit overseas, I got involved in the removal of a very respected Chief and his return to his home unit in disgrace. That incident became shockingly personal and the most bizarre circumstance in all of my time in the AF.

This is all to say that I was surely more fortunate than the commander referenced above but I also realize that the fortunes of leaders are always tied to those led and as complete an awareness as possible of their lot in life.

The great preponderance of those I led, mentored, taught or supervised were good, hardworking and honest and they made my job a joy on more occasions than I have time or the inclination to iterate here. I do have occasion to think of them and smile, often.

I thank you for your comments, Hulkster.

Official surfacing of skullduggery. I like it! ChiefB: do you have the rights to that or can anyone use it?

ChiefB
04-22-2014, 08:15 AM
Official surfacing of skullduggery. I like it! ChiefB: do you have the rights to that or can anyone use it?

Be my guest, Gonzo...

Stalwart
04-22-2014, 10:30 AM
In my 31 years, I however, did lead a considerable cadre of enlisted personnel in many varied career fields from aircrew members, firefighters, command & control and SP Non-Coms. There surely were incidents of corrupt behavior and malfeasance among those led. I did deal with those that came to my attention whether by personal observation, via snitches, or official surfacing of skullduggery. Admittedly, I suspected there was a "tip of the iceberg" reality to my complete confidence in full knowledge of that undersea reality.

Dealing with those that come to your attention is the key part. I have seen bad situations, where people (subordinates, peers of the offenders and seniors/leaders) turned a blind eye to obvious bad actors; sometimes this was minor disciplinary stuff and sometimes major ethical or regulatory issues. I was not personally familiar with, but have done a lot of research on the 1994 B-52 crash at Fairchild, and it does seem that the pilot (Lt Col Holland) was someone who should have been dealt with long before the crash. As a Division Officer, Department Head & OIC I knew that I probably was only getting the “tip of the iceberg” and a large part of my OODA loop is when does “I got this sir” not satisfy my ‘warm-fuzzy feeling’ and I start asking pointed questions and investigating further. My 'warm-fuzzy' may be calibrated differently since I was a SNCO, but I still need to have that comfort level in the areas that I am ultimately responsible for. The key thing for leadership (both enlisted and officer) is that we have a duty & responsibility to enforce regulations and promote ‘ethical conduct.’

As far as ethical conduct, I am not at all concerned if you think the same as I do IRT religion, politics, social issues etc. … are you directing subordinates to violate regulations (and not taking the responsibility if things go afoul), to take unnecessary risks with government property or personal safety (creative and calculated risk taking is okay, but unneeded risks are not), are you treating the people who are assigned to you fairly and equitably or are you playing favorites etc.?

I would be curious about your use of the word snitch, I take it as a negative term (which may have not been the intent.) Is it wrong for someone to report a violation to the appropriate authority for resolution? At what point when trying to deal with an issue at the peer level (or even a subordinate dealing with a senior) does someone reasonably feel they have done their due diligence with a situation and that outside help is the only avenue? Should every issue get reported, what issues can feasibly be handled at the peer level and which should be elevated to a senior echelon in the chain of command?

ChiefB
04-22-2014, 10:59 AM
Dealing with those that come to your attention is the key part. I have seen bad situations, where people (subordinates, peers of the offenders and seniors/leaders) turned a blind eye to obvious bad actors; sometimes this was minor disciplinary stuff and sometimes major ethical or regulatory issues. I was not personally familiar with, but have done a lot of research on the 1994 B-52 crash at Fairchild, and it does seem that the pilot (Lt Col Holland) was someone who should have been dealt with long before the crash. As a Division Officer, Department Head & OIC I knew that I probably was only getting the “tip of the iceberg” and a large part of my OODA loop is when does “I got this sir” not satisfy my ‘warm-fuzzy feeling’ and I start asking pointed questions and investigating further. My 'warm-fuzzy' may be calibrated differently since I was a SNCO, but I still need to have that comfort level in the areas that I am ultimately responsible for. The key thing for leadership (both enlisted and officer) is that we have a duty & responsibility to enforce regulations and promote ‘ethical conduct.’

As far as ethical conduct, I am not at all concerned if you think the same as I do IRT religion, politics, social issues etc … are you directing subordinates to violate regulations (and not taking the responsibility if things go afoul), to take unnecessary risks with government property or personal safety (creative and calculated risk taking is okay, but unneeded risks are not), are you treating the people who are assigned to you fairly and equitably or are you playing favorites etc.?

I would be curious about your use of the word snitch, I take it as a negative term (which may have not been the intent.) Is it wrong for someone to report a violation to the appropriate authority for resolution? At what point when trying to deal with an issue at the peer level (or even a subordinate dealing with a senior) does someone reasonably feel they have done their due diligence with a situation and that outside help is the only avenue? Should every issue get reported, what issues can feasibly be handled at the peer level and which should be elevated to a senior echelon in the chain of command?

I found there to be two kinds of snitches. Yours and the other guy's. Positive in the first instance and negative in the second. My use was meant to be in the first instance. I handled all enlisted infractions at my level and only elevated what qualified as NJP or UCMJ infractions. Officer misconduct I passed to the OIC for action if unresolvable.

Stalwart
04-22-2014, 11:23 AM
I found there to be two kinds of snitches. Yours and the other guy's. Positive in the first instance and negative in the second. My use was meant to be in the first instance. I handled all enlisted infractions at my level and only elevated what qualified as NJP or UCMJ infractions. Officer misconduct I passed to the OIC for action if unresolvable.

Gotcha, and I agree with you. By and large I would prefer things were handled at the peer level; most of the time I have seen serious issues in this area is when someone handled something and considered the case closed when they did not have the actual authority to resolve the issue.

The military mantra of "don't be the senior guy with a secret" I think has in some cases created an abundance of over escalating things that shouldn't.

One of my first deployments was very rough for the first few months, we had to pack and carry a lot of equipment to meet the platform overseas. Prior to departure I asked the Chief if the inventory was good (I did not conduct it) and was told "I got it sir." After about a week onboard I asked about why we were not generating a particular type of data in our reporting and was told that one component of a piece of equipment had been forgotten. We were not able to get the component for approx 2 months, not performing to our full capability during that time -- I learned a bit of a lesson, and for some time was a bit more in the weeds than I should have been. My biggest issue with the Chief was not informing me as soon as it was realized that we were missing that component so I could let my seniors know.

ChiefB
04-22-2014, 01:11 PM
Gotcha, and I agree with you. By and large I would prefer things were handled at the peer level; most of the time I have seen serious issues in this area is when someone handled something and considered the case closed when they did not have the actual authority to resolve the issue.

The military mantra of "don't be the senior guy with a secret" I think has in some cases created an abundance of over escalating things that shouldn't.

One of my first deployments was very rough for the first few months, we had to pack and carry a lot of equipment to meet the platform overseas. Prior to departure I asked the Chief if the inventory was good (I did not conduct it) and was told "I got it sir." After about a week onboard I asked about why we were not generating a particular type of data in our reporting and was told that one component of a piece of equipment had been forgotten. We were not able to get the component for approx 2 months, not performing to our full capability during that time -- I learned a bit of a lesson, and for some time was a bit more in the weeds than I should have been. My biggest issue with the Chief was not informing me as soon as it was realized that we were missing that component so I could let my seniors know.

Gee, what a co-inki-dink!

Why am I not surprised that your last two posts would lead to this example?

Are you under the impression that condescension is an invisible tactic?

You may consider me duly informed on your previous "SRNCO" status and "Department Head OIC" status and how you dealt with not your airman, not your SSgt, nor Lt. but your wholly incompetent... Chief. Puleeze!

Save me. You are not the only one of your kind out there... and this is not my first rodeo.

Stalwart
04-22-2014, 01:36 PM
Gee, what a co-inki-dink!

Why am I not surprised that your last two posts would lead to this example?

Are you under the impression that condescension is an invisible tactic?

You may consider me duly informed on your previous "SRNCO" status and "Department Head OIC" status and how you dealt with not your airman, not your SSgt, nor Lt. but your wholly incompetent... Chief. Puleeze!

Save me. You are not the only one of your kind out there... and this is not my first rodeo.



I am not sure what set you off, I was just illustrating an example.

I have worked with a lot more good Chiefs than "wholly incompetant ones" (keep in mind I am in the Navy but am more illustrating an example about leadership vice a service specific example.) But, in this specific case the Chief Petty Officer (E7) was eventually separated from the Navy as a First Class Petty Officer (E6) at his 15 year mark for a different set of circumstances.

As far as me bieng a prior SNCO and a former DH & OIC ... I was just giving context, no more so (IMO) than others.

Again, not sure why the hostility as that wasn't my intent or desire.

ChiefB
04-22-2014, 02:24 PM
I am not sure what set you off, I was just illustrating an example.

I have worked with a lot more good Chiefs than "wholly incompetant ones (keep in mind I am in the Navy but am more illustrating an example about leadership vice a service specific example.) But, in this specific case the Chief Petty Officer (E7) was eventually separated from the Navy as a First Class Petty Officer (E6) at his 15 year mark for a different set of circumstances.

As far as me bieng a prior SNCO and a former DH & OIC ... I was just giving context, no more so (IMO) than others.

Again, not sure why the hostility as that wasn't my intent or desire.

If you can tell me that you can not cite nor did you ever experience a junior or mid grade officer complete an act of error or incompetency for your story example, then I will accept your example. No harm, no foul. Otherwise I've heard my fill of Mustangs musing about their incompetent enlisteds, Chiefs or CPOs.

No hostility, just boredom.

Stalwart
04-22-2014, 02:32 PM
If you can tell me that you can not cite nor did you ever experience a junior or mid grade officer complete a act of error or incompetency for your story example, then I will accept your example. No harm, no foul. Otherwise I've heard my fill of Mustangs musing about their incompetent enlisteds, Chiefs or CPOs.

No hostility, just boredom.

Of course I have seen junior, mid-grade and senior officers completing acts of error or incompetency. I have cited some in other threads; I just did not use that example here.

I have often said (in these forums) that the people that I have worked with (my juniors & seniors) are very motivated, competent and capable soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. If you are offended that the example I used was an enlisted person, I am sorry ... but it was one example.

ChiefB
04-22-2014, 04:03 PM
Of course I have seen junior, mid-grade and senior officers completing acts of error or incompetency. I have cited some in other threads; I just did not use that example here.

I have often said (in these forums) that the people that I have worked with (my juniors & seniors) are very motivated, competent and capable soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. If you are offended that the example I used was an enlisted person, I am sorry ... but it was one example.

I hear you. Just be aware that in forums such as these, the predominant users are current and prior service enlisteds and most of the officers who participate will tell you that it raises their hackles when the enlisted side gets on an officer vent. You, as a prior NONCOM, now officer must have a unique insight of which I speak.

Thanks for your candid comments.

Stalwart
04-22-2014, 04:40 PM
I hear you. Just be aware that in forums such as these, the predominant users are current and prior service enlisteds and most of the officers who participate will tell you that it raises their hackles when the enlisted side gets on an officer vent. You, as a prior NONCOM, now officer must have a unique insight of which I speak.

Thanks for your candid comments.

My truest & best mentors have been enlisted Marines and Chiefs; even my LPO (E6) on my ship and I had some pretty good discussions that steered my course. I rarely comment on specific issues for another service (TERA for WXJumper, the new AF Uniform instruction as examples) since that is not really my line of operation. Leadership, training, ethos etc. are areas that I will comment on since as I see it: good leadership is good, bad leadership is bad -- regardless of the uniform you wear or what is on the collar or sleeve. Too many officers think as you describe -- averse to opinons from enlisted members. At the same time, I think a fair amount of enlisted members don't want the opinion of an officer -- even if it could aid in the situation.

The Air Force has/had a pretty serious problem with their Nuc program, turns out the Navy did too. It looks like the Air Force one was mostly officers and the Navy's is mostly senior enlisted (so far). The Air Force OpEd article from a few months ago seemed to ignore the problem & the best way to fail at correcting a problem is to get too sensitive about talking about it, a problem many officers have and something I observed when I was in a flight billet. Our post flight debriefs seemed like a big group hug and did not address the things that we needed to improve on; so me with my blunt (infantry-like) style seemed like Mr. Negative. I understand the need to preserve the integrity of a position (Battalion Commander, Ship CO, Senior Enlisted etc.) but also know when they foul up, it needs to be handled and when a senior officer (or enlisted) is rotated out early with no fan-fare, the leadership is not fooling anyone -- how to do that correctly without forfeiting their privacy is hard.

I have fair amount of opinions being prior enlisted. Being also dual service (USMC enlisted now a Navy officer) and my enlisted job being VASTLY different from my officer job it probably comes across as a weird mix of skills (USMC infantry & Navy cryptology.)

Candid is all people get from me; that is probably the GySgt in me ... it is usually my friend, but on occasion it has rubbed the Navy the wrong way.

Gonzo432
04-23-2014, 02:01 AM
Be my guest, Gonzo...

I'll try to work it into an e-mail. "We've seen an official surfacing of skullduggery lately..."