PDA

View Full Version : BAH Going Away?



Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 10:29 AM
2017 NDAA: http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20161128/CRPT-114HRPT-S2943.pdf


REPORTS ON A NEW SINGLE-SALARY PAY SYSTEM FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES (SEC 604) - Not later than March 1, 2017, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representative a report that sets forth a plan to implement a new pay system. The new pay structure described shall assume the repeal of the basic allowance for housing and basic allowance subsistence for members of the Armed Forces in favor of a single-salary pay system.

And, if you search the document, here's what you find:


The new pay structure described pursuant to subsection (b)(1) shall assume the repeal of the basic allowance for housing and basic allowance subsistence for members of the Armed Forces in favor of a single-salary pay system, and shall include the following:

(1) A statement of pay comparability with the civilian sector adequate to effectively recruit and retain a high-quality All-Volunteer Force.

(2) The level of pay necessary by grade and years of service to meet pay comparability as described in paragraph (1) in order to recruit and retain a high-quality All-Volunteer Force.

(3) Necessary modifications to the military retirement system, including the retired pay multiplier, to ensure that members of the Armed Forces under the pay structure are situated similarly to where they would otherwise be under the military retirement system that will take effect on January 1, 2018, by reason part I of subtitle D of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 842), and the amendments made by that part.

Two concerns about this proposal:

1. Does not allow (as written) for locality differential. Incorporating BAH into basic pay without allowance for the differences in cost of living could do two things:
-if the amount incorporated is assumed at the amount of the areas of the country with the highest cost of living, that provides a surplus in lower cost of living areas.
-if the amount incorporated is below the amount needed to provide housing in those higher cost of living areas, that provides a burden on those stationed in those higher cost areas.

2. This plan removes a significant benefit to military compensation by adding taxable income to service members. In a median income area (Norfolk VA) ... an E-6 filing jointly is now on the cusp of the next higher tax bracket. Assuming he gets a bonus, sea pay, proficiency pay or his spouse has a job making more than $7,000 per year in taxable income, he moves from the 15% tax bracket into the 25% bracket. An E7 or O3 at 8 years moves into the next high bracket as well. This legislation has the effect (intended or not) of pushing almost anyone with over 12 years in the military into, or nearly into, the 25% tax bracket.

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 11:49 AM
2017 NDAA: http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20161128/CRPT-114HRPT-S2943.pdf



And, if you search the document, here's what you find:



Two concerns about this proposal:

1. Does not allow (as written) for locality differential. Incorporating BAH into basic pay without allowance for the differences in cost of living could do two things:
-if the amount incorporated is assumed at the amount of the areas of the country with the highest cost of living, that provides a surplus in lower cost of living areas.
-if the amount incorporated is below the amount needed to provide housing in those higher cost of living areas, that provides a burden on those stationed in those higher cost areas.

2. This plan removes a significant benefit to military compensation by adding taxable income to service members. In a median income area (Norfolk VA) ... an E-6 filing jointly is now on the cusp of the next higher tax bracket. Assuming he gets a bonus, sea pay, proficiency pay or his spouse has a job making more than $7,000 per year in taxable income, he moves from the 15% tax bracket into the 25% bracket. An E7 or O3 at 8 years moves into the next high bracket as well. This legislation has the effect (intended or not) of pushing almost anyone with over 12 years in the military into, or nearly into, the 25% tax bracket.

Finally, a smart proposal. I don't think the locality thing will be an issue as there's already something in place for the GS pay system so I would imagine that would remain the same. I've argued several times, probably with you, that the BAH system is screwed up. It either needs to be a single number for everyone (with more expensive housing coming out of the person's base pay) or it needs to go away completely. Now SNCO/Officers will finally have to realize that they aren't entitled to a 3500 sq ft house without there being some hit to the pocket book.

Also, we already know that most military get back everything they pay in, or more, in taxes, and this will actually change that a little bit to make military members contribute fiscally.

Of course now we'll have to hear the words "hero" and "sacrifice" as the media spouts their faux outrage so as not to appear like they don't fully support everything military members.

Whether it passes or not, or gets amended or not, it's a step in the right direction.

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 12:11 PM
Finally, a smart proposal. I don't think the locality thing will be an issue as there's already something in place for the GS pay system so I would imagine that would remain the same. I've argued several times, probably with you, that the BAH system is screwed up. It either needs to be a single number for everyone (with more expensive housing coming out of the person's base pay) or it needs to go away completely. Now SNCO/Officers will finally have to realize that they aren't entitled to a 3500 sq ft house without there being some hit to the pocket book.

Also, we already know that most military get back everything they pay in, or more, in taxes, and this will actually change that a little bit to make military members contribute fiscally.

Of course now we'll have to hear the words "hero" and "sacrifice" as the media spouts their faux outrage so as not to appear like they don't fully support everything military members.

Whether it passes or not, or gets amended or not, it's a step in the right direction.

The way I am reading the NDAA, it doesn't account for locality (like the GS scale does) ... but it could be written in by DoD as part of the plan.

The way the wording of it is that the amount incorporated would not be a set amount across all paygrades but "necessary by grade", so likely just incorporating a mean of what the BAH level was for that grade into that grade's base pay vice a "everyone get's 3k extra in base pay now plan (which is what I think you are in favor of).

I agree with you that "hero" is overused to describe the average service member, the kick in the shorts to many in the military under this plan is that for the average E6, this could result in an additional $7k tax burden per year ... that is more than a little bit.

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 01:40 PM
I agree with you that "hero" is overused to describe the average service member, the kick in the shorts to many in the military under this plan is that for the average E6, this could result in an additional $7k tax burden per year ... that is more than a little bit.It's really not that much. As a GS-9 I make far more in taxable income than an E6 (about $20k more) and, after the standard deductions and claiming 1, I'm paying very little. The biggest thing some will lose is the EIC, which is kinda bullshit anyway.

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 02:29 PM
It's really not that much. As a GS-9 I make far more in taxable income than an E6 (about $20k more) and, after the standard deductions and claiming 1, I'm paying very little. The biggest thing some will lose is the EIC, which is kinda bullshit anyway.

I guess a better way to put it is that it could be that much (or more depending on the spouse's job etc.) personal deductions etc. An E6 who owned a house and had no other income (spouse etc.) would pay less in taxes because of deductions that an E6 who rented an apartment or house. Depending on where an individual falls and how close they are to the top of their current tax bracket, a pay raise can actually cost them money.

Let's say someone earns a base pay of around $4k/mo ($48k per yr) and BAH of $2k/mo (adds $24k per year for a total of $72k).

The federal taxes on $48k (of taxable income) is about $9k, and the federal tax on $72k is about $16.5k.

Some people will have the AMT come into play and as you point out, EIC and the 'standard deduction' vice itemizing (especially for people who buy a house) deductions, but it would be a real change to everyone's take home income / bottom line.

One option would be to consider that since we are paid with Federal Taxes and send money back to the federal government anyway. Would it would be much more efficient to just reduce our pay and may all military pay federal tax free? Maybe ... but removes our 'skin in the game' -- I DO think military pay and pensions should be (at least at their current amounts) considered taxable income. Have seen too many people cry about how they shouldn't have to pay income tax on their retirement check.

I part I think we (the military) brought this on ourselves with the "An E3 fighting in a war zone only earns 22k a year" mantra too.

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 02:41 PM
Something I thought about too & I think a Rusty Jones brought this up last time BAH was a topic:

This would be a change on pension amounts. Granted, the wording in the NDAA does say that the multiples could be changed to reflect the new single-pay proposal ... so instead of 50% at 20 years math ... maybe you only get 35% etc. since the base pay is higher.

Long term, this probably won't take place for some time. I would be if it does it has a locality scale (like sandsjames said) since the cost of living in say Memphis TN is so much less than Washington DC.

Bos Mutus
01-04-2017, 03:43 PM
I guess a better way to put it is that it could be that much (or more depending on the spouse's job etc.) personal deductions etc. An E6 who owned a house and had no other income (spouse etc.) would pay less in taxes because of deductions that an E6 who rented an apartment or house. Depending on where an individual falls and how close they are to the top of their current tax bracket, a pay raise can actually cost them money.

A pay raise can not cost you money.


Let's say someone earns a base pay of around $4k/mo ($48k per yr) and BAH of $2k/mo (adds $24k per year for a total of $72k).

The federal taxes on $48k (of taxable income) is about $9k, and the federal tax on $72k is about $16.5k.

Base pay does not equal taxable income...still have to take deductions...but yes, taxes will go up if taxable income goes up...but you can always increase the increase by the typical increase in tax burden.


Some people will have the AMT come into play and as you point out, EIC and the 'standard deduction' vice itemizing (especially for people who buy a house) deductions, but it would be a real change to everyone's take home income / bottom line.

I would agree that taxes will go up...the solution could be as simple as make the increases include the additional tax burden.

...so instead of the 24K increase, you increase it by 31K to account for the presumed tax burden...it would not be exact for everyone as you say, depending on the members other financial matters the actual tax may differ.


One option would be to consider that since we are paid with Federal Taxes and send money back to the federal government anyway. Would it would be much more efficient to just reduce our pay and may all military pay federal tax free? Maybe ... but removes our 'skin in the game' -- I DO think military pay and pensions should be (at least at their current amounts) considered taxable income. Have seen too many people cry about how they shouldn't have to pay income tax on their retirement check.

I part I think we (the military) brought this on ourselves with the "An E3 fighting in a war zone only earns 22k a year" mantra too.

It almost sounds like this is what is driving the change...to present a fair number of pay and compensation "for recruiting and retention"...a single pay system will allow more fair comparison of what a military person gets when joining or gives up by leaving.

The cynic in me tells me that this is the excuse to make the change, but the real reason is to save the govt. money...and that money comes out of the pay of the servicemembers. It will be sufficiently complicated enough to offer roundabout explanations of why it is good for the servicemembers, while save the govt. billions of dollars.


Something I thought about too & I think a @Rusty Jones (http://forums.militarytimes.com/member.php?u=14834) brought this up last time BAH was a topic:

This would be a change on pension amounts. Granted, the wording in the NDAA does say that the multiples could be changed to reflect the new single-pay proposal ... so instead of 50% at 20 years math ... maybe you only get 35% etc. since the base pay is higher.

Yes, that is what it sounds like...change the math to make the retirement approximately equal.


Long term, this probably won't take place for some time. I would be if it does it has a locality scale (like @sandsjames (http://forums.militarytimes.com/member.php?u=8611) said) since the cost of living in say Memphis TN is so much less than Washington DC.

It would most certainly have to include locality pay.

Bos Mutus
01-04-2017, 03:53 PM
It would be interesting to see the math on how it plays out in 10 to 20 years.

BAH and Base Pay increase over the years on differing factors. BAH goes by the local housing costs and can increase or decrease with the housing market...while Base Pay increases on the CPI and I've never it go down.

But once again...for any math problem, there is a math solution...you can adjust the locality pay each year to account for housing changes.

Rainmaker
01-04-2017, 04:05 PM
A pay raise can not cost you money.

Horseshit. A pay raise can trigger several benefit cliffs, that can result in an employee having less disposable income.


The cynic in me tells me that this is the excuse to make the change, but the real reason is to save the govt. money...and that money comes out of the pay of the servicemembers

This is no different than every other action taken by this Usurper from the Indonesian madrassa (and the serpents in Congress) over the last 8 years.

They've all been done with one thing in mind....... Tearing down the US Military and weakening the nation.

Thank God this tragic march of stupidity is finally coming to an end.

Bos Mutus
01-04-2017, 04:20 PM
Horseshit. A pay raise can trigger several benefit cliffs, that can result in an employee having less disposable income.

While that is true...I was talking in the tax sense.

i.e....going from the 15% to 25% tax bracket does not cost you money.

But, Yes...it could cost you losing some other forms of benefits, etc...

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 04:21 PM
This change would have two very obvious benefits almost immediately:

It would rid the confusion from the stupid rules that allow roommates living together to both get full single rate while married couples get different amounts.

It would also keep entire towns/cities from manipulating the real estate market based on known BAH rates.

Military members need to quit bitching about all the sacrifices we make (or have made) while living in a 3500 sq ft house with 3 cars on a middle management salary.

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 04:57 PM
It would rid the confusion from the stupid rules that allow roommates living together to both get full single rate while married couples get different amounts.

I do like this part of the 'what if's' ... a lot

Bos Mutus
01-04-2017, 05:07 PM
This change would have two very obvious benefits almost immediately:

It would rid the confusion from the stupid rules that allow roommates living together to both get full single rate while married couples get different amounts.

I believe married couples both get single rate unless there are children...then one of them gets dependent rate and the other gets single rate.


It would also keep entire towns/cities from manipulating the real estate market based on known BAH rates.

I'd suppose this is possible if the entire town/city was a heavy military town and isolated from any major housing market.

...but, I've not seen this CONUS. BAH normally lags local market conditions, which normally have variables much greater than military BAH.

Where I've seen something sort of like this is overseas...where the member gets a maximum based on rank, but only gets paid what they actually pay in rent. I've seen property companies/landlords ask the members rank and determine the rent based on that...this practice is, of course, frowned upon and some housing offices I've seen require landlords to post the rent amount before referring members to them.



Military members need to quit bitching about all the sacrifices we make (or have made) while living in a 3500 sq ft house with 3 cars on a middle management salary.

Rainmaker
01-04-2017, 05:29 PM
military members need to quit bitching about all the sacrifices we make (or have made) while living in a 3500 sq ft house with 3 cars on a middle management salary.

Depends on where they're stationed.

The median house size for a family of 4 in the US is 2400 SF. The current Median Home price is $238K. couple that with Skyrocketing Rents and Property Taxes and soon to be normalizing interest rates, & not too many people are going to be buying 3500 SF McMansions.

A half-way decent 3 Bedroom apartment in Tampa (that's not an hour and half commute or in a 80% culturally diverse hood (with failing schools) is probably gonna run them around $1700 bucks.

Now, middle-class in this country, used to be defined as having enough money for a average House, 2 cars and being able to afford to help send your kids to college.

I think it's reasonable to expect that SNCO/Officers, who've dedicated their entire adult lives to service should at least be in the Middle class.

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 06:02 PM
Depends on where they're stationed.

The median house size for a family of 4 in the US is 2400 SF.2400 sq ft is a huge house, especially for a family of 4. I've never lived in a house over 1600 ft and it's been far more than enough. It's about time that the military quit footing the bill for people to live above their means.


& not too many people are going to be buying 3500 SF McMansions. Except those receiving BAH.


A half-way decent 3 Bedroom apartment in Tampa (that's not an hour and half commute or in a 80% culturally diverse hood (with failing schools) is probably gonna run them around $1700 bucks.

Now, middle-class in this country, used to be defined as having enough money for a average House, 2 cars and being able to afford to help send your kids to college.

I think it's reasonable to expect that SNCO/Officers, who've dedicated their entire adult lives to service should at least be in the Middle class. Sure...SNCOs and Officers...cuz of course if you aren't/weren't a SNCO or Officer then you couldn't have possibly dedicated your entire adult life to service and haven't earned anything.

Also, the pay raise (after getting rid of BAH) would be enough for those officers and SNCOs to still be able to still afford the same lifestyle, if they so choose...

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 06:30 PM
2400 sq ft is a huge house, especially for a family of 4. I've never lived in a house over 1600 ft and it's been far more than enough. It's about time that the military quit footing the bill for people to live above their means.

C'mon ... I have at least 250 square feet just for my books (real and comic) ...

But really, it is time for all people to stop living above their means. Some people in the military do, many do not.


Sure...SNCOs and Officers...cuz of course if you aren't/weren't a SNCO or Officer then you couldn't have possibly dedicated your entire adult life to service and haven't earned anything.

Many people devote their whole lives to working hard; what they work hard at doing will likely have drastic differences in how they are compensated for their work though. If someone does the things they need to do to be a SNCO or Officer, promote through those ranks etc. I would not begrudge them the increased compensation that comes with it as opposed to someone to doesn't want to do those things.

It is disingenuous to say "I never wanted to be an E7 (or Officer), so I didn't do what would have gotten me promoted", but hold it against those that do.


Also, the pay raise (after getting rid of BAH) would be enough for those officers and SNCOs to still be able to still afford the same lifestyle, if they so choose...

Probably so. I don't see a new system (single-pay or otherwise) effectively cutting anyone's total compensation package.

Bos Mutus
01-04-2017, 06:32 PM
2400 sq ft is a huge house, especially for a family of 4. I've never lived in a house over 1600 ft and it's been far more than enough. It's about time that the military quit footing the bill for people to live above their means.

Except those receiving BAH.

Sure...SNCOs and Officers...cuz of course if you aren't/weren't a SNCO or Officer then you couldn't have possibly dedicated your entire adult life to service and haven't earned anything.

Also, the pay raise (after getting rid of BAH) would be enough for those officers and SNCOs to still be able to still afford the same lifestyle, if they so choose...

Your argument seems be more of one that military members are just plain overpaid.

I don't think that is addressed one way or another by moving from allowances to single salary...assuming that whatever is done away with in allowances is added to salary so that the servicemember arrives in basically the same place.

If we take this proposal at face value, it just provides an even level of comparison for recruiting and retention purposes...so we're no longer saying that Sally McBurgerflipper gets paid more than an E-4, etc....which both entices Sally to stay as a burger flipper and encourages the E-4 separate for the riches of the burger flipping civilian industry.

As Mjolnir said...this story has been repeated often, usually by people arguing for more military benefits, that the military is underpaid, blah blah blah...this proposal might take away SOME of that bargaining power by illustrating how much servicemembers are actually paid.

Of course, figures don't lie, but liars can figure...so there will always be a way to skew the numbers to present a favorable argument for whatever it is one is trying to accomplish. Of course, what typically happens is they'll use the examples of servicemembers who make the greatest sacrifices and portray them as typical...when for a many of us they are not typical.

If you ask me...I think a better system would be to go the other way...smaller base pay and higher allowances...not necessarily BAH and BAS, but Combat Pay, Family Sep, Hazardous Duty, etc. This way, the higher pay goes directly to the people making those higher sacrifices....oh, it also gets paid while the sacrifices are made and does not perpetuate indefinitely in retirement pay.

This system would also provide Congress with a more immediate and responsive system...allowances could be adjust every year..whereas once a guy has retired and is drawing his retirement pay for 40 years, it's hard to control that spending other than adjust its rate of growth...which can take years to realize

but, again...the cynic in me says the real purpose for this change is to save the govt. money...which necessarily comes out of the pockets of the servicemembers...some of whom more than earned it.

Rainmaker
01-04-2017, 06:43 PM
It is disingenuous to say "I never wanted to be an E7 (or Officer), so I didn't do what would have gotten me promoted", but hold it against those that do.

I'll take 'Sour Grapes' for $200 Alex!


Your argument seems be more of one that military members are just plain overpaid

Far more $ could be saved by getting serious about Federal Civil service "reform".

It's high time, we get rid of the sweet benefits packages and 75 days a year of sitting on their fat asses at home.

Of course then we'd have all the entitled affirmative-action, hires going crazy, about losing their guaranteed checks for life (regardless of performance)

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 07:12 PM
Your argument seems be more of one that military members are just plain overpaid. Not at all. I think that the military is compensated just about where it needs to be. There is just no need for the tax free BAH/BAS as it currently is. It's like the rest of the tax system...it creates more problems than it helps.


I don't think that is addressed one way or another by moving from allowances to single salary...assuming that whatever is done away with in allowances is added to salary so that the servicemember arrives in basically the same place. It's all about optics. When people get $1400 specifically for housing, the majority are going to find something in that price range which, in turn, artificially drives up the rental costs in the area (which is why I can pay $650 for my mortgage payment while renting the exact same house would cost me $1200 due to the proximity to the AF base. You take away the "housing money" and people won't equate a specific "good price" in relation to their BAH and will try to find cheaper living quarters...in time this will drop rental costs, housing costs, etc...putting more money in the pockets of the military members.


If we take this proposal at face value, it just provides an even level of comparison for recruiting and retention purposes...so we're no longer saying that Sally McBurgerflipper gets paid more than an E-4, etc....which both entices Sally to stay as a burger flipper and encourages the E-4 separate for the riches of the burger flipping civilian industry. I agree with this, though I don't think we're having too many recruiting issues currently...


As Mjolnir said...this story has been repeated often, usually by people arguing for more military benefits, that the military is underpaid, blah blah blah...this proposal might take away SOME of that bargaining power by illustrating how much servicemembers are actually paid. Indeed it does, as it should.


If you ask me...I think a better system would be to go the other way...smaller base pay and higher allowances...not necessarily BAH and BAS, but Combat Pay, Family Sep, Hazardous Duty, etc. This way, the higher pay goes directly to the people making those higher sacrifices....oh, it also gets paid while the sacrifices are made and does not perpetuate indefinitely in retirement pay. Disagree...everyone who joins puts themselves in a position to have to make those "higher sacrifices"...some people go more often than others. Now I'd be ok with different pay based off of different jobs, moving the military away from the communist pay system it currently has...though this would have a serious impact on recruiting to particular career fields...


but, again...the cynic in me says the real purpose for this change is to save the govt. money...which necessarily comes out of the pockets of the servicemembers...some of whom more than earned it.All of whom have earned it and, yes, it is about the govt saving money...it always is.

Bos Mutus
01-04-2017, 07:15 PM
Probably so. I don't see a new system (single-pay or otherwise) effectively cutting anyone's total compensation package.

There's no real way to save the govt. money without it negatively impacting servicemembers.

Remember years ago, we used to get paid on the 15th and the Last Day of the month.

Someone had the brilliant idea that paying everyone on the 1st of Oct instead of the Last Day of Sep would save the govt. millions of dollars by having one less pay day that Fiscal Year. This worked up until a few years later when the 1st of Oct was on a weekend, so everyone was to get paid in September...causing one EXTRA pay day that year.

So, the eggheads had a brilliant idea to change is so that when payday was on a weekend, you'd get paid the following Monday instead of the Friday before...that way they never had to pay you at the end of sept.

This screwed up a bunch of people who had automatic withdrawals on the 1st of the month cuz sometimes you wouldn't get paid til the 3rd or even 4th if it was a holiday.

Eventually, they changed it back to getting paid before the weekend/holiday...so the govt just lost whatever money they saved that first year...it was all just a shell game anyway.

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 07:21 PM
C'mon ... I have at least 250 square feet just for my books (real and comic) ... You joke but there are many who would make that exact argument.


But really, it is time for all people to stop living above their means. Some people in the military do, many do not. Take most E7 and below who live off base and tell them they are going to have to live on base in a house the size the military has determined is adequate for them...most are going to laugh in your face because they know that quarters they have off base FAR exceed the standard provided by base housing...a family with one child gets a 2 bedroom house...of base they are living in a 4 bedroom with fenced in yards for what the military is paying them...




Many people devote their whole lives to working hard; what they work hard at doing will likely have drastic differences in how they are compensated for their work though. If someone does the things they need to do to be a SNCO or Officer, promote through those ranks etc. I would not begrudge them the increased compensation that comes with it as opposed to someone to doesn't want to do those things. I don't begrudge them, either...they will receive much higher base pay if BAH goes away and can then choose how expensive of a house they live in. Though your standard elitist comment (which you don't even recognize you made) makes it sound like only those who make SNCO or become officers have worked hard.


It is disingenuous to say "I never wanted to be an E7 (or Officer), so I didn't do what would have gotten me promoted", but hold it against those that do. I don't hold it against them at all...Commanders need good "yes men" with a lot of stripes in order to get things done...




Probably so. I don't see a new system (single-pay or otherwise) effectively cutting anyone's total compensation package.And Mil to Mil would be far better off because they'd both be getting equal compensation.

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 07:27 PM
I'll take 'Sour Grapes' for $200 Alex!
The Daily Double is "Superiority Complex" and I'll bet it all, Alex.



Far more $ could be saved by getting serious about Federal Civil service "reform". Couldn't agree more. I don't need the government paying in mandatory amounts of money for my retirement or to match my TSP. Let me keep my money, they keep their money, and we're both happy.


It's high time, we get rid of the sweet benefits packages and 75 days a year of sitting on their fat asses at home. 75 days is pretty sweet, but it's not so much my ass that's gotten fat as it is my stomach. Oh, and which "sweet benefits" package are you talking about? The ones that I turned down because if I didn't I'd be spending my entire military retirement to pay for them?


Of course then we'd have all the entitled affirmative-action, hires going crazy, about losing their guaranteed checks for life (regardless of performance)You'll be happy to know that the current appraisal system is being changed in order to avoid this very issue. Whether it works or not we'll have to wait and see...but it is changing to a rating (1, 2, 3) with dismissal become easier.

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 08:43 PM
Though your standard elitist comment (which you don't even recognize you made) makes it sound like only those who make SNCO or become officers have worked hard.

I don't see where I said or insinuated that. There are some things people need to do to progress their career to that point, yes some of those things are hard, some are just 'making the donuts' and getting a check in the box. Many people who don't promote work hard but don't select, sometimes because they haven't done the things they need to do to get selected and sometimes because despite working hard they should not promote.

QUOTE=sandsjames;368952] I don't hold it against them at all...Commanders need good "yes men" with a lot of stripes in order to get things done... [/quote]

Because senior and listed are "yes men"?



And Mil to Mil would be far better off because they'd both be getting equal compensation.[/QUOTE]

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 08:43 PM
Though your standard elitist comment (which you don't even recognize you made) makes it sound like only those who make SNCO or become officers have worked hard.

I don't see where I said or insinuated that. There are some things people need to do to progress their career to that point, yes some of those things are hard, some are just 'making the donuts' and getting a check in the box. Many people who don't promote work hard but don't select, sometimes because they haven't done the things they need to do to get selected and sometimes because despite working hard they should not promote.


I don't hold it against them at all...Commanders need good "yes men" with a lot of stripes in order to get things done...

Because senior and listed are "yes men"?



And Mil to Mil would be far better off because they'd both be getting equal compensation.

Agree, dual mil currently gets shafted.

Rainmaker
01-04-2017, 08:50 PM
I don't see where I said or insinuated that. There are some things people need to do to progress their career to that point, yes some of those things are hard, some are just 'making the donuts' and getting a check in the box. Many people who don't promote work hard but don't select, sometimes because they haven't done the things they need to do to get selected and sometimes because despite working hard they should not promote.

clearly sandsjames has been spending far too much time teaching the new and improved AETC's "The Strength is our Diversity" curriculum. All E-7's and above are "Elitist" to those delicate little snowflakes.

Bos Mutus
01-04-2017, 08:51 PM
And Mil to Mil would be far better off because they'd both be getting equal compensation.

I guess that would depend on whether the single salary would be equivalent to base pay plus (single or dependent) rate BAH?

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 08:53 PM
I don't see where I said or insinuated that. There are some things people need to do to progress their career to that point, yes some of those things are hard, some are just 'making the donuts' and getting a check in the box. Many people who don't promote work hard but don't select, sometimes because they haven't done the things they need to do to get selected and sometimes because despite working hard they should not promote. You know how I feel and I know how you feel so this is going to go nowhere...




Because senior and listed are "yes men"? And O-1 to O-3...yes...many times...

Hell, even O-4s (the TSgt of the Officer Corps) fall into the routine many times. That's why I like O-6 through O-9s...generally they are done with the bullshit and actually tell you what's on their minds.

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 08:55 PM
clearly sandsjames has been spending far too much time teaching the new and improved AETC's "The Strength is our Diversity" curriculum. All E-7's and above are "Elitist" to those delicate little snowflakes.

Get it right..."Diversity is our Strength"...not the other way around.

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 09:12 PM
You know how I feel and I know how you feel so this is going to go nowhere...

And yet, you pretty consistently find ways to bring it up. You at you don't begrudge those people who become SMCOs or Officers, intentionally or not ... you certainly come across that way.


And O-1 to O-3...yes...many times...

Hell, even O-4s (the TSgt of the Officer Corps) fall into the routine many times. That's why I like O-6 through O-9s...generally they are done with the bullshit and actually tell you what's on their minds.

So the only people that aren't are E1 - E6s and O6 and senior ... got it.

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 09:12 PM
You know how I feel and I know how you feel so this is going to go nowhere...

And yet, you pretty consistently find ways to bring it up. You at you don't begrudge those people who become SMCOs or Officers, intentionally or not ... you certainly come across that way.


And O-1 to O-3...yes...many times...

Hell, even O-4s (the TSgt of the Officer Corps) fall into the routine many times. That's why I like O-6 through O-9s...generally they are done with the bullshit and actually tell you what's on their minds.

So the only people that aren't are E1 - E6s and O6 and senior ... got it.

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 09:22 PM
And yet, you pretty consistently find ways to bring it up. You at you don't begrudge those people who become SMCOs or Officers, intentionally or not ... you certainly come across that way. Spare me. Please read back through this thread and look who brought up rank in the first place. Wasn't me...was Rainmaker talking about how SNCOs/Officers deserved more because they worked harder. So I wasn't the one who brought it up.




So the only people that aren't are E1 - E6s and O6 and senior ... got it.I doubt it.

Bos Mutus
01-04-2017, 09:25 PM
That's why I like O-6 through O-9s...generally they are done with the bullshit and actually tell you what's on their minds.

Only because they are usually the ranking person in the room...

If you wanna see a bunch of sucking up...sit in a meeting chaired by a 2- or 3- star with all Colonel's and 1-stars sitting around the table....

Rainmaker
01-04-2017, 09:30 PM
Spare me. Please read back through this thread and look who brought up rank in the first place. Wasn't me...was Rainmaker talking about how SNCOs/Officers deserved more because they worked harder. So I wasn't the one who brought it up.

In which post did I say that?

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 09:31 PM
Only because they are usually the ranking person in the room...

If you wanna see a bunch of sucking up...sit in a meeting chaired by a 2- or 3- star with all Colonel's and 1-stars sitting around the table....

I imagine it gets pretty crazy. I've never been in a room like that.

What I do know is that when I've been in a room with an 06 or above I never feel like I'm getting a canned answer. Maybe they're just better at disguising it. Either way, the feeling I get when leaving the room from a briefing with a General is that he actually told me what he believes, not what he's supposed to tell me.

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 09:34 PM
In which post did I say that?



I think it's reasonable to expect that SNCO/Officers, who've dedicated their entire adult lives to service should at least be in the Middle class.

This was post #14...the first post to separate anything into ranks..ie SNCO/Officer vs everyone else.

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 09:42 PM
Only because they are usually the ranking person in the room...

If you wanna see a bunch of sucking up...sit in a meeting chaired by a 2- or 3- star with all Colonel's and 1-stars sitting around the table....

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder792/500x/52934792.jpg

Rainmaker
01-04-2017, 09:44 PM
This was post #14...the first post to separate anything into ranks..ie SNCO/Officer vs everyone else.



So, you don't agree that a SNCO's and Officers should at least be in the middle class (able to afford the median home)?

Bos Mutus
01-04-2017, 09:47 PM
I imagine it gets pretty crazy. I've never been in a room like that.

What I do know is that when I've been in a room with an 06 or above I never feel like I'm getting a canned answer. Maybe they're just better at disguising it. Either way, the feeling I get when leaving the room from a briefing with a General is that he actually told me what he believes, not what he's supposed to tell me.

Ok, that might be fair.

Probably getting into what could be a new thread here...the way most SNCOs and really all NCOs are taught is that you disagree behind closed doors...and once you go out, you sell the decision as if it were your own.

That is not always easy...it wasn't for me. I always felt sort of two competing duties...one to support the commander and another to be genuine and honest with my troops. Those two things did not always line up, I must say.

I can think up a couple of cases where a senior enlisted person kind of publicly went against the AF direction...

In one, I remember the MAJCOM Command Chief passing out a little "Chief Thoughts" or whatever about what he called "Transparent Leadership"....which basically amounted to if you had to get your guys to do something sucky or whatever and you gave the reason "...because so-and-so senior leader wants it that way"...that you were a transparent leader...instead of taking leadership and leading the troops to where they needed to go, the leadership passed right through you from the real leader to the troops...something like that.

The other one was a Chief wrote a Stars and Stripes Opinion article that basically criticized the direction the AF was taking...can't remember if it was PT or something else. Man, that dude got his ass reamed....had a 2-star come to the Chief's Group meeting on top of it and basically tell us all that this guy abused his position and rank...used his influence to sow discord amongst the troops, etc etc. and that a Chief's job is to support not sabotage, etc.

...the other side of this coin is that lack of genuineness is noticeable, I'm sure. it can be a tough position...but having every leader running around with their own special opinion on things when senior leadership is trying to get things done is counter-productive as well

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 09:48 PM
Spare me. Please read back through this thread and look who brought up rank in the first place. Wasn't me...was Rainmaker talking about how SNCOs/Officers deserved more because they worked harder. So I wasn't the one who brought it up.

I didn't get that he was saying they worked harder, but that they had worked hard ...

I don't take that as a non-SNCO hasn't worked hard ... I think you did. I think at that point in a military career that someone is hitting the 20 year mark, they should be hitting squarely in the middle class area ... granted, some people at that point are going to retire as E6's, some as O5's. Being that I think our current total compensation packages (short of the E9, O9/O10 area) are just about right for the levels of responsibility etc. ... I don't see anything wrong with the O5 having a larger pension than the E6 ... that doesn't mean (no matter how you try to translate it) that I think the E6 didn't work hard nor earn their pension.


I doubt it.

Do you?


Sorry for so many typos ... was on the elliptical.

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 09:50 PM
So, you don't agree that a SNCO's and Officers should at least be in the middle class? & nobody said anything about other ranks not working as hard. Stop acting like a whiney bitch.E8, E9...sure. E7s are pretty much a floor supervisor...working class...at best. Same goes for O1-O3..no chance...they are apprentice level at best...graduating from college doesn't guarantee middle class and up. So, I disagree highly that SNCOs/Officers should be middle class.

I'm not acting like a whiney bitch. I AM a whiney bitch. You wouldn't want me any other way.

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 09:54 PM
I didn't get that he was saying they worked harder, but that they had worked hard ... You wouldn't get that...that's the point.

I don't take that as a non-SNCO hasn't worked hard ... I think you did. I think at that point in a military career that someone is hitting the 20 year mark, they should be hitting squarely in the middle class area ... granted, some people at that point are going to retire as E6's, some as O5's. Being that I think our current total compensation packages (short of the E9, O9/O10 area) are just about right for the levels of responsibility etc. ... I don't see anything wrong with the O5 having a larger pension than the E6 ... that doesn't mean (no matter how you try to translate it) that I think the E6 didn't work hard nor earn their pension.[/QUOTE] O5 should DEFINITELY have a larger pension. I don't question that for a second.




Do you? Yes, I do.



Sorry for so many typos ... was on the elliptical.Ahhh...Post New Year's fitness kick?

Rainmaker
01-04-2017, 09:57 PM
E8, E9...sure. E7s are pretty much a floor supervisor...working class...at best.

Disagree. (not about the bitch part). I rated on 31 people as an E-7.

But, Rainmaker don't think BAH should be even be changed at all & nobody said anything about other ranks "not working as hard".

The hardest I ever worked in my 23 year Military career was as an E-4 (Artilleryman) during 8 months of Desert storm.
So, stop constantly getting your panties all twisted up, just because you didn't try hard enough to get yourself promoted.

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 09:57 PM
E8, E9...sure. E7s are pretty much a floor supervisor...working class...at best.

A floor supervisor is more likely middle than working class ... probably what an E7 does depends on the service in many ways ...


Same goes for O1-O3..no chance...they are apprentice level at best...graduating from college doesn't guarantee middle class and up. So, I disagree highly that SNCOs/Officers should be middle class.

I will concur with you here, a lot unemployed college graduates out there not doing anything; dedicating time & effort. The biggger point I think that is that when you are talking about an E7 or O3 serving with or retiring after 20 (or more) years with the 'company' ... that is probably deserving of a middle class compensation package.

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 10:06 PM
You wouldn't get that...that's the point.

Steven, I think it the point is that the giant chip you have on your shoulder which turns too many things that really aren't about rank (current or former) into a conversation about rank and how your magic line of where people suddenly become stupid, ignorant or both is at the E7 or O1 level, whether or not it has to do with where you completed your career or not I don't know ...

I am 100% confident that you worked hard in your 20 year USAF career, you have said many times that you didn't want to be a MSgt, and didn't do the types of the things that would have gotten you promoted. If that is true, I am happy for you and that you got what you wanted out of your career and were edified by it. Honestly, your postings often come across like someone who isn't okay with it, and harbors significant hostility about it.


Ahhh...Post New Year's fitness kick?

25-year fitness kick ... I want to look like Wolverine when I hit 45 this year.

http://thewolverinediet.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/TheWolverinePoster.jpg

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 10:17 PM
Disagree. (not about the bitch part). I rated on 31 people as an E-7.

But, Rainmaker don't think BAH should be even be changed at all & nobody said anything about other ranks "not working as hard".

The hardest I ever worked in my 23 year Military career was as an E-4 (Artilleryman) during 8 months of Desert storm.
So, stop constantly getting your panties all twisted up, just because you didn't try hard enough to get yourself promoted.

I know this is hard for you elitists to understand, but it had nothing to do with trying or not trying. I absolutely didn't want it.

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 10:21 PM
A floor supervisor is more likely middle than working class ... probably what an E7 does depends on the service in many ways ...



I will concur with you here, a lot unemployed college graduates out there not doing anything; dedicating time & effort. The biggger point I think that is that when you are talking about an E7 or O3 serving with or retiring after 20 (or more) years with the 'company' ... that is probably deserving of a middle class compensation package. Can an O3 even retire as an O3? I guess if they are prior enlisted? But, no, an 03 has no claim to "deserving" middle class. Hell, O3 is the same as E4...unless you kill someone you're going to make it just by not getting kicked out. Is that who we want to "reward"? I guess, if you believe in participation trophies.

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 10:28 PM
Can an O3 even retire as an O3? I guess if they are prior enlisted?

Unless you are a Medical Corps Officer, yeah ... you would have to be prior enlisted (as far as I know). O

But, no, an 03 has no claim to "deserving" middle class. Hell, O3 is the same as E4...unless you kill someone you're going to make it just by not getting kicked out. Is that who we want to "reward"? I guess, if you believe in participation trophies.[/QUOTE]

Yes promotion to O3 is automatic (technically in the USN and USMC it is 'selective' -- but the selection rate is somewhere around 99.9999% -- only time I have seen someone not get it was as a result of a DUI or a failure to achieve required qualification). However the levels of responsibility for an E4 and O3 are going to be really different. As an O3, I was a Department Head (Operations Officer) on a destroyer, I had about 135 people in my department, a $22 million dollar maintenance budget, at sea I stood watch as the Tactical Action Officer (responsible for control of all ships offensive and defensive weapons systems with authority to release those weapons on my judgement.

As an E4 (all three times) I worked my ass off ... but did not have that kind of responsibility.

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 10:28 PM
Steven, I think it the point is that the giant chip you have on your shoulder which turns too many things that really aren't about rank (current or former) into a conversation about rank and how your magic line of where people suddenly become stupid, ignorant or both is at the E7 or O1 level, whether or not it has to do with where you completed your career or not I don't know ... Steven? Really? Is that how you get your subordinates attention? By relating to them personally with first names? That's day 1 of Commandership 101, right?

I'm not claiming that E7s/O1s are stupid. Some of the best people I know are SNCOs...and I am perfectly happy with where I completed my career. I served 20 years honorably...and have nothing to be ashamed of...why it's ever even insinuated that a retiring E6 should feel ashamed is beyond me.


I am 100% confident that you worked hard in your 20 year USAF career, you have said many times that you didn't want to be a MSgt, and didn't do the types of the things that would have gotten you promoted. If that is true, I am happy for you and that you got what you wanted out of your career and were edified by it. Honestly, your postings often come across like someone who isn't okay with it, and harbors significant hostility about it. This is what you don't get...I'm not bitter because I didn't make the rank...I didn't make the rank because I'm not programmed to be in a management position...and I'm not bothered at all saying that...I've said it several times. The reason I know I'm not programmed to be in a management position is because the "mentors" I had throughout my career and were in those positions, the stuff they had to give up, and the parts of their personalities they had to compromise in order to be "successful" in those positions weren't the compromises I was willing to make.




25-year fitness kick ... I want to look like Wolverine when I hit 45 this year.

http://thewolverinediet.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/TheWolverinePoster.jpgMarch 3rd...hope they do X23 right.

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 10:30 PM
Unless you are a Medical Corps Officer, yeah ... you would have to be prior enlisted (as far as I know). O

But, no, an 03 has no claim to "deserving" middle class. Hell, O3 is the same as E4...unless you kill someone you're going to make it just by not getting kicked out. Is that who we want to "reward"? I guess, if you believe in participation trophies.

Yes promotion to O3 is automatic (technically in the USN and USMC it is 'selective' -- but the selection rate is somewhere around 99.9999% -- only time I have seen someone not get it was as a result of a DUI or a failure to achieve required qualification). However the levels of responsibility for an E4 and O3 are going to be really different. As an O3, I was a Department Head (Operations Officer) on a destroyer, I had about 135 people in my department, a $22 million dollar maintenance budget, at sea I stood watch as the Tactical Action Officer (responsible for control of all ships offensive and defensive weapons systems with authority to release those weapons on my judgement. [/QUOTE] Very impressive, but I'm well aware of your resume...you do enjoy sharing it.


As an E4 (all three times) I worked my ass off ... but did not have that kind of responsibility.I can show you several EPRs for E4s and E5s that would far exceed those numbers...

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 10:57 PM
Steven? Really? Is that how you get your subordinates attention? By relating to them personally with first names? That's day 1 of Commandership 101, right?

No, I am sincerely trying to communicate with you. I don't consider you my subordinate ...


I'm not claiming that E7s/O1s are stupid. Some of the best people I know are SNCOs...and I am perfectly happy with where I completed my career. I served 20 years honorably...and have nothing to be ashamed of...why it's ever even insinuated that a retiring E6 should feel ashamed is beyond me.

I don't see where anyone did insinuate that nor do I think anyone should feel ashamed of that.



This is what you don't get...I'm not bitter because I didn't make the rank...I didn't make the rank because I'm not programmed to be in a management position...and I'm not bothered at all saying that...I've said it several times. The reason I know I'm not programmed to be in a management position is because the "mentors" I had throughout my career and were in those positions, the stuff they had to give up, and the parts of their personalities they had to compromise in order to be "successful" in those positions weren't the compromises I was willing to make.

My first Division (like a Flight) in the Navy, was more than 50% E6's (about 10 of them). About 3/4 of them were going to retire as E6's ... most were okay with that. Some had not done sea duty (Navy promotion boards like it when you go on ships), not taken leadership roles etc. because they did't want to do that stuff and were okay to retire as an E6. I had a couple though who were very bitter. Granted, they hadn't gone to sea as an E6, but "didn't need to, I am good at my job on shore duty" etc. They were pissed at the system as they watched people pass them by who maybe weren't as talented but got the check in the box where they needed to so they could be be competitive. I asked one who was content with the scenario once why he chose not to go to sea; he didn't want to be separated from his wife for 6-month stints and he decided not making E7 was fine so he and his wife could be happy. To this day I am in touch with that guy and I have a lot of respect for his decision -- mostly because he made his choice and accepted the consequences of it. I had little respect for those who made their choice then blamed the system or held in contempt those around them who wanted to promote and did what they needed to do so.

I would argue not everyone who gets to those positions compromises their personalities, the best leaders (enlisted and officer) I have worked with were those who didn't compromise their personalities and remained themselves as they advanced. Yes, there are sacrifices, deployments, late nights etc. Yes, at some point you don't really have the option to say "end of the day, I'm out", or say "damn that sucks ... not my problem", you have to go to the once a year cocktail party, join the Officer's Club or explain to the Commanding General personally why you don't want to. Some of those things are what make the military more than "just a job" ... if you want it to be "just a job" that is fine, I am one of those who think of it as more than that though. Most who think it is just a job, likely will hit a glass ceiling at some point ... nothing wrong with that ... as long as people accept it.

I would offer -- you picked the USAF because it most matched what you wanted / your personality. My opinion is that the Air Force is the most corporate of the military services ... not saying it is wrong or bad ... but it is what is. Advancement in that type of system requires some level of a corporate mindset; something you readily admit you don't have/want to have ... not saying that as a negative. Having been in the Marines (the least corporate IMO) and now the Navy, leadership is very different ... how you advance and / succeed is different ... but to advance there are still sacrifices and things you have to do:

-Want to be a 1stSgt in the Marines? Probably need to be a DI, Embassy Guard or recruiter at some point. But by and large, charge hard and get shit done and you are going to promote.
-Want to be a CAPT in the Navy? Probably need to be a CO as an CDR. Want to be a LCDR (O4), you need to perform / break out in about the top 50% of O3's (not a high bar watermark ... but that is what it is)

Mostly though, promotion isn't a reward for doing good at your current rank ... it is a recognition that you can perform at the next one (granted, the Peter Principle will take effect). I knew a lot of kick ass Sgts who never made SSgt ... most should never have made it, some I think got screwed. Same with some O3's I know who have been passed to O4.

The service you joined had its culture, based on how you have described yourself, and what I know of the Air Force ... it was likely a mixed bag. The Air Force is the least military, "softest" of the services ... but definitely the most corporate ... life won't be as hard as the Marines, but if you don't like corporate style BS ... the USAF likely isn't a good fit.


March 3rd...hope they do X23 right.

If they fuck up Logan I am seriously going to burn the theater down.

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 11:04 PM
Very impressive, but I'm well aware of your resume...you do enjoy sharing it.

Just offering examples.


I can show you several EPRs for E4s and E5s that would far exceed those numbers...

I am sure those folks are running around out there. I don't think that would be the norm.

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 11:20 PM
No, I am sincerely trying to communicate with you. I don't consider you my subordinate ... Well, then...Steve will work fine.







I would offer -- you picked the USAF because it most matched what you wanted / your personality. My opinion is that the Air Force is the most corporate of the military services ... not saying it is wrong or bad ... but it is what is. It's actually something that we (when I joined) took pride in until certain leaders wanted to pretend we were "warriors".


Advancement in that type of system requires some level of a corporate mindset; something you readily admit you don't have/want to have ... not saying that as a negative. Having been in the Marines (the least corporate IMO) and now the Navy, leadership is very different ... how you advance and / succeed is different ... but to advance there are still sacrifices and things you have to do You should sit through a few days of the Air Force PME and see what they teach is the right way to lead...you'd have a good chuckle, I'm sure.





If they fuck up Logan I am seriously going to burn the theater down.Wish they could make it true to the original but that's impossible with Fox/Marvel/etc...so we'll see how it goes. I have high hopes.

sandsjames
01-04-2017, 11:21 PM
I am sure those folks are running around out there. I don't think that would be the norm.No...that was actually a shot I was taking at the Air Force appraisal system, designed by our fabulous leadership with their great ideas about how to get people to perform. It's the reason our enlisted senior leadership has turned out to be as it is.

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 11:29 PM
No...that was actually a shot I was taking at the Air Force appraisal system, designed by our fabulous leadership with their great ideas about how to get people to perform. It's the reason our enlisted senior leadership has turned out to be as it is.

In many cases the Navy's is no better. If every year folks really created 75% improvement in [pick a process] after a couple of years we should be running like clockwork.

In all seriousness, I have known E4's, 5's 6's that had jobs with significant responsibilities ... way beyond what would be normal for their pay grade ... At CYBERCOM I pushed and pushed to get my TSgt a DMSM since I 'picked him' to replace an O3 was doing the work exceptionally well. It took me waiting around to talk to the 2-star for about 90 minutes and make my case as he walked from one meeting to another ... it worked ... damn good NCO.

Mjölnir
01-04-2017, 11:35 PM
Well, then...Steve will work fine.

k ... mine is James ... my middle name is Lars (practically a viking).


It's actually something that we (when I joined) took pride in until certain leaders wanted to pretend we were "warriors".

I will agree with you here. I don't like the assumption that we are all 'warriors'. I don't use the term as many in my community do and say 'Intel Warriors' or 'Cryptologic Warriors' because (resume alert) I have been a warrior when I was enlisted. I think it is a false representation of the role I do now (support) and I don't have a problem being a support person, leading support people.


You should sit through a few days of the Air Force PME and see what they teach is the right way to lead...you'd have a good chuckle, I'm sure.

I did (sorta) at CYBERCOM (joint -- but really ran by the USAF) when I checked in and they had the FGO portion ... it was a hoot. Again though ... a lot of it I don't think is 'wrong' per se ... just not what I am used to and definitely wouldn't work in most of the environments I have been in ... no more so than my leadership style (especially as a SNCO) would work well in most USAF environments.


Wish they could make it true to the original but that's impossible with Fox/Marvel/etc...so we'll see how it goes. I have high hopes.

Me too ... I think the Professor is going to die ... #sadface

Bos Mutus
01-04-2017, 11:56 PM
It's actually something that we (when I joined) took pride in until certain leaders wanted to pretend we were "warriors"..

Funny...I was just remembering the other day how our old PFE book back in the 80s and maybe 90s used to actually say in it that the Air Force deliberately chose to focus on technical skills and de-emphasize traditional military training like marching and PT, etc.

I think it changed because our leadership had deployment/killing bad guys envy....they were a little embarrassed by the other services serving this high deployment ops tempo and making cool videos while we were still at a low percentage of people who even got to deploy.

...perhaps moreso they wanted to protect the budget by showing 'we do just as much" and how military we can be....high tech jet fighters weren't as bad-ass cool as kicking down doors because we had no competition.

Mjölnir
01-05-2017, 01:10 AM
...perhaps moreso they wanted to protect the budget by showing 'we do just as much" and how military we can be....high tech jet fighters weren't as bad-ass cool as kicking down doors because we had no competition.

You may be closer than you think here.

When OEF kicked off, CENTCOM put in requirements for various types of support (airborne ISR, CAS etc.). The Air Force was not able to meet what the commander needed despite 'advertised' capabilities / response timelines etc. This led to a lot of these missions going to other services platforms. As Appropriations Bills and OCO funding in subsequent years rolled out, the expeditionary capabilities got bigger and bigger pieces of that budgetary pie.

How did that play into the bigger picture? IMO, that may have prompted senior USAF leadership to shift culture to preserve budget levels. The USAF had spent 50 years planning for an air to air war that didn't happen and the type of fight that did come up they weren't really ready to support.

In many sections of DoD we found ourselves needing more expeditionary platforms and capability than had been planned for and we had to rapidly change. Being able to provide a 90% solution that could be on station 60% of the time and able to be in theater three months from now lost out to the 70% solution that could be on station 90% of the time and could be in theater in two weeks ... not being useful to the current problem makes you irrelivent... and that does not get you funding.

Rainmaker
01-06-2017, 03:55 PM
As Appropriations Bills and OCO funding in subsequent years rolled out, the expeditionary capabilities got bigger and bigger pieces of that budgetary pie.

The services have been deliberately hamstrung by the Congress indefinitely continuing supplemental (emergency) funding, instead of increasing the base. Because you can't buy end-strength with those $ and they're fenced in a way which forces you to rely on contractors. And so here we are now going on 16 years post 9-11& a lot of the underlying issues you raised still remain and they're all still completely dependent on outsourcing what should be by now core-capabilities to defense contractors




The USAF had spent 50 years planning for an air to air war that didn't happen

Were you sleeping under a fucking rock in Saudi Arabia during the first 3 phases of Desert Storm or something? FYI, The reason US ground forces didn't encounter a blood-bath during OIF invasion is because the Iraqi Army had already been crippled by the USAF a decade prior

http://es.rice.edu/projects/Poli378/Gulf/gwtxt_ch6.html


and the type of fight that did come up they weren't really ready to support

The problem is not unique to the Air Force. None of the services were really built to fight a never ending counter insurgency (that the criminal political establishment had no plans of ever actually winning).


... not being useful to the current problem makes you irrelivent...

The Air Force is irrelevant. Sure. Try fulfilling the Neocon wet-dream of invading Syria without being able to impose Hillary's and John McInsane's No-fly zone because you lack Air Superiority and see how that works out for you.

You can't do shit without it. It's The first core mission.

https://www.google.com/#q=core+air+force+missions

Mjölnir
01-06-2017, 05:39 PM
The services have been deliberately hamstrung by the Congress indefinitely continuing supplemental (emergency) funding, instead of increasing the base. Because you can't buy end-strength with those $ and they're fenced in a way which forces you to rely on contractors. And so here we are now going on 16 years post 9-11& a lot of the underlying issues you raised still remain and they're all still completely dependent on outsourcing what should be by now core-capabilities to defense contractors.

The missions I am talking about didn't go to contractors, they went mostly to the USN & USMC.


Were you sleeping under a fucking rock in Saudi Arabia during the first 3 phases of Desert Storm or something? FYI, The reason US ground forces didn't encounter a blood-bath during OIF invasion is because the Iraqi Army had already been crippled by the USAF a decade prior

http://es.rice.edu/projects/Poli378/Gulf/gwtxt_ch6.html

Am talking OEF (Afghanistan) ... Desert Storm was different and closer to the 'Air War in Europe' model than OEF. During Desert Storm air assets could base out of fairly established operating bases etc. which allowed them significant time on station etc. Also, the build up (Desert Shield) prior to Desert Storm was much longer than what we had for OEF. When CENTCOM got told that because of transit time (impacted by inability to operate from expeditionary air strips) that time on station would get cut short, and that the USAF assets being requested required approx. 90 days to be ready and on site, and the more expeditionary platforms could (were willing) to fly from less developed sites and could mobilize in 14 days ...


The problem is not unique to the Air Force. None of the services were really built to fight a never ending counter insurgency (that the criminal political establishment had no plans of ever actually winning).

Concur ... I said that none of the service really were.


The Air Force is irrelevant. Sure. Try fulfilling the Neocon wet-dream of invading Syria without being able to impose Hillary's and John McInsane's No-fly zone because you lack Air Superiority and see how that works out for you.

You can't do shit without it. It's The first core mission.

Not saying the USAF is/was irrelevant overall. Couldn't have gotten a lot of things in theater without them etc. As said earlier, for the actions in (over) the country ... there were specific assets who had been advertising capabilities that when the time came ... they couldn't deliver. That made them (particularly those assets) irrelevant to that mission set ... they lost it and the funding that went along with it.

Rainmaker
01-06-2017, 06:17 PM
Concur ... I said that none of the service really were.



Not saying the USAF is/was irrelevant overall. Couldn't have gotten a lot of things in theater without them etc. As said earlier, for the actions in (over) the country ... there were specific assets who had been advertising capabilities that when the time came ... they couldn't deliver. That made them (particularly those assets) irrelevant to that mission set ... they lost it and the funding that went along with it.

Correct. Desert Shield also started from scratch w/o the level of WRM sites pre-positioned in theater, that were used to stage OEF making force bed-down much much easier. & The invasion phase of OEF-A was almost entirely a SOF mission. So, don't trigger us flyboys with your anti-blue "micro-aggressions". Jim.

Mjölnir
01-06-2017, 06:45 PM
Correct. Desert Shield also started from scratch w/o the level of WRM sites pre-positioned in theater, that were used to stage OEF making force bed-down much much easier. & The invasion phase of OEF-A was almost entirely a SOF mission. So, don't trigger us flyboys with your anti-blue "micro-aggressions". Jim.

If I aggress ... I only macro-agress.