|
|
Post by Mark O on Feb 8, 2024 2:33:53 GMT 9
Just saw this in my military dot com news feed. I always thought they should bring them back. If I recall, the reason the USAF got rid of Warrant Officers is they said the E-8s, and E-9s would become the technical "experts." Well, the E-8s and E-9s when I was in were good, but were caught up in the political BS of the squadrons so much one rarely ever saw them on the flight line, or in the aircraft. (We did have one Chief who liked to walk around the flightline when I was a crew chief to see if there was a write-up in the K's for any missing lightening hole patches on the KC-135 filet flaps. It seemed important to him for some reason.)
Anyway, I think it would be a good move on the USAF.
Mark O
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Feb 8, 2024 4:55:02 GMT 9
Mark, AAs a long time retired Chief I grew up when E-8/E-9 were fairly new in military. DoD controls a lot of what our service members do and don't do, I remember meeting a large number of the Charter Chiefs ( www.afmc.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Article/155938/the-golden-anniversary-of-the-rank-of-chief-master-sergeant/ ) of the USAF. Congress created the E-8/E-9 ratings and they were to replace the Warrant Program. Not as Super Tech's but as middle management. They filled the gap between Low grade officers and senior NCO's. Congress declared that E-8 would be 2% of total enlisted force and E-8 would be 1% of total enlisted strength. Therefore 2 E-8 and 1 E-9 per 100 enlisted. That is why Lists for releasing monthly quotas of Senior/Chief stripes don't follow a set standard of Calander. I made Chief and had to wait a whole year before I pinned on. And many went into next Fiscal Year before pinning on. Why? Retirements and deaths didn't reduce levels of E-9 as estimated. I saw the last of the Warrants retire during my early years. They were grandfathered in and didn't have a deadline for ending. Some of those old Warrants had their own empires. So why did I bring all of this History up. If we forget history, we can repeat it...good or bad. The USAF is only service that hasn't brought back the Warrant Program. And hopefully never will. It was a slap in the face when other services re-injected warrants back into line up. That demoted the Senior NCO's and put a bunch of wet nosed Warrants in charge of them. Another milestone is coming soon. The CMSgt of USAF. Paul W. Airey took office on 3 April 1967. Chief Airey was at Tyndall when he got selected. I tended bar as second job at the NCO Club so I got to know him prior to his selection. He also returned to Tyndall following his tour. He chose not to retire with his boss and returned to old position at Tyndall. Soon after that they changed the criteria for position and made it clear following their tour they would retire. I mentioned I knew Chief Airey. I knew him because every day around 4PM he would show up at Stag bar and had his own reserved seat. Yes, he was an alcoholic. One night after he first returned, I talked with him about his old position and told him, in my mind he missed an opportunity to set precedence and retire with his boss. Why was I disappointed with him? Because he returned to his old job as Admin/Secretary of Interceptor Weapons School. But he worked for another Chief who now outranked him. He was now assistant Secretary. He retired in August 1970. I also knew several other CMSAF. Best guy I every knew was Chief Sam Parrish. He was a very close friend of my FIL SMSgt Brueck. Sam was at Bitburg while I was at Spangdahlem and had lunch/diner with him several times. I met him years later while he was CMSAF and again after his retirement. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Feb 8, 2024 5:58:56 GMT 9
Well, I worked with plenty, non-pilot Warrant Officers in the Army, and not once did I see any of them disrespect an E-8, or E-9, even behind their backs. Even the new, WO1s who at a minimum were prior NCOs (mostly E-5/E-6.) In fact, most happily took the advice, and experience offered from the senior NCOs. (Who wouldn't?) Also, the technical WOs definitely had to have some experience -- and college -- before they got accepted into the WO program. Senior NCOs rarely chose to go Warrant. I only saw one E-7 do it in the 17 years I was in the Army, and he was a relatively new E-7. If anything, the Warrant Officers had less respect for what they then-called "RLOs." Real Live Officers! At least Captains, and Lieutenants. The senior NCOs appreciated the Warrant Officers, and what they did in the units, and there was no animosity. I can't see why they are not needed in the USAF. Of course, I am using MY experience to come to that judgement.
Maybe the Air Force did it differently than the Army with respect to their E-8s, and E-9s when the WOs were around. I mean, why not have that one guy in the shop who can fully devote their time to the actual mission without the one, or two "Super-Grade" NCOs in the unit feeling they aren't worth their weight, experience, or time in service? I just don't get it I guess, because I saw it work so well in the Army. I'm sure it still does.
I also believe another great idea for the program is to be able to retain the expertise. I mean, everyone knows not everyone will make E-8 -- much less E-9 -- so why not give the superstars an avenue to advance, and the service can keep the talent? Win-Win as they say.
I honestly believe there are far more positives than worrying about the current generation of E-8s, or E-9s feeling they are getting screwed.
Mark O
|
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Feb 8, 2024 8:15:00 GMT 9
Gary, this sounds like a couple things my grandfather always used to tell me... 1. "Don't 'Sir' me, I work for a living!" Words I still use to this day, though more with the intent of encouraging a more loose "business casual" attitude. 2. With him having been a product of General Electric's machinist apprentice and master-machinist training programs back around WWII when the GE name MEANT something, admittedly this could have been a fish story but he always told me he believed in leading as Shop Superintendent by example, not just telling the men under him how to do things but SHOWING them, and delegating critically precise or time-critical machining tasks to himself. Admittedly, "field" conditions forward deployed to Osan may have been a different environment than "back home" in the shop facilities at McChord. |
|
Bullhunter
Global Moderator 
318th FIS Jet Shop 1975-78
Currently: Offline
Posts: 7,445 
Location:
Joined: May 2005
|
Post by Bullhunter on Feb 8, 2024 9:47:28 GMT 9
Many Senior NCO's I have know and worked for were not worth a damn. One pops into my mind at a C-130 engine shop I worked in. I had been a TSgt when I arrived and made MSgt in a few years. We had a SSgt at that time the SMSgt reported on. This SSgt was a pain in the ass. He had threatened his supervisor telling him, "I'll be an officer soon and you will work for me." This was reported to me and I wrote a counseling slip on him and the Engine Branch Chief refused to send it forward to the Admen Officer, a Capt. Another time I told him it was his turn to take out the trash and his reply to me was, "I'm not doing that, your just tell me to do that because I'm black." My reply was, "We all have a day to take out the trash, even I have a scheduled day." Again I tried to lay paper on him. When I talked with the shop boss the SMSgt about this his reply was, "I have orders to MAC HQ at Scott and I'm not loosing those orders and be drag into social actions office."
Everyone seemed to be afraid of this SSgt. Well, I told the chicken crap SMSgt that, "I'm not afraid of him and doing my job, make me his reporting offical when you leave." He did. Soon after that I called him into the office along with another SSgt as a witness. We talk and I told him what I expected of him and he was not measuring up to all the other SSgts in the shop and I expected major improvements in his work and relations with co-workers. Well he did not change his ways and I ended up giving him a substandard performance report. He was in college for operation bootstrap to become an officer. This performance report kept him from becoming an officer.
Of course he filed a social actions complaint calling me a bigot and racist. It did not work out for him as all the other Airman and NCO's were behind me as witnesses. It started to change in the 1980's when Senior NCO's started to become political slugs and not Air Force Supervisors. The idea then was, I need to cover I disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Feb 8, 2024 12:23:29 GMT 9
Mark, while I was stationed at McGuire AFB NJ I, along with several other single MA-1 guys were approaached by Army recruiters. Seems they saw how much traing and experience we had on F-106 and saw us as a good fit with their WO program. But not so much as techs, but as pilots in fixed wing and helo's. VN was gearing up and Army wasn't getting the quality they needed. So we were offered WO after flight training. We would not even go through Army Basic Training as we were E-4 and up. I almost took them up on it. We had a single E-6 with a Private pilots license and Instructor status. He took them up and was made W-2 and sent to Flight school. He made it through and after they found out he was both pilot, but also Instructor and Instrument qualified they made him an Instructor and he only went to Nam as observer and to get idea of how dangerous it was for Helo pilots. He made W-4 before he retired. He already had 11 years in when he transferred over. While at McGuire I was friends with several W-O who were at Ft Dix as Instructors. Some wild guys. These weren't you average pilot types, but were combat types. Ft Dix surrounded mcGuire on 3 sides so we were around them a lot.
Yes, returning to WO could be made to work, but we don't have any need for the positions. So where would you take the slots? Budgets are already too short on people. A reason to kill A-10 wasn't because we don't need them, we just need more maintenance for newer jets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Feb 9, 2024 4:51:24 GMT 9
Well, back then the US Army definitely needed helicopter pilots, so I can see why they did that kind of recruiting. As far as "slots" -- and I may be misunderstanding your question -- they would not be taking any existing slots, but creating new ones. If it was a budget issue, the consideration would not even come up. As a matter of fact, the USAF is currently in the middle of another VRRAD (Voluntary Retired Return to Active Duty) cycle for officers, AND enlisted! (No, I am not eligible!) The old argument that it would prevent more enlisted from advancing to E-8, or E-9 is nonsense, because WOs are NOT enlisted. The percentages allowed would not change. In any case, the slots would be created to build a technical expert, or SME (Subject Matter Expert) in many career fields, not just maintenance. Look at how the other services use Warrant Officers, and the USAF would do something very similar.
Anyway, I would love to see WOs back in the USAF, and if I was young enough, I would do it in a heartbeat. (Linda may not let me, but that's another story! Ha!)
Mark O
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Feb 10, 2024 1:26:08 GMT 9
Mark, The largest share of DoD Budget is personnel costs. Yes, the military is facing retention/recruiting goals. But money determined the max size of forces. Congress set size of E-8/E-9 so that varies with strength/size. To add new positions costs money. Money that is not available today. So in order to add WO, they have to reduce costs in other positions. As I said, the reason USAF wants to end A-10 program is so they can add more maintenance folks to existing/new programs. Strange how when they buy a new toy the maintenance hours per flying hour always fails and it takes more highly trained (Money) to maintain.
The current cost for an average E-9 has jumped from the $3 k a month I was getting when I retired in 1986 to about $6.5 k today. Thats just salary, not housing/meals/etc.
On another side, the use of Tech Experts and pay grade versus rank caused a lot of issues in Army. About time of VN Conflict the Army created a Specialist rating. They needed to pay highly trained technical experts more to retain them. So a Corporal E-4 Would be in charge of many people including all Specialist E-4 to E-7. But the SPC got more money. But SHTF when a SPC7 was told to do something by a Corporal and refused to take orders from lower ranking soldier. Army stated Pay Grade and Rank were two different things and took SPC7 to Court Marshal. Army zero/E-7 wins. Court System said pay grade/Rank are same thing and Rank among troops is determined my Pay Grade, date of rank and age...in that order. So if you look at Army ranks now only SPL is E-4 and that makes Corporal and SPL same pay grade. After E-4 all are Sgt Ranks. So the Warrant would be higher than E-9. I can imagine how I would have responded if they brought in Warrant Specialist and put them over me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Feb 10, 2024 6:46:01 GMT 9
I've always understood the reason the USAF wants to get rid of the A-10 is because it is a single-mission aircraft unable to survive the modern threat in a disputed combat zone (China), and the USAF preferred to use the funds now spent on the A-10 to buy more multi-purpose aircraft such as the F-35. Not buying the argument that they just want to spend the money on more maintainers for newer aircraft.
As far as Warrant Officers, well, if they were that bad I suppose the other services would have gotten rid of them years ago. Army helicopter pilots notwithstanding, I suppose Army, Navy, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps E-9s don't have the same problem working with them as USAF SNCOs potentially will. Maybe the other services don't have such rigid rules in their SNCO Protective Societies! Ha!
Mark O
|
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Feb 10, 2024 7:59:52 GMT 9
I've always understood the reason the USAF wants to get rid of the A-10 is because it is a single-mission aircraft unable to survive the modern threat in a disputed combat zone (China), and the USAF preferred to use the funds now spent on the A-10 to buy more multi-purpose aircraft such as the F-35. Not buying the argument that they just want to spend the money on more maintainers for newer aircraft.
As far as Warrant Officers, well, if they were that bad I suppose the other services would have gotten rid of them years ago. Army helicopter pilots notwithstanding, I suppose Army, Navy, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps E-9s don't have the same problem working with them as USAF SNCOs potentially will. Maybe the other services don't have such rigid rules in their SNCO Protective Societies! Ha!
Mark O
USAF NEVER wanted A-X/A-10 in the first place, the only thing that pushed it through was the Army going to Congress and threatening to reevaluate the Key West Agreement IIRC - my prof helped shepherd it through on his Pentagon staff tour. Fine, give it to the Army then, or maybe some each Army and Marines, and teach them how to build up the MX infrastructure to support it. Maybe revise Key West to allow "fixed-wing combat A/C below X top speed," the sector the Air Force traditionally wants nothing to do with. |
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Feb 10, 2024 13:30:26 GMT 9
This topic brings out a lot of less than knowledgeable answers. The A-10 was, and still is the only true close air support aircraft in inventory. It not only has the best weapon for close air support, but it is also highly maneuverable and can remain on target for longer periods of time. Ask any ground pounder who served in Iraq/Afghanistan and they will tell you it was a life saver. I actually served during the time of A-10 and many more "new" buys. I worked in Flight Simulation acquisition, but I also worked a Blue Ribbon task force to free up maintenance folks to man the new toys being delivered. We had C-17, F-22. F-35, B-2, F117 all coming on board. I worked on the program that eliminated all USAF based Flight Simulator maintenance and operation. We freed up about a 1,000 maintainer to go fill slots on new aircraft/equipment. I do know a lot about how Air Force Budget also works as I worked last 10 years as lead security engineer on all AF Finance Systems which included Budget Formulation. Manpower is most needed item and also most costly. You cannot just say T need x-number of maintainers and get it approved. Congress restricts size of workforce and we often buy Contractor Support instead of adding new slots. New slots are not an acceptable request. Transferring from other platforms is most often answer, That my friends is why USAF Brass have been trying to kill A-10. Anyone ever heard of the C-27J Spartan? I happened to work for L-3Comm which bought the aircraft and won Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) acquisition. If you never heard of it it's because USAF did not have any maintenance force to support it. It went to Coast Guard and later for foreign service. It was a great low volume Theater class cargo plane. There have been a lot of good systems killed due to lack of maintainers.
I learned a long time ago to believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. Anyone know why C-130 is still being bought after first flight in 1956 in USAF. It has been manufactured every year even when USAF didn't want it. Congress has ordered and paid for 12 a year since first purchased. Why? political reasons first was Senator Sam Nunn, from Georga. That just happens to be where C-130 is built. It is also only Cargo, or any other aircraft who's design/engineering is not owned by USAF. It was designed by Lockheed-Martain, and they own all rights. We buy all Tech data from them for all new models. Second is Congress wants to make sure a manufacturing capability is maintained. It permits a faster increase in capability if we ever go to big war again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Feb 11, 2024 7:52:48 GMT 9
The A-10 was, and still is the only true close air support aircraft in inventory. It not only has the best weapon for close air support, but it is also highly maneuverable and can remain on target for longer periods of time. Exactly. A single-mission aircraft. Can't wait to see these again! Mark O
 |
|
Bullhunter
Global Moderator
318th FIS Jet Shop 1975-78
Currently: Offline
Posts: 7,445
Location:
Joined: May 2005
|
Post by Bullhunter on Feb 11, 2024 9:15:41 GMT 9
The USAF does not need warrant officers. What is needed is more Airman & young NCO's to fix and maintain aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Feb 11, 2024 9:32:23 GMT 9
The A-10 was, and still is the only true close air support aircraft in inventory. It not only has the best weapon for close air support, but it is also highly maneuverable and can remain on target for longer periods of time. Exactly. A single-mission aircraft. And what the beancounters have trouble getting through their mediocre little green-eyeshade minds is that while most of the time a switch-hitting "jack of all trades master of none" will get the job, there are times when only a specialist can deliver. I'm reminded of the parable of the F-4 pilot who generally made an ass of himself toward a B-52, flying loops and rings around it and generally harassing the crew over the radio about "anything YOU can do I can do better and faster." After a while, the B-52 pilot responds with "Challenge Accepted, watch this". Ten minutes later: "I'm not impressed. What do you THINK you did?" B-52: "Well, we're carrying more bombload than your entire gross weight. I just walked back to the head, then popped downstairs and had a hot cup of coffee with my senior nav. AND we're doing all this with two engines shut down." |
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Feb 11, 2024 13:05:53 GMT 9
Never happen mark. And you know it as well.
When I was a young Airman we had two Chief WO in 539th, One for OMS and one for FMS. In Avionics we had two Chiefs, both Charter Chiefs. They were basically doing the same jobs with about same number of enlisted under them. Right before we closed the doors on 539th, we got two new Chiefs and they were taking over most of duties WO had done before. As I remember it both WO retired when Sq closed down and most folks went to 95th at Dover. Both Sq had round eye sixs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Feb 11, 2024 14:51:23 GMT 9
You guys keep forgetting that I came from the US Army where I worked with Warrant Officers daily, and know how it's supposed to work. Best I can figure -- since I wasn't even born yet -- is when the USAF got rid of their WOs there was such a strong desire to do away with ANYTHING Army, they did all they could to prove they could do without Warrant Officers. So much, in fact, it became a hatred. It's just ridiculous to me. (The USAF cant even figure out their uniforms. Did you know that since 1947 the USAF has had more uniform combinations than the US Army has had in it's entire existance? Crazy.)
If I'm reading all this right, the reason the Chiefs did the same thing Warrants did is because they were told to. Okay, so that means in TODAYs USAF the same rules apply? Nah, I do not believe it will never happen, and in TODAYs USAF it will be a real positive. I've already made most of my arguments for it, so I believe I will leave it at that.
Mark O
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Feb 11, 2024 15:09:29 GMT 9
The USAF does not need warrant officers. What is needed is more Airman & young NCO's to fix and maintain aircraft.
Okay, I have to comment on this. There are enough maintainers. At least when I was in. Yes, we would be short on manpower frequently, however one of the reasons is they pulled so many off the line to work in other shops like Dash 21, dispatch, the tool room, etc. not to mention frequent deployments. We knew those positions had to be filled, but had no choice. Well, in my last Maintenance Squadron before I started flying they actually started hiring civilians for some of those slots. (In fact, one of our recently retired Pro-super's took a civilian job in the tool room just before I left the squadron!) Nah, there are plenty of maintainers. The superstars leave the service too soon because of the BS, or better civilian jobs, etc. The USAF will definitely be able to keep the best with the WO program. That's for sure. Mark O (Y'all will not convince me that bringing back WOs will be the death of the USAF. Times have changed.) BTW, these are the enlisted jobs the USAF is asking retirees to come back to. Not a maintainer in the bunch. 1C171 – Air Traffic Control 2G071 – Logistics Plans 2T377 – Fleet Management & Analysis 3F071 – Personnel 3P071 – Security Forces 4A271 – Biomedical Equipment 4E071 – Public Health 4N071 – Aerospace Medical Service 4R071 – Diagnostic Imaging 7S071 – Special Investigations 8R000/8R200 – Recruiter(s) |
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Feb 12, 2024 5:01:12 GMT 9
Thanks
|
|
Bullhunter
Global Moderator
318th FIS Jet Shop 1975-78
Currently: Offline
Posts: 7,445
Location:
Joined: May 2005
|
Post by Bullhunter on Feb 12, 2024 6:40:06 GMT 9
The civilian area and the military are all short on ATC people. I understand career fields needing more.
I spent over 20 years in aircraft maintenance and lots of times there was too many maintenance problems and not enough mechanics and technicians. So it was 12 hour shifts over and over.
The military needs to get rid of all this social BS and the lowering of standards. Needs to beef up its forces in all areas.
Clinton, Obama, and Biden have wrecked the military!
|
|
