Air Force: Bumming Me Out....

[FlyinSpy]

No posts in this forum for a while, so I thought I'd stir the pot some....

Just got back from 8 glorious days at Nellis, where the flowers are in bloom and the ballet is in fine form. But I left with a bad taste in my mouth, for once in an intellectual (and not literal...) sense. Got to observe some of my USAF intel brethren, who were Weapons School students. Yes, intel has it's own Weapons School, which is actually what this thread is about.

By and large, I was extremely impressed by the Weapons School students and their curriculum. They are getting exposed to concepts, systems, and material that will greatly benefit them later in their careers - info that their Navy counterparts will be lucky to pick up through osmosis, which seems to be the Navy's primary means for mid-grade intel training / professional development. They also have the advantage of mixing and matching with the other MDS weapons school types, both formally and informally. The capstone of the whole program, ME (Mission Employment) phase, brings it all together into incredibly complex problems that the Weapons School students get to plan and solve. Enormous red-ass if you're a student, a lot of fun and eye-opening if you are a visiting supporting player/aircrew. (They always need extra Prowlers...)

So what's the bad taste in my mouth? Professional jealousy, I guess. How come I can't go to a Weapons School and get a nifty patch? Why doesn't the Navy seem to have the same outlook on "ISR as a weapon system"? There is a convergence going on between the strike and the ISR sides of our business, and both sides are going to have to meet somewhere in the middle - and I don't think OJT is going to cut it on the intel side. We (Navy intel) are going to have to get serious about being professionals in the ISR business, and not continuing to spread ourselves thin across our careers, as we switch from strike intel to Kraplakistan terrorism to SPECWAR support. I want to homestead in strike warfare support, and I'd like to have a professional development path that allows it. Otherwise, it's not hard for me to foresee a time in the future when we will be dependent on Big Blue for the complete range of ISR support, just as we are dependent on them for tanker support.

(BTW, did see one of the better callsigns I've run across in a while: female intel O, who was generally big (but not unattractive); might have been a Div 1 basketball or volleyball player. Callsign: TABY - That's a Big B!tch, Yo...)

 

[Schnugg]

So what's the bad taste in my mouth? Professional jealousy, I guess. How come I can't go to a Weapons School and get a nifty patch?

This even comes with a nifty patch...you're all set now.
No more jealousy.

"Chief Propeller Head"

 

[Flash]

No posts in this forum for a while, so I thought I'd stir the pot some....

Just got back from 8 glorious days at Nellis, where the flowers are in bloom and the ballet is in fine form. But I left with a bad taste in my mouth, for once in an intellectual (and not literal...) sense. Got to observe some of my USAF intel brethren, who were Weapons School students. Yes, intel has it's own Weapons School, which is actually what this thread is about.

By and large, I was extremely impressed by the Weapons School students and their curriculum. They are getting exposed to concepts, systems, and material that will greatly benefit them later in their careers - info that their Navy counterparts will be lucky to pick up through osmosis, which seems to be the Navy's primary means for mid-grade intel training / professional development. They also have the advantage of mixing and matching with the other MDS weapons school types, both formally and informally. The capstone of the whole program, ME (Mission Employment) phase, brings it all together into incredibly complex problems that the Weapons School students get to plan and solve. Enormous red-ass if you're a student, a lot of fun and eye-opening if you are a visiting supporting player/aircrew. (They always need extra Prowlers...)

So what's the bad taste in my mouth? Professional jealousy, I guess. How come I can't go to a Weapons School and get a nifty patch? Why doesn't the Navy seem to have the same outlook on "ISR as a weapon system"? There is a convergence going on between the strike and the ISR sides of our business, and both sides are going to have to meet somewhere in the middle - and I don't think OJT is going to cut it on the intel side. We (Navy intel) are going to have to get serious about being professionals in the ISR business, and not continuing to spread ourselves thin across our careers, as we switch from strike intel to Kraplakistan terrorism to SPECWAR support. I want to homestead in strike warfare support, and I'd like to have a professional development path that allows it. Otherwise, it's not hard for me to foresee a time in the future when we will be dependent on Big Blue for the complete range of ISR support, just as we are dependent on them for tanker support.

(BTW, did see one of the better callsigns I've run across in a while: female intel O, who was generally big (but not unattractive); might have been a Div 1 basketball or volleyball player. Callsign: TABY - That's a Big B!tch, Yo...)

Being int the intel arena myself now I agree wholeheartedly with you. Like you said, it is symptomatic of the larger Navy problem of trying to make every officer the biggest generalist possible. I saw this in my first squadron where the DH's who had done the 'VP' career progression came back to the plane after mroe than 6 years in some cases. This, combined with the fact that they usually only stayed in the squadron long enough to get qual'd and their DH ticket punched and they were out of there. That left the senior JO's with almost all of the corporate knowledge when it came to the mission, and that only extended back 3 years at most. Taht was the other rub of it, once you got up to speed on the aircraft ad finally figured out what you are suppsed to do you moved on, for 5 or 6 years. It is a waste of training as far as I am concerned. Many of the DH's had valuable experience that they were unable to share with the rest of us because they were up to their noses in DH crap and never got back up to speed int eh aircraft. Prowlers were a bit different but you still had that disconnect between the first fleet tour and their DH tour for many of them.

I think the increasing complexity of weapon systems and the enviroments that we now operate in require more specilization than less. An intel officer does not become a specialist in Iran after one tour sitting an analysts desk in DC, it takes years of study and experience to know a place like that. The FAO program is a step in the right direction but it still doesn't fix the larger problem.

The biggest problem with the Navy's way of doing things OJT is that there is littke standardization across the fleet when it comes to professional development. There is something to be said for getting all officers together every so once in a while in their career for professional development like the USAF. I am not saying we need to be spoonfed but it would be nice to get some professinal development via a standard course rather than the usual schtzo way the Navy does it. Just because it is branded with the USAF logo does not make it bad.

 

[Flash]

Because A) the Air Force is all about Kumbaya and making everybody feel good.
Because B) The Air Force looks at EVERYTHING as a weapons sytem

If you want to call it osmosis, feel free...BUT the Navy does not teach to the lowest common denominator on the officer level like the Air Force does...
The NAvy way is like capitalism: The info is there, it is up to the individual to find it, implement it, change it, and even make it better
The Air Force way is like communism: Everyone will learn the exact same thing nothing more, nothing less, Do not question, do not change it, do not make decisions.

you can call the navy way "osmosis" I call it opportunity.

Don't be jealous...seriously

USAF flight school is not the whole service, they do a lot of things right too.

 

[Mumbles]

Flash..I need to buy you a few beers in old town or G-town soon bro...

 

[FlyinSpy]

If you want to call it osmosis, feel free...BUT the Navy does not teach to the lowest common denominator on the officer level like the Air Force does...
The NAvy way is like capitalism: The info is there, it is up to the individual to find it, implement it, change it, and even make it better

My comments were more aimed at content vs delivery. While I'm a big fan of an intellectual "eat what you kill" environment, and the ability for me to, on my own initiative, get smart on something, there's still a role for formal training and specialization. In some ways, AF Intel has it a lot easier than the Navy, since they don't have to worry about three other warfare modalities - they only sweat the air side of things, so maybe they can afford the specialization. But I would still like a comparable professional development opportunity to the weapons school; we have TOP GUN, we have PTI, we have SWTI, and the rest - all to make operators more proficient in their platforms. ISR is truly coming into its own as an enabler, especially in the time critical strike business. What I'm saying is that, like the AF, we need an intermediate school that addresses the intricacies of the ISR business - JPME just doesn't cut it for me.

Without this sort of training, Navy intel folks will be *way* behind the power curve when they get tossed into the CAOC environment for an O-4/O-5 Joint tour. Or when Navy equities need to be justified and fought for when UAV capabilities are being procured; if the Air Force has it's way, the Navy just might be getting what the AF decides is good for them. I'd rather the Navy be able to effectively articulate needs and requirements based on real experience, rather than an ad hoc response. (The UAV example is just the tip of the iceberg).

For Schnugg: I should have been more clear - I want a patch that chicks will dig. As it is, I only have this to show on my jacket.... :icon_tong

 

[A4sForever]

Air Force guys ... defenders of the country .... I sleep better at night 'cause they are on duty .... one walked out of the Commissary today ahead of us, in flight suit .... his neck was so thin I could have put my thumb and index finger around it and strangled him .... I didn't, even though I toyed with the idea .... but Trophy Wife was so upset she wanted to fight him .....

 

[MasterBates]

Why did the Trophy Wife want to strangle him?

Or does she just hate zoomies?

 

[Brett327]

Great thread, but I'm not sure a weapons school type approach is the solution to Flyinspy's stated issues. In that sense, the USAF weapons school is as Retread described in his first post. The Navy employs its patch-wearers in a fundamentally different way than the USAF. I speak only from my experience as a PTI in the Prowler community (where each squadron has a Level V assigned as training officer), but I suspect it's similar for other communities.

In the Navy, the weps school guys serve several functions. First, they're the everything SME and are responsible for ensuring squadron operators are up to date on the latest tactics and act as liaison between the fleet and the weapons school. Second, they have an administrative function in running the squadron's ACTC program, including being the only person who can give a Level III/MC check (at least in my community). By contrast, the USAF employs their patch wearers primarily as planners, so even though they do have that kumbayah approach to things, it's a function (right or wrong) that is much more applicable to other less tactical platforms or even intel.

I guess my question for Flyinspy is this: If you're after community specialization, then it would seem that that could be achieved via the detailing process. Since platform-specific expertise is just one facet of Navy style weapons schools, I don't know if that's the best model to use if the goal is to have an abundance of intel-oriented corporate knowledge in a particular platform. What's your bottom line? Do you want a 3rd or 4th tour intel O-4 serving as a squadron/wing/CAG "Prowler" intel specialist, or do you want that guy up echelon working on a fleet or combatant commander's staff? Could people handle the commitment to one platform/community without getting burned out?

Whatever the answers, this is good stuff.

Brett

 

[HeyJoe]

Does ISR = Intel??

In some ways, AF Intel has it a lot easier than the Navy, since they don't have to worry about three other warfare modalities - they only sweat the air side of things, so maybe they can afford the specialization.

Not necessarily true. Air Force may be all about Air and Space and now Cyberspace as well, they are just as clanish within AMC and ACC (before that in TAC and SAC were separate, but there are still bomber and fighter clans) domains as Navy is in Surface, Sub and Air Warfare. AFSOC is also it's own world just as NAVSPECWAR.

But I would still like a comparable professional development opportunity to the weapons school; we have TOP GUN...

If you are going to talk about the Navy Fighter Weapons School or, more accurately, NSAWC N7, the term is TOPGUN (no space). TOP GUN (with space) is a movie with Tom Cruise. Of course, if what you want is chicks digging you, maybe you do mean TOP GUN and it's a movie you want after all.

Without this sort of training, Navy intel folks will be *way* behind the power curve when they get tossed into the CAOC environment for an O-4/O-5 Joint tour.

You could make the case for something under the NSAWC umbrella or even to make the Nellis model joint if you are concerned working in the CAOC/JFACC environment, which will always be an Air Force show (note: there are also other warfare commanders...CFMCC for example). The other option is to fold it into a polishing course at NMITC. Although I was at Sam Neck having lunch at club the other day and ran into some Intel types there (04-05), some of which I knew on active duty as 0-1/0-2 debriefers in CVIC. They were there for some sort of multiweek training on something (I didn't pry into their "spy" stuff) so there is something you could build on. I'm not busting your balls on this suggestion (like I did above on movie), but this would be an excellent Naval institute Proceedings warfighting essay or "nobody asked me, but..." article. That is what proceedings was founded on. PM me if you want some more advice along those lines...seriously.

Or when Navy equities need to be justified and fought for when UAV capabilities are being procured; if the Air Force has it's way, the Navy just might be getting what the AF decides is good for them. I'd rather the Navy be able to effectively articulate needs and requirements based on real experience, rather than an ad hoc response. (The UAV example is just the tip of the iceberg).

Not sure what you mean by "Navy equities"??? What do we have to fight for in that regard? I agree Air Force would like to be executive agent for UAVs, but they also just bailed on J-UCAS turning it into N-UCAS (they bailed on JTIDS and ASPJ many, many moons ago leaving Navy to go it alone. They came back onboard with Link 16 (JTIDS/MIDS), but they'll have a tough case on UAVs if they only cling to Predator and Global Hawk. The Army is into UAVs big time and currently has command of JUAV COE (may turn over to Air Force and they got it established on their turf at Creech when JUAV JT&E stood down at Fallon). But what do UAVs have to do with Navy Intel folks getting graduate level training (and patches). The Army initially had Intel folks "owning" the UAVs as an ISR feed, but I just heard at general officer level that they blew it when they played "secret squirrel" telling operational commanders who owned the Intel units that they couldn't see the feeds (they had a justifiable "need to know", but not the clearance needed). This has always been the friction between the Intel ISR world and "operators". Intel let themselves become a self-licking Ice Cream cone and I'd argue that the sophistication of ISR especially in nontraditional ISR capability far eclipses the Intel community. With the promise of Net Centric Warfare becoming a reality, traditional Intel has to transform. SPEAR, SWORD, SABRE and TRIDENT are supposed to get operstors into the Intel world to ease that friction and even the Air Force puts operators atop their ISR center of excellence, AFC2ISRC, or as it is now known, the Global Cyberspace Integration Center (GCIC)...there they go again; coining a new phrase. Likewise, the Navy puts operators in charge of its counterpart NETWARCOM. Well, these are all trends and issues you can address in your article....

For Schnugg: I should have been more clear - I want a patch that chicks will dig. As it is, I only have this to show on my jacket.... :icon_tong

hmmm....let me comment on that as well. As a JO in the FRS, some of my fellow JOs were talking about the choice to put patches on their flight jackets or not to (on the leather flight jacket) and what "chicks" liked best. Little did they know but the CO had eased into the Ready Room from Ops and was listening with a bemused smile. He was cool beyond cool, lived at Chick's Beach (no pun intended) and always had good looking women hanging around him. As the JOs continued to discuss what looked coolest, he simply commented "Listen, the only people you are going to impress are other fighter pilots and boy scouts at airshows". I saw him in the Pentagon in mid nineties before he retired as a vice admiral and he still didn't have any patches on his jacket.

 

[TrunkMonkey]

FlyinSpy -- Nothing makes me happier after a day like the one I just had to see someone else validate my Intel frustrations. I agree wholeheartedly with your post. My Air Force counterpart that I work with is a Weapons School grad, and besides getting to rock the nifty patch, he also has a foundation of knowledge and credibility (relatively speaking...) that is imparted nowhere in Navy intel training when it comes to providing intel support to aviation. Instead, you get people like one of our instructors at NMITC who told us things like, "angle of attack means the angle that you attack a target at", "the one-wire is called the ace because it is the best one to hit", etc. Which is all well enough, because actually putting effort into learning about aircraft as a squadron AI only pays off so much when you spend two years there and then leave for ONI to analyze "maritime armed criminals" (the intel community's PC term for pirates) for several years.
Although I am probably missing something, I see specialization as a better solution. For instance, with the growing intel support to special warfare -- not every intel officer has the personality, physical abilities, and knowledge to excel in that community. The ones I know that do are not overly satisfied with checking the traditional intel boxes. Within those specialized tracks, there could be continued education and professional development. If nothing else, knowing that you were going to specialize in one warfare area/topic for more than one tour might encourage more personal investment in gaining in-depth knowledge of that warfare area, rather than the cursory understanding needed to get by.
I guess part of the reason I say this is selfish -- I would also rather specialize in providing intel support to strike warfare/EW for the rest of my career. But I also see it as something that would benefit each community in terms of the knowledge and understanding of its intelligence officers.

No posts in this forum for a while, so I thought I'd stir the pot some....

Just got back from 8 glorious days at Nellis, where the flowers are in bloom and the ballet is in fine form. But I left with a bad taste in my mouth, for once in an intellectual (and not literal...) sense. Got to observe some of my USAF intel brethren, who were Weapons School students. Yes, intel has it's own Weapons School, which is actually what this thread is about.

By and large, I was extremely impressed by the Weapons School students and their curriculum. They are getting exposed to concepts, systems, and material that will greatly benefit them later in their careers - info that their Navy counterparts will be lucky to pick up through osmosis, which seems to be the Navy's primary means for mid-grade intel training / professional development. They also have the advantage of mixing and matching with the other MDS weapons school types, both formally and informally. The capstone of the whole program, ME (Mission Employment) phase, brings it all together into incredibly complex problems that the Weapons School students get to plan and solve. Enormous red-ass if you're a student, a lot of fun and eye-opening if you are a visiting supporting player/aircrew. (They always need extra Prowlers...)

So what's the bad taste in my mouth? Professional jealousy, I guess. How come I can't go to a Weapons School and get a nifty patch? Why doesn't the Navy seem to have the same outlook on "ISR as a weapon system"? There is a convergence going on between the strike and the ISR sides of our business, and both sides are going to have to meet somewhere in the middle - and I don't think OJT is going to cut it on the intel side. We (Navy intel) are going to have to get serious about being professionals in the ISR business, and not continuing to spread ourselves thin across our careers, as we switch from strike intel to Kraplakistan terrorism to SPECWAR support. I want to homestead in strike warfare support, and I'd like to have a professional development path that allows it. Otherwise, it's not hard for me to foresee a time in the future when we will be dependent on Big Blue for the complete range of ISR support, just as we are dependent on them for tanker support.

(BTW, did see one of the better callsigns I've run across in a while: female intel O, who was generally big (but not unattractive); might have been a Div 1 basketball or volleyball player. Callsign: TABY - That's a Big B!tch, Yo...)

 

[BackOrdered]

you can call the navy way "osmosis" I call it opportunity.

Nice quote on Naval Education.

 

[Schnugg]

the one-wire is called the ace because it is the best one to hit

Ahhh yes, my new signature line.

 

[FlyinSpy]

Ah, it warms the cockles of my heart to see discourse on the future of Navy intel.... (and to say "cockles" and "discourse" in the same sentence!).

For Brett: What I was thinking about wasn't as much platform-level specialization as it was becoming a "Jedi Master of the Intel World" - being at least conversant in all the INT disciplines (SIGINT, IMINT, MASINT, etc.), and a true SME in one. And, most importantly, not in a vacuum, but in how these disciplines apply to Navy-specific as well as Joint problems and situations - especially at the tactical/operational levels. That's what I see the Weapons School doing for the AF intel types - giving them a solid foundation across a manageable span of knowledge. Not mile wide/inch deep, not mile deep/inch wide, but 10 feet wide and 10 feet deep. I'd like to see a crop of 1630 O-4s who are able to walk into a CAG AI job and be able to fluentely speak the language of every spy in every squadron, regardless of platform, be able to discuss the intricacies of collection requirements and strategies with his/her collection manager, be able to intelligently discourse (that word again!) with the Battle Group staff on ops/intel integration, and ping the national agencies with queries that are answerable and actionable. I think a WS-level graduate would be much better prepared to work immediately at that level than a pure OJT veteran.

Also, there is a socialization function that allows you to mix with other identified "early break outs", both in your community and in others. The social aspect might also be equally important with the academic; it's these people, as well as other WS grads, that you'll tend to be interacting with for the rest of your career.

Does the Navy need to just send folks to the AF school? Don't know, might be at least worth a try. (For all I know, they already do go...) Would a schoolhouse program under the aegis ($2 word score!) of NSAWC or NMITC be the answer? Possibly, but the Navy's outlook on these things seems to be for 2 week classes - this evolution needs to be on the order of 4-6m, and the Navy seems reluctant to build a syllabus that long.

Flash was spot-on in his comment about the lack of standardization. That's one thing I took away from my time as an instructor out at NSAWC (where I would continually leave the space between TOP and GUN...) - the importance of stan. And we're terribly lacking in the Navy intel community in terms of making sure there is a common level of understanding across the fleet. Therein lies the value of a mid-career intensive course - re-baselining in terms of knowledge. Because, as we all know, and Emil Faber said it best, "Knowledge is Good."

For HeyJoe: I've had a Proceedings article percolating in the back of my head since my trip home from Nellis; this thread was just the proverbial spaghetti being thrown against the wall to see what sticks.

As far as Navy equities, I mean being able to intelligently express needs and requirements that don't violate the laws of physics. I had an eye opening experience about 6 years ago or so when I was in the opening design and requirements sessions for what was then Navy BAMS - there was nobody from the intel side to inject any sanity into the discussion, as people were specifiying insane requirements with no thought to actual operational utility or ability to deliver. I'd like to see a cadre of 1630s that were comfortable discussing performance/capability trades and what that meant for the end consumers. And the Army had the idea exactly wrong - you can't let intel "own" the capability, since you end up with another proverbial self-licking ice cream cone. But intel also can't be the afterthought at the end of the line, when the operators, budgeteers, and engineers get done with the design, and the intel guys are asked to make sausage out of it.

Now, would a weapons school approach solve these and the other problems? No - not in and of itself, but it would certainly provide the foundation of professionals that can coherently weigh in on issues as they grow througout their careers.

Your point on SPEAR/SWORD etc kind of reinforces my point - yep, they are good examples of the operational side attempting to expand their horizons by getting into the intel side - but where's the flip side? Where's the opportunity for intel folks to get better operational exposure? The answer is in the CAOCs of the world, but as TrunkMonkey referenced, AF Intel folks tend to have considerably more depth and breadth, and are much less fish out of water.

Lastly, I hope everyone realizes I'm being satirical on the whole patch/cool/chicks digging factor. After all, since it is physically, morally, and mentally impossible to be any cooler than a 42 year old LT DIRCOM reservist intel-O, I don't worry about those things... :icon_tong

 

[Brett327]

^^ Sounds like you've got the material for a good point paper to run up the chain. Sometimes, that's how good ideas gain momentum.

Brett