Old becomes new once again.
Friggen Air Force, the Navy and Marines have it right.  


USAF Leaders consider returning maintainers to flying squadrons

by Staff Sgt. J.G. Buzanowski
Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs

WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- Air Force leaders are considering realigning
aircraft maintenance units directly into flying squadrons.

"It's important for Air Force units to be structured by mission and not
by function," said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley.

"Aircraft maintenance is an important element of a flying squadron
commander's mission, so crew chiefs and other aircraft maintainers
should fall in that chain of command," the general said. "The
partnership between crew chief and aircrew goes back to our roots and is
part of our heritage. We'll figure out if this is the best thing for
Airmen, but it won't happen before we've received all the feedback we
need to make it work. This isn't just change for change sake; we want to
make sure this is done right, not necessarily as quickly as possible.

"One of our main priorities is to properly organize, train, and equip
our Airmen so they can deliver decisive effects globally," General
Moseley said. "We must provide squadrons with the right people with the
right skill sets with the right tools. I believe moving aircraft
maintenance units to the flying squadrons is best for our Air Force."

The general said he believes a unit's home station should mirror
deployed flying squadrons as closely as possible.

"We should organize at home the same way we fight," he said.

"Giving the flying squadron commander the ability to take control of all
levels of the flying mission is the right thing to do," said Lt. Gen.
Gary L. North, the Combined Forces Air Component commander. "Putting
maintenance with the flying squadron as we execute our mission in combat
is the way to go."

Ultimately, most of the work in the Air Force is done at the squadron
level. Therefore, the goal is to provide combatant commanders with the
most complete and capable fighting squadrons possible, "whether it's
training, mobilizing, or generating combat power," General Moseley said.

The proposal would return aircraft maintenance units to an Air Force
organizational structure that was changed about five years ago when a
massive realignment moved the maintainers to maintenance groups. Under
the proposed plan, other maintenance units, like component repair
squadrons, will remain within maintenance groups.

At a special conference for NCOs held earlier this year, General Moseley
said he believes since aircraft maintainers work directly alongside
aircrews to launch airpower, they should all be part of the same
squadron.

"The squadron is the building block of Air Force organizational
structure and we need to organize it for success," he said. "We have our
wing- and our group-level organizations right, but I don't think we're
there yet at the squadron level."

General Moseley recently sent out a survey to squadron, group and wing
commanders about the proposed change. He said he continues to receive
feedback. Because this initiative is still in the planning stages, Air
Force leaders are determining if this is the best course of action for
all flying squadrons.

"I'm convinced this is absolutely the right thing to do for fighters,
but I'm still getting input on whether it should apply to [unmanned
aerial vehicles], airlifters, tankers, and special operations aircraft
as well," General Moseley said. "I've spoken with several squadron
commanders and they all want this change. Now we just need to figure out
if it will work for the entire Air Force."

Airmen should not be concerned that the proposed reorganization may
affect promotions or career options. After five years under the current
model, there is no evidence that supports promotion rates or career
options are significantly different now from what they were under the
previous model, General Moseley said.

He also said this is the best way to take care of Airmen, the Air
Force's most precious resource.

Good!  With the exception of my current home station squadron I have always been in flying squadrons.  I like it that way.  


ETA:  It was that way for more than a decade, then the former Chief of Staff Gen. Jumper changed it.  He also has two daughters who are maintenance officers in the AF, and they were looking at a career with a lot of difficulty making rank at the O-4 and above level.  I don't think that was the only reason he changed things, but I'm sure they were whispering in daddy's ear about it.  

Yay...run by ops again. Great.

Now we'll get flown until every damn jet in the fleet is broke...just like before.

Let's fly them into the dirt, and then wonder why our moral is so low. Everyone on 12's! At least now, we can say "fuck off" we don't have the jets or man power to support your flying schedule.  

Quoted: Yay...run by ops again. Great. Now we'll get flown until every damn jet in the fleet is broke...just like before. Let's fly them into the dirt, and then wonder why our moral is so low. Everyone on 12's! At least now, we can say "fuck off" we don't have the jets or man power to support your flying schedule.

That must be cool, but I have yet to see it ever happen.  We've been bent over by our spineless MX leadership just as much as we ever were by ops.  They still run the show.

Double tap

Quoted: Quoted: Yay...run by ops again. Great. Now we'll get flown until every damn jet in the fleet is broke...just like before. Let's fly them into the dirt, and then wonder why our moral is so low. Everyone on 12's! At least now, we can say "fuck off" we don't have the jets or man power to support your flying schedule.   That must be cool, but I have yet to see it ever happen.  We've been bent over by our spineless MX leadership just as much as we ever were by ops.  They still run the show.

I see it happen (MX saying no to OPS) most when we get low of jets, and over run with maintenance. It might be rarer that we like, but it does happen.

Uhh, I hate to say this but the Navy is going to the Air Force concept of 'Maintenance Squadrons'.

All the VPs (P-3 Orion) have already switched to the CMO - Central Maintenance Organization.  All the maintenance techs from all the squadrons are thrown into one CMO squadron and work on all aircraft.  The only people at the squadron per se are the aircrew and a few admin types.  For dets and deployments the techs are picked by skill level and oral sex expertise.  Expect the VR / VAQ etc communities to follow soon.

Kinda ironic that the Air Force is going away and the Navy is going towards the CMO.

TYCOM

Quoted: Uhh, I hate to say this but the Navy is going to the Air Force concept of 'Maintenance Squadrons'. All the VPs (P-3 Orion) have already switched to the CMO - Central Maintenance Organization.  All the maintenance techs from all the squadrons are thrown into one CMO squadron and work on all aircraft.  The only people at the squadron per se are the aircrew and a few admin types.  For dets and deployments the techs are picked by skill level and oral sex expertise.  Expect the VR / VAQ etc communities to follow soon. Kinda ironic that the Air Force is going away and the Navy is going towards the CMO. TYCOM

We seem to change our organization like some people change underwear.  We were separate from ops before I came in.  We were combined in the early 90s, then separated again about 5 years ago.  Now it looks like we will be combined yet again.  I've served my time in Fighter, Reconnaissance, Airlift, and Rescue squadrons, as well as a couple of maintenance squadrons, and my experiences (especially deployments) were always better actually in the flying squadron.  The tightest integration was probably with Rescue and Airlift.  With airlift you can self-deploy with all your own personnel, equipment, and aircraft instead of relying on AMC airlift or civvie airlines to get you to the theater.  

New Leaders must *change* something in their minds once they become in charge.

So they change to something ten years old.  In five or ten years it will change back, because someone else in charge and they always think you can have your cake and eat it two.

I have never seen a service so constantly in flux like the AF. I served 8 years in the 80's, got out in 87. Since then, I cannot even keep up with the org chart anymore. Flightline maintenance was aligned with the flying units in 87, but were still separate organizations (Aircraft Generation Squadrons). From what I gather this has gone back and forth over the past 20 years. I think my Air Force knowledge would be about as relevant now, as a 1945 WW2 AAF vet would have been relevant in 1987. I feel old.

Sounds to me like the OGs are getting tired of wrestling with the MXGs for schedules.



If they do it, it'll be just one more proof that if you're not rated you just don't count in the Air Force decision making tree.

Plus it'll play heck with the maintenance officer ranks...  MXG will almost have to get reorg'd, can't very well have a group with nothing but an MXS and an MOS.   Especially when scheduling and analysis get raped rebulding the flying squadron AMUs.

Oh well, back the daily battles in shared resources meetings  

Quoted: Uhh, I hate to say this but the Navy is going to the Air Force concept of 'Maintenance Squadrons'. All the VPs (P-3 Orion) have already switched to the CMO - Central Maintenance Organization.  All the maintenance techs from all the squadrons are thrown into one CMO squadron and work on all aircraft.  The only people at the squadron per se are the aircrew and a few admin types.  For dets and deployments the techs are picked by skill level and oral sex expertise.  Expect the VR / VAQ etc communities to follow soon. Kinda ironic that the Air Force is going away and the Navy is going towards the CMO. TYCOM

The reason why the Navy is going to the CMO is to get rid of the squadron level military mantenance departments and to get the fixed-wing ASW community ready for the P-8 maintenance program, which will have civilian contracted maintenance.

I am pretty sure that the P-8 and C-40 programs are going to be folded into each other since they are 737's.

The VAQ squdrons (EA-18G's) will not be going to a CMO, however, as the EA-6B's are replaced by the EA-18G's those EA-6B's will be dumped off to VAQ-129 and they will have civilians working on them until the last EA-6B squadron is converted, then they go to the Marines or to the boneyard.

With that, I also think that the Navy is going to end up "master basing" aircraft, either the VR squadrons will move to Whidbey and Brunswick (or Jacksonville) to be with the VP squadrons or else the VP squadrons will move to JRB Dallas to be with the VR squadrons.

No shipboard squadrons will be going to CMO maintenance, it has been proven over and over again that they do not work.

The C-2 community (both VRC-30 and VRC-40) run a type of CMO, they have hard DETS with personel assigned to them. Ask the maintainers (and the aircrew) how many times they have had to crossdeck because of manning/aircraft issues.

I know a guy who was a Loadmaster/Crewchief with VRC-30, he spent almost his entire 4 years there crossdecking from ship to ship.

Quoted: New Leaders must *change* something in their minds once they become in charge. So they change to something ten years old.  In five or ten years it will change back, because someone else in charge and they always think you can have your cake and eat it two.

It is common to believe that Change=Progress.

Fact fo the matter is that most military organizations will change when the leadership changes and it gets ti be a habit.

I had been wondering about what the prospects of promotion were for those outside the fighter mafia (rated mafia?).  So it looks like if you are not a driver then you are not worth listening to (still).  Suppose that argument has its merits, but . . .

From what I've seen Ops still dictates what goes on anyway.

Seems like it would be wise to integrate maintainers into the flying squadrons.  Seems as though there would be much better coordination and respect between Flight Ops and Maintenance Control that way.

That's the way it is in naval aviation, and it does provide some good benefits to those of us who keep 'em flying.

Turns out I wasn't being lazy for not changing all my Aircraft Generation Squadron patches to Aircraft Maintenance Squadron ones.  Instead I was being prepared for the future.

Typical AF, Everyone saw this coming when they changed 5 years ago.

Move maintainers, Moseley says

Fighter crew chiefs are called a key to squadrons’ ‘combat power’
By Bruce Rolfsen - [email protected]
Posted : August 20, 2007

Fighter crew chiefs may be moving — again.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley told Air Force Times that he favors placing crew chiefs back into fighter squadrons instead of having them continue as airmen assigned to aircraft maintenance squadrons.

If the change is made, 2010 is the soonest it would happen, Moseley said.

Just five years ago, several thousand crew chiefs were shifted out of fighter squadrons and into maintenance squadrons. Moseley wants to make the change, he said, because the Air Force needs its fighter squadron leaders in full control — with a single chain of command.

“The fighter squadron has to be right,” said Moseley, a former fighter squadron commander. “It is the soul of how we deliver combat power.”

Moseley is undecided if crew chiefs assigned to other types of aircraft such as airlifters, bombers and special operations planes should be moved into flying squadrons. He continues to hear opinions on where those crew chiefs should reside.

Traditionally, airlift and special operations units have had crew chiefs assigned to maintenance units. Bomber crew chiefs shifted out of flying squadrons and into maintenance units as part of the 2002 changes.

Although Moseley’s Air Staff has assembled reports on where to assign crew chiefs, Moseley said he wants to hear directly from airmen. “What I really value is having the opportunity to sit down with a group of airmen, staff sergeants and tech sergeants and listen to what they say,” Moseley said. “They are the people implementing what is going on.”

One crew chief who favors the change is Tech. Sgt. Kevin Frisbie, an F-15E Strike Eagle expediter with the 389th Aircraft Maintenance Unit at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. He has been in both fighter and maintenance squadrons and prefers being part of a fighter squadron.

“When we were in operations, we worked better together,” Frisbie said of the relationship between aircrews and crew chiefs. Because pilots, weapons systems officers and crew chiefs were in the same squadron, airmen understood each other’s concerns, he said.

The change in 2002 put up a wall between the flight line maintainers and aircrews, Frisbie said. Some pilots and maintainers, especially those who started after 2002, don’t even know each other.

Another Mountain Home crew chief, Staff Sgt. Michael Funk of the 391st Aircraft Maintenance Unit, said being part of a fighter squadron made it easier for a squadron’s operations and maintenance officers to coordinate flying and repairs. That meant a less chaotic schedule for crew chiefs, Funk said.

Critics of the fighter crew chief change are concerned that squadron commanders will press maintainers to meet short-term flying goals at the expense of the squadron’s long-term health.

But Moseley said, “I have never seen in my experience ... an operating commander override someone who says, ‘Boss, the airplane is broke,’ ” the chief said.

But there are also concerns that fewer or smaller maintenance squadrons will hurt promotion and command opportunities for maintenance officers.

An Air Force survey of squadron, group and wing commanders found that officers with maintenance backgrounds “overwhelmingly” favored keeping crew chiefs out of flying squadrons. Mobility commanders tended to want to keep separate maintenance and flying units, while fighter, bomber and special operations commanders tended to favor moving crew chiefs into flying squadrons, a summary of the survey said.

In a July 19 memo that Moseley sent to the heads of the Air Force’s major commands, the chief said his priority was organizing the Air Force to meet its mission of flying and fighting.

“I believe the emotionalism and urban myths surrounding fleet health, sortie generation, promotion rates and home station/deployed organization parallels have kept this issue actually focused less on mission and more on function,” the general wrote.

During the Air Force Times interview, Moseley said a change of crew chief assignment does not signal a larger change of wing organizations. He said the current wing structure of operations, maintenance, mission support and medical groups is the right mix. Maintenance groups will continue to have responsibility for back shop repairs and highly specialized work, Moseley said.

Shifting crew chiefs into fighter squadrons has the support of Lt. Gen. Gary North, the general who commands most airmen deployed to operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

From an aircraft readiness perspective, North said, he doesn’t see a substantial statistical difference between having crew chiefs in fighter or maintenance squadrons. The difference North sees is philosophical — what is the best way to execute a commander’s orders?

“The squadron commander’s ability to have everyone in the squadron on the same vision ... is absolutely the way our Air Force needs to be aligned,” North said.

Having crew chiefs as part of fighter squadrons creates a “unity of command,” North said. The wing commander looks to the squadron commander to carry out an assignment. The squadron commander needs one chain of command to ensure the squadron fulfills it.

North believes the current system hurts the preparation that fighter squadron leaders have for becoming group and wing commanders. Today, at the squadron level, fighter commanders are not exposed to the day-to-day issues of maintenance; those responsibilities go to maintenance officers, North said. That fighter squadron commander may not get deeply involved in maintenance issues until he becomes a wing or operations group commander — not the best time for on-the-job training.

Since the inception of the Air Force, commanders have been trying to figure out who should be in charge of maintenance. For much of the service’s history, major commands were able to establish their own maintenance organizations, a 2005 Rand Corp. look at Air Force repair practices found.

During the mid-1970s, Tactical Air Command established “aircraft maintenance units” aligned with flying squadrons to handle flight line work, the report said. Work off of the flight line was focused in back shops such as equipment maintenance squadrons and component repair squadrons.

Under Gen. Bill Creech in the late 1970s, Tactical Air Command’s aircraft maintenance units got the independence to handle their own scheduling and their own pool of maintainers.

After Desert Storm in 1991, then-Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill McPeak introduced the “objective wing,” which created separate operations and logistics groups but left flight line-level maintenance in the fighter and bomber squadrons.

The next change came in 2002. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Ryan commissioned a study known as the Chief’s Logistics Review, and in 2002, his successor, Gen. John Jumper, began putting the recommendations into effect. Those changes resulted in today’s wing organization that has separate operations, maintenance, mission support and medical groups. As part of the change, crew chiefs and their aircraft maintenance units were brought under the maintenance group.

The changes went into effect at the same time Operation Iraqi Freedom was beginning, and some deployed wing and squadron commanders were reluctant to reorganize their expeditionary units to fit the new organizational model.

By the end of 2003, the expeditionary wings had adopted the new wing organization, but on a day-to-day basis flying squadron commanders often had de facto responsibility for aircraft maintenance.

When I see things like this, I think to myself, "Thank God for Force Shaping."

After I got out, I completed my BS and briefly thought about another couple years.  Then I visited some of my friends still with my old unit earlier this year.  I'm glad I didn't.  I had a tendency to remember the good times I'd had.  I completely forgot about all the BS that I had to deal with.  Makes me glad I'm a civilian again.

Correct KA3B.  The P-8A Poseidon maintenance will be .civ contractors.  Possibly by that time the VR will go that way too.  The C-40 and C-9 is already done that way and we have no complaints about the quality or timeliness of support.
VP will be at Whidbey and Jax.  K-Bay will most likely be a det site.  Reserve VP should be gone in 2016 but most likely earlier since all the Res P-3s are already absorbed into the active duty squadrons.
The USMC will go an all KC-130J fleet giving their KC-130Ts to the ResNavy VR squadrons.  Either plus up each VR with two more KC-130Ts or stand up two more VRs.  And yes, VR will retain the Refueling capability.  There are no plans to move/consolidate the VR squadrons except BRAC Brunswick which will move over to the AFB in the next state.
Any aircraft that doesn't warfight from a carrier is going contract maintenance.  

TYCOM
 

Quoted: The C-40 and C-9 is already done that way TYCOM

The C-9's still have (reserve) military maintenance people.

The E-6B's have Boeing contract support for supply and GSE, they also get support from OC-ALC for I and D issues.

The Navy is going to get the KC-130T's from the Marines, man, the Chair Force will be pissed about the Navy once again having organic airlift support.