http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,144697,00.html
Back in the 70's a LOT of people were "Joint" qualified, Officers and Enlisted both.

Back in the mid-70s, it seem like just about everybody 30 and below in the military was "joint qualified". I know I sure was. ;-)

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,144697,00.html
Back in the 70's a LOT of people were "Joint" qualified, Officers and Enlisted both.

My last assignment was with the JCS as an E8 - it was very interesting as you see the difference between the service's officer leadership styles and traits. I worked in an officer action position along with an AF Major,and we were both supervised by a GS 17, old pre WWII West Pointer, retired full Colonel. After putting up with his "do as I say, don't ask questions" style, I retired with 22 years. As my wife said, keep the good memories of your service career instead of letting one individual ruin something you loved. When the AF General, Joint Secretary, whom I had known as a Captain, found out I had put my papers in, he really got upset and offered me any assignment I wanted. We had already purchased a home in Florida and it really turned out great for me as I became a broker, fully retired in 1991 and we now live very comfortably in a golf course community. I often wonder how the GS civilian did as my replacement was from another branch of service, did not have a strong educational background, and had difficulty preparing the letters that the position required. With very rare exceptions, both officer and enlisted personnel of all services, were cordial, respectful, and a pleasure to work with. Having worked directly as an Administrative Asst for three Major Generals over a 5 year period, it always amazed me that Generals were so easy to work for and treated you like a member of their family. Obviously, they had no more pressure on them to succeed. God, how time flies - it has been 31 years to be exact since I retired.

There would have to be a measure of "officer proficiency" in this equation. To be ranked is one aspect, to be able to perform as a proficient leader, knowing the aspects and functions of the billet would be another. To save resources, why not re-establish Warrants in the Air Force? ALL of our officers should be air-worthy, rated, etc., and be in flying billets--there should be NO non-flying O's. We have a bunch of engineers, etc., and have no world-wide Corps of Engineers as does the Army, and let them do those functions. The Navy has world-wide coverage with their engineers, why duplicate? They build runways, etc., and could "free-up" valuable logistics instead of AF requirements to keep these billets as commissioned positions instead of utilizing a very qualified enlisted asset(s). Just thoughts to be pondered, and the AF definately has too many officer billets, to say the least. Hold them in Reserve Status, perhaps, but consider cutting back a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckSherwin:
There would have to be a measure of "officer proficiency" in this equation. To be ranked is one aspect, to be able to perform as a proficient leader, knowing the aspects and functions of the billet would be another. To save resources, why not re-establish Warrants in the Air Force? ALL of our officers should be air-worthy, rated, etc., and be in flying billets--there should be NO non-flying O's. We have a bunch of engineers, etc., and have no world-wide Corps of Engineers as does the Army, and let them do those functions. The Navy has world-wide coverage with their engineers, why duplicate? They build runways, etc., and could "free-up" valuable logistics instead of AF requirements to keep these billets as commissioned positions instead of utilizing a very qualified enlisted asset(s). Just thoughts to be pondered, and the AF definately has too many officer billets, to say the least. Hold them in Reserve Status, perhaps, but consider cutting back a bit.

Chuck: Just read in the Air Force Times that a large number of non flying officers were RIFed - career fields were listed - somebody read your mind. As for bringing back warrant officers - why? Our Senior Non Commissioned Officers have certainly done the job and receive the respect of our officer corps. With the development of weapons and systems, continued reduction in the military is in the future - would expect to see our military to become one body with branches as air, naval, ground, support, etc. More efficient and cost productive along with better coordination during any war effort. Someone could go on and on as to the benefits.

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,144697,00.html
Back in the 70's a LOT of people were "Joint" qualified, Officers and Enlisted both.

We're getting closer to a Unified Military, somewhat like the Canadians. It's about time we head that way. Golf course maintenance technicians in the Air Force can now learn to appreciate having to shoot pool onboard ship with square pool balls. I wonder who is going to have to concede on rules and regulations when it gets down to "Joint" anything. If it's like the Joint Travel Regulations, it's gonna hurt!!

Like MTC Ralph sez... One Brotherhood!!

Ya'll have a good one!!

It's about time these current day "War Colleges and Advanced Leadership Courses" started realizing we must work together. A lot of losses were sustained in RVN because we could not talk to each other, didn't understand each others procedures, or were just plain honery to one another like little tin plated 'cocks of the walk'.
Sergeant Major

"Joint qualified"?
What about "Bong proficient"?
Or "Roachclip ready"?
Oh yeah, this is "The sanbox", not "The 'Nam"! No disgruntled draftees. (At least not right now, but the Dems are looking at it!)

My father might have been considered "joint qualified" (in the military sense). He served as a radioman/rear gunner in Navy dive bombers during WW2, but in between then and Korea, he went into the Army as a combat engineer and retired as a very decorated Master Sargent.

My Pop was my hero!

quote:

Originally posted by 03Mach1:
"Joint qualified"?
What about "Bong proficient"?
Or "Roachclip ready"?
Oh yeah, this is "The sanbox", not "The 'Nam"! No disgruntled draftees. (At least not right now, but the Dems are looking at it!)

My father might have been considered "joint qualified" (in the military sense). He served as a radioman/rear gunner in Navy dive bombers during WW2, but in between then and Korea, he went into the Army as a combat engineer and retired as a very decorated Master Sargent.

My Pop was my hero!

Great story - my Dad was too young for WWI and too old for WWII, but he was sure my hero. Look at his picture every day as it sits on my desk.

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckSherwin:
There would have to be a measure of "officer proficiency" in this equation. To be ranked is one aspect, to be able to perform as a proficient leader, knowing the aspects and functions of the billet would be another. To save resources, why not re-establish Warrants in the Air Force? ALL of our officers should be air-worthy, rated, etc., and be in flying billets--there should be NO non-flying O's. We have a bunch of engineers, etc., and have no world-wide Corps of Engineers as does the Army, and let them do those functions. The Navy has world-wide coverage with their engineers, why duplicate? They build runways, etc., and could "free-up" valuable logistics instead of AF requirements to keep these billets as commissioned positions instead of utilizing a very qualified enlisted asset(s). Just thoughts to be pondered, and the AF definately has too many officer billets, to say the least. Hold them in Reserve Status, perhaps, but consider cutting back a bit.

In the old days there were enlisted pilots. Down South we had Army Warrents right out of high school. The Marine Corps still has enlisted navigators on their C-130's. I don't know about the OS-22 Osprey. They should be enlisted also. The Air Force is getting ready to pull another riff on its officers. That alone indicates to me there are too many unnecessary "O billets". It is a very demoralizing strategy to use. No intentional offense to my officer Brothers, but who the he11 died and made you all better. You want to see real leadership, look at our Senior Enlisted. Who trains recruits, officer and enlisted; who trains airborne, officer and enlisted; who are the majority of schools instructors, officer and enlisted. There indeed does need to be a re-awakening in the military 'how to'. Who commands outfits and units...who runs them? When was the last time an officer fixed a jet engine or armed a bomb? I'm not bitter, just practical. Warrents used to come from their individual occupational specialities, now they select you, based on your OFFICERS recommendation, sometimes without any conference with their Senior Enlisted, and assign them to a new field. A Marine Corps 'Gunner', came from the combat arms fields. They wore their standard insignia of rank on one collar and a bursting bomb on the other. They're all called 'Gunner' now, by most. Some of the older dogs will only use that term for the bursting bomb. Now I hear there is a CWO-5. Why, isn't he qualified to become a 2nd or 1st Lt.? It's the same as too many officers and the Senior Enlisted not being properly utilized. We used to run leadership drills where the Battalion officers got lost for a day or two and the Staff and Non-commissioned Officers ran the show. Viet Nam saw Platoon Commanders were often Lance Corporals...and did a damned fine job. Point is, we do need an awakening.
I'd like to jaw some more about this. No, we aren't in the game actively anymore, but we still have an obligation to be available when asked. WE are the corporate memory.
With Great Respect to All,
Sergeant Major

This sounds like a gret idea for the Officers. Why not the Enlisted as well? More often these days, and in the past we've found and find ourselves working with Other Coalition Forces (OCFs) and Other Government Agencies (OGAs). Each posses language and customs unique to their respective service. If this is to be "Joint" why not make it so across the board. We will all certainly benefit from this immensely.

Why Warrants? There is something about these gentlemen that make them a special breed...I only knew a few, but they had a way; only had to salute him once a day, called (them) "Mr." and I could go on. It would give upward mobility to senior NCO's and the pay scales would be better AND the wives would be happier (more prestige, money and social standing, etc.) and they make good helicopter pilots? The "mark" is intentional...these jobs were so dangerous in the 60's that they could get very few CO's to do them; the Army picked right up on it and opened these billets to WO's. In the AF, there are too many officers, and they do not need that many, and it is common knowledge---ergo, RIF's, but the RIF's are almost always reserve billets from active duty and to get their "20" they used to revert to E-4. I'll bet they would jump at the chance to get a Warrant at that juncture. We had a major that took a RIF, went to E-4, his wife went home, and he sewed on E-4, and was not very happy, to say the least. We got a big kick out of that because he was an a##hole to begin with and we really gave him a hard time...tiger's revenge. Here's a thought: with all these drones being built, and the "flying" being done from everywhere but over the target, at some terminal in some office way far away, my 16 year old grandson knows how to "fly" better than Steve Canyon. In the future, do we need expensive "O's" at all? We could get illegal immigrants...they are doing all the jobs we don't want to do anyway, according to the dems, who hate the war, but love the troops...well, that is another topic and it makes me sick to my stomach every time one of those idiots makes that statement...and to think the people are so stupid to vote them into office. Oh well, I'm off the payroll now, old, so I don't really care but it does break my heart; when I see Nancy, she looks like she is riding in a convertable going 90, her face is so "tight" and John Murtha has taken a dum-dum one too many times in his head; Harry? He looks and acts like a pick-pocket with them beady little eyes. And then there is Charles Schumer...he reminds me of a subway "pusher" of olden times: to cram the cars in the subway, they actually had someone "push" the riders into the cars..."Charlie the Pusher" Schumer: every dem's buddy, and he's always smiling and he's everywhere, like Chickenman of old...