Why aren't there any Warrant Officers in the Air Force?

[LADYVIOLA]

What an effective Corps of senior, technically qualified, effective, and motovated individuals the other four services efficiently employ. Leadership, longevity, and high quality individuals tightly focused in fields such as CBRND, Fuels, Medical, Pay and Admin, Food Service, Commisaries and Exchanges, Ammunition, Security, Nuclear munitions, Etc., Etc. These are options for motovated enlisted individuals to strive for that do not include command but certainly include leadership. An opportunity that the Air Force seems to avoid like the plague. What say you?????

[sigecaps]

I think the Air Force could definitely benefit from warrant officers, but I don't see it happening. We are a cash strapped military. Creating a WO paygrade means less money to buy new aircraft.

[smarg]

Why? Because even in the Army, they're known as 'walking mustaches with problems.' They want the bennies of being an officer, but they don't want any responsibility.

The AF was good and right to have eliminated these pills and substituted E-8s and E-9s for them over 40 years ago.

Bottom line, HELL NO.

You wanna be a WO? Go hook up with another service then.

Bye bye.

[F106A]

Why? Because even in the Army, they're known as 'walking mustaches with problems.' They want the bennies of being an officer, but they don't want any responsibility.

Having served in the Army for 17 years before crossing into the blue I have to strongly disagree with your assesment of Army Warrant Officers. I personally worked for several in the Military Intelligence and Electronic Warfare field and never once did I hear that comment. My wife was in Army Aviation where the bulk of WOs are in the Army and she too never heard that one.

The WOs and CWOs I served for and with were professional soldiers. In my carrer field they were all former NCOs (usually SSGs or SFCs) who applied for and were accepted after a very competitive evaluation followed by several months of schooling. These were the subject matter experts the entire unit relied on and were respected by all.

With respect to the USAF having WOs I can only guess the attitudes of the current corps of SMSgts and CMSgts just wouldn't allow it. I suspect they would think they are being replaced just as they replaced the USAF WOs of the late '40s and '50s. However, given the drawdown of the force and the resulting drop percentage wise of the top two enlisted grades I think the time is right for USAF Warrant Officers. Most MAJCOMs are requesting more Chief Master Sergeants but the numbers won't allow it. As far as paying for planes over people, well, who's going to be around to supply, service and fly them?

For what it's worth, that's what I say.

Mark

[sigecaps]

I agree with you F106. The stereotypes given to WOs are largely overblown. I've worked alongside a couple myself in a joint environment, and was quite impressed with their technical expertise compared to some similar TIS NCOs in the Air Force. And I certainly do think we could benefit from having this technical expertise in the Air Force rather than our current solution in my career field to contract the job out.

However it comes down to money, and the reasons why the Air Force will be against it is the same reason why the Pentagon was arguing for a 3.0% pay raise in 2008 and telling congress that the 3.5% they wanted to give us was too much. :rolleyes: Because while that 0.5% difference means very little in dollars to you or I, it adds up quickly when done in aggregate across all the services.

And so creating that WO paygrade means the Air Force would likely have a bigger payroll budget which takes money away from other buckets. If you just look at what the average WO makes compared to an average enlisted member of similar TIS, the WO is making a good chunk of change more. Personally, I think it's bullshit that someone who chose technical expertise route is getting paid more than someone who chose the operational/strategic route (as I think they are both equally important), but that's a different argument altogether.

Now you say, if you spend money over people, who will service the planes. This is a fantastic argument against force reduction and I'm glad the SECDEF put an end to this. However in this case we are not talking about losing people to buy more planes. Rather we talking about not creating a separate paygrade to save money so we can buy more planes.

Perhaps one solution is to just create two career tracks from E-5/E-6 without introducing a new paygrade, where you can go on to become an SNCO to learn and do operational/strategic level leadership. Or you can become a SME at your job. Personally, I would volunteer for the SME track, even if it meant I was still an enlisted member with enlisted pay.

[MovingtargeT]

Smarg''s comment is way off from the truth. I worked alongside several WO's from the Army and was impressed with their leadership abilities and technical knowledge. They weren't wannabes at all and never flaunted the "I'm an officer too, so respect me!" attitude. I would fully support the AF adopting warrant officer ranks again, but only for AFSC's that required them. From my experience in intel, too often the SNCOs and officers were far from the ops floor and in their offices handling "admin" work. More often than not, I (as a SSgt) was the senior person working the mission and could have used some guidance or authority from a higher rank. It was awkward, to say the least, to have to liaise with E9s, WOs, and officers of other branches and was usually ineffective to push for the AF side of things since I was always outranked.

If we don't create WO ranks, then the AF should think about redefining the roles of E8s and E9s to get some of them away from general oversight and admin responsibilities, because their skills and expertise can definitely be utilized elsewhere.

[Shrike]

If we don't create WO ranks,

I don't think this would be necessary. I'm going off of memory here, but I believe that by law the WO positions are still authorized to the USAF. They're simply not used.

[Rastaman]

What an effective Corps of senior, technically qualified, effective, and motovated individuals the other four services efficiently employ. Leadership, longevity, and high quality individuals tightly focused in fields such as CBRND, Fuels, Medical, Pay and Admin, Food Service, Commisaries and Exchanges, Ammunition, Security, Nuclear munitions, Etc., Etc. These are options for motovated enlisted individuals to strive for that do not include command but certainly include leadership. An opportunity that the Air Force seems to avoid like the plague. What say you?????

The AF seems to be committed to the idea of folks being jack-of-all-trades vs. technical experts in one area. (Finance/MPF personnel losses, the rise of VMPF/MYPay/AFPC Secure etc.). I don't see how the AF would justify bringing WOs back while cutting back/merging other AFSCs. Of course, now the new AF leadership has stopped cutting people to pay for planes, we may yet get a long overdue re-think about the way we utilize and develop our people and their skills.

[BlueLabRat]

Take Army Warrant Officer Program, as is. Change the word Army to Air Force and change acronym MOS to AFSC. Tweak ever so slightly.

Why reinvent the wheel.

The Air Force stopped appointing warrant officers in 1959; many things have changed since then except the ego roadblock preventing a solution to several of today’s AF problems.

We need to save money, offer better opportunities to existing talent already in the AF. And create a path for those who just want to be technically proficient, highly skilled, single-track specialty officer doers rather than bucking for command track paths and slots.

AFSO 21 has be re realized on a grand, higher than ever scale or the USAF will just keep playing around with easy, operationally meaningless uniform changes instead of real, bold, robust Bombs Away LeMay style changes.

No R & D costs required. See web link below. Army blueprint has already worked out the bugs and has a working model.

http://usawocc.army.mil/whatiswo.htm

Hope new SECAF and CSAF have enough common sense and true grit leadership to do the right thing on this one.

Work smarter, not harder.

[Gunner007]

I think the Air Force could definitely benefit from warrant officers, but I don't see it happening. We are a cash strapped military. Creating a WO paygrade means less money to buy new aircraft.

Actually it COULD mean more money! If those WO's replace more expensive commissioned O's then the USAF would be saving money! People tend to first think that WO's would be replacing less expensive NCO's or adding to the beauracracy, if we replaced those expensive O's with less expensive WO's we would actually be able to save money and not erode the value of the SNCO corp.

[TJMAC77SP]

Ok, lets all admit that most of those posting in favor of the USAF reinstated Warrant Officers are current enlisted who dream of another career path and most of those who are opposed to the move see it as a waste of money and a degradation of the authority of the SNCO corps. (Such that it is). Of course I said most in both cases so there are certainly other reasons motivating people. Now with those agendas in mind, we will be arguing here ad nauseam

[DAG48]

If the USAF Reintroduced the Warrant Officer program I think the best place for them would be in Operations. Aircrews and Pilots on everything from an A-10, B-2, C-130, to the E-3 could benefit from Career WO's who fly, fly, fly, and fly. ABM's, Flight Engineers (what's left of them), Boomer's if we get a new Tanker, Helo Crews, Missileers, the list grows with one's imagination.

Having said that, these slots are, at the moment, a mixture of Officer and Enlisted Career fields and really don't infringe upon either the Senior NCO's or Senior Officers. It would create a niche for folks who just want to fly ops rather than climb the chain of command at a cost of lost flying time.

They can manage flight ops programs as additional duties, but would really be out of the loop as far as most SNCO duties would go.

As Career Flyers, High Performance Aircraft such as the F-22, F-15, F-35 (eventually) would be out of bounds due to the toll on the Human Body with respect to age. Officer's could intertwine thier careers as Pilots in all the Aircraft within the AF Inventory, but would be subject to climbing the chain of command and taking command responsibility, otherwise, as was stated in earlier postings, they could resign thier Commission and take a Warrent Officer slot to be a career flyer.

It would save money over the long haul, make a lot of flight ops folks happy, so why not bring back the Warrant Officers. The move is only limited by one's imagination, or the lack thereof!

In response to TJMAC77SP's previous post; I was an Enlisted NCO Jet Mechanic and a Commission Officer Weapons Director/Air Battle Manager. As an ABM I would have resigned my Commission as an Officer to accept one as a Warrant Officer to remain in Flight Operations. As an NCO I would love to have been a Flight Engineer and being a commissioned Warrant Officer would have been a big Bonus!

(It hurts being on both sides of the fence made up of wire with so many barbs! LOL!)

[MovingtargeT]

I see this excuse thrown around a lot, but can someone explain how having warrant officers erodes the SNCO corp? Every other branch has paygrades up to E-9 and every other branch has warrant officers. I've never heard a SNCO in any other service say "we should get rid of warrants because having them is detrimental to the prestige of senior NCOs." They don't say this because they know and understand the value of the warrant officer ranks and what having that expertise and authority can bring to the mission. The only real argument is career progression, funding issues, and how to handle recruitment of the initial cadre. But the attitude of "humph, the AF doesn't need warrants" is moot if it's coming from someone who has not worked with them and doesn't understand their rank responsibilities.

By the way, warrant officer positions have billets just like everything else. If the AF reinstated warrants, they wouldn't just open the floodgates for anyone to apply. There are limited slots and those wishing to transfer from the enlisted side would require a package submittal and a board review, and obviously only the best of the best would be approved. So if you're one of those chiefs that's quaking in their green suede boots over the prospect of some uppity SrA going warrant and "eroding your prestige" then you need not worry.

[LADYVIOLA]

Some pithy comments. Summing it up for further discussion:
1. Too much money if the WO's are added to the mixture without adjustment of BOTH the enlisted and officer end strength.
2. Senior SNCO's are leery of a possible loss of respect and authority.
3. No current WO billets or career fields.
4. Confusion over how to select them and from what source.

So....
1. If there is a corresponding end strength reduction of unrestricted officers and their billets along with cuts in the senior SNCO billets then there will be enough money.
2. This changes nothing with respect to the prestige and authority of senior SNCO's, if anything it highlights their role and provides for additional recognition of their badly needed leadership. They won't have to be serving under a constant rotation of young and inexperienced junior officers who are there as the OIC just because it is another Shitty Little Job Officer (SLJO) that has to be done by the company grade juniors.
3. This would bring some officers into the picture who recognize the complexities of thier roles and the importance of the specialty they are in charge of with respect to accomplishing the mission of the AF.
4. These Warrant Officers would fill the empty space that is present where the SLJO now languishes.
These are real billets and career fields! They are generally the same that exist in our sister services. Pilots in the Army, Propulsion Engineers in the Navy, Boat Captains in the Coast Guard, CBRND Officers in the Marine Corps.....and these are only examples. Try real hard to visualize the SLJO in your AF Wing, Squadron that does not know what he is doing, and does not care because he is going to move on in a year or so when the next SLJO reports in.
5. These new AF WO's would be selected from the thousands that would apply. As an example; The Marine Corps selects roughly 300 WO's per year from an application pool of over 3000. The competition is fierce and very personal. Time in Service, specialty, physical fitness, competancy on the job, education, recommendations (to name only a few requirements) all are put before a selection board. They are generally selected as E-5 through E-7. They need to be the cream of the crop. When they are selected they are awarded an MOS from which they don't stray and in which they become the expert.
Let's hear more pro's and con's on this issue. This could save money, enhance readiness, and sharpen the focus on both Officers and SNCO's. All the other services have WO's. They must be recognizing something that the AF is missing. Don't just cast the idea aside because you are afraid of change or your own rice bowl being upset, nor should you embrace the idea because "everybody else is doing it." I assure you that Senior Leadership is taking a look at this very issue

[smarg]

All the other services have WO's. They must be recognizing something that the AF is missing.
We are missing nothing. The Air Force has over 10 ways for enlisteds to get a commission. This is simply a reflection of today's value sets: I want more money, I want more respect, I want to do as little as possible to achieve these two goals.

It would be one of the worst mistakes we could ever make. We're doing juuust fiiiiine without out 'em, thanks. :D

[TJMAC77SP]

LadyViola makes some good points but I differ on some. While I am not overly comfortable agreeing with Smarg but the truth is the truth.

How exactly would reinstituting a WO program save money for the USAF?

If you consider the pool of WO candidates as being from the E-5 through E-7 and using the averages of 10 years for E5, 12 years for E6 and 16 years for E7 than the average pay is $38,020 per year. Using the average TIS for WO1 as 10 years, WO2 as 12 years, WO3 as 14 years, and WO4 as 16 years then the average pay of a Warrant is $54,396 per year.

For every WO Candidate selected you are not only paying him/her more money but you must replace the manpower slot they come from with another E5, E6, or E7.

I didn’t even mention the increase in BAH allowance. Of course there will be a savings of $1092 per person per year in BAS savings…….

No savings there. In fact we have a deficit.

Since you are putting these new Warrants into manpower slots now filled by E8s and E9s you could potentially be saving money but…………how would this not dilute the stature of Senior NCOs? Where will these displaced SNCOs go? If you are not replacing the E8s and E9s what is the plan, another layer of supervision? How does this not dilute the stature?

As I said earlier, there are agendas and motivations for everyone’s position on this issue.

[MovingtargeT]

As I said earlier, there are agendas and motivations for everyone’s position on this issue.

Why can't the agenda be to make the Air Force better? Looking at this board, there are tons of threads focusing on all the ways the Air Force is broken, a few of us are offering a legitimate solution and most of the counter responses we're getting are nonconstructive criticism. There are obvious holes in leadership across the entire service, and a major gripe people have is not that many people know how to do their job anymore (too many frivolous extra duty positions needing to be filled, etc.) Having warrants will go a long way to fill those gaps.

For Smarg's comment: the AF's top two at the Pentagon got fired last month, which uncovered a plethora of problems at lower levels in the Air Force, does that tell you we're doing "just fine?" And your comments of "I want to do as little as possible" clearly shows that you have no idea what warrant officers are all about. If that's your attitude, then I'd like to turn the tables on commissioned officers who don't immerse themselves in the missions which they run, but instead spin their wheels until their next career opportunity comes along. That is the embodiment of "I want more money, I want more respect, I want to do as little as possible to achieve these two goals."

For TJMAC, not every slot needs to be replaced. If a SNCO has over twenty years in, the Air Force could add a retirement incentive to clear out those billets to make way for warrants. And again, warrants don't do exactly what a SNCO does. Warrants can work alongside mid-level enlisted grades as shop managers...in my experience I've never seen anyone higher than MSgt do that. Most E8s and E9s work in flight/squadron admin functions, which they can continue to do even with warrants around with no threat to their duty position. As for cost, if the AF was serious about it, they would find a way. If they found money to redo all three uniforms in the last few years, I'm sure they can find a way to fund something that will actually help the Air Force. Again, the warrant officer corps in other branches is incredibly tiny, so having them is not going to break the bank.

Lastly all the talk about agendas, motivators, and "value sets" is making it look like those posters are the ones with issues. I'm one of the biggest supporters of bringing warrants into the AF and I'm not even active duty anymore. It's evident from all the problems facing the AF over the last few months, even years, that we're not on the right track. The AF's attitude regarding the other branches is partly to blame. We've always felt that we're the smart ones, so we know how to do it better, so we don't just fall in line with whatever the Army or Navy happen to be doing. This is especially true with our rank progression, which the other services point at being pathetically slow. Times change, the needs of the Air Force when warrants were eliminated are much different than the Air Force of today. Maybe we didn't get it right by eliminating warrants, but I'd like to see the top leadership take the matter seriously and really study if implementing warrants could fix some of our problems. We haven't had them for so long, we've gotten complacent without them. You've all heard the Air Force policy joke about the monkeys in the cage, I'm sure. Well, a long time ago we took out all of the warrant monkeys and now the ones left in the cage don't remember them.

[MovingtargeT]

Just so everyone knows, I posted a thread in the Army forum asking for any of their warrant officers to fact-check this thread. I'm not trying to tip the balance to the "pro" side, but their input can help clear up a lot of things.

http://www.militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1566682

[TJMAC77SP]

Why can't the agenda be to make the Air Force better? Looking at this board, there are tons of threads focusing on all the ways the Air Force is broken, a few of us are offering a legitimate solution and most of the counter responses we're getting are nonconstructive criticism. There are obvious holes in leadership across the entire service, and a major gripe people have is not that many people know how to do their job anymore (too many frivolous extra duty positions needing to be filled, etc.) Having warrants will go a long way to fill those gaps.

As I stated …”there are certainly other reasons motivating people”. You have another agenda. I will accept your words at face value. You can state that warrants will help ‘fill those gaps” in leadership issues within the Air Force, but where is your proof of that. How do you back up that simple statement? As I also said…”Now with those agendas in mind, we will be arguing here ad nauseam”.



For TJMAC, not every slot needs to be replaced. If a SNCO has over twenty years in, the Air Force could add a retirement incentive to clear out those billets to make way for warrants. And again, warrants don't do exactly what a SNCO does. Warrants can work alongside mid-level enlisted grades as shop managers...in my experience I've never seen anyone higher than MSgt do that. Most E8s and E9s work in flight/squadron admin functions, which they can continue to do even with warrants around with no threat to their duty position. As for cost, if the AF was serious about it, they would find a way. If they found money to redo all three uniforms in the last few years, I'm sure they can find a way to fund something that will actually help the Air Force. Again, the warrant officer corps in other branches is incredibly tiny, so having them is not going to break the bank.

Warrants don’t do anything in the Air Force. Having said that, exactly what would be the title of the E8s and E9s sitting in flight/admin functions while the warrants are in the shops and on the flightline? What would be their titles? Superintendant of Administration? Chief EPR Manager? That doesn’t dilute their stature or authority. Come on now. I can really only speak from experience and I will tell you that describing a SNCOs duties like that to an E8 or E9 (even an E7) in a Security Forces unit will get your butt smoked with some not-so-kind words.

And, I am correct in assuming that you don’t believe that the reinstitution warrants in the AF would save money but you don’t think the money issue is that big a deal. Correct?


Lastly all the talk about agendas, motivators, and "value sets" is making it look like those posters are the ones with issues. I'm one of the biggest supporters of bringing warrants into the AF and I'm not even active duty anymore. It's evident from all the problems facing the AF over the last few months, even years, that we're not on the right track. The AF's attitude regarding the other branches is partly to blame. We've always felt that we're the smart ones, so we know how to do it better, so we don't just fall in line with whatever the Army or Navy happen to be doing. This is especially true with our rank progression, which the other services point at being pathetically slow. Times change, the needs of the Air Force when warrants were eliminated are much different than the Air Force of today. Maybe we didn't get it right by eliminating warrants, but I'd like to see the top leadership take the matter seriously and really study if implementing warrants could fix some of our problems. We haven't had them for so long, we've gotten complacent without them. You've all heard the Air Force policy joke about the monkeys in the cage, I'm sure. Well, a long time ago we took out all of the warrant monkeys and now the ones left in the cage don't remember them.

I would agree that senior leadership perhaps look seriously at the warrant program as they are looking at a top-down and bottom-up review of the state of the Air Force. Time does change but nothing said on this forum has convinced me that they have changed enough that brining back warrants will solve ANY problem the Air Force has which can’t be solved through its current organic structure.

Point of curiosity….you said you were no longer on active duty. Are you retired or still of an age you could reenter the Air Force (or other branch)?

[TJMAC77SP]

Just so everyone knows, I posted a thread in the Army forum asking for any of their warrant officers to fact-check this thread. I'm not trying to tip the balance to the "pro" side, but their input can help clear up a lot of things.

http://www.militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1566682

How is an Army warrant going to fact check a hypothetical situation which does not currently exist? For which there is no current policy or procedure? If they can fact check with those perimeters in mind, great.

[LADYVIOLA]

I'll try this one point again.
I am suggesting that the greatest bulk of Air Force Warrant Officer slots would be those that are filled today by the company grade officer who is the OIC of a function that they are not interested in nor are they qualified for. They are parked there to be the OIC because they are the junior officer in line and somebody has to be the SLJO. I contend that if they don't fly, the Air Force doesn't need them. Put an expert in who can bolster the SNCO's and get the job done Faster, Better, Safer, and Cheaper than an Lt that can't touch his or her ass with both hands. You end up with a less cost solution and an overall net gain in the results.
I'm trying to look at this as a plus for the Air Force, not an issue where you feel like your personal rice bowl got tipped over.

[MovingtargeT]

As I stated …”there are certainly other reasons motivating people”. You have another agenda. I will accept your words at face value. You can state that warrants will help ‘fill those gaps” in leadership issues within the Air Force, but where is your proof of that. How do you back up that simple statement? As I also said…”Now with those agendas in mind, we will be arguing here ad nauseam”.

I can't prove anything about this. Like you I can only speak from experience, and from what I've seen all other branches can make warrants and SNCOs coexist peacefully.





Warrants don’t do anything in the Air Force. Having said that, exactly what would be the title of the E8s and E9s sitting in flight/admin functions while the warrants are in the shops and on the flightline? What would be their titles? Superintendant of Administration? Chief EPR Manager? That doesn’t dilute their stature or authority. Come on now. I can really only speak from experience and I will tell you that describing a SNCOs duties like that to an E8 or E9 (even an E7) in a Security Forces unit will get your butt smoked with some not-so-kind words.

Honestly, I don't know what their titles would be. The title is hardly important, as long as the duty needs are met. Again, from experience: I am from intel and the majority of our SNCOs had lame titles such as "Chief EPR monitor." As I said in other posts, warrants wouldn't be suited for every field. It sounds like security forces doesn't need them, but intel would benefit greatly. Even if warrants won't, and will never be reinstated, hopefully this can shed some light on problems that some areas have regarding duty positions. I'm advocating for warrants to return because I saw how ineffective and underutilized SNCOs were in my field. If this can get the Air Force as a whole to reexamine how they handle SNCO duties, then we wouldn't need warrants. But from what I have heard personally from SNCOs, many have no interest to assume those type of "hands-on" roles.


And, I am correct in assuming that you don’t believe that the reinstitution warrants in the AF would save money but you don’t think the money issue is that big a deal. Correct?

I understand money will always be hugely important; however if you look at the data on how the AF spends it's budget, the paychecks and allotments for personnel are but a sliver of the pie. I forget what the publication is called, but every year the AF puts out that magazine that gives an overview of the Air Force for the last fiscal year. It shows the budget breakdown, demographics of the force, even what airframes and weapons we use. The amount going to the paychecks of personnel is minuscule compared to other costs. I was hinting at if the Air Force can find money to spend on rolling out new uniforms, frivolous "wear tests," then the inevitable revamp after the uniforms are found to be ineffective, then we could balance the budget to fund a handful of warrant billets.




I would agree that senior leadership perhaps look seriously at the warrant program as they are looking at a top-down and bottom-up review of the state of the Air Force. Time does change but nothing said on this forum has convinced me that they have changed enough that brining back warrants will solve ANY problem the Air Force has which can’t be solved through its current organic structure.

At least we agree to disagree. As I've already stated, I understand not every field can really use warrants...but some can, and it would be unfair to totally deny that based on the needs of a few.


Point of curiosity….you said you were no longer on active duty. Are you retired or still of an age you could reenter the Air Force (or other branch)?

I didn't retire, I decided not to reenlist and was honorably discharged as a Staff Sergeant. And yes, I am below the age cutoff should I decide to return to duty. I don't see that ever happening, but age-wise, I could.

[MovingtargeT]

How is an Army warrant going to fact check a hypothetical situation which does not currently exist? For which there is no current policy or procedure? If they can fact check with those perimeters in mind, great.

Obviously they wouldn't know what's best for the Air Force, but I was hoping they can clear up any misconceptions either side has about what warrants do and why they are there. Even if they just give Army examples, it would assist us in drawing our own conclusions.

[ramprat]

the af is already extremely top heavy in rank. why do we need more in effective people??
i asked several months ago on this forum ,"whats the ratio of generals to enlisted personnel ? "
i guess nobody knowsw !!

[TJMAC77SP]

the af is already extremely top heavy in rank. why do we need more in effective people??
i asked several months ago on this forum ,"whats the ratio of generals to enlisted personnel ? "
i guess nobody knowsw !!

I don’t know the answer but I know the information is available since Congress controls the number of flag billets.

This might help. (http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/)

[slapshot74]

We have the highest Officer to Enlisted ratio in the military. Adding WO's would cut the number of O requirements. Since they make policy do you really think their going to slit their own throats. Not to mention the effect on the SNCO corps.

[LADYVIOLA]

Let's be logical for a moment and hope that logic might prevail at AF Manpower. The costs of Warrant Officers to the Air Force are significant. Significant because there would be a net savings.

If a Warrant Officer replaces an Unrestricted flying officer for example, there is a big savings in training costs. The Warrant Officer already has been trained in his specialty. There is also a big savings in retention costs (the unrestricted officer is retained through a complex system of bribes and rewards called incentive pay and bonuses.) The Warrant Officer is promoted from the ranks and is happy for the promotion. The Warrant Officer also is a confirmed career Airman. The Warrant Officer does not need to go to any command and staff colleges or training because he is never going to command anything.

The effect on enlisted folks with whom he works is also significant. He is from the ranks and understands the system intimately. He is a permanent fixture at his job rather than a transient junior officer that is in the OIC slot just because he is low man on the totem pole. He knows SNCO's and supports their role and value in the Chain of Command. Warrant Officers provide an additional and unique career path for some SNCO's to consider and persue.

[TREYSLEDGE]

Let's be logical for a moment and hope that logic might prevail at AF Manpower. The costs of Warrant Officers to the Air Force are significant. Significant because there would be a net savings.

If a Warrant Officer replaces an Unrestricted flying officer for example, there is a big savings in training costs. The Warrant Officer already has been trained in his specialty. There is also a big savings in retention costs (the unrestricted officer is retained through a complex system of bribes and rewards called incentive pay and bonuses.) The Warrant Officer is promoted from the ranks and is happy for the promotion. The Warrant Officer also is a confirmed career Airman. The Warrant Officer does not need to go to any command and staff colleges or training because he is never going to command anything.

The effect on enlisted folks with whom he works is also significant. He is from the ranks and understands the system intimately. He is a permanent fixture at his job rather than a transient junior officer that is in the OIC slot just because he is low man on the totem pole. He knows SNCO's and supports their role and value in the Chain of Command. Warrant Officers provide an additional and unique career path for some SNCO's to consider and persue.

You make some interesting points. I always thought that the Air Force doesn't have Warrant Officers because our NCOs and SNCOs are the career field's technical experts. Replacing a junior officer who is there to learn and provide leadership, administration and managment with a technical expert doesn't seem to jive. Besides, how are the young officers supposed to learn and be mentored by the SNCOs unless they work with them?

What is an unrestricted flying officer? Where do they usually work?

By confirmed career Airman do you mean that to become a CWO that they must make a service commitment of 20 years? Or whatever amount of time takes them to 20 years of service if prior enlisted? That may be a tough sell.

In my opinion, your last paragraph describes the exact purpose and function of many Air Force civilians below the GS level (like WS, WG, etc.). They work with the NCOs and Officers, provide continuity and technical expertise.

Though they may work in a handful of career fields, I am not convinced Warrant Officers are "warranted" in the Air Force.

[Rastaman]

I'm starting to come around to Ladyviola's viewpoint. WOs provide an avenue for technical experts to remain technical experts vs. becoming leader/managers. I'm sure they could benefit several career fields that watch their best and brightest leaving in droves year after year. I am also becoming less convinced by the whole argument about SNCOs losing their status/relevance. Remember now, with the reduction in personnel in Finance and at the MPF, a SNCO has to become even more of a leader/manager of his/her people than ever before. Thus, we can't also be the technical expert on every aspect of the job. Now obviously, there are many career fields where the technical know-how may not justify the presence of a WO. I do think though, that you could certainly make a case for them to fly UAVs and to function as nurse practioners or physician assistants, for example.

[smarg]

I'm starting to come around to Ladyviola's viewpoint. WOs provide an avenue for technical experts to remain technical experts vs. becoming leader/managers. I'm sure they could benefit several career fields that watch their best and brightest leaving in droves year after year. I am also becoming less convinced by the whole argument about SNCOs losing their status/relevance. Remember now, with the reduction in personnel in Finance and at the MPF, a SNCO has to become even more of a leader/manager of his/her people than ever before. Thus, we can't also be the technical expert on every aspect of the job. Now obviously, there are many career fields where the technical know-how may not justify the presence of a WO. I do think though, that you could certainly make a case for them to fly UAVs and to function as nurse practioners or physician assistants, for example.

Disagree. There is a reason that the greybeards deleted the entire WO rank structure almost 50 years ago...a VERY good reason: E-8 & E-9 ranks. Officers fly and lead, NCOs/SNCOs support and lead. Period. End of discussion.

It would almost seem the perfect torture for the arrogant and intelligent USAF SNCO corps that we have to bring in yet another rank structure that is superior over them and forces them to pay proper respects. In fact, this is a GREAT idea, because 2nd lieutenants will outrank even MORE grades. Imagine, an asshole testy E-8 badgering a 2Lt, and the Lt says, "sorry, sergeant, but you need to take it up with the Master Warrant Officer in your chain before you talk to me. Get along, now, you're interrupting my internet surfing time."

BWAHAHAHA!:D

[Rastaman]

Disagree. There is a reason that the greybeards deleted the entire WO rank structure almost 50 years ago...a VERY good reason: E-8 & E-9 ranks. Officers fly and lead, NCOs/SNCOs support and lead. Period. End of discussion.

It would almost seem the perfect torture for the arrogant and intelligent USAF SNCO corps that we have to bring in yet another rank structure that is superior over them and forces them to pay proper respects. In fact, this is a GREAT idea, because 2nd lieutenants will outrank even MORE grades. Imagine, an asshole testy E-8 badgering a 2Lt, and the Lt says, "sorry, sergeant, but you need to take it up with the Master Warrant Officer in your chain before you talk to me. Get along, now, you're interrupting my internet surfing time."

BWAHAHAHA!:D

Smarg,

When the AF deleted the WOs way back when, it was not fashionable to reduce manpower to pay for aircraft. The AF was not consolidating/eliminating whole career fields, either. It also goes without saying that the AF of today requires personnel with even more higly developed technical skills than "back in the day." These are the realities of today. A SNCO in today's AF would be hard pressed to be the leader/manager that they need to be in addition to being THE technical expert for that work center. There is simply way too much that needs to be done--and done yesterday. All I'm saying is that some career fields could benefit by having technical experts who would be responsible for nothing but maintaining/utilizing their specialized skills. The leadership/management of Airmen would still be the responsibility of SNCOs.

[sigecaps]

Disagree. There is a reason that the greybeards deleted the entire WO rank structure almost 50 years ago...a VERY good reason: E-8 & E-9 ranks. Officers fly and lead, NCOs/SNCOs support and lead. Period. End of discussion.

It would almost seem the perfect torture for the arrogant and intelligent USAF SNCO corps that we have to bring in yet another rank structure that is superior over them and forces them to pay proper respects. In fact, this is a GREAT idea, because 2nd lieutenants will outrank even MORE grades. Imagine, an asshole testy E-8 badgering a 2Lt, and the Lt says, "sorry, sergeant, but you need to take it up with the Master Warrant Officer in your chain before you talk to me. Get along, now, you're interrupting my internet surfing time."

BWAHAHAHA!:D

With all due to respect to SNCOs, they aren't as proficient at their jobs as Staffs and Techs. They have long been removed from the day-to-day job that they don't know how to do it as well. It would be beneficial in many AFSCs to stop continue our technical expertise beyond 8-10 years TIS.

[MovingtargeT]

Disagree. There is a reason that the greybeards deleted the entire WO rank structure almost 50 years ago...a VERY good reason: E-8 & E-9 ranks. Officers fly and lead, NCOs/SNCOs support and lead. Period. End of discussion.


Are you serious, or just trying to troll? I tried to reiterate this in my earlier posts, every other branch has warrants AND E8-E9 ranks. They can make it work, why can't we? Is there something magically special about our E8s and E9s compared to other services? I think not.

[DAG48]

If the USAF Reintroduced the Warrant Officer program I think the best place for them would be in Operations. Aircrews and Pilots on everything from an A-10, B-2, C-130, to the E-3 could benefit from Career WO's who fly, fly, fly, and fly. ABM's, Flight Engineers (what's left of them), Boomer's if we get a new Tanker, Helo Crews, Missileers, the list grows with one's imagination.

Having said that, these slots are, at the moment, a mixture of Officer and Enlisted Career fields and really don't infringe upon either the Senior NCO's or Senior Officers. It would create a niche for folks who just want to fly ops rather than climb the chain of command at a cost of lost flying time.

They can manage flight ops programs as additional duties, but would really be out of the loop as far as most SNCO duties would go.

As Career Flyers, High Performance Aircraft such as the F-22, F-15, F-35 (eventually) would be out of bounds due to the toll on the Human Body with respect to age. Officer's could intertwine thier careers as Pilots in all the Aircraft within the AF Inventory, but would be subject to climbing the chain of command and taking command responsibility, otherwise, as was stated in earlier postings, they could resign thier Commission and take a Warrent Officer slot to be a career flyer.

It would save money over the long haul, make a lot of flight ops folks happy, so why not bring back the Warrant Officers. The move is only limited by one's imagination, or the lack thereof!

In response to TJMAC77SP's previous post; I was an Enlisted NCO Jet Mechanic and a Commission Officer Weapons Director/Air Battle Manager. As an ABM I would have resigned my Commission as an Officer to accept one as a Warrant Officer to remain in Flight Operations. As an NCO I would love to have been a Flight Engineer and being a commissioned Warrant Officer would have been a big Bonus!

I decided to quote myself in the hopes some of you folks still frettin about the SNCO's being hurt by the use of Warrant Officers might read it. WO's flying in operations for less pay for a longer chunk of thier military service would save money for the USAF, period. We don't need Commissioned Officers with 4 year College Degrees filling virtually every seat in our Aircraft inventory when history has proven High School Grads can fly just as well. EGO, EGO, EGO; please don't let this three letter word stand in the way of improving our Air Force.

[JohnnyReb]

Let me throw in my new two cents worth as the very first post by me on this forum.

What if we DID have WO's AND SAC? Think we'd be in the nuke handling mess
that we're currently in? I only ask to be devils' advocate in this, that Warrants ARE the
technical experts in an arena such as nukes, and one could examine the Army's program/procedures and
see what I mean. No, I don't want to join the army, and I plan to retire honorable as an E6 in about four years, so it's not wanting to see the warrants from the wishful thinking point of view.

But, I was in SAC, and remember how tight and squared away things were. Don't think it would've happened with it still in place, and dang sure don't think it would happen if there were warrants in place as well.

[TJMAC77SP]

Let's be logical for a moment and hope that logic might prevail at AF Manpower. The costs of Warrant Officers to the Air Force are significant. Significant because there would be a net savings.

If a Warrant Officer replaces an Unrestricted flying officer for example, there is a big savings in training costs. The Warrant Officer already has been trained in his specialty. There is also a big savings in retention costs (the unrestricted officer is retained through a complex system of bribes and rewards called incentive pay and bonuses.) The Warrant Officer is promoted from the ranks and is happy for the promotion. The Warrant Officer also is a confirmed career Airman. The Warrant Officer does not need to go to any command and staff colleges or training because he is never going to command anything.

The effect on enlisted folks with whom he works is also significant. He is from the ranks and understands the system intimately. He is a permanent fixture at his job rather than a transient junior officer that is in the OIC slot just because he is low man on the totem pole. He knows SNCO's and supports their role and value in the Chain of Command. Warrant Officers provide an additional and unique career path for some SNCO's to consider and persue.

I am confused…….

You state that there would be a net cost savings and then go on to describe intangible, non-budgetary, non-existent ‘positive’ results of reinstituting WOs.

[TJMAC77SP]

I decided to quote myself in the hopes some of you folks still frettin about the SNCO's being hurt by the use of Warrant Officers might read it. WO's flying in operations for less pay for a longer chunk of thier military service would save money for the USAF, period. We don't need Commissioned Officers with 4 year College Degrees filling virtually every seat in our Aircraft inventory when history has proven High School Grads can fly just as well. EGO, EGO, EGO; please don't let this three letter word stand in the way of improving our Air Force.

Given that it is almost impossible to get promoted to E-8 (never mind E-9) in the Air Force without a 4 year degree don’t you think it a given that all WOs will be required to obtain the same? And, if the system doesn’t mandate it, the competitive nature of the selection process will certainly require it.

And………as I detailed in a previous post any ‘savings’ you have in replacing a CGO or SNCO is negated by the fact that you have to replace the slot for the enlisted who is selected as a WO. This fiscal argument just doesn’t wash.

[MACHINE666]

Why? Because even in the Army, they're known as 'walking mustaches with problems.' They want the bennies of being an officer, but they don't want any responsibility.

The AF was good and right to have eliminated these pills and substituted E-8s and E-9s for them over 40 years ago.



And how did that improve things any?....:rolleyes:

[LADYVIOLA]

Given that it is almost impossible to get promoted to E-8 (never mind E-9) in the Air Force without a 4 year degree don’t you think it a given that all WOs will be required to obtain the same? And, if the system doesn’t mandate it, the competitive nature of the selection process will certainly require it.

And………as I detailed in a previous post any ‘savings’ you have in replacing a CGO or SNCO is negated by the fact that you have to replace the slot for the enlisted who is selected as a WO. This fiscal argument just doesn’t wash.

It seems as though the competitive edge is honed by having a few slots for career progression available and a large population seeking the opportunity for advancement. Nothing should be automatic and if you are part of the population seeking advancement then you should do everything in your power to accomplish your goal. Are you sure of your data that it is "almost impossible" to be promoted to E-8/E-9 without a 4 year degree? If so...OK, what's wrong with that?

Secondly, if WO slots are established in the AF, then promoting an Airman into that slot creates an opening that any other promotion creates. Why is that bad? It seems that every time someone gets promoted, those behing him or her should be happy that the old slot opened up. This, by it's self is not a savings but it is a result of the esablishment of Warrant Officers. If you do away with an unrestricted officer billet (2nd Lt through Major) and replace them with Warrant Officers then you get savings by such things as; reduced training costs, reduced turn-over, reduced retention costs, increased productivity, increased QA, and a WO does not make as much as his counterpart unrestricted officer, etc., etc.. I'm sure you can shoot at this idea forever, but you can't deny the savings or opportunity to do a better job within the AF overall and the opportunity for advancement for those who want to and can compete for career advancement.

Try for a moment to find some good here and offer a constructive comment or two. Just try it out.

[TREYSLEDGE]

It seems as though the competitive edge is honed by having a few slots for career progression available and a large population seeking the opportunity for advancement. Nothing should be automatic and if you are part of the population seeking advancement then you should do everything in your power to accomplish your goal. Are you sure of your data that it is "almost impossible" to be promoted to E-8/E-9 without a 4 year degree? If so...OK, what's wrong with that?

Secondly, if WO slots are established in the AF, then promoting an Airman into that slot creates an opening that any other promotion creates. Why is that bad? It seems that every time someone gets promoted, those behing him or her should be happy that the old slot opened up. This, by it's self is not a savings but it is a result of the esablishment of Warrant Officers. If you do away with an unrestricted officer billet (2nd Lt through Major) and replace them with Warrant Officers then you get savings by such things as; reduced training costs, reduced turn-over, reduced retention costs, increased productivity, increased QA, and a WO does not make as much as his counterpart unrestricted officer, etc., etc.. I'm sure you can shoot at this idea forever, but you can't deny the savings or opportunity to do a better job within the AF overall and the opportunity for advancement for those who want to and can compete for career advancement.

Try for a moment to find some good here and offer a constructive comment or two. Just try it out.

What is an unrestricted officer? What types of units are these positions found?
When you replace a leader/manager with a techinician who picks up the managerial and administrative responsibilities?
I'm not trying to shoot your idea down (completely) just trying to understand your suggestion better.

[DAG48]

Given that it is almost impossible to get promoted to E-8 (never mind E-9) in the Air Force without a 4 year degree don’t you think it a given that all WOs will be required to obtain the same? And, if the system doesn’t mandate it, the competitive nature of the selection process will certainly require it.

And………as I detailed in a previous post any ‘savings’ you have in replacing a CGO or SNCO is negated by the fact that you have to replace the slot for the enlisted who is selected as a WO. This fiscal argument just doesn’t wash.

The USAF is paying a bonus of $75,000 to Officer Air Battle Managers in exchange for a 5 year service contract for them to stay put and place thier Career's on hold. I'm not sure if you know of the "bright Idea" to replace Officer Air Battle Managers with Enlisted ABM's via a Reduction in Force in Late 1992. In effect the Officer ABM's were fired, and the slots were to be filled by Enlisted ABM's. The RIF looked like a great savings on paper, but there were no Enlisted folks in the Training Pipeline to replace the Officer ABM's lost to the RIF! The plan never really caught on with Enlisted Folks either as Officer's were still required to do the job along side Enlisted folks, so the Officers could progress to Air Survellance Officers, and Mission Crew Commanders; no equal pay here! If this one career field would have allowed Officer ABM's and Enlisted ABM hopefuls to accept positions as a Warrant Officer ABM, ASO, & MCC, I believe this manning problem would not have occurred, and there would have been a net savings in BASIC PAY, BONUSES, RECRUITING, TRAINING, as well as LOSES due to CAREER PROGRESSION of COMMISSIONED OFFICERS in general.

Now take this concept into the area of USAF PILOT's, in the context I've stated before (Heavies, UAV's, A-10's and Helo pilots). In the late 1980's and early 1990's the USAF could not find the Pilots needed to do the mission, and spent millions of dollars on bonuses and leather flight jackets, uououh! If the carrer field were expanded to accept Warrant Officers, there would not have been a shortage, and the savings would have been as I stated previously for Air Battle Managers.

Like I said before, any future USAF Warrant Officer program is limited only by one's imagination, or the lack thereof! Obviously my mindset is towards Flying Ops. Your's is towards...?

[LADYVIOLA]

What is an unrestricted officer? What types of units are these positions found?
When you replace a leader/manager with a techinician who picks up the managerial and administrative responsibilities?
I'm not trying to shoot your idea down (completely) just trying to understand your suggestion better.
I'm sorry that I didn't make the connection clear that there are only Unrestricted Officers in the AF whereas there are Warrant Officers W-1 through CWO-5(and we have a common understanding of what their comissioned status is), there are Limited Duty Officers (2nd Lt/Ensign through LtCol/Commander), and there are Unrestricted Officers (2nd Lt/Ensign through General/Admiral) throughout the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Coast Guard. In theory and usual practice the Unrestricted Officer can grow from being a 2ndLt to the highest rank and someday be the #1 in his service, while the Limited Duty Officer and Warrant Officer is designated with a specific specialty such as Intel, Helo Pilot (Army), CBRND, Fuels, AAFES, Mess Halls, Pay, EOD, CID, Supply, etc. All those special, but permanent support functions that keep the various sister services working smoothly. Warrant Officers rarely, if ever serve as commanders of units but they are always in charge of, or serve in, specialty organizations like MP's, Weapons loaders, Small Boats, EOD units, CBRND Platoons etc. They, along with their LDO counterparts are meant to be specialists and permanently assigned to those occupational specialties for the ballance of their career. Whereas the Unrestricted Officer serves in a broad variety of leadership roles in order to get experience that is believed to make him a better leader for the future.

My leading question "Why aren't there any Warrant Officers in the Air Force" was meant to start a dialog for others to chime in on regarding the seeming disparity between all the other Sister Services employing WO's versus the AF not doing so. All the services have very large and integrated aviation components, weapons, supply, CBRND, vehicle support, messing, admin and pay organisations (to name just a few places where WO's play permanent and important leadership roles.) Why not the AF? All the Sister Services have SNCO's with whom the Warrant Officer Corps works, leads, and depends upon for the valuable leadership positions those SNCO's fill. All Warrant Officers in all the Sister Services come from the ranks of NCO's, Petty Officers, and SNCO's. This is some of the vital glue that holds those specialties together. The last thing I may not have been clear about is that WO's are cheaper than Unrestricted Officers and LDO's for all the Sister Services to have. They come to their specialties with time in service and usually fully trained. They do not require incentive bonuses or longevity pay such as pilots, Doctors and Dentists, to name just a few examples. They make more than their former fellow SNCO's but they always makew less than their Officer counterparts. Aside from the poor grammar and bad spelling, did I make myself clear? I believe that proper development and employment of a Warrant Officer Corps in the Air Force would save money, improve morale, improve QA, improve retention of some very highly trained and profficient Airmen, and overall be good for the whole Air Force. I realize there are going to be nay-sayers who are afraid of change or exposure. They can be won over too. One more occupation field in the Air Force that could really use Warrant Officers is Medical/Dental. A Warrant Officer is crying out to be Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, LPN's and other technical roles in the health units. It is a way to increase a very short AF occupation with some very motovated and skilled NCO's and SNCO's that are in the AF now.

[sigecaps]

A Warrant Officer is crying out to be Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, LPN's and other technical roles in the health units. It is a way to increase a very short AF occupation with some very motovated and skilled NCO's and SNCO's that are in the AF now.

I agree with you in spirit Lady Viola, but I don't see how you will attract nurse practitioners on WO pay.

[LADYVIOLA]

OK, You're right. I am off course there but what about those places where a Warrant Officer can fill the bill. Can you name a few others in the Medical/Dental fields?

[sigecaps]

OK, You're right. I am off course there but what about those places where a Warrant Officer can fill the bill. Can you name a few others in the Medical/Dental fields?

I'm not in the medical/dental field so I don't really have a clue. Maybe we could look at how the Army/Navy uses their WOs in healthcare and go from there.

[TJMAC77SP]

The USAF is paying a bonus of $75,000 to Officer Air Battle Managers in exchange for a 5 year service contract for them to stay put and place thier Career's on hold. I'm not sure if you know of the "bright Idea" to replace Officer Air Battle Managers with Enlisted ABM's via a Reduction in Force in Late 1992. In effect the Officer ABM's were fired, and the slots were to be filled by Enlisted ABM's. The RIF looked like a great savings on paper, but there were no Enlisted folks in the Training Pipeline to replace the Officer ABM's lost to the RIF! The plan never really caught on with Enlisted Folks either as Officer's were still required to do the job along side Enlisted folks, so the Officers could progress to Air Survellance Officers, and Mission Crew Commanders; no equal pay here! If this one career field would have allowed Officer ABM's and Enlisted ABM hopefuls to accept positions as a Warrant Officer ABM, ASO, & MCC, I believe this manning problem would not have occurred, and there would have been a net savings in BASIC PAY, BONUSES, RECRUITING, TRAINING, as well as LOSES due to CAREER PROGRESSION of COMMISSIONED OFFICERS in general.

Now take this concept into the area of USAF PILOT's, in the context I've stated before (Heavies, UAV's, A-10's and Helo pilots). In the late 1980's and early 1990's the USAF could not find the Pilots needed to do the mission, and spent millions of dollars on bonuses and leather flight jackets, uououh! If the carrer field were expanded to accept Warrant Officers, there would not have been a shortage, and the savings would have been as I stated previously for Air Battle Managers.

Like I said before, any future USAF Warrant Officer program is limited only by one's imagination, or the lack thereof! Obviously my mindset is towards Flying Ops. Your's is towards...?


My mindset is towards common sense. You don't think the retention bonus would become necessary for Warrants? You are stating that instead of making enlisted ABMs (and weren’t they called Air Weapons Officers in those days?) into Warrant ABMs the failure of the program would not have occurred. Isn’t the real reason because people like Gen Fig Newton at AETC ensured it failed? Well, that is probably too simplistic a viewpoint but so is merely stating that any problem in the AF would be solved by the reinstitution of warrants. I understand the motivation of posters such as yourself, and I have stated so. It doesn’t change facts. Claims have been made that there would be a cost savings and disproved. Claims are made that the ills, past and present would be solved by warrants. I simply state that I don’t believe this.

[TJMAC77SP]

It seems as though the competitive edge is honed by having a few slots for career progression available and a large population seeking the opportunity for advancement. Nothing should be automatic and if you are part of the population seeking advancement then you should do everything in your power to accomplish your goal. Are you sure of your data that it is "almost impossible" to be promoted to E-8/E-9 without a 4 year degree? If so...OK, what's wrong with that?

Secondly, if WO slots are established in the AF, then promoting an Airman into that slot creates an opening that any other promotion creates. Why is that bad? It seems that every time someone gets promoted, those behing him or her should be happy that the old slot opened up. This, by it's self is not a savings but it is a result of the esablishment of Warrant Officers. If you do away with an unrestricted officer billet (2nd Lt through Major) and replace them with Warrant Officers then you get savings by such things as; reduced training costs, reduced turn-over, reduced retention costs, increased productivity, increased QA, and a WO does not make as much as his counterpart unrestricted officer, etc., etc.. I'm sure you can shoot at this idea forever, but you can't deny the savings or opportunity to do a better job within the AF overall and the opportunity for advancement for those who want to and can compete for career advancement.

Try for a moment to find some good here and offer a constructive comment or two. Just try it out.

Lets reverse that comment. Try just a little to actually show the math where the AF would in the end, save money by reinstituting warrant officers. All the other intangilbe 'benifits' aside. Those can be argued forever. Show us where the savings will be realized.

[TJMAC77SP]

It seems as though the competitive edge is honed by having a few slots for career progression available and a large population seeking the opportunity for advancement. Nothing should be automatic and if you are part of the population seeking advancement then you should do everything in your power to accomplish your goal. Are you sure of your data that it is "almost impossible" to be promoted to E-8/E-9 without a 4 year degree? If so...OK, what's wrong with that?

I am absolutely sure of the data. As they say….I have the t-shirt. What is wrong with that situation? Well that is a subject for another thread. My comment about the degree requirement was in response to a poster’s comment…

” We don't need Commissioned Officers with 4 year College Degrees filling virtually every seat in our Aircraft inventory when history has proven High School Grads can fly just as well. EGO, EGO, EGO; please don't let this three letter word stand in the way of improving our Air Force.”

His assertion that warrants could somehow hold only a high school education just doesn’t wash in the Air Force. Just dealing with another irrelevant and flawed point.

[DAG48]

I am absolutely sure of the data. As they say….I have the t-shirt. What is wrong with that situation? Well that is a subject for another thread. My comment about the degree requirement was in response to a poster’s comment…

” We don't need Commissioned Officers with 4 year College Degrees filling virtually every seat in our Aircraft inventory when history has proven High School Grads can fly just as well. EGO, EGO, EGO; please don't let this three letter word stand in the way of improving our Air Force.”

His assertion that warrants could somehow hold only a high school education just doesn’t wash in the Air Force. Just dealing with another irrelevant and flawed point.

TJMAC77SP,

Do you really know what an Air Battle Manager is? I do because I was an Air Weapons Director! (No, they were not called Air Weapons Officers.) Did all enlisted ABM's have a College Degree? NOPE! Have you heard of WWI and WWII? Did all of those PILOTS have College Degrees? NOPE! Kids under 18 years of age learn to fly before getting a High School Diploma! So why do you think the idea of having Warrant Officers in flight operations without a College Degree is irrelevant and flawed? I understand that with the CCAF, most Warrant Officer applicants would probably have at least an Associates degree, but that is a matter of competition as other WO applicants would have experience and a high school diploma.

Do you really have any idea of what you are talking about? To me..., it seems your goal is to just say no to any idea, regardless of your knowledge on the subject. If I am not mistaken, you have offered no ideas of your own and have shot down nearly every Idea on this thread based on your knowledge of the subject which you have yet to share with us.

So please, show us your data, as I don''t have the "T-Shirt", or have the been there done that, inside data you say you have. I've said it before, and will say it again...; The use of Warrant Officers in the USAF is only limited by your imagination...., or the lack thereof! It seems you represent the latter.

This is the last posting I am making on the subject. Warrant Officers could come back to the USAF after a study of the facts and figures, where they might fit in best, and a test program to see how it works. But first you have to get by folks like TJMAC77SP who just say no to any idea. My intent however was to encourage folks to look at where Warrant Officers might fit into the USAF and what some of the benefits could be. I want people to express thier ideas, cause it is how we learn!

[TREYSLEDGE]

LADYVIOLA - Thanks for explaining the unrestricted officer stuff. That does help me understand your stance a little better. Earlier I stated that many of the functions that you suggest a WO could be used for are currently or could be done by a wage grade civilian. What do you think the advantages are of having a position filled by a WO over a civilian? A service commitment is one I can think of, but there may be others. One advantage of civilians is that if they change their mind and they do want to move up in the rank structure they can.

As far as WOs in the flying community, there are some things that seem to be major differences in how the Army employs them and how they Air Force might. Because the Army has thousands of helicopters (7200) with only a few variants (UH-1N, CH-47, CH-60, AH-64, OH-55), it is easier for the Army to have a large enough pool of officers in those airframes to be able to produce commanders and senior leaders. In the Air Force, this may be difficult since we have many airframes (about 40) with less aircraft (6000) reducing the pool of officers in each airframe which to choose from. Now I don't think this is a show stopper by itself, but just something to think about. I admit that some crew positions in the heavies and bombers could easily be filled by WOs.

Also, in the Army there are many WOs without prior enlisted time. Especially in the helicopter pilot group. You can be commissioned as a WO-1 without enlisted experience, but you need an Associates Degree (as explained to me by a 24 year old CWO-2). In fact, I think all WOs must have an Associates Degree, but I may be wrong. Also, that same CWO-2 told me that the senior CWOs do have administrative and managerial duties.

After reading up on WOs a little more I also see another possible explaination as to why the Air Force does not have them. The Warrant Officer Career College website says WOs possess a high degree of specialization in a particular field in contrast to the more general assignment pattern of other commissioned officers. In the Army an Officer (and SNCOs) can quickly move between the S-1 (personnel), S-3 (operations), S-4 (logistics) in any unit of their branch. In the Air Force SNCOs and officers don't, which allows them to keep their proficiency/specialty in the career fields. Again, just another point to consider.

Lastly, although on the surface it may seem that installing WOs in some officer billets would save money, some of the cost savings provided earlier may not be realized. Like training and education. The Army actually sends their WOs to as much training and professional development as the Air Force does its SNCOs and Officers. Through the Warrant Officer Career College there is the Army Action Officer Course, the Warrant Officer Advanced Course and Warrant Officer Staff Course and Senior Staff Course. This may show that creating a WO Corps in the Air Force would eventually lead us to also creating a professional development curriculum for WOs.

I have read many good reasons to have WOs in the Air Force, and a thorough study may show that there may be some gains from it doing this, but I just wanted to bring up some more points for everyone to ponder.

[TJMAC77SP]

TJMAC77SP,

Do you really know what an Air Battle Manager is? I do because I was an Air Weapons Director! (No, they were not called Air Weapons Officers.) Did all enlisted ABM's have a College Degree? NOPE! Have you heard of WWI and WWII? Did all of those PILOTS have College Degrees? NOPE! Kids under 18 years of age learn to fly before getting a High School Diploma! So why do you think the idea of having Warrant Officers in flight operations without a College Degree is irrelevant and flawed? I understand that with the CCAF, most Warrant Officer applicants would probably have at least an Associates degree, but that is a matter of competition as other WO applicants would have experience and a high school diploma.

I make an informed assertion based on current conditions in the Air Force that warrant officers will need to pssess either through policy or competitive requirements at least an undergraduate degree and your counterpoint is to cite events from WWI and WWII and the requirements for civilian pilots licenses !?! As for Air Battle Managers; evidently I don’t know what they are. I had thought they were the same as air weapons controllers. So explain what an ABM is and how that is relevant to the utility of having warrants in the Air Force.


Do you really have any idea of what you are talking about? To me..., it seems your goal is to just say no to any idea, regardless of your knowledge on the subject. If I am not mistaken, you have offered no ideas of your own and have shot down nearly every Idea on this thread based on your knowledge of the subject which you have yet to share with us.

I like to think I know what I am talking about. Are you really curious if I do or just interested in insulting me because you have run out of legitimate points? My goal on this forum of no real consequence to anything remotely official in the Air Force was the same as yours. To post an opinion on the thread topic. As I have stated numerous times, there are all sorts of agendas for the positions posters have taken here.



So please, show us your data, as I don''t have the "T-Shirt", or have the been there done that, inside data you say you have. I've said it before, and will say it again...; The use of Warrant Officers in the USAF is only limited by your imagination...., or the lack thereof! It seems you represent the latter.

My data is simple, you find me one Chief Master Sergeant on active duty today without an undergraduate degree. Just one. You won’t find this in writing. It isn’t official policy. It is a result of a very competitive process. You can keep repeating the imagination rhetoric all you want, it won’t negate counterpoints based on fact. Your assertion that warrants would not require the same is faulty.


This is the last posting I am making on the subject. Warrant Officers could come back to the USAF after a study of the facts and figures, where they might fit in best, and a test program to see how it works. But first you have to get by folks like TJMAC77SP who just say no to any idea. My intent however was to encourage folks to look at where Warrant Officers might fit into the USAF and what some of the benefits could be. I want people to express thier ideas, cause it is how we learn!


I have responded to every point on this thread in a considered and thoughtful manner. I haven’t ridiculed anyone’s position. I haven’t accused anyone of being ignorant or close minded. The worst I have said is that personal agendas drive some of these positions. I think your post illustrates that better than I ever could. I doubt seriously this will be your last post on the subject and I welcome any further post containing thoughtful and considered input. I won’t insult you. You should consider the same. At no time have I stated that the Air Force shouldn’t study and consider reinstituting warrants. I can tell you though that any such study will more than likely reject most claims made on this thread. The financial gain is fallacy. The intangible ‘gains’ are very hard to validate. But that would be for a study to conclude. The rest of us are just stating our opinions. You have one, I have another. The difference is I respect your right to have that opinion.

[LADYVIOLA]

I make an informed assertion based on current conditions in the Air Force that warrant officers will need to pssess either through policy or competitive requirements at least an undergraduate degree........
My data is simple, you find me one Chief Master Sergeant on active duty today without an undergraduate degree. Just one. You won’t find this in writing. It isn’t official policy. It is a result of a very competitive process. You can keep repeating the imagination rhetoric all you want, it won’t negate counterpoints based on fact. Your assertion that warrants would not require the same is faulty.

I checked with Air Force Manpower and the following statistics were available:

Enlisted academic education as of 2008
- 71.37 percent have some semester hours towards a college degree
-- 77 percent of Airmen
-- 78 percent of NCOs
-- 27 percent of senior NCOs
- 17.72 percent have an associate's degree or equivalent semester hours
-- 1.7 percent of Airmen
-- 18 percent of NCOs
-- 50 percent of senior NCOs
- 5.17 percent have a bachelor's degree
-- 1.7 percent of Airmen
-- 3.8 percent of NCOs
-- 18 percent of senior NCOs
- 0.82 percent have a master's degree
-- .01 percent of Airmen
-- .38 percent of NCOs
-- 4.3 percent of senior NCOs
- .01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree

You asked us all to accept your claim that every active duty Chief Master Sergeant today has an Undergraduate Degree (generally a BA or BS.) I'll still keep trying to confirm this. But if you still stand my your facts, then the bulk of the 5.17 percent of Air Force enlisted people with bachelors degrees as tracked by Air Force manpower must be all of the Chief Master Sergeants. This would mean that very few of the remaining Air Force enlisted folks are there yet.

All I'm looking for is some more conversation about potential of, and value for, instituting a Warrant Officer Corps within the Air Force. I'll postulate one occupation field where they may be of value:

The Air Force Nurse Corps.......Today there is a chronic national shortage of nurses. This shortage is manifested in all of the services (except the Marine Corps which derives it's medical support from the Navy.) Implimenting Warrant Officers within the Air Force Nurse Corps would allow for several things:
Highly trained enlisted medical specialists could become LPN's and begin at the W-1 rank. Associate Degree RN's could be recruited from both the civilian ranks and the Air Force enlisted ranks at the CWO-3. Both could have upward mobility to an RN Commission of 2nd Lt as they strive for pormotion or they could stay in the Warrant Officer ranks and persue that level of satisfaction. This would provide upward mobility for very highly motovated and skilled enlisted folks, provide for recruitment from a civilian nurse pool (LPN) that is not now utilized, and it would relieve stress on a critcally under staffed Air Force Nurse Corps. This model is applicable to many other occupations within the Air Force.

Without doing an exhaustive study or quoting accurate facts and figures, this is a cost savings to the Air Force. When the study is done, it will be determined that the 4 other sister services to the Air Force are realizing those personnel savings where the Air Force is not.

[ringjamesa]

How is 1% the "bulk" of 5.17%?
By law Chiefs only comprise 1% of the total enlisted force.

[TJMAC77SP]

I checked with Air Force Manpower and the following statistics were available:

Enlisted academic education as of 2008
- 71.37 percent have some semester hours towards a college degree
-- 77 percent of Airmen
-- 78 percent of NCOs
-- 27 percent of senior NCOs
- 17.72 percent have an associate's degree or equivalent semester hours
-- 1.7 percent of Airmen
-- 18 percent of NCOs
-- 50 percent of senior NCOs
- 5.17 percent have a bachelor's degree
-- 1.7 percent of Airmen
-- 3.8 percent of NCOs
-- 18 percent of senior NCOs
- 0.82 percent have a master's degree
-- .01 percent of Airmen
-- .38 percent of NCOs
-- 4.3 percent of senior NCOs
- .01 percent have a professional or doctorate degree

You asked us all to accept your claim that every active duty Chief Master Sergeant today has an Undergraduate Degree (generally a BA or BS.) I'll still keep trying to confirm this. But if you still stand my your facts, then the bulk of the 5.17 percent of Air Force enlisted people with bachelors degrees as tracked by Air Force manpower must be all of the Chief Master Sergeants. This would mean that very few of the remaining Air Force enlisted folks are there yet.

All I'm looking for is some more conversation about potential of, and value for, instituting a Warrant Officer Corps within the Air Force. I'll postulate one occupation field where they may be of value:

The Air Force Nurse Corps.......Today there is a chronic national shortage of nurses. This shortage is manifested in all of the services (except the Marine Corps which derives it's medical support from the Navy.) Implimenting Warrant Officers within the Air Force Nurse Corps would allow for several things:
Highly trained enlisted medical specialists could become LPN's and begin at the W-1 rank. Associate Degree RN's could be recruited from both the civilian ranks and the Air Force enlisted ranks at the CWO-3. Both could have upward mobility to an RN Commission of 2nd Lt as they strive for pormotion or they could stay in the Warrant Officer ranks and persue that level of satisfaction. This would provide upward mobility for very highly motovated and skilled enlisted folks, provide for recruitment from a civilian nurse pool (LPN) that is not now utilized, and it would relieve stress on a critcally under staffed Air Force Nurse Corps. This model is applicable to many other occupations within the Air Force.

Without doing an exhaustive study or quoting accurate facts and figures, this is a cost savings to the Air Force. When the study is done, it will be determined that the 4 other sister services to the Air Force are realizing those personnel savings where the Air Force is not.

Thanks Ring, you beat me to it. And only 2% can be Senior Master Sergeants. I stand by my assertion. (btw: let’s keep this limited to active duty).

As for you proposal for the Nurse Corps…. Are you by any chance a med tech?

You are proposing to replace quotas which are now RNs (bachelor level degree) with LPNs? What is the training difference between an LPN and say, an independent duty medical technician (IDMT)? You will drastically increase the pay for duties now performed by enlisted. I still don’t see the cost savings. If anyone else does, please explain it to me.

I have heard of no study, now being done, planned or having ever been done that details any cost savings of any service having a warrant program vs. not having one

[LADYVIOLA]

No, I'm not a medtech nor is my spouse. We are both former SNCO's however. I don't think the Warrant Officer was ever planned to replace a SNCO. They are designed to fill an officers billet. The reduction of commissioned officers on a one for one basis is a net cost savings for the AF.

[Pueblo]

I'm glad the issue of Warrant Officers was brought up. When I first read about it, I thought "Great, but what would they do?" However, the severe undermanning in UAV slots is a pretty serious issue. I know that for the guys going through UPT, they are terrified of the possibility of being trapped in front of a computer screen for their entire career. Instead of plucking officers for whom we've spent millions on medical exams, training, and security clearances from a pipeline they've spent 2+ years in, reintroducing warrant officers is an excellent way to bring in motivated and qualififed people into a field that the rest of the flying community would rather not be a part of.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

I'm glad the issue of Warrant Officers was brought up. When I first read about it, I thought "Great, but what would they do?" However, the severe undermanning in UAV slots is a pretty serious issue. I know that for the guys going through UPT, they are terrified of the possibility of being trapped in front of a computer screen for their entire career. Instead of plucking officers for whom we've spent millions on medical exams, training, and security clearances from a pipeline they've spent 2+ years in, reintroducing warrant officers is an excellent way to bring in motivated and qualififed people into a field that the rest of the flying community would rather not be a part of.

Well, WSOs, missile deputy crew commanders, security police platoon leaders, and even pilots are some of the officer fields that I can see having a warrant. In missiles, you need commissioned officers because by law, you need to have two commissioned officers to activate, engage, and detonate/launch a nuclear weapon. Enlisted personnel are authorized to handle nukes, but they aren't authorized to detonate them. Since warrants can be commissioned officers, they would satisfy the two officer rule. In a missile squadron, you would have immediate cost savings. Instead of a sixty person squadron filled with lieutenants and captains, you could have a missile squadron consisting of warrant missile crew deputies and commanders. Second and first lieutenants would fill either crew commander or deputy flight commander positions. Flight commander positions would then be filled with either senior first lieutenants or captains. Thus, you woud have an immediate cost savings because you will have reduced the number of lieutenants and captains from 60 down to 8 - 10. I'm sure the same can be said for other flying squadrons. As one of the other posters stated, warrants are not designed to replace senior ncos. Rather, they are designed to reduce the number of officers needed to fill technical or specific jobs. In that light, they would be a cost savings in addition to providing a resource in terms of continuity and experience. Finally, as I mentioned before, warrants would provide a career path for airman in highly technical career fields that would provide them with the growth and compensation that would be closer to that of their civilian counterparts. For example, when I was the OIC of a group of developers and programmers at the Pentagon, it was hard for me to try to convince an e-4 senior airman with a Cisco qualification to stay in the Air Force for 35k a year, when he could make 120k in the open market. However, if that same sra had the option to be a cw2 or 3, then he or she would make about 45 - 50 k base with another 25k in tax advantages and benefits. While still not as high as the civilian marketplace, it would be high enough to retain that airman in the AF.

[BRUWIN]

How is 1% the "bulk" of 5.17%?
By law Chiefs only comprise 1% of the total enlisted force.


I think the 5.17% incorporates the average CMSgt waist measurment against the rest of the total enlisted force....but that's for another thread.

[JohnnyReb]

I would do it. The nurse warrant thingy. Also would jump at an equivalent in SF career field..my current one,by the way. Could also see lots of uses that wouldn't conflict in other career fields as well. Definitely see the need to reduce officer ranks...with no disrepect intended towards officers...as there are, IMHO, way too many of them right now. Seems like the AF got carried away with reducing manpower, and it got a little lopsided perhaps???

[TJMAC77SP]

Ok, I am not going to argue the supposed and often cited 'cost benefits’ because quite frankly, Forum Math is evidently beyond me.

I do have a question. Some on you propose replacing first and second Lts in various career fields and replacing them with warrants. Captains and above would command (I assume) Squadron level and above units. How do you ‘grow’ those captains to assume command of a unit they have no previous experience in? The single most important job of a Lt in the Security Forces (leading a Flight, not Platoon btw) is to learn, repeat, learn enough about the career field to command a unit. I can’t speak to other career fields but I imagine similar circumstances exist there. Maybe in some small number of career fields this wouldn’t be true.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

Ok, I am not going to argue the supposed and often cited 'cost benefits’ because quite frankly, Forum Math is evidently beyond me.

I do have a question. Some on you propose replacing first and second Lts in various career fields and replacing them with warrants. Captains and above would command (I assume) Squadron level and above units. How do you ‘grow’ those captains to assume command of a unit they have no previous experience in? The single most important job of a Lt in the Security Forces (leading a Flight, not Platoon btw) is to learn, repeat, learn enough about the career field to command a unit. I can’t speak to other career fields but I imagine similar circumstances exist there. Maybe in some small number of career fields this wouldn’t be true.


Well, in missiles and flying squadrons, I would recommend having Lts in the role of deputy flight commanders and captains would be flight commanders. We had plenty of cross trained captains who had successful missile careers who came in directly as flight commanders and never served as deputies. Similarly, have the SF have captains and lieutenants in their current roles. However, have warrants handle the support officer roles of armorer, asst ops officer, logistics officer, etc. Since a SF group is essentially an AF infantry battalion, have warrants do the same jobs as warrants in an infantry battalion.

[TJMAC77SP]

Well, in missiles and flying squadrons, I would recommend having Lts in the role of deputy flight commanders and captains would be flight commanders. We had plenty of cross trained captains who had successful missile careers who came in directly as flight commanders and never served as deputies. Similarly, have the SF have captains and lieutenants in their current roles. However, have warrants handle the support officer roles of armorer, asst ops officer, logistics officer, etc. Since a SF group is essentially an AF infantry battalion, have warrants do the same jobs as warrants in an infantry battalion.

So the warrants would serve as what?

I will need a current Hooah from an Army type but I don't belive there are warrants in the Infantry. Lts serve as Platoon leaders and then Company XOs, Captains serve as Company Commanders, etc....

[LADYVIOLA]

So the warrants would serve as what?

I will need a current Hooah from an Army type but I don't belive there are warrants in the Infantry. Lts serve as Platoon leaders and then Company XOs, Captains serve as Company Commanders, etc....

Let me at least put forth the position of the US Marine Corps; not a bad representation of infantry. There are Warrant Officers at the Infantry Division level in permanent billet positions such as CBRNE, Intelligence, C4I2, Motor Transport, Supply, Admin, Weapons maintentence and management, Armory and others. At the Infantry Regiment level Warrant Officers serve in permanent billets such as Weapons, CBRNE, Intel, Supply, Motor Transport, etc. At the Battalion level you will always find a CBRNE Warrant Officer and a Weapons Warrant Officer. Without belaboring the point, the Infantry makes up about 1/3rd of the overall Marine Corps strength. The same distribution of Warrant Officers in the same positions or others such as EOD, Food Service, Tracked Vehicles maintenance, etc. can be found in the Marine Air Wing, and the Service Support elements of the Marine Corps. There are Marine Warrant Officers serving in permanent billets at the Joint level in the Pentagon and on other Joint staffs. They enjoy a cordial and professional relationship with their sister services from the pentagon JRO level down to the infantry battalion level where the weapons warrant Officer might interact with the Air Force close air support unit for Air Force support to Marine Infantry. They never replaced any traditional level Lts, Captains, Majors etc. Their presence added permanence and stability to the ever more complex array of equipment and tasks that required an educated, experienced, stable and permanent staff officer. They have proven themselves to be both valuable and cost effective for the Marine Corps to employ. And every body from the highest echelons to the lowest of both our adversaries and friends knows that the US Marine Corps does more, with less, for a bigger bang than any force on the face of the earth. The fully integrated Warrant Officer Corps has served for a long time at all levels of the Marine Corps and where the Marine Corps is represented.

[TJMAC77SP]

Let me at least put forth the position of the US Marine Corps; not a bad representation of infantry. There are Warrant Officers at the Infantry Division level in permanent billet positions such as CBRNE, Intelligence, C4I2, Motor Transport, Supply, Admin, Weapons maintentence and management, Armory and others. At the Infantry Regiment level Warrant Officers serve in permanent billets such as Weapons, CBRNE, Intel, Supply, Motor Transport, etc. At the Battalion level you will always find a CBRNE Warrant Officer and a Weapons Warrant Officer. Without belaboring the point, the Infantry makes up about 1/3rd of the overall Marine Corps strength. The same distribution of Warrant Officers in the same positions or others such as EOD, Food Service, Tracked Vehicles maintenance, etc. can be found in the Marine Air Wing, and the Service Support elements of the Marine Corps. There are Marine Warrant Officers serving in permanent billets at the Joint level in the Pentagon and on other Joint staffs. They enjoy a cordial and professional relationship with their sister services from the pentagon JRO level down to the infantry battalion level where the weapons warrant Officer might interact with the Air Force close air support unit for Air Force support to Marine Infantry. They never replaced any traditional level Lts, Captains, Majors etc. Their presence added permanence and stability to the ever more complex array of equipment and tasks that required an educated, experienced, stable and permanent staff officer. They have proven themselves to be both valuable and cost effective for the Marine Corps to employ. And every body from the highest echelons to the lowest of both our adversaries and friends knows that the US Marine Corps does more, with less, for a bigger bang than any force on the face of the earth. The fully integrated Warrant Officer Corps has served for a long time at all levels of the Marine Corps and where the Marine Corps is represented.


Got it. The feeling I got from the OP was that he/she thought there were warrants in the infantry branch.

As for warrants never replacing Lts and Captains, Majors, etc, that is because the Army and USMC have never been without warrants. In order to reinstitute warrants into the USAF you will have to take from somewhere since you can’t play with the end-strength numbers. This is where things start to fall apart.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

Got it. The feeling I got from the OP was that he/she thought there were warrants in the infantry branch.

As for warrants never replacing Lts and Captains, Majors, etc, that is because the Army and USMC have never been without warrants. In order to reinstitute warrants into the USAF you will have to take from somewhere since you can’t play with the end-strength numbers. This is where things start to fall apart.

No, I wasn't implying that there are warrants in the infantry branch, although there are warrants in Special Forces commanding a-teams. What I was alluding to is that in an infantry battalion's to&e, there are warrants.

[TJMAC77SP]

No, I wasn't implying that there are warrants in the infantry branch, although there are warrants in Special Forces commanding a-teams. What I was alluding to is that in an infantry battalion's to&e, there are warrants.

Well your assumption was that there are warrants in US Army Battalions and I don’t think they are at the low a level. However, if a current Army type would weigh in I may be corrected.

That aside.

You assertion was that warrants could serve in (among other types of units) Security Forces squadrons and groups. If you mean as Security Forces Flight Leaders I would ask the same question I have asked before. When a squadron or group needs a commander, where is that Major – Colonel going to get the necessary experience as a company grade officer if the Flight Leader billets are filled by warrants?

I agree that warrants serve on SF A-teams but I believe in deputy roles. Not aware of warrants filling the Team Leader position unless on an interim basis. Again, would need an actual 18A (or even 180A) to give us the facts on the ground.

Then again, not really relevant is it?

Ok, again, all of this aside………………..

Where is the justification and benefit to the US Air Force to institute a major upheaval in both the manning and command structure of many career fields?

[MajesticThunder]

Time is now. New senior leaders must dig deep and make tough calls on their watch.

Warrant Officers (WO) exemplify how things could start to extraordinarily change both culturally and operationally, if leadership is going too dynamically course correct for 21st century.

In certain career groups USAF proportionally needs many more technical task focused “doer” officers entrusted with legal authority to carry out a set range of exacting responsibilities.

Many billets can be satisfied 24/7, 365 with a working specialist thus requiring less emphasis on square filling career broadening and advancement jockeying for promotion away from core duty tasks.

Anticipated exigency in UAV operations is just one obvious contender.

Many positions currently filled by commissioned officers will not offer sufficient realistic chances for a traditional “reach for the stars” leadership command path and many officers simply do not want to proactively pursue this rite or certain career “opportunities”. :eek:

So done correctly in accurately targeted career arenas and with a practical ratio; a new cadre of WO offers much potential to help de-stress commissioned officer requirements, promote and maximize existing AF talent in the right measure, increase capacity bringing to fruition evolving missions, and perpetually alleviate some personnel costs.

[DAG48]

Threadcheck...., one, two, three..., Threadcheck. Fred, you out there. Over.

[TheShaggy]

So the warrants would serve as what?



They would do the job they are in. My father is currently a CW5 in the Army. He flies, that is it. He is not the commander of anything. He flies and has been doing it for over 25 years. As said previously, if the AF were to incorporate warrants, it would mainly be in enlisted aircrew career fields. These are AFSCs where an E-9 and an E-1 do the exact same thing. The chiefs don't get put in an office away from the career field. The other services have E-9's and E-8's and they run their service smoothly. Why can't the AF? There is no reason the AF can't do it. Money? We are a service where $7.2 million dollars is spent for a few comfort pallets to put on cargo airplanes so that higher ups can be more comfortable when they have to fly on lowly cargo planes. The Army, believe it or not knows how to manage it's money. The AF is a joke when it comes to budgeting. And to the Smarg moron, my father doesn't have a mustache or cause problems

[DeadGeneration]

You make some interesting points. I always thought that the Air Force doesn't have Warrant Officers because our NCOs and SNCOs are the career field's technical experts. Replacing a junior officer who is there to learn and provide leadership, administration and managment with a technical expert doesn't seem to jive. Besides, how are the young officers supposed to learn and be mentored by the SNCOs unless they work with them?

What is an unrestricted flying officer? Where do they usually work?

By confirmed career Airman do you mean that to become a CWO that they must make a service commitment of 20 years? Or whatever amount of time takes them to 20 years of service if prior enlisted? That may be a tough sell.

In my opinion, your last paragraph describes the exact purpose and function of many Air Force civilians below the GS level (like WS, WG, etc.). They work with the NCOs and Officers, provide continuity and technical expertise.

Though they may work in a handful of career fields, I am not convinced Warrant Officers are "warranted" in the Air Force.


Exactly. :cheers:

[FLAPS]

All Warrant Officers in all the Sister Services come from the ranks of NCO's, Petty Officers, and SNCO's.

I don't recall there being a prior service requirement to be an WO Army aviator. With that said, I think the AF could benefit in some ways by replacing the majority of our rated officer corps with WOs. First, the AF would save a ton of money. Secondly, it would be a great retention tool for junior enlisted who aspire to be aviators.

[FLAPS]

My data is simple, you find me one Chief Master Sergeant on active duty today without an undergraduate degree. Just one. You won’t find this in writing. It isn’t official policy. It is a result of a very competitive process.

Huh? In my MXG we have 5 CMSgts (one just sewed on) without undergraduate degrees. Maybe you're referring to Associate degrees only?

[TJMAC77SP]

Huh? In my MXG we have 5 CMSgts (one just sewed on) without undergraduate degrees. Maybe you're referring to Associate degrees only?

Flaps, you are way behind on the thread data. My assertion has been disproved. It is almost irrelevant as I was answering a poster who suggested that a competitive system for selecting hypothetical AF warrants would not require them to have college degrees. I find this preposterous given the competitive nature of promotion to E-8 and E-9. Several posters have stated that it is indeed possible (although harder) to get promoted to E-9 without the Bachelor degree.

[BRUWIN]

Flaps, you are way behind on the thread data. My assertion has been disproved. It is almost irrelevant as I was answering a poster who suggested that a competitive system for selecting hypothetical AF warrants would not require them to have college degrees. I find this preposterous given the competitive nature of promotion to E-8 and E-9. Several posters have stated that it is indeed possible (although harder) to get promoted to E-9 without the Bachelor degree.

It's more than just possible...I'd call it the norm. Not to put down anyone that has one....but the board looks at it as a nice to have, but job performance and responsibility is the single most important consideration.

[AG2solo]

Every other branch has Warrant Officers...why does the AF feel so special? in today's current advancement drag...it would provide a way for mid level NCOs to advance to where they are paid what they deserve.

Forget the fact that the "officers" dont know what to do with them and the E-8's and E-9's don't like them...TOUGH. It's the best thing for the Air Force, and don't we do that whole "SERVICE BEFORE SELF" thing?

[TJMAC77SP]

Every other branch has Warrant Officers...why does the AF feel so special? in today's current advancement drag...it would provide a way for mid level NCOs to advance to where they are paid what they deserve.

Forget the fact that the "officers" dont know what to do with them and the E-8's and E-9's don't like them...TOUGH. It's the best thing for the Air Force, and don't we do that whole "SERVICE BEFORE SELF" thing?

Ahhh another thoughtful (and timely) response.

[TheShaggy]

Ahhh another thoughtful (and timely) response.

Haha. Yeah, I'm about done watching for new posts in this thread. I think everyone has made just about every point that needs to be made

[ChaplainC]

I don't recall there being a prior service requirement to be an WO Army aviator.

You are in fact correct. The Army will take a person with no prior service directly into a WO flight slot. In fact they even have said in the past that if you get one of those slots and do not make it through flight training they are willing to allow you to drop your commitment all together and get out of the Army. (this information is six years old, so, not sure if it still goes...)

[allan pochop]

Prior to 1958, there was no E-8/9's. Enlisted force operated efficiently with the E-7. So, if and E-7 previously managed to effectively do the job. What are the 8's and 9's doing?
I started out in the Navy, eight years active. USNR , Ca. Air Guard, USCGR, ended up 10 years, USAFR, retired Travis AFB, 945OMS, 349th MAW, 1988, as a SMS.
Top three, E-7 MSgt, ,8 SMSgt & 9 CMSgt. All supervisor billets. So now instead of the old system of a Msgt in charge of the squadron, we have to layer it up. We make the Msgt the Production Supervisor, we make the SMS, a Branch Chief, and we make the CMS, Superindent of Maintenance.
That MSgt is quite capable to fuhction in the capacity of all three, and in years past did.
The Warrant Officier, a path for those that excelled. Today's complex military systems require expertise in there respective fields. Warrant Officier would and should be reinstated.
Get rid of the enlisted E-8's and E-9's. Totally takes out the status of achievement that the E-7 has earned and deserves.

[TJMAC77SP]

Prior to 1958, there was no E-8/9's. Enlisted force operated efficiently with the E-7. So, if and E-7 previously managed to effectively do the job. What are the 8's and 9's doing?
I started out in the Navy, eight years active. USNR , Ca. Air Guard, USCGR, ended up 10 years, USAFR, retired Travis AFB, 945OMS, 349th MAW, 1988, as a SMS.
Top three, E-7 MSgt, ,8 SMSgt & 9 CMSgt. All supervisor billets. So now instead of the old system of a Msgt in charge of the squadron, we have to layer it up. We make the Msgt the Production Supervisor, we make the SMS, a Branch Chief, and we make the CMS, Superindent of Maintenance.
That MSgt is quite capable to fuhction in the capacity of all three, and in years past did.
The Warrant Officier, a path for those that excelled. Today's complex military systems require expertise in there respective fields. Warrant Officier would and should be reinstated.
Get rid of the enlisted E-8's and E-9's. Totally takes out the status of achievement that the E-7 has earned and deserves.



Well, it is a new thought at least...........................

[USAFRET2E7]

Let's not confuse the WOs with the supergrades (E8 and E9), the WOs are considered Officers by law and are commissioned at the W2, the Navy and USMC does it right, they allow the E7s and above to have the option of going to the WO rank or the Limited Duty Officer Rank. This gives a much wider spectrum for promotion in leadership. For example a E7 Navy can go to W2 or 01(LDO). The USAF you have only one option at the E7 and that is to the E8 and E9 track. Someone needs to seriously reconsider this to be adopted into the Air Force. Let's make no mistake the WO billets did not just merely disappear, they were probably converted to officer billets since the supergrade are mandated by law how much you have E8 2% and E9 1%. I think the Warrant Officer is still on the books by law for the USAF to have them.

[TJMAC77SP]

Let's not confuse the WOs with the supergrades (E8 and E9), the WOs are considered Officers by law and are commissioned at the W2, the Navy and USMC does it right, they allow the E7s and above to have the option of going to the WO rank or the Limited Duty Officer Rank. This gives a much wider spectrum for promotion in leadership. For example a E7 Navy can go to W2 or 01(LDO). The USAF you have only one option at the E7 and that is to the E8 and E9 track. Someone needs to seriously reconsider this to be adopted into the Air Force. Let's make no mistake the WO billets did not just merely disappear, they were probably converted to officer billets since the supergrade are mandated by law how much you have E8 2% and E9 1%. I think the Warrant Officer is still on the books by law for the USAF to have them.

First of all.....Warrant Officers are not commissioned. They hold Warrants, not Commissions.

The "choice" you speak of in the Navy and Marines is not a mere choice. It is a competitive option. Much like the several enlisted commissioning programs available to the AF personnel. You are right that E-8 and E-9's didn't replace Warrants in the AF they merely took on a lot of the duties previously performed by them. No one here (or the multiple threads devoted to this topic) has given definitive and systemic proof that the current rank structure in the AF is inadequate.

[TechnicalSgt]

I apologize for the repost, but I want my stance on this issue to be heard. Please read my comments below.

I’m a 4A2, Biomed Equipment Tech and I strongly feel we need MSC warrant officers in our career field. I read the article title, “Time for Air Force Warrant Officers” and I agree 100% that we need this incorporated into our Air Force, again. As I was reading through the pros and cons, I would have to say that the decision should be a “no-brainer” here and that the “pros” definitely outweigh the “cons”.

Here is my story, the Air Force doesn’t need as many AF Officers due to the fact we are “rightsizing” the force. In fact, I’d applied for commissioning twice and wasn’t accepted, so now I have a Master’s degree and I would really like to stay within my career field as an Officer. Yes, the AF doesn't have this kind of program. In the Army, BMET Managers are Warrants (act as clinical engineers) and they manage the shop while the enlisted perform the work (SNCOs supervise the entire shop). If the AF could begin a program like this then I wouldn’t have to go over to the Army in order to keep my AF dream job, boost my retirement pay, and advance beyond our enlisted ranks as an AF Warrant. The reason why I’m thinking of going Army is because I have a better chance for promotion and retirement benefits as a warrant plus I can stay within my career field as a manager. I think it’s a fantastic idea and many career fields (like my own) would reap the benefits. I’m sorry but the cons do not outweigh the pros on this one.

The Air Force Warrant Officer Program: I’ve added some of my own comments in bold why I feel we need them back.

The “Pro’s”
• To provide Air Force NCOs career development opportunities equal to their counterparts in the Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard. Yes!
• Better pay and retirement compensation for the enlisted corps. A CWO-5, with 26 years' service, will make 20 percent more in base pay than a Chief Master Sergeant (E-9) and the retirement check could be 25 percent higher. Yes!, I’m all about retirement and I know that with only 1% to make E-9 versus in the Army as a warrant is 99% selection rate plus more money.
• Provide continuity of expertise in chronic critical skills where the Air Force is now paying as much as $90,000 to retain E-5s and E-6s. The increased retention of critical human resources will ultimately cost less than enlisted retention incentives. Yes! Crunch the number to the amount of highly skilled E5 thru E9s who are leaving the AF due to the low promotion potentials.
• A warrant officer program could help relieve the top heavy enlisted grade structure and allow for accelerated promotions below the grade of E-8. Yes!
• Warrants can replace inexperienced company grade officers by bringing fully trained, knowledgeable, technical expertise with known leadership ability to the positions. Yes!
• Last, but certainly not least, commissioned officers, without prior enlisted service, will never fully understand the military bond between enlisted members and warrant officers. Warrants and the enlisted corps have a natural trust, loyalty and respect that can only come from "being there". Yes!

The “Con’s”
• Warrant officers add an unnecessary layer of supervision/review between senior NCOs and senior officers and further complicate the chain-of-command. I don’t think so…As it is now as an E-6 I have a 0-3 as my rater and he knows nothing about my career field. In fact, having Warrants as a flight commander and working directly for them I would be able to speak the same language with them. This is very important since all my previous flight commanders had no experience and were more of sore appendage then help to my department so a warrant can alleviate that problem.
• Depending on the number of warrant officers authorized, the cost, over time, could prove more expensive than beneficial. They also limit career development opportunities for junior officers. Again, not true for the AF. Actually, many junior officers are limited by their career development opportunities due to their inexperience. Those junior officers could be best served in the force elsewhere until they gain more management experience under their belts (let’s say from 0-4 and above).
• Highly skilled warrant officers in chronic critical skills would also have to be paid a retention bonus—one that could be considerably higher than those paid to enlisted members. Actually, you wouldn’t need offer bonuses since warrants have promotion potential that would exceed that bonus anyways. Promotion potential is far better than an added bonus to me.
• Small numbers of warrant officers will result in grade stagnation and diminished career opportunities. Not true, this would only occur if there was no clear career path for them to follow to get to the next rank. I think the Army’s 4A2 warrant career path is very good and it details exactly what I would need to progress from WO1 to WO5.
• E-8s and E-9s have performed admirably over the past 50 years in higher level positions that E-7s were ever allowed to hold; off-setting the need for a warrant officer corps. I would agree that SNCOs have done a good job in the past, but in order to improve and have continuity within the force only a warrant can do that job. I’d rather have a warrant managing the department and that SNCO supervising and mentoring me (the junior NCOs).
• The technical expertise and leadership qualities of Air Force's top 3 enlisted grades are sufficient to provide the guidance, leadership and training required by the Air Force. Yes, but a warrant can provide much more guidance, leadership, and training than a SNCO. The Airmen need NCOS, and the NCOs need SNCOs. We all need a warrant in charge of us as a buffer between the NCO and officer corps. Simply, a SNCO can and has never been able to accomplish that, but a warrant can.
• Then, there is the diminished prestige and potential morale impacts of taking jobs away from senior NCOs and junior officers and giving them to warrants. I strongly disagree; I think that the SNCOs and junior officers would embrace the experience and buffer the warrants can bring to every career field. The AF needs warrants and if I could vote tomorrow yes or no then my vote is “yes”

In conclusion, simply think the Air Force should have a comparable rank especially when it comes to Joint efforts. The AF is the best and we should have “no lesser” than the other Joint Forces. I too fully support the reactivation of the AF warrant officer program. Lastly, if you want to the reacitivation of warrant officer program please sign this online petition http://www.petitiononline.com/usafwo1/petition.html

Thank you.

TSgt

[OIFCOMBATVETNYC]

Why? Because even in the Army, they're known as 'walking mustaches with problems.' They want the bennies of being an officer, but they don't want any responsibility.

The AF was good and right to have eliminated these pills and substituted E-8s and E-9s for them over 40 years ago.

Bottom line, HELL NO.

You wanna be a WO? Go hook up with another service then.

Bye bye.

Obviously an outside opinion. I already debated with this user about Army Warrants. I am one and its far from the case about not wanting any responsibility; on the contrary an Army Warrant tackles new and greater responsibility.


First of all.....Warrant Officers are not commissioned. They hold Warrants, not Commissions.


Also Warrants from CW2 and above are Commissioned (I will receive my commission when I am promoted.) Here is an except....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioned_officer#Commissioned_officers Also the US Army officer handbook states the same about Warrant Officer.

In some branches of many militaries there exists a third grade of officer known as a Warrant Officer. A Warrant Officer is typically a non-commissioned officer whose position has been affirmed by warrant from the bureaucracy directing the force (as in the armed forces of the Commonwealth nation), or may be a separate cadre altogether (as in the United States armed forces). Sometimes a warrant officer will actually hold a commission (known as a "Commissioned Warrant Officer"). In the United States military, Warrant Officers are officers who, instead of being at the command position of a given unit, are usually instead focused on their technical expertise in a given field -- helicopter pilots and IT specialists of the US Army, for example. In the United States military they usually do not exercise the same political power that commissioned officers do, and are paid somewhat less than commissioned officers. However, they are given the same military courtesies (such as salutes, and the practice of being addressed as "sir" or "ma'am"). There are no Warrant Officers in the U.S. Air Force (the ranks exist, but go permanently and completely unfilled), but each of the other U.S. Armed Forces have warrants -- though each warrant commissioning program is unique to the service's needs.



The AF had a Warrant Officer Corps and abolished it unlike its sister services. Warrants can flight Copters in the Army and stay track focused but since the AF doesnt think it needs these types in its technical MOSes, then they will make do with what they have currently.

[OIFCOMBATVETNYC]

and a degradation of the authority of the SNCO corps. (Such that it is).

funny sentence. Hardcore branches as the Marines and the Army has them and it doesnt degradate their NCO corps. Anyway, if you want to become a Warrant, just switch services lol

[hawk71049]

.

Obviously an outside opinion. I already debated with this user about Army Warrants. I am one and its far from the case about not wanting any responsibility; on the contrary an Army Warrant tackles new and greater responsibility.



Also Warrants from CW2 and above are Commissioned (I will receive my commission when I am promoted.) Here is an except....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioned_officer#Commissioned_officers Also the US Army officer handbook states the same about Warrant Officer.

In some branches of many militaries there exists a third grade of officer known as a Warrant Officer. A Warrant Officer is typically a non-commissioned officer whose position has been affirmed by warrant from the bureaucracy directing the force (as in the armed forces of the Commonwealth nation), or may be a separate cadre altogether (as in the United States armed forces). Sometimes a warrant officer will actually hold a commission (known as a "Commissioned Warrant Officer"). In the United States military, Warrant Officers are officers who, instead of being at the command position of a given unit, are usually instead focused on their technical expertise in a given field -- helicopter pilots and IT specialists of the US Army, for example. In the United States military they usually do not exercise the same political power that commissioned officers do, and are paid somewhat less than commissioned officers. However, they are given the same military courtesies (such as salutes, and the practice of being addressed as "sir" or "ma'am"). There are no Warrant Officers in the U.S. Air Force (the ranks exist, but go permanently and completely unfilled), but each of the other U.S. Armed Forces have warrants -- though each warrant commissioning program is unique to the service's needs.



The AF has a Warrant Officer Corps and abolished unlike its sister services. Warrants can flight Copters in the Army and stay track focused but since the AF doesnt think it needs these types in its technical MOSes, then they will make do with what they have currently.

yeah, that was a sad day, I had/have much respect for the warrant program! truly a dediated program:)
on discharge I was a warrant selectee, with LDO options, what a fool I was...

.

[TJMAC77SP]

funny sentence. Hardcore branches as the Marines and the Army has them and it doesnt degradate their NCO corps.

But this thread is talking about the US Air Force and its Senior NCO Corps. BTW....ask an infantry SNCO how he would feel putting WOs in his world. And before you throw SF WOs, they replaced Lts so no comparison there

Anyway, if you want to become a Warrant, just switch services lol [/QUOTE]

THIS I TOTALLY agree with........

[TJMAC77SP]

I apologize for the repost, but I want my stance on this issue to be heard. Please read my comments below.

I’m a 4A2, Biomed Equipment Tech and I strongly feel we need MSC warrant officers in our career field. I read the article title, “Time for Air Force Warrant Officers” and I agree 100% that we need this incorporated into our Air Force, again. As I was reading through the pros and cons, I would have to say that the decision should be a “no-brainer” here and that the “pros” definitely outweigh the “cons”.

Here is my story, the Air Force doesn’t need as many AF Officers due to the fact we are “rightsizing” the force. In fact, I’d applied for commissioning twice and wasn’t accepted, so now I have a Master’s degree and I would really like to stay within my career field as an Officer. Yes, the AF doesn't have this kind of program. In the Army, BMET Managers are Warrants (act as clinical engineers) and they manage the shop while the enlisted perform the work (SNCOs supervise the entire shop). If the AF could begin a program like this then I wouldn’t have to go over to the Army in order to keep my AF dream job, boost my retirement pay, and advance beyond our enlisted ranks as an AF Warrant. The reason why I’m thinking of going Army is because I have a better chance for promotion and retirement benefits as a warrant plus I can stay within my career field as a manager. I think it’s a fantastic idea and many career fields (like my own) would reap the benefits. I’m sorry but the cons do not outweigh the pros on this one.

The Air Force Warrant Officer Program: I’ve added some of my own comments in bold why I feel we need them back.

The “Pro’s”
• To provide Air Force NCOs career development opportunities equal to their counterparts in the Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard. Yes!
• Better pay and retirement compensation for the enlisted corps. A CWO-5, with 26 years' service, will make 20 percent more in base pay than a Chief Master Sergeant (E-9) and the retirement check could be 25 percent higher. Yes!, I’m all about retirement and I know that with only 1% to make E-9 versus in the Army as a warrant is 99% selection rate plus more money.
• Provide continuity of expertise in chronic critical skills where the Air Force is now paying as much as $90,000 to retain E-5s and E-6s. The increased retention of critical human resources will ultimately cost less than enlisted retention incentives. Yes! Crunch the number to the amount of highly skilled E5 thru E9s who are leaving the AF due to the low promotion potentials.
• A warrant officer program could help relieve the top heavy enlisted grade structure and allow for accelerated promotions below the grade of E-8. Yes!
• Warrants can replace inexperienced company grade officers by bringing fully trained, knowledgeable, technical expertise with known leadership ability to the positions. Yes!
• Last, but certainly not least, commissioned officers, without prior enlisted service, will never fully understand the military bond between enlisted members and warrant officers. Warrants and the enlisted corps have a natural trust, loyalty and respect that can only come from "being there". Yes!

The “Con’s”
• Warrant officers add an unnecessary layer of supervision/review between senior NCOs and senior officers and further complicate the chain-of-command. I don’t think so…As it is now as an E-6 I have a 0-3 as my rater and he knows nothing about my career field. In fact, having Warrants as a flight commander and working directly for them I would be able to speak the same language with them. This is very important since all my previous flight commanders had no experience and were more of sore appendage then help to my department so a warrant can alleviate that problem.
• Depending on the number of warrant officers authorized, the cost, over time, could prove more expensive than beneficial. They also limit career development opportunities for junior officers. Again, not true for the AF. Actually, many junior officers are limited by their career development opportunities due to their inexperience. Those junior officers could be best served in the force elsewhere until they gain more management experience under their belts (let’s say from 0-4 and above).
• Highly skilled warrant officers in chronic critical skills would also have to be paid a retention bonus—one that could be considerably higher than those paid to enlisted members. Actually, you wouldn’t need offer bonuses since warrants have promotion potential that would exceed that bonus anyways. Promotion potential is far better than an added bonus to me.
• Small numbers of warrant officers will result in grade stagnation and diminished career opportunities. Not true, this would only occur if there was no clear career path for them to follow to get to the next rank. I think the Army’s 4A2 warrant career path is very good and it details exactly what I would need to progress from WO1 to WO5.
• E-8s and E-9s have performed admirably over the past 50 years in higher level positions that E-7s were ever allowed to hold; off-setting the need for a warrant officer corps. I would agree that SNCOs have done a good job in the past, but in order to improve and have continuity within the force only a warrant can do that job. I’d rather have a warrant managing the department and that SNCO supervising and mentoring me (the junior NCOs).
• The technical expertise and leadership qualities of Air Force's top 3 enlisted grades are sufficient to provide the guidance, leadership and training required by the Air Force. Yes, but a warrant can provide much more guidance, leadership, and training than a SNCO. The Airmen need NCOS, and the NCOs need SNCOs. We all need a warrant in charge of us as a buffer between the NCO and officer corps. Simply, a SNCO can and has never been able to accomplish that, but a warrant can.
• Then, there is the diminished prestige and potential morale impacts of taking jobs away from senior NCOs and junior officers and giving them to warrants. I strongly disagree; I think that the SNCOs and junior officers would embrace the experience and buffer the warrants can bring to every career field. The AF needs warrants and if I could vote tomorrow yes or no then my vote is “yes”

In conclusion, simply think the Air Force should have a comparable rank especially when it comes to Joint efforts. The AF is the best and we should have “no lesser” than the other Joint Forces. I too fully support the reactivation of the AF warrant officer program. Lastly, if you want to the reacitivation of warrant officer program please sign this online petition http://www.petitiononline.com/usafwo1/petition.html

Thank you.

TSgt


I will merely say what I said (http://www.militarytimes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=165948&postcount=17)on the other thread you posted an identical post on........

[ramprat]

its already top heavy in rank.
most super grades retired in place ,why ,how can warrants be utilized other that calling meetings???

[Shrike]

I apologize for the repost, but I want my stance on this issue to be heard. Please read my comments below.

I’m a 4A2, Biomed Equipment Tech and I strongly feel we need MSC warrant officers in our career field. I read the article title, “Time for Air Force Warrant Officers” and I agree 100% that we need this incorporated into our Air Force, again. As I was reading through the pros and cons, I would have to say that the decision should be a “no-brainer” here and that the “pros” definitely outweigh the “cons”.

Here is my story, the Air Force doesn’t need as many AF Officers due to the fact we are “rightsizing” the force. In fact, I’d applied for commissioning twice and wasn’t accepted, so now I have a Master’s degree and I would really like to stay within my career field as an Officer. Yes, the AF doesn't have this kind of program. In the Army, BMET Managers are Warrants (act as clinical engineers) and they manage the shop while the enlisted perform the work (SNCOs supervise the entire shop). If the AF could begin a program like this then I wouldn’t have to go over to the Army in order to keep my AF dream job, boost my retirement pay, and advance beyond our enlisted ranks as an AF Warrant. The reason why I’m thinking of going Army is because I have a better chance for promotion and retirement benefits as a warrant plus I can stay within my career field as a manager. I think it’s a fantastic idea and many career fields (like my own) would reap the benefits. I’m sorry but the cons do not outweigh the pros on this one.

The Air Force Warrant Officer Program: I’ve added some of my own comments in bold why I feel we need them back.

The “Pro’s”
• To provide Air Force NCOs career development opportunities equal to their counterparts in the Army, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard. Yes!
Assumption

• Better pay and retirement compensation for the enlisted corps. A CWO-5, with 26 years' service, will make 20 percent more in base pay than a Chief Master Sergeant (E-9) and the retirement check could be 25 percent higher. Yes!, I’m all about retirement and I know that with only 1% to make E-9 versus in the Army as a warrant is 99% selection rate plus more money.
I appreciate your upfront honesty in saying this whole issue is purely selfish, and not for the betterment of the USAF.


• Provide continuity of expertise in chronic critical skills where the Air Force is now paying as much as $90,000 to retain E-5s and E-6s. The increased retention of critical human resources will ultimately cost less than enlisted retention incentives. Yes! Crunch the number to the amount of highly skilled E5 thru E9s who are leaving the AF due to the low promotion potentials.
You have data showing that retention issues are due to low promotion potentials? If so, please post it.



• A warrant officer program could help relieve the top heavy enlisted grade structure and allow for accelerated promotions below the grade of E-8. Yes!
Assumption.


• Warrants can replace inexperienced company grade officers by bringing fully trained, knowledgeable, technical expertise with known leadership ability to the positions. Yes!
And who will decide who has all of those qualities?


• Last, but certainly not least, commissioned officers, without prior enlisted service, will never fully understand the military bond between enlisted members and warrant officers. Warrants and the enlisted corps have a natural trust, loyalty and respect that can only come from "being there". Yes!
Alright, you really seem to be shovelling hard and laying it on thick here. Plus, this "bond" you speak of - assuming it even exists - will just magically appear if the USAF brought back WOs?




The “Con’s”
• Warrant officers add an unnecessary layer of supervision/review between senior NCOs and senior officers and further complicate the chain-of-command. I don’t think so…As it is now as an E-6 I have a 0-3 as my rater and he knows nothing about my career field. In fact, having Warrants as a flight commander and working directly for them I would be able to speak the same language with them. This is very important since all my previous flight commanders had no experience and were more of sore appendage then help to my department so a warrant can alleviate that problem.
Your first point that has merit.


• Depending on the number of warrant officers authorized, the cost, over time, could prove more expensive than beneficial. They also limit career development opportunities for junior officers. Again, not true for the AF. Actually, many junior officers are limited by their career development opportunities due to their inexperience. Those junior officers could be best served in the force elsewhere until they gain more management experience under their belts (let’s say from 0-4 and above).
So an officer is better off not knowing what happens in the workcenters he/she will eventually be commanding?



• Highly skilled warrant officers in chronic critical skills would also have to be paid a retention bonus—one that could be considerably higher than those paid to enlisted members. Actually, you wouldn’t need offer bonuses since warrants have promotion potential that would exceed that bonus anyways. Promotion potential is far better than an added bonus to me.
Officers in shortage career fields are given generous bonuses already. Why would it be different for WOs? It could be, but you're assuming again.



• Small numbers of warrant officers will result in grade stagnation and diminished career opportunities. Not true, this would only occur if there was no clear career path for them to follow to get to the next rank. I think the Army’s 4A2 warrant career path is very good and it details exactly what I would need to progress from WO1 to WO5.
Earlier you pointed out the small numbers that make E-9 in such a way as to show it stagnating the enlisted ranks. But now you say small numbers of WOs won't encounter the same problem.



• E-8s and E-9s have performed admirably over the past 50 years in higher level positions that E-7s were ever allowed to hold; off-setting the need for a warrant officer corps. I would agree that SNCOs have done a good job in the past, but in order to improve and have continuity within the force only a warrant can do that job. I’d rather have a warrant managing the department and that SNCO supervising and mentoring me (the junior NCOs).
Now that's one ginormous assumption.


• The technical expertise and leadership qualities of Air Force's top 3 enlisted grades are sufficient to provide the guidance, leadership and training required by the Air Force. Yes, but a warrant can provide much more guidance, leadership, and training than a SNCO.

Another big assumption.


The Airmen need NCOS, and the NCOs need SNCOs. We all need a warrant in charge of us as a buffer between the NCO and officer corps. Simply, a SNCO can and has never been able to accomplish that, but a warrant can.[/B]
These last two sentences are 100% wrong. Can you provide solid supporting data for either of them?



• Then, there is the diminished prestige and potential morale impacts of taking jobs away from senior NCOs and junior officers and giving them to warrants. I strongly disagree; I think that the SNCOs and junior officers would embrace the experience and buffer the warrants can bring to every career field. The AF needs warrants and if I could vote tomorrow yes or no then my vote is “yes”

Maybe yes, maybe no, but you're making more assumptions.


In conclusion, simply think the Air Force should have a comparable rank especially when it comes to Joint efforts. The AF is the best and we should have “no lesser” than the other Joint Forces.
Perhaps we're best precisely because of our differences from our sister services.



I too fully support the reactivation of the AF warrant officer program. Lastly, if you want to the reacitivation of warrant officer program please sign this online petition http://www.petitiononline.com/usafwo1/petition.html
Online petitions have about as big an impact as a fart in a hurricane.

[smarg]

WHY WOULD ANY AIR FORCE LEADER IN THEIR RIGHT MIND want Warants, who traditionally a.) Refuse to take responsibility because they claim they are "highly trained specialists"; b.) Refuse to do tasks they deem too menial because they are "officers", and c.) Grow silly Hitler mustaches and huddle together claiming they don't get any respect???

Sorry, ain't gonna happen. No easy slide into more money for the lazy, thank God.

If you want more responsibility and better pay, the AF has got about 10 or so different commissioning programs to choose from. Go for it. :D

[TheShaggy]

WHY WOULD ANY AIR FORCE LEADER IN THEIR RIGHT MIND want Warants, who traditionally a.) Refuse to take responsibility because they claim they are "highly trained specialists"; b.) Refuse to do tasks they deem too menial because they are "officers", and c.) Grow silly Hitler mustaches and huddle together claiming they don't get any respect???

Sorry, ain't gonna happen. No easy slide into more money for the lazy, thank God.

If you want more responsibility and better pay, the AF has got about 10 or so different commissioning programs to choose from. Go for it. :D

Seriously, how many WO's have you worked with? I have never in my life met a WO who fit any of those descriptions you listed. Well except for a WO1 in Bagram that was prior AF. To all the people downing WO's, I don't get why. All the other services have utilized them and all is good in their service. And holy crap! All the other services have E-8s and E-9s too. How ever do they do it? The only E8s and E9s in the AF that actually do something other than sit behind a desk doing paper work and scoping out parking lots for uniform infractions are flyers. Smarg, you need to pull your head out of your ass when it comes to discussing WO's cause you have no idea. If you are being sarcastic or joking you are pretty good at covering it up.

[TJMAC77SP]

Seriously, how many WO's have you worked with? I have never in my life met a WO who fit any of those descriptions you listed. Well except for a WO1 in Bagram that was prior AF. To all the people downing WO's,…… .

Ok, I am pretty sure Smarg is the only one posting anti-WO drivel. Take it with a grain of salt (or ignore it as most do).


I don't get why. All the other services have utilized them and all is good in their service. And holy crap! All the other services have E-8s and E-9s too. How ever do they do it? The only E8s and E9s in the AF that actually do something other than sit behind a desk doing paper work and scoping out parking lots for uniform infractions are flyers. Smarg, you need to pull your head out of your ass when it comes to discussing WO's cause you have no idea. If you are being sarcastic or joking you are pretty good at covering it up.

THEN………….you go and do the same thing to E-8s and E-9’s. Generalize and talk shyte out your derriere. It pretty much puts your entire post in the same category as Smarg’s…….garbage.

[OIFCOMBATVETNYC]

Seriously, how many WO's have you worked with? I have never in my life met a WO who fit any of those descriptions you listed. Well except for a WO1 in Bagram that was prior AF. To all the people downing WO's, I don't get why. All the other services have utilized them and all is good in their service. And holy crap! All the other services have E-8s and E-9s too. How ever do they do it? The only E8s and E9s in the AF that actually do something other than sit behind a desk doing paper work and scoping out parking lots for uniform infractions are flyers. Smarg, you need to pull your head out of your ass when it comes to discussing WO's cause you have no idea. If you are being sarcastic or joking you are pretty good at covering it up.

Exactly, he doesnt have a clue about my world. My peers saw this and simply got a laugh out of it.

[TheShaggy]

THEN………….you go and do the same thing to E-8s and E-9’s. Generalize and talk shyte out your derriere. It pretty much puts your entire post in the same category as Smarg’s…….garbage.

The difference between Smarg and myself is that I work with the AF E8s and E9s and he has probably never even met a WO. For almost 8 years I have worked with WOs and my father is currently a CW5 in the Army. I think I know what I'm talking about. AF E8s and E9s are managers. They aren't out there turning wrenches or really anything else that would cause them to break a sweat. And they shouldn't, they are freaking SNCOs. WOs do the job and they do a damn good job of it. WOs are well respected in the branches that have them and I just find it sickening that an AF member that knows nothing about them is coming here spouting crap about them like that. It just shows how out of touch the AF is when it comes to leadership and warfighting.

[smarg]

The TRUTH shall set you free. :D

[TJMAC77SP]

The difference between Smarg and myself is that I work with the AF E8s and E9s and he has probably never even met a WO. For almost 8 years I have worked with WOs and my father is currently a CW5 in the Army. I think I know what I'm talking about. AF E8s and E9s are managers. They aren't out there turning wrenches or really anything else that would cause them to break a sweat. And they shouldn't, they are freaking SNCOs. WOs do the job and they do a damn good job of it. WOs are well respected in the branches that have them and I just find it sickening that an AF member that knows nothing about them is coming here spouting crap about them like that. It just shows how out of touch the AF is when it comes to leadership and warfighting.



sooooooooo...simply saying "I mispoke" never entered your mind huh?

BTW: Do you envison these hypothetical AF WOs turning wrenches ????

[ramprat]

two options for warrant officers
1 take over the armys aircraft and missions and let the warrants fly.
2 utilize warrants as generals dog robbers IF they are smart enough,

[fenway]

the fact is that the af has more officers than it can use... effectively

IN most other services ... warrants are "flying sgts", or are highly specialized. for example I think a army food service warrant would have specialized training and mentoring. I don't think anyone wants to send an officer to culinary school. in the marine corp, they have technical expertise such as "gunners" which are weapons experts and are "crusty"

I can see warrants in the medical, maitenace, personell..etc.

[chief0299]

"gunners" ... "crusty"



subtle. very subtle. lol

[TechnicalSgt]

I consider myself the subject matter expert (in my field) on this since I have worked with E8/E9s and warrants in my career field. The Army MSC warrant is a manager simple as that. They're warranted first as a WO then commissioned after WO2 so I'm told (I can’t recall all the facts but I think that’s pretty accurate). They're officers, but specialized in their field. They live in officer housing, member of the o-club, and other provided the same customs as other officers (e.g. saluted by enlisted).

In the AF, our E8/E9 doesn't get saluted. We’re all enlisted like the Army’s E8/E9s. Yes, they're chiefly managers, but as an enlisted member in the AF if their needed to turn a wrench and they're around then they'll have to turn that wrench. Frankly, I admire our SNCOs that do get out there with us and turn wrenches. In fact, I would never ask anyone of my troops to do something I was not able to do myself.

Next, in a previous post someone made the assumptions about me. I didn't write that article; I only made comments that are TRUE which I see everyday. Those aren’t assumptions, but a fact. Yes, I strongly feel we (meaning the AF) need warrants back. If they came back would I apply...hell yes, but it doesn't mean I would be accepted into the program. It’s not about me here; it’s about change and we need change. In fact, whether I would be accepted or not I would still embrace this program due to it’s in the betterment of the AF and not just me.

Warrants are needed badly in the medical field, but I can see some fields that wouldn't need them and it having SNCOs remain in charge would be best. Finally, I have much respect for my SNCOs and much respect for warrants which I still work with. It would benefit our force as it has benefited the Army. Lastly, it wouldn't stagnant the ranks too; with all due respect but if that were the case then the Army wouldn’t have no E8/E9's yet I see them all over the place. I’m told that warrants have so much respect for the E9s that you do not challenge them.

[smarg]

I’m told that warrants have so much respect for the E9s that you do not challenge them.

Interesting comment. However, this brings up another issue that got out of hand, but is too late to reverse: the creation of the "Warrant General", or the WO5 rank. What a nasty, bullshyt rank created to appease arrogant warrants who want to shytscam more money from Uncle Sugar for doing almost nothing but preen. Just like we have the "perfumed prince enlisted general", we now have the same equivalent for warrants.

Bleah. :rolleyes:

[Shrike]

Next, in a previous post someone made the assumptions about me. I didn't write that article; I only made comments that are TRUE which I see everyday. Those aren’t assumptions, but a fact.


You made comments such as:
- Crunch the number to the amount of highly skilled E5 thru E9s who are leaving the AF due to the low promotion potentials.
- A warrant officer program could help relieve the top heavy enlisted grade structure and allow for accelerated promotions below the grade of E-8. Yes!
- Last, but certainly not least, commissioned officers, without prior enlisted service, will never fully understand the military bond between enlisted members and warrant officers. Warrants and the enlisted corps have a natural trust, loyalty and respect that can only come from "being there".
- Those junior officers could be best served in the force elsewhere until they gain more management experience under their belts (let’s say from 0-4 and above).
- Actually, you wouldn’t need offer bonuses since warrants have promotion potential that would exceed that bonus anyways.
- I would agree that SNCOs have done a good job in the past, but in order to improve and have continuity within the force only a warrant can do that job.
- a warrant can provide much more guidance, leadership, and training than a SNCO.
- We all need a warrant in charge of us as a buffer between the NCO and officer corps. Simply, a SNCO can and has never been able to accomplish that, but a warrant can.
- The AF needs warrants

These are NOT facts. These are assumptions and opinions. You can call a Ford Fiesta a Cadillac, but that doesn't make it so.

[TJMAC77SP]

You made comments such as:
- Crunch the number to the amount of highly skilled E5 thru E9s who are leaving the AF due to the low promotion potentials.
- A warrant officer program could help relieve the top heavy enlisted grade structure and allow for accelerated promotions below the grade of E-8. Yes!
- Last, but certainly not least, commissioned officers, without prior enlisted service, will never fully understand the military bond between enlisted members and warrant officers. Warrants and the enlisted corps have a natural trust, loyalty and respect that can only come from "being there".
- Those junior officers could be best served in the force elsewhere until they gain more management experience under their belts (let’s say from 0-4 and above).
- Actually, you wouldn’t need offer bonuses since warrants have promotion potential that would exceed that bonus anyways.
- I would agree that SNCOs have done a good job in the past, but in order to improve and have continuity within the force only a warrant can do that job.
- a warrant can provide much more guidance, leadership, and training than a SNCO.
- We all need a warrant in charge of us as a buffer between the NCO and officer corps. Simply, a SNCO can and has never been able to accomplish that, but a warrant can.
- The AF needs warrants

These are NOT facts. These are assumptions and opinions. You can call a Ford Fiesta a Cadillac, but that doesn't make it so.


Thanks again Shrike. Saved my fingers a lot of typing.

[Shrike]

Thanks again Shrike. Saved my fingers a lot of typing.

Copy and paste is a wonderful thing!

[TJMAC77SP]

Copy and paste is a wonderful thing!

Well, I knew that the claim of fact would be made and knew someone would have to go though and list the items he listed as fact were mere, unproved assertions. Good job.

[ringjamesa]

I consider myself the subject matter expert (in my field) on this since I have worked with E8/E9s and warrants in my career field. The Army MSC warrant is a manager simple as that. They're warranted first as a WO then commissioned after WO2 so I'm told (I can’t recall all the facts but I think that’s pretty accurate). They're officers, but specialized in their field. They live in officer housing, member of the o-club, and other provided the same customs as other officers (e.g. saluted by enlisted).
In the AF, our E8/E9 doesn't get saluted. We’re all enlisted like the Army’s E8/E9s. Yes, they're chiefly managers, but as an enlisted member in the AF if their needed to turn a wrench and they're around then they'll have to turn that wrench. Frankly, I admire our SNCOs that do get out there with us and turn wrenches. In fact, I would never ask anyone of my troops to do something I was not able to do myself.
Next, in a previous post someone made the assumptions about me. I didn't write that article; I only made comments that are TRUE which I see everyday. Those aren’t assumptions, but a fact. Yes, I strongly feel we (meaning the AF) need warrants back. If they came back would I apply...hell yes, but it doesn't mean I would be accepted into the program. It’s not about me here; it’s about change and we need change. In fact, whether I would be accepted or not I would still embrace this program due to it’s in the betterment of the AF and not just me.
Warrants are needed badly in the medical field, but I can see some fields that wouldn't need them and it having SNCOs remain in charge would be best. Finally, I have much respect for my SNCOs and much respect for warrants which I still work with. It would benefit our force as it has benefited the Army. Lastly, it wouldn't stagnant the ranks too; with all due respect but if that were the case then the Army wouldn’t have no E8/E9's yet I see them all over the place. I’m told that warrants have so much respect for the E9s that you do not challenge them.

Whose E-8s and E-9s do? Umm as you stated the Army doesn't have no E-8s/E-9s (you can't see them if they aren't there) so doesn't that mean you are wrong? Besides just because they exist doesn't mean that it has/has not stagnated the ranks. It just means that there are people currently filling E-8/E-9 billetts.

[usafammo88]

Best I can figure, the AF doesn't have arrant officers because it doesn't need them. Jobs that are filled by warrants in the other services are performed by SNCOs or junior officers in the AF. My job on the Army post across town is handled by a warrant officer, whereas I'm a SNCO. Why should the AF create a whole new rank structure when, as several posters have pointed out, we're pretty dang top have as is?

[smarg]

Best I can figure, the AF doesn't have arrant officers because it doesn't need them. Jobs that are filled by warrants in the other services are performed by SNCOs or junior officers in the AF. My job on the Army post across town is handled by a warrant officer, whereas I'm a SNCO. Why should the AF create a whole new rank structure when, as several posters have pointed out, we're pretty dang top have as is?

BINGO.
For your first post, you are indeed a winner. Thank you for stating the obvious.
Next.
:D

[DAG48]

At the end of the Persian Gulf War, "George" was the Army Warrant Officer in Charge of a CSAR mission to retrieve a downed pilot. As the pilot was being secured and the flight was about to depart, an Iraqi armed with a Shoulder Launched RPG (?) popped up from a sand dune in front of them. The FAC was an Air Force Officer in an F-16 flying high above the area. Upon hearing radio traffic between the Black Hawks, the FAC stepped in and "ordered" the flight to break in the same direction. Following his training, "George" overruled the FAC, and ordered his flight to break in different directions to give them each a chance of not being hit. If he didn't do this, the Iraqi could have had one shot, one kill, possibly bringing down the entire flight of aircraft. "George's" Black Hawk was hit and destroyed in the crash, all souls lost. The rest of the formation made it out. They were the last casualties of the Persian Gulf War (prior to the cease fire).

"George", a Warrant Officer, was labled a hero for his actions and even Senator Bob Doyle attended his funeral. However, "George" violated a "direct order" from a superior officer, the USAF Officer FAC with his head up his ass, and thus his family was not eligible for military compensation for his death. They fought the Military for years to get it straightened out, but eventually prevailed.

Ladies and Gentlemen; Warrant Officers are (were?) Honorable and Highly Trained Professionals. USAF Officers, seem more interested in career progression than doing their god damn jobs, and now this seems to have made it's way down the chain to the USAF Enlisted Folks as well.

I'm not service bashing. I was both USAF, Officer and Enlisted. This is merely an observation. Right now, what the USAF needs more than Warrant Officer reinstatement is Leadership (not Career Progression). Try running this up the Chain of Command and see what happens. The future of the Military rests with you, so what are you going to do? Get that next promotion? Or have the Balls to stand up to your superiors, put your careers on the line, and do the right thing instead of look the other way when the Regs are being violated? I'll bet most do the latter, I'm a man of little faith when it comes to the military these days.

[Combat correspondent]

I think technical AFSCs could significantly benefit from WOs. Based on my memory of an AF Times article, the USMC has a 1:16 ratio of officer to enlisted. The Army has a 1:14, Navy 1:12 and AF 1:4. As I said, this is based on my memory. I have to wonder if the other brances pad this number with their effective use of WOs. We waste a ton of money on our Os - who, for the most part, don't do as much as the average SNCO in the first place.

I say cut our Os by about 60% and start filling WO slots as technical experts and UAV pilots - gee whiz :)

[TheShaggy]

I think technical AFSCs could significantly benefit from WOs. Based on my memory of an AF Times article, the USMC has a 1:16 ratio of officer to enlisted. The Army has a 1:14, Navy 1:12 and AF 1:4. As I said, this is based on my memory. I have to wonder if the other brances pad this number with their effective use of WOs. We waste a ton of money on our Os - who, for the most part, don't do as much as the average SNCO in the first place.

I say cut our Os by about 60% and start filling WO slots as technical experts and UAV pilots - gee whiz :)

Dude, that makes too much sense. It will never happen based on how much sense it would make

[smarg]

I think technical AFSCs could significantly benefit from WOs. Based on my memory of an AF Times article, the USMC has a 1:16 ratio of officer to enlisted. The Army has a 1:14, Navy 1:12 and AF 1:4. As I said, this is based on my memory. I have to wonder if the other brances pad this number with their effective use of WOs. We waste a ton of money on our Os - who, for the most part, don't do as much as the average SNCO in the first place.

I say cut our Os by about 60% and start filling WO slots as technical experts and UAV pilots - gee whiz :)

Put a lid on your hate-or-ade, son.

[Combat correspondent]

Put a lid on your hate-or-ade, son.

Put a lid on it? Alright, if you sleep better knowing 1/4 of our force goes to paying the lofty O salaries, when our comrades spend a fraction of that - sleep well. I don't want to be the hate-or-aid spiller who makes your bed bugs bite.

Still, if you look closely at our mission and our wasted resources on our upper echelon, you may find you agree that we have far too many Os. Why do we need Os to fly UAVs? Why not make that a Warrant position? How about our rescue chopper pilots? What about our excessive # of RNs vs. IDMTs? We can pay an NCO IDMT a fraction of what we pay a RN for the same thing. The list goes on, man. Well, enough of my "hating." :-)

[smarg]

Dude, that makes too much sense. It will never happen based on how much sense it would make

Duuuh, yeah, dood, that makes sense. The Air Force's officers do the flying/fighting and missileering and is the most technical of the services, needing highly educated and trained people to do the main missions, therefore the higher officer/enlisted ratios. You could argue that CCTs, TACPs, and Pararescue are also fighters, but their numbers are tiny. SF, although they like to huff and puff and wear their rasberry berets, are mainly nothing more than close-in sentries. At most, they are VERY light infantry platoons without dedicated air support, rendering them ineffective as an offensive force.

So Shaggy, run along now and play with Scooby-Doo. :D

[Combat correspondent]

Duuuh, yeah, dood, that makes sense. The Air Force's officers do the flying/fighting and missileering and is the most technical of the services, needing highly educated and trained people to do the main missions, therefore the higher officer/enlisted ratios. You could argue that CCTs, TACPs, and Pararescue are also fighters, but their numbers are tiny. SF, although they like to huff and puff and wear their rasberry berets, are mainly nothing more than close-in sentries. At most, they are VERY light infantry platoons without dedicated air support, rendering them ineffective as an offensive force.

So Shaggy, run along now and play with Scooby-Doo. :D

Wow! Shaggy - sorry you just got the smack down by GED-Joe --- He fights for freedom whenever there's trouble!

By the way, GED-Joe, are you an example of the higher education you referred to? High speed, man! High speed!

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

I think technical AFSCs could significantly benefit from WOs. Based on my memory of an AF Times article, the USMC has a 1:16 ratio of officer to enlisted. The Army has a 1:14, Navy 1:12 and AF 1:4. As I said, this is based on my memory. I have to wonder if the other brances pad this number with their effective use of WOs. We waste a ton of money on our Os - who, for the most part, don't do as much as the average SNCO in the first place.

I say cut our Os by about 60% and start filling WO slots as technical experts and UAV pilots - gee whiz :)


That's because you don't understand the operational aspect of the Air Force. In the other services, the enlisted do the fighting and the officer provide the leadership and support for the enlisted. In the Air Force, the officers do the fighting and it is the enlisted who do the support. We're not a ground component. As such, our operational units tend to be officer heavy. That is why we have so many officers to enlisted. In an operational squadron such as a flying squadron or missile squadron, you'll have 40 - 60 officers with 4 enlisted as support. In an Army or Marine line company, you'll have 4- 6 officers and about 120 enlisted.

Yes, yes, there is the old arguement that enlisted can also be pilots and missileers if given the opportunity. That is the subject of another debate. As it stands now, by law, you need two commissioned officers to release a nuclear weapon. That is why you don't have enlisted as missileers. Even in the Titan system, the enlisted crew members were not authorized to do the actual key turn to launch the Titan. Now, I'm not sure of the pilots in terms of the law, but the regs at the moment do state that a commissioned officer will be a pilot for an aircraft. This also covers warrant officers because in the 90s, the regs were changed, at least in the army, that warrants would also be considered commissioned officers. That is why there is such a high ratio of officers to enlisted in the AF.

[smarg]

Wow! Shaggy - sorry you just got the smack down by GED-Joe --- He fights for freedom whenever there's trouble!

By the way, GED-Joe, are you an example of the higher education you referred to? High speed, man! High speed!

And, smarty pants, the USAF will NEVER have warrants because, based on experience, they are almost worthless. When you tell them to take responsibility, they'll say they are "specialists". When you tell them to do something that they deem beneath them, they'll say that they are "officers." And then they have their own version of the E-9 enlisted general, the Master Warrant Officer, a God-forsaken do-nothing preening rank that was created from Hell's depths that terrorizes the other services.

Some enlisteds would like an easy way out to get more money and prestige by creating warrant ranks for them. I say, get off your lazy butts and take advantage of the dozen or so commmissioning programs! SO SHUT YER PIE HOLES!!! :D

[TheShaggy]

Duuuh, yeah, dood, that makes sense. The Air Force's officers do the flying/fighting and missileering and is the most technical of the services, needing highly educated and trained people to do the main missions, therefore the higher officer/enlisted ratios. You could argue that CCTs, TACPs, and Pararescue are also fighters, but their numbers are tiny. SF, although they like to huff and puff and wear their rasberry berets, are mainly nothing more than close-in sentries. At most, they are VERY light infantry platoons without dedicated air support, rendering them ineffective as an offensive force.

So Shaggy, run along now and play with Scooby-Doo. :D

Highly educated? I know a pilot that got his degree in Ornithology. Oh yeah, that's makes him perfect for missileering. And I see you keep ribbing on the Warrants for shit you have no idea about. As a Warrant, my father has flown 6 different airframes for the Army and is seeking to go to a 7th. At times being in instructor/evaluator on two different airframes at the same time with one being rotary and one being fixed wing. Oh and he doesn't need a degree in basket weaving to do it either. AF pilots would shit a brick if they had to do that. Plain and simple, the AF has way too many officers sitting behind desks doing nothing but coming up with stupid new regs so they can get bullets for their OPR since they can't come up with anything else to put on it.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

Highly educated? I know a pilot that got his degree in Ornithology. Oh yeah, that's makes him perfect for missileering. And I see you keep ribbing on the Warrants for shit you have no idea about. As a Warrant, my father has flown 6 different airframes for the Army and is seeking to go to a 7th. At times being in instructor/evaluator on two different airframes at the same time with one being rotary and one being fixed wing. Oh and he doesn't need a degree in basket weaving to do it either. AF pilots would shit a brick if they had to do that. Plain and simple, the AF has way too many officers sitting behind desks doing nothing but coming up with stupid new regs so they can get bullets for their OPR since they can't come up with anything else to put on it.

bs. I have a bachelors in electrical engineering and a MBA. Most of the officers I know that are Captain and above have masters degrees. Show me the actual numbers of officers in "useless" jobs. As one other poster once stated, take the "blue collar hero" bs and shove it. The military is a team. Get it? As with any team, we all have our parts to play, be it officers, sncos, ncos, or airmen. So put up your proof or stfu.

[TheShaggy]

bs. I have a bachelors in electrical engineering and a MBA. Most of the officers I know that are Captain and above have masters degrees. Show me the actual numbers of officers in "useless" jobs. As one other poster once stated, take the "blue collar hero" bs and shove it. The military is a team. Get it? As with any team, we all have our parts to play, be it officers, sncos, ncos, or airmen. So put up your proof or stfu.

Proof? Look around you and see how many O's are actually working on something constructive. So are you saying it takes a bachelors to fly an airplane or push a button that shoots a missile from a remote control plane? How do you explain all the Army, Navy, and Marine Warrant Officer pilots out there? Are you going to tell someone who has thousands of combat hours that they aren't smart enough to be a pilot because they didn't get their degree when there are many AF officers who are sitting at Tyndall instructing fighter pilots on airframes that has never even seen .1 hours of combat?

[TechnicalSgt]

Ladies and Gentlemen; Warrant Officers are (were?) Honorable and Highly Trained Professionals. USAF Officers, seem more interested in career progression than doing their god damn jobs, and now this seems to have made its way down the chain to the USAF Enlisted Folks as well.

I'm not service bashing. I was both USAF, Officer and Enlisted. This is merely an observation. Right now, what the USAF needs more than Warrant Officer reinstatement is Leadership (not Career Progression). Try running this up the Chain of Command and see what happens. The future of the Military rests with you, so what are you going to do? Get that next promotion? Or have the Balls to stand up to your superiors, put your careers on the line, and do the right thing instead of look the other way when the Regs are being violated? I'll bet most do the latter, I'm a man of little faith when it comes to the military these days.

BINGO!

The AF does need these technical expert’s/trainer's again ... the AF warrant officer (WO). In my observation, the fact between WO and general officer's are that general officers want WO to do their job of "commanding". I slightly agree, but only at flight levels. Honestly, they would be best served managing departments (elements). What the general officer doesn't understand is that WO are specialists and not generalists. E.g. you wouldn't put an Engineer I on a desk when their technically specialized. What a waste of money and technical ability by putting WO as general officers. I agree that both officers are above doing technician level work and should only "manage" departments. As a commissioned officer, you’re a manager and not laborer/workers within your field. In fact, a WO is highly technical due to their training and experience and are best at being able to speak/understand the technician's language. In my experience, junior officers with an engineering background don't work out because they only understand theory and not practical applications. They require additional military training...training a WO already has. A WO understands theory, practical applications, leadership, and management responsibilities so to put them in the general officer's category is unjust to a WO.

It would work to reinstate this program and it should be for enlisted E-5 with one year of supervisory/management experience (WO1) or E-6 and above that have attended the NCOA (WO2). Why? It's been my experience that Airmen (even those that have received a commission who were once in my career field) are not experienced enough to manage my own department. I speak from my own 15 year experience. Seriously, a new, first term Lt with little years in service can't manage because their focused more on making the next bar. Honestly, I don't blame them since you can't make any real changes of your own until your at least a Squadron Commander. The best thing for them is relying on the SNCOs for guidance, but if they had another fellow officer (a WO) to guide them and the SNCOs would be the best interest for the AF. Finally, I can tell you that the flightline is not the only place that needs WO (we need them in medical too).

[TheShaggy]

BINGO!

The AF does need these technical expert’s/trainer's again ... the AF warrant officer (WO). In my observation, the fact between WO and general officer's are that general officers want WO to do their job of "commanding". I slightly agree, but only at flight levels. Honestly, they would be best served managing departments (elements). What the general officer doesn't understand is that WO are specialists and not generalists. E.g. you wouldn't put an Engineer I on a desk when their technically specialized. What a waste of money and technical ability by putting WO as general officers. I agree that both officers are above doing technician level work and should only "manage" departments. As a commissioned officer, you’re a manager and not laborer/workers within your field. In fact, a WO is highly technical due to their training and experience and are best at being able to speak/understand the technician's language. In my experience, junior officers with an engineering background don't work out because they only understand theory and not practical applications. They require additional military training...training a WO already has. A WO understands theory, practical applications, leadership, and management responsibilities so to put them in the general officer's category is unjust to a WO.

It would work to reinstate this program and it should be for enlisted E-5 with one year of supervisory/management experience (WO1) or E-6 and above that have attended the NCOA (WO2). Why? It's been my experience that Airmen (even those that have received a commission who were once in my career field) are not experienced enough to manage my own department. I speak from my own 15 year experience. Seriously, a new, first term Lt with little years in service can't manage because their focused more on making the next bar. Honestly, I don't blame them since you can't make any real changes of your own until your at least a Squadron Commander. The best thing for them is relying on the SNCOs for guidance, but if they had another fellow officer (a WO) to guide them and the SNCOs would be the best interest for the AF. Finally, I can tell you that the flightline is not the only place that needs WO (we need them in medical too).

This all sounds great and would work if implimented. The only thing is that to be an effective leader you need a college degree, go to an Academy, OTS, or ROTC. I mean look at George Washington, our nation's greatest leader. He got his commission from, oh wait, he was handed his commission. All this reminds me of Heart Break Ridge. Remember that scrawny little Lt that couldn't lead his platoon for shit and needed Gunny Highway to do his job? Great example that a college degree doesn't mean shit when it comes to leadership in the military.

[smarg]

Oh, stop the silliness. Ain't gonna happen because the AF doesn't need another layer of preening bureaucratic specialists with no value-added benefits. We need new tankers, not expensive, egotistical pseudo-officers that drag down unit esprit.

No easy freebies for the aspiring enlisted--just get your degrees and your commission before you're 35 by taking advantage of the dozen-or-so commissioning programs.

Peace out.

[zerstorer335]

I don't remember where, but somewhere I came across a claim that the SMSgts / CMSgts were supposed to be able to fill in the subject-matter-expert. On one hand, I can see that; but on the other, the positions they're in can mean that if they're in a field that is rapidly changing, the expertise they're supposed to provide can diminish in value. With manning as tight as it is, it'd be a hard sale to pitch that the AF should generate subject-matter-specific positions that aren't going to be eligible for leadership roles. There's also a good bit of psychological and organizational inertia that would have to be overcome because we haven't had them in the mix for so long (if at all- don't have any historical references handy). I think the answer the AF has found (at least, in my limited experience) is to make subject-matter-experts into civilian positions in many cases. At my last yard, we had a lot of engineering aspects unique to the base, and, as s result, pretty much the entire CE squadron was civilians (not even contractors), many of whom had worked at the base as military as far back as the 1960s and 70s because priority for the civilian positions was immediatly biased in their favor due to their experience. Since they've decided civilians can qualify to go to deployed locations, they may want to just continue with Enlisted/NCO, Officer, and Civilian specialist groups.

[smarg]

I don't remember where, but somewhere I came across a claim that the SMSgts / CMSgts were supposed to be able to fill in the subject-matter-expert. On one hand, I can see that; but on the other, the positions they're in can mean that if they're in a field that is rapidly changing, the expertise they're supposed to provide can diminish in value. With manning as tight as it is, it'd be a hard sale to pitch that the AF should generate subject-matter-specific positions that aren't going to be eligible for leadership roles. There's also a good bit of psychological and organizational inertia that would have to be overcome because we haven't had them in the mix for so long (if at all- don't have any historical references handy). I think the answer the AF has found (at least, in my limited experience) is to make subject-matter-experts into civilian positions in many cases. At my last yard, we had a lot of engineering aspects unique to the base, and, as s result, pretty much the entire CE squadron was civilians (not even contractors), many of whom had worked at the base as military as far back as the 1960s and 70s because priority for the civilian positions was immediatly biased in their favor due to their experience. Since they've decided civilians can qualify to go to deployed locations, they may want to just continue with Enlisted/NCO, Officer, and Civilian specialist groups.

Bingo. Nice reply.

[Combat correspondent]

Good point, utilizing civilians seems to be a viable answer and has worked. Still, our 1:4 officer-to-enlisted ratio is too much. We don't need so many officers. If not WOs, we can have NCOs fly our UAVs and cut a shit ton of Os that way. We could save or "better utilize" our money by decreasing the # of Os in our force.

[smarg]

We could save or "better utilize" our money by decreasing the # of Os in our force.

Put a lid on that hate-or-ade, son. :)

[TJMAC77SP]

BINGO!

The AF does need these technical expert’s/trainer's again ... the AF warrant officer (WO). In my observation, the fact between WO and general officer's are that general officers want WO to do their job of "commanding". I slightly agree, but only at flight levels. Honestly, they would be best served managing departments (elements). What the general officer doesn't understand is that WO are specialists and not generalists. E.g. you wouldn't put an Engineer I on a desk when their technically specialized. What a waste of money and technical ability by putting WO as general officers. I agree that both officers are above doing technician level work and should only "manage" departments. As a commissioned officer, you’re a manager and not laborer/workers within your field. In fact, a WO is highly technical due to their training and experience and are best at being able to speak/understand the technician's language. In my experience, junior officers with an engineering background don't work out because they only understand theory and not practical applications. They require additional military training...training a WO already has. A WO understands theory, practical applications, leadership, and management responsibilities so to put them in the general officer's category is unjust to a WO.

It would work to reinstate this program and it should be for enlisted E-5 with one year of supervisory/management experience (WO1) or E-6 and above that have attended the NCOA (WO2). Why? It's been my experience that Airmen (even those that have received a commission who were once in my career field) are not experienced enough to manage my own department. I speak from my own 15 year experience. Seriously, a new, first term Lt with little years in service can't manage because their focused more on making the next bar. Honestly, I don't blame them since you can't make any real changes of your own until your at least a Squadron Commander. The best thing for them is relying on the SNCOs for guidance, but if they had another fellow officer (a WO) to guide them and the SNCOs would be the best interest for the AF. Finally, I can tell you that the flightline is not the only place that needs WO (we need them in medical too).

Soooooooooo under this proposed plan, you would be eligible to be a WO2 right?

Well, I can see, based on your own agenda why you state emphatically that this program 'would work'

[smarg]

Soooooooooo under this proposed plan, you would be eligible to be a WO2 right?

Well, I can see, based on your own agenda why you state emphatically that this program 'would work'

BINGO! :D :D

[DAG48]

BINGO! :D :D

I thought we were playing chess?

[TheShaggy]

So I have yet to get an answer. It seems like everyone here believes that those with degrees are the only ones that can fly an aircraft in the military. Why is that? Smarg keeps on saying that Warrants are lazy good for nothing sacks of shit with mustaches and thinks that anyone who wants to be one is lazy. I think some of you officers are looking over at the Army and is seeing how it works over there. Once an officer hits Major, their ass is parked behind a desk while the WO still keeps on flying on a regular basis their entire career. AF officers are scared that it may be that way if we get WOs.

[DAG48]

Soooooooooo under this proposed plan, you would be eligible to be a WO2 right?

Well, I can see, based on your own agenda why you state emphatically that this program 'would work'

Some time ago I promised Fred I would not quote him, but he is right, and has consistantly stated that everyone has their own angle or agenda in mind when it comes to this or any other program change the Military will/has pondered.

It is also how change takes place, be it for the better or worse.

I have had to draw up some pretty crappy plans, under protest, for my Wing Higher ups. I did it because I was ordered to and it was a lawful order. I got the job done, and I stated my opinion as to why I thought it was not the best Idea in the world. Sometimes, I changed their minds, sometimes I didn't, but in the end I would state, "I don't want to see this crap in my APR/OER, cause I don't agree with it! Even if I built it, you can have all the credit!"

Given the proper support and resources, I could build the plan for a USAF with Warrant Officer's in the mix. It would not please everyone, but it would be efficient and effective.

Problem is, it won't happen because of the crap flows down hill concept. Since the 1980's, due to a lack of pilots, more and more USAF Commissioned Officer duties have been handed down to the Enlisted folks so much so that Senior NCO's are Administrators and not the Technical Folks that were meant to replace Warrant Officers. So who are the Technical Folks filling in for the old USAF WO corp? Tech, Staff, SRA, even A1C's. That's right, the USAF has successfully done away with the WO program for good and at a bargain basement price!

It's a crappy plan, but I could not have drawn it up better myself!

[DAG48]

So I have yet to get an answer. It seems like everyone here believes that those with degrees are the only ones that can fly an aircraft in the military. Why is that? Smarg keeps on saying that Warrants are lazy good for nothing sacks of shit with mustaches and thinks that anyone who wants to be one is lazy. I think some of you officers are looking over at the Army and is seeing how it works over there. Once an officer hits Major, their ass is parked behind a desk while the WO still keeps on flying on a regular basis their entire career. AF officers are scared that it may be that way if we get WOs.

I concurrrrrrr!

[The_Rover]

Some time ago I promised Fred I would not quote him, but he is right, and has consistantly stated that everyone has their own angle or agenda in mind when it comes to this or any other program change the Military will/has pondered.

It is also how change takes place, be it for the better or worse.

I have had to draw up some pretty crappy plans, under protest, for my Wing Higher ups. I did it because I was ordered to and it was a lawful order. I got the job done, and I stated my opinion as to why I thought it was not the best Idea in the world. Sometimes, I changed their minds, sometimes I didn't, but in the end I would state, "I don't want to see this crap in my APR/OER, cause I don't agree with it! Even if I built it, you can have all the credit!"

Given the proper support and resources, I could build the plan for a USAF with Warrant Officer's in the mix. It would not please everyone, but it would be efficient and effective.

Problem is, it won't happen because of the crap flows down hill concept. Since the 1980's, due to a lack of pilots, more and more USAF Commissioned Officer duties have been handed down to the Enlisted folks so much so that Senior NCO's are Administrators and not the Technical Folks that were meant to replace Warrant Officers. So who are the Technical Folks filling in for the old USAF WO corp? Tech, Staff, SRA, even A1C's. That's right, the USAF has successfully done away with the WO program for good and at a bargain basement price!

It's a crappy plan, but I could not have drawn it up better myself!


Here is a prime example of the consequences, unearthed and experienced by me. 90-91.

I was a Sgt and a Tech at the EW Back Shop before deploying to DS/DS KKMC to augment the flight line folks, and was technically correct explaining our deficiency on our deployed A-10s, not being able to effectually use their Defensive Avionics, ECM EW systems, a month prior to hostilities while in theatre!

I had to press my point above an EW Technical Sgt E-6 in charge of EW flight line operations, who was backed by his Squadron CMSGT E-9.

Three days of hell ensued, as the pilots would not fly unprotected.

In the End the Squadron (Flightline) EWO got fired, and I got a backdated 3 APR after the war, after I received a line number for SSGT!

I was eventually rifted after 10 years of service! But we did not lose a Warthog!

An Air Force Electronic Warfare Warrant Officer and technical expert would have alleviated the Situation. IMHO!

Been a DOD Army contractor ever since. Sad isn’t it, but true.

[TJMAC77SP]

Here is a prime example of the consequences, unearthed and experienced by me. 90-91.

I was a Sgt and a Tech at the EW Back Shop before deploying to DS/DS KKMC to augment the flight line folks, and was technically correct explaining our deficiency on our deployed A-10s, not being able to effectually use their Defensive Avionics, ECM EW systems, a month prior to hostilities while in theatre!

I had to press my point above an EW Technical Sgt E-6 in charge of EW flight line operations, who was backed by his Squadron CMSGT E-9.

Three days of hell ensued, as the pilots would not fly unprotected.

In the End the Squadron (Flightline) EWO got fired, and I got a backdated 3 APR after the war, after I received a line number for SSGT!

I was eventually rifted after 10 years of service! But we did not lose a Warthog!

An Air Force Electronic Warfare Warrant Officer and technical expert would have alleviated the Situation. IMHO!

Been a DOD Army contractor ever since. Sad isn’t it, but true.

Well, it is true in your telling of the story and in your mind for sure. Not enough data for an uninterested party to form an opinion.

Also, are you saying that based on this one experience you feel that WO’s in the AF are warranted?

[goody722]

We do have Warrant Officers in the USAF. They're called Senior Master Sergeants. You know they exist, but you never see them. :) Had to poke fun!

[TJMAC77SP]

We do have Warrant Officers in the USAF. They're called Senior Master Sergeants. You know they exist, but you never see them. :) Had to poke fun!

But, they see you..........................

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

Proof? Look around you and see how many O's are actually working on something constructive. So are you saying it takes a bachelors to fly an airplane or push a button that shoots a missile from a remote control plane? How do you explain all the Army, Navy, and Marine Warrant Officer pilots out there? Are you going to tell someone who has thousands of combat hours that they aren't smart enough to be a pilot because they didn't get their degree when there are many AF officers who are sitting at Tyndall instructing fighter pilots on airframes that has never even seen .1 hours of combat?


No, it doesn't take a bachelor's to fly a plane. However, it does take a bachelor's and a masters to do well as a senior officer. The problem is that you are seeing college from a trade school point of view. College is not a trade school. It is a place where you are taught processes, time management, other cultures and thought processes, and the ability to learn. That is also the difference between an enlisted man and an officer. As an enlisted man, you have a trade and a specialty. As an officer, you're a manager and a leader. In the private sector, I have seen managers who have come up through the school of hard knocks and I can tell you that their lack of college education is telling. Their correspondence and lack of management style shows their lack of a college education. In addition, as you get higher in rank as an officer, you tend to deal with issues that aren't seen at the junior officer level like unit budgets, force level predictions, logistics, managing programs, etc. All of which a college degree and even a graduate degree is needed. Also, if you are going to make such assertions about thousands of combat hours versus pilots at Tyndall, show me the proof. There aren't any pilots on active duty in the AF now who have thousands of hours of combat time. Not when you consider that the sorties they fly now in Iraq are in the range of 20 - 30 hours per month per pilot. You just simply cannot rack up that much combat time, so where are you getting the thousands of hours of combat time? Better yet, if there are so much waste of officers, then give me a fighter wing and tell me where you'll pare off the officers. Also, show me how you'll replace them with people who are just as competent in that job with the same level of training. Let's face it, you're not going to put an 18 year old out of high school in the control of a multi-million dollar plane. Even when they had enlisted pilots in the 30s and 40s, they were tech sergeants and above. Thus, any savings you had from replacing a second or first lieutenant in the cockpit will be offset by the cost of the years of experience it would take an enlisted personnel to get to that pay grade.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

This all sounds great and would work if implimented. The only thing is that to be an effective leader you need a college degree, go to an Academy, OTS, or ROTC. I mean look at George Washington, our nation's greatest leader. He got his commission from, oh wait, he was handed his commission. All this reminds me of Heart Break Ridge. Remember that scrawny little Lt that couldn't lead his platoon for shit and needed Gunny Highway to do his job? Great example that a college degree doesn't mean shit when it comes to leadership in the military.


First of all, no one "just" goes to the academy or to rotc. You have 20,000 students every year apply for 1200 slots at the academy. Of those 1200, 800 will get commissioned. Similarly, rotc only offers scholarships to the top 20% of the candidates who apply. Of that 20%, about 60% make it to commissioning. By any standards, that is a highly selective process. I love it how the only people who say "college ain't worth shxt" are the ones who never completed it or went to some no name school. I have never met a person who went to college who did not say it was a worthwhile experience. Yes, leadership is not automatic with a degree, which is why they have officer training programs. Just because you have a college degree does not mean you will get a commission. We had guys in rotc who weren't commissioned and made to go enlisted because the staff decided that they didn't have the traits necessary to be an officer. Also, your arguement with George Washington doesn't wash. While he did not attend an university, he was provided tutors throughout his childhood. As typical for the children of the wealthy at the time, the education provided by tutors would be the equivalent to that of a college education in modern terms. In addition, he was given his commission because of his past experience in the French-Indian Wars and the fact that his family was one of the most prominent in Viriginia at the time. So, if you want to go back to the system of George Washington instead of today's process then you'll be awarding commissions based on family connections versus that of a meritocracy in today's service. Finally, you're taking a b rated movie as the basis for your arguements???? Are you fxxking kidding me??

[smarg]

First of all, no one "just" goes to the academy or to rotc. You have 20,000 students every year apply for 1200 slots at the academy. Of those 1200, 800 will get commissioned. Similarly, rotc only offers scholarships to the top 20% of the candidates who apply. Of that 20%, about 60% make it to commissioning. By any standards, that is a highly selective process. I love it how the only people who say "college ain't worth shxt" are the ones who never completed it or went to some no name school. I have never met a person who went to college who did not say it was a worthwhile experience. Yes, leadership is not automatic with a degree, which is why they have officer training programs. Just because you have a college degree does not mean you will get a commission. We had guys in rotc who weren't commissioned and made to go enlisted because the staff decided that they didn't have the traits necessary to be an officer. Finally, you're taking a b rated movie as the basis for your arguements???? Are you fxxking kidding me??

Good smack down, Aggie. Seems that Shaggy resents authority, yet he collects a military paycheck. Typical value sets of today's younger Airmen. :(

[TJMAC77SP]

I love it how the only people who say "college ain't worth shxt" are the ones who never completed it or went to some no name school.

Are you modifying your argument to now denigrate ‘no-name’ schools?

If so, you lost me.

BTW: The Longhorn next to me tells me you went to a no-name school.

[smarg]

BTW: The Longhorn next to me tells me you went to a no-name school.

Haw! Those jack-booted military corps thugs at A&M will come get you for that! ;)

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

Are you modifying your argument to now denigrate ‘no-name’ schools?

If so, you lost me.

BTW: The Longhorn next to me tells me you went to a no-name school.


lol, well, t.u. is a pretty good high school.

[acesfilter]

I love it how the only people who say "college ain't worth shxt" are the ones who never completed it or went to some no name school. I have never met a person who went to college who did not say it was a worthwhile experience.

Haven't met that many people then, I guess. Although the ones I've met didn't say it was a complete waste of time.

A lot of times, college can become overrated if the student isn't focused on specific goal setting. Case in point: I met a guy that was extremely book smart with very little common sense. As such, he chose pursuit in two degrees which evidently were not relevant to his personal interests for career choice--whatever they were (the degrees being Anthropology and Sociology). He ended up enlisting in the Army to pay off his college tuition--as a Specialist no less.

College can be a good thing--provided the individual has some sense of direction in their life and aren't doing so just to say they possess a degree of sorts.



Finally, you're taking a b rated movie as the basis for your arguements???? Are you fxxking kidding me??

Some people will believe anything they read and watch. Didn't know you know that? :rolleyes:

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

Haven't met that many people then, I guess. Although the ones I've met didn't say it was a complete waste of time.

A lot of times, college can become overrated if the student isn't focused on specific goal setting. Case in point: I met a guy that was extremely book smart with very little common sense. As such, he chose pursuit in two degrees which evidently were not relevant to his personal interests for career choice--whatever they were (the degrees being Anthropology and Sociology). He ended up enlisting in the Army to pay off his college tuition--as a Specialist no less.

College can be a good thing--provided the individual has some sense of direction in their life and aren't doing so just to say they possess a degree of sorts.


I will politely have to difer with you on the point of college being overrated. Even if you don't end up working in the field you study, college is still a worthwhile experience. It broadens your world view and teaches you to learn in a structured, disciplined manner. Yes, I realize that there are people who go to college to party and don't take advantage of the opportunity they have in front of them to learn. However, the experience, if utilized properly, is a worthwhile experience.

[acesfilter]

It broadens your world view and teaches you to learn in a structured, disciplined manner.

So does the military; yet, that isn't for everyone either.

[DAG48]

Given the proper support and resources, I could build the plan for a USAF with Warrant Officer's in the mix. It would not please everyone, but it would be efficient and effective.

Problem is, it won't happen because of the crap flows down hill concept. Since the 1980's, due to a lack of pilots, more and more USAF Commissioned Officer duties have been handed down to the Enlisted folks so much so that Senior NCO's are Administrators and not the Technical Folks that were meant to replace Warrant Officers. So who are the Technical Folks filling in for the old USAF WO corp? Tech, Staff, SRA, even A1C's. That's right, the USAF has successfully done away with the WO program for good and at a bargain basement price!

It's a crappy plan, but I could not have drawn it up better myself!

I still think this quote is relevant, anyone care to comment? TJ, Smarg, AFAggie, anyone, anyone?

[TJMAC77SP]

lol, well, t.u. is a pretty good high school.

So, do you stand by your comment about no-name colleges (or can you elaborate)?

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

So does the military; yet, that isn't for everyone either.

yes, but that is a different type of learning. also, it is different experience for both officers and enlisted because there are a difference in emphasis for the two communities.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

So, do you stand by your comment about no-name colleges (or can you elaborate)?


yes. by no-name schools, I'm referring to the diploma mills like Univ of Phoenix or to the schools where you can get a degree via correspondence.

[acesfilter]

yes. by no-name schools, I'm referring to the diploma mills like Univ of Phoenix or to the schools where you can get a degree via correspondence.

Some people, namely Soldiers, only have time for correspondence...and barely that.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

I still think this quote is relevant, anyone care to comment? TJ, Smarg, AFAggie, anyone, anyone?


personally, I think that doing away with warrants was a mistake for the AF. It basically closed a door to higher pay and responsibilities for bright enlisted who don't want to be officers. We could use them as pilots, navs, and missile officers. This would bring a greater corporate knowledge to the workforce as a warrant pilot would do mostly flying in his or her career, versus a pilot officer who also has to deal with the issues of officership and command that would detract from his flying. In the technical fields, warrants would provide a mechanism for the AF to keep its best and brightest by offerring enlisted in the technical fields pay that is competitive with the private sector. For example, I had a very bright e-4 who worked for me as a system admin and database administrator. He eventually left the AF because his 25k as an e-4 just didn't compare to the 80 -90 k he got in the private sector. However, if he was a warrant cw3 or 4, his salary would be around 50 -60k. While still less than the private sector, it would be competitive with all of the benefits attached.

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

Some people, namely Soldiers, only have time for correspondence...and barely that.

That's fine, but you know as well as I do that those schools are not selective in their students. As a result, their degree is not viewed as highly as that of a regular four year school. In addition, college is more than just the books, it is the whole environment, which you can't get through correspondence.

[AirMan1979]

yes. by no-name schools, I'm referring to the diploma mills like Univ of Phoenix or to the schools where you can get a degree via correspondence.

I think I need to clear up some misconceptions about the University of Phoenix.

1. It is NOT a “DIPLOMA MILL” or a correspondence school. It is a fully accredited university with over 200,000 students. Most of the students are on-line but I did both my Bachelors and Masters on-campus. It was in no way easy, in fact I busted my A$$. My wife is doing her UOP MBA on-line from Phoenix now. She holds Bachelors and Masters from well respected “traditional” universities and she will tell you on-line learning is MUCH harder.

By the way, I was accepted to OSU and a couple other schools before I settled on Phoenix.

2. Most of the “traditional” universities (Including Texas A&M) today have on-line programs and I don’t think you would call your Alma mater a “correspondence school” just because they offer distance learning.

3. It is true that Phoenix does not get the respect that the “brick and mortar” schools get, but that is to be expected given that traditional universities by definition are elitist. This however is changing as more people graduate from online programs and begin to understand the self-discipline required.

By the way: Here is a list of online degrees offered at Texas A&M

http://distance.tamu.edu/futureaggies/distance-degrees

[AirMan1979]

That's fine, but you know as well as I do that those schools are not selective in their students. As a result, their degree is not viewed as highly as that of a regular four year school. In addition, college is more than just the books, it is the whole environment, which you can't get through correspondence.

UOP is much more than just books. The program is not designed for kids just out of high school. It is designed for people that have spent time in the work force; hence there is little need to RA! RA! at a football game or go to frat parties to learn to socialize. Many students have kids, go to church, belong to clubs, and live real lives.
Students work together in real time in chat rooms, message boards, conference calls, and IM. The instructors are required to not only have advanced degrees but they also actually work in the areas they teach. Since the students have spent some time in the workforce, they have real experience to bring to the table.
Traditional schools have their place but so does the online experience.

[DAG48]

personally, I think that doing away with warrants was a mistake for the AF. It basically closed a door to higher pay and responsibilities for bright enlisted who don't want to be officers. We could use them as pilots, navs, and missile officers. This would bring a greater corporate knowledge to the workforce as a warrant pilot would do mostly flying in his or her career, versus a pilot officer who also has to deal with the issues of officership and command that would detract from his flying. In the technical fields, warrants would provide a mechanism for the AF to keep its best and brightest by offerring enlisted in the technical fields pay that is competitive with the private sector. For example, I had a very bright e-4 who worked for me as a system admin and database administrator. He eventually left the AF because his 25k as an e-4 just didn't compare to the 80 -90 k he got in the private sector. However, if he was a warrant cw3 or 4, his salary would be around 50 -60k. While still less than the private sector, it would be competitive with all of the benefits attached.

I agree. I was an E-5 jet mechanic who wanted to fly as a Flight Engineer. It was easier to get a Commission and become an Air Weapons Director, now known as Air Battle Managers, flying on the E-3 AWAC platform. The USAF decided during the death of the Soviet Union most ABM's could be Enlisted rather than Commissioned Officers and it would save a lot of greenbacks. During the 1992 Involuntary Reduction In Force the Commissioned ABM's were heavily targeted leaving a huge void which was never filled by the Enlisted Folks. Officer ABM's were still needed to fill the Mission Crew Commander, Senior ABM, and ASO positions, thus they were trained with and did the same job as the Enlisted ABMs, but got paid more. Eventually the USAF decided to go back to Officer ABMs. What a waste of time and talent. If (BIG IF) we would have retained our original Warrant Officer corps, the Airborne Weapons Directors/ABMs would probably have been WO slots. Thus no RIF, no SNAFU, and the folks who wanted the job would be in the job.

I do think it's too late for the USAF to reinstate a Warrant Officer program for the simple reason I laid out earlier; The Commissioned Corps have crammed so many of their Administrative duties down the Chain to the Senior Enlisted that it would have to do a Totally Complete Force Structure Change to implement the WO corps. I just don't see this happening, even though I think it would eventually benefit the Service. It's not fair for the E-6's on down to have all the Technical Responsibilities of the WO corps but none of the authority (as stated in an earlier comment), and none of the benefits.

What was it former SECDEF Rumsfeld said, You go to war with the crap you got, not the crap you want. I'm paraphrasing of course, but you get the picture.

[TJMAC77SP]

yes. by no-name schools, I'm referring to the diploma mills like Univ of Phoenix or to the schools where you can get a degree via correspondence.

Ok, well I won't argue that. Diploma mills might be a better term. I received my degree from a school no would know (outside of the small area it serves) and hate when some big name alumnus get huffy about their school. After all it is about the person not the school. I have worked with some Ivy-League grads that had trouble blowing their nose.......

Having said that, I believe that education via correspondence is gaining in popularity and credibility. I think you might, at some point, have to revise your opinion on that matter.

[TJMAC77SP]

I think I need to clear up some misconceptions about the University of Phoenix.

1. It is NOT a “DIPLOMA MILL” or a correspondence school. It is a fully accredited university with over 200,000 students. Most of the students are on-line but I did both my Bachelors and Masters on-campus. It was in no way easy, in fact I busted my A$$. My wife is doing her UOP MBA on-line from Phoenix now. She holds Bachelors and Masters from well respected “traditional” universities and she will tell you on-line learning is MUCH harder.

By the way, I was accepted to OSU and a couple other schools before I settled on Phoenix.

2. Most of the “traditional” universities (Including Texas A&M) today have on-line programs and I don’t think you would call your Alma mater a “correspondence school” just because they offer distance learning.

3. It is true that Phoenix does not get the respect that the “brick and mortar” schools get, but that is to be expected given that traditional universities by definition are elitist. This however is changing as more people graduate from online programs and begin to understand the self-discipline required.

By the way: Here is a list of online degrees offered at Texas A&M

http://distance.tamu.edu/futureaggies/distance-degrees

Good post. Thanks for enlightening (me at least).

[AIRFORCEAGGIE]

I agree. I was an E-5 jet mechanic who wanted to fly as a Flight Engineer. It was easier to get a Commission and become an Air Weapons Director, now known as Air Battle Managers, flying on the E-3 AWAC platform. The USAF decided during the death of the Soviet Union most ABM's could be Enlisted rather than Commissioned Officers and it would save a lot of greenbacks. During the 1992 Involuntary Reduction In Force the Commissioned ABM's were heavily targeted leaving a huge void which was never filled by the Enlisted Folks. Officer ABM's were still needed to fill the Mission Crew Commander, Senior ABM, and ASO positions, thus they were trained with and did the same job as the Enlisted ABMs, but got paid more. Eventually the USAF decided to go back to Officer ABMs. What a waste of time and talent. If (BIG IF) we would have retained our original Warrant Officer corps, the Airborne Weapons Directors/ABMs would probably have been WO slots. Thus no RIF, no SNAFU, and the folks who wanted the job would be in the job.

I do think it's too late for the USAF to reinstate a Warrant Officer program for the simple reason I laid out earlier; The Commissioned Corps have crammed so many of their Administrative duties down the Chain to the Senior Enlisted that it would have to do a Totally Complete Force Structure Change to implement the WO corps. I just don't see this happening, even though I think it would eventually benefit the Service. It's not fair for the E-6's on down to have all the Technical Responsibilities of the WO corps but none of the authority (as stated in an earlier comment), and none of the benefits.

What was it former SECDEF Rumsfeld said, You go to war with the crap you got, not the crap you want. I'm paraphrasing of course, but you get the picture.


some good points. However, I will disagree with you in that it is impossible to reinstate the WOs to the AF. I agree that it will be painful and take a lot of work in terms of force restructuring, but it can and should be done. We increasingly work in a joint environment. We place our e-6 -e-9 s at a disadvantage when they work with their counterparts from the other services. With the shrinking economy, you're not going to get a large of a brain drain as had occurred during the tech boom days. However, the economy is cyclical and eventually, times will be good again and you'll still face the problem of losing your best and your brightest. Having a WO corps is essential if the AF is going to keep its bright technical folks in the service. Yes, you can outsource to a civilian contractor, but you just won't get the same level of dedication from a contractor as you would from a military personnel. To a contractor, it is a job, whereas for a servicemember, it is part of their duty.

[TJMAC77SP]

Putting aside all the 'how we could do this' and 'I know it would benefit the AF' arguments (all of which I believe is improvable)…..

WHY WOULD THE AF DO THIS ?

After all you could make your own shoes from a live cow, but would it be worth it?

[AirMan1979]

some good points. However, I will disagree with you in that it is impossible to reinstate the WOs to the AF. I agree that it will be painful and take a lot of work in terms of force restructuring, but it can and should be done. We increasingly work in a joint environment. We place our e-6 -e-9 s at a disadvantage when they work with their counterparts from the other services. With the shrinking economy, you're not going to get a large of a brain drain as had occurred during the tech boom days. However, the economy is cyclical and eventually, times will be good again and you'll still face the problem of losing your best and your brightest. Having a WO corps is essential if the AF is going to keep its bright technical folks in the service. Yes, you can outsource to a civilian contractor, but you just won't get the same level of dedication from a contractor as you would from a military personnel. To a contractor, it is a job, whereas for a servicemember, it is part of their duty.

This is a very good point. I have seen many places where civilian contractors are used as "technical specialists" especially in the IT area. This would be a great way to provide career enhancement to the enlisted folks as well as save the AF money. I was active duty 20 years ago and there were few contractors, now they seem to be half of the technical force. I think the military has become too dependant on contractors. Being an IT specialist myself, I would take a little less money to stay in the military and serve. One of the reasons I left AD in the first place was the large pay difference doing the same thing on the outside.

[DAG48]

Putting aside all the 'how we could do this' and 'I know it would benefit the AF' arguments (all of which I believe is improvable)…..

WHY WOULD THE AF DO THIS ?

After all you could make your own shoes from a live cow, but would it be worth it?

The USAF would reinstate Warrant Officers to Fly, Fight, and Win.

WO's would be Career Operational Folks who could fill virtually the same Job for a large part of their USAF Career, saving time and money in training More and More Commissioned Officers every couple of years to do the same job, which they will only be in for a couple of years before they move on due to Career Progression or leave the service all together, ect.

I think the USAF has already cut the leather from the live cow when it allowed Commissioned Officer duties to be pushed down the chain of command to the Senior Enlisted, making them Administrators rather than the Technical Experts they were meant to be when the Warrant Officer Corps was cut from the USAF. IMHO the Cow has been cut so much it could die!

Civilian Contractors cost more than any Warrant Officer program would have, and the USAF Senior Enlisted often have a very good feel for what is needed for advancement, not just in rank but from job to job, but they are completely cut off from any type of Technical Expertise which they could constructively use or pass on to the lower ranks. Plus, very few Flight Operations, such as Flying aircraft, are done by Civilian Contractors.

What status do Civilian Contractors have in a combat area? Are they Military Without Uniforms? If so, would they be treated like the folks we sent to Gitmo, should they be captured by our enemies? I'm just wondering, where does one draw the line with USAF Civilian Contractors vs Warrant Officers?

[smarg]

EVERYONE get this in their minds: the USAF will never, ever re-create the Warrant ranks for lazy enlisteds who don't want to study and get a degree and then apply for a commissioning program. Never.

However, if it serves to torture the SNCOs, especially the arrogant E-8s and the enlisted general E-9s by forcing them to submit to a formerly bitter E-5 who is now a WO-1, then so be it. :D

[DAG48]

At the end of the Persian Gulf War, "George" was the Army Warrant Officer in Charge of a CSAR mission to retrieve a downed pilot. As the pilot was being secured and the flight was about to depart, an Iraqi armed with a Shoulder Launched RPG (?) popped up from a sand dune in front of them. The FAC was an Air Force Officer in an F-16 flying high above the area. Upon hearing radio traffic between the Black Hawks, the FAC stepped in and "ordered" the flight to break in the same direction. Following his training, "George" overruled the FAC, and ordered his flight to break in different directions to give them each a chance of not being hit. If he didn't do this, the Iraqi could have had one shot, one kill, possibly bringing down the entire flight of aircraft. "George's" Black Hawk was hit and destroyed in the crash, all souls lost. The rest of the formation made it out. They were the last casualties of the Persian Gulf War (prior to the cease fire).

"George", a Warrant Officer, was labled a hero for his actions and even Senator Bob Doyle attended his funeral. However, "George" violated a "direct order" from a superior officer, the USAF Officer FAC with his head up his ass, and thus his family was not eligible for military compensation for his death. They fought the Military for years to get it straightened out, but eventually prevailed.

Ladies and Gentlemen; Warrant Officers are (were?) Honorable and Highly Trained Professionals. USAF Officers, seem more interested in career progression than doing their god damn jobs, and now this seems to have made it's way down the chain to the USAF Enlisted Folks as well.

I'm not service bashing. I was both USAF, Officer and Enlisted. This is merely an observation. Right now, what the USAF needs more than Warrant Officer reinstatement is Leadership (not Career Progression). Try running this up the Chain of Command and see what happens. The future of the Military rests with you, so what are you going to do? Get that next promotion? Or have the Balls to stand up to your superiors, put your careers on the line, and do the right thing instead of look the other way when the Regs are being violated? I'll bet most do the latter, I'm a man of little faith when it comes to the military these days.

So Smarg, let me get this straight, "George", the Warrant Officer mentioned in my prior quote, was just a "lazy enlisted" Helo pilot in charge of a CSAR mission that was nearly a total loss due to a USAF Commissioned Officer FAC who didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground? Furthermore, you seem to say this "lazy enlisted" Warrant Officer sacrificed his life in vain to save the lives of others because he didn't want to do the hard work of getting a college degree?

Smarg, just exactly what planet are you from? I agree the USAF will probably never go back to having a Warrant Officer corps, but that really is no reason to run down Enlisted folks and Warrant Officers alike.

I may have miss-understood what you were trying to say, but I think you were out of line and owe some folks an apology. Starting with "George's" family and friends.

[TheShaggy]

So Smarg, let me get this straight, "George", the Warrant Officer mentioned in my prior quote, was just a "lazy enlisted" Helo pilot in charge of a CSAR mission that was nearly a total loss due to a USAF Commissioned Officer FAC who didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground? Furthermore, you seem to say this "lazy enlisted" Warrant Officer sacrificed his life in vain to save the lives of others because he didn't want to do the hard work of getting a college degree?

Smarg, just exactly what planet are you from? I agree the USAF will probably never go back to having a Warrant Officer corps, but that really is no reason to run down Enlisted folks and Warrant Officers alike.

I may have miss-understood what you were trying to say, but I think you were out of line and owe some folks an apology. Starting with "George's" family and friends.

Dag, I've been tryin to figure this guy out for a while. Along with other elitist officers here who think that officers are the only ones that have a brain in the AF. The only thing I can guess is that they think we are all lazy good for nothing enlisted who are only good for physical labor and can't make a decision without someone with a degree to make the decision for us. I sure am glad my leadership doesn't look at myself and my fellow enlisted flyers that way.

This just proves it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi2CfuqcUGE

[smarg]

So Smarg, let me get this straight, "George", the Warrant Officer mentioned in my prior quote, was just a "lazy enlisted" Helo pilot in charge of a CSAR mission that was nearly a total loss due to a USAF Commissioned Officer FAC who didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground? Furthermore, you seem to say this "lazy enlisted" Warrant Officer sacrificed his life in vain to save the lives of others because he didn't want to do the hard work of getting a college degree?

Smarg, just exactly what planet are you from? I agree the USAF will probably never go back to having a Warrant Officer corps, but that really is no reason to run down Enlisted folks and Warrant Officers alike.

I may have miss-understood what you were trying to say, but I think you were out of line and owe some folks an apology. Starting with "George's" family and friends.

Daggy, apples and oranges. The Army has found their niche with aviation Warrants, granted. However, using one obscure example to make your dramatic point doesn't work. Warrants were unnecessary and were eliminated by the Air Force. Period. End of story.

[smarg]

Dag, I've been tryin to figure this guy out for a while. Along with other elitist officers here who think that officers are the only ones that have a brain in the AF. The only thing I can guess is that they think we are all lazy good for nothing enlisted who are only good for physical labor and can't make a decision without someone with a degree to make the decision for us. I sure am glad my leadership doesn't look at myself and my fellow enlisted flyers that way.

This just proves it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi2CfuqcUGE

I have figured you out, Shaggy. An officer hater, GenNext Airman. You go, boy. :tongue:

[TJMAC77SP]

As I said……………….

Putting aside all the 'how we could do this' and 'I know it would benefit the AF' arguments (all of which I believe is improvable)…..

The USAF would reinstate Warrant Officers to Fly, Fight, and Win.
Nice recruiting slogan.

WO's would be Career Operational Folks who could fill virtually the same Job for a large part of their USAF Career, saving time and money in training More and More Commissioned Officers every couple of years to do the same job, which they will only be in for a couple of years before they move on due to Career Progression or leave the service all together, ect.
This would save time and money….really? I missed that study. Oh, this is one of those improvable argument points which I have seen on this topic (time after time after time). So, your impression of the Officer Corps is they do a job for a couple of years, do another unrelated then another every couple of years and then leave the service (or at least in a frequency enough for you to make this generalization)?

I think the USAF has already cut the leather from the live cow when it allowed Commissioned Officer duties to be pushed down the chain of command to the Senior Enlisted, making them Administrators rather than the Technical Experts they were meant to be when the Warrant Officer Corps was cut from the USAF. IMHO the Cow has been cut so much it could die!
So you view the SNCO Corps as nothing more than administrators?


Civilian Contractors cost more than any Warrant Officer program would have, and the USAF Senior Enlisted often have a very good feel for what is needed for advancement, not just in rank but from job to job, but they are completely cut off from any type of Technical Expertise which they could constructively use or pass on to the lower ranks. Plus, very few Flight Operations, such as Flying aircraft, are done by Civilian Contractors.
Reality doesn’t really matter too much when you think about your dreams of being a warrant officer does it? The fact that so many contractors are now doing jobs which used to be performed by military or GS-Civilian members is precisely because it is cheaper in the long run.
I think every good SNCO has a very good feel for what is needed for advancement and how in God’s name will having WOs help in that realization in any case?
The AF has no problem filling cockpits (with the exception of UAS ‘cockpits’ but that is a whole other thread). Everybody wants to use the Army model of WOs flying some platforms which is fine, for the Army. It may even work for the AF, but no one has proven that it is worth going through the massive shift in manpower and command structure.


What status do Civilian Contractors have in a combat area? Are they Military Without Uniforms? If so, would they be treated like the folks we sent to Gitmo, should they be captured by our enemies? I'm just wondering, where does one draw the line with USAF Civilian Contractors vs Warrant Officers?

They are civilians. They have been beheaded when captured by our enemies. What line between USAF Civilian Contractors and Warrant Officers do you want to draw (besides the insanely obvious) and more importantly….what the hell was your point in this question ?!?!?!?!

Look I get that you want to be a warrant. I get that you have that dream. However, to this day not a single post (from anyone who supports WOs in the Air Force) has given and hard and provable facts which would convince anyone without the predisposition and agenda to reinstitute Warrant Officers in the AF.

[DAG48]

Daggy, apples and oranges. The Army has found their niche with aviation Warrants, granted. However, using one obscure example to make your dramatic point doesn't work. Warrants were unnecessary and were eliminated by the Air Force. Period. End of story.

Smarg,

The Warrant Officer I am refering to was not "obscure". He was my sister's nephew, and although he was not a blood relative of mine, he was still considered family.

I use his death as an example to prove Warrant Officers are professionals and not lazy as you seemed to suggest.

As for me, I was enlisted in the USAF for six years, and just left the USAF as a Reserve Officer in 2006. I've been on both sides of the fence so to speak, so I think my opinion is just as important as your's, different, but important.

The original topic was; Why aren't there any Warrant Officers in the Air Force? You answered correctly when you stated they were eliminated. I kindly disagree with you about whether they were needed or not. The decision to eliminate them was before I was even born, so I can't even tell you what the rationale was for that action, and without a serious study into whether they could be utilized by the USAF, they ain't coming back.

Like it or not, this is merely a "topic" of discussion, and if people don't agree with you there is really no need to call them names or degrade them, now is there?

[DAG48]

As I said……………….


Nice recruiting slogan.

This would save time and money….really? I missed that study. Oh, this is one of those improvable argument points which I have seen on this topic (time after time after time). So, your impression of the Officer Corps is they do a job for a couple of years, do another unrelated then another every couple of years and then leave the service (or at least in a frequency enough for you to make this generalization)?

(added by DAG48..., I addressed the "study" below and my USAF experience as both Enlisted and an Officer. So yes Officer's in Flight Ops move around from job to job exery couple of years as a part of career progression. Pilot, Instructor Pilot, Flight Lead, Squadron Commander, Director of Ops, Wing Commander, ect, including duties unrelated to flight ops, that is if they don't leave at some point. Like in the Army, Warrant Officer's could be used to simply fly and instruct for nearly the entire span of their careers, cutting back on the need of constantly replacing Officers in Flight Ops due to career progression or them leaving the service all together. In short you substitute the WO's for the Commissioned Officers, increasing the WO's and decreasing the Commissioned Officers. The reason I mention this is from first hand experience with pilots who wanted to fly, not stuble down a path of career progression with fewer and fewer hours in the cockpit. However, you could just freeze Commissioned Officers in their rank, and let them stay at the job they like, but I don't see this happening just as I don't see the Warrant Officer making a comeback in the USAF!)

So you view the SNCO Corps as nothing more than administrators?

(added by DAG48..., YES, I don't believe most SNCOs could/would function on the flight line in a Technical Capacity in their original career field, or in a Serivces Squadron doing laundry or flipping burgers, as a matter of fact, I never saw any USAF E-7 or above relieve a sentry at a check point so they could take a leak! I could be wrong, it might happen with more frequency than I give them credit for, if so, I apologize..., to them.)

Reality doesn’t really matter too much when you think about your dreams of being a warrant officer does it? The fact that so many contractors are now doing jobs which used to be performed by military or GS-Civilian members is precisely because it is cheaper in the long run.

(added by DAG48.., Again I was enlisted and an Officer in the USAF, so why would I dream about being a Warrant Officer? Also, I address the "Contractor" issue later on, maybe it is cheaper, I don't know, I didn't see you post a study on this one either!)

I think every good SNCO has a very good feel for what is needed for advancement and how in God’s name will having WOs help in that realization in any case?

(added by DAG48..., I agree about SNCOs knowing what to do for advancement, most folks work the system to their advantage, just not sure where you get the WO's helping with SNCO career progression?)

The AF has no problem filling cockpits (with the exception of UAS ‘cockpits’ but that is a whole other thread). Everybody wants to use the Army model of WOs flying some platforms which is fine, for the Army. It may even work for the AF, but no one has proven that it is worth going through the massive shift in manpower and command structure.

(added by DAG48..., Maybe, Maybe not. Finding Pilots tends to be cyclical, depending on the needs of the USAF, but in my experience, most pilots would rather fly most of their career, if given a choice. I have no Idea what the cost to change the Force Structure would be, I don't know of any study done by the USAF in the area of Warrant Officers.)

They are civilians. They have been beheaded when captured by our enemies. What line between USAF Civilian Contractors and Warrant Officers do you want to draw (besides the insanely obvious) and more importantly….what the hell was your point in this question ?!?!?!?!

(added by DAG48..., As far as Contractors vs. Warrants, that had nothing to do with your post(s), I was merely tacking it on to get people to ponder about the Geneva Conventions, you know the part about Combatants not wearing uniforms and how our enemy has been held in Gitmo for this. I also realize the enemy does not abide by the Conventions, for example the beheadings of Uniformed Military and Contractors alike. Flying Civilian aircraft into buildings, strapping bombs to children, ect, ect. Doesn't make it right for us to violate the Conventions does it!)

Look I get that you want to be a warrant. I get that you have that dream. However, to this day not a single post (from anyone who supports WOs in the Air Force) has given and hard and provable facts which would convince anyone without the predisposition and agenda to reinstitute Warrant Officers in the AF.

Fred,

Seems we have the same flaw, no facts, just our opinions!

Just take it with a grain of salt. There has been no study I know of to suggest the USAF is remotely interested in re-instating a Warrant Officer program. In fact, I've never seen a study showing careful consideration to eliminate the USAF Warrant Officer Program either. Doesn't mean the studies don't exist!

Please get this through your head, I don't want to be a Warrant Officer, I spent six years enlisted in the USAF and left as a USAF Reserve Officer in 2006!

What direction should our military go? The USAF has used Contractors even way back when it had Warrant Officers. I guess the question becomes should Contractors be conducting Combat, or Combat Support Missions inside a war zone? Obviously the current strategy suggests we should. I don't agree with it but hey, it's not my call. I just get to comment about it like everybody else.

Thanks for your opinion, Fred, and allowing me the opportunity to state mine, but please remember, this is all conjecture, don't blow a head gasket over it! LOL!

[DAG48]

Putting aside all the 'how we could do this' and 'I know it would benefit the AF' arguments (all of which I believe is improvable)…..

WHY WOULD THE AF DO THIS ?

After all you could make your own shoes from a live cow, but would it be worth it?

Remember, you asked the question, if you don't like the answers, I can't help ya pal! LOL!

[TJMAC77SP]

Remember, you asked the question, if you don't like the answers, I can't help ya pal! LOL!

Nice try.....you skipped part of the qualification I stated in asking my question. The part about improvable 'facts'.

My 'flaw' is insisting on facts. I appreciate and respect opinions. As long as they are stated up front that they are opinions. "this will save the Air Force time and money" is a stated fact; 'I believe this will save the Air Force time and money because...blah, blah blah" is an opinion.

I apologize for confusing you up with one of the other posters who supports WOs as a career enhancement. Although there is nothing wrong in that, it hardly supports the argument at face value.

[DAG48]

Putting aside all the 'how we could do this' and 'I know it would benefit the AF' arguments (all of which I believe is improvable)…..

WHY WOULD THE AF DO THIS ?

After all you could make your own shoes from a live cow, but would it be worth it?

Ok Fred,

I'll try this again. Why would the USAF want to re-establish the Warrant Officer Corps?

To Fly, Fight, and Win.

I'm serious about having first hand experience with Pilots, Flight Crews, and Air Battle Managers who would rather stay in Flight Operations throughout their Careers, doing their primary job on a daily basis, rather than having to jump through the hoops of Commissioned Officer Career Progression which ultimately leaves them with fewer and fewer hours of flying time. The Up or Out mentality of the USAF drives some of these folks out of the Service, others move on to further their Career Progression. Either way, these officers are eventually replaced.

Why would the USAF re-establish the Warrant Officer Corps?

To establish a stable Career for folks who want to remain in Flight Operations without punishing them.

The USAF could Freeze them in the Lower Commissioned Ranks and achieve a similar outcome, but not being promoted to a higher rank would negatively impact the Commissioned Officers in question and they would be forced out of the service at some point for a lack of Career Progression. Again, something I have witnessed first hand.

At least for Flight Operations, the Warrant Officer Corps would alleviate this problem and allow folks to fly throughout their Careers without punishing them. It would allow the USAF to attract and retain more and more Flight Operation folks as the program progressed which would cut down on the need to recruit more and more folks to replace those lost due to Career Progression or who leave the USAF due to Career Dissatisfaction.

The USAF will eventually run into a serious problem of retaining or attracting pilots and aircrews. It is a cyclical problem, and it's happening on a smaller scale with F-22 pilots now. These guys are the cream of the crop, so to speak, yet they are finishing their commitments with the USAF and leaving the Service despite the bonuses being offered.

I haven't crunched the numbers on how much it costs to train today's pilots (which would include the washouts as it costs money for them too), but back in the 1980's I think it was around a million bucks per pilot just to get them to mission qualified status. Granted we will spend money on pay and benefits anyway we go, but simple logic dictates the fewer pilots we train, the less money we spend on training. That is where I see savings for the USAF in Flight Operations.

Why would the USAF re-establish the Warrant Officer Corps?

Replacing Technical Contractors, aka Civilians, in a Combat Zone with a Warrant Officer Corps would bring the U.S. into compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

Since the early 1990's, the U.S. Government has tried to Contract out everything from the FAA to the U.S. Postal Service with some mixed if not disturbing results. The main goal was to not have to replace folks retiring from Government Service, and let Contractors take over to save money on future Benefits and Retirement. It has worked well in some areas, not so much in others. Again I'm looking at this from my personal experience.

So Fred, there is your, rather, my answer based on my experience in the USAF as an Enlisted Airman and a Commissioned Officer, and working as a Civilian for the U.S. Government. I understand you want to see studies and conclusive results but we both agree that will not happen unless Congress, the Pentagon, and/or USAF determine there might be some substantial benefit to establishing a USAF Warrant Officer Corps, and any prejudice against the Idea of having a USAF Warrant Officer Corps is put aside.

[TJMAC77SP]

Ok Fred,

[QUOTE=DAG48;176280] I'll try this again. Why would the USAF want to re-establish the Warrant Officer Corps?

To Fly, Fight, and Win.

I should have made my point clearer. I actually understood the words you typed. I was questioning your assertion as facts without proof.


I'm serious about having first hand experience with Pilots, Flight Crews, and Air Battle Managers who would rather stay in Flight Operations throughout their Careers, doing their primary job on a daily basis, rather than having to jump through the hoops of Commissioned Officer Career Progression which ultimately leaves them with fewer and fewer hours of flying time. The Up or Out mentality of the USAF drives some of these folks out of the Service, others move on to further their Career Progression. Either way, these officers are eventually replaced.

Why would the USAF re-establish the Warrant Officer Corps?

To establish a stable Career for folks who want to remain in Flight Operations without punishing them.

The USAF could Freeze them in the Lower Commissioned Ranks and achieve a similar outcome, but not being promoted to a higher rank would negatively impact the Commissioned Officers in question and they would be forced out of the service at some point for a lack of Career Progression. Again, something I have witnessed first hand.

At least for Flight Operations, the Warrant Officer Corps would alleviate this problem and allow folks to fly throughout their Careers without punishing them. It would allow the USAF to attract and retain more and more Flight Operation folks as the program progressed which would cut down on the need to recruit more and more folks to replace those lost due to Career Progression or who leave the USAF due to Career Dissatisfaction.

This “up and out” mentality is common throughout the military. Hell it’s common throughout the working world. Ask an Infantry Company Commander who is slotted for a battalion staff position if he or she would rather stay put and he or she will usually answer yes. They want to command troops where it matters most. Part of any career is the “up or out”. You take more responsibilities with a higher rank and leave some tasks behind. Often tasks you relished doing. I had a staff sergeant, working for me once who balked at any chore he considered administrative in nature (like written feedbacks, etc). He would state loudly to anyone who would listen that he was “just a street cop” and that was all he wanted to do. I offered to make his dream come true one day by telling him he could be an E-4 (SrA) and I promised him he would never have those pesky administrative duties again. He didn’t take me up on my offer. There are plenty of civilian aviation jobs where a pilot flies…..period. My company has pilots. All they do is fly the company aircraft. It is a very specious argument to use the ‘I just want to fly’ mentality to recreate an entirely new command and rank structure in the Air Force based on this point.


The USAF will eventually run into a serious problem of retaining or attracting pilots and aircrews. It is a cyclical problem, and it's happening on a smaller scale with F-22 pilots now. These guys are the cream of the crop, so to speak, yet they are finishing their commitments with the USAF and leaving the Service despite the bonuses being offered.

I haven't crunched the numbers on how much it costs to train today's pilots (which would include the washouts as it costs money for them too), but back in the 1980's I think it was around a million bucks per pilot just to get them to mission qualified status. Granted we will spend money on pay and benefits anyway we go, but simple logic dictates the fewer pilots we train, the less money we spend on training. That is where I see savings for the USAF in Flight Operations.

So your assertion is that these pilots are leaving the Air Force after having been an F22 pilot because they would eventually have to leave flight operations? And they go where to fulfill this dream of continuing to fly F22’s (or any fast mover airframe)? Come on, the monetary gains and stability of civilian aviation has been a drain on the pool of military aviators forever. It is not about to change now (except for the shrinking of the commercial airline fleets).


Why would the USAF re-establish the Warrant Officer Corps?

Replacing Technical Contractors, aka Civilians, in a Combat Zone with a Warrant Officer Corps would bring the U.S. into compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

How are we violating the Geneva Conventions by having contractors in a combat zone?


Since the early 1990's, the U.S. Government has tried to Contract out everything from the FAA to the U.S. Postal Service with some mixed if not disturbing results. The main goal was to not have to replace folks retiring from Government Service, and let Contractors take over to save money on future Benefits and Retirement. It has worked well in some areas, not so much in others. Again I'm looking at this from my personal experience.

I will give you the fact that A76 conversions have failed at some places. But…….how would having Warrant Officers in the Air Force have changed this outcome in any way?


So Fred, there is your, rather, my answer based on my experience in the USAF as an Enlisted Airman and a Commissioned Officer, and working as a Civilian for the U.S. Government. I understand you want to see studies and conclusive results but we both agree that will not happen unless Congress, the Pentagon, and/or USAF determine there might be some substantial benefit to establishing a USAF Warrant Officer Corps, and any prejudice against the Idea of having a USAF Warrant Officer Corps is put aside.

What you have provided (again) is your opinion. I get it. Your argument is not getting any stronger though. Studies would be nice but even a cogent, on point argument would help.

[DAG48]

Putting aside all the 'how we could do this' and 'I know it would benefit the AF' arguments (all of which I believe is improvable)…..

WHY WOULD THE AF DO THIS ?

After all you could make your own shoes from a live cow, but would it be worth it?

I'm sorry Fred, I misread your question. I thought you were asking why the USAF would want to re-instate the Warrant Officer Corps.

My mistake. What I presented was from my experience working on the Flight Line as a maintainer and in Flight Ops as an Officer, I'm sorry that I could not answer the question, however this thread is here for all our troops to enjoy, so someday, someone may direct you to the information you seek. No one, as far as I know has published a study about re-instating the Warrant Officer Corps in the Modern USAF. So I guess your question shall remain unanswered until further notice.

This post is my opinion and should be viewed as such. I take no responsibility for my experience or opinions, even if they are informed opinions. No cows were hurt during the posting of this opinion. This post may self destruct in five seconds.......

[TJMAC77SP]

I'm sorry Fred, I misread your question. I thought you were asking why the USAF would want to re-instate the Warrant Officer Corps.

My mistake. What I presented was from my experience working on the Flight Line as a maintainer and in Flight Ops as an Officer, I'm sorry that I could not answer the question, however this thread is here for all our troops to enjoy, so someday, someone may direct you to the information you seek. No one, as far as I know has published a study about re-instating the Warrant Officer Corps in the Modern USAF. So I guess your question shall remain unanswered until further notice.

This post is my opinion and should be viewed as such. I take no responsibility for my experience or opinions, even if they are informed opinions. No cows were hurt during the posting of this opinion. This post may self destruct in five seconds.......


Avoidance aside I will say that you withdraw graciously.

[DAG48]

Avoidance aside I will say that you withdraw graciously.

Fair enough, but do you always have to get the last word!?! Try using a number or something!:D

[TJMAC77SP]

Fair enough, but do you always have to get the last word!?! Try using a number or something!:D


No I do not always have to have the last word..............or number.

[DAG48]

No I do not always have to have the last word..............or number.

Ok, thanks for the clarification! :D

[TJMAC77SP]

Ok, thanks for the clarification! :D


No problem........

[OIFCOMBATVETNYC]

http://www.usawoa.org/woheritage/Hist_of_Army_WO.htm#Dedication

In 1958, the Air Force discontinued its Warrant Officer program following the passage of legislation (Military Pay Act of 1958) which created the grades of E8 and E9. After careful review of the duties performed by their Warrant Officers, Air Force leaders decided to restructure the Warrant Officer authorizations into the senior enlisted grades (E7/E8/E9). In the eyes of the Air Force leadership, loss of the Warrant Officers cut out an additional management layer and a separate personnel management system, and additionally created increased promotion opportunity for the senior enlisted force. [The last active duty Air Force warrant officer, CWO-4 James H. Long, retired in 1980 and the last Air Force Reserve warrant officer, CWO-4 Bob Barrow, retired in 1992. Since then, the Air Force warrant officer ranks, while still authorized by law, are not used (Source Wikipedia).] See also "The In-Betweens" by Bruce D. Callander, published in November 1991 edition of the AIR FORCE MAGAZINE of the Air Force Association.

[DAG48]

http://www.usawoa.org/woheritage/Hist_of_Army_WO.htm#Dedication

In 1958, the Air Force discontinued its Warrant Officer program following the passage of legislation (Military Pay Act of 1958) which created the grades of E8 and E9. After careful review of the duties performed by their Warrant Officers, Air Force leaders decided to restructure the Warrant Officer authorizations into the senior enlisted grades (E7/E8/E9). In the eyes of the Air Force leadership, loss of the Warrant Officers cut out an additional management layer and a separate personnel management system, and additionally created increased promotion opportunity for the senior enlisted force. [The last active duty Air Force warrant officer, CWO-4 James H. Long, retired in 1980 and the last Air Force Reserve warrant officer, CWO-4 Bob Barrow, retired in 1992. Since then, the Air Force warrant officer ranks, while still authorized by law, are not used (Source Wikipedia).] See also "The In-Betweens" by Bruce D. Callander, published in November 1991 edition of the AIR FORCE MAGAZINE of the Air Force Association.

Thanks, the link you provided helps explain the History and Modernization of the U.S. Military Warrant Officer Corps. I was especially interested in how the Army Modernized their Aviation Career Fields utilizing Warrant Officers, which is what I have been preaching Congress and the USAF should/could do. It also explains how they are utilized in other areas as well so I would recommend this link to anyone interested in the History and Modernization of the U.S. Warrant Officer Corps, and allow them to make up their own minds as to whether or not it should/could be brought back to the USAF in some capacity. Not so much as to create another layer of management, rather to allow more flexibility in High Tech areas such as Flight Ops. As the original poster asked, any thoughts?

[smarg]

As the original poster asked, any thoughts?

Yes.

BLUE TO GREEN: APPLY FOR THE ARMY'S WARRANT PROGRAM IF YOU WANT TO BE A WARRANT OFFICER. Details and POC from OIFCombatVet.

Otherwise, shaddap already. :D

[TechnicalSgt]

TJ,

As a future SNCO I am saying that we need warrants back in our Air Force. Also, you said, “I can see, based on your own agenda why you state emphatically that this program 'would work”. I don’t see how this program would benefit me now since in my initial post I explained that I am going to be transferring to the Army as a Warrant. However, it could have, but now it will have to benefit others to stay. So, stop trying to make it sound like it’s all about me. If you’re an officer or NCO, it’s your duty to promote a stable career structure for all enlisted personnel otherwise you need to read AFI 36-2618 again.

You want stats, check out the AF times article, 16 June 03, Chief Murray said, “that pulling the “best and brightest” airmen and making them warrant officers “to a certain degree would dilute . . . a great and capable NCO corps.” However, airmen of all ranks overwhelmingly responded “yes” to an AF Times question asking if the AF should reinstate the warrant officer corps. In fact, many stats can be found here http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3287 about retention rates, cost ratios, and the benefits of having warrant officers.

I agree that a restructure of the junior officer and NCO corps is warranted in the AF. Additionally, reactivating warrants “would’ retain highly specialized Airmen (like I) that “DO NOT” want to become a general officer. Sure, I could have reapplied for an AF officer position and I could have also applied in the Army, but I realized I would not have been happy being a regular officer. Honestly, I like managing my department and the Army warrant corps will give me and many other Airmen that opportunity (it’s the best of both worlds).

Another great article is below.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:p-AaADpSeMsJ:https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153/q_act_downloadpaper/q_obj_1a1aabf3-2002-47e7-83e2-121c1a4bb6aa/display.aspx%3Frs%3Denginespage+The+Warrant+Office r+Ranks:+Adding+Flexibility+to+Military+Personnel+ Management&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

[Venus]

TJ,

As a future SNCO I am saying that we need warrants back in our Air Force. Also, you said, “I can see, based on your own agenda why you state emphatically that this program 'would work”. I don’t see how this program would benefit me now since in my initial post I explained that I am going to be transferring to the Army as a Warrant. However, it could have, but now it will have to benefit others to stay. So, stop trying to make it sound like it’s all about me. If you’re an officer or NCO, it’s your duty to promote a stable career structure for all enlisted personnel otherwise you need to read AFI 36-2618 again.

You want stats, check out the AF times article, 16 June 03, Chief Murray said, “that pulling the “best and brightest” airmen and making them warrant officers “to a certain degree would dilute . . . a great and capable NCO corps.” However, airmen of all ranks overwhelmingly responded “yes” to an AF Times question asking if the AF should reinstate the warrant officer corps. In fact, many stats can be found here http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3287 about retention rates, cost ratios, and the benefits of having warrant officers.

I agree that a restructure of the junior officer and NCO corps is warranted in the AF. Additionally, reactivating warrants “would’ retain highly specialized Airmen (like I) that “DO NOT” want to become a general officer. Sure, I could have reapplied for an AF officer position and I could have also applied in the Army, but I realized I would not have been happy being a regular officer. Honestly, I like managing my department and the Army warrant corps will give me and many other Airmen that opportunity (it’s the best of both worlds).

Another great article is below.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:p-AaADpSeMsJ:https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153/q_act_downloadpaper/q_obj_1a1aabf3-2002-47e7-83e2-121c1a4bb6aa/display.aspx%3Frs%3Denginespage+The+Warrant+Office r+Ranks:+Adding+Flexibility+to+Military+Personnel+ Management&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us


I think that alot of enlisted E-7 and below in the USAF would rather become Warrents instead of E-8's and E-9's is because of the highly political and ever moving targets of what it takes to get promoted to the the top 2. Everything below E-8 is up to the individual to get promoted with WAPS, EPR's, tis,tig Decs it is up tio the individual and right place right time considering their AFSC to get promoted. The top 2 somebody has got to like you to get that ever good Board score. Alot of Masters choose to retire than be associated with a me first senior NCO corp . I am a retired MSgt with good EPRs and lots of Medals and was told I was not competative for Senior by another Senior who I wouldn't piss on if he was on fire. My sin was that I deployed alot and did my job and did my PME by correspondance and called a spade a spade. I did not hang out with chiefs.
If offered a Warrent I would have jumped on it to use my expertise in my career field, how many Seniors and Chiefs are seen actually leading or offering techinal advice on the line, very very few. So now all the Techs annd Masters with the vast corporate knowledge of their AFSC's is being lost to retirement with further chance of advancement because they are deemed unworthy to compete for Senior. If a Warrent had been available I would be still contrbuting to the USAF.

[TechnicalSgt]

Venus,

You're absolutely right.

In today's AF, it's only the top E8 (2%) and E9 (1%) that will ever attain those ranks.

So when I read this PowerPoint that I realized it's time for a change. Check out http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant/download/WO_Brief_Jan_09.ppt slide no.13 stats.You'll see I'll have an 85% chance of making CW4 versus 1% selection for E9. Also, I'll get paid for doing the exact job now in the AF, but as a warrant officer. It's sad that the AF doesn't reactivate its warrant officer program. They're losing so many good NCOs to other services and the private sector.

Also, you have until you're 46 years old to apply.

[Shrike]

Venus,

You're absolutely right.

In today's AF, it's only the top E8 (2%) and E9 (1%) that will ever attain those ranks.

So when I read this PowerPoint that I realized it's time for a change. Check out http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant/download/WO_Brief_Jan_09.ppt slide no.13 stats.You'll see I'll have an 85% chance of making CW4 versus 1% selection for E9. Also, I'll get paid for doing the exact job now in the AF, but as a warrant officer. It's sad that the AF doesn't reactivate its warrant officer program. They're losing so many good NCOs to other services and the private sector.

Also, you have until you're 46 years old to apply.

Can you back that statement up with facts? How many NCOs have we lost to other services? Who determined if they were "good" NCOs or not?

[TechnicalSgt]

Have you tried using “Google” to answer your questions?

I am not sure how long you been in the Air Force, but these are some interesting facts to report. Do you remember a program the Air Force used when it started reducing its numbers by 16,000 in 2004 (I’m referring to the “right sizing/downsizing” period)? In fact, rightsizing is still going on in the AF. Today, the Air Force continues downsizing with our NCOs/Officers corps so in order to continue serving in my military the AF teamed up with the Army and created a interservice program called “blue to green”. If you want more facts about it please do your own research to find the answers. Also, to answer your latter question to be eligible for blue to green you must be a good NCO and recommended for release from AFPC level by your commander. In otherwords, if you’re a NCO/Officer and you’re a dirtbag then your commander determines (also, if you're a good NCO or not) whether he or she will sign off to release you.

[Shrike]

Have you tried using “Google” to answer your questions?

I am not sure how long you been in the Air Force, but these are some interesting facts to report. Do you remember a program the Air Force used when it started reducing its numbers by 16,000 in 2004 (I’m referring to the “right sizing/downsizing” period)? In fact, rightsizing is still going on in the AF. Today, the Air Force continues downsizing with our NCOs/Officers corps so in order to continue serving in my military the AF teamed up with the Army and created a interservice program called “blue to green”. If you want more facts about it please do your own research to find the answers. Also, to answer your latter question to be eligible for blue to green you must be a good NCO and recommended for release from AFPC level by your commander. In otherwords, if you’re a NCO/Officer and you’re a dirtbag then your commander determines (also, if you're a good NCO or not) whether he or she will sign off to release you.

So the answer is "No, I can't back my claims up with facts or numbers. Like I did earlier in this thread (http://www.militarytimes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=167629&postcount=104), I simply state my opinion as fact."

YOU stated we are "...losing so many good NCOs to other services ". The burden of proof is on YOU. Can you support your specious claims?

Just FYI for Blue-to-Green: you don't need to be a "good NCO" to qualify (you don't even need to be an NCO period), you need to qualify for an honorable discharge.

[ringjamesa]

Have you tried using “Google” to answer your questions?

I am not sure how long you been in the Air Force, but these are some interesting facts to report. Do you remember a program the Air Force used when it started reducing its numbers by 16,000 in 2004 (I’m referring to the “right sizing/downsizing” period)? In fact, rightsizing is still going on in the AF. Today, the Air Force continues downsizing with our NCOs/Officers corps so in order to continue serving in my military the AF teamed up with the Army and created a interservice program called “blue to green”. If you want more facts about it please do your own research to find the answers. Also, to answer your latter question to be eligible for blue to green you must be a good NCO and recommended for release from AFPC level by your commander. In otherwords, if you’re a NCO/Officer and you’re a dirtbag then your commander determines (also, if you're a good NCO or not) whether he or she will sign off to release you.

Just a FYI, Commanders are sometimes much more likely to sign the conditional release if the airman in question is marginal at best. Why not send them to the Army? If the Airman is worth 2 shits, they will do their best to retain them (but will usually sign if the Airman REALLY wants it). Also, with Force Shaping over, the # of people utilizing the progam is in decline (much to the dismay of the Army). In over 3 years, I didn't see a single blue-to-green applicant that was above an E-3 and I saw each and every person that separated from my base during that three year period.

[TJMAC77SP]

TJ,

As a future SNCO I am saying that we need warrants back in our Air Force. Also, you said, “I can see, based on your own agenda why you state emphatically that this program 'would work”. I don’t see how this program would benefit me now since in my initial post I explained that I am going to be transferring to the Army as a Warrant. However, it could have, but now it will have to benefit others to stay. So, stop trying to make it sound like it’s all about me. If you’re an officer or NCO, it’s your duty to promote a stable career structure for all enlisted personnel otherwise you need to read AFI 36-2618 again.

You want stats, check out the AF times article, 16 June 03, Chief Murray said, “that pulling the “best and brightest” airmen and making them warrant officers “to a certain degree would dilute . . . a great and capable NCO corps.” However, airmen of all ranks overwhelmingly responded “yes” to an AF Times question asking if the AF should reinstate the warrant officer corps. In fact, many stats can be found here http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3287 about retention rates, cost ratios, and the benefits of having warrant officers.

I agree that a restructure of the junior officer and NCO corps is warranted in the AF. Additionally, reactivating warrants “would’ retain highly specialized Airmen (like I) that “DO NOT” want to become a general officer. Sure, I could have reapplied for an AF officer position and I could have also applied in the Army, but I realized I would not have been happy being a regular officer. Honestly, I like managing my department and the Army warrant corps will give me and many other Airmen that opportunity (it’s the best of both worlds).

Another great article is below.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:p-AaADpSeMsJ:https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153/q_act_downloadpaper/q_obj_1a1aabf3-2002-47e7-83e2-121c1a4bb6aa/display.aspx%3Frs%3Denginespage+The+Warrant+Office r+Ranks:+Adding+Flexibility+to+Military+Personnel+ Management&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us


I think it is just wonderful that Major Niesen agrees with your position (as several others who have posted on these threads ad nauseam). You weren’t citing that as a study or any kind of actual proof were you? It is after all an article that puts forth one possible way to implement the process of adding warrant officers to the Air Force again. He also highlights a couple of the very likely barriers that others on these threads have outlined.

Thank you also for proving my point. Your survey results merely support my theory that many (and if you read my posts, you will see that I never said this was the agenda for all posters) view the reintroduction of Warrant Officers to the Air Force as a career enhancement. This is not a negative thing (although you seem to think so).

Good luck in your new career

[DAG48]

The one thing that has been mentioned, a few times, about Warrant Officers and the USAF is the Warrant's were eliminated because they were viewed as Administrators, which the USAF felt could be taken care of by the Newly Created E-8's and E-9's. In this regard I feel the USAF made a good decision.

What hasn't been mentioned, often enough? Why did the USAF not put Warrant Officer's in the Newly Created ICBM Silos, allow them to fly as Pilots, or other areas of Flight Operations? Let me answer the question with a question. How many Army Helicopters launch Nukes?

The Military, not just the USAF, has a long standing policy of Commissioned Officers being in charge of Launching Nukes and will probably not revisit the issue of allowing this to be delegated to the Warrant Officer Corps. It has nothing to do with intelligence vs education, or enlisted vs officer, it is merely a policy implemented to limit the capability of launching nukes to the highest ranks of the Military.

Could the USAF use Warrant Officers in areas of Flight Ops not associated with launching Nukes? Sure. Will they? Probably not, as it would be adding a layer in the chain of command which may not yield the desired results.

As I stated in an earlier post..., given the proper resources and support, I could devise a Warrant Officer Corps within the USAF which would be efficient and effective, it would not please everybody, but it would work.

But as Fred (TJMAC77SP) has stated, Why would the USAF do this? Until this question is answered by the USAF, Pentagon, and Congress, the Warrant Officer will not return to the ranks of the USAF.

[Mac5]

I was an Air Force NCO fortunate enough to be offered an appointment as an Army Warrant Officer.

The following is provided FYI:

“The term commissioned officer refers to officers serving under a Presidential commission in the rank of Chief Warrant Officer 2 through General. An exception is those in the rank of Warrant Officer 1 (WO1) who serve under a warrant issued by the Secretary of the Army.” (Paragraph 3-4, Army Field Manual 6-22, Army Leadership)


"Warrant Officers are highly specialized, single-track specialty officers who receive their authority from the Secretary of the Army upon their initial appointment. However, Title 10 U.S.C. authorizes the commissioning of Warrant Officers (WO1) upon promotion to Chief Warrant Officer (CW2). These commissioned Warrant Officers are direct representatives of the President of the United States. They derive their authority from the same source as commissioned officers but remain specialists, in contrast to commissioned officers, who are generalists. Warrant Officers can and do command detachments, units, activities, and vessels as well as lead, coach, train, and counsel subordinates. As leaders and technical experts, they provide valuable skills, guidance, and expertise to commanders and organizations in their particular field." (Para A-3, Army Field Manual 22-100)


The U.S. Army is currently accepting applications for WO appointments from qualified members of all of the U.S. armed services. Click on the following URL:

http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant/Warrant.htm

Then, click on “Active Duty Applicants” (located on the left side of the website Window).

[BRAVO10000]

The one thing that has been mentioned, a few times, about Warrant Officers and the USAF is the Warrant's were eliminated because they were viewed as Administrators, which the USAF felt could be taken care of by the Newly Created E-8's and E-9's. In this regard I feel the USAF made a good decision.

What hasn't been mentioned, often enough? Why did the USAF not put Warrant Officer's in the Newly Created ICBM Silos, allow them to fly as Pilots, or other areas of Flight Operations? Let me answer the question with a question. How many Army Helicopters launch Nukes?

The Military, not just the USAF, has a long standing policy of Commissioned Officers being in charge of Launching Nukes and will probably not revisit the issue of allowing this to be delegated to the Warrant Officer Corps. It has nothing to do with intelligence vs education, or enlisted vs officer, it is merely a policy implemented to limit the capability of launching nukes to the highest ranks of the Military.

Could the USAF use Warrant Officers in areas of Flight Ops not associated with launching Nukes? Sure. Will they? Probably not, as it would be adding a layer in the chain of command which may not yield the desired results.

As I stated in an earlier post..., given the proper resources and support, I could devise a Warrant Officer Corps within the USAF which would be efficient and effective, it would not please everybody, but it would work.

But as Fred (TJMAC77SP) has stated, Why would the USAF do this? Until this question is answered by the USAF, Pentagon, and Congress, the Warrant Officer will not return to the ranks of the USAF.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how it takes a college degree to launch nukes? And how that "education" in, say, a 3 year Captain, trumps the experience of, say, a 20 year enlisted-man-turned-warrant-officer? I would expect in this case that leadership would much prefer wisdom over academia.

This "only officers qualify to launch nukes" confuses me.

[INGUARD]

Best rank in the Army, Navy and Marine Corps ;)

[Shrike]

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how it takes a college degree to launch nukes? And how that "education" in, say, a 3 year Captain, trumps the experience of, say, a 20 year enlisted-man-turned-warrant-officer? I would expect in this case that leadership would much prefer wisdom over academia.

This "only officers qualify to launch nukes" confuses me.

The people in positions to make these rules are officers. To say anything other than "only officers qualify to launch nukes" would make them appear less than special and rob them of their glowing aura of officeriness.

It's the same attitude that leads to USAF pilots saying only rated officers can fly UASs. Meanwhile, the Army has junior enlisted flying their UASs.

[2430 MHz]

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how it takes a college degree to launch nukes? And how that "education" in, say, a 3 year Captain, trumps the experience of, say, a 20 year enlisted-man-turned-warrant-officer? I would expect in this case that leadership would much prefer wisdom over academia.

This "only officers qualify to launch nukes" confuses me.

Officers are held to a higher standard, I'd trust an O-3 over an E-3 any day of the week

if something is important, than an NCO handles it

If something is more important than that, an Officer handles it

GED's versus Air Force Academy......cmon now

[2430 MHz]

And I'd "definitely" trust a Private or an Airman to make the Nuclear decisions and procedures....lol are you F'ing kidding me???

[INGUARD]

lol obviously much higher than an e3 lol

2430, how about an E-8 launching nukes?

[INGUARD]

And I'd "definitely" trust a Private or an Airman to make the Nuclear decisions and procedures....lol are you F'ing kidding me???

lol obviously much higher than an e3 lol

2430, how about an E-8 launching nukes?

[2430 MHz]

lol obviously much higher than an e3 lol

2430, how about an E-8 launching nukes?

Nope....I dont want a bitter old guy pushing the buttons either

Officers are in charge of multi million dollar aircraft for a reason. I wouldnt trust a Master or Senior to fly an F-35

[bcoco14]

Nope....I dont want a bitter old guy pushing the buttons either

Officers are in charge of multi million dollar aircraft for a reason. I wouldnt trust a Master or Senior to fly an F-35

But you'll trust a 22 year old with a 4 yr liberal arts degree and some simulator time?

[2430 MHz]

But you'll trust a 22 year old with a 4 yr liberal arts degree and some simulator time?

a UAV is nowhere close to an F-35

Also, UAV has a lot more safeguards

Also, butter bars arent placed instantly into a pilots seat either

[2430 MHz]

also, pretty sure UAV's arent casually flying around with nukes either

[BRAVO10000]

a UAV is nowhere close to an F-35
Also, UAV has a lot more safeguards
Also, butter bars arent placed instantly into a pilots seat either


also, pretty sure UAV's arent casually flying around with nukes either

Thanks...but what we were talking about was launching nukes, not UAVs. The question was..."you'll trust a 22 year old with a 4 yr liberal arts degree and some simulator time?" in response to your statement "Officers are in charge of multi million dollar aircraft for a reason. I wouldnt trust a Master or Senior to fly an F-35". In case you weren't aware, those are your F-35 pilots. And B-52 pilots. And any other flydale that can press the itty red button...upon the order to do so from a bitter old man (with collar rank instead of sleeve rank).

OK, so maybe they have reached the seasoning that comes with turning 24...but you're talking about people that haven't even seen their CAR insurance get cheaper yet. Just brilliant. Please share - why are these people more trustworthy with weapons that can cause 100,000 deaths in a blink?

[AF-1Sgt]

Officers are held to a higher standard, I'd trust an O-3 over an E-3 any day of the week

if something is important, than an NCO handles it

If something is more important than that, an Officer handles it

GED's versus Air Force Academy......cmon now

If they are held to a higher standard, why aren't they held to that higher standard when they commit crimes?
PLease don't say thier careers are finished if they get in trouble, I am talking the punishment handed down in NJP. It's the same crime, the punishment should be comperable. The after effects to thier career is not part of the punishment handed down.

I didn't realize that all officers went to the AF Academy. I presume that is what you ment when you compared GEDs vs AFA, or did you mean to say that some enlisted have GEDs while the vast majority have HS diplomas and many (even the Amn ranks) have college degrees, while some officers have attended the AFA while the vast majority went to OCS, ROTC, or prior enlisted.

I am a Retired First Sergeant, people were and still are my business

[BRAVO10000]

I didn't realize that all officers went to the AF Academy. I presume that is what you ment when you compared GEDs vs AFA, or did you mean to say that some enlisted have GEDs while the vast majority have HS diplomas and many (even the Amn ranks) have college degrees, while some officers have attended the AFA while the vast majority went to OCS, ROTC, or prior enlisted.

I am a Retired First Sergeant, people were and still are my business

Source of commission
- 20.48 percent of the officers were commissioned through the U.S. Air Force Academy, 43.13 percent through ROTC and 19.38 percent through Officer Training School.
-- The remaining 17.02 percent were commissioned through other sources (direct appointment, etc.).

Source (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123131698)

I don't know if the prior Es are included in the OTS numbers or "other sources"...truthfully, I am more than a little disturbed to see that almost half came from ROTC.

[bcoco14]

a UAV is nowhere close to an F-35

Also, UAV has a lot more safeguards

Also, butter bars arent placed instantly into a pilots seat either

Well then you haven't been paying that much attention while guarding ECP's.

[TJMAC77SP]

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how it takes a college degree to launch nukes? And how that "education" in, say, a 3 year Captain, trumps the experience of, say, a 20 year enlisted-man-turned-warrant-officer? I would expect in this case that leadership would much prefer wisdom over academia.

This "only officers qualify to launch nukes" confuses me.

I don't think anyone is saying that 'a 20 year enlisted-man-turned-warrant-officer' couldn't be as reliable as a 3 year captain except, in the Air Force there is no such thing as 'a 20 year enlisted-man-turned-warrant-officer'.

[TJMAC77SP]

Source of commission
- 20.48 percent of the officers were commissioned through the U.S. Air Force Academy, 43.13 percent through ROTC and 19.38 percent through Officer Training School.
-- The remaining 17.02 percent were commissioned through other sources (direct appointment, etc.).

Source (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123131698)

I don't know if the prior Es are included in the OTS numbers or "other sources"...truthfully, I am more than a little disturbed to see that almost half came from ROTC.

Why would an officer commissioned via ROTC disturb you if say, for example an OTS graduate doesn't?

Don't get me wrong, I am not disparaging any officer accession source. I am just curious to the implication of your statement.

[Comm Chief]

Officers are held to a higher standard, I'd trust an O-3 over an E-3 any day of the week

if something is important, than an NCO handles it

If something is more important than that, an Officer handles it

GED's versus Air Force Academy......cmon now

Guess that depends on the person...I have some 0-3s I wouldn't trust to drive my truck. Some I would trust with my life, same with enlisted.

[BRAVO10000]

Why would an officer commissioned via ROTC disturb you if say, for example an OTS graduate doesn't?

Don't get me wrong, I am not disparaging any officer accession source. I am just curious to the implication of your statement.

Just my limited personal experience. With so many ROTC programs at so many colleges, I think it is via this route that you find many people that joined only to get their tuition paid for and to get a little experience. Again, based on my limited experience, but most ROTC officers that I met weren't very inclined to take the military seriously and were lower on commitment. I have surmised that they lacked that abrupt indoctination that they get at OTS and the AFA, but it is all conjecture.

[Comm Chief]

faulty generalization. generalizations are dangerous...even this one.

[Shrike]

faulty generalization. generalizations are dangerous...even this one.

Which one?

[ringjamesa]

Nope....I dont want a bitter old guy pushing the buttons either

Officers are in charge of multi million dollar aircraft for a reason. I wouldnt trust a Master or Senior to fly an F-35

That isn't an officer vs. enlisted argument...that is age and advancement. So at what age do you take away the ability to "push the button?" A 45 YO Maj? 50YO Col? How old?

[ringjamesa]

Source of commission
- 20.48 percent of the officers were commissioned through the U.S. Air Force Academy, 43.13 percent through ROTC and 19.38 percent through Officer Training School.
-- The remaining 17.02 percent were commissioned through other sources (direct appointment, etc.).

Source (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123131698)

I don't know if the prior Es are included in the OTS numbers or "other sources"...truthfully, I am more than a little disturbed to see that almost half came from ROTC.

Prior Enlisted would be in the OTS #s...Other sources would be interservice transfers, JAG officers, Doctors, Nurses, Chaplains...that type of thing.

[Comm Chief]

Prior Enlisted would be in the OTS #s...Other sources would be interservice transfers, JAG officers, Doctors, Nurses, Chaplains...that type of thing.

Prior enlisted also opt for ROTC or even the Academy (known a few).

[Comm Chief]

Which one?

all of them

"All generalizations are dangerous, even this one."
-- Alexandre Dumas

[SailorDave]

I'm way too lazy to read this entire thread, so if this was repeated elsewhere, mea culpa. As an active duty Navy CWO, these are only my opinions.

The "super" grades of E8 and E9 were created as a direct result of the deletion of the Warrant Officer grades in 1958. All the services were supposed to have gotten rid of the WOs, but the Air Force was the only one that actually did it. The other services not only made the 8/9's, but in many cases, expanded their WO opportunities. The Air Force has looked at this issue several times in the intervening years, but has thus far been unable to justify (to itself) the need. I'm sure they relook at it periodically.

That being said, if the USAF did decide to go through with reinstating the WO corps, it would have to do so mostly from the 8/9 grades because it needs as many JOs as possible. Why ? Because there are always a certain number of attrites due to failure of training, injury, misconduct, etc. Of the number of O1-O3 that enter the service, only a small number actually stay in long enough to make the upper grades and a career. If you take the billet positions that are now JOs and make them WOs, you also now recruit less people to fill those billets. If the attrition rate remains fairly constant, you'll have fewer people remaining to fill those O4 and above grades. Because the 8/9's were created from vacated WO billets, I believe that is where (initially, at least) they will have to reconstitute the WO billets.

BUT.......this would not need to be a wholesale selloff of E8/9 billets (I'd have to think mostly E8, but that's just my personal opinion). The whole purpose of having WOs is to have a technical expert in a field to advise the CC and staff, not fill JO division officer billets. Those still need to be done to teach that JO leadership. There really isn't a need for more than one or two WOs at any decent sized command, centering their expertise on the specific mission. Most Navy smaller ships (below carrier or amphib) have only two or three out of 350 personnel. One in engineering and one in Ops and/or Intel associated billets. Smaller USAF units can have a more senior WO as the commander (yes, we are eligible to command) or a department head, rather than having a senior O3 or O4.

Just my 2 cents.

[Shrike]

all of them

"All generalizations are dangerous, even this one."
-- Alexandre Dumas

Generally speaking, I agree with that dumba....I mean Mr. Dumas.

;)

[BRAVO10000]

faulty generalization. generalizations are dangerous...even this one.

I think I acknowledged that it was based on my limited personal experience and that my take on the effect was all conjecture.

Are you saying all generalizations are dangerous? Isn't that generalizing? :tongue:

[Comm Chief]

I'm way too lazy to read this entire thread, so if this was repeated elsewhere, mea culpa. As an active duty Navy CWO, these are only my opinions.

The "super" grades of E8 and E9 were created as a direct result of the deletion of the Warrant Officer grades in 1958. All the services were supposed to have gotten rid of the WOs, but the Air Force was the only one that actually did it. The other services not only made the 8/9's, but in many cases, expanded their WO opportunities. The Air Force has looked at this issue several times in the intervening years, but has thus far been unable to justify (to itself) the need. I'm sure they relook at it periodically.

That being said, if the USAF did decide to go through with reinstating the WO corps, it would have to do so mostly from the 8/9 grades because it needs as many JOs as possible. Why ? Because there are always a certain number of attrites due to failure of training, injury, misconduct, etc. Of the number of O1-O3 that enter the service, only a small number actually stay in long enough to make the upper grades and a career. If you take the billet positions that are now JOs and make them WOs, you also now recruit less people to fill those billets. If the attrition rate remains fairly constant, you'll have fewer people remaining to fill those O4 and above grades. Because the 8/9's were created from vacated WO billets, I believe that is where (initially, at least) they will have to reconstitute the WO billets.

BUT.......this would not need to be a wholesale selloff of E8/9 billets (I'd have to think mostly E8, but that's just my personal opinion). The whole purpose of having WOs is to have a technical expert in a field to advise the CC and staff, not fill JO division officer billets. Those still need to be done to teach that JO leadership. There really isn't a need for more than one or two WOs at any decent sized command, centering their expertise on the specific mission. Most Navy smaller ships (below carrier or amphib) have only two or three out of 350 personnel. One in engineering and one in Ops and/or Intel associated billets. Smaller USAF units can have a more senior WO as the commander (yes, we are eligible to command) or a department head, rather than having a senior O3 or O4.

Just my 2 cents.

WOs would not come from E8/E9 billets. Note, on the aircaft and comm side we have Air Force Engineering & Technical Services (AFETS) ... I haven't worked with AFETS in many years, so don't know how well this program is doing, but they are supposed to be the technical experts above and beyond what we (supposively) can train Airmen to do.

[SailorDave]

WOs would not come from E8/E9 billets.
This is probably one of the biggest reasons there won't be any WOs in the USAF. The 8/9's don't want the billets to come from their ranks and neither do the O's. Perhaps the answer is a mixture of both E and O billets, each giving up a portion. Otherwise, it'll never happen.

[Comm Chief]

This is probably one of the biggest reasons there won't be any WOs in the USAF. The 8/9's don't want the billets to come from their ranks and neither do the O's. Perhaps the answer is a mixture of both E and O billets, each giving up a portion. Otherwise, it'll never happen.

By public law, only three percent of the enlisted force can be in the grades of SMSgt and CMSgt. Not a chance we reduce those numbers to create a WO.

I know egreed enlisted folks that cannot get a commission for whatever reason would love to have a WO program, but we just don't need them.

[TJMAC77SP]

Just my limited personal experience. With so many ROTC programs at so many colleges, I think it is via this route that you find many people that joined only to get their tuition paid for and to get a little experience. Again, based on my limited experience, but most ROTC officers that I met weren't very inclined to take the military seriously and were lower on commitment. I have surmised that they lacked that abrupt indoctination that they get at OTS and the AFA, but it is all conjecture.

So I guess you are saying the majority of AF Officers you have met fall into this 'failed' category since over half of the non-medical/legal officer accessions are via ROTC. Also, you realize that most AF ROTC students do NOT get their tuition paid for right?

The fact is that all three major accession sources are successes....and as with everything, there are good and bad examples. I would say your ‘experiences’ are out of sync with statistics.

[LADYVIOLA]

Based upon the question before us all, posed by the Air Force Times, it seems there is new interest in our positions regarding Warrant Officers in the Air Force.

This is a pretty hot issue. There are many, and varied, opinions. Some positions are well thought out and some are no more than emotional protection of the staus quo.

So, let's re-argue or up date our positions regarding Warrant Officers in the Air Force.

4 out of the 5 services now have Warrant Officers; they also have E-8's and E-9's. All WO's and CWO's that I'm aware of are Subject Manager Experts (SME) in their particular specialty such as Physicians Assistants, Supply, Air Craft Maintenance, Fuels, CBRND, SOF, Food Services, Admin, Security, etc. Almost all originate from the enlisted ranks predominantly from E-5 to E-7, one glareing exception are the Army Helo Pilots who originate from civilian status.

Let's hear from all sides and hope that the AF Times gets wind of our dialog.

[JD2780]

Many AF guys who become WOs in the Army go to either SF or helos. I'm working on my package right now.

[TJMAC77SP]

Based upon the question before us all, posed by the Air Force Times, it seems there is new interest in our positions regarding Warrant Officers in the Air Force.

And there is apparently some old interest as well.


This is a pretty hot issue. There are many, and varied, opinions. Some positions are well thought out and some are no more than emotional protection of the staus quo.

More accurately you should have said …” There are many, and varied, opinions. Some positions are well thought out, some are interested in their own career advancement, and some are no more than emotional protection of the status quo. …”


So, let's re-argue or up date our positions regarding Warrant Officers in the Air Force.

4 out of the 5 services now have Warrant Officers; they also have E-8's and E-9's. All WO's and CWO's that I'm aware of are Subject Manager Experts (SME) in their particular specialty such as Physicians Assistants, Supply, Air Craft Maintenance, Fuels, CBRND, SOF, Food Services, Admin, Security, etc. Almost all originate from the enlisted ranks predominantly from E-5 to E-7, one glareing exception are the Army Helo Pilots who originate from civilian status.

Let's hear from all sides and hope that the AF Times gets wind of our dialog.

Yes, because the last three times we did this did so much to further the cause. You stated the facts as they exist in the other services but did nothing to support an argument that the Air Force would benefit from authorizing WOs to the force.

[Comm Chief]

Maybe we already fill these kind of positions with GS-9/10/11/12s.

[a1cfox21]

Based upon the question before us all, posed by the Air Force Times, it seems there is new interest in our positions regarding Warrant Officers in the Air Force.

This is a pretty hot issue. There are many, and varied, opinions. Some positions are well thought out and some are no more than emotional protection of the staus quo.

So, let's re-argue or up date our positions regarding Warrant Officers in the Air Force.

4 out of the 5 services now have Warrant Officers; they also have E-8's and E-9's. All WO's and CWO's that I'm aware of are Subject Manager Experts (SME) in their particular specialty such as Physicians Assistants, Supply, Air Craft Maintenance, Fuels, CBRND, SOF, Food Services, Admin, Security, etc. Almost all originate from the enlisted ranks predominantly from E-5 to E-7, one glareing exception are the Army Helo Pilots who originate from civilian status.

Let's hear from all sides and hope that the AF Times gets wind of our dialog.

I believe all Physician Assistant's are Officers in all branches. Though, I'm fairly certain they originated within the WO corps.

All the other branches have kept and used WO's wisely. They filled great roles as SME's. The Army has had WO pilots for a very long time. The Navy started a program a few years ago to allow E-6's to apply for flight training as WO's. So they see the value in expanding their WO corps whereas we're stuck in our stubborn ways. By we, I mean Big Blue.

I've know a few guys jumping ship from my AFSC to go WO pilot in the Army after interacting with them. As a Weather guy we get to support these folks directly at Army support assignments.

The WO grade would fill many great roles and entice the best to stay Blue. how many O's want to fly UAV's? I dunno but it seems like not a whole lot. If the fighter mafia does not want us piloting aircraft, then give us the WO grade so we fly them things already!!

Just my two cents...

[blacksheep1208]

Bring on a warrant officer program. I'd much rather someday be an intel warrant officer than an intel SNCO staring at EPR's all day. I want to be an analyst, not a paper pusher.

[TJMAC77SP]

So that's three for career advancement.

[Pullinteeth]

So let me make sure I have this clear, we have one group of people that think the whole officer /enlisted thing is an antiquated caste system and should be tossed, another that thinks we need to add MORE to the system, and some that want to maintain the status quo?

[TJMAC77SP]

So let me make sure I have this clear, we have one group of people that think the whole officer /enlisted thing is an antiquated caste system and should be tossed, another that thinks we need to add MORE to the system, and some that want to maintain the status quo?

And one group who want a better job.

((For all those who think the USAF should have WOs, here is your chance. (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/03/airforce_wo_callout_030910w/) Be sure to tell them since the other services have warrant officers the USAF should. Tell them it would save money. Explain how it would not dilute the SNCO Corps. Spell out how much sense it makes, even in the absence of any real evidence)

[SailorDave]

Bring on a warrant officer program. I'd much rather someday be an intel warrant officer than an intel SNCO staring at EPR's all day. I want to be an analyst, not a paper pusher.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but as a officer you'll be doing that regardless. It just goes from whoever your SNCO is to you, if the people are in your chain. Regardless of the career path you take (O vs E), the more senior you get, the more paperwork you have to do.

[MACsensor]

I agree with you F106. The stereotypes given to WOs are largely overblown. I've worked alongside a couple myself in a joint environment, and was quite impressed with their technical expertise compared to some similar TIS NCOs in the Air Force. And I certainly do think we could benefit from having this technical expertise in the Air Force rather than our current solution in my career field to contract the job out.

However it comes down to money, and the reasons why the Air Force will be against it is the same reason why the Pentagon was arguing for a 3.0% pay raise in 2008 and telling congress that the 3.5% they wanted to give us was too much. :rolleyes: Because while that 0.5% difference means very little in dollars to you or I, it adds up quickly when done in aggregate across all the services.

And so creating that WO paygrade means the Air Force would likely have a bigger payroll budget which takes money away from other buckets. If you just look at what the average WO makes compared to an average enlisted member of similar TIS, the WO is making a good chunk of change more. Personally, I think it's bullshit that someone who chose technical expertise route is getting paid more than someone who chose the operational/strategic route (as I think they are both equally important), but that's a different argument altogether.

Now you say, if you spend money over people, who will service the planes. This is a fantastic argument against force reduction and I'm glad the SECDEF put an end to this. However in this case we are not talking about losing people to buy more planes. Rather we talking about not creating a separate paygrade to save money so we can buy more planes.

Perhaps one solution is to just create two career tracks from E-5/E-6 without introducing a new paygrade, where you can go on to become an SNCO to learn and do operational/strategic level leadership. Or you can become a SME at your job. Personally, I would volunteer for the SME track, even if it meant I was still an enlisted member with enlisted pay.


Smarg''s comment is way off from the truth. I worked alongside several WO's from the Army and was impressed with their leadership abilities and technical knowledge. They weren't wannabes at all and never flaunted the "I'm an officer too, so respect me!" attitude. I would fully support the AF adopting warrant officer ranks again, but only for AFSC's that required them. From my experience in intel, too often the SNCOs and officers were far from the ops floor and in their offices handling "admin" work. More often than not, I (as a SSgt) was the senior person working the mission and could have used some guidance or authority from a higher rank. It was awkward, to say the least, to have to liaise with E9s, WOs, and officers of other branches and was usually ineffective to push for the AF side of things since I was always outranked.

If we don't create WO ranks, then the AF should think about redefining the roles of E8s and E9s to get some of them away from general oversight and admin responsibilities, because their skills and expertise can definitely be utilized elsewhere.

I agree, too many SNCOs end up behind a desk and slip further out of touch with the mission day by day. This is something I fear. We need SMEs in one form or another who stay on the job and spend most of their time dedicated to the job/specialty/mission regardless of rank. If it's left to the SSgt's/TSgt's, it's only a matter of time before they are shuffled to the desk and their experience, knowledge and value goes with them. Leaving gaps in continuity and causing the Airmen and NCOs to learn the same lessons over and over again.
Don't get me wrong, we need the leadership/admin/managerial type SNCOs as well, but it seems that's what happens to all SNCOs.
For a guy like me (please excuse the bragging), I am very good at my job and I move through the ranks quickly. I also take care of my additional duties, my troops and my admin responsibilities. However, I am very dedicated to my craft and I am always trying to learn more, get better and fighting for more time to just do my job and/or teach the new guys. If I am put behind a desk too soon, not only do I think the quality of our crews (and thus the mission) will suffer but I will be unhappy and may just opt to get out and work a contractor job where I can stay more hands-on. I can be a good leader, I could handle the managerial stuff; but that would push me away from what I love doing.
Whether it's WO's or a new/split career path for SNCO's, we need SMEs. I know my AFSC would benefit from it. We lose enough experience by attrition as it is, and I haven't seen one SNCO stay on the line and in-touch with the mission.

[Shrike]

I agree, too many SNCOs end up behind a desk and slip further out of touch with the mission day by day. This is something I fear. We need SMEs in one form or another who stay on the job and spend most of their time dedicated to the job/specialty/mission regardless of rank. If it's left to the SSgt's/TSgt's, it's only a matter of time before they are shuffled to the desk and their experience, knowledge and value goes with them. Leaving gaps in continuity and causing the Airmen and NCOs to learn the same lessons over and over again.
Don't get me wrong, we need the leadership/admin/managerial type SNCOs as well, but it seems that's what happens to all SNCOs.
For a guy like me (please excuse the bragging), I am very good at my job and I move through the ranks quickly. I also take care of my additional duties, my troops and my admin responsibilities. However, I am very dedicated to my craft and I am always trying to learn more, get better and fighting for more time to just do my job and/or teach the new guys. If I am put behind a desk too soon, not only do I think the quality of our crews (and thus the mission) will suffer but I will be unhappy and may just opt to get out and work a contractor job where I can stay more hands-on. I can be a good leader, I could handle the managerial stuff; but that would push me away from what I love doing.
Whether it's WO's or a new/split career path for SNCO's, we need SMEs. I know my AFSC would benefit from it. We lose enough experience by attrition as it is, and I haven't seen one SNCO stay on the line and in-touch with the mission.
Just because you can get promoted doesn't mean you have to get promoted.

[JD2780]

AF the doesnt want WOs because apparently it would detract from the pedestal our Os sit on everyday.

[TJMAC77SP]

Well, someone on the staff at the Military Times (Michelle Tan) must support this move. The article (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/04/airforce_cover_041810w/)was so slanted as to be more of an editorial than news reporting. As a finish, when they quote input from the forums they quote an articulate individual (although her articulate input was inaccurate and improvable assertions) and then quote Smarg who spewed his usual invective drivel. Looks like someone is trying to influence AF leadership.

[Comm Chief]

Well, someone on the staff at the Military Times (Michelle Tan) must support this move. The article (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/04/airforce_cover_041810w/)was so slanted as to be more of an editorial than news reporting. As a finish, when they quote input from the forums they quote an articulate individual (although her articulate input was inaccurate and improvable assertions) and then quote Smarg who spewed his usual invective drivel. Looks like someone is trying to influence AF leadership.

No, they just want to stir stuff up and sell papers. Its a rag that references idiots on this forum as scholarly sources.

[DAG48]

So that's three for career advancement.

Make that four! I think opening more opportunities up for USAF personnel would not be a bad thing. The question as you have put it so many times; "Why would the USAF do this?" If a change in the authorization and release of Nuclear Weapons Policy is made, then the USAF "Could" bring back the Warrant Officers into Operations, basically flying for a living, silo duty, ect. However, Fred, your question would still go unanswered.

[Shrike]

Make that four! I think opening more opportunities up for USAF personnel would not be a bad thing. The question as you have put it so many times; "Why would the USAF do this?" If a change in the authorization and release of Nuclear Weapons Policy is made, then the USAF "Could" bring back the Warrant Officers into Operations, basically flying for a living, silo duty, ect. However, Fred, your question would still go unanswered.
Do you realize that this would require the officer corps to admit that other people than officers can fly planes? They can't even admit that UAVs can be steered by enlisted folk, and you want un-commissioned officers sitting in the cockpit of live-flying aircraft? MADNESS!!!

;)

[TJMAC77SP]

Make that four! I think opening more opportunities up for USAF personnel would not be a bad thing. The question as you have put it so many times; "Why would the USAF do this?" If a change in the authorization and release of Nuclear Weapons Policy is made, then the USAF "Could" bring back the Warrant Officers into Operations, basically flying for a living, silo duty, ect. However, Fred, your question would still go unanswered.

The Release of Nuclear Weapons issue is but one of a countless host of issues which would need to be resolved and as you said my original quesiton would not be answered so if no one can prove the worth of doing something so drastic to an organization it seems self-evident that it shouldn't be done.

[blacksheep1208]

Make that four! I think opening more opportunities up for USAF personnel would not be a bad thing. The question as you have put it so many times; "Why would the USAF do this?" If a change in the authorization and release of Nuclear Weapons Policy is made, then the USAF "Could" bring back the Warrant Officers into Operations, basically flying for a living, silo duty, ect. However, Fred, your question would still go unanswered.

Aren't warrant officers mainly used as technical experts in the other services? I understand a portion of them pilot helicopters, but I think we're being one dimensional thinking that a return of warrant officers in the Air Force would lead to a revolution in the cockpit.

[JD2780]

Yes, some are intel, some or maintenance, some work in the medical world, engineer worlds. Most only see the helo pilots.

[Shrike]

Yes, some are intel, some or maintenance, some work in the medical world, engineer worlds. Most only see the helo pilots.

And meanwhile, the helicopters the USAF flies are piloted by officers. They must have a really good union or something.

[DAG48]

The Release of Nuclear Weapons issue is but one of a countless host of issues which would need to be resolved and as you said my original quesiton would not be answered so if no one can prove the worth of doing something so drastic to an organization it seems self-evident that it shouldn't be done.
Exactly. Could be done vs. Should be done!

This is regardless of career fields as well. I came from a maintenance and operational background as an NCO and Commissioned Officer, so that is why I often speak of Warrants in these areas. I let other Folks speak of their particular expertise on where Warrants "Could" be used in the USAF, such as medical, intel, ect.

Until the Pentagon sanctions the "Idea" of Warrants in the USAF it is merely a topic of discussion, nothing more.

[JD2780]

Correct, and its a good topic.

[SailorDave]

Do you realize that this would require the officer corps to admit that other people than officers can fly planes? They can't even admit that UAVs can be steered by enlisted folk, and you want un-commissioned officers sitting in the cockpit of live-flying aircraft? MADNESS!!!

;)
"Un-commissioned' ?? Only W1s have no commission (they have a "warrant" issued by the respective service). W2-W5 are commissioned by the President just like all other officers.