Manipulating Fear for Metrics: Unpacking Questionable Leadership Tactics in Aircraft Maintenance Units
In the heart of military strategy and leadership lies a profound responsibility: to balance the immediate demands of readiness with the long-term health and capabilities of the force. Recent developments at Holloman Air Force Base have sparked a crucial debate on the management of military assets—both human and material—underlining the need for a reassessment of priorities in an era of evolving global threats and persistent internal challenges.
The Strategic Quandary
Holloman AFB, known for hosting the largest F-16 training unit globally, stands at a strategic crossroads. A circulated email from a unit leader suggests a potential shift in mission—from training new pilots to preparing for immediate combat operations. This pivot echoes a larger, systemic issue facing the Air Force: the profound and ongoing pilot shortage currently clocked at 2,000 vacancies which poses an existential threat to American global air superiority. (Air and Space Forces Magazine)
The Email
Team,
Some of you may be asking why I am making decisions in a manner that doesn’t necessarily fall in the norms of what you have been used here at Holloman. Some of you may not appreciate the way I conduct business, but I assure you it has purpose.
The simple answer is, I don’t think we are ready. I think we can get there, but we have a long road ahead to change the way we think and operate day-to-day. I think we soft on our NCOs and Airmen. I don’t think we drive them hard enough to better themselves and the unit.
We are in the one of the most pivotal periods of history since WWII. What we are doing today determines if we go to war in the very near future. If we can’t execute to the highest degree in the comfort of the homeland, we can’t do it on some island scattered across the Pacific. That is why I take our performance so seriously. I don’t care we are leading the MXG/OG in PFT. Comparing apples to apples is pointless if all the apples are rotten.
Some of you may be saying that we are AETC. We don’t deploy. Our aircraft aren’t combat coded. I can assure that can change very quickly. I was in a similar unit in Eielson and rumors started we were going to have to fire munitions off our TF coded aircraft that hadn’t fired munitions in over a decade. Within a year we were firing munitions and within the second year we were flying alert missions intercepting Russian aircraft.
Given the set of circumstances the same tasking could make it here. We will always be PFT generators first and foremost. How well we generate PFT here at Holloman will determine we control the airspace in the pacific. Additionally, there may also come a time when we have an additional mission. To put things in perspective, that could be generating PFT that is also defending the Homeland. Don’t think a battle in the pacific couldn’t reach American soil.
I have spent the last 9 years in PACAF and working in Test to counter pacific threats. I can tell you that the threat is real, and it has evolved faster than imagined. The battlespace will be unlike anyone wearing the uniform today have ever faced. We will face great losses. How you develop your Airmen now determines the loss later.
This is what I think about everyday as I come to work and it is the last thing I think about before I go to bed.
Let me know if you have questions. I am always willing to talk this. It’s my passion and it’s why I haven’t hung the uniform up yet.
The email included various attachments including a memorandum from the Air Mobility Command (AMC) Commander General Minihan to his Major Command (MAJCOM) directing his personnel to prepare for a near-peer conflict in the coming years.
It is important to note, that memorandum was only directed to AMC and has no authority over any other MAJCOM, of which Holloman falls under Air Education and Training Command (AETC), not AMC.
The Misrepresented Risks
The leader's comparison of Holloman's situation to previous experiences in Alaska—where units transitioned from non-combat to combat roles—raises questions about the applicability of such a shift. Alaska's units, focused on enhancing already graduated pilots' skills, occupy a different strategic niche than Holloman's mission-critical training operations. The assertion that Holloman might need to abandon its training mission for combat readiness overlooks a critical fact: the Air Force is grappling with a shortage not just of any pilots, but of those ready to fill the ranks in combat operations. This shortage, compounded over decades, cannot be swiftly remedied, posing a long-term strategic vulnerability.
Historical Precedent: A Lesson from World War II
In evaluating the proposition of diverting training resources from Holloman AFB to near-peer conflict readiness, it's instructive to consider historical precedents. During World War II, faced with the monumental task of preparing for global conflict, the U.S. did not diminish its pilot training efforts in favor of immediate combat deployment. Instead, it significantly expanded its training pipeline.
In the late 1930s, as tensions escalated globally, the number of pilots trained by the U.S. Army Air Corps saw a dramatic increase—from just 184 graduates in 1937 to a planned expansion to train 4,500 pilots in the following two years. This expansion was a direct response to the growing threat of Axis powers and the strategic necessity for a well-prepared air force. By the end of the war, the Army Air Forces Training Command had graduated an astounding 250,000 pilots, a clear testament to the prioritization of training and preparation over the immediate reallocation of assets to combat roles (Air Force Museum).
The Civilian Pilot Training Program (CPT), initiated before the U.S. formally entered the war, further illustrates this commitment. Aimed at boosting the civilian pilot pool, the program ultimately trained over 300,000 pilots, ensuring a robust reservoir of aviators ready to be transitioned into military service as needed (Air & Space Forces Magazine).
This historical approach underscores a critical strategic principle: the sustainability and expansion of training capabilities are paramount, especially in anticipation of or during large-scale conflicts. The decision to enhance the pilot training infrastructure, rather than compromise it for short-term tactical advantages, played a crucial role in the U.S. achieving air superiority and eventual victory in WWII.
Policies Under Scrutiny
The leader at Holloman AFB implemented several policies that, in the context of military operations, are standard and generally reasonable for maintaining unit discipline and efficiency:
• Formal roll-call formations enhance accountability and ensure all personnel are aligned at the start of their shifts.
• Extending shift hours helps ensure smoother transitions between shifts, allowing for better overlap and potentially reducing errors.
• Mandating weekend duty for hard-broke aircraft ensures continuous maintenance efforts, aiming to keep all aircraft in optimal condition regardless of immediate flight schedules.
These measures, while common in many military settings, have been positioned by the leader as necessary for potential involvement in a near-peer conflict—a scenario that remains highly unlikely for a training unit. This rationale can seem incongruent with the unit’s primary mission of training pilots, not preparing them for immediate combat deployment.
The use of an improbable deployment scenario to justify these everyday management decisions risks misrepresenting the actual demands of the unit's mission. This misalignment could potentially erode trust and credibility with subordinates. Effective leadership relies on clear, honest communication about the reasons for operational decisions. When the justification given is perceived as unrealistic or overstated, it can undermine the leader's integrity and the personnel's confidence in their command, which is vital for maintaining morale and operational effectiveness in any military unit
Applying History to Contemporary Strategy
Reflecting on this historical example, it becomes evident that leveraging training assets from Holloman AFB for immediate combat roles in a potential near-peer conflict not only contradicts established strategic wisdom but also risks undermining the very foundation required for long-term military effectiveness. Just as in WWII, the strength of today's Air Force lies in its ability to sustain a continuous, robust pipeline of well-trained aviators—essential for meeting both current and future challenges.
Complicating the situation further, the leader included a memorandum from the AMC commander in the communication to Holloman personnel. This memo, directed at AMC units and focused on air mobility readiness, is not operationally relevant to an AETC unit like Holloman, which specializes in pilot training. The inclusion of this AMC memo suggests either a fundamental misunderstanding of MAJCOM missions and chain of command or an exploitative attempt to leverage another command’s directive to impose stricter measures under the guise of heightened readiness. This action risks eroding trust and suggests a disconnect from the specific strategic needs and mission of Holloman AFB.
This inclusion can be viewed through two lenses: either as a result of zealous incompetence or as a deliberate act of deception. The former suggests an overeager approach by the leader at Holloman, possibly lacking in strategic awareness or understanding of command dynamics, leading to a misguided attempt to apply AMC's operational concerns and directives to an AETC unit. The latter perspective implies a more calculated move, leveraging the memo's authoritative tone and sense of urgency to coerce compliance with new policies or procedures under the guise of broader Air Force readiness initiatives. Each explanation presents significant implications for leadership practices and the ethical considerations in utilizing cross-command communications to influence unit behavior.
Understanding the Underlying Motivations in Aircraft Maintenance Leadership
For at least the last decade, F-16 unit leaders have been judged predominantly on maintenance metrics. As the number of personnel dwindled and experienced technicians became scarce, the operational tempo for these units often remained unchanged or even increased, exacerbating the challenges faced by the global F-16 fleet. This situation has led to alarming metrics that reveal a fleet and its support personnel stretched to their limits.
Caught in this untenable situation, leaders have found their options to be severely constrained, often resorting to a mix of incentives and penalties—increasingly relying on the latter. Practices such as extending working hours, increasing cannibalizations, lowering quality standards and enforcement, along with other coercive tactics, have yielded short-term improvements in fleet health metrics. However, these measures have come at a significant long-term cost to the well-being and morale of aircraft maintainers, which, in turn, further degrades fleet health as the essential human capital necessary for sustaining these operations reaches a point of exhaustion, both literally and figuratively. Not surprisingly, trends in suicides and ground mishaps have worsened, highlighting the human toll of decades of neglect faced by these fleets and their maintainers.
In this context, the recent actions taken by the leader at Holloman AFB can be viewed through a lens of desperation and dwindling options. By framing the need for heightened maintenance discipline and operational readiness within the narrative of an imminent near-peer conflict, the leader aims to rally and motivate a weary maintenance crew. This tactic, while possibly effective in the short term, raises significant ethical questions. It exploits the fear of a looming large-scale conflict, leveraging it as a tool to extract even greater effort from an already overstretched workforce.
Conclusion
In this detailed exploration of leadership at Holloman AFB, we have delved into several critical aspects that raise profound concerns about the strategic, ethical, and operational direction being taken. The policies instituted by the leadership—such as formal roll-call formations, extended shift hours, and weekend duties for hard-broke aircraft—are standard military practices meant to enhance unit discipline and efficiency. However, the justification for these measures, framed through the unlikely scenario of the unit's involvement in near-peer conflict, diverges significantly from the practical realities of a training unit primarily focused on pilot development.
The historical precedent of ramping up pilot training during times of global conflict sharply contrasts with the implausible narrative suggesting the reallocation of training assets toward immediate combat readiness. This approach starkly ignores the current pilot shortage, which has reached a critical deficit of 2,000 pilots, emphasizing the essential need to enhance, not diminish, our pilot training efforts. History, particularly during World War II, demonstrated that bolstering pilot training infrastructure was crucial to meeting the demands of large-scale warfare. To suggest that Holloman AFB or similar units might transition their focus from training to front-line combat roles not only misrepresents the practical capabilities of these units but also significantly underestimates the detrimental impact such a shift would have on our preparedness and national security. The very idea contradicts our learned lessons from the past, where increased production of trained pilots was key to maintaining air superiority and overall military effectiveness.
Moreover, the exploitation of near-peer conflict threats to squeeze more production out of an already weary maintenance force reveals a disturbing trend in leadership practices. Such tactics prioritize short-term fleet health metrics over the long-term well-being and morale of personnel, the very backbone of our military's effectiveness and resilience.
This blog post serves as a clarion call for transparency and ethical leadership within the Air Force and beyond. It warns current and future leaders that the use of coercive tactics under the guise of strategic necessity will not escape scrutiny. We must hold our leaders accountable to uphold the values of integrity and honesty, ensuring that they align their strategies with genuine operational needs and ethical standards.
As we move forward, it is imperative that we maintain a vigilant eye on leadership decisions that affect our military readiness and national security. The health of our forces—both human and material—must not be compromised for the sake of meeting fleeting metrics. Let this analysis serve as a reminder that our military ethos demands more than just adherence to orders; it requires a deep commitment to the principles of justice and responsibility to the men and women who serve under its flag.
