Future Fighter Force Structure

[Snip]

This reminds me of the classic interview question, “If we transition to MQ-9’s next year, WWYD?”

1. How would you approach this question? 2. What are some important factors to consider when answering?

[WAS]

1. Given the info in the article it seems like approaching the question with regard to the unit’s mission is fitting. Transitioning to MQ-9s may align with the unit’s mission capabilities (facilities, tactics, etc.) and ultimately represent the needs of the Air Force. Having a unit/mission first mentality versus airframe first mentality shows a commitment to the broader needs of the Air Force and a realization that each unit has a unique role to play in a near-peer fight and/or in up-keeping the U.S.’s commitments globally.

2. Important factors to consider could include you’re being hired as an Air Force officer first and foremost which means you must accept and carry out decisions of the Air Force and/or ANG regardless of whether this means an airframe transition or not. Also, as an officer you have an obligation to be a leader within the unit and support decisions, even difficult ones. This means becoming competent in aspects of the new airframe and encouraging support from both enlisted and officer personnel in the unit to ensure a seamless transition.

[WAGAN]

1. I would have to approach the question brutally honest and depending if I am the FNG applying to the unit or a member of the unit, you’ll receive a different response.

1.1. As an FNG that wants to fly fighters, I will take them for the opportunity in the interview, and let them know that MQ-9 is not the MWS that you’re looking for, but I’ll be glad to maintain in contact with the unit and keep up with the community.

1.2. As a member of the unit I will fight to try to maintain what we have but If there is no other way out stand strong with the bros/dudettes to find the best fit and help with the transition process. Understanding that a guard unit has a lot more to do with the community and the people that you serve with, especially if there are many years of history. to find the best fit and help with the transition process. Understanding that a guard unit has a lot more to do with the community and the people that you serve with especially if there are many years of history.

2. Aspects to think about when answering: Audience, set up questions leading to that, and previous engagements with the person asking. Regardless brutally honest.

2.1. The biggest thing to evaluate, would also briefly think about what challenges the MQ-9 community faces that could prevent us from executing not just our mission and our unit, but any other jobs that we may have. (FAA hours vs. mil hours, conversions, etc.)

I also believe that some people miss the other side of this, as an MQ-9 pilot you are still a pilot and still flying. What changes is how the FAA sees those hours, your mission set, and how you operate. I truly believe that if something like this were to happen you would see a lot more interest from the NG/Res unit to fight the FAA.

Cheers,

-WAGAN (MQ-9 Evaluator)

[Cameron_Robertson]

It’s pretty cool that they’re trying to hang on to all the fighter squadrons; it seems like a smart move with the way things are going globally. I know the USAF has wanted to expand in general including fighters for a while it’s just been a struggle. As the article states and as always they have to go through the politics first; just going off historical precedent, procurement can be absolutely crazy in this stage.

In terms of the question:

1. I was actually lucky enough to meet a fighter pilot a couple years ago who was asked this question a long while back. Apparently the answer he told me was a straight ‘no’ because ‘he was applying to be a fighter, for that unit and that job. Not some different mission’; it was something along the lines of that, though he was more colorful with his wording. A pretty utilitarian and harsh answer for a board, but they must’ve appreciated the honesty since he still got picked up!

2. There’s tons of factors to consider. The unit itself, it’s mission and it’s own history since each is unique and may apply more to a new platform than another one’s transfer. The kind of people who are interviewing you, the abilities of the new platform that they are going to, all the new kind of people and the potential cultural change that will come with it. It seems like a question that’s a rabbit hole to fall down, it’s such a big thing and one thing leads to another.

Thanks for sharing the article Sir!

[Snip]

Your answer here should be authentic…something you’ll hear consistently from BogiDope coaches. You are pursuing your dream job, flying fighters or heavies in the USAF! It’s perfectly ok to tell them that.

But first, some background info because I’ve been involved, directly and indirectly, in several unit aircraft/mission conversions.

Typically, you can split the group in thirds. A third of the squadron have gotten towards the end of their careers and they choose to retire or otherwise end their military service. One third, some due to family commitments and attachment to the local community, will choose to convert to the new mission and stay in the local area. The final third are typically younger and still want to continue in their military manned-flying dream and will transfer to other units to keep flying.

Now, assuming you fall into this last third, you will want to emphasize in your answer that you plan on working hard, committing the time and energy to become a credible contributor in the squadron, a well respected pilot and someone who has proven their worth to the organization. You hope to gain the trust of leadership so that, if the time comes, they would be the first ones to pick up the phone or email their peers at other units, on your behalf, to let them know how much of an asset you would be as you look to continue your military flying career.

Tell’em the truth!

[Cameron_Robertson]

Awesome, great advice Sir, thank you very much for it! It’s good to get some vital info on such a hard question as that, guess the honesty is better understood than the flattery.