63 replies to this topic

[murdocjxx]

Termy, on 01 February 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

I am curious how the B-1 is surviving this. I am not "anti-B-1" at all-it is a freaking cool jet-but it just seems the low density, high cost, and non-unique mission set would make it an easy target. Can anyone shed some unclass/big picture thoughts on this?

A whole lot of standoff weapons in one jet and nothing on the books to replace it. And yes the B-1 does have some unique capes. But im with you, I was a little shocked not to see it on the list. Although 6, 10% of the fleet, are going to the boneyard.

Edited by murdocjxx, 01 February 2012 - 08:55 PM.

[Rainman A-10]

Fast_N_Low135, on 01 February 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

I was under the impression that the B-1 no longer carries nukes, so...unique?

LOL

[Steve Davies]

Can someone explain to the idiot in the room how the Air Force can close down any Guard units? I thought that iron on the ramp at any ANGB was owned by the State in question.

[Getzen2]

Steve Davies, on 02 February 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Can someone explain to the idiot in the room how the Air Force can close down any Guard units? I thought that iron on the ramp at any ANGB was owned by the State in question.

All (air) guard units would close up shop if they didn't get federal funding through the state. So big blue is turning off the tap for them.

[Loach]

Can someone explain to the idiot in the room how the Air Force can close down any Guard units? I thought that iron on the ramp at any ANGB was owned by the State in question.


The iron actually belongs to the Fed's. The people belong to the state. So, for example, when Willow Grove was getting shut down, the Governor of PA said "No" that it couldn't be shut down b/c he owned the people. The Air Force said Okay, but we own the planes. So, now the 111th is open with an AFFOR support mission (something like that), but it has no airplanes.

Same thing happened to me in the guard about 13 years ago. We were over in Inicirlik at NORTHERN WATCH, and the JFACC (or equivalent) wanted to keep some more airplanes there (135's) to beef up ops. So, as the new unit rotated in, they tried to keep us from leaving. My guard unit said no, that we weren't staying. The JFACC said that he owned the airplanes and personnel and we were staying. Our leadership said the airplanes could stay, but the personnel would be rotating back one way or another, as the personnel were state guard folks (and our leadership was serious about this -- we were there for 15 day rotations -- same as our AT requirement). In the end, the Turks told us to get out -- apparently they wanted no more than 6 US tankers at a time there for ONW anyway (b/c we refused to refuel them when they were going to bomb the Kurds).

In any case, the Air Force can do a lot of things to make the guard hurt (i.e. take away equipment, funding, etc), but it is the states choice to keep the unit in place. Of course, as most of our states are hurting financially, I don't see how they can argue w/ Big Blue right now.

[skibum]

Steve Davies, on 02 February 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

I thought that iron on the ramp at any ANGB was owned by the State in question.

Short answer - all US military aircraft are purchased using federal appropriation.

It would be kind of cool if the states had aircraft as real militia equipment - right up until California decided to annex Arizona because they are out of money.

[Rainman A-10]

Steve Davies, on 02 February 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

I thought that iron on the ramp at any ANGB was owned by the State in question.

Don't feel bad even though we have had that discussion many times on these board as that is perhaps the most common ANG misunderstanding out there. Especially among Guard guys who think they have found safe haven from the evil Big Blue by going to the Guard.

AD can and does make very disruptive iron decisions about the Guard all the time. Unfortunately, the ANGB normally makes it worse as they negotiate iron/mission swaps among unit ANG units that are political not strategic or even tactical. They care about being fair, not about being right.

[TheGuardGuy]

http://www.dodbuzz.c...y-for-face-off/

[NEflyer]

That article brings up several valid points. If your mind works like a Senator or Congressmen, odds are you want a piece of that 600B pie for your state/district. Right now the distribution is horrible and the smaller delegations are going to fight tooth and nail to keep what little they have. For example, there isn't a single AD (USMC, AF, USN) air station/base in the whole of New England (throw in NY if you like). Eliminate a few of those ANG flying missions and you're left with a bunch of states that only have a few USAR and ARNG units. Those states aren't going to be happy about their federal taxes going to subsidize installation rich states like Florida, TX, SC, etc. with none coming back into their local economy. Not arguing whether that's right or wrong, just pointing out the way these decisions are viewed in Washington.

Edited by NEflyer, 03 February 2012 - 10:40 AM.

[TheGuardGuy]

http://www.nationalg...020312-Air.aspx

Here's the current breakdown of losses

[135ASelect]

So let me get this straight Air Force...we're going to stand-up an airlift squadron at a fighter unit, but turn a former C-130/C-27J Airlift Squadron into a Network Warfare Squadron??? Anybody out there know of anybody willing to take a rated 2LT thats already been through SERE, and water, just waiting for the FTU?

[pittsdriver]

Sometimes bad fortune turns into good fortune. I tried and tried to get into the Ft. Smith unit (from there, live there now) for years. Way back when they had vipers and now hogs. Since I was not the wing kings son, nephew, cousin, etc, could never get in so went active duty instead. Even after I separated last year and they were 14 pilots short I could not get in. Granted I was a BUFF driver and not hogs but the transition would not have been too bad IMO. Now, I imagine the remainder of the folks in the unit will jump ship after the deployment this year, will open up some new leadership here and bet they will be dying to fill the UAV pilot slots. Granted, I would rather be flying but to have a full time guard job in my home town sure would be nice. Good luck to those of you are losing your units and hope you can find a deal somewhere else.

[Toto]

NEflyer, on 03 February 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

That article brings up several valid points. If your mind works like a Senator or Congressmen, odds are you want a piece of that 600B pie for your state/district. Right now the distribution is horrible and the smaller delegations are going to fight tooth and nail to keep what little they have. For example, there isn't a single AD (USMC, AF, USN) air station/base in the whole of New England (throw in NY if you like). Eliminate a few of those ANG flying missions and you're left with a bunch of states that only have a few USAR and ARNG units. Those states aren't going to be happy about their federal taxes going to subsidize installation rich states like Florida, TX, SC, etc. with none coming back into their local economy. Not arguing whether that's right or wrong, just pointing out the way these decisions are viewed in Washington.

Or you could look at it through a public relations perspective. How does the Air Force, and to a lesser extent the military, expect to win over certain demographics if the population is limited in its exposure to the AF and the military? The NE is a barren wasteland and the Midwest is fast become one too in regards to the military bases and "local" units. Hell, I doubt ROTC is as big there as it is in the southeast and southwest. Everything seems to be heading south of the Mason-Dixon line and that is not helping in changing the perception that the military is a southern, uber-conservative government being. And that does tie into the fiscal side of things too. I'm sure a lot of New Englanders are asking why they should be paying in some way for a force that can one day get yanked from their communities and transplanted to a southern state with half the population but twice the military units. These cuts could really usher in a very difficult discussion that I'm sure many in DOD and the government do not want to have because it will bring headaches for all.

[jcollins]

NEflyer, on 03 February 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

That article brings up several valid points. If your mind works like a Senator or Congressmen, odds are you want a piece of that 600B pie for your state/district. Right now the distribution is horrible and the smaller delegations are going to fight tooth and nail to keep what little they have. For example, there isn't a single AD (USMC, AF, USN) air station/base in the whole of New England (throw in NY if you like). Eliminate a few of those ANG flying missions and you're left with a bunch of states that only have a few USAR and ARNG units. Those states aren't going to be happy about their federal taxes going to subsidize installation rich states like Florida, TX, SC, etc. with none coming back into their local economy. Not arguing whether that's right or wrong, just pointing out the way these decisions are viewed in Washington.

Hanscom
Groton Sub Base
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
US Coast Guard Academy

There are few but they are there.

[Rainman A-10]

Toto, on 04 February 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

Or you could look at it through a public relations perspective. How does the Air Force, and to a lesser extent the military, expect to win over certain demographics if the population is limited in its exposure to the AF and the military? The NE is a barren wasteland and the Midwest is fast become one too in regards to the military bases and "local" units.

It would be interesting to look at a series of facts. I know that the National Guard numbers for Minnesota are unbelievable and that is without a single active duty military base. The Army and USAF Guard have no problem with recruiting or retention and lead the nation in that regard.

Quote

I'm sure a lot of New Englanders are asking why they should be paying in some way for a force that can one day get yanked from their communities and transplanted to a southern state with half the population but twice the military units.

What do you mean by this? In what way would "New Englanders be paying for a force" in a unique way other than paying taxes like anyone else?

[NEflyer]

jcollins, on 06 February 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

Hanscom
Groton Sub Base
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
US Coast Guard Academy

There are few but they are there.

NEflyer, on 03 February 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

For example, there isn't a single AD (USMC, AF, USN) air station/base in the whole of New England (throw in NY if you like).

I didn't include the CG because they have Air Station Cape Cod, the only installation in New England with an active duty flying unit.

[guim]

How do you retire a new plane? (IE the C-27)

[lloyd christmas]

guim13, on 06 February 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

How do you retire a new plane? (IE the C-27)

By selling it to the Italians.

[Toto]

Rainman A-10, on 06 February 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

It would be interesting to look at a series of facts. I know that the National Guard numbers for Minnesota are unbelievable and that is without a single active duty military base. The Army and USAF Guard have no problem with recruiting or retention and lead the nation in that regard.



What do you mean by this? In what way would "New Englanders be paying for a force" in a unique way other than paying taxes like anyone else?

I probably wasn't super clear in my last post. What I really wanted to say was that a lot of numbers point to the northeast and midwest (especially urban areas) being severely underrepresented in the military and that is going to cause trouble because an entire section of the US is not being exposed to the military and that lack of exposure can cause trouble when budgets and so forth are being tossed around for the public to see. How can DOD expect a population that doesn't know much about what the military does to not view an increase in military spending as more dollars being diverted from programs which they have been exposed to? Or more likely, how can they not expect those people to push for a serious decrease in defense spending if it means saving programs they are comfortable around and understand? How can one justify pushing positive notions for the military if the area is losing its connections to the military? That is why I said that it is rough that a lot of those reductions are hitting Guard/Reserve units in places that should be seeing a presence expansion. I don't think recruiting numbers will be hurt, but it would be beneficial to start recruiting heavier from those underrepresented areas so that the force can be more complete. A couple of links that agree with both our positions that recruiting is strong but inequal in representation.

Quote

In addition to confirming the strong Southern military tradition, we also found an exceptional ten­dency for lower than average military participation in New England.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/11/who-bears-the-burden-demographic-characteristics-of-us-military-recruits-before-and-after-9-11

Quote

Geographic representation. The South continues to be overrepresented, with more than 41 percent of enlistments compared with 35 percent of the civilian population (see Figure 5).

http://www.rand.org/.../volunteer.html

Quote

As military budgets shrink, that’s going to mean that the services concentrate themselves in enclaves like the south and mountain west, while large urban, wealthy and coastal populations increasingly grow distant from military life.

http://www.wired.com...nteer-military/

I hope that clears it up a little.

[matmacwc]

You end up with a conservative leaning military, not that I'm complaining.