Danny Noonin Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 There are some things that the ARC does that is cheaper than AD. However, if you use activity based costing models the ARC is actually no less expensive and is often much more expensive than their AD counterpart Agreed on specific activity based costs but the real stuff that's eating the DoD's lunch financially are long term personnel costs--including health care and retirement. From the long range scope, the ARC is a relative bargain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiFlyer Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 The Guard has a huge mafia on the Hill. As much as DoD or any other Federal entity might want to scrap the Guard, it'll have to get through Congress. As an example, at one time not too far back (not sure about 2011), the National Guard was the single largest employer in the state of Mississippi. Maybe not largest employer of full time people, but largest employer, nevertheless. If you think the Congressmen and Senators from states like that (there are a fair number) are going to roll over and eliminate their constituents' jobs, I think you are very mistaken! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hueypilot812 Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 AETC is all civilian mx You mean *most* of AETC is civilian mx. The 314th AW at LRAFB still has a military Mx Group. Won't be surprised when the rest of the MDS's will be under ANG/AFRC school houses with civilian mx . The C-130 is going that direction. The ANG will be doing the C-130 AMP schoolhouse. AFRC is picking up the C-130H schoolhouse. And when all the H-models are AMP'd, there's predictions that the AFRC squadron may pick up the C-130J training mission down the road (either that or become a smaller AMC-gained reserve associate unit at LRAFB). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Agreed on specific activity based costs but the real stuff that's eating the DoD's lunch financially are long term personnel costs--including health care and retirement. From the long range scope, the ARC is a relative bargain. That could be true and I'll have to take your word for it, I haven't seen those numbers. There are many costs and funding sources to consider to know if that is true but it might be. You have to align those long term costs with the operational requirements to make sure we're not saving money but unable to meet our taskings. As an example, at one time not too far back (not sure about 2011), the National Guard was the single largest employer in the state of Mississippi. Maybe not largest employer of full time people, but largest employer, nevertheless. If you think the Congressmen and Senators from states like that (there are a fair number) are going to roll over and eliminate their constituents' jobs, I think you are very mistaken! I know that politicians will fight for jobs. It can help but it might not be enough. There is precedent for both outcomes. An important note in line with the topic being discussed here is keeping ANG jobs does not mean keeping fighters on the ramp at an ANG unit. One thing I have always said to ANG fighter pilots is that there are only about 69 people on any Guard base who really care what type, if any, airplanes are on the ramp. Leaders (politicians or ANG) will not go "all or nothing" for a specific aircraft type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 True true Rainman. Unfortunately, there are many fighter guardsman finding this out the hard way and I don't see this getting any better. With Active Duty running a shortage on fighters, those "ANG Assets" are just too tempting not to take! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocialD Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 With Active Duty running a shortage on fighters, those "ANG Assets" are just too tempting not to take! Problem is, they won't have enough fighter pilots to fly them, and staff all the other taskings...RPA, MC-12, ALO, staff, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitteEinBit Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 Problem is, they won't have enough fighter pilots to fly them, and staff all the other taskings...RPA, MC-12, ALO, staff, etc. What are you talking about? Fighter pilot with more than 17 years have the highest retention rates EVER! The Air Force isn't worried, we have plenty of fighter pilots...PA said so! (simulated sarcasm emoticon HERE) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPT-hopeful Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 True true Rainman. Unfortunately, there are many fighter guardsman finding this out the hard way and I don't see this getting any better. With Active Duty running a shortage on fighters, those "ANG Assets" are just too tempting not to take! If the AD is so interested in taking fighters from the Guard why did they just recently give them Block 50s and 40s? They could have just kept those jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocialD Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 (edited) If the AD is so interested in taking fighters from the Guard why did they just recently give them Block 50s and 40s? They could have just kept those jets. The same reason they pour millions into base renovations and then shut that base down the following year... Edited August 7, 2011 by SocialD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right Seat Driver Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 The same reason they pour millions into base renovations and then shut that base down the following year... Reference Wurtsmith...Reese...Loring, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Reference Wurtsmith...Reese...Loring, etc. RAF Alconbury, RAF Woodbridge, RAF Bentwaters...pumped millions into those bases and we flew one squadron to Shaw, One to Spang and four to the boneyard before all the new construction was even completed...but it was completed. And then we slammed Bentwaters and Woody shut...Alconbury hung on for a few years. If the AD is so interested in taking fighters from the Guard why did they just recently give them Block 50s and 40s? They could have just kept those jets. Just curious, are you new to this planet? The F-16 is toast. That's not a secret. Look at the history of the iron and the ANG. AD sends all the dying platforms to cling to life for a few years in the Guard. You know something is really dead when the airplane is only flying in the Guard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravedigger Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 AD sends all the dying platforms to cling to life for a few years in the Guard. You know something is really dead when the airplane is only flying in the Guard. True. Although I wouldn't have minded one bit in this case. From WWII to Vietnam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HercDude Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 You know something is really dead when the airplane is only flying in the Guard. Like the C-27J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daredevileng1 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 (edited) True. Although I wouldn't have minded one bit in this case. From WWII to Vietnam. 2 Foot note that aircraft now resides on the front gate of the 130th AW (WV ANG)with the same paint scheme. Story has it that it was flown last by the former wing kings father. Edited August 8, 2011 by Daredevileng1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Spike Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 \ The F-16 is toast. That's not a secret. The Block 30 most likely is, 40/50s not so much. I'd be surprised if the Block 30 makes it to SCU 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 The Block 30 most likely is, 40/50s not so much. Really? Maybe something's changed. Last I knew, it was toast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Spike Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Really? Maybe something's changed. Last I knew, it was toast. This was assuming the F-35 coming online as planned, so in that regard, a lot has changed. The big wigs don't want to buy Block 69s off the showroom floor, but the odds of major upgrades to keep the MMC fleet flying are pretty high as a stop gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocialD Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 (edited) Look at the history of the iron and the ANG. AD sends all the dying platforms to cling to life for a few years in the Guard. You know something is really dead when the airplane is only flying in the Guard. Good example is the A-7! It clung to life in the Guard for quite a while before being sent to the boneyard! I think even the RTU and Weapons School(?) were all Guard. The B-1 was taken from the Guard back to AD, although the B-1 was never exclusively an ANG asset. But that is proof that the AD owns the Iron. Like the C-27J. That program should be toast! Total POS! Really? Maybe something's changed. Last I knew, it was toast. The Block 30s are quickly approaching their drop dead date. The 40s/50s will cling to life for as long as it takes to get the 35s up and running on AD. Last rumor was as far out as 2030 for the Block 40s...longer for the 50s. Rainman, you of all people, should know that those charts can change rather quickly. What was the original date that the Hogs were supposed to be done? Edited August 8, 2011 by SocialD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bagasticks Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 option 2 rumor is the one floating around these parts; combining guard and reserve and giving state gov't the option to use assets as needed/approved. . it is a rumor but it has flowed from the top down (locally). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosuper Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 option 2 rumor is the one floating around these parts; combining guard and reserve and giving state gov't the option to use assets as needed/approved. . it is a rumor but it has flowed from the top down (locally). Already been done, at KTIK we have the 507ARW AFRC and 137ARW OKANG sharing offices and KC-135's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 This was assuming the F-35 coming online as planned, so in that regard, a lot has changed. Not really. You're hearing the new Secretary saying we're going to downsize. The end state numbers are being adjusted and the asset retirement plan stays intact. We've done it before and called it a peace dividend. The big wigs don't want to buy Block 69s off the showroom floor, I cannot imagine a scenario where we start buying the LGOPS off the production line again. but the odds of major upgrades to keep the MMC fleet flying are pretty high as a stop gap. Not the odds, the cost. Prohibitive. BL, we don't have a manned aircraft solution we can afford. UCAV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 UCAV. You wouldn't happen to work for a company with interests in this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 You wouldn't happen to work for a company with interests in this? Nope. I don't even work for a defense contractor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I cannot imagine a scenario where we start buying the LGOPS off the production line again. ...can't even poke fun at my jet correctly. Someone's getting a bit old? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 ...can't even poke fun at my jet correctly. Someone's getting a bit old? :) Touche' motherfucker! And I heard that I also might well be wrong about buying new F-16s off the line. Maybe I should quit while I'm only slightly behind (but with opening Vc)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now