Hagel alludes to pay increase cuts, retirement/Tricare changes

[Lawman]

I'll bite. Why, other than your perceived notion that 90% of the AF doesn't know about us, should we get rid of all helos? How long do you think the Army will maintain a dedicated CSAR/PR airframe? After five minutes they'll say, "oh yeah, we'll do that if we have time, or we aren't doing other things already," but they'll always have other things to do. Or, are you of the ilk that we don't need a dedicated CSAR force because of ten years in OEF? I see you're a forward thinker. Other than that, I don't care about all helos going to the Army. I just happen to believe CSAR/PR necessitates a dedicated force. Oh yeah, QOL sucks, so that would be a downside... Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

There would be ways to go about it but the planning to succeed with it would need a lot more vetting then just giving over the keys and the mission. The Army does have a lot in the way of organic support ability as far as setting up FARPs or providing guns to support when required. But I agree I would hate to see the mission just get folded into the standard CAB METL. Way to easy for assets to find themselves retasked, kinda why we maintain a specific medevac element so they don't get used to haul ass and trash around in the "off time." It would have to be treated as a separate entity to the theatre commander, not OPCON to some CAB commander whose first thought is his divisional support requirement and everything outside of that is extra. It would need to almost be its own entity within the JSOC/160th side of Army Aviation. Edited November 13, 2013 by Lawman

[Junglejett]

Agree

There would be ways to go about it but the planning to succeed with it would need a lot more vetting then just giving over the keys and the mission. The Army does have a lot in the way of organic support ability as far as setting up FARPs or providing guns to support when required. But I agree I would hate to see the mission just get folded into the standard CAB METL. Way to easy for assets to find themselves retasked, kinda why we maintain a specific medevac element so they don't get used to haul ass and trash around in the "off time." It would have to be treated as a separate entity to the theatre commander, not OPCON to some CAB commander whose first thought is his divisional support requirement and everything outside of that is extra. It would need to almost be its own entity within the JSOC/160th side of Army Aviation.

[busdriver]

Much like the rest of the DoD, the current fight in Afghanistan doesn't look at all like what AF Rescue exists to do. Big blue doesn't pay to keep us around to pick up people in a permissive environment with FOBs every ten feet. We exist to do long range CSAR into an IADS type threat environment, and since we are the air component's doctrinally required PR capability that means we pick up fighter pilots.

The GSAB has a downed aircrew extraction mission too, it plays last fiddle on their METL, with VIP support being number one.

TF Gabriel made good strides in OIF 1 but then disbanded.

[nsplayr]

Sounds like a good idea, but here a few things to consider...

For one thing, current laws allow us to collect our Law Enforcement retirement at age 50, after completing 20 years of covered service. If one does 25 years, then the retirement can be collected at any age. If this were to apply to the military, there would be, in essence, no retirement benefit unless one completes 25 years of service, or at a minimum 20 years and can wait until age 50 to collect. So really, all it would do is make everyone serve 25 years for retirement, as there's really no incentive to get out before that. Should we leave (I'm a reservist who works as a fed leo full time) before our retirement, we can apply for a deferred retirement at either age 62 or our min retiremten age, however there are no health insurance benefits with this type of retirement (and the requirement to do the 5 years to vest). TSP also follows us. Should we transfer to a non-leo position, we lose those "covered years" (i.e. they revert to only being worth 1% instead of 1.7%), despite the fact we paid 1.3% of our base salary (non-covered positions only require 1% contributions from employees).

Another thing is that with the 6c/12d retirement, there's a social security supplement for us to hold us over until we get to the age where we can collect social security (b/c of the mandatory retirement age). That's another item that would need to be addressed - would that apply to the military also?

At 25 years, one can expect to collect 39% of their average high 3 salary under FERS LEO retirement. That's a huge difference from the current 60% a service member would receive for the same number of years. Who in their right mind would stay for that? Also, the military retirement fund isn't the problem -- it's mainly our healthcare. Also, I'm home every single night from my LEO job (although there is forced OT but we receive compensation for that either through LEAP or AUO depending on your agency). I can say no to being sent overseas - I do have to go on a stateside tdys if required, but they're few and far between. I work my share of holidays and weekends, and crappy hours, but even then I still make it home for part of the holiday/b-day party/bbq/ little league game/etc. Not putting down what I do, but the commitment to the military is much greater than that of my civilain LEO position -- there's a need for a unique retirement for the military. I do both and I can say there's no comparing the two -- I miss alot more of life and make more sacrifices in the reserves than I do for my agency.

In my opinion, watering down the retirement will cause the better people to leave and those that stay will be the ones who can't do anything else - exactly what we don't want to further encourage.

Good info to share, especially since you're living with it, thanks.

My view isn't that we should reduce overall benefits since, like you said, it's healthcare (and to a lesser extent pay), not pensions that are hurting the DOD financially. My biggest point is that our current retirement system does absolutely zero for 80% of those who serve; it only ends up benefiting the 20% who stay to the full 20+.

While we do need to incentivize career officers and enlisted troops to stay until 20 and beyond, a retirement system with a huge delayed vesting time isn't nearly the best way to do it. Give people targeted bonuses, more choice and input in their career path, and the ability to exit and re-enter service throughout their career and you'll do a much better job keeping the right people.

Right now the 20 year military retirement is the best retirement plan in the country, hands down, no debate there. It requires a lot of sacrifice and those who do earn it earn every penny. But what it's not is the best system for the vast majority of those who honorably serve. I'm arguing you can have a system that not only serves career troops better by providing a better QOL throughout rather than just one big carrot at the end and numerous kicks in the balls until then, but one that provides something other than a firm handshake to those who decide to leave before 20.

Maybe the fed LEO plan isn't perfect in its particulars, maybe it's not generous enough to keep the talent the military needs, it's just a starting point an an opening argument for a system that's fully fleshed out and is judged as a good deal for those serving honorably in a fed LEO role. Do we need the vesting period to be longer than 5 years? When do you start collecting? How do you prevent perverse incentives to stay until 25 but being useless (i.e. ROAD)? IDK, open for debate.

Honestly I'm not even on the bandwagon of wanting to save money by redesigning the mil retirement, I really just want a better program that gives a good benefit to many more veterans rather than an amazing benefit to few. Why can't we even just add TSP matching? Shouldn't we be encouraging young officers and enlisted troops to save for their retirement rather than just promise them Uncle Sam will cut them a check if they stick around long enough? Put the vest period for matching funds at 5 years to capture more time and a second look from your support officers and first term Airmen with relatively short enlistments.

Our system isn't fundamentally broken and I don't expect it to change, especially since it would take an act of Congress, but it's worth talking about at least.

Edited November 14, 2013 by nsplayr

[slackline]

So..now, who is the forward thinker?

Still not you.

Bus driver brought up the same point I did that you ignored. Under Army command it will be something they do, when they're not doing something else. I mentioned that CSAR doesn't exist for OEF. Keep thinking it does. Hopefully people like you do the planning for every AF program. We'd be awesome in no time.

I agree it's a money pit, but it's one of those necessary evils. No other PR force can do what we do. No other force accepts the threat level, or crappy wx mins that we do because we train to that higher standard. It's just that simple. Just because the Army had someone on a ring route next to the ISOP doesn't mean they're faster. In any environment with IADS there will be no ring routes...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Breckey]

How would it work for the other half of the air force helo force? The army could probably take over the AFDW mission considering they are part out the same OPLANS but the icbm mission would be an exercise in bureaucracy. Army helos flying air force cops from an air force base securing air force missiles. Good luck getting anything done.

[OverTQ]

Each service will push what is in its best interest. If it gets a "hand me down" mission from another service it will treat it as such. As for being a forward thinker, you are the only one saying to give PR to the Army. Hell, even the Army guys are telling you that is a bad idea and your are still telling us we are all wrong.

[Dupe]

401K is all well and good for those that are relatively new to the AF (<4 years), what are you going to do with the O-4/5 with two to three years left till the check for life club and now you want to make it a 401K? Compounding interest doesn't work overnight (or over 2-3 years).

We need to do away with the 20 year retirement. If a mid-level person has a skill that's valuable, you pay him a mountain of cash (through bonuses) to stay. I'm convinced the current system causes way too many to stay in, reduces efficiency, and causes ballooning long-run costs.

[Fuzz]

Our costs as have been said before are with primarily healthcare, we'll also fix that situation partially when we pull out of Afghanistan. To date between OEF and OIF we have sustained almost 50,000 WIA. Those have and are going to come with extremely high costs, for the extended future.

[raimius]

As well as those mentioned above:

Shutter the following:

Thunderbirds

Blue Angles

Service Bands

...shit, all demo teams. If you do not contribute directly to day-to-day operations, you're gone.

Quit forcing people to PCS every 10 minutes.

Probably a good idea.

Dismantle the Reserves and create a larger Air Guard force. They have a more expansive mission (state).

Give all helo's to the Army. They are better at operating them.

Any evidence to support that assertion? Other than AFDW/PACAF UH-1s, I don't see it being close to practical.

Contract nearly all services (pay, lodging, personnel, ect). If your job typically involves you NOT deploying, let a contractor do it.

Quit changing uniforms every other year. Shit is getting old.

ABUs are a joke, but other than that, sure.

No more leather couches when members are required to pay for thier own boots. (yeah, it happened)

Spin ups do not require you to buy 150K worth of shit you will never use. If you cannot walk of the door with what you have, you're doing it wrong.

Pretty much.

Do not retire the A-10, but get rid of the F-22. Scale back the F-35 buy.

I'm a fan of the A-10, but cutting our Gen 5 fighters isn't a good answer. Other nations have Gen4.5 fighters, let's not rely on our Gen4 fighters for the next 50 years.

Bring back warrants in the AF and let them fly.

Merits study.

Close the AF academy. Let them track from West Point like in the olden days.

There are reasons we have an independent AF. You might want to look into it.

[Junglejett]

I would also add that I would seriously considering combining the services into a joint force. Other countries have done it with success. There is way too much "overhead" in the support structure. The Joint Base idea seems to work well, why not a joint military? Three branches operating fixed wing tactical aircraft? Four using helo's in various functions, all in a SAR capacity as well. Two using tanks? Three using ships? Time to look at cutting the true waste.

[Junglejett]

I said "seems" to work. I guess it is not. But why? He answers the question right here.

One of the challenges of joint basing has been navigating the cultural differences between the services, he said.

“There is a difference in culture between the services,” Odierno said. “There’s a difference in what we think we should have, and there’s a difference in what they think we should have, and there’s a difference in what they think they should have, and what we think they should have.

If we were truly "joint", we could do a lot towards eliminating those differences.

You must have had an entirely different experience than the rest of the leadership - who say that Joint basing is an abortion. Thus far, my experience matches what those with egg on their hat are saying.

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20131102/BENEFITS07/311020003/

Chuck

[Fuzz]

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/11/congress-must-scrap-generous-dod-benefits-for-future-forces-rep-hunter/

"Career soldiers can retire at 42, get a great deal on Tricare health insurance, take home a pension, and get paid a good private-sector salary on top of that. That can’t continue to be the norm for the military and Congress must create a two-tier pay system, says Rep. Duncan Hunter, Marine Corps reservist and member of the House Armed Services Committee."

[albertschu]

All great thoughts... we should decidedly work to find (not so hard to hide) efficiencies in the current year operations budget.

Benefits, pay, and retirement still need a hard look, however... as some of those things will turn into must-pays for future years. I don't remember the numbers precisely, but we have something like a 3% troop strength increase from 1995, but personnel budget has ballooned by 50%. I think most of that is in health care costs (hence the call for increased TRICARE payments), but some is in pay as well. So should we trim the operations budget to make the personnel side be ever larger?

You mean that since we've been in a war, our medical expenses have been higher?! Shocking.

Also, our ammunition budget has ballooned--we should look at cutting back how much we issue to troops in Afghanistan.

The counter to that, we add in a healthy bonus to keep those we need, while allowing those we don't need to leave with a vested 401K.

So, essentially, we use market forces to retain key skills. Crazy.

How does giving a 401k to someone you don't need, save money?

[albertschu]

We need to do away with the 20 year retirement. If a mid-level person has a skill that's valuable, you pay him a mountain of cash (through bonuses) to stay. I'm convinced the current system causes way too many to stay in, reduces efficiency, and causes ballooning long-run costs.

So, what you are really saying is that the promotion rate to major is too high.

[WeatherManC130]

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/11/congress-must-scrap-generous-dod-benefits-for-future-forces-rep-hunter/

FIFY

"One term politicians can collect pension after 5 years, get a great deal on health insurance, and get paid kick backs from private-sectors on top of that. That can’t continue to be the norm for Washington and the American people must do something about it, says Rep. Duncan Hunter, Marine Corps reservist and member of the House Armed Services Committee."

[Spur38]

"One term politicians can collect pension after 5 years, get a great deal on health insurance" I wish that they could have only one term.....and forced to use O'Bama care, use TSP for the term in lieu of a pension.....