Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Flaco

National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force

Recommended Posts

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140202/NEWS05/302020004/Platform-personnel-cuts-likely-FY-15-Air-Force-budget

Hostage was more direct.

“It appears that I will be told I have to continue to purchase Global Hawks, and given the budget picture that we have, I cannot afford both the U-2 and the Global Hawk,” the Air Combat Command leader said. “What that means is that we are going to have to spend buckets of money to get the Global Hawk up to some semblance of capability that the U-2 currently has. It is going to cost a lot of money, and it is going to take time, and as I lose the U-2 fleet, I now have a high-altitude ISR fleet that is not very useful in a contested environment.”

Why is the AF being forced to buy the Global Hawk?

Glad to see Gen Hostage calling it like it is!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the AF being forced to buy the Global Hawk?

Glad to see Gen Hostage calling it like it is!

I'm gonna guess politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nice looking report with no specifics.

These are the only things I found.

Base Restructure

Typically, Air Reserve Component mobility squadrons have eight aircraft compared to Active Component squadrons of 12, while Air Reserve Component combat squadrons have 18 aircraft compared to Active Component squadrons of 24.

This presents an opportunity to realize efficiencies by shutting down or warm basing an Active Component base and increasing the footprint at nearby Reserve Component bases. For example, Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, has shrunk to only two Active Component F-15E squadrons with a total of 45 aircraft. Nearby Boise ANGB currently has one squadron of 18 A-10s.

A divestiture of the A-10s would present an opportunity to move up to 24 F-15Es to the Boise ANGB base in an integrated wing construct. The remaining F-15Es at Mountain Home could be moved to another location.

Air Reserve Technician Savings

Compared to the Army, the Air Force has a greater proportion of its Air Reserve Component personnel on full-time duty. This level of full-time manning merits further analysis for the potential of additional cost savings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the AF being forced to buy the Global Hawk?

Glad to see Gen Hostage calling it like it is!

Where are the things built?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the AF being forced to buy the Global Hawk?

Glad to see Gen Hostage calling it like it is!

Northrop's profit is more important than National Security. Congress is forcing the AF to buy a platform that is more expensive, with horrible MX/reliability rates, can't fly in icing, can't fly in contested environment, with sensors that are sub-par to the U-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, has shrunk to only two Active Component F-15E squadrons with a total of 45 aircraft. Nearby Boise ANGB currently has one squadron of 18 A-10s.A divestiture of the A-10s would present an opportunity to move up to 24 F-15Es to the Boise ANGB base in an integrated wing construct.

Wow, if MHAFB would move up the road to Boise, that would be a sweet assignment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, if MHAFB would move up the road to Boise, that would be a sweet assignment.

That's the understatement of the year.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, if MHAFB would move up the road to Boise, that would be a sweet assignment.

2!

Drove through on my way home from a TDY and planned to stay at mountain home to save a little money on hotels. Arrived on base then departed about 2 min later and drove the extra 45 min to Boise to stay at the Hampton. Best additional $50 I spent on that trip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found it interesting that the article fails to mention Afghanistan or Shift to the Pacific. Not the point of the article, but most tag some standard paragraph at the end. Sounds like the Air Force may be serious about have a period of reshaping/rebuilding. We are war weary so I think this draw down will be similar to Vietnam versus Post Cold War. Under General Welsh the Air Force is righting itself slowly. Talk is being back up with action. The biggest issue is cutting the force correctly. If we are going to get smaller and learner, everyone who is R.O.A.D. needs to leave or be forced out. That is the idea behind TERA, but I still heard, "XX% is just too low."

Other platforms that could be phased out as a cost-cutting measure include the KC-10, an older transport aircraft, and the MC-12, a surveillance platform from Beechcraft.

The Air Force is going to target less political air frames. From Congress' perspective, there is no money left to squeeze out of the KC-10. Interesting to see about the response about the MC-12. Probably, not enough money there and to young to revamp/refresh.

The Air Force took a conservative approach to its budget, beginning with a worst-case scenario and building up. While the congressional budget deal has bought the Pentagon extra funds over sequestration levels, the service intends to use that money to address readiness challenges rather than add new platforms.

If this is true, great. As long as no one gets killed due to proficiency, this is the best push back we can manage. We literally have to rebuild the fleet, and saying "Unable" to the Africa flare up would be just great. Maybe we can stop being the easy button for everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude. This report is bad. There's some huge game-changing nuggets in there for those who care about life after Active Duty service...

Page 32: Recommendation to DISESTABLISH the Air Force Reserve Command, along with disbanding ARC numbered AFs, wings and squadrons.

Um, WTFO? You've GOT to be shitting me.

Then they go in great detail about the establishment of these so called i-Wings. If you care about divesting yourself from Active Duty stupidity in your attempt at flying military jets for a living, iWings is the last thing you want to work under.

It's a complex spider-web of memorandums of agreement/understanding (MOA/MOU) that keeps this teeter-totter from flipping over in the current form, but I'll stick to the punchline. Here's the important thing you AD bubbas need to grasp about your own perception of QOL in the Reserves in the context of this report: It all hinges on a little known word called ADCON.

ADCON is what allows those "corner-cutting Reservists" your leadership winces at, the ability to say "NO" to the bullshit while continuing to fly Air Force jets for a paycut. ADCON is what allows Reservists to protect their flying and personnel records when Active Duty Commanders wish to railroad individuals merely because they control the iron on the ramp and reservists don't toe the line. ADCON is the kevlar behind the MAJCOM velcro patch Reservists wear every day. It is not surprising the AF wishes to disband that MAJCOM entirely.

ADCON (not to be confused with OPCON) is what this report repeatedly slams as the source of inefficiency within the current landscape of component associations, commonly known as Total Force Integration/Enterprise (TFI/TFE). For the uninitiated, these are your..

1) Active Associates (Reserve leadership, iron and work rules, Active duty rent-a-bodies; aka a good deal)

2) Classic Associates (Active duty leadership, iron and work rules, Reserve rent-a-bodies; aka a bad deal) and

3) Guard Associates (Guard and AFRC leadership, iron and work rules; aka the best deal going, short of stand alone Guard or Reserve units).

The report seeks to recommend stripping the AFRC from exercising ADCON by disbanding the command, leaving that responsibility fully within the spectrum of Active Duty Commanders. FUCK. THAT. SHIT.

Understand what this means: Active Duty life for a part-time paycheck. Forget QOL, forget good flying assignments. Forget reprieve from Active duty qweep. The iWing is the full and ultimate takeover of Reserve discretion. Honestly, if that is to come to fruition, you don't really want to stick around the military. At that point you either fight to get your pension check in Active Duty and suck that buffalo a nickle a herd if you can stomach it, or you make a clean break for the airlines or civilian life. Because I tell you this much, active duty life for a reserve paycheck is something that's NOT gonna gain any traction with the financially literate, the talented and educated; i.e. those with options. You don't want to stick around the rejects that will sand-crab their way into tenures in this newly formed expanded active-duty controlled "associate" abortion.

Holy shit I can't believe that report is real. Beginning of the end folks, if these recommendations come to pass. Baby boomers lucked out. Mother fuckers are shutting it all down with their own retirements and departure from military and civil service. Born 20 years too late....Fuck. Oh well, it was a good run. I'd count myself lucky if I can finish my watered down retirement under FERS licking stamps at the post office. Good thing I'm putting the wife through nursing school, we're gonna need that income.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shack.

This report is stunning for what it means for the future. Like it or not, the AFRC was designated as a soft-target this time around. If this goes into effect, there will be repercussions no one saw coming, and they will affect each and every one of you, active or not, sometime in the future.

I had to read it twice to make sure I was reading it right.

Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having worked in a TFI unit as an ART for 3 years. This new I-Wing cant be worse for an ART.

Working as a civilian and pretending to be Active Duty. And living by the most restrictive rules of all 3 agency's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In particular, Reserve Component flying squadrons can maintain proficiency with fewer flying hours per month than an Active unit, which amounts to tens of millions of dollars in savings each year.

Can someone explain this sentence to me? I'm kind of dense, so I'll need it in English...it's my only language. Thanks in advance.

Bendy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain this sentence to me? I'm kind of dense, so I'll need it in English...it's my only language. Thanks in advance.

Bendy

Reserve component pilots are on average more experienced than their active-duty counterparts. Pilots with higher experience levels require fewer training events per month/quarter/etc. than those with lower experience levels. Lower numbers of requirements directly translate into lower flying hour requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reserve component pilots are on average more experienced than their active-duty counterparts. Pilots with higher experience levels require fewer training events per month/quarter/etc. than those with lower experience levels. Lower numbers of requirements directly translate into lower flying hour requirements.

Thanks, it certainly makes since that having an entire squadron full of individuals instantly coded as "experienced" would lead to a lower number of training events, thus a reduced cost of proficiency. I guess with an service-wide inability to understand "fully burden cost", it's not important who paid for them to get that experience. Although, there is additional logic of not sending guys to staff, non-flying TDYs, incessant influx of noobs, etc. that aren't as prevalent of an issue (I'm assuming)...once experienced, they stay that way.

Bendy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, it certainly makes since that having an entire squadron full of individuals instantly coded as "experienced" would lead to a lower number of training events, thus a reduced cost of proficiency. I guess with an service-wide inability to understand "fully burden cost", it's not important who paid for them to get that experience. Although, there is additional logic of not sending guys to staff, non-flying TDYs, incessant influx of noobs, etc. that aren't as prevalent of an issue (I'm assuming)...once experienced, they stay that way.

Bendy

Unless they (the experienced Reservists) leave. After a quick skim, I didn't see this addressed. Guys get off AD for many reasons (spelled out in thousands of posts here), some join the Guard/Reserve because the culture there is tolerable. Take away the culture, by putting them back in the AD, and many will just leave altogether....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this has much bigger impact than we've thought. This could potentially change the dynamic in a big way - in the squadrons, wings and across the force.

This is how the AF closes facilities and avoids pressing to test on the BRAC that Congress won't allow anyway. Places like Grissom, March, etc. - Gone, closed. Whole squadrons folded into other whole squadrons in places like CHS and McChord...

This destroys the previously known Reserve system, and potentially (if well executed), makes the "Reservist" into something much more along the lines of what the Canadians do with their old active duty guys who just want to fly.... only with Reservists. Want to just fly? Go Reserves and stay where you're at. Lots of guys would jump at that kinda stability. The shitty part is the Reservists may lose the ability to play their "Reserve Card" with as much success.

Under this plan Reserve dudes don't go off to staff, Active guys do. Under this plan the reserve guys become the continuity in the units, and most if not all units are associates. Is that a terrible idea? Maybe not. But they also become much more like Active Duty - same BS, no PCS. It sucks. It is a fundamental shift in how the Reserves work, and it will take time and gnashing of teeth to complete. It's going to be painful.

Interesting ideas. Not sure of the feasibility yet, but if this is being floated publicly, it's probably further along in the collective conscious of Congress and the Pentagon than previously thought.

Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably a good thing in the long run. More reservists means more continuity, less PCS actions, and reduced personnel costs over the long haul. Consolidating all the little Reserve bases onto the bigger bases will save on infrastructure costs and allow some of that savings to go back to airframe acquisitions/sustainment and operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy shit I can't believe that report is real. Beginning of the end folks, if these recommendations come to pass. Baby boomers lucked out. Mother fuckers are shutting it all down with their own retirements and departure from military and civil service. Born 20 years too late....Fuck. Oh well, it was a good run. I'd count myself lucky if I can finish my watered down retirement under FERS licking stamps at the post office. Good thing I'm putting the wife through nursing school, we're gonna need that income.

So at what level are the decisions made that can bring reservists onto Active Duty orders? I mean we all get 9/11 and we all get natural disasters and the such. That is what's great about the reserves because like you stated, you guys hav e the ability to say no to the bullshit but when it's go time, you guys go. If what this report is saying in my mind becomes reality, you guys would be absolutely butt raped by getting stuck with AD orders all the time as the AD leadership sees fit.

It seems to me that without a reserve command to represent the interests of the strictly reserve you would need a union and contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that without a reserve command to represent the interests of the strictly reserve you would need a union and contracts.

Technicians already have a union and a contract, now if they could just cover the part timers...

Get to a stand alone Guard squadron and hope it doesn't shut down. Stiff arm TFI as long as humanly possible and enjoy the last bastion of the good life!

Edited by SocialD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the same Union that told all the Technicians to wear the uniform till we work it out in court?

Then was mad at the local unions that hired their own lawyers to get out of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably a good thing in the long run. More reservists means more continuity, less PCS actions, and reduced personnel costs over the long haul. Consolidating all the little Reserve bases onto the bigger bases will save on infrastructure costs and allow some of that savings to go back to airframe acquisitions/sustainment and operations.

In principal, I think you're on track...but I don't think it will work out that way in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...