Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Flaco

ANG: Be Careful What You Ask For

Recommended Posts

Kind of sounds like whining to be honest. Don't like less than a 1:5 dwell? Find another job. Supply/demand dictates everything, no one is entitled to sit here in a "good deal" lifestyle.

Problem is that people ARE going to walk away and find another job. You can't quickly replace the experience they walk away with by hiring someone off the street, so you end up with a less capable force and more guys are going to die in wartime and training accidents. Sport bitching is one thing, highlighting issues that will hurt our ability to safely execute the mission is another.

Guys are bailing on AD to the guard to get family stability and be home more. If the guard goes to a 1:3 with 180 day rotations for fighter units (180 days are already happening), that will no longer be true and more guys will straight up separate. I already know multiple fighter guys who's fini flight on AD was their no shit fini flight because they saw the guard as more of the same. A 1:2 AD dwell time sucks, but for many guys that really ends up being more like 1:3 or 1:4 after skipping deployments due to PCS's, school, etc. That doesn't happen nearly as much for part timers, so they may actually end up deploying as much or more than their AD buddies.

There's also the civilian job issue. Airlines and other companies may not be able to fire guys for deploying for six months every 18, but if that military guy is a private practice doctor, lawyer, or small business owner, who is going to force their clients to come back when they return?

The active duty pilot exodus has begun, but if the guard and reserve isn't careful, the same might happen on that side in a few years.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup but what was done can be undone

Convention of the States

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Won't happen...not anytime soon at least, if even in our lifetime. Besides, even if they can call a convention (2/3 of States), they'll never be able to get 3/4 of the States to ratify anything that takes more power from the progressives/elites in DC and give back more power to the individual States. Off the top of my head, here are the 11 States that will never do so for the reasons the listed above: CA, OR, WA, MD, NY, RI, VT, CT, MA, NJ, and HI...with IL, DE, MN, MI, NM easily being able to fill that 12th spot.

Basically look at Obamacare...that should tell you all you need to know. Sorry, for the thread derailment, but this is foundational: The States will continue to lose more control of their Guard units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was always how I read the ratio as well, however the article states otherwise... 1:5 equals "one year mobilzed in every five year period". So that leaves the question, when the NGAUS president says "a more realistic and attainable dwell-time ratio between deployments is used, such as 1:3" does he mean 1 gone 3 back, or 1 gone 2 back. The way the article is written implies the later. Flaco what do you believe 1:2 implies when referencing AD deployment rate.

I think that was a misquote in the article. The idea is a 1:3 dwell would be 1 year gone, 3 years back. Although according to the article and Hargett's testimony, it seems evident he and Guard leadership are willing to volunteer us for any dwell ratio so long as it retains force structure / iron in the Guard.

What caused the ANG to shift from its ye olde CONUS defense mission of yesteryear? It seems weird to me that the state militias of old have A-10s. How would a state governor (reasonibly) ever use them to help his state? C-130s and interceptors fine, maybe even tankers since they could help with other CONUS missions. Was there an "Ah-ha!" moment or was it a gradual iron/mission shift?

The guard used to be 1 generation behind in terms of equipment - IE, AD was flying F-16's, we were flying A-7s. Guard leadership has made an incredible push over the last 25 years to get us the latest equipment, but at what cost? The F-35 will be the death of the Guard in my opinion, if we get it.

Problem is that people ARE going to walk away and find another job. You can't quickly replace the experience they walk away with by hiring someone off the street, so you end up with a less capable force and more guys are going to die in wartime and training accidents. Sport bitching is one thing, highlighting issues that will hurt our ability to safely execute the mission is another.

The active duty pilot exodus has begun, but if the guard and reserve isn't careful, the same might happen on that side in a few years.

Amen. I'm not sport bitching, as I have options right now as do many of my bros. I'm seriously concerned about the Guard's ability to maintain force structure in light of increased ops tempo and becoming more like the AD.

If Guard leadership were playing long ball, they would push congress to get us airplanes suited to the homeland defense mission / occasional CAS deployment (Block 60's? Javelin?) and avoid the F-35 like the plague. Getting top of the line equipment isn't going to be good for the Guard - it will just ensure that we're deployed more, leading to retention problems. Gotta love Generals - they just can't help but beg for bright and shiny - after all, it won't be them looking down the barrel of the next 180.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are well on our way to becoming AD. We have gone from 30 day deployments to 120-180 days. We have at least one wing with a active duty Wing Commander. Almost all Guard fighter units will have 1-5 active duty pilots in them, starting later this year (if they don't already). We are deploying Guard squadrons...just to deploy (cough...TSP). I have seen pressure being applied for our young guys to go SOS in-residence (how do we have money for this). Our OPRs have become downright ridiculous! How the fuck do you make an part timer OPR sound good enough to compete against a full time AD guy...they sure are trying! Rumblings of making a masters a requirement for O-6. I could go on and on.

They are now sending Guard fighter squadrons on TSP. Deploying us to go fly CT, while they deploy another squadron to the desert. Otherwise put, deploying two squadrons to do the work of one. Deploy us to go drop bombs on shitheads, no problem. But deploy us to go fly CT, while you deploy another squadron to drop bombs, now you have a problem. You have now taken a bunch of part timers who would normally freely volunteer to deploy and turned them into ones that say, activate me. Of note, as the law currently is written, we are not USERRA exempt on TSP. Nothing like a non-voluntary trip counting against your five years of USERRA protection.

As has already been said, the path we are taking leads to horrible attrition and losing what makes the Guard so great...experience!

Edited by SocialD
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Won't happen...not anytime soon at least, if even in our lifetime. Besides, even if they can call a convention (2/3 of States), they'll never be able to get 3/4 of the States to ratify anything that takes more power from the progressives/elites in DC and give back more power to the individual States. Off the top of my head, here are the 11 States that will never do so for the reasons the listed above: CA, OR, WA, MD, NY, RI, VT, CT, MA, NJ, and HI...with IL, DE, MN, MI, NM easily being able to fill that 12th spot.

Basically look at Obamacare...that should tell you all you need to know. Sorry, for the thread derailment, but this is foundational: The States will continue to lose more control of their Guard units.

Quite possibly true but light a candle rather than curse the darkness or kick a bully in the nits then run like hell either or

True on losing control of ANG units and not related to the theme of this thread I have heard a rumor persistently that the master plan the AF has is to try to get to most states only having one wing - got a friend at the Bureau who calls BS on that but it seems possible ala the MC-12 & C-27 were going to be distributed to ANG units but now as the AF has or will pull the rug out from theses programs - I believe that rumor - that is passing poisoned pills to eventually shrink the ANG

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sayin it doesn't make sense, I'm saying all the guard has been doing is fighting this every step of the way and getting their Congressional and Senatorial leadership neck deep into the issue to hijack and hold it off as much as possible (sound familiar?).

I went to flight school with a few guard Apache guys and all they have on their Facebook status is sign this petition or Gob'ment trying to take away states right to defend ourselves, etc.

Oh they're bitching and whining about it here at Silverbell with the AZ 1/285th. WAATS has already converted to UH-60 training from Apache training. The writing is on the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Traditional Reservist, there's no way I can keep a .civ job at a 1:2 or 1:3 dwell rate, USERRA or not. I can't imagine it's any different for Traditional Guardsmen.

If NGB/AFRC roll over on the dwell rate issue, in short order the only Traditionals they'll have left are troughers & bums and the chronically unemployed.

EDIT: Punctuation, words.

Edited by JarheadBoom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are well on our way to becoming AD. We have gone from 30 day deployments to 120-180 days. We have at least one wing with a active duty Wing Commander. Almost all Guard fighter units will have 1-5 active duty pilots in them, starting later this year (if they don't already). We are deploying Guard squadrons...just to deploy (cough...TSP). I have seen pressure being applied for our young guys to go SOS in-residence (how do we have money for this). Our OPRs have become downright ridiculous! How the fuck do you make an part timer OPR sound good enough to compete against a full time AD guy...they sure are trying! Rumblings of making a masters a requirement for O-6. I could go on and on.

They are now sending Guard fighter squadrons on TSP. Deploying us to go fly CT, while they deploy another squadron to the desert. Otherwise put, deploying two squadrons to do the work of one. Deploy us to go drop bombs on shitheads, no problem. But deploy us to go fly CT, while you deploy another squadron to drop bombs, now you have a problem. You have now taken a bunch of part timers who would normally freely volunteer to deploy and turned them into ones that say, activate me. Of note, as the law currently is written, we are not USERRA exempt on TSP. Nothing like a non-voluntary trip counting against your five years of USERRA protection.

As has already been said, the path we are taking leads to horrible attrition and losing what makes the Guard so great...experience!

Agreed. With ANG units now on a rotational schedule of deployments.....again "just to deploy" deployments and not actual contingency deployments, this crap is getting worse and worse. And you're absolutely right.....without these deployments being contingency ones, there is indeed no exemption.

The OPR idiocy. At least for us, EPRs for our enlisted is ever 24 months. Why not do the same for OPRs? Not like some Traditional who is a line pilot and does really nothing else (because he can't or doesn't have time to) can really show doing much of anything on the OPR, especially for 1 year. What.....bullets like "perfected a 100% on-time CBT completion rate!"? That's how ridiculous its heading. At least for us in AFRC, masters is a requirement for O-6.

As a Traditional Reservist, there's no way I can keep a .civ job at a 1:2 or 1:3 dwell rate, USERRA or not. I can't imagine it's any different for Traditional Guardsmen.

If NGB/AFRC roll over on the dwell rate issue, in short order the only Traditionals they'll have left are troughers & bums and the chronically unemployed.

EDIT: Punctuation, words.

True that brother. Unlike how some AD sees us, as lazy or complaining, we as TRs with outside (read: our primary) jobs can't keep screwing over said job for military committments. Employer Support of the Guard/Reserve.....that neat little group.....will soon cease to exist, as they can only take so much pain in the name of waving the flag / supporting the troops. And that's not to mention small business people or self-employed. All that will be left over in addition to what you cite above in your post, will also be the ARTs and such.

And related; if I keep having to hear ARTs bitching and complaining about TRs and their participation rate, I'm going to go over the cliff. Hey ARTs, no one held a gun to your head to be full time. You signed up for it. You get the day to day crap duties. Don't complain how "...how are these TRs helping me with my job here? They're not!" , when I don't see you guys helping me with my full time job either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are well on our way to becoming AD. We have gone from 30 day deployments to 120-180 days. We have at least one wing with a active duty Wing Commander. Almost all Guard fighter units will have 1-5 active duty pilots in them, starting later this year (if they don't already). We are deploying Guard squadrons...just to deploy (cough...TSP). I have seen pressure being applied for our young guys to go SOS in-residence (how do we have money for this). Our OPRs have become downright ridiculous! How the ###### do you make an part timer OPR sound good enough to compete against a full time AD guy...they sure are trying! Rumblings of making a masters a requirement for O-6. I could go on and on.They are now sending Guard fighter squadrons on TSP. Deploying us to go fly CT, while they deploy another squadron to the desert. Otherwise put, deploying two squadrons to do the work of one. Deploy us to go drop bombs on shitheads, no problem. But deploy us to go fly CT, while you deploy another squadron to drop bombs, now you have a problem. You have now taken a bunch of part timers who would normally freely volunteer to deploy and turned them into ones that say, activate me. Of note, as the law currently is written, we are not USERRA exempt on TSP. Nothing like a non-voluntary trip counting against your five years of USERRA protection.As has already been said, the path we are taking leads to horrible attrition and losing what makes the Guard so great...experience!

If you involuntarily mobilize for a TSP it is USERRA exempt. However you are not eligible for reduced retirement credit. Added bonus, neither gets you TAMP.

I'm on one right now. PM if you guys have questions. If it would've been the desert you bet your ass I would've volunteered. But telling my employer I volunteered to go fly CT, no ing way. Plus I didn't want to burn up USERRA on this thing. The sell for the wife and kids was even more fun.

Also, my dwell was only 20 months from my last AEF, which was to the desert and I volunteered for that one. If you volunteer. You have no dwell requirement.

There is some good info on the vpgrc webpage that breaks it all down and shows the secaf letter that Donnelly signed years ago to create the guard TSP construct.

Sledy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll eat my boots the day a Guard guy does a full pull.

My wing is doing 30 day tour to a nice NATO base in Europe. Do you think those guys and jets are staying there the entire 30 days? Nope. Fucking swap out jet + "deployers" at the two week mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll eat my boots the day a Guard guy does a full pull.

My wing is doing 30 day tour to a nice NATO base in Europe. Do you think those guys and jets are staying there the entire 30 days? Nope. Fucking swap out jet + "deployers" at the two week mark.

What? MGM did 180 with no swap out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? MGM did 180 with no swap out.

Some Wings still believe in doing things right, others have drank the Blue Kool-Aid by the gallon. Not saying that's the case with MGM, just saying from my experience. Guys in my unit, left and right, have been told by "leadership" not to expect to do a day over 20. "You're not being non-retained, but don't expect to stay." So much for being able to pull a 30 year retirement like they planned on/were promised. These guys are the backbone of our experienced part-time MX force. Needless to say, dudes are pissed and feel betrayed. One guy was non-retained at 28 years. Passed PT, SMSgt, great leader and mentor. Got shit on with no explanation as to why. To save a buck, that's why. Our phase dock is about to get gutted by "policies" like this. I've got folks calling me all the time looking for a job in my company because they're sick of the bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Army Restructuring Initiative makes complete sense for swapping the Apaches for Blackhawks in the ArNG. If I'm not mistaken, this has already occurred with Apaches in the Army Reserve. Conroe and Ft Knox come to mind. But it makes complete sense.

Based on use or quality of crews?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However you are not eligible for reduced retirement credit.

Sledy

Tanker guys have been going to Guam for years under the Pacific TSP (voluntary under 12301(D)) and all my orders have been submitted and approved through VPC-GR for reduced retirement credit.

Granted, it hasn't been this new mob authority (12304?) but it should still count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanker guys have been going to Guam for years under the Pacific TSP (voluntary under 12301(D)) and all my orders have been submitted and approved through VPC-GR for reduced retirement credit.

Granted, it hasn't been this new mob authority (12304?) but it should still count.

Voluntary counts for reduced retirement. Involuntary is specifically excluded under 12304b but it is USERRA exempt. 12301d is not apparently, don't know how many companies would really stick that close to it,but it is. When I nonvol I had to sign a form explaining the benefits of each. All spelled out on the frequent topics home page for ANG VPC-GR. There are about three articles on it that explain them all in detail. They actually had to write it into the policy letter to exempt the non vol. from reduced retirement, it wasn't an oversight. One way to keep dudes volunteering I guess.

It's tough to believe. But it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voluntary counts for reduced retirement. Involuntary is specifically excluded under 12304b but it is USERRA exempt. 12301d is not apparently, don't know how many companies would really stick that close to it,but it is. When I nonvol I had to sign a form explaining the benefits of each. All spelled out on the frequent topics home page for ANG VPC-GR. There are about three articles on it that explain them all in detail. They actually had to write it into the policy letter to exempt the non vol. from reduced retirement, it wasn't an oversight. One way to keep dudes volunteering I guess.

It's tough to believe. But it's true.

That's WAY MORE fucked up than a football bat. Way to go, ANG "leadership".

At least our no-end-in-sight partial mobilization (12302) counts for reduced retirement...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's WAY MORE fucked up than a football bat. Way to go, ANG "leadership".

2

Looking out for your people leadership, like this guy...

mr-burns.jpg

Never been involuntarily mobilized but that is a new turd for my punchbowl of cynicism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some communities have been playing well with others. And other communities have AFRC dwell times approaching 1:30 when AD is <1:2.

Having the ability to tell the AF to go F themselves is a really powerful tool, isn't it?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. it's not worth it to stay in the ARC due to being treated as a full time military, 2. making it so some guys are actually losing money by having to be on leave of absense from their civilian job in order to keep getting called up for military duty, especially for non-contingency operations, or 3. make it so the ARC begins losing support of civilian employers due to the expectations for them under USERRA becoming unreasonable; and you will start to see people exiting the ARC, and the ARC having a difficult time remaining ready/relevant/reliable.

This…the operational reserves is not the intention of the strategic reserve. Rumor is on the AFRC side the CC is pushing to go F-35, C-17, and KC-46 with divesting the 130 community. Even if not true it implies a push that mirrors the ANG leadership - grab the latest iron and related operational missions - if you think you will be a part-timer in ARC as an ops dude/dudette - forget it.

Civilian corporate job, ladder climbing…no way. They don't understand how you can still be in the military actively doing the mission, but be in the office M-F. Small business can work if you have full-time partners that are willing to pick up your slack. Airlines probably are the best option, but there are limits.

Any other communities getting hit with the air advisor 1yr non-vols? The 130 community in ARC has been and word on the street bros that are getting tapped on the shoulder who have their 20 are punching. After reading this ANG article now I get why the ANG isn't pushing back on the requests from Big Blue to non-vol their people. I kind of expect AFRC to play nice with Big Blue - the AFRC leadership never tells Big Blue to pound sand.

Edited by Hotel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received this today (ANG):

ALCON -

Unit training managers received the attached information and I wanted to

ensure all officers are aware of the requirement to have an advanced

academic degree for O6 promotion ability in the future. (I do not have a

firm date of when this will be required.)

The following opportunity opened extending ACSC "On Line Master's Program"

(OLMP) to Lt Col's needing advanced degrees. Typically this is only

available to Majors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth. The draft pulled a lot of people into the guard who never would have been exposed to any military. There were your regular guys but also professional sports figures, millionaires or the sons of other such heavy hitters politically. It wasn't unheard of for a boom operator to be "quite wealthy" and connected personally to Senators and Congressmen. The commanders grew up with those same politicos and knew them personally. USAF management types were quite respectful when they showed up, if they showed up. Now they tell me that the zoomies have taken over the commanders slots and are pretty much beholden to the real AF.....there is little interest from politicians unless it impacts local jobs. All of the well connected old timers are long gone and as I recall the USAF was gunning for them even then. And, at the time there were a lot of surplus airplanes to be spread around. Maybe not so many now and I kind of doubt that f-22's and f-35's are going to fit in to a lot of guard locales noise wise. As far as having a real job and rotating in and out of the sandbox for long stretches, good luck; very hard to accomplish except in some unusual positions. I could digress for a while on that one. They tell me that the fun has pretty much been kicked out of the guard... too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any other communities getting hit with the air advisor 1yr non-vols? The 130 community in ARC has been and word on the street bros that are getting tapped on the shoulder who have their 20 are punching. After reading this ANG article now I get why the ANG isn't pushing back on the requests from Big Blue to non-vol their people. I kind of expect AFRC to play nice with Big Blue - the AFRC leadership never tells Big Blue to pound sand.

Haven't seen 1 year non-vols, but this year -130 reserve units have been getting 6 month deployments to AFG to be advisors. With the spin-up training and accrued leave, it is more like 9 months. No thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to all of the above, we (Reserve tankers) are hearing rumors of 120 day activations vs our normal 60 (which somehow usually works out to be 70 plus.....and FORGET about breaking it up into 30 days). Not sure how this will work as guys in the sandbox right now are hitting their 150 hrs rather quickly. I've heard everything from "could never happen" to "done deal - order signed by Gen Jackson" on this one. Anyone have the facts? Wouldn't it be nice if our so called "leadership" would pass along major changes in our modus operandi to the rank and file?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×