Proposed 25% cut in military spending.

[isshinwhat]

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.d...40332/-1/NEWS10

And... Here it comes. Who really needs "fancy new weapons" anyway?

[slacker]

enjoy the RIF

[Guest TacAirDrvr]

enjoy the RIF

If you guys have seen the AFPC/CC briefing, and you're a Pilot, 11XXX, I think you're safe from the Rif, you will probably fly less though!!!

[BitteEinBit]

I wouldn't necessarily say pilots are safe...the Air Force is going to have to figure out what to do with all of those ISR/UAS pilots they're getting ready for this war that is probably getting ready to end if the new not-so-pro-military admin gets elected and has its way.

Thats the problem with focusing more on the "now" vs "future needs." The "now" changes pretty frequently, and it takes time/money/effort to gin up for the "now" every time it changes.

I hear there is a plan for those ISR/UAS bubbas...I just haven't heard it yet.

I'd say, if you're a pilot with 10-12+ years in service right now you're relatively safe (but not immune) since more than enough of the 94-98 rated bubbas took the VSP...add to that the lack of rated slots in the early 90s to begin with and it should be no secret why rated staff billets are hard to fill these days.

Also, regarding personnel cuts, the Air Force has changed its mind on the 307,000 end strength number and is now trying to get funding for the additional 20,000 unfunded bodies we currently have to make our new proposed end strength of 330,000. I'm not completely sure personnel is where the cuts are going to be made at least for the Air Force. No new toys for you this Christmas!

My 2 cents...

[isshinwhat]

It's strangely appropriate that this thread on a Barney Frank proposal ended up next to a thread named "Absurdly gay..."

This cycle of gaining then losing funding sucks. If it was legitimate, that's one thing, but when it mainly about politics, it's BS.

[pawnman]

Frank has to find the trillion dollars he's handing to his buddies at Fannie and Freddie.

[Boxhead]

I wouldn't necessarily say pilots are safe...the Air Force is going to have to figure out what to do with all of those ISR/UAS pilots they're getting ready for this war that is probably getting ready to end if the new not-so-pro-military admin gets elected and has its way.

Dude, we are the most secure people out there, they may stop hunting/killing/blowing up things, but the need/desire to "stare"...that is only getting bigger....whoever the next administration is won't change that part.

I hear there is a plan for those ISR/UAS bubbas...I just haven't heard it yet.

Yeah, keeping us in ISR/UAVs forever, that's pretty much the plan, luckily, I love it, so it makes me happy!

[BitteEinBit]

Dude, we are the most secure people out there, they may stop hunting/killing/blowing up things, but the need/desire to "stare"...that is only getting bigger....whoever the next administration is won't change that part.

Yeah, keeping us in ISR/UAVs forever, that's pretty much the plan, luckily, I love it, so it makes me happy!

Remember that those numbers in the ISR/UAS are based on the "now" and requirements for "current operations" That was the point I've been making all along. When the "current requirements" are no longer requirements, the AF is going to have to figure out what to do with all of them. Remember, it isn't the AF driving the requirement "today."

So, like I said, you're relatively secure but not immune (the original point). The "most secure" are the ones with 10-12 years in service NOW. Everyone else is relatively safe today, but not necessarily 18 months down the road depending on the elections. Don't expect a huge RIF like the mid 90s or mid 00s, but the AF will need to figure out what to do with the overages in ISR/UAS once the requirement goes down...and it will. They aren't going to keep everyone in ISR/UAS to fly the flag pole just because they trained you there, especially the UPT trained bubbas. There will be life after the UAS eventually for most (not all) rated bubbas...believe it.

You can revive this thread in 18 months and tell me I was wrong...otherwise "today" we'll agree to disagree about future manning.

[nsplayr]

http://www.miamiherald.com/979/story/740853.html

I think all of us need to take a deep breath and evaluate the claims in the first link before we get our panties in a wad over losing pilot slots. Barney Frank is not running for President last time I checked. Here's an article with a decent, quick analysis of Obama's positions on defense spending compared to McCain's. Full text with highlights:

BY NANCY A. YOUSSEF

McClatchy News Service

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama and John McCain each promise that as president they'd continue to transform the U.S. military into a bigger, more agile force that can tackle insurgencies and help allies thwart terrorism.

The candidates differ on what role the armed forces should play in global affairs.

''The Department of Defense has been the preemptive force of the last eight years,'' said Col. Michael Meese, a professor and the head of the department of social sciences at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Whether Defense continues in that role -- or the State Department, with the U.S. Agency for International Development, picks it up -- is a question for the next administration, Meese said.

While there may be big differences in how the presidential candidates would use the military, they generally agree on what kind of force the country needs.

''Temperamentally, senators Obama and McCain are very different on defense. But when you read the details of their defense positions, they are remarkably similar,'' said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, a conservative public policy organization. ``Both want to bolster intelligence, focus on counter-terrorism, reduce big-ticket weapons systems and crack down on defense contracts.''

Both men call for rebuilding U.S. ground forces, whose troops and equipment have been exhausted by seven years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. The next president will find a military still struggling to balance training for counter-insurgency and maintain its ability to fight conventional wars.

McCain would like to enlarge U.S. ground forces -- the Army and Marines -- by 150,000 members to roughly 900,000.

Obama supports a Pentagon plan to expand the Army by 65,000 and the Marines by 27,000 in the next decade.

Obama and McCain also have said that they're concerned about the shortage of noncommissioned officers in the Army because so many mid-career senior enlisted men and women are leaving, exhausted by multiple tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Both candidates want to add more military civil-affairs units, which are battalion-size units of roughly 600 troops designed to work with local governments in the wake of conflicts. Such units could help the United States rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, but neither candidate offers specifics on how large a military civil-affairs force should be.

Obama says the National Guard needs better equipment and healthcare and has called for it to have a greater role.

McCain has made veterans issues a priority, promising to get veterans better healthcare. He also has supported increasing the $1,200 monthly education benefit for veterans to $1,500.

Both men support missile defense, although Obama has called for more testing of the systems, while McCain has said he wants to deploy them as quickly as possible.

Both candidates have called for more transparency in how the Pentagon grants defense contracts. McCain, who led the fight against a huge Air Force tanker contract, has promised to review defense contracts and opposes emergency bills to supplement the defense budget.

Obama has said he would trim supplemental bills for defense spending and that overall defense spending would remain steady.

''Whether we get Obama or McCain, we will get a bigger military. They will have different attitudes on how it is used,'' Thompson said.

McCain, a former Navy pilot and prisoner of war in Vietnam, has suggested that the military can be the face of U.S. engagement around the world.

A NUCLEAR IRAN

He has called for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq until victory is assured. His campaign has said the surge was such a success in Iraq that the U.S. military should apply the ''surge principles'' in Afghanistan, suggesting that he'd send more troops there. He also has called for more training of allies that are combating terrorism within their borders.

McCain also has said that Iran can't be allowed to develop its nuclear arsenal, suggesting that he'd use force if necessary to prevent that.

''There is only one thing worse than a military solution,'' McCain said in July 2007. ``And that . . . is a nuclear-armed Iran.''

Obama also has said that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable, but he has put more emphasis on trying to reach a negotiated settlement with Tehran. In fact, Obama has made it clear he thinks robust U.S. diplomacy could substitute, at least in part, for the Bush administration's reliance on the military to carry out America's will in the world.

The Democratic presidential nominee has vowed to end the war in Iraq and to bring U.S. combat forces home over 16 months. He would shift some U.S. forces from Iraq into Afghanistan, which he calls the real front line in the war on terror, and where the 9/11 attacks were planned.

HUNTING BIN LADEN

Obama also has pushed for the U.S. military to enter Pakistan, unilaterally if necessary, to go after Osama bin Laden. McCain has criticized Obama's stand, saying he's announcing his plan to the enemy and inviting Pakistani resistance rather than cooperation, but McCain also called Pakistan ``a failed state.''

''Both have an appreciation for the limits of military power. But they must decide: Does the United States want to be involved in nation building?'' said Jake Kipp, the deputy director of the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

For all their plans, the next president cannot fully predict how he'd use the military.

''There are things that cannot be controlled by the new president. A lot of times, he will be responding to events,'' Kipp said. ``As they say in the military: The enemy has a vote.''

[joe1234]

So, like I said, you're relatively secure but not immune (the original point). The "most secure" are the ones with 10-12 years in service NOW. Everyone else is relatively safe today, but not necessarily 18 months down the road depending on the elections. Don't expect a huge RIF like the mid 90s or mid 00s, but the AF will need to figure out what to do with the overages in ISR/UAS once the requirement goes down...and it will. They aren't going to keep everyone in ISR/UAS to fly the flag pole just because they trained you there, especially the UPT trained bubbas. There will be life after the UAS eventually for most (not all) rated bubbas...believe it.

If the Air Force start's RIFing guys who have just winged, it will be the most hilariously awful decision I've ever seen. That would be like buying a house with a 50% down payment, and then going into foreclosure 3 months later because you can't afford the monthly payments. The Air Force imposes the 10 year commitment because it's in their best interest, if they renege on that, then the guy who gets out of his commitment has all the power. Not only that, but they also have their GI Bill to go back to school for whatever they want, and assorted RIF entitlements.

Obviously there's a lot of people who would rather stay in, but I'm talking from a purely big picture standpoint here. It would make way more sense to take those guys out of cockpits, make them work other jobs for the next 10 years, and RIF a nonrated guy who only has a year or two left on their commitment.

Anyway, this is all conjecture, so we'll see what happens.

[PapaJu]

http://www.miamiherald.com/979/story/740853.html

I think all of us need to take a deep breath and evaluate the claims in the first link before we get our panties in a wad over losing pilot slots. Barney Frank is not running for President last time I checked. Here's an article with a decent, quick analysis of Obama's positions on defense spending compared to McCain's.

Yes, but Obama wouldn't be the one writing the legislation. Even if he personally wouldn't have instigated a 25% decrease in defense spending as a Senator, do you really think he'd make a big stink about it if such legislation was sent to him in the Oval Office?

[Boxhead]

You can revive this thread in 18 months and tell me I was wrong...otherwise "today" we'll agree to disagree about future manning.

Will do...except I won't becasue I'll be working to much to remember to do it....unless we get more manning to meet the requirements that will only go up. Flag pole....that's funny...it's been so long since I have done that I had to pause to remember what it was.

[nsplayr]

Yes, but Obama wouldn't be the one writing the legislation. Even if he personally wouldn't have instigated a 25% decrease in defense spending as a Senator, do you really think he'd make a big stink about it if such legislation was sent to him in the Oval Office?

Yes, I'm pretty sure he would veto such a bill becasue he's specifically called for an increase in the overall size of the Army and Marine Corps, a large number of troops in Afghanistan, and has explicitly said he wants to keep defense budgets at least steady for the time being.

[PapaJu]

Yes, I'm pretty sure he would veto such a bill becasue he's specifically called for an increase in the overall size of the Army and Marine Corps, a large number of troops in Afghanistan, and has explicitly said he wants to keep defense budgets at least steady for the time being.

I guess we disagree, but I just see him becoming the Democratic Congress' rubber stamp. He says that now, but somehow I bet Congress' "economic stimuli" will be getting first priority.

[MD]

If the Air Force start's RIFing guys who have just winged, it will be the most hilariously awful decision I've ever seen. That would be like buying a house with a 50% down payment, and then going into foreclosure 3 months later because you can't afford the monthly payments. The Air Force imposes the 10 year commitment because it's in their best interest, if they renege on that, then the guy who gets out of his commitment has all the power. Not only that, but they also have their GI Bill to go back to school for whatever they want, and assorted RIF entitlements.

Obviously there's a lot of people who would rather stay in, but I'm talking from a purely big picture standpoint here. It would make way more sense to take those guys out of cockpits, make them work other jobs for the next 10 years, and RIF a nonrated guy who only has a year or two left on their commitment.

Anyway, this is all conjecture, so we'll see what happens.

This is exactly what the AF did in the mid-90s. Back then, you had three choices in UPT:

1. Drop out, with no remaining committment to the AF.

2. Complete UPT, resign your commission, with no remaining committment to the AF.

3. If you could find a Guard/Reserve unit that wanted you (assuming you were AD), you could complete UPT, leave AD and transfer directly to the Guard/Reserve.

These were the programs in effect on the "front side" to get rid of the pipeline O-1s. This was before the banking of pilots, and even further before the infamous 3rd pilot program.

[pawnman]

I wonder, though...even the most liberal of democrats will fight tooth and nail to keep military bases, projects, and personnel in their districts. Do you think they could enough people willing to lose that money to cut 25%?

[zrooster99]

Do you think they could enough people willing to lose that money to cut 25%?

Yes.

[busdriver]

No matter who wins this election, there will be funding cuts to the DoD. We have a huge deficit, and both want to reduce it. Politically, it's not possible to cut entitlement programs, the easy kill is reducing military spending. However, they both want to increase the size of the ground troops, so expect them to get some AF money. One of the major expenditures for personnel is medical costs, so I could imagine more out of pocket costs, tricare, etc.

I'm just thinking out loud.

[Finance_Guy]

No matter who wins this election, there will be funding cuts to the DoD. We have a huge deficit, and both want to reduce it. Politically, it's not possible to cut entitlement programs, the easy kill is reducing military spending. However, they both want to increase the size of the ground troops, so expect them to get some AF money. One of the major expenditures for personnel is medical costs, so I could imagine more out of pocket costs, tricare, etc.

I'm just thinking out loud.

Maybe if TDY travelers would quit "Missing Meals" DoD could recoup that 25% in per diem costs. Dammit, those meal times are there for a reason, so quit missing formation! Make everyone eat at the DFAC...if they can't, have them carry around MREs in their ABU pockets just in case. Why do we pay people $122/day when they stay on base in Germany??? It all adds up in the end.

[Boxhead]

Maybe if TDY travelers would quit "Missing Meals" DoD could recoup that 25% in per diem costs. Dammit, those meal times are there for a reason, so quit missing formation! Make everyone eat at the DFAC...if they can't, have them carry around MREs in their ABU pockets just in case. Why do we pay people $122/day when they stay on base in Germany??? It all adds up in the end.

Or, just get Ted from account temps to man finance. They are already trained up and wouldn't even need training days! :)

[Finance_Guy]

Or, just get Ted from account temps to man finance. They are already trained up and wouldn't even need training days! :)

That would be funny...one day on the customer counter with you guys and Ted would be crying home to mommy.