BRAC and the Guard

[Guest AirGuardian]

Disclaimer: I am not picking on FW units, just letting you understand what might be at stake in the somewhat near future - purely FYI folks!

BRAC will hit several areas/units no doubt and the Guard is attempting to consolidate(VANGUARD) its assets in its regions as smartly as possible (non-fighter units will be involved as well) I.E. - Former F-16 ANG unit at Richmond, VA is now flying its flag at Langley to save itself. When I say save itself, I'm indicating an issue of too many fighter units on our side of the house. This is not my summation, but kind of an obvious assessment during the last conflict and whatnot on the excess of it all. Granted, if we were at conflict with another nation in a different region at the same time, this assessment might not be so accurate. Anyway, regardless of BRAC, the Guard will be switching several FW's to dedicated UAV type roles and their are plenty of units feeling the heat on this one. Dilemna, do you take the UAV, or press on and hope for the best and end up with nothing at all. Most current FW guys think its the same and flying wise I would agree, but in the end having your unit dissappear from God's country for the long term is even worse as a whole to the entire unit.

Reason for this post: I've read alot of information and have quite a few contacts (NOT, Dan Rather of CBS) at the Bureau and other fighter units, but I dare say that after having flown several Guard Fighter units to Nellis and JRTC these past few months - I'm getting a very bad vibe from them. They're not so jovial or spirited as they once were and this upcoming turmoil seems to be taking its toll. They'll never come forward easily with such information(neither would I), but I'm sure its on their scope more than they'd rather admit. For those folks who are searching FW units in the system, just be aware of this ongoing issue. While it may not actually take place for a year or 2,4,6, it is inevitable for some and I deem it a heavy consideration for most who want to fly or continue to fly. Not much you can do but ask the unit which is pointless right now. But I'm wishing the best for the FW guys right now and hopefully they can save their tails or at least be allowed to consolidate at another site and keep their flags raised high! The object in the eyes of the ANG leadership is to "Remain Relevant!" Long live the fighters in every since of the word!!!

[ 11. January 2005, 00:34: Message edited by: AirGuardian ]

[Flaco]

Any ideas on how many units will be converted to UAVs? Do you have any other specific details of Guard fighter-specific concerns?

Also, when are we going to hear specifics on the BRAC?

Flaco

[scoobs]

BRAC has not even come out yet.Everything so far are rumors.

[Bergman]

Originally posted by Flaco:

Also, when are we going to hear specifics on the BRAC?

Before everyone breaks out in a panic (AGAIN) here is the link to the official BRAC info:

http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/

A few excerpts from the "Timeline" portion:

May 16, 05 Secretary of Defense Recommendations. Not later than this date, the Secretary

must publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the congressional defense

committees and the Commission, a list of the military installations that the

Secretary recommends for closure or realignment.

Sep 8, 05 Commission's Recommendations. Not later than this date, the Commission must

transmit to the President "a report containing its findings and conclusions based

on a review and analysis of the Secretary's recommendations."

Sep 23, 05 President's Approval or Disapproval of Commission Recommendations. Not later

than this date, the President shall transmit to the Commission and to the Congress,

"a report containing the President's approval or disapproval of the Commission's

recommendations."

[Guest AirGuardian]

Thanks for the BRAC update again Bergman,

I only mentioned it since it is the driving force on the ANG's seperate initiative(VanGuard) to help circumvent the BRAC challenge. ANG's consolidation of assets and making their units more relevant to the fight is what I intended in my first message. Guard units moving, other ones volunteering to go UAV's, these are not specifically BRAC driven but a direct result of the obvious BRAC focus. Once again its the ANG's intent to fix and focus their assets in the most gaining aspect they can attain to keep as many flags open as possible. It's just that the FW's will need more assistance in this matter with their shear numbers! Just an FYI again.

[Guest Slye]

There's been a lot of BRAC talk lately so I've gotta ask those in the know: what options exist to guard fighter guys (and gals) in the training pipeline if a unit closes or changes airframes? Let's say they're already winged and in IFF or FTU when it happens. I would assume their unit has the final say since they kinda own them, but how likely is it that they'll be able to look for a different guard/reserve fighter or even heavy unit to take them? Thanks!

[Bergman]

Originally posted by AirGuardian:

ANG's consolidation of assets and making their units more relevant to the fight is what I intended in my first message.

Not a problem! I just wanted to quell any panic amongst the newbies before it reached fever-pitch.

As to the Vanguard discussion, you're right. ANG units had better find a smart way out of this on their own, othewise it's not going to be pretty. While I am of course biased toward the "The more flying units the better!" philosophy, anyone with a brain can see that the writing is on the wall for many flying units. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I image that , at any give time, there weren't large numbers of ANG assets in place for OIF/OEF. It sounds like the majority of units have pulled their time 'in the box' (sts) but does that justify a standing force of 40 FWs?

[STR1CK]

I am really sick of active duty types getting on these forums and commenting on the Guard piece of the BRAC. They say things like "The Guard is getting what they deserve" or "Its time for the Guard to share some BRAC pain". Yes active duty the guard has never been touched by the BRAC before and there are good legal and common sense reasons why that has been. Lets take a look at some key issues.

1. BRAC is about real estate, not personnel and most of all not about Equipment or IRON for you people that like buzzword. Taking aircraft from a guard unit and creating an enclave is beyond the scope of the BRAC. If you have any doubts about this watch the GAO's testimony by David Walker on CSPAN under Meeting of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission Part 1 (7/18/2005)

2. You can't disband or re-equipment a unit of the National Guard with out the consent of its Governor. Please refer to Dan Cowhig's (Deputy Council General for the BRAC Commission) legal opinion. web page

3. Even if points 1 and 2 were not true. There is no savings by moving Guard Aircraft around and creating less but larger Guard Units. Most members of the ANG have pretty good jobs and aren't going to follow the planes wherever they go. Now units that get extra planes are going to have recruit and train aircrews to make up for the shortfall. Not to mention Maintenance personnel. Training Pilots, Navigators, Engineers and Loadmasters isn't cheap.

4. The Air National Guard accounts for 6% of the total Air Force budgets but has 36% of the total Air Force assets. Do the math. The Air National Guard is the biggest bang for the buck. Here something for Active Duty to think about. If you have ever spent one Christmas, Easter or Thanksgiving at home its probably because a member of the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve was deployed some where in the world taking your place.

5. The average experience of a member of the Air National Guard is 15 years that goes from our aircrews to our maintainers. How longs are Active Duty keeping people around??? In the Guard we up grade our aircrew members based on their performance and their experience just not the fact that they have 800hrs and a heartbeat or need it to make captain. This is why our safety record in the Guard is better that Active Duties by a ratio of 16:1

Overall the Air Force has damaged it relationship with its Guard and Reserve components. It looks like the Air Force didn't do their research and now its going to come back and bite them. Honesty I think that the Air Force Reserve Command is going to be the biggest loser of "IRON". But that is a politcal issue. The BRAC commission has a lot of choices and I don't envy them one bit. September 8th will be a big day for alot of Guard Units. Lets just hope that the Air Force, The National Guard Buerau and the BRAC commission gets it right.

[PapaJu]

Well if I was in the ANG and could better understand your sentiments...I think I'd be saying, "A-FREAKIN-MEN!!"

[Guest SnakeT38]

I will say AMEN and GREAT POST..........get

ready for the unknowing, "incoming", response.

One more thing.............it's past time to end the last great BASTION OF GROSS DISCRIMINATION

IN AMERICA...............the ANG/RESERVE retirement system (pay system in general)...........AD can't "have it" both ways.

Suggestion ...............ENCOURAGE Rumsfeld to

RETIRE ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest OldHercNav]

You got a witness here, Brother! All great points. Also, In case people did not notice this, the original BRAC report that came out with job gain/loss stats for each base affected was flawed in one very critical area in the Guard/Reserve arena. It listed full-time military jobs only. Obviously, the greatest number of positions in a Guard/Reserve unit are traditional part-time jobs. SO, the perceived impact of these stats to personnel and economies is inaccurate because the bulk of the positions being lost are not even listed. Many bases have been bringing this up in the hearings in addition to all of the other mistakes in the analysis. At my base, for example, they listed a loss of 19 mil jobs, but is actually closer to 700 positions. The 19 are the few AGR positions we have that are OPS or MX related.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Here are a couple thoughts. I am trying to come at this from the FTF good of the country in the long run perspective...with no ANG or AD or AFRC bias or point to prove.

Originally posted by OldHercNav:

It listed full-time military jobs only. Obviously, the greatest number of positions in a Guard/Reserve unit are traditional part-time jobs. SO, the perceived impact of these stats to personnel and economies is inaccurate because the bulk of the positions being lost are not even listed.

Part time jobs are not what people are interested in. They add to the local economy but they are not people's primary livelihood. The ANG can't have it both ways either.

Originally posted by STR1CK:

BRAC is about real estate, not personnel and most of all not about Equipment or IRON for you people that like buzzword. Taking aircraft from a guard unit and creating an enclave is beyond the scope of the BRAC.

Good point. Iron and equipment fall under programmatic changes in the force structure. That is how units will lose their iron if the BRAC recommendations for the ANG are thrown out. Once the Iron is gone the remaining "enclaves" will be subject to closure in the next round. Delaying the inevitable, hopeflly the leadership will have the vision to think past their own retirement future.

Originally posted by STR1CK:

You can't disband or re-equipment a unit of the National Guard with out the consent of its Governor.

That may be true. We will probably find out what the lawyers figure out in the next few months.

Let's assume it is true. The DoD may not be able to take the Iron away but they can say to the Governor "You want those jets? OK, you got 'em. OBTW, you're going to have to find a place to put them and pay for them because we're not footing the bill or providing any more MILCON money for that base. Let us know what the unit's new address is going to be."

Originally posted by STR1CK:

The Air National Guard is the biggest bang for the buck. Here something for Active Duty to think about. If you have ever spent one Christmas, Easter or Thanksgiving at home its probably because a member of the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve was deployed some where in the world taking your place.

Maybe I'm Mr. Unlucky. I've been deployed for Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving in both the AD and ANG. I haven't noticed anything different about the ANG except that ANG A-10 units don't deploy nearly as often as their AD counterparts.

Originally posted by STR1CK:

The average experience of a member of the Air National Guard is 15 years that goes from our aircrews to our maintainers.

Yep, it's great to have the experience. However, I always feel uncomfortable when I hear a Traditional Guardsman talk trash about a ten year AD SSgt who has spent all ten years on AD working jets when the Guardsman has been a tradtional his entire 15 years (12 UTAs/year and two weeks every summer). I know many ANG folks do more than that, especially in Ops and Mx, but many do not.

I like to think of it more as a team, I don't dislike the guys from other units just because they are from other units be they AD, AFRC or ANG.

I have been curious as to the reason the ANG brings 30-50% more people to do the same job on many deployments.

The ANG does a lot of swapping out on overseas deployments (at least in the fighter units). I remember being amazed that ANG units would rainbow an AEF deployment and the vast majority of the guys would spend no more than 14-17 days in country. Pretty good deal. That has changed a bit but not that much. I think pilots now have to stay for 45 days and only the FS/CC and weapons officer have to stay for the full 120 days. I think the rest of the folks can swap out as fast as the airlift schedule permits. I might be wrong here but I'm pretty sure it is not 120 days for everyone.

Originally posted by STR1CK:

Now units that get extra planes are going to have recruit and train aircrews to make up for the shortfall.

I don't think this is going to be as big a problem as some people think. I know units that are supposed to stay open are getting plenty of phone calls. The calls will increase if the current BRAC plan gets signed.

Originally posted by STR1CK:

In the Guard we up grade our aircrew members based on their performance and their experience just not the fact that they have 800hrs and a heartbeat or need it to make captain.

Is this statement based on your experience in both the AD and ANG units?

This is the same kind of sweeping generalization you are angry about the AD making.

It is tough to upgrade in many AD squadrons for many reasons. I have seen people selected for upgrades in the ANG because it was "their turn", too.

Originally posted by STR1CK:

This is why our safety record in the Guard is better that Active Duties by a ratio of 16:1

Is that the reason? I know the most "dangerous" guys were in the 1000-1500 hour catagory in a fighter unit according to the safety geeks. That sounds a lot like the largest population of ANG fighter units.

Is it possible that the AD has more mishaps because they fly more? I don't know but I would think that might have something to do with it.

Originally posted by STR1CK:

Overall the Air Force has damaged it relationship with its Guard and Reserve components.

I agree to some extent. The ARC is about to do the same thing back if they aren't careful. We have the choice to enter an adversarial relationship or be realistic. Like I said, there is a FTF plan and the ANG could feel the backlash if they are not careful how they proceed here.

Originally posted by STR1CK:

The BRAC commission has a lot of choices and I don't envy them one bit. September 8th will be a big day for alot of Guard Units. Lets just hope that the Air Force, The National Guard Buerau and the BRAC commission gets it right.

Amen.

I would sure like to see the relationship between the AD and ARC improve but it would require a lot of understanding by folks on both sides

Good news, the new CSAF has always seemed to have a big picture and a pretty good attitude toward the ANG. I think he respects capability and performance and dislikes the opposite.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by Rainman A-10:

Part time jobs are not what people are interested in. They add to the local economy but they are not people's primary livelihood. The ANG can't have it both ways either.

[Guest SnakeT38]

Originally posted by Rainman A-10:

[STR1CK]

Looks like The Adjuants Generals are coming through for the Guard. Please follow the link to the letter sent from the TAG's to Chairman Principi. Letter to Chairman Principi

[Guest Rainman A-10]

I SAY AGAIN, EVEN LOUDER, WITH A BUNCH OF EXTRANEOUS EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Rainman A-10:

Let me clarify. The "people" I'm talking about not caring about the part time jobs are the politicians, BRAC commissioners and DoD heavy hitters.

The part time jobs are important to ANGB, State and Wing leadership and, OBVIOUSLY, to the individuals effected.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Read that letter carefully.

MG Lempke is trying to move out of BRAC but he has not denied that PROGRAMMATIC changes must be made and not everyone will keep their aircraft in the future.

C-130 guys should be rejoicing.

A-10 guys with C-130 units in their state should be shaking in their boots.

A flying unit in every state (stupid idea, especially in New England) means states with heavy and fighter units will likely lose their fighters in favor of their tankers ot tactical airlift. Tactical airlift offers something to the Governor that fighters do not.

The TAGs are ready to offer up the fighters.

FWIW, some states have four or five flying units. Those states should get spanked if we're really concerned about equity.

[herkbum]

I believe most of STR1CK's comments pertained to heavy units and Rainman's were obviously pertaining to fighter units. I have been in the Guard tac airlift community for 13 years and I totally sympathize with STR1CK's comments. The AD herc units do send their co-pilots to AC school with 800 hrs and this can be waived down to 700 hrs. These are total hrs and not herc hours. I personally feel this is too early for someone to be sent to AC school. Especially, if the majority of these hours were obtained in the desert. By reg the AC is supposed to land the airplane in a combat environment, hopefully the AC are allowing the co-pilots (against the reg) to get the stick time. You can see how this can cause quite a bit of rust for the co-pilot.

I don't know if the AD has hurt its relationship with the Guard, I know many Guard members that would help out there AD counterparts as much as possible.

Rumor is that we will here something as early as 15 Aug. Let's hope the right decision is made.

[STR1CK]

Rainman

The only reason some states will lose fighter units is because the Air Force is betting the farm on the F/A-22 and the F-35. These two programs are going to drain the AF budget. They want their shinny new fighter. The F/A-22 is a nice plane. But so is the F-15C with the upgraded radar. Your aircraft the A-10 is the worlds best CAS plane ever produced period. But had it not been for Desert Storm/Shield you might be flying something else. Honestly I think that the Air Force was trying to pay for the F/A-22 and the F-35 by cutting guard units. Don't you find it odd that 83% of the BRAC recommendations of the Air Force fell on the Air National Guard. Remember the ANG gets 6% of the total AF budget, but how do we get 83% of the BRAC for the AF. Bottom line is that the Active Duty AF was trying to get a free ride with the BRAC. The Air Force has tried to entice the ANG with promises of "Exciting , New Emerging Missions" and Enclaves. I can tell you that these so called "New Emerging Missions" are undefined and unfunded. I will tell you that 8 C-130H2's on the ramp are worth a helluva lot more than the prospect of a whole wing of C-27j's. Now here is where the Grassy Knoll, and the Black Helicopters come in. I believe that the Air Force thought that we would jump at the promise of the new emerging missions and give up our IRON. So we would live with the enclaves for a couple years. But when the AF failed to produce funding for these so called new emerging missions. They would basically close enclaves leaving states without an Air National Guard unit. Please take that for what it is worth. But regardless, with every hearing about BRAC that goes by. The Air Force looks worse and worse. It has become painfully obvious that this AF piece of BRAC hasn't been well thought out. No matter what MDS you fly this BRAC is not a good thing for anybody. I have said it once and I will say it again. The Air Force Reserve Command is going to take the biggest hit. Its easier to take the AFRC's IRON since they are a MAJCOM and don't have a dual role. I am not picking on AFRC, but they are an easy target. Here is where you are going to see the programmatic changes that you spoke of. The Air Force could have probably done this to the Guard, but their BRAC actions will probably prevent that from ever happing. After the BRAC you will probably see a circling of the wagons at the National Guard Bureau. I would almost expect that you won't see the Guard leaning forward as much either. Finally I hate the BRAC. I don't want to see anyone lose their JOB espically why this nation is at war. I hope that after all is said and done, that BRAC will have a minimal impact on the Air Force and its ability to bring war when ever and where ever.

[Guest SnakeT38]

Rainman, you gotta show this boy "some love".

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by SnakeT38:

Rainman, you gotta show this boy "some love".

I offer props ro STR1CK. Many good points. I just see the background that goes into things like this letter from MG Lempke and it is enough to make me want to pull my hair out. Many of the TAGs did, in fact, get involved with BRAC. Many did not, they thought their units were safe and they blew it off. Now, after the fact, they are all up in arms like this whole BRAC thing was just sprung on them no-notice.

I agree with many of STR1CK's points. Keep in mind, however, the programmatic changes are going to occur. They have to. The DoD is planning to retire airplanes. Some of those airplanes are flying in the Guard. We are not buying enough new airplanes to replace the retirements one for one. Something has to give.

One reason so many of the BRAC recommendations impact the Guard is because we are organized in such a goofy way. 15 PAA fighter squadrons? Are you sh!tting me?! And we somehow call it a fighter wing when the wing consists of a single squadron with 15 PAA? Every ANG fighter wing has five O-6 positions to support that single 15 PAA fighter squadron. That fighter wing, with all that leadership (and I'm not counting the additional O-6/7 positions at the state HQ), still can't deploy on it's own to meet legitimate wartime taskings because it does not have enough airplanes.

C'mon guys, can we really be surprised when the AD doesn't take us seriously?

The target is 24 PAA fighter squadrons. The USAF has said it is looking to make all fighter squadrons 24 PAA because that is how they want the F/A-22 and JSF squadrons organized. I think that is a good idea. I have been in 12, 15, 18 and 24 PAA squadrons and 24 PAA is definitely the way to go. 15 PAA is not big enough for any single fighter squadron to meet wartime tasking. It has got to change.

As for the emerging missions...there are plenty of them on the table. Funding will flow, these are vital and required missions. I think many of them would be a perfect match for the ANG, especially the ones you can do from home station. These jobs need to be done, why not have the ANG do them and reduce the deployment OPTEMPO? It may not be sexy to have a DCGS or Predator mission but those are important missions that someone has to do.

Just a thought.

Again, props to STR1CK.

[Guest SnakeT38]

Well the AD doesn't ALWAYS take suggestions very well and having seen how they "blend" us in

from the very beginning when a "war plan" is written or revised I can TESTIFY to the fact that

POLITICS are HUGE on who goes where in a TPFDD.

15 PAA squadrons were the AD's idea several years

ago when we had 18 and when I came in to the USAFR

at BAD we had almost 50 A-10's sitting on the ramp

for 2 squadrons.

Someone said it.............this IS ALL ABOUT the

F-22, period.

If you want to do something logical, which was suggested from the BEGINNING of the program,

turn UPT program over to the USAFR (the reserve UPT program is the LARGEST flying org in the USAF based on total pilots, they are still a GROUP).........are they going to do that............NO WAY.........

Talk about EXCESS O-6 positions.......why do they

need as many they have to run an organization

on a base that is close in size at least from

a pilot standpoint, to the RESERVE SQUADRON.

At Randolph, each FLIGHT of Reserve IP's is almost as large as the AD SQUADRON, then put

all those "fleets" together it is a Reserve Sqaudron but yet an AD WING................I with

a almost 6 figure tax bill EVERY year, taxpayer,

want to know WHY they are WASTING my money and still scream there is NONE for a reduced age retirement in the Guard and Reserve.

The idea of "empire building" didn't start in the

Guard and Reserve.

[ 26. July 2005, 10:52: Message edited by: SnakeT38 ]

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Snake, I'm stripped here.

What was the point again?

BTW, what the hell are

you doing to make your posts come out formatted

all funky? I get level

9 spatial D trying to read them. Are those posts

supposed to make a cool

3D picture or

something? I'm not bright enough to catch on or hold on. Gridlock.

[Guest comanche]

I think snake is so old he hits enter "return" to go to the next line, like a typewriter. You don't have to do that snake. At the end of the line it will automatically go to the next line! :D

[ 27. July 2005, 23:15: Message edited by: comanche ]

[Guest SnakeT38]

Originally posted by Rainman A-10:

Snake, I'm stripped here.

What was the point again?

BTW, what the hell are

you doing to make your posts come out formatted

all funky? I get level

9 spatial D trying to read them. Are those posts

supposed to make a cool

3D picture or

something? I'm not bright enough to catch on or hold on. Gridlock.

I type, don't hit enter, and you see it.

The point.......the BIG LETTERS are the EMPHASIS

WORDS......My point is, screw Wash DC......their

interest IS NOT "the good of the country", it's about an airplane.

I tried to explain the reverse of your "why is the Guard set up so goofy" statement. As I said before, "empire building" didn't start in the Guard.