Posted: 2/6/2012 4:11:14 PM EDT
|
Comments on each proposal (not mine) in bold.
USAF Force structure changes affect 14 states by Col. Bob Thompson Office of Air Force Reserve Public Affairs 2/3/2012 WASHINGTON –– The Air Force plans to retire 82 Air Force Reserve Command aircraft and make other changes in the command in the next few years, according to Pentagon officials Feb. 3. States impacted are Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Called the "Air Force Strategy and Force Structure Overview," the Air Force plans to rebalance its overall ratio of Regular Air Force, Air Force Reserve Command, and Air National Guard forces at about 60 installations in 33 states and retire 227 aircraft to support a new defense strategy and the president's budget proposal for fiscal year 2013. "We're going to do everything we can to take care of our people as these changes occur," said Lt. Gen. Charles E. Stenner Jr., chief of Air Force Reserve at the Pentagon and AFRC commander at Robins Air Force Base, Ga. "We're putting together programs to retain as many of our reservists as possible." One of the biggest changes for the Air Force Reserve Command is the planned closure of the 911th Airlift Wing, Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station, Pa. If the 911th AW is deactivated, the Pittsburgh ARS is expected to close. However, the Pittsburgh Air National Guard Base is planned to remain operational. Faced with austere budget times, the Air Force is refocusing and reducing the size of its forces to comply with the president's new defense strategy and the Budget Control Act's requirements to cut $487 billion from the defense budget over the next 10 years. The Air Force's share is about $54 billion –– and those cuts may grow. "The president and the Department of Defense have directed our new Defense Strategy Guidance," Stenner said. "Now our Air Force has to set priorities and make some tough choices to rebalance our forces and realign with the new strategy." To achieve these goals, the Air Force is planning significant organizational changes. AFRC's portion of the cuts includes reducing its inventory by 61 airlift and aerial-refueling aircraft, as well as 21 fighter jets. This will retire the Air Force's oldest aircraft, make room for newer models, and consolidate similar types of aircraft at common locations as much as possible. Changes in AFRC structure include: Barksdale AFB, La. –– Drawdown one Air Force Reserve Command squadron by retiring 18 A-10 aircraft as part of the FY13 president's budget. Also, retire three other A-10s in fiscal 13 that were previously slated for retirement and awaiting to be transferred. Transfer three remaining A-10s to Whiteman AFB, Mo. End the active associate unit that hosts Regular Air Force Airmen and flies A-10 aircraft with the AFRC A-10 squadron The Air Force Reserve unit that flies B-52 aircraft remains operational at Barksdale. Dobbins ARB, Ga. –– Retire seven C-130H2 aircraft and add 10 C-130J aircraft during FY14. Keesler AFB, Miss. –– Transfer 10 C-130J aircraft to new location in FY14. Although the active associate unit ends as part of the FY13 President's Budget, the Air Force Reserve unit remains operational. How does the 815th Airlift Squadron “remain operational” when all its airplanes are transferred out? The logical conclusion here is that the 815 AS will be inactivated when the C-130Js leave. That leaves the 53d Weather Reconnaissance Sq with its complement of WC-130Js. To say “the Air Force Reserve unit remains operational” is misleading at best. One squadron remains, but one will likely close its doors. Lackland AFB, Texas –– Retire 16 C-5A aircraft from FY13 through FY16. Close the C-5A training school. Add eight C-5M aircraft in FY15. Little Rock AFB, Ark. –– Retire two C-130H2 aircraft in FY17. Unit remains operational. March ARB, Calif. –– Retire one KC-135 aircraft in FY13. Unit remains operational. Maxwell AFB, Ala. –– Drawdown one squadron by retiring seven C-130H2 aircraft in FY14. Unit remains operational. Again, how does a unit remain operational when all its airplanes depart? Or has the 357th Airlift Squadron doubled in size in recent years? They always had 8 C-130Hs (85-0035 through -0042). One of them was taken away for the AMP program, leaving them with seven. Thus, minus 7 C-130s puts them out of business. Something does not add up here. Minneapolis-St. Paul ARS, Minn. –– Drawdown one squadron by transferring eight C-130H3 aircraft in FY 13. The Air Force Reserve unit remains operational even though the air reserve station is transferred from the Air Force Reserve to the Air National Guard. If the Minnesota ANG is moving over to the AFRC station, are they closing the ANG installation? Both this and the USAF announcement Friday night are missing part of the equation here. Niagara Falls, ARS, N.Y. –– The air reserve component associate unit –– composed of Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard –– ends as part of the FY13 president's budget. The Air Force Reserve retires three C-130H2 aircraft in FY13 and eight more in FY17. However, eight C-130H3 aircraft are planned to be added to the Air Force Reserve unit during FY13. This change implies the end of the existence of the 914th Airlift Wing and all its components, including the 328th Airlift Squadron. Pittsburgh ARS, Pa. –– Drawdown one squadron by retiring six C-130H2 aircraft and transferring one C-130H2 in FY13. Air Force Reserve operations end and the Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station closes. However, Pittsburgh Air National Guard Base remains open. This implies the inactivation of the 911th Airlift Wing and all its components, including the 758th Airlift Squadron. (NOTE: if they are retiring the eight 1978-vintage C-130Hs of the 911th, then the implication is that all of the FY 1974 C-130Hs that have served at Dyess AFB since 1976 have been or soon will be retired as well.) Pope Field, N.C. –– Retire one C-130H2 aircraft and add one C-130H2 in FY13. Tinker AFB, Okla. –– Retire four KC-135 aircraft in FY13; however, unit remains operational. Westover ARB, Mass. –– Transfer eight C-5Ms in FY16. Unit remains operational. Remains operational but shrinks in half, from 16 down to 8 airplanes. Youngstown-Warren ARS, Ohio –– Retire six C-130H2 aircraft and add four C-130H2.5 aircraft. "Our future plans must ensure the Total Force can fulfill the nation's need for daily operations and a surge force in the new strategy," Stenner said. "DOD's goal is to balance force structure reductions with our ability to project power globally and to maintain our force readiness." The Air Force is scheduled to announce manpower changes caused by these structure changes in the next few weeks. In order for the planned reductions to take effect, they must be approved by Congress and signed into law by the president. "We worked closely with our Regular Air Force and Air Guard partners to rebalance our Total Force team," Stenner said. "In order to make our Air Force smaller, all three components had to find efficiencies and reductions –– to get smaller together." To view the Air Force Overview listing all of the Air Force's planned changes, go to: www.af.mil. |
|
Units affected: PDF Doc
ETA - this part got my attention: Without the Total Force re‐missioning actions described later in the paper, they would have significantly affected 24 units and left eight installations without an Air Force presence. They will have direct impact in 33 states, but in order to support Total Force remissioning, the manpower realignment plan built by the Reserve Components will significantly affect additional units in all 54 states and territories. We will be able to provide manpower adjustments by installation and state in the coming weeks.
So I take it units that lose aircraft can expect additional loss of personnel? |
|
Air Guard and Reserve is getting ass raped without lube.....Again.
"We're going to do everything we can to take care of our people as these changes occur," said Lt. Gen. Charles E. Stenner Jr., chief of Air Force Reserve at the Pentagon and AFRC commander at Robins Air Force Base, Ga.
They don't care about retaining the experienced people, there is nowhere for them to go. Hope Stenner enjoys his bag of Silver.. 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: My unit is losing 2 jets. Yay... looks like it's back to the airlines for me...  Also - PLEASE lets not turn this into a inter-service pissing match like the other thread... They will come like moths to flame. They can't help it.  Here let me ring the bell: How will this effect the AF's ability to provide CAS for the ground maneuver elements? That oughta do it.  |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My unit is losing 2 jets. Yay... looks like it's back to the airlines for me... Also - PLEASE lets not turn this into a inter-service pissing match like the other thread... They will come like moths to flame. They can't help it. Here let me ring the bell: How will this effect the AF's ability to provide CAS for the ground maneuver elements? That oughta do it.  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
My unit is losing 2 jets. Yay... looks like it's back to the airlines for me...
Also - PLEASE lets not turn this into a inter-service pissing match like the other thread... They will come like moths to flame. They can't help it. I heard someone say "Air Force". Did it come from here? Because the rest of the Air Force is going to be sacrificed at the altar of the F-35, and I kind of don't care. |
| Times are tough, and belts have to be tightened, but I don't see any cuts to V.I.P. transports. They should be the first to go. Today, you can fly commercial air and rent a car and get to any where you want to go in the continental USA a whole lot cheaper than a V.I.P. transport. It goes to show the two face attitude of the Obama administration when they go after private business use of private aircraft and then Obama maintains a fleet of private aircraft for his minions. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My unit is losing 2 jets. Yay... looks like it's back to the airlines for me...
Also - PLEASE lets not turn this into a inter-service pissing match like the other thread... They will come like moths to flame. They can't help it. Here let me ring the bell: How will this effect the AF's ability to provide CAS for the ground maneuver elements? That oughta do it. For extra measure, I'll add the strategic F-35B into the conversation as well. |
|
After reading some of material at the links provided, it is apparent that the Reserves and Air National Guard are being slaughtered in this deal. So much for the cost-effectiveness of the reserves and our ability and resiliency to step up and complete any mission that was hoisted upon us at a fraction of the cost...
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
After reading some of material at the links provided, it is apparent that the Reserves and Air National Guard are being slaughtered in this deal. So much for the cost-effectiveness of the reserves and our ability and resiliency to step up and complete any mission that was hoisted upon us at a fraction of the cost... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile My guess is that active duty wants control of the assets, which from a warfighting standpoint, makes sense. Thats what we're in business for after all. I think thats also why there is a big push for associate units as well. Having 450+ tankers for example, with a large percentage Guard/Reserve, leaves a lot of road blocks in place for their use. Unfortunately, it looks like associate units are the way of the future. From what I've heard, it's been a real treat for units that went down that road. Good times... 
|
|
Quoted:
It's only going to get worse for all of the services. The real impact on the Navy has not been published yet, but I know it is going to be brutal. Hey...and just wait until the next BRAC.  2015 is what I'm hearing. Seems to line up just perfect with the Asscrackistan withdrawal timeline. Good thing my civillian employer leave goes til 2016! 
|
|
Quoted:
It's only going to get worse for all of the services. The real impact on the Navy has not been published yet, but I know it is going to be brutal. Hey...and just wait until the next BRAC. This is the Air Force setting up for BRAC. This is the way they are going to control which bases they lose and which ones they keep. Sacrificial lambs being led to slaughter, if you will... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only going to get worse for all of the services. The real impact on the Navy has not been published yet, but I know it is going to be brutal. Hey...and just wait until the next BRAC. This is the Air Force setting up for BRAC. This is the way they are going to control which bases they lose and which ones they keep. Sacrificial lambs being led to slaughter, if you will... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Well, that's better than congresscritters telling you which bases you're going to lose. |
|
Ah, the Air Force... pork barrel politics at its best.
There should only be one goal when it comes to military spending: how can we get the most effective "bang" for our buck. Sadly, in real life, that translates to "OMG: they're shutting down our local mopping-and-painting operation! Thousands of jobs will be lost, and our nation will be vulnerable to attack from the little green martians!!!! OMG!!!!!" Why is it that "conservatives" hate the living daylights out of government pork spending - unless it's under a ".mil" umbrella? |
|
Quoted:
Ah, the Air Force... pork barrel politics at its best. There should only be one goal when it comes to military spending: how can we get the most effective "bang" for our buck. Sadly, in real life, that translates to "OMG: they're shutting down our local mopping-and-painting operation! Thousands of jobs will be lost, and our nation will be vulnerable to attack from the little green martians!!!! OMG!!!!!" Why is it that "conservatives" hate the living daylights out of government pork spending - unless it's under a ".mil" umbrella? Refer to my post above... This is why I think we're seeing transfer of metal from guard/reserve to active duty and movement toward associate units. In most associate units out there, the active side owns the aircraft. In my opinion, this allows active duty more access to those weapons systems, which I think is a good thing... operationally at least. On the other hand, it's a great way to squash the morale of the part time force... |
|
Quoted:
Refer to my post above... This is why I think we're seeing transfer of metal from guard/reserve to active duty and movement toward associate units. In most associate units out there, the active side owns the aircraft. In my opinion, this allows active duty more access to those weapons systems, which I think is a good thing... operationally at least. On the other hand, it's a great way to squash the morale of the part time force... Yeah I don't have an answer for the active duty/reserve question. When I was sworn in, we were still fighting the Soviet hordes. Now, we fight much "lesser" enemies, but our appropriation level seems to be a lot higher.... hmm.... |
|
Quoted:
Yet still no talk of getting rid of civilian contractors that do the same job an Airman can do for twice the price, yet they do have the work load. I assume you meant "half" the workload... A lot of the contractors I worked along side in JTF worked their asses off. They filled a lot of gaps that just simply couldn't be covered with the current .mil capabilities, at least in my field (not tankers at the time). There is definitely the good and the bad about utilizing contractors though.. high $$$ but they can be terminated on short notice. However, I think the AF paid somewhere in the neighborhood of 5mil to get me through pilot training and mission ready. Plus paying into my retirement, tricare, and all the other bennies... add in O-3+ pay and we're talkin a good chunk of change for a flyin monkey pushing buttons. In a lot of circumstances, contractors are cheaper. |
|
If the AF, or any service for that matter, guts a base, then we NEED a BRAC to turn the property over to private commercial and industrial use. The worst thing that can happen to a local economy is to evict all tenant commands and have the last person chain the gate shut. If a base is BRAC'd, it can be reutilized by entrepeneurs, if said entrepeneurs want to risk their capital with the 0 in office. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
My guess is that active duty wants control of the assets, which from a warfighting standpoint, makes sense. Thats what we're in business for after all. I think thats also why there is a big push for associate units as well. Having 450+ tankers for example, with a large percentage Guard/Reserve, leaves a lot of road blocks in place for their use. Unfortunately, it looks like associate units are the way of the future. From what I've heard, it's been a real treat for units that went down that road. Good times... They aren't as much taking over the assets than up and getiing rid of them and not replacing them. The ANG and RES control about a third of the tanker fleet. They are available anytime the Big Blue & Pres wants them at a much higher MC rate than AD. " Associate Units " are a joke... All the Big Blue pillow talk about bringing all the guard experience to the table, total force etc etc is a big Giant farce. The AD AF wants nothing to do with how the ANG does things, they just want the manpower. The Association of the 141st with the active duty 92nd should be a CBT for Generals on how not to do an association. They destroyed one of the best tanker units in the ANG. Glad I had my twenty and was able to eject before it got real bad. |
|
Quoted:
Why is it that "conservatives" hate the living daylights out of government pork spending - unless it's under a ".mil" umbrella? Are you high 
Putin will eventually rebuild the Russian military back up and China's making a play for superpower status. That's just the big boys, we also have the Norks who have a missile that'll reach Hawaii and soon the West Coast. Then there's Iran, Syria and a cast of Al Qaeda minions that need dealt with. The world is more dangerous now than it was during the Cold War. We need a military that can handle all contingencies. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why is it that "conservatives" hate the living daylights out of government pork spending - unless it's under a ".mil" umbrella? Are you high
Putin will eventually rebuild the Russian military back up and China's making a play for superpower status. That's just the big boys, we also have the Norks who have a missile that'll reach Hawaii and soon the West Coast. Then there's Iran, Syria and a cast of Al Qaeda minions that need dealt with. The world is more dangerous now than it was during the Cold War. We need a military that can handle all contingencies. The overgrown national debt is the greatest threat that has ever existed. It is a bigger threat than any enemy tank, plane or missile. Massive cargo ships bringing cheap subsidized goods from China are weapons of mass economic destruction. We are not the world police, let others handle their own problems and we can intervene only when it is in the nations long term best interest. |
|
I'm surprised they're keeping that little Youngstown unit. (Vienna) as it's not that far from Pittsburgh. Maybe because it's just a short hop for them to fly over the old Ravenna Ammunition plant where they practice their air drops. Not that it's that much farther (by air) for them to hit that from Pittsburgh. |
|
Playing Conspiracy Theorist here, but hear me out.
Let's say old .gov sees the giant fall we're approaching. Financial meltdown and real trouble. Throw in the epic .gov hate and constant challenges of their power recently, and then look at the stripping of the ANG and NG. Taking assets away from state control and placing complete control under the federal level. Essentially stripping the militia of their assets. I know it should be a story on info wars, but I keep an open mind when it comes to how my .gov is trying to fuck me on any given day. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's only going to get worse for all of the services. The real impact on the Navy has not been published yet, but I know it is going to be brutal. Hey...and just wait until the next BRAC. This is the Air Force setting up for BRAC. This is the way they are going to control which bases they lose and which ones they keep. Sacrificial lambs being led to slaughter, if you will... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Well, that's better than congresscritters telling you which bases you're going to lose. Actually, they will tell us all. While the BRAC process is supposed to be free from congressional or any other influence, it really isn't. Certain influential members of the House and Senate will see to it that their favorite services, major programs and bases are protected. USAF and the other services will try to prevent complete disasters but their plans may or may not coincide with the local pol. Gonna be bloody... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why is it that "conservatives" hate the living daylights out of government pork spending - unless it's under a ".mil" umbrella? Are you high
Putin will eventually rebuild the Russian military back up and China's making a play for superpower status. That's just the big boys, we also have the Norks who have a missile that'll reach Hawaii and soon the West Coast. Then there's Iran, Syria and a cast of Al Qaeda minions that need dealt with. The world is more dangerous now than it was during the Cold War. We need a military that can handle all contingencies. The overgrown national debt is the greatest threat that has ever existed. It is a bigger threat than any enemy tank, plane or missile. Massive cargo ships bringing cheap subsidized goods from China are weapons of mass economic destruction. We are not the world police, let others handle their own problems and we can intervene only when it is in the nations long term best interest. The DoD budget is not the cause of our national debt. We can cut some, for sure, but even if we completely eliminated the DoD we'd still be getting into more and more debt. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid need to be cut, drastically. Welfare payments are dragging the national debt deeper and deeper, not defense. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why is it that "conservatives" hate the living daylights out of government pork spending - unless it's under a ".mil" umbrella? Are you high
Putin will eventually rebuild the Russian military back up and China's making a play for superpower status. That's just the big boys, we also have the Norks who have a missile that'll reach Hawaii and soon the West Coast. Then there's Iran, Syria and a cast of Al Qaeda minions that need dealt with. The world is more dangerous now than it was during the Cold War. We need a military that can handle all contingencies. The overgrown national debt is the greatest threat that has ever existed. It is a bigger threat than any enemy tank, plane or missile. Massive cargo ships bringing cheap subsidized goods from China are weapons of mass economic destruction. We are not the world police, let others handle their own problems and we can intervene only when it is in the nations long term best interest. Get your collective heads out of the sand, please... This isn't 1708 and this isn't Tommy Jefferson's America. Hell, even he knew that you've got to extend global power and reach (Barbary pirates, anyone). Your argument for isolationism ended when we split the atom and 11th century towel wearing moon worshippers started playing with rockets and nuclear weapons. Go take a long look at the Federal budget. Compare what we're spending on defense (constitutionally mandated, BTW) to what we're spending on entitlements (NOT) then get back to me. |