Air National Guard Lobbies Successfully Against Budget Cuts

[Richard]

Politics and the Guard - who'd uh thunk it...

And so it goes...

Richard

Air National Guard Lobbies Successfully Against Budget Cuts
NYT, 24 Apr 2012

In combat zones, National Guard units generally take their orders from active duty commanders. Not so in Washington.

For two months, the Air National Guard, with the help of governors from every state, has been battling the active duty Air Force over proposed budget cuts that would have trimmed the Guard’s force by more than 5,000 people and more than 200 aircraft.

On Monday, the two sides declared a temporary truce, as Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said that he would restore some of the cuts in the budget proposal he has sent to Congress, including at least 2,200 Guard positions and 24 C-130 cargo planes.

“These aircraft play a vital role in our support to civil authorities, particularly in the event of natural disasters,” Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said. “It’s the right thing to do, and the secretary urges Congress to consider it.”

The restorations, worth about $400 million over five years, underscored that the National Guard, long influential in Congress, had gained new clout in the Pentagon as well, largely through an organization created in 2010, the Council of Governors, to help coordinate responses to natural disasters.

Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington, a Democrat who as co-chair of the council helped lead the fight against the cuts, called the compromise plan “a major, major step” and said she would urge every Air National Guard unit to consider supporting it.

Still, Governor Gregoire hinted that some Guard units would probably continue the fight on Capitol Hill, where Congress has just begun debating the Pentagon budget. In particular, some states are upset that the Air Force still plans to retire their combat aircraft, including faster F-16 fighter jets and slower A-10 Thunderbolts, known as warthogs.

The Air Force, which has had to maintain a steely public silence on the budget fight even as the Guard and the governors protested cuts loudly and publicly, said it hoped the revised spending plan would pass muster.

“I think the secretary has offered a serious and constructive proposal that we hope will be the basis for the Congress to respond favorably,” said Lt. Gen. Christopher D. Miller, the deputy Air Force chief of staff for strategic plans and programs.

Though the Guard and active duty forces often clash over spending, this year’s dustup was colored by two new factors: the requirement that the Pentagon cut nearly $500 billion from its budget over the coming decade, and the emergence of the Council of Governors as a lobbying force.

In February, the Air Force released its initial budget proposal, calling for reducing the active duty force by 3,900 airmen, the reserves by another 900 and the National Guard by 5,100.

The plan also called for retiring about 500 aging aircraft over five years, as well as canceling the procurement of some new cargo planes. Many of those aircraft would come from Guard units, under the proposal.

The proposed cuts fell disproportionately on the Guard, which is much smaller than the active duty force. The Air Force justified the plan by saying that the active duty component had been trimmed significantly more in recent decades than had the Guard or the reserve.

As a result, the Air Force maintains, its active duty units have been deploying at a rapid tempo almost nonstop since the 1991 Persian Gulf war, and will continue to do so even as the United States draws down forces in Afghanistan.

But almost immediately after the Air Force plan became public, the Council of Governors mobilized, sending letters of protest to Mr. Panetta and the senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. They argued that the Guard was more cost-effective than the active duty force and that cuts to the Guard fleet would hamstring states’ responses to emergencies.

Within days, governors and congressional delegations had organized news conferences across the country, generating news coverage in states expected to take large cuts, including New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Then the Council of Governors, with assistance from the National Governors Association and the National Guard Association, developed an alternative proposal that called for eliminating 2,500 additional positions from the active duty Air Force and restoring more than 3,000 Guard positions. They also proposed restoring nearly 90 Guard aircraft, including 72 F-16s.

The Air Force dismissed the alternative proposal as unrealistic and costly, saying it would strain the active duty force. But continued pressure from the governors led Mr. Panetta to review the competing plans himself.

The turn of events has clearly rankled many in the active duty force, who contend the governors have inserted themselves into national security policy. But Governor Gregoire denied that, saying that the council had simply pointed out the importance of the Guard.

But she added that the budget restorations might not have happened without the Council of Governors, which, under the presidential order that created it, is authorized to meet with the secretary of defense on matters involving the National Guard. That access made all the difference, Governor Gregoire said.

“No question we could not have achieved this without the council,” she said. “It is unprecedented that the Pentagon has ever changed its submission. It is very clear that the secretary and his team listened to us.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/us...cuts.html?_r=2

[Pete]

It Ain't the Guard.

".............For two months, the Air National Guard, with the help of governors from every state................"

It's the Governors from every state.

It ain't a military decision - it's a jobs/money decision.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Pete

It Ain't the Guard.

".............For two months, the Air National Guard, with the help of governors from every state................"

It's the Governors from every state.

It ain't a military decision - it's a jobs/money decision.

It is bullshit is what it is. From a purely operational standpoint, it is the difference between tasking and asking. AF leadership can task active duty forces whereas they have to ask the Guard. In my experience, at least in AMC, asking the Guard usually turns into tasking the active duty because the guard won't support. All of the force shaping in the past couple of years was done on the back of the active duty and the ANG now has the nerve to call foul?

[Cake_14N]

Originally Posted by afchic

It is bullshit is what it is. From a purely operational standpoint, it is the difference between tasking and asking. AF leadership can task active duty forces wheteas they have to ask the Guard. In my experience, at least in AMC, asking the Guard usually turns into tasking the active duty because the guard won't support. All of the force shaping in the past couple of years was done on the back of the active duty and the ANG now has the nerve to call foul?

We can be tasked as well. I have been invol'd on a number of deployments to backfill for active duty shortfalls.

In my opinion any Guard unit that will not support a tasking needs to be closed down and those assets used to support a unit that will go where tasked.

Ma'am, it seems like you have had the misfortune to work with some Guard units that just didn't understand their role. Might also be the difference between ACC and AMC as well.

[Richard]

Meanwhile...

17th Air Force Inactivates; Duties Go To USAFE
AFTimes, 24 Apr 2012

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...ivates-042412/

I used to live on Sembach atop the hill next to the 17th AF CG and COS - great housing.

And so it goes...

Richard

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Cake_14N

We can be tasked as well. I have been invol'd on a number of deployments to backfill for active duty shortfalls.

In my opinion any Guard unit that will not support a tasking needs to be closed down and those assets used to support a unit that will go where tasked.

Ma'am, it seems like you have had the misfortune to work with some Guard units that just didn't understand their role. Might also be the difference between ACC and AMC as well.

That may very well be. I have asked this question of numerous folks but no one really seems to have an answer. If the Guard is a state militia I can understand the need for Army Guard units. But why do states need things such as F-22s? Is Alaska going to be attacking any other state in the lower 48? Why are there ANG units with bombers? The Reserves are a different story and I see the use there. But the Guard?

[Cake_14N]

we are both state and federal militia. I am dual commissioned, commissioned by the State of New Mexico and the federal government.

If Governor Martinez wanted to give me 4 stars, she could, but ONLY within the state of New Mexico. Whenever I interacted with somebody outside the state, I would revert to my federally recognized rank.

You ask good questions about why states need fighters. We had a fighter squadron for 45+ years. I don't have an answer to that one other than a Guard flying unit, required to meet exactly the same training standards as the active duty, can accomplish the mission for less cost. Out of our 35 pilots only 8 were full time. The remainder flew 6 times a month and were only paid for those days they flew.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Cake_14N

You ask good questions about why states need fighters. We had a fighter squadron for 45+ years. I don't have an answer to that one...

Answer is C - Kenny Chesney "She thinks my fighter's sexy..."

Richard

[bravo22b]

Well I may not be "in the loop" or be an expert in procurement matters, but I would love to hear a rational explanation of why the AF demanded to take over the C-27 program from the Army, took away C-130's from ANG units to be replaced by C-27's, and is now supposed to be cancelling the C-27 program. It sure sounds to me like the AF screwed the Army out of it's planned C-23 replacement, and then shafted the ANG units who were supposed to be getting C-27's.

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by bravo22b

Well I may not be "in the loop" or be an expert in procurement matters, but I would love to hear a rational explanation of why the AF demanded to take over the C-27 program from the Army, took away C-130's from ANG units to be replaced by C-27's, and is now supposed to be cancelling the C-27 program. It sure sounds to me like the AF screwed the Army out of it's planned C-23 replacement, and then shafted the ANG units who were supposed to be getting C-27's.

For not being "in the loop" you're surprisingly well informed. Trust me when I tell you the fallout from this budget battle will only get more "interesting". And Big Blue is already seriously pissed that they've been outmaneuvered by a bunch of politicians. I predict it'll get very ugly shortly.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by bravo22b

Well I may not be "in the loop" or be an expert in procurement matters, but I would love to hear a rational explanation of why the AF demanded to take over the C-27 program from the Army, took away C-130's from ANG units to be replaced by C-27's, and is now supposed to be cancelling the C-27 program. It sure sounds to me like the AF screwed the Army out of it's planned C-23 replacement, and then shafted the ANG units who were supposed to be getting C-27's.

The same way they took the C7A Caribous, and the 160th took the Group Aviation Detachments.

Yes, once upon a time, each SFG had their own fixed wing and Blackhawks.

Since then, we haven't seen the birds again.

TR

[bravo22b]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

For not being "in the loop" you're surprisingly well informed. Trust me when I tell you the fallout from this budget battle will only get more "interesting". And Big Blue is already seriously pissed that they've been outmaneuvered by a bunch of politicians. I predict it'll get very ugly shortly.

The same way they took the C7A Caribous, and the 160th took the Group Aviation Detachments.

Yes, once upon a time, each SFG had their own fixed wing and Blackhawks.

Since then, we haven't seen the birds again.

TR

I guess that is why I am so irked by this, and have paid attention. My unit has an excellent relationship with our fixed wing cargo pilots in the MD ANG; they have supported our jumps for a long time. They had their C-130's taken away and were lucky enough (I guess) to be one of the few units that actually got fielded the C-27's, but it is looking like those will be taken away at some point as well.

So Maryland will be left with no fixed wing cargo assets, AFAIK, so we will have go begging to other states. Meanwhile the short-haul capability that the Army wanted will disappear, and much money will have been wasted in the process.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by bravo22b

Well I may not be "in the loop" or be an expert in procurement matters, but I would love to hear a rational explanation of why the AF demanded to take over the C-27 program from the Army, took away C-130's from ANG units to be replaced by C-27's, and is now supposed to be cancelling the C-27 program. It sure sounds to me like the AF screwed the Army out of it's planned C-23 replacement, and then shafted the ANG units who were supposed to be getting C-27's.

I hate to burst you bubble, but Congress is the one who forced the AF to take over a hideously broken contract from the Army. The contract was so broken that another contract had to be done on top of the original one just to get training for the pilots before they were deployed.

The Air Force never supported the need for the C-27. In case analysis after case analysis, done by USTRANSCOM, not big Army or big Air Force, it could not find an instance where Army ops needed to be supported by a C-27 vs a C-130 or a C-17. Not one instance was found where the Army was not supported by the AF with their current assets. If you want to find the real reason C-27 was killed, do a little research into the esteemed Congressman from Hawaii.

In a time of budget cuts, something had to go. Why not cut a program when you can support operations with assets currently in the inventory? This airframe was doomed from the start because it did not have the support from Congress. The Army couldn't make a big enough case in why they should have it. And the joint community proved it wasn't needed.

[Richard]

So AFC - how're those new tankers coming along?

Richard

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Richard

So AFC - how're those new tankers coming along?

Richard

Don't get me started

One of the last things I did before I Ieft AMC was sit on the group that was trying to work out basing. There is a permanent hole in the wall by my desk where I banged my head everyday.

This aicraft will be like the C-17. Everyone will want it. It will become highly political where they go. That was THE biggest problem with C-27. No one in Congress really liked or wanted it. So unlike the C-130 no one gave a shit when the AF decided to cut it.

Anyone who thinks this is an Army vs Air Force thing has their head in the sand. It is all politics my friends, all politics.