Air National Guard Lobbies Successfully Against Budget Cuts

[Tree Potato]

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 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?

Politics, again... it's not politically acceptable to cut Guard, so active duty units get the axe. At some point the appropriate distribution of assets and forces needs to be addressed, but that's as easy as running a BRAC.

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.

There's another issue regarding volunteer vs tasked. Some ACC units have indicated they'd volunteer only to later decline due to valid employer problems. They're more than willing to go if tasked, but tasking them also involves taking them off the on-call list for other OPLANs for an extended time frame, which complicates the decision. So the tasking then rolls short notice back on the active force that had planned on a respite. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in mixed force units.

Originally Posted by afchic

It is all politics my friends, all politics.

Shack.

[bravo22b]

Originally Posted by afchic

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.

Ma'am, like I said, I am not an expert in these matters. Maybe I have done just enough reading to be dangerously mis-informed. What I see from my level is that my state had an asset (C-130's) that were replaced by the C-27, and now the C-27's are supposed to go away. Net result, no fixed wing support in the MDANG.

I have also read anecdotal evidence that the C-23 has been a valuable asset in theatre to move smaller loads and take the burden off the bigger planes and rotary wing. I have heard the same about the C-27, that they have saved a lot of wear and tear on CH-47's in theatre. I am not in a position to verify the accuracy of those claims, but here's an example:

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/87153/c...3ixzz1svOirYBw

But I think that most people would agree that the most easily utilized asset is the one that belongs to you, and it looks like the Army has lost or stands to lose its' control over any cargo ability that isn't rotary wing.

[Badger52]

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.

Yup, and it will play bigtime, in many venues, with/without teleprompter. That it's a tempestuous election year has nothing to do with it.

[cbtengr]

Those same politicians that will be deciding how big a raping the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines will be getting in the future, will be fighting like hell or at least giving that appearance for the voters back home re: their local guard and reserve units. Budget cuts are like wind farms everybody is all for them as long as they are placed somewhere else. Its an election year look for a lot of these things to not be fully addressed till after November. Just to make sure everyone knows, I am ok with windfarms I'm just opposed to tax payers subsidizing them.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by bravo22b

Ma'am, like I said, I am not an expert in these matters. Maybe I have done just enough reading to be dangerously mis-informed. What I see from my level is that my state had an asset (C-130's) that were replaced by the C-27, and now the C-27's are supposed to go away. Net result, no fixed wing support in the MDANG.

I have also read anecdotal evidence that the C-23 has been a valuable asset in theatre to move smaller loads and take the burden off the bigger planes and rotary wing. I have heard the same about the C-27, that they have saved a lot of wear and tear on CH-47's in theatre. I am not in a position to verify the accuracy of those claims, but here's an example:

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/87153/c...3ixzz1svOirYBw

But I think that most people would agree that the most easily utilized asset is the one that belongs to you, and it looks like the Army has lost or stands to lose its' control over any cargo ability that isn't rotary wing.

I completely see where you are coming from. It is the guys in the units that hurt the most when shit like this happens. Our leaders have spent so much time in the palace that they have completely forgotten what it means to be the grunt on the ground that has the burden of carrying the water of stupid decisions.

Generals don't make decisions. The Colonels who are their gatekeepers decide what decisions the boss gets to make. If the Col doesn't like what you are selling, the boss never knows about it. I have been behind the curtain, and it sucks to have that knowlege.

[Monsoon65]

Back in the day, when we were looking to get new aircraft, we initially were trying for a jet to replace our EC-130Es.

Yeah, that didn't happen.

We were pretty much told, "You're getting J models. Shut up and color." I had heard it was because Lockheed had told Big Blue that unless they bought J's, the price of their F-22 would be a lot higher.

So, Big Blue got J models, and so did we. Lost our flight engineers but managed to keep our Navs.

We made it work and our squadron actually did the MC-130 recap for active duty AFSOC pilots.

Our squadron doesn't beg off work. AFSOC likes us because we don't turn away customers.