MT ANG and BRAC Article

Here is an article I read in the Great Falls Tribune today. I thought I would pass it along to you:

• <a href="http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050717/NEWS01/507170303/1002">Air Guard backers pan logic of cuts</a>

Joel

Good article, thanks for the post tiger.

I'm having some mixed feelings about the BRAC issue. I know the ANG units are getting hit the worst by all of this, but I'm not feeling particularly sympathetic about it. When the Pentagon put their list together, they simply went with what was going to be best from a war-fighting point of view (which includes homeland security). The Air Force (and I mean the Total Air Force) has to cut planes from it's roster from somewhere because of new budget realities. They decided to close Cannon and Eilson and distribute or retire the planes from those bases. The next logical place to cut airplanes is going to be from Guard units. They usually have the oldest jets, and it makes sense to get rid of them first. Most Guard units do not have a geographically sound reason to have fighters stationed at their location anyways. Some do, and they are for the most part staying open.

I guess my thoughts are just who says that ANG units have to have fighters? I agree that keeping a base open without a flying mission is going to be next to impossible. Who's going to sign up to train for deployments and that's it? There has to be a better way to keep critically manned fields at acceptable levels. Working in a Guard fighter unit is a great deal, you get all of the benefits of having the combat capability of an active duty unit, without the moving every couple of years and the possibility of remotes to Korea and such. I just think that too many people seem to think that the guard has some irrefutable right to have fighters. You can't always have your cake and eat it too.

I don't know if this post is going to get some people kind of upset, but please correct me if my logic is flawed here.

Here is a new article in todays paper regarding the MT ANG.

Joel

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050721/NEWS01/507210302/1002

Now they're talking about lawsuits? Did the States buy the planes? Does anybody know where the Guard gets it's money? Is it DoD or is it from the State budgets?

I'm obviously a little less-than-informed on the money issues with the Guard. Anybody that can help?

The equipment comes from Federal money and the personnel do when they are active. Not sure when they are inactive.

Equipment comes from the Feds. This is yet another reason why the Feds can move Guard planes around from state to state at their discretion. Please note, however, that this is not the ONLY reason why they can move the planes. When the troops are inactive (read that, when they are pulling regular Guard time) they are paid by the State.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

we heard today that something very important is coming out tomorrow concerning ANG units and BRAC. Being from the MTANG, i am keeping my eyes and ears open!!!

What doesn't make sense is that the Pentagon wants to take away aircraft from northern tier states like Montana, Minnesota, and us here in North Dakota where we have used fighters for homeland defense for decades and have no encrochment issues. Then they want to plus up units such as Fresno which has a home station alert but has major issues from encrochment to environmental to crime. As far as taking care of homeland security goes, they have totally dropped the ball there too!!! They want to keep the Air Soverigenty Alert (ASA) sites open at Ellington, TX and Duluth, MN but they are losing their aircraft! So not only are we downsizing the number of aircraft and number of units flying those aircraft we are taking away HOMESTATION alert sites from units----meaning that units will not only have to go on AEFs but also rotate in to take care of alert. That just doesn't make sense to me.

As far as law suits go---I agree up to a point. They are closing units without the governors permission---which they need to do because the governor is the commander-in-chief of state forces. The state Adjutant Generals were kept out in the cold as well, at least as far as the Air Force is concerned. What I think the Pentagon is doing in states like Montana, Minnesota, and North Dakota is keeping a skeleton crew at these bases while taking away flying missions to sidestep the need to go through the governor on closing the bases.

I'm not saying that every state needs fighters---just a flying mission. These are Title 32 (state) assets that the governor (Commander-In-Chief) can call up as the need arises. For states that aren't gergraphically located for air defense missisons transports and tankers would be perfect aircraft to have. I'm willing to work on C-130s or C-27s to keep a flying mission here in Fargo----as long as they keep fighters in Duluth and Great Falls so the gap over our northern tier isn't as big as what the Pentagon is proposing!

ANG is funded federally for both equipment and personnel. The only time pay is funded by the state is when an individual is put of orders to support the state. For example, natural emergencies, riots, etc. The two weeks a year (yeah right!) and the one weekend a month are paid federally.
Chickenlegs

Thanks for the info chickenlegs. I think I see it then as the Pentagon can do whatever they feel is in the best interests of the Air Force with their Guard units. It's then up to Congress to do what is in the best interests of the people, so we'll see how that works out. It's gotta be hard to find a balance between what the military wants for budget and combat capability reasons and what the loyalty the community has earned from the government. Glad I'm not making the call.

It's not about the equipment (to some extent)...it's about the people. You can't tell me that every Tom, Dick, Harry, or Jane in a ANG unit that's getting its planes pulled will have a slot waiting for them at a unit that's plusing up. There may be some slots for the young pups, but for a guy like me (sr LTC) that would be ready for a Group CC job, there is no way another unit would take me or my peers when they've been grooming one of their own. I know we wouldn't. So that means that people have no spots in the state leaving less troops for the Gov. to have available for a state emergency. Same for the crew dogs or anyone else involved with the flying/mx side of the unit.

As for the MTANG, LTG Blum (NGB chief) did give us some very positive statements. However, as the summer goes on and the BRAC process and fighting for existences goes on, there will be upswings and downswings. We just happen to be on the upswing now. Let's see what happens next week. I wouldn't even give it a 100% if iron showed up on the ramp...we went through that in '95.

Gus