Air Force to cut 10,000 personnel and shift aircraft...

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document ... 03-027.pdf

For those that have not read this yet, USAF put this out today to
show future cuts and aircraft retirements and shifts.

Enjoy reading...

The 18th Aggressor Squadron at Eielson is moving down to Elmendorf.... at least they won't need to repaint their talcodes.

So that would mean no permanent flying unit at Eielson besides the ANG KC-135s..

I like my US Senator Lindsey Graham's proposal along with others to block and trim the fat in other ways. Including freezing the pay of Congress.




Graham plan protects defense, cuts elsewhere
6:03 AM, Feb. 3, 2012 | 9Comments
Purchase Image Sen. Lindsey Graham / FILE / Staff
By Raju Chebium
| Gannett Washington Bureau
Filed Under
News
Politics
WASHINGTON — Sen. Lindsey Graham joined four GOP colleagues Thursday in introducing legislation to block $110 billion in military spending cuts next year, saying the reductions would devastate national security.

Graham teamed up with Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, Sen. John Cornyn, of Texas, and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, of New Hampshire, to propose avoiding the defense cuts by instead cutting $110 billion through attrition in the 2.3-million federal workforce and freezing salaries for federal employees and members of Congress.

“In a budget this big ... we can find enough money to avoid decimating the Department of Defense,” Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said at Capitol Hill press conference. “There will be bipartisan support to replace the defense ... cuts with other cuts.”

To cut the federal debt, Graham and McCain said they are willing to consider a second round of military base closures — the first was in the 1990s — though Ayotte expressed opposition.

Graham urged President Barack Obama to work with congressional lawmakers to find a way to avoid cutting the military by more than $1 trillion over a decade, under spending cuts set to take effect automatically because a congressional “super committee” failed to recommend ways to cut the nation’s debt last year.

The impact on the Pentagon won’t be as severe as Graham says, according to Lawrence Korb, an analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress.

Future military savings will be achieved by holding the line on defense spending for the next decade and trimming — not gutting — a range of programs, said Korb, assistant defense secretary under President Ronald Reagan.

The U.S. will remain the world’s only superpower, he said, even after shrinking the Pentagon by $1 trillion.

“You’d be back to where you were in 2007,” Korb said. “I don’t remember anybody saying (the military) was too small then. And you’d still be a good 30 percent higher ... than you were before 9/11.”

Under a congressionally approved deal last summer, the military would be slashed by $487 billion over the next 10 years as part of a broader plan to reduce the deficit.

Last month, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta released the outlines of a new military strategy prompted by those spending cuts.

Specifics will not be available until the White House releases its fiscal 2013 spending request on Feb. 13.

Broadly speaking, the Obama administration plans to shrink the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, do less nation-building, and emphasize special operations forces. The military will pay closer attention to China, maintain its presence in the Middle East and reduce its footprint in Europe.

cant get link to work...does anyone know of a mirror site for the document?

With the cuts mentioned in tbarlows article from www.af.mil. I'm maintaining the C-27J Spartan. When I'm away from the flightline. All around me in theatre the conversation is the cuts. I can't help but have an effect on focus and safety. Commanders have a big job ahead of them.

Why do we have bases overseas again? I loved being stationed in Germany, but there was really no point in it. We have airborne divisions and USMC MAGTFs in case of a crisis. We could save billions by pulling our troops back from these bases in Europe and Asia. Having all these brigades and air wings back in the states would help boost our local economy. And lets be honest, the greatest threat to the existence of our country is Congress, not Iran, China, North Korea or Russia.

This is my favorite portion of Force Structure Changes.

"We have decided to pursue a scalable Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) for
approximately 350 F-16s. Although our oldest F-16s will remain viable through the end of this
decade, we plan to begin fielding aircraft with SLEP structural improvements in 2017. The
program will ensure the F-16 remains viable and relevant for future Active and Reserve
Component multi-role fighter squadrons until the F-35 arrives in greater numbers. We will also
upgrade combat avionics for a substantial portion of the SLEPed aircraft with aircraft delivery
beginning in FY18".

Double Post

Why do we have bases overseas again? I loved being stationed in Germany, but there was really no point in it. We have airborne divisions and USMC MAGTFs in case of a crisis. We could save billions by pulling our troops back from these bases in Europe and Asia. Having all these brigades and air wings back in the states would help boost our local economy. And lets be honest, the greatest threat to the existence of our country is Congress, not Iran, China, North Korea or Russia.

You really think if there was no Iran, China, or NK - and in a sense Russia you'd still have an Air Force? Ground forces will not be able to enter high threat areas without the aid of air power either it be carrier based or land bases.

Panama invasion is a good example of what you are thinking of but people forget we had bases in Panama. The US Air Force in Europe is not what it was two decades ago when you had 7 F-111 squadrons, 1 EF-111, and 6 A-10 Squadrons in England, 4 F-15C squadrons in Germany and 1 in Holland , 7 F-16 squadrons and an F-4G squadron and RF-4C in Germany and 3 F-16s squadrons in Spain - thats over 30 tactical squadrons and today we have close to 6 tactical squadrons in all of Europe.

Bringing back units to the states with the way the Air Force does things will not boost the economy as bases in the US are already established and those personnel will only be absorbed within CONUS. If units are not needed overseas you really think they'll be needed back here at home?

Won't cutting so many people cause manpower problems? Sorry if this is a dumb question?

Won't cutting so many people cause manpower problems? Sorry if this is a dumb question?

Yes, it will. We will have serious manpower problems and the mission will suffer. The Air Force will realize that we cannot operate like that with so few people and will recruit and retain again. We are going through a huge manpower problem right now in my shop. We have TSgt's b-manning jets because we don't have enough airmen. The expeditor is redballing jets and driving the truck because we don't have enough people to red ball. It's a cycle that happens every few years and will continue to until someone can figure out how to keep a stable budget.

Why do we have bases overseas again? I loved being stationed in Germany, but there was really no point in it. We have airborne divisions and USMC MAGTFs in case of a crisis. We could save billions by pulling our troops back from these bases in Europe and Asia. Having all these brigades and air wings back in the states would help boost our local economy. And lets be honest, the greatest threat to the existence of our country is Congress, not Iran, China, North Korea or Russia.

You really think if there was no Iran, China, or NK - and in a sense Russia you'd still have an Air Force? Ground forces will not be able to enter high threat areas without the aid of air power either it be carrier based or land bases.

Panama invasion is a good example of what you are thinking of but people forget we had bases in Panama. The US Air Force in Europe is not what it was two decades ago when you had 7 F-111 squadrons, 1 EF-111, and 6 A-10 Squadrons in England, 4 F-15C squadrons in Germany and 1 in Holland , 7 F-16 squadrons and an F-4G squadron and RF-4C in Germany and 3 F-16s squadrons in Spain - thats over 30 tactical squadrons and today we have close to 6 tactical squadrons in all of Europe.

Bringing back units to the states with the way the Air Force does things will not boost the economy as bases in the US are already established and those personnel will only be absorbed within CONUS. If units are not needed overseas you really think they'll be needed back here at home?

I'm not saying we shouldn't have units overseas. I'm just saying we shouldn't have them permanently stationed there. We have rapid deployment forces for a reason. Let the Marines and Army Airborne Divisions handle the rapid deployment stuff. Let the Navy and Marines provide air power. The USAF can rotate in out of NATO bases in Europe and allied bases in Asia for a few months at a time. Troops can still get their fix of hefeweizen and gelato.

I am all about saving money right now but the Air Force is the wrong place and has and always will be an easy target. Take the money from "low" income programs. Our lowest earners are middle class in most countries if not higher. One of the main reasons I joined and also stayed in the Air Force was the diversity of the job. Most peoples greatest memories are of their overseas assignments and TDY's. You really think that people will stay 20 years going from Canon, to Dyess, to Holoman etc... I would have punched at 4 years after working 10 hour days in a dead end back shop if it had not been for Germany.

Why do we have bases overseas again? I loved being stationed in Germany, but there was really no point in it. We have airborne divisions and USMC MAGTFs in case of a crisis. We could save billions by pulling our troops back from these bases in Europe and Asia. Having all these brigades and air wings back in the states would help boost our local economy. And lets be honest, the greatest threat to the existence of our country is Congress, not Iran, China, North Korea or Russia.

You really think if there was no Iran, China, or NK - and in a sense Russia you'd still have an Air Force? Ground forces will not be able to enter high threat areas without the aid of air power either it be carrier based or land bases.

Panama invasion is a good example of what you are thinking of but people forget we had bases in Panama. The US Air Force in Europe is not what it was two decades ago when you had 7 F-111 squadrons, 1 EF-111, and 6 A-10 Squadrons in England, 4 F-15C squadrons in Germany and 1 in Holland , 7 F-16 squadrons and an F-4G squadron and RF-4C in Germany and 3 F-16s squadrons in Spain - thats over 30 tactical squadrons and today we have close to 6 tactical squadrons in all of Europe.

Bringing back units to the states with the way the Air Force does things will not boost the economy as bases in the US are already established and those personnel will only be absorbed within CONUS. If units are not needed overseas you really think they'll be needed back here at home?

I'm not saying we shouldn't have units overseas. I'm just saying we shouldn't have them permanently stationed there. We have rapid deployment forces for a reason. Let the Marines and Army Airborne Divisions handle the rapid deployment stuff. Let the Navy and Marines provide air power. The USAF can rotate in out of NATO bases in Europe and allied bases in Asia for a few months at a time. Troops can still get their fix of hefeweizen and gelato.

7 1/2 more years and I'm punching out! Nice of them to cut our manning again, cut some of these dumb ptograms. The FWB (fraud, waste and abuse) program is a joke also. They still waste money on stuff just to not lose money going into the next year.....stupid way of doing it!

Off topic. But a small tidbit. On the first night of the invasion of Panama. The USAF flew in 2 F-117 stealth fighters to bomb a field near some barracks. Then at first light the 4 Coronet Nighthawk drug mission F-16s left the country. This left the al-mighty A-37B and AC-130A to finish up.