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

The F-16.net watering hole - this is the place the place to exchange stories, favourite aviation bar locations and military-grade cocktail recipies!
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

aw

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012, 09:18

Unread post08 Feb 2012, 12:31

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.


The problem with rotating troops/units through bases for "a few" months at a time instead of permanent basing is it just ups the deployment tempo and amount of time spent away from family. I don't care how great the location is, everybody would rather be with their family than spending months apart every year.
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post09 Feb 2012, 06:56

aw wrote:
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.


The problem with rotating troops/units through bases for "a few" months at a time instead of permanent basing is it just ups the deployment tempo and amount of time spent away from family. I don't care how great the location is, everybody would rather be with their family than spending months apart every year.


They pretty much do this anyways. Marines are circling the globe in their MAGTFs anyways and the US Army soldiers do 1 to 6 month rotations all over the place. This includes guard and reserve guys and was happening even before 9/11.
Offline

aw

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012, 09:18

Unread post09 Feb 2012, 11:22

[quote="discofishing"][quote="aw"][quote]
IWhich is why the Army, Marines, and Navy operate on a recruiting basis while the AF runs on a retention basis. We're going to lose a lot highly trained troops if leadership thinks that an entire career of never-ending deployments is what everyone signed up for. Even the Navy offers its sailors "shore tours" about every other assignment where they don't deploy on any cruises.
Offline

Meteor

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 226
  • Joined: 14 May 2007, 19:46
  • Location: Southlake, TX and West Yellowstone, MT

Unread post09 Feb 2012, 22:06

The US federal budget is over 40% in deficit. Much of the funding gap is covered by borrowing from the Chinese. That situation cannot continue indefinitely. There are three options: One; cut spending across the board by 40%. Two; raise taxes by 40%. Three; do something in between, like cut spending by 20% and raising taxes by 20%. Options one and two are not realistically achievable, so some version of option three is going to - eventually - be required, whether we like it or not.

Let's assume that we - eventually - get to option three, requiring a 20% cut in military spending. What do you plan on cutting? You can try to keep all the missions and tasking and facilities and personnel and benefits that you have now, but fund them at such a low level that eventually you end up with a "hollow force", which has happened before. Alternatively, you can decide to cut some 20% of tasking and capabilities, and fully fund the remaining 80%. Which do you prefer? Keep fighter squadrons based in Europe 67 years after the end of WWII, or bring them home and use those funds to fully pay personnel plus purchase new equipment?

Some will argue that there is an option four; don't cut the military at all, but instead do all the cutting in social programs. If the military and servicing the national debt are untouchable, then that means ALL of the cuts have to come from Social Security and Medicare. That means that the 20% cut in of the entire federal budget would result in a 40% cut in social programs. This forum is for fans of military fighters, and is not representative of the average American out there. When "Average Joe American" gets a call from the nursing home telling him that Mom is out on the sidewalk in her wheelchair and he needs to come pick her up because Medicare and Social Security are no longer paying enough to cover her, what do you think his priorities are going to be? Is he going to call his Congressman and tell him to keep buying F-35s and putting them on bases overseas, or is he going to tell him to trash the *@&# airplanes and shut down the ^%$@+ bases so he can stick his mom back in the nursing home?

Realistic options, guys. If you absolutely HAVE to cut the military 20%, where are you going to do it?
F-4C/D, F-16A/B/C/D, 727, DC-10, MD-80, A321
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1081
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post14 Feb 2012, 14:06

discofishing wrote: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.


Eh...probably right. I'd personally advise keeping Aviano open with maybe another squadron, and certainly increased facilities for units on det. but that's probably the only critical base now. Bring everything else back. Replace UAVs with fighters and fix the trend of moving towards an air force that will have an excellent view of the enemy force that destroys it.
Offline

GooseGoose

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: 08 May 2008, 00:29
  • Location: South Carolina

Unread post14 Feb 2012, 22:49

Yeah. It is off topic. Having worked Coronet Nighthawk. Probably the reason the ANG F-16s left Panama is because they aren't loaded with munitions. They scramble launched with the Gun Safety Pin in. F-16s were just to intercept ,make visual and pass the runner planes ID on to other agencies. Protect the asset. :wink:
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post16 Feb 2012, 06:30

aw wrote:
discofishing wrote:
aw wrote:
IWhich is why the Army, Marines, and Navy operate on a recruiting basis while the AF runs on a retention basis. We're going to lose a lot highly trained troops if leadership thinks that an entire career of never-ending deployments is what everyone signed up for. Even the Navy offers its sailors "shore tours" about every other assignment where they don't deploy on any cruises.


If you run out of planes to fix, then retention will be of no concern. You'll have a surplus of technicians which will be getting pink slips and barred from reenlistment. My idea of pulling all these units back stateside saves mega bucks and will allow the AF to keep units, planes, and personnel. We have a Navy and Marine Corps for a reason. Let them be forward deployed, not the Army and the AF. What is a "deployment" for the USAF anyways?
Previous

Return to Air Force Life

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest