Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Recently, in political circles I've heard more and more discussion. In regards to doing away with the Air National Guard altogether . With its resources being passed on to the USAF Reserve. Personally, it seems like a lot of duplication to me. Confused

Of course I am referring only to Aviation Based Units. Not the US Army, Army National Guard, or Army Reserve.

In short why do need both an ANG and USAF Reserve???

F-16.net Sponsor

I think you will not see the complete end of the ANG, but you will see the end of the ANG as we all know it within the next 25 years. Units that are not located near an Active duty base, will cease to exist unless they are in a location that makes them essential to homeland defense. You will not see any inland fighter units, only border and coastal units will have fighters, once again for homeland defense, and all other fighter units will either be flying UAV's, or whatever airframe their nearest active unit flies. As for why we have both the ANG and the AFR, that's a good question, the ANG will in the next 20 years look just like the AFR anyway, so they might we well combine them. I have been in the ANG for 18 years, and in that 18 years the ANG has completely changed itself in every facet, and it's only going to get worse. Maybe if we merge with the AFR we will actually start getting some new airplanes flowing our way. Also in my opinion there are too many ANG flying units, not so much in the fighter community, but in the heavy community it has never made sense to me to have an entire unit for only 8 or 9 airframes. Maybe during the next BRAC they will actually do what they whould have done last time and actually CLOSED some units, I thought the BRAC was supposed to consolidate military real estate to save money, but how may facilities in the USAF, AFR, or ANG as actually empty?

Elliboom wrote:

I think you will not see the complete end of the ANG, but you will see the end of the ANG as we all know it within the next 25 years. Units that are not located near an Active duty base, will cease to exist unless they are in a location that makes them essential to homeland defense. You will not see any inland fighter units, only border and coastal units will have fighters, once again for homeland defense, and all other fighter units will either be flying UAV's, or whatever airframe their nearest active unit flies. As for why we have both the ANG and the AFR, that's a good question, the ANG will in the next 20 years look just like the AFR anyway, so they might we well combine them. I have been in the ANG for 18 years, and in that 18 years the ANG has completely changed itself in every facet, and it's only going to get worse. Maybe if we merge with the AFR we will actually start getting some new airplanes flowing our way. Also in my opinion there are too many ANG flying units, not so much in the fighter community, but in the heavy community it has never made sense to me to have an entire unit for only 8 or 9 airframes. Maybe during the next BRAC they will actually do what they whould have done last time and actually CLOSED some units, I thought the BRAC was supposed to consolidate military real estate to save money, but how may facilities in the USAF, AFR, or ANG as actually empty?

Well, its clear the volume and the number of types. Will continue to decline.....So, its more than likely only a matter of time. Plus, whats wrong with the "Texas USAF Reserve" instead of the "Texas Air National Guard"???

Food for thought.............If, the US Government can't get the Defense Dept to run efficiently. How can they get this new Massive National Health Care Plan too!!! Shocked

I've said it before.... I'll say it again... Rolling Eyes

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

The ANG gets $5.9B in "operation & maintenance" funding compared to the USAF's $18.7B O&M in FY09. (O&M funding is what pays for actual flying)

With that money they fly 95% of the Air Defence Mission; comprise 31% of the total fighter force; 40% of the tanker force; 29% OSA/VIP/Other; 31% airlift; 100% command & control; 7% ISR; 6% special forces; and 15% of rescue.

REF: http://www.ang.af.mil/shared/media/docu ... 04-033.pdf

The USAF Res says "Air Force Reserve Command provides the U.S. Air Force about 20 percent of their capability with only about four percent of the total Air Force budget." ($3.1B for O&M in FY09)

So, for $27.7B in O&M you can fly the "Total Air Force"; of which 21% goes to the ANG; 11% to USAF Res; 68% to the USAF Active Duty. (Speaking of O&M funding)

Odd that the ANG/Res can fly almost HALF of the aircraft in inventory on only 32% of the total flying budget? Shocked

As a tax payer I feel maybe the ANG and Reserves should be doing MORE in the future since they seem to get a better return on my money... Doh

But I'm not a politician or lobbyist. WTF

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

I've said it before.... I'll say it again... Rolling Eyes

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

The ANG gets $5.9B in "operation & maintenance" funding compared to the USAF's $18.7B O&M in FY09. (O&M funding is what pays for actual flying)

With that money they fly 95% of the Air Defence Mission; comprise 31% of the total fighter force; 40% of the tanker force; 29% OSA/VIP/Other; 31% airlift; 100% command & control; 7% ISR; 6% special forces; and 15% of rescue.

REF: http://www.ang.af.mil/shared/media/docu ... 04-033.pdf

The USAF Res says "Air Force Reserve Command provides the U.S. Air Force about 20 percent of their capability with only about four percent of the total Air Force budget." ($3.1B for O&M in FY09)

So, for $27.7B in O&M you can fly the "Total Air Force"; of which 21% goes to the ANG; 11% to USAF Res; 68% to the USAF Active Duty. (Speaking of O&M funding)

Odd that the ANG/Res can fly almost HALF of the aircraft in inventory on only 32% of the total flying budget? Shocked

As a tax payer I feel maybe the ANG and Reserves should be doing MORE in the future since they seem to get a better return on my money... Doh

But I'm not a politician or lobbyist. WTF

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Well, I am not surprised by the numbers. Yet, we could still see future saving by combining the ANG and USAF Reserve. Hopefully, leasons the USAF could learn from......... Wink

Corsair1963 wrote:

Elliboom wrote:

I think you will not see the complete end of the ANG, but you will see the end of the ANG as we all know it within the next 25 years. Units that are not located near an Active duty base, will cease to exist unless they are in a location that makes them essential to homeland defense. You will not see any inland fighter units, only border and coastal units will have fighters, once again for homeland defense, and all other fighter units will either be flying UAV's, or whatever airframe their nearest active unit flies. As for why we have both the ANG and the AFR, that's a good question, the ANG will in the next 20 years look just like the AFR anyway, so they might we well combine them. I have been in the ANG for 18 years, and in that 18 years the ANG has completely changed itself in every facet, and it's only going to get worse. Maybe if we merge with the AFR we will actually start getting some new airplanes flowing our way. Also in my opinion there are too many ANG flying units, not so much in the fighter community, but in the heavy community it has never made sense to me to have an entire unit for only 8 or 9 airframes. Maybe during the next BRAC they will actually do what they whould have done last time and actually CLOSED some units, I thought the BRAC was supposed to consolidate military real estate to save money, but how may facilities in the USAF, AFR, or ANG as actually empty?

Well, its clear the volume and the number of types. Will continue to decline.....So, its more than likely only a matter of time. Plus, whats wrong with the "Texas USAF Reserve" instead of the "Texas Air National Guard"???

Food for thought.............If, the US Government can't get the Defense Dept to run efficiently. How can they get this new Massive National Health Care Plan too!!! Shocked

Texas USAF reserve would be forbidden from deploying domestically. There are two main reasons we have both reserve and guard forces. 1) Posse Comitatus. 2) The federal government has no domestic authority. Even if an epic disaster has happened, it cannot act. Non-federalized Guard forces can act immediately at the behest of their state government. Meaning AFR airmen would not be able to so much as shovel sand into a bag until paperwork was signed.

What would make more sense, if merging were the case, would be to put the pointy-nosed guys on the Fed side of the house, and keep state-funded airlift and C-SAR units where they are. Airlift guys can haul relief/humanitarian supplies, and fly AeroMed missions. The C-SAR guys can rescue citizens in need.

Fast movers put warheads on foreheads "...and Kill MiGs!" But, when the 169th FW (McEntire) is flying a Noble Eagle sortie over South Carolina, they are flying a Federally funded mission. They might be protecting the citizens and assets of their home state, but it is Washington D.C. that is paying the tab, not Columbia. Make sense?

Also, ANG units go to the desert on federal orders. When McEntire is dropping bombs near Balad, they aren't doing it on the SC governor's orders, they're doing it on the Prez's orders...just like the AFRC and the AD guys.

Now, when it comes to having an ANG Red Horse or Security Forces unit, yes, it makes more sense to have them in a state-funded billet, than it does to have the F-16s in their same Wing funded by the state.

Then again, the state does fund their flying training while state-side. For example, when the 169th is flying state-side, they do it on the South Carolina citizens' dime. If they were an AFRC unit, it would be the American taxpayer's dime.

More federally-funded operations, means more U.S. taxpayer's money.

TC wrote:

What would make more sense, if merging were the case, would be to put the pointy-nosed guys on the Fed side of the house, and keep state-funded airlift and C-SAR units where they are. Airlift guys can haul relief/humanitarian supplies, and fly AeroMed missions. The C-SAR guys can rescue citizens in need.

That makes sense.

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 25, 2003 - 10:03 PM Posts: 679

I love being part of the Guard CSAR Mission, and I'll be here until they take my helo's away!!

Current way law dictates is ANG does all CONUS air defense. So as of now with the current policy that will keep the ANG units open, at least those with ASA units, 12 in total I think.

The ANG is already dead in Virginia. They sold their souls to move to Langley AFB and fly the F-22. While that's a pluck for the pilots and commanders, a typical ANG person would not recognize the unit down there. It's really sad. I hope they're happy. A lot of unit members are not.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

End of the ANG???