Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Usaf Considering Merging ANG With Reserve  
User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1765 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3763 times:

Another budget proposal being put forth as an option for the USAF:

AF-Commission-Weighs-Merger-Between-Guard-Reserve" target="_blank">http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...eighs-Merger-Between-Guard-Reserve

Quote:
The National Commission of the Structure of the Air Force is weighing a proposal to merge the US Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard, but hasn’t found much support from the leadership of either branch.

An Oct. 24 hearing was focused on a proposal from five retired Air Force major generals, two from the Reserve and three from the Guard, which would essentially combine the duties of the two arms of the service into one command structure. A white paper outlining the group’s ideas has been circulated around the Pentagon since 2011, but the commission represents the most likely chance it could be adopted.

The five retired generals — Tommy Dyches, Bugs Forsythe, Andy Love, Dick Platt and Frank Scoggins — submitted testimony to the commission in August in support of their white paper.

“We believe the new organization will provide greater safety for the people of America in their homes and communities, significant cost savings through the elimination of redundancies and a more efficient vehicle to fulfill the needs of the USAF, the combatant commanders and the nation,” the men wrote in their August testimony.

Supporters of the plan say it could save the service money, eliminating redundancies without a loss of capability. But opponents contend it would lead to a lesser force and argue that the duties performed by the Guard and Reserve are simply too different to successfully integrate — and that real world politics in Washington would render such a suggestion dead in the water.

As the article says, the idea makes budgetary sense, but it would be political suicide for the politician that would ever vote for this. But it does raise the question; why do individual states need their own separate air forces? I can see a need for various states to have ground forces for perform certain law enforcement and civil duties such as disaster relief.

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 1, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3755 times:

I've always thought the Air National Guard was an unnecessary component of the armed forces of this country. We need the missions and aircraft, but they don't need to be separate from the regular USAF Reserve.

But as you say - pure political suicide for any politician to vote for this if their state has any ANG bases/ units.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3417 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3595 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 1):

I've always thought the Air National Guard was an unnecessary component of the armed forces of this country. We need the missions and aircraft, but they don't need to be separate from the regular USAF Reserve.

If only they could integrate the approprate ANG assets into the state level National Guard system, with the rest moving to the USAF reserve. I know it will never happen as the USAF would never let the army get its hands on fixed wing assets ever again, no matter how smart it would be. Even at one remove like the National Guard.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16883 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3524 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 2):
If only they could integrate the approprate ANG assets into the state level National Guard system, with the rest moving to the USAF reserve. I know it will never happen as the USAF would never let the army get its hands on fixed wing assets ever again, no matter how smart it would be. Even at one remove like the National Guard.

The States want the Army National Guard assets, trucks, heavy equipment, helicopters and manpower. The only need for fixed wing aircraft for the States would be big or isolated States like Alaska, Texas, California, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Montana etc.. should get the C-27s as originally planned.

I think this idea has a lot of merit, for example here in New Jersey during last year's Hurricane the Air National Guard Units at Atlantic City and JB-MDL were used to support the Army National Guard. They put Airman in trucks to go out and rescue people, they also sent engineers out to hospitals etc.. to try and repair generators. Again nothing that required KC-135s or F-16s.

Merging the Air assets of the Air National Guard into the Air Force Reserve makes total sense. Some of the non-flying Air Guard assets could be turned over to the Army National Guard, cyber warfare etc.. In addition they should study merging the Army Reserve into the Army National Guard. That's what the States want, manpower, equipment, helicopters etc..



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinesprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1855 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3308 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
why do individual states need their own separate air forces

So they can have their own separate air force. DUH. Every Govner wants to be a CinC, have the sexy F-15/F-16 fighters under his command. Can you imagine if there was a Navy version of the ANG? The states would be fighting for all the retired carriers and such, along with F-14's. Hell all the Sprucans would still be around, same with the Tico's that were decommed, and the Kidd class. Would be cool though. And I can see all the land locked states having their ships homeported in the seaside state that bids the highest.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3187 times:

Sure, why not give every state a full branch of each service. Heck, the Marines get their own navy and airforce... might as well be fair.



User currently offlineelmothehobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 1):
I've always thought the Air National Guard was an unnecessary component of the armed forces of this country. We need the missions and aircraft, but they don't need to be separate from the regular USAF Reserve.

Sort of. I'll agree there's no need for states to have F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s, but there is a real need for C-27s and C-130s (and to a lesser extent C-17s) on the state level.

The Guard operates under Title 32 USC, which allows for greater operational flexibility domestically. It means that ANG C-130s can be used to fight fires under order of the governor; outside of special agreement between states and municipal governments, it gets very complicated using Federal (i.e. Active Air Force or Reserve) aircraft and personnel to deal with local or state emergencies.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 5):
Sure, why not give every state a full branch of each service. Heck, the Marines get their own navy and airforce... might as well be fair.

This gets a little complicated, but the Marines don't have their own "navy," those ships are operated by the United States Navy, their sister service under the Department of the Navy. The Marines absolutely should have their own air assets, both rotary and fixed wing, to support their ground activities.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 3):
The States want the Army National Guard assets, trucks, heavy equipment, helicopters and manpower. The only need for fixed wing aircraft for the States would be big or isolated States like Alaska, Texas, California, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Montana etc.. should get the C-27s as originally planned.

The Air Force's handling of the C-27J program is absolutely shameful. There is no other way to look at it.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 3):
Merging the Air assets of the Air National Guard into the Air Force Reserve makes total sense. Some of the non-flying Air Guard assets could be turned over to the Army National Guard, cyber warfare etc.. In addition they should study merging the Army Reserve into the Army National Guard. That's what the States want, manpower, equipment, helicopters etc..

It depends. Under what Title? 10? 32? Is it a state asset or a Federal asset. The Reserves and National Guard are very different organizations with complimentary missions. Also, cyberwarfare is an Air Force core competency. Nothing degrades capabilities like taking a function field and shifting it from an organization that has expertise in operating it to an organization that doesn't have a clue how to use it. Shifting cyberwarfare personnel to the Army Guard will inevitably lead to those personnel being assigned to fix phones and guard gates.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 2):

If only they could integrate the approprate ANG assets into the state level National Guard system, with the rest moving to the USAF reserve. I know it will never happen as the USAF would never let the army get its hands on fixed wing assets ever again, no matter how smart it would be. Even at one remove like the National Guard.

The Army has its own fixed wing assets in all three components, though the Air Force did manage to steal (and then scrap) the C-27J leaving the Guard (and Reserves and Active) with no viable replacement for the C-23 or the CH-47 on missions that don't require the capabilities of rotary wing aircraft.


User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5404 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2875 times:

Quoting sprout5199 (Reply 4):
Can you imagine if there was a Navy version of the ANG?

There sort of is - four states have naval militias (AK, NY, OH, SC) and TX and VA have "riverine detachments."



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineStoobie From United States of America, joined Sep 2013, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2695 times:

Can't speak for every airframe, but the KC-135 is involved in every deployment around the world at any given time. I've heard that Guard units supply over 75% of AMC's daily tanker missions and about 60% of the daily cargo missions. Not sure how accurate those numbers are, but traditionally, most guard units are cheaper to operate than their active duty counterparts.

User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2541 times:

Quoting Stoobie (Reply 8):
Can't speak for every airframe, but the KC-135 is involved in every deployment around the world at any given time. I've heard that Guard units supply over 75% of AMC's daily tanker missions and about 60% of the daily cargo missions. Not sure how accurate those numbers are, but traditionally, most guard units are cheaper to operate than their active duty counterparts.

Every time I deploy with tankers, there is a sizeable Guard contingent there.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

One thing has changed a lot since I was on active duty, much of it due to the 2003 Iran War.

The Guard and Reserve (Air Force, Army, Marines or Navy) are not longer weekend warriors and looked down upon as out of shape and out of training semi-civilians.

Our Guard and Reserve folks have stepped up and done their job to be part of the total force - with dignity and honor.


I really don't think whether or not a KC-135, C-5 or other aircraft is maintained and flown by a USAF-Reserve unit or an Air National Guard unit matters. Both groups do outstanding jobs just as well as their active duty components.


User currently offlineelmothehobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (11 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2460 times:

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 7):
There sort of is - four states have naval militias (AK, NY, OH, SC) and TX and VA have "riverine detachments."

Before the 1947 National Security act there were state Naval militias that were administered by the Department of the Navy (which was then a separate cabinet level organization from the War Department), just as there were state militias that were administered by the War Department under the 1903 militia act. State naval militias operate under Title 32 of the USC code (like the National Guard when not federalized), but their officers are not federally recognized and they cannot be federalized.

Quoting Stoobie (Reply 8):
Can't speak for every airframe, but the KC-135 is involved in every deployment around the world at any given time. I've heard that Guard units supply over 75% of AMC's daily tanker missions and about 60% of the daily cargo missions. Not sure how accurate those numbers are, but traditionally, most guard units are cheaper to operate than their active duty counterparts.

That percentage is only set to grow with the expeditionary Air Force model that places Title 10 Active Duty personnel in the ranks of Air National Guard units, giving them bigger full time personnel strengths, and a greater operational role. IMO one of the best decisions big Air Force has made in a long time.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Usaf Considering Merging ANG With Reserve
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Usaf Considering Contractors For Aerial Refueling posted Mon Dec 8 2008 20:53:22 by Venus6971
Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions posted Sun Jan 10 2010 09:30:26 by Venus6971
USN Aircrafts That Saw Service With The Usaf (and posted Tue Feb 10 2009 00:21:18 by Steman
Usaf Settles With N.J. Elementary School posted Sat Nov 4 2006 17:52:06 by GrandTheftAero
Usaf Merge With US Army? posted Sun Apr 9 2006 21:37:08 by SCEagle
NY ANG C-5A Pilot Charged With Smuggling Ecstasy posted Fri Apr 15 2005 00:38:40 by Covert
Air Force Reserve/ ANG Difference posted Mon Apr 1 2002 15:05:04 by Cheshire
Usaf To Fly Congress To FLA For Funeral posted Tue Oct 22 2013 07:04:15 by n92r03
Usaf Considering Cutting KC-10, A-10's And F-15C posted Mon Sep 16 2013 04:36:53 by ThePointblank
Usaf Looking To Replace Air Force One posted Tue Sep 10 2013 09:25:19 by 747megatop

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format