B-2s to the Guard

[stlpilot]

The way I understand it is that the St Louis guard, who is currently F-15s has been notified that they will change their mission to the B-2. The B-2s will still be active duty, but the guard will also operate them. That is how I understand it, but I am writing on here because I just heard about it, and am simply trying to see if anyone else has more/better/concrete info.

GO BENGALS!!!!

That all checks with what I know, for now anyways. The manning document for this thing is a work in progress right now. Whether the guard owns a few aircraft, operates active duty’s, or a mix of both is also not quite known. As for pilots, again its too soon to say anything for sure whether current STL folks will transfer over, retire, go to another unit, etc.

Yes I know Iv pretty much told you nothing, it’s just too soon to say what the layout will be.

Merry Christmas all!

 

[BengalsFan]

STLpilot

When are you all officially taking over that mission/when is the manning document suppose to be official?

 

[frog_flyer]

STLpilot

When are you all officially taking over that mission/when is the manning document suppose to be official?

Rough game............................. that sucked.

 

[Oh-ryan]

I was not in the military. And as I sit here reading how our newest front line aircraft are being worked into the TOE of Air NG units, red flags wave in my mind. I worry that somewhere, someone is seeing how our endless summer in Iraq and Afghanistan is turning folks away from the full time air force, so we're going to make up for it by incessently employing the Air Guard overseas. Sorta like the Army National Guard is now spread across the planet.

I was also talking with a swab the other day who told me the next generation of aircraft carrier for the USN is being designed to cut the required crew compliment to operate it by up to a third. I find these trends disturbing.

Am I wrong to be concerned for you military fliers?

A big reduction in the manning of the NG carrier is due to the lack of steam cats and arresting gear. Gonna switch over to electro magnet drives and some other black magic. But as to whether or not this disturbs me... absolutely not. It's about time. The military may always be on the tip of the technology spear, but often those advances in technology stay at the upper echelons of the services. Very little of it trickles down to the hands of the soldier, airman, sailor or marine. It's due to the DOD starting to run itself like a business and not a government entity that has bottemless pockets. Back in the day, if there was an obstacle you threw manpower and money at it. Nowadays there more fiscal reponsibility to the taxpayer. Think of it, an oil tanker, which is just as big as an aircraft carrier, has about 20 crewmembers and somehow it manages to go just about every place a carrier can go in the world without incident. Why... automation. Granted, the folks on a carrier are not just going from A to B, but still, the precentage of the folks dedicated to the mission of getting it from A to B is about 500 times more than what is used on that oil tanker. It's silly and it's about time the military catch up with the civilian world in matters like this.

 

[JungleJett]

YES. CRJs are tubes of pain and discomfort!

Take the bus next time!!

 

[BengalsFan]

I try to stay away too...

Take the bus next time!!

This isn't a dig on the RJ pilot... just the equipment, but when I look for a plane ticket I am willing to spend more to stay off an RJ if it is possible. It is a terrible ride... and now with the airlines using them for more than just regional flying, I honestly look for a 737 or A320 when possible, instead of the RJ, on those longer flights.

 

[JungleJett]

This isn't a dig on the RJ pilot... just the equipment, but when I look for a plane ticket I am willing to spend more to stay off an RJ if it is possible. It is a terrible ride... and now with the airlines using them for more than just regional flying, I honestly look for a 737 or A320 when possible, instead of the RJ, on those longer flights.

If you take a look at the actual seat you are sitting in, it really is not that much different. I will agree the airlines are using them for more than what they were really built for but in some markets, it makes sense too. As for long flights, I would rather sit in first class instead of low class....the benefit of working for the airlines!

By the way..I hope your ok after last night wide snap on a FG attempt! I would have beaten Santa had he been around!

 

[MJG]

By the way..I hope your ok after last night wide snap on a FG attempt! I would have beaten Santa had he been around!

Lord knows I'm not, I think I threw up like 3 or 4 times after that, I haven't felt that sick since last season's playoff game in January.........uke:

 

[BengalsFan]

Oh man... we gave Denver a very early X-mas present... it was way more than just one snap. It was 2 fumbles, 2 picks, 2 pentalties that brought back long touchdowns, missed throws, allowing a 99 1/2 yard touchdown drive (by helping it continue with a couple of questionable pass interference pentalties), etc, etc. But as long as Miami beats the Jets tonight, then all we have to do is beat Pittsburg next week, and we are still in the playoffs! The dream continues.

As for the RJ, I still think it is extremely loud, and very bumpy... and the seats/leg room are smaller... It gets the job done, and I will obviously ride on 'em, but I do search for other options.

Take Care

and

GO BENGALS!!!

 

[IFollowRoads]

A big reduction in the manning of the NG carrier is due to the lack of steam cats and arresting gear. Gonna switch over to electro magnet drives and some other black magic. But as to whether or not this disturbs me... absolutely not. It's about time. The military may always be on the tip of the technology spear, but often those advances in technology stay at the upper echelons of the services. Very little of it trickles down to the hands of the soldier, airman, sailor or marine. It's due to the DOD starting to run itself like a business and not a government entity that has bottemless pockets. Back in the day, if there was an obstacle you threw manpower and money at it. Nowadays there more fiscal reponsibility to the taxpayer. Think of it, an oil tanker, which is just as big as an aircraft carrier, has about 20 crewmembers and somehow it manages to go just about every place a carrier can go in the world without incident. Why... automation. Granted, the folks on a carrier are not just going from A to B, but still, the precentage of the folks dedicated to the mission of getting it from A to B is about 500 times more than what is used on that oil tanker. It's silly and it's about time the military catch up with the civilian world in matters like this.

Well I figure an oil tanker probably pulls into port alot more often than an aircraft carrier. Thus it doesn't need alot of crew to do repairs at sea. Plus I never saw an oil tanker do an underway replenishment. Or fight a fire like the USS Forrestal crew had to fight. I figure the oil tanker crew won't try very hard to save her before they go to the life boats.

I dunno. I guess my main point is I think something is out of whack when we have so many reserve units deployed and frontline. I just don't want any of our kids to get shafted. Especially since I have a son who is hell bent on US Naval Aviation. Just call me a concerned parent

 

[Be 23]

More people ought to be concerned, but what you're seeing with the shift of Air Guard missions isn't just spreading them thinner. The last BRAC took the aircraft away from a lot of states and left them with UAV's, associate units, or nothing. I'm not sure if it's true, but somebody in the BRAC believed that you get more efficiency out of aircraft if you put them with both active duty and reserve units at the same time and at the same place. That's put a huge shift on the Air Guard. Nobody questions their commitment or competence, it's all about efficiency.

 

[Draginass]

And the F-16/F-15/A-10/C-5/C-17/C-130 is? What credintials do you have in stating that? What is the differentiating factor in making the B-2 that much more complex than any frontline fighter or cargo aircraft that currently plenty of part-timers are employing across the globe in both the guard and reserve? I'm currently in a guard unit flying F-16's with about 75% part time make-up and the part-timer's are extremely experienced and execute probably better than most full time active duty units out there. It may take a ride or two to spin a part-timer up to full strength if he's been out of the jet more than a few weeks, but after that and with what is true with most seasoned guard/reserve units...he'll employ the jet better than 90 percent of any active duty unit out there. And the St Louis F-15 unit is probably one of the most (if not the most) experienced units out there. I personally know a few guys in that unit and their hiring criteria. I'd say they probably have more than half of the cadre as F-15 weapon school grads and/or instructors. No offense, but I'm sure if they chose to - they could fly the piss out of the B-2. I've flown the F-15 but never the B-2...however I would imagine the B-2's mission is just slightly less complex than an 8 ship LFE escorting a strike package in the F-15.

On another note - the guard is also going to F-22. What's your opinion on that? I can tell you for a fact that the guard guys already done with training and employing the F-22 at Langley are doing great. Is that not a part-timer's airplane either by your standards? I'd have to say your analysis couldn't be further from the truth.

Before you jump to conclusions, stop and think, or maybe do something novel like ask me my reasoning.

The reason has nothing to do with individual abilty, but everything to do with mission, mission profiles, training requirements, maintainability, etc. Fighters, transports and tankers are less maintenance intensive and have training mission profiles that are generally shorter. Going in after work on Wednesday and doing a 2v2 can be done in a few hours, whereas a heavy bomber mission profile cannot. Also, if the B-2 is anything like the B-1, the maintenance requirements are very substancial. But as in most things involving the Guard and Reserve, the decision is based upon political considerations, not military requirements.

 

[Mud Eagle]

That rumor's just stupid enough to be true. B-1s in the guard was a mistake. The B-2 is not a part-timer's airplane.

Yeah, I can't imagine how tough it must be for a part timer to couple up the autopilot, fly an AFMSS-planned route to the target, and let the GPS-guided bombs rip from the LAR.

 

[Scrapdog]

Before you jump to conclusions, stop and think, or maybe do something novel like ask me my reasoning.

The reason has nothing to do with individual abilty, but everything to do with mission, mission profiles, training requirements, maintainability, etc. Fighters, transports and tankers are less maintenance intensive and have training mission profiles that are generally shorter. Going in after work on Wednesday and doing a 2v2 can be done in a few hours, whereas a heavy bomber mission profile cannot. Also, if the B-2 is anything like the B-1, the maintenance requirements are very substancial. But as in most things involving the Guard and Reserve, the decision is based upon political considerations, not military requirements.

I'm going to do something novel here and tell you you are correct and you're completely wrong.

You are correct in that a basic 2 v 2 can be done on a Wednesday afternoon with a pretty quick debrief, get some decent learning points and call it a day. And overall the mx req's for an F-16 for example are fairly minimal...i.e. the jet is pretty solid and generates a solid rate of sorties.

You are completely wrong in that the mindshift is going to more and more complex missions as our fighters, transports, tankers, and bombers get more upgrades to both software and equipment. Our mentality in focusing much less on the basic 2 v 2 mig 29 threat, and is instead focusing much more on the next generation threats such as su 27's...and integrating complex 4 v 4 scenario's or even more. For the air - ground portion...we're constantly evolving and creating more task intensive scenarios with upgrades to our targeting pods, NVG's, data links, and rover capabilities. I can tell you right now that if I'm going to do a complex mission for an upgrade ride or a checkride, it'll take me a hell of a lot longer to plan than just 30 min before my flight on a Wednesday afternoon (i.e. a lot of the day prior for my mission planning) to create a succesful scenario and execute effectively. And guess what...a lot of ANG guys are doing it more and more today.

In the not too distant future the ANG and reserves is going to be populated with F-22's, F-35's, and B-2's...whether you like it or not. When the ANG first got F-16's from their A-7's their mindset had to shift completely. But with hard work, experience, and dedication - they made it happen. And today the ANG and reserves are as top notch as any active duty unit, maybe even more so. The ANG and reserve guys will do just fine with the B-2 and frontline fighters such as the F-22 and F-35. The key factor will be attitude and hardwork (as Albie aluded to earlier). And with the typical ANG/AF res experience and work ethic - they will continue to be the best out there whether the mission planning and mx req's take 30 minutes or 30 hours.

Draginass - just out of curiousity...what is your mil background? And I'm in no way trying to chuck spears...I'd just like to know where you get your thinking from.

 

[Draginass]

My opinion is based upon past personal observation and knowledge of the challenges of operating B-1s in ANG units, albeit from 10-12 years ago (I retired in the late 90s). Your mileage may vary.

For instance, one ANG unit had to deploy once a year into my base so they could do live bomb drops. At the ANG base, the Q&D was insufficient for live loads and ranges were very very far away, so training suffered significantly.

The units did ok, but it must have been a lot of effort to make it work. Fighters, transports, and tankers are much more condusive to a part-time unit than heavy bombers, IMHO.

I don't know the B-2 well, but I do know bombers, so my opinion is worth no less than yours.

However, I do believe we rely much too heavily on the Guard and Reserve as a substitute, and not an adjunct, for active forces. The number of pilots on MLOA from their civilian jobs is pretty substancial.

My background? 22 years active duty. Retired Lt Col. IP KC-135. Initial cadre B-1 (1986). 12 years in the B-1. IP, Chief of Tactics, Operations Officer of Test Sq flying OT&E and TD&E, Deputy Group Commander, B-1 Operations Group. Presently employed in civil aviation as a B-747F Captain. Type ratings B-707/720, B-747, B-757, B-767. As you might expect, I fly with a lot of ANG and USAFR pilots.