B-2s to the Guard

[Draginass]

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.

 

[Scrapdog]

what criteria?

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.

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.

 

[AlbieF15]

Draginass is RIGHT in that one weekend a month and a min run attitude won't get the job done. That is exactly my beef with some of the airline mid-level managers who give the whale eye to guys who take mil leave more than the "average" guy. While flying fighters part time was probably never "easy", it certainly has become more challenging the last few years.

There are some serious challenges to staying proficient in a front line fourth+ generation fighter or bomber. Another interesting wrinkle will be the nuclear certification/verification process--that will also be an interesting discussion. "Hey boss, I need to drop my 3 day next week--apparently we are going to nuke North Korea and Iran...." (yeah...its tongue in cheek--but anyone who was in the old SAC knows that PRP and the serious of the mission was a big deal)

I've said this before, but its HARD for me to stay as sharp as I want in the F-15 if I don't fly at least several consecutive days every 2 weeks. Now--I don't claim to be anything special in the Eagle, but I've flown in continuously since 1992 and have over 2000 hours. If I had to go learn to fly an F-16 or F-22 after a TX course, I think (key work...think...not KNOW) that I'd probably need much more than that to keep the new habit patterns down and get "comfortable" in the jet. I think these guys like Scrappy and Magnum taking on the F-22 are going to be working very hard for a while. I am also very confident they will do a great job--both are highly experienced fighter pilots.

What will be a challenge, however, is working all of that in and keeping the airline happy. There will be some friction here and there...

So why even bother? Why do we have part time ANG guys?

The answers, IMHO, are money and historical significance. A Scrappy or Magnum will cost the AF much less over the course of their career than an active duty equivelent. They will NOT be getting paid (when on part time status) except for the 8-10 training days a month they are needed. The will NOT be getting Tricare. They will not earn a dime of their pension (A fund equivelent) until they are 60 vice the traditional 42-44, which means the goverment pays them 17-19 less years and also pays them LATER...(at age 60)...both which are easier on the budgets. So...you get a combat ready (or close to it) warrior for 40-60% of the cost of an active duty guy. Its a good deal for the taxpayers, which is why USERRA is out there. Believe it or not, the ANG is not a program to reward exceptionally lucky fighter pilots with the ability to fly fighters and have an airline job at the same time (although it does feel like that on a good day...) Additionally, they are "temp" workers--you can BRAC or reduce their numbers without any of the financial headaches in trying to manage the active duty numbers. There isn't a VSB or similar program when reservists lose their jobs... Politics certainly are a factor too--when a Senator knows his state will get getting those C130Js or F22s in his home state, he is more likely going to support appropriations for that weapons system. The AF gets a lot of bang for its buck when it throws a few new weapons systems to the ANG.

I think equally important is the historical significance of the Minuteman concept. I think we send our potential foes an important message when we say our firemen, policemen, doctors, lawyers, school teachers, and airlines pilots will put down whatever they are doing to activate and fight when required. With the loss of so many bases over the years and the removal of the draft, the ability of the military to "touch" the American public is getting harder. The Guard serves as a vital link to the public reminding them that the military isn't "those guys...", its "us". Your teacher, that business owner, or the guy in the local Sears store may have just gotten back from Iraq, or Katrina relief, or a peace keeping detachment to Bosnia. Having our soliders intertwined in the daily fabric of the community keeps America in touch with its military, and our military in touch with our hometowns.

So--yeah--sometimes it gets "complicated". I can understand how the active duty guy might think "this would just be easy if it was only us active duty guys..." However, in the big picture, I think you gain a lot more by having a robust Guard.

And if anyone can pull it off--there are some SHARP guys at the St Louis unit. I know they'll rise to the challenge with class and do it right.

 

[Scrapdog]

Great post

Albie - great post. Very good discussion on the part-timer/minuteman concept...especially to folks that aren't familiar with the foundation of the true reservist/guardsman.

I think your bottom line is spot on - any fighter/cargo/bomber airplane in today's enviornment is doable for the experienced part-timer...but what comes with that is the hard work and attitude that goes along to truely succeed in employing it effectively.

And to all my mil brethren - have a great christmas and a happy holiday.

 

[IFollowRoads]

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?

 

[JimNtexas]

... I thought this was kind of funny since he didn't look like an Air force guy.

He wasn't.

We don't have any fast airplanes in the Air Force inventory any more. At least not that are 'fast' in the sense of useable speed flying a practical mission.

 

[dtfl]

You have something against RJ's dude?

YES. CRJs are tubes of pain and discomfort!

 

[dtfl]

Draginass is RIGHT in that one weekend a month and a min run attitude won't get the job done. That is exactly my beef with some of the airline mid-level managers who give the whale eye to guys who take mil leave more than the "average" guy. While flying fighters part time was probably never "easy", it certainly has become more challenging the last few years.

There are some serious challenges to staying proficient in a front line fourth+ generation fighter or bomber. Another interesting wrinkle will be the nuclear certification/verification process--that will also be an interesting discussion. "Hey boss, I need to drop my 3 day next week--apparently we are going to nuke North Korea and Iran...." (yeah...its tongue in cheek--but anyone who was in the old SAC knows that PRP and the serious of the mission was a big deal)

I've said this before, but its HARD for me to stay as sharp as I want in the F-15 if I don't fly at least several consecutive days every 2 weeks. Now--I don't claim to be anything special in the Eagle, but I've flown in continuously since 1992 and have over 2000 hours. If I had to go learn to fly an F-16 or F-22 after a TX course, I think (key work...think...not KNOW) that I'd probably need much more than that to keep the new habit patterns down and get "comfortable" in the jet. I think these guys like Scrappy and Magnum taking on the F-22 are going to be working very hard for a while. I am also very confident they will do a great job--both are highly experienced fighter pilots.

What will be a challenge, however, is working all of that in and keeping the airline happy. There will be some friction here and there...

So why even bother? Why do we have part time ANG guys?

The answers, IMHO, are money and historical significance. A Scrappy or Magnum will cost the AF much less over the course of their career than an active duty equivelent. They will NOT be getting paid (when on part time status) except for the 8-10 training days a month they are needed. The will NOT be getting Tricare. They will not earn a dime of their pension (A fund equivelent) until they are 60 vice the traditional 42-44, which means the goverment pays them 17-19 less years and also pays them LATER...(at age 60)...both which are easier on the budgets. So...you get a combat ready (or close to it) warrior for 40-60% of the cost of an active duty guy. Its a good deal for the taxpayers, which is why USERRA is out there. Believe it or not, the ANG is not a program to reward exceptionally lucky fighter pilots with the ability to fly fighters and have an airline job at the same time (although it does feel like that on a good day...) Additionally, they are "temp" workers--you can BRAC or reduce their numbers without any of the financial headaches in trying to manage the active duty numbers. There isn't a VSB or similar program when reservists lose their jobs... Politics certainly are a factor too--when a Senator knows his state will get getting those C130Js or F22s in his home state, he is more likely going to support appropriations for that weapons system. The AF gets a lot of bang for its buck when it throws a few new weapons systems to the ANG.

I think equally important is the historical significance of the Minuteman concept. I think we send our potential foes an important message when we say our firemen, policemen, doctors, lawyers, school teachers, and airlines pilots will put down whatever they are doing to activate and fight when required. With the loss of so many bases over the years and the removal of the draft, the ability of the military to "touch" the American public is getting harder. The Guard serves as a vital link to the public reminding them that the military isn't "those guys...", its "us". Your teacher, that business owner, or the guy in the local Sears store may have just gotten back from Iraq, or Katrina relief, or a peace keeping detachment to Bosnia. Having our soliders intertwined in the daily fabric of the community keeps America in touch with its military, and our military in touch with our hometowns.

So--yeah--sometimes it gets "complicated". I can understand how the active duty guy might think "this would just be easy if it was only us active duty guys..." However, in the big picture, I think you gain a lot more by having a robust Guard.

And if anyone can pull it off--there are some SHARP guys at the St Louis unit. I know they'll rise to the challenge with class and do it right.

Well said ALbie - and some airline CPs don't realize that, unfortunately, AF MAJCOMs are beginning to look at the AFRES and ANG as the Active Duty "B" team. At least AFSOC did/does. THey deployed the reserves as much as the AD (And for those naysayers I can back that up with TVL Vouchers) but the reserves didnt get the credit or recognition when it came to good missions. ON certain mission comes ot mind whent he AD DOV pilot got it vs me. And he crashed. And I rescued him. But I digress.....

GOod post

 

[dtfl]

Draginass is RIGHT in that one weekend a month and a min run attitude won't get the job done. That is exactly my beef with some of the airline mid-level managers who give the whale eye to guys who take mil leave more than the "average" guy. While flying fighters part time was probably never "easy", it certainly has become more challenging the last few years.

There are some serious challenges to staying proficient in a front line fourth+ generation fighter or bomber. Another interesting wrinkle will be the nuclear certification/verification process--that will also be an interesting discussion. "Hey boss, I need to drop my 3 day next week--apparently we are going to nuke North Korea and Iran...." (yeah...its tongue in cheek--but anyone who was in the old SAC knows that PRP and the serious of the mission was a big deal)

I've said this before, but its HARD for me to stay as sharp as I want in the F-15 if I don't fly at least several consecutive days every 2 weeks. Now--I don't claim to be anything special in the Eagle, but I've flown in continuously since 1992 and have over 2000 hours. If I had to go learn to fly an F-16 or F-22 after a TX course, I think (key work...think...not KNOW) that I'd probably need much more than that to keep the new habit patterns down and get "comfortable" in the jet. I think these guys like Scrappy and Magnum taking on the F-22 are going to be working very hard for a while. I am also very confident they will do a great job--both are highly experienced fighter pilots.

What will be a challenge, however, is working all of that in and keeping the airline happy. There will be some friction here and there...

So why even bother? Why do we have part time ANG guys?

The answers, IMHO, are money and historical significance. A Scrappy or Magnum will cost the AF much less over the course of their career than an active duty equivelent. They will NOT be getting paid (when on part time status) except for the 8-10 training days a month they are needed. The will NOT be getting Tricare. They will not earn a dime of their pension (A fund equivelent) until they are 60 vice the traditional 42-44, which means the goverment pays them 17-19 less years and also pays them LATER...(at age 60)...both which are easier on the budgets. So...you get a combat ready (or close to it) warrior for 40-60% of the cost of an active duty guy. Its a good deal for the taxpayers, which is why USERRA is out there. Believe it or not, the ANG is not a program to reward exceptionally lucky fighter pilots with the ability to fly fighters and have an airline job at the same time (although it does feel like that on a good day...) Additionally, they are "temp" workers--you can BRAC or reduce their numbers without any of the financial headaches in trying to manage the active duty numbers. There isn't a VSB or similar program when reservists lose their jobs... Politics certainly are a factor too--when a Senator knows his state will get getting those C130Js or F22s in his home state, he is more likely going to support appropriations for that weapons system. The AF gets a lot of bang for its buck when it throws a few new weapons systems to the ANG.

I think equally important is the historical significance of the Minuteman concept. I think we send our potential foes an important message when we say our firemen, policemen, doctors, lawyers, school teachers, and airlines pilots will put down whatever they are doing to activate and fight when required. With the loss of so many bases over the years and the removal of the draft, the ability of the military to "touch" the American public is getting harder. The Guard serves as a vital link to the public reminding them that the military isn't "those guys...", its "us". Your teacher, that business owner, or the guy in the local Sears store may have just gotten back from Iraq, or Katrina relief, or a peace keeping detachment to Bosnia. Having our soliders intertwined in the daily fabric of the community keeps America in touch with its military, and our military in touch with our hometowns.

So--yeah--sometimes it gets "complicated". I can understand how the active duty guy might think "this would just be easy if it was only us active duty guys..." However, in the big picture, I think you gain a lot more by having a robust Guard.

And if anyone can pull it off--there are some SHARP guys at the St Louis unit. I know they'll rise to the challenge with class and do it right.

Well said ALbie - and some airline CPs don't realize that, unfortunately, AF MAJCOMs are beginning to look at the AFRES and ANG as the Active Duty "B" team. (At least AFSOC did/does. They deployed the reserves as much as the AD And for those naysayers I can back that up with TVL Vouchers) but the reserves didnt get the credit or recognition when it came to good missions.) But I digress.....
Airlines must realize that the AF wants and NEEDS more participation than the minimum...sometimes a LOT more...

Anyway - Good post

 

[retired guy]

Actually, the B-2 is not just supersonic, it's superluminous. By breaking the light barrier, it cannot be seen or picked up on radar until a couple of days after it has gone home. Pilots land from a mission younger than they were at takeoff, sometimes forcing an immediate reduction in rank.

Good one!