Massive Air Force reduction

[Jafar]

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=8553

I guess the writing has been on the wall for a while, but I wonder how this is going to effect pilots, both present and future.

My current reserve wing is going away, probably be gone in the next 3 years. Funding has been going down 10% per year for the past few years.

What makes me nervous is the fact that I'm just trying to start my AF career, got a package in for OTS waiting for the next board. I know they're still selecting people, but it seems like numbers are dwindling more and more each board.

I guess I'm missing something. We've still got a war going on right? And the very real possibility of a couple others? What's going on?

 

[DaveGriffin]

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=8553

I guess the writing has been on the wall for a while, but I wonder how this is going to effect pilots, both present and future.

My current reserve wing is going away, probably be gone in the next 3 years. Funding has been going down 10% per year for the past few years.

What makes me nervous is the fact that I'm just trying to start my AF career, got a package in for OTS waiting for the next board. I know they're still selecting people, but it seems like numbers are dwindling more and more each board.

I guess I'm missing something. We've still got a war going on right? And the very real possibility of a couple others? What's going on?

Jafar;

Unfortunately, the leadership of the AF are air supremacy generals who have not allowed our strategic war fighting needs and capabilities guide their decisions as they shape the AF for the future.

The AF is slowly but surely being put out of business by the other branches, whose leadership is not stuck in a cold war mentality.

A good example is that you guys need a sh*tload more A-10s and C-130 gunships, not F-22s. Your force reductions are the result of the bad planning decisions of your fighter jock generals.

 

[Deuce130]

Jafar;

Unfortunately, the leadership of the AF are air supremacy generals who have not allowed our strategic war fighting needs and capabilities guide their decisions as they shape the AF for the future.

The AF is slowly but surely being put out of business by the other branches, whose leadership is not stuck in a cold war mentality.

A good example is that you guys need a sh*tload more A-10s and C-130 gunships, not F-22s. Your force reductions are the result of the bad planning decisions of your fighter jock generals.

More rambling by the "SEAL." The AF is building more AC-130's, in case you haven't heard. In addition, a gunship has never shot down an enemy fighter. Neither has an A-10. The fleet has to modernize. We have no choice. If you were in charge in the 60's and 70's I guess we'd still be flying F-105's and C-119 Guships. I can hear you now: "We need more C-119 gunships and THUDs, not these new fangled F-4's or F-15's!" If you've got it all figured out, how come you're not in charge? The CSAF is on the global, I'll zap him an email on Monday and have him PM you.
Which other branches are putting us out of business? When's the last time the Army airdropped a Ranger battalion? Landed JDAMs on a dime? When did the navy launch a gunship? The marines take tanks overseas in less than 24 hours? We haven't been in the cold war for 15 years. The current generals have spent thier entire flag careers in the post-cold war world. To think you're smarter than them displays an astounding arrogance on your part. You're argument sounds great and insightful on the surface, but I guarantee it falls apart when you try to be specific. The other services putting us out of business?? Please.

 

[Spyguy]

I'll throw this one out, and I am sure it will be blasted by some,
Name a war that we have WON since the formation of the Air Force? (Besides Desert Storm and the Cold War).
The Air force has more Generals than the Army and Navy COMBINED, even though the army and navy are 2/3's bigger. You guys do have it right. You usually get all the money you need, maybe the coin has finally flipped and the money spenders have realized that just because you have air supremncy, that doesn't guarentee you victory.
I feel that as a whole, the planners in the pentagon have grossly mismanaged our assets and preparations for the actual threats of today and tomorrow.

 

[AD SUPT Hopeful]

This story was in the AF Times in a slightly different format. As far as pilots are concerned, yes, the AF is overmanned I think by 1,400 or so pilots. It's a scary number except when followed up by the statistic of 1,000 of those are Lt Cols (no doubt from the airline squeeze). There was an AFPC memo along with some tables/pie charts/etc illustrating the overage by rank/aircraft/job posted on here. Long story short, for the CGOs and hopeful's out there, you'll still have a job.

As for Dave's remarks--pretty standard ignorance we've all come to expect.

 

[Laxman]

Last I saw my specific career field was 95% manned. I sure feels like it too.

 

[JimNtexas]

I think the mission of the USAF is to provide a handful of F-22's for use by General Officers and their sons.

Everything else is just window dressing.

The number of General officers in the USAF is staggering by historial standards. I think the USAF alone has more General Officers now than the Army did in WWII!

 

[VVJM265]

And in the end, what everyone tends to forget is that wars are won by logistics. Bullets & beans for the troops on the ground; and there needs to be LOTS of them. But hey, that's not as sexy as a brand new F-22 or JSF.

My 2c.

 

[JungleJett]

And in the end, what everyone tends to forget is that wars are won by logistics. Bullets & beans for the troops on the ground; and there needs to be LOTS of them. But hey, that's not as sexy as a brand new F-22 or JSF.

My 2c.

Exactly!!!




Spyguy,

Name one war the Navy has won all by itself? It takes all four branches to conduct war. Read some history books.

Korea....didnt we win that one? While we are in the middle of the conflict in Iraq, we had air supremacy from before day one. Will it have an impact on the final outcome, yes.

People who complain about the use of funds in the USAF show ignorance. We are not only fighting a war now, but the one in the future. In the 50's, the AF did not think we needed a gun on an airplane and then got our asses handed to us in the early days of Vietnam, all by airplanes of 40's technology. We put the gun back on, went back to work on BFM/ACM skills, and the kill ratio was staggering. The AF/Navy learned a lesson and all new generation fighters have an internal gun. Now, if we spend all of our money and energy on just land combat, and we get into an airwar with say....North Korea or China...what will we have to fight them?

You also fail to mention the amount of money being spent on UAV's. What fighter general in his right mind would remove a pilot from the cockpit. They see the writing on the wall.

We were not prepared for the war we are in now (I have been there) and we are playing catchup. I dont want to be playing catchup in the next conflict.

 

[Gorilla]

The air campaign of Gulf War 1 allowed the 4-day ground war. Tally the armor and trucks destroyed by the services... the AF (and Navy air) ripped the will to fight from the Iraqis. When the ground boys went to work, it was a mop-up.

I fully agree, combined arms wins the day. We need all branches. And we will ALWAYS need air superiority - F-15, F-22. The ability to operate ground troops free of enemy air interdiction is essential. Ask the post D-day German army what was their greatest fear... it was not a stand-up fight with the U.S. and British armies, it was getting chewed up in the open by allied fighter-bombers.