Rethinking the ANG

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 02 Apr 2009, 01:23

From AF Daily Report 1 APR09

Heavily Taxed: The Air National Guard has been "clearly ... overused," Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Tuesday. Speaking with the Defense Writers Group in Washington, D. C., Levin said he hasn't had a chance to give the future shape of the Air Guard "the rethinking it deserves," if indeed it does need a fresh look. However, if the Air Guard is to continue to be used in the way it has been—as an operational force rather than as a strategic reserve—then "it's got to be recapitalized," Levin said. "If for whatever reason a decision is made to continue to rely on it to the extent that we have, then we've got to provide it with the equipment that [has] been a necessary part of that use," he said. Air Guard chief Lt. Gen. Harry Wyatt told the Senate Appropriation defense subcommittee last week that buying new generation 4.5 fighters—rather than F-22s or F-35s—to keep the Air Guard in the air sovereignty mission is an option on the table. The Government Accountability Office recently released a report saying the Air Guard will have to give up its F-16s to retirement before replacements in the form of F-35s begin arriving.

Flash34 · Post by **Flash34** » 02 Apr 2009, 03:13

A very ineresting article. I was critical of Selfridge losing there F-16's to A-10's. Now I see where they were going with the realignment, so Selfridge could still keep there fighter mission. Although Selfridge has always been affected whenever BRAC has come around. Other states in my region like WI and MN are still keeping there Vipers. For how long who knows. Buying newer F-15's and F-16's for the homeland defense mission seems like a good idea. Not only for the guard and reserve but for the active duty missions as well. I read an article about how the F-22 and the F-35 would not be needed once air sovereignty has been established over a battlefield. Given the projected numbers for the F-22 and F-35,the need for newer and more sophisticated F-16's and F-15's would be needed to supplement the " stealth " fighters. While I think the F-22 and F-35 are awesome aircraft , are we short changing ouselves by phasing out the F-16 and not replacing it with newer derivatives ??

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 27 May 2009, 15:44

From AF Daily Report 27 May 09

Need New Tanker Footprint: Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that the Air Force is moving ahead with its tanker replacement program, but the end result once the "two-decade-plus" effort is over may not be "a one-for-one replacement of KC-135 [aircraft]." He continued, "That being the case, there will probably be some footprint adjustments." That's when Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) asked the million dollar question, "There's not a plan in place to move the refueling operations away from the [Air National] Guard to the active duty—is that fair to ask?" Schwartz assured the Senator, "The balance that we have right now, where the preponderance of the tanking capability actually is in the Guard and Reserve is likely to remain the case."

Flash34 · Post by **Flash34** » 27 May 2009, 16:29

I work for an airline and one of our Captains told me that flying in a Reserve or Guard tanker unit is like having a full time job. You are on TDY for six months.

Jumpshot724 · Post by **Jumpshot724** » 27 May 2009, 21:26

I don't see why purchasing gen 4 or 4.5 fighters would be such a problem. The biggest argument against the Raptor is that it's "too advanced (read costly) for the current threats we face". Why not just purchase more F-15's and F-16s, they're still getting the job done (and doing it very well) at their age. Or even that new version of the F-15, "Silent Eagle" I think they called it??

And I'm not just talking about ANG, AD too

Firebird · Post by **Firebird** » 27 May 2009, 21:40

... Or they could buy Typhoons

Flash34 · Post by **Flash34** » 27 May 2009, 23:01

Its a tough call. It seems like the Air Force is leaning towards a more UAV approach with the reduction of 250 vipers in the inventory. This reduction would " free " up funds for more UAV's to be developed. Most of the new aircraft techonologies coming out of the Air Force are mostly for the unmanned missions. I think in a perfect world the Air Force and Navy would be replacing there aging aircraft with newer models (F-16, F-18, F-15...etc etc ). However with the current economic crisis in America. It seems like the military is trying to do more with less by exploiting the UAV mission to its fullest. No pilot in the cockpit can be less expensive, no SAR resources and no POWS's if the aircraft gets shot down flying a tactical mission. While this technology seems to be good for the war on terrorism I question how well we would do against a real threat. I hope we never have to come to this point.

Jumpshot724 · Post by **Jumpshot724** » 27 May 2009, 23:14

I think the Air Force is putting too much emphasis on UAVs too quickly. There's no question that UAVs are the "future" (as much as us airplane junkies/pilots/enthusiasts hate to admit), but I feel like they're trying to transfer over to a predominently UAV force way too fast.

There' no question about their capabilities and importance, but I think the transistion from ejection seats to armchairs is happening way too fast, and in my views of the future of war it will come back to bite us in the arse....among other things.

And not for nothing, re-opening production lines creates jobs which creates revenue streams which help the economy. Let's not forget it was the WWII mass industrialization that got us out of the depression. Granted reopening old lines in a relatively "peaceful" time as today won't be the boom it was in WWII, but we're also not in a depression.

GZR_Sactargets · Post by **GZR_Sactargets** » 19 Jun 2009, 18:10

From AF Daily Report 19 Jun 09

Still Waiting for Answers: Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), chairman of the air and land forces panel in the House Armed Services Committee, told defense reporters Thursday that he is still concerned about the Air National Guard portion of the Air Force's "fighter gap." He said the Air Force still has not answered critical questions about timing between the loss of the Air Guard's legacy fighters and transition to new fighters needed to cover the air sovereignty alert mission. Abercrombie said he has not received the "exact answer" as to "how long can these planes fly before you're in a danger period." However, he acknowledged that Congress needs some "dispassionate understanding" of what's possible and what would be needed to offset a projected ASA gap. Some have proposed purchasing new, upgraded fourth-generation fighters—the 4.5-generation alternative—to sustain the Air Guard in its ASA mission while it awaits its quota of new 5th-gen fighters. (See below) Abercrombie does not rule that out. In fact, he said, "We may do that too; it's not necessarily a question of either or, it might be both." In his view, it's a policy decision. He said that procurement decisions need to be driven by policy and not shoehorned to fit a prescribed budget.

Tired of Holding Breath: While senior Air Force officials may want to close the door on talk of buying upgraded fourth-generation fighters to sustain the Air National Guard, which faces the aging-out of its fighter force that covers the air sovereignty alert mission, some lawmakers are trying to keep it open. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), two of the leading critics of the Air Force's plan to retire 254 legacy fighters next year, added an amendment to the House Armed Services Committee's version of the 2010 defense bill that would require DOD to submit a report on the feasibility of purchasing 4.5-generation fighters to sustain the Air Guard. In introducing the amendment, Giffords declared, "Without a shred of analysis being provided to Congress or any evidence that shows current plans meet current reality, the Air Force dismissed the idea of providing real life aircraft to real life airmen." She added, "Instead, we have been asked, once again, to hold our breath and wait." (Giffords-LoBiondo amendment) (And you may want to read an article Giffords penned in Politico)