Air Force looks to cure Guard, Reserve wounds

Air Force looks to cure Guard, Reserve wounds

By and Monday, September 17th, 2012 6:45 pm
Posted in Air

Air Force leaders have taken to the podiums at the autumn conference circuit to try and cure wounds torn open by a budget battle that has pitted service leaders against the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said Monday at the Air Force Association’s Air and Space Conference and Technology Exposition the service has worked with Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Stockton to re-examine the process of integrating the Guard and Reserve into the budgeting process.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh delivered a similar message last week at the National Guard Association of the United States General Conference in Reno, Nev. Welsh told Guard leaders he’d include them earlier in the budgeting process, making state requirements a higher priority.


“We have to fight and argue and throw emotion on the table and debate the tough issues,” he said. “We have to include … state requirements at the front end of this process, not at the end,” Welch told Guard leaders.

Donley stood by the Air Force’s decision to cut the size of the Air Force — more so the Guard and Reserve than active duty — in order to maintain quality and the ability to grow in future years to account for unforseen threats. He explained the service must balance force structure, readiness and modernization with a smaller budget.

“The strategic balance has to be maintained in a fashion that will not break the active duty, Guard or Reserve,” Donley said.

With personnel cuts looming , Air Force Reserve Chief Lt. Gen. James Jackson said Monday that future force reductions will hurt the Air Force Reserve’s overall mission effectiveness.

The Air Force Reserve is part of every mission area the Air Force has responsibility over, Jackson said at the Air Force Association’s meeting at National Harbor, Md. Whether it involves global strike missions, cyber operations, weather reconnaissance or mortuary affairs, “we have units, personnel and equipment in every single one of these enduring contributions that the Air Force does,” Jackson said.

Jackson’s comments come as Air Force’s senior leadership is proposing to cut 900 Reserve personnel in 2013. In addition, the Air Force’s plan would cut 5,100 Air National Guard members and 3,900 active duty members.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill and the Council of Governors have opposed the plan because it threatens to drain experienced personnel that the Guard and Reserve cannot afford to lose.

Jackson said the Air Force Reserve performs 100 percent of the Air Force’s weather reconnaissance and aerial spraying missions and is involved in 60 percent of the service’s air-medical operations. While he offered few specifics, Jackson said he wanted to see his command take on an expanded role in missions such as aerial firefighting.

Jackson, who has been in the job less than two months, said he plans to ensure the Reserve remains a “combat-ready, cost-effective and experienced force.”

Join the Conversation

blight_ September 17th, 2012 at 8:32 pm

Makes you wonder if the services would be better served by dedicating dual-purpose domestic/foreign mission type things such as mortuary and aerial firefighting to the state national guards? States in the SW have forest fire issues-and standing up state ANG units might be more practical than using the Air Force Reserve.

However, horsetrading with the states means angry state politicians…

Lance September 17th, 2012 at 8:39 pm

Dont see it happening anytime soon with sequestration coming. some things in the guard can go like the C-27. However saving some BIG USAF programs at the guards expense must end too. But it will take Presidential and congressional changes to end the internal squabble.

Mars HQ September 18th, 2012 at 1:17 am

Bottom line: unfortunately, it’s tracking to be an increasingly hollow force structure and illusion of deterrence for the indefinite future. This is mostly per default of poorly planned and catastrophically miscalculated Program acquisition strategies and decisions, not simply because of decreasing Baseline budgets heading into uncertain austere budget environments.

eg, if the recapitalization strategy requires baseline budgets well in excess of $500bn annually (without loss of buying power year over year) in order to acquire a mere 20 USAF jets for TACAIR recapitalization, there is an issue and something inherently wrong with the calculus and decision making. How many tactical jets will USAF be able to afford then as part of recapitalization requirements if the Baseline budget falls to say $475bn? What if it’s below that? Why was the assumption so prevalent in policy making just 3–4 years ago that Defense budgets and Procurement would see indefinite steady annual increases? Why was there no strategic adjustments made in major recapitalization acquisition plans when it should have been assessed that the current plans would simply not be sustainable and were thus flawed?

The Guard’ s leadership is partly to question though too it could be argued. One could sense that the ANG should have been receiving new build F-16s eg to replace retiring F-16s, until the next-gen cool stuff matured and completed SDD and OT&E? The problem with too big to fail Programs and no interim Plan B’s is that they risk massive negative impact on national defense if things with the stay-the-course plan go bad.

I know it’s not all about fighter jets, yet this is just one major example. The strategic assessment making and prudent policy making has been fatally flawed. Strategic restructuring is required in the actual planning and acquisition decision making process, probably including need for decisive Plan B implementation, not merely haircuts off the top of Plan A. A monkey can cut off the top, yet only strategic leadership can result in More muscles, less fat during an austere reality.

Nicky September 18th, 2012 at 9:48 am

Maybe the can restructure the ANG for roles based upon geographic area. Where some states can get ether, F-15’s, F-16’s or even A-29 Super Tucano’s for ISR work

majr0d September 18th, 2012 at 12:44 pm

“Donley stood by the Air Force’s decision to cut the size of the Air Force — more so the Guard and Reserve than active duty — in order to maintain quality and the ability to grow in future years to account for unforseen threats”

So you’re saying the Guard is lower quality and can’t grow like the active component? How so? Be specific, you might change some minds.

CharlesHouston September 18th, 2012 at 2:11 pm

Yes, most States have a “State Guard” which for many even includes a Naval component (such as the one that Alaska has). The roles that are done entirely within a state should be done by those forces and they should not be in a status that could be federalized. Forces that could be deployed overseas should be in the AF Reserve only.

CharlesHouston September 18th, 2012 at 2:17 pm

As a guy who entered the TX ANG as a Captain and departed (after ten years) as a LtCol — the Guard adds a few layers of bureaucracy that are not needed.
Why would the AF have to clear it with a Governor just to move a fighter out of state? What role does an F-16 have in a state? The Guard adds mahogany office suites which could be used to support the mission.
When I started in the Tx ANG, I found out that my guys were “qualified” on a limited set of tasks — because it was “too difficult” to get trained on the rest. However, we could have gone to San Antonio to get the rest — they were not happy when I made them do that.
By eliminating some more tail we could afford better tooth — but we choose to not spend our money wisely.

CharlesHouston September 18th, 2012 at 2:25 pm

The Active Duty has certainly failed in it’s responsibility — after years of warnings we now can afford so few aircraft that we cannot replace the old ones. How long is the B-52 going to continue flying and does anyone believe that the current bomber acquisition is going to produce more bombers than the number of B-2s purchased? We bought about 100 B-1s, about 25 B-2s, and will be able to buy one and only one of the follow on!
We bought 187 F-22s and we are on track to buy probably fewer than 187 F-35s!
We have to buy aircraft that we can afford, ones that can continue to fly for the next couple of decades — but stealth adds such cost that we cannot afford them. And the prospect of needed that capability has faded. We could have flown your average B-17 over Libya, we could fly F-4s in Afghanistan.

blight_ September 18th, 2012 at 2:44 pm

A firefighting unit in CA could conceivably be “roles that are done entirely within a state”…or within the entire southwest.

However, some state ANG units have transports and others have fighter jets. One could argue that fighter jets are homeland defense, or that they could be deployed offensively and might not be appropriate for a state guard.

“Forces that could be deployed overseas” might encapsulate national guard transport and fighter wings. For example, the Minnesota Air National Guard has a Fighter Wing out of Duluth (in F-16s) and an Airlift wing (at MSP airport, C-130s).

Would such forces be more appropriate to the AF reserve or the ANG?

(Edit: saw other post re bureaucracy and extra layers of delay imposed on a state ANG unit)

majr0d September 18th, 2012 at 3:10 pm

So you are saying leadership in the Guard is poorer than the active component?

Goat Herder September 18th, 2012 at 3:31 pm

One of the often touted advantages of the Guard and Reserves has been that those components have higher experienced people. If you equate “quality” with “experience”, then there has to be a degree of balance between the AD and the ARC, the reason being that the biggest portion of the “experience” in the ARC comes from folks leaving the AD and joining the ARC. When that gets out of whack, when that experience pipline isn’t big enough, then the ARC has to recruit, train and season its own personnel…and over time you’ll end up with a small, less capable AD and a large, inexperienced, less capable ARC. A lose/lose situatiion for everybody.

CharlesHouston September 18th, 2012 at 4:10 pm

Look at my reply to MarsHQ — neither the National Guard nor Active Duty are monolithic groups with “good” or “bad” leadership. Certainly there is some of both.
The fundamental problem is that the NG adds additional layers between the guys who do the job and the people who sit in nice offices. If we could cut bureaucracy we would be doing the right thing — the AF Reserve (I spent 8 years in it) is also bureaucratic but has fewer layers (no State bureaucracy) than the NG.

CharlesHouston September 18th, 2012 at 4:14 pm

Yes, all members who could be deployed overseas should be in the Reserves — that suggestion has been made many times. An ANG unit that was trained to fight fires would also have to be trained for many other, non-fire fighting, roles just to maintain an AFSC. If you want a group that fights fires, start a State Guard unit and buy the aircraft, etc with state funds.

RET68 September 18th, 2012 at 5:08 pm

I think we’re getting too caught up with the fire fighting role for ANG, it’s a very minor piece. And I think it would be too expensive and not feasible to begin with for individual states to be asked to procure, operate and maintain their own individual ‘State Guard’ fire-fighting force structure to include fixed and rotary aircraft and facilities.

Also, when major wild fires strike, it rapidly becomes a joint-fight with yes ‘Federal’ assets coming to the party as well as the state outsourcing private contract assets from all over the country as well as Canada! States do and can procure and operate their own light helicopter fire-fighting assets, but those are few and nowhere near sufficient. States will need to cooperate, and outsource emergency contract assets for big fires.

In emergencies, there’s nothing wrong with the concept of ‘Federalizing’ National Guard elements as need be. However, perhaps there could be a separate ‘State Guard’ volunteer force enlistment for coping w/ natural emergencies, sort of like an expanded Volunteer Fire Department — trained for specific emergency response such as wildfires, Earthquakes and flooding, etc. A stipend could be paid when actually responding to a disaster, but would attract those who are ‘service-oriented’ to duty. But we digress.

CharlesHouston September 18th, 2012 at 5:17 pm

Firefighting was the example put forward by blight. It is an example of a mission that should be done by specialized groups.
Most states have a “state guard” but I am unaware if any of them are paid. Many states even have a naval component — such as Alaska as I pointed out. Why is there not a Naval National Guard? Because there is no need!

majr0d September 18th, 2012 at 5:28 pm

I got what you’re saying. I’m trying to understand why cutting more of the guard (proportionately and numeriacally) than the active component meets the Sec USAF criteria, “in order to maintain quality and the ability to grow in future years to account for unforseen threats”

RET68 September 18th, 2012 at 5:53 pm

“Why is there not a Naval National Guard”…

Hmmm, maybe because the Coast Guard has that capacity and role covered? ;) And with that, ya got your Coast Guard Auxiliary volunteers — also very much indeed needed! :D

orly? September 18th, 2012 at 6:26 pm

Some states also have a “Naval Militia” which imho don’t work out too well if they don’t own anything that floats.

TMG September 18th, 2012 at 7:37 pm

All make A VALID POINT but now the ANG is enforcing the PT standards across the board reguardless of rank and age 30 to 39 40 to 49 as example to wreck peoples careers just because a 49 year old is supposed to do as many push ups and run as fast as a forty year old so if it is your re up month and your pt test is not current(pass) you out so who is going to fix the planes ??? Tom

Goat Herder September 18th, 2012 at 7:52 pm

Not sure what PT has to do with it…should the ANG have different PT standards than the AD and Reserves?

TMG September 18th, 2012 at 7:55 pm

if you are experianced (old) the guard will do it by the pt test instead of budget cuts

TMG September 18th, 2012 at 7:58 pm

and yes the average ad age is 23 average guard/reserveage 42 same 1.5 mile standard although deployed more times in 32 years i can remember did my job ( can’t ever having to run 1.5 to get to or from anything

Goat Herder September 18th, 2012 at 8:04 pm

Doesn’t a 49 year old in the AD/Reserves have the same requirement as the guy in the ANG? Besides…just because the ANG boots somebody for failing (a bunch of) PT tests doesn’t mean the manpower slot goes away…they just fill it with somebody who can pass. But, that ain’t the point of this article…

TMG September 18th, 2012 at 8:10 pm

the point was cuts period and there isn’t many 49 year old son ad and i have passed all my test you lose thexperianced guy when they boot out them out was my point

CharlesHouston September 18th, 2012 at 8:16 pm

Hmmmm. Why then does Alaska have the Alaska Naval Militia??? When I lived there, the US Coast Guard was there as well. Perhaps the two have different roles and you just don’t do your homework?

Goat Herder September 18th, 2012 at 8:16 pm

And my original point was…the old experienced guys get out all the time. That’s naturally how it works. Today, and in the past, that experience would be replaced by prior service folks who are already trained 5-levels and 7-levels. But…if the AD gets too small compared to the ARC, that transfer of experience and training will not happen. Then, you’ll have a bunch of old, but not that experienced, ANG guys trying to pass PT tests.

CharlesHouston September 18th, 2012 at 8:17 pm

orly? — you have an example or are you just speculating?

CharlesHouston September 18th, 2012 at 8:19 pm

Because the National Guard is not needed, is not necessary, is not even the “militia” mentioned in the Constitution. It is a recent invention. By cutting it, we cut elegant offices, we cut aides, we free up more money for modernization instead of overhead.

majr0d September 18th, 2012 at 8:39 pm

So you’re for totally disbanding the Guard?

Why do you not count it as the militia mentioned in the constitution?

BTW, the constitution doesn’t say the states can’t have militias.

and the constitution says nothing about an Air Force…

tmb2 September 18th, 2012 at 9:29 pm

The National Guard as we know it was invented in 1903 by standardizing the state militias with the Army and giving the federal government mobilization authority for the Guard.

Regardless of what you want to call it, the roles carried out by the Guard need to be done by somebody, and the states still need a go-to force for various missions.

orly? September 18th, 2012 at 9:53 pm

Both NY and NJ have naval militias, and CharlesHouston just said Alaska does as well.

I am quite confused of their function as well, including the fact that the NY Naval Militia is federalized.

Nicky September 18th, 2012 at 10:13 pm

“Why is there not a Naval National Guard? ”

It’s called the United States Coast Guard and that’s what they are for. The US Coast Guard is made up of Active, Reserve and Auxiliary Members and I’m one of them as an US Coast Guard Auxiliary member. I believe the US Air force has a similar thing as well, called the Civil Air Patrol and they should incorporate the Civil Air Patrol into the Air National Guard as well

blight_ September 18th, 2012 at 10:47 pm

The fun question is what do states need aircraft for? It might be useful to pull Gulfstreams and small VIP transports out of the active duty force and into the guard (and then dual-slot them for the governor and politicians, who will otherwise charter or procure their own aircraft).

CharlesHouston September 18th, 2012 at 11:45 pm

The National Guard swears a State and Federal oath — when I was in the Tx ANG I swore to obey the orders of the Governor as well. We had to get permission to take assets out of state, even our trucks. Of course that was just a courtesy call for us.

So does the US Coast Guard work for the Governor of the state in which they are based? Do they have to get permission from the Governor to leave state waters? In the old days, a National Guard officer could have one State rank and a different Federally recognized rank. Does that exist in the Coast Guard?

I was also in the Civil Air Patrol and you greatly misunderstand the purpose of the CAP.

RET68 September 19th, 2012 at 1:11 am

Why in good God would you want to call for added layers of bureaucracy onto the USCG and auxiliary, just so you could be content that it’s state owned? The Coast Guard is probably one of the most effectively operated and beneficial Federal branches as it is. Are you just being cynical for sake of argument, or perhaps ‘pro-state’, anti-Federal in your personal outlook? I’m just trying to get a handle on where you’re coming from, that’s all.

CharlesHouston September 19th, 2012 at 9:09 am

So you agree that State control woutd add bureaucracy? You seem to not have followed the point that the National Guard has exactly that, and so is slowed by more layers of management. So if we could phase out the National Guard and move people into the Reserves, we would reduce overhead for our units. If you feel that I have a pro-state bias you have not closely read the discussion.

Old Warhorse September 19th, 2012 at 10:51 am

Perhaps these departmental figure heads should look at trimming the overhead. Start with the Pentagon and work downward to the Major Commands. Asking, “How many generals and civilians do we really need?“
This would show a level of responsibility and integrity never before seen and garner huge dividends with the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airman doing the fighting and dying.

Nicky September 19th, 2012 at 11:43 am

US Coast Guard is under federal jurisdiction and doesn’t have to answer to Governor of the State. That’s why the US Coast Guard is not part of any State organization. It is a federal organization and only answers to the federal government and Congress.

blight_ September 19th, 2012 at 12:00 pm

I think Charles is getting at that socking away units with states adds overhead, and if you want to put them somewhere that isn’t active component, that it is better to go with the AF Reserves instead of the ANG.

steve September 19th, 2012 at 12:24 pm

This so-called feud between the USAF and the State Guards and Reserves looks/sounds more the TAIL wagging the DOG don’t you think?

Admiral September 19th, 2012 at 1:59 pm

The roles of the National Guard needs to be reviewed and redefined based in order on the states needs, Homeland security, and US security. Homeland security being to defend US territories or aid in US territorial disasters. National Security to act in support of the main military services in international activities.. THe level of financial responsibilities to be split based on how much of tasking in each of the categories units are expected to undertake. The type of aircraft/units needs to be reorganized accordingly and spread out over a number of years minimize annual cost impact to the government and communities. This should apply to both the Army and Air Force Guard. The reorganization should include state/territorial government input as they should be the primary user.

Capt Ahab September 19th, 2012 at 4:39 pm

Combine the Reserves and Guard and form a new INDEPENDENT branch of the service along a single command construct with an Air, Land, Sea & Cyber corps with each division (or as appropriate) sized unit reporting to the Governor of that state on a day-to-day basis and as activated under Title 10 then directly to the President bypassing the bloated whale of the DoD and JCS system…

Goat Herder September 19th, 2012 at 6:58 pm

Wow.…..that makes like.…no sense.

rudyh September 19th, 2012 at 10:44 pm

Why so..? They are going to do something with the duality factor.…Absorb ANG into USAFR (fork those politicos) and it inherits the dual mission one to the Guv’nor and when mission required go to mobilization. USA could use a separate noncombat, decent domestic, by state security and disaster assistance force (and not martial law enforcers either). Goin’ nowhere fast, got to do something!!!!! Sure it’s going to take some geographics work to set up.…nothin’ efficient ever was easy to establish.…and especially when it’s military.…ehhh??

Goat Herder September 19th, 2012 at 10:56 pm

OK…that clears it up (insert sarcasm here).

Capt Ahab September 19th, 2012 at 11:41 pm

It does — the intention of creating a separate force with a rational and MODERN administrative structure is to increase effectiveness and especially affordability. It would also give the active duty something to eventually emulate, Secretary Robert Gates adequately described the Pentagon as having the fine motor skills of a dinosaur with an almost glacial and opaque administrative structure, if we are ever going to modernize our military we will have to start small and then build out to bigger structures, the logical place to start is the Guard and Reserves then probably moving on to the USMC and Coast Guard…

Goat Herder September 20th, 2012 at 7:40 am

I would say the least logical place to start any kind of efficiencies reform is the ARC. Reform is gonna be especailly hard for the USCG seeing as how they don’t actually work for DoD. Besides…if you think today’s Pentagon is an albatros/administrative nightmare, trying getting anything done under a notional structure with 50+ state Governors involved.

Capt Ahab September 20th, 2012 at 8:05 am

Valid points on the Governors but I think reform efforts have failed because they have tried incremental approaches — we will need a revolution to get it done — basically one massive attack on the bureaucracy that doesn’t give it time to arrange it’s defenses and adapt — just a complete take down… one can dream… the ARC is smaller animal by size compared to the AD so it might be the place to start.…

St Germain September 23rd, 2012 at 2:11 am

How about re-thinking the entire National Guard structure and mission? Historically it has taken 9–12 months for the Guard to be able to field combat ready large units of any type. And how about the problem of states not having on hand Guard units for domestic emergencies, such as Hurricane Katrina?

Sean November 1st, 2012 at 9:03 am

You are not talking about ANG, the ANG flies the same mission as the AD with a 1/3rd of the people, everyday! I just got back from my 4th deployment with our F-16’s. I know because the AD commanders said so.…… That they would rather have a guard unit there instead of a AD unit because all we worry about is the flying mission.….….. and not what bullet statments we can get for our EPR. Oh and more importantly we get the job done, without issue (article 15’s, LOR’s ect.) Because we are mature and know whats right and wrong.
Now you are correct it does take the Army Guard a couple (not 9–12 months) to “spool up” and that’s because most Army Guard units are not trained (MOS) for kicking down doors or convoy duty.

willy November 6th, 2012 at 7:38 am

God Save The C-27, it can do what C-130’s cant and are exactly what the army wanted to help support here opperations, .…. the last tactical mile. Many of these airplanes are already on station chomping at the bit coming off their very successfull first deployment in afghanistan. You want to save money cut the real problem: entitlement spending, not defense.

Mike January 19th, 2013 at 12:51 pm

Great. So I was cut from active duty in 2012, and can lose my Reserve position in 2013. Thanks!! I’m so glad I gave the USAF more than 15 years of my life, and can count on something to show for my efforts (after finding a job in 2012 that pays half what I earned on active duty, after potentially losing military retirement for the years of service I’ve given–that I’l never get back.)

Lovely.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.