Re: Chop soldiers' pay and benefits to save F-22, Guard commander suggests.


"Ed Rasimus" <rasimusSPAMLESS@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dvfm72tshbmebsck6k46e0vb84859gfuam@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 29 May 2006 17:37:23 GMT, "Mike Bandor" <mbandor@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Henry J Cobb" <hcobb@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:EeWdncAAxqyVkubZnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA052906.1A.biggerguard.d3f9020.html
Pentagon plans to put new ships, planes and armored vehicles into the
field are threatened by one thing that can get only bigger: the cost of
its own people.

So the National Guard's top commander, Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, offers a
radical solution: fewer active-duty soldiers and many more
less-expensive
part-timers.
...
The typical enlisted guardsman, who is on full-time duty just 45 to 53
days a year, costs $13,275 annually, National Guard spokesman Manny
Pacheco said. Guardsmen not mobilized for active-duty service won't
require federal health and childcare or military housing.

I read that article this morning and just shook my head. That was the
same
thinking during the 80's & 90's that shifted a lot of the "support" roles
to
the Guard and Reserve. It looks like too much was shifted and now the
duties are similar to Active Duty as far as workload, deployments, etc.
The
article, at least to me, came across more of a "how to outsource the
military" mindset than anything else. It will be interesting to hear what
comes out of the DoD since the article was posted.

Mike

USAF Retired (''82-'05)

Ahhh, sometimes I'm stunned by the apparent ignorance of multi-starred
officers, but then am forced to note a couple of things:

This 3-button is a National Guard type, which means political
appointee in most instances rather than claw through the ranks type.

At the three-star level *all* of the folks are in reality "political
appointees", even those from the AC side of the house. That said, Blum did
sort of claw his way to the top, and has a Special Forces tab on his
shoulder that indicates he can do a bit of effective clawing when required
(and I am not one of his fans--the guy once swiped a tootsie-pop from our
office-horde while he was cooling his heels and waiting to meet somebody at
our armory... :-) ).

What's his critical motivation? Large pie slice for his state's toys
and building of his bureaucratic empire!

Actually, you are a bit off here, Ed. He does not represent any single
state--he is the Chief of the NGB, which makes him the guru for *all* states
for both the ANG and ARNG sides of the house. The bit about building a
bigger empire, though, is probably true. Expect the issue of making the NGB
Chief a four-star slot to raise its head again soon (and given the
comparitive size and contribution of the Guard size vis a vas the AC these
days, it would probably be merited).


Second, lets note that the headline "Chop Soldier's pay and benefits"
isn't at all what was said--what was proposed was reduction in
manpower and shifting of force structure to the Guard/Reserve. That's
considerably different budgeting than the headline proposes.

I suspect the last BRAC-process is still causing some heartburn on the Guard
side, and maybe a decision has been made to go on the offense early to
prevent that from happening again.


Third, acknowledge that these "part time Guardsmen" usually are
experienced folks with an extensive background in active-duty
operations and training.

Fourth, the Guard/Reserve comprise a very significant full-time
component and increasingly with high-tech weaponry, the cost is not
much different than Active forces.

The manpower costs are still much lower, both in current personnel-cost
terms and in terms of what share of the total retirement costs they chew up.
Interestingly, the 1st FW is standing up with F-22's now, and will be a
multi-component unit with the VaANG's current F-16C squadron becoming
part-and-parcel of the 1st FW. IIRC I read something recently about the
first Guard pilots and maintainers from that unit starting to train on the
F-22.


Fifth, the probability that F-22 buys will be related to manpower
shifts from active to Guard is nil. The fact is that F-22 superiority
and force-multiplier effects result in force reduction much more
efficient and valid than what Gen. Blum implies.

Methinks this sounds a bit like posturing for future
force-structure/BRAC/budget squabbles...toss this turd out on the table, and
then offer to pull it back later in return for the other side withdrawing
one of their own turds. IMO the idea of trying to put a big chunk of a
high-demand/low-density system like the F-22 in the ANG is downright stupid,
as the RC side has already learned the hard way that if you keep going back
to the same well again and again then your retention and recruiting problems
expand geometrically.

Brooks



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com


.

Quantcast