Aviation restructure

[Yamer]

Thought if start a new thread for talking about the army restructure plan for aviation.

 

Anyone know anything new as of lately?

[Rob Lyman]

Can't talk about it...there's a gag order out on it. LOL

 

Seriously, the discussion got heated up enough that SecDef has placed a gag order on anyone directly involved. At this point, it might be hard to get any information beyond educated speculation.

 

Funny thing is, someone from your unit (you're at WAATS, right?) called us to see if we had any skinny on the LUH part of the equation.

 

Say "Hi" to the FL boys out there for me.

[Yamer]

I'm next door to WAATS at the aasf. If I see them I'll say hi. Any educated guesses as to how it will play out? Last I heard about it we were waiting for congress to see it and vote

[akscott60]

Its all rumors. Kiowa guys arent happy. Guard 64 guys arent happy.

[Justine]

Proposal seeks to establish Army Structure Commission

Legislation Would Halt Guard Aircraft Transfers, End-Strength Reductions

Posted on InsideDefense.com: January 24, 2014

Draft legislation that could be introduced into the fiscal year 2015 defense authorization bill by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) would establish a commission to study the proper size and structure of the Army, while prohibiting the service from transferring or divesting any National Guard aircraft or reducing the reserve component's end strength beyond authorized levels in FY-15.The draft legislation obtained by Inside the Army gives the proposed commission the deadline of Feb. 1, 2016 to submit a report on the structure of the Army. Copies of the proposed measure were circulating last week at the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.Should the legislation become law, the Army would not be able to execute some aspects of its recently proposed aviation restructure plan nor would it be able to further reduce the Guard's end-strength beyond the authorized level of 350,000.ITA first broke the news of the Army's controversial aviation restructure plans in December, which include the divestiture of the entire OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter fleet and the use of Apache helicopters to meet the service's armed aerial scout mission. All of the National Guard's Apaches would be moved to the active component, while the Guard would receive 111 L-model Black Hawks in return. The Army would divest all of its TH-67 trainer helicopters and replace them with the LUH-72A Lakota helicopters -- most from the active component but some taken from the Guard (ITA, Dec. 9, 2013). The plan would take about six years to execute, according to officials.The Guard stands to lose 120 Apaches from its eight Apache battalions in Pennsylvania, Texas, Arizona, Utah, Missouri, Idaho, North Carolina and Wilson's home state of South Carolina.The plan has been met with resistance from Guard advocates and some on Capitol Hill. John Goheen, the National Guard Association's communication director, told ITA earlier this month that taking the Apaches away from the Guard amounts to "squandering" valuable experience and capability (ITA, Jan. 6).According to the draft legislation, "None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2015 for the Army may be used to divest, retire, or transfer, or prepare to divest, retire or transfer, any aircraft of the Army assigned to units of the Army National Guard as of January 15, 2014." This date in the legislation coincided with the day the Army abruptly backed away from public engagement opportunities to discuss the aviation restructure (ITA, Jan. 20).The proposed legislation also would prohibit the use of funds authorized in FY-15 for the Army to "reduce personnel below the authorized end strength levels of 350,000 for the Army National Guard as of September 30, 2014."The Guard and the Army have looked poised for a fight over end-strength numbers since the start of this year. DOD leaders have issued internal guidance putting the Army on a path to reducing its active-duty ranks to 420,000 soldiers by FY-19, according to defense sources, though the service has only officially acknowledged plans to reduce its active-duty numbers from a war-time high of 570,000 to 490,000 by the end of FY-15. Meanwhile, the National Guard Bureau has pitched a plan to keep the size of the Guard at 345,000, though the Army has plans to cut it to 315,000, Inside the Pentagon reported earlier this month.Worried that the Army and the National Guard were on the path for an ugly public confrontation similar to that of the Air Force and Air Guard over cuts in the FY-13 budget request, a group of 58 senators rejected the Army's plans to cut Guard end strength in a Dec. 20 letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.Opponents of the Air Force's plans to cut the Air Guard successfully established a national commission to study the issue 10 months after the FY-13 budget request was released. The commission is poised to reveal its findings this week.Army officials expressed a desire to begin executing the restructure plan as soon as possible, arguing the longer the service waits to divest aging aircraft like the Kiowa, the more expensive it will be to keep them operational.Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno said last week that the service can't afford to keep its current aircraft fleet and has had to make difficult decisions to protect its more modernized aircraft."The Army has to pay a $79 billion bill over the next five years," he said at a Jan. 23 Association of the United States Army breakfast in Arlington, VA. "We have to organize ourselves in the most efficient, effective way possible and . . . I can't afford all the fleets of aircraft I have right now."The Army is expected to begin implementing the aviation restructure plan through its FY-15 budget request. According to internal Army briefing slides obtained by ITA, the service plans to deactivate two active component CABs in FY-15: the 159th at Ft. Campbell and the 12th, based in Germany. The slides also list a series of decision points for the Army as it executes the plan. The first move is to divest the Kiowa, cancel the Kiowa's Cockpit and Sensor Upgrade Program, then stop Kiowa officer and enlisted training. The second decision point marked the approval of a "new aviation design," while the third decision point endorses the movement of the AH-64s from the reserve component to the active component and to stop training the reserve component. The final decision point will allow the Army to approve the number of CABs in both components. The Army plans to convert the training base to Lakotas and start taking Apaches from the reserve component in FY-16, according to the slides. In FY-17, Black Hawks and Chinooks will be moved to appropriate units. The entire process to carry out the restructure should take until FY-19 (ITA, Jan. 20).The proposed legislation would establish an Army structure commission no later than 90 days following enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act that would be composed of eight members -- four of which would be appointed by the president, while the other four would be appointed by each congressional defense committee. Specifically, "in making appointments . . . consideration should be given to individuals with expertise in reserve forces policy," the draft language notes.The commission's proposed study would include an examination of "the structure of the Army to determine the proper force mixture of the active component and reserve component, and how the structure should be modified to best fulfill current and anticipated mission requirements for the Army in a manner consistent with available resources and estimated future resources."The commission should consider evaluating a structure that "meets current and anticipated requirements of combatant commands," and achieves a cost-efficient balance between the active and reserve components "taking advantage of the unique strengths and capabilities of each, with a particular focus on fully burdened and lifecycle cost of Army personnel," according to the draft language. The evaluation should also consider a structure that "ensures that the regular and reserve components of the Army have the capacity needed to support current and anticipated homeland defense and disaster assistance missions in the United States, and provides for sufficient numbers of regular members of the Army to provide a base of trained personnel from which the personnel of the reserve components of the Army could be recruited." The structure should be able to maintain a peacetime rotation force "to support operational tempo goals of 1:2 for the regular members of the Army and 1:5 for members of the reserve components of the Army," the draft language states.Lastly, the commission should ensure the structure "maximizes and appropriately balances affordability, efficiency, effectiveness, capability and readiness," the proposal reads.Funding for the commission would be provided through the Army's FY-15 operation and maintenance account, according to the draft legislation. -- Jen Judson

[Yamer]

😏

[mcclainm]

Joe Wilson has a dog in the fight because SC has a Attack Regiment (151) that has a substantial Apache presence.

[Justine]

Good, congress doing their job, who would have thought!

[mcclainm]

I'm split on the decision to absorb all the Apaches into the active component.

[Ardo09203]

If I'm reading that right. The way it currently stands is, any of us selected on the last board, or the next few boards to come, won't really see any changes to flight school other than longer bubbles due to funding, and no 58's at selection? Should still have the creek for a couple years?

[akscott60]

Based on what I have been told by a few people out here at Rucker, there will only be another couple of 58 classes.

 

So yea, there will just be one less fine aircraft to choose from at Selection. Remember, all of this stuff is still talk, and is only being considered for FY15, which is still months and months away.

[Talon64]

And don't request Germany or ft Campbell bc they may shut down

[mcclainm]

Campbell will still have one AV Brigade. They have two now.

[Joe_P148]

Campbell will never shutdown completley... Although I don't think National Guard needs AH64's. I don't agree that the Active component should just absorb them. If they do, they should offer all of those NG pilots and crew active duty positions.

[akscott60]

I figure 159CAB will either move to Carson and the paper CAB there will be absorbed or shut down, or 159 will just go away.

 

Go figure.

[Justine]

So much catatrophization in this thread and very little facts!

[Hotdogs]

I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of empty Apache seats in the active component come transition time, and if not there will probably be a pretty big gap in tactical knowledge among the community due to the lack of guard aviators wanting to go active, unless measures are taken to increase it.

[brackac]

I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of empty Apache seats in the active component come transition time, and if not there will probably be a pretty big gap in tactical knowledge among the community due to the lack of guard aviators wanting to go active, unless measures are taken to increase it.

 

 

Not quite sure what you mean by the "gap in tactical knowledge among the community" due to the lack of guard aviators wanting to go active.

[Talon64]

What would happen if I selected Germany, got Germany, and this all goes into effect and they shutdown the cab in Germany?

[Joe_P148]

What would happen if I selected Germany, got Germany, and this all goes into effect and they shutdown the cab in Germany?

You would go to another unit, of HRC's choosing.

[Hotdogs]

 

 

Not quite sure what you mean by the "gap in tactical knowledge among the community" due to the lack of guard aviators wanting to go active.

 

 

What I'm saying is that with the amount of aircraft going to the active component, and the amount of pilots needed to fill those seats, there is going to be a decent amount of pilots (previous 58D pilots, and new pilots) that will not have experience in their primary platform. Aircraft transitions have that effect on community (see Osprey and recent H-1 upgrades). That is a lot of aircraft to add to the active component, maybe if the majority of those pilots community come from the -58D community it won't be as noticeable. It'll depend on how they man the units.

[Joe_P148]

Hotdogs,

 

There will always be a lack of experience, if you could believe it. The average company has only about 50% combat experience and that number will continue to decline until we go to war again.

[Hotdogs]

Hotdogs,

 

There will always be a lack of experience, if you could believe it. The average company has only about 50% combat experience and that number will continue to decline until we go to war again.

Joe_P148,

 

I understand that aspect of it, but not just combat experience, but actual tactical experience that equate to qualified crews.

[Velocity173]

I agree, there will be a lot of experienced lost in the transfer. Let's not forget the NG has quite a few 64s and quite a few pilot's who've flown them in combat. While the 64 guys won't have much difficulty transferring to a lift airframe, lift guys to 64s will take some time. We'll also have more students offered 64s to make up for the excess active 64s. I think the 58 guys will bring their own brand of experience but still, there's a lot to be said for specific type aircraft experience.

 

I don't think the restructure will drastically affect how the Army does business though. It won't be like in Vietnam where tanker pilots went to fly F-105s and F-4s. That was a major shift. This will be more like the Army of the 80s where we transitioned from the UH-1 to the UH-60 and the AH-1 to the AH-64. That was a jump in capability and it took a few years for pilots to be proficient with the new capabilities. I think the restructure will be pretty messy at first but we'll have qualified combat crews in a couple of years.

 

One thing to consider and really I don't know but how is the retention in the active duty 64 community right now? I remember reading an article in Stars & Stripes way back in 98 about the mass exodus of 64 pilots. They all complained about lack of flying and too many additional duties outside the cockpit. The wars are over now, could we be in for another major shortage of 64 experience???

Edited February 1, 2014 by Velocity173

[Justine]

Man, more facts...

Commission: Move manpower into Reserve, Guard components

By Aaron Mehta Staff writer
Posted: Friday Jan 31, 2014

 

The Air Force should look at moving as much manpower into the Reserve and Air National Guard components as possible, according to a new report from a congressionally mandated panel.

The National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force delivered its long-awaited report Thursday and as expected, the eight-member committee believes that moving more force structure into the part-time components could save billions of dollars annually that could instead be used for readiness and modernization.

"Recognizing that some missions must be performed by the Active Component, the Air Force can, and should, entrust as many missions as possible to its Reserve Component forces," the commissioners wrote in their report.

"Transitioning missions from the Active Component to the Reserve Components will allow the Air Force to perform these missions with less expensive part-time Reservists while reducing the Active Component end strength, thus saving money in the military personnel accounts that can be put to use in readiness, modernization, and recapitalization accounts."

Shifting the component mix from 69-31 active to reserve mix to a 58-42 mix could yield savings of $2 billion per year in manpower costs without any total force reduction, the report found. That could be achieved by moving large amounts of the ISR, cyber, space and ICBM missions into the Reserve. Further savings would come from the integration of headquarters staff, something Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has made a priority across the department.

The commission also suggests greater integration among the three branches of the service, as has been discussed by the service's own Total Force Task Force. That would include doing away with the tradition of the active component getting first claim to new technologies and instead thinking of platforms as shared assets among the three components.

One of the biggest changes outlined in the report is a call for the abolition of the Air Force Reserve Command and its Numbered Air Forces. That would result in significant cuts to personnel as well as more integration at the staff level, although the positions of chief of the Air Force Reserve and director of the Air National Guard, a set of three-star officers "with direct access to the Chief of Staff and with small but sufficient staffs to allow them to properly advise Air Force leadership," would remain.

In a conclusion unlikely to go over well on the Hill, the commission urged Congress to allow the service to close installations to generate savings. Service officials have complained that Congress' refusal to allow base closures prevents the service from generating needed savings, which in turn forces the current budget cuts to come out of readiness and modernization accounts.

Although many of the changes outlined in the report may take on added urgency given the tight fiscal environment, Commission Chairman Dennis McCarthy denied that the conclusions reached were only viable because of funding challenges.

"The things we've recommended, we think should be done even if there wasn't a fiscal requirement to do so," McCarthy said during a public event on the Hill.

Moving more force structure into the Guard and Reserve lines up with comments made by the secretary of the Air Force one day before the report was released.

"I'd like to make that point here again today that going forward, there is no doubt in my mind that our Air Force is going to rely more, not less, on our National Guard and reserve forces," Deborah Lee James said at a Jan. 29 event. "Not only does it make sense from a mission standpoint, it also makes sense from an economic standpoint."

Commissioners stopped short of proposing a merger between the Guard and Reserves, as had been discussed in previous public hearings. However, Commissioner Bud Wyatt said some of the conclusions reached in the final report drew on the ideas from that proposal, developed by five retired Air Force generals.

"We considered it. We just decided there was a value to the United States Air Force of having three components," Wyatt, the previous director of the Air National Guard, said during the public event. "We did take into consideration some of the elements, in the way the Air Force and Air National Guard does business, and that's reflected in a lot of the integrated air components."

The commission also seems to have solved the long-running disagreement about whether active or part-time force structure is cheaper, concluding that the capability delivered by Guard and Reserve forces is cheaper than that of active duty personnel. That had been a major question asked during public hearings, with various cost models being put forward all resulting in different answers. However, commissioners noted that more work is needed in this area.

It's too early to know what level of buy-in the report will have, either in the Pentagon or the Hill.

Although the commission has not yet briefed the secretary and chief of staff, the organization that supports the commission will remain active for 90 days in order to help facilitate conversations with department leaders and members of Congress.

At least one stakeholder group is happy. A statement sent out by the National Guard Association of the United States praised the "great contribution" of the commission. The statement applauds the commission "not just for their work, but for showing Congress and the Pentagon the value of an independent look at future force structure when the components are at an impasse," notable as the Army appears headed for a fight between the active and Guard components in the coming year.