The end of the Naval Air Reserves???

[John Larson]

It will be a sad day when the all these squadrons are gone. It was fun
while it lasted. John Larson LCDR(Ret) VP-90 1984-1994, NAS Glenview
IL.

from July 7 Navy Times

Issue Date: July 07, 2003

Proposed cuts to Reserve aviation face opposition

By Christopher Munsey
Times staff writer

The Naval Reserve Association and members of Congress oppose the
planned decommissioning of a Naval Air Reserve F/A-18 Hornet strike
fighter squadron in the next fiscal year - and worry about even deeper
future cuts to Reserve aviation.
The cuts, reportedly being considered as Navy officials plan the
service's budget over the next five fiscal years, are significant,
said retired Navy Capt. Ike Puzon, association spokesman.

According to planning information the association obtained from Navy
sources, the Naval Air Reserve would lose its maritime patrol,
helicopter and strike fighter squadrons, Puzon said.

Only the Naval Air Reserve fleet logistics squadrons, plus Electronic
Attack Squadron 209, Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 77 and
Fighter Squadrons Composite 12 and 13 would be spared.

The decommissioning schedule includes:

Fiscal 2004: VFA-203.

Fiscal 2005: Patrol Squadrons 64 and 92; VFA-201 and VFA-204; VAW-78;
Helicopter Antisubmarine Squadron 75; Helicopter Antisubmarine
Squadron Light 60; Helicopter Combat Support Squadron 85; and
Helicopter Combat Support Special Squadrons 4 and 5.

Fiscal 2006: VP-62 and VP-66.

Fiscal 2007: VP-65 and VP-69.

Fiscal 2008: VP-94.

Aside from quick savings, the planned cuts don't make sense, Puzon
said, given the nation's security needs.

As a reason for maintaining the current Reserve structure, Puzon cited
the deployments of VFA-201 and detachments from HCS 4 and HCS-5 for
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Mobilized in October, VFA-201 deployed with
Carrier Air Wing 8 aboard the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt; its
aircraft conducted bombing missions over Iraq.

Eight HH-60H Seahawk helicopters and 180 people from HCS-4 and HCS-5,
trained in combat search-and-rescue and naval special warfare
operations, deployed to the eastern Mediterranean Sea and Persian Gulf
this spring.

Those deployments show that the Reserve's aircraft and personnel are a
valuable "insurance policy" for the Navy, said retired Rear Adm. Steve
Keith, the association's executive director.

"You need it; you never know when you're going to use it," Keith said.

Asked to comment on possible future cuts, Naval Reserve officials
would only say that funding is provided for two of the Reserve's three
strike fighter squadrons in the coming fiscal year, as part of the
Navy and Marine Corps tactical aviation integration plan.

"No decision has been made of which squadron will be decommissioned in
FY 2004, and it is premature to speculate about decisions regarding
force alignment for FY '05 and FY '06," said Vice Adm. John Totushek,
director of the Naval Reserve, in a prepared statement.

Senators and representatives are concerned about the cuts.

In a letter sent June 20 to the chairmen of the Senate and House Armed
Services committees, Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., asked for support for
language requiring the secretary of the Navy to submit two reports 90
days before any reductions to Reserve assets occur. The reports would
clarify the Navy's aviation force structure plan for the next five
fiscal years and explain plans for better integrating the Reserve into
active-component operations.

[vzlion]

On 2 Jul 2003 18:12:34 -0700, (John Larson)
wrote:

>It will be a sad day when the all these squadrons are gone. It was fun
>while it lasted. John Larson LCDR(Ret) VP-90 1984-1994, NAS Glenview
>IL.
>

Big surprise. I thought Clinton was bad, Bush is even worse. He
already cut Veterans Benefits by millions of dollars while telling our
troops what a good job they are doing. Talk about 2-faced. At ther
rate he's going I won't be surprised
I've been a republican all my life, but I have to look at this
adminustration and ask "What has he done for the country?"

Walt
CPO, UNS, Ret.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Giz]

"vzlion" > wrote in message
...
> On 2 Jul 2003 18:12:34 -0700, (John Larson)
> wrote:
>
> >It will be a sad day when the all these squadrons are gone. It was fun
> >while it lasted. John Larson LCDR(Ret) VP-90 1984-1994, NAS Glenview
> >IL.
> >
>
> Big surprise. I thought Clinton was bad, Bush is even worse. He
> already cut Veterans Benefits by millions of dollars while telling our
> troops what a good job they are doing. Talk about 2-faced. At ther
> rate he's going I won't be surprised
> I've been a republican all my life, but I have to look at this
> adminustration and ask "What has he done for the country?"
>
> Walt
> CPO, UNS, Ret.

He can't fix 8 years of abuse overnight. The biggest reason for these
decoms
is to distribute their aircraft to the active duty squadrons. We are barely
holding
our own on the attrition/procurement battle. Getting these assets from the
reserves
will help keep the VP community alive until MMA is online (crossed fingers).
I'm
sure the other communities are in pretty dire straits as well. I hope that
many
of these squadrons will return when their active duty brethren have the
airframes
they need. What this should really drive home to all is the danger of using
the Pentagon to balance the Nation's budget. You may save in the near term,
but at what cost later?

Giz

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
"Giz" > wrote:

> "vzlion" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 2 Jul 2003 18:12:34 -0700, (John Larson)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >It will be a sad day when the all these squadrons are gone. It was fun
> > >while it lasted. John Larson LCDR(Ret) VP-90 1984-1994, NAS Glenview
> > >IL.
> > >
> >
> > Big surprise. I thought Clinton was bad, Bush is even worse. He
> > already cut Veterans Benefits by millions of dollars while telling our
> > troops what a good job they are doing. Talk about 2-faced. At ther
> > rate he's going I won't be surprised
> > I've been a republican all my life, but I have to look at this
> > adminustration and ask "What has he done for the country?"
> >
> > Walt
> > CPO, UNS, Ret.
>
> He can't fix 8 years of abuse overnight.


How does slashing veterans benefits come anything close to approaching a
fix for what you call "8 years of abuse"? Face it, Bush Jr., like his
pappy, doesn't give two ****s about vets. He talks the armchair "Rah rah
military" talk from the safety and comfort of somebody from a family
wealthy and connected enough to ensure never being sent in harms
way...but at the end of the day, he's like the rest of those do-nothing
privileged stooges at the top and given the choice of protecting his the
already obscene profits of his lackey friends and contributors or
funding programs to benefit those who served their country and even shed
blood for it...will always side with his cronies.

Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference...servicemen are just
their pawns....although Republicans are pretty good about lying to deny
that.



--Mike

[Giz]

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Giz" > wrote:
>
> > "vzlion" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 2 Jul 2003 18:12:34 -0700, (John Larson)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >It will be a sad day when the all these squadrons are gone. It was
fun
> > > >while it lasted. John Larson LCDR(Ret) VP-90 1984-1994, NAS Glenview
> > > >IL.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Big surprise. I thought Clinton was bad, Bush is even worse. He
> > > already cut Veterans Benefits by millions of dollars while telling our
> > > troops what a good job they are doing. Talk about 2-faced. At ther
> > > rate he's going I won't be surprised
> > > I've been a republican all my life, but I have to look at this
> > > adminustration and ask "What has he done for the country?"
> > >
> > > Walt
> > > CPO, UNS, Ret.
> >
> > He can't fix 8 years of abuse overnight.
>
>
> How does slashing veterans benefits come anything close to approaching a
> fix for what you call "8 years of abuse"? Face it, Bush Jr., like his
> pappy, doesn't give two ****s about vets. He talks the armchair "Rah rah
> military" talk from the safety and comfort of somebody from a family
> wealthy and connected enough to ensure never being sent in harms
> way...but at the end of the day, he's like the rest of those do-nothing
> privileged stooges at the top and given the choice of protecting his the
> already obscene profits of his lackey friends and contributors or
> funding programs to benefit those who served their country and even shed
> blood for it...will always side with his cronies.
>
> Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference...servicemen are just
> their pawns....although Republicans are pretty good about lying to deny
> that.
>
>
>
> --Mike

Whatever, believe it or not there are issues that we are more interested in
than
on base housing, larger pay raises, ect. I'd like parts to keep my bird in
the air
and FMC. The issues you speak of don't mean **** if we don't come back.
I'm
certainly not overpaid, but at the same time I'm not on foodstamps or know
any
who are. I know that they are out there, but they would be on foodstamps in
the civilian world as well. I hope better things for their future, but
first I want
the best equipment in the world to do my job. Would you want to show up
with the second best system? The Dems never talk about these issues, since
ultimately it means that some defense contractor (not my favorite people
either)
is going to make a profit. We should streamline our procurement system
some,
but what we shouldn't do is stop buying. Just the thoughts of a Naval
Aircrewman
in a platform facing some Clinton era budget issues.

Giz

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
"Giz" > wrote:


> > > > >It will be a sad day when the all these squadrons are gone. It was
> fun
> > > > >while it lasted. John Larson LCDR(Ret) VP-90 1984-1994, NAS Glenview
> > > > >IL.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Big surprise. I thought Clinton was bad, Bush is even worse. He
> > > > already cut Veterans Benefits by millions of dollars while telling our
> > > > troops what a good job they are doing. Talk about 2-faced. At ther
> > > > rate he's going I won't be surprised
> > > > I've been a republican all my life, but I have to look at this
> > > > adminustration and ask "What has he done for the country?"
> > > >
> > > > Walt
> > > > CPO, UNS, Ret.
> > >
> > > He can't fix 8 years of abuse overnight.
> >
> >
> > How does slashing veterans benefits come anything close to approaching a
> > fix for what you call "8 years of abuse"? Face it, Bush Jr., like his
> > pappy, doesn't give two ****s about vets. He talks the armchair "Rah rah
> > military" talk from the safety and comfort of somebody from a family
> > wealthy and connected enough to ensure never being sent in harms
> > way...but at the end of the day, he's like the rest of those do-nothing
> > privileged stooges at the top and given the choice of protecting his the
> > already obscene profits of his lackey friends and contributors or
> > funding programs to benefit those who served their country and even shed
> > blood for it...will always side with his cronies.
> >
> > Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference...servicemen are just
> > their pawns....although Republicans are pretty good about lying to deny
> > that.


>
> Whatever, believe it or not there are issues that we are more interested in
> than
> on base housing, larger pay raises, ect.


These are active duty issues; not veterans ones.


Veterans are more interested in keeping benfits or benefit eligibility
for something like a service-connected disability (maybe taking a bullet
or their country or permanent disability from any number of combatant or
peacetime functions).


> I'd like parts to keep my bird in
> the air
> and FMC. The issues you speak of don't mean **** if we don't come back.
> I'm
> certainly not overpaid, but at the same time I'm not on foodstamps or know
> any
> who are. I know that they are out there,


Great, but we're talking about veterans here. Do you undertand the
difference between active duty and veteran? Veterans have already done
there time. It is they who Bush Jr., like his pappy before him, are
slashing benefits for,



> the civilian world as well. I hope better things for their future, but
> first I want
> the best equipment in the world to do my job.
> Would you want to show up
> with the second best system? The Dems never talk about these issues, since
> ultimately it means that some defense contractor (not my favorite people
> either)
> is going to make a profit.

Yes, and while active duty (bless their souls) eke on by....the civilian
fat cat defense industry makes a killing so that their CEO friends of
our politicians can send their kids, who would never stoop to the level
of taking arms for their country, to the best private schools where they
can booze up womanize up, graduate, and get some position of power where
they can, in the future, send somebody else's lower middle class and
lower classs kids to do the fighting and dying. They'll say nice things
about these kids while they're doing it...but will turn around and slash
their benefits at the blink of an eye.



> We should streamline our procurement system
> some,
> but what we shouldn't do is stop buying. Just the thoughts of a Naval
> Aircrewman
> in a platform facing some Clinton era budget issues.


Well this former Naval Aircrewman is facing up to both Bush's budget
issues....like the increasing of Voc Rehab disabled vet entitlement from
10% to 20% for eligibility and much much more.



--Mike

[Bill Kambic]

"Michael Wise" wrote in message

> How does slashing veterans benefits come anything close to approaching a
> fix for what you call "8 years of abuse"? Face it, Bush Jr., like his
> pappy, doesn't give two ****s about vets.

The "gutting" of the Naval Reserve goes all the way back to the Carter
years. I don't recall him as a friend of vets, either.

On the other hand the idea that two years as a draftee entitles you to a
lifetime of benefits is a bit much, too. I know a BUNCH of people who exist
on military disabilities with VERY questionable bases.

I did my time (10 years Active, 14 Reserve), got paid for what I did
(mostly), and will get a check every month beginning in April of 2006.
Since I live in an area where the closest thing we have to a "military
installation" is an ANG Base I won't get to use a lot of the "benefits" to
which I am entitled. I blame neither Republican nor Democrat for that; my
choice of residence is my choice.

My wife also gets her check, after 5 Active and 19 Reserve.

He talks the armchair "Rah rah
> military" talk from the safety and comfort of somebody from a family
> wealthy and connected enough to ensure never being sent in harms
> way...but at the end of the day, he's like the rest of those do-nothing
> privileged stooges at the top and given the choice of protecting his the
> already obscene profits of his lackey friends and contributors or
> funding programs to benefit those who served their country and even shed
> blood for it...will always side with his cronies.

So, what else is new?!?!?!?!?! ;-)

> Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference...servicemen are just
> their pawns....although Republicans are pretty good about lying to deny
> that.

I guess you are going to vote Libertarian next time out. Right?

Soldiers (and the rest) have been pawns since the beginning of the reality
of the "rich man's war and the poor man's fight." And that goes almost back
to the time of Og and Mog.

More to the point, loss of an internal Reserve hardware capability is
unlikely to EVER return. The RESFORONS have always been "poor relations"
but made do with what they had and sometimes embarassed Active Duty types in
head to head competition. The Active Duty types have, in my personal
presence, often noted the vast "wastage" of funds on the Reserve hardware
units. (To be completely fair, a fair number have also "looked behind the
curtain" and seen the reasons why hardware units are a Very Good Thing.)

The likelyhood of facing the hords of the Red Army (or the late, unlamented
Soviet Navy) is very small. But there are still places where you can lose a
bunch of aircraft and people in a hurry and have to replace them the same
way (a "dust up" in North Korea comes to mind). The complexity of modern
aircraft means that the "WWII Approach" of 90 day wonder to Fleet Fighter
Pilot in a year (or so) is unlikely to EVER be seen again. This means that
you have to have a "well" of trained people to draw on in time of crisis.
The REFORON/SRU hardware units filled that need. When they "go away" so
will a cheap solution to an expensive problem.

Bill Kambic

Formerly of VS-73 (the SRU part whose numbers escape me) and VP-93 (ditto),
NAF Detroit, 1974-1978

[Giz]

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Giz" > wrote:
>
>
> > > > > >It will be a sad day when the all these squadrons are gone. It
was
> > fun
> > > > > >while it lasted. John Larson LCDR(Ret) VP-90 1984-1994, NAS
Glenview
> > > > > >IL.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Big surprise. I thought Clinton was bad, Bush is even worse. He
> > > > > already cut Veterans Benefits by millions of dollars while telling
our
> > > > > troops what a good job they are doing. Talk about 2-faced. At ther
> > > > > rate he's going I won't be surprised
> > > > > I've been a republican all my life, but I have to look at this
> > > > > adminustration and ask "What has he done for the country?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Walt
> > > > > CPO, UNS, Ret.
> > > >
> > > > He can't fix 8 years of abuse overnight.
> > >
> > >
> > > How does slashing veterans benefits come anything close to approaching
a
> > > fix for what you call "8 years of abuse"? Face it, Bush Jr., like his
> > > pappy, doesn't give two ****s about vets. He talks the armchair "Rah
rah
> > > military" talk from the safety and comfort of somebody from a family
> > > wealthy and connected enough to ensure never being sent in harms
> > > way...but at the end of the day, he's like the rest of those
do-nothing
> > > privileged stooges at the top and given the choice of protecting his
the
> > > already obscene profits of his lackey friends and contributors or
> > > funding programs to benefit those who served their country and even
shed
> > > blood for it...will always side with his cronies.
> > >
> > > Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference...servicemen are just
> > > their pawns....although Republicans are pretty good about lying to
deny
> > > that.
>
>
> >
> > Whatever, believe it or not there are issues that we are more
interested in
> > than
> > on base housing, larger pay raises, ect.
>
>
> These are active duty issues; not veterans ones.
>
>
> Veterans are more interested in keeping benfits or benefit eligibility
> for something like a service-connected disability (maybe taking a bullet
> or their country or permanent disability from any number of combatant or
> peacetime functions).
>
>
> > I'd like parts to keep my bird in
> > the air
> > and FMC. The issues you speak of don't mean **** if we don't come back.
> > I'm
> > certainly not overpaid, but at the same time I'm not on foodstamps or
know
> > any
> > who are. I know that they are out there,
>
>
> Great, but we're talking about veterans here. Do you undertand the
> difference between active duty and veteran? Veterans have already done
> there time. It is they who Bush Jr., like his pappy before him, are
> slashing benefits for,


You brought the veteran's issues into a thread that was discussing the
current and future state of Navy Air. Not exactly a "veteran's issue".
Thank you for your service and have a happy 4th, but if you can't
accept that this thread will follow along on the issues it is concerned
with, then find somewhere else to grind your axe or start a new thread.

Giz

[Giz]

"Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael Wise" wrote in message
>
> > How does slashing veterans benefits come anything close to approaching a
> > fix for what you call "8 years of abuse"? Face it, Bush Jr., like his
> > pappy, doesn't give two ****s about vets.
>
> The "gutting" of the Naval Reserve goes all the way back to the Carter
> years. I don't recall him as a friend of vets, either.
>
> On the other hand the idea that two years as a draftee entitles you to a
> lifetime of benefits is a bit much, too. I know a BUNCH of people who
exist
> on military disabilities with VERY questionable bases.
>
> I did my time (10 years Active, 14 Reserve), got paid for what I did
> (mostly), and will get a check every month beginning in April of 2006.
> Since I live in an area where the closest thing we have to a "military
> installation" is an ANG Base I won't get to use a lot of the "benefits" to
> which I am entitled. I blame neither Republican nor Democrat for that; my
> choice of residence is my choice.
>
> My wife also gets her check, after 5 Active and 19 Reserve.
>
> He talks the armchair "Rah rah
> > military" talk from the safety and comfort of somebody from a family
> > wealthy and connected enough to ensure never being sent in harms
> > way...but at the end of the day, he's like the rest of those do-nothing
> > privileged stooges at the top and given the choice of protecting his the
> > already obscene profits of his lackey friends and contributors or
> > funding programs to benefit those who served their country and even shed
> > blood for it...will always side with his cronies.
>
> So, what else is new?!?!?!?!?! ;-)
>
> > Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference...servicemen are just
> > their pawns....although Republicans are pretty good about lying to deny
> > that.
>
> I guess you are going to vote Libertarian next time out. Right?
>
> Soldiers (and the rest) have been pawns since the beginning of the reality
> of the "rich man's war and the poor man's fight." And that goes almost
back
> to the time of Og and Mog.
>
> More to the point, loss of an internal Reserve hardware capability is
> unlikely to EVER return. The RESFORONS have always been "poor relations"
> but made do with what they had and sometimes embarassed Active Duty types
in
> head to head competition. The Active Duty types have, in my personal
> presence, often noted the vast "wastage" of funds on the Reserve hardware
> units. (To be completely fair, a fair number have also "looked behind the
> curtain" and seen the reasons why hardware units are a Very Good Thing.)
>
> The likelyhood of facing the hords of the Red Army (or the late,
unlamented
> Soviet Navy) is very small. But there are still places where you can lose
a
> bunch of aircraft and people in a hurry and have to replace them the same
> way (a "dust up" in North Korea comes to mind). The complexity of modern
> aircraft means that the "WWII Approach" of 90 day wonder to Fleet Fighter
> Pilot in a year (or so) is unlikely to EVER be seen again. This means
that
> you have to have a "well" of trained people to draw on in time of crisis.
> The REFORON/SRU hardware units filled that need. When they "go away" so
> will a cheap solution to an expensive problem.
>
> Bill Kambic
>
> Formerly of VS-73 (the SRU part whose numbers escape me) and VP-93
(ditto),
> NAF Detroit, 1974-1978
>
Hey Bill, are you an A-dub? I'm one of the active duty types that has seen
behind
the curtain. I left active duty after my first 4 and joined the reserves
(SAU VP0545),
but came back to active duty after 4.5 there. I don't view the reserves as
wasteful,
but I do view them as somewhat of a luxury. We shouldn't have reserve
squadrons
instead of active squadrons. A choice that the VP community would be facing
in the
near future if we didn't make use of the aircraft in the reserve units. I
do believe that
the SAU concept will be making a return to the Naval Air Reserve, and
hopefully we
can reform some of the units when MMA is online.

Giz

[Michael Wise]

In article >,
"Giz" > wrote:


> > > > > > >It will be a sad day when the all these squadrons are gone. It
> was
> > > fun
> > > > > > >while it lasted. John Larson LCDR(Ret) VP-90 1984-1994, NAS
> Glenview
> > > > > > >IL.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Big surprise. I thought Clinton was bad, Bush is even worse. He
> > > > > > already cut Veterans Benefits by millions of dollars while telling
> our
> > > > > > troops what a good job they are doing. Talk about 2-faced. At ther
> > > > > > rate he's going I won't be surprised
> > > > > > I've been a republican all my life, but I have to look at this
> > > > > > adminustration and ask "What has he done for the country?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Walt
> > > > > > CPO, UNS, Ret.
> > > > >
> > > > > He can't fix 8 years of abuse overnight.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How does slashing veterans benefits come anything close to approaching
> a
> > > > fix for what you call "8 years of abuse"? Face it, Bush Jr., like his
> > > > pappy, doesn't give two ****s about vets. He talks the armchair "Rah
> rah
> > > > military" talk from the safety and comfort of somebody from a family
> > > > wealthy and connected enough to ensure never being sent in harms
> > > > way...but at the end of the day, he's like the rest of those
> do-nothing
> > > > privileged stooges at the top and given the choice of protecting his
> the
> > > > already obscene profits of his lackey friends and contributors or
> > > > funding programs to benefit those who served their country and even
> shed
> > > > blood for it...will always side with his cronies.
> > > >
> > > > Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference...servicemen are just
> > > > their pawns....although Republicans are pretty good about lying to
> deny
> > > > that.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Whatever, believe it or not there are issues that we are more
> interested in
> > > than
> > > on base housing, larger pay raises, ect.
> >
> >
> > These are active duty issues; not veterans ones.
> >
> >
> > Veterans are more interested in keeping benfits or benefit eligibility
> > for something like a service-connected disability (maybe taking a bullet
> > or their country or permanent disability from any number of combatant or
> > peacetime functions).
> >
> >
> > > I'd like parts to keep my bird in
> > > the air
> > > and FMC. The issues you speak of don't mean **** if we don't come back.
> > > I'm
> > > certainly not overpaid, but at the same time I'm not on foodstamps or
> know
> > > any
> > > who are. I know that they are out there,
> >
> >
> > Great, but we're talking about veterans here. Do you undertand the
> > difference between active duty and veteran? Veterans have already done
> > there time. It is they who Bush Jr., like his pappy before him, are
> > slashing benefits for,
>
>
> You brought the veteran's issues into a thread that was discussing the
> current and future state of Navy Air. Not exactly a "veteran's issue".
> Thank you for your service and have a happy 4th, but if you can't
> accept that this thread will follow along on the issues it is concerned
> with, then find somewhere else to grind your axe or start a new thread.


False, Walt brought veterans issues into the thread and I responded to
that. Thank you for your service as well, but if you're reading
comprehension skills are that off, perhaps you should avoid
participating in any thread.


--Mike

[Bill Kambic]

"Giz" wrote in message

<snipped for brevity>

> Hey Bill, are you an A-dub?

Ayup!<g>

I'm one of the active duty types that has seen
> behind
> the curtain. I left active duty after my first 4 and joined the reserves
> (SAU VP0545),
> but came back to active duty after 4.5 there. I don't view the reserves
as
> wasteful,
> but I do view them as somewhat of a luxury. We shouldn't have reserve
> squadrons
> instead of active squadrons.

Well, maybe so and maybe not. A lot depends on your definition of "luxury"
and and missions that need to be accomplished.

One of the hardest lessons of WWII was that the virtual elimination of ASW
assets in the RN and USN after WWI damn near caused a catastrophe. If the
Japanese had followed German practice with their subs it probably would
have. Again, the WWII analogy is not directly on point as no potential
adversary CURRENTLY possesses a significant subsurface threat. There are
lots of subs out there in the hands of possible "bad guys" but so far they
have not choosen to use them. If they do then long range maritime patrol
may not be of too much help and the S3 series might be sorely missed.

A choice that the VP community would be facing
> in the
> near future if we didn't make use of the aircraft in the reserve units. I
> do believe that
> the SAU concept will be making a return to the Naval Air Reserve, and
> hopefully we
> can reform some of the units when MMA is online.

I doubt that budget pressures in the future will be less than they are now.
The idea that we will buy enough MMA airframes to outfit non-existant
RESFORON/SAUs smacks of a GREAT DEAL of optomism!<g>

And that still does not address the other hardware units. If the air assets
go how long before the FFGs follow?

It seems to me that if the Reserve Forces are to survive being anything but
"knife and fork" units spending their time watching "Victory at Sea" reruns
then they had better look to their "hole card" and crack up some
Congressional support for at least maintenace of the status quo.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Eric Scheie]

Mr. Kambic makes some good points below, and the first paragraph of his I
left below is very true. The Navy has never quite seemed to been able to
integrate its reserve forces in the manner that the USAF has, even with the
drawdown after Desert Storm, when the reserves became a greater percentage
of the total force. The last USNR squadron I was in had spent the last few
years conducting 6 month deployments aboard ship. Unheard of not long
before.

What are some advantages of a robust reserve force? A typical RESFORON is
manned by aviators with an average of ten or more years of experience. These
aviators come at a cost of about 1/3 of their active duty counterparts. They
leave active duty for a variety of reasons, but allowing them to continue to
serve in a reserve capacity enables the Navy to retain experienced people at
a low cost. People who can be mobilized in time of national crisis. It's a
face card in the back pocket of the leadership.

I think someone made a statement that getting rid of some of the RESFORONS
will free up airframes for active duty squadrons.To me, that reasoning
sounds like a poor Band-Aid for an airframe availability problem. The
airframes the reserves get are usually the beaters and cast-offs from the
active duty. (It took a good deal of scraping to find FOUR airframes to
stand up HSL-60, all of which were put through rework before being sent to
the squadron.) Decimating reserve squadrons is not going to solve the woes
of the active duty side of nav air. As Mr. Kambic alluded to in his second
paragraph below, it may, in fact, lead to other problems in the future. If
getting rid of RESFORONS, hardware, and people, is seen as a solution to
budget problems, I think there may some more serious, underlying issues at
work.

Is there waste in the Naval Reserve? A certain amount exists on both sides
of the fence, and it becomes a matter of where you want to shine the
spotlight, your point of view, and your ability to spin.

One plan I have heard suggested is that reserve aircrews become part of
"augment units" that support active duty squadrons. This raised a few
questions, and I don't recall if they were really answered. How are the
reserve aircrews funded? Who will manage their continued training and
operating within the active duty squadrons? Could such a plan work? I think
so, but only if the active duty squadrons see the reserves as a benefit to
them.

Of course, as with any plan, the one that started this whole thread could
change by next week. In the end we shall see what we shall see.

Just my 2 cents.

Eric Scheie


"Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
...
>
> More to the point, loss of an internal Reserve hardware capability is
> unlikely to EVER return. The RESFORONS have always been "poor relations"
> but made do with what they had and sometimes embarassed Active Duty types
in
> head to head competition. The Active Duty types have, in my personal
> presence, often noted the vast "wastage" of funds on the Reserve hardware
> units. (To be completely fair, a fair number have also "looked behind the
> curtain" and seen the reasons why hardware units are a Very Good Thing.)
>
> The likelyhood of facing the hords of the Red Army (or the late,
unlamented
> Soviet Navy) is very small. But there are still places where you can lose
a
> bunch of aircraft and people in a hurry and have to replace them the same
> way (a "dust up" in North Korea comes to mind). The complexity of modern
> aircraft means that the "WWII Approach" of 90 day wonder to Fleet Fighter
> Pilot in a year (or so) is unlikely to EVER be seen again. This means
that
> you have to have a "well" of trained people to draw on in time of crisis.
> The REFORON/SRU hardware units filled that need. When they "go away" so
> will a cheap solution to an expensive problem.
>
> Bill Kambic
>
> Formerly of VS-73 (the SRU part whose numbers escape me) and VP-93
(ditto),
> NAF Detroit, 1974-1978
>
>

[Giz]

"Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
...
> "Giz" wrote in message
>
> <snipped for brevity>
>
> > Hey Bill, are you an A-dub?
>
> Ayup!<g>
>
> I'm one of the active duty types that has seen
> > behind
> > the curtain. I left active duty after my first 4 and joined the
reserves
> > (SAU VP0545),
> > but came back to active duty after 4.5 there. I don't view the reserves
> as
> > wasteful,
> > but I do view them as somewhat of a luxury. We shouldn't have reserve
> > squadrons
> > instead of active squadrons.
>
> Well, maybe so and maybe not. A lot depends on your definition of
"luxury"
> and and missions that need to be accomplished.

Substantial numbers of birds will be parked this summer. By luxury I mean
we
are facing a this or that choice. The day when we could have both has
passed
us by. To keep all the Reserve Squadrons would cost us Active Squadrons.
While I believe in the value of the Reserves, I don't think that would be a
wise
choice. Bottom line, we can't have both.
>
> One of the hardest lessons of WWII was that the virtual elimination of ASW
> assets in the RN and USN after WWI damn near caused a catastrophe. If the
> Japanese had followed German practice with their subs it probably would
> have. Again, the WWII analogy is not directly on point as no potential
> adversary CURRENTLY possesses a significant subsurface threat. There are
> lots of subs out there in the hands of possible "bad guys" but so far they
> have not choosen to use them. If they do then long range maritime patrol
> may not be of too much help and the S3 series might be sorely missed.
>
> A choice that the VP community would be facing
> > in the
> > near future if we didn't make use of the aircraft in the reserve units.
I
> > do believe that
> > the SAU concept will be making a return to the Naval Air Reserve, and
> > hopefully we
> > can reform some of the units when MMA is online.
>
> I doubt that budget pressures in the future will be less than they are
now.
> The idea that we will buy enough MMA airframes to outfit non-existant
> RESFORON/SAUs smacks of a GREAT DEAL of optomism!<g>

I doubt that too, but a shuffle of P-3 airframes that are left may
reconstitute
several Reserve Squadrons.
>
> And that still does not address the other hardware units. If the air
assets
> go how long before the FFGs follow?
>
> It seems to me that if the Reserve Forces are to survive being anything
but
> "knife and fork" units spending their time watching "Victory at Sea"
reruns
> then they had better look to their "hole card" and crack up some
> Congressional support for at least maintenace of the status quo.

Hopefully, the SAU concept will keep that from happening.
>
> Bill Kambic

Giz

AW1(NAC/AW)
CPW-11, CV-59, VP-0545, CV-66, VP-45, VP-30 WTU

[Giz]

"Michael Wise" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Giz" > wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > >It will be a sad day when the all these squadrons are gone.
It
> > was
> > > > fun
> > > > > > > >while it lasted. John Larson LCDR(Ret) VP-90 1984-1994, NAS
> > Glenview
> > > > > > > >IL.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Big surprise. I thought Clinton was bad, Bush is even worse.
He
> > > > > > > already cut Veterans Benefits by millions of dollars while
telling
> > our
> > > > > > > troops what a good job they are doing. Talk about 2-faced. At
ther
> > > > > > > rate he's going I won't be surprised
> > > > > > > I've been a republican all my life, but I have to look at this
> > > > > > > adminustration and ask "What has he done for the country?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Walt
> > > > > > > CPO, UNS, Ret.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He can't fix 8 years of abuse overnight.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > How does slashing veterans benefits come anything close to
approaching
> > a
> > > > > fix for what you call "8 years of abuse"? Face it, Bush Jr., like
his
> > > > > pappy, doesn't give two ****s about vets. He talks the armchair
"Rah
> > rah
> > > > > military" talk from the safety and comfort of somebody from a
family
> > > > > wealthy and connected enough to ensure never being sent in harms
> > > > > way...but at the end of the day, he's like the rest of those
> > do-nothing
> > > > > privileged stooges at the top and given the choice of protecting
his
> > the
> > > > > already obscene profits of his lackey friends and contributors or
> > > > > funding programs to benefit those who served their country and
even
> > shed
> > > > > blood for it...will always side with his cronies.
> > > > >
> > > > > Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference...servicemen are
just
> > > > > their pawns....although Republicans are pretty good about lying to
> > deny
> > > > > that.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Whatever, believe it or not there are issues that we are more
> > interested in
> > > > than
> > > > on base housing, larger pay raises, ect.
> > >
> > >
> > > These are active duty issues; not veterans ones.
> > >
> > >
> > > Veterans are more interested in keeping benfits or benefit eligibility
> > > for something like a service-connected disability (maybe taking a
bullet
> > > or their country or permanent disability from any number of combatant
or
> > > peacetime functions).
> > >
> > >
> > > > I'd like parts to keep my bird in
> > > > the air
> > > > and FMC. The issues you speak of don't mean **** if we don't come
back.
> > > > I'm
> > > > certainly not overpaid, but at the same time I'm not on foodstamps
or
> > know
> > > > any
> > > > who are. I know that they are out there,
> > >
> > >
> > > Great, but we're talking about veterans here. Do you undertand the
> > > difference between active duty and veteran? Veterans have already done
> > > there time. It is they who Bush Jr., like his pappy before him, are
> > > slashing benefits for,
> >
> >
> > You brought the veteran's issues into a thread that was discussing the
> > current and future state of Navy Air. Not exactly a "veteran's issue".
> > Thank you for your service and have a happy 4th, but if you can't
> > accept that this thread will follow along on the issues it is concerned
> > with, then find somewhere else to grind your axe or start a new thread.
>
>
> False, Walt brought veterans issues into the thread and I responded to
> that. Thank you for your service as well, but if you're reading
> comprehension skills are that off, perhaps you should avoid
> participating in any thread.
>
>
> --Mike

No Mike, I responded to Walt. Your first post on this thread was a response
to that post of mine. You have noted that Walt hasn't kept the veteran's
issues
a part of this thread? Once again, this thread is about the current state
of
Naval Air. Hardly a veteran's issue, although it may be (and should be) a
concern of veterans. As far as not participating in any thread, with the
exception of responding to your trolls I have remained on topic. The issue
is money, and we don't have enough to fix everything at once. A little
patience
and flexibility will be needed. Semper Gumby.

Giz

[Giz]

"Eric Scheie" > wrote in message
. net...
> Mr. Kambic makes some good points below, and the first paragraph of his I
> left below is very true. The Navy has never quite seemed to been able to
> integrate its reserve forces in the manner that the USAF has, even with
the
> drawdown after Desert Storm, when the reserves became a greater percentage
> of the total force. The last USNR squadron I was in had spent the last few
> years conducting 6 month deployments aboard ship. Unheard of not long
> before.
>
> What are some advantages of a robust reserve force? A typical RESFORON is
> manned by aviators with an average of ten or more years of experience.
These
> aviators come at a cost of about 1/3 of their active duty counterparts.
They
> leave active duty for a variety of reasons, but allowing them to continue
to
> serve in a reserve capacity enables the Navy to retain experienced people
at
> a low cost. People who can be mobilized in time of national crisis. It's a
> face card in the back pocket of the leadership.
>
I doubt any here question their value. I don't.

> I think someone made a statement that getting rid of some of the RESFORONS
> will free up airframes for active duty squadrons.To me, that reasoning
> sounds like a poor Band-Aid for an airframe availability problem. The
> airframes the reserves get are usually the beaters and cast-offs from the
> active duty. (It took a good deal of scraping to find FOUR airframes to
> stand up HSL-60, all of which were put through rework before being sent to
> the squadron.) Decimating reserve squadrons is not going to solve the woes
> of the active duty side of nav air. As Mr. Kambic alluded to in his second
> paragraph below, it may, in fact, lead to other problems in the future. If
> getting rid of RESFORONS, hardware, and people, is seen as a solution to
> budget problems, I think there may some more serious, underlying issues at
> work.
>
At one time this was true. Currently, many of the Reserve's airframes have
less
hours on them. Will getting these airframes fix the problem? No, but it
may
keep us alive until the fix (new airframes) reaches us. The fact is that in
the
next few years squadrons will be decommissioned. What we're discussing
is who should lose those squadrons. Navair or Navairres.

> Is there waste in the Naval Reserve? A certain amount exists on both sides
> of the fence, and it becomes a matter of where you want to shine the
> spotlight, your point of view, and your ability to spin.
>
> One plan I have heard suggested is that reserve aircrews become part of
> "augment units" that support active duty squadrons. This raised a few
> questions, and I don't recall if they were really answered. How are the
> reserve aircrews funded? Who will manage their continued training and
> operating within the active duty squadrons? Could such a plan work? I
think
> so, but only if the active duty squadrons see the reserves as a benefit to
> them.

It worked in the 80's. I spent 4.5 years as a Selres in an SAU, VP-0545.
I enjoyed acdutras with VP-45 in both Rota and Bermuda and got some
quality onsta time. We seem to have forgotten the value of the SAU's.

Giz

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 7/4/03 3:52 PM, in article ,
"Giz" > wrote:

>
>
>> Is there waste in the Naval Reserve? A certain amount exists on both sides
>> of the fence, and it becomes a matter of where you want to shine the
>> spotlight, your point of view, and your ability to spin.
>>
>> One plan I have heard suggested is that reserve aircrews become part of
>> "augment units" that support active duty squadrons. This raised a few
>> questions, and I don't recall if they were really answered. How are the
>> reserve aircrews funded? Who will manage their continued training and
>> operating within the active duty squadrons? Could such a plan work? I
> think
>> so, but only if the active duty squadrons see the reserves as a benefit to
>> them.
>
> It worked in the 80's. I spent 4.5 years as a Selres in an SAU, VP-0545.
> I enjoyed acdutras with VP-45 in both Rota and Bermuda and got some
> quality onsta time. We seem to have forgotten the value of the SAU's.
>
> Giz
>

SAU is a program that works in FRS's and deployed VP units but not in
reserve VF's or VFA's.

A single-seat pilot especially would have some major trouble working up for,
traveling to, and flying his ACDUTRA in a deployed CVW for two weeks for a
variety of reasons.

Likewise, the VFA's are not having the airframe problems that the VP's are
having.

What I'm saying is keep the reserve VFA status quo. Consider SAU-ing
reserves into the active duty VP's.

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

Well done. Very well written post.

The loss of Naval Air Reserve hardware units would be a tragedy. It is a
short-sighted move initiated not by the politicians (like GWB as has been
suggested) but by the active duty Flag Officers.

Unfortunately, the casualty will be the cost-effective "insurance policy"
and professional adversary elements of Naval Aviation. Don't think for a
moment that the VFC's can handle all of the commitments. VFC's cover
SFARP's, but the FRS's have relied heavily on the reserve VFA's to be their
bogies.

By the way, this is no surprise to those of us in the reserves. Ever since
the separate appropriation line for the Naval Reserves was melded into the
active duty's line, this has only been a matter of time. For the last two
years, they've been trying to write VFA-203 out of the budget and in the
short term, this year, it looks as if they've succeeded.

The only thing that will keep USNR air alive will be heavy congressional
involvement.

--Woody

On 7/4/03 3:07 PM, in article
, "Eric Scheie"
> wrote:

> Mr. Kambic makes some good points below, and the first paragraph of his I
> left below is very true. The Navy has never quite seemed to been able to
> integrate its reserve forces in the manner that the USAF has, even with the
> drawdown after Desert Storm, when the reserves became a greater percentage
> of the total force. The last USNR squadron I was in had spent the last few
> years conducting 6 month deployments aboard ship. Unheard of not long
> before.
>
> What are some advantages of a robust reserve force? A typical RESFORON is
> manned by aviators with an average of ten or more years of experience. These
> aviators come at a cost of about 1/3 of their active duty counterparts. They
> leave active duty for a variety of reasons, but allowing them to continue to
> serve in a reserve capacity enables the Navy to retain experienced people at
> a low cost. People who can be mobilized in time of national crisis. It's a
> face card in the back pocket of the leadership.
>
> I think someone made a statement that getting rid of some of the RESFORONS
> will free up airframes for active duty squadrons.To me, that reasoning
> sounds like a poor Band-Aid for an airframe availability problem. The
> airframes the reserves get are usually the beaters and cast-offs from the
> active duty. (It took a good deal of scraping to find FOUR airframes to
> stand up HSL-60, all of which were put through rework before being sent to
> the squadron.) Decimating reserve squadrons is not going to solve the woes
> of the active duty side of nav air. As Mr. Kambic alluded to in his second
> paragraph below, it may, in fact, lead to other problems in the future. If
> getting rid of RESFORONS, hardware, and people, is seen as a solution to
> budget problems, I think there may some more serious, underlying issues at
> work.
>
> Is there waste in the Naval Reserve? A certain amount exists on both sides
> of the fence, and it becomes a matter of where you want to shine the
> spotlight, your point of view, and your ability to spin.
>
> One plan I have heard suggested is that reserve aircrews become part of
> "augment units" that support active duty squadrons. This raised a few
> questions, and I don't recall if they were really answered. How are the
> reserve aircrews funded? Who will manage their continued training and
> operating within the active duty squadrons? Could such a plan work? I think
> so, but only if the active duty squadrons see the reserves as a benefit to
> them.
>
> Of course, as with any plan, the one that started this whole thread could
> change by next week. In the end we shall see what we shall see.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Eric Scheie
>
>
> "Bill Kambic" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> More to the point, loss of an internal Reserve hardware capability is
>> unlikely to EVER return. The RESFORONS have always been "poor relations"
>> but made do with what they had and sometimes embarassed Active Duty types
> in
>> head to head competition. The Active Duty types have, in my personal
>> presence, often noted the vast "wastage" of funds on the Reserve hardware
>> units. (To be completely fair, a fair number have also "looked behind the
>> curtain" and seen the reasons why hardware units are a Very Good Thing.)
>>
>> The likelyhood of facing the hords of the Red Army (or the late,
> unlamented
>> Soviet Navy) is very small. But there are still places where you can lose
> a
>> bunch of aircraft and people in a hurry and have to replace them the same
>> way (a "dust up" in North Korea comes to mind). The complexity of modern
>> aircraft means that the "WWII Approach" of 90 day wonder to Fleet Fighter
>> Pilot in a year (or so) is unlikely to EVER be seen again. This means
> that
>> you have to have a "well" of trained people to draw on in time of crisis.
>> The REFORON/SRU hardware units filled that need. When they "go away" so
>> will a cheap solution to an expensive problem.
>>
>> Bill Kambic
>>
>> Formerly of VS-73 (the SRU part whose numbers escape me) and VP-93
> (ditto),
>> NAF Detroit, 1974-1978
>>
>>
>
>

[Giz]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/4/03 3:52 PM, in article ,
> "Giz" > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> Is there waste in the Naval Reserve? A certain amount exists on both
sides
> >> of the fence, and it becomes a matter of where you want to shine the
> >> spotlight, your point of view, and your ability to spin.
> >>
> >> One plan I have heard suggested is that reserve aircrews become part of
> >> "augment units" that support active duty squadrons. This raised a few
> >> questions, and I don't recall if they were really answered. How are the
> >> reserve aircrews funded? Who will manage their continued training and
> >> operating within the active duty squadrons? Could such a plan work? I
> > think
> >> so, but only if the active duty squadrons see the reserves as a benefit
to
> >> them.
> >
> > It worked in the 80's. I spent 4.5 years as a Selres in an SAU,
VP-0545.
> > I enjoyed acdutras with VP-45 in both Rota and Bermuda and got some
> > quality onsta time. We seem to have forgotten the value of the SAU's.
> >
> > Giz
> >
>
> SAU is a program that works in FRS's and deployed VP units but not in
> reserve VF's or VFA's.
>
> A single-seat pilot especially would have some major trouble working up
for,
> traveling to, and flying his ACDUTRA in a deployed CVW for two weeks for a
> variety of reasons.

It would be difficult. There are FRS's for the VF/VFA communities. That
may
be one answer. It would definitely be far from ideal.
>
> Likewise, the VFA's are not having the airframe problems that the VP's are
> having.

No? The airframe transfer shellgame between deploying squadrons and those
just returning has ended? No sarcasm there. If that has ended, then the
VFA's
are doing well, but the last I heard was that returning squadrons were being
picked
apart to bring the deployers up to full strength.
>
> What I'm saying is keep the reserve VFA status quo. Consider SAU-ing
> reserves into the active duty VP's.

I agree that we should SAU all communities that need it. If that allows VFA
and/or
VF to remain as Reserve Squadrons great, but we do need to end the cycle of
aircraft transfers.

Giz


>

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 7/4/03 8:43 PM, in article ,
"Giz" > wrote:

>
> No? The airframe transfer shellgame between deploying squadrons and those
> just returning has ended? No sarcasm there. If that has ended, then the
> VFA's
> are doing well, but the last I heard was that returning squadrons were being
> picked
> apart to bring the deployers up to full strength.
> I agree that we should SAU all communities that need it. If that allows VFA
> and/or
> VF to remain as Reserve Squadrons great, but we do need to end the cycle of
> aircraft transfers.
>
> Giz
>

From an idealist's standpoint, I agree with you... but after 17 years of
experience in Naval Air, I've observed that post-deployment airframe
transfers are the norm. More commonly, a squadron would put their jets into
preservation for 1-2 months after coming back from deployment and lose parts
support. In Hornet squadrons (because each squadron typically flies only 1
or 2 lots of jets (e.g. mine flies 8's and 9's) preservation is more common
than transfers. What I'm saying is that in the TACAIR communities,
airframe transfers are not necessarily a gauge of health because Naval Air
has been unhealthy from a parts and airframes standpoint ever since I was an
Ensign.

A better indicator might be the number of airplanes air wings deploy with.
On my first cruise, an air wing had 90 aircraft. My most recent cruise:
70. That's all funding-driven. Sure we still have 46-50 bomb-droppers, but
we could have more (i.e. an even better tooth-to-tail) if the budget would
allow it. The leadership has allowed (even promoted) the decrease to keep
aircraft carrier decks filled and because it looks more efficient. So we're
agreed that Naval Aviation could be healthier--just not what the indicators
of health are.

What's the cure? Certainly not shutting down the reserve hardware units.
The defense budget has been decreasing as a percentage of the total federal
budget for a long time and there's no reason to suspect that it won't
continue to decrease. Even if the money from the reserves is absorbed into
the active duty coffers, it will only serve as a band aid fix. And without
extra capability to fund, congress will continue to shave off dollars in the
years ahead because they will have no reason not to.

The net result will be
(a) "Termination" of the Navy's "insurance policy" (such as VFA-201 provided
for CVW-8 this year) and
(b) Loss of 60% of the Navy's adversary players (all reserve squadrons right
now).

Because of the lack of adversary units, (and the fact that in the last 3
"wars" that there was no credible air-to-air threat) the case will be made
that air-to-air training syllabi can be decreased and/or civilian units
flying CAT III aircraft will be brought in to augment the VFC's. This "cart
before the horse" mentality will certainly work in the short term, but will
leave Naval aviators ill-prepared for conflicts involving better equipped
and more serious forces.

Sounds a lot like "the sky is falling." It's not, but it's getting a whole
lot darker.

--Woody

[Giz]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/4/03 8:43 PM, in article ,
> "Giz" > wrote:
>
> >
> > No? The airframe transfer shellgame between deploying squadrons and
those
> > just returning has ended? No sarcasm there. If that has ended, then
the
> > VFA's
> > are doing well, but the last I heard was that returning squadrons were
being
> > picked
> > apart to bring the deployers up to full strength.
> > I agree that we should SAU all communities that need it. If that allows
VFA
> > and/or
> > VF to remain as Reserve Squadrons great, but we do need to end the cycle
of
> > aircraft transfers.
> >
> > Giz
> >
>
> From an idealist's standpoint, I agree with you... but after 17 years of
> experience in Naval Air, I've observed that post-deployment airframe
> transfers are the norm. More commonly, a squadron would put their jets
into
> preservation for 1-2 months after coming back from deployment and lose
parts
> support. In Hornet squadrons (because each squadron typically flies only
1
> or 2 lots of jets (e.g. mine flies 8's and 9's) preservation is more
common
> than transfers. What I'm saying is that in the TACAIR communities,
> airframe transfers are not necessarily a gauge of health because Naval Air
> has been unhealthy from a parts and airframes standpoint ever since I was
an
> Ensign.

It may not mean as much as it did in my community. At one time each
squadron
"pretty much" owned their planes. Transfers were infrequent. The upkeep
these
planes got was great. As we lost airframes to hours or mods the transfer
game
began. Rarely did you get another squadron's gem. A lot of maint hours
went
into bringing those planes up to a true FMC status. They were transferred
up,
but you know, kind of up. As I look back, that time was the first signal
that we
were headed for trouble. That I believe is the cause of my prejudice
against a
policy of transfers. There's nothing like ownership to encourage upkeep.
That's
more of a motivator than any CO could come up with. I know that this thread
is about the possibility of losing that ownership in Navairres. I guess
each side
will be arguing that they should be the "haves" and not the "have nots". I
hope
the right choice is made, and I'm glad I don't have to make it.

Giz
>
> A better indicator might be the number of airplanes air wings deploy with.
> On my first cruise, an air wing had 90 aircraft. My most recent cruise:
> 70. That's all funding-driven. Sure we still have 46-50 bomb-droppers,
but
> we could have more (i.e. an even better tooth-to-tail) if the budget would
> allow it. The leadership has allowed (even promoted) the decrease to keep
> aircraft carrier decks filled and because it looks more efficient. So
we're
> agreed that Naval Aviation could be healthier--just not what the
indicators
> of health are.
>
> What's the cure? Certainly not shutting down the reserve hardware units.
> The defense budget has been decreasing as a percentage of the total
federal
> budget for a long time and there's no reason to suspect that it won't
> continue to decrease. Even if the money from the reserves is absorbed
into
> the active duty coffers, it will only serve as a band aid fix. And
without
> extra capability to fund, congress will continue to shave off dollars in
the
> years ahead because they will have no reason not to.
>
> The net result will be
> (a) "Termination" of the Navy's "insurance policy" (such as VFA-201
provided
> for CVW-8 this year) and
> (b) Loss of 60% of the Navy's adversary players (all reserve squadrons
right
> now).
>
> Because of the lack of adversary units, (and the fact that in the last 3
> "wars" that there was no credible air-to-air threat) the case will be made
> that air-to-air training syllabi can be decreased and/or civilian units
> flying CAT III aircraft will be brought in to augment the VFC's. This "ca
rt
> before the horse" mentality will certainly work in the short term, but
will
> leave Naval aviators ill-prepared for conflicts involving better equipped
> and more serious forces.
>
> Sounds a lot like "the sky is falling." It's not, but it's getting a
whole
> lot darker.
>
> --Woody
>

[José Herculano]

> Because of the lack of adversary units, (and the fact that in the last 3
> "wars" that there was no credible air-to-air threat) the case will be made
> that air-to-air training syllabi can be decreased and/or civilian units
> flying CAT III aircraft will be brought in to augment the VFC's. This
"cart
> before the horse" mentality will certainly work in the short term, but
will
> leave Naval aviators ill-prepared for conflicts involving better equipped
> and more serious forces.

From my amateur perspective, I'd say you nailed it elegantly and eloquently.
Some guys at the top seem to be suffering from the delusion that these
latest wars were high-intensity conflicts. Certainly, as you know infinitely
better than I do, there were a huge number of sorties and flight hours, but
I fear that the next one might be quite different.

I'd say high-intensity would be when you have a foe really trying to get his
fangs in your throat, when the planning and scenarios last about half an
hour before you get into crisis management (and stay there till the very
end), and you start getting some punches back. And it does not even need to
be more than what geopolitically amounts to a skirmish.

Lets say that something starts some serious exchange of fire in the Taiwan
straits. The CV battle group that's never far from there may be caught in
that for a few days while some serious worldwide diplomacy unravels it. And
the state and score of the disengaging CV will have monumental political
repercussions both in there and back at home.

For me, professional, in-house adversary work always meant you will fight
the way you train, and if you train really seriously, you'll be prepared.
Otherwise you'll have to get over the learning curve amidst the bullets and
the rockets, which a) takes time and b) is bloody. And you may very well not
have the a), and b) might be more than we can manage in the practical world.
Can the USN take a couple of Silkworms on a couple of CVs, and have them
limp home with some serious CVW losses and still be in a situation where it
is able to function? And I'm talking about the homefront in here, not about
the courage and dedication of the service members.

To have people train with "amateurs" for Gulf War III, makes me very
uneasy...
_____________
José Herculano

[Eric Scheie]

Excellent point about ownership, and a good lesson in leadership.


"Giz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> It may not mean as much as it did in my community. At one time each
> squadron
> "pretty much" owned their planes. Transfers were infrequent. The upkeep
> these
> planes got was great. As we lost airframes to hours or mods the transfer
> game
> began. Rarely did you get another squadron's gem. A lot of maint hours
> went
> into bringing those planes up to a true FMC status. They were transferred
> up,
> but you know, kind of up. As I look back, that time was the first signal
> that we
> were headed for trouble. That I believe is the cause of my prejudice
> against a
> policy of transfers. There's nothing like ownership to encourage upkeep.
> That's
> more of a motivator than any CO could come up with. . > >

[Eric Scheie]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> >
>
> A better indicator might be the number of airplanes air wings deploy with.
> On my first cruise, an air wing had 90 aircraft. My most recent cruise:
> 70. That's all funding-driven. Sure we still have 46-50 bomb-droppers,
but
> we could have more (i.e. an even better tooth-to-tail) if the budget would
> allow it. The leadership has allowed (even promoted) the decrease to keep
> aircraft carrier decks filled and because it looks more efficient.

To key on the last sentence here - I wonder if the cuts that have been
proposed are an effort to create a perceived decrease in cost and increase
in efficiency. Even flag officers have people above them they have to answer
to. Unfortunately, short term challenges may be met with short term
solutions which may create long term problems.


[snipped bits here]

>
> The net result will be
> (a) "Termination" of the Navy's "insurance policy" (such as VFA-201
provided
> for CVW-8 this year) and
> (b) Loss of 60% of the Navy's adversary players (all reserve squadrons
right
> now).
>
> Because of the lack of adversary units, (and the fact that in the last 3
> "wars" that there was no credible air-to-air threat) the case will be made
> that air-to-air training syllabi can be decreased and/or civilian units
> flying CAT III aircraft will be brought in to augment the VFC's. This
"cart
> before the horse" mentality will certainly work in the short term, but
will
> leave Naval aviators ill-prepared for conflicts involving better equipped
> and more serious forces.
>

I recall hearing about a company in Florida that advertised adversary
services ( http://www.aerogroupinc.com/welcome.html ). Good, bad, or ugly, I
can't say. Could such a company step in and effectively fill the need for
adversary training? Perhaps. Might this be what the leadership is looking at
when they consider disestablishing reserve squadrons currently filling that
role? Would this create a perception of budget savings - would it "look more
efficient"? The question of whether a private company can fill this roll is
interesting. Contractors may have a somewhat checkered reputation, though
such a contractor would have to hire the same kind of people who would have
manned a reserve squadron.

Issues this raises are -

1. The loss of corporate knowledge for the strike community.
2. Can a civilian company hire and retain quality people and ensure the
training provided will meet the needs of the fleet?

Regarding the strike community, I think the loss of "corporate knowledge"
and effective training is a serious issue. While diminishing this capability
may save a few dollars in the short term, my feeling is that the bill will
come due in the long term. This bill will likely be paid in blood.

In the face of proposed cuts, this thread has identified a number of
problems. I'll venture some ideas for some solutions: (when the term
"reserve" is used, assume it includes the guard as well, when applicable.)

1. War fighters (NOT exclusively strike). Keep the reserves alive. Retain
good people and hard earned corporate knowledge in a robust environment
where it can be applied and the people in the fleet can reap the benefits of
training from experienced, motivated peers.

2. Logistics can be contracted to civilian companies. "Ash and trash" is not
a war-fighting specialty, and there are plenty of companies in business
right now that can provide aerial logistics capability. This would eliminate
the need for NAVAIRES C-9 and C-130 squadrons. How much money would be saved
if the replacement of C-9s with 737s was scrapped? Reserve C-12s and the
Gulfstream squadron in DC could be disestablished and their roles be
outsourced as well.

3. VP, HS, HSL. There are missions close to home, homeland security being a
new priority, that these communities can support, especially now with many
of our active (and reserve!!) forces deployed. A revised mission statement,
along with revised funding priorities would make these units invaluable
assets for homeland and western hemisphere tasking - an ideal role for
reserve assets. If HS and HSL still have to be eliminated, send the budget
savings to the Coast Guard.

The revised mission statement: decreased emphasis on ASW and an increased
emphasis on patrol, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

4. Create (and support!!) reserve units of experienced reserve personnel who
can be utilized in the training and operational augmentation of active
units.

5. All service branches get together to determine how their respective
reserve resources can be best coordinated and utilized to create a more
comprehensive and effective supporting force structure.

My 2 cents.....OK, maybe more than 2 cents, how about 2 bits?

Eric Scheie