ARI

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

Anybody on this NG have an opinion on the Navy's new ARI (Active Reserve
Integration) program? Just curious to know what the armchair quarterbacks
think.

--Woody

[Jim Calpin]

My spin is that, like a lot of good ideas, the execution of this program
is what's going to matter. I haven't seen a lot of the nitty-gritty
yet, but it seems reasonable. Zero-based reviews of reserve support are
a good idea, but if anyone in the reviewer's position has an axe to
grind (or wants to lay hands on reserve $$ or hardware), then this will
be a great opportunity to lay waste to the RC. Is there fat in the
reserve component? You bet. Is there "muscle" that makes sense to keep
in the reserves? Yep. Is there a need for restructuring and
re-orienting? Yes. Can we manage this review logically, rationally, and
efficiently? Remains to be seen.

Take CAG-20, a subject near to my heart (and yours as well, Woody).
Does it make sense to have a reserve air wing? IMHO, yes. Depending on
what your own perspective is, though, if you were in charge of the
zero-based review of CNARF support, you could structure your analytical
approach to drive the results towards any answer you want - and if
you're skillful, no one would ever be the wiser. That's one of the real
challenges in defense analysis these days: being truly objective, and
not merely arriving at the answer your gut tells you it should be.

-Jim C.

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
>
> Anybody on this NG have an opinion on the Navy's new ARI (Active Reserve
> Integration) program? Just curious to know what the armchair quarterbacks
> think.
>
> --Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

Such is the story of every decision made in Naval Aviation.

--Woody

On 7/17/04 2:53 PM, in article , "Jim Calpin"
> wrote:

> My spin is that, like a lot of good ideas, the execution of this program
> is what's going to matter. I haven't seen a lot of the nitty-gritty
> yet, but it seems reasonable. Zero-based reviews of reserve support are
> a good idea, but if anyone in the reviewer's position has an axe to
> grind (or wants to lay hands on reserve $$ or hardware), then this will
> be a great opportunity to lay waste to the RC. Is there fat in the
> reserve component? You bet. Is there "muscle" that makes sense to keep
> in the reserves? Yep. Is there a need for restructuring and
> re-orienting? Yes. Can we manage this review logically, rationally, and
> efficiently? Remains to be seen.
>
> Take CAG-20, a subject near to my heart (and yours as well, Woody).
> Does it make sense to have a reserve air wing? IMHO, yes. Depending on
> what your own perspective is, though, if you were in charge of the
> zero-based review of CNARF support, you could structure your analytical
> approach to drive the results towards any answer you want - and if
> you're skillful, no one would ever be the wiser. That's one of the real
> challenges in defense analysis these days: being truly objective, and
> not merely arriving at the answer your gut tells you it should be.
>
> -Jim C.
>
> Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
>>
>> Anybody on this NG have an opinion on the Navy's new ARI (Active Reserve
>> Integration) program? Just curious to know what the armchair quarterbacks
>> think.
>>
>> --Woody