Did I hear ABC correctly?

[Mark and Kim Smith]

The Air Force doesn't have enough planes to fly Stryker Force around the
world when it needs to go someplace? Since when did the Air Force have
a shortage of planes?

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Mark Smith
blurted out:

>The Air Force doesn't have enough planes to fly Stryker Force around the
>world when it needs to go someplace? Since when did the Air Force have
>a shortage of planes?

Depends on how you want to look at it...if you consider all the Guard
and Reserve airlift units that have been activated (or portions of the
units) for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the Active Duty
airlifters are over tasked.

Also one should consider the AF's activation and use of the Civil
Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) for hauling large numbers of troops to war in
both Gulf Wars...those being 1990/91 and 2003. Honestly don't know if
anybody is currently employed for CRAF flying (my company is not now,
but had been during both wars).

Clearly the tasking and operations tempo are too much for *just* the
acitve duty folks to handle.

Juvat

[C.D.Damron]

"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
> The Air Force doesn't have enough planes to fly Stryker Force around the
> world when it needs to go someplace? Since when did the Air Force have
> a shortage of planes?


It might be a shortage of one or more resources, like EW platforms.

[BUFDRVR]

>The Air Force doesn't have enough planes to fly Stryker Force around the
>world when it needs to go someplace? Since when did the Air Force have
>a shortage of planes?
>

Hmm, they are retiring the C-141 at an accelerated rate, perhaps the ongoing
C-17 production is being outpaced by C-141retirement? Its not a 1:1 deal
though, anyone know how many C-17s will be built for the USAF/ANG/USAFR ?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kyle Boatright]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >The Air Force doesn't have enough planes to fly Stryker Force around the
> >world when it needs to go someplace? Since when did the Air Force have
> >a shortage of planes?
> >
>
> Hmm, they are retiring the C-141 at an accelerated rate, perhaps the
ongoing
> C-17 production is being outpaced by C-141retirement? Its not a 1:1 deal
> though, anyone know how many C-17s will be built for the USAF/ANG/USAFR ?
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>

They have also retired the first few C-5's...


KB

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >The Air Force doesn't have enough planes to fly Stryker Force around the
> >world when it needs to go someplace? Since when did the Air Force have
> >a shortage of planes?
> >
>
> Hmm, they are retiring the C-141 at an accelerated rate, perhaps the
ongoing
> C-17 production is being outpaced by C-141retirement? Its not a 1:1 deal
> though, anyone know how many C-17s will be built for the USAF/ANG/USAFR ?

Last I recall the plan was for two squadrons, IIRC, one being in Sonny
Montgomery's home state of Mississippi where they would replace the C-141's
currently in service. That unit received its first C-17 (of eight total) in
mid-December. I believe the USAFR unit is to be based at March AFRB. I would
not discount further ANG deliveries, being as we have seen the total buy of
C-17's exhibit an upward movement over the last couple of years.

Brooks

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Ragnar]

"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
> The Air Force doesn't have enough planes to fly Stryker Force around the
> world when it needs to go someplace? Since when did the Air Force have
> a shortage of planes?

There's NEVER been "enough" Air Force cargo planes. Now, with two conflicts
going (Iraq and Afghanistan) plus normal worldwide committments, I'm not
surprised the airlift community is a little stressed.

[Michael Williamson]

Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
> The Air Force doesn't have enough planes to fly Stryker Force around the
> world when it needs to go someplace? Since when did the Air Force have
> a shortage of planes?
>

For transports? Since before I entered the service (1991).

Mike

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Ragnar wrote:

>"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>The Air Force doesn't have enough planes to fly Stryker Force around the
>>world when it needs to go someplace? Since when did the Air Force have
>>a shortage of planes?
>>
>>
>
>There's NEVER been "enough" Air Force cargo planes. Now, with two conflicts
>going (Iraq and Afghanistan) plus normal worldwide committments, I'm not
>surprised the airlift community is a little stressed.
>
>
>
Supposedly this Stryker Force is supposed to be anywhere in the world in
96 hours ( I think that was the time quoted ) and that the Air Force
wasn't up to that. The complaints were that their troop transports are
too heavy. Not to mention they had to add 2 tons of anti RPG protection
to each machine causing their weight problems to increase. All the high
tech stuff this Stryker Force has ain't gonna do much good if you can't
get them there. Maybe the Army forgot to talk to the Air Force??

[Vygg]

Michael Williamson wrote:

> Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
>
>> The Air Force doesn't have enough planes to fly Stryker Force
>> around the world when it needs to go someplace? Since when did
>> the Air Force have a shortage of planes?
>>
>
> For transports? Since before I entered the service (1991).
>
> Mike
>

Yep. I don't think that the USAF has ever had enough transports. I came
on active duty with ADC in '77 and if you didn't have your SAAM request
in 90 days before the planned departure date then you weren't going
anywhere by air. The FIS's were at the bottom of the totem pole for
deployments and we always had over-the-road backup plans in case MAC
told us that we were being bumped.

Vygg

[No Spam!]

Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
> The Air Force doesn't have enough planes to fly Stryker Force around the
> world when it needs to go someplace? Since when did the Air Force have
> a shortage of planes?

Since the US has gutted all its Armed Forces by at least 1/3 starting
during the Clinton days, and the US Armed Forces are in more places
doing more missions, how could you not expect the Air Force to be short?

There's been a shortage of many types of planes for years, especially in
the small, specialized areas (so-called “low-density, high-demand”
areas). There's also issues with mission-available rates as planes get
older and require more maintenance hours per flight hour.

In this particluar case, Air Mobility Command (AMC) has had shortages of
its capacity to move enough tons per day for quite a few years,
especially since the number of tons per day seems to continue to increase.

To quote:
"The current requirements document—called MRS-05—was the first to take
into account the need for more airlifters to fill special operations
requirements. However, MRS-05 was completed before the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. It was largely based on diminished airlift requirements then
considered adequate for the post-Cold War world. The document noted that
the airlift fleet even then was insufficient for known requirements, and
it further stated that wartime needs could be met only with “a high
degree of risk.”"

This quote came from: The Squeeze on Air Mobility
(http://www.afa.org/magazine/july2003/0703mobility.asp)

And it's not getting any better, nor is availability and usage for other
areas as well.

Also read "It Means “We Didn’t Buy Enough”"
(http://www.afa.org/magazine/july2003/0703enough.asp) for a good
discussion of current “low-density, high-demand” problems.

[Yeff]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:33:51 -0600, No Spam! wrote:

> Since the US has gutted all its Armed Forces by at least 1/3 starting
> during the Clinton days,

Wrong. We were in an active draw-down at the same time we were deploying
forces for Desert Shield. That was pre-Clinton.

-Jeff B. (who never liked nor ever voted for Clinton.)
yeff at erols dot com

[RobbelothE]

>The Air Force doesn't have enough planes to fly Stryker Force around the
>world when it needs to go someplace? Since when did the Air Force have
>a shortage of planes?

The Air Force has NEVER had enough transport aircraft to meet the requirements
it was tasked to fill. The two simultaneous war capability advertised during
the Clinton (?) years was so much baloney. Couldn't do it then, can't do it
now. The AF spends a "gajillion" dollars on fighters but not nearly as much on
the support aircraft needed to get the mechanics, supplies, etc. needed to
support those fighters to the same location.

THEN, there's the Army. On one occasion when I was in a C-141B airlift unit,
the Army wanted some heavy equipment moved from point A to point B. However,
when the AF transports arrived to load up, the equipment would no longer fit
(it used to fit though.) What happened? The Army had welded some additional
stuff on the outside of the equipment and it no longer would fit though the
cargo door of the transport.

Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

[Thomas Schoene]

No Spam! wrote:
> Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
>> The Air Force doesn't have enough planes to fly Stryker Force around
>> the world when it needs to go someplace? Since when did the Air
>> Force have a shortage of planes?
>
> Since the US has gutted all its Armed Forces by at least 1/3 starting
> during the Clinton days,

YOu mean "starting in the first Bush Adminsitration." The Bush
Adminstration's 1990/91 Base Force proposal called for a 20-30% cut in force
structure more or less across the board. True, the Clinton administration's
Bottom-Up Review cuts went deeper, but most of the total cuts had already
been planned under Base Force.

This loks liek an itneresting report on the various defense reviews (base
Force, BUR, and first Quadrennial Defense Review).

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1387/

And I'll point out that the second Bush Adminstration had planned to cut
force levels even further under the second QDR. They were talking about
increased procurement spending (transformation, recapitalization, or
industruial support, depending on your perspective), but not major topline
increases.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...


>Supposedly this Stryker Force is supposed to be anywhere in the world in 96
hours ( I think that was the time >quoted ) and that the Air Force wasn't up
to that.

I don't know what the hell a "Stryker Force" is, but if you are referring to
the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the goal is 96 hours. As to whether or not
the USAF can manage that, it would largely depend upon the level of
committment it has to other requirements--if DoD says getting the SBCT into
the theater is the top priority, airframes will be made available one way or
another.

>The complaints were that their troop transports are too heavy.

Ambiguous. The Stryker combat vehicle pushes (but does not exceed) the
capability of the C-130, but it does not tax that of the larger strategic
airlifters like the C-5 and C-17.

>Not to mention they had to add 2 tons of anti RPG protection to each
machine causing their weight problems >to increase.

Again, ambiguous. IIRC that is extra applique armor you are referring to--it
could be airlifted in after the initial closure on the aerial port of
debarkation (APOD) if required. But if the method of transport is the C-5 or
C-17, it can travel with it already installed.


>All the high tech stuff this Stryker Force has ain't gonna do much good if
you can't get them there. Maybe the >Army forgot to talk to the Air Force??

This stuff has been flung back and forth for a couple of years now. Simple
answer is that the SBCT is a hell of a lot lighter (and easier) to transport
than the next heavier asset (a heavy brigade combat team with its M1A2's,
M2A2's, M109A6's, etc.), while it packs substantially more ground maneuver
capability and protection than its next lighter component (the light
infantry brigade combat team). It is a good tool to have in the grand
toolbox of military operations for the US military--they were not quite
ready when the balloon went up for OIF (the first SBCT just became fully
operational this past year), so the Army had to try and get a heavy force
into Northern Iraq by air, resulting in IIRC about the equivalent of one
battalion task force (minus, again IIRC) (which is only one-third of a heavy
BCT) making it into that area by the time the units in the south made the
link up. Had they had a SBCT ready to go we would have seen the entire
brigade in the AO instead.

Brooks

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
> The Air Force doesn't have enough planes to fly Stryker Force around the
> world when it needs to go someplace? Since when did the Air Force have
> a shortage of planes?
>

Since forever,
the USAF can get it all there in 96 hours if they use all the airlift
asests and have a facility ot the recieving end to handle the traffic.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

>"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
>
>>Supposedly this Stryker Force is supposed to be anywhere in the world in 96
>>
>>
>hours ( I think that was the time >quoted ) and that the Air Force wasn't up
>to that.
>
>I don't know what the hell a "Stryker Force" is, but if you are referring to
>the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the goal is 96 hours. As to whether or not
>the USAF can manage that, it would largely depend upon the level of
>committment it has to other requirements--if DoD says getting the SBCT into
>the theater is the top priority, airframes will be made available one way or
>another.
>
>
>
>>The complaints were that their troop transports are too heavy.
>>
>>
>
>Ambiguous. The Stryker combat vehicle pushes (but does not exceed) the
>capability of the C-130, but it does not tax that of the larger strategic
>airlifters like the C-5 and C-17.
>
>
>
>>Not to mention they had to add 2 tons of anti RPG protection to each
>>
>>
>machine causing their weight problems >to increase.
>
>Again, ambiguous. IIRC that is extra applique armor you are referring to--it
>could be airlifted in after the initial closure on the aerial port of
>debarkation (APOD) if required. But if the method of transport is the C-5 or
>C-17, it can travel with it already installed.
>
>
>
>
>>All the high tech stuff this Stryker Force has ain't gonna do much good if
>>
>>
>you can't get them there. Maybe the >Army forgot to talk to the Air Force??
>
>This stuff has been flung back and forth for a couple of years now. Simple
>answer is that the SBCT is a hell of a lot lighter (and easier) to transport
>than the next heavier asset (a heavy brigade combat team with its M1A2's,
>M2A2's, M109A6's, etc.), while it packs substantially more ground maneuver
>capability and protection than its next lighter component (the light
>infantry brigade combat team). It is a good tool to have in the grand
>toolbox of military operations for the US military--they were not quite
>ready when the balloon went up for OIF (the first SBCT just became fully
>operational this past year), so the Army had to try and get a heavy force
>into Northern Iraq by air, resulting in IIRC about the equivalent of one
>battalion task force (minus, again IIRC) (which is only one-third of a heavy
>BCT) making it into that area by the time the units in the south made the
>link up. Had they had a SBCT ready to go we would have seen the entire
>brigade in the AO instead.
>
>Brooks
>

My apologies if I offended you. I am not familiar with this stuff and I
wasn't taking notes while viewing the show. I'll try to do better next
time. My post was a way for me to seek information so that I could
learn more.

>
>
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...


Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...



>>>Supposedly this Stryker Force is supposed to be anywhere in the world in
96
hours ( I think that was the time >quoted ) and that the Air Force wasn't up
to that.

>>I don't know what the hell a "Stryker Force" is, but if you are referring
to
the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the goal is 96 hours. As to whether or not
the USAF can manage that, it would largely depend upon the level of
committment it has to other requirements--if DoD says getting the SBCT into
the theater is the top priority, airframes will be made available one way or
another.


>>>The complaints were that their troop transports are too heavy.


>>Ambiguous. The Stryker combat vehicle pushes (but does not exceed) the
capability of the C-130, but it does not tax that of the larger strategic
airlifters like the C-5 and C-17.


>>>Not to mention they had to add 2 tons of anti RPG protection to each

machine causing their weight problems >to increase.

>>Again, ambiguous. IIRC that is extra applique armor you are referring
to--it
could be airlifted in after the initial closure on the aerial port of
debarkation (APOD) if required. But if the method of transport is the C-5 or
C-17, it can travel with it already installed.



>>>All the high tech stuff this Stryker Force has ain't gonna do much good
if

you can't get them there. Maybe the >Army forgot to talk to the Air Force??

>>This stuff has been flung back and forth for a couple of years now. Simple
answer is that the SBCT is a hell of a lot lighter (and easier) to transport
than the next heavier asset (a heavy brigade combat team with its M1A2's,
M2A2's, M109A6's, etc.), while it packs substantially more ground maneuver
capability and protection than its next lighter component (the light
infantry brigade combat team). It is a good tool to have in the grand
toolbox of military operations for the US military--they were not quite
ready when the balloon went up for OIF (the first SBCT just became fully
operational this past year), so the Army had to try and get a heavy force
into Northern Iraq by air, resulting in IIRC about the equivalent of one
battalion task force (minus, again IIRC) (which is only one-third of a heavy
BCT) making it into that area by the time the units in the south made the
link up. Had they had a SBCT ready to go we would have seen the entire
brigade in the AO instead.

Brooks

>My apologies if I offended you. I am not familiar with this stuff and I
wasn't taking notes while viewing the >show. I'll try to do better next
time. My post was a way for me to seek information so that I could learn
>more.

You did not offend me. I was not aware my response even insinuated that you
had, and upon rereading it again I am still scratchin' my noggin as to how
you got that idea. One piece of advice, though--if you are going to hang
around Usenet, thicken your skin a bit, because if you thought my response
was terse, you ain't seen nothin' yet. And I recommend you post in plain
text--makes it a bit easier on others.

Brooks

[miso]

Rumsfeld was floating the idea of a military force just large enough
to fight on one front, and use the savings to buy more advandanced
weapons like UAVs. This was pre-911. A damn good thing everybody
wanted their pork and gutted the proposal.

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message .net>...
> No Spam! wrote:
> > Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
> >> The Air Force doesn't have enough planes to fly Stryker Force around
> >> the world when it needs to go someplace? Since when did the Air
> >> Force have a shortage of planes?
> >
> > Since the US has gutted all its Armed Forces by at least 1/3 starting
> > during the Clinton days,
>
> YOu mean "starting in the first Bush Adminsitration." The Bush
> Adminstration's 1990/91 Base Force proposal called for a 20-30% cut in force
> structure more or less across the board. True, the Clinton administration's
> Bottom-Up Review cuts went deeper, but most of the total cuts had already
> been planned under Base Force.
>
> This loks liek an itneresting report on the various defense reviews (base
> Force, BUR, and first Quadrennial Defense Review).
>
> http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1387/
>
> And I'll point out that the second Bush Adminstration had planned to cut
> force levels even further under the second QDR. They were talking about
> increased procurement spending (transformation, recapitalization, or
> industruial support, depending on your perspective), but not major topline
> increases.

[George Z. Bush]

Yeff wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:33:51 -0600, No Spam! wrote:
>
>> Since the US has gutted all its Armed Forces by at least 1/3 starting
>> during the Clinton days,
>
> Wrong. We were in an active draw-down at the same time we were deploying
> forces for Desert Shield. That was pre-Clinton.

It was not only pre-Clinton but, unless I'm mistaken, it started under Reagan
after Gorby folded his tent and raised the economic white flag. That was when
BRAC started along with force reduction. And I do recall widespread RIFs at the
end of the Gulf War, which daddy Bush can take credit for.

I don't know what the Republicans would have done if Clinton hadn't come along
for two terms and made himself available to be blamed for everything that ever
went wrong in the world. Can you see them blaming one of their own, even when
the evidence supported placing responsibility precisely there? Not very damned
likely, especially when it would have required them to be honest about who did
what to who.

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Yeff wrote:
> > On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 16:33:51 -0600, No Spam! wrote:
> >
> >> Since the US has gutted all its Armed Forces by at least 1/3 starting
> >> during the Clinton days,
> >
> > Wrong. We were in an active draw-down at the same time we were
deploying
> > forces for Desert Shield. That was pre-Clinton.
>
> It was not only pre-Clinton but, unless I'm mistaken, it started under
Reagan
> after Gorby folded his tent and raised the economic white flag. That was
when
> BRAC started along with force reduction. And I do recall widespread RIFs
at the
> end of the Gulf War, which daddy Bush can take credit for.
>
> I don't know what the Republicans would have done if Clinton hadn't come
along
> for two terms and made himself available to be blamed for everything that
ever
> went wrong in the world. Can you see them blaming one of their own, even
when
> the evidence supported placing responsibility precisely there? Not very
damned
> likely, especially when it would have required them to be honest about who
did
> what to who.

George, you need to take your own advice to heart a bit. Yeah, the drawdown
started to gain steam under Bush, Sr. (but no, it was not a "RIF", not as
that term is normally used--neither was it a RIF under the Clinton
administration when it gained further steam). Great. Now, when was the last
time you found yourself able to humbly admit to one the very real mistakes
(from among many) of your hero Clinton? For example, under the Bush, Sr.
plan we did indeed draw down, but at least those remaining had training
funds--when your boy came along, those quickly evaporated to zilch (at one
point getting so bad such that we could not recruit individuals into certain
required MOS's because we lacked the funding to train them. Not good at all.
Or Clinton's handling of Somalia--Bush left him with a clear cut force
in-place to facilitate humanitarian support, and your little buddy took it
on himself to expand the mission while at the same time refusing the
requests of his commanders in the field for the few items they specifically
requested (like AC-130's and armor to support that wonderful, "Let's go get
Aidid" strategy that Clinton had laid on them) because he feared the "image"
they would create (but apparently the image of a couple of dozen or so US
KIA was just hunky-dory)? Or his vaunted promise that we'd be out of Bosnia
by 1997 (oops, we are still there, though GWB has pared that one to the
bone, and rightfully)? If you can't fess up to these Clintonian screw-ups,
then it would appear you are not much above those danged Republicans you are
squeaking about.

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

>"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>Supposedly this Stryker Force is supposed to be anywhere in the world in
>>>>
>>>>
>96
>hours ( I think that was the time >quoted ) and that the Air Force wasn't up
>to that.
>
>
>
>>>I don't know what the hell a "Stryker Force" is, but if you are referring
>>>
>>>
>to
>the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the goal is 96 hours. As to whether or not
>the USAF can manage that, it would largely depend upon the level of
>committment it has to other requirements--if DoD says getting the SBCT into
>the theater is the top priority, airframes will be made available one way or
>another.
>
>
>
>
>>>>The complaints were that their troop transports are too heavy.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>
>>>Ambiguous. The Stryker combat vehicle pushes (but does not exceed) the
>>>
>>>
>capability of the C-130, but it does not tax that of the larger strategic
>airlifters like the C-5 and C-17.
>
>
>
>
>>>>Not to mention they had to add 2 tons of anti RPG protection to each
>>>>
>>>>
>
>machine causing their weight problems >to increase.
>
>
>
>>>Again, ambiguous. IIRC that is extra applique armor you are referring
>>>
>>>
>to--it
>could be airlifted in after the initial closure on the aerial port of
>debarkation (APOD) if required. But if the method of transport is the C-5 or
>C-17, it can travel with it already installed.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>All the high tech stuff this Stryker Force has ain't gonna do much good
>>>>
>>>>
>if
>
>you can't get them there. Maybe the >Army forgot to talk to the Air Force??
>
>
>
>>>This stuff has been flung back and forth for a couple of years now. Simple
>>>
>>>
>answer is that the SBCT is a hell of a lot lighter (and easier) to transport
>than the next heavier asset (a heavy brigade combat team with its M1A2's,
>M2A2's, M109A6's, etc.), while it packs substantially more ground maneuver
>capability and protection than its next lighter component (the light
>infantry brigade combat team). It is a good tool to have in the grand
>toolbox of military operations for the US military--they were not quite
>ready when the balloon went up for OIF (the first SBCT just became fully
>operational this past year), so the Army had to try and get a heavy force
>into Northern Iraq by air, resulting in IIRC about the equivalent of one
>battalion task force (minus, again IIRC) (which is only one-third of a heavy
>BCT) making it into that area by the time the units in the south made the
>link up. Had they had a SBCT ready to go we would have seen the entire
>brigade in the AO instead.
>
>Brooks
>
>
>
>>My apologies if I offended you. I am not familiar with this stuff and I
>>
>>
>wasn't taking notes while viewing the >show. I'll try to do better next
>time. My post was a way for me to seek information so that I could learn
>
>
>>more.
>>
>>
>
>You did not offend me. I was not aware my response even insinuated that you
>had, and upon rereading it again I am still scratchin' my noggin as to how
>you got that idea. One piece of advice, though--if you are going to hang
>around Usenet, thicken your skin a bit, because if you thought my response
>was terse, you ain't seen nothin' yet. And I recommend you post in plain
>text--makes it a bit easier on others.
>
>Brooks
>
>
>

Didn't realize I wasn't posting in plain text. Maybe now?

The place where I got the idea was "I don't know what the hell a "Stryker Force" is...." comment.

Don't really care one way or another how anyone feels about me as I
don't come here to make friends ( or enemies for that matter. ) Just
trying to spread some manners and a little niceness, I don't have to
though. I'll just stick to doing that with my kids. Maybe they will
start a trend where folks can actually be courteous to each other
instead of the direction most kids ( an adults ) seem to be headed now.
Also trying to gain a little knowledge from this group. It never hurts
to learn, especially from history. Been lurking for quite a few years
now, so I know how various groups behave. I sleep well at night.

On a different note, I spent a nice couple of hours at Planes Of Fame
today with my little boy. It was nice watching the interest grow in him
from his surroundings! I did miss a chance to step into Picadilly Lilly
II. I waited too long and they close up the plane one hour before the
museum closes. Maybe another time. So I left the place listening to
them trying to start a heavy. Always start by checking for spark and
fuel.....

[Cub Driver]

>The USAF has had a shortage of AIRLIFT assets- all categories- since about
>forever.

Of course no one ever has enough of anything. Curtis LeMay once
remarked that you could send a wing to Caribou, Maine, with absolutely
no mission, and within six months it would be radioing for
reinforcements.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[BUFDRVR]

>And I do recall widespread RIFs at the
>end of the Gulf War, which daddy Bush can take credit for.
>
>I don't know what the Republicans would have done if Clinton hadn't come
>along
>for two terms and made himself available to be blamed for

In a pre OIF interview, President Bush (41) said his last cuts, in '93, would
have been the end of his draw down. Both his Sec. of State (James Baker) and
SecDef (our current VP Cheney) backed this up. Clinton went much further, and
much faster than Bush (41) was prepared to go.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>but no, it was not a "RIF", not as
>that term is normally used

Uhh, that's the exact term that was used when thousands of officers were
involuntarily seperated in 1992. Twas an interesting time for a young 2nd Lt.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[George Z. Bush]

"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...

> Don't really care one way or another how anyone feels about me as I
> don't come here to make friends ( or enemies for that matter. ) Just
> trying to spread some manners and a little niceness, I don't have to
> though. I'll just stick to doing that with my kids. Maybe they will
> start a trend where folks can actually be courteous to each other
> instead of the direction most kids ( an adults ) seem to be headed now.
> Also trying to gain a little knowledge from this group. It never hurts
> to learn, especially from history. Been lurking for quite a few years
> now, so I know how various groups behave. I sleep well at night.

What a refreshing change to run into some folks who are capable of disagreeing
with you without being disagreeable about it. This is one of the few NGs where
you stand a fairly good chance of having exchanges with folks who might not see
things your way, but will still be able to get their point across without
feeling obliged to turning the air blue in order to make their points.

On some other NGs where alleged adults hang out, masculinity is measured by the
number of cuss words used per hundred, and the higher the batting average, the
more masculine you presumably are. Pretty sad that men old enough to be
grandparents are still behaving the way they obviously did when they were in
grade school, completely untouched by the maturation process.

Anyway, we don't have too many of that ilk around here, so make yourself at
home, and ask away.....especially about things aeronautical. You may or may not
always get answers to your questions, but we do have a pretty knowledgeable
group here on the subject of aviation, so you stand a pretty fair chance of
becoming enlightened, if that's your intent.

And, for whatever it's worth, stay away from politics.....it seems to bring out
the worst in everybody. (^-^)))

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >but no, it was not a "RIF", not as
> >that term is normally used
>
> Uhh, that's the exact term that was used when thousands of officers were
> involuntarily seperated in 1992. Twas an interesting time for a young 2nd
Lt.

Well, I don't recall that happening on the US Army side of the house. I do
recall the various voluntary searation programs, including the bonus and
annuity options, and I know we got one rather fresh academy grad into our
Guard unit at that time well before his normal time because he took
advantage of the situation and requested early release. I also recall the
Army cut its requirement for *new* 2LT assessions for a short while (and
were soon right back to begging folks to come on active duty), but i just
plain don't recall any involuntary separations, especially of regulars. It
was threatened if the volunatary efforts came up short, but as I recall that
did not happen.

Brooks

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Mark and Kim Smith]

George Z. Bush wrote:

>"Mark and Kim Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
>>Don't really care one way or another how anyone feels about me as I
>>don't come here to make friends ( or enemies for that matter. ) Just
>>trying to spread some manners and a little niceness, I don't have to
>>though. I'll just stick to doing that with my kids. Maybe they will
>>start a trend where folks can actually be courteous to each other
>>instead of the direction most kids ( an adults ) seem to be headed now.
>>Also trying to gain a little knowledge from this group. It never hurts
>>to learn, especially from history. Been lurking for quite a few years
>>now, so I know how various groups behave. I sleep well at night.
>>
>>
>
>What a refreshing change to run into some folks who are capable of disagreeing
>with you without being disagreeable about it. This is one of the few NGs where
>you stand a fairly good chance of having exchanges with folks who might not see
>things your way, but will still be able to get their point across without
>feeling obliged to turning the air blue in order to make their points.
>
>On some other NGs where alleged adults hang out, masculinity is measured by the
>number of cuss words used per hundred, and the higher the batting average, the
>more masculine you presumably are. Pretty sad that men old enough to be
>grandparents are still behaving the way they obviously did when they were in
>grade school, completely untouched by the maturation process.
>
>Anyway, we don't have too many of that ilk around here, so make yourself at
>home, and ask away.....especially about things aeronautical. You may or may not
>always get answers to your questions, but we do have a pretty knowledgeable
>group here on the subject of aviation, so you stand a pretty fair chance of
>becoming enlightened, if that's your intent.
>
>And, for whatever it's worth, stay away from politics.....it seems to bring out
>the worst in everybody. (^-^)))
>
>George Z.
>


Thanks George! That's my intent, to learn a little and pass it along to
my kids. I'm tired of watching too many parents not get involved with
their kids upbringing and maybe I can break the cycle in my little part
of the world. BTW, my boy has spent the past two days "flying" his F4U
model. He knows enough to put the wheels up for flight and down for a
landing, although sometimes he does a belly landing. Not bad for a two
year old. Gotta start them out right!

No problem about politics. I believe what I believe and it's not really
my job to try to change anybody's mind, so I don't. I try to teach my
kids to study up, to understand that everyone else has their own twist
or vision, and to formulate their own idea whether others agree or
don't. Thanks again!

[Thomas Schoene]

BUFDRVR wrote:

> In a pre OIF interview, President Bush (41) said his last cuts, in
> '93, would have been the end of his draw down.

He also said "no new taxes." It's very easy for Bush to say *now* that he
would have not cut further, but there's no way to be sure what would have
actually happened in the event. Congress was certainly pushing for more
cuts. They wanted (and got) a balanced budget. Defense was the most
obvious bill-payer.

I'm inclined to believe that Bush would have run into the same basic
financial constraints in a notional second term. I suspect they probably
would have reassessed their plans and made further cuts.

> Both his Sec. of State
> (James Baker) and SecDef (our current VP Cheney) backed this up.
>
> Clinton went much further, and much faster than Bush (41) was
> prepared to go.

Right, and they have no reason to be anything but totally frank. Granted
you can't prove a counterfactual, but what people say they would have done
is not always the same as what they would have actually done.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[[email protected]]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote:

>
>And, for whatever it's worth, stay away from politics.....it seems to bring out
>the worst in everybody. (^-^)))
>
>George Z.
>
Jesus yes!! especially that @#$%^&*()_+ GeorgeZ guy...


:)
--

-Gord.

[BUFDRVR]

>but i just
>plain don't recall any involuntary separations, especially of regulars.

The Army seperated active duty officers as well, and did it much more fairly
than the USAF. As far as regulars being seperated, it didn't happen. Those
seperated in the USAF all had reserve commisions.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>Granted
>you can't prove a counterfactual, but what people say they would have done
>is not always the same as what they would have actually done.

Bush disbanded the Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC) comittees, Clinton had
to institute them again in '94. If Bush had planned further cuts, he would have
left BRAC as a staning comittee like Clinton did from '94-99.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Glenn Dowdy]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >but no, it was not a "RIF", not as
> > >that term is normally used
> >
> > Uhh, that's the exact term that was used when thousands of officers were
> > involuntarily seperated in 1992. Twas an interesting time for a young
2nd
> Lt.
>
> Well, I don't recall that happening on the US Army side of the house. I do
> recall the various voluntary searation programs, including the bonus and
> annuity options, and I know we got one rather fresh academy grad into our
> Guard unit at that time well before his normal time because he took
> advantage of the situation and requested early release

I left active duty as an Army LT in 1990. The Army had already been offering
early release from active duty to Regular Army officers, including Academy
grads, in 1989.

The plans were in place in 1989 to move to a smaller army.

http://www.army.mil/aps/98/chapter2.htm

>. I also recall the
> Army cut its requirement for *new* 2LT assessions for a short while (and
> were soon right back to begging folks to come on active duty), but i just
> plain don't recall any involuntary separations, especially of regulars. It
> was threatened if the volunatary efforts came up short, but as I recall
that
> did not happen.

And most of the LTs getting out early in my battalion were Academy grads.
Only one stayed in.

Glenn D.

[Thomas Schoene]

BUFDRVR wrote:
>> Granted
>> you can't prove a counterfactual, but what people say they would
>> have done
>> is not always the same as what they would have actually done.
>
> Bush disbanded the Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC) comittees,
> Clinton had to institute them again in '94. If Bush had planned
> further cuts, he would have left BRAC as a staning comittee like
> Clinton did from '94-99.
>

It might have helped if you had read the rest of my post. I did not say
Bush planned more cuts. I said he might have had to change his plans had he
gotten a second term. The fiscal pressures would have been much the same,
regardless of who was president.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[BUFDRVR]

>It might have helped if you had read the rest of my post.

I did, I misunderstood.

>I did not say
>Bush planned more cuts. I said he might have had to change his plans had he
>gotten a second term. The fiscal pressures would have been much the same,
>regardless of who was president.

I don't think Clinton's cuts were entirely due to financial pressure. IMHO, he
had planned them from the beginning.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"