"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