If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trident I C-4 is damaged at US naval base | Krztalizer | Military Aviation | 20 | April 7th 04 03:05 AM |
John Kerry insults military reserves | T. Nguyen | Military Aviation | 15 | February 23rd 04 01:22 AM |
This week in naval, aviation history, By Bill Swanson | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 17th 03 09:37 PM |
FS: Naval and Aviation Books | Gernot Hassenpflug | Military Aviation | 0 | August 9th 03 05:06 AM |
FA: Naval Ships & Aircraft - 1950 | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 8th 03 11:53 PM |