A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The end of the Naval Air Reserves???



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 4th 03, 07:17 PM
Bill Kambic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.



Ads
  #12  
Old July 4th 03, 09:07 PM
Eric Scheie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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




  #13  
Old July 4th 03, 09:30 PM
Giz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #14  
Old July 4th 03, 09:41 PM
Giz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #15  
Old July 4th 03, 09:52 PM
Giz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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



  #16  
Old July 5th 03, 12:03 AM
Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #17  
Old July 5th 03, 12:12 AM
Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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





  #18  
Old July 5th 03, 02:43 AM
Giz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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





  #19  
Old July 5th 03, 01:28 PM
Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #20  
Old July 5th 03, 01:55 PM
Giz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.