Airforce may be be going out of business

[Norfolk]

Given present and developing budgetary pressures the flyboys may have to economize, such as doing without AC during Air Force Basic Training.

[LawVol]

Carl: The problem is hardly that the AF wants superiority.

The problem is that that superiority is a subjective thing, apparently only measurable by the Air Force.

That'd be like the student deciding what the passing grade is on a test.

It's gotten, IMHO, a bit strange that Congress hasn't demanded, say, that the AF quit gold-plating billeting arrangements and other "perks".

Every service's RDA structure is screwed up - however, only the AF has such apparent excesses in the rest of their funding.

That said, it's not good to gripe only. A possible way forward:

1. Joint Accommodation Standards. No more hotels for AF, tents for Marines. Just a bad idea. If the deployed AF servicemember can't live in the same conditions as Marine or Army (Navy, being on ships largely, doesn't count much!) personnel, then perhaps there's problems with the AF.

2. Pays eligibility should be set at the DOD level, not each service. One standard for gain/loss of BAS, one standard for gain/loss of BAH, etc.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Air superiority should not be determined by the guy that has to strap 14,000 punds of fuel and 2000 pound of bombs to his a$$ and fly off at Mach whatever??? Perhaps it shoudl be left to someone that doesn't fly? What sense does that make? I guess next we'll have some fighter jock tell a battalion commander how to conduct a clear and hold operation? Or maybe one of our C130 trash haulers can go out and establish fields of fire for the smaller Marine/Army posts in Iraq? I realize that alot of Soldiers want to take over CAS or intratheater airlift, but I don't think many argue with USAF expertice in air superiority.

As for living conditions, there wasn't much difference between mine and the Army housing when I was downrange. Maybe you saw something different? Oh, and when I go TDY, I see Marines/Army/Navy in the same hotels I'm staying in (they get free massages too, right?)(sorry, couldn't resist).

As for the "perks" that we get, another poster indicates that these are for retention purposes. Perhaps he is right. Those decisions are beyond my pay grade, but assuming they are, wouldn't this be comparable to enlistment bonuses and the like that the Army has been giving out? Just asking.

And a final thought: We (i.e. the AF) don't want superiority. We already have that. We want to maintain it. Actually, air supremacy would be much better and, personnaly, I want it anywhere in the world. It tends to help out our grunts when the chips are down. OohRah.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

Whether we have attained air superiority/supremacy is decided by the Air Force and no one else. That’s why we keep them around.

I agree that while base housing doesn’t vary widely between the services and yes TDY/TAD accommodations are similar (except the Marines rarely spring for rental cars) the largest disparity I see is in the service definitions of “deployed.” The Soldier/Sailor/Marine often finds deployed living conditions austere and their BAS rescinded for the length of the deployment.

On the other hand, Airman “deploy” to several interesting places like Stuttgart, Crystal City, and Tampa. Even when they are being fed by Uncle Sugar, they retain their BAS. It’s a quality of life issue, you see.

One of the concerns in recent USAF resource allocation discussions is BOS. The majority of Airmen, once out of basic and tech school, live in barracks (oops, I mean dormitories) in which there is a single person to a room. This is a far cry from the typical billeting arrangements for the Soldier/Sailor/Marine. So be it, back in the day the AF had the positive cash flow to make it so, and made the conscious choice to invest in creature comfort rather than recapitalization.

But now, as the great money pool shrinks, due in part to more parsimonious TOAs, GWOT funding, and the rapidly increasing cost of doing business (especially in fuels), the AF finds that it has created for itself a very large, very resource hungry infrastructure that requires funding and an aging fleet that is growing expensive to maintain. It will only get tougher unless they seriously reexamine their lifestyle approach. I’ve noted in other threads here that their Champaign and caviar diet is now confronted by a beer and pretzels budget. In other words: Welcome to the Marine Corps.

I just don’t see how single person rooms and a largess of creature comforts lavished upon people can be tied to achieving air superiority/supremacy.

[carl]

There is a larger question here. All the services need to "go into drydock" so to speak. All need large amounts of money to be spent to address genuinely critical needs. The larger question is: are the American people willing to pay what needs to be paid to maintain the military they are accustomed to? If we are, the bill is coming due very soon. If we are not, we had better rethink what we want to do and where we want to do it. We won't be able to keep it up unless we pay that big bill. Fussing over rental cars does nothing to answer this big question.

What does BAS and TAD mean?

Lawvol: I'm glad you showed up to help. I was outnumbered.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

BAS is "Basic Allowance for Subsistence." In essence, service members who do not normally eat at the chow hall (or in AF parlance the dining facility) are paid to cover their meals (and like BAH it is tax free). Typically BAS is paid to enlisted married folks, although single service members may receive it if their work schedule doesn't permit them to eat during the regularly scheduled meal times. Officers always draw BAS regardless of marital status. If you deploy to a place where you are fed by the military (either MRE's or field mess) you lose your BAS for that time (except the AF). Basically the service recoups it to use for the provided meals.

From the DoD site: "BAS is meant to offset costs for a member's meals. This allowance is based in the historic origins of the military in which the military provided room and board (or rations) as part of a member's pay. This allowance is not intended to offset the costs of meals for family members."

The 2007 monthly rate was $279.88 for enlisted, $192.74 for officers. The enlisted rate is actually a daily rate of $9.33, the theory being if you ate all three meals at the chow hall it would cost the government $9.33. Breakfast was always the best deal since it ran (in my time) about $.75 or so.

TAD is the Navy/Marines acronym for "Temporary Additional Duty" but some wags have been known to refer to it as "Traveling Around Drunk." When you are TAD you are paid extra to cover the cost of lodging, meals, and incidentals. Normally TADs are short in duration, and less than 6 months.

While fussing over rental cars might seem pointless it does add up. A friend "deployed" for four months to Stuttgart lived in a hotel and had a rental car that ran 100 Euro per day. She estimated that her "deployment" cost about $75K for her as a 2nd Lt. There were quite a few others there on "deployment" as well. Multiply that by hundreds, if not thousands, then you have a hefty sum of cash being spent for...what?

I feel that it is the frivolous expenditures on boondoggles that eats up a lot of money better spent elsewhere. Not that I never went on a boondoggle TAD or two in my time, but Marines will also do their best to make due even when deployed.

[Ken White]

so-called Separate Rations, the money enlisted folks in all service receive if they have permission to not eat in the mess hall. If you receive it,and eat in the mess hall anyway, you have to pay for your meals. Essentially it was designed for married enlisted guys but it generally applies in the Army, Navy and Marines to anyone authorized to not live in the Barracks, a minority. Don't know what the USAF does now but years ago they used to give it to almost everyone which always caused problems if you were in another service and not drawing BAS because the USAF Headcount guys refused to believe that you were not drawing it and were therefor entitled to eat for free...

TAD is the Navy and Marine same thing as USA / USAF TDY, Temporary Additional Duty / Temporary Duty. The money factor is that while on such orders people are paid a Per Diem rate that varies from locale to locale. Drawing that Per diem can include rations, quarters and incidentals $55 up to $300 or more a day, generally around a hundred and some change). If you are gone more that 180 days, it's not TAD /TDY ordinarily; thus the Marines and Navy with 7 month tours and the Army with 12-15 month tours do not draw per diem; that Air Force does 90 and 179 day tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and thus they get to draw per diem for the whole trip. A considerable windfall...

That, I think is changing. Dunno.

[Ken White]

on the board...

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

the Per Diem scam!

I think your info is good to go Ken and adds to my lengthy missive.

[wm]

Just heard that in the latest round of PBDs, the F15 repair problem is getting funds diverted from F22 production facility closure funding that was slated to start in 2010 (not clear whether it is actual closure or closure studies being cut/reprogrammed. I'm sure I don't have the story completely correct.

[Norfolk]

Just heard that in the latest round of PBDs, the F15 repair problem is getting funds diverted from F22 production facility closure funding that was slated to start in 2010 (not clear whether it is actual closure or closure studies being cut/reprogrammed. I'm sure I don't have the story completely correct.

It is clear that the Air Force requires a comprehensive replacement of its aircraft fleet. There is no question about it. But it is ultimately self-defeating to spend money to shut down or study shutting down the very replacement for aircraft that are literally coming apart in the air. How ironic then that the Air Force is compelled to draw funds from allocations for shutting down or planning to shut down the F-22 production line in order to use it to keep the old F-15 flying.

In a twisted sort of way, maybe this might actually end up keep the F-22 line open; after all, with only 183 F-22s ordered and 2/3rds of those delivered, there just aren't going to be enough F-22s in existence to take losses in a shooting war, let alone to replace the F-15. And the F-35 JSF, when (if) it comes on-line, is unlikely to be procured in sufficient quantity to fully replace the F-16, let alone make up for the shortfall in F-22s for the Air Superiority role. And none of this even touches Tankers, Transports, Reconnaissance and EW planes, Bombers, etc., etc., etc.

But if the Air Force is to be taken really seriously, and not just to be seen to be the squeakiest wheel, it is really going to have to reform itself as an institution and become noticeably more basic and ascetic in its QOL expectations (amongst other things). Even if the Air Force did more or less prevail in the budgetary battles to come, the sheer cost of re-equipping the Air Force would almost necessarily reduce the other Services to relative penury. Something has to give over the next few years.

[George Raihala]

There seems to be a lot of gnashing of teeth on this board with regard to the USAF and QOL. Just a quick use of the calculator shows that paying everyone deployed their BAS is really a drop in the bucket when compared to acquisition costs of a new aircraft program (assume 20,000 or so deployed, at $200 a day, and it costs $48M a year...that is chump change in the world of acquisition for almost any program in any service). Do those costs stack up? Sure, to some extent, but not nearly to the extent of what buying new aircraft do, which is what some are charging. Sure, there are some questionable "deployments", but those number in the hundreds, if that many, and are not creating the budget hole that everyone on here thinks. One would be very generous to assume that the USAF spends about $100M a year more than the other services on QOL issues, and that is nothing compared to what is required for almost any major aircraft modernization program (for example, the program to put a fully integrated datalink on the B-1 fleet is around a $300M program...that's one modification to one aircraft), much less what it costs to develop and field a new aircraft, which is well into the billions of dollars. The USAF could cancel everything that is annoying to all of you and not be any nearer to its goals.

In the 1990s we went on a "procurement holiday", buying very few new aircraft. That is now catching up to us. The USAF is finding itself in a tight spiral of ever increasing maintenance costs while trying to develop and field new aircraft. Every year you keep old aircraft around decreases the amount of money you have to spend on new aircraft. So we pull money from F-22 accounts to pay for F-15s because we don't have anywhere else to source it.

If you want to save some real (read: billions) money, than you have to look hard at the military repair depots. But you'll never save money there. Why? Because in order to save money at the depots, you need efficiency, and that means less jobs. Civilian jobs...voter jobs. The USAF tried mighty hard to get a handle on aging aircraft costs about a decade ago, and got nowhere because no one in the depots would sign up to anything that used less people (and thus less money) because that would piss off their Senator and their Congressmen.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong (apologies to DM)....

George

[LawVol]

The money factor is that while on such orders people are paid a Per Diem rate that varies from locale to locale. Drawing that Per diem can include rations, quarters and incidentals $55 up to $300 or more a day, generally around a hundred and some change). If you are gone more that 180 days, it's not TAD /TDY ordinarily; thus the Marines and Navy with 7 month tours and the Army with 12-15 month tours do not draw per diem; that Air Force does 90 and 179 day tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and thus they get to draw per diem for the whole trip. A considerable windfall...

That, I think is changing. Dunno.

I'm a little confused. My "per diem" while deployed to Iraq was roughly $3 per day (its called incidentals). If I went TDY to Maxwell AFB, AL I'd get $44 per day not including hotel costs (if memory serves). So any argument that I received some sort of windfall would be incorrect. Now, that said, "deployments" to somewhere in CONUS and the like is probably different. I'm not sure why we get incidentals, but there you have it.

One of my old company gunneys used to say that Marines aren't happy unless they're bitching about something. Maybe its the same with Soldiers. So we AF guys are just keeping the Marine/Soldier morale high.

George: they're just venting. It's a cyclical thing here. About once a month, someone has to complain about the AF. No worries, they love us.

[Rob Thornton]

Hey John - Of course we love the USAF - now Lawyers on the other hand.....

Best Regards, Rob

[Ken White]

I'm a little confused. My "per diem" while deployed to Iraq was roughly $3 per day (its called incidentals). If I went TDY to Maxwell AFB, AL I'd get $44 per day not including hotel costs (if memory serves). So any argument that I received some sort of windfall would be incorrect. Now, that said, "deployments" to somewhere in CONUS and the like is probably different. I'm not sure why we get incidentals, but there you have it.

You get incidentals because the law says if you're TDY you are entitled to TDY less those items that do not apply. In Iraq you could not legally draw ration or quarters per diem because one is pretty much confined to one of the bases. Had you gone to Kuwait or Doha...

Also, length of tour is the issue. I did not say that the AF did 179 day tours specifically to avoid NOT paying per diem; just noted that is the practical effect.

Different strokes.

I hear what you're saying and do not radically disagree -- recall that I said early in this thread the F15 needed to go and that I strongly support the purchase of both the F22 (needed) and F35 (more important IMO) -- but I made my points to show that the Air Force bashing you guys frequently experience is a largely a result of envy at your somewhat more affluent lifestyle; what goes around comes around as they say...

One of my old company gunneys used to say that Marines aren't happy unless they're bitching about something. Maybe its the same with Soldiers. So we AF guys are just keeping the Marine/Soldier morale high.

There is that. That bitching with respect to the AF points to a rightly or wrongly perceived double standard of personnel treatment and compensation. You in blue get the bennies of that so you just get some flak (harmless type flak in this case) to go with it. Seems fair...

All the services are necessary and I for one have been places I could've attracted bad guy aeroplanes with evil intent. I thank the Navy, the Marines and the USAF that I never had to deal with that. There's enough work for us all.

George: they're just venting. It's a cyclical thing here. About once a month, someone has to complain about the AF. No worries, they love us.

Generally when someone in the AF whines about something...

We do love you. Just not as much as many in AF Blue seem to love themselves.

NOTE: That last paragraph is not directed at anyone and certainly doesn't apply to anyone here; just too good a line offered to not use...

[Sargent]

In the Pacific, at least, the US and its allies did have vastly superior aircraft, ships and tanks; and most everything else too. We had vastly superior numbers too.

In Europe, the qualitative superiority wasn't so marked but I think it still existed. For example the German Army was mostly horse drawn to the end of the war. And there too we had vastly superior numbers of machines.

This was not an exercise in fiscal restraint. The national debt increased six-fold during the war years. B-29s and atom bombs did not come cheap

"I would suggest that the way to get to having this sort of frame of mind is to drop the idea that a force can arrive on the battlefield with "superiority" or "dominance" already settled. If that were the case, then war would be made relatively obsolete. To believe it's possible is not only problematic for R&D, acquisition and procurement, it's also the fast route to hubris.

Cheers,
Jill"

I think it essential that the Air Force arrive on the battlefield more or less certain that it can achieve and maintain superiority or dominance. If that were an open question it would not be prudent to travel to that killing field. If the Air Force doesn't win its fight, the ground forces almost certainly won't win theirs; or rather, ours, the Americans.

Pardon my lack of clarity. What I meant was that supremacy of weaponry was not the objective of the WWII building programs -- the Liberty ship program would tend to support this inference. The short duration of the war would also tend to support my contention -- had the US applied the sort of process it does these days the war would have dragged on for years. Again, I don't think it's inconsistent with the history to suggest that the philosophy of the various weapons' programs was "need to have," that they felt it was better to have a weapon on the battlefield that was good enough rather than one that was dominant on the drawing board.

As for specific cases, I think the Japanese situation points to the fatal flaw in their strategic situation. They never intended to fight it out with the US -- they knew that they were at a sever disadvantage with respect to industrial capacity and resources. They did however enter the war with numerous advantages -- they had realized, before the US, that the aircraft carrier was going to be the important platform in the war, they were vastly superior in nighttime naval operations (see Frank's _Guadalcanal_), and, at least until they suffered irretrievable losses in their pilot corps, had a real strength in their naval aviation based around the Zero.

Your reference to the German use of horse drawn carriages is not the slight you might have meant. In dealing with the terrain they faced on the Russian front, horses might have been the better option than trucks. (I've just picked up Wood's _Mud: A Military History_ -- what a great premise for a history.)

Your final point about requiring air supremacy prior to entering a war is simply untenable historically. The US/Allies did not enter the war with air supremacy -- they had to fight for it. Take the Guadalcanal campaign -- the Allies had to contest for that piece of real estate against Japanese air power. They had to fight for control of Henderson field. That the past fifty years of experience has seen the US enjoy a level of air superiority is most likely an anomoly based on the wealth disparity between the US and its opponents in conflicts. However, when in the future the US must contend with an opponent of roughly similar resources, then the air battle will need to be fought -- and the outcome of the war may, or may not, depend on who wins that battle outright. War is comprised of many battles, not all of which must be won to prevail in the total struggle.

In the short run, it also must be recognized that air defenses are far cheaper to build, and it's fairly easy to keep up with the advances in aircraft technology. There is also the added bonus in the American case that every advance in defensive capability forces the US to spend exponentially more to improve their aircraft -- it's like what we did to the Soviets. At the end of the day, we cannot spend huge sums of money to maintain superiority in any realm of warfare ad infinitum.

Regards,
Jill

[Sargent]

"Fussing over rental cars does nothing to answer this big question."

Personnel costs are the second largest chunk of the defense budget (behind O&M), so spending habits in this area do matter.

Regards,
Jill

[LawVol]

Many of you have heard about the F15 breakup from the MO Guard. Here is the story.

Witnesses to the incident said the 27-year-old Boeing jet appeared to split in two immediately behind the cockpit. Seconds later, Stilwell's parachute eased him to the ground with relatively minor injuries - a busted shoulder, a broken arm and a host of cuts and bruises.

What happened during those few seconds between breakup and ejection is the stuff of wonder and providence. Fortunately, Stilwell survived to offer his story to accident investigators.

The cracking of the upper right hand longeron was the culprit, according to the Air Force. Longerons are horizontal metal bars that hold the fuselage together. Once the break occurred on the upper right side, the other three longerons could not carry the load.

now back to my latte...

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

I like the Air Force, in fact to paraphrase a movie line:

"No, I like all you Air Force boys. Every time we've gotta go someplace and fight, you fellas always give us a ride."

Seriously, crunching the cost of TDY numbers, haggling over rental cars, and determining what the definition of "deployed" is, is purely an academic exercise. As Jill points out O&M and personnel are huge expenses. If you build it you gotta operate and maintain it (whether it's a gazillion dollar aircraft or just a million dollar barracks). If you hire them you gotta pay them. And the more you decide to pay them the less you have for other stuff.

The personnel issue really is an issue. One thing that hurts the military as a whole are dependents, or more accurately the ever increasing size of them. I don’t mean that pejoratively, I mean it in the practical sense.

The US military is one of the few (maybe the only) organizations that rewards marriage. Civilian corporations don’t dramatically increase a worker’s pay because he or she gets married. So in addition to the added pay there is an increase in infrastructure: more base housing, better base facilities, more schools, child care facilities, expanded health care, etc… It seems more and more new service members are married when they enter the service, some with children as well. This phenomenon placed a burden on the service budgets that was unforeseen. Yet when the Marine Corps’ Commandant recommended not allowing first termers to be, or get, married during their first enlistment he was pilloried. I didn’t get married until I was a sergeant (the second time) and on my third tour. The life of most junior Marines is pretty active and tough without having the addition stress of worrying about a wife and maybe kids as well.

[LawVol]

The personnel issue really is an issue. One thing that hurts the military as a whole are dependents, or more accurately the ever increasing size of them. I don’t mean that pejoratively, I mean it in the practical sense.

Ahhh, shades of "if the Corps wanted you to have a family, it would've issued you one!" From my experience, this is a theory that has gained traction. I get a number of calls from non-USAF personnel and their dependents (I won't say which branch) in search of help because their own command/base support structure, etc. is either nonexistent or doesn't care. It's a shame really. A number of these folks have expressed a desire to get out after their hitch. I wonder how many good folks we lose because of this?

The simple fact is that recruiting and retention have been difficult, especially in light of the ongoing war. If you want a large pool to pull good people from you need to take married folks. And if you want those folks to stay in, you'll need to address those family concerns.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

LawVol!

For years momma MC made it somewhat difficult for families. I had to request permission from my CO to get married and had to attend mandatory classes run by the chaplin's office then a year of paperwork. But here I am 29 years later still married to the same woman.

You're right on the mark about the recruiting aspect, in an all volunteer force you have to be much more aware of the personal aspect of personnel.

Let's bring back the draft and institute Draconian measures!