AF drawdown

[RiverAux]

In several of the augmentation threads it has been pointed out that the AF has been undergoing a personnel drawdown for some time and will be for a while longer at least.  This drawdown has been partially used to help justify the need for CAP augmentation. 

However, while I am a strong augmentation supporter, I'm not sure this is the proper argument to make (heck, I've probably done it, but I'm rethinking that position). 

Whether or not a drawdown would lead to CAP augmentation depends on how the drawdown is being done.  If the AF is primarily deactivating "unneeded" units but leaving others more or less as is, there won't be much of a personnel shortage in the remaining units.  However, if the AF is cutting a percentage of people out of existing units (say 5-10%), then there will definetely be some jobs that are no longer being done, or done as well, as there were in the past and CAP augmentees might help fill the gap.

I suspect that some combination of these strategies is being done depending on the unit in that we're deactivating some units and cutting personnel in others. 

Does anyone have any information on how the AF is implementing the drawdown that might shed some light on this? 

[DNall]

No, actually the AF has a stated strength & operations level that Congress has agreed they need to maintain to do what is expected of them, and they've expanded into a few new mission areas on top of that (homeland defense & cyberterrorism come to mind). Yet the Army right now is in trouble, so AF is cutting 40k people & shifting a fat chunck of their budget to Army/Marines. I don't know about the Navy, I think they're making cuts as well. The missions requirements have not changed though.

Now that's the theory, the reality is those cuts get made & then you see the extent to which you can't get the job done anymore & contrators that cost 4 times as much are hired to fill back some of those jobs, the only advantae being you can fire them when you want.

Far as augmentation, it really doesn't have anything to do with the drawdown. It's just taking advantage of current events to sell something. In this case you can pitch to AF that we can provide volunteer labor to support them domestically, which in turn may mean that more troops can be freed for overseas duty, or that they can maintain a higher operations level despite the drawdown. It plucks a string close to their heart. In reality any augmentation program we could even theoretically do would never rise to that level of impact. It might cut a few hundred contractors nationwide, or free up a fee hundred military manhours, which if you pile them together is a lot, but not broken down to the unit or even command level. And, whatever we give, we're going to be getting back in return, which is great for us & the relationship, but means theAF won't really profit from this concept in a meassurable way.

[RiverAux]

But, to do augmentation there need to be tasks to be done at the unit level.  If the units are fully-manned and doing well they won't have a strong need for augmentation.  If they've had to transfer their staff or lost people entirely, then there is an open need for help. 

Sure, the most critical jobs might end up getting contracted out, but those aren't the ones that CAP members would have been likely to fill anyway.  Except for the "professional" positions, CAP augmentation is very likely to have to focus on the margins --- low priority jobs that need to be done but the AF is geting them accomplished through adding more work to their existing staff. 

I agree that the overall impact of CAP augmentation will not be significant, but it could be on the small scale level, and that is what I'm talking about in this thread.  Are AF units losing personnel that are not getting replaced with contractors (broad-based manpower cuts) or are they losing units (hey, we don't need that F-15 squadron anymore, transfer all those people out and we'll lose the extra through attrition)?

[DNall]

I don't know if I'd say low-priority, but it would be on the margins. It would be part-time night/wknd help that saves you hiring an additional contractor or calling up a reservist when it can be avoided, or just being short-handed & not doing as good a job.

I understand what you're saying, and the drawdown does shake things up enough that there will be defined job openings they need help with. However there is always extra work that needs to be done. The pull cops off patrol right now to do personnel, if I could provide a couple retired personnel NCOs and another lady that they trained in addition to taking the correspondence course, they'll divide up the wknds & cover 3/4ths of that work for the unit so they can mostly keep their people doing the job they are trained for... that's the kind of thing where you can make an impact. It really doesn't save any money or manhours, but it helps the AF doa better job with its limited resources.

Far as your question abotu the nature of the cuts, both things are happening. Lot of planes are being shed, reserve slots tightened up a lot. Active force is cutting some units I think but mostly across the board cuts. we were talking about this in the budget thread where CAP didn't take as big a percentage cut as the rest of the AF & what that means if anything.

[lordmonar]

No, actually the AF has a stated strength & operations level that Congress has agreed they need to maintain to do what is expected of them, and they've expanded into a few new mission areas on top of that (homeland defense & cyberterrorism come to mind). Yet the Army right now is in trouble, so AF is cutting 40k people & shifting a fat chunck of their budget to Army/Marines. I don't know about the Navy, I think they're making cuts as well. The missions requirements have not changed though.

That is not the main reason for the drawdown.  The USAF needs the money to buy planes.

Now that's the theory, the reality is those cuts get made & then you see the extent to which you can't get the job done anymore & contractors that cost 4 times as much are hired to fill back some of those jobs, the only advantage being you can fire them when you want.

Actually contractors are cheaper than blue suit personnel.  The contractors individually may get paid more than an individual USAF member...but....the USAF member costs the USAF more when you factor in health care, Professional Military Educations, Technical School, Acquisition, Housing, Family Care, Family School, Family Medical Care, Retirement.

Also...because of the nature of being in the military there is a lot of lost productivity due to "military" obligations.  In the average year your blue suit Airman has to attend no less than 20 hours of training, spends 24 hours at commanders calls, 12 hours at promotion ceremonies, ALS graduations, suicide prevention briefings, safety briefings, homosexual awareness, law of armed conflict, fire extinguisher training, CPR and self aid buddy care.

Supervisors are almost required to write quarterly award packages, evaluations, decoration packages, yearly award packages (sometime for several different awards).

There are "Top Three" meetings, Airman Council Meetings, "5-6" meetings, Air Force Association meetings, Air Force Sergeants Association meetings, Dorm council meetings, Base Services Council Meetings.

USAF personnel are also limited in how the use their personnel.  An avionics guy will never touch an engine.

All these things contractors are not required to do.  They are able to define their "career fields" any way they want to and hire/train people anyway they want to.  They often can do the same job with half the people than the USAF.

The USAF does not have to worry about the administrative costs of working assignments, professional development or any of the over head that exists for the blue suiters.

And...they have the advantage of not counting your congressionally mandated end strength numbers.

Far as augmentation, it really doesn't have anything to do with the drawdown. It's just taking advantage of current events to sell something. In this case you can pitch to AF that we can provide volunteer labor to support them domestically, which in turn may mean that more troops can be freed for overseas duty, or that they can maintain a higher operations level despite the drawdown. It plucks a string close to their heart. In reality any augmentation program we could even theoretically do would never rise to that level of impact. It might cut a few hundred contractors nationwide, or free up a fee hundred military man-hours, which if you pile them together is a lot, but not broken down to the unit or even command level. And, whatever we give, we're going to be getting back in return, which is great for us & the relationship, but means theAF won't really profit from this concept in a meassurable way.

I won't nay say your ideal of a full time augmentation program.  I would like to see it happen.  I think though that you are going to find that it is not going to affect any operational level. Like the tours at Patrick AFB.  They are good to have...but the USAF dropped them because they were costing too much in the way of manpower to keep them running.  But they in now way add or subtract to the operational levels of the base.

When I was at Misawa they deployed to the Desert for an AEF rotation.  Base services said they were going to have to close down one of the base's gyms because they did not have the manpower to run both of them 24-7.  Other units on the base stepped up to keep both gyms open.   The post officer on overseas bases is always undermanned, especially during X-mas.  So volunteers stepped up to pitch mail.

These are the sort of things CAP could do as an augmentation system.

[DNall]

The AF is cutting back the total number of planes, that's how they have lots of pilots to move to predators. They are buying F22s & predators though & of course are in long lead for F35s (I think I saw that brief a while back). So yeah AF is taking a swipe of that cash before it goes out the door, and that's teh PR line you push to blue suiters, but Congress made cuts to shift funds to war expenditures.

That said, I just saw a story yesterday I can probably still track down saying AF is reconsidering if they want to cut 20k of that. I think it's politics. I think the cut is going to happen, but they want to make a point to Congress that capabilities are going to take a hit in some places on the budget & they'd like to not take such a big hit next year. Same old merry-go-round, they're smart folks, and so are the ones up the hill reading btwn the lines.

Homosexual awareness huh? Guess I missed that one. We're kind of lumping civilian employees & external contractors into one on this, and there are pro/cons to all three, none of which particularly matter to augmentation.

There are several categories of augmentation we can takea  run at:
1) professionally degreed
a) Chaplains, medical, engineering, etc working directly in a one for one slot on a part time basis.
b) law (attornies, paralegals, etc) doesn't equate to UCMJ, but they can do legal assistance to servicemebers & similiar work, accountants helping w/ taxes, etc.

2) retired military who are AFSC or MOS qual'd in an area and can step right back in a/ a refresher & some corresponce work

3) skilled civilian labor: maybe you're a mechanic or something on the outside that with limited training can fill in on short days under supervision; this might also include IT working with 8AF on some important stuff.

4) civilian skills transited to extra duty jobs. Public Affairs, teachers working with DDR programs, etc.

5) CAP skills tranited to AF slots. I don't know how far you can take this one, but there may be some roles in operations & other places that a CAP liaison could with some additional training pitch in & help out a little more rather than just being int he way. Comm like CGAux is one of the things I'm thinking of. You could put a CAP member on dispatch for a cop unit & shove that other guy out in a car. Stuff like that.

6) un-skilled: This is answering phones, data entry, helping with events, etc your imagination & theirs are the only limits.

I'm sure tehre's more, just tossing some stuff out there. I really don't think you're legitimately going to save any money, just like our SaR work doesn't REALLY save money. It's a service that in some cases may expand or maintain capabilities w/o burning extra resources to do it. Plus the big thing is, this is what Auxiliary actually means is support. I just think it's a good compliment to our operational (ES) aspects to deliver a full range of auxiliary support. It's all about reaching out & delivering service to the AF w/o asking in return... which of course produces lots & lots in return, including a better relationship & gets the word out about CAP to people that don't see much of it now. That's the truth, and the central way to sell it. Talking about backing up during a drawdown or visions of manhour savings or whatever is good selling points, but I think they're smart enough to know it probably wouldn't reach that reality & if it does you're talking about in narrow cases & years down the road, but it's the right thing to do so we should.