Official Site of the U.S. Air Force   Right Corner Banner
Join the Air Force

News > Air Force announces force structure overview for FY 13 and beyond
 
Photos 
AF structure overview
(U.S. Air Force graphic/Sylvia Saab)
Download HiRes
 
Related Links
 Force Structure Changes
Air Force announces force structure overview for FY 13 and beyond

Posted 2/3/2012 Email story   Print story

    


by Ann Stefanek
Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs


2/3/2012 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Air Force officials announced proposed force structure changes which support the new DoD strategic guidance retiring 286 aircraft over the next five years, including 227 in fiscal year 13.

According to Secretary of the Air Force, Michael Donley, the Air Force is shaping itself for future challenges by realigning Air Force assets with the Defense Department's new strategic guidance.

"We've had to adjust our force structure based on our strategic objectives and to balance capability and capacity with constrained budgets," Donley said. "We must have the right tools and enough of them to credibly deter potential adversaries and to deliver on our objectives."

The new strategic guidance requires the joint force to be capable of fighting one large scale, combined arms campaign with sufficient combat power to also deny a second adversary, and de-emphasized large-scale, prolonged stability operations. The Air Force's approach to this new strategy is to retire fighter, mobility, and ISR that are beyond those needed to meet the capacity requirements of the new defense strategic guidance.

"Where possible, we attempted to retire all aircraft of a specific type, allowing us to also divest the unique training and logistic support structure for that aircraft," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz explained. "When that was not possible, we worked to retire the oldest aircraft first, and redistributed aircraft into effective and economical units, eliminating other units when that was most efficient. Where we retained older aircraft, we are taking steps to ensure they will remain viable into the future."

Although the U.S. has removed all combat forces from Iraq and the new strategic guidance reduces the steady state requirement for ground forces, the Air Force expects steady state rotational requirements to remain constant, or perhaps increase.

According to Schwartz this continuing combatant commander requirement for Air Force aircraft and Airmen to deploy forward was a key factor in determining the required mix between Active and Reserve component forces due to differences in sustainable deployment rates and operations tempo.

Schwartz also explained the need for reductions in the Reserve Component.

"Two decades of military end strength and force structure reductions in our active duty component has changed the mix of active duty to Reserve Component forces," Schwartz said. "We've carefully considered the mix and what the appropriate balance should be between the active and reserve components. The Reserve Component is a critical and essential part of our Total Force, but must be balanced and matched appropriately within a constrained fiscal environment."

"We're going to do this intelligently in a way that balances tempo, that keeps the right mix of assets, modern and less modern, in each of the components, and we're doing this in an inclusive fashion with Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve leadership," said Schwartz.

The Air Force is going to get smaller, and all of the components--active, guard and reserve-- are going to get smaller together, he said.

Schwartz also emphasized that we will avoid a hollow force by protecting readiness at any force level, and strengthen our integration of the Total Force team of Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve Airmen.

"To ensure an agile and ready force, we made a conscious choice not to maintain more force structure than we could afford to properly train and equip," Schwartz said. "We've taken this approach to preserve the capabilities the Nation requires of its Air Force."

The announcement specifies the force structure changes experienced by the Total Force: Air Force Active Duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve and will save the Air Force $8.7 Billion over the next five years.

For fiscal years 2014-2017 the Air Force plans to reduce 50-plus aircraft from its inventory, continue to reshape the missions between the Total Force, and increase Reserve Component participation in the Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance as well as cyber missions.

Implementation of these actions will occur only after completion of appropriate environmental analyses. The Air Force is scheduled to announce related force structure manpower changes in March.

For more details about the Fiscal 2013 Force Structure changes click here.

(Mitch Gettle, Air Force Public Affairs Agency contributed to this article)



tabComments
3/7/2012 10:27:04 AM ET
WOW! Guess we know where the Guard and Reserve stand or not stand, how is it that the Guard and Reserve gets hit the hardest? we already do more with less and get very minimal money for operating budgets not to mention we can't get any days for people to come out and get ready for deployments.Seems like were just a couple cuts away from being ousted all together.Very dissapointing
Scott, Oklahoma
 
2/25/2012 12:37:39 PM ET
MarkI'm glad you believed in the mission that is being done. Having actually flown the training sorties at Guam I can assure you EVERYTHING that we fly from Guam can be flown from Minot or Barksdale...EVERYTHING. And with less risk. As for the B-2 skin is not placed on each time and in some cases the US actually wants people to see the B-2 flying around just so they know it is there as in my example let it be that show of force. And don't think for a moment there isn't another bomber coming online. I'm well versed with the Buff mission 'more than you I assure you' and I'm telling you we can do without it.
PriorBuffGuy, not KBAD
 
2/20/2012 7:25:52 AM ET
@PriorBuffGuy Having been a BUFF Maintainer for over 7 years before moving on I have been on the Guam deployments. While I can not divulge information that went on while I was there I can say that the BUFF certainly DID support active campaigns and I have the ribbons to prove it. To say we can rely solely on the B-2 shows just how un-informed you are. Each Bomber has it's specific role and the BUFF gets it done cheaply. How much do you think it costs to put the skin on a B-2 for every mission Get serious...
Mark, RAFM
 
2/16/2012 12:09:59 PM ET
..to eliminate the B-52 completely which would free assets to fill ALO, RPA, AFSOC, Staff and AETC billets. Not to mention the huge cost savings such an act would create. The B-2, ICBM and Subs would provide Nuclear deterrence and B-2 would provide Global Strike capability. Since that won't happen anytime soon, at a minimum they should discontinue the Guam deployment, save money and be MORE effective with global strike shows of force.
PriorBuffguy, Not KBAD
 
2/16/2012 8:26:06 AM ET
Maj SWAI cannot resist chiming in. I flew Buffs recently. Since 2006 '6 years ago' The B-52 has not employed in anger. It lacks the avionics desired by Combatant Commanders to employ in Afghanistan. Since 2004 B-52 has maintained the majority of the USPACOM continuous bomber presence 'aka Guam deployment'. The B-2 is no longer participating in this effort and frankly the B-52 should not as well. The mere act only provides B-52 training in that area with N. Korea conducting missile launches and China continuing to grow its military it is evident the Buff's Guam presence is much of a deterrence. In fact being within easy striking distance for both previously mentioned it provides a detrement to B-52 assets being there.The real advantage of B-52 is the same mentality used by the B-2 of Global Strike meaning to employ from garrison. That being said the B-2 obviously has the ability to perform this better due to its stealth capability.My solution is to eliminate th
PriorBuffguy, Not KBAD
 
2/11/2012 12:48:21 PM ET
Dave C you have the right to say what you want. As a citizen of the United States and an educated retired member of the service, you have a duty and a responsibility to not spout nonsense. That's what wrong with our Country today misusing your rights without adhering to your responsibilities as a citizen. You do realize that B-52s have dropped precision munitions in close air support roles in Afghanistan recently, right? This ain't your daddy's B-52.
Maj, SWA
 
2/10/2012 12:39:48 PM ET
Ahhh the beauty of an open forum, MAJ, is I don't have to stop, the beauty of being retired is I can say what I want. Ok, I mispoke if you want to include the deterrance value. Ok they both do have that and yes I understand they were used in Iraq and Afganistan, although for a very short time we refueled them on the way over after 911. My point is that aircraft now need to be better utlized. AMC is over tasked daily and to make cuts to the AMC force makes no sense when there are other areas such as an over abundance of nukes and bombers could help us fund things the Air Force really needs people.
Dave C, OH
 
2/9/2012 10:19:01 AM ET
Undoubtedly the 4-stars have the big picture perspective and are the ones who should be making major force structure decisions. However there are significant opportunities for savings in some of our service's basic tasks that I think they are blind to. Examples are plentiful. Endless CBTs do a great job of providing a CYA to show that the force was trained but how many people actually learn vs. clicking through them in a comatose state. Awards programs are out of control. My functional area has on the order of 60 annual awards not to mention all of the private org awards. They improve morale but wouldn't morale be better improved by preserving jobs Prettying up bases for DV visits serving as rent-a-crowds for speakers CFC AFAF Tops in Blue and the list goes on...all of these are luxuries we cannot afford today but we are choosing to pay for them with jobs aircraft and facilities.
R.H Adams, CONUS
 
2/9/2012 9:30:55 AM ET
i like to know is auroua program will get more funding and the new b3 bomber will be affected and why isn't abl program being more advanced
sharp, md
 
2/8/2012 10:11:25 PM ET
Dave if you didn't hear the USAF has the capability to force project over great distances up to and including the entire earth. Where an aircraft is located on the ground has no bearing on where it can perform its mission. If you think the B-52 hasn't been used in Iraq and Afghanistan you are seriously misinformed. No the B-52 has not deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan but that is not what you said. You said served in a combat role. As Former SAC Warrior said please STOP.
Maj, SWA
 
2/8/2012 11:41:12 AM ET
Seriously Dave your facts are about as wrong as they could possibly be.
Maj, SWA
 
2/8/2012 10:43:07 AM ET
Hmmmm maybe you should check your facts and BTW Guam doesn't count as combat. I will admit maybe the B-2 has done somethings we don't know about but let me know the last time the B-52 was deployed to afganistan or iraq You must be an old B-52 guy haha
Dave C, OH
 
2/7/2012 11:53:31 AM ET
Dave C...PLEASE stop. Although you have every right to your opinions you argument is so factually incorrect that it hurts just to read it. Check your facts and then come back and try again.
Former SAC Warrior, Pentagon
 
2/7/2012 10:29:02 AM ET
Once again goes to show how all of the people with 30 plus years and more stripes and stars than they can count don't look to see the outlook down the road. They are going to still be sitting in there seats and collecting. But the missions that they say they are making better they don't go out and fight in. But they will spend more money moving things from here to there and buying bigger and better. And lets do more with less.
Low man on the todem pole, Doesn't matter
 
2/7/2012 8:04:18 AM ET
Interesting to see that the bomber force remains intact and so do all the nukes. You could cut the number of nukes in half and still have more than enough to destroy the world a few times over. Additionally the B-2 and the B-52 have not served in a combat role in years leaving the bulk of the work load to the B-1B. Also I was surprised to see AMC, who is already overworked, getting hit with cuts. The C-5A could be swapped to the M and easily move a ton of cargo.....
Dave C, OH
 
2/7/2012 12:46:57 AM ET
This is a sad example of what is happening in every Federal Agency.Some DBag that wants to make rank blow's smoke up you know where and states the most blatant Lie and sells it as Truth to the public and it becomes absolute Law...Why are the MORONS in Charge?
SUX2BU, BFE UTAH
 
2/6/2012 7:52:51 PM ET
Reminds me of when someone decided fighters didn't need guns because missiles would eliminate the need.
John, Florida
 
2/6/2012 5:35:59 PM ET
Not much surprise that they want to gut the ANG and RES again after all the articles from the top in the last year saying how wonderfull the guard is and what they bring to the mission total force this total force that....
C, WA
 
2/6/2012 2:50:01 PM ET
Easy to see that Gen Schwartz learned the main requirement for being Air Force Chief of Staff...the ability to speak Washingtonese. Say alot of nonsense that hides what you are really saying. We are cutting the Air Force because we are getting the funds to keep it at a sustainable level. We will be cutting capability. We will be retiring aircraft and not replacing them. But we will go on saying look at us we are the strongest air force in the world. There is coming a time when it will be exposed that the emperor has no clothes. Someone like China will look beyond the words to see a hollow force without the capabililty to defend allies in the far east and Pacific rim.
Jerry, Oklahoma
 
2/3/2012 5:41:20 PM ET
I remember reading a few short weeks ago that the AF was going to start leaning much harder on the reserve components for real world ops. Makes perfect sense let's cut the most experienced most cost effective manpower pool you have. They'll just have to work harder after all they're just reservists.
Christian, Minneapolis MN
 
2/3/2012 2:17:02 PM ET
Hmm Ok. I see what they are trying to do here. But from my prospective it doesn't get me what I need. Eliminate some General positions. You can pay for nearly 7 SrA with one O-10 paycheck. Stretch out the time it takes to put on SSgt. On average it takes 3 years to make a SrA let me have him for 3 more years working before they have to worry about EPRs and numerous additional duties.
Prior, SJAFB
 
Add a comment

 Inside AF.mil

ima cornerSearch

tabSubscribe AF.MIL
tabMore HeadlinesRSS feed 
Solve problems like an Air Force pilot

Active-duty Airmen can pass education benefits to dependents  1

Air Force launches new GPS satellite

Sister-service PME provides valuable joint tool  1

Davis-Monthan, Spangdahlem earn top lodging honors

Through Airmen's Eyes: Building partnerships by building a school

Discovery Channel series highlights C-17

Elmendorf P38 Lightning  5

Welsh honors two Airmen from AFMAO  1

Airmen showcase C-17 to New Zealanders  1

Retroactive Stop Loss application deadline nears

'REEP'ing the rewards of energy conservation

13th Air Force inactivates, merges with PACAF  |  VIDEO

Electronic payments required for TRICARE Reserve Select and Retired Reserve monthly premiums  2

tabCommentaryRSS feed 
Standards? What standards?

First things first: Get your degrees in order  6


Site Map      Contact Us     Questions     Security and Privacy notice     E-publishing