Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz provide testimony about the Air Force’s FY13 budget request before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense on March 14, 2012, in Washington, D.C. (U.S. Air Force photo/Scott M. Ash)
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz and Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley provide testimony about the Air Force’s FY13 budget request before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense on March 14, 2012, in Washington, D.C. (U.S. Air Force photo/Scott M. Ash)
Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz provide testimony about the Air Force’s FY13 budget request before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense on March 14, 2012, in Washington, D.C. (U.S. Air Force photo/Scott M. Ash)
by Tech. Sgt. Richard A. Williams, Jr.
Air Force Public Affairs Agency
3/15/2012 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The Air Force's two top leaders discussed planned adjustments to the Air Force's active and reserve components during a congressional hearing here March 14.
During testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Defense, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said the new defense strategic guidance led the service to propose changes in its force structure as part of its fiscal 2013 budget request.
"Because force structure changes have a ripple effect on manpower needs, our budget proposal calls for a reduction of 9,900 Air Force military personnel," Donley said
By component, this amounts to reductions of 3,900 active-duty, 5,100 Air National Guard, and 900 Air Force Reserve personnel, he said.
"[Manpower and force structure] changes were prompted by the strategic guidance we received that asked us to reorient geographically...and recognizing that the overall size of the ground forces is going down," Donley said.
Air Force officials analyzed their fighter and mobility forces to develop the right balance between active and reserve component capabilities, he said, focusing not just on maintaining a strategic reserve but also on better integrating the active and reserve components.
Schwartz said one of the principle considerations in balancing the force was determining the appropriate activity level for each component for both rotational and surge contingency requirements.
"With a smaller force you have to assure that you can spread that activity level properly across the entire inventory," Schwartz said. "If we overuse any of these components, especially when the economy turns up, we will end up in a situation where active duty will not stay with us, and on the guard and reserve side, employers and family members will see the activity level as too active duty-like."
Therefore, Air Force officials looked to balance the components such that the active duty would have a deploy-to-dwell ratio of one-to-two, while the reserve components would have a ratio of not less than one-to-four, he said.
"So this was trying to get the mix right so that we could maintain the anticipated activity level without overusing either of the components," Schwartz said.
Donley said the Air Force's intent is to be a superb force at any size, able to maintain the agility and flexibility inherent to the service's airpower capabilities and ready to engage a full range of contingencies and threats.
"As a result of the proposals we are making here, we will be the size of the Air Force in 1947...on the active duty side," he said. "So as we go forward together, the reserve and active components must be more closely integrated, and we can't get either side of this out of balance going forward."
Comments
7/23/2012 8:21:18 AM ET It's a wonderful that cut down on the number of people we need to defend this GREAT country. Now if we can only get the President and Congress to quit volunteering our troops and tax dollars to save wothless nations from their own folly. That would reduce the Defense Budget
Bryan , Scott
7/3/2012 2:37:51 PM ET Not to get into a battle over guard and active duty, but I find it strange that being guard we have deployed more than our active duty counterpart. And while deployed, the location was comprised of primarily guard and reserve. Many of the Active duty members I know find it difficult to PCS to a location outside of the states as we are closing bases around the world. The military is not what it used to be - join to see the world now you join to see the states. The military will never be as it was. I agree with everyone who has posted on here so far. You all have valid points. I feel there is no future left in the military. Stay active duty only to be forced out early and lose out on your retirement due to budget cutsGo guard or reserve but expect no long term future in it because you too face the same fate as active duty. At the end of the day they expect you to deploy do your duty and stand in the unemployment line when you come home as a thank you for your service to your count
Sunflower, Illinois
6/28/2012 8:09:15 AM ET I often wonder in this political climate why are we fighting amoung ourselves Reserve Guard Active Duty all have their good and bad points in thease economic times we need to be conciderate of our pay sourse the Citisin of the USA. We do not need to have a superiority war between forces or a sence of entitlement amoungst ourselves remember our core values
JD, OHIO
5/17/2012 2:40:11 PM ET Same old story cut the guard really the air national guard has more of a knowledge base than any active duty personnel. The guard is made up of marines army navy police officersfiremen and airmen etcno where else could u find and utilize this wealth of knowledge for a fraction of the cost. The air force could easily cut the 9900 positions from its structure an not effect operations at all.
ronnie good, mrb wv
5/9/2012 9:15:12 AM ET Since 911 the three components have not been used as they were designed. In all fairness Active Duty deploys Reserve picks up the slack at home stations where the Active Duty left from and Guard well Guard belongs to its individual state. Since 911 the forces have been mashed together. Guard and Reserve have picked up the short falls and rotations of Active Duty. Looking to the future will there be as many rotations Do the numbers we have make sense if used properly Someone somewhere has an idea of where we will be in the near future does the manpower shift reflect correctly or is it just another way to appease the general populace
JC, GA
5/6/2012 10:11:25 AM ET In regard to AA Midwests comment...I don't see how 3k3k3k would be fair. You would have to take into account total number of personel per component to truly be fair and reduce by an equal percentage. Not saying that I agree with this either but the word fair shouldn't be allowed in a military members vocabulary. The bigger issue to me is how liberal and non-militant the Air Force is becoming...but thats another story. I do however agree with Danny Boys comment about making the Active components more efficient. I see one big broken system that looks good on paper but in practicality is crippled. What needs to be done is a huge re-alignment of priorities and cut out all the useless stuff. Safety Program ReallY Sure I agree that some things need to be stressed about safety. But the guy that needs to be reminded to hydrate when its 130 degrees outside is not anyone I would trust. Safety program should consist of the following Pay attention to what you are doing so that you d ....
Mike, Florida
5/2/2012 5:11:23 PM ET How much MORE can we do with how much LESS Reservist
LOGDOG, Alabama
3/30/2012 12:06:59 PM ET The Guard is already dangerously undermanned and cutting more will only make things worse. I just left Active duty not more than a year ago and joined the Guard. Its already bad enough we have to keep up with Active Duty regulations when we have a fraction of the personnel and funds. Im not complaining though I like the environment here over Active Duty. The Guard manages to make the most of whats given to them. Leadership should try to plan for results they always talk about switch it around and make Active Duty efficient personnel and fund wise similar to the Air GuardReserves or Coast Guard. I dont see them trying to make things efficient. But that would make too much sense and will probably never happen. People never like to give up their toys.
Danny Boy, US ANG
3/20/2012 8:44:47 AM ET How is this fairr? By component this amounts to reductions of 3,900 active-duty, 5,100 Air National Guard and 900 Air Force Reserve personnel, he said. If you want it fair, it should have been 3k, 3k, 3k as an example.Please make sure you keep programs like Tops in Blue cause we so need those programs in our budget. NOT
