Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Omaha Steve

(99,562 posts)
Thu Jan 30, 2014, 03:52 PM Jan 2014

Panel recommends reducing active-duty Air Force

Source: AP-EXCITE

By Steve Liewer

A cash-strapped Air Force needs to shift some personnel from its active-duty force to the less-expensive Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve, a high-level panel recommended Thursday morning during congressional hearings in Washington D.C.

The report followed nine months of deliberations — including 19 days of public hearings in six states, featuring 154 witnesses — by the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force.

In all, the commission recommended 42 policy changes, from adjusting the way the Air Force calculates personnel costs to easing the “up-or-out” promotion policy in career fields where training and development is exceptionally expensive.

Several of the changes would better integrate active-duty troops with the Air Force Reserve, making it easier for airmen to move back and forth between full- and part-time status.


FULL story at link.


Read more: http://www.omaha.com/article/20140130/NEWS/140139870/1707#panel-recommends-reducing-active-duty-air-force

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
1. That will not go over well with the fundies who abound in the Air Force
Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:00 PM
Jan 2014

particularly at the Air Force Academy.

 

Swede Atlanta

(3,596 posts)
2. Nor for the aerospace industry that love over-budget and decades late projects......
Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:06 PM
Jan 2014

This is a good sign that we cannot afford to continue to spend more than the next 10 countries combined on defense.

We are slowly establishing energy independence and, together with Canada, we could be energy independent so no need to fight wars far off in the Middle East. Let Europe, China, India and Japan fight to protect their oil interests. We need to quickly move beyond fossil fuels to renewables.

We have no threats on our borders. Neither Canada nor Mexico represent a military threat to us.

We should focus on cyber threats.

As well we need to be looking at the size of the Navy, Marines and Army.

We should be shrinking our military to meet today's "real" threats and those likely to exist over the next 10 years not have resources to fight 25 wars on 25 fronts which is what bloats the military budget.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
3. No more wars, no more need for a massive standing army - DUH!
Thu Jan 30, 2014, 04:08 PM
Jan 2014

But that will not prevent the right wing military cheerleaders and warmongers from protesting viciously, mainly because they see their own lucrative living in the media propping the hate and lies up also being cut.

okaawhatever

(9,461 posts)
7. Ya know, I'm wondering how overstaffed the Air Force is. I don't think their numbers went up
Thu Jan 30, 2014, 06:09 PM
Jan 2014

anywhere near the Army, Navy & Marine Corps. While I am grateful for the effort to trim costs and the size, I'm wondering if the real savings isn't with the other branches. We'll see.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Panel recommends reducing...