User Panel
Posted: 12/22/2014 8:48:31 PM EDT
17th AS to inactivate as part of FY15 President's Budget Posted 12/22/2014 Updated 12/22/2014 by 628th Air Base Wing Public Affairs 12/22/2014 - JOINT BASE CHARLESTON, S.C. -- The 17th Airlift Squadron, one of Charleston's four active-duty C-17 Globemaster III flying squadrons, will inactivate in 2015 as part of the President's Defense Budget for FY15. The 10th Airlift Squadron, based out of Joint Base Lewis-McChord, was also selected for inactivation in 2016. The Air Force plans to make adjustments over the next few years to the active duty, Reserve, and Guard components to ensure successful transitions to a leaner force that remains ready for future operations. The FY15 President's Budget converts 16 Air Mobility Command C-17s (eight from each base) from primary mission aircraft inventory to backup aircraft inventory, resulting in the inactivation of both airlift squadrons. These inactivations are not new actions, but additional detail on the previously announced budget submission released in March. Backup aircraft inventory are assigned with no manpower or flying hours. However, the wing will continue to receive funding needed to support weapon system sustainment. Converting 16 aircraft to BAI removes funding for the personnel and flying hours associated with those aircraft, for a savings of approximately $110 million per year. "In this fiscally constrained environment, we have to balance readiness, capability and capacity," said Major Gen. Michael S. Stough, AMC's Director of Strategic Plans, Requirements and Programs. "To best preserve this capability, the intent is to fund these aircraft back into primary mission aircraft inventory in future years, and transfer them to the Reserve Component - and we're working with our Air National Guard partners to do that, perhaps even as early as FY16. We rely on our Total Force partners every day to meet our global mobility requirements; we couldn't do the mission without them. Our goal is to continue to leverage the unique strengths and characteristics of the active and Reserve components to meet current and future requirements with available resources." Here in Charleston, Air Force leaders reflected on the challenges of maintaining a superior military force in the present fiscal climate. "We understand the difficult choices our leaders have had to make in this fiscal environment and we support those choices," said Col. John Lamontagne, 437th Airlift Wing commander. Lt. Col. Paul Theriot, 17th AS commander, discussed the impact on his squadron. "The 17th Airlift Squadron has an outstanding record of performance over many years," he said. "We received the news of the inactivation with heavy hearts as we have all come to identify ourselves with our beloved mascot, the Moose, and the rich heritage of the 17th. However, it isn't the number '17' that gets the mission done, it's the people. When the closure happens, we will continue accomplishing that awesome mission, just wearing different patches." Theriot underscored his squadron's determination to finish strong. "The next year will be very busy for us as we continue flying missions around the world, and we certainly will not be pulling the throttles back," he said. "On the contrary, we will continue to build on our legacy and finish on an extremely high note." Lamontagne took the announcement of the 17 AS's upcoming inactivation as a moment to reflect on the history and future of the C-17 and those who operate it. "The C-17 entered the airlift world in the 17th Airlift Squadron on July 14, 1993," he said. "Although the C-17 will continue to fly for many years beyond the squadron's inactivation next summer, we will preserve the squadron's rich tradition for a long, long time. More importantly, we will continue to take care of our finest American Airman and their families, as they transition from one squadron to another."
|
|
Quoted:
"We understand the difficult choices our leaders have had to make in this fiscal environment and we support those choices," said Col. John Lamontagne, 437th Airlift Wing commander. View Quote This guy will go far. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"We understand the difficult choices our leaders have had to make in this fiscal environment and we support those choices," said Col. John Lamontagne, 437th Airlift Wing commander. This guy will go far. Someone is trying to line up a career in politics. |
|
Quoted:
Someone is trying to line up a career in politics. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"We understand the difficult choices our leaders have had to make in this fiscal environment and we support those choices," said Col. John Lamontagne, 437th Airlift Wing commander. This guy will go far. Someone is trying to line up a career in politics. That single quote could win him a selection for BG. |
|
Given that Congress has been forcing extra airplanes on the Air Force for the past few years, and that Boeing is currently finishing up a dozen or so white-tails, it's not surprising that someone has figured out that we have too many even though it's a fine airplane.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"We understand the difficult choices our leaders have had to make in this fiscal environment and we support those choices," said Col. John Lamontagne, 437th Airlift Wing commander. This guy will go far. He'll be a Four Star General, because he's got the ass kissing down pat. |
|
Quoted:
Given that Congress has been forcing extra airplanes on the Air Force for the past few years, and that Boeing is currently finishing up a dozen or so white-tails, it's not surprising that someone has figured out that we have too many even though it's a fine airplane. View Quote Looks like the AMARC will have some new tenants. |
|
So I take it that Backup Aircraft Inventory (BAI), the aircraft aren't sent to DM but stored in a viable flying state somewhere?
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: "We understand the difficult choices our leaders have had to make in this fiscal environment and we support those choices," said Col. John Lamontagne, 437th Airlift Wing commander. This guy will go far. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"We understand the difficult choices our leaders have had to make in this fiscal environment and we support those choices," said Col. John Lamontagne, 437th Airlift Wing commander. This guy will go far. I hope when zero is gone, January 22, 2017, all his synchopanthic cronies do go far. Very far. Maybe all the way to Guantanamo. |
|
the ones that voted for the first base closings in the 80's . started this entire deal....... you can't have freedom if we are not free . I would spend 1/2 our GDP to make us safe.
|
|
|
|
WTF? Can't we make up a reason to invade somebody and give these planes a purpose? In all seriousness, sell the C17s to Fedex and UPS and reactivate the C141's at DM for Air Force use. Or just have ANG make flights for the USPS to keep their hours up.
|
|
Of course, the USAF got more C-17s a few years back than they wanted. Arguing the whole time that we had more airlift than we really needed and those big Russian cargo planes would always be available for rent.
So they finally got their way. |
|
Quoted:
WTF? Can't we make up a reason to invade somebody and give these planes a purpose? In all seriousness, sell the C17s to Fedex and UPS and reactivate the C141's at DM for Air Force use. Or just have ANG make flights for the USPS to keep their hours up. View Quote The C-17 is not certified by the FAA and therefore couldn't be sold for civilian use. McD looked at getting FAA certification a lot of years ago and the civilian interest in the airplane didn't justify the considerable expense. Lockheed went through the same exercise many years ago for the C5 and came to the same conclusion. The C-141s were timed out and have probably all been chopped up. |
|
I would have thought a lot of C-17's would need replacing, what with all those rough-field operations they take part in.
|
|
Quoted: WTF? Can't we make up a reason to invade somebody and give these planes a purpose? In all seriousness, sell the C17s to Fedex and UPS and reactivate the C141's at DM for Air Force use. Or just have ANG make flights for the USPS to keep their hours up. View Quote |
|
This doesn't surprise me, my old neighbor was a C-17 mechanic at JBLM. Last year he told me there were 53 planes assigned there. I asked him where the hell they parked them all.
"We don't, there's not nearly enough room but there's enough flying over in the middle east that they didn't have to make room for them" As things wind down I'm sure they'll be parking them in the desert To bad, they're a cool cargo plane. |
|
Is this for reals based on a fact-based examination of USAF needs, or just a setup for some politician to "save" the day?
Reason I ask was the C130s and crews trained for firefighting were going to be budgeted away from Peterson, conveniently while some very bad fires were fresh in voters' thoughts. I don't have insider knowledge, just remember reacting cynically to what appeared to be an election-year freebie for Sen Udall |
|
Quoted:
WTF? Can't we make up a reason to invade somebody and give these planes a purpose? In all seriousness, sell the C17s to Fedex and UPS and reactivate the C141's at DM for Air Force use. Or just have ANG make flights for the USPS to keep their hours up. View Quote Cargo carriers are all going to twin engine planes. |
|
So does this mean they are going to mothball perfectly new aircraft?
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted: the ones that voted for the first base closings in the 80's . started this entire deal....... you can't have freedom if we are not free . I would spend 1/2 our GDP to make us safe. View Quote The military is a good function of government, but its still government, and you have to keep after it to keep it efficient.
|
|
Quoted: WTF? Can't we make up a reason to invade somebody and give these planes a purpose? In all seriousness, sell the C17s to Fedex and UPS and reactivate the C141's at DM for Air Force use. Or just have ANG make flights for the USPS to keep their hours up. View Quote |
|
Quoted: WTF? Can't we make up a reason to invade somebody and give these planes a purpose? In all seriousness, sell the C17s to Fedex and UPS and reactivate the C141's at DM for Air Force use. Or just have ANG make flights for the USPS to keep their hours up. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted: That I do not know. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: So I take it that Backup Aircraft Inventory (BAI), the aircraft aren't sent to DM but stored in a viable flying state somewhere? That I do not know. And yes, I did Google it up. Perhaps one of the Air Force types can answer that question. This really isn't a big deal...the active duty manning went away with the recent downsizing, so the Squadrons are being closed and aircraft reorganized. None of these aircraft are going to be retired. |
|
Aren't the cargo/lift aircraft being over worked to death?
As in there isn't enough of them? |
|
|
Peaks and valleys, we're on the downslope for the next decade or so would be my guess. I joined in 1999 at the end of the Clinton years, the equipment was junk and the pay sucked. New equipment and big pay bumps starting in 2003, peaked about 2008-2009, now on the downhill run for a decade or more until something happens. Enjoy the peacetime if you can keep your job, need to hold on at least 5 more years myself. That's the way she goes boys, have a backup plan.
|
|
Quoted:
Talk like that is going to bring Sylvan running right in. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Aren't the cargo/lift aircraft being over worked to death? As in there isn't enough of them? Talk like that is going to bring Sylvan running right in. sup. C-17s exist to army shit around. they are therefore worthless. to the point, the lack of uniformity of wings leads me to believe that there are too many of them for the number of frames. Example, 168th in AK has 8 tails. there are 6 full colonels assigned to that wing. the sherpa company in AK had 8 tails. It had a captain and 2 LTs assigned to it. Now, a sherpa is different than a KC-135, but still. |
|
Quoted:
sup. C-17s exist to army shit around. they are therefore worthless. to the point, the lack of uniformity of wings leads me to believe that there are too many of them for the number of frames. Example, 168th in AK has 8 tails. there are 6 full colonels assigned to that wing. the sherpa company in AK had 8 tails. It had a captain and 2 LTs assigned to it. Now, a sherpa is different than a KC-135, but still. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Aren't the cargo/lift aircraft being over worked to death? As in there isn't enough of them? Talk like that is going to bring Sylvan running right in. sup. C-17s exist to army shit around. they are therefore worthless. to the point, the lack of uniformity of wings leads me to believe that there are too many of them for the number of frames. Example, 168th in AK has 8 tails. there are 6 full colonels assigned to that wing. the sherpa company in AK had 8 tails. It had a captain and 2 LTs assigned to it. Now, a sherpa is different than a KC-135, but still. While you're not going to get me to deny that the AF has a rank creep problem in our officer corps I will point out that there is a world of difference between a Sherpa company and an Air Force wing. The flying portion of the base is only a small portion of the unit that a Sherpa company commander just won't have any control over. I'm just guessing that those six are probably the wing commander, the vice commander, the ops group commander, the maintenance group commander, the med group commander, and the support group commander. |
|
Quoted:
No. They will get farmed out to other existing units as an "extra" plane above their primary aircraft authorization. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
So does this mean they are going to mothball perfectly new aircraft? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile No. They will get farmed out to other existing units as an "extra" plane above their primary aircraft authorization. But those aircraft even though they belong to a different wing and squadron, they will require the same amount of funds for maintenance and fuel? It just seems like a asset sent to another unit is just robbing peter to pay Paul and ultimately they really aren't saving money right? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
But those aircraft even though they belong to a different wing and squadron, they will require the same amount of funds for maintenance and fuel? It just seems like a asset sent to another unit is just robbing peter to pay Paul and ultimately they really aren't saving money right? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So does this mean they are going to mothball perfectly new aircraft? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile No. They will get farmed out to other existing units as an "extra" plane above their primary aircraft authorization. But those aircraft even though they belong to a different wing and squadron, they will require the same amount of funds for maintenance and fuel? It just seems like a asset sent to another unit is just robbing peter to pay Paul and ultimately they really aren't saving money right? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile The maintenance and fuel budgets will come out of the unit's existing allocation of flying hours and their associated funds. Since a unit still gets the same number of flying hours but has an extra plane each jet will just get flown a little less. The only real additional work you get is doing scheduled maintenance that's calendar based rather than hour based but for a small guard wing that's only PAAed 8 jets the extra tail can really help when you have a couple of jets down for maintenance and you are trying to make the flying schedule. |
|
Backup aircraft inventory are assigned with no manpower or flying hours. However, the wing will continue to receive funding needed to support weapon system sustainment. Converting 16 aircraft to BAI removes funding for the personnel and flying hours associated with those aircraft, for a savings of approximately $110 million per year.
Just what weapons systems are on these big old cargo planes??? |
|
Quoted:
WTF? Can't we make up a reason to invade somebody and give these planes a purpose? In all seriousness, sell the C17s to Fedex and UPS and reactivate the C141's at DM for Air Force use. Or just have ANG make flights for the USPS to keep their hours up. View Quote They are all gone. |
|
Quoted:
Backup aircraft inventory are assigned with no manpower or flying hours. However, the wing will continue to receive funding needed to support weapon system sustainment. Converting 16 aircraft to BAI removes funding for the personnel and flying hours associated with those aircraft, for a savings of approximately $110 million per year. Just what weapons systems are on these big old cargo planes??? View Quote The C-17 is what's being called the weapon system. The folks in HQ that do the big picture work on them are weapon systems managers. |
|
Holy shit the derp is strong with some in this thread. What would really blow peoples' minds would be if they knew how many orgs are stood up and closed down and reorganized each year within the active duty AF, ANG and AFRC, and the constant balancing act of aircraft, mission sets, and manning. This story is hardly newsworthy.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"We understand the difficult choices our leaders have had to make in this fiscal environment and we support those choices," said Col. John Lamontagne, 437th Airlift Wing commander. This guy will go far. A Wing CC position is usually followed by a star (or a second of they're already a Brig Gen, before heading to a MAJCOM position as a Maj.Gen). He can't fuck it up now. Pucker up. |
|
Quoted:
While you're not going to get me to deny that the AF has a rank creep problem in our officer corps I will point out that there is a world of difference between a Sherpa company and an Air Force wing. The flying portion of the base is only a small portion of the unit that a Sherpa company commander just won't have any control over. I'm just guessing that those six are probably the wing commander, the vice commander, the ops group commander, the maintenance group commander, the med group commander, and the support group commander. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Aren't the cargo/lift aircraft being over worked to death? As in there isn't enough of them? Talk like that is going to bring Sylvan running right in. sup. C-17s exist to army shit around. they are therefore worthless. to the point, the lack of uniformity of wings leads me to believe that there are too many of them for the number of frames. Example, 168th in AK has 8 tails. there are 6 full colonels assigned to that wing. the sherpa company in AK had 8 tails. It had a captain and 2 LTs assigned to it. Now, a sherpa is different than a KC-135, but still. While you're not going to get me to deny that the AF has a rank creep problem in our officer corps I will point out that there is a world of difference between a Sherpa company and an Air Force wing. The flying portion of the base is only a small portion of the unit that a Sherpa company commander just won't have any control over. I'm just guessing that those six are probably the wing commander, the vice commander, the ops group commander, the maintenance group commander, the med group commander, and the support group commander. I said the airframes were different. But not that different. |
|
Quoted:
No. They will get farmed out to other existing units as an "extra" plane above their primary aircraft authorization. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
So does this mean they are going to mothball perfectly new aircraft? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile No. They will get farmed out to other existing units as an "extra" plane above their primary aircraft authorization. So does that mean less capability overall? Sure sounds like it. |
|
Quoted:
So does that mean less capability overall? Sure sounds like it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So does this mean they are going to mothball perfectly new aircraft? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile No. They will get farmed out to other existing units as an "extra" plane above their primary aircraft authorization. So does that mean less capability overall? Sure sounds like it. there is too much airlift available as it is now. Thats why your airlift requests get denied. |
|
Quoted: Holy shit the derp is strong with some in this thread. What would really blow peoples' minds would be if they knew how many orgs are stood up and closed down and reorganized each year within the active duty AF, ANG and AFRC, and the constant balancing act of aircraft, mission sets, and manning. This story is hardly newsworthy. View Quote Not to menton congress shoving C17's the airforce doesn't want into their inventory to keep the production line open.
|
|
Quoted:
there is too much airlift available as it is now. Thats why your airlift requests get denied. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So does this mean they are going to mothball perfectly new aircraft? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile No. They will get farmed out to other existing units as an "extra" plane above their primary aircraft authorization. So does that mean less capability overall? Sure sounds like it. there is too much airlift available as it is now. Thats why your airlift requests get denied. and the C17 fleets as they are now can't even come close to supporting our current needs. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.