FEATURE ARTICLE

September 2005

Move to Merge Air Force, Guard Units Derailed by Base Closures

By Sandra I. Erwin

The politics of base closures threaten to unravel an elaborate plan to integrate Air Force and Air National Guard units.

Military officials have hailed the effort as a logical step toward creating a “total force” that benefits from the strengths of all its components.

The move also would allow the Air Force to trim its active-duty ranks by 10,000 and employ as many members of the Guard in non-traditional jobs, such as operating unmanned aircraft and satellites.

But the Defense Department’s base-closure recommendations, which would strip the Guard of nearly one-third of its airbases, have so angered state governors and members of Congress that all parties likely will have to go back to the negotiating table, officials say.

During the past nine months, Air Force and Air Guard leaders have been thrashing out the details of a “Future Total Force” that would create up to 20 “associate” units made up of both active-duty and Guard members.

The initiative should be viewed in the context of broader changes underway in the U.S. military, says Air Force Brig. Gen. Allison Hickey, assistant deputy director of strategic planning.

An anticipated drawdown in the Air Force—particularly in fighter jet wings—will require adjustments both in the active-duty ranks and the Guard, she says in an interview.

The Air Force will lose about 650 aircraft—10 percent of its inventory—and 10,000 of its 359,000 active-duty airmen during the next decade. One consequence of fewer aircraft will be an oversupply of pilots, many of whom could continue to serve in other non-flying occupations, Hickey says. Because the Guard will not lose any of its 106,000 members, about 10,000 guardsmen could be retrained and take over jobs that currently are viewed as more relevant in fighting terrorism, such as intelligence analysts and information systems operators.

In anticipation of declining budgets, the Air Force also is looking to share more of its equipment with the Guard, both in overseas deployments and homeland defense missions. Further, the “associate” units would allow the Air Force to assign experienced Guard pilots to train novice active-duty aviators, Hickey says.

Supporters of the total-force concept recognize that legal restrictions would impede mergers of units, since the Guard operates under a different chain of command that reports to the state governors. Some degree of “legislative relief” would be needed, for example, to let experienced Guard pilots permanently take over training duties, Hickey says.

The expertise of a Guard pilot who has flown thousands of hours would be better put to use if it could be passed on to junior aviators, she adds. “I put a great investment into the 5,000 hour pilot. Why not transfer that to the younger pilots?”

Fighter wings today have a mix of active, reserve and guard pilots, which means that, in practice, junior pilots benefit from the seniors’ experience. In the future, however, “we might find that it makes sense for a Guard or Reserve unit to have training as its sole mission, maybe training active-duty personnel,” says Hickey.

The Air Force and the Guard already can claim some level of success in integrating their crews in an F/A-22 fighter wing. Pilots and ground crews from the Guard’s 192nd Fighter Wing, based in Richmond, Va., will fly and maintain the F/A-22 Raptors of the active duty 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base, Va. The arrangement provides a pool of highly experienced Air Guard pilots and maintainers, while the 192nd gets to retire its old F-16s and fly the F/A-22, which is the service’s most advanced warplane. Each side still maintains its own chain of command. The 192nd will move from Richmond to the 1st Fighter Wing’s base at Langley, but it will remain a Guard unit.

As aging aircraft get mothballed and fighter-wings shrink during the next decade, the Air Force intends to expand into other areas, such as command-and-control, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, Hickey says.

Budget projections show that C4ISR programs will consume the largest share of the Air Force procurement accounts by 2025, she adds. The “big muscle movement” in that direction will occur in 2008. “You’ll see a fundamental shift to C4ISR,” Hickey says.

These areas historically have been dominated by the active-duty Air Force, and not many opportunities have been open to Guard members. That will change, explains Hickey. “I have Guard and Reserve experience and maturity, and we have no place in the Guard to put them to take advantage of their experience.”

One such place could be the vast command-and-control hubs the Air Force operates around the world, Hickey says. These “air operations centers” usually are understaffed until a crisis erupts. “Typically when something happens, we raid others’ staffs,” she says. In the future, “we’ll assign a Guard unit for air operations centers. They’ll train on the equipment, and gain command-and-control experience for homeland defense.”

Unmanned air vehicle operators also will be in high demand, notes Hickey. She cites four newly created Predator UAV squadrons in New York, North Dakota, Texas and Arizona as evidence of the upward trend. The Air Force Space Command, in Colorado, also will offer more career opportunities to guardsmen and reservists, she says.

Civil engineering units known as “Red Horse” will be seeking Guard and Reserve reinforcements as well. These units specialize in setting up temporary military bases and building makeshift facilities.

The Air Force expects to create at least 4,900 jobs that would be filled by Guard members, Hickey says. In coming years, potentially 5,000 more could be added.

But the initiative may not survive the political maelstrom that ensued the Defense Department’s base-closure and realignment recommendations unveiled in May, which calls for the elimination of 28 Guard units. The independent BRAC commission—scheduled to unveil this month its final list of recommended closures—hinted that the Air Force may not legally have permission to close a Guard base without consulting with the state governor.

While these contentious issues remain unresolved, the Guard will be unable to commit to filling any of those 4,900 jobs, says Brig. Gen. Duane Lodrige, chief of the Air National Guard Future Total Force.

“Until BRAC issues are settled, we won’t know how many jobs we have for new missions,” he points out. “If fewer bases are closed, we will have fewer people to assign to new missions.”

Most likely, Lodrige adds, all parties will have to reconvene and come up with a new game plan. “We will have to work with the Air Force on a new strategy … It’s not going to be easy work.”

The chief of the National Guard Bureau, Army Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, sounded less than optimistic about the prospect of the Future Total Force plan coming to fruition. While the Army National Guard worked closely with the Army leadership on their proposal to close 210 Guard bases, says Blum, the Air Force “chose a different path,” and consequently sparked a feud between the service and the state governors. “I’m running through some heavy turbulence right now,” he tells an industry conference in Washington, D.C.

Despite the uncertainly, it is not likely that BRAC will derail the total-force concept, says Charles D. Link, a retired Air Force major general. “The Air Force and the Guard have a long-standing relationship and a long history of cooperation that should not be ignored,” he says.

But the nature of the partnership is due for some adjustments in response to the global war on terrorism, Link says. “The Air Force is looking for a more rational relationship, from a larger national security perspective … The Guard has to understand the Air Force also is changing a great deal.”

Back To Top