Today's Air Force--the Total Air Force--is busier than it
ever has been in peacetime. As a result, Air National Guardsmen
are now being deployed around the world side by side with their
active duty counterparts, shouldering an increasing portion of
the burden of contingency operations and deployments.
In the 1990s, ANG units have taken part in numerous operations--Northern
and Southern Watch over Iraq; Joint Guard, Deny Flight, and Provide
Promise in Bosnia; and Coronet Nighthawk and Coronet Oak in Latin
America. The most recent example of the Air Guard's mounting
contribution came with the buildup of US forces in the Persian
Gulf region in February in response to Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein's obstruction of UN weapons inspectors. The Air Guard
sent four fighter units to the Gulf. In addition, its members
were instrumental in helping to execute the rapid strategic airlift
of ground forces.
"During the height of that deployment, the commander
of Air Mobility Command [Gen. Walter Kross] called just to let
me know how proud he was of our Total Air Force," said Maj.
Gen. Paul A. Weaver Jr., ANG's director, in an interview with
Air Force Magazine. "He had expected to fill 25 percent
of his extra personnel requirements with Guard and Reserve volunteers,
and instead they filled 55 percent of his requirement."
Weaver added, "While the Air Guard is close to being
fully tasked right now, we're exploring ways we can do even more
to relieve the active Air Force's optempo."
In stark contrast with the experience of other services, senior
Air Force leaders have shown that they won't hesitate to call
on the ANG for operations across the spectrum of missions, from
tactical airlift and aerial refueling to combat air patrol and
operations involving bombers. What makes the close partnership
possible, say service officials, is trust. Over the decades,
ANG leaders have been at the table on important Air Force decisions
and know they are regarded as members of the first team.
Turning Point
Many believe that the 1991 Persian Gulf War cemented that
already strong bond and turned any remaining skeptics into true
believers. The Army decided not to activate Army National Guard
brigades to "round out" two combat divisions for desert
duty; it was a fateful step that has poisoned relations between
the Army and its Guard component ever since. In contrast, the
Air Guard's proved its ability to rapidly deploy and fight alongside
active duty units, thereby putting to rest any lingering doubts
about the actual capabilities of ANG units.
Brig. Gen. Craig R. McKinley, ANG's deputy director, argues
that the desert war was a pivotal event. "I do believe Desert
Shield and Desert Storm were a turning point," said McKinley.
"The active duty forces saw firsthand what we could bring
to the table. That broke down any myths about us just being 'weekend
warriors,' and we've been helping to reduce the active Air Force's
optempo ever since."
McKinley is a past national vice president, national director,
and state president in the Air Force Association and a former
member of its Executive Committee.
Not long ago, Gen. Michael E. Ryan, USAF's Chief of Staff,
stepped off an airplane at Incirlik AB, Turkey, and encountered
an unusual scene. What began years earlier as a "temporary"
mission to enforce a no-fly zone over northern Iraq had become
an open-ended commitment placing major strain on Air Force units.
On any given day, more than 2,000 USAF men and women were working
at Incirlik, most on temporary duty, and the Air Force has flown
more sorties over northern Iraq than it had during the entire
Korean War. Yet Ryan's first sight at Incirlik was an airman
who walked up and placed a lei over his head. "It turned
out that a Hawaiian Air National Guard unit was on temporary
assignment at Incirlik, flying F-15s over northern Iraq,"
said Ryan.
The event underscored the beneficial effect of such deployments
on badly stretched active duty USAF units. "Right now,"
said the Chief of Staff, "the ... Guard and Reserve are
absorbing roughly 8 to 10 percent of our operational tempo, which
relieves the optempo on our active duty forces. That's pretty
good."
The exhausting pace of Air Force operations, coupled with
increased time away from families, is considered the No. 1 cause
for a troubling exodus of active duty pilots in recent years.
In a survey of pilots leaving service last year, some 19 percent
cited optempo as the primary reason, followed by quality-of-life
concerns and recruitment by civilian airlines. A major survey
of 206,000 Air Force military and civilian personnel released
in March also indicated that all troops are feeling the effect
of rising optempo.
Rising Indicators
Of those personnel who went on TDY during the 12 months proceeding
the survey, for instance, enlisted personnel averaged 60 days
away from home while officers reported 56. Pilots were away from
home by far the longest, with an average of 83 days. Each of
those indicators has risen in recent years.
Air Force leaders are thus studying reorganization options
that might lower operations tempo and spread the strain of deployments
across a broader array of units. The Air National Guard features
prominently in those studies.
Options under consideration would give the Air Guard more
flexibility in filling a mission requirement. One calls for the
"rainbowing" of personnel from different units that
operate similar equipment and rotating in units and personnel
in shorter intervals. The plan would reduce the time Air Guardsmen
and -women spend away from their own families and civilian jobs.
"Flexibility is the key," McKinley said. "If
we're free to schedule and rotate people for two-, four-, or
six-week temporary duty assignments, then we can help alleviate
the optempo that is troubling the active duty units and still
maintain our credibility with our two primary constituents--families
and employers."
McKinley added that, as Guard units become more familiar with
various mission assignments, they don't need as much time for
preparation.
"When we first began augmenting operations," McKinley
recalled, "on-site commanders wanted people there for longer
periods of time to familiarize them with the area. Now some of
these units are going back for the second, third, or even fourth
time, and they can adapt to the mission with a shorter work up.
The types of flying and missions we're conducting are also very
much in line with the training back home."
However, with select Air National Guard crews already away
from home for more than 100 days annually in some cases, and
6,000 Air Guard personnel presently on deployment, Guard leaders
know that they may be approaching the practical limits of a part-time
force.
"We're already well beyond the days when the Air Guard
trained one weekend a month plus two weeks a year," said
Weaver. "We are stretching the limits. When people ask me
how I manage these competing demands, I joke that when a guy's
wife, employer, and Guard boss are all mad at me equally, I probably
have it about right. We all question, however, how much we can
stress this crown jewel without damaging it."
The 111,633 men and women and 1,200 aircraft of the Air National
Guard already represent a pillar of the Total Air Force. Except
when there has been a federal activation, the Air Guard is under
the direction of state governors who rely on them to help maintain
public order and safety. In recent years, the Air Guard has conducted
relief missions to victims of several major hurricanes, for example.
In its federal role, the Air Guard provides 100 percent of
the fighter-interceptor force. Other major contributions include
providing 44 percent of the Air Force's tactical airlift forces;
43 percent of KC-135 air refueling forces; 33 percent of the
fighter force; 28 percent of air rescue forces; 27 percent of
the aeromedical evacuation force; 10 percent of the bomber force;
and 8 percent of strategic airlift.
Air Guard crews likewise fly virtually all of the Air Force's
aircraft, from C-5 and C-141 strategic airlifters and B-1 bombers
to F-15, F-16, and A-10 fighter aircraft.
Highest Retention
Despite those responsibilities, and the burden on members
of being citizens as well as airmen, the Air Guard boasts by
far the best retention figures of any reserve component of any
armed service. In 1997, the Air Guard suffered only 10.1 percent
total attrition vs. 19 percent for the Air Force Reserve, 17.7
percent for the Army National Guard, 29.8 percent for the US
Naval Reserve, and 27.7 percent for the US Marine Corps Reserve.
Ironically, the spate of real-world deployments that are wearing
on active duty personnel have been embraced by many Air Guard
personnel who may have joined the service to add a little adventure
to their workaday lives.
"We're the busiest of all reserve components, yet our
reenlistment rates are the highest," Weaver pointed out.
"I think that's partly because we've come such a long way
from the old days of flying around the flag pole at the local
base. We're involved in real-world missions around the globe."
He went on, "Think about it. We've gone from the days
of Gen. Curtis LeMay, who never thought a part-time airman could
fly the KC-135, to the point today where we [the ANG] have the
majority of the Air Force inventory. We also have almost as many
F-16 fighters as the active force."
Many USAF pilots who are leaving active duty service have
found a home in the Air Guard. That trend, coupled with a recent
doubling of the number of pilots the Air Guard annually sends
to flight school, has helped the ANG to avoid personnel shortages
that have plagued active duty units in recent years.
McKinley sees other positive features as well. "One of
the benefits of having a mix of prior service people and those
enticed into service by tuition assistance and other recruiting
tools provided by the states is a certain balance," he said.
"Our people tend to have very rich and full lives, balancing
family, civilian jobs, and Guard duty. Our retention, recruiting,
and quality of life are all in pretty good synch right now, and
that keeps morale high."
"How ready are we?" Weaver recently asked a gathering
of top ANG leaders. "The highest C-status of any component--active
or reserve--in the entire DoD. ... Our flying units collectively
are near 90 percent C1 or C2 [the two highest categories]. We
are the only component of the entire DoD that can boast of that."
Given the unusually high operations tempo, however, Air Guard
leaders are keeping a close eye on readiness and personnel indicators
for any signs of strain. For instance, figures showed a recent
increase in "cannibalization" rates of aircraft, and
the Guard's "combat capable" rate (C2 or higher on
the readiness rating scale), though still high at nearly 90 percent,
has dropped from 97 percent in 1996.
No Anxiety-Yet
"That drop does give me some cause for concern, but I
don't hear warning bells yet," said Weaver. "When your
optempo goes up, it's natural for your readiness to dip down.
I would get concerned if I saw that downward trend continue,
but I think we're sort of bottoming out in terms of optempo,
which mirrors the active Air Force."
According to Weaver, ANG leaders are only too aware of problems--engine
problems, particularly in the C-130, A-10, and F-16 fleets. Despite
US Air Force-wide engine and engine spare parts shortages, readiness
hasn't taken a dramatic hit.
However, he warned, as budget constraints on USAF continue,
finding the money for flying hours, maintenance, and spare parts
will become a challenge. "This is a Total Force-wide problem,"
Weaver said. "You can't do more with less. Fact is, you
can't do the same with less. I expect our C-status to reflect
that."
Weaver said that modernization of ANG's fighter force represents
his No. 1 short-term concern. However, his longer range concerns
focus on the Air Guard's KC-135 engine modernization and continuation
of the C-130J program to provide replacements for an aging C-130
fleet.
He said he also will take steps to make the ANG's B-1B bombers
at McConnell AFB, Kan., and Robins AFB, Ga., more usable in theater
combat. "I am confident," said Weaver, "that the
ANG can play a critical part in helping the Air Force find combat
employment opportunities for B-1s."
Given the delicate balance that exists between optempo, readiness,
and personnel, however, ANG leaders carefully weigh any proposals
calling for it to absorb more active duty missions or force structure.
For instance, largely as a result of the success of the Air Guard's
184th Bomb Wing at McConnell in maintaining and flying the B-1
bomber, the General Accounting Office recently recommended that
the Air Force could save money by transitioning more B-1 aircraft
to the Guard.
"The GAO basically said that, because the Air Guard has
such a stable and mature maintenance workforce and the B-1 is
so maintenance intensive, the Air Force should consider the option
of moving more B-1s to the Air Guard," Weaver explained.
"We had a similar success in the past with turning around
maintenance with the F-4."
No Cure-All
There is a limit, though. Weaver said, "Where it makes
sense and will save the Air Force money to bring force structure
into the Guard, we should consider it, but the Air National Guard
is not the answer to everything that ails the Air Force."
As the regular Army and its National Guard component have
continued to engage in acrimonious and very public disagreements
about missions, resourcing levels, and force structure, a number
of experts looked to the Air Force and Air Guard for the secret
of their successful partnership.
Army analysts argue that there is a natural transfer of skills
for pilots in the civilian and military sectors. There are no
civilian equivalents to driving a tank in fast-paced maneuver
warfare. The Army also has a greater share of its overall force
structure in its reserve component than the Air Force does.
However, disputes between the Army and its Guard component
feature a persistent, palpable mistrust that is missing in relations
between regular Air Force and Air Guard leaders. It is not that
they don't have disagreements. They do. Rather, it is that their
disagreements seem never to be marred by speculation about each
other's ulterior motives.
"You can point to the fact that we [the ANG] are resourced
properly, or trained to the same standard [as the regular Air
Force], but the most important ingredient to our relationship
is the respect shown to the Air National Guard by our mother
service," said Weaver.
He went on, "That's not to say we don't have differences
with the Air Force. I'm the first to say that we do have our
differences. What separates us from some other reserve components
is that we always have the opportunity to voice our concerns
and give our arguments. And when all is said and done behind
closed doors, the Air National Guard and Air Force have agreed
to move forward with one voice. That's the key to our success."
James Kitfield is the defense correspondent for National
Journal in Washington. His most recent article for Air Force
Magazine, "Guard Controversies," appeared in the April
1998 issue.
Copyright Air Force Association. All rights reserved