You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Rumsfeld: Air Force cuts aimed at balancing cost, capabilities
2006-05-21
ARLINGTON, Va. — An Air Force plan to eliminate 40,000 personnel over five years is driven by advances in technology and the need to cut personnel costs, said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Friday.

Speaking at a “Town Hall” meeting Friday at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld was asked how the Air Force’s plan to cut among active-duty personnel, the Air Force Reserve, the Air Guard and Air Force civilians would affect the way the military fights as a joint force.

Rumsfeld said personnel costs have skyrocketed, with taxpayers paying $84 billion in health costs for active-duty and retired servicemembers. “What we see are the costs are going up and up and up on the personnel side, which is accelerating the incentive to find things we can do that are less manpower-intensive,” he said.

He also said the Air Force needs to strike a balance between maintaining current aircraft and investing in new aircraft that can hit more targets and require less maintenance.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that it used to take 10 Air Force planes to destroy one bridge, but now one plane can take out 80 bridges. “When you look at those kinds of numbers and the capacity to perform then you can see where it is reasonable to say to yourself, ‘can we do that with a smaller overall force and still provide to the nation the forces needed,’ ” Pace said.
Posted by:Sheling Unomons1998

#3  Hey, Oldspook -- the Air Force already offered to give the A-10s to the Army back several years back. The Army choked when they realized the costs to maintain them.

BTW, the newer, lighter Army needs airpower more that ever, since they're giving up their artillery to go light. The Air Force provide the firepower offset.
Posted by: Bob1   2006-05-21 22:43  

#2  Who cares if an UAV crashes anyway? You need to think of them as (potentially) reusable cruise missiles.
Posted by: phil_b   2006-05-21 01:35  

#1  UAV UCAV = Less maint and support than manned aircraft. More emphasis on transport aircraft and ground support, via standoffs.

Those glory boys in the flight suits and fighters are expensive to maintain.

Dollars to Donuts says the UASF finally gives up and gives the A-10's to the Army, who has been wanting them all along, in order to save tihe fighter jocks.



Posted by: Oldspook   2006-05-21 01:32  

00:00