VT-4 and VT-10 Combining?

[bert]

The first OP-T DH's are up for 0-5 next year so we'll see. Some feel that OP-T should tank seperately from Operational guys but I don't see that happening.

That wouldn't be legal for a statuatory board unless OP-T became a separate designator, so you are correct that that won't happen.

 

[Hozer]

Exactly, so those in the hopper are curious how an OP-T competes against operational types mano y mano with like records....

guess we'll see come next Spring...:sleep_125

 

[cfam]

I would presume it largely has to do with the costs of keeping two squadrons active when you really only need one.

Would there really be that much of a reduction in costs with the switch to a single squadron? I mean, VT-4/VT-10 already share a hangar, and I'm assuming you wouldn't reduce the number of planes once the squadrons combine, meaning you wouldn't reduce the number of maintainers, etc...

Just curious, because I have no clue how the process/associated costs with combining would work.

 

[MasterBates]

Somebody, somewhere is getting a MSM for this.

 

[Flash]

So far, it seems like 2 0-5 billets, 4 0-4 billets, 2 GS, and 3 contractors are what's being cut. It may be perceived savings that may actually take quite a while to materialize versus the shutdown cost and end up being negligible.

Would there really be that much of a reduction in costs with the switch to a single squadron? I mean, VT-4/VT-10 already share a hangar, and I'm assuming you wouldn't reduce the number of planes once the squadrons combine, meaning you wouldn't reduce the number of maintainers, etc...

I think in the long term there will be bigger savings than may be evident now. While there will be a pretty rapid reduction in just a few billets I imagine that the eventual stand-up of the seperate USAF training track will result in fewer instructors in VT-4/10 in the longer term. Does the USAF still plan to have their WSO's go through the Navy training track? Instead of the XX instructors they have now it may be reduced by XX% over the next 2-5 years. Just speculating but it would be reasonable to think so.

Another long term thing to think about is that there will be less SNFO's to train. With the retirement S-3 and the upcoming transition to the Growler there will simply be much less SNFO's coming through the pipeline than when they transitioned VT-4 to an SNFO squadron. When they originally did the transition all USAF Nav's went through Navy training and they really needed the extra squadron. I am not so sure the numbers would justify it now.

And reducing 6 officer billets and 5 civilian ones in the short term is nothing to sneeze at either, that would probably translate into 7 figures of personnel savings every fiscal year alone. Billets that could probably be better used elsewhere by CNATRA, who probably has only a finite number of people available to them right now. And as I mentioned before, I would not be surprised if there were further reductions in the number of instructors down the road.

So when you consider all of that, and the critical fact that we used to have just one SNFO primary squadron probably training more guys than what two squadrons do now, there really is not a lot justifying keeping both squadrons around.

It won't be perfect but that is life, things can't stay static forever.

 

[Tom]

There is similar talk about doing the same to TW-1 and TW-2. The only things to change would be that Kingsville changes the 2 to a 1 and a good amount of staff billets going away.