Should the USAF reduce their Band from 540 Enlisted & almost 20 Officers to about 120 total since they are short of A-10 maintainers?

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS: As always, fair point well made!

I've long held the position the AF made a strategic error in phasing out the WO billets. I've seen first hand the vast amount of knowledge, experience, and expertise the various Warrant Officers I served with brought to the mission.

Major Conway's information is INACCURATE...!!! The total number of personnel assigned to AF Bands--INCLUDING the USAF Band in Washington DC is approximately 540 enlisted and 20 officers. I suggest that before any NON-musician or person NEVER assigned to a band get their facts correct before asking such a question. The REALITY is that even if the number of bands were at 20--the number back in 1985, and the manning of ALL bands was 60 enlisted and 2 officers for 18 of those bands (the USAF Band and USAF Academy Bands EXCLUDED), the total number of enlisted would be would only be 1080 enlisted and 36 officers. Including the 2 premier bands, the total career field would be no more than 1500 enlisted and officers. This does NOT include the reality that of the 18 regional bands in existence back in 1985, those bands were authorized personnel at 35, 45 or 60 enlisted personnel--NOT 60 enlisted personnel for each. The total funding saved would NOT have ANY impact on the A-10 program...

To me, the bigger question is, why the band? Why are they in the discussion at all? Walk around the Pentagon or any other higher headquarters, how many O-6+ could we eliminate along with Civilian GS-15+ and use that money to fund A-10 maintainers? That is just a false comparison. If the Air Force would trim more of the overhead, there would be enough to staff all the maintainers you would want.

MSgt Tim Fennema, that's a valid point! It reminds me of some comments LtGen Carlson made at a Commander's Call at 8AF: "Prior to Desert Storm, there was one General Officer for roughly every 45000-50000 troops. After the conflict there was one General for every 35000-40000 troops. Today (circa 2005) after all the draw downs and troop cuts, there is one General for every 20000-22000 troops. My question to you is this.... What the devil am I supposed to be in charge of now anyway??" Maybe that's a better place to start. The AF in particular seems to be very top heavy in the rank structure; particularly on the Officer side.

1SG (Join to see) - Bands are a part of each service's history. I am not saying they go away and be replaced by an MP3 player in a stadium or in a concert hall.

SGM Mikel Dawson - Or rad COL S. L. A. Marshall's book; The River and the Gauntlet. I want to recall the 2nd ID Band being engaged during that retrograde movement, (disaster).

LTC (Join to see) - I didn't think you were inferring that at all. I was simply just speaking from my point of view and knowledge of the unique mission that most military bands are responsible for. That's all.

1SG (Join to see) - Thank you for enlightening me. I believe now that the military bands are not big enough fish worth frying. Bands are not fraud, waste or abuse like we may think at first glance and a USMC band member also enlightening me to the size of the bank would be degraded too much if made too small like I had proposed.

The "Cold War Relic" is flying combat missions daily. IF THE Air Force doesn't want to support ground troops then give up the mission and the aircraft

1stSgt Nelson Kerr - The point had nothing to do with the A-10. The point was that the lady campaigning to kill the band just happens to be a former A-10 pilot. But, the Warthog is going away. The Secretary of the Air Force confirmed this with the FY16 projections to new F-35 squadrons. To this, I am both a huge A-10 fan ...and wish they could retrofit the beast with a tail hook and launch-bar carriage.

Capt Mark Strobl - The A-10 is going away, that is if the USAF can somehow override Congress , who doesn't want it to go away until there is a viable replacement. That will not be soon becasue the AF has not even issued a requirement for such an aircraft. The USAF works for Congress not the other way around no matter what the folks in the puzzle palace might think.

The reason the band was brought up is becasue the AF is saying they can't apfford the A-10 while spending large amounts of cash on frills and BS. The Congresswoman was telling them to cut the BS, before cutting into mission essential systems

1stSgt Nelson Kerr - Ghe A-10 is going away if Congress let the AF abandon the ground ponders, Congress is unlilely to allow that to happen until the A-10s replacement in s on line, and the AF has not even announced a plan to acquire an viable replacement. The have tried this idiocy multiple times since before the First Gulf War