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

2016-03-25T19:01:11-04:00

The USAF is short of aircraft maintainers for the A-10. The band size is bloated.
1. Reduce the size of the band in the DC area to 35 for Congress, the White House and Pentagon functions. 2. Keep six- 12 person bands for each combatant Commannd 3. Keep the band to about 120.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/03/22/congresswoman-air-force-put-down-tuba-pick-up-gun/82121372/

Congresswoman to Air Force: Put down the tuba, pick up a gun

Rep. Martha McSally has this piece of advice for the Air Force: Ditch the bands and put musicians to work in jobs that boost U.S. national security.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Mar 25 at 2016 7:25 PM

2016-03-25T19:25:21-04:00

LTC Private RallyPoint Member - As I understand, Representative McSally was an A-10 driver. Thus, it seems to reason that should is going to campaign to bolster the numbers of the Warthog maintainers. Unfortunately, the A-10 will soon be a moth-balled relic of the Cold War. To this, I would counter that we need to find gainful employment of former A-10 pilots... maybe like convert them into politicians? (insert sarcasm). She has challenged the paradigm with "put down that tuba --and pick up a wrench or a gun." Shoot, I'll bet she's 0-for-3 with those items (tuba, wrench, gun). Sounds to me like well-timed lip-service as the nation takes note of the Arizona GOP primaries. Let the band play on!

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Mar 25 at 2016 7:31 PM

2016-03-25T19:31:23-04:00

I am not real sure why we need military bands at all.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Mar 25 at 2016 7:48 PM

2016-03-25T19:48:52-04:00

Interestingly enough, in the OP picture, I see at least one Colonel and two E-8 or E-9 members. By eliminating just those three members alone would free up enough funds for at least five MX billets. While I agree the bands and other "recruitment/morale" units do serve a valid role, they should not be exempt from the cuts that all other line units have suffered. Do we REALLY need 500+ members insulated from the Big Picture when front line units (ie: MX, SF, Intel) are hemorrhaging to death because their short staffed personnel are burning out and ETSing faster than a politician can palm a bribe.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Mar 25 at 2016 8:20 PM

2016-03-25T20:20:12-04:00

I want to argue who has the best band?

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Mar 25 at 2016 9:46 PM

2016-03-25T21:46:34-04:00

Just a little much I believe.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 26 at 2016 9:46 AM

2016-03-26T09:46:38-04:00

A band can't function with 12, because there are more than 12 instruments in a traditional band. I'm sitting next to my wife (Marine Bandsmen). There are approximately 4 people per section (instrument), with some instruments like piano, oboe, & bassoon only having one. In addition you have support positions like the Band Officer (Warrant Officer in the USMC), the Drum Major, the Enlisted Band Leader, as well as the repair technician (Think "armorer"). The "Field Bands" have approximately 50~ Marines making them nominal platoon size.

I understand where you are going LTC Private RallyPoint Member, but you would be cutting the size below "operation capable." So even the Marines are running at about 500-600 personnel total as we have 12~ Field Bands, the Drum & Bugle Corps (Commandant's Own), the President's Own, as well as the School of Music personnel.

That's not even accounting for service differences and geographic spread of the USAF compared to the relative "compactness" of the USMC.

Response by MSgt Robert Pellam made Mar 28 at 2016 4:56 PM

2016-03-28T16:56:11-04:00

Okay my retired 2 cents. I said yes, but it is not that simple. Why is there even a choice between Band and Maintainers. What other areas of the Budget is Big Air Force not cutting? This whole argument is a ruse to move the attention away from where actual cuts could be made, but because they are possibly a Generals' pet project, in a congressman's home state, or money is going into the pocket of a connected contractor, they give you this dog and pony show to divert attention While I keep hearing how the Air Force needs more money, every time their spending is questioned they flash some numbers up, give a show and tell, then hide the problem and hope it blows over. Now does the Air Force Band need some trimming, hell yes. Lets stop giving everyone who joins automatic E-6 Rank. Lets cut some of the fat off of it. If that gets some more maintainers in the field, I am all for it. What will happen is some General who see's the savings will go. "OHH (Insert Contractor) showed me this thing-a-magic that will increase the speed of sound my telephone makes, so I can ask more questions faster, I'll use the savings on that to get a promotion and help my buddy at (Insert contractor again)." Sorry a bit more cynical than I intended, but you get the point.

Response by SrA Roy Cooper made Mar 29 at 2016 10:52 AM

2016-03-29T10:52:07-04:00

I say no, to be honest. I do not like the fact that it's so easy for band members to gain rank. But I also know our government. You could cut the Air Force Band down to one person with multi piece instrument. And they would put the funding or manpower somewhere else other than A-10 maintenance. Like new interns in the Senate or the House.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Mar 29 at 2016 12:33 PM

2016-03-29T12:33:19-04:00

The cost of maintaining the band and other ceremonial units is pittance compared to the money flushed down the toilet on weapons projects that never see fielding or projects that the costs go way over the contracted price....yet we don't seem to hold the manufacturer responsible..... The USAF could easily find the money to maintain these units if they really wanted to....

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Mar 29 at 2016 2:51 PM

2016-03-29T14:51:50-04:00

Bands are recruiting tools, they were designed to attract attention and rally people. Now they are still a valuable recruiting tool, but they've become way more ceremonial by custom of Congress and the Executive Branch requirements. Active duty members don't need bands coming to play in deployed locations -- the USO tours have that covered, in spades. They don't have to be a Pied Piper for High schools, we are drawing down the force anyway, so why use this resource for that? In asymmetrical warfare we need to fully evaluate the need for items now more a part of our past then our future. Besides, we can have bands in the Reserves. The Army has reserve band components, we can as well. Call them up for drill weekends to play for the DC people.

Response by 1stSgt Nelson Kerr made Mar 29 at 2016 5:18 PM

2016-03-29T17:18:29-04:00

Zero sounds better than 120. When you are claiming you can't afford to support the main tlmission spending money on frills is idiotic

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Mar 29 at 2016 7:24 PM

2016-03-29T19:24:09-04:00

Yep. Militaries exist to fight and win wars. Draw the explicit connection and justify your pay or stop doing it.

Response by MSgt Anthony Youngblood made Mar 30 at 2016 8:30 AM

2016-03-30T08:30:51-04:00

I have been saying this for years, disband, no pun intended, the Regional bands and turn them into what the Regional Honor Guards have become, volunteer duties. Keep the National AF Band, but make it a four year controlled tour, then back to your real AF career field. Twenty year careers blowing a horn is great for a city philharmonic orchestra, but not the military.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Mar 30 at 2016 12:35 PM

2016-03-30T12:35:03-04:00

I voted "No", but I think your question's responses are both bad answers. Let's look at that first, and then talk about military bands and manpower.

The "Yes" response postulates that somehow band members can become aircraft maintenance personnel. Probably not easily. The talents, skills, and abilities necessary to be a very good musician (I've never seen a USAF musician who wasn't at least very good) are not the same as those needed to be an aircraft maintainer. Not to say that some folks couldn't do both, but most musicians aren't cut out to be mechanics. (My Mom was a musician and had almost no mechanical ability, same for several other musically inclined people I know; however, one is also an excellent carpenter.)
I'm not sure why "No" requires ignoring sequestration budget effects. There are many manpower issues in the Air Force and if it's all about end-strength, then there are several options for eliminating non-productive manpower positions to open opportunities for aircraft maintenance to grow. The whole argument about "you can maintain the A-10 or the F-35, but not both" is put forth by those who want to kill the A-10 and therefore questionable in the first place.

Military bands are almost as old a organized militaries. They certainly date back to the Greek and Roman periods and probably before. The bands (wind instruments and drums) served many purposes up through the late 19th Century including keeping formations of foot soldiers together as they moved forward against the enemy, providing entertainment in camps thus improving morale, and sending messages across longer distances than one could yell (before wire or wireless communication).

These traditional uses of bands became less important as military capabilities changed radically in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Military bands now are almost exclusively for ceremonial and morale purposes. They provide an opportunity for the Service to put forth a good public image during events like parades, festivals, and public concerts possibly helping with recruiting.

The USAF Bands take up a very small percentage of the total USAF strength. My experience indicates that there are many more wasted manpower slots in the USAF than the number the Bands occupy. Taking a hard look at processes across the Service and at all levels using a Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) methodology, such as Lean, will most likely yield efficiencies that more than offset the 500 manpower slots allocated to the bands. This takes leadership and commitment, because CPI generates change. Change is not wildly popular among most people, especially those that are fairly regimented in the first place. The program has to be top-down driven, connected to the budget, and part of personnel evaluations.

Response by MSgt Mark George made Mar 30 at 2016 6:33 PM

2016-03-30T18:33:21-04:00

Not only their size is bloated but their promotions are ridiculous.

Response by SSgt Josh J made Apr 4 at 2016 12:19 AM

2016-04-04T00:19:54-04:00

Wrong acc

Response by SSgt Joshua Sacasa made Apr 4 at 2016 12:25 AM

2016-04-04T00:25:02-04:00

I don't like the way this survey is worded, as it's basically asking to choose between entirely gutting band as a career or transferring band members(who I'd imagine aren't exactly enthusiastic nor cut out to be maintainers in the first place). How about giving band members an option to choose to cross-train into a number of several critically-manned fields(including into A-10's if they so desire) or giving them the option of leaving early with severance and the 9/11 GI Bill?

Aircraft Maintenance is not a walk in the park. I cannot believe how quickly everyone is ready to just send every band member 'cept the 120 that don't get cut, into a completely different career in the blink of an eye. I have a little brother who just got a music scholarship to college and was thinking about joining Air Force Band(I did 8 years in maintenance and he knows the real deal about this career path). I'm going to show him this article and the responses here so he(and his friends) can think twice before making a mistake like this.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Mar 28 at 2018 9:21 AM

2018-03-28T09:21:25-04:00

Ok, and just how many of the band are A-10 maintenance people? Also according to the AF, A-10 is antiquated and they have tried for years to kill it off- doubt they are pushing anyone to that MOS.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Mar 28 at 2018 9:57 AM

2018-03-28T09:57:43-04:00

I somehow don't think the band guys, or folks interested in the band are going to suddenly change over to maintainers. OR reducing their slots will create a larger candidate pool. Remember band folks are in the band for a reason and the ones I've met aren't the folks who like getting greasy.
MOS's are often short because they either aren't on the recruiters MOS of the day hit list, aren't viewed as sexy or the career field is a slow mover.
In the case of the A10 the thing is constantly under attack and the career field on the endangered species list. Truth be known the AF probably hasn't been actively recruiting for those slots.