Proposal to not pay military retirement until 57!

[Rustic23]

Actually, and I have absolutely no statistics to back this up, I think that you may find that the majority of the folks in uniform are not direct combat related. (I was looking for a term other than rifleman). When you take into account the number of troops it takes to support each combat troop, I think far more of our service members are in the support role. I admit I come from an AF background and very few in the AF are in direct combat related specialties. However, that is why I said some adjustment would have to be made for combat arms. However, and once more not my field, it seems that the junior enlisted, NCO's and Officers are the ones doing the physical stuff in combat. While some senior officers may have strenuous jobs very few generals are charging a hill with a gun.

[utrecht]

If we are talking about raising the retirement age because people are living so long, we should do the same to social security. When SS was first implemeted, it was designed to cover the last couple years of life. Life expectancies have risen so far that you shouldnt be able to collect SS until you are 80 or so. Im sure thats never going to happen but thats about the only way its going to get fixed.

The downward spiral that the entire SS system is in is astronomically worse than any possible problems with miltary retirement.

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retireinmy40s In the military we deal with certain things that people don't have to deal with in civilian jobs like overtime w/o pay

"[O]vertime w/o pay"? Ye gods! That's unheard of in corporate America.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 As the services become more technical and less physical, as folks live longer, and healthier, it would appear that retirement at 25 years would work just as well as 20. Many General Officers stay past 30 years and are productive. It may be that some specialty codes would have a lower retirement age, and just like bonuses these could be recognized and adjusted.

That's an interesting thought. I wonder if military veterans are really living as long as the general population. An interesting issue is that the military only inducts healthier people, so right from the start the military population is hypothetically biased toward better overall health and longer life.

I guess my question is whether veterans are dying at younger ages than their civilian equivalents. Of course it's hard to tease out the "equivalence" of factors like combat, stress, exposure to HAZMAT and ionizing radiation... maybe it's more appropriate to compare veterans' longevity to police and firefighters after all.

[randyman65]

"exposure to HAZMAT and ionizing radiation... maybe it's more appropriate to compare veterans' longevity to police and firefighters after all. "

My greatest hazard was lack of sleep. The 152 mRem I got in 8 years had a negligible effect on my health.

[Notmuchlonger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords That's an interesting thought. I wonder if military veterans are really living as long as the general population. An interesting issue is that the military only inducts healthier people, so right from the start the military population is hypothetically biased toward better overall health and longer life. I guess my question is whether veterans are dying at younger ages than their civilian equivalents. Of course it's hard to tease out the "equivalence" of factors like combat, stress, exposure to HAZMAT and ionizing radiation... maybe it's more appropriate to compare veterans' longevity to police and firefighters after all.

I know as a civilian. I do not have flashbacks from my line of work. While I have a relative who still has them since returning from Iraq. No scary machining stories.. Well there was this one time I was pulling a double shift and accidentally stuck my hand in the machine.. That was was stupid but so far no post traumatic symptoms.

[Rustic23]

Nords, I found the quote below from another site.

The Retired Military Almanac indicates average" military retired life expectations (nondisability) at age 40 is 36.1 years; age 50 28.9 years; age 60 20.5 years...and like that. "

then double checked it with this site http://www.annuityadvantage.com/lifeexpectancy.htm

Age Military Civilian
40 36.1 37.8
50 28.9 28.46
60 20.5 20.36

Now I have no idea how accurate either of these sites are, but it appears that if you make it to 50, you do a little better than the general public. I would say that the figures are, IMHO, close enough to be the same.

On the other side of the equation, I got a phone call from DS saying his best friend just got killed in combat. They went to college together, flight school in the Marines, and were both stationed at the same base until he deployed. The Wife is 8 months pregnant. No amount of money or benefits makes up for this.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 On the other side of the equation, I got a phone call from DS saying his best friend just got killed in combat. They went to college together, flight school in the Marines, and were both stationed at the same base until he deployed. The Wife is 8 months pregnant. No amount of money or benefits makes up for this.

Crap. I've never figured out how to explain this to my nephew, and I probably never will.

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 Actually, and I have absolutely no statistics to back this up, I think that you may find that the majority of the folks in uniform are not direct combat related. (I was looking for a term other than rifleman). When you take into account the number of troops it takes to support each combat troop, I think far more of our service members are in the support role. I admit I come from an AF background and very few in the AF are in direct combat related specialties. However, that is why I said some adjustment would have to be made for combat arms. However, and once more not my field, it seems that the junior enlisted, NCO's and Officers are the ones doing the physical stuff in combat. While some senior officers may have strenuous jobs very few generals are charging a hill with a gun.

You don't need to be in a directly combat related career field to get into a fire fight. If the person can deploy to a combat zone they are for the most part in a career field that is directly combat related. There are exceptions for medical, religious personnel, etc, but for the most part my statement applies to all career fields. Even the Air Force started to move back to this train of thought by requiring all Airman to go through a ruck march (weak as it was, it was in improvement), all Airmen are trained to use and maintain an M-16, and several other common combat skills, all while in basic training. Additionally, there was a yearly training requirement that consisted of directly combat related skills and tactics. All of this change came about when the leadership finally realized that when Airmen are in a combat zone every person needed to be able to be called upon to defend the base, not just the cops. The days of a 702 sitting in the office not able to assist in providing for the common defense of the base went out the window several years ago.

As far as what careers in the Air Force are directly involved with combat, there are two. Cops and pilots. The combat controllers and pararescue aren't considered combat specialties, even though they get into more poop than anybody in the Air Force. Their jobs are to rescue and to provide air support, not combat. The cops' jobs in a combat zone is indistinguishable from an Army infantryman. They use the same skills, same field manuals, and same regulations. In fact the training given to the cops for combat zone operations comes straight from the Army. Pilots are obvious.

[ATC KH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire The combat controllers and pararescue aren't considered combat specialties, even though they get into more poop than anybody in the Air Force. Their jobs are to rescue and to provide air support, not combat.

Normally just a lurker, but this quote deems correcting. Pararescuemen and Combat Controllers are most assuredly combat specialties in the USAF, along with Tactical Air Control Parties (TACP) and Special Operations Weather Teams (SOWT). I'm utterly confused as how you could not consider these combat specialties. These four AFSCs make up what the USAF considers its battlefield airmen. The following is the definition of battlefield airmen as taken from the USAF website:

"Certain ground combat capabilities are an Airman's responsibility and require unique surface operations that are integral to the application of air and space power. To meet this responsibility, the Air Force recognized the need to organize, train, and equip a force of Battlefield Airmen capable of delivering distinctive expertise in a ground combat environment with unequaled firepower, accuracy, responsiveness, flexibility and persistence. These Airmen include Pararescue, Combat Control, Tactical Air Control and Battlefield Weather professionals. They provide a skill set not commonly found across the Air Force and typically operate in combat zones outside the perimeter of Air Force bases."

The full article can be found at Factsheets : Battlefield Airmen

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC KH I'm utterly confused as how you could not consider these combat specialties.

Leonidas, I'll bring the popcorn if you'll bring the sea stories...

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC KH Normally just a lurker, but this quote deems correcting. Pararescuemen and Combat Controllers are most assuredly combat specialties in the USAF, along with Tactical Air Control Parties (TACP) and Special Operations Weather Teams (SOWT). I'm utterly confused as how you could not consider these combat specialties.

Well then let me clear up the issue for you. Part of your confusion might be in how I explained my position. By "directly involved with combat" I meant actively going out and looking for an enemy and destroying it. The four special ops careers listed do go out, normally with the Army and as I stated do get involved in the fight more than any other AFSC in the Air Force, but their job is not to go out looking for the enemy and destroy it. Their jobs, in turn are: Pararescue conduct conventional or unconventional rescue operations. Combat control deploy undetected into combat and hostile environments to establish assault zones or airfields, while simultaneously conducting air traffic control, fire support, command and control, direct action, counterterrorism, foreign internal defense, humanitarian assistance and special reconnaissance in the joint arena. TACP advise U.S. Army conventional and special operations ground maneuver commanders on the integration and execution of air and space power. Combat weather collect localized weather information, assist mission planning, and generate accurate, mission-tailored target and route forecasts in support of conventional and special operations.

The closest one to actually an aggressive combat unit would be the combat controllers, but what keeps them from actually being a combat unit is that they call in the planes to do the work. Keep in mind that each are also riflemen first so, yes they do shoot and are shot at and as I stated a couple times already they do get into the fight more often than the typical Air Force member. The primary jobs (meaning what they were trained to do by AFSC) is not to go out and shoot the enemy. They do do that, but only as a side job to their main mission.

[ATC KH]

Well, you and I clearly have different opinions of what "directly involved in combat" means. Tell you what, read this article about a Combat Controller recently awarded an Air Force Cross and tell me his situation and actions are not consistent with what you would consider combat. JTAC to get Air Force Cross - Air Force News, news from Iraq - Air Force Times

[lets-retire]

I can also recount the efforts of a pararescueman who was in Mogadishu during the ranger raid who, IIRC, was killed. Or Mr. Levitow who was a loadmaster during Vietnam who received the Medal of Honor. Or countless other military members who were injured, killed, or captured, but were not in a directly combat related career field. The link you provided directly supports what I stated. Yes the combat controller was in the fight, (even I stated several times now that they get in the fight more than most in the Air Force), but his mission was to call in air strikes, not necessarily directly engage the enemy on his own, though it was done. It would be similar to a combat medic serving with special forces (I don't know if they still have that but go with it). They are in the heat of the battle with the combat forces, but their mission is not to engage the enemy directly it is to provide medical care. Another example is combat camera troops who go in armed with both firearms and cameras. Their mission is to take photos of the battle, but they also engage any enemies if the battle get too bad. They are not a directly combat related career field, but they find themselves in the heat of the battle.

Please do not think I am in any way taking away from the training, sacrifice, or ability of the Air Force spec ops people (I was good to go with combat controller until they brought up the jump school requirement). I am simply pointing out that their mission is to support the combat troops, even though they often find themselves in positions to have to directly engage the enemy. All of this goes back the my initial premise that, with few exceptions, every person in the military is a rifleman first.

[Rustic23]

Lets-Retire, I too find 'your' definition much to confining for this discussion. If it would make you happy, maybe we should use combat related. I still profess there are way more troops in the military that are not in combat related fields where physical fitness is not a prime consideration as to their ability to do there job. Many of these leave the service at 20 years and go directly into the civilian work force doing the same job.

Recently I was at one of the Air Forces Pilot Training bases. It appeared the majority of the jobs in maintenance were being done by civilians, and many appeared to be old enough to be retired military. I also suspect it would be cheaper, overall, to have kept them on active duty, than pay retirement, contract salaries, and contract overhead.

[jimnjana]

Rustic,

I disagree about cost effectiveness of keeping maintenance personnel on active duty vs contracting out capability. Hands down contract workers are more cost effective alternative regardless of whether they are drawing a military pension. With a properly written contract, you get much more wrench hours with contractors then you do military (leave, training, sgts time etc etc...) . Contract costs pale in comparison to the costs of running Active duty maintenance organizations, where about 30% of the organization is "overhead" and about 30% of available time is chewed up by all the miscellanous things active duty people do, JMO as a former Active Duty Maintenance Manager.

Jim

[ATC KH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire but his mission was to call in air strikes, not necessarily directly engage the enemy

I would consider calling in air strikes from a forward position while returning fire on the enemy to be directly engaging the enemy. TACPs and Combat Controllers are most certainly "shooters." The added capability they bring is an intimate knowledge of close air support tactics, techniques and procedures as well as how to successfully direct and control responding air assets on the battlefield.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire It would be similar to a combat medic serving with special forces (I don't know if they still have that but go with it).

.

So by your definition within Army Special Forces the only combat trooper is the Weapons Sergeant? The Medical Sergeant, Engineering Sergeant and Communications Sergeant are in a support, non combat role?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire Please do not think I am in any way taking away from the training, sacrifice, or ability of the Air Force spec ops people

Non taken.

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC KH So by your definition within Army Special Forces the only combat trooper is the Weapons Sergeant? The Medical Sergeant, Engineering Sergeant and Communications Sergeant are in a support, non combat role?

None of the people you listed are in a traditional "non-combat role", they are in combat related positions. I'm not familiar with the weapons Sgt so I can't speak to that position. To my way of thinking a non-combat role would be the medical person, religious people, and those who have no possibility of being deployed to a combat zone, such as a B-2 maintenance crew, or a physical therapist. As far as those in hot zone (with the few noted exceptions) you have the direct combat roles and the combat related roles. It doesn't matter if your job is outside or inside the wire, if you are in country you fall into one of the two categories again with the exceptions. Direct combat roles are those who's primary AFSC/MOS job is to find the enemy, engage the enemy, destroy the enemy, and nothing else. The combat related roles are those who have other primary responsibilities other than finding and and destroying the enemy, such as rescuing people, providing medical care, or calling in air strikes, cooking dinner, etc. You can call a combat related role a support role, but to me that is excessively limiting and not a very accurate description of what many do.

Oh yeah, welcome to posting.

[Rustic23]

OK, it has been some time since I was in the AF. But, in my day, Combat Controllers were not calling in Air Strikes. There job was to set up remote basis and bring in Air Craft for landing. Forward Air Controllers or FAC's called in air strikes. In the 80's to be a FAC you had to be a pilot. ROMADS, radio operators and maintainers that along with a pilot made up the Tactical Air Control Party were also being trained to conduct close air in an emergency.

No big deal, but having been a FAC, I can tell you it is definitely a combat related job! In fact as I was assigned to an Army Armored Battalion, I can see little difference in calling them a Combat unit and the FAC a support member. It would be like calling the driver of a tank a support unit, and only the guy that pulls the trigger a Combat unit.

[ATC KH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 OK, it has been some time since I was in the AF. But, in my day, Combat Controllers were not calling in Air Strikes. There job was to set up remote basis and bring in Air Craft for landing. Forward Air Controllers or FAC's called in air strikes. In the 80's to be a FAC you had to be a pilot. ROMADS, radio operators and maintainers that along with a pilot made up the Tactical Air Control Party were also being trained to conduct close air in an emergency. No big deal, but having been a FAC, I can tell you it is definitely a combat related job! In fact as I was assigned to an Army Armored Battalion, I can see little difference in calling them a Combat unit and the FAC a support member. It would be like calling the driver of a tank a support unit, and only the guy that pulls the trigger a Combat unit.

Rustic, things have changed quite considerably since you were in. I spent my active duty enlistment 00-04 as a tactical air command and control specialist (what used to be called a ROMAD). Actually, things continue to change due to the current conflicts. I'm currently an air traffic controller in the air guard so even I am a little behind on things. Here's some relevant changes that might interest you.

JTAC=Joint Terminal Attack Controller (essentially what a FAC used to be). Within the USAF, qualified Combat Controllers and TACPs can earn this certification and most do. In fact, within the TACP community there is a strong push to make JTAC certification mandatory. As of now it is a craftsman (7 level) requirement. Enlisted primarily control air strikes on the modern battlefield. ALOs sometimes do but primarily are performing liaison duties with the Army at the brigade level or higher.

Air Liaison Officer (ALO)- Still rated officers but that is going to change shortly. The USAF just recently created a new officer AFSC, 13LX, which is a career air liaison officer. I believe the end goal is to have ALOs 70% 13L's and 30% rated pilots.

Combat Control- Still perform their traditional mission as you stated, but increasingly are used in the JTAC role. Typically, they are only assigned to special operations units while TACP is assigned to both conventional and special operations. I never had much heartache with it, but many other TACPs viewed Combat Control entering the CAS arena as stepping on our turf. I doubt it'll happen, but it was a big rumor when I was in that Combat Control and TACP were going to be combined.

Those are just some highlights, hope you found them interesting. It's interesting who you run into on these sites.