Is there still an over-reliance on contractors supporting the Army maintenance field?

The calculus on a contractor is that you (DoD) isn't going to have to pay for his/her retirement and medical/dental, which some numbers geek has figured is cheaper in the long run. I don't necessarily buy that, I think the initial calculations weren't figuring in 14 years of war. However, congress *and* DoD don't want all the troops (end strength) it would require to do the job completely with military. In some fields, your contractors are adding 20+ years experience to the endeavor, and the Army doesn't have raftloads of E-7s, E-8s and E-9s sitting around to provide that kind of expertise. Further the contractors are providing the continuity for when the units rotate in and out theater. But, if you don't like contractors, write your congressman and tell them to bump up the end strength.

CW4 (Join to see) Remember Chief, this is a budgeting tool! We may not have boots on the ground, but we will have contractors covering many military duties in the interest of a smaller, reportable, Army personnel count!

The # count matters, $ expended do not!

CW4 (Join to see) Chief I have been retired for 2+ years so I don't know about the present time. I will tell you that nothing pissed me off more than when I was a 1SG or BN OPs SGM and would go to the motor pool and the wrenches would tell me that they could work on the equipment because contractors had to do it. If I had hair I would have been pulling it out. I did throw a bunch of F bombs though.