3
3
0
So I have noticed that other branches have a pretty set average deployment time. It can always get longer but with the few exceptions never shorter. What does the community feel about the Air Force being all over the place with the length of their deployments should they have a more set in stone length? Why or why not? What would the effect be on morale and families? Please keep in mind that this is a hypothetical question in order to hear opinions on the matter and I'm leaving my thoughts out of it. I have also included a survey but would love to see comments on the matter.
Posted in these groups: 
Deployment
Deployment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
5
5
0
SMSgt (Join to see)
Ha! Love the picture. I believe 6 months should be the standard AF deployment. The problem is not the number of months, but the fact it seems Airmen are constantly rotating in and out. The new concept should fix that with big chunks of Careerfields and units deploying together. When both wars were going many AF careerfields were loaned to the Army and deployed for 10 months to a year. In a joint environment we need to deal with what each others nuances. I joined the Air Force to serve my country and because of how it takes care pf its people.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I tend to think of things more in "Tours of Duty" than in Deployments, whereas a Deployment (or 2) will be part of a Tour of Duty.
Using a "first enlistment" as an example, a Tour of Duty would typically be about 2-3 years (assuming that School/Education/Leave takes up about 1 year).
So let's call it 30 months just for convenience. During those 30 months, what is an "acceptable" Deployment percentage? Is it 30%? 50%? More than 50%?
Let's use 50% for arguments sake (again). That would mean 15 months deployed AND work up, 15 months not.
So that would be a single 12 month deployment, or two 6 month deployments. The issue with shorter deployments is that "the steak is no longer worth the sizzle" in that we end up spending too much time working up to them, as compared to actually doing them. Now for high-tempo contingency operations (week on, week off, etc), that isn't the same thing.
Now, part of the USAF draw (Recruitment) is its operational tempo. So massive changes could be detrimental to the overall USAF culture.
Using a "first enlistment" as an example, a Tour of Duty would typically be about 2-3 years (assuming that School/Education/Leave takes up about 1 year).
So let's call it 30 months just for convenience. During those 30 months, what is an "acceptable" Deployment percentage? Is it 30%? 50%? More than 50%?
Let's use 50% for arguments sake (again). That would mean 15 months deployed AND work up, 15 months not.
So that would be a single 12 month deployment, or two 6 month deployments. The issue with shorter deployments is that "the steak is no longer worth the sizzle" in that we end up spending too much time working up to them, as compared to actually doing them. Now for high-tempo contingency operations (week on, week off, etc), that isn't the same thing.
Now, part of the USAF draw (Recruitment) is its operational tempo. So massive changes could be detrimental to the overall USAF culture.
(3)
(0)
CPT William Jones
I am a RVN vet and tours mean nothing for a reference about being deployed to a combat zone, In swa tour ran from 30 days to 15 months depending on several things. I think total months deployed tell more about how long a person was in the war. Example I was talking to NCO when my some made his first tour to Iraq NCO said he was going on his 4 tour. I asked him how many months total and he said 30. I replied I ad 2 tours plus 6 months for a total of 32 months. So 90 day tours I would have 10.6 tours much more impressive than just 2.5 tours. I really not impressed with Navy sea tour of 90-180 at sea trips as big deal. But I still say thanks for enlisting and taking a turn guarding the wall so to speak.
(0)
(0)
CPT William Jones
If counting for being in hostile fire zone it should be counted in months not ambiguous terms like deployments. I. E. I was deployed for 18 months in hostile fire zone. Not I was deployed 5 times to HFZ.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
At least 15 months - or more. Joking... We are just jealous.
During the Surge, in our 8,000 person Brigade TF, the Army was on 15 months, the Marines 9, Navy 6, and USAF 90, 60, and even some 30 days.
We had USMC, USN, and USAF in our Army Brigade during OEF 06-8 because the Army was out of MPs who could come back (dwell time)... Everyone was on a different cycle, anyway, so it really did not matter. It was sorta like Korea, with units and people coming and going daily. Not the best way to do things, but the units (like MP Brigades, Engineer Brigades, etc.) outside of the BCTs are not on lifecycle replacement... so it is a different world.
I don't think anyone should deploy for 15 months, but is all relative. During Bosnia and Kosovo we thought 179 days were super long... The OEF surge requirements demanded 15 months. Early on in OEF, we had MP units replacing the units that replaced them. So, you would have 12 months BOG, and then back at HST for less 12 months. Crazy... Like a 12 month long shift and shift change.
I think the branches have to decide, based on the requirements, and their strength, how long deployments should be, with a focus on as short as possible, but not too short to create second and third order effects. Switching out too frequently can cause other issues.
If you research the military, and our deployments, you will find we are constantly changing, and adjusting to find the best solution to deployment times. I still think we are trying to figure this out.
There is a sweet spot. I think it is 9 or 12.
During the Surge, in our 8,000 person Brigade TF, the Army was on 15 months, the Marines 9, Navy 6, and USAF 90, 60, and even some 30 days.
We had USMC, USN, and USAF in our Army Brigade during OEF 06-8 because the Army was out of MPs who could come back (dwell time)... Everyone was on a different cycle, anyway, so it really did not matter. It was sorta like Korea, with units and people coming and going daily. Not the best way to do things, but the units (like MP Brigades, Engineer Brigades, etc.) outside of the BCTs are not on lifecycle replacement... so it is a different world.
I don't think anyone should deploy for 15 months, but is all relative. During Bosnia and Kosovo we thought 179 days were super long... The OEF surge requirements demanded 15 months. Early on in OEF, we had MP units replacing the units that replaced them. So, you would have 12 months BOG, and then back at HST for less 12 months. Crazy... Like a 12 month long shift and shift change.
I think the branches have to decide, based on the requirements, and their strength, how long deployments should be, with a focus on as short as possible, but not too short to create second and third order effects. Switching out too frequently can cause other issues.
If you research the military, and our deployments, you will find we are constantly changing, and adjusting to find the best solution to deployment times. I still think we are trying to figure this out.
There is a sweet spot. I think it is 9 or 12.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Both my WestPacs were 6 months, which equated to about 9 months when you added in work-ups. That 9 month mark everyone has "cabin fever." I've heard about the guys on Okinawa who pulled a year over there. They go absolutely bonkers at a full year. And that's at Peacetime tempo. I can't imagine doing it OIF/OEF.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google