Posted on Nov 23, 2015
"Army National Guard Considers Increasing Annual Training Days"
43.8K
107
36
8
8
0
From: Military.com
The head of the Army National Guard is looking to see if training one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer is enough to ensure Guard troops are ready for future fights.
Army Maj. Gen. Timothy Kadavy, who took over as director for the Army National Guard in March, is assessing the readiness needs of the Guard at the request of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley.
"The chief of staff has challenged our current thoughts on training and readiness," Kadavy told an audience at a Nov. 18 Institute of Land Warfare breakfast sponsored by the Association of the United States Army.
As part of the assessment, Kadavy is examining if the current minimum of 39 annual training days is the right number to maintain readiness. That minimum number of training days, he said, was established in the 1900s and may no longer be relevant.
Kadavy will also determine if Guard units are getting the right number of annual rotations to the Army's Combat Training Centers.
"Everything we do must be looked at through the lens of readiness," Kadavy said. "Do we need to rethink how we use the Reserve component of today's Army?"
Kadavy also said he is considering ways to ensure that the training Guard units do takes advantage of the lessons that were learned when units were routinely mobilizing and deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan.
"My concern is if we don't continue to do that at some level, we will lose that muscle memory for any reduced mobilization period by almost 50 percent for certain types of units and capabilities," he said. "We need to continue to exercise to some degree those lessons learned and learn new lessons and continue to progress."
Under the Army's rotational readiness model a portion of our National Guard is always available for combat missions, for support to civil authorities, humanitarian assistance and theater security.
But the Army will need to continue to keep Guard units equipped at the level they were they were regularly deploying alongside active units, Kadavy said.
"We are the benefactors of a tremendous investment in equipment by the Army and by Congress in support of operations over the last 15 years,"he said. "But modernization is fleeting."
Kadavy recently met with commanders of the Guard’s seven armored brigade combat teams.
Commanders are concerned that "because of the decrease in mobilizations and the opportunities to modernize because of mobilization, there is this ever-growing gap that they see between their active component brothers in ABCTs and where they are today."
"There must be a strategy to help us maintain our equipment and our interoperability within the Army," Kadavy said.
"I liken it to an example of digital and analog -- the two don’t work together. And if you have one component in a digital world and one component in an analog world, how do you talk to each other and how do you operate effectively as a team on the battlefield?
"Readiness should be looked at as a measure of investment and not simply as a measurement of cost."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/11/21/army-national-guard-is-looking-at-increasing-annual-training-day.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm
The head of the Army National Guard is looking to see if training one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer is enough to ensure Guard troops are ready for future fights.
Army Maj. Gen. Timothy Kadavy, who took over as director for the Army National Guard in March, is assessing the readiness needs of the Guard at the request of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley.
"The chief of staff has challenged our current thoughts on training and readiness," Kadavy told an audience at a Nov. 18 Institute of Land Warfare breakfast sponsored by the Association of the United States Army.
As part of the assessment, Kadavy is examining if the current minimum of 39 annual training days is the right number to maintain readiness. That minimum number of training days, he said, was established in the 1900s and may no longer be relevant.
Kadavy will also determine if Guard units are getting the right number of annual rotations to the Army's Combat Training Centers.
"Everything we do must be looked at through the lens of readiness," Kadavy said. "Do we need to rethink how we use the Reserve component of today's Army?"
Kadavy also said he is considering ways to ensure that the training Guard units do takes advantage of the lessons that were learned when units were routinely mobilizing and deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan.
"My concern is if we don't continue to do that at some level, we will lose that muscle memory for any reduced mobilization period by almost 50 percent for certain types of units and capabilities," he said. "We need to continue to exercise to some degree those lessons learned and learn new lessons and continue to progress."
Under the Army's rotational readiness model a portion of our National Guard is always available for combat missions, for support to civil authorities, humanitarian assistance and theater security.
But the Army will need to continue to keep Guard units equipped at the level they were they were regularly deploying alongside active units, Kadavy said.
"We are the benefactors of a tremendous investment in equipment by the Army and by Congress in support of operations over the last 15 years,"he said. "But modernization is fleeting."
Kadavy recently met with commanders of the Guard’s seven armored brigade combat teams.
Commanders are concerned that "because of the decrease in mobilizations and the opportunities to modernize because of mobilization, there is this ever-growing gap that they see between their active component brothers in ABCTs and where they are today."
"There must be a strategy to help us maintain our equipment and our interoperability within the Army," Kadavy said.
"I liken it to an example of digital and analog -- the two don’t work together. And if you have one component in a digital world and one component in an analog world, how do you talk to each other and how do you operate effectively as a team on the battlefield?
"Readiness should be looked at as a measure of investment and not simply as a measurement of cost."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/11/21/army-national-guard-is-looking-at-increasing-annual-training-day.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm
Army
Training
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 20
2
2
0
Been hearing the same thing for many years and to increase training days you must increase Reserve Components budget. Maybe cutting some of the NG General Officer ‘Paid’Billets Big Time and redistributing the funds to Compo 2 and 3 there would be more funds to increase training days and thus hopefully increase Readiness. No promises though!!!
(2)
(0)
COL Roxanne Arndt
As a retired army reservist assigned to a CSH we never had enough time to train on drill weekends. The officers yes but
Our civilian jobs were no different than our “army” jobs. The enlisted soldiers who needed the training in their MOS always seemed to be pulled away for some other tasking. If your mission is to conserve the fighting strength you need to focus on readiness. When we deployed to Iraq it was a huge learning curve for some performing their military jobs but we did rise to the occasion!
Our civilian jobs were no different than our “army” jobs. The enlisted soldiers who needed the training in their MOS always seemed to be pulled away for some other tasking. If your mission is to conserve the fighting strength you need to focus on readiness. When we deployed to Iraq it was a huge learning curve for some performing their military jobs but we did rise to the occasion!
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
My entire career was Reserve. Yes we want units to be as ready as possible, but what was the real intent of the Reserve forces? Reserve forces will never be Active Duty and it seems like the powers to be want Reserve forces to fill in what AD is cutting back. Reserve forces were meant as just that, a force of pretty well trained soldiers who with very little up training can be put on the line. Being self-employed sometimes it was difficult to meet the demands. When I came back from Iraq, it took over two years to get my business built back to fully support my family again.
Sometimes I wonder if the question is quality of training verses quantity of training? There are some MOSs who need extra time because of the type of job, but there are those who can do good with the current schedule. But the big question with all the cut backs is: WHO PAYS?
Sometimes I wonder if the question is quality of training verses quantity of training? There are some MOSs who need extra time because of the type of job, but there are those who can do good with the current schedule. But the big question with all the cut backs is: WHO PAYS?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
It is always great to increase training days, however this could cause a negative downturn economically for soldiers and their families. With the increase in training comes less time away from your civilian career. Yes laws do require employers to keep you, however if this is the case the NG or USAR need to offer more AGR or tech positions. Retention rates could fall dramatically if not given the opportunity to obtain full time employment within. Right now leaders are averaging from 80 to 100 training days a year.
(2)
(0)
CSM Charles Hayden Passed 7/29/2025
I do recall recall three weekends a month prior to my retirement from a Peter Principled, SNCO National Guard appointment. CPT (Join to see)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm very concerned as reservists how it would effect both us and the National Guard. It's already a tough balance as is civilian and soldier careers.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Having been in both components do we have the Leaders and NCOs who will train these Soldiers?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Without reading this article, is there any opposition from those in Congress? As those that have been in the service and understand manning and preparation we would know what is needed.
The biggest thing to me is understanding how tapped out Reserve and National Guard units have been throughout the last decade. I think its a great idea but I see a lot of "Red Tape" here.
The biggest thing to me is understanding how tapped out Reserve and National Guard units have been throughout the last decade. I think its a great idea but I see a lot of "Red Tape" here.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I think it is a great idea because it will lead to a more prepared ARNG. Problem is, where is that money coming from.
(1)
(0)
CSM Charles Hayden Passed 7/29/2025
Money Hell! Time off from work-yes! CSM Carl Cunningham
GUARD Troops only have so much disposable time, if they wanted to be fully employed by the military, they would have gone Regular Army.
I recall my young Guardsmen practically begging to miss a weekend drill. One was a Motorcycle sidecar rider! He ABSOLUTELY HAD TO BE AT ‘THAT’ RACE!
GUARD Troops only have so much disposable time, if they wanted to be fully employed by the military, they would have gone Regular Army.
I recall my young Guardsmen practically begging to miss a weekend drill. One was a Motorcycle sidecar rider! He ABSOLUTELY HAD TO BE AT ‘THAT’ RACE!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
While I am sure it has been assessed in the past, I hope they take a hard look, one, I am not sure that the administration is ready for that added cost, while it may be needed it will come at a heavy cost. Not only in salary, but retirement benefits. There will also be a turn over cost, which may in the long run offset sone other. Don’t get me wrong I think it is absolutely the right thing to do, it will probably be the heaviest lift for the Army in many, many years. I will end by stating Family life balance has been shaken by recent changes in selecting of Senior NCOs and the assignments for active duty, imagine how this rocks the lives of long serving members of the Guard.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This will cause retention to plummet. We’re talking about part time, citizen Soldiers who are trying to balance their military service, their full time job, and their family life. No, you can’t fire a Soldier for taking off time for military service, but I sure saw plenty of them fired for other reasons someone wouldn’t normally be fired for.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
IMHO, it would give the personnel a better advantage than their predocessors.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google