Congress to Delay The Army Aviation Restructure Plan

2015-04-02T16:10:04-04:00

The Army Aviation Restructuring Plan

The regular Army and the National Guard appear to be increasingly at odds. Not because they don’t respect each other, but because both want to protect their funding, their mission, and their people from zero-sum budget cuts.

Thanks to Sequestration doubt is being created across the military on what levels of readiness are needed for sustained combat operations.

Here's what the study by DoD's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office found:
•The ARI manages high demand with a smaller fleet. However, it is not sized for prolonged stability operations.
•The Guard alternative provides more crews and units with less disruptive force structure changes, but some units would only be partially equipped.
•The Guard alternative costs $89 million to $176 million more annually. It also has a higher one-time cost; $570 million compared with $77 million for ARI.
•The Guard's proposal, which would include multi-component AH-64 Apache battalions, presents tempo and training risks. Frequent Guard deployments would put high stress on the force during peacetime, and the proposal calls for a training schedule more aggressive than what was conducted during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do you think we need forward-thinking individuals with knowledge of all three components of the Army (the active force, the Reserve and the National Guard) in order to make a more informed decision? I want to hear your opinions.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2014/June/Pages/CongresstoDelayControversialArmyAviationRestructurePlan.aspx

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2015 12:12 AM

2015-04-03T00:12:31-04:00

I believe forward thinkers with a thorough knowledge of all three components of the Army are essential, sir. I'm sure I'm biased - having served 30 years on active duty - and I do not believe any plan that tilts too heavily in the direction of part-timers is going to be nearly as good as a plan that is based in the active duty force. I don't have any statistics to back up that "bold" statement, just what I experienced when I was in the Army. When we speak of the "profession of arms," are we really thinking - first and foremost - about Active Duty or Reserves/National Guard? I think the answer is self-evident.