U.S. Army Commission to tackle force structure. Do you think the Active, Guard, and Reserve roles should be redefined? How so?

2015-06-20T08:50:21-04:00

Whether US Army's active component absorbs the National Guard's AH-64 Apaches may be the highest profile issue for a congressionally established commission on the service's future, but the panel is taking on tougher questions, ones that may redefine the roles of the active side, Guard and Reserve.

"The more lasting, longer term recommendations we will make will be, 'How do those three components of the Army contribute most effectively to the nation's land power requirements,'" retired Army Gen. Carter Ham, chairman of the commission, said after it met Thursday. "It's more nuanced, it's more difficult, it's a less precise answer than the AH-64 issue."

The commission was mandated by the fiscal 2015 National Defense Authorization Act following a public dust-up between the Army National Guard and active component over the active Army's Aviation Restructuring Initiative. The panel is to study the Army's structure, size, force mix, and how they all should be modified to fit the Army's missions and available resources.

The controversial aviation restructure, over five years, would eliminate the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior and use the Apache to fill the Kiowa's reconnaissance and scout role. In turn, it would pull the Apaches from the Guard and replace them with UH-60 Black Hawks, a move the Guard and its advocates oppose.

The commission's report to Congress is due in February 2016, and therefore is unlikely to influence the budget immediately.

"This is not about the Army of 2016, it is about the Army of 2020 or 2025," Ham told reporters. "While there are some things of immediate concern, the force structure, force design, force mix are larger issues, and we're trying to think about that."

The active and reserve components are meant to be complimentary, and over the last decade's wars, the reserve component has hovered at slightly more than half of the total force. Shrinking budgets and the shrinking Army have sharpened the arguments over the proportions.

The argument in favor of a stronger reserve component, which is made up of part-time troops, is that they're interchangeable with their active-component counterparts, at a lower cost. The counter-argument is that reserve component troops are not as capable, and that they take more time and training to mobilize for immediate crises. The commission is expected to examine these arguments.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/defense/land/army/2015/06/19/army-future-commission-force-mix/28984733/

US Army Commission Tackles Force Structure

WASHINGTON — Whether US Army's active component absorbs the National Guard's AH-64 Apaches may be the highest profile issue for a

Response by CPT Richard Riley made Jun 20 at 2015 9:07 AM

2015-06-20T09:07:13-04:00

Without reading the article first, I would think active force structure would need defined before you dive in and attempt to alter the support structure. I will read the article and see if I am able to give a more complete answer at a later time.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jun 20 at 2015 10:03 AM

2015-06-20T10:03:59-04:00

The aviation issue force structure and equipment redistribution issue seems to have been considered in a bubble in a linear fashion.
All Force structure issues need to be looked at from the perspective of impact on the current and developing force structure, equipment development and deployment, modification and phaseout schedules including vehicles, weapons, uniforms, force and individual protection, etc.; personnel authorizations and school training schedules including introducing, funding and training the trainers to provide instruction on operation, technical aspects of repair, and funding for sustainment of the equipment.
1. For Active Component, using a platform designed for combat the sleek AH-64 to both continue its mission and assume the observation and fire coordination mission of Oh-58 seems shortsighted. The pilots of these two platforms are not instantly interchangeable.
2. FOR ARNG and the States they support, the pilots of who currently fly AH-64 and the maintainers who fix them and the supply organizations which coordinate spares for them are focused on that aircraft. Granted there is commonality of the design and some of the parts of the AH-64 and the UH-60 but there are significant differences.
3. It would be amazing if all ARNG and Active Component AH-64 are the same model and same design. Taking all AH-64 off the ARNG property books along with all unique supporting equipment, spares, training systems, etc., and transferring that materiel to active component units would also require changing funding lines from ARNG to AC. For Federal funding this would be problematic but doable. If there is state funding for AH-64 training and operation transferring that to AC would be practically impossible and unwise. Those funds would be best reallocated within the states with the AC seeking additional funding if required.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2015 11:08 AM

2015-06-20T11:08:41-04:00

Everyone should be RC or NG and AC eliminated as a concept. Instead, active duty tours will be performed by members of the RC or NG based on skill demand, missions and budget. This creates one retirement program (RC and age 60), requires everyone to balance two careers (no AC transition required), eliminates retention boards and involuntary separation pay and enables everyone to compete for promotion and schools on an equal footing (no preference for AC and AGR over RC and NG). Best qualified should get promoted instead of best qualified by component (which often means AC least qualified gets promoted over RC/NG). No more issues about the AC living off of the RC in times of conflict, then kicking them to the curb after the conflict is over. Also, no more preference by VA. Currently, AC disability is presumed service connected because they were 'full-time' whereas RC/NG have to fight for benefits, even after multiple combat tours, because VA presumes RC is part-time and therefore likely to become disabled at civilian employment. Once force, one fight, one set of standards.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Jun 20 at 2015 11:21 AM

2015-06-20T11:21:05-04:00

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad These observations are based on my own perceptions and are not back by all the data that would be necessary to make the appropriate realignments or changes. There are a lot of experts on RP that can address this much better than I can.

I believe there can be some work done to redefine some of the roles for the Reserves, National Guard, and Active Duty components. I believe we are pretty close to the right force alignment with healthcare and logistics. We may need to realign the human resources, finance, and civil affairs units, so there are more on active duty. It seemed that every time you turned around those unit were deploying on a regular basis.

I think it’s important to remember when they do realign all three, how important the role of the Reserves and National Guard in these last 15 years of war has been.

Again this is just my observation. First, I believe that the National Guard BCTs have given the Active Duty BCTs and other units a longer break in between deployments (some will argue for and against that statement). Secondly, it has increased the communities’ involvement (Reserve and National Guard). Under the all-volunteer Army when America goes to war, so does the community. It has provided a more favorable acceptance by the American public versus the past opinions under the mandatory draft during the Vietnam conflict. Third, it brings a level of expertise and innovation in certain career fields (Logistics, computers, IT Technology, medical, civil affairs, executives, and business savvy men and women) to battlefield. I can tell you that during my deployment the reservist that I brought over were able to create and develop more programs that made a huge impact on the mission from a logistics, transportation, and other critical areas of the combat support mission. There will always be pros and cons on both sides of this equation! I just wanted to share a few of my thoughts.

Response by LTC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2015 12:48 PM

2015-06-20T12:48:21-04:00

The National Guard and reserves both provide a huge cost savings to the government. The argument that they take longer to train and mobilize for a crisis is not entirely true. The National Guard and reserves are subject to hey very strict and directed training plan from 1st army. Does not take into account the commanders assessment of his unit at all. I am getting ready to deploy and half of our team attended an intensive for week language training prior to our deployment. First army still requires us to take language training at the mobilization site. That is example of how inflexible they are.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Jun 20 at 2015 6:51 PM

2015-06-20T18:51:22-04:00

OK fellow RP'ers, I read the report and don't see anything of immediate concern other than me wondering if this was done in chambers or at a resort setting with pate', caviar and champagne with toast points were on the buffet. Classic waste of time on a discussion on changing something that is "well enough' as it stands today. My biggest concern is over who initiated these discussions. If it was Obama then I already fear any real change as he has shrunk the military, continues to demoralize them and fired 200 General Officers for no good reason. If he is involved, it can't be good.

If I had the opportunity to give any input to the commission I would like to see a larger Reserve component and double the training they undergo. And I wish there was a more definitive scope of the National Guard and a % rating on how close they are to becoming "Active Duty" overnight. Anyone ever notice we have more mobile equipment than we can "man"? Let me know your thoughts IF you disagree....

Thanks,

Rick

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2015 9:26 AM

2015-06-21T09:26:11-04:00

As a former 67-U CH-47 Chinook mechanic I don't think that taking the AH-64 Apache from the National Guard would be a bad idea because the cost of having to retrain the pilots and aircraft crewmen / mechanics would be very costly.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2015 9:52 PM

2015-06-21T21:52:20-04:00

There are good reasons to have an active component military. As an example, lets say a Brigade Combat Team is required for a short-notice overseas deployment involving the protection of vital national interests and must be in place within 48 hours. This is a compelling example of the need for active duty forces. Having said that, I believe all Army force structure should reside in the reserve components unless there exists a compelling reason otherwise. The cost of an RC service member, when not activated, is less than one third that of their AC counterpart according to an analysis of the Fiscal Year 2013
budget, with the RC per capita cost ranging from 22% to 32% of their AC counterparts’ per capita costs, depending on which cost elements are included. The RC accounts for about 39% of our military end strength, but only use about 16% of the defense budget.

For planned rotational missions (including warfight, forward presence and theater security cooperation requirements) the RC is well suited and cost a lot less than their AC counterparts when you are not using them. The RC proved to be a very capable force when rotational force requirements for OIF and OEF exceeded AC capabilities in the 2003-2006 timeframe.

The federal deficit will continue to grow due to the costs of entitlement programs (primarily social security, medicare and medicaid). These constraints will not be going away, and the recipients of these programs do show up at the polls. As military professionals and stewards of taxpayer resources, we can no longer afford to bury our heads in the sand on this. They say that your budget is the ultimate reflection of policy. That tells me that we are all letting politics get in the way of good policy.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2015 1:16 AM

2015-06-22T01:16:28-04:00

Alot needs to change, the structure in it's self is fairly good though I would say. I would like to see the states have more control over their forces though. I would go so far as to say that (for the NG at least) there should really be a 30+/- day training period each year as opposed to 2 weeks. Your first 2 weeks there should be Drill Sergeants or some sort of "evaluators" from AC that recertify the organization on an idividual or as a whole depending on requirements. But only to a minimum standard that satisfies your MOS. The rest of the time you do whatever training your state wants you to do, along with the rest of your year. The AC being a federal force and the fed govt as a whole should not have near the sway over the NG that they do. The NG is supposed to be the state's force...so why do we take orders from amd get funding from and adhere to the policies and practices of the fed forces and fed govt if it is not the express wish of our state govt that that be the case. If our primary mission is within our states, I really don't see why we are so tethered to AC. I know it's a rant...but as someone who has been AC and NG...the entire setup has always seemed to be just a wee bit skewed.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 30 at 2015 9:03 PM

2015-06-30T21:03:52-04:00

Who cares???