Posted on Jun 23, 2015
Where do you think the Army should make cuts to get to 450K?
7.94K
44
25
6
6
0
UPDATE: So now we know what we will be doing to get to a 450K active force in the Army. We will be inactivating 2 Infantry brigade Combat Teams and replacing them with Infantry Battalion Task Forces. We will be reducing the size of all 2-Star HQ and above by 25%. We will continue to execute ARI (the aviation restructuring initiative). We will be converting a Stryker Brigade Combat Team to an Infantry Brigade Combat Team. These are the big-ticket items. There are a lot of other pieces to it though.
An anouncement is on the way according to this article. If you had to cut the Army (and we do have to according to congress), what cuts would you make and why? As we shape an Army, the most capable force for long term land warfare, what should we cut? EDIT: This question is about the authorized strength of the Army...not the kinds of people that fill the ranks. In order to get down to what the congress has told us we have to get down to, we have to cut organizations or make them smaller. THEN we can worry about what kinds of people fill them and how we make sure the best in the force remain.
http://www.littleapplepost.com/2015/06/22/coffee-talk-us-army-downsizing-announcement-to-come-after-4th-of-july/
An anouncement is on the way according to this article. If you had to cut the Army (and we do have to according to congress), what cuts would you make and why? As we shape an Army, the most capable force for long term land warfare, what should we cut? EDIT: This question is about the authorized strength of the Army...not the kinds of people that fill the ranks. In order to get down to what the congress has told us we have to get down to, we have to cut organizations or make them smaller. THEN we can worry about what kinds of people fill them and how we make sure the best in the force remain.
http://www.littleapplepost.com/2015/06/22/coffee-talk-us-army-downsizing-announcement-to-come-after-4th-of-july/
Posted in these groups: 
Downsizing
Budget
Downsizing Budget
Edited 9 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
2
2
0
HQs are the best places to cut... But, it will likely come from the support sructure, outside of the BCT...http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/07/09/us-army-details-plans-to-cut-40000-soldiers-across-bases.html
US Army Details Plans to Cut 40,000 Soldiers Across Bases Worldwide
The downsizing will impact most installations, with Fort Benning in Georgia and Fort Richardson in Alaska being hit hardest.
(2)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
COL (Join to see) - Makes sense... Not sure if you have worked at Division, Corps, Theater, MACOM, Joint, Pentagon type HQ yet... but it just boggles your mind the amount of people and money... The best example I can recall was USARUR 1998 - 2003... When I was there. USAREUR at that time had 2 maneuver brigades (pre-BCT and modularity), 2 Division HQs, I theater Support Command, a Corps HQ, and Army HQ, and USAUER (4 star)... Yes, I know the mission was still to accept more forces... but those days were gone... Lots of HQ structure tail for not a lot of maneuver teeth. I managed the HRP program... and between USAUER, SETAF, EUCOM (Pre-Africom) and other Joint and Combined (NATO) HQ we had over 200 General Officers we had to track and secure... for 2 maneuver brigades... plus, I forgot (3) SETAF - 173rd. And that was only Army, not USAFE, NAVEUR, MARFOREUR.
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Sir; I have worked at I Corps, MNC-I, USF-I, and I am now at the Pentagon working for G3-5-7 Force Management. I get it. Cutting the 2-star HQ and above by 25% is a big piece of htis drawdown.
(0)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
COL (Join to see) - Hooah. DA G3-5-7 FMD... So you are in the think of this, and earning your pay... Interesting times. Thanks for your service.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The Army is currently at 490,000 or so. Cutting another 50,000 requires deep cuts, beyond just cutting a few more brigades. Deep cuts required at upper echelon HQs. Best, though, to maintain has much capacity as possible, so the cookie cutter approach is a bad idea. Probably a need to transition more forces to the Guard and Reserve to maintain capacity. But a cut of 50,000 equates to,what, no less than 7 or 8 brigades?
I do like the idea of a truly joint force, but this will never happen, and surely not by 2019.
An alternative might be for the Army to convince DoD and Congress to spare the Army from such deep cuts. Maybe DoD and Congress could agree to not buy an F-35 or ten and we could stay at 490,000.
I do like the idea of a truly joint force, but this will never happen, and surely not by 2019.
An alternative might be for the Army to convince DoD and Congress to spare the Army from such deep cuts. Maybe DoD and Congress could agree to not buy an F-35 or ten and we could stay at 490,000.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Unfortunately, programs are the last on the list to go. First, there is a corporation with deep pockets and a lot of jobs on the line. Especially the big ones. Also, cutting htose programs doesn't provide money immediately. The money on a program has been built years ago and still has years to end. Cutting a person out of the force pays immediate monetary relief to the system. You no longer have to pay them starting the day they are out of the service. Also, you don't have the medical and retirement when they reach 20 years. Win-win when it comes to saving money immediately and in the future.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The demand signal from the GCCs does not warrant the current BDE structure. We still need the forces, but we need to change the makeup of the AC and RC. We need more enablers in the active force, and more combat forces in the reserve.
Justification: When was the last time the U.S. had an emergency activation and deployment of a mechanized division, or any division? It hasn't happenned. Will send SOF guys overnight, we will think about activating the GRF, but won't, and we will bomb the crap out of an enemy for months before we do anything.
Justification: When was the last time the U.S. had an emergency activation and deployment of a mechanized division, or any division? It hasn't happenned. Will send SOF guys overnight, we will think about activating the GRF, but won't, and we will bomb the crap out of an enemy for months before we do anything.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Well put. The only question I have is how long does it take to build the Army up to strength if necessary? I like the demand signal analysis, but just because it is wanning now, doesn't mean that it won't increase at some point. That seems to have been our problem in most major wars. We have been paying so much attention to the current demand that the possible eventualities of the future are forgotten in the rush of a "peace dividend." I question how often we have to learn the same lessons over and over again. I think there are those who do their best to maintain a force that can be built up while there are those who want to see the Army at a much smaller level because they believe that large scale conflict is never going to happen again, despite a world which is becoming more and more hostile.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google