Which is cheaper to maintain, a Guard/Reserve unit or Active Duty unit?

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 11:38:00 -0400

I have been wondering this ever since my guard unit was told halfway through a 2 year train up on new Bradley's that we might lose them and go light infantry and give our Brads to Active Duty because it would be cheaper. I was thinking at the time wouldn't be better to have a HCBT maintained in the Guard for less that what it would take in Active and keep a viable armored unit?

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2015 11:50 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 11:50:48 -0400

I'm in a RTI unit, we teach. We are finding that Big Army (AD) is tasking small Army (Guard) with much more, because it saves them oodles of money.

I know this is a bit off your topic...but wanted to add my .02. Even the active guys are impressed with the quality of NCO and ease of getting onto a Guard school. For example ALC is over a month for active duty...but for the Reserve component, it is only 3 weeks.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2015 11:52 AM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 11:52:24 -0400

I could see this on both sides. However, to maintain a Guard/Reserve unit, there are added costs that someone doesn't always think of.

Active duty Army trains everyday for ther jobs. They are a force ready, so to speak. The Army Reserves/Guard would take much more ramp up time in order to prepare to respond to a situation (time is money). When the Guard trains during their Drills, many those units need to travel to another post in order to carry out the training.

Aside from that, I would be interested to see some stats showing the difference in costs.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2015 11:55 AM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 11:55:00 -0400

ABIC is only over three drill weekends vs maybe 2 weeks for RA?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2015 11:57 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 11:57:08 -0400

Something to think about: ARNG formations are maintained by both federal and state funding. As a former ARNG tanker I can say from firsthand experience that mechanized formations are extremely cost and maintenance intensive. If I had to guess I would say either your state, federal, or both sources of funding have been cut. I know our school budget has been hit extremely hard this year.

The real question is cheaper for who? A light infantry unit is cheaper for your state without a doubt. The federal government is likely going to spend the money either way. However with the reduced requirements for training and gunnery for the RC, you're probably correct that it's cheaper for the nation as a whole. It would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2015 12:01 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 12:01:25 -0400

Everything I've read says that, overall, RC formations cost about 1/3 of AC formations.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2015 12:15 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 12:15:45 -0400

I would say it is more expensive in the guard. The reason being attaining a reasonable tempo for the standard maintenance, most of the times those deadlines are not met. In the active army, you go weekly, monthly quaterly. In the guard/reserve when you drill, once a month, in addition to all the rest of what goes on. Translates into not ideal condition for usage, maintenance, training, and the elements tend to damage stuff that just sits there.

Just my 2 cents.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2015 12:58 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 12:58:46 -0400

The decision is sometimes a negotiation, who will pay for what. Sometimes the AC will sign over the equipment without giving the budget to go with it. The benefit for NG units to stay light if the budget is not increased, is your unit will retain funds for personnel development. In the end people matter more than equipment.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Apr 4 at 2015 1:32 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 13:32:24 -0400

I would say Guard because there is state money as well as federal money involved. A lot of "full time" Guardsmen are actually state technicians paid by the state not federal $. The equipment is owned and maintained by the state and the armories and physical facilities are state property with some federal subsidy. Reserve and AD are all federal funds

Response by SGM Billy Herrington made Apr 4 at 2015 2:46 PM

SGM Billy Herrington — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 14:46:07 -0400

Since PA has an ABCT, IBCT, and a SBCT it only makes sense to reflag the ABCT since they would be more of a drain on the funding.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2015 8:10 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 20:10:40 -0400

Because active personnel are continually rotating (PCS). I would say that there would be more continuity with a Guard/Reserve unit then an active unit. Being Guard/Reserve for the most part train with the same folks continually. Also a lot fewer AGR needed to maintain the equipment. I'm sure there are pros and cons to which side is cheaper to maintain. But it seems like it is always mentioned that the Guard/Reserve are cheaper.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Apr 4 at 2015 9:03 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Sat, 04 Apr 2015 21:03:06 -0400

The question of whether a Guard/Reserve unit or an Active Duty unit is cheaper to maintain is an overly simplistic question that requires explanation and clarification.
- Assumptions. If one assumes that a Compo 2 or 3 unit will never activate or mobilize then of course they are cheaper than a Compo 1 unit. It is the difference between paying for 39 days a year vs 365 days a year in personnel costs alone. This is a bad assumption, however, so the issue becomes is it cheaper to have a compo 1 unit essentially mobilized all the time or a compo 2/3 unit which is cheaper generally but more expensive to mobilize and takes a longer time?
- Time. Alluded to above but boils down to "you get what you pay for". A compo 1 unit can be deployed within 18 hours to about 90 days while a compo 2 or 3 unit would require 30-180 days to mobilize.
- Fixed Costs. Costs for facilities and equipment are generally fixed regardless of component. The main difference is having equipment vs maintaining the equipment vs using the equipment.
- Flexiable Costs. There are several flexible costs that obviously vary among the components such as personnel (wages), medical insurance, medical care, operations, readiness, maintenance, etc. Compo 2/3 are cheaper when not mobilized but generally more expensive to mobilize.
- Capability and Capacity. Simple way of asking "what can a formation or organization do" and "how much of that thing can a formation or organization do". The capability and capacity of Compo 1, 2, and 3 varies by branch but it can be said that compo 1 has a mix, compo 2 (NG) is combat heavy, and compo 3 (Reserve) is CS/CSS heavy.
- Natural Strengths. Not sure if true for all branches but the natural strength of the Engineer Regiment in compo 1 is tactical while the natural strength of the Engineer Regiment in compo 2/3 is technical. Both are required within the Engineer Regiment.
- At the end of the day, the American military system is built upon not having all of our eggs in one basket. Having a mix of capability/capacity spread among the three components is a way to achieve this with a variety of costs to achieve a good balance. In other words; Good, fast, and cheap. Pick two.

Response by MAJ Monique Ruiz made Apr 5 at 2015 1:46 AM

MAJ Monique Ruiz — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 01:46:48 -0400

Guard. Active usually gets more money than they can spend and nothing changes about how much they get each year. The Guard gets money as needed and available. Usually, it's the bare minimum to meet the minimum requirements for mission readiness.

I'll stop myself here before I say too much, but the simply explanation is greed.

Response by SGT Patrick McCullough made Apr 5 at 2015 12:26 PM

SGT Patrick McCullough — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 12:26:36 -0400

I think you may be confusing who it would be cheaper for. States have a budget, so maybe they don't want to allocate a large portion of their guard budgeting to a Bradley unit when federal funds are lacking because the feds gave up the last two wars just recently, but are setting up for a new war...slain that goof idea fairy

Response by SSG Eric Eck made Apr 5 at 2015 6:50 PM

SSG Eric Eck — Sun, 05 Apr 2015 18:50:35 -0400

It would be cheaper to maintain the vehicles at an active duty post than it would be to maintain them in the Guard or Reserve because of the fact that they would actually be used for training, not just sitting there in a tank barn and MAYBE
getting used once a month.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Apr 8 at 2015 4:57 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 16:57:45 -0400

Depends if you are fully funded with what you are supposed to have, from all classes of supply, all of your troops and support. It may be cheaper, but what is the quality of the equipment and age of the equipment? You work with it two days a month and spend 30 minutes in the motor pool actually working on it and 2 hours screwing off avoiding real work. So is that equipment ready to roll or ready to break? My guess it is waiting it is a stones throw from a ride on the back side of an M88.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 26 at 2015 4:41 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 26 Apr 2015 16:41:19 -0400

The challenge is training on these combat vehicles in the NG to the point they know how to maneuver and fight without reservation.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2015 9:03 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Apr 2015 21:03:38 -0400

Cost is a variable in itself. Monetary value alone should be relatively comparable, however, when you factor in such things as maintenance, billeting, and subsidence, one component may appear to spend more than another. Personally, I believe costs could be lowered if more things were done with integrity rather than various attempts at shortcutting. In the long run, those quick solutions, while Garrison, can cost a unit way more than ever intended or necessary to begin with. Doing things the right way may take a little longer but in the long run you save money, time, resources, and build quality Soldiers to continue the cycle. Cost generally isn't measure by a number, rather, by an amount only relative to the spender/buyer.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 12:20 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:20:10 -0400

At home personnel costs are much cheaper, equipment is near the same. During Mobilizations Reserves are much more expensive, everyone gets BAH and the Active Duty personnel costs are sunk so you have to pay them either way.

The real reason the state wanted to give up the brads is probably just the maintenance and procurement costs. It's not really cheaper to give them to AD, but it is MUCH cheaper to reclass your unit from HBCT to light infantry simply to not pay for the Bradley's. So the AD needs to pay for the Bradleys and your state doesn't have to pay for anything other than boots.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Jun 2 at 2015 3:54 PM

1SG Michael Blount — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 15:54:43 -0400

SPC Private RallyPoint Member - which is cheaper depends on how you're measuring. Last statistics I saw, it's less expensive to keep an Army Reserve unit than either National Guard or Active Duty. That was one of the debates raging throughout Congress back in the mid-90's when they decided to move reserve combat arms to ARNG and support missions to USAR. That said, I can't believe it's less expensive to run a Bradley squadron under Active Duty than ARNG. I think there's more going on behind the scenes that you're not being told

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 3:54 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 03:54:46 -0400

It is a bunch of arbitrary metrics. In the big picture , Guard and Reserve Units are cheaper. FORSCOM 500 plans every piece of information that it would cost to be funded by Overseas Contingency Fund. You have once a month and two weeks a year to be in compliant with the planning phase if you are in the reserves. This comes out of the military personnel appropriation budget. Active gets BAH which automatically almost doubles the cost. They are expensive and need to be justified every year which is why we keep reserves. Title 10 statues let you mobilize reserve troops without budgeting for them. It keeps military dominance and saves cost at the same time. Everything is a perishable skill, but combat arms are especially perishable since there is no application in the civilian world. Your federally focused reserve forces are restricted to support functions and National Guard can have combat arms if they want (the state helps pay for those facilities).