US Department of Defence

#2
The National Guard is realigning just has the active force has done. With NG recruitment problems it makes sense to reduce the size of the NG. However, Congress may block this,
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#3
I bet BRAC gets hoisted back to the surface in this round.....( what pork-barrel???)

Also, a great way to disguise the recruiting target shortfall for the NG is to say: " so we've lost x thousand guys and gals from the National Guard since OIF ?...so what? Planned reductions my man...."

In comparison with UK TA, the national Guard incentives for re-engaging are pretty good......still not working as well as some folk would wish, from what I hear ?

Lee Shaver
 
#4
NG and active forces have met their recruiting targets for the last 7 months.

the reason the NG is changing its TOE for some of its units is because no country for the forseeable future can stand toe to toe with the prestigious and moral United States of America is heavy armor slug-outs.

We're going FCS baby, and we'll hand over some essential parts so our little buddies the Brits are not in a denser fog in joint training and war than they already are now.

heaven forbid.
 
#5
We've been debating this one on other boards, and we can't see it happening. The biggest shortfall right now is troops.

Personally, I have no interest in doing anything other than the tanking I'm doing now. If they cut the Washington brigade (And so my tank battalion), I have no incentive to stay in, unless I'm willing to commute to Nevada for drill. They're already reducing the options available to us, I don't think they realise that some people are in the NG because they enjoy what they're doing.

NTM
 
#6
American_Dominion said:
NG and active forces have met their recruiting targets for the last 7 months.

the reason the NG is changing its TOE for some of its units is because no country for the forseeable future can stand toe to toe with the prestigious and moral United States of America is heavy armor slug-outs.

We're going FCS baby, and we'll hand over some essential parts so our little buddies the Brits are not in a denser fog in joint training and war than they already are now.

heaven forbid.
Do me a favour and translate that into English not American English!
 
#9
The lost of these 6 heavy maneuver brigades (and I guess 2 divisions HQs including all divisional elements, as well as an aviation brigade) is not a numerical reduction, they (said brigades) are being converted to support brigades, so there will be no official reduction in guardsmen. the current reorganization of the National Guard called for what I think was 38 maneuver brigades being reduced to 34 (largely through merging under strength brigades, although some multi-brigade states lost 1 NY, TX, IN or 2 CA brigades ) the national guard will now have 28 brigade combat teams (UA)

Web Page Name


116th brigade combat team
 
#10
There is not as major a recruiting problem as reported, the main problem is, if I am not mistaken is that prior service (people that have served in the active military) which traditionally 50% recruited guardsmen, are not joining the guard because if you join the guard you go to Iraq for a year. If you stay in the active military you go to Iraq for a year so why not just stay with the unit you are bonded with.

arkansas national guard reenlistment

In a study of recently reenlisted guardsmen (i heard it on NPR), loyalty to unit, was the most common reason given to reenlist.
 
#12
midwesterner said:
The lost of these 6 heavy maneuver brigades (and I guess 2 divisions HQs including all divisional elements, as well as an aviation brigade) is not a numerical reduction, they (said brigades) are being converted to support brigades, so there will be no official reduction in guardsmen.
Official, no. But you can bet bottom dollar that there will be an effective one. There are people, not least myself, who have very little interest in joining the military if we can't do shooty things, such as might involve tanks, infantry or artillery.

NTM
 
#14
Politics, my good man...

The Enhanced Separate Brigades were to be the creme de la Guard, getting increased funding for training, high-speed equipment, and so on. California already had a division, so the Enhanced dollars went to Washington. Still, Washington was short a combat arms battalion, and California really wanted a piece of the enhanced brigade pie, so they provided the third maneuver battalion for the 81st. Similarly, the 29th Bde out of Hawaii has an infantry battalion in California.

NTM
 
#15
Here is the army times version of this story.

January 23, 2006

Memo calls for cutting Guard ranks by 28,000
Guard officials balk, others say reductions are unlikely

By Michelle Tan and Gordon Lubold
Times staff writers


The Army National Guard will lose six brigade combat teams, one combat aviation brigade and two division headquarters if a proposal signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England is approved.

The memo from England, written as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review, also proposes a reduction of up to 28,000 guardsmen.

But in a time when the mission and size of the Army is growing, many in Washington say such drastic cuts will never see the light of day.

According to documents obtained by Army Times, if the cuts are approved, the Army Guard will pay up to $6.4 billion, or 58 percent, of the $11.1 billion in cuts the Army may be asked to make in fiscal years 2007-2011.

News reports about the potential cuts have circulated in the media for weeks, but Army and Guard officials have been reluctant to discuss them.

“We’re providing 50 percent of the combat forces over in Iraq right now,” said Air Force Maj. Gen. Roger P. Lempke, adjutant general of Nebraska and president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States. “Certainly, the National Guard is being used … in a fashion that was never anticipated during the Cold War. As this gains legs and people begin to understand the ramifications … I think you’ll get backlash from communities. I think you’ll see backlash perhaps from the states.”

The possible cuts outlined in the Dec. 20 memo are part of an effort to reportedly trade personnel for equipment platforms and comes as the Pentagon is nearing the end of its review of personnel and equipment to support strategy into the new century. The resulting recommendations of the Quadrennial Defense Review are much-anticipated, but few specifics are known about what exactly will come out of it.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is pushing for a lighter, faster force that can be effective in nonconventional battlefields. But the QDR also is expected to seek ways to cut personnel costs, which can top 60 percent of operational costs for some services.

England’s memo becomes the Pentagon’s input for President Bush’s budget, which is due to be released Feb. 6.

Lempke’s association and the National Guard Association of the United States each wrote letters to Defense Department and congressional leaders cautioning against the proposed cuts, which would reduce the number of Army Guard brigade combat teams to 28 from 34.

The cuts would reduce the Army Guard’s homeland defense capabilities, according to an internal Guard document obtained by Army Times. Authors of the document also wrote:

• “Army National Guard readiness levels cannot improve because funding reductions exceed strength reductions.”

• “We gain no ground on equipping shortfalls.”

• “Equipment procurement and military construction funding is decreased.”

Also on the chopping block between fiscal 2008 and fiscal 2011 are nearly 14,500 Air Guard members, according to a Dec. 28 internal Defense Department budget document outlining planned manpower cuts.

The reductions are expected to come through both aircraft cuts and operational streamlining efforts intended to allow the service to accomplish its assigned missions with fewer people.

Lempke estimates that the cuts, if carried out, will close a couple hundred armories and 14 Air Guard wings across the country and leave the Guard unable to recruit as many soldiers as it needs.

“Once we lose those numbers, it’ll be almost impossible to get them back,” he said.

The adjutants general have been unable to get information or confirmation from Army officials about the proposed cuts, Lempke said.

“What we’re trying to do right now is simply learn what’s going on,” he said. “Then what we’d like to do is engage Army leadership to talk about ways we can help with the budgeting process without immediately cutting the National Guard. I think we should be part of the process that discusses what the future of the Army should look like.”

When asked to comment on reports citing England’s memo, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said: “We are going to fund the National Guard to their level of manning.”

The Guard has a homeland defense mission, so the Army is rebalancing the force so that it can meet both its operational and homeland defense missions, Army Secretary Francis Harvey said.

“There is no cut in the number of overall brigades,” he said.

Larry Di Rita, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, confirmed that England signed the memo, but he said the Army is likely going to increase in size, not decrease.

“At the end of the day, the operational Army will continue to be larger today than it was yesterday,” Di Rita told reporters during a briefing Jan. 3. “The operational Army is big and it’s getting bigger because they’re doing active reserve rebalancing in a way that makes the number of deployable brigades larger today than it was a year ago, two years ago.”

Times staff writers Rob Colenso and Sean Naylor contributed to this report.
 
#16
Army Times said:
The possible cuts outlined in the Dec. 20 memo are part of an effort to reportedly trade personnel for equipment platforms and comes as the Pentagon is nearing the end of its review of personnel and equipment to support strategy into the new century. The resulting recommendations of the Quadrennial Defense Review are much-anticipated, but few specifics are known about what exactly will come out of it.
Great- carrying along the path that has made getting into wars easier, and winning them and getting out harder. The people at Lockheed Martin, United Technologies, Raytheon, BAe Systems etc. must be sweating like blind lesbians in a fish factory at the prospect.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#17
crabtastic said:
Army Times said:
The possible cuts outlined in the Dec. 20 memo are part of an effort to reportedly trade personnel for equipment platforms and comes as the Pentagon is nearing the end of its review of personnel and equipment to support strategy into the new century. The resulting recommendations of the Quadrennial Defense Review are much-anticipated, but few specifics are known about what exactly will come out of it.
Great- carrying along the path that has made getting into wars easier, and winning them and getting out harder. The people at Lockheed Martin, United Technologies, Raytheon, BAe Systems etc. must be sweating like blind lesbians in a fish factory at the prospect.
excuse my French - what a lot of C0ck !

ask any accountant what the quickest way to get the bottom line back into shape and he'll tell you - reduce manpower.

(Crabs - I'm suffering a bit so plse excuse....does that colourful metaphor mean the same as 'sweating like an Airborne in a spelling bee' ? )

Le Chevre
 
#18
ask any accountant what the quickest way to get the bottom line back into shape and he'll tell you - reduce manpower.
crabtastic was right








They are not reducing the man power of the national guard they are going to convert 6 heavy maneuver brigades into support brigades to save money to spend on heavy stuff for the army
 
#19
California_Tanker said:
Politics, my good man...

The Enhanced Separate Brigades were to be the creme de la Guard, getting increased funding for training, high-speed equipment, and so on. California already had a division, so the Enhanced dollars went to Washington. Still, Washington was short a combat arms battalion, and California really wanted a piece of the enhanced brigade pie, so they provided the third maneuver battalion for the 81st. Similarly, the 29th Bde out of Hawaii has an infantry battalion in California.
NTM
I thought having a subunit in the Province and regiment in Scotland was problematic!
 
#20
CutLunchCommando said:
California_Tanker said:
Politics, my good man...

The Enhanced Separate Brigades were to be the creme de la Guard, getting increased funding for training, high-speed equipment, and so on. California already had a division, so the Enhanced dollars went to Washington. Still, Washington was short a combat arms battalion, and California really wanted a piece of the enhanced brigade pie, so they provided the third maneuver battalion for the 81st. Similarly, the 29th Bde out of Hawaii has an infantry battalion in California.
NTM
I thought having a subunit in the Province and regiment in Scotland was problematic!

the 29th Bde also has the army reserves only ground combat unit, the 100th battalion, 442nd infantry regiment with its headquarters located at Fort Shafter, Hawaii, and its units are located in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam and Saipan. the brigades cavalry troops is an oregon national guard unit ( troop f 82nd cavalry regiment) and its ADA battery is a minnesota national guard unit (d battery 216th Air Defense Artillery)

29th Infantry Brigade (Separate)

patch
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top