Do agree with the Second part on Military Transformation - Part Deux of We Just lost the Initiative?

On first glance, he seems to be attempting to build the regular Army on the Marine Corps MAGTF model (30/60/90 day expeditionary capability), but when we get to Air Support, I think he has it reversed.

If you are going to have an Active/Reserve Air Component, you'd want to reverse his suggestion. You want the Support Helicopters on Active since they will "always" be needed, especially during training and sustainment, whereas the Attack Birds would only be needed during Contingencies. In other words, activate your Reserve Attack Helicopters as needed, but keep your Support up all the time.

All that said, I disagree with his proposal. It has some merit, but he's trying to do too much, in the wrong way.

My personal suggestion would be as follows:

Everyone is either Reserves (Combat Support, Combat Service Support) or National Guard (Combat Arms). Initial Enlistment/Service is Active Duty, and Subsequent Service is "Needs of the Army" (Reserve or "Reserve on Active Duty"). When you join, you are aligned with a Region (group of states), which aligns with Major Command (like PACOM, SOCOM, LANTCOM, CENTCOM, etc). Each each is manned, and trained according to current contingency planning, which allows expansion/shrinking based on the 2 year NDAA cycle.

USAF/USANG/USN would be aligned similarly. USMC units are already set up as "contingency" forces based on the MEU/MEF structure.

Edit:Word (MEF to MAGTF)

One of the reasons the helicopter issues has been such a hot button for the National Guard, was the way the Army went about it. The guard went through a lot to get pilots trained, units manned, spent a ton of money to get armories and airfields up to snuff, not to mention the amount of full time AGR positions that go with a flying unit. Now you want to snatch them away, after you have been pulling them for how many deployments? No sir, not without a fight. Poorly handled by the AD. As for the writers comments that Guard doesn't have a need for combat aviation, spot on. I also don't think we need armor units, systems are getting too complicated to train with for two weeks a year/ one weekend a month, and Class IX repair part budgets are shrinking fast to keep this equipment maintained, so why have it, if you are not going to fund it. My 2 cents.

COL Mikel J. Burroughs After reviewing the article the author makes some good points. However i don't think that a requirement for "Active Duty to be fully self-sustained for 30-60 days" is sufficient. The idea that the Land Component should be primarily combat arms with sufficient combat support and though not directly mentions sufficient combat service support to fight for 30 to 60 days. To make this tenable forward deployed forces and prepo stocks would need to be distributed to cover reasonable contingencies.
Joint Sea basing would help in that it would be a platform for forward sustainment and billeting of Land Forces - currently USMC and Army.
Coast Guard's dual role and the National Guard dual role of Federal and Sate support need to exist for the foreseeable future.