Where do you think the Army should make cuts to get to 450K?

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:25:17 -0400

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/

Coffee Talk - US Army Downsizing Announcement to Come After 4th of July

The anticipated announcement from the US Army on where they will make cuts as they look to draw down troop sizes from 490,000 to 450,000 is now expected after July 4th. John Armbrust, Executive Dir...

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 10:49 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 10:49:15 -0400

COL Private RallyPoint Member I would go harder with Overweight and APFT flagged SM. If we are downsizing, we should keep the best. Overweight and APFT failures are not just physical fails but it shows lack of discipline, interest or hard work.

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Jun 23 at 2015 11:26 AM

MAJ Jim Steven — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:26:31 -0400

My previous unit was a 2 star HQ and so many us were not real sure what it did...
a bunch of Majors sitting around with no real purpose, surrounded by a bunch of GS-11s and above (mainly 12s and 13s) that really didnt do anything.
sending people TDY all over the place...trying to justify our existence.

Thats our tax dollars, people....

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 3:49 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:49:30 -0400

We have echelons that can be joint such as Corps and Divisions. Since we have proven to be able to fight in a joint environment, can we also establish a more joint environment at the permanent organizational level?

We do have cultural differences as I encountered in Ramadi during 2004 with 1ID and the 1st MARDIV but we got over it.

Somehow we need to do this holistically and not just cut more brigades.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 3:57 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:57:25 -0400

Set up a commission to evaluate every position in the Army. Cut & combine the slots that can be in order to improve efficiency without hurting readiness. Certain jobs just may not be needed...

-or-

Take .03 cents a months from everyone on active duty. (The math adds up). It will save every job and be unnoticed (and obviously we get no raise this year).

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 4:20 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:20:27 -0400

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.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 7:52 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 07:52:59 -0400

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.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 12 at 2015 2:03 AM

COL Charles Williams — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 02:03:24 -0400

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.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 2:10 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 02:10:28 -0400

The problem of budgets are being attacked in the wrong way.