Army Defends Move to Strip Guard of Apaches Comments

Vsshooter

Mon, 31 Mar 2014 12:56:39 +0000

Since the Air Force wants to retire the A-10s because they never like to do CAS then give them to the Army and Marines, who can really use them.

Hawk

Mon, 31 Mar 2014 07:37:46 +0000

If you want to save 12 Billion, just stop the senseless SRM spraying program (aka Chem Trails). No such thing as global warming people, only those making money by crying Chicken Little and duping the idiot brass into paying for it.

Edward Cox

Sun, 30 Mar 2014 20:52:28 +0000

This is just an example of the Active Army exploiting The National Guard when it\'s convenient (like when there\'s a war to be fought and bodies needed). NG is supposed to be as well trained as the rgular Army. That means the same equipment, tools, tactics, etc. That cannot be the case if the NG does not have the same equipment.. This is a simple matter of inequality in the minds of certain Regular Army leaders. NG is always good enough where casualties are being incurred but not good enough in a \"peace\" period..

Simply cut the Army\'s Officer corps, cut the West Point graduate levels, tell the other services like the Air Force and the Navy to cut back some of their large projects, AF Academy and Annapolis. After all Wars cannot be won unless boots are on the ground and only the Army does that. All the rest of the services are primarily support.

Joint Services need to realize that austerity needs to be shared equally. Not cutting ot a combat ability of the Reserve and Natinal Guard

Guest

Sun, 30 Mar 2014 16:48:32 +0000

As a cost cutting measure, all land based combat troops should be only outfitted with pitchforks and machetes. Air squadrons should fly remote controlled model P-51 Mustangs, and our naval service can sail a fleet of Sunfish with solar powered water cannons for our maritime defense. What has happened to our once great nation? Oh yes, Owebama was elected twice - that says it all. Enjoy it while your can Vlad.

Taxpayer

Sun, 30 Mar 2014 02:23:25 +0000

Putin took the Crimea with what? 30,000 probably special ops troops in less than two weeks. We couldn't take and hold either Iraq or Afghanistan with the "most powerful military the world has ever seen" in 10 years! Our military is OVERSIZED for the task its assigned. It doens't need to be EVERYWHERE! Its only job is to defend the homeland, which is set between two ocean barriers. How tough is that? We need a military to what? Invade China? Leave China to itself. It's army can't cross the ocean without us sending it to the bottom of the Pacific. That should have been our strategy in Vietnam.

Pedro Santiago

Sun, 30 Mar 2014 00:38:46 +0000

This is a crasy decision, Mr. Putin from Rusia, is laughing at our stupidity, we look as a bunch of idiots.

Commonsense

Sat, 29 Mar 2014 19:30:45 +0000

Rethink it all! Break it down to active, ready reserve and inactive reserve. Active to be on location within 1 week, ready reserve on location within four weeks, inactive reserve on location within eight weeks. Keep each ready with training as needed.

Kristian375

Sat, 29 Mar 2014 19:16:55 +0000

Majr0d - as a proponent of the status quo, please answer a few questions. You say a trained unit should not need a predeployment period. How exactly do you think any Army unit prepares to go overseas with out a predeployment train up and how many actual training days does that train up require? For that matter, how do you think the Marines, Navy or Air Force prepares for deployment with out a predeployment train up? How many active Army brigades do you think are ready to deploy right now in 18 hours from alert? My guess is zero. 30 days? I guess 1 or 2. 60 days? Maybe 6. 90 days? I will be generous and guess 10 BDE would meet Army readiness standards 90 days after alert. Which is fine because there is not enough lift available to move more than 7-8 BDE anywhere we might fight in 90 days anyway. There are not enough ranges or training areas or operational equipment to train up faster either. So the question is, why have so much force structure on active duty when no more than 1/3 at best could be brought to bear with in this mythical 90 day window the Active Army clings to? For that matter, why does it take Guard units 30-90 days to prepare? Isn\'t that because that is how the Army has programmed resources for the Guard and that is the standard the active Army has asked the Guard to meet? If the Army wants more highly trained units available on a more timely basis why not resource the guard more and change the ARFORGEN cycle to 4 or 3 years for Guard BCT? If we need to reinvest in our equipment and technology why don\'t we reduce our personnel costs by moving more personnel to part time status? Makes sense especially given the vast majority of those full timers are not actually ready to deploy anyway.

Taxpayer

Sat, 29 Mar 2014 18:08:38 +0000

The real solution is to lay out an balanced force at 80% of the current force structure. Then make 1/3rd of that Guard units. Change the two weeks a year, one weekend a month training regimen to 3 months active (that includes that 90-day workup for deployment), with a paid for backfill to the employer, and you have an Active/Reserve force more like what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Applied across ALL services would save more like $30 to $50 billion a year 9Including equipment changes). Within that plan, pay well (meaning freezing officer pay and bumping junior and mid-grade enlisted by 20%), modernize (buy the better helos), and train hard. Still saves at least twice the sequestration targets.

Def-policy

Sat, 29 Mar 2014 01:40:16 +0000

You all should know this was a proposal that the Army Aviation Center of Excellence put together under the leadership of MG Magnum and his team, it was not designed at the Pentagon or within the Sec Army. Comments on here that you can find the money some where else are characteristic of the issues across America and our government. "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree." There is no money anywhere else, this plan offers the best chance to retire the Kiowa while still preserving combat power across active, reserve and guard. I've seen enough pilots burn it it trying to make the Kiowa do something it can't which is armed recce against an armed enemy; any counter proposals that include the Kiowa as part of the future force would be a disservice to those who put their lives in that airframe. Times change, stop clinging to the past and either move forward with the plan or do something else.

majr0d

Fri, 28 Mar 2014 23:45:11 +0000

"the active component is losing three aviation brigades, while the reserve component isn’t losing any." Yet there will still be claims of unfairness in 3...2...1... (and I'll get a bunch of negatives for telling the uncomfortable truth)

Not Likely

Fri, 28 Mar 2014 22:52:58 +0000

Back up that 1B dollar savings comment on an NGB ARB with something other that conjecture and fairy dust.. Please.........

RWilliams

Fri, 28 Mar 2014 21:23:28 +0000

Well, let\'s see, how to save 12 billion. Considering that a National Guard Attack Recon Battalion can save 1 billion a year, and that the Active Component plans on having the equivalent of 20 ARBs of Apaches...transfer 12 of them to the National Guard! You keep aircraft while SAVING defense capability AND money. Seems like a no brainer.

strategicservice

Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:37:41 +0000

I don\'t think even the most optimistic members of the HASC think they can find $12b in cuts from Secretary McHugh\'s staff. Sorry. Congressional Republicans and Democrats looking for a less expensive military that is equally capable will not be having their cake and eating it too.

blight_

Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:35:50 +0000

An old post from earlier in the year that may provide more specifics. http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/lists... What's not mentioned is the plan to use drones to augment Apaches. Who and what is paying for the drones?

blight_

Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:21:35 +0000

Curious about the long term costs of flying AH-64's in lieu of OH-58's. You eliminate an supply chain for an aircraft and associated equipment but replace it with theoretically more expensive aircraft in terms of flight hours? Guard is losing its Kiowas just like the AC, and I guess the Lakotas are going too since only the Guard has them. Won't flying more expensive helicopters like the Blackhawk instead of the Lakota add flight costs to the guard? Isn't that why they wanted a smaller helicopter in the first place?

sw614

Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:20:16 +0000

Whether or not the budget passes as requested is moot. The money still has to come from somewhere. Any suggestions?

bart

Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:09:37 +0000

They can keep their blackhawks. The guard will not need them when its pilots choose not to re-enlist.

Guest

Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:51:56 +0000

Agreed. As things are heating up again in Europe, now is not the time to be making any military cuts.

Lance

Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:48:07 +0000

Tell those idiots like McHugh to find it elsewhere starting with his salary and staff. This is a lame idea by brass who is throwing a fit that AAS program had to be cancelled. The OH-58 can still scout better than the Apache and both were made into a hunter killer pair not to replace each other in there roles. Like the retirement of the A-10 this shows military narrow mindedness and greed as they want AAS no matter what. Hope this Budget fails to pass BIG TIME.