Thanks to Purpleslog for the link.
via The Army Times.
The Army will cut 10 brigade combat teams over the next four years, bringing the number of active-duty BCTs to 33, Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno said Tuesday.Shit just got real.
The affected BCTs are:
3rd BCT, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, Texas
4th BCT, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C.
4th BCT, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Ky.
3rd BCT, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.
3rd BCT, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, N.Y.
4th BCT, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas
3rd BCT, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Knox, Ky.
4th BCT, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan.
2nd BCT, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Ga.
4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash.
In addition to these 10 BCTs, which will be inactivated by the end of fiscal year 2017, the Army has already announced the inactivation of two BCTs in Germany — the 170th and 172nd BCTs.
In the future, another BCT, this one overseas, will be identified for inactivation, Odierno said, bringing the final number of BCTs to 32.
These cuts are line with the Army’s effort to shrink the active-duty force to 490,000 as it transitions from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Odierno emphasized that these decisions are the result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, not sequestration, which potentially could mean even deeper cuts.
The Army also will reorganize its remaining BCTs by adding a third maneuver battalion to its remaining armored and infantry brigades. The BCTs also will receive additional engineer and fires capabilities, Odierno said.
These changes will make the Army’s remaining BCTs “more lethal, flexible and agile,” he said.
We have no visibility on their real plans. Quite honestly after reading this story, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Army bust through their previous announced worst case scenario of 380K. We could well see an Army at 350K or even lower in the future.
No offense, but we're about to turn into Israel. A HUGE Special Operations, and a tiny conventional force.
This JCS is creating the force today that will fight future wars.
They're mucking it up in spectacular fashion.
The Army increased by ten brigades in 2009 for the Iraq fiasco, later it was announced it would cut 13 brigades, and last June the Army said ten brigades -- the same ten listed above. They keep regurgitating the same info. I wouldn't say that a 490,000 person (or some less) Army is a tiny force. If it keeps them from invading yet another country (as it may have done recently in Syria) it's a good thing.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.armytimes.com/article/20130625/NEWS/306250042/Army-announces-10-brigade-combat-teams-to-be-cut
The reason the Army publishes the list of specific endangered units is to foment a political backlash in the affected communities.That way it makes the local news media. It's all about the money.
ReplyDeleteIn June, Army emphasized that "these decisions are the result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, not sequestration, which potentially could mean even deeper cuts." But recently, the headline has been: "Sequestration Cuts Leave Army With Only 2 Brigades Ready To Fight: CSA Odierno."
not only that but check out the affected units. the mos active in the US Army and also in the most powerful senate seats. texas, new york, kentucky (well powerful and southern which i believe is meant to make Republicans mad)....this whole thing is political. the only person on the JCS thats worth more than a bucket of cold spit is Greenert of the Navy. the rest of the staff is as corrupt and ass kissing as i've ever seen.
DeleteOn another blog, in response to Odierno's "two brigades" whining, one reader commented:
Delete"There are three combat-ready Marine divisions and three air wings. When you care enough to send the very best."
i like to tease the army just for shits and giggles but if you think the Marine Corps can easily deploy and sustain three divisions in the field while the Army build back up to what should be its real strength then they're wrong.
Deletewe need a strong army if we're going to have a strong nation.
a smaller SOCOM we can do. a smaller Army. nope. not at all.
We will continue to differ on the necessary path to having a strong nation, currently weakening.
DeleteAnother issues with right-sizing the Army is determining what the ratio of conventional to Special Forces should be. There are finite amount of suitable personnel that can be trained for Special Force and every time you reduce the force, you are reducing the amount of potential future Special Forces recruits. They can't just keep cutting conventional muscle without it hitting tendons and ligaments of Special Forces.
ReplyDeleteSolomon, this isn't as bad as it looks. We may be losing 11 Brigades, but we are only effectively losing no combat power as battalions are moved from the deactivating brigades to remaining brigades. The Artillery BN's in the deactivating brigades are being pushed to build up the remaining arty bn's, and so ever brigade will look like 3 IN BNs, 1 Cav Squadron, 1 Artillery BN, plus one or two support BN's (Brigade Support Battalion and Special Troops BN). This puts more "tooth" under fewer HQ's. The Stryker Brigades proved the "4 maneuver BN BDE concept" in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now the rest of the Army is moving back to that model, which coincidently looks a LOT like the Army Regimental Combat Team system of WWII (3 IN Bn's plus artillery and scouts).
ReplyDeleteIt isn't an ideal situation, but the Army really is trying to "cut the fat" before we get down to muscle and bone. In truth, this puts us back to where we were in 1999, with the "10 Active Divisions" model as you can break 32 Brigades into 10 Divisions of 3 Brigades each, with two seperate Brigaes left over. Assuming we can get 1/3rd of the Army on a "red/amber/green" readiness cycle that is 3 and a 1/3rd Divisions ready to roll out at any given time, with the rest of the Army ready to follow in no less than 6 months.
SSSHHHHUUSSHHH! You'll make 'em think they can cut more!
Delete