Some Ideas on the SBCT

[Guest]

1. With the Army having 6 SBCTs and 6 Airborne BUAs when the reorganization is complete, what would be the feasibility of pairing an arirborne BUA and SBCT togethr for training purposes and then using them in tandem as a early entry force and reinforcing force ffor rapid reaction situations? Even if we didn't pair up all 6 couldn't pair thew 172nd SBCT and 4th BDE, 25th ID, both in Alaska, togetther and the 173rd ABE BDE with whatever SBCT likely gets assigned to Europe?

2. Would attaching an Abrams/Bradley task force to was SBCT be a good idea to act some more punch to the TOE?

3. Is attaching an aviation battalion to eash SBCT a good idea? Or is is it easier to attach aviation assets as needed?

Any comments or input would be appreciated.

[Bill]

The SBCT/Airborne pairing doesn't make much sense. The Stryker Bdes are nowhere near as air mobile as was advertised.

[Guest]

They are the most airmobile armored unit in the US inventory though. Bringing a battalion sized task force to supports ABE BDE would make a fairly effective force against anything short of the PRC or North Korea.

I'm noy saying we should merge them, just make their training closer, run more joint exercies, establish liasion officers between them.

[Shek]

1. With the Army having 6 SBCTs and 6 Airborne BUAs when the reorganization is complete, what would be the feasibility of pairing an arirborne BUA and SBCT togethr for training purposes and then using them in tandem as a early entry force and reinforcing force ffor rapid reaction situations? Even if we didn't pair up all 6 couldn't pair thew 172nd SBCT and 4th BDE, 25th ID, both in Alaska, togetther and the 173rd ABE BDE with whatever SBCT likely gets assigned to Europe?

2. Would attaching an Abrams/Bradley task force to was SBCT be a good idea to act some more punch to the TOE?

3. Is attaching an aviation battalion to eash SBCT a good idea? Or is is it easier to attach aviation assets as needed?

Any comments or input would be appreciated.

I'm not sure of formal plans for this, but the UA conversion will bring online a rotational based army that will institutionalize the train-deploy-recover cycle that is also in synch with personnel policy (no more individual replacement policies that disrupts a unit's readiness - instead, the unit will "reset" during the recover phase and then remain "locked-in" for three years before soldiers are transferred out). This will place 1/3 of the Army in a recover phase, 1/3 in a training phase, and 1/3 in a deploy phase (real world operation or to Korea or to Eastern Europe). To spread capabilities so that you have the same mix of Heavy UA, Light UA, Airborne UA, and SBCTs, you'll have at least an informal relationship between the Airborne UAs that would conduct a forced entry and the SBCT that would follow-on as the early entry force.

Also, SBCTs 5 and 6 will get an air cav squadron (1 x lift company, 3 x recce troops, HHT) and I'm sure that they will eventually change all SBCT MTOEs to include an organic air cav squadron capability.

I wouldn't attach a heavy UA BN size TF to a SBCT as a standard deployment package. The SBCT has enough log for itself, but it couldn't handle an Abrams or Bradley BN sized TF because of the required logistics (for example, Strykers refuel every 72 hours, Bradleys every 24 hours, and Abrams every 12 hours). As an early entry force, the SBCT would rely on fixed wing CAS to do the heavy lifting in any large offensive maneuver.

Finally, you'd be surprised at the number of runways that are capable of supporting larger aircraft. Camp Rhino in Afghanistan was originally Objective Rhino, the first OBJ secured in Afghanistan (the October '01 airfield seizure conducted by an element from the 75th Ranger Regiment). The Rangers abandoned the airfield because they had to conduct some follow-on missions, and the MEU (Recon Battalion using LAV-25s, I believe) ended up reseizing it several weeks later after conducting a several hundred kilometer road march through Afghanistan. A SBCT would have been perfect as an early entry force in that scenario and C17s and C5s could have been used on that airfield. So, while the Stryker doesn't meet the 1000 mile operational capability via the C130H as the original specs required, almost all Stryker variants can do a 600 mile intratheater movement if a C130 is required and it can fly in the other transport aircraft as well. The limiting factor for air mobility, which has been the #1 limiting factor IMO since the start, no matter what platform you want to fly, is the number of C17 airframes.

[Bill]

"The limiting factor for air mobility, which has been the #1 limiting factor IMO since the start, no matter what platform you want to fly, is the number of C17 airframes."

Agreed. Fortunately, the USAF is buying more of them(and C-130Js).

[sniperdude411]

What's ABE, SBCT, BUA, MTOE, BN, and TF?

[Bill]

ABE= Airborne(i usually use Abn for the same abbreviation)
SBCT= Stryker Bde Combat Team
BUA= beats the **** out of me. ;)
MTOE= Military Table of Organization and Equipment
Bn= Battalion
TF= Task Force

[Shek]

ABE= Airborne(i usually use Abn for the same abbreviation)
SBCT= Stryker Bde Combat Team
BUA= beats the **** out of me. ;)
MTOE= Military Table of Organization and Equipment
Bn= Battalion
TF= Task Force

BUA = Built Up Area or in this context, Brigade Unit of Action
MTOE = Modified TOE

[Bill]

"MTOE = Modified TOE"

LOL...whoops. ;)

[Shek]

"MTOE = Modified TOE"

LOL...whoops. ;)

I've submitted too many MTOEs change proposals and scrubbed the MTOE too much as a S-4 to not know that acronym!

[sniperdude411]

Thank you for the info (I can now somewhat understand the post!), but you still didn't define your version of TOE, Snipe.

[Guest]

Also isn't something like 50% of the SBCT lift requirement not even Strykers? All those trucks, Humvees and artillery, as well as supplies and assorted other things.

Mike Sparks himself did a study proving that not even the M-113 woulc deploy within 96 hours realistically. Of course he stills bashes the Stryker for notmeeting a standard the M-113 can't do either.

[Bill]

"but you still didn't define your version of TOE, Snipe."

That's because i'm smart enough to realize the limits of my knowledge. Organizing Bde structures is waaaaay above my former pay grade, lol.

I of course have my theories for what an 'ideal' unit should be, but i assure you, said unit would contain no strykers(sorry shek, gotta be honest here). ;)

If i was in charge, i'd buy LOTS more C-17s and do my 'door kicking' with the 75th Ranger Rgt followed by airlifted Heavy Cavalry Sqns. The Rangers are an underused asset IMO.

I'd also paint "US Army" on the side of the new C-17s, so that i'd KNOW that i'd have the lift i planned my entire doctrine on when i actually needed it.

The USAF is a good partner and all, but there's nothing like good ole' organic assets.

I'd want the ability to airlift one Heavy Cav Sqn into a forward austere airstrip every 24 hours, and an ACR within 72 hours...and keep said force supplied for local defensive operations indefinitely.

It would cost a LOT...but then, so did all those Stryker Bdes. I'd have spent all that cash on C-17s instead, and rescinded the Key West agreement thereby allowing the US Army direct control of the new airframes.

Call me a dreamer. ;)

[Guest]

Not enough C-17s isn't your only problem though. You have to consider maximum on ground numbers. If you only have enough room to land two C-17s than you have to stagger your flights to prevent loaded planes from just circling overhead. I don't think there's any realistic way to land a SBCT or a M-113/M8 force in less than week and absolutely no way to land an ACR. Even once you land it you;re faced with a huge logistics load and a severe lack of infantry.

You really have to choose between speed and capability. Do you want your IBCT to be well armed, well protected and carry lots of troops but take longer to deploy? Or do you want ones that deploys faster but is less capable? It's really a quandry.

[Shek]

Not enough C-17s isn't your only problem though. You have to consider maximum on ground numbers. If you only have enough room to land two C-17s than you have to stagger your flights to prevent loaded planes from just circling overhead. I don't think there's any realistic way to land a SBCT or a M-113/M8 force in less than week and absolutely no way to land an ACR. Even once you land it you;re faced with a huge logistics load and a severe lack of infantry.

You really have to choose between speed and capability. Do you want your IBCT to be well armed, well protected and carry lots of troops but take longer to deploy? Or do you want ones that deploys faster but is less capable? It's really a quandry.

While MOG is an issue, I'd rather be confronted with that than with not enough airframes. Also, you are correct that the majority of the chalks would be for non-Stryker platforms.

Additionally, while airdrop ops sound sexy for mounted platforms, the reality is that you don't gain much. You are still tied to your log assets (fuel, spare parts) to conduct ops. 500 gallon fuel blivets don't get you very far and are very, very, very slow, especially if you have to use gravity to use them. Supporting a mounted force via airdrop is not feasible - you need to airland assets, which is quicker than trying to reconfigure from an airdrop anyway. If necessary, you can conduct wet wing ops to conduct your initial refuels.