Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. Army May Cut 10 Active-Duty Brigades

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • U.S. Army May Cut 10 Active-Duty Brigades

    This article from Defense News says that the Army may be considering cutting as many as 10 active duty BCTs to meet the coming defense cuts. 10! I knew cuts were coming, but that is pretty stout.

    U.S. Army May Cut 10 Active-Duty Brigades - Defense News
    The U.S. Army may cut 10 of its 45 active-duty brigade combat teams (BCTs) as it works to meet President Obama's order to slice defense spending, said an Army official familiar with the budget deliberations.
    A soldier stands on a Stryker armored fighting vehicle at the National Traing Center in California. Facing President Obama's order to cut defense spending, the U.S. Army may cut 10 of its 45 active-duty brigade combat teams. (Spc. Ryan Hallock / Army)

    Service leaders are still discussing how many Stryker, heavy or infantry BCTs might get cut and when.
    Related Topics

    * Americas

    The discussions are part of the budget drills each U.S. military service is undertaking before the Defense Department delivers a plan in October to cut its budget by at least $400 billion.

    The Army has already announced plans to reduce its end strength by 27,000 starting in 2015 and has set lower recruiting goals to prepare for those cuts. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the Army vice chief of staff, has said the service plans to cut out the temporary 22,000-solider increase that started in 2009 for the Afghanistan surge by 2012.

    Subtracting 10 BCTs would fall in line with this plan, said the official, who asked to remain anonymous since discussions are ongoing.

    Maj. Gen. Anthony Ierardi, head of Force Management, Headquarters Army, confirmed that a range of proposals are on the table as part of the "comprehensive analysis of [the service's] force structure, known as Total Army Analysis, to evaluate a number of different options for our leadership.

    "No decisions have been made at this point, and it is too early to speculate about outcomes until we conclude our analysis later this year," Ierardi said.

    Army officials expect that analysis could come as early as next month to give Army leaders time to present their findings to the Pentagon.

    The service has 73 BCTs: 45 in the active component and 28 in the reserve component. Some defense analysts said it would be more cost-effective as well as politically easier to slice off active-duty BCTs.

    But the Army official said the service could also cut five Reserve BCTs as deployments come down in Iraq and Afghanistan and budget pressures increase.

    The proposal to cut the number of BCTs doesn't come as a surprise. The Army chief of staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, soon to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, studied the idea when he ran his service's Training and Doctrine Command. He ordered a study that found the Army could benefit from adding maneuver units and expanding BCTs while cutting 10 from the total number.

    Army officials and defense analysts said that study is helping to drive the current proposal. It has led many to anticipate the growth of the remaining BCTs. The service could very well return the third maneuver battalion back to the BCTs that was subtracted to stand up more BCTs.

    "At that time, we just needed more BCTs because we had guys, in some cases, doing 18-month deployments. It was tough," the Army official said.

    Just what type of BCT will be cut is still being discussed. Defense analysts pointed out that reducing the number of Stryker BCTs would have a greater effect on end strength because they are larger than heavy or infantry BCTs.

    If the plan goes through, all 10 BCTs wouldn't be chopped at once. The reduction would occur over time, much like it took time for the Army to reach 73 BCTs, the official said.

    In 2002, BCTs didn't exist in the Army. The Army was split up into 20 divisions and 14 brigades. Not until 2003, when the Army went into Iraq, did the service set up 33 BCTs as it pursued modularity.

    Jim Carafano, a defense analyst with the Heritage Foundation and a former Army officer, warned against cutting too many BCTs too soon. Those who see soldiers leaving Iraq and Afghanistan must also take notice of the Army's other missions across the globe, which demand a mobile, modular force, he said.

    "Our leaders must decide what exactly they want our land force to do," he said. "We can't just cut the number of people and then still be willing to take on the same amount of missions."

  • #2
    Jim Carafano's warning is the same warning our PM Cameron had but it fell on deaf ears this side of the pond. Is 23 BCT's enough to fulfill US commitments?

    Comment


    • #3
      Sir,it says cutting brigades,but taking into consideration the return of the 3d maneuver Btn.Overall combat power won't decrease by much.Considering less deployments in the future,this may have sense.Current brigades seem to low on maneuver units.Policing A-stan&Iraq did not and could not reveal this weakness because it's not the proper kind of combat.
      Those who know don't speak
      He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

      Comment


      • #4
        What about the men serving in those BCTs? That's more painful then actual defensive capabilities imv.
        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dave lukins View Post
          Jim Carafano's warning is the same warning our PM Cameron had but it fell on deaf ears this side of the pond. Is 23 BCT's enough to fulfill US commitments?
          I think they are talking about cutting from 45 to 35. Even if that means HBCTs and IBCTs will gain a maneuver battalion, its still quite a cut.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm embarrassed to admit I don't know the U.S. Army's structure as I should. All I know is that when I mailed care packages to Afghanistan, I addressed them as "2BCT" and they got to where they were supposed to go. ;)

            But essentially, I thought an Army Division, typically 3 Brigades, lived and existed as an entity, and that the elimination of a brigade would gut the effectiveness of a division. The elimination of one of the Brigades would ruin the combat effectiveness of the division. Is this not the case?

            If a brigade is cut, what would happen to the division it belonged to?

            Comment


            • #7
              Chogy,

              The old model was that a division had three Brigades, each of which contained 3 maneuver battalions. During the "Army Transformation" a couple of years ago, the Army moved away from a division centric model to a brigade centric model that made the brigades more capable of operating independently. Part of this was that Divisions went from three Brigades to four, but most of those brigades (the infantry and heavy) now had two maneuver battalions instead of three. Strangely, the Stryker Brigades still have a three maneuver battalion format.

              Apparently, part of what this article suggests that the Army is considering is shrinking the number of total brigades by 10, leaving a total of 35 active duty Brigades, while returning the structure of the Heavy and Infantry brigades to a three maneuver battalions format. In this way, it appears that most of the cuts would come to support positions such as headquarters units, while the number of trigger pullers in a brigade would go up.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm afraid the Americans are learning what the Commonwealth has known for 30 years. And it bolds ill.

                For the foreseeable future, the decisive force is the Battlegroup/Task Force. Simply stated, for the enemies we are expected to meet, the North Koreans, the Iranians, the Libyans, the Somalis ... they would be hard pressed to put together a force in time to challenge a Western Battlegroup/Task Force ... and hence, like any other organization, we do not spend monies on where we don't need them, ie brigade/division/corps.

                Oh we still train at the division/corps level at computer games/map exercises ... and fortunately, so do the Chinese and Russians (it's a hell of a lot cheaper). The only country I am aware of that still do corps level exercises are the Indians but given the nature of their limited logistics, I am not that worried that I will see an Indian corps in Europe.

                However, I think we all can see the problem. What happens when we do need to fight the division/corps level war?

                Comment


                • #9
                  HKDan Reply

                  "...while returning the structure of the Heavy and Infantry brigades to a three maneuver battalions format."

                  Not the world I grew up in. The only element organic to a brigade was the Headquarters, Headquarters company (HHC). All other elements of the brigade from battalions on down were assigned and could be re-assigned as deemed by the division commander. As such it wasn't unusual at all to see a brigade operating in the field with as many as five manuever battalions in various mixes.
                  "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                  "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    In times of peace the typical IDF armored brigade has three tank battalions, one engineering battalion under it's auspices that in reality belongs to the Combat Engineering corps and "belongs" to the armored brigade for administrative purposes, and a scout company. In times of war the typical IDF armored brigade has two tank battalions, the engineering battalion and the scout company. An artillery battalion, AAA, SAM and MP units are all seconded to brigade command as well as local control over air assets. The third tank battalion is traded away to an infantry brigade which in turn hands over an infantry battalion.
                    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Okay….this is not as big a deal as its being made out to be.

                      The Army’s structure changed around 5 to 7 years ago and we went to a brigade centric force. We now have stand alone BCTs with;
                      - 1 Recon battalion with 3 recce companies
                      - 2 maneuver battalions (2 tank companies and 2 mech companies in HBCTs; 3 rifle companies and a weapons company for IBCTs);
                      - a fires battalion (2 firing batteries with HHB),
                      - 1 troop support battalion with an engineer company, signal company and MI company (what used to come to brigades from divisional battalions)
                      - 1 brigade support battalion with a supply & service company, a maintenance company, a medical company, and 4 forward support companies. The S&S, Maintenance & Medical companies have the elements of the old MSB added to the old FSB. The FSCs are what used to be in the HHCs/Service batteries of the maneuver and DS FA battalions.

                      In peace time the BCTs are direct reporting units to HQ FORSCOM...i.e., the division HQs have little or no say other than garrison items for the BCTs.

                      These became self contained deployable units. The division HQs became a series of command posts which can control a variety of BCTs as well as acting as JTF HQs to handle multi service operations.

                      Stryker Brigades always had 3 maneuver battalions, an FA battalion, a BSB and a troops battalion.

                      So to build this structure we took forces away from the old structure…..10 divisions equaled about 30 brigades.

                      What we will have going forward:

                      Back to the future….we add the “missing” maneuver battalion” back to the BCT as well as the FSA battery and an extra company to the BSB as well as plussing up the enginee, MI & signal elements and getting rid of some of the HQ hierarchy.

                      The bottom line was the redundancy was getting to be too expensive (lots of new support equipment we can not afford.

                      FYI, I still would not want to mess with a US Army BCT!
                      “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                      Mark Twain

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        A.R. Reply

                        "...The division HQs became a series of command posts which can control a variety of BCTs as well as acting as JTF HQs to handle multi service operations..."

                        So is there a fixed TO&E for the brigade beyond simply HHC? If so, can the divisional commander augment or remove as require? If not, what's really doctrinally changed where a divisional deployment is considered necessary/appropriate?

                        My question is based on a concern that the divisional commander's ability and authority to task-organize divisional operations continues IAW battlefield requirements and (presumably) existing doctrine.
                        "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                        "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Deuce,

                          The BCTs are complete MTOE entities...they own the units.

                          They can place an element OPCON from one BCT to another but they can not attach...though in practice this has not been that big of an issue in the current AOR where most units mount up in theater provided MRAPs. That said they are very flexible and self contained.

                          The division HQs are really a variety of CPs...and we have had no pure Army division in neither Iraq nor Astan...the is usually a MEU attached. And you will see a division HQs controlling up to 5 BCTs...and the norm is a mix of HBCT/IBCT....oh, and you have AC and NG BCTs interchangeable as well....todays NG BCT ain't the roundout brigades we knew and "loved"!

                          The old DISCOM/COSCOM are gone as well with independent Sustainment Brigades and Commands in their place. Aviation brigades are also stand alone brigades as are Fires brigades (old corps FA bdes) and ADA Bdes. We also now have Maneuver Enhancement Brigades which combine engineer, MP and chemical assets. We really have gone to a brigade centric force.

                          So the reduction is really in the HQs, not in the combat elements...not as much of a big thing in my opinion.
                          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                          Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                            Deuce,

                            The BCTs are complete MTOE entities...they own the units.

                            They can place an element OPCON from one BCT to another but they can not attach...though in practice this has not been that big of an issue in the current AOR where most units mount up in theater provided MRAPs. That said they are very flexible and self contained.

                            The division HQs are really a variety of CPs...and we have had no pure Army division in neither Iraq nor Astan...the is usually a MEU attached. And you will see a division HQs controlling up to 5 BCTs...and the norm is a mix of HBCT/IBCT....oh, and you have AC and NG BCTs interchangeable as well....todays NG BCT ain't the roundout brigades we knew and "loved"!

                            The old DISCOM/COSCOM are gone as well with independent Sustainment Brigades and Commands in their place. Aviation brigades are also stand alone brigades as are Fires brigades (old corps FA bdes) and ADA Bdes. We also now have Maneuver Enhancement Brigades which combine engineer, MP and chemical assets. We really have gone to a brigade centric force.

                            So the reduction is really in the HQs, not in the combat elements...not as much of a big thing in my opinion.
                            Someone put all those abbrevs in front of civilian budget maker and added "...not as much of a big thing in my opinion." part, accompanied with some glossy charts showing savings...

                            Yep, no wonder they cut 10.

                            What will happen with the soldiers currently serving in those brigades?
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                              Someone put all those abbrevs in front of civilian budget maker and added "...not as much of a big thing in my opinion." part, accompanied with some glossy charts showing savings...

                              Yep, no wonder they cut 10.

                              What will happen with the soldiers currently serving in those brigades?
                              Actually, no that is not what happened.

                              The reduction in BSBs alone will save a ton of money....you get rid of a lot of redundancy that is very expensive (i.e., reduce by 25% the number of spare parts warehouses we operate, 8 HET trucks per BSB roll into the sustainment brigade where they can support more forces, a highly complex aid station) and move those assets into the other units.

                              The capability and people don't go away....they roll into the other units.

                              And there was no civilian budgetmaker...it was GEN Dempsey and GEN Chiarelli who came to that conclusion quirte some time ago when former SECDEF Gates said look at what is needed.

                              We have to pay for our upgrades somehow and this keeps the force structure and capability up and allows us to upgrade our forces as needed.
                              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                              Mark Twain

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X