US Army to cut Brigades at 10 US bases

[VooDoo6Actual]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57590979/army-to-cut-brigades-at-10-u.s-bases/

[Wake27]

Anyone who is even close to the service knows it could stand to cut a lot of people. I just hope that it picks the right ones and does it all without too much collateral damage. Seems like wishful thinking though.

[Todd00000]

Anyone who is even close to the service knows it could stand to cut a lot of people. I just hope that it picks the right ones and does it all without too much collateral damage. Seems like wishful thinking though.

It's not about cutting Solders per say, right now this a reduction of Brigades, and the remaining Brigades will get an additional maneuver battalion. The Army is still doing its best not to have a RIF but to use lowering accessions and forced retirements to trim the force down.

Here's the list of who is getting cut.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/army-plan-for-cutting-combat-brigades-will-affect-10-us-bases-and-germany/2013/06/25/34396726-ddde-11e2-bc84-8049224b33e1_story.html

[skydivr]

I shake my head to think about all the money spent to improve Fort Knox in order to put that Bde there...

[Leonidas24]

I shake my head to think about all the money spent to improve Fort Knox in order to put that Bde there...

Same with Grafenwohr for the 172nd Inf Bde. We spent all that time in 2008 moving what was the 2nd Inf Bde, 1st ID from Schweinfurt to Graf only to have this. When I left Germany in 2010 there were still new barracks being built.

[dhrith]

And in what could only be even MORE ironic. 82nd's gonna drop 4th brigade, ...but disperse it amongst the other three so the net effect is ......a wash. SO JUST ****ING LEAVE IT! Damned morons. Nothing like reducing flexibility by reducing the number of brigades in order to satisfy some jackwagon "xx" stars number crunching in the pentagon even though it ends up affecting nothing positively but some number in a power point.

And as for it reducing the the people that should be dumped anyways, save the hopeful dreaming. Late 80's it didn't force out the fat boys because the fat boys in the heirarchy just protected their fat boy underling friends. I also had dreams of increased capability and productivity.

[SteveS]

Apparently you did not get the hint when I deleted the last post like this you put up. Stop this crap now.

[scoutfsu99]

deleted, thanks SS


Todd is right on the money with his comments above and below.

[SeriousStudent]

SteveS, you are adding nothing but noise to this thread. Stop trolling. Next post like that gets you points towards a free vacation. You didn't get the hint when I deleted your first post like that one in the bayonet thread. So I'll be more obvious this time.

Discuss the real issue, or leave the thread.

[Spurholder]

And in what could only be even MORE ironic. 82nd's gonna drop 4th brigade, ...but disperse it amongst the other three so the net effect is ......a wash. SO JUST ****ING LEAVE IT! Damned morons. Nothing like reducing flexibility by reducing the number of brigades in order to satisfy some jackwagon "xx" stars number crunching in the pentagon even though it ends up affecting nothing positively but some number in a power point.

And as for it reducing the the people that should be dumped anyways, save the hopeful dreaming. Late 80's it didn't force out the fat boys because the fat boys in the heirarchy just protected their fat boy underling friends. I also had dreams of increased capability and productivity.

Given the sandwich they were dealt, I don't think did an awful job.

Tooth to tail-wise, 10 BSB's full of loggies will be going away, and like Todd stated, it looks like all remaining BCT's will get a third maneuver battalion. While that MTOE change has been on the radar for a while, it's still huge.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to see the Delta Companies come back to the maneuver battalions. I don't think anyone sees that happening. Ever. :(

[Todd00000]

And in what could only be even MORE ironic. 82nd's gonna drop 4th brigade, ...but disperse it amongst the other three so the net effect is ......a wash. SO JUST ****ING LEAVE IT! Damned morons. Nothing like reducing flexibility by reducing the number of brigades in order to satisfy some jackwagon "xx" stars number crunching in the pentagon even though it ends up affecting nothing positively but some number in a power point.

And as for it reducing the the people that should be dumped anyways, save the hopeful dreaming. Late 80's it didn't force out the fat boys because the fat boys in the heirarchy just protected their fat boy underling friends. I also had dreams of increased capability and productivity.

It is not a wash, the HQ and other redundant slots are gone, that will save money. The Division still have 3 BDEs to maneuver with and the remaining 3 BDEs have an additional BN, as it should be, making them more flexible. I swear some on this board complain just to complain.

[Todd00000]

Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to see the Delta Companies come back to the maneuver battalions. I don't think anyone sees that happening. Ever. :(

Delta Co.s might be a mute point if all light BNs retain Humvee/MRAPs, I'm sure the days of a light IN PLT being driven around on a 5-ton are over.

[Spurholder]

Delta Co.s might be a mute point if all light BNs retain Humvee/MRAPs, I'm sure the days of a light IN PLT being driven around on a 5-ton are over.

Funny - a few of us were just talking about that this morning.

When I think of Delta Companies, what comes to mind is 14 M1A2's, though. :D

[skydivr]

It is not a wash, the HQ and other redundant slots are gone, that will save money. The Division still have 3 BDEs to maneuver with and the remaining 3 BDEs have an additional BN, as it should be, making them more flexible. I swear some on this board complain just to complain.

True, it will eliminate one Bn Cmd/Staff structure and save some money. Just remember, BN's don't deploy, Bde's do, so there will be less Bde's available during any deployment cycle (which the intent is for those to slow as we remove ourselves form those committments). In the peacetime Army that may be acceptable. The DoD needs to save some $$ but we don't need to hollow out our armed forces too much (the past says we always do).

[Todd00000]

True, it will eliminate one Bn Cmd/Staff structure and save some money. Just remember, BN's don't deploy, Bde's do, so there will be less Bde's available during any deployment cycle (which the intent is for those to slow as we remove ourselves form those committments). In the peacetime Army that may be acceptable. The DoD needs to save some $$ but we don't need to hollow out our armed forces too much (the past says we always do).

No, it will eliminate a BDE's worth of command and staff, and the whole point of this is not to have hollow BDEs or Divisions. The number of BNs and BDEs match the Army's end-strength. Yes the Army will have fewer BDE's to deploy.

[Todd00000]

Presenters: Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno; Colonel Dave Patterson, Chief Of Media Relations Division

June 25, 2013

Defense Department Press Briefing by General Odierno in the Pentagon Briefing Room


GENERAL RAYMOND ODIERNO: Good afternoon, everybody. How you all doing today?

COLONEL DAVE PATTERSON: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Colonel Dave Patterson, chief of media relations division. Just before we begin the press conference, I just have a couple of admin notes. The press conference is on the record. We have a hard stop of 2:30, 1430. We'll have opening comments, and then we'll take questions and answers.

GEN. ODIERNO: Thanks. Well, again, thanks, everybody, for being here. Appreciate it. It's been a while since I've been down here.

Today, I want to announce the results of the Department of the Army force structure decisions. I think as all of you know, the Army's in the process of undergoing one of the largest organizational changes probably since World War II. As we transition from a force at war, our decisions are in line with the fiscal year '13 budget submission, which implements a $487 billion reduction in DOD funding based on the Budget Control Act of 2011. It began in fiscal year 2013 and extends over 10 years.

The Army's share of this reduction is approximately $170 billion. As a result of budget cuts, the drawdown of forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the 2012 defense strategic guidance, the Army is reducing the authorized end strength of the active Army from a wartime high of 570,000 to 490,000. The Army National Guard will go from 358,000 to 350,000, a reduction of 8,000 soldiers from the Army National Guard, but this will be achieved without any force structure changes in the National Guard.

The Army Reserve is foregoing a planned 1,000-soldier growth and will remain at 205,000. The reduction of the 80,000 soldiers out of the active component is a 14 percent reduction. This reduction will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2017, and I want to be clear that we are taking these actions as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011. This end strength force structure reduction predates sequestration. So as sequestration moves on, there will be a requirement potentially to take out more force structure out of the Army.

If sequestration continues into fiscal year 2014, Army reductions to end strength, force structure, and basing announced today will be only the first step. Our decisions on where we would make these reductions based on a number of criteria, which include the ability to train our forces, our ability to project power, provide for soldiers' and families' well-being, the ability to expand and regenerate forces, and -- and an appropriate geographic distribution to also include environmental and social economic impacts, cost, and our institutional alignment with the 2012 Strategic Defense Guidance, including the rebalance to the Pacific.

Based on extensive analysis, the lessons of 12 years of war and the need to increase the Army's operational capability and flexibility, the Army is also reorganizing our brigade combat teams, which will reduce the overall number of headquarters, while sustaining as much combat capabilities as possible. In other words, we are increasing our tooth-to-tail ratio.

As part of the reorganization of each brigade combat team, we will add a third maneuver battalion, an additional engineer and fires capability to each of our armor and infantry brigade combat teams, in order to make them more lethal, more flexible, and more agile. In order to do this, while keeping our force structure in line with our end strength reductions, we'll reorganize our 45 brigade combat teams into 33 brigade combat teams.

As we activate brigade combat teams, we will reinvest some of the soldiers' equipment and support personnel into the remaining brigade combat teams. We conduct an extensive analysis that included 6,500 hours of simulated combat and 34 separate scenarios and extensive interviews with our commanders. We also conducted a programmatic environmental assessment that looked at both the environmental and socio-economic impacts of these reductions.

Additionally, we conducted listening sessions at 30 installations with soldiers, families, vocal leaders, and the business community to better understand the impacts of all of our potential decisions. We also took steps to ensure we were being prudent fiscally in this decision. For example, as part of our course calculations, the Army had deferred $788 million in military construction projects until decision on force structure reductions were made.

As we organize our brigade combat teams, we expect to cancel over $400 million of these projects permanently. The Army will inactivate a total of 12 brigade combat teams, two overseas, stationed at Baumholder and Grafenwoehr, Germany, will complete their inactivation in fiscal year 2013, leaving two brigade combat teams in Europe to fulfill strategic commitments. The remaining 10 will come out -- will come out of each of the following 10 U.S. installations between now and the end of fiscal year 2017 -- Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Fort Campbell, Kentucky; Fort Carson, Colorado; Fort Drum, New York; Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Knox, Kentucky; Fort Riley, Kansas; Fort Stewart, Georgia; and Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state.

In the future, we will announce an additional BCT to be inactivated, which will bring the number of BCTs to 32, but that decision is yet to be made. As we work through this drawdown and inactivation of units, we will maintain our communications with our congressional officials in local communities to ensure a smooth, deliberate, and transparent process.

Again, I want to emphasize that these reductions do not reflect reductions due to sequestration. Full sequestration could require another significant reduction in active guard and reserve force structure as much as 100,000 combined.

The Q&A here:
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5263