Army planning to cut number of combat brigades, officials say [45 to as low as 32....

[ScienceRocks]

Army planning to cut number of combat brigades, officials say [45 to as low as 32....]
FOX ^

Army Planning To Cut Number Of Combat Brigades, Officials Say | Fox News

Army planning to cut number of combat brigades, officials say

Published January 25, 2012 | Associated Press

The U.S. Army plans to slash the number of combat brigades from 45 to as low as 32, and broadly restructure its fighting force to save money and cut the size of the service by about 80,000 soldiers, according to U.S. officials familiar with the plans.

Officials said the sweeping changes will likely increase the size of each combat brigade -- generally by adding another battalion -- in an effort to ensure that those remaining brigades have the fighting capabilities they need when they go to war. A brigade is usually about 3,500 soldiers, but can be as large as 5,000 for the heavily armored units. A battalion is usually between 600-800 soldiers.

Reducing the overall number of brigades will also eliminate the need for the headquarters units that command and oversee them.

Officials acknowledged that merging battalions together into larger brigades could shift some soldiers to different bases across the country, although that effort could be stymied by members of Congress who don't like to see the staffing decline at bases that feed the local economy. Officials said the Army will try to limit such shifts.

The cuts come as the Pentagon puts the finishing touches on its 2013 fiscal year budget, which must reflect about $260 billion in savings in its five-year plan. Congress has ordered the Defense Department to come up with a total of $487 billion over the next 10 years, and could face cuts of double that amount if Congress can't reach an agreement to avoid automatic across-the-board reductions mandated by lawmakers last year.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

 

[High_Gravity]

What the fuck? how are we cutting combat brigades when we are engaged in a war in Afghanistan and on the fence with Iran, and possibly might have to go to war with them too?

 

[old navy]

Obama and SEAL Team 6. That's all we need.

 

[zzzz]

By eliminating the troops in Europe where they are not needed. Supposedly 10,000 are leaving soon but 30,000 will still remain, but they may be part of the future reduction. So that's half of what is going to be eliminated. And we will still have more than we had on 9/11.

Occupation warfare is expensive and has become outdated as shown by both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon is preparing, hopefully, for the future where drones and missiles will be the main projection of force. If ground troops are needed, get them in, do the job and then get the hell out of there.

 

[rightwinger]

Iraq is over and we will be out of Afghanistan in 2014. What force structure do we need to support current operations?

 

[High_Gravity]

Iraq is over and we will be out of Afghanistan in 2014. What force structure do we need to support current operations?

If a conflict breaks out with a Russia or China type we will need these ground forces.

 

[rightwinger]

Iraq is over and we will be out of Afghanistan in 2014. What force structure do we need to support current operations?

If a conflict breaks out with a Russia or China type we will need these ground forces.

If war breaks out with Russia or China we need twice the Army we have now. Doesn't mean we should maintain that strength now

 

[Article 15]

Iraq is over and we will be out of Afghanistan in 2014. What force structure do we need to support current operations?

If a conflict breaks out with a Russia or China type we will need these ground forces.

If tensions between the US and either of those countries get to that point we will bring down a nuclear rainstorm instead of sending in a massive invading army.

Either way it's HIGHLY unlikely that it will get to that point.

 

[High_Gravity]

Iraq is over and we will be out of Afghanistan in 2014. What force structure do we need to support current operations?

If a conflict breaks out with a Russia or China type we will need these ground forces.

If war breaks out with Russia or China we need twice the Army we have now. Doesn't mean we should maintain that strength now

I don't know a strong ground force is necessary if we want to maintain the worlds best Military, I'm not saying the Iraq war was right or wrong but we bombed the shit out of Iraq for years and had sanctions on them, Saddams regime was able to survive that, we sent in a ground force and the regime was toppled in less than 3 weeks. Air power is nice to have but its not the answer for every situation.

 

[High_Gravity]

Iraq is over and we will be out of Afghanistan in 2014. What force structure do we need to support current operations?

If a conflict breaks out with a Russia or China type we will need these ground forces.

If tensions between the US and either of those countries get to that point we will bring down a nuclear rainstorm instead of sending in a massive invading army.

Either way it's HIGHLY unlikely that it will get to that point.

Oh I agree, but nobody knows what will happen in the future. Plus it makes no sense to me to shrink the Military now when we are still engaged in conflicts on the ground in places like Afghanistan and tensions with Iran are mounting.

 

[zzzz]

A war with China would not involve ground forces. We could not land any forces and sustain them on the mainland anyway. Its not 1944 Europe we are talking about here. It would be strictly missiles and air-power. The navy, except the subs, would have to lay off and hide behind Taiwan. Just look at the scenario's that have already been war-gamed out and without going into detail the most optimistic non-nuclear outcome is a stalemate. Nobody wins.

Our problem is we have so heavily invested into complex and expensive weapons systems that take a year or more to build. In a war with a large country armed with less expensive and less complex weapons that are manufactured in massive quantities we face the dilemma of running out while the enemy still has plenty. granted there are only a few hostile countries in the world where we would face this prospect, namely Russia, China and possibly N. Korea.

Our weapons can defeat anybodies in the world but quantity over quality does matter over time, just look at WWII. Our philosophy was a war of attrition, we had more manpower and could make more weapons even though they were inferior to the Germans, speaking generally of course.

We have to maintain a certain state of troop levels to deal with the mid level states such as Iran and N. Korea but do we have to maintain one of the largest armies in the world? Troop levels worldwide have fallen in this century and the main force behind this decline is economics. The world is finally realizing armed conflict is a thing of the past and to obtain their objectives, there is a better less destructive battlefield to fight on, and that is the economic battlefield. It would be nice to see the US recognize this as the battleground of the future instead of fighting the last war like we always do.

 

[High_Gravity]

A war with China would not involve ground forces. We could not land any forces and sustain them on the mainland anyway. Its not 1944 Europe we are talking about here. It would be strictly missiles and air-power. The navy, except the subs, would have to lay off and hide behind Taiwan. Just look at the scenario's that have already been war-gamed out and without going into detail the most optimistic non-nuclear outcome is a stalemate. Nobody wins.

Our problem is we have so heavily invested into complex and expensive weapons systems that take a year or more to build. In a war with a large country armed with less expensive and less complex weapons that are manufactured in massive quantities we face the dilemma of running out while the enemy still has plenty. granted there are only a few hostile countries in the world where we would face this prospect, namely Russia, China and possibly N. Korea.

Our weapons can defeat anybodies in the world but quantity over quality does matter over time, just look at WWII. Our philosophy was a war of attrition, we had more manpower and could make more weapons even though they were inferior to the Germans, speaking generally of course.

We have to maintain a certain state of troop levels to deal with the mid level states such as Iran and N. Korea but do we have to maintain one of the largest armies in the world? Troop levels worldwide have fallen in this century and the main force behind this decline is economics. The world is finally realizing armed conflict is a thing of the past and to obtain their objectives, there is a better less destructive battlefield to fight on, and that is the economic battlefield. It would be nice to see the US recognize this as the battleground of the future instead of fighting the last war like we always do.

You make good points, I am still skeptical of reducing our force size but shouldn't something like this be done while we are currently not engaged in a ground conflict that involves over 100,000 of our men and women?

 

[Hugidwyn]

5 USAF A-10 Squadrons To Be Cut

As part of the Defense Department’s efforts to trim close to $500 billion in spending over the next decade, defense officials said Jan. 27 that the service intends to cut five A-10 tactical squadrons and two other squadrons as well.

The Thunderbolt squadrons to be stood down encompass one active-duty, one Reserve and three National Guard units. The remaining two squadrons disappearing are a Guard F-16 tactical unit and an F-15 training squadron.

 

[editec]

There is no single right number of troops.

The size of the military we need depends on the mission we assign our military.

 

[idb]

You can put our army in one taxi and drive them to the action...and we're still here!

 

[High_Gravity]

I really don't think all this down sizing is a good idea right now, all this is going to do is put more stress on the troops we currently have and make them do even more back to back deployments.

 

[Sallow]

I really don't think all this down sizing is a good idea right now, all this is going to do is put more stress on the troops we currently have and make them do even more back to back deployments.

There shouldn't be deployments. We shouldn't be occupying other nations. That's a prescription for failure.

The US was never meant to be an Empire.

 

[rightwinger]

I really don't think all this down sizing is a good idea right now, all this is going to do is put more stress on the troops we currently have and make them do even more back to back deployments.

The Army is done with Iraq deployments. We are due out of Afghanistan by 2014. We increased the number of Army Brigades to support those efforts. We can afford to go back to pre- 9-11 numbers

We need to get out of the nation building business

 

[High_Gravity]

I really don't think all this down sizing is a good idea right now, all this is going to do is put more stress on the troops we currently have and make them do even more back to back deployments.

The Army is done with Iraq deployments. We are due out of Afghanistan by 2014. We increased the number of Army Brigades to support those efforts. We can afford to go back to pre- 9-11 numbers

We need to get out of the nation building business

I agree 100% about getting out of the nation building business but how much sense does it make to downsize the Military while we are currently running nation building operations?

 

[High_Gravity]

I really don't think all this down sizing is a good idea right now, all this is going to do is put more stress on the troops we currently have and make them do even more back to back deployments.

There shouldn't be deployments. We shouldn't be occupying other nations. That's a prescription for failure.

The US was never meant to be an Empire.

I am all for getting our guys out of Afghanistan however making a decision like this right now while we still currently fighting in Afghanistan makes no sense, plus people are saying we will maintain a troop presence in Afghanistan until 2024. Also we don't have to be occupying any countries to go on deployments, before 9/11 we had troops going on deployments to Korea, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc all the time, my first deployment was to Saudi Arabia in March 2001. Shrinking the size of the force puts pressure on the remaining troops to do more.