Budget plan would slash Army by 100,000 soldiers

The RC is expected to keep physically prepared for battle, but there is very limited time in 1 weekend per month and 2 weeks per year to prepare for all the elements that are called upon for battle. AD units are supposed to have more time for training and potential mission preparation.

My point here is that it would appear that the Pentagon's strategy is to use the AD component to engage the first 6 months of any action with an immediate call for large numbers of RC troops to take that next 6 months, during which the RC units scramble.

With the higher level of AD strength, we had more AD units available to take that second rotation, minimizing the RC activations. Integrating smaller numbers of RC units into the second rotation, will yield a higher level of overall training and preparation.

Not sure about your confusion. Of course there is a place for RC in our military plans, but it would seem that the Pentagon is overestimating their ability to hit the ground running long-term based upon the current preparedness of RC units that have had repeated deployments and have more overall battle experience than a peace-time RC unit.

If we are going to continue our past decade's frequency of RC deployments, of course we will have a more battle ready RC. However, I suspect that this will not be the case during the next 5 years given our current political leadership and national attitude towards international intervention, which will result in a different level of preparedness in the RC - i.e. the Pentagon is depending upon a political environment that may not exist to keep the RC as ready for battle as they project.

The debate we should be having is if the RC components are strategic reserve or operational reserve? If we consider the RC components to be an operational reserve, yes I agree with you. If we consider the RC components to be a strategic reserve (they are), readiness level based on one weekend a month and two weeks a year is works.

Having the first hand experience on the RC transformation since 911, I can simply say that it wasn't pretty, but 6 months was more than enough time to spun up the RC component. Of course, it creates undo hardship on RC members. Personally, the idea of having RC components as an operational reserve is a bad idea.
 
The debate we should be having is if the RC components are strategic reserve or operational reserve? If we consider the RC components to be an operational reserve, yes I agree with you. If we consider the RC components to be a strategic reserve (they are), readiness level based on one weekend a month and two weeks a year is works.

Having the first hand experience on the RC transformation since 911, I can simply say that it wasn't pretty, but 6 months was more than enough time to spun up the RC component. Of course, it creates undo hardship on RC members. Personally, the idea of having RC components as an operational reserve is a bad idea.

Unfortunately, the debate appears to be over and it appears that the RC is now viewed as an operational reserve. The new normal seems to be calling up the reserves at the drop of a hat.

And as you point out, it creates undo hardship on those members and their families, as repeated deployments are neither good for your civilian career nor your family life. I get the feeling that this will eventually lead to more retention problems in the RC as the economy improves.

There is a price to be paid for this allocation of forces. The question is do the leaders in Washington understand what it is?
 
Unfortunately, the debate appears to be over and it appears that the RC is now viewed as an operational reserve. The new normal seems to be calling up the reserves at the drop of a hat.

And as you point out, it creates undo hardship on those members and their families, as repeated deployments are neither good for your civilian career nor your family life. I get the feeling that this will eventually lead to more retention problems in the RC as the economy improves.

There is a price to be paid for this allocation of forces. The question is do the leaders in Washington understand what it is?

The RC leadership are selling us as an operational reserve - I disagree. They are fools, care more about building their empires than what RC soldiers face everyday. Most RC leadership are full timers that don't have to juggle their civilian careers with RC military duties.

Of course, I don't think the AC are buying it. The original article didn't mention how much cuts RC will take.

I think leaders in Washington do understand and are planning to take a calculated risk. Can't have it all - a large force sufficient to deal with real or imagined threat, new toys. If needs be, the RC have proven that they can meet the challenge. Of course, individual RC members will pay the price now or later.
 
US Army considers replacing thousands of troops with robots

Bot Squads are coming.

The US Army is studying whether robots could take the place of thousands of soldiers. IMHO, actually the robots in Iraq and Afghanistan did a tremendous job with IEDs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...eplacing-thousands-of-troops-with-robots.html

Nobody under 50 will recognize the photo below

lost_in_space_robot.jpg
 
The RC leadership are selling us as an operational reserve - I disagree. They are fools, care more about building their empires than what RC soldiers face everyday. Most RC leadership are full timers that don't have to juggle their civilian careers with RC military duties.

Of course, I don't think the AC are buying it. The original article didn't mention how much cuts RC will take.

I think leaders in Washington do understand and are planning to take a calculated risk. Can't have it all - a large force sufficient to deal with real or imagined threat, new toys. If needs be, the RC have proven that they can meet the challenge. Of course, individual RC members will pay the price now or later.

I agree, the only exception I see with a flawless transition is with medical units who do their drill job as their civvy job. A Reserve ER doc in Southside Chicago is going to do just as well or better than his AD counterpart (Many AD docs are a lot younger too i.e residents) in an operational capacity.However for EVERYONE else, the part timers already get enough taskings to do during the month. I find myself doing at least some work for drill almost every day of the month even after a 12.5 hour shift. If you are in leadership stuff can get crazy, a few people have to shoulder the work for many sadly enough. There has to be with a point where you draw the line and I think you can only ask so much. Thus the train up portion you mentioned is needed....but I could see that as taxing over the long run.
 
Danger, Will Robinson... Danger

I had to ask my Dad about that reference and now he won't stop talking like a robot and his hands are flying everywhere..thanks lol
 
I had to ask my Dad about that reference and now he won't stop talking like a robot and his hands are flying everywhere..thanks lol

Thanks for making the rest of us feel so old.... from someone who seems to be about the same age as your Dad... if not older. :biggrin:
 
I had to ask my Dad about that reference and now he won't stop talking like a robot and his hands are flying everywhere..thanks lol

Nice, I had the same the reaction.

Below is a picture of , Dr. Zachery Smith, the government's civilian head of planning, acquisition and implementation of the Robot project along with his chief assistant, Will Robinson.

lost-space-robot-will.jpg
 
I had to ask my Dad about that reference and now he won't stop talking like a robot and his hands are flying everywhere..thanks lol

That's awesome. Thanks for making me laugh on a very challenging morning!
 
Back
Top