Draft report touts Reserves as bargain

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by MemberLG, May 21, 2013.

  1. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130520/NEWS/305200008/Draft-report-touts-Reserves-bargain

     
  2. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    842
    Just what we need, the Walmart approach to National Defense.

    I wonder if this is not a prelude to the idea of increasing the Reserve Drill from 2 weeks a year up to 7+- weeks a year.

    I wonder if they would be able to recruit the needed numbers to the Reserves if the drill time is extended, not to mention the extra training required to keep the Reserve in a state of readiness. What effect could this have on civilian employment for Reservists.
     
  3. NorwichDad

    NorwichDad Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    1,275
    Likes Received:
    212
    It is important to save money

    Navy saved a lot of money keeping its ships not burning fuel and docked in Pearl Harbor December 1941
     
  4. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    Walmart approach works for certain things. The challenge is that the DoD usually can't customize to be efficient.

    The minimum reserves requirements are one weekend a month plus 15 days, or 24 + 39 days total. In today, many folks work on weekends too.

    I don't think we have to have the reserves training more than now to make them relevant. We just have to program for them for certain type of missions. Most active duty units can't deploy immediately, they will need preparation time to reach a certain level of readiness. The reserves takes longer than active duty units, because they are under resourced and have less time to maintain their readiness. Given time and resource to prepare, reserve units will be ready for certain missions. This is where cost effectiveness comes in. The Sinai peacekeeping mission is a good example. It's a infantry battalion mission. So what's more efficient, doing back to back deployment or have an extra active duty infantry battalion or utilize a national guard infantry battalion with some additional training days and equipment. Right now the active army is taking over all the missions that have been performed by NG units (Bosnia, Kosovo, Egypt, and some partnership events). More than likely certain missions will always have enough lead time where the reserves can to used.

    I wouldn't have a NG unit schedule to deploy right after the 82nd Airborne in a crisis, but make sense to schedule a NG unit to replace or reinforce the 82nd Airborne after a year if other active duty units are engaged somewhere else.
     

Share This Page