Military 2017

Discussion in 'ROTC' started by Pima, Feb 14, 2012.

  1. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,809
    Likes Received:
    956
    I took this link from the general discussions, and thought this portion of the link was important.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ps-involuntarily-under-budget-reductions.html

    It gives in clear concise numbers where they expect FY17...realize FY budgets run Oct to Sept.

    Just placing that out there so people who wonder about the future now have a glimpse of the strategic planning for personnel within each branch. It does not state what the officer/enlisted ratio, but I would think it will remain the same as it has been for yrs.
     
  2. kinnem

    kinnem Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,547
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Wow! Sure makes me wonder about the outlook for my future Marine. Of course there is an election this year but I would expect it to be at least two years before there is any possibility for the numbers to change (barring any jarring external event). Of course the future economic situation could impact his outlook as well. Oh well, control what you can! Thanks for the research and the post Pima.
     
  3. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,809
    Likes Received:
    956
    Actually, remember there is more than 1 election, there are multiple elections. 2012, 14, and 16 too. This can all change on the dime depending on who is residing at 1600, but also the MOCs.

    Nobody is psychic here, and if 14 rolls around with high unemployment, Obama as Pres., but the Senate and the House are under R control, you may find that they re-adjust the military budget cuts.

    It is just wise IMPO to believe this budget will stick and be in place until they became O1's.

    OBTW thanks goes to patentesq because he was the one that linked this article under General Discussions.
     
  4. patentesq

    patentesq Parent

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Based on the FY2013 budget, it appears that Marine Corps ROTC is right-sizing early and abruptly this year, and AROTC is taking the more gradual approach. What I think this means is if you are lucky to get USMC commissioning path now, MO option cadets should have a better chance statistically by the time graduation rolls around, because we hopefully won't see as sharp a drop-off in later years (I'm not sure what that branch is doing with Marines currently in the pipeline, though).

    I think AFROTC bit the bullet last year, but time will tell when the SFT stats come out.

    For AROTC, the percentage reductions for the Class of 2016 (as Pima correctly points out, FY2017 starts in October of that year so we're talking about the Class of 2016 here) will likely soon be mirrored in the number of new AROTC contracted cadets who are just entering the pipeline now. For AROTC, that's a 10% reduction.

    Keep in mind, though, that this is an election-year budget proposal. Nevertheless, I think the military personnel numbers are more reliable than other budget figures.
     
  5. kinnem

    kinnem Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,547
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    ^^^ I agree about the military personnel numbers being more reliable. Any politician is going to look for cuts in DoD. Any differences are only a matter of degree IMPO.
     
  6. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,809
    Likes Received:
    956
    patentesq,

    The AF bit the bullet for the past few yrs. LY was not the 1st OMG yr. In 2010 they actually halted an OCS board.

    The thing people need to understand IMPO, is history is a predictor of the future. Look at the 90's cuts. We are basically there again in every aspect, unemployment, housing, and military cuts.

    The AF was the first to implement the RIF, SERB, pass over twice and out, plus ROTC out of every branch. The reason why they were the 1st in the 90s is the same reason why now their cuts are not as dramatic. 501K to 499K, is what in %, 0.5%? A goal that they will reach through attrition compared to the Army which is facing @8% in cuts in 4 yrs.

    AF is typically 1st in and 1 out. They still do patrols, but that requires less personnel, thus they are now just doing rotations for air support. The Army on the flip side are still there for mission purposes, and they can't cut. Yet, in 18 months they will be in a mission support role in the theater.

    They are also discussing closing bases overseas, and that will mean even more people returning state side. This creates more members than jobs at state side units, like the corporate world. Hence, they are cutting later on compared to the AF.

    Remember, SFT is not the true factor, look at the AFA. The AFA is going to have the lowest class size in yrs. 1050 for the incoming 16 compared to over 1350 for 12. They are still cutting. AFA has already stated for 17 it will be 1150, bigger than 16, but 15% off of 12.
     
  7. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    Perhaps the article meant to say "each of the Dept Of Defense branches."

    :rolleyes:
     
  8. dunninla

    dunninla Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    5
    ^ true... where is Merchant Marine? :biggrin:
     
  9. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    Merchant mariners are not a branch of the military, nor are they an armed force.
     
  10. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,276
    Likes Received:
    610
    Looks like they got them all. I can't think of any others...
     
  11. cb7893

    cb7893 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,064
    Likes Received:
    379
    What do the reductions really mean?

    I want to make clear to everyone, before reading any of these articles, that I do not share the political slant of the Wired writer, AT ALL. His politics can't hide the fact that our guys are in fact, good guys, and doing the country well.

    Budget numbers mean nothing to me and having no military experience, I can't make heads or tails of most military jargon. I concentrate on what are the agreed upon national security challenges and how the military is applying resources to them.

    My interest is in what awaits my AROTC MS I and his younger brother who aspires to either an SA or ROTC.

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/battleground-africa/

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/category/shadow-wars/

    http://www.voanews.com/english/news...-Expanded-Military-Cooperation-133955288.html

    I would also recommend a book called Imperial Grunts. It describes a fighting force as envisioned prior to the Iraq build-up.

    It is interesting that the Bloomberg article mentions that Army numbers will be no lower than pre-Iraq. With various changes in technology (drones vs. fighters), are we not just getting back to Donald Rumsfeld's vision of a lighter, smarter and more nimble military which operates from lilly pads?

    Everything I read informs me that with the experience of almost 10 years of land war in Afg and 6 yrs in Iraq, the civillian planners and the top brass have been eager to rethink strategy and tactics. In fact, I see them ahead of the curve and the politicians way behind it.

    List out some of the challenges facing US national security:

    -Nuke Proliferation
    -Radicalization of huge swaths Middle Eastern societies/terrorism
    -Cyberwarfare
    -Protection of domestic infrastructure
    -China's emergence as a world power
    -Industrial/commercial espionage
    -Threats to open seas

    Although we have to maintain a credible deterrent and be prepared for a large land/air war, not one of the above challenges will be solved by such a war.

    What strikes me is that our military has been adapting to the new world smartly and effectively despite dragging around the anchors of Iraq and Afg. This probably sounds naive, but I am more confident than ever that #1 DS made the right decision, and #2 DS is barking up the right tree.

    I am not here to argue the appropriate size of forces, but rather to emphasize that our DS's and DD's need to understand that it isn't enough to dream of serving your country and getting a ROTC scholarship or SA appontment. The same as, it isn't enough to just want to work for Intel and getting an entry level job. The needs of the institution supercede the fulfillment of their dreams.
     
  12. kinnem

    kinnem Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,547
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    ^^^ I think we would all agree with your last statement. It's just that we hope our kids dreams and the needs of the service can find something in common. But there isn't much we can do about it in any case. Just hope and pray.
     
  13. kinnem

    kinnem Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,547
    Likes Received:
    1,009
    Ouch. You're cruel Scout. :biggrin:

    Actually I think the Coast Guard would grow or remain the same. I certainly don't see any change in the "size" of their mission. In fact I would think they'll still maintain forces in the Persian Gulf. The certainly would if I were in charge, and pulling them right now doesn't seem to send the right message.
     
  14. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    842
    Not Cruel, CG is Homeland Security, entirely different budget, same budget problems.
     
  15. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    Nevertheless, a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times.
     
  16. scoutpilot

    scoutpilot Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,276
    Likes Received:
    610
    I think that's just hearsay...
     
  17. Bird85

    Bird85 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    0
    These numbers must include reserves and Guard. I know Navy AD end strength today is below 330K and USMC end strength goal is pre-Iraq/Afghanistan (~176K). I don't want to discount Guard or Reserve numbers (In my career I was AD, Reserve and FTS - title 10 AGR equivalent), but key totals are AD. The Bloomberg numbers are a bit deceiving IMHO.
     
  18. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    842
    Of course, I should have added that. I spent years proudly wearing that uniform.
     
  19. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5

Share This Page