Army wants to increase size by 30,000 by October

Artillery

Member
Going to need more officers soon according to article I just read on Fox News
West Point admissions don't really change, even if they are increasing or decreasing the army because cadets there are supposed to be, as said in Men in Black 1, the best of the best of the best sir.

It'll come through ROTC and an increase in the standing army itself rather than through service academies.
 

spaike97

Member
They have over 4000 soldiers who enlisted MAVNI stuck in DEP, and some of them are about to become DEP loss because they've been in too long.
 

brovol

Member
I read that they are offering 2-year contracts in some MOSs!

I really think they should be repairing, upgrading, and training instead of adding bodies.
Quality should come before quantity. My concern is that when the goal is simply increasing numbers, quality tends to go down. The military needs to set the standards, because if polititions do numbers will dictate rather than performance.

Having said that, it does appear that an effort is being made to upgrade. Let's hope it is a thoughtful effort.
 

scoutpilot

5-Year Member
Right; only those who have an office at the Pentagon should be able to share opinion. Even the common sense conclusions should be expressed only within the joint chiefs of staff. Thanks general.
LOL.

Or msybe at least limit the opinions of "what the Army really needs to do is..." to those with some functional knowledge of how the Army actually is tackling the reversal of personnel policy. You're welcome, random guy.
 

UHBlackhawk

Member
LOL.

Or msybe at least limit the opinions of "what the Army really needs to do is..." to those with some functional knowledge of how the Army actually is tackling the reversal of personnel policy. You're welcome, random guy.
The only impact you may see at the service academies may be the ability

Yeah, but you're a scout pilot so your opinion matters less.;)
 

kinnem

Moderator
5-Year Member
Well, if they're going to do it by October, the additional officers would have to come from OCS. The number of AROTC cadets commisioning this year is already fixed. I'll be looking for a big advertising campaign if they truly hope to do this.
 

brovol

Member
LOL.

Or msybe at least limit the opinions of "what the Army really needs to do is..." to those with some functional knowledge of how the Army actually is tackling the reversal of personnel policy. You're welcome, random guy.
We all have a perspective and an interest. Respectfully, I doubt you know the backgrounds or foundational understanding of everyone else here scout, and at the risk of tarnishing your self impression beyond where it has ever been, your devine wisdom doesn't always come from a burning bush.

But enjoy the day, and God bless.
 

scoutpilot

5-Year Member
We all have a perspective and an interest. Respectfully, I doubt you know the backgrounds or foundational understanding of everyone else here scout, and at the risk of tarnishing your self impression beyond where it has ever been, your devine wisdom doesn't always come from a burning bush.

But enjoy the day, and God bless.
My "devine" wisdom is in no way divine. You're right, it doesn't come from a burning bush. It comes from immediate firsthand knowledge. A few things to keep in mind...

The AD force will be taken care of first, then the Total Army. So we should expect to see a slight increase in AD accessions for ROTC officers and an increase in OCS. Remember, though, that officers are a small component of the needed force increase.

Secondly, 30,000 is a misleading number. The Army was expecting to hit the previously mandated AD force total of 450,000 by the end of FY18. Part of the aggressive drawdown was to get the Army to roughly 460,000 by the end of FY17. The new NDAA requires a "16,000 increase" for the active force to reach 476,000. If you're keen with numbers, you know that the Army isn't at 460,000 yet because there are 8 months until the end of FY17. So the Army is somewhere north of 460,000, meaning that 16,000 is not the total number to be added to the active force. Much of that total will be achieved through retention.

The original plan was to reduce the numbers through three main efforts: attrition (retirements and reduced re-enlistment), reduced accessions, and reduced promotion rates. Many of the YGs from the Grow The Army years are very fat still. YG07 through YG10 is massive. They will likely see many of those who were not selected for promotion in the primary zone be selected on their second look, and better promotion rates in groups yet to be boarded.

On the enlisted side, the Army is offering $10k bonuses for soldiers in the final year of their contract to extend one year. They are offering large re-up bonuses (my supply specialist just signed for a $28k bonus) for new contracts as well.

One other big change is the total reversal on personnel policy for officers. For the past 4 years the Army has been favorably reviewing ETPs and waivers for ADSOs. That has stopped. No UQR ETPs are being accepted, and ADSO waivers are dead in the water. This is especially meaningful in the junior officer and warrant officer ranks. Especially for captains.

Long story short, don't expect major changes to academy or ROTC accessions in the short term. The Army has many levers to pull and officers don't solve the numbers problem.

As to the "quality" concerns...the Army was roughly 470,000 before we invaded Iraq. If we were adding 100,000 in wartime like we did in the latter half of last decade, those concerns would be founded. Remember that the Army was near the 476,000 end strength two years ago. If you weren't worried about the quality of our Army's soldiers in 2015, don't let it ruffle your feathers now.

If you were truly concerned about anything, be concerned that Congress forced sequesteration budgets and drawdowns on us because of two wars we paid for on Uncle Sam's magical credit card...and now they've suddenly decided we aren't broke. Be worried about what's going unpaid to pay for this.

All that and I didn't even have to light the bush. What a day!
 

jebdad

5-Year Member
All that and I didn't even have to light the bush. What a day!
Take this for what its worth - advice from a stranger. I have a feeling that you have a lot to offer on this forum but the condescension takes away from your credibility. The recent post was a great example. You presented some great insight and info in there and then you have to go and end it with a snarky comment. As I would say to my kids, "come on, man... you're better than that."
 

scoutpilot

5-Year Member
Take this for what its worth - advice from a stranger. I have a feeling that you have a lot to offer on this forum but the condescension takes away from your credibility. The recent post was a great example. You presented some great insight and info in there and then you have to go and end it with a snarky comment. As I would say to my kids, "come on, man... you're better than that."
Take my sarcastic rejoinder for whatever you wish. I offer my firsthand insight regardless.

Probably the more meaningful criticism might be that the burning bush comment wasn't warranted to begin with, especially from a parent who might want some honest knowledge of how young people might fare in this new paradigm. Your opinion may vary.
 

brovol

Member
My "devine" wisdom is in no way divine. You're right, it doesn't come from a burning bush. It comes from immediate firsthand knowledge. A few things to keep in mind...

The AD force will be taken care of first, then the Total Army. So we should expect to see a slight increase in AD accessions for ROTC officers and an increase in OCS. Remember, though, that officers are a small component of the needed force increase.

Secondly, 30,000 is a misleading number. The Army was expecting to hit the previously mandated AD force total of 450,000 by the end of FY18. Part of the aggressive drawdown was to get the Army to roughly 460,000 by the end of FY17. The new NDAA requires a "16,000 increase" for the active force to reach 476,000. If you're keen with numbers, you know that the Army isn't at 460,000 yet because there are 8 months until the end of FY17. So the Army is somewhere north of 460,000, meaning that 16,000 is not the total number to be added to the active force. Much of that total will be achieved through retention.

The original plan was to reduce the numbers through three main efforts: attrition (retirements and reduced re-enlistment), reduced accessions, and reduced promotion rates. Many of the YGs from the Grow The Army years are very fat still. YG07 through YG10 is massive. They will likely see many of those who were not selected for promotion in the primary zone be selected on their second look, and better promotion rates in groups yet to be boarded.

On the enlisted side, the Army is offering $10k bonuses for soldiers in the final year of their contract to extend one year. They are offering large re-up bonuses (my supply specialist just signed for a $28k bonus) for new contracts as well.

One other big change is the total reversal on personnel policy for officers. For the past 4 years the Army has been favorably reviewing ETPs and waivers for ADSOs. That has stopped. No UQR ETPs are being accepted, and ADSO waivers are dead in the water. This is especially meaningful in the junior officer and warrant officer ranks. Especially for captains.

Long story short, don't expect major changes to academy or ROTC accessions in the short term. The Army has many levers to pull and officers don't solve the numbers problem.

As to the "quality" concerns...the Army was roughly 470,000 before we invaded Iraq. If we were adding 100,000 in wartime like we did in the latter half of last decade, those concerns would be founded. Remember that the Army was near the 476,000 end strength two years ago. If you weren't worried about the quality of our Army's soldiers in 2015, don't let it ruffle your feathers now.

If you were truly concerned about anything, be concerned that Congress forced sequesteration budgets and drawdowns on us because of two wars we paid for on Uncle Sam's magical credit card...and now they've suddenly decided we aren't broke. Be worried about what's going unpaid to pay for this.

All that and I didn't even have to light the bush. What a day!
I like the "first hand knowledge" information more than the condensation, even if it requires an acronym dictionary. very thoughtful, and thank you. But still not sure; are you disagreeing with my "layman's" conclusion that quality should come before quantity, and believe that the numbers are more important? Oh forget it. We are getting along so well now that I don't want to spoil it.
 

scoutpilot

5-Year Member
I like the "first hand knowledge" information more than the condensation, even if it requires an acronym dictionary. very thoughtful, and thank you. But still not sure; are you disagreeing with my "layman's" conclusion that quality should come before quantity, and believe that the numbers are more important? Oh forget it. We are getting along so well now that I don't want to spoil it.
ETP = Exception to Policy
UQR = Unqualified Resignation (for officer separations)
ADSO = Active Duty Service Obligation

Your conclusion is not wrong, but in context it carries some implied criticisms that are not true. When you say it in a thread about growth, and in the manner you said it, it carries a tacit implication that quality is being disregarded.. A bit of background shows that there is little evidence to support that implied criticism of the new policy.
 

brovol

Member
Take my sarcastic rejoinder for whatever you wish. I offer my firsthand insight regardless.

Probably the more meaningful criticism might be that the burning bush comment wasn't warranted to begin with, especially from a parent who might want some honest knowledge of how young people might fare in this new paradigm. Your opinion may vary.
For exactly the reasons you cite, keep the info and even the opinions coming. I will take it even with the sour attitude. Sometimes I even copy and safe some of your posts Scout. Beggars cant be choosers. Likewise, I am fairly confident you wont even care if I accept the free "firsthand knowledge" without any expression of gratitude normally given to those who share such pearls of wisdom to help others (as opposed to those who do so just for the purpose of showing how much they know). Either way, keep it coming. Some of the best information comes fro curmudgeons. Just need to tolerate the hard exterior to get to the good stuff.
 

brovol

Member
ETP = Exception to Policy
UQR = Unqualified Resignation (for officer separations)
ADSO = Active Duty Service Obligation

Your conclusion is not wrong, but in context it carries some implied criticisms that are not true. When you say it in a thread about growth, and in the manner you said it, it carries a tacit implication that quality is being disregarded.. A bit of background shows that there is little evidence to support that implied criticism of the new policy.
Fair enough. And with that said, please forgive anything I said that seems unkind. LOL
 
Top