The US Army is revamping its force structure to deal with future wars
The U.S. Army is planning to cut thousands of jobs, by up to 24,000, as it moves to restructure in anticipation for the next major war. However, the Army says that this will not involve actual service members being asked to leave. Instead, billets that are not filled will be cut, such as unfilled billets related to the Global War on Terror. The Army plans to increase its ability to deal with current realities like the heavy use of drones demonstrated in Ukraine.
From Fox 43:
The planned overhaul comes after two decades of war in Iraq and Afghanistan that forced the Army to quickly and dramatically expand in order to fill the brigades sent to the battlefront. That included a massive counter-insurgency mission to battle al-Qaida, the Taliban and the Islamic State group.
Over time the military’s focus has shifted to great power competition from adversaries such as China and Russia, and threats from Iran and North Korea. And the war in Ukraine has shown the need for greater emphasis on air-defense systems and high-tech abilities both to use and counter airborne and sea-based drones.
Army leaders said they looked carefully across the board at all the service’s job specialties in search of places to trim. And they examined the ongoing effort to modernize the Army, with new high-tech weapons, to determine where additional forces should be focused.
According to the plan, the Army will cut about 10,000 spaces for engineers and similar jobs that were tied to counter-insurgency missions. An additional 2,700 cuts will come from units that don’t deploy often and can be trimmed, and 6,500 will come from various training and other posts.
There also will be about 10,000 posts cut from cavalry squadrons, Stryker brigade combat teams, infantry brigade combat teams and security force assistance brigades, which are used to train foreign forces.
The changes represent a significant shift for the Army to prepare for large-scale combat operations against more sophisticated enemies. But they also underscore the steep recruiting challenges that all of the military services are facing.
Fox 43 has additional information here. The Military Times provides additional information.
The best part is that these are jobs that don’t do anything anymore like infantry and cav scout. And since that Army has repeatedly failed it’s mission in the last three years to recruit people for these jobs may as well just get rid of them.
Yep.
Do not refill billets, do away with billets and POOF!: recruiting goals are met.
Oh yeah, I forgot the most important part: put yourself in for an award, promotion and pay raise for getting it done!
Great bullet for the OER/NCOER support form!
Not to worry…as soon as WWIII kicks off the 69th Intersectional Dildo Brigade will be flooded with all of the stunning and brave recruits that will flock to fill the ranks. This massive enlistment will cause shortages of personnel to fill the slots available at the local Brucie’s Bath House (enter thru the rear) Franchises.
Rum, sodomy and the lash hasn’t paid off for the Navy yet today. Just sayin’.
I was a young SPC when the Army transformed in 2004, from Infantry divisions of three brigades with three assigned battalions and attached “Slice” units (falling under DISCOM and DIVARTY) to divisions of four brigades, with each containing seven battalions (three IN, one CAV, one FA, one BSTB, and one BSB). I was on orders to Sand Hill when they scratched the fourth BDEs, turned the BSTBs into EN battalions, and stood DIVARTY back up only 11 years later.
Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG) was the hot thing in the 2000s before it was disbanded in 2021 or so, and now the SFABs seem to be on the cutting block. I was on Sand Hill when they were standing those up, and they were trying their best to attract short-timer Drills who had their key developmental (KD) time, as the Army stopped PCS’ing SSGs and SFCs from Benning with KD time. A lot of my peers were basically told to go find a new job when their trail time was up, as they would be staying at Benning, leading many to go SFAB, Instructor, or for Ranger-qualified ones, 4th RTB.
The Army is always focused on the short-term war of today, as opposed to thinking in a broader long-term sense. Look at the Pentomic Divisions of the late-’50s and early-’60s for an example; another example would be how fixated we got on the OEF/OIF conflicts while neglecting our abilities to take on near-peer adversaries.
I will say this about the Army: Shinseki made us all Warriors just a few months before I joined, ensuring I earned the coveted Black Beret as an E-1 freshly trained as a marginally qualified Infantry Soldier. Now we have Brown Berets to supplement our Black, Tan, Green, and Maroon Berets. The color palette is near-complete, but there is still room for a new Pink Beret to fully diversify our ranks.
That E-4 that ordered the one million berets from China for the Army is still doing time at Leavenworth, I suppose.
Not that Shinseki or his douche bag sidekick CMA Jack Tilley knew anything about it….
It was an emergency! Those berets were needed in time for the Army’s birthday and making them was one of those jobs Americans Won’t Do.
I recall the short-lived Units of Action, Units of Employment before they were called BCTs. This was around the Army of One campaign.
I never heard those terms, so I found this to browse through later: TalleyTF-Thesis.doc (dtic.mil).
Fort Campbell, and I’m sure other Light Divisions, lost some sense of unit pride and identity with the 2004 and 2015 transformations. When I served there, 3rd Brigade was comprised of three battalions of Rakkasans, just as the other two brigade were solely Strike and Bastogne. Fourth Brigade was being stood up as I was leaving, bringing Curahee back into the 101st, and there were the interim Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition (RSTA) battalions that were shortly replaced by Cav squadrons. We started getting 19Ds in mid-2004, and our BN CSM, who spent all but two years of his career in the Ranger community before becoming the Fort Benning CSM, refused to let them wear the DUI on their berets until they passed a two-week “RIP” (Rakkasan Indoctrination Program).
I passed back through in 2007 for my former Squad Leader’s wedding, and it was weird seeing the Torii on signs for 626 BSB, the STB, and the Cav unit. It’s even weirder seeing it combined with the Spade for White Curahee (2/506th), now part of 3rd BDE.
Yeah, because you can just snap your fingers, magically standup those units, tell them they’re “experts”, send’m down range and everything will go swimmingly.
We were promised “No more Task Force Smiths” and this back azimuth seems to be proof they are reneging.
I’ve never been a fan of SFAB (it’s within the core competencies of Infantry) but ever since GWOT DoD has decided SF is the go-to for doorkickers, who TF is going to take on that mission?
Figure it out, Arm-ee.
$hit, I was promised ‘No more Task Force Smith’s’ way back in 1990 when 1-68 Armor was stood down as a result of the CFE treaty. One thing I have to remind myself is that the people who made the statement are long gone.
January 1992, SGT D was at BNCOC, Fort Gordon. We were all herded into the theater for a presentation on whatever force mod was happening at that time. Repeated promises of “No More Task Force Smiths”. Speechwriters have gotten a shitload of milage out of that phrase. Nobody really gave a damn about what the latest iteration of the Army was, because no matter how you align, re-align, or redesign the combat arms formations, signal’s job really doesn’t change.
Got that right.
“You can talk about us, but you can’t talk without us”
Thunderbirds, baby!
1/68 Armor 8th ID(M) “First to fight”
Honestly, we seem to need the occasional Task Force Smith – hopefully, they’re revealed at CTCs rather than thru combat, but there seems to be no better litmus test than a crucible for which we’re no longer ready.
By this, I don’t mean the standard, OPFOR-always-cheats, Kobayashi Maru approach scenario writers usually take; I mean legitimate, challenging maneuvers that assess the key skillsets of each branch.
“anticipation for the next major war”
Didn’t we fight the war to end all wars?
I forget which one it was.
Occam’s razor.
My bet is that this is a direct result of the Army being unable to meet recruiting goals and no prospects of them being able to do so in the future.
Instead of announcing over and over that they’ve failed to meet goals, they’ll just eliminate unfilled billets and reduce the goals.
Problem “solved” without the “leadership” having to backtrack or admit that their current policies are stupid, killing morale and reducing recruitment.
Makes sense. If you can’t increase supply, reduce demand and call it a win. What could go wrong?
It works with the Public School Systems doing away with academy standards for receiving a diploma. Now they can say that 99% of their students obtain a diploma. Though none of them can read that diploma.
How dare you expect graduates to be more than “woke” bootlickers– that’s “racist” and oppressive, comrade! /sarc
One of those rare occasions in which both Occam and Hanlon cut the same.
You want a volunteer military you have to live with the limited number of volunteers. Whining about not having enough volunteers is not just pointless, it is stupid.
I also have concerns about cuts to the force structure—especially the cavalry squadrons. These aren’t quickly rebuilt. I served as the squadron S3 for a CAV squadron formed from an air defense Bn (back when we said we didn’t need those) and I can attest that a bunch of 14-series Soldiers don’t become scouts just because you announced them as such.
However, the implementing ARSTRUC 25-29 does bring in a lot of long range fires, air defense, cyber capabilities and more multi-domain task forces. And two watercraft companies. Hmm, where does the army need boats? There’s some good in it.
I guess it is just a coincidence that the cut in soldiers needed is close to the Army’s recruiting shortfall.
Lowering the bar for advancing careers! /sarc
People missed key parts of the plan:
Army units are now regionally aligned to op orders. They are cutting armor and scouts for the units aligned to Pacific areas not Korea.
SFABs are being trimmed to align them to areas with demand. SOF was bloated because of CENTCOM headhunting.
Most importantly, the Army is using manpower savings to stand up MDTFs with long range fires, air defense, and UAVs that have their own amphibious transport because Marines are not going to be able to fully up the MLRs in the next 10 years and we need to be able to fight China and Iran.
And in further Army news, the big question is finally asked:
https://hotair.com/headlines/2024/02/29/either-the-president-is-that-aloof-or-you-are-irrelevant-which-one-is-it-n3783827
We’ve all been wondering.
Excellent demonstration of a “responsible” person evading both the professional and basic personal responsibility expected of even a lowly fast-food burger flipper. I fired someone once for what he did. It just shows us that his true qualifications are evading responsibility and blaming subordinates, both of which are basic qualifications for high-level military or civilian jobs.
If Big Army is looking to get rid of some dead wood that contributes zero to success in combat, may Hack Stone suggest 86’ing the Diversity Equity and Inclusion Officers, as well as all of the personnel in a non-deployment status as they await their gender reassignment surgery?
You REALLY expect common sense to break out?
No. But it’d be a well-appreciated modus operandi change from the machine.
Alas, we’ll be shitting in one hand…
They’d just be replaced by Political Officers
Just to be contrary I would like to point out that Political Officers, Commissars, Zampolits, whatever, often proved to be useful and made some positive contributions. DEI officers, on the other hand, are always and everywhere a net negative, a hindrance to unit effectiveness and a waste of resources.
Give it a year Hack.
Nice to see that our fearless leaders finally recognize that the US doesn’t have a monopoly on drones. My guess is that most of those new positions will be in dedicated anti-drone units for every HQ.
Please don’t confuse what I am about to say with my personal views; this is just an outline of what the Army is facing…
The main consideration is the next war(s). The Combatant Commanders develop their theater strategies and war plans, and these are translated through the Service Component Commands into force requirements- CENTCOM needs 2 CSGs, 3 ABCTs, a MEF, and so on (not real data). The services add up all these requirements and that this becomes the ‘ask’ for force structure (basically,although it is a lot more complicated than that in reality).
The pacing threat is China- read the NSS and NDA for more info. INDOPACOM has a theater strategy for ‘competition’ and numbered plans for various contingencies. As you may know from history or looking at a map, the Pacific is mainly a maritime theater interspersed with thousands of islands, big and small. Therefore, INDOPACOM’s plans call for a lot of air, sea, space, and Cyber capability to deny huge areas of ocean.
Not much of a role for ground troops, especially heavy maneuver forces like ABCTs- this is why the USMC built the Littoral Combat Regiments and the Army built Multi Domain Task Forces. Both are built around Cyber, EW, Space, Long Range Precision Fires, and Air Defense. Also not much of a role for traditional cavalry, regardless of flavor (Bradley, Stryker, Wheeled). Read about the Marine Defense Battalion in WWII at Wake Island to see how that goes.
Usually the LimFac is the end strength cap placed by Congress in the NDAA- Yes, Army, I know you want 500,000 people, but we will only pay for 465K.
But the Army missed recruiting goals and we are roughly 30K troopers short of the planned force structure in the aggregate, probably with significant shortages in what we used to call high demand, low density assets- MI, SC, Cyber, Tech Warrants, and so on).
The choice was to slim down or have a hollow Army designed for the wrong war