• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Military value analysis and brigade combat team reorganization briefing     (2)
 

Military value analysis and brigade combat team reorganization briefing (2)

on

  • 2,355 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,355
Views on SlideShare
1,672
Embed Views
683

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
39
Comments
0

4 Embeds 683

http://friendsofftstewartandhunter.com 307
http://www.friendsofftstewartandhunter.com 305
http://app6.websitetonight.com 69
http://www.friendsofftstewartandhunter.com. 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • The Army is in a period of critical transition as the nation has concluded major combat operations in Iraq, assesses force requirements in Afghanistan and develops new strategy and doctrine for future conflicts. During this transition, the Army as part of the Department of Defense (DoD) must identify prudent measures to reduce spending without sacrificing critical operational capabilities necessary to implement national security and defense priorities. To help achieve mandated spending reductions, the Army is decreasing the current total number of Soldiers and civilians, while reorganizing the current force structure. The Army’s active duty end-strength will decline by 80,000 from an FY 2010 peak end strength of 570,000 to 490,000 by the end of FY 2017. The Army has announced reductions would include the inactivation of at least eight brigade combat teams (BCTs) from the current total of 45, of which the first two have been announced as coming from Europe (170th and 170nd). Other than the reductions in Europe, the Army is currently analyzing all the options available to achieve force structure changes and realignments, and no final decisions have been made at this time. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND ON THE NUMBERS: In January 2011, the Secretary of Defense announced that the Army would move forward with a force reduction of 27,000 Soldiers from the Army’s FY 2012 end-strength of 562,000. The FY 2013 defense budget request called for a further reduction from the FY 2012 end-strength of 562,000 to 490,000. The 490,000 level in part reflects a $487 billion decrease in DoD funding over the next decade under the Budget Control Act of 2011.
  • Mr. Franke’s comment on the last bullet: TCFs are a part of MEB operations and area security. Eliminating TCFs has an impact enabling Army doctrine.

Military value analysis and brigade combat team reorganization briefing     (2) Military value analysis and brigade combat team reorganization briefing (2) Presentation Transcript

  • AMERICA’S ARMY: THE STRENGTH OF THE NATION UNCLASS/FOUO UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO Military Value Analysis & Brigade Combat Team Reorganization Briefing MLAs released 25 Jun 2013
  • AMERICA’S ARMY: THE STRENGTH OF THE NATION UNCLASS/FOUO UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO  What the Army announced  BCT reorganization  The Army’s process  Options and decision  Impacts by installation Agenda
  • AMERICA’S ARMY: THE STRENGTH OF THE NATION UNCLASS/FOUO UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO  IAW 2012 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) directing Army reductions, the Army is reducing its Active Component endstrength by 80,000 Soldiers, from an FY2010 peak of 570,000 to 490,000 by the end of FY2017.  This reduction includes a reduction of at least 12 BCTs and the decision to move to a 3-BN design.  No force structure reductions in ARNG or USAR; RC BCT design will match AC.  Simultaneously, the Army will distribute and shape the remaining force to enhance readiness, increase balance and flexibility, and meet the requirements of the Nation’s Defense Strategy in a fiscally constrained environment.  The 80,000 Active Component reduction represents a 14% decrease from 570K in 2010 to 490K NLT 2017. What The Army Announced This announcement has nothing to do with BRAC or the potential impacts of Sequestration
  • AMERICA’S ARMY: THE STRENGTH OF THE NATION UNCLASS/FOUO UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO BCT Reorganization 2 vs 3 BN Extensive Modeling, Analysis, and CDR Interviews. Significant analysis included using 34 vignettes, over 6,500 hours of simulated combat (ranging from 7 to 72 hrs of operations), and extensive interviews with all the Army’s Division Commanders plus 23 combat veteran BCT Commanders. Preserves combat power/Reduces HQs. This plan retains 33 AC BCTs with 95 combat battalions, eliminating 12 HQs. Only 3 fewer battalions than the 45 BCT force (98 battalions), and 13 more than the un-reorganized 37 BCTs (82 battalions). Hawaii, Alaska, and Italy will not receive a third maneuver battalion. Increases Operational Capability. Reorganized BCTs with a third maneuver battalion, an engineer battalion, and enhanced fires capabilities are more lethal with less overhead. More capable BCTs to meet the New Defense Strategy. Analysis on future missions and scenarios indicate that 33 AC and 28 ARNG BCTs is sufficient to support COCOM demands. Minimizes cost (MILCON). The Army avoids almost all MILCON through internal BCT installation reorganizations. Reorganizing ARNG BCTs. The ARNG will begin reorganizing without growth by aligning 17 Tactical Combat Forces (infantry battalions) to 28 of their BCTs.
  • AMERICA’S ARMY: THE STRENGTH OF THE NATION UNCLASS/FOUO UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO BCT Conversion Concept X X X I HHC X I I BSB I I BEB I I I I I I BSTB I I I I BSB I I I II HHC I I X Current BCTs on a multiple BCT Installation X Inactivated BCT X X X Converted BCT Design 1. RSTA converts to IN BN 2. IN BN moves to new BCT 3. IN BN moves to new BCT 4. One FA battery moves to new BCTs 5. One FSC moves to new BCTs 6. BSTB converts to BEB (adds one EN Company) 7. ~2752 spaces reinvested in converted BCTs O O O O O O Converted BCT on a multiple BCT Installation ~3536 spaces ~4408 spaces
  • AMERICA’S ARMY: THE STRENGTH OF THE NATION UNCLASS/FOUO UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO Quantitative Analysis  Budget Control Act  Current Defense Strategy  Total Army Analysis  OSD Resource Management Decision  Force Design Updates/Concept Plans  Military Value Analysis (MVA) - Operational Considerations - Quality of Life Programmatic Environmental Analysis (PEA)  Environmental analysis  Socio-economic analysis Statutory Requirements and Other Considerations Force Structure Guidance Planning Team Developed 9 Options Qualitative Analysis Based Options Army Senior Leader Guidance  Strategic Considerations  Cost (MILCON)  Readiness Impact  Investment/Regeneration  Proximity  Statutory Requirements  Environmental & Socioeconomic Impacts  Community Input  Council of Colonels (2)  1-/2-Star GOSC  3-Star GOSC Formal Stationing Announcement  Congressional Notification  Public Release The Army’s Process PEA Public InputPEA Public Input Public Listening Sessions Validate MVA Data Army Senior Leader Guidance Options Presented to SLDA  SA/CSA Decision Review Boards recommended 3 options  MVA/Environmental  Personnel Impacts  Training Impacts  Unit Donors  Strategic Considerations  MILCON  Power Projection  Proximity  Economic Impacts
  • AMERICA’S ARMY: THE STRENGTH OF THE NATION UNCLASS/FOUO UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO Germany Ft Bliss Ft Hood X Ft Polk X Ft Lewis Ft Carson Ft Knox Ft Campbell Ft Riley Ft Stewart HAAF XX X X Ft DrumKorea Schofield BK/ Shafter/ Wheeler X X X Ft Benning 31 2 41 X 2 3 4 Hawaii X 4 X 3 X 2 X 4 1 3 2 X X X X 2 3 4 1 XXX 1 2 3 XXX X 2 X 1 3 4 21 3 4 xx 2ID xx 25ID 1AD xx xx 4ID xx 1ID xx 101 AASLT xx 10MD xx 82ABN Ft Bragg xx 3ID xxx III X X X X 2 431 xx 1CD xxx V I xxx xxx XVIII X 1 32 XXX X Alaska Ft Richardson Ft Wainwright X 1 4 X X 173 Italy X 172 X 170 3CR X xx 7ID Joint Base Lewis-McChord 4 15 ABCT, 20 IBCT, 8 SBCT XXX Infantry BCT (Airborne) X Armored BCT XX Infantry BCT XXX X Stryker BCT BCTs X 2CR Current AC BCT Stationing and Mix XX X MNVR BNs 45 BCTs= 98
  • AMERICA’S ARMY: THE STRENGTH OF THE NATION UNCLASS/FOUO UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO Germany Ft Bliss Ft Hood X Ft Polk X Ft Lewis Ft Carson Ft Knox Ft Campbell Ft Riley Ft Stewart HAAF XX X X Ft Drum Korea Schofield BK/ Shafter/ Wheeler X X X Ft Benning 31 2 41 X 2 3 4 Hawaii X 4X 3 X 2 X 4 13 2 X X X X 2 3 41 XXX 1 2 3 XXX X 2 X 1 3 4 21 3 4 xx 2ID xx 25ID 1AD xx xx 4ID xx 1ID xx 101 AASLT xx 10MD xx 82ABN Ft Bragg xx 3ID xxx III X X X X 2 431 xx 1CD xxx V I xxx xxx XVIII X 1 32 XXX X Alaska Ft Richardson Ft Wainwright X 1 4 X X 173 Italy X 172 X 170 3CR X xx 7ID Joint Base Lewis-McChord 4 12 ABCT, 14 IBCT, 7 SBCT XXX Infantry BCT (Airborne) X Armored BCT XX Infantry BCT XXX X Stryker BCT BCTs X 2CR Reorganization Plan 24 June 2013 XX X MNVR BNs 45 BCTs= 98 37 BCTs= 82 33 BCTs= 95 • MVA only looked at installations and not BCT type/mix • BCT mix being staffed
  • AMERICA’S ARMY: THE STRENGTH OF THE NATION UNCLASS/FOUO UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO INSTALLATION 2001 AC End Strength: 482.2K Percent of AC on Installation 2012 AC End Strength: 570K Percent of AC on Installation 2017 AC End Strength: 490K Percent of AC on Installation Percent change FY 12 to FY 17 Fort Bragg 39,931 8.28% 42,735 7.50% 40,186 8.20% 0.70% Fort Drum 10,665 2.21% 16,643 2.92% 15,060 3.07% 0.15% Fort Stewart 15,170 3.15% 21,157 3.71% 19,785 4.04% 0.33% Fort Benning 10,607 2.20% 13,029 2.29% 13,105 2.67% 0.38% Fort Knox 6,382 1.32% 7,667 1.35% 4,354 .89% -0.46% Fort Campbell 22,911 4.75% 29,222 5.13% 28,902 5.90% 0.77% Fort Polk 7,895 1.64% 9,327 1.64% 9,084 1.85% 0.21% Fort Riley 9,412 1.95% 17,226 3.02% 15,497 3.16% 0.14% Fort Hood 41,127 8.53% 40,899 7.18% 37,959 7.75% 0.57% Fort Carson 13,816 2.87% 22,667 3.98% 24,484 5.00% 1.02% Fort Bliss 8,765 1.82% 27,479 4.82% 26,729 5.45% 0.63% Fort Lewis 16,293 3.38% 31,029 5.44% 26,488 5.41% -0.03% Schofield Barracks 16,859 3.50% 15,730 2.76% 15,840 3.23% 0.47% Fort Wainwright 4,414 .92% 6,254 1.10% 6,806 1.39% 0.29% Fort Richardson 2,093 .43% 5,659 .99% 4,765 .97% -0.02% BCT Installations
  • AMERICA’S ARMY: THE STRENGTH OF THE NATION UNCLASS/FOUO UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO INSTALLATION 2001 AC End Strength: 482.2K Percent of AC on Installation 2012 AC End Strength: 570K Percent of AC on Installation 2017 AC End Strength: 490K Percent of AC on Installation Percent change FY 12 to FY 17 Aberdeen Proving Ground 1,145 .29% 2,478 .43% 2,604 .53% 0.10% Fort Belvoir 1,835 .38% 4,115 .72% 3,926 .80% 0.09% Fort Gordon 6,269 1.30% 5,616 .98% 5,866 1.20% 0.22% Fort Huachuca 3,939 .82% 2,590 .45% 2,559 .52% 0.07% Fort Irwin 4,610 .96% 4,357 .76% 4,106 .84% 0.08% Fort Jackson 3,344 .69% 2,878 .50% 2,947 .60% 0.10% Fort Leavenworth 1,786 .37% 2,460 .43% 2,539 .52% 0.09% Fort Lee 2,514 .52% 3,797 .66% 3,420 .70% 0.04% Fort Leonard Wood 4,284 .89% 5,978 1.04% 5,093 1.04% 0.00% Fort Meade 3,570 .74% 4,621 .81% 4,970 1.01% 0.20% Fort Rucker 2,875 .60% 2,948 .51% 3,249 .66% 0.15% Fort Sam Houston 6,311 1.31% 5,395 .94% 5,084 1.04% 0.10% Fort Shafter 1,134 .24% 2,270 .39% 2,325 .47% 0.08% Fort Sill 9,710 2.01% 7,596 1.33% 7,050 1.44% 0.11% JB Langley-Eustis 6,673 1.40% 4,268 .74% 3,935 .80% 0.06% JB Myer-Henderson Hall 4,369 .91% 2,420 .42% 2,389 .49% 0.07% Redstone Arsenal 1,339 .28% 481 .08% 582 .12% 0.04% White Sands Missile Range 90 .02% 546 .09% 11 0.00% -0.09% Non-BCT Installations
  • AMERICA’S ARMY: THE STRENGTH OF THE NATION UNCLASS/FOUO UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO EUROPE 2001 Army Endstrength 482.2K Stationed in Europe in 2001 58,444 Percentage of total force 12.12% 2012 Army Endstrength 570K Stationed in Europe in 2012 38,712 Percentage of total force 6.79% 2017 Army Endstrength 490K Stationed in Europe in 2017 27,051 Percentage of total force 5.52% Difference between 2001 and 2017: -31.4K 2015 Army Endstrength 490K Stationed in Europe in 2015 27,965 Percentage of total force 5.71% V Corps and 2 BCT Inactivated