ANG: Be Careful What You Ask For

[Flaco]

This is somewhat Reserve/Guard-centric, but I thought it was worthy of general discussion.

Over the last 10 years, I have watched with horror as the ANG has tried harder and harder to become like the active duty. Our leadership has yelled from the rooftops "We're just like active duty! We're an operational reserve, not strategic! Give us new equipment! Deploy us more!"

Meanwhile....

The standard ANG AEF deployment has gone from 45 days to 180. ANG units are now being routinely tasked for non-voluntary, non-combat 90-120 day TSP deployments.

And now it looks like the reserve component deploy to dwell ratio is in question. For many years, the RC's deploy to dwell ratio has been set at 1:5 vs. active duty's 1:2, which means that a 1-each fighter guy could expect to deploy 45 days roughly every 1 1/2 years. This was good living - and enticed many active duty brethren to come to greener pastures. Now Guard leadership is discussing reducing the Guard deploy to dwell to 1:3 (see article below).

I'm wondering if the ANG is still being viewed as a good deal by those considering punching from AD. Are the incentives still there for an active duty bubba to join the Guard? Would you join the ANG knowing that a 180-day is right around the corner? Are the guys leaving AD going to the Reserves/Guard or are they getting out all together?

I'm also interested in thoughts on the increasing Federalization of the ANG, which is supposed to be primarily a state organization. We are looking more and more like the active duty by the day. Is the Guard still the Guard? Will there be a time in the future when we are aligned so closely that the Guard is dissolved? Will ANG personnel (especially part-timers) endure the increase in ANG deployment length / ops tempo or will they start jumping ship for greener pastures (airlines)?

Article Follows:

The NGAUS president addressed the initial public hearing last week of the National Commission on the Future of the Army in Arlington, Va. Retired Maj. Gen. Gus Hargett offered five recommendations for the panel to consider.

The eight-member panel was created by Congress to determine how the Army should look to meet coming threats. A major part of its charge is to determine the role of the reserve component, both the Guard and the Army Reserve. Its report is due to Congress Feb. 1, 2016.

Also speaking was Maj. Gen. Edward W. Tonini, the Kentucky adjutant general and president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States. He told the panel the Army leadership feared the recommendations that would result from the commission's review of the Army.

In 19 pages of written testimony presented to the commission one day earlier, Secretary of the Army John McHugh and Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the Army chief of staff, called reserve-component cost-effectiveness a "myth."

Also, retired Maj. Gen. Ray Carpenter, who served more than two years as acting director of the Army National Guard before retiring in 2011, has joined the staff of the panel as executive director.

Here are summaries of the three presentations:

The NGAUS president told the commission that the service can rely on an accessible Army National Guard for the foreseeable future. Hargett said, "I think we have created a culture in the Guard where they expect to be used."

In his remarks and his written testimony, Hargett gave five recommendations for the panel to consider. They are:

- Sustain the combat role of the Army National Guard as an integral part of our nation's first line of defense;

- Sustain the personnel end strength of the Army National Guard;

- Continue the operational employment of Army National Guard units in missions overseas to sustain a base of operational experience;

- Assure the Army National Guard receives modern equipment in order to bolster interoperability with the active component; and

- Shape the Army leadership culture to assure that senior leaders have Total Force experience.

When Hargett was questioned about dwell time for citizen-soldiers and whether a ratio of one year of deployment every three years could be sustained, he said, "I think the answer is yes."

Dwell time is an important issue because the commission is to take a close look at the Army's Aviation Restructure Initiative, which, among other things, would remove all AH-64 Apache helicopters from the Guard and put them in the active component. Studies that portray the Army's plan as a money-saver use a dwell time ratio for the Guard of one year mobilized in every five-year period, or 1:5.

"I'm not opposed to ARI," the NGAUS boss told the commissioners. "I think ARI is a step in the right direction."

However, he said, when a more realistic and attainable dwell-time ratio between deployments is used, such as 1:3, ARI saves more money by keeping Apache helicopters in the Guard.

Hargett's full written testimony is available on the commission website at www.ncfa.ncr.gov. It can be found under Reading Room.

Tonini told the panel that dwell times are often misleading, especially when applying a recent ratio of 1:5 to a time of a national emergency. The bottom line for him, he said, is that the Army Guard is ready whenever needed.

"The Guard is accessible," the Kentucky adjutant general said. "All you have to do is ask. We've never said, 'No.'

[fox two]

Kind of sounds like whining to be honest. Don't like less than a 1:5 dwell? Find another job. Supply/demand dictates everything, no one is entitled to sit here in a "good deal" lifestyle.

[FUEL]

I'm having a hard time looking at this from multiple vantage points. My initial is from a pilots perspective, where my civilian job would likely be in aviation (airline) and leaving the job would not necessarily put me behind in career advancement, seniority, job evaluations, etc. I'm may be completely wrong on this as I have no real background info. The other vantage point is the citizen-soldier who is trying to crush his civilian job as a manager, insurance salesman, engineer, etc. Can that person honestly have strong opportunities to excel if s/he is leaving for a year back for two (what they describe as 1:3), repeat?

...use a dwell time ratio for the Guard of one year mobilized in every five-year period, or 1:5.

Is this accurate? I thought 1:1 dwell was gone 1 unit of measure and back for 1 unit measure. It says AD is set at 1:2, which means we're slated at 1 gone, 1 back?

[ThreeHoler]

1:1 is gone 180 days get 180 days "home." 1:2 is 180:360. And so on.

Some communities have been playing well with others. And other communities have AFRC dwell times approaching 1:30 when AD is <1:2.

[FUEL]

1:1 is gone 180 days get 180 days "home." 1:2 is 180:360. And so on.

Some communities have been playing well with others. And other communities have AFRC dwell times approaching 1:30 when AD is <1:2.

That was always how I read the ratio as well, however the article states otherwise... 1:5 equals "one year mobilzed in every five year period". So that leaves the question, when the NGAUS president says "a more realistic and attainable dwell-time ratio between deployments is used, such as 1:3" does he mean 1 gone 3 back, or 1 gone 2 back. The way the article is written implies the later. Flaco what do you believe 1:2 implies when referencing AD deployment rate.

[12xu2a3x3]

The standard ANG AEF deployment has gone from 45 days to 180. ANG units are now being routinely tasked for non-voluntary, non-combat 90-120 day TSP deployments.

not all TSPs are that long

[brabus]

Gearpig nailed it - what's the difference between ARC and AD? If there is to be no difference (like apparently some ANG leadership want to keep money flowing), then why does the ARC exist? I hope for the ARC dudes sake, they at least allow 90 day splits in these deployments. Its BS for any of us AD guys to shit on them and call it whining - guess what, we're on AD by choice, those guys made another choice and I'm guessing a big part of their's was the lifestyle/ability to have a civilian career while still contributing to the military/country. Maybe an airline dude wouldn't have an issue going for 6 months, but I can't imagine a business owner, project manager, etc. leaving for 6 months and having no issues coming back to that job...just to do the same thing again 1-3 yrs later. Regardless of what the law says, there's no way that won't effect them negatively.

[MD]

That's the problem. It sounds like you're saying the supply/demand issue is a fixed variable determined by the laws of the universe, but the supply and the demand are ambiguous concepts being skewed and misrepresented by people who have an agenda. If you're a Guardsman/reservist, is okay for the NGAUS chief to tell a commission that every day of your career is part of an available supply of man-days for non-vol deployments? To imply that the Guard/Reserve will never say "No" to producing a supply for whatever arbitrary demand is conjured up in an attempt maintain funding? A consensus should be reached on what the role of AD and the Guard/Reserves should be. Hargett and Tonini sound like two pimps whoring their units out as a "cheaper Active Duty force" just to keep the money coming in. Sure, folks can GTFO if they don't like it, but it's entirely acceptable to question the motives of those driving them out.

Things really got bad when ARC units started figuring out they could be BRACd. Not necessarily shut down, as they're state units, but their federally-owned equipment removed and reallocated, leaving them as a unit with nothing. The Tacos in Albuquerque learned this the hard way, in a related way, with their figuring out they had little leverage over anything. The ARC has seemingly strained to remain ready/relevant/reliable, and has more and more been whoring itself out, almost becoming a mini-active duty. This is especially true on the ArNG side, but can be seen on the ANG side too, with some states and units worse than others.

Kind of sounds like whining to be honest. Don't like less than a 1:5 dwell? Find another job. Supply/demand dictates everything, no one is entitled to sit here in a "good deal" lifestyle.

Not so much a matter of a good deal lifestyle (maybe for some people in some cases), but moreso their being a distinct difference between what the ARC component is supposed to be and how they're supposed to be utilized as part-time military, versus the active duty component whose one and only job is military. Start making it a situation where 1. it's not worth it to stay in the ARC due to being treated as a full time military, 2. making it so some guys are actually losing money by having to be on leave of absense from their civilian job in order to keep getting called up for military duty, especially for non-contingency operations, or 3. make it so the ARC begins losing support of civilian employers due to the expectations for them under USERRA becoming unreasonable; and you will start to see people exiting the ARC, and the ARC having a difficult time remaining ready/relevant/reliable.

Edited May 31, 2015 by MD

[dvlax40]

. make it so the ARC begins losing support of civilian employers due to the expectations for them under USERRA becoming unreasonable; and you will start to see people exiting the ARC, and the ARC having a difficult time remaining ready/relevant/reliable.

This. Airlines are one thing but coming from corporate you will effectively be blackballed unless you jump ship.

[Breckey]

What caused the ANG to shift from its ye olde CONUS defense mission of yesteryear? It seems weird to me that the state militias of old have A-10s. How would a state governor (reasonibly) ever use them to help his state? C-130s and interceptors fine, maybe even tankers since they could help with other CONUS missions. Was there an "Ah-ha!" moment or was it a gradual iron/mission shift?

[HU&W]

What caused the ANG to shift from its ye olde CONUS defense mission of yesteryear? It seems weird to me that the state militias of old have A-10s. How would a state governor (reasonibly) ever use them to help his state? C-130s and interceptors fine, maybe even tankers since they could help with other CONUS missions. Was there an "Ah-ha!" moment or was it a gradual iron/mission shift?

Probably has to do with the average American feeling 100% unthreatened by foreign powers, and voting for politicians/policies that reflect that belief.

[nunya]

Flew with one of our ANG 0-6 types last week. He said recent conferences appear to point towards a move like you describe. Fighters on the coasts with RPAs, airlift, and tankers scattered throughout.

[Azimuth]

not all TSPs are that long

And some ANG -135 units do 30-60 days while AFRC/AD do 60+ 2-3 times a year.

[Duck]

The guard was never designed to be the same or work the same as Active Duty. If there is no difference I am willing to bet the Guard would have the same retention problems we have on AD.

[dvlax40]

honestly i see it as this way, a way to spin up and draw down for positions such as pilots that allow them to retain talent when they need it and not have to pay it... i mean whats better then getting a traditional guard bro out of UPT hungry for hours and giving him all the flight time he can muster. then later in his career hes more fo a part time dude (leaving space for new blood) while retaining his skills for use in emergencies

[Lawman]

What caused the ANG to shift from its ye olde CONUS defense mission of yesteryear? It seems weird to me that the state militias of old have A-10s. How would a state governor (reasonibly) ever use them to help his state? C-130s and interceptors fine, maybe even tankers since they could help with other CONUS missions. Was there an "Ah-ha!" moment or was it a gradual iron/mission shift?

Bro we are having this exact argument in the Army over why the Guard won't give up its Apaches and take Hawks instead to support state missions and we can maintain the active duty fleets readiness requirements.

Don't open this can of worms. It'll make the A-10 retirement fight look pale by comparison.

[HeloDude]

I'm also interested in thoughts on the increasing Federalization of the ANG, which is supposed to be primarily a state organization.

Nearly everything has been heading this way. The progressives and the elites love centralized power as it gives them more power and more control. The States began ceding this power many years ago and (usually) it just continues to get worse and worse, so why would the Guard be any different? If you're going to cut the AD but continue to have the same obligations, of course the Reserve and Guard are going to be affected.

The Republic has been deteriorating for quite some time...

[Clark Griswold]

Nearly everything has been heading this way.

The Republic has been deteriorating for quite some time...

Yup - what comes next though?

On the topic if the ANG evolving / devolving into AD-lite, is that just inevitable?

Reserves have traditionally been 1/3 of our total force and the concept of spinning up in maybe a one to three month period has been applied thru out our readiness levels (especially in the Army side) but is that possible now with the pace of modern combat?

In a force on force conflict with Russia, China, North Korea, etc. there is no way they are going to fight a conflict that goes on and on allowing us to build up in theatre in numbers to eventually overwhelm them - it will be over in a week or two before both sides have attrited their conventional forces and the temptation or need to go nuclear arises, if that is the case then shouldn't the ANG / AR be AD but federalized (federally funded) when needed? Then state funded on a day to day force in ready basis?

Instead of a draft for individuals - a draft for state forces - spreads the cost and makes us actually think about whether or not to commit to every conflict around the world.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MD]

but is that possible now with the pace of modern combat?

In a force on force conflict with Russia, China, North Korea, etc. there is no way they are going to fight a conflict that goes on and on allowing us to build up in theatre in numbers to eventually overwhelm them - it will be over in a week or two before both sides have attrited their conventional forces and the temptation or need to go nuclear arises, if that is the case then shouldn't the ANG / AR be AD but federalized (federally funded) when needed? Then state funded on a day to day force in ready basis?

Big difference between this scenario you post, and the current BS of deploying ARC units just for the sake of deploying them, oftentimes having them sit and do nothing. The traditional reserve/guard people can't work on a high ops tempo and still expect to be in good standing at their place of employment.

Bro we are having this exact argument in the Army over why the Guard won't give up its Apaches and take Hawks instead to support state missions and we can maintain the active duty fleets readiness requirements.

Don't open this can of worms. It'll make the A-10 retirement fight look pale by comparison.

The Army Restructuring Initiative makes complete sense for swapping the Apaches for Blackhawks in the ArNG. If I'm not mistaken, this has already occurred with Apaches in the Army Reserve. Conroe and Ft Knox come to mind. But it makes complete sense.

The A-10 retirement......what a mess dealing with some of the extreme elements both sides of the issue, especially when many of them are no more than fanboys.

[Clark Griswold]

Big difference between this scenario you post, and the current BS of deploying ARC units just for the sake of deploying them, oftentimes having them sit and do nothing. The traditional reserve/guard people can't work on a high ops tempo and still expect to be in good standing at their place of employment.

True - I imagine a force organized trained and resourced by the states but under the chain of command like the guard is now. Militias outside of the MIC that is the Pentagon/DoD/Congress & Contractors

This could reassert the role of the states away from just one all powerful Borg federal government - the militia can never be used against the Constitution only in support of it and it is not so much of the Armed Forces of the USA that if the states can not be convinced to contribute that the Federal Government could not act

If the states don't make themselves relevant soon they will soon be irrelevant by default

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

The Army Restructuring Initiative makes complete sense for swapping the Apaches for Blackhawks in the ArNG. If I'm not mistaken, this has already occurred with Apaches in the Army Reserve. Conroe and Ft Knox come to mind. But it makes complete sense.

The A-10 retirement......what a mess dealing with some of the extreme elements both sides of the issue, especially when many of them are no more than fanboys.

I'm not sayin it doesn't make sense, I'm saying all the guard has been doing is fighting this every step of the way and getting their Congressional and Senatorial leadership neck deep into the issue to hijack and hold it off as much as possible (sound familiar?).

I went to flight school with a few guard Apache guys and all they have on their Facebook status is sign this petition or Gob'ment trying to take away states right to defend ourselves, etc.

The restructure has actually been hampered to crap by this with another round of studies ordered every year or reducing the rate of conversion so it saves no money and they can argue against it. Never mind that the Kiowa is going going gone...

I imagine you would see exactly this if not worse if the Active side of the Air Force were to go "Alright hand over all the 15s/16s/10s etc... Your getting 130s, tankers, and UAS."

[Breckey]

The difference with the fighters is that they are all that's left of ADC. The alert mission is a valid one. I don't think flying a B-2 is. Can the Missouri governor even mobilize them for state missions? Ferguson would really need to be rioting for that to make sense.

[HeloDude]

If the states don't make themselves relevant soon they will soon be irrelevant by default.

They did it to themselves. They ratified the 16th and 17th Amendments which ceded even more power to federal government (16th) and less power to the State Legislatures (17th). And with the power of judicial review, 5 people wearing black robes basically have all the power in the country.

[Clark Griswold]

They did it to themselves. They ratified the 16th and 17th Amendments which ceded even more power to federal government (16th) and less power to the State Legislatures (17th). And with the power of judicial review, 5 people wearing black robes basically have all the power in the country.

Yup but what was done can be undone

Convention of the States

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[12xu2a3x3]

I don't think flying a B-2 is.

no more than F-4Gs, B-1s or Huns and Thuds for that matter. keeping a unit in a manned airframe, keeping a unit part of the CAF and keeping everything ancillary to the flying, MX, CE, et al. made more sense that having them fly nothing in lieu of somthing that has basically no state application