A stop-loss policy, which was widely used at the peak of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, could temporarily halt some or all troops from separating and transitioning back into the civilian world.

The policy was often criticized as a “back-door draft” that erodes the trust of service members and can threaten the military’s long-term ability to recruit and retain service members.

The service branches have already begun offering to voluntarily extend contracts for some service members, but some involuntary measures may be needed, the Pentagon said.

“Given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the nation as a whole and on the military’s ability to recruit and train new service members, the Department is looking at a wide range of options that will ensure enduring national security mission capability,” Lisa Lawrence, a Pentagon spokeswoman, told Military Times.

“While there are many options, stop-loss is one that would only be considered if absolutely necessary and is an alternative that we will work diligently to avoid,” she added. “There have been no formal recommendations for implementing stop-loss at this time.”

She did not elaborate as to which services or service members would be most likely to face a stop-loss order.

Nearly 2,000 service members have tested positive for COVID-19, which is caused by the novel coronavirus. Dozens have been hospitalized and one National Guardsman has died.

Military health officials say it is unlikely that the military and its mostly young and healthy personnel will suffer a high death toll from the virus.

But the worldwide measures taken to prevent the spread of the virus are slowing the Defense Department’s pipeline for bringing in new service members.

Most recruiters have stopped meeting face-to-face with prospective recruits, shifting to a virtual effort that could be less effective at meeting the annual goals for bringing in new personnel.

The Army has stopped bringing new recruits into basic training.for a two-week pause starting on Monday. All recruits already in training will continue, but no new ones are being brought in for now.

To keep current soldiers, the Army has offered voluntary, short-term reenlistment contracts with extension options available from three to 11 months. There are about 9,000 soldiers who are within six months of leaving the Army and eligible for those extensions, Army officials said.

The Marine Corps halted the flow of new recruits into one of its boot camp facilities, at Parris Island in South Carolina, but recruit training continues at the recruit depot in San Diego. The Corps is also offering voluntary extensions for Marines with upcoming retirement or separation dates.

The Air Force has shortened the Basic Military Training program at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, in Texas, and are working to reschedule some recruit assessions to better accommodate the social distancing rules and other preventive measures.

The Navy’s boot camp program continues, but there have been reported cases of COVID-19 at the bootcamp facility at Great Lakes, Illinois, and the recruit training staff has been on lockdown there in an effort to prevent the spread of the disease.

Meanwhile, the Navy has also offered to extend service contracts for existing sailors and has also invited recently-separated sailors to return to serve in an effort to maintain the required staffing levels across the fleet.

For example, would 18-year-olds who graduated high school in 2000 be wealthier today if they had enlisted and served through 2018, or would they have made more money if they had spent those years working in the civilian workforce?

It’s a question separate from the many noble reasons that motivate troops to enlist. It’s a straight money question, aimed at calculating the dollars that result from an important life choice

There is no simple answer. Comparing civilian pay to military compensation can seem like apples and oranges. In addition to basic pay, troops get generous tax-free housing allowances as well as bonuses, special pays and more.

Yet troops surrender more control over their career moves, commit to potentially dangerous work assignments and make frequent family moves that can jeopardize spouses’ earning potential.

Moreover, military personnel typically advance along a standardized career path, but in the civilian sector, promotions and career advancements are far more varied and less predictable.

“The general challenge in military and civilian compensation is that we don’t have a way to track civilian earnings like we track service members’,” said Brooke Goldberg, director of military family policy at the Military Officers Association of America.

Nevertheless, it’s a question that generates a lot of interesting discussion.

Military pay got a big boost in the years immediately following 2001, when a surge of patriotism and overseas operations prompted Congress to grant a series of annual pay raises that were quite generous by historic standards.

Yet in more recent years, budget battles in Washington have led to historically small military pay raises that have failed to keep up with civilian wage growth and have eroded the total value of military compensation packages.

Nevertheless, some evidence suggests that service members who joined the military in 2000 are making more than their civilian counterparts. Overall, military pay raises during the past 18 years have slightly outpaced the growth in average civilian wages (as defined by the government’s Employment Cost Index).

CIVILIAN-MILITARY PAY RAISES SINCE YEAR 2000

Average military pay from 2000 through 2018 grew by 76 percent, compared to civilian wage growth over the same period of 63 percent, according to government data. Yet the news is not so good for troops who missed out on those big pay bumps after 2001.

For troops who joined the military after January 2010, pay raises have failed to keep up with civilian sector wages. Since 2010, civilian pay rose a total of about 19 percent, while military pay climbed by about 16 percent.

CIVILIAN-MILITARY PAY RAISES SINCE YEAR 2010

Pay in the civilian sector is highly dependent on career field, while military pay charts standardize pay for service members of all occupational specialties, said Dan Merry, MOAA’s vice president of government relations.

In 2018, an officer at the O-5 paygrade is making more than $105,000. That’s on par with some civilian jobs for people at a similar age and level of experience.

But “a squared-away engineer on the outside could easily be making $200,000 to $300,000 a year,” Merry said. “Our four-star generals don’t make that.”

Merry is familiar with the military vs. civilian choice.

“I’m prior enlisted. I joined late in life,” Merry said. “I tried college, I tried work, I tried whatever. I made as much money as I needed to make.”

Merry said he got his “Eureka” moment years ago when he was working in a construction job under a retired officer. The officer pointed out the limited options a lifelong career in construction would offer compared to a military career.

Merry later joined the Air Force and retired as a colonel.

Goldberg’s family made a different choice. Her husband, an Air Force pilot, graduated from the Air Force Academy in 2000. She graduated from law school in 2002. She gave up a job offer to move with him to Hurlburt Field in Florida, where they spent the next 10 years.

That move impacted her ability to earn for the family, so, in the final year of her husband’s military service commitment, they opted to do one additional year to ensure GI Bill transferability for their daughter. They turned down the extra $150,000 the Air Force was offering for him to remain in the service.

“$150,000 was not enough to allow the Air Force to decide what our potential was,” Goldberg said. Her husband separated from the Air Force in 2013 and they moved to Washington, D.C., to look for work — just as the government shut down and defense contractors froze hiring.

“So, my pilot husband with an engineering degree and an MBA was unemployed,” Goldberg said. “There was a chunk of about two years where we asked, ‘Should we have stayed in the military?’ Was that more lucrative choice? But the freedom factor to be able to choose — to us that had more value.”

Three people remain missing after a C-2 “Greyhound” carrier onboard delivery aircraft carrying 11 crew and passengers crashed into the Pacific Ocean on Wednesday while in passage to the carrier Ronald Reagan, the Navy said Wednesday.

Rescue efforts recovered eight personnel southeast of Okinawa at approximately 3:23 p.m. local time. Those eight individuals were taken to the Reagan for medical evaluation and were in good condition, the Navy said.

“Our Sailors are in my thoughts and prayers as we perform search and rescue operations for a downed aircraft in the Philippine Sea,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said. “Eight of the 11 Sailors are safe and sound on USS Ronald Reagan. We continue to search for three.”

The cause of the crash was not immediately clear, Navy officials said.

“Our entire focus is on finding all of our sailors,” said Rear Adm. Marc H. Dalton, commander of Task Force 70. “U.S. and Japanese ships and aircraft are searching the area of the crash, and we will be relentless in our efforts.”

Despite the unknown circumstances, “the fact that at least eight of the 11 onboard have been rescued and are said to be in good condition implies that whatever happened to the Greyhound was not catastrophic, and that the crew had the time and means to ditch the aircraft in a controlled manner,” said Gareth Jennings, Aviation editor of Jane’s by IHS Markit.

The aircraft was conducting a routine transport flight carrying passengers and cargo from Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni to Reagan, which was operating in the Philippine Sea as part of an exercise with Japanese military.

The C-2 aircraft crashed about 90 miles northwest of Okinotorishima, a Japanese atoll, Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera said, according to a ministry spokesman.

The plane was taking part in an ongoing joint U.S.-Japan naval exercise in waters surrounding Okinawa from Nov. 16-26. The Navy called it the “premier training event” between the two navies, designed to increase defensive readiness and interoperability in air and sea operations.

The 7th Fleet has had two fatal accidents in Asian waters this year, leaving 17 sailors dead and prompting the removal of eight top Navy officers from their posts, including the 7th Fleet commander.

The Navy has concluded that the collisions were avoidable and resulted from widespread failures by the crews and commanders, who didn’t quickly recognize and respond to unfolding emergencies. A Navy report recommended numerous changes to address the problems, ranging from improved training to increasing sleep and stress management for sailors.

Mishaps involving the C-2A airframe are rare, according to the Flight Safety Foundation’s Aviation Safety Network database. Since the 1960s, there have been nine aircraft losses, six of which were fatal, killing a total of 59 people.

The last fatal C-2A crash was in 1973, when a C-2A lost both engines and crashed into the Mediterranean Sea, killing seven of 10 on board.

The most recent incident came in 2005, when an unsafe landing gear indication light led to the aircrew making a belly landing at Chambers Field in Norfolk, Virginia. There were no fatalities and all personnel walked away.

The worst recorded C-2A crash occurred in October 1969, when six crew members and 21 passengers went down in the Gulf of Tonkin while flying from the Philippines to the aircraft carrier Constellation. All persons on board were killed and are officially listed as Vietnam War missing-in-action, as their bodies were never recovered.

The Army fired 13-foot-long missiles from the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, a long-range surface-to-surface precision-strike weapon system, into South Korea’s territorial waters. according to a statement from the Korea-based U.S. 8th Army

The test came just hours after North Korea’s test of an ICBM which analysts said for the first time displayed the capability to exceed 10,000 km in range, a distance capable of potentially threatening New York or San Diego.

Following the launch Friday morning, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joe Dunford, and Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, Adm. Harry Harris called the Republic of Korea Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Lee Sun-jin, according to the Pentagon.

“During the call Dunford and Harris expressed the ironclad commitment to the U.S.-Republic of Korea alliance,” a Pentagon release stated. ”The three leaders also discussed military response options.” Harris joined Dunford in his Pentagon office to make the phone call.

The ATACMS missile launch was a “combined training event to exercise assets countering North Korea’s missile launch/nuclear test,” the Army statement said. 

Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. Jeff Davis issued an statement on the launch from the Defense Department. 

“The U.S. Department of Defense detected and tracked a single North Korea missile launch today at about 10:41 a.m. [Eastern Daylight Time],” said Davis, reading the official statement. “We assess that this missile was an intercontinental ballistic missile, as had been expected.”

Davis said the missile was launched from Mupyong-ni, and said it traveled “about 1,000 kilometers before splashing down in the Sea of Japan.”

Mupyong-ni “is an arms plant up in the far north of North Korea, north of Pyongyang,” Davis said. The missile “splashed down inside Japan’s exclusive economic zone, about 88 nautical miles from Hokkaido,” Davis told reporters at the Pentagon.

“We’re working with our interagency partners for a more detailed assessment,” he said.

North American Aerospace Defense Command assessed the launch and “determined it was not a threat to North America,” Davis said.

Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, told Defense News that the decision to do a night launch from a new location “demonstrates that we can’t preempt them” from future launches.

[What war with North Korea would look like]

Most worryingly, Lewis noted the reported 45-minute flight time of the missile and other data, which would “be consistent” with longer-range estimates of the weapon’s capabilities — perhaps putting its range in the 10,000 km range — distance enough to put continental U.S. locations at risk.

“Preliminary reports [are] consistent with computer models showing that the missile can hit targets in CONUS,” he said.

David Wright, co-director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Global Security Program, wrote on his website that the launch characteristics show that a number of major U.S. cities may now be in range. 

“Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago appear to be well within range of this missile, [and] Boston and New York may be just within range,” Wright wrote. “Washington DC may be just out of range.”

However, Wright stressed that “it is important to keep in mind that we do not know what payload the missile carried on this test. If it was lighter than the actual warhead the missile would carry, the ranges would be shorter than those estimated above.”

Joshua Pollack, a non-proliferation expert with the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, California, was less confident that the 45-minute flight time guarantees a 10,000 km range, but noted that if that range is in play, North Korea would be able to hold naval hub San Diego as a target.

The city appeared highlighted as a potential target on a map that appeared in the background of a 2013 North Korea propaganda film a North Korea.

Pollack added that the launch profile raises the possibility that North Korea has tested an ICBM Ballistic Missile Operating Area, a region of the country where mobile launch platforms would be able to move around freely and securely.

“The word of the day is ‘ICBM BMOA,’” he told Defense News.

A July 4 launch, which Pentagon officials said involved an ICBM-class missile, occurred at an aircraft plant area known as Panghyon. North Korea used a mobile platform to launch that weapon for the first time, Davis said July 5.

In response to that launch, the U.S. and South Korea issued a show of force by firing weapons from a pair of Army Tactical Missile System batteries, controlled by the U.S. Eighth Army. 

The Pentagon had been conducting surveillance of North Korea’s known launch sites in the last week and had said previously it had seen evidence North Korea was preparing for another launch.

Two U.S. Navy ships — the destroyer Momsen and the radar ship Howard O. Lorenzen —were still in the area at the time of Friday’s launch, a defense official said on the condition of anonymity, but it was not yet clear if those vessels were able to track the missile.

The ships tracked North Korea’s July 4 launch.

Friday’s missile did enter space, Davis said, which led to the conclusion it was an ICBM. An ICBM is defined as a missile that can travel farther than 5,500 km.

“It was another high loft,” he said.

According to a statement from U.S. 7th Fleet Public Affairs, the deceased included:

• Gunner’s Mate Seaman Dakota Kyle Rigsby, 19, from Palmyra, Virginia
• Yeoman 3rd Class Shingo Alexander Douglass, 25, from San Diego, California
• Sonar Technician 3rd Class Ngoc T Truong Huynh, 25, from Oakville, Connecticut
• Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class Noe Hernandez, 26, from Weslaco, Texas
• Fire Controlman 2nd Class Carlos Victor Ganzon Sibayan, 23, from Chula Vista, California
• Personnel Specialist 1st Class Xavier Alec Martin, 24, from Halethorpe, Maryland
• Fire Controlman 1st Class Gary Leo Rehm Jr., 37, from Elyria, Ohio

In the months to come, the Defense Department will roll out an expansive education program to ensure all troops understand the difference between the two benefits and are prepared to make such a critical personal financial decision. There will be classes, online educational tools and a calculator that will enable military personnel and their families to compare the two options based on their current career status and plans for the future.

The law contains a grandfather clause giving all troops entering the service prior to 2018 the option to keep the legacy retirement benefit, which offers a monthly pension check equal to 50 percent of basic pay after 20 years of service.

The new retirement benefit offers a smaller pension check, 40 percent of basic pay after 20 years, yet also includes monthly government contributions to an individual retirement account that service members own outright after completing just two years of service.

It will be similar to 401(k) contributions for private sector employees, and mark the first time the military offers some limited retirement benefit to troops who separate before reaching 20 years of service. Historically, noncareer service members — more than 80 percent of the force — have received no retirement benefit.

The new system will make individual retirement account contributions equal to at least one percent of basic pay. Beyond that, the government will provide matching funds to troops who contribute their own cash. The maximum is 5 percent, meaning if troops agree to contribute 5 percent of their own pay to the individual retirement account, the government will also contribute 5 percent.

Individual contributions are tax-deferred, meaning the tax is payable upon withdrawal. But money deposited into these retirement accounts, known as a Thrift Savings Plan, is generally not available for withdrawal before the owner reaches age 59½. Early withdrawal comes with significant tax penalties.

Personal finance experts say the most important factor in the decision will be whether an individual service member plans to stay for a 20-year military career. For those who expect to reach the 20-year mark, the traditional pension system is probably a better deal.

Yet for young troops who are unsure about their career plans, the new system promises some retirement benefit for those who might leave after long before 20 years of service.

Current policy requires service members to maintain body fat levels below a key threshold: 28 percent for men and 36 percent for women. If they fail, they must undergo a “tape test” to estimate their body fat percentage.

Critics have long argued that tape test is flawed.

Tape test failures are recorded in official personnel records and can adversely affect troops’ promotion prospects. Repeated failures can result in involuntary separation from the service.

Top military leaders say that while details of the policy might change, underlying fitness standards should not.

“If we do that, we have a potential liability on the battlefield,” Command Sgt. Maj. John Troxell, the senior enlisted adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier this year. “The minute we lose that competitive advantage in combat because our enemies are training harder than we are, we’ll have more problems than we have right now.”

The Marines’ use of the tilt-rotor Osprey is controversial in Okinawa, where many residents oppose the U.S. military presence and fear the aircraft and its unique design are dangerous and pose risks to local residents.

U.S. military officials first notified Japanese authorities of their plans to resume flight operations on Friday and delivered a final briefing for the government of Japan on Monday morning, officials said.

“It is very important for Japanese citizens to understand and share our utmost confidence in the safety and reliability of the MV-22, or we would not continue flight operations,” Nicholson said in the statement.

“It is equally important that we ensure our pilots have every opportunity to conduct training, which allows us to remain proficient, and enable us to respond when most needed in support of the Alliance.”

The Dec. 13 crash in shallow water was the sixth major Marine aviation mishap since October. It came only six days after Marine Capt. Jake Frederick was killed when his F/A-18C Hornet crashed into the Pacific about 120 miles southeast of Iwakuni, Japan.

General James “Mad Dog” Mattis, who is being considered for Secretary of Defense, was very impressive yesterday. A true General’s General!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 20, 2016

If Trump’s administration can accomplish even a portion of this, it could have sweeping effects on rank-and-file military personnel, touching everything from individual advancement opportunities to the number of U.S. troops stationed overseas and overall operational tempo. The scope of growth being suggested would require many more officers and noncommissioned officers, influencing, over the course of several years, how each service recruits, promotes and retains its workforce.

It could reshape how many American troops find themselves assigned to geopolitical hot spots, including the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia. And all of this, in theory, would ease the pace at which service members are deployed or actively preparing to go overseas, which amounts to time away from their homes and families.

It is unclear, though, whether Trump’s plans include a boost for troops’ pay and benefits, the value of which has eroded as annual raises have fallen below civilian wage growth for the past five years. This has become a source of frustration and anxiety among rank-and-file personnel, many of whom feel they’ve been asked to do more with less. 

In the past, cuts to military personnel accounts came at the request of the Pentagon’s top brass, which voiced concerns that rising personnel costs would take money from modernization and readiness accounts. And any plans to ratchet up the size of the force could renew pressure on military personnel accounts because maintaining a larger force costs more money.  

Standing in Trump’s way is the ongoing fight in Washington over mandatory spending caps enacted by Congress in 2011 with hopes of reigning in the federal budget. This has inflicted a unique form of paralysis on the Pentagon, in particular, which has managed to ease some shortfalls by leveraging the $25 billion to $30 billion set aside each year for combat operations and other overseas contingencies.

Although there is widespread distaste for the Budget Control Act, lawmakers have been unable to negotiate a way forward that increases defense spending while ensuring other areas of the budget are kept in check. Republican leaders in Congress say they are hopeful the next administration, coupled with a Republican majority in both houses, will bring new possibilities for a repeal. But Democrats have promised a fight if Trump and his administration insist on increasing defense spending without boosting domestic programs.

“Both presidential candidates called for an end to sequestration for defense,” said Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio and a key member of the House Armed Services Committee. “I believe Congress is ready to repeal it, certainly on the military side.”

Yet even if a compromise is reached on Capitol Hill, the cost for Trump’s military proposals may be too much for fiscal hawks to accept. Earlier this month, officials from the conservative American Enterprise Institute estimated “about $55 to $60 billion extra per year over four years for the meat and potatoes of a military buildup.” Fully implementing his plan would surely push that number higher.

“Adding in crucial smaller programs, accounting for weapons cost growth, and returning the entire force to adequate readiness pushes the real price tag even further upward,” the report said. A more realistic figure is “somewhere between an additional $250 to $300 billion over four years.”

Convincing Democrats and skeptical Republicans already wary of federal debt to support such massive investments will take political savvy and legwork, much of which will fall on Trump’s yet-to-be-named military appointees.

AN ARMY OF 540,000

Trump’s military agenda has been heavily influenced by researchers at the conservative Heritage Foundation, a Washington think tank. Its annual ” Index of U.S. Military Strength,” released in mid-November, concludes that America’s armed forces have withered. They are, the report argues, “only marginally able to meet the demands of defending vital national interests.” It assigns that term — “marginal” — to the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

The Army is in much worse shape, according to these findings. With only one-third of the force at “acceptable” readiness, the Army has become “smaller, older and weaker,” the Heritage report warns.

If current downsizing plans remain intact, the Army and Marine Corps will drop to their smallest combined size in almost 70 years.

Photo Credit: Staff Sgt. Jennifer Bunn/Army

Trump has said he wants to halt the Army’s planned personnel drawdown, which is on course to bottom out at 450,000 active-duty soldiers in 2018. Instead, he wants boost today’s force by 60,000, for a total of 540,000 soldiers. Defense advocates, even those who’ve been critical of Trump, say this is a necessity.

“The Army is grossly undermanned.” said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a 32-year infantry officer who held top-level posts at the Pentagon and in NATO and later served as drug czar in President Bill Clinton’s administration. “You’ve got to have a military combat capability that is believed by the Russians and the North Koreans, among others, as being capable and willing to confront them in an air-ground-sea battle.”

McCaffrey said specifically that there is “inadequate ground combat power” in Europe, which is under threat from a resurgent Russia. Trump has indicated he wants to reset relations with Moscow, but Pentagon leadership and even members of his own party believe that would be a mistake. The Heritage Foundation says Russia is the primary threat to American interests, followed by Iran, China and terrorist groups such as the Islamic State. North Korea was downgraded, from “hostile” to merely “aggressive.”

It is unclear whether the growth Trump envisions would translate to more troops deployed or assigned outside the United States. He has said he wants foreign allies to take a larger role providing for their own defense, hinting that some overseas military bases could be consolidated or shuttered. But McCaffrey said he is confident Trump will see value in those alliances and strive to reinforce U.S. military presence in key regions.

“At some point,” the retired general said, “math counts in warfare. If you don’t want to fight, then maintain a capability that is persuasive to your adversary as being capable of taking them on.”

DOZENS OF NEW SHIPS & SUBMARINES

Trump also as vowed to build the 350-ship Navy that Republican defense hawks have long sought. Today, the battle force totals 272 ships and submarines.

It’s unclear what mix of ships the incoming administration wants to build, but one thing is for sure: There will be considerable cost. Ford-class aircraft carriers, for instance, are about $10 billion each. A single Virginia-class attack sub is $3 billion. Each new littoral combat ship is $500 million. And beyond hardware, this plan would require the addition of 50,000 sailors, by one estimate.

In a campaign memo, Trump advisers promised specifically to fund modernizing “a significant number of the Navy’s Ticonderoga-class cruisers,” some of which have been sidelined for months or years pending overhauls. The memo describes plans to invest heavily in new subs and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and to revitalize shipyards and get warships the maintenance that has been deferred in the last few years because due to budget cuts. Trump wants to identify where old shipyards went out of business and have the ability to restart, an effort that would be led by the incoming Navy secretary, and to build a robust training pipeline for skilled workers in the shipyards. This would increase the support base for a growing Navy.

The Ticonderoga-class cruiser Vicksburg escorts the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt as they pass the Rock of Gibraltar while entering the Mediterranean Sea.

Photo Credit: MCSN Anthony Hopkins/Navy

Even if Trump’s administration can find the money needed for such a dramatic expansion, new ships can’t be built overnight. Reaching a fleet of the size Trump has proposed will take until the 2030s, said Bryan Clark, who served as senior aide to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert and now works as an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. To get there, the Navy would need to accelerate aircraft carrier production, start building three Virginia-class attack submarines per year, continue to commission new Littoral Combat Ships and have new frigates doing low-end missions in 2019.

Such a buildup would propel the service from a force of 330,000 sailors today to more than 380,000. If enacted, Trump’s Navy would be largest size since 1998.

MORE AIRCRAFT & AIRMEN TO MAINTAIN THEM

Trump’s Air Force would boast 1,200 fighter aircraft, ideally, an increase of about 100. Including surveillance, cargo planes and other platforms, the Air Force fleet numbers nearly 2,000 today.

Defense advocates are hopeful that Trump’s administration will push to supplement the Air Force’s operations and maintenance budget, making it easier to pay for spare parts, fuel and training hours. “It needs to be done,” said retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, who was the Air Force’s chief of staff during the first Gulf War. “The Air Force is too small now, and in particular, the combat flying elements of the Air Force are too small. If he is able to follow through on such a notion, I think that would be grand.”

The Air Force needs to refocus on improving readiness and training, says former Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill McPeak. More money would enable more flying hours in general and more large-scale exercises, and help it remain sharp if the U.S. pulls back from the Middle East.

Photo Credit: Air Force photo

The Air Force has declined from its post-9/11 peak of 376,616 airmen in fiscal 2004 to roughly 311,000 in fiscal 2015. That drawdown was most painfully felt in 2014, when a series of voluntary and involuntary force management programs cut roughly 20,000 airmen in two years and left the active-duty Air Force at its lowest end strength since 1948 — the year after it was established as its own service.

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James later admitted that she soon realized the sequestration-driven force cuts “just didn’t seem to be adding up anymore,” and were causing significant strain on the force. So leaders refocused on trying to rebuild, especially in crucial areas such as cyber security, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, battlefield airmen and maintenance. Today, the Air Force numbers about 317,000.

John Venable, an Air Force veteran and a defense fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said he believes Trump could boost Air Force personnel by roughly 40,000 airmen in the next few years, a number needed to operate and maintain the new equipment Trump wants to buy. But it will have to be a methodical growth to bring airmen on board and train them, he said. Today, the Air Force is about 700 pilots short, and training new personnel to replace departing pilots is not a quick process.

ENOUGH MARINES TO FIGHT TWO WARS AT ONCE

Trump has promised to build a Marine Corps capable of simultaneously

winning

two wars. It would be based on 36 battalions, up from the current force structure of 24 active-duty infantry battalions, two active-duty tank battalions and supporting units. That means adding between 8,000 and 12,000 more Marines to the service’s roster, another potentially expensive personnel plus-up dependent on a significant influx of new funding.   Using the fiscal 2017 personnel costs as a base, that could total more than $1 billion per year just in personnel costs, before equipment and training are factored in.

But supporters say it’s worth the cost. “A Marine Corps of 36 battalions would enable an ability to handle a major conflict and an ability to handle other taskings around the world, wherever this may be,” Dakota Wood, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

About 17 percent of the service’s active-duty force is now deployed. More personnel would give Marines more time between deployments.

Photo Credit: Cpl. Aaron Patterson/Marine Corps

By getting larger, the service would also be able to give Marines more time at home between deployments, he said. Currently, 31,277 Marines are forward deployed, about 17 percent of the service’s active-duty force, officials said. Traditionally, the Marine Corps has committed 15 battalions to conflicts such as Vietnam and the Gulf War, Wood added. Having 30 battalions plus an extra six for units that are training or otherwise unavailable to deploy would allow the Marines to be more than a one-war force.

“We say that the United States needs to have the ability to handle two wars,” Wood said. “Not that we’re saying that we’re going to be in two wars simultaneously, but if you only have a one-war force and you have to commit to it, that’s everything.”

With reporting by Stephen Losey of Air Force Times, David Larter of Navy Times, Meghann Myers of Army Times and Jeff Schogol of Marine Corps Times. 

Leo Shane III covers Congress, Veterans Affairs and the White House for Military Times. He can be reached at lshane@militarytimes.com.

Andrew Tilghman is Military Times’ Pentagon bureau chief. He can be reached at atilghman@militarytimes.com.

Still, it’s an important strategic shift, coming after months of U.S. support for Turkish troops fighting ISIS in the border area. Both sides have disagreed about the battle plan for defeating the Islamic State group, however. U.S. commanders want to focus on Raqqa. Turkey is prioritizing other parts of ISIS-held northern Syria.

The U.S. and Turkey are at odds, too, over American support for the Syrian Kurdish militants also fighting ISIS. Syrian Kurds have proven to be a reliable U.S. ally on the ground, but Turkey believes they have ties to terrorist groups that target the Turkish government.

American commanders are eager to find a ground-level infantry force capable of fighting ISIS in and around Raqqa. The U.S. would like Turkey’s powerful military to support American-backed operations there, but the Turkish government has refused to coordinate in any way with the Syrian Kurds.

There are about 300 U.S. special operations troops on the ground in Syria.

Strategic disagreements must be resolved by high-level talks between Turkey and the United States, Dorrian said. “There needs to be some continued, ongoing diplomatic discussions about the manner in which we continue to fight Daesh in northern Syria,” he said, referring to an alternative name for the Islamic State group. Dorrian added the lack of direct U.S. military support reflects concern that the Turkish military is not adhering to the broader U.S. battle plan. “We believe that all of the operations in Syria against Daesh should be coordinated very closely between all the parties that are involved.”

Turkey decided to move on al Bab “independently,” he added, “and what we’d like to do is to continue to work with them to develop a plan where everyone remains focused on Daesh.”

The U.S. wants to avoid ground-level fighting between Turkey and the American-backed Syrian Kurdish forces, which would drain momentum from the fight against ISIS. “We don’t want to have any chance of partners that both have an interest in defeating Daesh converging in a way that would be unhelpful,” Dorrian said. He declined to speculate about how or when the U.S. might revive military support for Turkish operations against ISIS. “This is a diplomatic issue that is the subject of ongoing discussion. I need to let the diplomatic side work this out. It’s not my place to opine about it,” he said.

Syrian Kurdish forces are a primary component of the American-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, which launched an operation to isolate Raqqa on Nov. 6. So far those forces have made limited progress in the towns outside of Raqqa.

It’s unclear whether President-elect Donald Trump might shift U.S. policy regarding the fight against the Islamic State and how the U.S. military coordinates with Turkey.