The active component Army is working to implement a plan that will erode the National Guard, and they are doing it under the guise of “modernization.” The Army Restructuring Initiative calls for removing all Apache attack helicopters from the Guard, an action that would undermine the operational capability of a reserve force that has served admirably during the past 12 years of sustained combat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Army has chosen this course of action because it is woefully underfunded and lacks good options. Nonetheless it is a mistake of epic proportions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We need an independent commission, authorized by Congress, to evaluate the optimal force structure for the Army and its aviation brigades, and show just how expeditionary and cost-effective a properly balanced force can be. This model would mirror the 2013 Air Force commission, which is credited with helping to mediate the differences between the Air Force and Air National Guard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An independent review would show that the National Guard Bureau’s proposal to keep six Apache battalions in the Guard would maintain the Guard’s emergency response and combat capabilities, and would reduce costs as compared with the Army Restructuring Initiative proposal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the proposed Army Restructuring Initiative is implemented, a total of 111 Army helicopters, including every AH-64 Apache, will be removed from the National Guard. As the Defense Department’s premier domestic emergency response force, that is a loss the Guard cannot afford.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the peak of wildfire activity this year, the California National Guard had nineteen UH-60 Black Hawk and UH-72 Lakota helicopters in the air, dropping water, gathering information and performing medical evacuations. Only days later, the CNG launched two helicopters to survey the site of an earthquake while simultaneously performing an unrelated search-and-rescue mission elsewhere. If the Army Restructuring Initiative had been implemented during that period, the CNG would not have been able to respond in the same way, and lives would have been put at risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To compensate for other states’ loss of Apaches, the Army plan would move three of those vital medevac helicopters out of California, severely jeopardizing our ability to respond to domestic emergencies. All across the country, the Guard’s ability to perform those missions is being threatened \u2014 and the American people are being endangered \u2014 as the Army plans to transfer crucial aircraft to the active component Army, whose job it isn’t to respond to domestic emergencies. Nine states stand to lose Apaches and their exceptional surveillance, search-and-rescue and imagery-capture capabilities, while 10 more states would lose vital Black Hawks or Lakotas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Amazingly, the Army is planning to implement this change despite the fact that it would also severely damage our combat response overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is essential to our nation’s defense that the active component and reserve forces mesh seamlessly, as they did, for example, during the 40th Combat Aviation Brigade Headquarters’ 2011 tour in Iraq. The Headquarters, which is a CNG unit, commanded every U.S. Army helicopter in Iraq, overseeing more than 200 aircraft and 3,000 soldiers from Guard, Reserve and active component units.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The 40th CAB Headquarters had training and experience with each type of Army aircraft, including the Utah National Guard’s Apaches, and when command passed from the active component 1st CAB to the Guard’s 40th CAB, nothing changed aside from the personnel. The two headquarters were interchangeable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That would not be the case under the Army’s restructuring plan, which would strip Apache helicopters, mechanics and know-how from the Guard, leaving our other units unable to take on certain duties. Guard units cannot integrate with the active component if our parts do not mesh, which is why every Guard unit is organized to mirror its active component counterpart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conversely, the National Guard Bureau’s aviation plan would remove only two of the Guard’s eight current Apache battalions. The other six battalions would remain in the National Guard, enabling Guard aviation brigades to mirror the active component and maintain interchangeability when deployed overseas. Unlike the Army plan, this allows for an acceptable level of risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When National Guard units deploy for a contingency operation, they perform the same jobs as active component forces, and they do it at roughly the same price. It’s when Guard units are at home, where soldiers spend the vast majority of their time, that the Guard shows its greatest value: A Guard unit at home station costs only 33 cents on the dollar compared with an active component unit that has the same responsibilities and missions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Relying on part-time Guard troops instead of a large standing army that exceeds our needs could save billions in salaries, retirement benefits, health care, training and infrastructure \u2014 billions that instead could be invested in creating a flexible, expeditionary and technologically advanced military for the 21st century. Rising personnel costs now make up about half of all defense spending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Times of peace are times of cost-cutting at the Department of Defense. Traditionally DoD takes each post-war lull as an opportunity to whittle away the capabilities of its reserve forces while maintaining as much active component strength as possible. That model is backwards, but DoD has gotten away with it in previous years because our nation’s economic might made the disregard of cost-effectiveness somehow seem acceptable. We no longer have that luxury.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The greatest current threat to national security is the economic one, and it has taken its toll on our military. The Army’s lack of adequate funding makes it imperative that we leverage our most fiscally responsible option. Evidence of the Guard’s combat-proven capabilities and cost-effectiveness is overwhelming, but we need Congress’ help to break DoD from its dated ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Maj. Gen. David S. Baldwin is Adjutant General California National Guard and Maj. Gen. Jeff Burton is Adjutant General Utah National Guard<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The active component Army is working to implement a plan that will erode the National Guard, and they are doing it un…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":37522,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_yoast_wpseo_meta-robots-noindex":"","_yoast_wpseo_meta-robots-nofollow":"","_yoast_wpseo_canonical":"","_acf":"","_yoast_wpseo_primary_category":14,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_smg_distribution_targets":[]},"categories":[14],"tags":[],"coauthors":[1846],"class_list":["post-17558","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion"],"acf":{"subheadline":"","legacy_arc_id":"TAYYMVEG6BDP3G643IBBNH2HQU","arc_canonical_url":"\/opinion\/2014\/10\/09\/opinion-a-better-plan-for-army-aviation\/","remove_feature_photo":false,"is_sponsored":false,"subtype":"","redirect_url":"","disable_inline_ads":false,"native_logo_pretext":"Presented By:"},"yoast_head":"\n