No direct sponsorship contributed to this report. This report is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies CSIS , a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues.
Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author s. All rights reserved. Please consult the PDF for references. Skip to main content. Photo: Spc. Download the Report.
Key Takeaways After a dip in personnel strength in FY , both regular and reserve components have recovered. This represents a substantial reduction to earlier growth plans, but probably the most expansion that can be done in the current budget and security environment. New air and missile defense units are entering the force. Security Force Advisory Brigades continue despite their focus on stability operations. Other new kinds of units, such as the widely discussed multidomain brigades, remain mostly conceptual.
There is now less tension between regular Army and its reserve components as a result of closer consultations, higher overall budgets, and shared recruitment challenges. Army modernization, which forms the basis for future forces, is a mix of good and bad news: the good news is that the Army continues production of proven systems and has a well-modernized force as a result. In an environment of constrained resources, the Army will need to cut existing Brigade Combat Teams BCTs if it wants to build new units and procure new systems.
So far it has been unwilling to do this. Download the Full Report. Written By. Media Queries. Contact H. Most Recent From Mark F. Cancian Upcoming Event.
November 16, Military Forces in FY Navy. November 2, In the News. DOD hyping climate change mitigation investments during FY budget build.
Inside Defense Tony Bertuca. The infantry community has a problem. For the first time in 50 years, the infantry brigade can expect to have its artillery outgunned and be under electronic and aerial attack. Army leaders often note that multidomain operations will not only have an impact on Army organizations and operations but will drive Army modernization efforts as well.
I suggest that the Army needs to shift away from three infantry battalions in an infantry brigade to two. This will allow the brigade to bring in sorely needed electronic warfare and air defense capabilities that currently do not exist in the unit and increase other existing capabilities that will prove essential in a future fight.
Imagine the infantry brigade as a weapon system similar to a guided missile. The purpose of the missile is to put its warhead on a target to destroy it; the purpose of the brigade is to put the infantry on their objectives. A big warhead is useless if the missile is spoofed, fired against the wrong target, or shot down.
While I may be advocating for a smaller warhead less infantry , I am simultaneously arguing that we need to improve the other components of the missile to ensure the missile still reaches its target to deliver the payload. A more precise and reliable missile will be more effective even with a smaller warhead.
In this case, the infantry brigade is no different. There are four limitations and four assumptions to note before getting into the argument for such a drastic change. The first limitation is that any change must exist within a zero-growth Army. In other words, to create a new position, an old one must first be eliminated. Next, the infantry brigade, while being optimized for multidomain operations and decisive action threat environments , should remain flexible enough to support other missions — such as ongoing counter-terrorism, security, base support, and advising operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Africa.
Third, all numbers for this article are drawn from official Army publications, which may or may not reflect actual manning numbers. The final limiting factor is that recommended changes are only for the infantry brigade force structure and not for Stryker or armored brigade formations.
The assumptions driving these recommended changes are as follows. First, in a multidomain fight, enablers — such as engineers, air defense, and soldiers who specialize in electronic warfare — will be as important as infantry, if not more, to ensure the infantry is able to conduct its mission. Thus, the priority of an infantry brigade will remain to put the infantryman on the objective. Third, electronic warfare, air defense, and manned reconnaissance assets will increase in importance as communications and unmanned assets are increasingly disrupted, degraded , or destroyed.
But experience has shown some of the flaws with that model. Todd South has written about crime, courts, government and the military for multiple publications since and was named a Pulitzer finalist for a co-written project on witness intimidation.
Todd is a Marine veteran of the Iraq War. Your Army. By Todd South. Sep 20, The Army is converting another brigade combat team into an armored unit as it realigns the force to meet the challenge of a near-peer adversary. Kevin S. The Army had planned to grow end strength to spread deployment demands over more soldiers, but that is not feasible. An opposing pressure is for modernization and building different kinds of capabilities. The most common scenarios for great power conflicts do not require large ground forces.
The Pacific theater consists mainly of ocean and long distances. In the most challenging European scenario, the defense of the Baltic states, geography makes rapid deployment of large ground forces difficult. General Milley has often stated his concern about Army readiness to fight a high-end conflict. Russian forces. The first of these new kinds of units to be fielded is cyber.
The Army created cyber units quickly to get this new capability into the field and experiment with it. However, the Army is having a hard time recruiting enough personnel with the right skills, so cyber units are only partly filled, despite their relatively small size several hundred in total.
Tensions between regulars and reservists have existed since the beginning of the Republic. The two forces have different perspectives, histories, and cultures, so the resulting tensions are a challenge to be managed, not solved.
This tension is particularly an issue for the Army because it has, by far, the largest reserve component, both in relative and absolute terms. For example, 52 percent of the total Army is in the reserve components, but only 35 percent of the total Air Force, 18 percent of the total Marine Corps, and 15 percent of the total Navy are in reserve components.
Army reserve components are nearly twice the size of all the other reserve components put together in FY , , versus , Institution of the Total Force Policy in , which called for increased reliance on the reserves, the initiation of the Volunteer Force in , which raised the cost of military personnel, and the end of the draft in , which cut off an easy supply of active duty personnel, caused the ratio to move away from an active-heavy force to parity between the components.
With the end of the Cold War, the ratio changed to a reserve heavy force as the regular force decreased more rapidly than the reserves. Figure 2: Army Force Mix Ratio Tensions between the components peak during drawdowns when constrained resources force difficult trade-offs. Key to easing recent tensions was the National Commission on the Future of the Army.
The bad news this year is that plans for force expansion in the reserve components have collapsed, as they have with the regular Army, amid difficulties in recruiting and retention. As the charts below show, the Army Reserve had planned to increase to , and the Army National Guard to , Instead, both struggle to maintain their FY end strength.
Rather than increase size, the Reserve components have opted to increase readiness. The number of National Guard rotations to Combat Training Centers has increased from two to four, and the number of reserve component training days has increased.
0コメント