Military value analysis and brigade combat team reorganization briefing (2)
1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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
Notes de l'éditeur
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.