Talk:Restructuring of the United States Army
Terms that come to find as fodder for this article
UEx nd UEy are the first restructuring terms that come to mind Eric M Gearhart 12:03, 30 July 2008 (CDT)
The Army is rapidly infusing state-of-the-art, commercial off-the-shelf information technology into brigade combat team (BCT), unit of employment x (UEx, a division equivalent), and unit of employment y (UEy, a theater and corps equivalent) warfighting platforms, strategic reach-back sites, and signal formations.
- Yep. I had them going in on the revision in progress, and the more restructuring refs the better, since some conflict, which may be only a question of date (e.g., how many aviation brigades, if the Airborne and Air Assault immediately become IBCTs).
- UE presents some interesting real-world problems. One of the things that hindsight shows us is that the UEy model gets a little strange in the real world. Ignoring the very real Korean politics, having a four-star in Korea commanding a reinforced division works because he heads a "sub-unified command" of PACCOM. I've been rereading Tommy Franks' autobiography and the command structure to deal simultaneousy with Afghanistan and Iraq. It was fine for McKiernan to be a UEy commander running the conventional combat until the Iraqi Army broke up, but I believe the seeds of Abu Ghraib, among other things, came by creating MNC-I, a UEy equivalent, in the post-high-intensity phase. I'm not saying Sanchez did the world's best job, but I wonder if MNF-I had existed, MNC-I was a UEy running operations, and CG MNF-I had oversight of things like rear area and prison/intel operations.
- So, look to today's world. Neither MNF-I nor ISAF are three-star commands, as they would be if they were UEy. I recognize that the multinational aspects of both make calling them sub-unified commands of CENTCOM, justifying a four-star, have some political problems, but that's really what both are. Maybe we need to define an UEz, which is assumed to be multinational from the start, and presented to allies as a headquarters designed for coalition operations where the CG (HMFWIIIC would violate CZ family-friendliness).
- This is beyond the scope, I believe, of the restructuring article, which should report what is being planned and done. OTOH, it's not unreasonable to have a criticism section, with authoritative sources that have problems with some of the plans. I really, really don't want to get in the middle of the Stryker debates; I'm C3I-ISR and SOF. Incidentally, I was amazed to discover that it's named for two real soldiers named Stryker -- I had long assumed it was John Wayne's SGT Stryker, which would fit with everything I've heard about GEN Shinseki having a very strange (but funny) sense of humor. Apropos of Shinseki, it would be a braver man than I who would touch Restructuring of the United States Army Berets. Howard C. Berkowitz 12:45, 30 July 2008 (CDT)
- Hahaha yep I used to ask Lieutenants about "this new UEy and UEx thing" just to watch them trip over themselves trying to explain it to Private Gearhart :) Eric M Gearhart
- Howard, do you plan to go into subjects like rebasing, TRO of the Guard and Reserve, NORTHCOM, JFCOM relationships and so on?--Robert W. White 15:25, 31 July 2008 (CDT)
But I do understand rocket science....
Excellent questions. In part, you are asking things I'm trying to understand.
I suspect someone in the Guard or Reserve would be better than I to understand the politics. I'm still trying to figure out whether Total Force is even still a U.S. policy. In the process of looking for other information, though, I ran across some fairly vitriolic articles, at the state level, in response to taking an existing NG combat brigade and converting it to a Support Brigade, rather than an HBCT. I'll have to look for the quote, but one state AG put it as bluntly as "our soldiers like to shoot tanks, and if we don't get an HBCT, you won't retain them."
Rebasing probably needs its own article, obviously tied in with BRAC.
To be honest, I hadn't even thought about NORTHCOM and JFC.
What I had been doing
LOL...I had gotten diverted into the redefined ADA roles which actually made sense in being called maneuver enhancements. On the one paw, ADA in Iraq are being reassigned to convoy escort in the absence of an air threat. Changing paws, however, there apparently are a number of missions, ranging from the ADAM cell (ADA+Aviation, and probably fires, deconflicting the BCT airspace). In the last couple of weeks, however, there have been a number of announcements beyond the existing NBMD/TBMD, and getting into a "C-RAM" ( Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar) role that seems very near term, possibly joint with Israel. C-RAM goes beyond counterbattery radar, and actively shoots down the incomings. There are several active systems both laser and autocannon. Both can shoot down a GRAD/Katyusha now; Israel is reported to be considering buying Navy-surplus Phalanx CIWS, which, won't deal with a supersonic sea-skimmer, apparently is quite capable against artillery rockets. Anyway, I'm trying to sort out all the radars, kill mechanisms, and the rather extensive interworking.
- The problem is that is rocket science, which I understand better than BRAC/ARNG etc. politics.
- Suggestions on splitting up the articles? It's even a possibility that this article should back up to be an "overarching" article that links to the brigade modularization, reserve components, new technologies, etc. as sub-articles. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:25, 31 July 2008 (CDT)
- Total Force is still long term policy, but it's not the same as it was even 10 yers ago. That's becasue of the changes to the Reserve Components becomeing Operational Reserves, rather than Strategic Reserves, and that's a resutl of the "Peace Dividend" drawdowns. If the services were still as large as they were in 1987, I believe that some of that would not have occurred, or would have been slower in coming.
- In some ways it has strengthened Total Force by forcing recapitalization in the RC, something that TF should have done and never realized.
- Maybe I'll take on a Rebasing article--the reflag calisthenics are fascinating. I'm still trying to figure out how Northcom and Jfcom fit in. 5th Army became ARNORTH. 1st Army is comprised of 1st Training Div East and 1st Training Div West which were 24th and 7th Divs (the former AC/RC divisions) respectively and answers to JFCOM. ANd Guard units switch between them depending on whether they are engaged in specific missions--or at least that's the best I've been able to tell.
- One note--Special Troops Battalions are more prolific than indicated in the article so far. BCTs each have one (I'm in C Co 45th BSTB these days myself). Each Division has one as well--in fact that's the only organic elements that Divisions have any more outside the Command Post elements. I have to go look, but I think the other Brigades have their own BSTBs as well.
- Were you aware of the use of the CWIS on large posts in Iraq for mortar and rocket defense?--Robert W. White 18:07, 31 July 2008 (CDT)
- Yes, although I had been working more with sensors and counterbattery rather than intercept. ADA seems ambivalent about how much they talk about C-RAM. There was a recent article by the chief of the branch saying that not much could be said about it in an open forum, but the ADA school webpage for officers says that a first assignment could be to a C-RAM platoon
- Kind of along those lines, I haven't yet seen, in the restructuring, who has responsibility for the LCMR/TPQ-36/TPQ-37. With what I'm seeing published about ADAM cells, ADA seems a very logical place for them, in the CSB -- but you could also make arguments for putting them in the Fires or even battlefield surveillance brigades. OTOH, you might well want at least LCMR in the BCT.
- Please feel free to edit the organizational realities. I'm most comfortable with the C3I-ISR information flow, rather than who does what to whom. There is, however, a certain irony in Special anything being everywhere.Howard C. Berkowitz 18:23, 31 July 2008 (CDT)
Spin off articles about individual unit types/multiple type interaction?
There's an interesting article, admittely in the midst of restructuring, about how an Aviation Support Brigade supported an Aviation Brigade: 
Is this just too detailed for CZ, or might it be the start of a sub-article on a brigade type, in this case AAR?
- Whalen, Timothy J. (July-August, 2004), "The Aviation Support Battalion—workhorse of Army aviation: the authors chronicle the 603d Aviation Support Battalion's move across Iraq in support of the 3d Infantry Division's Aviation Brigade", Army Logistician