Five(5) New AD BN's

[BMT (RIP)]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-01-24T070229Z_01_N23328442_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-USA-MILITARY.xml&rpc=22

BMT

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Sounds like we are going full circle again. They cut down the number of teams per company because they couldn't man the force a couple of times. I like the idea, I just hope that they can man, equip, sustain the force and take good care of what they have on the books now. Been there before and I sure hope they do a better job of it this time. I have had close up and intimate "conversations" with those that wish upon a star to make things happen and for some reason think that this is akin to making corn flakes.

[Sgt_Metz]

The same story ran on MSNBC today. It's slightly more in depth.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10995787/

[The Reaper]

I do not think this is possible without lowering the standards. There are already more SF soldiers as a percentage of total soldiers in the Army than ever before.

We already have rewickered the Q Course to allow virtually anyone with a hope of making it through the pipeline to attend, just to try and better fill the AD SF units to their authorized levels. That bumped the annual graduates from the SFQC up to 750. With the continuing loss of AD SF personnel to the world of private contractors, retirements, better paying jobs, etc., I see no way that the current end strength of the Army and the eligible pool of enlistees eligible for the 18X option will be adequate for the increases they mention for SF. We will be lucky to be able to field the force at 90% of authorized strength. The recently discussed decision to put SFQC students into the 18F program and to deny 18F attenedance to 18Ds and Es in the future are indicative of a force experiencing contraction, not expansion.

The same is true for adding another squadron to a special mission unit. Can't be done with the current pool of applicants without changing the standards.

What they can do is add support personnel and send over the Marine element, which will have about the same effect as adding a brigade of the 82nd Airborne to USSOCOM would have. More competition for already short infil platforms without adding the language, area orientation, maturity, specialized skills, etc. that SF brings. This appears to me to be a bad idea intended to make more numbers without the requisite skills. Marines are great. They just do not currently have the skills and training to be SF replacements.

The smart thing to do would have been for the Klintons to have not eliminated two Reserve SF Groups from the force structure when they were in charge. I would be surprised if you could not man an additional two NG SFGs today with willing enlistees.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[Kyobanim]

I would be surprised if you could not man an additional two NG SFGs today with willing enlistees.

This would seem to be the smartest thing to do. Wouldn't be too hard to get states to jump on board for that and there is probably a large enough pool of qualified individuals to pretty much staff them up. Just my 02.

[Blueboy]

The authors of the QDR clealry don't get it. I am even more concened that SOCOM would allow them to publish such a document without some kind of push-back. It seems as if we are abandoning our core values (i.e. "SOF cannot be mass produced"; "SOF cannot be created after emergencies occur"). I am personally and professionally dismayed.

[Surgicalcric]

This would seem to be the smartest thing to do. Wouldn't be too hard to get states to jump on board for that and there is probably a large enough pool of qualified individuals to pretty much staff them up. Just my 02.

Not to argue with either of you with respect to the feasability of standing up 2 more NG SF Groups, but there are manning issues with the two we currently have or so it seems from the conversations I have had with the NG Advisor in the recent past. I know there is bearly enough ODA between Aco and Bco 1/20th to make one company...

Also, Bco 3/20th recently relocated from Va to NC partially because Va was tired of spending money on SF and wanted to trade them out for MP's.

I think two more NG groups would be great but again I think we need to fully man and equip the two we currently have. Its a shame the Klinton's cut the RC groups indeed. There would be less of a strain on the AD groups had there been two more RC groups...


just my .02.

Crip

[The Reaper]

The authors of the QDR clealry don't get it. I am even more concened that SOCOM would allow them to publish such a document without some kind of push-back. It seems as if we are abandoning our core values (i.e. "SOF cannot be mass produced"; "SOF cannot be created after emergencies occur"). I am personally and professionally dismayed.

What makes you think that SOCOM knows about SF?

I would also add that the Sec Def can get anything he wants published, regardless of SOCOM input or cold reality.

Crip, I was operating under the assumption that many of the guys who have ETSed and live in locations far from current drilling units would want to sign up. I know several in the Southwest who were commuting as far as Mississippi to train for SF.

TR

[jatx]

When standing up new NG SF units, where would you get 18A's? They take a very long time to produce in the Guard and, once their team time is done, it's done.

IIRC, the pipeline for a non-prior service 18A in the NG is at least three years.

[The Reaper]

When standing up new NG SF units, where would you get 18A's? They take a very long time to produce in the Guard and, once their team time is done, it's done.

IIRC, the pipeline for a non-prior service 18A in the NG is at least three years.

I have seen CPTs exiting their AD service going to SFAS for an NG unit they were going to sign on with. Offer separating CPTs a shot at SFAS on their way out if they agree to join a Guard SF unit.

How many SF CPTs who are separated from AD do you think would sign up with a Guard unit for a guarantee of three more years of team time? That is one of the most common reasons for SF CPTs getting out. No more team time.

I do not see the 18A being a shortage for a new unit. Look up SGT (Dr.) Woods of 20th Group on this site.

TR

[jatx]

I do not see the 18A being a shortage for a new unit.
TR

I guess that, even if all five new BNs came from the Guard, that would only imply the need for about 30 18A's to man the teams, plus a smaller number for the support and headquarters companies. It doesn't seem so insurmountable when you run the numbers.

Edited to add: My math stinks - I was thinking Companies, not BN's.

[The Reaper]

I guess that, even if all five new BNs came from the Guard, that would only imply the need for about 30 18A's to man the teams, plus a smaller number for the support and headquarters companies. It doesn't seem so insurmountable when you run the numbers.

No, five SF battalions, without Group HQs would need about 120 18A O-3s, 30 O-4s, and 5 O-5s.

TR

[Surgicalcric]

...They take a very long time to produce in the Guard and, once their team time is done, it's done...

I know several O-3's who have turned down promotions to stay on a team. It actually seems to be pretty common from what I understand.

TR: My apologies, I was thinking NPS candidates/ REP-63's. I concede to your line of reasoning.

Crip

[QRQ 30]

As far as recruiting and training the additional personnel, I believe it can be done without lowering standards. The people are out there, the recruiting is the first problem. Training would need more training personnel and facilities. These won't come overnight. And finally the back bone of any unit is its experienced officers and NCOs. They would be spread thin.

A few weeks ago an air head asked on TV: "If we can take a thousand men off of the street, train and equip them and send them into combat, why can't we do that with the Iraqi. Again, the answer is simple to me -- experienced leadership -- officers and NCOs.

[The Reaper]

Terry:

It can't be done on the AD side because of math.

Take the authorized end strength of the AD force, just under 500,000 soldiers. You need about 6,000 SF soldiers to fill the 5 AD Groups, plus Training Group, plus SWCS, plus all of the staff positions.

Subtract the females.

Subtract anyone too old, or too young.

Subtract the E-3s and below, E-7s and above, O-1s, any O-3 with more than four years of service (roughly), and any O-4 or above.

Subtract anyone with a permanent profile or disabling injury.

Subtract any MOS which will not release soldiers to reclass as 18s.

Subtract anyone with a GT score under 100.

Subtract anyone unable to pass the APFT with 270 or above.

Subtract anyone with a substance abuse problem, or a criminal record.

Subtract anyone who has been to SFAS and was non-selected, Never To Return.

Subtract anyone who lacks the motivation to apply, or the aptitude to succeed.

Subtract anyone who cannot successfully complete Airborne School.

Subtract anyone who cannot get a Secret or TS clearance.

Subtract those dying, retiring, or ETSing from SF every year (could have changed but has been running about 600-700 per year).

You are left with a number so small that we cannot put 500 soldiers a year into the SFQC from the Regular Army, hence the 18X program. With it, after millions of dollars, dozens of new positions, and a bunch of work, we have managed to graduate 750 per year for the past couple of years. As recently, as 2000, we only graduated 250.

Now you want to add an additional 1,500 slots or so to the force without lowering the bar?

I am not a math major, but I would submit that within the above limitations, this cannot be done in less than 10-20 years, EXCEPT by lowering the standards.

We can agree to issue green berets to everyone who wants one and assign them to an SF Group, but that does not make additional Special Forces soldiers, except on paper.

TR

[kgoerz]

Reaper your math needs to get presented to someone up there in the chain. Even with lowering the standards I can't see them filling the slots. When I retired two years ago I walked into the GRP SGM'S office to say goodbye. He had a stack of retirement folders two feet high on his desk. Last year a friend who works at SFAS told me every student he recommended for release or termination was reinstated by the command. After awhile he and other instructors just passed everyone. Might not be true but very sad if it is.

[Airbornelawyer]

Also, Bco 3/20th recently relocated from Va to NC partially because Va was tired of spending money on SF and wanted to trade them out for MP's.

Crip
For what it's worth, that company was originally A/2/11, so it never had close ties to the old boy network of the Virginia Guard.

[Surgicalcric]

For what it's worth, that company was originally A/2/11, so it never had close ties to the old boy network of the Virginia Guard.

Thank you AL for the lesson on the good-ole-boy NG system, in all honesty. I really did not know that was part of the reason. Being new to the NG I am suprised constantly by all the talk of the G-O-B system. Not to change the subject but was this a big problem, in comparison, in the RC SF groups? Just curious more than anything.


Crip

[steeve20]

I think you could easiley fill at least Two Guard Bn's if the Companies are located in good areas, Ex NY/NJ/PA area, Houston, Dalles, Phonex, Western NC, Georga, Eastern Wa , Michigan, Minnisota/Wi. These areas have no SF unit in a reasonible drive. The deactivation of the 11th and 12th effected some of the listed areas. Some of these areas have never had SF NG or Reserve Units. I wouldn't activate a Group HQ's though I would only go for the Bn's.

[Trip_Wire (RIP)]

Thank you AL for the lesson on the good-ole-boy NG system, in all honesty. I really did not know that was part of the reason. Being new to the NG I am suprised constantly by all the talk of the G-O-B system. Not to change the subject but was this a big problem, in comparison, in the RC SF groups? Just curious more than anything.


Crip

I never noticed any activity that you could associate with the G-O-B network in the 12th SFG(A) or the 17th SFG(A), which were both USAR Groups. I think it was a sad day when they transfered all SF units to the NG!

I was never in the Army NG; however, I did do some time, in the Air National Guard and thought the G-O-B network was alive and well there. I also heard that it was even worse in the Army NG, from friends serving in it.

[steeve20]

Actually they transfered individuals to the 19th and 20th. If they could find a company to except them. The units them selfs went away. There was a provisional company (Dco) in 1/20. This company reorginized about 2 years after conception as C 1/20 MAANG. Most of the individuals in that company were from A & B Co. 1/11th. The Guard did not gain any units from this deactivation that I am aware of.

[NousDefionsDoc]

They are dreaming. And about to lower the standards.

I was never on a full team, not once. Never even saw one. I imagine that many people in a Team Room would be very crowded.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I never noticed any activity that you could associate with the G-O-B network in the 12th SFG(A) .

I was the active duty advisor to the 12th in 82-84 and it did exist when it came to selecting folks for certain positions. I think it depends on where you were and who was calling the shots at the time.

[Surgicalcric]

Well hopefully I wont have as much trouble with the GOB system once I get to a team as I have had getting promoted. If so I will be seeking an AD accessions board.

Crip

[The Reaper]

I was never on a full team, not once. Never even saw one. I imagine that many people in a Team Room would be very crowded.

There was one.

The Gabe Team.:D

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

There was one.

The Gabe Team.:D

TR
LOL - True that

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I was never on a full team, not once. .

Actually the two different teams I had were not only full most of the time (we were short one commo sgt for a while) but had an additional slot for a CAPO officer. My company in the 10th had full teams with maybe one exception that I can think of (because of over-staffing of the C-Team) and my Bn had full teams but that was a special case. The only time I was short folks was the first B-Team I had in the 10th.

[Whatever]

I agree with TR about expanding ARNG-SF. My recommendations would be:

1. Place initial Force Structure in states that don't have it. Texas could easily sustain a Company and there was once a strong push to place Force Structure in Texas. It failed. States that have strong SF roots such as North Carolina would also be able to sustain Force Structure at (initially) the Company level.

2. Place additional force structure in States that can sustain it. California could, with proper support, expand as could Washington State.

3. Abolish Group Level ARNG Headquarters (keeping the GSC is a separate argument) and establish Direct Training Affiliations (DTAs) at the Battalion Level. For example 1st BN, 19th SFGA becomes 4th BN, 1st SFGA. That would ease transitions for soliders wanting to convert from Active duty to Guard (and vice versa). It would also give ARNG-SF soliders at the ODA level more training opportunities and exposure to current TTP's then they presently have. The cross-pollination between 1st SFGA and A-1-19th SFGA proves that this viable.

4. By making force structure changes objectively and without regards to politics the equivalent of two Battalions of ARNG SF soldiers could be sustained. All of this has been discussed publicly and in print.

5. Speaking from experience as a A-1-12th SFGA soldier there were huge problems with Army Reserve SF that I will not go into on this forum. That is not to say that resurrecting Army Reserve SF should not be considered.

[Warrior-Mentor]

Closest we came was 11...and worked hard to keep it that way (to avoid being sent a less than stellar Warrant). There are plenty of good Warrants, just not the one they tried to force on us.

There's a big difference between an 11 man team and an 8 man team.

[The Reaper]

Better eight men you can trust, than 11 with three needing full-time child care.

TR

[GreenSalsa]

Better eight men you can trust, than 11 with three needing full-time child care.

TR

Amen!

:D

[Warrior-Mentor]

My 11 were good.

You're right though.... problem children would create, well, problems....

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

My 11 were good.

You're right though.... problem children would create, well, problems....

Back in the "days" ,when I was little,we never had problems-just solutions:D I can remember one such solution was a set of phony PCS orders that for a recalcitrant , but that was back in the days of the slip fork riser, EEFIS, and the AN/GRC-109 .