Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
February 1, 2007
The U.S. Army National Guard and Air National Guard need a total of $40 billion to get their equipment up to "an acceptable level of readiness," according to National Guard Bureau Chief Lt. Gen. Steven Blum.
An acceptable level would be if the Guard had 80 percent of its equipment on hand and ready for operations at any given time, Blum testified during the final hearing of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves on Capitol Hill Jan. 31.
Although Guard forces operating in theater overseas are well equipped and funded, 88 percent of Guard forces at home are resourced at less than 50 percent equipment on hand, Blum said. Under equipping the National Guard has become a critical issue in the years since the war on terrorism began, when the Guard transitioned from its Cold War posture as a strategic reserve into an operational force that is routinely called upon to fight overseas on top of its duties at home.
Blum said part of the problem for the Guard is that it has no formalized way of generating requirements for its so-called "Title 32" responsibilities - that is, domestic operations that are federally funded but managed by the states. He also said that the Guard isn't always able to sit in on the "huddles" with service leadership in which program planning and budgeting are worked out.
A possible solution, he said, would be if the Guard adopted something akin to the procurement model used by the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) for purchasing specialized equipment that isn't needed by the services but is essential to the Guard's domestic duties.
Also testifying before the commission, Army Secretary Francis Harvey said that the service has "fenced" off more than $21 billion for ground systems procurement and $1.9 billion in aviation equipment for the Guard from fiscal years 2005 through 2011. The Commission on the National Guard and Reserve must report to Congress by March 1 on legislative proposals that would increase the responsibilities of the National Guard leadership and change how it is organized and funded, according to the commission.
The proposed bills - S. 2658 and H.R. 5200 - would make the National Guard Bureau a joint activity of the Defense Department rather than just the Army and Air Force, make the Guard chief a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and give the National Guard Bureau more authority to coordinate how the Guard is used for operations other than war.
Harvey called the legislation "at best, unnecessary" during his testimony Jan. 31. He said the legislation would "confuse" command and control relationships the Defense Department has formed over the past 20 years since the enactment of Goldwater-Nichols.
-- Jefferson Morris
February 1, 2007
The U.S. Army National Guard and Air National Guard need a total of $40 billion to get their equipment up to "an acceptable level of readiness," according to National Guard Bureau Chief Lt. Gen. Steven Blum.
An acceptable level would be if the Guard had 80 percent of its equipment on hand and ready for operations at any given time, Blum testified during the final hearing of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves on Capitol Hill Jan. 31.
Although Guard forces operating in theater overseas are well equipped and funded, 88 percent of Guard forces at home are resourced at less than 50 percent equipment on hand, Blum said. Under equipping the National Guard has become a critical issue in the years since the war on terrorism began, when the Guard transitioned from its Cold War posture as a strategic reserve into an operational force that is routinely called upon to fight overseas on top of its duties at home.
Blum said part of the problem for the Guard is that it has no formalized way of generating requirements for its so-called "Title 32" responsibilities - that is, domestic operations that are federally funded but managed by the states. He also said that the Guard isn't always able to sit in on the "huddles" with service leadership in which program planning and budgeting are worked out.
A possible solution, he said, would be if the Guard adopted something akin to the procurement model used by the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) for purchasing specialized equipment that isn't needed by the services but is essential to the Guard's domestic duties.
Also testifying before the commission, Army Secretary Francis Harvey said that the service has "fenced" off more than $21 billion for ground systems procurement and $1.9 billion in aviation equipment for the Guard from fiscal years 2005 through 2011. The Commission on the National Guard and Reserve must report to Congress by March 1 on legislative proposals that would increase the responsibilities of the National Guard leadership and change how it is organized and funded, according to the commission.
The proposed bills - S. 2658 and H.R. 5200 - would make the National Guard Bureau a joint activity of the Defense Department rather than just the Army and Air Force, make the Guard chief a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and give the National Guard Bureau more authority to coordinate how the Guard is used for operations other than war.
Harvey called the legislation "at best, unnecessary" during his testimony Jan. 31. He said the legislation would "confuse" command and control relationships the Defense Department has formed over the past 20 years since the enactment of Goldwater-Nichols.
-- Jefferson Morris