National Guard Needs $40B To Bring Equipment Up To Snuff, Chief Says




 
--
 
February 1st, 2007  
Team Infidel
 
 

Topic: National Guard Needs $40B To Bring Equipment Up To Snuff, Chief Says


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 1st, 2007  
Gator
 
 
Well, as I said here National Guard May Lack Needed Gear To Deal With Domestic Crises, GAO Says I believe the National Guard Bureau needs to be done away with, as such, I agree with Secretary Harvey that there is no need for the Guard Chief to be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
February 3rd, 2007  
major liability
 
 
That's the only problem with having the world's most fearsome military machine, the upkeep.
--
February 5th, 2007  
A Can of Man
 
 
I bet their stuff is still better than our stuff.
Crybabies
February 5th, 2007  
Gator
 
 
I remember back a few years the US Army was doing away with some equipment, doing away with an entire MOS actually (12E) and from what I heard the Marines were more than happy to take the equipment.
February 6th, 2007  
A Can of Man
 
 
I'll tell you what the guards need... a little old fashioned A-W.
February 7th, 2007  
PJ24
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
I bet their stuff is still better than our stuff.
Crybabies
You don't deploy like they do either. A lot of those guys have more time in country than active guys. They deserve some good/servicable equpitment.
February 7th, 2007  
Maytime
 
 
Quote:
$21 billion for ground systems procurement and $1.9 billion in aviation equipment for the Guard from fiscal years 2005 through 2011.
~$23 billion spread out over 6 FY's, almost $4billion/FY, for 50 states, so $80million/state per FY. I hope that's enough.
February 8th, 2007  
Big_Z
 
 
We make do with what we got. Us Infantry guys are pretty well geared once we touch ground. The people who need the **** get it. Thats what im told. People dont realize that at one point in this war most of the Americans in Iraq were actually NG. The gear that I am currently issued right now is probably on par with the RA guys who initialy went in. My IBA and Kevlar were still in the plastic. Once we get in country we get new stuff.
February 8th, 2007  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJ24
You don't deploy like they do either. A lot of those guys have more time in country than active guys. They deserve some good/servicable equpitment.
Let me put it this way. Where I'm stationed, by boat it takes about maybe 15 minutes to get to North Korea, probably sooner. It takes 4 hours to get to Incheon, the closest South Korean port. We're stationed at the front of the front. No one is as cut off from friendly forces as much as we are. Yet we're way down there in terms of pecking order, and this is INCLUDING REMFs.
If war breaks out, we're going to fight with machine guns that don't work and 3rd rate equipment while tasked with one of the most difficult missions (I can't say what specifically but when you see the map I think you'll get a good idea).

(Red circle indicates where I am)
 


Similar Topics
National Guard May Lack Needed Gear To Deal With Domestic Crises, GAO Says
Legislators To Grill Guard Chief On Gunmen At Border Incident
Citizen Soldiers May Be The Key To Iraq Buildup
National Guard Turns 370
National Guard on border to be armed!