Military Review

The US Army is waiting for a large-scale reduction

10
On Monday, February 24, US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel officially announced the Pentagon’s plans to reduce ground forces, as well as the Marine Corps (ILC), and he announced the Pentagon’s new budget. In 2014, funding for the US military will be reduced by 30 billion dollars. If the Pentagon does not get involved in another military adventure, which today disagrees with the declared US policy, then the number of ground forces will be reduced to 2017-440 thousand by 450 in the year, and thousands of KMP will.


Such changes are related to the fact that in the near future the Pentagon hopes to seriously reconsider its work in terms of solving the most important problems. This is also connected with the shift of emphasis of Washington’s military-political strategy towards the Asia-Pacific region, and at the same time, the priority of conducting ground operations decreases. Recall that earlier the Pentagon had already voiced the possibility of reducing ground forces, but then their composition was planned to be reduced to 490 thousands of people.

Pentagon forcing the belt tightens the economic and political situation in the United States. Many people call the decision made by the US military, incredible. In fact, land forces should be reduced immediately by 15% of their strength. Currently, 520 thousands of people are serving in the US Army. Thus, already by 2017, the number of the ground component of the American armed forces will be the smallest, starting with 1940, when the number of ground forces was 268 thousand people. At the same time, the American ground forces reached their maximum number of 566 thousands of people (after the Vietnam War) in the middle of the year, largely due to campaigning in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US Army is waiting for a large-scale reduction

Such a large-scale process of reducing ground forces is likely to require the reorganization of their structure. Experts suggest that instead of the currently existing 45 brigades, only 33 will remain in the squad. Here's what Chuck Hagel told reporters: “The key decisions now made will help the Pentagon adapt to new financial realities, and also help preserve the country's defense capability in an era of change and instability. Since we are finishing our military campaign on the territory of Afghanistan, the new defense budget will be the first to fully reflect all the changes made by the US Department of Defense after the 13 years of warfare. ”

The abbreviations indicated caused a whole wave of publications in the American press. Journalists nearly sprinkle ashes on their heads. However, in fact, even after all the cuts, the United States will have one of the largest and most capable armies on the planet. Therefore, all the cries that America is unarmed and defenseless can be left on the conscience of the American media. In addition, it is worth noting that plans to reduce the number of ground forces were first announced not this week, but last year. So the reduction of the army did not come as a surprise.

Moreover, even after the reform, the US ground forces will still be able to simultaneously conduct two large-scale military campaigns in the world, and the reform itself will in no way affect the American military allowances. It is worth noting that over the past 10 years, the costs of paying salaries and various benefits to the American military have grown by more than 50%. Such growth rates of wages in the civilian private sector have never dreamed of. As US Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno noted, the ground army of 450 thousand people is the smallest army that can be managed without seriously reducing its ability to respond to crises that may arise in different parts of the world. Paraphrasing, it can be noted that "the American aircraft carrier is on the siding," and, if necessary, the American forces will be able to bring democracy (in the American sense of it) on their bayonets to any threshold.


In addition to reducing ground forces, the Pentagon is going to abandon a number of weapons, in particular, we are talking about the currently used jet aircraft. So, the military announced plans to completely abandon the well-known attack aircraft A-10 Thunderbolt II, it is planned to completely withdraw from service. At one time, this aircraft was created to counter the Soviet tanks at the European theater of operations in the event of an attack by the USSR on the countries of Western Europe. Fortunately, this aircraft did not collide with the tanks of the USSR, but managed to prove its effectiveness and survivability during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

Another pensioner the Pentagon is ready to resign is the famous Lockheed U-2 high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. This spy plane is a true old-timer of the American military aviation, it has been actively operated since 1957. On May 1, 1960, this aircraft, which was flown by pilot Francis Gary Powers, was shot down in the sky under Sverdlovsk Soviet anti-aircraft missile. This event will forever remain a significant page in stories domestic air defense system.

If someone thinks that by abandoning these reconnaissance planes, the Pentagon will become poorer in terms of intelligence capabilities, then he is seriously mistaken. The old U-2 will be replaced by modern reconnaissance drones Global Hawk and other systems that are still under development. Their main difference and trump card is precisely the absence of the pilot, which allows him to stay in the air longer and not to depend on the physical needs and capabilities of the pilot.


As the US Secretary of Defense specified, all current initiatives are primarily related to the need to save budget funds. In the past few years, due to the ongoing disputes between Republicans and Democrats about the budget expenditures for the financing of the Pentagon, defense spending has decreased by more than 50 billion dollars. At the same time, Washington is now emerging from all the military campaigns in which he participated. On the other hand, as independent experts note, the United States today simply does not need such a large land army with a very large number of allies around the world and the absence of any serious military threats to national security.

In this case, Chuck Hagel in store and a kind of "gingerbread". According to the American minister, the savings saved on ground forces will be used to improve the army: the acquisition of new missile systems, submarines, destroyers and modern F-35 fighters. So, the company Lockheed Martin expects to receive funding for the construction and supply of 34 Air Force new F-35 Lightning II fighter (single strike fighter). This is on the 5 fighter more than this year.

At the same time, the F-35 is a problem plane, on which the Pentagon spent almost 2011 billions of dollars only by the year of 60. In general, the program for its creation raises big questions from US experts, primarily because of the quality of the fighter, which is formally attributed to 5-generation machines. The plane is surrounded by a large number of technical problems and malfunctions (in fairness it should be noted that this is characteristic of all fundamentally new cars). In this case, the main problem is its cost. Due to the high cost, several NATO member countries have already refused to buy it, and government procurement in the interests of the US Air Force is also going to squeak.


Some of the funds released from the reduction of the land component will be directed to the renewal of contracts for the supply of reconnaissance and drone drone MQ-9 Reaper (“Reaper”), which the US is actively using in Afghanistan, Pakistan and some other countries. At the same time, the use of these shock drone is accompanied by criticism of human rights organizations around the world. The United States accuses that the use of these unmanned aerial vehicles is accompanied by significant civilian casualties. Also, part of the money will go to the purchase of modern destroyers DDG-51 and SSN-774 attack submarines, which will be useful to Washington in the Asia-Pacific region as part of the implementation of the "Asian Turn" strategy.

Information sources:
http://rus.ruvr.ru/2014_02_26/Menshe-no-jeffektivnee-SSHA-namereni-sokratit-suhoputnie-vojska-9684
http://svpressa.ru/war21/article/82873
http://www.inosmi.ru/world/20140225/217890101.html
http://vpk.name/news/85642_pentagon_uzhimaetsya.html
http://www.dni.ru/polit/2014/2/26/267492.html
Author:
10 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. platitsyn70
    platitsyn70 28 February 2014 08: 20
    0
    class finally amers money runs out, quickly. It is necessary to draw them into another conflict.
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko 28 February 2014 09: 09
      +2
      Quote: platitsyn70
      It is necessary to draw them into another conflict.

      Enough for you?
      In all the slaughterhouses that are now blazing on the globe, the participation of the mattress is visible.
      Reducing the official army, they double the private.
      The author on 26.04.2013/27311/XNUMX .http: //topwar.ru/XNUMX-chastnye-armii-nabirayut-vse-bolshiy-ves.html already wrote about this.
      What is the point of engaging in fear of fighting?
      It would be better to develop Temko in the private armies, their current state and areas of application. (I hope Sergey will fill the gap) hi
      1. Papakiko
        Papakiko 28 February 2014 10: 55
        +1
        Quote: Papakiko
        Temko by private armies

        http://mixednews.ru/archives/18939
        Here is concise information about the main private players.
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 28 February 2014 13: 04
          0
          It seems that everything is coming to the point that in due time, all our oligarchs, too, in the same model and likeness, will want to have such mercenary armies (IAFs). stop
          Thank God that at least we still have a law that somehow hinders this "initiative".
          And Western PMCs are no longer news, a bunch of professional looters, this name suits them better.
          By the way, in Russia their offices divorced as fleas on a dog when I saw it was simply dead.
          I wonder what they do with us? request
          Is "meat" recruited or what other interest do they have? what
  2. AVV
    AVV 28 February 2014 11: 46
    0
    To have more than 1000 bases around the world, as the Americans have not yet gone bankrupt. this is the main question !!! Or have you already connected a second printing press ???
  3. Puler
    Puler 28 February 2014 12: 55
    0
    these rats have nothing to believe ...
  4. vlad.svargin
    vlad.svargin 28 February 2014 13: 58
    0
    Good news.
    On the other hand, as independent experts note, today the United States simply does not need such a large army in the presence of a very large number of allies around the world and the absence of any serious military threats to national security.

    The Allies have already refused to participate in the aggression against Syria, or else there will be.
    Over time, I hope that the new NATO members will clear their heads ...
  5. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 28 February 2014 14: 21
    0
    Look. Russia is constantly under the threat of attack by certain neighbors, therefore it is forced to constantly maintain an impressive and additional army, for the same reason it is always a little outdated. In the end, the lag becomes critical and is immediately realized by "friends" in full. Reforms and rearmament have to be carried out either already during the war, if the war is successful, or immediately after, if the war is lost. All this requires so much effort and resources that we are forced to seriously economize, we have to make as cheap weapons as possible and save on the training, maintenance and equipment of servicemen. Not so in America. In their hemisphere, they have eliminated any external threats. Therefore, they can easily create an army to defeat a specific enemy in the neighboring hemisphere. Then demobilize the army, take a break, work on new weapons. Then form an army for a new specific enemy, re-equip it. And all this without tears, overexertion and unnecessary sacrifices. In case of failure, they calmly and without consequences are evacuated home and recuperate. And all the neighbors know their place, which they do not hesitate in the means and forces are constantly indicated, of course, under the beautiful words about democracy and the choice of the people.
  6. Deadmen
    Deadmen 28 February 2014 18: 04
    0
    world map of US military bases http://margashov.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/f210a853ed6660519d16efdade1.jpg
    1. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 1 March 2014 01: 54
      0
      How militarized "Colorado beetles" crawled over the poor ball!
      And the more they beat, the more they sprawl!
  7. Leshka
    Leshka 28 February 2014 18: 06
    0
    note that they do not need a strong army; they can remove regimes in other ways, such as in the Middle East and Ukraine
  8. kplayer
    kplayer 28 February 2014 19: 02
    +1
    Quote: chunga-changa
    Russia ... is compelled to constantly maintain an impressive and militant army, for the same reason it is always a little outdated.


    Amused by the characterizing ... "impressive" and "a little outdated." Immediately I tried to compare the equipment with the Indian, I will say that I was too lazy, but in some places I am ashamed of my native Armed Forces, tk. RF is a world exporter of weapons, then the systems are CONDITIONALLY ADOPTED into service (i.e. developed, tested, but not mass-produced), then they are planned by the xxxx years. What kind of policy? Who benefits from BUDGETARY RETURNS for protracted and therefore dubious programs, if the necessary samples have already been created? it turns out now it is possible without them, and THEN there will be cooler ones (so needed, or not needed !?)

    Quote: chunga-changa
    ... America is not so ... Therefore, they can calmly create an army to defeat a specific enemy in the neighboring hemisphere. Then demobilize the army, take a break, work on new weapons. Then form an army for a new specific enemy, rearm it ...


    The combat strength of the American army has not changed significantly over the past 20 years; after Clinton reductions, it is maintained at the level of 10 combat-ready combined arms divisions, except for reductions due to the last reorganization in an attempt to make the army more FLEXIBLE, i.e. capable of solving a wide range of combat missions in various changing conditions (for example, the divisions had a three-brigade structure, now a four-brigade structure, but the brigades previously had three combat battalions, but now there are two *)
    Changes in numbers occur due to the level (%) of staffing units of military units and by means of periodic formation, then disbandment (reassignment between the regular army, the National Guard and the reserve of ground forces) of individual units and units of combat and rear support.
    The process of "lightening" the US Army (the ratio between "light" and "heavy" ground forces) began in the second half of the 80s, i.e. it is increasingly focused on conflicts of "low" and "medium" intensity, and to form an army for a specific enemy, as they say: "A LOT OF HONOR!"
    The only new thing that has appeared in the environment of "medium" (previously only infantry) formations is the Stryker brigades / brigade groups, as a necessary weight for the "light" (airborne, assault, light infantry) air transportable "rapid deployment forces".
    The armament of the ground forces is all the same "Abrams", "Bradley", M109 (self-propelled guns), M113 (armored personnel carriers) and AA helicopters "Apache", "Black Hawk", "Chinook".

    * Excluding brigades, battalions (divisions) and companies (batteries) of combat and rear support (combat arms)
  9. Stinger
    Stinger 28 February 2014 21: 56
    0
    And why would they keep the group withdrawn from Afghanistan? Of course cut. They firmly know that they will not be attacked. Unlike us.
  10. kplayer
    kplayer 28 February 2014 22: 57
    +1
    Quote: Stinger
    And why would they keep the group withdrawn from Afghanistan? Of course cut.

    They never reduce (disband) combat-ready regular units, in this case the Green Berets, Rangers, 82nd Airborne and 101st Air Assault Divisions, 10th Light Infantry (Mountain) Division, incl. the striker brigade, expeditionary formations (brigades and battalions) of the Marine Corps, etc., should not be confused with the reorganization of the organizational and staff structure of formations (see the post above, the structure of brigades will probably change again). All reductions occur at the expense of units and service units (B and TO) of the overseas theater of operations (Iraq, Afghanistan).
    ... the process of downsizing the ground forces is likely to require a reorganization of their structure. Experts suggest that instead of the currently existing 45 brigades, only 33 will be retained.


    Quote: Stinger
    They firmly know that they will not be attacked. Unlike us.


    ... even after the reform, the US ground forces will still be able to simultaneously conduct two large-scale military campaigns in the world ...

    The analogue is the operation in the Persian Gulf (1990-1991)