Military Review

How will the reduction of the army affect US combat effectiveness?

20
How will the reduction of the army affect US combat effectiveness?



The United States intends to reduce the size of its ground forces to the lowest level since the Second World War. According to expert estimates, this will in no way affect their combat capability and will not change the vector of aggressive foreign policy of the state.

According to the plans announced by the Pentagon, it is about reducing the number of the US Army (ground forces) from the current 490 thousand to 440 – 450 thousand people. Such reductions will begin next autumn, as foreseen by the US defense budget for the 2015 fiscal year. This is due to the fact that the Americans come to the fore precision weapon, considers the chief editor of the magazine "National Defense" Igor Korotchenko:

"The United States has been waging contactless wars for the last twenty years. Very rarely, when they need the physical presence of ground forces in a given territory. For this, the number of personnel to which the Americans will come as a result of all reductions is enough. I am absolutely convinced that this is by no means will not affect the US military capabilities.

It's just that Americans are pragmatists. The decommissioning of old attack aircraft, which were supposed to reflect the attack of the Soviet tank armada to Europe is a tribute to the times. It is clear that Russia is not going to attack. Why then keep so many obsolete aircraft, especially under budget constraints?

The Pentagon remains muscular. The US military budget still exceeds the military budgets of all other countries combined, including Russia and China. Therefore, no need to relax in any way. "

Paradoxically, cuts aim to make the American army stronger. This is an increase in the capabilities of the United States to wage a new type of war. The role of nuclear weapons in their strategy is decreasing. The same tasks can now be solved in a more efficient, but cheaper way.

At the same time, the costs of providing personnel in the draft defense budget have changed to a minimal extent and amount to 56 billions of dollars. This graph is one of the biggest expenses of the ground forces - 46 percent of the total budget. Experts believe that in the near future, the training of American soldiers will be held at a more modest level compared to that supported by the leadership of the Pentagon.

The US National Guard, due to insufficient funding, moved to a maximum company level exercise. Land Forces will be sent to the National Training Center only by brigades whose personnel will be deployed in South Korea or Afghanistan, or by units of the 82 Airborne Division, which is designed to respond quickly to crisis situations arising anywhere in the world.

Actually, simultaneously with the reduction of ground forces, the Pentagon is accelerating the modernization of key weapons. As a result, he wants to get armed forces capable of a wide variety of threats, including terrorism and cyber attacks. As part of the military reform, the Americans intend to transfer all AH-64 Apache helicopters (Apache), which are at the disposal of the National Guard, to the ground forces for their reconnaissance missions. The OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopters used as reconnaissance aircraft may be decommissioned. It is planned to allocate money for the purchase of XHUMX UH-55 Lakota helicopters (Lakota) and the modernization of Black Hawk UH-72 helicopters (Black Hawk).

The problem is that the United States has a professional army, which requires more resources than a draft army. Today, the Pentagon must make significant efforts to ensure the recruitment of troops and to keep in the service of the most experienced military personnel. And every year these efforts require more and more. Today, only one in four American citizens between the ages of 17 and 24 is eligible to serve in the Army. And in the 2015 year, according to army experts, it will be only one of five young people.

Currently, 20% of Americans aged from 12 to 19 years are overweight, and this trend will only continue to grow in the future. In addition, more than 20% of Americans cannot graduate from high school, and of course, it is difficult for them to master modern military equipment. The most problematic issue is the management of recruits. On the search for future soldiers and officers, on their selection, preparation and appointment in parts, on average, it takes from one to one and a half years. It takes even more time to turn them into professional fighters.

In other words, military reform in the United States is a forced decision. On the other hand, America does not need such a large army, which cannot be said about Russia, where even a million army is not enough to physically cover the borders. That is why Russia does not make sense to respond to the United States with a similar reduction in its armed forces. Igor Korotchenko explained:

"If we look at the USA, then this country does not have a threat of land invasion. On the one hand, Canada, on the other, Mexico. It is clear that from there no land groups will invade the US. This is possible in principle.

Russia must defend its border. It is very long. There are pockets of military activity in neighboring states. Therefore, the Russian armed forces face other challenges. Where the United States solves the problem with parts of the National Guard, Russia needs military garrisons to ensure its security.

In addition, let's not forget that the United States does not act alone. They belong to NATO. The combined forces of the alliance exceed the number of Russian 4 times.

The United States has other priorities. They have an expansion policy. American tactical nuclear weapons are still in Europe. There they are going to create missile defense. Americans implement the tactics of advanced presence: they have hundreds of military bases in various parts of the world. Finally, they have over a dozen powerful carrier strike groups. Those. the US has a different than Russian concept of foreign policy. Consequently, a different configuration of the armed forces.

In Russia there is a comprehensive development of the army. Change tasks. New groups will be deployed in the Arctic. I think that each type and class of the armed forces is given due attention. The only exception is nuclear forces. They equalize Russia's chances where it cannot maintain the balance at the level of conventional armaments. "

Even after cuts, the US Army will be ready to wage a full-scale war, while holding back enemy aggression in other regions of the Earth (it was previously assumed that two full-scale wars would be waged simultaneously). To this day, the American army remains the most powerful military force on the planet.

The abbreviation is not the "courtesy" of the Americans, not a demonstration of their peacefulness, and not the surrender of geopolitical positions. This is a bold, but no less calculating step, designed not only to preserve the status quo, but also to consolidate its exclusive position as a superpower.
Author:
Originator:
http://rus.ruvr.ru/2014_03_06/Kak-otrazitsja-na-boesposobnosti-SSHA-sokrashhenie-armii-AUDIO-5219/
20 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Igor39
    Igor39 8 March 2014 07: 41
    +3
    Let them often reinforce their superiority in this way.
    1. nekish
      nekish 8 March 2014 07: 53
      +2
      Ground cut. Marines are building up.
      1. clidon
        clidon 8 March 2014 12: 30
        0
        Marines are also being cut back. Only MTR is growing.
      2. knn54
        knn54 8 March 2014 16: 37
        +6
        ANY reduction of the Armed Forces gives rise to unemployed military experts who are served in PMCs. The United States can not participate in military strategic operations directly, but only support financially and informationally FORMALLY independent forces with whose hands and to achieve their goals.
        1. clidon
          clidon 8 March 2014 19: 10
          0
          PMCs are also not rubber. Competition in the market of such services will intensify ...
        2. 17085
          17085 9 March 2014 00: 41
          +2
          Let me disagree. A vivid example is my neighbor, I met him after I saw him reading a book in the backyard. I went to visit, or rather called on the porch, then, behold, let's have a beer in the evening ... In short, they got bored. Former marine, sergeant, on the table is a photograph of his beloved machine gun, a scholar, a wit, a generally cool guy. I would not want to meet with him in battle.
          He claims that the dismissed from the army to get a job without any problems, around alone and the guy who knows how to read the price there. I only heard about mercenaries, and despises them. Somehow I watched a Russian film with him and his son about PMCs, I translated, heard enough of this ... Reduction is a reduction, PMC fighters - during the exercises they yell that they came to fight, and not to jerk, during the fighting - they piss we did not engage in cannon fodder. In short, r **** something else ...
  2. Deniska999
    Deniska999 8 March 2014 08: 38
    +4
    In principle, no way. They do not need a large army. But to conduct foreign military operations a lot is not necessary.
  3. ken
    ken 8 March 2014 10: 42
    +3
    Yes, it doesn’t reflect in any way. They like contactless combat - airstrikes, drones, joystick technology, etc. .
    1. von Stirlitz
      von Stirlitz 11 March 2014 00: 53
      0
      and hot dogs before the attack
  4. psychologist
    psychologist 8 March 2014 11: 04
    +7
    war machine is expensive !! but it’s too early for us to cheat! we must not be allowed to put our eyes to sleep! for the answer must always be ready and symmetrical! soldier
  5. parus2nik
    parus2nik 8 March 2014 11: 11
    +4
    A reduction of 50 thousand .. and what kind of figure is this. Well, 5 thousand will be removed from military officials who have no effect on combat effectiveness, well, the rest of the service personnel, veterans are still not needed .. They’re not reducing the number of divisions, They counted and found them unnecessary .. And they say dust to the world, look how fluffy we are ..
  6. Dezinto
    Dezinto 8 March 2014 12: 11
    +3
    p.i.d.s.s. !! Country mistake !!!
  7. Dezinto
    Dezinto 8 March 2014 12: 19
    +2
    Well, it's me in the hearts and off topic sorry if that.
  8. clidon
    clidon 8 March 2014 12: 32
    0
    Downsizing is not a "courtesy" of the Americans, not a demonstration of their peacefulness, and not a surrender of geopolitical positions.

    Reduction is not a courtesy, it is a necessary step for economic reasons. Of course, due to the fact that the Pentagon’s database maintenance intensity is reduced.
  9. saag
    saag 8 March 2014 12: 38
    0
    UAVs are a thing why it is not understood in the Russian Federation how important this can be, especially in point operations, in the deep rear ...
  10. Dezinto
    Dezinto 8 March 2014 12: 49
    +4
    Here on this method you need to go to mattresses
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. siberalt
      siberalt 8 March 2014 17: 23
      +3
      For such a measure, you need to remove a couple of zeros from the ruble and a couple of ranks with shoulder straps. laughing And somehow with the heroes of Russia to restore order.


      http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2014/585/tsaw484.jpg
  11. Leshka
    Leshka 8 March 2014 13: 34
    0
    we should also build up special forces
  12. kplayer
    kplayer 8 March 2014 15: 42
    +1
    It is not necessary to build up spetsnaz forces (there are enough units and subunits *), but to eliminate the "turnover" of personnel (extended combat training and all kinds of profiled courses are expensive). Also improve equipment and functionality through vehicles, aviation component (specialized helicopters and transport aircraft) and floating. funds (river and seagoing boats).

    * The units are often assigned not specific, but military assault missions, which can be accomplished by well-trained parachute / airborne assault and motorized rifle (mountain rifle) units.
  13. Sobol
    Sobol 8 March 2014 16: 37
    0
    Quote: kplayer
    It is not necessary to build up special forces (units and subunits are enough *)

    Enough for what?
  14. siberalt
    siberalt 8 March 2014 17: 33
    0
    The Americans will never attack Russia directly. Perhaps by the hands of "gypsies" or "Ethiopians". But they will do everything for. We have already gone through this.
  15. kplayer
    kplayer 8 March 2014 19: 17
    0
    Quote: SoboL
    Enough for what?

    "For a large-scale war with the US and NATO and operations around the world" - you might want to hear that? Considering that it is not clear what this most large-scale war will result in.
    Substitute the word "understaffed" for "units and subdivisions" and everything will become clear.
  16. I think so
    I think so 8 March 2014 20: 03
    0
    Answering the title of the article, we can say with certainty that even the FULL reduction of their army does not affect the US’s combat readiness ... They ALWAYS fought with ALIENS and will continue to do so ... Money, corrupt leaders, a herd of hungry idiots, mass media on conquered territory ... why the army?
  17. allexx83
    allexx83 8 March 2014 23: 08
    0
    Quote: psychologist
    war machine is expensive !! but it’s too early for us to cheat! we must not be allowed to put our eyes to sleep! for the answer must always be ready and symmetrical! soldier

    can be asymmetric ...
  18. mabuta
    mabuta 9 March 2014 09: 41
    0
    The reduction is already in effect ... http: //topwar.ru/uploads/images/2014/310/ehju718.jpeg
  19. Zomanus
    Zomanus 9 March 2014 17: 27
    0
    With the reduction of the US Army, one must look at its bases around the world. Databases are cutting back? Not. So there’s nothing to rejoice about. In 90 they cut their fleet with whole projects. And nothing, quickly updated it.
  20. staryivoin
    staryivoin 9 March 2014 23: 31
    -5
    Mr. Duz and who is talking about the combat readiness of the US Army!
    Name at least three major battles won by the Americans over the last 100 years. It was easy to fight with the Indians in the United States, their climate and geographical conditions, the lack of external support from the opposing side, but should I further list?
    Ridiculous attempts to open a "second front" during World War II? And only after it became clear that Soviet Russia itself could break the back of Hitler.
    Inglourious war in Vietnam. How much was lost, something about 80 thousand American guys? Or so.
    The famous Operation Desert Storm, when the Stars and Stripes fired on their own?
    The overthrow of Saddam under the guise of a search for weapons of mass destruction, traces of which were never found.
    Vaunted "Stealth fighters" dumped by soldiers of the Yugoslav army. Air strikes on the Beijing Embassy in Belgrade.
    Simply put, in order to fight you need to have a spirit. When an American soldier, and even the NAVY USA marines, is not ready to fight if there is no fresh water nearby brought by the quartermaster’s service, this is not an army, this is a training manual. And the training is only ready to follow instructions (for example, the US Air Force Field Charter), and modern warfare is the inclusion of brains, and not just buttons on a PC. And when the PC refuses it will be easier for you to shoot yourself.
    1. Asan Ata
      Asan Ata 11 March 2014 01: 34
      +1
      Soviet Union, brother, Soviet Union. hi
  21. Saboteur
    Saboteur 10 March 2014 02: 08
    -1
    In Vietnam, they lost 58000 and not 80000, all the armies of the world have always shot at their own. Ask your veterans of Chechnya or Afghanistan. Not stealth fighters but a fighter. Only one was shot down. While you, because of the mediocrity of intelligence and Stalin, retreated to Moscow itself, the Americans drove the Germans in Africa, Sicily, Italy, drowned their ships in the Atlantic, bombed everything that could help the Germans. Alone finished off Japan. If you are not adequate, how can you say the same thing about your army. How did you end the Russo-Japanese War, World War I, Afghanistan, Chechnya? The only thing I understood from your vyser is that you do not like America and that’s it. And because of this, you do not want and cannot evaluate their achievements in military affairs.
    1. staryivoin
      staryivoin 10 March 2014 19: 14
      0
      Mr. Saboteur, I don't know if you went to any school, but your "ignorance" in history is really impressive. Especially "single-handedly finished off Japan", drove the Germans in Africa, Sicily, Italy. Is this knowledge based on Mario Puzo's bestseller?
      Well, what about their achievements in military affairs. As far as I understand, you have access to the Internet. So deepen your knowledge about the ratio of the combat qualities of the Abrams and the same T-72s that have undergone modernization. Correlate the S-300 and the Patriot. And these are generally not the newest examples of Russian weapons. Well, if this is not enough, analyze what you personally did in order for Russia to keep up with the "advanced" Americans. Or have you already signed up for Yulia Tymoshenko's partisan detachments? Why do you have a suitable NIK. I can only say that during my service in the Strategic Missile Forces, I passed more than one exercise to repel attacks by the DRG on objects, at one time I was one of the best officers of the Omsk Army in tactical training.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. staryivoin
      staryivoin 10 March 2014 19: 26
      -1
      And more about the "advanced army"
      This is an excerpt from an analytical article on aviation actions in the Yugoslav conflict.
      “By May 20, during the aggression against Yugoslavia, the NATO bloc had lost 109 aircraft (certainly shot down), another 15 aircraft were probably shot down, 12 aircraft were damaged. 16 helicopters and 18 UAVs were shot down, as well as 164 Tomahawk cruise missiles (these episodes in this document no).

      Among those destroyed are one B-2 “Spirit” invisible plane, three or four F-117s (another one is damaged), 10 “Tornado”, eight F-16 (one more is damaged), five F-15 (another two damaged), three A-10 (another damaged), two Mirage-2000, five Harrier (Sea Harrier / AB-8B). From helicopters: two MH-53 "Stallion", one HH-60 "Pave Havk", three AH-64 "Apache" (another one is damaged).

      Will we still argue about advancement?
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Setrac
      Setrac 10 March 2014 22: 52
      -1
      Quote: Saboteur
      So far, because of the mediocrity of intelligence and Stalin, the Americans have retreated to Moscow itself

      Without you, we know why we retreated to Moscow, Stalin’s lack of talent has nothing to do with it. And what does it have to do with the fact that the USSR was inferior to the Third Reich with its allies in people twice, and in industry - four times.
      Quote: Saboteur
      Americans drove the Germans in Africa, Sicily, Italy, drowned their ships in the Atlantic, bombed everything that could help the Germans.

      Germans drove the British across Africa, but what have the Americans to do with it? German submarines drowned British and American transports. And the Americans traded with the Germans before the war, during the war and after the war without stopping.
      Quote: Saboteur
      If you are not adequate, how can you say the same thing about your army. How did you end the Russo-Japanese War, World War I, Afghanistan, Chechnya?

      The uprising, revolution, the collapse of the union, against the Russians, the West fights by indirect methods, because in a direct clash it has repeatedly raked.
      Quote: Saboteur
      And because of this, you do not want and cannot evaluate their achievements in military affairs.

      Here, point by point, what military achievements are we talking about? I can’t remember.
  22. saag
    saag 10 March 2014 10: 34
    -1
    Quote: Saboteur
    How did you end the Russo-Japanese War, World War I, Afghanistan, Chechnya?

    Lost. World War I smoothly turned into civilian, everyone was defeated, the Afghan did not lose and did not win (by the way, how did the Americans finish the Afghan?), Chechnya remained a subject of the Russian Federation
    Quote: Saboteur
    Americans drove Germans in Africa

    Read the story, in Africa, the British fought against Rommel, Montgomery seems
    Quote: Saboteur
    drowned their ships in the Atlantic

    That's who the Germans drowned in the Atlantic, so it’s the Germans, you still remember the fate of the caravan PQ-17 how there it threw
  23. kplayer
    kplayer 10 March 2014 22: 58
    0
    Quote: staryivoin
    ... about the ratio of the combat qualities of the Abrams and the same T-72 that have undergone modernization.

    Are you talking about the T-72B3 or something? (and T-72 ammunition detonation disease for every serious reason)
    Quote: staryivoin
    Will we still argue about advancement?

    According to NATO official data, during the campaign, the alliance lost the AH-64 helicopter that crashed during a training flight in Albania and, according to official US Air Force information, two American aircraft were shot down by the air defense system of Yugoslavia (F-16 and F-117). In 2003, US researcher Ralph Sanders cited data that 22 NATO drones were lost during the conflict. US Navy officer R. Dixon in his research mentions that after March 1999, 24 NATO UAVs were lost here (4 “Predator”, 4 “Hunter”, 4 “Pioneer”, 6 German CL-289, 1 French CL- 289, 2 French Crecerelle, 2 British Phoenix). According to Russian researchers, NATO recognized the loss of 47 UAVs.

    According to the official Yugoslav data announced in connection with the celebration of the Day of the Yugoslav Army on June 16, 1999 by the Chief of the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army Dragolyub Oydanich, during the war, NATO lost 61 aircraft and 7 helicopters. (I can imagine what losses according to Iraqi reports suffered aircraft of multinational forces in Iraq in 1991)
    In December 2000, the Russian newspaper NVO, citing uncertain Yugoslav sources, reported that NATO losses amounted to 31 aircraft and 6 helicopters.
    At the beginning of 2001, the head of the ONTI TsAGI military aircraft sector V. Ilyin cited both the old 1999 data (61 aircraft and 7 helicopters) and the “verified and updated data” of the Yugoslav Ministry of Defense for 2000 (31 aircraft and 6 helicopters).
    In March 2008, the Serbian newspaper Politika published an article “Milosevic did not allow an attack on NATO”, dedicated to the 9th anniversary of the start of NATO military operation against Yugoslavia, in which it reported that Yugoslav air defense shot down 2 NATO aircraft during the conflict (F-16 and F-117) and 36 aircraft and 2 helicopters damaged.

    Cited for an example. What data to believe? And I’m ready to spit in the face of anyone who says that Serbs are cowards, or worthless warriors!