Yeah, I don't think all the AD Armor/Mech is going away. They just shipped a battalions worth back to Europe after 2CR got their azzes handed to them in a recent NATO exercise. Seems that Strykers can't go toe-to-toe with heavy armor. Who knew? 
Maybe some folks who did initial ops analysis back when Shinseki proposed such a critter?
Don't get me wrong, SBCT brings more and more mobile combat power to the table than light infantry. If it were truly air mobile and ready to rock on landing it would be a terrific asset and just the thing to bring in after the Rangers secure your airfields. But you would have to be a fool to think it can be used like armored or cav units can & ought to be used.
Oh, the SBCT can DEFEND against heavy armor...if it has time to deploy and break out the multitudinous Javelins. And if the terrain is reasonably amenable. Pushing
tarted up LAVs Strykers against real armor is a fine way to generate tons of scrap metal.
If I'm understanding that correctly... That is insane, to put it mildly. ALL armor brigades going to the NG? I think a lot higher of the NG than a lot of folks, but having ZERO active duty armor brigades is nuts. You'd want some for Korea, at a minimum, and a couple more in case of a smaller power losing their marbles. Between this and the DoD betting damn near everything on the F-35, we're going to be in a very rough patch. The only plus side is the Navy is doing well, we have 10 active carriers and two in reserve.
We'll be in short straights with virtually no heavy armor and restricted fighter airframes across all of the services. Only plus side is that the US is unlikely to be invaded. Canada and Mexico don't exactly have a lot of offensive military capacity.
Yes, you have understood correctly.
Obviously it has not been done yet, but this is a real possibility.
The idea is:
1. Reorient to Pacific.
2. All Pacific action will be amenable to Spec Ops and light infantry solutions.
3. Cut & gut like crazy.
Yeah, the F35. Not sure I want to give up our hardest-hitting ground attack aircraft (A10) until the F35 has proved itself in numbers. Meanwhile, we will fly the best 1970s air superiority aircraft (F15) and the best 1980s light fighter (F16). And a few F22s.
I think it is a bit funny that some people who complain about .gov spending money it doesn't have are now up in arms because it is cutting costs. I'll admit, there are many things I'd like to see cut long before taking a knife to the DOD budget, but having once worn a uniform, I know that there is a lot of fat in the DOD budget. That said, I think cutting the A-10 because it is a tank buster is just plain ignorant, because it overlooks the aircraft capability for close air support ops.
Honestly, I wonder how long it will be until someone has a serious thought about closing West Point, Annapolis, the Air Force Academy, and the Coast guard Academy, or in some way consolidating the programs...maybe move the Coasties in with the Squids, and put the Zoomies back with the Cadets.
1. The cost cutting proposed is rather foolish and sub-optimal. This has been seen on the horizon for some time and planned for such that as much combat power was preserved. Those plans are being junked in favor of maximizing the loss of combat power and minimizing the loss of overhead.
2. Spending money on hardware and then dumping the hardware in the middle of the Atlantic is less harmful than our social programs.
3. Stacking the cash in a great pyramid like the Joker and setting it on fire is less harmful than spending it on social programs.
4. Army is in such a screwed up place vis a vis its civvie employees, I do not even know where to begin. I can go to PM here, or preferably a dim location where alcoholic beverages are served for some detail.
