Not having the National Guard equipment

[sgmgrumpy]

An earlier ANG concern about these equipment shortages now a reality?


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...TAM&SECTION=US

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday evening that the state's response will likely be hampered because much of the equipment usually positioned around the state to respond to emergencies - including tents, trucks and semitrailers - is now in Iraq.

"Not having the National Guard equipment, which used to be positioned in various parts of the state, to bring in immediately is really going to handicap this effort to rebuild," said Sebelius.

[selil]

It looks like the tenth amendment discussion is starting to percolate to the surface. I haven't found any MSM discussion but the blogosphere is starting to buzz as governors are talking about recalling their troops and the legality of unfettered deployment of national guard units.

[Stan]

Good post Sam !
Unfortunately, no trolls here for breakfast (or are there?) !

Sound's like he's a bit bent. Exactly what do the men and women of Ohio's NG have for up-to-date equipment?

The brave men and women who serve in the Ohio National Guard are putting their lives on the line. I am asking for your assurance that prior to deployment, every Ohio soldier has the most up-to-date equipment, including individual body armor systems, M-4 rifles and other weapons systems, night vision devices, and up-armored type wheeled vehicles.

I agree, SGT Snow needs to get real.

Time out. WHY is a spokesperson for the Ohio adjutant general’s office speaking to the media, any media before evidently NOT running what he/she is going to say by their state Commander-In-Chief, Governor Strickland (see the root of the constitutional problem I’m talking about here). There is no indication that Sgt Snow (name sounds familiar) even ran this public affairs statement by the Ohio Adjutant General, in fact, there is no indication that Governor Strickland's letter to President Bush was coordinated with HIS Adjudtant General (Scratching Major Hanafin's head).

[Ski]

The article may be over the top but there is a very real lack of equipment in the Guard and Reserve.

[John T. Fishel]

Back in the Reagan Administration several governors challenged the right of the President to send the National Guard on deployments to Central America. the Supreme Court ruled against the governors. Thus, there is a precedent which, despite some factual differences, is most likely to be upheld.

Nevertheless, the policy issue is real and the over reliance on Reserve Components for repeated, long term, overseas deployments to an ongoing war is one in which there are far more negative consequences than positive ones. Unfortunately, there is no good short term fix and the long term fix simply takes the long term and significantly more funding.

[Ski]

In addition, there needs to be a political decision to expend the industrial base of the military. We simply aren't getting equipment quickly enough.

Back in the Reagan Administration several governors challenged the right of the President to send the National Guard on deployments to Central America. the Supreme Court ruled against the governors. Thus, there is a precedent which, despite some factual differences, is most likely to be upheld.

Nevertheless, the policy issue is real and the over reliance on Reserve Components for repeated, long term, overseas deployments to an ongoing war is one in which there are far more negative consequences than positive ones. Unfortunately, there is no good short term fix and the long term fix simply takes the long term and significantly more funding.

[Stan]

John and Ski,
I will beg forgiveness at the lack of knowledge regarding 'lack of equipment' not having served a day in the Guard.

My 23 years of active duty led me to however believe (yes, a tad naive) that our NG and Reserves have always been intended to back US up.

Did it get to this point recently ? Granted, before Iraq and Afghanistan, we didn't strain the system enough to see 'support to AD units' shortcomings. That said, perhaps better we are discovering those shortcomings now.

Back in the Reagan Administration several governors challenged the right of the President to send the National Guard on deployments to Central America. the Supreme Court ruled against the governors. Thus, there is a precedent which, despite some factual differences, is most likely to be upheld.

Nevertheless, the policy issue is real and the over reliance on Reserve Components for repeated, long term, overseas deployments to an ongoing war is one in which there are far more negative consequences than positive ones. Unfortunately, there is no good short term fix and the long term fix simply takes the long term and significantly more funding.

[sgmgrumpy]

The National Guard and homeland security
By Douglas Hanson

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/...d_homelan.html

For 30 years, the Guard has been largely configured as combat arms formations designed as a supplementary force to 'round out' active Army combat divisions. In other words, reserve manpower to augment combat formations in mid— to high— intensity wars. The Army has wisely determined that the Guard's proper focus should return to protecting our homeland.

The Chief of the National Guard Bureau has announced a major strategy change for the Guard. Army Lt. Gen. Steven Blum said that the Guard will play a significant role in Homeland Defense and Homeland Security.

In an interview, Lt. Gen Blum noted that,

The Guard's homeland defense missions include supporting Coast Guard patrols of sea and coastal areas, detecting and defending against air and missile attacks, protecting private infrastructure and responding to attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. In the event of an incident or crisis, DoD's and the nation's "reliance would be very heavy on the National Guard, both the Air Guard and Army Guard," Blum said.

This is a strong indication that the National Guard will revert to a more traditional role of remaining stateside to provide a much—needed military capability to handle a variety of homeland defense and security missions, including WMD response.

[Stan]

But even in those Homeland Security roles, we're still talking about shortcomings in Equipment and Readiness.

IMHO, in order to protect our home, they should be ready to deploy.

Right ?

[John T. Fishel]

As the governor of Kansas pointed out, much of the equipment for the Guard's state mission is over in Iraq and getting used up as well. Not having a large enough active force required using the Guard's combat formations which are dual tasked for state duty in emergencies like this one. The good news was that the Guard did have enough equipment to deploy for the Iraq and Afghanistan missions. The bad news is that it needs to be reconstituted for both its combat and state missions. Since 90% of Guard funding is Federal, that means that reconstitution comes at the pace required by the Federal mission and even with the speed up of calling up Guard units, they get their stuff after the Ac gets what it needs and in the order of deployment. So, we rob Peter to pay Paul as the unanticipated consequences of past decisions reap their fruit.

[sgmgrumpy]

We seem to have known about this since 2004.


Army National Guard's Role, Organization, and Equipment Need to be
Reexamined
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06170t.pdf

States Are Concerned about Preparedness for Future Domestic Missions in Light of Growing Army National Guard Equipment Shortages

To address equipment requirements for current overseas operations, the Army now requires units, in both the active and reserve components, to leave certain essential items that are in short supply in Iraq for follow-on units to use,17 but it has not developed plans to replace Army National Guard equipment as DOD policy requires. 18 The Army’s requirement for leaving equipment overseas is intended to reduce the amount of equipment that has to be transported from the United States to theater, to better enable units to meet their deployment dates, and to maintain stocks of essential equipment in theater where it is most needed. While this equipping approach has helped meet current operational needs, it has continued the cycle of reducing the pool of equipment available to nondeployed forces for responding to contingencies and for training. The Army National Guard estimates that since 2003, it has left more than 64,000 equipment items valued at over $1.2 billion overseas to support continuing operations, but the Army lacks visibility and cannot account for all this equipment and has not developed plans to replace it. According to Army officials, even though DOD policy requires the Army to replace
equipment transferred to it from the reserve component for more than 90 days,19 the Army neither created a mechanism in the early phases of thewar to track Guard equipment left in theater nor prepared replacement plans for this equipment because the practice of leaving equipment behind was intended to be a short-term measure.

A Perfect Storm: Army National
Guard Equipment Shortfall

November 13, 2006
Equipping the Army National Guard for the 21st Century

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...ity/bg1983.cfm

The National Guard’s high operational tempo and increased missions have not yielded substan*tial additional funding and resources, especially in regard to equipment. The demands of overseas missions, particularly in Iraq, have badly depleted the Guard’s domestic store of vehicles, weapons, and communications gear, leaving units with one-third of the equipment needed to meet require*ments for homeland defense missions. Chief of the National Guard Bureau Lieutenant General Steven Blum confirmed that in September 2001, the Guard had 75 percent of its needed equipment “on hand.” Today, that number is less than 35 percent.

[wierdbeard]

I've been following this thread as well as following the issue in the news, all very interesting but a few things that have been overlooked. The majority of the equipment that Guard units have is outdated, i read that Governors are saying they left with all the new equipment. Where is this fantasy land? Every piece of equipment i have seen guard units deploy with is outdated, with the exception of "enhanced" units, most guard guys get the new gear once they get to a MOB station, so for alot this is the first time they ever see it unless they are fairly new recruits. I have seen guard units that had been specifically designated for state emergency's (engineers for example) that had very old outdated equipment which the state then sales off after transitioning the unit to combat engineering. If the states want to complain about equipment shouldn't they first look at what state they were in prior to hi-tempo deployments? I'm not pointing the finger of blame at the states AG here, it seems that prior to 9/11 most states cut alot of funding to their guard units, and most have not replaced it, they seem to be depending on the AD to do so.

[Ski]

Stan and others,

The Guard has ALWAYS been dependent on federal funds for their equipment. It has been pretty bad ever since I've been in, which has been since 96. As a tank platoon leader in the 40th Division in 96, I signed for M60A3TTS tanks, M3 grease guns and .45 cal pistols that were so rickety that waterfowl were afraid when we went to the range. There are very few Congressionally procured items such as M2A2ODS Brads, UH-60's and the like, but the Guard is reliant on the Army to be equipped. Even this equipment has been left in theater to meet the needs of the theater commander.

One of the major problems with equipment in CS and CSS units that aren't "high priority' (that designator has gone away with time) is that the Army changes force structure every two years in the Total Army Analysis process. That's why you see tank battalions become cav or infantry units, or truck companies become engineer companies. Stick with the structure for a while so the procurement and equipment distribution systems can catch up.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have only stressed a system that was broken before. As stated earlier, units are getting a ton of equipment once they are mobilized on Title 10 orders, and this eats into post-mob training time not to mention readiness. The Guard is trying to get to a higher level of training in pre-mob training, but the lack of equipment is just killing any commanders ability to get to platoon proficiency in pre-mob.

And again, the states have very little to do with equipping their forces, it's a Title 10 responsibility of the Army to do so.

[Stan]

I'm not too sure I want to know more

For example, some Army National Guard units still use M35 series trucks, M113 armored per*sonnel carriers, and the older M1 tanks with 105mm guns. Other Guard units still rely on radio equip*ment that cannot change frequencies, use outdated encryption technology, and cannot communicate effectively with active Army units or first responders.

We used to say (yes, a decade ago thank you very much !) Strive for excellence, not perfection. M35 wheeled vehicles ?

This multifaceted problem extends beyond the Guard’s older gear and equipment shortfalls for domestic mission requirements. Department of Defense Directive 1225.6, “Equipping the Reserve Forces,” requires that replacement equipment be delivered to Guard and Reserve units for equip*ment transferred to the active Army for longer than 90 days. Many equipment transfers were never accounted for properly, and as of June 2006, few plans to replace equipment had been drawn up by the Army, and even fewer had been approved.

Sad, that the human factor still accounts for our casualties, at home and abroad.

Reading SGM's and Wierdbeard's recent posts, the problem is not only stoneage, but unacceptable. Did we really prepare these folks with outdated equipment to go to Iraq and Afghanistan ? Does anyone still make M1 105 rounds ?

To meet combatant com*manders’ mandates that National Guard units deploy with 90 percent to 100 percent of their required equipment, the Guard and Reserves have been transferring equipment from non-deployed units to those preparing to deploy to make up for severe shortfalls.

I won't even pretent to know what the missing 10 percent is of required equipment.

I signed for M60A3TTS tanks, M3 grease guns and .45 cal pistols that were so rickety that waterfowl were afraid when we went to the range.

Ski, our posts crossed along the internet !
I am at a loss for words. I will admit, that the M60 CEV and M3 are among my favorites...But not rickety.

[Ski]

Stan

We had M35's that were built in the 1960's. Our mechanics were geniuses.

I remember shooting TTVIII at Ft. Hunter Liggett in 1998 with M1IP's. Of course, we were still without SINCGARS, so we had radios that were used by my dad when he was in Vietnam. (I forget the name - I want to say PRC -77's) When a radio broke, the supply process was to use an impact card at the local Radio Shack so the S6 goons could solder up a few wires and cables.

What 1225.6 says is that there only has to be a plan for re-equipping the Guard and Reserve within 90 days. When will the equipment arrive? Oh, sometime in 2012 if not later. I'm not being facietous either.

A lot of the ancient equipment was left behind at the mob station or at home station once the Title 10 equipping process started to crap out equipment. But some of it went over...

The Guard doesn't have M1 slicks or M1/IPs any longer...we have M1A1AIM and M1A1HA's. Using the Guard as an operational reserve has forced the Army to equip Guard units to the same standard, it's just that they wait until they are mobilzed to do so. In all fairness, however, the Active Army is short a lot of equipment as well due to Modularity, the non-standard MTOE's in theater and attrition. It's the perfect storm of how not to equip an Army, and there is a fascinating doctorate or 12 to be written once the shooting stops.

[selil]

In 1983 when i was in USANG I trained with M60A3's at Fort Knox. They were still around 13 years later? They were old when I first pulled the trigger and rocked the world. When I realized everybody in the world shot at Armor I transferred to the Marine Corps where I was safe and had all new equipment.. Dang was I wrong.

[Stan]

Hi Ski,
I was watching a soap about Ms. A. N. Smith and her child, and fell asleep

I think all the M35s were built in the 60s, but would agree that mechanics who can fix those, are indeed geniuses.

Our first M1 was the XM1 at Aberdeen, so you could say, I feel your pain

Ski, they called it (and we still call it) the 'prick 77'. I wouldn't give you my PRC77 for all the SINCGARS in the world. At least they worked. But that's not the point, so back to the thread....you're right. Radioshack could repair it before some 3rd shop would even sign it over for repair.

Sorry, but I'm kinda-almost-sorta glad I just did the full AD term and retired !

Regards, Stan

Stan

We had M35's that were built in the 1960's. Our mechanics were geniuses.

I remember shooting TTVIII at Ft. Hunter Liggett in 1998 with M1IP's. Of course, we were still without SINCGARS, so we had radios that were used by my dad when he was in Vietnam. (I forget the name - I want to say PRC -77's) When a radio broke, the supply process was to use an impact card at the local Radio Shack so the S6 goons could solder up a few wires and cables.

What 1225.6 says is that there only has to be a plan for re-equipping the Guard and Reserve within 90 days. When will the equipment arrive? Oh, sometime in 2012 if not later. I'm not being facietous either.

A lot of the ancient equipment was left behind at the mob station or at home station once the Title 10 equipping process started to crap out equipment. But some of it went over...

The Guard doesn't have M1 slicks or M1/IPs any longer...we have M1A1AIM and M1A1HA's. Using the Guard as an operational reserve has forced the Army to equip Guard units to the same standard, it's just that they wait until they are mobilzed to do so. In all fairness, however, the Active Army is short a lot of equipment as well due to Modularity, the non-standard MTOE's in theater and attrition. It's the perfect storm of how not to equip an Army, and there is a fascinating doctorate or 12 to be written once the shooting stops.

[120mm]

Actually, I think the M35A3 and A4 upgrades are the shiznit.

August 1991, I took over a CAV unit equipped with M48A5s, ITVs and M113s. With M151 jeeps, as well, of course.

If the plan is to wait until the feces really hit the fan, "outdated" equipment is okay, as far as I'm concerned. But if the NG is supposed to deploy with AD on a one for one basis, not such a good idea.

The role of the National Guard has changed significantly since the Cold War. I don't agree with the change, either. The benefits of Guard membership are grossly unequal to the new expectations of deployment, the equipment is not up to snuff, and the active duty military does not have sufficient incentive to treat Guardsmen as anything but an expendable resource.

[sgmgrumpy]

Kansas Gov.: Tornado Exposed Guard Holes
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...TAM&SECTION=US

Maj. Gen. Tod Bunting, the state's adjutant general, said the Kansas National Guard was equipped to about 40 percent of its necessary levels, down from the 60 percent it had at the start of the war. About 850 soldiers have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

[sgmgrumpy]

Yet again I thought this was not an issue?


Army National Guard Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum

WASHINGTON, May 24, 2007 - Congress must either fund equipment for the National Guard or accept the risks of an under-equipped strategic reserve, the Guard's top officer said today.

The Guard has only about half of the equipment it needs, Army National Guard Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, testified before the House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security's subcommittee on management, investigations and oversight.

Guard’s Lack of Equipment Puts U.S. at Risk, Chief Says

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=46168