# Improve the NG



## DA SWO (Feb 20, 2014)

Looking at tight budgets for the forseable future.
How would you improve the Guard?

Me,

Eliminate Guard Div HQ (unless a Div Hq had 3 Brigades in the State).
Start a tiered rediness system (Red/Yellow/Green)where certain Bdes would get additional funding (not school money) to make them deployable 90 days after call-up. The Bde would rotate into a lower tier 24 months later.
Bdes identified for Tier 1 status would get additional training funds 12 months before going into tier 1 status.
8 year enlistments for AD with 2-4 years in Guard/Reserve required.
Annual SERBs to get rid of dead weight.  SERBs would be centralized to minimize the good ol boy system.


----------



## AWP (Feb 20, 2014)

I'd take OCS out of state hands and provide more Federal oversight. I'd eliminate the traditional Guard method wherein it take about 16 months to produce a 2LT over the AD's 90-ish days.

Combat Arms to the Reserves. The States can handle State missions with MP's and Trans. Companies.

I'd turn NGB into a smoking crater and start over.

The Air Guard is broken and needs an overhaul. The ability to pick and choose deployments and/ or break those into 30 days? Unreal.... I'm not sure of the fix, but I'm sure it is broken.

Better auditing and greater penalties for MOSQ numbers. States are very creative when it comes to keeping appearances.

Unicorns...lots of unicorns because there is no way the states will fix themselves...because they don't see themselves as broken.

The Guard has a lot of good people, but the Guard is a bad system.


----------



## reed11b (Feb 20, 2014)

Wow, @Freefalling hit almost every point I was going to make. I think the NG could handle some light combat arms but over-all, a much smaller force, focusing on state mission and post conflict missions (which happen to use almost identical units). Smaller forces would mean a larger percentage get activated for missions when they do come and more can get additional training when it is available. I serve in the guard only because it is the only combat arms option for me in WA. I do not like how we are treated by the NG system. 
Reed
P.S. If the base system of all combat arms being NG must remain, improvements could come from readiness being rated by level of training over % of manpower, stop using schools and promotions as retention carrots (i.e. treat me like shit for 3-6 years, I am not going to believe your promises when it is time to re-enlist), Shift away from heavy brigades since they have no State mission and will not get peacetime deployments, switch to quarterly training, weekend drills are fucking worthless.
Reed


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 21, 2014)

You guys are talking like the reserve has more funding and or ability to function than the guard. I served in the USAR for about 2 years, it was just as screwed up, more so in many ways.

I'll post my thoughts later, but I would I would not move combat arms over to the reserve, I will explain why later.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 21, 2014)

JAB said:


> You guys are talking like the reserve has more funding and or ability to function than the guard. I served in the USAR for about 2 years, it was just as screwed up, more so in many ways.
> 
> I'll post my thoughts later, but I would I would not move combat arms over to the reserve, I will explain why later.


Agree on the Combat Arms issue.
Quarterly drills would be better, I know a few Air Guard units that do that.

FWIW- I looked at Guard Divisions yesterday, only TX and PA Div Hq would be left under the 3 Bdes in a State requirement.  Can thos Hq and put the responsibility at the TAG, eliminates a set of GO/CSM slots.


----------



## Brill (Feb 21, 2014)

We started doing quarterly drills and it has significantly reduced time on administrivia but increased training time.


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 21, 2014)

I know the USAR has problems, but I got tired of hearing that Army regs don't apply in NG.....:wall:


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Feb 22, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Quarterly drills would be better, I know a few Air Guard units that do that.


 
19th has a great drill schedule (two per quarter: an admin drill and a "super drill", then they have a month off - but there is also flexibility for what training the teams have set up too). I think that is a smarter way of doing things, saves money, and allows for more training in one period.

I think there are arguments to be made for moving or keeping Combat Arms.  I personally think they should be in both Reserve Components, although I do think SF needs to be back under the Reserves.  The States have no idea what to do with those assets, let alone even want them.


----------



## AWP (Feb 22, 2014)

The biggest problem I see in moving the SF Groups to the USAR is recruiting. I'm a huge proponent of moving NGSF to the USAR because the NG does not like, does not respect, and does not know what to do with he SF Groups. So, the USAR...Without possessing combat arms SF Groups would be forced to take soldiers without a combat arms background. Obviously they do this now, but how many prior 11 series become 18 series vs. all other MOS'?

I don't think this would pose a problem now, but could in 8-10 years.

As much as the NG hates SF, it wouldn't consent to releasing the Groups...too much loss of prestige and face involved in such a move. Comparing notes with 18 series who came to us from 11th Group vs. those who were always in 20th Group, the USAR actually trained, deployed, and had equipment. The Guard...not so much.


----------



## talonlm (Feb 23, 2014)

The DoD changed how they are using the NG and Reserve but the mindset behind the funding and training of the did not.  And it began leaning that way in the late-1990s, before the last five years of budget buffoonery; these last two years just made the problems that much worse.


----------

