NEW!
Recently, the United States Army Aviation Center of Excellence (USAACE) released an update brief on ARI, that clearly shows their plan to move ahead. On one of the slides, the brief states, "it’s risky, complex, interdependent, irreversible, and time sensitive in execution." The key words here are risky and irreversible - and this is something the Army fully acknowledges. Why then would would Active Duty move ahead with such a plan, without taking the time to fully consider the consequences?
COMING SOON...
Recently, a CAPE Study was conducted to support the ARI, and is intended to be shared with the Council of Governors (CoG) on or around the 2nd of December. The issue with this study is that by its very nature it will be biased: CAPE stands for Center for the Army Profession and Ethic - it is an official U.S. Army site. How can Active Duty decide what's best for the Guard by doing a study on the cost-benefit analysis that favors Active Duty?
NEW!
The CAPE study has been classified For Official Use Only (FOUO), so the .ppt brief cannot be placed on the site. The study fails to provide sources for its statistics, and it fails to include some critical comparisons:
1. Accident ratio comparison. The slides fail to mention that Active Duty has had significantly more pilot related, Class A accidents (meaning aircraft was a total loss and/or pilots were killed). In the last 5 years, Active Duty has had an estimated 15. At $30 Million an Apache, this equates to nearly half a billion in aircraft loss.
2. Cost of aircraft maintenance. The slides fail to mention that Active Duty relies heavily on extremely costly contract maintenance. So the dollar values presented in the CAPE brief need to be questioned and reevaluated. Guard maintainers are more experienced than their Active counterparts, and significantly less costly.
Bottom line here is that the CAPE Brief needs to show the sources of all its calculations and statistics. Otherwise, they're just numbers on some slides. Meaningless.
NEW FROM NGUAS!
Governors are concerned that the Army is pushing ahead with its plan to transfer AH-64 Apache helicopters from the Army National Guard and want lawmakers to tell the service to knock it off. A letter was just signed by Gov. Rick Snyder (R-MI), the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, Gov. Terry McCauliffe (D-VA), the vice chairman of the Committee, Gov. Terry Branstad (R-IO), a co-chairman of the Council of Governors, and Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-MD), also a co-chairman of the Council of Governors.
"Despite continuing Congressional deliberations, as well as ongoing
discussions through the Council of Governors with Department of Defense
senior leaders, the Army is moving forward with its Aviation Restructure
Initiative," the governors write in a letter sent Friday. "If left unchecked, this unilateral preemptive action would undermine Congressional efforts to ensure an independent Commission can review the ARI's effect on national security and the security of our states."
The letter continues, "We encourage you to request that the Army suspend
implementation of the ARI until a Commission completes its review and ensure compliance by prohibiting the transfer of Apaches in the NDAA for FY 2015."
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION IN ORDER
House Resolution 3930, while a definitive step in the right direction, made the mistake of authorizing a Government Accounting Office (GAO) study, rather than an independent commission, to conduct an external study of the cost benefit analysis of ARI. S.B. 2410 and the NDAA needs to ensure that the language of their legislation ONLY authorizes an independent commission. A good example is the Stimson Study conducted in September 2013:
http://www.stimson.org/spotlight/new-stimson-report-recommends-changes-to-us-defense-budget-to-strengthen-national-security
The Stimson Center is a non-profit, nonpartisan institution devoted to pragmatic solutions for global security.
IS ARI EVEN LEGAL?
Since when can Federal entities claim what is largely State owned? True, some of the Apache helicopters may be Federal property, but some funds have been set aside, under NGREA, to fund Apaches for the Guard - NOT for Active Duty. Under Title 32, the States and their Governors have certain legal rights and this needs to be explored.
NGREA stands for the National Guard & Reserve Equipment Account. To read more about NGREA, and why Guard assets are protected under this fund, read the below articles:
Link 1 - click HERE
Link 2 - click HERE
Link 3 - click HERE
NEW ARTICLE: WHY STATES NEED THEIR APACHES!
A well written response by Arizona's 2 Star Adjutant General directed at those that have questioned why the Guard has attack aircraft. Ultimately, this is not an issue of why the National Guard does or does not need Apaches… this is an issue about why the United States needs the National Guard. Read more @ http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140929/DEFFEAT05/309290022/Commentary-States-Need-Their-Apaches
WHERE WILL THOSE 48 AIRCRAFT COME FROM?
The Guard is authorized 192 Apaches, but currently only has 175 Apaches. Do the math: this means that 17 Apaches are not even in possession of the Guard. Where will those 48 aircraft that Active Duty is asking for come from, considering the Guard is already down 17 helicopters?
Consider this... if 48 are taken from the existing 175, that leaves a total of 127 Apaches across the Guard. If all 8 units were to cross level the remaining aircraft, that would leave each unit with ~ 16 Apaches.
SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON
Want to read the fine print between differences of H.R. 3390 and S.B. 2295? Check it out here:
ari_implementation_timeline_21_oct_14da_placemat.pdf |
ndaa_ari_side_by_side.pptx |
ARI decimates the Total Force, "One Team, One Fight" concept. It changes the mission of the National Guard (NG) to almost exclusively Domestic Operations and select overseas missions; a fundamental shift from the first charter of the Guard.
The Guard has 2 roles:
1. First & foremost is to provide an operational & ready reserve to defend the Nation; to supplement the Active Duty (AD) in any mission or conflict, anywhere in the world.
2. To assist the State when requested by the Governor.
What’s the rush? It costs hundreds upon hundreds of millions to establish a trained and ready Apache unit – whether in the NG or AD. But in a matter of months, Active Duty could undo what took 20+ years to make what it is today: a highly proficient and well-trained Apache unit. If ARI is implemented in full, the Guard will lose over 4,000 aviation positions with the transfer of all Apache force structure to Active Duty.
Want to do more? Contact the members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee in YOUR State and tell them why keeping Apaches in the Guard is the right answer for our military and our Nation.
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/members
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/
SEE FOR YOURSELF: Open the .pdf below to see the timeline for removal of ALL Apache Helicopters from the Guard.