• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Ready Force study examining future Reserve readiness

By David VergunDecember 12, 2016

WASHINGTON (Army News Service) -- An Army Reserve G-3/5/7 study of the force called "Ready Force," is taking a hard and comprehensive examination at how well the Reserve is postured to support the Army against quick-striking, near-peer adversaries in full-spectrum operations, said Lt. Gen. Charles D. Luckey.

Luckey said he and his staff are eagerly waiting for the analytics on that study to determine the path forward. He didn't give a date when the report would be released, but termed it "a journey of discovery."

The Reserve has done an outstanding job over the last 15 years in operating as part of the total force against asymmetric threats in Iraq and Afghanistan, but now is the time to re-look its structure and capabilities, said Luckey, who is the chief of Army Reserve and commanding general, U.S. Army Reserve Command. He spoke at a Defense Writers Group breakfast here Monday.

The study is examining a number of different things, he said, including amount and type of training that ups readiness, he said.

The notion that more training is always better, does not necessarily apply across the board, he said. For some units like engineers, additional training days may prove fruitful, but for others such as a chaplain ministry team detachment, less so.

The key, and one that the study aims to understand, is getting at the proper balance between training and adverse impacts increased training may have on the Soldier's civilian career, he noted.

Luckey said he's "guarded" against simply adding additional training days to the calendar without a clear benefit for readiness, weighted by the impact to the civilian job.

The Reserve wants its Soldiers to be challenged and progress in their civilian careers as that not only benefits them, it also benefits the Army, Luckey said, meaning Army and civilian careers are not mutually exclusive.

The study also is examining Reserve force structure to include such things as locations of Reserve training centers and where they are in relation to pockets of industry that are vital to the Army's needs, he said.

One might make the case that locating a Reserve center at Barstow, California, near the National Training Center at Fort Irwin would boost readiness because reservists could more easily access the training there, but it would be less than an ideal location because the civilian jobs are not there, he said.

One of the most important aspects of the study, he said, is determining how quickly forces essential to full-spectrum operations can respond. During the last 15 years, Reserve forces knew well in advance when their rotations would occur. Looking ahead, the Reserve must be able to respond more quickly, like 60 to 90 days or even less, he said.

Ideally, the Reserve would bring full capabilities to bear on day one of a theater opening, he said, adding that he plans to convene a meeting with his commanders soon to discuss this topic.

Other aspects of the study will look at equipment, modernization and manning and how well it is structured for decisive-action campaigns in tandem with the active force and National Guard.

Over the last 15 years, the Reserve has worked side-by-side with the other components, he said. That relationship has benefited the Army greatly and it would be a shame to lose that. Opportunities to work alongside the active force and the Guard should be sought whenever feasible, and they are, he said, noting that the three components are doing just that at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and at other locations, particularly with First Army and U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.