Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Monday proposed shrinking the Army, closing military bases and making other military-wide savings as part of a broad reshaping of priorities after more than a decade of war.

Hagel outlined his vision in a speech at the Pentagon a week before President Barack Obama is set to submit his 2015 budget plan to Congress.

Hagel said the military must adjust to the reality of smaller budgets, even as the United States faces a more volatile and unpredictable world that requires a more nimble military.

"This will be the first budget to fully reflect the transition DoD (Department of Defense) is making after 13 years of war,” Hagel said. The new policy aims to “put a premium on rapidly deployable” forces, he said.

The announced reduction in the size of the U.S. military comes as no surprise, with the Obama administration having publicly spoken about the need to lower the number of U.S. military personnel as early as 2012.

Under the Hagel plan – which Congress could change – the active-duty Army would shrink to between 440,000 and 450,000 soldiers, from its current 522,000. That would make it the smallest since just before the U.S. entered World War II.

Army leaders have said for months that they expect their numbers would drop as the nation prepares to end its combat role in Afghanistan this year.

Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, said recently that whatever the future size of the Army, it must adapt to conditions that are different from what many soldiers have become accustomed to during more than a decade of war. He said many have the misperception that the Army is no longer busy.

"People tend to think that the Army is out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is not much going on," he said on Jan. 23 at an Army forum. "The Army is not standing still. The Army is doing many, many, many things in order for us to shape the future environment and prevent conflict around the world."

The last time the active-duty Army was below 500,000 was in 2005, when it stood at 492,000. Its post-World War II low was 480,000 in 2001, according to historical tables provided by the Army on Monday. In 1940 the Army had 267,000 active-duty members, and it surged to 1.46 million the following year as the U.S. approached entry into World War II.

Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said Monday that Hagel had consulted closely with the military service chiefs on how to balance defense and budget-saving requirements.

"He has worked hard with the services to ensure that we continue to stand for the defense of our national interests – that whatever budget priorities we establish, we do so in keeping with our defense strategy and with a strong commitment to the men and women in uniform and to their families, Kirby said.

"But he has also said that we have to face the realities of our time. We must be pragmatic. We can't escape tough choices. He and the chiefs are willing to make those choices," Kirby said.

 whembly wrote:
Killing the A-10 Warthog seems short sighted...

I guess it doesn't line the powers the be's pockets like the F-35 does...

I hope I t really doesn't feth with benefits and pay...

 Ouze wrote:

Maybe while we're at it, we can stop buying stuff the Army asks us not to?

 Captain Fantastic wrote:

Army Reserve and Air National Guard could take a cut too. I think the Army Reserve is larger than the entire Active Duty Marine Corps at the moment, which makes absolutely no sense.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
Why the heck would they cut the A-10? .

 Ouze wrote:
Because it only does one job, and the Air Force wants to emphasize multirole platforms. and why have a $13 million dollar aircraft that is really good at one thing when you can replace it with a $100 million dollar one that kinda sucks?

 Frazzled wrote:
The British are still out there!

 Frazzled wrote:
The British are still out there!

 Frazzled wrote:
Benefits are already getting hammered and good people getting forced out. The British are still out there!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Benefits are already getting hammered and good people getting forced out. The British are still out there!

And don't you forget it! We're still biding our time...still playing the long game

 Ouze wrote:

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
Why the heck would they cut the A-10? .

Because it only does one job, and the Air Force wants to emphasize multirole platforms. and why have a $13 million dollar aircraft that is really good at one thing when you can replace it with a $100 million dollar one that kinda sucks?

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
Multi-role platforms are a waste of money. They're experimenting with them because they haven't done anything like it before with birds. It costs more money, manpower and logistical support to equip that F-35 with all the various armaments and mods that it has the capability for than it does to develop single-role crafts that have predictable and cheap service lives.

Thinking about it from a Mechanic's point of view, if I have one F-35 that has a variety of roles, I'm responsible for maintaining every single piece of SL-3 for every single one of those roles, many of which probably require a clearance (which I would most likely have) or are Fifth Echelon pieces of gear that I can't even touch. This is an enormous headache as far as having a deadlined plane, and an enormous pain for my entire unit as far as readiness.

They haven't considered the possibility of them being shot down either. There is no feasible way to quickly and efficiently replace a hundred million dollar plane, not to mention the pilot. It's also not easy to replace a thirty five year old A-10 or its pilot either though.

Going off my perspective as a mechanic, that rotating thrust cone seems like a pain. assuming it uses a hydraulic system to rotate, instead of something manual. The Top Secret paint the thing is coated in is probably a headache too. I think I remember reading about this with the F117, even thought that was much less complicated. I would really like to have a beer or two with an F-22 mech and just talk about mechanic stuff.

 Easy E wrote:
Benefits and pay are getting cut first! Why that sounds just like the private sector!

Good thing we all believe that Government should be run like a Business.

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Benefits and pay are getting cut first! Why that sounds just like the private sector!

Good thing we all believe that Government should be run like a Business.

Actually, if it were run like a business, we'd dump the divisions that are costing us ludicrous amounts of money for no benefit. Pretty much everything on the social welfare side.

 Bromsy wrote:
Take a long hard look at the procurement process? Nope, just cut jobs!

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Benefits and pay are getting cut first! Why that sounds just like the private sector!

Good thing we all believe that Government should be run like a Business.

Actually, if it were run like a business, we'd dump the divisions that are costing us ludicrous amounts of money for no benefit. Pretty much everything on the social welfare side.