The chief of the National Guard Bureau asked the Senate Appropriations committee this week to hold off on transferring the remainder of the Army National Guard’s AH-64 Apache helicopter fleet to the active component until an Army force structure commission reports its findings to Congress.
“If we could wait for the commission to report out to make any changes, that will reduce the turbulence at almost no cost,” Gen. Frank Grass told the defense subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 29.
Specifically, he would like to maintain the Army National Guard’s 350,000-person end strength. He also would like the Guard to retain six Apache battalions until Congress can digest the findings and recommendations of the National Commission on the Future of the Army, which are due Feb. 1, 2016.
Photo: U.S. Army
Under the Army’s Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI), the Guard would be forced to trade its entire fleet of Apaches for UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters that Army leaders say are better suited for the Guard’s domestic missions. Because budget constraints are forcing the Army to divest its fleet of Bell Helicopter [TXT] OH-58 Kiowa Warriors, Guard AH-64s will be used to fill the gap and fly reconnaissance missions while teamed with unmanned aerial vehicles. Boeing [BA] manufactures the Apache, while Sikorsky [UTX] makes the Black Hawk.
So far, the Guard has turned over 12 AH-64s to the active Army and plans to give up another 36 helicopters. However, its own alternative to the ARI would allow the Guard to keep about 60 percent of its aircraft, or six battalions. Grass recommended delaying any transfer of those rotorcraft until the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, he said.
Grass’s pleas may not be enough to halt the move permanently. The Government Accountability Office found in a report released this week that the Army’s restructure initiative would cost less than the Guard’s alternative plan.
Because the Guard Bureau proposed acquiring 11 additional Apaches, the Army estimates the Guard proposal is $220 million to $420 million more expensive that its own. The GAO agreed with the Army’s cost estimates, including that the restructure would save $1 billion a year.
It also agreed with Army analysis that the Guard proposal would result in a force less able to meet mission demands.