It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
WASHINGTON -- The chief of staff of the Army told senators "tough" choices must be made in uncertain fiscal times, and up to 46 percent of active brigade combat teams might need to be cut if full sequestration hits in 2016.
Other witnesses were Gen. Frank Grass, the chief of the National Guard Bureau, and Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Talley, the chief of the Army Reserve and commanding general of the U.S. Army Reserve Command.
"The Army will be the only service in which the Reserve Component outnumbers the Active Component," he said. "We believe under these fiscal constraints, it's appropriate."
reply to post by freakjive
Understand and that's why I include "...like the LSM." I mean, your first paragraph of your post sensationalizes the article as well and is baseless speculation. Why would the Army take back the Apaches and give the National Guard Blackhawks? Hmmmmmm.....
Advocates of the Army’s decision say that the Black Hawks actually benefit the Guard because they are an incredible asset for disaster relief efforts.
It actually makes sense when you think about it...right? The National Guard swoops in, along with the Coast Guard, to help citizens during disasters. I bet a Blackhawk can do that job better than, oh, I don't know, an attack helicopter. Sure, if the disaster was being caused by Godzilla, the National Guard could use Apaches!
reply to post by Speculation
an apache is a cutting edge armed to the teeth ATTACK helicopter.
a black hawk is a TAXI CAB for hauling men and supplies. yes, its a relatively nice one, and yes you can slap some guns on it, but it is in an entirely different class altogether. truly no comparison. they are basically disarming the NG with that switch.