Merge the Military services?

[Fonze]

I wanted to start this thread because many here believe that the mils priorities are twisted and waste money on same programs but through different branches.

So I ask should the U.S merge the services into one branch? Would this save money? What are the positives and negatives?

I've never been in the military so i dont know much but it seems that this might save money. It might also even deployments across the board evenly. My wife says its a bad idea and says she joined the navy and not the army.


Whats your thoughts

[TheLastDon]

Oh, I believe it will happen eventually just from a monetary standpoint. Not in the next 10 years but maybe 20 to 30. Some programs are already being shared but I can't comment on it right now.

[P_chan]

I agree with TLD, they will all eventually be one again. My job is always getting tasking for army deployments.

[Fonze]

What are the negatives though?

[TheLastDon]

The negatives I see would be a loss of identity with the individual services and a loss of tradition. I have a lot of unbiased views of the different branches that I would like to expound upon but I'm a little mentally drained at this time to write a long post.

[Hollarey]

Actually, I think all branches are one in the same. I mean, they are all serving a purpose and protecting their country. They all have advantages and disadvantages but maybe combining the services will get rid of that damm "i'm better than you" mentality from being in different branches. It really irriates me to hear service members saying they are better because they are marines. I could care less what branch you are in, I just respect that you are a military member. Hell, my brother was Navy, I was Army and my husband is Air Force. We all served the same purpose. Well, I didnt get to serve but that is a different story but you get my point.

[Asshat]

Thus far, many of these posts have been based on idiology. The services are not the same, not funded the same, don't even have the same missions. In the past two decades however in their bids to survive, the services have started expanding their individual roles to reestablish their identities. This has resulted in more waste of funds.

I was once in a far off land doing mission X as a back up for another service also doing mission X. My unit traveled 800 miles to be at the site, the other service travelled over 8000 miles to be at the site.

We stayed at some barracks on base with the the loss of meal rations and were issued MRE's. The other service stayed in hotels drawing full per diem of US 100 a day. We were doing the same mission!

On the last day, they were unable to do their mission. They had to fly in more personnel to repair things also at US 100 a day. Our guys were already there eating MRE's too.

I saw this funding disparity the whole time I was in. Anyone who was in either of the two services I refer to, know which services I am talking about.

So...does better mean a better use of tax payer dollars?

There are changes with for example the JSF. No more USAF bird and separate USN bird. (I could go on)

Cool post Fonze. Too much politik going on with four-stars and congressmen to meld the US Armed Forces into one.

[Jrocka83]

What I see happening is the Airforce and Army could be merged, but I don't ever see the Navy and Marine Corps merging. But all defense could come out of one branch, like the (GDF) Glabal Defense Force or (NDF) National Defense Force. Pay attention to NASA, theres a onother branch of the Millitary coming about. THE SPACE FORCE... Its a reallity, we now have nukes on sattalites and NASA is devoliping combat space crafts... freaky..

[Tony Stacks]

What I see happening is the Airforce and Army could be merged, but I don't ever see the Navy and Marine Corps merging. But all defense could come out of one branch, like the (GDF) Glabal Defense Force or (NDF) National Defense Force. Pay attention to NASA, theres a onother branch of the Millitary coming about. THE SPACE FORCE... Its a reallity, we now have nukes on sattalites and NASA is devoliping combat space crafts... freaky..


Well actually the Air Force used to be part of the Army and should merge again I think.
The USMC is a seperate branch that falls under the Secretary of the Navy.

I do think they should merge funds though.

[FDokinawa]

I saw this funding disparity the whole time I was in. Anyone who was in either of the two services I refer to, know which services I am talking about.



You were Army.. they were Air Force. :D

[Asshat]

You were Army.. they were Air Force. :D

USMC Airwing. USAF. :D

By the way, the USAF "has" to be getting real nervous that many missions are being accomplished by RPV from attack/strike to recon.

The only pilots that will remain will be the transporters and the rotor wing.

[TheLastDon]

If we keep flushing more money down the black hole known as Iraq for much longer, I think there will be some drastic changes coming real soon. It might not be the services merging but something is going to happen.

Even the Air Force is running out of money.

[Asshat]

If we keep flushing more money down the black hole known as Iraq for much longer, I think there will be some drastic changes coming real soon. It might not be the services merging but something is going to happen.

Even the Air Force is running out of money.

Canada is going to attack us in our time of weakness.

[TheLastDon]

Canada is going to attack us in our time of weakness.

As in that South Park episode, wait you don't watch south park eh Uminchu.

[Asshat]

As in that South Park episode, wait you don't watch south park eh Uminchu.

Yep. South Park is cool. But the Canada comment came from a John Candy flick.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Make every marine a soldier. That would go a long way towards reducing redundancy.

[Asshat]

Make every marine a soldier. That would go a long way towards reducing redundancy.

So no more USMC air wing? (you know I am setting a trap here right?)

No more USMC intel units?

[TheNoNamedOne]

hehehehe...

Doesn't the air force have helicopters and airplanes and jets to move men around and give them fire support? Looks like it would be pretty easy to by some paint from Makeman, make some stencils, and simply paint USAF on all the aircraft at Futenma.

What has Marine intel garnered for us? I wonder if there is an oxymoron in that MOS somewhere. ???

[Asshat]

hehehehe...

Doesn't the air force have helicopters and airplanes and jets to move men around and give them fire support? Looks like it would be pretty easy to by some paint from Makeman, make some stencils, and simply paint USAF on all the aircraft at Futenma.

What has Marine intel garnered for us? I wonder if there is an oxymoron in that MOS somewhere. ???

Most of the questions you posed can not be answered by anyone with the answers. Suffice it to say that in many arenas the left hand never knows what the right hand is doing.

Communication is the issue and this is important when requesting close air support.

[civilian1]

leave it to the contractors they seem to have all the money...but yet where are the savings?

[Boost]

I could see both positive and negative effects of a merge. Though in many ways I think the positive could out weigh the negative.

Positive:
Would help prevent the redundancy of different services doing the same job. Why does each service need their own "intel" department?
Why does each service need to have their own planes?
Why do we need two separate services who's primary mission is ground pounding?
Why does each service need their own version of "special forces"?
Why does each service need their own unique versions of uniforms/BDU's?

Seems to me that it is a waste of time and money, both very valuable assets in this day and age in the military.

[Asshat]

I could see both positive and negative effects of a merge. Though in many ways I think the positive could out weigh the negative.

Positive:
Would help prevent the redundancy of different services doing the same job. Why does each service need their own "intel" department?
Why does each service need to have their own planes?
Why do we need two separate services who's primary mission is ground pounding?
Why does each service need their own version of "special forces"?
Why does each service need their own unique versions of uniforms/BDU's?

Seems to me that it is a waste of time and money, both very valuable assets in this day and age in the military.

The reasons for all of your question are because some of the services are not readily available to assist other services. The USMC airwing is the direct result of USMC grunts not getting support when they called for it because USAF commanders had "other" missions.

Each faucet you mention exists for the same reasons. By merging the services, those reasons might disappear. Then again, the red tape might increase.

[Boost]

The reasons for all of your question are because some of the services are not readily available to assist other services. The USMC airwing is the direct result of USMC grunts not getting support when they called for it because USAF commanders had "other" missions.


What if you were to consolidate all the aircraft and money allocated towards those to the Air Force, and then maybe they would be able to sustain a fleet to meet those needs?

By merging the forces, in theory that is what would happen and help ease or remove the issue you brought up.

As for the red tape, I can see your point but then again, if it were all incorporated in the same military force rather then translating from USMC to USAF, the red tape would become standardized.

[Asshat]

So how does a KC-135 pilot transition into commanding an Carrier? You can carry that line of thought throughout. Even if the service was combined, it would still have it's Air arm, it's Sea arm, and it's Infantry arm. All of those branches would still require diversified logistics including contracting functions.

Who do these different entities within the unified military report to? They are already unified under the Chairman Joint Chief, and the SEC DEF.

The only savings would be a very few General officers. Who would assist the CIC in making tactical decisions? Would that new Carrier Captain advise on Aerial questions?

I think it is easy to make a sweeping statement about combining the services, but the roles they play are so vastly different.

To answer your question specifically, the USMC did rely upon USAF air support with terrible consequences. Nothing against the USAF, but the Squadron commander is going to do the scheduled patrol as ordered by his superiors way before he dumps that mission and provides support for some USMC Corporal on patrol screaming into a radio.

[Boost]

So how does a KC-135 pilot transition into commanding an Carrier? You can carry that line of thought throughout. Even if the service was combined, it would still have it's Air arm, it's Sea arm, and it's Infantry arm. All of those branches would still require diversified logistics including contracting functions.

Sure, you would still have your different areas of responsibility, but that wouldn't be that different then the current variety of MOS's / AFSC's or what have you that designates the different career fields. Usually you stay within your career field as you promote unless you are filling an administrative position. This would ensure a KC-135 pilot stays in the flying arena vs. a carrier.


Who do these different entities within the unified military report to? They are already unified under the Chairman Joint Chief, and the SEC DEF.

Are we not already seeing the possibility of a unified military through the use of Joint operations and commands? I think the answer to that would answer your question.

Besides, there are many different careers fields represented on bases and posts, yet they all answer to base commanders who answer to those above them. The model is there, it would just need to be adapted to a new unified military.

The only savings would be a very few General officers. Who would assist the CIC in making tactical decisions? Would that new Carrier Captain advise on Aerial questions?


I think it is easy to make a sweeping statement about combining the services, but the roles they play are so vastly different.

As is a pilots job vs. an IT manager yet they both serve in the Air Force. Having different roles or jobs doesn't mean they cannot be of the same service.


To answer your question specifically, the USMC did rely upon USAF air support with terrible consequences. Nothing against the USAF, but the Squadron commander is going to do the scheduled patrol as ordered by his superiors way before he dumps that mission and provides support for some USMC Corporal on patrol screaming into a radio.

Again, having a unified command that sees the larger, overall picture could help alleviate these problems. Rather then having a USMC Commander and a USAF Commander with differing priorities, have one unified commander that makes the call or final decision on who does what.

[Asshat]

You are forgetting the most vital ingredient though. Funding. Paying for the services doesn't just happen. It is a drawn-out battle over interests. Unified commands are not a good example, as they still depend on separate funding from the services to operate it.

So what is the maximum rank for an officer under this unified military? Major?

We already have a unified commander.

[BigMan40]

Well my take on it is yes I kinda of do believe its a waste of money to have separate services. But me been prior services I liked the service traditions and history the Marines have. Im not saying that Marines are better than any other services I just really respect the Marines traditions.:cool:

[Boost]

I suppose overall what I am getting at is it would simplify many things having one military rather then multiple. And I didn't forget funding, in fact that was something I brought up in one of my earlier posts.

You could have funding for planes go to one specific military function rather then some go to AF, some to MC, Navy, and Army. Funding for ground pounding go to one function rather then split between Army and MC.

Another positive would be standardized red tape vs. each service having their own way of doing business that needs to be translated when performing joint operations.

As for the maximum rank for an officer, is that not currently dictated by the size of the group he will be commanding? Why couldn't this be adapted to the new system?

[Boost]

Well my take on it is yes I kinda of do believe its a waste of money to have separate services. But me been prior services I liked the service traditions and history the Marines have. Im not saying that Marines are better than any other services I just really respect the Marines traditions.:cool:

I agree that, that would fall under the "negative" category as each service does have it's own unique history associated with it's birth and development.

But for the good of the country and her military, I think that is a small price to pay. :)

[Asshat]

I suppose overall what I am getting at is it would simplify many things having one military rather then multiple. And I didn't forget funding, in fact that was something I brought up in one of my earlier posts.

I have done a lot of work with funding and contracting. To make anything happen, one really has to have a vested interest in the service being sought, and enough experience to sell it to the folks with the cash. This is a fundamental problem I have with a single service. At some point, "someone" is in charge and will make a human decision either in a vacuum for lack of knowledge or experience, or prejuduce for that service.

You could have funding for planes go to one specific military function rather then some go to AF, some to MC, Navy, and Army. Funding for ground pounding go to one function rather then split between Army and MC.

I agree. The JSF is the first aircraft in our history that I know of that was designed and funded specifically for this adaptation.

Another positive would be standardized red tape vs. each service having their own way of doing business that needs to be translated when performing joint operations.

I agree. But those standards are already there with regard to communication, yet are not followed. I could cite different comm types and detail the issues, but not on an open forum.

As for the maximum rank for an officer, is that not currently dictated by the size of the group he will be commanding? Why couldn't this be adapted to the new system?

Because the single-service concept will not lend itself to having too many upper echelon leaders. The two-star and above general officer positions would have to be elliminated, or drastically reduced. This might be a good thing however.


Thanks for the back and forth Boost, I appreciate your thoughts and Fonze for doing the OP. I have thought of this often, and would recommend a slightly different approach that had many of the functions under one service. Limit the R and D for example so one service can attempt to stay on the map. That and multi-contracts for "simular" equipment is what costs so much.

[Boost]

Limit the R and D for example so one service can attempt to stay on the map. That and multi-contracts for "simular" equipment is what costs so much.

I agree that this is one of the bigger wastes of money. Just to use the AF as an example again, they spent all that money developing the new ABU uniform to have a distinctive look for airmen, and the damn thing looks almost identical to the the Army ACU. Mission failed if you ask me and a lot of money wasted.

All things aside Uminchu, I think we just gave a good example of how a civil debate/discussion can happen in the forums! :)

We deserve an award!

[Asshat]

I agree that this is one of the bigger wastes of money. Just to use the AF as an example again, they spent all that money developing the new ABU uniform to have a distinctive look for airmen, and the damn thing looks almost identical to the the Army ACU. Mission failed if you ask me and a lot of money wasted.

All things aside Uminchu, I think we just gave a good example of how a civil debate/discussion can happen in the forums! :)

We deserve an award!

Yep, I was noticing the uniforms yesterday and I thought, "how strange." "Isn't everyone going to the same places and fighting the same wars?"

I like debating to the point that I do it on subjects I agree with. :D By arguing the other side, it gives me the chance to pose counter-points to my own thoughts on a subject. Messes people up though because current politik says we all have to be in little perfect boxes all the time.

[Tempestuous]

Yep, I was noticing the uniforms yesterday and I thought, "how strange." "Isn't everyone going to the same places and fighting the same wars?"


Yes, but we have to spend millions to discover how we can stand out yet look strangely the same :rolleyes:

[Bones]

As posted by civilian1:

leave it to the contractors they seem to have all the money...but yet where are the savings?

I remember as our contract was winding down at one project back in Texas, our Project Manager, persuaded the Depot Manager, to give us additional work so that that none of our team members would have to be released from the contract early. Just something to keep us busy, for at least 6 months.

They gave us 8 jet engine compressor modules that needed to be dis-assembled, the parts had to be cleaned, and turned back into the supply channel.

We had three people on day shift, three people on night shift, to accomplish that task. Each shift, consisting of an eight hour workday. The maintenance crew of the depot that we were working for, was mostly staffed by civilian employees (some retired military folks), most of which were making more money than we were. Logical, if only in regards that they had been doing their jobs far longer than we had been doing ours as contractors.

It took us three days to dis-assemble those eight modules, one week to get the old parts back from the cleaning department. We had the turn-in documentation ready once the parts were returned, and it took one day to put the parts into their shipping containers, and turn them back into the supply channel.

So basically, our team performed 6 months of work in 11 working days.

And you ask where the savings are?:cool:

NBTP

[Fonze]

Thanks you guys for all the insight. I think that the first couple of years maybe even the decade would be tough but it would benefit the country.

I wonder how many bases would close by doing this?

[devine]

If we keep flushing more money down the black hole known as Iraq for much longer, I think there will be some drastic changes coming real soon. It might not be the services merging but something is going to happen.

Even the Air Force is running out of money.


You realized there was a new Iraq fund set up recently in the Billions I can't remember the exact amount but read it on a news board somewhere. The war will never end if this is the case. Scary enough they as much as I love our country and of course support my husband who is USMC. I do wonder why that say US 50 billion dollars could not go to health care for people who can not afford it. Hmm... makes you wonder .. rather have pride and war than have healthy country.

Go figure.

Dev.

[okisteve]

You realized there was a new Iraq fund set up recently in the Billions I can't remember the exact amount but read it on a news board somewhere. The war will never end if this is the case. Scary enough they as much as I love our country and of course support my husband who is USMC. I do wonder why that say US 50 billion dollars could not go to health care for people who can not afford it. Hmm... makes you wonder .. rather have pride and war than have healthy country.

Dev.

Uh oh, someone said the bad word again! :w00t: "Not with my tax dollars"<3

Well, I'm being smartass again, but there was a hot debate here a few weeks ago on this subject.

[devine]

Yeah sorry there Steve, been out of the loop. Now that I am working a job where I am bored all day long, I think I may find myself in posts. But again. With Healthcare. There should be something. There are many people with jobs whose employers do not provide it or don't cover anything but an ouchy. Seriously. I work in a flex position for unnamed company and well needless to say because it's not a part time or full time job I don't get offered benefits although I work the same hours as a part time individual. IE: National Holidays.. no double pay for me, but Connie-Sue (made up name) gets it. She works 32 hours and I work 32 hours per week. Oh well. I guess I am just dependant off my husband. I love to be an independant woman in a dependant's world .. lol.

[DocTurtle]

I personally hope it doesn't happen. I think it would be a waste.
Think of the different trainings, even as soon as boot camp. Marines have a much more intensive boot camp experience than the Air Force. Why? Because they can bet in their enlistment, no matter what they do, they will see some time in the sandbox. How many countries can you think of that have only one military?
We do too many things to only have one branch of the military. The Navy controls the seas, the Army has numbers to show power in presence, the Marines blow shit up, the Air Force...not sure what they do really...at least the Coast Guard keep our puddles safe. jk...couldn't resist. But the Air Force keeps the skys safe and makes sure we have quick action strike forces.
Now, I know each one has similar programs even though we more often than not share the technology.
Plus each branch has their own way of doing things.
I won't even begin to talk about tradition.

[atb35]

I dont think all the services should train or become one, that would defeat the purpose of having the different branches. What I do think though is....why does the Marines need to have an attack helo specifically for the Marines, and the Army have one for the Army? All the equipment and gear should be standardized with maybe just the change in color. All dress uniforms should remain, you have to keep some tradition. All the working uniforms should be the same.

[pandalvr2003]

Its all going to the civilians anyways.