Pentagon set to reduce Army to pre-WWII levels

[Regolith]

Joint service operations should continue, as started previously.

A lot of the former Air Force bases I haunted have become Joint Service Bases.

That's good.  There's so much redundancy between services that offer no good purpose.

Hell, we have how many different versions of the Sikorsky helicopter? 

UH-60 Black Hawk/HH-60 Pave Hawk/HH-60 Jay Hawk/SH-60 Sea Hawk - I know they're modded for each branch, but wow!

Air Force jets like the F-4, F-15, F-16, F-22 etc. have had tailhooks, and they will take a wire on the approach end during IFE landings. 

They may or may not have the strengthened landing gear for carrier landings,  but were it not for political infighting I could see a common fighter between USAF/USN/USMC.

The F-35 is common in name only.  I don't know what the percentages are of parts commonality, but three separate variants for three different perceived missions means $$$.

When the EF-111 Raven was retired, they started doing Joint Service EA-6B Prowler sorties with mixed USAF/USN/USMC crews.   

Look at our neighbors to the north - they took it to the extreme.  Canada has no separate branches of service anymore, they're all just Canadian Forces. 

I'm not saying we should go to that level of consolidation, but it should be studied and exploited.

And I still think an A-10 is a better tank-buster and close air support aircraft than any F-16/F-18/F-35. 

Yeah...personally, I think they ought to at the very least roll the AF back into the Army. Maybe the Marines, too. Make the only difference be how they show up to the battlefield and whatever specialized training that requires, like how Infantry and Artillery are differentiated.

So then we'd have two branches - the Army and the Navy. Well, I guess three, if you count the Coast Guard (I think that would have to remain its own branch, given how different its mission is).

[Ned Hamford]

I want space marines!

[Balog]

Yup.  Damned near as funny as the misogynists we have here on APS.   

Not as funny as the people who think pointing out the factual physical differences between men and women is equivalent to a hatred of all women.

[Gewehr98]

Balog, you should search through Rooster's postings sometime.

You'll notice a not-so-subtle pattern.

I know we did.

Remind me to nominate you for the next admin slot. 

Maybe the one I'll vacate...

[Balog]

Balog, you should search through Rooster's postings sometime.

You'll notice a not-so-subtle pattern.

I know we did.

Remind me to nominate you for the next admin slot. 

Maybe the one I'll vacate...

I don't always like or agree with what he posts, but I haven't seen anything that indicates hatred for women. Hatred being one of those pesky words that have meanings. Believing that men and women are fundamentally different and suited for different things is not hatred. He'll, even if you could demonstrate a pattern of believing women to be inferior in his postings (which I don't know that you could) that's still not hatred. I'd say the people posting raunchy pictures and talking about women like glorified sex objects are closer to that mark than Roo.

It vexes me greatly when people accuse someone of hating or being irrationally afraid of someone or something when what they really mean is "I find your views offensive." It's a hostile and intellectually bankrupt form of argumentation.

[tokugawa]

Yeah, I'm totally expecting Syria to take a break from the massive civil war killing thousands on each side, and try to conjure up some delivery mechanism here. Knowing that if they do, they'll cease to exist.

 Oh, it may not be Syria- who knows who, or what, it will be be- I have no idea- the Syria thing is just an example-  the point is, the technological lever is getting longer by the minute, , the attack will be completely off the radar, dramatically asymmetrical, and devastating.  Just exactly like 9-11, only different, and much worse. And very likely to multifaceted, and sequential.
 
And the people in charge will be caught out the same way-unable to put two and two together. . And the likelihood is, no one is gonna know for sure for some time who is responsible. So the response is not going to be quick, especially under the ditherer in chief.
 
 I hope like hell I am totally wrong.

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

[Scout26]

Joint service operations should continue, as started previously.

A lot of the former Air Force bases I haunted have become Joint Service Bases.

That's good.  There's so much redundancy between services that offer no good purpose.

Hell, we have how many different versions of the Sikorsky helicopter?  

UH-60 Black Hawk/HH-60 Pave Hawk/HH-60 Jay Hawk/SH-60 Sea Hawk - I know they're modded for each branch, but wow!

Air Force jets like the F-4, F-15, F-16, F-22 etc. have had tailhooks, and they will take a wire on the approach end during IFE landings.  

They may or may not have the strengthened landing gear for carrier landings,  but were it not for political infighting I could see a common fighter between USAF/USN/USMC.

The F-35 is common in name only.  I don't know what the percentages are of parts commonality, but three separate variants for three different perceived missions means $$$.

When the EF-111 Raven was retired, they started doing Joint Service EA-6B Prowler sorties with mixed USAF/USN/USMC crews.  

Look at our neighbors to the north - they took it to the extreme.  Canada has no separate branches of service anymore, they're all just Canadian Forces.  

I'm not saying we should go to that level of consolidation, but it should be studied and exploited.

And I still think an A-10 is a better tank-buster and close air support aircraft than any F-16/F-18/F-35.  

I think the F-4 Phantom & UH-60 prove that.  While there are some advantages to having the "same" thing through out the services, the operational environments make it too difficult to have "The Exact Same Thing".   The airframe and landing gear requirements (among others) for carrier operations are simply not needed for USAF operations and serve no purpose other then to add unnecessary weight that could be better used for fuel or ordnance.   Taking something like radio, individual and crew served weapons and the like and making them universal across the services has been and should be continued. 

And I do like the idea of "purple suits".  However, there will still specialty skills where you just can't put a round peg into a square hole.  Pilots, doctors, and the like.   And while some may howl, you can teach Army officers on Amphib operations (FYi, the Army conducted/participated in more Amphib operations then the Marines.)  It's simply inertia and tradition that keep things the way they are.  One supply, maintenance and other systems make a helluva lot more sense then 4 or 5.  But since everyone wants their own little empire, it probably will take a very long time for it to happen.     

[MillCreek]

^^^ I read an article just the other day about the tremendous expense, duplication of effort and inefficiency in having each service maintain its own medical system (hospitals and clinics, not field).  The military system already sends people to other branch facilities for specialty medical care, and it is being argued that different branch facilities should consolidate.  The problem, at least in the hospitals, is nursing/support staffing.  Most of them are civilians since there are not enough corpsmen or nurses to go around.  Consolidation may not cut those personnel costs by a lot.

[Tallpine]

The chances of anyone building up anything resembling an invasion fleet would get noticed far enough ahead of time for us to build up our defenses

Defenses 

Is there some reason we need to let them land before fighting?

Don't nukes work on water?

[T.O.M.]

There's so much redundancy between services that offer no good purpose.

Not just equipment, but facilities and personnel as well.  Why does each of the three branches need its own Medical Corps?  Why does each have a separate and distinct JAG Corps and judicial system? 

Then again, I find this to be true not just in the military, but throughout .gov.  Why does every agency the uses initials have its own investigative unit, often complete with armed federal LEOs and (all too often) tactical teams.  When I did an internship with the Justice Department 20 years ago, I was amazed by the sheer number of different "Criminal Investigation Divisions" belonging to the various agencies. I don't mean just things like DEA and BATF, I mean like Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, etc.  Why not dump all of this into the FBI, and increase the number of Special Agents if the demand warrants? 

Back to the OP, I've been reading that the push-back has begun in Congress.  at first I figured it was the typical fight to keep the pork protected, for job security.  but I read some of what we're saying, especially about the A-10.  Why cut an aircraft at this point when its possible replacement has yet to prove itself, and the A-10 is a known quality asset for close air support, which is still in need until everyone comes home?

[SADShooter]

Not just equipment, but facilities and personnel as well.  Why does each of the three branches need its own Medical Corps?  Why does each have a separate and distinct JAG Corps and judicial system? 

Then again, I find this to be true not just in the military, but throughout .gov.  Why does every agency the uses initials have its own investigative unit, often complete with armed federal LEOs and (all too often) tactical teams.  When I did an internship with the Justice Department 20 years ago, I was amazed by the sheer number of different "Criminal Investigation Divisions" belonging to the various agencies. I don't mean just things like DEA and BATF, I mean like Department of Education, Department of Agriculture, etc.  Why not dump all of this into the FBI, and increase the number of Special Agents if the demand warrants? 

Back to the OP, I've been reading that the push-back has begun in Congress.  at first I figured it was the typical fight to keep the pork protected, for job security.  but I read some of what we're saying, especially about the A-10.  Why cut an aircraft at this point when its possible replacement has yet to prove itself, and the A-10 is a known quality asset for close air support, which is still in need until everyone comes home?

More tribes = more chiefs and associated leadership positions.

Existing airframe does not bring new defense appropriations back to committee chair's/ranking mmeber's districts. If budgets do actually shrink, this becomes even more vital.

[MillCreek]

Somewhat on topic, but the F-35 problems are giving me the willies, from the standpoint of having working and affordable aircraft out to the fleet anytime soon.

[French G.]

I'm wondering if we will see a reduction in flag ranks to pre-WWII levels. Not likely as the Navy has more admirals for 330,000 than we had for 3 some million back in the day.

My big issue is personnel costs. For all the political pandering, there will eventually have to be decreases in the rate of increase to pension COLA as well as active duty pay. Hopefully someone will transition all new military hires to a TSP only retirement, probably have to activate the provision for paying a matching share. And while I don't want a return to a conscript military we need to seriously cut the wagon train down. I'm all for making it E-5/O-3 required to marry. It was an outmoded practice in 1996, but I put in a request chit to get married, not so much for permission as to advise the CoC. The military has been very good to me, and many others, just need to trim some of the fat. I remember catching a contract flight from Norfolk to Rota to meet my new ship. I was expecting a plane full of military. No, it was about a dozen mil and 150 family members of servicemembers returning to the ETO. Then I spent a good bit of time at a Naval hospital. Man, we spend a ton of money on families. The fact that 10 of my 13.8 years active duty were spent haze grey and underway kinda of insulated me from seeing a lot of that. My one shore duty stop, loved my squadron, hated everything else associated by being right next to the flagpole.

[RevDisk]

Personally, I think we should have Fleet and Land Forces. Fleet is anything that floats or goes vroom vroom really fast. Land Forces (or whatever) has all the tanks, arty, whatnot. Everything joint that is humanly possible. Basic, clerks, food folks, medical, bases, etc.


MillCreek, as bad as it seems, it's actually much worse in reality. Good news is they're starting to get deliveries. But considering how much they cost, it's jaw dropping. I wouldn't want to fly that airframe for at least five years.

[roo_ster]

Balog:

Gotta remember, we live in a progressive, post-modern culture.  "Misogyny" means whatever the accuser wants it to mean, not what some silly dictionary says it is ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misogyny ).  OTOH, if it can mean anything, it really means nothing, so the accusation lacks any content.

In G98 we got ourselves someone perfectly suited for the contemporary political climate in the armed forces brass-toting ranks.  As fine a candidate for an aide to General Casey as could be found.  Bravo, he should be proud to be so fashionable and suitable for such rarefied company.

Again, I think that's something else we need to be very careful about, and I think the speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. And it's not just about Muslims. We have a very diverse army. We have a very diverse society.

IOW, diversity uber alles.  Standards, performance, force effectiveness, unit morale & cohesiveness, biological reality, budget impacts, casualties in lots of 13 or less...all secondary to political considerations and the opportunity to morally preen about it in front of an audience.  Remember, "...it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here." 


G98:

A reasonable man might want to take into consideration that some tasks in the armed forces take place outside of a cockpit.  That biology is not a conspiracy and that raising substantive objections to foolish and potentially disastrous actions is not hatred.   But, this is not about reason, is it?  Ideology and emotion are impervious to reason or data and can lead folk to intemperate remarks.  Besides, it just feels good to be the one launching the accusations, doesn't it?  Gets you all wound up like a Baptist inveighing against that demon rum.     

"I say it as a graduate of the DoD Equal Opportunity Management Institute."  Did you get a certificate as nice as the one I got from AAA for being their customer for 25 years?  I had mine framed and put on my "I love me wall."  Such moral authority it brings to your pronouncements!  And what a sweet acronym (DODEOMI, "doady oh my!).  I get all choked up reading it.  Lemme go back and read it again...oh yeah...there is the lump in my throat.  Or is that my gorge rising?

And you met an actual female firefighter who was in excellent physical shape?  Do tell, as I have never had the opportunity to train female power lifters & olympic-style weightlifters, train with female kickboxers, date female body builders or female Div I college athletes, or otherwise have any contact with exceptionally athletic women.