Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Marines Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Consolidation of the U.S. armed forces
towgunner1960    5/30/2004 11:31:52 PM
First, we do away with ALL branches of the military. On everyones uniform we wear USAF, (United States Armed Forces). There will be subdivisions of course. It will be headed by a chairman jcs, with an assistant. There will be one head for ground, air and naval branches. Each branch will have a big say in weapons systems from the other branches that apply to them. For example; the land branch will have input into the selection of planes, helicopters, missles and transports that fly for them. If it floats its the naval branch, if it flys its the air branch and if its on the ground, the land branch handles it. Everybody wears the same uniform, uses the same radios, goes through the same basic training (where they learn to work with all the branches), they also use the same ranks. You could be a pilot for several years and then be transfered to the ground forces to call in cas. You could also be a soldier assigned to the naval branch to learn ship to shore bombardment. The air wing would fly off naval branch carriers, blah,blah,blah. What you think????
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
ambush    RE:Consolidation of the U.S. armed forces   5/31/2004 1:28:22 AM
Ah yes, the purple suit concept. Has both its good and bad parts. On the bad side there are thing like Basic training. Do you reduce it to the level of the Air Force or elevate it to the level of the Marine Corps? In one direction the higher quality of recruit training suffers as attrition does not give you the numbers you require. Each service has it basic training set up to provide it with the number of bodies it needs weighed against the quality of recruit it desires. Although things like poltical pressure may give you stupid things like co-ed basic training. Second there is presitge and traditon to be cconsidered . People join the Mainres or the Army to be Marines or Soldiers not just US Service members. A Salior likes being being a Petty Officer in his distinctive uniform as opposed to being just another E-5 in a purple suit. Consolidation would be a good thing in other areas. How many over lapping capabilities are the tax payers financing among the SEALS, Rangers and Green Berets. Should the Navy really have a Commando Force or does this more realistically belong to the Marines even if they do not want it? Procurement is another area. Wouldn't the Navy in the long run have been better off with a Navalilzed version of the F-15 over and F-14 (the F-15N?)and the Air Force with the F-18 instead of the F-16? (I can't wait to hear the debate on this one) Could resources wasted in the failed development of the A-12 could have been spent on Navalizing the F-117? Shouldn't the Army been forced to take the LAV for the 82nd instead of doing without any Armor for so long? Would not the Super Stallion have been a better buy for the Army than the CH-47. Instead of this OV-22 nonsense shouldn't the Marines be looking at the Air Force Pave Low and Super Stallion version? Certainly the need for more C-17s and C-130Js force the Air Force to buy fewer F-22s. The Army would certainly agree with this. A single unifed command is charge of comunications certainly would have made sure we could all talk to each other in Grenada. Perhaps the real answer is not the elimination of Service identity but with the true consolidation of procurement.
 
Quote    Reply

oregon_x_marine    RE:Consolidation of the U.S. armed forces   5/31/2004 2:32:06 AM
I think the Canadians tried that in the 1980s and now, once again, have seperate services. I'm not 100% on this, so don't take it for gospel. The other element of your post has been commented on by many over the years. It has been argued that the armed forces should be organized along lines similiar to the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces). This proposal would eliminate the individual Service Departments (Dept. of Army/Navy/Air Force) but the services still retain their seperate identities. Force structure and procurement decision would be made by a select panel composed of service chiefs and top DOD civilians. A retired Navy admiral by the name of Walker or Owens (????) has written a book on this very subject.
 
Quote    Reply

oregon_x_marine    RE: Joint Procurement   5/31/2004 2:38:14 AM
The DOD has been trying since the the days of the F-111 (over 40 years now) to purchase a single airframe for all the services. I think the only aircraft to be used by the USAF, USN and USMC was the F-4, and this happened by chance! One change that will definately occur is the sharing of major combat installations. Soon there will be Air Force bases located on major Army installations.
 
Quote    Reply

oregon_x_marine    RE: Reduction in Marine Corps??   5/31/2004 2:55:04 AM
Many people have commented over the past decade have questioned whether the USMC needs 2.5 active duty MEFs and 1 reserve MEF. As a second generation former-jarhead who still cares about the Corps, I have to admit that the critics have a point. Can anyone explain why CENTCOM used a MEF instead of another Armored/Mech division to storm Baghdad? If the Marines are to be an expeditionary force, then why have such large MEFs (the 1st MEF in Iraq had 3 RCT, TF Tarawa (a MEB), 2 MEU and all four tank BNs? This MEF is like a small Army corps, which I'm sure aggravates the Army! Wouldn't the Corp be better off with MEBs that can be task organized into (smaller) MEFs?
 
Quote    Reply

Clausewitz    RE:Consolidation of the U.S. armed forces   5/31/2004 12:04:00 PM
You need to have diversity in the military for the fighting spirit of the different branches. The different branches of the military need some rivalry. And they have a different fighting philosophy. The marines for the intervention/beachhead and to achieve a gate (harbour) the army can use. Today the US will not be allowed to use the soil of most countries if needed-same for rmy airborne divisions if no shore is available). The army will have to fight the wars to the end and will have to do some occupation/peacekeeping duty. The air force will have to think both in strategic and tactical scenarios (conventional and nuclear and will have to defend the US from WMD attack with aircraft or ballistic missiles or cruise missiles). The navy will have to play its part in the nuclear deterrence(with ballistic subs) and is the main forcr for power projection (together with the marines). The navy will have to secure the sae lanes and will project its power ashore. The protection of US shores is given to the coast guard. But all branches need their individuality. So don't mix them. Don't take their traditions away.
 
Quote    Reply

dudley    RE:Consolidation of the U.S. armed forces   6/1/2004 8:38:34 PM
imagine a sailor or a cadet[what the hell is a cadet?sounds like a doll or sumtin]getting up at 0430 to get down in the dirt.yea right,or climbing mt mfer with 65 lbs of weight on them.remind yall this is just basic training here.makes for good funny papers.SEMPER FI!!!theres a marine,then everything else is substandard.
 
Quote    Reply

dudley    RE:Consolidation of the U.S. armed forces   6/1/2004 8:46:25 PM
as to why they sent a mef,well they wanted an assured victory thats why.SEMPER FI!!!KICK ASS and ask questions after the enemy is dead.the army will ask questions 1st like-is it ok to shoot?is it ok to kill the enemy?etc.........
 
Quote    Reply

PuckaMan    RE:Consolidation of the U.S. armed forces   6/1/2004 10:29:42 PM
Just on boatmen and flyboys - the British in the 1920s with thier Carriers had the juridiction of the carrier itself and the RN and the planes on it the domain of the RAF. It was an organisational disaster that impeded development and growth. the RN didn't get control of the planes until 1936 (I believe, may be 37). OTOH, the USA early on gave the control of its carrier planes to the USN, which meant a much more focussed development, and the USN subsequently leading the way on carrier development for the most part. Interservice rivalry and inefficiencies cannot be sorted out by making everyone the same, they would still exist. IMO, Keep seperate services, but have interservice jurisdictions, such as a JAG type thing for all services, universal jurisdiction for such organisations. Army's too fat, the Navy likes to take and recive up the arse, Airforce are a bunch of pretentious wankers, and Marines are stoopid. Such sentiments will never change, nor are they unique to the US armed forces. Pucka
 
Quote    Reply

dudley    RE:Consolidation of the U.S. armed forces   6/1/2004 10:34:26 PM
MARINES are stoopid huh?lbh;oij9pbnuvliuh80hj
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran    RE:Consolidation of the U.S. armed forces   6/4/2004 11:57:34 PM
the canadians still have a unified service. it's been a mixed blessing at best but it did cut down on some of the remf wandering about Ottawa.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics