Restructuring the army.

Post Reply New Topic

So this is just an idea about how to change the makeup of the army to save money. Instead of signing up for a predetermined amount of time (usually 4 years for a single enlistment), you get to sign up to cover a training cycle of 2 to 3 months. The basic training phase would last longer (9 months) and would have.trainees become familiar with ranges, fields, area cleanup and eventually pan out to the paperwork and motor pool part. This would be a much closer approximation to their actual assignments.

Giving the recruits the option of signing on for shorter terms frees up resources that would have been spent housing them, feeding them, and providing health care for a 4 year period. This would also help screen out the recruits who don't want to be in the military.

I think the military should create robots, like in the movie "Real Steel" to fight other country's robots and leave people out of it.

Its called the Reserves, or National Guard (great idea though)

Basic and AIT then 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year. They don't want to spend a bunch of money training someone and have them walk away, or quit.

I was in the US Army for 3yrs and worked as a helicopter crew chief and mechanic. My school was 3 1/2 months but it was just the beginijg of the learning process. to become efficient at something you have to do it every day. I was lucky and learned to fly as well.(longish story)

We'll, there are a lot of what ifs overall, im assuming it's a peace time army (what were transitioning to), and peacetime armies train. Training involves a lot of grunt work, someone has to put up the tents, clean ranges, provide transport, ect... Here you'd have a pool.of workers with the specific understanding that their 2 months sign on is to move those boxes, or pick up brass. My argument is that you already get recruits who don't adapt to the military and they are often in for the long haul whether they like it or not. Often recruits who didn't adapt at first, leave after their first term, only to sign back up years later and do much better.

Of course I wouldn't advocate the same solution for the aviation field, it takes team work and serious workers. But a lot of the other MOS' run their business differently, PAC clerks have mountains of repetitive paperwork, they are notorious for getting things lost even though what they do is easily learned by just about every senior NCO. Usually, when they want to get something done, they take a few lower enlisted and put them to work on the repetitive stuff (paperwork example).

Infantry exercises involve so much prep work, that they often end up standing around waiting for stuff to happen. The list goes on...

Having a different set up would mean a smaller training group, and a bigger available pool for the tasks that often hold these groups up. That's the whole big idea anyway. Transportation costs would be a nightmare in this system lol.

some thoughts-

*why not emulate the unification scheme of the canadian forces? in 1968 that nation wised up and realized that they didn't need to have totally parallel and duplicative command chains in each separate service, so they combined all the services under one umbrella command, with a sea/land/air branch each headed by a streamlined command structure and also supported by a unified training command. as an example, the CF recruit may find him or herself under the tutelage of a petty officer drill intructor or a sergeant drill instructor, whose command could be from any of the land/sea/air branches. we could do this here, also, at some modest savings due to elimination of redundant training commands.

*greatly expand the IRR [Individual Ready Reserve], make it profitable for those who volunteer per inactive reserve enlistment contract by giving them commissary/px/hospital privileges [similar to the other reserve components] and maybe even a write-off on their income taxes [federal/state/local]. this would kill two birds with one stone because it would also reduce the number of medically uninsured americans. it would save money because the size of the regular reserve components would be reduced. these new IRR members would still have to meet the physical readiness requirements of the regular reserve components.

*expand the scope of the state reserve units by having them fill stateside active-duty military posts so the regulars otherwise stationed at home units could augment military members serving overseas. this would take them off of the federal military budget and put them under state financing. it could be paid for by having some of their income taxes go to each respective state, rather than the IRS. the federal military could then get by at current levels without having to do more recruiting, or at projected reduced levels with a reduction in recruitment expenditures.

*make military retirement [aside from disability with a rating] partially contingent on willingness to accept "hip pocket" orders post-retirement, meaning the retiree would be a member of the IRR for a certain [to be determined] period, to supervise the other IRR members. more specifically, if a 20-year veteran wanted to collect a full 20-year retirement [or even a bit more], s/he would have to agree to another decade of IRR membership. this would also reduce manpower requirements by a modest amount by reducing the need for regular reserves to supervise the IRR.

*simplify stateside garrison uniform requirements, to reduce quartermaster costs- IOW have each servicemember in non-training garrison [with no present battle contingencies requiring specialized "BDU" uniforms] supply their own generic military uniforms, totally outsourced. overseas deployments would remain under the present system.

*have all military initial entry [re: basic/boot] training be conducted by local reservists or even high school ROTC units, during summer breaks as much as possible. these would all be under a common federal training command for continuity, but it would save federal monies presently spent on several national basic training facilities. distribute these training facilities widely over america, closer to where the recruits live, thereby saving transport money shipping recruits all over the place. have the IET graduates serve at the base/fort closest to where they live for at least a short while [a year at least] before being shipped overseas, give them a fighting chance to get better used to military life and save money at the same time.

these are all modest changes but the savings would add up.

Damn, those were all pretty good. I'll have to look up up the unification scheme, I've never heard of the concept before.

The unification idea probably would not really work out, or at the very least, would cause issues. One of the main things i noticed was a consolidated basic school. All of the different branches of the military have different standards. The navy can do fine with there recruits learning the basic customs and curtesies, along with the bare minimum of weapons and other sailor-ish stuff. While a soilder would have to know at least a little about combat, since they would have a slightly higher chance of going into combat. And the idea of an average Air Force new join (were they have such luxuries as internet, telephones, and chairs) going through Marine Corps boot camp at Parris Island (were around the clock hazing, intense physical fitness, and having less rights than a pow is the norm). Different branches require different amounts of training.

the basics of military life would be taught in basic training, with branch specialties [marine infantry, air branch air support and sea branch naval support] would be taught in MOS [Military Occupational Specialty] courses or AIT. marine training could be among the specialties which would occur after passing initial entry training. or the marines could continue to have their own regimen and their own corps, as they do as a hand-in-glove of the navy now.

I guess part of what I was saying was, for the most part, there are enough differences in the basics of military life through out the services that a consolidated basic training would be counterproductive.

I guess a simpler way of stating my point would be, for the most part, the basics of military life in each of the branches is different enough that a consolidated basic training would be counterproductive. For example, members of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, if they want to move into the Coast Guard or the Marines, have to go through basic training again for those Services. Furthermore (im not sure this applies to the Coast Guard), the highest rank they can get going into the Marines is PFC (E-2), regardless of their pay grade in their former branch.

^^^
and what i was suggesting was that our present system is not the be all/end all, and it doesn't have to be etched in stone forever- the basics of military life among the different services can be merged somewhat, without hurting military readiness. canada made the systemic change to its armed forces, and although they've backslidden a bit, they still have the basics of it going on today. i've been in navy hospitals and army hospitals, their basics are similar, why not make their legal, procurement, and management systems similar as well? make all the basics of military initial entry training uniform, and you will save some $$$$. branch-specific training can come later, after all the unsuitable-for-military-life recruits have been weeded out at an earlier less expensive stage. when i was in the army, the enlisted army going into the marines had to start all over as E1. there were several other military members i met who were interservice transfers [or ETS from one service and re-entry into another], 2 from the marines into the US army, 3 out of the army into the air force, one canadian who married an american and joined the US army, one russian army into the US army- and aside from losing one or two stripes [the marine lost 2 stripes going into the army, the army going into the air force types lost 2 stripes] there wasn't too much drama. if the goal is to save money, and if died-in-the-wool traditions must be ashcanned in service of this goal, well IMHO that is not too great a cost. we already spend more than the lions' share of other countries put together, on our military- and we definitely can be getting by on le$$. nobody said the marines must be marginalized in any real way, they could continue to be a corps of the navy dep't and function the way they do now, they fill a specific military niche that can't quickly be replicated elsewhere. but i am saying that if there is just one quartermaster for all the services, one basic uniform, one basic set of regs, one training hierarchy, one common command, that is a savings in bureaucratic costs via a vast reduction in duplicated functions. less chiefs, more indians. much of the civilian business world thinned the ranks of their middle management, the military also could stand for a taste of that. just a suggestion.

At the risk of ingnoring most of what you've said (and yes, I did read it and found it interesting,), I've heard that, at least now, you usually gain rank by transfering from the Marines to the army; Ive never heard of anyone losing it. Also, I have to agree that there is way to much bureaucracy and paperwork, though admittedly there can be some issues with having civilians filling jobs formerly done by military (besides the obvious one involving chow halls, though Ive heard chow hall food has always sucked, its still barely edible even now).

I think the US Army should resurrect the draft. Similar as to what they did during the Vietnam era(mixing volunteers and conscripts), I believe draftees accounted for a little over 25% in the Army and 10% in the Marines. Draftees are only mandated to served two years. It would save the military money with short term, lower paid conscripts. The draft lasted from 1940 - 1973(with the "draft lottery" being prevalent in the later years of the Vietnam war).

on the subject of military chow, it was [when i was in] of highly variable quality- at the meddac i was stationed at [ft. belvoir, dewitt community hospital], it was beans and franks 3 times a week, breakfast lunch and dinner, on paper plates. sometimes it was cheese and bologna sandwiches. at walter reade [med center] down the highway, it was comparitively fine-dining, with no beans and franks or bologna ever. at fort sam, it was basically restaurant food where i was stationed [3rd medical battalion's mess]. i can tell you that dewitt's beans and franks kept me nice and skinny, maybe too skinny to be useful in a military sense. an army fights on its stomach, so skimping on its food isn't a good idea. the military, in anycase, wastes tons of food- dewitt dumped on average 100 servings' worth every damned day, it went to the tannery down the road. it was a no-no to take it back to the duty station or to the barracks, the powers-that-be would rather have thrown the perfectly good food away than let anybody eat it. they could've avoided the beans and franks or bologna sandwiches if they had figured out a way to not waste so much food.

I would imagine things have gotten a little more consistent, since now they just have contractors (Sodexo) run the chow halls. Still, the quality of the food still differs from base to base, and even at chow halls at the same base. Overall the food isnt that good, but occasionally there is something they manage to do right (the corned beef). I've heard that usually, the crappier the base is, the better the chow hall is, but I havnt been in long enough to confirm that.

if you don't mind, out of curiosity, what is your MOS [military job]? are you in the army? navy or air force? marines? CG?