Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I spent 8 years on active duty. Navy. 1963-71.
Going in after high school was absolutely the best decision of my life. I got out as E-6, Electronic Technician.
Here 'tis:
How much money could be saved if there was only one US Service? The American Defense Force would have 3 branches - Land, Air, Sea. But only one boot camp format, one rank structure, one basic uniform. Many occupations would simply be a matter of assignment - clerical, medical, meal prep, some mechanical occupations, procurement and etc. Other occupations would be a bit more specific and would not be transferable - ship propulsion, submarine, B-52 pilot, field artillery. Others would be blended into one - special forces, medic, and several others whereas now each service trains their own.
Need more for Sea, and less for Air?.... Transfer people.
It would be a strange turn of events. But I can see where it would save a ton of money.
I spent 8 years on active duty. Navy. 1963-71.
Going in after high school was absolutely the best decision of my life. I got out as E-6, Electronic Technician.
Here 'tis:
How much money could be saved if there was only one US Service? The American Defense Force would have 3 branches - Land, Air, Sea. But only one boot camp format, one rank structure, one basic uniform. Many occupations would simply be a matter of assignment - clerical, medical, meal prep, some mechanical occupations, procurement and etc. Other occupations would be a bit more specific and would not be transferable - ship propulsion, submarine, B-52 pilot, field artillery. Others would be blended into one - special forces, medic, and several others whereas now each service trains their own.
Need more for Sea, and less for Air?.... Transfer people.
It would be a strange turn of events. But I can see where it would save a ton of money.
There's really no need for that. Training someone to be a sailor who was an airman would be costly also.
Merging the services at this point would have astronomical costs.
It would not save any money, and essentially would just replicate what we have now, with the "branches" being the services we have.
At that, they already have the services doing joint things, there are joint commands, task forces, joint operations, etc. The USAF will fly Navy SEALs for special ops, and have an Army attack helicopter as assistance. Navy EOD assisting the Army. USAF assisting Navy support activities. There are numerous examples of the services working together as you described, happens all of the time.
I spent 8 years on active duty. Navy. 1963-71.
Going in after high school was absolutely the best decision of my life. I got out as E-6, Electronic Technician.
Here 'tis:
How much money could be saved if there was only one US Service? The American Defense Force would have 3 branches - Land, Air, Sea. But only one boot camp format, one rank structure, one basic uniform. Many occupations would simply be a matter of assignment - clerical, medical, meal prep, some mechanical occupations, procurement and etc. Other occupations would be a bit more specific and would not be transferable - ship propulsion, submarine, B-52 pilot, field artillery. Others would be blended into one - special forces, medic, and several others whereas now each service trains their own.
Need more for Sea, and less for Air?.... Transfer people.
It would be a strange turn of events. But I can see where it would save a ton of money.
In February 1945, while standing on the invasion beach of Iwo Jima, Secretary of the Navy James V. Forrestal saw the American flag raised on top of Mount Suribachi and said, "This means a Marine Corps for another 500 years." So your idea is off the table for another 427 years. Semper Fidelis.
Nothing would be saved and the efficiency and quality of all three branches would decline. During WWII the German air force lost control of the air, and the navy could not put to see, so airmen were made into ground units and were completely destroyed.
It is already a single service. We have joint headquarters all over the world. Air and Naval forces, Air and Ground forces, Naval and Ground forces are all one as we have to coordinate to be the most effective. There is no economical reason to do away with each branch to make a single force since the units would still be there. The pay for an E3 or any other rank is the same across the services.
I spent 8 years on active duty. Navy. 1963-71.
Going in after high school was absolutely the best decision of my life. I got out as E-6, Electronic Technician.
I did 20 years and retired as an ET1/SS.
Thank you for your service.
Quote:
... How much money could be saved if there was only one US Service?
Having 4 unique branches does not cost 4 times more than having one branch. [I am counting Army, AF, Navy [marines are a segment of the Navy] and CG] Servicemembers are paid from the same paycharts.
You would still have extremely high costs for equipment. Jet fighters are expensive, airports for those fighters [whether land-based or on-ships] are expensive, tanks are expensive, submarines are expensive.
What would save money is closing down military bases on foreign soil. >150? Do we really need so many bases on foreign soil?
Having 4 unique branches does not cost 4 times more than having one branch. [I am counting Army, AF, Navy [marines are a segment of the Navy] and CG] Servicemembers are paid from the same paycharts.
You would still have extremely high costs for equipment. Jet fighters are expensive, airports for those fighters [whether land-based or on-ships] are expensive, tanks are expensive, submarines are expensive.
What would save money is closing down military bases on foreign soil. >150? Do we really need so many bases on foreign soil?
This is something as a Libertarian I have advocated. It is the only true way of making a difference in the cost of maintaining a viable fighting force.
This is something as a Libertarian I have advocated. It is the only true way of making a difference in the cost of maintaining a viable fighting force.
I agree.
I had an odd feeling during my last duty station. I was stationed in Italy, wearing a badge, carrying a gun, in charge of 40 MPs. In accordance with the SOFA [Status of Forces Argeement], we operate full legal jurisdiction over all conquered lands. Just as if we had beaten Hitler and Mussolini last week [and not 50 years ago]. I felt like a Roman Centurion walking on foreign soil, the locals were focusing on their lives, but I carried the weapons and even the local Italian Policia had to bow to my authority.
We conquer these places and make them sign treaties giving the US legal jurisdiction over them and we setup military bases, but then we never leave. And in the meantime we spend a lot of our taxes to subsidize those nations.
Besides closing foreign bases, another thing that could help to save money is to allow each command the ability and authority to purchase non military equipment materials in local area businesses. For example, traditional hand or power tools, flashlights, ink pens, toilet paper, and many other items that aren’t related to military specific equipment or duties. There were times on the ship working in the engine room at home port it was faster and easier to go to Sears or Walmart to buy replacement hand tools out of our own pockets. We could have purchased slightly more expensive but better quality tools if we could have accessed department funds for these purchases and still have come in far less than half the price the military supply system charged.
Something else that bothered me as a waste was the end of the fiscal year spending spree. “We have to spend the money or we will get less in the next fiscal year budget. When this happens what the money is being spent on is not what is truly needed by the department. This is a wrong headed approach that needs to go away. Problem is it seems to be a fully entrenched philosophy among officers and executives. One idea is to set up an emergency fund account and transfer the remaining balance to this fund requiring a higher level of authority for approval to be used for purchases above and beyond the normal departmental budget. Once this fund reaches a balance greater than the annual budget then it can be transferred back to the regular budget and no new funds given to the department for that fiscal year since they already have what they need. Another idea is to crack down on the practice of spending everything at the last minute. Stop the wasteful spending. You still get your funds for the next fiscal year minus the dollar amount remaining in your budget.
I served on a flag ship out of Gaeta Italy. We weren’t a military ship. We were the Admiral’s private party barge to hold diplomatic dinner parties at foreign ports with extremely expensive booze and food provided by the local USA embassy via the US State Department budget. If our ship had been attacked the best we could do is call for help. Most of the weapons the ship once had were removed for communications systems. For what our military job was at the time, it could have all been done from a shore base inside the USA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
