One of our many agreements while disagreeing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Entropy
Personally, I think there needs to be more "joint" not less. One of the biggest problems I see is not enough joint training, particularly between the Army and Air Force. I also wouldn't mind seeing most weapons development and procurement managed at the joint instead of service level.
I'll echo others remarks about the USAF and Joint training -- the AF position has always seemed to me to be our way or we won't play and they are totally lacking in flexibility. I've never had real problems coordinating training among Army posts or units, with the Navy or Marines. Compromises were made and things got done. However, doing that with the USAF has always been tedious and irritating-- and frequently unsuccessful, compromise is a word that the AF doesn't seem to know. I understand airplanes are expensive. So is a Rifle Company of 150 plus bodies...
That said, I agree that there needs to be more and not less. The question is how do we get there?
I strongly disagree with joint weapons development and procurement; DoD's current single manager approach to the procurement of most things is undoubtedly efficient and has saved the taxpayers some money -- but it also buys stuff that is frequently not fit for purpose. Competition and multiple sources produce multiple weapon types that make system defeat less likely. The American penchant for one size fits all solutions is militarily a very bad approach; the Army is bad enough with their reluctance to buy special purpose equipment for special units (That's a big part of the reason there is now a SOCOM). They're slowly growing out of that but not nearly rapidly enough -- the M4 Carbine debacle is a good example. Crass stupidity.
Given joint development and procurement there would be no F-22, only the F-35...:eek:
The thing tends to go in cycles
I recall times when the AF was being very accomodating - under Gen. Larry Welch. Still, we should never forget that the USAF was once the Army Air Corps and thinks we'd like to put them back in that box. (Now, maybe that's not such a bad idea;))
One area where we should do some joint procurement, IMO, is in combat uniforms. Is there any reason why Army ACUs should be different from USMC digicams, or why the USAF and the USN need their own version of a camoflage combat uniform?
Cheers
JohnT
We did that. The old OG 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John T. Fishel
...One area where we should do some joint procurement, IMO, is in combat uniforms. Is there any reason why Army ACUs should be different from USMC digicams, or why the USAF and the USN need their own version of a camoflage combat uniform?
Utility uniform was a DoD wide prescribed unigram. Worked. Was around from the late 50s until the late 70s. Cost about $20.00 a set. Then the Jungle uniform came in and the Army got approval from someone to go to the BDU and it all went downhill from there. Current uniforms run about $70-90, contract dependent. Camouflage band for the Helmet used to cost Nine cents, the new one with two useless luminous tabs sewn on costs over a buck...
Camouflage uniforms really don't work universally. They look sexy in garrison but in the field the OG 107 -- or better, a dark sage -- single color is harder to detect in most environments; all the 'flage patterns suffer from environmental specificity. Not to mention that the multi color dying adversely affects fabric durability.
Lotta things are far better today -- including uniform pattern (not fabric, uniform; pockets and such), a really big and valid reason for service specificity without even getting to the tanker / mech nomex or the flight suits -- and make sense. It costs more but to back off much would be to effect compromises of effectiveness and compromises themselves have a cost. No easy solutions.
"Jointery" raises some funny questions
Last month I spoke at our Command and Staff College ( a joint school) about the need for National policy for the conduct of small wars and insurgency. The presentation seemed to go well and the questions were quite benign (it was the lecture before morning tea...) until...
One of the Naval O4 students posed a question that was actually a statement. He queried why when I spoke about the issue of counterinsurgency that I took an "land centric' approach.
After reassuring the audience that there were valuable tasks for all of the joint team in the fight, ultimately I had to point out that most populations live on land.... I did conclude by reassuring the white suiters that when populations started to live underwater we would be guaranteed to start talking a whole lot more about the naval roles in COIN.
Unfortunately, the same thing is true of many who tout jointness...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Personally to me, Joint means saving money and reducing effectiveness.
At least the first part is; they mean well but fail to realize that increased efficiency does not equate to increased effectiveness -- and that, frequently it can actually decrease effectiveness.
There are some benefits of increasing joint efforts and most who wish to do so are well intentioned but the big drivers have been just as you say -- an effort to save money which has, even if often inadvertently, adversely affected effectiveness in many areas.
There's nothing wrong with the concept, it's fine -- it's the implementation that counts and to let the Program and Budget folks drive ANY train is an invitation to disaster.