Can someone tell me why there is so much overlap in our military?

[al_liberal]

Why do all four branches need aircraft? Are we really just supporting the wants and desires of Generals? Why can't the branches cover one mission very well and not all missions poorly? We have four branches each with aircraft. I thought the Navy was supposed to staff the aquatic vessels, the Marines serve as immediate ground forces, the Army as the main fighting force, and the Air Force to pilot all aircraft. Why can't aircraft carriers be staffed with Air Force pilots for the planes and helicopters? Why do the Army and Marines have any aircraft? Why can't the Air Force fly those vehicles? I really think this idea of every branch needing every vehicle is why our military is so bloated. If we limited each branch to very clearly defined missions I think we'd save a shit-load of money. We'd have an Air Force that took care of all flying vehicles, a Navy that took care of all water borne vessels, Marines that could be taken anywhere in the world by either the Air Force or Navy as first in troops, and an Army that is our main fighting force. I understand that the Marines and Army have and do overlap all the time, but these are our ground forces.

Help me out here, help me understand this shit.

[tabasco]

1. A very good question, actually.

I'm a former military officer. In a nutshell, my conclusion is that the inefficiency allows a greater amount of corporate profiteering.

The real question is why do we have to have four (main) different branches of the service.

A retired colonel, David Hackworth, deals with the subject in his book, About Face.

[upi402]

8. So it isn't logistics backup?

I always assumed the largess was logistics.

Another pisser is that we no longer require - and therefor manufacture- materiel made in the USA.

[upi402]

9. Oh and I forgot this

:patriot: Thank you -sincerely.

[pinto]

2. $$$ basically, imo. And maybe some inter-branch competition?

I see inklings of discussion about some streamlining of the colossal structure DOD has become. It's long overdue.

[Duckhunter935]

3. want to save money

combine the services into one, no more seperate uniforms, regulations, vehicles. And they might just be able to communicate with each other.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The acronym FUBAR originated with the military and has become a proud tradition.

[JonLP24]

5. Certain jobs I take it

I know Army has more helicopters than the Air Force. To become a pilot is to go the Warrant Officer route which enlistment can. You need a GT score of 110 or higher and other things such as recommendations from superiors.

I know when I was overseas, there was an Air Force unit doing the same thing we were(Army) in our task force, long hualing--driving semi-trucks. So the overlap goes both ways I think. There were also Navy truck drivers too.

[JHB]

6. Taking a crack at it...

It's not just the flying part, it's the integration with particular needs of each service. Carrier-based take-offs and landings are major skills in their own right. Army air is geared toward ground support, Marine has that plus ship-based operational requirments.

Then there are a lot of mundane but necessary and practical factors: logistics, chains of command, career paths, etc.

Once can certainly make a case that making the Air Force a separate service from the Army was unneccessary, and was due more to the historical circumstances (at the time, "future war" was envisioned to be a matter of bombers, interceptors, and missiles) than what turned out to be needed.

There are real reasons for doing these things. Of course, there real reasons are exploited to the hilt and beyond to push for more more more.

[Posteritatis]

20. This is pretty much one of the only useful responses in this thread

The kneejerk factor of the other responses are kind of depressing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. There is much less than many realize and there has been major consolidation

Much of it is driven by mission type and command structure. You could have AF pilots flying what are now Army helos, or Navy attack jets, but there would be little or nothing gained from it. There is also substantive differences in doctrine, tactics, and operations that they would become isolated communities within the USAF.

The one real opportunity would be moving the Marine Corps (whose mission is self sustained attack from the sea, not immediate ground forces) into the Army. The USMC is basically light infantry. However, its mythos and status is such with the US people that it is very unlikely to happen.

[al_liberal]

11. USS Constitution.

The USS Constitution carried a crew of roughly 450 Navy personnel and 55 Marines. Since the formation of our republic, the Navy has been the deployment vehicle for our Marines. I'm of the belief that this is because naval vessels can traverse the world and deploy the Marines wherever they are needed immediately. This should be the continuing mission of the Navy.

There would be plenty of gains from using only the Air Force to pilot aircraft. The Navy and the Air Force have been the least used branches during our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have close to 400k total Air Force personnel that have been largely unused in the Gulf engagements while the Marines and Army have had to endure multiple rotations.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. You misunderstand the role of combined arms

But to exp[lore your concept further: given that there would be carrier based aircraft of a similar number, what would be gained by combining two very different aviation arms? What would be gained by including Army helos in your envisioned air force?

[david13]

10. In one word: boondoggle. Pork barrel. dc

[struggle4progress]

13. Multiple branches with overlapping responsibilities is actually quite sensible:

it makes a military coup much more difficult

[Zax2me]

14. You could substitute the word government for military

or just add it - and eventually get to the root cause of why we are in a fiscal mess.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. So the other branches have a fighting chance when the Air Force tries

to make a coup?

[FormerDittoHead]

16. WTF? You think it's EASY coming up with excuses on how to piss away all that money? n/t

[WatsonT]

17. Marine aviators and Navy aviators do different things

Some is redundant, but not all of it.

[ensho]

18. money, money, money flying into military/indus. Baron's pockets

nt

[texshelters]

19. People have listed good ideas, and

a navy friend of mine (yes, liberals know people in the military too, Rethugs) told me part of this is the procurement competition between the branches. Each branch feels they need their own plane and compete to get the best. And Congress, until recently, thought little of it.

Yes, there has been some consolidation as one person posted, and there is still overlap.

Some of this has to do with Congress wanting to protect projects in their district, and some has to do with military contract lobbyists having sway in the legislature. So it's also a legislative and contracting issue. There is still more redundancy to be eliminated and rethinking about how the military operates in general as four branches.

Peace,
Tex Shelters