Posted on Aug 7, 2014
Is the "one size fits all" mentality hurting the military?
3.48K
5
3
1
1
0
It seems that modern military thinkers believe that "modularity" and "multi-mission capabilities" are the way to move forward in the future despite the fact that not only recent history but WWII and after have shown the necessity for mission specific units and equipment. I understand budget constraints mean having to make the most of our what the military has but when we have projects like the F35 that are meant to replace several aircraft with one airframe or "Modular Brigade Combat Teams" that have the same organization despite the fact that they have varied missions and means of deployment (let's not forget the ACU's either) it seems that leadership is not putting actual thought into how to successfully complete missions. What is wrong with task organizing units for missions? Or having multiple, cheaper, aircraft or other pieces of equipment that fit precise mission needs? Maybe it's just me but I think the military needs to change it's way of thinking when it comes to this "one size fits all mentality" or it is going to find itself lacking if we have to take on a real foe
ACU
F-35
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
I agree with you on the "one size fits all" mentality. The irony is everyone clamors for diversity yet they are unwilling to embrace true diversity. The military must be able to tackle each threat accordingly but it can't be from a cookie cutter solution system. There must be different ways of addressing each concern.
I think ultimately it's just a bunch of ticket punchers who are trying to reinvent the wheel instead of improving on what we have.
I think ultimately it's just a bunch of ticket punchers who are trying to reinvent the wheel instead of improving on what we have.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
Not all Soldiers are plug and play. The people who are ultimately making the decisions know this, but choose not to acknowledge it. I had a Battalion Commander that once pulled me aside and told me straight up, my life in the unit was going to be difficult. He told me the secret to command was to "find the pockets of competence and abuse the hell out of them to accomplish the mission." It was a compliment, but it worried me considerably. I regularly worked 14-16 hour days in that unit.
Using that command mindset, not all Soldiers are equal, and not all units are equal. Thus it is strange to think that an Arctic BDE could effectively do a combat mission in the jungle that a jungle fighter BDE is trained for. Anyone remember Panama? I was with Tropic Lightning, had already done Jungle Operations Training Center, along with the rest of my BDE, and they sent guys with no jungle training from Fort Ord to do the mission. If they had sent the trained personnel instead of the untrained, a whole herd of cattle would be alive and well still today.
Using that command mindset, not all Soldiers are equal, and not all units are equal. Thus it is strange to think that an Arctic BDE could effectively do a combat mission in the jungle that a jungle fighter BDE is trained for. Anyone remember Panama? I was with Tropic Lightning, had already done Jungle Operations Training Center, along with the rest of my BDE, and they sent guys with no jungle training from Fort Ord to do the mission. If they had sent the trained personnel instead of the untrained, a whole herd of cattle would be alive and well still today.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Something that I feel ties in with this is the "perfect answer" that they are always chasing after. Use something that works, and spend the money that would otherwise be spent on finding a replacement, on training troops to use it. There's a time to upgrade, and there's a time not to. Think about all the money that the Army has blown looking for a replacement for the M4/M16. Would have been a lot better off spending that money on ranges and ammo.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google