Posted on Sep 27, 2013
What's the most important thing the military should do while going through this downsizing period?
64K
1.87K
661
49
49
0
As the military enters a significant downsizing period, it's important to talk through relevant issues and solutions. Enter your response below, and if it gets the most Up votes, you win a free iPad Mini and we will personally deliver your thoughts to our Advisory Board, which includes retired Generals George Casey and Norton Schwartz, the recent Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force, respectively.<div><br></div><div>Tip: Get all your friends to vote Up your response by the end of the contest on Oct 7, 2013.</div>
Posted in these groups: 
Downsizing
Downsizing
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 502
2
2
0
Cancel Huge dollar project for 'smart' items meant to replace the foot soldiers or to replace existing systems that are working fine but are still considered obsolete. The main example of one of the last would be the F-35 and its 400 billion or so in wasted funds and hours of wasted time and effort for a jet with an extremely limited use. take the funds from this and other projects such as the DTMS and other programs that are good ideas poorly executed and use that money to form exit packages for soldiers that are chosen to be removed from the service. These packages would include a stipend, extra funds to learn new skills and relocation funds as well as a sum based on years of service as a separation package to assist these soldier in "landing on their feet". Each package could be based on years of service NOT rank. Rank can be a untrue value of a soldier and years of service is a more equal basis to judge on. These funds could alos be used to help train soldier in proper maintenance of military property so that civilians would be removed from the service which would again reduce cost and streamline the services.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
What the Military needs to do before it decides to "Down Size", is to become MORE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE!
On my last assignment, I was tasked with assisting the Training NCO to investigate and come up with a solution to prevent first time failures for soldiers going selected to go NCO Academy. I found the problems and submitted my report. For several weeks I had not received any feedback regarding my report, I was also up for Reenlistment at this time and was truly unsure if I should continue my career in the military or cut my losses of 15 years and try something new.
Finally, I was informed by my Commander that though my solution was highly regarded by Higher Command, but turned down due to Budgeting. This may have stayed afloat if a few days later, three tractor trailers with brand new office furniture hadn't appeared on site and all of the old furniture hadn't gone to a land fill. DRMO didn't want it back because they didn't want it to go against THEIR inventory.
I then realized that the Military was more worried about next years budget allocation than it was training its troops properly. So, I left the service and never looked back. Yes, I do know why funds must be budgeted and used for the purpose of that intent, but I also see the waste behind it. TRAINING should always come first. When training becomes secondary the next budgetary requirement will be for Body Bags.
I then realized that the Military was more worried about next years budget allocation than it was training its troops properly. So, I left the service and never looked back. Yes, I do know why funds must be budgeted and used for the purpose of that intent, but I also see the waste behind it. TRAINING should always come first. When training becomes secondary the next budgetary requirement will be for Body Bags.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
<p>A fast money saver would be to stop patterning OCIE. Doesn't need it, and is the major cost in changing uniform patterns. </p><p><br></p><p>Every where else I would apply lean management concepts. We already do some lean, but it needs to permeate the organization. It saves money, streamlines processes and standardized work.</p><p><br></p>
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Refine the acquisition process. The military used to be outstanding at acquisitions. During WWI and WWII we pumped out new, innovative airplanes faster than any other time in history....and it helped us turn the tide in both wars. Now, we spend 10 years creating something that is out of date by the time it fields IF it isn't met with disputes from competitors. In the process of making sure these contracts can't be disputed, we spend 3-5 times what the product development should have cost.
The Air National Guard has the same capabilities, if not better and has historically fielded equipment at about 20% of the cost of the active duty component. In many cases, active duty personnel end up preferring the guard approach to solving the problem or providing the capability. What does the guard do? We don't chase pipe dreams. We buy commercial off the shelf items and spend a small amount of money integrating them to provide the same capability that 5-7 years of research and development eventually makes into a $1,000,000 widget. Because we get it off the shelf, it costs us about $100k to buy it and about $100k to integrate it. THEN, it only costs about $150k from there on out to field it.
Acquisition rules need to be changed. In some cases, US companies can't provide products because part of the manufacturing process is done outside of the US. It is just a reality of the world today that the US generally cannot compete on the terms of labor costs. Any company that wants to compete for government dollars needs to make themselves non-viable on the commercial market. That needs to be fixed. Government leadership needs to realize that, when companies send jobs overseas, it doesn't take jobs away from here....it creates different jobs here. Those items need to be received from overseas, quality checked, and then packed and shipped the same way they would be if they were made here. I am afraid that the most important thing the military needs to do is in the hands of congress....and many of those folks don't understand the problems their laws are causing.
The Air National Guard has the same capabilities, if not better and has historically fielded equipment at about 20% of the cost of the active duty component. In many cases, active duty personnel end up preferring the guard approach to solving the problem or providing the capability. What does the guard do? We don't chase pipe dreams. We buy commercial off the shelf items and spend a small amount of money integrating them to provide the same capability that 5-7 years of research and development eventually makes into a $1,000,000 widget. Because we get it off the shelf, it costs us about $100k to buy it and about $100k to integrate it. THEN, it only costs about $150k from there on out to field it.
Acquisition rules need to be changed. In some cases, US companies can't provide products because part of the manufacturing process is done outside of the US. It is just a reality of the world today that the US generally cannot compete on the terms of labor costs. Any company that wants to compete for government dollars needs to make themselves non-viable on the commercial market. That needs to be fixed. Government leadership needs to realize that, when companies send jobs overseas, it doesn't take jobs away from here....it creates different jobs here. Those items need to be received from overseas, quality checked, and then packed and shipped the same way they would be if they were made here. I am afraid that the most important thing the military needs to do is in the hands of congress....and many of those folks don't understand the problems their laws are causing.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
In the maintenace aspect, I would take a good hard look at the technical manuals for some of our equipment, for example the generator troubleshooting for the M1A2 SEP V2 tank, If you follow it to the generator that is after the book tells you to replace the voltage regulator first and see if that fixes it and the generator is good then it says to replace the transmission which is near a quarter million dollars, the reality is it could be the right angle drive in the back plate ($7,000) or more often the shaft ( $50). The sad part is my unit has gone through 7 shafts and one plate, if we followed the book that would have been 2 million dollars. Have General Dynamics release accurate schematics to us and fix the books. We could save more. Ask any tank mechanic worth his wieght and he will reply the M1A1 was the best tank because of its analog systems. The M1A2 SEPs were a waste of resources they are prone to overheating, draining batteries and while some changes were great most just were an additional headache. "Keep it simple stupid"
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
We need to get back to the basics.
We can argue all day long regarding HOW we downsize, but the truth of the matter is that it is coming and most of us do not have control over what is happening.
In the Reserves, we are seeing MAJOR budget issues. We are running into restraints that have a tremendous impact on simple things such as attending planning conferences, training being cancelled, among other things. While this is frustrating from a leadership standpoint, it is infuriating for how it trickles down to the Soldiers.
The solution has to be simple and actionable. With the downsizing, seems to also come and Army in a constant state of refit. This means it is a time to return to enforcing standards. It is also a time where Company leadership needs to ensure that training is happening, no matter how simple it is. More complex training may have to be forgone due to budgetary constraints. This means that it is time for Squad Leaders and Platoon Sergeants to step up and ensure that they are effectively addressing their Soldier's training needs. The basics need to be reinforced and in some cases retrained all together. Sometimes it may be as simple as taking a squad out and working on AWT. Other times, we may need to need to get Soldiers on their respective equipment or vehicles and train within the confines of the local area.
The focus can not be on what we can not do. It must be on what we can do....what we MUST do. Leaders need to be innovators to ensure that we do not face the same disparity between need and current level of readiness that we had experienced in the early 2000's. Basic leadership, basic Soldiering, and basic functional training must become the cornerstone of making it through the tough times ahead as the Army redefines itself and we all adapt to the changing environment.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Most important is to focus on maintaining readiness. There are enough threats to our country to warrant maintaining at least the same level of readiness while having fewer bodies to do it. Identify key personnel and ensure they hold positions that would influence such readiness.
Slow down on implementing new policies and procedures. Unless they're absolutely necessary the implementation only takes away from time spent training. We're getting to a point where we have more to think about as we walk down a sidewalk stateside than we do as we drive through an earily quiet village overseas.
Enforce standards that would require the removal of personnel. If standards aren't met, they weren't cut out for the military. Leaders at all levels need to 'crop the dead weight' to ensure those that remain can continue to focus on their own personal and unit readiness instead of retraining those that have displayed a lack of ability to absorb what they've been taught.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Something that we need to put more thought into is mega-basing
and the creation of some special entities such as the Joint Targeting
Center. If we focus on maximizing efficiencies
we may be able to drawdown with much less impact to our mission. There is also a high probability that we will
be able to afford increases in manning/assets in several of the key areas which
are emerging.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I personally believe that if we adhered to Army policy and released/discharged the people who cannot maintain standards such as PT, HT/WT, Drug violations, and not meeting contract obligations. We would probably loose between 5 and 10 percent of our soldiers and would have an insignificant amount of drawdown. The problem is Big Army cannot enforce this, it comes down to the Company/ Battalion levels to do. What I have experienced is a lot of Companies give their soldiers extra time and almost invariably it is a waste of time and a slot in the unit.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I am a bit late for the contest, but this reply comes with no need for award. I was in the Army during the last huge draw-down after Desert Storm. The Army dubbed it, "No More Task Force Smith" the Korean expeditionary disaster after the WWII draw-down. From that experience: The one thing we must keep is the knowledge gained from over a decade of war, failure to capture and leverage this knowledge will only result in a repeat of history. This will effect our ranks first at the junior enlisted and officer ranks as they will enter the service as we did, green. We must get back to mentorship and leverage the informal network and leaders to gain the advantage in the future. This forum is an example of the informal leader network, there are others inside the services- We use the term "community".
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google