[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

So if I can wear the Crown for a day what would I do with the Dept of Defense.

1) Rename it the War Department. We are not going of to fight a "Defense" now are we? Mindset people.

There are arguements pro and con to this, in concept, I agree. We don't fight a defense. I'd keep it a combined department, i.e. no Navy Department etc.

2) Single parents. Thanks for your help. He is a severance check equal to six months. Buh-bye.

Harsh. But I do understand, there was nothing worse than deploying on a FTX or, even worse, a combat op and having a sizeable portion of your unit nondeployable because they are single parents or preggie. I don't know about outright kicking them out....perhaps converting them to recruiters or admin duties only. Certainly not in Combat or Combat Support units.

3) All the Family and Community stuff on Stateside bases. Redundant and frequently prices are cheaper for the Soldier and the quality higher off post. Overseas I get it, Stateside,NO.

Agreed!!! Just as an example, the Post Exchange was originally started to gve enlisted personnel a place to buy necessary goods cheap. Its now a warehouse where officers and retirees can buy name brands at cheap prices. EVERY enlisted member I know buys diapers at WalMart, better selection and better prices. But if you need that 72-inch Flat Screen for the den......

4) The Marine Corps. I would remove it from the Department of the Navy and slot it under the Department of the Army. Make for a massive reduction in procurement efforts. Going to the Marines would be like going to the Airborne. A specialized assignment but still just an assignment. It would still be Corps sized, though reshaped on the Brigade Combat Team concept. The Navy can protect their ports and other facilities with Master at Arms or draw from their Shore Duty sailors.

One can already hear the screams from the Navy and the Marines! Overall, you may be right, but I don't see this happening much before 5500AD!!!!! Now converting the Marine logistical support to the Army, and streamlining the Marines into BCT organizations, requiring joint field exercises may be a better way to go, not to mention cutting down on the screaming (noise reduction is good, AND you get to met OSHA guidlines).

5) The Airborne. Dead concept on Brigade and Division level. Consider the 21st century threat detection capability and Theater air defense missiles that could destroy not just damage cargo aircraft. Lets be real. The Brigade drop hasn't even been used in Afghanistan where such an effort could actually have achieved total surprise and seized terrain and taliban assets. With upcoming Laser technology anything rising above the horizon is dead upon detection. The chips are in the air on SOF units and air delivered supplies.

I can see the 82nd Airborne has a holding division with a variety of Battalion Combat Teams under its umbrella. But the chances of a Brigade or Division combat operation is roughly that of Angelina Jolie dumping Brad Pitt and moving in with me.

6) Close Air Support is an Army function and should be at the Brigade level. Possibly even with prop driven dirt strip capable air craft.

Can't agree with each Brigade getting its own CAS squadron, but CAS needs to be an Army function with the pilots required to serve with infantry/armor units before going on to flight school.

7) Army Bases should be in areas where there is room to train. Those Posts in the Eastern US or worse inside large cities would be closed even turned over to the Park Service. We know why there still there and tradition is bullshit. Their there to dazzle Congressmen and Senators on visits and to be close to the White House and the Pentagon.

Turn the ones near cities into admin posts, but Combat Arms needs maneuver room. Build them in areas away from the cities.

8) Joint Bases. This would be the new normal. Where ever possible all installations would be multi-service. Keeps the operating costs and FORCES cooperative interoperability. Shut down post or installations could become housing for Veterans of all wars. It is not fancy but, it will be familiar, with people that understand or share experiences, and would coordinate care and services better.

Agreed!

9) Ditch the short and quick Non Commissioned Officer Courses. The Primary Leadership Development Course is the first induction into the NCO Corps. This course should be the damned hardest. Candidates should have to show a commitment like re-enlisting to get to into it. The Course should be at a minimum 12 months classified as a hardship tour without relocation of dependents. The Graduates should all be very proficient in Infantry Operations regardless of the MOS, be able to operate any weapon system, use any radio, and drive any vehicle that is not aircraft or watercraft greater than a RIB craft. The lectures and presentations given by students on facets of military history, tactics, strategy, and concepts of the operational art should graduate each student with an Associates degree in Military Science. If their Professional Soldiers than Professional training with formal classes and measured results should be standard.

Nope. For the non-U.S. military members, when you enlist, you are Uncle Sam's for six years, you will hear a lot of BS about 2-year, 3-year and 4-year enlistments, its just a recruiting trick. You are in for six years, it may be 2 years active, but it will be 4-years Individual Ready Reserve...read the fine print!

That having been said, there needs to be changes in how the service recruits its NCOs. The Primary Leadership Development Course should be directed at those eligible for promotion to E-4 (E-1 to E-3 is automatic based on time in service). It should really be a Corporal selection process where those who graduate pick up Corporal and those who don't do not get to reenlist. It should be a 4 month course. After that, every level of NCO development should be proceeded by a 6 month course...and if you don't pass, you don't get the promotion!

10) Controversial idea. Reduce the carrier fleet and increase the Submarine fleet. More SLBMs afloat. The Carrier itself is beginning to be threaten by ballistic missiles (China is first here) with non nuclear warheads anywhere at sea in the missiles radius. Reduce the Navy Carriers to six with two at sea in the areas of most interest. Give two to the Coast Guard for humanitarian missions and disaster relief missions. CG aircraft carriers with Opreys and Helos would benefit missions on the scale of Katrina and the SE Asian Tsunami event.

Disagree and why an Army puke is defending the squids....).

We need a carrier air arm. Control of the sea lines of communications (SLOC) requires control of the air and sea, and we can't always post an air wing within range to cover potential problems. Enter the carriers, they provide a reasonable size air group and even more important, a US air base that does not depend on the good graces of a nearby country. We should maintain a carrier force of between 11 to 13 carriers. This normally allows one in the Atlantic and two in the Pacific on station, three more working up for deployment, three returning from deployment and 2-3 undergoing major overhauls.

Yes they face a more deadly threat, but given current technology, there is nothing that can replace a carrier. We need more submarines, both nuclear attack boats as well as coastal diesel-electric boats.

Decommissioning the USAF ICBM fleet would save many and increasing the Navie's SLBM force would make for a more effective (and safer) nuclear arsenal.

As fas as giving the Coast Guard carriers....there is no need, a couple of large merchant hulls can be converted into aviation support ships and used for disaster relief.

just a few peanuts from the gallery...