Posted on Mar 1, 2014
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
3.34K
0
2
During my career as a C-17 Loadmaster, I did A LOT of swap - outs of Army units. Two units that come to mind were the 101st and 82nd. Typically, it would take us a thousand or so missions to completely swap the two units out.

During those swap-outs, not only troops, but equipment is changed out. Some of this equipment was virtually identical in nature. One example would be, I have hauled out of down range 10,000 lbs of "T"- posts for one unit and on the return trip brought back in 10,000 lbs of "T"- posts for the other unit. And another 10,000 lbs of razor wire. Both shipments have the same serviceability codes. There are other examples of equipment, without getting to detailed.

Wouldn't it make more sense to sign over and take possession of those "T"- posts and save the Army the hundreds of thousands of dollars it takes me to fly those down range and back? We're talking expendable equipment here, not tanks, or Patriot Missile launchers. Seems like a lot waste to me. What's Y'alls take on this?
Posted in these groups: 654328 bad investment Waste
Edited 11 y ago
Comments have been disabled
Responses: 2
SFC Communications Chief (S6)
Isn't the general rule of thumb to bring enough supplies to last 30-60 days to allow for your accounts/dodaccs to be set up? Not all units replace others in theater, could have a completely different mission, footprint than what is there. With that being said, I can't say as the units i've been in, brought their own Class IV with them. 
SGT(P) Eye Specialist
I am generally pretty logical in thought. It seems to me the sensible thing here is to sign them over. I think all equipment should be signed over until it's not serviceable and then replace it with new. JMO 

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close