Is the "one size fits all" mentality hurting the military?

SGT James Elphick — Thu, 07 Aug 2014 17:39:33 -0400

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

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2014 12:46 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 12:46:38 -0400

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.

Response by SFC Robert Allen made Oct 11 at 2014 3:29 PM

SFC Robert Allen — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 15:29:14 -0400

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.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2014 7:17 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:17:12 -0500

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.