GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Defense to review 'unnecessary duplication' among services

• 50656
  

  I pretty much agree with Guy and some of the others. Truthfully, I think you can reduce defense by a third and not have a significant impact on the services provided. And of course Ketter just doesn't get it. Outsourcing costs more (all the real studies prove it) and the Gov't has less control of what these private concerns do. Just look at KBR.

  dfes2000 Posted May 14, 2008 1:06 PM
• 50587
  

  I definitely agree with several of the comments. We never, ever, seem to really make this work because each of our services (and yes, especially the USAF, but not ONLY them) are too busy defending their turf and rice bowls to be able to step away from it all and recognize what is best for the DoD TEAM. The only way is to put it into statute and have independent inspectors tour and audit everything to make sure we are complying. A bit draconian, but it's clear that we can't do it without someone making us do it.

  Guy Posted May 13, 2008 6:39 PM
• 50572
  

  And of course, our Congress represent individuals States, each conducting primarily the same business as well. Let's just consolidate all services across the whole country. Almost sounds like universal health care. Some concepts sound very good in theory, but are very difficult to achieve in reality. Why do four different gas stations on the same corner require different managers and owners...let's just consolidate and lower them gas prices while we're at it too. It is fair to examine opportunities to consolidate, but let's not become overly ambitious as that just stirs up conflict vice the collaboration needed to make progress. I know I'm being a little facecious.

  Greg Posted May 13, 2008 2:56 PM
• 50544
  

  The biggest duplication is the number of CS being employed by the services. There are numerous activities that should be bid out and reduced. Look at base housing, road and grounds, CPO, just too name a few. Unless you wear the uniform your job function should be scrutinised and be up for bid

  Dan ketter Posted May 13, 2008 11:36 AM
• 50542
  

  BW, during my Navy days, I did a tour as one of those "purple-suiters" at USEUCOM in Stuttgart, Germany back in the mid-90s, and while the concept was feasible, it ended up being not much more than a turf war, at least from where I sat...the HQ building. I even remember a Letter to the Editor in an issue of Stars & Stripes from an Air Force MSgt who worked in the J3 that called the entire command as such. I can't say that I disagreed. Over this decade, it seems that turf war has only intensified.

  Tigerhawk Posted May 13, 2008 11:21 AM
• 50538
  

  John, there are others as well. Contracting (all follow the FAR and DFARS), human resources, security, and process improvement come to mind. We in the software world use SEI's Capability Maturity Model Integrated, all of the services! The Navy uses the Software Technology Support Center at Hill AFB and I suspect the Army does as well. DoD sponsors a single measurement model across the services, Practical Software and System Measurement, also called PSM. Test and Evaluation has talked about the "purple suit" kind of idea for years and still is dispersed with vicious competition among the test ranges. The big problem is that in joint programs it seems as though one service has to be in charge. Why? That causes a lot of the stove-piping. Just look at UAVs. Why can't UAVs be a DoD led effort instead of the Air Force? I am will to go "purple suit" and i suspect many other are as well.

  BW Posted May 13, 2008 10:50 AM
• 50533
  

  Much of the duplication is a result of the Air Force not get things done (in my opinion). The other services have to get it done (tactical, transport, observation, missile defense ...) and have a will do attitude. That means the other services have duplicated the Air Force because they feel (have learned) they can not count on the Air Force. This article fails to point out that there is logic behind this duplication. The other services do not wish to waste their budgets building their own Air Forces, they feel they have to.

  John G. Posted May 13, 2008 10:29 AM
• 50531
  

  Just imagine how much unnecessary duplication and overlap there is on the civilian departments side. Its too bad that this effort could not be expanded to include civilian agencies. I totally agree with the comment about accountability.

  Ron Lester Posted May 13, 2008 10:22 AM
• 50498
  

  If DoD is really serious about saving money and achieving better efficiency by eliminating redundancies among the various military services, then it should consider consolidating all of the JAG departments, medical departments, and chaplains departments into "purple-suited" DoD corps. A lawyer is a lawyer is a lawyer...ditto doctors and nurses and medical technicians and chaplains...yet we operate (and pay for) separate service training programs that are located all over the country. If we ran just one DoD JAG Department, one DoD Medical Department, and one DoD Chaplain Department...and those functions were all combined under one roof, think of all the money that would be saved and how much more effectively those functions could serve their clients/patients/sinners. Heaven forbid we should all actually have to work and talk with each other towards a common goal.

  John Posted May 12, 2008 11:20 PM
• 50476
  

  Does this means JCIDS and the Balanced Scorecard inititive aren't working - at least as far as Represenatives Skelton and Hunter are concerned?

  Christopher Hanks Posted May 12, 2008 2:09 PM
• 50459
  

  Back in the 90's MEVATEC took all four services through an improvement program called Activity Based Management which would have streamlined payroll and accounting. That was the first time I learned the expression "herding cats." The project was more or less killed before it reached OSD, because it presented bad news. The services invest most of their time and personnel in fixing errors. The original implementation date for DIMHRS (consolidated pay and personnel system) was supposed to be 2001. Most of that team has retired. So "finish (herding cats) by November" seems a bit ambitious.

  Anthony Weishar Posted May 12, 2008 11:08 AM
• 50454
  

  I see the dirty litlle secret is beginning to be exposed.

  Gone will be the days of the "right way, the wrong way, and the Army, Navy, AF and Marine and CG way!""""

  rooster Posted May 12, 2008 9:54 AM
• 50449
  

  As long as separate "Military Departments" exist you will have duplication and stovepiping. The civilain leadership of each of the departments is, in essence, led by the military leadership - which runs counter to the principal of civilian control of the military. The only way to stop this is to disband the military departments and have all civilian leadership and employment (including the procurement agencies) led by DoD. This would provide for effective civilian control since the appointees would be freed of the notion that they work for the armed services rather than the other way around.

  Michael Bindner Posted May 12, 2008 9:17 AM
• 50447
  

  Unless the U.S. goes to a Canadian Forces approach, nothing will change. Our current force structure is designed to create overlapping mission areas.

  DoD Employee Posted May 12, 2008 9:14 AM
• 50440
  

  Hats off to Ike Skelton! Duplication, parochialism, and stovepipes are rampant in DoD. The competition for programs and funds is ineffecient, wasteful and counterproductive. Maybe stepping back to a single defense service is the way to go. Sure our war fighters would still be soldiers, sailors and flyers but under a single service and command. Logistics and support troops would be common and centrally managed to provide the best equipment and services to the operators. Acquisition would see the biggest benefit if centralized at Dod and managed by civilians.

  Tom G Posted May 12, 2008 8:39 AM
• 50430
  

  Is it that time again? Poke the embers. Stir things up and then do very little. Lets not forget that it has always been the Defense Department's responsibility to eliminate duplication and pursue efficiency. So, why do they go through these motions every year or so and, ultimately, do very little?

  It still gets down to accountability. Someone with authority needs to sign off and, if the information is distorted and inaccurate, be held responsible. Frankly, DOD is notorious for playing with facts and figures to make them fit their agenda. So, either get serious this time or don't bother because it's just a waste of resources.

  Robert M. Posted May 12, 2008 7:13 AM
• 50407
  

  Defining who is the lead branch for these issues is very obvious to most of us in uniform. I can imagine it isn't so clear to the senators involved. The UAV issue is the hot button topic, and the easiest. The Air Force's power grab doesn't make operational or fiscal sense. The grunt on the ground needs organic UAV's, not an ISR team in Nevada that is disconnected from the action and the sense of urgency within the engaged ground unit. To claim airspace control and deconfliction is a hollow argument for the Air Force. ATC handles this routinely worldwide with military and civilian acft. Why would the Air Force grab the UAV world when they can't afford the C-17's and F-22's that they say they need? Where is the extra money coming from? It doesn't make sense. Lets hope our elected leaders put all of these duplications of effort under the microscope and mandate "jointness" to our branch-centric brass.

  John Brody Posted May 10, 2008 10:31 AM
• 50400
  

  To be the controversial one, I think the most radical idea (and the most cost-saving, to boot) would be to dissolve the Air Force and reincorporate it into Army, Navy and Marines.

  1. Give the airlift capabilities to the Army, who use the airlift capacity the most anyway. This would also need to be followed with a repeal of laws that prohibits the Army from maintaining fixed-wing aircraft.

  2. Assign the bulk of the bases, which are air bases anyway, to the Navy and Marines, the two services that have the most experience in flying fixed-wing aircraft. Transfer most of the bombers and the entire fleet of A-10s to the Marines who would use the masterful CAS capabilities of the A-10. Give the bulk of the bombers to the Army who would have deep-strike capability and has the history of using them. (I understand that the Army Air Corps "spun off" into the Air Force, but this could be done given time). Cede some of these bombers to the Navy who can use them for long-range seaborne interdiction. (Don't laugh...the Soviets had Backfire bombers for the exact same purpose).

  3. The Navy has far better capabilities in missile defense, so disestablish the monster program of an ABM shield that's been wasting billions of dollars since testing and (extremely premature) deployment in the early 2000's. This also gives the Navy SPAWAR control by default.

  There are many other areas that would need to be touched, but considering the Air Force's appetite for large appropriations budgets and constant battling with the Navy for everything aviation, I think this type of mammoth overhaul of military duplication can be done away with while saving untold amounts as Air Force pet projects go away.

  Tigerhawk Posted May 9, 2008 5:09 PM