There is much talk of decreasing military spending. This usually revolves around eliminating large numbers of military personnel. Yet there is another area where significant reductions in expenditure of funds could be achieved without lessening troop strength or reducing numbers of ships, aircraft or other hardware. We have for years maintained large military overseas bases for good reason. As part of this structure, we have made it possible for military personnel to be accompanied on tours of duty by their families. In order to do so, large amounts of infrastructure such as dependent housing, schools, medical and myriad other support services are required. Additionally, large numbers of personnel are needed to operate their services. Medical, teachers, facilities maintenance personnel, logistical are but a few. Add to this the cost of operating theses services, the possibility of major savings can be readily concluded. If this practice were discontinued, significant savings could be achieved. In order to decrease the hardship imposed by unaccompanied tours, tour length could be shortened. Other accommodations like a mid tour R&R might be implemented. Personnel gains and losses would have to be managed closely. Phased transfers of set numbers would be essential to maintain an adequate number of qualified personnel onboard. Existing housing and school facilities could utilized for military housing and office facilities. Remote housing i.e. Ikego and Negishi (Japan) would become unnecessary and be returned to the Host Country, Japan. This approach would be preferable to further weakening of force structure.

lol, let me guess... you're single. :-)

Sorry thyboy, been married for 37 years. Let me guess. My proposal might eliminate your parasitic position?

Wow, sensitive. First, I was replying in good humor as denoted by the "lol" and winky face. But if you missed those apparent subtleties (I know, technology & social conventions move too fast for some to keep up) then no... my position is in direct support to Sailors & Marines regardless of whether or not they have families here. You need to chill.

You enjoy dishing out the snarky comments but can't handle the heat. Lame. I spent the time and effort to compose a serious posting. You on the other hand mere engage in drive by commentary seldom offering anything but pusillanimous platitudes.

Since you are asking for a serious response/debate, I am willing to put in my response, as a spouse and military child. I can see so many things wrong with the idea of unaccompanied tours - but will try to focus on the financial aspects since that is what the original post is about.

First, unaccompanied tours would end up incurring a double set of expenses. The military would be still need to maintain an exchange, galley, housing, and medical/dental infrastructure on the bases. At the same time, medical, housing, and infrastructures would also need to be in place in the states to handle the families lest behind. Yes, there would be some savings on education, but even that is minimal considering that the government compensates public schools for having the children of military members enrolled (to compensate for the lack of property and income tax revenue received by that district or state).

Next, you must account for the decrease in interest in taking overseas billets. Serious monetary compensation would be needed to encourage sailors/officers to take billets without their families. There will also be service members who chose to leave the service vice accepting an unaccompanied tour. DOD would need to account for the monetary cost of losing well trained and stellar service members. Shortening overseas tours will hurt the readiness of the fleet. The constant turn over creates chaos for ships/offices. Tours for many were just lengthened because of the need for more knowledge in specific billets. For example, JO Nukes tours went from 24 to 28 months in order to better prepare them for their PA and RO tours. Shortening tours would also interfere with ship to shore timelines and qualifications. Shortened tours also increase the number of PCS moves, which are incredibly costly.

Keeping with the fiscal reasoning, DOD would need to account for the added cost of psychological, respite, and personal care for dependents left behind. The FFSC programs needed to help families as well as the medical/tricare costs associated would increase. There would be additional childcare costs incurred to offer respite for the caregiving parent left behind. Then there is the considerable loss of income some families would face when a parent becomes a single parent and is unable to balance full time care for the children and a career. Even when your spouse is on sea duty and not home, there is still shared parenting.

These are just a few of the financial costs that must be considered. They don't even touch on the psychological impacts for the families and service members. Or, the fiscal costs associated with military members who are distracted, unable to take care of their families, or who aren't being taken care of themselves.

The Army has already been exploring deploy-able brigades for the 21st Century basically being stationed stateside and rotating into theater every XXX (last guess was 9 months, in the Army that equates to 12+), sort of like what the Reserves and Guard are already doing for all the reasons you have previously mentioned.

It's not really too popular with the troopers though because you have to try to balance work and the rest of your life. Those years I spent away from home sleeping on the ground which included holidays, birthdays, anniversaries, weddings, births and deaths are gone forever.

Some people work to live and others live to work.

We need a strong defense because of the world we live in but perhaps we could reduce our overall footprint globally through better management.

How much is spent on Overseas Housing Allowance (or whatever it's called now) for off base rentals for dependents?

If given the choice between having his/her spouse lose their career due to personnel reductions or have to accept an unaccompanied tour, which would be preferable? Today the news report stated that up to 200,000 troops may be discharged. The Navy is now selecting 3000 sailors to be discharged.

I cannot state how much is being spent on OHA. This figure is different for every base and in constant fluctuation.

The number of people who would get out because of unaccompanied tours is not the issue. The issue is the quality of the service members who would get out or chose unaccompanied over being downsized. Current downsizing allows the DOD control over which rates and specialties are let go. There are some rates not being downsized. How would those billets be filled? Many of the sailors being downsized are facing that fate because of physical fitness, prior judicial and non-judicial punishments, and negative fitreps. It would be unwise to comprise an entire fleet or foreign area (or even one ship/unit) with all of the service members up for discharge. Even if this were a viable option - the DOD would still need to do something with 200,000 service members. The overmanning still exists.

I am not really clear on what your argument is at this point. Are you upset about the downsize in troops? Or, the need to reduce the budget? Not all downsizing is related to budgeting - some of it is related to a perceived reduction in the need for manpower. New technologies lessen our reliance on human capital as a resource. To focus on the Navy, the more the ships show readiness and capability with reduced crews, the more the Navy will reduce the crew sizes. Yes, it sucks, but that is reality or government budgeting. Show you can function with less and less becomes the new norm.

How much money is spent on family travel to and from overseas locations? Probably a lot.

When underway time is considered, sponsors are already spending a considerable amount of time away from their families. From 1984 till 1991, I served on 3 consecutive ships out of Yokosuka and Sasebo. When it was over, my wife said that she averaged seeing me about two months out of every year. Maybe overstated a little but not that much.

Accompanied tours are a luxury that we can no longer afford.

I say the country is better off with a larger more robust troop strength which would be facilitated by the elimination of accompanied tours overseas.

All this aside about tours. What about just about consolidation of the bases. Looking at the Supply System and changing the way acquisitions are handled. Buying in bulk and ending contract for supplies that are available in the private sector for cheaper then having to go to GSA. Like office supplies of instance. Looking to by stuff locally in Japan instead of shipping all the way from the US.

If Atsugi and Zama both got rid of their golf courses and combined, this would save some cash.

Yes, the bases could be greatly decreased in size and many of the services disbanded. Being overseas isn't about being popular, you are there because you were ordered. The NEX and MWR are perfect examples of bloated infrastructure. Everyone seems to forget that the military serves only one purpose, kill the enemy, if you are here for anything else you need to leave.

Agreed! The Defense Supply system is a giant monster that could use some simplification! I agree that we can get better things, cheaper, and in less time than we can through the supply system. In the Navy though, we have to buy from U.S. suppliers whenever possible. So we are actually forced to buy a $2 package of pens at GSA that now cost closer to $10/package due to the extra infrastructure to get it out here. Thank you Joe Taxpayer for sucking up that extra cost!
If we are going to about saving money from the Defense budget without affecting operations, then let's talk about retirement. We have the best deal in the U.S. Medical for life, retirement pay for 40 or 50 years, Commissary benefits, etc. One retired person can cost the government close to $1 million over that 40 to 50 year period just by using his benefits. If the government were to delay the collection of retirement pay to the age of 60 (five years before the standard retirement age) the Defense budget would save millions every year.
I will say that your take on changing how we do overseas tours in order to save money is an interesting one, Sailor. It seems to be about as popular as I know my retirement comment will be. But what people don't realize, is that the government is going to have to make budget cuts. Those bills going through Congress right now are going to make people shake their heads ten years from now when the effects of these cuts are fully realized. We have to slash our government costs and that is going to drive a major change in the mission of the U.S. Armed Forces.

@Sailor - Don't always believe what you see/hear on the news or in newspapers. Reducing any benefits to Military personnel SHOULD NOT be an option. I do believe in downsizing and fully support enlisted and officer retention boards, this reduces the dead weight we have in the military and those just hanging out collecting a paycheck. I fully support the Navy's efforts in ensuring that the Sailors family is taken care of, and one of those ways is allowing them to rotate overseas on an accompanied tour. If the Sailor knows his family is taken care of, then they become more effective on their job and in the Navy. I do not agree with homesteading overseas. One or two tours is fine, after that, send the individual back to duty in the states. By reducing the tour length you would be causing more problems with high turnover and increased training costs. There would be no continuity as you would normally have in the normal rotation of personnel. I do think that we can consolidate some overseas bases to reduce costs, but not at the expense of our sailors and their families.

So you want these guys to go out to sea for half the year or more and then come home to no family? It's already hard enough to get Sailors to live overseas in the first place (many came over here because they were the only orders to take). Considering they just raised sea duty time for most rates this idea just becomes even worse (there's no way they're going to shorten sea tours).

Your idea would just cause more stress that these Sailors already go through on sea tours. There's often times when the ships are just in for the weekends... a week or two, or they come home on the drop of hat, and have to leave just as quickly. You were a Sailor here, you know that. Those little home port visits recharge a Sailor... A "R&R" would be difficult to plan and just plain stupid, TBH. These guys aren't in the Army or Marines --they can save that for when they're forced to go IA.

I do think there are a lot of luxuries that could be cut, and bases consolidated. I wouldn't blink an eye if the stores and facilities on base were gone since most are available right outside the gate. But I don't think a Sailor's home life and peace of mind have to be "cut".

Significant numbers of sailors return to Yokosuka or Sasebo and all that's waiting for them is the Honcho or Sailor Town because they're single. What are they getting recharged on?

It is difficult to envision droves of sailors abandoning their careers because they have to do an unaccompanied tour. Not with current economic conditions and unemployment rates.

Conditions during the 1980's were vastly different than that prevalent now. When I retired in 1991 we had almost 3 times the number of ships and corresponding personnel than we have now. More importantly, the funding to support this Navy and everything else was available.

How much money is spent on shipping household goods back and forth across the Pacific Ocean? I actually did this once and it cost over $10K one way. Multiply this times the number of PCS accompanied moves occuring a year and allow for increased rates since I did it and it is easy to see another area for considerable savings.

Posted By Sailor on 09-27-2011 10:36 AM
How much is spent on Overseas Housing Allowance (or whatever it's called now) for off base rentals for dependents?

If given the choice between having his/her spouse lose their career due to personnel reductions or have to accept an unaccompanied tour, which would be preferable? Today the news report stated that up to 200,000 troops may be discharged. The Navy is now selecting 3000 sailors to be discharged.

You would still be paying BAH for the family in the US, plus sep pay, etc.

How much money is spent on shipping household goods back and forth across the Pacific Ocean? I actually did this once and it cost over $10K one way. Multiply this times the number of PCS accompanied moves occuring a year and allow for increased rates since I did it and it is easy to see another area for considerable savings.

You would still be moving HHG across the Pacific. Very few people are going to be willing to live someplace for a year or two with only what they can carry in a suitcase. Granted it would be far less weight, but the number of moves would increase with the shorter tour duration.

Posted By Groovie on 09-28-2011 2:48 AM

How much money is spent on shipping household goods back and forth across the Pacific Ocean? I actually did this once and it cost over $10K one way. Multiply this times the number of PCS accompanied moves occuring a year and allow for increased rates since I did it and it is easy to see another area for considerable savings.

You would still be moving HHG across the Pacific. Very few people are going to be willing to live someplace for a year or two with only what they can carry in a suitcase. Granted it would be far less weight, but the number of moves would increase with the shorter tour duration.

By HHG, I mean large wooden containers filled with a family's furniture, appliances and other personal property. We're talking thousands of pounds. A limited unaccompanied baggage allowance of maybe 500lbs would be appropriate for unaccompanied married personel which should be the same for single personnel. Locally obtained items during one's tour would be shipped upon return to CONUS up to a level to be set. Those assigned to ships or shore would be expected to reside onboard or in base military quarters (i.e. Barracks). There would not be a need for military personnel to obtain offbase housing.

Additionally, without military dependents present, vehicle registration would be significantly reduced. POV SOFA licenses should be restricted to upper paygrades only and be used for renting available vehicles and driving POV's owned by a limted number of personnel.

Posted By Sailor on 09-28-2011 2:13 AM
Significant numbers of sailors return to Yokosuka or Sasebo and all that's waiting for them is the Honcho or Sailor Town because they're single. What are they getting recharged on?

We're not talking about them, are we. You've read the forums, a lot are also getting married to their girlfriends from here, or they met in a port, or from back home, and are wanting to change their orders to accompanied. They go through the damn hassle of getting them here, and usually paying a lot of money out of pocket, because they don't want to be alone out here for 3-5 years. You see these guys getting married left and right, they don't stay single for long.

So what do you do to the Sailors that get married here? It's another reason why it's a bad plan --you're screwing too much with people's personal lives. The Sailors already make enough sacrifices when it comes to personal business.

Statistically it's known Military marries more and younger (as goes the divorce rate). And the divorce rate doubled in the early 2000s because that was the beginning of the wars and the long, long deployments. This would essentially become the same of the Sailors who have to do overseas tours.

Posted By Elizabeth on 09-28-2011 3:51 AM

Posted By Sailor on 09-28-2011 2:13 AM
Significant numbers of sailors return to Yokosuka or Sasebo and all that's waiting for them is the Honcho or Sailor Town because they're single. What are they getting recharged on?

We're not talking about them, are we. You've read the forums, a lot are also getting married to their girlfriends from here, or they met in a port, or from back home, and are wanting to change their orders to accompanied. They go through the damn hassle of getting them here, and usually paying a lot of money out of pocket, because they don't want to be alone out here for 3-5 years. You see these guys getting married left and right, they don't stay single for long.

So what do you do to the Sailors that get married here? It's another reason why it's a bad plan --you're screwing too much with people's personal lives. The Sailors already make enough sacrifices when it comes to personal business.

Statistically it's known Military marries more and younger (as goes the divorce rate). And the divorce rate doubled in the early 2000s because that was the beginning of the wars and the long, long deployments. This would essentially become the same of the Sailors who have to do overseas tours.

Locally acquired dependents would be at the Sponsor's expense other than the normal married allowances provided in CONUS. Access to base facilities should be on the same basis as if they were tourists with military dependent ID's. No SOFA status or privilages for locally acquired dependents. Subsequent transportaion to the US post tour would also be at the Sponsor's expense.

Those assigned to ships or shore would be expected to reside onboard or in base military quarters (i.e. Barracks). There would not be a need for military personnel to obtain offbase housing.

Your idea is to force everyone to live on ships or in the barracks? Yeah….that will go over well with the more senior enlisted and officers. Even so, expecting someone to only bring 500lbs of belongings for an entire tour is asinine.

There are a plethora of ways for the military to save money and cut spending. Decimating the quality of life of tens of thousands of military members…is probably not going to be beneficial to anyone in the long run.

When one considers the hardships being faced by U.S. troops in Afghanistan and the deteriorated state of the U.S. economy, the objections posed here are what I consider asinine.

Since when is expecting sailors to live aboard their ships considered decimating their quality of life. Previous generations of sailors lived aboard their ships and served proudly. The U.S. taxpayer cannot afford to coddle you any longer.

The U.S. Navy hasn't been in a shooting war for 40 years (Except for SEALS, Aviators and a few others). Compared to what the Army and Marines have been doing, asking a sailor to do an unaccompanied tour doesn't seem like asking too much.

You act as though the Navy doesn’t have unaccompanied many tours. Well over 1/3 of all sailors and officers have done at least one IA tour in the past few years. (12-18mo unaccompanied in a war zone) I know very few personally who have managed to avoid at least one IA, some have gone 2+ times. There are plenty who also do unaccompanied tours to places like Djibouti, Philippines, Bahrain, Qatar, etc. These are in addition to the normal sea duty rotation. 


Even back in the late 80’s and 90’s…..I don’t remember the majority of those stationed on ships in Japan being required to live on them 24/7 unless they were junior.

It's not about who deserves what and what they should be allowed to do. It's about the government being out of revenue ($) and the need to reduce military spending. I have identified an effective way to do so which would then free up funds maintaining higher personnel strength, operating forces and retaining more ships and aircraft. Maintaining these large military installations overseas which support accompanied tours providing housing, medical, educational and other dependent services is too expensive in this day and age.

When sailors are on liberty, they should be able to do as they wish within the bounds of law and regulations. If they want to pool their resources to rent a place, fine but there should be no supplemental allowances for it.

The main point of the original post was to have unaccompanied tours to save money in order to maintain/increase troop capacity. Quality of life aside - this idea does not save money. You are paying to house sailors in barracks and their families back home. Infrastructure to care for troops still exists as does infrastructure and benefits for families left behind. PCS moves for families still happen. Some unaccompanied orders offer the possibility (but not 100%) to move families back to a home of record or to a location where there is more support. Shorter tours decrease the efficiency of training and qualifying, which costs more in money and readiness. The reduction in troops, saving on manning and retirements/benefits, is a long term savings and has been around as long as wars have been fought.

There are too many areas for savings that can be considered. Changes to the medical, retirement, supply, and contractor programs/systems can all be considered. Systems need to be overhauled and changed for long term savings. Restricting people to the ship/barracks and not allowing them to register POVs will create a level of discontent that can only cost more in the long run through the loss of good service members and the goodwill of the countries we are in.

Do you have a Part II for savings? Or was this entire post just to kill some time?

you're forgetting the additional cost of building barracks to house all these sailors you now want to live on the ship/ in barracks... not to mention... where exactly do you think they will store thir 500 lbs of personal belongings you are allowing them to bring? I was on a DDG, let me tell you, I didn't have a lot of space to store my personal belongs, my uniforms took up almost all of that space. You say you are married? I'm going to make a guess, and perhaps piss you off, and say unhappily so, because why else would you want to be separated from your family? I know so many sailors, soldiers and marines who serve their country with pride, away from their families, but they hate every minute they are apart. They serve yes, but they don't do so willingly. I think that you will see far less numbers willing to come over here for tours without their families. There are so many other options for saving money. I know that where and how we get our supplies has been mentioned. I also recently read an article about the Air Force supply system.... they have so many spare engines that they just "dont know where they are" and don't keep track of that they keep ordering more parts, which in turn costs more money. Taking away more benefits from the the service members and their families does nothing but lower morale, which in turn makes for a poor worker. Having served in the military, I would think that you would know that by now. Guess you are too busy reminiscing about the "good 'ol days" to remember all the benefits you once had.

It's not about who deserves what and what they should be allowed to do. It's about the government being out of revenue ($) and the need to reduce military spending. I have identified an effective way to do so which would then free up funds maintaining higher personnel strength, operating forces and retaining more ships and aircraft. Maintaining these large military installations overseas which support accompanied tours providing housing, medical, educational and other dependent services is too expensive in this day and age.

I disagree. You have identified something that *may sound money saving on the surface. When looking at the bigger picture, I would venture to bet it’s anything but.

Is this idea of yours only for Navy bases? How would it work for people who come to Japan on shore duty from sea duty? Would they be expected to do their 2 yr shore tour away from their family and then return to sea duty again?

I disagree. You have identified something that *may sound money saving on the surface. When looking at the bigger picture, I would venture to bet it’s anything but.

So..........................?

Is this idea of yours only for Navy bases? How would it work for people who come to Japan on shore duty from sea duty? Would they be expected to do their 2 yr shore tour away from their family and then return to sea duty again?

I would apply this approach to all overseas military bases.
Consecutive overseas tours would not be required but if the individual volunteers, he should receive a special R&R package to visit his CONUS abode including transportation.

you're forgetting the additional cost of building barracks to house all these sailors you now want to live on the ship/ in barracks.

They are already assigned to a ship so they have a berth already. Shore assignments already have quarters for personnel assigned. The newly vacated dependent housing can provide housing for military.

where exactly do you think they will store thir 500 lbs of personal belongings you are allowing them to bring?

you're being assigned to serve on sea duty not set up housekeeping.

You say you are married? I'm going to make a guess, and perhaps piss you off, and say unhappily so, because why else would you want to be separated from your family?

Happily married for 37 years. The times that I served in were different. The government had money then.

I know so many sailors, soldiers and marines who serve their country with pride, away from their families, but they hate every minute they are apart. They serve yes, but they don't do so willingly. I think that you will see far less numbers willing to come over here for tours without their families.

Beats not having a job.

Taking away more benefits from the the service members and their families does nothing but lower morale, which in turn makes for a poor worker.

Being unemployed is worse for moral

Having served in the military, I would think that you would know that by now. Guess you are too busy reminiscing about the "good 'ol days" to remember all the benefits you once had.

Once again, "Different Times"

Shorter tours decrease the efficiency of training and qualifying, which costs more in money and readiness.

Why? Support your arguement.

The reduction in troops, saving on manning and retirements/benefits, is a long term savings and has been around as long as wars have been fought.

Says who?

Do you have a Part II for savings? Or was this entire post just to kill some time?

Yes I will be posting that at a later date. Do you just kill time by trolling? Mockery is the refuge of those unable to refute the other's arguement.

Pentagon Warns That Inaction in Deficit Panel Talks Could Devastate the Military, Economy

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...z1ZCPYShdm

Pentagon officials and Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee are warning that if Congress' so-called deficit "super committee" fails to agree to more than a trillion dollars of cuts to the budget by Christmas, then lawmakers will try to balance the budget on the backs of the armed forces.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned of dire consequences last week when asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham what would happen if the committee fails, prompting an automatic $650 billion in cuts to the defense budget.
Related Interactive

Panetta, Lew Letter to Chairman McKeon on Defense Cuts

null

“If we pulled that trigger, would we be shooting ourselves in the foot?” Graham asked.

“We'd be shooting ourselves in the head,” Panetta replied.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon has warned if the cuts are too deep the Pentagon may have to reintroduce the draft. A memo prepared by Republicans on that committee shows how the the country's overall unemployment rate would rise if these severe defense cuts are triggered.

Nearly 200,000 soldiers and Marines would be let go, and the Armed Service Committee members warn that at least 25 percent of the military's civilian workforce would be furloughed, eliminating at least 200,000 jobs.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...z1ZCQBBhP7

Your argument is based on supposition regarding the short and long term cost benefits of moving to exclusively unaccompanied tours. Many of the costs are picked up by the host nation. Last I heard Japan pays for all non-operational costs of the supporting the bases. Of course, the US picks up the burden of what are mostly logistical costs. But what would be the short and mid-term impact of breaking up families for extended periods? What sort of deleterious effects would there be in having 10,000 hormonally charged navy dudes carousing in Japan?

I am confident that it would eventually work to break up what is a very professional military organization and quite possibly result in the US having a draft again. That didn't work in the post-Vietnam era and won't work now.

While I don't doubt there would be some short term savings wrought from what you suggest, my bet is it wouldn't account for nearly what you think it would be when everything is considered.

What I really don't get is why you would come here with nothing more than an idea and represent it as stone cold fact. You obviously haven't run the numbers on what you propose and your imperious nature here is way out of line. It would seem you arrived with a chip on your shoulder and simply want to puff out your chest. Give it a break, old man. You're full of hot air.

Not sure how far you're going to get on a forum dedicated to the military by suggesting they do w/out their loved ones overseas, but good luck w/ that...

This story is a prime example of the waste we have within the military:

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/...0a5e3629db


I'm sure we've all heard or seen first hand how wasteful our govt is with the tax payer dollars when it comes to military spending. How many times have we seen useless inventory just sitting around, collecting dust for whatever reason? Or, a number of products ordered, only to find out that it can't be used because of "security" or other unknown reasons.

It's easy to spend other people's money, and it's easy to waste it away when there's no accountability.

It's kinda like the $16 muffin we've heard in recent news - govt waste at its best. The military are given a budget to work w/ and at the end of the year, they gotta spend what's left or they could possibly not get as big of a budget to play with in the following year. So, what happens? We get things like $16 dollar muffins - our tax dollars hard at work.

More examples of waste w/in the military:

http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/world/...g/1b566bc2


http://militarywaste.org/category/waste/


http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/16/congresswoman-wants-to-end-militarys-nascar-sponsorships/?hpt=Sbin
 

http://www.thedailyaztec.com/2011/09/storage-fees-are-absurd-waste-of-tax-dollars/
 

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-11-16-pentagon-travel_x.htm
 

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/making-600-toilet-seats-seem-like-a-bargain/
 

It's not hard to find countless examples of waste w/in the military. I agree with you that we need to cut spending, but I say we start w/ eliminating programs like the ones above before we ask families to separate from their American heroes for years at a time.

Your argument is based on supposition

You accuse me of supposition then launch into an orgy of supposition.

Last I heard

Last you heard? Very persuasive (NOT)

10,000 hormonally charged navy dudes carousing in Japan

Japan has dealt quite well with this in the past. You want details?

I am confident

In that case, I'm convinced (NOT)

That didn't work in the post-Vietnam era and won't work now.

Actually there was no draft in the Post-Vietnam era. The Draft ended in 1975. I remember.

What I really don't get is why you would come here with nothing more than an idea and represent it as stone cold fact

This is a FORUM. I started a discussion. I presented a viewpoint. I defended my viepoint.

You obviously haven't run the numbers

Once again, this is a Forum discussion. I am merely presenting a view.

your imperious nature here is way out of line.

Good to know you recognize royalty when you see it.

It would seem you arrived with a chip on your shoulder

Oh really? Meek mild mannered moi? Why would you say that?

want to puff out your chest

Not necessary. My chest stands out quite nicely without overinflating.

Give it a break, old man. You're full of hot air.

After reading your post, I think I've discovered the real source of global warming. Are you a geriphobe? The real problem with youth is that it's wasted on the young.

Not sure how far you're going to get on a forum dedicated to the military by suggesting they do w/out their loved ones overseas, but good luck w/ that...

Don't have any illusions about convincing your lot. This Forum is read by many more people than those curmudgeons commenting here.

Now are we going to have a dialogue about the discussion I started or are we going to just sling insults?

Plan and simple the only way to cut military spending is to send the oversea military back home. We are not the police man of the world....

Plan and simple the only way to cut military spending is to send the oversea military back home. We are not the police man of the world.

This idea has a lot of appeal but the withdrawal of US presence would create the proverbial power vacuum and there are some bad actors in the area like China, North Korea and Russia who would take advantage. We were isolationist in the '20's and '30's and we know what happened after.......

We don't need additional barracks, you live on the ship just everyone did in the past, living on the ship can be a pain but that is why they are collecting sea pay. As for space sailors don't need 14 pair of civilian shoes. Where will they store their in Junk? In a locker club.

Sorry Liz, We are here to fight wars not worry about a person's private life. Btw, these deployments are not long at all compared to the past.

So it boils down to having single Sailors that may or may not want to be here, married Sailors that were forced here, and the small percentage that chose to be here because of some incentive. Then they can't drive and probably have to live on a ship. That just sounds like an extra need for more DAPAs, mental health, MAs and bad press with the locals.

You guys are like "tough sh&t" and not thinking how the Navy runs today, not how Sailors lived X amount of years ago --but when it comes down to it, you know a happy Sailor is a better Sailor and in the long run that makes a better Navy.

How about focus on why a wrench the government buys cost more than me going to Sears than pissing off your workforce and being the old crow that got to eat their cake. It's just like the officials that want to screw with the Military retirement even though they may only serve 4 years and get a full retirement themselves.

Posted By Elizabeth on 09-28-2011 4:47 PM
So it boils down to having single Sailors that may or may not want to be here, married Sailors that were forced here, and the small percentage that chose to be here because of some incentive. Then they can't drive and probably have to live on a ship. That just sounds like an extra need for more DAPAs, mental health, MAs and bad press with the locals.

You guys are like "tough sh&t" and not thinking how the Navy runs today, not how Sailors lived X amount of years ago --but when it comes down to it, you know a happy Sailor is a better Sailor and in the long run that makes a better Navy.

How about focus on why a wrench the government buys cost more than me going to Sears than pissing off your workforce and being the old crow that got to eat their cake. It's just like the officials that want to screw with the Military retirement even though they may only serve 4 years and get a full retirement themselves.

Well said.  Particularly considering when "Sailor" said: "From 1984 till 1991, I served on 3 consecutive ships out of Yokosuka and Sasebo. When it was over, my wife said that she averaged seeing me about two months out of every year."

In other words, it was ok "in the day" to bring families over, but not any more.  "When I was a lad, we ate broken glass & rat poison for breakfast... and we were glad to have it!"  What a crock!

Our "sailor" is forgetting that in that same period that he recalls with such idyllic (and somewhat muddled) rose-colored glasses, there was a massive downsizing going on, money was tight, sea-tours were being extended.  I'd like to see the letters he wrote to his congressmen from his little cubby on the ship & stuffed with his 500 lbs of stuff that he volunteered to send HIS family back at that time.

NOT!!

@Sailor - One question for you, Did the military put the US in debt? The answer to that would be NO! There are too many other government (not military) programs that can be reduced or cancelled in order to save money. During your time in the Navy, did you complain that you were getting BAH, OHA, COLA or any other benefits for your family? Probably not. Reducing military benefits or incentives for our Active Duty military or their families is absolutely ridiculous. I have been in the Navy for 25 years and seen alot of changes in my time on Active Duty. I fully support any program that supports Active Duty Military members and their families regardless of cost.

I agree with with Sparks_W4.

I dont see that dependents overseas are costing the majority of the debt crisis.

I do feel that dependents and family members need to be close to the service members.

The military promotes FAMILY READINESS, and to any senior military leader, their primary concern over troops, is "How is your family doing.."

I remember getting asked time and time again, "Hows your wife... How is she doing.." They used to tell me that taking care of home, is one of your primary missions, and should come first before your role here at work.

Of course not all leaders promote these sort of values, but I've had the pleasure to work with some outstanding naval leaders when I served.

We can go round and round about how money is spent, or what can be cut or not cut.

There are so many programs out there, which are milking the govt for all its got.

For instance.. Here are a few:

1) The govt then places a requirement out there, and sponsors companies, to compete for these positions, along with sponsoring their endeavors along the way. So you end up having multiple people all working towards the same goal, but completely separate of each other. There is absolutely no communication what so ever amongst the different groups. The reason why, is because they are focused at their own milestones, and reaching them. They have no clue Company X, Y and Z are also working on the same goals. hhmmmm.. We end up sponsoring these companies millions in grants and funds, to come up with the same solutions..

The only problem here, is that You love what company X is doing, and some stuff company Y is doing, and you only wish these 2 companies could merge and communicate with company Z, to make the perfect product that your after.

See, its all with the experts that run each project, and the networking engineers / scientists that they have on that specific company.

But do you think they merge, and make that perfect product..

Absolutely not.  They end up picking one of the 3, and just going with that solution, hoping that the company will take those additional requirements you saw in the other 2, and make it into what you really want.

Chances are the company will continue to milk and milk until they cant milk anymore.

Then you end up, finding something else that fields the gap that your after, because by that time, its years down the road, and of course the latest and greatest is, out, so you cancel this that you have with the company you signed with, only to turn again into the same position all over again.

Every major contracting company is out to win contracts.  The big ones.  The billion dollar multi-year contracts.

If they can get a few million off the deal, and provide employment for their team in the making, then everyone wins..  

Except the U.S. Debt that just continues to pile on...  

-------------------

2) The consolidation of DOD networks. IT infrastructure is a billion dollar industry. To correct this problem the DOD as a whole needs to align the entire military to a consolidated environment, and network. Some networks are ran by the GOVT while some networks are run by Contracting organizations. While both have their benefits and downfalls, getting consolidation, and oversight as to what is happening throughout the DOD is the right step in the direction. As with many contract organizations, you get what you ask for.

So what that means, is, for example you place a request to have additional RAM added into your PC at work.

The contract based organization charges the govt for product, then you have to pay for the install, and you must pay for a recurring bill monthly to have that additional ram allocated into your PC. Same goes for a video card, additional hard drive space, etc..

My question is, if you come out to install an additional video card, of course we have to do 1 of 2 things.

1) I have to purchase the video card........... ok understandable
2) I have to pay someone to come and install......... ok understandable

* What I dont understand is, why an organization has to pay $75 a month to have this video card installed into my PC, for added support.

As I mentioned above, milking the cow for all it has...

Someone allowed this type of activity to continue. Its wrong, and there is definitely money that can be shaved from these sort of programs.

LOL, Adam! IT is one of many industries that the military has that can just be consolidated. Why do the Navy/Marines, Army, and Air Force all have their own, separate IT fields. What in the world is the difference between Tenth Fleet and NMCI anyways? Should there be one? What about consolidating Public Affairs and Weather Forecasting services for the military. They all go to the exact same schools to learn their trades. Granted, a Boatswain's Mate or an Infantryman are pretty service specific. I just think that there are a lot of support service trades that could be standardized throughout the military. Personnel specialists, medical field personnel, or supply personnel for example. Since these billets would no longer be duplicated in every branch it would streamline the way these systems work for all DoD by making it the same for everyone.

My point was that you showed up here guns a-blazing and insulting people without offering any financial detail to support your claims.

I don't have a dog in this fight beyond being a taxpayer as I have never having never been in the military. I worked my tail off as contractor in Asia for a decade. But I can spot a blow hard from a million miles away. You showed up here with absolutely no financial detail to support your claims yet have been quick to personally insult other posters. In the corporate world (I am now the CEO of an IT company in Michigan) you'd be shipped out for good right quick.

Enjoy your taxpayer supported retirement. You really need to work on your people skills.

So it boils down to having single Sailors that may or may not want to be here, married Sailors that were forced here

There seems to be a misconception and unrealistic expectations here. When you enlist, there is no promise in choice of assignments implied or otherwise. You go where you are told. You perform your duties as assigned. If you fail to meet these requirements, there are consequences. If you can't hack it, join the civilian community and good luck finding a job.

Then they can't drive and probably have to live on a ship.

Boo Hoo

You guys are like "tough sh&t" and not thinking how the Navy runs today, not how Sailors lived X amount of years ago --but when it comes down to it, you know a happy Sailor is a better Sailor and in the long run that makes a better Navy.

Yeah that's a problem. The Navy needs to get back to basics cultivating well trained and disciplined sailors. A happy sailor is a bitchin' sailor.

How about focus on why a wrench the government buys cost more than me going to Sears than pissing off your workforce and being the old crow that got to eat their cake. It's just like the officials that want to screw with the Military retirement even though they may only serve 4 years and get a full retirement themselves.

By all means. Let's look at other areas in addition to my proposal. Bottom line: No cuts to warfighting capability i.e. personnel, ships, aircraft and systems.

In other words, it was ok "in the day" to bring families over, but not any more. "When I was a lad, we ate broken glass & rat poison for breakfast... and we were glad to have it!" What a crock!

Katoy Boy is back after licking his wounds but lame as ever. I've said it before. DIFFERENT TIMES! The Navy had money then. Now they don't.

Our "sailor" is forgetting that in that same period that he recalls with such idyllic (and somewhat muddled) rose-colored glasses, there was a massive downsizing going on, money was tight, sea-tours were being extended. I'd like to see the letters he wrote to his congressmen from his little cubby on the ship & stuffed with his 500 lbs of stuff that he volunteered to send HIS family back at that time.

Isn't that calling the kettle black. The 1980's witnessed a substantial increase in military spending. By the end of the decade we were almost at 600 ships. Remember 'Star Wars Initiative'. That was then. This is now. My recollection is very clear. Whatever occured before is irrelevent to the conditions present now. I f I were now on active duty, I would do what was expected of me. I might not like it but I'd do it.

@Sailor - One question for you, Did the military put the US in debt

Irrelevent. The gov't is in fact now broke. It must be dealt with. The burden is on all including the military.

I have been in the Navy for 25 years and seen alot of changes in my time on Active Duty

You an many others. What makes you special?

you showed up here guns a-blazing and insulting people

That's simply not true. Review my initial post. After being subjected to unwarranted personal and ad hominem attacks, I responded in kind. You got a problem with that? deal with it.

without offering any financial detail to support your claims.

previously addressed. The answer is the same.

I can spot a blow hard from a million miles away

So you can insult me but its wrong when I respond? Yeah right. I can spot a moron when I see one and I'm seeing more than one.

ou showed up here with absolutely no financial detail to support your claims yet have been quick to personally insult other posters. In the corporate world (I am now the CEO of an IT company in Michigan) you'd be shipped out for good right quick.

Now you're repeating yourself. Can I send you my resume?

Enjoy your taxpayer supported retirement.

Thank you. I am enjoying my well deserved and EARNED retirement including medical benefits. It's gratifying to know that my service to our country enabled you to become a bg shot CEO of a company in the greatest nation on god's green earth.

You really need to work on your people skills

Fat chance. Make sure you pay your taxes and your company does also. We need the $.

Going back to one of your original topics, the current cut of 3000 sailors, those sailors do have options. First, they have the option to convert to undermanned or critical ratings. Those who do convert are counted against the cuts, meaning that if 2,500 people convert to more needed ratings, then the navy will only be looking to cut 500 sailors. There are some who rather save their job and convert and some who want to stay in rate and take their chances.

Secondly, the Navy is having a hard enough time as it is to get sailors to accept orders to Japan as it is. I highly doubt they want to further complicate that, especially since they just did away with many AIP's attached to many of the billets out here. While you are entitled to your opinion, I don't think any of the ideas you have mentioned would ever be put to paper.

Now, if you want to look at a good place to find some savings, you may want to read these articles:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...ips-2011-9
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/u...wanted=all

Going back to one of your original topics, the current cut of 3000 sailors, those sailors do have options. First, they have the option to convert to undermanned or critical ratings. Those who do convert are counted against the cuts, meaning that if 2,500 people convert to more needed ratings, then the navy will only be looking to cut 500 sailors. There are some who rather save their job and convert and some who want to stay in rate and take their chances.

Doesn't remove the need to cut spending

Navy is having a hard enough time as it is to get sailors to accept orders to Japan as it is.

previously addressed. You detail people based on the needs of the Navy not the needs of the individual. If they don't like it, they are welcome to seek civilian employment.

While you are entitled to your opinion

Thanks but I knew that.

I don't think any of the ideas you have mentioned would ever be put to paper.

noted.

Now, if you want to look at a good place to find some savings, you may want to read these articles:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-...ips-2011-9
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/u...wanted=all

We all know how to google search. I am here to discuss the subject that I addressed.

Sailor, I think that this topic has gotten off topic and repetitive. As stated before, you have an interesting viewpoint. However, I think that there really isn't anything new or constructive coming from this thread. I am not sure what the purpose of your post was, but I think that you can agree that nothing constructive is happening here. I am very interested to hear about what the second part to your post is.

Patience. All in good time. In the mean time I would like to see one of my detractors generate something worthy of discussion so that I might comment on it.

The only topic worthy of discussion would be if your were to put some numbers behind your original argument. My guess is, given your history here, you will never come through with anything concrete. It would take a lot more time to do the work than even you have on your hands.

BTW, "imperious" is not at all a complimentary term. You might want to refer to a dictionary and educate yourself.

Comment Removed by Admin.