Okay, I can see where having everyone on the same page might be really good thing, both in efficiency of acquisition of and deployment of materiel. I will state freely I have no military service. I have worked in the oil field for decades, and noted the things handed down from the upper echelons in that industry sometimes are worked around to get the job done, not in a sense that any laws are broken or corners are cut, but to deal with complications and complexities which naturally occur where the rubber meets the road in a timely and effective manner.
I would assume, in operations as complex as a military service, getting the right tool to finagle the spring widget in the doohickey that makes the danged thing run to the right people at the right time in the right place in a timely fashion (3AM on a holiday in he middle of a blizzard in the middle of nowhere) would be a challenge under relatively ordinary circumstances. Under combat conditions, even more so.
I'd wager a fair amount of 'ratholing' critical supplies and even 'trading stock' goes on, just to facilitate readiness.
What may well be stupid question time follows. Please bear with me.
Maybe I misunderstood, but it appeared that the writer was advocating some serious top down control over all systems, which should exist in that environment anyway, and integration of those systems. In the end, do you think (or anyone else with that sort of experience) that that will achieve the goals of
>Improving effectiveness
>Better (more efficiently) using resources (funds) without compromising readiness, effectiveness, or capability
Or do you believe it would enhance any or all of that?
Just trying to learn here. I have a grandkid looking at going into the service.
Thanks
I think this may help sort this out for us ignoramuses:
https://news.usni.org/2014/01/23/navys-next-air-war Utilizing an integrated war fighting approach, and dealing with individual platforms as sets of capabilities to be linked into a cohesive whole in the battle space makes sense to me. I can see where acquiring systems to fit capabilities within that framework might be an efficient way to plan for fighting against a sophisticated opponent.
Would that come at the cost of stand alone capabilities of the individual platforms or a loss of versatility in regards to multi-mission capability? With integrated systems, if one thing changes, how dependent will those other platforms be on that other platform, and will they be sufficiently versatile to fill whatever niche is left in the instance that platform is not available or mission capable?
Would the savings be worth the loss of any individual platform stand-alone capability or versatility?
Keeping in mind that the critical system in all this being able to coordinate and function efficiently is communications, will those platforms still be able to accomplish the mission if communications are not viable?
