This goes for both the officer and the enlisted side - no.

Each service has their own customs, curtesies, and different mannerisms. I wouldn't expect a Navy officer to get down and dirty with those under his charge, and I wouldn't expect and Army officer to be able to fit in at the wardroom onboard a ship.

I can see combing leadership schools - you know, those schools that the services have that are designed for development of leadership skills at certain paygrades, or are required for promotion. Combining THOSE, I would understand.

However, each service needs to grow a service member who has instilled in him or her the traits that are unique to the specific service and its mission. THEN, certain other schools can be combined.

especially with the push these days to where it is almost required to have a degree to make E6 or higher..

Plus each service has their own list of things that need to be taught, fitness requirements etc..

Now i COULD see maybe combining army and marines into one..

And for once me and Bonham agree.. Why have any service academies?

They already tried this before. Some time between the Spanish American War and World War I, the government wanted to disband the Marine Corps and have the Army absorb the Marines. It didn't happen.

The likelihood of those two services merging is less likely than the Air Force being aborbed back into the Army as the Air Corps. Remember that the Air Force is it's own department. The Army would have to "take" the Marine Corps away from the Department of the Navy. Not going to happen.

Who says it would do away with the branches of the service, to combine either their boot camps or their OCS schools?

If everyone is trained to do the same thing, what would be the point of having different services?

No one is advocating different services, remember most (~80%) officers commission through ROTC / OTS, not the academies. ROTC and OTS/OCS can easily absorb the cadets who would have attended a service academy (and according to the evidence, will do as good a job).

It's the old Pareto principle--20% of the academy cadets suck up 80% of the commissioning training dollars. The only reason we keep service academies open is because this is how we've always done things (i.e. tradition).

I refuse to believe DoD has budget problems until the service chiefs agree to consolidate to a single service academy.

Until that happens, it's all talk.

Well said. We spend too many dollars imo on that old tradition, and 'good ole boy' system.

You are saying that facing movements, marching, weapons are different from service to service? Hell, half the ROTC units were still wearing BDUs last time I went to one...

Uhhh... yes? Is this a trick question?

Dr. T - if SUNY, CalTech, UC, TAMU, UT, and UW can have over a dozen schools each, why the fuss over the Pentagon having three? Unlike the previous examples I gave, at least there's a functional difference between the three academies.

Because the Pentagon is paying ~$333K per cadet per year in tuition and dedicating thousands of personnel per academy--the money and people can be better utilized. State colleges can do it for far less.

Have you ever been told to do more with less in your military career?

Academies are part of the reason we have less.

And merging the academies into one won't save money, nor is it even feasible. They each require different facilities and large training locations, etc that are unique to each service.

The last place Air Force cadets need to be is near an ocean or bay, when they need to be in the mountains, which are better suited for studying aerospace science. The last place Naval midshipmen need to be is up in the mountains, when they need to be near near a coast that's suitable for studying nautical and maritime science. Army cadets need to be in an area where they can experience the seasons, and on terrain that's suitable for their training.

Is there money that's being wasted with regards to the amount spent per cadet/midshipman? I'm sure there is, there are no arguments from me on that one. But separate academies aren't the source.

I am not advocating some of the suggestions made here but the only one of the three 'requirements' you made above that I nominally would agree with is the Naval Academy being near a coast.

The mountains are hardly the ideal place to study or conduct flight operations and West Point, NY is not an ideal place to conduct any type of ground combat training (space limitations).

I think the idea is to just have one academy...cut down on the number of overall graduates...and rely more on ROTC/OTS to produce officers.

Oh c'mon...we are teaching people to fly...don't you think it helps a little of they start out already a mile high?

The United States Military Academy provided military officers before the Naval, Coast Guard or Air Force Academy existed. Redefining and creating a single source academy is not an unreasonable option. Centrally located on the Great Plains would be an ideal spot for the requirements of military training. Naval Academy graduates aren't skilled boat drivers upon graduation nor are Zoomies military pilots upon graduation, USMA grads can't lead platoons either so the school location wouldn't impact upon these folk's initial training of the respective service.

Well, since you put it that way...............