Is it time to merge the 3 services?

#1
This is a major "tin hats" on time but I feel that given the shrinkage of the services that is coming , including the size of the army which might well be smaller than any time since the Boer War (which then had a far smaller logistics tail than today), vast savings might well be made by forming a single service.

I am not thinking of the Canadian model which proved to be deeply flawed but maybe something of the lines of the US Marines - which is about the same size anyway as all the UK forces.

Now traditionalists will hate the idea but individual units within the single service would still have their own identity - the Royal Blankshire Fusiliers would still be the Royal Blankshire Fusiliers - but the overall structure of the forces would be simplified.

Officer training (for instance) would be performed centrally; subsequently individuals would follow the career path they chose.

Some of the current lunacies will disappear (who controls helicopters is a classic) ...

Just an idea .....

As I said I fully expect to get flamethowered for this but WTF !
 
#4
I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason why the Army must rely on the Junior Service for it's airborne logistics ............. :roll: EDITED to add: not knocking the men and women - just the seperate command structure.

With as small an Armed Forces as we have you wonder if the USMC has a model we should look to. Although I can see the sense in seperate Navy and Air Intercept forces.

D_B
 
#5
1. Navy mans equipment, Army mans men, RAF yet to man up...

2. If you saw the cluster that is joint procurement, then you really don't want to go there..

3. Forming the MoD was a bad idea, don't make it worse.. We managed to rule half the world from a couple of offices in Whitehall. Now we seem to need the combined administration of a town the size of Oxford to patrol somewhere with a population smaller than Neasden..

4. "Changing anything always results in having more Civil Servants.." (Harriet's Law)
 
#7
Outstanding said:
unixman said:
Just an idea ..... As I said I fully expect to get flamethowered for this but WTF !
No ! Not novel or intelligent - cunt .
Wow! Such an impressive and eloquent argument. Would you care to expand on that?

If the thread was in the NAAFI, your argument would be acceptable. :D

Shiny.
 
#8
Yep - without a doubt - at least big parts of it. Why we need 3 seperate AGC/pay types is beyond me - with JPA it should all be one form for most stuff anyway.
Chaplains, PT Corps, Chefs, Medics, Lawyers, infact most attached could all be tri service and do away with a whole shed load of top brass. Dentists already doing that.
Bloke on the politics show was just saying the exact same thim 10 minutes ago - and that was new Tory MP, Colonel Kemp.
 
#11
ardillo said:
Yep - without a doubt - at least big parts of it. Why we need 3 seperate AGC/pay types is beyond me - with JPA it should all be one form for most stuff anyway.
Chaplains, PT Corps, Chefs, Medics, Lawyers, infact most attached could all be tri service and do away with a whole shed load of top brass. Dentists already doing that.
Bloke on the politics show was just saying the exact same thim 10 minutes ago - and that was new Tory MP, Colonel Kemp.
Does he have a brother with an MM?
 
#14
ardillo said:
Yep - without a doubt - at least big parts of it. Why we need 3 seperate AGC/pay types is beyond me - with JPA it should all be one form for most stuff anyway.
Chaplains, PT Corps, Chefs, Medics, Lawyers, infact most attached could all be tri service and do away with a whole shed load of top brass. Dentists already doing that.
Bloke on the politics show was just saying the exact same thim 10 minutes ago - and that was new Tory MP, Colonel Kemp.

At least you are are being sensible - unlike the gratuitous insult above ...

Examples abound: why is there a RAF regiment? Or even the RM (although coming from an RM family that is almost heresy!)? There is nothing that those units could do that the army couldn't ....

As much as I like military bands, surely having 22 military bands (in the army alone) is far to many (& yes I am perfectly aware of their operational duties)

Simplify, streamline, remove duplication of resources.
 
#16
Question: Is it time to merge the 3 services?

Answer: Are you barking, blind and living in the 19th century?

The 3 services are already merged under the umbrella of the MoD and Minister for the Armed Forces. There will always be a need for separate Land, Sea and Air 'departments'.
 
#17
whitecity said:
Question: Is it time to merge the 3 services?

Answer: Are you barking, blind and living in the 19th century?

The 3 services are already merged under the umbrella of the MoD and Minister for the Armed Forces. There will always be a need for separate Land, Sea and Air 'departments'.
No I am not. Given the scale of the forthcoming cuts, it is obvious that there must be serious streamlining of the armed forces. There are some suggestions above that a shed-load of administrative and medical functions could be merged into purple: I am just wondering how much further this could be taken without losing operational effectiveness.
 
#18
unixman said:
whitecity said:
Question: Is it time to merge the 3 services?

Answer: Are you barking, blind and living in the 19th century?

The 3 services are already merged under the umbrella of the MoD and Minister for the Armed Forces. There will always be a need for separate Land, Sea and Air 'departments'.
No I am not. Given the scale of the forthcoming cuts, it is obvious that there must be serious streamlining of the armed forces. There are some suggestions above that a shed-load of administrative and medical functions could be merged into purple: I am just wondering how much further this could be taken without losing operational effectiveness.
So your proposal is to create loads of a new purple commands under which separate land, sea and air departments reside. Congratulations!
 
#19
I do not think it would be viable. My reasoning being that training from the very start in Basic is geared towards the different ways deployments occur in the different services. They all have different needs from their respective employees in the "core" trades for their service

As a very, very wide generalisation (which is all that is possible, but going into too much detail would make this insanely long) the Navy are geared towards long distances in small places - lots of training in working together far too closely in very different roles with different trades. They look to instill a need to benefit the group over self as far as they can with a strong respect for authority; The RAF are geared towards mobility and loyalty to your trade but a very flexible loyalty to your squadron/station because they move so much between them - you can be deployed in very small groups that you rarely work together with or in as large a group as a squadron. The rank structure is also more of a guideline than absolute because of the need to respect professional expertise in specialised areas of engineering; The Army are geared towards loyalty to your Regiment first and foremost and you deploy within that larger group the vast majority of the time, rank structure is maintained and constantly reinforced to ensure confidence in the chain of command.

If you tried to combine these requirements into one amorphous mass training then all you would get is a group who could do drill and iron shirts rather than viable service people with the outlook required to do their job well.
 
#20
kimmi851 said:
I do not think it would be viable. My reasoning being that training from the very start in Basic is geared towards the different ways deployments occur in the different services. They all have different needs from their respective employees in the "core" trades for their service

As a very, very wide generalisation (which is all that is possible, but going into too much detail would make this insanely long) the Navy are geared towards long distances in small places - lots of training in working together far too closely in very different roles with different trades. They look to instill a need to benefit the group over self as far as they can with a strong respect for authority; The RAF are geared towards mobility and loyalty to your trade but a very flexible loyalty to your squadron/station because they move so much between them - you can be deployed in very small groups that you rarely work together with or in as large a group as a squadron. The rank structure is also more of a guideline than absolute because of the need to respect professional expertise in specialised areas of engineering; The Army are geared towards loyalty to your Regiment first and foremost and you deploy within that larger group the vast majority of the time, rank structure is maintained and constantly reinforced to ensure confidence in the chain of command.

If you tried to combine these requirements into one amorphous mass training then all you would get is a group who could do drill and iron shirts rather than viable service people with the outlook required to do their job well.
What? Like the US Marine Corp? :? Shurely not........ :D
 

Latest Threads