Merge the three Services

needlewaver

War Hero
Quite right too. They're not Constables, they're just c*nts.
Can I just say, speaking as a constable, that the two are not mutually exclusive?
 

Truxx

LE
I have never seen Defence do a change programme correctly. Rarely bother to really understand the problems of the operating model they're trying to change, need really look at the people/culture factors and rarely set proper metrics for measuring success (or otherwise) and a residual mechanism for adjusting. Nearly always tend to be headcount/deckchair focused, with monetised key benefits (savings) with scant regard for effectiveness.

Time will tell.
My experience is that the next ill thought through review comes along before the ink is even dry on the last one.
 
People do training all the time whether its for a tour, generic yearly training, a new rank/position or just a posting into a different role.
Which is normal jogging.

The claim here is having one service would save money.

Yet the process of normal postings would imply more courses just to prepare people for life in a different environment with different risks.

So how does conducting extra training done normally at the start of someone's career and refreshed regularly repeatedly save money ?
 
Agree. Where I work with Canadian Forces its a mix of RCN and Joint Assets, and it does cause them some pain from what I see. Its certainly not slick.
Purple Trades, they can be posted wherever required. As RCAF groundcrew, I would have mostly been sent to Air Force bases, but there was always the dreaded possibility of being posted to a Tac Hel unit and being forced to work with the pongos, or to a Sea King unit and spending my time bouncing around on a Destroyer or Frigate in the North Atlantic.

As I recall if you joined before 15 Feb 1968, you had the right to refuse a posting to a unit that was not of your original service, but those people would have been mostly gone by the late 90s.
 

Bob65

War Hero
Military policing is a good example. There are lots of them. Enough to make the Chief Constable of a sizeable metropolitan force weep. They aren’t really doing any policing, or keeping any skill set up. A senior copper was asked to review this and all three services came up with excuses why they should be separate.
Yet their superstructure is massive. I left the cops 20 years ago when a big station was run by a few inspectors who were run ragged. The gods only know what it is like now.
Warrant Officers in RMP spend their time reminding kids about cleanliness of vehicles.
Severely underemployed horde right there. They have had the HO training, swear ‘em in as specials and get the gap filled.
I heard there were 2500 RMP, that seem enormous for an Army of 74000. That's one cop per 29 soldiers!
 
The Army does trade transfers all the time. The military also puts it personnel in roles (such as NATO) with no prior experience. It's also possible that on tour individuals are tasked with a role they have never done before.
It's not just about not having done the role before, everyone who performs a role started to do that role having never done it before. In the examples you give, I would expect due consideration to have been given as to the skills and attributes that an individual possesses, and the support around them, before they were given that role.
Finally you could be any random trade, for example driver and then be pinged to work in the QMs/Sqms.
My wife was Canadian Navy in a logistic role, she spent her entire career with their Air force and Army. The suppose lack of experience never really came into it. The British Army posts it soldiers every 2 to 3 years alot.
The day to day stuff in the loggie world is almost identical across the services, it's the other bits of the job where the experience comes in. After twenty odd years being land-based, could your missus have led a firefighting team at sea after only a three day firefighting course? Could an RN loggie snco lead a section attack with only his PDT to fall back on?
If the forces ever did join as one, Army officers arent going to be driving boats or flying planes, The Navy/RAF officers arent going to be commanding a tank Sqn, it would mainly be the support arms.
If that's the case, that would somewhat defeat the purpose of a combined force. We'd still have three individual forces, but with an extra bit added on, which would be neither fish nor fowl.
It would probably take 20 to 30 years to fully work effectively though, when everyone who could remember a different time would have gone.
At which point, someone with their eye on the post of General Air Admiral would come up with the fantastic idea of letting the people who go to sea becoming a separate entity to reflect the fact that the career paths are already separate.
 

Mattb

LE
'If the proposals are accepted, a centralised needs-based budget would spell the end of “budget envy” between the services and hastening inter-branch cooperation because, sources say, services would no longer have to weight up the cost to their individual budgets.'
Makes perfect sense. Now, instead of (for example) the RAF and RN arguing over budgets, the bit that operates the aircraft and the bit that operates the ship can argue over them instead.
 
Which is normal jogging.

The claim here is having one service would save money.

Yet the process of normal postings would imply more courses just to prepare people for life in a different environment with different risks.

So how does conducting extra training done normally at the start of someone's career and refreshed regularly repeatedly save money ?
You would save on uniforms, training centres etc.

When in comes to training, most of it can be generic, for the bits that arent, the Army (I dont know about the RAF/Navy) already give extra training for when people need it for new postings, so it wouldnt make a major difference if it was posting within the Army or a posting to one of the other two branches, the individual would still need to be extra training.

On tour and NATO posting Ive seen the different branches working in the same environment without any major dramas.
 
I remember from that exersize that although it was on an air force base, CFB Cold Lake, the radio/radar repair people were Signals and wore the Jimmy badge. Despite the same uniform for all, the Siggies felt they were such and not air force.
That is probably the best example of where jointery would work just fine. Comms/CIS/ICS (Or whatever the latest Shriv phrase is) is almost the same across all three services. There are local peculiarities (e.g. Link 16), but the principles are almost exactly the same. The only problem would be aligning quals and ranks for the various appointments.

Others are int, AD, HR, log and fin.
 

Cyberhacker

Old-Salt
... move on to a combined Armed Service - but retaining identities ...
If you are going to do it, do it properly. Yes, I understand about traditions... but either merge, or don't... but don't pretend to have merged.

The Rifles (and even the Royal Logistics Corps) have done it properly, and now have "new" traditions... The Royal Regiment of Scotland didn't and still pretend they are separate battalions, so the pain will be felt more with the inevitable next reduction.

While the RAF have badged some questionable units with full squadron status, they disband squadrons when not needed... unlike (eg) the Royal Regimental of Artillery who try to keep pairs of batteries alive (eg 4/73 battery... but there are others).
 
That is probably the best example of where jointery would work just fine. Comms/CIS/ICS (Or whatever the latest Shriv phrase is) is almost the same across all three services. There are local peculiarities (e.g. Link 16), but the principles are almost exactly the same. The only problem would be aligning quals and ranks for the various appointments.

Others are int, AD, HR, log and fin.
I love comments like this. By this you mean “comms should be like the Army across the 3 services”.

I recall posts not two weeks ago bemoaning the lack of HF experience in the Army. My team continually run a HF broadcast, tx and rx: how many R Sigs personnel are doing this? Likewise, how many FoS/YoS are tactical comms directors changing COMPLANs minute by minute as i take battle damage/lose supplies/lose the integrated comms systems?

Like wise, I wouldn’t presume to run the LAND CIS battle with the team I have.
 

Cyberhacker

Old-Salt
After twenty odd years being land-based, could your missus have led a firefighting team at sea after only a three day firefighting course?
That's a bit like saying that, since (for example) an RAF Chinook pilot couldn't go on to command a Typhoon squadron, it's justification for splitting the RAF into two separate services.

Different roles require different skills... but that doesn't preclude them being under a single command. You have separate sections, with staff trained appropriately. Just as civvy-street manages.
 
It's not just about not having done the role before, everyone who performs a role started to do that role having never done it before. In the examples you give, I would expect due consideration to have been given as to the skills and attributes that an individual possesses, and the support around them, before they were given that role.
People frequently move in and out of roles that some people may or may not have much experience in. I dont know what army you were in but generally the due consideration was, there is a vacancy and you are filling it. Look at LE roles, You might never have worked in a QMs or welfare department in your life but thats where you are going, heres a short course.



The day to day stuff in the loggie world is almost identical across the services, it's the other bits of the job where the experience comes in. After twenty odd years being land-based, could your missus have led a firefighting team at sea after only a three day firefighting course? Could an RN loggie snco lead a section attack with only his PDT to fall back on?
How do you think nigs in the Navy would fight a fire? How do you think a Navy bod with 20 years experience is going to fight a fire if he has never done it before? Most Army loggie SNCOs couldnt lead a section attack, their training is generally minimal. When I was in KAF there was a navy bod attached to us although I seem to recall he was junior, the biggest drama was the length of his sidies.



If that's the case, that would somewhat defeat the purpose of a combined force. We'd still have three individual forces, but with an extra bit added on, which would be neither fish nor fowl.
It would be exactly how the Army is now, you wouldn't expect a major in the AGC to clamber into a tank and start leading a battle. The support arms would be joined, the teeth arms would do their own thing.

At which point, someone with their eye on the post of General Air Admiral would come up with the fantastic idea of letting the people who go to sea becoming a separate entity to reflect the fact that the career paths are already separate.
They werent separate in Canada for support arms it didnt make much of difference.

The career path of a soldier can be varied, join up as a X trade, work in the gym as a PTI, get posted to a training establishment as an instructor, come back to a normal unit and work in the SQMs, etc etc.

If the Army didnt already move its bods all over the shop, you might have a better argument, as it stands, if they are happy to frequently post someone to massively different roles in the Army, it wont be a hardship to post them to another branch of the military.

There a several reasons why it would be hard to implement such as whose standards are accepted but mainly it will be because of the empire building within the forces,
 
That's a bit like saying that, since (for example) an RAF Chinook pilot couldn't go on to command a Typhoon squadron, it's justification for splitting the RAF into two separate services...
No, it's like saying an RAF Chinook pilot couldn't command a Typhoon squadron from the pilot's seat of a Typhoon. A small but important distinction.
 

Check_0ne_Two

Old-Salt
Traditionalists and invested interest parties will moan, but it's the way forward and it's only a matter of time. Economics and the risk of 'adapt or lose it all ' will see to that.
 

Truxx

LE
You would save on uniforms, training centres etc.

When in comes to training, most of it can be generic, for the bits that arent, the Army (I dont know about the RAF/Navy) already give extra training for when people need it for new postings, so it wouldnt make a major difference if it was posting within the Army or a posting to one of the other two branches, the individual would still need to be extra training.

On tour and NATO posting Ive seen the different branches working in the same environment without any major dramas.
Training, wherever possible, is already generic. See Defence Training Review for details.
 

Latest Threads

Top