Totally tri-service

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by chrisbck, Jul 18, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Need some help for putting together a presentation/debate on above topic. Basically need opinions on pros and cons of all our armed forces combing to one force. Any thoughts?

    Thanks in advance.
  2. It simply wouldn't work.
  3. Talk to the Canadians as they tried something like this a few years back.

    Apparently it was a disaster.
  4. no not journalist, matelot on a course and been assigned this as a project.

    Realise it wont work, but need some ideas/opinions to get the ball rolling, ie logistics/manpower issues
  5. cheers Balleh, wasnt aware of that one, ill look into that.
  6. OK, for another exemple of a tri-service cock-up take a look at Operation Eagle Claw, the failed attempt to free the Iranian hostages back in 1980. I know it was a Septic op but it was a spectaucular failure where all three services wanted the headlines, as well as the CIA
  7. I think that in may respects we are working towards a unified armed forces anyway. An increasingly large number of organisations are joint and much admin is done by civil servants, also on a joint basis.

    If we were to start recruiting people into a unified armed forces, it does not have to make much difference. The problem is that unification is generally proposed as a method of saving money, which it does not do, unless lots of extremely useful things are cut.

    The advantage is that it is easier to switch resources, including moving people, if service boundaries do not get in the way. For example we are expanding the RAF Regiment, because airfield defence has become more important, that would be a lot simpler if it was called The Airfield Defence Regiment and was part of the infantry.

    The disadvantage is that people get too carried away with standardisation, ignoring the reasons why things are done differently now. That can be observed within the army with the regulars imposing their methods on the TA, ignoring the different circumstances which caused the TA to work that way.
  8. Worth investigating if we actually need a separate airforce. Now that we are a lot smaller, perhaps Navy taking on fixed wing/strategic airlift and ISTAR, and Army taking on rotary wing, CAS and some ISTAR might be a better way of re-organising whilst still retained a couple of independant, but mutually supporting services. Already been done to death in a few forums here, so could be easy research for you?
  9. There are some worthwhile articles about the unification of the Canadian Armed Forces - in Google enter “unification of canadian forces”.

    One comment in makes the point:

    “The operational role of each service does differ greatly, especially at the tactical level, and Hellyer’s unification largely disregarded this fact for the sake of efficiency and cost savings.” (Paul Hellyer who initiated this change in 1968 was Minister of National Defence)

    It would be interesting to hear the views of those who have served since 1968 as, a couple of years ago, a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces (Army) told me unification had been a disaster
  10. Also worth looking at the USMC; They don't have their own ships, but they do operations integrated with with own logistics and air group, attached to the combat unit, done at various sizes.
  11. wouldnt work from a supply point of view. the amr y already spent god knows how much on "new" it systems that dont work fully and they cant talk to each other, let allown talk to a navy or raf system.

    plus if all join up, im sure knob head gordon brown and his team of iditos would decide their would be too many military personnel and chop a load like he is already trying to do
  12. Canada tried it did'nt work.
    Apache helicopters cas army support
    stopping bears maritime recon other aircraft duties RAF not army centric.
    RAF regiment rebadged as infantry how long before somebody finds them something more important to do than airfield defence .

    watching a naval officer and a platoon commander trying to explain what they did to each other was interesting to say the least.
    now imagine that at staff officer level :twisted:
  13. Australians started down that path and got there there in terms of HQ, logistics & support functions, although they do have a nice tri service badge to show for their efforts.

    There is a strange (although not entirely bad) CoC at work.

    An Aussie kindly tried to explain it all to me once. Through the beer haze it all made sense at the time but, sadly, that clarity was lost by the following morning.
  14. The Chinese tried a similar approach. Found out their navy chief couldn't swim, and their chief airman couldn't fly. Result: the Army took over everything! :D

    Like it or lump it, if you cannot HOLD THE GROUND you cannot win! (Total nuclear destruction excepted of course).

    Additionally, if I may, to hold the ground it is convenient to command the air above the ground. Similarly, the sea-routes must be commanded or starvation becomes a possibility. (see: Hitler's submarine war 1940-44).

    The answer then is:


    That said, when the air battle is won and sea is controlled, then the 'PBI' (Her Majesty's real 'forces') take over and our Sovereign's enemies are defeated again - as they have been for almost a thousand years.