"A unified military?" Topic

Congratulations, you have just been named Supreme Leader of Nationistan, a mid sized nation state with neighbors on land and easy access to the local ocean.

Instead of having an army, air force and navy, you decide to have a single unified armed service. A single rank structure, but the troops would still have specific MOS (ie. jobs). So a tank driver would not serve on a ship unless he went back to school for that job.

Your thoughts on the pros and cons of such an idea?

Isn't that the idea behind China's military?

Army, Navy, Air Force…
That seems like kind of an ad hoc split.
Oh wait. I forgot the Marines, a part of the Navy. Are they?
And I'm leaving out the Coast Guard. Part of Treasury? Homeland Security?

It seems like almost all divisions are ad hoc and "We've always done it that way."

I see no inherent advantages or disadvantages.

It might solve the "problem" of situations like the A10. Air Force insists that only their pilots can fly fixed wing etc but want to scrap it because it's not sexy enough and it's a dead end career. Yet the Army loves it and wants to keep it. Do they? Or is it just to spite the Air Force?
But as long as the Army wants to keep it, it must be flown by Air Force pilots.

The army is allowed only helos as per an agreement btwn the two services. The A10 is an example of all air forces reluctance to do ground support.

I would follow the Goodies' Blueprint for a Cheaper Britain and replace them all with a white flag.

The Nationistan Armed Forces would consist of one Reservist Private who would wash and iron it on his annual duty weekend and raise it in moments of crisis.

Let's see, I need one unit that can do subterranean, under water, on the surface, all land types, air, and space …

… ah, there we go. Apparently, this unit also comes with its own integrated recruitment and logistics support.

Nifty!

Army only helos ? I could have sworn I saw some
Army recon aircraft (fixed wing) on one of our
deployments.

Twin-engines, crew side-by-side arrangement, lots
of electronics in the crew space.

'Course, that was almost 50 years ago but I think
the agreement to which that poster refers was set
in place farther back than that.

A 'unified' military sounds good, but in practice
I'm not so sure. Small nations – perhaps.

If it works for China, it may be because the government
is very tightly centralized and controlled.

I think this ignores the power of tradition, human nature, the bonds of comradeship, unit elan, etc. The only pro is saving a little (and probably not much, money). And if your final aproduct can win battles and wars, then it's a false economy.

Well, Canada did it in 1968 and has been quietly un-doing it since; so we went from the Royal Canadian Air Force to Air Command to back to the Royal Canadian Air Force and the same for the Royal Canadian Navy

Some things have remained unified and they make sense – for example, given the size of the Canadian military having one medical branch rather than three separate small medical corps is a sensible move

It works well for small to mid-size militaries; in the case of China it also helped that there were not centuries of tradition to overcome; part of the reason for moving back to the Royal Canadian Navy (and using Navy ranks) was exactly that given the effect on morale

Well, that was kind of my idea:
It would centralize command
You would not have inter branch rivalries (no air force flying close air support for the army, the aircraft and crew would be an asset assigned for the mission)
No Army/Navy football games, but we can probably work around that.
No branch level fights over single/twin engine aircraft
A single logistics tail, that might make it better

And yes, you would lose a lot of traditions, so I don't see any nation suddenly switching over, but what if?

Stryderg, who did you serve with? If you think making them all wear the same dress uniform and calling them inter-arm rivalries instead of inter-branch will in any way diminish the "knife fighting over budget and office space" I have a floor of the Pentagon I'd like to sell you.

(Cash only, please, and unmarked non-sequential bills.)

Ed, it's the Key West Agreement. I don't immediately see a copy on line. The Army is allowed personal transport for generals, recon and medevac. Evidently helicopters were listed with the intention of medevac, but it doesn't say "only for medevac" so the Army was able to create the Mixmaster Fleet. (I did over a year of peacetime with the 101st. I have very strong feelings on the use of helicopters as weapons. They are not feelings the senior ranks of the Army share.)

Well today in the US Military, e.g. the branches have more interoperability than ever before. With all the high tech, TTP, etc. Frequently the branches work together with little to no problem.

E.g. AFAIK USAF CCTs/PJs operate with US Army Spec Ops and/or Navy SEALs on many missions.

US Army Spec Ops/SEALs use US ARMY aircraft from the US 1st Special Air Ops Reg.(SOAR). I.e. the UBL raid.

I was trained as an Army Air Ops officer to call-in USAF CAS and even USN Naval Gunfire().

USN "ANGLICOs" were attached to US ARMY units.

Plus just think about the cost in trying to combine all the branches into one force. The branches generally do a lot of coordination, training, etc., together as SOP anyway.

So, a less eldritch perspective …

With robert piepenbrink, it doesn't matter what you call it or how you dress it. As a Navy officer I had more in common with Army line officers than I did with Navy Supply Corps officers. But there are always differences in a group also. The social behaviour of the forces is really not within your control; but neither can you ignore it. You must recognize and work with it.

For a combined force, you need to organize around mission and train around function. Function is where your clans will develop. Mission allows clans to unite into larger confederations. Within tribes, you will faction along operational environment lines, simply because you will have more in common with people who fought the same way in the same conditions than you will with people who fought the same way in different conditions.

Mission – Function – Environment

This is a good top-level for identifying the collaboration issues your unified force will have. Of course, people don't behave in strict formal ways in accordance with abstract models, but I would find this a useful tool to start to manage efficiently.

etotheipi's Victorian Cthulhu ship crew nearly made me lose my tea through my nose. Thank you.

Am I mistaken? Are they actually relatives of Dr. Zoidberg?

Since no one has mentioned the Israel Defense Force, I will. Israel was able to set up its military in the modern age with basically a clean slate. There were few preconceptions, and no current traditions, so they could really do what they thought best.

Robert, I was in the US National Guard. So I was a hard-driving, mud loving, mean old cuss that could eat barbed wire and spit out nails…two days each month. And I'll pass on the office space offer, thanks. :)

etotheipi, Thanks for the pics and the Mission-Function… post.

Am I mistaken? Are they actually relatives of Dr. Zoidberg?

Just regular old US Navy squids…

"We hired Chuck Norris. We don't need anybody else."
-- Supreme Leader of Nationistan

;-)

I thought Chuck Norris had signed on as the Army of Luxemberg?

Oh, BTW, has anyone popped over the channel and checked to see if Luxemberg is still there?

Well, Cherrio, whole grain of course.

Norris often sets up a cardboard standup of himself as a deterrent factor when he's not in a particular country that he's protecting. It seems to work… ;-)

it doesn't matter what you call it or how you dress it. As a Navy officer I had more in common with Army line officers

That is probably true … in many cases … E.g. US ARMY SF, Delta, RANGERS, Airborne, USAF CCT/PJs, SEALs, and even USMC. Army Grunts and Marine Grunts have a lot in common. Whether the Marines admit it or not …

in the US National Guard. So I was a hard-driving, mud loving, mean old cuss that could eat barbed wire and spit out nails…two days each month.

Well that is better than most. At least you showed up for the "party" … Some never could, did or would …

I thought Chuck looked a little stiff when he waved to me. Mouth didn't move either, I figured he was practicing his ventriloquist act.

Pros: less bureaucracy, which would mean more efficient and less costly.

Cons: inter service rivalry can be a good thing, it leads to competition and diversity of thought with regard to weapons systems and tactics.