Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yesterday on Daily Politics, show host Andrew Neil asked Commander John Huxworthy of the UK National Defence Association this:

Here's a radical idea, just to get steam coming out of your ears. Why do we need three separate services in Britain now, with all the Generals and Admirals, and all the Wing Commanders, why don't we just have one massive UK - US style Marine force that does everything?

Commander Huxworthy's response was a lack of money and numbers (after all, the US Marine Corps alone has 20% more personnel than the whole British Army), but what I want to ask is, first of all, is this idea of the USMC accurate - I thought they were just amphibious infantry with some independence, but still subordinate to the Navy. And secondly, a combined all-in-one military? Could this work? Officers commanding forces on the ground, sea and air all in the same chain of command? If so, what would be the benefits?

The Marines are not wholly independent of the Navy, they still rely them on for transportation to some extent and the Marines do not field their own Chaplains or Medics.

Amaya wrote:The Marines are not wholly independent of the Navy, they still rely them on for transportation to some extent and the Marines do not field their own Chaplains or Medics.

much in the same way the Marines are not wholly depedant on the AF for overseas fast transport, or the army or the navy.

its a viable option, the problem that would kill it is the "tradition" of it. and the differences of opinions between the branches for operations.

The US Marines are a very interesting branch in the US military system. They do a little bit of everything all the branches do, but they are still somewhat attached to the Navy.

As for the original question: I think there are way to many positions of power that would have to be consolidated for it to work. Why would people and branches give up power?

The bigger the military formation, the gakker it gets to organise.

Generally, if we do things as a company its pretty good. If we do things as a unit its fine..

If we go as a brigade it starts to go to gak, and if we take part in a NATO mission with more than one division taking part, its en epic cluster feth from start to finish.

So, you could do it, but everything would go to gak.

Because it would create a fighting force so bloatedly large it could not be effectively administered. That, and the strategic aims of naval, land, and air forces are different and a combined force would be ineffective in achieving all of them. The arms are compartmentalized because its the best way to go about fighting.

For a story in the failure of a combined force look up the history of the United States Army Air Forces in WWII.

We could have a combined service if we just gave Matty access to a speedboat and a jet

SilverMK2 wrote:We could have a combined service if we just gave Matty access to a speedboat and a jet

We'd have world peace in three days.

Of course, global population would go down to about 100 million. If that.

I have a hard time imagining what advantages such an administrative structure would have. After all, you still need to maintain the fundamental structure of the chain of command, which means you're certainly not eliminating any personnel.

Sturmtruppen wrote: but what I want to ask is, first of all, is this idea of the USMC accurate - I thought they were just amphibious infantry with some independence.

To answer this and only this part: yes basically. The USMC has a comprehensive airwing that covers all the same capabilities of both the Air Force and Army air wing albeit on a smaller scale. They have a fully operational service and support system, armor, etc that one would expect of a land force. What they lack is medical facilities and personnel shipyards,and blue water ships which have always been provided by the navy. A more correct statement would be to model after the US Navy which in the grand scheme of things includes the Marines and together they are a complete and comprehensive fighting force. Semantics really. The concept is basically unworkable though. Technically Israel and China both have "unified" armed forces in theory, but back in reality have very distinct branches.

LordofHats wrote:Because it would create a fighting force so bloatedly large it could not be effectively administered. That, and the strategic aims of naval, land, and air forces are different and a combined force would be ineffective in achieving all of them. The arms are compartmentalized because its the best way to go about fighting.

For a story in the failure of a combined force look up the history of the United States Army Air Forces in WWII.

Wait what was wrong with the USAAC?

I don't see that ever happening. The chain of commands would get so bloated and unwieldy that they would never get anything done... Just look how long it takes the army to mobilize their enormous force, plus reserve components!

I can think of a bunch of reasons why it's a bad idea, lol.

The Marines and the Navy work rather closely together (or as close as they need to, really), and I think that's good enough. The USMC's 'projection' is entirely dependent on the Navy's Amphibs moving them around on MEUs. The Navy's Medical Corps (and chaplains) work pretty close too.

Honestly, I could see various components of the air force being merged into the Army, but not the logistical elements.

Wait what was wrong with the USAAC?

Constant administrative in fighting between army and air force commanders over strategic and operational goals. In the end it didn't hurt the war effort, but it was enough of a problem that it was noted in the official studies that tried to determine if the USAF should be its own branch.

The Army wanted air support for ground forces and it was all the Army really cared about. The Air Force believed it had its own strategic goals but had to fight to get them set and didn't always get them the way they wanted. EDIT: Look up the huge battle that was fought to establish the principles of strategic air bombing in the 1930's.

It would be wildly unpopular, politically. Think about it: Would you want to be remembered as the Prime Minister who pulled the plug on the Royal Navy, with all it's proud history?

I think it could be done and definately has its advantages (moreso than disadvantages). Unfortunately, the military has alot of reluctance to accept change. This conservative attitude transcends cultures and time, with few exceptions.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-reveals-it-has-balanced-the-defence-budget--but-at-what-cost-to-britain-7746790.html

So apparantly, we cant afford a Nimrod replacement (who needs to know whats actually going on anyway?), or any drones (but we do have muskets, and sticks). But we can have a couple of aircraft carriers, without anything to put on them.

dæl wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-reveals-it-has-balanced-the-defence-budget--but-at-what-cost-to-britain-7746790.html

So apparantly, we cant afford a Nimrod replacement (who needs to know whats actually going on anyway?), or any drones (but we do have muskets, and sticks). But we can have a couple of aircraft carriers, without anything to put on them.

Seems perfectly acceptable to me.

The labour government, disgusting mother fethers that they were, committed to spending on things they knew we couldnt afford, shamelessly playing politics with peoples lives.

The Tories have now came in and balanced the books, and you want to slate them for it?

No wonder this countries economy is fethed, its full of people who are addicted to spending money they dont have!

Britain will STILL have the fourth biggest military spending in the entire world, which you could also argue is entirely unnecessary. Slightly less than Russia and China?! Why?

Considering the British forces primary role is to protect Britain, and not swan all over the world invading everyone for no reason, I am more than happy with this plan. How do liberals like you manage to square this circle? You dont want us to go around invading people, but you do want us to have an enormous military budget?

You just want a reason to slag off the current government for doing something right, and balancing the books. Something the Labour party didn't do, even when we weren't in a recession!

mattyrm wrote:

dæl wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-reveals-it-has-balanced-the-defence-budget--but-at-what-cost-to-britain-7746790.html

So apparantly, we cant afford a Nimrod replacement (who needs to know whats actually going on anyway?), or any drones (but we do have muskets, and sticks). But we can have a couple of aircraft carriers, without anything to put on them.

Seems perfectly acceptable to me.

The labour government, disgusting mother fethers that they were, committed to spending on things they knew we couldnt afford, shamelessly playing politics with peoples lives.

The Tories have now came in and balanced the books, and you want to slate them for it?

No wonder this countries economy is fethed, its full of people who are addicted to spending money they dont have!

Britain will STILL have the fourth biggest military spending in the entire world, which you could also argue is entirely unnecessary. Slightly less than Russia and China?! Why?

Considering the British forces primary role is to protect Britain, and not swan all over the world invading everyone for no reason, I am more than happy with this plan. How do liberals like you manage to square this circle? You dont want us to go around invading people, but you do want us to have an enormous military budget?

You just want a reason to slag off the current government for doing something right, and balancing the books. Something the Labour party didn't do, even when we weren't in a recession!

We're still getting pulled into things though, obviously. And last time we looked to cut things like that the Falklands happened...


Canada is a much much better comparison to make, given the similarity (for what I hope are obvious reasons) in our Forces.

My problem is persisting with things we don't need like two aircraft carriers that was a blatantly shady deal (done under labour, i'm not their friend either). And at the same time, we've needed a Nimrod replacement for years, and intelligence is vital in warfare surely? And UAVs are the future, since Desert Storm we've seen the need for air superiority, and UAVs can stay up longer and go further, seems like they tick all the boxes. I'm all for reducing spending, if it were up to me i'd try to move toward more elite forces so Paras, Marines, Gurkas, SAS and SBS would be given a lot more whilst reducing other areas. Seems to be the way to deal with modern threats. But then, I'm not involved with the military so tbf I don't really know what I'm talking about, just an outsiders opinion.

dæl wrote:But then, I'm not involved with the military so tbf I don't really know what I'm talking about, just an outsiders opinion.

Truthfully? As someone who knows something about military expenditure and usefulness, no, you don't really. No offense, but you don't. Those carriers are integral to our capacity to project force around the globe. The Nimrod was a handy, but overpriced toy that can be done without. As are UAV's.

You may want to trust the ex-Marine and the defence academic on this one.

Britain doesn't need an army at all. We're an island nation, all we need is an airforce and navy, with reserves. Even with our relatively small population/economy we could have one of, if not the largest navy on earth, simply by virtue of being an island nation and not having to fund an army at all.
Anyway, the idea of merging all of them into one is bs. It would save little, if any, money, politicians are just grasping for excuses for their piss-poor performance.

dæl wrote:My problem is persisting with things we don't need like two aircraft carriers that was a blatantly shady deal (done under labour, i'm not their friend either). And at the same time, we've needed a Nimrod replacement for years, and intelligence is vital in warfare surely? And UAVs are the future, since Desert Storm we've seen the need for air superiority, and UAVs can stay up longer and go further, seems like they tick all the boxes. I'm all for reducing spending, if it were up to me i'd try to move toward more elite forces so Paras, Marines, Gurkas, SAS and SBS would be given a lot more whilst reducing other areas. Seems to be the way to deal with modern threats. But then, I'm not involved with the military so tbf I don't really know what I'm talking about, just an outsiders opinion.

When it comes down to it the UK needs to decide clearly what it wants its Armed Forces to be capable of. So far it seems that we want the ability to power project globally, but the procurement to do so is out of whack.

Somebody on another forum suggested buying some of the decommissioned Nimitz', which would likely be much cheaper than developing two of our own from scratch, and have none of this faffing around and changing our minds about how we'll equip them.
Depends what you mean by the UAV thing... We are investing more in them generally and I believe BAE is doing some technology testers on air combat versions. If you're thinking about replacing planes with UAVs, well I'm sceptical at the moment. People thought missiles would replace planes, although I can see the differences between UAVs and planes. We shall see.

Still need regular forces to hold ground, do all the main stuff, draw men from for SF. Also, Paras, RM and Ghurkas are not the same kind of thing as SF. As it is though, UKSF has seen budget rises over the past few years, since they're the best asset we can bring to international operations.

After reading through this thread, I have an almost irresistible urge to play Risk.

Ketara wrote:

dæl wrote:But then, I'm not involved with the military so tbf I don't really know what I'm talking about, just an outsiders opinion.

Truthfully? As someone who knows something about military expenditure and usefulness, no, you don't really. No offense, but you don't. Those carriers are integral to our capacity to project force around the globe. The Nimrod was a handy, but overpriced toy that can be done without. As are UAV's.

You may want to trust the ex-Marine and the defence academic on this one.

Fair point, no offence taken. The pacifist in me would probably prefer us not being able to project our force across the globe. But then we still have the Falklands, and with all that oil and the recent sabre-rattling, that might get nasty soon (really hope not).

I can see UAVs being toys, but I honestly thought Nimrod was integral for intelligence.

dogma wrote:I have a hard time imagining what advantages such an administrative structure would have. After all, you still need to maintain the fundamental structure of the chain of command, which means you're certainly not eliminating any personnel.

It is already happening to a limited degree, in the medical world for example it makes little practical difference what service you are in for deployments and only has a limited bearing on units that you get sent to (depending on your role).

A unified chain of command is perfectly possible, providing that an effective and professionally knowledgable chain of command is in place. There is a lot of needless duplication of effort in the forces a lot of which is down to having three distinct services. the main argument against it is tradition but that only cuts so much ice given that nearly all the regiments in the British army have been amalgamated or disbanded altogether.

Ketara wrote:

dæl wrote:But then, I'm not involved with the military so tbf I don't really know what I'm talking about, just an outsiders opinion.

Truthfully? As someone who knows something about military expenditure and usefulness, no, you don't really. No offense, but you don't. Those carriers are integral to our capacity to project force around the globe. The Nimrod was a handy, but overpriced toy that can be done without. As are UAV's.

You may want to trust the ex-Marine and the defence academic on this one.

Plus, we have UAVs. They were based up until recently in the US, but are moving (or have already moved) here, if memory serves. We even have a defence satellite, as of a couple of years ago. We got it second-hand from the Yanks - I read about it in the UK's internal defence procurement publication about two years ago.

Also, the carriers WILL have aircraft on them by the time they both arrive - the coalition has scrapped its original plans and gone for the new jump-jet option.

Albatross wrote:

Ketara wrote:

dæl wrote:But then, I'm not involved with the military so tbf I don't really know what I'm talking about, just an outsiders opinion.

Truthfully? As someone who knows something about military expenditure and usefulness, no, you don't really. No offense, but you don't. Those carriers are integral to our capacity to project force around the globe. The Nimrod was a handy, but overpriced toy that can be done without. As are UAV's.

You may want to trust the ex-Marine and the defence academic on this one.

Plus, we have UAVs. They were based up until recently in the US, but are moving (or have already moved) here, if memory serves. We even have a defence satellite, as of a couple of years ago. We got it second-hand from the Yanks - I read about it in the UK's internal defence procurement publication about two years ago.

Also, the carriers WILL have aircraft on them by the time they both arrive - the coalition has scrapped its original plans and gone for the new jump-jet option.

Depends on the UAV
Not sure what you mean by defence satellite, if you mean military com satellite then we've got several and have had various generations for ageeeesss... And the current ones were designed by BAE and built in Britain (which has a very good space industry).
Ironically the system is called Skynet.

Eurgh to the F-35B, poor choice, short-term thinking.

A combined structure incorporating Air, Navy and Army could work but would have to be designed from the ground up to work. Bodging it out of what you already have is not going to cut it.

The problem with forgoing a traditional land based force is that, at the end of the day, you *still* need boots on the ground.

For instance, lets take a hypothetical Falklands War 2. Say Argentina actually managed to overwhelm the garrison already in place and landed a substantial number of troops on the Island. Bombing and precision strikes will only do some much. At some point, it's more cost effective, more efficient, and actually less costly in terms of human life to simply land ground forces amphibiously. Through sudden, overwhelming violence of action you will destroy the enemy's ability and will to fight. You need infantry and artillery and helicopters and tanks for that sort of mission.

Special Forces like the SAS and Green Berets are not designed to go toe to toe against Infantry Battalions - especially when the infantry are expecting and prepared for ground attack.

I have no doubt that the Commandos and SAS and all the various elite arms of the British Armed Forces are very capable, very professional, and very, very hard fethers; but they are still there to carry out key operations to enable the Infantry battalion and brigade to carry out the task of actually taking and holding the ground.

Lux_Lucis wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Ketara wrote:

dæl wrote:But then, I'm not involved with the military so tbf I don't really know what I'm talking about, just an outsiders opinion.

Truthfully? As someone who knows something about military expenditure and usefulness, no, you don't really. No offense, but you don't. Those carriers are integral to our capacity to project force around the globe. The Nimrod was a handy, but overpriced toy that can be done without. As are UAV's.

You may want to trust the ex-Marine and the defence academic on this one.

Plus, we have UAVs. They were based up until recently in the US, but are moving (or have already moved) here, if memory serves. We even have a defence satellite, as of a couple of years ago. We got it second-hand from the Yanks - I read about it in the UK's internal defence procurement publication about two years ago.

Also, the carriers WILL have aircraft on them by the time they both arrive - the coalition has scrapped its original plans and gone for the new jump-jet option.

Depends on the UAV
Not sure what you mean by defence satellite, if you mean military com satellite then we've got several and have had various generations for ageeeesss... And the current ones were designed by BAE and built in Britain (which has a very good space industry).
Ironically the system is called Skynet.

I think it may have been a surveillance satellite, but my memory of the article I read is hazy at best, and I freely admit to not even coming close to being an expert in these matters. Music yes, military technology no.