1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Unified Military?

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Biker, Dec 28, 2002.

  1. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Back in the mid to late 80's, there was talk of creating a unified military, where there was no Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines. Just one military service that encompassed everything. With the merging of the <a href="http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5599" target="blank">Naval and Marine Air Wings</a> this could be a test to see if a larger merger could actually work.

    Putting service rivalry and traditions aside, do you think an all emcompassing military service would work? Why or why not?
     
  2. jamming

    jamming Banned

    There are still too many job specific tasks and training. They have merged things extensivly with DOD, Joint Activities. A Joint Command is neccessary at a couple of points on the way to a leadership role. That said a little competition between the services is usually a good thing, keeps us from putting all our eggs in the same basket.
     
  3. Andy

    Andy ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    I would have to agree on the side that consolidating all of the branches would not be a good thing.

    If anything some of the branches need to be a bit more compartmentalized than they are now.

    If you had one General in charge of making every decision for all "departments" i.e. tanks, cooks, medics, etc... it would not be as efficient as if you had several very knoledgeable people incharge of smaller sections.

    Like it is now.

    It has taken our military almost 200 years to obtain it's current chain of command and administrational balance, I cannot ever forsee them all being scrapped and thrown into one big melting pot. :)
     
  4. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    **chuckle** I was part of that chain for 20 years. Not sure I'd say it was effecient.

    Yes, there would be task specific things that one would definitely stay in. Pilots, Ship's Captain, etc. But there are many, many jobs that we do in the military that are basically the same across all branches. Would it not make more sense to pool those resources than having 3 seperate services training everyone to do the same thing?
     
  5. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Well it is not exactly like that anymore Biker, like to become an Air Force Pararescueman, they train at two different army training bases as a part of thier training. Several other things like all high intensity Chemical Warfare Training is at one Army Base, a certain number from each ship in the navy are cycled through. The Army's Small Boat Handling Instruction is conducted at Naval Station. They are combining where it is smart to combine, while keep the unique traditions, of forces where needed. The Navy Basic teaches, firefighting and damage control, Army and Marine teach Basic infantry activities, while the Air Force teaches flight and flightline safety each have a slightly different spin that supports their mission.
     
  6. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    True... Was thinking more along the lines of the support roles. Communications folks, cooks, law enforcement, security, administrative staff, etc. are all pretty much doing the same job. Yes, each installation has it's "quirks" of doing things, but that's the same for anywhere you go.

    We'll always have those unique jobs, but I have to wonder about those that cross service lines that are pretty much the same.
     
  7. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Well they are working on that also, like in Computer Networking the Army and Air Force are using one approach and the Navy/Marine Corp Intranet another, but they are to also work together. If we adopted just one approach, it might be targeted to fail. Notice how there are not anymore, I broke into the US Military Computers like their use to be every month? Still some once and awhile, but they have gotten a handle on a lot of it.
     
  8. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    I've heard this pie-in-the-sky thinking before, and I continue to think it sucks. :)

    Not a parochial outlook on my part, per se, but the fact of the matter is, different services have different missions. The competition would remain regardless of separate force structures simply because mission areas would be incompatible, requiring individuals to be trained in specific MOSs that would generally be foreign to other members of the military. Like Anchor Hoister or something in the Navy compared to Attack Helicopter Pilot/ARSOA in ther Army.

    The cost of busting apart the current organization, reintegrating it into something else, and actually making it work are way too high. And now, most certainly, is not the time to be thinking about it.

    SM
     
  9. fritzmp

    fritzmp Fire Fire For Effect

    They need to think different in the other direction. The Army needs it's own Air Corp fighter planes for close air support and not the Air Force. Air Force pilots hate taking small arms fire and the troops on the ground need pilots with balls. The Mariens have the right idea in this reguard. No need to fudge the services. Besides, West Pointers and VMI cadets don't like Boats.
     
  10. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    I think it makes more sense to standardize across the services on things such as communications, aircraft, and vehicles. Granted, there is some degree of specialization within these categories. I see no reason, however, why all branches cannot use the same radios, the same radio frequencis, the same crypto codes, etc. Ditto for vehicles, aircraft, and many other things.

    Much of the specialization can be accomplished through "option packages" while retaining the efficiencies of identical base units across all services.

    The roles of each service are fundamentally different, though, and need to be kept separate. Although, there could probably be a greater degree of intra-service training and exercises.
     
  11. jamming

    jamming Banned

    stevent, this is what is happening one purchase at a time as far as radio and equipment. This is the reason for the JSF (Joint Service Fighter) program and the new radio's that are being packaged now. They are streamlining and combining those functions across the service. In the future the CAG(Commander Air Group) on an Aircraft Carrier can be a Marine Colonel, instead of only a Navy Captain.
     
  12. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    Jim, do you know if that extends to things like identical aircraft fuel trucks on Air Force, Navy, and Marine airfields (carriers excluded)? Different paint jobs, of course.....

    It's good to hear that some progress in this area is being made.
     
  13. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Pooling is happening at every level in purchasing, but it is not perfect yet. I couldn't answer about fuel trucks, but I would assume the Navy and Marine are, the Air Force might have different ones to service a fleet of bigger aircraft (Bombers-Cargo Transports).
     
  14. fritzmp

    fritzmp Fire Fire For Effect

    As far as I know, the Army is still reliant to the Air Force for fighter support and it sux. The Marine pilots are Marines and the bond is evident just as combat chopper pilots of the Air Mobile Army risk life and limb for their men on the ground. Equipment and communications standardizations are one thing and mission and the support there of is another.
     
  15. jamming

    jamming Banned

    fritzmp that is changing in the Marines, btw the Air Force Attack Jocks are spending more time at lower levels with the Army too, as Ground Forward Air Controllers. Its not like the Marines is now but it is getting back to the level of the Vietnam days when AF Ground FAC's are sitting at the battalion level.
     
  16. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Think about it, if NASA ran the NYC subway system, the #3 train would be fished out of the water onto a boat, and we would disinfect the riders.
     
  17. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    The best providers of CAS for the Army in my experience are in this order:

    Army (merely because it's organic)

    USMC, because they're green just like us and never miss and never flinch

    USN, though it is pretty rare to get them on-station; if they're in the 'hood, they're good for a couple of passes at least, but the Army can't request them direct

    China Airlines, because they could kill a lot of people on the ground when they crash their next jets (Asian encounters only)

    Airbus, in any plumage

    USAF

    In ODS--and this is secondhand from one of our guys in the tactical operations center who was manning the radios--while elements of VII Corps were advancing into Kuwait, USAF couldn't provide CAS because they were getting painted (strobed by ADA radar systems). The USMC showed up instead with a clutch of Harriers and asked the ground component commander, "OK, where do ya want 'em?"

    :)

    SM
     
  18. Jedi Writer

    Jedi Writer Guest

    Steve is correct in his assessment of Air Force CAS. (We will exclude the A-10--they are sort of an odd ball role aircraft in the context of CAS. Is it CAS or isn't it? Usually not.)

    The Air Force is better at offensively attacking things than it is in CAS. Better by a country mile. There is no other air force in history or currently that can put together in strike packages what our Air Force can. The Air Force is best at killing other planes, offensively attacking specific targets, air transport/refueling and not in supplying CAS.
     

Share This Page