Scrapping the Air Force, Army & Navy....
Discussion
So, Jock Stirrup admits its possible one of the branches of the armed forces could be scrapped in the near future......
Well, why not scrap all three? Surely, a single, combined, integrated force would suit us better in the future? Sort of like the US Marine Corp, which has its own tanks, helicopters, fast jets and boats.....
Would stop all the rediculous misspending on seperate systems that dont integrate accross the three services.... and the political postuering that goes on currently to protect indevidual funding....
Well, why not scrap all three? Surely, a single, combined, integrated force would suit us better in the future? Sort of like the US Marine Corp, which has its own tanks, helicopters, fast jets and boats.....
Would stop all the rediculous misspending on seperate systems that dont integrate accross the three services.... and the political postuering that goes on currently to protect indevidual funding....
G_T said:
Tony*T3 said:
Well, why not scrap all three?
Pride? A sense of history? A link to our proud past?Don't think I'd support it to be honest, I was gutted enough when the Scottish regiments were amalgamated...
Too be really fair, the Navy is becoming a bit of a joke, and pointless. It might be the senior service, but its also the least usefull. But rather than pick on one service, why not reorganise the whole lot?
The US Marine corp model seems to be what the modern conflict needs.
Tony*T3 said:
G_T said:
Tony*T3 said:
Well, why not scrap all three?
Pride? A sense of history? A link to our proud past?Don't think I'd support it to be honest, I was gutted enough when the Scottish regiments were amalgamated...
Too be really fair, the Navy is becoming a bit of a joke, and pointless. It might be the senior service, but its also the least usefull. But rather than pick on one service, why not reorganise the whole lot?
The US Marine corp model seems to be what the modern conflict needs.
Well with the RAF already gearing up to shed another 10k jobs, PVR waiting times reduced to 6 months, continuance being removed, which all points to encouraging people to leave with out the expense of redundancies to the public purse.
Couple that with more jointery on Ops, and there is a very strong case that the RAF will not be around in it's current guise for very much longer.
Couple that with more jointery on Ops, and there is a very strong case that the RAF will not be around in it's current guise for very much longer.
Tony*T3 said:
Too be really fair, the Navy is becoming a bit of a joke, and pointless. It might be the senior service, but its also the least usefull. But rather than pick on one service, why not reorganise the whole lot?
The US Marine corp model seems to be what the modern conflict needs.
We are an island nation. To give up a naval capability would be enormously stupid. In addition to that, almost all major assets involved in fighting will be delivered by sea - you can rapidly deploy a certain amount of stuff by air, but there is far too much weight to move all of it. How do you ensure that you can do that if you don't have a navy?The US Marine corp model seems to be what the modern conflict needs.
Tony*T3 said:
So, Jock Stirrup admits its possible one of the branches of the armed forces could be scrapped in the near future......
Well, why not scrap all three? Surely, a single, combined, integrated force would suit us better in the future? Sort of like the US Marine Corp, which has its own tanks, helicopters, fast jets and boats.....
Would stop all the rediculous misspending on seperate systems that dont integrate accross the three services.... and the political postuering that goes on currently to protect indevidual funding....
OT but is that his real name or a mispronunciation of strap?Well, why not scrap all three? Surely, a single, combined, integrated force would suit us better in the future? Sort of like the US Marine Corp, which has its own tanks, helicopters, fast jets and boats.....
Would stop all the rediculous misspending on seperate systems that dont integrate accross the three services.... and the political postuering that goes on currently to protect indevidual funding....
Whilst we could scrap one, that isn’t the question; the question is could we defend our island without any one of them?
No modern army can fight without air support.
No Air Force can fight without an Army to gain and hold the landing strip.
No Army or Air Force can survive without the Navy to protect its supply lines.
No Navy can survive without Air protection for its ships and bases, nor can its bases survive without an Army to hold them.
Now we could try some integrated military. But we have built three separate bodies of expertise. Integration would either have to involve separate career paths and expertise within a combined force or everyone becomes Jack-of-all-trades and master of none. If we retain three separate services within a combined force, what is the gain?
So we can keep something that has stood the test of time and battle, we can condemn the members of the two surviving forces to defeat, or we can do something pointless. There would certainly be great initial cost in trying to combine.
No modern army can fight without air support.
No Air Force can fight without an Army to gain and hold the landing strip.
No Army or Air Force can survive without the Navy to protect its supply lines.
No Navy can survive without Air protection for its ships and bases, nor can its bases survive without an Army to hold them.
Now we could try some integrated military. But we have built three separate bodies of expertise. Integration would either have to involve separate career paths and expertise within a combined force or everyone becomes Jack-of-all-trades and master of none. If we retain three separate services within a combined force, what is the gain?
So we can keep something that has stood the test of time and battle, we can condemn the members of the two surviving forces to defeat, or we can do something pointless. There would certainly be great initial cost in trying to combine.
Uncle Fester said:
Whilst we could scrap one, that isn’t the question; the question is could we defend our island without any one of them?
No modern army can fight without air support.
No Air Force can fight without an Army to gain and hold the landing strip.
No Army or Air Force can survive without the Navy to protect its supply lines.
No Navy can survive without Air protection for its ships and bases, nor can its bases survive without an Army to hold them.
Now we could try some integrated military. But we have built three separate bodies of expertise. Integration would either have to involve separate career paths and expertise within a combined force or everyone becomes Jack-of-all-trades and master of none. If we retain three separate services within a combined force, what is the gain?
So we can keep something that has stood the test of time and battle, we can condemn the members of the two surviving forces to defeat, or we can do something pointless. There would certainly be great initial cost in trying to combine.
We'd only need the Air Force for defence though. A country would only be able to attack us by invading and for that they would need air superiority. Or they could bomb us, again requiring air superiority. We'd need naval and ground forces to go on the offensive.No modern army can fight without air support.
No Air Force can fight without an Army to gain and hold the landing strip.
No Army or Air Force can survive without the Navy to protect its supply lines.
No Navy can survive without Air protection for its ships and bases, nor can its bases survive without an Army to hold them.
Now we could try some integrated military. But we have built three separate bodies of expertise. Integration would either have to involve separate career paths and expertise within a combined force or everyone becomes Jack-of-all-trades and master of none. If we retain three separate services within a combined force, what is the gain?
So we can keep something that has stood the test of time and battle, we can condemn the members of the two surviving forces to defeat, or we can do something pointless. There would certainly be great initial cost in trying to combine.
V88Dicky said:
Tony*T3 said:
G_T said:
Tony*T3 said:
Well, why not scrap all three?
Pride? A sense of history? A link to our proud past?Don't think I'd support it to be honest, I was gutted enough when the Scottish regiments were amalgamated...
Too be really fair, the Navy is becoming a bit of a joke, and pointless. It might be the senior service, but its also the least usefull. But rather than pick on one service, why not reorganise the whole lot?
The US Marine corp model seems to be what the modern conflict needs.
"The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is a branch of the United States armed forces responsible for providing force projection from the sea,[5] using the mobility of the United States Navy to rapidly deliver combined-arms task forces. It is one of seven uniformed services of the United States. In the civilian leadership structure of the United States military, the Marine Corps is a component of the Department of the Navy,[6][7] often working closely with U.S. naval forces for training, transportation and logistic purposes; however, in the military leadership structure the Marine Corps is a separate branch." (wiki)
tank slapper said:
Tony*T3 said:
Too be really fair, the Navy is becoming a bit of a joke, and pointless. It might be the senior service, but its also the least usefull. But rather than pick on one service, why not reorganise the whole lot?
The US Marine corp model seems to be what the modern conflict needs.
We are an island nation. To give up a naval capability would be enormously stupid. In addition to that, almost all major assets involved in fighting will be delivered by sea - you can rapidly deploy a certain amount of stuff by air, but there is far too much weight to move all of it. How do you ensure that you can do that if you don't have a navy?The US Marine corp model seems to be what the modern conflict needs.
There is no need for us to be sending minor warships all around the world on navy 'liason' visits either. Jobs for the boys, jollies and a bit of flag waving. We would still have to keep the abiltiy to deliver the our combined forces around the world.
Tony*T3 said:
G_T said:
Tony*T3 said:
Well, why not scrap all three?
Pride? A sense of history? A link to our proud past?Don't think I'd support it to be honest, I was gutted enough when the Scottish regiments were amalgamated...
Too be really fair, the Navy is becoming a bit of a joke, and pointless. It might be the senior service, but its also the least usefull. But rather than pick on one service, why not reorganise the whole lot?
The US Marine corp model seems to be what the modern conflict needs.
Not sure the navy is entirely useless. Them new type 45s and CVF carriers are incredible pieces of kit. Even makes a lot of the yank kit look dated.
But you're probably right. Alas efficiency is more important than history. That's why we're all loving our new Hybrids and don't mourn our V8s.
"Who-ra".
Either way, Jock Stirrup believes one of the three will disapear. I dont think we could lose one on its own and keep the other two, and the forces are supposed to be much more combined in operation anyway. So get rid of 2/3rds of the overhead, the senior officers, the supply and administration, the civil servants etc etc, and devise one organisation that meets the needs.
Worth thinking about. One properly funded force, not three continually fighting for the same resources....
Worth thinking about. One properly funded force, not three continually fighting for the same resources....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff