Merging Armed Services

[uk 75]

In 1968 Canada combined its armed forces into a single unified service. Although the separate designations of Army, Navy and Air Force have been restored the Canadians have kept a lot of the commonality.
In the UK the RAF is often viewed disparagingly by the Army and RN, who suggest that they might make better use of its resources.
With the increasing complexity of weapons and supporting technology are traditional services the best way to field them?

 

[Foo Fighter]

There are tasks common to all services, mainly the mundane but important tasks like logistic and transportation of people from a to b, these should be dealt with by a single unitary body. As an example from the nhs, iv cannula's are used in huge numbers but each trust will buy separately. The loss of scaled economy pushes up unit price and therefor operating costs.

Take a four ton lorry for example, each service wants it's own but when you look at economy of scale for the vehicles and then parts/servicing a single purchase makes sense. No idea how other nations operate but I'm pretty sure that if the military buy pens or pencils for stores teams, each service will want its own brand/design.

Enough to drive the financial world loopy lou.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

A modern Armed Forces should strive to be as mobile as possible. To do this, there needs to be added emphasis on logistics, reconnaissance and command. These major resources should all be pulled together into a single joint command, based on their jobs. A Logistics Command for transporting food, troops, equipment, fuel, ammunition, etc. A Reconnaissance Command to pool all available data together, process and decipher it, and send it out to where its needed as quickly and efficiently as possible. Finally, a Joint Command between the different arms of the military to make the best use out of available assets, provide the best situational awareness possible and allow for flexibility. For all this to occur, fast and secure communications must be a priority. Thus, the fighting arms can do their jobs, but work together for better effectiveness in the field.

Just my two cents.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I take it you mean land forces, not much else to fit into a unitary recce body outside of that and the tactical/strategic forces often run via separate command structures.

 

[Apophenia]

As Foo Fighter noted, unification is good at reducing duplication of effort. But, in the Canadian experience, the effect upon the tooth-to-tail ratio has been the opposite of what you might expect.

It doesn't take long for an infanteer (or other combat arms member) to realize that their skills aren't especially transferable to civilian life. When re-upping for the final time, why not get an Occupational Transfer into a support trade with a better future on civvie street? And, at a stroke, that T3R gets skewed again. The 'tail' thrives while the 'teeth' suffer.

To concretise the metaphor, within a unified Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Dental Corps does just fine - military dentists see fewer patients but still earn much more than the average general dentist in Canada. And that military dentist (or Dental Tech NCM) has more perks too. So, a healthy 'tail'. That's good, right?

Now what about those 'teeth'? Well Canada has splashed out on new armour and some other kit in that last decade. But that come in the usual rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul format. Consider the ground-based air defence systems which have proven so critical over the past few weeks in Ukraine. Canada has none. I'm not sure if 4 AD Regt RCA is even still on the books but the last ADATS, Oerlikon GDF-005, and Javelin MANPADS had all been retired by 2012.

Anyway, the point of all this is that unification has upsides. But be careful what you wish for. It seems to me that genuine efficiency in the military would always favour the 'teeth' over the dentists

 

[isayyo2]

Israel and Singapore seem to do quite well with their integrated services, though their nations are tiny in comparison to their neighbors and conscription is the norm for all abled bodied citizens.

The United States' Unified Combatant Commands are an attempt to unify command and control into geographic regions, though there are many who doubt their effectiveness and the effects of the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act.

 

[publiusr]

Give Space Force most of USAF's budget-with the latter remanded back into the Army Air Corps. No more pretty blue suits.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

I take it you mean land forces, not much else to fit into a unitary recce body outside of that and the tactical/strategic forces often run via separate command structures.

Yes, though any Tactical Recce work should be done in conjunction with the boots on the ground, during joint operations.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Agreed, the thing that needs work is secure coms to make quick assessments and coordinate any counter moves quickly. At the moment there are microwave, laser and lidar methods to mature and be employed but you will need much better equipment going right down to the individual grunt in order to allow proper use of resources.

 

[riggerrob]

Backing Apophenia,

I served in the Canadian (Armed) Forces enlisted ranks when they were "unified." Many of "Hellier's Corporals" saw integration as a folly.
Army and Navy senior NCOs never adopted the official rank structure so retained their Regimental Sargent Majors and Chief Petty Officers.

I originally enlisted out as a Trooper recruit in an Army, reserve, armored, recce regiment but - after 5 years of mud and frost-bite, remustered as an Air Frame Technician and finished my service bending-wrenches on CF-18 fighters. Along the way, I dabbled in parachute displays (Skyhawks Parachute Demonstration Team) and greasing helicopters on the flight deck of HMCS Iroquois, so I worked in all three "services" and wore black, green and maroon berets during different phases of my military career. The basic, all-ranks issue green beret was boring.
Unification was never official long enough to retire all of the original RCN air technicians, making it difficult for career managers to shift around some "hard air" technicians who had originally enlisted in the Royal Canadian Navy. Medics, supply clerks and admin writers got shifted around as needed. Old service affiliations further confused matters when they started to de-integrate during the late 1980s.

Integration was poor for morale among enlisted technicians as they were treated as mere man-power to be shifted about as needed. It was difficult to feel pride in an Air Command squadron when they only used you as "filler" during change-of-command parades. No one ever explained to the enlisted technicians why they should enjoy parades. Most of us technicians considered parades as distractions from our primary duties which were elbow-deep in helicopter grease.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Much like any organisation morale is good leadership dependent and this has across the world been lacking at times. I hope it is better now than it was in my day. Thanks for your input here, Rob, it makes a big difference as all those who share experience do. I feel much better informed and richer for that.

Sorry for my poor diction, word finding etc can be a chore.

 

[Apophenia]

Israel and Singapore seem to do quite well with their integrated services, though their nations are tiny ...

isayyo2: Good examples. Small size and a strong awareness of vulnerability probably serves to strip away much of the fuzzy thinking. Of course, universal conscription ultimately affects the calibre of a nation's reserve force as well. So the quality and type of education provided for the citizenry matters.

In Canada, about 17% of the working-age population had post-secondary degrees. At ~25%, Israel is a bit higher. But scientist and engineers make up 13.5% of Israelis and only 0.04% of Canadians - with a population 3.5 x the size of Israel's (going by industry complaints, Singapore also has a shortage of engineers).

So, no big mystery as to why Israel is better than Canada at developing its own military equipment (or efficiently adapting existing equipment to save funds for priority procurement). My point is that the success of unification is also heavily dependent upon the underlying capabilities of a particular population. Emphasize a 'service economy' as Canada has and you end up with citizens able to run a till or suggest new banking fees - not people who can design the Iron Dome or devise an Achzarit HAPC adaptation.

 

[Hood]

To be fair though Canada hasn't been in a perpetual war with its neighbours since 1947.
That tends to sharpen up your defence industry and armed forces.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

To be fair though Canada hasn't been in a perpetual war with its neighbours since 1947.
That tends to sharpen up your defence industry and armed forces.

As well as your advanced research divisions in science and technology, as that not only advances your nation further into the future, but also gives you an edge over any potential adversary.

 

[Apophenia]

To be fair though Canada hasn't been in a perpetual war with its neighbours since 1947.
That tends to sharpen up your defence industry and armed forces.

Too true. But also focuses the minds of the general population ... whose education levels and professional development I'm claiming directly affects the potential success of unification.

 

[uk 75]

In the UK the RAF has been at the receiving end of calls by the Army and RN for its demise as a separate service.
The RN's FLY NAVY slogan in the 1960s found its way on to a lot of *zapped" RAF planes.
Early images of the Through Deck Cruiser showed it carrying Harriers with RAF fin tricolours made large.
Today's F35s are operated by a Joint Force inherited from the final years of Harrier operations.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I think that is the usual, memememememe, I want which characterises a fight for money. They should really be thinking of maximising their own resource bank than wasting that with arguemnts for the budget of other departments.
There are definite arguments for cooperation in certain areas of acqusition but due to various (I think personal) grudges and attitudes which are contra to good order and discipline. Poor conduct will continue as it has for decades.

No matter the tech or the training changes vying for money, the end result relies on prejudice and influence. People have died because of this for a long time and I do not see it changing.

Acquiring, training and deploying kit and tactics needs to become more focused on need and efficiency but when?

 

[riggerrob]

Foo Fighter made some good points.
One of the reasons that Defense Minister Paul Hellyer integrated the various Canadian Armed Forces was that he was tired of the inter-service rivalry and bickering over tiny defense budgets. Generals and Admirals looked as petty as small-town college professors bickering over small research grants.
Some say that the Avro Arrow was killed by the Canadian Army and Navy because it would have absorbed too many defense dollars for too many years, preventing modernizing the Army or Navy.

That inter-service rivalry created some silly purchases. For example, during the early 1960s, the RCAF, RCN and Army bought three different batches of helicopters all about the same weight with the same engines (General electric T58-8F). The Canadian Army bought Vertol/Piaseki CH-46 Voyageurs to transport troops and sling artillery. The RCN bought Sikorsky S-61 Sea Kings to chase chase Soviet submarines around the North Atlantic while the RCAF bought CH-46 Labradors for search and rescue. This created 2 1/2 supply chains and 2 1/2 pilot training systems. After integration, the Army traded their Voyageurs for more capable CH-47 Chinooks, then gave their Voyageurs to the RCAF who converted them to Labradors for the SAR role.

What if those three programs were merged into one buy of S-61s?
The Army would have preferred the S-61R version with a cargo ramp under the tail, but that would have vastly simplified the logistics and training tails.