Oh and merging the Air Force with the Navy and Army would be massive, cost billions and still manage to be just as inefficient.
It would stop the airforces direction being dictated by fighter jocks and replace them with people who think the A-10 is awesome. The A-10, a plane the airfoce loved so little that they tried to give them to the army until people pointed out that they had wings so fell under their purview.
The A-10 is awesomeness personified, the people currently and historically in charge of the airforce wanted nothing to do with it as it wasn't a high altitude air superiority fighter.
Ergo, they suck.
I'm sensing some bias.
"This change would cost billions"
"but d00d the a10 rocks and they'd use if if we did this"
Keeping it the way it is costs even more. I mean, it isn't as though the Air Force is an incredibly functional organization. They engage in fratricide frequently, spend truckloads of money on fighter jock toys, basically refuse to engage in their one mission that is actually useful right now (CAS) and seem to have a culture that isn't amenable to fixing these problems. You haven't made any case that destroying that organizational culture and moving its responsibilities into the Navy and Army would be 'just as ineffecient'. Neither of those organizations are run by fighter pilots who think that having some cool looking air superiority fighter is more important than actually doing their jobs.
It wasn't my argument, I was just pointing out his odd viewpoint.
I don't see how it is odd. It would cost money but potentially make them actually do their jobs. Better to spend up front in return for long run savings AND have organizations that are more effective than to just shuffle along with the status quo. Their distaste for the A-10 is indicative of a culture that isn't willing to perform missions it finds icky or mundane.
It wasn't my argument, I was just pointing out his odd viewpoint.
I don't see how it is odd. It would cost money but potentially make them actually do their jobs. Better to spend up front in return for long run savings AND have organizations that are more effective than to just shuffle along with the status quo. Their distaste for the A-10 is indicative of a culture that isn't willing to perform missions it finds icky or mundane.
Oh and merging the Air Force with the Navy and Army would be massive, cost billions and still manage to be just as inefficient.
It would stop the airforces direction being dictated by fighter jocks and replace them with people who think the A-10 is awesome. The A-10, a plane the airfoce loved so little that they tried to give them to the army until people pointed out that they had wings so fell under their purview.
The A-10 is awesomeness personified, the people currently and historically in charge of the airforce wanted nothing to do with it as it wasn't a high altitude air superiority fighter.
Ergo, they suck.
I'm sensing some bias.
"This change would cost billions"
"but d00d the a10 rocks and they'd use if if we did this"
Keeping it the way it is costs even more. I mean, it isn't as though the Air Force is an incredibly functional organization. They engage in fratricide frequently, spend truckloads of money on fighter jock toys, basically refuse to engage in their one mission that is actually useful right now (CAS) and seem to have a culture that isn't amenable to fixing these problems. You haven't made any case that destroying that organizational culture and moving its responsibilities into the Navy and Army would be 'just as ineffecient'. Neither of those organizations are run by fighter pilots who think that having some cool looking air superiority fighter is more important than actually doing their jobs.
Who the fuck are you again? Friendly fire is far from frequent, sure it happens too often but it definitely isn't frequent and isn't always the fault of the air force.
The air force isn't just about dropping bombs anyways. They have a huge number of transport planes, refuelers, electronic warfare, etc. They also have all the satelites and ICBMs, which is a huge mission too. Oh and the whole internet thing, but I know a lot about that.
Navy has space, cyber, ect assets as well. And ICBM's on subs which is in many ways a lot better.
Than again the DON has a bit of everything.
Including their own little army.
Of course, as much as the idea of rolling the Air Force into the Army/Navy amuses me, at that point you'd have to argue why you wouldn't also roll the Navy into the Army (or vice versa, I suppose) as well.
Then again, I'm also unconvinced that there aren't some long-term efficiencies to be found by consolidating the branches, enough to outweigh any short-term costs. Still, never gonna happen. Ever.
Navy has space, cyber, ect assets as well. And ICBM's on subs which is in many ways a lot better.
Than again the DON has a bit of everything.
Including their own little army.
Of course, as much as the idea of rolling the Air Force into the Army/Navy amuses me, at that point you'd have to argue why you wouldn't also roll the Navy into the Army (or vice versa, I suppose) as well.
Then again, I'm also unconvinced that there aren't some long-term efficiencies to be found by consolidating the branches, enough to outweigh any short-term costs. Still, never gonna happen. Ever.
Well, yeah, way too much tradition and dick waving for that to happen.
Still though the air force is laughably more wasteful and full of prissy little glory boys than all the others.
I'd wager you could roll the electronic/cyber/space assets into the Navy, and then recreate the Army Aircorps and avoid a lot of waste.
While we are at it we could also work on conslidating the NSA, NRO, CIA, and DIA... one can dream.
EDIT- the Chairforce also has a high percentage and larger problem with religious fuck nuts.
Navy has space, cyber, ect assets as well. And ICBM's on subs which is in many ways a lot better.
Than again the DON has a bit of everything.
Including their own little army.
Of course, as much as the idea of rolling the Air Force into the Army/Navy amuses me, at that point you'd have to argue why you wouldn't also roll the Navy into the Army (or vice versa, I suppose) as well.
Then again, I'm also unconvinced that there aren't some long-term efficiencies to be found by consolidating the branches, enough to outweigh any short-term costs. Still, never gonna happen. Ever.
Well, yeah, way too much tradition and dick waving for that to happen.
Still though the air force is laughably more wasteful and full of prissy little glory boys than all the others.
I'd wager you could roll the electronic/cyber/space assets into the Navy, and then recreate the Army Aircorps and avoid a lot of waste.
While we are at it we could also work on conslidating the NSA, NRO, CIA, and DIA... one can dream.
SPACE COMMAND, I'm telling you guys, this will work.
Anyways the only religious crazies were supposedly in the academy, I ran into a few but that is more of a problem with the whole military/republican/conservative crowd anyways.
Navy has space, cyber, ect assets as well. And ICBM's on subs which is in many ways a lot better.
Than again the DON has a bit of everything.
Including their own little army.
Of course, as much as the idea of rolling the Air Force into the Army/Navy amuses me, at that point you'd have to argue why you wouldn't also roll the Navy into the Army (or vice versa, I suppose) as well.
Then again, I'm also unconvinced that there aren't some long-term efficiencies to be found by consolidating the branches, enough to outweigh any short-term costs. Still, never gonna happen. Ever.
The American military has the same problem the UK military has on an much grander scale. Each branch has to have its own little version of the other branches in there. Why do the army need to have their own planes and boats? Why do the air force need to have their own infantry? Why do the navy have planes and infantry as well?
If the branches learned to co-operate and work together more they wouldn't need to waste vast sums of money trying to replicate each other. Each should stick to its own mission and leave the other branches to their perviews. That alone would probably save a metric fuckton of money.
Navy has space, cyber, ect assets as well. And ICBM's on subs which is in many ways a lot better.
Than again the DON has a bit of everything.
Including their own little army.
Of course, as much as the idea of rolling the Air Force into the Army/Navy amuses me, at that point you'd have to argue why you wouldn't also roll the Navy into the Army (or vice versa, I suppose) as well.
Then again, I'm also unconvinced that there aren't some long-term efficiencies to be found by consolidating the branches, enough to outweigh any short-term costs. Still, never gonna happen. Ever.
The American military has the same problem the UK military has on an much grander scale. Each branch has to have its own little version of the other branches in there. Why do the army need to have their own planes and boats? Why do the air force need to have their own infantry? Why do the navy have planes and infantry as well?
If the branches learned to co-operate and work together more they wouldn't need to waste vast sums of money trying to replicate each other. Each should stick to its own mission and leave the other branches to their perviews. That alone would probably save a metric fuckton of money.
Yeah the problem is in their own goals.
Let's just take planes. The chairforce, err airforce (seriously dude if you can't take interservice ribbing you won't last long, was navy so say seamen or squid, heard it all) is run by fighter jocks, who's main interest is in.... fancy air superiority fighters. Which really has fuck all to do with the sort of aircraft the army and navy want. Yes the navy can use them, but it's more focused around fighter/attack style planes and the army really wants close in air support.
So giving each sole control of one aspect will lead to a mess.
Hence the reason the A10 was brought up. The A10 is a fucking monster and it's a close in support/tank killer like none other. The army and marines love the damn thing. But the airforce keeps trying to kill it off and wants more air superiority fighters.
Or see the mess with the JSF and what each force wants.
The airforce taking over the air division of the navy is laughable. As their goals aren't the same, that's why the navy has it's own commands for this sort of thing. Nor does the navy have any sort of use for something with limited flight time that takes a massive runway and to top it all off has some of it's features taken out by rain (gets fucked by water, won't touch it).
So each of the forces have some replication because their current needs just don't align.
Oddly enough, the real outlier here is the airforce. You can largely blame this on the public, and congress, and their current fetish with casualty free conflicts and the concept that we can just airwar the crap out of everybody, which has proven an iffy proposition at best.
Morphing the airforce back into the army would go a long way to cleaning things up and having a better "large picture" of the situation.
I didn't take chairforce personally, I am actually out of the air force now but I didn't know what branch you were so I just went with that. Hope you didn't take it personally.
Anyways I think that there is a huge disconnect with the Air Force leadership, they just don't get it. Even for the air force, all they understand is their little word which is quickly becoming outdated.
Navy has space, cyber, ect assets as well. And ICBM's on subs which is in many ways a lot better.
Than again the DON has a bit of everything.
Including their own little army.
Of course, as much as the idea of rolling the Air Force into the Army/Navy amuses me, at that point you'd have to argue why you wouldn't also roll the Navy into the Army (or vice versa, I suppose) as well.
Then again, I'm also unconvinced that there aren't some long-term efficiencies to be found by consolidating the branches, enough to outweigh any short-term costs. Still, never gonna happen. Ever.
Canada pulled this awhile back.
There seems little reason for separate branches of your military at this point.
Navy has space, cyber, ect assets as well. And ICBM's on subs which is in many ways a lot better.
Than again the DON has a bit of everything.
Including their own little army.
Of course, as much as the idea of rolling the Air Force into the Army/Navy amuses me, at that point you'd have to argue why you wouldn't also roll the Navy into the Army (or vice versa, I suppose) as well.
Then again, I'm also unconvinced that there aren't some long-term efficiencies to be found by consolidating the branches, enough to outweigh any short-term costs. Still, never gonna happen. Ever.
Canada pulled this awhile back.
There seems little reason for separate branches of your military at this point.
Surely there's a wider question though as to whether this results in actual gains though? I mean, you could nominally throw everything under one banner but if you then just get a natural separation of command happening within that organization what have you achieved?
The thing is, and Modern Man already brought this up, is that the US doesn't have that many carriers so it can launch a war on Europe, Asia, the Middle East AND Russia.
It's so it can launch a war on Europe, Asian, the Middle East OR Russia. Carriers aren't the quickest things in the world and one of them can't be everywhere at once.
It's not about launching them all at the same time, it's about being able to respond fast. And that means you need a bunch spread out around the world.
Yes, we need to be ready in case tomorrow England declares war on us and steals our city states from us.
Please.
I actually am not in favor of scrapping them, because carriers are the swiss army knives of our military and we actually use them a great deal (even in peace time), and they aren't that expensive given what they do (a fully armed and staffed carrier costs about the same as a B-2 bomber), the facilities to build more and the technology to build more has already had the costs spent there, so no reason to not replace them as they age.
But if the US lost all but 4 carrier groups tomorrow to the president clicking the "Delete unit" button? Would Russia suddenly go "AH HA! Their advantage is gone! QUICK EVERYONE DECLARE WAR!"? I don't think they would, having a single operational carrier battlegroup at all times on each side of the US still gives the country significantly more force projection than the entire rest of the world (given that we have a dozen or so groups centered around smaller carriers that are the global naval standard for what the word "carrier" means in addition to the Nimitzes)
I'd point to the Falkland war as a clear Indication that our "carriers" >> generally accepted carries. 2 of them and we'd have had numerical equality with Argentina rather than British going in there down something like 6:1.
The Falklands was made a bit rough for the UK by Argentina's recent purchase of French built Exocet anti-ship missiles.
The problem seems to be West's military industrial complex uses their government's defense budget to pay for R&D so they can make big profits on regional conflicts. I really don't understand how it's not illegal to sell things like that to other countries. If I were the head of defense of some country my first action would be to lobby for all of my weapons not to be available to anyone who isn't an ally.
You can't really call Argentina in the 80's an ally of anyone. Even Argentina.
The problem seems to be West's military industrial complex uses their government's defense budget to pay for R&D so they can make big profits on regional conflicts. I really don't understand how it's not illegal to sell things like that to other countries. If I were the head of defense of some country my first action would be to lobby for all of my weapons not to be available to anyone who isn't an ally.
You can't really call Argentina in the 80's an ally of anyone. Even Argentina.
The French were less than responsible arms merchants in the 80's. Remember, they weren't really part of NATO to the same extent as the UK or the US. They were happy to sell weapons to anyone who wasn't likely to be a threat to French interests. Argentina fit into that category.
The US record in that regard is hit or miss. Sure, selling F-16's to Australia or South Korea is risk-free. But we've also sold advanced weapons systems to countries like Pakistan- there's a decent chance we'll have to shoot them down someday And Iran stlll has some old US tanks and jets in its inventory (though they're obsolete by this point).
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
We should just expand the procurement budget and buy up weapons from everywhere. Might be easier to fight militant groups if we buy up all the weapons before they can get them.
Fuck, lets just ditch everything but the Marine Corps. They got ships, Aircraft and Tanks. Plus they seem to be doing all the heavy fighting anyways.
You are going to mention that their ships are actually manned by the navy? Neeeeerd.
I was actualy going to point out the fact that the Army runs p.much all the major training faucilities where Marines learn how to do cool shit like jump out of planes, drive armour, and jump out of airplanes.
which leads to the question, if we're talking about rolling up the airforce into the army\navy, why not the Marine Corp?
Those F16s we sold them are already obsolete, they can't even compete with our f16s that we have now. Not to mention any other aircraft, or the f22. Hell a couple f-22s could probably shoot down their entire air force.
The problem seems to be West's military industrial complex uses their government's defense budget to pay for R&D so they can make big profits on regional conflicts. I really don't understand how it's not illegal to sell things like that to other countries. If I were the head of defense of some country my first action would be to lobby for all of my weapons not to be available to anyone who isn't an ally.
You can't really call Argentina in the 80's an ally of anyone. Even Argentina.
The French were less than responsible arms merchants in the 80's. Remember, they weren't really part of NATO to the same extent as the UK or the US. They were happy to sell weapons to anyone who wasn't likely to be a threat to French interests. Argentina fit into that category.
The US record in that regard is hit or miss. Sure, selling F-16's to Australia or South Korea is risk-free. But we've also sold advanced weapons systems to countries like Pakistan- there's a decent chance we'll have to shoot them down someday And Iran stlll has some old US tanks and jets in its inventory (though they're obsolete by this point).
The french were, and remain, dishonest arms merchants out for non other than profit and should have no allies and be viewed as an enemy to western progressive nations.
Fuck the french.
nstf on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Fuck, lets just ditch everything but the Marine Corps. They got ships, Aircraft and Tanks. Plus they seem to be doing all the heavy fighting anyways.
You are going to mention that their ships are actually manned by the navy? Neeeeerd.
I was actualy going to point out the fact that the Army runs p.much all the major training faucilities where Marines learn how to do cool shit like jump out of planes, drive armour, and jump out of airplanes.
which leads to the question, if we're talking about rolling up the airforce into the army\navy, why not the Marine Corp?
yeah there really isn't a good reason for a distinct marine corps.
the army can take on the traditional responsibility to repel shipboard boarders
Those F16s we sold them are already obsolete, they can't even compete with our f16s that we have now. Not to mention any other aircraft, or the f22. Hell a couple f-22s could probably shoot down their entire air force.
Don't mean shit dude. One 5-15 wing could wax most people silly, so could a carrier wing, so why the f-22, unless you want to win soley on air and never fight on the ground. In the end, you do have to fight on the ground. Hence why the army vs airforce, and why the navy has a "stable" air fleet, they are willing to get killed to help marines.
Chairforce has none of that, it's fratracide incarnate, it should be abolished.
Fuck, lets just ditch everything but the Marine Corps. They got ships, Aircraft and Tanks. Plus they seem to be doing all the heavy fighting anyways.
You are going to mention that their ships are actually manned by the navy? Neeeeerd.
I was actualy going to point out the fact that the Army runs p.much all the major training faucilities where Marines learn how to do cool shit like jump out of planes, drive armour, and jump out of airplanes.
which leads to the question, if we're talking about rolling up the airforce into the army\navy, why not the Marine Corp?
yeah there really isn't a good reason for a distinct marine corps.
the army can take on the traditional responsibility to repel shipboard boarders
Bullshit, as someone that's stormed ships, it's nasty close quarters dirty as combat. Even the USMC doesn't have qualified people till you get to recon. We have special teams for it, it's ugly, nastly, bloody, and you don't want to be near it.
nstf on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
yeah there really isn't a good reason for a distinct marine corps.
the army can take on the traditional responsibility to repel shipboard boarders
Bullshit, as someone that's stormed ships, it's nasty close quarters dirty as combat. Even the USMC doesn't have qualified people till you get to recon. We have special teams for it, it's ugly, nastly, bloody, and you don't want to be near it.
i'm sure it sucks
but it's not really the sort of thing that we need a whole branch of the military for anymore
yeah there really isn't a good reason for a distinct marine corps.
the army can take on the traditional responsibility to repel shipboard boarders
Bullshit, as someone that's stormed ships, it's nasty close quarters dirty as combat. Even the USMC doesn't have qualified people till you get to recon. We have special teams for it, it's ugly, nastly, bloody, and you don't want to be near it.
i'm sure it sucks
but it's not really the sort of thing that we need a whole branch of the military for anymore
USMC is part of DON it's not a seperate branch for the most part.
The army even fails at house to house, you think they can work 10 feet to 10 feet, we use seals and intel for that. It's nasty, ughly, and just all out bad.
nstf on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
yeah there really isn't a good reason for a distinct marine corps.
the army can take on the traditional responsibility to repel shipboard boarders
Bullshit, as someone that's stormed ships, it's nasty close quarters dirty as combat. Even the USMC doesn't have qualified people till you get to recon. We have special teams for it, it's ugly, nastly, bloody, and you don't want to be near it.
i'm sure it sucks
but it's not really the sort of thing that we need a whole branch of the military for anymore
USMC is part of DON it's not a seperate branch for the most part.
technically, yeah
but when it comes to appropriations and operations and administration and p much everything
in practice, they're their own underfunded branch
i contracted to the marines for a few years. they were fucking terrible to work for.
yeah there really isn't a good reason for a distinct marine corps.
the army can take on the traditional responsibility to repel shipboard boarders
Bullshit, as someone that's stormed ships, it's nasty close quarters dirty as combat. Even the USMC doesn't have qualified people till you get to recon. We have special teams for it, it's ugly, nastly, bloody, and you don't want to be near it.
i'm sure it sucks
but it's not really the sort of thing that we need a whole branch of the military for anymore
USMC is part of DON it's not a seperate branch for the most part.
technically, yeah
but when it comes to appropriations and operations and administration and p much everything
in practice, they're their own underfunded branch
i contracted to the marines for a few years. they were fucking terrible to work for.
the fucking worst.
yeah missed my edit, and yeah they are a pain.
But true ship to ship combat, is a fucking royal mess. It blows house to house out of the water, it's nasty and bad. And the army just really isn't trained to do it, frankly most of the navy isn't either.
The problem seems to be West's military industrial complex uses their government's defense budget to pay for R&D so they can make big profits on regional conflicts. I really don't understand how it's not illegal to sell things like that to other countries. If I were the head of defense of some country my first action would be to lobby for all of my weapons not to be available to anyone who isn't an ally.
You can't really call Argentina in the 80's an ally of anyone. Even Argentina.
It's not just profit. A lot of these arms sales are also politically motivated, such as the recent deal we made with Saudi Arabia. We're soon going to sell them F-15s plus a whole bunch of other equipment in order to counter Iranian influence in the region. Of course, we have to make sure we don't sell them too much good stuff otherwise Israel will feel threatened.
I don't get all the hate on fighter jets. Yes, the F-22 was ridiculously expensive, but I think a large part of that was political/bureaucratic bullshitting. That should be targeted. But to do away with our fighter force completely seems foolish. I mean, the F-15 is over 30 years old! Yes, it's had a few upgrades since then, but we definitely need something more modern to counter the new jets Russia and China are building.
Do I think we're going to enter a conventional war with Russia or China anytime soon? No. But unlike the US, Russia has no qualms about exporting its best military products. Even Venezuela has a squadron of Su-30s. Not to mention that Sukhoi plans to export its newest jet in development, the PAK-FA.
Aeneas on
Hear about the cow that tried to jump over a barbed-wire fence? It was udder disaster.
The problem seems to be West's military industrial complex uses their government's defense budget to pay for R&D so they can make big profits on regional conflicts. I really don't understand how it's not illegal to sell things like that to other countries. If I were the head of defense of some country my first action would be to lobby for all of my weapons not to be available to anyone who isn't an ally.
You can't really call Argentina in the 80's an ally of anyone. Even Argentina.
It's not just profit. A lot of these arms sales are also politically motivated, such as the recent deal we made with Saudi Arabia. We're soon going to sell them F-15s plus a whole bunch of other equipment in order to counter Iranian influence in the region. Of course, we have to make sure we don't sell them too much good stuff otherwise Israel will feel threatened.
There is an F-15 and then there is a real F-15, they are not the same. We aren't selling them fully maxed out jets, and in reality the targeting and other items are the key part. For the most part we are selling them paper airplanes.
For being underfunded the marines seem to do their job pretty well. From wikipedia:
"The Marine Corps accounts for around six percent of the military budget of the United States. The cost per Marine is $20,000 less than the cost of a serviceman from the other service"
Probably not the first place where you should start making cuts.
For being underfunded the marines seem to do their job pretty well. From wikipedia:
"The Marine Corps accounts for around six percent of the military budget of the United States. The cost per Marine is $20,000 less than the cost of a serviceman from the other service"
Probably not the first place where you should start making cuts.
They are DON, compare DON sailor cost to support a marine.
Full disclaimer, USN intel, directly for an admiral. USN DOD contractor after that.
Posts
Keeping it the way it is costs even more. I mean, it isn't as though the Air Force is an incredibly functional organization. They engage in fratricide frequently, spend truckloads of money on fighter jock toys, basically refuse to engage in their one mission that is actually useful right now (CAS) and seem to have a culture that isn't amenable to fixing these problems. You haven't made any case that destroying that organizational culture and moving its responsibilities into the Navy and Army would be 'just as ineffecient'. Neither of those organizations are run by fighter pilots who think that having some cool looking air superiority fighter is more important than actually doing their jobs.
I don't see how it is odd. It would cost money but potentially make them actually do their jobs. Better to spend up front in return for long run savings AND have organizations that are more effective than to just shuffle along with the status quo. Their distaste for the A-10 is indicative of a culture that isn't willing to perform missions it finds icky or mundane.
You're giving that post too much credit.
The air force isn't just about dropping bombs anyways. They have a huge number of transport planes, refuelers, electronic warfare, etc. They also have all the satelites and ICBMs, which is a huge mission too. Oh and the whole internet thing, but I know a lot about that.
It all goes to SPACE COMMAND.
Except the A-10s, apparently the army wants them.
Than again the DON has a bit of everything.
Including their own little army.
Of course, as much as the idea of rolling the Air Force into the Army/Navy amuses me, at that point you'd have to argue why you wouldn't also roll the Navy into the Army (or vice versa, I suppose) as well.
Then again, I'm also unconvinced that there aren't some long-term efficiencies to be found by consolidating the branches, enough to outweigh any short-term costs. Still, never gonna happen. Ever.
Well, yeah, way too much tradition and dick waving for that to happen.
Still though the air force is laughably more wasteful and full of prissy little glory boys than all the others.
I'd wager you could roll the electronic/cyber/space assets into the Navy, and then recreate the Army Aircorps and avoid a lot of waste.
While we are at it we could also work on conslidating the NSA, NRO, CIA, and DIA... one can dream.
EDIT- the Chairforce also has a high percentage and larger problem with religious fuck nuts.
SPACE COMMAND, I'm telling you guys, this will work.
Anyways the only religious crazies were supposedly in the academy, I ran into a few but that is more of a problem with the whole military/republican/conservative crowd anyways.
The American military has the same problem the UK military has on an much grander scale. Each branch has to have its own little version of the other branches in there. Why do the army need to have their own planes and boats? Why do the air force need to have their own infantry? Why do the navy have planes and infantry as well?
If the branches learned to co-operate and work together more they wouldn't need to waste vast sums of money trying to replicate each other. Each should stick to its own mission and leave the other branches to their perviews. That alone would probably save a metric fuckton of money.
The UK is kind of considering doing exactly that.
Yeah the problem is in their own goals.
Let's just take planes. The chairforce, err airforce (seriously dude if you can't take interservice ribbing you won't last long, was navy so say seamen or squid, heard it all) is run by fighter jocks, who's main interest is in.... fancy air superiority fighters. Which really has fuck all to do with the sort of aircraft the army and navy want. Yes the navy can use them, but it's more focused around fighter/attack style planes and the army really wants close in air support.
So giving each sole control of one aspect will lead to a mess.
Hence the reason the A10 was brought up. The A10 is a fucking monster and it's a close in support/tank killer like none other. The army and marines love the damn thing. But the airforce keeps trying to kill it off and wants more air superiority fighters.
Or see the mess with the JSF and what each force wants.
The airforce taking over the air division of the navy is laughable. As their goals aren't the same, that's why the navy has it's own commands for this sort of thing. Nor does the navy have any sort of use for something with limited flight time that takes a massive runway and to top it all off has some of it's features taken out by rain (gets fucked by water, won't touch it).
So each of the forces have some replication because their current needs just don't align.
Oddly enough, the real outlier here is the airforce. You can largely blame this on the public, and congress, and their current fetish with casualty free conflicts and the concept that we can just airwar the crap out of everybody, which has proven an iffy proposition at best.
Morphing the airforce back into the army would go a long way to cleaning things up and having a better "large picture" of the situation.
i dont want to join the army for my need
my need for speed
Anyways I think that there is a huge disconnect with the Air Force leadership, they just don't get it. Even for the air force, all they understand is their little word which is quickly becoming outdated.
Canada pulled this awhile back.
There seems little reason for separate branches of your military at this point.
Surely there's a wider question though as to whether this results in actual gains though? I mean, you could nominally throw everything under one banner but if you then just get a natural separation of command happening within that organization what have you achieved?
The Falklands was made a bit rough for the UK by Argentina's recent purchase of French built Exocet anti-ship missiles.
The problem seems to be West's military industrial complex uses their government's defense budget to pay for R&D so they can make big profits on regional conflicts. I really don't understand how it's not illegal to sell things like that to other countries. If I were the head of defense of some country my first action would be to lobby for all of my weapons not to be available to anyone who isn't an ally.
You can't really call Argentina in the 80's an ally of anyone. Even Argentina.
The US record in that regard is hit or miss. Sure, selling F-16's to Australia or South Korea is risk-free. But we've also sold advanced weapons systems to countries like Pakistan- there's a decent chance we'll have to shoot them down someday And Iran stlll has some old US tanks and jets in its inventory (though they're obsolete by this point).
Rigorous Scholarship
I was actualy going to point out the fact that the Army runs p.much all the major training faucilities where Marines learn how to do cool shit like jump out of planes, drive armour, and jump out of airplanes.
which leads to the question, if we're talking about rolling up the airforce into the army\navy, why not the Marine Corp?
The french were, and remain, dishonest arms merchants out for non other than profit and should have no allies and be viewed as an enemy to western progressive nations.
Fuck the french.
yeah there really isn't a good reason for a distinct marine corps.
the army can take on the traditional responsibility to repel shipboard boarders
Don't mean shit dude. One 5-15 wing could wax most people silly, so could a carrier wing, so why the f-22, unless you want to win soley on air and never fight on the ground. In the end, you do have to fight on the ground. Hence why the army vs airforce, and why the navy has a "stable" air fleet, they are willing to get killed to help marines.
Chairforce has none of that, it's fratracide incarnate, it should be abolished.
Bullshit, as someone that's stormed ships, it's nasty close quarters dirty as combat. Even the USMC doesn't have qualified people till you get to recon. We have special teams for it, it's ugly, nastly, bloody, and you don't want to be near it.
i'm sure it sucks
but it's not really the sort of thing that we need a whole branch of the military for anymore
USMC is part of DON it's not a seperate branch for the most part.
The army even fails at house to house, you think they can work 10 feet to 10 feet, we use seals and intel for that. It's nasty, ughly, and just all out bad.
technically, yeah
but when it comes to appropriations and operations and administration and p much everything
in practice, they're their own underfunded branch
i contracted to the marines for a few years. they were fucking terrible to work for.
the fucking worst.
those bastards
yeah missed my edit, and yeah they are a pain.
But true ship to ship combat, is a fucking royal mess. It blows house to house out of the water, it's nasty and bad. And the army just really isn't trained to do it, frankly most of the navy isn't either.
It's not just profit. A lot of these arms sales are also politically motivated, such as the recent deal we made with Saudi Arabia. We're soon going to sell them F-15s plus a whole bunch of other equipment in order to counter Iranian influence in the region. Of course, we have to make sure we don't sell them too much good stuff otherwise Israel will feel threatened.
I don't get all the hate on fighter jets. Yes, the F-22 was ridiculously expensive, but I think a large part of that was political/bureaucratic bullshitting. That should be targeted. But to do away with our fighter force completely seems foolish. I mean, the F-15 is over 30 years old! Yes, it's had a few upgrades since then, but we definitely need something more modern to counter the new jets Russia and China are building.
Do I think we're going to enter a conventional war with Russia or China anytime soon? No. But unlike the US, Russia has no qualms about exporting its best military products. Even Venezuela has a squadron of Su-30s. Not to mention that Sukhoi plans to export its newest jet in development, the PAK-FA.
There is an F-15 and then there is a real F-15, they are not the same. We aren't selling them fully maxed out jets, and in reality the targeting and other items are the key part. For the most part we are selling them paper airplanes.
"The Marine Corps accounts for around six percent of the military budget of the United States. The cost per Marine is $20,000 less than the cost of a serviceman from the other service"
Probably not the first place where you should start making cuts.
They are DON, compare DON sailor cost to support a marine.
Full disclaimer, USN intel, directly for an admiral. USN DOD contractor after that.