Thread: Integrated Defense Forces?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The Canadians tried what you're suggesting and it was a disaster. First thing that happened was a hell of a lot of promotions. The AF is extremely officer heavy and normally, the equivalent jobs on the Army and Navy side are done by the Non-Commissioned Members.

Even within the Officer Ranks, there exist a difference of responsibilities. An AF Captain commands 4 men. An Army Capt commands 100 though it could be argued that the combat taskings are somewhat similar.

And do I really want a Navy Commander taking my course army course slot just so that he could make Captain?

The Canadians since went back to their original branches and seperated the services.

Could the canadian experiment have failed because they where trying to convert conventional armed forces to this "integrated style"?

Done from the scratch, Colonel, don't you see any advantages for this form or organization? Naturally, such an organization would have to be newly planned. And conventional ways of doing things may have to be changed. But after all these problems are always their when a new thing is introduced. Would an integrated unit not bring advantages to something like the "Cold Start Doctrine" of the InA?

There is a often a conflict of opinions between the three branches depending on their background. An army guy things army style and the same for the other two branches. These conflicts at the top could be maybe defused to a certain level if a Commodore knew to certain degree why the corresponding army rank did something the way he is doing it and vice versa. Wouldn't this lead to more efficiency and cooperation?

Starship troopers style: Cant be a General until you have served in all the branches.

The above mentioned idea does look interesting and may have some merit (but i really missed this in the film).

What about the integrated command for Andaman Nicobar?
A inter service integration experiment?

That, is in my opinion, the first step in this direction. But really a small step.

I am not so sure about this now but don't the US Marines have armored, air and naval elements in their ranks. Wouldn't a Marine Air-Ground Task Force be an example of a integrated defense force?

Originally Posted by Sardaukar

Would something like this be desirable in the field? Or is it even practical?

You mean the "space" (battle-space)? Why not question the desirability or practicality at sea? In air? In near-vacuum? Your archaic, land-forces centric choice of terminology should answer your question.

PS: Didn't mean to sound pompous, but it just had to be said.

Originally Posted by VarSity

Starship troopers style: Cant be a General until you have served in all the branches. Unless something like this happens a single command is just going to fail in epic fashion.

A ticket-punching routine?

Originally Posted by Cactus

You mean the "space" (battle-space)? Why not question the desirability or practicality at sea? In air? In near-vacuum? Your archaic, land-forces centric choice of terminology should answer your question.

PS: Didn't mean to sound pompous, but it just had to be said.

Maybe i should have used the term War Theatre? Area of Operation? Just used the term "field" out of habit.

A ticket-punching routine?

Ticket-Punching Routine? What exactly are you getting at?

Originally Posted by Sardaukar

Could the canadian experiment have failed because they where trying to convert conventional armed forces to this "integrated style"?

Done from the scratch, Colonel, don't you see any advantages for this form or organization? Naturally, such an organization would have to be newly planned. And conventional ways of doing things may have to be changed. But after all these problems are always their when a new thing is introduced. Would an integrated unit not bring advantages to something like the "Cold Start Doctrine" of the InA?

The "conventional ways of doing things" is a product of centuries, if not millenia, of trial-and-error (though admittedly not all lessons have been retained). The concept of an integrated fighting-force is not an exceptionally novel idea, nor do its obvious weaknesses needed to be re-proved through trial-by-combat. A really simplified example: The case of the Vikings (Danes and Norsemen).

Originally Posted by Cactus

The "conventional ways of doing things" is a product of centuries, if not millenia, of trial-and-error (though admittedly not all lessons have been retained). The concept of an integrated fighting-force is not an exceptionally novel idea, nor do its obvious weaknesses needed to be re-proved through trial-by-combat. A really simplified example: The case of the Vikings (Danes and Norsemen).

You are technically right in stating that warfare has evolved over centuries. But on the other hand aerial warfare is not even a century old.

There are always new concepts and weapons which change the "conventional ways of doing things". Just think of MBTs that changed the way war was fought during the 2nd WW compared to the first.

So one has to be open minded about new concepts or old concepts which weren't feasible in the past but now are due to greater resources or new technologies or changing war scenarios. Network Centric warfare was maybe a joke in the old days but now it is becoming more and more realistic.

Do you have any real reasons for your distaste of the above mentioned idea? I mean experience in the "field"? OoE didn't seem to like due the experience the canadian armed forces had with it, what about you?

[QUOTE=Sardaukar;467415]Hi all, hope i am in the right sub-forum. Anyway, the thing i wanted to ask was is based on the assumption that...

Often there is a kind struggle between different branches of the armed forces when it comes to....

+) sharing the defense budget

Well they already do share the budget. I don't think you can really change this to joint. The monies will still have to be split up, even if it was joint military, you would still have the naval section trying to get money to build a new ship, the air force section wanting to buy pretty new air planes and the soldiers trying to get new boots.

+) operational differences... like how should a certain campaign be run, more Air Force or more Army etc... like in the case of the Kargil conflict where big differences came to the fore between the Air Force and the Army

A couple of problems that come to mind right off the bat.
1. An air force general is going to have preferences to using aircraft and forget about things such as Pathfinders, SEALs, sub launched Tomahawks.
2. Does trying to capture an airfield with SEALs instead of airborn sound familiar?

+) jurisdiction.... like the Air Force would like to have all the Aircrafts but the Army wants to have dedicated Aviation Wing... examples are for e.g. the case of UAVs for the US Army where the US Airforce was against this.... or who should be in charge of a Strategic Command (Nukes or Space) etc.

I don't think I'm understanding your question/point here. But I think an example of a problem with the Air Force owning all the aircraft is the A-10. It isn't shiny and fast enough for the Air Force, but ground forces were sure glad to have it.

Does anything like a Integrated Defense Force exist where the different branches are a tightly knit force with all elements united without the differentiation of Navy, Air Force and Army?

Where there is only one entity with a single command structure?
Would something like this be desirable in the field? Or is it even practical?
Would love to hear your thoughts and insights...

JFACC comes to mind.