I was chatting with a friend about the armed forces and was questioning why we still have three treads to our national defence ie army, navy and air force.
They are simply different weapon delivery systems so why do you need these overloaded management structures of Field Marshals,Generals,Rear Admirals,Queer Admirals,Air Commodore and Air Chief Marshals when you could have one person to do it. Perhaps you would only just need one military person to decide the delivery location, the required ordnance and the timing a bit like ordering something on the Amazon app.
We just accept what has gone on in the past but rarely challenge why it is still relevant to the world today.
A suggestion it could be called the Integrated Defence Force but then i thought the UK Defence Force may be best.
Any thoughts?

Very sensible, especially given the fact that wars are fought now with far different strategies and approaches. A single co-ordinated and expert management structure would be more appropriate. It would never be accepted by the military hierarchy though, too many highly paid and prestigious jobs at risk.

The Canadians did this in the early seventies, it was a disaster. So much so the Canadian Government finally caved in and reverted to the three services.
The services are different because there roles are different..would you combine the Police, Fire Brigade and Paramedics together….?
One senior Jack of all trades officer commanding eveything would be a nightmare.
It sounds like the sort of idea a politician would come up with, which is why it wouldn’t work.

Would just be an expensive regrading and administrative exercise. You still need your specialisms. Less officers I agree with.

Anyway the RN and RAF are part of our national identity. I thought people were moaning about that being eroded?

things would be co ordinated now as they were in the past. doubt there would be much love for the idea in the milatary anyway and the public at large.

Perhaps it didnt work for the Canadians as they got the "process wrong" as our Prime Minister would say. However there are some very powerful interests to make sure this would not work and it would be made not to work here.
Can you imagine a Rear Admiral at the Jobcentre trying to argue that he has no experience to be the attendant at the local boating lake

Warfare has changed a hell of a lot since the 70s and I'm pretty sure if the will was there then a single overarching management structure could be effective and efficient. You'd still have your specialist leaders and managers at lower but appropriate levels.
Like most organisations I suspect, top heavy at senior management and boardroom equivalent levels.
As discussed though it wouldn't be allowed to get past think tank level.

What’s changed….
The Canadians created a single force and three three services hated it because they are different services and changed back to their original format over the past 20 years to their original format of three separate services….they then tried it and found it shite….we’re dealing the armed forces ..not fecking plumbers.

Why not Raj makes it work

Well the fact that drones are used so much, do we need air force, army, navy drone squadrons under 3 different arms of our defence forces?
We have a combined military operation of much fewer personnel to manage and organise, but I wouldn't mind betting the reduction in numbers at the top is not proportionate to the frontline personnel?
Just because things have always been done a certain way doesn't mean it's the best or most efficient way. And of course the 3 separate entities hated it, as just about everyone who's been involved in a corporate takeover or re-organisation hate it. Nothing to do with plumbers.........??
Pretty sure the NHS and various government departments could be streamlined to be more effective and efficient.
Not going to happen so we'll never know.

I wonder if the Royal family have a yearly "cost improvement target" to meet every year like the NHS and government departments have?
I am ok with the King,Queen and the likes of Princess Ann who do something but as for the hangers on i suggest they are given zero hours contracts and be made to work for what they earn.

I spent 10 years as a planning applicator, basically how can we streamline this job/ organisation …..people can be very bloody minded while you create lots of paperwork and eventually a truce is called, it’s called human nature.
Drones have been around for ages, they’re just getting the publicity as an object for depositing a small load on a target…because the meeeeeja have made them flavour of the war.
Our armed services have been neglected since they end of the Cold War with the greedy politicians peace dividend and still they buggered things up.
If the nurses and teachers had been reduced in similar numbers there’d be hell to pay..
Don’t give em ideas.

Just cut officers. Job done. Let NCOs be NCOs. No need for any rebranding. BTW, there'll always be a need for human crewed aircraft and folks controlling UAVs need much the same quals as a regular pilot.

Israel has a similar number of full time military personnel to the UK and a huge number of fully trained reservists under a single central command IDF. It seems to work well, but the crucial point is that that is how they formed their military from the start in 1948.
India is forming integrated campaign military forces because they think integration is the best way to organise. I'd imagine if these are successful then more centrally integrated military will be their end goal.
So it can work, as a new force or by re-organisation.
"We've always done things this way" isn't always the best way, and I know there'd be huge resistance. That's why it'll never change.

So what? What is it you think you'll save from this? Do you even know or are you guessing? Those countries still have air forces and navies under separate commands. You want us to do some expensive rebranding for what is effectively the same thing as we have now?

I'm offering an opinion as I think the starting thread is a good idea, obviously you missed the bit where I said that I believe the result would be a more effective and efficient military for the UK?
Those countries don't have duplication or triplication of the higher levels of command. A single team approach generally is more effective and efficient than 3 different teams with their own nuanced management strategies trying to work together.
My opinion that's all.

Not applicable to us. A lot of things are joint now and we still retain service identities. Nothing to see here.

Says you, it's a f*cking forum. If there's nothing to see here go look elsewhere.

Yep says me. I know more about this than you. There is plenty of other stuff where it's the other way round. You'll see I don't contribute to those discussions because I don't know enough about the subject but you might.

You know what you know and I know what I know. I don't know what you know and you don't know what I know.
It's a forum we're all allowed to post opinions that's the way these things work. I'm sorry but you don't get to end a thread because you have a different opinion even if you're the world's expert on the subject.

I just said I know more than you about this. You seem to think you know about everything. I'm different to you. I shut up when I don't know about summat. Makes you look silly otherwise.

You know nothing about me yet you comment on me, doesn't that make you look silly? And my Dad's bigger than yours btw!!

As soon as you start typing, I know enough.