With modern warfare being so different to that of 40 years ago, do we really need the same three branched approach to armed forces?
Looking at it this way, the Navy has a large compliment of Aircraft and in some countries a significant ground force (Marines etc).
The Army often has a large aircraft component.
The Air force has a small armed forces section however modern war is dominated by air power.
Clearly there is a billions of dollars duplication in admin and equipment there.
I am not talking cuts to the fighting force either, just redistributing the current resources so that more money can be spent on better equipment for armed forces, medical research, whatever else you can spend money on.
Personally I think that the Army would be the group most likely to go as their role could be effectively taken over by a bigger Navy. Air warfare would perform the initial strike, then the marines would perform the task of "occupation" if necessary.
Looking at it this way, the Navy has a large compliment of Aircraft and in some countries a significant ground force (Marines etc).
The Army often has a large aircraft component.
The Air force has a small armed forces section however modern war is dominated by air power.
Clearly there is a billions of dollars duplication in admin and equipment there.
I am not talking cuts to the fighting force either, just redistributing the current resources so that more money can be spent on better equipment for armed forces, medical research, whatever else you can spend money on.
Personally I think that the Army would be the group most likely to go as their role could be effectively taken over by a bigger Navy. Air warfare would perform the initial strike, then the marines would perform the task of "occupation" if necessary.