Page 3 of 4

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:20 pm
by Roberto
Amen. The craziness of the Fed ranks in particular is why I mostly worked for the Empire (the lesser of two evils)!

@Commander McLane
I agree that there is some kind of planning and co-ordination needed, while the SecComs maintain a certain degree of independence. But couldn't that be a planning and co-ordination between the SecComs? A conference of the SecCom-commanders under the Commander in Chief (there is surely a military name for this kind of body, but I of course don't know it), that decides on where to concentrate the forces and so on?
I suppose it could be, but somehow I don't see that working very well. I think inevitably each SecCom would consistently push for more resources in *their* sector, and be reluctant to give any up. And I just can't see a SecCom breaking off from an engagement to attend a weekly committee meeting to discuss "Item 34: repair facilities in the Beesor and Onisqu systems"! I see these guys/gals as primarily prosecuting the war rather than overseeing it, using the resources allocated to them by central command.

And while the SecComs would be mobile, I don't agree with your assertion that the sectors themselves are too. I see nothing on the Wiki to suggest that this is the case (the whole use of the word "sector" would be bizarre if it were). Correct me if I'm wrong, though :)

*EDIT* I think "council of war" might have been the term you were looking for :)

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:34 am
by Commander McLane
Hmmm, re-reading the Wiki-documentation about the Galactic Navy (before the changes made by matt634)), I also think I have exaggerated the naval mobility. So probably no mobility of the sectors themselves, but nevertheless a high volatility within the sectors.

And I still envision the Galactic Navy to be different in command structure from any military we are seeing today. After all there are more than 1000 years of development in the science of military strategy and tactics between us and the time of Oolite. And for me the main issue in tactical development is self-organisation, as opposed to a central command structure.

Imagine an ant-hill, or a colony of bees. If there is an attacker at a certain place (or even a couple of attackers at a couple of places), these places will be defended by lots and lots of warriors, who arrive out of nothing in no time. When the attack is over, the remains of the attacker will (in case of the ants) be cut into small pieces and brought to the storage areas, and all the warriors will vanish again into the nothing in no time. So there is an immediate and smashing deployment of forces in the area where there are needed, and an equally immediate withdrawal, without any central command at all.

I would guess the Thargoids to be organized in a similar way (they are insects, after all!). So could there be anything more natural than to organize also the GalCop defense forces in this way, highly volatile, highly self-organized? This explains the relatively low ranking "Commander in Chief", because he actually doesn't command anything. His position is more that of a link to the GalCop president and thus to the civilian administration.

Yes, this is speculation, as nobody of us knows how armies will work 1000 years ahead. But it's also speculation to assume that they will work in exactly the same way as during WWII. To name just one strategic challenge: The sheer size of the space covered by GalCop worlds (eight widespread areas of the galaxy!) and the travel and communication limitations caused by this size physically prohibit any central command structure.

The pivot of my argument is one passage in the Galactic Navy-entry, which is still there after Matt's work on the article:
Wiki wrote:
Other than this, the Galactic Navy has no centralised command structure, as this would not be beneficial in the sort of war being fought. Instead, overall control of the Navy resides with regional commanders, called Sector Commanders (SecComs).
No "centralised command structure, as this would not be beneficial in the sort of war being fought". I think, properly expanded and interpreted, this leads exactly to my line of thought. Central command would not be beneficial, so de-central operating structures are beneficial. These have to organize themselves and at the same time co-ordinate with each other, hence the idea of self-organisation like in a bee- or ant-population that somehow acts like one body, without having a central brain. And this would be a direct response to the sort of war being fought, as also the adversaries are in fact insects, thus closer to a fighting bee-hive or ant-hill than to a human invasion army with a central head behind it. VoilĂ !

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:52 pm
by Roberto
So probably no mobility of the sectors themselves, but nevertheless a high volatility within the sectors.
Yes, that's how I see it.
I would guess the Thargoids to be organized in a similar way (they are insects, after all!). So could there be anything more natural than to organize also the GalCop defense forces in this way, highly volatile, highly self-organized?
I like your idea that the Thargoid military may behave in a similar manner to a giant ant colony. However, humans aren't insects. Even over the course of a thousand years, I don't see human nature/behaviour changing all that much.

I agree with you that reacting to "trouble spots" would be handled locally - although "immediate" deployment/withdrawal would be impossible, given the distances involved. However, if the Thargoids suddenly launched a major offensive in one area, requiring more resources to repel than the individual sector had available... There's no way that could be handled "locally". Command would be informed (assuming the SecCom realised what was happening in time), and resources shifted around accordingly.
Yes, this is speculation, as nobody of us knows how armies will work 1000 years ahead. But it's also speculation to assume that they will work in exactly the same way as during WWII.
True - we're only speculating (about a fictional organisation!). But I can't imagine there are many large-scale, successful human organisations that operate in the manner you've described - and I can't see why the decentralised, "self-organised" structure you suggest would suddenly become more efficient in 1,000 years. Even ant colonies have a queen and a clear-cut hierarchy with various castes, and - to quote Wikipedia - "are sometimes described as superorganisms because the colony appears to operate as a *unified* entity". (My stress on "unified"!) It's not "every ant for himself" - more like "every ant for the hive, within a strict hierarchy".
...the travel and communication limitations caused by this size physically prohibit any central command structure.
I'm assuming instantaneous (or near-instantaneous) communication, as we see in a lot of sci-fi (e.g. Star Trek) and appear to see in The Dark Wheel. Possibly scientifically impossible, but I imagine most people are willing to suspend disbelief in this particular instance.
The pivot of my argument is one passage in the Galactic Navy-entry, which is still there after Matt's work on the article:
Wiki wrote:
Other than this, the Galactic Navy has no centralised command structure, as this would not be beneficial in the sort of war being fought. Instead, overall control of the Navy resides with regional commanders, called Sector Commanders (SecComs).
This is one of those instances where I disagree with what's on the Wiki. Looking at the page, it appears that the original author was Selezen - but while I have huge respect for the vast majority of his stuff, I think the logic is a bit fuzzy here :)

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:10 pm
by Roberto
This is probably getting waaay off-topic now, but underlying my argument is probably the belief that the division of labour leads to greater efficiency. As argued by Adam Smith in 1776! (Tying us in neatly with the New Galactic Navy thread!)

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:21 pm
by Disembodied
I think the whole Navy is somewhat "fuzzy" (no offence intended to any of our befurred kindred out there...). It's not comparable to any sort of existing military organisation here on Earth, except perhaps the UN forces: it's dependent on a somewhat fractious and squabbling co-operative for funding and personnel, there's constant political interference and conflicting demands from above, and disputes between top-ranking officers and their sponsoring systems. I don't think the Navy is decentralised because it's more efficient -- I think it's decentralised because nobody can agree to centralise it.

It's possible, though, that this has worked to our advantage, by failing to provide the Thargoids with an identifiable target: hence their own unfocused and largely random attacks. They probe and probe but nowhere seems to be more vital than anywhere else. As a rigidly caste-structured species, with a seemingly genetic xenophobic streak, I think they're psychologically incapable of comprehending multi-species, multi-government co-operation. For them, fighting us is like fighting smoke: they can't get a grip on us at all.

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:57 pm
by Roberto
Interesting idea. But while I don't for a moment suggest that it would work perfectly (I'm sure it would be riddled with corruption/inefficiency, with conflicting interests all over the shop), I just can't imagine that there'd be no centralised structure at all. GalCop (however fractious it might be) agreed to the formation of a Navy - one Navy - and would have appointed chiefs to oversee its creation; I can't imagine those chiefs and their successors voluntarily ceding all their power/authority to regional commanders. Your very words suggest the existence of a larger structure as well: "from above", "top-ranking officers".

I should perhaps stress that despite arguing for a degree of centralisation, I'm fully on board with the idea of SecComs having a relatively free hand, even to the extent of (in some cases) launching their own political initiatives.

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:22 pm
by Disembodied
Just to clarify, when I said "from above" I was imagining a civilian authority, something like The Co-Operative Sub-Committee for Naval Affairs, who issue policy, advice and requirements to the top-ranking officers in each SecCom -- trying to address both overarching strategic concerns and local issues, all while dealing with conflicting pressures from factions and powerful individual systems within the larger Co-Op. How far such advice, policy etc. is followed by local commanders would be another issue!

Drifting further off-topic, I know, but it should be remembered that some of the most ludicrously inefficient organisations in existence are centralised, strongly hierarchical ones. It's no coincidence that SNAFU is a military acronym... :wink:

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:41 pm
by Roberto
:)

OK, what you describe sounds reasonable - I just personally prefer to envisage this "top level" as being a military rather than an civilian one, with the C-in-C presiding over it all (though he himself is subordinate to the GalCop president, and possibly a "cabinet" of some sort). I'm not sure how the C-in-C fits into your structure, unless you see him as the chairman of the committee.

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:33 pm
by Cmdr. Maegil
I think a better way of speculating is through strategic considerations: due to the nature of the war (nearly no intelligence, no chance of taking the offensive, defensive operations requiring rapid response forces to deal with incursions spread anyware over hundreds of cubic light-years), a centralized structure becomes nearly useless - a CinC can only deploy its forces and hope for the best.
There is an anecdote that, by the end the peace of Amiens and faced with a similar situation, Napoleon held a war council and he asked one of his Generals how would he deploy the army, to which the general spread the markers evenly around the borders. Napoleon is said to have asked him "and what will they do, charge douane taxes?"(Holy Sarcasm, Batman :) ).

The solution he came up with is just the kind of deployment necessary for this kind of defensive war, and is the base to the model followed by modern armies: advance deployment composed of small skirmishing units supported by large mobile forces concentrated on strategic locations, all connected by semaphores. And that is what we see in the Elite Universe - the spacers and the Police defend the systems against Thargoid marauders and report to the SecCom, and the SecCom(s) send(s) its(their) fleet(s) against the enemy's main bodies before they can do any real damage.

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:39 pm
by Disembodied
Roberto wrote:
:)

OK, what you describe sounds reasonable - I just personally prefer to envisage this "top level" as being a military rather than an civilian one, with the C-in-C presiding over it all (though he himself is subordinate to the GalCop president, and possibly a "cabinet" of some sort). I'm not sure how the C-in-C fits into your structure, unless you see him as the chairman of the committee.
To be honest, I'm not even sure that the Co-Op even has a President: that might imply a closer and more structured setup than perhaps exists... or maybe there is one with very limited and largely theoretical/ceremonial powers, similar to the UN Secretary-General. I certainly don't see the administration of the Co-Op being connected meaningfully to the general population of the ooniverse, since democratic worlds are in a severe minority.

The C-in-C as chair of the Sub-Committee of Naval Affairs (or whatever) sounds about right. It's probably parcelled out on rotation, like the chair of various UN committees: "Buggin's Turn" would be the rule. Although maybe a severe crisis, especially in the form of an obvious external threat, might allow talent to rise to, and stay at, the top (witness the drastic overhaul in the British Army High Command in WWII post-1940, where the various Blimps were shuffled out and people with more practical military abilities were put into their place).

Edit: @ Maegil -- I think yours is a fair assessment too. The SecCom structure is basically dictated by circumstance and necessity.

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:18 pm
by Roberto
I think at this point, we'll have to agree to disagree, otherwise this discussion will never end :) Though to respond to a couple of things:
To be honest, I'm not even sure that the Co-Op even has a President:
I think it's widely accepted that it does, though this is hardly "canon".
Although maybe a severe crisis, especially in the form of an obvious external threat, might allow talent to rise to, and stay at, the top
I would define the Thargoid war as a "severe crisis", requiring permanent military talent "at the top" to deal with it effectively. Sorry, but a bunch of (elected?) civilians overseeing operations just doesn't cut it for me.
There is an anecdote that, by the end the peace of Amiens and faced with a similar situation, Napoleon held a war council and he asked one of his Generals how would he deploy the army, to which the general spread the markers evenly around the borders. Napoleon is said to have asked him "and what will they do, charge douane taxes?"
It's a good thing Napoleon was in charge, then, rather than this general (and others) doing their own thing!
The solution he came up with is just the kind of deployment necessary for this kind of defensive war, and is the base to the model followed by modern armies: advance deployment composed of small skirmishing units supported by large mobile forces concentrated on strategic locations, all connected by semaphores. And that is what we see in the Elite Universe - the spacers and the Police defend the systems against Thargoid marauders and report to the SecCom, and the SecCom(s) send(s) its(their) fleet(s) against the enemy's main bodies before they can do any real damage.
I don't disagree with any of this - just with the notion that there's no centralised command structure at all. It's not just about moving ships around - it's about resources, shipbuilding, repairs, recruitment... And who does a SecCom report to when he/she is overwhelmed - a neighbouring SecCom? What if they're in disagreement?

I still prefer my model, but it's just my personal opinion.

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:49 pm
by Cmdr. Maegil
Roberto wrote:
I think at this point, we'll have to agree to disagree, otherwise this discussion will never end :)
Yup!
Roberto wrote:
To be honest, I'm not even sure that the Co-Op even has a President:
I think it's widely accepted that it does, though this is hardly "canon".
Drew wrote about him, so even if isn't Elite canon, it certainly is for Oolite.
Roberto wrote:
The solution he came up with is just the kind of deployment necessary for this kind of defensive war, and is the base to the model followed by modern armies: advance deployment composed of small skirmishing units supported by large mobile forces concentrated on strategic locations, all connected by semaphores. And that is what we see in the Elite Universe - the spacers and the Police defend the systems against Thargoid marauders and report to the SecCom, and the SecCom(s) send(s) its(their) fleet(s) against the enemy's main bodies before they can do any real damage.
I don't disagree with any of this - just with the notion that there's no centralised command structure at all. It's not just about moving ships around - it's about resources, shipbuilding, repairs, recruitment... And who does a SecCom report to when he/she is overwhelmed - a neighbouring SecCom? What if they're in disagreement.
I never said that there shouldn't be a centralized command. It would be necessary not only for the logistic reasons you mentioned, but also for intel analysis, strategic decision-making, reserves management and SecCom coordination.
The SecComs are deployed and supplied according to stategic parameters defined by the CinC, but would keep operational (semi)independence. Naturally the'd support each others if needed, but if both are engaged or must choose between engagements, the CinC should remanage them or send in more forces from the general reserves.

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:16 am
by Disembodied
Fair enough -- I'm probably overdoing the decentralised independence thing a bit. I think the Navy was born out of the Thargoid threat, and no doubt, at least in times of real crisis, capable and committed individuals work their way to the top and get things done, one way or another. Partly my slightly lackadaisical attitude to the Thargoids probably stems from the fact that I don't currently have the Thorgon Threat OXP installed. In my Oolite, Thargoids are an occasional nuisance/diverting opportunity for bounty...

The point I want to suggest is that the Co-Operative is just that: a loose agglomeration of not-always-very co-operative planets, often with their own agendas and often, in the case of the Feudal systems in particular (and plenty of others too, no doubt), ruled by selfish, small-minded chair-fillers with delusions of grandeur. It's not really a setup capable of supporting centralised planning. Power is almost invariably jealously hoarded, not spread around (or concentrated where it needs to be, from a larger perspective). And the military officers themselves will be products of this setup: many will be aristocratic appointees, or dictators' idiot siblings, or Party apparatchiks, or meddlers from Humanoid Resources, who will be liable to hate each other heartily (think Generals Dreedle and Peckem from Catch-22, multiplied by 256...). All of which still doesn't mean that effective action can't happen, or that some collective common sense doesn't sometimes shine through.

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:20 am
by Commander McLane
Sorry to step in again only now, but this is how communication even on one single planet is hindered by time-zones (and things like working hours and internet access etc.). :wink: Although the discussion has been declared over, I'd like to respond to some aspects of it.

I'm more on Disembodied's side here, as - I'm sure - everyone can guess. :)

I don't think there is no central structure at all, but I think it's a fairly low-profile thing. Like I said before, a link to the civilian head of GalCop. And yes, practically that may mean the chair of a sub-committee. Although, as GalCop has in fact no huge administration, it may well be a committee.

I also agree more or less to Disembodied's assessment of GalCop and its build-up. If we think about it: What real common basis do the 2048 member worlds have, except their willingness to open themselves for trade? Apart from that they are so diverse that some kind of unified administration or government seems unimaginable. So (and as the comparison to the UN has been rejected vividly elsewhere) the closest example for it would perhaps be the British vision of the EU (not the actual thing!): A free-trade zone, which only needs the most basic co-ordination, and then (now leaving the EU-vision) out of an urgency has to build up a military arm.

And the Galactic Navy is completely born out of this situational need. Even the Galactic Police was formed only out of a burning need and after the formation of GalCop itself. See the wiki on GalCop, which I think is in line with Selezen's timeline (without checking it now). I quote the relevant parts:
Wiki wrote:
The Galactic Co-operative of Worlds was officially created in 2696, being formed from the loose alliance of systems known as the Old Worlds. ...

Unfortunately, as is often the case, the minority of unscrupulous individuals raised their heads and began to threaten the trade routes - piracy was born. To combat this, the GalCop council ruled that a space police force was required. Initially it was this organisation that had the ability to forcefully deal with piracy or the like, but it was not long before the right of defence was provided to the average pilot. GalCop's training programme began to include combat training in 2772. ...

The largest threat to GalCop has, of course, been the Thargoids and their invasion fleets. This insectoid race has been a constant and real threat since 2850, when the first encounter between humanity and insect occurred. The immediate answer to that threat was the expansion and upgrade of the police fleets to become a more militaristic arm of defence. Over time, the roles of warfare and policing would separate with the ratification of the Galactic Naval arm. Although there are several guesses as to the actual date of the formation of the Navy, most experts have put the time around 2870, as the borders of war zones became stable.
So the relevant dates are the formation of GalCop in 2696, Galactic Police not long before 2772 (some 70 years after GalCop's existence!) and Galactic Navy 2870 (some 180 years after GalCop's existence!).

By the way: To set the picture of GalCop's very nature straight, one should also read and note the following two chapters in the wiki-entry, called Sociology and Relations. I don't know whether their canonicity is questioned, but I have always taken them to be canonic. And that's why I insist on GalCop being fairly low-profile.

As to the question of the GalCop-presidency. I have no doubt that GalCop has a president. And therefore there has to be some sort of structure and administration. I am not sure at all as to how this administration is elected or put into place, or how it actually works. I am sure, however, that its authority is limited to the four tasks only that I have mentioned several times here on the board: (1) Setting up and maintaining the orbital stations, (2) training pilots and issueing licenses on Lave, (3) keeping the systems safe through Galactic Police and (4) keeping interplanetary travel safe through Galactic Navy. That's it. They don't have anything else to do. (Okay, I could add one more, but we don't encounter that in Oolite: (5) negotiating with and accepting new member worlds.)

As far as the recruitment of the GalCop administration is concerned, I can imagine all the political foul-plays Disembodied has in mind. There could also be a GalCop-council with one delegate from each member world, whose main task it is to choose the next GalCop President, and to have a final vote about accepting new members. If I think about it, I find a structure like this (with all its inefficiency) highly likely. The way to choose the delegates would then again entirely be up to the members. So democratic systems could elect their delegate, while dictatorships would appoint theirs. And in anarchies the leader of the strongest faction would be in the seat.

I also can imagine a more sinister scenario, in which behind the scenes the whole GalCop would be in fact dominated by the Old Worlds around Lave. (Actually that's my favourite. 8) )

Now some specific remarks:
Roberto wrote:
I like your idea that the Thargoid military may behave in a similar manner to a giant ant colony. However, humans aren't insects. Even over the course of a thousand years, I don't see human nature/behaviour changing all that much.
Thanks for liking it! :D And I agree, humans aren't insects. But GalCop isn't human, at least not entirely! And who of us does actually know much about the tactical ideas of Slimy Lizards or the organisation of Large Red Bony Lobsters?
Roberto wrote:
I agree with you that reacting to "trouble spots" would be handled locally - although "immediate" deployment/withdrawal would be impossible, given the distances involved. However, if the Thargoids suddenly launched a major offensive in one area, requiring more resources to repel than the individual sector had available... There's no way that could be handled "locally". Command would be informed (assuming the SecCom realised what was happening in time), and resources shifted around accordingly.
I think you're forgetting one point here: The bulk of the Galactic Navy's forces, meaning the vast majority of the ships and commanders actually fighting the war, are the civilian traders who build, as Lave graduates, the Reserve Navy. That's for instance the very reason for GalCop's being on bad terms with Achenar. So there are in fact lots and lots of forces available locally in every sector. Although I instantly agree that this is not really reflected in the game. You never encounter a call to active duty. Even in Military.oxp you can refuse the call. OXP-wise this means that I would fully support an OXP in which the player would be called to active duty every now and then, because I feel this would be in-line with how GalCop and the Navy work for me. I would strongly prefer this OXP-approach above the approach taken by Galactic Navy.oxp, which I think makes the Career Navy too strong and neglects the actual make-up of the Galactic Navy.
Roberto wrote:
True - we're only speculating (about a fictional organisation!). But I can't imagine there are many large-scale, successful human organisations that operate in the manner you've described - and I can't see why the decentralised, "self-organised" structure you suggest would suddenly become more efficient in 1,000 years. Even ant colonies have a queen and a clear-cut hierarchy with various castes, and - to quote Wikipedia - "are sometimes described as superorganisms because the colony appears to operate as a *unified* entity". (My stress on "unified"!) It's not "every ant for himself" - more like "every ant for the hive, within a strict hierarchy".
As of above: GalCop is not a human organisation. It is very much mixed-race. So why should it work as if it were human only?

And as far as ant colonies are concerned: Yes, that's exactly my point: They appear to operate as a *unified* entity, without actually being one. This last part is important. The ant colony is, if anything, proof that an organisation can act like a unified entity, just by self-organisation, without any central command or brain! We may call the queen a "queen", but that doesn't imply by any means that she actually rules the colony! We could also call her "giant egg-laying ant", and there would probably be more truth to it. And the hierarchy is not actually a hierarchy like in the military or the catholic church, but rather a division of labour. There is no "unified line of command" whatsoever in an ant colony. Nevertheless it works more efficiently than any military or hierarchical organisation! As far as I (very simplistically!) understand the biology behind it, the key to its self-organisation is the (chemical) exchange of messages between the single ants everywhere, all the time. As a result of this all the individuals can operate as if they were a unified entity.

This means that I am far from imagining the Galactic Navy following an "every ant for himself"-principle. That wouldn't be self-organised, that would be unorganised. There has to be a balance between the independent execution of actions and the co-ordination of these actions. And I'm not saying that I know exactly how this is supposed to work (if I knew, I would certainly be abducted by the intelligence branches of several army commands tomorrow). But I do think this is more or less the direction into which even current innovative warfare is leaning; small, independently but not uncoordinated working operation units. Why shouldn't that be the every-day reality in a thousand years?

After all: our perception of war, and the strategical and tactical premises have changed quite a lot in the past. A couple of hundred years ago it was clear to everybody that warfare has to stop every evening, rest at night and start again only the following morning. A couple of hundred more years ago it was also clear that "war" only takes place from August to October, when the harvest is brought in and the men have free time, and there is something to gain and plunder in the neighbourhood, and only at daytime.

The bottom line for me is: GalCop and the Galactic Navy as they are portrayed in the background material (wiki, timelines, stories etc.) make sense for me. I don't see the need to change the whole background of the Ooniverse and the Elite-Oolite-Frontier story, because an OXP comes along that was written without any knowledge of this background. If anything, the OXP should be modified, not the whole Ooniverse.

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:27 pm
by Roberto
I don't have time for a lengthy, detailed reply (*EDIT* I lied - I guess I do after all!), but in brief, I agree with some of your points, while rejecting others.

All three of us seem to be in sort-of, semi-agreement on the "there is a degree of centralisation, but not very much" thing, so that's something at least :) And on the notion that GalCop is probably a very ragtag union, politically speaking.

@Commander McLane
Your point about GalCop not being - to quote from Star Trek VI - "a Homo sapiens-only club" is well made. I find this perhaps the trickiest part of Elite to get my head around, particularly when trying to reconcile it with the world of Frontier. The presence of so many other lifeforms in GalCop would almost certainly affect how the Navy operates. But it's hard to say what the overall result of this might be. I imagine humans as being the most dominant race, with the most influence over how things are done, but this is another instance of personal opinion (and perhaps species bias!).
...this is how communication even on one single planet is hindered by time-zones
I would imagine the Navy of the Oolite era - for the most part unaffected by any local day/night cycles - would have adopted Modern Galactic Mean Time, established in 3134, according to Mr Hughes :) Though there'd undoubtedly be "shifts", so the Thargoids couldn't catch us napping :)
And the Galactic Navy is completely born out of this situational need.
Yes. But I would imagine most armies/navies are born out of a "situational need".
So the relevant dates are the formation of GalCop in 2696, Galactic Police not long before 2772 (some 70 years after GalCop's existence!) and Galactic Navy 2870 (some 180 years after GalCop's existence!).
Yes. But... So? I don't see how late formation equates to less centralisation. Besides, by the time of Oolite the organisation will be some 270 years old! Plenty of time for those at the top to cement/expand their power. (Incidentally, there's a discrepancy here - Selezen's timeline has the "Galactic Navy" being mobilised in 2851.)
I think you're forgetting one point here: The bulk of the Galactic Navy's forces, meaning the vast majority of the ships and commanders actually fighting the war, are the civilian traders who build, as Lave graduates, the Reserve Navy.
I haven't forgotten that, though "vast" is your own assumption. But I see what you mean: in exceptional circumstances, a SecCom could call on all pilots within his sector to assist. However, I think this would be a last-resort option, say, if the nearest reserves (in the sense of forces held in reserve, perhaps not assigned to any particular sector) were too far away. I'm basing this assumption on two things - the "shadiness" of many of the pilots in Elite* (no doubt they'd find a way to produce the 32nd-century equivalent of a doctor's note, or magically appear to be in hyperspace or another sector!), and the following line on the Wiki:
This obligation is rescinded if the pilot volunteers for a year of military service on the front lines.
Personally I think this provides a big clue as to how the Reserve Navy actually functions. I imagine most pilots would in fact join up for their one year, to "get it out of the way" and free themselves of this commitment for the rest of their lives. Possibly they might try to enter into the service when they perceive a "low point" in the Thargoid offensive (the situation could change awfully quickly, though, and intel on Thargoid movements would be hard to come by even for non-civilians). A few pilots would die. Some would indeed "return home" having fulfilled their duty (though in an emergency, the more "patriotic" of these pilots might still rejoin the fray). Some would get to enjoy the military life so much that they sign up for another year, and perhaps eventually switch over to join the career Navy.

The advantage for the SecCom of having "permanent Reserves" seems obvious. Instead of having to issue a call, like Commissioner Gordon, whenever a Thargoid takes a dump (or whatever) in their sector, they have a relatively stable, relatively cohesive, relatively well-trained force ready to go.

The advantage for GalCop as a whole seems obvious too: the flow of trade isn't constantly interrupted. And to turn your own argument against you (ha! :)), trade is one of the few things that is GalCop's bag, baby!

Furthermore, the Wiki page for the Galactic Navy talks of "230+ reserve squadrons". That suggests "permanent Reserves" to me.
The ant colony is, if anything, proof that an organisation can act like a unified entity, just by self-organisation, without any central command or brain! We may call the queen a "queen", but that doesn't imply by any means that she actually rules the colony! We could also call her "giant egg-laying ant", and there would probably be more truth to it. And the hierarchy is not actually a hierarchy like in the military or the catholic church, but rather a division of labour.
Point taken. But I don't think the "ant colony" analogy serves your argument as well as you think :) The queen doesn't have to command because ants are somehow hard-wired to accept their lot - they're less selfish than we (and perhaps many of the other races in Elite) are. Ensign Johnny Flightsuit (without some kind of external "pressure") has choices - and might be inclined to choose the choice that benefits him as an individual over one that might be more beneficial to the "hive". What the ant colony does demonstrate - I agree with you - is the desirability of the division of labour. I'm trying to argue that assigning too much "labour" to the SecComs is a bad idea.
But I do think this is more or less the direction into which even current innovative warfare is leaning; small, independently but not uncoordinated working operation units. Why shouldn't that be the every-day reality in a thousand years?
This may be so, but there are still generals and other high-ranking officers independent of each "theatre of warfare". We don't have, for example, a "power vacuum" between Des Browne and the troops actually on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and so on. Yes, I agree that SecComs will wield great power within the Navy... but not absolute power.


*This is another thing that points towards (a bit of) centralisation for me. How does GalCop deal with "draft-dodgers"? I think the SecComs already have enough on their plate, and that this matter (and all others pertaining to "recruitment") would be best handled centrally. Ant colonies probably don't have "rebels" to contend with :)