Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: ae219dp%prism@gatech.edu (Devon Prichard)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Defense cuts
Summary: Marine air/SSBN-SSN conversion ... long
Message-ID: <13220@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 17 Jan 90 01:43:22 GMT
References: <12854@cbnews.ATT.COM> <13033@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 65
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: ae219dp%prism@gatech.edu (Devon Prichard)


in article <13033@cbnews.ATT.COM>, Randy Appleton discusses
several avenues for defense budget cuts. the two 
towards which which I reply are elimination of Marine airpower,
and conversion of missile subs to attack subs.


the _only_ true CAS the U.S. military has is from the Marines. the
Air Force places CAS somewhere behind volleyball in its list of
priorities. a good reference is "The Korean War" by Max Hastings.
one of the lessons expounded in this excellent book is that organic
(i.e. integrated) CAS and artillery support is the only effective
use of these `force multipliers'.  the lack of a direct ground-air
radio link between Army ground troops and Air Force jets, as well as
lack of interunit training etc. reduces the Air Force's usefulness
in CAS ops (I recall the JTIDS system was conceived for this problem,
but I don't remember hearing that it went through; anybody?).
in fact, the recent decision by Gen'l Colin Powell 
(Chairman, JCS) to allow the AF to retain the CAS mission is not much
short of treason, in my book.  A-16s are simply going to be used
for interception, air defense, and interdiction, so the blue-suiters
can keep their silk scarves clean.  once again, the ground pounders are 
left without adequate support (note the lack of self-propelled artillery
in the upcoming budgets).

also, converting boomers (SSBNs) to attack boats would not only be
horribly ineffective, but would run the defense budget up substantially
(recall the hassles with the LA-class attack boat built by GD-Electric
Boat; the Navy changed the design specs faster than Electric Boat
could re-weld, then the Navy tries to punish GD for running up costs!).
SSBNs are designed to carry a high-volume payload slowly, but _very_
quietly, while attack boats are designed to be fast and maneuverable.

excuse the flames, but the places to cut the defense budget are
elsewhere, I think;

1) Pentagon - the world's most security leak prone institute, as well as
              the source of some truly stupid procurement policy...

2) General staff - we have more generals than some countries have
                   privates! each general costs untold amounts of support
                   staff as well.(here I refer to Navy as well as others;
                   supposedly the Navy has 1 officer for every 3 enlisted)

3) the B-2 project - I don't imagine us getting our money's worth in
                     a low intensity conflict ... and the strategic
                     nuclear mission is amenable to simpler aircraft
                     carrying air-launched cruise missiles.



hope this sparks some discussion, as defense reforms are inevitable
and we need to ensure they are not overly fatal to our troops.



-- 
DEVON PRICHARD
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!ae219dp
ARPA: ae219dp@prism.gatech.edu