Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Defense cuts Message-ID: <13317@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 19 Jan 90 02:30:25 GMT References: <12854@cbnews.ATT.COM> <13033@cbnews.ATT.COM> <13220@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: U of Kentucky, Mathematical Sciences Lines: 70 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Randy Appleton In article <13220@cbnews.ATT.COM> ae219dp%prism@gatech.edu (Devon Prichard) writes: [In trying to argue for the Marines Devon says] > >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. That may be true. The obvious solution is to "fix" the air force. A second obvious solutions is to give the army some CAS ability, like they have in there AH-64's. The Marines do some things very well, one of the things I like most about the Marines is that they have some good ideas that the other branches should adopt. But let's NOT keep the Marines at their present strength just because the AIR FORCE hates CAS. The solution is to fix the AF. [Against my idea of converting SSBN's to SSN's Devon writes] >also, converting boomers (SSBNs) to attack boats would not only be >horribly ineffective, but would run the defense budget up substantially. >SSBNs are designed to carry a high-volume payload slowly, but _very_ >quietly, while attack boats are designed to be fast and maneuverable. I guess I always ASSUMED that SSBN's and SSN's had the same sonar fit. I just looked it up, and I read that an Ohio class has the same passive sonar BQQ-5 as a Los Angles SSN. Both have a towed array, but I don't know the type for the Ohio. (The Los Angles has a BQR-15). I assume that if todays SSBN's have the sonar fit of todays SSN's, that that would be true for yesteryear. A SSBN is NOT slow, I read 30+ knots. Both a Benjermin Frankiln and a Los Angles have the same number (4) of Torpedo Tubes, but a Los Angles also hase the SLCM's that a converted SSBM would not. In the past they DID convert some Polaris SSBN's to SSN's by pouring concrete into the missile tubes for ballast. I beleive the whole conversion was <$1,000,000. I'm not saying that the result would be a Los Angles quality SSN, I'm saying that the cost effectiveness would be higher than that foe either a newly built (read expensive) SSN, and that our nuclear deterence forces could use a little tightening. By the way, the ability to move slow and quiet couyld be very useful for an attack sub. Imagine saling to a point about 200 miles down the coast from Murmask. And then waiting. I bet you wouldn't have to wait long before you life became FILLED with targets. >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... Probably true. > >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) Yep. I bet this is somehow connected to #1. > >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. I fully agree. Randy -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "Tiger gotta hunt, bird gotta fly, man gotta sit, sit and wonder why. Tiger gotta sleep, bird gotta land, man gotta tell himself that he understand" -Bokonon [Address:Randy@ms.uky.edu]