Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military From: nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Defense cuts Message-ID: <13344@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 20 Jan 90 03:18:22 GMT References: <12854@cbnews.ATT.COM> <13033@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Lines: 67 Approved: military@att.att.com From: nvuxr!deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) In article <13033@cbnews.ATT.COM>, randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes: > > > From: Randy Appleton > > Here is my (new) list of things to cut: And here are some comments... > 1) All the Battleships, and whatever support ships I can toss with them. > They did LOUSY in Lebanon, don't seem very cost-effective in a real *naval* > war, and there function (delivering 1000lb warheads, etc) can be taken over > by other systems (CV's and subs carrying SLCM's, etc..) However, there are definite advantages to BBs. "Startup" cost is very reasonable -- I recall that the cost of bringing the Iowa BBs up to their current standard was equivalent to the cost of an FFG-7 (Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigate). Although, I grant, that operational costs are likely significantly higher (he understated). In addition, a BB is a very effective fighting platform in a "real *naval* war." I don't have the exact stats in front of me, but in addition to the 16" guns, you've got Harpoon and Tomahawk launchers for standoff capability. The 16" guns have a significant advantage over SLCMs and aircraft in that there ain't no point defense weapons system that's going to shoot down a 16" shell -- and the range (~20 mi.) is up there with many SSMs. The armor is also a significant edge -- a single missile hit is less likely to take a BB out of action than to take out a missile cruiser or destroyer. > 3) Most (if not all) of the Marine Air Force. If the Marines want air power, > let them get it from the CV's. If there fighting it out on land SOO FAR from > the ocean they can't get naval air, why are we using Marines? In Vietnam > didn't we in fact do this? It seems naval air wuld be available, can you > imagine an anphib invasion in contested waters? I suspect any gains here wouldn't be from eliminating weapons systems as from transferring them from the Marine Corps to the Navy. Naval air is optimized for maritime strike, air defense, and ASW. The F/A-18 and A-6 are fairly capable ground attack planes, but you gotta admit, the AV-8B Harrier has got some capabilities that neither can match... Plus, you've got to add a whole pile of helicopter transport. > 6) Maybe 10 of the Posiden SSBN's. Let's convert then to SSN's. The Navy > says we need more SSN's, and for that matter ASW ships, and most people > (at least most right-thinking people |-) feel we have AT LEAST ENOUGH > strategic nuclear warheads. Historically, this was done in the past, by > pouring concrete into Polaris missile tubes and some serious paperwork. > The savings here is the need to build fewer new SSN's. Unfortunately, there's no way a converted Poseidon is going to be anywhere near as capable as a Los Angeles class SSN without a lot of investment. SSBNs are optimized to do two things -- hide, and launch ballistic missiles. SSNs are optimized to find and kill other submarines (and, to some extent, surface ships). Different sensors (particularly sonar), different weapons, different electronics... OK, you're probably not going to spend as much as you would on a brand-new 688, but you're not going to *get* a 688 either. -- David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."