Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Military Cuts Message-ID: <12819@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 5 Jan 90 04:08:41 GMT References: <12686@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12757@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: U of Kentucky, Mathematical Sciences Lines: 59 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Randy Appleton In article <12757@cbnews.ATT.COM> tdrinkar@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu (Terrell Drinkard) writes: >I would point out in these days of budget restraint that it costs >about $1100/hr to operate a UH-1. The OV-1/10 class aircraft can >operate for roughly 1/9 the cost per hour. I would also point out >that the UH-1s tubine engines just as the OV-1/10s do. One can operate an OV-1/10 (or any aircraft) for $11/hour!!!??? Wow, really? >I would also be interested in your reasoning for disbanding a >'heavy' division. I'd also like to hear what a 'heavy ' division >is. If you mean armor, then I submit that this is a foolish whim >and that the US would be better served by disbanding B-52 wings. I agree with you about B-52's. I would probably disband MOST (but not all) of them, and use the spare ones for parts. If I was really worried about penetration (like I am) I would continue development on the Advanced Cruse Missile, and maybe even give some to the B-1's as well. Ya, heavy=armor. I'm sort of assuming (without evidence) that armor divisions have a lower firepower/pound ratio, and an average firepower/$$ ratio. Now that I look at it again, I guess if armored div's have a greater firepower/$$ than the other choices, it might be a good idea to keep a few of them around, already on station. In other words, if the politicians decide we should have 2 div's in Europe, then they might as well be armored. I wouldn't want to have too many hanging around the U.S. mainland, because they're so *darn* hard to move quickly. > >We might also do well by considering whether or not we really >*need* 17 attack aircraft carriers (that was Reagan's touted goal, >I'm unaware of how successful we've been in stopping that >nonesense) and assorted numbers of nuclear missile boats. I don't need 17. I need to be able to get ONE or TWO carrier quicly to any spot quickly. Depending on how long I want to wait, I guess I could do with MUCH less than 17! > >The Air Force has been incredibly successful in avoiding the >purchase of appropriate logistics aircraft so that they could >afford larger numbers of B-2 bombers and F-117 fighters The AF has 544 C130's, 250 C141's and about 700 tankers of various sorts, as well as all the C4's, etc... They did get everyone to Panama quickly. How much more do we need (major war in Europe excepted) >(which so ably demonstrated precision vacant lot bombing in Panama :-) I LOVE this line So what SHOULD one cut. I don't think there are to many completely useless weapons systems, but there are more and less cost effective ones? Or alternatively, what would you want to be SURE and KEEP?? -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "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]