Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Military Cuts
Message-ID: <12878@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 8 Jan 90 05:10:59 GMT
References: <12686@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12757@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12819@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 47
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
In article <12819@cbnews.ATT.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
>
>>We might also do well by considering whether or not we really
>>*need* 17 attack aircraft carriers (that was Reagan's touted goal,
>
>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!

Actually, the navy uses the same criteria you use to end up with the
figure of 15 (not 17) carriers.  Consider that the Earth is about
24,000 miles around the equator, and a carrier task force can steam at
about 20 knots.  I know this is a gross simplification, but I want you
to appreciate the magnitude of the problem.  Also, all but one carrier
is homeported in the US.  If you only had a handful of carriers, then
it could take weeks to deploy one from the US.  Hence the policy of
foward basing, i.e. deployments.

The general figure used for planning these things is that you need 3
ships for every one that you need on station.  1 in
refit/post-deployment activities, 1 on deployment, and 1 in
pre-deployment/transit.  You actually need maybe one more overall
because of long term overhauls, i.e. SLEP (Service Life Extension
Program).  Since we have interests in the Eastern and Western Pacific,
the Atlantic, the Med, and the Indian Ocean that would require a
carrier on station, that gives us a minimum figure of 15 carriers (not
counting carriers in SLEP).  Since we don't have 15, we fudge, and the
IO only gets an occasional carrier.  If you think this is a rather
slack schedule, the navy has problems maintaining personnel becasue of
the separations it causes.  For example the ship I was on had a solid
6/12  deployment.  In the 12 non-deployment months we were underway
for about 3 months (accumulative time).  Add in schools, and duty
days, you can see that this 3 for 1 policy places great demands on the
personnel.  It can't be stretched any further.

By using your criteria, we need at least 15 carriers, and to be fair
to the crews, it would be nice to have 17-8 carriers.  Then we could
get to ANY trouble spot within a week, likely trouble spots we could
handle a little sooner:-)


-- 
Terry Rooker
terryr@cse.ogi.edu