Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: re: What to do with the "Peace Dividend"
Message-ID: <12984@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 10 Jan 90 03:29:04 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: oresoft.uu.net!richard (Richard Johnson)

One of the items discussed in regard to weapons systems to keep or
to toss was the transport capability of the Air Force (USAF I
presume).  I am not affiliated with the military, and presently have
little access to the appropriate references, so please bear with me.

It seems that the ability of the air force to deliver ground forces
on station when needed is adequate.  Consider the following cases:

1.  Small-scale conflict or anti-terrorist action
	They seemed to get enough men and material to Panama to do the
	job.  Likely they would be able to repeat the act, so long as
	they don't have to ship armor around.

2.	Full-scale war (e.g. Soviets invade Germany)
	Then the civil air transports would overnight be "nationalized"
	and pressed into service.  In the short run, there would be
	plenty of transport for just about anything except armor.


Please notice - I agree completely with the earlier comments about
armor needing to be fairly close to where it is needed, *before*
it's needed.  We may never be able to adequately carry tanks in
airplanes...