Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!sunic!uupsi!nyser!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Defense cuts Message-ID: <13089@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 12 Jan 90 04:47:18 GMT References: <12854@cbnews.ATT.COM> <13033@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR Lines: 109 Approved: military@att.att.com From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <13033@cbnews.ATT.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes: > >In article <12854@cbnews.ATT.COM> budden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) writes: [stuff deleted] > >The point is, if I were going to cut costs, I would look for weapons systems >to eliminate. > >Here is my (new) list of things to cut: > >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..) > The function of delivering 1000lb warheads can't be taken over by anyone else. With nine barrels firing at a rate of 1 RPM each, they can deliver an impressive quantity of explosive. They are surprisingly accurate when firing at land targets. The problems in Lebanon were with identifying the targets in the first place. A cruise missile wouldn't have been more accurate, and more expensive to make a miss. There are other reasons to mothbal the BBs again, but the assigned missions are one of them. The primary reason is the cost of maintaining the 1000+ crew. We can man 3-5 other ships for the same money. >2) One of the 3 Marine divisions. Why do we need 3? IMHO, Marine divisions >should do what they do best, anphib landings. If we need lasting land- >based firepower, we should look to the army, and if the Army isn't doing >it right, that should be fixed. I figure we need 2 Marine divisions. >We have one in Korea (it might be politically hard to switch an Army div in >there) and one divided into Marine Ready Battalions (or whatever they call them) >to be ready to go. > First, the Marine divisions are now largely administrative headquarters. We simply lack sufficient amphibious lift for even a single division, so the Marines have reorganized their tactical elements and the largest employable entity is the brigade. The Pacific division is actually in Okinawa, and three contribute units to the afloat MEUs (Marine Expeditionary Units). Your comments are somewhat out of date as the Marines have been adjusting their forces for years. In acknowledgement of their inability to fight in a European scenario they have been deemphaizing the mechanized type forces. The have been acquiring LAVs to provide some armor support in a low intensity situation. They still keep tanks as the primary tank killers. The MEUs have been reorganized to be more self sufficient. They receive special training in special operations such as hostage rescue and evacuation. The Marines have been cutting their manpower by reducing the number of battalions, not divisions. >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? > Marines are expedtionary troops. As such they must be self-sufficient. Nowadays that includes airpower. The CV is tasked with providing the initial air cover, but it will eventually have to go on to other missions, such as protection the sea lines of communication to the landing. When it leaves the Marines need some air power. Marine air units are optimized for CAS. Look at previous postings on this newsgroup and see how no one else wants this mission. The Marine air land units are arguably one of the best integrated teams in the world. They have little requirement for deep strike, or air superiority. They just need enough air control to get the strike planes to the target. I've heard they are going to replace older harder to maintain A-6s with new production F-18s. Whatever other problems the Hornet has it has a great uptime record, with minimal maintenance requirements. The need for Marine air is well documented. They are already doing what they can to cut costs. Remember the Marines, by necessity, are the ultimate Pentagon warriors. Someone is always crying for their elimination, reduction, or transfer to the Army. They are very adept at anticipating trends, and justifying their existence. [I'll leave discussion of army-air force issues to others] >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 where do you get the idea that a SSBN is a good ASW platform? They are quiet. That's it. Their sonar suites are largely defensive in nature. Earlier boats had a mission of anti-shipping torpedo attack after the missiles were gone, but I don't know how serious any training was. The SSBNs are slow compared to most SSNs. In the USN no SSBNs were converted to SSNs. 2 have been converted to special warfare support platforms the remainder have been scrapped. The concrete was poured into missile tubes to prevent their later use as SSBNs. I thought we were discussing cost sutting? Converting the SSBNs requires major modifications. The tubes should be removed, or at least they could be converted to magazines. But then you get into verification problems. The hulls are old. Most of the boats are at the end of their useful life anyway. Remember these aren't surface ships that simply can't wait for a split seam to make the scrapping decision. The newer Poseidon boats have 5 maybe 10 years of service left. Is it worth the money and extra maintenance costs? -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu