Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military From: haydon@nevada.edu (James P. Willey) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Military Cuts Summary Message-ID: <13769@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 6 Feb 90 03:42:58 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 81 Approved: military@att.att.com From: James P. Willey In article <13376@cbnews.ATT.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes: > > >From: Randy Appleton > >Here is my summary of the "where is the most cost effective place to cut the >military" question. Any ideas out there? > >[stuff deleted] > >6) Marines. We probably have more Marines than we have need for Anphib >invasion. It cannot be cost effective to keep around TWO sets of ground- >pounders. But the Marines do what they do VERY well, and we're reluctant >to cut a good thing. One possible solution: fix the army/AF. Second >solution: replace all the top Army people with Marine Generals. >[This part needs more input. Any ideas?] > >7) On the Army. I would say cut the Army from 17 to 10 active divisions, >and keep all 10 reserve divisions. I just decided on these numbers by >wee-gee board. >[What do yall think? How few divisions do we need?] > >[stuff deleted] > >10) Air Force. Got me. Given the current situation, do we need all >the fighter wings to maintain air superiority? Could we cut some of >the F-4's? Do we need all the tankers, especially after cutting the B-2 and >many of the B-52's. > Here's an idea that's probably come around before, but it might apply given the current Congressional attitude towards the military. 1) The Air Force doesn't seem too enthusiastic about its job of providing close air support for the army. This role could be turned over to the Army. This would allow the Air Force to concentrate on what its good at, air superiority over the battlefield. 2) The Army could develop a closer working relationship between air and armored units since they would be under the same command. Additionally, the Army does not have a fast, sleek image to uphold, so it may opt out on obtaining turbo-prop aircraft for CAS roles. These would have a longer loiter time than the A-10. I love the A-10, but the Army could probably do a better job than the Air Force did. Turbo-props may also be cheaper to acquire, but someone out in net.land must know more about this. 3) The Army is best at preparing for armored combat. The Army should release its light forces (airborne, air-cav, light mechanized[?] ) forces to the Marine Corps. The Army could then concentrate on fulfilling the needs of a medium to large scale conflict. 4) The Marine Corps is best at developing light, rapid deployment forces. The Marines would be able train these light units to be more effective in low intensity conflicts. 5) #3 and #4 would create a bit of a problem if light forces were to be used in conjunction with heavy forces, so there should be co-operation and joint training exercises between the Army and the Marine Corps. This would probably require that the Marine Corps receive more autonomy from the Navy. 6) These steps might result in our ability to decrease the size of our military while increasing its ability, if inter-service rivalries can be forgotten in the face of possible major cuts in military expenditures. Comments, flames, etc. welcomed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- James P. Willey haydon@arrakis.NEVADA.EDU Disclaimer: I'm now employed, but I'm responsible for my employers opinions, not vice versa. Kraneberg, an oldtime historian of [North] American technology, once said- in the form of a First Law- "Technology is neither positive, negative, nor neutral." Indeed. It is all three. And omnipresent. (Robotech)