Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Military Cuts Summary/SR-71
Message-ID: <13883@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 12 Feb 90 04:26:15 GMT
References: <13769@cbnews.ATT.COM> <13849@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 51
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
In article <13849@cbnews.ATT.COM> ae219dp%prism@gatech.edu (Devon Prichard) writes:
>
>
[stuff deleted]
>
>Hmm, I'm not sure about this.  Several of the Army's roles require
>light infantry, in places where the Marines would be "fishes out of ...";
>for example, mountain ops.  However, I'm all for keeping the Marines
>light and fast, especially since they're lacking in organic transport
>capabilities.  In fact, the Marines themselves lately have been claiming
>to be the dedicated LIC (Low Intensity Conflict) force.  in general (oops),
>I'd rather have lots of guys carrying rifles, than one Aegis-class
>cruiser in an LIC with all of its transmitters turned off to avoid
>anti-radiation Exocets from taking an unhealthy interest in them.
>
>our requisition/procurement system is what needs drastic measures;
>to wit, all of our recent naval ship designs have had an extremely
>high radar signature, due to the size of the superstructure above deck.
>considering that any Banana Republic can purchase Silkworm, Exocet ...,
>we should be concerned with the amount of use we are going to get
>out of such ships.
>

I agree with your comments about the value of keeping the Marines,
however, there are lots of reasons for keeping Aegis cruisers in a LIC
environment.  How do you think the Marines are going to get ahore?
Without the protection of carriers and AAW platforms, those same
missiles will have an even easier time sinking the transports.  They
will also sink any ships trying to support an air delivered army unit,
support that will be reuired for any long term presence.  No matter
how good those men with rifles are they cannot escort tankers or
merchants, counter opposing naval forces, or interdict seaborme
supplies.  All are viable LIC missions.  It is easy to forget the
naval side of LIC, those ships are so far out to sea.  Unfortunately,
LIC at sea is not very low intensity.  There are few civilian targets
close to the combatants, so any conflict is nearly the same as a full
scale shoooting war.  Look the Royal Navy experience off the
Falklands.  They would have welcomed capable units such as the
Ticonderogas.  I agree we should forego a couple of Ticonderogas and
spend that money to reinstitute a coastal interdiction force.
Presently we have only a handful of patrol boats for that mission, and
they are distracted by special warfare support.  They would also help
to protect the Aegis cruisers against nuisances like the Iranian motor
boats (a contributing fact or to the Iranian airbus incident).

-- 
Terry Rooker
terryr@cse.ogi.edu