randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) (01/22/90)
From: Randy Appleton <randy@ms.uky.edu> Here is my summary of the "where is the most cost effective place to cut the military" question. Any ideas out there? 1) Coast Guard. Already doing a great job, already getting its pilot training from the Navy, already doing its best to use common equipment from the other services. In general, there may be some fat here, but not too much. [Most of this comes from one pertcular Guarder. Is this stuff true?] 2) Navy. Probably cannot cut the number of Carrier Battle groups without cutting deployments. Right now there are one group in the Atlantic, Med, Indian, Eastern Pacific, and Western Pacific. Also, carriers are VERY useful for low intensity conflicts, especially at a time when overseas bases are hard to come by. 3) Converting old SSBN's to SSN's. I don't know yet. There may be some technical difficulties, (like SSBN sonar stinks, and the conversion would then cost to much). [Anybody know. Somebody must] 4) B-2. Probably not the most cost effective weapon in the world for low intensity warfare. (want to send a $500M plane to drop 500lb bombs?) Probably not the most cost effective weapons for Nuclear war. (One can always use a B-1 along with a ALCM. Also, for that kind of money one can buy an awful lot of ICMB or SLBM warheads. Does have a great Bat Plane look. (is that worth the money?) 5) Strategic Forces. I heard on the TV news that they were thinking of cutting the Minutemen II ICBM's to save $450M/year. [Any news?] 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?] 8) Battleships. I say kill'em. One person said they CAN be made effective, but the crew size is 3x that of a DD. Also, I heard the guns didn't do so well in Lebanon. [any ideas?] 9) Pentagon and Burocracy in General. Pretty much a "they stink", but people have been saying that for years. Proably the people who know best what to do are in the Pentagon themselves. ARG [Off with their heads!] 10) Air Force. Got me. Given the current situation, do we need all the fighter wings to maintain air seperiority? 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. 11) B-52's. I think we could get by with many less than 263. No one seemed to dissagree, so down many of them go. 12) Using the military to supplement the Police Forces. There may be some legal questions, but they can be solved/gotten-around. There may be some training problems. But as far as drug interdiction, it ought to work OK. Except off Colombian waters |-) -- _______________________________________________________________________________ "Tiger gotta hunt, bird gotta fly, man gotta sit, sit and wonder why. Tiger gotta sleep, bird gotta land, man gotta tell himself that he understand" -Bokonon [Address:Randy@ms.uky.edu]
terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (01/23/90)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <13376@cbnews.ATT.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes: > > >Here is my summary of the "where is the most cost effective place to cut the >military" question. Any ideas out there? > [stuff deleted] > >3) Converting old SSBN's to SSN's. I don't know yet. There may be some >technical difficulties, (like SSBN sonar stinks, and the conversion would >then cost to much). >[Anybody know. Somebody must] > There is an article in the current issue (Jan90 I think) of the USNI Proceedings that discusses use of the few SSBNs that will have some service life left when they are converted from the active SSBN role. Most of the comments I used in my original posting were based on the points in this article. The author had much less ambitious plans, using them as Reserve Force subs to maintain a supply of submariners. Proposed mission were mine laying (and sweeping), special forces support (2 converted SSBNs already do that), and decicated ASW training platforms. Nothing like conversion to an attack boat. The bottom line was that such a conversion would barely be cost effective, but would abviously be less than new construction for similar missions. The author sponsored the idea mainly to get some subs in the NRF (Naval Reserve Force). As NRF vessels they would have limited time underway and the hull life could be extended. The point in relation to your proposals is that converting the SSBNs for these limited missions would be barely cost effective, imagine how much more would be needed to make them viable ASW boats. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
gwh%tornado.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (01/23/90)
From: gwh%tornado.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) Two cents from a naval architect-in-training on the continuing discussion on converting ssbn's to ssn's. First: the sonar. Many of the current generation SSBN's use the BQQ-6 sonar set. this is in every way but the active sonar a BQQ-5, the same as the Los Angeles uses. The BQQ-6 has no active component, but that could be added back in with "minimal" trouble from what i have been told [i.e. no need to rebuild the bow too badly... tho the person who told me that was a techie not a naval architect.] Second: the weapons. a torpedo is a torpedo, and the SSBN's have the tubes to launch 'em. If you want the vertical launch Tomhawk tubes that the newer LA's have, you can replace a few [or a lot] of the SSBM tubes with vls. caveat: this would require a bit of structural work and will thus cost some money. Third: the reason why i don't think it will happen. We are USING the more modern SSBN's in our force. There are a lot of our deterrent warheads at sea at this moment on them. Therefore, if we were to convert any they would be the old ones... And old SSBN's have old reactors. The end result of the conversion would be a relatively noisy [older quieting technology] and more trouble-prone boat, with a relatively short lifetime before it needs to be scrapped due to reactor aging. I think that the disatvantages outweigh the atvantages. It is a quick cheap to get some boats fast, but it gives a substandard force. The navy may well be planning to do this if we have a big war that lasts more than three months, but i doubt it will happen in peacetime. **************************************************************************** George William Herbert | UCB Naval Architecture [On schedule? at UCB? Yes!] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ||||||||| "And What if I Don't?" "Then, You Die, gwh@soda.berkeley.edu ||||||||||||||| the Girl dies, Everybody Dies..." maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| -Heavy Metal
ae219dp%prism@gatech.edu (Devon Prichard) (01/24/90)
From: ae219dp%prism@gatech.edu (Devon Prichard) concerning Mr. Rooker's comment on using old SSBNs; while I still think that an SSBN is not suited for attack work, it did remind me of the use of cargo subs by the Japanese in late WW II. An SSBN has a lot of interior volume that could be used for high priority cargo, or special forces or whatever. dealing with an old reactor, complete with radiation-aged structure, would be non-trivial. but, maybe better than cutting them into scrap. on the side-tangent of cargo subs, anybody have experience/opinions concerning the cost-effectiveness/feasibility ?? Popular Science or Popular Mechanics ran a cover story a few years back on oil tanker subs, with the upshot being that the reduced losses from storms etc. made commercial oil tanker subs cost-effective. in wartime, the lack of a radar/visual signature would make cargo transport less riskly (recall the British warship losses in the Falklands War). -- |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| | Devon Prichard making the world safe for helicopters ... | | ae219dp@prism.gatech.edu | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
haydon@nevada.edu (James P. Willey) (01/24/90)
From: James P. Willey <haydon@nevada.edu> In article <13376@cbnews.ATT.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes: > > >From: Randy Appleton <randy@ms.uky.edu> > >Here is my summary of the "where is the most cost effective place to cut the >military" question. Any ideas out there? > >[stuff deleted] > >9) Pentagon and Burocracy in General. Pretty much a "they stink", but >people have been saying that for years. Proably the people who know best >what to do are in the Pentagon themselves. ARG >[Off with their heads!] > Cutting down on the volumes of useless reports to Congress would be a great help. A news report here in Las Vegas had an interview with some Pentagon brass (I forget his name) in which he claimed he had to do a study of and write a report on the feasability of training all the ROTC students at some college to be helicopter pilots, just because some congressman wanted to have something to show the voters back home. If the Congress wants to do some cutting, fine, but lets start with useless reports to boost the popularity of congressmen and senators. You don't have to pay for people to do the studies and write the reports, people to type then, printer's fees, not to mention the forests that would be saved by the decrease in paper coming out of the pentagon. The congressmen should generally love this last point, since environmentalists would be pleased. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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)
haydon@nevada.edu (James P. Willey) (02/06/90)
From: James P. Willey <haydon@nevada.edu> In article <13376@cbnews.ATT.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes: > > >From: Randy Appleton <randy@ms.uky.edu> > >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)