High ranking officers!

US Military is way too top heavy for the force structure they have.

Completely agree.

I'm not in favor of closing more stateside bases though. We've concentrated our forces far too much already. There should be at least one military base in every state.

What do you think about closing the oversea bases?

Or scaling them way back?

Our enemies are overseas. Waiting for them to come to us would be stupid. :03:

He said close permanent overseas bases, not eliminate our response capability. Engineers can whip up a functional base in a few days. We're paying a lot of money to keep units stationed in Germany for example that no longer serve much purpose, at least not enough to justify their expense.

What about stocks of propositioned gear?

What about our overseas ELINT stations?

Are the Engineers going to built them under fire? (I'm not talking about a few pots shots with a sniper rifle here, I mean heavy attacks.)

It takes comparatively few troops to run an Elint station or maintain a warehouse. We're talking combat troops and their dependents. What is the advantage to keeping a few divisions in, say Europe, that could not be achieved back in CONUS?

I say get rid of the dependents, for one.

I'm thinking less europe more asia.

How long would it take to get several divisions mobilized and fully transported over seas. Key word seas, the heavy gear needs to go by ship. 72 hours to get underway? Another 48 to cross the Pacific? Basically a week, the $heet could be over by then.

Well base closings are not an all or nothing proposition. Keep what you need and close the rest.

But I hear your point about deployment time. You just need to remember that you're also putting those troops way out on a limb. Look at 1942 Philippines. We lost a lot of desperately needed troops and materiel that could have been used elsewhere.

well I think holding the Philippines in 42 was not a bad thing. If the fleet was not crippled the Philippines would have been a great place to stage an attack against Japan, that was the basis of the old War Plan Orange. If Mac Arthur's air force wasn't annihilated on the ground it could have been a real pain in the Japanese's backside. I know some of MA's officers wanted to bomb Formosa right away but the decision got postponed right up until the B-17s got plastered.

Holding the Philippines would have helped cut off the Japanese from the Dutch East Indies. Save the oil of the Dutch East Indies and you deny the Japanese one of their main reasons for starting the war with the Allies. If anything we should have fortified the islands more.

They have begun. In 2006 the decision was made to start closures. It is called BRAC. Base Realignment and Closure. I have been involved in a few. We moved Naval Station Willow Grove ME262A.

Here she is:

https://s-hphotos-ash2.fbcdn.net/611..._4255660_n.jpg


She is in Pensacola now. Check the link:

http://www.allcoastaircraftrecovery....hmitt-me-262b/


Fort Meade is growing. Aberdeen's tank museum is heading to VA. We were asked to quote moving a rail gun (German). BRAC is on going.

We work with:

http://www.allcoastaircraftrecovery.com/

He disassembles and we transport. :DL

this may be heresy around here...


...but does the US really need 70 nuclear subs, including 40+ LA class attack subs?

seems to me you could scrap 20 LA class subs without having any effect on US defence capability.

Yes. Because I think they are cool. :D

Door's over there :D

If you combined the number of submarines are potential enemies have they have about 100-120 subs combined. We have about 50 SSNs so we are only outnumbered about 2-1. Between the US and the PRC we have nearly parity in submarine numbers although our subs generally better.

no doubt, but the only credible threat would be from the Russian or Chinese navy.

The Russians have 78 subs, 61 nuclear and 17 diesel. However, 74 of the 78 were built before 1991 and have been rotting at dockside for 20 years.

The Chinese have 63 subs, 11 nuclear and 52 diesel, but 1/2 of the diesel boats are obsolete.

So the question still comes up: How many nuclear attack subs does the US need?

In 1982, just the presence of 3 UK subs (and one sinking) caused the entire Argentine Navy to stay bottled up in port. The UK subs could have laid waste to coastal traffic up and down the Argentine coast if they had wished.

You just had to mention the Falklands right? Well just one modern Argentine diesel made three or four attacks and British surface ships and submarines with out being directly attacked. All the attacks missed or were decoyed. So three British SSNs and one SSK failed to stop one SSK.

But if you just want to go by numbers...

Potenital Enemies:
74 Decrepit Russian Boats (4 for 1)
4 modern Russian SSNs (1 for 1)
11 PLAN Nucs (1 for 1)
26 PLAN modern Diesels (2 for 1)
26 PLAN old Diesels (3 for 1)
North Korea 70 old or short ranged diesels (4 for 1)
Iran 3 Diesels (2 for 1)
Iran 11 Short ranged Diesels (3 for 1)
Venezuela 2 diesels (2 for 1)
Cuba 1 short ranged diesel (3 for 1)

Nations with Subs that are a revolution away from becoming enemies.
Pakistan 5 Diesels (2 for 1)
Algeria 2 Diesels (2 for 1)
Egypt 4 upgraded old diesels (2 for 1)

Now if you add them up to my ratios I figure we need 75 attack submarines to be equal to our enemies or potential enemies. We have 58(+2) SSNs/SSGNs in the USN.

I think so, if it proves neccessary. Every branch has combat engineers, and their all self contained units, trained, and equiped to work independantly, "outside the wire". Air Force combat engineers, have even gone so far as to have an airborne detachment. Yeah thats right, Air Force engineers that went through army jump school. Makes me wonder what the world is coming to.

Enought to dominate the worlds oceans! :DL

My point is are they going to be able to build an airbase with underground aircraft shelters/fuel tanks while taking BM fire and enemy air strikes?

I guess they are going to need air cover from carrier planes to do it until they finish and the air force can fly in. So the Navy would have to divert its carriers from locating and sinking enemy warships and striking targets on land to cover the Air Force Engineers as they build the air force and airbase. If the place where they are trying to build an airbase is contested by enemy ground troops than its becomes even more difficult.