Defense Department cuts

[August]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[AVGWarhawk]

The military has wanted to make large cuts for years. There are way too many bases

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:




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.

[Bilge_Rat]

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.

[AVGWarhawk]

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

Yes. Because I think they are cool.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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.

Door's over there

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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.

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.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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.

[Neptunus Rex]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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.

Try thinking operationally.

50 boats.

25% in overhaul, intermediate upkeep (that's in drydock).
25% in standdown and train up for deployment. This also includes weekly training operations or quickie "missions"
25% transiting to or from deployment.
25% on active deployment. (That's peace time war patrol for you nubs.)

That leaves effective 12 boats on mission, with another 12 for possible re-tasking.

Ships sensors allow coverage of about 2,600 to 7,000 square miles.

With 12 boats, thats 31,200 to 84,000 square miles.

The oceans cover how many square miles?

There are 40% less boats than 20 years ago, but the current mission tasking is the same or even greater.

The Chinese are spending more money and resources on submarines than they are on surface combatants.

India is leasing Soviet Akula class boats. And I think we can expect more "leasing" by the Russians.

Iran has 4 Kilo class diesel boats.

Dollar for dollar, capability for capability, the submarine is the most effective ocean platform for interdiction (or denial) at sea than any surface "target". (And nations that desire a blue water navy realize this.)
But they are not as glamorus as the BIG surface weanies, like carriers.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Neptunus Rex

Iran has 4 Kilo class diesel boats.

Iran has Three project 877 Kilo submarines
10 Ghadir midgets submarines
1 Nahong class small submarine.

[Neptunus Rex]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Iran has Three project 877 Kilo submarines
10 Ghadir midgets submarines
1 Nahong class small submarine.

You're quibbling!