From: Curtis Fennell <chf0@roger.gte.com>
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Organization: GTE Laboratories
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:37:04 GMT


From Curtis Fennell <chf0@roger.gte.com>


From Curtis Fennell <chf0@roger.gte.com>


In article <BvxDv0.MHA@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:
>
>In article <Bvq4E3.Cyw@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> chf0@harvey.gte.com (Curtis Fennell) writes:
>
>>If it were up to me, every service would lose some, but the Air Force
>>would lose the most.
>
>
>Just out of curiosity, why?

I will tell you why, but first let me preface my comments by pointing
out that I served on active duty in the US Marines from 1978 to 1984,
so I am not without bias.

Having said that, let's look at the USAF's missions.  They provide
strategic deterrent forces, including bombers, missiles, early warning
systems and command and control functions.  They provide most of the
US's air transport capability and they provide tactical air forces for
air superiority, interdiction, deep strike and close air support for
the army.

In the modern world, the most dramatic political change in the past 10
years has been the dissolution of the USSR and the consequent
reduction in the threat of a strategic nuclear war.  IMHO, this
actually increases the chance of a limited nuclear exchange,
started by someone like Iraq.  However, such an exchange would be
short, as US superiority in nuclear weapons and delivery systems would
end it rather rapidly.

This reduction in the threat of nuclear war should mean a
corresponding reduction in the strategic forces.  I believe that the
strategic bomber force is basically an anachronism that can be
scrapped. I also believe that the B-2 is a very expensive luxury that
we can't afford.  We should keep some ICBM's for their long range
accuracy, but not too many.

As an aside, it would be nice to keep the B-52s or something like them
for conventional ground support, but their usefulness as strategic
nuclear deterrents is at an end.  This does not reflect on the quality
of the aircraft or their crews, but rather on the changing political
realities of our world.

The air force's least glamorous major function is transport and I
think that they should actually spend a little more time and effort on
beefing up the transport forces.

As far as tactical air power is concerned, the need for flexible and
responsive air power is still very great.  However, as the likelyhood
of a large conventional war (in central Europe, for example) is
reduced, the need for large fixed-base forces is reduced and the need
for easily transportable, flexible forces increases.  And the air
force's tactical air forces are the least flexible arm of our tactical
air power.

For the most part, they require large fixed bases to operate from, as
opposed to the Navy and Marine Corps. With the reduction of US bases
around the world, this becomes less and less possible. It also reduces
the number of places that you can permanently base an air wing.

Because of the fact that air force air wings are less flexible, I
would reduce them more than the Navy or Marine air wings.  Modern
armed forces are going to have to be more flexible than they have been
in the past in order to cope with the wide variety of missions that
will be assigned to them, and I just don't see the air force as being
that flexible.

Curt
--
Curt Fennell			* chf0@gte.com
Unix System Administrator	* (617) 466-2142
GTE Labs, 40 Sylvan Road	* "Get down off that cross!
Waltham, MA, 02254		*  Somebody needs the wood"

Newsgroups: sci.military