From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:25:43 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

 "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> writes:

>You should be thinking of carriers for this comparison. You can't always count
>on a nearby airbase, especially in these days of base closings! Even if
>you could, aircraft are even worse fuel hogs than BBs.

	This is, in my opinion, most likely untrue.  BB's take metric loads
of fuel.  Not the pounds taken by aircraft, but on the order of tons.  I'd
like to get figures on consumption at various speeds, but let's just think
in terms of horsepower; you've got at least four boilers going for just
putting about, so call it 440,000shp being made.  The other four boilers
are running too, but probably providing hotel services and the like (air,
water, hydraulics, steam, etc...).  Call that another 100,000hp necessary.
At any level of efficiency this is going to out-consume what a plane can
likely carry, let alone what a plane would consume.  As for the base
closings, that's what the superior range of the aircraft is for.  The
aircraft carriers didn't have to get near Korea or Vietnam to launch
deep strikes into her, while a battleship needs to sit on the coast.
Given that strike we did on Libya and how Desert Storm strikes were 
possible from Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and probably a few more
it seems that air bombardment would be the cheaper solution, and more
than likely the quickest.  The battleship moves at 35mph; the planes
at a 600.  The fire support mission out of gun range will take a while
as the ship moves into place.  The fire support mission at the other
end of the country just takes another half hour of flight time.


> Keeping them in
>the air 24 hours a day would be a maintainence nightmare. I doubt you 
>could keep 24 hour a day flights going for very long, especially with only
>12 aircraft. You'll run out of pilots real fast. That doesn't even begin
>to figure in any combat losses.

	The Berlin Airlift shows that if the will to do it is there, it
can be done.  However, a couple SAM's can make life interesting for the
bombers; what will some Exocets do to the battleship in terms of money?
A country that has the capability to shoot down high-level bombers or
fast strike aircraft can be presumed to be capable of harming a BB.  More
planes would be nice, of course, but as even a single aircraft carrier
can keep a 24-hour CAP around her, I think it can be done without undue
numbers of planes.

>   Anybody have any good data on how much it costs to run one sortie
>of, say, an F-16, including fuel, munitions, etc? I'll bet it doesn't
>run cheap. By the way, I was just talking to an Air Force friend the
>other day, and he was saying that he works at a "small" airbase, only
>5000 people. The 1500 man crew of the BB is looking better all the time!

	Don't forget the tenders, tanker ships, munition ships, the
destroyers and cruisers to keep her escorted, etc...  Just as a battleship
can't fly, an aircraft cannot deliver shells like the ship.  The mission
of the battleship, however, is much more limited and one in which it
is the ultimate response.  Aircraft are more versatile, and it seems
they would be cheaper.  At Normandy, battleships were in their element.
At Vietnam, airlifted 105 Howitzers and Huey's or F4's were probably the
more all-around useful fire support.

	Of course, the battleship looks *MUCH* more impressive, which
is an important force projection criterion and makes for a better
reception when showing the flag. ;-)

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >


Newsgroups: sci.military