From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Seawolf program (was Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All Time)
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:00:22 GMT
    <BvntqF.MB5@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <39053@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> 
    <BvowqE.9B8@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

cashman@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Geoff Cashman) writes:

>The Los Angeles class of submarines has proven their worth repeatedly
>in numerous situations.  I feel that the Seawolf class can carry on
>and enhance that role, whereas the Centurion class simply isn't capable
>enough to do so.  The Centurion class is in some ways inferior to
>the L.A. class.  

It is true that the Seawolf class is a better sub than the Los Angles
class.  It costs more and was designed later, and both these things
allowed the designer to build a better sub.  It is also true that the
Centurion class probably is not as good a sub as the Seawolf class.
The Centurion was after all designed as a lower cost substitute for
the Seawolf.

However, I support the cancelation of the Seawolf program.  I'll try
and be very logical in my argument.

- The only real threat on America's control of the sea was the Soviet
Navy.  Now that it is falling apart, there are no realistic threats to
our control of the oceans.  The next three biggest navies in the world
are the British, French and Chinese.  Two of these navies have been
allied with us for 50 years, and the third really cannot operate
outside of the range of land-based fighters from China.  Further, we
could probably defeat all three of these navies combined.

- There will not be any threats suddenly appearing to suprise us.
Shipbuilding takes a long time (for us and them) and is easily
monitored by satilite.  Further, for any navy to even begin to
threaten ours would require a massive build-up.  Any navy except the
former Soviet Navy would probably have to triple in size.

- Since there are no realistic threats to American control of the
ocean, and we must cut the military budget somewhere, some of the cuts
should come from this area.

- There is a pressing need to be able to project American power from
the ocean onto the adjacent land areas.  The carriers of Desert Storm,
and the invasions of Panama and Greneda, and the operations of the
coast of Liberia all reflect this.

- Therefore, we should cut that part of the navy that is used for
ocean control, and not that part that is used for power projection.

- Submarines are almost completely used for ocean control, and very
little used for power projection onto land.  They are great at sinking
ships, and yet marginally useful for hitting land targets.  In
particular, they work poor close to land, and the only land-attack
weapon they carry is very expensive *and* is carried by many other ships.
In sum, submarines are by no means the best *or* cheapest way to
project power ashore.

- Therefore, we should cut the submarine force.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
I think where we differ is that I see no threat to our control of the
sea.  Further, I see very little cost effectiveness for submarine
forces to project force ashore.
Newsgroups: alt.war