From: tobeor@pmafire.inel.gov (Ray Hoover)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 14:53:13 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Seawolf program (was Re: Greatest Military Blunders of All Time)
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <BvowqE.9B8@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> cashman@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Geoff Cashman) writes:
>cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
>>cashman@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Geoff Cashman) writes:
>>
>>To start another thread: Why do you think that the Seawolf program
>>will be a lynchpin for the near future of the US military?
>
>I didn't say that I think it is a lynchpin in the future of
>the US military, I was just asserting that I could :-)
>
>
>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.  
>
Stuff deleted

I agree with this.  The Seawolf is undoubtedly the most capable class of its type ever to be produced.


>I can also argue it from another angle...
>Yes, the cold war is definetly over.  However, the lesson that was
>learned from WWI and WWII which can not be forgotten, despite the fact
>that it was part of the reason the cold war started.  That lesson is
>that we can not afford to let down our guard again.  Yes, we definetly
>need to downsize our military, we can not as a country (the U.S.) afford
>to field the conventional power that we have been fielding for the
>last five decades.  As a result of downsizing however, we need to be
>able to increase the effectiveness of individual units in all branches
>of the service, through various methods.  This to include more capable
>weapons, multi-role weapons in particular.  (this is beginning to 
>stray into politics, which I do not wish to do. I'm assuming the current
>politics to be 'valid' viewpoints, and do not wish to debate them).
>
However, one must consider the needs or mission also.  At present the US needs to project a military presence to other parts of the world.  Which will envolve primarily air and ground forces.  There is at present and for the forseable future no other power who will be able to challenge our naval forces.  The Seawolf class submarine will therefore have but limited use.  Therefore why pay the high price for something for which there is but limited use?

>
>It is naive to assume that the current diplomatic and political situations
>that exist in the world today will continue indefinetly.  U.S. Navy ships
>are generally built to have an active duty service life of 30 years.  30
>years is a long time.  I do not feel that the Centurion class is capable
>of answering the various possible scenarios in the future as the Seawolf
>is.  The Seawolf, as a result of being a more capable platform, is also
>more responsive to more situations than the Centurion. 
>
>
>Yet one more angle, which is again similar...
>
>Current U.S. military policy is apparently geared towards being able
>to deploy substantial power in a regional manner in a global environment.
>Ie, power projection anywhere in a region in any given area of U.S. interest
>in the world.  The strongest element of the maritime forces of modern day
>navies is the sub surface force (go ahead and debate this if you'd like).
>To evolve from the L.A. to the Centurion is compromising our maritime 
>capabilities for power projection in a global environment. 
>a
Again though this is only true for ship to ship combat operations.  The importance of this class submarine will be limited due to lack of targets for it.
>
>Personal feeling:
>We didn't balk when we paid large sums of money for the Nimitz class
>carriers.  We didn't balk when we built 17 units in the Ticonderoga
>class cruisers and spent nearly 20 (???) billion doing so. 
>
Yes but today the we are less willing to pay for such devices.  We have but a limited budget for the navy which looks like it will be getting smaller.
>
It can be argued that these classes were initiated during the cold war,
>and were responses to cold war threats.  I certainly wouldn't disagree
>with you, since you are probably right. 
>
>However, I argue (in addition <== note) that we are balking at the
>Seawolf program because most people are not aware of the role the
>subsurface forces play in the world today.  Subs, no matter how
>impressive they are, are shrouded in secrecy and are not intended
>as high visibility platforms of policy extension.  How often do you
>hear about an L.A. class in the news?  How often do you hear about
>a carrier or cruiser in the news?  
>
Another strong argument against the Seawolf IMHO.  Navies are often used to project the appearance of power (ie; if you don't do what we suggest, look what out there).  Subs by there nature don't look very nasty.  Carriers are big and impressive, with lots of airplanes and other things, while cruisers have lots of visible missles and things.s
>			
>			- Geoff Cashman
>


Newsgroups: alt.war