From: gary%ke4zv.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B2s v. carrier task force
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:07:24 GMT
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems


From Gary Coffman <gary%ke4zv.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu>

In article <C1D8r3.ACA@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov> writes:
>In article <C17w89.FrF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Gary Coffman <gary%ke4zv.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu> writes:
>> 
>> 5) Logistic transport.
>>    This remains a vital mission of the Air Force. In today's rapidly
>>    developing military situations, the ability to rapidly deploy
>>    troops and war material to remote areas is increasingly important.
>>    And on today's high intensity battlefields, rapid *resupply* is
>>    essential to continued conduct of operations. While pre-positioned
>>    naval transport can meet some needs, a vastly upgraded air transport
>>    system is badly needed.
>
>It is important to remember that if Desert Shield/Storm depended solely on
>the Air Force to transport supplies, we would still be there today.  While
>there was a literal "highway in the sky" from the US to Saudi Arabia, when
>the first fast sealift ships arrived after about 30 days into Desert Shield, 
>it had brought more tons of supplies *than the entire Air Force effort to
>that day*!!!!  Once the sealift was in high gear, the Air Force transportation
>effort paled by comparison.  Bottom line: Air Force can deliver the troops
>fast, but their heavy equipment and supplies still must arrive by sea.

Yes, but we were lucky that combat operations didn't have to start for
those 30 days. We can't plan on that being the case in future conflicts.
The Gulf War was remarkable because we were allowed 4 months to fully
deploy our forces in forward areas *totally unopposed*. That's unlikely
to happen again.

>The US military sealift capacity is in more of a need of improvement than the
>Air Forces' air transport system.

US sealift is in bad shape, and the number of US flag merchant ships
has declined to a very low level. However, consider that ground combat 
in the Gulf War was over in 100 hours. Without the unopposed 4 months
of buildup, sealift would have been unable to play any role at all
in the conflict. We should be planning on being able to forward deploy
in 100 hours against actively hostile forces. I don't think sealift
can ever meet that challenge. A large force of heavy lift aircraft
seems the only way to field a competent army rapidly from the ConUS.

Note that short, intense wars are becoming the rule. The Arab/Israeli
wars have all been too short for sealift to play a role. The Gulf War
was a 100 hour affair, etc. Low level conflicts, such as the guerrilla
actions in Afganistan and Vietnam are different matters since modern
heavy weapons weren't serious factors. If we're to fight modern conventional
armies, we've got to be prepared for very rapid conflicts that expend
enormous tonnages of war material.

Because we don't have that rapid airlift capability, we have been relying
on pre-positioned equipment at forward bases in allied countries. But the
political world is changing. Our presence in the Far East and in Europe
is becoming less welcome. We must plan to be able to move equipment from
the ConUS to anywhere a conflict occurs in a very rapid manner.

That political reality is also why our carrier and Marine forces are
increasingly important. Carriers give us portable forward strike bases
and Marines give us a rapid ground capability. But Marines can't fight
major land battles alone. We still need to field and support heavy Army
units. That requires lots of heavy and rapid transport capability.

The Soviets had a large wing in ground effect craft for transporting
heavy weapons rapidly, and they have the largest rough field transport
aircraft in the world. We need similar, or better, systems in large
enough numbers to effectively deploy and supply heavy army forces
anywhere on the globe with short notice.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     |