rickusn

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/51xx/doc5...c15-Entire.pdf

Ive consulted this CBO report many times over the years. Mainly for its discussion of force structure. Its the oldest USN centric report available on the CBO website.

It also discusses many of the issues that we still debate some 25 years later.

Page three has an excellent discussion on the Cruiser/Destroyer/Frigate designation issue taht comes up from time to time.

It also discusses alternatives considered prior to the finalization of the Burke program parameters and specifications.

I dont know how many have read and considered this report before so I thought Id post the link again.

Maybe it will also generate some discussion.

Sea Toby

I found the information interesting. This study was written in 1982, twenty four years ago, reflecting FY 1982 prices. During this time, we won the Cold War, and a peace dividend was cashed in.

We have cut the aircraft carrier battle groups to 11, reflecting that one carrier will be refueling at any given time in the future. You'll notice that we have reached the goals for cruisers and guided missile destroyers. We have also cut considerably the convoy forces. You'll notice the drop in the number of frigates. While this study doesn't reflect the submarine forces, we have cut them too, from 100 attack submarines to 50. Many of the submarines and all of the guided missile cruisers were paid off when they needed refueling.

These cuts have reflected a prolonged DDG building program, and a delay in the frigate replacement program. The submarine construction program has been cut to a third of what it was, from 3 per year to 1. However, we are reaching the point were we will have to construct more ships to meet the future needs today. We will need to start constructing 2 submarines per year if we wished to have 50 in the fleet, and we will need to start constructing 3-4 LCS ships per year to replace the frigates.

Its a never ending process. Eventually we'll need to replace our cruisers and then the destroyers. And the aircraft carriers will need to be replaced as they pay off too.

This study defined the aegis system very well. Targeting and illuminating radars have been considerably improved since this study. Newer close in weapon sytems have been developed, such as the RAM missile system. You'll notice that this study mentioned that the frigates didn't need a larger gun mount for their escorting mission, nor will LCS.

What impressed me and has disappointed me the most about this study was the range and speed desired for V/STOL aircraft of the Osprey. Its a shame in the past 25 years this has not been achieved. Considering the long development time of this program, I wonder if the Osprey program has been a failure.

__________________
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/waglogo.gif

ArmchairGeneral

LOL. Considering what people on this board have said before, I think that you're gonna get a real loud affirmative on that one. Personally, I don't know, seems like a real troubled program, but it also seems like it has really useful capabilities. And I know what people will say to that: "if it doesn't crash on takeoff." LOL

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

-{SpoonmaN}-

Hey the V-22 was a nice idea, it's just so stupidly expensive that it should have been scrapped. That money could have bought a fair few Raptors, or better yet, paid for an increase in ground troop numbers in Iraq, you sure could have used that.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

PubFather

Or in the USN perspective - perhaps gone towards funding a genuine replacement for either the F14 or the A6... something that the USN really needed... not some half-baked psuedo-helicopter...

__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit - Scottish Motto

"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan

rickusn

Sea Toby: "This study was written in 1982,"

Are we reading the same document?

The link I provided was to a report dated April 1981.

And I dont remember a reference to the Osprey among other things.

What am I missing here?

Have I entered the "Twilight Zone" again? LOL

Thanks for any help. Page #s would be helpful.

-{SpoonmaN}-

I think that in spite of it's limitations the Super-Bug is still enough for the USN's needs right now. It's not perfect for any one role but its enough to get all those jobs done and thats all the USN, which has no real opposition to speak of, needs.
If the Cold War were still kicking and there was still a powerful Soviet Naval Force out and about, then the NATF and A-12 would have been necessary, but as is they would be a costly case of overkill.
The US Military's main priority for any loose funds they can dig up should be more Raptors, more Spectres and more troops on the ground helping the Iraqi Armed Forces who are better trained in COIN ops.
The MNF nations cannot afford to screw this thing up.

Sea Toby

Since this study is published every year, The US Navy League's Sea Power magazine publishes a similar article every year, whether this study is from 1981 or 1982 is besides the point. You can see similar graphs for this year on US government and magazine websites.Later during the 1980s Option E was developed for a 15 carrier force to bring the fleet under Navy Secretary John Lehman to 700 ships.

As for the Osprey, you are correct, the Osprey program hadn't been named by this time. Never-the-less, there is reported in this study of a new V/STOL transport aircraft program replacing helicopters with much longer range, speed, and lift capacity, graphs included. The ONLY program that has remotely resembled this program is the Osprey program.

Since this study other programs have been developed and many finished. However, it is safe to comment that the Osprey program really hasn't evolved into a program providing 100 operational aircraft as yet. Whereas the F/A-18E, not mentioned whatsoever in this study has. Then again, this study was mostly about surface warships.

On the other hand if you study these charts, one can easily see in the numbers the navy's rotation policy of one ship deployed, one ship standing down, and one ship working up. Too bad New Zealand's current government doesn't see the need for 3 frigates.

rickusn

Youve still lost me. LOL

Sorry Im a little slow.

The only V/STOL aircraft I can see is the Grumman 698 which is a turbfan powered aircraft that IMHO should be more readilly compared to the Harrier.

No?