Why the Pentagon Can't Modernize

Washington Post (Lead Only) ^ | 04/26/02 | Lawrence Korb

[SBeck]

The writer is director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and served as assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.

[SBeck]

Korb hits the nail on the head. The reason why the Pentagon is forced to accept this is because Congresscritters, on both sides, ram these obsolete and fraudulent programs down its throat. For the most part, the weapons systems mentioned are nothing more than job programs for the Congresscritter's home district.

[hchutch]

I dunno. I'd rather have our pilots flying an F-22 for air-to-air combat than to be in the older F-15C. And the CH-46s have had it. It's the V-22 or nothing for the Marines.

I would, however, like to see the Iowa-class dreadnoughts come back into service. They would still be very useful.

[Bulldog1967]

Yup, nothing like lobbing a volkswagon-size artillery shell 22 miles inland to put the fear of allah into someone...lol

[fogarty]

During the 1990s, the average age of some weapons did increase, but for the most part, these changes were not great, and in some cases, the average age of major weapon systems actually declined.

Not quite. The Marines have had the CH-46 since the early-sixties. In many cases, we have pilots flying aircraft over 40 years old - in airframes designed for only half that service-life. The average age of this primary combat mover increased ten years from 1990 to 2000. The M198 howitzer likewise is running about 20-25 years old.

I'd say his assessment would be correct, if limited to only Air Force platforms. Otherwise, for almost all our ground troops - Marines and soldiers - are still stuck using antiquated equipment from decades ago.

[SBeck]

Actually, it's a Volkswagen weight object and yes the impact is awesome. Unfortunately, since its range is limited, compared to cruise missiles, its usefulness is somewhat diminished.

[SBeck]

The point of the article is that we keep funding cold war weapons instead of deciding what is needed in the future.

Exactly.

[tanknetter]

Actually, it's a Volkswagen weight object and yes the impact is awesome. Unfortunately, since its range is limited, compared to cruise missiles, its usefulness is somewhat diminished.

Actually, when the Iowa's were withdrawn in the early 1990s there were two new shells under development. One was a 13" subcaliber sabot round that had a range of around 45nm. The other was an 11" subcaliber sabot round with a theoretical (it was a DARPA project, never prototyped) range of 100nm and was GPS guided.

The problem is that the cost of the new shells would be roughly comparable with that of the JDAM GPS kit for the Mk.80 series of air-delivered bombs. So what makes more sense? Putting funds into recommissioning manpower-intensive battleships that have *maybe* 10-15 years of life left in them ... or buying lots of bombs to hang on existing platforms (B-52s, B-1Bs, B-52s) that will be around for decades?

I'd love to have the battleships back in service for a number of valid and sentimental reasons. But there's no question that less-costly alternatives are already in existance that can fulfill any current or conceptual role for them

[hchutch]

However, the turnaround time on air strikes is pretty long. A battleship can park off the coast and deliver the muntions 24/7 with much less time from the call for fire until the target is hit.

If we can cut the pork, we can get all four of those ships back into service, while also funding the F-22, F-35, and V-22 projects. They do not cost that much.

Another project to revive would be the XM8 Buford. THAT project was cancelled to pay for the Bosnia peacekeeping mission.

[tanknetter]

When was the last decade that the US fought in Air to Air combat. Yet how many times has the US deployed smaller forces that needed close air support but that the US Air Force refuses to develop a new aircraft to fill that mission.

In addition, the Navy keeps wanting to build pointless attack submarines but refuses to develop new mine sweepers.

The point of the article is that we keep funding cold war weapons instead of deciding what is needed in the future.

Question is: What *IS* needed in the future? I don't think anyone can really answer that one at the moment. If you'd asked me a year ago where the US's next war might be fought, I'd probably have said it would be in Iraq, Korea or in the Taiwan Strait. Definitely not Afghanistan.

Fact is that the US needs a robust force that can counter a variety of threats. You complain about the USN's SSN force ... but if China were to launch some kind of strike on Taiwan they would be needed. Fast. (btw, you are dead wrong about minesweepers -- the USN has been rebuilding that capability since ODS. We have two new classes of minesweeper - the Avenger and Osprey classes - as well as a dedicated anti-mine "mothership" that can support them, as well as MH-53 Sea Dragon anti-mine helos.)

The thing about "cold war relics" is that they are large, adaptable and robust. The F-22 is stealthy and will be able to carry air-to-ground PGMs (unlike the F-15C). Take a look at the F-16. Originally designed as a lightweight day fighter. Now it functions in just about EVERY air combat role imaginable. Only problem is with the F-22 is that it's land-based. Should have been a USN program from the start (since our "Cold War relic" carriers are more robust).

[xsrdx]

<< Ping >>

[tanknetter]

However, the turnaround time on air strikes is pretty long. A battleship can park off the coast and deliver the muntions 24/7 with much less time from the call for fire until the target is hit.

If we can cut the pork, we can get all four of those ships back into service, while also funding the F-22, F-35, and V-22 projects. They do not cost that much.

Another project to revive would be the XM8 Buford. THAT project was cancelled to pay for the Bosnia peacekeeping mission.

Not necessarily true. BBs have finite magazine space, and you also have to factor in crew fatigue. At it's theoretical maximum of 2 rounds per tube per minute, the BB will exhaust its magazines in a little over an hour. I don't know how you overcome that, other than to have multiple BBs in theater so that one can be on the gunline while the other(s) are resupplied. Solution to the latter would be to put more crew on the BBs (Gold and Blue crew each turret, for instance), but that would only add to the costs. It think it is just as cost effective to have a CV or LHA/LHD nearby to provide round-the-clock support patrols ... in addition to all the other capabilities they bring to a fight.

Second, all four BBs can't be brought back. NJ (the "high-mileage" member of the Iowa class) was in pretty rough shape when she was retired just prior to ODS - and she was extensively "de-milled" once she was struck off the register (this involved welding all the turret gears in place, cutting all sorts of power leads, and boring holes in the 16" barrels) it would be hideously expensive to bring her back and maintain her. You could bring back Iowa and Whisky, and possibly Missouri. Still, there are other platforms that are more robust and can still do the job. A Burke DDG or Ticonderoga CG can provide suppressive fire with its 5", and launch some Tomahawks (or the proposed SSM version of the Standard missile), while Hornets, Tomcats (until 2006) and Harriers can launch and roll in with JDAMs.

[hchutch]

Well, the best solution would be to get a new class of these ships on-line. The fact remains that we still don't have anything that beats the 16"/50 shells, or the sub-caliber sabots.

If we were to bring the four battleships back (or even just the three, and use New Jersey for spares), and immediately begin developing a new class of fire-support ships that can deliver the same capability with half the crew.

Frankly, I do not want to put all the eggs in the CAS basket, and the 5" guns won't be that good against hard targets.

We ought to be designing a new class ASAP, and bringing the older ones back. New Jersey will take the most work, but we supposedly stashed away plenty of spare parts for the ships. We'll have to check and see what we can do. There are, as you said, VALID reasons to bring them back. I also like the fact that these ships are indimidators in their own right. Better to stop a fight before it starts.

[Poohbah]

I would, however, like to see the Iowa-class dreadnoughts come back into service. They would still be very useful.

Yeah. Real useful in Afghanistan, I bet. Real useful for killing dopey gunner's mates or any Marines on the beach dealing with a randomly-directed shell--the powder for those guns is 60 years old, and the only lot that was worth a damn for accuracy was used up during the 1980s.

Start a new ship design for the mission. Note that your mission is not 16-inch NGFS. Instead, it is to destroy very hard targets on a time-urgent basis in response to Marine units ashore.

[tanknetter]

Well, the best solution would be to get a new class of these ships on-line. The fact remains that we still don't have anything that beats the 16"/50 shells, or the sub-caliber sabots ...

For certain specific missions, that's true. Problem is that there are, well, acceptable (if imperfect) alternatives that can perform a variety of other missions as well.

There are only two valid reasons to bring the BBs back. One is the intimidation mission you mention. Second is for the nine 16" barrels that each BB carries and their ability to perform exceptionally well given certain, specific mission parameters. But a cost-benefit analysis will show that it is extremely wastefull to have the BBs in service just to fulfill those two roles. If the US had an unlimited DoD budget (pretty much the case in the early-mid 1980s when the BBs were recom'd) they would be high on my priority list. But in spite of 9-11 the DoD doesn't, and therefore they aren't ...

[hchutch]

What it sounds like we need, in other words, is to find a weapons system that would combine the speed with which artillery responds to a call for support with the accuracy of PGMs and the ability to kill very hard targets, and we need it on a tough platform. A new type of artillery

A 5" popgun isn't going to do the job. We need something bigger. We've got 16" rounds left, and some semblance of support left (due to a Congressional mandate). That's probably the caliber we need to use as a baseline for the big gun we'd need. We could also add VLS for TLAM and ATACMS as well, so as to give us options for softer targets and counter-battery fire.

Quite frankly, it seems to me that a new class of dreadnoughts would be the ideal solution. One that would take advantage of sixty years of technological improvments.

[Poohbah]

We've got 16" rounds left, and some semblance of support left (due to a Congressional mandate). That's probably the caliber we need to use as a baseline for the big gun we'd need.

Memorandum

From: The Secretary of Defense
To: hchutch

Subj: USMC

1. Congratulations. You just chained solving this problem to an existing (and wholly inadequate) technology base. Which part of "clean sheet of paper" did you not understand?

2. Please clean out your office by 1700 today, turn in the office keys to the facility manager, and pick up your last paycheck at disbursing.

3. And, if you feel you must ask: yes, you're fired.

r/s,

Rummy.

[hchutch]

Quite harsh.

I don't see any other way out of this. We want hard-target capability, quick response time, and precision capability. Now, we have to figure something out. The armor we can rig from the Chobham armor used on the Abrams.

The fire-support mission requirements you outlined logically call for something better than that 5" popgun that will only bounce off the hard targets.

[Poohbah]

Penetration is a function of kinetic energy and cross-section. A 16-inch round uses its mass to bash its way in. But a 5-inch round going four times as fast (ie: scramjet round) will have more penetration, because it will have the same KE spread across about a tenth of the sectional area.

[hchutch]

But how much explosive would there be?

The 5" rounds have had problems, as the United States Naval Fire Support Association has outlined quite well. Response time is a big issue. We have a study showing SERIOUS problems with ERGM, for example.

http://usnfsa.com/articles/NNUSTLandAttackpt-1.pdf
http://usnfsa.com/articles/NNUSTLandAttackpt-2.pdf

We have problems here with that shell. We need another option. The problem is NOT going away with ERGM.

http://usnfsa.com/articles/samsperiscope_3272001.pdf

The problems have been known since 1995. We need to re-think things here. So, the 16" guns on the Iowa-class BBs are about as accurate as the Brown Bess muskets. Let's go build a 16-inch version of the M24 sniper system. It's not going to be easy, but with the problems documented in the ERGM and the scramjet rounds, we need to think this over.