Re: The GZG Digest V2 #837

Thank you, Adrian, you expressed what I was trying to get at much more 
eloquently than I defended myself.

Brian B2

>From: adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca
>Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>To: gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu
>Subject: Re: The GZG Digest V2 #837
>Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 02:31:58 -0700
>
> >Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 18:18:54 -0700
> >From: "B Lin" <lin@rxkinetix.com>
> >Subject: RE: Merc Guild
> >
>
><snip>
>
> >> And that expertise is where the expense starts to get near
> >> that of buying
> >> the equipment.  Remember, my premise is that Mercs will be
> >> hired by nations
> >> with few men but plenty of money.
> >
> >I'm not sure I agree with the part where expertise is the bulk of the
>expense.  In most cases today, the operator of the equipment is the
>cheapest part - i.e. F-16 pilots probably only cost a few million to
train,
>while their planes are 25-40 million each, cost $500,000- 1 million to
fire
>a missile and probably a few hundred thousand dollars in maintenance. 
The
>pilot himself is probably making less than $40K a year.
> >
>
>This is, in a way, misleading.  Sure, if you add up the cost of
training a
>pilot and paying him, it is less expensive than buying an F16.  But it
>takes *five years* to train a good fighter pilot, and a whole airforce
to
>create the environment in which you can train him...  How much does it
cost
>for an airforce?
>
>If you need pilots *now*, then you pay what you have to pay.  And at
that
>point, the pro pilot can charge whatever he likes, because there is *no
>way* that you can grow your own without a HUGE investment.  If the
*real*
>costs of a professional fighter pilot were so inexpensive, we wouldn't
see
>the growth of organizations like the NFTC (Nato Flight Training in
Canada)
>- where a whole bunch of countries share the costs of good training...
>
>If we're talking mercs, lets look at riflemen.  How much does an AK
cost?
>$50 maybe, in the right places.  How much for a couple of thousand
rounds
>of ammo?  $couple of hundred??  How much for a skilled soldier to use
that
>$50 rifle with the $100 worth of ammo?
>
>$ Thousands and thousands...
>
>And that's TODAY.  Real pro mercs make a lot of money (thousands per
month)
>- they wouldn't do it otherwise.  Why would things change in the
future?
>
>Executive Outcomes working in Sierra Leone charged huge sums of money
>(well, actually, they charged a diamond mine...), but it was still WAY
>worth it for the government.  Those soldiers were the best in Africa
(some
>of the best and most experienced in the world, really), but they were
using
>Land Rovers and AK's and RPG's.  Ok, they did bring in a couple of
their
>own Hinds, but even those aren't really very expensive.
>
>The Sierra Leone gov't wasn't paying for the gear, they were paying for
the
>*best* people.  EO went in and sorted out the country in a short period
of
>time, at a cost that was vastly lower than that needed to build an army
>capable of doing the job.  As soon as EO left (when the politics
changed)
>the country fell to bits, and the NGO's were screaming for someone to
bring
>EO back.  The UN force that went in later with *thousands* of soldiers
was
>completely incapable of doing what the few hundred EO guys did.  And
the
>equipment EO used was not complex, nor expensive, stuff...
>
>As other people have pointed out, there may be lots of reasons why you
>don't have a good army on hand right now, but unless you need a heavy
>mechanized force with billions worth of zoomie high-tech tanks, etc,
your
>biggest costs are going to be for the best people.  Guns are cheap.
>
>My view of the GZGverse is that in most conflicts, the forces involved
will
>be quite small - because of the costs of moving big armies and all
their
>equipment around space.  Like in the (really good) Dirigent Mercenary
Corps
>series by (damn it, forget his name again... Perry?), the forces are
often
>a battalion or two per side, on a whole world.  For sparsely settled
colony
>planets, this is all that makes sense.  No armoured divisions rolling
>around - unless it becomes an important battleground between the ESU
and
>the NAC or something.	I see the *big* fights as relatively rare
events,
>and so small "Light" forces much more the norm.
>
>And that's where the Merc makes sense.  Unless it's the ESU or the
>Indonesians hiring whole Brigades of the LLAR because there is a BIG
war
>going on, I envision merc participation as mostly being of the "light
>infantry" sort.  And the LLAR example isn't merc companies - that's one
>country hiring the ARMY of another country, wholesale.
>
>Anyway, as I said, unless you're trying to get an Armoured Regiment
going
>fast, where the equipment costs are huge, then it seems to me that most
>merc stuff will be primarily infantry and support stuff.
>
>So, other than the costs for mortars/MLRS/arty/sensors/etc., which the
merc
>companies will arrive with and take away again, the big cost is the 
>*people*.
>
>The final point made in the previous message, though, is still valid:
>
> >Assuming as similar ratio in the future, the personnel cost for high
tech
>equipment will be low compared the cost of purchasing the unit.  So if
you
>can rent the unit for 1/10 or 1/3 of the purchase cost, you come out
way
>ahead.
>
>I agree with the last bit.  Just not the sentance before.  The purchase
>cost you're paying 1/10 of is the cost of creating professional
soldiers,
>not the cost of their guns...
>
>It is, however, still cheaper to pay this price than to either do
without
>and lose, or build the infrastructure necessary to create a good
soldier.
>
>
>
>
>
>**********************************
>
>adrian.johnson@sympatico.co
>adrian@stargrunt.ca
>
>http://www.stargrunt.ca
>
>**********************************

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com