Re: Merc Guild

No worries :)

>
>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
adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca

**********************************************