China, Iran Creating 'No-Go' Zones to Thwart U.S. Military Power

Politics Daily ^ | 03/1/10 | David Wood

[El Gato]

Well, the only good part is that we still have the technical know-how to build all of this stuff.

If you don't continuously modernize, you lose the ability to do so, at least in a timely manner. To be a *good* engineer, one much have experience as well as knowledge. Both are often somewhat specialized, and while the knowledge doesn't lose value very quickly, the experience does.

[tanknetter]

The F16 fighter, for instance, originally cost about $35 million each (adjusted for inflation). It is being replaced by the F-35, currently priced at $266 million each. The pattern holds for the F-22, which the Pentagon has bought to replace its F-15s, and the B-1 and B-2 bombers built to replace B-52s and F-111s. Small wonder the Air Force inventory of fighter-attack planes and bombers has sagged 20 percent during the past 15 years from 2,073 to 1,649.

Huh?!? I've never seen either a fly-away cost or a gross cost (spreading the R&D dollars across the buy) for an F-35 anywhere NEAR the $266 million range. That may be a total lifecycle cost (including operational costs over a notional 30-40 year lifespan), but if that's the case than there's absolutely no way that an F-16's cost is as low as $35 million (adjusted)

To continue ... while the F-22 is suppose to replace the F-15C, the B-1 and B-2s were built to COMPLEMENT the B-52s in the heavy/strategic bombardment role, not replace them. And the F-111 was replaced by the F-15E, not the B-1 or B-2.

The "sagging" of inventory (actually the term "gap" is more applicable) is not so much a matter of cost as it is the 1990s Clinton "hiatus" in driving new weapons into operational service. The F-22 and the V-22 were supposed to reach IOC in the early 1990s. The F-22 reached it in the mid 00's and the V-22 is only reaching it now because the R&D phases for both systems were stretched out under Clinton (although to be fair, the V-22 almost died at the hands of Dick Cheney in the early 1990s). Legacy aircraft are reaching the ends of their service lives at a time when new aircraft are barely even starting theirs.

Given that, this guy doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

[SunkenCiv]

So it was that Washington, using its armada of aircraft carriers, cruise missile-launching submarines, fast cargo ships, long-range bombers, airlifters, and air refueling fighters, could eject the Iraqis from Kuwait (1991), bomb Serbia (1999), kick over the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (2001), and knock off Saddam and his cronies (2003). Everybody else had to meekly follow along (or sit on the sidelines). But now the party's over. The United States, Pentagon strategists say, is quickly losing its ability to barge in without permission.

Thanks neverdem.