No real opinion on C-5M. Thought I read it would cost something like $150 million once. But as Bill R (Roggio??) implies, we need some airlift of some Army forces until the rest can sea deploy.

But I’m encouraged by the airlift from Diego Garcia to Afghanistan. Assume (uh oh) that a C-5 can land there. I’ve also read recently that Stryker version are upwards of 50,000 lbs now with add on armor. Seems like Stryker will have to be the air-deployable medium force that we count on and continue to improve.

1. Where and when the next contingency operation will take place

2. How long we really have to get there in sufficient strength to accomplish the mission

3. What other commitments will be outstanding to limit our freedom of action.

It is just not valid to state that if one reduces capability, that will in and of itself dictate strategy — you still have ends even if you have deprived yourself of the means to achieve those ends. Too many people, both in and outside the government right now, do not understand this. So you end up buying up risk when you thought you were saving money.

One thing we cannot do is move continents closer together. The geopolitical realities of time, distance and natural obstacles are as independent as they are constant in our strategic equation. There are only a few countries around the world that can project forces around the globe as can the United
States; most of those countries are our friends.
Precision strike is all well and fine, but there are too many people out there whose model is to wage war at long distance. If anything, 9/11 should have taught us that this is an illusion. We still have the disadvantages of geospatial depth, but fewer of its advantages.

http://www.defensedaily.com/publications/dd/2009–07-08/

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1552305920090515

http://www.defensedaily.com/publications/dd/2009–08-31/

In short they are having a prodution break until the reliability fixes actually bring the reliability up. This is the second try to get the reliability to an acceptable level. The USAF is making noises about cancellation but I’m not sure anyone believes they would do it.

If we had built numbers closer to what we had originally planned, the per unit price would be significantly lower and nobody would be calling these programs “failures.” For example if we had bought 590 or 640 F-22s, there would be much less pressure on the F-35. The initial production block could include important features planned for later aircraft, like the capability to carry 6 AAMs internally.

I don’t know about the B-2. That aircraft while capable has plenty of readiness problems that would have corrected by the NGB (B-3). Either way, we still need a new bomber before we retire our remaining B-52s in force.

I think JASSM is actually on track now, although it is still costlier than it should be. I know they are continuing development on extended range variants, but I think they got the bugs worked out.

Cole: I think you misunderstood; as Stephen points out, modernising the C-5 lets you fly more stuff with fewer aircraft than a C-17 fleet, which reduces your need for tankers. If you have lots of C-17 in the future and a bunch of new tankers, then C-5 modernisation isn’t a good plan. If you have no new tankers and no new C-17, then you suddenly find that modernising C-5 is the only option you’ve got.

What amuses me is the “Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia” nature of the piece; it doesn’t even mention that not even three years ago, everyone was crapping all over C-5M!

develop B-2 plan on 132 units buy 21

develop F-22 plan on 750…396… buy only 187

develop JASSM keep developing and developing and developing while its unit price more than doubles

develop F-35 as a low cost fighter see it’s price tag climb to $100M each and its total program cost go up more than 50% and development costs skyrocket. Plan to buy more than 400 LRIP units which will likely never be fully combat capable. Also terminate all alternatives to this failing program!

Wonder why we need new bombers and will have fighter deficits of 800 aircraft on the USAF side and 200+ aircraft on the USN side.

Yes, surely we are buying smart.

If you are going to replace 60 KC-10s with a max take-off weight of 590,000 lbs, do it with a two-engined C-17 that takes off at a max of 545,000 lbs that could be fitted with two 777 engines. If that means longer landing distance, so be it. The ramp footprint would be smaller, yet the capacity to carry outsize/oversize cargo would remain.

Just as inportantly, we need a version of the C-17 that burns less fuel to carry lighter loads intertheater distances. Most C-17s carry far smaller payloads more comparable to two C-130s or less. But a C-130 cannot fly intertheater distances efficiently.

Buy 60–80 two-engine C-17s to replace 60 KC-10s first. Plus you might sell some to allies. After that, hopefully the 787 will be in full production with reduced demand to allow a refueling version.

There are many things we need, cost be damned and this includes items that many politicians don’t want to pay for. Regarding “low cost” programs the the C-5M seems like a good choice to improve our airlift capability in my opinion.

A big part is the fact that each new weapon system is significantly more expensive (and capable, true) than the one before. So we buy fewer and fewer copies.

Another big part is reaction like buying the MRAP. Our leadership, uniformed and civilian, sent our folks into Iraq driving Hummers and they were getting killed very easily. Of course our leadership told us that we would not need armored vehicles — the population would welcome us with open arms! Well, the arms they welcomed us with were not open, but were AK-47s. So we suddenly needed to spend like crazy to get MRAPs built and over there.

And then we have the changes in direction — like the FCS program. First it is the Army’s highest priority, then it is discarded.

So when people start telling me that we need to adapt to limited budgets I ask where they were five years ago, and why we are spending trillions but still are in an austere budget!