Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: gnb@bby.oz.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B2 vs. F117A
Message-ID: <1991Feb22.232514.4459@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 22 Feb 91 23:25:14 GMT
References: <1991Feb15.073214.12423@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Burdett, Buckeridge and Young Ltd.
Lines: 23
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: gnb@bby.oz.au (Gregory N. Bond)
>>>>> On 18 Feb 91 06:20:14 GMT, dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) said:

Daniel> However, I can't see much point in building a single airplane that
Daniel> costs as much as a whole aircraft carrier used to.

Daniel> I think the military could get a lot more bang for its buck by
Daniel> building lots of cheap platforms.

The problem is life-cycle costs.  Once purchased, it is MUCH cheaper
to maintain, man and supply 1 plane than a largeish capital ship.

This is alledgedly the "benefit" of smart/hi-tech weapons - (almost)
anything that reduces the people required (or likely people losses) is
worth it because the major long-term cost of an army is the people.

Greg.
--
Gregory Bond, Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
Internet: gnb@melba.bby.oz.au    non-MX: gnb%melba.bby.oz@uunet.uu.net
Uucp: {uunet,pyramid,ubc-cs,ukc,mcvax,prlb2,nttlab...}!munnari!melba.bby.oz!gnb


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com