Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Evaluating Aircraft Cost
Message-ID: <1991Jun7.072323.8452@amd.com>
Date: 1 Jun 91 04:18:56 GMT
References: <1991Jun1.012410.27019@amd.com> <1991May31.061422.13627@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: DEC Palo Alto
Lines: 32
Approved: military@amd.com


From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson)


crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) writes;
> So, Av Week is caught in the "initial purchace price" rut also.

No, they're not.  The figures quoted were for "procurement and
20-year operational costs".

The cost figures were provided by the US Air Force.  You may take
issue with their accounting, but House representatives didn't.  "No one
on the defense subcomittee challenged the Air Force figures, previewing
what may be the flavor of this year's debate over the bomber."

> (They sent in all those EW aircraft, so you aren't going to assume
> _no_ losses are you?).  The B2 is the big looser here.

The loss rate of F-117 attack groups in the Gulf actually WAS zero.  In
any case, the article does not get into the details of the figures.  But
you do raise a good point -- aircraft will be lost, whether to enemy action
or not.  The loss of one B-2 would be a major one.  This seems to favor
the F-117 or other small stealth aircraft.

>   What is the amortized cost to field and fight a _wing_, and what can it do?

That is the cost used and comparison made.  I recommend that anyone who
wants to continue this discussion read the Aviation Week article (May 6,
1991, pp.66-67).

Steve Philipson
stevenp@decwrl.dec.com