Quote Originally Posted by Cliff View Post
Let's clarify... we do not have a huge USAF. The USN (227) and Army (236) are both buying more aircraft in FY12 than the USAF is (114)... we have a small USAF that is getting smaller.
Because adjusted for inflation, a F-4 bought today would cost $13 million, not $140 million and counting with planned upgrades coming for F-22. Plus, AH-64Ds save lives daily in two conflicts. Have yet to hear of an F-22 providing CAS in Afghanistan or Iraq...or Libya. Perhaps the fact that they fly at 60,000 feet and have no EO/IR targeting capability is part of the explanation, not to mention maintenance expense in a desert environment.

With such capable and expensive aircraft, few threat nations can buy more than a few dozen less capable, and less stealthy Russian and Chinese attempts at stealth. In terms of annual defense budget, with the exception of China and Russia deterred by MAD, go all the way to Iran at 23rd to find the first potential foe, with a sub $10 billion annual defense budget and sanctions in place prohibiting them from buying modern aircraft. Ditto for North Korea with a similarly small defense budget. Libya's air force WAS a joke and doubt much remains. Twenty of the top 22 defense budgets are allies or ourselves to help deter Russia and China.

How long would it take Iran or North Korea to buy 180+ Russian or Chinese "stealth" aircraft at nearly $100 million each? 18 years if they could finance 10 per year at a billion a year...highly unlikely during which time we and allies also field thousands of stealthy F-35s, bombers, and unmanned aircraft.


Additionally, the B-2s could not have done what they did without the support of a lot of other aircraft- including fighters. B-2s are not invisible - meaning they are vulnerable to fighters.
Flying at night with F-22 and F-35 escorts, what are the odds of Chinese or Russian "stealth" aircraft even finding our aircraft let alone fighting air-to-air? Stealth cruise missiles and JASSM-ER fired from B-52H and B-1B don't need an escort.

Finally, Libya's IADS was not modern, nor was it robust... additionally, a lot of folks are trying to buy the same capabilities the US has, meaning they won't be asymmetric for much longer.
And again, you can argue all you want about not having a crystal ball but defense budgets don't lie. All realistic threats spend well under $10 billion a year which will never fund either a large air force, naval response, or IADS. We have ample air and seapower planned and programmed. You could easily argue that one or two less CVNs (6 of which typically sit vulnerable in just two U.S. ports) would finance the additional air and seapower without cannibalizing the Army.


Northern Watch and Southern Watch DID suppress ground operations... or do you have an example of Kurdistan or the Shiite south being attacked while they were actually in effect? Finally, the goal of ONW and OSW was never to replace Saddam.. it was to protect the Kurds and Shiites from Saddam... it did a pretty good job.

Folks may not have liked ONW and OSW based on the policy, but they accomplished their objectives.
I heard an analyst/General admit that Northern Watch was more effective than Southern Watch. Shiites were targeted with WMD and remained oppressed. The Oil for Food program robbed the world of an oil source, just as the Libya no fly zone may eventually. It may have satisfied a stated objective. It did not solve the primary problem.