« Should the WTO's decision bear upon the KC-X competition? | Main | Six issues in military robotics »

25 March 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


More great work here. With the Navair lifecycle cost brief, the recent GAO report, and the congressional hearings, I'll go out on a limb and assert that it's not just water leaking from the dam, but the water is running brown. With this week's democrat shenanigans and the concomitant, massive outyears' liabilities, looming if not present social security and medicare insolvency, US bond rates now outstripping solid corporate paper by 2x-3x and the Greek bailout on the scale of a week or two's worth of US debt interest (stand by Tim Geitner, the bond rating will drop from AAA this year), the pricey mediocrity of the JSF program will likely come under fire from most political angles in the FY11 defense authorization wrangling. The Navy will break from the program first, with the Superhornet an easy answer as a plausible replacement for the legacy fleet. The USAF will sit back and let the Navy take the early political heat for its intrasigency, but will bail once it senses the argument sticking. Allies will quickly bail thereafter, relieved of the profligate arrangement made during the now hazy yesteryear of an apparent rise of NATO brotherhood in the world order during the end of history era. Which will leave the Corps the last man standing, out of airspeed, ideas, and having leveraged its tacair future amid the last decades' cascade of bogus cost estimates. But, once the program falls apart, the Marines will quickly remember history's lesson that it's always been the Marine that's the most important ingredient in the fight, not the toolset. Go ahead, put a Marine in a Gripen or Superhornet or a next generation A-10. It'll work.

Keep up the great analysis.

About your "Consider Austria".
That is a long story but in short it is just the wrong example.
We Austria have 15 planes because people in our country think we need none at all.
Why Eurofighter? Cause back in 2002 the price differents between them and Gripen was around 7%.

About 2,000-lb bombs. We dont had them, we dont have them. We dont have any air to ground systems. talking about it would be political suicide and you would get into an investigation of parlament and the left as well as the biggest newspaper in Austria(50% of all people read it daily) would scream for your head.

But wait, there's more: call within the next 15 minutes we'll throw in a factory-refurbished Reaper with 1 Hellfire, a 1 HIMARS (non-ATACMS) pod and an HK-416 with a Ginsu knife bayonet!

Jim your true call is marketing!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Find me

LinkedIn Other... Skype Twitter Typepad

More at The Defense Industrialist

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

What I Do

  • James Hasik is a senior fellow at the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council, and an associate professor of the practice of industrial studies at the Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy, a college of the National Defense University in Washington DC. Since September 2001, he has been studying global security challenges and the economic enterprises that provide the tools to address them. His opinions are not necessarily those of the NDU, the Defense Department, or the US federal government at all.


In the Press