Photo

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Photo

Weird homes

Home is where the heart is, no matter what unusual form that home may take.  Slideshow 

Photo

The drone wars

The frontlines of America's covert drone program.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

Libya no-fly zone cost could hit $1 billion in months

Related Topics

People stand atop a destroyed truck loaded with weapons belonging to forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, after a coalition air strike, along a road between Benghazi and Ajdabiyah March 21, 2011. REUTERS/Suhaib Salem

People stand atop a destroyed truck loaded with weapons belonging to forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, after a coalition air strike, along a road between Benghazi and Ajdabiyah March 21, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Suhaib Salem

WASHINGTON | Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:46pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The no-fly zone over Libya could end up costing the Western coalition more than $1 billion if the operation drags on more than a couple of months, defense analysts say.

Zack Cooper, a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the initial cost of eliminating Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's air defenses was likely to be between $400 million and $800 million.

The expense of patrolling the no-fly zone once it is established is likely to be $30 million to $100 million a week, he said.

The U.S. military has no official cost figures yet for the operation, which has been going on less than a week. By comparison, the much more extensive Afghan war costs more than $9 billion a month.

Some U.S. lawmakers and critics of President Barack Obama's decision to join allies in the Libya bombing campaign have argued the United States cannot afford the operation while Congress wrangles over spending cuts and the country's $1.48 trillion deficit.

The Pentagon already has plans to cut $78 billion in defense spending over five years and is delaying weapons programs and putting off maintenance to reduce costs.

The operation unfolding in Libya resembles a scenario for a limited no-fly zone analyzed by Cooper and his colleague Todd Harrison. The scenario assumed a limited no-fly zone covering Libya north of the 29th parallel, not the entire country.

They made their projections by computing the cost per square mile of previous no-fly zones and applying that to the situation in Libya. The price of munitions, jet fuel and maintenance were the primary cost drivers. Their figures reflected the cost over and above regular operations.

One thing Cooper and Harrison had not anticipated was significant coalition support, with allies bearing part of the expense. Cooper said it appeared the United States had flown more than half of the sorties and fired most of the Tomahawks.

"In our analysis, we assumed that the U.S. would be picking up the bulk of the cost," he said. "So even though the U.S. has picked up more than a majority of the cost, I assume, so far, it probably hasn't picked up as much as we estimated."

Cooper said the Tomahawk cruise missiles fired so far by Britain and the United States cost about $200 million, putting the price for taking out Gaddafi's air defenses on target to hit their projection.

"We estimated $400 million to $800 million. Between the Tomahawks and other munitions and flight hours and fuel, it's probably going to be somewhere in that ... range for the initial cost of suppressing the air defenses," he said.

The crash of a U.S. F-15 warplane was an unexpected cost. Cooper said the Pentagon was unlikely to buy another F-15 and probably would replace it with a joint strike fighter, with an estimated price tag of between $100 million and $150 million.

NO 'ROBUST ESTIMATE'

The main European countries enforcing the no-fly zone downplayed the cost of the operation. British Finance Minister George Osborne, whose government has staked its reputation on eliminating the country's budget deficit, told Parliament to expect the cost to be in the tens of millions of pounds.

While saying it was too early for a "robust estimate" of the price of the Libya operations, Osborn projected the costs would be "modest" compared with operations like Afghanistan.

"The Ministry of Defence's initial view is that this will be in the order of the tens of millions not the hundreds of millions of pounds," Osborne said.

But defense analysts warned that British expenses for even a limited operation like Libya could quickly add up. Analyst Francis Tusa told BBC Radio 4 the missions flown so far cost Britain about 200,000 pounds ($325,000) per aircraft, with missiles running 800,000 pounds ($1.3 million) apiece.

With Britain flying 10 Typhoon fighters to patrol the no-fly zone, "you'll be looking at potentially 2, 3 million pounds a day ($3.25 million to $5 million)," he said.

French analysts also attempted to downplay the expense, saying the intervention was likely to cost Britain and the United States much more since they used pricier weapons.

"It's peanuts," said Jean Dominique Merchet, editor of blog secretdefense on military affairs. It costs about 30,000 euros ($45,000) per hour to operate a Rafaele fighter, he said, but most would have been in the air at least an hour a day anyway.

But Pierre Tran, Paris bureau chief for specialist weekly Defense News, said even though France was using less expensive munitions, the costs would quickly begin to add up.

"If this campaign goes on for very much longer, it would be costly in terms of fuel consumed, flying hours for the pilots, and eventually munitions used," he said.

(Additional reporting by Michelle Martin and Sven Egenter in Britain and Daniel Flynn in France; Editing by Eric Walsh and Peter Cooney)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
luiscatan wrote:
I find it difficult to believe that certain Congress members cannot see the obvious importance of supporting the democratic movement sweeping the Middle East. Even if we forget about humanitarian reasons, the vital economic and strategic interests of Western countries are highly rewarded in the support of democratic societies in that area: less hatred of the West, less radical authoritarian leaders, less terrorism (read less murders of civilians in the West), more economic cooperation and reception of Western investment, more mutual trade, more stabilized oil market and more political stability in those countries.

This is not the same “war” as the previous two. the Western countries are here being clamored for by the democratic insurgents, who will be grateful and willing economic and political partners of Western countries when they fully establish themselves in government. There are no Western or American flags being burnt by the insurgents this time round in the various Arab countries where insurgents are demanding democratic freedom and liberation from their barbaric, regressive and oppressive tyrants.

It is no wonder that many autocratic Arab countries are hesitant to support the democratic movements in their other countries, since they feel like turkeys voting for Christmas. it is also not a surprise that China, Russia, Iran and Venezuela are adamant that the democratic movements in those countries should not be supported or protected by the Western countries.

Of course we would all like to spend less on military activities and more on education and other socially necessary items within Western societies. But think: Should Britain have abstained from involvement in the Second World War against the Axis because it was already quite indebted and needed money for domestic programs? Should the US not have gotten involved in the Second World War because it was costly? Should the US not have spent enormous amounts of money during the Cold War to stop the spread of communism because of money being needed domestically?

Does the West really want to continue coexisting with all those tyrannical and retrograde regimes in the Arab countries that hate the West and surreptitiously foster terrorism against it?

If the West does nothing to help those insurgents, it will end up on the wrong side of history, much to its detriment on all fronts.

Mar 22, 2011 10:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Pterosaur wrote:
Some are defending the Crusade…

Mar 23, 2011 1:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse
The US is played by the allies.

“But Pierre Tran, Paris bureau chief for specialist weekly Defense News, said even though France was using less expensive munitions, the costs would quickly begin to add up.”

The French are using cheaper bombs once US is using the expensive Tomahawks!

Mar 23, 2011 11:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.