The most expensive weapon ever built

Bob Noel said:
More specifically, how will it cost to develop/field/operate/sustain the drones that will replace manned fighter and attack/bomber platforms?
Click to expand...

Stealth is relative...it's only a matter of time before the new radars will be able to detect the "stealth" aircraft...

Send drones to destroy the enemy's radar system along with a few hundred cruise missiles - that's the reason you have them...and save the money you're spending on the stealth fighters / bombers...
 
Armageddon Aviator said:
Stealth is relative...it's only a matter of time before the new radars will be able to detect the "stealth" aircraft...

Send drones to destroy the enemy's radar system along with a few hundred cruise missiles - that's the reason you have them...and save the money you're spending on the stealth fighters / bombers...
Click to expand...

1) Physics is hard to overcome

2) What do you propose to do about mobile air defense systems?


Think about what manned platforms can do that cannot be done with drones.

btw - do you know what cruise missiles cost?
 
I remember watching a NOVA documentary on the JSF and really thought Boeing had the better design. Wonder where we might be if Boeing had got the nod?
 
steingar said:
Less than fighters. Probably about the same as any comparably guided munition.
Click to expand...
Tomahawks are less than fighters, but unlike a jet, a TLAM is not reusable and a TLAM cannot take mobile targets. For those missions you must have a jet....either manned or remotely piloted UAV. It is another apple vs orange thing.

As far as comparing Tomahawks to other guided munitions...not really close. TLAMS are NOT cheap.
 
Last edited:
tmyers said:
I remember watching a NOVA documentary on the JSF and really thought Boeing had the better design. Wonder where we might be if Boeing had got the nod?
Click to expand...

As far as contractors go, Most likely less over budget, but still expensive as hell.
 
I just remember it having a much simpler VTOL system than the GD aircraft. I am reading that the GD aircraft still needs a test pilot to perform the vertical take off and landing What a waste. It will be outdated before it is fully operational.
 
steingar said:
Raptor cost 74 billion dollars and has seen two wars where it hasn't so much as fired a shot. Whatever.
Click to expand...

I hear this criticism of the F-22 frequently. We paid a load of money and the only deployment it's ever had is airshows. What a waste, right?

However, I have to ask the critics, should our military plan for and equip for only the current wars, or should they be looking ahead to all possible engagements? Right now, we seem to just be invading 3rd world countries and then chasing down murdering thugs in caves and apartment buildings. For this mission the F-16 and F-18 are more than capable and are only really needed during the invasion phase.

What about future engagements? Can you not see a use for the F-22 in engaging more capable enemy fighters than say, the Mig 21? As to why we haven't used it, I would have to ask why we should have used it when it wasn't even remotely needed? Why risk it?

Bottom line is, it's tough to maintain the #1 spot for military superiority and super power status. This is the real debate for our country. Do we want to be self sufficient in defending our intersts around the globe against all comers, do we want to continue to maintain the ability to fight multiple wars on multiple fronts, or do we want to scale back and be more dependent on others for help like the Europeans do?
 
Dav8or said:
I hear this criticism of the F-22 frequently. We paid a load of money and the only deployment it's ever had is airshows. What a waste, right?

However, I have to ask the critics, should our military plan for and equip for only the current wars, or should they be looking ahead to all possible engagements? Right now, we seem to just be invading 3rd world countries and then chasing down murdering thugs in caves and apartment buildings. For this mission the F-16 and F-18 are more than capable and are only really needed during the invasion phase.

What about future engagements? Can you not see a use for the F-22 in engaging more capable enemy fighters than say, the Mig 21? As to why we haven't used it, I would have to ask why we should have used it when it wasn't even remotely needed? Why risk it?

Bottom line is, it's tough to maintain the #1 spot for military superiority and super power status. This is the real debate for our country. Do we want to be self sufficient in defending our intersts around the globe against all comers, do we want to continue to maintain the ability to fight multiple wars on multiple fronts, or do we want to scale back and be more dependent on others for help like the Europeans do?
Click to expand...

That's good for a creditor nation with the world's largest manufacturing economy. But we're a debtor nation. We're deep in hock. We're broke. And broke people don't get to buy all the fancy toys they want. Broke people don't get to project power wherever and whenever they want. Broke people don't get to tell the world what to do.

Russia became a third world country with a big military it couldn't afford. I hope that doesn't happen here.
 
steingar said:
Russia became a third world country with a big military it couldn't afford.
Click to expand...

Hope they can afford to control the nukes they still have. :yikes:

IMHO, except in Ballet, Olympic Sports and Fighter Aircraft, the USSR always was a third world country.

Cheers
 
steingar said:
That's good for a creditor nation with the world's largest manufacturing economy. But we're a debtor nation. We're deep in hock. We're broke. And broke people don't get to buy all the fancy toys they want. Broke people don't get to project power wherever and whenever they want. Broke people don't get to tell the world what to do.

Russia became a third world country with a big military it couldn't afford. I hope that doesn't happen here.
Click to expand...
I agree.....now if someone can just convince the President to actually do something to address the spending problem and get Congress to actually get serious and cut up the credit cards, then there might be some hope.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
tmyers said:
I remember watching a NOVA documentary on the JSF and really thought Boeing had the better design. Wonder where we might be if Boeing had got the nod?
Click to expand...

Same crap, different CEO. Outside of huge cost over runs, (IIRC the F-35 was supposed to cost lots less than the F-22 so they cut orders raising the per copy cost of the F-22 even higher; now the F-35 has surpassed the F-22 in cost?) what is wrong with the F-35?
 
tmyers said:
I remember watching a NOVA documentary on the JSF and really thought Boeing had the better design. Wonder where we might be if Boeing had got the nod?
Click to expand...

They would have used Lithium Ion Batteries and each airplane would have burned up the first time it was started. :rolleyes:

Actually it was no contest.

Cheers
 
Henning said:
Same crap, different CEO. Outside of huge cost over runs, what is wrong with the F-35?
Click to expand...

From a speed and maneuverability standpoint, it is at a disadvantage to some or all of the aircraft it is replacing. Hopefully, the stealth and integrated systems more than make up for the dynamic disadvantage, but if I was a fighter pilot, I'd like to know that from an aerodynamic performance standpoint, I was starting off on an equal footing or better.
 
steingar said:
That's good for a creditor nation with the world's largest manufacturing economy. But we're a debtor nation. We're deep in hock. We're broke. And broke people don't get to buy all the fancy toys they want. Broke people don't get to project power wherever and whenever they want. Broke people don't get to tell the world what to do.
Click to expand...

No real arguments here. That's why we need to have this discussion as a nation. We are no longer the country we were in the '50s, or even '60s. We have to look at where we are now and decide if being the number one super power is in our people's interest.

Sure, the Chinese might take over the Pacific, Asia, Africa, Central America and South America with their influence, Russia might start to flex their muscles in the regions of their previous influence, but do we care? We could just build fortress America and try to hold out.

We will pay more for everything, from energy, to materials, to imported goods, but we should have lots of extra money to pour into social services, government research, infrastructure projects and lots of government employment. In theory, we'll all have more money and be able to pay the higher prices.

European model vs. American model. At this point in our decline, It's hard to tell what's best for our future. The European way does tend to provide for it's people and they seem to be happy enough. The American way may not be sustainable for us anymore. We'll have to work it out pretty soon.
 
Dav8or said:
We will pay more for everything, from energy, to materials, to imported goods...
Click to expand...

If the price tag for our military for the last 20 or so years were used to subsidize prices for energy and goods, I wonder what the prices would be? Military spending was the top budgetary item for years, until it was surpassed by entitlement spending.
 
tmyers said:
I remember watching a NOVA documentary on the JSF and really thought Boeing had the better design. Wonder where we might be if Boeing had got the nod?
Click to expand...
If 787 is any indication, we'd be in the same place as now: cost overruns, delays, composite material issues, systems not working, and an onboard fire here and there. And don't forget that Boeing lost JSF because they phoned it in. They expected to win not on merits, but because Lockmart won F-22 recently. Frankly I think it would be worse, and I'm a shareholder of BA...
 
steingar said:
If the price tag for our military for the last 20 or so years were used to subsidize prices for energy and goods, I wonder what the prices would be?
Click to expand...
Subsidies mean deficits. For some reason liberals always think that "this time it will be different" when they steal from group A, put a fraction in their own pockets, give remainder to group B. Then both A and B have less of it than if no subsidy were happening.
 
The alternative engine was canned in order to control costs, go figure.
 
zaitcev said:
The alternative engine was canned in order to control costs, go figure.
Click to expand...

I figure it is cheaper to fix a fan blade problem one one engine than to design, tool-up and build an entirely different engine AND sort out the problems on that engine too...
 
kyleb said:
I figure it is cheaper to fix a fan blade problem on one engine than to design, tool-up and build an entirely different engine AND sort out the problems on that engine too...
Click to expand...

Absolutely true BUT, the real savings is in the competition for production orders. It was outstandly successful in the Great Engine War between GE & PWA for the F-15 and F-16. PWA had an attitude we have the F100 engine and can charge whatever we want. A few pepole decided that was dumb and pushed the F110 engine development through on a relative shoestring and saved a ton of money for production engines for the F-16.

IMHO, the short term costs for the development of the GE engine were stupidly determined by Fort Fumble to be too big a burden to the program so now the DoD is now locked into PWA for the life of the program.

Competition lowers costs but it does take up front investment.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
Fan blades are very tricky design problems. Only difference is who pays what for the fix. :rolleyes:

Cheers
Click to expand...
FWIW it was a Turbine blade per avweb.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...k_pentagon_joint_strike_fighter_208218-1.html

kyleb said:
I figure it is cheaper to fix a fan blade problem one one engine than to design, tool-up and build an entirely different engine AND sort out the problems on that engine too...
Click to expand...
Assuming that this is not a long term problem with design concept that is just showing its head now.

X3 Skier said:
Absolutely true BUT, the real savings is in the competition for production orders. It was outstandly successful in the Great Engine War between GE & PWA for the F-15 and F-16. PWA had an attitude we have the F100 engine and can charge whatever we want. A few pepole decided that was dumb and pushed the F110 engine development through on a relative shoestring and saved a ton of money for production engines for the F-16.

IMHO, the short term costs for the development of the GE engine were stupidly determined by Fort Fumble to be too big a burden to the program so now the DoD is now locked into PWA for the life of the program.

Competition lowers costs but it does take up front investment.

Cheers
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:
 
F-35C - almost 20k internal, as much as a wet Tomcat/Rhino and more than a wet Hornet.

That is with no externals. What do current aircraft need to hang to fulfill a F/A role that the JSF can do clean? Two tanks, a pod, two GBUs, and two AMRAAMs?

Seems like before you even consider the technological advances the JSF will be a superior multi-role fighter.

Still needs a gun.
 
Last edited:
What I personally find interesting is how nobody mentions the supposed "fiasco" with the hook of F-35C. When it missed the wire at first, every forumer and his dog were posting how the whole design is fatally flawed and impossible to fix. They even drew funny diagrams that purported to demonstrate how the relationship between the hook, landing gear, and the fuselage of F-35C was radically different from every carrierborne airplane before it and thus could never work. It was a real storm, and I'm surprised that nobody remembers now. Well... fast forward a few months, the next test with just a sharper hook caught 3 out of 5 tries. Lockmart say that adding a better dumpener is going to fix the problem for good. Meanwhile, nobody -- I'm not kidding -- nobody remembers how they pronounced F-35C DoA.

This latest attempt to throw the guano into the fan is way too orchestrated to believe that nothing stays behind all that. I'm not going to advance any kooky conspiracy theories about it, just observing.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You are referring to the F-22, I assume? I haven't heard any issues with the O2 system on the JSF.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...
It's the same O2 system and they are hot on the trail of the toxin. But this ought to have been phase 1 testing, not phase 2 after "inservice". This stuff belongs to the test pilots, not the line pilot O3s and O2s....sigh.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
It's the same O2 system and they are hot on the trail of the toxin. But this ought to have been phase 1 testing, not phase 2 after "inservice". This stuff belongs to the test pilots, not the line pilot O3s and O2s....sigh.
Click to expand...

They came out 3-6 months ago with the determination that the cause was the pressure suit.
 
zaitcev said:
Meanwhile, nobody -- I'm not kidding -- nobody remembers how they pronounced F-35C DoA.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say no one remembers. I am certainly aware of it. But as pessimistic as I am with defense contractors, I believe that we have enough smart people to eventually solve that problem. I honestly think the hook is the least of its worries.
 
kyleb said:
They came out 3-6 months ago with the determination that the cause was the pressure suit.
Click to expand...

That's what made the mechanics go goo? I'll bet money Bruce is right. I doubt Lockheed reinvented the wheel for this.

I still say the thing has insufficient legs to operate off a carrier. And you kill the stealth if you hang drop tanks. That right there is a big time design flaw, and I think it will affect the navy deeply for years to come, putting carriers within easy reach of enemy forces.
 
steingar said:
I still say the thing has insufficient legs to operate off a carrier. And you kill the stealth if you hang drop tanks. That right there is a big time design flaw, and I think it will affect the navy deeply for years to come, putting carriers within easy reach of enemy forces.
Click to expand...
It really isn't much different from a F/A-18C. And so far the F-35C has met the Navy's specified range requirement.

If it has to go farther for a specific mission, that's what tankers and/or drop tanks are for. The key with drop tanks is that you burn that fuel first and pickle them off before you have to worry about stealth. Stealth is a requirement as the aircraft approaches hostile airspace, not when it is taking off from a very unstealthly aircraft carrier.

You had it right earlier when you discussed the issue of a debtor not being able to have nice toys. Overall, I think the JSF is a nice-to-have thing, not a must have thing right now. My comments earlier where simply that I am concerned for the Marines since we have painted them into a corner. I just wish someone would find a better near term solution.

The problem with federal spending and this ridiculous sequester is that we are going to be looking like a crack house.....We're going to be all strung out, toothless and malnourished. House will be in total disrepair, but dangit we'll have a Bentley in the driveway!
 
Carriers have been in the reach of foreign navies for years. This is nothing new.

BTW, speaking of the Navy - can I challenge the idea that this is the most expensive weapon? First, I'm pretty sure that the fighter itself isn't actually consumed in an explosion, which really makes it a weapons delivery platform. Second, I'm also pretty sure that any of our nuclear submarines is more expensive that a JSF by an order of magnitude. But maybe that's just the bubblehead in me.
 
kyleb said:
They came out 3-6 months ago with the determination that the cause was the pressure suit.
Click to expand...
The interference of the wet suit is what Gen. Lyons declared at the press-conference, and apparently there were no more hypoxia symptoms once they figured that out. However, Dr. Bruce is not your run of the mill conspiracy theorist. If he could name sources or references, it would be very interesting.
 
zaitcev said:
The interference of the wet suit is what Gen. Lyons declared at the press-conference, and apparently there were no more hypoxia symptoms once they figured that out. However, Dr. Bruce is not your run of the mill conspiracy theorist. If he could name sources or references, it would be very interesting.
Click to expand...

And none of this is true (they said it, they were just wrong). It's not the suit. We are still having these problems. They don't know what it is...still.
 
turbofan said:
F-35C - almost 20k internal, as much as a wet Tomcat/Rhino and more than a wet Hornet.

That is with no externals. What do current aircraft need to hang to fulfill a F/A role that the JSF can do clean? Two tanks, a pod, two GBUs, and two AMRAAMs?

Seems like before you even consider the technological advances the JSF will be a superior multi-role fighter.

Still needs a gun.
Click to expand...

So the fuel burn rates are the same? NOPE. The JSF has a HUGE engine and it burns a lot of gas. They don't have any better endurance than our current front line fighters.

The JSF can't fulfill ANY roll well. It doesn't have any A/G pod capes for at least another 3 years, GPS guidance only. The loiter time on that thing sucks. It's slow, it only has 150 rounds of bullets, it has no helmet or HUD, the list goes on and on. We are being saddled with this FOD wagon - even the guys flying it say that it doesn't exceed any of our current fighter capes in ANY role (apart from decent stealth capes vs 4th gen). This will be superior at nothing other than bleeding money like no other program we've ever had. Cut it!
 
EvilEagle said:
So the fuel burn rates are the same? NOPE. The JSF has a HUGE engine and it burns a lot of gas. They don't have any better endurance than our current front line fighters.

The JSF can't fulfill ANY roll well. It doesn't have any A/G pod capes for at least another 3 years, GPS guidance only. The loiter time on that thing sucks. It's slow, it only has 150 rounds of bullets, it has no helmet or HUD, the list goes on and on. We are being saddled with this FOD wagon - even the guys flying it say that it doesn't exceed any of our current fighter capes in ANY role (apart from decent stealth capes vs 4th gen). This will be superior at nothing other than bleeding money like no other program we've ever had. Cut it!
Click to expand...

Size of the engine is irrelevant if the SFCs are lower (which they are supposed to be on the F-135) and aircraft design doesn't negate engine efficiency gains. I'll hold off on making my mind up on an aircraft and its' specific limits while it is in testing, but everyone can agree that the program management has been terrible.

I wonder where we would be if we decided to go with clean sheet designs for each of the services, not a joint program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top