The most expensive weapon ever built

Bob Noel said:
We do not have enough huge carriers that the "baby flat tops" are unnecessary. The capabilities of each are complementary.
Click to expand...

We've got 10 of the things with three more on the way! How many do you need?

The only good thing about the F35 is by the time we need it we'll probably be flying drones on those missions.
 
steingar said:
We've got 10 of the things with three more on the way! How many do you need?
Click to expand...
CVN and LHD have two completely different missions. LHDs are not like the old 'Jeep Carriers' of WWII (small cheap carriers to compliment the full size flat tops). They have their own very distinct mission. We don't deploy ARGs in place of CSGs and likewise a CSG is not very adept at conducting amphibious operations.
 
steingar said:
We've got 10 of the things with three more on the way! How many do you need?

The only good thing about the F35 is by the time we need it we'll probably be flying drones on those missions.
Click to expand...

You'll note that not all 10 of the things are at sea at the same time.

You'll also note that the world's oceans are d*** huge.
 
Bob Noel said:
We do not have enough huge carriers that the "baby flat tops" are unnecessary. The capabilities of each are complementary.
Click to expand...

The U.S. has more conventional carriers than all the other countries in the world combined...

There's a big difference between "nice to have" toys and "must have" toys...

When you you have a deficit of around 17 Trillions ( !!! ) you should be happy with "must have" toys...

P.S. the "baby flat tops" didn't help in Benghazi...:no:

Expensive gadgets are not a reliable substitute for resolve and pride...
 
Armageddon Aviator said:
But when you maintain such a big fleet of conventional carriers, developing and producing a hugely expensive VTOL is a waste of time and money IMHO...
Click to expand...
First off, please don't confuse conventional vs amphibious carriers. They are not interchangeable.

The problem is that developing an aircraft with the price tag of the F-35 for the sole purpose of replacing the current STOVL aircraft is not a wise use of money. The Marines have been relying on the other services and other countries need for the JSF in order to make the whole thing worthwhile. In other words, the natural question to ask is 'if we don't really need the JSF for any other applications....then why spend all that money just for the USMC variant?"

I am not saying that is a good decision, just that if the JSF becomes unnecessary for the others, the Marines (and the amphibious arm of the USN) will be the ones hurt the most. As is typical in defense spending.....we have painted ourselves into a bit of a corner on this one.
 
>> The most expensive weapon ever built

It's the one we know nothing about !!
 
Armageddon Aviator said:
Who needs "baby flat tops" when you have so many nuclear aircraft carriers?
Click to expand...
How many is "so many"? If you recall, we had to ask French for help in Afghanistan with their carrier and Rafales. Sure 9 is "many more" than 1 that China has, but it's not necessarily "so many".
 
Armageddon Aviator said:
The U.S. has more conventional carriers than all the other countries in the world combined...

There's a big difference between "nice to have" toys and "must have" toys...

When you you have a deficit of around 17 Trillions ( !!! ) you should be happy with "must have" toys...

P.S. the "baby flat tops" didn't help in Benghazi...:no:

Expensive gadgets are not a reliable substitute for resolve and pride...
Click to expand...

The baby flat tops do a different job, and they do that job more cost effectively than the conventional carrier could, not to mention mission effectiveness as well.
 
Henning said:
The baby flat tops do a different job, and they do that job more cost effectively than the conventional carrier could, not to mention mission effectiveness as well.
Click to expand...

I've heard over and over again that the biggest advantage and role of a nuclear carrier is wherever it goes you have however much heavily armed sovereign territory right there. Please explain why baby flat tops are so much better.
 
steingar said:
I've heard over and over again that the biggest advantage and role of a nuclear carrier is wherever it goes you have however much heavily armed sovereign territory right there. Please explain why baby flat tops are so much better.
Click to expand...
You keep missing the point....they are not better or worse. They do two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MISSIONS. They are not interchangeable. That would be like saying an F/A-18 Hornet or a Destroyer is better than a SEAL team.

No one in the DoD is trying to sell LHDs as subsitute for CVNs.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You keep missing the point....they are not better or worse. They do two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MISSIONS. They are not interchangeable. That would be like saying an F/A-18 Hornet or a Destroyer is better than a SEAL team.

No one in the DoD is trying to sell LHDs as subsitute for CVNs.
Click to expand...

So we have to have twenty of each?! We're broke, in case you haven't noticed. Broke people don't get all the fancy toys they want.
 
steingar said:
So we have to have twenty of each?! We're broke, in case you haven't noticed. Broke people don't get all the fancy toys they want.
Click to expand...
Not sure what kind of math you are using....no one called for 20 CVNs and 20 LHDs and that is not what the debate is about.

If you are asking about whether we need the current number ships we have in operation and on order, the answer is yes, we need them to do the mission that both POTUS and Congress require.....in fact we either need more or we need POTUS and Congress to relax the operational requirements which neither have done. Drawing down in the 'Stan has not reduced the OPTEMPO of the Fleet. Part of the Navy's decision to delay the deployment of HARRY S TRUMAN was a message to Congress that in the face of the current fiscal environment, we cannot continue to maintain the requirements that have been imposed on the Fleet.

If we are talking JSF, if you go back and read my posts, I am not saying that we have to have the JSF....overall I think it costs too much for what it will do. I only pointed out that IF it is killed, the USMC will be the most impacted. That isn't to say that it is a big enough reason alone to keep the program.....just making an observation. It is the sad current state of DoD acquisitions. We dont' NEED all the bells and whistles of the JSF, but we do need a replacement for the AV-8.
 
Last edited:
zaitcev said:
How many is "so many"? If you recall, we had to ask French for help in Afghanistan with their carrier and Rafales. Sure 9 is "many more" than 1 that China has, but it's not necessarily "so many".
Click to expand...

What?

SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI....:(

If America needs help from the French....you're really circling the drain....

Who said " going to war with the French army is like going to hunt with an accordion"....?

:D
 
Armageddon Aviator said:
The U.S. has more conventional carriers than all the other countries in the world combined...

There's a big difference between "nice to have" toys and "must have" toys...

When you you have a deficit of around 17 Trillions ( !!! ) you should be happy with "must have" toys...

P.S. the "baby flat tops" didn't help in Benghazi...:no:

Expensive gadgets are not a reliable substitute for resolve and pride...
Click to expand...

1) The US Navy has a different mission than the rest of the world. If you want to reduce the number of carriers (big ones and little ones), then you must first redefine the missions of the US Navy.

2) No kidding. Feel free to explain what "toys" the Navy has that are not necessary.

3) Again, no s***. And again,fFeel free to explain what "toys" the Navy has that are not necessary.

PS - The dimbulbs in charge first need to ask for help. Imagine the feces storm if the Navy just charged in there without orders, etc.

Resolve and pride are indeed useful. Add the appropriate training and tactics, and those "expensive gadgets" will kick a**.
 
:popcorn:

I would like to comment but the JSF has helped the economy in my area.

I will say: We dont know what the program is worth until it shows us what it can do.
 
Bob Noel said:
1) The US Navy has a different mission than the rest of the world. If you want to reduce the number of carriers (big ones and little ones), then you must first redefine the missions of the US Navy.

2) No kidding. Feel free to explain what "toys" the Navy has that are not necessary.

3) Again, no s***. And again,fFeel free to explain what "toys" the Navy has that are not necessary.

PS - The dimbulbs in charge first need to ask for help. Imagine the feces storm if the Navy just charged in there without orders, etc.

Resolve and pride are indeed useful. Add the appropriate training and tactics, and those "expensive gadgets" will kick a**.
Click to expand...


The Soviet Union fell apart because they couldn't keep up with America in the arms' race...

They eventually ran out of money and their artificial economy collapsed...

I still remember a documentary showing the Russian nuclear subs rotting in Mourmansk because they had no money to perform the most basic maintenance...the crews went without salaries for almost a year.....

You know the proverb: "if you wanna play - you've gotta pay"...

The sad reality is that America's economy is in shambles - it cannot pay and therefore cannot play.

You want to keep buying insanely expensive military hardware so you can keep your technological edge ?

That's fine but you should remember what happened to the Soviet Union...

The Chinese, meanwhile, are quietly waiting....( hint: they can launch men into space...America can't anymore )

Sure, the Defence industries ( and their powerful lobby ) would like to maintain the current situation...no doubt...
 
Fearless Tower said:
What kind of asinine comment was that?

The State department has to ask for help before the Navy/Marine Corps team can provide it.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point...

If your government doesn't have the balls to confront a bunch of rabid goat herders, what's the use for all that expensive technology ?
 
Armageddon Aviator said:
We already have an excellent multi-role fighter...it costs a small fraction of that insanely expensive F-35 white elephant...

The F-16I, a highly modified version of the F-16 is exceeding the Israeli Air Force expectations...a great bird that could save the U.S. hundreds of billions...

They say that "necessity is the mother of all inventions"...:wink2:

2739411112_cd53933b12_o_d.jpg
Click to expand...

That is saying something. Israeli's are no fools. IF they use them there is something to be said for their resourcefulness. On the other hand I am sure they are not without politics too but living close to the edge I am sure their military expenditures are more about need and less about making politicians happy and lining pockets of CEOs and corporate rift raft.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
That is saying something. Israeli's are no fools. IF they use them there is something to be said for their resourcefulness. On the other hand I am sure they are not without politics too but living close to the edge I am sure their military expenditures are more about need and less about making politicians happy and lining pockets of CEOs and corporate rift raft.
Click to expand...

There is no stealth involved in that F-16I either, although I'm not sure the cost is worth the benefit.
 
Armageddon Aviator said:
Exactly my point...

If your government doesn't have the balls to confront a bunch of rabid goat herders, what's the use for all that expensive technology ?
Click to expand...
Dude, we have plenty of issues in this country, but I am, afraid you are a bit mis-informed.

Oh and BTW, our expensive technology was killing other a-holes in other parts of the world at the time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
As one of the Technical toads, not a policy maker, at the start of the JOINT Strike Fighter, it was clear from the very start the only reason there was a JOINT program was to fulfill the USMC want for a replacement for the AV-8B. The USMC could not afford it on their own and the USAF would have been happy with their F-22, F-15 and F-16 and the USN would have been happy with the F-18. Voices who expressed the opinion this was a pretty bad technical idea were patted on the head and told to "shut up and color".

"Certain parties" conjured up the JSF, sold it, and here we are with nobody truly happy. OTOH, they could have picked the Boeing entry. :rolleyes:

As a young engineer, I once had the privilege to meet Mr Dikinson, at that time the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. Long story short, I asked him who was the best at presenting their needs. His ranking was USMC clearly tops and followed somewhat distantly by the USN, USAF and far behind, USA.

BTW, I also lived through the TFX, which eventually resulted in a pretty good USAF airplane known as the Aardvark. It also wasted a lot of money proving it wasn't really a good carrier based airplane. The USN did learn a lot they incorporated in the the Tomcat, both good and bad.

Cheers
 
Seems to me that LockMart found a need (VSTOL plane) that had to be filled, that there were no alternatives (the AV8s are aged out and can't be SLEPed, no other plane can meet the role), and the remaining life of the current AV8 airframe won't allow the contract to be cancelled and another plane developed.
That sounds like a contract that will allow you to charge anything you want, with plenty of overruns, and no practical means for the customer to fire you.
 
PilotAlan said:
Seems to me that LockMart found a need (VSTOL plane) that had to be filled, that there were no alternatives (the AV8s are aged out and can't be SLEPed, no other plane can meet the role), and the remaining life of the current AV8 airframe won't allow the contract to be cancelled and another plane developed.
That sounds like a contract that will allow you to charge anything you want, with plenty of overruns, and no practical means for the customer to fire you.
Click to expand...

Change orders are painful for everyone.

The military is *always* requesting seemingly minor upgrades, mod's, enhancements, etc. Those things cost money in re-engineering, tooling, and keeping records of why (say) C-130H #500 is different from #501, so the maintainers know exactly what parts to order.

Beyond that, every time military leadership changes, program direction changes too. That's VERY expensive. E.G. The F-22 which was supposed to be the end-all, be-all fighter plane (and probably is). But it was re-engineered so it could also drop a couple of Small Diameter Bombs. That wasn't cheap.
 
PilotAlan said:
Seems to me that LockMart found a need (VSTOL plane) that had to be filled, that there were no alternatives (the AV8s are aged out and can't be SLEPed, no other plane can meet the role), and the remaining life of the current AV8 airframe won't allow the contract to be cancelled and another plane developed.
That sounds like a contract that will allow you to charge anything you want, with plenty of overruns, and no practical means for the customer to fire you.
Click to expand...

As much as I dislike LM, to be fair, the JSF wasn't their idea. The DoD advertised the requirement and LM and Boeing submitted competing designs. LM was simply the winner of the two bids.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
X3 Skier said:
As one of the Technical toads, not a policy maker, at the start of the JOINT Strike Fighter, it was clear from the very start the only reason there was a JOINT program was to fulfill the USMC want for a replacement for the AV-8B. The USMC could not afford it on their own and the USAF would have been happy with their F-22, F-15 and F-16 and the USN would have been happy with the F-18. Voices who expressed the opinion this was a pretty bad technical idea were patted on the head and told to "shut up and color".
Click to expand...
Totally agree, but would add that the Brits as well as the Marines were driving factors. As I understand it, the Brits stopped flying their Harriers in anticipation of getting the F-35B.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Fearless Tower said:
Totally agree, but would add that the Brits as well as the Marines were driving factors. As I understand it, the Brits stopped flying their Harriers in anticipation of getting the F-35B.
Click to expand...

So LockMart had TWO countries who were backed into a corner, with no alternatives and no way to pull the plug.
I agree that change orders and all that cause problems. But it's bad having a high-stakes project with no alternatives, no back doors, no way to bail or call a halt, and no way to even stay on the status quo.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Totally agree, but would add that the Brits as well as the Marines were driving factors. As I understand it, the Brits stopped flying their Harriers in anticipation of getting the F-35B.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

Hey...I just had this completely crazy idea...

What if the Brits were provided with a bit of financial aid from the DoD in order to refine and improve the Harrier design ?

Wouldn't that be good enough for the USMC ? ( in the amphibious landing air support role )...

If they need a more capable aircraft, they can always request air cover from the USN and the USAF can't they ?

During WW2, the Germans produced very advanced powerful tanks ( Tiger, Panther, Panzer Mark IV ) - they were much better than the tiny American Shermans...

But they couldn't afford to produce a lot of these technologically complex, expensive tanks...so in the end they were overwhelmed by the little American tanks fighting at a ratio of 1 against 8...

It's like that story about the Elephant who was defeated by ants...

I'd rather have ten F-16i aircraft instead of one JSF plane...

( not sure Lockmart and Boeing would be happy though...)
 
Armageddon Aviator said:
I'd rather have ten F-16i aircraft instead of one JSF plane...

( not sure Lockmart and Boeing would be happy though...)
Click to expand...

Lockheed would be just fine with that. They make the F-16 too.

The problem with buying more current generation fighters is the stealth issue, which you simply can't address without a new airframe. Also, the F-35 supposedly has amazing (and expensive) avionics, which would be just as expensive in a different platform.
 
And let's not forget that we should be wanting to improve the survivability of the crew, you know, the person(s) being put into harms way.

Other countries can decide if their soldiers are expendable cannon fodder. But is that what we want?
 
Bob Noel said:
And let's not forget that we should be wanting to improve the survivability of the crew, you know, the person(s) being put into harms way.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that doesn't sell to the public (and some in the govt) who see drones as the ultimate in survivability.
 
kyleb said:
Lockheed would be just fine with that. They make the F-16 too.

The problem with buying more current generation fighters is the stealth issue, which you simply can't address without a new airframe.
Click to expand...

That's why they retired the F-117.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Depends.....they come in all shapes and sizes....fixed and rotary wing. I have no specific cost numbers for any, but know that the dollar amount varies greatly.
Click to expand...

More specifically, how will it cost to develop/field/operate/sustain the drones that will replace manned fighter and attack/bomber platforms?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top