The most expensive weapon system of all times

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Ffffffft - Bumms.

Ffffffft - Bumms.

Two more willpower-flyers whose will got defeated by gravity.

or relativity.

[Skybird]

Thew relativizing is something you will mislearn to use soon, becasue the snowball system caused by the enormous costs of future pensioneers you cannot avoid to get overrolled by - except by establishing a police or military dictatorship and supressing the masses uprise with brute force.

LINK: graph

This illustrates the so-called sustainability gap (="Nachhaltigkeitslücke") of the EU states and the US. It is a caluclation done in 2012 on basis of data from 2011. As you can see, the real debt level of the US, Luxembourgh and Ireland, standardized in hundreds and thousand percent of the national GDP, is bigger than that of Greece, Spain or Cyprus.

English link

Later calculations of this type, done at the end of last year and opublished earlier this year, painted even darker pictures for some states. They have the USA at "just" 800%, but have Germany for example at 500% of it's GDP, and put France and Britain much higher, and have - I do not remember the precise ranking, sorry - either Japan or Britain at a whopping 2000%. Will deliver a link when I find it again.

There is a calculation margin, yes, obviously, different models are used, and different data get accepted into the caluclation, for whatever the motives for using these and rejecting other data may be. But one thing should be clear: there is a trend in the conclusions, and these conclusions indicate that the real debts of nations is multiple times higher, 5 times, 8 times, 12 times, 20 times as high as those debts officially allowed to be announced in media propaganda to not upset the masses.

The economic and unemployment news in the media and in press conferences - are just a sedative; the big show and discussion made of these, all that experts' mumbo-jumbo: just an anti-depressant.

Implicit debts, which are closely linked to the sustainability gap, also get called "hidden debts". They in generally describe dimensions that are beyond good or evil and where it does not matter whether you have an economic growth of 0.5 or 5.0% and where it is unimportant whether your unemployment rate is 20%, 8% or 2% - you are facing an avalanche of costs coming at you that will overroll you, no matter wheter you stand or sit or lie flat, yell, or be silent. It does not matter, the avalanche is plowing you under.

Another way to describe this disaster is to calculate by which ammounts the debt burden would be need to be reduced per year over how long a time in order to avoid the worst within the time left. These numbers are not any more encouraging and also allow no optism. To avoid just the worst scenarios to come true, Western nations would need to reduce their total (implict+explicit) debts by yearly amounts of between 5 and something around 20% or 25% (depending on the nation you look at) per each year over the coming next years. As I rcall it, I am not certain, Germany would need to cut debts by around 16% per year, the US 18% or so, but I could be wrong on these numbers. As I recall it, the cuts are the higher the more pressing the debt burden is, naturally. I leave it to your imagination how big the chances are that this will come true, and what this would mean to the social and structural integrity of states, national economies and social systems.

Its all a snowball rolling, turning into a big snowball, turning into a bigger snowball, into a rush, into an avalanche. Snowballing debts get you killed sooner or later. Every time. an economy build on the principle of building on credits, is an economy with an inbuild expiration date. Money printing - is the worst of all capital crimes, it kills not just people - it kills people AND whole nations.

[Bilge_Rat]

all very nice, but it has nothing to do with the F35.

current funding for the F35 program was U.S. $11.4 billion for the 2011 year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States

yes, a nice chunk of change, but cutting the program will have only a small impact on the deficit. In addition, the program is a one time cost, once the aircrafts are purchased, you are only talking about maintenance/repair.

The largest item in the budget is the war in Afghanistan, still U.S. $159.3 Billion in 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financi...f_the_Iraq_War

Once the troops are home, that expense goes way down.

In addition, its not just a U.S. problem, many countries have to replace their aging fighter fleet. Canada will have to make a decision soon on replacing its CF-18s. Australia just paid AUS $2.9 billion for 24 F/A-18Fs, which works out to US $141 million per plane. Compared to that, the estimated US $150-175 million per plane for the CTOL F-35A looks like a bargain, especially since it will have a useful design life of at least 20 years longer than the F/A-18.

No matter how you look it, cutting new equipment spending is the least efficient way to balance a budget.

[Glock30Eric]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

all very nice, but it has nothing to do with the F35.

current funding for the F35 program was U.S. $11.4 billion for the 2011 year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States

yes, a nice chunk of change, but cutting the program will have only a small impact on the deficit. In addition, the program is a one time cost, once the aircrafts are purchased, you are only talking about maintenance/repair.

The largest item in the budget is the war in Afghanistan, still U.S. $159.3 Billion in 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financi...f_the_Iraq_War

Once the troops are home, that expense goes way down.

In addition, its not just a U.S. problem, many countries have to replace their aging fighter fleet. Canada will have to make a decision soon on replacing its CF-18s. Australia just paid AUS $2.9 billion for 24 F/A-18Fs, which works out to US $141 million per plane. Compared to that, the estimated US $150-175 million per plane for the CTOL F-35A looks like a bargain, especially since it will have a useful design life of at least 20 years longer than the F/A-18.

No matter how you look it, cutting new equipment spending is the least efficient way to balance a budget.

Well. I really don't think we need F-35. Our ships can take an enemy plane down easily with our long range missiles. Missiles are way cheaper than a plane with manned pilot.

Abolish F-35 and buy a massive amount of missiles like a ratio 10 missiles for every a fighter plane in the world. It will take care of it self. If they evaded one missile then they should be expecting nine more coming at them, furiously.

We need a long range bombers and really good CAS plane like A-10 to minimize the budget with very effective military force.

IMO, the fighter/bomber obsoleted the battleship in WW2. Right now a high tech missile obsoleted the planes and carriers. I don't think there will be a way to obsolete a submarine near in future, unless they send out a massive unmanned submarine/mine drones in the whole ocean part.

NAVAIR is developing unmanned air drone and it could downsize the carrier and planes.

[MH]

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

all very nice, but it has nothing to do with the F35.

It has. Money, or what is beeing mislabelled as that. The thread title is "The most expenbsive weapin system..." That the Pentagon just has squeezed out F-35 related contracts over another another half a trillion dollars in the very last minute, is symptiomatic. Empires and wars as well are run by money, and economy, not so much by weapons only. All European big powers of the past 5 centuries finally collapsed over over-stretched defence lines, and military costs letting their fiscal system collapsew.

You have debts? You must spend not more, but less. It's so simple, but nobody listens, or pretends not to understand. You hgave worthless money? you must not increase but decrease the amount of money in circulation. You live beyond your means, and buy more thhna you can afford? You have to reduce your expectations and have to limit your desires, and have to reconsider your priorities.

Every 8 year old being given a little pocket money already learns to understand that when needing to decide whether to buy that chocolate or that comic. Ten years later the same child goes to university and learns in economic courses how to unlearn this simple truth, and how to convince itself that the higher the debts, the richer it is.

[Bilge_Rat]

no, it has nothing to do with it. The equation is simple.

can the US afford the F35? of course.

is there a need for the F35? of course.

Are there other items in the military/governement budget that should be cut before the F35? of course.

see, simple really.

[Skybird]

No, you cannot afford that. Your debt burden, explcit, is bigger than your yearly GDP, is above 100% of the yearly GDP. Even on Decembre 31st you will not have spend a single dollar over the year that really had been yours.

It got leased to you, directly or indirectly.

Your total explicit debt is exceeding your GDP, and is somewhere between 100 and 110 percent. You would need to pay the full GDP of one year to get rid of these debts, and get a straight balance by the end of the year.

Your total implicit debt is exceeding your GDP by somewhere between 800 and 1200 percent.

You can afford nothing. What you do is: you live on tick. You live by tricks. You hang on a drip, and every year you need more bottles with serum than the year before.

Over the need for the F35, one can argue. I say a new plane may be needed indeed, or planes (plural). What the F35 offers, is not what I see a likely need for in the to be expected conflicts your country will most likely find itself in in the forseeable future. The F35 lacks in firepower, in manouverability, in range, and if curing all these things, it lacks in stealth, which is the prime argument why that flying brick is so expensive. That means: the money gets wasted headlessly and a plan is not to be perceived.

The plan that economically you cannot afford anyway, that is.

[Jimbuna]

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Over the need for the F35, one can argue. I say a new plane may be needed indeed, or planes (plural). What the EU offers, is not wehat I see a likely need for in the to be expected conmflöicts your country will most likely find itself in in the forseeable future. The F35 lacks ion firepower, in manouverability, in range, and if curing all these things, it lacks in stealth, which is the prime argument why that flying brick is so expensive. That means: the money gets wasted headlessly and a plan is not to be perceived.

not sure where you get that from, a lot of info is still in a flux, which is not unusual for a complex project like this.

The F-35A is expected to match the F-16 in maneuverability and instantaneous and sustained high-g performance, and outperform it in stealth, payload, range on internal fuel, avionics, operational effectiveness, supportability, and survivability

I'm Canadian btw.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

I'm Canadian btw.

Ah. Okay, noted.

not sure where you get that from, a lot of info is still in a flux, which is not unusual for a complex project like this.

You get that from any source critical of the F35. The navy hates the short legs it has, needing to bring carrier groups closer to enemya sdhores and within reach for the enemy, or needing to hang fuel tanks under the wings, compromising the stealth factor, or needing signficantly more aerial refuelling, limitng and complicating tactical agility on operational level. Plus the plane has small payload only when not hanging ammo under the wings. The airforce does not like the agility that leaves to be desired, and again the short legs and slow acceleration, plus again the ammo problem. The Marines pay much for a vertical liftoff capability that in many people's opinion is not being needed and adds tremendously to the mechanical and technical complexity and is a potential source of problems.

See the articles I linked earlier, for examples.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You get that from any source critical of the F35. The navy hates the short legs it has, needing to bring carrier groups closer to enemya sdhores and within reach for the enemy, or needing to hang fuel tanks under the wings, compromising the stealth factor, or needing signficantly more aerial refuelling, limitng and complicating tactical agility on operational level. Plus the plane has small payload only when not hanging ammo under the wings. The airforce does not like the agility that leaves to be desired, and again the short legs and slow acceleration, plus again the ammo problem. The Marines pay much for a vertical liftoff capability that in many people's opinion is not being needed and adds tremendously to the mechanical and technical complexity and is a potential source of problems.

See the articles I linked earlier, for examples.

a couple of issues here. First, the US never releases the true performance figures. However based on various sources:

1. the F-35 will have a longer range than either the F-16 or F/A-18;

2. the F-35 will have better performance, acceleration or maneuverability than the F-15/F-16/F/A-18.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...hornet-382078/

currently, only the F-22 can out perform it, but the F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter while the F35 is a "jack of all trades".

3. yes in "stealth" mode, its payload is limited, but in non-stealth mode, it can carry a bigger payload than the F16 or F/A-18. Stealth gives you more options, in a high threat environment, the F-35 can be in and out without being detected, while in a low threat area, it can carry all the bombs you want.

lots of critics out there with an axe to grind, but looked at objectively, the F-35 is a great airplane.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

a couple of issues here. First, the US never releases the true performance figures. However based on various sources:

1. the F-35 will have a longer range than either the F-16 or F/A-18;

2. the F-35 will have better performance, acceleration or maneuverability than the F-15/F-16/F/A-18.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...hornet-382078/

currently, only the F-22 can out perform it, but the F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter while the F35 is a "jack of all trades".

3. yes in "stealth" mode, its payload is limited, but in non-stealth mode, it can carry a bigger payload than the F16 or F/A-18. Stealth gives you more options, in a high threat environment, the F-35 can be in and out without being detected, while in a low threat area, it can carry all the bombs you want.

lots of critics out there with an axe to grind, but looked at objectively, the F-35 is a great airplane.

I have a tendancy to agree

[Skybird]

Have you even read that article in full, Bilge_Rat? It is anything but a strong argument prfo F35, but supports those doubting the plane. Like the earlier article I linked to:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...impact-381683/

This counters Lockheeds claim that the F35 will be so agile and fast. Instead it paints the picture of a plane that is redesigned recently to become more vulnerable to locke don missiles than any pilot could like to hear. Those acceleration numbers are really bad news.

Consider that the Typhoon has outmanouvered the F-22 in excercises. And consider that the Russians ecell in making missiles. Their AA missiles also usually have higher ranges than Wetsenr ones. They will not sit still and leave stealth planes untouched. They will get the sensors soon to unstealth them, I havbe no doubt.

There is too much money spend on and too much variables of tactical relevance sacrificed for this feature, "stealth". The F35 thus is too much compromises, and especially in the domain of the A10, it cannot compete - the A10 is what holds that niche of combat operations better than any other pane there is or will be. Plus there is the exploding importance of drones. The lacking probability that the F-35 or F-22 will engage in wars where they meet that kind of opposition they technically will have been designed for. And it will be built in too small numbers, because the price is too high. And Canada and Australia have made moves and the Australians placed orders for other planes that indicate they are considering to opt out of their placed orders. Then the F-35 will not only not become cheaper per piece for the US tax payer - it will also become more expensive for all, for foreign customers. Which will react to that, by retreating from their orders, or reducing their volume.

The financial climate is not such as that this superexpensive weapon, which in itself is just a bag of compromises, and still has no enemy to engage, could hold its ground. Despite two wars having been fought now, the F-22 still waits for its first opportunity to prove its value against an advanced - against ANY! - enemy in the sky.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Have you even read that article in full, Bilge_Rat? It is anything but a strong argument prfo F35, but supports those doubting the plane. Like the earlier article I linked to:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...impact-381683/

This counters Lockheeds claim that the F35 will be so agile and fast. Instead it paints the picture of a plane that is redesigned recently to become more vulnerable to locke don missiles than any pilot could like to hear. Those acceleration numbers are really bad news.

The problem with those articles is that they only give you part of the story. Even with the so called "performance reductions", the F35 still performs better than any 4th gen plane.

The F35 has achieved an instantaneous turn rate of 10 Gs, which is better than the specs for the F-15/F-16 or F/A-18.

The best summary of current F35 performance is this quote:

Lockheed Martin is claiming that all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will have kinematic performance better than or equal to any combat-configured fourth-generation fighter. The comparison includes transonic acceleration performance versus an air-to-air configured Eurofighter Typhoon and high angle-of-attack flight performance vis-à-vis the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

"The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in both air-to-air, and when we hog-up those fourth-generation fighters, for the air-to-ground mission," says Billy Flynn, a Lockheed test pilot who is responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for all three variants

(...)

Flynn says "that the F-35 can go out on any given day, and we have, gone to the red line of the airplane" with a full internal weapons load. Going to the limits of the aircraft's envelope with a full load of weapons is "inconceivable in any of the other fourth-generation airplanes, including Typhoon, which most would say has the best performance of those four fourth-gen jets," says Flynn, who is a former test pilot for the Eurofighter and Lockheed F-16. All variants of the F-35 are capable of flying at Mach 1.6 and 50° angle-of-attack, he says. The A and C models have a maximum speed of 700 knots calibrated airspeed (KCAS-1296 km/h) while the F-35B can fly at 630 KCAS (1167 Km/h). The A, B and C variant are rated at 9g, 7g and 7.5g's respectively.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...hornet-382078/

Consider that the Typhoon has outmanouvered the F-22 in excercises.

That exercise was a series of WW2 style dogfights where it was found that the Typhoon, not surprisingly, has better low speed maneuverability than the Raptor. It makes for nice headlines, but is irrelevant, since the US has not fought that way since WW1.

Its like having a mock dogfight between WW2 Zeros and F4U Corsairs where you tell the Corsairs to only engage in low speed turning fights. The result, not surprisingly, would be a lot of shot down Corsairs. However, if the pilots fly the Corsairs as they are supposed to, namely high speed "Boom and Zoom", the result will be a lot of shot down Zeros.

In any real fight, the F22 or F35 would detect, track and fire AAMs at the Typhoon before the Typhoon even realised there was an enemy out there.

And consider that the Russians ecell in making missiles. Their AA missiles also usually have higher ranges than Wetsenr ones.

I thought you were arguing that there was no credible threat to NATO's air superiority.

They will not sit still and leave stealth planes untouched. They will get the sensors soon to unstealth them, I havbe no doubt.

There is too much money spend on and too much variables of tactical relevance sacrificed for this feature, "stealth".

That must be why Russia and China are building their own "stealth" fighters.

The F35 thus is too much compromises, and especially in the domain of the A10, it cannot compete - the A10 is what holds that niche of combat operations better than any other pane there is or will be.

The F35 was not designed as a A10 replacement. However, it will handle the CAS role as well or better than the F-15/F-16 or F/A-18.

Plus there is the exploding importance of drones.

Drones are toys. To develop an unmanned aircraft that can carry out the Air-to-Air/Air-to-Ground missions as well as the F35 will cost a lot more than the F35 program. You are not going to save any money that way.

The lacking probability that the F-35 or F-22 will engage in wars where they meet that kind of opposition they technically will have been designed for.

The whole point of "deterrence" is building up your defence to dissuade potential enemies from attacking. Do you really think the world will be a safer place to live if NATO sticks with its current weapons while Russia and China build 5th gen "stealth" fighters which they will then sell to Third World dictatorships?

As to the need, just in the past 20 years, NATO/US aircraft have fought in Gulf War 91, Bosnia no-fly zone enforcement 93-95, Bosnia 95, Kosovo 99, Iraq no-fly zone enforcement 91-03, Iraq war 03-10, Afghanistan 01-now, Lybia 11, Mali 13. Looking at the next 10 years, there are a lot of potential trouble spots: Iran, North Korea, South China Sea, North Africa, Caucasus, Ukraine, etc.

And it will be built in too small numbers, because the price is too high.

US $180 million (est.) for a F35A (USAF) vs US $141 million for a F/A-18F (RAAF) vs US $188 million (max.) for a Eurofighter (UK) vs US $179 million (max.) for a Dassault Rafale (France).

And Canada and Australia have made moves and the Australians placed orders for other planes that indicate they are considering to opt out of their placed orders.

Barring any major unforeseen event, Canada will buy the F35. There is no credible alternative.