rickusn

"LOL.....when rick sees this thread he's gonna skitz. "

Why? Weve discussed costs before and you well know that it all depends on what your counting, whos doing the counting and what assumptions are included. As usual you spread misinformation and disinformation. And unbelievably people fall for it hook, line and sinker. Like lambs to the slaughter. LOL

Somwhere around $40B has already been spent on the Raptor. R & D on the DDX has been nowhere near that spent on the Raptor. In fact comparing the programs is like comparing apples and oranges.

But your just pissed-off about the battleships and once again have lost all semblance of objectivity.

Ive been a staunch supporter of the Raptor but to understate its true cost is a PR stunt and has nothing to do with reality.

Ya gotta love the USAF. The USN even knowing for years how badly they lose the PR battles are still hapless in those efforts when compared to the USAF. LOL

The below costs are accurate:

"Such a sharp reduction in orders for the F/A-22, from 381 to 180 planes, will counteract cost savings associated with a larger purchase by dramatically driving up the per-unit cost.

Currently, the cost of a single Raptor is estimated to be $258 million - the most expensive fighter aircraft to date.

Excluding R&D and sunk costs the price falls to approximately $133 million per plane.

(If we do the same with the Super Hornet the price also drops dramatically. No matter how you do the #s the Raptor comes out to at least 3 times more expensive some say. The SH #'s, like the Raptors, procured over the years have also dropped raisng the cost.)

If you believe the assumptions below the fly-away cost could drop dramatically:

"Then-Air Force Secretary James Roche mentioned technology being developed for the next generation F-35 JSF, which could possibly lower the cost of the F/A-22’s radar by 30 to 40 percent, January 10, 2005.

Ralph D. Heath, executive vice president and former program manager for the F/A-22 at Lockheed Martin (the prime contractor for both the F/A-22 and the F-35), stated that each year the cost of a single F/A-22 falls by approximately 10 to 14 percent, due to learning curves and improvements in production, and by 2006 should be priced “under $100 million” per plane, according to Air Force Magazine in February 2005. ""

rickusn

Heres what the NY Times says on costs. But who knows how they come up with these #'s? Do you Sniper? Could be the $258m is for the 277 and the $330 is for 181? :

Look at that: $330m per Raptor LOL

We can bandy about costs all day. Means nothing if we arent all using the same methods. LOL

But if you buy $4b per DD(X) then you have to buy $330m per Raptor if your going to be consistent.

Which by the way is approx. 12 Raptors(1/2 a squadron) for every DD(X).


"--The 22-year old ballistic missile defense system program, which has yet to pass a realistic test, has cost $100 billion to date.

--The Navy's DDX destroyer program will need roughly $20 billion to produce five surface combatant ships.

--The Army's Future Combat System, first expected to cost $78 billion, could wind up costing twice that amount.

--Two decades ago, the Air Force's F-22 fighter aircraft program promised to deliver 760 jets at $35 million each. Today, the plan is for 180 jets at more than $330 million a copy."

rickusn

Speaking of "skitzing" Sniper this should yank your chain. LOL

Norman Polmar(Author of 17 editions of "Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet" states in this months (August) USNI Proceedings that reactivation of the battleships minimal updates:

"would probably cost far more than $2b per ship"

"Each Iowa requires about 1,500 men and women"

"To return the battleships to active service would be expensive and would provide no useful military capability"

What assumptions and methods is he working from???????? LOL

Much more in the article you should pick-up a copy. LOL

TopHatter

Yeah, that ought to annoy Sniper just a bit

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Norman Polmar manages to come off as a jackass most of the time, but especially when giving his "informed opinion" on the Iowas.

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
~John Quincy Adams

rickusn

Correction: 18 editions

On SH #'s:

Originally 1000 reduced to 800 reduced to 732 reduced to 548 reduced to 460.

Additionally 90 Growlers of the EW variant are now to be procured.

rickusn

CBO report on DDX and LCS costs:

"Although the Navy has not yet stated how many of each ship it wants, a report on long-term ship construction plans, which the Navy sent to the Congress in May 2003, indicated that the service wanted 24 DDXs and 56 littoral combat ships. The cost of buying those ships would total $57 billion ($43 billion for the DDXs and $14 billion for the LCSs), the Congressional Budget Office estimates. "

rickusn

Latest from CBO:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/65xx/doc6...19-NavyDDX.pdf

Dreadnought

And we leave these idiots in charge of watching America's back...what a joke. They just cant and do not want to admit when they are wrong.. I think back pedaling in bull chit was a class major for these clowns. Unbelievable. Sniper please do fire at will...lol. Makes me sick to think these guys believe that returning the battleships to active duty would be the worst thing we could do but yet all of the money we have wasted on they're failed programs like DDX probably could have already paid for it and major upgrades. Besides I doubt highly that anyone of them would take 1500 people to man. Last i heard it was below 900. It sounds bad and no offense intended but seems like the Navy has forgotten tradition among other things like open seas training, gun practice, port calls etc no body wants to see a frigate they want to see the big guns of a BB. And this guys says they would serve no useful purpose..somebody please fire this jackass out of one of the 16" barrels at maximum elevation with 6 bags instead of 3 and preferably in the middle of the ocean. It kills me is how someone thats supposed to be in such an important position can say some of the most stupidest things when they have absolutely 0 to show for the money they have wasted on their "pet" projects.

Anon

I've said my piece in GREAT detail in previous threads on this board.

No one in power seems to care what i think....LOL.

Warhawk

DDX was and is a waste of money. For fractions of the 57 billion we could reactivate the BB's and keep them running for many years to come. 8 billion to reactivate the BB's, which im sure is a "bloated" figure, is still a hell of alot cheaper than producing a whole new class of ships which have not been battle tested.

Hell, Im sure alot of contractors would love to reinstate the 16inch gun production and maintenance. I once talked to a couple admirals here about the DDX, lets just say they weren't too enthustiatic about the whole program. So what if the BB's aren't "stealthy", they sure as hell can take alot more punishment then paper DDX's, 12" belt anyone?. I wouldn't want to put a DDX close to shore thats for sure.

The idiots still think the BB is an outdated weapon from WWII. Politicians want to see them retired, so they can increase the navy nudget by spewing money to programs like DDX. Don't get me started on the retirement of the F-14D. Hell, if nothing else, strip the BB, put a new stupid 155MM gun system in and call it BBX. Maybe that will make the idiot politicians happy.

Beaugeste93

I've heard as few as 6 DDX hulls may be built I guess its time to float the old rocket barge idea again for NSFS. Load up a big ass barge with ordinance and tow it as needed for shore bombardment. The originals used unguided rockets, but even using relatively "cheap" missiles could be a possibility.-a bunch of VLS cells and a control center. I don't know what the range of an MLRS is, but something like that might be a possibility too. Heavy artillery could be mounted also, if some kind of stabilization for the guns was available. We all agree that BBs would be better, but since that isn't going to happen, perhaps a "cheap" off the shelf fix is a possibility. Barges are cheap, compartmentalized, and could be fitted with different loadouts as required. Since an amphib force or CVBG will be there anyway, it could be protected with task force assets.

Just a thought.

__________________
Rule 303

Sandman

I really didn't think it would happen. Reactivating the BBs is to take a step backwards, even if it isn't, in the political world. We don't have the steal capacity production to make another one, but we don't want to design a new composite armor version of comparable capabiblity.
I hate to say it, but I told you so. The BBs are gone.

Dreadnought

Sandman you may be correct in stating they are gone for good. Lets all just hope the world conflicts dont escalate even more otherwise you just may have to eat those words.