$1 Trillion Operating Cost

[Anonymous No.3124660]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-25/lockheed-sees-f-35-lifetime-operating-cost-below-1-trillion
.html

I would post this in /int/, but it's still very science and engineering related. High technology costs a lot to maintain and use, but does this figure somewhat scare anyone else? The cost of one US arms program over its lifetime is equivalent to the entire US budget. This figure, apparently, doesn't take into account the costs borne by foreign operators/customers.

Opinions from aerospace types familiar with the technology used are always welcome. Despite the hideous costs of these arms programs, the cool technology factor somehow remains unmitigated.

TL;DR: Is $1trillion for one arms program too much?

[mtp !HjLTtX.XQ2 No.3124670]

if the money was spent on research instead of war, youd be going every year to mars for your holidays.

[Anonymous No.3124675]

not if we sell the arms to our enemies, which we have/will do

[Anonymous No.3124676]

Wow. Good thing we stopped F-22 procurement and went with the "cheaper" F-35s...

[Anonymous No.3124693]

>>3124670

Except the money from these kind of programs ensures that the technology for space travel is possible.

If the US spent nothing on it's military, they would never have landed on the moon.

[Anonymous No.3124697]

pointless really, invest that in robots/drones, which have longer range and endurance and don't risk jock/alpha pilots "precious" lives

[Anonymous No.3124699]

That's over 50 years operating a massive fleet, not too bad.

+ no one will fuck with someone who has 2400 F35s at their disposal.

[Anonymous No.3124709]

>>3124676
OP here. It might have been cheaper to just order more F-22's which is a completed program with a set design that was in production. The problem is that the F-22 is a poor strike fighter, it just wasn't designed to carry air-to-ground ordnance while remaining stealthy. It cannot fit the mission profile needed. Sure, we could design a "strike raptor" like we did with the F-15E, turning an air superiority fighter into a strike fighter. However, this is STILL another weapons program that's likely to cost a boatload.

What do we use for strike missions? A strike-fighter drone would rock, but it'd need the ability to independently operate, as the signal transmissions needed for remote operation would be a huge liability.

The sensor suite for the F-35 is crazy. IRST and AESA radar coupled with the JHMCS is just tits. I can see a lot of spin-off uses for tech like this.

[Anonymous No.3124711]

>>3124697

>implying a fuckton of money isn't being spent on robotics and unmanned weapons

>>3124670
That money does get spent on research. You think Lockheed aren't using that money to make really cool shit?

You could throw all of the money in the world at something but if you don't have the right brains behind it YOU GET NOTHING

Scientists are finite, good scientists are even more finite.

[Anonymous No.3124774]

The problem at this point is that drones are far cheaper to design and test, and are going to go on advancing much faster than manned jets.

This is like the big investments in battleships people were making heading into the world wars. All of the naval men loved battleships and thought they were awesome and wasted their money on them regardless of the fact that they were basically obsolete.

What it comes down to is that fighter jets are really cool. I'm not even joking. We're spending a trillion dollars on something that's basically obsolete because military men can't control their inner 10-year-old. That's why they became military men: being a soldier-man is cool and awesome, and they want to be in a cool and awesome army with totally rad equipment.

[Anonymous No.3124793]

>>3124774
Drones don't have the situational awareness a manned fighter does. There'll be a role for manned jets for decades to come.

[Anonymous No.3124810]

>>3124670
A large portion of it IS R&D. Operational budgets are much less.

[Anonymous No.3124844]

>>3124793
>There'll be a role for manned jets for decades to come.
Bullshit.

Air superiority isn't a mission that needs human judgement. The pilot needs to trust his instruments and make snap decisions based on simple rules. His job is to sit in the cockpit and immediately press the "Yes!" button when it flashes.

Air superiority drones are going to be far less expensive, just as effective, and far harder to hit. If they aren't right now, it's because they're being suppressed by a military leadership that loves the idea of fighter planes.

Remote-piloted drones have already proven vastly superior at attack missions. The pilots can be well-rested, comfortable, and absolutely fearless. This keeps them from blowing up the wrong things because they've been up for 20 hours and have taken too many go pills.

We've only had a manned air force for the last two decades, let alone for the next two, because of excessive command conservatism.

[Anonymous No.3125192]

>>3124844


Radio jammer

Radio controlled drones fall out of sky

>lol

[Anonymous No.3126189]

the argument that without spending huge amounts on the military we would be technologically disadvantaged is nonsense if the proposed alternative is to spend that money DIRECTLY ON CREATING MORE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY FOR A WIDER RANGE OF PURPOSES.

also, the argument that without spending that much on the military we would all be dead or chinese is equally stupid. if the US halved their military budget they would still be spending 5x more than china and would have ridiculous amounts of billions left over for other things. how much stronger does the US need to be to its next nearest rival in order to remain safe? not 10x, that's obscene and ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.3126691]

>>3126189
US is in serious decline and China is in serious growth right now. Getting the largest gap in technology possible is the best option, I don't want to be Chinese.

[Anonymous No.3126698]

>>3125192
Only if you program drones to be retarded.

An intelligent drone would get the fuck out of there.

[Anonymous No.3126829]

>>3125192
It is AWFULLY fucking hard to effectively jam communications, and anything you use for it would be blaring its location to any anti-radiation missile.

This is not really an issue.

[Anonymous No.3127200]

We own the sky, the Chinese own our debt. Who will end up better off?