F-35C participates in aerial photo with USS Zumwalt

Discuss photos, special paintschemes and serial numbers of the F-35
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3282
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post08 Nov 2016, 03:38

:doh:
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/new ... no-bullets

WASHINGTON — Barely two weeks after the US Navy commissioned its newest and most futuristic warship, armed with two huge guns that can hit targets 80 miles away, the service is moving to cancel the projectiles for the guns, citing excessive costs that run up to $800,000 per round or more.

I don't even know what to say about this.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8388
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 Nov 2016, 04:54

count_to_10 wrote:I don't even know what to say about this.


I want to know how they could have designed this system to not take normal 155mm shells. It at least should be using Excaliber rounds. :doh:
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 861
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post08 Nov 2016, 05:30

count_to_10 wrote:I don't even know what to say about this.

I do.
Of all people, those on these boards should be intimately familiar with stuff included in the numbers behind that $800K+ figure: an individual round's cost to build PLUS its share of the development and infrastructure cost. It is not the marginal cost to buy 'one more round'. If the navy was smart they'd cut the buy to one for a gajillion dollars and buy the next 1000 for a relative pittance apiece.
That the Navy didn't factor this into the 'cost-benefit' estimates in cutting the Zumwalt class buy in favor of more Burke's is just obvious, and highlights how superficial and premature the Navy's analysis and decision must have been. It was a core weapon of the weapon system. How does anyone make that mistake in this day and age? A standard-range artillery shell does nothing for the ship's effectiveness, so no surprise it isn't in the equation. The idea of this ship is to NOT stand toe to toe with the enemy while beating the beach.
The freaking Navy needs to do the math again taking into account round and gun development sunk cost and consider the cost to go only, because per the article there are allegedly NO technical issues involved. They may have already factored some of it, but this development doesn't build confidence. They also need to not think in terms of cost per round, but cost per aimpoint serviced. This gun system can hit targets no other gun in the world can, so they probably would have to do cost comparisons between dissimilar weapon systems, like comparing the operating cost and attrition costs from running strike packages off a carrier deck to hit one aimpoint vs, the cost of putting the DD1000 in the right spot and lobbing a couple of rounds. They mustn't forget the amortized cost of the ships' relative maintenance opportunities as well. I would normally assume this had all been taken into account, but like I said, not feeling the confidence right now.
The more I think of it, the more I think this is a sales job of some kind. For what purpose, I have no idea.
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7699
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post08 Nov 2016, 06:31

HVP rounds are more cost-effective AGS ammo.


http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/08/hi ... ns-or.html
Attachments
Capture.PNG
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Previous

Return to F-35 Spotting & Photography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests