Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

I once heard that the most complex machine ever constructed by mankind is the space shuttle (Wikipedia says it has over 2.5 million parts). I don't know whether that statement included the boosters and external tank or not. However, the space shuttle is fairly old now, so I'm wondering if that title has now been taken by something else.

Would the F-22 be a possible candidate now? Or the F-35 (well, since the F-35 costs less than the F-22, I imagine that it probably wouldn't be)?

I don't know what "part" means in this case. Maybe a part is an individually-formed piece, like machine-pressed or something? Complicated computer programming might also count (since such extensive programming has to correspond to a sufficiently-capable hardware design).

Of course, I could be completely off with this. I've seen that the average cost per flight for the space shuttle works out to around $1.5 billion, and there is, of course, a correlation between cost and complexity. However, that cost difference might also be due in part to the much larger size of the space shuttle and its tank/booters when compared to a Raptor.

F-16.net Sponsor

I once heard that Seawolf class Submarines were the most complex machine ever made, i'm thinking the German machine that works in the coal mines perhaps trumps them all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288

Google say the Large hadron Collider is king of the most complex machine ever made. Probably true, but doesn't it like, not work properly or something..? (i'm pretty sure they've had some show stopping problems with it, unless I dreamt that)

The LHC is working now, and I'd be surprised if it is not near the top of the list of complex machines. It certainly must qualify as one of the single most expensive machines ever.

Certainly depends on what you mean with complex. The part count isn't necessarily an indicator and in modern combat aircraft the trend is to reduce the part count to reduce complexity and weight. This directly results in lower costs and ease of maintenance. You could split that into different aircraft either. While modern fighters for example feature less parts, they are more complex due their software etc. and of course the number of systems being used onboard. When it comes to complex machines in general, no idea this would require detailed information about various machines and that's difficult to gather.

I think CERN wins this one, with ITER not far behind, though hard to judge ITER as it is far from full capacity.

Nimitz class carriers? I cant imagine those not being more complex then any of the ones posted. Maybe the new Ford class?

No aircraft approaches the complexity of the LHC, nor will the Ford class carriers, even with EM catapults and other hi-tech systems.

BTW, CERN is not a machine, but an organization. The LHC is one of its machines.

The most complex machine ever built was the VCR.

OL

(at least according to my wife)

From AvWeek.

F-35 too complex??

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

butters, if thats the case(I'm sure you are right, LHC is quite amazing) then imagine if the US finished the Superconducting Super Collider!! Circumference was projected at 54 miles(87km) compared to LHC's 17 miles(27 km)

shep1978 wrote:

I once heard that Seawolf class Submarines were the most complex machine ever made, i'm thinking the German machine that works in the coal mines perhaps trumps them all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288

Google say the Large hadron Collider is king of the most complex machine ever made. Probably true, but doesn't it like, not work properly or something..? (i'm pretty sure they've had some show stopping problems with it, unless I dreamt that)

Having spent yesterday on the newest Virginia Class Submarine in the fleet, the USS New Mexico, I would daresay that it is more complex than the Seawolf.

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

butters wrote:

runi_dk wrote:

I think CERN wins this one,

BTW, CERN is not a machine, but an organization. The LHC is one of its machines.

In the context that he was using the word CERN, he was talking about the particle accelerator (a machine). In the scientific community the term "Large Hadron Collider" is somewhat bulky and doesn't exactly roll off the tongue; so commonly "CERN" is used like shorthand as a substitute.

I've said it before, but anyone who is old enough... may remember when....

"The F-16, F-15, and M1A1 are too complicated for military use in a deployed or adverse environment such as the deserts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia... "
(Or something to that effect)

We were going to have broken jets and tanks, leaving ourselves open to slaughter by Sadam's 'Mother of all Armies'... LMAO

Guess they were wrong? (as they will be with the F-22/F-35 being 'too complicated')

The world as a whole is more complicated than it was 20 or 30 years ago. If our military equipment doesn't hold pace with technology it will be obsolete off the drawing board.

Two Cents

TEG

ATFS_Crash wrote: