Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's special foam and maybe an ipod wouldn't be able to stand the pressure of the launch or the chemical explosive may be really expensive to make and then transport and then assemble and then transport.

If you were a truck drive wouldn't you want to be paid more if the load you were carrying was explosive and just not some lettuce?

Although the military does have issues, if they don't spend all of the money alotted they get less than what they got that time. Its actually beneficial to spend all of the money they get than to save it. This isn't a military problem though, some civilian airports also get money for having x amount of passengers even if the passengers flew for free and for just 30 minutes.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:They ditched the XM-8 program because the gun was too expensive- not a big surprise they did the same with the SCAR when it got to be around the same price

And yet every javelin missile system (Some foam, a computer weaker than an Ipod and some chemical explosive) costs more than a tesla roadster (An all electric sports car). Military appropriations are a mystical and hilariously corrupt thing.

**sigh**

OK Mr. Armchair general.. I didn't know that you designed and built this system. When was the last time you actually touched let alone fired one of these in person and not COD4? Never? Ok, thats what I thought.

The missile and Clu was 1st field tested back around 90 or 91 (which means design was even earlier)... the Ipod was deployed in what... 2002? Thats a big difference in available tech dontcha think?

Second... **Edit** you know what... feth it. Read it for yourself. Ain't worth my time typing it out from my TM. Wiki is close enough in this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

Third.... the Clu is reusable.. that saves you about 100kish per shot. Now you only have to replace the missile.. which is about 40-50k. Now in the grand bigger picture...40-50k is a steal for knocking out a tank that costs your enemy millions to replace.

So.. In the words of every Jav instructor.... Get a Clu Dude!

**edited for price errors. I was actually getting my prices backwards**

Why does any of this mean that the missile needs to cost $80,000 per unit, tho?

I have to agree with Shuma here, there's simply not enough going into each missile to justify that high a price. The only way I can understand it, is if there's so few made that there's no economy of scale...

But I was at Walmart the other day, and they had 42" LCD TVs for $400.

A new Audi S4 starts at about $47k.

I mean, seriously, is there twice as much labor, material, R&D, ANYTHING going into a single Javelin as into an S4?

Phryxis wrote:Why does any of this mean that the missile needs to cost $80,000 per unit, tho?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

How about we get back on topic before the thread gets locked, ya?

Good times.

Phryxis wrote:Why does any of this mean that the missile needs to cost $80,000 per unit, tho?

The Javelin is a fire and forget weapon, and that's the primary reason behind its high unit cost; packing all that extra guidance equipment into each missile is what makes it so expensive.

That isn't to say there isn't a significant amount of contract glut to be accounted for, there most certainly is. And anyone making the point that the way the US deals with military procurement is highly inefficient (though Gates has started doing a better job) will be hard pressed to find himself making an incorrect statement.

The Javelin is a fire and forget weapon, and that's the primary reason behind its high unit cost; packing all that extra guidance equipment into each missile is what makes it so expensive.

I understand fully... But I am skeptical that the hardware needs to cost all that much.

As I said, an Audi S4 costs $47k... There's just a lot more engineering, materials, electronics, everything going into that car.

I'm no procurement expert, but if I know anything about how the government operates, what happened was they ordered x missiles for y dollars so it amounted to, say, $20k per missile. Then the project went so far over budget, that the contract ended up being 4y instead of y, and so they said, "we got x missiles for 4y dollars, so that's $80k per missile."

The issue isn't manufacturing cost, so much as the supplier just bills you how much it costs to run their department for how long they estimated it'd take, and then when it takes four times longer, they just bill you four times as much.

The number of missiles you produce is not many, certainly not as many as a car. Not to mention the Audi S4 shares bits and pieces with lots of other cars providing even more economy of scale. Additionally you can just keep that factory going year after year after year making small changes as the model tweaks but production continues.

In contrast they only build a few thousand missiles per year. The parts for them are almost entirely exclusive to the missile and the quantities produced are so small as to make mass production of the style that really drives costs down nearly impossible.

Finally, the missile is designed to sit on a shelf for years at a time then one fateful day be locked into a CLU and fired. After sitting dormant for years, possibly a decade or more it will have to work perfectly on the first shot. If it doesn't, the wrong people die. Its like your Audi would be put in a shipping crate and left there for a few years then one day someone fills up it's gas tank and it has to go win an auto race immediately. No breaking it in, no careful tune ups, just stuffed in a shipping crate at the factory and six years later all it gets is a tank of gas before going into a road race.

Building things to the military's standards is brutal. It's not like an Audi where if it doesn't work you call a tow truck and have a mechanic fix it. If a Javelin doesn't work lots of our people die. Building things to that kind of standard isn't cheap.

Never forget that your weapon is made by the lowest bidder

no its not. There's usually only one bidder.

You people did the impossible. You made guns boring.

Frazzled wrote:no its not. There's usually only one bidder.

+1

Plus if there is more then one bidder, Uncle Sam usually goes for whoever fits their long wishlist of bulletpoints the most... cost be damned.

OK Mr. Armchair general.. I didn't know that you designed and built this system. When was the last time you actually touched let alone fired one of these in person and not COD4? Never? Ok, thats what I thought.

Did you ever fire one that wasn't a dummy unit? How's all that insurgent armor doing these days?

The missile and Clu was 1st field tested back around 90 or 91 (which means design was even earlier)... the Ipod was deployed in what... 2002? Thats a big difference in available tech dontcha think?

Yeah. Usually things get cheaper as they get older. New technology drives the price and cost of manufacturing down for old technology or gets replaced entirely. This doesn't happen in military procurement largely because of contractual obligations creating a lack of need.

Second... **Edit** you know what... feth it. Read it for yourself. Ain't worth my time typing it out from my TM. Wiki is close enough in this case.

I've read this. Twice before actually. I know all about it. I don't think you understand things like economics, materials cost, labor cost, engineering and development costs, or simple graft and inefficiencies though, and apparently we're arguing from two different places. I think it's needlessly expensive (It is as acknowledged by our own military) and you think it's cool. These aren't conflicting ideas, you just like to shout and hoot and hollar about whatever.

Third.... the Clu is reusable.. that saves you about 100kish per shot. Now you only have to replace the missile.. which is about 40-50k. Now in the grand bigger picture...40-50k is a steal for knocking out a tank that costs your enemy millions to replace.

The taliban tank commanders must be shaking in their boots.

So.. In the words of every Jav instructor.... Get a Clu Dude!

With current technology (14 years after introduction) you can scratch build a javelin system with the same or superior components for a fraction of the price. The only reason it is that expensive is because of no bid contracts and the corrupt economics of military procurement. The foam isn't expensive, the electronics are old, and chemicals are cheap. If you're going to try to defend the inflated costing of military items at least chose an item that doesn't cost several hundred times what it should by modern manufacturing practices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyyr wrote:The number of missiles you produce is not many, certainly not as many as a car. Not to mention the Audi S4 shares bits and pieces with lots of other cars providing even more economy of scale. Additionally you can just keep that factory going year after year after year making small changes as the model tweaks but production continues.

In contrast they only build a few thousand missiles per year. The parts for them are almost entirely exclusive to the missile and the quantities produced are so small as to make mass production of the style that really drives costs down nearly impossible.

Finally, the missile is designed to sit on a shelf for years at a time then one fateful day be locked into a CLU and fired. After sitting dormant for years, possibly a decade or more it will have to work perfectly on the first shot. If it doesn't, the wrong people die. Its like your Audi would be put in a shipping crate and left there for a few years then one day someone fills up it's gas tank and it has to go win an auto race immediately. No breaking it in, no careful tune ups, just stuffed in a shipping crate at the factory and six years later all it gets is a tank of gas before going into a road race.

Building things to the military's standards is brutal. It's not like an Audi where if it doesn't work you call a tow truck and have a mechanic fix it. If a Javelin doesn't work lots of our people die. Building things to that kind of standard isn't cheap.

Thats why I used the tesla roadster as my mark of comparison. A short run unique all electric automotive that uses the frame of a lotus but just about everything else is proprietary and unique.

Way to many people commenting towards the end of this tread on US Military procurment that have no idea what they are talking about.

On a more on topic note, how did you guys get from assualt rifles to missle systems?

Even more on topic I vote for the P90, I'm not sure if you would consider it an assult rifle or a sub machine gun though.

Catyrpelius wrote:Way to many people commenting towards the end of this tread on US Military procurment that have no idea what they are talking about.

On a more on topic note, how did you guys get from assualt rifles to missle systems?

Even more on topic I vote for the P90, I'm not sure if you would consider it an assult rifle or a sub machine gun though.

Which people?
We had 8 pages of assault rifle talk, missiles are cool too.
The p90 is classified as a PDF, but most consider it a high quality SMG.

Ehh I'll stick with the P90, Ive always been more of a fan of Sub Machine guns anyway.

ShumaGorath wrote:Did you ever fire one that wasn't a dummy unit? How's all that insurgent armor doing these days?

Fired 1 in AIT, Twice while in garrison, and assisted in the deployment of a couple in OIF 1. Yes, cause we should make everything to fight haji right? OK ACG!

ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah. Usually things get cheaper as they get older. New technology drives the price and cost of manufacturing down for old technology or gets replaced entirely. This doesn't happen in military procurement largely because of contractual obligations creating a lack of need...

Won't beat this horse to death. It's already been stated where to read.

ShumaGorath wrote:I've read this. Twice before actually. I know all about it. I don't think you understand things like economics, materials cost, labor cost, engineering and development costs, or simple graft and inefficiencies though, and apparently we're arguing from two different places. I think it's needlessly expensive (It is as acknowledged by our own military) and you think it's cool. These aren't conflicting ideas, you just like to shout and hoot and hollar about whatever.

Funny, the same thing can be said about you ACG.

ShumaGorath wrote:The taliban tank commanders must be shaking in their boots..

I know Saddam's tank crews did.

ShumaGorath wrote:With current technology (14 years after introduction) you can scratch build a javelin system with the same or superior components for a fraction of the price. !

Ok ACG, I will sit here and patiently wait for you to scratch build a working replica of the system and prove me wrong. Hop to it!

Fired 1 in AIT, Twice while in garrison, and assisted in the deployment of a couple in OIF 1. Yes, cause we should make everything to fight haji right? OK ACG!

Magic. So tell me, when did you work in the factory that produces them? I mean, you're argument seems to be that they cost a lot because they are effective, which they certainly are.

However thats the kind of argument a child would make.

As an aside Haji refers to those who have made the pilgrimage to mecca, it doesn't mean "middleastern insurgents or terrorist groups". I'll chalk that one up to your brilliant training turning you into an expert in the fields of military procurement though!

Won't beat this horse to death. It's already been stated where to read.

You said to read the wikipedia page. I suspect you did so because you don't know what you're talking about, have a poor grasp of manufacturing as an industry and engineering as a practice and don't have an entirely full grasp of the contractual procurement procedure as a government process. Theres no horse here, you're basically avoiding the crux of the argument because you have no way to actually argue against it. You just like something so you feel like waving your arms and shouting. Very much the soldier, but soldiers make terrible accountants.

Funny, the same thing can be said about you ACG.

You haven't exactly done a good job of showing that though.

I know Saddam's tank crews did.

Was that before or after the vast majority were shot by aircraft or our own tanks?

k ACG, I will sit here and patiently wait for you to scratch build a working replica of the system and prove me wrong. Hop to it!

No thanks. In the meantime though, how about you actually attempt to debate the point of running manufacturing costs? I don't think wikis alone are going to pull that one off for you.

Modquisition on
Lets get back on topic people.

Frazzled wrote:Modquisition on
Lets get back on topic people.

The FAMAS is the best rifle in call of duty modern warfare 2.

On both systems?

Colonel Z likes them also.

Frazzled wrote:On both systems?

Colonel Z likes them also.

I would assume it performs the same on both consoles. Can't speak to the pc version from firsthand experience, but if my knowledge of it is correct it's actually slightly better than console in the hands of a skilled user given that it doesn't scatter past the crosshairs and it's much easier to make snap shots with a mouse.

Nope the Famas is less powerful and less accurate (like that really matters in a game that you can jump and get a perfect headshot) than the M16A2.


Go for Bad Company 2 the G3 is the best. it doesn't miss (as long as single shot it). The best MG is the M60. And last but not least the GOL Sniper Magnum is the best sniper rifle.
Best tank is the T90R, best AFV is the Bradley, and their is no difference between the choppers.

Nope the Famas is less powerful and less accurate (like that really matters in a game that you can jump and get a perfect headshot) than the M16A2.

Actually, they have nearly identical stats. They do the same damage and have the same bullet grouping in the game. The games stat screen says otherwise, but it's incorrect (and pretty meaningless, most of it's gunstats are wrong). The famas has a marginally slower fire rate, firing about 8% slower but the bullets in the burst fire closer together, making it better for snapshots and long range firefights. It also takes up less of the screen than the m16.

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/FAMAS

ShumaGorath wrote:Magic. So tell me, when did you work in the factory that produces them? I mean, you're argument seems to be that they cost a lot because they are effective, which they certainly are.

However thats the kind of argument a child would make.

Nice strawman ACG, so tell me... what does asking me how many I fired turn into me working in the factory? Do you think that active duty while sitting stateside just sits on our duff and never EVER goes to a range? Apparently so.

ShumaGorath wrote:As an aside Haji refers to those who have made the pilgrimage to mecca, it doesn't mean "middleastern insurgents or terrorist groups". I'll chalk that one up to your brilliant training turning you into an expert in the fields of military procurement though!.

My taining has made me more of a man then you can ever hope to be ACG. How about you actually grow a pair, put your money where your mouth is hotshot, and enlist. Sadly, you never well cause you will never EVER amount to anything more then a internet tough guy.

ShumaGorath wrote:You said to read the wikipedia page. I suspect you did so because you don't know what you're talking about, have a poor grasp of manufacturing as an industry and engineering as a practice and don't have an entirely full grasp of the contractual procurement procedure as a government process. Theres no horse here, you're basically avoiding the crux of the argument because you have no way to actually argue against it. You just like something so you feel like waving your arms and shouting. Very much the soldier, but soldiers make terrible accountants.

Once again, this sounds like you. And since I have first hand experience and knowledge, that puts me a few steps above you. Who's only knowledge is based on video games and what his beloved CNN tells him so. Just because YOU say im avoiding the issue doesn't make it so ACG. Keep trying though.. if you go "Nah Nah Nah" and stick your tounge out some more... maybe someone will believe you.

ShumaGorath wrote:Was that before or after the vast majority were shot by aircraft or our own tanks?.

Once again ACG, were you there? Oh hey guess what... I was. I know what happened cause I saw it unfold with my own two eyes. CAS doesn't work very well when your in range of whats called "Danger Close" highspeed. Plus when you are operating 30-40k infront of the main body sneaking and peaking off the grid, you would be dead by the time CAS scrambled and was on station for a hotdrop. We had to be self sufficient and be able to handle anything Saddam could throw at us.

ShumaGorath wrote:No thanks. In the meantime though, how about you actually attempt to debate the point of running manufacturing costs? I don't think wikis alone are going to pull that one off for you.

How about you just plain talk from anything other then your 4th point of contact?

Nice strawman ACG, so tell me... what does asking me how many I fired turn into me working in the factory? Do you think that active duty while sitting stateside just sits on our duff and never EVER goes to a range? Apparently so.

Actually I was just wondering if you had fired one the first time I mentioned it. I'm attempting to segway it into something concerning knowledge of the weapons costs now, since thats what we're arguing.

My taining has made me more of a man then you can ever hope to be ACG.

Exchange hope for want.

How about you actually grow a pair, put your money where your mouth is hotshot, and enlist. Sadly, you never well cause you will never EVER amount to anything more then a internet tough guy.

Guess not! At least in this instance though, I'm an internet tough guy thats correct arguing with an internet tough guy thats wrong. Lets be real, you're the one constantly bringing your military experience (however meaningless to the argument) into threads.

Once again, this sounds like you.

That makes sense, I posted it.

And since I have first hand experience and knowledge, that puts me a few steps above you.

Not really. We're talking about how much something costs the government to buy and how much something costs to make. Your experience is absolutely meaningless.

Who's only knowledge is based on video games and what his beloved CNN tells him so.

That doesn't make any sense. The javelin in modern warfare was fre... Wait, I paid sixty dollars for the game. I got hundreds of javelins. You know what? Maybe thats why I think the Jav should come in batches of 50 for a dollar!

Just because YOU say im avoiding the issue doesn't make it so ACG.

No, that fact is self evident by the fact that you're dodging the issue. It's pretty clear.

Keep trying though.. if you go "Nah Nah Nah" and stick your tounge out some more... maybe someone will believe you.

Nah Nah Nah *sticks out his tongue*

Once again ACG, were you there? Oh hey guess what... I was. I know what happened cause I saw it unfold with my own two eyes.

Yes, I'm sure you covered several hundred miles of terrain simultaineously. Thank you solid snake.

CAS doesn't work very well when your in range of whats called "Danger Close" highspeed. Plus when you are operating 30-40k infront of the main body sneaking and peaking off the grid, you would be dead by the time CAS scrambled and was on station for a hotdrop. We had to be self sufficient and be able to handle anything Saddam could throw at us.

Yes, I'm sure. Now what does this have to do with the weapons cost?

How about you just plain talk from anything other then your 4th point of contact?

I'm convinced you actually don't even know what this argument is supposed to be about. Convinced, but not surprised.

And on that note, I think we're done here.

As a final note, Lever Action Assault Rifle is BESTEST Assault Rifle!