2699
Comments (217)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
featherwinglove 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not saying it's bad, but it does seem way overpriced.

2
brsmith77 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh definitely, but then everything is these days in those areas. An Abrams costs $9 million and that is 40 year old tech! Kinda expected the price to be sky high on something bleeding edge like the F-35...

I always thought it was grimly amusing that in both Gulf Wars the UK and USA were firing missiles that cost way more than the tanks they were blowing up.

2
featherwinglove 2 points ago +2 / -0

In $/kg, the Abrams is in the same ballpark as a new car. I think the problem is that were spending a lot on people who don't work on the product: the lawyers, accountants, lobbyists, C-Levels, HR, middle management, etc.. Decades of cost-plus contracting taking its toll. I remember reading somewhere that the CIWS/FN F2000 cost something like $135,000 each. For what reduces to a rifle duck-taped to a shotgun. A shotgun that can drop a grenade into a pop bottle 400m away though, so there's that.