The 10 Most Expensive Weapons in the World

[Leatherneck 693]

From what I've found, five have been shot down, all by Iraqi surface-to-air missiles.

It does have its uses, but fighting in battlefields filled with radar guided SAMs is not one of them.

Radar is the first thing to get taken or jammed out in a conflict. And those that remain have a real fear of

producing a signature that can be picked up, the enemy knows it only takes seconds to be identified and missiles are inbound to neutralize the threat.

SAMs are useless without radar and once there is no radar, they get sliced and diced also.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The newest upgrade is a joint venture by the Italian Ministry of Defense and the US Department of Defense: the AGM-88E Advanced Anti Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM), produced by Alliant Techsystems.

The AARGM will feature the latest software, enhanced capabilities intended to counter radar shutdown, passive radar and active millimeter wave seekers. It will be released in November 2010.

It will be initially integrated onto the FA-18C/D, FA-18E/F, EA-18G and Tornado ECR aircraft and later on the F-35.[6]

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

And you believe defense is the number one thing to be cut?

Slim,

if your buddy becomes President, he'll cut the defense budget by 90%.

Bravo, I say!

[Pooky 3,828]

I just don't agree with this A-10 worship. Yes it has been doing well, but it is not a stealth aircraft by any stretch of the imagination. So it is easy to see, target, and shoot down.

Thing is, when tasked to do the same job as the 'Hog (which is one of the roles it's earmarked for), the F-35 Thunderpig has to hang the stores externally, which quite effectively shatters any illusions of stealth it might have had.

Then you get down to survivability, and the Thunderpig is hi-tech, but unarmoured. When taking damage a 'Hog can survive, the Thunderpig is likely to turn into a very expensive piece of scrap metal very quickly.

[slim 1,530]

From what I've found, five have been shot down, all by Iraqi surface-to-air missiles.

It does have its uses, but fighting in battlefields filled with radar guided SAMs is not one of them.

So, in over 30 years of operation only 5 have been shot down?

Radar is the first thing to get taken or jammed out in a conflict. And those that remain have a real fear of producing a signature that can be picked up, the enemy knows it only takes seconds to be identified and missiles are inbound to neutralize the threat.

SAMs are useless without radar and once there is no radar, they get sliced and diced also.

MANPADS are still pretty effective but against an airframe like the A-10, they're not really doing much. (See above!)

Slim,

if your buddy becomes President, he'll cut the defense budget by 90%.

Bravo, I say!

Doubtful. The majority of his cuts will be operational costs of occupying 100+ foreign countries. Ron Paul will probably maintain a strong military simply to keep those folks working but they'll be shifted to our borders. Additionally, our military will do a lot more training.

They'll still be fit to fight they just won't have to occupy foreign nations anymore. And that will save us a bunch of money and we won't even have to switch to Geico.

[Laser1 63]

So, in over 30 years of operation only 5 have been shot down?

It has a good record in wars against second rate opponents, but I think we would need something stealthier to fight a more evenly matched enemy.

[Laser1 63]

Radar is the first thing to get taken or jammed out in a conflict. And those that remain have a real fear of

producing a signature that can be picked up, the enemy knows it only takes seconds to be identified and missiles are inbound to neutralize the threat.

SAMs are useless without radar and once there is no radar, they get sliced and diced also.

That's all true. However, I think that in a war against a first-rate enemy with good technology, being able to fly missions before the enemy radar is neutralized would be a great advantage.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It has a good record in wars against second rate opponents, but I think we would need something stealthier to fight a more evenly matched enemy.

Like who? Iraq was #4.

We spend five times as much as our nearest competitor, China.

Edited January 13, 2012 by ☼

[slim 1,530]

It has a good record in wars against second rate opponents, but I think we would need something stealthier to fight a more evenly matched enemy.

You obviously have no idea how air power works.

You wouldn't use a hammer to cut a 2x4, would you? We have different tools for different jobs. The A-10 fits a certain role and that's what we use it for. It's not an air superiority fighter. I think you've either played too many video games or watched too many movies because you're assuming aircraft will be shot down unless they're stealthy. That's simply not the case in the real world.

As Leatherneck pointed out above, once the enemy ADA is knocked out and air assets neutralized, the A-10 thrives.

That's all true. However, I think that in a war against a first-rate enemy with good technology, being able to fly missions before the enemy radar is neutralized would be a great advantage.

We have planes that jam enemy radar while other planes bomb the radar sites. Meanwhile there are other planes that fly around to make sure those planes don't get shot out of the sky by enemy planes. While all that's going on, still more planes fly around to make sure all the aforementioned planes have enough fuel to continue fighting.

And then we have other other other planes that engage targets on the ground. Once all that's taken care of, then rotary wing aircraft go in to put boots on the ground and other rotary wing aircraft and fixed wing craft like the A-10 come in to support them.

Simply put, there's only a handful of countries out there that can even slow us down in the air. We don't fight those countries so aircraft like the A-10 typically operate unimpeded.

[Ban Hammer 13,516]

It has a good record in wars against second rate opponents, but I think we would need something stealthier to fight a more evenly matched enemy.

it was designed with the soviet army in mind - that's pretty much first rate. you might note the soviets had their own version of it, the su-25 frogfoot.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

it was designed with the soviet army in mind - that's pretty much first rate. you might note the soviets had their own version of it, the su-25 frogfoot.

I was trying to remember the designation of that aircraft, but I was too lazy to google it. We reverse engineered a lot of Soviet stuff, but the Soviets thought our aircraft was too fragile and too hard to maintain for them to imitate. I think that is the only aircraft design the Soviets tried to copy in the US arsenal.

[slim 1,530]

The difference in doctrine between us and the Soviets is striking. We'd make 10 aircraft and 90 replacement parts and they'd make 100 aircraft with no replacement parts.

And that's kind of why the A-10 is around!

[Laser1 63]

You obviously have no idea how air power works.

You wouldn't use a hammer to cut a 2x4, would you? We have different tools for different jobs. The A-10 fits a certain role and that's what we use it for. It's not an air superiority fighter. I think you've either played too many video games or watched too many movies because you're assuming aircraft will be shot down unless they're stealthy. That's simply not the case in the real world.

As Leatherneck pointed out above, once the enemy ADA is knocked out and air assets neutralized, the A-10 thrives.

We have planes that jam enemy radar while other planes bomb the radar sites. Meanwhile there are other planes that fly around to make sure those planes don't get shot out of the sky by enemy planes. While all that's going on, still more planes fly around to make sure all the aforementioned planes have enough fuel to continue fighting.

And then we have other other other planes that engage targets on the ground. Once all that's taken care of, then rotary wing aircraft go in to put boots on the ground and other rotary wing aircraft and fixed wing craft like the A-10 come in to support them.

I'm actually more into game making.

If one air-frame can perform multiple roles, I am all for that.

Look at it this way; an F-35A pilot could zip to a spot at any altitude without being seen, fire her weapons, then zip to the next spot. With an A-10, the troops would have to fight off the enemy waiting for the pilot to arrive. Then it would shoot the enemy while being shot at, and it can't climb to avoid the fire, because it would attract more fire.

Simply put, there's only a handful of countries out there that can even slow us down in the air. We don't fight those countries so aircraft like the A-10 typically operate unimpeded.

We don't fight those countries now, but who knows; 20, 30 or 50 years from now, that can change.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Laser1

[slim 1,530]

I'm actually more into game making.

If one air-frame can perform multiple roles, I am all for that.

Look at it this way; an F-35A pilot could zip to a spot at any altitude without being seen, fire her weapons, then zip to the next spot. With an A-10, the troops would have to fight off the enemy waiting for the pilot to arrive. Then it would shoot the enemy while being shot at, and it can't climb to avoid the fire, because it would attract more fire.

We don't fight those countries now, but who knows; 20, 30 or 50 years from now, that can change.

Are you suggesting the F-35 will be able to establish air superiority (by avoiding detection) and provide close air support without aid from other aircraft?

[Laser1 63]

Are you suggesting the F-35 will be able to establish air superiority (by avoiding detection) and provide close air support without aid from other aircraft?

Largely so, though aid from aircraft like F-22s, MC-12s, and UAVs would help.