- JWST Project Manager, NASA

—

“The combined capabilities and performance of U.S. weapons systems are unmatched throughout the world, ensuring that our military forces have the advantage over any adversary.”

Oh yes, we can certainly be assured of that: including science. it is evidently an adversary too:

“The DoD (FY) 2012 request totals $553.1 billion, of which $203.8 billion is for Procurement, and Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) programs.

“The funding in FY 2012 includes both Base ($188.4 billion) and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) ($15.4 billion) funding:

“For RDT&E appropriations: $75.7 billion (Base, $75.3 billion; OCO, $0.4 billion);
For Procurement: $128.1 billion (Base, $113.1 billion; OCO, $15.0 billion). Of this amount, $85.3 billion is for programs that have been designated as Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP).”Fiscal Year 2012 Modernization – Base and OCO: $203.8 billion”

Space-Based Systems: $10 billion

Aircraft: $54 billion

C41 Systems: $11 billion

Ground Systems: $14 billion

Missile Defense: $10 billion

Missiles and Munitions: $11 billion

Mission Support: $55 billion

RDT&E S&T: $12 billion

Ship-Building & Maritime Systems: $24 billion

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/program-acquisition-costs-by-weapon-system-2012-32084/#ixzz1a2yNQlOQ

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/program-acquisition-costs-by-weapon-system-2012-32084/#ixzz1a2zVrzPh

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter

“The United States intends to buy a total of 2,443 aircraft for an estimated US$323 billion, making it the most expensive defense program ever. The United States Air Force (USAF) budget data in 2010, along with other sources, projects the F-35 to have a flyaway cost from US$89 million to US$200 million over the planned production of F-35s. Cost estimates have risen to $382 billion for 2,443 aircraft, at an average of $156 million each. The rising program cost estimates have cast doubt on the actual number to be produced for the U.S. In January 2011, the F-35B variant was placed on “probation” for two years because of development problems. In February 2011, the Pentagon put a price of $207.6 million for each of the 32 aircraft to be acquired in FY2012, rising to $304.15 million ($9,732.8/32) if its share of RDT&E spending is included.”

“On 11 March 2010, a report from the Government Accountability Office to United States Senate Committee on Armed Services projected the overall unit cost of an F-35A to be $112M in today’s money. In 2010, Pentagon officials disclosed that the F-35 program has exceeded its original cost estimates by more than 50 percent. An internal Pentagon report critical of the JSF project states that “affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar”. On 24 March, Gates termed the recent cost overruns and delays as “unacceptable” in a testimony before the U.S. Congress. He characterized previous cost and schedule estimates for the project as “overly rosy”. However, Gates insisted the F-35 would become “the backbone of U.S. air combat for the next generation” and informed the Congress that he had expanded the development period by an additional 13 months and budgeted $3 billion more for the testing program while slowing down production. Lockheed Martin expects to reduce government cost estimates by 20%.

“In November 2010 as part of a cost-cutting measure, the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform suggested canceling procurement of the F-35B and halving orders of F-35As and F-35Cs. At the same time Air Force Magazine reported that “Pentagon officials” are considering canceling the F-35B because its short range means that the bases or ships it operates from will be within range of hostile tactical ballistic missiles. However Lockheed Martin consultant Loren B. Thompson said that this rumor is merely a result of the usual tensions between the US Navy and Marine Corps, and there is no alternative to the F-35B as an AV-8B replacement. He also confirmed that there would be further delays and cost increases in the development process because of technical problems with the aircraft and software, but blamed most of the delays and extra costs on redundant flight test.

“The Center for Defense Information estimated that the program would be restructured with an additional year of delay and $5 billion in additional costs. On 5 November 2010, the Block 1 software flew for the first time on BF-4 which included information
fusion and initial weapons-release capability. As of the end of 2010, only 15% of the software remains to be written, but this includes the most difficult sections such as data fusion. But in 2011 it was revealed that only 50% of the eight million lines of code had actually been written and that it would take another six years and 110 additional software engineers in order to complete the software for this new schedule.”

V-22 Osprey

tiltrotor aircraft – since early 1980′s to 1988 prototypes – controversial developmental and cost overrun issues:

V-22′s development process has been long and controversial, partly due to its large cost increases. The V-22′s development budget was first planned for $2.5 billion in 1986, then increased to a projected $30 billion in 1988. As of 2008, $27 billion had been spent on the Osprey program and another $27.2 billion will be required to complete planned production numbers by the end of the program.”

Program cost US$27 billion as of 2008
Unit cost US$67 million (CV-22 flyaway cost for 2010)

F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet

Produced 1995–present
Number built 500 as of April 2011
Program cost Total procurement: US$4.85 billion (through FY2011
Unit cost US$55 million (2011 flyaway cost)

E/A-18G Growler

Unit cost US$67 million (flyaway cost, FY2011)

“In an April 2006 report, the U.S. Government Accountability Office expressed concerns. The GAO felt the electronic warfare systems on the EA-18G were not fully mature so there is risk of “future cost growth and schedule delays”. The report recommended that the DOD consider purchasing additional ICAP III upgrades for EA-6Bs to fill any current and near-term capability gaps and restructure the initial EA-18G production plans so that procurement takes place after the aircraft has “demonstrated full functionality”.”

“The U.S Navy has ordered a total of 57 aircraft to replace its existing EA-6B Prowlers in service, all of which will be based at NAS Whidbey Island save for Reserve Squadron VAQ-209 based at NAF Washington, MD. The US DoD gave approval for the EA-18G program to begin low-rate initial production in 2007. The EA-18G was scheduled to finish flight testing in 2008. The Navy planned to buy approximately 85 aircraft in 2008. Approval for full-rate production was expected in the third quarter of 2009, and was given on 23 November 2009. Boeing will ramp up production to 20 aircraft per year. On 9 July 2009, General James Cartwright told the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services that the choice had been to continue the F/A-18 production line because the war fighting commanders needed more aerial electronic warfare capability that only the EA-18G could provide.

“The Navy’s submission for the 2011 defense budget put forth by the Obama Administration calls for the addition of four EA-18G Growler squadrons to be added to the fleet. On 14 May 2010, Boeing and the US Department of Defense reached an agreement for a multi-year contract for an additional 66 F/A-18E/Fs and 58 EA-18Gs over the next four years. This will raise the total to 114 EA-18Gs on order.

“The Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation determined that the EA-18G was “still not operationally suitable” in February 2011. Prime contractor Boeing is working to address issues with software updates.”

And we’re whining about where an extra $2.4 for completion and launch + $1 for 10 years of operation = $3.4 billion for TEN YEARS OF JWST OPERATION is going to come from when the Defense Department request for 2012 ALONE is $553.1 BILLION for their toys???

Adjusted comparable cost of JWST each year over 10 years of operation: $340 million.

Estimated military related weapons programs/systems cost overruns for FY2001-2008 ALONE: (very) approximately $920 billion. (Not counting the cost of two expensive military invasions, one of which was utterly unrelated to any tactical need EXCEPT to keep oil corporations happy).

Cost of those wars: between 900 billion and 2 trillion dollars, depending on what statistics from the government one consults.

Number of military programs that were scrapped for being over-budget: ZERO.

They’re ALL still alive.

But we can’t fund JWST???

DIFFERENCE: the HORRIBLE EXTRA COST OF JWST OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS REPRESENTS ABOUT 1/1600 of the cost of the REQUESTED FISCAL YEAR 2012 MILITARY BUDGET.

Do you understand now?

You know what? It’s clear that this country is far more interested in exploring terrorists than it is in exploring the universe…evidently politicians figure its so much more ‘cost effective’ to sell/scream “NATIONAL SECURITY!!!” than it is to support something that makes people smarter, doesn’t kill anything, or doesn’t even pose a security risk.

Compare the mythical economic nightmare that JWST has been portrayed to be (engineers trying to push the envelope of what is possible) with the joke the military gets away with all the time, and multiply it by 1600, and you might get the picture.

That means, for the year 2010 ALONE, the Federal government spent over a TRILLION DOLLARS MORE than it collected in revenue.

And 2010 was a TYPICAL year for the Federal budget. The 2011 deficit will be similar, and probably, so will the 2012 deficit.

They’re in the HABIT of spending a TRILLION more dollars than they take in … and yet, they’re worried about where the money for JWST is going to “come from”?!

On the other hand, when looking back to the actions of WWII and the actions of nations, it would be wise to remember that essentially no nation of that time would think that it was improper to attack civilian populations, whether directly or via indiscriminate bombing, if it helped win the war. This is a rather new notion, in part brought on by the industrial-scale suffering inflicted on civilians in that war.

IIUC, WWI was the first major conflict (well, the first one for perhaps 500 years) in which civilians became targets, when dreadnoughts were shelling coastal towns from miles out at sea. At the time it was seen as deeply shocking. Clearly, by 1940, it had come to be seen as necessary, for whatever reasons. I’m not sure that people ever accepted it as “proper” wartime behaviour.

It may well be that our present attitude to the idea of inflicting civilian casualties arises in part from the latter months of WWII.

Then again, I do recall terms such as “megadeath” and “collateral damage” being bandied about during the Cold War. If a worldwide conflict had arisen involving the use of nuclear weapons, civilians would have been primary targets, because the battlefield is almost irrelevant when you have several hundred ICBMs to lob at your enemy’s cities. So perhaps our present attitude arises out of relief at the end of the Cold War.

This comment is just a silly strawman because you state that he assumes what he heard applies to all muslims, when he then goes on to explain at great length that it does not apply to all muslims, but rather a specific subset (a subset who in general is known to hold this belief). You basically ignored 95% of what he said in order to be able to call him a bigot. I think that while he may have come off that way originally, he’s demonstrated that he is not, and by ignoring contrary evidence to retain your prior prejudice, you have demonstrated you are. At least in this case. So stop, please

Actually, I read his first paragraph and replied to that, and didn’t get around to reading the rest of the comment.

So, I stand corrected. Wzrd1, I apologise for that comment.

@ Stargazer:

Actually, I think nations can “throw stones” as you put it, simply because nations change.

That’s fair, but I think you must also take into account that change is a process, different nations are in different phases of change, and the beginnings of our change is not so far in the past that we can divorce ourselves from what we were then. Comparing the state of a former colonial power to a nation that was a former colony and thus doesn’t even have a significant modern history of self-rule (as is the case with many of the nations we might ‘throw stones’ at) is to just discount reality for the sake of a value judgment, in my opinion.

On the other hand, when looking back to the actions of WWII and the actions of nations, it would be wise to remember that essentially no nation of that time would think that it was improper to attack civilian populations, whether directly or via indiscriminate bombing, if it helped win the war. This is a rather new notion, in part brought on by the industrial-scale suffering inflicted on civilians in that war.

@CraterJoe:

Wait, wasn’t this whole thing about the JWST? I bet all the congress critters devolve into the same arguement once someone tosses in “military spending”. No wonder nothing gets done.

Actually I think that’s just why the issue of cutting military spending never comes up. That, and if someone does actually bring it up, someone (from the district of the affected defense contractor most likely) will shout “You don’t support the troooooops!” and the offending Congresscritter will shut up.

So that debate is usually pretty short, and isn’t why nothing gets done.

This comment is just a silly strawman because you state that he assumes what he heard applies to all muslims, when he then goes on to explain at great length that it does not apply to all muslims, but rather a specific subset (a subset who in general is known to hold this belief). You basically ignored 95% of what he said in order to be able to call him a bigot. I think that while he may have come off that way originally, he’s demonstrated that he is not, and by ignoring contrary evidence to retain your prior prejudice, you have demonstrated you are. At least in this case. So stop, please.

Actually, I think nations can “throw stones” as you put it, simply because nations change. Today’s Germany is not the same that attacked everyone 70 years ago. Those who dropped the nuclear bombs on civilians in Japan are no longer in control of USA. And same with my country. So I can say it’s wrong to attack civilians or torture suspects, because that is not only what I feel but it reflects the official positions of many countries today.

#12 (Peter), I rather enjoy getting a paycheck and liberating opressed peoples. Thanks.

So, who have you liberated lately?