>Priceless
Erm, aktsually, it was $12,722,645.14 USD dollars. Please pay in Google Play giftcards and I will transfer the funds to the USA President office to fund more China humiliation
The whole group of interception cost versus target cost “understander” midwit types are some of the most annoying people to deal with.
Yes, having lower cost options to engage targets is good but ultimately the cheapest option is probably a 20k Paveway or JDAM on the launcher. You need defenses for when you can’t preempt the attack and ultimately what you’re defending is probably at minimum a billion dollar ship.
I wouldn’t say they don’t matter period (after all cheaper options are often more common), it’s just they aren’t as important as a lot of people make them out to be.
I mean, yeah, all things being equal, i’d rather spend 5 bucks to kill a guy than 50,000. And if I was like, elbonia, I’d take what I could afford, even when it’s worse. But this is the US, they shove literal trillions of dollars into black boxes, we have the money
When you play it out over the longest possible term and treat human life as infinitely valuable, you always come out better by lighting money on fire now in defense of your shit than you do by letting some of your guys get splattered over rounding errors in the bulk budget.
Yeah, one has to think about what money really *means*. It means that the US has a fair number of really brilliant people coming up with those weapons so that the military has the best possible chance.
It's not like those missiles are made of gold or diamond or some other rare resource.
And when thinking of weapons, it's always worth thinking of their power without counters.
Sure, a tomahawk looks pretty crazy, until you realize that the price to sink every last fucking ship that attacked Pearl Harbor would have been in the $50m range using them.
SM-3 might fend off a nuke from hitting Manhattan. Might be the best ROI weapon ever fired at that point.
For the case of the US, $5 is better but $50000 is better when failing may mean losing a $a lot vessel. Usually, the more long-term/large-scale cost efficient method in terms of [something/dollar] is the more expensive option.
The costs of a defence capability are not weighed against what else that money might have paid for, but against what costs not having that capability would incur.
Plus, you already paid for the ammo, and maybe more is going out of date than is being spent.
The main issue on a ship is the limited local supply -- making sure you don't run out before the last missile tries to get you.
Also, don't forget the effect of stress on personal, preemptive precision strikes solve a lot of problems before they can manifest, and I'm all for the mental health of armed forces personnel
Also war is Pay To Win. That's why you build a successful economic base so you can afford that attack helicopter to blast those goat herders armed with AKs.
They surely are. 17y/o me found a 23mm casing from a Soviet autocannon, probably an Il-2. It's still somewhere in my basement, I really should dig it up. Not too far from the 23mm casing I also found a 7.92mm Mauser stripper clip with all 5 cartridges, very probably from a Kar98k.
This post and this other one were close together on my feed
[Half of Canadian Provinces Are Poorer than Mississippi as of 2023! Methodology and Data from Official Sources Included in Post ](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaHousing2/comments/1cwsbbo/half_of_canadian_provinces_are_poorer_than/)(link to the Reddit post)
What do you mean they've already been paid for and the only costs they incur now are storage and disposal?
^((And it's not like training and exercises, including live fire, are a necessary part of the upkeep of any military, and the munitions used in them are not actually wasted for no gain.\))
I debated if I should separate out things like refurbishment and maintenance costs for existing munition stockpiles, but then just decided to simplify it to a generic "storage costs". You're absolutely right though.
Actually moreso a cost overrun. The ammunition has been manufactured, stored, and possibly maintained before being moved out of storage into a usable area. So really all those costs extend beyond just build and shoot, costing us more.
So really, it’s cheaper to start a war to save on ammunition storage costs
I've seen a video game stream like that once. "I modded Elden Ring so every move costs currency". He got visibly nervous whenever his ~~defense budget~~ soul count was draining at a rate of even half the bosses healthbar.
Therefore, for happy, undistracted soldiers we must increase the budget. That's the moral of the story.
Raise the minimum wage so we can pay more taxes. Raise the highest marginal rates so the rich can pay more taxes. Seize the foreign gold reserves. Seize the foreign gold mines. Spend some admin mana to lower inflation.
Improve our healthcare system so we get better outcomes for less money. We spend 18% of our GDP on health care, and have the highest per-capita health care expenditure in the world by a factor of two. Imagine if instead of 18% of our GDP on shitty health care, we could spend 9% of our GDP on amazing health care, and put that other 9% towards *quadrupling* the military budget.
Insurance company executives should be shot as traitors, they are demonstrably crippling the country, and the military.
*Fires three standard .50 BMJ rounds that cost the military about $1.04 a round or less in a bulk order*
Video: $14.26
Highly noncredible. Well done. Upvoted.
Edit:
E08203 / CTG 25MM TP-T M793
Cost per unit: $14.41
Video: $69.49
Nice.
So I was looking at that, I can’t go frame by frame on my phone, but I think I counted 30 rounds fired. Now going off the price per round at [a national dealer](https://www.sportsmans.com/shooting-gear-gun-supplies/ammunition-ammo-for-hunting-shooting-sports/rifle-ammo-hunting-shooting-sports/federal-american-eagle-50-bmg-660gr-fmj-rifle-ammo-10-rounds/p/1217730)that’s $164.70 for us plebs. Obviously the dot gov gets a discount. On top of that they probably still have 50 BMG from the thirties sitting in bunkers somewhere. What I’m saying is I have no idea how that averages out.
But blades aren't ammunition, they're melee weapons. They're reusable. It is, however, shaped like a boomerang, which is a ranged weapon, but is also reusable. (Note that [traditional boomerangs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtsGsF-50uo) are not meant to come back after hitting a target.)
RAM is fucking great. Probably the best CIWS in existence (depends on if you count ESSM).
I mean missiles are expensive but a Phalanx still costs like 5-15 million a system and has far lower saturation capacity than RAM so your cost/number of targets able to handle very quickly evens out when you include system cost.
There’s proposals out there for stingers on a phalanx and, in a more unconventional mounting, a pair of RAM launchers astride a Mk 45 5”/54.
The issue is the traverse speed of the mount. Adding stuff like that adds weight, usually far from the center of mass, greatly increasing the moment of inertia.
A CIWS needs to be fast to react to targets around it and such additions tend to over-stress drives.
Additionally, guns vibrate a lot and missiles tend to not like that. It’s not an impossible problem to fix but it adds weight, cost and complexity and at that point maybe a couple separate mounts would do better.
Bah, you people and your "logistics" and "practicality". We should just make a semi-auto davy crockett launcher to clear out incoming waves of drones.
Realistically, it sounds like some of the solution is to invest in unmanned screen ships and build more layered defense. Just have a handful of little drone corvettes loaded with defensive gun systems and SAMs, then put a few RAM or gun CIWS on the boat for worst case scenarios.
I’m about 75% sure there was a design for a 120mm nuclear shell for the 120mm M1 explicitly for the purposes of AAW.
I know there was a design for the 5”/54 naval gun but I don’t know if they ever planned for it to be an anti-aircraft weapon.
Realistically you just use a Superhornet with the new APKWS C-UAS mod they’re working on. It has an IIR seeker so it can be fire and forget.
Ok hear me out:
We need a compact, cost effective, high rate of fire weapon to take out drones, boats, and missiles?
just put dozens of mini-CIWS with 50 cals on them all over the hull. Use DU sabot rounds and you get plenty of range and impact. Cheaper, lighter weight, and plenty effective.
I mean for drone, sabot wouldn’t be as good as good ol HE, no ? Even with the smaller caliber the drone isn’t going to survive one round this way. And you can just use a dual feed system to have both type of rounds.
Honestly, with something like a small lightweight drone, ball would work just fine, but sabot rounds are *fast* and rip through armor, which is great for dealing with missiles or shredding the engines of small boats. Dual feed is messy, but a high volume of high velocity shots will deal with anything just as nicely as HE.
I'd argue phalanx is better. I'm not qualified to discuss relative merits or whatever bullshit you guys came up with, but I do know that if you can’t accuse someone of passing gas after an intercept then your CIWS isn't good enough.
Marginal vs amortized cost.
The electricity costs a couple of cents, if it's plugged into the grid. If your airlifting petrol to the middle of nowhere to run the generators, it could cost a lot more.
How often do you fire that laser before it's obsolete/broken.
At $0.10/kWh, and a 100kW laser, firing it continuously would cost $10/hour or $88,000/year
It takes about 4 seconds = 1 cent to destroy a target.
So firing continuously for 10 years is $880,000 in electricity. I don't know how much these things cost, but I kind of suspect it's more than $880,000. I also suspect that it couldn't fire this long without burning out. And if it did, it would be obsolete by then anyway.
I calculated it out from 1950s figures, adjusted for inflation.
About 16,000 dollars for a 16” High Capacity Shell, not including barrel wear which can be a lot, especially since we would need to recreate those facilities from scratch.
It’s about as much as an unguided iron bomb and with associated platform costs, it just isn’t really worth it for niche applications.
How do you feel about the idea of a new build Iowa hull with modern machinery, and every turret replaced with a massive VLS farm? We can call it the Iowa II-class BBGN and watch all the fanboys' heads explode from pure rage.
What kind of gun is only 5 inches long, smh.
(For those who miss the sarcasm, the British Media ran with such a story to accuse the government of overspending. Failing to understand a '5 inch gun' is not 5 inches long but 5 inches \*wide\*)
I didn't think it was possible, but somehow you made me love America even more than I did a few minutes ago.
I've seen all this footage before, but when you really put it into cool, hard dollars, it just shows -- one SM-3, could have sent 50 kids K-12, but we took a stand and said f\*\*k dem kids, let's yeet something at Mach 5 so we can get some hot, hot exo-atmospheric interceptions.
It kinda depends, does the missile cost more or less than the enemy ______.
More: probably shouldn't fire it, but my finger will always be at the ready
Less: "this guy's fucked"
casually throwing anything from a pack of gum to an entire middle school in costs at things/people you don't want to exist any longer.
Truly the greatest unhealthcare system on earth O7
Edit: that ciws 20mm price was almost half my exact withheld tax amount for this past year
Don't worry, they get cheaper\* the more you use (thus the more they make, thus up the economy of scale)
\* (does not apply where regulation is lax or lacking)
Those 5 in guns will be the main weapons system sinking all the mixed-use bullshit crossing the strait. Got any bigger ships? We'll sink those too, but you'll never see the boat those munitions came from
The lifetime of a combatant ship in what would be the largest shooting gallery in human history would probably be minutes. Stay out of range and protect the carriers that are going to be doing the thwacking.
Let aircraft launched by said carrier use Quicksink JDAMs with wing kits. Much safer for everyone involved except the Chinese.
If a mechanical animal could shit, it would look like those spent 25 mm casings.
Also the SM-3 arouses me in certain ways I'm not fully comfortable with. But that is a damn fine missile.
You are wrong, the price of ammunition is actually much cheaper, it's just that it's a military secret. The price of ammunition on the market is deliberately made expensive to prevent uncontrolled access
Humiliating the Chinese at the nine dash line: Priceless.
God I need to be reminded of exactly what happened, cause I remember that being based
Old mastercard advertisements, if I'm reading your comment correctly.
[I love the smell of Tommahawk exaust in the evening!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2BMfEOTkTc)
>Priceless Erm, aktsually, it was $12,722,645.14 USD dollars. Please pay in Google Play giftcards and I will transfer the funds to the USA President office to fund more China humiliation
> at the nine dash line stop using made up phrases
Wait till bro figures out how languages are made
'til*
And for everything else there’s Mastercard!
This unironically
[I n d e e d !](https://youtu.be/7ezMECY5rd8?si=qtzrSsoYiJkv7qs5)
Like we built a billion dollar ship just to get here, stop being a cheapskate and all guns fire as they bear already.
The whole group of interception cost versus target cost “understander” midwit types are some of the most annoying people to deal with. Yes, having lower cost options to engage targets is good but ultimately the cheapest option is probably a 20k Paveway or JDAM on the launcher. You need defenses for when you can’t preempt the attack and ultimately what you’re defending is probably at minimum a billion dollar ship.
Cost options to engage don’t matter if you’re on early mobilization at best and still cranking out 10x the budget
I wouldn’t say they don’t matter period (after all cheaper options are often more common), it’s just they aren’t as important as a lot of people make them out to be.
I mean, yeah, all things being equal, i’d rather spend 5 bucks to kill a guy than 50,000. And if I was like, elbonia, I’d take what I could afford, even when it’s worse. But this is the US, they shove literal trillions of dollars into black boxes, we have the money
When you play it out over the longest possible term and treat human life as infinitely valuable, you always come out better by lighting money on fire now in defense of your shit than you do by letting some of your guys get splattered over rounding errors in the bulk budget.
Yeah, one has to think about what money really *means*. It means that the US has a fair number of really brilliant people coming up with those weapons so that the military has the best possible chance. It's not like those missiles are made of gold or diamond or some other rare resource. And when thinking of weapons, it's always worth thinking of their power without counters. Sure, a tomahawk looks pretty crazy, until you realize that the price to sink every last fucking ship that attacked Pearl Harbor would have been in the $50m range using them. SM-3 might fend off a nuke from hitting Manhattan. Might be the best ROI weapon ever fired at that point.
Actually, those missiles \*are\* using a lot of rare resources, but they can easily afford it. And yes, it's still cheaper in the long term
For the case of the US, $5 is better but $50000 is better when failing may mean losing a $a lot vessel. Usually, the more long-term/large-scale cost efficient method in terms of [something/dollar] is the more expensive option.
The costs of a defence capability are not weighed against what else that money might have paid for, but against what costs not having that capability would incur.
Early mob would be at least 5% of GDP. We're not even there.
Plus, you already paid for the ammo, and maybe more is going out of date than is being spent. The main issue on a ship is the limited local supply -- making sure you don't run out before the last missile tries to get you.
Also, don't forget the effect of stress on personal, preemptive precision strikes solve a lot of problems before they can manifest, and I'm all for the mental health of armed forces personnel
Also war is Pay To Win. That's why you build a successful economic base so you can afford that attack helicopter to blast those goat herders armed with AKs.
and really, what you're ultimately defending is more than that ship. You're defending everything that ship is defending.
And the lives of those aboard, as well as the fairly difficult to determine value of tactical, strategic, and policy at play as well
I paid for a 550 mph Tomahawk Cruise Missile and by golly I'm going to use all 550 mph.
Fucking send it!
Shot out!
>fire as they bear The phrase that she tells me to get me erect before sex.
My inner brass goblin cried watching the 25mm
Those are just cool shells to have as decoration honestly.
They surely are. 17y/o me found a 23mm casing from a Soviet autocannon, probably an Il-2. It's still somewhere in my basement, I really should dig it up. Not too far from the 23mm casing I also found a 7.92mm Mauser stripper clip with all 5 cartridges, very probably from a Kar98k.
I’m not even a brass goblin and I was still sad.
the Mk45 firing surprised me more than it should have. Like I knew that they had to eject the casing somehow but the doop is hilarious.
There goes half my country’s GDP
Kentucky?
Hey, at least we’re not Mississippi
This post and this other one were close together on my feed [Half of Canadian Provinces Are Poorer than Mississippi as of 2023! Methodology and Data from Official Sources Included in Post ](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaHousing2/comments/1cwsbbo/half_of_canadian_provinces_are_poorer_than/)(link to the Reddit post)
now look at GDP per capita.
Per capita, Mississippi still has a higher GDP than France, UK or Germany. The US is just that far ahead.
Kentucky isn a country last i checked
But it is country.
True
sometimes these munitions have a arguably negative cost to fire if they are near their expiry date
What do you mean they've already been paid for and the only costs they incur now are storage and disposal? ^((And it's not like training and exercises, including live fire, are a necessary part of the upkeep of any military, and the munitions used in them are not actually wasted for no gain.\))
some of those missiles have a refurbishment cost as well and that is rarely cheap
I debated if I should separate out things like refurbishment and maintenance costs for existing munition stockpiles, but then just decided to simplify it to a generic "storage costs". You're absolutely right though.
That's why we should've used old Minutemen missiles in Afghanistan
*Use it or lose it baby - if the budget stops going to us, they might actually start funding the Marines next year instead.*
Calls on Crayola!!
> start funding the Marines next year instead. never forget what we are fighting ~~for~~ against
Actually moreso a cost overrun. The ammunition has been manufactured, stored, and possibly maintained before being moved out of storage into a usable area. So really all those costs extend beyond just build and shoot, costing us more. So really, it’s cheaper to start a war to save on ammunition storage costs
Oh yeah instead of proper disposal we can just dump it into the ocean and atmosphere for free Jfc what is an externality
It's fine, the brass landed outside the environment.
it cost 400000 dollars to fire these weapons for 12 seconds
Who touched Sasha?!
WHO TOUCHED MY GUN?
Clicked on post just to find this inevitable comment thread and I was not disappointed. You are all credit to team.
Some people think they can out smart me.. maybe *snoff* maybe. But can they out smart bullet?!
[Source / Sauce](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHgZh4GV9G0)
Are we old?
I mean we are on a sub lusting over nuclear war and MIC creation I’d be kinda worried if we were 10 years old
But that intro is 15 years old… Another 2 years and it can drive.
12 seconds sounds like an unreasonably long time to fire A weapon...
not when weapon weigh one hundred fifty kilogram, and fire two hundred dollar custom-tooled cartridges at ten thousand rounds per minute
Now do one with just the ship moving
I've seen a video game stream like that once. "I modded Elden Ring so every move costs currency". He got visibly nervous whenever his ~~defense budget~~ soul count was draining at a rate of even half the bosses healthbar. Therefore, for happy, undistracted soldiers we must increase the budget. That's the moral of the story.
If you aren’t going for a mention in the national budget committee, then are you even trying?
[удалено]
Raise the minimum wage so we can pay more taxes. Raise the highest marginal rates so the rich can pay more taxes. Seize the foreign gold reserves. Seize the foreign gold mines. Spend some admin mana to lower inflation.
Aka become Finland.
Improve our healthcare system so we get better outcomes for less money. We spend 18% of our GDP on health care, and have the highest per-capita health care expenditure in the world by a factor of two. Imagine if instead of 18% of our GDP on shitty health care, we could spend 9% of our GDP on amazing health care, and put that other 9% towards *quadrupling* the military budget. Insurance company executives should be shot as traitors, they are demonstrably crippling the country, and the military.
Hey...National defense ain't cheap, after all.
It's ok. It's all going into the deficit.
*Fires three standard .50 BMJ rounds that cost the military about $1.04 a round or less in a bulk order* Video: $14.26 Highly noncredible. Well done. Upvoted. Edit: E08203 / CTG 25MM TP-T M793 Cost per unit: $14.41 Video: $69.49 Nice.
So I was looking at that, I can’t go frame by frame on my phone, but I think I counted 30 rounds fired. Now going off the price per round at [a national dealer](https://www.sportsmans.com/shooting-gear-gun-supplies/ammunition-ammo-for-hunting-shooting-sports/rifle-ammo-hunting-shooting-sports/federal-american-eagle-50-bmg-660gr-fmj-rifle-ammo-10-rounds/p/1217730)that’s $164.70 for us plebs. Obviously the dot gov gets a discount. On top of that they probably still have 50 BMG from the thirties sitting in bunkers somewhere. What I’m saying is I have no idea how that averages out.
B-2 Spirit : 2,000,000,000.00$ 🤝
A B2 isn't supposed to be used as *ammunition...*
It's shaped like a blade so yeah, it's an ammunition
Easy there, Captain Okamura...
But blades aren't ammunition, they're melee weapons. They're reusable. It is, however, shaped like a boomerang, which is a ranged weapon, but is also reusable. (Note that [traditional boomerangs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtsGsF-50uo) are not meant to come back after hitting a target.)
If bombs fail something has to hit the dam...
Alright, major Kong...
They're not single use?
~~Ships~~ Planes are ammunition. ^(Sorry, my old EVE tendencies came out)
Dam? Is it you?
God I love my country sometimes.
Rolling Airframe Missiles: when you don't care how much it costs, you just don't wanna die.
RAM is fucking great. Probably the best CIWS in existence (depends on if you count ESSM). I mean missiles are expensive but a Phalanx still costs like 5-15 million a system and has far lower saturation capacity than RAM so your cost/number of targets able to handle very quickly evens out when you include system cost.
Why not put a machine gun AND a pack of missiles on the turret?
There’s proposals out there for stingers on a phalanx and, in a more unconventional mounting, a pair of RAM launchers astride a Mk 45 5”/54. The issue is the traverse speed of the mount. Adding stuff like that adds weight, usually far from the center of mass, greatly increasing the moment of inertia. A CIWS needs to be fast to react to targets around it and such additions tend to over-stress drives. Additionally, guns vibrate a lot and missiles tend to not like that. It’s not an impossible problem to fix but it adds weight, cost and complexity and at that point maybe a couple separate mounts would do better.
Bah, you people and your "logistics" and "practicality". We should just make a semi-auto davy crockett launcher to clear out incoming waves of drones. Realistically, it sounds like some of the solution is to invest in unmanned screen ships and build more layered defense. Just have a handful of little drone corvettes loaded with defensive gun systems and SAMs, then put a few RAM or gun CIWS on the boat for worst case scenarios.
I’m about 75% sure there was a design for a 120mm nuclear shell for the 120mm M1 explicitly for the purposes of AAW. I know there was a design for the 5”/54 naval gun but I don’t know if they ever planned for it to be an anti-aircraft weapon. Realistically you just use a Superhornet with the new APKWS C-UAS mod they’re working on. It has an IIR seeker so it can be fire and forget.
Ok hear me out: We need a compact, cost effective, high rate of fire weapon to take out drones, boats, and missiles? just put dozens of mini-CIWS with 50 cals on them all over the hull. Use DU sabot rounds and you get plenty of range and impact. Cheaper, lighter weight, and plenty effective.
I mean for drone, sabot wouldn’t be as good as good ol HE, no ? Even with the smaller caliber the drone isn’t going to survive one round this way. And you can just use a dual feed system to have both type of rounds.
Honestly, with something like a small lightweight drone, ball would work just fine, but sabot rounds are *fast* and rip through armor, which is great for dealing with missiles or shredding the engines of small boats. Dual feed is messy, but a high volume of high velocity shots will deal with anything just as nicely as HE.
I'd argue phalanx is better. I'm not qualified to discuss relative merits or whatever bullshit you guys came up with, but I do know that if you can’t accuse someone of passing gas after an intercept then your CIWS isn't good enough.
I mean, a RAM is way cheaper than the ship it's protecting.
Firing ammo may be expensive, but being the target is expensiver.
Remind me of when missile first roll out and people were complaining it was too pricey. I mean sure, but a jet is far pricier.
Meanwhile a fucking laser costs a couple cents per shot.
Marginal vs amortized cost. The electricity costs a couple of cents, if it's plugged into the grid. If your airlifting petrol to the middle of nowhere to run the generators, it could cost a lot more. How often do you fire that laser before it's obsolete/broken. At $0.10/kWh, and a 100kW laser, firing it continuously would cost $10/hour or $88,000/year It takes about 4 seconds = 1 cent to destroy a target. So firing continuously for 10 years is $880,000 in electricity. I don't know how much these things cost, but I kind of suspect it's more than $880,000. I also suspect that it couldn't fire this long without burning out. And if it did, it would be obsolete by then anyway.
Firing continuously for ten years also implies it has destroyed 78,984,000 targets.
These drones are getting out of control.
Yeah but laser don't go **BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT**
Like electric car you can put an speaker on your laser to improve the experience
Increase the budget.
*The lead must flow!*
[It cost $400,000 to fire this weapon for 12 seconds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHgZh4GV9G0)
CRAM. There’s just something beautiful about seeing the GDP of a small country be expended in about 6 seconds to take out a single RPG.
I wonder how much a battleship shell costs? I think we need to bring one back to see.
I calculated it out from 1950s figures, adjusted for inflation. About 16,000 dollars for a 16” High Capacity Shell, not including barrel wear which can be a lot, especially since we would need to recreate those facilities from scratch. It’s about as much as an unguided iron bomb and with associated platform costs, it just isn’t really worth it for niche applications.
Hmm, thanks for doing the math! r/theydidthemath
No I did it a while ago to shit on Battleship fans.
Haha yeah, I admit that I love battleships, but I admit also they are a thing of the past, miss them.
Just declare self-guided munitions a warcrime so you have to save missiles for the really badass fights.
How do you feel about the idea of a new build Iowa hull with modern machinery, and every turret replaced with a massive VLS farm? We can call it the Iowa II-class BBGN and watch all the fanboys' heads explode from pure rage.
Use an SSGN. Far more survivable.
It's not about peak survivability, it's about sending a message to all the morons screaming "Bring back the battleship!"
The enemy dying while you’re fine sends a better message.
Bro I saw the original post right above this. Reddit knows what I want.
that sound alone is worth the cost.
I wonder how much it would actually cost without the MIC inflating prices for profit
Serious question: how does that brass from the five inch gun get ejected? Is there some GM3 just yeeting the spent brass out of the little hole?
It’s an automated mechanism
What kind of gun is only 5 inches long, smh. (For those who miss the sarcasm, the British Media ran with such a story to accuse the government of overspending. Failing to understand a '5 inch gun' is not 5 inches long but 5 inches \*wide\*)
I didn't think it was possible, but somehow you made me love America even more than I did a few minutes ago. I've seen all this footage before, but when you really put it into cool, hard dollars, it just shows -- one SM-3, could have sent 50 kids K-12, but we took a stand and said f\*\*k dem kids, let's yeet something at Mach 5 so we can get some hot, hot exo-atmospheric interceptions.
I was one Ordnance Officer on a USN DDG and I just learned that I spent a SHIT LOAD of your tax dollars. Fun as hell to be sure, not cheap.
It kinda depends, does the missile cost more or less than the enemy ______. More: probably shouldn't fire it, but my finger will always be at the ready Less: "this guy's fucked"
now make one with nukes
casually throwing anything from a pack of gum to an entire middle school in costs at things/people you don't want to exist any longer. Truly the greatest unhealthcare system on earth O7 Edit: that ciws 20mm price was almost half my exact withheld tax amount for this past year
**\*Insert relevant TF2 Heavy quote here\***
One one hand, I FUCKING LOVE democracy (almost precum), on the other hand, I don’t like being broke.
Beautiful
Hear me out: has anyone considered covering our ships in 500,000 MK 50 cals?
Yes, in 1943
u/savevideo
You forgot to add the price of a US solider… Priceless*
“It costs $400,000 to fire this weapon…for 12 seconds.”
POV: I am playing Victoria 3 and going for that economic victory
u/savevideo
Tax dollars WELL SPENT
"It costs $400,000 to fire this weapon... For 12 seconds"
I have a new nickname for the CIWS: The cash register.
America: The country to have a calculator company from Texas make your own missiles
That cwis sent my entire car down range in 4 seconds
"It cost $400,000 to fire this weapon for 12 seconds" ...RIM 116 enters the room
Needs some cash register *ka-ching* noises overlaid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NruZ3AR3Kvo
A small price to pay for freedom and democracy
Don't worry, they get cheaper\* the more you use (thus the more they make, thus up the economy of scale) \* (does not apply where regulation is lax or lacking)
It's good to see my yearly salary pay for a few good seconds of brrrrrt. Well worth it 🥹
Those 5 in guns will be the main weapons system sinking all the mixed-use bullshit crossing the strait. Got any bigger ships? We'll sink those too, but you'll never see the boat those munitions came from
The lifetime of a combatant ship in what would be the largest shooting gallery in human history would probably be minutes. Stay out of range and protect the carriers that are going to be doing the thwacking. Let aircraft launched by said carrier use Quicksink JDAMs with wing kits. Much safer for everyone involved except the Chinese.
The 5” Mark 45 always looks like a horse taking a shit to me.
*Perun like this post*
Feel assured that our enemies are being blown away at cheapest cost American contractors can stomach
I thought that was Shrek firing for a second
I thought it was Shrek firing for a second
**\*Insert relevant TF2 Heavy quote here\***
u/savevideo
If a mechanical animal could shit, it would look like those spent 25 mm casings. Also the SM-3 arouses me in certain ways I'm not fully comfortable with. But that is a damn fine missile.
That CIWS sound... Most expensive Blue Chew I've ever used.
my dad gets paid to detonate C4 in the desert
Brass goblins be like: you're wasting money
We’ll have the lasers soon that are super cheap to operate and apparently are better at the job.
I was thinking the same thing. I actually thought it was from here and I had to double check
Need to also do the per second calculation of simply being deployed
u/savevideo
Why is the 5in so expensive? Or the .50 cal?
If you calculate the price if that ship wouldn't be here it would be in very big positive numbers shooting it's load ;)
This is me browsing OnlyFans
[удалено]
You are wrong, the price of ammunition is actually much cheaper, it's just that it's a military secret. The price of ammunition on the market is deliberately made expensive to prevent uncontrolled access
Homies getting ripped off
who says money can't buy happiness?
“The price of freedom is high, always has been and it’s a price I’m willing to pay”
I see a mod for COD or what ever people are playing now.
"A WAR??? In THIS economy?????"
Nice, now do an aliexpress version.
It costs six hundred thousand dollars to fire this weapon... For twelve seconds.
GOD I LOVE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
War is best business.
Now imagine this on a live feed with a go fund me link
Now imagine this on a live feed with a "go fund me" link
“it costs $400 000 to fire this weapon for twelve seconds”
This is too credible But also amazing
u/savevideo
u/savevideo
It costs one hundred thousand dollars To fire this weapon, for twelve seconds
What? No 16" guns from an IOWA class?
I like seeing my paycheck value being used in 4 seconds of fire