And that's only for a measly 18 meter tall thing.
So, will it be cheaper in time, thanks to the advances in material science we're getting(super carbon material and the like.
Pic related, price breakdown.
2017 will be $584 billion according to some guy at the pentagon. I don't think it's enough to be honest. We need fancy new air craft carriers.
The point of Aircraft carriers was that fighters initially couldn't make trip across the ocean to their target. As technology has progressed, that has become less of an issue, and carriers have become far more of a reliability.
Currently, the military is actually developing more small battleship fleets that can be mobilized faster and maintained easier.
We're actually planing 10 new Aircraft Carriers right now, Gerald Ford Class ships. They're replacing they old kitty hawk and the enterprises classes. I just want them to hurry up since I don't like they United States not having an active USS Enterprise. The new one isn't going to be done till 2025
a B2 costs, 737 million at 1997 price, so it would be even more expensive now, thanks to inflation. so it's really not a bad price for a gundum when you consider just how much more effective a gundam would be.
The B2 is by far the most superfluous unit in any military ever. It's ugly and it's useless, and there isn't a universe in existence where a Gundam would be more expensive or less useful.
It does have one use, It would look cool in parades, and you would be able to dick wave with it.
Imagine the 2030 Olympics Hosted in New York. We have have gundam Light the Torch, just for the hell of it. How awesome would that be.
if you could get the generator thing right, and make the weapons and thrusters powered/charged completely of the generators power, then you would have a completely mobile, armored, unlimited ammo death machine whose only limitation is the fatigue of the pilot.
Wi-fi doesn't cause cancer and nuclear reactors don't explode. The worst a reactor does is flash-heat steam, but you have release valves to prevent buildup of pressure that would lead to an explosion.
The common thought of a nuclear reactor going up exactly like a nuclear bomb does is wrong as shit.
Everything does cause cancer. Breathing causes cancer. Are you going to stop breathing, anon?
Regardless, the point is that nuclear reactors can't produce kilo/megaton scale detonations, because they use partially enriched uranium, rather than the pure U-235 that's required to produce a bomb-style reaction. It's just not going to happen.
>Doesn't include labor costs (Assembling, programming)
>Doesn't include the machinery to assemble it
>Just some engines and sensors in an aluminium husk
>All you have is an extremely expensive tank with a lot of mobility.
If the only application is combat, sure. My opinion is Patlabor-sized mechas with accessories like drill arms and other tools/utilities would be the ideal machine for exploration and terraforming of Mars for example. One very versatile multi-terrain (land, water, airborne) vehicle that can be remodeled depending on use.