I used to work in shipbuilding making US Navy destroyers and cruisers. The cost of a fully outfitted destroyer at the time (15 years ago, admittedly) was about $1B give or take. That included the hull, the engines, an entire military comms system, a full weapons system with a full complement of missiles, high end radars, living quarters, galley, sonars, countermeasures ... everything needed for a crew of a couple hundred people to execute combat missions over the space of several months. Today it looks to be up to about $1.8B.
If the cost of two copies of Air Force One is $4B (not sure that's the real truth but IF so) it's too high. There is simply no way each plane should cost the same as a fully equipped destroyer.
“There is simply no way each plane should cost the same as a fully equipped destroyer.”
That is a false premise. Most of the gear on a DD is off the shelf. The costs for the development of those items are spread across the fleet, or parts of it. A lot of the gear going into AF1 is custom made just for that platform. So deployment costs are higher.
I think a lot of the cost is claimed to be R&D toward new systems, but still, does seem like an extreme case....
That worthless USS Zimwalt is nearly $4 Billion and congress wants 30+ of the stupid things. $800 K for 1 shell, $2 B to fully arm. Got stuck on maiden voyage and had to be towed back to Bath.
http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/DDG-1000-Zumwalt-Destroyer.html
That worthless USS Zimwalt is nearly $4 Billion and congress wants 30+ of the stupid things. $800 K for 1 shell, $2 B to fully arm. Got stuck on maiden voyage and had to be towed back to Bath.
http://www.fi-aeroweb.com/Defense/DDG-1000-Zumwalt-Destroyer.html
FUBAR!