Squandered Resources: The 18 Most Expensive Failed Weapons in US History

With a budgetary allocation of $1.8 trillion, the Department of Defense stands as one of the most generously funded agencies within the U.S. government. However, a portion of this substantial budget inevitably encounters misallocation, not necessarily due to fraudulent activities or misuse but often in funding projects that fail to materialize. 

Various weapons programs over recent decades have been scrutinized, ranking them based on rough estimates of government expenditures without adjusting for inflation.

In this list of weapons programs, estimates of wasted spending span from hundreds of millions to tens of billions of dollars. Primarily, the squandered funds are attributed to research and development initiatives that fell short of achieving their intended outcomes. 

Notably, the fiscal 2023 military budget allocates a record-high amount of $130 billion for research and development, underscoring the emphasis on advancing military technology.

While some level of risk is inherent in research and development, many of the programs highlighted in this list experienced avoidable wastage. This resulted from various issues, including unrealistic objectives, corporate influence in Washington, myopic strategic planning, and shifts in geopolitical priorities. 

Ironically, some of these projects were initially conceived as a means to save taxpayer money in the long run. It is crucial to recognize that, despite their deviations from the original plans, not all these weapons projects were futile. Several instances yielded valuable lessons and technological advancements that found practical applications in other contexts.

Presented here are instances of failed weapons projects that resulted in significant financial wastage for the United States:

1. F-35
   Estimated Cost: $1.7 trillion
   The F-35, a Lockheed Martin multirole combat aircraft conceived in 2001 as a cost-effective replacement for various fighter jets, faced extensive issues. With a projected lifetime cost of $1.7 trillion, the program grappled with part failures, software glitches, and operational challenges, including incidents of jets catching fire. Despite its capabilities, the F-35’s extensive problems have led to more limited use than initially anticipated.

2. Strategic Defense Initiative
   Estimated Cost: $30.0 billion
   The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), known as Star Wars, proposed a space-based laser network to protect against Soviet-launched nuclear ICBMs. Announced by President Reagan in 1983, SDI encountered insurmountable technical hurdles. Despite costing an estimated $30 billion, the program was never fully realized and was halted by President Clinton in 1993.

3. Zumwalt destroyer
   Estimated Cost: $23.5 billion
   The Zumwalt DDG-1000 class destroyer envisioned as a technologically advanced land attack vessel, faced challenges with weapons systems, crew requirements, and propulsion. Initially planned as a replacement for the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer with a fleet of 32, only three were produced at $4.5 billion each, accumulating $23.5 billion in development costs.

4. Project Nike
   Estimated Cost: $20.0 billion
   Project Nike, a Cold War initiative to build anti-aircraft missile batteries around key U.S. sites, became obsolete with the rise of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Over 200 Nike sites, costing an estimated $20 billion, were established by 1963. The program, criticized for potential wastefulness, contributed to the arms race. Nike sites are now either abandoned or repurposed.

5. Future Combat Systems
   Estimated Cost: $18.1 billion
   The Future Combat Systems (FCS), conceived in 1999 as an integrated mix of manned and unmanned vehicles for cutting-edge battlefield technology, proved to be an $18 billion misstep. Originally designed to align with post-9/11 military priorities, FCS faced technical challenges and escalating costs during the Iraq War. Despite efforts to adapt, the project was canceled in 2009 after yielding only eight prototype vehicles.

6. Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche
   Estimated Cost: $6.9 billion
   Originating from an Army RFP in 1988 for an advanced helicopter with multi-functional capabilities, the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche faced numerous challenges. Boeing and Sikorsky were tasked with delivering 1,200 helicopters, but delays and technical issues, including radar and software problems, plagued the project. By 2004, the program was terminated in favor of UAVs, concluding a 22-year effort costing nearly $7 billion.

7. NPOESS
   Estimated Cost: $5.8 billion
   The National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), conceived as a civil-military weather satellite program during the Clinton administration, aimed to integrate NOAA and Air Force requirements for cost efficiency. Entrusted to Northrop Grumman, the program incurred significant cost overruns, totaling $5.8 billion. The Obama administration abandoned NPOESS in 2010, opting for separate polar-orbiting systems, one each for civil and military applications.

8. Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships
   Estimated Cost: $5.0 billion
   The U.S. Navy has decided to decommission all nine Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships in fiscal 2023. Despite being designed for a 25-year lifespan, none of the slated ships, including those less than half a decade old, have approached that milestone. Challenges such as limited practical application, a problematic propulsion system, and a failed anti-submarine mission package contributed to this decision. While Lockheed Martin spent $5 billion on construction and outfitting, the projected savings from decommissioning amount to $4.3 billion in maintenance and upgrade costs.

9. Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP)
   Estimated Cost: $5.0 billion
   Introduced in 2004 to replace existing camouflage patterns, the UCP proved inadequate, particularly in Afghanistan. Criticized for its failure, the $5 billion development was replaced by the Operational Camouflage Pattern (OCP).

10. KC-46 Refueling Tanker
    Estimated Cost: $4.6 billion
    The Boeing-manufactured KC-46 Refueling Tanker, facing deployment delays due to serious technical problems, incurred cost overruns. Deficiencies in the remote vision system and service actuator required redesign and repair, respectively. The aircraft, not combat-ready until at least 2024, experienced technical setbacks that nearly matched the initial $4.9 billion contract amount.

11. Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)
    Estimated Cost: $3.3 billion
    Designed by General Dynamics in the 1980s, the EFV aimed to replace the Marine Corps’ aging Assault Amphibious Vehicle. Canceled in 2011 due to escalating costs and unsuitability for post-9/11 combat missions, it fell short of achieving its operational capabilities.

12. Transformational SATCOM (TSAT)
    Estimated Cost: $3.2 billion
    Planned as a secure communications network, the TSAT Air Force program was canceled in 2009 as part of defense spending reduction efforts. Although $3 billion was invested, innovations from the project proved valuable for different applications.

13. VH-71 Presidential Helicopter
    Estimated Cost: $3.0 billion
    Intended as replacements for the aging Marine One fleet, the VH-71 helicopters faced soaring costs, with initial estimates tripling by 2008. The Obama administration canceled the program in 2009, having spent an estimated $3 billion on research and development.

14. JLENS Balloon
    Estimated Cost: $2.7 billion
    The JLENS, a radar blimp designed by Raytheon, was intended for early threat warnings. Ineffectiveness, communication glitches, and susceptibility to weather and enemy fire led to multiple termination attempts. The program persisted until 2017, accumulating over $2.7 billion in costs.

15. XM2001 Crusader
    Estimated Cost: $2.2 billion
    Developed by United Defense and General Dynamics, the XM2001 Crusader aimed to replace the M109 Paladin self-propelled howitzers. Canceled in 2002 due to excessive weight and mobility issues, the project yielded technological advancements that found applications in other artillery systems.

16. M247 Sergeant York
    Estimated Cost: $1.8 billion
    Initiated in the late 1970s to provide anti-aircraft protection for tanks, the M247 Sergeant York faced numerous problems, including slow target engagement, difficulty distinguishing between helicopters and trees, and ineffective countermeasures. Despite building only 50 vehicles, the project was canceled in 1985.

17. Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS)
    Estimated Cost: $885 million
    Designed by Northrop Grumman, the ASDS was a mini-submarine for transporting Navy SEALs into combat zones. After successful tests in 2002, issues such as noisy propellers and fast-depleting batteries emerged. The program was canceled in 2006 due to rising costs, and in 2008, a fire inflicted irreparable damage on the existing mini-sub, rendering it too expensive to repair.

18. ARH-70A Arapaho
    Estimated Cost: $500 million
    The ARH-70A Arapaho was intended as a replacement for the U.S. Army’s aging Bell OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter. Despite an initial order for 368 units from Bell Helicopters in 2005, concerns over limited progress and escalating costs led to the termination of the program in 2008. Only four prototypes were produced, with an estimated expenditure of half a billion dollars.

Have you read?
These Are The Most-Produced Tanks in American History.
Revealed: The World’s Best Airline CEOs, 2023.
Here Are 29 Inspirational Women CEOs Making An Impact, 2023.
Countries With The Most Billionaires, 2023.
The Exclusive $100 Billion Club (And How They Made Their Fortune).
Africa’s Billionaires 2023: Who Are the Richest People in Africa?

This report/news/ranking/statistics has been prepared only for general guidance on matters of interest and does not constitute professional advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law, CEOWORLD magazine does not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or for any decision based on it.

Email Address*

Name