Defense Budget

Drewsifer wrote: I feel like the US tries to go for too many pie-in-the-sky projects. Yes, it is important to stay on top.... I think if the US would just be smarter, and instead of trying to be 20 years ahead of the world, be two steps ahead (because that's where we end up anyways after a project gets delayed 10 years) and be more realistic about the modern nature of conflict we'd be doing a whole lot better.

The whole trying to stay 20 years ahead of the rest of the world is important. Simply because it means that we has a nation are always pushing for new innovations and many of these innovations developed by the military ending up trickling down to the consumer market. As of now the only real advantage the US has in the world market is in the technology market and it is an advantage we as a nation are quickly losing.

Javelin wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: So... is it the military industrial complex wielding its influence for its own self-fullfilling sake or do we really need to outspend the entire rest of the earth to keep the big bad wolf at bay?

To answer this question, read "To Rule the Waves", a history of the Royal Navy. You will see how the rise and fall of the British Empire was directly tied to it's Navy. They also secured freedom of the seas, and thus free trade. That job is now ours. No US Navy = unprotected shipping and freedom of travel on the oceans = collapse of world economy.

Reading Rainboooow!

Point: A lot of defense spending in the US is legacy costs: medical, retirement, etc. China doesn't have Tricare.

$4,000,000 for M777.

Now I understand it require quite a few tons of very high grade metal...

but I cannot imagine that it has anything more complex than Ford Mustang.

It fires GPS equipped rounds. How much do those cost? Do we really need them when we've got laser guided (and GPS) missiles from Drones?

Its my understanding the "Trip-7" is replacement for the much older and cheaper M198, but reason being is the M777 is made mostly of titanium, making it light enough to fly around the world in a small cargo aircraft.

However...do we really need artillery someplace in less than 96 hours when we're designing missiles that can get somewhere in less than 60 minutes?

PHeller wrote: $4,000,000 for M777. Now I understand it require quite a few tons of very high grade metal... but I cannot imagine that it has anything more complex than Ford Mustang. It fires GPS equipped rounds. How much do those cost? Do we really need them when we've got laser guided (and GPS) missiles from Drones? Its my understanding the "Trip-7" is replacement for the much older and cheaper M198, but reason being is the M777 is made mostly of titanium, making it light enough to fly around the world in a small cargo aircraft. However...do we really need artillery someplace in less than 96 hours when we're designing missiles that can get somewhere in less than 60 minutes?

Even fancy GPS shells are cheaper than smart bombs. Plus artillery can "loiter" quite a bit longer than any UAV/UAS/RPA.

That and the Army would get their panties in a twist if the Air Force replaced all their cool toys.

It would be interesting to see a good analysis with no agenda. Just going on gut instinct, which is as likely to be wrong as not, I tend to agree a lot of it probably has to do with developing technology to hit specific targets with little collateral damage, though I’d say it has less to do with CNN than with international PR. We get a fair ration of crap when we inadvertently take out a load of civilians. Not saying that’s right or wrong, just is what it is.

That’s why there was so much pressure to get us involved in the whole mess in Lybia. Like we don’t have enough on our hands. But those early strikes with precision weapons could only have been done by us. I know it’s all complicated and I don’t pretend to know, but some of those guys in Washington would – I wonder if we couldn’t maybe ease down on the whole precision bomb thing and tell countries like England and France – maybe Israel, that they’re going to have to pick up some of the slack. Either buy a bunch of them from us or develop their own.

Oh, nope. Deleted that. Keep my opinions about the current budget debate quite for now. Hope it all works out for the best. And I do think they’re looking at the military budget. Hope they make some good decisions. I’m sure they’re all doing their very best with no ulterior motives. Okay, no, I don’t believe any of them are doing that, but sometimes the trip over a decent answer anyhow.

Javelin wrote: We have 11 Aircraft Carriers, fully staffed and planed, at any given moment. The rest of the world combined has 9. That takes money.

This!

Every time you hear about giving some rebels "training and equipment" to fight of some baddie, it means giving away LOTS OF MONEY.

Every time we try to fight some stupid war that we shouldn't have gotten involved with: Solamia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, it means giving away LOTS OF MONEY.

Having the best military in the world by far, not only in terms of firepower, but also civility and mobility means A LOT OF MONEY. Granted, we spend a lot more to develop a fighter than the Chinese, but I want that F-15 esque air-air record. I want the F117 to not be seen ever over the skies of iraq (well, assuming that we were there, because I'd just as soon stay home). Heck, how did Iraq get their weapons? We gave them a bunch of them. that costs A LOT OF MONEY.

PHeller wrote: However...do we really need artillery someplace in less than 96 hours when we're designing missiles that can get somewhere in less than 60 minutes?

Yes. 1)Completely different missions. 2) And your missiles cost more than the shells. 3) The delivery systems for said missiles aren't cheap either.

I view military and government spending in a strange way.

I firmly believe that streamlining the military would be our best bet. Create individual Land, Air and Sea divisions by combining Marine and Army ground forces, Navy and Air Force flight services, Navy and Coast Guard for naval supremacy. While we are at it gut and combine CIA, FBI, DEA, Homeland security into appropriate military divisions. Standardize a lot of redundant equipment and restructure the manufacturing bid process to ensure ALL of the qualified builders a piece of the pie. Feel free to spend money on defense and security but do so judiciously. No pork or pet projects benefiting only Senator Jims constituency, but the nation as a whole. Certain Black Ops are essentail to security, toppling goverments and rebuilding countries should not be done on the militarys dime but rather the State departments dime. If Iraq needs a new school house then Hillary pays out of her budget.

There is more, but I am working.

In reply to John Brown:

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, I do see the benefit in having air, ground, and sea units along with standardized equipment. Its more efficient and cost effective. But I think the coast guard should deal primarily within the department of homeland defense rather than as an additional branch of the armed forces. Let the army navy airforce marines let them deal with the war but then let the coast guard be in charge of domestic matters such as immigration, war on drugs, search and rescue, and keeping the peace when its beyond the scope or abilities of the police (like after Hurricaine katrina).

You also brought up the question of development spending to rebuild countries. Is that currently paid from the military budget? Or is it part of development aid?

It currently is being paid by both. The Military was handing out millions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan rebuilding schools, building shelters and structures for "civilian purposes" as well as money to grease the local Cleric wheel. The State department would also pay millions to grease the local politicians and build goverment infrastructure.

PHeller wrote: $4,000,000 for M777.

Dr. Hess' new army is loaded for bear... AND they fit in most light transport craft for a lot less ;)

I will say that we do get a lot of mileage out of some of our equipment. As my Air Force friend says "this isn't your father's Air Force, but it is his airplane."

A good way to describe the "issue" we have with defense spending is: Inertia

We are well on our way (if not already are) to becoming a bomb based economy. Unfortunately, we are the ones using the bombs, so we don't get paid.

Some of the systems that I am a bit curious about there practicality these days:

• B52: Nuclear deterrent? Really?
• Missile and attack subs: I see how they are useful, but in the same numbers as the cold war?
• Carrier groups: Again, useful, but 11!? (A carrier alone is about a million dollars a day to operate, and that likely does not cover a lot of ancillary expenses)

Edit: Let me see if this will clean up the formatting (I ended with a bullet)

Nope, looks like it is hosed.

Wonkothesane wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: It costs a lot of money to make war suitable for airing on CNN.

That is a great, great way of looking at the real reason wars will "cost" us a lot more than other places. Fritzch - What he means is that if, say, Russia (then Soviet Union) goes to war with, oh, I dunno, Afghanistan, do you think they care whether they're dropping a bomb on THE building that the rebel leader is in, or the whole row house complex? We spend a lot of money on smart this, smart that, unmanned, etc because if we kill a couple of innocent civilians, it's the end of the world. Now, don't take this to advocate that I'm for wanton destruction of life or property, I'm not. I fully support spending defense/offense money on bombs that will only kill who we intend them to, and not all of the people that just happen to live next door. I think a lot of countries just don't care if the neighbors and the whole neighborhood go up, as long as they get the baddies. And that's how we can have a justifiably higher defense budget. This is not an excuse at all for the excesses, of course, but I was just clarifying Dave's comment.

That about covers it.

We want war to be pretty. We don't like body bags. We want to strategically kill the bad guy without leveling churches and orphanages, and without any US troops shedding blood. Fighting a war this way is both expensive, and pretty ineffective. It's why we are going into debt firing of million dollar missiles, while simultaneously getting our asses kicked by peasants with AK47's.

(Is the formatting butchered for anyone else, and if so, what the heck did I do?)

Inertia We are well on our way (if not already are) to becoming a bomb based economy. Unfortunately, we are the ones using the bombs, so we don't get paid. Some of the systems that I am a bit curious about there practicality these days: - B52: Nuclear deterrent? Really?

The B52s mission has moved on some in the past 40 years or so. Using it for other missions seems to make a lot more sense to me than designing/building a new aircraft.

- Carrier groups: Again, useful, but 11!? (A carrier alone is about a million dollars a day to operate, and that likely does not cover a lot of ancillary expenses)

How many do you feel we should have available for use at once? What % of the time are they out cruising? It may not be the case now, but it used to be 1:2 active cruising/on station:in port/transit/training. I'm not sure and don't know where to find such info currently, but I'm going to go with it, as I don't have any better #s. So 11 gives you 3-4. I'd be hard pressed to make a good case for <3 active groups. That gives us ~9 total. Not too far from the current #. Now if the (sustainable) "uptime" % has improved (and it may well have, I just don't know) then maybe my "ideal" # comes down somewhat.

PHeller wrote: $4,000,000 for M777. Now I understand it require quite a few tons of very high grade metal... No, just very clean 4340 but I cannot imagine that it has anything more complex than Ford Mustang. It fires GPS equipped rounds. How much do those cost? Do we really need them when we've got laser guided (and GPS) missiles from Drones? Not all rounds are GPS guided. Missles and Drones vs M-777 = Drag racing vs rock climbing. Totally different functions. Its my understanding the "Trip-7" is replacement for the much older and cheaper M198, but reason being is the M777 is made mostly of titanium, making it light enough to fly around the world in a small cargo aircraft. No titanium on a "trip 7". Due to lessons learned in the field, the cheaper 198 was upgraded, made safer and lighter. Four M-777s will go in a C-130 but only three 198s. However...do we really need artillery someplace in less than 96 hours when we're designing missiles that can get somewhere in less than 60 minutes? I'm no military strategist, but I'm seeing apples & oranges.

John Brown wrote: Standardize a lot of redundant equipment and restructure the manufacturing bid process to ensure ALL of the qualified builders a piece of the pie.

Man that sounds an awfully lot like..........

Problem is, for most things it's not like there are dozens of companies all sitting around vying for these projects.

The stuff my company builds? Only 1 other company in the country has equivalent experience.

So since you are giving us both 50%, why not just combine them and put them under gov't control?

I'm glad to see some others here in the industry shedding some light on the situation for people who are "outside the system."

Oh also guys you have to include MAINTENANCE costs on all this fancy equipment.

Air Force guys correct me if I'm wrong, but for every HOUR (as in singular) of flight time, there is a corresponding 55-65 hours of maintenance.

Can you imagine if a 10 hour drive in your car, was followed by 550-650 hours of maintenance?

z31maniac wrote: Can you imagine if a 10 hour drive in your car, was followed by 550-650 hours of maintenance?

I DO own a Volkswagen, sir.

Howcumzit the bottom of the page is whacked?

914Driver wrote: Howcumzit the bottom of the page is whacked?

Military grade web portal software

Black helicopters and zombies screwing with the board.

z31maniac wrote: Oh also guys you have to include MAINTENANCE costs on all this fancy equipment. Air Force guys correct me if I'm wrong, but for every HOUR (as in singular) of flight time, there is a corresponding 55-65 hours of maintenance.

Depends on the airframe. Bones need like a 60 hours of maintenance per hour of taxiing out to the runway and taxiiing back. Some of the single-seat pointy-nose guys get away with half that.

Of course, you've got to realize that's maintainer hours, so really it's 50% smoke breaks.

I think what a lot of people forget is R&D is one of the most expensive forms of work on the face of the planet.

I work at a research firm in Alberta doing oil field stuff, and sometimes the amount of man hours/dollars to payoff ratio is quite poor. And I don't have to deal with placing an explosive XX meters away from "here" so 10 civilians don't die.

And also, the US is the world police (it was a parody movie, but it rings so true). As has been pointed out, the US by itself has 6 times the defense budget as China with less than half the population. Britain and France have been around a lot longer, but they don't nearly pull their weight.