US Defense Spending 'Cost vs Affordability'

Status
Not open for further replies.
It doesn't help on the big ticket items (ships, aircraft, even tanks) that the minimum capabilities necessary to be effective are increasing, and getting those capabilities is increasing costs significantly faster than inflation.

FFG-62? It has Aegis, FFS.
Abrams E3? Needs at least one hard-kill APS and two RWS, plus probably a laser and/or HPM system to deal with drones. (as do every other vehicle on the front lines...)
Aircraft? need to be stealthy, need pretty close to F-35 level sensors, etc ad nauseam.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It doesn't help on the big ticket items (ships, aircraft, even tanks) that the minimum capabilities necessary to be effective are increasing, and getting those capabilities is increasing costs significantly faster than inflation.
Click to expand...
If stuff is getting expensive for Americans, it "ought" to be getting expensive for everyone else too.

Personally I think path-dependence and self interest of existing branches lock procurement into a increasingly inefficient path. This happens to all peace time militaries, but difference in degree can be important. I suspect a lot of big ticket items is going to end up looking like a Char 2C when the shooting starts.
 
jsport said:
https://www.militarytimes.com/opini...Toverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d
Caught amid the morass of solutions, it appears that the services have been overlooking the most obvious solution: raising the pay of junior enlisted. Contrasting what an Army E-3 or E-4 earns in the military with pay earned in the fast food industry in California reveals this to be true.

As detailed in my newly published analysis, the need for a large pay increase among the E-1 to E-4 pay grades is clear when one considers the new fast food minimum wage in California. Starting April 1, most fast food workers in the state will be paid a minimum of $20 per hour.

Factor in this wage increase, couple it with free meals (valued at $1,193 per year) provided during shifts, and subtract the cost of medical insurance provided under the Affordable Care Act (valued at $2,256 per year) and a 19-year-old working at a Los Angeles, California-area McDonald’s would earn roughly $40,537 per year.

Now, compare that to the earnings of an Army E-3 with less than two years of service. Starting with base pay, this soldier would earn about $2,377.50 per month, or $28,530 per year. Add in benefits, such as an automatic 1% match on their Thrift Savings Plan account and Basic Allowance for Subsistence pay, while keeping medical costs steady at zero, and the Army E-3 earns $34,338 per year. In other words, the 19-year-old McDonald’s employee would earn about 18% more than the Army E-3.
Click to expand...
I think the author left out the free accommodations that come along with military service. If that E3 is married with children, the Army makes sure that he or she has a home with a bedroom for each child, up to a 5 bedroom row house. Then there’s the half pension at 20 years, full at 30. The reality is that junior enlisteds have a far greater disposable income than any burger flippers and a far brighter future.
 
TinWing said:
I think the author left out the free accommodations that come along with military service. If that E3 is married with children, the Army makes sure that he or she has a home with a bedroom for each child, up to a 5 bedroom row house. Then there’s the half pension at 20 years, full at 30. The reality is that junior enlisteds have a far greater disposable income than any burger flippers and a far brighter future.
Click to expand...
If you even get to stay in till 20. I got broken before my second year in service.

There are a lot of people currently active duty making that same $20/hr comparison.
 
Like him or not, the President-elect will do what it takes. Instead of managing a war in Afghanistan, resources are being sent elsewhere. As the world's policeman, the United States has the monies and manpower. Most are unaware that threat assessment and response scenarios are a daily concern at the Pentagon. The current war strategy is called "low-intensity conflict," meaning most adversaries do not have the money, and lack the manpower. They can only engage in (small) country to country or small-scale regional conflicts. In the late 1990s, a think tank called Project for a New America Century (PNAC) created a plan. This plan is meant to ensure another 100 years of American global hegemony. While China and the Russian Federation are credible threats, improved surveillance means they will likely be limited threats for the foreseeable future.
 
Going to find the cost side starts to rapidly rise if the new regime's economic and related policies are implemented as promised.
 
dark sidius said:
They must afford it if USAF don't want to be the second Air Force behind China for the 21 century and more.
Click to expand...

The USAF and USN may not be able to maintain a
"two-power standard" in the second half of the 21st century. Even if the Chinese falter, the Indians are coming up, and plenty of regional actors are gaining muscle and definition. A conflict with the Chinese, even if victorious, would leave American interests hugely exposed worldwide to the extent that the current American-led world order is unlikely to survive.

Being first no longer reaps the rewards that it once might have, a review of American strategic posture may accordingly be necessary.
 
chimeric oncogene said:
The USAF and USN may not be able to maintain a
"two-power standard" in the second half of the 21st century. Even if the Chinese falter, the Indians are coming up, and plenty of regional actors are gaining muscle and definition. A conflict with the Chinese, even if victorious, would leave American interests hugely exposed worldwide to the extent that the current American-led world order is unlikely to survive.

Being first no longer reaps the rewards that it once might have, a review of American strategic posture may accordingly be necessary.
Click to expand...
Frankly, if China and India cannot overtake the US economy, they're doing something very very wrong. FFS they each have ~4x the US population! Getting their internal economies going will bootstrap their total GDP.
 
Ultimately, military needs were often affordable. Numerical purchase isn't the problem, as we could finish 98% of the 80s era interim force, and the PLA is demonstrating exactly just that. It's massive R&D funds on duplicative technospeak that ultimately collapses on itself like half (this may be an underestimate) the time that consumes much of our budget.

Imagine if we never followed on through FCS, the 3000 JSF dream and From the Seas. The US would already have a new silo based ICBM, 450 ATFs, an equal number of ATA, F-16ES or a reduced observable LWF, piping hot lines of Abrams, Bradley, etc...
 
TinWing said:
I think the author left out the free accommodations that come along with military service. If that E3 is married with children, the Army makes sure that he or she has a home with a bedroom for each child, up to a 5 bedroom row house. Then there’s the half pension at 20 years, full at 30. The reality is that junior enlisteds have a far greater disposable income than any burger flippers and a far brighter future.
Click to expand...
I take it that you are talking about the US military? British forces pay rent just like civvies do.
 
TinWing said:
I think the author left out the free accommodations that come along with military service. If that E3 is married with children, the Army makes sure that he or she has a home with a bedroom for each child, up to a 5 bedroom row house. Then there’s the half pension at 20 years, full at 30. The reality is that junior enlisteds have a far greater disposable income than any burger flippers and a far brighter future.
Click to expand...
That housing space is pretty limited, at least Navy side.

And let's not forget how horrible that huge amount of disposable income tends to make the spending habits of the junior enlisted...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom