US Defense Spending 'Cost vs Affordability'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott Kenny said:
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...
Click to expand...
The navy is always under funded and naval bases are invariably in higher housing cost markets. Off base housing allowances can be well above market rents around Fort Middle-of-Nowhere as opposed to naval bases in desirable places like San Diego.

On the flip side of those stereotypical junior enlisteds, there are some extremely financially savvy senior NCOs. And I should point out that those generous housing allowances allow plenty of enlisteds and NCOs to buy their own homes. Not in Hawaii, though.
 
Scott Kenny said:
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...
Click to expand...
The navy is always under funded and naval bases are invariably in higher housing cost markets. Off base housing allowances can be well above market rents around Fort Middle-of-Nowhere as opposed to naval bases in desirable places like San Diego.

On the flip side of those stereotypical junior enlisteds, there are some extremely financially savvy senior NCOs
 
In my opinion it is quite likely that the new political leadership will concentrate its efforts on calming the situation created by the previous administration, I would bet on an intense diplomatic activity focused on expelling Chinese economic influence from South America, adopting a series of saving measures that help eliminate taxes on the domestic economy. It does not seem a good scenario to increase defense spending, before that the new administration will most likely increase arms sales to Israel and Europe, perhaps creating incentives for those weapons to be necessary... and expensive.

In my opinion, this is what a good businessman who wants the growth of his country would do.

I don't think he accepts the game of being the firefighter and the policeman of the world no matter how many provocations his external and internal enemies make, that story no longer works.
 
joshjosh said:
The Senate might push for a $100B defense spending increase. If any part of this goes toward procuring Iron Dome rather than useful things like, you know, NGAD, shipbuilding, etc., I will be extremely sad.

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/01...-defense-boost-major-acquisition-reform-push/
Click to expand...

At this point I'm not sure how "useful" additional funding would be for American shipbuilding. Essentially, we have the equivalent of an annual "buy 2, get 1" sale on nuclear submarines.

NGAD is an incredibly nebulous program. Are we buying a handful of enormous fighters or a big fleet of smaller-than-F-35 fighters? Or is it just a drone program this week? And if a full sized demonstator flew years ago, why is it still hidden from public view?

Using the term "Iron Dome" as a generic term is incredibly inexact. Truth be known, if Tamir interceptors aren't involved, the term shouldn't be used. Perhaps the real issue is that American society had become cynical about the type of "Star Wars" missile shield thar was popularized by Reagan. Israel can protect against the convemrionally armed Iranian threat but if China scales up its ICBM numbers to peak Soviet levels, but with maneuvering glide bodies instead of MIRVs, there is no real way a system won't be overwhelmed. The "leakers" alone will be sufficient to end human life as we know it. That's not to suggest that we should try to for a credible missile defense, just that the stark realities aren't much better than in the era of Spartan and Sprint.

I wish "The Wickerman" the best of luck as there is a very real need for a major defense spending boost for "Cold War II." However, boosting defense spending from 3% to 5% of GDP will have an appreciable effect on inflation. Truth be known, Reagan couldn't have gotten away with 6% of GDP if it hadn't been for the 1982 recession and double digital interest rates. In 2025, we're in far worse shape in terms of defense procurement and existing force levels than in 1981. Wicker's 5% of GDP is just a partial down-payment.
 
TinWing said:
Israel can protect against the convemrionally armed Iranian threat but if China scales up its ICBM numbers to peak Soviet levels, but with maneuvering glide bodies instead of MIRVs, there is no real way a system won't be overwhelmed. The "leakers" alone will be sufficient to end human life as we know it. That's not to suggest that we should try to for a credible missile defense, just that the stark realities aren't much better than in the era of Spartan and Sprint.
Click to expand...

No, we definitely should not try for a credible missile defense. That would lead to nuclear armageddon.

Look at the SALT treaties from the Cold War. They were not just about limiting nuclear weapons, they were also about limiting ballistic missile defense. If either side were able to construct a credible missile defense system to defend against anything the other side could do, that would eliminate deterrence for one side.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/salt
If the United States were to make a credible attempt at building a missile defense shield to protect from China and Russia, then both adversaries would be in a use-it-or-lose-it situation with regards to their nuclear weapons. Their own nuclear deterrence would be on the path to neutralization. With no credible nuclear deterrent, both the Chinese and the Russians would be vulnerable to a nuclear strike by the United States. This would incentivize a preemptive counter-force strike on the United States prior to the missile defense system being constructed.

Of course, as you mentioned, there is no way to actually construct a perfect missile defense system. The US could spend trillions on Next Generation Interceptors and localized THAAD. It wouldn't matter. A civilization-ending barrage from either strategic competitor would have enough leakers to kill millions of people. The trillions of dollars would be a waste of money.

So if we're not trying to defend against China or Russia, what would be the purpose of "iron dome?" Are we talking about more NGIs? To protect from Iran? Are we talking about short range systems to protect Dallas from Fort Worth, and Boston from Cambridge? There is no possible parsing of this "idea" that is not utterly moronic.
 
For the record, I'm glad Trump seems to be betting all in for a SDI re-run, but rather than articulating my own defense I'd just leave what others has commented on the "anti peer BMD" debate
fredymac said:
Hostility towards the idea of actually defending yourself is odd. Deterrence at its heart means I kill you if you kill me. You commit yourself to being a passive spectator watching incoming missiles destroy your population. You also have the macabre obligation to retaliate and kill the enemy population for no purpose other than post mortem revenge. A missile defense system working perfectly kills nobody.

The proposition of MAD requires rational actors, robust control over weaponry (accidents/rogue launch), and reliable intelligence over the disposition of the enemy's intent. The Soviets had almost convinced themselves that the US was committed to attack and were ready to act on the basis of a false sensor readings (Able Archer). Relying upon the mental stability and character of Kim Jong Un is not sound policy (unless you are professionally ignorant about his already known track record).

Statements that missile defense is impossible and no different than "alien defense lasers" are absurd and require impossible conspiracies involving thousands of people working on missile defense systems and tests.
Click to expand...
It's not like the rate of economic investment can continue to infinity. The USSR collapsed themselves by spending more than what they can actually handle and it's far more likely a combination of trade wars and forced over-investment into the MIC will beat China to its knees than nuclear armageddon.
 
When you terminate active contacts, you lose more than just the deliverable.

Contractors will be less likely to bid on new ones.

Regards,
 
The 2025 House budget has been passed and sent to the Senate: https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hconres14/BILLS-119hconres14rh.pdf

Although I'm not an expert in these matters, I've read the resolution, and here are my notes:
  • Defense budget increased by 4.5% over 2024, to $888 billion
  • Total spending decreased from $6.75 trillion in 2024 to $5.5 trillion in 2025
  • $450 billion per year in tax cuts set as a goal, unless a net deficit reduction of $2 trillion over the next 10 years is not achieved by spending cuts, in which case the tax cuts are to be reduced; the deficit reduction takes priority over the tax cuts.
  • Confusingly for me, related to the above point, the proposed deficit spending in this resolution does not show a decrease in deficit spending compared to 2024. 2024's deficit spending was $1.83 T, while this resolution authorizes deficit spending of more than that for every year in the coming 10 years except for 2027. I'm not sure what to make of this.

In summary:
  • A slightly larger defense budget in 2025
  • Deep cuts to Medicare to finance most of the $1.25 T in spending reductions
  • Huge tax cuts
  • Increased deficit spending? Decreased deficit spending? I don't understand the contradiction in the authorized deficit spending and the $2T net deficit reduction. Note, crucially, that the $2T net deficit reduction is over 10 years, which could be achieved by deficit spending of $1.63 T in each year from 2025 to 2034, which is a $200B decrease from 2024.
  • Either way, we can expect $1.6 - $2.1 T in deficit spending in 2025, adding this amount to the national debt, to provide tax cuts (mostly to corporations and the ultra-wealthy), paid for by decreased spending on healthcare for poor people.
  • Defense budgets will probably just keep up with inflation, not increase overall.
 
Another thing to note is Hegseth's directive to the DOD to "find $50B per year in spending cuts." This isn't necessarily in conflict with the House bill. If Congress authorizes $50B in new spending, and the DOD finds $50B in spending cuts, then the President's Budget will have $100B in new funds for other priorities.

If this administration has any sense, this spending will go towards shipbuilding, 6th-gen, and munitions stockpiles. Based on what we've seen over the past weeks, however, it seems like much of this spending would go towards useless things like "iron dome" and political things like the southern border.

Sun Tzu: The Art of War
Xi Xinping: The Art of Doing Nothing
 
dark sidius said:
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/new-report-trump-recovery-plan-air-force/
Click to expand...

The House has only authorized $39B in new spending, so the DOD would have to cut funding to other things to pay for this $45B in new spending, even while there are other priorities like shipbuilding. Additionally, most of this increase in spending is just barely keeping up with inflation.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-defense-spending-cost-vs-affordability.18750/post-760829
 
joshjosh said:
The House has only authorized $39B in new spending, so the DOD would have to cut funding to other things to pay for this $45B in new spending, even while there are other priorities like shipbuilding. Additionally, most of this increase in spending is just barely keeping up with inflation.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-defense-spending-cost-vs-affordability.18750/post-760829
Click to expand...

These type of reports are generally pointed towards FY-26 and beyond spending when the executive branch has more time. The $45 Bn AF recovery plan is unlikely to materialize since its asking for a 21% increase to the annual DAF blue budget though something like that is probably needed . Given what we seem to be hearing from the administration though, it is unlikely that the AF or Navy see a 20+% budget increase. It may be more like mid-high single digit percent increases..some at the expense of Army and other DOD investments with rest from growth. It all hinges upon what "Golden Dome" as it is called now really is or becomes. That could be a double digit billion dollar a year investment by itself if we begin pursuing that seriously. That would eat most of the spending increase expected over this administrations tenure.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, the previous administration's dire bungling (at best) of border security turned an already politically hot issue extremely radioactive. The new administration has to secure the United States' Northern and Southern borders as they have promised or suffer a huge backlash.
 
joshjosh said:
If this administration has any sense, this spending will go towards shipbuilding, 6th-gen, and munitions stockpiles.
Click to expand...

Space is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of any increased spending on account of realignment. Because of Space being a critical domain, Space Force being severely underfunded, and it needing to consolidate other DOD space activities under its portfolio as possible. Not to mention whatever "Golden Dome" is will require lots of space based capability. Of all the services and portfolios, I expect the space force's budget to increase at the highest pace over the next decade.

"Investing" in shipbuilding will have to be measured. Its a 'invest now' and gain war fighting capability ten years from now sort of bargain given when FFG(X) is likely to deliver any meaningful combat capability (first deployment etc), how much lead time it takes to build an incremental Virginia submarine, or even DDG-51 destroyer. If they go unmanned, then yes that's something that they can pay for in the FYDP and still get some capability within or just outside that period. I would hope funding priorities (for increase) to be Space capabilities followed by Air Force and Naval aviation capabilities (B-21, NGAD/NGF, classified projects, munitions and tankers), followed by ship building and missile defense. Anything in the Army accounts thats not tied to long range precision fires, IAMD, or SHORAD / CsUAS efforts basically is up for a cut to pay for those priorites IMHO.

But right now that's kind of academic. We are not seeing any real increase in budge. In fact, the house proposal is effectively a 2-3% cut over FY24 NDAA factoring in inflation. Stick on that trajectory and your buying power diminishes each year forcing you to make even more cuts to pay for 'priorities'. Do that for a few years and you would have cut one or more services/capabilities to the bone..
 
Last edited:
this golden dome can spiral us into the death spiral of defense vs offense. You spend on defensive system that can be countered much cheaper which then forces you to invest more into a much more expensive counter to the counter. no money for offensive systems at that point.
 
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/02...791&utm_content=348913791&utm_source=hs_email
Feinberg said. At a different point in the hearing, he said that the current acquisition system favors legacy defense contractors by incorporating “gold-plated” technical requirements and rigid regulations that holds commercial companies and nontraditional vendors back.

“[There’s] a lot we can do by getting into the program detail, line by line. My view is the deputy has to go program by program, line by line, not hand it off to somebody,” he said.
 
bring_it_on said:
Space is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of any increased spending on account of realignment. Because of Space being a critical domain, Space Force being severely underfunded, and it needing to consolidate other DOD space activities under its portfolio as possible. Not to mention whatever "Golden Dome" is will require lots of space based capability. Of all the services and portfolios, I expect the space force's budget to increase at the highest pace over the next decade.

"Investing" in shipbuilding will have to be measured. Its a 'invest now' and gain war fighting capability ten years from now sort of bargain given when FFG(X) is likely to deliver any meaningful combat capability (first deployment etc), how much lead time it takes to build an incremental Virginia submarine, or even DDG-51 destroyer. If they go unmanned, then yes that's something that they can pay for in the FYDP and still get some capability within or just outside that period. I would hope funding priorities (for increase) to be Space capabilities followed by Air Force and Naval aviation capabilities (B-21, NGAD/NGF, classified projects, munitions and tankers), followed by ship building and missile defense. Anything in the Army accounts thats not tied to long range precision fires, IAMD, or SHORAD / CsUAS efforts basically is up for a cut to pay for those priorites IMHO.

But right now that's kind of academic. We are not seeing any real increase in budge. In fact, the house proposal is effectively a 2-3% cut over FY24 NDAA factoring in inflation. Stick on that trajectory and your buying power diminishes each year forcing you to make even more cuts to pay for 'priorities'. Do that for a few years and you would have cut one or more services/capabilities to the bone..
Click to expand...
sounds right and if so, not so good for tactical USMC, and Army, let alone personnel incentives/retention. would just add the multiple issue struggles between USAF & Spaceforce will continue and likely worsen and for that matter start adding the other svcs contentions about use of space as well.
 
Grey Havoc said:
To be fair, the previous administration's dire bungling (at best) of border security turned an already politically hot issue extremely radioactive. The new administration has to secure the United States' Northern and Southern borders as they have promised or suffer a huge backlash.
Click to expand...
There is no real border issue, it was all just campaign propaganda in order to institute tariffs that will wreck the economy and greatly increase the cost of military equipment.
 
Desertfox said:
There is no real border issue, it was all just campaign propaganda in order to institute tariffs that will wreck the economy and greatly increase the cost of military equipment.
Click to expand...
Very little military equipment is made outside the US.
 
jsport said:
https://breakingdefense.com/2025/02...791&utm_content=348913791&utm_source=hs_email
Feinberg said. At a different point in the hearing, he said that the current acquisition system favors legacy defense contractors by incorporating “gold-plated” technical requirements and rigid regulations that holds commercial companies and nontraditional vendors back.

“[There’s] a lot we can do by getting into the program detail, line by line. My view is the deputy has to go program by program, line by line, not hand it off to somebody,” he said.
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia:

“Stephen Andrew Feinberg (born March 29, 1960) is an American businessman and investor active in hedge fund management and private equity.

As of February 19, several Democratic senators including Elizabeth Warren have expressed concerns over his past experience and possible conflicts of interest between his company Cerberus Capital Management and the United States Department of Defense.[28]

On February 25, 2025, Feinberg declined to say if Russia invaded Ukraine when pressed by senators, seemingly siding with Russia's views on the war in Ukraine. “
 
quellish said:
“Digital century series” acquisition and sustainment model. They are still limited by how quickly and reliably Congress can authorize funds though.

This is already very much happening across the Air Force.
Click to expand...
My opinion is that the Governement bet a lot on long range strike , I have the feeling there is something else coming along of the B-21 , the futur Darpa NEXTrs could be a more game changer than the NGAD fighter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom