US Defense Spending 'Cost vs Affordability'

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:
www.militarytimes.com

Fast food or the military? Recruiting solutions overlook the obvious.

Opinion: In this opinion piece, the author argues that services have been overlooking an obvious solution to the recruiting crisis: Increasing junior enlisted pay.
www.militarytimes.com www.militarytimes.com

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.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom