Military Cuts Are Actually Increasing Spending?

[BigRob]

I found this article quite interesting:

The United States is increasingly relying on the Russian Federation for supplying U.S. forces stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is because the U.S. does not have enough C-17 military transport aircraft to address all of its logistical needs and meet its commitments around the world. Freedom is not free, and neither is the Russian help.

In fiscal year 2007–2008, the U.S. taxpayers paid more than $840 million total to the Russians. This equals what the Department of Defense would pay for four additional C-17 aircraft, which would serve the U.S. military for the next 40 or 50 years.

Due to its versatility, the C-17 aircraft is an invaluable resource when dealing with humanitarian catastrophes in hard-to-access areas, such as Haiti or Chile after earthquakes in 2010. These events increased the operational tempo of the C-17 fleet—and increased U.S. reliance on foreign aircraft. This reliance ended up costing the U.S. taxpayers $2 billion. This money could have been used to procure eight additional C-17 aircraft and create jobs to support the U.S. declining defense industrial base.

If this is actually true, and translates into other areas, then it brings up some important issues....If we cut the military budget, but don't scale back operations, have we really cut anything? And of course even more importantly, do we really want to rely on the whims and capabilities of other nations to determine how we are able to act around the world?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I found this article quite interesting:



If this is actually true, and translates into other areas, then it brings up some important issues....If we cut the military budget, but don't scale back operations, have we really cut anything? And of course even more importantly, do we really want to rely on the whims and capabilities of other nations to determine how we are able to act around the world?

ok so lets say we get 3 more...though I recall a older est of the cost of one being about 333 million each..and guessing that would be higher now..but lets just say its the same..

will three planes mean we don't need russia now? Also what are the long term costs for 3 C-17s? running help right now is a temp cost...3 C-17 for a long time is a cost that will keep growing for as long as we have them.

 

[BigRob]

ok so lets say we get 3 more...though I recall a older est of the cost of one being about 333 million each..and guessing that would be higher now..but lets just say its the same..

It is pretty well documented that a new C-17 costs $191 million.

will three planes mean we don't need russia now?

The point is not that we will "need" or "not need" Russia, the point is that our military at current levels does not even have the capability to keep itself supplied....and must pay other nations to do so.. What happens down the road when those nations say no, or lack the capability themselves?

Also what are the long term costs for 3 C-17s?

What is the long term cost of being unable to project power and adequately supply troops in the field?

running help right now is a temp cost...3 C-17 for a long time is a cost that will keep growing for as long as we have them.

So you support a decision that constricts American power, limits our ability to act, and puts us at the whims of other nations for something as basic as keeping our troops supplied?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It is pretty well documented that a new C-17 costs $191 million.



The point is not that we will "need" or "not need" Russia, the point is that our military at current levels does not even have the capability to keep itself supplied....and must pay other nations to do so.. What happens down the road when those nations say no, or lack the capability themselves?



What is the long term cost of being unable to project power and adequately supply troops in the field?



So you support a decision that constricts American power, limits our ability to act, and puts us at the whims of other nations for something as basic as keeping our troops supplied?

When you outspend the rest of the world added up practicly on military spending and you can't afford to send supplies...the problem is not that you did not buy enough planes to do it....we spend nearly 2 times the 2nd biggest spender...

The best military budget cut we could have had, but failed to do, was pretty simple though...not invade Iraq....just think how many planes we could have had then.

as for the plane cost, maybe I am thinking of some other plane...but regardless the point is pretty much the same...

Also if we need 3 more planes to do the job...I am pretty sure there are plenty of funds on worthless systems we don't need we can cut and have them.

 

[GenSeneca]

The best military budget cut we could have had, but failed to do, was pretty simple though...not invade Iraq....just think how many planes we could have had then.

Cost of Iraq = $1 Trillion / $191 Million = 5,235.6 C-17's

Cost of Obama = $4 Trillion / $191 Million = 20,942.4 C-17's

Listening to Pocket cry over spilled milk...

Priceless.

 

[BigRob]

When you outspend the rest of the world added up practicly on military spending and you can't afford to send supplies...the problem is not that you did not buy enough planes to do it....we spend nearly 2 times the 2nd biggest spender...

Name another country that can project military power the way we can, or that can adequately perform the missions that the world looks to the United States to perform all the time?

How much we spend is irrelevant, what is relevant is that we, as the supposed world's greatest power, cannot even keep our troops in the field supplied without relying on major tactical assistance from other nations...

The best military budget cut we could have had, but failed to do, was pretty simple though...not invade Iraq....just think how many planes we could have had then.

Well..we did, and here we are. Are we going to argue about things in the past that cannot change, or are we going to address current concerns?

as for the plane cost, maybe I am thinking of some other plane...but regardless the point is pretty much the same...

Your point that it is a good thing to be forced to rely on the whims of other nations to operate globally remains the same...yes. I find that point absurd however.

Also if we need 3 more planes to do the job...I am pretty sure there are plenty of funds on worthless systems we don't need we can cut and have them.

How about we start with Social Security.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Cost of Iraq = $1 Trillion / $191 Million = 5,235.6 C-17's

Cost of Obama = $4 Trillion / $191 Million = 20,942.4 C-17's

Listening to Pocket cry over spilled milk...

Priceless.

bla bla bla...im talking to someone who actully thinks here, your just getting in the way...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Name another country that can project military power the way we can, or that can adequately perform the missions that the world looks to the United States to perform all the time?

How much we spend is irrelevant, what is relevant is that we, as the supposed world's greatest power, cannot even keep our troops in the field supplied without relying on major tactical assistance from other nations...



Well..we did, and here we are. Are we going to argue about things in the past that cannot change, or are we going to address current concerns?



Your point that it is a good thing to be forced to rely on the whims of other nations to operate globally remains the same...yes. I find that point absurd however.



How about we start with Social Security.

First I never said it was a good thing to need to rely on other nations...you said is it increasing spending....I am pointing out that the cost of the c-17 has a greater cost then simply buying the plane. Also that that with as much as spend on Military...of we can't even afford to move our troops...well then the issue is not that we are not spending enough on out military...but rather what we are spending our military money on ..

who said we must be able to project our power all over the world at all times? Thats a choice we make, but its not needed for the Deffense of our nation. IF someone wants to say we need cut goverment spending...but can't find anyplace to make cuts in the Military...then my guess there talk about reducing spending is more political then the idea they really want to make cuts.

 

[Centrehalf]

BigRob,

I've noticed from some of your posts that you follow defense issues, so I was wondering if you've looked into this any further.

I looked up the specs on the Antonov and it seems to be similar to the C-5, then I found a couple of articles about the USAF C-5's being upgraded.

Do you think this is about not having enough C-17's, or might these leases be necessary due to some of our C-5's being temporarily out of service due to the upgrade process? I didn't find anything on-line about how many C-5's are out of service at any one time so I'm not even going to try to guess whether or not it has anything to do with this.

 

[Gipper]

Cost of Iraq = $1 Trillion / $191 Million = 5,235.6 C-17's

Cost of Obama = $4 Trillion / $191 Million = 20,942.4 C-17's

Listening to Pocket cry over spilled milk...

Priceless.

Oh that is priceless. Hahahahaha.................

Libs complain about the cost of war, but ignore the cost of Obama. Does their hypocrisy ever end???

 

[Rick]

biggest spender...

The best military budget cut we could have had, but failed to do, was pretty simple though...not invade Iraq....just think how many planes we could have had then.

That's the simpleton view of things. What would have saddam done by now? What countries invaded? What would that cost us? What if he had nukes by now? What if he had shut down all middle east oil?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Why doesn't the U.S. military purchase retired commercial jets, retrofit and refurbish them, and use them as transport aircraft? There are thousands of retired commercial jets sitting around in the Arizona desert or being sold for scrap.

There I go again, making too much sense. Sorry about that!

 

[Rick]

Why doesn't the U.S. military purchase retired commercial jets, retrofit and refurbish them, and use them as transport aircraft? There are thousands of retired commercial jets sitting around in the Arizona desert or being sold for scrap.

There I go again, making too much sense. Sorry about that!

Well, for one thing, about 30 years ago, the transport jets made for the military began taking into account the fact that runways in typical third world hotspots often aren't up to US standards - eg, they are frequently short, so US transports were given the lift characteristics to use short runways. Not sure, but I believe the improvements in commercial jets were oriented to such as quieting engine noise and improving fuel economy and safety.

 

[Hobo1]

When I served in Vietnam, I was amazed that EVERYTHING the military used to build bases was from material imported from the US. Everything for sale in the PX, everything we ate, the guns, the uniforms, the toilets, the plywood, the furnature; absolutely everything was either flown or shipped in from the US.

I am delighted to hear we are finally buying some stuff on the local market. The real question here is "how much would the taxpayer pay for all that stuff we got from Russia, versus if all of it were bought in and shipped from the US?

You are not comparing apples and apples when you say,

"In fiscal year 2007–2008, the U.S. taxpayers paid more than $840 million total to the Russians. This equals what the Department of Defense would pay for four additional C-17 aircraft..." ​

How much would we have paid for the stuff we bought from Russia? Not all of it was transportation cost. And what is the cost for a C-17 to make a flight halfway around the world to Afghanistan? I'll bet the cost of fuel and manpower, and maintenance dwarf the capital purchase price for a C-17.

I am positive if you counted all the costs of buying that stuff from the US and transporting it to Afghanistan, it would be double the cost of what we paid to Russia. Finally somebody is thinking with their wallet.

 

[Gipper]

When I served in Vietnam, I was amazed that EVERYTHING the military used to build bases was from material imported from the US. Everything for sale in the PX, everything we ate, the guns, the uniforms, the toilets, the plywood, the furnature; absolutely everything was either flown or shipped in from the US.

I am delighted to hear we are finally buying some stuff on the local market. The real question here is "how much would the taxpayer pay for all that stuff we got from Russia, versus if all of it were bought in and shipped from the US?

You are not comparing apples and apples when you say,

"In fiscal year 2007–2008, the U.S. taxpayers paid more than $840 million total to the Russians. This equals what the Department of Defense would pay for four additional C-17 aircraft..." ​

How much would we have paid for the stuff we bought from Russia? Not all of it was transportation cost. And what is the cost for a C-17 to make a flight halfway around the world to Afghanistan? I'll bet the cost of fuel and manpower, and maintenance dwarf the capital purchase price for a C-17.

I am positive if you counted all the costs of buying that stuff from the US and transporting it to Afghanistan, it would be double the cost of what we paid to Russia. Finally somebody is thinking with their wallet.

First, thank you for your service in Vietnam.

And, your theory that it costs less to buy products locally does not hold water at least as it relates to products sold everywhere in the USA today. Apparently it is cheaper to make things in China, ship them across the globe, rail and truck those products across the nation than making them here.

Second, I doubt the local markets existed in the 1960s to provide the products American soldiers were used to. In the 1960s it was difficult to find products made outside the USA. We controlled most markets back them and had trade surpluses. My how times have changed.