What the Pentagons missiles and bombs actually cost prepare to be disgusted..

a reply to: Bluntone22

All you have to do to see what it would be like is look at the debacle that was setting up the healthcare signup page a few years ago. An obscene amount of money to get a page that barely worked.

Yes, there’s an incredible amount of waste in the DoD, but AAMs these days have to contend with increasingly capable and widespread countermeasures.

If a Sidewinder costing $470,000 or an AMRAAM costing $1 million can destroy an enemy aircraft costing $50 million, that’s an excellent cost-benefit ratio.

You increase your chances of killing the other guy first by using the very best — and inevitably most expensive — munitions. You’re also more likely to preserve your very expensive aircraft, and more importantly, your pilot, who costs millions of dollars to train and takes many years to become proficient.

Likewise, when you kill the enemy’s pilots, you’ve made it very hard, if not impossible, for him to find replacements of similar quality before the war is over. I’m not saying we shouldn’t question the cost of materiel, but sometimes there’s no avoiding high prices to get the very best, which is want you want and need in modern warfare.

We know for a fact that the cost of those missiles is only probably a fifth of the cost the Pentagon pays for them. The other four fifths is profit for the companies making them. A missile that costs half a million does not cost more than a hundred thousand maximum to make. That includes all costs, except maybe the top five people at the top of the corporation, their bonuses and salaries come out of that money but for some strange reason the common stockholders do not get much benefit. I think preferred stock holders get most of the money, and the CEO bonuses are usually in the form of stocks so that drives the profiting by stockholders down.

a reply to: 727Sky

Of course they don't care , they'll bitch about spending a few million on social programs but when it comes to things that go bang the sky's the limit.

The M.I.C used to be a thing to be feared and guarded against but these days it's not only accepted it's cherished.

what inter national families own the weapons plant?

if ALL of our troops were stationed at our border, making sure no one gets in, then we could spend as much as we want.

that is how it should be.

but the inter nationalists, they want us to spend our money on 'their' projects.

a reply to: gortex

The defense budget is a fraction of the annual budget. It's much smaller than people think. I don't have a problem with social programs, but people don't realize just how much they already get.

The 2021 budget request is $4.829T. Mandatory Spending is $2.966T, Discretionary Spending is $1.485T, and interest on the debt is $378B.

Of the Mandatory category, $1.151T goes to Social Security. Medicare gets $722B, and Medicaid $448B. Under Discretionary, the military would get $705B. Of that, $636B goes to base maintenance, which includes rebuilding Tyndall AFB and completing repairs to Offutt AFB.

www.thebalance.com...

a reply to: FauxMulder

Maybe people are getting kickbacks for allowing such high prices.

Maybe that's why we are indefinitely in iraq and still operational in afghanistan
Plus the drone strikes in other countries.

Infinite war = endless income for the military industrial complex.

It's too bad no president has the balls to defy the system.

a reply to: 727Sky

This has and will always be the case, Arm's manufacturers were at one time the world's biggest industry and there is still OLD money invested in them, healthcare has long since exceeded the value of the weapon's industry though but given some of those people whose OLD money is invested every time they have there government (whom they usually own) go to war it is an immediate cash injection into there own wealth fund and also increases there own power OVER the government they already own.

Same the world over, many of these OLD money people though have moved into the pharmaceutical and healthcare markets since they are even more lucrative if not at time's of war which is when the money rolls in for the armament's manufacturers.

Compared to these two OIL is a poor third place.

a reply to: blueman12

I see this a lot, but even without the "endless wars" have you seen the actual state of our military forces? We have three primary strategic bombers, the B-1, B-2, and B-52. The B-1 has never been considered fully mission capable. Right now, they're starting three or four aircraft to get one or two airborne. They just eliminated the low level portion of their mission, and capped each airframe at no more than 300 flying hours a year. The B-2, since it's stealth, has always had low readiness levels. The B-52 has second and third generation pilots flying them, and there are no plans to retire them for at least another 20 years. They're about to get new engines to keep them flying at least that long, and there's talk of 2050 and beyond to get rid of them. The youngest aircraft was ordered in 1962. Our primary tanker is the KC-135, with over 400 airframes. They were built up into the early 1960s, with the majority of the aircraft still flying being from the later batches, although you can still find aircraft built in 1958 and 1959 (ordered in 1957 and 58, so will have tail numbers showing those years) flying if you look hard enough.

Our fighter fleet is even worse. Over 90% of the F-15C/D fleet, which is our primary homeland defense fighter, and a frontline fighter, is past their planned life cycle hours. All of them need to have longerons, and wings replaced starting within the next five years. The F-16 is approaching a similar state, although many of them have undergone life cycle extension programs. The F-18A-D has been retired from everything but the Marine aviation forces, because they were so old and worn out.

That's without getting into ships, and ground forces. Yes, war makes more profit, but there's plenty of work to go around to still make ridiculous profits off of. Boeing has spend over $3B of their own money on cost overruns for the KC-46, with more coming as they fix problems that still aren't fixed. The initial order was for 179 aircraft and a program cost of $35B. The plan was for the KC-X program to procure 179 aircraft, with a follow on program (KC-Y) to procure another 179 aircraft, and a third program (KC-Z) to replace the 59 KC-10s. The new plan is most likely going to be for three tranches of KC-46s. So when the second program kicks off, that's another estimated $35B without all the R&D and development costs added in. Plus whatever the third buy ends up being. So just from the tanker, they're looking somewhere in the $75B range for profits, after development costs are taken out.

A lot of Air Force aircraft are facing replacement and new programs for something better to do the mission. Those programs are going to see $1B+ charges to develop. All without an endless war to push profits up.

I did something I have never done before this video. I rarely open a post that comes anywhere near ufo's and little green men but, for some reason, I watched your video.

I watched the entire video and thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks!

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Metallicus
Until we stop wasting money on these weapons of war and attacking people for reasons I can’t personally fathom I don’t see how anyone can justify cutting existing social programs. I am no socialist, but it seems to me we should be spending on American citizens long before we should be paying to bomb people half way across the world.

Well you don't make money through social programs for citizens you make money through war, and money is all that matters.

You can't make money in the healthcare sector? Education? Housing? Any of the other areas where we have social programs? There's no money to be made? All of that stuff is provided by charity organizations, not for profit?

You guys really don't think through these talking points. You just regurgitate whatever you're told to regurgitate, no questions asked. Sickening.

Ok genius , explain to me how using tax money for universal healthcare or other social programs is going to make money, I'm all ears....

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

"Well, I 'm pretty sure I'm right. At least I think I am. I dunno... Can you look that up for me? Look up 'money is all that matters' and 'wars make all the money.' I'll wait." 

Of course war makes money, the weapons are used to go into other countries and plunder resources, that's not what the tv says, the tv say we use them to save all the citizens in those countries from their awful leaders.

So you must think goverment can make money from social programs using tax money as well eh, so why don't you have universal healthcare and one that makes a profit.

You must know something nobody else does.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Metallicus
Until we stop wasting money on these weapons of war and attacking people for reasons I can’t personally fathom I don’t see how anyone can justify cutting existing social programs. I am no socialist, but it seems to me we should be spending on American citizens long before we should be paying to bomb people half way across the world.

Well you don't make money through social programs for citizens you make money through war, and money is all that matters.

You can't make money in the healthcare sector? Education? Housing? Any of the other areas where we have social programs? There's no money to be made? All of that stuff is provided by charity organizations, not for profit?

You guys really don't think through these talking points. You just regurgitate whatever you're told to regurgitate, no questions asked. Sickening.

Ok genius , explain to me how using tax money for universal healthcare or other social programs is going to make money, I'm all ears....

You can't be serious.

The same way using tax money for military spending "makes money." You have to pay the people and groups who provide those things, whether it's defense contractors or doctors and hospitals. Healthcare isn't free you know.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

"Well, I 'm pretty sure I'm right. At least I think I am. I dunno... Can you look that up for me? Look up 'money is all that matters' and 'wars make all the money.' I'll wait." 

Of course war makes money, the weapons are used to go into other countries and plunder resources, that's not what the tv says, the tv say we use them to save all the citizens in those countries from their awful leaders.

So you must think goverment can make money from social programs using tax money as well eh, so why don't you have universal healthcare and one that makes a profit.

You must know something nobody else does.

The government buys tanks and missiles, it doesn't sell them. The government SPENDS money on war. Explain how this is "making money."

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Metallicus
Until we stop wasting money on these weapons of war and attacking people for reasons I can’t personally fathom I don’t see how anyone can justify cutting existing social programs. I am no socialist, but it seems to me we should be spending on American citizens long before we should be paying to bomb people half way across the world.

Well you don't make money through social programs for citizens you make money through war, and money is all that matters.

You can't make money in the healthcare sector? Education? Housing? Any of the other areas where we have social programs? There's no money to be made? All of that stuff is provided by charity organizations, not for profit?

You guys really don't think through these talking points. You just regurgitate whatever you're told to regurgitate, no questions asked. Sickening.

Ok genius , explain to me how using tax money for universal healthcare or other social programs is going to make money, I'm all ears....

You can't be serious.

The same way using tax money for military spending "makes money." You have to pay the people and groups who provide those things, whether it's defense contractors or doctors and hospitals. Healthcare isn't free you know.

You just said the goverment can make money from healthcare, explain how, don't try and change the goal posts .

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

"Well, I 'm pretty sure I'm right. At least I think I am. I dunno... Can you look that up for me? Look up 'money is all that matters' and 'wars make all the money.' I'll wait." 

Of course war makes money, the weapons are used to go into other countries and plunder resources, that's not what the tv says, the tv say we use them to save all the citizens in those countries from their awful leaders.

So you must think goverment can make money from social programs using tax money as well eh, so why don't you have universal healthcare and one that makes a profit.

You must know something nobody else does.

The government buys tanks and missiles, it doesn't sell them. The government SPENDS money on war. Explain how this is "making money."

Um....the U.S goverment is the largest seller of weapons on the planet. My god do you live under a rock.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Metallicus
Until we stop wasting money on these weapons of war and attacking people for reasons I can’t personally fathom I don’t see how anyone can justify cutting existing social programs. I am no socialist, but it seems to me we should be spending on American citizens long before we should be paying to bomb people half way across the world.

Well you don't make money through social programs for citizens you make money through war, and money is all that matters.

You can't make money in the healthcare sector? Education? Housing? Any of the other areas where we have social programs? There's no money to be made? All of that stuff is provided by charity organizations, not for profit?

You guys really don't think through these talking points. You just regurgitate whatever you're told to regurgitate, no questions asked. Sickening.

Ok genius , explain to me how using tax money for universal healthcare or other social programs is going to make money, I'm all ears....

You can't be serious.

The same way using tax money for military spending "makes money." You have to pay the people and groups who provide those things, whether it's defense contractors or doctors and hospitals. Healthcare isn't free you know.

You just said the goverment can make money from healthcare, explain how, don't try and change the goal posts .

Quotation marks, look them up. I was using your term, which is a complete misnomer, because the government makes money from neither war nor healthcare.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

"Well, I 'm pretty sure I'm right. At least I think I am. I dunno... Can you look that up for me? Look up 'money is all that matters' and 'wars make all the money.' I'll wait." 

Of course war makes money, the weapons are used to go into other countries and plunder resources, that's not what the tv says, the tv say we use them to save all the citizens in those countries from their awful leaders.

So you must think goverment can make money from social programs using tax money as well eh, so why don't you have universal healthcare and one that makes a profit.

You must know something nobody else does.

The government buys tanks and missiles, it doesn't sell them. The government SPENDS money on war. Explain how this is "making money."

Um....the U.S goverment is the largest seller of weapons on the planet. My god do you live under a rock.

The government signs agreements with other countries for them to buy our equipment. The equipment is still built and sold by private companies. For example when we make a deal with an ally for them to buy F-35s, they buy them from Lockheed. This is what happens when you try to wade into a subject about which you know less than nothing, using nothing but talking points you don't understand.

a reply to: face23785

The government buys tanks and missiles, it doesn't sell them. The government SPENDS money on war. Explain how this is "making money."

The countries make money by selling weapons to partner-nations around the world. When you see an F-16 being flown by another nation they bought it from the USA or are on license to manufacture certain parts for the bird. Look at the F-15s Saudi Arabia is using to bomb Yemen ...Where do you think they got the bombs and missiles ?....USA... Wonder if we give them a discount for bulk purchases ? Paris airshow where the latest and greatest is shown and advertised to the world and you to can have the super duper "whatever" as long as you got the bucks and are not on our "no can have" list.

Once upon a time I was looking to buy a thermocouple for a 150 h.p. Lycoming engine.. I went to a parts store and the counter guy brought out two of what I needed.. Both were made by the same company and looked exactly alike..however, one was $12 and the other was $79 all because the $79 had an aircraft approved serial number. Aircraft parts, Boat parts, reminds me of the old saying if it fly's, floats, or ??? it is better to rent it. In the states they have just about priced out the average "Joe" from owning an aircraft. Insurance, parts, and another big growth area has been in hanger fees .. One friend has six renters in his hanger with a waiting list.. He charges 250 to 350 a month depending on the size of the aircraft.

So back to the thread. Until we get a real accounting process "one for all" for money spent and for what we are paying for it will be business as usual.. I think more along the lines of a real shooting war as the countries that win are the ones who can out manufacture and produce war fighting equipment better than the enemy. At these prices and the reliability of some of these gold plated over priced systems I for one hope it never comes down to a do or die no kidding war.

I do have a bad taste with some of this stuff as you had to fire two and "worse case" three missiles to get one that would track and work during Viet Nam... But according to the MIC we/they are the greatest etc etc.. smoke and mirrors baby send money and we will make it right!

originally posted by: Metallicus
Until we stop wasting money on these weapons of war and attacking people for reasons I can’t personally fathom I don’t see how anyone can justify cutting existing social programs. I am no socialist, but it seems to me we should be spending on American citizens long before we should be paying to bomb people half way across the world.

If we didn't have these weapons and these metaphorical muscles, those same citizens would spend their lives dodging attacks from every country that we ever looked crossways at. During the Cold War, mutually assured destruction kept the USA from getting glassed by the Soviets. Today, the law of disproportionate response keeps the USA from getting shellacked by #holes like Iran, Turkey, North Korea, Iraq (pre-Gulf War 2), etc, etc, etc. We keep our boot on the world's throat because, if we ever lift it off, they'll instantly head for our throats.