Why USA military is cheap like this?

I wonder why United States military is so cheap, particularly to newer/next-gen weapon systems other than Guided Missiles, 50cal Sniper Rifles(probably the only exception amongst hand-held weapons other than High-Powered Weapons), guided munitions, and so on and unless when the newer/next-gen weapons are introduced in 2011/2012, they will ends up canceled with F/A-22 Raptor and V-22 osprey as notable exceptions

Cheap? Did you just say cheap? Tell me I just did not here you say that!
www.globalsecurity.org...
The U.S. is the country with the highest amount of money funded for the military.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
Cheap? Did you just say cheap? Tell me I just did not here you say that!
www.globalsecurity.org...
The U.S. is the country with the highest amount of money funded for the military.

the word cheap here doesn't refers to anything inexpensive, despite United States has highest amount of money spent for military, there's lot of newer/next-gen weapons that canceled unless when they are introduced in 2011/2012 or being guided/smart munitions or 50cal sniper rifles

Oh no they are definitely not cheap take a look at this defense contractors list. Whats even scarier this is only in the year 2008. This is one reason the American deficit is astronomical.

www.govexec.com...

Originally posted by Freedom is Key
Oh no they are definitely not cheap take a look at this defense contractors list. Whats even scarier this is only in the year 2008. This is one reason the American deficit is astronomical.

www.govexec.com...

there's a question that I need to be answered in this thread: why newer/next-gen weapons that unless introduced in 2011/2012 and/or 'smart' weapons and 50cal sniper rifles are canceled despite US military has highest budget?

Any specific weapons/programs you have in mind?

Smart munitions are our money-makers currently. The "international community" gets mad when a 500lb bomb goes a few meters off course and accidentally kills an Afghan family. Plus one smart bomb is cheaper than the 4 dumb bombs it would otherwise take.

Some projects suffer to support political correctness.

Some projects get canned because they don't support current or forecasted doctrine.

You have to consider cost/benefit analysis. Is the XM8 that much better to justify replacing a million perfectly good rifles at several thousand dollars apiece, plus the cost of ammo and man-hours to retrain and qualify every Soldier in the military on it? Why replace an army of perfectly good M1 tanks and M2 bradleys with an inferior FCS platform to simplify logistics when that simplification is going to entail a complete restructuring of a billion dollar logistics system during wartime? (Or more realistically, adding an additional logistics system while both platforms are fielded simultaneously?)

If you really get into the weeds on it, individual ordnance (bombs, missiles, arty rounds, etc) are the cheapest way to technologically advance the military. Its literally the equivalent of trading out ball ammo for hollow points in your home pistol. It costs a little more, works a little better, but doesn't require you to buy a new gun.

Even a new aircraft is comparatively cheap because there aren't that many of them.

When you're talking about a new service rifle or armored vehicle, you're talking about something pretty close to or exceeding the total annual defense budget. The little things cost more because they're more prevalent.

But if you'd like to see more cool stuff, call your congressman. I always enjoy getting new toys. I could use a remote weapons station on my tank so I could use my .50 without getting shot at (it wouldn't be as fun but my wife would appreciate it).

reply to post by masonicon


Because those projects are always under review. The military has a set of requirements of a weapon system, if the manufacturer doesn't meet those requirements the contract is then offered to the next company that think they can do better. Our military equipment is not cheap, I can assure you. If anything it's costs are over inflated.

Yup, over inflated is a serious problem.

Originally posted by WhiteOneActual
Any specific weapons/programs you have in mind?

You have to consider cost/benefit analysis. Is the XM8 that much better to justify replacing a million perfectly good rifles at several thousand dollars apiece, plus the cost of ammo and man-hours to retrain and qualify every Soldier in the military on it? Why replace an army of perfectly good M1 tanks and M2 bradleys with an inferior FCS platform to simplify logistics when that simplification is going to entail a complete restructuring of a billion dollar logistics system during wartime? (Or more realistically, adding an additional logistics system while both platforms are fielded simultaneously?)

But if you'd like to see more cool stuff, call your congressman. I always enjoy getting new toys. I could use a remote weapons station on my tank so I could use my .50 without getting shot at (it wouldn't be as fun but my wife would appreciate it).

Comanche project, Project Camelot, SDI uplinks, OICW weapons other than XM25, and XM2001 Crusader artillery(specially made up for War on terror and other 21st conflicts)

XM8 is much better than M16/M4 as it combines the best aspects of both AK47 and M16 riffles while on the opposite, M1 Abrams and M2 Bradleys doesn't need to be replaced by FCS platform as FCS platforms are far from resilient when compared to M1 Abrams and M2 Bradleys so FCS platform are deserves to be canceled

Maybe they have decided that spending more money on weapons then the whole of the rest of the world put together is enough for the moment.
In the unlikely event that America has to go to war with every single other country on the earth at the same time they would still have weapons to spare, it's soldiers they would run out of, a helicopter isn't much good without a pilot

Originally posted by davespanners
Maybe they have decided that spending more money on weapons then the whole of the rest of the world put together is enough for the moment.
In the unlikely event that America has to go to war with every single other country on the earth at the same time they would still have weapons to spare, it's soldiers they would run out of, a helicopter isn't much good without a pilot

and to make this worse, the weapons where they spent their money on are bland and mediocre whilst tricking us that weapons is cutting edge

This link shows all the charts on the defense budget from 2009 to 2011, you can see the break down of where and how much is allocated to the different areas that are included in the biggest budget in nation, it also compares to other countries.

Military budget of the United States

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 1-10-2010 by marg6043 because: spelling

I thought the F22 was cancelled for the cheaper F35,its the Navy thats suffered the most in cutbacks with
littoral combat ships,DDX destroyers and next generation cruisers etc either cut back,in limbo or cancelled.

they are cheap in that they will spend billions on weapons that they don't need but soldiers have to buy their own kevlar vests and armor for their humvees.

I think the real question here is why slug more slug.