2/10: Defense spending over time
 

http://cellar.org/2002/defensegraphic.gif

Here's an interesting display of quantitative information.

I didn't know that Ike, Nixon, and Bush I all saw such reductions in military spending.

I wish this graph continued back to cover WW2, from what it does show it looks like 1945 defense spending was equivalent to a trillion dollars. Incredible!

I was looking at the 1945 spending, too. It says it's in 1996 dollars, but somehow it just doesn't seem right unless they're adjusting it for inflation.

Stating it in 1996 dollar *is* adjusting it for inflation. Bear in mind there was not much doubt anywhere that WWII was a battle for *survival* against the Axis Powers. Anything since then has been a brushfire by comparison. That's why the conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan (the Soviet one) fell under the rubric of "The Cold War".--with The Soviet Blok and NATO staring each other down across Western Europe with enough nukes on standby to destroy the planet many times over, it kinda made folks too nervous to actually have flat-out no-holds-barred war like that again.

Oh... I dunno about that. I was in Germany when they rolled out the Pershing IIs. It seemed pretty plausible to us at the time!

Part of the reason....
 

Part of the reason for cycles in the defense budget is a factor that few think about, and is actually hard to break.

THINGS WEAR OUT!

How long does a ship or an airplane last? A ship goes about 7-10 years before a massive overhaul is needed - an airframe goes XXXX hours.


Now, if you look historically, at the end of WWII, we didn't need to buy new ships, tanks etc - aircraft were the one exception to this, due to the jet transition. The thing is, ALL the equipment we had was bought at one time, therefore it all wears out at one. We let out equipment fall apart, and had to rearm FAST for the Korean War. Ditto Vietnam

Post Vietnam, we had VERY little military procurement up until Reagan became President (Look at time between failures on the stuff we had then) The average ship was falling apart. The big problem is that the cycle was continued - everything was bought new all at once, again

So here it is, 20 years later - Guess what folks? The ships are wearing out again - they don't last forever, even if it is the best design. Neither do airplanes. The F-15 production line has been as good as shut for 8 year, we haven't been buying many F-16s. Grumman hasn't made much of anything in 12 or so years.

We need to replace things that are falling apart. Budgets have been so low for the last 8 years, we're back to the point of having soldiers on food stamps, in housing that can't be GIVEN to the homeless when they shut a base, because it doesn't meet minimum standards!

It's sort of like cars - if you buy 2 brand new same model cars, the same year, and use them both equally, your going to have them wear out at the same time. The only way around this is to either suffer with a clunker that you can't count on while you buy a new car, OR replace one of the cars early (say 1/2 way through it's life), and pay MORE the first time around, and then keep buying when each wears out. This is also in some ways, more expensive, because you get a discount for buying 2 at a time!

So, what you really have to do is "Bank" some of the money for the rainy day, or have budget cycles. We're in the 20 year upswing, No matter who, we have to replace some stuff now, then the budget will drop again (it takes about 5-6 years to buy what you need), the budget will stay low for about 10-12 years after that, and then you'll see another increase. (all assuming no wars, which reset the cycle)

It's much more interesting to look at the defense budget in terms of an averaged budget, with say, an 15 year average

Re: Part of the reason....
 

We went for a decade without replacing anything? How naive. We are constantly wearing out thing, refurbishing things, and building new things for the military.

A more valid speculation would be that the military spent big bucks on irrelevant nonsense such as air craft carriers, B-1 and B-2 bombers, and Apache helicopeters. Then spent the next decade (or over a gneration in the case of the B-1 bomber and Apache helicopter) to make them work. Other things such as planes for the aircraft carriers, troop support aircraft, radios so that navy ships could talk to army troops and get air tasking orders, etc all were forgotten. Yes we have the Apache helicopter delivered to the army well over a decade ago and it still cannot fly in Kosovo. We have aircraft carriers full of planes that cannot get out to the battleground without multiple mid-air refuelings - tankers must be in country for carrier planes to function.

However the military is not all that bad. That above reasoning still does not justify all the big run up in defense spending. To appreciate the problem, well, did you read Collin Powell's warning as reported by the AP in that NY Times article? If not, then why not. It explains the military buildup. I suspect you don't appreciate the Ronald Reagan attitude - the extremist right wing - 'make war with anyone who disagrees with America' atttitude in this adminstration lead by a low intelligence president.

We don't have enemies everywhere. Most enemies are of our own creation. Pax America will only create more enemies. Pax American is a fundamental concept of intolerant, right wing, extremist Republicans. That is why we have this outrageous military buildup.

We now have dangerous politician in government. What good is an aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine or a missile defense system against terrorism. Nothing. No help. Not valid. Rediculous. But terrorism is a good excuse to arm the US to the teeth - since extremists are so paranoid.

Names? I should not have to mention anyone as example. This one is so obvious. Anyone with any political / military knowledge knows this name right out - top of the list. We are going to war with an evil empire - as demonstrated by a budget. It is why we are suddenly building 9 major military bases around the Middle East. We want to be the world's policeman. We want to act unilaterally. Our low intelligent president who also hid from VietNam service is also being manipulated into building unnecessary weapons so that we can do another VietNam in the Middle East. The name - why don't you know this man after so much above description. I even reported his name when he tried to get us to attack China - Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense.

We don't need these exotic weapons such as anti-ballistic missiles. We need leaders who will not make Middle East extremists popular. Our current leaders will make Middle East war necessary because he advocates the destruction of Palestinian victims AND we openly support a dichead who almost got the US and USSR into a nuclear war (BTW did I also mention he also had 5,000 women and children massacred).

Learn history now before it is too late. We are setting ourselves up to be the world's policeman. We are encouraging extremists in the Middle East. We are getting ready to attack Iraq unilaterally. We are setting ourselves up to invade parts of the Middle East that we don't like. That is why we are rearming for more than just defense.

'Things wear out' is simply to be a stooge of people with a dangerous agenda. Be aware that we are intending to attack other nations unitaterally - in vilolation of EVERYTHING American stands for.

Re: Re: Part of the reason....
 

I think you SHOULD look at what has been built in the last decade - almost nothing. We aren't replaceing things all the time.

Re: Re: Re: Part of the reason....
 

Three new, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, including many of the ships necessary to support those task forces, complete redeign of the 1980 B-1 bomber to make it work (its first mission was in Afganistan), plus complete retooling of the B-2 to support more than nuclear bombs. Then there are all those bases necessary for the unique needs of those two planes (including air conditioning hangars that must be kept at 70 degrees or lower). The second half of the Aegis cruiser and destroy fleet so that, for example, Spurance class destroyers could be scraped (or sold to countries like Tiawan) during the 1990s. Even the last of the nuclear powered cruisers were replaced by new Aegis class ships in the 1990s. The last third of the Los Angles class nuclear subs and three Seawolf submarines - all for war against an enemy that does not exist.

An unknown (maybe 6) helicopter carriers that the Navy did not want. Doubling the size of the Apache helicopter fleet even though the first order would not work. Complete retooling of the F-14 fleet so that it could support standard weapons systems (that's correct - the F-14 was only used for recon because it could not deliver the necessary ground attack weaspons). A complete retooling of the fleet so that it could recieved messages beyond the length of this post (yes, read the facts. In the Gulf war, Navy communications were so archaeic that orders had to be flown out to the ships). Complete replacement of the A-6 fleet with less capable F-18 A /B aircraft. New F-18C/D aircraft. Are we now up to the G version of F-15s? The existing F-16 fleet was completed in the 1990s. Patriot missile systems have been completely replaced. Since 1990s, every cruise missile has been replaced by a newer version that used satellite navigation rather than geographical mapping. A whole new fleet of (estimated) 6 spy satellites. The Milstar system was made operational during the 1990s. Half the fleet of mid-air refueling tankers. The entire fleet of C-17s - desperately needed aircraft so screwed up in production by MacDonnel Douglas. J-Stars, the incomplete prototypefirst appeared in the Gulf War in 1991. A new production of C-130s that the Air Force did not want. Refurbishing of the last of the conventional powered aircraft carriers was completed in the late 1990s complete with new steam catapult systems (a fully integrated part of the ship and quite top secret).

I know very little of what the military has produced. And yet the list is still so long. However another would have us feel that the military has produced nothing in the past decade? Just the many rediculous and unnecessary aircraft carriers and Seawolf subs makes his comment embarrassingly naive.

Then there are the sneaky programs. One would have us believe that these military programs have done nothing. Silly when their budget alone is larger than any other military in the world. I did not even list a single item from the sneaky budget. Is the military doing nothing? Their budget is larger than combined budgets of the next five largest world militaries!!! How naive to say that the military has produced nothing in the last decade. Even an MBA can contradict that fact. Provide even the numbers - and thou shalt see the truth.

Yes, and I was in the US during the Cuban Missle Crisis...that was scary too. It was the very scariness of it that kept the Big Blow-Up from happening, thank goodness.

meanwhile...
 

...how nice it is to follow an informed, rational, grown-up discussion, rather than that nasty business over in the Niger/Nigger thread!

try a few of the threads in politics =)
I think you've been around long enough to know this isn't the first time this has happened here.

I'm torn between saying "Its larger than the australian GDP - nofair! and "there's a good reason im' keeping my tinfoil hat"
I'd imagine even things like routing upgrade of computer systems every year or so would add up to billians, but unless there is some far larger "black" projects than the ones that are known, such as delta force, the money must be going somewhere.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Part of the reason....
 

Yep, three new carriers, in years 92, 95, and 98 - which brought the average age of the carrier fleet DOWN to 23.5 years - we still have 3 carriers that are 41 years old in the fleet, plus we are down to 12 carriers, and with 2 or 3 in SLEP at any one time, they are stretched thin - there should be about 15

Yes, the F-14 got upgraded - in 1990! (Bombcat upgrade), and now they are aging out of the fleet, to be replaced with the F18, which has no legs (supposed to be fixed with the F18e/f this year, but we'll see). Most of the f-18 airframes were produced Pre 1987. Remember, with aircraft (particularly NAVY aircraft) the electronics really don't count - it's airframe hours and landings. - the A-6 going away was a crime, but with the budget cuts, something had to go, and the fighter maffia wasn't going to cut anything, so we gave up the Navy's only long range all weather ground attack birds

The F-15C is the latest US version of the F-15 FIGHTER - the Bomb Eagle (Beagle) the F-15E is the latest we've got, and their perfomance is degraded as a fighter - the F and G are degraded export models.

Have you LOOKED at the AGE of those Spruance class ships that were sold off?

The LA class subs were built 3/year, and the last was commissioned in 96 (No starts since 1991) - the Seawolf was really built to keep the shipyard open.

I WILL agree that the B-2, the V-22 and a few other things are a waste of money

The other thing you have to realize is that something like 45% of the budget goes to pensions and benefits, and right now, the pay for the LOWER grades just does NOT cut it (That big raise went disproportionately to high ranking officers - figures, right?)

How much is felt to be wasted in maintaining all those unneeded boondoggle bases all over the country?