Military spending versus output

[Nik]

I'm far from being an expert to compare military equipment, but I do have vague understanding of numbers -:)
They say, the US spends way more on its military than any of its competitors even combined together, but could it be so that the military costs are so inflated that a much higher military budget doesn't necessarily translate into technological, quantitative and qualitative superiority?
If we take for example fifth generation fighter jets, according to wikipedia program's cost for F-22 was 66.7 bil. USD, of F-35 - 1.5 tril USD, while Chinese J-20 - estimated at 4.4 bil. USD or Russia's Su -57 - at 8-10 bil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_...
According to the costs American airplanes vs others should be like Ferrari vs a chariot, but I'm not sure the difference is that drastic.
And I do remember Elon Musk suing the air-force for the right to compete and save millions of USD.
What do you think?

[Ian]

I saw somewhere where the Pentagon charged the taxpayers a third of a mil. to replace broken coffee mugs in the Pentagon. Don't know how true, but the general consensus seems to be the US military is not very budget friendly.

As for the costs, those look as if they are for the program, so would also depend on how many planes (I can't believe a single F-35 costs 1.5 tril.) Certainly the Chinese and Russian ones will be cheaper, but how many are operational also counts. The differences will not be that great. Actually the real differences lies in how easy it is to shoot down the opponent. If each side was truly stealthy, they could fly around and not do anything to each other!

[Nik]

Ian wrote: "I saw somewhere where the Pentagon charged the taxpayers a third of a mil. to replace broken coffee mugs in the Pentagon. ..."

Found it, if that's what you meant:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/air-force-...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...
Approximately 1,300 USD for a coffee cup is rather cheap. Surely, they are stealth & defensive -:) I bet Russians and Chinese are way behind on their mugs

[Ian]

Yeah, it was the second link that reported the facts I saw. Note they were replacing them because they broke - not because they got lost so stealthy they are not :-) The fact they can't design a coffee cup handle when they spend 1300 USD per piece is more likely to have the Chinese and Russians smugly smiling. I wonder what falls off their planes when shaken?

[Philip]

From my own experience Western military spending is inflated not just by profit motive of defence contractors but also the real cost of labour. It makes direct comparison of an item between Russia/Chine and US/UK etc almost irrelevant; however, you can compare % of GDP in which case the USA does spend far more than any combination of allies or potential enemies.

The biggest difference in performance of equipment is accuracy and effectiveness. The Western powers for moral reasons has moved away from mass area bombing (last seen in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) to precision strikes; hence a smart bomb or missile costs far more than a dumb one. A Scud missile is notoriously inaccurate whereas a SAM to shoot it down has to be be highly accurate. A simple Stinger type shoulder launched missile has altitude, accuracy and warhead limitations. Fly above the envelope but deliver your munitions and the fact that the enemy has thousands more troops matter little.

The final part of the mix and used extensively in threat analysis is the amount of realistic training undertaken by the forces. For pilots this translates to flight time in combat like scenarios for infantry live fire exercises in complex scenarios. The comparisons I made when I was involved showed flight time 2-3 times more for a US/UK combat pilot than a Russian one and then 5-6 times for an Iraqi pre 2002.

This does not stop the headlines of over charging but one other comment. The press have a habit of comparing whole lifetime costs I.e Billions for a fighter plane for 15 years of life and servicing. In the UK the replacement of Trident has been criticised whilst missing that the cost is for the missiles, warheads, submarines and 30 years of expected life

[Ian]

Philip wrote: "The Western powers for moral reasons has moved away from mass area bombing (last seen in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) "

Not so sure of that. Have you seen any of the images from Mosul or Raqqa. These cities were reduced to rubble and are almost uninhabitable, and in both cases bodies were being dug out 6 - 9 months later. In neither city has any real effort been made to provide help in reconstruction. I cannot believe all the bodies or all the citizens in those cities were rebels.

[Philip]

Yes Ian you are correct, which also demonstrates the difficulty of winning/fighting in urban warfare with entrenched fighters mixed in with civilians. For general area bombing I was referring to the bombing in WWII or the B52s bombing Cambodia.

Any sustained campaign will result in greater and greater destruction as also seen in Syria, Yemen, and even in Gaza although in all case including Iraq I would throw in Artillery assaults as well. Precision and artillery rarely combine.

[Graeme]

Ian wrote: " (I can't believe a single F-35 costs 1.5 tril.) ..."


It's the estimated full program cost over the life of type - it includes expected operating and maintenance costs over the next couple of decades.

[Ian]

Graeme wrote: "Ian wrote: " (I can't believe a single F-35 costs 1.5 tril.) ..."


It's the estimated full program cost over the life of type - it includes expected operating and maintenance costs over the next c..."

But surely the full program costs would be divided by the number of planes?

[Graeme]

$1.5T / 3000+ planes is still approx $500M per plane.

The normal cost for a military system is 33% acquistion and 67% operation.

So approx $150M per plane to acquire and $300M to operate each plane for the rest of it's life.

[Ian]

Hi Graeme,, I never tried to say the F 35 was cheap - merely I did not believe it was 1.5 tril As you quoted, "Ian wrote: " (I can't believe a single F-35 costs 1.5 tril.) …" Personally, I think the US taxpayer would be better off with a decent health system and fewer F 35s.

[Graeme]

Hi Ian, I suspect you're not alone.

The figures above are 'rule of thumb,' amounts.

At the moment, the F-35 represents a river of money for Lockheed Martin.