• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

U. S. Defense Budget

Here's breakdown of large expenditures of the 2013 U. S. base Defense Budget

Operations Maintenance 209,672
Military Personnel 142,062
Procurement (weapons, food, ammunition...etc.) 98,823
R&D 69.408


The U. S. base defense budget is 531,792 dollars in 2013. The U. S. has a totally professional military, so American service members will make far more than service member from countries who have draftees. Most U. S. service members pay is much less than they would make in the private sector. The Operations and Maintenance section is the largest part of the U. S. budget; it contains war operations and world deployments cost. The U. S. military's Health care program Tricare is included in that section of the defense budget. The Tricare program includes active personnel, reservists, retirees, and their family members. The Tricare programs costs of over $50 billion dollars a year. The U.S. military has many family programs, but they cost no more than $10 billion dollars a year. The U. S. public does not want to restart the draft, so it costs much money to retain the services of U. S. service members in an open economic system.

U. S. weapons procurement programs have mismanaged for a long time. All four services have mismanaged new weapons programs over the last decade.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-billion-on-canceled-programs-since-1995.html


Many defense experts think that Russian and China are underreporting their yearly defense spending. The Russia governments official stance is 50% of its taxes come from oil and natural gas revenue. The Russian oil only receives $22 to 24 dollars out of $100 dollars per barrel of crude sold. Ten of billions of dollars of undisclosed oil and natural gas tax revenue could be going into defense spending each yearly The Russian Western oil fields have the lowest production costs in the world, so the Russian oil companies are still make much money. China's a communist country, so under reporting of defense spending is not unexpected for such a regime.
 

vodkazvictim

Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Yes, the USM is a contactor's goldmine and a taxpayer's graveyard.

But really, with economic warfare going so well, why would china attack?
Russia just needs to sit back and watch america tear herself apart, so why risk anything in an attack?
 
Yes, the USM is a contactor's goldmine and a taxpayer's graveyard.

But really, with economic warfare going so well, why would china attack?
Russia just needs to sit back and watch america tear herself apart, so why risk anything in an attack?

The U. S military procurement policy is its main weakness. U. S. Generals and Admirals choose to go for the moon instead of choosing simpler less costly and complex weapons systems. The U. S. Defense Budget doubled because of the wars. Modern warfare is very expense it costs $400 to ship a $100 barrel of gasoline to Afghanistan. Plus, the cost caring for injured troops, replacing damaged or destroyed equipment, buying new equipment, and... etc. And entitlement programs account far more of the budget them military spending.

The U. S probably should cut back on ship and aircraft numbers. The U. S. does not need for instance 10 aircraft carriers, 53 nuclear attack submarines, and 62 destroyers. Most of our allies do not spend enough on their security, so the American taxpayer foots the bill.
 

Mayhem

Banned
The U. S military procurement policy is its main weakness. U. S. Generals and Admirals choose to go for the moon instead of choosing simpler less costly and complex weapons systems. The U. S. Defense Budget doubled because of the wars. Modern warfare is very expense it costs $400 to ship a $100 barrel of gasoline to Afghanistan. Plus, the cost caring for injured troops, replacing damaged or destroyed equipment, buying new equipment, and... etc. And entitlement programs account far more of the budget them military spending.

The U. S probably should cut back on ship and aircraft numbers. The U. S. does not need for instance 10 aircraft carriers, 53 nuclear attack submarines, and 62 destroyers. Most of our allies do not spend enough on their security, so the American taxpayer foots the bill.

Wait a minute. Very recently you went on and on about the threat that China posed and how we were going to be in deep trouble if we had to fight them. Now you seem to be going the other way.
 
Yes, the USM is a contactor's goldmine and a taxpayer's graveyard.

But really, with economic warfare going so well, why would china attack?
Russia just needs to sit back and watch america tear herself apart, so why risk anything in an attack?

I thought things were going so well. Let me put it to you in language you can understand.. if the United States tears itself apart the first one to go in the domino effect will be the UK.

I personally wouldn't care if you were plundering through garbage cans for something to eat but there are people in your country that actually are good and decent people and not pathetic socialist drunkards as you are. Go play in the street or something.
 
There is a difference between having a robust, advanced, and proper military to keep one safe and letting military spending get so out of hand that one country spends about three times as much as the rest of the world combined, especially outside of being in a war or having any credibly large threat to oneself.

All the while that money could go to reduce the deficit, give people a proper education, house the poor, or give the poor decent jobs (more efficiently than mindless military projects and supplying it existence at this level).
 
Wait a minute. Very recently you went on and on about the threat that China posed and how we were going to be in deep trouble if we had to fight them. Now you seem to be going the other way.

I said, it the U. S. fought Russia and China on their territory we would lose; we would not have air superiority or their territory. Both countries would get massacred fighting U. S. Navy and Air Force out side of their territory. China probably needs at least 2 decades before it can change the U. S. military globally.
 

vodkazvictim

Why save the world, when you can rule it?
The U. S military procurement policy is its main weakness. U. S. Generals and Admirals choose to go for the moon instead of choosing simpler less costly and complex weapons systems. The U. S. Defense Budget doubled because of the wars. Modern warfare is very expense it costs $400 to ship a $100 barrel of gasoline to Afghanistan. Plus, the cost caring for injured troops, replacing damaged or destroyed equipment, buying new equipment, and... etc. And entitlement programs account far more of the budget them military spending.

The U. S probably should cut back on ship and aircraft numbers. The U. S. does not need for instance 10 aircraft carriers, 53 nuclear attack submarines, and 62 destroyers. Most of our allies do not spend enough on their security, so the American taxpayer foots the bill.
On the one hand, you do need the fuel. On the other, that budget is a joke.
I said, it the U. S. fought Russia and China on their territory we would lose; we would not have air superiority or their territory. Both countries would get massacred fighting U. S. Navy and Air Force out side of their territory. China probably needs at least 2 decades before it can change the U. S. military globally.
If I were running the usaf I'd build more F5s. Maybe modify them slightly.
 
I'm sure minds are working on this that have information I don't, but it would seem that the US should challenge its military and global strategy and look to strategically cut back. I would think it would strengthen our defenses in the long run is we had a sustainable budget and economy.
 

vodkazvictim

Why save the world, when you can rule it?
I'm sure minds are working on this that have information I don't, but it would seem that the US should challenge its military and global strategy and look to strategically cut back. I would think it would strengthen our defenses in the long run is we had a sustainable budget and economy.
:yesyes:
Do you mean F15?
No, I genuininely do mean F5s.
Part of my reasoning is that as you boys always use AWACS, they will have good radar by default.
I like the F15, but it's expensive. Damned expensive.

You may now rip into me btw.
 

Mayhem

Banned
:yesyes:

No, I genuininely do mean F5s.
Part of my reasoning is that as you boys always use AWACS, they will have good radar by default.
I like the F15, but it's expensive. Damned expensive.

You may now rip into me btw.

I read up on the F5 and you make a very good point actually.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
:yesyes:

No, I genuininely do mean F5s.
Part of my reasoning is that as you boys always use AWACS, they will have good radar by default.
I like the F15, but it's expensive. Damned expensive.

You may now rip into me btw.

I approve this message.

 
There is a difference between having a robust, advanced, and proper military to keep one safe and letting military spending get so out of hand that one country spends about three times as much as the rest of the world combined, especially outside of being in a war or having any credibly large threat to oneself.

All the while that money could go to reduce the deficit, give people a proper education, house the poor, or give the poor decent jobs (more efficiently than mindless military projects and supplying it existence at this level).

Entitlement programs is are causing the U.S. budget deficit much more then defense spending. The real variable to glance at is defense spending as a percentage of GDP. We spending much more then many countries like Japan, Germany, and most of European countries; they should spend more on defense. All of countries I mentioned would have difficult launching independent operations without U. S. help.
 

Mayhem

Banned
Entitlement programs is are causing the U.S. budget deficit much more then defense spending. The real variable to glance at is defense spending as a percentage of GDP. We spending much more then many countries like Japan, Germany, and most of European countries; they should spend more on defense. All of countries I mentioned would have difficult launching independent operations without U. S. help.

Japan and Germany are prohibited by their own post-WWII constitutions and by international treaties from launching independent operations. And all things considered, we want to keep it that way.
 
:yesyes:

No, I genuininely do mean F5s.
Part of my reasoning is that as you boys always use AWACS, they will have good radar by default.
I like the F15, but it's expensive. Damned expensive.

You may now rip into me btw.

J-20, J-31, and PAK-FA would eat F5s alive. They simply have to jam the data links between the AWACS and F5s. The U. S. Air Force loves high tech news stealth aircraft; they even want to get rid of the A10 and replace them with F35s.


Japan and Germany are prohibited by their own post-WWII constitutions and by international treaties from launching independent operations. And all things considered, we want to keep it that way.

Yes, I know that but both have talked about rewriting to post war constitutions. We don't want keep it that way, if the American taxpayer has to pay for their defense.
 

Mayhem

Banned
Both have been talking for the last 20 fuckin' years. And it can stay talk. Neither country can be trusted to to send their militaries out in the world again.
 

vodkazvictim

Why save the world, when you can rule it?
I read up on the F5 and you make a very good point actually.
:surprise:
:wtf:
It may be interesting to upgrade them with an off-boresight targeting system for A9Xs and maybe a newer, more secure datalink, if possible give them bubble canopies and thrust vectoring should be a simple enough addition.
The question is whether it can be done or whether the military industrial complex will bloat the size, cost and weight of the project overly.
I approve this message.

You approve something I said? That's it, nobody will ever respect you ever again, you might as well just leave the forum.
J-20, J-31, and PAK-FA would eat F5s alive. They simply have to jam the data links between the AWACS and F5s. The U. S. Air Force loves high tech news stealth aircraft; they even want to get rid of the A10 and replace them with F35s.




Yes, I know that but both have talked about rewriting to post war constitutions. We don't want keep it that way, if the American taxpayer has to pay for their defense.
I think you're believing what the P.R.C. says.
That's not entirely wise.
Both have been talking for the last 20 fuckin' years. And it can stay talk. Neither country can be trusted to to send their militaries out in the world again.
Which country can?
 
:surprise:
:wtf:
It may be interesting to upgrade them with an off-boresight targeting system for A9Xs and maybe a newer, more secure datalink, if possible give them bubble canopies and thrust vectoring should be a simple enough addition.
The question is whether it can be done or whether the military industrial complex will bloat the size, cost and weight of the project overly.

You approve something I said? That's it, nobody will ever respect you ever again, you might as well just leave the forum.

I think you're believing what the P.R.C. says.
That's not entirely wise.

Which country can?

You are underestimating the abilities of stealth and AESA radar equipped aircraft against F5s even with AWACS assistance.
 

vodkazvictim

Why save the world, when you can rule it?
I approve this message.

Hate to break it to you, but that's a MiG28.
Haven't you ever seen Top Gun?
You are underestimating the abilities of stealth and AESA radar equipped aircraft against F5s even with AWACS assistance.
Maybe, but F5s will be the quickest thing the US can build to even the odds and even if, by some miracle, Chinese jets work half as well as claimed, they don't have combat experience
 
Top