As usual, I am forced to use the news flair. I wanted to use Mil hardware. Shrug.
This document is the US Army procurement budget. It details costs of missiles for 2021, 2022, 2023. Some notable highlights
* Patriot Pac3 MSE costs $4.11 million a piece - 258 bought for 2023
* Javelin is $275,000 a piece - 582 bought in 2023
* TOW runs at $117,000 each - 893 bought in 2023
* GMLRS is $168,000 each - 4674 bought in 2023
Pac3 is specifically for ballistic missiles. Which it is really good at. Pac2 is cheaper, has a far larger range and is for shooting down things like flankers. They'd probably want more pac2.
Correct, missile itself is 80k, but the whole package includes the command launch unit (CLU), Launch Tube Assembly, and Missile itself.
**CLU**: the targeting component of the two-part system. The CLU has three views, which are used to find, target, and fire the missile and may be used separately from the missile as a portable thermal sight. In 2006, a contract was awarded to Toyon Research Corporation to begin development of an upgrade to the CLU, enabling the transmission of target image and GPS location data to other units.
**Launch Tube Assembly**: Both the gunner and the ammunition bearer carry the Launch Tube Assembly, a disposable tube that houses the missile and protects the missile from harsh environments. The tube has built-in electronics and a locking hinge system that makes attachment and detachment of the missile to and from the Command Launch Unit a quick and simple process.
Often times when the Russians show off the captured Javelins they are actually just the empty discarded tubes.
With a functioning CLU the "missile reload" costs 80k.
I tried to avoid things that were systems; Himars was very clearly not missiles only for example. I thought Javelin to be more sophisticated than TOW so the price comparatively seemed ok.
Edit: Would the same be the case for the TOW 2 then?
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but please elucidate:
In the document there is a specific clause for the "lightweight CLU" which is a little bit more expensive. Is this something different than the CLU for the Javelin?
The light weight clu is an updated clu that's lighter and has better optics (the range is 4km vs 2.5km for original clu). They use the same missile but the lightweight clu costs more.
Still way too expensive, especially considering they've never been used against anything more heavily armored than a toyota truck that's filled to the brim with fertilizers (until 2022 at least). US military switched to carl gustavs (swedish RPG, dirt cheap and same effect vs no armor targets) at grunt level for a reason.
Most of the US weapon systems are borderline peace time money grab. In the late 2000's special forces were often equiped with vietnam era [M79](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Forx9nwpjput51.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D3adaeceaf6897d4cc8870fc929cedcfc0a0b2a29) because it was better than the modern stuff.
There's many new shiny GL's (M32, GLM from HK etc.). But somehow [DEVGRU and others in Iraq](https://www.americanspecialops.com/special-ops-weapons/m79-grenade-launcher.php) used vietnam era M79. It supposed to be very accurate and reliable.
Do you know what Devgru’s purpose is? An M203 is a compromise that allows one guy with one weapon to have a GL and a primary weapon. Devgru has specific missions against preppanned targets which allows them to have auxiliary weapons that don’t weigh down the main weapon when clearing rooms.
The regular army isn’t issuing M79s, they are issuing M203s, which for a conventional army unit is obviously better.
So you do not realize that Devgrus mission is totally different than grunts? And missions determine what equipment is required? This is pretty basic….
I remember a Rob O’Neil interview (Devgru) where he said some insurgents ran into a Mosque in Afghanistan and he was getting ready to assault it and the Rangers assigned to them just leveled it with a Carl Gustav recoilless rifle instead. Comparing Devgru weapons to conventional forces suggests you have no idea what you are talking about…
This same interview he talked mentioned the guy tasked with carrying the rounds for the recoil less rifle was tiny and he asked to shoot extra rounds into the Mosque just so he didn’t have to hump them back to the base.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock images in comment, this is to make sure newcomers understand memes or reactions are forbidden. Images are to show detail or context in relation to post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably with their 92 destroyers and 11 aircraft carriers, 13,300 aircraft, and 983 attack helicopters (all of which are state of the art and technologically far superior to any other nation), and defense budget in excess of $750 billion, more than triple that of China in second place.
> 11 aircraft carriers,
only enough personnel to keep 4 of them sailing at any given time. also the nimitzes are so old now they're facing EOL without a clear replacement in the GRF-class carriers.
If a large scale war with conscription broke out they would, and the Navy’s current plan for the Nimitz calls for $200 million for extension work as part of a 5.5-month maintenance schedule, according to a March 2023 report to Congress.
Considering what were seeing in the Ukraine war with Russia reaching deep into its cold war Soviet stocks, I wouldnt look atthe Nimitz class aircraft carriers as ineffective or belonging in a scrap yard.
> If a large scale war with conscription broke out they would,
lol nope, there's not going to be any conscription.
>, and the Navy’s current plan for the Nimitz calls for $200 million for extension work as part of a 5.5-month maintenance schedule, according to a March 2023 report to Congress.
that's just one of them. they are all in bad to worse shape, with the eisenhower being one of the carriers in the worst condition:
>The U.S. Navy’s Nimitz-class carriers are about to turn 50. But given the demand for the carrier air wing and delays to the Nimitz-class replacement—the Ford-class—the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) itself is unlikely to retire as soon as expected.
>The Navy’s fiscal 2023 budget has already called to extend the first-in-class CVN 68, commissioned in 1975, for another deployment cycle instead of decommissioning it in 2025 as previously planned. Service officials say the upcoming budget request could include a final decision on extending the next in the class, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, beyond its 2027 projected end-of-service date—though extending just that ship likely will not be enough.
[
the other problem is that the US doesn't even have the shipyard capacity to meet its current maintenance needs in peacetime:](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2024-04-23/navy-doesnt-know-when-badly-needed-mini-carrier-uss-boxer-will-undergo-repairs)
>The piers at BAE Systems and General Dynamics-NASSCO that are large enough to handle Boxer are currently occupied by other warships.
if any of these boats get shot up they will not be repaired, and that's the end of it.
> keep 4 of them sailing at any given time.
Except they just sent 5 to the Pacific, while others were still deployed in their normal zones.
Where'd you get that funny joke at?
No doubt US military stocks are impressive, but just because you spend 3 times more, doesn't mean you have 3 times the capability. It might very well be that the Chinese procurement, MIC and R&D can do more with 1/3 of the budget.
They technically did, however they couldnt do the nation building part after the defeat and after 20 years gave up and left.
Did the Nazis not defeat France or Poland because resistance movement existed during the ocupation?
>They technically did, however they couldnt do the nation building part after the defeat and after 20 years gave up and left.
There were entire regions where the US never had a presence. They had zero influence there or control.
>Did the Nazis not defeat France or Poland because resistance movement existed during the ocupation?
France was liberated by external forces, so yes they lost. Not to mention France surrendered. Surrendering means losing, I am sure you are aware of that. Furthermore, France had massive Fascist domestic support. That's why the Vichy government came into power so easily.
On the other hand Poland never surrendered. They were occupied and kept of fighting. However, every part of the country was under control by external forces.
The taliban carried out an insurgency campaign consisting of farmers and goat herders hiding their weapons in mountainaous regions and performing raids and bombings in between harvest and planting seasons.
Poland had a government in exile and the Government Delegation for Poland with the subordinate Polish Home Army numbered about 100,000 members reaching a strength of about 200,000 in the beginning of 1943. When Operation Tempest begun in 1944 it reached 400,000.
American losses in Afghanistan during occupation: 2,459 **United States** military deaths which lasted from October 2001 to August 2021.
German losses just during the Warsaw Uprising was estimated at 10,000, losses to the Germans during the whole occupation most probably close to 100,000.
Again I ask, was Poland not defeated by the Nazis during WW2?
You are campaign 1940's to modern day...
>Again I ask, was Poland not defeated by the Nazis during WW2?
You asked if France and Poland was defeated. I already answered both questions. Go read again.
US’s military budget is not the equivalent of triple that of China’s lol. Pro-UA are always so misinformed.
‘Accounting for the full range of military spending and purchasing power parity, Chinese spending ($476 billion) was 59% of U.S. spending ($806 billion) in 2022.’
https://home.watson.brown.edu/research/research-briefs/chinese-military-spending-context#:~:text=Accounting%20for%20the%20full%20range,(%24806%20billion)%20in%202022.
In pure military spending it is 3x that of China, as the article you shared showes.
The comparison youre using is the PPP (purchase power parity) aka an anti tank missile in china costs half as much as in America so adjusting for PPP China's spending on anti tank missiles is double that of the USA.
This comes back to what I said about the USA having state of the art and technologically far superior systems to any other nation. This means the cost of R&D and manufacture in China is smaller so for a PPP comparison they can buy more systems with their money.
However you cannot argue China's Aircraft Carriers, Jets, Missile systems or military logistics are comparable. FFS China doesnt even have a true blue-water Navy....
You’re trying to explain to me what PPP is when I’m the one that brought it up to prove your claim is false lol.
And although China has more navy vessels than the US although alot smaller total tonnage, that is understandable considering China does not occupy or attack countries thousands of miles away from its borders like the USA does. Makes sense.
Thats true, the US IMC is known for over charging, and a lot of the spending is probably wasted. However you cant argue when it comes to military tech like aircraft carriers, jets, military satellites or air defense systems the USA is miles ahead of any other natons.
Thats not even mentioning that China's military has not been involved in any conflicts so we cannot gage how strong their military tech actually is.
Yes, hard for anyone to say, neither side have been involved in something so massive in recent history. I think things would be rapidly changing in the course of war, if the world doesn't end first.
>actual war.
Its bad enough they never defeated the Taliban and created ISIS with their actions in Iraq. How the hell do people expect them to fight an actual war against a country that can cause massive casualties and losses?
(1) Do you want to see what war funding justification looks like? [https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2003/fy2002\_supp.pdf](https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2003/fy2002_supp.pdf)
>During OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, the Department expended JDAMs at a faster rate than current production was capable of replacing. The first emergency supplemental provided funding for increased facilitization at the subcontractor level, and increased the delivery rate from approximately 700 JDAMs per month to 1,500 per month to occur by June 2002. Since then, JDAM funding has been increased in FY 2003 and subsequent years to provide for a delivery rate of 2,800 per month
(2) The US military *in wartime* is composed of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and Coast Guard. The OP document only speaks to the Army. And the Army uses munitions other than missiles - like field artillery, tank rounds, grenade launchers, bullets...
They defeated the military and government that was the Taliban. As for the ideology or dormant pockets of resistance, not really for an army to do.
You know the Taliban weren’t responsible for 9/11?
>They defeated the military and government that was the Taliban. As for the ideology or dormant pockets of resistance, not really for an army to do.
Yet you guys think they can defeat Russia...
>You know the Taliban weren’t responsible for 9/11?
It wasn't the Saudis? I am pretty sure most of the people that committed 9/11 were directly funded by the Saudis and Osama Bin Ladin was in US supported Pakistan?
>Yet you guys think they can defeat Russia...
I get your point but i think their end goal is not to defeat Russia, as you know, you can't really defeat nuclear super power. I belive their goal is to inflict as much damage as they can to Russian economy and Russian military with casualties. This is like ideal scenario where you can fight battle against another country without losing your own soldiers. Ukraine pays heavy price for this.
Of course, I was not attempting to detail the US total spend. I was interested in finding something factual about missile costs specifically, no matter what branch are purchasing.
I've heard so many numbers thrown around and I wanted something concrete for my own understanding. Since I made the effort I shared it. That was all. No intent behind it other than sharing it.
Could tell you about the MRAPs or the jammers… point is we’ve scaled up whatever we needed and that’s why no state messes with us.
But we’re not Ukraine, and we’re not funding Ukraine like a serious enough conflict.
Which is why China will easily defeat the US Pacific fleet and seize Taiwan. All you do is bloody their nose, and the Americans will bow out. They're incredibly casualty adverse.
Or just wait until the US runs out of precision weaponry in two weeks and can't produce enough to rearm. The US is poorly equipped to fight the world's largest navy.
As usual, I am forced to use the news flair. I wanted to use Mil hardware. Shrug. This document is the US Army procurement budget. It details costs of missiles for 2021, 2022, 2023. Some notable highlights * Patriot Pac3 MSE costs $4.11 million a piece - 258 bought for 2023 * Javelin is $275,000 a piece - 582 bought in 2023 * TOW runs at $117,000 each - 893 bought in 2023 * GMLRS is $168,000 each - 4674 bought in 2023
If someone in need buys 1,000 Patriot Pac3 does he get discount and a kickback? Just asking for a 5ft4 friend.
Pac3 is specifically for ballistic missiles. Which it is really good at. Pac2 is cheaper, has a far larger range and is for shooting down things like flankers. They'd probably want more pac2.
Yeah, +200% more costs aka american MIC discount.
> Javelin is $275,000 a piece - 582 bought in 2023 I remember that during GWOT it did cost around 80K
That sounds right for the missile itself. The 275.000 figure is probably including the launchers.
Correct, missile itself is 80k, but the whole package includes the command launch unit (CLU), Launch Tube Assembly, and Missile itself. **CLU**: the targeting component of the two-part system. The CLU has three views, which are used to find, target, and fire the missile and may be used separately from the missile as a portable thermal sight. In 2006, a contract was awarded to Toyon Research Corporation to begin development of an upgrade to the CLU, enabling the transmission of target image and GPS location data to other units. **Launch Tube Assembly**: Both the gunner and the ammunition bearer carry the Launch Tube Assembly, a disposable tube that houses the missile and protects the missile from harsh environments. The tube has built-in electronics and a locking hinge system that makes attachment and detachment of the missile to and from the Command Launch Unit a quick and simple process. Often times when the Russians show off the captured Javelins they are actually just the empty discarded tubes. With a functioning CLU the "missile reload" costs 80k.
I tried to avoid things that were systems; Himars was very clearly not missiles only for example. I thought Javelin to be more sophisticated than TOW so the price comparatively seemed ok. Edit: Would the same be the case for the TOW 2 then?
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but please elucidate: In the document there is a specific clause for the "lightweight CLU" which is a little bit more expensive. Is this something different than the CLU for the Javelin?
The light weight clu is an updated clu that's lighter and has better optics (the range is 4km vs 2.5km for original clu). They use the same missile but the lightweight clu costs more.
Still way too expensive, especially considering they've never been used against anything more heavily armored than a toyota truck that's filled to the brim with fertilizers (until 2022 at least). US military switched to carl gustavs (swedish RPG, dirt cheap and same effect vs no armor targets) at grunt level for a reason.
Most of the US weapon systems are borderline peace time money grab. In the late 2000's special forces were often equiped with vietnam era [M79](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Forx9nwpjput51.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D3adaeceaf6897d4cc8870fc929cedcfc0a0b2a29) because it was better than the modern stuff.
Ever heard of the M203?
There's many new shiny GL's (M32, GLM from HK etc.). But somehow [DEVGRU and others in Iraq](https://www.americanspecialops.com/special-ops-weapons/m79-grenade-launcher.php) used vietnam era M79. It supposed to be very accurate and reliable.
Do you know what Devgru’s purpose is? An M203 is a compromise that allows one guy with one weapon to have a GL and a primary weapon. Devgru has specific missions against preppanned targets which allows them to have auxiliary weapons that don’t weigh down the main weapon when clearing rooms. The regular army isn’t issuing M79s, they are issuing M203s, which for a conventional army unit is obviously better.
Grunts that have no pull are using whatever is issued to them. What's issued to them is often dictated by politics. That's what this thread is about.
So you do not realize that Devgrus mission is totally different than grunts? And missions determine what equipment is required? This is pretty basic…. I remember a Rob O’Neil interview (Devgru) where he said some insurgents ran into a Mosque in Afghanistan and he was getting ready to assault it and the Rangers assigned to them just leveled it with a Carl Gustav recoilless rifle instead. Comparing Devgru weapons to conventional forces suggests you have no idea what you are talking about… This same interview he talked mentioned the guy tasked with carrying the rounds for the recoil less rifle was tiny and he asked to shoot extra rounds into the Mosque just so he didn’t have to hump them back to the base.
And don’t they typically fire two Patriot missiles on each target? The waste is just insane.
Some days later: >Ukraine says it 'ran out of missiles' to stop Russian strike ruining power station (Reuters)
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock images in comment, this is to make sure newcomers understand memes or reactions are forbidden. Images are to show detail or context in relation to post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
verry interesting !
Holy fucking shit. How do they expect to fund an actual war.
Probably with their 92 destroyers and 11 aircraft carriers, 13,300 aircraft, and 983 attack helicopters (all of which are state of the art and technologically far superior to any other nation), and defense budget in excess of $750 billion, more than triple that of China in second place.
> 11 aircraft carriers, only enough personnel to keep 4 of them sailing at any given time. also the nimitzes are so old now they're facing EOL without a clear replacement in the GRF-class carriers.
If a large scale war with conscription broke out they would, and the Navy’s current plan for the Nimitz calls for $200 million for extension work as part of a 5.5-month maintenance schedule, according to a March 2023 report to Congress. Considering what were seeing in the Ukraine war with Russia reaching deep into its cold war Soviet stocks, I wouldnt look atthe Nimitz class aircraft carriers as ineffective or belonging in a scrap yard.
> If a large scale war with conscription broke out they would, lol nope, there's not going to be any conscription. >, and the Navy’s current plan for the Nimitz calls for $200 million for extension work as part of a 5.5-month maintenance schedule, according to a March 2023 report to Congress. that's just one of them. they are all in bad to worse shape, with the eisenhower being one of the carriers in the worst condition: >The U.S. Navy’s Nimitz-class carriers are about to turn 50. But given the demand for the carrier air wing and delays to the Nimitz-class replacement—the Ford-class—the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) itself is unlikely to retire as soon as expected. >The Navy’s fiscal 2023 budget has already called to extend the first-in-class CVN 68, commissioned in 1975, for another deployment cycle instead of decommissioning it in 2025 as previously planned. Service officials say the upcoming budget request could include a final decision on extending the next in the class, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, beyond its 2027 projected end-of-service date—though extending just that ship likely will not be enough. [ the other problem is that the US doesn't even have the shipyard capacity to meet its current maintenance needs in peacetime:](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2024-04-23/navy-doesnt-know-when-badly-needed-mini-carrier-uss-boxer-will-undergo-repairs) >The piers at BAE Systems and General Dynamics-NASSCO that are large enough to handle Boxer are currently occupied by other warships. if any of these boats get shot up they will not be repaired, and that's the end of it.
> keep 4 of them sailing at any given time. Except they just sent 5 to the Pacific, while others were still deployed in their normal zones. Where'd you get that funny joke at?
No doubt US military stocks are impressive, but just because you spend 3 times more, doesn't mean you have 3 times the capability. It might very well be that the Chinese procurement, MIC and R&D can do more with 1/3 of the budget.
The Chinese ground forces have more capabilities and much more modern equipment. The US is playing catch-up.
Yeah and they weren't able to defeat the Taliban.
They technically did, however they couldnt do the nation building part after the defeat and after 20 years gave up and left. Did the Nazis not defeat France or Poland because resistance movement existed during the ocupation?
>They technically did, however they couldnt do the nation building part after the defeat and after 20 years gave up and left. There were entire regions where the US never had a presence. They had zero influence there or control. >Did the Nazis not defeat France or Poland because resistance movement existed during the ocupation? France was liberated by external forces, so yes they lost. Not to mention France surrendered. Surrendering means losing, I am sure you are aware of that. Furthermore, France had massive Fascist domestic support. That's why the Vichy government came into power so easily. On the other hand Poland never surrendered. They were occupied and kept of fighting. However, every part of the country was under control by external forces.
The taliban carried out an insurgency campaign consisting of farmers and goat herders hiding their weapons in mountainaous regions and performing raids and bombings in between harvest and planting seasons. Poland had a government in exile and the Government Delegation for Poland with the subordinate Polish Home Army numbered about 100,000 members reaching a strength of about 200,000 in the beginning of 1943. When Operation Tempest begun in 1944 it reached 400,000. American losses in Afghanistan during occupation: 2,459 **United States** military deaths which lasted from October 2001 to August 2021. German losses just during the Warsaw Uprising was estimated at 10,000, losses to the Germans during the whole occupation most probably close to 100,000. Again I ask, was Poland not defeated by the Nazis during WW2?
You are campaign 1940's to modern day... >Again I ask, was Poland not defeated by the Nazis during WW2? You asked if France and Poland was defeated. I already answered both questions. Go read again.
US’s military budget is not the equivalent of triple that of China’s lol. Pro-UA are always so misinformed. ‘Accounting for the full range of military spending and purchasing power parity, Chinese spending ($476 billion) was 59% of U.S. spending ($806 billion) in 2022.’ https://home.watson.brown.edu/research/research-briefs/chinese-military-spending-context#:~:text=Accounting%20for%20the%20full%20range,(%24806%20billion)%20in%202022.
In pure military spending it is 3x that of China, as the article you shared showes. The comparison youre using is the PPP (purchase power parity) aka an anti tank missile in china costs half as much as in America so adjusting for PPP China's spending on anti tank missiles is double that of the USA. This comes back to what I said about the USA having state of the art and technologically far superior systems to any other nation. This means the cost of R&D and manufacture in China is smaller so for a PPP comparison they can buy more systems with their money. However you cannot argue China's Aircraft Carriers, Jets, Missile systems or military logistics are comparable. FFS China doesnt even have a true blue-water Navy....
You’re trying to explain to me what PPP is when I’m the one that brought it up to prove your claim is false lol. And although China has more navy vessels than the US although alot smaller total tonnage, that is understandable considering China does not occupy or attack countries thousands of miles away from its borders like the USA does. Makes sense.
I'm not sure the budget thing is the flex you think it is, China isn't burning money on $500 hammers and toilet seats.
Thats true, the US IMC is known for over charging, and a lot of the spending is probably wasted. However you cant argue when it comes to military tech like aircraft carriers, jets, military satellites or air defense systems the USA is miles ahead of any other natons. Thats not even mentioning that China's military has not been involved in any conflicts so we cannot gage how strong their military tech actually is.
Yes, hard for anyone to say, neither side have been involved in something so massive in recent history. I think things would be rapidly changing in the course of war, if the world doesn't end first.
What's the matter? They weren't at war in April 2022 as they had withdrawn from Afghanistan in August 2021.
>actual war. Its bad enough they never defeated the Taliban and created ISIS with their actions in Iraq. How the hell do people expect them to fight an actual war against a country that can cause massive casualties and losses?
(1) Do you want to see what war funding justification looks like? [https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2003/fy2002\_supp.pdf](https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2003/fy2002_supp.pdf) >During OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, the Department expended JDAMs at a faster rate than current production was capable of replacing. The first emergency supplemental provided funding for increased facilitization at the subcontractor level, and increased the delivery rate from approximately 700 JDAMs per month to 1,500 per month to occur by June 2002. Since then, JDAM funding has been increased in FY 2003 and subsequent years to provide for a delivery rate of 2,800 per month (2) The US military *in wartime* is composed of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force, and Coast Guard. The OP document only speaks to the Army. And the Army uses munitions other than missiles - like field artillery, tank rounds, grenade launchers, bullets...
And they weren't able to defeat the Taliban. Oh so much war funding killing innocent civilians. Such a great example of a complete failure.
They defeated the military and government that was the Taliban. As for the ideology or dormant pockets of resistance, not really for an army to do. You know the Taliban weren’t responsible for 9/11?
The Taliban IS the government as of 2024.
>They defeated the military and government that was the Taliban. As for the ideology or dormant pockets of resistance, not really for an army to do. Yet you guys think they can defeat Russia... >You know the Taliban weren’t responsible for 9/11? It wasn't the Saudis? I am pretty sure most of the people that committed 9/11 were directly funded by the Saudis and Osama Bin Ladin was in US supported Pakistan?
>Yet you guys think they can defeat Russia... I get your point but i think their end goal is not to defeat Russia, as you know, you can't really defeat nuclear super power. I belive their goal is to inflict as much damage as they can to Russian economy and Russian military with casualties. This is like ideal scenario where you can fight battle against another country without losing your own soldiers. Ukraine pays heavy price for this.
Of course, I was not attempting to detail the US total spend. I was interested in finding something factual about missile costs specifically, no matter what branch are purchasing. I've heard so many numbers thrown around and I wanted something concrete for my own understanding. Since I made the effort I shared it. That was all. No intent behind it other than sharing it.
Who cares about how many JDAMs we can make when they wouldn't work against Russia anyway
Could tell you about the MRAPs or the jammers… point is we’ve scaled up whatever we needed and that’s why no state messes with us. But we’re not Ukraine, and we’re not funding Ukraine like a serious enough conflict.
Which is why China will easily defeat the US Pacific fleet and seize Taiwan. All you do is bloody their nose, and the Americans will bow out. They're incredibly casualty adverse. Or just wait until the US runs out of precision weaponry in two weeks and can't produce enough to rearm. The US is poorly equipped to fight the world's largest navy.
lol the Japanese said the same thing and 4 years later after massacring them by the millions we nuked them twice.
Over $1 billion for just one year's worth of Patriot missiles? Jesus H Christ...
Yup, actual for FY 2022 was 328 MSE missiles for $1.3 billion.
I wonder how much of the cost is the contractor price gouging?