StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Does anyone know how they figure out the cost of the war in Iraq. That M-113 that hit a mine a day or two ago is toast. How do they factor in the cost? Its almost certainly long paid for. So how do they put a dollar amount on it?

For the cost of men and material, I can understand not using the cost of payroll for active duty, cause they were going to get paid. But danger pay and the cost of the National Guard and Reservists is probably factored in.

Any thoughts?

I think they said it'll come out to something like 40 billion dollars?

You know, War could be a great stimulator for the economy (look at WWII).. but I don't see that many war industries profiting except for maybe those Think-tanks.

Trytostaydead wrote:I think they said it'll come out to something like 40 billion dollars?

You know, War could be a great stimulator for the economy (look at WWII).. but I don't see that many war industries profiting except for maybe those Think-tanks.

Actually arms manufactures have been getting tens of billions in extra business since September 11th. Modern wars a short enough that they must be fought with what's in the arsenals when they start, but everything that's expended still has to be replaced later.

It's costing $1 billion a day, apparently. Don't ask me how they come to that figure, but I'm sure it's not inaccurate.

bleh. I hate numbers likethat.

Vympel wrote:It's costing $1 billion a day, apparently. Don't ask me how they come to that figure, but I'm sure it's not inaccurate.

The official number is a billion a week. The real question is, how much of that would we be paying anyway? Food, troop pay, a good chunk of the fuel and some of the ammo would have to be paid for anyway.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Vympel wrote:It's costing $1 billion a day, apparently. Don't ask me how they come to that figure, but I'm sure it's not inaccurate.

The official number is a billion a week. The real question is, how much of that would we be paying anyway? Food, troop pay, a good chunk of the fuel and some of the ammo would have to be paid for anyway.

I wonder what the biggest source of extra spending is. I dont think its payroll, since we would pay that anyway, but perhaps the extra pay for combat zones is adding up. I would image fuel costs are enormous since the tempo of operations are much higher than normal.


I just wonder if the factor in material losses, extra wear and tear on the ships, planes and vehicles. Not to mention those are destroyed in action. Whats a Hum-vee cost anyway. Around 80K ?

If i remember my tables right everyone in theater gets an extra $75. Feul consuption will extreamly high compared to normal opps. Amunition is expensive so are MREs. You also have to take into account the iraqi reconstruction and the materials the military is devoting to that plus every KIA costs the Gov $250,000. 42% of the navy is deployed with 2 cvbgs in theater. Aircraft are flying more often also burning large amounts of fuel.
Just a few of the costs I can think of off hand.

Hasler wrote:If i remember my tables right everyone in theater gets an extra $75. Feul consuption will extreamly high compared to normal opps. Amunition is expensive so are MREs. You also have to take into account the iraqi reconstruction and the materials the military is devoting to that plus every KIA costs the Gov $250,000. 42% of the navy is deployed with 2 cvbgs in theater. Aircraft are flying more often also burning large amounts of fuel.
Just a few of the costs I can think of off hand.

There is also an economic cost of all the Reservists/Guardsmen no longer getting the pay at their civilian jobs. For some of them, the younger ones, it doesnt matter. But for the older Reservists with families and homes, it could be crippling.

I suppose all those troops who are away from their home bases are not putting money in to the local economies either.

Just goes to show why war is so expensive.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:Does anyone know how they figure out the cost of the war in Iraq. That M-113 that hit a mine a day or two ago is toast. How do they factor in the cost? Its almost certainly long paid for. So how do they put a dollar amount on it?

That M113 might have paid for itself and hence was of little expense to the US military with its continued experience. However, that vehicle must be replaced. That is where the new expenses come in.

Alyeska wrote: That M113 might have paid for itself and hence was of little expense to the US military with its continued experience. However, that vehicle must be replaced. That is where the new expenses come in.

Replace it with what? I doubt the US is building new M113s. They could just draw another one out of the inventory- there's plenty. Maybe the delivery costs of bringing that vehicle over- if they bother to at all. What units are using M113s anyway? That M113 should never have been driving on the road in the first-place- it can go anywhere it wants.

In the end if Bush had spent this much on education than a pointless war of politics, he would probably have the election in the bag. But no he'll use another quarter billion dollars. Maybe when he said, leave no child behind, he meant that eventually all the nations children will be stationed in the middle east at some point.

Vympel wrote: Replace it with what? I doubt the US is building new M113s. They could just draw another one out of the inventory- there's plenty. Maybe the delivery costs of bringing that vehicle over- if they bother to at all. What units are using M113s anyway? That M113 should never have been driving on the road in the first-place- it can go anywhere it wants.

The M113 factory is a few miles from where I am right now. The FMC factory stopped making them a number of years ago. I believe they are still churning out the occasional Bradely but I could be wrong. Id have to swing by. I think the factory is mostly shutdown now.

Anyway, the M113 is still a pretty usefull vehicle. It can carry more men than a Bradley and has more interior space. I think its now like the UH-1 Huey. Sure the Blackhawk is superior but the UH-1 still has a role.

Driving on the road is often safer cause its been sweeped. Its easy for someone to place a mine in a ditch or culvert to the side of the road.

TrailerParkJawa wrote: Driving on the road is often safer cause its been sweeped. Its easy for someone to place a mine in a ditch or culvert to the side of the road.

I'm a big M113 fan. Superb APC. Only thing I like better is the MT-LB.

On the road issue, it's clear that they don't have the capability to ensure that the roads have been swept- the widespread command detonated mine use against convoys on roads is proof of that. If they go off road, they'll have a better chance of survival.

Hell, they have so many M113s in inventory that they could use they for transporting stuff

Vympel wrote:

Alyeska wrote: That M113 might have paid for itself and hence was of little expense to the US military with its continued experience. However, that vehicle must be replaced. That is where the new expenses come in.

Replace it with what? I doubt the US is building new M113s. They could just draw another one out of the inventory- there's plenty. Maybe the delivery costs of bringing that vehicle over- if they bother to at all. What units are using M113s anyway? That M113 should never have been driving on the road in the first-place- it can go anywhere it wants.

I hadn't realized the Military had built so many M113s that they could handle the attrition of a MRC and still not faze the supplies of unused ones.

In the end if Bush had spent this much on education than a pointless war of politics, he would probably have the election in the bag. But no he'll use another quarter billion dollars. Maybe when he said, leave no child behind, he meant that eventually all the nations children will be stationed in the middle east at some point.

'No Child Behind' is a program designed, I believe, to help dyslexic children, and the government has indeed been pouring money into it.

Vympel wrote: Replace it with what? I doubt the US is building new M113s. They could just draw another one out of the inventory- there's plenty. Maybe the delivery costs of bringing that vehicle over- if they bother to at all. What units are using M113s anyway? That M113 should never have been driving on the road in the first-place- it can go anywhere it wants.

While the active US Army doesn't use M113's as infantry carriers, there still used heavily as mortar carriers, armored ambulances, Fire Support Team Vehicles and command posts in the M577 guise. You'll find them in all armored and mech units.

In the mid 1990's the US Army still had over 30,000 M113's on hand and I doubt that numbers dropped significantly, though for a time the US was offering M60 tanks and M113's to anyone we had decent relations with for the price of delivery and there where several takers.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:[
Anyway, the M113 is still a pretty usefull vehicle. It can carry more men than a Bradley and has more interior space. I think its now like the UH-1 Huey. Sure the Blackhawk is superior but the UH-1 still has a role.

Well actually the US Army retired all its UH-1's not that long ago.

The M113 however has at least another decade. Once the Army starts introducing to Future Combat System, a great many M2's will be surpluse of requirements and may be converted to other roles. There already is a FIST-V variant of the M2 and an armored ambulance, both in limited service and a couple other specialist types, but the end of the cold war cut short plans to fully equip the army with them.

Trytostaydead wrote:I think they said it'll come out to something like 40 billion dollars?

You know, War could be a great stimulator for the economy (look at WWII).. but I don't see that many war industries profiting except for maybe those Think-tanks.

And the guys that make those little American flags.

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Well actually the US Army retired all its UH-1's not that long ago.

The M113 however has at least another decade. Once the Army starts introducing to Future Combat System, a great many M2's will be surpluse of requirements and may be converted to other roles. There already is a FIST-V variant of the M2 and an armored ambulance, both in limited service and a couple other specialist types, but the end of the cold war cut short plans to fully equip the army with them.

The Marines still use the UH-1. I was thinking about them when I made the comment. I should have clarified, since they don't have any Blackhawks that I am aware of.

I didnt know there was an ambulance M2. Interesting.

TrailerParkJawa wrote: I didnt know there was an ambulance M2. Interesting.

Wouldn't the 25mm Bushmaster and the TOW missiles kinda defeat
the purpose of the Red Cross on the sides?

Oh wait

M2A0 Armored Medical Evacuation Vehicle AMEV

The AMEV is intended to replace the M113A2/A3 Armored Ambulance as the medical evacuation platform in the Army’s heavy force. The AMEV uses excess M2A0 Bradley Fighting Vehicles (BFVs) which have the turret removed and the roof squared off and raised 13 inches. As a BFV variant, the AMEV overcomes the shortfalls of the M113 identified during Operation Desert Shield/Storm and has the mobility, survivability, and maintainability equivalent to the supported force.

........

The AMEV provides close combat medical treatment in support of Army operations. It enhances rapid collection and treatment of casualties and allows the medics to keep pace with supported forces.

...

The AMEV is based on a Bradley M2A0 chassis and hull design. The turret has been removed and the chassis ceiling behind the driver and the engine compartment has been raised 13 inches and squared off to provide additional head clearance and room for patients on litters in the rear of the vehicle. The power train and chassis are based on the standard Bradley design. The engine is standard 600 hp Bradley A2 engine. The AMEV has a three-man crew. The driver sits in the Bradley driver’s position just to the left of the engine. The Track Commander’s (TC) seat is just aft of the engine compartment along the centerline of the vehicle. A hatch has been provided that allows the TC to maintain situational awareness by riding with head out of the vehicle. This hatch also allows the TC to assist the driver in navigating and avoiding obstacles. The hatch also provides an egress path and access to the top of the vehicle. An M113 commander’s cupola has been provided at the hatch opening, which provides a self- defense weapon mount if desired. The medic sits just aft of the TC in a rear-facing seat. This location provides him with good access to the litters to monitor the patients’ condition during transport

The standard M2A0 fixed fire suppression system has been removed from the crew compartment. A 2½ lb. handheld CO2 fire extinguisher has been mounted to the rear and right side of the driver. Two external fuel tanks with in-tank pumps are mounted at the rear of the vehicle to replace the fuel capacity lost by the removal of the Bradley fuel tanks. The external tanks act as independent supplies of diesel fuel to the engine. An Environmental Control Unit (ECU) and a Bradley A3 Gas Particulate Filter Unit (GPFU) modified to accommodate 11 personnel, are being added to the vehicle to provide a clean environment for medical treatment, even when operating the vehicle in a Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) environment. A 400-amp generator is added to the vehicle in addition to the standard 400-amp generator. The medical and mission equipment is to be added to the vehicle by the user and/or combat developer.

In the Army, the AMEV will operate in the forward area with armored and mechanized battalions, armored cavalry squadrons, and supporting divisional units.

MKSheppard wrote:Oh wait

Yes, you see there's not much in the way of space for stretcher cases in the back of a stock M2. I'm not sure even a single one could fit. Heres a picture for those interested, same place Sheppard got the text from.

Speaking of accounting, I wonder how big a profit Enron's expertise could give the military for the invasion of Iraq?

Alyeska wrote:
I hadn't realized the Military had built so many M113s that they could handle the attrition of a MRC and still not faze the supplies of unused ones.

They're not building new ones. Trust me- production is well and truly ceased, that's all I'm saying. They have thousands of the things.