Russia mines/extracts/produces most of their raw material internally while the US has supply chains from all over. Russian defense companies are a mix of public and private that operate for the benefit of Russia while American defense companies are all private and are operated for the benefit of shareholders. The US defense department seems to choose weapons that are overly complicated thus breaking down often. Russia and the Soviet Union before it develop weapons that are durable and able to be repaired in the field. These conditions alone inflate the cost of US weapons versus Russian weapons.
Additional thought: Russia has approx. 21 foreign military bases around the globe. US has 700+ foreign military bases around the globe. That alone is a huge cost difference plus location of said bases is more expensive in specific countries versus others. How much are we paying Guam? Paying the Philippines? others?
1. The more you make, the more the production cost per unit goes down.
2. The US Military buys in a batch for some products, and then ends production waiting till a new version is developed. The Russians keep the production line going.
3. The effectiveness of Russian military equipment seems superior to Western Equipment, especially in the area of uptime and ease of maintenance. An example is the M1 tank the filters for the engine need to be cleaned daily. In Missile defense and Electronic Warfare the Russians are at least a generation ahead of the West.
4. For the 155 shell, the Russia is using 6X (I may remember wrong, it may be more) the amount of the Ukrainians. And the Ukrainians are being supported by the entire West, including South Korea.
5. In some areas of military equipment, the West has nothing compatible. Hypersonic missiles.
6.Europe is de-industrializing, it's not a matter of a possibility.
All of the US and western allies military spending is based on assumptions made at that time with respect to what military requirements to wage war or wage peace will be needed in the future. Assumptions that drive thinking centered in a narrow box lack flexibility or agility to adapt and conform to the means and mechanisms of others; thereby leaving us vulnerability AND the economic impact pretty significant. Can you imagine Lockheed having to shut down assembly lines for weapons no longer needed by US or our 3rd party partners? Who will have the guts to make these decisions? Who will have the guts to say "Hey, this isn't good enough anymore... think outside your narrow box".
Another thing to consider when comparing the spending is the high cost of military pensions for retirees and medical spending. Additionally, the US maintains many more overseas bases than the Russians, and these bases are mostly a liability that provokes attacks rather than deters them.
GDP is a funny thing. You can have country A, which does nothing but manufacture cars and country B, which has nothing but car dealerships to sell those cars, and country B will have a higher GDP than country A. Is only a useful tool when comparing apples to apples, which basically means almost never
Russia mines/extracts/produces most of their raw material internally while the US has supply chains from all over. Russian defense companies are a mix of public and private that operate for the benefit of Russia while American defense companies are all private and are operated for the benefit of shareholders. The US defense department seems to choose weapons that are overly complicated thus breaking down often. Russia and the Soviet Union before it develop weapons that are durable and able to be repaired in the field. These conditions alone inflate the cost of US weapons versus Russian weapons.
Additional thought: Russia has approx. 21 foreign military bases around the globe. US has 700+ foreign military bases around the globe. That alone is a huge cost difference plus location of said bases is more expensive in specific countries versus others. How much are we paying Guam? Paying the Philippines? others?
Some guesses / swags:
1. The more you make, the more the production cost per unit goes down.
2. The US Military buys in a batch for some products, and then ends production waiting till a new version is developed. The Russians keep the production line going.
3. The effectiveness of Russian military equipment seems superior to Western Equipment, especially in the area of uptime and ease of maintenance. An example is the M1 tank the filters for the engine need to be cleaned daily. In Missile defense and Electronic Warfare the Russians are at least a generation ahead of the West.
4. For the 155 shell, the Russia is using 6X (I may remember wrong, it may be more) the amount of the Ukrainians. And the Ukrainians are being supported by the entire West, including South Korea.
5. In some areas of military equipment, the West has nothing compatible. Hypersonic missiles.
6.Europe is de-industrializing, it's not a matter of a possibility.
All of the US and western allies military spending is based on assumptions made at that time with respect to what military requirements to wage war or wage peace will be needed in the future. Assumptions that drive thinking centered in a narrow box lack flexibility or agility to adapt and conform to the means and mechanisms of others; thereby leaving us vulnerability AND the economic impact pretty significant. Can you imagine Lockheed having to shut down assembly lines for weapons no longer needed by US or our 3rd party partners? Who will have the guts to make these decisions? Who will have the guts to say "Hey, this isn't good enough anymore... think outside your narrow box".
Another thing to consider when comparing the spending is the high cost of military pensions for retirees and medical spending. Additionally, the US maintains many more overseas bases than the Russians, and these bases are mostly a liability that provokes attacks rather than deters them.
GDP is a funny thing. You can have country A, which does nothing but manufacture cars and country B, which has nothing but car dealerships to sell those cars, and country B will have a higher GDP than country A. Is only a useful tool when comparing apples to apples, which basically means almost never