They can get and keep similarly talented people for much less money, so they can have more of them, so they get more for their $. So even if their annual military budget is 1/3 or 1/4 of ours, it buys them as much or nearly as much. Which makes them more dangerous than a simple $ comparison would lead on to think.
As for the US procurement mess - there have been many studies on this - we waste between 1/2 to 2/3 of our procurement funds on non-productive paper pushing. Between having way too many office jockeys, regulations, delays, and etc.
I dont know whether the Chinese and Russians are as inefficient as we are, but they could hardly be worse.
“They can get and keep similarly talented people for much less money, so they can have more of them, so they get more for their $.”
Cost of living is way down for them, so, they are able to pay less comparatively and, yes, they get what they pay for—non-thinking drones. Want a million illiterate coolies for your army, have at it. Fodder for modern weapons, technology and tactics.
“So even if their annual military budget is 1/3 or 1/4 of ours, it buys them as much or nearly as much.”
I’d say not in leadership and initiative and independent thinking company and field grade officers, and things, hardware, cost so much less over there (closed economic system) that can buy whatever they want at whatever price they care to pay. We don’t have that option.
“Which makes them more dangerous than a simple $ comparison would lead on to think.”
Dangerous? More numerous, for sure, but more dangerous/lethal? Not so much.
“As for the US procurement mess - there have been many studies on this - we waste between 1/2 to 2/3 of our procurement funds on non-productive paper pushing.”
I’d like to read that. Where can I find that number/study?
“Between having way too many office jockeys, regulations, delays, and etc.”
Acquisition reform is certainly much needed. The number of acquisition personnel in uniform is quite small, actually. Most acquisition is done by civilians, you know, those dedicated civilians in the federal GS world that belong to a union.
Regulations are made by congress and congress causes most of the cost increases and delays.
A contract is signed with a defense manufacturer and they start to build to the contracted number. They contract with second and third teir suppliers for parts and such. . .and many parts and materials are ‘long lead’ items requiring the contractor commit to purchase for many years. . .requiring the contractor to go on risk, to bet that congress will continue to fund the original amount.
The suppliers also sub-contract to get the raw materials so they can build the parts. All at a set price and for a certain muber.
Congress steps in and mucks it up by reducing the numbers (see F-22 of most recent example) and the cost-per-unit sky-rockets because the company must recover their non-recurring R&D investment, and this means they spread that cost over fewer platforms and this raises the costs and then people that don’t know any better complain about the kit being too costly and then congress reduces the number again, thereby increasing the cost-per unit-even more. . .and so on. Repeat.
It’s like Ford designing an entirely new car and the development cost is spread over hundreds of thousands of vehicles and no one really notices the cost for development when it is added to the cost of the car. However, if Ford is contracted for only a few hundred vehicles then the cost would be enormous.
“I dont know whether the Chinese and Russians are as inefficient as we are, but they could hardly be worse.”
Oh, they are very much worse. Not only are they building crap, they are building lots of it.
Just my humble opinion. Others may disagree.