Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kurushio
Ok, thanks so far for all the input. I wanted to see if my thinking was in the right direction... Though LoBlo, your GDP stats are not official, dated for the year 2000 and besides the point, considering the US has a military budget to stick to and GDP doesn't take this into account (for example Luxembourg has a higher GDP per Capita then the US). Also, let's just say that the US has a lot less money to spend generally after 2001 considering the cost of the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq.
My way of thinking, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the US is turning to subs as opposed to planes because of the bad experience with Turkey during the Iraq War. So now maybe the States does not trust it's allies, and generally has less, around the world. What point is it to have a plane if you don't have a base to use it, right? Whereas a sub can pretty much go anywhere...?
Though Britain, strangely, earlier this year announced it was spending £20 billion (circa 40 billion US dollars) on replacing it's ageing Trident nuclear missile system. So they also chose subs, but boomers instead of attack boats. But then we've got Russia who's allowed it's sub fleet to rot...hmmmm.
|
The point is that because of the overwhelming economic resources of the US, federal budgets run is the trillions of dollars, with US defense budgets run in the 300-400 billion dollar amount. Construction schedules of 1-2 subs a year will run around 2-5 billion per year representing about 0.5% to 1.5% of the annual defense budget, or roughly 5-8% of its military procurement cost. (gross estimates intended just for gross realizations). It should not be a surprise or mystery if US warship acquistions budgets are greater than most others. Someone check my rough estimates if I'm incorrect. The actual budgets of the US every year is public knowledge and easily found on a simple google search.
And actually, the US is downsizing its submarine fleet. The US buys subs because they provide unique capabilities.