D
dinicthus
Guest
Well, if you need, say X amount of dollars to properly address a shortfall in perceived capabilities, or a perceived shortfall in capabilities, if you have 0.00X (1/1000th) of what is necessary to buy the new - whatever- dollars available, then I can understand why they would not get spent every year, because they just aren't enough to make the leap up to level necessary to buy what is perceived as actually being necessary to deliver a given level of capability.
Any weapons/sensor/transport/armor/whatever system is going to have some minimum level of buy-in. We can't spend a few million, for example, and just buy a couple engines for an F35, though that would snap up the remaining money in that year's budget. They would need enough for the F-35 itself, plus ancillary and support equipment, training, consumables, and replacement parts.
That is my take on the fact that the whole defence budget doesn't get spent. Some things we could purchase have too high of a buy-in, or ante, for us to be able to get there with the available budget "surplus".
But, I still consider it admirable that they don't spend 350 dollars on a hammer and such just to consume the entire budget like I read about another country doing with its defence budget.
Any weapons/sensor/transport/armor/whatever system is going to have some minimum level of buy-in. We can't spend a few million, for example, and just buy a couple engines for an F35, though that would snap up the remaining money in that year's budget. They would need enough for the F-35 itself, plus ancillary and support equipment, training, consumables, and replacement parts.
That is my take on the fact that the whole defence budget doesn't get spent. Some things we could purchase have too high of a buy-in, or ante, for us to be able to get there with the available budget "surplus".
But, I still consider it admirable that they don't spend 350 dollars on a hammer and such just to consume the entire budget like I read about another country doing with its defence budget.