I dont know which forum this goes in but i think its a factual question.
it seems like every third world country, no matter how poor or how small, has a military armed with an endless number of tanks, fighter jets, artillery, transport trucks and things like that. how much do these things cost in the third world? i am assuming they are using 80’s esqe soviet tanks like the T-series or the MiG jets, but how much do they pay for them each?
Well, Mig-29’s are running about $3.5 million on ebay. A Mig-21 can be had for as little as $65,000.
This is a WAG here, but I’m guessing that most of this is surplus equipment from Grade A armies getting handed down to Grade B or Grade C armies.
As a result, while there may be some actual cash money or goods trading hands, it’s probably equally contingent on being beholden to the axis of political ideals that the country with the aforementioned Grade A army has.
So, a token cash sum per implement of minor destruction, combined with “shaking hands with the devil” and agreeing to henceforth ally yourself with the politics of the United States, or the USSR, or France, etc. etc etc
I’m not sure the central premise is true, though. Most African countries don’t have much in the way of tanks or fighter jets, for instance.
I have read that when Russia was in Afghanistan, the CIA put three billion dollars into the area, and I assume that explains all the Stingers, etc, the media used to show there.
I think if you look closer at it you’ll find that a third-world country’s military moderness lies in direct proportion to how important it was at one time during the Cold War (at least equipment-wise).
The US sold 79 F-14s to Iran at one point. The USSR sold Mig-29s to Angola.
I think tracking down an actual cost for these weapons will be difficult. There is probably some official “stated price”, but between military aid, humanitarian aid, trade, etc…the country ends up paying very little CASH for the weapon. As Jonathan Woodall stated, the country may be strapped for cash but it can trade loyalty instead.
One interesting case is the US selling F-16s to Pakistan. The deal went through and the aircraft were produced, but eventually the US/Pakistani differences became too great. The jets were held up for years, with the US finally refunding the Pakistani money last year.
I wonder how much Iran paid for the missles? How much of that money actually made it to the Contras? And how much did Saddam pay for the Anti Aircraft missles that he used to kill American Pilots? Or the 155’s used to deliver nerve agent to the Kurds? Or the M16A2 (not the rifle, the landmine) that keep dissmembering children throughout the “Third World”?How much was paid for the mines planted in the harbour in Nicaragua? How much has been spent on the HARP project? How much did we spend on the Commanche? How much was spent on the F-22 or it’s predeccesor. How much did we spend on the SGT York?
And this little rant relates to the fighting of ignorance how, exactly?
FTR: Comanche = $6.9 billion before cancellation.
F-22 = $18.6 billion.
The F-22 predecessor was the F-15, which had a unit cost of around $15 million for the A/B/C/D models. Later versions like the F-15E Strike Eagle were more expensive, at around $42 million each.
are you forgetting the Tigershark F-17?
askeptic if you are referring to the F-20 Tigershark program, no. Northrop developed the airplane in-house in the hopes of selling it to other countries.
It was basically a single-engine F-5 with avionics upgrades. The US didn’t want anything to do with it, thus dooming any foreign military sales.
You’re right, it was the F_20 to which I was refering.
Again, FTR the YF-17 was the Northrop entry for the USAF lightweight fighter competition. The YF-16 won the flyoff and entered production as the F-16. The YF-17 was developed further and entered service with the Navy and Marines as the F/A-18.
(So yes, there was such a thing as a YF-17).
The pricing of military stuff is an (almost) interesting study of economics.
Consider first and foremost that only governments can (legally) buy weapons of war. (I know, I know, let me continue.) This means many providers, but only one customer. This is called a ‘monsopoly.’
So how much is a machine gun worth? How can you make the marketplace work? Do you take a cost-plus approach and go with contractors? Do you build a government armor to make the darn things?
M-16 mines (never sold to Iraq, but I digress) are a good example. The government must fund everything from the concept to the design to the production to the eventual destruction or transfer. (The US does not transfer mines.)
Also consider that with most products, utility decreases with time. A 1920 Model T sure is neat but is not a practical car. A 1920 rifle works just fine in a African civil war.
Friends may come and go but weapons just seem to pile up.
Also give a thought to the value most things have in the second-hand market. Weapons are only (I know, I know) transfered between states. States have many interests besides profits. The deals are complex with set-asides, aid and technology transfers all muddying the water.
An American-made tank in the hands of the Australians (to take a recent example) has real value to the American military. So we cut them a deal. An American tank given to (say) Mexico has less value, so the deal is less lean.
On the other hand the value of keeping the production line open is a value all in itself. We might be willing to give Mexico tanks just to keep the factory going.
The Seawolf class of subs is a classic example. They are really cool, but even the Navy admits they don’t need them. We are building them to preserve the industrial base. Otherwise the people and plant that will produce the subs after the Seawolfs (Seawolves?) would no longer be available in the year 2050.
Darn complex, ain’t it?
Paul in Saudi, just a niggling correction, but the word is monopsony.
I thought I screwed that up. Much thanks.