# Military claims it's too expensive to ship???
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
**Created:** [September 30, 2011, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098 "2011-09-30T02:08:38Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/1 "2011-09-30T02:08:38Z")
I’m not buying this story. Our Air Force has an entire fleet of cargo planes. C-130 Hercules can carry enormous loads of cargo. Plus we have Naval cargo ships. Yet we can’t get back our own equipment? It’s too expensive to ship?
My bullshit meter is quivering on this one. We giving these bastards $313 million worth of equipment? We all know a civil war will break out within a year or two of our leaving. That government is held together with band-aids. All that equipment will be wasted or gien to Al Qaeda.
> [@](#):
>
> Rather than ship home valuable military hardware, incurring excessive shipping costs, the Pentagon is simply going to leave millions of pieces of equipment behind, including everything from vehicles and body armor to trailers and air conditioners.
>
> When all is said and done, Pentagon planners estimate 3.47 million pieces of equipment worth $313 million will be handed over to the Iraqi government, which still has not asked U.S. forces to stay beyond the December deadline.
>
> Read more: [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/29/us-forces-hand-millions-dollars-military-equipment-over-to-iraqis/#ixzz1ZOi0woTe](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/29/us-forces-hand-millions-dollars-military-equipment-over-to-iraqis/#ixzz1ZOi0woTe)
---
### Author:  [@Lukeinva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lukeinva)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/2 "2011-09-30T02:12:41Z")
$313 million is a drop in the canteen for the military.
---
### Author:  [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/3 "2011-09-30T02:40:02Z")
Depending on the equipment, the long term exposure to the harsh environment has left the stuff too close to the end of a useful service life to make it worthwhile to ship back.
---
### Author:  [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/4 "2011-09-30T02:56:16Z")
> [@runner pat](#):
>
> Depending on the equipment, the long term exposure to the harsh environment has left the stuff too close to the end of a useful service life to make it worthwhile to ship back.
That’s almost certainly got to be it; it’s 313 million worth of clapped out junk that would cost more than that to get home; it’s probably stuff like worn out humvees and trucks, CHUs, old beat up flak vests, and the like. More than likely, they already have better, more modern replacements on the way, and would be getting rid of them anyway.
There’s a reason most military transport planes are not also commercial carriers; the costs are just too high, because military transport planes have a very different mission than commercial cargo planes.
For example, the C-5 Galaxy (in service 1969) STILL out hauls anything on the commercial side of things, being able to carry among other things, 2 M-1 Abrams tanks simultaneously, but the cost is so high to do so that there’s no real commercial use for that kind of thing. There is ONE Russian heavy lift plane in the same ball park that’s used commercially. Not one type, but rather one plane.
---
### Author:  [@Bartman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bartman)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/5 "2011-09-30T03:00:05Z")
I’m not sure you read your cite clearly **aceplace57**. Here are some key bits.
> [@](#):
>
> Military officials estimate that U.S. taxpayers will save $600 million by leaving this equipment in Iraq.
> [@](#):
>
> Humvees and mine resistant vehicles, whose V-shape hulls protect troops from roadside blasts, are worth the cost of refurbishing, but trucks and SUVs worth $30,000 when purchased new in 2004 are only worth about $5,000 to $8,000 today and would cost more than that to ship back to the U.S.
> [@](#):
>
> Another example of equipment that the U.S. plans to leave behind is the common jersey barrier, or T-wall as it’s known in Iraq. The walls, shaped like an upside-down “T,” lined the roads throughout Baghdad at the height of the war and served to protect government and commercial buildings from bombs and other attacks.
>
> Military officials in Iraq say pouring a new T-wall, depending on its size, costs between $800 and $5,000 – but it would cost $5,000 to ship one home.
> [@](#):
>
> Buchanan said it’s important to remember the military is not giving away any weapons, humvees, tanks or heavily armored vehicles.
So we are leaving behind worn out SUVs from 2004, air conditioners, and cement barricades. I can’t say I’m too worried about Al Qaeda getting a hold of our AC units. This is pretty much the same choice anyone who has ever moved is faced with; What is worth packing up taking to the new house? And what should be donated to the local thrift store? We’re taking the weapons. I think we’re making the right choice. Spending $600 million to ship $300 million worth of crap would be a horrible idea.
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/6 "2011-09-30T03:15:39Z")
About 20 years ago someone told be that a C-130 burns 5,000 pounds of fuel per hour on take-off. That’s roughly 770 gallons per hour. Of course you get more miles per gallon in cruise than you do on climb-out. Currently Jet-A is selling for about six bucks a gallon. I assume JP-4 would be similar. I’ve no idea what a C-5 or a C-141 burns, but it’s out of my budget anyway.
If the planes are there, may as well load them up with the important stuff (personnel at the top of the list), since they’re leaving anyway. But no need to go back for stuff that costs more to ship than it’s worth. (Why can’t the military leave me any stuff?)
---
### Author:  [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/7 "2011-09-30T03:26:41Z")
My concern was that we leave nothing behind that could benefit Al Qaeda or other terrorists. They are welcome to concrete barriers and air conditioners.
I think some of the costs for shipping are a bit overstated. Servicemen are paid regardless whether they are shipping Iraq supplies or doing something else. The planes and ships for transport are already in service & available. The biggest cost is the fuel and maintenance on the planes & ships.
We have a huge cargo lift capacity. The Berlin Airlift is one example of what we can accomplish.
---
### Author:  [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/8 "2011-09-30T03:37:28Z")
If you equate “Afghanistan” and “Al Qaeda” as you appear to do, you entirely misunderstand the place. Read [this article](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/27/10-myths-about-afghanistan?INTCMP=SRCH), for a basic primer.
---
### Author:  [@svd678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/svd678)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/9 "2011-09-30T05:37:35Z")
I understand that after WW I the returning military supplies so over-loaded the supply that truck manufacturers had no sales, and went broke. After WW II they pushed the (even new) trucks off the dock.
---
### Author:  [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/10 "2011-09-30T11:26:40Z")
> [@svd678](#):
>
> After WW II they pushed the (even new) trucks off the dock.
Would you have a cite for that?
---
### Author:  [@FairyChatMom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FairyChatMom)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/11 "2011-09-30T11:49:41Z")
In addition to transport, consider the issue of storage of the returned items. Every Navy base I was stationed at _always_ had space issues, whether for new buildings or parking lots or warehouses. I worked for a number of years in a 60+ year old former chow hall which was converted to the engineering building because there was no reasonable place to build a new one. (Since then, they’ve torn that building down, and the engineers work out of old barracks buildings.)
I’m pretty sure similar issues exist at Army and Air Force bases. Commanders don’t want acres of land converted into dumps or holding pens, especially for worn out old stuff that’ll just sit and rot away. Despite the occasional screw up when new items find their way into the disposal process, most of what is thrown out is truly worn out. I’ve seen things that were available for public purchase once the Navy was done with them - by and large, it was junk with little value beyond scrap.
Yeah, I know, one person’s experience/anecdote isn’t worth much, but much as some want to believe the gov’t goes out of its way to waste tax dollars, I know personally that it’s the exception rather than the rule.
---
### Author:  [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/12 "2011-09-30T12:07:52Z")
> [@](#):
>
> [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011)…#ixzz1ZOi0woTe
TPDR.
---
### Author:  [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/13 "2011-09-30T14:22:33Z")
> [@aceplace57](#):
>
> My concern was that we leave nothing behind that could benefit Al Qaeda or other terrorists. They are welcome to concrete barriers and air conditioners.
Well, they left a lot of resentment in the population to be exploited by AQ, but I don’t know how you’d go around taking it back and the shipping cost… :dubious:
---
### Author:  [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/14 "2011-09-30T14:43:14Z")
> [@Princhester](#):
>
> If you equate “Afghanistan” and “Al Qaeda” as you appear to do, you entirely misunderstand the place. Read [this article](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/27/10-myths-about-afghanistan?INTCMP=SRCH), for a basic primer.
True, but if you equate Iraq with Afghanistan your misunderstanding is even more egregious.
---
### Author:  [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/15 "2011-09-30T14:53:02Z")
> [@Ale](#):
>
> Well, they left a lot of resentment in the population to be exploited by AQ, but I don’t know how you’d go around taking it back and the shipping cost… :dubious:
That probably will be returned with interest.
---
### Author:  [@Hampshire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hampshire)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/16 "2011-09-30T15:33:31Z")
So much for cleaning up your mess before you leave.
What does Iraq have to say about this or what can they say about it? Thousands of pounds of scrap metal left behind for them to clean up and dispose of.
---
### Author:  [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/17 "2011-09-30T17:02:29Z")
I know earlier in the year the Iraqi government had wanted some money to cover the costs of taking down all of the concrete T-walls that the US had put up all over the place, essentially turning neighborhoods into fortified camps, but that the US said no.
---
### Author:  [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)
#### Post date: [September 30, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/18 "2011-09-30T19:20:39Z")
> [@bump](#):
>
> That’s almost certainly got to be it; it’s 313 million worth of clapped out junk that would cost more than that to get home; it’s probably stuff like worn out humvees and trucks, CHUs, old beat up flak vests, and the like. More than likely, they already have better, more modern replacements on the way, and would be getting rid of them anyway.
>
> There’s a reason most military transport planes are not also commercial carriers; the costs are just too high, because military transport planes have a very different mission than commercial cargo planes.
>
> For example, the C-5 Galaxy (in service 1969) STILL out hauls anything on the commercial side of things, being able to carry among other things, 2 M-1 Abrams tanks simultaneously, but the cost is so high to do so that there’s no real commercial use for that kind of thing. There is ONE Russian heavy lift plane in the same ball park that’s used commercially. Not one type, but rather one plane.
Your thinking of the [Ant-225](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225) of which there is only one in service. OTOH, there are dozens of [Ant-124](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-124)’s in service and they can easily carry two M-1 tanks (it has weight capacity to carry three, but I’m unsure if the floor plan could fit that many).
The DOD has contracted the Russian operators of the Ant-124 to move M-1 tanks to and from Iraq on more than one occasion. The cost of flight is in the low millions (range, weight, off/on-loading, runway type, and hazard drive the cost of flight.
---
### Author:  [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2011, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/19 "2011-10-01T03:49:23Z")
> [@bump](#):
>
> For example, the C-5 Galaxy (in service 1969) STILL out hauls anything on the commercial side of things, being able to carry among other things, 2 M-1 Abrams tanks simultaneously, but the cost is so high to do so that there’s no real commercial use for that kind of thing. There is ONE Russian heavy lift plane in the same ball park that’s used commercially. Not one type, but rather one plane.
An armored division probably has a couple hundred tanks. Plus hundreds of Bradley fighting vehichles, Humvees, trucks, specialized vehicles, cargo containers full of MREs, and god knows how many millions of tons what who knows else.
It’s a basic accounting and logistics question. I’m sure Army accountants are as good as anyone else at figuring the cost benefit of shipping a bunch of busted military stuff home.
---
### Author:  [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2011, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/military-claims-its-too-expensive-to-ship/598098/20 "2011-10-01T06:04:40Z")
> [@njtt](#):
>
> True, but if you equate Iraq with Afghanistan your misunderstanding is even more egregious.
Oops. Well the point is even better made if you equate Al Qaeda with Iraq.