What's really wild is $2M is around the cost of a single Tomahawk cruise missile, Patriot missiles can cost almost double that. The Excalibur GPS guided round costs roughly as much as a nice Mercedes and during a conflict hundreds or thousands can be fired.
I came to this realization when learning about someone driving a car into a building to do damage and thinking "wow, that's an expensive round", then looking it up and realizing, it's not actually that expensive compared to how much military projectiles really do cost.
I've found it somewhat interesting that we'll be shocked at a fire truck, which gets a life time of 15-25 years and works in the service exclusively of saving lives, costs around $2 million, but not be shocked that we effectively use something as expensive as a fire truck as a single round in a gigantic gun.
Not to say that fire trucks don't potentially cost too much, nor that military weapons aren't worth it. More that I don't think most people are really aware of the obscene costs of military conflicts.
$24 billion in American taxpayer money went to Israel in 2024, or about $65M/day. That's 32 equivalent of those. Each and every day. And this is what enables burying/killing a wide ranging, unknowable number (60k-200k?) of humans, half of whom were children, by systematic aerial bombardment using 2000 lbs. unguided Mk. 84's into urban areas and terrestrial structural demolitions, forced concentration/ethnic cleansing, and engineered famine by siege. Not all Israelis and Americans are okay with this, but protesting so far hasn't made much difference.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people... This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
That's a misconception about military aid. That money is flowing straight back to US defense companies. It's not actually costing the US; it's profiting from this. And it's not actually tax payer money but freshly minted dollars that are created through debt. Nobody is getting taxed "extra" to pay for all this.
If you strip away all the moralism and suffering, the conflicts (plural) in the middle east and increasingly Ukraine are all about keeping the defense industry and the economy going. Same with Ukraine. Same with just about any other conflict where countries like the US supply the weapons.
“ Each Javelin round costs $80,000, and the idea that it's fired by a guy who doesn't make that in a year at a guy who doesn't make that in a lifetime is somehow so outrageous it almost makes the war seem winnable.”
It's in part because the military doesn't buy stuff from China.
The companies that make the parts for those missiles (not just the mega corp whose badge is on it) are likely only in business because they make the parts for it, and employ 20-200 people with decent pay and full benefits in Corn County, Midwest to do it.
On the surface it looks like enormous waste, it still might be, but understand that the defense budget is primarily a jobs program and basically only thing propping up Americans manufacturing.
This is why it never gets cut, but anyone red or blue. It employs way to many people and in way to many places without much good work. Republicans especially hate welfare, but if you can get people to show up and turn screws, they'll happily "waste" money on them.
I live 500yd from one of those companies in the one of the richest and bluest states in the nation. They make buttons and knobs and switches for .mil stuff.
It isn't solely a "welfare for hicks" program like HN likes to portray though I'm sure the dollars go farther in other states.
I mean, there is also the strategic benefit of not having your capacity to wage war in the stranglehold of a potential adversary. Not to say that politicians won't vote for graft that helps their districts, but there is a legitimate argument for employing only Americans in wartime industries.
But yes, that's a big source of the expense. Even on the IT side of things, the government (especially the military) pays sometimes up to 50% more for FedRAMP versions of SaaS products that have their servers based in the US and which are only administered by US citizens.
> Republicans especially hate welfare, but if you can get people to show up and turn screws, they'll happily "waste" money on them.
but only if it's for their doners or major corporate constituents. they're not proposing WPA public works or getting the average man out working on solar panels
“primarily a jobs program and basically only thing propping up Americans manufacturing”
Not just a jobs program, but it is strategically important to national security to retain the ability to manufacture military hardware (or at least along with allies)
It’s unfortunate that means to maximize taxpayer value we have to actually use or sell all those weapons, potentially by initiating or participating in conflicts we otherwise might not have.
I mean it definitely has to be monumental waste. Look at the cost of launching rockets prior to SpaceX versus the cost now which is really a pittance by comparison.
They also arbitrarily reduce numbers and raise unit costs by regulations because weapons bad, though they are dropped asymmetrically on living people anyway. The US isn't incentivizing weapons correctly for them to improve in cost performance.
We're shocked they cost $2 million dollars because until recently they didn't, and it's not because of inflation, it's because private equity has bought up most of the industry, consolidated it, and jacked up prices.
If you are going to blow something up, using these GPS guided smart missiles is actually much cheaper than previous generations of explosive ordinances.
1. You can only use one missile to hit a target. In pre-gps era we would would dozens or hundreds of rounds to ensure one of them destroys the target.
2. You can fire from a safe distance. Using artillery or dropping bombs from an airplane involves physically getting closer to the target. This introduces much more complexity that adds to the overall cost.
3. There is significantly less collateral damage when using a single missile for a target compared to bombing the general direction of the target.
4. We take significantly less risk of casualties when using these missiles.
GPS guidance isn't effective against adversaries with even the most basic electronic warfare capability. Ukraine mostly stopped using those systems years ago due to Russian jamming / spoofing. But other precision guidance mechanisms remain at least somewhat effective.
Except that because of all those things, the government is more likely to use it so the "it's cheaper!" argument doesn't hold water.
The comparison is not between "do it without smart bombs and drones" vs "do it with smart bombs and drones" and the former costing more.
The comparison is between "if we didn't have the smart bombs and drones, we wouldn't have done anything because whatever it was wouldn't have been worth the cost in money and American lives" versus "we spent a million dollars blowing up some stuff because we could do it on the cheap and with no risk."
On a broader scale the US's involvemnt in the foreign affairs of other nations skyrocketed when we went from having volunteer armed forces to a "professional" armed forces. Ike predicted as much in his rant about the military-industrial complex.
> I've found it somewhat interesting that we'll be shocked at a fire truck, which gets a life time of 15-25 years and works in the service exclusively of saving lives, costs around $2 million, but not be shocked that we effectively use something as expensive as a fire truck as a single round in a gigantic gun.
Isn't military spending and the corruption of the government military industrial complex one of the oldest gripes in the American public forum? People sure are outraged about it, or were[1] -- has that become passe now?
[1] "The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement." -- Eisenhower 1953
It didn't really take off until WW2--Eisenhower warned us of the military-industrial complex in his last days in office, but chickened out of of military-industrial-congressional complex at the last minute apparently.
There was no real standing Army until WW2 since it's against the Constitution. That's why the Marines (part of the Navy) were all over the place supporting US business interests, but not draining the public purse too heavily (look up Smedly Butler for a good read)
I think if Ike was shown that the military industrial complex had prevented the occurrence of WWIII for nearly 80 years while maintaining economic growth and quality of life for US citizens, he would have withdrawn his reservations. He, above all, knew the alternatives.
> Not to say that fire trucks don't potentially cost too much
The only place in the entire world where fire trucks cost that much is North America, and it’s not because there’s anything inherently special about trucks made there.
> I don't think most people are really aware of the obscene costs of military conflicts.
Would those costs still be obscene if you were in a conflict where you’d want to use a significant number of them? Right now they’re expensive because they’re essentially just sitting around.
Speaking of Javelin missiles, mentioned upthread. In 2022, when the war in Ukraine erupted, the small stock of Javelins which the NATO countries were able to provide was spent in like first several months. After that, $300 drones carrying a $1000 armor-piercing round started to dominate the battlefield, leading to terrible losses in Russian armor, especially the newest and most expensive tanks. Similarly, having lost a number of advanced and expensive aircraft, and watching advanced and expensive cruise missiles mostly shot down during airstrikes, Russian forces turned to expendable drones imported from Iran (!) and expendable rockets imported from North Korea (!!).
In other terms, Protoss-type technology works well when you have a large advantage and need to deal a decisive blow; an example would be B-2s bombing the Iran nuclear facilities. But when you're in a protracted conflict against a capable adversary, Zerg-type technology, cheap, flimsy, and truly massively produced, seems to be indispensable.
If the defense contractors figured they could get away with those costs, at higher volume? Hell, yes.
If the U.S. still had it's own (gov't-owned, gov't-operated) production facilities - as, historically, every A List nation has had - to provide honest competition? Hell, no.
Ruzzians launched 10000+ missiles. Some estimate they are spending roughly $900m per day on the war. 1250+ days. Can only imagine how they could enhance their old underdeveloped infrastructure with all that money. But instead they are terrorizing their neighbors.
Length of time from end of WWI (the war to end all wars, remember) to start of WWII (the next war) was 20 years and 9 months. To quote the late Tom Lehrer, “we taught them a lesson in 1918 and they’ve hardly bothered us since then”.
Length of time from the end of WWII (ending with two ideological opponents, victors who saw the fruits of victory, a ramped up industrial base focused on armaments and a devastated landscape of Europe and Asia to fight on) to WWIII is 79 years, 10 months and counting. No one reading this site has experienced a World War (and if you did, I’d like to shake your hand). Whatever keeps that counter ticking over have been, and are, dollars well-spent.
A bit like keeping your hand raised to keep elephants away from your US house (well, it’s worked so far). But the alternative is just…unacceptable.
another perspective is that WW1 hasn't ended, and ww2 was actually WW1. Even now, if you look at the Ukrainian conflict from an economic perspective, it's a continuation of the same conflicts of ww1
I found it surprising that regular, dumb 155mm artillery rounds cost 4-5k apiece. Imagine the kind of drones you can build for that much in Ukraine. No wonder drone warfare is taking off so fast.
Tomahawk missiles have a ton of tech and software inside, can fly for 1000 miles, and are also basically a jobs program for Americans in many different states.
Fire and rescue appliances are a bit of a problematic thing to buy as they never go very far and are retired with low mileages.
In my Australian State, South Australia, this a huge contrast with police who buy new from the manufacturer, get a three or maybe five year service contract from the manufacturer and then sell them when the warranty expires and they've done around 100,000 km (60,000 miles). So no servicing worries and they get some tax benefits so it works for them.
Ambulances have less mileage and my guess is retire after 10 years. Ambulances are very standardised so can swap metro and country vehicles to get value from the asset. There was a "twin life" ambulance (http://www.old-ambulance.com/Twin-Life.htm) that had a long life rear bit on a light truck chassis so swap out the motor bit two or three times every 200,000kms, but these days vans are used. There was much sadness in the ambulance fleet buying community when Ford discontinued the F150 type chassis in Australia.
But your average (fire/rescue) appliance in the city or country has low mileage. In the city plenty of use but never have to drive far. In the country not much use but do drive further but end up the same a very old vehicle without much mileage on the clock. Trailers can be even older 50 or 60 years before retirement. Another issue with a fire appliance is they carry water which is heavy, three tonnes is a pretty common load. And have other readers have mentioned a monopoly on manufacture wouldn't help.
I have heard that the problem with ex-emergency services vehicles is they tend to have low distance on the odometer but drastically higher engine hours, particularly idle hours. That is, they may sit with the engine idling for hours at a time to maintain power to the lights, radios, and other vehicle systems, and are generally closer in wear and tear to a vehicle with several times the mileage.
Another problem I have heard of is that while the actual mileage may be low, the miles that are driven tend to be much "harder", in the sense that an emergency services vehicle may be accelerating and stopping rapidly, and generally being thrashed without regard for the vehicle, leading to increased wear on the engine and transmission.
It reminds me of the saying attributed to Jeremy Clarkson, about the fastest car in the world being a rental.
Yes, trucks typically are running with the generator constantly on scene. Also many pumps are run on a PTO system where the transmission is put into a pump gear, further wearing on it since pumps can be run a lot on scene.
Our community has three large fire trucks, and one is sent out for every 911 call, even though the vast majority of calls are for medical emergencies, not something requiring a fire truck (which always arrives quickly, but a subsequent ambulance on call is what inevitably hauls a patient to the hospital). I've never understood why the fire department doesn't acquire and dispatch small vehicles for all those medical calls instead of a giant fire truck. Seems like that would help hold down costs.
> I've never understood why the fire department doesn't acquire and dispatch small vehicles for all those medical calls instead of a giant fire truck.
Staffing.
Almost every call requires more than two people and ambulances are typically only staffed with two people.
If there is a second call (fire, rescue, or anything that requires the larger apparatus) while the fire engine is out assisting the EMS crew and the crew has taken a smaller vehicle, they have to drive back to the station, get on the engine, and then respond to the second call. This is not uncommon-- for my department I'd say it's routine.
In smaller volunteer departments like mine, there aren't enough people to go around.
In larger paid career departments, the cost of the extra personnel needed to staff smaller vehicles very quickly exceeds the cost of the wear and tear on the larger apparatus. You have to account for more than just their salaries, but also insurance, training costs, any equipment issued, and retirement contributions.
There's also the matter of equipment. Larger apparatus carry tools and equipment that smaller vehicles can't or don't.
Many jurisdictions do have a mix of resources where EMS crews can get the additional resources they need on a call without an engine or truck responding, and it does work for the most part. Most jurisdictions can't afford that.
It seems common in Europe to not send fire apparatus, but I'm willing to bet they deal with many fewer bariatric patients so most calls don't need six guys.
Valid question, and I hear it all the time. Most of the time it's due to preparedness and staffing. By having those 4 people on a fully equipped engine, if something big (structure fire, vehicle extrication, rescue) happens, they can jump in and go with a vehicle full of tools. (provided the ambulance crew can take over).
Otherwise if they're in a car, they'd have to drive back through traffic to the station, move their gear to the new vehicle, and drive back to the scene. It can cost valuable time. Fire engines carry a surprisingly large amount of tools and equipment for a variety of purposes.
That being said, many larger departments are trying out "cars" (usually an SUV) with two people and a med bag to go to medical calls. While the engine/truck and crew stay at the station. This is fairly expensive with the new vehicle, equipment and extra staffing. However it is being done now with success in urban areas.
I think this video from the Not Just Bikes channel shows quite well the major difference in approach between fire departments in the USA vs the Netherlands (which is quite similar to many other European countries): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2dHFC31VtQ
Fire engines in Europe are as well equipped as the American/Canadian ones while not depending on these massive and expensive bespoke rigs.
In the UK the NHS/local health trusts actually have a few fast response cars which contain at least a paramedic but more often someone who is trained higher. Even the fire service will have a small car as part of an incident response team.
I've also seen more ambulances that are based on a transit/mini bus platform for call outs that aren't major, think old person falling over. They save the big boxy ones for more serious issues.
In my country, no fire truck is called unless there's a fire. Extracting people from a mangled car isn't the job for a fire truck. All the needed tools fit in an ordinary van.
Also, going back to get the tools or change the vehicle is incredibly stupid because: 1) crews already know what they're going to be dealing with before they leave, 2) just suppose they forgot to pack the tools - we have mobile phones, you know...
Most rigs in Europe (I'm in France) are Sprinter type van like an ambulance, which is the one which gets mostly called.
The other Sprinter are with tools, and or two big ladder trucks for the real fires which rarely happen.
To me they seems to have tuned their rigs to what they need most
In rural area prone to forest fire, they have big all terrain trucks with water tank (useless in cities)
As always, 1. leaving it up to the market and then 2. ignoring anti-trust enforcement. What a surprise. China's pace of QoL improvement will eat the US (and really, the West) alive.
My two cents of info as mildly informed. I am a volunteer ff/emt.
My department is very well funded compared to the rest of our county. Compared to cities, it is laughably underfunded. We are 90 percent volunteer. We have zero paramedics, only EMTs (about 4).
An Engine not only has to run but has to pump. An engine may drive 3 miles but then run for 20 hours without moving but pumping water the entire time (using the transmission to do so). If the pump is not up to standards, FFs do not enter a building. No water, no entry. If the pump isn't compliant then it is not longer an "engine". Mileage is irrelevant. A low mileage engine (10k) might have a million other problems after 100k hours. Who fixes that in a volunteer department?
Ambulances are the same. The drive may be short but the engine never stops idling or charging the equipment on board. In the city the answer is always transport. If you have 1 ambulance and 6 hours round trip, you may stay on scene for a while to avoid a transport (assuming you don't risk the patient's life).
Most volunteer departments have 1-2 engines, and those are aging. If an engine goes out of service without a replacement, we stop responding.
This is not a city/rural problem. If you have ever taken a road trip, gone camping, visited relatives in "the country", then then you are relying on, and praying they have the equipment and staff to respond. Go outside the city for a rafting trip- swiftwater, rope rescue, EMS, traffic... all in the hands of volunteers with no resources.
Back to the article- we have one engine out of service. We can't buy 20x our tax revenue. Yes, everything has gone up in price. When EMS and Fire becomes unpurchaseable, there are (dire) consequences.
Thanks for the first hand feedback. It is helpful. When I read your post carefully ("laughably underfunded. We are 90 percent volunteer. We have zero paramedics"; "Who fixes that in a volunteer department?"), the first thing that crossed my mind is your tax revenue is just too low. You cannot have nice things with low taxes.
Another way to think about it: Are other highly developed nations seeing the same "crisis(es)" that you mention? (Think G-7 and close friends.) Hint: They do not.
We're definitely not undertaxed. A big problem is wholesale public corruption. We now pay inflated salaries for current public workers and for extremely-high retirement plans for past workers which was promised decades ago but not funded.
All this means we get taxed a lot more for ever fewer workers.
And this only scratches the surface. NFPA demanding all breakers be arc fault (add $1k+ to every home build), Seattle permitting being years backlog, governments don't have workers which know how things should be built so our construction costs are 10x other developed countries. We're living off legacy and have an ever-dropping standard of living.
> Ambulances are the same. The drive may be short but the engine never stops idling or charging the equipment on board.
How much power are we talking about? 10-20 years ago, sure, using the engine and alternator for power made sense. Nowadays a hybrid has a several-kWh battery and plenty of power, along with an engine and generator optimized for much better charging performance. A PHEV is even better.
I wonder why there don’t seem to be PHEV van platforms. If someone made something like a Transit or Sprinter with a 50-100 kWh battery, an engine, and an option for a serious 120/240V system so that monstrous 12V wiring could be avoided, it seems that much nicer, more efficient and longer lasting ambulances could be built, not to mention camper vans and such.
This is exactly it. I'm also a volunteer for a small town, in a department that is decently funded. We have had the same two engines since 2009. We just (within the last month) received a new engine. It became extremely difficult to provide the level of service the community expects, and come up with money for a new engine. It's a major struggle.
Also something most folks don't know: about 70% of the firefighters in the US are volunteers. If you're in a big city you'll have 4 paid folks on an engine (maybe 3 and 1 intern) but as soon as you venture out of the city you'll see more engines 100% staffed by volunteers. And if you don't know the difference that's a good thing!
Fire departments run on budgets that would also shock you (how low they are).
These numbers for trucks paired with the 3+ year wait times are very real. It hits small communities the hard because they have a small tax base but still need a certain amount of trucks. You can only consolidate so much before you are to far to respond.
Another good point called out in the article are the floating costs. The manufactures do in fact increase the costs after the fact so not only do you need to order a truck years ahead of time with a budget you don’t have (borrow money) but then you have to cough up an indeterminate amount of money years later. A real sad time for first responders.
One likely significant factor is the Baumol effect. As mass-produced things get cheaper everything that requires a lot of manual labor gets relatively more and more expensive.
This is basically the Abbott baby formula shortage but for this other critical product. Instead of having a large market with more competition the US has its own special sausage.
Is this really any different to pre-covid, I could negotiate $3k off a Toyota Sienna minivan and have my pick of color tomorrow and now there is a several month to a year waiting list and I have to pay $5k to 10k over MSRP and MSRP is up 20% since 2019?
I doubt one has to pay more than MSRP for a Sienna in Jul 2025, but in the minivan market, there is insufficient demand to incentivize automakers to make more of equivalent quality to Toyota. And even if they do, it would take decades to match Toyota's brand reputation.
There is Toyota Siena, Honda Odyssey, Kia Carnival, and Chrysler Pacifica, and I think that is it.
Among those, the people wanting to buy a Toyota are maybe considering a Honda, but otherwise they are only going to buy a Toyota, and they will pay a premium for Toyota.
Chrysler and Kia are downmarket and not a consideration.
And minivans are not a huge market, so Toyota probably does not allocate too many resources to making more Siennas since they do not expect to sell many more at their desired price.
Readit News
I came to this realization when learning about someone driving a car into a building to do damage and thinking "wow, that's an expensive round", then looking it up and realizing, it's not actually that expensive compared to how much military projectiles really do cost.
I've found it somewhat interesting that we'll be shocked at a fire truck, which gets a life time of 15-25 years and works in the service exclusively of saving lives, costs around $2 million, but not be shocked that we effectively use something as expensive as a fire truck as a single round in a gigantic gun.
Not to say that fire trucks don't potentially cost too much, nor that military weapons aren't worth it. More that I don't think most people are really aware of the obscene costs of military conflicts.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people... This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
-- notorious antifa leftist Dwight D Eisenhower
Now, imagine that money going to American infrastructure and health.
Ps: Ukrainian army has better use for ammo than Israel. Should have sent there
If you strip away all the moralism and suffering, the conflicts (plural) in the middle east and increasingly Ukraine are all about keeping the defense industry and the economy going. Same with Ukraine. Same with just about any other conflict where countries like the US supply the weapons.
Dead Comment
“ Each Javelin round costs $80,000, and the idea that it's fired by a guy who doesn't make that in a year at a guy who doesn't make that in a lifetime is somehow so outrageous it almost makes the war seem winnable.”
The companies that make the parts for those missiles (not just the mega corp whose badge is on it) are likely only in business because they make the parts for it, and employ 20-200 people with decent pay and full benefits in Corn County, Midwest to do it.
On the surface it looks like enormous waste, it still might be, but understand that the defense budget is primarily a jobs program and basically only thing propping up Americans manufacturing.
This is why it never gets cut, but anyone red or blue. It employs way to many people and in way to many places without much good work. Republicans especially hate welfare, but if you can get people to show up and turn screws, they'll happily "waste" money on them.
It isn't solely a "welfare for hicks" program like HN likes to portray though I'm sure the dollars go farther in other states.
But yes, that's a big source of the expense. Even on the IT side of things, the government (especially the military) pays sometimes up to 50% more for FedRAMP versions of SaaS products that have their servers based in the US and which are only administered by US citizens.
but only if it's for their doners or major corporate constituents. they're not proposing WPA public works or getting the average man out working on solar panels
Not just a jobs program, but it is strategically important to national security to retain the ability to manufacture military hardware (or at least along with allies)
It’s unfortunate that means to maximize taxpayer value we have to actually use or sell all those weapons, potentially by initiating or participating in conflicts we otherwise might not have.
Not that I want to see anybody build bombs
1. You can only use one missile to hit a target. In pre-gps era we would would dozens or hundreds of rounds to ensure one of them destroys the target.
2. You can fire from a safe distance. Using artillery or dropping bombs from an airplane involves physically getting closer to the target. This introduces much more complexity that adds to the overall cost.
3. There is significantly less collateral damage when using a single missile for a target compared to bombing the general direction of the target.
4. We take significantly less risk of casualties when using these missiles.
The comparison is not between "do it without smart bombs and drones" vs "do it with smart bombs and drones" and the former costing more.
The comparison is between "if we didn't have the smart bombs and drones, we wouldn't have done anything because whatever it was wouldn't have been worth the cost in money and American lives" versus "we spent a million dollars blowing up some stuff because we could do it on the cheap and with no risk."
On a broader scale the US's involvemnt in the foreign affairs of other nations skyrocketed when we went from having volunteer armed forces to a "professional" armed forces. Ike predicted as much in his rant about the military-industrial complex.
Isn't military spending and the corruption of the government military industrial complex one of the oldest gripes in the American public forum? People sure are outraged about it, or were[1] -- has that become passe now?
[1] "The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement." -- Eisenhower 1953
There was no real standing Army until WW2 since it's against the Constitution. That's why the Marines (part of the Navy) were all over the place supporting US business interests, but not draining the public purse too heavily (look up Smedly Butler for a good read)
The only place in the entire world where fire trucks cost that much is North America, and it’s not because there’s anything inherently special about trucks made there.
Would those costs still be obscene if you were in a conflict where you’d want to use a significant number of them? Right now they’re expensive because they’re essentially just sitting around.
In other terms, Protoss-type technology works well when you have a large advantage and need to deal a decisive blow; an example would be B-2s bombing the Iran nuclear facilities. But when you're in a protracted conflict against a capable adversary, Zerg-type technology, cheap, flimsy, and truly massively produced, seems to be indispensable.
Why do you think that’s the reason for these high prices rather than, say, lack of competition?
If the U.S. still had it's own (gov't-owned, gov't-operated) production facilities - as, historically, every A List nation has had - to provide honest competition? Hell, no.
History: The not-even-yet-the-U.S.A. set up the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory in 1777, to manufacture military ammumition. And the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Yard in 1799.
When it comes to government work, the biggest cost savings always come from questioning the necessity of requirements.
People point the fingers at defence contractors, but their net margins are typically only around 10%.
https://archive.ph/74N1x
Ruzzians launched 10000+ missiles. Some estimate they are spending roughly $900m per day on the war. 1250+ days. Can only imagine how they could enhance their old underdeveloped infrastructure with all that money. But instead they are terrorizing their neighbors.
Pure evil country.
Deleted Comment
Length of time from the end of WWII (ending with two ideological opponents, victors who saw the fruits of victory, a ramped up industrial base focused on armaments and a devastated landscape of Europe and Asia to fight on) to WWIII is 79 years, 10 months and counting. No one reading this site has experienced a World War (and if you did, I’d like to shake your hand). Whatever keeps that counter ticking over have been, and are, dollars well-spent.
A bit like keeping your hand raised to keep elephants away from your US house (well, it’s worked so far). But the alternative is just…unacceptable.
But that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918,
And they've hardly bothered us since then."
Dead Comment
In my Australian State, South Australia, this a huge contrast with police who buy new from the manufacturer, get a three or maybe five year service contract from the manufacturer and then sell them when the warranty expires and they've done around 100,000 km (60,000 miles). So no servicing worries and they get some tax benefits so it works for them.
Ambulances have less mileage and my guess is retire after 10 years. Ambulances are very standardised so can swap metro and country vehicles to get value from the asset. There was a "twin life" ambulance (http://www.old-ambulance.com/Twin-Life.htm) that had a long life rear bit on a light truck chassis so swap out the motor bit two or three times every 200,000kms, but these days vans are used. There was much sadness in the ambulance fleet buying community when Ford discontinued the F150 type chassis in Australia.
But your average (fire/rescue) appliance in the city or country has low mileage. In the city plenty of use but never have to drive far. In the country not much use but do drive further but end up the same a very old vehicle without much mileage on the clock. Trailers can be even older 50 or 60 years before retirement. Another issue with a fire appliance is they carry water which is heavy, three tonnes is a pretty common load. And have other readers have mentioned a monopoly on manufacture wouldn't help.
Another problem I have heard of is that while the actual mileage may be low, the miles that are driven tend to be much "harder", in the sense that an emergency services vehicle may be accelerating and stopping rapidly, and generally being thrashed without regard for the vehicle, leading to increased wear on the engine and transmission.
It reminds me of the saying attributed to Jeremy Clarkson, about the fastest car in the world being a rental.
Staffing.
Almost every call requires more than two people and ambulances are typically only staffed with two people.
If there is a second call (fire, rescue, or anything that requires the larger apparatus) while the fire engine is out assisting the EMS crew and the crew has taken a smaller vehicle, they have to drive back to the station, get on the engine, and then respond to the second call. This is not uncommon-- for my department I'd say it's routine.
In smaller volunteer departments like mine, there aren't enough people to go around.
In larger paid career departments, the cost of the extra personnel needed to staff smaller vehicles very quickly exceeds the cost of the wear and tear on the larger apparatus. You have to account for more than just their salaries, but also insurance, training costs, any equipment issued, and retirement contributions.
There's also the matter of equipment. Larger apparatus carry tools and equipment that smaller vehicles can't or don't.
Many jurisdictions do have a mix of resources where EMS crews can get the additional resources they need on a call without an engine or truck responding, and it does work for the most part. Most jurisdictions can't afford that.
It seems common in Europe to not send fire apparatus, but I'm willing to bet they deal with many fewer bariatric patients so most calls don't need six guys.
Otherwise if they're in a car, they'd have to drive back through traffic to the station, move their gear to the new vehicle, and drive back to the scene. It can cost valuable time. Fire engines carry a surprisingly large amount of tools and equipment for a variety of purposes.
That being said, many larger departments are trying out "cars" (usually an SUV) with two people and a med bag to go to medical calls. While the engine/truck and crew stay at the station. This is fairly expensive with the new vehicle, equipment and extra staffing. However it is being done now with success in urban areas.
Fire engines in Europe are as well equipped as the American/Canadian ones while not depending on these massive and expensive bespoke rigs.
I've also seen more ambulances that are based on a transit/mini bus platform for call outs that aren't major, think old person falling over. They save the big boxy ones for more serious issues.
Also, going back to get the tools or change the vehicle is incredibly stupid because: 1) crews already know what they're going to be dealing with before they leave, 2) just suppose they forgot to pack the tools - we have mobile phones, you know...
To me they seems to have tuned their rigs to what they need most In rural area prone to forest fire, they have big all terrain trucks with water tank (useless in cities)
It needs a paramedic because fire fighters often need paramedics.
So if the small vehicle has a paramedic, you still need one for the big truck.
And if you have another vehicle, you need a bigger apparatus bay at the station and more beds and more staff times three shifts.
Finally, when the 911 call comes in there is not time to triage. The system is optimized for response time because people might die.
Deleted Comment
That's not a goal.
Deleted Comment
My department is very well funded compared to the rest of our county. Compared to cities, it is laughably underfunded. We are 90 percent volunteer. We have zero paramedics, only EMTs (about 4).
An Engine not only has to run but has to pump. An engine may drive 3 miles but then run for 20 hours without moving but pumping water the entire time (using the transmission to do so). If the pump is not up to standards, FFs do not enter a building. No water, no entry. If the pump isn't compliant then it is not longer an "engine". Mileage is irrelevant. A low mileage engine (10k) might have a million other problems after 100k hours. Who fixes that in a volunteer department?
Ambulances are the same. The drive may be short but the engine never stops idling or charging the equipment on board. In the city the answer is always transport. If you have 1 ambulance and 6 hours round trip, you may stay on scene for a while to avoid a transport (assuming you don't risk the patient's life).
Most volunteer departments have 1-2 engines, and those are aging. If an engine goes out of service without a replacement, we stop responding.
This is not a city/rural problem. If you have ever taken a road trip, gone camping, visited relatives in "the country", then then you are relying on, and praying they have the equipment and staff to respond. Go outside the city for a rafting trip- swiftwater, rope rescue, EMS, traffic... all in the hands of volunteers with no resources.
Back to the article- we have one engine out of service. We can't buy 20x our tax revenue. Yes, everything has gone up in price. When EMS and Fire becomes unpurchaseable, there are (dire) consequences.
Another way to think about it: Are other highly developed nations seeing the same "crisis(es)" that you mention? (Think G-7 and close friends.) Hint: They do not.
* Seattle cops blatantly defraud us and one gets 1 week unpaid vacation: https://publicola.com/2024/11/07/officer-suspended-for-exces...
* Those same cops retire at 55 years old with retirement packages worth over $4M (boosted fraudulently as above).
* Similarly, Seattle fire calls have a lot of people and a lot of them getting overtime https://publicola.com/2025/01/24/nearly-200-firefighters-mad...
All this means we get taxed a lot more for ever fewer workers.
And this only scratches the surface. NFPA demanding all breakers be arc fault (add $1k+ to every home build), Seattle permitting being years backlog, governments don't have workers which know how things should be built so our construction costs are 10x other developed countries. We're living off legacy and have an ever-dropping standard of living.
How much power are we talking about? 10-20 years ago, sure, using the engine and alternator for power made sense. Nowadays a hybrid has a several-kWh battery and plenty of power, along with an engine and generator optimized for much better charging performance. A PHEV is even better.
I wonder why there don’t seem to be PHEV van platforms. If someone made something like a Transit or Sprinter with a 50-100 kWh battery, an engine, and an option for a serious 120/240V system so that monstrous 12V wiring could be avoided, it seems that much nicer, more efficient and longer lasting ambulances could be built, not to mention camper vans and such.
Also something most folks don't know: about 70% of the firefighters in the US are volunteers. If you're in a big city you'll have 4 paid folks on an engine (maybe 3 and 1 intern) but as soon as you venture out of the city you'll see more engines 100% staffed by volunteers. And if you don't know the difference that's a good thing!
Fire departments run on budgets that would also shock you (how low they are).
It's too bad the only possible way to pump water is with a $2M specialty truck. Let's just raise taxes.
Another good point called out in the article are the floating costs. The manufactures do in fact increase the costs after the fact so not only do you need to order a truck years ahead of time with a budget you don’t have (borrow money) but then you have to cough up an indeterminate amount of money years later. A real sad time for first responders.
This is basically the Abbott baby formula shortage but for this other critical product. Instead of having a large market with more competition the US has its own special sausage.
You can get Siennas for $1-2k under MSRP. Shop around.
There is Toyota Siena, Honda Odyssey, Kia Carnival, and Chrysler Pacifica, and I think that is it.
Among those, the people wanting to buy a Toyota are maybe considering a Honda, but otherwise they are only going to buy a Toyota, and they will pay a premium for Toyota.
Chrysler and Kia are downmarket and not a consideration.
And minivans are not a huge market, so Toyota probably does not allocate too many resources to making more Siennas since they do not expect to sell many more at their desired price.