Hope you guys don't me asking another question. I never understood how the UK military is so strapped for cash when the annual budget is over 60 billion dollars. I had heard from a brit once that it was because expenditures for past military (services for vets and such) were also included in that figure. Is this true, or is there a separate budget for that?

Bear in mind that the US defense (sic) budget is >$600bn whereas your population is 300m against 60m for the UK. In other words you spend (at least) twice as much per head of population. But the US also has advantages in terms of economies of scale on just about every level from food to fighters.

I think the DOD budget is 460+ billion, with another 200-250 million spent on past military. Yes, there is more money in proportion to it's size, but but the US military is considerably larger, so more of that money is spent on sustaining it. Whereas the UK military is at about 190,000 (correct me if I'm wrong). It would seem like 60 billion would go a long way for that amount of men. If a large portion of that 60 billion was spent on past military, I would understand why the military would be strapped for cash.

In actual fact it doesn't go as far because of the economies of scale I previously mentioned. Hardware for example is significantly cheaper per unit if you are ordering 1000 rather than 100 owing to the capital outlay on development and tooling. The same goes for maintenance and training.

On the other hand the UK is not required to pay for pensioners healthcare a la Veterans Administration as that would be covered by the NHS.

To Irish Guard or any other mod who views this:

Perhaps this thread and the ff. thread should be merged into the same thread since they deal with the same subject?

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7421994136/m/7430054461001

Actually if you consider the big item bits in the budget, as per the thread “Lovely new aircraft carrier sir, but we're fighting in the desert”
http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7421994136/m/8910083171001
in this forum you will see there is not much left for all other items needed.

Perhaps the ff. thread below should also be merged with this thread and the one mentioned above in my other post.

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7421994136/m/8910083171001

Moved Reply:

The problem is systemic in most militaries. The big glossy item is always needed.
The same goes for local procurement issues, it has to be local made.
Add to that most militaries Brits, US and in essence NATO are all looking at the non normal so called conventional war as the way war is conducted. It also happened here with some of the strange purchases done.
One of the few good things here is that the new government has called for anew white paper on defence/conflict expectations. This may bring about a better realisation of real needs not some misguided purchase.

I still have problems accepting we needed a whole bunch of Abrams. The chance they will ever leave the shores is very slim. As it is part of that purchase was done badly as not all the needed gear was purchased to go with the tanks. I know what was left out of the deal and it almost makes them useless in some situations. At the same time we got rid in one big bang all the Leos, none were held in war storage.

There are a lot more issues in all countries along these lines. It all boils down to poor policies within the defence and within governments. It is unfortunately the soldier at the tail of this stupidity that get hurt.

quote:

Originally posted by Enssantor:
To Irish Guard or any other mod who views this:

Perhaps this thread and the ff. thread should be merged into the same thread since they deal with the same subject?

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7421994136/m/7430054461001

This message has been edited. Last edited by: IrishGuard,

Moved Reply:

Turns out that some agree with the levels of funding and whereas I can see their point, I do not share it as I believe that they have a blinkered view which looks ahead but which obscures the reality of today.
I have someone who I served with return in a bodybag from Iraq. And another who is doing a bottle of vodka a day since returning from Helman.
The first was avoidable. Poor comms and insufficient ammo.
The second may not have been, had she received some form of councelling.
It comes down to poor management. Blaming budget cuts per se is an excuse, not a get out jail free card.
Our army is being broken. I hope it can recover!

It appears that the carriers may be cancelled if some MPs get their way.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/27/defence.military

quote:

MoD should ditch key arms projects, say MPs

Pressures on the defence budget are so great that ministers should consider sacrificing one of its most prestigious projects - the £4bn replacement of two aircraft carriers - rather than simply delaying or cutting back planned new weapons systems, a powerful scrutiny committee will say today.

More info on the above link.

More RN funding woes:

quote:

Two Navy destroyers unable to fire their missiles - because they've been removed to save cash
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 6:07 PM on 09th June 2008

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025254/Two-Nav...moved-save-cash.html

quote:

Originally posted by Enssantor:
More RN funding woes:

quote:

Two Navy destroyers unable to fire their missiles - because they've been removed to save cash
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 6:07 PM on 09th June 2008


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025254/Two-Nav...moved-save-cash.html

Trust me when i say this; this is nothing new....especially with in the Type 23 community. I'm surprised its taken this long for somthing to come out. It's not uncommon for a ship to go out on cold patrols/duties without its full missile based armament.

Still, shouldn't your Admiralty have the lessons of the Falklands in mind? But then again, upon reading the article, I might agree that perhaps the risk to the two ships during their deployment was not high enough to warrant the need, though the fact that SOUTHAMPTON was deployed to the South Atlantic- such as near Argentina- means that she might have faced the same air threat that her predecessors at the Falklands would have faced if relations ever went sour again, especially with all the recent saber rattling by the Argies as I pointed out in another thread.

My guess is that the problem does not lye with the Admiralty. Its a case that there is a cash strapped and penny pinching MOD and treasury, all of which are run by Civil servants and Politicians whom enjoy having a Armed Forces, but have very little understanding of its capabilities, limitations and an inability to look to the immediate future (the best example being the immediate years before the Falklands). In a sense they are reactive rather than proactive.

Yet another disappointment- the UK MoD might probably pull out of the JSF project in order to save more money to plug other needs:

From the Times Online, UK:

quote:

September 28, 2008

Britain considers £9bn JSF project pullout

Michael Smith

BRITAIN is considering pulling out of a £9 billion project with America to produce the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, intended to fly off the Royal Navy’s forthcoming aircraft carriers.

The move is part of an increasingly desperate attempt to plug a £1.5 billion shortfall in the defence budget. The RAF’s 25 new Airbus A400 transport aircraft could also be at risk.

Studies have now been commissioned to analyse whether Eurofighters could be adapted to fly off the carriers...

...The possible ditching of the JSF results in part from spiralling costs that have seen the price of the planned 150 British aircraft rise from the original £9 billion estimate to £15 billion...

It looks to me like a prelude to scrapping the whole CVF project and with it effectively scrapping the Royal Navy as a useful entity. I've got the impression of late that morale in the Fleet is pretty terrible, they just seem to be waiting for the metaphorical vet to come along and put them out of their misery.

Lord Horatio Nelson and Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham must be turning in their graves by now.

According to this story in The Daily Telegraph, the Royal Navy is in dire financial straits. The Labour government pledged that the complement of destroyers would not fall below 25, but there are now only 22 in commission.

quote:

The Fleet now has just five air defence warships left to protect vessels missile or aircraft attack at a time when other nations such as China, India and Iran are investing heavily in anti-ship warfare.

Three Type 42 destroyers – Exeter, Nottingham and Southampton – have been "parked up" in Portsmouth at "reduced readiness" up to two years before they were due to be decommissioned...

...Britain's force of destroyers and frigates has now been reduced from 35 to 22 in the last decade despite government promises it would not slip below 25.

It will be another two years before the first of six of the highly sophisticated Type 45 destroyers can be deployed on operations leaving a "gaping hole" in defences.

Pressures on the Navy's budget are immense with cuts of 20 per cent predicted in the next decade reducing the ship building budget to by £4 billion to £14 billion...

...It has already ditched the excellent air protection offered by Sea Harriers which were disbanded two years ago and at least two Type 42s have gone on operations with their advanced Sea Dart air defence missiles disabled to save cash...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Enssantor,