I found an interesting article on the BBC web site comparing the defense spending of the US, UK, Russia, India and China
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16428133
Unfortunately I cannot copy the figures to this page but the overall impression is that we receive far worse bang for the buck than any of the other nations shown. Surprisingly we spend 10 billion more than Russia for a sixth of the capability/manpower.
Although I would expect our personel (and hopefully some systems) to be qualitively superior surely there is massive scope for cost reduction whilst retaining the same level of capability?
Do we really p*ss money away on crap systems and failed projects to the extent implied in these figures?
No we piss money away on poor management backhanders to the saudis and late delivery meaning the stuff is obsolete before it goes into service.
Best remind the MOD there best hope might be 20 spitfires (possibly) buried in burma
I imagine the cost of personnel will make a big difference to that figure as well. I can't believe the Chinese or Russians pay their soldiers very much.
There's no "s" in defence.
Hey - we need nuclear missiles and aircraft carriers if we want a seat at the top table....
To be fair most of Russia's armed forces are badly trained and malnourished, and a big percentage of their equipment is obsolete crap, if they had to fire nuclear weapons in anger, I think most of them would probably explode before launch.
We have a problem of having to buy British for a lot of equipment, to protect UK industry and MPs constituancy workers jobs, whereas a buy best option would be a lot cheaper and quicker. Tough balance to make and not always handled in the best way.
1/6th the personnel does not equate to 1/6th the capability.
During the Cold War when everyone was expecting the Third Shock Army to roll across Germany, they had massive numerical superiority on paper. The difference was, the vast majority of our armour worked and was ready for action. Their armour was rusting, short on fuel, parts and ammo and crewed by soldiers who generally couldn't care less.
As for British defence spending, yes we don't get very good value for money for several major reasons:
1) We don't order anywhere near enough kit to enjoy the sort of economies of scale that the Americans enjoy
2) Pork barrel politics ensure that we spend way over the odds for Brit produced kit, even when there is a proven foreign made alternative at a fraction of the cost
3) Governments with short-termist outlooks (so all of them) order delays in projects and/or last minute redesigns that greatly increase the eventual cost in order to balance the books
4) Too many at the top of the armed forces/MoD have one eye on a job with a defence contractor. In turn defence contractors stuffed to the gills with ex-top brass and MoD mandarins. Effectively, procurement becomes one big backscratching exercise
5) BAE. Not known as Big and Expensive for nothing
During the Cold War when everyone was expecting the Third Shock Army to roll across Germany, they had massive numerical superiority on paper. The difference was, the vast majority of our armour worked and was ready for action. Their armour was rusting, short on fuel, parts and ammo and crewed by soldiers who generally couldn't care less.
But they were likely to come over in one huge formation and they were estimated to overwhelm Europe in 2 weeks and then we'd last 5 days. Why they chose not to come across is anyones guess. They would have swamped us in a conventional war. And think of the poor souls that were to be dropped off ahead of the main body, dug into a hill whanging missiles at their armour knew our life expectancy was measured at about 12 seconds once we started launching and the vapour trails in a war of attrition to slow them down a bit. 2nd generation Milan, which wasn't Fire n Forget, was easily decoyed (Russkie tankers had a pole on top with a flare and pull cable, if they saw trails they would pull the cord and our missiles would go askew.)
Yes, but they knew that if they had invaded it would have removed any chance of David Hasselhoff playing an unscheduled Berlin date 😀
a buy best option would be a lot cheaper and quicker
and not support British jobs or the Britih economy and mean we have even less manufacturing capability and science.
Complicated thing this defence malarky.
There are some fundamental reasons why purchasing defence equipment is a costly and lengthy process. Firstly, you can not predict tomorrows war so we really dont know what we are buying kit for. Take Afghanistan (Op Hrrick) as an example, we were fighting a completely different war than Iraq (Op Telic), so much was designed and procured as rapid operational, almost development/prototype kit. Bulldog, Mastiff, all those armoured vehicles designed to deter IEDs, we had to design and build them during the first years of the conflict, and remember that it was the Politicians who were pulling the strings regarding that deployment. As implied, defence is a political football.
We were also fighting in an asymetric war for the first time meaning it wasnt tanks vs tanks but much more unpredictable. It wasnt like the cold war were we could just keep a load of planes and tanks on the German border and wait for the Russians to come over in their planes and tanks.
Defence is a politcal football and a vote winner. Its something that will always be subject to cuts and things. Also buying British isnt actually all that easy, we are bound by many European Contracting regulations. Maintaining a UK defence industry is important but the problem we now have is trying to feed it with orders. Take ships, we are building two new carriers, what happens when they are finished(!), we are replacing the T23 Frigates with T26, then what?.... it begs the question as to where the requirement for the kit is coming from, the Defence Chiefs or their industry counterparts? Do we build more ships after the T26s becuse we need them or to maintain a UK Shipbuilding capability?
That said, the cost of buying military capabilities is huge and we often use Multi-national collaboration to acquire kit. A400M, Weapons systems, Typhoon, all bought as part of a Europena consortium. We often do well from these collaborations in terms of the finished product but they are costly and time consuming.... we cant do it alone though.
We cant just buy American off the shelf like everyone believes we can, firstly, the Americans might not wish to sell us their latest capabilities (and what sthe point of buying almost obsolete kit) but we would need to try and integrate that kit, kit we had no involvement in the design and development of, with our own.
BristolPablo
MSc in Defence Acquision Managemnt 😉
we cant do it alone though.
We used to however
compositepro - Memberwe cant do it alone though.
We used to however
Bit easier to do that with standing armed forces that were 3/4 times larger than at present.
so much was designed and procured as rapid operational, almost development/prototype kit. Bulldog, Mastiff, all those armoured vehicles designed to deter IEDs
More manpower would have deterred IED's. Not underpowered forces returning into the bases and watching the Taliban replant IED's on the stretches that had just been cleared.
The OP here has to be trolling. Surely there cannot be adults in the UK who are not aware that you can make something or employ someone in China, India etc. for vastly less than in the UK?
The first, and fundamental, role of any Government is to secure its people and borders. Particularly in island states such as Britain, where in people who are alive today's memory we've seen blockades and rationing, home production is a necessity. It costs more if you have to buy British made products and employ people in Britain.
The US has economies of scale, e.g. a dozen or more aircraft carriers rather than none.
Bit easier to do that with standing armed forces that were 3/4 times larger than at present.
Sorry matey I was referring to defence equipment rather than the bods in it. However taking your point the gears pretty useless without folks to make it go
There's a skill in tendering such that you get the most out of the final figure, using the contract conditions, as opposed to the tender figure.
Unfortunately the Government always puts the wrong people in charge of assessing tenders and they are not sufficiently experienced in the right fields to be able to suss what the tenderers are doing.
Strange that we call it "Defence" when most of the cost seems to be borne by the need to "project" ourselves on the World stage.
RIP OFF britain innit!
Loads of people making money out of sectors where nothing actually gets done but it looks good on paper.
NHS, Armed forces, you name it, everything from national building projects to local councils.
We are a country that requires an analysis technique that ensures optimum efficiency in all things, what we really need is a new modern philosophy that will limit risks and increase the potntial of each endevour succeeding!
It must cost a lot more to keep the defence equipment and armed forces on active service in a country 3500 miles from home, than to just maintain it within your own borders.
It would be interesting to compare figures taking that into account.
edit. Or compare our spending and capability to a more equivalent country such as France.
It must cost a lot more to keep the defence equipment and armed forces on active service in a country 3500 miles from home, than to just maintain it within your own borders. It would be interesting to compare figures taking that into account.
Yeah, we really have to stop getting involved in too many wars abroad, because eventually war, in the form of terror, will come home to our land and then we'll be seeing armour on our streets.
Surprisingly we spend 10 billion more than Russia for a sixth of the capability/manpower.
my salary is frikkin impressive 8)
mrdestructo
I was not discussing the reasons for our involvement in overseas war on this thread, I reckon that's a different topic in itself. My point is purely concerned with the comparibility of the figures in the OP's post, or rather lack of. Active involvement far from home costs.
This graph shows we are pretty similar to France after all.
[img] 
[/img]
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Intersting thing is how much Saudi Arabia spends. Quite a market there for any country with defence export buisness.
No, it wasn't about the reasons for involvement, I'm just pointing out we'll probably find out how much it costs to fight at home if we continue to give people black eyes abroad.
ITAR means that US companies wont give the critical information you need to maintain the systems you buy. A £6M aircraft is useless if the avionics software needs an upgrade and they wont give you the code. They are also much better at screwing the MoD over poorly specified contracts*. Aside from the economic/knowledge benefits, homegrown mean the MoD retains control of what they buy.
The problem of changing threats is tricky. In the time it took to develop the excellent Eurofighter, it has become obsolete. We don't much need runway-based dogfighters now the MIGs have gone away. And it wont adapt to carrier-use or be an effective ground-attack or bomber plane.
What we need is a Multi-Role Combat Aircraft ....:-)
What we really need are two big aircarft carriers ,say in 2020, costing either £3.5,£6 or £12 billion depending on who you listen to.One to mothball because we can't afford it and one we can't afford to put any American planes on,thats if we could decide which type of American plane we can't afford.Oh and we won't have any trained experienced carrier crew and no money for any new crew either.
Sort of sums up our defence spending strategy.
There's a skill in tendering such that you get the most out of the final figure, using the contract conditions, as opposed to the tender figure.
Unfortunately the Government always puts the wrong people in charge of assessing tenders and they are not sufficiently experienced in the right fields to be able to suss what the tenderers are doing.
My experience says that's not entirely true, although I agree the commercial teams I've seen in acquisition are out numbered by their private industry counterparts.
My view is that although MOD can claim liquidated damages against companies for breach of contract conditions, the damage to companies is potentially so great that they'll either collapse (and we won't allow that to happen to the British defence Industry) or the cost of future contracts with those same British defence companies will escalate so MOD pays regardless. So how do you incentivise a company to do well when they know we won't penalise them?
So long as we buy British hardware and so long as we endeavour to support UK industry, products will continue to be accepted with some disregard for quality.
Quite amazing how much the US spends.
Often there is also the problem of NIH, so rather than buying a simple off-the shelf solution (British, European, American or other), you have a (large) team of people who's job is to 'spec' the item - consequently...
I know its going back in time, but I remember when squaddies were buying Berghaus stuff retail, to replace OE.
Mintman - are the French not in the same position regarding supporting their defence industry? I'm not convinced they have the same issues of cost and missed deliveries.
I'm not sure about the French, it'd be interesting to see. I do believe that their defence budget is fixed for 10 year periods so at least they can do some long range planning though (although that's not directly linked to my point above).
What we need is a Multi-Role Combat Aircraft ....:-)
Harrier? Ooops 🙄
The problem of changing threats is tricky. In the time it took to develop the excellent Eurofighter, it has become obsolete. We don't much need runway-based dogfighters now the MIGs have gone away.
As much as [i]El_Ernie[/i] and [i]El_TJ[/i] would like to protest at their presence - the "warmongering" deployment of a flight of four Typhoons to the Falklands seems to have done a reasonable job in protecting British assets - that and a T45 parked off the coast
The point is that no matter how bungled some things such as the retirement of the Harrier / SHar are, we should be maintaining our air supremacy just in case the sort of war we're fighting now in Afganistan isn't the same type of war we find ourselves in in 10 years time. Y'know, against such possibilities as rogue asian states with ICBM programmes...
BristolPablo
MSc in Defence Acquision Managemnt
can you explain the Nimrod fiasco? than incompetence at BAe and MoD?
what are your thoughts on FRES? value for money?
etc, etc
are the French not in the same position regarding supporting their defence industry? I'm not convinced they have the same issues of cost and missed deliveries.
my understanding is that the French Armed Forces are in crisis and apart from a few units they are non operational
I have never protested at the presence of four Typhoons in the Falklands zokes. The Falklands and what is deployed there isn't something which I have particularly strong feelings about.
And btw I know I'm the one and only, but please don't stand on ceremony - you can call me Ernie.......no need to show such reverence 🙂
zokes - MemberThe point is that no matter how bungled some things such as the retirement of the Harrier / SHar are, we should be maintaining our air supremacy just in case the sort of war we're fighting now in Afganistan isn't the same type of war we find ourselves in in 10 years time. Y'know, against such possibilities as rogue asian states with ICBM programmes..
What is air supremacy going to achieve in that situation?
Old news, the MOD procurement policy has been bat shit insane and awful for decades.
One of the biggest cause for budget over runs is the government/mod continually changing their minds about what type and degree of capability they want.
War is never cheap though is it? You'd be whinging about the budget if we didn't have nuculear equipped subs and suchlike.
This how we roll.. It works.
Drones, carriers, yer big bag sampson sweeping the curvature of the earth for somalis in speed boats. Its money well spent 😀
What is air supremacy going to achieve in that situation?
Simple.
Bombing the **** out of their nuclear program and air defences from a forward operating base (carrier).
Aircraft are also rather useful if you end up fighting a war over trade routes. Carriers tend to be huge assets in disaster operations as well.
I have my own ideas as to how the UK's capability could be expanded at a reduced cost but it would entail pissing every single crab and pongo off and it's most likely wildly misinformed.
The Falklands and what is deployed there isn't something which I have particularly strong feelings about.
I guess I must have imagined your involvement in a few of the FI threads then. Sorry, I recall it got rather passionate at one stage. (Though admittedly not quite as ill-advised as TJ's proclamation of loyalty to Argentina on the issue).
What is air supremacy going to achieve in that situation?
To allow strike aircraft, choppers, and ground / sea forces to operate with relative impunity. Sounds quite a useful card to have up your sleeve in a 'conventional' war - just not so useful in Afghanistan right now...
Sorry, I recall it got rather passionate at one stage.
Not from me it didn't - I suspect that you feel far more strongly about the issue of the Falklands than I do zokes.
Do an advanced search of the word "Falklands" under my username if you want to check.
You appear to be confusing what you think I should be thinking, with what I'm actually thinking.
Indeed ernie - and making up stuff He thinks I should have said.
TJ:
[/url]TandemJeremy - MemberLa malvinas son argentinas
And as for you, Ernie, an advanced search shows you to have replied to Falklands threads 40 times in the past year, whereas I've only replied 14 times. So I suspect based upon that statistic that either you do care about the Falklands a lot more than me, or alternatively you have a lot of free time in your life to talk extensively on a topic in which you have little interest. If it's the latter, that's more than a little sad IMO.
What we really need are two big aircarft carriers ,say in 2020, costing either £3.5,£6 or £12 billion depending on who you listen to.One to mothball because we can't afford it and one we can't afford to put any American planes on,thats if we could decide which type of American plane we can't afford.Oh and we won't have any trained experienced carrier crew and no money for any new crew either.
Sort of sums up our defence spending strategy.
What's worse is that they are thinking of reversing the decision they made in 2010 of going with the F35c and "cats and traps" and reverting back to the ski jump and the B version of the jet. This decision would be made purely on the costs of converting the carriers to cats and traps, and yet the ski-jump version of the jet is more expensive to purchase and more expensive to maintain.
So a short term financial decision to save money saddles us with an increased longer term cost and a less capable aircraft. Of course a politician like Philip Hammond won't have to worry about that in a few years time and that's what short termism does for the MOD.
