Cyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 3 Posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1454 times:
Here is the world's rankings of the military expenditures... Europe is far, far behind the US...
1. US 276,700,000,000 $
2. Japan 43,000,000,000 $
3. France 39,831,000,000 $
4. UK 36,884,000,000 $
5. Germany 32,800,000,000 $
6. Italy 20,700,000,000 $
7. Saudi Arabia 18,300,000,000 $
8. Brazil 13,408,000,000 $
9. India 13,020,000,000 $
10. China 12,608,000,000 $
This ranking highlights the fact that the EU needs a common and strong defense policy, otherwise its political weight on the world's scene will soon decrease compared to the US one. Its time for a change..
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1416 times:
The U.S. is the only country in the world with the capability to project power. This means carrier battle groups, a vast transport and logistics capability to move and supply troups around the world, etc. Other countries, like France and the UK, and even the Soviet Union in the bad-old-days, have just a fraction of this capability. Most countries' military is geared purely to homeland defence, like Switzerland, which needs no power projection capability whatsoever. It is the power projection component that costs a lot of money, IMHO.
KROC From United States of America, joined May 2000, 19737 posts, RR: 76 Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1408 times:
Going along with what has already been said. The U.S. Military is far more active than anyone else. They are all over the world, The U.S. contributes to the defense of S. Korea (and yes, I know S.K. pays us 500 million a year, but that does not cover everything), Japan, ect. More peacekeeping missions, more actions working with other countries ect..........
"Never tell anybody outside the family what you're thinking again"
GDB From United Kingdom, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 12713 posts, RR: 80 Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1403 times:
The UK has just had a £1.5 billion per year increase for the next 3 years.
Really to safeguard programmes from cost inflation.
The trouble with a lot of European NATO members is not so much the amount of money spent, but the structure of the forces, too often they are just slimmed down versions of the Cold War formations. Not very mobile, so not much use for the most part.
One unnamed UK official called some European conscript armies (no nations specified) "little more than uniformed youth clubs."
The Netherlands is an exception, they've cut numbers designed for the Cold War, but added transport aircraft. tanker aircraft, transport and attack helicopters and sea-lift capabilities.
Small, but useful.
In the 1990's the bad old habits of 'salami-slicing' affected the UK, but now the costs are driven by so many operational deployments, leading to personnel retention problems, low unemployment does not help recruitment either.
However, a firm commitment to increase transport capability, Eurofighter, F-35, stand-off weapons, two large aircraft carriers, new amphibious warfare ships and supply ships either programmed or building, are all steps in the right direction.
I would question the need for the massive US increases, how much would be swallowed up by this
Republican fetish for NMD?
Is the build up more to do with tax $ for Bush and Cheney's buddies in the Military/Industrial complex? Remember, higher defence spending was a Republican promise prior to the 2000 election, so not just an understandable reaction to Sept.11th
If say a resurgent Soviet Union, or a really threatening China apperared, OK.
But I do understand US irritation at some NATO members who just will not pull their weight, operationally or financially.
Funny how the UK and France, with very substantial defence industries, are Europe's highest spenders.
Not being totally cynical here, but it does provide some political support for higher spending, which is a hard sell for other NATO members without substantial defence industrial bases since the Cold War ended.
However, on the one hand the US will rightly criticize European NATO members, then when programmes to increase capability comes along, they often cry foul too, (e.g. A400M).
Because their industry isn't getting a big piece of the pie by Europe not buying 'off the shelf' US weapons? (Which they still do plenty of anyway)
Despite the fustrations/delays these programmes sometimes create, high-tech jobs do sell spending on defence to nations, better than a large deficit with the US.
However, the US F-35 programme is a step in the right direction, sensibly the UK got involved early, with cash, and will get a decent workshare and some decision making.
But it's really annoyed the French!
Cyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1393 times:
In France, the military spendings are far from acceptable. They're declining since the Gulf War, and today, for instance, only 60% of the combat planes and helicopters are "fit for war", the 40% remaining are parked, waiting for maintenance. No comment...
The government gave 1 billion euros of extra cash for 2003, but its really unsignificant.
Due to this lack of money, all programs are suffering heavy delays: Rafale, Tiger Helicopter, NH90, second aircraft carrier (the government will probably decide to join the UK's program for future aircraft carrier).
Beyond national concerns, the EU countries must support the european defense industry. That's why the involvment of the UK in the F35 program is a bad thing for europe.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16260 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1387 times:
Much of the US Military increase has to do with "Quality of Life" issues for enlisted personell and their dependents, also spares and maintenance have been neglected for years to fund lots of deployments. (Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc.).
Also don't think the US is blindly spending to make Republicans who are connected to Military contractors happy, in truth Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has done an outstanding job focusing on Re-structuring and streamling the Department of Defense and the various branches.
One such case is the Crusader, a highly sophisticated self propelled artillery piece the US Army wanted. Many high ranking Republicans who's districts would get work from the Crusader project pressed hard. Even the Secretary of the Army stepped on alot of Administrations toes when he went over Secretary Rumsfields head straight to Congress to lobby for the Crusader, the Bush administration and Rumsfeld in particualr are strongly against the because of it's costs.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is focusing more on technology and quality of life improvements (better pay, housing, health care etc) for enlisted personell, while cutting such popular projects such as the Crusader.
Also the V-22 Opsrey program which the Marines, Army and the Air Force said they wish they had for the recent Afghanistan campaign was originally cancelled by Cheney when he was Secretary of Defense under President George HW. Bush. The Congress later restored funding.
Congress tried desperatley (both Democrats and Republicans) to restore the Crusaders funding, but the Administration blocked their efforts.
Also it' Rumsfield who has been trying to retire about half of the B-1 Bomber fleet which has the Air Force and the National Guard units which operate them upset. Rumsfield actually was a big part in Developing the B-1 under President Gerald Ford, and he actually piloted a few on test flights.
So to say the administration is just spending to spend is totally inaccurate, on the contrary many (inlcuding myself) feel they are cutting too much. However I also believe the investements they are making long term will pay off big time.
The Administration and Secretary Rumsfield in particular are doing an excellent job of restructing the Forces to be lighter and more mobile while at the same time making tremedous investments in technology research and Development.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16260 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1385 times:
Also what Britain decides with regards to the F-35 has a tremendous impact on the US Marines.
The Marines like Britain's RN want the VSTOL, however depending on what kind of Carrier Britain decides to buid they may go for the larger verison of the F-35 the US Navy is to receive (no VSTOL). If Britain decides not to go with the VSTOL the US Marines will not get the VSTOL version than either, it would not be cost effective just to build the VSTOLs for the Marines. They would get the larger Navy F-35.
Also if Britain's MOD decides to go with Catapult launched aircraft than the Super Hornet F-18E/F would most likely also join the RN, this would give the Royal Navy tremendous strike capabilities as well as Electronic warfare capabilities. The US Navy is studying a EAF-18F as a replacement for the E-6B, this aircraft would give the Royal Navy tremendous anti-radar and Electronic jamming capabilities.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 12713 posts, RR: 80 Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1368 times:
You can forget a RN F-18E, no money for it, and it's not what's wanted, (a stealthy 'first day of the war' aircraft).
I think STOVL F-35 has the edge for the RN, they invented the concept of STOVL at sea, used it in combat (Falklands), haven't operated CTOL at sea since 1978, R/R have put money into developing elements of the STOVL F-35's engine modifications and the RAF Harriers need replacing too.
The UK has plenty of involvement in European programmes, as well as US and totally indigenous ones as well.
I'm afraid that we have been screwed in some European projects, and France has often been the worst offender, though Germany's delays are the problem now, (Eurofighter and A400M).
France broke promises on the Anglo-French Jaguar programme, the 1967 helicopter agreement and tried to dominate the ECA, (which then split into Eurofighter and Rafale).
We are not bad Europeans, just one's who play by the rules.
No chance of France muscling in on the CVF programme, if as likely the RN goes VSTOL, that's no good for France.
The only reason France would join CVF would be to force the UK into choosing Thales rather than BAE Systems as a prime contractor, and probably wanting the RN to take Rafale.
Plus France will want a nuclear powered ship, not a RN requirement.
France has often been a valuable partner in defence projects, and will continue to be so, but what's wrong with the UK doing what's best for ourselves? (Which France ALWAYS does).
Objection to the UK involvement in F-35 is all about French jealousy with UK access to US stealth technology, which goes back over 30 years from secret research done in on both sides of the Atlantic, and joint STOVL studies going back to the early 70's.
Cyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1361 times:
The objection to the Uk's involvement in the F-35 program is not French only. And it's not a question of jealousy, just a question of political choice, even if it's a military issue.
The Uk's choice underlines the fact that this country still favors the US to the EU. This situation must stop, and the UK must choose between becoming a "full" EU member and going out of the union. There's plenty of countries who wants to become EU members...
On the fact that "France always does whats best for himself": no, you're wrong. A few years ago, when the Rafale program was delayed, the Navy wanted to buy F-18s, which were already available and cheaper than the Rafale. But the government blocked the move and favored the Rafale program, which is based on european weapons and equipments, even if it cost a lot of money. It was a decision to favor a national and european solution. The UK was not able to make such a courageous a decision.
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1358 times:
The UK not being able to make such a "courageous" decision boils down to the fact that the UK military insist on getting the right weapons for the roles they are suited for, not politically expedient ones. As such, American systems are sometimes, but not always, the better option. Simple as that, despite occasional government pressure in the other direction.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1349 times:
I highly doubt that the European Union will ever unite enough to fund a common military back bone. There will be joint projects like the Eurofighter, but I highly doubt a common defence will ever come about.
Now as far as the gap in spending, well remember that the US is in all but two of the top ten countries protecting them if push came to shove.
We are also the only current military power that can effectively fight a large scale war outside of its border, thus preventing the lose of American civilians and also being able to take the war to the enemy. The last country that was able to do that was Germany, look at how quickily they collapsed once the war was brought to their homeland.
That is why it is vital for the US to be able to project power, because once they are able to invade your homeland, you are now on the short end of the stick.
Cyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1328 times:
"why should the UK not have strong ties with a former colony and close ally?"
Yes, but this "colony" (if it can reassure you to call the US that way...) is also the only superpower remaining in the world, and the strongest opponent of europe in terms of economy.
"Why would the UK want to challenge the US"
If the UK dosent want to challenge the US, its the US 51th state! (the former colonial empire becoming a colony )
In fact, the UK has close relationship with the US, but it already challenges the US, like all the other european countries, with programs like Airbus Industrie.
The world needs another superpower to counter the US, because the US, at the moment, can do whatever they want (think to the Kyoto protocol or the "steel war"). The goal of the EU is not to create a new "cold war" between two blocks, its goal is to create a community of countries willing to unite to be stronger. It was the goal of the CECA, created in 1951.
"France is acting like China during the Cold War, dividing the Communist countries into Soviet and Chinese regimes."
France, like Germany, is acting to push a union of the European countries, because europe (continental europe if you prefer) is different from the US and wants to be able to promote its own ideas and solutions trough the world. The EU is working concept. Programs like Arianespace (from french origin), Airbus or the Euro (created thanks to the monetary union created in 1978 by president Giscard d'Estaing and chancellor Schmidt) can prove that.
The EU currently wants to go further that the current economic union, and a constitution will be ready as soon as 2004. The UK will be free to decide whether to become or not a member of this future european confederation...
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1321 times:
The ChiComs (oops, gentlemen from the People's republic of China) have a small budget because their military makes a lot of income.
They OWN all the weapons production plants, and get all the profits from those (plus they get all their equipment at cost...).
They also OWN a lot of other factories and farms producing everything they need (and selling the surplus).
In real terms (so including the income from those facilities) their military budget is probably higher than that of the USA by a fair margin.
Their costs are also lower (ChiCom soldiers draw lower wages and they get everything at or below cost from their own factories instead of having to pay market prices (and often more than that)).
Cyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1311 times:
Free trade ok, but with a little security for the people. The british beef ban is not a political decision, its based on scientific studies made by the "Agence française de sécurité sanitaire".
I don't care about the ties between the UK and the US, i just care about the EU's future. The UK just has to make a choice, and they need to do it quickly.
The UK is not anymore the world's leading power, its one of the "average power" like Germany or France. Here on the continent we're tired to see them making whims, as if they were in position to be condescending towards the other EU countries.
They just have to make a d-e-c-i-s-i-o-n, its not very complicated...
GDB From United Kingdom, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 12713 posts, RR: 80 Reply 18, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1308 times:
Maybe if France did not throw it's weight around so much in Europe, they'd get more co-operation from us.
I'm basically pro-European, have deep reservations about the current US government, but whining won't do anything.
Then there is the reliability question, France was a partner in the coalition against Iraq in the Gulf in 1990/91. But only after the French Defence Minister (a leading member some 'Franco-Iraq solidarity society'), was sacked.
A senior French officer-with Serb sympathies, leaked vital NATO info to the enemy during the Kosovo campaign. If he was 50 years older maybe he'd have been a keen policeman in Vichy France!
(More likely he was motivated by the rather childish knee-jerk anti-Americanism that infects the political establishment, a DeGualle legacy).
And the western weapons in Iraq? Bascially the Iraqi inventory has Soviet dominated, but the next biggest supplier was France-by a long way the biggest western supplier.
Beef-everyone else it's safe, France has had scandals of it's own in Agriculture, but the French farmers, a violent, backward bunch, have way too much influence with the French government-who are basically scared of them.
Why should the rest of the EU line their bulging, unproductive pockets?
Cyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 3 Reply 19, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1304 times:
If France is not enough reliable for you, then quit the EU! France launched some of the EU's most important programs, like Ariane (i said that before), and the UK was glad to join that program, as they were glad to join Airbus, from Germano-French origin...
I'm shocked to see that you're almost saying that France is a supporter of terrorist states. We paid terrorism by blood over the last 30 years, and we fight terrorism as the US and the UK do, no question about that.
You talks about our defense minister during the first Gulf War. It was Chevènement and for me, he's just an idiot. Even Mitterrand said the war against Iraq was necessary. Everyone was backing this war in France, except idiots like Chevènement or Le Pen.
About the weapons in iraq, just remember that during the Iran-Iraq war, the CIA and the US government were the greatest of all the supporters of saddam... Like they did with the talebans against USSR.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 12713 posts, RR: 80 Reply 20, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1291 times:
See, there you go! Do whatever we want-or get out!
Iraq had a sustantial fleet of Mirage fighters, helicopters, patrol boats (with Exocets), armoured vehicles-including main battle tanks, that was French built, much of it modern.
Very little US stuff in the Iraqi inventory, their mistake was giving intelligence support when Saddam was fighting Iran.
Who is saying France is soft on terrorism?
But secrets have a tendency to end up where they shouldn't, or used commercially-the first is the work of individuals, the second more official.
I support greater efforts towards European defence programmes, and EADS-with a large French shareholding, is trying to forge links with the US defence industry, so who's being 'anti-European' now?
BAE's work on JSF will benefit the European technology base.
Building a competitor will be futile anyway, there will still be a market for Eurofighter and Rafale.
After that, the future of manned combat aircraft is debatable.
Europe needs an advanced UCAV programme, like the US X-47, a common steathly airframe, able to take modular sensors/weapon systems from other European NATO nations-structured to their requirements.
EADS, with BAE possibly, to do the airframe, the rest of European industry to contribute as they require for the modular sensors/weapons.
But if a customer wanted modular US supplied hardware, they should be able to have it, anyway there would be some US contractors involved, as with all advanced projects these days, and hopefully it will be a two-way street.
Delta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7 Reply 22, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1242 times:
I was just curious to see what the per-capita expenditures would be for the top 10 countries mentioned in the post. (The population data is from http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/)
Country - Mil. spending - Population - per capita spending....
1. US 276.7 B$ - 273.4 M - $1012
2. Japan 43 B$ - 126.7 M - $339
3. France 39.831 B$ - 59.1 M - $674
4. UK 36.884 B$ - 58.8 M - $627
5. Germany 32.8 B$ - 82.2 M - $399
6. Italy 20.7 B$ - 57.3 M - $361
7. Saudi Arabia 18.3 B$ - 21.6 M - $847
8. Brazil 13.408 B$ - 170.1 M - $79
9. India 13.02 B$ - 1,013.7 M - $13
10. China 12.608 B$ - 1,277.5 M - $10
Here's another dimension ... military spending as a percentage of each nation's gross domestic product (GDP) (GDP data is for Y2000 expressed in 1995 USD using market exchange rates ...ref. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/tableb2.html)....
Country - Mil. spending - GDP - %spending/GDP....
1. US 276.7 B$ - 9,048.8 B$ - 3.1%
2. Japan 43 B$ - 5,341.6 B$ - 0.8%
3. France 39.831 B$ - 1,763.7 B$ - 2.3%
4. UK 36.884 B$ - 1,294.7 B$ - 2.8%
5. Germany 32.8 B$ - 2,679.1 B$ - 1.2%
6. Italy 20.7 B$ - 1,204.9 B$ - 1.7%
7. Saudi Arabia 18.3 B$ - 139.4 B$ - 13.1
8. Brazil 13.408 B$ - 787.7 B$ - 1.7%
9. India 13.02 B$ - *465.0 B$ - 2.8%
10. China 12.608 B$ - 1,041.8 B$ - 1.2%
* 1999 data - 2000 data not available
So, what does this say? Most countries are in the 1 - 2% of GDP range. Glaring exceptions are Saudi Arabia at 13%, and US, UK and India around 3%. Japan and Germany do not seem to be pulling their weight with respect to other major economies.
The US and UK tend to "project power" more than other nations, which may explain the higher spending per GDP. India and Saudi Arabia are in volatile situations, which may explain theirs. I suspect other middle eastern and central Asian countries will have higher military spending per GDP than western Europe, but do not fall into the top 10, so do not appear on this list.
Spending per population seems rather random to draw any conclusions.
Cyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1222 times:
Very interesting data, Delta-flyer. Its obvious that the UK is producing a great effort to become the leader in europe. France, Germany and Italy can do better.
And that's probably why our army officials (in france) are asking the government to quickly raise the military spendings...
Sebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3667 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1220 times:
The USA have a very powerful army which allowed the country to take the control in many parts of the world, and contributed a lot to this very strong economy.
That's the reason why Europe is in the way of increasing the army expenses (to stop this incredible domination: the US are everywhere even in Europe to solve problems).
And don't tell it's anti-Americanism. That's just the brutal truth.
25 Pacificjourney: Nice work delta-flyer, that is some interesting information. A word on Japan's military expenditure though. The reason it seems so low, especially as
26 G-KIRAN: Very interesting data, Delta-flyer. Its obvious that the UK is producing a great effort to become the leader in europe. France, Germany and Italy can
27 GDB: Germany probably still has constitutional constraints on extra-NATO action, though it seems to be changing. But increased military spending there is p
28 Cyril B: Yes GDB, there's no more conscription in France since last year. Chirac decided to cut it in 1996 and the Jospin government applicated this decision.
29 RogueTrader: Cyril B says: the strongest opponent of europe in terms of economy. I thought the constant rhetoric from the EU is that it has no desire to challenge
30 Heavymetal: Just out of curiosity, Cyril, what the hell was this post about anyway? Are you legitimizing increased defense spending in Europe to defend from.....t
31 Travelin man: Bravo, Heavymetal! I couldn't have said it better myself. Frankly, I think most countries LIKE it the way it is: Europe doesn't have to spend as much
32 Racko: For what exactly do we need a huge army ? Will Poland or the Czech Republic invade us ? And we're not going to invade France in the next few years, so
33 Cba: "Considering the fact that the UK is the only Euro country spending its weight in military terms" Uh, France is spending more than the UK according to
34 AC320: Well at least all those nations aren't like Canada which spends about $5 and a stick of gum on its military annually. It's insulting.
35 N766UA: The FRENCH? Didn't see that one coming. BTW: anyone know France's battle cry? "Run away!!"
36 Indianguy: I find it hard to believe that China spends less than India, as is inferred in your figures. But i guess this could be becauase, the Chinese do not ha
37 FDXmech: Interestingly, prior to the U.S. entering WW2, the U.S. military was ranked 39 in the world, on par with Portugal.
38 Dripstick: Well at least all those nations aren't like Canada which spends about $5 and a stick of gum on its military annually. Actually, it's about $10 Billion
39 STT757: I think the Canadian Navy is well equipped , it's their Air Force and Army which could use some attention. I think the F-35 would be a great replaceme
40 GDB: UK forces have been engaged somewhere, often against terrorism, every year since 1945, with the exception of 1968. Excessive defence expenditure in th
41 Cyril B: G-KIRAN: "Really?If I am right the last time the French went to war completly on their own they lost ie Dien Bien Phu,Algeria etc.Why dont you try goi
42 Cyril B: "For what exactly do we need a huge army ? Will Poland or the Czech Republic invade us ? And we're not going to invade France in the next few years, s
43 Jwenting: "For what exactly do we need a huge army ? Will Poland or the Czech Republic invade us ? And we're not going to invade France in the next few years, s
44 Boeing4ever: Will Poland or the Czech Republic invade us ? Keep dissin them and I'm sure they'd love some revenge for 1939. B4e-Forever New Frontiers PS-Don't unde
45 Cba: "The FRENCH? Didn't see that one coming. BTW: anyone know France's battle cry? "Run away!!" Let's not start that one again.