Third in spending, third in power?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Andrew_2010E, Jan 21, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I read on BBC news that Japan has bigger armed forces including Navy but according to figures the UK spends significantly more despite their far bigger economy;

    List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Where's all this money going that we have a smaller navy, no aircraft carriers and so much is being even further reduced?

    Does UK spending translate into military effectiveness? If not, what is going wrong?
  2. doesn't the stuff the MOD procures usually cost a fair bit in comparison with alternatives?
  3. I think that might be a part of the problem yes but I also think the backhanders come out of the defence budget too................

    A defence chief said sometime in 2010 that the defence industry should be supporting the armed forces rather than the other way around as it is at the moment.
  4. I think the National Audit Office also said something to the effect of "Catastrophic mismanagement at the MoD". How much did they spend on the new Nimrods before chopping them up for scrap? How much did they spend on the Nimrod AWACS in the 80's before chopping it up and buying Boeing AWACS?

    What's the unit cost of the SA80, including all the mods to fix design flaws? And the M16?

    Counting the tranche 1 planes that are to be scrapped and the near 1,000% cost overrun, Eurofighters don't cost much less than F-22 Raptors.

    Trident, I believe, takes a good chunk of the defence budget - perhaps as much as 25%.

    The Japanese don't have a nuclear deterrent. They tend to buy kit off the shelf too, rather than making it themselves. I'd bet the kit they do make isn't bought on "blank cheque" cost plus contracts. I'd bet their civil servants don't sit on chairs that cost a grand each while watching the cricket on wide screen tellys either.
  5. Please Sir, please Sir! I know this one!

    Cost of the SA80 including various fixes and conversion to SA80A2 is estimated at about £1,900 per gat.

    US DoD pays $590 per M16 it buys, about £400, but they do get a good volume discount. They also buy M16's and M4's from a manufacturer here in the UK!

    The cost of updating the SA80A1 to A2 spec was about £400.
  6. I was under the impression that Jap defence manufacturing was indigenous. The Type 90 and Mistubishi F-2 are pretty unique to them and their infantry weapons look fairly distinctive too.

    From last year.

    I'd have thought that making stuff solely for their own use would have led to higher unit costs without the exports to offset.
  7. AM - the NAO costs a Typhoon at about £62 million (but as ever it depends upon how you calculate it), while RAND costs an F-22 at $173 million (although if the USAF restarts production post-Gates, a 75 aircraft production run comes in at over $220m each airframe).

    The irony with Typhoon is that it's perhaps the one and only aircraft where we'd have ended up with something on time and at a reasonable cost by letting BAe (as was) get on with it by turning their EAP into a combat aircraft, rather than going down the collaborative route. Typhoon's cost problems and delays are more down to the Germans (and that numpty Volker Ruhe) and nowadays NETMA than the MoD or BAE.

    And the Japanese have had a habit of trying to do their own thing. The C-1 transport was a disappointment, and while the Mitsubish F-2 is a decent aircraft, you could buy four F-16C Block 50s for every one of the F-2s in service (and without having to sort out wing cracks). Their F-4s and F-15s were licence built in Japan, and IIRC, they worked out as being slightly more expensive than buying straight off the MDD (as was) production line.

    The point, of course, was that the Japanese could get away with this, since they were rather better off financially, and wanted to have the skills to build modern combat aircraft. The F-2 has shaken that desire a bit, but hasn't got to the stage where the company MD would be expected to make a public apology before committing seppuku on the evening news. Now if BAE directors thought they'd be compelled to do that...
  8. rampant

    rampant LE Book Reviewer Kit Reviewer

    I believe that Japan is also (constitutionaly?) forbidden from exporting military hardware, moreover she has no nuclear military assests (though tbf their technical knowledge and capabiltiy means they could do within about 20mins from the word go). Her home fleet is just that, a home fleet, not really designed to go all over the place in the way that we ask our naval vessels do, having said that I am deeply impressed by the Japanese Naval Set up based around Four Escort Forces -Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia something we could learn from

  9. They tend to buy an existing design off the shelf, improve and Japanify it and build it in Japan.
    Good example is their Kongo and Atago Class DDG's, Japanese upgrade of the USN's Arleigh Burke Class DDG and regarded by some observers as superior to the original.
  10. Short legs they may have, but the JMSDF has 40+ Frigates and Destroyers not to mention 15 Diesel/Electric subs to our... what are were down to now...? 19 Frigates and Destroyers and 8 Nuclear Subs. They might not have carriers but their "Helicopter Destroyers" look awfully like LPHs to me.

    Frankly, once the type 22s go in April, we'll only just be in shouting distance of the french and barely ahead of the Italians, let alone a truly large navy.
  11. But surely we have the Baron on our side, he must be worth 1000 of them on his own.
  12. Do the Japanese not also have an extremely large and tooled up 'Coast Guard' to further circumvate their 1% GDP defence spending? Though to be fair they do have 1.2 Billion people across water who their grandads were extremely unpleasant to, not to mention those charming North Koreans.
  13. "I read on BBC news that Japan has bigger armed forces including Navy but according to figures the UK spends significantly more despite their far bigger economy;

    Where's all this money going that we have a smaller navy, no aircraft carriers and so much is being even further reduced?"

    Yes just where does the money go ?

  14. Money spent is a crude measure of how it translates into military effectiveness.

    It doesn't consider the efficiency of spending. E.g. bureaucracy or corruption. As far as the latter is concerned, spending USD$1 in Denmark, New Zealand, Singapore, Finland or Sweden will take you further than spending USD$1 in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Somalia.

    It doesn't consider the mileage or cost of living in different countries. So for example China's military budget may be only about 1/7th of the US' but items and services in China can often be bought at 1/10th or cheaper the prices in the UK.

    So in true terms take those figures with a pinch of salt :)
  15. It goes to Afghanistan. I read somewhere that it costs a £100,000 per soldier for a six month tour. That's £60 million per battalion. It seems that we get it on the cheap cos it costs the yanks $500,000 for a six month tour.