defence spending

Well, slowly things are moving on. In the next perhaps 5 years we're fianlly getting a new transport to replace those decades old C-160 Hercules. But still the A400M is one class under the weight capacity other militaries have. Europen countries still need to charter russian Antonovs for transport, I think a union with the ambitions of the europeans shouldn't have to rely on that.
European MALE/HALE UAV programs are still in early stages.
Furthermore I always have a look on our home defence industry on that topic. I believe a true sovereign country/union should be able to rely completely on the output of it's homegrown industry.

I just found a (two years old) report on the defence spending of many countries. Those charts also show the defence spending as percent of the GDP. The report coveres two timeframe for comparisson '99-'00 and '03-'04 / '02
It is interesting, and somewhat sad, to note that the poorest countries contribute most of their mony to defence. DPRK lately one qurter of it. Eritrea even a little more than that some six years ago, but less now. Somewhat richer nations in the mid east like Saudi-Arabia and Quatar as well as Israel spent around 10%. None of the rich "western" nations is under the top 25 in that figure, meaning they are spending less than 5% of their GDP on defence. Also noteworthy, some countries have great differences in that meassurement in just five years.
It's a PDF file

The_Zergling said:

In short, unless the EU wants to invade the USA, they don't need to spend more money than they already do.

Click to expand...

You have to be joking. What about the Balkans, Russia, Africa, the Middle East, etc? Even if there isn't a likely major war on the horizon, what if a conflict broke out that threatened European security? Why does everyone assume the Americans will be there on call 24/7? Perhaps the US will turn somewhat isolationist in the future - then what is Europe going to do? It couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery without American support.

All European plans concerning major future conflict seem to assume the US is going to be there to "fill in the gaps", or even do the leg-work. Christ alive, look at how lazy many of the European states are in Afghanistan, insisting their troops should do little more than drive around Kabul or the safer areas and shake hands. Do you really think with that sort of mentality Europe could go it alone? Fat chance.

European countries need to get off their backsides and start planning for a situation where everyone has to pull their weight and they only have each other to rely upon. If today you informed continental European countries of a major conflict that without serious intervention would have grave consequences in Europe, and for one reason or another no one (let's include the UK) was going to help, they'd be shitting themselves.

FuManChu said:

European countries need to get off their backsides and start planning for a situation where everyone has to pull their weight and they only have each other to rely upon. If today you informed continental European countries of a major conflict that without serious intervention would have grave consequences in Europe, and for one reason or another no one (let's include the UK) was going to help, they'd be shitting themselves.

Click to expand...

I'm taking this posture assuming that the EU stays intact and that member states feel that it is in their best interests to support one another should invasion ever come. They have small numbers of advanced equipment and well-equipped soldiers that can serve the purposes of their policies. Should they want to pursue the role of a world policeman as you seem to want them to do, then of course they would have to increase military spending sharply.

There is a strong difference between foreign operations and defending home soil - I believe that European operations abroad are a poor indicator of their abilities and motivation should something directly challenge their home countries, in any situation those that are fighting to defend their homelands will put up stronger resistance than ever before. Now of course if the enemy simply outclasses you by too much (Ex: Nazi Germany WWII) then there's not much you can do, but I don't see any military power that does dwarf the EU except for the United States.

The_Zergling said:

Now of course if the enemy simply outclasses you by too much (Ex: Nazi Germany WWII) then there's not much you can do, but I don't see any military power that does dwarf the EU except for the United States.

Click to expand...

But it's too late to try to rearm when the threat has emerged, because it can strike at any time. This is the problem with European countries, they think they can just kick back and spend trivial amounts of GDP on defence, because everything will always be ok. So what happens when reality doesn't live up to those desires? By then it's too late to do anything.

The DoD has released it's butget request for FY2008.


in extracts:

The total DoD 2008 budget request is pegged at $481.4 billion. This represents an 11.3-percent increase over fiscal 2007.

The total U.S. government budget request is $2.9 trillion.

Strategic modernization receives the lion’s share of the budget request, with $176.8 billion and 38 percent. Readiness and support will receive $146.5 billion and make up 30 percent of the request. Military pay and health care are pegged at $137 billion and 28 percent of the request. Family housing and facilities improvement is looking at $21.1 billion and roughly 4 percent of the request.

If the budget is enacted as submitted, the Army will receive $130.1 billion in fiscal 2008, for an increase of more than 20 percent. The Navy will receive $119.3 billion, up 9 percent. The Marine Corps will receive $20.5 billion, up 4.3 percent, and the Air Force will receive $136.6 billion; an increase of 8.2 percent.

The Air Force F-22 Raptor fighter is budgeted at $3.8 billion for 20 aircraft. A further $743 million is budgeted for research and development.

The Air Force and Navy each will receive six F-35 Joint Strike Fighters at $2.6 billion. Continued research and development for the F-35 is set at $3.4 billion in fiscal 2008.

The Navy will receive 24 F/A-18E/F Hornet jet fighters at $2.4 billion and 18 E/A-18G Growler aircraft at $1.3 billion. The Growler is the electronic warfare variant of the Hornet.

The Army’s Future Combat System will receive $3.7 billion in research and development funds. Unmanned aerial and ground vehicles, non-line-of-sight launch systems and command and control systems are highlighted in the program.

Shipbuilding will receive $14.4 billion under the request for a CVN-21 next-generation aircraft carrier, a Virginia-class sub, an amphibious assault ship and a logistics ship. The program funds three littoral combat ships and will continue funding for two DDG-1000-class destroyers and another amphibious assault ship.

Click to expand...

Also:

There is an arguement that not spending enough can encourage war (looking weak). The opposite is also true. Looking too strong and buying more arms can precipitate an arms race that spirals into war. The US spends about 4% of GDP on defence. They have too much for most purposes (a super power). If any additional state kept this level of armament, it would be a source of conflict in itself (cf Cold War).

Personally I feel something between 2.7% and 3% of the UK's GDP would be a prudent level. As for the rest of europe: France 2.5%-3%, Germany 1.7%-2%, Italy 1.7%-2%, Spain 1.5%-1.8%, Sweden 1.5%-1.8% and the rest about 1%-1.5% of GDP. The countries I have singled out are either major powers, security council perminent members or significant arms exporters. The rest have a smaller stake in the great game. They should ante up none the less.

perfectgeneral said:

There is an arguement that not spending enough can encourage war (looking weak). The opposite is also true. Looking too strong and buying more arms can precipitate an arms race that spirals into war. The US spends about 4% of GDP on defence. They have too much for most purposes (a super power). If any additional state kept this level of armament, it would be a source of conflict in itself (cf Cold War).

Click to expand...

In a sense that's why the US withdrawing from the ABT and establishing a missile shield is such a provocative act in the eyes of the international community. When one state has the power to indiscriminately destroy without facing consequences the balance of power is shifted too much for the comfort of many other countries, and when people get nervous... logic tends to fly out of the window.

China Now 2nd to U.S. in Arms Spending: Study

By MARC PREEL, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Published: 8 Jun 2009 07:00

STOCKHOLM - World military spending hit a new record in 2008, boosted by the Iraq war, the return of Russia as a global player and the emergence of China, a Swedish think tank said in its annual report June 8.

World arms expenditure totaled $1.464 trillion last year, a rise of 45 percent from a decade ago and representing 2.4 percent of global gross domestic product or $217 for every person on the planet, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said.

Compared with 2007, the figure rose by 4.0 percent in real terms.

"The introduction of the idea of 'the war on terrorism' has encouraged several countries to see their problems from a very militarized perspective, and is used to justify high military spending," Sam Perlo-Freeman, the main author of SIPRI's report on military expenditure, said in a statement.

"At the same time, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost an extra $903 billion in increased military spending for the United States alone," he said.

The United States is, as expected, by far the world's biggest arms spender, according to the think tank.

It represented almost 42 percent of the 2008 total, more than the 14 other top countries combined in what SIPRI described as a legacy from former president George W. Bush.

Since 1999, U.S. defense spending has soared by 67 percent in real terms to 607 billion dollars last year.

China, which like Russia has almost tripled its military expenditure in the past 10 years, was for the first time the world's second-biggest arms spender in 2008.

SIPRI estimated its spending at $84.9 billion, which accounted for six percent of the global total.

That would put it ahead of France and Britain, which each accounted for 4.5 percent.

"China's increase has roughly paralleled its economic growth and is also linked to its major power aspirations," SIPRI said.

Russia, like China, took advantage of the recent years' economic boom prior to the global crisis to reassert its superpower ambitions, returning to fifth position on SIPRI's list in 2008 after a decline in the post-Cold War period.

Meanwhile, military spending in South America soared by 50 percent in 2008 over the previous decade, "led by Brazil's long-term push for regional power status and Colombia's escalating spending related to its internal conflict," the think tank wrote.

Among the top 15 biggest spenders, only Germany and Japan have decreased their arms spending since 1999, with drops of 11 percent and 1.7 percent respectively last year.

At the other end of the line, the 100 biggest weapons manufacturers registered total sales of 347 billion dollars in 2007, an increase of five percent in real terms from 2006, according to the most recent statistics compiled by SIPRI and presented in its annual yearbook.

That list is topped by U.S. company Boeing, ahead of Britain's BAE Systems and U.S. group Lockheed Martin.

Western companies dominate the ranking, with 44 of them from the U.S. and 32 from Western Europe.

SIPRI said the companies that registered the sharpest increases were manufacturers of armored tanks, in strong demand in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as companies that subcontract their services to militaries.

Something missed in the discussion is how much pure research and expensive R&D is done by the US alone. America's allies benefit from the weapons these efforts produce, but they don't pay for the expensive labs and test ranges these efforts require. The Europeans will buy the F-35 but they certainly didn't pay the bulk of the R&D involved. Most of it was paid for in the F-22 program, to which the F-35 owes most of it's stealth attributes. The Europeans and certain Pacific Rim nations all come to the US west coast to use the "sea ranges" at the Pacific Missile Test Center, nothing like it exists anywhere else in the world. Half a dozen European air forces come to the desert ranges of the western US to train for Afghanistan, or to train on their US sourced equipment. Canada and Australia too. These assets are costly to maintain and are unique to the US.