Jump to content


Photo

Military Expenditures


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#21 Xavier

Xavier

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,153 posts

Posted 10 November 2007 - 1951 PM

Exactly!

The European Defence Agency EDA still has got a lot of work to do! ;)

yeah, long way from being the EU's counterpart of the French DGA

Eurofighter/Rafale has to be the perfect example of how to waste a couple billion to end up producing 2 aircraft which are nearly identical in every aspect
  • 0

#22 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,311 posts

Posted 13 November 2007 - 1714 PM

You've got to be kidding - every single project would take twice as long, cost twice as much and deliver a product that none of hte users actually wanted. Oh, wait. That happens now...

David
  • 0

#23 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,083 posts

Posted 13 November 2007 - 1955 PM

You've got to be kidding - every single project would take twice as long, cost twice as much and deliver a product that none of hte users actually wanted. Oh, wait. That happens now...

David


Each country gets to design a system. Everyone buys THAT system.

Germans build the tanks and wheeled APCs.

British Build the Carriers.

Italians...umm, the staff cars umm. Oh Attack Helicopters.

British Build the Light tanks (ala CVRT).

Austrians Build the Assault Rifles.

Germans Make the Machine Guns.

French....buy Excoets from them.

Dutch make the Frigates.

Swedes make the FACs

Norway makes the Subs (or do I have that backwards with the swedes?)

Go from there...
  • 0

#24 Tomas Hoting

Tomas Hoting

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,693 posts

Posted 14 November 2007 - 0459 AM

You've got to be kidding - every single project would take twice as long, cost twice as much and deliver a product that none of hte users actually wanted. Oh, wait. That happens now...

David


I would rather trust an independent agency which coordinates defence procurement, free from national bias, based on broader criterias instead of having national governments and militaries draw up requirements in a way that eliminate competition and dictate a certain winner from the start.
  • 0

#25 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,307 posts

Posted 04 December 2017 - 1001 AM

The trusty Necronomicon led me to this old thread ...

 

The Bonn International Center for Conversion (BICC) runs a Global Militarization Index that takes into account defense expenditures, military personnel and heavy weapons relative to population of countries. Unsurprisingly with these parameters, Israel has come out top since 2007, followed by Singapore, for similar reasons. There's been some movement among runners-up over the last years; for 2016, Armenia is in third place, followed by Russia, South Korea, Kuwait and Jordan. European countries start at eighth place with Cyprus, followed by Greece. Of the major powers, the US is 31st, France 63rd, the UK 69th, China 92nd, Germany 104th and Japan 112th.

 

http://gmi.bicc.de/i...sort=index_desc


Edited by BansheeOne, 04 December 2017 - 1006 AM.

  • 0

#26 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,602 posts

Posted 04 December 2017 - 1018 AM

I'd be rather careful with the China number. They don't accurately report those values.
  • 0

#27 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,042 posts

Posted 04 December 2017 - 1023 AM

I don't know how the GMI formula works, but basic estimates put China at about 200 billion. That puts it at around 1/3 the US's 630 billion. But the US is global where as most of China is aimed regionally. If the GMI suggests that China has plenty of room to further push defense budget to say double, than to 400 billion, then yeah. I'll leave it at that.


  • 0