UK Reveals Military spending 2012-2022

[104th_Maverick]

Interesting read,

 

 

Full Article - Here

 

 

PROJECTS COVERED

The major defence equipment projects covered in the MoD spending plan are:

* 35.8 billion pounds on seven BAE-built Astute-class submarines and developing a replacement for the four Vanguard-class submarines used for Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent.

* 18.5 billion pounds on fighter jets, and UAVs, or drones, including the Joint Strike Fighter built by U.S. firm Lockheed Martin, of which Britain has so far committed to buy 48, and the Typhoon, built by a consortium of BAE, Italy's Finmeccanica and European aerospace group EADS, of which Britain has ordered 160.

* 17.4 billion pounds on two aircraft carriers, six new Type 45 destroyers and the development of the Type 26 Global Combat Ship, all built by BAE.

* 13.9 billion pounds on air-to-air refuelling, passenger and heavy lift capability by leasing Airbus aircraft through the EADS-led AirTanker consortium.

* 12.3 billion pounds on armoured fighting vehicles, including the Scout - built by General Dynamics - and the Warrior, built by GKN.

* 12.1 billion pounds on helicopters, including the Boeing-built Chinook and Apache, and the AgustaWestland-built Wildcat.

* 11.4 billion pounds on assorted missiles, torpedoes and bombs. - Reuters

[Druid_]

Now you know where all your hard earned cash is going Mav.

[kam]

Some of it needs to be spent on MARPAT since the Nimrod was retired.

 

Even with current asset's combined they simply don't do the job a nimrod would have been doing. Intel/MARPAT/SAR/ASW/comms relay.

[Mandrake5]

Take all of those costs and double them due to overruns, inefficiencies, and good old fashioned rip-offs.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I wonder where is the money going to come from? Isn't the UK national debt somewhere around 2 000 000 000 000 (two trillion) dollars? And that you have a budget deficit too?

[marcos]

;1664974']Interesting read,

 

 

Full Article - Here

 

 

PROJECTS COVERED

The major defence equipment projects covered in the MoD spending plan are:

* 35.8 billion pounds on seven BAE-built Astute-class submarines and developing a replacement for the four Vanguard-class submarines used for Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent.

* 18.5 billion pounds on fighter jets, and UAVs, or drones, including the Joint Strike Fighter built by U.S. firm Lockheed Martin, of which Britain has so far committed to buy 48, and the Typhoon, built by a consortium of BAE, Italy's Finmeccanica and European aerospace group EADS, of which Britain has ordered 160.

* 17.4 billion pounds on two aircraft carriers, six new Type 45 destroyers and the development of the Type 26 Global Combat Ship, all built by BAE.

* 13.9 billion pounds on air-to-air refuelling, passenger and heavy lift capability by leasing Airbus aircraft through the EADS-led AirTanker consortium.

* 12.3 billion pounds on armoured fighting vehicles, including the Scout - built by General Dynamics - and the Warrior, built by GKN.

* 12.1 billion pounds on helicopters, including the Boeing-built Chinook and Apache, and the AgustaWestland-built Wildcat.

* 11.4 billion pounds on assorted missiles, torpedoes and bombs. - Reuters

So is that really 6 new Type 45s, because there are already 6?

 

There's also already 2 Astute Class submarines. So is it 7 more or 7 in total?

[marcos]

I wonder where is the money going to come from? Isn't the UK national debt somewhere around 2 000 000 000 000 (two trillion) dollars? And that you have a budget deficit too?

It's ~85% of $2.431tr

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/government-debt-to-gdp

 

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp

 

but that's gross debt not net debt, which is about 63.6% I think.

 

Page 99 (bottom)

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/junebudget_complete.pdf

 

 

Some of it needs to be spent on MARPAT since the Nimrod was retired.

 

Even with current asset's combined they simply don't do the job a nimrod would have been doing. Intel/MARPAT/SAR/ASW/comms relay.

The MRA4 is right there if they can be arsed to buy it. As of about June 2009 the only design changes going through were lumbar support for seats and crap like that. There are no major technical problems with the aircraft.

Edited January 31, 2013 by marcos

[marcos]

* 18.5 billion pounds on fighter jets, and UAVs, or drones, including the Joint Strike Fighter built by U.S. firm Lockheed Martin, of which Britain has so far committed to buy 48, and the Typhoon, built by a consortium of BAE, Italy's Finmeccanica and European aerospace group EADS, of which Britain has ordered 160.

 

I guess we can live in hope for the day when all these weapons might be qualified.

 

 

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

Isn't the UK national debt somewhere around 2 000 000 000 000 (two trillion) dollars?

 

A bit of Googling found The Economist website which tells me that it's around $35.6K per person in the UK. Nightmare!!

 

Of course another way of looking at it is that this is a figure that our American cousins might envy as US national debt levels are even more - around $37.3K per person.

 

Still at least we're not Norwegian ($54K)... or Irish $55K.... or Japanese ($99K) :(

Edited February 6, 2013 by Brit_Radar_Dude

[Pilotasso]

Those numbers dont mean much, they dont tell you if a japanese pays 99K easier than an irish would with 55K. The capacity of manuever of each nation is very different.

[Eddie]

I guess we can live in hope for the day when all these weapons might be qualified.

 

Considering half of them are not used and never planned for use on UK Typhoons, I very much doubt it.

 

Those pics are very outdated indeed. The payload/role example diagrams are mostly invalid configurations as well.

 

If the US stopped charging so much for range time, it wouldn't take as long.

[marcos]

If the US stopped charging so much for range time, it wouldn't take as long.

Can't we use an island off Scotland or something?

 

Or would the RSPCB try to bugger us for it?

[159th_Viper]

 

Or would the RSPCB try to bugger us for it?

 

I would be first in line with a particularly large and splintery 2x4......:furious:

[Eddie]

Can't we use an island off Scotland or something?

 

Or would the RSPCB try to bugger us for it?

 

We can, and do. But those areas can't be used to drop the kind of ordnance in question in the way required for the trials. At most UK ranges are for gun, rocket and small bombs only.

 

The UK, and Europe in general, is just too densely populated to allow for most aircraft weapon employment. Especially trials where it isn't necessarily known exactly how the weapons will behave, at not outside of some boffin's computer simulation.

 

And the there is also the weather to consider.

[Boberro]

I wonder where is the money going to come from? Isn't the UK national debt somewhere around 2 000 000 000 000 (two trillion) dollars? And that you have a budget deficit too?

 

Who cares :D

 

Everybody knows US debt, UK and other enormous are not to be paid back.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Who cares :D

 

Everybody knows US debt, UK and other enormous are not to be paid back.

:huh: You will see. Just take a look around you. What is the price of food, gasoline, most goods and services ... Somebody will pay for the enormous debt our nations are accumulating. It is not sustainable to spend more then what you make.

[marcos]

We can, and do. But those areas can't be used to drop the kind of ordnance in question in the way required for the trials. At most UK ranges are for gun, rocket and small bombs only.

 

The UK, and Europe in general, is just too densely populated to allow for most aircraft weapon employment. Especially trials where it isn't necessarily known exactly how the weapons will behave, at not outside of some boffin's computer simulation.

 

And the there is also the weather to consider.

During the Falklands we used an island for testing I think (ref. Vulcan raids)???? They were Mk83s - fairly big.

 

Anyway back on topic:

 

Inside nerve centre of new UK carrier | British Forces News

 

 

 

 

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/01/looking-forward-to-an-f35-future-part-3-the-promise/

 

 

 

 

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/

 

11.4 billion for Complex Weapons (SPEAR program, Future Local Area Air Defence System, Indirect Fire Precision Attack capability)

 

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/spear_datasheet-1359561363.pdf

 

Basically a turbojet-powered Brimstone with ~130km range from what I can find. Nice SEAD weapon.

 

Edited February 6, 2013 by marcos

[marcos]

Who cares :D

 

Everybody knows US debt, UK and other enormous are not to be paid back.

Oh it will be paid back. You will notice that every $ you have becomes worth less and less until it is. Every $ the Fed prints makes every $ you own worth less.

[marcos]

HMS Queen Elizabeth Photographed in Build | Royal Navy

 

Sparks fly as a welder toils in Dock No.1 at Rosyth on the bow section of the Royal Navy’s future aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.

 

Another day, another couple of images which hint at the sheer scale of the biggest warship ever built in Britain.

 

And this particular photograph truly gives you an idea of the very bulbous nature of the 65,000-tonne warships bulbous bow.

 

At 400 tonnes, the bow weighs the equivalent of nearly 40 double-decker buses and is similar in size to the front of a submarine (the bulbous section is about 100ft long, 35ft wide and more than 30ft tall).

 

The bow section was built by a 300-strong team at the Babcock yard in Appledore in North Devon and moved by barge up to Scotland.

 

As well as photographing the bow, the Aircraft Carrier Alliance photographer climbed over 200ft into the cab of Goliath, the gigantic crane which dominates the Rosyth skyline – and is used to move sections of the carrier into place.

 

The resulting panorama of the Queen Elizabeth in build shows her from bow (on the left) to stern (on the right).

 

About to lifted into the dock imminently are ‘Tango’ and ‘Uniform’ segments – sections of all warships are labelled from A-Z (depending on the length) using the phonetic alphabet (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie…) – which will complete the length of Queen Elizabeth at the waterline.

 

Brackets for the shafts – which drive the propellers – are also in the process of being put into the dock.

 

The blue and white containers on the flight deck support the engineers, technicians and shipwrights working on the construction project.

 

Those running athwartships – from port to starboard beam – cover the joins between the blocks and ensure the weather is kept at bay as the blocks are welded together.

 

“The ship is awesome – it surprises everyone who works on board. Outside, she sheer size of her is difficult to comprehend, but inside it really hits you,” said Capt Simon Petitt, Queen Elizabeth’s Senior Naval Officer, in charge of a 17-strong ship’s company at present.

 

There will be 3,500 compartments in the completed carrier – some, such as the bakery, and most of the accommodation cabins are finished (although there’s no power to them), others are still in various stages of completion.

 

The next milestone in the QE project will be to move her forward island – containing the bridge, captain’s day quarters and other compartments – from Portsmouth to Rosyth. Weather permitting, that’s due to take place next week.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EtherealN]

We can, and do. But those areas can't be used to drop the kind of ordnance in question in the way required for the trials. At most UK ranges are for gun, rocket and small bombs only.

 

The UK, and Europe in general, is just too densely populated to allow for most aircraft weapon employment. Especially trials where it isn't necessarily known exactly how the weapons will behave, at not outside of some boffin's computer simulation.

 

And the there is also the weather to consider.

 

Out of curiosity, has Vidsel been considered?

 

http://www.vidseltestrange.com/

 

EDIT: They use EF phootage on one of the pics on their site, so I guess it's already in the consideration.

Edited February 7, 2013 by EtherealN

[Brisse]

A bit of Googling found The Economist website which tells me that it's around $35.6K per person in the UK. Nightmare!!

 

Of course another way of looking at it is that this is a figure that our American cousins might envy as US national debt levels are even more - around $37.3K per person.

 

Still at least we're not Norwegian ($54K)... or Irish $55K.... or Japanese ($99K) :(

 

Norway is one of the richest countries in the world. Their public debt is not a problem. Norway has much higher revenue than expense. US and UK public debt per capita might look smaller than that of Norway but their economy is still in big trouble. GDP and public dept is not enough to compare economic power. One has to see the big picture.

 

The US has almost twice as high spending compared to their revenue. Norway is the opposite, with much higher revenue than expense.

Norway will be the last country to fall if that ever happens.

[EtherealN]

As a point in the economics: Norway cost of living is huge, but salaries are also huge. This makes per-capita numbers look skewed. Would be a problem in export, except Norway's major export is petroleum... so... :)

 

But let's keep this on-topic. :)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Norway will be the last country to fall if that ever happens.

Noway is very stable and will not fail. Also, Norway is not spending too much money on military.

[joey45]

As a point in the economics: Norway cost of living is huge, but salaries are also huge.....

 

And meanwhile in the UK..

 

Cost of living in the UK is huge, but Salaries or small...

[marcos]

And meanwhile in the UK..

 

Cost of living in the UK is huge, but Salaries or small...

Except if you're at the top, then salaries are retarded.

 

The small salaries fall in real terms every year. The large salaries go up by incomprehensible amounts like 50 and 100%.