Global Military Spending - NEWS ONLY
- Thread starter bobbymike
- Start date
swampyankee
Shhh....I'm hunting wabbits
- Joined
- 25 June 2015
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Global Military Spending - SIPRI Report & NEWS ONLY
I believe that one of the things that SIPRI (and the CIA) try to do in their estimates of global military spending is to adjust for the fact that different nations have different rules, such as including nation police (gendarmes) or excluding heavily armed, massive border guard forces from their military appropriation. SIPRI does provide their definition of military expenditures, here: http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/milex_database/definitions
As an aside, "Overseas Contingency Operations" may be a budget gimmick that other countries don't or can't use: they may have to roll this sort of ongoing expenditure into their defense appropriation in the next budget cycle.
bobbymike said:
I believe that one of the things that SIPRI (and the CIA) try to do in their estimates of global military spending is to adjust for the fact that different nations have different rules, such as including nation police (gendarmes) or excluding heavily armed, massive border guard forces from their military appropriation. SIPRI does provide their definition of military expenditures, here: http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/milex_database/definitions
As an aside, "Overseas Contingency Operations" may be a budget gimmick that other countries don't or can't use: they may have to roll this sort of ongoing expenditure into their defense appropriation in the next budget cycle.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
Re: Global Military Spending - SIPRI Report & NEWS ONLY
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/august/space-missile-defense.html
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/08/14/lockheed-to-design-missile-interceptor-that-hits-multiple-targets/sferrin said:bobbymike said:
Multiple Kill Vehicle? Man, what a sweet idea. If only we'd thought of that sooner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWELGXIionQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBMU6l6GsdM
If we hadn't been so short-sighted, penny-pinching, and stupid we could have probably flight tested this by now. We never learn. Wait, wait, wait. . .my bad. It's not "Multiple Kill Vehicle", it's "Multiple Object Kill Vehicle"; completely different beast. :
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/august/space-missile-defense.html
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
Re: Global Military Spending - SIPRI Report & NEWS ONLY
http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/06/25/the-biggest-military-budgets-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-infographic-2/
Now the chart is slightly distorted IMHO as the FY2015 base budget in roughly $520 billion or 2.9% of GDP.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/06/25/the-biggest-military-budgets-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-infographic-2/
Now the chart is slightly distorted IMHO as the FY2015 base budget in roughly $520 billion or 2.9% of GDP.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
Beyond the Big Three
—Marc V. Schanz9/16/2015
The Air Force has a list of “must pays” beyond its “big three” acquisition programs—the F-35 strike fighter, the KC-46A tanker, and the Long-Range Strike Bomber, said Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh on Tuesday during ASC15. “There are a whole lot of other things we have to modernize,” he said. The Air Force is slowly starting to recover funding slashed by sequestration, but those funds must be spent wisely. For example, the service is looking at ways to make space assets and systems “more resilient,” it’s reinvesting in aging nuclear infrastructure, and is recapitalizing some nuclear weapon systems. Welsh said USAF also must invest more in the cyber domain, but “we have to do it … the right way and get it in the right places.” There are other needed investments that affect the “meat and potatoes of what we’ve been doing for the last 25 years, and in particular the last 15,” he added, programs that are part of everyday operations around the world. In particular, USAF needs to ensure the success of both the “existential” T-X effort and the Combat Rescue Helicopter program. Welsh said CRH is “tied to the fabric of our Air Force” and necessary to ensure the personnel recovery mission receives the equipment to perform in the hardest environments when “things go wrong."
—Marc V. Schanz9/16/2015
The Air Force has a list of “must pays” beyond its “big three” acquisition programs—the F-35 strike fighter, the KC-46A tanker, and the Long-Range Strike Bomber, said Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh on Tuesday during ASC15. “There are a whole lot of other things we have to modernize,” he said. The Air Force is slowly starting to recover funding slashed by sequestration, but those funds must be spent wisely. For example, the service is looking at ways to make space assets and systems “more resilient,” it’s reinvesting in aging nuclear infrastructure, and is recapitalizing some nuclear weapon systems. Welsh said USAF also must invest more in the cyber domain, but “we have to do it … the right way and get it in the right places.” There are other needed investments that affect the “meat and potatoes of what we’ve been doing for the last 25 years, and in particular the last 15,” he added, programs that are part of everyday operations around the world. In particular, USAF needs to ensure the success of both the “existential” T-X effort and the Combat Rescue Helicopter program. Welsh said CRH is “tied to the fabric of our Air Force” and necessary to ensure the personnel recovery mission receives the equipment to perform in the hardest environments when “things go wrong."
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1114/RAND_RR1114.pdf
Rand Report: Choices for America in a Turbulent World
One key takeaway the US defense budget will soon be the smallest as a percentage of GDP since beginning of the Cold War.
Rand Report: Choices for America in a Turbulent World
One key takeaway the US defense budget will soon be the smallest as a percentage of GDP since beginning of the Cold War.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
NDAA FY16 highlights/reform proposals
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/09/reform-ohio-replacement-fund-top-5-changes-in-this-years-ndaa-aeis-eaglen/
http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/30/8-important-takeaways-from-the-2016-defense-authorization-act/
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/09/reform-ohio-replacement-fund-top-5-changes-in-this-years-ndaa-aeis-eaglen/
http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/30/8-important-takeaways-from-the-2016-defense-authorization-act/
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/05/obama-is-willing-to-put-our-national-security-at-risk-with-a-veto/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook
The attached quote is from the following CRS study https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf
Shows how far off our defense requirements are from budget realities.
The attached quote is from the following CRS study https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf
Shows how far off our defense requirements are from budget realities.
Attachments
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
That Breath on Your Neck
—John A. Tirpak10/7/2015
The US may be facing a severe military disadvantage in 10-15 years because of budgetary decisions being made now, Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall said Tuesday at a Defense One conference in Washington, D.C. Kendall said the US leadership can’t seem to shake the notion of US “technological superiority,” established after the first Gulf War. “In the last 10-15 years, we concentrated on counterinsurgency” and didn’t spend enough on advanced technologies, Kendall said. Now, due to the demands of operations and modernization, “I don’t think we’re doing enough to stay ahead” in research and development, which typically doesn’t result in a fielded capability for 10-15 years, he said. Kendall said he’s “very concerned” that China, Russia, and other countries have used the time while the US was “distracted” by COIN operations to make up the ground and will sell their new technology to countries in direct conflict with the US. The new “third offset” strategy is about recapturing a sizable lead, but “at the end of the day, it’s about resources,” Kendall said, and there aren’t enough available to ensure the kind of lead the US enjoyed 25 years ago, he said.
—John A. Tirpak10/7/2015
The US may be facing a severe military disadvantage in 10-15 years because of budgetary decisions being made now, Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall said Tuesday at a Defense One conference in Washington, D.C. Kendall said the US leadership can’t seem to shake the notion of US “technological superiority,” established after the first Gulf War. “In the last 10-15 years, we concentrated on counterinsurgency” and didn’t spend enough on advanced technologies, Kendall said. Now, due to the demands of operations and modernization, “I don’t think we’re doing enough to stay ahead” in research and development, which typically doesn’t result in a fielded capability for 10-15 years, he said. Kendall said he’s “very concerned” that China, Russia, and other countries have used the time while the US was “distracted” by COIN operations to make up the ground and will sell their new technology to countries in direct conflict with the US. The new “third offset” strategy is about recapturing a sizable lead, but “at the end of the day, it’s about resources,” Kendall said, and there aren’t enough available to ensure the kind of lead the US enjoyed 25 years ago, he said.
lastdingo
Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2015_06/20150622_PR_CP_2015_093-v2.pdf
page 10: NATO-Europe only
1.913 million troops in 2014
(more than North America!)
Russian Armed Forces:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/personnel.htm
"According to official data, as of early 2014 the strength of the Russian Armed Forces was estimated at 774,500 personnel, including 220,000 officers and about 200,000 contracted soldiers."
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2015/02/countering-russia-with-military-spending.html
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2014/01/european-and-russian-military-capability.html
page 10: NATO-Europe only
1.913 million troops in 2014
(more than North America!)
Russian Armed Forces:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/personnel.htm
"According to official data, as of early 2014 the strength of the Russian Armed Forces was estimated at 774,500 personnel, including 220,000 officers and about 200,000 contracted soldiers."
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2015/02/countering-russia-with-military-spending.html
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/2014/01/european-and-russian-military-capability.html
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/ausa/2015/10/12/panel-budget-uncertainty-threat-munitions-business/73824266/
Delivered munitions are down 38 percent this year compared with last year for the $4.4 billion munitions industry, Perry said
Delivered munitions are down 38 percent this year compared with last year for the $4.4 billion munitions industry, Perry said
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,566
- Reaction score
- 7,193
Total US federal budget receipts and outlays FYE September 30th 2015. Not just defense but interesting.
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/mts0915.pdf
Interesting budget reversal from 1957 to today;
1957 - Defense was around 10% of GDP, Entitlement spending ~3% of GDP (US had small surplus this FY)
2015 - Defense (base budget does not include OCO spending) ~2.9% of GDP, Entitlement spending ~11% of GDP ($438B deficit)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1957, the nation was more or less at peace, the budget ran a small surplus, and we spent 9.8 percent of GDP on national defense. That was down sharply from the years immediately before (winding down of Korean War expenses, I guess) but quite a bit higher than it was in 1950 and 1951. In 1950, we spent only 4.9 percent of GDP on national defense, half that 1957 number. This year, we're going to spend about 3.3 percent of GDP on national defense. That's less than we spent during the first Clinton administration, a fairly peaceable time. It's less than we've spent since before the budgetary beginning of the post-9/11 era, by which I mean, since 2002. Looking at 1957 from the other side of the ledger, tax receipts were 17.2 percent of GDP. This year, taxes are expected to come in at 17.7 percent of GDP, a little bit more....
The real lesson of 1957 is that you could-if you were so inclined-spend three times what we spend on the military in GDP terms, produce a small budget surplus, and reduce total taxes. You could do that if you were willing to do the work on the rest of the budget. I wasn't around at the time, but I've heard that 1957 was not a time of stateless Mad Max anarchy and wanton savagery in the United States.
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/mts0915.pdf
Interesting budget reversal from 1957 to today;
1957 - Defense was around 10% of GDP, Entitlement spending ~3% of GDP (US had small surplus this FY)
2015 - Defense (base budget does not include OCO spending) ~2.9% of GDP, Entitlement spending ~11% of GDP ($438B deficit)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1957, the nation was more or less at peace, the budget ran a small surplus, and we spent 9.8 percent of GDP on national defense. That was down sharply from the years immediately before (winding down of Korean War expenses, I guess) but quite a bit higher than it was in 1950 and 1951. In 1950, we spent only 4.9 percent of GDP on national defense, half that 1957 number. This year, we're going to spend about 3.3 percent of GDP on national defense. That's less than we spent during the first Clinton administration, a fairly peaceable time. It's less than we've spent since before the budgetary beginning of the post-9/11 era, by which I mean, since 2002. Looking at 1957 from the other side of the ledger, tax receipts were 17.2 percent of GDP. This year, taxes are expected to come in at 17.7 percent of GDP, a little bit more....
The real lesson of 1957 is that you could-if you were so inclined-spend three times what we spend on the military in GDP terms, produce a small budget surplus, and reduce total taxes. You could do that if you were willing to do the work on the rest of the budget. I wasn't around at the time, but I've heard that 1957 was not a time of stateless Mad Max anarchy and wanton savagery in the United States.
I
Ian33
Guest
bobbymike said:
That's the bomber dead then.
