Global Military Spending - NEWS ONLY

Thanks to the banks in 2008 the US national debt is 50% of GDP higher than it otherwise would be. They pay 5% interest on debt, so the US is wasting an extra 2.5% GDP just on interest payments, which is >$700bn.
hell yeah we got MMT bros in this forum

I think MMT is inevitable - as it gives an actionable path to weakening the US dollar as we re-arm for WW3 while "paying" for medicare.

Of course, a weak dollar means that probably 50-70% of Americans are worse off...
 


Not good. Whilst they've performed badly recently, I don't think having less defence companies would be a benefit to competition.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:


 
Last edited:

TLDR: it's mostly advanced withdrawal dates for hardware effectively already out of service or due to go out of service, with replacements scheduled, with a couple of exceptions. I think I saw a report somewhere that there will be no reduction in personnel.

HMSs Albion and Bulwark (LPD), already not expected to sail again despite withdrawal dates a decade out, to be replaced by MRSS

RFAs Wave Knight and Wave Ruler, already not expected to sail again.

HMS Northumberland (Type 23 FFG), not previously slated for withdrawal, but newly discovered structural problems reportedly make refit uneconomic - and Type 26 inbound.

Chinook HC1, eldest 14 examples to be withdrawn, were already due to be replaced by 14 new Chinook ERs (MH-47G derivatives)

Puma HC1, to be withdrawn when maintenance contract expires in May, due to be replaced by New Medium Helicopter, for which the AW-149 is the only remaining competitor.

Watchkeeper WK450 (reworked Elbit Hermes), not previously slated for withdrawal, but it's struggled to find a role since Afghanistan. Withdrawal claimed to be due to operations in Ukraine showing the design is obsolescent.
 

Watchkeeper WK450 (reworked Elbit Hermes), not previously slated for withdrawal, but it's struggled to find a role since Afghanistan. Withdrawal claimed to be due to operations in Ukraine showing the design is obsolescent.
Watchkeeper seems like an absolute dumpster fire of a project. Quite typical of UK defence spending near every program they do is a case study of how not to do it.

 
Watchkeeper seems like an absolute dumpster fire of a project. Quite typical of UK defence spending near every program they do is a case study of how not to do it.

TWZ do seem a bit confused about the difference between the RAF and the Army at places in that article. But the gist seems to be that it was operability of the air vehicle that was the issue, which wasn't really a UK procurement issue given Watchkeeper's a Hermes 450 under the skin.
 
Last edited:
Expect similar workforce disruptions elsewhere, which will lead to shrinking an essential workforce already too small to meet customer demand. Hiring has been a persistent challenge for public and private Navy yards; Research by the GAO last year found that a “primary factor” in submarine and carrier maintenance delays at Navy shipyards is due to “workforce challenges such as not having enough people.”

Industries like shipbuilding, which demand significant touch labor by employees, are likely to be even more negatively affected when work is delayed due to a continuing resolution and employees don’t return. A spending stopgap measure not only imposes a hiring freeze on federal employees, but also leads to feast-and-famine contracting award cycles. This causes employers to ramp up hiring only to let those same employees go when there is a gap in production. Workflow fluctuations in the defense industrial base only aggravate hiring and retention of skilled labor.


the real issue above
 
In 1065, the military expenditures of the Chinese Song dynasty were equivalent to 83% of the national budget.

During its entire existence, the Roman Empire dedicated between 50 and 75% to the legions.

By the end of the seventeenth century, the Ottoman Empire was dedicating 60%.

Between 1685 and 1813 the British government devoted 75% of the budget to military expenditures.

Between 1630 and 1659 French expenditure was 90%.

Prussia devoted 91% between 1711 and 1800.

During World War I, France spent 77%, Germany 91%, Russia 48%, the UK 49% and the USA 47%.

During World War II, the UK reached 49% and the USA 47%.

During the 1970s, Soviet military spending was 32.5%.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the United States only spent 13% and today the average expenditure of humanity on medical systems is equivalent to 1.4 times the expenditure on defense.

We should not complain.:)
 

 
In 1065, the military expenditures of the Chinese Song dynasty were equivalent to 83% of the national budget.

During its entire existence, the Roman Empire dedicated between 50 and 75% to the legions.

By the end of the seventeenth century, the Ottoman Empire was dedicating 60%.

Between 1685 and 1813 the British government devoted 75% of the budget to military expenditures.

Between 1630 and 1659 French expenditure was 90%.

Prussia devoted 91% between 1711 and 1800.

During World War I, France spent 77%, Germany 91%, Russia 48%, the UK 49% and the USA 47%.

During World War II, the UK reached 49% and the USA 47%.

During the 1970s, Soviet military spending was 32.5%.

At the beginning of the 21st century, the United States only spent 13% and today the average expenditure of humanity on medical systems is equivalent to 1.4 times the expenditure on defense.

We should not complain.:)
That is kinda apples and oranges as for most of human history only reason taxes were even raised was to spend on military and miltary adjacent ,even if they were building roads or ports the primary function was for war , in past century or so that is not the case anymore .

Expenditure of your taxes on healthcare is magnitudes more useful to your every day life than paying for Raythen's stock buybacks.
 
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom