Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2018 10:21:59 GMT
Jaggas is the biggest Europhile posting on here. Why else would he post such disjointed views, out of date rhetoric and misunderstanding of events if it wasn't to undermine the anti EU argument? And he is doing such a good job of it too. In two words. Crass Ignorance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2018 10:43:42 GMT
Germany just goes to show how successful an economy can be when they don't spend squillions on defence, and instead concentrate it on peaceful investment, infrastructure, and social welfare. Germany has spent a lot on defence in European terms, certainly comparable in monetary terms to ourselves and France. The issues Nobby pointed out are more incompetence and poor maintenance than cash. Germany only spends 1.5% of GDP on defence. The NATO standard is 2%. They only save money by relying on thr US to defend them. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 13, 2018 11:02:33 GMT
Germany has spent a lot on defence in European terms, certainly comparable in monetary terms to ourselves and France. The issues Nobby pointed out are more incompetence and poor maintenance than cash. Germany only spends 1.5% of GDP on defence. The NATO standard is 2%. They only save money by relying on thr US to defend them. I know, hence my use of cash terms rather than percentage of GDP. Some of the difference is reflected in their GDP being higher. The point I was making is that historically the defence budgets are not that dissimilar to ours or the French and the difference wouldn't really alter the economies on their own. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2018 23:16:27 GMT
Germany only spends 1.5% of GDP on defence. The NATO standard is 2%. They only save money by relying on thr US to defend them. I know, hence my use of cash terms rather than percentage of GDP. Some of the difference is reflected in their GDP being higher. The point I was making is that historically the defence budgets are not that dissimilar to ours or the French and the difference wouldn't really alter the economies on their own. Indeed. The % of GDP is an American pressure point. Whether the 2% plus is a support from taxpayers to underpin the military / industrial complex in the States is open to debate. Answer? It is. Like the UK, we make up threats to support defence spending. And, who owns the suppliers? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2018 8:44:21 GMT
I know, hence my use of cash terms rather than percentage of GDP. Some of the difference is reflected in their GDP being higher. The point I was making is that historically the defence budgets are not that dissimilar to ours or the French and the difference wouldn't really alter the economies on their own. Indeed. The % of GDP is an American pressure point. Whether the 2% plus is a support from taxpayers to underpin the military / industrial complex in the States is open to debate. Answer? It is. Like the UK, we make up threats to support defence spending. And, who owns the suppliers? Complete tosh Oldie. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 14, 2018 9:06:29 GMT
I know, hence my use of cash terms rather than percentage of GDP. Some of the difference is reflected in their GDP being higher. The point I was making is that historically the defence budgets are not that dissimilar to ours or the French and the difference wouldn't really alter the economies on their own. Indeed. The % of GDP is an American pressure point. Whether the 2% plus is a support from taxpayers to underpin the military / industrial complex in the States is open to debate. Answer? It is. Like the UK, we make up threats to support defence spending. And, who owns the suppliers? The 2% target is an arbitrary amount intended to show commitment and offset the accusation that Europe is not prepared to look after itself but rely on the US. Few countries meet that at the moment, we only do by massaging the figures. With regards to the spend, two thirds is spent on personnel, pay, pensions, accommodation and so on. There is a nominal commitment to increase the procurement budget but again few reach that and the timescales involved are some way off. Even when you look at the equipment being bought, with a few exceptions they are either indigenous (France, Germany,Italy for example) or surplus (the Baltic nations buying our old stock). NATO's only real threat is Russia, sadly that is not a made up threat, especially for the Baltic states. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2018 11:10:27 GMT
Indeed. The % of GDP is an American pressure point. Whether the 2% plus is a support from taxpayers to underpin the military / industrial complex in the States is open to debate. Answer? It is. Like the UK, we make up threats to support defence spending. And, who owns the suppliers? Complete tosh Oldie. And the F35's cost how much? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 14, 2018 11:39:20 GMT
And the F35's cost how much? A lot, but there is no compulsion to Buy it, upgrading existing fleets is possible and there are alternatives available. It is also new and as it matures more will be bought and the price will come down. The A version is already heading towards the new build costs of legacy aircraft when adjusted for inflation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2018 12:44:09 GMT
And the F35's cost how much? A lot, but there is no compulsion to Buy it, upgrading existing fleets is possible and there are alternatives available. It is also new and as it matures more will be bought and the price will come down. The A version is already heading towards the new build costs of legacy aircraft when adjusted for inflation. I believe we, the UK, are in for 130. The first batch already being delivered for the new aircraft carriers, which cost how much? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 14, 2018 15:25:24 GMT
A lot, but there is no compulsion to Buy it, upgrading existing fleets is possible and there are alternatives available. It is also new and as it matures more will be bought and the price will come down. The A version is already heading towards the new build costs of legacy aircraft when adjusted for inflation. I believe we, the UK, are in for 130. The first batch already being delivered for the new aircraft carriers, which cost how much? Are you genuinely interested or am I looking at a Socratic question?😏 The F35 is being bought in annual batches, called Lots or LRIPs, the most recent one just negotiated has the A version at $89m, the B at $115m and the C at $107m. These are roughly 7% lower than the previous year and should fall again over time. We are slated to buy 138, itself down from 150 we originally wanted and many experts expect us to eventually buy fewer still, possibly fewer than 100. At the moment, we have 18 B versions on order or delivered and have budgeted for 48 im total by the middle of the 2020s when we have to decide whether we buy any more. Some believe we will switch to the cheaper A version after the initial 48. The B version is a de facto replacement for the Tornado as well as the Harrier and Sea Harrier and future buys will be replacing the Typhoon. Effectively replacing around 200 aircraft with 48. We are the only Tier 1 partner and 15% of every sale (not just UK purchases) will come into UK Plc via Government or suppliers. The carriers cost £3bn each over 10 years (20 years including design work) and roughly £1bn per carrier of that is down to government intransigence (specifically Gordon Brown). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2018 15:32:49 GMT
I believe we, the UK, are in for 130. The first batch already being delivered for the new aircraft carriers, which cost how much? Are you genuinely interested or am I looking at a Socratic question?😏 The F35 is being bought in annual batches, called Lots or LRIPs, the most recent one just negotiated has the A version at $89m, the B at $115m and the C at $107m. These are roughly 7% lower than the previous year and should fall again over time. We are slated to buy 138, itself down from 150 we originally wanted and many experts expect us to eventually buy fewer still, possibly fewer than 100. At the moment, we have 18 B versions on order or delivered and have budgeted for 48 im total by the middle of the 2020s when we have to decide whether we buy any more. Some believe we will switch to the cheaper A version after the initial 48. The B version is a de facto replacement for the Tornado as well as the Harrier and Sea Harrier and future buys will be replacing the Typhoon. Effectively replacing around 200 aircraft with 48. We are the only Tier 1 partner and 15% of every sale (not just UK purchases) will come into UK Plc via Government or suppliers. The carriers cost £3bn each over 10 years (20 years including design work) and roughly £1bn per carrier of that is down to government intransigence (specifically Gordon Brown). Man, you are on top of this. So all these billions, take away the modernisation of in country air defences, what exactly is all this spend defending? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 14, 2018 16:14:59 GMT
Are you genuinely interested or am I looking at a Socratic question?😏 The F35 is being bought in annual batches, called Lots or LRIPs, the most recent one just negotiated has the A version at $89m, the B at $115m and the C at $107m. These are roughly 7% lower than the previous year and should fall again over time. We are slated to buy 138, itself down from 150 we originally wanted and many experts expect us to eventually buy fewer still, possibly fewer than 100. At the moment, we have 18 B versions on order or delivered and have budgeted for 48 im total by the middle of the 2020s when we have to decide whether we buy any more. Some believe we will switch to the cheaper A version after the initial 48. The B version is a de facto replacement for the Tornado as well as the Harrier and Sea Harrier and future buys will be replacing the Typhoon. Effectively replacing around 200 aircraft with 48. We are the only Tier 1 partner and 15% of every sale (not just UK purchases) will come into UK Plc via Government or suppliers. The carriers cost £3bn each over 10 years (20 years including design work) and roughly £1bn per carrier of that is down to government intransigence (specifically Gordon Brown). Man, you are on top of this. So all these billions, take away the modernisation of in country air defences, what exactly is all this spend defending? Thought so😎 What does any defence procurement buy you? Votes, insurance against the unknown, R&D, technological advantage over legacy types used by potential adversaries....... defence procurement is one way central governments can use state funds. If you are referring to the F35 specifically then the aircraft offers a lot of technical, situational awareness and reconnaissance advantages, savings through commonality of fleets, shared spares, long term production lines, training times, longevity. They will be replacing lots of current types with one and the procurement schedules are measured in decades. Big savings further down the line, just at a premium today. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2018 16:41:52 GMT
Man, you are on top of this. So all these billions, take away the modernisation of in country air defences, what exactly is all this spend defending? Thought so😎 What does any defence procurement buy you? Votes, insurance against the unknown, R&D, technological advantage over legacy types used by potential adversaries....... defence procurement is one way central governments can use state funds. If you are referring to the F35 specifically then the aircraft offers a lot of technical, situational awareness and reconnaissance advantages, savings through commonality of fleets, shared spares, long term production lines, training times, longevity. They will be replacing lots of current types with one and the procurement schedules are measured in decades. Big savings further down the line, just at a premium today. Ha ha So nothing then. Meanwhile, back at the ranch.... |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 14, 2018 17:32:23 GMT
Thought so😎 What does any defence procurement buy you? Votes, insurance against the unknown, R&D, technological advantage over legacy types used by potential adversaries....... defence procurement is one way central governments can use state funds. If you are referring to the F35 specifically then the aircraft offers a lot of technical, situational awareness and reconnaissance advantages, savings through commonality of fleets, shared spares, long term production lines, training times, longevity. They will be replacing lots of current types with one and the procurement schedules are measured in decades. Big savings further down the line, just at a premium today. Ha ha So nothing then. Meanwhile, back at the ranch.... After having spent time and the courtesy of responding I was hoping for some reciprocity. Never mind. What advantages would you want, what would be the price differential and out of service dates despite any upgrades? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2018 17:48:13 GMT
Ha ha So nothing then. Meanwhile, back at the ranch.... After having spent time and the courtesy of responding I was hoping for some reciprocity. Never mind. What advantages would you want, what would be the price differential and out of service dates despite any upgrades? Sorry Stuart I wasn't trying to be flippant. Put it this way, I don't see how two aircraft carriers fielding the most expensive new fighter jets are required to defend these islands. To me, they look like offensive weaponry. Happy to be proven wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 14, 2018 22:36:27 GMT
After having spent time and the courtesy of responding I was hoping for some reciprocity. Never mind. What advantages would you want, what would be the price differential and out of service dates despite any upgrades? Sorry Stuart I wasn't trying to be flippant. Put it this way, I don't see how two aircraft carriers fielding the most expensive new fighter jets are required to defend these islands. To me, they look like offensive weaponry. Happy to be proven wrong. I suspect that knowing your views on our foreign policy there are few circumstances that would be plausible, so it depends on what realistic threats you think we face. If you give me a scenario then I'll see if they can play a part. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2018 1:59:05 GMT
Sorry Stuart I wasn't trying to be flippant. Put it this way, I don't see how two aircraft carriers fielding the most expensive new fighter jets are required to defend these islands. To me, they look like offensive weaponry. Happy to be proven wrong. I suspect that knowing your views on our foreign policy there are few circumstances that would be plausible, so it depends on what realistic threats you think we face. If you give me a scenario then I'll see if they can play a part. Cyber attacks on our infrastructure from Russia, commercial espionage from China |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 15, 2018 6:39:52 GMT
I suspect that knowing your views on our foreign policy there are few circumstances that would be plausible, so it depends on what realistic threats you think we face. If you give me a scenario then I'll see if they can play a part. Cyber attacks on our infrastructure from Russia, commercial espionage from China Do you play chess? |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Oct 15, 2018 7:50:30 GMT
Cyber attacks on our infrastructure from Russia, commercial espionage from China Do you play chess? I play marxist chess where all pieces are equal. Oh, and definitely no bishops.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2018 7:51:03 GMT
I suspect that knowing your views on our foreign policy there are few circumstances that would be plausible, so it depends on what realistic threats you think we face. If you give me a scenario then I'll see if they can play a part. Cyber attacks on our infrastructure from Russia, commercial espionage from China A totally different type of warfare that requires a totally different approach, which is also a justification to increase defence spending is it not? |
|
