Future UK Defence spending

[Partisan]

I don't think RUSI will mind me posting this link - if they do - sorry, but I thought that it would generate some interesting discussion.

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR_5.pdf

I've just finished wading through this document and it raises some questions, some of which I've had in the back of my mind - when I can find it.

1. Why is there such an ability to forecast equipment costs. To my mind it works like this:
a. An equipment requirement is issued.
b. Companies place their bids to win the contract, the price includes development costs, profit for the company and a no sh!t clause that they have to deliver.
c. The kit gets delivered.

How it actually works is obviously more labyrinthine, but I don't understand why companies are never held to task to meet their bids.

2. Why do we need such long term equipment procurement progammes - we need to be as flexible and adept in the procurement of equipment as we are in the delivery on the battlefield - wherever that may be. A lot of defence costs come from recognising a need from current conflict and putting an urgent call out to meet the need. Now you can't predict your future demands 100%, but surely we should have a system that can respond quickly?

3. Personnel cost will continue to rise, what is the break even point for the UK (and the USA) when we've pared down the manpower and got all the gucci toys, but not enough people to play with them? To my mind the UK is beyond that point and as the paper suggests, needs to reconsider it's strategic interests and capabilty requirments, I don't think that the US is far behind!

What is the answer, obviously you can never win a war without boots on the ground. Given public (and military) needs, casualties must be minimised, so will we see increased automation of war. After all it was less than a decade ago that fighter pilots reigned supreme in the skys - now it is UAV's which are cheaper to build, maintain and to train operators for and cheaper to sustain the operators.
So does anyone else want to chip in with an opinion?

 

[LeMask]

Hello,
I'm not sure what the topic is. In the beginning, you speak about the spendings, and how the defense market works... how the contracts are attributed. And then, you speak about automation.

About the contracts. There is two ways to see things. Too much corruption or long term objectives.

I dont think the army thinks like that. They dont define a need and answer to this need directly and efficiently. They might do that for extremely necessary stuff... but they will have average results doing that, because it's not their habits. Think about the armor problems they had. Soldiers had to put sandbags in their vehicles in the beginning of the war.

Either, it's because of corruption. They give contracts to their friends... following the interests of the politic wing. And the soldier's blood is cheap...

Or, if you are more positive and optimistic. They aim for a higher target. And they think a lot about future needs.

And about automation... well, it's obvious they will do that. Robot are very efficient. But the problem, is that these things are very dangerous. What if the terrorists start to make robots too?

I think that spending money on hardware is way overrated. I think that if they get smart, they would start to invest on human skills rather than on hardware.

Better education for the soldiers. Better schools, better health care. And less of this expensive world domination hardware...
I think that in the war against terrorism, they have to invest on the intelligence and counter intelligence infrastructure... That requires human skills.

The race to military hardware is more a danger than anything else...