Despesas Militares Mundais

  • 48 Respostas
  • 14946 Visualizações
*

Leonidas

  • Analista
  • ***
  • 621
  • Recebeu: 3 vez(es)
  • +1/-2
Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
« Responder #15 em: Novembro 28, 2012, 09:21:25 pm »
The Incredible, Shrinking Modern Military  
 
(Source: International Relations and Security Network; posted November 27, 2012)
 
   
 
 While military forces have grown ever more sophisticated, their size and density have been on the decline for decades. In 1939, before the outbreak of World War II, the French navy boasted seven battleships, one aircraft carrier, seven heavy cruisers, 12 light cruisers, 78 destroyers, and 81 submarines. Today, France, with the world's fourth-largest defense budget, has a core fighting fleet consisting of one aircraft carrier, four amphibious ships, 12 frigates, and six attack submarines.

In 1842, Britain fielded 14,000 soldiers for the Battle of Kabul, while at the same time having enough reserve manpower to police an empire on which the sun never set. In 2012, with the U.K. still having the fifth-largest defense budget and not much of an empire, senior British military leaders have repeatedly told the British public, the political leadership in London, and anyone else who cares to listen that the deployment of a mere 8,000 British soldiers to Afghanistan on a sustained basis is almost breaking the force.
In the 1950s, the United States built over 9,000 F-86 Sabres, a key fighter aircraft in the US and allied inventories during the early Cold War period. About half as many F-16s were built in the 1970s. Today, the F-35 is touted to be the next front-line fighter for the United States, as well as for America's friends and allies across the world. It is likely that no more than 3,000 will ever be built, a two-thirds reduction in comparison to the F-86.

One reason for the shrinkage of the modern military is cost. Fielding fully-capable state of the art armed forces is expensive. Ever more exquisite and sophisticated weapons, systems, and platforms demand a growing share of a country's defense budget, crowding out other priorities and reducing the number of systems and platforms a government can buy. But the explanation isn't limited to the defense-industrial sector. The manpower required to man, maintain, service, arm, and upgrade these expensive machines is also an expensive outlay. Across the developed world, conscripted forces have gone by the wayside in favor of volunteer professionals who, unlike their historical predecessors, are required to be able to understand, operate, and maintain a dazzling array of technology.

A well-equipped Western soldier of today is not only required to be able to operate his basic weapon and other bits of traditional soldiering gear. He also is expected to be able to be proficient in the use of advanced weapon sights, GPS devices, handheld computers, and night-vision goggles. Platoon leaders in Western militaries (usually people in their early 20s not long out of college) are responsible for weapons, equipment, and vehicles worth tens of millions of dollars.

The numbers behind these trends are stark. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, it cost roughly $2,600 in today's dollars to equip a rifleman during World War II. Today, the number is close to $20,000. Infantry equipment currently under development for the near-future force will inflate the price tag to close to $60,000 per rifleman.

In order to attract and retain enlisted soldiers and officers capable of handling the demands placed on them by the ever-increasing sophistication of their weapons, machines, vehicles, and systems, the militaries of the West are forced to offer competitive wages and benefits. Indeed, even a very quick glance at the U.S. military's pay chart reveals that, based on education and experience levels, modern soldiering is far from a low-paying job. The benefits offered to U.S. service members (such as housing allowance, medical, child care, retirement, etc.) would be considered generous indeed in the civilian workforce. As a result, the health care and retirement benefits of the Department of Defense are projected to skyrocket in the coming decades.The point here is not that the members of the military are overpaid, just that attracting and retaining the manpower required to operate the ever more sophisticated equipment and platforms of the military comes with an increasingly high price tag.

The result of the ever-increasing costs for military systems and for the compensation, training, and education of military personnel is that the number of both people and machines have been drastically reduced. But here's the rub: Even though modern military systems and units can outperform their predecessors by wide margins, they need a certain mass or density of systems or units in order to be able to respond to multiple contingencies, react to surprise, have a reserve at the ready, sustain deployments over time, or to achieve decisive results on the battlefield.

Many smaller nations are now getting close to having militaries of such low density that they cannot make meaningful contributions. Norway, for example, lost one of its four C-130s in a crash earlier this year, wiping out a quarter of the Norwegian air force's fixed-wing lift capacity in one fell swoop and calling into question whether Norway could deliver the lift capacity it had committed to the NATO operation in Afghanistan. This sudden shortfall was only solved by the United States diverting the delivery of a C-130 to the U.S. Air Force in order to sell it to Norway instead. Senior European military leaders will admit, if pressed, that they have capabilities that are now so limited that they are below the level of full operability. And leaders have an incentive not to use the few assets they have because of the risk of loss or damage.

Arrival at the point when a military force becomes so exquisite, sophisticated, expensive, and small that it no longer can fulfill a meaningful purpose may perhaps be delayed by cost-cutting, specialization, multinational pooling and sharing resources, or by mixing high- and low-end assets (such as F-16s and F-35s). Some nations have even chosen to completely remove capabilities in order to be able to spend more elsewhere. This was the case when Denmark ended its submarine force, and, more recently, the Netherlands decided to do away with its main battle tanks. The United States has so far avoided this loss of density by using the brute fiscal force of ever increasing defense budgets, but that may not last much longer as America seeks to get its fiscal house in order. None of these measures will allow the militaries of the West to escape the fundamental logic at work here. Instead, warfare needs to be rebooted.

Perhaps cyberspace will become the new decisive realm of warfare, where nations can relatively cheaply thrust and parry, and attack, defend, and hold assets at risk in order to coerce or deter an adversary. Maybe unmanned systems will not go down the road of ever increasing costs as most legacy systems have, and drones will become the preferred mode of combat in the future. In any case, the nation that can reboot warfare and escape the logic of the modern, incredible, shrinking military will be well positioned to dominate the military landscape of the 21st century. It's just a matter of who reaches for the ctrl+alt+delete keys first.

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... itary.html

Claro que isto tambem nos diz respeito. Por isso acredito que o srviço militar obrigatorio nunca deveria ter sido extinto, mas, sim, reformado. Nao só se acabava com a pouca vergonha que se vem assistindo com os protesto por... condições, como se poderia combater os niveis gritantes de iliteracia que impera por cá, da maneira como acho que deveria ser.

Cump.
 

*

Lightning

  • Moderador Global
  • *****
  • 7356
  • Recebeu: 608 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 746 vez(es)
  • +91/-30
Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
« Responder #16 em: Novembro 29, 2012, 10:48:03 pm »
Citação de: "Leonidas"
Nao só se acabava com a pouca vergonha que se vem assistindo com os protesto por... condições

Desculpe lá Leonidas mas neste ponto não concordo consigo, então se actualmente os militares profissionais (com ordenado), criticam a perda de condições, se não tivessem ordenado já iam ficar mais felizes???
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7642
  • Recebeu: 327 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 564 vez(es)
  • +197/-204
Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
« Responder #17 em: Fevereiro 05, 2013, 12:16:14 pm »
Australia pôe material de guerra e equipamentos á venda:


Citar
THE DEFENCE GARAGE SALE

12,000 vehicles (3300 Land Rovers variants, 2500 light trailers, 2430 medium trucks)

Up to 24 ships; (Landing ships HMAS Manoora and Kanimbla, supply ship, frigates, barges)

70 combat aircraft; (F/A-18 Hornet fighters)

110 other aircraft; (C-130 Hercules, King Air)

* 120 helicopters; (Sea King, Seahawk, Blackhawk)

* 600 armoured vehicles; (Armoured personnel carriers)

* A range of communications systems, weapons and explosive ordnance (M2A2 Howitzers, 30 calibre machine guns, Hamel guns, M60D Machine guns, SLRs, torpedos).

http://www.news.com.au/national/austral ... 6565344839
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 

*

typhonman

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 3042
  • Recebeu: 126 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 11 vez(es)
  • +127/-32
Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
« Responder #18 em: Fevereiro 08, 2013, 09:07:26 pm »
Citação de: "P44"
Australia pôe material de guerra e equipamentos á venda:


Citar
THE DEFENCE GARAGE SALE

12,000 vehicles (3300 Land Rovers variants, 2500 light trailers, 2430 medium trucks)

Up to 24 ships; (Landing ships HMAS Manoora and Kanimbla, supply ship, frigates, barges)

70 combat aircraft; (F/A-18 Hornet fighters)

110 other aircraft; (C-130 Hercules, King Air)

* 120 helicopters; (Sea King, Seahawk, Blackhawk)

* 600 armoured vehicles; (Armoured personnel carriers)

* A range of communications systems, weapons and explosive ordnance (M2A2 Howitzers, 30 calibre machine guns, Hamel guns, M60D Machine guns, SLRs, torpedos).

http://www.news.com.au/national/austral ... 6565344839

Venham uns Black Hawks para o GALE  :mrgreen:
Artigo 308º

Traição à Pátria

Quem, por meio de violência, ameaça de violência, usurpação ou abuso de funções de soberania:

a) Tentar separar da Mãe-Pátria, ou entregar a país estrangeiro ou submeter à soberania estrangeira, todo o território português ou parte dele
 

*

Lightning

  • Moderador Global
  • *****
  • 7356
  • Recebeu: 608 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 746 vez(es)
  • +91/-30
Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
« Responder #19 em: Fevereiro 08, 2013, 11:21:06 pm »
Citação de: "typhonman"
Venham uns Black Hawks para o GALE  :mrgreen:

E os Landing Ships para a Marinha.
 

*

P44

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 7642
  • Recebeu: 327 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 564 vez(es)
  • +197/-204
Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
« Responder #20 em: Abril 29, 2013, 01:53:40 pm »

Budget cuts mean Australia might not be able to fund planned major acquisitions, including 12 new submarines to replace its Collins-class boats. (RAN photo)

White Paper without Funds Makes No Sense: The Military Budget Is Already Stretched to Breaking Point
   
   
(Source: Australian Strategic Policy Institute; issued April 29, 2013)
 
   
   (This article was first published by The Australian on April 29, 2013)

Informed media comment is pointing to the likely release of a new defence white paper ahead of the May 14 budget. This delivers on Defence Minister Stephen Smith’s pre-budget surprise in May last year when he announced a new white paper would be produced well ahead of the government’s original plan for a 2014 document.

Last year, Smith’s announcement partly deflected attention from big cuts to defence spending. In the budget, $5.5 billion was cut from Defence across four years, reducing spending to 1.56 per cent of gross domestic product, the lowest since 1938.

This time around, the new white paper is unlikely to achieve the same masking effect. Defence spending will remain at record low levels and this will undermine the credibility of what are likely to be many major defence acquisitions announced with the white paper.

Among them are likely to be announced another 12 or 24 Super Hornet aircraft a decision already flagged by the government, a fourth Air Warfare Destroyer and decisions that will advance the selection of new submarines.

The merits of each of these acquisitions undoubtedly will be debated, but the biggest challenge is to explain how they can be afforded in a defence budget that has swung from planned annual growth of about 3 per cent a year to one that has been cut massively.

A generation ago, facing its own budgetary pressures, the Hawke government commissioned the building of eight Anzac frigates, 3600-tonne patrol vessels of quite limited capability.

Budget limitations meant that key weapons, including torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and a missile-defeating, close-in weapons system were not equipped.

This gave rise to the notorious phrase "filled for but not with". It took the Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan experiences to show that half-equipping the military is not a sensible strategy, and one that severely limits what the Australian Defence Force can do when the military need arises.

Sadly, it looks as though the 2013 defence white paper has been "fitted for but not with" money.

Promises of major defence equipment purchases mean nothing when no realistic provision has been made for their acquisition in later years.

In this respect, both government and opposition have failed to say when they would bring defence spending back on to a growth path. It is not a mailer of just hoping that economic circumstances will somehow allow this to happen. Governments must decide the priority they give defence and take steps to deliver on those priorities.

Of the mooted major announcements, a decision to acquire more Super Hornet aircraft is the one likely to have an immediate budget impact because the aircraft will come off an already running production line.

The most difficult trade-off for Australia will come in a decision a future government will make about cutting the numbers of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft to accommodate the Super Hornets.

It’s a difficult choice between a capable fourth-generation fighter aircraft already in production and the higher risk but even more capable fifth-generation JSF.

A fourth Air Warfare Destroyer would significantly strengthen the navy’s surface capability by providing a ship capable of operating with the US Navy in high-threat areas. But this would be an extra unplanned multi-billion dollar acquisition decision in a budget already stretching at the seams.

Again, what are the trade-offs? It may make sense to think of reducing the notional (some would say utterly fanciful) plan for doubling the submarine fleet. In the AWD, we have a largely extant capability. The future submarine concept remains unbuilt and unproven.

A third possible announcement with the white paper is that the government will decide to narrow the options it promised to review for the future submarine.

These options included looking at existing military "off-the-shelf’ designs, an evolution of our existing Collins-class boat and a totally new design. The cost difference between these three possibilities could amount to tens of billions of dollars.

One has to ask: why make the decision on submarine design type now? It is not clear how thoroughly any of these options have been tested and it will be practically impossible to lock in any spending decisions in the 20 or so weeks left to the election campaign. The new submarine acquisition plan is one that will have to survive many federal elections between now and the launch sometime in the late 2020s of the first boat. The government’s first obligation here is set to set the foundations for good project management.

Smith has foreshadowed other policy elements in the white paper that will be welcomed, including a renewed focus on regional defence engagement with friends and allies in the Asia-Pacific; a stronger focus on the Indian Ocean; and closer attention being paid to protecting our strategic interests in our northern and western approaches.

These are sensible, largely low-cost steps that reflect necessary priorities beyond our
Afghanistan mission.

The litmus test for the new white paper, as for all its predecessors, remains Defence’s
funding base.

If the white paper doesn’t resolve the growing imbalance between strategic ambition and grand plans for equipment purchases, then its shelf life will be short indeed, and future governments will be left to make the hard decisions between cutting capabilities or finding more dollars to invest.

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... fall.html#
"[Os portugueses são]um povo tão dócil e tão bem amestrado que até merecia estar no Jardim Zoológico"
-Dom Januário Torgal Ferreira, Bispo das Forças Armadas
 

*

HSMW

  • Moderador Global
  • *****
  • 8495
  • Recebeu: 757 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 1250 vez(es)
  • +73/-34
    • http://youtube.com/HSMW
Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
« Responder #21 em: Março 27, 2014, 09:02:14 pm »
Citar
VICE News visits the factory floor of the American defense industry to learn how a twisted web of Machiavellian manufacturing strategies is keeping middle America afloat, politicians in office, and steady supply of weapons flowing to some questionable regimes.
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=HSMW

"Tudo pela Nação, nada contra a Nação."
 

*

olisipo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4965
  • Recebeu: 115 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 45 vez(es)
  • +27/-31
Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
« Responder #22 em: Fevereiro 22, 2016, 04:48:59 pm »


China Becomes World's Third Largest Arms Exporter

http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/china-becomes-worlds-third-largest-arms-exporter/?_r=0

China has surpassed Germany to become the world's third largest arms exporter, but the United States and Russia remain the dominant sellers of weapons worldwide, according to statistics released on Monday by a research organization in Sweden.

 The Stockolm International Peace Research Institute said China surpassed Germany on 2010-2014. With just 5 per cent of total exports for that period, China's share was far below that of the United States, at 31 per cent,  or Russia, at 27 per cent. (...)
 

*

Lusitano89

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 11064
  • Recebeu: 383 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 227 vez(es)
  • +62/-46
Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
« Responder #23 em: Fevereiro 25, 2016, 03:50:18 pm »
 

*

olisipo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4965
  • Recebeu: 115 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 45 vez(es)
  • +27/-31
Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
« Responder #24 em: Fevereiro 26, 2016, 10:47:14 pm »


Australia unveils "massive increase" in defense expending

http://www.defencetalk.com/australia-unveils-massive-increase-in-defense-expending-66847

(...The government said it would spend  US $139 billion  over the next decade, including a doubling of its submarine fleet to 24, three additional destroyers, nine new frigates and 12 offshore patrol boats   (...)

New air defence weapons would boost the force capabilities with 72 F-35s, known as Joint Strike Fighters, added from 2020 (...)
 

*

olisipo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 4965
  • Recebeu: 115 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 45 vez(es)
  • +27/-31
Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
« Responder #25 em: Abril 08, 2016, 12:03:20 pm »


World military spending resumes upwards course, says SIPRI

http://www.sipri.org/media/pressreleases/2016/milex-apr-2016
 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 14939
  • Recebeu: 971 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 932 vez(es)
  • +163/-152
Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
« Responder #26 em: Maio 11, 2016, 12:20:30 pm »
Citação de: Navor;n146998
German Armed Forces to get another 7000 soldiers until 2023.
Link in German
http://augengeradeaus.net/2016/05/es-ist-zeit-fuer-die-bundeswehr-wieder-zu-wachsen/

Here some points.

Cyber Warfare Command to be established

Navy
Add. sailors for "Multi-Crew concept"
1 add. Boardingcompany within Seebataillon

Air Force
Add. Airmen for the SAM-Wing- From 2021 onwards
Add. personnel for UAV operations.

Army
1 (WOW) add bridge-laying company

SOF
160 add. support personnel for KSK
Also add. personnel for KSK-M

Medical Service
500 add. personnel
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 

*

Cabeça de Martelo

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 14939
  • Recebeu: 971 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 932 vez(es)
  • +163/-152
Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
« Responder #27 em: Maio 11, 2016, 12:21:27 pm »
Citação de: haze99;n139652
On the other side of the spear tip, the Marine Corp;

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/15/budget-cuts-leaving-marine-corps-aircraft-grounded.html

Out of 276 F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters in the Marine Corps inventory, only about 30% are ready to fly, according to statistics provided by the Corps. Similarly, only 42 of 147 heavy-lift CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters are airworthy.

U.S. military spending has dropped from $691 billion in 2010 to $560 billion in 2015. The cuts came just as the planes were returning from 15 years of war, suffering from overuse and extreme wear and tear. Many highly trained mechanics in the aviation depots left for jobs in the private sector.
7. Todos os animais são iguais mas alguns são mais iguais que os outros.

 

*

Viajante

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 1324
  • Recebeu: 373 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 186 vez(es)
  • +122/-13
Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
« Responder #28 em: Julho 16, 2016, 12:10:14 pm »
Ranking das 25 maiores potências militares mundiais em 2016, elaborado pela Global Firepower

Apesar da GF analisar 50 itens, aqui descrevo apenas 2, os gastos anuais em defesa e a mão-de-obra disponível para defender o país:

1º Estados Unidos (524,5 mil milhões de euros, 145 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
2º Rússia (42,4 mil milhões de euros, 70 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
3º China (140,8 mil milhões de euros, 750 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
4º Índia (36,1 mil milhões de euros, 616 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
5º França (31,6 mil milhões de euros, 30 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
6º Reino Unido (49,7 mil milhões de euros, 24 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
7º Japão (36,1 mil milhões de euros, 54 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
8º Turquia (16,2 mil milhões de euros, 42 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
9º Alemanha (32,5 mil milhões de euros, 37 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
10º Itália (30,7 mil milhões de euros, 28 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
11º Coreia do Sul (29,8 mil milhões de euros, 26 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
12º Egipto (3,6 mil milhões de euros, 42 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
13º Paquistão (6,3 mil milhões de euros, 95 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
14º Indonésia (6,3 mil milhões de euros, 130 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
15º Brasil (28,9 mil milhões de euros, 107 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
16º Israel (14,1 mil milhões de euros, 3,6 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
17º Vietname (3 mil milhões de euros, 50,6 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
18º Polónia (8,7 mil milhões de euros, 19 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
19º Taiwan (9,9 mil milhões de euros, 12,2 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
20º Tailãndia (4,8 mil milhões de euros, 35,5 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
21º Irão (5,7 mil milhões de euros, 47 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
22º Canadá (13,3 mil milhões de euros, 16 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
23º Austrália (23,5 mil milhões de euros, 10,7 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
24º Arábia Saudita (51,5 mil milhões de euros, 15,3 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)
25º Coreia do Norte (6,8 mil milhões de euros, 13 milhões mão-de-obra disponível)

É um ranking obviamente polémico, mas que tem muitos fundamentos verdadeiros. Salta á vista claramente os números dos Estados Unidos e da China!!!!!!
Portugal, teria algo do género em comparação:
2,3 mil milhões de euros, 4,5 milhões de mão-de-obra (estimativa que fiz), aparece no lugar 63º, logo atrás da Hungria (62º). A Espanha aparece apenas no lugar 27º.

http://economico.sapo.pt/noticias/saiba-quais-sao-as-maiores-potencias-militares-do-mundo-em-2016_254699.html?photo=24
« Última modificação: Julho 16, 2016, 12:28:40 pm por Viajante »
 

*

Lusitano89

  • Investigador
  • *****
  • 11064
  • Recebeu: 383 vez(es)
  • Enviou: 227 vez(es)
  • +62/-46
Re: Despesas Militares Mundais
« Responder #29 em: Dezembro 09, 2016, 11:37:07 am »
 

 

Espanha: salários mais altos pelos militares, +25% em 3 anos

Iniciado por manuel liste

Respostas: 3
Visualizações: 2869
Última mensagem Novembro 10, 2005, 01:36:57 pm
por manuel liste
Os Militares Latino-Americanos Vistos por Hugo Chávez

Iniciado por J.Ricardo

Respostas: 0
Visualizações: 1307
Última mensagem Fevereiro 01, 2005, 07:45:35 pm
por J.Ricardo
Espanha: 8500 novas vagas para militares

Iniciado por Lancero

Respostas: 0
Visualizações: 1209
Última mensagem Fevereiro 03, 2006, 03:14:31 pm
por Lancero
Ex-militares revelam muitas dificuldades de reintegração

Iniciado por Fábio G.

Respostas: 3
Visualizações: 1645
Última mensagem Junho 05, 2004, 12:40:22 pm
por Fábio G.
Bulgária: EUA instalam três bases militares

Iniciado por Marauder

Respostas: 13
Visualizações: 3972
Última mensagem Julho 01, 2006, 10:47:18 am
por Marauder