"[We’re] trying to figure out what's going to happen," an industry official told Breaking Defense. "I joke about the crystal ball, but it's kind of anybody's guess right now about what could come out."
"[We’re] trying to figure out what's going to happen," an industry official told Breaking Defense. "I joke about the crystal ball, but it's kind of anybody's guess right now about what could come out."
NATO’s current defense-spending target of 2 percent has proven insufficient to deter aggression. There are now growing calls for a 3 percent threshold—not as a new obligation, but as a necessary correction for more than a decade of underinvestment.
Peter Dutton has pledged to better prepare Australia for future geo-strategic threats by spending an additional $21 billion between now and 2030, which would be almost double Labor's planned increase to the defence budget.
The Coalition says its plan to lift defence spending will cost $21 billion. But its longer-term goal would make defence the second-largest budget cost.
Are, the NATO members' governments, actually stopping buying American military wares of any kind in any considerable degree or capacity? Because so far it seems nobody actually translated their words into actions.
HASC will take up the bill on Tuesday in a marathon markup session that will allow Democrats the opportunity to amend the measure.
breakingdefense.com
I extracted the bill into a spreadsheet and cleaned it up a bit to see where the dollars are.
Shipbuilding has the largest bucket at $33B, with many line items for general industrial development, as well as additional ships in a few classes: 3x John Lewis, 1x Virginia, 2x Burke, 1x America, and 1x San Antonio. $2B is also included for Landing Ship Medium, which recently had been paused and adjusted in scope.
Missile defense is next at $24B, with a few notably large line items: $5.6B for space-based and boost phase intercept capabilities, $7.2B for space-based sensors, and $2.2B for hypersonic defense (glide phase interceptor?)
"Munitions" and "Low-cost weapons," while separate sections, total $29.9B. This includes $65M for integration of an Army missile interceptor onto Navy ships, presumably this is PAC-3. Drones and the drone industrial base are included here as well.
$3.1B for F-15 EX, $400M for F-47, $500M for F/A-XX.
$1.5B for Sentinal, $4.5B for B-21, $2B for SLCM-N
$4B for classified space superiority programs for INDOPACOM
$1.6B total for infrastructure and airfields in INDOPACOM, although "hardened aircraft shelters" is conspicuously absent as a direct mention.
$5B for border operations.
Remember, this is all in addition to the current funding from last year under the continuing resolution.
Europe has entered a period of high and increasing military spending, “which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future," Lorenzo Scarazzato, a researcher at SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Productions Program, told Breaking Defense.
Europe has entered a period of high and increasing military spending, “which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future," Lorenzo Scarazzato, a researcher at SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Productions Program, told Breaking Defense.
For what I know of the German population (I visited from Meckleburg to Freiburg) this will not translate automatically into combat readiness or will to join the Bundeswehr. And I do not wish a "Germany awaken" moment. Matter of fact, the less they spend or think about seriously rearming the better.
Excluding the UK and demanding trade concessions, freedom of movement and fishery rights is a certain path to turn the UK away from collective collaboration.
This has got to be driven by France in order to scoop up that money. Not going to play well with the likes of Poland or Sweden.
If Starmer gives in, his days will be numbered and I wouldn't bank any such treaty considering the major political swings coming. Lot's of choppy waters ahead.
Are, the NATO members' governments, actually stopping buying American military wares of any kind in any considerable degree or capacity? Because so far it seems nobody actually translated their words into actions.
That's like asking 'Are we there yet?' before the car has left the garage. It'll take months if not years, or years if not decades to see if there's a significant effect, because that's the timescale of defence procurement.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
nationalinterest.org
breakingdefense.com
www.19fortyfive.com
www.abc.net.au
www.defensenews.com
www.armyrecognition.com
www.airandspaceforces.com
