Before I start on what it could mean for us first it is good to watch the video from Perun on the topic as a lot of the messages are also relevant for us.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Germany to spend €100billion and what it could mean for us
Collapse
X
-
How the Germans came up with the €100bn, nobody knows, there was likely a meeting, the politicians asked the generals as everyone already agreed they were lacking equipment. The generals, not wanting to push their luck too far, but still trying their hand throw out the €100bn figure and all have heart-attacks when it is accepted. This can be seen as almost straight away no-one knew just what the money was for, some even suggested part was for Green energy as energy supply is again a national security issue.
Now i did not go and ask a bunch of Irish generals as there request would likely be to more Toyota Land Cruisers! So what I have done is take the premise that we should have been spending 2% of GNI and as we have not that we have an establishment deficit; not enough facilities, not enough equipment and not enough stores. We all know that without a massive wartime spending increase it takes time to build up a military and for this I have taken a time period of 20 years. So I have looked at the GNI and the Defence Vote 36 from 2001 until 2021.Now if we had been funding the DF properly then not all of that budget would be with new equipment or new/upgraded facilities. A good funded military normally splits the budget almost equally amongst new equipment, sustainment and staffing. On the sustainment side lets make the assumption that half is for munitions/spare backlog and the other half for running costs. That would mean that of the approx. €55.9bn about half is that missing investment, about €29.5bn. To put this figure in perspective, the cost of bailing out the greedy corrupt banks was €42bn so far.Year GNI
m€Vote 35
m€%GNI 2%
Target
m€Delta
m€2002 114,021 725 0.64 2280 1555 2003 125505 711 0.57 2510 1799 2004 134,878 733 0.54 2698 1965 2005 147,493 759 0.51 2950 2191 2006 162,161 772 0.48 3243 2471 2007 170,376 817 0.48 3408 2591 2008 162,116 880 0.54 3242 2362 2009 141,616 804 0.57 2832 2028 2010 140,170 744 0.53 2803 2059 2011 139,354 704 0.51 2787 2083 2012 141,558 657 0.46 2831 2174 2013 151,329 667 0.44 3027 2360 2014 164,570 673 0.41 3291 2618 2015 202,001 671 0.33 4040 3569 2016 219,970 671 0.31 4399 3728 2017 235,745 681 0.29 4715 4034 2018 252,522 701 0.28 5050 4349 2019 276,707 756 0.27 5534 4778 2ß20 283,736 781 0.28 5675 4894 2021 314,595 810 0.26 6292 5482 Totals 14,717 73,608 58,891
That means that even if we magically get the 2% GNI target tomorrow we would be living with an investment deficit for the next 20 years. So while some may jump up and down with joy over a target of €1.5bn in 2028 that is only a drop in the ocean if defence is to be seriously funded.
And on the topic of the infamous 2% GDP, many countries are now planning to go beyond this figure as it was a peacetime budget figure with friendly neighbours. Not that one of the biggest after many years of bullying has gone full on berserk the 2% is no longer seen as adequate.Last edited by EUFighter; 31 July 2022, 10:23.
- Likes 1
-
Originally posted by DeV View PostEqually how did CoDF end up with its figures as they don’t seem to be detailed?
PwC talked about 70:30 pay versus non-pay, is that still valid
PS Perun has some excellent analysis
So when PwC did there analysis we did not have a balanced force structure, it was and still is primarily an infantry force. It lacks many of the big ticket items such as fighters, frigates or heavy armour. So if you have a primarily infantry force the cost of equipment is low so you get away with the split as long as you do not want to change anything.
If the IFA were to ask PwC to do a report on the "future of Irish beef farming and the climate" you can be sure that it would conclude that we should keep the national herd as it is. It might even suggest that we expand with some reasoning like "grass grows better in Ireland" than in the dry lands of Australia or it protects the Brazilian rain forest from being cut-down. To wrap this up there is a famous report into the "Banking System of Island" done before the crash. It looked like it was an independent report by a renowned US university. Turns out it was paid for my the Islandic government and was only full of praise, never mentioned anything about the doggy dealings that it knew was going on.When you see a report always look at who has paid for it.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
The CoDF operated in the confines of a narrow remit and the same goes for the PwC. I have worked with many consultant companies (including PwC) and their first objective is to keep the customer happy so they get to come back again! This means the first thing they do is find out what the customer expects to be told, every customer already has an idea of what the report should say before the on-board a consultant firm.
So when PwC did there analysis we did not have a balanced force structure, it was and still is primarily an infantry force. It lacks many of the big ticket items such as fighters, frigates or heavy armour. So if you have a primarily infantry force the cost of equipment is low so you get away with the split as long as you do not want to change anything.
If the IFA were to ask PwC to do a report on the "future of Irish beef farming and the climate" you can be sure that it would conclude that we should keep the national herd as it is. It might even suggest that we expand with some reasoning like "grass grows better in Ireland" than in the dry lands of Australia or it protects the Brazilian rain forest from being cut-down. To wrap this up there is a famous report into the "Banking System of Island" done before the crash. It looked like it was an independent report by a renowned US university. Turns out it was paid for my the Islandic government and was only full of praise, never mentioned anything about the doggy dealings that it knew was going on.When you see a report always look at who has paid for it.
but the PwC report completed remodelled the army
within the context of NI situation, end of Cold War etc
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeV View Post
I both agree and disagree
but the PwC report completed remodelled the army
within the context of NI situation, end of Cold War etc
But all that is beside your original question "is the PwC split of 70/30 salary/non-salary spend still valid?" I would argue that it is not. Looking at the US forces (because they publish loads of figures) we see that when a force is balanced the figures look different. Here is an excerpt from an analysis from FY2018 (full report:https://csbaonline.org/reports/milit...or%20FY%202018.)
"Military Personnel Costs
Overall, the cost of military personnel pays and benefits (MILPERS), at $146 billion, accounts for 23 percent of DoD’s discretionary budget request for FY 2018. However, military personnel costs are not evenly distributed across the Services. MILPERS costs account for 20 percent of the Air Force’s budget and 27 percent of the Navy’s. However, as the largest Service with the least procurement funding, MILPERS accounts for 37 percent of the Army’s overall budget (see Figure 4-6). Because the Army is the Service with the largest fraction of its budget devoted to military personnel costs, the Army is most sensitive to changes in the costs of military personnel, such as increases to the amount of basic pay or retention bonuses. Conversely, the Army is less able to fund manpower costs with savings in other appropriations titles, leaving adjustments to end-strength levels as the major lever the Army has to meet topline budget restrictions. Overall, the Army accounts for 42 percent of all of DoD’s MILPERS spending. At $60.9 billion in the FY 2018 budget request, the Army’s MILPERS request is 25 percent greater than the Navy and Marine Corps request for $48 billion (33 percent of total MILPERS spending) and 65 percent greater than the Air Force’s request for $37 billion (25 percent of total MILPERS spending)."
While it could be argued that the US has world wide commitments in terms of % deployed personnel we are not that far off. But when we look at other forces we see a similar pattern which would mean that if we were paying and equipping our forces properly then the figure should look more 30/70.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
The DF Review Implementation Plan 1996 was based on the PwC report
it brought an old (<10% of Ptes were under 25), poorly equipped (Panhard APCs, 90mm RCL), garrison based force of 12,750 down to a younger, fitter, better equipped more deployable force of 11,500.
The problem was over time that’s not what was implemented
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeV View PostEqually how did CoDF end up with its figures as they don’t seem to be detailed?
PwC talked about 70:30 pay versus non-pay, is that still valid
PS Perun has some excellent analysis
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment