Was the EFA coalition a mistake for the Brits?

"phil hunt" wrote


If Sweden (population 9 million) can design and build a modern
fighter, I'm sure Britain (population 60 million) could.

They can design it. Could they (would they) pay for it on their own?

Pete

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"phil hunt" wrote


If Sweden (population 9 million) can design and build a modern
fighter, I'm sure Britain (population 60 million) could.

They can design it. Could they (would they) pay for it on their own?

Pete

Part of the idea of these multinationl designes is to lock several countries
into being customers and to make it politically difficult to withdraw.

Britain has a reputation for cancelling its own Brilliant designes and
****ing the money up the wall on inept politics.

Germany has had some of the most advanced concepts, including stealth when
it was not a fashion, of any country but they never get past the technology
demonstators stage because (mainly left) wing politics usually leads to
cancellations. The Germans also have enormous political problems in
exporting so they need to link into someone elses program.

The French generally don't get involved in major programes because they
don't want any export restrictions. If they do get involved in a program
they eventualy seem to come up with their own version of a missile.

In General will power and direction and a sense of autonomous independence
is missing in the west: We don't know what we are and what we stand for
accept vague concepts such as 'diversity' or whatever is in vogue. The
willpower doesn't exist. While there are reasons for having a strong
military the history of the misuses and abuses of the US military really
don't endear the idea of a large armed forces to most people.

"Pete" wrote in message .. .
"phil hunt" wrote


If Sweden (population 9 million) can design and build a modern
fighter, I'm sure Britain (population 60 million) could.

They can design it. Could they (would they) pay for it on their own?

Pete


Who's paying it for them?

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:51:38 GMT, Pete wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote


If Sweden (population 9 million) can design and build a modern
fighter, I'm sure Britain (population 60 million) could.

They can design it. Could they (would they) pay for it on their own?

Britain spends a good deal more on its armed forces than Sweden
does.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

"phil hunt" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:51:38 GMT, Pete
wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote


If Sweden (population 9 million) can design and build a modern
fighter, I'm sure Britain (population 60 million) could.

They can design it. Could they (would they) pay for it on their own?

Britain spends a good deal more on its armed forces than Sweden
does.

Spread around among many more types of equipment. Not knocking the Swedes,
but do they have any carriers?

Pete

"phil hunt" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:51:38 GMT, Pete
wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote


If Sweden (population 9 million) can design and build a modern
fighter, I'm sure Britain (population 60 million) could.

They can design it. Could they (would they) pay for it on their own?

Britain spends a good deal more on its armed forces than Sweden
does.

In comparative terms there's not that much difference

Sweden spends 2.1 % of GDP on its military while
the UK spends 2.4%

Keith

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:12:29 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:51:38 GMT, Pete
wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote


If Sweden (population 9 million) can design and build a modern
fighter, I'm sure Britain (population 60 million) could.

They can design it. Could they (would they) pay for it on their own?

Britain spends a good deal more on its armed forces than Sweden
does.

In comparative terms there's not that much difference

Sweden spends 2.1 % of GDP on its military while
the UK spends 2.4%

The UK has about 7 times as many people. Assuming GDP per head is
roughly the same in both countries, it's clear the UK spends a lot
more.

Even if you factor in that Britain spends 1/3 on each of its three
services, whereas Sweden spends half on its army and navy (probably
not the exact proportions, but you get the idea) then UK airforce
spending is a lot greater than Swedish.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)