In terms of defence expenditure as a share of GDP, the top four spenders in NATO are the United States, Greece, Estonia and the United Kingdom.

Estonia and the United Kingdom both spend 2.13% of their GDP on defence while Greece spends 2.24% and the US spends 3.42%.

The United Kingdom remains second in overall defence spending within the Alliance.

NATO collects defence expenditure data from member states on a regular basis and presents this information.

“In the figures and tables that follow, NATO also uses up-to-date economic and demographic information available from the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission (DG-ECFIN), and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

In view of differences between both these sources and national GDP forecasts, and also the definition of NATO defence expenditure and national definitions, the figures shown in this report may diverge considerably from those which are quoted by media, published by national authorities or given in national budgets.

Equipment expenditure includes expenditure on major equipment as well as on research and development devoted to major equipment. Personnel expenditure includes pensions paid to retirees.”

Here’s the list of countries by defence expenditure as a share of GDP.

Click to enlarge.

Here are the top five countries by total expenditure.

  1. Click to enlarge.

    1. United States (730.15 billion dollars)

  2. United Kingdom (60.38 billion dollars)
  3. Germany (54.11 billion dollars)
  4. France (50.66 billion dollars)
  5. Italy (24.48 billion dollars)

The Alliance stipulate that the amounts represent payments by a national government actually made, or to be made, during the course of the fiscal year to meet the needs of its armed forces, those of their allies or of the Alliance itself.

Download the document containing the figures in PDF.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

125 COMMENTS

    • The article states it will increase from 2% to 2.5% if he invests £15 billion extra – a 25% increase of 15 billion, but this implies we spend £60 billion currently. I thought the defence budget was just under the £40 billion mark? I would of thought it would be closer to a £10 billion increase for 2.5% GDP. Or is this figure maybe taking economic growth or inflation into account?

      I also wonder at what rate it would increase – possibly 0.1% a year but who knows I guess.

      • Parliament article said that spread over 35 years and including about 30% contingency the cost was at 0.2% of GDP.
        We have already spent over 5 billion.

        Also the MOD officially confirmed that the nuclear deterrent had always been within the MOD budget
        (this after Williamson had claimed otherwise)

        It a fair question as to which budget it should be in, but the actual cost as it’s averaged out is not vast in the context of what it could do!

  2. Greece has long prioritised defence spending as a legacy of on-going tensions with Turkey. When talking about % of GDP spend though, it is necessary to bear in mind that Greece’s military spend and total GDP are both comparatively miniscule. Furthermore, if their %-of-GDP spend has increased that could either mean that they’ve increased spending in real terms, or that they’re economy has tanked more rapidly than their defence spend has declined.

    • Ha-good post Ian. Damn statistics and percentages with no context. As a schoolboy in Rhodesia our Maths teacher commented on a cigarette advert in the Rhodesia Herald proclaiming that a particular brand had increased sales by 200%!! “Ya” he said dryly ” Last year they sold one packet-this year they have sold three!! “

    • It should also be noted that the Greeks have never shown any inclination to get involved in any multinational operattions. In fact during the Cold War the planning assumption then, and now is that the Greeks would not fire a shot.

      They’re a passenger, no use whatsoever to NATO. The only point Greek and Turkish membership serves, to themselves and NATO, is so that they both don’t fight each other or align with Russia.

  4. Hopefully Hunt is the next PM.

    Regardless of his defence pledges, I see him as more of a statesman than Johnson, who is too divisive, gaff prone, and easily dismissed as just another toff.

    • I’m with you on that one, the only reason I remain a paid up Conservative is to vote against Johnson, if he gets in we are in for a lot of trouble. The man simply can’t be trusted with his promises, and certainly not with anyone’s wife. And Hunt has been saying for some time that defence spending has to rise, between him and Mordaunt we could start to have a reasonable defence policy.

      • Only for the 3 months they would *remain* in power before a general election is forced and Corbyn becomes PM.

        Think we have to accept Brexit is and will continue to be a disaster and just focus on making sure Corbyn never becomes PM.

    • Hunt’s reputation within the NHS (he was health secretary for years) is woeful. It is sad comment on the times we live in that he looks like the better of the two candidates for the job!

      • The problem with his tenure in charge of the NHS is that it was during the severe austerity years. The NHS still needs major reformation, to cut the waste. The problem is with salaries. Dr’s and nurses don’t even want to work for the NHS because they can earn over double as a locum and the government cannot increase pay to the market rate otherwise every other government employee will want the same increase.

        • The NHS is certainly wasteful, I suspect just like every other government department. And yes, salaries are a major issue as are staffing levels and a million other things. But the NHS (again like many government departments) has to meet all needs for all people within a broad mandate (health). That makes it almost impossible to achieve the efficiencies of the private sector where firms can focus their activities much more tightly.

          Politicians have spent decades telling us that government should be as efficient as the private sector since it sounds good and lets them hint at tax cuts. But the reality is that they do different jobs. Imagine if the MOD was tasked with being as efficient as the private sector. They’d outsource everything possible, focus on one task and cut everything that didn’t directly contribute to it. Bye bye most of our armed forces. That kind of thinking just doesn’t work in the public sector much as politicians like to claim otherwise.

        • Notwithstanding waste and salary issues I think all 1st world health models are struggling these days. The NHS offers excellent training at attractive salaries for immigrants from countries who produce a surplus of medics; the Commonwealth, some EU countries, the Phillipines and Goa.
          We are not alone. I believe the Germans are increasingly using immigrant medics from Eastern Europe who will work for smaller salaries.
          The root of the problem is that inflation in health treatments is orders of magnitude higher than average inflation for the economy. I was once told ( by a university professor) that statistically if you stopped all cancer treatments that life expectancy would only fall by 2 years.
          Life is precious….but expensive.

          • Kings College did a excellent report on the projections for NHS spending in 2003 , so far everything they have projected has come to fruit .
            We spend £158 billion a year on the NHS or 23% of public spending, it employs 1.2 million people and is the second largest employer in the world, the first being the PLA .
            Kings College projected by 2030 the NHS would cost 230 billion a year and consume 27% of public spending.
            The Wanless report for Gordon Brown in 2008 said that NHS spending is unaffordable under the present system and should be replaced by a social insurance system where everyone pays not just people paying tax.
            Typical Brown he ignored that bit and stuck a penny on NI which was like putting a gallon of water in a leaky bucket .

            We need a total reform on how we spend taxpayers money.

          • Rather than change how we spend tax revenue I would increase the focus on the drivers of illness. It’s accepted for example that obesity is a significant driver for just about every disease, yet the population is getting heavier. We should
            a) ramp up the time allocated to sport on the school timetable
            b) ramp up the excise duty on alcohol

            Having said we shouldn’t change how we spend tax revenue I would encourage mainland UK to copy NI and have a combined budget for health and social security at say, the level of the old English kingdoms: Mercia, Wessex, plus the big cities etc

            Worth noting that when you add NHS spending to BUPA etc spending the UK spending on health compares well with other Euro countries. Our problem is that we have two unintegrated systems…inefficient organisation.

          • Unfortunately the biggest cause especially in the future is going to be social care for the elderly. Dimentia is a horrible illness in that it robs old people of their life and dignity but keeps them alive while doing it. Residents are in so many blood thinning tables unless they get cancer their lives seem to extend wel beyond what nature intended.

        • I think your blanket statements about salaries for nurses and doctors is laughable. I am an NHS staff nurse and have been since I qualified. I have watched as our salaries were capped for years on end and bursary placements were stopped for training meaning a student nurse is liable for all teaching costs incurred while training. They then qualify and earn around 25k max (central London) with a huge debt behind them. Teachers get a bonus when they start teaching, so why don’t we when we start on the wards? I earn less an hour than a gardener and I am a Lead Nurse running a dept. I wonder why people are leaving the NHS????? We have been taken for granted for years, expected to work additional and unsocial hours without a second thought. We have been pushed over and over and the nurses have NEVER gone on strike unlike every other emergency service. I was working on Xmas day as a regular shift. I could have earned quadruple what I did that day, as could of my staff, but they were all there without a complaint. Check how much France, Germany, the Low countries pay their medical professionals. Then look at the US where starting salaries are in excess of $60000. People are leaving because we feel completely taken advantage of.

          • Sorry I think you miss understood me. I completely agree NHS salaries for Dr’s and Nurses are a disgrace which is why staff are not signing up in the numbers required and choosing to work locum instead where they actually get paid what they are worth. In heath trusts close to me 40% of staff are locum.
            Where the government has been tied is because everyone who works for the public sector regardless of if they are a Dr teacher or administrator expects to recieve the same pay increase regardless of how valuable they actually are in their job. I’d happily double nurses salaries in London. There needs to be a mechanism for public sector staff earn the market rate especially in London.

          • Sorry for my misunderstanding. I am very protective of the NHS and my staff, I think they perform small miracles every day on very restricted budget. I agree complete with your comments about mismanagement in many areas. It always makes me laugh that at the weekends the hospital car parks are empty but we still run the same service! What do all those people do during the week??? I also think it’s great we still talk about the NHS with such passion, it’s shows how much we appreciate it. Let’s never get to the US system.

          • £25k so $31,700. The equivalent position in the US is RN which earn $73,550 on average now plus full health and retirement benefits. So about a $42k difference before you add in lower taxes and cost of living. How do you have any staff left?
            To put $31k in perspective that is roughly 3k less than the average pay of a garbage collector in the US.

      • Actually thats not really the case. Particularly the people I speak to at the higher end and at DHSC. He wasn’t spectacular, but he didn’t rock the boat, and crucially he managed to limit the damage of a lot of Lansley’s catastrophic ‘reforms’. Now that was a woeful reputation and well deserved too…
        Matt Hancock is well regarded as well…

    • Hi Daniele-agree entirely. Boris is a bright charismatic man but at his age should have dropped the buffoonery a long while ago. Hunt is solid-especially for Defence. Also Boris elected as PM would threaten the integrity of the Union. He is not liked North of the border and his election would be a gift to the SNP and a big blow to our Ruth who has almost single handed revived the Tories in Scotland

    • Hunt is May mkII rebranded as a man. I do not believe for one second his new found commitment to brexit. If he ends up PM any defence spending pledges will be moot, as another period of May’s policies will open the door to a Lib/Lab anti Brexit Party coalition in an inevitable general election. Like most I’ve never been a Boris fan but a potential cabinet of Davis, IDS, Mogg, Mordaunt, Raab and the like is infinately superiour to Javid, Hammond, Gove and Stewart….Or letting the Marxists in by not leaving, which we won’t under Hunt.

      • We will not under Boris either. He seems to live in a fantasy land. Given that he was one of the primary movers in the leave campaign (strange since he was pro-european up to that point). You would imagine he would have a a very detailed plan to leave? You would hope so anyway as you would think he would have thought it through before getting people to vote leave…

        However he has no plan at all. His ideas are vague and have either been tried before and failed or have been totally rebuffed by the EU. He seems to be basing all of his plans (which seem to be able to be written on the back of a napkin) on hope, arrogance and fantasy. The EU will not renegotiate and parliament is unlikely to allow a no deal Brexit…

        Basically Boris is a remainer, how saw an opportunity to become leader of the conservative party. So he suddenly switched to leave in order to appeal to a powerful side of the party. He was clever as he could see the issue was going to split the party and he wanted to make sure he was on the more powerful side. He then dispatched Gove (his only other leave competitor at the time) and caused issues for May. Do not think that Boris is doing any of this out of a duty to his country. He is doing all of this in an attempt to further his career. I think he has misjudged it though and I think before long we will see Ruth Davidson as leader of the Conservative party (A much better leader who simply wants no part in this shitstorm…)

        • Lee, as I said I’m no fan of Boris. I think, like you, he is a political chancer and not to be trusted, but it’s any port in a storm at the moment. Hunt is just a re-skinned Maybot and under him we face vassalage and a Marxist in charge of the country.

          The only way Parliament can affect a no deal is by calling and winning a no confidence vote, the chances of which are remote as the tories understand they would, in effect, be voting Labour.

          • There seems to be enough of them that are willing to put the country ahead of the party to win a no confidence vote. They believe as I do that no deal is even worse than Corbyn… And believe me I think Corbyn will be a disaster for the country.

            The only real solution to this stalemate is a public vote. I am not sure Corbyn would actually win an election right now. He is like Boris and is a career politician. He hates the EU and has called many times for us to leave yet he will not now say so because he wants to keep votes among certain areas of the party.

            It is entirely possible the lib Dems could get in power.

          • The Tories won’t vote in any significant numbers for a no confidence motion. The main culprits for any such party suicide joined ChangeUK before the European elections. There will likely also be support from the 26 Labour MPs who signed the recent letter to Corbyn over the Labour manifesto pledge.

            Beside a devastating war, little can be imagined that’s worse for Britain than a marxist government. A WTO arrangement is absolutely nothing to worry about in comparison.

            We won’t be getting a “people’s vote” and even if we did the numbers suggest leave would win by a bigger majority, and there is no reason to believe the remainers would abide by that result either.

            If we don’t leave properly before the next election it is entirely probable that Labour will enter coalition with the LibDems and SNP to stop the brexit party winning outright. In that event it’s possible we may see the largest flight of captial in history.

          • WTO Rules are a major problem. This seems to be brushed off by anyone that supports Brexit but it is not to be taken lightly. WTO Rules are a bad fallback. They are there to simply facilitate the ability to trade not the quality of the trade agreement. There is little control over WTO Rules so if we want to offer a decent tariff for the EU (which we would as otherwise prices would be crazy high) then we have to give that tariff to every other country on earth that we do not have specific trade agreements with (non so far). This would put our economy under huge pressure and potentially devastate it.

            As for the peoples vote. If leave won by a higher majority then that would indeed end the impasse in parliament and that is the whole point of going back to the people! If Leave are so confident of winning by a higher margin then what is the issue? MPs are stuck and the precedent when this happens in other countries is to go to the people. Israel recently had a general election, could not form a government so another public vote takes place to break the deadlock.

            It seems many in the conservative party are pretty sure it is possible that there are enough conservative MPs willing to sacrifice their party for their country to win a vote of no-confidence. Anyone brushing this off is also playing with fire as it should be taken seriously.

            This is the main thing that annoys me about leave supporters. It is not the decision they made but they apparent ambivalence to any potential risks. It seems like they all live in fantasy world where everything is rosy and nothing bad can happen. That and the total lack of care for the younger population and a total disregard for facts. It seems it is entirely based on a feeling of patriotism rather critical thinking. Boris is a perfect example of this. He has zero plans for how he is going to deal with the issues despite being one of the architects of Brexit.

            The simple fact is that we will rejoin the EU again down the line but we will have a worse deal with them than we currently do…

          • It’s important to note that the majority of Britain’s trade through the EU is currently on WTO including with USA and China, they are not a fallback they are a baseline and any non EU country has the ability to negotiate whatever extra agreements they wish with anyone they wish, something we’ve been doing for three years now in preparation. Any country is also free to unilaterally drop tariffs to zero if they wish, regardless of GATT XXIV, which we likely would with more than just the EU. I am a business owner that trades in both EU countries and non EU countries, it is absolutely no more difficult to deal with businesses outside the block, despite EU tariffs. Whatever spurious benefits of the common market they simply are not worth being reduced to a constituent part of a political superstate.

            Leave would indeed win by a bigger margin in another referendum but people don’t believe it would end the impasse because they don’t believe, given the last three years, that the result would be accepted. That is the issue people have, and the reason MPs are stuck is their refusal to accept that first result. Britain is not Israel and a referendum is not a general election.

            There are not “many” in the conservative party willing to vote against the government in a no confidence vote. At the moment there are around half a dozen that have publicly indicated views in that direction and anyone who does automatically has the whip removed. Those half a dozen would be more than made up for by the 26 or so Labour MPs likely to lend the government support. It should be taken seriously but a no confidence motion is a non starter.

            I think you have created a caricature of a stereotypical brexiteer in your mind. Many younger people voted leave, and many of us have very personal stakes in Brexit and the welbeing of the country. Everyone knows leaving something after forty years will be difficult, even very difficult, but the chance to be a selfgoverning nation under its own laws and elected lawmakers has proven to be more of a pull than the fear of that difficulty and it always will be in the long run for populations. Everyone had their own reasons for voting remain or leave but demonising the other side as a single homogenous block is a lazy tactic to delegitimize the result and it isn’t working.

            Given the problems around the EU socially and economically and the growth of anti EU nationalist parties in every single one of the 27 nations, I’d say it’s unlikely there will be an EU to rejoin in the future. The genie is also out of the bottle now for the British and can’t ever go back in. Once we’ve left we won’t go back.

        • I think having actual tories in the cabinet might at least allow us to criticise genine tory principles. We may even end up with a left/right dichotomy back in Britain.

    • What a choice we could end up with at the next election: BoZo, Magic Grandpa, or a party that are neither liberal or democratic.

      • Morning Ulya. Sorry for late reply.

        To be ” Gaff prone” is to make a mistake and embarras yourself in front of others. Like saying something you should not have. Very important for a politician.

        Another saying Brits could use is ” putting your foot in it” example into trouble.

  5. I don’t understand how France is 10bn less than the UK but they have not made the kind of cuts in man power that we have. Pretty sure they operate more fast jets and tanks. Their amphibious capabilities and larger and ship and submarines numbers are about on power. They didn’t even get us help for the nuc’s. Are we just wasting a lot more money?

      • Plus the costs of the dreadnought program and MI5/MI6 and GCHQ all come out of the defence budget thanks to Osborne shunting them into the defence budget which along with pensions is around £11 billion of the defence budget of £37 billion so we actually spend £26 billion on defence.
        All other major countries intelligence services are not funded from the defence budget and historically the cost of building the nuclear deterrent came out of the treasury special contingency funds but Hammond when he was defence secretary allowed Osborne to shrove all the intelligence agencies and nuclear deterrent and pensions cost into the defence budget to maintain the fiction of spending 2% of GDP when it is actually 1.5%.

        • I do not believe all that to be correct.

          The SIS , SS, and GCHQ are funded from the Single Intelligence Account. That has not and never has been part of the defence budget.

          If it is now that’s news to me and id love to see the relevant documents.

          Some parts of intelligence do indeed fall under defence, and always have. That is Defence Intelligence ( ex DIS ) which include various uniformed organisations that DO contribute to GCHQ.

          As for pensions and deterrent I believe you’re correct.

          • The single intelligence account falls under the defence budget since 2011 , it use to draw funds from the foreign office, home office and defense budgets it now solely draws funds from the defence budget.
            It was done this way to give the illusion of higher defence spending.
            What Osborne did was stuff the SIA into the defence budget and then removed the costs from the home office and foreign office budget but failed to transfer the funds to the MoD saving £5.7 billion a year .
            Fallon the former MoD secretary was waging a campaign to have the home office and foreign office contributions restored to the SIA saving the MoD £5.7 billion to spend on other things .

    • I thought they had made cuts like most other European nations?

      Despite that, it always seems they get more for their money numbers wise.

      Then again, how often have people here baulked at the costs Mod pays for kit? Or the contract costs of maintaining equipment? Batch 2 Rivers now much ? A near 1 billion Challenger II upgrade, for what exactly? Warrior sustainment? FRES 1 billion spent for nothing.
      Self imposed delays costing billions ( T45A, Astute Carriers) the list is endless.

      Maybe they are not as incompetent with money as we seem to be.

      Or could it be that we pay better, and have more expensive high tech kit?

      And we still have a reported 7 billion black hole, that is after spreadsheet Phil says he cleared the black hole with the SDSR 2010 cuts.

      Something somewhere is very wrong in the Mod.

      • Short term money saving policy, the type 26 is a case in point the build has been stretched to 7 years per ship instead of 4 years to save costs in the short term.
        BAe are on record saying that if the build rate was 1 ship every 4 years £8 billion would buy 13 hulls but because it is 7 years you only get 8 for the same money because you get less the longer the build takes.

    • A lot of the reason for this is that France has a combination of new and old equipment. Their combat jet force is a mix of Rafale (new, Typhoon-era) and Mirage (old, Tornado-era).

      Their navy is similar.

      Whereas the UK has been all about shiny new world beating equipment which has such a price tag that numbers have to decrease.

      Imagine if instead of F35 we had retained all our Harriers and Tornados alongside the Typhoons. We would have a fleet of over 250 aircraft but of different capabilities and ages.

      Also, we’ve been involved in wars for the past 18 years, which has taken its toll on the budget also.

    • French logistics are almost non-existent; they have all the front-line bells and whistles like us but without any of the support behind it

      Only three ancient, tiny and impotent replenishment ships

      No heavy lift transport aircraft. A400M is as big as it gets with a paltry 37 tonne payload

      No heavy lift helicopters for deployment of material – they have had to rely on the RAF and RCAF in Mali for that for instance

      That’s how they do it.

    • I’m dumbfounded by what Italy gets for its $25B.

      100k of troops in 2 armoured, 2 “strike” 4 light and an airborne brigade.

      Two 30k ton carriers (2nd being built) plus 3 small LHD

      60 f35a and 15 f35b plus 5 typhoon squadrons

    • The French don’t some of the capabilities we do, next to zero ISTAR assets, no strategic lift capabilities, way behind the RAF on air to air refuelling tankers, no chinook fleet. The french submarine fleet doesn’t come close to what our Astute class is capable off, the list could go on, even the Rafael is trailing along way behind the Typhoon now when I comes to development and upgrades. The French have gone for numbers over capability, and they have a lot of old equipment.

  6. We don’t spend 2% of gdp defence! They messed with the way we calculate it! We have lost so many tanks, jets, helicopters, ships, and the rest but we still spend around the same…Nuclear deterrent should not be added for starters, it’s never used to be right?

    • Cam wrote:
      it’s never used to be right?

      In 2010 George Osbourne took the nuclear deterrent budget out of the treasury and passed it over to the MOD. Its also the day when the MOD started having a cash problem. Funny that.

        • AG wrote:
          “The MOD has had cash problems far longer than the last 9 years.”

          I suspect that the MOD has had cash problems since Boadicea had an expense claim rejected, but the issue of late went through the roof after the now editor of the Evening Standard decided to rob Peter to pay Paul.

          • I’m sure if Treasury took the nuclear deterrent back under its wing, and we stopped counting the MOD civil servants’ pension fund as a core element of defence spending, the share of GDP would drop well below the 2% mark…

            In other news, Turkey have done well, they’re almost meeting their NATO commitment! Must be all those Russian missiles they’re buying…

      • Tanks Farouk, it’s a dam joke, we are getting weaker and weaker! Even our expensive nuclear deterrent nuke stockpile is shrinking below what I feel we need to be credible! Dam joke all around!

          • Indeed. Surely all we need for a credible threat is for the CASD to carry enough warheads to wipe out the major cities in any country foolish enough to be considering a strike against us.

            If that were Russia, for example, then the ability to wipe Moscow and St Petersburg off the face of the earth is enough to deter.

          • Moscow and St.Petersburg? You do realize they have a lot of other cities right and that it is a huge country. Many of those cities have much greater strategic value while Moscow and St.Petersburg are mostly political and cultural.
            Against that nuclear missiles are going to get easier to intercept as time goes on. Requiring saturation to get to their targets. So say Russia nuked London or was planning to, so in response or preemptively due to needing to ensure target saturation Britain’s strikes (due to the 2010 security review leaving only 40 warheads available) only managed to destroy or damage 2 cities. Remember nukes aren’t like the movies. The Cold War plans were predicated on multiple warheads to actually kill a city.
            Do you think what was left of Russia would, “say well London was fair exchange for Moscow?” Now keep in mind the UK is the size of Michigan and Russia has more than enough nukes to purge it of all significant concentrations of human life. Which they would do if you destroyed their capital

          • My point is that the CASD needs to be enough to prevent anyone thinking of launching against us. Do you not think that the Russians may think twice about doing so if they believed that their 2 most populated and significant cities could be wiped out?

            The CASD isn’t about the ability to completely destroy another country. It’s about being enough of a deterrent to stop them doing it to us, emphasis on “enough”. If it came to a nuke shooting war then the whole thing has failed and we are screwed anyway. The fact that our retaliation could ‘only’ kill X number of million vs their entire population is somewhat irrelevant.

          • Look at their sustained casualties from WWII and you would come to the conclusion that the UK only has enough deployable warheads to piss them off.
            They didn’t role over and start singing Deutschland Uber Alles and listen to Hitler then. So I doubt they would listen to the UK and start singing God Save Queen.

    • Forget whether more needs to be spent or not, you can’t argue that the nuclear deterrent is a defence related cost. Not accounting for it just means we were understating our expenditure in previous years

  7. Greece does have the same amount of frigates as the UK 13, and they do have around 1700 more main battle tanks than the UK and 4000 odd more artillery pieces. But the rest is well how can I put it politely not upto much, Bar a couple other exceptions.

    • 4000 artillery pieces!? You mean 400 surely. I’d doubt even Russia has that many.

      The Royal Artillery has less than 200 I think, even including all the Light Guns.

      Numbers, while important, are not the be all and end all mate. Greece lacks a whole host of capabilities the UK has, from SSN to SF to high tech cyber, ISTAR an comms as part of 5 Eyes.

      Then there’s know how, professionalism, training.
      There is a reason navies come to FOST, countries send their people to Sandhurst, and the SAS train other nations SF.

      The UK has many top end capabilities most others lack.

      We just need beefing up a bit in some areas.

      • We, “Us Brits”, have way more than 400, most are “Stored”. You might want to Google it. Greece is no direct comparison in any way shape or form. Some silly post’s here lately.

        • Way more than 400 what? Artillery pieces?

          I dont tend to Google mere numbers as I go by formations and capability.

          But according to Google, there are 35 MLRS, 89 AS90, and 135 Light Guns.

          Our 4 Light Gun regular regiments have just 12 guns each, and the AS90 Regiments are reducing to just two Regiments. They were on just 18 guns.
          Others are held with 14RA at Larkhill.

          Add to this the guns of the HAC, the handful of Army Reserve Light Gun regiments of similar complements, none of which deploy as complete formations and many use their guns for saluting.

          Stored is hardly useful either if we lack the regiments and people to man them.

          Unless your including the 81mm Mortars of Infantry Battalion Fire Support Companies I’m unable to see where your getting to “Way more than 400”

          • You believe too much that you read. I believe what I know to be true. This site is riddled with those that know nothing of the truth and absolutely 100% of all the propaganda. Been here 4 weeks now and i’m absolutely pissing myself at all the posters who take themselves so seriously. Some twat had a bloody Mental breakdown last week when I dared to state a few basic facts and figures about the amount of F35’s and Typhoons the RAF actually Own/Fly. Anyway, waiting to be censored soon as I dared to answer back at the bloke who owns the internet domain/delete button. Would be great to keep posting but I fear the recent once Free to say what we think, Democratic , majority led place that so many died to preserve, has been taken over by the “New Age Offended” .

          • Hi Hero

            Likewise, I too believe my figures, but not by looking at numbers on Google, as I said, but by knowing the formations that use the equipment, their makeup, where they are located, and how they fit into the ORBAT. An on going research hobby of many, many years if you like. Sad eh.

            Which is why I gave a rough figure of under 200. With GMLRS added I was a bit out, a bit over 200 not under.

            So, I’m curious, which units have all these extra artillery pieces, what type are they, and if they are stored, where did you see them? Is this by first hand knowledge or through forces colleagues?

            I know the storage sites so I can look into it.

            Would be fantastic to know I’m totally wrong and the RA is twice the size I thought it was.

  8. Well, if your economy has recently tanked, then short term defence spending as a % of GDP will grow. Reading across the above table for Greece comparable to UK illustrates this. Who knows, for a month or so after Magic Grandpa took power we may be in the enviable position of claiming defence spending is 100% of GDP.

  9. We should be matching the USA for % GDP at the very minimum otherwise we will simply fall behind them. In fact my humble opinion slightly more at 3.6 to 3.8, as we are already behind and most of the time do not get the benefit of economies of scale the USA get.

    As a country that is active in engagements all over the globe & one that should be able to defend itself the 3.4 is a minimum.

    We have massive capability gaps: long range air defence + Anti-ballistic missile defence, anti-ship capability both air, land and sea, independent long range anti-submarine capability for ships, electronic warfare in particular jamming and ECM, investment in energy weapons/big new technologies etc. Elsewhere the numbers of ships, tanks, personnel and pretty much everything is too low to produce credible combat mass.

    The ironic thing is that we are actually reliant upon those underspending countries to make up for the fact that our territorial defence is very weak. We’re lucky that we have the English Channel if blitzkrieg happened again not sure we have what we need everything depends upon mutually assured destruction! In some ways I yet to be convinced that being a communist or resistance fighter, is worse than having a planet completely devoid of life?

    The increase will probably never happen baring a much hotter Cold War, but if so it would allow much cutting edge developments within the uk delivering possible extra benefits to uk industry. It also may potentially stop the hotter war in the first place.

    The other countries in nato are a joke and should be ashamed of themselves relying on USA to provide defence especially those with the bear next door! They should all be hitting the 2%.

    As they have a more stand off approach and concentrate mainly on defending their territory this could be deemed just about sufficient.

    The government should be the responsible home owner and pay for proper insurance. We all don’t like paying for it but are all glad that it is in place when things go wrong.

    • I think you need to look at the state of schools, the NHS, and social care. No way should we spend the same as the US on defence. 2.5% of GDP would be a huge boost and is a far more realistic aim.

      • We have done 3.4% before after the cold war no amount of money will solve the state of “the NHS” and until it adopts a proper franchise approach money is massively wasted. The other departments look pretty similar every where fragmentation, grammar schools, faith schools I am sure the list is endless. Elsewhere over the whole country duplication and waste is rife with devolved power being implemented all over the country. All of it is pretty much constructed to protect those at the top and the well paid.
        Although the mod wastes money – you normally at least get something tangible and if not who to blame is very clear and there is a proper structure in place.

        • And where exactly is this war that we are fighting where we need all this extra money and baggage ? And who is gonna man, maintain and move all this shiny new kit ? Recruitment is a constant bugbear as it is.
          ABM system would be useless to the UK. The last time anyone used WMD’s against us it involved 2 tourists, a perfume bottle, and a Door handle. Not sure a high flying missile with a 50% chance of a kill would have been much use.
          Tanks ? Do you understand the logistical difficulties of moving large numbers of heavy armour around the World? We only needed 220 for Kuwait but it needed 6 months to move everything we needed and then work it up to battle readiness. On top of which we cannibalised the remaining Armour in Germany to keep those 220 operational, and that was in a year where we spent 3.56% of GDP.
          AShM’s for ships ? When was the last time those things were used in anger. We didn’t even use them in the Falklands (1982 – 4.8%). Silly to put them on a Destroyer when its escorting a Carrier with Aircraft that can fly 5x further than a ship launched missile.
          Would Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya have turned out any different with all this kit or money ?

  10. Greece has a high per capita defense budget because of low population and a poor economy. Its defenses are also directed towards Turkey and not Russia.

  11. Morning all
    There are a lot of suggestions about what percentage of our GDP should go on defence. Some say 2.5% some say 3% and some say higher.
    So my question to you is, what would you cut/divert from the rest of the budget so that it could be spent on defence?

    Thanks, M@

    • Hello, Matt
      I’d first comment that there is nothing remarkable about 2.5% GDP. This figure, give or take a fraction, has been the default level for the UK during peacetime for hundreds of years, so to fall below it when world events are strongly indicating an increase in tensions is basic fallacy. Indeed, any normal government policy, whether Conservative or Labour (I make no prediction for Marxist), will inevitably rise above this unless a) tensions reduce or b) we experience such a remarkable rise in UK GDP soon that this basic figure is rendered immaterial (good luck with both of those scenarios). So you see, this Treasury led response about ‘what would you cut’ is historically spurious.
      However, as for a couple of instances related to your question, the NHS is a underlyingly a wonderful organisation but needs updating for the modern world; in short I believe an initial moderate safety-net limited contribution from our holding health insurance policies similar in some respects to the recent enforced pensions contributions – please note that I do not advocate this from any position of wealth.
      Secondly, there are aspects of our further education system that are atrociously unfit for giving our youngsters a meaningful future, some courses being invented primarily to generate income for a number of colleges. On two fronts this is wasteful: directly in terms of that proportion of government funding that forms part of college income, and indirectly due to the amount of student loans that will not be repaid because no sufficient employment income led on from those courses.
      For consideration,
      Regards G

  12. This illustrates the folly of using this method to determine the amount of money a country should spend on defence. If I remember correctly it was David Cameron who thought it would be a good idea to measure our commitment to defence by using a politically motivated percentage of GDP. Just as he did with our overseas aid budget – and we all know how disastrous that has been! The amount we commit to defence must be based on a calculation of the threats we face and the resources and capabilities we need to meet those threats – nothing else. As it is any governments first priority to defend its people and their interests, then defence should be first in the queue when it comes to divvying up the public purse. What is left gets spent on all the other things governments want to spend our tax money on. All of these are choices. Defence isn’t!

    • “To defend its people and their interests”

      Funnily enough the majority of the populations interests are family, health and business, that won’t get any better by cutting other budgets to increase defence spending.

      The chances of large scale conflict keep getting smaller and smaller every year with globalisation and technology, and just the fact all the big players realise how prosperous the world has become since world war 2, nobody wants that, nobody wants a world war.

      We are the second largest defence spender in NATO, we need to stop looking at the US as barometer, they have an empire we don’t.

      If the deterrent and pensions were moved out and 0.2% from elsewhere moved in, it would drastically change, that’s all it needs really at peacetime, 2.2% of the fifth largest economy, and a full 2.2% on defence would really be enough and take a lot of our problems away.

      • “Funnily enough the majority of the populations interest’s are family, health and business” . Oh no they’re not, It’s more like Love Island, BGT and how much their House is worth , not to mention their latest fecking iPhone. As for the “Nobody want’s that” comment, Are you serious ? Do you think you can state that on behalf of the 7.7 billion other people on this Planet ? Are you Deaf, Dumb and Stupid ? Any Idea at all what’s going on in China, North korea, Iran, Russia, Europe, Trumps Brain. ? FFS. have you learnt nothing from the Pre War years ?

        • Throw what house is worth in with business, should of said wealth really.

          A couple of million people watch love island out of 65m

          Yes i am serious, the overwhelming majority of people on this planet do not want war, you must be deaf, dumb and stupid to think otherwise.

          Oooh this sounds good, tell me then how does world war 3 start?

          And you must be seriously f*****g stupid if you are comparing today to the 30’s.

          • “You must be Seriously Fucking Stupid ” You say ? well, no and I have a couple of Certificates to prove it. If i were “Seriously Fucking Stupid” in my Job now, I’d not be In my Job Now. Actually, by Ignoring the comparison between the 1930’s and now, you are displaying the same level of ignorance as they did back then. 55 Million People died as a result, Actually, You are obviously way more Ignorant as you appear to have learnt nothing about History.

          • I have my 50 metre swimming certificate as well mate, it’s nothing to brag about.

      • Yes but to keep all those things they are interested in we need a safe secure country that can influence other countries, protect allies, and intervene where it is right to do so. By the way a large conflict could be around the corner and disagree globalisation decreases this you have to remember resources are limited. Who are the big players??? North Korea have one of the worlds biggest army, Iran has serious capabilities neither of these states are what I would call friendly and stable. No offence intended the view expressed is extremely naive in my view. You say we can’t measure against the USA as they have an empire – what this empire is I would like to know? as I don’t think they see it that way? And I am not talking about matching pound for pound, but considering we have been involved in almost every major operation with the USA in the last 30 years in I don’t think it is unreasonable to provide a 10th of what should be our contribution, without then having to constantly reduce defence to pay for operations.

        • “Yes but to keep all those things they are interested in we need a safe secure country that can influence other countries, protect allies, and intervene where it is right to do so”

          So tell me, how on Earth do all the populations of the 180 or so sovereign nations that spend less than us cope?

          N Korea and Iran do not want war, they are not looking for it, N Korea cares about maintaining control of its population, a lot of it starving, and Iran is after regional control but again they do not want war with the US, it’s wars neither can never win.

          I’m not saying it’s impossible but the world hasn’t changed since the Second World War, things are done differently and self preservation and economic prosperity means more to everyone now.

          So you can’t see the American Empire? And you’re commenting on geopolitics, I advise you read some books on the US empire, two by Niall Ferguson especially spring to mind, Empire how Britain made the modern world and colossus rise and fall of the American empire.

          800 odd military bases in over 70 countries and you can’t see it?

    • You can’t run defence that way as you can’t magically create capabilities from nothing when threats arise or conversely be overspending on things whilst the population goes hungry in the streets. By GDP helps keeps a balanced spend.

      If based on threats most members of the public would say we don’t need to spend any money on defence – we don’t have any threats and Russia could be viewed as other countries problem.

      Assessments do have to made years in the future of what potential threats could be and these should help determine the capabilities, and to some extent the spending. We are an interconnected world and threats could arise anywhere in different ways.

      But at the end of the day you need a baseline at a level to the position you see yourself as a country in the world. You have to judge yourself against the competition both friend and foe to ensure you have a broad baseline of capabilities as it is easier to lose capabilities than gain them.

      People are stupid and take risks they don’t always think what’s around the corner that’s why car insurance is compulsory by law otherwise large amounts of the population would not have any.

      Government shouldn’t be and as I take from your comments defence should be first, but the amount of GDP should still be used, measured against all competition (although consideration should be given to the politics of certain countries) and certainly an absolute minimum should be enshrined in law.

      • All smoke and mirrors. UK makes sure the kitchen sink goes in with those figures. So we spend more than twice what Italy does and more than times that of Spain with comparable conventional forces??!!
        This countrys bang, never matches the buck. $60b! Dont make me laugh!

  13. Its quite incredible, here,s Greece in the throws of a credit , unemployment , recession crisis is spending more of its GDP on defence.
    The EU banks is considering withdrawing remaining credit if Greece doesnt do as its told

    Strange a Real Greek tragedy ,

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here