British Secret Military Budget, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 8-11-2009 @ 09:43 AM by stumason
reply to post by veritas 7


It was once said by a KGB chap in a "spy book" I read some years back that the UK is more secretive than the USSR ever was. We have some quite draconian laws on the books which can stifle even the mearest hint of a suggestion that anything might be going on....

Having said that, we can barely afford the conventional military budget we have, so I doubt its huge. But then, the UK always manages to get the job done and then some on a fraction of the money our cousins across the pond do it for.

The "secret" stuff is handled by Qinetic (the commercial arm to make money of "secret science") and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which does the secret, funky stuff best kept for ourselves.

If you want to know "Britains black budget", thats the best place to start. For example, DSTL has an annual turnover of around £370 million pound.


reply posted on 8-11-2009 @ 09:48 AM by Ulala
reply to post by stumason


Weren't Qinetic working on a technology to make main battletanks & other vehicles invisible only a few years ago ? Haven't heard much on that subject since. Bet that's cost a pretty penny ; I doubt speculative technology such as that comes out of the ordinary equipment budget.


reply posted on 8-11-2009 @ 09:56 AM by stumason
reply to post by Ulala


About 12 years ago, I saw a report they were working on a plastic polymer harder than any of the armour they have now to put on a tank with a hydrogen powered engine with an EM cannon...

Haven't heard of that much either too...

Given all the known projects with people like BAe such as Taranis, the spending of Qinetic and DSTL and what have you, I reckon black budget spending is probably in the order or 1-2 Billion, but may be higher. It really depends on what you want to call "black budget". The Type 45 cost a couple of billion to develop, the F-35 has had a fair amount spent on it too.


reply posted on 8-11-2009 @ 11:01 AM by stumason
reply to post by Rob37n


Thats a bit of a simplistic view and not even addressing the topic at hand. Procurement has nothing to do with development.

Lack of helicopters is a result of the MoD trying to do a Chinook deal on the cheap and cutting out Boeing, as a result of political pressure to cut costs. This is nothing to with development.

New vehicles for the guys on the front line has been developed and many have reached the front line. Some have been found wanting as the nature of the threat changes, granted, but they're getting better as a result of R&D.

Body armour is nothing to do development and is to do with procurement. The tech is there and has been developed ages ago, but poor logistics, admin errors and dodgy procurement decisions meant some went without in the first weeks of the Iraq war, but I challenge you to provide ANY evidence that troops in Afghanistan don't have the required body armour.

Same with the boots.

You're rehashing old stories from 2003 when we rushed 40,000 men and women out to the gulf on short notice and had trouble with supply lines.

The only problems they have in Afghanistan now is helicopters (or lack thereof) and some unreliable vehicles. In terrain like Afghanistan, heavy armoured vehicles are slow and are limited, so lighter vehicles are needed. It's taken time, but new vehicles have been developed and are being ordered for front line service, such as Vikings and Mastiffs.

But, with you'r reasoning, we should cease any R&D in favour of ordering the same kit the Army originally has had problems with.


reply posted on 8-11-2009 @ 11:48 AM by stumason
reply to post by veritas 7


Well, like I said, all R&D is done by the above two agencies I mentioned, so it's worthwhile looking at them.

But, again as I said, it depends on your definition of "black budget" (a very US term, btw).

Billions were spent on the F-35, Type 45, the Carriers and a new frigate design is in the works, plus the Astute class, various armoured vehicles.... The list goes on...

What is it you're after, exactly?


reply posted on 9-11-2009 @ 01:45 PM by infinite
reply to post by veritas 7


Great Britain and America also share military technology - not just intelligence. Classified British projects are routinely tested in Nevada (not just Commonwealth nations, such as Australia)


reply posted on 9-11-2009 @ 02:49 PM by neformore
Have a look at

Taranis

UK Defence Procurement

There used to be some interesting stuff out there about HALO as well, but the computer game of the same name has diluted it to almost nothing.



[edit on 9/11/09 by neformore]
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^