NATO chief urges EU to increase military budgets to maintain bond with US

[Skroe]

If the other countries want to be part of this they should pay up or the us should cut the funding it gives if that is required as it states. USA gets pretty much nothing out of it considering the amount it already spends on its own defence so why not.

Europe spends $300 billion collectively on defense to defend one continent.

The United States spends $780 billion for a global defense strategy with 60% of that focused on Asia-Pacific.

The problem isn't the amount Europe pays (though they could stand to pay a little more). The problem is what they're buying and how they're organized.

[Elegiac]

The problem isn't the amount Europe pays (though they could stand to pay a little more). The problem is what they're buying and how they're organized.

Hey Skroe, novel idea; let's put in on a fairly average fighter frame and source the component production across five countries.

[Tennis]

offcourse, the treaty states 2% of GDP. Many nations are not meeting that much at all.

No he wants to increase the spending of the Euro countries and also of the U.S.
That doesn't really make any sense.

[Drew79]

Good news. GJ Trump!

[Kellhound]

No he wants to increase the spending of the Euro countries and also of the U.S.
That doesn't really make any sense.

US spending needs to increase, at the least, to return (and maintain) the USN to the 300+ ships it needs to perform all of its missions fully.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey Skroe, novel idea; let's put in on a fairly average fighter frame and source the component production across five countries.

Aircraft are one of the few areas NATO buys in common, but they buy too many fighters, not enough support aircraft. However, most AWACS aircraft in NATO (outside the US) are the 17 E-3s "owned" by Luxembourg. These represent the ideal method that Europe should be buying equipment, but it goes against national sentiment.

[Elegiac]

Aircraft are one of the few areas NATO buys in common, but they buy too many fighters, not enough support aircraft. However, most AWACS aircraft in NATO (outside the US) are the 17 E-3s "owned" by Luxembourg. These represent the ideal method that Europe should be buying equipment, but it goes against national sentiment.

Was referring to the Typhoon component procurement issues. :P

But yes, I agree with you; it's a curious case where a desire for national security is being subverted by a desire for...well, patriotism. People like the French Airforce flying French made Rafales despite the fact there are superior aircraft available that would be cheaper to produce in bulk for a generalised European market.

[Kellhound]

Was referring to the Typhoon component procurement issues. :P

But yes, I agree with you; it's a curious case where a desire for national security is being subverted by a desire for...well, patriotism. People like the French Airforce flying French made Rafales despite the fact there are superior aircraft available that would be cheaper to produce in bulk for a generalised European market.

One of the few times we agree on anything. Must write this down.....

[Nathreim]

Seems rather foolish. If your country is falling apart then you should cut back on military spending and boost your economy.

Well it wasn't military spending that caused the problem in the first place.

They had an outrageous pension system with one of the largest population of retired people in Europe, government waste, a 20 billion a year tax evasion problem, the Olympics, and in the face of all that they refused to cut anything or address the issues at all.

Then everyone found out they had been cooking their books for years to make them look better so all the lenders bailed.

[Skroe]

Was referring to the Typhoon component procurement issues. :P

But yes, I agree with you; it's a curious case where a desire for national security is being subverted by a desire for...well, patriotism. People like the French Airforce flying French made Rafales despite the fact there are superior aircraft available that would be cheaper to produce in bulk for a generalised European market.

The international sale history of the Rafale is pretty interesting.

Basically it was a big fat zero for years until about 6 years ago when upwardly mobile middle income countries started to look at replacing their older F-16s or Soviet-era jets. The F-35 often wasn't availible to them, the Eurofighter was too expensive, and the F-16 Block 60 or F/A-18E didn't offer what they wanted. So out of the blue, the Rafale's prospect's improved (same with the Gripen actually).

I've held the opinion for a long time that the ambition of the F-35 was deeply misplaced. It tried to "evolved" F-22 tech too much and went so far to the right on the timeline that it left a big hole for that multirole fighter that should have succeeded the F-16 a decade ago - an F-22 in a smaller package, and left the F-35's ground breaking tech for the 2020s F-22 replacement. So much got screwed up by the F-35's delays and design needs.

I think a lot of people who don't follow this stuff carefully just don't understand how much more advanced over the F-22 the F-35 actually is. The F-22's design may make it the unparalleled air superiority fighter, but in every other sense, the F-35 is a massive step past it.... much bigger than F-15 -> F-16. But the cost of that advancement has been opening the market for things like the Rafale and Gripen after them being frozen out for years... unless somebody wants to buy the most tricked out F-16 they can.

[Kuntantee]

Sounds good. Everyone should be paying their share in NATO, especially Europeans.

[Deleted]

Sounds good. Everyone should be paying their share in NATO, especially Europeans.

I find it seriously unlikely all these countries dropped their spending so low without some form of consent from the US. Like the obvious thing to do if you want people to spend 2% is to threaten to kick them out when they go below 2%, not wait years (decades?) till the entire continent is massively cutting down on spending.

[Shibito]

I thought this was a Ulmita thread usually is, what you doing Ulmita tennisface is beating you to nato threads now!

[Deleted]

Sounds good. Everyone should be paying their share in NATO, especially Europeans.

Yep. Many EU countries act like naive children, not spending a dime in self-defence and completely hiding behind their big "brothers", aka the USA.

[Zarc]

I agree with the NATO chief, who is from Denmark btw. Not to "maintain bond with the US", but because we now know that we cannot depend on the US. If we can continue to have a good relationship with the US going forward that would be great, but we should not longer count on them having out back as we have since World War II. Of course Obama was saying that NATO countries who didn't meet the 2% should up their spending long before Trump came onto the scene. The problem isn't that analysis, the problem is the way Trump is saying it. That article 5 might not be honored because some countries fail to meet the 2% target, then the defense pact crumbles. But with Trump it's all about silver linings, and the fact that European countries may up their defense spending and also begin re-organizing itself into a common EU army is a great silver lining.

[Skroe]

I agree with the NATO chief, who is from Denmark btw. Not to "maintain bond with the US", but because we now know that we cannot depend on the US. If we can continue to have a good relationship with the US going forward that would be great, but we should not longer count on them having out back as we have since World War II. Of course Obama was saying that NATO countries who didn't meet the 2% should up their spending long before Trump came onto the scene. The problem isn't that analysis, the problem is the way Trump is saying it. That article 5 might not be honored because some countries fail to meet the 2% target, then the defense pact crumbles. But with Trump it's all about silver linings, and the fact that European countries may up their defense spending and also begin re-organizing itself into a common EU army is a great silver lining.

Trump won't be around forever.

To the US military especially, but also the foreign policy establishment who will be responsible for shining Trump's turds for the next few years, our alliances in general but NATO in particular is sacrosanct.

There is a distinct irony in Trump wanting to "reset" relations with Russia (because that's worked before), but wanting, evidently, Mattis and Kelly for national security posts (including Secretary of Defense). Both have been extremely stern in recent years on the importance of building up European defenses.

You can still take Article V to the bank, if for no other reason alone than this: Trump will not want to be remembered as the President who lost Europe. Neville Chamberlain wasn't even American, and yet the saying "Peace in our time" has a key cultural status in America's historic memory: a warning against avoiding reckonings for the sake of short term benefit.

[Flurryfang]

Its not like the Muslims or Russian have made attempts before at seizing yurp :P

Not really

[Skroe]

I find it seriously unlikely all these countries dropped their spending so low without some form of consent from the US. Like the obvious thing to do if you want people to spend 2% is to threaten to kick them out when they go below 2%, not wait years (decades?) till the entire continent is massively cutting down on spending.

It was a combination of factors.

Consent? To a degree yes absolutely. But with purpose. Thirty years ago the United States had hundreds of thousands of troops in Europe, with stockpiles in place to equip far more than that. Europe's armies were, collectively, similarly vast. The best way to think of it in the most mature sense, was pretty much what was seen a few years later in the Gulf War - the most sophisticated industrial age war machine constructed with some early elements of the information age to come. The Warsaw Pacts was even larger.

This changed under the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, which put sharp limits on the number of ground vehicles and helicopters NATO and Russia could have based in Europe, well below their 1980s peak. This motivated a massive draw down of equippment on both sides. The United States and Europe were fine with this - US interests were shifting elsewhere in the world and the huge amount of US equipment could be better used elsewhere. In terms of security theory, the thought was that the treaty, along with the INF Treaty and several others, greatly reduced the risk of a war in Europe and to keep it that way, military forces should be kept to a rather modest level.

Well over the last 10 years, Russia abandoned the CFE Treaty and has massively violated INF. So much for that.

The problem isn't that Europe drew down from an absurd late-Cold War high. That was necessary. The problem is, in part, that they stripped even smaller, and pursued deeply questionable modernization. If you want to see the worst example of this, a history of the British Armed Forces since 2003 is the shining example. It's been looted and pillaged to save a little money here and there. They've canceled programs for little reason. They've retired ships decades early.

But a huge part of this has to do with WHAT was being bought. Those late Cold War systems were far more advanced than what they replaced, but they often came in smaller numbers than their 1960s era predecessors. More sophisticated and expensive materials and computer technology drove up costs. Those systems in turn, starting around 2000, have been replaced with information age systems that are extremely heavyily invested in the theory of network centric warfare. They use sophisticated materials, a lot of computers, and complex software. They are extremely expensive. The earliest version of the M1 tank cost about $4 million. Today, the most advanced M1 tank starts at about $9 million. The body itself hasn't gotten much more expensive... just what's inside has.

Let me put this another way, even accounting for inflation, back when fighter aircraft cost $30 million per jet, even middle income countries with modest tax bases could afford to buy a lot of them. But when they cost over $100 million, it becomes unaffordable to anyone but those with the deepest of pockets.

The best way for Europe to get out of this hole is to develop common systems and spread development costs widely, while localizing production in one area per program, and relying on economies of scale to drive down unit costs. In some ways it's done it, but it's just a start. It should be everything.

What stands in the way of this? Well who is going to be the British MP to vote against future ship building in historic shipyards, because now the Italians will build ships for all European Navies. You see the problem? Defense dollars is money and jobs.

The good news is, if there is a time to right the ship, it's now. Germany and France are collaborating on a new tank. Many other European armies should get in on it (and maybe the US too). The British and Germans are starting to discuss a Tornado replacement. Others should get in on that.

The bad news for Europe, is that this is going to be mean a lot of jobs moving around the continent if properly done. 1990s era US defense consolidation was painful. But in the early post-Cold War era (now ended) the US had too much capacity at the time. Europe never consolidated to quite that extent. That day of reckoning has to come.

The 2% of GDP number is a political number. It's not a meaningful one. Without fundamental reform in WHAT and HOW Europe buys its arms from, and HOW they organize their armed forces, they could spend 5% of GDP and still be a shadow of what they were in the early 1990s.

[caervek]

The British and Germans are starting to discuss a Tornado replacement.

Knowing our current government they will probably just buy the Boeing EA-18G instead.

[Deleted]

I am okay with us EU nations having to pay more into it (granted some of us small nations it results in like one more fighter and tank), but I still do have issues that it tends to be the US that pushes the matter. It is hard to trust the US when it sits on a vast amount of the manufacturing that said money would go to, that and the large amounts of lobbying money that flows through the government.

[Skroe]

I am okay with us EU nations having to pay more into it (granted some of us small nations it results in like one more fighter and tank), but I still do have issues that it tends to be the US that pushes the matter. It is hard to trust the US when it sits on a vast amount of the manufacturing that said money would go to, that and the large amounts of lobbying money that flows through the government.

Most European arms are European in origin and for many things there is little interest in US arms.

The things Europe really needs to buy, we either don't make or won't sell you.

If you want new ground vehicles, look to the Germans or French.
If you want new ships, we can't/won't sell you our attack subs or our destroyers.
If you want new helicopters, there are many European options for that.

If you want a new air to air missile, arguably the European MBDA Meteor is better than the American AIM-120D.

If you don't want to buy Patriot missiles you have the highly successful German MEADS.

The best products the US could offer are highly specialized, such as the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, or the KC-767 tanker, or E-767 AWACS, or long ranged missiles.

But there are some areas the US simply doesn't have an option to offer to sell. An Air Independent Diesel sub, for example... we don't make those. Europe makes some remarkable ones. The Eurofighter Typhoon is the best air superiority fighter in the world not named F-22 (which we don't export)... buy more of them. The German PzH 2000 the US should have bought in the 1990s and Europe should make a lot of.

We stand to gain financially a lot less than you'd expect. The F-35 program is more the exception, rather than the rule. Sure 50 jets is a lot of money, but were we to sell you warships (for example) the costs of the F-35 would rapidly be eclipsed.