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

[Deleted]

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

Fair enough, my suspicion was unwarranted it appears

[Skroe]

Fair enough, my suspicion was unwarranted it appears

This is who mostly buys US arms.



More detail:
http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...armsrace-3.png

Hell there are some things from Europe the US should absolutely be buying (but never would). The US has a need for a small surface combat ship with Vertical launch tubes (sub-destroyer sized). Europe produces many options. The US could benefit from having some diesel subs to compliment our nuclear attack sub force, but the Navy would never allow it (out of fear substantially cheaper diesel subs would eventually replace the nuclear sub force for cost-savings purposes, sort of what happened with the Destroyer / Cruiser fleet that once had nuclear ships).

[Ulmita]

It would be good for Europe to be able to better defend itself.

Greece meets it because it hates its ally and neighbor, Turkey (as Turkey hates Greece).

Greece doesn't hate anyone. Greece is concerned when fully armed Turkish aircraft fly over their cities.
Greece historically has been one of NATO's biggest spenders and ally. In the 1980's the average spending was 6.2% outspending most of NATO and in one year if i remember correctly they were over 7%.

Even now that bankruptcy is upon them, they are thinking of ordering 20-25 F-35s just because of the retarded neighbors as well as to teach their nato allies how to fly them properly

[Deleted]

This is who mostly buys US arms.
-snip

That is quite interesting actually.

[Skroe]

That is quite interesting actually.

The emphasis on middle eastern countries is complicated.

Part of it is a legacy of the Camp David Accords. The US would continue to support Israel militarily, but would also do that to the Egyptians (and eventually, other arab states), out fitting them with somewhat "dumbed down" US hardware, and in limited numbers. Enough to mollify Israeli concern of another Arab war on them, but enough to pull the Arab regimes out of the Soviet's orbit and arm them with better equippment.

Furthermore since the mid 1980s, but especially over the last decade-ish, it grew and grew to mitigate Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE's concerns about being able to defend themselves against Iranian aggression, in lieu of US-lead regime change against Tehran, which they've always pressed for. Since the US stopped buying F-16s and F-15s over 20 years ago (in favor of the F-35 and F-22), those models that we sell to the Saudis and the other Gulf Arabs are superior to our own.

Basically, from different angles, US arm sales to the Arab states amounts to a complicated buy off - to buy peace with Israel, and to buy them peace of mind against Iranian regime change.

To put the numbers in perspective, let's pick a middle European country - Spain. In 2013 we sold them $171 million with of military arms. That's about what a single Boeing 767 costs.

[Deleted]

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

For some reason, my country always picks US jets and helicopters over EU made versions.
We got F16's, Apaches, Chinooks etc. And now we are also waist deep in the F35 project as a financier and buyer (37).

[Shakadam]

For once I'm actually agreeing with Skroe. Yes almost all the EU countries could probably spend a little more on their military budgets, but that's not really the main issue.
The main problem is how the cold war era military systems have been/are being replaced by more advanced systems (obviously) but in far less quantity.

Older artillery systems being replaced with newer, more accurate and with better range, systems is great. But when you replace 300 older systems with 15 new systems it's a problem. It's the same thing with pretty much every weapon system in use tbh. New ones are very good but so very expensive (mostly due to limited production) that countries can't afford to buy them in quantity.

Normalizing the equipment across the EU would be a massive cost saving and result in a better military capacity because every country would simply be able to buy more for the money. I mean, currently we're collectively producing at least 3 different MBT's with similar performance, a handful of different-yet-similar APC's, several different version of ships and subs of all classes..... Imagine how much R&D money would be saved if we'd all stick to 1 design.

Ofc it's unlikely to happen anytime soon because there's too much lobbying by different defense contractors to choose THEIR design and no country want to give up their job creating defense industry.

[Skroe]

For some reason, my country always picks US jets and helicopters over EU made versions.
We got F16's, Apaches, Chinooks etc. And now we are also waist deep in the F35 project as a financier and buyer (37).

European versions aren't cheap and sometimes the purpose is just different.

The Netherlands could have bought the Tiger attack Helicopter, but the Apache is designed as the better tank killer (with more arms and armor) at the cost of range. The Tiger is faster and longer ranged, but can't take the battle damage of an Apache or dish out as much. Tigers also cost $50 million each, while an AH-64E is $35 million.

When the Netherlands was buying the F-16, it was pretty much the only game in town worth a damn at that cost.

- - - Updated - - -

For once I'm actually agreeing with Skroe. Yes almost all the EU countries could probably spend a little more on their military budgets, but that's not really the main issue.
The main problem is how the cold war era military systems have been/are being replaced by more advanced systems (obviously) but in far less quantity.

Older artillery systems being replaced with newer, more accurate and with better range, systems is great. But when you replace 300 older systems with 15 new systems it's a problem. It's the same thing with pretty much every weapon system in use tbh. New ones are very good but so very expensive (mostly due to limited production) that countries can't afford to buy them in quantity.

Normalizing the equipment across the EU would be a massive cost saving and result in a better military capacity because every country would simply be able to buy more for the money. I mean, currently we're collectively producing at least 3 different MBT's with similar performance, a handful of different-yet-similar APC's, several different version of ships and subs of all classes..... Imagine how much R&D money would be saved if we'd all stick to 1 design.

Ofc it's unlikely to happen anytime soon because there's too much lobbying by different defense contractors to choose THEIR design and no country want to give up their job creating defense industry.

I think it's worth restating that this is a non-trivial problem. The capacity question is critical and requires extreme forward thinking. The US reduced it's production capacity for armaments to a vast degree in the 1990s. It's stood some of that up, in recent years, at extreme cost and time. The US, if it were to reach it's 350 ship goal under Trump, would have to start building a 3rd Virginia class sub per year starting in 2020. It's an open question if that is realistic: there's actually a finite number of highly skills laborers, like electricians, operating near Naval yards and it would take time to train enough.

Europe arguably has too much capacity (as in, too many production lines) but not hugely too much. But it also has not nearly enough commonality. And various nations procurement timelines and priorities are all disjointed. Squaring this is an extremely hard diplomatic problem, not in the lead because it _will_ lead to job losses, and the end of certain industrial traditions (like a certain city building ships, as it has since the 18th century), as happened in the US in the 1990s.

Frankly, I'm inclined to cut Europe a huge amount of slack regarding it, so long as it grabs the low hanging fruit and doesn't do stupid shit with the programs it has in place.

[Deleted]

Especially now that Russia has possibly the best/most modern tank in the world (according to some British military experts) and they are going to scale them up in number the coming year(s).

[Skroe]

Especially now that Russia has possibly the best/most modern tank in the world (according to some British military experts) and they are going to scale them up in number the coming year(s).

Ehh, the Armata is deeply troubled and Russia can't afford it. That's kind of what Russia always does - trot out some expensive prototype, but then go buy more of old-reliable. THey did it with the PAK FA (more Su-35S being bought instead), and they're doing it again with the Armata (more T-72/T-80 variants bought instead).

Keep in mind the first lesson about someone talking up the other side's capability though: to spur national leaders to try and counter that by buying some new stuff of our own.

If Europe wants to do the most good in the shortest amount of time, it would resolve a key American deficiency by buying as much artillery as it can. The Russian's have a huge advantage against the West in that field, which would make a key difference in any kind of ground war. But there is a specific reason: Russian's have developed newer, and better sub-munitions (cluster bomblets), while the West has retired or sidelined them so it could pat itself on the back. Note that Russia doesn't have better vehicles - it's just that Europe (and America under Obama, hopefully temporarily) disarmed itself in a way that Russia has not, and would lead to a key disadvantage.

Meaningfully countering the Russians means abandoning such vintage 1990s niceties.

[Azadina]

https://www.rt.com/news/368004-nato-...e-stoltenberg/



How do you feel about this? Do you think these Euro countries should listen to the NATO chief and up their spending?

It's pretty mind boggling that Greece is meeting its target when the country is basically bankrupt.

Absolutely not. Especially when God Emperor Trump has already talked of how very little he cares of western allies. Even as much as sacrifising a NATO member to Russia, that continuously has hit it's spending target (Estonia).

[Skroe]

Absolutely not. Especially when God Emperor Trump has already talked of how very little he cares of western allies. Even as much as sacrifising a NATO member to Russia, that continuously has hit it's spending target (Estonia).

I wouldn't worry about that.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...-russia-231785

Most top Republicans in Congress take a far more hawkish line towards Putin than Trump does. In September, House Speaker Paul Ryan rebuked Trump's praise of the Russian, calling Putin "an aggressor that does not share our interests." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he would send arms to Ukraine's government and expand U.S. missile defense systems in eastern Europe—moves that would enrage Putin.

Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John McCain issued a statement shortly after the election warning Trump not to trust Putin. On CNN last month, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker warned Trump against letting Putin’s “flattery” affect his judgment.

And in a statement to POLITICO, House Foreign Relations Committee chairman Ed Royce pointedly said he is “ready to work with the Trump administration to check Russian propaganda, see NATO bolstered and act from a position of strength.”

Even many Democrats take a hard line on Putin, making it difficult for Trump to go around his own party. Russia “is the one foreign policy area where [Trump] would most likely face united opposition from Congress,” said Democratic Sen. Chris Coons, a Senate Foreign Relations Committee member.

Any move by Trump seen as selling out America’s European allies, Coons added, would be “vigorously and persistently opposed by Democrats and Republicans in the Congress who over decades have worked together to resist Russian aggression in Europe and the Middle East.”

Trump's Russia policy could also encounter stiff resistance from military and intelligence officials.

The U.S. has escalated military and intelligence spending and activity against Moscow in recent months, particularly since Russia began conducting air strikes in Syria last fall, including against CIA-backed rebels.

Testifying before the Senate in July 2015, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Joseph Dunford— whose term as the president’s top military advisor runs until September—called Russia “the greatest threat to our national security” and said Putin’s behavior was “nothing short of alarming.”

“It’s going to be dark days in the Pentagon” if Trump seeks to dramatically relax the military’s confrontational posture towards Moscow, said Evelyn Farkas, who served as the defense department’s top Russia official under Obama.

Pentagon officials, Farkas noted, have spent months “working around the clock to challenge Russia’s subversive activities in Europe and the Middle East. This is going to be a real morale problem.”

U.S. intelligence officials are likewise conditioned for confrontation, having ramped up their covert and cyber operations against Russia at a time when Moscow has harassed and even allegedly drugged U.S. officials overseas. In July, national intelligence director James Clapper said the U.S. is in a “version of war” with Russia in cyberspace. And in October, the U.S. intelligence community concluded that the Kremlin directed the hacking of Democratic Party and Clinton campaign emails to disrupt this month's presidential election.

While legally bound to follow a president’s orders, military and intelligence officials can voice opposition internally and slow-roll policies with which they disagree. When Secretary of State John Kerry struck a limited deal with Moscow for military cooperation against the Islamic State in Syria this fall, for instance, a skeptical Pentagon undermined the short-lived plan through media leaks and bureaucratic intransigence.

Several officials and Russia experts were hopeful that Trump will reassess Putin in light of the classified intelligence briefings he now receives, which detail hostile Russian activities around the globe.

“That’s going to be a sobering moment for him,” said Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow under Obama.

[caervek]

THey did it with the PAK FA (more Su-35S being bought instead),

I don't see the issue here, it's not like the USAF stopped buying planes when the F-22 was nearing completion. Are you saying Russia should have just bought 0 new planes between 2014-2018 and ran the ones in need of replacement into the ground? (maybe literally knowing them).

[Skroe]

I don't see the issue here, it's not like the USAF stopped buying planes when the F-22 was nearing completion. Are you saying Russia should have just bought 0 new planes between 2014-2018 and ran the ones in need of replacement into the ground? (maybe literally knowing them).

First of all the USAF stopped buying F-22s at 187, not 4.

Secondly it decided NOT to procure new F-15s to compliment the F-22s, rather instead upgrade existing F-15s and extend their service lives.

Here's the difference. If the US extends the service life of those F-15s by 10 years, then in the late 2020s it can replace them all with the F-X (whatever form that takes), followed by replacing the F-22 with the F-X, to go to an all F-X fleet.

By contrast by buying new Su-35s, Russia is saddling itself with the cost of maintaining another newly-built airframe for longer than 10 years, that will exist in service alongside the PAK FA.

This is why the US is able to buy new stuff and Russia is not, beyond just how much we spend.

The US aggressively retires older systems to free up money and PEOPLE to procure and maintain newer systems. Every Aircraft, boat, tank or whatever has a standing army of people and an entire industrial base behind it that costs money just to keep open. By going to uniform system, money is saved and logistics eased.

Russia by contrast, hangs onto older models forever, which leads to huge overhead costs as all their industrial bases and crew must be kept int act. The United States operates two tanks - the M1A1 and the M1A2 (with some sub variants). Russia operates many different types of T-72s, T-80s and T-90s.

What Russia SHOULD do, is what it was doing before it reversed course with other programs, and that is to modernize it's Su-27 variants and keep them flying until PAK FA is ready, and then buy PAK FA. It gets nothing by buying the Su-35S. It's a dated airframe that would be no match for the F-22 or the Eurofighter.

[caervek]

It gets nothing by buying the Su-35S. It's a dated airframe that would be no match for the F-22 or the Eurofighter.

For every Su-35S they buy that's an Su-27/30 or MiG-29 they can retire, it is cost effective. Just look at how the UK is buying Eurofighters and F-35s at the same time. And while the Su-35S may not be on the level of the F-22 or the EF there are another 193 countries Russia could find itself at war with.

[Kellhound]

Greece doesn't hate anyone. Greece is concerned when fully armed Turkish aircraft fly over their cities.
Greece historically has been one of NATO's biggest spenders and ally. In the 1980's the average spending was 6.2% outspending most of NATO and in one year if i remember correctly they were over 7%.

Even now that bankruptcy is upon them, they are thinking of ordering 20-25 F-35s just because of the retarded neighbors as well as to teach their nato allies how to fly them properly

Armed NATO (and non-NATO) aircraft fly over US cities all the time.

Do I really need to point out again that the Greek Air Force has destroyed more NATO aircraft and killed more NATO personnel in the past 5 years than any other country?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

This is one of those non-US aircraft being flown by a non US pilot in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

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

That would be the cheapest, fastest, and likely best option for an ESM/SEAD aircraft though.

- - - Updated - - -

This is who mostly buys US arms.



More detail:
http://static5.businessinsider.com/i...armsrace-3.png

Hell there are some things from Europe the US should absolutely be buying (but never would). The US has a need for a small surface combat ship with Vertical launch tubes (sub-destroyer sized). Europe produces many options. The US could benefit from having some diesel subs to compliment our nuclear attack sub force, but the Navy would never allow it (out of fear substantially cheaper diesel subs would eventually replace the nuclear sub force for cost-savings purposes, sort of what happened with the Destroyer / Cruiser fleet that once had nuclear ships).

The best solution for a cheap warship is really the same solution the US used in the late Cold War, OHP frigates. Just replace the Mk-13 launcher with Mk-41 cells and we are good to go. SS/SSKs have no place in the USN really, they lack on station time and are too slow to transit to potential combat zones.

- - - Updated - - -

For some reason, my country always picks US jets and helicopters over EU made versions.
We got F16's, Apaches, Chinooks etc. And now we are also waist deep in the F35 project as a financier and buyer (37).

Those three are perhaps the best in their class though.

- - - Updated - - -

Especially now that Russia has possibly the best/most modern tank in the world (according to some British military experts) and they are going to scale them up in number the coming year(s).

Eh, the Armata is really a better tank for export than Russian use, too complex and too expensive.

[Tennis]

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 - - -



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.

Nonsense. The U.S. is already spending the same amount as the next 10 countries or so.
Focus on the crumbling education and health system not on more ships.

[triplesdsu]

Good. They need to step up and contribute their fair share. Nato needs the US more than the US needs Nato. I would definitely not suggest leaving it, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to contribute fairly.

[Anon56]

Do you think these Euro countries should listen to the NATO chief and up their spending?

Yes, every country in the world should do that. Then withdraw from NATO and jump on the USA to get rid of this rotten country once and for all.

[Kellhound]

Nonsense. The U.S. is already spending the same amount as the next 10 countries or so.
Focus on the crumbling education and health system not on more ships.

We already spend more on health care than defense, and education is the responsibility of the states and locals to fund.