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

[Ulmita]

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

I am pretty sure they have USA's permission or they are under some kind of NATO exercise. I also doubt that even when they have their permission or they contacting some NATO exercise that the airplanes that fly over your cities ARE armed.

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?

Luck of funding != luck of skills. We come top 3 in every single NATO exercises routinely beating your pilots. BTW Kell, this was a "hot" accident year for USAF as well, so don't touch this subject. We can start counting if you want.

- - - Updated - - -

We already spend more on health care than defense

And what does that mean exactly? USA's healthcare system is shit and doesn't make it even in top 30. Please try to elaborate that argument.

[Deleted]

Not surprised to see the Germans living off the backs of the Greeks.

As they should, considering how much Greece owes them after the bail outs.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

No they don't. Rest of NATO could easily stand its ground against any country in the world, including all western ones.

[araine]

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).

And both of them are part of NATO go figure

[Deleted]

The 2% of GDP is a myth.

NATO recomends that 2% of GDP is used, it does not reguire it. That is why the only action the US has is to threaten members saying it wont come to its aid. They cannot remove NATO members for not following imaginary rules.

[Deleted]

I mean, ofcourse we should all pay our dues. But then again... If Trump actually cuts ties with NATO, then he's pretty much forcing Europe's hand in forming a European Union Army. And then how are they gonna justify their excessive Military Spending? Hell, i imagine that if Europe formed an army then that'd just increase US spending to maintain a dominant role in the world.

The US doesn't have a large military because they're "the defenders of the free world", they have it because it gives them the military authority to do anything they want. I hope The European Union moves towards a more united Europe and form an army to protect our interests, not The US nor anyone elses.

[Cyberowl]

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.

Good guy Skroe, telling everyone to buy German war machines. Subs are 10% off right now, go buy em!

(My city produces them, this is just an advertisement :P )

[Tennis]

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.

Nato? Or some countries in NATO?

[Kellhound]

I am pretty sure they have USA's permission or they are under some kind of NATO exercise. I also doubt that even when they have their permission or they contacting some NATO exercise that the airplanes that fly over your cities ARE armed.



Luck of funding != luck of skills. We come top 3 in every single NATO exercises routinely beating your pilots. BTW Kell, this was a "hot" accident year for USAF as well, so don't touch this subject. We can start counting if you want.

- - - Updated - - -



And what does that mean exactly? USA's healthcare system is shit and doesn't make it even in top 30. Please try to elaborate that argument.

Many countries fly their own planes in the US armed with ordnance. Its why they are here, to drop bombs.

I know you dont have much money, thats why you are still flying aircraft the US retired in the 90s. The US usually sends SEAD F-16s (i.e, they are specialist and not generalists and see less flight time than pilots in war zones) to train with Greece, you know that right? When the US crashes, we tend to not wipe out our allies. And the US should have more crashes than the HAF, we have A LOT more planes flying a lot more hours.

It means exactly that, the US government spends more on health care than defense.

- - - Updated - - -

Good guy Skroe, telling everyone to buy German war machines. Subs are 10% off right now, go buy em!

(My city produces them, this is just an advertisement :P )

Germans always make good stuff, well built, expensive.

- - - Updated - - -

And both of them are part of NATO go figure

Its what has kept them from having a hot war in many ways.

[Ulmita]

Many countries fly their own planes in the US armed with ordnance. Its why they are here, to drop bombs.

I know you dont have much money, thats why you are still flying aircraft the US retired in the 90s. The US usually sends SEAD F-16s (i.e, they are specialist and not generalists and see less flight time than pilots in war zones) to train with Greece, you know that right? When the US crashes, we tend to not wipe out our allies. And the US should have more crashes than the HAF, we have A LOT more planes flying a lot more hours.

It means exactly that, the US government spends more on health care than defense.

When you plan on talking seriously, let me know.

[Kellhound]

When you plan on talking seriously, let me know.

If I asked you that, you would never say anything ever again, and Im sorry you do not like the truth.

[Ulmita]

If I asked you that, you would never say anything ever again, and Im sorry you do not like the truth.

Whats the truth dude? That foreign airforce flies over heavy populated cities fully armed? That never happens ANYWHERE not even among allies or domestic airforce. Is it ok because both countries are in NATO? So what? What makes it ok exactly? There is no scenario that would justify a foreign airforce commencing flights over civilians w/t asking first for permission or even at the very least giving their plans / route prior to the flight.

You are just being childish when you claim otherwise.

[bufferunderrun]

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.

the problem is that eu don't have unified procurement so each nation build and develop small quantities and often project die after just one generation, the typhoon is a good example, France wasted money into the Rafale and everyone else flocked to f-35 without treasuring the good experience of the eurofighter and keep developing it.

[Skroe]

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.

This is an unfair assessment but not for the reason you think it is (and beyond the very accurate points Kellhound made).

The US defense strategy is expeditionary global in nature. Over the last century really, but especially over the last 70 years, Congress has committed to a strategy of forward defense. That means US involvement in Asia, US involvement in Europe, US involvement in the Middle East and so forth.

The Pentagon does not decide what the defense priorities are. They have for decades presented options and attached risks to those option and then let Congress choose those options by balancing costs versus risks versus benefits. The Pentagon then implements that choice.

Let me give you an example. The Chief of Naval Operations testified last year that if the US Navy were to meet 100% of commander's requests to impliment the strategy assigned to them by Congress, at lowest risk levels, he would need a fleet of 450 ships. The Navy currently has 271 ships, which will increase to 308 in the next four years. Trump wants to increase that to 350, which is very possible. The question is then, does the US Navy actually have a shortfall of 179 ships? The answer is: it depends on the risk you assume. The Navy has said, over the past twenty years, it can implement the strategy, if Congress is willing to assume more risk. If you want a specific example, the Navy has 20 Cruisers (primary air defense ships). The Obama Administration wanted to cut that to 10 to save some money. The Navy said it could do that, if they'd accept certain risks.

The point is, the topline number is largely meaningless. $600 billion. $800 billion. $1 trillion. No matter what the US spends, the more important question is, is the Strategy that shapes that spending reasonable and congruent with the funding provided to implement it. In recent years, the answer has been an emphatic no: thanks to sequestration, the Armed Forces have been asked to implement the traditional strategy at higher risk than ever, because Obama refused to authorize defense spending increases that Congress wanted. Fortunately this was going to change with Trump or Clinton.

The US may spend more than the next 10 countries combined. But it's strategy is more expansive than all of them combined and more global in scope. The root of the problem is the political / security question of the strategy. If Congress wants to continue to pursue it as it has since really about the turn of the 20th Century - and by all indiciations it does - then to not give the Pentagon every tool it needs to maximally implement that strategy at a reasonable cost is dramatically unfair.

The Heritage Foundation has an ideal design for the type of armed forces to do this in a perptual manner: 350 ships, 200 bombers, 550,000 active duty army members, 202,000 Marines, 66 fighter squadrons.

[Skulltaker]

I do think that gemany should see to it that it's wargear is up to date and ready to deploy. That doesn't mean that we need to buy a lot of useless crap. But what we have should be fully functional. Still, there's a million more important things to spend said money on.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

they should just for their own sake US isnt always gonna come running to your defense.

This. We cannot run around playing protector for everyone; the European nations need to start becoming more indepenandt and capable of protecting themselves without foreign involvement.

[Kellhound]

Whats the truth dude? That foreign airforce flies over heavy populated cities fully armed? That never happens ANYWHERE not even among allies or domestic airforce. Is it ok because both countries are in NATO? So what? What makes it ok exactly? There is no scenario that would justify a foreign airforce commencing flights over civilians w/t asking first for permission or even at the very least giving their plans / route prior to the flight.

You are just being childish when you claim otherwise.

I know this is a hard concept for you to understand, but the US happens to train foreign pilots in the US to conduct air to ground and air to air combat. The air to ground includes dropping live ordnance. Those planes fly over the house I grew up in EVERY DAY in the second largest population center in the state. The random picture of the UAE F-16 taking off from Tucson International Airport that Skroe posted shows it armed with an inert Mk-84 2000lbs bomb.

[bufferunderrun]

This. We cannot run around playing protector for everyone; the European nations need to start becoming more indepenandt and capable of protecting themselves without foreign involvement.

European nations are more than capable of defending themselves every scenario that don't involve nukes show an invading force failing miserably to attack europe especially the western countries; the biggest thing that could happen is Erdogan going nut and try to invade a Greek's island.
Anyway the problem is that we waste an helluva of money into duplicate structures, have a mind boggling procurement chain and last a very small logistic capability.
Obviously the projection capacity of any eu nation is just 0 but hey i don't think eu public opinion would welcome the expenses of 20 nuclear supercarriers justified with the necessity to strike Bedouins armed with toyota pickups and ak47.

[Skroe]

European nations are more than capable of defending themselves every scenario that don't involve nukes show an invading force failing miserably to attack europe especially the biggest country; the biggest thing that could happen is Erdogan going nut and try to invade a Greek's island.
Anyway the biggest problem is that we waste an helluva of money into duplicate structures, have a mind boggling procurement chain and last a very small logistic capability.
Obviously the projection capacity of any eu nation is just 0 but hey i don't think eu public opinion would welcome the expenses of 20 nuclear supercarriers justified with the necessity to strike Bedouins with armed with toyota pickups and ak47.

A fleet of 20 (or 11) US sized carriers is not needed for Europe. Most of those of the US are based in the Pacific anyway. However the utility of the Charles DeGaul in striking ISIS, and by contrast the lack of British fixed-wing strike from a ship in the Libya campaign illustrates the utility of carrier power projection.

There's a middle ground.

[bufferunderrun]

A fleet of 20 (or 11) US sized carriers is not needed for Europe. Most of those of the US are based in the Pacific anyway. However the utility of the Charles DeGaul in striking ISIS, and by contrast the lack of British fixed-wing strike from a ship in the Libya campaign illustrates the utility of carrier power projection.

There's a middle ground.

isn't any fighter able to strike isis territories from Europe bases without the need of a carrier? i think from at last Sicily and Greece they can do it without problem.

[Skroe]

isn't any fighter able to strike isis territories from Europe bases without the need of a carrier? i think from at last Sicily and Greece they can do it without problem.

Libya from Italy isn't too far. That's what the US did back in 2011 against Quadaffi. But Syria is a whole other story. That makes Europe dependent on Turkish basis (as the US and some others are), or on the British base in Cyprus (which as far as I'm aware, they don't / can't share). The French basically had to make use of their carrier and the range of strike aircraft is around 500 miles on average, which is less than you'd think.

The US, which relies on foreign basing more than anyone else has found that... complicated... over the years. It's had to basically do things to enable that that it shouldn't have to do, from taking off identifying markings (or allies taking them off) to not incite local opposition), to basically paying ridiculous "airfield usage fees" that amount to little more than a shake down.

Foreign Basis is FAR more economical than carriers. The US started ISIS strikes with Super Hornets from a carrier, but moved to use the Turkish base as soon as possible, because the costs were a fraction of doing the job with a carrier. In a crisis or when there isn't access, a carrier is hard to beat.


If anything, Europe would be less served by building a large number carriers, and instead use the Tornado successor program to develop a kind of "Euro B-1B" - a extremely long ranged, highly economical bomber that can carry a big bomb load and loiter over air space. Russia would probably flip shit if Europe actually built a modern bomber though, especially with the range of some of some of Europe's cruise missiles and glide bombs. But all things being equal, it might be the better buy for Europe. And note, it doesn't need to be exotic like the B-2 or B-21. Just a lot bigger than a Tornado.