NATO's 2% goal

[pineapplemike]

BNL NEWS
@BreakingNLive
Germany says it will abandon its NATO spending commitments and invest even less than promised. Germany has been paying far less than agreed upon for years now. Meanwhile Germany pays Russia billions of dollars for gas, despite Russia being Germany and EU’s main reason for NATO.

tweetstorm incoming

[Speaker to Animals]

At this point, they might as well count all the money they spend policing Muslims as part of their commitment, since the exportation of terrorism from European nations is a more immediate threat to.all of NATO than muh Russia.

[Smitty-48]

BNL NEWS
@BreakingNLive
Germany says it will abandon its NATO spending commitments and invest even less than promised. Germany has been paying far less than agreed upon for years now. Meanwhile Germany pays Russia billions of dollars for gas, despite Russia being Germany and EU’s main reason for NATO.

tweetstorm incoming

In terms of actual dollars, Germany spends about $45 billion.

Which is about the same as the French.

Which is second only to the UK amongst NATO allies.

A small percentage of the large German GDP is still much more than smaller countries contribute in real terms.

Latvia spends 2%, but that only generates $500 million.

The problem with Germany is not how much they spend but what they spend it on.

They buy a lot of useless junk. They give contracts to German companies without competition.

Those German companies then produce junk, but still get paid for it, and they get more orders anyways.

This has come home to roost and now they have junk piling up which can't even be used, but still cost a lot.

As such, if they bought more, it wouldn't necessarily equal more combat power as a result.

[Speaker to Animals]

I suspect these numbers are going way up in the coming decades anyway.

Military keynesianism is coming back. It's not just for the USA anymore.

[Smitty-48]

But even if the Europeans spend more, they don't spend it on strategic level assets, so they don't actually add much to American combat power.

The Europeans make tactical things, so they buy tactical things, they don't make strategic things, so they don't buy them.

The problem is not how much everybody spends in relation to America, the problem is that European military's only play small ball, and that leaves America to have to bring all the big ticket items to bear.

[Smitty-48]

The other issue is that they are Boutique Armies.

They will buy flashy showcase items like fighter jets.

But they don't build the logistics tails to go with those jets.

So for example when NATO started bombing Libya, everybody, including the Brits, ran out of smart bombs in a matter of hours, the Americans had to supply all the kits to make more, on the fly.

So even when you look at all the flashy kit they do have, you have to consider how long would it be before they ran out of ammo for that kit. Very quickly is probably the answer.

They don't have economies of scale, they can't pump out rounds like America, they don't have the logistics to fight a war without being supplied by America, which is a burden not a boon.

[Otern]

But even if the Europeans spend more, they don't spend it on strategic level assets, so they don't actually add much to American combat power.

The Europeans make tactical things, so they buy tactical things, they don't make strategic things, so they don't buy them.

The problem is not how much everybody spends in relation to America, the problem is that European military's only play small ball, and that leaves America to have to bring all the big ticket items to bear.

I'd say we have spent quite a bit on strategic assets. Sure, our early warning radars in Vardø are funded by the Americans. But the Nansen frigates are funded by Norway. AEGIS frigates makes no sense for defense of Norway, but they make perfectly sense for the US missile shield.

As for the F-35, they make more sense for overall NATO goals, than for protecting the sovereignty of Norway. Could do the same job cheaper with Gripens.

Other than that, I agree. We spend way too much on flashy shit, and absolutely nothing on logistics and maintenance of that flashy shit.

[Smitty-48]

Gripen is not cheaper.

Brazil paid $120 million each for their Gripen E's.

It's all about economies of scale.

The sheer size of the F-35 program makes it cheaper than any European alternative.

A Frigate is not a strategic asset, no matter what radar you put on it.

An aircraft carrier is a strategic asset, an SSBN is a strategic asset, a frigate is just a glorified patrol ship.

The problem with Europe is economies of scale.

Collectively, it's a superpower economy.

But because it is not actually a country, it doesn't have the corresponding superpower military.

Instead it's a collection of dinky little boutique military's which only operate at the tactical level.

This is how Russia has strategic assets with an economy the size of Italy's, while vastly richer Europeans don't have any startegic assets at all, except for the British and French, who still don't have near as much as the Russians.

[Otern]

Gripen is cheaper, when you take into account maintenance costs.

[Smitty-48]

Gripen is cheaper, when you take into account maintenance costs.

No it's not. There will be thousands of F-35s, while only 250 Gripens.

It's not cheaper in the long run. Economies of scale.

This is why the Swedes have to bribe countries to buy Gripen. It's actually a scam.

In military parlance Gripen is what is called an Oprhaned Fleet.

There will only be dozens of them.

That ends up being the most expensive to maintain, because it's basically custom parts.

It's always cheaper to buy American, because only the Americans buy on a scale to make things cheap.

F-35 will totally dominate the market. Mass production for the win.

Countries buying something else, are screwing their taxpayers in the long run.

This is why Norway bought the F-16, now they are making that smart choice again.

At the time that Norway bought F-16, Mirage 2000 was ostensibly "cheaper".

But after the Americans built 4000 F-16's, it's not even close, which is why nobody bought Mirage 2000's.

Gripen has been for sale since 1996, and they've barely sold any.

There's already twice as many F-35's, soon there will be ten times as many, then twenty times as many.

Gripen is a suckers bet, was a suckers bet in 1996, which is why nobody bought them, except by bribery.

Even totally incompetent Canada isn't stupid enough to buy Gripen, Canada will buy American, or nothing.

Canada actually made a mistake buying F/A-18, it's not a bad jet, but it didn't sell, so it's expensive.

Canada should have bought F-16 with everybody else, which is why Canada joined the F-35 program.

With the expense of combat aircraft now, you need thousands of airframes to bring the costs down.

If you only have dozens, those are like custom made racing cars, the most expensive option of all.