|
German Eurofighters gained the ability to drop GBU-48s in December 17 and were floated as a possible replacement for the Tornados (over the F-35). Argument was maintaining of the industrial base, although thinking about the successor for Rafale / Eurofighter / Gripen you kinda wonder where even hypothetically pooling a decent chunk of European air forces' development budgets would get you in terms of capability compared to the then-contemporary American plane. At some point why maintain an increasingly sub-mediocre technology base. If you can't come up with a "credible" aircraft you're just burning money. Barring American political unreliability dramatically increasing ofc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aKb6PlTO-k
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 12:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Barring American political unreliability dramatically increasing ofc. Yeah, about that. I was pretty resigned about the F35A being the least bad option for small NATO countries like mine. Not so sure lately though with Trumps foreign policy inclinations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 12:58
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Barring American political unreliability dramatically increasing ofc.    No idea why Europeans would want to look into designs from Europe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 12:59
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:With the continuing focus on improved longer range RADAR guided SAM systems by the only country a small European country currently worries about being gobbled up by, yeah, there may actually be a good reason to go with a low observable plane. Dunno if you heard the news about the respective presidents of the USA and Russia, but basically the gist is that if you worry about Russia, it might not be a good idea to go for a plane that depends on American support to remain operational.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 13:02
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:With the continuing focus on improved longer range RADAR guided SAM systems by the only country a small European country currently worries about being gobbled up by, yeah, there may actually be a good reason to go with a low observable plane. Unless we get Schleswig War 2: This Time It’s Personal or the Netherlands want to reform the United Provinces, I don’t think that Denmark and Belgium are going to get gobbled up by anyone. Besides, what’s the point in having a LO plane if you don’t have the money to spend on training pilots and keeping them sharp?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:
I'll be glad to see him leave office, but man, the pendulum swing the other way is going to be extra harsh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 14:14
|
|
|
The Tempest program is clearly meant to be an opening bid for industrial base sustainment and to show UK contributions to a multi-national (non-US) development project. So it's vagueness is understandable. As for why do it... the US isn't about to be any more invested in European security than it is now. Trump doesn't show much interest in defending Europe, but he is closer to the mainstream US opinion than not in that matter. Either European nations maintain their own defense industries or they can watch all pretense of national sovereignty die.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
EU may be our foe but we will always have Israel!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 14:38
|
|
|
Quinntan posted:Unless we get Schleswig War 2: This Time It’s Personal or the Netherlands want to reform the United Provinces, I don’t think that Denmark and Belgium are going to get gobbled up by anyone. They're in NATO and other small European nations in NATO do seem to be pretty worried about getting gobbled up. If they end up in any conflict over the next 20 years it seems like it'll either be a Russian proxy war with vacationing air defenses appearing or bombing some shithole Russia sells increasingly capable weapons to. Donald Trump isn't dictator for life and seems reasonably likely to be a single term president so I don't expect him to significantly impact "long term" US/EU relations. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 14:39
|
|
Warbadger posted:bombing some shithole Russia sells increasingly capable weapons ton. This. If you don't have a LO aircraft in the next decade or so, you don't have a credible air force. Even for operation: bomb useless dirt.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Donald Trump isn't dictator for life and seems reasonably likely to be a single term president so I don't expect him to significantly impact "long term" US/EU relations. Hopefully, but I worry that Trump is doing lasting damage merely by showing our allies that someone like him could be elected at all. That's a possibility going forward that might permanently weaken our existing alliances.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:This. If you don't have a LO aircraft in the next decade or so, you don't have a credible air force. Even for operation: bomb useless dirt. General Jumper? Is that you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
Number of missiles per launcher tinpot dictators tend to get for their shiny new S-XXX is probably pretty limited.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:They're in NATO and other small European nations in NATO do seem to be pretty worried about getting gobbled up. Take a look at a map. If Russia is invading Belgium World War 3 has happened and furthermore the West is about to lose it. The Baltic states and other random small European countries aren't interchangeable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 15:36
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Take a look at a map. If Russia is invading Belgium World War 3 has happened and furthermore the West is about to lose it. The Baltic states and other random small European countries aren't interchangeable. Uhh, the Baltics actually kinda are real, actual NATO member states just like Belgium. The Baltics are, in fact, small European countries in NATO. If Russia is invading the Baltic states, they've attacked NATO and other NATO countries (including the small ones) are likely to be involved in the fighting. While Russia will probably not invade the Baltics, Russia is the only one invading Europe or posturing against NATO members presently - making it a pretty good idea to purchase things that would be useful in a potential conflict with Russian or totally-not-Russian (but actually Russian) forces. Unless you subscribe to the Trump theory of NATO where it's a travesty that small countries are afforded the same protections in NATO as the larger ones. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
how does the russian nuclear cruise missile generate thrust? How would a nuclear engine generate thrust at all?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:how does the russian nuclear cruise missile generate thrust? How would a nuclear engine generate thrust at all? The US did ground runs of nuclear ramjets back in the 60s, and they actually worked (for a few minutes until they ran out of compressed air). NTRs do a similar thing, except they carry their propellant with them and don’t use air.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:how does the russian nuclear cruise missile generate thrust? How would a nuclear engine generate thrust at all? Same way a jet engine does: shoot hot high-pressure air out the back end. Only difference is that you're heating the air by dumping the heat from a nuclear reactor into it, not by burning hydrocarbons in it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Barring American political unreliability dramatically increasing ofc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Donald Trump isn't dictator for life and seems reasonably likely to be a single term president so I don't expect him to significantly impact "long term" US/EU relations. Do you remember George W. Bush? He did a lot of damage to US/EU relations, with his blatant "divide to rule" approach ("coalition of the billing", "old Europe", etc.). Then there was Obama, the hope and change guy, who got the Nobel prize for not being Bush. It seemed things were back to how they were before Bush, even better in fact. And then, Trump. If it were just Trump, it could be brushed off as a temporary, exceptional problem. But it's not just Trump. You're not asking for a second chance, you're asking for a third. And Trump, even if he weren't reelected in 2020, will have profoundly changed the USA. He's been purging US agencies and department of everyone who doesn't think like him. The State Department has been gutted, and it'll take a lot of time and efforts for the US diplomatic apparel to rebuild what has been lost there. Also the entire Republican Party is completely behind him. Only a fool would believe that a Post-Trump Republican President would be sensibly different. If anything, he's likely to be even worse, just like Trump is worse than Bush. So even if POTUS 46 is a Democrat who'll try to repair the damage, everyone in Europe will be wondering who POTUS 47 will be. feedmegin posted:Take a look at a map. If Russia is invading Belgium World War 3 has happened and furthermore the West is about to lose it. The Baltic states and other random small European countries aren't interchangeable. The point is that the EU has a collective defense clause, if Russia attacks Latvia, the rest of the continent will not wait until Russian tanks are on Brussels to react. America, on the other hand, is safely behind its oceanic moats and can afford not to care. Trump has been saying that they definitely won't care because caring would be "so unfair" and "the worst deal ever, sad".
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Uhh, the Baltics actually kinda are real, actual NATO member states just like Belgium. The Baltics are, in fact, small European countries in NATO. If Russia is invading the Baltic states, they've attacked NATO and other NATO countries (including the small ones) are likely to be involved in the fighting. While Russia will probably not invade the Baltics, Russia is the only one invading Europe or posturing against NATO members presently - making it a pretty good idea to purchase things that would be useful in a potential conflict with Russian or totally-not-Russian (but actually Russian) forces. Ok, that's a fair point (albeit that's a lot closer to World War 3 than any of us would like). I would argue your original reply (to someone asking about Belgium and Denmark) of 'With the continuing focus on improved longer range RADAR guided SAM systems by the only country a small European country currently worries about being gobbled up by, yeah, there may actually be a good reason to go with a low observable plane.' was at least a little unclear, however 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:You're not asking for a second chance, you're asking for a third. On the other hand, the US has been footing way too much of the bill for Europe's collective defense the last 20 years or so. I am profoundly supportive of NATO, what it stands for, and what it has accomplished, but Europe stands to lose a lot more than the US does if it collapses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:
God forbid the US president actually expect NATO countries to kick in the amount of spending for common defense that they agreed to kick in. http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=64268 quote:“In the past, I’ve worried openly about NATO turning into a two-tiered alliance between members who specialize in ‘soft’ humanitarian, development, peacekeeping and talking tasks and those conducting the ‘hard’ combat missions -- between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership, be they security guarantees or headquarters billets, but don’t want to share the risks and the costs,” the secretary said. That was the Nobel winner's SecDef, not the current guy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
This is a decent write up/argument as to why the 2% rule is dumb, anyway. 2% is easy to measure but not particularly useful. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/more-tooth-less-tail-getting-beyond-natos-2-percent-rule
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Do you remember George W. Bush? He did a lot of damage to US/EU relations, with his blatant "divide to rule" approach ("coalition of the billing", "old Europe", etc.). Then there was Obama, the hope and change guy, who got the Nobel prize for not being Bush. It seemed things were back to how they were before Bush, even better in fact. And then, Trump. Bush also had a "coalition of the willing" that included NATO and EU members he still managed to drag along. Trump has instead called the EU "a foe". I don't think its possible to overestimate the amount of damage Trump is doing compared to Bush.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
bewbies posted:On the other hand, the US has been footing way too much of the bill for Europe's collective defense the last 20 years or so. Right, the logical outcome of NATO dissolving is Europe spending a shitload more money on defense
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
Or the Baltics get written off, Poland decides that friendly relations with Russia are in its best interest, and everyone west of that continues serenely on their merry way
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
NATO has always been a paper tiger that would collapse the minute a real shooting war started so I don't see how Trump's outburst really changes anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
Missionary Positron posted:NATO has always been a paper tiger that would collapse the minute a real shooting war started so I don't see how Trump's outburst really changes anything. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 17:09
|
|
Missionary Positron posted:NATO has always been a paper tiger that would collapse the minute a real shooting war started so I don't see how Trump's outburst really changes anything. 1986-1989 NATO would have wrecked poo poo
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:1986-1989 NATO would have wrecked poo poo Right up until the tactical nukes started flying, sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:This is a decent write up/argument as to why the 2% rule is dumb, anyway. 2% is easy to measure but not particularly useful. Sure, but "The largest single economy in Europe doesn't have a deployable military" is problematic by any useful metric.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Sure, but "The largest single economy in Europe doesn't have a deployable military" is problematic by any useful metric. Yes. Which is why gdp is a poo poo metric.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Lmao like Soviets would defeat NATO in the nuclear apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
bewbies posted:On the other hand, the US has been footing way too much of the bill for Europe's collective defense the last 20 years or so. "The Alliance was created to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." Here's how NATO works: the USA, who have the benefit of strategic depth to protect them, swear to fight in Europe. This way, when WW3 kicks in, American soldiers get to be annihilated by atomic bombs on the European battlefield, while the homeland remains safe, just like in WW1 and WW2. In exchange, European countries reduce their military power so that they can't pursue an independent foreign policy at odds with the USA's, and what remains of their military budget is be spent buying crap from US companies. It's basically a bribe to keep Europe politically aligned with the USA. hobbesmaster posted:Bush also had a "coalition of the willing" that included NATO and EU members he still managed to drag along. Trump has instead called the EU "a foe". I don't think its possible to overestimate the amount of damage Trump is doing compared to Bush. Yeah, that's what I alluded to with "divide to rule", "coalition of the billing", and "Old Europe". The Bush administration was trying to exacerbate divisions between EU member countries so as to make the union toothless, just as Trump is doing now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Yeah, that's what I alluded to with "divide to rule", "coalition of the billing", and "Old Europe". The Bush administration was trying to exacerbate divisions between EU member countries so as to make the union toothless, just as Trump is doing now. Brexit aside he seems to be strengthening the EU though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Brexit aside he seems to be strengthening the EU though? Hence "trying". I haven't said he was successful at it. The EU is strengthening itself in reaction to Trump's attacks against it. But even then, it remains divided enough that some of his attacks will probably work anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:It's basically a bribe to keep Europe politically aligned with the USA. This is a pretty cynical perspective. That said, even if you take the cynical perspective, you can't argue that the alliance was successful, and likely saved a whole lot of mostly European lives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:God forbid the US president actually expect NATO countries to kick in the amount of spending for common defense that they agreed to kick in. While I can't blame Trudeau for saying "no we are not doing this" considering the current political environment, I think the 2% spending on Canada's part would be a good idea, the most broken clock ever being right twice a day
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:While I can't blame Trudeau for saying "no we are not doing this" considering the current political environment, I think the 2% spending on Canada's part would be a good idea, the most broken clock ever being right twice a day I'm actually surprised Canada isn't spending 2% of GDP on the national ship building program and bombardier subsidies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 18:06
|
|