NATO Meeting

Interesting discussions at the NATO meeting today. He who has no name scolded everyone saying they do not meet the NATO agreed 2% of GDP spend on defence & should match the USA with its 4% of GDP.

USA spends 3.5% (official NATO figures),   UK spend is 2.1% & are in a group of only 5 nations meeting the 2% target compared to 23 nations below 2%. So in all fairness USA has every right to be concerned with so many other members not meeting the agreed 2% target.

My immediate thought however is that USA has two principle defense area's, North Atlantic & Asia Pacific, plus a few dollars for Caribbean Central America; so its seems to me that at only half the USA defense budget spend should be allocated to NATO & as such USA's NATO contribution is 1.75%.     ................     anyone disagree??  

Original Post
Mike-B posted:

Interesting discussions at the NATO meeting today. He who has no name scolded everyone saying they do not meet the NATO agreed 2% of GDP spend on defence & should match the USA with its 4% of GDP.

USA spends 3.5% (official NATO figures),   UK spend is 2.1% & are in a group of only 5 nations meeting the 2% target compared to 23 nations below 2%. So in all fairness USA has every right to be concerned with so many other members not meeting the agreed 2% target.

My immediate thought however is that USA has two principle defense area's, North Atlantic & Asia Pacific, plus a few dollars for Caribbean Central America; so its seems to me that at only half the USA defense budget spend should be allocated to NATO & as such USA's NATO contribution is 1.75%.     ................     anyone disagree??  

Yes !

We all have "Global" commitments, particularly the UK and France. The USA isn't unique in this sense.

The proportion of the UK defence funding that might  be allocated to NATO might well be significantly less than its 2.1%. Ditto France.

But once politicians get their hands on the figures and "explain" them to the press, who in turn "report" them to us.............well, who knows what's what !!

MDS posted:

This is one area of policy where I do have sympathy with the orange-one.  Germany I believe spends only 1.2% on defence, and given its wealth and proximity to the East, one of the biggest interests in a strong defence.  

There’s a difference in “defence spending” and “spending on defence".

Germany doesn’t have any nuclear weapons and doesn’t have any aircraft carriers. It probably spends more money on the actual defence of Europe than the UK and the USA. Most of the UK and USA so called defence spending, is actually “attack spending”

The UK includes military pensions in its defence spending and sign personnel up into the army, who don’t really need to be classed as army personnel.

The defence spending percentage figures are meaningless.

 

Don Atkinson posted:

Oh! Despite my own comments, I don’t think we can claim the the figures are “meaningless”. They are “indicative” . Germany needs to up its game.

Well, if the figures lead you to believe Germany should “up its game”, that is proof they are meaningless.

A lot of the the UK’s so called defence spending, finances sending troops to fight in foreign lands, which does not actually involve the defence of the UK. The Germans and the Japanese are reluctant to deploy troops overseas, for obvious reasons.

 

Oh well once again it seems to be all orange coloured smoke.   The meeting had had not pledged to "substantially" raise their defence budgets but simply reconfirmed to be committed to the 2014 agreement that they would all reach the 2% of GDP target by 2024.

Am I missing something, surely the aim should be to REDUCE, so called defence spending. Does anybody seriously believe another country will invade the UK.

It’s absurd. Germany could hit the 2% target, by equipping its soldiers with solid 24ct helmets.

fatcat posted:

Am I missing something, surely the aim should be to REDUCE, so called defence spending. Does anybody seriously believe another country will invade the UK.

It’s absurd. Germany could hit the 2% target, by equipping its soldiers with solid 24ct helmets.

quite...

fatcat posted:

Am I missing something, surely the aim should be to REDUCE, so called defence spending. Does anybody seriously believe another country will invade the UK.

 

It is even less likely that anyone will invade the US. So, should they spend less than the other NATO members who are at higher risk or perhaps leave the alliance altogether?

Haim Ronen posted:
fatcat posted:

Am I missing something, surely the aim should be to REDUCE, so called defence spending. Does anybody seriously believe another country will invade the UK.

 

It is even less likely that anyone will invade the US. So, should they spend less than the other NATO members who are at higher risk or perhaps leave the alliance altogether?

Yes and Yes.

Times have moved on. The Russians are not going to invade Germany, Germany is its biggest customers.

You are correct, USA is not in danger of being invaded. Very little “defence spending”, is actally spent on defence. Ironically North Korea is critisised for impoverishing its population by spending huge amounts on defence, when there is actually a real threat of invasion from tens of thousands of US troops massed on its southern border.

 

Let's not forget the realities of "today".

it would be "nice" if we could all be friends and share the worlds resources equitably.

It would be "nice" if we could concentrate the world's resources on making life pleasant, health, education, energy, food - no need for police or border control etc

It would be "nice" if..................

But "today" the world is far from being a "nice" place where everybody is "nice" to one another.

So, whilst we work hard to make this world a "nice" place, let's be realistic.

We need NATO and armed forces to help us persuade very "nasty" people to become "nice"

It's a bit of a dilema !

An interesting situation with a NATO member, Turkey. They are in the process of acquiring the F-35 jet with its most advanced stealth capabilities and they will also be purchasing the last word of the Soviet's anti-aircraft technology the S400. So, is It the Russians or the West who will be able to test the the other's side most sophisticated weapon systems?

Xenasys posted:

Lets also not forget that the Military Contractors are reliant on these massive budgets for their own survival and that Military Spending also advances technology that eventually  ends up in the public realm.

When will I be able to get a 'stealth' car that can evade laser and radar speed traps? 

Haim Ronen posted:

An interesting situation with a NATO member, Turkey. They are in the process of acquiring the F-35 jet with its most advanced stealth capabilities and they will also be purchasing the last word of the Soviet's anti-aircraft technology the S400. So, is It the Russians or the West who will be able to test the the other's side most sophisticated weapon systems?

I own the Russian influenced Salisbury edition Novochuk S400 speaker Ovatorski. Its frequency response is such that it has taken down a helicopter and a small airbus passenger plane in Wellington harbour with its stealth technology. Still it sounds good so I’ll stick with it.

Haim Ronen posted:

An interesting situation with a NATO member, Turkey. They are in the process of acquiring the F-35 jet with its most advanced stealth capabilities and they will also be purchasing the last word of the Soviet's anti-aircraft technology the S400. So, is It the Russians or the West who will be able to test the the other's side most sophisticated weapon systems?

 It was announced 18-June-18 that U.S. passed a bill blocking the sale F-35's to Turkey.  The concern is Turkey's intent to buy the Russian S-400 air defence system would put the stealth secrets of the F-35 at risk. 

I really can't see how NATO can continue with Turkey as a member while it constantly cosies up to & flip flops between Russia & others.   Problem is we need them for the regional area they have.    I wonder why Russia is willing to sell a NATO member the S-400 system?,  maybe because its old tech?  or more likely that indeed it does give them an intelligence gathering opportunity. 

Mike-B posted:
Haim Ronen posted:

An interesting situation with a NATO member, Turkey. They are in the process of acquiring the F-35 jet with its most advanced stealth capabilities and they will also be purchasing the last word of the Soviet's anti-aircraft technology the S400. So, is It the Russians or the West who will be able to test the the other's side most sophisticated weapon systems?

 It was announced 18-June-18 that U.S. passed a bill blocking the sale F-35's to Turkey.  The concern is Turkey's intent to buy the Russian S-400 air defence system would put the stealth secrets of the F-35 at risk. 

I really can't see how NATO can continue with Turkey as a member while it constantly cosies up to & flip flops between Russia & others.   Problem is we need them for the regional area they have.    I wonder why Russia is willing to sell a NATO member the S-400 system?,  maybe because its old tech?  or more likely that indeed it does give them an intelligence gathering opportunity. 

Turkey has received the first two F-35 jets from the US, but with a catch: the planes will stay in the US until end of 2019 as Turkish pilots are training to fly them and Senate continues attempts to bar Ankara from getting F-35s.
 The Russian S-400 is incompatible with the NATO's air defense systems so another benefit to the Russians is a chance to disrupt the alliance in terms of effectiveness as well as the relations among its members. 
Haim Ronen posted:
Turkey has received the first two F-35 jets from the US, but with a catch: the planes will stay in the US until end of 2019 as Turkish pilots are training to fly them and Senate continues attempts to bar Ankara from getting F-35s.
 The Russian S-400 is incompatible with the NATO's air defense systems so another benefit to the Russians is a chance to disrupt the alliance in terms of effectiveness as well as the relations among its members. 

The plot thickens  ........  UK as the only F-35 Tier-1 partner (together with USA) has been chosen to be a global repair hub for F-35.  Located in North Wales the facility will be the European F-35 location for major overhauls & upgrades.  Other work will include service of avionics, electronic & electrical, fuel, mechanical & hydraulic systems & ejection seats.

Whats missing ??  yup  engines.  Despite Rolls Royce involvement in the design & development of the main engine but significantly in the angled thrust vectoring system, no engine servicing (other than on base routine) will take place in UK.  Lockheed have set up  3 european area engine maintenance facilities in Netherlands, Norway ...... and ...... Turkey.     I can't find anything of the latest for that plan, I expect (hope) its under review.  

Not quite correct Mike.

Italy was chosen quite a while ago to be the servicing hub for depot maintenance on the F35 aircraft whilst Sealand, near Chester will service the electronic components once they have been removed from the aircraft.

Turkey put itself forward for maintenance of the Pratt and Witney engine by building a Facility at its own expense. I can't imagine RR will let anyone else other than themselves in Derby or Bristol look after the Liftfan components.

Last I heard about Italy was they were discussing cancelling the F-35 contract,  in June this year the new 5-Star Movement (Gov) in Italy announced they will not buy more & are considering whether to stick to the order to which it is already committed or cancell & take the penalties.   Its already made significant investments in F-35 & the plan was to be the European Final Assembly and Check-Out facility at a plant in Cameri,  I believe one aircraft has already gone through that process, but with the new questions over Italy's commitment to the program,  I guess that facility might be questionable as well.

National politics will undoubtedly play a part in the future roll-out of the aircraft. I know Canada has wobbled over the last few years. Even in the Uk there are discussions in Government about buying the cheaper CTOL version once the current commitment to purchase 48 of the STOVLs is complete.

thebigfredc posted:

National politics will undoubtedly play a part in the future roll-out of the aircraft. I know Canada has wobbled over the last few years. Even in the Uk there are discussions in Government about buying the cheaper CTOL version once the current commitment to purchase 48 of the STOVLs is complete.

48 x F-35B's (STOVL) makes sense,  RN will use 12 per carrier in a peace time role,  & up to 24 per carrier in conflict,  so 48 is the correct number for RN requirement.    Apart from cross service flexibility,  STOVL is not required in an RAF role.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 is supposed to replace two very successful and aging jets, the Air Force F-16 Falcon (flying since 1978, 4,588 built) and the Navy's F-18 Hornet (flying since 1983, 1,480 built). The program is the most expensive military weapons systems in history, running by 2014 $163 billion over budget and seven years behind schedule. The F-35 (Model I) was used in combat for the first time in May 2018 by the Israeli Air Force.

Somebody came up with a budget to make a 4 in 1 plane, assuming it would cost less then 4 different planes. Well, it appears the cost of the 4 in 1 plane cost more than anticipated, to the tune of $163bn. There’s no evidence 4 separate/less complex designs would cost more than the F35.

But, the real point is this. Why do the USA need the F35, it’s not as though they have ever failed to gain air superiority with their present fighters.

Why does Isreal need F35’s, sureley their previous planes where quite capable of attacking Palastinian/Lebanese civilians or Iranian drones.

 

 

fatcat posted:

But, the real point is this. Why do the USA need the F35, it’s not as though they have ever failed to gain air superiority with their present fighters.

 

 

The key word is 'stealth technology' which the other older jets completely lack.  

Three months ago an Israeli F-16 was shot down by Syrian anti-aircraft missiles (dozens were launched). Flying an F-35 the crew would have had a much better chance to evaded the SAMs.

Haim Ronen posted:

The key word is 'stealth technology' which the other older jets completely lack.  

Three months ago an Israeli F-16 was shot down by Syrian anti-aircraft missiles (dozens were launched). Flying an F-35 the crew would have had a much better chance to evaded the SAMs.

With 27 SAMs in the air and worse manoeuvreability it’s likely an F35 would equally have been hit.

Eloise posted:
Haim Ronen posted:

The key word is 'stealth technology' which the other older jets completely lack.  

Three months ago an Israeli F-16 was shot down by Syrian anti-aircraft missiles (dozens were launched). Flying an F-35 the crew would have had a much better chance to evaded the SAMs.

With 27 SAMs in the air and worse manoeuvreability it’s likely an F35 would equally have been hit.

I don't think so, read please:

https://defense-update.com/201...th.html#.VYisUsIw8dU

Haim Ronen posted:
Eloise posted:
Haim Ronen posted:

The key word is 'stealth technology' which the other older jets completely lack.  

Three months ago an Israeli F-16 was shot down by Syrian anti-aircraft missiles (dozens were launched). Flying an F-35 the crew would have had a much better chance to evaded the SAMs.

With 27 SAMs in the air and worse manoeuvreability it’s likely an F35 would equally have been hit.

I don't think so, read please:

https://defense-update.com/201...th.html#.VYisUsIw8dU

Interesting article.  If the manufacturers are to believed, the Syrian air-defence wouldn't have known the F35 was there and, even if they did, they wouldn't have been able to target it. Impressive.   

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×