The Germans are coming!

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 619
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post21 Jun 2018, 03:31

popcorn wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Who is Germany going to fight in the next 2 decades?

Is your house going to burn down in the next 2 decades? I bet you have insurance and buy the best that you can afford to address the risk.


To be fair to the Germans, they're willing to defend Europe from the Russians to the last Pole.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Offline

weasel1962

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 913
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post21 Jun 2018, 05:02

popcorn wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Who is Germany going to fight in the next 2 decades?

Is your house going to burn down in the next 2 decades? I bet you have insurance and buy the best that you can afford to address the risk.
As the saying goes "the only thing more expensive than a first-rate air force is a second-rate one'.


This is where we differ. I would buy the right amount of the right type of insurance (same thing goes for car insurance). I may not buy from an insurance provider who may not pay out when I need it (e.g. F-35 embargo risk).

Today's world is not just military conflict risk but trade wars, budget risks where unbridled unfocussed spending can be sustained. That unfortunately is the result of a successful NATO which has enabled Europeans nations to reduce their military expenditures to record lows.

Ironically, buying F-35s would ideally be the right way to minimise those costs. The theory of comparative advantage means technically the one who can produce it cheapest should build it. However, that theory is not applicable in the military sphere. That is because buying from a foreign party is actually outsourcing the risk.

As can be seen from the Turkey example, it provides the supplier the ability to influence future procurement decisions and actually increases sovereignty risks. The question is really when Germany needs a Typhoon replacement rather than a Tornado replacement. If they need a Tornado replacement today, they'd just build more Typhoons.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4418
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post21 Jun 2018, 09:05

Honestly, I think Merkel maybe using the issue to get back at Trump over trade. As the Germans are no dummies..... :wink:


Also, now Germany is asking the US how long and how much it will cost to upgrade the Typhoon for the Nuclear Strike Role. Easy, the US says a gazillion and a decade to do so......WOW makes the F-35 look real good!
:doh:
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1592
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post21 Jun 2018, 13:32

In the face of S-300, S-400, S-500 air defenses, is Typhoon really a credible nuclear delivery option going forward?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 280
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post21 Jun 2018, 17:20

Probably not, but you know... have to explore the domestic options due to domestic political reasons.
They would probably prefer that the US would make the decision for them by denying nuke tech transfer to Typhoons.

They've been doing these things which smell like political plays. Like the G36 rifles failing at very high temperature, allowing them to dump more money to Heckler & Koch. But they don't seem to be allowing anyone to buy their old G36s... :devil:
Previous

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests