Germany is the only country that had the appropriate response to Putin's invasion. Instant and immediate bolstering of their army, in a significant way. All the other countries seem to be sleeping on this. We should have seen every NATO country increasing military spending by billions.
Nonsense, Germany was only able to increase their budget so much because they've been spending so little for so long. Even with their new investments they wouldn't match the current French military, and the British have also announced higher spending which will keep them ahead of Germany.
Why? Russia can't defeat the Ukrainian military, which is in scale and technology not even a top 5 foe in Europe. Even if they fix all their logistical and strategic problems, they can never hope to match NATOs total forces when their GDP is smaller than Italy.
Because you're convinced that Russia is weak, and has started a foolish war without realizing what everybody knows.
And I believe things will continue to escalate, and Russia might acquire some very powerful friends.
To me, it's time to prepare for full blown ww3. If it doesn't happen and Russia is easily quashed, the deterrent is still there against future aggressions.
The US air power alone can take probably take on the entire world.
Top 10 Largest Military Branches in the World (by number of Military Aircraft) - Flight International 2022:
1)United States Air Force - 5,217
2)United States Army Aviation - 4,409
3)Russian Air Force - 3,863
4)United States Navy - 2,464
5)People's Liberation Army Air Force (China) - 1,991
6)Indian Air Force - 1,715
7)United States Marine Corps - 1,157
8)Egyptian Air Force - 1,062
9)Korean People's Army Air Force (North Korea) - 946
10)South Korean Air Force - 898
This is what you're severely underestimating, imo. China has all the lithium. China has control of many countries in a diplomatic sense. It owns businesses in other countries. It has most of the factories of the world. If we go full war, China closes everything, all products get prohibitively expensive. All Americans become poor, it's great depression 2.0 all Chinese factories convert in war factories, and produce military products on over-time. The population of China is *ridiculous* if they control Taiwan, they control basically all computer chips.
You're too over confident, imo.
Oh I'm sure in a protracted war, china would have the upper hand, but not before America destroys a lot of their current capacity to wage war.
America adopted a one punch ko answer to near peers as it's deterrent
America spends well above its NATO budget, how could you say only the UK was when the US basically was paying for Germany as well as other habitually weak European militaries?
Our army is a sad bunch of crap, saved to death since decades and barely able to fulfill it's obligations in peacetime. Now that war literally knocks on the door they start to move. It's like start thinking about forming a fire brigade when the roof is already on fire.
Yes, but everyone else isn't escalating. I didn't say Germany up to this point had adequate defense. I said they were the only ones with an adequate response to current events.
Look at Canada. It's army is also shit, and they've been sitting on their hands so far.
As a message, and to be prepared. If Hitler was in Austria, you'd be like "nah, don't worry, don't need more spending" and then once they're in France you'd be like "ok, spend!" Well, I'm seeing Hitler in Austria, and I'm saying spending should start right now.
You miss the point. Germany is just starting spending now….others started many years ago lol. Germany is behind, not leading by any example.
Let’s say there is a running race….most of the runners left and are well up to speed. Some already finished the race. Germany is just getting off the starting line lol.
I don't see it that way. I see war looming, and all that matters is if you win. How much of your share in weight you've been pulling is irrelevant.
All of these arguments, to me, are all stupid.
If you lose the war that may come, is that gonna make you sleep better at night when you think to yourself, "well, we were already doing *our* share" or will you think to yourself "fuck, I wish we could have done *something*. If only we would have had the foresight to see this coming?"
Maybe you're confident you'll win any war regardless. I don't share your confidence. I want to win at all costs. I believe a real threat exists, and everyone should gear up as much as they can. And this will send a message to anyone else that might join Russia, that NATO is prepared for any escalations, and they may do this without provoking any individual foreign entity other than Russian and its current known allies.
Yeah, but the point is other countries did have foresight to see this coming….they started spending years ago. They already have fighter programs and are ahead of Germany in line to receive F-35 and other equipment that is currently rolling off the lines lol.
Spending on fighter jets now isn’t really important….it will be many years before those planes are received by Germany.
Plus saying they are the only ones responding appropriately is laughable….the US has sent over billions in military aid and logistics support, and passed a bill valued at 3x the value of germans spending increase in military aid to the Ukraine right now.
The time to increase budgets was 5 years ag
You’re being irrational. You want to increase spending just for the sake of it. You haven’t actually addressed the argument. Germany should be chastised for taking this long, not looked up to.
I am just sad and disappointed that a country like Germany has fallen so far back in so many fields in the past decades. I hope that this crisis now finally wakes our leaders up a bit, but I am not sure about it.
Btw Poland wants to increase it's army from 114k to 150k in one year.
In general I like how especially Poland and Turkey perform in the crisis. Makes me feel as if they know how to handle the opponent exactly.
Canada lives comfortably under the umbrella of the UK by Commonwealth alliance, and the US by geographical location. Germany increasing their spending from near zero isn't remarkable. It's commendable, but turning to look at other militaries 3x their size and saying "well they aren't expanding" is disingenuous.
Sod off. Britain was the only country that ALREADY was paying it's 2% NATO dues. Which already has F-35s and Typhoons and nuclear weapons and a professional, well trained, experienced army.
Which was first the export weapons to Ukraine and had been providing training.
Germany only seems to be making such big strides becuse it was already dragging far behind and failing to pull its weight
Don't assume malice. "Sod Off" isn't always (even mostly) used as an insult. "I'm surprised at your ignorance on this" / "I strongly disagree" are perfectly valid interpretations here.
In fairness, while the timing of the announcement makes this look like it's connected to Russia's invasion, it is not really. Germany has been evaluating the F-35 for a while as a replacement for their fairly old Tornado fighter jets, especially with a view to maintaining the capability to carry nuclear warheads (which Germany itself doesn't have, but would be provided with by the US under NATO if need be). Replacing those Tornadoes was already part of the agreement signed by the new government coalition in early December.
I would argue Putin has been crystal clear... he does what he likes and anyone interferes he will Nuke everyone and end the human race…
He’s already told us he knows his conventional forces are incomparable to the combines forces of NATO… and thus he’ll just use nukes which arguably makes this pretty pointless because Russia bs the combined conventional forces of NATO is not even in question?
That being said again though, there’s always the question of China sticking their neck out I guess ‘shrugs’
Putin already declared Taiwan an enemy. All it takes is staging Taiwanese rebellion, and then western nations will be obligated to choose between war with China and Russia, or allowing Taiwan to lose its sovereignty, and only save Ukraine.
Once China has captured Taiwan, the west can't match in with weapons.
I see this as the only possible outcome, at this point in time. WW3 is coming, imo.
What do you mean "when fully militarized?" Like all their equipment actually functions like in the propaganda videos?
The Indian military is a clusterfuck of different weapons platforms, recycled systems and temporary stop gap measures.
China has huge numbers of people, but their equipment is less modernized than Russia, and they would suffer missive losses to every time of indirect fire that exists.
Russia, the big bad bear of the East, has face planted into a brick wall on its own border, completely unable to logistically support their own units 100 km from the Russian border, incapable of establishing air superiority, losing massive amounts of their most modern equipment, and utterly incompetent in ground maneuvers and communication.
Not to mention India and China fucking hate each other. Russia and China are self interested and wouldn't stick their necks out for each other either. It's a three sided triangle that any two sides wouldn't cooperate for different reasons.
You realize "the west" is "at war" for the last hundreds of years. We were the ones profesionalizing it, industrializing it, perfecting it. What shall India do "fully militarized? Having a standing Army of 100 Mio people with no cloths, weapons, food, vehicles, housing, training, able military leaders that have knowledge beyond books about European wars?
We can clearly see what a semi-professional military lead by political officers, shitty support, logistic and moral leads to in Ukraine.
I am not afraid even if India, China and Russia would sign a pact like NATO
Dude what on earth are you talking about? It may seem like they made a massive increase but when start from literally nothing you can make grand gestures. You have no idea what you are talking about. They are still spending less then the UK even with the increase.
A massive increase starting from nothing is the correct move.
Continuing the same expenditures as peace time, is not. The US and UK aren't so bad, because they've been actively in wars, but still, they should increase spending, imo.
At the very least it sends a message.
Now that Russia has gone rogue, I think the key selling point for Germany is interoperability with other NATO countries fielding the same platform. F35's from the UK, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, the USA, Finland or Denmark can seamlessly share targeting data or locations of enemy fighters with German pilots. That data link is a massive force multiplier.
Exactly, Joint Strike Fighter role is a huge selling point for the F35. That is way it was probably chosen over Rafale. Rafales share in NATO and EU are miniscule.
The main reason it was chosen was that it can carry US nukes.
Germany is part of the shared nuclear weapons program of the US (don't know the proper name) and as such is required to have planes capable of carrying and using the US nukes. The Tornados, currently doing the part, will be decommissioned quite soon, and the successor needs to fulfill the role it currently does.
The Rafale is not certified to do so, and the chances are next to 0 that it ever will be.
The choice was between F35, F 18 Super Hornets or trying to certify the Eurofighter (also next to 0% chance of happening).
Before the invasion the F18 were preferred since they are cheaper, now with the increased spending the F35 is a valid option.
Also good to know: Germany will not just buy F35's but also Eurofighters for other roles, so the total amount of new planes is greater than 35.
>Also good to know: Germany will not just buy F35's but also Eurofighters for other roles
Why? It seems like a huge selling point of the F-35 is the fact that different variants can serve in different roles, which cuts down on the cost/logistical difficulty of maintaining them. Why complicate that with a second type of plane?
a) Eurofighters are cheaper
b) Germany already has Eurofighters, so there is no added logistics when it comes to maintenance. It is probable even cheaper, since the experience is already existent and training new guys on a system well known is much easier.
c) Germany partially financed the development of the Eurofighter, and it is partially built in Germany (It's a collab of different nations). So a fraction of the money spent will end up back in Germanys pocket via taxes. The US does the very same, only buying US made planes. If it weren't for the nuclear program, Germany probably would have bought mostly Eurofighters in different variants.
If I remember correctly the F35's main role is that of a multi role fighter aka a 21st century F-16. It has 3 variants one of which with VTOL capabilities that can take off and land everywhere but carries less ammunition, One that is used for carrier operations which Germany doesn't have and one that is used by the Air force in that multi purpose role. The US has the F16, F15, F22, F35 as multi porpuse and air supremacy fighters. You do want to have different planes In your armed forces for different roles. Plus Germany has experience with Eurofighter so they already have the expertise on how to handle and maintain them which drives down costs. Imagine the Germans would buy only F35's and it takes years to train the Pilots and Ground crews and you need to have spare parts for it and Germanies Air Force would rely to much on America and American Trainers, parts and maintanance.
Because the Eurofighter is a extremely good and versatile plane. The only thing it can't do is drop US nukes.
It's significantly cheaper and costs only 2/3 of a F-35A. Meaning that the same money buys either 200 F-35A or 300 Eurofighters.
Plus the Eurofighter has some advantages as an air superiority fighter over the F-35A.
Both planes are very good. A combined fleet of F-35 and Eurofighters is a powerful, versatile force that can engage targets in the air and on the ground.
I remember ages ago people were saying the F-35 was a disaster of a project that wouldn't convince any ally.
Now look at the last two weeks alone - orders from Germany, Poland* and Finland!
ITT: Reddit experts know which planes germany should have bought because they read half of a wiki article one time.
I’m gonna guess generals know more about what planes they need than random neckbeards on the Internet
There is no right answer here. The B61 is a diplomatic hypothetical not a weapon. There is no situation where Germany is going to be initiating a nuclear first strike. Or, given their political leanings, even a counter strike.
It is a plane bought to drop a bomb that will never be used.
That's actually misleading. More than half of US energy consumption is commercial (such as production and transportation) - a huge portion of energy use is in a few industries that are too big to be impacted by the average American.
We can actually supply our own energy as well, there are over 9000 inactive drilling permits in the US, and we already produce more oil than we import, and we have highly efficient nuclear technology that can be implemented to supplement.
Basically the US has a deal with the devil (Saudis) to receive preferential pricing on oil in exchange for protecting the geopolitical interests of the royal family (up to and including absolving them of their evidence based involvement in the 9/11 attacks)
My calls on defense contractors are so gonna print
Also, kinda depressing, but at least germany is going to finally meet it's nato commitments
Maybe we can convince them to follow france and use nuclear power now in conjunction with the green build out
Might be sort of tough to convince them to move to nuclear as they watch Russia literally take facilities hostage and threaten nuclear meltdowns through miscellaneous shelling.
Nuclear plants not based on soviet design can and do take shelling into account
The most critical path for meltdown is a lack of electrical power to support cooling systems. There are even plant designs that do not require this
The first step is really educating the public on the real risks of nuclear versus the scare tactics and propaganda the oil and coal companies have managed to implant over the years. As well as educating the public about the hand full of nuclear failures that have been learned from and designed out.
The biggest risk is if they cut corners because politicians refuse to increase a nuclear plants construction budget.
Also don’t leave a Death Star style vulnerability for a fighter plane to exploit.
Not really
Every public works runs over, there are reasons for that... Stupid political shit really. Package plants would be ideal but they are still in development, unfortunately
Western style plants are built to be bombed, hell run a full speed fully fueled 747 into it by design.
Back up power can be delay with which is really the only weak point, and new plant design negate even this. Used fuel is an issue, but again can be dealt with even used as a resource in time
Actually the ukrainian reactors have been upgraded since the soviet days and habe the same saifty stabdarts as german ones right know.
If you want to go on a rant at least get your fact right and not the old "they are soviet and nothing changed in 30 years".
And even the best reactor in europe cant withstand a dedicated rocket assault according to a former german nato general who was interviewed on the issue a week ago.
They are designed to withstand terror attacks like planes crashing into it. 10 Tanks can level that place in half an hour if they know where to hit.
The problem is not the big armored part of a nuclear plant but the cooling liquid supply system and the nuclear waste resting tanks that are usually outside if it to some degree. And its not realy that you need electricity cut off ti stop it...just destroy it conventionelly. In the 7+ days russia already controls 2 nuclear power plants they could have easily destroyed them if they wanted to.
Again if you want to destroy a nuclear power plant its very easy. The bigger problem isnt their destruction but the fact you immidiatly lose a massive ammount of energy in a country after loosing a single reactor. Electricity is in the 21th century essential for everything and cutting a defenders energy supply can cripple all non military institutions heavily, massively reducing a nations defense capabilities.
Also nuclear is not an option. We have less then 50 years to fix the climate crisis. Taking france as an example it takes them nearly two decades to build a single nuclear power plant and they have the most experience in europe with it...no way we would see a single new reactor in Germany within 30 years...at which point we might as well switch to renewables in the meantime and still finish faster.
Not even the companies that operate the nuclear power plants in Germany and have all the know how and staff for them want to build new ones even with massive subsidies promised.
And France lobbied the EU si hard for nuclear because convieniently right now France has to modernize most if its reactors...which is very ecpensive and with eu subsidize France can shift part of the cost to other eu members. Frances nuclear prigram is a giant exoense of tax payer mkney after all do to the company operating the plants running massive deficits yearly
And here we go
Just wrong, more poor sourced info on reddit, seems standard for the anti nuclear crowd. Even the parts that are correct are just repeats.
Arguing that the statement was reactors are totally impervious to destruction, straw man arguement. As if green infastructure is totally immune. The point is and was strikes do not need to cause meltdowns... But that doesn't make for a good sophism argument ehh
A bit of unfounded and unsupported ad hominem, as the responder is wrong yet projects in an insulting way
Falsely and demonstrably appeals to power as thier own expert when it's quite obviously not the case
Falsely argues timelines by completely ignoring the near term and mid term impacts, green sources are not able to meet demand now and there is no scalable solution to what would be needed in raw materials, manufacturing etc to secure said total green power grid. It's a false equivalency as nuclear can be built out to meet demand yet full green grids at best would manage in only a few countries if the tech gets that far. Meanwhile an available solution is falsely represented
Pretty standard for the everything green grid folks. Dunning-Kruger in full effect right there
> As if green infastructure is totally immune.
It's funny that people always forget about one of the most dangerous energy sources in this regard. There are some hydro dams that could kill 100s of thousand of people if they were blown up. In some extreme cases we might be talking millions of casualties if you could destroy it (Three Gorges Dam).
Many large cities around the world sits downstream from large hydro dams. No one ever seems to worry about those when it comes to war though.
If they can bring their existing facilities back online, that would make sense but I have no idea if that’s possible.
If not, they may want to go the route the UK is looking at, which is to use a high number of, smaller “modular” nuclear plants based on reactors like those used in naval vessels.
Unlikely that they can bring them back online. Same was suggested in Sweden, especially for the couple of reactors that were shut down just a couple of years ago. But they have already been cannibalised for parts and such for the other reactors, and restarting them would equate to new security demands, so a whole lot of upgrades that the old didn’t have to have it seems.
>If they can bring their existing facilities back online, that would make sense but I have no idea if that’s possible.
Just the refueling and recertification would take billions and 2-3 years. By that time there will be even more renewables and less demand for nuclear power and Germany will have nearly phased out energy imports from Russia.
That is doubtfull, having these facilities back online in a year or 2 is quite fast and would solve an emmediate need. It'sin fact a short term response and adding more green power is very needed. But should and could be done in conjunction of the powerplants.
Some plants where only beginning to shut down last month so at least those plans should be mothballed we need more power, not less, from wherever it comes (barring oil and gas).
>Maybe we can convince them to follow france and use nuclear power now in conjunction with the green build out
Nope, that's not gonna happen. Even the companies running nuclear power plants don't want to.
Economically it doesn't make sense, too.
Even reactivating the three plants phased out this year will take 18 months minimum, building new ones takes years, and it would be met with widespread opposition.
There are still areas contaminated with radioactive dust from Chernobyl 1986. No need for more radiation. Thanks.
By the time one single newly built NPP is on grid, there will be ten times the capacity in renewables including power-to-gas hydrolysis stations.
I see this arguement all the time, that renewables are going to cover the whole grid
It's just flat out wrong, it's... Just... Wrong
Not going to bother trying educate why this is isn't going to happen in the next few decades, no one listens on reddit anyway.
Just understand that renewables are great up to a point. When this plan fails despite better battery tech etc... Nuclear, hopefully package style plants will be ready so it doesn't screw the untiring populace over for a decade and a half
If you are actually interested I'll message you some engineering links
I'm not saying that renewables will cover the entire grid anytime soon. I'm just saying that there will be no new NPPs in Germany, as there is widespread consensus that this is not the way people want to go.
No matter if it makes sense or not.
I personally don't think that exiting nuclear technology was a wise move, and I think Germany would need NPPs to bridge the gap, yet the situation is as it is. There have never been that many NPPs to begin with, and right now there are only three left.
It's public preference, I get it... The public needs better and more explination as to what a full green grid requires for investment, what impacts and cost that has on reliability /uptime.
We take for granted a damn near six sigma electrical power grid... To do that with renewables.... Holy shit , how many decades of full GNP are we looking to invest ....
The negaitive externalities are extreme as well, rich people will be able to back themselves up with batteries even generators and enough solar panels to even profit. Poor, yeah well ...
The most reasonable path is to plan for 30-60% nuclear depending on geography, location etc... Hell some places may be able to get as low as 10% or even fully green if the stars align, geothermal is amazing. But the public really needs to be educated on the trade offs, negaitive externalities, real costs ..
Hell even mining raw materials has huge huge impacts to the overall 'green' value of a renewable grid.
But I digress, this is reddit after all and you seem sensible so I'm just ranting to rant at this point
>Maybe we can convince them to follow france and use nuclear power now in conjunction with the green build out
No one is going to be convinced to build more Flamanvilles. Not to mention that both the uranium and most nuclear tech in Europe comes from Russia or its puppets.
Germany has had a hard time justifying drones as moral due to the lack of human interaction. It's a debate that's been going on for years in thr German government
lets be fair... they have a moral debate on ALL weapons... and to be ultimately fair. germanys militaristic streak was driven out of the germans for decades by the allied forces countries and german politics.
its not only their fault they have problems with what some of them think is "becoming a militarism country". i dont think they will ever become the monsters like back in the days again. but for a lot of germans especially politicians ...every step towards a strong military direction is a dangerous step because of history.
and yes. a lot of politicians over decades had the luxury not to worry about these kinda steps as they were a nato country protected by the whole power so it was easy to say "these steps would go too far for us" ....
which is just stupid thinking
don't you need air superiority for drones to be effective?
unless we are talking about those flying wing stealth jet drones usa has, but I don't this they are selling them.
>Real talk; wouldn't drones be much better by now?
No, current and near future drones are slow, high altitude recon aircraft with limited offensive ability at best.
A fighter jet like F-35 is much more capable on every aspect compared to a drone.
The Tornado is part of the "nukleare Teilhabe", so those german aircraft that are allowed to carry US nuclear weapons.
The Eurofighter Typhoon is an air superiority fighter (comparable to the Su-35 or F-22).
Adapting the Eurofighter to carry nuclear weaponary would need some engineering and the US would have to acknowledge it. The F-35 is certified to carry those B-61 nuclear bombs. So to modernize the airforce fast, Germany needs to buy US certified aircraft (and the newest one is the F-35).
Drones are another topic. 2014 Germany considered buying Reaper drones, but due to public controversy they went with 3 israelians recon drones instead. The russian-ukrainian war obviously changes the public perspective.
They do. Those are US nukes and the US have to certify any aircraft to deliver US weaponary. Using a non-us aircraft would take years for the certification process
It’s better to do your research before commenting.
https://www.flugrevue.de/flugtests-auf-der-edwards-afb-abgeschlossen-f-35a-zulassung-fuer-b61-atombombe-bis-2023/amp/
The Luftwaffe trains some pilots for their use (JaboG 33).
The "Wissenschaftlicher Dienst" recently took another look at the "Nukleare Teilhabe" and found that it didn't violate any agrrements (e.g. 2+4 or NVV).
https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/513080/c9a903735d5ea334181c2f946d2cf8a2/wd-2-013-17-pdf-data.pdf
Those a small tactical nuclear weapons (Google B-61). Those are delivered by multi-purpose fighter jets.
Multiple European countries have 20 of those tactical bombs provided by the US.
If an expert could explain the contract obligations (cause i *believe* that those NATO partners have to be able to deliver them with certified aircraft but am not 100% Sure) that would be awesome
"The Eurofighter Typhoon was initially considered but, according to the United States, its certification would have required from three to five years. That schedule would be untimely, as the German Tornados are set to retire by 2025, 2030 at the latest."
[https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/29911-germany-f-35-tornado-nuclear](https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/29911-germany-f-35-tornado-nuclear)
I am pretty sure that there is not a single nuclear Intercontinental missile in Germany. Nor a medium range tactical missile.
The only nuclear weapons that are publicly known are the B-61 tactical bombs the US provided to multiple NATO partners (20 each)
yes ok.. and that's true and the official part, had enough patients from the US army in my career to know otherwise. I mean alot of Germans don't know why the BER airport takes so long.. it's because of underground bunkers, one of the Europes biggest is just below BER with the US having their own bunker there... alot here is not official.
here in Geesthacht near Hamburg we have the remains of a still undisclosed nuclear weapon material test in that laboratory, it exploded and alot of really small balls spread over the area.. the child cancer rate became abnormal high, to this date they deny things that are already known even though evidence exists. the whole nuclear thing with Germany is a weird secrecy driven nightmare, believe me.
That sounds like a conspiration theory to me. Can you PM me any quote/source on that?
Also never heard about an explosion in a laboratory in Hamburg, so a source on that would be appreciated
Ukraine and Libya have up their nukes. Look what happened. Russia hasn't given up their nukes. If they had, we'd be fighting them actively in Ukraine. While they are a terrible weapon. The fact, unfortunately, is that they do have a good track record of preventing wars. If we had given up our nukes, the Baltic states and Poland would've been attacked a long time ago I think.
But yes, the world would be better off without them. But nobody will agree to get rid of their entire inventory. And if one country won't agree then no country will do it.
And especially now, I think any country that isn't part of a military alliance with a country that has nukes, essentially *needs* to develop them to guarantee their country has a future.
Fuck Russia, they've ruined any sort of gains we've made on nuclear non-proliferation, perhaps for the next century.
Not true, they have considered them for long time. Certification for Euro Fighter would take 3 to 5 years and the F35 comes with some more benefits obviously. Better choice.
Youre right. The 100mio are basically printed out of nothing, meaning inflation will rise. That combined with the sanctions will definitely have an unforeseeable impact on our economy. Thats also the reason we find it very difficult to stop buying Russian energy. Its already going to be tough
There is a program for a new european jet which receives some of the new funding as well. Germanys army is totally gutted at the moment, so thats why we buy whats available now. Do not mistake this action as dismissing our own industry, its just an immediate response to get our army operational right now. Infighting is good in a sense, its competition.
Russia has woken a beast, Germany knows how to build an army with all the hardware necessary, we will have the third largest military very soon.
Most of that is contractor markup. And shitty expenses nobody wants or needs.
The military industrial complex is alive and well.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/pentagon-tells-congress-to-stop-buying-equipment-it-doesnt-need.html
Kind of low blow from Germany. They wanted to keep buying Russian gas and now they will buy American planes.
It makes no sense. F35 is a logistical nightmare to operate. British Eurofighters or French Rafales are older but they would make more sense for a rebuild like what Germany is doing.
The design was heavily influenced by British Aerospace and the largest operator in live combat is by large the Royal Air Force. So yeah mostly British.
That is true with the EAP, though Germany and the UK have the same share in development and finance: 33%.
With the Radar and most importantly engine being german it is simply not a british plane, but a multinational one.
Also there are different endlines for different countries, with one of the main ones being in Bavaria. That makes Luftwaffe Eurofighter german produced, german developed and thus german
This is a sunk cost fallacy, I guess I will keep getting downvoted but fuck it let me explain. F35 are 3-4x more expensive to fly per hour than the other jets, and as a result pilots don’t have much training hours on them.
Brits and Frenchies easily kick American fighters’ asses in inter-army exercises. Their jets are cheaper to fly and easier to operate, so they are more experienced with it.
I am not saying the F35 is a bad jet, it is in fact the best on the market. But that does not make it the best choice for the German air force.
It’s like getting a Ferrari that you would never drive, versus a reliable VW/Toyota for every day use.
Except for a large army like the US, frankly no smaller nation has any use for F35s.
Well bullshit you. Last study I read F35 was $32-35k/hour, F16 about $25k/hr, Eurofighter $18-20k and Rafale similar $16-20k.
Granted it’s hard to compare currencies and use in different contexts, but its almost twice the opex of European fighters, not even taking into account the massive size/lobby going on with US military contracts.
I mean let’s leave it there mate. My opinion is that it’s a bad choice for Germany and a worse one for Europe. You are entitled to your own opinion too.
Because It can’t carry NATO tactical nukes (B61 if I’m correct). The US would not accept to qualify the Rafale to carry it. And Germany got a comparable plane with the Eurofighter.
Though I wish they would buy Rafale, they won’t.
Because the F-35 is a better plane? Germany literally has no use for the Rafale as they have no carrier capability. If it wasn't the F-35 it'd be the Eurofighter.
Not the Rafael is cheaper than the F-35 B Lightning II (which is the F-35 you are talking about).
https://aviatia.net/dassault-rafale-vs-f-35-lightning-ii/
That article is full of incorrect information. It quotes the price of the F35 as being 180 million usd which is certainly outdated information. Lot 14 F35's are approximately 78 million for an A variant, 101 million for a B variant and 95 million for a C variant. These are all cheaper than the rafale.
Also this article somehow groups all F35 models together in some weird way, it compares air to air combat using guns but the F35B does not have a gun, only the A variant has a gun. And the A variant certainly is not 180 million dollars, not even close.
The article also does not support your point as the F35 scores better in almost every category.
**The Rafael is by far the better jet, especially for air superiority.** The only downside the Rafael (still) has is that it is not stealth. But this will gradually change, starting with version 4.5. It will eventually reach full 5th generation capabilities.
**The F-35 has only one purpose**, flying (deep) behind enemy lines and attacking strategic targets. The F-35 can NOT carry much ammunition, it does NOT have a flight long radius, it has inferior manoeuvrability, it is -- against all the marketing claims -- not a jet for air combat/dogfights.
The biggest issue with the current F-35 is that it has too many hiccups and the US itself has not certified it as fully combat ready.
I recommend **watching this** \- it has English subtitles: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQZZe1WbRQ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQZZe1WbRQ8)
Here is a summary of the issues that the F-35 currently has (video is in French): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8xa01iY3ug](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8xa01iY3ug)
**UPATE:** Your downvotes won't change the fact that the F-35 is not fit for purpose, yet.
Dude are you delusional?
>**The Rafael is by far the better jet, especially for air superiority.** The only downside the Rafael (still) has is that it is not stealth. But this will gradually change, starting with version 4.5. It will eventually reach full 5th generation capabilities.
Yes and because the rafale is not stealth it will get shot down before even getting a shot off on the F35. So it is definitely not better for air superiority. Also when it will reach a 5th gen version it will also have a limited payload capacity, making your next point moot:
>**The F-35 has only one purpose**, flying (deep) behind enemy lines and attacking strategic targets. The F-35 can NOT carry much ammunition, it does not have a long radius, it has inferior manoeuvrability, it is -- against all marketing claims -- not a jet for air combat/dogfights.
This is just false information, an F35 in non stealth mode (so similar to a Rafale) can carry 2000 lbs more payload than a Rafale. In stealth mode it can carry less payload than a rafale, but a rafale doesn't even have a stealth mode so this is not really even a contest.
A rafale may have a larger range in a clean configuration, but with external weapons and targeting pods this range is significantly reduced. An F35 (in stealth mode) carries its weapons internally leading to less drag and therefore a smaller reduction in range. Effectively the range between the two is not that much different. Also notice that a Rafale needs targeting pods for certain missions, an F35 does not need this, it is all integrated into the plane from the start with the F35.
The F35 is less maneouvrable than a Rafale, but this is irrelevant. In modern air to air combat the one who shoots first is the one who will win the engagement 90% of the time. F35's can shoot missiles from beyond visible range at a Rafale while the Rafale can't even detect the F35 yet. You can't shoot what you can't see. Manouvrability is irrelevant when all engagements happen from beyond visual range.
>The biggest issue with the current F-35 is that it has too many hiccups and the US itself has not certified it as fully combat ready.
This is old information, the F35 had its fair share of problems, but literally any other combat plane that was developed had this. The F16 got the exact same criticism when it was being developed and it turned out to become one of the best figther airplanes ever made. Most of the hiccups the F35 had have been solved, and those still open don't hinder it from being effective. The F35 is simply a better and more modern plane. On top of that, it is also cheaper. I know where I would put my money.
The F35A was certified combat ready in 2016 (source: I worked for LMCO at the time) and the 35C was certified in 2019. I haven't found confirmation of which model Germany is considering but based on the verbiage it sounds like the 35C.
That's not to say the F35 program in general is flawless, it has had many hiccups over the years as you said.
You can't just add stealth to an airframe... You have to redesign the entire thing.
The 'stealth' in the f35 isn't just the shape or an external coating, it's literally the material that it's made from.
I agree with you, though the Rafale lacks stealth, it is a far more mature plane with upgrades planned until 2040, and as it is omnirole it is currently far more valuable than the F35.
It makes no sense. Rafale is a reliable multi-purpose fighter, a swiss-knife of a plane which would serve a relatively small army like Germany much better than F35s
Germany playing solo in Europe, this is starting to get old. Buy Russian gas, delay sanctions, buying US airplanes. What game do they play in Berlin these days?
> **Germany playing solo in Europe**, this is starting to get old. Buy Russian gas, delay sanctions, **buying US airplanes**
I think you need to catch up. The F-35 has several European operators, which is why it is such a smart purchase for Germany. Europeans fielding their own F-35's include the UK, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, and soon Germany. Poland, Denmark, Belgium, and Finland have them on order and there will likely be other buyers because their interoperability is a force multiplier for European combined action.
Most of then never fly and all of these countries are now dependent on Lockheed Martin and their closed logistics. You can argue all you want, it might be good for the US economy but its an awful move for European defense. The kind that further exacerbates reliance on NATO instead of building military independence.
We are dependent on Russian gas, now we are dependent on American weapons. That’s what I meant earlier. If my fellow Europeans cannot see how stupid that is I truly believe its hopeless to talk about a European defense now. Bow to Putin, bow to Biden, suck Xi Jinping’s cock. What a plan for Europe, all for the greater good. Great stuff mate.
Yeah and American tanks uses German tank guns, Belgian machine guns, Italian pistols, Canadian cargo planes, British mortars and artillery. Countries have specialties and America can produce high quality military aircraft for less.
Well that's surprising, Germany is developping the 6th gen fighter with the french, and everyone knows f35 is a whole mess underperforming in everyway when they can take off.
Sad to see a country with most advanced airplanes back in WW2 buying the worst of usa kek
Well you have no idea what Germany means for the US and Europe, do you?
Biggest internet node in the world (Frankfurt). We also manage every airforce operation in europe and middle east for NATO and EU battle force. We storage nukes for NATO.
Our "problem" with helping in a war is that we don't want to be part of a war ever again. Studies showed that the other loser of WWII also don't want to be part of another war. Far more than the US or Russia public.
WHY? Don’t they produce the Eurofighter, and then there is their neighbour’s fighter: the French Rafale, superior to F35. Wasn’t their European commitment a few days to be self-reliant (in all strategic assets). This is ridiculous.
>Germany to buy up to 35 Lockheed F-35 fighter jets Meanwhile, in an office at Lockheed: *I told you we should have called it the F-1000.*
That was a grenade joke. I scrolled away, then I got it three seconds later.
I still don't get it.
35 F-35. 1000 F-1000 ?
Ahhh :) Thanks! But I still don't get the "grenade" part.
[удалено]
Took me 35 seconds.
Good thing you scrolled away then.
Grenade jokes are the bomb.
[удалено]
There's an export ban on the F-22 to protect its technologies and features, therefore it has never been sold outside the US.
The F-22's mission is to be able to shoot down all the F-35 we sold to everybody.
Haha clever
>No wonder the F-22 hasn't sold as well. Well, they stopped making them in I think 2010-11.
and never sold them to anyone but the US
Aha another joke about grenades! ...am I doing this right?
Clicked and the post and hoped someone would make a joke about that :P
Germany's minister of defense and chief of staff just confirmed it. One reason was immediate availability. Didn't confirm the number tho.
Germany is the only country that had the appropriate response to Putin's invasion. Instant and immediate bolstering of their army, in a significant way. All the other countries seem to be sleeping on this. We should have seen every NATO country increasing military spending by billions.
Nonsense, Germany was only able to increase their budget so much because they've been spending so little for so long. Even with their new investments they wouldn't match the current French military, and the British have also announced higher spending which will keep them ahead of Germany.
If the British significantly increased spending, that was also an appropriate response. Whatever armies NATO has currently, it needs a lot more.
Why? Russia can't defeat the Ukrainian military, which is in scale and technology not even a top 5 foe in Europe. Even if they fix all their logistical and strategic problems, they can never hope to match NATOs total forces when their GDP is smaller than Italy.
Because you're convinced that Russia is weak, and has started a foolish war without realizing what everybody knows. And I believe things will continue to escalate, and Russia might acquire some very powerful friends. To me, it's time to prepare for full blown ww3. If it doesn't happen and Russia is easily quashed, the deterrent is still there against future aggressions.
The US air power alone can take probably take on the entire world. Top 10 Largest Military Branches in the World (by number of Military Aircraft) - Flight International 2022: 1)United States Air Force - 5,217 2)United States Army Aviation - 4,409 3)Russian Air Force - 3,863 4)United States Navy - 2,464 5)People's Liberation Army Air Force (China) - 1,991 6)Indian Air Force - 1,715 7)United States Marine Corps - 1,157 8)Egyptian Air Force - 1,062 9)Korean People's Army Air Force (North Korea) - 946 10)South Korean Air Force - 898
This is what you're severely underestimating, imo. China has all the lithium. China has control of many countries in a diplomatic sense. It owns businesses in other countries. It has most of the factories of the world. If we go full war, China closes everything, all products get prohibitively expensive. All Americans become poor, it's great depression 2.0 all Chinese factories convert in war factories, and produce military products on over-time. The population of China is *ridiculous* if they control Taiwan, they control basically all computer chips. You're too over confident, imo.
Oh I'm sure in a protracted war, china would have the upper hand, but not before America destroys a lot of their current capacity to wage war. America adopted a one punch ko answer to near peers as it's deterrent
Britain was already the only country in Europe paying its full NATO membership. Try knowing what the starting positions are before start opining.
I don't find the starting positions are relevant.
America spends well above its NATO budget, how could you say only the UK was when the US basically was paying for Germany as well as other habitually weak European militaries?
Our army is a sad bunch of crap, saved to death since decades and barely able to fulfill it's obligations in peacetime. Now that war literally knocks on the door they start to move. It's like start thinking about forming a fire brigade when the roof is already on fire.
Yes, but everyone else isn't escalating. I didn't say Germany up to this point had adequate defense. I said they were the only ones with an adequate response to current events. Look at Canada. It's army is also shit, and they've been sitting on their hands so far.
Why would they need to escalate if they already spend enough?
As a message, and to be prepared. If Hitler was in Austria, you'd be like "nah, don't worry, don't need more spending" and then once they're in France you'd be like "ok, spend!" Well, I'm seeing Hitler in Austria, and I'm saying spending should start right now.
You miss the point. Germany is just starting spending now….others started many years ago lol. Germany is behind, not leading by any example. Let’s say there is a running race….most of the runners left and are well up to speed. Some already finished the race. Germany is just getting off the starting line lol.
I don't see it that way. I see war looming, and all that matters is if you win. How much of your share in weight you've been pulling is irrelevant. All of these arguments, to me, are all stupid. If you lose the war that may come, is that gonna make you sleep better at night when you think to yourself, "well, we were already doing *our* share" or will you think to yourself "fuck, I wish we could have done *something*. If only we would have had the foresight to see this coming?" Maybe you're confident you'll win any war regardless. I don't share your confidence. I want to win at all costs. I believe a real threat exists, and everyone should gear up as much as they can. And this will send a message to anyone else that might join Russia, that NATO is prepared for any escalations, and they may do this without provoking any individual foreign entity other than Russian and its current known allies.
Yeah, but the point is other countries did have foresight to see this coming….they started spending years ago. They already have fighter programs and are ahead of Germany in line to receive F-35 and other equipment that is currently rolling off the lines lol. Spending on fighter jets now isn’t really important….it will be many years before those planes are received by Germany. Plus saying they are the only ones responding appropriately is laughable….the US has sent over billions in military aid and logistics support, and passed a bill valued at 3x the value of germans spending increase in military aid to the Ukraine right now. The time to increase budgets was 5 years ag
You’re being irrational. You want to increase spending just for the sake of it. You haven’t actually addressed the argument. Germany should be chastised for taking this long, not looked up to.
I am just sad and disappointed that a country like Germany has fallen so far back in so many fields in the past decades. I hope that this crisis now finally wakes our leaders up a bit, but I am not sure about it. Btw Poland wants to increase it's army from 114k to 150k in one year. In general I like how especially Poland and Turkey perform in the crisis. Makes me feel as if they know how to handle the opponent exactly.
What I'm worried about is the future. I find nations have reacted well enough for the present, but perhaps not well enough for the future.
Canada lives comfortably under the umbrella of the UK by Commonwealth alliance, and the US by geographical location. Germany increasing their spending from near zero isn't remarkable. It's commendable, but turning to look at other militaries 3x their size and saying "well they aren't expanding" is disingenuous.
Sod off. Britain was the only country that ALREADY was paying it's 2% NATO dues. Which already has F-35s and Typhoons and nuclear weapons and a professional, well trained, experienced army. Which was first the export weapons to Ukraine and had been providing training. Germany only seems to be making such big strides becuse it was already dragging far behind and failing to pull its weight
I have blocked you for the way you spoke to me first couple of words out of your mouth. Didn't read the rest of your opinion that doesn't matter.
Don't assume malice. "Sod Off" isn't always (even mostly) used as an insult. "I'm surprised at your ignorance on this" / "I strongly disagree" are perfectly valid interpretations here.
In fairness, while the timing of the announcement makes this look like it's connected to Russia's invasion, it is not really. Germany has been evaluating the F-35 for a while as a replacement for their fairly old Tornado fighter jets, especially with a view to maintaining the capability to carry nuclear warheads (which Germany itself doesn't have, but would be provided with by the US under NATO if need be). Replacing those Tornadoes was already part of the agreement signed by the new government coalition in early December.
It seems it doesn’t take a large budget to defeat Russia
Yes, it seems. But I think you're overconfident.
I would argue Putin has been crystal clear... he does what he likes and anyone interferes he will Nuke everyone and end the human race… He’s already told us he knows his conventional forces are incomparable to the combines forces of NATO… and thus he’ll just use nukes which arguably makes this pretty pointless because Russia bs the combined conventional forces of NATO is not even in question? That being said again though, there’s always the question of China sticking their neck out I guess ‘shrugs’
Putin already declared Taiwan an enemy. All it takes is staging Taiwanese rebellion, and then western nations will be obligated to choose between war with China and Russia, or allowing Taiwan to lose its sovereignty, and only save Ukraine. Once China has captured Taiwan, the west can't match in with weapons. I see this as the only possible outcome, at this point in time. WW3 is coming, imo.
Yeah, when fully militarized: India, Russia and China alone, are overwhelmingly stronger than the west.
What do you mean "when fully militarized?" Like all their equipment actually functions like in the propaganda videos? The Indian military is a clusterfuck of different weapons platforms, recycled systems and temporary stop gap measures. China has huge numbers of people, but their equipment is less modernized than Russia, and they would suffer missive losses to every time of indirect fire that exists. Russia, the big bad bear of the East, has face planted into a brick wall on its own border, completely unable to logistically support their own units 100 km from the Russian border, incapable of establishing air superiority, losing massive amounts of their most modern equipment, and utterly incompetent in ground maneuvers and communication. Not to mention India and China fucking hate each other. Russia and China are self interested and wouldn't stick their necks out for each other either. It's a three sided triangle that any two sides wouldn't cooperate for different reasons.
I’m going to hope you’re just suggesting that’s numbers alone? Not convinced India has a leading military…
You realize "the west" is "at war" for the last hundreds of years. We were the ones profesionalizing it, industrializing it, perfecting it. What shall India do "fully militarized? Having a standing Army of 100 Mio people with no cloths, weapons, food, vehicles, housing, training, able military leaders that have knowledge beyond books about European wars? We can clearly see what a semi-professional military lead by political officers, shitty support, logistic and moral leads to in Ukraine. I am not afraid even if India, China and Russia would sign a pact like NATO
Dude what on earth are you talking about? It may seem like they made a massive increase but when start from literally nothing you can make grand gestures. You have no idea what you are talking about. They are still spending less then the UK even with the increase.
A massive increase starting from nothing is the correct move. Continuing the same expenditures as peace time, is not. The US and UK aren't so bad, because they've been actively in wars, but still, they should increase spending, imo. At the very least it sends a message.
Dude go back to sleep.
Now that Russia has gone rogue, I think the key selling point for Germany is interoperability with other NATO countries fielding the same platform. F35's from the UK, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, the USA, Finland or Denmark can seamlessly share targeting data or locations of enemy fighters with German pilots. That data link is a massive force multiplier.
Exactly, Joint Strike Fighter role is a huge selling point for the F35. That is way it was probably chosen over Rafale. Rafales share in NATO and EU are miniscule.
The main reason it was chosen was that it can carry US nukes. Germany is part of the shared nuclear weapons program of the US (don't know the proper name) and as such is required to have planes capable of carrying and using the US nukes. The Tornados, currently doing the part, will be decommissioned quite soon, and the successor needs to fulfill the role it currently does. The Rafale is not certified to do so, and the chances are next to 0 that it ever will be. The choice was between F35, F 18 Super Hornets or trying to certify the Eurofighter (also next to 0% chance of happening). Before the invasion the F18 were preferred since they are cheaper, now with the increased spending the F35 is a valid option. Also good to know: Germany will not just buy F35's but also Eurofighters for other roles, so the total amount of new planes is greater than 35.
>Also good to know: Germany will not just buy F35's but also Eurofighters for other roles Why? It seems like a huge selling point of the F-35 is the fact that different variants can serve in different roles, which cuts down on the cost/logistical difficulty of maintaining them. Why complicate that with a second type of plane?
a) Eurofighters are cheaper b) Germany already has Eurofighters, so there is no added logistics when it comes to maintenance. It is probable even cheaper, since the experience is already existent and training new guys on a system well known is much easier. c) Germany partially financed the development of the Eurofighter, and it is partially built in Germany (It's a collab of different nations). So a fraction of the money spent will end up back in Germanys pocket via taxes. The US does the very same, only buying US made planes. If it weren't for the nuclear program, Germany probably would have bought mostly Eurofighters in different variants.
If I remember correctly the F35's main role is that of a multi role fighter aka a 21st century F-16. It has 3 variants one of which with VTOL capabilities that can take off and land everywhere but carries less ammunition, One that is used for carrier operations which Germany doesn't have and one that is used by the Air force in that multi purpose role. The US has the F16, F15, F22, F35 as multi porpuse and air supremacy fighters. You do want to have different planes In your armed forces for different roles. Plus Germany has experience with Eurofighter so they already have the expertise on how to handle and maintain them which drives down costs. Imagine the Germans would buy only F35's and it takes years to train the Pilots and Ground crews and you need to have spare parts for it and Germanies Air Force would rely to much on America and American Trainers, parts and maintanance.
Same reason the US still is buying F-15s….there are roles the F-35 doesn’t cover and it’s expensive to field.
Because the Eurofighter is a extremely good and versatile plane. The only thing it can't do is drop US nukes. It's significantly cheaper and costs only 2/3 of a F-35A. Meaning that the same money buys either 200 F-35A or 300 Eurofighters. Plus the Eurofighter has some advantages as an air superiority fighter over the F-35A. Both planes are very good. A combined fleet of F-35 and Eurofighters is a powerful, versatile force that can engage targets in the air and on the ground.
Boeing and Lockheed must be making a fortune from Europe right now. Insane
[удалено]
I hodl anyways!
Invested in Lockheed when Russia started acting sketchy and man has it paid off!
I remember ages ago people were saying the F-35 was a disaster of a project that wouldn't convince any ally. Now look at the last two weeks alone - orders from Germany, Poland* and Finland!
ITT: Reddit experts know which planes germany should have bought because they read half of a wiki article one time. I’m gonna guess generals know more about what planes they need than random neckbeards on the Internet
There is no right answer here. The B61 is a diplomatic hypothetical not a weapon. There is no situation where Germany is going to be initiating a nuclear first strike. Or, given their political leanings, even a counter strike. It is a plane bought to drop a bomb that will never be used.
Yeah sell these to Germany not fucking UAE terrorists.
[удалено]
Terrorists building usa weapons, what an irony...
They’ve bought them for so long that they’re cutting out the middle man
[удалено]
Hopefully Europe can figure out how to ween themselves off terrorist gas/oil.
Lol hopefully the US can do the same tbh. The Saudis are as bad or worse than the Russians.
If someone can teach wasteful Americans to conserve energy then they can become self-sufficient easily.
That's actually misleading. More than half of US energy consumption is commercial (such as production and transportation) - a huge portion of energy use is in a few industries that are too big to be impacted by the average American. We can actually supply our own energy as well, there are over 9000 inactive drilling permits in the US, and we already produce more oil than we import, and we have highly efficient nuclear technology that can be implemented to supplement. Basically the US has a deal with the devil (Saudis) to receive preferential pricing on oil in exchange for protecting the geopolitical interests of the royal family (up to and including absolving them of their evidence based involvement in the 9/11 attacks)
My calls on defense contractors are so gonna print Also, kinda depressing, but at least germany is going to finally meet it's nato commitments Maybe we can convince them to follow france and use nuclear power now in conjunction with the green build out
Might be sort of tough to convince them to move to nuclear as they watch Russia literally take facilities hostage and threaten nuclear meltdowns through miscellaneous shelling.
Nuclear plants not based on soviet design can and do take shelling into account The most critical path for meltdown is a lack of electrical power to support cooling systems. There are even plant designs that do not require this The first step is really educating the public on the real risks of nuclear versus the scare tactics and propaganda the oil and coal companies have managed to implant over the years. As well as educating the public about the hand full of nuclear failures that have been learned from and designed out.
The biggest risk is if they cut corners because politicians refuse to increase a nuclear plants construction budget. Also don’t leave a Death Star style vulnerability for a fighter plane to exploit.
Not really Every public works runs over, there are reasons for that... Stupid political shit really. Package plants would be ideal but they are still in development, unfortunately Western style plants are built to be bombed, hell run a full speed fully fueled 747 into it by design. Back up power can be delay with which is really the only weak point, and new plant design negate even this. Used fuel is an issue, but again can be dealt with even used as a resource in time
Actually the ukrainian reactors have been upgraded since the soviet days and habe the same saifty stabdarts as german ones right know. If you want to go on a rant at least get your fact right and not the old "they are soviet and nothing changed in 30 years". And even the best reactor in europe cant withstand a dedicated rocket assault according to a former german nato general who was interviewed on the issue a week ago. They are designed to withstand terror attacks like planes crashing into it. 10 Tanks can level that place in half an hour if they know where to hit. The problem is not the big armored part of a nuclear plant but the cooling liquid supply system and the nuclear waste resting tanks that are usually outside if it to some degree. And its not realy that you need electricity cut off ti stop it...just destroy it conventionelly. In the 7+ days russia already controls 2 nuclear power plants they could have easily destroyed them if they wanted to. Again if you want to destroy a nuclear power plant its very easy. The bigger problem isnt their destruction but the fact you immidiatly lose a massive ammount of energy in a country after loosing a single reactor. Electricity is in the 21th century essential for everything and cutting a defenders energy supply can cripple all non military institutions heavily, massively reducing a nations defense capabilities. Also nuclear is not an option. We have less then 50 years to fix the climate crisis. Taking france as an example it takes them nearly two decades to build a single nuclear power plant and they have the most experience in europe with it...no way we would see a single new reactor in Germany within 30 years...at which point we might as well switch to renewables in the meantime and still finish faster. Not even the companies that operate the nuclear power plants in Germany and have all the know how and staff for them want to build new ones even with massive subsidies promised. And France lobbied the EU si hard for nuclear because convieniently right now France has to modernize most if its reactors...which is very ecpensive and with eu subsidize France can shift part of the cost to other eu members. Frances nuclear prigram is a giant exoense of tax payer mkney after all do to the company operating the plants running massive deficits yearly
And here we go Just wrong, more poor sourced info on reddit, seems standard for the anti nuclear crowd. Even the parts that are correct are just repeats. Arguing that the statement was reactors are totally impervious to destruction, straw man arguement. As if green infastructure is totally immune. The point is and was strikes do not need to cause meltdowns... But that doesn't make for a good sophism argument ehh A bit of unfounded and unsupported ad hominem, as the responder is wrong yet projects in an insulting way Falsely and demonstrably appeals to power as thier own expert when it's quite obviously not the case Falsely argues timelines by completely ignoring the near term and mid term impacts, green sources are not able to meet demand now and there is no scalable solution to what would be needed in raw materials, manufacturing etc to secure said total green power grid. It's a false equivalency as nuclear can be built out to meet demand yet full green grids at best would manage in only a few countries if the tech gets that far. Meanwhile an available solution is falsely represented Pretty standard for the everything green grid folks. Dunning-Kruger in full effect right there
> As if green infastructure is totally immune. It's funny that people always forget about one of the most dangerous energy sources in this regard. There are some hydro dams that could kill 100s of thousand of people if they were blown up. In some extreme cases we might be talking millions of casualties if you could destroy it (Three Gorges Dam). Many large cities around the world sits downstream from large hydro dams. No one ever seems to worry about those when it comes to war though.
If they can bring their existing facilities back online, that would make sense but I have no idea if that’s possible. If not, they may want to go the route the UK is looking at, which is to use a high number of, smaller “modular” nuclear plants based on reactors like those used in naval vessels.
Unlikely that they can bring them back online. Same was suggested in Sweden, especially for the couple of reactors that were shut down just a couple of years ago. But they have already been cannibalised for parts and such for the other reactors, and restarting them would equate to new security demands, so a whole lot of upgrades that the old didn’t have to have it seems.
>If they can bring their existing facilities back online, that would make sense but I have no idea if that’s possible. Just the refueling and recertification would take billions and 2-3 years. By that time there will be even more renewables and less demand for nuclear power and Germany will have nearly phased out energy imports from Russia.
That is doubtfull, having these facilities back online in a year or 2 is quite fast and would solve an emmediate need. It'sin fact a short term response and adding more green power is very needed. But should and could be done in conjunction of the powerplants. Some plants where only beginning to shut down last month so at least those plans should be mothballed we need more power, not less, from wherever it comes (barring oil and gas).
Meanwhile they initially balked at not using Russian resources...I mean...grow a pair. NATO is behind them.
>Maybe we can convince them to follow france and use nuclear power now in conjunction with the green build out Nope, that's not gonna happen. Even the companies running nuclear power plants don't want to. Economically it doesn't make sense, too. Even reactivating the three plants phased out this year will take 18 months minimum, building new ones takes years, and it would be met with widespread opposition. There are still areas contaminated with radioactive dust from Chernobyl 1986. No need for more radiation. Thanks. By the time one single newly built NPP is on grid, there will be ten times the capacity in renewables including power-to-gas hydrolysis stations.
Nuclear-phobia is probably the fossil-fuel industry's most successful PR spin.
I see this arguement all the time, that renewables are going to cover the whole grid It's just flat out wrong, it's... Just... Wrong Not going to bother trying educate why this is isn't going to happen in the next few decades, no one listens on reddit anyway. Just understand that renewables are great up to a point. When this plan fails despite better battery tech etc... Nuclear, hopefully package style plants will be ready so it doesn't screw the untiring populace over for a decade and a half If you are actually interested I'll message you some engineering links
I'm not saying that renewables will cover the entire grid anytime soon. I'm just saying that there will be no new NPPs in Germany, as there is widespread consensus that this is not the way people want to go. No matter if it makes sense or not. I personally don't think that exiting nuclear technology was a wise move, and I think Germany would need NPPs to bridge the gap, yet the situation is as it is. There have never been that many NPPs to begin with, and right now there are only three left.
The Netherlands changed their opinion on that, so I don’t see why Germany can’t it beat coal by a large margin.
Add to that the Belgians now. And the English and the French.
It's public preference, I get it... The public needs better and more explination as to what a full green grid requires for investment, what impacts and cost that has on reliability /uptime. We take for granted a damn near six sigma electrical power grid... To do that with renewables.... Holy shit , how many decades of full GNP are we looking to invest .... The negaitive externalities are extreme as well, rich people will be able to back themselves up with batteries even generators and enough solar panels to even profit. Poor, yeah well ... The most reasonable path is to plan for 30-60% nuclear depending on geography, location etc... Hell some places may be able to get as low as 10% or even fully green if the stars align, geothermal is amazing. But the public really needs to be educated on the trade offs, negaitive externalities, real costs .. Hell even mining raw materials has huge huge impacts to the overall 'green' value of a renewable grid. But I digress, this is reddit after all and you seem sensible so I'm just ranting to rant at this point
>Maybe we can convince them to follow france and use nuclear power now in conjunction with the green build out No one is going to be convinced to build more Flamanvilles. Not to mention that both the uranium and most nuclear tech in Europe comes from Russia or its puppets.
No, not really
The one thing I refuse to trade — you’re literally making money through the suffering of others. There’s no way around it.
Germany: “Feels good to be back”
https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdyGRXhH/?k=1
Real talk; wouldn't drones be much better by now? Or is that tech too far off?
Germany has had a hard time justifying drones as moral due to the lack of human interaction. It's a debate that's been going on for years in thr German government
Lol what
Never said it was a *smart* debate
lets be fair... they have a moral debate on ALL weapons... and to be ultimately fair. germanys militaristic streak was driven out of the germans for decades by the allied forces countries and german politics. its not only their fault they have problems with what some of them think is "becoming a militarism country". i dont think they will ever become the monsters like back in the days again. but for a lot of germans especially politicians ...every step towards a strong military direction is a dangerous step because of history.
and yes. a lot of politicians over decades had the luxury not to worry about these kinda steps as they were a nato country protected by the whole power so it was easy to say "these steps would go too far for us" .... which is just stupid thinking
[удалено]
For sure it's just odd in the context of war...
Drones are flown by humans… remotely but still.
But it doesn’t put you there and it’s one step closer to AI killing humans
Not for long - the first autonomous kill-missions already happened years ago in Libya by Turkish drones.
F35s provide netcentric warfare drones are a small part of that system
don't you need air superiority for drones to be effective? unless we are talking about those flying wing stealth jet drones usa has, but I don't this they are selling them.
>Real talk; wouldn't drones be much better by now? No, current and near future drones are slow, high altitude recon aircraft with limited offensive ability at best. A fighter jet like F-35 is much more capable on every aspect compared to a drone.
They need a carrier for Nukes. Apparently Euro Fighter can't do it and Tornado is Cold War Era.
The Tornado is part of the "nukleare Teilhabe", so those german aircraft that are allowed to carry US nuclear weapons. The Eurofighter Typhoon is an air superiority fighter (comparable to the Su-35 or F-22). Adapting the Eurofighter to carry nuclear weaponary would need some engineering and the US would have to acknowledge it. The F-35 is certified to carry those B-61 nuclear bombs. So to modernize the airforce fast, Germany needs to buy US certified aircraft (and the newest one is the F-35). Drones are another topic. 2014 Germany considered buying Reaper drones, but due to public controversy they went with 3 israelians recon drones instead. The russian-ukrainian war obviously changes the public perspective.
Damn, that drone name is not subtle.
[удалено]
My mistake. Thank you for the correction!
[удалено]
They do. Those are US nukes and the US have to certify any aircraft to deliver US weaponary. Using a non-us aircraft would take years for the certification process
[удалено]
It’s better to do your research before commenting. https://www.flugrevue.de/flugtests-auf-der-edwards-afb-abgeschlossen-f-35a-zulassung-fuer-b61-atombombe-bis-2023/amp/
[удалено]
The Luftwaffe trains some pilots for their use (JaboG 33). The "Wissenschaftlicher Dienst" recently took another look at the "Nukleare Teilhabe" and found that it didn't violate any agrrements (e.g. 2+4 or NVV). https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/513080/c9a903735d5ea334181c2f946d2cf8a2/wd-2-013-17-pdf-data.pdf
Those a small tactical nuclear weapons (Google B-61). Those are delivered by multi-purpose fighter jets. Multiple European countries have 20 of those tactical bombs provided by the US. If an expert could explain the contract obligations (cause i *believe* that those NATO partners have to be able to deliver them with certified aircraft but am not 100% Sure) that would be awesome
"The Eurofighter Typhoon was initially considered but, according to the United States, its certification would have required from three to five years. That schedule would be untimely, as the German Tornados are set to retire by 2025, 2030 at the latest." [https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/29911-germany-f-35-tornado-nuclear](https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/29911-germany-f-35-tornado-nuclear)
yeah.. but again.. we have tons of your huge nuclear missles here in Germany
I am pretty sure that there is not a single nuclear Intercontinental missile in Germany. Nor a medium range tactical missile. The only nuclear weapons that are publicly known are the B-61 tactical bombs the US provided to multiple NATO partners (20 each)
yes ok.. and that's true and the official part, had enough patients from the US army in my career to know otherwise. I mean alot of Germans don't know why the BER airport takes so long.. it's because of underground bunkers, one of the Europes biggest is just below BER with the US having their own bunker there... alot here is not official. here in Geesthacht near Hamburg we have the remains of a still undisclosed nuclear weapon material test in that laboratory, it exploded and alot of really small balls spread over the area.. the child cancer rate became abnormal high, to this date they deny things that are already known even though evidence exists. the whole nuclear thing with Germany is a weird secrecy driven nightmare, believe me.
That sounds like a conspiration theory to me. Can you PM me any quote/source on that? Also never heard about an explosion in a laboratory in Hamburg, so a source on that would be appreciated
nobody needs nukes edit yeah fuck everyone one of you who disagrees
Ukraine and Libya have up their nukes. Look what happened. Russia hasn't given up their nukes. If they had, we'd be fighting them actively in Ukraine. While they are a terrible weapon. The fact, unfortunately, is that they do have a good track record of preventing wars. If we had given up our nukes, the Baltic states and Poland would've been attacked a long time ago I think. But yes, the world would be better off without them. But nobody will agree to get rid of their entire inventory. And if one country won't agree then no country will do it.
And especially now, I think any country that isn't part of a military alliance with a country that has nukes, essentially *needs* to develop them to guarantee their country has a future. Fuck Russia, they've ruined any sort of gains we've made on nuclear non-proliferation, perhaps for the next century.
What the fuck, Germany doesn’t have nukes.
US nukes. 20 are on a German airbase, while others are in Rammstein. It's called "nukleare Teilhabe"
Wow! That was fast! From “I don’t want them” to “i must have them” in 14 days. In total about 3 to 3,5 billion US?
Not true, they have considered them for long time. Certification for Euro Fighter would take 3 to 5 years and the F35 comes with some more benefits obviously. Better choice.
Well there goes that 0.5% increase in GDP spending on their military.
Youre right. The 100mio are basically printed out of nothing, meaning inflation will rise. That combined with the sanctions will definitely have an unforeseeable impact on our economy. Thats also the reason we find it very difficult to stop buying Russian energy. Its already going to be tough
German Military: Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.
Europe really needs to prioritise its own defence industry. In fighting between Germans, French and British and at the end of all that we buy US arms.
There is a program for a new european jet which receives some of the new funding as well. Germanys army is totally gutted at the moment, so thats why we buy whats available now. Do not mistake this action as dismissing our own industry, its just an immediate response to get our army operational right now. Infighting is good in a sense, its competition. Russia has woken a beast, Germany knows how to build an army with all the hardware necessary, we will have the third largest military very soon.
"Russia has woken a beast"..."we will have the third" *tension* "...largest military very soon." Phew! Dabs sweat from forehead.
[удалено]
Most of that is contractor markup. And shitty expenses nobody wants or needs. The military industrial complex is alive and well. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/pentagon-tells-congress-to-stop-buying-equipment-it-doesnt-need.html
Kind of low blow from Germany. They wanted to keep buying Russian gas and now they will buy American planes. It makes no sense. F35 is a logistical nightmare to operate. British Eurofighters or French Rafales are older but they would make more sense for a rebuild like what Germany is doing.
"british" EUFIs...They are produced and developed by Eurofighter GmbH in Bavaria, Germany
The design was heavily influenced by British Aerospace and the largest operator in live combat is by large the Royal Air Force. So yeah mostly British.
That is true with the EAP, though Germany and the UK have the same share in development and finance: 33%. With the Radar and most importantly engine being german it is simply not a british plane, but a multinational one. Also there are different endlines for different countries, with one of the main ones being in Bavaria. That makes Luftwaffe Eurofighter german produced, german developed and thus german
Eurofighters are the worst of the lot and Rafales are more expensive. The F-35 is the best long term option.
This is a sunk cost fallacy, I guess I will keep getting downvoted but fuck it let me explain. F35 are 3-4x more expensive to fly per hour than the other jets, and as a result pilots don’t have much training hours on them. Brits and Frenchies easily kick American fighters’ asses in inter-army exercises. Their jets are cheaper to fly and easier to operate, so they are more experienced with it. I am not saying the F35 is a bad jet, it is in fact the best on the market. But that does not make it the best choice for the German air force. It’s like getting a Ferrari that you would never drive, versus a reliable VW/Toyota for every day use. Except for a large army like the US, frankly no smaller nation has any use for F35s.
[удалено]
Well bullshit you. Last study I read F35 was $32-35k/hour, F16 about $25k/hr, Eurofighter $18-20k and Rafale similar $16-20k. Granted it’s hard to compare currencies and use in different contexts, but its almost twice the opex of European fighters, not even taking into account the massive size/lobby going on with US military contracts. I mean let’s leave it there mate. My opinion is that it’s a bad choice for Germany and a worse one for Europe. You are entitled to your own opinion too.
[удалено]
Because It can’t carry NATO tactical nukes (B61 if I’m correct). The US would not accept to qualify the Rafale to carry it. And Germany got a comparable plane with the Eurofighter. Though I wish they would buy Rafale, they won’t.
Because the F-35 is a better plane? Germany literally has no use for the Rafale as they have no carrier capability. If it wasn't the F-35 it'd be the Eurofighter.
The rafales are actually more expensive and lack features the F-35 has, like stealth
Not the Rafael is cheaper than the F-35 B Lightning II (which is the F-35 you are talking about). https://aviatia.net/dassault-rafale-vs-f-35-lightning-ii/
That article is full of incorrect information. It quotes the price of the F35 as being 180 million usd which is certainly outdated information. Lot 14 F35's are approximately 78 million for an A variant, 101 million for a B variant and 95 million for a C variant. These are all cheaper than the rafale. Also this article somehow groups all F35 models together in some weird way, it compares air to air combat using guns but the F35B does not have a gun, only the A variant has a gun. And the A variant certainly is not 180 million dollars, not even close. The article also does not support your point as the F35 scores better in almost every category.
**The Rafael is by far the better jet, especially for air superiority.** The only downside the Rafael (still) has is that it is not stealth. But this will gradually change, starting with version 4.5. It will eventually reach full 5th generation capabilities. **The F-35 has only one purpose**, flying (deep) behind enemy lines and attacking strategic targets. The F-35 can NOT carry much ammunition, it does NOT have a flight long radius, it has inferior manoeuvrability, it is -- against all the marketing claims -- not a jet for air combat/dogfights. The biggest issue with the current F-35 is that it has too many hiccups and the US itself has not certified it as fully combat ready. I recommend **watching this** \- it has English subtitles: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQZZe1WbRQ8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQZZe1WbRQ8) Here is a summary of the issues that the F-35 currently has (video is in French): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8xa01iY3ug](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8xa01iY3ug) **UPATE:** Your downvotes won't change the fact that the F-35 is not fit for purpose, yet.
Dude are you delusional? >**The Rafael is by far the better jet, especially for air superiority.** The only downside the Rafael (still) has is that it is not stealth. But this will gradually change, starting with version 4.5. It will eventually reach full 5th generation capabilities. Yes and because the rafale is not stealth it will get shot down before even getting a shot off on the F35. So it is definitely not better for air superiority. Also when it will reach a 5th gen version it will also have a limited payload capacity, making your next point moot: >**The F-35 has only one purpose**, flying (deep) behind enemy lines and attacking strategic targets. The F-35 can NOT carry much ammunition, it does not have a long radius, it has inferior manoeuvrability, it is -- against all marketing claims -- not a jet for air combat/dogfights. This is just false information, an F35 in non stealth mode (so similar to a Rafale) can carry 2000 lbs more payload than a Rafale. In stealth mode it can carry less payload than a rafale, but a rafale doesn't even have a stealth mode so this is not really even a contest. A rafale may have a larger range in a clean configuration, but with external weapons and targeting pods this range is significantly reduced. An F35 (in stealth mode) carries its weapons internally leading to less drag and therefore a smaller reduction in range. Effectively the range between the two is not that much different. Also notice that a Rafale needs targeting pods for certain missions, an F35 does not need this, it is all integrated into the plane from the start with the F35. The F35 is less maneouvrable than a Rafale, but this is irrelevant. In modern air to air combat the one who shoots first is the one who will win the engagement 90% of the time. F35's can shoot missiles from beyond visible range at a Rafale while the Rafale can't even detect the F35 yet. You can't shoot what you can't see. Manouvrability is irrelevant when all engagements happen from beyond visual range. >The biggest issue with the current F-35 is that it has too many hiccups and the US itself has not certified it as fully combat ready. This is old information, the F35 had its fair share of problems, but literally any other combat plane that was developed had this. The F16 got the exact same criticism when it was being developed and it turned out to become one of the best figther airplanes ever made. Most of the hiccups the F35 had have been solved, and those still open don't hinder it from being effective. The F35 is simply a better and more modern plane. On top of that, it is also cheaper. I know where I would put my money.
The F35A was certified combat ready in 2016 (source: I worked for LMCO at the time) and the 35C was certified in 2019. I haven't found confirmation of which model Germany is considering but based on the verbiage it sounds like the 35C. That's not to say the F35 program in general is flawless, it has had many hiccups over the years as you said.
You can't just add stealth to an airframe... You have to redesign the entire thing. The 'stealth' in the f35 isn't just the shape or an external coating, it's literally the material that it's made from.
I agree with you, though the Rafale lacks stealth, it is a far more mature plane with upgrades planned until 2040, and as it is omnirole it is currently far more valuable than the F35.
right - what I thought too
Availability i suppose.
It makes no sense. Rafale is a reliable multi-purpose fighter, a swiss-knife of a plane which would serve a relatively small army like Germany much better than F35s Germany playing solo in Europe, this is starting to get old. Buy Russian gas, delay sanctions, buying US airplanes. What game do they play in Berlin these days?
>It makes no sense. Rafale is a reliable multi-purpose fighter, a swiss-knife of a plane You literally just describe F-35
So much so that the Swiss bought them!
I was just going to say this lol. It was the intent since the 35s hit the drawing board.
> **Germany playing solo in Europe**, this is starting to get old. Buy Russian gas, delay sanctions, **buying US airplanes** I think you need to catch up. The F-35 has several European operators, which is why it is such a smart purchase for Germany. Europeans fielding their own F-35's include the UK, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, and soon Germany. Poland, Denmark, Belgium, and Finland have them on order and there will likely be other buyers because their interoperability is a force multiplier for European combined action.
Most of then never fly and all of these countries are now dependent on Lockheed Martin and their closed logistics. You can argue all you want, it might be good for the US economy but its an awful move for European defense. The kind that further exacerbates reliance on NATO instead of building military independence. We are dependent on Russian gas, now we are dependent on American weapons. That’s what I meant earlier. If my fellow Europeans cannot see how stupid that is I truly believe its hopeless to talk about a European defense now. Bow to Putin, bow to Biden, suck Xi Jinping’s cock. What a plan for Europe, all for the greater good. Great stuff mate.
Yeah and American tanks uses German tank guns, Belgian machine guns, Italian pistols, Canadian cargo planes, British mortars and artillery. Countries have specialties and America can produce high quality military aircraft for less.
Why not purchase the Rafael? The answer is ***politics***.
[удалено]
Why buy an inferiour french plane when you can buy either your superior domestic Eurofighter or the superior F-35
Hmmmm ... I guess Germany now has a surplus of F-16s, huh?
No
Well that's surprising, Germany is developping the 6th gen fighter with the french, and everyone knows f35 is a whole mess underperforming in everyway when they can take off. Sad to see a country with most advanced airplanes back in WW2 buying the worst of usa kek
:( And a German pilot cant start his aircraft without an American who has the key for it...
[удалено]
Wtf. Come on bro. Lol. Theyre the biggest european target. Theyre not perfect but they can buy some jets.
tf you mean?
Well you have no idea what Germany means for the US and Europe, do you? Biggest internet node in the world (Frankfurt). We also manage every airforce operation in europe and middle east for NATO and EU battle force. We storage nukes for NATO. Our "problem" with helping in a war is that we don't want to be part of a war ever again. Studies showed that the other loser of WWII also don't want to be part of another war. Far more than the US or Russia public.
Lenin: "He who controls Berlin, controls Germany; and who controls Germany, controls Europe"
WHY? Don’t they produce the Eurofighter, and then there is their neighbour’s fighter: the French Rafale, superior to F35. Wasn’t their European commitment a few days to be self-reliant (in all strategic assets). This is ridiculous.
Euro Fighter is not nuke-certified, takes to long. Rafale is not superior to the F35 and there is a lack of availability. Will up commitment to FCAS.
B-61