6 ms·

Boy I have good news for you! If you are worried of the finance of Finland joining NATO - This will be a strategic partnership, not aid. It's a "good deal" for

by fsloth 4y ago

Boy I have good news for you! If you are worried of the finance of Finland joining NATO - This will be a strategic partnership, not aid. It's a "good deal" for both sides. Finland will be an asset for NATO, not a cost. We already have a credible NATO compatible military. We just don't have nukes, and in wartime materiel replenishment would be a problem. https://www.ft.com/content/e85825af-5172-44c4-9662-f7ceca40e8ac https://www.ft.com/content/e85825af-5172-44c4-9662-f7ceca40e... Also Finland just bough 64 F-35:s - as a Finnish tax payer for US industry - you are welcome.

belter 4y ago
Where did you find the money? 64 F-35 at my calculations comes at approximately 5 Billion dollars, this is excluding spare parts and training. Finland military complete spending/defense budget for 2019 was $3.97B. Edit: Actually it seems my calculations where off by 50%. This will cost you 10 Billion... "Audit clears Finnish F-35 buy amid rising spending on pandemic, Ukraine" https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/03/28/audit-clears-finnish-f-35-buy-amid-rising-spending-on-pandemic-ukraine/ https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/03/28/audit-c...
- ericmay 4y ago
  And you know that you can like spend money over time right? Or maybe even raise the budget? Or maybe they have a savings account that they draw from?
  - belter 4y ago
    Of course it will be spent over time, but we are talking about a single weapons system, unproven in combat so far, that represents four times the overall annual defense budget of Finland for Army, Air Force and Navy.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      Yes that appears to be correct. I’m not following what point you are trying to make here.
      - belter 4y ago
        That is a strange choice to spend 400% your annual overall defense budget on a new unproven system.
        ericmay 4y ago
        > on a new unproven system. How are you qualifying whether or not this system is proven?
        belter 4y ago
        Never seen combat and when trying to do a dogfight with a F16 lost. This was promptly followed by a series of articles from US defense industry stating that nowadays dogfights don't happen anymore, contrarily to what we are seeing in Ukraine, plus arguments that the fight was not fair. The reality is that the fight was not fair for the F16 that was loaded with two external fuel tanks, probably to make sure there was no way it could win. The latest arguments are the F35 did not have yet all the latest software, but for me it's telling the fight was not re-staged again...
        ericmay 4y ago
        > Never seen combat Can you describe what you mean by this? Are you suggesting that no F-35 has ever been used in combat operations? > when trying to do a dogfight with a F16 lost What's your source for this? > but for me it's telling the fight was not re-staged again... Be careful, we're getting close to sounding conspiratorial and we want to make sure to avoid that, because we can't have a discussion at that point.
        belter 4y ago
        > Can you describe what you mean by this? Are you suggesting that no F-35 has ever been used in combat operations? Yes. Complete zero air superiority combat missions as with the exception of bombing a few ISIS tunnels. But as this article from 2021 mentions, its not combat if the enemy can't shoot back. "...The United States has been at war continuously since Sept. 11, 2001, yet the F-35 has flown zero combat missions. Zero. When I was a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne, we would say: “That dog don’t hunt.” Perhaps sensitive to the F-35’s disgraceful war record, in 2018 the Pentagon sent a few on missions in Afghanistan and Iraq to notch up combat cred. Never mind that their help comes 15 years too late; the super-expensive F-35 was not designed to take out a weapons cache or a terrorist on a moped. Also, as any grunt will tell you, it’s not “combat” if the enemy can’t shoot back. If engine failure is the biggest threat to survival, then the F-35 might as well be flying over Kansas..." "The F-35 tells everything that’s broken in the Pentagon" https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/542412-the-f-35-tells-everything-thats-broken-in-the-pentagon/ https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/542412-the-f-3... > when trying to do a dogfight with a F16 lost > What's your source for this? My source are US F35 pilots...Note how somebody tried to undermine the F16 ( An airplane from the 80's) in the test "Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight" https://warisboring.com/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight/ https://warisboring.com/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dog... "...The F-35 was flying “clean,” with no weapons in its bomb bay or under its wings and fuselage. The F-16, by contrast, was hauling two bulky underwing drop tanks, putting the older jet at an aerodynamic disadvantage..." "...But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the pilot reported..." "And when the pilot of the F-16 turned the tables on the F-35, maneuvering to put the stealth plane in his own gunsight, the JSF jockey found he couldn’t maneuver out of the way, owing to a “lack of nose rate.”" "...The F-35 pilot came right out and said it — if you’re flying a JSF, there’s no point in trying to get into a sustained, close turning battle with another fighter. “There were not compelling reasons to fight in this region.” God help you if the enemy surprises you and you have no choice but to turn..." > Be careful, we're getting close to sounding conspiratorial and we want to make sure to avoid that, because we can't have a discussion at that point. Did they re-stage the fight? No I provided my sources. Yeah...very conspiratorial...
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      If you had a 1,300 km land border to defend, which of those branches would you prioritize?
- trash8435798 4y ago
  Obviously the costs are distributed over multiple years. As far as I know, the deal was 8.something billion €.
- rmind 4y ago
  The Finnish defense budget for 2022 was €5.1bn, but I am sure they bumped it up after the Russian invasion. The overall cost of the F-35 acquisition is €8.378bn (jet fighter cost being €4.703bn of that). Naturally, such acqusitions are done gradually (e.g. over a few years). Source: https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/the-lockheed-martin-f-35a-lightning-ii-is-finland-s-next-multi-role-fighter https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/the-lockheed-martin-f-35a-lig...
MandieD 4y ago
As an American living in Germany and paying taxes to both, welcome and willkommen - heard nothing but good things about the Finnish Army while working for ours over here.
trashtester 4y ago
As a Norwegian, I will be very happy if Finland and Sweden join NATO. :)

by fsloth 4y ago

belter 4y ago

Where did you find the money? 64 F-35 at my calculations comes at approximately 5 Billion dollars, this is excluding spare parts and training. Finland military complete spending/defense budget for 2019 was $3.97B. Edit: Actually it seems my calculations where off by 50%. This will cost you 10 Billion... "Audit clears Finnish F-35 buy amid rising spending on pandemic, Ukraine" https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/03/28/audit-clears-finnish-f-35-buy-amid-rising-spending-on-pandemic-ukraine/ https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/03/28/audit-c...

ericmay 4y ago
And you know that you can like spend money over time right? Or maybe even raise the budget? Or maybe they have a savings account that they draw from?
- belter 4y ago
  Of course it will be spent over time, but we are talking about a single weapons system, unproven in combat so far, that represents four times the overall annual defense budget of Finland for Army, Air Force and Navy.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Yes that appears to be correct. I’m not following what point you are trying to make here.
    - belter 4y ago
      That is a strange choice to spend 400% your annual overall defense budget on a new unproven system.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        > on a new unproven system. How are you qualifying whether or not this system is proven?
        belter 4y ago
        Never seen combat and when trying to do a dogfight with a F16 lost. This was promptly followed by a series of articles from US defense industry stating that nowadays dogfights don't happen anymore, contrarily to what we are seeing in Ukraine, plus arguments that the fight was not fair. The reality is that the fight was not fair for the F16 that was loaded with two external fuel tanks, probably to make sure there was no way it could win. The latest arguments are the F35 did not have yet all the latest software, but for me it's telling the fight was not re-staged again...
        ericmay 4y ago
        > Never seen combat Can you describe what you mean by this? Are you suggesting that no F-35 has ever been used in combat operations? > when trying to do a dogfight with a F16 lost What's your source for this? > but for me it's telling the fight was not re-staged again... Be careful, we're getting close to sounding conspiratorial and we want to make sure to avoid that, because we can't have a discussion at that point.
        belter 4y ago
        > Can you describe what you mean by this? Are you suggesting that no F-35 has ever been used in combat operations? Yes. Complete zero air superiority combat missions as with the exception of bombing a few ISIS tunnels. But as this article from 2021 mentions, its not combat if the enemy can't shoot back. "...The United States has been at war continuously since Sept. 11, 2001, yet the F-35 has flown zero combat missions. Zero. When I was a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne, we would say: “That dog don’t hunt.” Perhaps sensitive to the F-35’s disgraceful war record, in 2018 the Pentagon sent a few on missions in Afghanistan and Iraq to notch up combat cred. Never mind that their help comes 15 years too late; the super-expensive F-35 was not designed to take out a weapons cache or a terrorist on a moped. Also, as any grunt will tell you, it’s not “combat” if the enemy can’t shoot back. If engine failure is the biggest threat to survival, then the F-35 might as well be flying over Kansas..." "The F-35 tells everything that’s broken in the Pentagon" https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/542412-the-f-35-tells-everything-thats-broken-in-the-pentagon/ https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/542412-the-f-3... > when trying to do a dogfight with a F16 lost > What's your source for this? My source are US F35 pilots...Note how somebody tried to undermine the F16 ( An airplane from the 80's) in the test "Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight" https://warisboring.com/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight/ https://warisboring.com/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dog... "...The F-35 was flying “clean,” with no weapons in its bomb bay or under its wings and fuselage. The F-16, by contrast, was hauling two bulky underwing drop tanks, putting the older jet at an aerodynamic disadvantage..." "...But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the pilot reported..." "And when the pilot of the F-16 turned the tables on the F-35, maneuvering to put the stealth plane in his own gunsight, the JSF jockey found he couldn’t maneuver out of the way, owing to a “lack of nose rate.”" "...The F-35 pilot came right out and said it — if you’re flying a JSF, there’s no point in trying to get into a sustained, close turning battle with another fighter. “There were not compelling reasons to fight in this region.” God help you if the enemy surprises you and you have no choice but to turn..." > Be careful, we're getting close to sounding conspiratorial and we want to make sure to avoid that, because we can't have a discussion at that point. Did they re-stage the fight? No I provided my sources. Yeah...very conspiratorial...
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    If you had a 1,300 km land border to defend, which of those branches would you prioritize?
trash8435798 4y ago
Obviously the costs are distributed over multiple years. As far as I know, the deal was 8.something billion €.
rmind 4y ago
The Finnish defense budget for 2022 was €5.1bn, but I am sure they bumped it up after the Russian invasion. The overall cost of the F-35 acquisition is €8.378bn (jet fighter cost being €4.703bn of that). Naturally, such acqusitions are done gradually (e.g. over a few years). Source: https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/the-lockheed-martin-f-35a-lightning-ii-is-finland-s-next-multi-role-fighter https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/the-lockheed-martin-f-35a-lig...

MandieD 4y ago

As an American living in Germany and paying taxes to both, welcome and willkommen - heard nothing but good things about the Finnish Army while working for ours over here.

trashtester 4y ago

As a Norwegian, I will be very happy if Finland and Sweden join NATO. :)