8 ms·

What do you mean specifically here?

alephnerd 1y ago
He's implying the Gripen deal was a result of Trump. In reality, the US-Thailand relationship has been dead since the Junta took over in Thailand, and for domestic brownie points we decided to make an example out of them and Cambodia for democratic backsliding during the Biden admin [3] Edit: cannot reply below (@Dang am I being rate limited) The US has consistently rejected Thailand's F-35 request under the Biden admin [0][1]. If forced to buy a 4th gen jet, may as well buy the cheapest option on the market, which is the Gripen, as they have been using the Gripen for decades [2]. European affairs have little to do with affairs in Asia. [0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/thailand-air-force-says-us-has-denied-request-buy-f-35-jets-2023-05-25/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/thailand-... [1] - https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/thailand-f35-02162022155156.html https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/thailand-f35-02162022... [2] - https://www.reuters.com/article/business/autos-transportation/thailand-to-buy-six-swedish-gripen-fighters-idUSBKK122272/ https://www.reuters.com/article/business/autos-transportatio... [3] - https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/turbulent-thailand/thailand-belittled-again-as-u.s.-ostracizes-it-from-democracy-summit https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/turbulent-thailand/thailand...
- culi 1y ago
  But Thailand is far from alone in this move away from US weapons. Spain cancelled their bid for F-35s and Switzerland is looking into doing the same. Denmark recently expressed regret over their purchase of F-35s. Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently. It could just be tariff backlash—aircraft have historically been the US' largest export. But I do wonder if the recent tests of US military tech in Russia/Iran had any hand in this
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - garbthetill 1y ago
    I still think US military tech is king, especially their fighter jets. eu countries cancelling or regrets is just geopolitics pandering fighter jets are unicorns on the same level as chips you cant just procure 3nm chips tomorrow because you want too. I'm not super knowledgeable on them, but its interesting to see how difficult maintaining and making new gens are for example gripens still rely on US engine, china relies on Russian engines etc and the US seems to be always ahead
    - culi 1y ago
      Perhaps. But the US is less and less capable of producing them. Especially since the tariffs back-and-forth with China that lead to an exports control on rare earth minerals. Even before that, US manufacturers were consistently under-delivering and behind schedule on orders Not to mention there are key areas that the US is widely considered to be behind on (e.g. hypersonic glide vehicles and drones) compared to the "Second World" powers. And there's been lots of talk—even from within the US—that drones have become more important to modern warfare than manned jets.
    - goyagoji 1y ago
      When you procure a 3nm chip you expect to keep it working as well as when you bought it, even if you block the management engine for privacy. When you buy a fighter plane you should expect to not be able to fly for the full duration of a single conflict the manufacturing country disagrees about.
      - fooker 1y ago
        > When you procure a 3nm chip you expect to keep it working as well as when you bought it This seems like it’s being revisited. https://www.theverge.com/news/719697/nvidia-ai-gpu-chips-denies-backdoors-kill-switches-spyware https://www.theverge.com/news/719697/nvidia-ai-gpu-chips-den...
      - Terr_ 1y ago
        Right: A powerful jet that can not be flown for lack of replacement-parts is worse than a mediocre jet that actually operates. We've made great strides in reliability over the years, but planes are anything but solid-state like integrated CPUs are.
  - c420 1y ago
    It seems the recent volatility from this American administration is being overlooked. They’ve turned their back on allies, resorted to bullying, and even issued outright threats, while walking away from commitments. Buyers may be weighing the risk that when they need service for their purchase, they could be strong-armed with threats of withheld maintenance — or worse, face a remote kill switch being activated.
    - bboygravity 1y ago
      Turned their back on allies? That's a funny thing to say on the very day that Trump might've brokered a peacedeal that instantly would end the war. Seems obviously more valuable to me than selling weapons to Ukraine for many years to "help its ally"?
      - thebigman433 1y ago
        There is nothing indicating a ceasefire, and Zelensky isnt even there. That is not helping an ally. Ukraine also is not our only ally - the current administration constantly makes fun of our other ones
      - onlypassingthru 1y ago
        That's wildly optimistic that Trump would convince Putin to admit his mistake and fully retreat from all of occupied Ukraine, but I admire the sentiment.
      - netsharc 1y ago
        What flavor Koolaid are you drinking there, bud? God, a warmonger is currently dealing with someone who cosplays as a strongman/world-leader, and poorly. I can't imagine the stupidity to imagine he's going to make a good deal. But then again, that Koolaid is going to make you believe that it will be a good deal, and if Zelensky or the EU don't want it, they're ungrateful losers...
      - dragonwriter 1y ago
        > That's a funny thing to say on the very day that Trump might've brokered a peacedeal that instantly would end the war. With whom is he meeting on each side of the conflict such that he might have brokered a peace deal?
  - blibble 1y ago
    don't forget the Swiss too who are livid after orangeman applied 39% tariffs because he doesn't understand the triangle trade of gold
  - oldpersonintx2 1y ago
    [dead]
  - ericmay 1y ago
    At the end of the day it just doesn’t matter whether these countries buy F-35s or not except as additional profit streams for US defense companies and in some ways it’s good that they are looking to buy EU jets instead since the EU needs to invest more in its “domestic” defense industry. Do we really think Spain and Portugal are going to fight alongside US forces in Europe or elsewhere? I don’t. Isn’t Switzerland a neutral country? This isn’t a slight against any of these countries but let’s be realistic. Canada is going to buy still* * https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canada-to-buy-all-88-f-35-fighters-that-s-what-defense-officials-want/ar-AA1K6LSN https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canada-to-buy-all-88-f-...
    - mthoms 1y ago
      1) Over a hundred Spanish soldiers died defending America as part of the Afghanistan war. How many Americans have died defending Spain in a hot war since the founding of NATO? 2) The linked article doesn't say what you claim it says. The Cdn. military is advising the government to go ahead with the entire F-35 purchase. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilian government will agree. We just don't know yet.
      - ericmay 1y ago
        1) Over a hundred Spanish soldiers died defending America as part of the Afghanistan war. How many Americans have died defending Spain in a hot war since the founding of NATO? How many times has Spain been attacked? Not a great argument. And just to make sure the record is very clear I am very grateful for our allies and their contributions, particularly to the war in Afghanistan, but that’s Afghanistan, it’s not Russia or China. And Spain in particular is unwilling to increase defense spending - why is that? 2) The linked article doesn't say what you claim it says. The Cdn. military is advising the government to go ahead with the entire F-35 purchase. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilian government will agree. We just don't know yet. They’ll buy. Also the OP said “Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently.” Did they lose interest? Doesn’t appear to be the case for Canada.
        1y ago
  - freeopinion 1y ago
    Buying US weapons puts you in a position of needing US backing for decades. You need replacement parts, maintenance training, and a million other dependencies. Naturally, you'd need similar from any supplier. So an important part of your calculus has to be, "Will these guys be around to support me in 25-40 years?" That has never really been a question for the US in the last 75 years. Now it is. I don't think anybody fears that the US will cease to be a country. Or even that it will cease to be an important country. The question is whether they will be your reliable ally in 25-40 years, or even in four years. Or will they start some pattern of being your friend for a couple years, then cutting you off for a few years, then trying to re-friend you? That is not a relationship on which anybody wants to build their national security support.
    - ben_w 1y ago
      > "Will these guys be around to support me in 25-40 years?" That has never really been a question for the US in the last 75 years. From the POV of the time? Sure, we can see with the benefit of hindsight that even 40 years was true up until at least 1985, but did people plan that far ahead at the time? 25 years, sure, I think that was true for most of it, with only a handful of exceptions like France and the UK being upset about what happened in response to their actions in the Suez Crisis. IMO correct call by USA there, and I say that as a British citizen by birth, but still means "can we rely on them?" resolves "no", and this loss of de facto independence in what they could do explains much of British foreign policy since then.
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  The advantage of the Gripen isn't that it's cheap. The F-16 is cheaper. But Gripen has Meteor and can fly really well. Now, I'm a Swede, but there are claims of practical experiments in Norway trying out old some Gripen planes vs F-15C and F-16 have shown that the Gripen is simply better at air-to-air stuff. The F-16 is obviously bigger though, so if you want to bomb somebody a lot and whoever that is doesn't have anything to put up against it then maybe it's reasonable to get one of those instead, but I don't think that's a problem Thailand has. I think they want an air force that can challenge another air force if required. It's also nice since one can actually fly with it without breaking the bank.
  - wcfields 1y ago
    I’m not any sort of analyst but from my understanding the threats Thai faces is Cambodia border skirmishes and Myanmar both of which could be handled with any aircraft. China is a non starter, even a next gen aircraft is no match for their entire military.
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      Maybe, but I don't think China, despite its population, has a large pool of people suited to be fighter pilots, so I don't think they'll be throwing their pilots away against competent air forces. A competent air-to-air capability will be a deterrent. A country like Cambodia is screwed against Thailand whatever Thailand buys.
  - dralley 1y ago
    F-15C is ancient. Gripen E vs F-16V shouldn't be that far apart in terms of performance.
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      Yes, but this was in 2009, with a Gripen C. The F-16 thing was with Gripen A. W.r.t. the comparison, maybe. The F-16V doesn't have Meteor though and probably has a much larger radar signature, probably also much larger IR signature, probably also worse close-in performance since the Gripen has so low wing loading.
glial 1y ago
“Selling the F-35, or American systems for that matter, will certainly become more complicated for American companies,” said Gesine Weber, a Paris-based fellow at transatlantic think tank German Marshall Fund. “An important factor in the purchase of the F-35 by European governments was the idea that European defense would be built on a transatlantic basis in terms of strategy, institutions and capabilities,” she said, adding that “the Trump administration is in the process of dissolving the transatlantic link, and the purchase of American systems will therefore no longer have any added value for Europeans.” “If you keep punching your allies in the face, eventually they’re going to stop wanting to buy weapons from you,” said a Western European defense official, granted anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. “Right now we have limited options outside of U.S. platforms, but in the long run? That could change in the coming decades if this combativeness keeps up.” [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/punching-allies-in-the-face-how-trump-is-making-europe-question-us-arms-deals/ https://www.politico.eu/article/punching-allies-in-the-face-...
- mrits 1y ago
  “Could change” “ coming decades” what a statement
  - afavour 1y ago
    I can’t see a world in which this stuff isn’t considered on a decades long scale. It’s not like you go year to year ordering a couple of different fighter jets here and there.
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    It makes good sense though. International weapons systems integration has massive inertia. If not for that the US would sell a lot less than it does right now, people are not buying because they want to, but because they have to. There has been some progress on integrating more diverse systems but it is slow, the number of people able to do this work is not large outside of the circles where the systems were developed in the first place. But Europe has never really shut down its defense industry, and there has been a massive revival in the last couple of years. It is still ramping up as far as I can see and it will for the foreseeable future. No matter what the outcome of the Trump-Putin summit (I refuse to call it the Ukraine peace summit, just like I wouldn't call the Molotov Ribbentrop meeting the Polish, Latvian and Estonian peace summit).
bamboozled 1y ago
The USA has left Ukraine in the lurch after signing the Budapest memorandum. They should’ve kept their Nukes and Russia wouldn’t have been able to invade and steal all their land, kidnap and auction off children , commit massacres etc. Because America is currently an untrustworthy ally who is 100% American first and thinks deploying the military on home soil and applying harsh tariffs to its allies is more important than anything else, it’s best to countries no longer rely on the USA for basically anything. That will probably mean the end of the USD as a global reserve currency at some point too. Which is fine because it’s what the majority of voting Americans wanted. Isolationist, American first policies. Go look at how Zelensky was treated in the interview with Trump and Vance and how the literal red carpet is rolled out for Putin and other world leaders with a brain see that and say, no thanks…
- dh2022 1y ago
  Re: Ukraine defending itself with the nukes it gave up as part of Budapest memorandum - the nuclear code required to activate the warheads never left Moscow. Maybe the Ukrainians could have tinkered with these warheads and find out how to enable them.... but that is quite risky.
  - bamboozled 1y ago
    It’s not about that, it’s about doing the right thing and trusting alliances. Ukraine seems to trust it alliance with Europe , probably because they need Ukraine to defend them now. But Ukraine could also build a nuke but they know it would’ve just give the current administration an excuse to never help them again. They’re hostages. If they had nuclear weapons they’d be respected, like North Korea now. No one going to mess with them.
  - dylan604 1y ago
    > the nuclear code required to activate the warheads never left Moscow. did they try 0000? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-...
  - XorNot 1y ago
varispeed 1y ago
US has become an unreliable ally. Siding with war criminal, lack of intelligence services response, potential leaks to the hostile states and ability to ground planes and other weapons remotely, means US equipment has become a non-starter. See what a coincidence that Trump becomes a president and few months later Patriots can't intercept Russian missiles.
- ta20240528 1y ago
  > Siding with war criminal, Siding with two war criminals. FTFY
  - varispeed 1y ago
    Da comrade.
Waterluvian 1y ago
The United States is an unreliable partner and cannot be trusted. I welcome the ongoing cultural divorce and am hoping Canada will move closer to the EU for military partnership as well.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Low risk move for Canada since the US would likely not abide any foreign power invading N America, essentially giving Canada a free defense treaty.
  - Waterluvian 1y ago
    I can't speak for all Canadians but in my sphere the attitude is that the U.S. is the greater threat. I think it's a very American mindset to perceive the existence of some overseas bogeyman coming and invading Canada in some way that your assertion would mean much.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      If Canada's threat model really is US invasion, they shouldn't waste their time with EU alliances. Can you really imagine the EU projecting enough power across the across the Atlantic to stop the US military fighting next to their home base?
      - Waterluvian 1y ago
        Well of course not. With oceans between us and our allies and friends, we'd be the ablative armour while the rest of the world got organized. Much like the Baltics. But they're in NATO for reasons other than expecting a prompt rescue.
        kyboren 1y ago
        > we'd be the ablative armour while the rest of the world got organized. If the trade negotiations are any indication, I wouldn't count on a magical solution to a global coordination problem. Those countries you are expecting to commit suicide to defend your sovereignty are much more likely to appease the US either because they depend on the US for energy, trade, or military defense (or some combination of those) and have no good alternatives; or because a war with the US would be so devastating--potentially even escalating to nuclear warfare--it is only worth risking for core national security interests. Of course, geostrategically speaking, Canada is already just America's hat. Direct US control over Canada is not a threat to the core national security interests of any nation with a capability to intervene. So I wouldn't count on foreign intervention if I were you. Anyway the balance of forces between the US and Canada is so lopsided that any invasion would likely be a fait accompli before any substantive foreign intervention could be launched. Certainly Canada's ports and airspace would be blockaded and closed in any opening action. In the case of (an IMO very unlikely) US invasion, I think Canada could be isolated, have its energy infrastructure destroyed and internal logistics disrupted, and ultimately the population could be starved into submission if necessary without much difficulty. And no other nation would do anything about it. Canada would be much better off just surrendering and trying to maintain a national identity post-annexation in the hope of a future peaceful secession.
verdverm 1y ago
The United States has become an unreliable security partner ridiculous politics, open bribery and extortion... which impacts other countries. The decoupling has begun, spurred by Americas adversaries and our own abhorrent behavior

He's implying the Gripen deal was a result of Trump. In reality, the US-Thailand relationship has been dead since the Junta took over in Thailand, and for domestic brownie points we decided to make an example out of them and Cambodia for democratic backsliding during the Biden admin [3] Edit: cannot reply below (@Dang am I being rate limited) The US has consistently rejected Thailand's F-35 request under the Biden admin [0][1]. If forced to buy a 4th gen jet, may as well buy the cheapest option on the market, which is the Gripen, as they have been using the Gripen for decades [2]. European affairs have little to do with affairs in Asia. [0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/thailand-air-force-says-us-has-denied-request-buy-f-35-jets-2023-05-25/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/thailand-... [1] - https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/thailand-f35-02162022155156.html https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/thailand-f35-02162022... [2] - https://www.reuters.com/article/business/autos-transportation/thailand-to-buy-six-swedish-gripen-fighters-idUSBKK122272/ https://www.reuters.com/article/business/autos-transportatio... [3] - https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/turbulent-thailand/thailand-belittled-again-as-u.s.-ostracizes-it-from-democracy-summit https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/turbulent-thailand/thailand...

culi 1y ago
But Thailand is far from alone in this move away from US weapons. Spain cancelled their bid for F-35s and Switzerland is looking into doing the same. Denmark recently expressed regret over their purchase of F-35s. Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently. It could just be tariff backlash—aircraft have historically been the US' largest export. But I do wonder if the recent tests of US military tech in Russia/Iran had any hand in this
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- garbthetill 1y ago
  I still think US military tech is king, especially their fighter jets. eu countries cancelling or regrets is just geopolitics pandering fighter jets are unicorns on the same level as chips you cant just procure 3nm chips tomorrow because you want too. I'm not super knowledgeable on them, but its interesting to see how difficult maintaining and making new gens are for example gripens still rely on US engine, china relies on Russian engines etc and the US seems to be always ahead
  - culi 1y ago
    Perhaps. But the US is less and less capable of producing them. Especially since the tariffs back-and-forth with China that lead to an exports control on rare earth minerals. Even before that, US manufacturers were consistently under-delivering and behind schedule on orders Not to mention there are key areas that the US is widely considered to be behind on (e.g. hypersonic glide vehicles and drones) compared to the "Second World" powers. And there's been lots of talk—even from within the US—that drones have become more important to modern warfare than manned jets.
  - goyagoji 1y ago
    When you procure a 3nm chip you expect to keep it working as well as when you bought it, even if you block the management engine for privacy. When you buy a fighter plane you should expect to not be able to fly for the full duration of a single conflict the manufacturing country disagrees about.
    - fooker 1y ago
      > When you procure a 3nm chip you expect to keep it working as well as when you bought it This seems like it’s being revisited. https://www.theverge.com/news/719697/nvidia-ai-gpu-chips-denies-backdoors-kill-switches-spyware https://www.theverge.com/news/719697/nvidia-ai-gpu-chips-den...
    - Terr_ 1y ago
      Right: A powerful jet that can not be flown for lack of replacement-parts is worse than a mediocre jet that actually operates. We've made great strides in reliability over the years, but planes are anything but solid-state like integrated CPUs are.
- c420 1y ago
  It seems the recent volatility from this American administration is being overlooked. They’ve turned their back on allies, resorted to bullying, and even issued outright threats, while walking away from commitments. Buyers may be weighing the risk that when they need service for their purchase, they could be strong-armed with threats of withheld maintenance — or worse, face a remote kill switch being activated.
  - bboygravity 1y ago
    Turned their back on allies? That's a funny thing to say on the very day that Trump might've brokered a peacedeal that instantly would end the war. Seems obviously more valuable to me than selling weapons to Ukraine for many years to "help its ally"?
    - thebigman433 1y ago
      There is nothing indicating a ceasefire, and Zelensky isnt even there. That is not helping an ally. Ukraine also is not our only ally - the current administration constantly makes fun of our other ones
    - onlypassingthru 1y ago
      That's wildly optimistic that Trump would convince Putin to admit his mistake and fully retreat from all of occupied Ukraine, but I admire the sentiment.
    - netsharc 1y ago
      What flavor Koolaid are you drinking there, bud? God, a warmonger is currently dealing with someone who cosplays as a strongman/world-leader, and poorly. I can't imagine the stupidity to imagine he's going to make a good deal. But then again, that Koolaid is going to make you believe that it will be a good deal, and if Zelensky or the EU don't want it, they're ungrateful losers...
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > That's a funny thing to say on the very day that Trump might've brokered a peacedeal that instantly would end the war. With whom is he meeting on each side of the conflict such that he might have brokered a peace deal?
- blibble 1y ago
  don't forget the Swiss too who are livid after orangeman applied 39% tariffs because he doesn't understand the triangle trade of gold
- oldpersonintx2 1y ago
  [dead]
- ericmay 1y ago
  At the end of the day it just doesn’t matter whether these countries buy F-35s or not except as additional profit streams for US defense companies and in some ways it’s good that they are looking to buy EU jets instead since the EU needs to invest more in its “domestic” defense industry. Do we really think Spain and Portugal are going to fight alongside US forces in Europe or elsewhere? I don’t. Isn’t Switzerland a neutral country? This isn’t a slight against any of these countries but let’s be realistic. Canada is going to buy still* * https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canada-to-buy-all-88-f-35-fighters-that-s-what-defense-officials-want/ar-AA1K6LSN https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canada-to-buy-all-88-f-...
  - mthoms 1y ago
    1) Over a hundred Spanish soldiers died defending America as part of the Afghanistan war. How many Americans have died defending Spain in a hot war since the founding of NATO? 2) The linked article doesn't say what you claim it says. The Cdn. military is advising the government to go ahead with the entire F-35 purchase. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilian government will agree. We just don't know yet.
    - ericmay 1y ago
      1) Over a hundred Spanish soldiers died defending America as part of the Afghanistan war. How many Americans have died defending Spain in a hot war since the founding of NATO? How many times has Spain been attacked? Not a great argument. And just to make sure the record is very clear I am very grateful for our allies and their contributions, particularly to the war in Afghanistan, but that’s Afghanistan, it’s not Russia or China. And Spain in particular is unwilling to increase defense spending - why is that? 2) The linked article doesn't say what you claim it says. The Cdn. military is advising the government to go ahead with the entire F-35 purchase. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilian government will agree. We just don't know yet. They’ll buy. Also the OP said “Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently.” Did they lose interest? Doesn’t appear to be the case for Canada.
      - 1y ago
- freeopinion 1y ago
  Buying US weapons puts you in a position of needing US backing for decades. You need replacement parts, maintenance training, and a million other dependencies. Naturally, you'd need similar from any supplier. So an important part of your calculus has to be, "Will these guys be around to support me in 25-40 years?" That has never really been a question for the US in the last 75 years. Now it is. I don't think anybody fears that the US will cease to be a country. Or even that it will cease to be an important country. The question is whether they will be your reliable ally in 25-40 years, or even in four years. Or will they start some pattern of being your friend for a couple years, then cutting you off for a few years, then trying to re-friend you? That is not a relationship on which anybody wants to build their national security support.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    > "Will these guys be around to support me in 25-40 years?" That has never really been a question for the US in the last 75 years. From the POV of the time? Sure, we can see with the benefit of hindsight that even 40 years was true up until at least 1985, but did people plan that far ahead at the time? 25 years, sure, I think that was true for most of it, with only a handful of exceptions like France and the UK being upset about what happened in response to their actions in the Suez Crisis. IMO correct call by USA there, and I say that as a British citizen by birth, but still means "can we rely on them?" resolves "no", and this loss of de facto independence in what they could do explains much of British foreign policy since then.
impossiblefork 1y ago
The advantage of the Gripen isn't that it's cheap. The F-16 is cheaper. But Gripen has Meteor and can fly really well. Now, I'm a Swede, but there are claims of practical experiments in Norway trying out old some Gripen planes vs F-15C and F-16 have shown that the Gripen is simply better at air-to-air stuff. The F-16 is obviously bigger though, so if you want to bomb somebody a lot and whoever that is doesn't have anything to put up against it then maybe it's reasonable to get one of those instead, but I don't think that's a problem Thailand has. I think they want an air force that can challenge another air force if required. It's also nice since one can actually fly with it without breaking the bank.
- wcfields 1y ago
  I’m not any sort of analyst but from my understanding the threats Thai faces is Cambodia border skirmishes and Myanmar both of which could be handled with any aircraft. China is a non starter, even a next gen aircraft is no match for their entire military.
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    Maybe, but I don't think China, despite its population, has a large pool of people suited to be fighter pilots, so I don't think they'll be throwing their pilots away against competent air forces. A competent air-to-air capability will be a deterrent. A country like Cambodia is screwed against Thailand whatever Thailand buys.
- dralley 1y ago
  F-15C is ancient. Gripen E vs F-16V shouldn't be that far apart in terms of performance.
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    Yes, but this was in 2009, with a Gripen C. The F-16 thing was with Gripen A. W.r.t. the comparison, maybe. The F-16V doesn't have Meteor though and probably has a much larger radar signature, probably also much larger IR signature, probably also worse close-in performance since the Gripen has so low wing loading.

glial 1y ago

“Selling the F-35, or American systems for that matter, will certainly become more complicated for American companies,” said Gesine Weber, a Paris-based fellow at transatlantic think tank German Marshall Fund. “An important factor in the purchase of the F-35 by European governments was the idea that European defense would be built on a transatlantic basis in terms of strategy, institutions and capabilities,” she said, adding that “the Trump administration is in the process of dissolving the transatlantic link, and the purchase of American systems will therefore no longer have any added value for Europeans.” “If you keep punching your allies in the face, eventually they’re going to stop wanting to buy weapons from you,” said a Western European defense official, granted anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. “Right now we have limited options outside of U.S. platforms, but in the long run? That could change in the coming decades if this combativeness keeps up.” [1] https://www.politico.eu/article/punching-allies-in-the-face-how-trump-is-making-europe-question-us-arms-deals/ https://www.politico.eu/article/punching-allies-in-the-face-...

mrits 1y ago
“Could change” “ coming decades” what a statement
- afavour 1y ago
  I can’t see a world in which this stuff isn’t considered on a decades long scale. It’s not like you go year to year ordering a couple of different fighter jets here and there.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  It makes good sense though. International weapons systems integration has massive inertia. If not for that the US would sell a lot less than it does right now, people are not buying because they want to, but because they have to. There has been some progress on integrating more diverse systems but it is slow, the number of people able to do this work is not large outside of the circles where the systems were developed in the first place. But Europe has never really shut down its defense industry, and there has been a massive revival in the last couple of years. It is still ramping up as far as I can see and it will for the foreseeable future. No matter what the outcome of the Trump-Putin summit (I refuse to call it the Ukraine peace summit, just like I wouldn't call the Molotov Ribbentrop meeting the Polish, Latvian and Estonian peace summit).

bamboozled 1y ago

The USA has left Ukraine in the lurch after signing the Budapest memorandum. They should’ve kept their Nukes and Russia wouldn’t have been able to invade and steal all their land, kidnap and auction off children , commit massacres etc. Because America is currently an untrustworthy ally who is 100% American first and thinks deploying the military on home soil and applying harsh tariffs to its allies is more important than anything else, it’s best to countries no longer rely on the USA for basically anything. That will probably mean the end of the USD as a global reserve currency at some point too. Which is fine because it’s what the majority of voting Americans wanted. Isolationist, American first policies. Go look at how Zelensky was treated in the interview with Trump and Vance and how the literal red carpet is rolled out for Putin and other world leaders with a brain see that and say, no thanks…

dh2022 1y ago
Re: Ukraine defending itself with the nukes it gave up as part of Budapest memorandum - the nuclear code required to activate the warheads never left Moscow. Maybe the Ukrainians could have tinkered with these warheads and find out how to enable them.... but that is quite risky.
- bamboozled 1y ago
  It’s not about that, it’s about doing the right thing and trusting alliances. Ukraine seems to trust it alliance with Europe , probably because they need Ukraine to defend them now. But Ukraine could also build a nuke but they know it would’ve just give the current administration an excuse to never help them again. They’re hostages. If they had nuclear weapons they’d be respected, like North Korea now. No one going to mess with them.
- dylan604 1y ago
  > the nuclear code required to activate the warheads never left Moscow. did they try 0000? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-...
- XorNot 1y ago

varispeed 1y ago

US has become an unreliable ally. Siding with war criminal, lack of intelligence services response, potential leaks to the hostile states and ability to ground planes and other weapons remotely, means US equipment has become a non-starter. See what a coincidence that Trump becomes a president and few months later Patriots can't intercept Russian missiles.

ta20240528 1y ago
> Siding with war criminal, Siding with two war criminals. FTFY
- varispeed 1y ago
  Da comrade.

Waterluvian 1y ago

The United States is an unreliable partner and cannot be trusted. I welcome the ongoing cultural divorce and am hoping Canada will move closer to the EU for military partnership as well.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
Low risk move for Canada since the US would likely not abide any foreign power invading N America, essentially giving Canada a free defense treaty.
- Waterluvian 1y ago
  I can't speak for all Canadians but in my sphere the attitude is that the U.S. is the greater threat. I think it's a very American mindset to perceive the existence of some overseas bogeyman coming and invading Canada in some way that your assertion would mean much.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    If Canada's threat model really is US invasion, they shouldn't waste their time with EU alliances. Can you really imagine the EU projecting enough power across the across the Atlantic to stop the US military fighting next to their home base?
    - Waterluvian 1y ago
      Well of course not. With oceans between us and our allies and friends, we'd be the ablative armour while the rest of the world got organized. Much like the Baltics. But they're in NATO for reasons other than expecting a prompt rescue.
      - kyboren 1y ago
        > we'd be the ablative armour while the rest of the world got organized. If the trade negotiations are any indication, I wouldn't count on a magical solution to a global coordination problem. Those countries you are expecting to commit suicide to defend your sovereignty are much more likely to appease the US either because they depend on the US for energy, trade, or military defense (or some combination of those) and have no good alternatives; or because a war with the US would be so devastating--potentially even escalating to nuclear warfare--it is only worth risking for core national security interests. Of course, geostrategically speaking, Canada is already just America's hat. Direct US control over Canada is not a threat to the core national security interests of any nation with a capability to intervene. So I wouldn't count on foreign intervention if I were you. Anyway the balance of forces between the US and Canada is so lopsided that any invasion would likely be a fait accompli before any substantive foreign intervention could be launched. Certainly Canada's ports and airspace would be blockaded and closed in any opening action. In the case of (an IMO very unlikely) US invasion, I think Canada could be isolated, have its energy infrastructure destroyed and internal logistics disrupted, and ultimately the population could be starved into submission if necessary without much difficulty. And no other nation would do anything about it. Canada would be much better off just surrendering and trying to maintain a national identity post-annexation in the hope of a future peaceful secession.

verdverm 1y ago

The United States has become an unreliable security partner ridiculous politics, open bribery and extortion... which impacts other countries. The decoupling has begun, spurred by Americas adversaries and our own abhorrent behavior