3 ms·

Yes, the USA said that, but the damage was done. For many decades any inclinations for EU defense contracts to favor EU arms, were greatly frowned upon. France

Yes, the USA said that, but the damage was done. For many decades any inclinations for EU defense contracts to favor EU arms, were greatly frowned upon. France was derided for having made the right decision from go. Post-WWII USA would give you Pax Americana, as long as you had no domestic defence industry. It was very convenient for everyone, but you can't blame the EU 100%, maybe not even 50%.

laughing_man 6d ago
And yet the Europeans have built one defense system after another in that time. I get why countries want to have their own defense industries. If I were running a country I would too. But the extent to which more of those systems haven't been deployed has more to do with mis-aligned budget priorities between countries and old fashioned jobs politics. Only the largest European countries can go it alone in major weapon systems development, and the joint projects tend to founder on discussions over what gets built where. FCAS/SCAF is a perfect illustration of this. From the US perspective, what's frustrating is extent to which European powers, particularly the largest and potentially most powerful, have allowed their readiness to decline. I remember a particular surprise readiness exercise a few years back in which the Germans were able to get no more than a dozen tanks moving within the first 48 hours. The rest were broken, undergoing maintenance, or had been cannibalized for spare parts. At the time Germany had, on paper anyway, about 300 active tanks. It's not the sexy stuff like new missile systems and strike fighters that have been neglected. It's the boring parts that really matter like an efficient reserve system, logistics, spare parts, boots, training facilities, ammunition, fuel depots, etc. Nobody wants to spend a lot of money maintaining a military in peacetime, but an effective peacetime military is insurance: When you don't need it you don't need it, but when you need it you really, really need it. Your country's strategic situation can change really quickly.

laughing_man 6d ago

And yet the Europeans have built one defense system after another in that time. I get why countries want to have their own defense industries. If I were running a country I would too. But the extent to which more of those systems haven't been deployed has more to do with mis-aligned budget priorities between countries and old fashioned jobs politics. Only the largest European countries can go it alone in major weapon systems development, and the joint projects tend to founder on discussions over what gets built where. FCAS/SCAF is a perfect illustration of this. From the US perspective, what's frustrating is extent to which European powers, particularly the largest and potentially most powerful, have allowed their readiness to decline. I remember a particular surprise readiness exercise a few years back in which the Germans were able to get no more than a dozen tanks moving within the first 48 hours. The rest were broken, undergoing maintenance, or had been cannibalized for spare parts. At the time Germany had, on paper anyway, about 300 active tanks. It's not the sexy stuff like new missile systems and strike fighters that have been neglected. It's the boring parts that really matter like an efficient reserve system, logistics, spare parts, boots, training facilities, ammunition, fuel depots, etc. Nobody wants to spend a lot of money maintaining a military in peacetime, but an effective peacetime military is insurance: When you don't need it you don't need it, but when you need it you really, really need it. Your country's strategic situation can change really quickly.