Jump to content
Clark Griswold

Time for the US to leave NATO?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

I always found it very curious that the Germans refused to jump in on the JSF buy to replace their Tornados, especially with Italy, Norway, UK and Netherlands purchasing jets. Kind of a sign that they don't see defense or NATO as any sort of a priority.

Valid point - but I should serve myself some humble pie here as I wiki'd the Luftwaffe before replying to your post, more combat capability than I thought but in my infinitely correct American opinion they should be more assertive with it.

120+ EF-2000s & 80+ Tornados is not a haymaker of a punch but a helluva jab... 

1 minute ago, SurelySerious said:

Maybe, maybe not. They've got their almost-new Eurofighters. The UK has a specific role to throw the F-35B into, whereas that's not a capability ze Germans needed a replacement for. The Netherlands has a bunch of F-16s to replace. I'm not saying they're not slacking, just that they might not have been compelled to buy into the JSF for other reasons that NATO partners do have.

Valid.

They (the Germans) were interested in V/STOL at one time for dispersed basing to survive an expected Soviet first strike against established bases, kinda surprised they are not still at least somewhat interested in that...

AA2111_VJ-101_real-1.jpg

Russian cruise missiles and asymmetric attacks could make having some kind of dispersing capability worth the while...

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Valid point - but I should serve myself some humble pie here as I wiki'd the Luftwaffe before replying to your post, more combat capability than I thought but in my infinitely correct American opinion they should be more assertive with it.

120+ EF-2000s & 80+ Tornados is not a haymaker of a punch but a helluva jab... 

Valid.

They (the Germans) were interested in V/STOL at one time for dispersed basing to survive an expected Soviet first strike against established bases, kinda surprised they are not still at least somewhat interested in that...

AA2111_VJ-101_real-1.jpg

Russian cruise missiles and asymmetric attacks could make having some kind of dispersing capability worth the while...

Well, looks like they're starting to search for a replacement to the Tornado. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-studying-manned-successor-for-german-tornados-426634/ . The image in that article is like a bad mashup of a raptor and a PAK-FA.

getasset.aspx?itemid=67469

They're shutting down the Tornado training over at Holloman AFB by 2019 as well. Those jets are supposedly moving back to the Fatherland, but I've heard competing reports that they're going to start retiring airframes due to "costs". We'll see.

Definitely agree on being more assertive. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SurelySerious said:


Maybe, maybe not. They've got their almost-new Eurofighters. The UK has a specific role to throw the F-35B into, whereas that's not a capability ze Germans needed a replacement for. The Netherlands has a bunch of F-16s to replace. I'm not saying they're not slacking, just that they might not have been compelled to buy into the JSF for other reasons that NATO partners do have.

I've been told the Eurofighter looks beautiful... on radar at least.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

Well, looks like they're starting to search for a replacement to the Tornado. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-studying-manned-successor-for-german-tornados-426634/ . The image in that article is like a bad mashup of a raptor and a PAK-FA.

getasset.aspx?itemid=67469

They're shutting down the Tornado training over at Holloman AFB by 2019 as well. Those jets are supposedly moving back to the Fatherland, but I've heard competing reports that they're going to start retiring airframes due to "costs". We'll see.

Definitely agree on being more assertive. 

Had not heard of this, kinda surprised they just don't go to a single multi-role fighter for logistical savings but have at it, there should be some options out there to keep LM on it's toes.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tangentially related; addresses liberalism, conservative views, and the origins of America projecting its ideals.

"Is 'Classical Liberalism' Conservative?"https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-classical-liberalism-conservative-1507931462
4e9311cd33784222a831dc45950449d6.jpg
aeccb9426291515f8b4a852deb9a1708.jpg
2f69dfe596a2bebabfc775bff926d933.jpg
f3a4f6860c20bae9e46995a0f91865d6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2017 at 7:23 PM, SurelySerious said:

Regarding geopolitics (and doesn't fit military/aviation book): World Order by Kissinger.

Good article 

On the subject of NATO & should the US leave it, I think it is more now of reforming it to a European led, America ensures with a reduced European footprint...

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2016-12-08/the-us-should-redesign-nato-and-let-europe-lead-its-defense

From the article:

  • The U.S. should let Europeans know that within a short period of time they will have to assume responsibility for their own defense and for the leadership of NATO. After that, America will continue to be a part of NATO, not as its leader, but as one of NATO's 28 members. At that point, all U.S. troops should leave Europe, and American bases returned to the Europeans. How long a time should the US give the Europeans to make this transition? 2025 sounds like an appropriate date, being the 80th anniversary of the victorious end of World War II.
  • To ensure Europeans understand that America is serious about the transition, the U.S. should, as quickly as possible, turn over the position of NATO's military head or Supreme Allied Commander Europe to a European general, and then systematically replace Americans in key leadership positions in the alliance with Europeans.
  • During this transition, the U.S. must be unambiguous about its commitment to the collective defense clause (Article 5) of the alliance's treaty. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the United States will always meet its commitment to NATO.

Overall decent points, I probably would leave some US military presence on the continent and UK (if still wanted) and look to reduce to around 1/5 our current footprint.  US Army in Poland, Finland and the Baltics for direct ground deterrence,  USAF in bases to support rapid logistical build up if required and MOBs quickly established (Rota, Moron, Aviano, etc..) and US Navy in Greece/Italy for deterrence of Black Sea based Russian Naval fleets.

We could demonstrate capability and commitment with biennial rapid deployments with airpower demonstrations, still cheaper than permanent bases and keeps our friends on notice...  

Start a redeployment with a 5 year timeline, that's enough time for them to rise to the occasion or navel gaze, their choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×