Mil News NATO Military News

[Mike1976]

Europe’s missile renaissance

Russia’s use of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles against Ukraine has prompted a renaissance among some European countries to reacquire analogous capabilities. But political, technical and budgetary challenges need to be overcome for this aspiration to be viable.

www.iiss.org

All of those countries agreeing to buy the same systems in large blocks and potentially sidelining their own national industries.

Yeah no, it will end up being small batches, insanely expensive and with every major nation getting their own custom nation-specific subvariants, ruining (parts)interoperability, built by their own factories at artisan level rate production.

That's why we can't compete with US, Russian and Chinese defence production. Not a single entity.

 

[CemalPasha]

♥

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[muck]

So … The 'Financial Times' reports that Trump will demand a new NATO spending target of 5% (GDP), and that he could withdraw from the alliance if refused. Well, withdrawal it'll apparently be, because that's just not realistic.

Heck, it's far in excess of NATO spending at the height of the Cold War.

I've been advocating for higher defence spending in Europe literally for decades, but this demand is just asinine.

For reference's sake, let's use Germany as an example: The German GDP in 2024 will be $4.710 trillion.

Our current defence spending (with every bullet point that could be counted as "military spending" through narrowed eyes) is $75 billion.

In contrast, the German federal government has a 2024 budget of $497.2 billion.

5% of $4.710 trillion is $235 billion.

In other words, in order to meet Trump's demands Berlin would have to spend 47% of its budget on defence.

In contrast, the US federal government spends roughly 12% on defence.

This isn't going to work.

But more importantly, it's just not practical. If everyone had to spend 5%, NATO's collective defence expenditures would almost quadruple. The world's entire defence industry complex doesn't have the capacities to satisfy such a colossal demand. Bloody hell, we'd have to conscript both genders just to operate all that crap you could (eventually) buy with such expenditures.

Germany spent 3% of its GDP on defence in 1990, it had 495,000 troops under arms and the second-biggest tank army in all of NATO. What on earth are we supposed to do with 5% now? Barbarossa 2.0?

It looks to me as if Trump means to set the bar so high no one can jump over it, so that he gets a reason to withdraw from NATO.

 

[TheKiwi]

That or he doesn't understand the difference between GDP and budget....

 

[muck]

That or he doesn't understand the difference between GDP and budget....

Well, considering how he usually describes the defence spending row as Europeans don't paying their bills and owing America money (as if we had to wire-transfer our defence spending to Uncle Sam) … And considering how he once confused national defence spending with NATO membership contributions (i.e. payments to keep the lights on at SHAPE) …

He may actually not know the difference.

 

[CemalPasha]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mike1976]

So … The 'Financial Times' reports that Trump will demand a new NATO spending target of 5% (GDP), and that he could withdraw from the alliance if refused. Well, withdrawal it'll apparently be, because that's just not realistic.

Negotiating a deal is asking more than you are aiming to get so there is room to give something away. Settling for 2% or slightly under it from the outset invites countries to stuff their defence budgets with all kind of spending that has nothing to do with defence and does nothing for NATO.

Germany spent 3% of its GDP on defence in 1990, it had 495,000 troops under arms and the second-biggest tank army in all of NATO. What on earth are we supposed to do with 5% now? Barbarossa 2.0?

And how much would 3% of GDP get you in the 21st century? Not much further than you are now imo. Less downtime because there is more money for spares and repairs and equipment that is retired before it's entirely worn out.

But a substantial increase in manpower and combat power?

 

[PEMM]

Germany spent 3% of its GDP on defence in 1990, it had 495,000 troops under arms and the second-biggest tank army in all of NATO. What on earth are we supposed to do with 5% now? Barbarossa 2.0?

I think this is a common negotiation tactic where you ask for way more than you expect to get, to set the stage for getting what you actually want.

 

[muck]

It's a common tactic amongst CEO types. Politicians answer to the court of public opinion, though. In this day and age, and with polarisation running high, an unrealistic demand of 5% is more likely to prompt an ugly row than a bazaar-like concession, I'm afraid.

Trump is absolutely correct demanding Europeans spend more on defence, although he's always chosen the most self-defeating of ways to get that point across. The problem for those in Europe willing to negotiate with Trump is that he's so unpopular – even amongst many on the right (due to their anti-Americanism). Agreeing with him is liable to be a career-ender.

 

[BravoZulu]

With a contract signed by the President of the Bundeswehr Procurement Office, Annette Lehnigk-Emden, the number of U212CD (Common Design) submarines to be procured for the Bundeswehr jointly with Norway has increased significantly from two to six. The agreement originally concluded with thyssenkrupp Marine Systems in July 2021 included the manufacture and delivery of an initial six identical submarines, two for Germany and four for Norway.

With the contractual extension to include an additional four boats for the German Armed Forces and Norway's current intention to order two more option boats, both NATO partners could have six submarines of the new type at their disposal in the future.
https://www.presseportal.de/pm/147341/5934549

 

[TheKiwi]

That is such a significant difference in size/displacement I am amazed that they are still calling it a Type-212. Since it's 33% bigger is pretty much every dimension they should call it the Type-282 (212 x 1.33)

 

[Mike1976]

I think this is a common negotiation tactic where you ask for way more than you expect to get, to set the stage for getting what you actually want.

3,7% is on the table now. If Rutte is confident enough to mention a specific number in public, talks must already have progressed to a point of near concensus.

NATO's defence needs more than 3% GDP target, says Rutte

The 32 NATO allies will likely decide to increase the defence spending benchmark from the current 2% of GDP during a summit in The Hague in June. #EuropeNews

www.euronews.com

 

[Mike1976]

Researchers find critical vulnerability in NATO radio encryption.

Breaking NATO Radio Encryption

We present fatal security flaws in the HALFLOOP-24 encryption algorithm, which is used by the US military and NATO. HALFLOOP-24 was meant...

media.ccc.de

 

[muck]

Germany stations Patriot systems and Typhoons at Rzeszow in Southern Poland, a major logistics hub for Ukraine. (Link)

 

[Mike1976]

Germany stations Patriot systems and Typhoons at Rzeszow in Southern Poland, a major logistics hub for Ukraine. (Link)

I'm sure that's nothing to do with Putler's recent temper tantrums

 

[BravoZulu]

Upgraded gravity bombs are now stationed at military bases in Europe, the head of the U.S.'s nuclear military science agency has said, after it completed an overhaul of the B61-12 nuclear bomb.

The B61 family of gravity bombs are tactical nuclear weapons, and several iterations are deployed by the U.S. in Europe.

The B61 is the only tactical nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal—the rest are strategic nuclear weapons

The nearly three years of war against Russia in Ukraine, China's military buildup, North Korea's extensive nuclear tests and Iran's nuclear program have brought fresh attention to nuclear weapons.

"The idea of nuclear conflict, once unthinkable, has become a subject of debate," United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said in fall 2022, several months after the start of the Ukraine war.

"The new B61-12 gravity bombs are fully forward deployed," Jill Hruby, the administrator for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), said during an address at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C.

"We have increased NATO's visibility to our nuclear capabilities through visits to our enterprise and other regular engagements," Hruby added.

Forward deployed means military forces are stationed closer to a possible conflict area, able to respond more quickly to threats in a certain region and deter military actions from an enemy.

Recent estimates had put around 100 U.S. B-61 nuclear gravity bombs in Europe. Ukrainian forces are currently fighting the continent's largest land war since World War II after Russian forces invaded in February 2022.

The U.S.'s gravity bombs are based at six NATO facilities across Italy, Germany, Belgium, Turkey and the Netherlands. More than 100 of these bombs also exist but are in storage away from these bases.

Incirlik Air Base, near the city of Adana, southeastern Turkey, on July 28, 2015. The air base hosts an estimated 20 to 30 B61 nuclear bombs.
https://www.newsweek.com/us-deploys-b61-12-gravity-bombs-europe-tactical-nuclear-weapons-2017485

 

[PEMM]

Finnish air force police the Icelandic airspace for the first time with four hornets.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[haze99]

Greece

https://greekreporter.com/2025/02/05/greece-unveils-new-hi-tech-military-gear-greek-soldiers/

 

[PEMM]

Nato FLF will be placed in Finnish Lapland. Troops are not permanently stationed but can reinforced up to a brigade size when needed.

Defence Minister: Nato troops will be stationed in Rovaniemi, Sodankylä

Finland's presence in Nato is progressing well, according to Defence Minister Antti Häkkänen (NCP).

Minister of Defence Antti Häkkänen has decided that the Rovaniemi and Sodankylä garrison areas will be the primary locations for NATO’s Forward Land Forces (FLF). The Minister of Defence informed the Allies about this at the NATO Defence Ministerial Meeting on Thursday, 13 February 2025.

“The forward presence of land forces, scalable according to the security situation, together with Finland’s national defence capabilities, is an important part of strengthening the deterrence and defence of the entire Alliance in the North and more broadly in the Arctic region. As locations, Rovaniemi and Sodankylä offer challenging but excellent conditions for training forces in the northern parts of Finland, but also in the wider region,” says Minister of Defence Häkkänen.

The forward land forces are part of NATO’s peacetime collective defence tasks. Under normal circumstances, land forces train and train together with national forces. The FLF command and control elements will be permanently stationed in Finland, but the forces themselves will be present in Finland on an exercise basis. The FLF will be tied to NATO's operational planning and, if the security situation changes, the force can always be increased to the strength of a brigade. Reinforcement exercises will be conducted regularly even in peacetime.

"With the FLF operations, we are building even better interoperability with our allies and strengthening NATO's readiness and ability to implement NATO's operational plan in Finnish territory if necessary. The ground forces are a strong demonstration of the alliance's unity, readiness and defence capability," says Minister of Defence Häkkänen.

Sweden acts as the framework state for NATO's advanced ground force presence in Finland. The framework state has an important responsibility in planning and building the FLF entity in close cooperation with the host state, other participating states and NATO.

In June 2024, NATO defense ministers made decisions on the ground command and control structure to be deployed in Finland and the forward ground forces. The whole was confirmed at the NATO summit in July 2024. At the NATO defense ministers' meeting in February 2025, further guidance on the basics of the FLF structure to be deployed in Finland and the details of the implementation of the ground command and control structure were approved.

Puolustusministeri Häkkänen on päättänyt Naton eteentyönnetyn maavoimajoukon sijoittumisesta Suomen alueella

Puolustusministeri Antti Häkkänen on päättänyt Naton eteentyönnetyn maavoimajoukon (Forward Land Forces, FLF) ensisijaisiksi sijoituspaikoiksi Rovaniemen ja Sodankylän varuskunta-alueet. Puolustusministeri kertoi asiasta liittolaisille Naton puolustusministerikokouksessa torstaina 13. helmikuuta...

www.defmin.fi

 

[haze99]

UĶ

Twenty-thousand troops? We only have 25 main battle tanks working at best

Left to rot in sheds, our equipment is either ancient, non-existent or yet to arrive, while ammunition stocks would not last a week if push came to shove, says defence expert Francis Tusa

www.independent.co.uk