Why does the Italian navy have glass bottom ships?
To see the old Italian navy.
Sorry. Couldn't resist that golden oldie.
European military power with no American support - AKA the tank counting thread
- Thread starter Red in STL
- Start date
To see the old Italian navy.
Sorry. Couldn't resist that golden oldie.
Any thoughts on the possibility of Kongsberg developing NASAMS to be a functional BMD system? I do notice that RTX are heavily involved in the project and that might affect it if they withdraw themselves.The European defense contractors just don't have their shit together unfortunately
In general it doesn't strike me as a smart idea to build anything in Italy when timeliness are critical.
It's an example of exactly what im getting at. It's a modular platform that is highly customised to each buyer. US politics and procurement is the primary reason behind all the delays.
That’s very interesting.
But if you don’t mind me asking, is there any actual value in being as good as the Americans? Do you think the European countries could build destroyers that the the Russians a hard time?
Whilst shipbuilding is a nightmare in general for the USN right now with delays in practically just about every program - USS Constellation is a two sided street when it comes to problems.
You're right in that the original FREMM was meant to be modular - but USN demands were that it far exceeded what the other buyers/purchasers of the platform needed and what FREMM was really capable of handling on its base hull design. For example - The Constellation demanded a 32 tube VLS system with a 16 tube anti-ship launcher. That's about 50% larger missile capacity than any of the other FREMM designs. Constellation is putting in AN-SPY-6 which is the baseline standard on Flight III Arleigh Burkes. The problem here is that the SPY-6 is an absolute power-guzzler of a radar and requires huge propulsion demands. This means fitting in extra generators on top of the baseline propulsion. A standard FREMM has 35MW whereas a Constellation pushes close to 50MW in total. Finding the space to put in that extra power has been a nightmare.
So far this has been the fault of USN kind of being unrealistic and not knowing what it wants/needs and constant design changes.
The problem is Fiancantieri didn't do what other contractors did when dealing with the USN. Bath Iron Works and Newark News constantly push back on bullshit/changing USN demands and have a good relationship with the procurement/design teams of the DoD and are able to come to middle grounds. Fiancantieri just basically nodded, smiled and went "Yes sir" and trying to cram in ridiculous requirements that weren't realistic. What that meant was Constellation needed constant re-designs and then, shocked Pikachu, massive delays.
So it's poor requirements and scope from the USN and poor project management from Fiancantieri.
Destroyers need to fit a doctrine, they're not designed by engaging other ships 1 on 1.
Italy, France and UK all base their escort fleet (Destroyers and frigates) around protecting their Carrier(s) and individual patrol missions far away from home.
I would rather have the extra survivability and magazine depth than not, when it comes to sailors lives it's best not to take risks.
Do you have a source for this?
Using AMRAAMs as Ballistic Missile interceptors is certainly...a choice.
Norwegian magazine (usually very solid) covering these type of stories mentioned it in several articles, citing KDA and government sources. Apparently been working closely with RTX on it for some time. It's behind a paywall so will try to find an article in English. Bear in mind that I don't know as much as you do on the subject, hence why I asked. Worth noting that military sources claiming that this could be several years away.
I did a quick scour on Google and found this:
https://www.defensemirror.com/news/...fense_System_Can_Intercept_Ballistic_Missiles
From the description, it won't be the frontline BMD system, but more of a tier in a layered defense. 40km range for intercepts is far too short a distance to be a frontline BMD interceptor. THAAD has a 100mile + viable intercept range for example.
Ok, thank you. Makes more sense now. Just trying to find positives in the " European defense contractors" sector at the moment.
Do wonder how the US defense contractors will react to the proposed cuts and Trump trying push Europe away from US both short and long-term.
Which proposed cuts?
I think @AfonsoAlves posted that the US is increasing the ceiling of US defence in 106 billions. So I don't think there will be no cuts, but the opposite
Most major military contracts take potentially a decade or decades to go from concept to design to production. Trump will be in and out in four years. Next government will potentially be completely the opposite of this one. While I think there will some short term pain, in the long term the US and Europe will remain close allies under different administrations.
It’s potentially a good thing for Europe and the UK to wake up and realise that they need to be independently stronger and stop constantly dancing to the tune of the Americans. The more influence America has, the worst the world gets. Under Trump they are isolating themselves more and more.
It’s potentially a good thing for Europe and the UK to wake up and realise that they need to be independently stronger and stop constantly dancing to the tune of the Americans. The more influence America has, the worst the world gets. Under Trump they are isolating themselves more and more.
The ones Hegseth announced. 8% over five years. Not sure if he's being serious or not.
A thread about Tank counting now all about naval ships.
Media misrepresentation to be honest -
The headlines say 8% cuts but what he said was 8% cuts in unecessary areas to move the money onto more pressing matters.
Regardless of the figures, or where I get my information from, if the US pull their support, It’s not good for Europe or Ukraine.
I have a question regarding US military bases in Europe. Have any countries threatened to throw the US out yet? What reasons are there that would keep European countries from doing so?
I can't see anything positive coming from it. Feels like we'd basically be helping them do what they want by giving them further justification to do so. Let the US abandon NATO with as little cause as we can and in the meantime buy ourselves as much time as possible to divest.
Not sure how much more sustainable that is, especially if Trump directs the US to being fully cordial with Russia. Will Europe feel comfortable with having a military potentially aligned with Putin within its borders? And in the extreme scenario of Russia attacking European nato states, would these stationed US troops even help given the current circumstances? If not they'd serve no use, or even worse be considered a hostile presence.
They are based on leases, so you can't really break them outside of the clauses in the contract. But you can not renew them at their anniversary date.
agreed.
also the rally on European defense stocks is quite insane, wouldn't mind getting some shares of Thales or Rheinmetall
ah I'm only just reading now that VdL gave today the figure of 800bn euros mobilized for defense spending, makes sense
I have no good answer. I just think demanding they leave is more likely to facilitate turning the US (and its citizenry) into that hostile force. In the event of a Baltic invasion I almost expect these bases to be useless. Even in that circumstance, though, I prefer the option of having the eyes of the world see the US fully renege on their commitments without us giving them a helping hand.
This think tank analysis on what Europe might need to do to replace current US security guarantees makes for sobering reading:
https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/defending-europe-without-us-first-estimates-what-needed
Basically, we would need a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of coordination and a lot of good will. Throwing out the US looks like it would be a disaster.
https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/defending-europe-without-us-first-estimates-what-needed
Basically, we would need a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of coordination and a lot of good will. Throwing out the US looks like it would be a disaster.