Spain has two aircraft in mind to replace over 70 EF-18A fighter jets, and while the program has yet to formally begin, the informal competition between the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Lockheed Martin F-35 is just getting hotter.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... g-hornets/

The article says that Typhoon is the preferred option to replace 20 F-18 aircraft stationed on the Canary Islands while the remaining 50 fighters based in mainland Spain could be replaced with either F-35 or Typhoon.

Eurofighter is not doing so badly at the moment - could end up with repeat sales to Germany, Spain and Saudi Arabia and conceivably add Finland to the list of users. I wonder if Spain might plump for F-35 in the end, though. Can anyone guess how Spain will go?

If they are more interested in air to ground, F-35 is probably the winner. Air to air and it should be the Typhoon's to lose. What does Spain need? My guess would be air defense primarily and strike a distant second. I'm thinking Typhoon.

art wrote:

Spain has two aircraft in mind to replace over 70 EF-18A fighter jets, and while the program has yet to formally begin, the informal competition between the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Lockheed Martin F-35 is just getting hotter.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... g-hornets/

The article says that Typhoon is the preferred option to replace 20 F-18 aircraft stationed on the Canary Islands while the remaining 50 fighters based in mainland Spain could be replaced with either F-35 or Typhoon.

Eurofighter is not doing so badly at the moment - could end up with repeat sales to Germany, Spain and Saudi Arabia and conceivably add Finland to the list of users. I wonder if Spain might plump for F-35 in the end, though. Can anyone guess how Spain will go?

Don't forget Armada Española also needs an AV-8B replacement which can only be F-35B. Swiss find F-35 performs better than Typhoon in A2A , costs less to buy and operate so the only thing keeping Spain in Typhoon buying mode is local industry. F-35 literally better at everything else and what SAF wants but politicians will decide.

Word is Germans are the block for Saudi top up order for Typhoon and no serious consideration that Typhoon can win in Finland.

35-50 F-35 (12-25 Bs and the rest As) and about 40-45 EFs.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

art wrote:

Spain has two aircraft in mind to replace over 70 EF-18A fighter jets, and while the program has yet to formally begin, the informal competition between the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Lockheed Martin F-35 is just getting hotter.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... g-hornets/

The article says that Typhoon is the preferred option to replace 20 F-18 aircraft stationed on the Canary Islands while the remaining 50 fighters based in mainland Spain could be replaced with either F-35 or Typhoon.

Eurofighter is not doing so badly at the moment - could end up with repeat sales to Germany, Spain and Saudi Arabia and conceivably add Finland to the list of users. I wonder if Spain might plump for F-35 in the end, though. Can anyone guess how Spain will go?

Don't forget Armada Española also needs an AV-8B replacement which can only be F-35B. Swiss find F-35 performs better than Typhoon in A2A , costs less to buy and operate so the only thing keeping Spain in Typhoon buying mode is local industry. F-35 literally better at everything else and what SAF wants but politicians will decide.

Word is Germans are the block for Saudi top up order for Typhoon and no serious consideration that Typhoon can win in Finland.

Where did you hear that the Typhoon cannot win in Finland?

kitplane01 wrote:

Where did you hear that the Typhoon cannot win in Finland?

Is this a trick question?

Typhoon is the most successful fighter that never won a competition. Other than its designer countries it was sole sourced from all the sand people and paid for its win in Austria. In Belgium, Denmark, double in Switzerland, India, Brazil, South Korea and the list goes on it lost on what it costs to buy and then fly and how it flies.

The Finns aren't stupid and they aren't taking bribes.

seahawk wrote:

35-50 F-35 (12-25 Bs and the rest As) and about 40-45 EFs.

20 EF to keep local production going and the rest a mix of F-35A and F-35B?

744SPX wrote:

If they are more interested in air to ground, F-35 is probably the winner. Air to air and it should be the Typhoon's to lose. What does Spain need? My guess would be air defense primarily and strike a distant second. I'm thinking Typhoon.

Keep in mind that Spain already has ~70 Eurofighters in service plus 20 on order. I don't think they would transition to a single-type air force. Plus eventually they will need to buy the F-35B if they want to preserve carrier aviation.

So I think that some F-35s are a given, even if they don't fully replace the F-18s.

~20 EFs for the F-A-18+ at Gando.

~12-20 F-35B for the Navy.

which leaves replacement for the ~50 F-18Ms. Considering they are used by 2 wings, I think it will be a split buy. ~25 F-35A + ~ 25 EF. Or mabye keep one wing with the F-18Ms till FCAS arrives.

Hopefully the chose Eurofighter. The F-35 is very expensive to operate.

For local production it seems pretty likely that at least some Eurofighters will be in the mix. Though their facilities are already busy for the next 10 years with upgrades to the existing EF fleet.

An initial order of 20 EF was discussed last year, with potential for up to 60 aircraft by 2035. I don't think a contract has been signed yet, even though talks between Airbus and Spain appear to be at a fairly advanced stage.

Mortyman wrote:

Hopefully the chose Eurofighter. The F-35 is very expensive to operate.

Air forces are not airlines. Their #1 priority is defending the country the best they can and keeping their pilots alive.

johns624 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Hopefully the chose Eurofighter. The F-35 is very expensive to operate.

Air forces are not airlines. Their #1 priority is defending the country the best they can and keeping their pilots alive.

Not all governments think that way unfortunetly

johns624 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Hopefully the chose Eurofighter. The F-35 is very expensive to operate.

Air forces are not airlines. Their #1 priority is defending the country the best they can and keeping their pilots alive.

That is why the Lightweight Fighter Competition was cancelled in favor of buying more F-15 and why the USAF has 750 F-22s in its arsenal.

Best regards
Thomas

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Swiss find F-35 performs better than Typhoon in A2A

Considering the Typhoon is faster, is designed for and can legitimately supercruise, has a better thrust to weight ratio, lower wing loading and superior kinematic performance to the F-35, I'm curious as to what metrics the Swiss used to evaluate the F-35 vs Typhoon on A2A. Stealth?

744SPX wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

Swiss find F-35 performs better than Typhoon in A2A

Considering the Typhoon is faster, is designed for and can legitimately supercruise, has a better thrust to weight ratio, lower wing loading and superior kinematic performance to the F-35, I'm curious as to what metrics the Swiss used to evaluate the F-35 vs Typhoon on A2A. Stealth?

Is that 1944 calling, or maybe 1984? Is this a new thing, are the Swiss bold mountaineers moving though uncharted territory?

First Swiss competition where they found Typhoon was only minimally better than a C Hornet and not better than Rafale even though it has blah blah blah kinematics over both in both DCA and OCA.

http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011/11/ ... afale.html

How about Denmark? Those crazy danes.

Under survivability and mission effectiveness, the Joint Strike Fighter comes out better than the two other candidates. This is due to a number of circumstances, including for example the low radar signature of the aircraft as well as the application of advanced systems and sensors that enhance the pilot’s tactical overview and ensure the survival of the aircraft and efficient mission performance. In terms of survivability and mission effectiveness, the Super Hornet does slightly better than the Eurofighter.

https://www.fmn.dk/globalassets/fmn/dok ... mary5-.pdf

Read the report in Danish, must have been a lot of mead consumed as F-35 is ranked 5 in Air Intercept while Typhoon is 2 with Super Duper H. For DCA the lanes converge but F-35 still ahead. Graphics of report at this link https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=45487

For the pièce de résistance listen to Fighter Pilot podcast with Billie Flynn who was involved with both programs, https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/epi ... -the-f-35/

The 80s want their parachute pants and leg warmers back... great times but damn, I'm still wearing parachute pants today.

Mortyman wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Hopefully the chose Eurofighter. The F-35 is very expensive to operate.

Air forces are not airlines. Their #1 priority is defending the country the best they can and keeping their pilots alive.

Not all governments think that way unfortunetly

Can you explain this? If the budget allows 100 of plane A, and 130 of plane B, can we not factor that into the purchase calculations?

kitplane01 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Air forces are not airlines. Their #1 priority is defending the country the best they can and keeping their pilots alive.

Not all governments think that way unfortunetly

Can you explain this? If the budget allows 100 of plane A, and 130 of plane B, can we not factor that into the purchase calculations?

Because it ignores all sorts of factors like supply chain, sortie generation rates, total training costs, weapons availability/upgrade and integration, and historical OEM support.

Just about anyone can do the basic math of initial acquisition cost. The hard part is figuring out total sortie cost or sustainment costs 30 years in the future, or guessing if spares will be available in 30 years.

FlapOperator wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Not all governments think that way unfortunetly

Can you explain this? If the budget allows 100 of plane A, and 130 of plane B, can we not factor that into the purchase calculations?

Because it ignores all sorts of factors like supply chain, sortie generation rates, total training costs, weapons availability/upgrade and integration, and historical OEM support.

Just about anyone can do the basic math of initial acquisition cost. The hard part is figuring out total sortie cost or sustainment costs 30 years in the future, or guessing if spares will be available in 30 years.

Yes, all of those things matter. But costs matter too. And I think you're right, the hard part *is* determining operational costs. And for civilian aircraft, operational costs are much larger than initial investment.

Finland has an interesting approach that I think makes sense for a small air force. They will only buy for their current fighter acquisition airplanes that someone else is going to be operating 30 years from now. This is particularly important for the F-18 bid, since it's not obvious that the US navy will be operating (non-growler) F-18s 30 years from now. New Zealand somehow decided to upgrade their SH-2 helicopters when they were the last operator, and had to pay all the overhead associated with being the last operator of a type. They no longer have SH-2s.

kitplane01 wrote:

Yes, all of those things matter. But costs matter too. And I think you're right, the hard part *is* determining operational costs. And for civilian aircraft, operational costs are much larger than initial investment.

Ballpark for fighter aircraft is one to two and a half. Operating cost is two and a half times the acquisition cost over a 20-30 year life.

kitplane01 wrote:

New Zealand somehow decided to upgrade their SH-2 helicopters when they were the last operator, and had to pay all the overhead associated with being the last operator of a type. They no longer have SH-2s.

Huh... the all blacks still fly the SH-2, they fly the ones the Aussies couldn't get to work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaman_SH- ... ew_Zealand

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

New Zealand somehow decided to upgrade their SH-2 helicopters when they were the last operator, and had to pay all the overhead associated with being the last operator of a type. They no longer have SH-2s.

Huh... the all blacks still fly the SH-2, they fly the ones the Aussies couldn't get to work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaman_SH- ... ew_Zealand

Gosh dang it. I so remember it differently. Maybe I remember the Australian Navy retiring them? But the NZ Navy lists it right on their web page! Thanks for the correction. https://www.nzdf.mil.nz/navy/our-equipment/aircraft/

johns624 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Hopefully the chose Eurofighter. The F-35 is very expensive to operate.

Air forces are not airlines. Their #1 priority is defending the country the best they can and keeping their pilots alive.

Who would Spain be conceivably fighting that they would need the F35?

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Mortyman wrote:

Hopefully the chose Eurofighter. The F-35 is very expensive to operate.

Air forces are not airlines. Their #1 priority is defending the country the best they can and keeping their pilots alive.

Who would Spain be conceivably fighting that they would need the F35?

When you're part of a far reaching alliance like NATO, you never know. You also have to look at where in the life cycle the Typhoon is compared to the F35. With how many years today's fighters have to last, you want to get in early in the life cycle. As an example--the F16 was a great fighter to buy 20-30 years ago, today--not so much.
PS--it's the same reason that they have Aegis frigates and Leopard tanks--you just never know.

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Air forces are not airlines. Their #1 priority is defending the country the best they can and keeping their pilots alive.

Who would Spain be conceivably fighting that they would need the F35?

When you're part of a far reaching alliance like NATO, you never know. You also have to look at where in the life cycle the Typhoon is compared to the F35. With how many years today's fighters have to last, you want to get in early in the life cycle. As an example--the F16 was a great fighter to buy 20-30 years ago, today--not so much.
PS--it's the same reason that they have Aegis frigates and Leopard tanks--you just never know.

I don't think "you never know" is really reason enough to spend many tens of billions of $$$.

Spain might need the F-35s to fight Russia as part of a pan-European defense. Spain might need F35s to deter Russia as part of a pan-European defense. Spain might need F-35s to fight or deter Morocco 20 years from now, if the Moroccan Air Force is better then. Hard to imagine any other scenarios. Algeria? Some distance peacekeeping/anti-terrorism deployment??

But really, if Spain didn't have a modern Air Force, Spain would probably be fine (as long as Germany and Poland keep the Russians away).

kitplane01 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Who would Spain be conceivably fighting that they would need the F35?

When you're part of a far reaching alliance like NATO, you never know. You also have to look at where in the life cycle the Typhoon is compared to the F35. With how many years today's fighters have to last, you want to get in early in the life cycle. As an example--the F16 was a great fighter to buy 20-30 years ago, today--not so much.
PS--it's the same reason that they have Aegis frigates and Leopard tanks--you just never know.

I don't think "you never know" is really reason enough to spend many tens of billions of $$$.

Spain might need the F-35s to fight Russia as part of a pan-European defense. Spain might need F35s to deter Russia as part of a pan-European defense. Spain might need F-35s to fight or deter Morocco 20 years from now, if the Moroccan Air Force is better then. Hard to imagine any other scenarios. Algeria? Some distance peacekeeping/anti-terrorism deployment??

But really, if Spain didn't have a modern Air Force, Spain would probably be fine (as long as Germany and Poland keep the Russians away).

NATO is a collective organization. Everyone defends everyone.

johns624 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

When you're part of a far reaching alliance like NATO, you never know. You also have to look at where in the life cycle the Typhoon is compared to the F35. With how many years today's fighters have to last, you want to get in early in the life cycle. As an example--the F16 was a great fighter to buy 20-30 years ago, today--not so much.
PS--it's the same reason that they have Aegis frigates and Leopard tanks--you just never know.

I don't think "you never know" is really reason enough to spend many tens of billions of $$$.

Spain might need the F-35s to fight Russia as part of a pan-European defense. Spain might need F35s to deter Russia as part of a pan-European defense. Spain might need F-35s to fight or deter Morocco 20 years from now, if the Moroccan Air Force is better then. Hard to imagine any other scenarios. Algeria? Some distance peacekeeping/anti-terrorism deployment??

But really, if Spain didn't have a modern Air Force, Spain would probably be fine (as long as Germany and Poland keep the Russians away).

NATO is a collective organization. Everyone defends everyone.

Until the US overreaches and forces the rest of NATO into conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq which didn't threaten the US's security at all.

The chances of Europe and Russia going to war are about as likely as finding WMD's in Iraq.

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I don't think "you never know" is really reason enough to spend many tens of billions of $$$.

Spain might need the F-35s to fight Russia as part of a pan-European defense. Spain might need F35s to deter Russia as part of a pan-European defense. Spain might need F-35s to fight or deter Morocco 20 years from now, if the Moroccan Air Force is better then. Hard to imagine any other scenarios. Algeria? Some distance peacekeeping/anti-terrorism deployment??

But really, if Spain didn't have a modern Air Force, Spain would probably be fine (as long as Germany and Poland keep the Russians away).

NATO is a collective organization. Everyone defends everyone.

Until the US overreaches and forces the rest of NATO into conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq which didn't threaten the US's security at all.

The chances of Europe and Russia going to war are about as likely as finding WMD's in Iraq.

I agree about Iraq, but we had a reason for going into Afghanistan. We just stayed too long.
The chance of the EU and Russia going to war is small as long as the EU keeps paying for a creditable defense. If it doesn't, I can see Russia biting off small pieces first, like the Baltic republics. That would put Poland in a hard place. Who knows what'll happen then?

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

NATO is a collective organization. Everyone defends everyone.

Until the US overreaches and forces the rest of NATO into conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq which didn't threaten the US's security at all.

The chances of Europe and Russia going to war are about as likely as finding WMD's in Iraq.

I agree about Iraq, but we had a reason for going into Afghanistan. We just stayed too long.
The chance of the EU and Russia going to war is small as long as the EU keeps paying for a creditable defense. If it doesn't, I can see Russia biting off small pieces first, like the Baltic republics. That would put Poland in a hard place. Who knows what'll happen then?

Many times nations keep militaries for deterrence. But Spain ... as long as Germany and Poland and France and the UK do their part, Spain could save the money. This is why European NATO under spends it's own target: each nation wants the others to do the deterring.

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

johns624 wrote:

NATO is a collective organization. Everyone defends everyone.

Until the US overreaches and forces the rest of NATO into conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq which didn't threaten the US's security at all.

The chances of Europe and Russia going to war are about as likely as finding WMD's in Iraq.

I agree about Iraq, but we had a reason for going into Afghanistan. We just stayed too long.
The chance of the EU and Russia going to war is small as long as the EU keeps paying for a creditable defense. If it doesn't, I can see Russia biting off small pieces first, like the Baltic republics. That would put Poland in a hard place. Who knows what'll happen then?

I'm not sure why you think that the European countries are not paying for a credible defense. While perhaps to slow for our American friends, I think most European countries are rising their year to year spending towards the agreed 2% of GDP.

Also I'm no expert on fighter jets, but are there any credible indication that the Eurofighter is such a bad plane, that with it, Spain couldn't help its NATO allies in fighting an attack from our Russian neighbours (not that I belive Putin has any wish to attack military an EU country?

Beat regards and stay safe,
Jonas

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Until the US overreaches and forces the rest of NATO into conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq which didn't threaten the US's security at all.

The chances of Europe and Russia going to war are about as likely as finding WMD's in Iraq.

I agree about Iraq, but we had a reason for going into Afghanistan. We just stayed too long.
The chance of the EU and Russia going to war is small as long as the EU keeps paying for a creditable defense. If it doesn't, I can see Russia biting off small pieces first, like the Baltic republics. That would put Poland in a hard place. Who knows what'll happen then?

I'm not sure why you think that the European countries are not paying for a credible defense. While perhaps to slow for our American friends, I think most European countries are rising their year to year spending towards the agreed 2% of GDP.

Also I'm no expert on fighter jets, but are there any credible indication that the Eurofighter is such a bad plane, that with it, Spain couldn't help its NATO allies in fighting an attack from our Russian neighbours (not that I belive Putin has any wish to attack military an EU country?

Beat regards and stay safe,
Jonas

1. Reread what I said. It was "as long as the EU keeps paying for a credible defense".
2. They are raising it, but it seems like the biggest "raises" are well into the future when the current pols don't have to worry about it.
3. There's nothing wrong with the Eurofighter today. The problem is that it is well into its life cycle while the F35 is the much newer choice.
4. If you were a Spanish fighter pilot in 15 years, would you want to be in the "may be good enough" Typhoon or the "it's still good for 20 years" F35?

johns624 wrote:

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I agree about Iraq, but we had a reason for going into Afghanistan. We just stayed too long.
The chance of the EU and Russia going to war is small as long as the EU keeps paying for a creditable defense. If it doesn't, I can see Russia biting off small pieces first, like the Baltic republics. That would put Poland in a hard place. Who knows what'll happen then?

I'm not sure why you think that the European countries are not paying for a credible defense. While perhaps to slow for our American friends, I think most European countries are rising their year to year spending towards the agreed 2% of GDP.

Also I'm no expert on fighter jets, but are there any credible indication that the Eurofighter is such a bad plane, that with it, Spain couldn't help its NATO allies in fighting an attack from our Russian neighbours (not that I belive Putin has any wish to attack military an EU country?

Beat regards and stay safe,
Jonas

1. Reread what I said. It was "as long as the EU keeps paying for a credible defense".
2. They are raising it, but it seems like the biggest "raises" are well into the future when the current pols don't have to worry about it.
3. There's nothing wrong with the Eurofighter today. The problem is that it is well into its life cycle while the F35 is the much newer choice.
4. If you were a Spanish fighter pilot in 15 years, would you want to be in the "may be good enough" Typhoon or the "it's still good for 20 years" F35?

Yet, the 50 year old design that is the F-16 still sells .... No reson why Eurofighter can't be a good fighter in the future.

johns624 wrote:

4. If you were a Spanish fighter pilot in 15 years, would you want to be in the "may be good enough" Typhoon or the "it's still good for 20 years" F35?

Phrased like this, I come to the same conclusion as you. But if we look at it from an other perspective, we could also find some arguments that might favour the Typhoon over the F35:

Taking your same Spanish pilot, in 15 years he might be happy with his Eurofighter, knowing that only in a few years he will be at the command of his SCAF. The SCAF he will be flying perhaps better because the engineer that developed it, gained precious know how from improving the Eurofighter his government ordered 15 years ago.

Personally hopeing that we Americans and Europeans still share similar values and still cooperate in NATO in 15 years (well, I'm Swiss, hence not really part of the discussion), the Spanish pilot wouldn't just relly on Eurofighters. European armies would dispose of a fleet consisting of at least F35, Rafale, Eurofighter, F-18 and Gripen. And giving those fighters missions they are best suited for, might even prove a benefit.

I personally don't belive our politicians will manage the craziness of pushing us into WW3. But let's assume they did and our Spanish pilot and the world have to suffer the horendous carnage in 15 years:
The US is in a full blown war with China, the US needs all the fighters they can produce, having a few FALs in Europe able to build Rafales, Eurofighters, F35s and maybe Gripens, too might come in handy.

As I said, I'm no expert on fighter jets, but it seems to me, from a strategic point of view, ordering at least some Eurofighters would be a good move for Spain.

Best regards and stay safe,
Jonas

kitplane01 wrote:

Many times nations keep militaries for deterrence. But Spain ... as long as Germany and Poland and France and the UK do their part, Spain could save the money. This is why European NATO under spends it's own target: each nation wants the others to do the deterring.

Its mildly more complex than that.

There is obviously a huge free rider problem, but worse is the duplication of effort and the accompanying de-economy of scale.

The issue is most countries of a certain size in NATO want to maintain at least some element of a full spectrum of combat capability...so think from disaster assistance/peacekeeping to major combat operations against pacing threat countries. That's a tall order, as all of those missions across the range of military operations have their own requirements.

So instead of a NATO where the Germans are the ground combat experts, the Spanish the airlift, the Brits tacair, Dutch ASW, and when needed, the multinational task force grabs what it needs etc. each of those national air forces, navies and armies have to have penny packet size of all capabilities, or be like the Irish and just punt and depend on another nation for high end stuff, or be like the Balts who are slowly specializing in territorial defense.

Mortyman wrote:

Yet, the 50 year old design that is the F-16 still sells .... No reson why Eurofighter can't be a good fighter in the future.

Except the conditions it was designed around and the adversaries it would be fighting would be entirely different.

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

I'm not sure why you think that the European countries are not paying for a credible defense. While perhaps to slow for our American friends, I think most European countries are rising their year to year spending towards the agreed 2% of GDP.

Also I'm no expert on fighter jets, but are there any credible indication that the Eurofighter is such a bad plane, that with it, Spain couldn't help its NATO allies in fighting an attack from our Russian neighbours (not that I belive Putin has any wish to attack military an EU country?

Beat regards and stay safe,
Jonas

I don't think the Balts or Poles for starters would immediately believe that the large, offensively geared Russian Army, much of it on their borders, expresses the idea that Putin has no plans to invade an EU country. We know, pretty much to a certainty that Russian intelligence agents conducted WMD attacks in Europe, actively conduct assassination campaigns in Europe and have attacked facilities in both Czechia and Bulgaria.

FlapOperator wrote:

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

I'm not sure why you think that the European countries are not paying for a credible defense. While perhaps to slow for our American friends, I think most European countries are rising their year to year spending towards the agreed 2% of GDP.

Also I'm no expert on fighter jets, but are there any credible indication that the Eurofighter is such a bad plane, that with it, Spain couldn't help its NATO allies in fighting an attack from our Russian neighbours (not that I belive Putin has any wish to attack military an EU country?

Beat regards and stay safe,
Jonas

I don't think the Balts or Poles for starters would immediately believe that the large, offensively geared Russian Army, much of it on their borders, expresses the idea that Putin has no plans to invade an EU country. We know, pretty much to a certainty that Russian intelligence agents conducted WMD attacks in Europe, actively conduct assassination campaigns in Europe and have attacked facilities in both Czechia and Bulgaria.

There is zero reason to think that Putin, or any other Russian leader, would even consider invading an EU country. The government may be autocratic but they're not stupid. Such a move would make absolutely no strategic sense. Furthermore, Russia has probably the LEAST offensively geared military of any major power. A significant portion of its air force is defense only (Mig-31) while every EU country that has an air force has ground attack capability on all their combat aircraft. It's power projection ability is virtually non-existent. Russia also spends a disproportionate amount on anti-aircraft and ABM defense. They don't have hundreds of bases on foreign soil either.
The reality is that as far as conventional forces are concerned, Russia is not a significant threat. Putin talks big but most of the new weapons systems he brandishes will never see the light of day and if they do, they won't be built in significant numbers. Russia simply does not have enough money. Period. Their military budget is a joke, let alone the rampant corruption which makes that meager budget even less effective than it already is. This is not the USSR.

744SPX wrote:

There is zero reason to think that Putin, or any other Russian leader, would even consider invading an EU country. The government may be autocratic but they're not stupid. Such a move would make absolutely no strategic sense. Furthermore, Russia has probably the LEAST offensively geared military of any major power. A significant portion of its air force is defense only (Mig-31) while every EU country that has an air force has ground attack capability on all their combat aircraft. It's power projection ability is virtually non-existent. Russia also spends a disproportionate amount on anti-aircraft and ABM defense. They don't have hundreds of bases on foreign soil either.
The reality is that as far as conventional forces are concerned, Russia is not a significant threat. Putin talks big but most of the new weapons systems he brandishes will never see the light of day and if they do, they won't be built in significant numbers. Russia simply does not have enough money. Period. Their military budget is a joke, let alone the rampant corruption which makes that meager budget even less effective than it already is. This is not the USSR.

Right, its the Russian Federation, and oriented the Russian ground forces towards a much more offensive posture. It is the largest, and likely most effective ground army in Europe. Certainly oversized and offensively postured compared to any conceivable aggregation of armies to the West. The capability to operate across the range of military operations from the Russians is pretty good, and improving, as was seen in Donbass, and increasingly in Syria. There are parts that are still suffering from as you note, corruption and underperforming weapons especially air-breathers. Lots of that just has to do with the fact critical parts of the Soviet legacy aerospace institutional structure died, got repurposed, or stuck in another country. But the idea that Russian ADA, for example, is inherently defensive isn't true on a doctrinal standpoint through both Soviet and Russian military thought. The Russians are really good at lots of stuff, like IRBMs, electronic warfare and artillery...certainly among the best in the world. As was shown in the Donbass, the air war was of limited importance compared to say, artillery or small unit raids or even armor.

Such a move against an EU country (which would, from a treaty standpoint mean nothing, compared to NATO) might not make strategic sense, to you. Certainly the bombing of Pearl Harbor made little to no strategic sense in 1941 (as the prime architect of the attack noted.) In the case of Russia, this ultimately revolves around a small group of decision makers, like say the insane idea of attacking France through Belgium in 1914, versus say some larger, democratic idea in a European context. The thing any idea is that it has to make sense to the decision maker in Moscow. Personally, I would say conducting a WMD attack in the UK, blowing up factories in Czechia and Bulgaria, assassination campaigns in Germany, and bunch of other Russian actions are completely insane from a cost-benefit analysis, but here we are.

Let's see--the British, French and Germans together have about 700 active MBTs. The Russians have 2800. Yep, must be for defense. What's the old saying "the best defense is a good offense"?

Spain said it wasn't buying F35s ever two days ago. I thought that would've put this thread to bed. They're completely tied into France and Germany on the fighter jet scene. It makes complete sense to me to stay the course all things (money, jobs, technology transfer, integration etc etc) considered.

https://www.reuters.com/world/spain-has ... 021-11-09/

FlapOperator wrote:

Such a move against an EU country (which would, from a treaty standpoint mean nothing, compared to NATO)...

Sorry, I don't understand how it would mean nothing from a treaty standpoint. What do you mean?

wingman wrote:

Spain said it wasn't buying F35s ever two days ago. I thought that would've put this thread to bed. They're completely tied into France and Germany on the fighter jet scene. It makes complete sense to me to stay the course all things (money, jobs, technology transfer, integration etc etc) considered.

https://www.reuters.com/world/spain-has ... 021-11-09/

How long do they plan on flying their Harriers?

johns624 wrote:

Let's see--the British, French and Germans together have about 700 active MBTs. The Russians have 2800. Yep, must be for defense. What's the old saying "the best defense is a good offense"?

The idea to which the Russians, Soviets, and then Russians again subscribed was Catherine The Great's idea that "Russia is too large to defend; I must attack."

It makes lots of sense from a Russian-centric perspective; for example few nations have their second city and commercial capital basically on the border and easily interdicted by other nations. Few countries have the history of invasion like Russia (the ones that do, such invasions are usually Russian.) Much critical terrain like Kaliningrad is geographically separated from Russia proper (or was, like in the case of the Crimea.)

When you combine this with the other problems stated earlier (a stagnant economy characterized by corruption, non-competitive critical defense industrial sectors like aerospace and shipbuilding, population issues, petroleum dependence) its again, completely understandable and logical from a Russian perspective to make the defense choices they have. For example, sustaining their submarine fleet, especially, with offensive weapons, investments in IRBMs, including the SSC-7/Burevestnik and fielding the Iskander (both highly technically advanced weapons) and integrating their ground artillery/UAV/Electronic warfare into "fires complexes."

Now, the flip side to this is while the Russians, from a Russian perspective are "defensive" they are being defensive about stuff that isn't theirs, lots of the time, like Georgia or Ukraine. Further, their activities inside Europe are aggressive and bellicose to the extreme.

vr773 wrote:

Sorry, I don't understand how it would mean nothing from a treaty standpoint. What do you mean?

My understanding is there standing mutual defense treaty with the EU, and practically, should there a political decision to do so within the collective defense framework, little practical EU military capability outside of things like the occasional flotilla/task force or EU Training Mission.

NATO retains both the political mechanism/treaty requirements for European collective self defense and the practical tools to coordinate and conduct operations, something that EU has an extraordinarily limited capability to do so.

There has been a move to create this capability within NATO, however many nations, especially the US, UK and most of the Eastern Europeans feel this to be duplicative effort. Instead, the idea is that the EU should focus on multinational force building things like weapons procurement and training (see PESCO) and homogenizing European enabling efforts like Military Schengen.

FlapOperator wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

So instead of a NATO where the Germans are the ground combat experts, the Spanish the airlift, the Brits tacair, Dutch ASWterritorial defense.

I take you are being deliberately pervese in your assertions?

Myv40 wrote:

I take you are being deliberately pervese in your assertions?

Just stating that the ideal would be within every country having a specialty, versus trying to maintain across the board capability. However, that's not reality. Countries will want to retain their defense independence which means NATO countries often spend a disproportionate amount to maintain small/boutique capability.

wingman wrote:

Spain said it wasn't buying F35s ever two days ago. I thought that would've put this thread to bed. They're completely tied into France and Germany on the fighter jet scene. It makes complete sense to me to stay the course all things (money, jobs, technology transfer, integration etc etc) considered.

https://www.reuters.com/world/spain-has ... 021-11-09/

Think they answered that a bit sneaky.

"The Spanish government has no budget to enter into any other jet project in addition to the one that is already in place. We rule out entering the F35 project. Our investment commitment is in the FCAS,"

So not joining the JSF industrial program but my bones are saying FMS sale could work at very least to replace Harrier.

Other reports talk of interest, https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/s ... McyWUvoGYs

And Spanish Armament head visited the F-35 office only a couple of months ago.

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/6766461/ ... t-f-35-jpo

Surely the Franco-German-Spanish stealth fighter project won’t include a VTOL model. The whole F-35 family was largely compromised by this USMC requirement, so it could make sense for the Spanish to purchase at least a handful of these, and at around $85 million a piece surely it would provide some interim relief vs. the ancient Harriers for the Armada...

FlapOperator wrote:

vr773 wrote:

Sorry, I don't understand how it would mean nothing from a treaty standpoint. What do you mean?

My understanding is there standing mutual defense treaty with the EU, and practically, should there a political decision to do so within the collective defense framework, little practical EU military capability outside of things like the occasional flotilla/task force or EU Training Mission.

NATO retains both the political mechanism/treaty requirements for European collective self defense and the practical tools to coordinate and conduct operations, something that EU has an extraordinarily limited capability to do so.

There has been a move to create this capability within NATO, however many nations, especially the US, UK and most of the Eastern Europeans feel this to be duplicative effort. Instead, the idea is that the EU should focus on multinational force building things like weapons procurement and training (see PESCO) and homogenizing European enabling efforts like Military Schengen.

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, the EU has a mutual defense clause with Article 42(7), which is legally more robust than NATO‘s Article 5. If an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other EU countries have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power. This would include the use of infrastructure (e.g. communication channels) designed to also serve NATO operations.

I think framing it as duplicative efforts is misleading because many assets and entities are one and the same.

vr773 wrote:

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, the EU has a mutual defense clause with Article 42(7), which is legally more robust than NATO‘s Article 5. If an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other EU countries have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power. This would include the use of infrastructure (e.g. communication channels) designed to also serve NATO operations.

I think framing it as duplicative efforts is misleading because many assets and entities are one and the same.

I think you might have a broader view of 42(7) than is generally accepted within the EU. I am pretty sure, for example that Austria/Ireland/Sweden (the non NATO neutrals) don't consider 42(7) as the equivalent of an Article 5 (or its likely they wouldn't have joined the EU.)

This is a pretty good explanation...I made the assumption of your English skills (which are as good as mine, and I'm supposedly a native.)

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7390/#:~:text=Article%2042%20%287%29%20TEU%20states%3A%20If%20a%20Member,with%20Article%2051%20of%20the%20United%20Nations%20Charter.

Regarding the duplication, the issue is which organization is better at which tasks, from writing agreements like STANAGs to doing operational planning to procurement to training.

The Russian military is geared towards both defensive and offensive operations. They're highly mobile, and sometimes they move and strike much faster than NATO can even react. In just days, they moved more than 100,000 troops towards the Ukraine border. And that was just a year ago. Their VDV is made for offensive operations. Their equipment and vehicles are made to strike fast. Much of the vehicles are wheeled, not tracked.

And I think it's ridiculous to believe that they pose zero threat. Especially after Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. Now the Belarus threat against the Polish and Lithuanian borders. Russia is running drills with VDV and long range bombers along the NATO borders. Why? Because they want to link Belarus with Kaliningrad and cut off the Baltic states from mainland NATO territory.

Back on topic, Spain is rarely taking part in any offensive NATO missions. The Eurofighter still provides air to ground capability. They might not need the F-35 except for the assault ship Juan Carlos I.