I would be interested to see what others think of this...

MontyB

MontyB

All-Blacks Supporter
I kind of agree with the overall sentiment that Europe needs to focus on Europe and be less at the whim of US politics which means more self-sufficiency.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Don't remember if I posted it or not, but there was an article by a Royal Navy Officer that said the RN would be better off getting US ships that would get them in service faster & less cost due to efficiency of volume.
 
George said:
Don't remember if I posted it or not, but there was an article by a Royal Navy Officer that said the RN would be better off getting US ships that would get them in service faster & less cost due to efficiency of volume.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't disagree with that but by the same token it makes more sense to ditch the F-35 for either the Rafale or Swedish Gripen at a fraction of the cost and both carrier capable.
 
European NATO countries need to do more and we can do it if we want to. However, we (Europeans) tend to protect "our" defense industry more than what is efficient. If we could agree more on making one artillery system, one IFV, one APC, one aircraft etc etc.

It would also be better if we had a European command structure in NATO, if the US with the new administration became more passive, I don't think the US decides to leave NATO, but they can be stepping back. Maybe having an European SACEUR instead of an American.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
European NATO countries need to do more and we can do it if we want to. However, we (Europeans) tend to protect "our" defense industry more than what is efficient. If we could agree more on making one artillery system, one IFV, one APC, one aircraft etc etc.

It would also be better if we had a European command structure in NATO, if the US with the new administration became more passive, I don't think the US decides to leave NATO, but they can be stepping back. Maybe having an European SACEUR instead of an American.
Click to expand...
I really don't like the idea of one IFV, APC etc. as that tends to stifle innovation and drive up costs (captive market), I tend to prefer the idea of "NATO standards on ammunition and component specification of common parts but allowing individual countries to do their own thing.

As for a European SACEUR, I think it is long overdue, at the very least a joint command structure with authority falling to the theatre of operations.
 
George said:
Economy of scale should reduce costs....
Click to expand...
Economies of scale "should" reduce costs but they never do unless the item is valueless.
The problem I have found with this idea is that you end up with a captive market mentality where the supplier because they are a sole supplier becomes bloated and inefficient but rather than fix this they simply keep passing costs on.

An example: When I left university I got a job for one of NZs larger companies as a chemistry laboratory manager, we had total freedom of purchasing, our big cost was acetonitrile used as the mobile phase on an HPLC which we purchased it locally for $16 a bottle, we then went through a merger and "economies of scale" raised its head but we had to buy from specific companies which raised the price from $16 to $149 a bottle, the same thing happened with every single item and our budget grew exponentially to compensate.

In my opinion efficient systems need the widest supply base they can get not restricted ones, I would also argue that in terms of military logistics it is far safer to have multiple supply sources meeting a single specification than a single one.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
Economies of scale "should" reduce costs but they never do unless the item is valueless.
The problem I have found with this idea is that you end up with a captive market mentality where the supplier because they are a sole supplier becomes bloated and inefficient but rather than fix this they simply keep passing costs on.

An example: When I left university I got a job for one of NZs larger companies as a chemistry laboratory manager, we had total freedom of purchasing, our big cost was acetonitrile used as the mobile phase on an HPLC which we purchased it locally for $16 a bottle, we then went through a merger and "economies of scale" raised its head but we had to buy from specific companies which raised the price from $16 to $149 a bottle, the same thing happened with every single item and our budget grew exponentially to compensate.

In my opinion efficient systems need the widest supply base they can get not restricted ones, I would also argue that in terms of military logistics it is far safer to have multiple supply sources meeting a single specification than a single one.
Click to expand...
"raised the price from $16 to $149 a bottle," Sounds like somebody was stupid or getting kickbacks..... Yeah, no competition can cause problems.
 
MontyB said:
I really don't like the idea of one IFV, APC etc. as that tends to stifle innovation and drive up costs (captive market), I tend to prefer the idea of "NATO standards on ammunition and component specification of common parts but allowing individual countries to do their own thing.

As for a European SACEUR, I think it is long overdue, at the very least a joint command structure with authority falling to the theatre of operations.
Click to expand...
I think logistically about having one MBT (NATO has more or less one MBT and it is the Leo) The F-35 is a step in that direction. I think the European NATO armed forces would be more efficient with one of each. But the Ukrainians have managed to handle all the different equipment
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I think logistically about having one MBT (NATO has more or less one MBT and it is the Leo) The F-35 is a step in that direction. I think the European NATO armed forces would be more efficient with one of each. But the Ukrainians have managed to handle all the different equipment
Click to expand...
Yes and no.
Yes a single type of MBT makes logistical sense but if comes at the price of national identity it will never be accepted, French industry and people would baulk at the idea of having to build the Challenger III or Leopard 3, the British and Germans would not be happy with a Leclerc and the worst thing the west could do right now is created reason for further division.

This is why I believe the answer is to standardise the basics, ammunition, drive chain components, barrels, fuels but leave the rest to individual nations.
The F-35 in my opinion is an overpriced underachiever and should be abandoned as largely too little too late.
 
There are NATO standards regarding calibers, everything from 5,56x45 to 155mm artillery rounds. The British went their own way with the Challenger 1 and 2, but the latest version has the same main gun as Abrams and Leo.

Europe (and Canada) needs to do more and I would prefer we went for European made systems instead of buying American stuff. But the Americans may do it for the Europeans with the coming tariffs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top