Could NATO survive without US backing?

[martin butler]

With all Trump's threats, etc, I have begun to ask myself, can NATO survive if the US walks away?

I think it could, but it will need major changes to its structure, and how to achieve it,

The US administration, under Trump, would appear to be closer to Putin's Russia, than it is to NATO, going by what Trump has said since he returned as president, in numerous press calls etc, and that he has never made criticism of Russian moves, and as such the US could be viewed as an unfriendly nation.

So how does the required change happen, the other members need to collapse NATO from within, and set up an European defence agreement, that includes other reliable allies, such as Japan, and Canada, nations like Slovenia, and Hungary that are really Putin's stooges, should not be invited to join, and neither should the US,

The new European defence organisation, should also include Ukraine,

There are other manufacturers of weapon's systems, some in Europe, that offer very much the same as what the US has, but does not come with the geo-political strings, some are designed to operate in the European theatre in arctic conditions, that US equipment does not

So, let's hear your views?

 

[YorkshireBear]

When you say Slovenia you mean Slovakia?

The untangling of weapons systems would take a long time but if the US quit then necessity is the mother of invention.

I'm confident based on the Russian performance in Ukraine that NATO is strong enough without the US but we would need to up our stockpiles somewhat and military sizes which takes generations.

 

[Sorcerer]

I believe NATO could survive in the long-term without US backing because the British and French retain a nuclear umbrella and are proper battle-tested militaries. However it would take decades because of interoperability with US tech as well as the fact European forces aren't as technologically advanced. But nevertheless I believe NATO could survive without American support eventually. Maybe not as powerful, but still adequate.

What the Trump Administration and NATO critics don't seem to realise or appreciate is that European armies are this way by design. The US might be providing a security umbrella with NATO but in return they get power projection on a global scale, political legitimacy, and a guaranteed defence market. Much of NATO's top command is American personnel and can theoretically lock allies out of software updates, so the idea the alliance is one-sided is ludicrous.

A YouTube channel called EU Made Simple did a great video on this called "How the U.S. Kept Europe's Armies Small - On Purpose".

 

[najaB]

However it would take decades because of interoperability with US tech as well as the fact European forces aren't as technologically advanced.

The thing is, it's not compatible with US spec, it's compatible with NATO spec. Much like the CA and CE markings, because the standards were actually the same the marks (and equipment) were almost always completely interchangeable.

 

[Dave61]

I think NATA could survive, as well as Euopean countries needing to comit more to defense it would need one thing that has been hard to come by : standardisation. Currently each country generally goes its own way to protect its defence industries but going forward I think they would have to work together and produce standard, interchangable kit. Each country could manufacture its needs but the design would need doing just once.

On the other hand (and lighting a different blue touchpaper) this could make an European Force more likely if countries like Canada are not part of it (although they don't trust the USA either).

 

[cactustwirly]

I believe NATO could survive in the long-term without US backing because the British and French retain a nuclear umbrella and are proper battle-tested militaries. However it would take decades because of interoperability with US tech as well as the fact European forces aren't as technologically advanced. But nevertheless I believe NATO could survive without American support eventually. Maybe not as powerful, but still adequate.

What the Trump Administration and NATO critics don't seem to realise or appreciate is that European armies are this way by design. The US might be providing a security umbrella with NATO but in return they get power projection on a global scale, political legitimacy, and a guaranteed defence market. Much of NATO's top command is American personnel and can theoretically lock allies out of software updates, so the idea the alliance is one-sided is ludicrous.

A YouTube channel called EU Made Simple did a great video on this called "How the U.S. Kept Europe's Armies Small - On Purpose".

I would say a lot of our kit is more advanced than the US

Don't forget their military is quite old, B52 bombers are over 60 years old etc

Typhoons are better aircraft than F16s, although not as advanced as F35s

Type 45 destroyers are newer than most of the US Navy

They just have far superior numbers than anyone else

 

[martin butler]

I would say a lot of our kit is more advanced than the US

Don't forget their military is quite old, B52 bombers are over 60 years old etc

Typhoons are better aircraft than F16s, although not as advanced as F35s

Type 45 destroyers are newer than most of the US Navy

They just have far superior numbers than anyone else

The F35, as cutting edge as it is, though is Maintenance heavy and needs down time, and logistical support,

In modern warfare, the first targets are communications, and supply lines, airfields etc, so the F35 will be useless, unless it's rough field capable, which I doubt the are,

Aircraft such as the Gripen, can operate in hidden locations, using short sections of road, and is fully able to be rearmed, and refuelled remotely as long as the fuel and weapons are able to be brought to them, I would argue that the Gripen should be more use to European forces than the F35, especially in the defensive part of any future war, as you try to slow down an enemy advance, and stalemate them, before going onto the offensive.

 

[Dave61]

The F35, as cutting edge as it is, though is Maintenance heavy and needs down time, and logistical support,

In modern warfare, the first targets are communications, and supply lines, airfields etc, so the F35 will be useless, unless it's rough field capable, which I doubt the are,

Aircraft such as the Gripen, can operate in hidden locations, using short sections of road, and is fully able to be rearmed, and refuelled remotely as long as the fuel and weapons are able to be brought to them, I would argue that the Gripen should be more use to European forces than the F35, especially in the defensive part of any future war, as you try to slow down an enemy advance, and stalemate them, before going onto the offensive.

Offensives are very expensive in people terms, so I suspect the strategy would be to slow them to a stop and then let attrition wear them down until we get to a political solution (like go home).

Mind you assuming that the "enemy" is Russia and they still have not defeated the Ukraine after 4 years.....

 

[martin butler]

Offensives are very expensive in people terms, so I suspect the strategy would be to slow them to a stop and then let attrition wear them down until we get to a political solution (like go home).

Mind you assuming that the "enemy" is Russia and they still have not defeated the Ukraine after 4 years.....

some countries suffered as much under soviet control, as they did under the Nazi's Poland for example, they would be in no mood to accept any result that rewards Russian aggression, The Czech Republic, Finland, all have very long memories of Russia,

 

[Tetchytyke]

The US won't walk away from NATO. Trump might occasionally threaten to but Donnie TACO says lots of things.

Everything is too interconnected for the US to walk away from NATO. The US military installations in the Arctic are there because of NATO. The US military installation on Diego Garcia is there because of NATO. The US military installations in the UK are there because of NATO. The US needs the reach of NATO just as much as the other members of NATO need the US.

 

[cactustwirly]

The F35, as cutting edge as it is, though is Maintenance heavy and needs down time, and logistical support,

In modern warfare, the first targets are communications, and supply lines, airfields etc, so the F35 will be useless, unless it's rough field capable, which I doubt the are,

Aircraft such as the Gripen, can operate in hidden locations, using short sections of road, and is fully able to be rearmed, and refuelled remotely as long as the fuel and weapons are able to be brought to them, I would argue that the Gripen should be more use to European forces than the F35, especially in the defensive part of any future war, as you try to slow down an enemy advance, and stalemate them, before going onto the offensive.

Yes I agree, the Gripen is very cost effective so has gained popularity in Thailand, Brazil and Eastern Europe

RAF should be operating fleets of Typhoons and Gripens instead of the F35s and supporting Lockheed Martin

 

[The Ham]

Yes I agree, the Gripen is very cost effective so has gained popularity in Thailand, Brazil and Eastern Europe

RAF should be operating fleets of Typhoons and Gripens instead of the F35s and supporting Lockheed Martin

The shift away from US arms manufacturers has started, and whilst there's a long way to go I suspect that it will be a trend which the EU will continue.

 

[najaB]

RAF should be operating fleets of Typhoons and Gripens instead of the F35s and supporting Lockheed Martin

And BAE Systems, Martin Baker, etc.

 

[Ediswan]

And BAE Systems, Martin Baker, etc.

The F-35 is fitted with Martin-Baker ejection seats.

https://martin-baker.com/ejection-seats/us16e/

US16E For F-35​

Common to all variants of the F-35

 

[najaB]

The F-35 is fitted with Martin-Baker ejection seats.

https://martin-baker.com/ejection-seats/us16e/

Indeed. The point being that the F-35 is *mainly* but not entirely US-made. So we do support our own industry (and those of other NATO partners) by purchasing them. As above though, we probably have things about right with a mixed F-35/Typhoon fleet.

 

[cactustwirly]

Indeed. The point being that the F-35 is *mainly* but not entirely US-made. So we do support our own industry (and those of other NATO partners) by purchasing them. As above though, we probably have things about right with a mixed F-35/Typhoon fleet.

Yeah but most of the money goes to Lockheed Martin

What exactly is BAE in the F35s?
A typhoon supports more jobs in the UK than the F35

 

[172007]

What we and Europe need to do secretly is have an F35 out to one side to rip it to bits. BAE, Dassault, Leanardo, SAAB, Rolls Royce.... to come up with capability to make engines, avionics and airframe for the F35 should we lose product Support from the US for the F35.

Leak the fact maybe at a suitable time and possibly create a European Stealth aicraft alongside.

 

[najaB]

A typhoon supports more jobs in the UK than the F35

And the F-35 is a better aircraft than the Typhoon in certain circumstances - for example, you'll struggle to land a Typhoon on an aircraft carrier. If you want a stealth-capable, carrier-based aircraft the F-35 is the only game in town.

Hence why I said that a mix is probably the best way to go.

 

[Sorcerer]

And the F-35 is a better aircraft than the Typhoon in certain circumstances - for example, you'll struggle to land a Typhoon on an aircraft carrier. If you want a stealth-capable, carrier-based aircraft the F-35 is the only game in town.

Hence why I said that a mix is probably the best way to go.

Europe also doesn't have a proper 5th Gen fighter jet to match the F35s capability, and even landlocked Switzerland opted to buy a few despite not having a major naval force with aircraft carriers. The only possible alternative would be Chinese jets but if people are concerned about the US being able to lock NATO out of software updates then no way will China be looked upon with less suspicion. It's only under Trump that this became a concern with the Americans, albeit still a fairly valid one. Generally I would be inclined to agree you about a mixed fleet.

 

[JamesT]

Yeah but most of the money goes to Lockheed Martin

What exactly is BAE in the F35s?
A typhoon supports more jobs in the UK than the F35

I believe it's claimed BAE construct around 15% of a F35 (excluding the engine). https://www.f35.com/f35/about/F-35-Partners.html

The rear fuselage of every F-35 is built in BAE Systems’ advanced manufacturing and assembly facilities in England, with the horizontal and vertical tails and crucial components also manufactured in their UK and Australia facilities. In addition, they deliver key electronic systems onboard the jet, including the electronic warfare suite, vehicle management computer and Active Inceptor System.

There's also Rolls-Royce involvement in the vertical takeoff system.

The UK share of a Typhoon is 33%. 608 have been delivered, with another 174 on order.
Over 1,000 F35s have been built and current plans from the 9 nations involved are for a total of 3,100.
It may be a smaller piece of the pie, but it's a much bigger pie.

 

[Yew]

The F35, as cutting edge as it is, though is Maintenance heavy and needs down time, and logistical support,

In modern warfare, the first targets are communications, and supply lines, airfields etc, so the F35 will be useless, unless it's rough field capable, which I doubt the are,

Aircraft such as the Gripen, can operate in hidden locations, using short sections of road, and is fully able to be rearmed, and refuelled remotely as long as the fuel and weapons are able to be brought to them, I would argue that the Gripen should be more use to European forces than the F35, especially in the defensive part of any future war, as you try to slow down an enemy advance, and stalemate them, before going onto the offensive.

You can see a Gripen from 200 miles away on radar, whereas it's about 20 miles for an F35.

High observability platforms like the Gripen are useful, just how we've seen F15s and even b52s being used in Iran; but only once enemy air defence has been suppressed.

 

[Railwaycat]

You can see a Gripen from 200 miles away on radar, whereas it's about 20 miles for an F35.

But is that an F35 with an external weapons load?
With just the internal weapons bay, as I understand it, the F35 has a limited payload, plus when the weapons bay door is opened it becomes radar visible, and ordnance on the wing pylons makes it visible.

 

[najaB]

With just the internal weapons bay, as I understand it, the F35 has a limited payload, plus when the weapons bay door is opened it becomes radar visible, and ordnance on the wing pylons makes it visible.

To be fair, sixty to ninety seconds after the weapons bay door opens, it generally (a) becomes apparent that the F-35 is in the area; (b) the people who care are likely on fire.

 

[Yew]

But is that an F35 with an external weapons load?
With just the internal weapons bay, as I understand it, the F35 has a limited payload, plus when the weapons bay door is opened it becomes radar visible, and ordnance on the wing pylons makes it visible.

Indeed, that is a tradeoff, but I still feel that "fewer missiles if you choose that, as really need the stealth" is a better option than "no missiles because you got blown up".

 

[Railwaycat]

Indeed, that is a tradeoff, but I still feel that "fewer missiles if you choose that, as really need the stealth" is a better option than "no missiles because you got blown up".

That assumes that detection technology stands still - how long before it catches up and todays stealth aircraft become very expensive white (or should that be black) elephants?

 

[Ediswan]

That assumes that detection technology stands still - how long before it catches up and todays stealth aircraft become very expensive white (or should that be black) elephants?

Or maybe the technology already exists, but those with it are keeping quiet.

 

[martin butler]

That's of course if your F35 is airworthy and not grounded due to software glitches, but in an European theatre, how useful is Stealth, if you can't get off the ground, because your all so visible runway has been reduced to rubble?

The RAF, when it had the harrier, could disperse to edge of woods, clearings, and would be hard to track down, and destroy, but Due to the complexities the F35 that we have despite having VTOL, still need very complex back system maintenance, that would be hard in the field,

That's why I think we should have built our own version of the Gripen, for maritime use, and for general fighter bomber use, equipped the new Carriers with catapult as was the first idea, and had a Gripen maritime wing,rather than a F35,
The Gripen, already has the strength in the airframe, and is a suitable base for a carrier version, with redesigned powerplants etc, we could have also in a joint agreement with Saab, produced something that had potential in the export market.

 

[Yew]

That assumes that detection technology stands still - how long before it catches up and todays stealth aircraft become very expensive white (or should that be black) elephants?

I'm sure radar tracking systems will advance, as will new aircraft and systems come online with countermeasures to deal with them. Similarly, if there is an increase in the capabilities of radar technology, it is reasonable to assume that higher-observability platforms will be impacted more severely.

If your argument is that we should only buy things that won't become obsolete, then we shouldn't buy anything.

 

[najaB]

That assumes that detection technology stands still - how long before it catches up and todays stealth aircraft become very expensive white (or should that be black) elephants?

Even if detection technology improves, today's stealth aircraft is going to be harder to detect than today's non-stealth aircraft.

 

[Yew]

That's of course if your F35 is airworthy and not grounded due to software glitches,

I'm not aware that is presently the case? Similarly, why do you think that the Gripen would be immune to software issues?

but in an European theatre, how useful is Stealth, if you can't get off the ground, because your all so visible runway has been reduced to rubble?

If any plane can't get off the ground, it is of limited use, that's not a unique limitation of the F35. Who exactly do you imagine will be at war with us, and able to destroy all our visible runways?

The RAF, when it had the harrier, could disperse to edge of woods, clearings, and would be hard to track down, and destroy, but Due to the complexities the F35 that we have despite having VTOL, still need very complex back system maintenance, that would be hard in the field,

Maintaining any jet in the field is hard, fortunately we wouldn't need to do it for a long time, as runways are relatively straightforward to repair. Similarly, such a large scale attack would likely trigger NATO Article 5.

That's why I think we should have built our own version of the Gripen, for maritime use, and for general fighter bomber use, equipped the new Carriers with catapult as was the first idea, and had a Gripen maritime wing,rather than a F35,
The Gripen, already has the strength in the airframe, and is a suitable base for a carrier version, with redesigned powerplants etc, we could have also in a joint agreement with Saab, produced something that had potential in the export market.

Why would a rehashed 4th generation airframe be better than the 6th generation GCAP program that we are working on? Similarly, why would the Gripen be better than the base of Typhoons that we already have?