• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The problem with NATO.

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,955
Reaction score
13,558
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I understand the mutual defence aspect which I support, but I also understand why people are getting more and more skeptical over NATO and especially US influence on military issues including procurement.

Case in point. Denmark has just bought 27 F-35s from the US. They are to replace our F-16s. Now normally this would on the face of it not be a problem right? Wellll..

First off, the F-35 is a death trap. It is not even finished and has so many problems. Like the computer system locking out people mid flight, or the ejection seat being a death trap for anyone over a certain height. It is also by far the most expensive solution.

So why did the Danish government choose this solution? Good question,... one could claim that Denmark already has F-16s so upgrading to the F-35 would only be natural. However is there something else behind it? Denmark almost always buys US, instead of European, and it is almost always my party that is involved in the buying.. which pisses me off. Why waste our tax-payer money on expensive and hard to maintain weapons, instead of European made (including some of them with Danish tax-payer money!), cheaper and easier to maintain.

Secondly... alternatives. The Eurofighter was the alternative, it is being used.. it is tested, and by most accounts much better than the F-35 on so many fronts. On top of that, it is much cheaper and easier to maintain!

The debate in Denmark over this has been fierce with the right wing government and even parts of the center left defending the buying of the F-35. The media and many people are still extremely puzzled over the buy.

So over the weekend we learn the following (it is in Danish)

Fem af de nye danske kampfly lander aldrig i Danmark | Berlingske Politiko

Basically.. of the 27 non-working expensive F-35s... 5 of them will be permanently stationed in the US for "training purposes"....

Now for most Danes, including me... this is a wtf? Cant the Danish pilots train in Europe or even in Denmark? So not only do we have to pay over-prices for non-functioning planes, but we have to pay the US for letting them have 5 of the planes we own, so that our pilots can be flown over there to train.... seriously!?

Can anyone explain why on earth this is remotely logical?
 

Orly?

Banned
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
3,906
Reaction score
862
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is just a little cost for our protection...

When trump gets in y'all are really going to pay up or were gonna let Russia getcha...
 

jimbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
19,078
Reaction score
6,750
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I understand the mutual defence aspect which I support, but I also understand why people are getting more and more skeptical over NATO and especially US influence on military issues including procurement.

Case in point. Denmark has just bought 27 F-35s from the US. They are to replace our F-16s. Now normally this would on the face of it not be a problem right? Wellll..

First off, the F-35 is a death trap. It is not even finished and has so many problems. Like the computer system locking out people mid flight, or the ejection seat being a death trap for anyone over a certain height. It is also by far the most expensive solution.

So why did the Danish government choose this solution? Good question,... one could claim that Denmark already has F-16s so upgrading to the F-35 would only be natural. However is there something else behind it? Denmark almost always buys US, instead of European, and it is almost always my party that is involved in the buying.. which pisses me off. Why waste our tax-payer money on expensive and hard to maintain weapons, instead of European made (including some of them with Danish tax-payer money!), cheaper and easier to maintain.

Secondly... alternatives. The Eurofighter was the alternative, it is being used.. it is tested, and by most accounts much better than the F-35 on so many fronts. On top of that, it is much cheaper and easier to maintain!

The debate in Denmark over this has been fierce with the right wing government and even parts of the center left defending the buying of the F-35. The media and many people are still extremely puzzled over the buy.

So over the weekend we learn the following (it is in Danish)

Fem af de nye danske kampfly lander aldrig i Danmark | Berlingske Politiko

Basically.. of the 27 non-working expensive F-35s... 5 of them will be permanently stationed in the US for "training purposes"....

Now for most Danes, including me... this is a wtf? Cant the Danish pilots train in Europe or even in Denmark? So not only do we have to pay over-prices for non-functioning planes, but we have to pay the US for letting them have 5 of the planes we own, so that our pilots can be flown over there to train.... seriously!?

Can anyone explain why on earth this is remotely logical?

This sounds like an issue that needs to be taken up with your leaders.

I get the US training, however. If the US has the best training facilities, you go there if you want the best pilots.
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
19,871
Reaction score
9,676
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
~ So why did the Danish government choose this solution? Good question,... one could claim that Denmark already has F-16s so upgrading to the F-35 would only be natural. However is there something else behind it? Denmark almost always buys US, instead of European ~

If the Danes weren't buying F35s, the other US alternative were super hornets and Boeing are pretty puzzled at the figures Denmark has released to justify buying and maintaining F-35's over super hornets.

You also have to as were there any backhanders being offered that makes the F-35 a must have, whatever the shortcomings?

~ Fem af de nye danske kampfly lander aldrig i Danmark | Berlingske Politiko

Basically.. of the 27 non-working expensive F-35s... 5 of them will be permanently stationed in the US for "training purposes"....

Now for most Danes, including me... this is a wtf? Cant the Danish pilots train in Europe or even in Denmark? So not only do we have to pay over-prices for non-functioning planes, but we have to pay the US for letting them have 5 of the planes we own, so that our pilots can be flown over there to train.... seriously!?

Can anyone explain why on earth this is remotely logical?

Can't disagree anything Jimbo says about training where the best facilities are.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,955
Reaction score
13,558
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This sounds like an issue that needs to be taken up with your leaders.

Well of course it is our leaders that are the problem .. fundamentally. But the question is why the Danish armed forces buy so much American, when British, French, Germany alternatives are cheaper and better?

I get the US training, however. If the US has the best training facilities, you go there if you want the best pilots.

Come on.. all you need is an airport. Is the air different? The fuel? Are the toilets and chairs in the classrooms/meeting rooms different than ones in say France or the UK? Seriously..
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,955
Reaction score
13,558
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If the Danes weren't buying F35s, the other US alternative were super hornets and Boeing are pretty puzzled at the figures Denmark has released to justify buying and maintaining F-35's over super hornets.

You also have to as were there any backhanders being offered that makes the F-35 a must have, whatever the shortcomings?

Eurofighter.. cheaper alternative that is as good and actually on active duty. Hell buying Russian would be better to a non function money pit like the F-35.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
61,751
Reaction score
16,392
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Eurofighter.. cheaper alternative that is as good and actually on active duty. Hell buying Russian would be better to a non function money pit like the F-35.

But you didn't have to buy F-35s. Super Hornets were also an option.
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
19,871
Reaction score
9,676
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Eurofighter.. cheaper alternative that is as good and actually on active duty. Hell buying Russian would be better to a non function money pit like the F-35.

I know the Eurofighter was alternative but you said the Danish govt had a policy of buying American. I could have mentioned Eurofighter / French Rafale / Gripen / Shenyang J5 etc etc etc but there was no point as they are not American...............................
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
64,098
Reaction score
25,348
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is just a little cost for our protection...

When trump gets in y'all are really going to pay up or were gonna let Russia getcha...

LOL That really is what Trump would say. That is only one reason why he will lose in a landslide though. Good thing he does not know how to hide his stupidity or we might be in trouble.
 

jimbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
19,078
Reaction score
6,750
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Well of course it is our leaders that are the problem .. fundamentally. But the question is why the Danish armed forces buy so much American, when British, French, Germany alternatives are cheaper and better?



Come on.. all you need is an airport. Is the air different? The fuel? Are the toilets and chairs in the classrooms/meeting rooms different than ones in say France or the UK? Seriously..

Again, Pete, I have no idea. It could be that US hardware is considered the best, cheapest, best bang for the buck, or that the US companies are better salesmen.

But to your second paragraph, absolutely not. Training is not about the facility, the toilets, or the air, It's about how much better you are as a pilot when you go back home.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,955
Reaction score
13,558
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Again, Pete, I have no idea. It could be that US hardware is considered the best, cheapest, best bang for the buck, or that the US companies are better salesmen.

No the US considers it the "best", but in no way is it the cheapest and best bang for the buck. What the US arms companies have is a great ability to buy their favourite politicians in countries and sell them crap.

The Eurofighter is considered a superior plane to the F-35 on most points. For one it actually flys, and is cheaper. It is also far more manoeuvrable, but yes it lacks "stealth", like that matters against ISIS.

But to your second paragraph, absolutely not. Training is not about the facility, the toilets, or the air, It's about how much better you are as a pilot when you go back home.

And you are saying to me that this training could not be done closer to home? There are plenty of airbases in Europe... What makes this US airbase so much better.. there has to be something. Is it not easier to move the instructors closer to the people they are training than moving men and gear to some god forsaken hole in the ground in the US?

And why 5 planes out of 27? The thing that pisses me off, that "experts" in Denmark, clearly state that you can on average expect that 10 of these planes to be in maintenance, which leaves 17 to fly, but 5 of them are in the US... which leaves 12 to fly. Okay so are we sending 5 pilots of the 10 planes that cant fly for some reason, over to the US to train them so that they can come back home at some point, to maybe fly one of the planes that cant fly? Talk about leaving the nation defenceless, if we constantly have 5 out of 22 pilots being rotated 5000+kms away for a holiday in the sun.
 
Last edited:

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,955
Reaction score
13,558
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I know the Eurofighter was alternative but you said the Danish govt had a policy of buying American. I could have mentioned Eurofighter / French Rafale / Gripen / Shenyang J5 etc etc etc but there was no point as they are not American...............................

And that is my whole point.. why does the Danish government insist on American? No one can answer that in Denmark, so my only conclusion must be because they are being heavily influenced by said companies/governments. In a world where we are cutting costs everywhere, how on earth can we justify spending more on a bunch of fighters than the alternatives, but also not even getting all of them... because they need 5 in some desert place to train with.

Is it NATO and the American influence that is the problem? Your own government is spending hugely on the F-35 for its single aircraft carrier. They are so expensive and behind scheduled, that you cant afford a full contingent of planes for the Prince of Wales, and that the ship has to go years with out planes, because they are so delayed!

There are alternatives.. the Super Hornet.. you can get them tomorrow... or go the French way and get the Rafaelle... so why wait? The F-35 by all accounts is a flying turd of a plane at the moment.. Even the US airforce is seriously looking to bail on the plane last I looked.. of course they wont be allowed, but still.

So again, why is it that countries in NATO so often go buy inferior expensive American made weapons and put the defense of nations and NATO in jeopardy?

P.S: No, not all American weapons are inferior or even the most expensive.. so dont even try to throw that against me :)
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
19,871
Reaction score
9,676
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
~ Your own government is spending hugely on the F-35 for its single aircraft carrier. They are so expensive and behind scheduled, that you cant afford a full contingent of planes for the Prince of Wales, and that the ship has to go years with out planes, because they are so delayed! ~

Hey, this was about the Danish purchase. Leave our corrupt purchase process out of it. I would have preferred we went with the Super Hornet or Rafale but I don't make the decisions.

Have to say though - in our case, there may have been a better offer of parts being made in the UK for the F-35. France would probably prefer to keep all manufacture in France and maybe, just maybe - Boeing weren't interested. Don't know the case for Denmark though.
 

HK.227

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
655
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This sounds like an issue that needs to be taken up with your leaders.

I get the US training, however. If the US has the best training facilities, you go there if you want the best pilots.

Yup, and the same goes for supply and maintenance.
Most small countries buy their military equipment from countries that are fairly well aligned with them politically, which lessens the chance of the supply of spare parts being used as leverage.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,955
Reaction score
13,558
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Hey, this was about the Danish purchase. Leave our corrupt purchase process out of it. I would have preferred we went with the Super Hornet or Rafale but I don't make the decisions.

Have to say though - in our case, there may have been a better offer of parts being made in the UK for the F-35. France would probably prefer to keep all manufacture in France and maybe, just maybe - Boeing weren't interested. Don't know the case for Denmark though.

It actually gets worse!

Norway has bought 57 planes.. but only has to leave 4 of them in the US for "training purposes".

And your "corrupt purchase" is part of an over all problem imo with NATO. I can understand country doing a "bad purchase", but so many?
 

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,081
Location
#TrumpWasAnInsideJob
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The US and NATO as they currently are want to ensure that America's EU allies are as weak and dependent as is feasibly possible. What better way than sabotaging the equipment they are selling to Denmark and others?

The U.S. military-industrial complex (of which NATO is part of) is essentially one giant, global, neo-fascist, robber-baron corporation.
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
19,871
Reaction score
9,676
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It actually gets worse!

Norway has bought 57 planes.. but only has to leave 4 of them in the US for "training purposes".

I'm pretty certain if Norway and Denmark needed them because of problems in the Baltic that they would be brought over. Jimbo's point about training facilities still stands. There was probably nothing to prevent Denmark and Norway agreeing that they could leave 2 planes each and share them to make 4 left in the US for training.

And your "corrupt purchase" is part of an over all problem imo with NATO. I can understand country doing a "bad purchase", but so many?

Then you have to go back through the 20 years of the point of the F-35. I'm not defending the thing though - it sounds from various sources that there are still problems and weaknesses but almost as many people in defence say it's a good craft.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,746
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm pretty certain if Norway and Denmark needed them because of problems in the Baltic that they would be brought over. Jimbo's point about training facilities still stands. There was probably nothing to prevent Denmark and Norway agreeing that they could leave 2 planes each and share them to make 4 left in the US for training.



Then you have to go back through the 20 years of the point of the F-35. I'm not defending the thing though - it sounds from various sources that there are still problems and weaknesses but almost as many people in defence say it's a good craft.

I have a feeling that at least 4 J-31's will be had for the price of 1 F-35, without a huge drop in warfighting abilities.... that's a problem folks.

America used to be able to do projects like this well, now we can barely do them at all, and we get massively overcharged to boot.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,955
Reaction score
13,558
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'm pretty certain if Norway and Denmark needed them because of problems in the Baltic that they would be brought over. Jimbo's point about training facilities still stands. There was probably nothing to prevent Denmark and Norway agreeing that they could leave 2 planes each and share them to make 4 left in the US for training.

Well I suspect it is a demand from NATO, aka the US for those planes. Denmark and Norway usually great in sharing and helping each other, so in theory yes, but the very fact that it has not happened, must mean there is an external influence. Just think about it.. any country that buys F35s, have to leave X amount of planes in the US, under US control... Alone with Norway and Denmark the US has almost 10 extra planes that they did not even pay for...

As for needing the planes due to the baltic.. horse****. They need new planes because the F-16 is reaching its end of usage. Our F-16s have been falling out of the sky for some time now.

Then you have to go back through the 20 years of the point of the F-35. I'm not defending the thing though - it sounds from various sources that there are still problems and weaknesses but almost as many people in defence say it's a good craft.

Then you should read some of the Pentagons own reports... the latest has this to say.

The F-35 has a significant risk of fire due to extensive fuel tank vulnerability, lightning vulnerability and an OBIGGS system unable to sufficiently reduce fire-sustaining oxygen, despite redesigns;

Even in its third iteration, the F-35’s helmet continues to show high false-alarm rates and computer stability concerns, seriously reducing pilots’ situational awareness and endangering their lives in combat;

ALIS software failures continue to impede operation, mission planning, and maintenance of the F-35, forcing the Services to be overly reliant on contractors and "unacceptable workarounds";

The above has been around for many years..

But the kicker is this..

Low availability and reliability of the F-35 is driven by inherent design problems that are only becoming more obvious and difficult to fix.

And this is about the 3rd newest version of the F-35....

The list of problems is massive for this plane.
 

jimbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
19,078
Reaction score
6,750
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
And that is my whole point.. why does the Danish government insist on American? No one can answer that in Denmark, so my only conclusion must be because they are being heavily influenced by said companies/governments. In a world where we are cutting costs everywhere, how on earth can we justify spending more on a bunch of fighters than the alternatives, but also not even getting all of them... because they need 5 in some desert place to train with.

Is it NATO and the American influence that is the problem? Your own government is spending hugely on the F-35 for its single aircraft carrier. They are so expensive and behind scheduled, that you cant afford a full contingent of planes for the Prince of Wales, and that the ship has to go years with out planes, because they are so delayed!

There are alternatives.. the Super Hornet.. you can get them tomorrow... or go the French way and get the Rafaelle... so why wait? The F-35 by all accounts is a flying turd of a plane at the moment.. Even the US airforce is seriously looking to bail on the plane last I looked.. of course they wont be allowed, but still.

So again, why is it that countries in NATO so often go buy inferior expensive American made weapons and put the defense of nations and NATO in jeopardy?

P.S: No, not all American weapons are inferior or even the most expensive.. so dont even try to throw that against me :)

Then there's this, Pete:

F-35 JSF development is being principally funded by the United States with additional funding from partners. The partner nations are either NATO members or close U.S. allies. The United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Turkey are part of the active development program; (WIKI)

So Denmark was a partner in the plane from the beginning. So it's your turd as well as ours.
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
19,871
Reaction score
9,676
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well I suspect it is a demand from NATO, aka the US for those planes. Denmark and Norway usually great in sharing and helping each other, so in theory yes, but the very fact that it has not happened, must mean there is an external influence. Just think about it.. any country that buys F35s, have to leave X amount of planes in the US, under US control... Alone with Norway and Denmark the US has almost 10 extra planes that they did not even pay for...

As for needing the planes due to the baltic.. horse****. They need new planes because the F-16 is reaching its end of usage. Our F-16s have been falling out of the sky for some time now.



Then you should read some of the Pentagons own reports... the latest has this to say.







The above has been around for many years..

But the kicker is this..



And this is about the 3rd newest version of the F-35....

The list of problems is massive for this plane.

~ The partner nations are either NATO members or close U.S. allies. The United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Turkey are part of the active development program; (WIKI)

So Denmark was a partner in the plane from the beginning. So it's your turd as well as ours.

Pretty much kills it doesn't it?
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
19,871
Reaction score
9,676
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have a feeling that at least 4 J-31's will be had for the price of 1 F-35, without a huge drop in warfighting abilities.... that's a problem folks.

America used to be able to do projects like this well, now we can barely do them at all, and we get massively overcharged to boot.

Don't know enough about the J-31, I don't however think the J-31 has a brilliant record either.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,955
Reaction score
13,558
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Pretty much kills it doesn't it?

Partner means.. they bought it. Not as in developed it by any means. "active development program" .. horse****. That is Locked-Martin, and no way in hell would the US military allow anyone but Americans to develop military gear.

Do you really think that the US would allow the Turks to be active in developing their next gen aircraft? LOL HAHAH...
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
19,871
Reaction score
9,676
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Partner means.. they bought it. Not as in developed it by any means. "active development program" .. horse****. That is Locked-Martin, and no way in hell would the US military allow anyone but Americans to develop military gear.

Do you really think that the US would allow the Turks to be active in developing their next gen aircraft? LOL HAHAH...

No you set up a strawman and happily beat it. I don't say they helped develop it. Those countries will have had some form of input but the actual technical development - however people like Rolls Royce etc will have to know enough detail to build our own version of engine to make it fly.
 
Top Bottom