German Eurofighter woes

German media are reporting, according to insider info, that only 4 of the 128 planes are actually battle-ready.

A recent issue seems to be a cooling leak in the Defensive Aids Sub-System (DASS). The component that has to be replaced is apparently not available anymore. So they have to improvise, whatever that means. To make things worse there are also only "two handfuls" missiles available to arm the aircraft. Even if they could fly wouldn't be able to fight.

In other news, there is also the story that 7 of the 120 pilots have quit a few weeks ago. No idea if related, but it certainly doesn't help.

If there were a war, we should just quit.

Tanks? Please do not ask.
U-Boats? 6 out of 6 are unavailable.
Transport aircrafts? Well, we DO have the Transall (C-160), but not any further after 2020 or -21. Please do not ask about the A400-M.
Guns? Yeah, well there is this G-36. Which shoots around corners, I guess?
Helicopters? Sea King is working, but who knows how long? Please do not ask about the NH-90.

We could build hills and walls out of defect military hardware, that would be more dangerous than the items themself..

The '4 out of 128 combat ready' is probably just refering to the QRAs in Wittmund and Neuburg as fighters actually in use for possible combat operations. With the DASS issue (the less said about it the better) there is probably a fleet wide standdown atm.
The article is correct as far as Germany would not be able to meet Nato obligation in an emergency and is continously lying about it, but '4 out of 128' is missleading to say the least.
The claim that there are only 'two handfuls' of missiles left is equally dubious, i dont see how thats possible. Obviously ammunition stockpiles are totally inadequate for prolonged combat, but there should be *hundreds* of at least IRST and Meteors available. Maybe those are blocked for some reason (lacking *civilian* certification for peacetime operations, just like the AMRAAMs in Germany?) and they run out of Sidewinders? Just speculation but this makes little sense.

As for pilots leaving, there is an article on augengeradeaus about it. Personnel Management issues mostly.

Sadly, Germany has demonstrated that they are a poor partner in NATO. They significantly underspend on their 2% of GDP NATO commitment and allow their military to fall into disrepair. This does not bode well for the future, and of the EU's aspiration to create an EU military, because that military will be run by France at this rate.

originally posted by: paraphi
Sadly, Germany has demonstrated that they are a poor partner in NATO. They significantly underspend on their 2% of GDP NATO commitment and allow their military to fall into disrepair. ...

Those 2% are necessary and based on .. what? A number some orange bully pulled out of one of his orifices?

Example, please, why 2% are the magic game-changing point. And why it is that not-having a huuuge military is a sad thing.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

It's based on the agreement reached in 2006. But hey, what are words on a paper, and who cares when they went into effect when there's an opportunity to bash Trump, right?

Taking current commitments into account, we are guided by the following considerations:
Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so.
Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
halt any decline in defence expenditure;
aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.
Allies who currently spend less than 20% of their annual defence spending on major new equipment, including related Research & Development, will aim, within a decade, to increase their annual investments to 20% or more of total defence expenditures.
All Allies will:
ensure that their land, air and maritime forces meet NATO agreed guidelines for deployability and sustainability and other agreed output metrics;
ensure that their armed forces can operate together effectively, including through the implementation of agreed NATO standards and doctrines.

www.nato.int...

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Those 2% are necessary and based on .. what? A number some orange bully pulled out of one of his orifices?

The 2% of GDP was a commitment made by NATO members. It pre-dates Trump. Germany are benefiting from NATO's protection and not supporting NATO to the fullness of their commitments. The fact that Germany could not defend anything with it's military in such a state of disrepair is sad.

NATO report 2017 PDF

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: paraphi
Sadly, Germany has demonstrated that they are a poor partner in NATO. They significantly underspend on their 2% of GDP NATO commitment and allow their military to fall into disrepair. ...

Those 2% are necessary and based on .. what? A number some orange bully pulled out of one of his orifices?

Example, please, why 2% are the magic game-changing point. And why it is that not-having a huuuge military is a sad thing.

It is when you're depending on your allies to pick up the tab. Germany is the 4th largest economy in thw world and is depending entirely on exports. Its the third largest exporter globally and has the highest trade suprlus in the world. To say they have a vasted interest in a stable world economy is an understatement. Given their dominant position in Europe they should act like a great power, second only to the US in the west, shaping international affairs in their own right.

The 2% issue is just a talking point. Nobody really gives a crap what Germany invests in their armed forces. Their allies however do very much care about their capabilities and unwillingness to use them. You're are correct as far as 2% wouldnt change anything anyway. The Bundeswehr has enough money to get by (although a modest spending increase to Levels of France and UK wouldnt hurt), they just cant use it well for a whole list of reasons. Germany spends 40+ Billion US-$ on the defense annually - not a trivial amount, but compare the result to Japan, South Korea or Israel. Its a joke really.

a reply to: paraphi

No, we will not. Why?

The question "Why?" is exactly the point. Here is a nice article about the NEED to fullfill the 2%.. (German only, use google.translate or something).

The answer is: We do not have to.

Political and legal scholars agree that NATO's two-percent target has no legal binding effect.

One argument being that NATO-generalsecretary Jaap de Hoop Scheffer spoke of an

„informal benchmark of two percent defence spending.“

Source Scientific Service of the Bundestag

Nothing will come out of it.

a reply to: mightmight

Good, bc we already spend 1.23% of our GDP.


Japan is just a little bit too paranoid in my opinion.

Israel, South Korea? Well, those two countries have one or more enemy-states on their doorstep - which is a difference to Germany, I think.

And finally: Do you really want a military-strong Germany? Do you?... Bc that is just something about every generation of Germans after WWII has decided to not be. Yes, we would not attack Europe with our armies again, but we feel very very uncomfortable with the point of the Bundeswehr no more being for defensive actions only, but for active actions elsewhere in the world. Neither do most of the soldiers.

originally posted by: paraphi
Sadly, Germany has demonstrated that they are a poor partner in NATO. They significantly underspend on their 2% of GDP NATO commitment and allow their military to fall into disrepair. This does not bode well for the future, and of the EU's aspiration to create an EU military, because that military will be run by France at this rate.

France is fine militarily, their white flag factories are running at full capacity

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: paraphi
Sadly, Germany has demonstrated that they are a poor partner in NATO. They significantly underspend on their 2% of GDP NATO commitment and allow their military to fall into disrepair. This does not bode well for the future, and of the EU's aspiration to create an EU military, because that military will be run by France at this rate.

France is fine militarily, their white flag factories are running at full capacity

Anything more superficial to add now that you got your intellectual erection writing that?

I live in France and have family members as active service members who are proud to eventually sacrifice their lives in order to help maintain peace no matter where in the world.

Let go with your stupid and childish stereotypical comments Mr armchair warrior...

Muppet...

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Yet I bet you pooped yourself when the orange bully threatened to leave NATO. Russia would crush Europe in a week if the US pulled out...which it will never do. You bash the states when we do something, and again when we DONT do something. You guys just sat by while genocide took place in the Balkans. We had to fly missions out of the UK at great expense. Of course you dont want a military, you have big brother protecting you.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: mightmight

Good, bc we already spend 1.23% of our GDP.


Japan is just a little bit too paranoid in my opinion.

Israel, South Korea? Well, those two countries have one or more enemy-states on their doorstep - which is a difference to Germany, I think.

The poinit is, those countries get vastly more capable armed forces for less money invested. If Germany would spend as efficiently as those countries, we wouldnt have the 2% discussion.

And finally: Do you really want a military-strong Germany? Do you?... Bc that is just something about every generation of Germans after WWII has decided to not be. Yes, we would not attack Europe with our armies again, but we feel very very uncomfortable with the point of the Bundeswehr no more being for defensive actions only, but for active actions elsewhere in the world. Neither do most of the soldiers.

I want Germany to meet its Nato obligations they agreed upon. In reality, not just on paper. And i'd be fine with cancelling bs foreign adventures like Mali and focusing on 'Bündnisverteidigung'.

originally posted by: Lagomorphe

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: paraphi
Sadly, Germany has demonstrated that they are a poor partner in NATO. They significantly underspend on their 2% of GDP NATO commitment and allow their military to fall into disrepair. This does not bode well for the future, and of the EU's aspiration to create an EU military, because that military will be run by France at this rate.

France is fine militarily, their white flag factories are running at full capacity

Anything more superficial to add now that you got your intellectual erection writing that?

I live in France and have family members as active service members who are proud to eventually sacrifice their lives in order to help maintain peace no matter where in the world.

Let go with your stupid and childish stereotypical comments Mr armchair warrior...

Muppet...

Mate jump down from your high horse for a second and take a joke.
I was stealing a line from John Cleese

“The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.” Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross.”
The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out.
Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.” The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s Get the Bastards.” They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The French Government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France’s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.
The Italians have increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.” Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”
The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.” They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbour” and “Lose.”
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels. The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
The Australians, meanwhile, have raised their security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be right, Mate.” Two more escalation levels remain: “Crikey! I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!” and “The barbie is canceled.” So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.” —
John Cleese – British writer, actor and tall person.

But sincere apology for hurting your delicate sensibilities, no offence was intended so you can unwad your panties now

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: paraphi
Sadly, Germany has demonstrated that they are a poor partner in NATO. They significantly underspend on their 2% of GDP NATO commitment and allow their military to fall into disrepair. This does not bode well for the future, and of the EU's aspiration to create an EU military, because that military will be run by France at this rate.

France is fine militarily, their white flag factories are running at full capacity

I'm always up for a but a French bashing but we should remember it was France who bailed us (the British) out during the Crimean war.

a reply to: moebius

I'm sure there is a problem, but note that military units get to define readiness. The US Army is famous for declaring itself "not ready" because they don't have sufficient blah blah blah and need congress to appropriate money for blah blah blah.

Using defense think, you can define yourself not ready to drive to work because you lack a Ferrari.

originally posted by: biggilo

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: paraphi
Sadly, Germany has demonstrated that they are a poor partner in NATO. They significantly underspend on their 2% of GDP NATO commitment and allow their military to fall into disrepair. This does not bode well for the future, and of the EU's aspiration to create an EU military, because that military will be run by France at this rate.

France is fine militarily, their white flag factories are running at full capacity

I'm always up for a but a French bashing but we should remember it was France who bailed us (the British) out during the Crimean war.

Im Aussie not English so French bashing isnt one of our past times,
I believe in taking the piss out of everyone equally

Kind of funny timing. 7 Typhoons and 4 Tornados arrived at Nellis for Green Flag the other day. It just came up yesterday that none of them had flown a single flight since arriving.

Germany needs to meet it's commitment to NATO fullstop. Germany try and make themselves the masters of the European Union, it has one of the largest economies in the world, let alone Europe, and does next to nothing to help protect it's NATO allies whilst the rest of Europe spends it's money, Germany sits on its wallet.