this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
294 points (98.7% liked)
World News
840 readers
544 users here now
Rules:
- Be a decent person
- No spam
- Add the byline, or write a line or two in the body about the article.
Other communities of interest:
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What everyone talks about is losing Europe as a customer, which then increases US costs. What no one is talking about is Europe becoming a huge arms exporter, which then competes with US equipment which then increases US costs. Right now Europe gives not very good options, but a few decades of integrating their product line and bringing costs down from coordination and they will have excellent products. This moves Europe from not just a purchaser to a non-purchaser, but to a competitor.
I feel like Europe has a leg up in this situation and can scale into it faster than people expect as well. Many European nations have experience in joint projects either with the US (like Germany with the Leopard 2 coming out of the same program as the US M1 Abrams and probably being the biggest export MBT outside of Soviet tanks from the Cold War) or with each other (like with the Eurofighter, the standardization of ammunition, and every NATO nation using the Rheinmetall L7 120mm smoothbore cannon as the gun on their tanks). Every NATO nation - and even plenty outside of it - are already on a standardized logistics platform, and moving that away from any American standard would be as easy as using an American standard, and could prove difficult for American arms manufacturers if the two diverge and NATO nations suddenly become an "export market."
What I mean is they have to streamline it. The Leopard 2 currently has to compete with the Leclerc and the Challenger 2. Having 3 tanks means 3x R&D and more costly manufacturing and support. Eurofighter has to compete with Rafale and Gripen. Just the eurofighter engine has 4 manufacturers and must be a coordination nightmare. How many rifle designs are there? How many IFV designs? APC designs? Streamline this and you get a better quality product at a lower cost and you have a more competitive product for export. Even for non export there are 2 carrier designs, 2 nuclear Sub designs, etc.
Are new LeClerc and Challengers even produced currently?
Some competition, diversity, and redundancy isn’t bad strategically and helps improve development and quality.
Countries also have different geography and infrastructure that might lead to preferring other models of IFVs for example. Not every country needs it to be easily air transportable or able to swim.
Spreading production and spending throughout Europe is fair as well.