ListNook

FreshPrinceOfH Apr 22, 2026 +460

I think patriot ammunition is quite heavily constrained.

460

AyiHutha Apr 22, 2026 +122

TBH the main issue with SAMP/T is also ammunition supply

122

FreshPrinceOfH Apr 22, 2026 +76

The outlook for samp/t ammo supply is better than for pac 3

76

Cerres Apr 22, 2026 +34

In the short term yes, in the long term its unclear. Rn pretty much all patriot production is going to replace the thousands expended in the Middle East, but the factories which make patriots are spinning up into high gear. I would not be surprised if pac 3’s reach very high production numbers in a year or so, and also not surprised if a more efficient pac 4 system comes online with lessons learned

34

Level-Strategy-1343 Apr 23, 2026 +47

One of those lessons learned is "If you are in the US supply chain,your contracted supplies can and will be diverted".

47

BadVoices Apr 23, 2026 -2

They are also built in Japan.

-2

New_Enthusiasm9053 Apr 23, 2026 +5

Doesn't matter. Denmark has to consider the US a threat right now. They'd have to be idiots to pick patriot.

5

nonviolent_blackbelt Apr 22, 2026 +21

Fingers crossed samp/t is also learning lessons and planning a successor.

21

aimgorge Apr 22, 2026 +17

Like the brand new SAMPT/NG that started deliveries this year ?

17

Chimpville Apr 23, 2026 +2

It still uses the same Aster-30 interceptors though. It doesn’t really change anything from a manufacturing and supply basis.

2

Thurak0 Apr 23, 2026 +8

Not exactly the same, but an improved variant: > Aster 30 Block 1NT: NT standing for "New Technology", it is a new variant of the Aster 30 designed to counter short and 1,500 km (930 mi)-class medium-range ballistic missiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aster_(missile_family) They also have a new Aster 15 variant under development, which overall does sound clever to me, because it solves the "firing an expensive patriot at a c**** drone" problem at least a little bit if an SAMPT/NG battery has both types of missiles and can use both depending on target.

8

Chimpville Apr 23, 2026 +2

Ah thank you - I thought the NT were already what were used, I didn’t realised they were tied to the SAMP/T NG.

2

aimgorge Apr 23, 2026 +1

No they dont use the same missiles...

1

Chimpville Apr 23, 2026 +1

Yeah, u/Thurak0 set me straight. My bad.

1

GoneSilent Apr 22, 2026 +8

Japan is also expanding PAC 3 production and change of laws to allow export.

8

BocciaChoc Apr 23, 2026 +8

I don't think Europe fears the factories ability, just the US willingness to actually sell / honour arms deals.

8

Impressive-Potato Apr 23, 2026 +1

And if things are getting tight, they will redirect supples to Israel.

1

dreamoforganon Apr 22, 2026 +14

IIRC there was some talk of Poland building PAC3s under licence, though I'm not sure of anything came of that.

14

what_the_eve Apr 23, 2026 +2

So far, the companies behind PAC3 have declined such efforts outside of the US. Especially a license build is highly unlikely. Only the launch container for pac3 will be produced in Poland.

2

BadVoices Apr 23, 2026

Except it's already made in Japan.

0

what_the_eve Apr 23, 2026 +1

you are right. When that agreement was made though, pushed by the US admin as part of their greater strategy focus in the pacific IIRC, Japan could not export the missiles produced domestically as easily due to existing laws. Which eventually changed. Thus I would somewhat differntiate this agreement to other joint ventures or even license builds talked about here.

1

BadVoices Apr 23, 2026 +1

>pushed by the US admin as part of their greater strategy focus in the pacific IIRC That is incorrect. The Japanese government was the highly motivated buyer here after Korea fired their taepodong-1 missile. The US government offered and wanted Japan to buy the Patriot, as well as Aegis, so they'd be compatible with the US. There's a signed MOU, but Lockheed and Mitsubishi did not go joint, Mitsubishi has a full on License. US technical assistance and schematics, but all Japanese components. Japan had the Type 03 they were going to upgrade for the role, which was initially just for aircraft and such, but now, the Chu-SAM Kai can intercept short range and hypersonics.

1

RustOnTheEdge Apr 23, 2026 +2

Oh now they are spinning up in high gear? We couldn’t supply Ukraine in the fight against literally Russia(!!), but now some Arab states are in need there is suddenly a lot more production capacity available? Come on.

2

Oper8rActual Apr 23, 2026 +2

Patriot is also primarily supplied and operated by a government that has expressed interest in invading Denmark’s territory (Greenland). They’d be a bit stupid to set up a supply chain with a potential direct adversary.

2

SomewhereCheap5110 Apr 23, 2026 +2

Lessons learned is not really a thing in the US military though

2

DSJ-Psyduck Apr 23, 2026 +1

Currently they are however sold by a nation that they might need to be used against.. And thats a bad deal any way you twist it.

1

Chimpville Apr 22, 2026 +4

Aster-30 are currently manufactued at a rate of \~100 a year after being surged from 32. PAC-3 are manufacuted at a rate of \~600. PAC-3 are needed to replenish more customers of course, but it's really going to depend on how either LM or Thales manage their manufacturing expansion over the next few years.

4

what_the_eve Apr 23, 2026 +1

PAC-3 production will be tripled, whereas Aster output is being raised this year to a 100 with a goal rate of 300. This puts the rates at 2000 vs 300

1

Chimpville Apr 23, 2026 +2

That’s over two different timelines though. The PAC-3 2,000 target was a 7 year goal set in 2025, so 2032, and the Aster-30 300 target is set for 2028 - mainly to equip existing operators, including Ukraine. But SAFE funding and more customers could change things. A lot can happen with either in that time.

2

Atalant Apr 23, 2026 +3

Yes, but delivery time on the system is so much shorter. the wait for delivery of the Patriotsystem is years.

3

Vier_Scar Apr 22, 2026 +88

And no way Denmark would want to defend against the USA with ammo and equipment made in the USA. Honestly I hope all of the EU+UK are shifting off US defence equipment asap

88

Black_Moons Apr 22, 2026 +31

And pretty sure the only other country that would try to invade denmark is also USA's only other ally: Russia.

31

Kind_Silver_1921 Apr 23, 2026 -30

Isn't Europe funding Russia by buying oil still? Didn't Ukraine just open a pipeline? Does the US fund Russia? Hmmm interesting. What country helps Russia make shahed drones to kill Ukrainians with? Iran? Who's the US currently bombing? What countries tried to prevent the US bombing Iran by blocking air space and US access to bases to bomb Iran? Spain France Italy and the UK? I wonder who else is currently supplying Russia to bomb Ukraine. China? Hmm I wonder what countries in Europe are doing about it. Oh they're opening up trade with China out of retaliation for us tariffs. Gee it seems to me that the US is the only country actually helping Ukraine right now toppling their allies of Venezuela and Iran and Cuba.

-30

No-Cryptographer7494 Apr 23, 2026 +29

how hard did you fall on your head? \- Iran does no longer make the sahed drones they sold the plans to russia. \-the US bombing iran is making oil per barrel increase wich helps russia \-the US lifting sanctions on russia is helping russia \- the us redirects already promised and paid for assets the only reason more european countries are going to china is because the us is being run by a toddler and is losing all international respect and power so we can NOT depend on such a country

29

Kind_Silver_1921 Apr 23, 2026 -7

>Iran does no longer make the sahed drones they sold the plans to russia. No not 100% of it was made in Russia as part of the deal they had a supply line of parts sent from Iran to Russia for a steady income. >the US bombing iran is making oil per barrel increase wich helps russia Europe is buying oil from Russia directly which helps Russia. Higher oil prices is helping the US the largest oil producer in the world. >-the US lifting sanctions on russia is helping russia Europe is sending money directly to Russia. The US has sanctions on Russia still what allies have sanctions? Again Europe is directly funding Russia killing Ukrainians. >the only reason more european countries are going to china is because the us is being run by a toddler So out of spite Europe are killing Ukrainians because they hate dronald drumpf. Such good allies. Europe also just forced Ukraine to open a druzba oil pipeline from Russia in order to get a loan they want Ukraine to pay back. Let me repeat that. Europe just forced Ukraine to let them send more money to Russia

-7

Immediate_Move_3742 Apr 23, 2026 +8

The US vice president stated that ending aid to ukraine was his greatest achievement. The US president removed the price cap on russian oil which did nothing to increase supply and only served to increase the amount of money russia is making selling its oil. The US imposes more tariffs on Canadian goods including oil than it does on those from Russia. The US leadership has repeatedly undermined NATO. Really I could go on all day if I cared to. The US leadership is morally bankrupt and its citizens are complicit.

8

DSJ-Psyduck Apr 23, 2026 +2

USA has removed all sactions on Russian oil and despite putting tariffs on everyone on the planet....Russia did not get any.

2

MammothDon Apr 23, 2026 +1

That's the hope. I don't know too much about other military equipment comparisons but I think fighter jets wise it's very hard for the major EU countries to not get F-35s or replace them. Their own Gen 6 jet programs are something like a decade off last I read

1

CrackRocksCokeRules Apr 23, 2026 -15

Europeans can’t even afford their own subpar defense systems

-15

Vier_Scar Apr 23, 2026 +4

I'm curious, when you post are you conscious that you're just posting stuff that your cult promotes? Or do you still think you're posting stuff that is actually true in reality? Honestly I'm not sure you guys even realise how delusional you are anymore. It's like someone high talking at you about the CIA that are after him. Are you even that conscious anymore?

4

CrackRocksCokeRules Apr 23, 2026 -3

Prove im wrong, you can’t, you bots scream propaganda and magically clam up when you get asked for proof

-3

gtfckdbrnlssbts Apr 23, 2026 +2

>makes claim without any proof >wants others to prove what they are saying is correct and while he proves nothing you are a pedophile and the US is technologically 50 years behind Somalia that's now a fact. you want to counter these facts? well, give me proper proof :)

2

Black_Moons Apr 22, 2026 +13

over a decade to make ammo for it, spent it all in 2 weeks. Yea, constrained just a tad.

13

aaaaaaaarrrrrgh Apr 23, 2026 +11

Also buying your air defense system from the country that threatened to invade you just a few months prior doesn't sound like a smart move.

11

nolok Apr 23, 2026 +2

More importantly the biggest, hell the only actual threat to Danemark proper in the past 50 years came from the USA. So that probably had an effect, and if not then what are the Danes doing.

2

biscuitarse Apr 22, 2026 +311

After Trump, the American Military Complex is going to have to have BOGO sale blowout along with no down payment, no payments for a year, if they ever hope to get back on track.

311

Charming_Pirate Apr 22, 2026 +231

Nobody wants air defences from an unreliable trading partner at best, and a hostile state at worst, no matter if they’re free.

231

xevaviona Apr 23, 2026 +6

Pretty sure Ukraine would take anything that shoots

6

New_Enthusiasm9053 Apr 23, 2026 +3

Sure but that's because they don't care about the long term. They'll burn through any stocks they get before the war ends anyway. They're also generally short of interceptors so they can buy from their preferred long term partner and also still use every patriot missile they can get.

3

Nyther53 Apr 22, 2026 +36

Breaking News: Poland=Nobody, stated u/Charming_Pirate. The biggest problem with Patriot right now is that there's so many orders they're years behind and have a massive waiting list. Raytheon certainly could not meet the 2028 delivery that they've contracted for, which is actually pretty lightning fast for a defense contractor. Shit, Raytheon might struggle to meet a 2038 delivery for a new order. There's over a thousand missile backlog at the moment, mostly European customers but also Ukraine and the US Military itself.

36

MrDerpGently Apr 22, 2026 +33

Sure, Poland made a large and, at the time, sensible investment in US arms to defend against a potential Russian invasion. It's also why NATO is still playing nice, even as the US makes wild threats and disrupts global trade. But that doesn't mean they aren't disentangling as fast as they can from a US supply chain that was already suspect and overtaxed by Ukraine before kicking off a regional war in the Gulf.

33

noir_lord Apr 22, 2026 +26

Poland bought the Abrams *and* the Korean K2 (way more of the K2) the K2 deal included local manufacture. Even before this insanity Poland which was seen as a staunch US ally realised the risk of depending on a *reliable* ally. Now the US has shown itself to be unreliable. That genie isn’t going back in the bottle any time soon.

26

what_the_eve Apr 23, 2026 +3

This is such a wrong representation of how Poland approached those procurements. It did not deliberately hedge against an „unreliable US partner“. In fact, Poland is the last country in Europe who would cut ties with the US. The Korean option was only taken because Korea was offering extreme competitive offset and licensing deals, agreed to a very short term delivery regiment, plus they designed a knockoffs MTU engine similar to the one serviced in their Leopards, which in theory would have lowered training and maintenance costs. But overall, having several tank types for the same role is not a genius foreign policy and diversification move, but in terms of military maintenance and logistics extremely stupid. You are just skewing the facts to make Poland look better than it actually is on their US dependency.

3

MrDerpGently Apr 22, 2026 +3

I wish I could disagree.

3

what_the_eve Apr 23, 2026 +1

How are they disentangling from the US supply chain?

1

SmegmaWarrior0815 Apr 22, 2026 +2

I don't know. People here started buying Teslas again because of rebates and 0% financing.

2

Charming_Pirate Apr 22, 2026 +56

A car is a bit different to your defence infrastructure

56

Helios0186 Apr 22, 2026 +30

I prefer to walk or use a bike than buy a Tesla. Elon can go pound sands for all I care.

30

kmonsen Apr 22, 2026 +31

I don't understand why anyone would buy a Tesla anymore. It is like directly subsidizing your own enslavement.

31

ImperfectRegulator Apr 22, 2026 +9

For me it not even a politics or dislike of Elon, theres just far better EV’s on the road these days then teslas

9

Venat14 Apr 22, 2026 +2

Which ones are recommended?

2

kausemos Apr 22, 2026 +4

All of them really. Even Chinese cars are better

4

ImperfectRegulator Apr 22, 2026 +1

I’m no expert, but I’ve seen an uptick in Rivans and BYD sells more cars than Tesla now

1

putin_my_ass Apr 22, 2026 +5

I like cars where I can rescue my family by opening the door using a handle.

5

Flohmaster Apr 22, 2026 +7

Those people also voted trump back in, so yeah that checks out. Luckily it's not American citizens that govern other countries

7

Xan_derous Apr 22, 2026 +2

Right. The real reason is they are backordered because literally everybody wants them.

2

Charming_Pirate Apr 22, 2026 +7

*did* want them. I don’t dispute the order book would have been huge before American went to hell in a hand basket.

7

ProtoplanetaryNebula Apr 22, 2026 +18

Trump said the US will scale down support and might quit NATO, European countries will bump up their military spending, but of course they’re gonna do as much as possible to build up local industry. As usual, Trump never thinks through the consequences of his actions.

18

Rincewindcl Apr 23, 2026 +1

From my (very basic) understanding of the mechanisms of the US political system, I don’t believe Trump can make that call any longer. To be honest, Europe probably needs a new defence pact anyway, and this would be prioritised should the US leave NATO in the next few years.

1

CrackRocksCokeRules Apr 23, 2026 -4

They were building up prior to mango because the us realized they weren’t pulling their weight, he has little to do with this

-4

EsToBoY629 Apr 22, 2026 +44

The damage is done, the American people have shown their true colors of being spineless immoral losers.... untrustworthy nation of idiots.

44

Ididntdodiddly Apr 22, 2026 -72

As opposed to the European citizens who voted for politicians that said Russian energy was a good long term play. Hahaha, what a propagandist. USA bad gimme upvotes Germany, Italy, France, Austria, Hungary, Poland were all buying Russian gas. Amazing, but the Americans are the only dumb ones

-72

FrazBucket Apr 22, 2026 +32

You mean the gas deal that was implemented long before any indication of intentions to invade Ukraine, or the invasion itself right? Keep on crying, your country is fucked and continues to fall from grace.

32

Ididntdodiddly Apr 22, 2026 -20

Germany voluntarily canceled nuclear power just to fund Russia. There were many indications Russia would attack another place. We saw this in Crimea already. What a cope, "we could never see it coming even though they kept attacking places"

-20

Some-Concentrate3229 Apr 22, 2026 -19

Dude euros will convince themselves of whatever they need to in order to feel superior. They’re fueled mainly by their inferiority complex with the United States.

-19

ryan30z Apr 23, 2026 +13

No one is jealous of the US, that is a purely American invention. At best people are neutral about the US. The developed world is glad they don't live in a place where can go bankrupt due to medical debt.

13

CrazyBaron Apr 22, 2026 +11

Yes, because Europe tried appeasement, it didn't work out, but logicaly was a right strategy at the time. Doesn't change that USA is as unreliable as Russia.

11

Ididntdodiddly Apr 22, 2026 -6

No, it was spineless immoral loser behavior to appease Russia

-6

Pierre_Francois_III Apr 23, 2026 +10

Worse that what the US is doing right now ?

10

Ididntdodiddly Apr 23, 2026 -1

Russia sold Europe like $700 - $1,200 billion in gas/oil/ etc from 2014-2022. So, yeah way worse. Payments to Russia went straight to the government.

-1

dontcryWOLF88 Apr 22, 2026 +9

The question is not , "who was dumber." The question is, is the United States government demonstrating themselves to be, "spineless immoral losers", and " untrustworthy." Most people, of most places, will say yes to these latter questions. Probably more unreliable even than Putins Russia, at least under this current administration.

9

moosemanwich Apr 22, 2026 +28

Europe the country. Very on brand for you lololololol.

28

Ididntdodiddly Apr 22, 2026 -24

Please quote where I said that

-24

mehatliving Apr 22, 2026 +1

‘European citizens’ - A citizen is a legally recognized subject or member of a sovereign state or nation, either native or naturalized, who owes allegiance to the government and is entitled to its protection, rights, and privileges. - Merriam Webster Europe is a continent, something they do not teach in U.S. schools.

1

Dingus_Khaaan Apr 22, 2026 +3

We all know what he meant. While you have that dictionary open, why don’t you look up the words “pedantic” and “quibbling” you lout.

3

Gaminedes7 Apr 23, 2026 +2

The funniest thing is European citizenship is a real legal concept under EU law. Every national of an EU member state has european citizenship. So his response is even dumber

2

cctchristensen Apr 22, 2026 -4

European citizens? As if they are all represented by a single person or legislature. No, the EU doesn't count. That's like referring to citizens of the USA as North American citizens.

-4

Ididntdodiddly Apr 22, 2026 +2

Germany, Italy, Poland, France, Austria, Hungary, Poland all were buying up Russian gas buddy. That's how language works. Europeans were voting for people that relied on Russia gas/oil

2

moosemanwich Apr 22, 2026 +4

Maybe for a barely literate country that’s how language works. In Canada we use the right words

4

Ididntdodiddly Apr 22, 2026 -2

I don't hear that I'm wrong haha

-2

moosemanwich Apr 22, 2026 +2

Oh you don’t read good either. lol

2

EsToBoY629 Apr 22, 2026 -16

Europe is not a country you idiot, yeah Germans are bozos and untrustworthy too... they shutdown Nuclear reactors that are the cleanest and most efficient energy source, just to switch to coal and unreliable GREEN ENERGY.

-16

Zestyclose_Ad1553 Apr 22, 2026 -1

Russian gas is a good long term plan and a lot cheaper so it will come back some time

-1

OptimisticSkeleton Apr 22, 2026 +3

Trump is killing off the American military industrial complex and the global fossil fuel companies. He’s unintentionally doing a great job in those two very narrow categories, even though he’s f****** everything up and ruining the country.

3

ScrotumScrapings Apr 22, 2026 +1

It'll be like russian weapons. You know those news images of child soldiers in aftrica with AK rifles? Some years from now the children in the photos will be holding american AR rifles.

1

Svennis79 Apr 22, 2026 +1

No payments for a yeat...after delivery

1

BongoHunter Apr 22, 2026 +1

BOGO - Buy One Get One? Sounds like the minimum I'd expect TBH - though the finance options do sound good!

1

teddy5 Apr 23, 2026 +2

It feels like the free being missing off the end of that really changes the meaning. Every purchase I make is buy one get one.

2

Snigglybear Apr 23, 2026 -3

Countries will continue to wait years for American equipment because it’s been tested in multiple theatres of war with great results compared to Russian, Chinese, and European counterparts.

-3

I-LOVE-TURTLES666 Apr 22, 2026 -1

Mate we live in an MIC you’d be surprised how fast they can push them out

-1

vossmanspal Apr 22, 2026 +147

Why would nations want a weapons system that could be disabled on a whim by someone on another continent?

147

ricketyladder Apr 22, 2026 +82

On top of that, who would want to buy weapons (or more weapons than you absolutely have to) from a country who literally threatened you with force months ago? (Although you can flip that around and point out how weird it is to be selling weapons to a country you threatened with armed force...)

82

Raulr100 Apr 22, 2026 +41

>from a country who literally threatened you with force months ago? No no no, not just "a" country. Imagine buying defensive weapons from **literally the only country in the entire world which threatened to invade your territory**. Seriously, name one other country which seriously stated that they want to take over Danish territory.

41

JensbyArt Apr 22, 2026 +15

I agree with your sentiment, but just since you asked. Russia hasn't said it with words, but their submarines and drones making joyrides into our country to test how we respond, seems like enough of a looming threat.

15

Ithalan Apr 23, 2026 +5

The Russian government would absolutely love to put troops on Bornholm *again* also, to extend their ability to operate in the Baltic sea.

5

2shayyy Apr 22, 2026 +4

It made sense when you intrinsically trusted that ally. Those days are well and truly over.

4

KastVaek700 Apr 23, 2026 +2

I really dislike this talking point, as it is probably inaccurate. Having a system which could be remotely turned off is such a big weakness that they would be idiots to design it that way. In practice it doesn't matter, because you'd probably not get more than a few days use out of it, due to all the dependencies on other things than the software.

2

Sislar Apr 23, 2026 +2

Especially when we have threaten one of their protecterates.

2

TheRuneMeister Apr 23, 2026 +1

Not long ago, the US was a trusted ally. Perhaps even more so than several European partners. Things simply change.

1

jonasnee Apr 23, 2026 +1

You cannot remotely turn off weapon systems like that, at worst you can halt future updates or sale of ammunition.

1

Remarkable-Meal-223 Apr 22, 2026 -4

Some reports are that in Ukriane Samp/t was not as good as patriot

-4

redfoobar Apr 22, 2026 +12

I am sure it will get better over time especially with more money put into it. Patriot also took quite some time to become the thing it is today (with still far from 100% succes rate). Strategically it makes much more sense to put this money towards European companies to improve European weapon systems even if it’s short term not the best technology on the market.

12

Status_Set_4111 Apr 22, 2026 +6

Either way, these systems are overkill for the majority of air threats that will be faced from drones.

6

Remarkable-Meal-223 Apr 22, 2026 +14

They're not for drones. They're for ballistic missiles. The anti drone stuff is a whole other category

14

aaaaaaaarrrrrgh Apr 23, 2026 +8

Also for jets. If you don't have (medium/long range) air defense, you end up with jets dropping bombs wherever they please. MANPADS work only if the target is flying low; long range air defense is what forces them to do so.

8

BooksandBiceps Apr 22, 2026 -9

Show me where Patriots can be disabled by the USA?

-9

cxmmxc Apr 22, 2026 +3

Just a minute and I'll fire up War Thunder. But seriously, your entire argument is "you can't prove there's a backdoor in an intensely classified missile launcher system, therefore I can say it doesn't exist! You lose!" Did that thought hit any of your brain cells on its way to your fingers? So in the event that a fully loaded launcher found its way to enemy hands, I guess the entire MIC will just go "well shoot, nobody thought about remote disabling, guess there's nothing we can do but to let it shoot at us."

3

Fly1ngD0gg0 Apr 23, 2026 +3

A killswitch would be a super easy vulnerability to exploit for peer adversaries like China, but okay.

3

Fly1ngD0gg0 Apr 23, 2026 +2

A killswitch would be a super easy vulnerability to exploit for peer adversaries like China, but okay. Your arrogance and dismissive nature shows there's no point in discussing this with you anyway.

2

BooksandBiceps Apr 22, 2026

“Your entire argument” - yes, you’ve grasped the subtle nuance of my one sentence answer, while also being sophomoric. *golf clap* While acting like a child, your argument is, to put it in your own words, “you can’t prove I’m wrong so I’m right derp deh derp!!!” You’re the one making a bold claim with no support dude, it’s not my job to disprove you. It’s a pretty unfathomable event a Patriot launcher would magically wind up in Russian or Chinese hands, and if it did, I don’t think they’d be *using it* against us with whatever handful of missiles it might magically come with, they’d be reverse engineering it. So yeah, your magical head-in-ass scenario with no historical analogue given no military system has had something like that is probably wrong.

0

SeparateFun1288 Apr 22, 2026 -3

did you really said all that and dare to make fun of his brain cells? are you... that... smart?

-3

xjester8 Apr 22, 2026 +33

Is it possibly due to the long order time and shortages of patriot ammo, pentagon had to cancel orders to refill their own stockpile used against Iran and the houthis in Yemen last year.

33

beached89 Apr 22, 2026 +5

I'm fairly sure any US weapon systems were immediately disregarded. US just spent the better part of a year threatening to Invade them.

5

xjester8 Apr 22, 2026 +14

You’d be wrong since Denmark has made purchases from the US MIC even after the whole Greenland bullshit

14

Beepulons Apr 23, 2026 +11

Because Denmark's entire military logistical network was built around buying from the US. It's not easy or quick to reverse 80 years of military policy.

11

CH-67 Apr 22, 2026 -19

Logic isn’t allowed in here. It’s clearly because they hate Trump!

-19

beached89 Apr 22, 2026 +10

Of course they do. He has been threatening to invade them. You dont buy weapon systems from a country threatening invasion.

10

sofixa11 Apr 22, 2026 +12

It's clearly both. Why would you buy something which has a long wait time due to being wasted by a moron, while also being extremely unreliable because said moron changes his mind constantly?

12

CH-67 Apr 22, 2026 -14

The first part is true. The 2nd part has no bearing on arms procurement. And I don’t think Raytheon is sweating this at all… they already have more contracts to fulfill than they can handle. Denmark is the least of their worries.

-14

ReasonableAside1655 Apr 22, 2026 +11

Yeah I am sure Raytheon loves the long term trend of moving away from American arms. You have countries publicly stating they will be spending less on American arms, you have Europe propping up their own defense companies and Americas own allies considering whether they can ever trust America. To think they military industrial complex as a whole isn't sweating this is so far detached form reality it's hard to believe. Here's the thing, the messaging from America that Europe needs to boost defense spending had nothing to do with wanting Europe to be able to defend itself. It was America wanting to get more spending on American weapons. Trump was too stupid to figure this out so here we are.

11

CH-67 Apr 22, 2026 -10

I work for a defense contractor.. we are currently increasing production to build products for our European counterparts because they can’t provide the quantities being requested. So EU nations can put on whatever face they want but the US MIC isn’t going to hurt from this while we can’t produce enough arms to meet demand as it is.

-10

Lud4Life Apr 22, 2026 +9

Great, you should expand now so the inevitable downfall is greater.

9

sofixa11 Apr 22, 2026 +7

> The 2nd part has no bearing on arms procurement Your arms supplier acting arbitrarily and deciding to cut you off being a risk is not a factor????

7

CH-67 Apr 22, 2026 -2

With very rare exceptions, the government’s stance doesn’t have a bearing on what a private company is willing to do contract wise. Now if you play the cause and effect game a couple times, you could get from Trump’s seeming sporadic nature, to increased US demand for missiles, to less capacity for foreign sales.

-2

FreshPrinceOfH Apr 22, 2026 +7

Patriot ammo is heavily constrained. And they hate Trump. The shortages just make the decision easier.

7

macross1984 Apr 22, 2026 +37

In an ironic way, Trump has done service to Europe by forcing it to start acquiring weapons from its own rather than from US. This will hugely impact future US weapons export for who knows how long and will never likely return to normal.

37

MumrikDK Apr 23, 2026 +18

Nobody in my lifetime has done more to push EU integration and self-sufficiency than Donald Trump.

18

Shiny-Pumpkin Apr 23, 2026 +3

Not only weapons, thankfully.

3

Maybe_Human0_0 Apr 22, 2026 +3

Most moronic bandaid ripping ever!

3

Somhlth Apr 22, 2026 +40

The consequences of their actions. I hope all those CEOs that supported the orange shit-gibbon and allowed him to become president (twice!) understand this, and experience at least a portion of the pain they've caused.

40

Sieve-Boy Apr 22, 2026 +3

That's several quarters away as a problem, so those guys aren't thinking that far ahead at all.

3

AverageBrilliant4670 Apr 22, 2026 +13

This makes sense as reports are the US used up half its Patriot missile stockpile attacking Iran. So you know no other nation (except for Isreal, of course) which bought Patriot missile systems will get any missiles until the US has managed to manufacture as many of them as it wants for itself for its next offensive against another nation (probably Cuba). IIRC the US is already refusing to fulfill promised and due orders of F35 jets for at least one NATO nation that already prepaid for a substantial amount of the contract purchase.

13

kausemos Apr 22, 2026 +6

😄😄 good job US

6

McortezLSU Apr 22, 2026 +6

Buying a weaponsystem from someone means that they know every little bit there is to know about it and will have very detailed plans on how to evade them even if there isnt a killswitch build in. Considering that the US hates democracy and freedom, and threatened war with denmark, its smart to cut them lose.

6

Forest_Orc Apr 23, 2026 +4

This shouldn't even be a big news, Denmark has the right to buy European, and I would love to see a *buy European act* for defence and public spending, a bit like US would buy American

4

R4ndom_Hero Apr 23, 2026 +4

Makes total sense. Why would you want to buy weapons form a country to wanted to take over part of your territory just a months ago?

4

edgeoffifty Apr 23, 2026 +3

Smart!!

3

the_hair_of_aenarion Apr 23, 2026 +3

Probably wise given trumps previous indications he wants to take Greenland by force. You don't rely on someone for protection when they've got conflicting interests.

3

Hyenov Apr 23, 2026 +3

Well not buying weapons from a country that just a few months ago threatened you to either cede territory or literally be invaded despite decades of alliance is not really that shocking.

3

Striking-Shirt2886 Apr 22, 2026 +14

denmark snubbing the patriot system for a local option is a massive flex for european defense.

14

Dry3750 Apr 22, 2026 +5

Competition usually leads to better tech and better prices.

5

TheRealistoftheReal Apr 22, 2026 +5

I mean, can you blame them when the U.S. is arguing why we should annex their territory? It would be foolish to continue doing defense business with the U.S. As for the F-35 they’re already too deep without a viable alternative, but I’m sure if Airbus has something, they’d be flying that instead.

5

poerg Apr 23, 2026 +2

Airbus? While currently behind the f35 the gripen, rafale, and eurofighers are nothing to just write off

2

wronglyzorro Apr 23, 2026 +3

gripen, rafale, and eurofighers are nothing to just write off Depends on the conversation. When talking about a comparison to the F-35, you can basically write them off.

3

poerg Apr 23, 2026 +1

My intention was to show other aircraft exist and are pretty good. Those companies could very well be working on something to catch back up. The f35 is new enough that the first confirmed kill was only last month. So I don't think you can confidently say they can be written off yet, it's a good assumption but not proven and shows how early it still is.

1

wronglyzorro Apr 23, 2026 +1

It's just not how things work though, and it's not really possible for anyone in the world to compete with the 1 trillion dollar annual budget of the US military. In all the war games and joint practices the F35 dominates. It's more likely that the US rolls out it's Gen 6 planes before Europe can catch the current planes up to the F35. This being said, all of those European planes are still extremely capable aircraft.

1

TheRealistoftheReal Apr 23, 2026 -1

They’re top tier non-stealth aircraft, but 5th gen stealth capabilities make them near obsolete against the newest air vehicles from USA and (maybe) China. The kill ratio vs these aircraft is roughly 20:1. F-35 has the advantage of first look first kill. They’ll be dead before they knew the F-35 was there. Eurofighter is largely airbus (EADS).

-1

Jacky_Hex Apr 23, 2026 +3

You've seen too much Top gun. Dogfights don't really happen anymore. Also Gripens with Meteors outrange the F35 by 140km so good luck with that.

3

TheRealistoftheReal Apr 23, 2026 +1

You’re right about the dogfights, which is why I mentioned there’s such an advantage with 5th gen stealth aircraft like the F-35. A Gripen with a Meteor isn’t doing much if it can’t see the other aircraft. It would likely be destroyed while still on the ground.

1

MysteriousEngineer42 Apr 23, 2026 +1

It's not about dogfights OR missile range. It's because you can't shoot at what you can't see. Stealth aircraft can get to within missile range and fire without the non-stealth aircraft even knowing they are there. Even if they have a rough location, it's not an accurate enough position for a missile to have any chance of hitting. So non-stealth planes are pretty much useless even with longer ranged missiles unless they can get close enough for a detection (maybe 30km or so), which the stealth planes will be very much trying to avoid.

1

Jacky_Hex Apr 23, 2026 +1

You can see them pretty good with passive radars and infrared.

1

poerg Apr 23, 2026 +1

Kill ratio of what? The f35 only had it's first confirmed kill of another aircraft last month. I'm not denying it's a great aircraft, it's my favorite. It's just too early to declare that Europe has no options

1

TheRealistoftheReal Apr 23, 2026

Yes, but there are mock fights and adversity squadrons to develop strategies, train pilots, etc. We know how well several F-15s would fair against a single F-35. Same with eurofighter, etc. There’s even an adversary unit allegedly flying the retired F-117s to help simulate combat against current Chinese tech. Air combat has evolved to first look first kill. Everything depends on seeing them before they see you, so the best platform is the one with data links and sensor suites to obtain target position information, while remaining hidden themselves. There’s only one viable aircraft that can do that now. F-35.

0

Flimsy-Attention-722 Apr 22, 2026 +2

Oooh, donny going to be mad

2

BlitzNeko Apr 22, 2026 +2

Trump is costing the US defense contracts left and right.

2

Flyfisher58 Apr 22, 2026 +2

Good move.

2

Merkkin Apr 23, 2026 +2

Good, air defense systems will only be needed more in the future and the more places producing them the better.

2

ImaginaryArtist1148 Apr 23, 2026 +2

Smart move

2

thisistherevolt Apr 23, 2026 +2

Good.

2

TheManMechanical Apr 23, 2026 +2

It’s the patriotic thing to do!

2

hl_lost Apr 23, 2026 +2

makes total sense. why would you build critical defense infrastructure around a supplier who might cut you off for political leverage. this is basic supply chain diversification, countries are just finally treating weapons procurement the same way the real losers here long term are US defense contractors. once europe builds up domestic production capacity they're not coming back

2

ChatamKay Apr 22, 2026 +2

Winning. We’ll be winning so much you’ll be saying please sir, no more winning. We can’t take all this winning.

2

TheNewl0gic Apr 22, 2026 +1

Unreliable US needs to be ditched. .

1

Moftem Apr 23, 2026 +1

Good. We need to stop buying more F35's too, even though the switch to something like Gripen is gonna be expensive. Only a few political parties here have this view yet, but I hope more will follow. Sunk cost fallacy is hard to deal with, but we can't trust the US anymore. They are, apparently, never more than 4 years away from potentially electing a scoundrel who is hellbent on destroying Transatlantic relations.

1

alamarain Apr 22, 2026 -4

According to listnook, the biggest military on earth are out of weapons!

-4

MissSmoking Apr 22, 2026 +4

I think China is doing just fine.

4

Artistic_Original_88 Apr 22, 2026 -13

Choosing SAMP/T NG over Patriot is a gamble because it replaces a combat-proven system with one that is largely untested under real wartime conditions, meaning it ultimately trades proven battlefield reliability for greater uncertainty in exchange for autonomy and cost savings.

-13

aimgorge Apr 22, 2026 +9

SAMPT is using Aster missiles which are very well tested and has been intercepting Irian ballistic missiles also. It's very far from untested.

9

Ithalan Apr 22, 2026 +14

SAMP/T is in use in Ukraine alongside Patriot, and reportedly outperforming the Patriot system in shooting down ballistic missiles. The initial NG version systems will also be going to Ukraine first, so there'll likely be plenty of combat experience with it to draw on for further fine-tuning.

14

Artistic_Original_88 Apr 22, 2026 -6

SAMP/T has been deployed in Ukraine alongside Patriot, but there is no confirmed, independently verified evidence that it is outperforming Patriot against ballistic missiles. Most performance data from both systems in Ukraine is classified, limited, or based on selective reporting. Patriot has a much longer and better-documented combat record, including multiple confirmed successful intercepts of ballistic and cruise missiles in high-intensity conflict conditions. SAMP/T NG is still a new system. Even if it is sent to Ukraine for evaluation, it does not yet have proven, large-scale wartime performance data, so any claims of superiority over Patriot are premature. In short, Ukraine may eventually provide useful comparison data, but at this stage there is no solid evidence that SAMP/T is outperforming Patriot.

-6

TerrorBite Apr 23, 2026 +2

This is the kind of comment a Patriot missile system would write

2

Artistic_Original_88 Apr 23, 2026

That’s fine, but it doesn’t address the substance. There is still no independently verified evidence that SAMP/T is outperforming Patriot in Ukraine.

0

Wambo74 Apr 22, 2026 -3

Nothing wrong with that choice. It's a good system, proven in Ukraine as is Patriot. But the US has used half it's stockpile in Iran and will no doubt have priority for existing production capability. Besides I think the SAMP/T is half the cost of Patriot. The downside would be effectiveness against hypersonics. Patriot is as good as it gets. SAMP/T isn't. But it will get better.

-3

aimgorge Apr 22, 2026 +6

SAMPT is fully effective against hypersonics and has proven itself in Ukraine. Even mopre effective with the brand new NG variant. Videos of Patriot using 8+ interceptors against Iranian missiles and still failing to intercept doesnt help

6

BreakinHorizon Apr 22, 2026 -1

The problem is ballistic missiles are just extremely hard to intercept once they're close to touchdown.

-1

aimgorge Apr 22, 2026 +1

Yes but the Patriot has been marketed to be able to intercept them no issue since the PAC-3. It has been proven vastly exagerated.

1

Tel_Janen Apr 22, 2026 -5

Patriot missile batteries have been tested in combat which is why if you wanna buy it it will take you months to get it

-5

Denmark chooses Europe's Patriot rival for air defence system

💬 Send a Message

187 Comments