· 187 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Apr 22, 2026 at 6:08 PM

Denmark chooses Europe's Patriot rival for air defence system

Posted by goldstarflag



🚩 Report this post

187 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
FreshPrinceOfH 3 days ago +460
I think patriot ammunition is quite heavily constrained.
460
AyiHutha 3 days ago +122
TBH the main issue with SAMP/T is also ammunition supply
122
FreshPrinceOfH 3 days ago +76
The outlook for samp/t ammo supply is better than for pac 3
76
Cerres 3 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago -2
They are also built in Japan.
-2
New_Enthusiasm9053 2 days ago +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 3 days ago +21
Fingers crossed samp/t is also learning lessons and planning a successor.
21
aimgorge 2 days ago +17
Like the brand new SAMPT/NG that started deliveries this year ?
17
Chimpville 2 days ago +2
It still uses the same Aster-30 interceptors though. It doesn’t really change anything from a manufacturing and supply basis.
2
Thurak0 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +1
No they dont use the same missiles... 
1
Chimpville 2 days ago +1
Yeah, u/Thurak0 set me straight. My bad.
1
GoneSilent 2 days ago +8
Japan is also expanding PAC 3 production and change of laws to allow export.
8
BocciaChoc 2 days ago +8
I don't think Europe fears the factories ability, just the US willingness to actually sell / honour arms deals.
8
Impressive-Potato 2 days ago +1
And if things are getting tight, they will redirect supples to Israel.
1
dreamoforganon 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago
Except it's already made in Japan.
0
what_the_eve 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 1 day ago +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 2 days ago +2
Lessons learned is not really a thing in the US military though
2
DSJ-Psyduck 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +3
Yes, but delivery time on the system is so much shorter. the wait for delivery of the Patriotsystem is years.
3
Vier_Scar 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago -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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago -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 2 days ago +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 1 day ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago -15
Europeans can’t even afford their own subpar defense systems
-15
Vier_Scar 2 days ago +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 2 days ago -3
Prove im wrong, you can’t, you bots scream propaganda and magically clam up when you get asked for proof
-3
gtfckdbrnlssbts 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +13
over a decade to make ammo for it, spent it all in 2 weeks. Yea, constrained just a tad.
13
aaaaaaaarrrrrgh 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 3 days ago +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 3 days ago +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 2 days ago +6
Pretty sure Ukraine would take anything that shoots
6
New_Enthusiasm9053 2 days ago +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 3 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +3
I wish I could disagree.
3
what_the_eve 2 days ago +1
How are they disentangling from the US supply chain?
1
SmegmaWarrior0815 3 days ago +2
I don't know. People here started buying Teslas again because of rebates and 0% financing.
2
Charming_Pirate 3 days ago +56
A car is a bit different to your defence infrastructure
56
Helios0186 3 days ago +30
I prefer to walk or use a bike than buy a Tesla. Elon can go pound sands for all I care.
30
kmonsen 3 days ago +31
I don't understand why anyone would buy a Tesla anymore. It is like directly subsidizing your own enslavement.
31
ImperfectRegulator 3 days ago +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 2 days ago +2
Which ones are recommended?
2
kausemos 2 days ago +4
All of them really. Even Chinese cars are better
4
ImperfectRegulator 2 days ago +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 3 days ago +5
I like cars where I can rescue my family by opening the door using a handle.
5
Flohmaster 3 days ago +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 3 days ago +2
Right. The real reason is they are backordered because literally everybody wants them.
2
Charming_Pirate 2 days ago +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 3 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago -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 3 days ago +44
The damage is done, the American people have shown their true colors of being spineless immoral losers.... untrustworthy nation of idiots.
44
Ididntdodiddly 3 days ago -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 3 days ago +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 3 days ago -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 3 days ago -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 2 days ago +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 3 days ago +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 3 days ago -6
No, it was spineless immoral loser behavior to appease Russia
-6
Pierre_Francois_III 2 days ago +10
Worse that what the US is doing right now ?
10
Ididntdodiddly 2 days ago -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 3 days ago +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 3 days ago +28
Europe the country. Very on brand for you lololololol.
28
Ididntdodiddly 3 days ago -24
Please quote where I said that
-24
mehatliving 3 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 3 days ago -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 3 days ago +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 3 days ago +4
Maybe for a barely literate country that’s how language works. In Canada we use the right words
4
Ididntdodiddly 3 days ago -2
I don't hear that I'm wrong haha
-2
moosemanwich 3 days ago +2
Oh you don’t read good either. lol
2
EsToBoY629 3 days ago -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 3 days ago -1
Russian gas is a good long term plan and a lot cheaper so it will come back some time
-1
OptimisticSkeleton 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 3 days ago +1
No payments for a yeat...after delivery
1
BongoHunter 2 days ago +1
BOGO - Buy One Get One? Sounds like the minimum I'd expect TBH - though the finance options do sound good!
1
teddy5 2 days ago +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 2 days ago -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 2 days ago -1
Mate we live in an MIC you’d be surprised how fast they can push them out
-1
vossmanspal 3 days ago +147
Why would nations want a weapons system that could be disabled on a whim by someone on another continent?
147
ricketyladder 3 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +4
It made sense when you intrinsically trusted that ally. Those days are well and truly over.
4
KastVaek700 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +2
Especially when we have threaten one of their protecterates.
2
TheRuneMeister 2 days ago +1
Not long ago, the US was a trusted ally. Perhaps even more so than several European partners. Things simply change.
1
jonasnee 2 days ago +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 3 days ago -4
Some reports are that in Ukriane Samp/t was not as good as patriot
-4
redfoobar 3 days ago +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 3 days ago +6
Either way, these systems are overkill for the majority of air threats that will be faced from drones.
6
Remarkable-Meal-223 2 days ago +14
They're not for drones. They're for ballistic missiles. The anti drone stuff is a whole other category
14
aaaaaaaarrrrrgh 2 days ago +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 2 days ago -9
Show me where Patriots can be disabled by the USA?
-9
cxmmxc 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +3
A killswitch would be a super easy vulnerability to exploit for peer adversaries like China, but okay.
3
Fly1ngD0gg0 2 days ago +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 2 days ago
“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 2 days ago -3
did you really said all that and dare to make fun of his brain cells? are you... that... smart?
-3
xjester8 3 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +14
You’d be wrong since Denmark has made purchases from the US MIC even after the whole Greenland bullshit
14
Beepulons 2 days ago +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 3 days ago -19
Logic isn’t allowed in here. It’s clearly because they hate Trump!
-19
beached89 2 days ago +10
Of course they do. He has been threatening to invade them. You dont buy weapon systems from a country threatening invasion.
10
sofixa11 3 days ago +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 3 days ago -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 3 days ago +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 3 days ago -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 2 days ago +9
Great, you should expand now so the inevitable downfall is greater.
9
sofixa11 2 days ago +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 2 days ago -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 3 days ago +7
Patriot ammo is heavily constrained. And they hate Trump. The shortages just make the decision easier.
7
macross1984 3 days ago +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 2 days ago +18
Nobody in my lifetime has done more to push EU integration and self-sufficiency than Donald Trump.
18
Shiny-Pumpkin 2 days ago +3
Not only weapons, thankfully.
3
Maybe_Human0_0 2 days ago +3
Most moronic bandaid ripping ever!
3
Somhlth 3 days ago +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 2 days ago +3
That's several quarters away as a problem, so those guys aren't thinking that far ahead at all.
3
AverageBrilliant4670 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +6
😄😄 good job US
6
McortezLSU 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +3
Smart!!
3
the_hair_of_aenarion 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 3 days ago +14
denmark snubbing the patriot system for a local option is a massive flex for european defense.
14
Dry3750 3 days ago +5
Competition usually leads to better tech and better prices.
5
TheRealistoftheReal 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +2
Airbus? While currently behind the f35 the gripen, rafale, and eurofighers are nothing to just write off
2
wronglyzorro 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago -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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +1
You can see them pretty good with passive radars and infrared.
1
poerg 2 days ago +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 2 days ago
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 2 days ago +2
Oooh, donny going to be mad
2
BlitzNeko 2 days ago +2
Trump is costing the US defense contracts left and right.
2
Flyfisher58 2 days ago +2
Good move.
2
Merkkin 2 days ago +2
Good, air defense systems will only be needed more in the future and the more places producing them the better.
2
ImaginaryArtist1148 2 days ago +2
Smart move
2
thisistherevolt 2 days ago +2
Good.
2
TheManMechanical 2 days ago +2
It’s the patriotic thing to do!
2
hl_lost 2 days ago +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 3 days ago +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 2 days ago +1
Unreliable US needs to be ditched. .
1
Moftem 2 days ago +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 3 days ago -4
According to listnook, the biggest military on earth are out of weapons!
-4
MissSmoking 2 days ago +4
I think China is doing just fine.
4
Artistic_Original_88 3 days ago -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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago -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 2 days ago +2
This is the kind of comment a Patriot missile system would write
2
Artistic_Original_88 2 days ago
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 2 days ago -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 2 days ago +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 2 days ago -1
The problem is ballistic missiles are just extremely hard to intercept once they're close to touchdown.
-1
aimgorge 2 days ago +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 2 days ago -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
← Back to Board