Hacker News Reader

Comment by imglorp | Hacker News Reader

Also curious: why no other contenders, especially the Russians? Procurement politics is heavy stuff.

Well besides the political aspect of Germany sourcing key military hardware from what is arguably their largest regional threat, there would also be possible logistical and maintenance issues.

Also switching to Russian Helicopters (The company) and trying to integrate those into the NATO force structure would likely require a great number of changes to be made to the aircraft, which might make them non-competitive on price alone.

not to detract in any way, but Germany was operating Soviet Mig-29s alongside NATO kit for years (maybe still?) after reunification. So if anyone could do it...

With the MiG-29s you had the entire former NVA personnel, hardware and experience.

Introducing Russian (or other non-NATO stuff) would require extensive trainings, quite possible new sets of tools, and who knows if any Russian stuff could be made to interoperate with NATO technology.

Inheriting old Soviet equipment from East Germany is not remotely comparable to purchasing new non-NATO equipment to meet current requirements.

It probably depends on the type of equipment they buy, that is, how complex it is and what are the maintenance costs.

For example, Turkey recently declared that they will buy some kind of Russian advanced anti-aircraft system so they probably think that it will be cheaper in long term than buying it from a NATO member. Yet, even in this case they had quite strong tensions with NATO and it is not clear if Germany wants to have (and can afford) similar tensions with NATO, even if these Russian helicopters are technically better.

Not sure it makes sense to buy military aircraft from any given country if being able to stop them from invading you is your military's primary mission.

And yet the West seems to spend time and sometimes money to arm groups, and then fight them.

It is absolutely not the primary mission of the German army to stop a Russian invasion. I guess it’s not even on their top 10 list

Stopping a major combined arms invasion from an easterly neighbor is the focus of all of Germany's big training exercises to this day. Instead of whatever the Heer says through its public affairs officers, look at what is actually being practiced and paid for with the Euros in the defense budget. It's not counterinsurgency, it's not disaster relief, it's training out of Wildflecken focused on stopping a theoretical invader from penetrating the Fulda Gap with tanks.

Why not penetrating with tanks, starting Kaliningrad, through Poland???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap :

"With the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, the reunification of Germany in 1990, and the subsequent withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Fulda Gap lost its strategic importance, but it remains a powerful symbol of the Cold War."

Sorry, to be clear, the Fulda Gap is one of the places where they still train. It is no longer strategically important territory the way it was during the Cold War but there is a lot of land available there for ground forces to maneuver.

Agree that, if what they are training for were to actually occur in present day real life, it would likely be in the general vicinity of Kaliningrad.

The German military in 2017 could probably not stop an invasion by Canada. NATO on the other hand, most certainly exists to deter Russian aggression.

The Canadian army would struggle to invade a locked Tim Hortons. Germany might not be ready for Barbarossa 2: Electric Boogaloo, but they maintain one of the larger and arguably better equipped militaries in Europe.

Canadian infantry and SOF are actually really legit

They have the best broomsticks, no doubt [1]. The Heer is a shell of its former self.

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/19...

It depends a bit. For example Finland used to use a lot of Soviet weaponry while (practically if not officially) preparing to deter Soviet attack. Some upsides:

- Results in trade deals with a neighboring superpower

- In case of war, looted enemy armament is familiar and compatible

- Cheaper due to Soviet attempts to keep sphere of influence (e.g. no direct NATO compatibility)

To add to this comment, the majority of Finland's infantry fighting and transport vehicles that in use are still Soviet BMPs and MTLBs. Same applies to artillery and also all light machine guns are and probably will Russian PKMs for a while.

But yeah since the fall of USSR they've been slowing shifting towards buying from NATO countries/allies, with German Leopard tanks having replaced T-72s and recently buying artillery units from South Korea.

Another upside:

- Making it clear that you're not in the 'other guys' camp.

A NATO Finland would have been incredibly threatening to the Soviet Union. A friendly, non-aligned Finland that just wants to be independent, without stepping on anyone's toes is a useful buffer state.

After the second world war, Finland had to tread very, very carefully.

Finland is not a member of NATO and it does not have any foreign army on its territory so it can make a decision based on technical characteristics and economical (not political) factors.

the real question would be, why not the europeans?... (EADS (Airbus)).

why not invest into it. basically I already now the answer. but it's a shame.. (they probably want another disaster after eurofighter/eurocopter/whatever every project where the german governement was directly involved failed, wasn't working as expected... (g36 precision...), or costed a lot more than calculated (not just inside the military..))

Reply on news.ycombinator.com