Hacker News Reader

Comment by alephnerd | Hacker News Reader

He's implying the Gripen deal was a result of Trump.

In reality, the US-Thailand relationship has been dead since the Junta took over in Thailand, and for domestic brownie points we decided to make an example out of them and Cambodia for democratic backsliding during the Biden admin [3]

Edit: cannot reply below (@Dang am I being rate limited)

The US has consistently rejected Thailand's F-35 request under the Biden admin [0][1]. If forced to buy a 4th gen jet, may as well buy the cheapest option on the market, which is the Gripen, as they have been using the Gripen for decades [2].

European affairs have little to do with affairs in Asia.

[0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/thailand-...

[1] - https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/thailand-f35-02162022...

[2] - https://www.reuters.com/article/business/autos-transportatio...

[3] - https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/turbulent-thailand/thailand...

View on HN

But Thailand is far from alone in this move away from US weapons. Spain cancelled their bid for F-35s and Switzerland is looking into doing the same. Denmark recently expressed regret over their purchase of F-35s. Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently.

It could just be tariff backlash—aircraft have historically been the US' largest export. But I do wonder if the recent tests of US military tech in Russia/Iran had any hand in this

I still think US military tech is king, especially their fighter jets. eu countries cancelling or regrets is just geopolitics pandering

fighter jets are unicorns on the same level as chips you cant just procure 3nm chips tomorrow because you want too. I'm not super knowledgeable on them, but its interesting to see how difficult maintaining and making new gens are for example gripens still rely on US engine, china relies on Russian engines etc and the US seems to be always ahead

Perhaps. But the US is less and less capable of producing them. Especially since the tariffs back-and-forth with China that lead to an exports control on rare earth minerals. Even before that, US manufacturers were consistently under-delivering and behind schedule on orders

Not to mention there are key areas that the US is widely considered to be behind on (e.g. hypersonic glide vehicles and drones) compared to the "Second World" powers. And there's been lots of talk—even from within the US—that drones have become more important to modern warfare than manned jets.

When you procure a 3nm chip you expect to keep it working as well as when you bought it, even if you block the management engine for privacy.

When you buy a fighter plane you should expect to not be able to fly for the full duration of a single conflict the manufacturing country disagrees about.

> When you procure a 3nm chip you expect to keep it working as well as when you bought it

This seems like it’s being revisited.

https://www.theverge.com/news/719697/nvidia-ai-gpu-chips-den...

Right: A powerful jet that can not be flown for lack of replacement-parts is worse than a mediocre jet that actually operates.

We've made great strides in reliability over the years, but planes are anything but solid-state like integrated CPUs are.

Forget parts. Mission's can't be flown. Look up Mission Data Files and F35 Partner Support Complexes.

Ukranian hackers know how to hack John Deere tractors.. hah, downloading files from a Ukranian web forum to install on your F-35 would be very dystopian cyberpunk.

Lack of MDFs does not mean that you can't fly missions. It's an intelligence product that assists with mission planning. That's like saying your car is completely unusable if the builtin maps are a few years out of date.

People think jets are things that should work even if they aren't supported by the manufacturer. Javelin and patriot don't work that way? How exactly does someone beside the us manage the hydrazine supplychain without usa logistics?

US military tech is best but European stuff is pretty functional.

> US military tech is best

Do we know this to be true still? There's a lot of new modern equipment that other countries have that have not gone head-to-head against to really know that any more.

I'd say it's not true, not in all aspects. Ukraine for example is better at drone production and defence

“Best” but you’re going to spend millions per missile system to have “the best”.

Israel quickly found out when trying to shoot down “cheap” $30k Iranian drones.

F-35s parked on the runway because the tangerine clown told LM to withhold this week's software update is a lot less useful than a squadron of 4th gen fighters in the air chock a block full of state-of-the-art missiles.

It seems the recent volatility from this American administration is being overlooked. They’ve turned their back on allies, resorted to bullying, and even issued outright threats, while walking away from commitments. Buyers may be weighing the risk that when they need service for their purchase, they could be strong-armed with threats of withheld maintenance — or worse, face a remote kill switch being activated.

Turned their back on allies?

That's a funny thing to say on the very day that Trump might've brokered a peacedeal that instantly would end the war.

Seems obviously more valuable to me than selling weapons to Ukraine for many years to "help its ally"?

There is nothing indicating a ceasefire, and Zelensky isnt even there. That is not helping an ally.

Ukraine also is not our only ally - the current administration constantly makes fun of our other ones

That's wildly optimistic that Trump would convince Putin to admit his mistake and fully retreat from all of occupied Ukraine, but I admire the sentiment.

What flavor Koolaid are you drinking there, bud?

God, a warmonger is currently dealing with someone who cosplays as a strongman/world-leader, and poorly.

I can't imagine the stupidity to imagine he's going to make a good deal. But then again, that Koolaid is going to make you believe that it will be a good deal, and if Zelensky or the EU don't want it, they're ungrateful losers...

> That's a funny thing to say on the very day that Trump might've brokered a peacedeal that instantly would end the war.

With whom is he meeting on each side of the conflict such that he might have brokered a peace deal?

You are clearly overlooking his threats to withdraw from NATO, and his rhetoric about possibly not coming to the aid if another member was attacked. Of course, Trump being Trump later stated he would abide by Article 5.

The fact his response was not an immediate yes response to supporting Article 5 is destabilizing. As a result, the other NATO members are hedging their bets.

There are many more trees in the world than the Ukraine shaped tree that you can't seem to look around.

Saying that he would annex Canada? Or were we always at war with Eurasia?

If Trump were to broker a deal that would "instantly end the war", it would be only by and for the sake of looking after his own interests. In the process he would ignore the interests and long-term security of Ukraine while likely yielding to Putin's wishes where he -- not Ukraine -- feels like he isn't losing a lot.

There's no other way Trump can broker a quick end to the war. He doesn't have the kind of leverage to persuade a peace deal without giving Putin what Putin wants, and even if he did, there's a good chance the calculating manipulator Putin would still play him like a fiddle due to Trump's egotism.

Even if Trump were to be able to broker a quick peace -- which he has been promising since day one but obviously not achieved -- he would not be doing that for the sake of the allies of the US.

don't forget the Swiss too

who are livid after orangeman applied 39% tariffs because he doesn't understand the triangle trade of gold

At the end of the day it just doesn’t matter whether these countries buy F-35s or not except as additional profit streams for US defense companies and in some ways it’s good that they are looking to buy EU jets instead since the EU needs to invest more in its “domestic” defense industry.

Do we really think Spain and Portugal are going to fight alongside US forces in Europe or elsewhere? I don’t. Isn’t Switzerland a neutral country? This isn’t a slight against any of these countries but let’s be realistic.

Canada is going to buy still*

* https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canada-to-buy-all-88-f-...

1) Over a hundred Spanish soldiers died defending America as part of the Afghanistan war. How many Americans have died defending Spain in a hot war since the founding of NATO?

2) The linked article doesn't say what you claim it says. The Cdn. military is advising the government to go ahead with the entire F-35 purchase. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilian government will agree. We just don't know yet.

1) Over a hundred Spanish soldiers died defending America as part of the Afghanistan war. How many Americans have died defending Spain in a hot war since the founding of NATO?

How many times has Spain been attacked? Not a great argument.

And just to make sure the record is very clear I am very grateful for our allies and their contributions, particularly to the war in Afghanistan, but that’s Afghanistan, it’s not Russia or China. And Spain in particular is unwilling to increase defense spending - why is that?

2) The linked article doesn't say what you claim it says. The Cdn. military is advising the government to go ahead with the entire F-35 purchase. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilian government will agree. We just don't know yet.

They’ll buy. Also the OP said

“Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently.”

Did they lose interest? Doesn’t appear to be the case for Canada.

>How many times has Spain been attacked? Not a great argument.

It's a perfect argument. You declared that Spain (and Portugal) would likely not help in a NATO action. Yet, recent history proves you directly and unequivocally wrong. Spanish blood was spilled to prove that point, so maybe have some respect?

>How many times has Spain been attacked? Not a great argument.

>...

>And Spain in particular is unwilling to increase defense spending - why is that?

You answered your own question. Well done.

Note: I'm not supporting their decision, just pointing out that it's arguably quite rational from a certain point of view.

Lastly, the linked article still doesn't say what you claimed it said. If you were responding to a falsehood, that doesn't excuse confidently posting another falsehood.

> It's a perfect argument. You declared that Spain (and Portugal) would likely not help in a NATO action. Yet, recent history proves you directly and unequivocally wrong. Spanish blood was spilled to prove that point, so maybe have some respect?

Not all wars are created equal. It’s not the same thing. You either are unrealistic about how the world works or you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.

> Lastly, the linked article still doesn't say what you claimed it said. If you were responding to a falsehood, that doesn't excuse confidently posting another falsehood.

> Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently.

Canada’s military

> we Strongly recommend and encourage buying F-35s

But hey you know at least I provided a source… so I’ll just throw the OP’s claim away since they are unable to provide a source.

> You answered your own question. Well done.

Yes, and it demonstrated the point that I made. QED

>Not all wars are created equal. It’s not the same thing. You either are unrealistic about how the world works or you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.

It's very simple. You said you didn't think Spain would ever "fight alongside US forces in Europe or elsewhere". I pointed out that recent history unequivocally proves you wrong. But instead of conceding the point you're changing the criteria to some imaginary scenario that makes it impossible for anyone to counter-argue.

So yes, you're right... I have no idea how Spain would respond to some imaginary scenario playing out in your head right now. But I do know what their actual, historical record is. There are dead and maimed soldiers that prove it.

It's such a disgrace for American civilians to make up some vague hidden criteria for why allied deaths and injuries don't "count". Furthermore, it's exactly this kind of demeaning talk that might makes allies not want to help in the future.

>Yes, and it demonstrated the point that I made.

Lol. Sure.

There is a lot more proof for the Europeans fighting alongside the USA than for the reverse if we ignore WWII. And even in WWII the USA would have stayed out much longer if not for Pearl Harbor.

I don’t really know what you mean, nor why we would selectively exclude the most important war which requires the most contributions from any nation, but regardless past actions don’t guarantee future actions.

But let’s take a step back - I specifically mentioned Spain, Portugal, and Switzerland. I didn’t say France or the United Kingdom wouldn’t fight alongside the United States, for example. So let’s not lump all European countries together unfairly.

> I don’t really know what you mean

That's ok.

> nor why we would selectively exclude the most important war which requires the most contributions from any nation

Because the United States from back then is completely gone now.

All that's left is people who had nothing to do with it claiming the heritage while acting in the opposite spirit.

> But let’s take a step back - I specifically mentioned Spain, Portugal, and Switzerland. I didn’t say France or the United Kingdom wouldn’t fight alongside the United States, for example.

Switzerland shouldn't even be in that list and Spain and Portugal are just about able to stay afloat, a little bit ahead of Italy, Romania and Bulgaria on some dimensions and at party on others.

> So let’s not lump all European countries together unfairly.

No, let's not.

> Because the United States from back then is completely gone now.

Aaaand Europe from then is different too? Poor argument.

> Switzerland shouldn't even be in that list and Spain and Portugal are just about able to stay afloat, a little bit ahead of Italy, Romania and Bulgaria on some dimensions and at party on others.

Please do us a favor and read the OP. I didn’t bring up Switzerland, I responded to the OP.

> No, let's not.

So don’t do it?

Buying US weapons puts you in a position of needing US backing for decades. You need replacement parts, maintenance training, and a million other dependencies. Naturally, you'd need similar from any supplier. So an important part of your calculus has to be, "Will these guys be around to support me in 25-40 years?" That has never really been a question for the US in the last 75 years.

Now it is.

I don't think anybody fears that the US will cease to be a country. Or even that it will cease to be an important country. The question is whether they will be your reliable ally in 25-40 years, or even in four years. Or will they start some pattern of being your friend for a couple years, then cutting you off for a few years, then trying to re-friend you? That is not a relationship on which anybody wants to build their national security support.

> "Will these guys be around to support me in 25-40 years?" That has never really been a question for the US in the last 75 years.

From the POV of the time? Sure, we can see with the benefit of hindsight that even 40 years was true up until at least 1985, but did people plan that far ahead at the time?

25 years, sure, I think that was true for most of it, with only a handful of exceptions like France and the UK being upset about what happened in response to their actions in the Suez Crisis. IMO correct call by USA there, and I say that as a British citizen by birth, but still means "can we rely on them?" resolves "no", and this loss of de facto independence in what they could do explains much of British foreign policy since then.

The advantage of the Gripen isn't that it's cheap. The F-16 is cheaper.

But Gripen has Meteor and can fly really well. Now, I'm a Swede, but there are claims of practical experiments in Norway trying out old some Gripen planes vs F-15C and F-16 have shown that the Gripen is simply better at air-to-air stuff.

The F-16 is obviously bigger though, so if you want to bomb somebody a lot and whoever that is doesn't have anything to put up against it then maybe it's reasonable to get one of those instead, but I don't think that's a problem Thailand has. I think they want an air force that can challenge another air force if required.

It's also nice since one can actually fly with it without breaking the bank.

I’m not any sort of analyst but from my understanding the threats Thai faces is Cambodia border skirmishes and Myanmar both of which could be handled with any aircraft.

China is a non starter, even a next gen aircraft is no match for their entire military.

Maybe, but I don't think China, despite its population, has a large pool of people suited to be fighter pilots, so I don't think they'll be throwing their pilots away against competent air forces.

A competent air-to-air capability will be a deterrent.

A country like Cambodia is screwed against Thailand whatever Thailand buys.

F-15C is ancient. Gripen E vs F-16V shouldn't be that far apart in terms of performance.

Yes, but this was in 2009, with a Gripen C. The F-16 thing was with Gripen A.

W.r.t. the comparison, maybe. The F-16V doesn't have Meteor though and probably has a much larger radar signature, probably also much larger IR signature, probably also worse close-in performance since the Gripen has so low wing loading.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com