- Pakistan China Fast-Tracks J-35 Stealth Fighter Deliveries to Pakistan, Triggering South Asia’s First Fifth-Generation Airpower Race
- Mil Intelligence Military deception, psychological operations, and information warfare.
- Poland Refuses to Provide Patriot Air Defence Support as U.S. Faces Extreme Shortages
- Pakistan Pakistan Navy inducts second Milgem-class corvette into fleet
- Pakistan Pakistan Emerges as Global Trade Hub as Hormuz Crisis Reroutes Shipping
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
“Four US soldiers who went missing during a NATO exercise in Lithuania today were reportedly found dead in an area close to the Belarusian border.”
So far, there is no official statement regarding their deaths but rumors and news pieces.
- Messages
- 10,836
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
It is a sound approach, it would mean more airframes + sensor numbers (and availability and positive sum integration capacity) per resource unit investment.
That translates to a global supply chain procuring and modifying aircraft faster than current programs allow, while also allowing for phased growth without redesigns. It would supposedly reduce sustainment costs and minimize future upgrades.
For example, a 6-8 member crew would operate a G550 at a cost of about $6,000 per hour, over a period of 8-10 hours and in a craft with higher survivability against threats.
That’s compared to a 12-14 member crew of an E7 operating at the approximate cost of $20,000 per hour, over a period of 10-12 hours and in a craft with moderate survivability against threats. The E-3 crew, described as a craft with low survivability costs a 16-20 member crew roughly $30,000 over an 8-10 hour period.
“That ensures political ownership, creates workshare for European industry, and opens opportunities for regional AI/ML and systems suppliers. Politically, a NATO‑owned G550 fleet would demonstrate cost-conscious burden sharing and turn the 5% pledge into tangible capability.”
(More at link)
Less Money, Better Safety
The document circulating through the Department of War calls for a NATO‑owned, European-led business jet fleet, structured under the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA). It could be jointly funded and operated to avoid current bottlenecks.That translates to a global supply chain procuring and modifying aircraft faster than current programs allow, while also allowing for phased growth without redesigns. It would supposedly reduce sustainment costs and minimize future upgrades.
For example, a 6-8 member crew would operate a G550 at a cost of about $6,000 per hour, over a period of 8-10 hours and in a craft with higher survivability against threats.
That’s compared to a 12-14 member crew of an E7 operating at the approximate cost of $20,000 per hour, over a period of 10-12 hours and in a craft with moderate survivability against threats. The E-3 crew, described as a craft with low survivability costs a 16-20 member crew roughly $30,000 over an 8-10 hour period.
Air Solution
“This is a European-led solution in execution,” the paper states. “While the baseline airframes and some mission systems draw from U.S. and Israeli programs, conversion, certification, sustainment, and mission software can—and should—be conducted in Europe.“That ensures political ownership, creates workshare for European industry, and opens opportunities for regional AI/ML and systems suppliers. Politically, a NATO‑owned G550 fleet would demonstrate cost-conscious burden sharing and turn the 5% pledge into tangible capability.”
(More at link)
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Strong AI
Experienced member
- Messages
- 2,580
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Many representatives of member countries offered their own software, and NATO
selected the HAVELSAN software, which received the highest technical score in its evaluation.
Tactical Data Link Management Center Network Planning Software in NATO.
selected the HAVELSAN software, which received the highest technical score in its evaluation.
Tactical Data Link Management Center Network Planning Software in NATO.
Strong AI
Experienced member
- Messages
- 2,580
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
The NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) has awarded ASELSAN a contract to supply the Alliance with “Identification of Friend or Foe” (IFF) Interrogator Systems for Man-Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) as part of its mission to ensure deterrence against increasing aerial threats on the global theatre.
The contract is a framework agreement valid for three years, which ensures the supply of the material throughout the period. ASELSAN, as a long-standing IFF provider in every domain and one of the few providers of Mode-5 IFF Systems, takes utmost pride in offering its services & support to NSPA
The contract is a framework agreement valid for three years, which ensures the supply of the material throughout the period. ASELSAN, as a long-standing IFF provider in every domain and one of the few providers of Mode-5 IFF Systems, takes utmost pride in offering its services & support to NSPA
- Messages
- 6,288
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Wow,should be a first?
Normaly the US gets such a contract,no?
Huelague
Experienced member
- Messages
- 5,090
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Interestingly that was my first thought. Our important high end product in the hands of our friends
- Messages
- 3,853
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Not really, Aselsan is a big subcontractor; many stuff are license built and sold. These NSPA tenders are open to every NATO country company; anyone can enter.
- Messages
- 9,517
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Trump is not always praising other people, but there is one exception - Mark Rutte. And as the NATO boss is set to visit Trump on Wednesday, your reporter wonders: could the US president one day say “bye, bye” to the alliance? Let's take a look at what the actual rules say.
Under the 1949 NATO treaty, the exit process seems simple. A country submits a formal notice, and one year later, they are out.
ADVERTISEMENT
But under US domestic law, it is a completely different story. In 2023, legislation was passed to prevent any president from resigning unilaterally.
And to legally withdraw, US President Donald Trump would need a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate or a specific act of Congress.
And although no one has ever fully left the alliance, France came close.
In 1966, President Charles de Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's military command. US troops were ordered to leave French soil, and the alliance had to pack up its headquarters and move from Paris to Brussels.
And it took more than four decades for France to rejoin the military command in 2009.
However, even if Trump cannot easily withdraw, experts warn he could still follow a similar path and hollow out Washington's participation.
He could severely slash funding, withdraw key personnel, or simply refuse to honour the mutual defence pledge.
And if Washington stays in the alliance in name only, calling it a "paper tiger", one could say NATO is already weakened from within, having jeopardised the one thing that matters most: its credibility.
www.euronews.com
_________________________________________
Oh... So the time when France rejoined NATO was when they decided to attack and bomb Libya.
Under the 1949 NATO treaty, the exit process seems simple. A country submits a formal notice, and one year later, they are out.
ADVERTISEMENT
But under US domestic law, it is a completely different story. In 2023, legislation was passed to prevent any president from resigning unilaterally.
And to legally withdraw, US President Donald Trump would need a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate or a specific act of Congress.
And although no one has ever fully left the alliance, France came close.
In 1966, President Charles de Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's military command. US troops were ordered to leave French soil, and the alliance had to pack up its headquarters and move from Paris to Brussels.
And it took more than four decades for France to rejoin the military command in 2009.
However, even if Trump cannot easily withdraw, experts warn he could still follow a similar path and hollow out Washington's participation.
He could severely slash funding, withdraw key personnel, or simply refuse to honour the mutual defence pledge.
And if Washington stays in the alliance in name only, calling it a "paper tiger", one could say NATO is already weakened from within, having jeopardised the one thing that matters most: its credibility.
Watch: Are we witnessing the end of the US in NATO?
Trump is not always praising other people, but there is one exception - Mark Rutte. And as the NATO boss is set to visit Trump on Wednesday, your reporter wonders: could the US president one day say “bye, bye” to the alliance? Let's take a look at what the actual rules say. #EuropeToday
www.euronews.com
_________________________________________
Oh... So the time when France rejoined NATO was when they decided to attack and bomb Libya.
- Messages
- 10,836
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
Not exactly. French already joined US w.r.t Afghanistan post 9-11. About 4 - 5 divisions too and significant air assets too iirc....not small amount.
Rejoining nato command officially was matter of time (after mitterand iirc pared down the degaulle thing by 90% already in the 80s iirc, sensing cold war stage at that point and observing what US/UK/Germany could do w.r.t Reforger etc), more logistics meetings you can directly sit in on top level and optimize 5 - 10 year strategy/spendin etc etc.
France was always in NATO during this phase (60s - 80s), they just wanted more of their own strategic autonomy.
US could have kept paris as nato hq too, they just wanted to show degaulle a consequence of pulling out of NATO command (degaulle ofc was upset NATO didnt help out w.r.t Algeria etc*)
*this episode bears some parallels to current M.E dynamics/theatrics.
