Buying the _eurofighter_ wouldn't let them share the same platform as the _rest of Europe_? I realize that the F-35 has racked up a number of sales recently, but there's quite a few eurofighters around still, and more on the way IIRC
In the fickle Brazilian political environment, not aligning with the US might end up being a rather pragmatic move. As a politician, who knows how badly your successor will fuck up those ties?
There are no alternatives to F35.
The real reason is because the F-35 is in fact very cheap for what it does.
Please don't jump on bandwagons.
Here's a good video covering this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z_gTGJc7nQ&t=2219s
How would you know? Are you privy to all conversations between the Finnish and the U.S. government?
> there are no incentives from the U.S. to buy it
Right from the article itself:
>> However, in what is a major win for the team behind HX, Lockheed Martin provided a unique tailored solution to Finland – one described in their BAFO-press statement to “includes many opportunities for the Finnish defense industry related to the direct manufacture and maintenance of the F-35 that have not been offered before.”
Pretty much all buyers of the F-35 have been offered different sorts of kick-back deals, where they get to produce parts of the plane or handle maintenance, so the deal props up the national arms industry in some way or another. A nice boon for the politicians who can then brag about how they’re securing Finnish/Danish/Italian/whatever jobs.
Are you? How do you know they've happened?
Like how Denmark have joined pretty much every U.S. war of aggression in recent history, despite having no interests at all in Afghanistan or the middle east.
Denmark joined because the US invoked Article 5 after 9/11. It was more about making sure they're protected if they ever need it in the future, so I'd say it was absolutely in their interest. This was the first time Article 5 was invoked, not going would've killed NATO and their own security. The invasion of Ukraine has solidified their reasoning.
As for article 5, that might explain the second gulf war and/or Afghanistan, but certainly not the first gulf war, Libya or Syria.
Whenever Uncle Sam says “jump”, you’ll see all the small NATO states lining up to ask “How high?”.
No it wouldn't.
The Article 5 invocation resulted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Assist and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Active_Endeavour, that's all.
>Whenever Uncle Sam says “jump”, you’ll see all the small NATO states lining up to ask “How high?”.
Consider that small NATO states want to partake in this stuff because it offers their forces an opportunity to gain experience.
Article 5 has only been invoked once, and did not involve any actual conflict.
"Open secret" is the news version of "Trust me bro"
What? This is pretty much standard practice across the board in military procurements. For example, as part of SAAB's Gripen bid for Canada, they would arrange for the aircraft to be produced, assembled, and maintained in Canada if the Gripen were selected. Countries do this for a variety of reasons -- yes, to bolster local industry, but also to give them a leg-up on sovereign sustainment of the platform, and so that they can ramp up manufacture to meet their own needs in the event of a war.
It's usually on the person proposing the existence of something to prove that it exists rather than on the person saying it doesn't exist to prove that it doesn't. I can't prove the lack of existence of bigfoot nor can I prove the lack of existence of aliens having visited earth.
> Right from the article itself:
> <snip>
> Pretty much all buyers of the F-35 have been offered different sorts of kick-back deals, where they get to produce parts of the plane or handle maintenance, so the deal props up the national arms industry in some way or another. A nice boon for the politicians who can then brag about how they’re securing Finnish/Danish/Italian/whatever jobs.
That's not an incentive from the US though. That's an incentive from Lockheed Martin. Which is something businesses do when they're trying to close sales with a skeptical customer and can afford to do so.
And augmented by the fact that a large chunk of Europe is going to be operating the same plane, driving down maintenance costs, sharing maintenance knowledge, reducing interoperability issues and ensuring that spare parts will be available.
In hindsight nobody cares anymore, but it was a lot of public debate and very clear the decision was political and not merit based
Hey, that has value, there is definitely a good case to be made for that. But just be open and honest about it instead of doing weird procurement steps
The “selection process” in Denmark was a total sham, most of the competitors didn’t even bother submitting a bid, because it was obvious from the start that the F-35 would win.