What will the military-industrial complex look like in 10 or 20 years?

[Grinkle]

This thread was inspired by @fresh_42 's comment in another thread. Making a new thread as what I want to say in response is really OT for the thread where initial comment was made.

Other sources reported that 70 cents of each dollar spent was going to the US, and Canada will shift these expenses to its home market and Europe. E.g., they said that Canada will look for French, German, and Spanish companies to renew its fleet of submarines.

To this American, the US GDP dollars involved are of little relative significance in what you describe. I do agree with you that the US defense industry is likely to lose market share.

I hope that in 10 years one can compare the rise of Western European modern weapons suppliers to the rise of Airbus. Boeing would probably be a bigger company today if Airbus didn't exist, and the world is better for having both Airbus and Boeing.

This comparison I'm drawing is completely off-the-cuff, so maybe its naive or simplistic. My gut feeling is that the world is better off with Europe being able to develop and source their own modern weapons systems.

I expect this trend, if it happens, shrinks the market for US made military hardware. Imagine what the world is like, though, if the most effective military drones are developed and sourced from Italy or France or Germany, and they are seen as the "F-16" of the times, and the US needs the goodwill of whatever country sources them to maintain parity.

As the world shifts away from high-cost / low-volume hardware dominating a battlefield, the barrier to entry becomes much lower anyway, so maybe even without Trump this trend would be happening?

 

[fresh_42]

I think Europeans already have competitive weapon systems: German tanks (Leopard II vs Abrams, the French/German/Spanish helicopter (Tigre vs Apache), or Patriots:

The European defense company MBDA has established a joint venture with Raytheon to set up a production facility for Patriot GEM-T missiles in Schrobenhausen. In December 2023, the Budget Committee of the German Bundestag approved €3 billion to procure 500 Patriot missiles. These are to be delivered between 2027 and 2033. After US President Donald Trump agreed that Germany and other NATO states could purchase Patriot systems for use in Ukraine, an order for 1,000 missiles for MBDA is expected.

I mainly stumbled upon reports claiming that parts of Canada's submarine fleet are currently not seaworthy, whatever that means in detail. France has good nuclear-powered submarines in its offer, while Germany has classical ones, which it has already supplied to Israel for decades.

It isn't as if there weren't already alternatives. Since all NATO states are newly trying to achieve the 2%+ GNI target, more money is in the market. A lot more money. A parallel decline of market shares isn't good news for American companies. On the other hand, it seems unavoidable since Trump has proven to the world that the USA isn't a reliable partner anymore. Availability (approval to purchase them) and affordability (arbitrary, uncalculable tariffs and therefore resulting trade wars), particularly spare parts, are issues that do not make headlines but are certainly major criteria for decision-makers. Supply chains during wartime cannot be neglected or made dependent on the mood of a crazy narcissist. And you elected him twice, so there is no excuse. No guarantee it won't happen again. The power of the US president is obviously close to the power of any other dictator. According to a poll, IIRC, people in France, Great Britain, and Germany already think that Xi is more reliable than the USA under Trump. Let that sink in!

Drones seem to be the new weapons for mass production, i.e., a large part of the expected military investments. Current major producers are Russia, Ukraine (which has a joint venture with a German company), Iran, China, and the USA; a pretty colorful mix of potential offerers.

Anyway, my main point was: Trump costs the USA money. Measurable and independent of his amoral habits. In my mind, this alone is already a breach of his oath, but if we dive into that terrain, we are back in the ethical debate.

 

[Grinkle]

Anyway, my main point was: Trump costs the USA money. Measurable and independent of his amoral habits. In my mind, this alone is already a breach of his oath, but if we dive into that terrain, we are back in the ethical debate.

I understand, that is why I started a new thread - so as not to de-rail your main point.

Do you think that there is no real change that will be comparable to Airbus (the world before and after) coming to the global M-I complex? It will be a market share shift but not more than that?

 

[fresh_42]

Do you think that there is no real change that will be comparable to Airbus (the world before and after) coming to the global M-I complex? It will be a market share shift but not more than that?

I think that every single battle, every single war from antiquity to the modern era, has always been a test of weapons systems and was often decided by new technologies. The various stages of development of long guns provide a very clear example. But even in modern times, wars have always provided insights into the usefulness and ineffectiveness of weapons systems: bombers in Korea, helicopters in Vietnam, battleships in the Falklands War, chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War, tanks in the first Iraq War, the importance of air superiority in the second Iraq War, and today it's the Israeli Iron Dome, Patriot systems, as well as cruise missiles and drones. I don't think that European states, for example, can do without tanks, if only because of the continent's limited space. Submarines will also retain their importance as a nuclear deterrent. There are rumors that Israel, for instance, has equipped its German submarines with nuclear weapons, so that a nuclear counterattack is possible in any conceivable war scenario. The Patriot system, as well as cruise missiles, are relatively expensive and highly technical, whereas drones can be produced comparatively cheaply. To my knowledge, Russia is currently using primarily Iranian drones, while Ukraine uses its own systems.

To stay on topic, I don't believe that classic, complex, and expensive weapons systems will become obsolete, but drones seem to be a cost-effective alternative that is currently establishing itself to some extent, not least due to Obama. However, what a war will look like in 10 to 20 years is, in my opinion, pure speculation. AI-supported systems are already being used increasingly, and this will likely increase significantly. What this means in detail, I cannot really assess. I maintain my belief that every new war involves the further development of weapons systems, which will ultimately be crucial to the outcome of a conflict. Simply because it has always been this way, no exception.

 

[dlu]

I mainly stumbled upon reports claiming that parts of Canada's submarine fleet are currently not seaworthy, whatever that means in detail

Canada bought 4 used submaries from Britain thinking they were getting a deal from the basement bargin price.
The Chicoutimi caught fire in 2004 during its maiden voyage from the United Kingdom.
The Cornerbrook hit the ocean floor off of BC on 2011.
The other 2, along with the 2 above, had rusting, wiring, leaking and all sorts of problems.
In all, they have spent more time in dry dock than at sea.

 

[dlu]

This comparison I'm drawing is completely off-the-cuff, so maybe its naive or simplistic. My gut feeling is that the world is better off with Europe being able to develop and source their own modern weapons systems.

I feel that with everyone building up arms, ant conflict between nations will be that much worse, and inevitable as each nation will feel that they have the fire power to back up their position/

Modern weapons systems are already highly integrated with each country manufacturing and supplying parts for each other. Perhaps only China has its own self developed military complex, but they do have to purchase the IC's to rub the systems from somewhere else than internally. Soviet Union was mainly internal at one time, but that is past tense.

There is autonomous flying machines and autonomous land machines, which still need an operator supposedly to guide their route. Autonomous may be too strong a word as the AI at the moment is not actually capable of controlling the machine under all circumstances.
There is a little known rule for international oceanic and sea faring navigation that every ship at sea has to have a human on board acting in control of the vessel. We have seen the Ulrainians flout this agreement on the Black Sea with their military drones. Might be they did not read the fine print, or the ink got wet and ran the words.
Nevertheless we should expect more semi-autonomous, autonomous water drone surveillance being done off coasts and wherever, where they pose a hazard to vessels since they do not have beacons to spot them.
A fisherman caught one up in his net a few days back https://www.opindia.com/news-update...nderwater-surveillance-drone/#google_vignette

 

[dlu]

A parallel decline of market shares isn't good news for American companies.

@Grinkle -- I expect this trend, if it happens, shrinks the market for US made military hardware

One reason for the US to move a little bit out of NATO of they do not get the cash returns to compensate for the expense of the bases on Europe.

 

[Grinkle]

@dlu @fresh_42

One thing I am taking away from each of you is that comparing US military hardware R&D to pre-Airbus Boeing is not a good analogy.

The world is already much flatter with repect to military hardware sourcing than I appreciated - thanks for explaining this to me.

So I am now agreeing with @fresh_42 's perspective that what we are seeing isn't any sea-change in where military hardware is sourced, its a structural shift in market share moving permanently out of the US. The trend of modern combat moving away from big-hardware to favor drones and other smaller hardware is a parallel and independant phenomena.

We are unlikely to see the equivalent of an F-35 fighter platform developed for worldwide export by a non-US country that the US will require and come to depend on, though, that part my thesis does not seem well founded, it was naive.

 

[fresh_42]

Well, the market of weapons systems is very different from the market of commercial airplanes. Although there are also companies like Bombardier or Ilyushin, we have only two major players. This is different in the arms industry. There, we have many more players. And the market restrictions are far more complicated. There is basically no problem if you want to buy an A-380 or a B-777. Getting your hands on a MIG-35 or a Typhoon is definitely more complicated. However, even this example shows that there are already competitive alternatives to the F-35 platform and Lockheed-Martin. But as I said, don't try to buy a Chendu J-20.

 

[sbrothy]

Apart from the drones, I think the nukes are made smaller and smaller. Depressingly, I think it's just a matter of time before we're going to see tactical nukes on battlefields.

If the FAEs can't fulfill that role that is.

 

[sbrothy]

 

[sbrothy]

What they don't seem to mention is that as it's a vacuum bomb it creates a hole without atmosphere. Right after the burning of the oxygen 11 Km of Earth atmosphere comes crashing down and obliterates whatever is left, if anything. You might think that 11Km of air don't weigh anything but you'd be wrong. I suspect it can flatten a Leopard tank.

EDIT: Funny that the Leopard 2 is called the 3rd generation. They must've started at 0.

Leopard 2 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[sbrothy]

And yes, the war in Ukraine is an artillery war. But whether you're killed by an AI controlled drone or some anonymous schmuck 20 Km behind your enemy's lines probably amounts to the same thing.

 

[sbrothy]

At least it's quick

 

[sbrothy]

Well, the market of weapons systems is very different from the market of commercial airplanes. Although there are also companies like Bombardier or Ilyushin, we have only two major players. This is different in the arms industry. There, we have many more players. And the market restrictions are far more complicated. There is basically no problem if you want to buy an A-380 or a B-777. Getting your hands on a MIG-35 or a Typhoon is definitely more complicated. However, even this example shows that there are already competitive alternatives to the F-35 platform and Lockheed-Martin. But as I said, don't try to buy a Chendu J-20.

Oh because it Chinese? I suspect you'd probably be able to find a corrupt enough weapons dealer, even in China. Noone doubts what the punishment would be though....

EDIT: But OK a fighter jet might be difficult to smuggle over the border!