US nears $100 billion arms deal for Saudi Arabia

[Penguin]

US nears $100 billion arms deal for Saudi Arabia
THAT IS THE TOPIC

Let's look at it from a different perspective.. The US/NATO would have loved to push for a KSA/GCC vs Iran prolonged war that would cost more than a trillion dollars, this would have allowed western weapons factories to go full gear and would have benefited the west mostly, while at the same time weakening KSA and its Sunni Allies and Iran and its Shia' allies, in other words; weakening the whole Muslim world in one go and without any western nation having to fight or lose lives.. to the contrary the West would be making hundreds of billions in arms sales anyway..
So I think it is a smart move to pay a few hundred Billions of dollars, get the best weapons for it, avoid a devastating war between Muslims, protect oneself as best as one can, benefit the Mafia boss (US) the most, get his added protection and benefit technologically and scientifically from it.. Keep progressing instead of regressing..

NATO as such as zero interest in in a conflict between tIran and neighbours. When you did your analysis, you may be correct in your observation about who would benefit in what way from such a conflict. However, that does not mean parties discussed 'want' this, or actively 'seek' this. That is PROJECTION of your own assumptions about their motivations and objectives. Projection like that introduces error into an otherwise correct analysis of consequences.

 

[The SC]

US nears $100 billion arms deal for Saudi Arabia
THAT IS THE TOPIC


NATO as such as zero interest in in a conflict between tIran and neighbours. When you did your analysis, you may be correct in your observation about who would benefit in what way from such a conflict. However, that does not mean parties discussed 'want' this, or actively 'seek' this. That is PROJECTION of your own assumptions about their motivations and objectives. Projection like that introduces error into an otherwise correct analysis of consequences.

My analysis is based upon the root cause of much of the troubles in the Middle East, and that is the creation of Usrael by the Western powers a.k.a NATO; where most devastating wars in the middle east revolved around the existence of this entity (Or is it an alibi for the west's hidden agenda!? Motivations and Objectives!!!Please refer to fundamentalist Judeo-Christians believes in the US as an example.. we are still living in an ignorant world and thus dangerous my friend, and please do not get me wrong, these guys have produced many presidents of the the United States of America the leading nation of NATO).. up to the Iraq sanctions, invasion and destruction (Staring from the attack on Osiraq), the spread of these destructions to Syria, Libya, Yemen (now left to the Saudis to deal with), attempts to destabilise Egypt and Bahrain.. Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia did not escape these attempts either..
What about this newly created sectarian proxy war in the Muslim world, and these terrorist militias such as ISIS and DAESH.. All of this is coincidently happening in the Middle East mostly and as we all know, not one of these events is beneficial to the population of this area of the world..
So by saying that those parties discussed(the Western world) do not want or seek these destabilisations for their benefits, you are denying all these _ not too far back_ devastating happenings in the Middle east (all of them involving NATO)..So if one goes with self-interests as it is the proven case internationally, NATO nations are the ones who will benefit the most of an open sectarian war between Sunni and Shia'a Muslim nations, more devastating than anything before in the region.. more costly to the region in both economy and human lives..
This is why I said in my previous post (responding to the ones who think that 100 or 300 billion dollars is too much for protecting oneself) that the 100 billion$ and up to 300 billion$ in arms purchases for KSA for the next decade is much less costly than an open war with Iran (with ramifications to a WW3 if Russia backs Iran and the US with no other choice backs KSA...) and in fact is a sound DETERRENT to any war possibility in the area..

PS: My previous post was on topic, hope you did read it in full, the last part explains the first and why a 100$ billion in arms sales was justified..

 

[Penguin]

My analysis is based upon the root cause of much of the troubles in the Middle East, and that is the creation of Usrael by the Western powers a.k.a NATO; where most devastating wars in the middle east revolved around the existence of this entity (or is it an alibi for the west's hidden agenda!?).. up to the Iraq sanctions, invasion and destruction (Staring from the attack on Osiraq), the spread of these destructions to Syria, Libya, Yemen (now left to the Saudis to deal with), attempts to destabilise Egypt and Bahrain, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia did not escape these attempts either..
What about this newly created sectarian proxy war in the Muslim world, and these terrorist militias such as ISIS and DAESH.. All of this is coincidently happening in the Middle East mostly and as we all know not one of these events is beneficial to the population of this area of the world..
So by saying that those parties discussed(the Western world) do not want or seek these destabilisations for their benefits, you are denying all these not too far devastating happenings in the Middle east..If one goes with self-interests as it is the proven case internationally, NATO nations are the ones who will benefit the most of an open sectarian war between Sunni and Shia'a Muslim nations, more devastating than anything before in the region..
This is why I said in my previous post (responding to the ones who think that 100 or 300 billion dollars is too much for protecting oneself) that the 100 billion$ and up to 300 billion$ in arms purchases for KSA for the next decade is much less costly than a war and in fact is a sound DETERRENT to any war possibility in the area..

The state of Israel came into being 14 May 1948, iirc, while NATO formed 4 April 1949. The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary both to counter the military power of the USSR and to prevent the revival of nationalist militarism. In addition the 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état by the Communists had overthrown a democratic government and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin reiterated that the best way to prevent another Czechoslovakia was to evolve a joint Western military strategy. He got a receptive hearing, especially considering American anxiety over Italy (and the Italian Communist Party).In 1948 European leaders met with U.S. defense, military and diplomatic officials at the Pentagon, under U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall's orders, exploring a framework for a new and unprecedented association. Talks for a new military alliance resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed by U.S. President Harry Truman in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949 that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."
CLEARLY NATO FORMATION HAD ZIP TO DO WITH THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE FORMATION OF ISRAEL AS A STATE PRECEEDED THE FORMATION OF NATO (AND HAD A MUCH LONGER HISTORY)

Where exactly did I state anything about 'the Western world'? Incidentally, make up your mind: is it NATO (see the original member country list) or 'the Western world', which is a wider group and includes non-NATO countries. From a cultural and sociological approach, the Western world is defined as including all cultures that are directly derived from and influenced by European cultures, i.e. Europe (at least the European Union member states, EFTA countries, European microstates); in the Americas (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela), and in Oceania (Australia and New Zealand). Together these countries constitute Western society.

Observing you project motivations is not denying anything. The Netherlands is a NATO country. How does it benefit from instability in the Middle East? Can you say anything about the political process (national decisionmaking) here e.g. concerning matters of defence? As a small trading nation, we're much better off with peace all around. You lump all the member nations together and pretend they are a homogeneous block and/or US puppets. This simply is ... well... not reality (to put it nicely).

Shall we wait and see whether there actually will be any arms trade of this order of magnitude? And who is conducting that business anyway? European counties or the US?

 

[The SC]

The state of Israel came into being 14 May 1948, iirc, while NATO formed 4 April 1949. The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom, is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defence Organization in September 1948. However, participation of the United States was thought necessary both to counter the military power of the USSR and to prevent the revival of nationalist militarism. In addition the 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état by the Communists had overthrown a democratic government and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin reiterated that the best way to prevent another Czechoslovakia was to evolve a joint Western military strategy. He got a receptive hearing, especially considering American anxiety over Italy (and the Italian Communist Party).In 1948 European leaders met with U.S. defense, military and diplomatic officials at the Pentagon, under U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall's orders, exploring a framework for a new and unprecedented association. Talks for a new military alliance resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed by U.S. President Harry Truman in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949 that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."
CLEARLY NATO FORMATION HAD ZIP TO DO WITH THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE FORMATION OF ISRAEL AS A STATE PRECEEDED THE FORMATION OF NATO (AND HAD A MUCH LONGER HISTORY)

Where exactly did I state anything about 'the Western world'? Incidentally, make up your mind: is it NATO (see the original member country list) or 'the Western world', which is a wider group and includes non-NATO countries. From a cultural and sociological approach, the Western world is defined as including all cultures that are directly derived from and influenced by European cultures, i.e. Europe (at least the European Union member states, EFTA countries, European microstates); in the Americas (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela), and in Oceania (Australia and New Zealand). Together these countries constitute Western society.

Observing you project motivations is not denying anything. The Netherlands is a NATO country. How does it benefit from instability in the Middle East? Can you say anything about the political process (national decisionmaking) here e.g. concerning matters of defence? As a small trading nation, we're much better off with peace all around. You lump all the member nations together and pretend they are a homogeneous block and/or US puppets. This simply is ... well... not reality (to put it nicely).

Shall we wait and see whether there actually will be any arms trade of this order of magnitude? And who is conducting that business anyway? European counties or the US?

In brief.. and you should have noticed it in my first post you have answered: The US is the leader of NATO as well as the western world..
Coming with dates for NATO won't help your project.. Read about Disraeli in England and the decision to create Usrael in the 19th century.. Also as a Dutch you know better than anyone here that the Netherlands was a colonial country, I know at least for Surinam and Indonesia.. So it is no Angel..Kleine Land maar Grote economy..(Small land with huge economy..isn't it? Just like Usrael and the defunct Boer's apartheid South Africa..Diamonds, diamonds, diamonds and Oil.. Ha!Ha!Ha)
Don't take it personally, I like your comments and politeness.. but you should know that I know what I am talking about when I do post..

 

[Penguin]

In brief.. and you should have noticed it in my first post you have answered: The US is the leader of NATO as well as the western world..
Coming with dates for NATO won't help your project.. Read about Disraeli in England and the decision to create Usrael in the 19th century.. Also as a Dutch you know better than anyone here that the Netherlands was a colonial country, I know at least for Surinam and Indonesia.. So it is no Angel..Kleine Land maar Grote economy..(Small land with huge economy..isn't it? Just like Usrael and the defunct Boer's apartheid South Africa..Diamonds, diamonds, diamonds and Oil.. Ha!Ha!Ha)

Those date are very important. Because they clearly signal how you assign something to NATO that isn't of NATO.
I do not need a lecture on the pre-history of the birth of the State of Israel. Or about my own country's history.
I have been and remain the first to bring it to the table (See eg https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/brit...or-military-power.485424/page-16#post-9481018) Unlike many many others here. But my country's history doesn't disqualify what I posted.

Don't take it personally, I like your comments and politeness.. but you should know that I know what I am talking about when I do post..

Pity you can't take a comment that would actually improve your analysis... .

 

[The SC]

Those date are very important. Because they clearly signal how you assign something to NATO that isn't of NATO.
I do not need a lecture on the pre-history of the birth of the State of Israel. Or about my own country's history.
I have been and remain the first to bring it to the table (See eg https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/brit...or-military-power.485424/page-16#post-9481018) Unlike many many others here. But my country's history doesn't disqualify what I posted.


Pity you can't take a comment that would actually improve your analysis... .

My analysis was called another perspective, I wonder why you have jumped that!?

 

[Penguin]

My analysis was called another perspective, I wonder why you have jumped that!?

Continue to wonder.
(Who 'jumped' anyway?)

 

[The SC]

Continue to wonder.
(Who 'jumped' anyway?)

It is obvious that you did not get the meaning of my first post, so why continue arguing on other topics and derail the main topic? You think you can lecture me somehow.. good for you .. but thanks I do not need that, since you seem to emphasise the consequences while ignoring the causes.. thanks any way for your attempt to improve my analysis skills.. you should know by now that they are very sharp, deep and to the point..

 

[Penguin]

It is obvious that you did not get the meaning of my first post, so why continue arguing on other topics and derail the main topic? You think you can lecture me somehow.. good for you .. but thanks I do not need that, since you seem to emphasise the consequences while ignoring the causes.. thanks any way for your attempt to improve my analysis skills.. you should know by now that they are very sharp, deep and to the point..

bla bla bla

 

[The SC]

bla bla bla

You seem to like Bla bla bla!
Still, I'll give you another chance, so not to derail the thread.. What do you think about this $100 to $300 billion weapons deal between KSA and the US? and what should it be comprised of?

 

[Penguin]

You seem to like Bla bla bla!
Still, I'll give you another chance, so not to derail the thread.. What do you think about this $100 to $300 billion weapons deal between KSA and the US? and what should it be comprised of?

As I said before, let's see what actually happens first. Certainly not 14 DDG51s.

Since they are keeping/upgrading their old ships, its fleet expansion. Nobody ever seems to think what that means in terms of e.g. manpower. A single Burke needs around 325 men. An Freedom class LCS has a core crew of 50, 68 with including mission crews and berthing for a total of 98. The uparmed configuration offered to SA can field a crew of 110 to 130. Swiftship 75 mentions has a crew of up to 60. And so on. Time the number of ships of each type. These men need to be recruited and trained. A lot of money will go to that over the years. Likewise with respect to maintenance: not only will this need to be done (=cost), one also needs to either hire outside specialist services to do it, or recruit and train your own specialists to do it. All this extra personnel will need to be housed (yet another cost) And then there is ordnace and spares parts acquisition etc. Facilities will need to be expanded (warehousing, ports). IMHO this is were a lot of earnings are for US companies, aside from the initial plain equipment acquisitions.

 

[Incog_nito]

The official said the intention was to complete the deal in parallel with President Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia this coming Friday; the arms package could amount to over $300 billion in a decade.
Reuters|Published: 13.05.17 , 12:07

The United States is close to completing a series of arms deals for Saudi Arabia totaling more than $100 billion, a senior White House official said on Friday, a week ahead of President Donald Trump's planned visit to Riyadh.

The official, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said the arms package could end up surpassing more than $300 billion over a decade to help Saudi Arabia boost its defensive capabilities while still maintaining US ally Israel's qualitative military edge over its neighbors.


Trump and Saudi Deputy Crown Prince (Photo: MCT)

"We are in the final stages of a series of deals," the official said. The package is being developed to coincide with Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia. Trump leaves for the kingdom on May 19, the first stop on his maiden international trip.

Reuters reported last week that Washington was pushing through contracts for tens of billions of dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia, some new, others already in the pipeline, ahead of Trump's visit.

The United States has been the main supplier for most Saudi military needs, from F-15 fighter jets to command and control systems worth tens of billions of dollars in recent years. Trump has vowed to stimulate the US economy by boosting manufacturing jobs.

The package includes American arms and maintenance, ships, air missile defense and maritime security, the official said. "We'll see a very substantial commitment ... In many ways it is intended to build capabilities for the threats they face."

The official added: "It's good for the American economy but it will also be good in terms of building a capability that is appropriate for the challenges of the region. Israel would still maintain an edge."


US Defense Secretary Mattis in Saudi Arabia (Photo: AP)

While in Riyadh, the official said Trump would attend three major events: A series of meeting with Saudi officials, a separate session with leaders of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council and a lunch with Arab and Muslim leaders, 56 of whom have been invited, to discuss combating extremism and cracking down on illicit financing.

Trump will discuss how to counter the threat from Islamic State militants, the war in Yemen and threats of ballistic missiles and maritime shipping in the Red Sea, the official said.

US Navy commanders have accused Iran of jeopardizing international navigationby "harassing" warships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Gulf Arab states are optimistic about Trump whom they see as a hawkish leader opposed to their adversary Iran.

A major part of the agenda with Gulf leaders will be the Syrian civil war amid calls for "de-escalation zones" in Syria to provide a safe haven for Syrian refugees.

Besides Saudi Arabia, Trump's first foreign trip will also include visits to Israel, the Vatican, Brussels for a NATO summit and Sicily for a Group of Seven summit.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4961368,00.html

KSA wants to be come world's 3rd biggest Military spender before they ran out of money. Lolz... Some people say they are looking for a big war. True?

 

[The SC]

As I said before, let's see what actually happens first. Certainly not 14 DDG51s.

Since they are keeping/upgrading their old ships, its fleet expansion. Nobody ever seems to think what that means in terms of e.g. manpower. A single Burke needs around 325 men. An Freedom class LCS has a core crew of 50, 68 with including mission crews and berthing for a total of 98. The uparmed configuration offered to SA can field a crew of 110 to 130. Swiftship 75 mentions has a crew of up to 60. And so on. Time the number of ships of each type. These men need to be recruited and trained. A lot of money will go to that over the years. Likewise with respect to maintenance: not only will this need to be done (=cost), one also needs to either hire outside specialist services to do it, or recruit and train your own specialists to do it. All this extra personnel will need to be housed (yet another cost) And then there is ordnace and spares parts acquisition etc. Facilities will need to be expanded (warehousing, ports). IMHO this is were a lot of earnings are for US companies, aside from the initial plain equipment acquisitions.

I do understand what you mean, but we need to consider two facts on the ground assuming that finances are not a problem for KSA.. first the US wants to get involved in the middle east in a support role, it does not want to get involved in wars anymore (maybe only in exceptional circumstances), which means in other words that Gulf nations or the GCC should count on themselves, which brings in the second fact that in order to do just that, the GCC nations should get the best and most powerful weapons to protect their assets and ultimately deter any potential foe..
This is why I think that 4 DDG51 with AEGIS and SM-3- 6 are a possibility (it is foolish to think 14 DDG51s), also this brings the possibility of some squadrons of the F-35 as long as the US trusts the Saudis for not using them against Usrael (but maybe for self-defence in the case of an Usraeli attack, which is fair if two allies go to war with each other.. a very low probability applies to such a conflict, but it is important to mention Usrael as it has opposed many Saudi deals in the past _let's say without much success_)
I am not sure if with DDG51s there will be any LCS deal also, since most Europeans and the Chinese are willing to provide the equivalents.. but $100 billion is still a huge amount of money that can buy many systems.. THAAD is almost confirmed, maybe AEGIS for land too.. I know that Saudis before going to ask Germany for the Leopard2 had asked the Obama administration for over a 1000 new Abrams.. it was refused at that time but it is still a Saudi requirement, so we may safely add that deal now that Trump the businessman is running the show in the white house with majority friends in both the senate and the congress.. it is a totally different scenario from the previous government, So the Tank deal has much more chances of going through this time.. KSA wants more Apaches and other helicopters.. it also wants some P8s for its navy and a lot of armoured fighting vehicles, the Bradley is most likely on the list.. a thousand or so..Even with all this we are not at $60 billion, the rest might be some surprises we do not know of..
So when I say that financing this deal of up to $300 billion for the next 10 years with deliveries spread over a much longer time, (let's say 20 years for the whole package, which means a long term political commitment and dedication to each other for KSA/USA), is not a problem for KSA, I mean that the interests alone of the almost $1 trillion Saudi investments in the US can cover for this deal at its maximum of $300 billion, plus the $200 billion Saudi commitment for civilian deals in the US, since the annual interests on the $1 trillion Saudi investments at a minimum of 7% amount to $70 billion.. on a 10 years period it will amount to $700 billion (minimum), it is thus more than enough to cover for the $500 billion in military and civilian deals.. Only God knows what one can buy with $300 billion, but in this instance Trump and the Saudi government know too.. and we are left on the side as spectators of a great show..So let's wait and enjoy it..

 

[Penguin]

I do understand what you mean, but we need to consider two facts on the ground assuming that finances are not a problem for KSA..

I never said finances are a problem for KSA. I said people here tend to focus on hardware and neglect all the rest it takes to make that hardware functions. That is where the real long term money is (i.e. the $300 billion bit).

first the US wants to get involved in the middle east in a support role, it does not want to get involved in wars anymore (maybe only in exceptional circumstances), which means in other words that Gulf nations or the GCC should count on themselves

This is your assumption (rather than a fact)

, which brings in the second fact that in order to do just that, the GCC nations should get the best and most powerful weapons to protect their assets and ultimately deter any potential foe..

The use of the word SHOULD indicates it is what one would expect to happen. I.e. not a fact.

This is why I think that 4 DDG51 with AEGIS and SM-3- 6 are a possibility (it is foolish to think 14 DDG51s), also this brings the possibility of some squadrons of the F-35 as long as the US trusts the Saudis for not using them against Usrael (but maybe for self-defence in the case of an Usraeli attack, which is fair if two allies go to war with each other.. a very low probability applies to such a conflict, but it is important to mention Usrael as it has opposed many Saudi deals in the past _let's say without much success_)

This neglects that all previous bit of information of SA interest in destroyers with ABM capability (whether DDG51 or e.g. a European ship) mention 2 ships.

I am not sure if with DDG51s there will be any LCS deal also, since most Europeans and the Chinese are willing to provide the equivalents.. but $100 billion is still a huge amount of money that can buy many systems..

Of which only $20 billion for naval expansion. At $1.8 billion a pop, 4 Burkes alone would eat up 1/3rd of that.

I know that Saudis before going to ask Germany for the Leopard2 had asked the Obama administration for over a 1000 new Abrams.. it was refused at that time but it is still a Saudi requirement, so we may safely add that deal now that Trump the businessman is running the show in the white house with majority friends in both the senate and the congress.. it is a totally different scenario from the previous government, So the Tank deal has much more chances of going through this time..

I would not be too sure that new Leo2 are still being built. And given the amount of tanks Germany has exported, it may not be possible to provide the latest upgraded version (A7) in sufficient number from existing stock. US has produced more M1 to begin with and has larger stock of vehicles to rebuild.

 

[The SC]

I never said finances are a problem for KSA. I said people here tend to focus on hardware and neglect all the rest it takes to make that hardware functions. That is where the real long term money is (i.e. the $300 billion bit).


This is your assumption (rather than a fact)



The use of the word SHOULD indicates it is what one would expect to happen. I.e. not a fact.


This neglects that all previous bit of information of SA interest in destroyers with ABM capability (whether DDG51 or e.g. a European ship) mention 2 ships.


Of which only $20 billion for naval expansion.


I would not be too sure that new Leo2 are still being built. And given the amount of tanks Germany has exported, it may not be possible to provide the latest upgraded version (A7) in sufficient number from existing stock. US has produced more M1 to begin with and has larger stock of vehicles to rebuild.

The US wants to take a support role in the Middle east is a fact proven in Yemen and Syria.. you can read about it anywhere..

One should take things in their context.. the word SHOULD came as a confirmation to the $100 billion deal, which is a fact according to the US statements..

KSA interest in destroyers with ABM capabilities was confused with the tailor made LCS.. all that was shelved.. the price of $11 billion for 4 LCS and the delivery dates did not fit the Saudi requirements, also because they wanted AEGIS and SM-3 and 6, so there is no point discussing this, let's wait and see..

The $20 for naval expansion can bring in a whole lot of systems including a few DDG51s..what it can bring in is still to be seen..

I was talking about the Abrams deal that has more possibilities of going through now than with the previous US administration.. the Leo2 was asked for because of the refusal by the US to sell the Abrams in the required numbers by KSA.. They wanted a thousand or so and the Obama administration told them, you need only 250 !!!