9Lun
If the NATO countries add to this over the course of the year and the 13 missing countries reach 2%, there should still be something in it, I looked at a few presentations today, the order books are full to bursting...
But it's difficult to assess what would be appropriate in terms of valuation...
Everything up to 2027 should be priced in by now, right?
Are you also valuing the individual companies or the overall picture?
What's going on with something like RTX & LHM? đ
But it's difficult to assess what would be appropriate in terms of valuation...
Everything up to 2027 should be priced in by now, right?
Are you also valuing the individual companies or the overall picture?
What's going on with something like RTX & LHM? đ
âąâą
@Gerit My assessment is that with regard to BW, 2% GDP is sufficient at most to maintain the target size. Any form of increase in quantity and capabilities is beyond 2%. IMHO, for the BW, as the core of NATO's European armed forces, I am thinking more along the lines of 3.5% (possibly in the form of special funds under the Basic Law), i.e. 2+1.5. Nobody dares to say it yet. However, this will only take effect from 2027 - i.e. after the current special assets and the next Bundestag elections. It's difficult to understand an army from the inside if you haven't been or are not part of it. The population simply does not realize that each Puma of a PzGrenBtl is not procured once, but 4 times. 1 time operational - 3 times in spare parts. And not when needed, but in stock for the respective maintenance. IMHO, all funds saved over the last 20 years must be made up in full. Completely. Incredible, predictable cash flows.
âą
22
âą