Denmark has been a stalwart ally of the United States since 1999, participating in operations in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali, and off of the Horn of Africa, and transporting chemical weapons out of Syria. Last September, Denmark reacted quickly and enthusiastically to the American call to join the anti-Islamic State coalition, contributing a C-130 Hercules transport aircraft early on, 7 F-16s, and 120 soldiers to train Iraqi security forces. The Danish parliament overwhelmingly approved these deployments and the new Danish government of Lars Løkke Rassmussen has pledged to extend the mission when its mandate expires in October, but it is unclear whether the Danish military can continue. The ability of this small country to sustain its deployments for years on end has impressed American defense officials, but it is now cracking under the strain of defense cuts and sustained operations.
The latest alarm came from the chief of the Royal Danish Air Force. Recently, Maj. Gen. M.A.L.T. Nielsen said, “We have a group of employees who have undertaken an extraordinary effort. We engaged in Iraq in October 2014 and have flown more than 4,000 hours, more than 410 missions, and have dropped more than 350 bombs. We cannot continue to do this.”
Nielsen pointed to the ongoing strain that flying combat missions has put on his aged F-16s, but, more pointedly, to a shortage of mechanics to maintain them. The lack of support personnel is a long-term problem for the Danish air force exacerbated by budget cuts. Thirty out of 210 positions for mechanics are vacant and will not be filled anytime soon because it takes 4–5 years to adequately train a competent aircraft maintenance technician. Furthermore, a large cohort of mechanics is reaching retirement age and cannot be replaced with the current training pipeline. Unfortunately, this high-demand, low-density career field has been neglected in favor of other priorities — such as purchasing adequate supplies of precision-guided munitions — given fiscal constraints.
Nielsen’s alarm did not resonate with the Danish media and political class, however, until 14 trade union representatives wrote to their parliamentarians. They argued that the air force’s mechanics have been overworked both in Kuwait and at Skrydstrup air force base in southern Jutland, home of Denmark’s 30 operational F-16s. The mechanics have not been able to follow the established policy of six months of preparation before a year of operations followed by six months of rest and reset. The senior shop steward, Henrik J. Christiansen, said that his mechanics cannot continue at the current pace and that neither more money nor more people could solve the problem. Instead he suggested that Denmark withdraw its F-16s and support staff from the fight against the Islamic State.
Shop stewards may garner more media attention than generals in this small country, but parliamentarians set foreign policy and they are divided. The spokespersons for the parties that did not support the mission — Alternative and Unity List — have predictably suggested that overworked maintenance crews means Denmark should certainly not extend its mission past October when the current mandate expires.
Søren Espersen, foreign policy spokesman for the Danish People’s Party and chairman of parliament’s Foreign Policy Committee, argued that protecting Denmark is the primary mission of the Danish armed forces and if fighting terrorists in Iraq has strained them to the point that they cannot adequately defend Denmark then they should come home. He suggested that the Americans in particular would understand if Denmark lacked the capability to continue.
Given Denmark’s chronically low defense spending, he should not be so sanguine. Cuts in support personnel were deliberately made to save money and the inability to sustain a deployment is precisely the sort of failure that the United States has warned its allies about. Repeatedly. Danish defense spending has been declining steadily since 1990 and it now spends approximately 1.2 percent of GDP. It is set to endure more cuts through 2017, when the current five-year defense agreement expires. The political parties are reluctant to reopen that agreement in order to meet either current obligations or Denmark’s pledge to eventually reach the two percent target agreed to at the NATO summit last September. The United States was understanding when Denmark could sustain meaningful deployments despite its small budget, but if those days are over American empathy will depart with the last Danish F-16.
On the other side of the political spectrum, the Conservative defense spokesperson, Rasmus Jarlov, recognized that “it is embarrassing if Denmark cannot manage to keep seven fighter aircraft deployed to Kuwait.” He and the Liberal party have argued that the mission must continue and that ways must be found to support it. They have suggested that Denmark look to its coalition partners for help in maintaining the deployed Danish aircraft.
This has worked for Denmark in the past. As I argued in a report released this past April by the Centre for Military Studies of the University of Copenhagen, when the Danish air force suffered a severe pilot shortage in the 1980s, the United States Air Force manned one of Denmark’s four F-16 squadrons to train Danish pilots, an arrangement that bent Denmark’s prohibition on basing foreign forces on its soil. When Denmark deployed four F-16s to Afghanistan in 2002, it did so with the Norwegians and the Dutch, sharing support personnel and enabling a deployment that none could achieve or sustain alone.
It is almost certain that the United States or other coalition partners will extend help to Denmark to keep its aircraft in the fight, but they should make clear to Danish parliamentarians that they are in this predicament because they have consistently underfunded their military. The United States certainly appreciates Denmark’s reliable support but it has been its ability to sustain meaningful military contributions to coalition efforts that have won Denmark plaudits. If its leaders do not value that ability enough to fund it, then Denmark’s reputation will lose its luster and help will not be forthcoming as readily as it may be today.
Dr. Gary Schaub Jr. is a Senior Researcher at the Centre for Military Studies at the University of Copenhagen, which conducts research-based consultancy work for the Danish Ministry of Defence. He previously served on the faculty of the US Air War College and the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies.
Photo credit: Senior Airman James Richardson, U.S. Air Force
paul darling 
Lars R. Hansen 
Tom 
David Flandry 
Dennis Wiechert 
Schoon 
Martin 
Thank you for that insight. My first time serving with Danes was in 1995 in Macedonia and have done so several times since around the world. A great ally of the United States and one well worth investing in.
The Royal Danish Air Force do not need USAF to assist with mechanics – it needs the US to press the Danish government to honour its commitment in NATO – the two procent of GDP on defense.
Denmark has shown over the last 16 years that it is indeed a good ally, one that shows up. However, let’s get real. The Danish F-16s in Kuwait for all intents and purposes are there for symbolism rather providing any real warfighting capability. Either let US mechanics assist, or send the planes home. The symbolism policy goal has been fulfilled already.
Tom,
the 410 sorties carried out by the Danes eases the burden the USAF – and the US taxpayer – the are not so abundant US resources allocated to Operation Inherent Resolve as to lightly forgo 7 F-16’s free of charge.
But of course it is primarily a question of demonstrating solidarity and unity within the western alliance – in our common fight against our common enemies – and I suppose it helps the American morale that America is not fighting this fight alone, but have friends.
The Danes are great people,their country is beautiful,
but their investment in defense is woefully inadequate. As a NATO member, they have obligations beyond defending Denmark. They are depending on the US for serious military defense. At present, their military force could be neutralized in one coordinated attack.
To be fair…. we are a country of only 5.5 million people….
Yes, our military forces are, in all honesty, inadequate, in regards to be able to last more than mere hours, if not only minutes, in a “real” war…
It would be stupidly naive to believe that we would be able to train and maintain a military force of any significant size, when the comparison is against US military.
It would also be stupidly naive to believe that we would last more than a few hours, if any “proper” military force would decide to take Denmark. We wouldn’t.
That being said, i am ashamed about the budget cuts that has been made during the last 2 decades… I am also ashamed to see and know what the brass and/or the politicians decide to use whatever funds they have on… Some proper stupid purchases and investments have been made, and is still being made.
Every once in a while they find, and test, something that is actually worth something…Then they decide to modify it right into uselessness, or not to invest at all. Listening to the people actually working with the stuff, is almost unheard of here…Sadly…
But yes. Our forces could be overrun in one coordinated attack. Absolutely, no question about it. That would be the case regardles of spendature though.
No – not regardless – that is defeatism. Denmark could choose to build a defense which could not easy be run over in a few hours or days – Denmark could choose to build a defense which likely could withstand an attack from a significantly greater power (e.g. Russia) until NATO reinforcements could intervene – Denmark just choose not to.
Choose not to build and maintain a territorial defence – like Finland, Israel or Switzerland – instead focusing on expeditionary forces to engage in coalition warfare in faraway places to maintain and strengthen the Alliance – which is the foundation of Danish national security.
Excellent article, Dr Schaub!! The US is fortunate to have such allies as Denmark, yet we and our Western European friends continue to suffer from what remains a decades-old, and clearly understood problem: too many allies of the US are addicted to US military largesse, and they are all too willing to surrender to the tyranny of the immediate (in terms of domestic economics), at the expense of long-term strategy for a credible and modern military force structure. I fear we will all pay for this dearly in the not too distant future . . .
Excellent article! Denmark har purchased the cheapest life insurance on the market. One would be naive to think that 30 aircraft would make a difference when it comes to Denmarks territorial defense. Their armed forces lack anti air capabilities as well as artillery. Politicians will be the end of Denmark as a state eventually.
The last paragraph ought to be in bold.
It should indeed!
Interesting read.
A comment on the possibility of USAF to spot the Danes a few mechanics – the USAF might not be abel to fully assist Denmark with F-16 mechanics – as the 30 operational Danish F-16’s are fitted with a version of the F100 PW200 phased out of US service – thus the USAF likely no longer having personnel certified to work on the type of engines.
There are also other minor differences between The Royal Danish Air Force and USAF’s F-16’s – mostly in different phases of mods and updates schedules – which aggregated might well prevent US personnel taking over the maintenance burden.
It is simply not true that Denmark has been a “been a stalwart ally of the United States since 1999”. The USA has been an ally of Denmark since TO was formed.
That should of course be NATO!