2.0% of GDP for Germany is a very big number.
If some of the funding was directed towards increased FCAS R&D and the new generation tank, France won’t be complaining about Germany’s 2% of GDP on defence.
I think that there was a general consensus in Germany that 2% of GDP was "too much" and that it was better to have a limited military, not least because that meant diplomacy and trade had to be prioritised. Germany was running a budget surplus for many years so certainly had the money available.
Poland already has claimed that the German increase isn't enough, and wants NATO-Europe countries to broadband raise their defense budgets from 300 to 600 billion annually.
To be fair to the Poles they do spend more than 2% of GDP on defence and are aiming to increase the percentage. Meanwhile Italy, Spain, Denmark, Netherlands and others are still not at 2%.
600 billion are 4% of the GDP of the European Union.
Israel's doing fine with 6%. At one point even had up to 30%.
Putting aside the fact that the UK is no longer in the EU so affects the calculations, I did say "European NATO states may not get to 600 billion". However, if Spain, Italy and others raised their spending to 2% of GDP it would make a difference in terms of NATO strength.
Close, but not quite: USD 600 billion is 3.5% of the estimated nominal GDP of the EU in 2021 ($17.5 trillion according to the IMF).
Fair point, and the USA has consistently complained (possibly with some industrial base self-interest) that Euro defence budgets deliver much less 'bang for buck' than would reasonably be expected. Since the 1990s, small production runs of country-specific aircraft, tanks, ships (etc) have increased costs per unit. US SecDef Gates also noted the lack of war stocks during the Libyan intervention by RAF and French air force - from supposedly the more combat-capable countries - requiring USAF to provide!
Post-factum the 2nd batch is considered highly successful and a future model (namely: ordering off-the-shelf as extension of existing contracts instead of going through the costly, time-intensive new development) both by the Navy and by the procurement agency. It's the Navy that had the idea of a third batch to replace the first batch btw.
The US dumps three times as much money per soldier relative to GDP into defense as European Union members, thus meaning much less cost-efficiency.
I would argue that a major problem with US defence acquisition is the political system and the associated pork barrelling. I think another problem is the bureaucracy, a third the defence primes and a fourth the tendency to reach for lawyers at dawn at the drop of a hat.
Hardly a relevant comparative measure given the level of investment in technology that the US makes, and the breadth of their defence interest; not too many Europeans fly F22 or B21, are investing heavily in updating their nuclear systems, or are maintain a very significant space effort, amongst many other things.