• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10
 
Noshow
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:50 am

Europe should move closer to the US not away. After the Krim invasion there is a different situation compared to the post cold war days now. We need NATO at full force again.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3789
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:20 am

At the moment, the US is moving away from Europe and its value's, not the other way around.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Noshow
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:04 am

Depends on how you look at it.
The US seem at least to be more "Europe aware" than during those pure pivot to Asia days for sure. Just look at those russian maneuvres in eastern Europe and how NATO reacted.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:55 pm

The US is not moving away from Europe. We only want you to carry your end.

As for the EU, the US fully supported its development and should continue to do so. It is a stabilizing institution in a part of the world that has a long history of becoming unstable very quickly.

Don’t get me wrong I fully appreciate the security challenges in Europe and none of what I say is meant as criticism.

But the Balkans should be warning enough the the EU w/o NATO will not guarantee the peace we have enjoyed for almost 3 generations.

It’s easy to take this for granted but as my timeline indicates, the last thousand years can’t be ignored.

Lastly, to bring the convo back to the decision facing Germany re AC, ask yourselves why it is even possible to consider removing nukes from Europe?
 
YIMBY
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:13 pm

Ozair wrote:
Finally, aircraft fight in at least pairs and usually a four ship. That allows them to provide each other mutual support.


If you have four fighters with 2 AIM-120 each, how many enemy fighters you can destroy with this. I do not believe that you can even have a 100 % kill rate, given that the adversary has techniques to disguise, disturb and avoid. If the defendant outnumbers you by a factor of two, you are in big troubles. Russians can easily deploy 100 fighters in the air at any front, and with bad luck, most of them are where you are.

When you have run out of ammunition, your wingman has been shot down and your friends have no fuel to help you, you are certainly not happy to be tail chased, though you may not have many alternatives.

I do not claim that a tail chase would be very frequent, but that is something that may happen. Indeed I am quite sure that in a real war the pilots of both sides will have surprises that neither of us can imagine.


Ozair wrote:
As for the underside of the aircraft, how many radars do you know that point directly upwards?


Do we know what the Russian have? Or what the Chinese are planning? That is technically easy and relatively cheap (to cover a strategically important area, not all Siberia). It would not give advance warning but would help to lead the battle over the fatherland.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:57 pm

First apologies that I thought you are an American.

Ozair wrote:
Image


And what do those include? The costs are never comparable. The initial purchase price may include a one-time payment for the maintenance or there may be obligatory maintenance fees as a deferred payment.
It also depends if you get the full maintenance shop or outsource it from elsewhere. Some countries may even subcontract the training.

The typical process goes like:
1) The parliament allocates 2 billion for the acquisition of new fighters (totally unrealistic)
2) The air force proposes to get N fighters from X, as they got a unique offer just for you just now, because you have the possibility to be the launch customer, get the last of stock or get the order somebody else just cancelled, for only 3 billion.
3) The parliament accepts it (with one vote majority or so)
4) When the fighters arrive, it turns out that you need to pay another billion for the weaponry, otherwise they will be completely useless
5) When you have everything, it turns out that you have to pay additional maintenance costs not counted for

Note that it is not usually the vendor cheating the air force but the air force cheating the politicians.

Next time the parliament then allocates more money but imposes a condition that it will be a one-time cost and no cost overruns or deferred payments are allowed.

Your initial price seems to be on the higher side.

Ozair wrote:
And climate change has what to do with this discussion on sustainment costs of military fighter jets?


It is about unilateral withdrawal from a very important international agreement.

Ozair wrote:
Yimby, why do I need to give counterevidence? You made a claim which you still have not supported.


Why? To credibly refute a claim.
What evidence would make you satisfied? Just last week two US allies started to shoot each others with US provided weapons.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/worl ... ctionfront
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:52 pm

Yimby, you clearly understand Russian and Chinese capabilities so why is it so hard to understand that sending 4th generation AC into contested airspace is going to get most of your pilots killed very quickly?
 
Ozair
Posts: 1758
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:00 pm

YIMBY wrote:
First apologies that I thought you are an American.

I’m not but not sure why you need to apologise to me.

YIMBY wrote:
And what do those include? The costs are never comparable. The initial purchase price may include a one-time payment for the maintenance or there may be obligatory maintenance fees as a deferred payment.
It also depends if you get the full maintenance shop or outsource it from elsewhere. Some countries may even subcontract the training.


You can read the full text here,https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/management-australias-air-combat-capability-%E2%80%94-fa-18-hornet-and-super-hornet

I am confident the Australian national Audit Office did a thorough job and even if they do not include some costs the numbers are again consistent with others found across Industry and between the two platforms assessed. For example, in the Dutch competition they arrived at the following acquisition and sustainment numbers for the respective candidates.

Image

The Dutch found sustainment costs for a 30 year lifetime to be somewhere between 100 to 200% of the initial acquisition price, depending upon the platform.

YIMBY wrote:
The typical process goes like:
1) The parliament allocates 2 billion for the acquisition of new fighters (totally unrealistic)
2) The air force proposes to get N fighters from X, as they got a unique offer just for you just now, because you have the possibility to be the launch customer, get the last of stock or get the order somebody else just cancelled, for only 3 billion.
3) The parliament accepts it (with one vote majority or so)
4) When the fighters arrive, it turns out that you need to pay another billion for the weaponry, otherwise they will be completely useless
5) When you have everything, it turns out that you have to pay additional maintenance costs not counted for

Note that it is not usually the vendor cheating the air force but the air force cheating the politicians.

Next time the parliament then allocates more money but imposes a condition that it will be a one-time cost and no cost overruns or deferred payments are allowed.

Your initial price seems to be on the higher side.


What you are proposing is not what happens in most cases. Again look at the Dutch, the Japanese, the Koreans, the current Belgium competition, the upcoming Finnish competition. An evaluation is taking place and as with most military procurements there is a gate/staged process where specific criteria must be met to move to the next stage. The Dutch had a pretty comprehensive evaluation and review of the candidates as well as providing publically justifiable reasons.

YIMBY wrote:
It is about unilateral withdrawal from a very important international agreement.


Yeah but we are talking about the military. I have little to zero interest in discussing climate change here.

YIMBY wrote:
Why? To credibly refute a claim.
What evidence would make you satisfied?


Well just to satisfy your initial claim. As for me having to refute the claim, that is a logical fallacy,
The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
 
Ozair
Posts: 1758
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:31 pm

YIMBY wrote:

If you have four fighters with 2 AIM-120 each, how many enemy fighters you can destroy with this. I do not believe that you can even have a 100 % kill rate, given that the adversary has techniques to disguise, disturb and avoid. If the defendant outnumbers you by a factor of two, you are in big troubles. Russians can easily deploy 100 fighters in the air at any front, and with bad luck, most of them are where you are.

When you have run out of ammunition, your wingman has been shot down and your friends have no fuel to help you, you are certainly not happy to be tail chased, though you may not have many alternatives.

I do not claim that a tail chase would be very frequent, but that is something that may happen. Indeed I am quite sure that in a real war the pilots of both sides will have surprises that neither of us can imagine.


The problem is you have a very specific scenario in your mind. I could come up with a dozen other different ones that makes your points moot so I’m not sure there is much value going down the rabbit hole. Happy to but I don;t see much value there.

Ozair wrote:
As for the underside of the aircraft, how many radars do you know that point directly upwards?

YIMBY wrote:

Do we know what the Russian have? Or what the Chinese are planning? That is technically easy and relatively cheap (to cover a strategically important area, not all Siberia). It would not give advance warning but would help to lead the battle over the fatherland.


It was more an understanding of the situation. You try not to overfly threats and the aircraft typically know where the threats are, both from intelligence briefs and from the systems onboard alerting them. That is the whole point of flying a 5th gen platform, is that increase in situation awareness.
It is probably worth quoting this text to highlight the advantages, and in some cases limitations of F-35 and how 4th and 5th gen fighters can cooperate at a Red Flag execise.
While it was heavily reported that the F-35A had achieved a 20:1 kill ratio, the details of the exercise has naturally been kept under wraps. As such, it was very interesting to hear Cooper describe his first-hand experience of operating Typhoons together with the F-35’s. As could be expected, he described the F-35 regularly operating within the engagement zones of the REDFOR air defences. Compared to other non-stealthy fighters, the Typhoon was in turn able to achieve greater stand-off range for its weapons, thanks to its ability to operate higher and faster. This allowed it to lay further back, often remaining outside of the threat range. What all seemed to agree on, was that the the F-35 transmitting sensor data on Link 16 provided a huge boost in situational awareness for the rest of the fleet.
When asked about the RAF acquiring both aircraft, none of the pilots were prepared to pick one over the other. “You need stealth to be able to go forward,” Cooper argued. His personal opinion was that the future lies in the mix of capabilities provided by different platforms, echoing the sentiment expressed by his commander at an earlier briefing. “Both airplanes are fantastic airplanes,” Godfrey had said. “A mix would always be better [than operating only F-35’s or Typhoons].” When pressed further for which one he would choose if he could only get one, Godfrey had smiled and just said “Both”.
While a puzzled group of Finnish media representatives started to wonder if the fighter pilots were arguing for the stealthy F-35 as the right choice for HX, further discussion revealed the complexity of the issue. The big thing in the mind of the pilots was not so much stealth in and by itself, but the superior situational awareness the F-35 got by combining the ability to get in close while carrying a good sensor suite, and which it then shared with the rest of the team. By teaming up with the Typhoons and their heavy load of long-ranged weapons, the F-35 in turn got around it’s main weakness in Red Flag, namely its very limited load of internal weapons. Some participants in the exercise jokingly referred to the stealth fighter as the ‘cheerleader’, always present providing data and cheering the other ones on, but often unable to take the shots themselves having already expended all their missiles.

https://corporalfrisk.com/tag/f-35-lightning-ii/

So magazine depth is an issue but the article quite clearly highlights the advantages a 5th gen stealth platform has in being able to combine low detection with great sensors. Note as well we are operating 5th gen platforms with 4th gen weapons. I expect that to change in the next 5-10 years as weapons catch up to the new operational concepts that 5th gen aircraft can bring.
 
vr773
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:10 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:24 am

Ozair wrote:
vr773 wrote:
I disagree. Trump is frankly too dump to utilize any sort of negotiation strategy in foreign policy. He says/tweets stuff to feed his shrinking base and then he may mean it or not. It doesn't really matter for this discussion.

Agree wholeheartedly that trump has nothing to do with this issue.


To clarify, I do believe that his words and actions affect military procurement decisions and it would be bad if they didn't. In this particular case, it makes it politically impossible for Germany to spend a lot of money on a US controlled product at least in the next couple of years. What I meant was that it doesn't really matter what his intention is on any given day because the damage is already done.

Ozair wrote:
vr773 wrote:
What matters is that the US is not a reliable partner anymore which is why Germany won't purchase a US aircraft in the years to come.

Sorry but the link between trump tweeting and the US not being a reliable partner is flawed. In what way is the US now not a reliable partner? Have they walked away from Europe, withdrawn funding and support for NATO, stopped providing joint development programs with European nations?


The US is not reliable because Trump is erratic. If Russia deploys little green men to Lithuania tomorrow, Trump might just say that it's not his business and intervention does not maga. I don't find that to be an unlikely scenario.

Ozair wrote:
vr773 wrote:
It's interesting to look at possible scenarios and how they will affect decision making around the Tornado. I do believe that pulling out of nuclear sharing is a possibility in the current political climate in Germany.

And if that is the case then more Eurofighters is by far the smartest decision Germany could make.


It's possible that Germany buys the remaining 37 3b Eurofighters but unlikely in the next couple of years given some other big planned purchases (MEADS, MKS180, etc.); but it's probably not a smart decision to make them compatible with US nuclear weapons. I can only speculate what'll happen once the Tornado is out of the game but I think that getting out of nuclear sharing or seeking an alternative solution involving France is a possibility.


Ozair wrote:
vr773 wrote:
Staying in while substituting the US with France could be another possibility. I'm speculating here but this could be part of a deal necessary to convince France to partner in developing a new system. In the meantime, to fill a potential Tornado gap, Germany might even get Rafales.

Germany will not buy Rafales, that just makes zero sense. There is nothing the Rafale offers Germany that cannot be provided by the Eurofighter except for nuclear delivery and we have already shown that French air delivered nuclear warheads are few in number and may very well be withdrawn from service when the Mirage 2000D retires.


I'm sure right now French and German defense officials are working on how to make the FCAS happen. I think they'll announce something in the next 6 months. I said it's speculative that Germany buys Rafales but it might be part of a deal if Germany and France were to cooperate more at the WMD level as well. I didn't know that France is considering getting rid of air delivered nuclear warheads entirely.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:28 pm

It is very likely France and Germany will eliminate the capability to deliver air dropped nuclear weapons as neither have an AC that can penetrate enemy defenses.

vr773 making up tendentious scenarios about Trump does not change what is certain; no European force has the current capacity to do anything about almost anything Putin decides to do. In other words you better hope for the best until you decide to invest in deterrence.

4th Gen AC are good for airshows, low intensity conflicts, job creation and for getting most of your pilots killed in the first few hours of combat, in contested airspace. Right now, northen Norway and Eastern Poland are contested airspace.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1758
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:48 pm

vr773 wrote:
To clarify, I do believe that his words and actions affect military procurement decisions and it would be bad if they didn't. In this particular case, it makes it politically impossible for Germany to spend a lot of money on a US controlled product at least in the next couple of years. What I meant was that it doesn't really matter what his intention is on any given day because the damage is already done.


So if you think that Trump has impacted military procurement, show an example of where this has happened?

vr773 wrote:
The US is not reliable because Trump is erratic. If Russia deploys little green men to Lithuania tomorrow, Trump might just say that it's not his business and intervention does not maga. I don't find that to be an unlikely scenario.


Again, in the absence of evidence of this I find your claim is baseless. For example, Trump fired cruise missiles into Syria when the use of chemical weapons was verified while Obama, the darling of Europe, didn’t do a thing despite promising to…
In that context, which was/is more likely to come to the aid of allies?

vr773 wrote:
It's possible that Germany buys the remaining 37 3b Eurofighters but unlikely in the next couple of years given some other big planned purchases (MEADS, MKS180, etc.); but it's probably not a smart decision to make them compatible with US nuclear weapons. I can only speculate what'll happen once the Tornado is out of the game but I think that getting out of nuclear sharing or seeking an alternative solution involving France is a possibility.


It would seem counter to leave NATO nuclear sharing and start an agreement with the French on the same issue. NATO nuclear sharing somewhat sneaks through the NPT because it existed before the NPT was signed. Any direct French German co-operation, which would almost certainly be required as it would occur outside of NATO channels, would likely be in violation of the NPT.

vr773 wrote:
I'm sure right now French and German defense officials are working on how to make the FCAS happen. I think they'll announce something in the next 6 months. I said it's speculative that Germany buys Rafales but it might be part of a deal if Germany and France were to cooperate more at the WMD level as well.


Again, the Rafale offers nothing for Germany and I would suggest that German Industry would have some issues acquiring an essentially wholly manufactured French jet when a German one is available.
FCAS is a long term project for a family of systems, what that looks like will not even be a high level concept until late 2018, let alone perhaps 10-15 years of development and production.

vr773 wrote:
I didn't know that France is considering getting rid of air delivered nuclear warheads entirely.

I haven’t seen a direct statement of that, just my assessment looking at their weapons stocks. What we know is France now has only 40 air dropped weapons and 300 warheads in total.

On 21 March 2008, President Nicolas Sarkozy announced that France will reduce its aircraft deliverable nuclear weapon stockpile (which currently consists of 60 TN 81 warheads) by a third (20 warheads) and bring the total French nuclear arsenal to fewer than 300 warheads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-37
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10240
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:26 am

I think interdiction is the prime requirement. The Eurofighters are for defense. If Germany wants aircraft in 10 years they better strike a deal with the French (Airbus / Dassault) and only add the best, political free system suppliers. Adding the Brits adds innovation but complicates / increases risks, they make different choices.

Image

IMO lessons should be learned from Typhoon, NH90. The A400M is already an improvement, only a few billions / years too expensive / late.(if you feel that's a lot, check out some other fighter / transporter programs...).
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
YIMBY
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:37 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
no European force has the current capacity to do anything about almost anything Putin decides to do..


Actually, there is hardly nothing Putin decides to do for which there is no European force to do something. The only credible military threat Putin can impose to all Europe is a total nuclear devastation with ballistic missiles, but he is not that crazy to do it. There are even laws in Russia that prohibit a non-defensive strike without approval of the Duma.

I think only the Baltic states and some other minor or poor countries in south-east EU are essentially defenceless alone. Allies of Russia have much more to worry about. Sweden is so and so as it castrated its army but has still a credible air force than can shoot back a couple of bullets and missiles to make the invasion costly enough not to be worth it. Putin has enough worries in other fronts so he does not want to spend all military resources in Europe.

Americans have grossly overestimated the Russian military capacity since the "bomber gap" in Eisenhower era.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10240
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:44 pm

If Putin has a problem, Angela is on his cell. He speaks german / lived as a spy in Germany, she was a communist / speaks Russian.

They are cold war kids and their parents survived an unglorious 30mln slaughter party between them, ghosts are looking over their shoulders.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/photos.geni.com/p13/5f/e4/2a/bd/5344483f480a9e74/world_war_ii_casualties_original.jpg

The rest of the world leaders have come & go side roles in Russia-German relations.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:11 pm

Let’s see if I can summarize the arguments made by our European friends:

There are no threats to warrant spending money

Then, in response to arguments that argue for planning for the worst, supposed Russian counter stealth capabilities are put forth against the F35.

In short the risks don’t warrant an F35 so let’s buy outdated, obsolete European ac because we know darn well that if push comes to shove the Americans will bring all the capabilities anyway.

And you wonder why Americans voted for Trump.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1758
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 27, 2017 11:27 pm

keesje wrote:
I think interdiction is the prime requirement. The Eurofighters are for defense.

Any single role aircraft developed today would be a waste of resources. If Europe develops a joint airframe it will be with the intent to replace Tornado and Rafale/Eurofighter. That decision probably comes at the expense of future upgrades to current platforms such as F4 for Rafale.

keesje wrote:
If Germany wants aircraft in 10 years they better strike a deal with the French (Airbus / Dassault) and only add the best, political free system suppliers. Adding the Brits adds innovation but complicates / increases risks, they make different choices.

And here begins the issue. France is already offerring Belgium participation in this concept if they acquire Rafales. The political games have already started and there will be too many fingers in the pie for this to move in that timeframe.

keesje wrote:
IMO lessons should be learned from Typhoon, NH90. The A400M is already an improvement few billions / years too expensive / late.(if you feel that's a lot, check out some other fighter / transporter programs...).

Keesje, you know A400m was not an improvement, it is a failure from a budget/schedule perspective and no other current fighter/transport program rival its percentage cost overrun.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:02 pm

Ozair wrote:
The problem is you have a very specific scenario in your mind. I could come up with a dozen other different ones that makes your points moot so I’m not sure there is much value going down the rabbit hole. Happy to but I don;t see much value there.

You claimed "never" and a good counterexample is sufficient to refute the claim.

Note that speed is also important if you want to escape a bunch of missiles launched to you, though you might not supercruise but have all afterburners on.

Ozair wrote:
It was more an understanding of the situation. You try not to overfly threats and the aircraft typically know where the threats are, both from intelligence briefs and from the systems onboard alerting them. That is the whole point of flying a 5th gen platform, is that increase in situation awareness.


If it keeps my enemy out of my backyard, it has already completed its task. Moreover, you need very dense intelligence network to find out where mobile equipment hidable to a van is.

Ozair wrote:
What you are proposing is not what happens in most cases. Again look at the Dutch, the Japanese, the Koreans, the current Belgium competition, the upcoming Finnish competition. An evaluation is taking place and as with most military procurements there is a gate/staged process where specific criteria must be met to move to the next stage. The Dutch had a pretty comprehensive evaluation and review of the candidates as well as providing publically justifiable reasons.


Certainly some countries are learning from their previous mistakes, as I said. Don't mix what has been done to what should be done, or even what is planned to be done.

Also note that the military evaluation is one thing and the parliamentary decision is another thing. Look at Canada, to start with. Poland has not been able to make any decision. Austria is wavering with its previous decision. Switzerland had a referendum that rejected the proposal of the government. Denmark was accused if not even sued by some manufacturer for "unfair" treatment. Finland has not even started the political process, it is just air force and ministry of defence evaluating the situation. The previous decision for buying Hornets was definitely politicized and quite well matches what I told, and those before that were split orders essentially dictated from foreign countries. I am not sure of the Belgian competition - the French interfered with a proposal beyond the given conditions that has not yet been completely ruled out. I have not heard Greece or Italy giving publically justifiable reasons for their decisions. Latin America is another mess, but they usually buy second-hand planes or cheapo fighters (F-5, MiGs,...).

Last but not least, every single country producing its own aircraft has ended in big problems and cost overruns.
 
steman
Posts: 1483
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 4:55 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:06 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Let’s see if I can summarize the arguments made by our European friends:

There are no threats to warrant spending money

Then, in response to arguments that argue for planning for the worst, supposed Russian counter stealth capabilities are put forth against the F35.

In short the risks don’t warrant an F35 so let’s buy outdated, obsolete European ac because we know darn well that if push comes to shove the Americans will bring all the capabilities anyway.

And you wonder why Americans voted for Trump.


I am European and I didn´t say that.
Actually I´d rather see the Luftwaffe get a European model, being it in the form of Rafales, Gripens or more Eurofighter, than buying American, mostly because it´s going to be a huge investment and it´d be better if such money would stay in the EU. I guess our American friends understand this concept very well, with the "America First" and "buy American" philosophy.
Furthermore I´d rather see European Countries rely less on the generous friendship that the US have provided so far and become more self involved in matters who directly impact the lives of European Citizens and not let American Foreign policies decide for us.
And finally, I am convinced that everything the US do for Europe, they do it because it´s in the their own interest. No Country and no Nation does anything for anybody unless it has a return. Helping to keep Europe safe has been in the interests of the USA since WWII.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:30 pm

Stevan, you just made my point.

You’d rather Germany buy obsolete( AC that are only useful after 5 th gen AC establish air dominance and take down the air defense net) European equipment because, despite your hopes you know very well that you rely on the US in case the worst happens.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:32 pm

Sorry, the orevious post was a response to steman
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10240
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:59 pm

A larger sixt gen European fighter bomber seems likely.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
steman
Posts: 1483
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 4:55 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:07 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Stevan, you just made my point.

You’d rather Germany buy obsolete( AC that are only useful after 5 th gen AC establish air dominance and take down the air defense net) European equipment because, despite your hopes you know very well that you rely on the US in case the worst happens.


You assume that the F-35 is the only platform that can save the day in case of conflict. This still has to be proven. So far the F-35 has only proven to be too expensive and not better than the platforms it was supposed to replace. I believe it will eventually mature into a formidable system but that is still many years from now. However other European Nations have invested in it, so there will be a chance to see it in action (peace time exercises only I hope) in the next few years.
If the Luftwaffe needs a stop gap to replace the Tornado till a next generation offensive air system is ready, than Rafale/Eurofighters are as good as F-15/F-18s. The only problem could be the atomic role explained by others in this discussion.
The F-35 is too expensive to be a stop gap measure and I believe it´s not in the best interests of Germany and Europe to rely too much on American hardware and assistance. Germany should invest into keeping the know how to design and produce advanced air systems, not alone, but together with the fellow European Union partners, like France or Italy and Spain.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:49 am

I’ll let Ozair comment on costs but the single most expensive outcome is a war.

With the F35, the most likely NATO adversary and any others must contend w their airspace being penetrated and their aircdefence net being taken down.

Deterrence is by far the most cost effective option.

And if you think the F35 is expensive how costly would a new program be?
 
steman
Posts: 1483
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 4:55 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:36 am

I say the F-35 is too expensive as an interim solution to replace the Tornado till a new program is developed. I say that Europe must be fully independent when it comes to design and develop 5th or 6th generation platforms. So my preferred solution to the problem at hand is to field a current generation tactical aircraft sourced in Europe and start the development of a true Tornado replacement together with France and any other European Nation that wants to join. As an aviation enthusiast I´d rather see the Luftwaffe get some F-15s, but as a tax payer I don´t want my money to go to Boeing and General Electric and to rely on the whims of a foreign power to defend my Country, hoping that it will be in their interests.
 
vr773
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:10 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:57 am

Planeflyer wrote:
vr773 making up tendentious scenarios about Trump does not change what is certain; no European force has the current capacity to do anything about almost anything Putin decides to do. In other words you better hope for the best until you decide to invest in deterrence.

4th Gen AC are good for airshows, low intensity conflicts, job creation and for getting most of your pilots killed in the first few hours of combat, in contested airspace. Right now, northen Norway and Eastern Poland are contested airspace.


I think you and I live on different planets. On planet Earth, Trump is erratic. On your planet, assuming that Trump will breach multilateral regulation to satisfy his base is a "tendentious scenario". On planet Earth, deciding to buy expensive military equipment is a decision composed of an amalgam of thousands of military, fiscal and political factors that need to be weighed carefully. On your planet, anything that doesn't have the LM marketing label of "5th generation" is useless.
I think planet Earth is just a bit more complicated than that.
Last edited by vr773 on Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
vr773
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:10 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Oct 29, 2017 12:12 pm

Ozair wrote:
vr773 wrote:
To clarify, I do believe that his words and actions affect military procurement decisions and it would be bad if they didn't. In this particular case, it makes it politically impossible for Germany to spend a lot of money on a US controlled product at least in the next couple of years. What I meant was that it doesn't really matter what his intention is on any given day because the damage is already done.


So if you think that Trump has impacted military procurement, show an example of where this has happened?


Military procurement at the large scale is political decision-making. Do you doubt that he's impacting political decision-making on the international stage? Additionally, it would be naïve to assume that his political demeanor is limited to only certain areas of politics.

Apologies for not commenting on your other replies. The second point you made was very similar to the one I commented on in this post. Regarding the idea of Germany switching nuclear sharing partners (and also potentially buying Rafales), I basically agree with you that it's not a very likely scenario though I wouldn't say it's completely impossible.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:10 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Stevan, you just made my point.

You’d rather Germany buy obsolete( AC that are only useful after 5 th gen AC establish air dominance and take down the air defense net) European equipment because, despite your hopes you know very well that you rely on the US in case the worst happens.

There is no enemy air defence over own territory...
 
salttee
Posts: 1558
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:22 pm

rheinwaldner wrote:
There is no enemy air defence over own territory...

Yet there can be airborne enemy radar close to or over own territory. And stealth works best against the higher frequency airborne radars, which can leave 4th gen defenders at a serious disadvantage.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:41 am

steman wrote:
I say the F-35 is too expensive as an interim solution to replace the Tornado till a new program is developed.

Actually an interim F-35 purchase might end up having a zero net cost.

The most important thing is it would instantly provide a first day of war capability.

It would allow the future European fighter to be fielded many years later. Rushing or speeding up a project will always cause it to cost more. Having plenty of time allows you to mature the technology, test it and field it on budget. The F-35 interim purchase may cost less to purchase than what would be saved from the Euro 5th gen project.

If the new euro project entered service 5 years later that means it will be retired 5 years later. So this also has a flow on cost saving effect on future procurement.

The European project might prefer F-22 like speed and performance with F-35 level avionics. Starting today it might take 10 years to fly the first production jet. However if they start in 10 years time it might take 5 years to fly the first production jet.

So to produce the same aircraft 10 years later will cost much less. The industry base will be more mature. What was now cutting edge such as titanium 3d printing might then be available throughout Europe.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:06 am

Planeflyer wrote:

Regards the decision at hand, stealth has been proven since since 1991. Since the TF technology has proceeded rapidly which has made any contested environment a no go zone for anything but the F22 and F35.


What is "contested environment"? An aggressive third world country with some obsolete western and eastern fighters, a few radars and some stolen buks or stingers?

The east-west border in Europe is far beyond that and it is a no go zone even for F22 (unless someone has forgotten to do something or you have infiltrated agents that can sabotage the systems).

Planeflyer wrote:

Once again how many pilots are you willing to lose?


If I were a general, I would be willing to sacrifice every single pilot to protect my fatherland.

Of course, I do not want to lose any on peace time exercises or secondary military missions (most of them in accidents).

Planeflyer wrote:

Wait, I’m almost forgot, you don’t have to ask yourself that because it’ll be Dutch, Italian, British and US F22 and F35 pilots taking all the risks until the sky is safe for the obsolete craft you advocate.


I have also forgotten that there are Dutch, Italian and British F22 pilots.

P.S. The link given above by Ozair claims that Su-35 has very advanced self-protection so a single F-35 may have to shoot all its internal and external missiles to kill a Su-35. Hence a fleet of Su-35 would win an equally expensive fleet of F-35 as it outnumbers by a factor of at least 2. I cannot verify this claim, as there has been no true test ever, and the result depends on over whose territory the battle takes place. Note also that the "obsolete" European (west or east) fighters can carry much more advanced A2A missiles so they can shoot down an F-35 before it is close enough to launch its own missiles.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10240
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:23 pm

It seems the Luftwaffe has taken the lead in Europe for a sixth generation platform, the Future Combat Air System (FCAS).

The Germans are tying up with the French, Spain and Sweden have had talks, with the Brits being worried about implecations of Brexit..

Aticle on the topic 3 days ago:

Future combat aircraft

The problem isn’t just an issue for the British. There are similar issues across the rest of Europe, said Barrie.

“A national combat aircraft strategy is a good idea, but, as always, ideas have to be implemented and resourced and planned. These things don’t happen overnight, and in the U.K.’s case the issue is further complicated in the near term because Brexit makes Britain’s involvement in European defense industrial projects more challenging,” he said, using a colloquial term for Britain’s divorce from the European Union.

Barrie said work on the future combat air system, or FCAS, with France was a useful exercise, however the more important question is what happens with the German-led initiative to look at a new-generation aircraft announced mid-year.

“The Germans and French have tied up on this, and it’s my view they have had discussion with the Swedes and Spanish, so you could see a sixth-generation program forming around those nations, with the U.K. sitting on the wrong side of the fence on this,” he said.

Berlin wants a decision on whether the program can move forward by late next year. And Barry said that in terms of the U.K. sector, its “hard to imagine a less propitious set of circumstances as the U.K. tries to extract itself from the European Union.”


https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2017/10/26/bae-cuts-could-light-a-fire-under-britains-combat-air-strategy/

Most expect range, stealth, 2 crew and ability to serve as a control center for UAV's to be basic specifications. Less focus on air superiority.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6634
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:30 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
no European force has the current capacity to do anything about almost anything Putin decides to do. In other words you better hope for the best until you decide to invest in deterrence..


how many Russian fighers are not flying with basically 80s avionics?

A hand full of Mig-29 SMT, a bunch of Su-35 and ~100 SU-27SM ..... 200 modern fighters total? How many of them are not in Siberia, protecting against the Chinese?

Russia has just enough to confidently defend its own territory, but not enough to invade much, let alone taking up even the European part of NATO.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:27 pm

A contested environment exists right now in northern Norway and eastern Poland. Russia has repeatedly painted 4 th gen ac flying routine patrols in both regions.

And with the rapid advancements taking place in RF and microwave electronics it will only get more contested.

Are F22 and F35 perfectly safe in such environments? Nobody said they were but who knows more about taking down an air Defence net than the US AF?

They invested in the F22 and F35 for a reason.

But How would 4 th gen ac fare in a contested environment?

I think we all know the answer.

After all why would Germany be pushing for fcas?

I don’t know when such a system may be ready or what it will cost but 15-20 years and 100 billion would be conservative #’s

Now, Tommy to your point that Russia doesn’t have enough capacity to cause trouble, this is the best argument against the F35.

But, as history shows, things can go south fast.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:31 am

Planeflyer wrote:
I don’t know when such a system may be ready or what it will cost but 15-20 years and 100 billion would be conservative #’s

State of the art usually costs a fair bit as we see with the B-2, F-22 and F-35 programs.

However the cost reduces exponentially if you are willing to accept capability slightly below what would be state of the art today. What is state of the art today will no longer be state of the art in 10 years. So to achieve F-35 level range, stealth and agility might be relatively easy in 10 years time.

Pareto's 80/20 rule is the skunkworks design philosophy.

If they go twin seat the avionics becomes more simple in regards to sensor fusion. If they reduce the agility requirement the airframe becomes easy to get the stealth and range requirement.

I still think an interim purchase of F-35's to the countries who need additional capability now makes sense. This will then put all the countries in sync for the replacement cycle.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5714
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:08 am

Let the Luftwaffe have a system that works from day one, for once. After the A400M trouble, the EF problems and unreliable NH90s + UHT Tigers it would be nice to give the soldiers a system that works and not something that politicians want. It makes no sense to buy a 4th gen. aircraft to replace the Tornado and no 6th gen will be ready in time. (unless you want to pay for the then obsolete Tornado until 2035+ with flight hours costs sky rocketing after 2025..)
 
WIederling
Posts: 4391
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:23 pm

seahawk wrote:
Let the Luftwaffe have a system that works from day one, for once. After the A400M trouble, the EF problems and unreliable NH90s + UHT Tigers it would be nice to give the soldiers a system that works and not something that politicians want. It makes no sense to buy a 4th gen. aircraft to replace the Tornado and no 6th gen will be ready in time. (unless you want to pay for the then obsolete Tornado until 2035+ with flight hours costs sky rocketing after 2025..)


I don't see "a system that works from day one" and my guess is that won't happen in the near future either.
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... al_history

It is not as boondoggled as the Osprey. I give you that.

All I see is a very successful "6th gen program to separate nations/tax payers from their money".
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5714
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:30 pm

In 8 years it is very likely that the F-35 will mostly work.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4391
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:51 pm

seahawk wrote:
In 8 years it is very likely that the F-35 will mostly work.


Then just short of entering its fourth program decade:
1996 begin
2006 FF of "production" model
2015..18 individual subtypes decladed "operational" ( just for flying?).
2025 everything mostly works says seahawk
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5714
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:44 pm

Yep, will take a ARM, some LGBs and probably AIM-120C by then, but the better question what is the alternative?

Old 4th gen. planes? Or yet another European paper airplane that will be late, over budget and not satisfactory.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:01 am

WIederling wrote:
Then just short of entering its fourth program decade:
1996 begin
2006 FF of "production" model
2015..18 individual subtypes decladed "operational" ( just for flying?).
2025 everything mostly works says seahawk

The Eurofighter is in its third program decade.
1984 begin
1994 first flight prototype.
2003 first production jet received.
2010 finally could carry a bomb.

The Eurofighter took twice as long to go from program start to first production model. It took 25 years to get its basic capability operational. The F-35 took 19 years.

The F-35 has already surpassed the Eurofighter in avionics capability even though ts not even fully finished yet. Not bad considering the Eurofighter had a 12 year head start.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:55 pm

Remember that the EF was delayed by the political uncertainty surrounding the german reunification and the lack of missions. There never was a lack of knowledge or technology, only a lack of political will and funding. Any new solution faces the same problem: Nobody knows what mission the platform should be optimised for.
Do you want to...
...perform a first (possibly nuclear) strike on an equal opponent?
...perform a second strike in accordance with mutual destruction?
...intervene in a failed state/counter terrorism?
...defend your own borders and support your ground troops doing just that?
...project power all over the world (carrier based)?

All these cases have been official reasons for building new military aircraft.

The only reason to acquire the F-35 quickly would be scenarios 1,2 & 5. Neither of those is likely right now, nor does the german constitution allow scenarios 1 & 5 (technically even scenario 3 is on shaky ground). In any case, the lack of a clear opponent will make any decision difficult and will lead to problems during entry into service. This will be a political decision more than anything else.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:40 pm

mxaxai, you forgot the most important mission; deterrence.

EF is an excellent 4th gen AC, maybe the best fielded in the West but it is still obsolete in a modern contested environment. Meaning it cannot get close enough to the emitter to destroy it before itself being targeted and destroyed.

European wars have started repeatedly when country A finds itself surrounded by Countries B and C. Russia finds itself in just such a position today.

So NATO’s best move is to create deterrence while not boxing Russia into a corner it feels it must fight to escape.

All the best 4th gen AC won’t last hours against the modern Russian air defense net. Northern Norway is already exposed to this and is rushing to get the F35 into service….not because it is an LM product, an American AC but simply because their country and pilots are exposed. Norway, as everyone knows is buying F35’s for defensive purposes but there is no better defense than being able enter your adversaries airspace.

I don’t know much about European football except that there are almost zero goals scored from past midfield.

It’s just not that complicated.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:23 pm

You do not need to penetrate the Russian air defence if you are fighting over your home territory. And you do not need to fight russia at all if you avoid focusing on offensive weapons like stealth aircraft.

If you look for deterrence, the best deterrence are SSBMs and ICBMs. There will never be a full-fledged war between two sane countries who both field such weapons. Remember also that the F35 is best not at disabling the enemies air force but at penetration, dropping conventional bombs and tactical nukes (note: the F35 cannot reach Russia from Germany without refueling). Granted, Germany does not have such weapons but that is the point of NATO. One partner fields one weapon and others contribute their part. Eurofighters and SAMs are entirely sufficient for deterring *anybody* from attacking Germany or the surrounding EU conventionally from above and they are currently buying a new SAM platform. Which is why I argue that any decision will be political, taking into account relationships to future friends and foes, and not from the point of view "which platform offers the most bang for the buck (literally)".
 
WIederling
Posts: 4391
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:25 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
So NATO’s best move is to create deterrence while not boxing Russia into a corner it feels it must fight to escape.


You describe the issue very well.

What you overlook is that deterrence vs boxing in currently is a fast race to the bottom driven by the US.
( I suppose there are more reason to continue heckling the RF and laying waste to the Levante beyond selling F-35 to Europe.)

For Europe ( and the rest of the globe too ) containing the US is much more up front on the urgent ToDo list
than anything else.
Murphy is an optimist
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2901
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:16 pm

mxaxai wrote:
You do not need to penetrate the Russian air defence if you are fighting over your home territory. And you do not need to fight russia at all if you avoid focusing on offensive weapons like stealth aircraft.

If you look for deterrence, the best deterrence are SSBMs and ICBMs. There will never be a full-fledged war between two sane countries who both field such weapons. Remember also that the F35 is best not at disabling the enemies air force but at penetration, dropping conventional bombs and tactical nukes (note: the F35 cannot reach Russia from Germany without refueling). Granted, Germany does not have such weapons but that is the point of NATO. One partner fields one weapon and others contribute their part. Eurofighters and SAMs are entirely sufficient for deterring *anybody* from attacking Germany or the surrounding EU conventionally from above and they are currently buying a new SAM platform. Which is why I argue that any decision will be political, taking into account relationships to future friends and foes, and not from the point of view "which platform offers the most bang for the buck (literally)".

You forgot the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad Oblast, which hosts a significant Russian military presence, along with the Russians basing long range SAM's, air defence radars, and ballistic missiles which would cover most of Poland, portions of Germany, and much of the Baltic states.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:00 am

Objective reality does not matter to people who believe the US is the world's great danger and that Europe is safe because of the EU and the UN.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5714
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:23 am

And all of you forget the fact that the Tornado will be pushing 50 years by 2020 and needs a replacement that is available at the date and viable for at least 30 years. This alone puts the F-35 in pole position.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3789
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:31 am

Planeflyer wrote:
Objective reality does not matter to people who believe the US is the world's great danger and that Europe is safe because of the EU and the UN.


??

From a military point of view, nobody can threaten the EU.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
YIMBY
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:18 am

mxaxai wrote:
You do not need to penetrate the Russian air defence if you are fighting over your home territory. And you do not need to fight russia at all if you avoid focusing on offensive weapons like stealth aircraft.

If you look for deterrence, the best deterrence are SSBMs and ICBMs. There will never be a full-fledged war between two sane countries who both field such weapons. Remember also that the F35 is best not at disabling the enemies air force but at penetration, dropping conventional bombs and tactical nukes (note: the F35 cannot reach Russia from Germany without refueling). Granted, Germany does not have such weapons but that is the point of NATO. One partner fields one weapon and others contribute their part. Eurofighters and SAMs are entirely sufficient for deterring *anybody* from attacking Germany or the surrounding EU conventionally from above and they are currently buying a new SAM platform. Which is why I argue that any decision will be political, taking into account relationships to future friends and foes, and not from the point of view "which platform offers the most bang for the buck (literally)".


I mostly agree.

IMO, purely offensive weapons (to be used in first strike) should be prohibited or at least restricted by international agreements.
We do not need such things in Europe for any side. There is no need to accelerate the arms race, but as long as it goes, unfortunately we have to participate in it.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos