For the Tornado fleet, spare's probably won't be much of a problem, but there's a lot of eighties technology left that wasn't replaced in earlier upgrades. That becomes hard to support.

For the Tornado's they would need to clean out the back seat and put better sensors, connections & glass.

Sorry, but that is contrary to any experience. Spares will be a problem the nuts, bolts and seals as well as many avionics parts. And replacing all avionics in the Tornado fleet is simply not cost efficient.

I do not care what they buy, as long as they do not decide to keep the Tornado flying till 2035.

keesje wrote:

The Germans are looking for solutions. Life extension for the Tornado's could be part of a proposal.

No need, the frames have on average still have 3000 hours in them. With the RAF life extension that would go up to 5k.
If need be, they could still be flying in 25 years, electronics insolences are the only big worry spare part wise, much of which has been or will be addressed by the ongoing ASSTA program.

Day 1 operation would be limited to stand off weapons, but I guess that is already true today and the reason for having Taurus, which pretty much only makes sense against a sophisticated enemies.

Best regards
Thomas

vr773 wrote:

The software is significantly more complex than in any other airplane. Not giving your customer insights in light of that is a recipe for disaster imo.

For sure it is. You are more than right here.

Not that much that Americans would program it to bomb Berlin if they want, but that it bounds the buyer to the supplier forever. The buyer will be forced to pay software licences and upgrade fees as long as they use the product and they cannot make any independent changes or develop own add-ons but are bound to use US certified and probably supplied bullets, missiles, fuel, tyres etc. Ans US/LM can terminate the support when they want and try to sell the next generation fighter.

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?

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

The trump administration prompted Canada to look for a different procurement then the SH, and Canada has walked away from your beloved F35. I am fully aware that you are pushing the F-35 but am unaware of why. I will not respond to your reply... And your friend... You know who you are.
Have a great day

keesje wrote:

A larger sixt gen European fighter bomber seems likely.

Would work for Canada... I'm game

Let's say Airbuses newest non European family member (Canada) gets together with Airbus to build a new fighter. What would be the outcome of such a merger? Airbus has brought up building a fighter for Canada in Canada. I can only hope this leads to Canada getting a fighter designed to operate in Canada. Do to Canada's size and budget Canada is one of the most difficult countries to defend, any aircraft resulting from this would be truly cutting edge considering Canada will put money into said items produced in Canada

The time that Canada walked away from the f35 was about the time Airbus was in talks with BBD /Canada, both occurred in late 2015 to my knowledge. Now after Airbus calls Canada "the only member nation outside of Europe" Airbus is talking about building fighters with Canada. Canada since late 2015 has basically not put any REAL effort or thought into it's future fighter, other than starting talks in regards to pursuing the SH. To add icing to the cake, Canada walked away from the SH dew to a conflict between BBD (remember talks with Airbus in 2015) and Boeing, in the end Airbus buys into the cseries and calls Canada the first member outside of Europe.
This might be a stretch but things add up over the right period of time.

It seem the aircraft Airbus offers at this stage (Typhoon) is far from ideal to meet the Canadian requirements.

keesje wrote:

It seem the aircraft Airbus offers at this stage (Typhoon) is far from ideal to meet the Canadian requirements.

Agreed, but is Airbus looking to build a new aircraft? That is what I am wondering

YIMBY wrote:

vr773 wrote:

The software is significantly more complex than in any other airplane. Not giving your customer insights in light of that is a recipe for disaster imo.

For sure it is. You are more than right here.

Not that much that Americans would program it to bomb Berlin if they want, but that it bounds the buyer to the supplier forever. The buyer will be forced to pay software licences and upgrade fees as long as they use the product and they cannot make any independent changes or develop own add-ons but are bound to use US certified and probably supplied bullets, missiles, fuel, tyres etc. Ans US/LM can terminate the support when they want and try to sell the next generation fighter.

You both need to take a step back and stop looking at the USA as an adversary.

No there are no ongoing software licence fees, yes any nation acquiring the jet pays for upgrades, either funded by themselves or by a partner effort but they don't have to upgrade if they don't want to except that most nations do upgrade because the upgrades provide increased capability and often safety. Again the F-16 and F-18 are great examples of how this process works. Both programs have a large number of nations who have all contributed money and expertise to improve the platforms. Sometimes nations go on alone and integrate their own weapons and other systems, such as the RAAF integrating ASRAAM and the EL-8222, but there is no animosity or friction between the partner nations and all are seeking the best capability for the money they have available.

The other thing to note is that same arrangement works whichever vendor you choose, even with an Airbus developed product. There is no way that the German and French Air Forces, even with access to the source code, make any changes to said code without the OEM being involved, the risk is just too great. Nor do these Air Forces have the technical staff available to do so, it is all now outsourced to vendors.

Yes, they signed a deal last summer. No orders yet. Timing and spec are still open.
http://www.janes.com/article/75550/airbus-reveals-future-new-fighter-concept

Short term options are Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale, Grippen, F-35.

For the Canadian requirement it seems Dassault reentered the competition.

Meantime in the real world, easy as you plz the Saudis just intercepted a middle.

You still want to fly Tornados into contested airspace?

Thumper76, no one has responded in any substantive way so I’m not holding my breath that you are any better than the rest at answering the most basic of questions

Have a nice day back.

thumper76 wrote:

The trump administration prompted Canada to look for a different procurement then the SH, and Canada has walked away from your beloved F35. I am fully aware that you are pushing the F-35 but am unaware of why. I will not respond to your reply... And your friend... You know who you are.
Have a great day

You don't have to respond but you also need to understand that when you post inaccurate information then others will point that out. For example, as I have already indicated to you, Canada has not left the JSF program, they are still a member and continue to pay the yearly fees and continue to receive industrial work as a result.

Additionally, the Trump administration did not ask Canada to go for the SH or any other jet outside of what is normal for these types of acquisitions. The decision on what aircraft Canada was going to acquire, and the requirement for an interim, was decided long before Trump entered office. It was then and remains now a simply political issue. The RCAF is very clear on what it wants, the Canadian Government has kicked the acquisition down the road till after the next election as they first have been blocked seeking an interim and second don't have the cash to buy now anyway.

As for why I am pushing the F-35, there are a few of us here who have worked with fighter aircraft and have a greater insight into the community and capability of respective aircraft. To put it simply, the F-35 is the best bang for buck platform available today and that prospect will only get better as production and capability increases. I don't work in the fighter community now and haven't for a number of years but I am still very interested in what happens and who buys what, hence why I spend some of my precious free time on here.

Interestingly, I expect that you have probably gained a fair bit of your inaccurate info from the Best fighter for Canada website which has been a pretty vocal F-35 critic for a number of years. Even the owner and moderator of that site has acknowledged that the F-35 is probably now a valid option for Canada, much to the howls of many of those who post there.

Ozair wrote:

What you choose to believe is up to you but any deal conducted as an FMS sale follows the conditions stipulated.

What you choose to believe is up to you but many of the conditions of an FMS are negotiable.

Ozair wrote:

And where in that article does it say Singapore will order soon. Statements made by the Singaporean Ministry of defence tend to outweigh random google articles…

This article says it:
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/s ... ase-report
..and there are numerous others

Your claim that Singapore did not delay the purchase is not backed up by the short comment of Ng that you quoted. Also, the comment clearly happened in a diplomatic context using diplomatic language.

Ozair wrote:

In that case you are mistaken. The F-35C was never intended to replace the SH in USN service, it was always intended to replace the classic Hornet. The USN will only field approx. 260 or so F-35Cs while the SH fleet is greater at 500+. That was always the USN plan!

Maybe I am, but then the marketing was misleading. I don't know of any company operating in this dimension who has promised so much and kept so little like Lockheed Martin with the F-35.

Ozair wrote:

Of course the F-35 has had problems, all new aircraft have problems but they typically overcome them. The F-35 will be no different and that is the point of the airframe undergoing the most extensive test program in the history of military aviation, to sort out those problems.

I didn't say I have a problem with them having any problems. I have a problem with the amount and severity of the problems. The fact that testing is still not finished is quite telling.

Ozair wrote:

So you would prefer I go to a secondary source against information coming straight from the program office? They would have the most up to date information.
As for your link, it is talking about OT&E which is not safety testing, it is Operational Test and Evaluation, so testing the airframe in combat scenarios and is talking specifically of software load 3F testing. The jet has already undergone OT&E for all previous software blocks to now.

Yes, I would. Anything else would be naive because the job of the guy you quoted is to market a product that he wants to sell.

Ozair wrote:

You can choose to believe that but it a well known fact that DOT&E has not had a functional place in the process for a number of years. They have consumed funding for zero benefit.

No offense, but your view doesn't surprise me because it seems like you interpret anything that comes out of LMs marketing department as the ultimate truth. Others see the DOT&E as one of the few capable checks on US military procurement.

Ozair wrote:

Why, is the RAAF or the RAF or any other customer going to review every line of code to check it? No. Instead all the partner nations participated in the SDD phase, have been trained at Luke AFB and feed results back into the program office to increase capability and reduce risk.

We're talking about the German Luftwaffe and not the RAAF or RAF. Germany didn't participate in the SDD phase (for good reasons).
Hypothetically, after signing the contract, Germany would have to pay a lot of money for code updates (that they again couldn't control) or live with errors. That's not an acceptable scenario form my perspective as a German taxpayer.

Ozair wrote:

Sure, but at what point does economic reality set in and Germany/France acknowledge that any jet they produce will come at terrific cost to develop and will likely reach either parity or be just above the F-35 from a capability perspective. Why wait 20 years for a capability you could have today for a third the cost?

You know that the FCAS would likely have different capabilities than the F-35. The F-35 doesn't even have many capabilities that the Tornado has today (it also has many that the Tornado doesn't have of course). I don't think Germany's options are as limited as you and others claim and I explained a couple of scenarios in previous posts that I think could form part of a solution for Germany.

Ozair wrote:

You both need to take a step back and stop looking at the USA as an adversary.

What is then our adversary? If there is none, we need no armies.

In many civil issues Europe looks at the USA as an adversary, and even more vice versa. USA has made several hostile actions against Europe:
- US spied European leaders, already before Trump
- US breached from the Paris agreement
- POTUS has involved in European matters promoting the demise of the European Union
- POTUS has threatened on a trade war against Europe (and the rest of the world, too)
- POTUS did hint on a new Jalta or Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement with Putin
- POTUS has insulted European leaders after threats and terrorist attacks, when friendly leaders show support and consolation.
- POTUS has demonstrated admiration and support to many dictatorial leaders around the world who threaten Europe or European (universal) values
- POTUS threatened to withdraw military support from NATO allies he does not like, e.g. for the excuse that that they do not fulfil his requirements of military spending (from the USA?)
- US law does not allow to buy almost any European weapons - and almost any product that can be used by the military in case of war is considered a weapon - but requires Europe to buy US made weapons.

USA has the keys to release tension and build trust, if they just want.
Certainly the majority of the people do want it, but the country is run by a privileged or fooled minority.
Fortunately there are still law-abiding officers, secretaries, senators etc that keep the country on its track, but who knows how long.
Currently US is represented in Europe by Mattis and Tillerson who show some professionalism and respect but POTUS has hinted firing them any moment.

While any direct war between Europe and America is out of imagination, proxy wars in third world may be much more probable. There are cases when US ally has bombed civil targets in an area that was supposed to be protected by Europe. It is imaginable that European countries send their forces to protect their ally that is then attacked by US ally or even US itself. ME is such a mess that US may even enter in a war against itself (how close that was in Qatar?).

Note that 15 year ago hardly anybody could imagine that Russia could ever threaten western Europe, and many countries castrated their armies and some countries did not bother to build up any credible army at all.

Ozair wrote:

Yimby I give up. Ignorance is clearly bliss.

Don't give up so easily. You can learn almost anything if you just try hard enough.

What I was referring to with Canada walking away from the beloved F35 is accurate. Canada decided not to purchase the F35. Fact remains, just because the f35 is the most modern western stealth fighter does not mean it is only option for for Canada. I am not here to sell planes, I just would like Canada to purchase an aircraft that can maintain Canadian sovereignty over all Canadian territory not just southern Canada during PEACE TIME and war. If a new fighter must be built so be it, even if that means Canada might have to keep the legacy jets for another 10+year's.

If the jets can fly another 10 years. The older a plane gets the more time a check takes, as you need to check more and more parts more and more closely for cracks and corrosion. And hope that you do not find a frame with cracks, because then you are looking at a very very long grounding if replacement parts need to be designed and produced, while the OEM that produced the original parts has thrown away the machines years ago or is out of business. It makes sense to have 2 types in the fleet anyway. Canada could order some Rafales or Typhoons and keep the best F-18 frames in service and then replace them later with the rest being used as spare donors.

seahawk wrote:

If the jets can fly another 10 years. The older a plane gets the more time a check takes, as you need to check more and more parts more and more closely for cracks and corrosion. And hope that you do not find a frame with cracks, because then you are looking at a very very long grounding if replacement parts need to be designed and produced, while the OEM that produced the original parts has thrown away the machines years ago or is out of business. It makes sense to have 2 types in the fleet anyway. Canada could order some Rafales or Typhoons and keep the best F-18 frames in service and then replace them later with the rest being used as spare donors.

I would agree that a two type fleet is also an option.

Has anyone wondered, if stealth aircraft are no more effective than 4 th gen ac( might as well call them target drones) why the Russians and Chinese are spending tens of billions developing 5 th gen AC?

Just a bit of critical thinking could make this thread a fair bit shorter.

I was just at a remembrance day event today. Over 2500 people showed in support of those who have in the past and are now fighting for what we have today.

We all owe these men and women our respect and gratitude. I live in Canada and have enjoyed peace my entire life! Others living in other countries around the world can say the same because of our veterans. It was their sacrifice that gave us what we have today.

We have to do our best as countries to give those who are willing to put their lives on the line to protect what we have. Whether we are at war or living in peace time our fighters should be given what they need. In Canada our land is vast and a even at peace a formidable opponent. It is my hope that Canadians will do what is right for those in our armed forces.

Here's to hoping that our armed forces can maintain a peaceful world with minimal loss.

thumper76 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

If the jets can fly another 10 years. The older a plane gets the more time a check takes, as you need to check more and more parts more and more closely for cracks and corrosion. And hope that you do not find a frame with cracks, because then you are looking at a very very long grounding if replacement parts need to be designed and produced, while the OEM that produced the original parts has thrown away the machines years ago or is out of business. It makes sense to have 2 types in the fleet anyway. Canada could order some Rafales or Typhoons and keep the best F-18 frames in service and then replace them later with the rest being used as spare donors.

I would agree that a two type fleet is also an option.

A two fleet type, again, is not an option for Canada. The Canadian military budget can't afford a two fleet solution, and the RCAF is extremely short personnel; a few years back, they actually shut down a squadron of CF-18's and redistributed the personnel to other squadrons because they were so short on personnel.

If anybody want to follow up on the political issues raised re: Germany's assessment of what is needed, I've started a thread in the nonav forum for that purpose.

Planeflyer wrote:

Has anyone wondered, if stealth aircraft are no more effective than 4 th gen ac( might as well call them target drones) why the Russians and Chinese are spending tens of billions developing 5 th gen AC?

Just a bit of critical thinking could make this thread a fair bit shorter.

It actually makes it much longer because then people would get into the debate around how useful stealth really is these days and how useful it might be in the future - given potential development of detection technology et al.

Also, I think it's more helpful to compare specific existing or planned airplanes instead of very broad categories of airplanes. The concept of "generations" lacks the specificity necessary to support a fruitful discussion in my opinion.

I don't think this article has been posted yet:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15 ... s-tornados

vr773 wrote:

I don't think this article has been posted yet:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15 ... s-tornados

Is Joseph Trevithick the person to ask for an assessment?

Most of his articles appear to be about lifting the US on a pedestal.

Though as long as Ms. von der Leyen leads German defence moving in that direction would not be unsurprising.
compare to the Starfighter acquisition back then.

Well vdL did one good thing and that is to look at the results.

seahawk wrote:

Well vdL did one good thing and that is to look at the results.

Pfft. the "Drei Wetter Taft Tante" has never pandered to facts.
Pretty unsavory character.

Facts! Fiction is your domain.

Planeflyer wrote:

Facts! Fiction is your domain.

That is a fact. She doesn't have problems to support her policy ideas with made up facts.

Planeflyer wrote:

Has anyone wondered, if stealth aircraft are no more effective than 4 th gen ac( might as well call them target drones) why the Russians and Chinese are spending tens of billions developing 5 th gen AC?

Do the spend billions on a stealth aircraft, or do they spend billions on new fighters that just happen to be somewhat stealthy? Canards on the J20 don't really indicate that stealth has priority over an thing else...

Their Designs may just be Typhoons 30 years more advanced, as much stealth as can be done without hurting flight performance.

Just a bit of critical thinking could make this thread a fair bit shorter.

You nean like keeping in mind that both, Russia and China, are more likely to engage technologically less savvy enemies that don't dot the landscape with modern radars and AWACS.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

You nean like keeping in mind that both, Russia and China, are more likely to engage technologically less savvy enemies that don't dot the landscape with modern radars and AWACS.

What I took away from other discussions is that the J20 design objective probably is to work as a carrier "nut cracker".
i.e. standoff for US carrier groups making their presence in China's home pond expensive.

vr773 wrote:

This article says it:
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/s ... ase-report
..and there are numerous others

Your claim that Singapore did not delay the purchase is not backed up by the short comment of Ng that you quoted. Also, the comment clearly happened in a diplomatic context using diplomatic language.

So there is a stark example of what you want to believe against what the text actually says. The article you linked clearly states that the Singapore Minister for defence, said on both occasions he visited the US to look at the jet, that they weren’t in a hurry to order.
From the article you quoted,

Dr Ng, who saw the F-35 in action in 2013, visited Luke Air Force Base in Arizona last December, on the sidelines of an exercise, to see another variant of the jet. He said on both occasions that Singapore was in no hurry to make a purchase.

So in 2013 he also stated they weren’t going to buy anytime soon but instead of listening to the primary source you are reading the media speculation and taking that as fact…

vr773 wrote:

Maybe I am, but then the marketing was misleading. I don't know of any company operating in this dimension who has promised so much and kept so little like Lockheed Martin with the F-35.

Sorry no. Here is some apparent marketing from 2008,


View the whole presentation here, https://www.slideshare.net/andycosterto ... production
Amazingly, what the JPO and LM promised is coming to fruition as they predicted and expected.

vr773 wrote:

I didn't say I have a problem with them having any problems. I have a problem with the amount and severity of the problems. The fact that testing is still not finished is quite telling.

Based on your statement then I assume you have little knowledge of the system engineering process that is used to develop and intro into service military aviation? This is standard across the globe. The jet is almost complete on the SDD phase and will hand over now to the US services for their own internal testing. At this point the JPO transitions to undertaking Block 4 upgrade work which has received funding.
Of course if we looked at the F-15, F-16 and F-18 then we would actually realise that all those aircraft are still being tested, because their development hasn’t stopped even though they have been in service and in some cases out of production for years.

vr773 wrote:

Yes, I would. Anything else would be naive because the job of the guy you quoted is to market a product that he wants to sell.

Those same figures are all available across the media reporting space, would you prefer I quote a news article that reported the LM figures instead of LM themselves. In that case your logic is flawed.

vr773 wrote:

No offense, but your view doesn't surprise me because it seems like you interpret anything that comes out of LMs marketing department as the ultimate truth. Others see the DOT&E as one of the few capable checks on US military procurement.

Others being who, a few media and acknowledged bias orgs such as POGO? The vast majority of informed commentary and industry officials acknowledges the lack of usefulness of the DOT&E.

vr773 wrote:

We're talking about the German Luftwaffe and not the RAAF or RAF. Germany didn't participate in the SDD phase (for good reasons).

The point is still valid. Do you expect the German Air Force to review every single line of code of every single piece of military equipment they acquire? I can tell you right now the answer is that they don’t.

vr773 wrote:

Hypothetically, after signing the contract, Germany would have to pay a lot of money for code updates (that they again couldn't control) or live with errors. That's not an acceptable scenario form my perspective as a German taxpayer.

How is that different to the Eurofighter or Tornado or Rafale or anything else? The German Air Force are still beholden to whatever vendor they acquire a platform from for those same software updates. The difference is that within the F-35 program they can share those costs across a 13+ nations, not have to fund them internally.
If you look at the Eurofighter, Germany has struggled to maintain a capable platform because it has not upgraded with the other allies, or cherry picked the upgrades they want to use. The end result in a capability that is deficient and difficult to sustain.

vr773 wrote:

You know that the FCAS would likely have different capabilities than the F-35.

Really, what part of FCAS looks different to you from an F-35

Low observable – F-35 Check
Extended range – F-35 Check
C2 on unmanned affecters – F-35 Already planned.
Survivable – F-35 Check
ISR + data fusion and distribution – F-35 Check

vr773 wrote:

The F-35 doesn't even have many capabilities that the Tornado has today (it also has many that the Tornado doesn't have of course). I don't think Germany's options are as limited as you and others claim and I explained a couple of scenarios in previous posts that I think could form part of a solution for Germany.

We have gone through the options but this is again how I see it
1. Tornado retirement starts 2025 and Germany retains nuclear sharing – Germany requires a US platform to replace Tornado
2. Tornado retirement starts 2025 and Germany leaves nuclear sharing – Germany needs a new aircraft which could be anything but a Tranche 4 Eurofighter or F-35 makes sense from a cost/capability perspective
3. Tornado limps onwards to 2040, is refreshed and Germany retains nuclear sharing – Germany can continue with their Joint dev with France and spent a lot of money on essentially an internal jobs program and replace both Tornado and Eurofighter from 2040 with the next gen fighter. Problem is this leaves Germany in a difficult place from a capability perspective as it will have an aging strike platform and an underfunded Eurofighter program competing for funding with the next gen fighter.
4. Tornado limps onwards to 2040 is refreshed and Germany leaves nuclear sharing – Probably similar to four but if Germany leaves nuclear sharing they can again replace Tornado early.

YIMBY wrote:

What is then our adversary? If there is none, we need no armies.

In many civil issues Europe looks at the USA as an adversary, and even more vice versa. USA has made several hostile actions against Europe:
- US spied European leaders, already before Trump
- US breached from the Paris agreement
- POTUS has involved in European matters promoting the demise of the European Union
- POTUS has threatened on a trade war against Europe (and the rest of the world, too)
- POTUS did hint on a new Jalta or Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement with Putin
- POTUS has insulted European leaders after threats and terrorist attacks, when friendly leaders show support and consolation.
- POTUS has demonstrated admiration and support to many dictatorial leaders around the world who threaten Europe or European (universal) values
- POTUS threatened to withdraw military support from NATO allies he does not like, e.g. for the excuse that that they do not fulfil his requirements of military spending (from the USA?)
- US law does not allow to buy almost any European weapons - and almost any product that can be used by the military in case of war is considered a weapon - but requires Europe to buy US made weapons.

USA has the keys to release tension and build trust, if they just want.
Certainly the majority of the people do want it, but the country is run by a privileged or fooled minority.
Fortunately there are still law-abiding officers, secretaries, senators etc that keep the country on its track, but who knows how long.
Currently US is represented in Europe by Mattis and Tillerson who show some professionalism and respect but POTUS has hinted firing them any moment.

To put it simply, Germany and the US, through NATO and separately, have a very long and established military and security relationship. One president does not and will not change this.

YIMBY wrote:

While any direct war between Europe and America is out of imagination, proxy wars in third world may be much more probable. There are cases when US ally has bombed civil targets in an area that was supposed to be protected by Europe. It is imaginable that European countries send their forces to protect their ally that is then attacked by US ally or even US itself. ME is such a mess that US may even enter in a war against itself (how close that was in Qatar?).
Note that 15 year ago hardly anybody could imagine that Russia could ever threaten western Europe, and many countries castrated their armies and some countries did not bother to build up any credible army at all.

I agree that a new war could start at any time so the need for a standing capable Military is required. Clearly we see different on the threats and how that translates to actual action.

Trump is not against Germany or NATO he is against the lack burden sharing and lopsided trade relationship.

WIederling wrote:

vr773 wrote:

I don't think this article has been posted yet:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15 ... s-tornados

Is Joseph Trevithick the person to ask for an assessment?

Most of his articles appear to be about lifting the US on a pedestal.

Though as long as Ms. von der Leyen leads German defence moving in that direction would not be unsurprising.
compare to the Starfighter acquisition back then.

Actually The War Zone's main writer, Tyler Rogoway, has been extremely critical of the F-35 program for years, both here and at his previous assignment at Foxtrot Alpha. For example (since it was referenced in this thread), he's long advocated the Super Hornet for the RCAF, a view Trevithick supported.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-r ... 1587492909
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/61 ... tion-looms
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38 ... r-solution
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14 ... rnet-plans


Trevithick references and links to Rogoway's work on the problems of the F-35 program, so I don't think he's necessarily biased to the F-35. Indeed, he's pretty clear about the headaches the program faces and brings up alternative options.

Just getting the aircraft is only one part of the picture, though. The War Zone’s own Tyler Rogoway has repeatedly highlighted, the high costs associated with operating and maintaining fifth generation aircraft. The F-35 in particular has already shown itself to have particularly complicated maintenance and logistics chains.

This is in no small part due reliance on Lockheed Martin’s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which is both at the core of the Joint Strike Fighter’s internal computer brain and is the basis of the cloud-based network that supports the jets and their operations. In October 2017, the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a scathing report on this sustainment infrastructure as it applies to American F-35s, having found that at any time, on average, more than 20 percent of the existing U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps jets were not flyable at all because of a lack of appropriate spare parts.

All of this begs the question of whether any F-35s the Luftwaffe might acquire would be truly combat ready by the time it needs them to take over for the Tornados. And with the parallel plans to replace its Eurofighter Typhoons with an Anglo-French fifth generation fighter jet, Germany could be looking at having to manage the combined costs of supporting two distinct types of highly advanced aircraft...

...All of this could make the German Ministry of Defense hesitant to go with the F-35 as a replacement for its Tornados in the near term, despite any particular service preferences. An in production late fourth generation type, such as the French Rafale, the Swedish Gripen E, Boeing's F-15 Advanced Eagle, or Lockheed Martin’s own Block 70 F-16 Viper, could be a more attractive option. With regards to the Tornados and their primary air interdiction mission, the F-15 with its heavy bomb load might be the best analogue. Boeing also says it is looking to offer limited low-observable features on its Block III F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which might present another avenue to a more affordable stealthy capability.

And though less advanced than the F-35, these aircraft – likely also on the shortlist of options – would offer a significant increase in capability over the Tornados now and would be more than able to support Germany’s immediate domestic and overseas needs. It could even allow the country to expand its ability to take on NATO air policing duties, a job that only its Eurofighters are able to do at all credibly at present.

Combined with long-range stand-off weapons, a fourth generation multi-role combat aircraft could still provide an important service in a potential high intensity European conflict, in which Germany would unlikely be operating outside of a coalition of other NATO members, including the United States. German Tornados are already capable of carrying the German-Swedish KEPD 350 Taurus cruise missile.

Meantime in the real world:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ti-443287/

F18 won’t last minutes in airspace defended with systems capable of shooting down irbm

Planeflyer wrote:

Meantime in the real world:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ti-443287/

F18 won’t last minutes in airspace defended with systems capable of shooting down irbm

I don't think that's necessarily in dispute, although they are relatively LO (for a 4th gen platform). If Germany went for the Hornet, they might benefit from including Growlers or setting up the SH for conversion Growlers. However, a hi-lo mix of 4th and 5th generation aircraft is going to be the norm for decades to come, including within individual services, so it's not like they'll be odd man out. With the number of F-35s that will be in Europe, Germany may feel they don't need day 1 capability and be happy to rely on allies to handle that. I hope they go for the F-35 (although as an Eagle fanboy, I'll always love seeing that plane get more sales). It would be a great vote of confidence in the Lightning from a country that really has its pick of the fighter lot, and I like the idea of a Europe bristling with hundreds of 5th generation assets (whether European or American in origin) while Russia struggles to deploy a few dozen. But, I could also understanding them saying they want to stick with something proven, simpler, and/or cheaper, or that has higher performance and payload even if it loses 5th gen capabilities.

Planeflyer wrote:

Trump is not against Germany or NATO he is against the lack burden sharing and lopsided trade relationship.

An obvious problem.
The US does spent less than the EU on defense. 90% of the military budget is power projection and fanning conflicts in their own interest.
The US is unable to produce stuff that finds interest abroad. Even what is sold required some armtwisting or massive subsidy.

Now the absolute hoot is US firms selling globally stuff made in Asia while they park their profits away from the US and taxation there.
I'd suggest you fix that first.

WIederling wrote:

An obvious problem.
The US does spent less than the EU on defense. 90% of the military budget is power projection and fanning conflicts in their own interest.

And you arrived at this fictional statistic how? The total defence budget of all EU countries combined in 2015 was approximately $225 billion. The total US defence budget for 2015 was US$620 billion.

WIederling wrote:

The US is unable to produce stuff that finds interest abroad. Even what is sold required some armtwisting or massive subsidy.

Except the US is the largest exporter of military systems...

Wiederling, I truly enjoy reading your posts. You have a vivid imagination. Really no sarcasm here. I disagree with much, well maybe most of what you say but hey the world would be so much more boring if everything written were non fiction.

You do realize that Norway who in their north is already in a contested airspace as Germany does in the East has already received 10 F35's .

tjh8402, you said it very well.

My only dispute is pilot survival. In any worst case conflict, pilots will be the most precious of resources and any pilot in any 4th gen AC will have very low survival rates no matter their skill level. And while potential adversaries will certainly struggle fielding 5th gen AC, just the US has, missile and radar technology has progressed so far so fast the West must leverage its advantage.

tjh8402 wrote:

It would be a great vote of confidence in the Lightning from a country that really has its pick of the fighter lot, and I like the idea of a Europe bristling with hundreds of 5th generation assets (whether European or American in origin) while Russia struggles to deploy a few dozen. But, I could also understanding them saying they want to stick with something proven, simpler, and/or cheaper, or that has higher performance and payload even if it loses 5th gen capabilities.

They have "free choice" but if they decide that low observability is a must-have, there is little choice but the F35 for the foreseeable future.

Ozair wrote:

Low observable – F-35 Check
Extended range – F-35 Check
C2 on unmanned affecters – F-35 Already planned.
Survivable – F-35 Check
ISR + data fusion and distribution – F-35 Check

The F35 is a powerful aircraft, no doubt. But don't you think that technology - both aircraft and anti-air - might advance a bit until 2030 - 40?

Ozair wrote:

Germany can continue with their Joint dev with France and spent a lot of money on essentially an internal jobs program and replace both Tornado and Eurofighter from 2040 with the next gen fighter. Problem is this leaves Germany in a difficult place from a capability perspective as it will have an aging strike platform and an underfunded Eurofighter program competing for funding with the next gen fighter.

Since NATO has the 2% demand Germany would have ~ $ 20 billion more to spend each year. That's more than what they spent on the entire Eurofighter fleet. Add to that what France is willing to pay and perhaps other partners and you might end up having quite a formidable budget. If this is more of a heavy twin seater attack / control center plane rather with considerable differences to the F35 we might even see more exports. It was always difficult for the EU fighters to compete while the US offered fairly similar products.

In any case, it is important for the EU to retain the knowledge. It is not acceptable to be so dependent on the US. Even if the F35 is bought, there will - should - be a program to develop a European combat aircraft.

Planeflyer wrote:

My only dispute is pilot survival. In any worst case conflict, pilots will be the most precious of resources and any pilot in any 4th gen AC will have very low survival rates no matter their skill level. And while potential adversaries will certainly struggle fielding 5th gen AC, just the US has, missile and radar technology has progressed so far so fast the West must leverage its advantage.

So we agree that any and all 4th gen AC will struggle over modern enemy territory? Doesn't that also mean that any current enemy would face serious problems trying to attack a European country? Shouldn't we then invest more in better radars and accurate long-range, high-speed missiles, rather than in attack aircraft whose low observability may not be so low in the future?

I just find it difficult to argue that EU 4th gen fighters will be knocked out of the sky by enemy SAM batteries and other 4th gen fighers immediately while enemy 4th gen fighters will do as they please over hostile territory without any fear of being attacked from below.

Either any and all 4th gen AC are obsolete or they are not. You can't just pick cherries.

mxaxai wrote:

The F35 is a powerful aircraft, no doubt. But don't you think that technology - both aircraft and anti-air - might advance a bit until 2030 - 40?

Technology will move forward but a valid argument could be made that the US, and partners, spent significant sums on money on technology. To achieve that technology level Europe is going to have to invest at least a significant proportion of that. Bar some UAV demonstration vehicles Europe doesn’t have a VLO stealth aircraft. While it may be easy to say they can do it we can see with both Russia and China that their first big attempts have arrived with compromises.
The other side of that is the F-35 will continue to move forward, just as the 4th gen aircraft have done. There are already plans for a new engine with more thrust and more range, 5th gen weapons and likely upgraded radar with new technology.

mxaxai wrote:

Since NATO has the 2% demand Germany would have ~ $ 20 billion more to spend each year. That's more than what they spent on the entire Eurofighter fleet. Add to that what France is willing to pay and perhaps other partners and you might end up having quite a formidable budget.

It will take some significant political movement to see Germany move to 2% but I agree should they do so they will have more than sufficient funding to get to that level, and fund existing systems to the level required.

mxaxai wrote:

If this is more of a heavy twin seater attack / control center plane rather with considerable differences to the F35 we might even see more exports. It was always difficult for the EU fighters to compete while the US offered fairly similar products.

The Rafale, Eurofighter and A400M were all sold internally on the premise of large export potential and frankly all have failed to deliver on that. The A400M still has a chance, for the previous two their time has gone. I would be very sceptical of promising exports for a European jet that may either never reach production or be procured in such small numbers that the per unit costs are simply too high to provide wide export appeal.

mxaxai wrote:

In any case, it is important for the EU to retain the knowledge. It is not acceptable to be so dependent on the US. Even if the F35 is bought, there will - should - be a program to develop a European combat aircraft.

No doubt. The case for the F-35, even made by the German Chief of Air Staff, is for a replacement now that allows Germany and France to replace the Rafale and Eurofighter from 2040, not the Tornado.

mxaxai wrote:

tjh8402 wrote:

It would be a great vote of confidence in the Lightning from a country that really has its pick of the fighter lot, and I like the idea of a Europe bristling with hundreds of 5th generation assets (whether European or American in origin) while Russia struggles to deploy a few dozen. But, I could also understanding them saying they want to stick with something proven, simpler, and/or cheaper, or that has higher performance and payload even if it loses 5th gen capabilities.

They have "free choice" but if they decide that low observability is a must-have, there is little choice but the F35 for the foreseeable future.

No disagreement there. If they decide that they must have fifth generation capabilities, the F 35 is the only choice. The question is whether or not they feel they need those capabilities. The free choice is whether or not to pursue that. This is the question that constantly comes up in the F 35 debate: is it worth getting a lightning over fourth generation assets? Germany would appear to be able to pick the best of the fourth generation offerings in making that decision.

mxaxai wrote:

So we agree that any and all 4th gen AC will struggle over modern enemy territory? Doesn't that also mean that any current enemy would face serious problems trying to attack a European country? Shouldn't we then invest more in better radars and accurate long-range, high-speed missiles, rather than in attack aircraft whose low observability may not be so low in the future?

I just find it difficult to argue that EU 4th gen fighters will be knocked out of the sky by enemy SAM batteries and other 4th gen fighers immediately while enemy 4th gen fighters will do as they please over hostile territory without any fear of being attacked from below.

Either any and all 4th gen AC are obsolete or they are not. You can't just pick cherries.

Any enemy Air Force would absolutely have challenges trying to attack a European country. The problem is the Russians and others are less reliant on air superiority than we are. There have been no shortage of reports in simulation stating that a Russian army could easily overrun Eastern Europe. They don't need air superiority to do that. What they can do though is utilize their IADS to neutralize Western air assets, which we are dependent on.

I don't think the fear is so much Russian fighters and bombers over Germany and Poland. It's an active S300/S400 system in Kaliningrad, or God forbid, hypothetically in the hands of ethnic Russian revolutionaries in Poland who have suddenly decided to overthrow the Polish government and join Russia. With that, they could keep all 4th generation assets out of any conflict zone and deprive NATO of its needed air power. We lose much more by having our air assets grounded than they do.

That being said, Russians do have long range aircraft launched cruise missiles that can be safely fired from out of the range of Western SAMs. if you want to hunt those in airspace protected by enemy SAMs, you need a LO fighter to penetrated that airspace. The F35 will give the capability to establish air superiority not only over friendly territory, but enemy territory as well.

Planeflyer wrote:

Wiederling, I truly enjoy reading your posts. You have a vivid imagination. Really no sarcasm here. I disagree with much, well maybe most of what you say but hey the world would be so much more boring if everything written were non fiction.

You do realize that Norway who in their north is already in a contested airspace as Germany does in the East has already received 10 F35's .

tjh8402, you said it very well.

My only dispute is pilot survival. In any worst case conflict, pilots will be the most precious of resources and any pilot in any 4th gen AC will have very low survival rates no matter their skill level. And while potential adversaries will certainly struggle fielding 5th gen AC, just the US has, missile and radar technology has progressed so far so fast the West must leverage its advantage.

Your only reason to purchase a fighter is war. Hate to say it but most of us would prefer not to be at war. So unless you can ensure us all that we are at war why not consider the FACT that maybe just maybe a airforce might purchase a aircraft for anything other than war?
Most countries.. Canada encluded need fighters to maintain sovereignty of their territory. If one was not a war manger one might realize fighter purchases are ment for more than just killing people! If killing people and assured war was the only reason to buy fighters then you should count most countries out. Let me make this simple.... Most countries have no intention of starting a military confrontation. Where do you stand in this regards? Should I guess buy a f35? Sorry dose not answer question.
Countries buy their fighters with more in mind than present day conflict superiority. What must also be considered is use in peace (I know "how boring")
I for one am not a fan of MAD, but am a huge fan of sovereignty. I hope war can be eliminated, and that all will appreciate the value of life.

Plus if everyone had f35's then it would no longer be superior would it? It would be average wiitch would not be good! I am A f%+=ing idiot Canadian.. Sell me something that can't maintain sovereignty over all of Canada. And please tell me why I am an idiot for not wanting war. Canada is willing to help stop conflicts but not start them.

thumper76 wrote:

Your only reason to purchase a fighter is war. Hate to say it but most of us would prefer not to be at war. So unless you can ensure us all that we are at war why not consider the FACT that maybe just maybe a airforce might purchase a aircraft for anything other than war?
Most countries.. Canada encluded need fighters to maintain sovereignty of their territory. If one was not a war manger one might realize fighter purchases are ment for more than just killing people! If killing people and assured war was the only reason to buy fighters then you should count most countries out. Let me make this simple.... Most countries have no intention of starting a military confrontation. Where do you stand in this regards? Should I guess buy a f35? Sorry dose not answer question.
Countries buy their fighters with more in mind than present day conflict superiority. What must also be considered is use in peace (I know "how boring")
I for one am not a fan of MAD, but am a huge fan of sovereignty. I hope war can be eliminated, and that all will appreciate the value of life.

Thumper buying an F-35 or other fighter jet does not mean you want to go to war, they can be used as an effective deterrent to prevent war and any of the current crop of 4th and 5th gen fighter aircraft are multi-role and can provide both A2A and A2G capabilities. The primary purpose of any national military is to protect the sovereignty of their nation but what good is that military if it can’t when called upon defend the nation from aggression?

What Planeflyer is suggesting is if a conflict occurs then a 5th gen fighter jet is far more likely to be able to survive and will do a better job of protecting your homeland than a 4th gen aircraft. You only need to look at the study I posted a couple of pages back on how much of an impact stealth has on airborne radar to see how dramatically more effective that 5th gen fighter becomes over 4th gen platforms.

Even a 4th gen would be better than the Tornado.

tjh8402 wrote:

Any enemy Air Force would absolutely have challenges trying to attack a European country. The problem is the Russians and others are less reliant on air superiority than we are. There have been no shortage of reports in simulation stating that a Russian army could easily overrun Eastern Europe. They don't need air superiority to do that. What they can do though is utilize their IADS to neutralize Western air assets, which we are dependent on.

I don't think the fear is so much Russian fighters and bombers over Germany and Poland. It's an active S300/S400 system in Kaliningrad, or God forbid, hypothetically in the hands of ethnic Russian revolutionaries in Poland who have suddenly decided to overthrow the Polish government and join Russia. With that, they could keep all 4th generation assets out of any conflict zone and deprive NATO of its needed air power. We lose much more by having our air assets grounded than they do.

That being said, Russians do have long range aircraft launched cruise missiles that can be safely fired from out of the range of Western SAMs. if you want to hunt those in airspace protected by enemy SAMs, you need a LO fighter to penetrated that airspace. The F35 will give the capability to establish air superiority not only over friendly territory, but enemy territory as well.

I agree on the west's dependance on air superiority. But a single SAM battery will not pose a real challenge, particularly if operated by non-governmental forces. Also remember that the west operates their own cruise missiles and that, in the end, cruise missiles are just explosíve UAVs that are neither stealthy nor particularly fast. No doubt though that stealth is necessary to loiter in contested airspace. For a CAS role, supporting their ground troops, the F35 may actually be the best.

Ozair wrote:

While it may be easy to say they can do it we can see with both Russia and China that their first big attempts have arrived with compromises.
The other side of that is the F-35 will continue to move forward, just as the 4th gen aircraft have done. There are already plans for a new engine with more thrust and more range, 5th gen weapons and likely upgraded radar with new technology.

It certainly will. It will also remain a single-seater jet and will face even more space constraints than 4th gen AC because it cannot simply attach electronic devices on the outside. It also uses fairly old systems (20 years by now) and I am quite certain that LM will try to avoid any major systems overhaul. Processing power has increased significantly and there may be some abilities to be won by that.

Regarding China's and Russia's struggle with stealth, I expect similar problems to come up with the new european fighter. But I consider the knowledge to be invaluable to have in the EU. We may depend on the current military might of the USA but we cannot just let them have a monopoly on advanced weapon systems and knowledge thereof.

Ozair wrote:

The Rafale, Eurofighter and A400M were all sold internally on the premise of large export potential and frankly all have failed to deliver on that. The A400M still has a chance, for the previous two their time has gone. I would be very sceptical of promising exports for a European jet that may either never reach production or be procured in such small numbers that the per unit costs are simply too high to provide wide export appeal.

They never really stood a chance against the F-16. And frankly, any competitor will struggle against the F-35. They are simply too cheap for what they do. Even the F-15 and F-18 never really got exported. We talk a lot about all-out wars against a comparable enemy but reality is that most fighters will never even fire a live weapon except for ocassional training. Most countries go for the cheapest solution that can do a little bit of everything, one of the reasons why the Gripen exported so well.

All international weapons trade is also a political decision. Most countries affiliated with the west would rather pursue good relations with the US than with a european country. Particularly if they have the money to not go for the cheapest option. There is also the point of the US maintaining large fleets themselves and all over the world, so maintenance and training is quite easy to get.
I do not expect this new fighter to be a sales hit. But everyone who currently operates or operated Eurofighters, Rafales, F-18s, Tornados and F-15s is a possible buyer, although this will likely not be as good a air to air fighter as particuarly the EF is.