Updated: Germany selects F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon for Tornado replacement

tommy1808 · Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:18 am

Planeflyer wrote:
Tommy, even assuming ea18 are acquired what is more effective at penetrating and disabling air defenses, 24 f35 or 2x this number ea18 and EF?

You are asking the wrong questions..... what is more effective in penetrating and disabling air defenses, F35´s alone or F35´s with EA18 support.... Australia and the US Navy seem to think both have their place.

best regards
Thomas

keesje · Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:21 am

seahawk wrote:
Ozair wrote:
An opinion piece from DefenseNews about the removal of the F-35 from the German Tornado replacement program. I did a quick search and couldn’t see these two authors as being pro F-35 and the text is reasonably clear on the differences and impacts.

German F-35 decision sacrifices NATO capability for Franco-German industrial cooperation

While the German decision last week to remove the Lockheed Martin F-35 from consideration as a replacement for 90 aging Tornado fighters solidifies Franco-German industrial cooperation, it could come at the expense of making Germany’s Luftwaffe a less capable air force until at least 2040, when a new advanced Franco-German fighter becomes available.

The decision also places German domestic political considerations ahead of Germany’s leadership role in NATO. This would be understandable for a nation that does not perceive a significant military threat from Russia, but it is disturbing for those who emphasize the need to maximize NATO’s deterrent posture in the East. The decision should be reconsidered.

After removing the F-35 (and also the older F-15) from consideration, Germany now has three choices. It can augment its planned 177 Eurofighter Typhoon fleet with up to 90 additional Typhoons adapted for suppression of enemy air defense and electronic warfare missions. That fleet of some 267 Typhoons would simplify servicing and training, but it could also ground the entire German fighter fleet should major structural problems appear in the aircraft. The Typhoon has had considerable readiness problems: Germany would be putting all of its fighter eggs in one basket.
Germany could alternatively buy 90 Boeing F-18s (Super Hornets and Growlers), which is still under active German consideration. That decision would provide better air-to-ground and electronic-warfare capabilities for Germany than the additional Typhoons. But it would still leave Germany behind without a fifth-generation fighter as other allies move onto the future of air power.
Or Germany could buy some mix of additional Typhoons and F-18s. Today, Germany flies no U.S.-built aircraft, and some observers are betting against the F-18 for that reason.
These three remaining alternatives are all second best from the perspective of maximizing Germany’s air power and its leadership among NATO air forces.

Operationally, the F-35 is by far the best airplane in this mix. It has stealth and battle-management capabilities that are a generation ahead of the Typhoon or F-18. It is a force multiplier that enhances the capabilities of lesser allied aircraft. If the Luftwaffe needs to penetrate heavy air defenses in a future fight, their pilots would be more secure in the F-35. The Luftwaffe without F-35s would be hard-pressed to fight alone in a contested air environment.

Currently eight NATO nations have agreed to purchase the F-35. Those nations will have highly interoperable fifth-generation aircraft. They will provide for the elite fighters in future NATO air-superiority and defense-suppression missions. Without the F-35, Germany will be absent from that elite group, and German pilots would probably be given only secondary missions.

The F-35 also has advantages to perform Germany’s NATO nuclear mission. The ability of the F-35 to penetrate and survive these missions is superior. The F-35 would have been nuclear-certified prior to delivery. Certification for the Typhoon and F-18s would take additional time, money and German political capital. The default position, therefore, might be further life extensions for the old Tornados and further degradation of NATO’s nuclear deterrence.

It is no wonder that the chief of the German Luftwaffe publicly declared his support for the F-35. He was silenced and retired early.

So why did German political leaders make this decision?

Money alone is not the answer. While the F-35 is a much better plane, its costs are coming down considerably to the point where they would be about as much as a Typhoon. The Typhoon would, of course, have local labor benefits.

Nor is availability the answer. Lockheed has told the Germans that they could have their first F-35 three years after a contract is signed.

The answer is more political and industrial.

The Merkel government rules by grand coalition, with Social Democrats holding key positions in the Federal Foreign Office and the Finance Ministry. The Social Democrats tend to resist greater defense spending and have a more benign view of Russia’s intentions. Many resist Germany’s nuclear mission. And no one in the coalition wants to reward U.S. President Donald Trump.

More important, France and Germany are drawing closer together on defense policy in the wake of Brexit and President Trump’s criticisms of NATO. The recently signed Aachen Treaty committed the two nations to new levels of cooperation in defense and foreign policy.

A center piece of this reinforced Franco-German defense cooperation is an agreement reached last summer to jointly design and produce a next-generation fighter by 2040. Dassault and Airbus plan to leverage their current Rafale and Typhoon aircraft as a bridge to this new joint aircraft. Paris fears that a German purchase of the F-35, especially in large numbers, could undercut the need for the next-gen fighter and harm European capabilities to produce advanced fighters. They have let Berlin know this.

A strong Franco-German engine at the heart of European defense is to be encouraged. But it should not come at the expense of optimal NATO air power and deterrence. Nor should it come at the expense of broader NATO solidarity.

Germany should reconsider its F-35 decision and purchase at least enough F-35s to retain its leadership position in European air power and its familiarity with fifth-generation aircraft technology. Its European allies, who will also be negatively impacted, should weigh in. Failing this, a purchase of the F-18 would be a second-best option.

Hans Binnendijk is a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and formerly served as the U.S. National Security Council’s senior director for defense policy. James Townsend is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and formerly served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/com ... operation/

Spot on, but it is all about anti-Americanism and not usefulness.

It more new politics from the US taking effect.

Ozair · Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:56 am

tommy1808 wrote:

You are asking the wrong questions..... what is more effective in penetrating and disabling air defenses, F35´s alone or F35´s with EA18 support.... Australia and the US Navy seem to think both have their place.

Disagree, you can't draw that conclusion from the evidence available. Does that mean every nation operating F-35s should acquire Growlers, of course we know they haven't.

The info I provided above demonstrates clearly that the RAAF and ADF see the Growler influence and shape across the whole battlespace, not as a sole stand off jammer for F-35. The USN today still has 44 Super/classic Hornets on every carrier and even after they receive their whole complement of F-35Cs it will only constitute 20 aircraft per air wing while 24 Super Hornets will remain. Those aircraft, and the fleet assets around them, will rely on the Growler, not the F-35Cs.

As for the other suggestion, I consider an F-35 strike package would be more survivable in a near peer battlespace without the EA-18G. The Growler isn't going anywhere near the types of air defences a near peer would operate and it is highly unlikely to be able to positively influence a threat system from the distances it would need to stand off compared to the distances those systems would detect an F-35. Far better for the F-35 to fly into the airspace undetected and the adversary not alerted. If it is detected the ASQ-239, given the VLO of the F-35, has an overwhelming ability to hide the F-35 within the noise.

If larger system jamming is needed the MALD-J and soon MALD-X is a better system to operate in a near peer environment than the Growler when 5th gen aircraft are concerned.

seahawk · Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:28 pm

No, it means that for the European NATO partners, many will have F-35 but none does have a capability similar to the E/A-18. So in a combined force (and that is the only way Germany will fight) the Growlers add more than additional F-35s.

tommy1808 · Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:59 pm

seahawk wrote:
No, it means that for the European NATO partners, many will have F-35 but none does have a capability similar to the E/A-18. So in a combined force (and that is the only way Germany will fight) the Growlers add more than additional F-35s.

just like for the USN

Ozair wrote:
The USN today still has 44 Super/classic Hornets on every carrier and even after they receive their whole complement of F-35Cs it will only constitute 20 aircraft per air wing while 24 Super Hornets will remain..

there will by a good supply of non-stealthy aircraft, most of which have no current plans to be replaced by anything stealthy....

best regards
Thomas

Planeflyer · Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:21 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
No, it means that for the European NATO partners, many will have F-35 but none does have a capability similar to the E/A-18. So in a combined force (and that is the only way Germany will fight) the Growlers add more than additional F-35s.

just like for the USN

Ozair wrote:
The USN today still has 44 Super/classic Hornets on every carrier and even after they receive their whole complement of F-35Cs it will only constitute 20 aircraft per air wing while 24 Super Hornets will remain..

there will by a good supply of non-stealthy aircraft, most of which have no current plans to be replaced by anything stealthy....

best regards
Thomas

It does not follow that just because there are legacy ac in many services Germany should make a new buy for such AC.

Ozair · Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:24 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
No, it means that for the European NATO partners, many will have F-35 but none does have a capability similar to the E/A-18. So in a combined force (and that is the only way Germany will fight) the Growlers add more than additional F-35s.

just like for the USN.

That is a different argument to what I replied to and this one I agree with. A German Growler acquisition brings a reasonably unique capability to Germany. It is certainly not a Tornado ECR replacement, the Growler is so much more than just a SEAD platform, and the benefits to a NATO coalition operation today, in the air, land and maritime environments, from Growler participation is recognisably significant.

tommy1808 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
The USN today still has 44 Super/classic Hornets on every carrier and even after they receive their whole complement of F-35Cs it will only constitute 20 aircraft per air wing while 24 Super Hornets will remain..

there will by a good supply of non-stealthy aircraft, most of which have no current plans to be replaced by anything stealthy....

A good supply of non stealthy aircraft where? Are you talking USN or Germany or broader? What context does that statement have to this discussion?

mxaxai · Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:21 pm

Ozair wrote:
A good supply of non stealthy aircraft where? Are you talking USN or Germany or broader? What context does that statement have to this discussion?

Even if Germany bought a dozen or two of F-35s, the vast majority of their fleet would still be non-stealth. The same applies to almost all other European countries. Only Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway are exceptions; but their fleet size is small to begin with.

Ozair wrote:
[...]
Additionally, the acquisition of Growler is seen by the Australian Government as a key enabler for Coalition operations. It allows the Government to deploy a capability that is operational across the whole spectrum of operations and provides significant non kinetic options for attack. Being able to deploy, support and operate in that context, perhaps without ever having to drop a weapon, is politically immense. [...]

Thank you for your summary of how Australia uses the EA-18. I learned something new today.
At the same time, it certainly shows that a German order for it would certainly not be a bad investment. I do accept that the F-35 alone may be more effective at delivering nukes than, say, a combined EA-18 & Eurofighter fleet. I still believe that the EA-18 can increase the F-35s effectiveness; in a near peer conflict the enemy would be on alert constantly anyway. The F-35 currently also does not have any low-frequency jamming. But those frequencies happen to be the weak spot of stealth, so while its onboard suite may prevent direct hits it could still show up on radar.

A "perfect" fleet, starting from what we have today, would probably have some F-35s for ground strikes and nukes, Eurofighters for air superiority, and EA-18s to support them (and other assets). Do note that many NATO members have some unique capabilities; for example the UK are the only European country to order the 737 AEW&C. Australia is a bit more "on its own".

Ozair · Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:03 am

mxaxai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
A good supply of non stealthy aircraft where? Are you talking USN or Germany or broader? What context does that statement have to this discussion?

Even if Germany bought a dozen or two of F-35s, the vast majority of their fleet would still be non-stealth. The same applies to almost all other European countries. Only Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway are exceptions; but their fleet size is small to begin with.

In that context I agree that the German Air Force would remain a largely non-stealth fleet.

From a NATO perspective the F-35 has every chance of becoming the dominate platform. If we look at the 29 member nations and wipe out the small Air Force nations straight away, 15 of them with Air Forces ranging from 20 aircraft to none and therefore inconsequential in NATO power projection terms. Of the remaining 14, current F-35 operators comprise 8 nations with another three potential operators. Of the big air forces only France and Germany are not users.

Ozair wrote:
[...]
Additionally, the acquisition of Growler is seen by the Australian Government as a key enabler for Coalition operations. It allows the Government to deploy a capability that is operational across the whole spectrum of operations and provides significant non kinetic options for attack. Being able to deploy, support and operate in that context, perhaps without ever having to drop a weapon, is politically immense. [...]

mxaxai wrote:
Thank you for your summary of how Australia uses the EA-18. I learned something new today.
At the same time, it certainly shows that a German order for it would certainly not be a bad investment. I do accept that the F-35 alone may be more effective at delivering nukes than, say, a combined EA-18 & Eurofighter fleet.

I agree it certainly isn’t a bad investment although I wonder what policy issues will present themselves that may prevent a German growler from being as effective as it could be. Not only with information sharing but how German would use the platform to enhance not just Air Force units but all services.

mxaxai wrote:
I still believe that the EA-18 can increase the F-35s effectiveness; in a near peer conflict the enemy would be on alert constantly anyway. The F-35 currently also does not have any low-frequency jamming. But those frequencies happen to be the weak spot of stealth, so while its onboard suite may prevent direct hits it could still show up on radar.

Can you provide the source document that states the F-35 has no low frequency jamming? There is very little public information on the capabilities of the ASQ-239 and certainly not enough to make that claim.

We also have more than sufficient evidence to show how much of an impact the F-35 design has on typical air search radars. For reference review this journal article http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf which is a worst case analysis of the design and shows significant reductions against L band radars. Additionally we know LM patented a CNT RAM that was claimed to be effective down to VHF and HF frequency ranges.

mxaxai wrote:
Do note that many NATO members have some unique capabilities; for example the UK are the only European country to order the 737 AEW&C. Australia is a bit more "on its own".

I wouldn’t call the UK acquisition of the E-7 a unique capability. France and the UK already operate AWACS aircraft previously and NATO has a dedicated fleet as well. The E-7 may bring a few additional benefits and build upon that capability but unique is probably not the right word to describe it.

The Growler would be a unique capability because nothing like it exists in European Air Forces. In fact Australia is the only nation to operate a US Electronic jamming platform, the US has never exported that type of active jamming capability to any other nation, just pod and internal jammers present in aircraft for essentially self protection purposes.

tommy1808 · Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:03 am

Ozair wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
there will by a good supply of non-stealthy aircraft, most of which have no current plans to be replaced by anything stealthy....

A good supply of non stealthy aircraft where? Are you talking USN or Germany or broader? What context does that statement have to this discussion?

I'd say both will have ample non-stealthy aircraft for the time being. In case of Germany there will be Eurofighters for decades to come, and then there is a ton of assets with no intention of going stealthy.
This is about a Tornado replacement, and part of the ECR mission is to "uncontest" airspace for brief periods of time to in- and exfiltrate ground forces into the enemies rear, as that is considered an important force multiplier, while other fighters keep interceptors away. Probably something a combination of F35s and EA-18 would be about as good as it gets for that purpose. F35s will be plentiful in short order, USN carrierwings... probably not that available.

I would still think buying both would be best, 40-45 or each, but one more type is probably not what they want.

Best regards
Thomas

Planeflyer · Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:27 am

Are you saying the ea18 are being purchased to enable transports to penetrate defenses in order to place airborne troops in the rear?

The ea18 must be much more capable than believed to pave the way for troop transports in contested airspace. Once on the ground how would these troops be supported?

What is the role of the EF going forward?

tommy1808 · Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:08 am

Planeflyer wrote:
Are you saying the ea18 are being purchased to enable transports to penetrate defenses in order to place airborne troops in the rear?

If they want to replace the Tornado it will have to, as that is one of its missions. Given the Balkan experience, DEAD is in reality much harder than expected if the enemy is not acting dumb, adding jamming to just blowing up makes sense. The experience also showed that, with appropriate tactics, old SAMs systems can be fairly effective, and those are usually more receptive to jamming.

Once on the ground how would these troops be supported?

Allied F35 mostly i would think, but the point of inserting troops into the enemy´s rear is that they have overwhelming firepower superiority where they go, otherwise you may just as well break through the front, so "support" mostly means keeping enemy CAS away, not so much direct support.

What is the role of the EF going forward?

Pick of fighters and CAS assets using it way superior kinetic weapons range. Eurofighters are tested against stealthy targets, against the Barracuda (only stealth shaping, but tiny thing) for over a decade, and the Spanish Ala 11 is just back from Istres, testing against the, probably very, stealthy Dassault nEUROn ..... they should have a very good understanding how the Eurofighters Sensors (and its support via Datalink) would fare against something like the Su-57.

best regards
Thomas

seahawk · Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:42 am

Ozair wrote:
Can you provide the source document that states the F-35 has no low frequency jamming? There is very little public information on the capabilities of the ASQ-239 and certainly not enough to make that claim.

Well, it certainly does not have the output power of a Growler when it comes to jamming and with that output power you are not stealthy anyway.

Ozair · Thu Feb 14, 2019 8:40 pm

seahawk wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Can you provide the source document that states the F-35 has no low frequency jamming? There is very little public information on the capabilities of the ASQ-239 and certainly not enough to make that claim.

Well, it certainly does not have the output power of a Growler when it comes to jamming and with that output power you are not stealthy anyway.

It doesn't need the output power of a Growler. The VLO of the F-35 means it has an RCS four and likely more orders of magnitude lower than a Growler, allowing it to use either a much lower output of jamming energy to hide itself within the noise or use the same or increased jamming to significantly reduce the radar burn through range.

Additionally, the detection of a jamming signal is not a fait accompli, it depends on the jamming techniques used and on the systems being used to detect it.

As for how the F-35 can support other aircraft,

Now I like being the guy who can support legacy fighters when they may be struggling to get into a target area because of the threat level.

https://taskandpurpose.com/air-force-f3 ... 10-warthog

To provide an even better example, from the Commander of RAF 617SQN,

In the F-35 I can generate a wormhole in the airspace and lead everyone through it. There isn’t another platform around that can do that.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_arti ... tem_id=182

Those references clearly point to non-kinetic support of 4th gen aircraft in a contested airspace.

tjh8402 · Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:02 am

Ozair wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Can you provide the source document that states the F-35 has no low frequency jamming? There is very little public information on the capabilities of the ASQ-239 and certainly not enough to make that claim.

Well, it certainly does not have the output power of a Growler when it comes to jamming and with that output power you are not stealthy anyway.

It doesn't need the output power of a Growler. The VLO of the F-35 means it has an RCS four and likely more orders of magnitude lower than a Growler, allowing it to use either a much lower output of jamming energy to hide itself within the noise or use the same or increased jamming to significantly reduce the radar burn through range.

Additionally, the detection of a jamming signal is not a fait accompli, it depends on the jamming techniques used and on the systems being used to detect it.

As for how the F-35 can support other aircraft,

Now I like being the guy who can support legacy fighters when they may be struggling to get into a target area because of the threat level.

https://taskandpurpose.com/air-force-f3 ... 10-warthog

To provide an even better example, from the Commander of RAF 617SQN,
In the F-35 I can generate a wormhole in the airspace and lead everyone through it. There isn’t another platform around that can do that.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_arti ... tem_id=182

Those references clearly point to non-kinetic support of 4th gen aircraft in a contested airspace.

In an exercise, Dutch F-35s managed to hide not only themselves, but other blue air F-16s from 8x Red Air adversaries’ radars. No, that’s not a SAM radar, but it’s still impressive jamming capabilities.

The time we got to test all these advanced capabilities to their fullest potential was about a year ago ,with and against our F-16s in Tucson,’ says Knight. ‘The initial scenario was that our two F-35s would escort a four-ship of F-16s across a notional border and protect them against another eight-ship of F-16s simulating a modern adversary. A relatively inexperienced flight leader was in charge of the F-16s on our side and Lt Col Joost ‘Niki’ Luijsterburg, the Tucson detachment commander, was responsible for the adversaries. Up to this point we had only practised these scenarios in the simulators and while we had a decent game-plan, we were all anxious to see how the F-35 would perform in real life. We figured that the F-35’s stealth would keep us out of harm’s way for most of the fight, but that we also need to protect the friendly F-16s, maximize the lethality of their missiles and get them to the target. To make this happen, we planned to initially use electronic attack against the adversary F-16s, see if we could avoid having them detect friendly fighters and datalink the location of the hostile aircraft to our F-16s. This way we could use the F-16s on our side to shoot down the initial wave of enemy fighters and keep our own missiles available once the ‘Blue Air’ F-16s had to focus on their target attack. The plan worked flawlessly.

‘In the debrief ‘Niki’ told us it was one of the most memorable sorties he had ever flown. Having previously worked inthe F-35 program office he was elated to find out how effective the F-35 was, but at the same time he was frustrated by not getting a single shot off the rail against us, while getting killed multiple times. After that sortie it really hit us that the F-35 was going to make a big difference in how we operate fighters and other assets in the Royal Netherlands Air Force.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=26975

seahawk · Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:48 am

Still the Growler fills another role. And apart from that we are talking about Germany, military usefulness plays no part in their decisions. The German Armed forces are the most useless in the western world, they are not meant to win in a conflict, they are meant to play no part in any conflict.

They could be buying doves that drop chocolate bars and would be as effective.

Planeflyer · Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:24 am

seahawk wrote:
Still the Growler fills another role. And apart from that we are talking about Germany, military usefulness plays no part in their decisions. The German Armed forces are the most useless in the western world, they are not meant to win in a conflict, they are meant to play no part in any conflict.

They could be buying doves that drop chocolate bars and would be as effective.

Before this decision I would have called you out for grossly overstating the situation but assuming they stick w the current direction the German AF will be strictly in reserve.

seahawk · Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:40 am

Planeflyer wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Still the Growler fills another role. And apart from that we are talking about Germany, military usefulness plays no part in their decisions. The German Armed forces are the most useless in the western world, they are not meant to win in a conflict, they are meant to play no part in any conflict.

They could be buying doves that drop chocolate bars and would be as effective.

Before this decision I would have called you out for grossly overstating the situation but assuming they stick w the current direction the German AF will be strictly in reserve.

It is the sad reality. The Luftwaffe wanted F-35, but they were rejected to not threaten the FCAS project with French. Now if the decision for the F-18s would be based on merit and a clear decision to get Growlers, it still would be acceptable, but it is not. The F-18 was imho selected to please the US but also to force them to come up with a price for the integration of the atomic weapons into an airframe, as the Super Hornet is also not certified. In the end it is all just a ploy to buy more EFs and protect the jobs in the final assembly. The fact that the EF will suck in atomic strike and SEAD does not concern those making the decisions one bit.

aviationaware · Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:58 am

Planeflyer wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Still the Growler fills another role. And apart from that we are talking about Germany, military usefulness plays no part in their decisions. The German Armed forces are the most useless in the western world, they are not meant to win in a conflict, they are meant to play no part in any conflict.

They could be buying doves that drop chocolate bars and would be as effective.

Before this decision I would have called you out for grossly overstating the situation but assuming they stick w the current direction the German AF will be strictly in reserve.

The German MoD is run by a bunch of complete morons half of which have no clue what they are doing and the other half of which are ideologically blinded and decide not based on combat ability but based on a "European Union rationale", designed not to offend anyone else. The list of decisions driven by this crap is so endless by now, starting after the end of the cold war, that the German armed forces are completely useless. Without US forces stationed in Germany any glorified militia could overrun Germany in a few days. It's a really sad situation.

YIMBY · Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:38 am

aviationaware wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Still the Growler fills another role. And apart from that we are talking about Germany, military usefulness plays no part in their decisions. The German Armed forces are the most useless in the western world, they are not meant to win in a conflict, they are meant to play no part in any conflict.

They could be buying doves that drop chocolate bars and would be as effective.

Before this decision I would have called you out for grossly overstating the situation but assuming they stick w the current direction the German AF will be strictly in reserve.

The German MoD is run by a bunch of complete morons half of which have no clue what they are doing and the other half of which are ideologically blinded and decide not based on combat ability but based on a "European Union rationale", designed not to offend anyone else. The list of decisions driven by this crap is so endless by now, starting after the end of the cold war, that the German armed forces are completely useless. Without US forces stationed in Germany any glorified militia could overrun Germany in a few days. It's a really sad situation.

Give one example - other then the US with its troops stationed in Europe - of "glorified militia" that have any capacity to overrun Germany in any time.

aviationaware · Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:46 am

YIMBY wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:

Before this decision I would have called you out for grossly overstating the situation but assuming they stick w the current direction the German AF will be strictly in reserve.

The German MoD is run by a bunch of complete morons half of which have no clue what they are doing and the other half of which are ideologically blinded and decide not based on combat ability but based on a "European Union rationale", designed not to offend anyone else. The list of decisions driven by this crap is so endless by now, starting after the end of the cold war, that the German armed forces are completely useless. Without US forces stationed in Germany any glorified militia could overrun Germany in a few days. It's a really sad situation.

Give one example - other then the US with its troops stationed in Europe - of "glorified militia" that have any capacity to overrun Germany in any time.

Well the Russian sponsored gangsters in the eastern Ukraine would comb through Germany in no time. Germany would be absolutely helpless if they were on their own. That's the sad reality.

bikerthai · Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:23 pm

The reality is Germany is no longer the front line in any conflict with Russia. Perhaps they are banking on the buffer zone that Poland provide and is aligning their forces to a protracted fight in Poland or some other more strategic calculations (such as jobs).

bt

bikerthai · Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:29 pm

Heck,

I no longer believe that Europe need nukes to defend against an overwhelming Russian force any more. Defending Europe will become a war of attrition and any capacity would be useful, no matter how obsolete.

bt

tommy1808 · Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:58 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Well the Russian sponsored gangsters in the eastern Ukraine would comb through Germany in no time. Germany would be absolutely helpless if they were on their own. That's the sad reality.

Dealing with them, their misinformation campaigns and all that stuff is part of recent military exercises, Protesters and little green men trying to attack military installations included. First NATO country to train specifically against Russian hybrid warfare in an integrated exercise using regular troops. ....

At least we would put up a fight and not just hand the Kanzleramt to Putin.

bikerthai wrote:
Heck,

I no longer believe that Europe need nukes to defend against an overwhelming Russian force any more. Defending Europe will become a war of attrition and any capacity would be useful, no matter how obsolete.

bt

EU military, not even NATO, outspends, outguns, outships, outaircrafts, outtanks, outhelicopters, out-Artilleries, outeverythings Russia in conventional weapons by a factor of somewhere between 2 and 5. This war would either go nuclear, or end rather quickly somewhere in Ukraine.

bikerthai wrote:
The reality is Germany is no longer the front line in any conflict with Russia. Perhaps they are banking on the buffer zone that Poland provide and is aligning their forces to a protracted fight in Poland or some other more strategic calculations (such as jobs).

bt

The buffer Zone is pretty much Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic States. They would get to a somewhat stretched logistics trail and not much beyond that, 5G assets would do the Follow on forces attacks, non-stealthy would carry stand-off weapons.

best regards
Thomas

YIMBY · Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:53 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Well the Russian sponsored gangsters in the eastern Ukraine would comb through Germany in no time. Germany would be absolutely helpless if they were on their own. That's the sad reality.

Those gangsters will run out of fuel before half way to Germany.

Russian military is much less capable to defend its territory than German armed forces and definitively lacks ability to invade anything more powerful than Ukraine or Baltic States. Russia is strong only in paper. They cannot mobilize more than 800 000 men and most of their aircraft are essentially unflyable. Not that I endorse anyone to attack Russia - they do have a large amount of nukes and missiles that are still very lethal.

aviationaware · Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:21 pm

YIMBY wrote:
They cannot mobilize more than 800 000 men and most of their aircraft are essentially unflyable.

Good description of the German forces.

bikerthai · Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:50 pm

So the question comes back to "Why would Germany need Stealth"? Any operation outside of it's border would most likely be with coalition partners with stealth capability. You spend your money to get the most bang for your bucks or at least to keep indigenous industry employed. While some outside your border may not like it, it is a strategy that is defensible.

But again, if the German government is incompetent, then I don't have much of an argument :cheeky:

bt

Planeflyer · Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:50 am

Buffer zones?

Since when have any buffer zones outside of the English Channel and the Swiss Alps provided any security in Europe?

Since when has the lack of immediate threats in Europe meant anything?

Europe is the most tricky security problem the world has ever seen. Out of seemingly nowhere Europeon wide wars have started that have killed 10’s of millions of people.

The last such event unified Western Europe via NATO. Now with the East trying to join the West, Russia finds itself in a vice between jihadists, China and Europe .

And given the past,Russia no doubt encouraged by China is taking measures that while understandable are very risky.

Germany and the West need to allow the East to come under the security blanket of NATO w/o boxing Russia into a corner that they must fight to escape.

Deterrence is required and stealth is a powerful measure of this. Nothing deters warmongers like the the threat of their strategic assets and even personal safety put in harms way.

tommy1808 · Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:45 am

Planeflyer wrote:
Buffer zones?

Since when have any buffer zones outside of the English Channel and the Swiss Alps provided any security in Europe?

Since when has the lack of immediate threats in Europe meant anything?.

Western Europe worked splendid as a buffer zone for the US all through the cold war. Just as Ukraine does today for western Europe.

Best regards
Thomas

mxaxai · Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:25 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Deterrence is required and stealth is a powerful measure of this. Nothing deters warmongers like the the threat of their strategic assets and even personal safety put in harms way.

The only russian assets threatened by the nuclear-sharing bombs are in Kaliningrad. And even that is just barely within range of F-35s (or other multi-role fighters) based in west Germany (assuming it's not a one-way trip). Their ferry range would allow them to get to Moscow and land there.

Which russian assets in the bright circle do you want to target?

WIederling · Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:31 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Germany and the West need to allow the East to come under the security blanket of NATO w/o boxing Russia into a corner that they must fight to escape.

Nix the allow, replace with forced and you have the reason for the current Cold War II rearing its ugly head.
( fully a product of deranged US minds.)

seahawk · Sat Feb 16, 2019 2:34 pm

aviationaware wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
They cannot mobilize more than 800 000 men and most of their aircraft are essentially unflyable.

Good description of the German forces.

No, for Germany it would mean "They cannot mobilize more than 8000 men and 96% of the aircraft are unflyable."

bikerthai · Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:12 pm

seahawk wrote:
No, for Germany it would mean "They cannot mobilize more than 8000 men and 96% of the aircraft are unflyable."

Seems to me the F-18 with a support contract to Boeing would be advantageous then. At least with Boeing maintaining the airplains, the frames would at least be combat ready. Availability of pilots would be a different issue :sly:

bt

bikerthai · Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:25 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Europe is the most tricky security problem the world has ever seen.

Right now the Middle East is the problem at hand. Europe (even with the war in Ukraine) is probably forth or fifth down the list.

Planeflyer wrote:
Nothing deters warmongers like the the threat of their strategic assets and even personal safety put in harms way.

Nothing deter warmongering more than knowing that you can not win a war. Since when does air power win a war? Russian invasion through Eastern Europe would be costly. The state of readiness of the German Arm Force is important but is not as important as the ability of Eastern European forces to slow down the Russians through conventional and non conventional means. Which as others have mentioned, the ability to support strike teams (partisans) behind enemy lines is just as important as a deep penetration strike by stealth fighters.

bt

tommy1808 · Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:28 pm

bikerthai wrote:
seahawk wrote:
No, for Germany it would mean "They cannot mobilize more than 8000 men and 96% of the aircraft are unflyable."

Seems to me the F-18 with a support contract to Boeing would be advantageous then. At least with Boeing maintaining the airplains, the frames would at least be combat ready. Availability of pilots would be a different issue

bt

I especially like it when the GAF shows up to to exercises with more aircraft than "flyable" as per reporting, while maintaining Baltic scramble at the same time....

Best regards
Thomas

tjh8402 · Sat Feb 16, 2019 5:39 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
Deterrence is required and stealth is a powerful measure of this. Nothing deters warmongers like the the threat of their strategic assets and even personal safety put in harms way.

The only russian assets threatened by the nuclear-sharing bombs are in Kaliningrad. And even that is just barely within range of F-35s (or other multi-role fighters) based in west Germany (assuming it's not a one-way trip). Their ferry range would allow them to get to Moscow and land there.

Which russian assets in the bright circle do you want to target?

Why would they only be in west Germany? From Berlin, the F-35s 625nm combat radius would allow it to cover not just all the Baltics, but the entire Russian border region with Estonia and Latvia. It also reaches almost to the Russian border in the Gulf of Finland, meaning the Russian Navy could also be held in jeopardy. This is all before you account for any additional range from the weapons themselves (a JSM/NSM could add another 100nm of reach). Include that 100nm and you now can cover St Petersburg as well as the entire Russian border with Belarus.

mxaxai · Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:20 pm

tjh8402 wrote:
Why would they only be in west Germany?

Basing nuclear weapons of any source in former east Germany would be in violation of the two-plus-four agreement (the one that defined the conditions for the reunification of Germany).*
Further, currently the Tornado only carries unguided B-61-3/4. Whichever future aircraft is chosen will carry the guided but unpropelled B-61-12. I'm not sure how easy it is, politically, to upgrade that to a cruise missile.

*Basing foreign troops in east Germany would also violate the treaty. So would Germany owning their own nuclear weapons. Poland can do whatever it wants, though.

(3) Following the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet armed forces from the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin, units of German armed forces assigned to military alliance structures in the same way as those in the rest of German territory may also be stationed in that part of Germany, but without nuclear weapon carriers. This does not apply to conventional weapon systems which may have other capabilities in addition to conventional ones but which in that part of Germany are equipped for a conventional role and designated only for such. Foreign armed forces and nuclear weapons or their carriers will not be stationed in that part of Germany or deployed there.

tjh8402 · Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:22 pm

mxaxai wrote:
tjh8402 wrote:
Why would they only be in west Germany?

Basing nuclear weapons of any source in former east Germany would be in violation of the two-plus-four agreement (the one that defined the conditions for the reunification of Germany).*
Further, currently the Tornado only carries unguided B-61-3/4. Whichever future aircraft is chosen will carry the guided but unpropelled B-61-12. I'm not sure how easy it is, politically, to upgrade that to a cruise missile.

*Basing foreign troops in east Germany would also violate the treaty. So would Germany owning their own nuclear weapons. Poland can do whatever it wants, though.

(3) Following the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet armed forces from the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin, units of German armed forces assigned to military alliance structures in the same way as those in the rest of German territory may also be stationed in that part of Germany, but without nuclear weapon carriers. This does not apply to conventional weapon systems which may have other capabilities in addition to conventional ones but which in that part of Germany are equipped for a conventional role and designated only for such. Foreign armed forces and nuclear weapons or their carriers will not be stationed in that part of Germany or deployed there.

Ah I missed the nuclear part. Thought we were talking about conventional weapons.

vr773 · Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:32 am

tommy1808 wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
seahawk wrote:
No, for Germany it would mean "They cannot mobilize more than 8000 men and 96% of the aircraft are unflyable."

Seems to me the F-18 with a support contract to Boeing would be advantageous then. At least with Boeing maintaining the airplains, the frames would at least be combat ready. Availability of pilots would be a different issue

bt

I especially like it when the GAF shows up to to exercises with more aircraft than "flyable" as per reporting, while maintaining Baltic scramble at the same time....

Best regards
Thomas

Yes, it's almost comical how some media reports and Germany-bashing users such as seahawk exaggerate, neglect context, and thereby twist the truth. Keep in mind for example that official readiness numbers reported by the Bundeswehr exclude systems that undergo planned, regular maintenance on any given day. I noticed that Der Spiegel especially has a tendency to pick the day that has the worst readiness to make their point but fail to mention daily fluctuation, non-use of systems due to maintenance, and, most importantly, the fact that in a real conflict the vast majority of system would be available even though they are reported as not 100% ready in times of peace.

Ozair · Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:29 pm

Some interesting thoughts comparing how the RAAF is transforming to the decisions Germany is making with respect to the Tornado replacement.

The Australian F-35 Decision and the German Tornado Replacement Decision

Having just returned from my latest trip to Germany to discuss the significant challenge facing Germany in shaping a credible force to provide for its direct defense and to contribute effectively to NATO’s overall collective defense, it is clear that for the near to mid term the Tornado replacement decision is a significant indicator of the way ahead.

The German government has committed itself to work with France to launch a long-term project to build a new air combat systems approach which will include a new fighter for the 2040s.

That is a long way off and will not contribute in the short to medium term to the deterrent challenges being faced now.

And that is not providing for a Tornado replacement.

For the Luftwaffe, there are two elements in play, which can provide for near to mid term ways to reshape its capabilities to provide for a credible effort.

On the one hand, the government is proposing to build a new Eurofighter which they have dubbed Tranche IV to replace the Tranche I Eurofighters.

If they wish to do this, the shortest path to do so is to build on the Luftwaffe’s relationship with the RAF and with British industry and its engagement in Eurofighter to adopt the British innovations which are shaping a new Typhoon for the force, one clearly being redesigned to fly with the F-35.

If the gap between the UK and Germany created by Brexit and selected EU conflicts with Britain can not be attenuated to allow for Germany to work with the UK, there will be no short path to providing for the German Eurofighters transformation into an advanced Typhoon.

On the other hand, the Tornado replacement is pressing and carries with it many key tasks essential to direct defense.

One such task is the nuclear mission to shaping effective air ground integration.

Another key task is to be able to integrate with Patriot and MEADS to deliver movable joint fires solutions for the protection of Germany and its to be rebuilt logistics sites.

The importance of this latter task is critical.

Germany has committed itself to be the logistical hub of NATO for the movement of force through Germany to the nations East and North of it for collective defense.

And doing so is a near to mid-term task, not a long range one.

Options which have been or are being considered are the F-35, the German Eurofighter (which does not yet have an AESA radar) and the Super Hornet.

In 2014, the RAAF faced a key replacement aircraft decision when it was looking to move beyond the Super Hornet to a fifth generation solution.

The thinking which shaped that decision is very relevant to Germany or even more relevant to Germany because it is the center of any Russian action against Europe in a way that is not what the Aussies face from China or North Korea.

I wrote the report for the Williams Foundation in 2015 when the RAAF discussed in a public forum the nature of the turning point and why they believed that a transition to the F-35 was essential, not just for the RAAF but for the entire transformation of the Australian Defence Force.

A key strategic thinker who retired as an Air Vice Marshal of the RAAF and has remained a key player in the transformation effort is John Blackburn.

I decided to interview Blackburn about that turning point and his thoughts about why the transition was critical for the RAAF.

In that interview, he identified three key reasons he thought the transition was critical.

First, he took me back to the presentation of the RAAF F-22 pilot who spoke at the 2014 seminar and he compared his experiences with Super Hornet to the F-22.

The core point which the pilot made was that the fifth generation air system allowed for proactive planning and operations, compared to the largely reactive situation he was in with regard to Super Hornet.

In that briefing, the experienced combat pilot underscored that from the pilot’s perspective the data fusion in the aircraft left the pilot free to manage the flow of information and to focus on mission tactics.

From the perspective of the mission commander, he now had the ability to forward plan and allocate resources pre-emptively and had a much greater ability to think and plan ahead of the current engagement.

Second, the force commander without a fifth generation aircraft would be limited against a significant peer competitor and the need to operate in contested airspace to operating in lower or mid threat levels.

This meant that a nation without direct access to fifth generation capability would need to rely on others to provide for the capability to degrade the forces of the adversary in a high threat area.

Clearly, if a nation was directly facing a peer competitor which was shaping area denial capabilities this meant that they would have to ensure that an ally with such capabilities would show up and lead the air operations.

“The challenge of working with coalition partners who really are not making the transition is that they risk becoming speed bumps in the way of fifth-generation airpower coalition engaging a peer competitor.”

Third, he argued that even though the first two points were significant, the most compelling one was that “if you are focused on platform replacement in these conditions, you are asking the wrong question.

“The right question is how your fifth generation asset would drive transformation of the entire force whilst also integrating legacy capabilities.”

Put in other words, the introduction of the F-35 into the ADF is driving overall force transformation, without which one would be looking for single force modernization rather than multi-domain transformation.

From this point of view, the F-35 is a multi-domain not a multi-mission aircraft.

“Without the F-35, we would not be doing our Plan Jericho for the air force, or the kind of significant force integration efforts which we are currently undergoing in Australia.”

However, an important point to emphasise here is that the transformation is about much more than just the 5th Gen platforms.

As Blackburn wrote in a recent article in the Australian Defence Magazine: the issue faced by the Australian Defence Force (ADF) today is that existing communications and information networks were not “designed” as an integrated system and do not appear to be a good foundation upon which to build the 5th Generation Force the ADF is acquiring.

Indeed, Blackburn came to Denmark in 2015 to co-host a conference on behalf of the Williams Foundation with the Copenhagen-based Centre for Military Studies.

And at that conference several European airpower leaders spoke and discussed how they viewed the airpower transition in Europe.

In his presentation to the conference, Blackburn focused on the transformation process, which had been launched driven in large part by the acquisition of the F-35.

And at that conference, Col. Anders Rex who is now chief of the Danish Air Force, highlighted the importance of coalition air operations for the Danish Air Force and for European collective defense.
Later as Chief of the Danish Air Force, with the F-35 decision behind them and with preparation for the coming of the F-35 to Denmark, he has made it clear why this is important for Denmark.

His comments in that interview highlighted a way ahead for European airpower transition.

The goal for our coalition and our alliance is to get the best out of what we have as a coalition force. During Red Flag, the experiences we have been briefed on, fifth-generation aircraft make fourth-generation more lethal and survivable, and more effective.

“We could focus on the significant kill ratios which a fifth-generation aircraft can deliver. But that is not the sole focus. It is about how fifth generation aircraft lift the whole force so that the kill ratio for the entire force goes up exponentially.”

He emphasized the importance of combat learning associated with the new aircraft.

“When we were running our competition for a new fighter aircraft, I witnessed the operation of a Super Hornet F-squadron on the USS Nimitz carrier off the coast of San Diego.

“This was the latest variant of the Super Hornet which had just received a new AESA radar on it.

“And when we talked to the pilots, they made the point that there was no way they could have thought up or analyzed what they can use this radar for. Every single day they learned new things.

“That is how I see the kind of learning we are going to have operating the F-35 and more broadly the kind of co-learning which other platforms in the air, ground and naval forces will need to have as well to leverage what a fifth generation enabled force can bring to the fight.”

In effect, what Major General Rex was discussing was the opening of a significant aperture of co-learning, for example, in Danish terms, how the frigates can use their future SM-2s and SM-6s in conjunction with the SA and targeting capabilities which the F-35 would bring to the Danish force.

“Co-learning across the forces and the F-35 to the legacy platforms is a major challenge but a task which we need to master to get where we need to go as a Danish force, but even more significantly at the coalition level.”

And working with coalition partners who are not going to buy the F-35, Major General Rex underscored that the challenge was then “how do we elevate the effectiveness of those coalition partners?

“We need to focus on the broad co-learning challenge and how to elevate the combat force as a whole as the F-35 becomes a key force for change.”

In short, it is not simply a shift from one platform to another, and in the Danish case the shift is from the F-16 to an F-35; it is about what Air Vice-Marshal (Retired) Blackburn highlighted about overall force transformation and a significant step change in overall capabilities for the force.

https://sldinfo.com/2019/02/the-austral ... -decision/

Planeflyer · Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:32 am

mxaxai wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
Deterrence is required and stealth is a powerful measure of this. Nothing deters warmongers like the the threat of their strategic assets and even personal safety put in harms way.

The only russian assets threatened by the nuclear-sharing bombs are in Kaliningrad. And even that is just barely within range of F-35s (or other multi-role fighters) based in west Germany (assuming it's not a one-way trip). Their ferry range would allow them to get to Moscow and land there.

Which russian assets in the bright circle do you want to target?

I’m not thinking about nuclear weapons and the F35 for deterrence. Stealth + precision weapons allows leader ship targets to be under threat from day 1.

It is rare that the people who start wars face direct consequences. This is changing.

Planeflyer · Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:15 am

bikerthai wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
Europe is the most tricky security problem the world has ever seen.

Right now the Middle East is the problem at hand. Europe (even with the war in Ukraine) is probably forth or fifth down the list.

Planeflyer wrote:
Nothing deters warmongers like the the threat of their strategic assets and even personal safety put in harms way.

Nothing deter warmongering more than knowing that you can not win a war. Since when does air power win a war? Russian invasion through Eastern Europe would be costly. The state of readiness of the German Arm Force is important but is not as important as the ability of Eastern European forces to slow down the Russians through conventional and non conventional means. Which as others have mentioned, the ability to support strike teams (partisans) behind enemy lines is just as important as a deep penetration strike by stealth fighters.

bt

Yes, today the Mideast is where all the focus is but the point is wars have started in Europe many times. From seemingly nowhere.

As an example of how things can change quickly suppose recent demographic trend continue for another 20 years? What impact will this have on individual NATO members? Will NATO look the same?

As for 5 th gen providing deterrence, since you brought up the Russians do you think they might be deterred doing in Poland what they are doing in the Ukraine knowing there forces have no air cover and that an air power they employ will be lost immediately?

I’m sure some in Germany have asked why they are investing in 4 th gen AC when one of their traditional adversaries is investing in 5 th gen.

Planeflyer · Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:58 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
Buffer zones?

Since when have any buffer zones outside of the English Channel and the Swiss Alps provided any security in Europe?

Since when has the lack of immediate threats in Europe meant anything?.

Western Europe worked splendid as a buffer zone for the US all through the cold war. Just as Ukraine does today for western Europe.

Best regards
Thomas

How could Western Europe have been a buffer zone when US troops were stationed right across the border from Soviet Forces?

tommy1808 · Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:51 am

Planeflyer wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
Buffer zones?

Since when have any buffer zones outside of the English Channel and the Swiss Alps provided any security in Europe?

Since when has the lack of immediate threats in Europe meant anything?.

Western Europe worked splendid as a buffer zone for the US all through the cold war. Just as Ukraine does today for western Europe.

Best regards
Thomas

How could Western Europe have been a buffer zone when US troops were stationed right across the border from Soviet Forces?

The US didn´t intend to wait until the USSR has taken Western Europe and keep its ground forces in reserve to repel a landing force down the road, they wanted to fight and win the war in Europe, which is what makes a buffer zone a buffer zone. A place to fight before it is your own territory. France had short range nuclear weapons that could only hit western Germany, because Germany was their buffer zone. Why nuke you own territory if you can nuke enemy forces before getting there, but outside of your enemies territory. ...... to lower the risk of nuklear retaliation.

best regards
Thomas

seahawk · Mon Feb 18, 2019 6:32 am

Ozair wrote:
Some interesting thoughts comparing how the RAAF is transforming to the decisions Germany is making with respect to the Tornado replacement.

The Australian F-35 Decision and the German Tornado Replacement Decision

https://sldinfo.com/2019/02/the-austral ... -decision/

The author misses one basic point, Germany does not buy fighters to actually use them. There is neither will nor intention to do so.

Germany buys fighters to

1. pacify allies who are unhappy with the little money Germany contributes to defence
2. support Airbus and MTU as well as smaller German firms
3. protect jobs in Germany
4. make the partnership with the French work

Capability is of no concern to them.

keesje · Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:03 am

seahawk wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Some interesting thoughts comparing how the RAAF is transforming to the decisions Germany is making with respect to the Tornado replacement.

The Australian F-35 Decision and the German Tornado Replacement Decision

https://sldinfo.com/2019/02/the-austral ... -decision/

The author misses one basic point, Germany does not buy fighters to actually use them. There is neither will nor intention to do so.

Germany buys fighters to

1. pacify allies who are unhappy with the little money Germany contributes to defence
2. support Airbus and MTU as well as smaller German firms
3. protect jobs in Germany
4. make the partnership with the French work

Capability is of no concern to them.

Nonsense. But there is a category of people that find defense spending too low per definition. Not knowing how much is actually spend on defense, in balancing it against e.g. healthcare, education and foreign aid. Just MORE awesome weapons.

seahawk · Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:42 am

Imho in that case it is sadly true.

The F-35 was ruled out due to the fact that it would make the FCAS project kind of pointless.
The F-18 is included to make the USA happy.
The Eurofighter is preferred because it helps the industry.

The whole new fighter deal is imho badly handled. In the civilian sector any government entity would be forced to write down the requirements and then to hold an open tendering process and selected the bidder that offers the best value based on predefined criteria. Kind of like the heavy lift helicopter tender is run.

bikerthai · Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:49 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Yes, today the Mideast is where all the focus is but the point is wars have started in Europe many times. From seemingly nowhere.

The two WW's did not seem to come from nowhere. History has shown that there was much tension prior to each of the war. What trigger the initial shooting was irrelevant, Germany invaded France both time because they thought France and England was weak and that German can win the war or at least obtains some land concession before both England and France would be tired of the war and sue for peace. In both cases, they did not foresee the United States entering the war and providing the needed manpower and supplies to win by attrition.

The war in the Ukraine was base on the same principle. My guess was that the Russian only wanted to take enough land to reach Crimea and then settle down with a stale mate. They got only half of what they wanted as they could not get enough "non-Russian Ukrainian" to go over to their side. Now imagine if they try to do that with Poland. There would be no local partisan to support their cause. Would they think they can win in such a war of attrition?

Planeflyer wrote:
How could Western Europe have been a buffer zone when US troops were stationed right across the border from Soviet Forces?

.

During the cold war, the US troops stationed at the border was not sufficient to stop a Russian invasion. They were only meant to slow the invading force long enough so that reinforcement from the UK and US (and perhaps non-NATO France) can mobilize to stop the force (REFORGER). So Germany was the buffer zone.

So strategically thinking, if Germany was to make sure that the Russian army does not get to it's border, then they should invest in their arm forces. But they should also invest economically in Poland, Ukraine and other Baltic States. If those buffer countries becomes strong economically, they would better resist a Russian incursion (politically and militarily).

What if Germany take those F-18's and when the new fighters come along, they can "donate" those F-18's to the Poland? Now that would kill two birds with one stone :mischievous:

bt

tommy1808 · Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:04 pm

bikerthai wrote:
They were only meant to slow the invading force long enough so that reinforcement from the UK and US (and perhaps non-NATO France) can mobilize to stop the force (REFORGER)

much of them where just here to die, to make sure the US public is committed to NATO. Just like now in the Baltics.

So Germany was the buffer zone.

Wich we where obviously not very happy with, as NATO didn´t really expect to stop the USSR before getting to the Rhine.

best regards
Thomas

FW200 · Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:40 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Germany invaded France both time because they thought France and England was weak and that German can win the war or at least obtains some land concession before both England and France would be tired of the war and sue for peace. In both cases, they did not foresee the United States entering the war and providing the needed manpower and supplies to win by attrition.

That's nonsense. Germany invaded France in 1914, because France had a military alliance with Russia (since 1892) and Russia had mobilized its whole army on July 29, 1914 against Germany and Austria-Hungary after French president Poincaré having held a conference with the Russian government in St. Petersburg from July 13 to July 23.
And nobody in Germany considered France and the United Kingdom to be "weak", neither in 1914 nor in 1939. In 1914 the French army was as large as the German army, although France had only 40 million inhabitants and Germany 60 million. The German army on the western front was inferior in numbers to the French and British armies. And in addition to that the Russian army (the largest in the world) was preparing for invasion on the eastern borders of Germany. It's pretty obvious looking at the strength of the respective armies that a defense against Russia, France and the UK in a long war simply wasn't possible. So the only possible solution for a successful outcome of the war for Germany would be to try to defeat the Anglo-French armies on the western front, before the Russians were ready to invade from the east. As for the British: everybody in Germany was aware that the UK had the largest and most powerful navy in the world and that the British Empire was one of the largest powers on the globe and that the given situation in August 1914 with the British Empire on the side of the hostile powers was very, very serious.
And for 1940: Germany invaded France in the first place, because France had declared war on Germany together with the British Empire on September 3rd, 1939 and time was working for the western powers and against Germany in armament (and they got every support possible from the US, while Germany was on its own). And nobody in Germany considered France and GB to be "weak". Their armies on the western front were superior to the German army in numbers (the French army was considered to be the most powerful in Europe before May 10th, 1940) and in every category of weapons (tanks, artillery, aircraft, navies).
.

bikerthai wrote:
Now imagine if they try to do that with Poland. There would be no local partisan to support their cause. Would they think they can win in such a war of attrition?

Taking a look on the map might be helpful. How could they "do that with Poland", when Russia and Poland have no common border other than that of the northern part of the former East-Prussia. Interesting fact here: Gorbachev offered to give that territory back to Germany in 1990/91 in exchange for 40 billion DM (20 billion Euros). The West-German puppet-regime was not allowed to make this deal.

bikerthai wrote:
So strategically thinking, if Germany was to make sure that the Russian army does not get to it's border, then they should invest in their arm forces. But they should also invest economically in Poland, Ukraine and other Baltic States. If those buffer countries becomes strong economically, they would better resist a Russian incursion (politically and militarily).

What if Germany take those F-18's and when the new fighters come along, they can "donate" those F-18's to the Poland? Now that would kill two birds with one stone

Great idea: building up Polish military strength and making Germany pay for it. Given the amount of German debt as well as loans and bail-outs for the junk-currency €uro that's exactly what Germany needs to do next.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net