Nicoeddf
Posts: 799
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:46 pm

WIederling wrote:
keesje wrote:
The RAF selected their nearly retired Tornado's for the job.


don't risk expensive stuff that you would like to continue using.


Or take all the life out of your assets. Seems like a wise decision.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 799
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:49 pm

Dutchy wrote:
WIederling wrote:
keesje wrote:
The RAF selected their nearly retired Tornado's for the job.


don't risk expensive stuff that you would like to continue using.


Bullshit reason. Not even a funny comment.


Thanks for your reply about stealth.

I wonder however, why your replies are sometimes so unnecessary harsh when you don't agree with something like in the above quoted case. Is sharing opinions only ok if you tend to agree?
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10931
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:54 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
WIederling wrote:

don't risk expensive stuff that you would like to continue using.


Bullshit reason. Not even a funny comment.


Thanks for your reply about stealth.

I wonder however, why your replies are sometimes so unnecessary harsh when you don't agree with something like in the above quoted case. Is sharing opinions only ok if you tend to agree?


This attack is dead serious, people are murdered, a retaliation is launched to prevent it happening again, potentially killing more (innocent) people and risking pilots lives, but possibly also escalating the conflict (russia), triggering retaliations. The write-off value of a few fighter aircraft is the least concern of the decision makers. This isn't a game, it's for real.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Ozair
Posts: 2368
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:00 am

Nicoeddf wrote:
Serious question as I have no clue about it: Realistically, what would it take to significantly, as in it actually matters in combat, reduce RCS for any conventional design?
I know that starting green field would be optimal as it ensures a fully integrated stealth approach.
But what can be achieved without compromising effectivity/flyability of the design?

Technically it is possible and several airframes have gone through similar treatments. For example the USAF F-16 fleet has gone through a number of RCS reduction measures typically captured by the Have Glass program. Info is below.

Have Glass consists of two efforts to reduce the RCS. Have Glass I adds an indium-tin-oxide layer to the gold tinted cockpit canopy. This is reflective to radar frequencies but actually reduces the plane's visibility to radar. An ordinary canopy would let radar signals straight through where they would strike the many edges and corners inside and bounce back strongly to the source, the reflective layer dissipates these signals instead. Have Glass II includes the Pacer Mud radar signature reduction and the Pacer Gem infrared signature reduction. Pacer Mud applies RAM coating to the forward and side facing areas of the F-16. These materials comprise ferromagnetic particles, embedded in a high-dielectric-constant polymer base. The dielectric material slows down the wave and the ferromagnetic particles absorb the energy. These coatings are also designed in a way that the small reflection from the front face of the absorber is cancelled by a residual reflection from the structure beneath it. For the application of this paint robots will be used, like the CASPER (Computer Aided Spray Paint Expelling Robot) system used for F-22 and the Have Glass II program used for painting 1,700 F-16s with RAM. Robots are essential because they can reach confined areas, as the inlet ducts, and can work without stepping on the aircraft. Pacer Mud processed aircraft can be recognised by their metallic like and shiny paintwork.

http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Lockh ... Have_Glass

So how much of a difference did the above modifications make to the RCS of the F-16? Not sure we will get an accurate answer but clearly the effort was worth it given how extensive the upgrade was to the whole fleet, and export customers.

If we look at newer airframes, such as the Eurocanards and the SH, they reportedly have clean RCS figures between 0.1 and 1 m2. I would say most of the low-hanging fruit of RCS reductions is already done and any effort to significantly impact the RCS, to achieve an order of magnitude reduction, would be a very costly exercise. As Duchy says, the RCS of these airframe sis always impacted by the carriage of external payloads so an attempt to further reduce this is probably fruitless. Boeing proposed the stealthy weapons pod for the SH for this purpose but that again will only lower the potential RCS so far compared to an internal payload.

Nicoeddf wrote:
E.g. could be non-load bearing fuselage panels be added to alter geometry?
Technical doability is more my interest, not so much cost-effectivity.

The F-16 RCS reduction apparently added approximately 100kg of RAM weigh to the empty aircraft so not a lot in the grand scheme but adding panels or other significant treatments would see increases that would directly impact performance, all in airframes that typically retain external payloads.

Additionally, adding non load bearing panels to alter the geometry of an in service design is likely to significantly impact the performance or the controllability of the jet. It would at the very least require a significant flight test program to validate the changes, especially when considering a fighter jet and the flight envelope it operates across. Boeing proposed changes to the F-15 in the form of the Silent Eagle, including changing the vertical stabilizers from vertical to canted, but no-one actually took Boeing up on the offer. Again potentially a meaningful enough change to significantly impact the RCS of the F-15 (which reportedly isn’t small) but I’d say the lack of a customer was because the cost of the certification program required to re-validate the flight envelope.

IMO for existing 4th gen designs the money would be better spent in upgrading EW systems or long range weapons and sensors to defeat the threat, given they have already hit the easy gains for RCS reduction.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 799
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:59 am

keesje wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Bullshit reason. Not even a funny comment.


Thanks for your reply about stealth.

I wonder however, why your replies are sometimes so unnecessary harsh when you don't agree with something like in the above quoted case. Is sharing opinions only ok if you tend to agree?


This attack is dead serious, people are murdered, a retaliation is launched to prevent it happening again, potentially killing more (innocent) people and risking pilots lives, but possibly also escalating the conflict (russia), triggering retaliations. The write-off value of a few fighter aircraft is the least concern of the decision makers. This isn't a game, it's for real.


Are Keesje und Dutchy the same person?

And you miss the point, as did your alter ego.
It is not about using written off equipment instead of not doing a deadly attack. The question was why the Tornado, not other assets. And in that environment it is definitely a valid concern to use the remaining life of a phased out fleet.
We are not talking morale.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 799
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:06 am

[quote="Ozair"][/quote]

Many thanks for taking the time to explain that to me - much appreciated. :)
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6400
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:30 am

keesje wrote:
I think last nights missions in Syria were typical for the requirement the Luftwaffe will have. Range, speed, two man cockpit and stand off weapons.

The RAF selected their nearly retired Tornado's for the job and France two seat Rafales from french bases both firing Storm Shadow missiles.

https://twitter.com/Elysee/status/984984444623781888

Futhermore Cruise Missiles were fired from B1's and US and French frigattes (MdCN first?) in the Mediterranean.


The RAF selected the Tornado simply because it is the only aircraft certified to carry Storm Shadow at the moment.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5221
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:42 am

Nicoeddf wrote:
keesje wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:

Thanks for your reply about stealth.

I wonder however, why your replies are sometimes so unnecessary harsh when you don't agree with something like in the above quoted case. Is sharing opinions only ok if you tend to agree?


This attack is dead serious, people are murdered, a retaliation is launched to prevent it happening again, potentially killing more (innocent) people and risking pilots lives, but possibly also escalating the conflict (russia), triggering retaliations. The write-off value of a few fighter aircraft is the least concern of the decision makers. This isn't a game, it's for real.


Are Keesje und Dutchy the same person?

And you miss the point, as did your alter ego.
It is not about using written off equipment instead of not doing a deadly attack. The question was why the Tornado, not other assets. And in that environment it is definitely a valid concern to use the remaining life of a phased out fleet.
We are not talking morale.


Haha, must I dignify this with an answer, com'on.

It is a question of moral. What WIederling is implying that the Tornado is expendable and thus the crew is also expandable. That the RAF staff made a decision on the basis of what craft is ok to be shot down and not what is the best system to use in this specific circumstances with the best survivability for the crew. And that's why I call it a bullshit reason and I am being quite mild with this assessment.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 799
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:48 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
keesje wrote:

This attack is dead serious, people are murdered, a retaliation is launched to prevent it happening again, potentially killing more (innocent) people and risking pilots lives, but possibly also escalating the conflict (russia), triggering retaliations. The write-off value of a few fighter aircraft is the least concern of the decision makers. This isn't a game, it's for real.


Are Keesje und Dutchy the same person?

And you miss the point, as did your alter ego.
It is not about using written off equipment instead of not doing a deadly attack. The question was why the Tornado, not other assets. And in that environment it is definitely a valid concern to use the remaining life of a phased out fleet.
We are not talking morale.


Haha, must I dignify this with an answer, com'on.

It is a question of moral. What WIederling is implying that the Tornado is expendable and thus the crew is also expandable. That the RAF staff made a decision on the basis of what craft is ok to be shot down and not what is the best system to use in this specific circumstances with the best survivability for the crew. And that's why I call it a bullshit reason and I am being quite mild with this assessment.


It is a bit exhausting to discuss with you, as you fail to accept that your viewpoint isn't the only valid or even possible one. You need not to agree, but calling everything bullshit...not sure.

Military equipment is by definition expendable. And so is the crew. That's the deal if you sign into military.
Hence, it is a totally valid assumption that militaries don't risk their most expensive equipment (and crew) for low value targets.
Is that always moral? No, but warfare isn't moral most of the time.
*shrug*
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5221
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:36 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:

Are Keesje und Dutchy the same person?

And you miss the point, as did your alter ego.
It is not about using written off equipment instead of not doing a deadly attack. The question was why the Tornado, not other assets. And in that environment it is definitely a valid concern to use the remaining life of a phased out fleet.
We are not talking morale.


Haha, must I dignify this with an answer, com'on.

It is a question of moral. What WIederling is implying that the Tornado is expendable and thus the crew is also expandable. That the RAF staff made a decision on the basis of what craft is ok to be shot down and not what is the best system to use in this specific circumstances with the best survivability for the crew. And that's why I call it a bullshit reason and I am being quite mild with this assessment.


It is a bit exhausting to discuss with you, as you fail to accept that your viewpoint isn't the only valid or even possible one. You need not to agree, but calling everything bullshit...not sure.

Military equipment is by definition expendable. And so is the crew. That's the deal if you sign into military.
Hence, it is a totally valid assumption that militaries don't risk their most expensive equipment (and crew) for low value targets.
Is that always moral? No, but warfare isn't moral most of the time.
*shrug*


Only explain my point of view, you don't have to agree with it. And I think my point of view is also the point of view whomever selected the Tornado to do this job. If you think otherwise, that is fine, I am not here to convince you.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
mxaxai
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:12 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:

Are Keesje und Dutchy the same person?

And you miss the point, as did your alter ego.
It is not about using written off equipment instead of not doing a deadly attack. The question was why the Tornado, not other assets. And in that environment it is definitely a valid concern to use the remaining life of a phased out fleet.
We are not talking morale.


Haha, must I dignify this with an answer, com'on.

It is a question of moral. What WIederling is implying that the Tornado is expendable and thus the crew is also expandable. That the RAF staff made a decision on the basis of what craft is ok to be shot down and not what is the best system to use in this specific circumstances with the best survivability for the crew. And that's why I call it a bullshit reason and I am being quite mild with this assessment.


It is a bit exhausting to discuss with you, as you fail to accept that your viewpoint isn't the only valid or even possible one. You need not to agree, but calling everything bullshit...not sure.

Military equipment is by definition expendable. And so is the crew. That's the deal if you sign into military.
Hence, it is a totally valid assumption that militaries don't risk their most expensive equipment (and crew) for low value targets.
Is that always moral? No, but warfare isn't moral most of the time.
*shrug*

TBH a loss of an aircraft or, worse, its crew would have been a major loss of face in this conflict. The political gain of launching some 100 missiles (on pre-warned targets) would have been entirely lost. Additionally, the cost of training a single pilot exceeds $11 million (and the Tornado has 2), a price too high to pay even if a life by itself means nothing. Therefore I conclude that at least one of these reasons applied:
A) The likelyhood of encountering a threat to the aircraft was low, to the point where the choice of aircraft had no influence on it
B) More advanced aircraft were not available for the task
 
WIederling
Posts: 5904
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:37 pm

Dutchy wrote:
And that's why I call it a bullshit reason and I am being quite mild with this assessment.


DIY bullshit?

Getting an old geezer like the Tornado shotdown doesn't look too bad.
Getting a fresh toy like the Taifune nixed looks real bad.
Especially if the whole attack was the dynamic equivalent of a Potemkin facade.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 799
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:48 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Haha, must I dignify this with an answer, com'on.

It is a question of moral. What WIederling is implying that the Tornado is expendable and thus the crew is also expandable. That the RAF staff made a decision on the basis of what craft is ok to be shot down and not what is the best system to use in this specific circumstances with the best survivability for the crew. And that's why I call it a bullshit reason and I am being quite mild with this assessment.


It is a bit exhausting to discuss with you, as you fail to accept that your viewpoint isn't the only valid or even possible one. You need not to agree, but calling everything bullshit...not sure.

Military equipment is by definition expendable. And so is the crew. That's the deal if you sign into military.
Hence, it is a totally valid assumption that militaries don't risk their most expensive equipment (and crew) for low value targets.
Is that always moral? No, but warfare isn't moral most of the time.
*shrug*

TBH a loss of an aircraft or, worse, its crew would have been a major loss of face in this conflict. The political gain of launching some 100 missiles (on pre-warned targets) would have been entirely lost. Additionally, the cost of training a single pilot exceeds $11 million (and the Tornado has 2), a price too high to pay even if a life by itself means nothing. Therefore I conclude that at least one of these reasons applied:
A) The likelyhood of encountering a threat to the aircraft was low, to the point where the choice of aircraft had no influence on it
B) More advanced aircraft were not available for the task


Oh, I fully agree. Hence, because of A) my feeling that it actually is a very good idea to use life of a soon to be retired fleet rather than anything fancy.
And apparently, with Storm Shadow the weapon of choice, no other delivery option was available anyway.

And still, crews and planes are expendable, as pretty much proven by the report of losses by A/C and theatre provided by Ozair above. It is part of the deal.

Anyway, for this PR show no resistance was expected, no risks involved.
I was just in the mood to tell Kutchy that he is unable to see that different perspectives exist beyond his own. Not sure why, boredom surely.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5221
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:16 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:
I was just in the mood to tell Kutchy that he is unable to see that different perspectives exist beyond his own. Not sure why, boredom surely.


You sure bored the crap out of me ;-)
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:27 am

If you think the attack was a PR stunt then by definition, it was immoral.

If on the other hand you think the attack was intended to deter future uses of chemical weapons then you would want to make sure all the crews returned safely. Deterrence of chemical weapons is a moral act so you want to do everything possible to ensure that the participants survived.

But the actions against Syria is not why Germany is considering new AC. The existing Tornados were to defend and deter Germany and NATO from aggression. Any new AC could only be justified for the same purpose. As I said upstream, the best argument against the new AC is that the mission is no longer necessary.

But if it is, Germany’s best interest is served by an AC that will complete as many sorties as possible because in a worst case scenario many will be required in an environment much more highly contested than was encountered on this mission.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6400
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:56 am

The best solution for Germany is to retire the Tornadoes and buy no replacement. The money can be spent on much more useful things in the society.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 799
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:28 am

Dutchy wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
I was just in the mood to tell Kutchy that he is unable to see that different perspectives exist beyond his own. Not sure why, boredom surely.


You sure bored the crap out of me ;-)


Don't worry, I bored the crap out of us both. But to be fair I couldn't possibly have known that the decision makers of the UK did consult your expertise before striking. What's next: Asking Spyhunter for strategic advise?
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 799
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:30 am

seahawk wrote:
The best solution for Germany is to retire the Tornadoes and buy no replacement. The money can be spent on much more useful things in the society.


As if a couple of billions would make any difference for Germany. Money is not scarce here...
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5221
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:33 am

Nicoeddf wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
I was just in the mood to tell Kutchy that he is unable to see that different perspectives exist beyond his own. Not sure why, boredom surely.


You sure bored the crap out of me ;-)


Don't worry, I bored the crap out of us both. But to be fair I couldn't possibly have known that the decision makers of the UK did consult your expertise before striking. What's next: Asking Spyhunter for strategic advise?


Oh snap, I don't know how to react to that, you have got me :lol:
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6400
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:37 am

Tell that to anybody living from ALG2 .
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11242
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:22 am

Planeflyer wrote:
If you think the attack was a PR stunt then by definition, it was immoral.

If on the other hand you think the attack was intended to deter future uses of chemical weapons then you would want to make sure all the crews returned safely. Deterrence of chemical weapons is a moral act so you want to do everything possible to ensure that the participants survived.



The attack was a propaganda stunt pure and simple, as you said this is immoral. Nobody knows who used the chemical weapons, but it is becoming pretty clear it wasn't Assad, a lot of the western media are now calling there respective govts out on this.
 
WIederling
Posts: 5904
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:34 am

Kiwirob wrote:
The attack was a propaganda stunt pure and simple, as you said this is immoral. Nobody knows who used the chemical weapons, but it is becoming pretty clear it wasn't Assad, a lot of the western media are now calling there respective govts out on this.


They never wake up before the porcelain has been soundly trashed.
German news outlets ( Tagesthemen last night, newpaper SH:Z this morning ) are still in
Assad the Animal and think about the children mode. If you follow their lead
Assad and Putin must have an infant each for breakfast. Every day of the week.
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 5904
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:44 am

seahawk wrote:
The best solution for Germany is to retire the Tornadoes and buy no replacement. The money can be spent on much more useful things in the society.


The shrinking of the Mil budget has been completely sucked up by "Sozialausgaben" i.e direct alimentation of a largish group in society. .Going for a bit of Sakrileg: The GDR's "right to work" was a better solution to the problem than West Germanies "right to alimentation".
Murphy is an optimist
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:41 am

WIederling wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
And that's why I call it a bullshit reason and I am being quite mild with this assessment.


DIY bullshit?

Getting an old geezer like the Tornado shotdown doesn't look too bad.
Getting a fresh toy like the Taifune nixed looks real bad.
Especially if the whole attack was the dynamic equivalent of a Potemkin facade.

For Direktbetroffene who are really qualified to judge the attack, it was not a Potemkin facade:
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/20 ... ump-nr.cnn
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/14/poli ... index.html
Many lack the full picture imo. The crimes against humanity done with the conventional Syrian air force have not been mentioned often before.

Kiwirob wrote:
Nobody knows who used the chemical weapons, but it is becoming pretty clear it wasn't Assad

Maybe somebody else used them, but what counts is that the capabilities to produce and distribute these weapons have been damaged. It is simply not credible imo, that beside Assad somebody else has all the infrastructure to run chemical weapon operations in the country.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5221
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:08 am

Kiwirob wrote:
[The attack was a propaganda stunt pure and simple, as you said this is immoral. Nobody knows who used the chemical weapons, but it is becoming pretty clear it wasn't Assad, a lot of the western media are now calling there respective govts out on this.


Rob, enlighten us please, why has it become pretty clear it wasn't Assad while you say, rightfully so, that nobody knows for sure?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10931
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:02 am

It was barrels with chemicals dropped from a high flying helicopters.
This has been increasingly used by the Syrian Army over the last two years.
Last week was a real bad one. Or effective, depending on which site you stand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrian_Civil_War_barrel_bomb_attacks
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11242
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:50 am

Dutchy wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
[The attack was a propaganda stunt pure and simple, as you said this is immoral. Nobody knows who used the chemical weapons, but it is becoming pretty clear it wasn't Assad, a lot of the western media are now calling there respective govts out on this.


Rob, enlighten us please, why has it become pretty clear it wasn't Assad while you say, rightfully so, that nobody knows for sure?


Why would they need to? The govt forces have all but won the civil war, using chemical weapons at this point would be counter productive, all it would do is prolong the fighting, I can't see the govt wanting to do that. The only people a chemical attack would benefit are the (nearly defeated) opposition groups, it prolongs the war and gets them more headlines in the West which people like you lap up.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11242
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Apr 18, 2018 9:51 am

keesje wrote:
It was barrels with chemicals dropped from a high flying helicopters.
This has been increasingly used by the Syrian Army over the last two years.
Last week was a real bad one. Or effective, depending on which site you stand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrian_Civil_War_barrel_bomb_attacks


Jesus if that's all you can use as proof is a Wikipedia article you should quit this forum ASAP.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 5221
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:16 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
[The attack was a propaganda stunt pure and simple, as you said this is immoral. Nobody knows who used the chemical weapons, but it is becoming pretty clear it wasn't Assad, a lot of the western media are now calling there respective govts out on this.


Rob, enlighten us please, why has it become pretty clear it wasn't Assad while you say, rightfully so, that nobody knows for sure?


Why would they need to? The govt forces have all but won the civil war, using chemical weapons at this point would be counter productive, all it would do is prolong the fighting, I can't see the govt wanting to do that. The only people a chemical attack would benefit are the (nearly defeated) opposition groups, it prolongs the war and gets them more headlines in the West which people like you lap up.


Alright, thanks for the clarification: "pretty clear" is your interpretation. So it means nothing.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10931
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:01 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
keesje wrote:
It was barrels with chemicals dropped from a high flying helicopters.
This has been increasingly used by the Syrian Army over the last two years.
Last week was a real bad one. Or effective, depending on which site you stand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrian_Civil_War_barrel_bomb_attacks


Jesus if that's all you can use as proof is a Wikipedia article you should quit this forum ASAP.


Kiwirob, I think you are totally out of line here. Apparently you didn't even check the dozens of international sources/links on the bottom of the page. Hundreds reports over the last 4 years including BBC, The Washington Times, ABC News, CNN, The Jerusalem Post., Aljazeera.com, The Times, Associated Press? The blunt dial must be strong.

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/Comment/2018/2/28/Obscuring-Assads-genocide-in-Syria

The Assad regime is guilty as hell, the international community is hampered by the lack of good alternatives, the battle on Isis and the risks of further hurting the local populations. Who are you hurting bombing a bridge, railway or chemical industry.. We are housing hundreds of thousands refugee families already.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:56 pm

Comments from a US commander regards 5th gen AC in contested environments:

Thanks to its unique fifth-generation capabilities, the F-22 was the only airframe suited to operate inside the Syrian integrated air defense systems, offering an option with which to neutralize [Integrated Air Defense System] threats to our forces and installations in the

region, and provide protective air support for U.S., coalition and partners on the ground in Syria," Graff said.

link to complete article:

https://www.military.com/defensetech/20 ... ssion.html
 
estorilm
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:21 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Comments from a US commander regards 5th gen AC in contested environments:

Thanks to its unique fifth-generation capabilities, the F-22 was the only airframe suited to operate inside the Syrian integrated air defense systems, offering an option with which to neutralize [Integrated Air Defense System] threats to our forces and installations in the

region, and provide protective air support for U.S., coalition and partners on the ground in Syria," Graff said.

link to complete article:

https://www.military.com/defensetech/20 ... ssion.html

Very interesting! Nice to see the Raptor in action, especially in hostile territory / defended airspace.

What "ground support" role was it really providing though? :?
 
WIederling
Posts: 5904
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:24 pm

keesje wrote:


barrel bombs are a poor mans BLU* thingies.
nice tacky alliteration ( like those dumb playing cards with invented cuss names for
select iraqi persons ) but that about is it in the "being special" domain.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:21 pm

Good question, other than to provide recon and top cover I have no idea how an F22 could support ground forces.

Chemical weapons have been said to be a poor man's nukes. Does that make the use of them moral? I think the whole point of the attack has been to send a message that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.

The Assad's have history of using chemcial weapns to intimidate the Syrian populace.
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1681
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:24 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Good question, other than to provide recon and top cover I have no idea how an F22 could support ground forces.


How about with GBU-32 JDAM or GBU-39 SDB ? The F-22 is not a dedicated GS aircraft, but a couple of well placed 1,000 lb JDAM could be very supportive.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 835
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:39 pm

Good info, forgot about the ground attack capabilities.
 
columba
Topic Author
Posts: 5146
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:28 am

Maybe they could offer this to Germany as well, sounds interesting:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japa ... SKBN1HR0MM
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos