angad84 wrote:

Agree to disagree on the ARM issue. LO/VLO is a survivability enhancer, it does not automagically confer blanket survivability, especially against a serious IADS. They're not chasing range extensions on ARM because they're bored, you know.

angad84 wrote:

Fair point on the EW capability, I let my mental comparisons of 'F-35 vs X' run away a bit! Not sure what sort of dedicated jamming (even podded) the ECR has to be honest. I guess it'll boil down to – is the Luftwaffe willing to lose a specific weapons/tactics capability to perform the ECR mission, or would they prefer a more broadly analogous replacement. My guess is the latter, but it'll depend on what inputs go into the decision process (and no, those inputs are not necessarily tactical!).

Ozair wrote:

angad84 wrote:

Agree to disagree on the ARM issue. LO/VLO is a survivability enhancer, it does not automagically confer blanket survivability, especially against a serious IADS. They're not chasing range extensions on ARM because they're bored, you know.

I’d say that range extensions for ARMs make the case for 4th gen investment to be leveraged a while longer as with the continued range expansion of threat systems, both of which 5th gen VLO negates.

angad84 wrote:

Fair point on the EW capability, I let my mental comparisons of 'F-35 vs X' run away a bit! Not sure what sort of dedicated jamming (even podded) the ECR has to be honest. I guess it'll boil down to – is the Luftwaffe willing to lose a specific weapons/tactics capability to perform the ECR mission, or would they prefer a more broadly analogous replacement. My guess is the latter, but it'll depend on what inputs go into the decision process (and no, those inputs are not necessarily tactical!).

I’d say what the German Air Force may miss from a retirement of the Tornado ECR is the recce component more than any SEAD capability. At the moment I’m not aware of any specific visual recce pod work for the F-35 although the Terma Multi-mission pod would be an excellent candidate to house such a system.

angad84 wrote:

1. Then why are they bothering with AARGM-ER on F-35?

angad84 wrote:

2. Yep, good point. I was told at RIAT last year that the UK plan to replace Tornado with Typhoon involves using a Litening or similar pod, as there are no plans to qualify a dedicated recce pod (I believe it was Raptor on the Tonka?). It was openly acknowledged as a less than ideal solution, but P3E seems a more overall strike oriented update than a 1:1 capability replication of Tornado.

keesje wrote:

Airbus plans the Future Combat Air System (Interview Dirk Hoke)

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/airbus-plans-future-combat-air-system-interview-dirk-hoke-eckert

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

Airbus plans the Future Combat Air System (Interview Dirk Hoke)

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/airbus-plans-future-combat-air-system-interview-dirk-hoke-eckert

Unfortunately there is nothing in there we don't already know. What we can derive from the interview though is that any joint FCAS program between France and Germany is still nothing more than a concept and a political agreement to look at the potential of.

vr773 wrote:

[We learn that FCAS is intended to replace the capabilities currently provided by Tornado and Eurofighter. And we learn that Hoke proposed a Eurofighter upgrade (and not the current version) to replace the Tornado as a stop-gap measure.

Our proposal is to develop the Eurofighter further so that it can replace the Tornado in the medium term. Such a project would secure thousands of jobs in southern Germany and elsewhere, not only for the major aerospace companies but also for a lot of suppliers as well. [...] Eurofighter production - in Manching and Augsburg, for instance - could continue, and Europe's technological competence in building combat aircraft would be strengthened.

vr773 wrote:

I understand that it's disappointing to read about alternative approaches when you're on "team F-35"

vr773 wrote:

but I think there's a lot we learn from this interview.

vr773 wrote:

It verifies that Airbus is willing to form a cooperation with Dassault. We learn that the industry's expectation is that Germany and France will allow funding to kick off the FCAS development in 2018. We learn that FCAS is intended to replace the capabilities currently provided by Tornado and Eurofighter. And we learn that Hoke proposed a Eurofighter upgrade (and not the current version) to replace the Tornado as a stop-gap measure.
Of course that would require Germany to pull out of nuclear sharing with the United States which in my opinion would make sense and which is something the German population is in favor of.

mxaxai wrote:

Even if the Eurofighter is chosen as the replacement aircraft, production will run out by mid-2020s. The proposed FCAS would likely not enter final assembly until 2030, serial production commencing even later.

mxaxai wrote:

Assuming standard F-35s are bought and no further Eurofighters, Germany would remain without any combat aircraft production for at least 5 years, possibly even more than 10. I think that politicians are looking into assembling or at least outfitting the German F-35 in Germany. Otherwise they're risking the loss of the current knowledge.

mxaxai wrote:

One cannot lay off thousands of workers one day and expect them to come back 10 years later.

mxaxai wrote:

I wonder if a combination could be viable:
1) Extend Eurofigher production to 2022-2026
2) Assemble/Work on custom F-35 (in Gemany) between 2023-2030
includes development of adequate pods for the recce & ew role and integration into the airframe
3) Start assembly of FCAS 2028-2032

Airbus first revealed details of its FCAS work for the German Bundeswehr in mid-2016, at which time it was being pitched as a potential successor to the Luftwaffe’s Panavia Tornado fleet. However, given the compressed timelines involved in that particular effort (the service needs to field a replacement in 2025 in time for a 2030 out-of-service date), the FCAS in general and the New Fighter in particular is now being seen more as a potential replacement for the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is due to be retired from German service in about 2045.

Ozair wrote:

Realistically, what an upgraded Eurofighter will have is much of the upgrades already planned for other Eurofighter partners that wouldn't be coming to German jets anyway, such as AESA radar, [...] IRIS-T

Ozair wrote:

As others have suggested it would be expensive to locally assemble the F-35s so if value for money is needed that isn't the best procurement method. A better option would be to buy them off the shelf cheap as they can, operate them for 20 years and replace them with FCAS when that arrives. In the timeframe we are talking a German F-35 would be US$85 million or so each fly away.

Ozair wrote:

Germany and France would need to sort out where FCAS was being built before you kept those thousands of jobs. Dassault is already offering some of that work to Belgium being mindful Dassault will want local french manufacture as well. The good news is Germany has an active and established aerospace manufacturing industry so a future production line for an airbus military jet could hive workers from a civilian production line to assist.

Ozair wrote:

Not sure why you need F-35s in there if you extend Eurofighter production?
FCAS is not happening until 2040 so as already stated above the timeframes don't really gel for a continuation of production.

Ozair wrote:

Realistically, Rafale and Eurofighter both required close to 20 years to develop to the point they were functional.

mxaxai wrote:

The FCAS could certainly fly as a prototype by 2030 if given the funds.

mxaxai wrote:

It's weird that Germany spent 340 mio. € on the Captor E (AESA) radar but didn't actually order it. Never noticed that.
Note that the IRIS-T is in service, the patrol group for the baltic states was equipped with AMRAAM and IRIS-T missiles. The Meteor is coming soon as well. I agree that they could spend more on upgrading the existing fleet with all the ready but unused equipment.

mxaxai wrote:

There is more to it than just the price. For example, building something in-country means that about 40% of the money spent is directly returned through taxes on salaries. Money spent outside of the country is mostly lost. Aerospace workers, even in the assembly lines, are not low-skilled employees. Once the people are gone, the knowledge and experience vanishes as well. Rebuilding that needs a lot of time and money.

mxaxai wrote:

I am sure that production will be split once more. Regarding civil aviation, it's not as if Airbus was just waiting for new workers. And even if they move over, a lot of work will move geographically as well. Especially Bavaria is at risk of losing much. For comparison, note how spread out F-35 production is: https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-map
Lockheed certainly didn't spread it over the entire world out of the goodness of their heart, nor was it absolutely necessary for the airplane itself. Military projects are never about "value for money" but 90% politics.

mxaxai wrote:

Maybe to bridge the gap between the end of Eurofighter production and start of FCAS production? I don't see how they can stretch EF production until the start of FCAS assembly.

mxaxai wrote:

Realistically, it's a question of how much money are you willing to spend in what time. The FCAS could certainly fly as a prototype by 2030 if given the funds.

Ozair wrote:

I disagree, hence why I already stated as such. Welcome to the world where not everyone has to agree.

Ozair wrote:

Realistically, Rafale and Eurofighter both required close to 20 years to develop to the point they were functional, F-35 and F-22 were similar and from what we can see of J-20 and Su-57 they are also looking at those dev timelines. Even starting today, which won't happen with no German Government, the time it will take Germany/France/others to dev a new jet is long and the money for such needs to flow, probably at the expense of upgrades to Eurofighters/Rafales.

Planeflyer wrote:

I wonder what German pilot would say to all of you who want him to carry out a deep strike in contested airspace w EF?

I’ll bet dimes to $’s 99% of the pilots tasked w such missions would select an F35?

All this talk of FCAS is proof of one thing; 5 th gen is brilliant if and only if it is European.

vr773 wrote:

What I'm also wondering is: Why would a German pilot need to do that? How exactly does the scenario "deep strike in contested air space" look like?

vr773 wrote:

When you write "nothing here that we didn't already know" you appear as speaking for everyone. This has the potential to discourage others from posting valuable information and it doesn't serve the interest of a vibrant discussion culture in my opinion. I for one found the interview very interesting.

vr773 wrote:

In my opinion the money is less of a problem than involving other EU nations in a joint German/Franco military development and procurement strategy. It's essentially the same issue that the two countries will be facing when they'll try to harmonize the corporate tax system in the EU.

vr773 wrote:

Assume FCAS is "6th gen" and assume that detection technology surpasses "5th gen" stealth technology in the next 10 years.

mxaxai wrote:

vr773 wrote:

What I'm also wondering is: Why would a German pilot need to do that? How exactly does the scenario "deep strike in contested air space" look like?

With the current world order there are only two situations I could imagine:
A) Setup of a no-fly zone and destruction of enemy airfields & radar guided anti-air missiles in preparation of a large scale invasion or humanitarian intervention in the middle east or africa, like Lybia 2011, Iraq 1990 & 2003 or Yugoslawia 1995.
B) (Far less likely) Increasing hostilities between Germany/NATO/EU and Russia, China or another nuclear armed country lead to WW3 or at least another cold war.
I would agree that the likelyhood of German aircraft being used in a "deep strike in contested airspace" is approximately zero for the foreseeable future, regardless of whatever aircraft Germany posesses.

The CEO of the French group Dassault Aviation, Eric Trappier, has called the US-based Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter a "machine to kill the European industry" in an interview published Friday by the weekly magazine 'Air & Cosmos' .
Mr. Trappier insisted on the need for French industry to develop "demonstrators" - like that of the European combat drone nEUROn, of which Dassault is the prime contractor - which, according to him, "to validate cheaper technologies and concepts before the launch of new programs ", as the concept of the future European combat system is emerging.

France and Germany have decided together to develop a "new generation of fighter planes", with a common "roadmap" on this issue to be defined "by mid-2018", according to French President Emmanuel Macron. Paris has proposed to Belgium to join in the framework of a "strategic and economic partnership" around the combat aircraft "omnirole" Rafale Dassault in the context of the replacement of the F-16 of the Belgian army .

"We will see if we will one day make a European fighter," said Trappier, who is also president of the Group of French industries aerospace (Gifas).

And to add: "What is certain is that the alternative not to do is to choose an American device.I wish a lot of pleasure to those who bought or will buy F-35 d 'be able to not be integrated into the US military because the F-35 is a machine to kill European industry, but also a machine to integrate you into the US armies.

A number of Marine Nationale Rafale-M multi-role fighter jets and E-2C Hawkeye airborne early warning and control aircraft, along with 350 support personnel and aircrew, will deploy aboard the USS George H.W. Bushthis Spring. Not only will the multi-national operation work to give Rafale-M aircrews much needed carrier qualifications—France's only carrier has been undergoing a mid-life refit—but it also aims to expand the two countries' abilities to operate fighter aircraft cooperatively from the sea for prolonged periods of time.

Captain Jean-Emmanuel Roux de Luze, the French Naval Attaché to the U.S. Navy, recently told USNI News the following:
“We want to demonstrate our ability to integrate with U.S. military services... We want to show we do maintenance, demonstrate we can load weapons."
Under the plan, French Rafale-Ms and E-2C Hawkeyes will fly to NAS Oceana in Virginia and train out of that location for a period of time. Then some of the aircraft, aircrews, and support personnel will fly out to the USS George H.W. Bush to operate as an integrated component of the carrier's air wing.

Planeflyer wrote:

Using FCAS to develop a 6th gen ac would be a smart move. A joint 6th gen program between the US and Europe would even be better. It would solve lots of issues not least of which is strengthening NATO.

Mr Tappier's comments should be sobering to those who think the F35 is somehow deficient or unnecessary.

Noshow wrote:

In some ways the european industry has wasted some golden years with several big orders from the defence side. I am not blaming the industry only. Political management was not adequate as well. We lack long term strategies and qualified program oversight.

Planeflyer wrote:

It certainly won’t be easy but there are significant benefits for both sides.

Nuclear deterrence is again at the forefront of strategic planning issues — not only for the United States but also its major allies, particularly the members of NATO.

Moscow seeks to leverage the threat posed by its growing and modernizing nuclear arsenal to paralyze any Western response to its efforts to destabilize the political, economic and governmental stability of nations on Russia’s periphery, and shatter the alliance. Senior Russian leaders have repeatedly and publicly threatened the use of nuclear weapons against European nations, including NATO countries.

Russia has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, even announcing that it was permanently stationing an advanced variant of the nuclear-capable Iskander missile to Kaliningrad from where they are but a few minutes flight time from critical NATO military installations in central Europe.

The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review illustrates from an American standpoint the long-standing view that a strong, cohesive nuclear alliance is the most effective means of deterring aggression and promoting peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region. Deterrence, particularly of nuclear attack, is dependent on deploying and maintaining credible and effective military capabilities.

In addition, the sharing of responsibility for the storage and delivery of tactical nuclear weapons among member countries is a key aspect of NATO’s strategic deterrent. NATO’s arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons consists entirely of air-delivered B61 gravity bombs. Currently, in addition to U.S. forward-based fighters, five NATO countries — Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey — host tactical nuclear weapons, and all of these but Turkey have dual-capable aircraft dedicated to their delivery.

For Germany’s part, the new government faces a major defense procurement decision with serious consequences not only for that country’s security but the future of NATO. The German Air Force, the Luftwaffe, must decide within the next several years on a replacement for its fleet of some 70 Tornado fighters. These aircraft need to be retired starting in 2025.

What makes this otherwise rather modest requirement of such significance is that some of the Tornado fighters are dual-capable, meaning they have the special wiring and controls to deliver nuclear weapons. Unless their replacement is capable of delivering nuclear weapons, Germany will be unable to fulfill its commitment under NATO’s nuclear-sharing agreement.

The Luftwaffe needs a Tornado replacement that is not only outfitted to carry nuclear weapons, but also capable of delivering these weapons to their targets in the face of advanced, highly lethal air defenses on the first day of war. The German government has suggested the Eurofighter Typhoon might fit the bill. Currently, Germany operates 145 Eurofighters.

However, the Typhoon meets neither of these criteria. Designing, testing and certifying a nuclear-capable Eurofighter variant would take years to develop and add hundreds of millions of dollars to the already high cost of this aircraft. In addition, the ability of the Typhoon, like all fourth-generation fighters, to penetrate Russia’s integrated air defenses is already questionable. Because the nuclear deterrent mission must be credible from the outset of hostilities, before Russian air defenses have been attrited, the use of fourth-generation aircraft in this role is increasingly nonviable.

Fifth-generation aircraft, currently the American-built F-22 and F-35, have capabilities that make them particularly suitable for missions involving countering advanced air defenses. Also, in recent Red Flag exercises, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter achieved a 15-to-1 air-to-air kill ratio against a variety of fourth-generation aircraft. These are the major reasons why three U.S. military services and the U.K., Italy, Norway, Canada, the Netherlands and Turkey, NATO members all, have already committed to acquiring the F-35. Belgium is currently examining several options to replace its F-16s, including the F-35.

Some number of F-35As, the version being acquired by the U.S. Air Force and several NATO allies, will be modified with the wiring and other gear to enable them to carry the B61. Current plans call for a nuclear-capable F-35A to be fielded in the early 2020s. This timeline would meet the Luftwaffe’s schedule for retiring its Tornado fighters.

Even senior German defense officials see the Joint Strike Fighter as their country’s best near-term option. The Luftwaffe’s chief of Staff has hinted that the F-35A is the only aircraft that can meet all his service’s requirements for a Tornado replacement. In addition, he pointed out, acquiring a stealthy fifth-generation fighter capable of attacking targets from far away would strengthen the interoperability of European air forces.

For political and industrial base reasons, the German government prefers to replace its Tornado aircraft with a European fighter. However, it is already too late to develop a new aircraft and meet the 2025 deadline.

In the long term, Germany will naturally want to pursue a European fifth-generation fighter capability. But for now, it makes sense for the Luftwaffe to acquire the F-35.

Ozair wrote:

Some commentary from the Lexington Institute on why Germany should acquire the F-35, primarily based around nuclear sharing. Within the context of Russia announcing a rejunivation of their nuclear arsenal, as unbelievable as many of those claims are, can Germany walk away from NATO nuclear sharing?

Nuclear burden-sharing dictates that Germany acquire the F-35

Nuclear deterrence is again at the forefront of strategic planning issues — not only for the United States but also its major allies, particularly the members of NATO.

Moscow seeks to leverage the threat posed by its growing and modernizing nuclear arsenal to paralyze any Western response to its efforts to destabilize the political, economic and governmental stability of nations on Russia’s periphery, and shatter the alliance. Senior Russian leaders have repeatedly and publicly threatened the use of nuclear weapons against European nations, including NATO countries.

Russia has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, even announcing that it was permanently stationing an advanced variant of the nuclear-capable Iskander missile to Kaliningrad from where they are but a few minutes flight time from critical NATO military installations in central Europe.

The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review illustrates from an American standpoint the long-standing view that a strong, cohesive nuclear alliance is the most effective means of deterring aggression and promoting peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region. Deterrence, particularly of nuclear attack, is dependent on deploying and maintaining credible and effective military capabilities.

In addition, the sharing of responsibility for the storage and delivery of tactical nuclear weapons among member countries is a key aspect of NATO’s strategic deterrent. NATO’s arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons consists entirely of air-delivered B61 gravity bombs. Currently, in addition to U.S. forward-based fighters, five NATO countries — Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey — host tactical nuclear weapons, and all of these but Turkey have dual-capable aircraft dedicated to their delivery.

For Germany’s part, the new government faces a major defense procurement decision with serious consequences not only for that country’s security but the future of NATO. The German Air Force, the Luftwaffe, must decide within the next several years on a replacement for its fleet of some 70 Tornado fighters. These aircraft need to be retired starting in 2025.

What makes this otherwise rather modest requirement of such significance is that some of the Tornado fighters are dual-capable, meaning they have the special wiring and controls to deliver nuclear weapons. Unless their replacement is capable of delivering nuclear weapons, Germany will be unable to fulfill its commitment under NATO’s nuclear-sharing agreement.

The Luftwaffe needs a Tornado replacement that is not only outfitted to carry nuclear weapons, but also capable of delivering these weapons to their targets in the face of advanced, highly lethal air defenses on the first day of war. The German government has suggested the Eurofighter Typhoon might fit the bill. Currently, Germany operates 145 Eurofighters.

However, the Typhoon meets neither of these criteria. Designing, testing and certifying a nuclear-capable Eurofighter variant would take years to develop and add hundreds of millions of dollars to the already high cost of this aircraft. In addition, the ability of the Typhoon, like all fourth-generation fighters, to penetrate Russia’s integrated air defenses is already questionable. Because the nuclear deterrent mission must be credible from the outset of hostilities, before Russian air defenses have been attrited, the use of fourth-generation aircraft in this role is increasingly nonviable.

Fifth-generation aircraft, currently the American-built F-22 and F-35, have capabilities that make them particularly suitable for missions involving countering advanced air defenses. Also, in recent Red Flag exercises, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter achieved a 15-to-1 air-to-air kill ratio against a variety of fourth-generation aircraft. These are the major reasons why three U.S. military services and the U.K., Italy, Norway, Canada, the Netherlands and Turkey, NATO members all, have already committed to acquiring the F-35. Belgium is currently examining several options to replace its F-16s, including the F-35.

Some number of F-35As, the version being acquired by the U.S. Air Force and several NATO allies, will be modified with the wiring and other gear to enable them to carry the B61. Current plans call for a nuclear-capable F-35A to be fielded in the early 2020s. This timeline would meet the Luftwaffe’s schedule for retiring its Tornado fighters.

Even senior German defense officials see the Joint Strike Fighter as their country’s best near-term option. The Luftwaffe’s chief of Staff has hinted that the F-35A is the only aircraft that can meet all his service’s requirements for a Tornado replacement. In addition, he pointed out, acquiring a stealthy fifth-generation fighter capable of attacking targets from far away would strengthen the interoperability of European air forces.

For political and industrial base reasons, the German government prefers to replace its Tornado aircraft with a European fighter. However, it is already too late to develop a new aircraft and meet the 2025 deadline.

In the long term, Germany will naturally want to pursue a European fifth-generation fighter capability. But for now, it makes sense for the Luftwaffe to acquire the F-35.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/com ... -the-f-35/

keesje wrote:

Couldn't that be done with Rafales too?

The Luftwaffe needs a Tornado replacement that is not only outfitted to carry nuclear weapons, but also capable of delivering these weapons to their targets in the face of advanced, highly lethal air defenses on the first day of war. The German government has suggested the Eurofighter Typhoon might fit the bill. Currently, Germany operates 145 Eurofighters.

However, the Typhoon meets neither of these criteria. Designing, testing and certifying a nuclear-capable Eurofighter variant would take years to develop and add hundreds of millions of dollars to the already high cost of this aircraft. In addition, the ability of the Typhoon, like all fourth-generation fighters, to penetrate Russia’s integrated air defenses is already questionable. Because the nuclear deterrent mission must be credible from the outset of hostilities, before Russian air defenses have been attrited, the use of fourth-generation aircraft in this role is increasingly nonviable.

Planeflyer wrote:

Thanks, did not know the X31 was a joint program. Maybe it could be a model!

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

Couldn't that be done with Rafales too?

The article makes it clear the Eurofighter, and other 4th gen fighters such as the Rafale, won't likely survive a Russian IADS.

The Luftwaffe needs a Tornado replacement that is not only outfitted to carry nuclear weapons, but also capable of delivering these weapons to their targets in the face of advanced, highly lethal air defenses on the first day of war. The German government has suggested the Eurofighter Typhoon might fit the bill. Currently, Germany operates 145 Eurofighters.

However, the Typhoon meets neither of these criteria. Designing, testing and certifying a nuclear-capable Eurofighter variant would take years to develop and add hundreds of millions of dollars to the already high cost of this aircraft. In addition, the ability of the Typhoon, like all fourth-generation fighters, to penetrate Russia’s integrated air defenses is already questionable. Because the nuclear deterrent mission must be credible from the outset of hostilities, before Russian air defenses have been attrited, the use of fourth-generation aircraft in this role is increasingly nonviable.

Rafales also won't carry US nuclear weapons and as we have covered on this thread already, the French don't have enough air launched weapons remaining to spare. Additionally, any deal between France and Germany on nuclear delivery would certainly be in violation of the NPT, while NATO nuclear sharing is not (NATO nuclear sharing is a legal grey area that has existed for 50+ years).

mxaxai wrote:

Secondly, isn't France part of NATO as well? Where is the legal difference between NATO nuclear sharing between US & Germany and NATO nuclear sharing between France & Germany?

keesje wrote:

Large number of tactical nucleair weapons are probably a thing of the past. I can not imagine anybody choosing to use those in their home country. Anybody who does, is free to test them around their own home towns.

mxaxai wrote:

Secondly, isn't France part of NATO as well? Where is the legal difference between NATO nuclear sharing between US & Germany and NATO nuclear sharing between France & Germany?

Ozair wrote:

Some commentary from the Lexington Institute on why Germany should acquire the F-35, primarily based around nuclear sharing.

VSMUT wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Some commentary from the Lexington Institute on why Germany should acquire the F-35, primarily based around nuclear sharing.

Lol, really? The Lexington Institute? You couldn't find a less obvious bit of paid advertisement for Lockheed Martin? An "institute" that goes under the nickname of "ad firm for the defense industry"?

And Dan Goure, isn't that the nutter who wanted to use tactical nukes in Afghanistan and Iraq?

VSMUT wrote:

Lol, really? The Lexington Institute? You couldn't find a less obvious bit of paid advertisement for Lockheed Martin? An "institute" that goes under the nickname of "ad firm for the defense industry"?

Ozair wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Lol, really? The Lexington Institute? You couldn't find a less obvious bit of paid advertisement for Lockheed Martin? An "institute" that goes under the nickname of "ad firm for the defense industry"?

Irrespective of where it comes from is there anything in what he wrote that is incorrect? It was a short article but succinct in stating the facts of what options exist for Germany to replace the Tornado and the nuclear issue is obviously a key consideration.

salttee wrote:

The idea of "gravity" packages to deliver nukes seems archaic in the 21st century. Would a standoff missile with a couple of hundred or so kilometer range violate the NPT?

The Chief of the Luftwaffe is to leave his position in large part due to his support for a German procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), Jane’s has learned.

Lieutenant General Karl Müllner will leave his position by the end of May, with the news of his retirement breaking just two days after Germany’s defence secretary, Ursula von der Leyen, was sworn in for another term.

Jane’s understands that Gen Müllner’s outspoken public support for the JSF as a successor to the German Tornado fleet was pivotal in the decision for his early retirement. “The Luftwaffe considers the F-35’s capability as the benchmark for the selection process for the Tornado replacement, and I think I have expressed myself clearly enough as to what the favourite of the air force is,” Gen Müllner told Jane’s and other media in November 2017.

The Chief of the Luftwaffe’s active support of the JSF clashes with current Ministry of Defence planning, which prefers a successor solution involving the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Ozair wrote:

This is an interesting turn of events as Germany considers a Tornado replacement...

Luftwaffe chief dismissed over F-35 support

LA704 wrote:

I have seen some "stealthing" concepts of the F18. Would that be feasible for the Eurofighter?

LA704 wrote:

BTW, does the EF or the F35 have the better payload/range?

keesje wrote:

That said, I think US politics and industry should throw away their history books and re orientate themselves on European politics 2018.

angad84 wrote:

That's an interesting graphic Ozair, particularly as I have never seen the Typhoon carry an LDP anywhere but the centreline. Methinks there's something to that...

Even BAE's P3E publicity materials only ever show photos and renders with a centreline LDP.

“The capability packages for Kuwait will include the integration of Storm Shadow and Brimstone and other air-to-surface weapons. These features enrich the multi-role characteristics of the aircraft and enhance the weapon system in a role in which the aircraft is excelling since 2011 with the operations over Libya and now Syria and Iraq.

“This configuration foresees the integration of a new advanced laser designator pod (the Lockheed Martin Sniper) that will expand Eurofighter’s portfolio of cleared laser designator pods, the introduction of the DRS-Cubic ACMI P5 combat training pod, an enhanced navigation aid (VOR) and the E-Scan radar CAPTOR with its antenna repositioner”, says Mezzanatto.

mxaxai wrote:

angad84 wrote:

That's an interesting graphic Ozair, particularly as I have never seen the Typhoon carry an LDP anywhere but the centreline. Methinks there's something to that...

Even BAE's P3E publicity materials only ever show photos and renders with a centreline LDP.

Indeed...


Maybe it depends on the type of LDP carried, as the Eurofighter can choose between several, as implied by this press release:

“The capability packages for Kuwait will include the integration of Storm Shadow and Brimstone and other air-to-surface weapons. These features enrich the multi-role characteristics of the aircraft and enhance the weapon system in a role in which the aircraft is excelling since 2011 with the operations over Libya and now Syria and Iraq.

“This configuration foresees the integration of a new advanced laser designator pod (the Lockheed Martin Sniper) that will expand Eurofighter’s portfolio of cleared laser designator pods, the introduction of the DRS-Cubic ACMI P5 combat training pod, an enhanced navigation aid (VOR) and the E-Scan radar CAPTOR with its antenna repositioner”, says Mezzanatto.

https://www.eurofighter.com/news-and-ev ... -of-kuwait