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

Planeflyer · Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:48 am

In a contested environment, a fully loaded 4 th gen AC is going to be as useful as an F4 or F105 in Vietnam.

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Ozair · Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:24 am

Planeflyer wrote:
In a contested environment, a fully loaded 4 th gen AC is going to be as useful as an F4 or F105 in Vietnam.

I don't think that is a good analogy. The F-4 and F-105 were very effective over Vietnam and given their mission numbers had quite acceptable loss rates, especially when you consider the bulk of their missions were over North Vietnam, compared to for instance the F-100 which operated almost exclusively over the south.

angad84 · Sun Mar 25, 2018 11:49 am

Just spoke to a mate at one of the EF partner companies. Apparently the centreline was the easiest to integrate Litening, because it uses a pretty standard pylon. Putting it on one of the BVRAAM stations would have required some very complex engineering, because the recessed station dia is smaller than a Litening, and they would have to create a new bit of mounting hardware to either keep it flush (or thereabouts) or hold it out away from the fuselage. Airframe masking is an interesting point, but I hadn't seen these posts before I spoke to him, so didn't think to ask.

Anyway, centreline with two bags should suffice for most use cases. Just found it interesting that there is no planet on which a Typhoon can do self-designated A2G precision strike with three tanks. I guess they could do the work if someone funded it, but right now it looks like whoever is buying is fine with the centre station.

seahawk · Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:19 pm

You get what you pay for. If you ask the for the cheapest targeting pod integration that works with every pod, you get a centreline integration, because the wiring is there, the mounting is standard and field of view depends only on the pod.
If a customer asks for the integration of a certain pod to the missile station it is doable, but will cost extra.

Planeflyer · Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:47 pm

The stealth fighter was developed because us aircraft were so ineffective in Vietnam.

keesje · Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:16 pm

It seems the Luftwaffe is looking for a large capable fighter bomber replacing the Tornado. I was always suprized about people feeling the F-35 matched the requirements.

Dutchy · Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:25 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
The stealth fighter was developed because us aircraft were so ineffective in Vietnam.

What are you talking about? The US fighters were ineffective because pilots forgot how to fight in a dogfight. With the right training, they were quite effective.

rheinwaldner · Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:54 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
The stealth fighter was developed because us aircraft were so ineffective in Vietnam.

Whatever was wrong in Vietnam, was fixed at latest in the Bekaa valley turkey shooting. Entirely without stealth aircraft.

I also agree with Ozair and Dutchy, that Vietnam is not a good example of ineffective operations. This applies also to the Iraq- or any other war where western fighters were involved in the last 50 years. The loss rates were never as bad as you make it sound. Especially in Iraq.

Ozair · Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:17 pm

keesje wrote:
It seems the Luftwaffe is looking for a large capable fighter bomber replacing the Tornado. I was always surprised about people feeling the F-35 matched the requirements.

???

Did you miss the article on the last page of this thread where the Luftwaffe, via General Mullner, stated very clearly what the German Air Force felt was the benchmark.

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’sand other media in November 2017.

http://www.janes.com/article/78644/luft ... 35-support

What you have shown is what Airbus would like to replace the Tornado with, not what the Luftwaffe has clearly stated they are looking for.

Ozair · Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:49 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
The stealth fighter was developed because us aircraft were so ineffective in Vietnam.

Ineffecitve in what way, missing targets, getting shot down? If you want some info on how aircraft performed read the this link http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/c016682.pdf

rheinwaldner wrote:
I also agree with Ozair and Dutchy, that Vietnam is not a good example of ineffective operations. This applies also to the Iraq- or any other war where western fighters were involved in the last 50 years. The loss rates were never as bad as you make it sound. Especially in Iraq.

While it could certainly be argued the USAF didn’t perform as well as it could have in the Vietnam War and stealth development probably learnt some lessons from Vietnam, the forces opposing the USAF over North Vietnam were not particularly difficult nor represented the Soviet Union dense IADS that stealth was designed to overcome. The only major SAM system was the SA-2, to which the US developed effective but never perfect tactics to deal with, as well as a host of AAA systems which were more hazardous to aircrew than SAMs anyway. The F-4 and F-105 far and away comprise the highest percentage of missions conducted over North Vietnam and their respective loss rates represent that.

As for missions conducted over North Vietnam,

United States ultimately flew 299,054 sorties over North Vietnam, losing 609 aircraft in the process, a loss rate of 0.20% per 1,000 sorties.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... nva-ad.htm

That is a reasonably low loss rate for the duration of the campaign, especially when you consider the caveats placed on US airpower with respect to ROE. It was less than that suffered during the Korean War and two orders of magnitude less than that suffered by the 8th AF in World War II. The continued drop in loss rate speaks more to the increasing technological advantage US forces have had over adversaries since the end of WWII and not to the specific performance of individual aircraft.

keesje · Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:22 pm

Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:
It seems the Luftwaffe is looking for a large capable fighter bomber replacing the Tornado. I was always surprised about people feeling the F-35 matched the requirements.

???

Did you miss the article on the last page of this thread where the Luftwaffe, via General Mullner, stated very clearly what the German Air Force felt was the benchmark.

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’sand other media in November 2017.

http://www.janes.com/article/78644/luft ... 35-support

What you have shown is what Airbus would like to replace the Tornado with, not what the Luftwaffe has clearly stated they are looking for.

Muller is gone for a reason. Over the last few years there has been a strong lobby to have the Luftwaffe somehow adjust their requirements to the F-35 and move ahead. A bit similar to the Boeing tanker saga in the US. It seems there was an intervention and the general retired.

The Luftwaffe wants something bigger and Dassault/ Airbus responded. It seems Germany / France want to preserve defense capabilities in Europe to serve long term strategic independence.

Ozair · Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:07 am

keesje wrote:
Muller is gone for a reason.

Yes, because he and the Air Force that serves under him, had a preference for a solution that isn’t what the government wanted. That he was vocal about that is one of the reasons he has been retired.

keesje wrote:
Over the last few years there has been a strong lobby to have the Luftwaffe somehow adjust their requirements to the F-35 and move ahead.

A strong lobby? Hardly and I doubt you have any evidence to support that claim of requirements adjustment. Instead we have the General in charge of the Luftwaffe making the statement the F-35 is the benchmark and their preferred solution.

keesje wrote:
A bit similar to the Boeing tanker saga in the US. It seems there was an intervention and the general retired.

Not at all similar in any way.

keesje wrote:
The Luftwaffe wants something bigger and Dassault/ Airbus responded.

Keesje, it really is easy to understand. The Luftwaffe has stated clearly what they want. The German Government have also stated clearly what they want.
Airbus have stated clearly what they want to do, Dassault don’t have an idea other than they want the work. Neither Dasault or Airbus has yet admitted they don’t actually want to work together and likely won’t be able to reach agreement on requirements anyway.

keesje wrote:
It seems Germany / France want to preserve defense capabilities in Europe to serve long term strategic independence.

Clearly, although frankly the record of delivering value for money isn’t great…

seahawk · Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:59 am

The fact is that there are only 2 realistic options, neither is related to the unrelated context by kessje. The Luftwaffe seems to favour the F-35, politicians seem to favour the EF for industrial reasons.Nobody is talking about a future Dassault/Airbus fighter as a Tornado replacement as the time frame simply do not match. Which even Airbus confirmed.

Slug71 · Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:00 am

The 2-seat variant of the Typhoon, tailored toward the Tornado's roles makes the most sense IMO.
Perhaps even a highly updated (5th gen even) version that can serve alongside the future FCAS and F-35 fleets of other nations.
And could also replace France's Mirage 2000N/Ds.

seahawk · Wed Mar 28, 2018 5:19 am

The Ns are already being retired and France will go for Rafale F4s.

keesje · Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:21 am

I think the LM and friendly media were making sure that everyone knew General Muller = Luftwaffe and that what he said was the real and only l wish of that organisation. It is understandable that they did/do, because Muller said exactly what they wanted to hear.

What could be expected and happened was that apparently Muller was going alone & was sidelined. Clearly not what the LM team expected / hoped. The German & French governments realigned in recent times and their elected heads of state set new directions. https://www.thelocal.fr/20170713/merkel-and-macron-put-defence-at-heart-of-blooming-ties

Not to say the Luftwaffe will never F-35's, but if so, in a different role and they will set conditions regarding IP & compensation that might be different from contracts so far. People that think IDS optimized Rafale F4's are out of the picture; replace the Muller story by the Macron/Trump story & think again. The German industry loves the Eurofighter but it seems the government le$$ $o.

seahawk · Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:30 am

Yes, they are.

estorilm · Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:20 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
The stealth fighter was developed because us aircraft were so ineffective in Vietnam.

They also had nearly worthless a2a missiles, targeting, weather restrictions, and dog-fighting inadequacies. Really nothing to do with stealth at all.

It was a mindset issue more than anything else - technology was perfectly adequate to create dominant a2a combat aircraft back then, but the powers that be wanted to skip to a generation far ahead of its time, and it kinda blew up in their face.

Ozair · Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:55 pm

keesje wrote:
I think the LM and friendly media were making sure that everyone knew General Muller = Luftwaffe and that what he said was the real and only l wish of that organisation. It is understandable that they did/do, because Muller said exactly what they wanted to hear.

Keesje, do you live in an alternative reality where the F-35 only gets good press? A simple google search of F-35 will tell you that the media is not friendly to the F-35 and hasn’t been for over ten years. Mullner did not say exactly what anyone wanted to hear, he stated the position of the Luftwaffe on how they want to remain viable against future threats.

In case you missed it, here is the report again. It would do well to read the text so you actually understand what was said instead of continuing to make up scenarios that don’t match with the facts.

Tornado replacement must be fifth generation: German air force chief

The German military needs a “fifth-generation” replacement for its Tornado fighter jets that is hard to detect on enemy radars and can strike targets from a great distance, the chief of staff of the air force said on Wednesday.
Lieutenant General Karl Muellner’s comments are his clearest public statements to date on the Tornado replacement program. They indicate a preference for Lockheed Martin Corp’s F-35 fighter jet, the only Western aircraft that meets those requirements.
The air force last month issued a formal request for information about the F-35, as well as three other jets: the F-15 and F/A-18E/F, both built by Boeing Co, and the European Eurofighter Typhoon.
Germany is kicking off the process of replacing its 85 Tornado jets, which will go out of service around 2030.
The program could be worth billions of euros for the winning bidder in coming years.
Muellner told Reuters Germany would need to buy an off-the-shelf replacement that could enter service around 2025 to facilitate a smooth transition with the Tornado, noting that did not leave enough time to develop a unique solution.
But he said changing warfare requirements and the need for a credible deterrent meant the successor fighter had to be “low-observable, and able to identify and strike targets from a great distance”.
“It will have to be a fifth-generation jet to meet the full spectrum of our needs,” Muellner said.
Many German allies in Europe, including Norway, the Netherlands, Britain, Italy, Turkey and Denmark have selected the F-35 and some have received initial deliveries. Belgium is expected to make a decision next year.
Lockheed is rolling out the red carpet, bringing its F-35 flight simulator to Berlin and offering members of parliament, ministry and military officials and a journalists a chance to “fly” the stealthy single-seat, single-engine fighter.
It even printed a new version of its standard F-35 lapel pin in the black, red and gold colors of Germany’s flag.
Any new fighter jet purchase would have to be approved by parliament in the next two years and a contract signed by 2020 or 2021 to ensure deliveries by 2025.
A purchase of around 100 jets would help ensure German industry got a decent share of work on the program.
Steve Over, Lockheed’s director of F-35 international business development, welcomed the comments and said Lockheed stood ready to support the German government in its selection process. He said most F-35 foreign military sales involved some work for companies in the buying country.
Over told Reuters the price of the aircraft would have dropped to around $80 million by the time Germany would need to sign a contract. He said interest was growing in the F-35 given the changing threat environment.
“It’s really about giving nations a deterrent capability. Because if you’re got the capability to take an airplane into another country’s airspace and they don’t even know you’re there, that’s an incredible deterrent,” he said.
Muellner said he also strongly supported a Franco-German plan to develop a successor for its fleet of what will be 140 Eurofighter Typhoon jets, built by Britain’s BAE Systems Plc, Italy’s Leonardo and Airbus.
The project, unveiled in July, would help preserve critical technology skills in Europe and allow Europe to develop its own low-observable technology, Muellner said.
Airbus last week said that choosing an interim U.S. fighter that could eventually become a longer term commitment might interfere with the Franco-German fighter.
Industry sources said a decision to order the F-35 would be negative for Airbus, which is part of the Eurofighter consortium and is seen as one of the key partners in the Franco-German initiative announced earlier this year.
Muellner said the German air force had also committed to NATO to provide a fleet of 14 electronic warfare aircraft by the middle of the next decade, which meant it would likely have to buy around 20 such jets.
Possible candidates could be the Boeing EA-18 Growler, a modified A400M transport plane that could provide stand-off jamming capability, or a modified Eurofighter, experts said.
No decisions on that program have been made.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germ ... SKBN1D81WR

In summary for you. Mullner said the Luftwaffe wants 5th gen, needs 5th gen because the threat landscape has changed. He also supports future German/French cooperation on a Eurofighter replacement but does not see that aircraft replacing the Tornado as it won’t be developed in time.

keesje wrote:
What could be expected and happened was that apparently Muller was going alone & was sidelined. Clearly not what the LM team expected / hoped.

Up until that announcement from Mullner there was little beyond mild speculation that Germany would seek to operate the F-35. In fact if you search F-35 and Germany you struggle to find a single reference before 2017, when Mullner made the announcement.

keesje wrote:
The German & French governments realigned in recent times and their elected heads of state set new directions. https://www.thelocal.fr/20170713/merkel-and-macron-put-defence-at-heart-of-blooming-ties

And yet future budget projections don’t reflect the new direction…

keesje wrote:
Not to say the Luftwaffe will never F-35's, but if so, in a different role and they will set conditions regarding IP & compensation that might be different from contracts so far.

If Germany acquire the F-35 it will be the same way every other non-partner F-35 customer ordered the aircraft. Germany isn’t any more special than Japan or South Korea and Germany has a long history of buying US equipment, including aircraft, via standard acquisition channels.

keesje wrote:
People that think IDS optimized Rafale F4's are out of the picture; replace the Muller story by the Macron/Trump story & think again. The German industry loves the Eurofighter but it seems the government le$$ $o.

Ha, so now you have gone from German requirements are for a large long range twin seat aircraft to F4 Rafales…

Again Keesje because you seem to not get the concept, the Rafale offers nothing than Germany cannot get from an enhanced Eurofighter. In comparison the F-35 offers capabilities not available in the Eurofighter or the Rafale and that is precisely why Mullner said what he did.

Slug71 · Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:35 pm

Ozair wrote:
In summary for you. Mullner said the Luftwaffe wants 5th gen, needs 5th gen because the threat landscape has changed. He also supports future German/French cooperation on a Eurofighter replacement but does not see that aircraft replacing the Tornado as it won’t be developed in time.

Surely a heavily updated version (to bring up to / close to 5th gen standard) of the Eurofighter can be done within 12 years.

Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:
People that think IDS optimized Rafale F4's are out of the picture; replace the Muller story by the Macron/Trump story & think again. The German industry loves the Eurofighter but it seems the government le$$ $o.

Ha, so now you have gone from German requirements are for a large long range twin seat aircraft to F4 Rafales…

Again Keesje because you seem to not get the concept, the Rafale offers nothing than Germany cannot get from an enhanced Eurofighter. In comparison the F-35 offers capabilities not available in the Eurofighter or the Rafale and that is precisely why Mullner said what he did.

That may be why he said that. But maybe the govt doesn't like/want the "one size fits all" approach of the F-35. With the Tornado being a 2-seat attack/strike aircraft, just maybe the German govt wants to stick with that sort of platform (2-seat). Thats what it seems like to me anyway. While I'm sure the F-35 is capable (being designed as a multirole platform), even the F-15E Strike Eagle, F/A-18F, and EA-18G will continue to primarily fulfill the strike/attack missions within US fleets. France and Egypt also use the 2-seat variant of the Rafale primarily for the strike/attack roles. There's clearly still a benefit to using a 2-seat aircraft for those missions.

F4 Rafales is not such a bad idea honestly. Availability fits the schedule requirements and has a better payload. Would probably be cheaper than updating the Eurofighter too.

keesje · Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:34 pm

I have seen no one, apart from the now sidelined Mullner, say the F-35 is the one the Luftwaffe needs. Still clinging to him?

The F35 is selected as the F16 fleets replacement in Europe. It seems also for the US. The Typhoon is build for interception and has only recently been adjusted for air to ground. The German wanted that already 20 years ago. They nearly left the program over it. A strong industry lobby/ Euro politics prevented it.

The Rafale is more optimized for IDS, two man cockpit and has more range / a lower RCS than Typhoon.

http://www.google.nl/amp/s/defenseissue ... phoon/amp/

Ozair · Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:47 pm

Slug71 wrote:
Surely a heavily updated version (to bring up to / close to 5th gen standard) of the Eurofighter can be done within 12 years.

Up to 5th gen, no, neither Eurofighter or Rafale (or F-15, 16, 18, Gripen, Su-35, MiG-35 etc) will be able to reach that standard.

Close to, perhaps…but how much money is worth investing in the platform if the intent of Germany, and probably France although that isn’t certain yet, to replace the Eurofighter platform in 2040 with essentially a 5th gen platform?

Slug71 wrote:
That may be why he said that. But maybe the govt doesn't like/want the "one size fits all" approach of the F-35. With the Tornado being a 2-seat attack/strike aircraft, just maybe the German govt wants to stick with that sort of platform (2-seat). Thats what it seems like to me anyway. While I'm sure the F-35 is capable (being designed as a multirole platform), even the F-15E Strike Eagle, F/A-18F, and EA-18G will continue to primarily fulfill the strike/attack missions within US fleets. France and Egypt also use the 2-seat variant of the Rafale primarily for the strike/attack roles. There's clearly still a benefit to using a 2-seat aircraft for those missions.

We already know what the preference is from the German Government, an updated Eurofighter that preserves German Industry. That makes sense and is far and away the likely option that Germany will select.

As for two seats, you don’t really understand what a 5th gen platform brings if you suggest a 5th gen aircraft needs two seats to conduct its missions. Can you name a single 5th gen aircraft from any nation that has two seats? The US will continue to use two seat fighter aircraft until it replaces those with either single seat or no seat aircraft.

Slug71 wrote:
F4 Rafales is not such a bad idea honestly. Availability fits the schedule requirements and has a better payload. Would probably be cheaper than updating the Eurofighter too.

An F4 rafale is not coming until 2025 and what does it provide? An updated radar and radar modes that the Eurofighter can receive. A HMD for French aircraft that a Eurofighter already has. Some improvements in EW hardware that a Eurofighter could also have. Conformal fuel tanks that a Eurofighter can also have. In the French context some updates to their weapons suite. Based on that there is zero value in an F4 Rafale over an updated Eurofighter for Germany. A better option would be to update German Eurofighters along the UK growth path and actually invest in the platform instead of operating bare bones aircraft.

Introducing Rafale would also introduce a whole new engine, new maintenance concept, new training scheme, new weapons etc. It does nothing for German Industry. Dassault certainly isn’t going to give German companies any industrial workshare on building the jet.

While much of that is similar with introducing the F-35, the F-35 will be cheaper to acquire a technologically more advanced aircraft, have more aircraft operating in Europe with partner air forces than the entire French Rafale fleet, a huge global customer base, a dedicated training unit in the US (where Germany already conducts a large portion of their fast jet training), a clear and defined upgrade path and the ability to continue German participation in NATO Nuclear sharing.

Ultimately, an updated German Eurofighter is the path but anyone choosing Rafale over F-35 today when they have access to both is the definition of insanity.

Ozair · Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:56 pm

keesje wrote:
I have seen no one, apart from the now sidelined Mullner, say the F-35 is the one the Luftwaffe needs. Still clinging to him?

Why do I need to cling to him, he was the Chief of the Luftwaffe. He had the access and authority to understand and make that statement.

If you really think the Luftwaffe as an organisation thinks differently, how about you actually provide a single source to refute his statement and support yours? So far as usual we have lots of words, a few graphics, some vague assertions and nothing of substance.

keesje wrote:
http://www.google.nl/amp/s/defenseissues.net/2015/11/01/dassault-rafale-vs-eurofighter-typhoon/amp/

Keesje, Picard is universally recognised across the forum community as factually incorrect on many points and bias towards the Rafale beyond belief. His words on respective fighter capabilities are worth less than a Sputnik news article…

Slug71 · Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:31 am

Ozair wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Surely a heavily updated version (to bring up to / close to 5th gen standard) of the Eurofighter can be done within 12 years.

Close to, perhaps…but how much money is worth investing in the platform if the intent of Germany, and probably France although that isn’t certain yet, to replace the Eurofighter platform in 2040 with essentially a 5th gen platform?

Investment would depend on if they want a dedicated 2-seat strike/attack aircraft to serve along side the new proposed fighter I suppose.

Initial details should emerge around mid year,

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1G028E

Ozair wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
That may be why he said that. But maybe the govt doesn't like/want the "one size fits all" approach of the F-35. With the Tornado being a 2-seat attack/strike aircraft, just maybe the German govt wants to stick with that sort of platform (2-seat). Thats what it seems like to me anyway. While I'm sure the F-35 is capable (being designed as a multirole platform), even the F-15E Strike Eagle, F/A-18F, and EA-18G will continue to primarily fulfill the strike/attack missions within US fleets. France and Egypt also use the 2-seat variant of the Rafale primarily for the strike/attack roles. There's clearly still a benefit to using a 2-seat aircraft for those missions.

As for two seats, you don’t really understand what a 5th gen platform brings if you suggest a 5th gen aircraft needs two seats to conduct its missions. Can you name a single 5th gen aircraft from any nation that has two seats? The US will continue to use two seat fighter aircraft until it replaces those with either single seat or no seat aircraft.

Pretty sure I've read that Israel "and other nations" have been interested in a 2-seat variant of the F-35, with Israel still interested in leading the development. India wanted a 2-seat variant of the FGFA. And pretty sure some CGI images of the FCAS depict a 2-seat model.

Ozair wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
F4 Rafales is not such a bad idea honestly. Availability fits the schedule requirements and has a better payload. Would probably be cheaper than updating the Eurofighter too.

An F4 rafale is not coming until 2025 and what does it provide? An updated radar and radar modes that the Eurofighter can receive. A HMD for French aircraft that a Eurofighter already has. Some improvements in EW hardware that a Eurofighter could also have. Conformal fuel tanks that a Eurofighter can also have. In the French context some updates to their weapons suite. Based on that there is zero value in an F4 Rafale over an updated Eurofighter for Germany. A better option would be to update German Eurofighters along the UK growth path and actually invest in the platform instead of operating bare bones aircraft.

Introducing Rafale would also introduce a whole new engine, new maintenance concept, new training scheme, new weapons etc. It does nothing for German Industry. Dassault certainly isn’t going to give German companies any industrial workshare on building the jet.

While much of that is similar with introducing the F-35, the F-35 will be cheaper to acquire a technologically more advanced aircraft, have more aircraft operating in Europe with partner air forces than the entire French Rafale fleet, a huge global customer base, a dedicated training unit in the US (where Germany already conducts a large portion of their fast jet training), a clear and defined upgrade path and the ability to continue German participation in NATO Nuclear sharing.

Ultimately, an updated German Eurofighter is the path but anyone choosing Rafale over F-35 today when they have access to both is the definition of insanity.

By your own words, the F4 Rafale will have what the Eurofighter CAN have. With an investment of course. That could instead just go toward the acquisition cost of the aircraft that already has all that...
The F4 will be available by 2025. Germany wants a replacement before 2030. One might consider that perfect timing.
The Rafale also has lower RCS, slightly better range, and better payload (on par with the F-35) than the Eurofighter.
Introducing another engine type is not that big a deal. Not like it is on the commercial side anyway. Would be the same if they went with the F-35 anyway. Eventually the engines could be replaced with whatever the FCAS uses anyway. The EJ200 and M88 are also very close in size and thrust. May not be too complicated to adapt the Rafale for the EJ200 power plants.
While it may not benefit German Industry much, I don't think there will be no benefit. Work share agreements (even if minimal) is absolutely possible. Both Thales and MBDA have a presence in Germany, even if unrelated or of little direct benefit. Building those relationships now would be highly beneficial for the FCAS if they are serious about it. Dassault is quite happy to set up a production line in India...
Right now, the future also looks brighter for the Rafale than the Eurofighter. And continues to evolve.

Slug71 · Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:14 am

Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:
I have seen no one, apart from the now sidelined Mullner, say the F-35 is the one the Luftwaffe needs. Still clinging to him?

Why do I need to cling to him, he was the Chief of the Luftwaffe. He had the access and authority to understand and make that statement.

If you really think the Luftwaffe as an organisation thinks differently, how about you actually provide a single source to refute his statement and support yours? So far as usual we have lots of words, a few graphics, some vague assertions and nothing of substance.

http://www.janes.com/article/76326/germ ... -not-f-35s

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1E52EK

http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war ... source=dam

Seems like the F-35 was mainly brought up due his opinion about the replacement being a 5th generation aircraft.
The entire MoD thinks/thought differently about the F-35, and preferred/s the F/A-18 or F-15. Ironically 2 platforms that have 2-seaters for the attack/strike roles..

The Jane's article says,

The general noted that the Tornado’s successor must have the full spectrum of offensive counter air and air interdiction; suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD); close air support (CAS); tactical reconnaissance; electronic warfare (EW); and the nuclear deterrent mission.

All of which the Rafale can do. It is not significantly handicapped to the F-35. And the F4 will be further improved.

Ozair · Thu Mar 29, 2018 9:36 am

Slug71 wrote:
Pretty sure I've read that Israel "and other nations" have been interested in a 2-seat variant of the F-35, with Israel still interested in leading the development. India wanted a 2-seat variant of the FGFA. And pretty sure some CGI images of the FCAS depict a 2-seat model.

There is no two seat F-35 and there won’t be, Israel isn’t paying for the development of a two seat aircraft. India may want a 2 seat FGFA but their intent on the FGFA continues to diminish every year. The program is stalled and if India do get a Russian stealth aircraft it is likely to be a single seat Su-57 with little Indian customization.

FCAS is just that, a CGI model…

Slug71 wrote:
By your own words, the F4 Rafale will have what the Eurofighter CAN have. With an investment of course. That could instead just go toward the acquisition cost of the aircraft that already has all that...
That same investment will be required for rafale and that investment will come at a price.
The F4 will be available by 2025. Germany wants a replacement before 2030. One might consider that perfect timing.

There is no logic to that. Why pursue an upgraded Rafale when Germany can get that from their current aircraft.

Slug71 wrote:
The Rafale also has lower RCS, slightly better range, and better payload (on par with the F-35) than the Eurofighter.

What is the RCS of the Rafale is, or the Eurofighter and where has such a claim come from? If we take a simple source for both at global security we see the Eurofighter is 0.5 and the Rafale is 1 https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ft-rcs.htm.

But even that is subjective and is a clean figure for public release, not taking into account external stores which both airframes require. In the end the RCS difference between the two is likely to be negligible.

Slug71 wrote:
Introducing another engine type is not that big a deal. Not like it is on the commercial side anyway. Would be the same if they went with the F-35 anyway. Eventually the engines could be replaced with whatever the FCAS uses anyway. The EJ200 and M88 are also very close in size and thrust. May not be too complicated to adapt the Rafale for the EJ200 power plants.

You have that the wrong way around. Engines are big deals for militaries, unlike commercial airframes where parts are available all over the globe for engines typically manufactured in their thousands. A military must maintain a large spares base because they work on the principal that these spares are not available. A second engine for Germany is a big deal, it introduces significant additional cost for no benefit. The Luftwaffe already struggles to sustain the Eurofighter fleet, introducing a second fleet of similar aircraft and engines would be foolish…

You also massively understate the complexity of adding a new engine to a military fighter airframe. Militaries don’t like doing it and fighter jets typically operate with the same engine for their lifetimes, wholesale engine replacements are very rare.

Slug71 wrote:
While it may not benefit German Industry much, I don't think there will be no benefit. Work share agreements (even if minimal) is absolutely possible. Both Thales and MBDA have a presence in Germany, even if unrelated or of little direct benefit. Building those relationships now would be highly beneficial for the FCAS if they are serious about it. Dassault is quite happy to set up a production line in India...

That workshare is a pittance compared to what the Eurofighter sustains. Dassault is of course happy to build a production line in India, did you see how much they wanted to charge India for the privilege?

Slug71 wrote:
Right now, the future also looks brighter for the Rafale than the Eurofighter. And continues to evolve.

Hardly, the Eurofighter has almost four times the aircraft in service and more overall export orders from a larger range of nations. The UK has an established upgrade path and the airframe is sitting comfortably in service with six nations with two more to receive aircraft.

Ozair · Thu Mar 29, 2018 9:44 am

Slug71 wrote:

Seems like the F-35 was mainly brought up due his opinion about the replacement being a 5th generation aircraft. The entire MoD thinks/thought differently about the F-35, and preferred/s the F/A-18 or F-15. Ironically 2 platforms that have 2-seaters for the attack/strike roles..

The Jane's article says,

The general noted that the Tornado’s successor must have the full spectrum of offensive counter air and air interdiction; suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD); close air support (CAS); tactical reconnaissance; electronic warfare (EW); and the nuclear deterrent mission.

All of which the Rafale can do. It is not significantly handicapped to the F-35. And the F4 will be further improved.

Do you understand the difference between the German MoD and the Luftwaffe?

No the Rafale cannot do the nuclear role, we have been through this so many times I don't see why it has to keep being repeated. It cannot do the EW mission at this point, it has no plan for an EW pod of the type required, unlike the F-35 which has the NGJ slated for integration sometime in the 2020s.

keesje · Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:26 pm

Because the Rafale was a single customer, single supplier, single government program for a long time, they were able to adjust / modify the aircraft. Air to Air became less important. Complicated UN missions, IDS, endurance, precision, data integration became more important. After the Bosnia conflict the L'arme de l'Air changed many orders to two seaters, certified conformal tanks and did a range of EW and RCS modifications.

For the multinational, multi operator, highly politicized Eurofighter consortium, it proved almost impossible to get Germany, Italy & the UK on one line, justifying extra expenses in a time of heavy defense cuts.

I think extensive publicized comparisons between Eurofighter & Rafale show a trend. I think Eurofighter Typhoon was "frozen" in its interceptor role during a long period of cost cutting, industrial lobbies and political disagreement. And, the Tornado was doing a good job for the Eurofighter countries. That has come back to bite it, now it is late.

Swiss: http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/images/evaluations-suisses.png
Dutch: http://img.over-blog.com/499x342/0/50/29/09//AvionJSFAnalysMd-Nrc080909-copie-1.jpg
India :http://aermech.in/top-10-reasons-why-india-choose-dassault-rafale-over-eurofighter-typoon-and-other-fighters/

seahawk · Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:02 pm

It is not an airframe problem. The development path for the EF did not put much emphasis on ground attack because the planes up for replacement were interceptors with a pure air-to-air tasking. While France retired ground attack orientated aircraft like the F1CT and SEM first.

Spain is also looking at additional EFs.

http://www.infodefensa.com/es/2018/03/2 ... um=twitter

Slug71 · Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:04 pm

Ozair wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Pretty sure I've read that Israel "and other nations" have been interested in a 2-seat variant of the F-35, with Israel still interested in leading the development. India wanted a 2-seat variant of the FGFA. And pretty sure some CGI images of the FCAS depict a 2-seat model.

There is no two seat F-35 and there won’t be, Israel isn’t paying for the development of a two seat aircraft. India may want a 2 seat FGFA but their intent on the FGFA continues to diminish every year. The program is stalled and if India do get a Russian stealth aircraft it is likely to be a single seat Su-57 with little Indian customization.

FCAS is just that, a CGI model…

Everything has to start somewhere...

But there are a number of older sources mentioning that Israel wanted a 2-seater. May never happen though. Could be why they are instead looking at upgraded F-15s now.

Ozair wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
By your own words, the F4 Rafale will have what the Eurofighter CAN have. With an investment of course. That could instead just go toward the acquisition cost of the aircraft that already has all that...
That same investment will be required for rafale and that investment will come at a price.
The F4 will be available by 2025. Germany wants a replacement before 2030. One might consider that perfect timing.

There is no logic to that. Why pursue an upgraded Rafale when Germany can get that from their current aircraft.

Because the current aircraft would require a fairly significant upgrade to bring it to the same "off the shelf" solution(Which im not opposed to). I agree it is the most likely outcome and most reasonable solution.

Ozair wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
The Rafale also has lower RCS, slightly better range, and better payload (on par with the F-35) than the Eurofighter.

What is the RCS of the Rafale is, or the Eurofighter and where has such a claim come from? If we take a simple source for both at global security we see the Eurofighter is 0.5 and the Rafale is 1 https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ft-rcs.htm.

But even that is subjective and is a clean figure for public release, not taking into account external stores which both airframes require. In the end the RCS difference between the two is likely to be negligible.

Since a lot has improved over the years(probably more so with the Typhoon) and the configurations account for a lot of the RCS, I agree any difference will be negligible.

Ozair wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Introducing another engine type is not that big a deal. Not like it is on the commercial side anyway. Would be the same if they went with the F-35 anyway. Eventually the engines could be replaced with whatever the FCAS uses anyway. The EJ200 and M88 are also very close in size and thrust. May not be too complicated to adapt the Rafale for the EJ200 power plants.

You have that the wrong way around. Engines are big deals for militaries, unlike commercial airframes where parts are available all over the globe for engines typically manufactured in their thousands. A military must maintain a large spares base because they work on the principal that these spares are not available. A second engine for Germany is a big deal, it introduces significant additional cost for no benefit. The Luftwaffe already struggles to sustain the Eurofighter fleet, introducing a second fleet of similar aircraft and engines would be foolish…

You also massively understate the complexity of adding a new engine to a military fighter airframe. Militaries don’t like doing it and fighter jets typically operate with the same engine for their lifetimes, wholesale engine replacements are very rare.

Airlines have to turn a profit. While there are plenty of spares, it adds complexity with training and maintenance that another engine or type brings. That is less of an issue on the military side where efficiency (while enjoyed / preferred) is less of a concern.
The Luftwaffe seems to struggle with sustainability on all their fleets.

IIRC, the development frames of the Rafale flew with the F404.

Ozair wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
While it may not benefit German Industry much, I don't think there will be no benefit. Work share agreements (even if minimal) is absolutely possible. Both Thales and MBDA have a presence in Germany, even if unrelated or of little direct benefit. Building those relationships now would be highly beneficial for the FCAS if they are serious about it. Dassault is quite happy to set up a production line in India...

That workshare is a pittance compared to what the Eurofighter sustains. Dassault is of course happy to build a production line in India, did you see how much they wanted to charge India for the privilege?

Sure. There must be a cost associated with such a privilege. It would be/is foolish of India to expect the same/similar prices as what Qatar got, while expecting production privileges (including a lot of help from Dassault). India is also not clear on its original intent of 126 frames.

Ozair wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Right now, the future also looks brighter for the Rafale than the Eurofighter. And continues to evolve.

Hardly, the Eurofighter has almost four times the aircraft in service and more overall export orders from a larger range of nations. The UK has an established upgrade path and the airframe is sitting comfortably in service with six nations with two more to receive aircraft.

Sure. But the backlog has been diminishing. At least until the recent Qatar purchase and now the new Saudi deal. Another push is being made for Poland too. Still, by the time the F4 rolls out, there might not be much left in the Eurofighter's backlog. Austria has shelved it, and the UK and Italy will likely move more toward additional F-35s for Eurofighter replacement. Malaysia have shelved their plans for a new fighter until around 2025. There are still a number of opportunities for the Eurofighter, but those are also opportunities for other manufacturers or the used market.

Ozair wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Seems like the F-35 was mainly brought up due his opinion about the replacement being a 5th generation aircraft. The entire MoD thinks/thought differently about the F-35, and preferred/s the F/A-18 or F-15. Ironically 2 platforms that have 2-seaters for the attack/strike roles..

The Jane's article says,

The general noted that the Tornado’s successor must have the full spectrum of offensive counter air and air interdiction; suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD); close air support (CAS); tactical reconnaissance; electronic warfare (EW); and the nuclear deterrent mission.

All of which the Rafale can do. It is not significantly handicapped to the F-35. And the F4 will be further improved.

Do you understand the difference between the German MoD and the Luftwaffe?

No the Rafale cannot do the nuclear role, we have been through this so many times I don't see why it has to keep being repeated. It cannot do the EW mission at this point, it has no plan for an EW pod of the type required, unlike the F-35 which has the NGJ slated for integration sometime in the 2020s.

Yes I do. And Mullner is not THE Luftwaffe either.

Yes it CAN do the Nuclear role. And EW. Since F3 standard.

http://defence-blog.com/news/egypt-rece ... s.html/amp

Equipped with a wide range of weapons, the Rafale is intended to perform air supremacy, interdiction, aerial reconnaissance, ground support, in-depth strike, anti-ship strike and nuclear deterrence missions.

Like I said, an updated Eurofighter remains the preferred choice. The F4 came up, and I just elaborated that it wasn't necessarily a bad idea.

ThePointblank · Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:01 am

Slug71 wrote:
Sure. But the backlog has been diminishing. At least until the recent Qatar purchase and now the new Saudi deal. Another push is being made for Poland too. Still, by the time the F4 rolls out, there might not be much left in the Eurofighter's backlog. Austria has shelved it, and the UK and Italy will likely move more toward additional F-35s for Eurofighter replacement. Malaysia have shelved their plans for a new fighter until around 2025. There are still a number of opportunities for the Eurofighter, but those are also opportunities for other manufacturers or the used market.

The Eurofighter is being produced across 4 factories. The sales for the Saudi and Qatari Eurofighter's are from the British production line, not the German line. German production of the Eurofighter was slated to end this year, followed by the Spanish FAL. The British and Italian FAL's are slated to continue production well into 2024.

Slug71 wrote:
Yes it CAN do the Nuclear role. And EW. Since F3 standard.

1. With French nuclear weapons. Not American ones.
2. The Rafale's EW systems are only designed for self-protection against threats. Jammers like the NGJ are meant to to use in an escort, or standoff jamming mode against radars.

masterfie · Fri Mar 30, 2018 2:39 pm

There is no way Germany buys a F-15 or F-18. Even the newest versions of the F-18 wouldn't be capable of carrying the most modern variant of the B61, the B61-12. Same goes for the F-15. Both of which wouldn't be much more capable than an upgraded Eurofighter in the Air-to-ground mission role. And if you are buying American, why arent you going F-35?

It really comes down to the 'choice' of nukes.
Keep American (B61-12), buy F-35, the only ac planned to carry it.
Switch to French somehow (ASMP), buy Rafale F4.

If you aren't keen on nukes, upgraded Eurofighter.

ThePointblank wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Yes it CAN do the Nuclear role. And EW. Since F3 standard.

1. With French nuclear weapons. Not American ones.
2. The Rafale's EW systems are only designed for self-protection against threats. Jammers like the NGJ are meant to to use in an escort, or standoff jamming mode against radars.

Tell my, why is it better to have American nukes than French ones?

On a side note: Has the Rafale even been tested with non french NATO weapons (IRIS-T, AIM-120)?

seahawk · Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:54 pm

There are some problems with the Rafale and French nukes. First France would need to agree to share the weapons and Germany would need to agree to enter that agreement, but most importantly the current US nukes are considered tactical weapons (bombs) while France uses the ASMP missile which is considered a (pre-) strategic weapon. That alone would be a long and complicated political and legal process.

And we also know more about the FCAS, as France has published their spending plan till 2025. This mentions the Systeme de Combat Arien Future (SCAF) as a future co-operative program with early development states not expected to start before 2023. So if you add the time frame Airbus has laid out for the FCAS being ready, when the Tornados needs to be replaced, will not work out. The fact that France plans on buying new Rafales till 2030 is another indicator.

So in the end it is a US plane or the EF. Maybe even a mix. One could base a squadron of 6-12 F-35s with the Dutch Air Force for the nuke mission and buy 48 EFs for the Tornado replacement in the other missions.

ThePointblank · Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:30 am

masterfie wrote:

Tell my, why is it better to have American nukes than French ones?

On a side note: Has the Rafale even been tested with non french NATO weapons (IRIS-T, AIM-120)?

1. Because the nuclear role involves the use of American nuclear weapons that are under the NATO dual key nuclear sharing arrangement. There are roughly 20 American B61 tactical nuclear weapons stored in Germany, with a Luftwaffe Tornado squadron assigned and equipped for the tactical nuclear strike role.

2. Not really; the only ones that are available is the Paveway series of bombs. Theoretically, one can integrate other weapons on the Rafale, but that user would have to bear the costs of conducting the software and hardware integration, plus flight testing. That gets very expensive.

seahawk · Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:57 am

Paveway and Meteor are the only weapons certified (or that will be) on EF and Rafale.

JJJ · Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:29 am

seahawk wrote:
There are some problems with the Rafale and French nukes. First France would need to agree to share the weapons and Germany would need to agree to enter that agreement, but most importantly the current US nukes are considered tactical weapons (bombs) while France uses the ASMP missile which is considered a (pre-) strategic weapon. That alone would be a long and complicated political and legal process.

The process of putting the French nuclear arsenal under EU PESCO control is already under way.

mxaxai · Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:34 pm

Leaked information from an internal DoD report on the German Tornados:

93 jets in inventory, 63 jets usable, 16 jets actually able to be made combat-ready on short notice. 10 jets are allocated to the NATO Response Force.
It will stay until 2035 if neccessary
IT and electronics are considered outdated and/or not fit for use. Communication is not secure as defined by NATO standards. IT and electronics upgrade cost increase by "several million €", some proposed upgrades may or may not be possible due to technical constraints.
No modern IFF installed.
Upgrades were planned to be completed by 2019 - as required by NATO agreements - but that target is now considered impossible to meet. Interim solutions may be neccessary.
Tornados in current state are considered unfit for use in a combined NATO force.
The older the tornado fleet / the individual aircraft become, the higher the probability of it not being "combat-ready" (meaning could be: In a flyable state / In an armed state / In a state ready to perform missions successfully). "Grundsätzlich ist die Einsatzbereitschaft mit zunehmendem Alter des Waffensystems deutlich risikobehaftet".

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschla ... 00662.html

Slug71 · Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:01 pm

masterfie wrote:
There is no way Germany buys a F-15 or F-18. Even the newest versions of the F-18 wouldn't be capable of carrying the most modern variant of the B61, the B61-12. Same goes for the F-15. Both of which wouldn't be much more capable than an upgraded Eurofighter in the Air-to-ground mission role. And if you are buying American, why arent you going F-35?

It really comes down to the 'choice' of nukes.
Keep American (B61-12), buy F-35, the only ac planned to carry it.
Switch to French somehow (ASMP), buy Rafale F4.

If you aren't keen on nukes, upgraded Eurofighter.

ThePointblank wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
Yes it CAN do the Nuclear role. And EW. Since F3 standard.

1. With French nuclear weapons. Not American ones.
2. The Rafale's EW systems are only designed for self-protection against threats. Jammers like the NGJ are meant to to use in an escort, or standoff jamming mode against radars.

Tell my, why is it better to have American nukes than French ones?

On a side note: Has the Rafale even been tested with non french NATO weapons (IRIS-T, AIM-120)?

I think the F/A-18 is the least likely choice due to the extra and unnecessary weight added for carrier ops, IMO.

I don't recall the Rafale ever being tested with IRIS-T or AIM-120. The Meteor is considered to be better than the Meteor though. But for flexibility, who knows. Maybe the F4 standard will be.

Slug71 · Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:17 pm

Slug71 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
There are some problems with the Rafale and French nukes. First France would need to agree to share the weapons and Germany would need to agree to enter that agreement, but most importantly the current US nukes are considered tactical weapons (bombs) while France uses the ASMP missile which is considered a (pre-) strategic weapon. That alone would be a long and complicated political and legal process.

And we also know more about the FCAS, as France has published their spending plan till 2025. This mentions the Systeme de Combat Arien Future (SCAF) as a future co-operative program with early development states not expected to start before 2023. So if you add the time frame Airbus has laid out for the FCAS being ready, when the Tornados needs to be replaced, will not work out. The fact that France plans on buying new Rafales till 2030 is another indicator.

So in the end it is a US plane or the EF. Maybe even a mix. One could base a squadron of 6-12 F-35s with the Dutch Air Force for the nuke mission and buy 48 EFs for the Tornado replacement in the other missions.

I think an agreement to share or even a J/V to produce new ones are likely if they are to develop their own fighter. AFAIK, Germany themselves, just have access to the stock pile that the US stockpile that is there. It seems like they are wanting their own again though.

The FCAS will definitely not make the Tornado replacement timeframe, so I think it will instead be a replacement for the Eurofighter and Rafale. Its sounding similar to the PAKA / FGFA programs (that is looking unlikely).

ThePointblank · Sun Apr 01, 2018 2:43 am

JJJ wrote:
seahawk wrote:
There are some problems with the Rafale and French nukes. First France would need to agree to share the weapons and Germany would need to agree to enter that agreement, but most importantly the current US nukes are considered tactical weapons (bombs) while France uses the ASMP missile which is considered a (pre-) strategic weapon. That alone would be a long and complicated political and legal process.

The process of putting the French nuclear arsenal under EU PESCO control is already under way.

There is no process. There was just a proposal that was suggested which went no where. The French have no willingness to share nuclear weapons, much less put them under European command. The French would demand final say over the use of nuclear weapons, and there would be question marks if the French were willing to start a nuclear war over some of the smaller NATO or European allies.

Slug71 wrote:
I don't recall the Rafale ever being tested with IRIS-T or AIM-120. The Meteor is considered to be better than the Meteor though. But for flexibility, who knows. Maybe the F4 standard will be.

The Rafale's implementation of the Meteor is half-assed compared to the Eurofighter. The Rafale uses the Meteor on the pre-existing MICA missile interface, which is a one way datalink where the fighter just provides mid-course guidance to the missile.

Eurofighter uses a two way datalink where the launch platform provides mid-course guidance, but the missile also sends information back to the launch aircraft, such as missile status, speed, range, and when the seeker has locked onto the target.

sasd209 · Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:32 am

JJJ wrote:
seahawk wrote:
There are some problems with the Rafale and French nukes. First France would need to agree to share the weapons and Germany would need to agree to enter that agreement, but most importantly the current US nukes are considered tactical weapons (bombs) while France uses the ASMP missile which is considered a (pre-) strategic weapon. That alone would be a long and complicated political and legal process.

The process of putting the French nuclear arsenal under EU PESCO control is already under way.

The French nuclear deterrent is for the defense of France.... as it has always been and as it should be. Any thoughts of France joining/loaning/sharing that responsibility or capability is simply incorrect and a complete misunderstanding of the origins of and current status of the Force de frappe (dissuasion).

Slug71 · Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:40 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
I don't recall the Rafale ever being tested with IRIS-T or AIM-120. The Meteor is considered to be better than the Meteor though. But for flexibility, who knows. Maybe the F4 standard will be.

The Rafale's implementation of the Meteor is half-assed compared to the Eurofighter. The Rafale uses the Meteor on the pre-existing MICA missile interface, which is a one way datalink where the fighter just provides mid-course guidance to the missile.

Eurofighter uses a two way datalink where the launch platform provides mid-course guidance, but the missile also sends information back to the launch aircraft, such as missile status, speed, range, and when the seeker has locked onto the target.

Glad you understood what I meant. lol Meant to say that the Meteor is considered to be better than the AIM-120...

Interesting about the Rafale's implementation of the Meteor though. Wonder why they did it like that?
I also found it your comment about the production lines interesting. Had never really looked into how it was spread out and always somewhat confused on that. I read somewhere a short time ago that Spain was considering additional frames, so hopefully that will keep their line going a little longer. I imagine it will be a small order to mainly replace lost frames if an order materializes.

seahawk · Mon Apr 02, 2018 2:03 pm

Spain is looking at up to 50 frames, as the EF-18 are getting old.

keesje · Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:29 am

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.

Nicoeddf · Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:43 pm

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?
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.

Thanks for your insights guys.

Dutchy · Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:30 pm

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?
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.

Thanks for your insights guys.

Well, from an amateur:
- intake coating
- every sharp edge reduced
- stealth coating all over
- coating inside the canopy - the goldish you see in teen-jets

But the biggest problem is the weapons carried under the wing and you cant really do anything about that except building stealthy bombs like the storm shadow.

Economically not really viable to make a real stealth a/c from a legacy frame.

WIederling · Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:24 pm

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.

Dutchy · Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:27 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.

Bullshit reason. Not even a funny comment.

Nicoeddf · 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.

Nicoeddf · 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?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net