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

columba · Mon Dec 21, 2015 8:12 pm

Germany is considering to develop a replacement for its aging Tornado fleet with European Partners.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ger... ... PS20151220

Another option I read elsewhere is that Germany considers the Super Hornet (Growler as Tornado ECR replacement) as a possible replacement - since this would be the logical thing to do I highly doubt it. On the other hand all European partner already have the F35 on order and won´t have any interest in developing a new aircraft.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:11 pm

I wonder if it would be reasonable to make a Typhon variant for this. There are 2 seater Typhoons and it's still in production and it's relatively new. I guess it depends if they want something where the R&D is complete or if they're willing to do it themselves.

Ozair · Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:01 pm

Quoting columba (Thread starter):
Germany considers the Super Hornet

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 1):
I wonder if it would be reasonable to make a Typhoon variant for this.

From the article either of those options would bring forward the replacement timeframe. Both the Typhoon and the SH will be out of production by 2020 and the article indicates a replacement timeframe in the mid 2020s and possibly even as far out as mid 2030s. The Tornado also comfortably outranges a SH and in an A2G configuration would probably also outrange a similarly equipped Typhoon.

Quoting columba (Thread starter):
On the other hand all European partner already have the F35 on order and won´t have any interest in developing a new aircraft.

I can't find a realistic European nation to partner with them. France are unlikely to co-develop a ground attack jet, even though something like this would be a significantly better replacement for the Mirage 2000 nuclear fleet than the Rafale. Italy, the UK and probably Spain are going F-35 and the smaller nations are either in the F-35 camp or not going to spend any money developing/buying a long range strike aircraft. Germany also has no Middle Eastern or Asian security agreements they could leverage.
An out of left field partner for co-development could be Russia...?

Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 1):
I guess it depends if they want something where the R&D is complete or if they're willing to do it themselves.

How much would Germany be willing to spend on R&D? Any new development would probably cost a minimum of US$20 billion before production even started and that is before we consider at least 10 years to reach production. Fiscally, it might be wiser to invest back into the Tornado and zero hour 100 airframes. That could give them another 20-25 years of service out to 2050.

ThePointblank · Tue Dec 22, 2015 5:50 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 2):
I can't find a realistic European nation to partner with them. France are unlikely to co-develop a ground attack jet, even though something like this would be a significantly better replacement for the Mirage 2000 nuclear fleet than the Rafale. Italy, the UK and probably Spain are going F-35 and the smaller nations are either in the F-35 camp or not going to spend any money developing/buying a long range strike aircraft. Germany also has no Middle Eastern or Asian security agreements they could leverage.

Therein lies the rub. No potential partners interested in a Tornado replacement. Almost every previous partner that Germany has developed aircraft with is buying F-35's, save the French, and they aren't interested in another fighter jet development project.

The only other option is to develop a large UCAV, and Germany might find a partner for that somewhat more easily.

N14AZ · Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:44 am

Quoting columba (Thread starter):
since this would be the logical thing to do I highly doubt it.

You seem to be a real expert of German and / or European politics.

Then again, I do hope that people have learned from the past and that

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 3):
they aren't interested in another fighter jet development project.

columba · Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:20 pm

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 4):
You seem to be a real expert of German and / or European politics.

well I do work for a Party starting with the letter C.........

Pihero · Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:18 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 2):
something like this would be a significantly better replacement for the Mirage 2000 nuclear fleet than the Rafale.

To compare the Mirage 2000N and the Rafale ( B, I suppose ) ands find the former to be superior is asinine...

Oh ! I forgot you are the proponent of the best-ever fighter since the Foikker Eindecker : the SH isn't it ?

...andf btw, I do not think that the Germans would ever consider the Rafale to replace their Tornadoes : It would be saying that the French were right since the ACF 2000.
I think, it's grezat time for the Germans to go their own way : the Eurofighter has taken a lot of the TKF 2000. It could be revived and improved upon.

moo · Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:19 pm

The Germans wanted out of the Eurofighter program, and they wanted out of the A400M program - who in their right mind would partner with them on a new project?

The UK isn't going to do it - if anything, we would buy more Eurofighters to plug any gap we have when the Tornado's leave the fleet.

94717 · Wed Dec 23, 2015 5:14 pm

Some Gripen E?

Ozair · Wed Dec 23, 2015 9:14 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 6):
To compare the Mirage 2000N and the Rafale ( B, I suppose ) ands find the former to be superior is asinine...

Good thing is I didn't compare them. I compared a potential new co-developed Franco German strike aircraft to the Mirage 2000N and the Rafale and the specific role the Mirage 2000N plays for France.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 6):
Oh ! I forgot you are the proponent of the best-ever fighter since the Foikker Eindecker : the SH isn't it ?

LOL, yes I am a proponent of the F-35. Of course if you read what I said I never claimed the F-35 was the best choice for Germany, just that its presence limits possible development partners. Germany could do a lot worse than join the F-35 program though...

Quoting Pihero (Reply 6):
...andf btw, I do not think that the Germans would ever consider the Rafale to replace their Tornadoes : It would be saying that the French were right since the ACF 2000.

No one suggested it.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 6):
I think, it's grezat time for the Germans to go their own way : the Eurofighter has taken a lot of the TKF 2000. It could be revived and improved upon.

Except they don't fund the existing Tornado fleet enough to maintain readiness. What is the point of spending 20-30 billion to get to the same conclusion?

bilgerat · Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:45 am

Hmmmm.

Both the UK and Italy will have their Tornado fleets hand over the strike role to both Typhoons and F-35 I think Germany might have a problem finding a partner for developing a new aircraft - especially given Germany's political unreliability in the Eurofighter and A400M programme.

Germany could find itself in the rather strange position of having neglected and lost interest in the Typhoon - and some might say even wishing it didn't have them - to concluding it may well be the most sensible option now to order more Tranche 3 airframes as replacements for the Tornado IDS.

Would Germany look into the possibility of getting involved in the Anglo-French UCAV cooperation? Long term both these countries want to have unmanned stealthy strike aircraft. I can imagine Germany would be interested in such a capability.

[Edited 2015-12-23 20:47:56]

seahawk · Thu Dec 24, 2015 8:01 am

the timeframe gives it away, it is a first step towards F-35. Sure the first option is a European solution, but they won´t find partners and going it alone for 60 planes is out of the question either. So it will off the shelf and SH will be out of production.

WIederling · Thu Dec 24, 2015 8:52 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 11):

With Ms. von der Leyen as Minister of Defense everything for a a new Starfighter Scandal is already set up.

columba · Thu Dec 24, 2015 9:04 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 11):
the timeframe gives it away, it is a first step towards F-35. Sure the first option is a European solution, but they won´t find partners and going it alone for 60 planes is out of the question either. So it will off the shelf and SH will be out of production.

agreed !!

Kiwirob · Fri Dec 25, 2015 12:32 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 3):
Almost every previous partner that Germany has developed aircraft with is buying F-35's

You can't surely consider an F-35B as a Tornado replacement?

steman · Fri Dec 25, 2015 2:35 pm

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 14):
You can't surely consider an F-35B as a Tornado replacement?

The B is not an ideal replacement for the Tornado IDS but the F-35A is; at least the Royal Air Force and Italian Air Force believe so.

seahawk · Fri Dec 25, 2015 2:36 pm

No but how about F-35A.

moo · Fri Dec 25, 2015 4:46 pm

But the RAF hasnt ordered any F-35A's yet, and its looking likely that they wont - the entirety of the UKs F-35 order is likely to be B's at this point, with the Typhoon taking up most of the Tornado role.

TheRedBaron · Sat Dec 26, 2015 4:57 am

The Tornado is still a formidable weapon, I´d Neo the engines, update de avionics, and make it lighter, sure the tooling still exists and make another 50 and refurbish the existing ones to Neo standard...the cheaper and a surefire way to ensure a working solution...

TRB

steman · Sat Dec 26, 2015 7:43 am

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 18):
The Tornado is still a formidable weapon, I´d Neo the engines, update de avionics, and make it lighter, sure the tooling still exists and make another 50 and refurbish the existing ones to Neo standard...the cheaper and a surefire way to ensure a working solution...

I´m not sure the toolings are still in place. The last example has been built many years ago, probably more than 10. It will be less costly to develop a specialised version of the Typhoon to replace the Tornado. Production is still running. It is already being used in ground attack roles by the RAF and originally the Luftwaffe declared that the last 40 of its 180 examples order will be for ground attack roles.

Honestly I don´t know how they´re going to get anything done. Opposition to such a big military purchase will be huge, from public opinion to political parties, the Govt and the Luftwaffe will have a huge struggle ahead of them to go along with the acquisition.
They´re not going to develop a new platform alone. No-one does it anymore in Europe. I don´t even think Germany has the ability to develop a fifth generation high performance bomber on its own.
The only two viable options, F-35 or a specialised version of the Typhoon, will attract so much criticism and opposition that it will be close to impossible to get it done.
F-35 will be accused of being too expensive, ineffective, riddled with problems and lacking German content. The Typhoon has already been criticised so much already that opponents of the program will have a field day.

zeke · Sat Dec 26, 2015 8:11 am

Quoting steman (Reply 19):
The only two viable options, F-35 or a specialised version of the Typhoon, will attract so much criticism and opposition that it will be close to impossible to get it done.

I think there is another option, the Gripen NEO (manufacturered in Germany), it already has a ground attack role. And if they want some really stealth aircraft to do intial runs to disable ground radar and associated missiles, a fleet of unmanned stealth UAVs would do the job.

[Edited 2015-12-26 00:12:05]

MD11Engineer · Sat Dec 26, 2015 11:05 am

Actually I think that it is stupid to destroy the tooling used to manufacture combat aircraft (Or other larger military equipment, like tanks) currently in use, even if no additional purchases are being planned foor the moment in peacetime conditions. What happens if there is a war and the military have to make up for combat losses?

The jigs and equipment, together with all drawings, should be put in storage until the piece of equipment is defintely out of service. The same applies e.g. to the scrapping of the old G3 rifles, after the G36 was introduced. Mothball them and keep them in storage in case they are needed e.g. to equip a reserve force.

Jan

tommy1808 · Sat Dec 26, 2015 1:55 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 21):
What happens if there is a war and the military have to make up for combat losses?

if you have the plans in digital form, it is probably easier, faster, cheaper, more sturdy and lighter to just 3-D print them.

best regards
Thomas

MD11Engineer · Sat Dec 26, 2015 2:45 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 22):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 21):
What happens if there is a war and the military have to make up for combat losses?

if you have the plans in digital form, it is probably easier, faster, cheaper, more sturdy and lighter to just 3-D print them.

best regards
Thomas

you can't 3D print sheet metal parts and even else 3D printing is restricted to certain applications due to material restrictions. Plus you still need the jigs to assemble everything.

Jan

moo · Sat Dec 26, 2015 2:54 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 21):
What happens if there is a war and the military have to make up for combat losses?

You cant restart production pines just like that - some parts take years to build (for example all modern US warplanes have parts built on the Heavy Press Program presses, which are booked up for years), and it could take a year or more to clear out specialist factories and reinstate toolings.

This isnt like WW2 where you could bung out a bf109 or Spitfire in 24 hours, that loss you take today over Syria may take 2 years to cover.

And of course these days aircraft are much much more than the toolings, for example the processor that the F-22 uses for most of its systems has been out of production at Intel for 5 years now - Intel couldnt keep their line running for spare because that means keeping $10billion of chip fab lines around, including silicon wafer production, just for that one low purchaser. Want more F-22s to replace destroyed airframes? Then you need to pull avionics from the spares catalog, which means you are depleting the spares catalog faster than planned.

MD11Engineer · Sat Dec 26, 2015 3:32 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 24):
You cant restart production pines just like that - some parts take years to build (for example all modern US warplanes have parts built on the Heavy Press Program presses, which are booked up for years), and it could take a year or more to clear out specialist factories and reinstate toolings.

This isnt like WW2 where you could bung out a bf109 or Spitfire in 24 hours, that loss you take today over Syria may take 2 years to cover.

And of course these days aircraft are much much more than the toolings, for example the processor that the F-22 uses for most of its systems has been out of production at Intel for 5 years now - Intel couldnt keep their line running for spare because that means keeping $10billion of chip fab lines around, including silicon wafer production, just for that one low purchaser. Want more F-22s to replace destroyed airframes? Then you need to pull avionics from the spares catalog, which means you are depleting the spares catalog faster than planned.

I repair aircraft for a living, and I think that I know how aircraft are being made. I know about the issues of forging heavy pieces (e.g. the Tornado has a huge forged titanium piece in the center wing acting as a hinge for the wings to fold back). But once you destroy the forging tools, it become immensly expensive to re-produce the parts.
It might even be seemingly simple items, like the racks wirelooms are being made on.

The Russians had a system where they kept obsolescent or even obsolete equipment in storage until it defintely wasn't useful anymore, e.g. about ten years ago they sold Korean war vintage T34-85 tanks to collectors (together with demilled PPSh submachine guns, but there I would wonder if these wouldn't still be useful in urban combat situations, robust, shorter and more handy than an average assault rifle). We tend to scrap everything as soon as the next generation equipment comes up, and usually only order enough for peacetime ops. In case of a serious war against an equally equipped enemy we might end up throwing rocks after a few weeks.

Jan

moo · Sat Dec 26, 2015 4:27 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 25):

I repair aircraft for a living, and I think that I know how aircraft are being made

That doesnt seem to give you any specialist insight into this discussion tho.

We are talking about parts of an aircraft that that aircraft is supposed to go from first flight to scrap with - there are no spare parts made for these because they are the backbone of the aircraft, and you cant simply expect someone to whistle one up, so keeping the tooling around is a very small part of it.

Along with the tooling you need the same grade materials, the same processes, the same systems - there is a reason we cant build another Saturn V, and its not the myth that the blueprints or toolings dont exist, its because we produce better materials, use better processes, have better tolerances than they did in the 60s. Hell, we dont know how to produce the major grade of steel they used anymore!

The same thing happens gradually when an aircraft goes out of production. There is a reason the RAF reduced the F3s to parts when they retired them five years ago, because spare parts are no long available brand new. Why arent they available brand new? Because the world moves on at a faster pace than in service military tech tends to - you would be lucky getting your hands on a brand new processor for the Tornados avionics systems, because they are no longer made now. Why arent they made? Because when they were made, chip fab tech was at 1.5 µm, and now its at 14nm and moving fast to 8nm, which is several orders of magnitude out. The old chips cant be made with the new processes.

So we want more Tornados. We might be able to have the first in five to ten years, if we are lucky. And thats without validating any design changes bringing the Tornado up to date. We could have a customised Eurofighter in half that at a lot lower cost.

30989 · Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:09 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 20):
t already has a ground attack role

And one engine. I know, this is no issue for the rest of the world, but it was for many years in germany since the Starfighter crisis.

MD11Engineer · Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:45 pm

The problem is that in a major war (not an extended counter guerilla operation) against an equally equipped enemy our less than 100 fighters will be gone within less than two weeks. The same will apply to our tanks, even if the war won't turn nuclear. There should be plans to keep up supply. Not even to talk about expensive, supermodern missiles, which take months to produce once the initial order has been used up.

I read about the problems the RAF had during the battle of Britain to keep the production of combat aircraft running and to get damaged ones back into the air.

Maybe what is needed is a backup of cheaply manufactured, simple technology to replace the hightech peacetime equipment. And to keep old, but working equipment in storage (with this I don't mean flintlocks, but the eqquipment of the previous generation. E.g. now the German army is going to phase out the MG 42 based G3 in favour of a new high tech H&K made MG5. Most certainly the stocks of MG3s will go to the smelter. During the Borneo crisis the British Army dug out WW2 Bren guns, rechambered in 7.62 NATO, as the GMPG proved to be too heavy, and only fireable from the prone position, not a good idea in a jungle swamp. Also the ammunition belts used on the GMPG became muddy very fast, leading to stoppages, while the magazine fed Bren could be used like a big submachine gun.

As for the Saturn V, there exists a NASA programme to reverse engineer the F1 engine. One never used one has been taken from a museum, dismanteled and measured, using a laser scanner. They also test fired it's gas generator. The idea is to build a copy, using modern manufacturing methods, reducing the number of components and e.g. precision hand welding required.

Jan

bilgerat · Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:15 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 20):
I don´t even think Germany has the ability to develop a fifth generation high performance bomber on its own.

Germany does, as does the UK, France and Sweden.

What they don't have is the political will.

tommy1808 · Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:08 am

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 29):
Germany does, as does the UK, France and Sweden.

Japan may also have all the technology required.

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 29):
What they don't have is the political will.

I am also sure that it can be done for 10% of the F35 budget if one can keep politics out of it and do it with a cost optimized development, test and production program.

Keeping politics out of it is the hard part.

Best regards
Thomas

Ozair · Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:18 am

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 30):
I am also sure that it can be done for 10% of the F35 budget if one can keep politics out of it and do it with a cost optimized development, test and production program.

That is a claim that has no basis in reality. Even SAAB could not develop the Gripen for the cost you are claiming and the Gripen is very very far from a 5th gen aircraft.

Quoting moo (Reply 26):
We might be able to have the first in five to ten years, if we are lucky. And thats without validating any design changes bringing the Tornado up to date. We could have a customised Eurofighter in half that at a lot lower cost.

There are probably three scenarios. A re-life program that could extend the airframe life out another 15 years, an extensive upgrade of the basic airframe, and a Eurofighter solution.

Of the three, the lowest risk is a Eurofighter solution but that requires a decision now, while the Eurofighter is still in production, so some customization can be made for production to continue past 2019. Any custom option is going to require at least a couple of years of dev work.

A re-life program could work and there are plenty of examples of current military aircraft that are doing just that, but is just kicks the can a little further down the road without actually solving the problem and actually making it worse.

An extensive upgrade is just not smart. Too many risks involved and too many examples of failed upgrade programs for out of production military airframes. Australian SeaSprites, British Nimrods...

I doubt the Germans will be decisive enough to make the right choice before the option is taken away from them.

DfwRevolution · Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:05 pm

Quoting steman (Reply 19):
The only two viable options, F-35 or a specialised version of the Typhoon, will attract so much criticism and opposition that it will be close to impossible to get it done.

How far apart are the F-15E and Tornado in terms of capability? If import fighters are on the table, what would disqualify the F-15E?

zeke · Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:25 pm

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 27):
And one engine. I know, this is no issue for the rest of the world, but it was for many years in germany since the Starfighter crisis.

Very true, however engine technology has moved on. There has been zero engine related issues n the gripen. One option for the gripen also is to install the Eurojet EJ200 from the Typhoon into the gripen instead of a F414 to give it super-cruise capability, thrust vectoring, engine commanity pool with the typhoon.

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 29):
Germany does, as does the UK, France and Sweden.

I didnt say that, it was the post above.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:21 pm

The problem with lots of 'cheap' stuff is that its so much easier to swat out of the sky. Let's say you have a dozen F-22s in the air. Cheap would be a bunch of older F-16s. How man F-16s are those F-22s going to take out before even one F-16 gets close to one of the F-22s?

If you then put the avionics to a comparable level suddenly those 'cheap' aircraft are not that much cheaper as most of the costs are in the avionics.

So you then turn around and say that only one F-16 needs to get through to the airbase to make life difficult for those F-22s? Well the same applies in reverse. And in the age of mass cruise missile spam it's even easier to hit anything that looks like an airstrip and make life difficult.

Personally I think many countries haven't got out of the way of thinking when aircraft were being made obsolete at an obscene rate. During the early jet age just how many designs were being developed and brought into service before being retired only a decade later? Really the focus should be put into more risk sensible development. Like when you build a new airframe put existing avionics into it. Then after that's in production iterate the avionics to take full advantage of the airframe. More Hornet to Super Hornet jumps instead of Eagle to Raptor.

columba · Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:23 pm

Airbus Defence and Space is working with the German military on a Tornado replacement.

Link includes picture of the concept:

http://www.janes.com/article/61628/airb ... bundeswehr

Ozair · Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:11 pm

columba wrote:
Airbus Defence and Space is working with the German military on a Tornado replacement.

Link includes picture of the concept:

http://www.janes.com/article/61628/airb ... bundeswehr

This is dependant on the German Tornados being maintainable until the NGWS can be brought into service.

The following is from the recent German MoD publican on Air Power Development strategy 2016 and provides official guidance on German plans for Tornado and FCAS/NGWS.

With the upgrade of the TORNADO to ASSTA 313, the foundation has been laid for sustaining the operational capability of this weapon system. With the augmentation of capabilities of the EUROFIGHTER, the future focus of the TORNADO will be on SEAD and the employment of heavy weapons (e.g. GBU-24 and MAW TAURUS14).

According to current plans, the TORNADO will be kept in service until the mid-2020s. In order to provide enough time for the development and procurement of a successor system and to maintain the capability spectrum within the context of FCAS, studies are being carried out to determine whether the in-service period can be prolonged by stretching the remaining flight hours or whether a service life extension of the TORNADO until the mid-2030s is possible. The studies are assessing the technological risks and economic efficiency of these options with a view to reducing risks. A decision will likely be made in 2016.

With its AGM-88B Block III A guided missile (HARM), the TORNADO is the mainstay of the SEAD capability. Among other things, this missile no longer meets the requirements with regard to target location mechanisms and intelligent terminal control to increase hit probability.

Depending on the decision to extend the service life of the TORNADO, it may be necessary to introduce a follow-on solution for the engagement of ground-based air defence systems.

A NextGenWS is envisaged as a future complementary system to the EUROFIGHTER in the FCAS network and in some areas as a potential successor of the TORNADO. It must thus be geared to the future requirements of airborne weapon systems. A focus must be placed on possible options for using capabilities in an Alliance context. The resulting capability requirements should be defined in a complementary approach, taking into account the augmentation of capabilities for the EUROFIGHTER, the capabilities of the MALE UAS target solution, technological developments, trends, and threats.

The NextGenWS could be unmanned, manned or optionally manned. This decision should be taken on the basis of further analyses and in the context of a European solution.

In order to seamlessly maintain the current capabilities of the Bundeswehr, the initial operational capability of a NextGenWS must be achieved before the TORNADO reaches the end of its service life. In accordance with the strategic vector, this should be implemented in a multinational context. With the definition of concepts and operational requirements for an FCAS in 2016, the foundations will be laid for European cooperation.

http://www.bmvg.de/portal/a/bmvg/en

epten · Fri Jul 29, 2016 8:28 am

There's one thing I don't understand, so please don't laugh if it's a silly question: Isn't ground attack role obtained simply by mounting a targeting pod and weapons?

tommy1808 · Fri Jul 29, 2016 11:35 am

epten wrote:
Isn't ground attack role obtained simply by mounting a targeting pod and weapons?

you need to qualify both on the aircraft type you intend to use it on. In peace time that is a fairly long and expensive process.

best regards
Thomas

columba · Thu May 18, 2017 6:42 am

BERLIN (Reuters) - The German Air Force this month sent the U.S. military a written request for classified data on the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet as it gears up to replace its current fleet of fighter jets from 2025 to 2035.

The letter, sent by the Air Force's planning command and seen by Reuters, makes clear that the German government has not yet authorized a procurement program and is not committed to any particular aircraft to replace its current warplanes.

It said the defense ministry would carry out "an in-depth evaluation of market available solutions, including the F-35, later this year," with a formal "letter of request" to be issued in coming months.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-ge ... nance.html

seahawk · Thu May 18, 2017 7:28 am

What surprise..... :sly:

steman · Thu May 18, 2017 7:43 am

I hope Germany doesn´t go for the F-35 but decides to develop an indigenous solution (ie European) to maintain know-how and reduce dependence from the US for military hardware. It´s going to cost a lot but if the partner nations are willing to learn from past mistakes, they could make it work.
Since Italy and UK have already opted for the F-35, the only potential partners are France, Spain and Sweden. A Franco-German 5th generation stealth tactical fighter, with Spanish and Swedish participation is definitely possible, at least from a technical point of view. It remains to be seen whether there will be the political will.

seahawk · Thu May 18, 2017 9:04 am

Spain is practically out, as they have clearly stated that the next fighter would not only replace the Hornets but also the Harriers of the Armada. Add the fact, that Germany needs a plane compatible with US atomic weapons and also for the SEAD role it becomes clear that F35 it is.

Mortyman · Thu May 18, 2017 9:29 am

Would Canada be interested ?

steman · Thu May 18, 2017 9:32 am

The Tornado is compatible with US atomic weapons and it´s been so since the beginning. So is the SEAD role. These are not the discriminating factors that will make the F-35 the only option for the Luftwaffe.
With Britain and Italy (and Spain as you mention) out of the picture, it will be very hard for Germany to build a new generation tactical fighter and this might force the Luftwaffe to acquire the American F-35. But this also means that Europe will slowly lose the capability to design and produce advanced fighter aircrafts unless some Countries team up and pool resources together. That´s why I see France as the best candidate for Germany to work on a next generation offensive air system to replace the Tornadoes. I understand this is very unlikely to happen and the timing is also very unfavourable, since Tornadoes need to be replaced in the next 10 to 15 years and a new design will probably need more time to mature.

Dutchy · Thu May 18, 2017 9:49 am

Perhaps they should invest in the 6th generation a/c, will take 20 years to develop. With more EU cooperation perhaps this is a viable option. But I agree it is a difficult route to take.

seahawk · Thu May 18, 2017 10:08 am

steman wrote:
The Tornado is compatible with US atomic weapons and it´s been so since the beginning. So is the SEAD role. These are not the discriminating factors that will make the F-35 the only option for the Luftwaffe.

They are, because with the Tornado the partner nations were all user of US atomic weapons. Be it through owning some themselves or been given access to them in case of war. So the integration of the necessary equipment and the testing were part of the development and part of a huge combined purchase.

Today it is different. First the theoretical production run of a partnership with France and Sweden would hardly reach 300 (I personally would rather guess less than 200 for all 3 nations combined) frames combined, while the Germans would need to get US approval for the atomic weapons integration and would need to pay for it, while maybe needing 80 (or more like 50) frames. And in addition to needing US approval the French and Swedes would also need to agree to Germany using the design for that role. When it comes to SEAD it is not much different. Neither Sweden nor France have a suitable weapons system. The US has.

I am not a fan of the F-35, but for German needs when it comes to replacing the remaining Tonkas, it is an obvious choice.

Balerit · Thu May 18, 2017 10:54 am

Ozair wrote:
Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 30):I am also sure that it can be done for 10% of the F35 budget if one can keep politics out of it and do it with a cost optimized development, test and production program.
That is a claim that has no basis in reality. Even SAAB could not develop the Gripen for the cost you are claiming and the Gripen is very very far from a 5th gen aircraft.

5th generation is a Lockheed marketing term and as far as I'm concerned the Gripen is even better than the F35 or F22, here is an interesting article:

Shaping provides 90 percent of the stealth of the invisibility cloak of a stealth aircraft with the remaining 10 percent coming from the RAM coating. The operational doctrine of the F-22 is based on the F-22 flying around without its radar on and not making any other electronic emissions either. At the same time it is vacuuming up the electronic emissions of enemy aircraft, triangulating their position and then pouncing at a time of its choosing. The world has moved on from that. Stealth, as practiced by the F-22 and F-35, is optimized on radar in the X band from 7.0 to 11.2 gigahertz. Detection in other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum has improved a lot over the last twenty years. Chief of these is infrared search and track (IRST) which enables an F-35 to be detected from its engine exhaust from over 60 miles away. The latest iteration of the Su-27 Flanker family, the Su-35, has IRST and L band radar on its wings. L band and lower frequency radars can see stealthy aircraft over 100 miles away. So an Su-35 can see a F-35 well before the F-35 can detect it. Stealth, as an end in itself, has outlived its usefulness, and maintaining that RAM coating is killing the budget for no good reason.

Mar 24, 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Lockheed Martin labeled the F-35 a “fifth-generation” fighter in 2005, a term it borrowed from Russia in 2004 to describe the F-22. Some of their rivals tumbled into this rhetorical trap and tried to argue that “fourth-generation” was just as capable. Whether it is true or not, making such a case is an uphill struggle.

But if “fifth-generation” means more than “the ultimate driving machine,” a sixth generation will emerge. Saab can argue that the JAS 39E Gripen, rather than some of the wildly expensive-looking artist’s concepts we have seen, is the first such aircraft....The reason that the JAS 39E may earn a Gen 6 tag is that it has been designed with these issues in mind. Software comes first: The new hardware runs Mission System 21 software, the latest roughly biennial release in the series that started with the JAS 39A/B.

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/

YIMBY · Thu May 18, 2017 11:26 am

seahawk wrote:
Spain is practically out, as they have clearly stated that the next fighter would not only replace the Hornets but also the Harriers of the Armada. Add the fact, that Germany needs a plane compatible with US atomic weapons and also for the SEAD role it becomes clear that F35 it is.

No, it is far from clear. Selecting a military plane is never a purely technical case, but there are always subtle political dimensions included (and in many parts of the world a lot of corruption, hopefully not here). It may be even a personal issue, and given how much Trump has humiliated Merkel, it would be very hard for her to accept a major deal with the US, unless Trump makes some major concessions. Of course, it may take so much time to finish the deal that neither of them would remain in office.

Ozair · Thu May 18, 2017 11:42 am

Balerit wrote:

5th generation is a Lockheed marketing term and as far as I'm concerned the Gripen is even better than the F35 or F22, here is an interesting article:

The top tier air forces of the world disagree.

As for the article, it was rightly derided when Bill published it... There are multiple errors that some research and understanding of modern fighter technology could easily clarify.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net