AFAIK nothing before Tranche 2B is upgradedable as they changed the data bus and much more beyound that.

Noshow wrote:

AFAIK nothing before Tranche 2B is upgradedable as they changed the data bus and much more beyound that.

Correct, hence why I referenced T2 and T3 only.

vr773 wrote:

I wonder how unlikely it really is that the Eurofighter could carry the US nuclear bombs. At least this option must be on the table in the ministry otherwise they couldn't be so outspoken about it now.

I don't believe that is an option unless the US receives the source code to the aircraft which I consider doubtful. It would be a significant upgrade program either for the current T3 or for a proposed T4. Upgrading a T4 to be nuclear capable would likely remove much of the cost savings of buying a different aircraft to replace the Tornado.

vr773 wrote:

I'm not sure but I think it's possible that Germany would retire or upgrade (if that's feasible) their current Tr1 Eurofighters.

Already alluded to above but there is no upgrade future for T1 aircraft. I believe one of the key reasons the Eurofighter is expensive to sustain is the low numbers of different variants that are held in the respective operator's fleets. Some numbers below I lifted from another website, I can't confirm the source but they look accurate.

RAF: 160 fighters in total (3 IPAs, 50 T1s, 67 T2s, 40 T3s).

GrAF: 143 fighters in total (3 IPAs, 32 T1s, 78 T2s, 30 T3s).

ItAF: 96 fighters in total (1 IPA, 27 T1s, 47 T2s, 21 T3s).

SpAF: 73 fighters in total (1 IPA, 18 T1s, 34 T2s, 20 T3s).

There is enough difference between the respective tranches that it must be an admin nightmare to maintain what is essentially three separate subfleets of aircraft. If Germany went for a T4 they could at least baseline around that variant.

seahawk wrote:

Anybody talking about a budget before there is a new government is maybe not so well informed.

Currently we do have some issues with protem ministers from the CSU "going it alone".
With a new government far out below the horizon there is room for additional surprises.

keesje wrote:

https://www.enca.com/technology/german-fighter-jet-project-likely-to-be-opened-to-other-countries

pidgeon among the cats. Competition for the F-35 and such.

WIederling wrote:

keesje wrote:

https://www.enca.com/technology/german-fighter-jet-project-likely-to-be-opened-to-other-countries

pidgeon among the cats. Competition for the F-35 and such.

More like a repeat of the mistakes of the past. This will only increase delay, inefficiency and seed a confusion of requirements.

I see chances growing the Luftwaffe ends up with a fleet strike optimized Rafales as part of a bigger deal. It seems Merkel is done with Trump & the home support he gets.

Rafale is not even on the list of candidates. It is basically more EFs or something American.

seahawk wrote:

Rafale is not even on the list of candidates. It is basically more EFs or something American.

Agree, at no point is the Rafale a contender and at no point will the Rafale be a contender. There is no justification or supporting evidence for the claim.

Germany and France are working on a big new fighter bomber project.

An interim solution is needed to replace Tornado's for a 20 year period in the IDS mission.

Ozair wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

It's 90% Eurofighter Tr4, 10% F35. All other options are DoA.

So the only issue I see with your ratios is the nuclear delivery role. Any rumblings on what Germany will be doing with that given the Eurofighter is very unlikely to have that role added. Could we see a split order, 24 F-35s leased for 15 years to cover that role and the Eurofighter numbers expanded with a Tr4 acquisition?

That role will evaporate. Nuclear weapons will soon violate international law, which is directly applicable by German courts. And purchase of nuclear weapon capable systems will there for likey be blocked, because of that. I'd be surprised if there are nukes on German, or any other country with international law directly applicable, soil before the last Tornado retires.

Best regards
Thomas

Does this include NK?

Planeflyer wrote:

Does this include NK?

and US, Russia, China, France, UK, Israel, Pakistan and India.
Of course some countries don't allow international law to be directly applicable, but this discussion is about Germany, where it is.

Best regards
Thomas

Please dont make me respond to this ludicrous allusion.

tommy1808 wrote:

That role will evaporate. Nuclear weapons will soon violate international law, which is directly applicable by German courts. And purchase of nuclear weapon capable systems will there for likey be blocked, because of that. I'd be surprised if there are nukes on German, or any other country with international law directly applicable, soil before the last Tornado retires.

Best regards
Thomas

Tommy, while your sentiment is nice, I see no way in the time frame that Germany is looking to acquire a Tornado replacement that nuclear weapons will violate international law. Germany may very well pull out of NATO Nuclear sharing and may demand the removal of those US nukes stored on their soil but nuclear weapons being banned is very far from realistic or frankly possible. Putin is not going to surrender nukes anytime soon and there is no way the rest of the international community will remove their stocks while Russia controlled by Putin retains theirs.

If Germany leaves NATO Nuclear sharing then it paves the way for a T4 Typhoon to replace Tornado. There is an emerging issue with that though, being the imminent closure of the German production line for Typhoon, which will apparently run out of production orders in 2018. The Italian and British lines will continue meeting export orders but Germany has none. It is going to require some government intervention to make something happen, such as extending the line to allow for a T4 or ordering more T3, but a government decision of that magnitude seems unlikely anytime soon in Germany.

Ozair wrote:

Putin is not going to surrender nukes anytime soon and there is no way the rest of the international community will remove their stocks while Russia controlled by Putin retains theirs.

All nations that have them ( except one ) have it for Fire Insurance.

Only one nation has ever used them,
still has its military mumbling about successful first strike doctrine and
is giving the armed clown on everybodies doorstep.

Fire Insurance, I tell you!
And it works. No "Regime Change" for nuclear armed nations.

W, you know all too well that both NK and Iran have threatened over and over to use WMD. Iran has boasted that they will wipe Israel off the map.

The fact that you do not state the whole story is typical of your posts telling about your character.

Planeflyer wrote:

W, you know all too well that both NK and Iran have threatened over and over to use WMD. Iran has boasted that they will wipe Israel off the map.

The fact that you do not state the whole story is typical of your posts telling about your character.

Talk is cheap. That is valid for NK and Iran and for Planeflyer as well.

The real cusp is in what aggressive destruction you do in the Real World.
Thus looking at the full story the US is very much ahead there.

Planeflyer wrote:

W, you know all too well that both NK and Iran have threatened over and over to use WMD. Iran has boasted that they will wipe Israel off the map.

The fact that you do not state the whole story is typical of your posts telling about your character.

All this is irrelevant to the point here. If there was an international treaty that Germany were part of, banning nuclear weapons, they couldn't own (or possibly operate) nuclear weapons. Simple as that. Such a treaty existing certainly wouldn't stop some countries to continue owning and developing WMD's, just like the treaties banning chemical and biological weapons aren't signed or followed by several countries. That didn't prevent Germany signing those treaties either. Neither did it make them not sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

And the whole debate us hugely off topic.

Planeflyer wrote:

W, you know all too well that both NK and Iran have threatened over and over to use WMD. Iran has boasted that they will wipe Israel off the map.

The fact that you do not state the whole story is typical of your posts telling about your character.

Iran hasn’t rattled the WMD sabre for a very long time. I don’t understand why people continually lump them in with NK?

Kiwirob wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

W, you know all too well that both NK and Iran have threatened over and over to use WMD. Iran has boasted that they will wipe Israel off the map.

The fact that you do not state the whole story is typical of your posts telling about your character.

Iran hasn’t rattled the WMD sabre for a very long time. I don’t understand why people continually lump them in with NK?

Devil incarnate.
The US still intensely wants regime change there.
( 4 to but not limited to: kill another RU friend and have control over China's energy imports.
kissing some Israel lobby asses is another vector. )

Kiwirob wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

W, you know all too well that both NK and Iran have threatened over and over to use WMD. Iran has boasted that they will wipe Israel off the map.

The fact that you do not state the whole story is typical of your posts telling about your character.

Iran hasn’t rattled the WMD sabre for a very long time. I don’t understand why people continually lump them in with NK?

Isn't Iran still enriching uranium / plutonium? Isn't NK developing nukes and long range delivery system?

I find the attitude of the most militarily powerful countries rather strange, though. They want to have WMD's but don't want any other country without them to acquire them.

art wrote:

I find the attitude of the most militarily powerful countries rather strange, though. They want to have WMD's but don't want any other country without them to acquire them.

Every time another country gets nukes, you increase the chances of a nut job getting control and actually using them. The majority of countries that have nukes are fairly stable, but if you get a country like North Korea or Iran have nukes... there is enough crazy in those countries that they might use them, but even scarier, they will sell them to terrorist organizations then deny everything when a shipping container of unknown origin shows up at a US allie and wipes out a city.

Oroka wrote:

Every time another country gets nukes, you increase the chances of a nut job getting control and actually using them.

Negligible. ... and the nutjob already holds the red button.

All the "near misses" that came to light years later were kicked off by the US.
Probably intentional.
Up to now we were rather lucky bystanders.

Kiwirob wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

W, you know all too well that both NK and Iran have threatened over and over to use WMD. Iran has boasted that they will wipe Israel off the map.

The fact that you do not state the whole story is typical of your posts telling about your character.

Iran hasn’t rattled the WMD sabre for a very long time. I don’t understand why people continually lump them in with NK?

I agree. Never understood that sentiment against Iran. Pretty stable partner for a lot of European countries and so far from actually using any WMD...
And to be honest: while I am no fan of NKs way of treating people, the ONLY sensible thing for them to do is acquiring nuclear weapons. Seems to be the only reliable way of preventing certain nations from invading.

To the topic: I can very well live with Germany being out of nuclear sharing. And consequently Tr4 Eurofighters. While I don't think a F35 would in any way be a bad proposition, I wouldn't consider it necessary at this point in time and the next 20 years to counter any credible threat. Maybe in 15 years time it would be a good idea to upgrade to the more capable last gen F35. Until then, waste of money and industrial capability.

Nicoeddf wrote:

Maybe in 15 years time it would be a good idea to upgrade to the more capable last gen F35. Until then, waste of money and industrial capability.

I don't understand your logic. Either there is a reason to have capable warfighting equipment or there is not. If there is no need for a survivable airborne weapons carrier, then you not only don't need the F-35, but you also don't need the Tornado or EF or whatever.

But if there is a need to oppose what appears to be increasing Russian intrusion into Eastern Europe or beyond, why are you projecting that it won't happen until 15 plus years down the road? It seems to me that you are assessing your country's defense needs base on materialistic desires rather than threat reduction / response. It's as if you're talking about whether to get this year's BMW or wait for next year's model.

salttee wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Maybe in 15 years time it would be a good idea to upgrade to the more capable last gen F35. Until then, waste of money and industrial capability.

I don't understand your logic. Either there is a reason to have capable warfighting equipment or there is not. If there is no need for a survivable airborne weapons carrier, then you not only don't need the F-35, but you also don't need the Tornado or EF or whatever.

But if there is a need to oppose what appears to be increasing Russian intrusion into Eastern Europe or beyond, why are you projecting that it won't happen until 15 plus years down the road? It seems to me that you are assessing your country's defense needs base on materialistic desires rather than threat reduction / response. It's as if you're talking about whether to get this year's BMW or wait for next year's model.

Maybe I haven't made my point clear then. Materialistic desires have no place in military. Despite being frequently in play.

However, I don't foresee a credible threat for at least 15 years which would require, and therefore be a reasonable investment, the additional capability of the F35. Especially in a conflict scenario which would be purely defensive.

What can Russia field where the EF Tr4 wouldn't be a proper adversary but the F35 would? In the next 15 years?

However, I don't foresee a credible threat for at least 15 years which would require, and therefore be a reasonable investment, the additional capability of the F35. Especially in a conflict scenario which would be purely defensive.

What can Russia field where the EF Tr4 wouldn't be a proper adversary but the F35 would? In the next 15 years?

Isn't the debate about what should replace a strike aircraft?

Yes, what's your point? You feel discussing the threat environment isn't relevant to the discussion?

We are looking at a planed service life of 30-50 years.

Nicoeddf wrote:

To the topic: I can very well live with Germany being out of nuclear sharing. And consequently Tr4 Eurofighters. While I don't think a F35 would in any way be a bad proposition, I wouldn't consider it necessary at this point in time and the next 20 years to counter any credible threat. Maybe in 15 years time it would be a good idea to upgrade to the more capable last gen F35. Until then, waste of money and industrial capability.

The thing is that modern land based fighters are expected to have a 30-50 year life, so buying something now that would only be kept for 15 years is a waste of money because you have to buy the interim jet, THEN buy the long term jet. The F-35 is not necessary, but it can still do the job very well and still be relevant in 30 years all while only buying a single type. Aircraft are increasingly complicated and are not being replaced the way they were with the century series. Jet fighters are a very mature concept now, that is why it is so hard and expensive to improve on them. The vast majority of the issues the F-35 has had isnt from the air frame but the avionics.

Nicoeddf wrote:

Yes, what's your point? You feel discussing the threat environment isn't relevant to the discussion?

I thought that Art's point was that the replacement for the Tornado would be required to be optimized as a strike aircraft. The Eurofighter is optimized for an air to air role.

If Germany went with the EF, then it seems that some other NATO member would be obligated to shift their role from air defense to the strike mission, or somehow the NATO mission planners would have to adjust for Germany's choice.

Oroka wrote:

The F-35 is not necessary

I don't understand that sentiment. The F-35 is pricey, but it is exactly what is needed.

Let’s be honest, the F35 would be perfect if it was a European designed and built AC.

Planeflyer wrote:

Let’s be honest, the F35 would be perfect if it was a European designed and built AC.

I agree. But it isn't and industrial capability and simply jobs have always been part of the consideration everywhere in the world while purchasing military equipment. *shrug*

Nicoeddf wrote:

What can Russia field where the EF Tr4 wouldn't be a proper adversary but the F35 would? In the next 15 years?

To follow up on this, S-400 is a good example. The range and capabilities of those systems are such that a Eurofighter of any variant is going to struggle against that system and given the mobile nature of the S-400 a Taurus or Storm Shadow is not going to be a reliable weapon for long range interdiction (also given S-400 will possibly shoot a long range cruise missile down).

Nicoeddf wrote:

I agree. But it isn't and industrial capability and simply jobs have always been part of the consideration everywhere in the world while purchasing military equipment. *shrug*

In the current Belgium RFP cost is the primary factor,



but Belgium doesn't produce a domestic fighter plane. I'd say protection of industry would be the primary requirement for the politicians of Germany, probably above mission effectiveness which would be the primary requirement for the GAF. The political situation in Germany is pointing to no decision happening any time soon though which will have subsequent issues for German procurement of a T4 Eurofighter or foreign fighter.

How costly is it to lose most of your pilots in the first few hours of a conflict?

4 th gen AC will have extremely poor survival rates in a contested environment.

And a good part of Germany can be turned into a contested environment in minutes.

Planeflyer wrote:

And a good part of Germany can be turned into a contested environment in minutes.

It's interesting to note that none of the posters that are fine with offering a token replacement are willing to discuss the actual threat, thus the actual requirement. I even started a thread in non-av to open that discussion up, but nobody came over to defend the pacifist approach.

salttee wrote:

to discuss the actual threat, thus the actual requirement.

Biggest threat imho is the US turning on Europe, their "allies", in their drive towards global control
in an environment of an active but failing undeclared full spectrum commercial war on Europe.

A phone home plane would be completely useless in that environment.

Ozair wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

What can Russia field where the EF Tr4 wouldn't be a proper adversary but the F35 would? In the next 15 years?

To follow up on this, S-400 is a good example. The range and capabilities of those systems are such that a Eurofighter of any variant is going to struggle against that system and given the mobile nature of the S-400 a Taurus or Storm Shadow is not going to be a reliable weapon for long range interdiction (also given S-400 will possibly shoot a long range cruise missile down).

Nicoeddf wrote:

I agree. But it isn't and industrial capability and simply jobs have always been part of the consideration everywhere in the world while purchasing military equipment. *shrug*

In the current Belgium RFP cost is the primary factor,



but Belgium doesn't produce a domestic fighter plane. I'd say protection of industry would be the primary requirement for the politicians of Germany, probably above mission effectiveness which would be the primary requirement for the GAF. The political situation in Germany is pointing to no decision happening any time soon though which will have subsequent issues for German procurement of a T4 Eurofighter or foreign fighter.

Interestingly enough, I was under the perception that the S-400 architecture is specifically designed to have a weapon able to counter the F35.

Look, I am not saying that the F35 wouldn't be the best as in most advanced platform. I am not saying that all the stealth features are not helping. I have no doubt it is the most advanced fighter plane out there, despite all the talk about how the program was managed and cost and bla bla bla.
I am just realistic.
Military equipment purchases will always have a VERY strong political and industrial component. I understand there are a lot of people on this board with actual military flying experience - but realistically mission effectiveness is only ONE factor to be considered.
Will that kill people? Yes, possibly. But it might be the only option politically and fiscally achievable.

That might not sound pretty if you are sitting in the pointy end. But being realistic isn't always pretty.

So in a world where it is either Tr4 EF or nothing, EF it is for me. It is a formidable plane. Not on the same level and not as specialized for the strike role as the F35. But it is the doable option in the big picture. *shrug*

I think the strengths of the partnerships for EF (UK, Italy) and F35 (Trump) versus the Rafale (Macron) ain't how they used to be.

Throwing in cold war scenarios IMO indicates a hang to the past, when all was a clearer good vs bad.

Things are changing.

salttee wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

And a good part of Germany can be turned into a contested environment in minutes.

It's interesting to note that none of the posters that are fine with offering a token replacement are willing to discuss the actual threat, thus the actual requirement. I even started a thread in non-av to open that discussion up, but nobody came over to defend the pacifist approach.

Salttee, with all due respect, but if you think that the actual threat is or should be the only variable going into the assessment, then you are mistaken. While I understand military personnel, with their lives ultimatively at stake, would like to see it that way, there are bigger things going on - like it or not.

And is hasn't anything to to with pacifism. It is realism.

Nicoeddf wrote:

Interestingly enough, I was under the perception that the S-400 architecture is specifically designed to have a weapon able to counter the F35.

If we look at the architecture of the S-400, it relies on the Gravestone engagement radar and either semi-active or active radar guided missiles. This reference document, http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf indicates the performance of respective radar systems against a worst case assessment of the RCS of the F-35. The performance of the S-300, a predecessor to the S-400, is demonstrated, as is for example the performance of the F-16 APG-68, both of which are significantly reduced. Those respective systems operate in the same frequency as the S-400 Gravestone and its missiles, so while we may see a performance improvement from the Gravestone over an older Tombstone TER, it will still be significantly degraded.

Nicoeddf wrote:

Military equipment purchases will always have a VERY strong political and industrial component. I understand there are a lot of people on this board with actual military flying experience - but realistically mission effectiveness is only ONE factor to be considered.
Will that kill people? Yes, possibly. But it might be the only option politically and fiscally achievable.

I agree, that is why I consider more Eurofighters are the most likely option for Germany, and probably the best option from a political and cost perspective.

Nicoeddf wrote:

So in a world where it is either Tr4 EF or nothing, EF it is for me. It is a formidable plane. Not on the same level and not as specialized for the strike role as the F35. But it is the doable option in the big picture. *shrug*

Agree. I have been supporting that option for a while now but if the process takes too long and German Eurofighter production ends, or Germany wants to remain within NATO Nuclear sharing, then the F-35 is the shining candidate on cost, capability and interoperability.

keesje wrote:

Throwing in cold war scenarios IMO indicates a hang to the past, when all was a clearer good vs bad.

No cold war scenarios being thrown Keesje, just rational logic. A Belgian Air Force General recently commented on the threat that the S-400 presents to future air operations, as indicated by the growing list of operating nations such as China, India, Turkey, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Belarus besides Russia. North Korea would take them if they could, Iran has tried to acquire them and Egypt is also keen. It only takes a couple of these systems to present a significant challenge to current western air power in any theatre of operations.

You just need to look at the service life of the plane.If we go by 40 years one most plan for the option that today´s modern SAM systems will be as common as systems that were modern in 1978. And those are to be expected even in low intensity conflicts today. (SA-6, SA-8)

ozair wrote:

If we look at the architecture of the S-400, it relies on the Gravestone engagement radar and either semi-active or active radar guided missiles. This reference document, http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf indicates the performance of respective radar systems against a worst case assessment of the RCS of the F-35. The performance of the S-300, a predecessor to the S-400, is demonstrated, as is for example the performance of the F-16 APG-68, both of which are significantly reduced. Those respective systems operate in the same frequency as the S-400 Gravestone and its missiles, so while we may see a performance improvement from the Gravestone over an older Tombstone TER, it will still be significantly degraded.

Thanks for the interesting paper.
What would be a comparable western built radar system of similar performance? It seems to me, the S-400 is a system to worry about.

By the way, looking into the paper I am surprised to see that the EF seems to have a similar RCS as the B2 ~0,1?

Agree with your other points.

seahawk wrote:

You just need to look at the service life of the plane.If we go by 40 years one most plan for the option that today´s modern SAM systems will be as common as systems that were modern in 1978. And those are to be expected even in low intensity conflicts today. (SA-6, SA-8)

All understood. However receiving Tr4 EF now to replace part of the Tornados and supplement with matured F35 (or whatever) in 15 years seems to be a far better option than keeping an all Tornado strike fleet until 2035. The cost aspect of split fleet would be mitigated by the existing EF in A2A role.

And while the S-400 seems to be a very credible threat, let's not pretend as if suddenly all ground and flying equipment of possible adversaries will be latest and greatest. Or even fielded in relevant numbers, apart maybe from China.

And I don't see a situation where German strike aircraft would play any role in a conflict with China - NATO obligations or not.

"China" is a red herring. Russia is the threat, and they have already fielded enough power to invade and occupy parts of an European nation.

Nicoeddf wrote:

seahawk wrote:

You just need to look at the service life of the plane.If we go by 40 years one most plan for the option that today´s modern SAM systems will be as common as systems that were modern in 1978. And those are to be expected even in low intensity conflicts today. (SA-6, SA-8)

All understood. However receiving Tr4 EF now to replace part of the Tornados and supplement with matured F35 (or whatever) in 15 years seems to be a far better option than keeping an all Tornado strike fleet until 2035. The cost aspect of split fleet would be mitigated by the existing EF in A2A role.

And while the S-400 seems to be a very credible threat, let's not pretend as if suddenly all ground and flying equipment of possible adversaries will be latest and greatest. Or even fielded in relevant numbers, apart maybe from China.

And I don't see a situation where German strike aircraft would play any role in a conflict with China - NATO obligations or not.

If you buy interim EsF, you do - imho - waste resources as the EF fleet is planed to be replaced by the new fighter to be designed with the French. Which will be after 2035 and then you will be pressed to replace at least the Tranche 1s quickly. Imho getting a number of F-35 by 2025 gives the fleet a strike option that it needs, a plane that fulfils most requirements, a plane that is offering great interoperability with allies and a plane with a secure upgrade path, as well as being a perfect benchmark for the EF replacement. Sadly it is an American product, which is the big point against it. But it will probably still be cheaper than to built a Eurofighter ECR version.

Planeflyer wrote:

How costly is it to lose most of your pilots in the first few hours of a conflict?
4 th gen AC will have extremely poor survival rates in a contested environment.

This is still totally uneducated talk about loss rates. Are you aware about the loss rate of "current generation-1" aircraft e.g. in the first Gulf war? The Jaguar and A-7s not only survived the first hours but the whole war - without any loss.

Planeflyer wrote:

And a good part of Germany can be turned into a contested environment in minutes.

Yes, by Germany.

Ozair wrote:

...as indicated by the growing list of operating nations such as China, India, Turkey, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Belarus besides Russia. North Korea would take them if they could, Iran has tried to acquire them and Egypt is also keen. It only takes a couple of these systems to present a significant challenge to current western air power in any theatre of operations.

Only if western air power would have the need to operate in these countries. Which is not the case. Especially in the case of Germany. Why should it trouble Germany if these countries install a proper air defence for their soil?