salttee wrote:

"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.

On occasion you should take a look at what nation has their armed forces deployed abroad.
The very real global threat at the moment is the US giving the armed clown at everyone’s doorstep.
That must go bang "somewhen".
Even if it caused by bad interaction between a ships captain and his crew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bedford_Incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
With US Man of War crashing into merchantmen all the time...

[list=]u[/list]

salttee wrote:

"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.

Who is Russia a threat to? They aren’t a threat to Europe.

Russia is more than a threat to Ukraine.
Are you attempting to solve that problem by just saying that Ukraine is not really "European"?

salttee wrote:

Russia is more than a threat to Ukraine.
Are you attempting to solve that problem by just saying that Ukraine is not really "European"?

Is Ukraine part of NATO? Is it an EU member? Would Germany be equally responsible to keep Russia out of Belarus, another european state? Isn't Russia itself mostly european?

OTOH: How exactly would advanced fighters have helped in the civil war there? Against an enemy that neither fields radar guided missiles nor any own aircraft? By destroying living rooms and civilian busses more precisely? By cutting off the flow of money and weapons to the rebels?

mxaxai wrote:

salttee wrote:

Russia is more than a threat to Ukraine.
Are you attempting to solve that problem by just saying that Ukraine is not really "European"?

Is Ukraine part of NATO? Is it an EU member?

Was I prescient? You do intend to solve that problem by just saying that Ukraine is not really "European"!

mxaxai wrote:

Would Germany be equally responsible to keep Russia out of Belarus, another european state?

"Responsible" is the wrong word: try "wise" in its place. But in any event, Russia hasn't invaded Belarus, so that's a moot point.

mxaxai wrote:

Isn't Russia itself mostly european?

Germany was European when it invaded Poland. So what's your point?

mxaxai wrote:

OTOH: How exactly would advanced fighters have helped in the civil war there?

1. The subject here is not "advanced fighters" it is replacement for strike aircraft.
2. The only people who believe the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a "civil war" are the Russians and their lackeys.

But to answer the point you alluded to: having overwhelming air superiority will act as a deterrent for expansionist behavior by Putin. It can prevent problems before they arise. It appears that Russia is on a similar course to the old Soviet Union and the new hostility will probably end the same way - when Russia goes bust trying to build a military that actually could be a threat to the west. When they see the futility of military threat it is reasonable to think they would abandon that path.

But if you think that the situation in Ukraine / Crimea is a civil war, you're not likely to be attentive to the idea of keeping Putin in check within his own borders.

The thing with Russia is, it may very well be posturing as a means of keeping their own population in check.
In which case they do not want war, as that would actually destroy the current opulent lifestyle of the leadership.
In which case, spending money in a manner that benefits the local population more (less spending on the military, larger fraction of military spending spent domestically) may very well be justified as a means of outcompeting Russia economically (and showing them the errors of their ways). In which case yes, go for Tr4 EF, as it will retain at least manufacturing expertise, profits (money for R&D) for domestic military aircraft manufacturers, and still be enough of a deterrent to prevent "taking candy from a baby".

Just so you know, I'm a believer of comparative advantage (buy the F-35 and export to the USA what Germany is good at), and IMHO buying the F-35 would be the right option, but then I'm from Latvia

salttee wrote:

"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.

Russia is no credible threat. There is no current scenario in which Russia stands to gain anything by going to war with NATO.
I repeat...no scenario.

Crimea is irrelevant as the argument isn't "a threat to anybody" but rather "a threat to Germany/NATO".
A lot of countries need to be fearful of Russia's sphere of influence ambitions. NATO members not so much.

Then they came for me—and there was no one .....................

salttee wrote:

Russia is more than a threat to Ukraine.
Are you attempting to solve that problem by just saying that Ukraine is not really "European"?

I don't see Russia as a threat to Ukraine anymore, they have Crimea which is want they wanted, Crimeans are now happy Russians again; Ukraine is more a threat to itself, the new leadership are as corrupt as the previous leadership, nothing has changed for the average person.

Kiwirob wrote:

salttee wrote:

Russia is more than a threat to Ukraine.
Are you attempting to solve that problem by just saying that Ukraine is not really "European"?

I don't see Russia as a threat to Ukraine anymore, they have Crimea which is want they wanted, Crimeans are now happy Russians again; Ukraine is more a threat to itself, the new leadership are as corrupt as the previous leadership, nothing has changed for the average person.

The current regime is in bed with the US doing there bidding to their own detriment.
couple of years and the place will be completely ruined like any other country the US
has lavished their help on.
The previous administration though nearly as corrupt as its follow up
saw Ukraine as more of a bridge between the EU and RF.
( this started as getting cheap gas from the RF while also stealing from the transit lines and
not even paying their reduced rates. biting had that gives food comes at cost.)

Soviet/Russian doctrine after the "Welikaja Otjetschestwennaja woina" was to never allow
war to be brought onto their own territory.
IMU the US is trying to leverage that via massing material/troops in adjacent nations
as provocation.
Remember in the reverse the US is rather proactive to act on even the smallest imagined sign
of potentially armed foreigners near their borders ( Grenada, a trumped up hoot )

Kiwirob wrote:

I don't see Russia as a threat to Ukraine anymore

You're the voice of Russia, so there's no surprise there.

Russia during the cold war being extremely defensive, creating buffers and setting up a huge army has a background. It's not only that they were the bad guys coming after us the good guys, like my generation learned itself. Numbers don't lie. It's a bit like the Israel. Traumatised, frustrated survivors determined to hit hard & decisive next time.

keesje wrote:

Russia during the cold war being extremely defensive, creating buffers and setting up a huge army has a background. It's not only that they were the bad guys coming after us the good guys, like my generation learned itself. Numbers don't lie. It's a bit like the Israel. Traumatised, frustrated survivors determined to hit hard & decisive next time.

The most staggering figures are, for me, the % of citizens killed during WWII in Germany (well it was the aggressor and they lost the war), Poland and the Baltic states and the sheer number of people within the USSR (in absolute figures).

rheinwaldner wrote:

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?

I think the Russian deployment of an S-400 to Syria shows that is not the case. The range and effectiveness of modern systems such as the S-400 mean when they are placed in border regions they can effectively monitor and potentially shut down airspace for hundreds of kilometres around them. In that sense these systems are no longer defensive weapons. The same applies to an AEGIS equipped naval vessel sitting off the coast, it has the potential ability to monitor and prosecute targets far inland.

Nicoeddf wrote:

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.

From a system perspective the Patriot shares similar TVM guidance and radar bands but lacks the missile range to directly compare. MEADS is probably a closer match from a complete radar solution. Radar performance of comparable western systems is difficult to compare with relevant detail probably only available from classified sources.

As for the S-400 being a system to worry about, of course it is. It is an extremely effective longe range SAM system and there is a reason the potential export market is large, but it will struggle against low RCS 5th gen aircraft by the very nature of its engagement sequence.

Nicoeddf wrote:

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?

The internet RCS of the B-2 has a large number of variable figures. For example this particular chart from Global Security https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm shows two different figures for the B-2 and probably represents the RCS from two different angles. As for the Eurofighter, be mindful that the RCS listed is for a clean jet, which in the case of the Eurofighter makes it essentially useless. Adding external payload to any of the 4.5 gen fighters will typically increase their RCS by an order of magnitude or more.

salttee wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I don't see Russia as a threat to Ukraine anymore

You're the voice of Russia, so there's no surprise there.

Or maybe he is not blinded by the "good guy - bad guy" doctrine.

And I am not even agreeing with Kiwirob, but it isn't black and white. Russia is a huge threat for Ukraine in a political sense. By destabilizing Ukraine they will eventually pull the country closer to their sphere of influence. And why wouldn't they?

- After all, the USA is doing that at least since WWII all over the world with disastrous effects in all of south and especially middle America, in Middle East, in South Asia.
- The European powers were doing that for centuries all over the world, with disastrous effects for millions and millions of local people
- China is doing that increasingly

Russia has no interest in any full fledged war with any NATO, western or otherwise powerful country. There is no scenario for that being remotely advantageous for Russia.
Hence, to bring this post at least slightly back to topic, balance of military power is more than enough to keep Russia in check. Therefore a Tr4 EF would suffice to counter, maybe in addition with an adequate number of MEADS (as I just have learned... ) to counter S-400 capabilites.

Ozair wrote:

...

Thanks Ozair!

salttee wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I don't see Russia as a threat to Ukraine anymore

You're the voice of Russia, so there's no surprise there.

More like the voice of reason, Russia does not have the military (or the stupidity) to get into a fighting war with NATO, only a complete idiot would think otherwise. It’s just not going to happen.

Kiwirob wrote:

salttee wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I don't see Russia as a threat to Ukraine anymore

You're the voice of Russia, so there's no surprise there.

More like the voice of reason, Russia does not have the military (or the stupidity) to get into a fighting war with NATO, only a complete idiot would think otherwise. It’s just not going to happen.

Ukraine isn't NATO.

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

salttee wrote:

You're the voice of Russia, so there's no surprise there.

More like the voice of reason, Russia does not have the military (or the stupidity) to get into a fighting war with NATO, only a complete idiot would think otherwise. It’s just not going to happen.

Ukraine isn't NATO.

And still doesn't it seem credible to believe in a full flegded Ukraine invasion scenario...
That would stretch Russia's military far beyond sustainable capability. And make them vulnerable everywhere else, kill every reputation, impose hard sanctions, etc etc.

I mean, never say never, but I wouldn't predict it with any reasonable probability.

Nicoeddf wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

More like the voice of reason, Russia does not have the military (or the stupidity) to get into a fighting war with NATO, only a complete idiot would think otherwise. It’s just not going to happen.

Ukraine isn't NATO.

And still doesn't it seem credible to believe in a full flegded Ukraine invasion scenario...
That would stretch Russia's military far beyond sustainable capability. And make them vulnerable everywhere else, kill every reputation, impose hard sanctions, etc etc.

Not gonna happen.

Indeed, the current hybrid warfare is by far more effective: low cost and yet a destabilized neighboring and Putin showing of as strongmen in the eyes of his countrymen. Most effective way to create a group is naming an outside enemy and thus pulling the group together. Doesn't matter if it is five people or a country of 150m, processes are the same.

Dutchy wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

salttee wrote:

You're the voice of Russia, so there's no surprise there.

More like the voice of reason, Russia does not have the military (or the stupidity) to get into a fighting war with NATO, only a complete idiot would think otherwise. It’s just not going to happen.

Ukraine isn't NATO.

Aren’t you clever today, this is about Germany replacing the Tornado, salty appears to think whatever Germany buy is to counter a perceived Russian threat, there is no Russian threat to Germany or any NATO country. The only threat to the remaining parts of Ukraine is the corrupt leadership and oligarchs who still rule the country. Russia got the bit they wanted, job done.

Kiwirob wrote:

there is no Russian threat to Germany or any NATO country.

See post # 610. viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1028375&p=20067553#p20062747

Kiwirob wrote:

The only threat to the remaining parts of Ukraine is the corrupt leadership and oligarchs who still rule the country. Russia got the bit they wanted, job done.

"The remaining parts of Ukraine" that's some pretty dark humor Kiwi. I bet it rolled off your tongue easy enough though.

Ozair wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

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?

I think the Russian deployment of an S-400 to Syria shows that is not the case. The range and effectiveness of modern systems such as the S-400 mean when they are placed in border regions they can effectively monitor and potentially shut down airspace for hundreds of kilometres around them. In that sense these systems are no longer defensive weapons. The same applies to an AEGIS equipped naval vessel sitting off the coast, it has the potential ability to monitor and prosecute targets far inland.

There is no Russian territory close enough to Germany to create the threat you mention.

AEGIS is also no threat to Germany.

rheinwaldner wrote:

Ozair wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

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?

I think the Russian deployment of an S-400 to Syria shows that is not the case. The range and effectiveness of modern systems such as the S-400 mean when they are placed in border regions they can effectively monitor and potentially shut down airspace for hundreds of kilometres around them. In that sense these systems are no longer defensive weapons. The same applies to an AEGIS equipped naval vessel sitting off the coast, it has the potential ability to monitor and prosecute targets far inland.

There is no Russian territory close enough to Germany to create the threat you mention.

AEGIS is also no threat to Germany.

Kaliningrad Oblast.

A S-400 type system could easily shut down most of the air space in Poland, and monitor the air space well into Germany.

As mentioned, facts such as S400 systems in Kaliningrad Oblast will be ignored by certain members since the F35 is not a Europeon product.

rheinwaldner wrote:

There is no Russian territory close enough to Germany to create the threat you mention.

German Recce Tornados fly under the umbrella of a Russian S-400 during their time in Syria and Iraq. Germany operate in Syria and Iraq through article 51 of the UN charter on collective self defence. It is really so hard to comprehend that German Military Forces, including their Air Force, may have to at some time in the next 15-20 years operate within a dense and highly capable air defence environment?

rheinwaldner wrote:

AEGIS is also no threat to Germany.

It was a representation of a similar system with similar capabilities to monitor and close down airspace over a large region.

Not having fearsome enemy's could become a real disaster for the society where weapons and might are part of the identity.
Don't argue that, makes you a bad guy!

https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/0053_defense-comparison-full.gif
https://www.clearedconnections.com/security-clearance-news/security-clearance/defense-jobs-make-up-10-percent-of-u-s-manufacturing-demand.htm

ThePointblank wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

There is no Russian territory close enough to Germany to create the threat you mention.

AEGIS is also no threat to Germany.

Kaliningrad Oblast.

A S-400 type system could easily shut down most of the air space in Poland, and monitor the air space well into Germany.

We are not talking about Poland. We are neither talking about monitoring.

Planeflyer wrote:

As mentioned, facts such as S400 systems in Kaliningrad Oblast will be ignored by certain members since the F35 is not a Europeon product.

Go educate yourself about European geography and tell us please, how S400 creates the mentioned thread to Germany.

Also, if you want to spin a plot, where Russia starts firing missiles against NATO from Kaliningrad, you must not forget that excalibur artillery from Poland will be all it needs to suppress the Russian attempts.

rheinwaldner wrote:

where Russia starts firing missiles against NATO from Kaliningrad, you must not forget that excalibur artillery from Poland will be all it needs to suppress the Russian attempts.

Talk about spinning a plot!

You need to consult a map of European geology. Polish artillery firing into the Kaliningrad Oblast would be WW3. And BTW that Polish artillery wouldn't last long.

Maybe move this debate to a WW3 re-imagined thread and try to get the German Tornado replacement debate to a bit more factual level?

seahawk wrote:

Maybe move this debate to a WW3 re-imagined thread and try to get the German Tornado replacement debate to a bit more factual level?

When will the Germans reach a decision? I presume a new government needs to be formed before this can be made public.

That hasn't been decided yet? So we might be talking about years before we see an end to this thread

The first decision from the new government would be to decide if they even want to start the process to buy a replacement.

seahawk wrote:

The first decision from the new government would be to decide if they even want to start the process to buy a replacement.

One of the three parties of the future government coalition (CSU) has demanded a spending increase to 2% of the GDP, as epected by NATO. On the other hand, another future government party (SPD) has a fairly anti-american stance (or rather, anti-Trump). And similar to the past discussion here, there really is no consensus within the future government or the people of Germany what the Tornado replacement should do. With the refugee crisis and the looming terrorism threat most people would rather see the government spend money on countering those. The German armed forces also have ongoing issues with maintenance and spare parts. Spending billions of € on an american-designed aircraft without a publicly accepted mission would be political suicide.
The next elections will be held in Bavaria, autumn 2018. Do not expect a decision before that. At least not a decision pro-F35.

It would have to be a tender anyway. And deciding to hold a competition in 2018 would be surprisingly fast. I personally think there will be no tender and the Tornado will be kept on, because investing the money into police and the justice system is a more pressing need.

So that means the following time line, if met:
2018 work on the tender and decision taken in principle to replace the Tornado
2019 tender
2020 decision reached
2021 Contract
2025 delivery of the first a/c

Something like this?

Dutchy wrote:

So that means the following time line, if met:
2018 work on the tender and decision taken in principle to replace the Tornado
2019 tender
2020 decision reached
2021 Contract
2025 delivery of the first a/c

Something like this?

For an F-35 purchase I'd expect something like
2018 Decision whether to decide now on a Tornado replacement and preliminary timeline
(mid-late) 2019 "Tender"
2020-early 2021 Decision (more or less final)
2022 Contract (unless somebody goes to court or the 2021 elections result in major political changes)
2026-2027 Delivery

An EF Tr.4 purchase would likely be faster
Early-Mid 2018 Decision to replace the Tornado
Early 2019 "Tender"
2020 Decision & Contract
2022-2023 "Delivery"
2023-2026 Upgrades to meet specs

After all, the EF production will run out in 2022. The German line will end even sooner, in 2019.

For those interested in the Luftwaffe's current capabilities, they uploaded two videos regarding the EF's ground strike capability and the Taurus cruise missile (with live firing tests).
Eurofighter:
https://youtu.be/8aKb6PlTO-k
Taurus:
https://youtu.be/ppi3Pp6RXNU

rheinwaldner wrote:

We are not talking about Poland. We are neither talking about monitoring.

If the Russians attack Germany, it will be via the direction of Poland. And Poland is a NATO member, so Article 5 can be invoked, drawing Germany into a conflict if the Poles are attacked.

And if the Russians have the ability to shut down most of Polish air space from Kaliningrad, and monitor air traffic from most of Germany, that's not good news for the Germans if they use existing 4th and 4.5th gen aircraft. The Russians will have advanced warning of any non-low observable aircraft activity while the aircraft are still taking off and forming up in German air space; as such, the Russians can easily determine when the aircraft will actually reach Russian territory, and prepare defences to counter them.

ThePointblank wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

We are not talking about Poland. We are neither talking about monitoring.

If the Russians attack Germany, it will be via the direction of Poland. And Poland is a NATO member, so Article 5 can be invoked, drawing Germany into a conflict if the Poles are attacked.

And if the Russians have the ability to shut down most of Polish air space from Kaliningrad, and monitor air traffic from most of Germany, that's not good news for the Germans if they use existing 4th and 4.5th gen aircraft. The Russians will have advanced warning of any non-low observable aircraft activity while the aircraft are still taking off and forming up in German air space; as such, the Russians can easily determine when the aircraft will actually reach Russian territory, and prepare defences to counter them.

On a shooting war those S400 on Kaliningrad go boom on the first hour.

There's no point in Kaliningrad oblast that's further than 20km from NATO territory.

Please, forget WW3 for the moment.

One wish list has been made public by a Luftwaffe general but the final requirements will be defined when or if their is an actual process to buy a new plane. Neither of the posters here will decide or does know what the final requirements will be.

Please keep the discussion on topic. There is no need for personal attacks. Debate the topic, not the user.

✈️ atcsundevil

The German FlugRevue had a new piece on the topic. The Luftwaffe has asked for information on capability and price on F-35, EF, F-18 and F-15 but in the end it seems to boil down to 2 options.

1. F-35
2. a quick decision for the joint French-German FCAS and keeping the Tornado flying until FCAS arrives - this however would need binding contracts to be signed in 2018 according to Airbus

In addition the must have capabilities are again described as:

1. ability to carry US nuclear weapons
2. SEAD capability to replace Tornado ECR - for this Germany has made a binding guarantee to NATO to field such a capability

seahawk wrote:

In addition the must have capabilities are again described as:

1. ability to carry US nuclear weapons
2. SEAD capability to replace Tornado ECR - for this Germany has made a binding guarantee to NATO to field such a capability

Should be an easy one for the F-35. External HARM carriage won't make it any worse than the Tornado, and I'm sure the software to enable SEAD/DEAD is on its way.

angad84 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

In addition the must have capabilities are again described as:

1. ability to carry US nuclear weapons
2. SEAD capability to replace Tornado ECR - for this Germany has made a binding guarantee to NATO to field such a capability

Should be an easy one for the F-35. External HARM carriage won't make it any worse than the Tornado, and I'm sure the software to enable SEAD/DEAD is on its way.

The USMC has an objective goal to integrate the AARGM-ER onto the F-35B & C which is a significant improvement on the HARM and would certainly fulfil any SEAD weapon requirements. F-35A customers, which is almost certainly the version Germany would acquire, will have AARGM-ER available in blk 4 and the missile will be capable of internal carriage on the A/C versions.
Some info here, https://www.scribd.com/document/263052596/Aargm-Er-Rfi and also available on slide 168 of the Marine Aviation Plan 2018.

What software are you talking about the SEAD/DEAD? I'm not aware of any software modifications required to allow the F-35 to function in a SEAD/DEADS role and the airframe has already done so i major exercises using existing weapons.

Geo-location and gravity weapons aren't true SEAD/DEAD. Per my information, the software needs tuning to get the ESM and any potential ARM talking.

Didn't know AARGM-ER was being tailored for the F-35, but like I said, given its ESM capability, it only makes sense to give it an ARM capability. US NAVAIR roadmaps indicate an EW capability/maturity gap between F-35 and EA-18G, so whatever they can or plan to slap onto the F-35 will require software mods, testing and cert.

No F-35 in today's configuration can be a drop-in replacement for the Tornado ECR, although that can probably be achieved with some additional work. To significantly exceed the ECR's complete capability set will probably require a lot of work, and the cost and time implications thereof are unknown.

I have not read every single post but from what I have read I think that the most productive course for Germany (politically+commercialy+militarily) is to order at least enought Typhoons to keep the line open for sufficient time to allow an unrushed medium/long term Tornado replacement decision to be taken. I bear in mind that (a) Germany currently has a caretaker administration (b) a future government may not wish to continue to have a nuclear strike capability (c) the EU proposal for an EU military force may be the route Germany chooses to take (turning its back on the USA in the long term).

So I think ordering a few more non-nuke capable Typhoons to buy time in which to make a considered decision on a Tornado replacement is the way to go.

angad84 wrote:

Geo-location and gravity weapons aren't true SEAD/DEAD. Per my information, the software needs tuning to get the ESM and any potential ARM talking.

Respectively, that is 4th gen thinking. In a 5th gen world both the F-22 and F-35 are perfectly capable of locating, identifying and prosecuting a SEAD/DEAD target set. The system doesn't care how it dies, just that it has.

In the case of the F-35, it doesn’t require a high speed ARM when it can move, likely near undetected, close enough to the target where cheaper and more destructive weapons can be employed in a far more precise and discriminate manner.

angad84 wrote:

Didn't know AARGM-ER was being tailored for the F-35, but like I said, given its ESM capability, it only makes sense to give it an ARM capability. US NAVAIR roadmaps indicate an EW capability/maturity gap between F-35 and EA-18G, so whatever they can or plan to slap onto the F-35 will require software mods, testing and cert.

I don’t consider that a valid comparison. The USAF use F-16CJ for the SEAD role and the Tornado ECR is very much in the F-16CJ class and not in the capability class of the EA-18G from an EW perspective. The Tornado essentially uses HARM to prosecute radars but an F-35 will use a suite of sensors and weapons to prosecute the radars, associated TELS and other related systems and do so in threat environment that a Tornado ECR is unlikely to be able to enter.

As for overall EW capability, while integration has been halted for NGJ on the F-35, it will eventually move onto the platform. The budget for NGJ is currently focused on replacing ALQ-99 in service and awarding the low and high band pod contracts.

angad84 wrote:

No F-35 in today's configuration can be a drop-in replacement for the Tornado ECR, although that can probably be achieved with some additional work. To significantly exceed the ECR's complete capability set will probably require a lot of work, and the cost and time implications thereof are unknown.

I disagree. The Italians are replacing their Tornado ECRs with F-35A and the capability of the F-35 sensor suite far exceeds that present in the ECR. If the only thing you consider you need to be a SEAD aircraft is an ARM capability (with associated systems) then the definition you are using for SEAD is outdated.

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

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