seahawk wrote:

The point is that the Luftwaffe wants to replace the Tornado starting 2025, as studies show that the maintenance costs would skyrocket once you are the only user of the type. In addition by 2040 the numbers of new frames needed in a very short period would be prohibitive, as Tornados and Tranche 1 Eurofighters would need replacement.

What the Luftwaffe wants and what decision-makers decide are two different things.

Also, and I'm not saying I disagree with the assertion that costs rise, do you know how much it would cost to maintain a (potentially smaller) fleet of Tornados beyond 2025? I've read quite often now that it will be "incredibly expensive" and that costs will "skyrocket" but I have yet to see a concrete financial figure.

Planeflyer wrote:

There are lot of countries that owe their freedom to hardworking and patriotic Americans.

In the USA patriotism means freedom

I think patriotism or the perversion of patriotism is often used to limit freedom. That's true in in the US and in other countries.

Planeflyer wrote:

A large part of this conversation has an under stream of resentment that the F35 would be a great solution if only it were European.

One big point of criticism is that, as a buyer nation, you don't get full access to the technology. It's fine that governments feel it's important to protect knowledge but then you can't expect those that don't have access to it to buy it (and you certainly shouldn't pressure them politically). The US wouldn't buy the F-35 if it was made by Airbus/Dassault/etc.

vr773 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The point is that the Luftwaffe wants to replace the Tornado starting 2025, as studies show that the maintenance costs would skyrocket once you are the only user of the type. In addition by 2040 the numbers of new frames needed in a very short period would be prohibitive, as Tornados and Tranche 1 Eurofighters would need replacement.

What the Luftwaffe wants and what decision-makers decide are two different things.

Also, and I'm not saying I disagree with the assertion that costs rise, do you know how much it would cost to maintain a (potentially smaller) fleet of Tornados beyond 2025? I've read quite often now that it will be "incredibly expensive" and that costs will "skyrocket" but I have yet to see a concrete financial figure.

Exact numbers have not been released to the public, but one can be certain that there is a big load of experience from the F-4F and CH-53 cases and there is the experience from the ASSTA up-grades.

The problem is that even the industry partners are careful to make binding promises for a time frame after 2035. And 2030 is only reachable if the Luftwaffe decides on one more huge avionics update around 2025. This is called the FAST (Future Avionic Structure Tornado) or ASSTA ff. But even then there is no guarantee that the Tornado will make it to the time when the FCAS could be ready.

http://www.dglr.de/fileadmin/inhalte/dg ... themen.pdf

I sense a heavy resistance to discuss if the F-35 meets FCAS requirements & if the US itself would ever consider drastically reducing future sovereignty in air defense capabilities like they seem to propose to the Germans / French. It's kind of Do as We Say, Not as We Do

Dassault & Airbus must be applauding the new presidency's policies / tweets. Trump has not been making friends lately and can't expect favors. European leaders realize they build some of the best aircraft in the world, have the resources & conservatively want to keep it like that.

America First, the Nato Summit Art. 5, stepping out of the Paris Agreement, promoting coal, discriminating women, Mexicans, Muslims. Trump apparently can say anything he wants. Other leaders can remember anything they want. And it might prove totally unhelpful when large multinational cooperation has to be signed up for. The world has changed & continued stupidity has a price.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/24/michael-bloomberg-brexit-is-stupidest-thing-any-country-has-done-besides-trump

vr773 wrote:

Sure, it was straight forward - that's why there's a court decision pending. I also suggest you offer your help to the Danish government answering a couple of open questions: http://nytkampfly.dk/wp-content/uploads ... 240516.pdf

I’d love to answer some questions for the Danes though I’m not sure they want to pay my contract rate. Having been involved in a number of tenders within my line of work the clarification questions asked by Airbus are very straightforward and less I would consider usual, especially for such a complex procurement as a fighter jet.

vr773 wrote:

That's a Whataboutism. Yes, it's possible that other purchase decisions didn't fulfill due-diligence requirements.

A whataboutism is defined as “Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument “.
The difference is I have directly refuted your argument. The purpose of the statement was therefore to prove that reference customers is a meaningless comparison demonstrated by the lack of reference customers for numerous other aircraft.

vr773 wrote:

Now that they have the airplanes, time will tell whether they did their homework so that they can replace the F-16s. Not having hangars is not a good start.

Why don’t you go to the source and read what they currently think.
http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/

Good grief, Keejie, comparing the F35 to FCAS is like comparing Ali or Joe Frazier to Rocky.

The rest of your post is not only tendentious but way off the point.

Let me give you a recap of my Friday just to give the forum a sense of the reality of the US/Mexican relations and how skewed your views are. First, there are 5 lanes of traffic, full up entering the USA so the Mexicans who legally cross the border to work, send their kids to school and get medical care sure are not worried.

And going in , just to visit a few customers I must pay $30 and register to get a business visa (45 minutes). W/o a visa my customers will not eve let me on site for fear of a 10K per visit fine. And you wonder why Trump won!

Vr773, do you think those US troops standing guard duty tonight in Europe, S Korea, Japan, the Mideast and so many other places are contributing to freedom or oppression? Patriotism in the USA has never been perverted to nationalism or ultra-nationalism as it has so many other places. To the contrary, Patriots freed us from a King, ended slavery and saved the world from countless tyrants and tyrannies.

keesje wrote:

I sense a heavy resistance to discuss if the F-35 meets FCAS requirements & if the US itself would ever consider drastically reducing future sovereignty in air defense capabilities like they seem to propose to the Germans / French. It's kind of Do as We Say, Not as We Do [/url]

Why should we discuss this, when the Luftwaffe has indicated their preference quite clearly.

Tornado replacement -> off the shelf purchase with an EIS of 2025
FCAS -> Eurofighter replacement, EIS around 2035-40.

Planeflyer wrote:

Vr773, do you think those US troops standing guard duty tonight in Europe, S Korea, Japan, the Mideast and so many other places are contributing to freedom or oppression? Patriotism in the USA has never been perverted to nationalism or ultra-nationalism as it has so many other places. To the contrary, Patriots freed us from a King, ended slavery and saved the world from countless tyrants and tyrannies.

I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to get across and how it relates to the discussion but there is no simple answer to your question because people aren't as simple, straight-forward as you think. Motivation is an amalgam of literally hundreds of different beliefs and emotions. That's general psychology first semester, week 1.

seahawk wrote:

keesje wrote:

I sense a heavy resistance to discuss if the F-35 meets FCAS requirements & if the US itself would ever consider drastically reducing future sovereignty in air defense capabilities like they seem to propose to the Germans / French. It's kind of Do as We Say, Not as We Do [/url]

Why should we discuss this, when the Luftwaffe has indicated their preference quite clearly.

Tornado replacement -> off the shelf purchase with an EIS of 2025
FCAS -> Eurofighter replacement, EIS around 2035-40.

You are free the cling on a beefed up article on what a German general said months ago and how a pro F-35 tries to build on that. Don't put to much weight on it though, the legs will break.

Ozair wrote:

I’d love to answer some questions for the Danes though I’m not sure they want to pay my contract rate. Having been involved in a number of tenders within my line of work the clarification questions asked by Airbus are very straightforward and less I would consider usual, especially for such a complex procurement as a fighter jet.

I agree that they may not have the money to pay any contract rate right now given that their recent F-35 may burst their budget: https://steemit.com/life/@jessicajones/ ... f-the-f-35.
If the questions are so easy to answer I wonder why the Danish government is not only struggling to answer but are also withholding relevant documentation (hence the lawsuit).

Ozair wrote:

A whataboutism is defined as “Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument “.
The difference is I have directly refuted your argument. The purpose of the statement was therefore to prove that reference customers is a meaningless comparison demonstrated by the lack of reference customers for numerous other aircraft.

It's a whataboutism and I find it alarming that someone who's been involved in "a number of tenders" says that the concept of reference customers is meaningless just because it wasn't applied elsewhere, presumably.

Ozair wrote:

Why don’t you go to the source and read what they currently think.
http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/

Norway has realized that they need to pump even more money into the program to mitigate security risks. We'll see what else pops up.

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

keesje wrote:

I sense a heavy resistance to discuss if the F-35 meets FCAS requirements & if the US itself would ever consider drastically reducing future sovereignty in air defense capabilities like they seem to propose to the Germans / French. It's kind of Do as We Say, Not as We Do [/url]

Why should we discuss this, when the Luftwaffe has indicated their preference quite clearly.

Tornado replacement -> off the shelf purchase with an EIS of 2025
FCAS -> Eurofighter replacement, EIS around 2035-40.

You are free the cling on a beefed up article on what a German general said months ago and how a pro F-35 tries to build on that. Don't put to much weight on it though, the legs will break.

Possibly, but it could also be that your articles were all written before the other tornado users set their final out of service dates.

seahawk wrote:

Possibly, but it could also be that your articles were all written before the other tornado users set their final out of service dates.

Well that's the interesting point, for an aircraft those are not frozen. At some point it becomes operationally irrelevant and extremely expensive maintenance wise. Adding state of the art systems/ sensors / ECM, structural repairs can change things. But it's gliding scales as the Luftwaffe F4's proved. And the Canadians looking for Aussie F18s, Austrians using Drakens, 60 yr old B52's etc. etc. The suppliers of new fighters know and can get creative.

And due to the experience the Luftwaffe had with the F-4 (which was still in use by other Air Forces and had a huge spare reserves from AMRAC) the current tendency is to replace the Tornado starting 2025 so that there is planning certainty for the remaining service life and it also avoids the complete avionics and system replacement needed to fly the fleet after 2030.

I personally think the decision is wise, because German forces have suffered enough during the last 2 decades from having to fly old systems way past their prime. If buying a F-35 is wise, is a totally different matter and the mentioned preference for the F-35 is only the opinion of one person in the decision process. One has to clearly differentiate between the decision to replace the Tornado by 2025 and the decision which type will replace it.

vr773 wrote:

I agree that they may not have the money to pay any contract rate right now given that their recent F-35 may burst their budget: https://steemit.com/life/@jessicajones/ ... f-the-f-35.
If the questions are so easy to answer I wonder why the Danish government is not only struggling to answer but are also withholding relevant documentation (hence the lawsuit).

Have you read what you referenced other than the title? The issue is the number of tasks Denmark expect the airframe to undertake. If you actually understand what Denmark is trying to do with the airframes you would expect that they did not acquire enough but that is not enough is across the board, it wouldn’t matter right now if they had selected Eurofighter or SH, the same issue would be present.

As to the lawsuit, you are again not understanding what is going on. Boeing is suing to gain access to documents but there are two issues there. First the Danes have indicated Boeing have not stated what documents they require, second that the Danes have to walk a very fine line between releasing documents to Boeing and not allowing Boeing to have access to commercial in confidence data from other vendors. That would open additional lawsuits from both LM and Airbus.

Boeing subsequently said in September that it had submitted a request to the defense ministry that would require it to provide all materials related to the procurement evaluation and decision.
The ministry said in a statement on Thursday that it had not given Boeing access to the documents because the U.S. firm had not told the government exactly what documents it wanted to see.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN1691IV

vr773 wrote:

It's a whataboutism and I find it alarming that someone who's been involved in "a number of tenders" says that the concept of reference customers is meaningless just because it wasn't applied elsewhere, presumably.

Mate, you are wrong if you think that your claim about reference customers carries any validity. You criticise an airframe for no reference customers, when I clearly demonstrate they exist, and then call me out for comparing that program to others.
You’re also trying to compare two statements taken out of context, not related to each other and in no way referencing each other as proof of my qualifications to comment, another logical fail.

Ozair wrote:

Have you read what you referenced other than the title? The issue is the number of tasks Denmark expect the airframe to undertake. If you actually understand what Denmark is trying to do with the airframes you would expect that they did not acquire enough but that is not enough is across the board, it wouldn’t matter right now if they had selected Eurofighter or SH, the same issue would be present.

You haven't read more of the article than necessary to bend this so that it fits your narrative. The article clearly talks about costs in relation to expectations. Whether the same issues would occur if they had selected another airplane is hypothetical.

Ozair wrote:

As to the lawsuit, you are again not understanding what is going on. Boeing is suing to gain access to documents but there are two issues there. First the Danes have indicated Boeing have not stated what documents they require, second that the Danes have to walk a very fine line between releasing documents to Boeing and not allowing Boeing to have access to commercial in confidence data from other vendors. That would open additional lawsuits from both LM and Airbus.

My strong suspicion is that things aren't as simple. A lawsuit wouldn't make a lot of sense if Boeing's legal team simply had forgotten or chosen not to specify what document they want to review. We'll see what comes out of it.

Ozair wrote:

Mate, you are wrong if you think that your claim about reference customers carries any validity. You criticise an airframe for no reference customers, when I clearly demonstrate they exist, and then call me out for comparing that program to others.
You’re also trying to compare two statements taken out of context, not related to each other and in no way referencing each other as proof of my qualifications to comment, another logical fail

My point was that the fact that Singapore, which has a reputation to be a reference customer in military procurement, backed away from their intention to buy the F-35 and that that should be a warning sign for other potential buyers. First you tried to argue that Singapore did not back away and now you're trying to argue that the mere concept of informing procurement decisions by other procurement decisions is not valid because it's not equally applicable to all procurement decisions.

Britain could reduce their F-35 order which shouldn't go unnoticed at the Germany Defense Ministry/BAAINBw when they weigh Tornado replacement options:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/2 ... arliament/

Why? The cuts are a consequence of a decreased value of the pound after Brexit, which means that the budget (in pounds) does not have the planed worth in US dollar any more. And raising the budget is a politcal decision not taken so far and probably unlikely considering the other problems arising from the Brexit.

vr773 wrote:

You haven't read more of the article than necessary to bend this so that it fits your narrative. The article clearly talks about costs in relation to expectations. Whether the same issues would occur if they had selected another airplane is hypothetical.

Not only have I read your article in full I have read a host of others that discussed the same thing, as well as discussing and reading this topic on a number of other forums.

vr773 wrote:

My point was that the fact that Singapore, which has a reputation to be a reference customer in military procurement, backed away from their intention to buy the F-35 and that that should be a warning sign for other potential buyers.

So let’s revist this again…
First I stand by my statement that Singapore has not backed away. You continue to put more faith in media musings than in factual statements made by the Singapore Government.
Second, please inform me on how the Singaporean Air Force is a reference customer for global procurement? Singapore buys mostly US and Israeli weapons and aircraft.
Third, since 2003 Singapore has received 30 F-16s to bring their fleet of Blk 52 aircraft to 60 and since their first order in Dec 2005 have received 40 F-15SGs with the final aircraft delivered earlier this year. They don’t need aircraft soon, their current fleet is young, they have retired the F-5s and A-4s and now can sit back and wait. Singapore has no present threat that requires additional aircraft given Malaysia is a basket case of aircraft procurement and Singapore doesn’t exactly have boundless land to monitor.

vr773 wrote:

First you tried to argue that Singapore did not back away and now you're trying to argue that the mere concept of informing procurement decisions by other procurement decisions is not valid because it's not equally applicable to all procurement decisions.

No, as already indicated numerous times, the F-35 has multiple reference customers in the Japanese, Koreans and Israelis. South Korea could have chosen the Eurofighter or increased their F-15SK fleet but they didn’t. Japan could have chosen the Eurofighter, or more F-15s, or more F-2s, or F-15Es but they didn’t. Israel could have had any western aircraft they wanted, including adding to their already impressive F-15/16 fleets except they didn’t. All three nations chose to acquire the F-35 even though it was and is still in LRIP. Those three customers speak volumes for the credibility of the F-35.
I only used the example of the Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen’s lack of reference customers to show your claim is invalid. The lack of reference customers for all three does not make them poor aircraft nor is it warning others away from buying them.

Ozair wrote:

Not only have I read your article in full I have read a host of others that discussed the same thing, as well as discussing and reading this topic on a number of other forums.

But then you haven't read it well or fully understood what's in the article. Feel free to share your wisdom from those other sources that you mention.

Ozair wrote:

So let’s revist this again…
First I stand by my statement that Singapore has not backed away. You continue to put more faith in media musings than in factual statements made by the Singapore Government.
Second, please inform me on how the Singaporean Air Force is a reference customer for global procurement? Singapore buys mostly US and Israeli weapons and aircraft.
Third, since 2003 Singapore has received 30 F-16s to bring their fleet of Blk 52 aircraft to 60 and since their first order in Dec 2005 have received 40 F-15SGs with the final aircraft delivered earlier this year. They don’t need aircraft soon, their current fleet is young, they have retired the F-5s and A-4s and now can sit back and wait. Singapore has no present threat that requires additional aircraft given Malaysia is a basket case of aircraft procurement and Singapore doesn’t exactly have boundless land to monitor.

I stand by my point that Singapore has backed away based on the information available to me. I believe that I have a larger information basis than you because, unlike you, I don't dismiss articles as fake news or clickbaiting simply because I don't like what's in them.
As I mentioned before, I don't think your interpretation of the diplomatic language used by the Defense Minister of Singapore is correct because he said exactly what he had to say in light of the fact that Singapore decided to not buy the F-35 anytime soon.

Ozair wrote:

No, as already indicated numerous times, the F-35 has multiple reference customers in the Japanese, Koreans and Israelis. South Korea could have chosen the Eurofighter or increased their F-15SK fleet but they didn’t. Japan could have chosen the Eurofighter, or more F-15s, or more F-2s, or F-15Es but they didn’t. Israel could have had any western aircraft they wanted, including adding to their already impressive F-15/16 fleets except they didn’t. All three nations chose to acquire the F-35 even though it was and is still in LRIP. Those three customers speak volumes for the credibility of the F-35.
I only used the example of the Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen’s lack of reference customers to show your claim is invalid. The lack of reference customers for all three does not make them poor aircraft nor is it warning others away from buying them.

In a 2 minute google search, I literally found dozens of sources that portray Singapore as a reference customer for military procurement because of their no-nonsense approach. Israel, South Korea, and Japan are heavily biased towards purchasing from US companies for political reasons.

seahawk wrote:

Why? The cuts are a consequence of a decreased value of the pound after Brexit, which means that the budget (in pounds) does not have the planed worth in US dollar any more. And raising the budget is a politcal decision not taken so far and probably unlikely considering the other problems arising from the Brexit.

If that's the sole truth than no country with fluctuating currencies should have bought the F-35.
In reality, the only thing that we know is that costs are higher than what was expected or communicated.

Higher in pound, yes, higher in US dollar - no.

vr773 wrote:

I stand by my point that Singapore has backed away based on the information available to me. I believe that I have a larger information basis than you because, unlike you, I don't dismiss articles as fake news or clickbaiting simply because I don't like what's in them.
As I mentioned before, I don't think your interpretation of the diplomatic language used by the Defense Minister of Singapore is correct because he said exactly what he had to say in light of the fact that Singapore decided to not buy the F-35 anytime soon.

Clearly there is no point continuing this because neither of us believe each other.

vr773 wrote:

In a 2 minute google search, I literally found dozens of sources that portray Singapore as a reference customer for military procurement because of their no-nonsense approach. Israel, South Korea, and Japan are heavily biased towards purchasing from US companies for political reasons.

Except your logic fails again when we actually look at what Singapore operates.
Singapore Air Force
F-16C Blk 52 – Purchased no sooner or later than anyone else. No reference customer status
F-15SG – The only new nation to acquire an F-15E variant after Singapore is Qatar, a whopping 12 years later. No reference customer status.
A330 MRTT – Just starting to receive deliveries. Purchased after Australia, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, UAE. The only national customer to purchase afterwards was South Korea who clearly didn’t decide to order it because Singapore did… No reference customer status.
G550 AEW – Ordered the Israeli modified version which has only subsequently been ordered by Italy as an offset to Israel ordering the M-346. No reference customer status.
AH-64D – Nine other nations and the US had ordered the helicopter before Singapore did. No reference customer status.
CH-47 – Ordered years after others, no reference customer status
Eurocopter AS332 – Many ordered by many users, no reference customer status
M-346 – Israel and Poland ordered after Singapore but as indicated above Israel was a co-production deal with Italy so not specific to Singapore. Did Poland order because Singapore did, perhaps but the link is pretty doubtful given the two nations militarily have little to nothing to do with each other.

So in conclusion for Air Force there are no reference customer orders for anything they currently have in service.

Singapore Navy
Submarines – Singapore have operated second hand Swedish submarines for the last 17 years and only recently acquired German Type 218SG. No other customer has ordered that same submarine or the Type 218 since. No reference customer status.
Frigates – The formidable class is a La Fayette operated by France. Saudi Arabia and Singapore ordered at essentially the same time and only Taiwan has ordered since. No reference customer status.
Corvettes – Singapore is the only operator of the Victory class corvette, no reference customer status
Patrol boats – Singapore is the only operator of their respective patrol boat fleets as all were built to domestic design and not exported.
Amphibious transport Docks – Designed and built locally and only Thailand has ordered since. Cost and proximity are far more relevant to this order than any reference status. No reference customer status.

So in conclusion for Navy there are no reference customer orders for anything they currently have in service.

Singapore Army
Leopard 2SG – Ordered in 2002 and are surplus German equipment. Given the number of other customers that have acquired surplus German Leopard 2s Singapore is hardly a reference customer and only Indonesia and Qatar have ordered Leopards since Singapore did. No reference Customer status.
AFVs – Most are Singapore designed and built. The exception is the Bv206 but that had a number of blue chip orders including the US, and UK before Singapore ordered. No reference customer status.
Artillery – All tube launched is Singapore designed while they use HIMARS from the US. No reference customer status.
Firearms – They use a smattering of weapon across multiple nations including the primary assault rifle being domestically designed and manufactured. No reference customer status.

So in conclusion for Army there are no reference customer orders for anything they currently have in service.

So, while you can read lots about Singapore being a “reference customer” the facts of their procurement above demonstrate otherwise. There is no overwhelming swell of orders after Singapore does, no nations claiming because Singapore ordered it we now will.

Ozair wrote:

F-16C Blk 52 – Purchased no sooner or later than anyone else. No reference customer status
F-15SG – The only new nation to acquire an F-15E variant after Singapore is Qatar, a whopping 12 years later. No reference customer status.
A330 MRTT – Just starting to receive deliveries. Purchased after Australia, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, UAE. The only national customer to purchase afterwards was South Korea who clearly didn’t decide to order it because Singapore did… No reference customer status.
G550 AEW – Ordered the Israeli modified version which has only subsequently been ordered by Italy as an offset to Israel ordering the M-346. No reference customer status.
AH-64D – Nine other nations and the US had ordered the helicopter before Singapore did. No reference customer status.
CH-47 – Ordered years after others, no reference customer status
Eurocopter AS332 – Many ordered by many users, no reference customer status
M-346 – Israel and Poland ordered after Singapore but as indicated above Israel was a co-production deal with Italy so not specific to Singapore. Did Poland order because Singapore did, perhaps but the link is pretty doubtful given the two nations militarily have little to nothing to do with each other.

The moment of the order gives the buyer the status of a reference customer? What a cheap argument. And it contradicts this:

Ozair wrote:

No, as already indicated numerous times, the F-35 has multiple reference customers in the Japanese, Koreans and Israelis.

For all of these three applies:
"Purchased no sooner or later than anyone else. -> No reference customer status"
- or -
"Many ordered by many users, -> no reference customer status"
- or -
"Ordered years after others, -> no reference customer status"

I am sorry, at least one of your two arguments does not hold water...

The elephant in the room is that the Tornado can not penetrate even mildly contested environments let alone alone what would exist in Europe if the worst occurs.

And if the worst occurs Germany, needs an AC that c an complete deep strike missions.

rheinwaldner wrote:

The moment of the order gives the buyer the status of a reference customer? What a cheap argument. And it contradicts this:

The whole reference customer argument is stupid to begin with. I’m using the above to demonstrate that. The point is that Singapore has not ordered anything that has subsequently seen sales increase because they ordered. How then can they be considered a reference customer for military procurement if the vast majority of their systems are either US, domestically designed and manufactured, or they have ordered later in the procurement cycle after multiple other nations have with no significant sales afterwards?

vr773 is suggesting that because the Singaporeans have yet to order the F-35 the program is cast in a poor light, with the suggestion that Singapore is such a well respected purchaser of military equipment that others buy because they do. Except the facts of their current equipment completely negate that theory. Again instead of using an ability to critically examine the facts available to determine what is actually true, people use the media to form an opinion. In this instance the primary source material is very clear!

rheinwaldner wrote:

For all of these three applies:
"Purchased no sooner or later than anyone else. -> No reference customer status"
- or -
"Many ordered by many users, -> no reference customer status"
- or -
"Ordered years after others, -> no reference customer status"

I am sorry, at least one of your two arguments does not hold water...

You are removing the context of the argument.
First, I have addressed the argument of Singaporean military acquisitions above.
Second, I’m happy to scrap the notion of reference customers but people here seem to cling to this notion. In the context of the F-35, I have already stated in post #470 what I consider qualifies the respective three.
Third, if we look at the F-35 the concept of a reference customer is somewhat moot. From a capability perspective it is the best fighter/multi-role aircraft available for export today but it is not available to everyone. There are clear political and military constraints that prevent some nations from operating it and those constraints limit its potential for export far more than any suggestion of either capability or the acquisition or not of so called reference customers.

vr773 wrote:

I stand by my point that Singapore has backed away based on the information available to me. I believe that I have a larger information basis than you because, unlike you, I don't dismiss articles as fake news or clickbaiting simply because I don't like what's in them.

This goes both ways and you would be guilty of the same thing.

The quality and credibility of a source requires it to be weighted higher or lower when trying to develop an opinion.

You no doubt dismiss positive F-35 pilot reports as paid advertising by Lockheed martin.

Based on my in depth analysis from working for an unbiased company in the aerospace Industry I would say you I wrong.

When can we expect a decision? I guess, we have to wait for a new government to be formed.

Dutchy wrote:

When can we expect a decision? I guess, we have to wait for a new government to be formed.

I guess it takes some time..good news for the military is that the Green Party is not be involved anymore so that will make things easier

Dutchy wrote:

When can we expect a decision? I guess, we have to wait for a new government to be formed.

Not soon, they are still in fact finding mode with no official tender started.

Ozair wrote:

vr773 wrote:

Clearly there is no point continuing this because neither of us believe each other.

There is one tiny reason to continue. There are those who lurk, do value your opinion and the fact that there are evidence/reasoning based posters here, but have nothing to add and therefore do not enter the discussion. If you give up, then there will be even less of those people who evaluate the F-35 in a substantiated manner (and therefore provide actual information) instead of blindly criticizing it.

In this case operational requirements are down the priority list, following some fellow a.net posters.

Germany wants the F35. because:

The F-35 is the “preferred choice” on a shortlist of aircraft the Luftwaffe is looking at to replace its approximately 85 Tornados, a “senior service official” speaking anonymously under the Chatham House Rule, told Jane’s 360, according to a report on Oct. 8, 2017.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15896/germany-says-the-f-35-is-the-preferred-choice-to-replace-its-tornados

That's how facts are created these days. Worrying to see everybody is cooperating if they like what they read.

keesje wrote:

In this case operational requirements are down the priority list.

What exactly leads you to say "operational requirements are down the priority list"?

salttee wrote:

keesje wrote:

In this case operational requirements are down the priority list.

What exactly leads you to say "operational requirements are down the priority list"?

Odd given in the article Keesje quoted the German official makes it very clear.

“The Tornado replacement needs to be fifth-generation aircraft that can be detected as late as possible, if at all. It must be able to identify targets from a long way off and to target them as soon as possible,” the German official told Jane’s.

operational priorities lead to the F35 so those against it must create non operational criteria in order to pitch their alternative.

The only legitimate reason not to select the F35 is cost but then Germany is essentially buying target drones. Hopefully these are optionaly manned AC.

About 50 posts back I volunteered an opinion: "IMO what is actually needed is a stealth arsenal plane".

Now having read the thread about the B-21, I have to say that the B-21 is close to what I was thinking about (twin F-135 engines to be exact). But the arsenal plane I was thinking would be the optimum replacement for the Tornado wouldn't need intercontinental range.

So in my fantasy world, the Germans should join the B-21 development with the aim of obtaining a plane to carry a heavy load of air to air and standoff weapons to engage targets designated by F-35s.

But of course that will never happen.

keesje wrote:

In this case operational requirements are down the priority list, following some fellow a.net posters.

Germany wants the F35. because:

The F-35 is the “preferred choice” on a shortlist of aircraft the Luftwaffe is looking at to replace its approximately 85 Tornados, a “senior service official” speaking anonymously under the Chatham House Rule, told Jane’s 360, according to a report on Oct. 8, 2017.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15896/germany-says-the-f-35-is-the-preferred-choice-to-replace-its-tornados

That's how facts are created these days. Worrying to see everybody is cooperating if they like what they read.

You would have to seriously influence the operational requirements to not have the F-35 come out on top.

- off the shelf solution
- ready to carry US A-bombs
- good interoperability with NATO partners
- most modern avionics system
- secure upgrade path
- can be built in the EU (Italy)
- SEAD capability
- AShM capability
- low observability

However with the SPD set to join the government again it is likely that no plane will be bought and that the Tornado is kept.

IDS range, two man cockpit, 2 engines, UAV control.

Distant missions, long patrols, selectively attacking guerrillas with high PR risk of collateral damage.

The typical cold war scenarios moved into history books.

Keejie, not sure what you are now proposing but getting to the bad guys strategic assets before he knows you are there never gets old.

Planeflyer wrote:

Keejie, not sure what you are now proposing but getting to the bad guys strategic assets before he knows you are there never gets old.

Yes, and foreseen requirements are those assets are far out, you use various UAV’s to get the job done and be able to launch variety of weapons. The situation is complex, lots of ECM, other aircraft, workload is high and flights can be long. Not the kind of mission the F-35 seems optimized for.



The F35 is more a F16 replacement, not for Tornado, F15E, Fencer type of aircraft.

keesje wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

Keejie, not sure what you are now proposing but getting to the bad guys strategic assets before he knows you are there never gets old.

Yes, and foreseen requirements are those assets are far out, you use various UAV’s to get the job done and be able to launch variety of weapons. The situation is complex, lots of ECM, other aircraft, workload is high and flights can be long. Not the kind of mission the F-35 seems optimized for.

You should read up on what the jet is capable of instead of making claims that don't match with facts.

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

Keejie, not sure what you are now proposing but getting to the bad guys strategic assets before he knows you are there never gets old.

Yes, and foreseen requirements are those assets are far out, you use various UAV’s to get the job done and be able to launch variety of weapons. The situation is complex, lots of ECM, other aircraft, workload is high and flights can be long. Not the kind of mission the F-35 seems optimized for.

You should read up on what the jet is capable of instead of making claims that don't match with facts.

The F-35 does not replace the F-15E in the US or e.g. in Israel, right? So whose claim is matched with facts?

Is the Tornado’s primary mission to penetrate into enemy territory?

If yes, than the F35 is the only current AC that can do this. Everything including the 15E is a target drone in contested environments.

How hard is this to understand?

Nothing will be bought in the next 4 years anyway. The SPD won´t have it and the CDU won´t risk a new election for such a side show.

seahawk wrote:

Nothing will be bought in the next 4 years anyway. The SPD won´t have it and the CDU won´t risk a new election for such a side show.

In general, Socialist parties in Europe over the last 60 years promoted national industries and promoted European cooperation.

It seems to me the competing industry's should offer total solution for a longer period, including transition, political considerations / long term interests. Just pushing your jet in isolation, is't good enough.

https://www.airrecognition.com/index.ph ... ement.html

Planeflyer wrote:

Is the Tornado’s primary mission to penetrate into enemy territory?

If yes, than the F35 is the only current AC that can do this. Everything including the 15E is a target drone in contested environments.

How hard is this to understand?

When I want to read LM propaganda I go to the LM website. Therefore I cant take serious your constant "everybody will die except F-35 pilots"-mantra.

The USAF would replace the F-15E with the F-35 if your claim would hold water. It is as simple as that.

What a contested environment is, has in many cases not changed so much since the F-15E was available in numbers. Vulnerability is always relative. The British Tornado losses in First Gulf War, which were above average, were 0.4% of all Tornado sorties.

The F-35 is slated to replace the F-15 in the USAF. However, as older models are replaced, the less capable F-16s will be the first to go.
The British Tornado losses in the first Gulf War were unacceptable, and that was 26 years ago. Your .4% number is meaningless.

salttee wrote:

The F-35 is slated to replace the F-15 in the USAF. However, as older models are replaced, the less capable F-16s will be the first to go.

Sources?
That's not what I can find where F-15E replacement options are discussed. The closest option would be a new extensive double seater upgrade of the F-35. Basically the proof, that the today F-35 is not optimized for F-15E missions.

salttee wrote:

The British Tornado losses in the first Gulf War were unacceptable, and that was 26 years ago. Your .4% number is meaningless.

Says who? Did you follow the discussion? My post was an answer to someone who believes, that every pilot except F-35 pilots have to die during Tornado kind of attacks. The difference between 0.4% and 100% only illustrates that Planeflyer is wrong (of course Tornado would be shot down more today but not so much more to make the 0.4% figure 100%).

There are also many types of contested environments. Not in all scenarios the defence will have the same intensity. E.g. operations over territory, that was captured by the enemy should already be much easier than penetrating the homeland of an enemy. So the whole situation is not black and white. In many scenarios the Tornados or F-15E will be just fine or even better than a F-35.

Early this year the USAf indicated that a mix of additional B-21 and F-35 could replace the Mudhen.

But in the end the debate is moot. The Tornado does no longer penetrate air defences as it now has Storm Shadow and Taurus, which it lacked in the IIPGW.

rheinwaldner wrote:

The F-35 does not replace the F-15E in the US or e.g. in Israel, right? So whose claim is matched with facts?

The USAF is not planning to retire the F-15E until approx. 2040 and Israel's F-15E fleet is relatively new but Israel moving to an all F-35 by 2035 is certainly possible. The F-15E is capable of self escort strike, the Tornado is not.The F-15E is now rated for 12000 hours, the Tornado is not. That should demonstrate clearly the difference between the two.

As for the claim, it is still valid. keesje's continued posting of fake facts and false conclusions does him and no one else any favours on this forum.

While no current F-15E variant operator is scheduled to replace it with the F-35, that should be no surprise. If we look at the Tornado, a less capable long range strike aircraft, then we see two primary operators, the UK and Italy, both replacing it with the F-35. If we look at the RAAF, they replaced the F-111 with the SH which will subsequently be replaced by more F-35 in the mid 2020s.

So based on keesje’s, and not the German Air Force’s, assessment of what is required to replace the Tornado we see some false claims.

IDS range – The F-35 has exceptional long range and certainly meets or exceeds the Tornado when flying comparable configurations and profiles. There is already an engine upgrade option available to increase range by 6-10% and PW and GE are both researching engine upgrades that will push that out another 15-20%.

Two man cockpit – This is a made up requirement. The first thing any aircrew mention when they first fly the F-35 is the incredible increase in situation awareness, and the significantly reduced workload of the pilot to operate the aircraft and the sensor fit. The whole point of the fusion engine is to allow the pilot to have eyes out, instead of eyes in. The F-35 does this better than any other airframe in existence.

2 engines – Another made up requirement. What does an additional engine provide today other than higher maintenance costs? The Vietnam war study posted in the B-52 thread clearly shows that twin engine aircraft in Vietnam did not demonstate better survivability of combat damage than single engine aircraft when using the twin engine configuration that the Tornado has (as the F-4 did in Vietnam) with both next to each other.

UAV control – What does keesje think this actually requires? The USAF has a very good idea, they have been investigating the “loyal wingman” concept for years and the plan all along is for these aircraft to be controlled by F-35/22 aircraft.

The U.S. Air Force is developing new computer algorithms to allow fighter pilots to control armed drones from inside their own cockpits.
The goal of the so-called “Loyal Wingman” initiative is to pair up manned, fifth-generation stealth fighters with unmanned versions of older jets — in order to boost the lethality of both in air combat.
“You take an F-16 and make it totally unmanned,” deputy defense secretary Bob Work told an audience in Washington, D.C. on March 30. “The F-16 is a fourth-generation fighter, and pair it with an F-35, a fifth-generation battle network node, and have those two operating together.”
But the Loyal Wingman concept could also work with other fighters and drones — some already in service, other still on the drawing board. Work said that manned-unmanned teaming is the way of the future. “It is going to happen.”

http://warisboring.com/2018-the-year-u- ... e-wingmen/

seahawk wrote:

Early this year the USAf indicated that a mix of additional B-21 and F-35 could replace the Mudhen.

But in the end the debate is moot. The Tornado does no longer penetrate air defences as it now has Storm Shadow and Taurus, which it lacked in the IIPGW.

The German Tornado fleet would fast run out of expensive cruise missiles before it ran out of targets in threat scenarios where penetration of hostile airspace is required. Cruise missiles are also not capable of engaging all targets, including mobile and pop up threats, nor can they make collateral damage assessments and not strike because there is a bus of school children in the area. Cruise missiles are great for a small subset of fixed targets but they are a short term patch to a problem for older airframes, not a solution.

seahawk wrote:

Early this year the USAf indicated that a mix of additional B-21 and F-35 could replace the Mudhen.

But in the end the debate is moot. The Tornado does no longer penetrate air defences as it now has Storm Shadow and Taurus, which it lacked in the IIPGW.

In the latests deployments the Euro air forces send their Tornado's iso Typhoons, because can carry 2 crew, lots of fuel, PavewayIV or e.g. up to 12 Brimstones.



Put a comparable load on a F35 & has see how far it gets.

ozair:keesje's continued posting of fake facts and false conclusions does him and no one else any favours on this forum.

He dude, let's leave this kind of unsubstantiated bull-shit of the site ok? You are not speakibg on behalf of any one and your continued pushing for the F-35 without listening to anything or anyone is your own problem. Good night.