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

ThePointblank · Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:10 am

YIMBY wrote:
If a country like Sweden can design and build a modern fighter and write software from scratch, countries like Finland and Switzerland can build capacity to maintain both hardware and software. A country like Germany would have even an order of magnitude better resources. It would certainly cost a lot of money, but not necessarily more what they pay to US for the maintenance. The maintenance contracts tend to cost more then the initial purchase, up to a billion a year.

And what would you do if your customer breaks the cryptic contract (that no one even has bothered to read)? Send a nuke?

Do not believe that those reverse engineering the software would shout it in the public.

The contract is something to agreed with two parties, and usually neither party has dictatorial powers, as there are still alternatives. It may be different in your idealized world with LM monopoly.

1. Sweden didn't design and build a modern fighter from scratch. They reused a lot of off the shelf components from various countries to build their fighter
2. Developing the internal capability to modify software, especially considering how integrated software is on an aircraft today, is an extremely expensive and resource intensive proposition.
3. The US government can impose penalties for breaking the agreement; for example, the US government could withdraw US defence cooperation, impose financial sanctions against people and entities involved, and place international arrest warrants out for specific individuals involved. Breaking ITAR and export permits is a surefire way to get yourself into a ton of legal trouble with the US government

YIMBY wrote:
If the Air Force does not have sufficient maintenance capacity, they have neglected their duties.

Read up on the concept called 'color of money'. Air Forces cannot move money around without specific authorization from the government in either a budget, or in an appropriations bill.

tommy1808 · Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:14 am

YIMBY wrote:
Any modern fighter can penetrate Iraq. No fighter can penetrate Russia unnoticed, neither any West European country, except those that neglect their defence.

I disagree. Russia is freaking huge, there isn´t enough money to dot the landscape with enough radars to make sure no one can penetrate that air space unnoticed. Getting to a place worth to drop some bombs on it will be a very different story, but getting into that airspace unnoticed won´t be that hard. If i recall correctly one of the main justifications for the B2 was that the USSR would need to spend more on radars to reliably pick those up than the extra cost of making the new bomber stealthy.

best regards
Thomas

YIMBY · Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:37 am

tommy1808 wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Any modern fighter can penetrate Iraq. No fighter can penetrate Russia unnoticed, neither any West European country, except those that neglect their defence.

I disagree. Russia is freaking huge, there isn´t enough money to dot the landscape with enough radars to make sure no one can penetrate that air space unnoticed. Getting to a place worth to drop some bombs on it will be a very different story, but getting into that airspace unnoticed won´t be that hard. If i recall correctly one of the main justifications for the B2 was that the USSR would need to spend more on radars to reliably pick those up than the extra cost of making the new bomber stealthy.

best regards
Thomas

The Russian covered their landscape with radars already in the Soviet time. They have always been paranoid about western aerial attacks and been very advanced in radar science. They still do invest a lot on radar detection and keep it in high priority compared with stealth technology. (Whether you can penetrate a distant uninhabited corner in Siberia is irrelevant.)

Beside that, stealth aircraft are very easily detected by other means, starting with the immense noise that every jet powered plane emits. Guess how many microphones there are already around all the military bases in Europe to alert when the first F-35 starts its engines.

YIMBY · Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:40 am

ThePointblank wrote:
1. Sweden didn't design and build a modern fighter from scratch. They reused a lot of off the shelf components from various countries to build their fighter
2. Developing the internal capability to modify software, especially considering how integrated software is on an aircraft today, is an extremely expensive and resource intensive proposition.
3. The US government can impose penalties for breaking the agreement; for example, the US government could withdraw US defence cooperation, impose financial sanctions against people and entities involved, and place international arrest warrants out for specific individuals involved. Breaking ITAR and export permits is a surefire way to get yourself into a ton of legal trouble with the US government

1. Designing a modern fighter is not building a lego plane. That requires an immense amount of resources. And not even the engine of Gripen was off the shelf, they made some significant modifications on it. Gripen NG has more commonality, but the engine is not one-to-one changable with SuperHornet.

Certainly the software of Gripen is developed in Sweden.

2. Developing software is not extremely expensive any more. Today there is an oversupply of skilled programmers (and smart mathematicians, competent engineers and experienced physicists, too) and even amateur hackers can decode the black box control systems when told not to do it. Developing the capacity is even trivial. What may be non-trivial is field testing.

Moreover, it is not to rewrite all the code, it is just to modify it for a newer weapon to be included or like. (Even though sometimes rewriting all the code might be simpler, at least I would prefer to do it that way)

3. What if it is the US party that breaks the agreement? What if US party starts abusing its superior position to be paid more?
Should the other party just comply and pay what is asked?
Recently it is particularly USA that is seen as the unreliable party.

Do you think that a country under acute military threat would care of legal troubles?
If the threat is from the adversary of US, would US government jeopardize the defence of its ally with legal attacks?
If the threat is from an ally of US, would US kindly continue support if the contract says so?

ThePointblank wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
If the Air Force does not have sufficient maintenance capacity, they have neglected their duties.

Read up on the concept called 'color of money'. Air Forces cannot move money around without specific authorization from the government in either a budget, or in an appropriations bill.

Certainly there is corruption in the military industry, even the least corrupted countries have their cases.

ThePointblank · Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:02 am

YIMBY wrote:
1. Designing a modern fighter is not building a lego plane. That requires an immense amount of resources. And not even the engine of Gripen was off the shelf, they made some significant modifications on it. Gripen NG has more commonality, but the engine is not one-to-one changable with SuperHornet.

Certainly the software of Gripen is developed in Sweden.

2. Developing software is not extremely expensive any more. Today there is an oversupply of skilled programmers (and smart mathematicians, competent engineers and experienced physicists, too) and even amateur hackers can decode the black box control systems when told not to do it. Developing the capacity is even trivial. What may be non-trivial is field testing.

Moreover, it is not to rewrite all the code, it is just to modify it for a newer weapon to be included or like. (Even though sometimes rewriting all the code might be simpler, at least I would prefer to do it that way)

3. What if it is the US party that breaks the agreement? What if US party starts abusing its superior position to be paid more?
Should the other party just comply and pay what is asked?
Recently it is particularly USA that is seen as the unreliable party.

Do you think that a country under acute military threat would care of legal troubles?
If the threat is from the adversary of US, would US government jeopardize the defence of its ally with legal attacks?
If the threat is from an ally of US, would US kindly continue support if the contract says so?

1. Sweden spread the development risk around by using tons of off the shelf or modified off the shelf components, from the engines, to the avionics.

2. Developing software IS extremely expensive, and developing the capacity is not trivial. You are grossly miss-understating the complexity of aircraft avionics development, and today's military aircraft are even more software dependent than ever before.... see this NASA paper on the subject:
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/418878main_FSW ... Report.pdf

3. You buy aircraft per the US government's terms. If anyone doesn't like the terms involved, they can buy something else.

4. A country under acute military threat should damn well care about legal problems with the US... the US can very easily deny export permits for hardware and weapons as per their wishes. Not only can the US deny export permits and end user licenses, other countries will take note of a country's failure to adhere to the permits and agreements, and act accordingly based upon the level of trust lost.

Export permits and end user certificates agreements are not something to be ignored; there are legal and geopolitical consequences for ignoring those agreements. For example, when there was talk of Argentina trying to buy Gripens off the Brazilian license production line, the British government swiftly moved in and told the Brazilians that if they even attempted to sell Gripens to Argentina, they would revoke every export permit and certificate for the various British-made components onboard the Gripen, which would leave the Brazilians without a fighter as well.

YIMBY wrote:
Certainly there is corruption in the military industry, even the least corrupted countries have their cases.

One of the quickest ways for a civil servant to get fired in a Western country is to break the law regarding budgeting practices, as that usually ends up embarrassing the government of the day, which will demand the head of the person involved served up on a silver platter.

WIederling · Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:09 am

ThePointblank wrote:
2. Developing software IS extremely expensive, and developing the capacity is not trivial. You are grossly miss-understating the complexity of aircraft avionics development, and today's military aircraft are even more software dependent than ever before.... see this NASA paper on the subject:
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/418878main_FSW ... Report.pdf

I have a feeling that most other places they get more for their money than in the US. US is good at competing not at creating.
i.e. the machiavelistic attitudes needed for competing are not conducive to cooperative productivity.

Planeflyer · Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:56 pm

Wiederling,

Competition created the F35.... among many other things.

Google, Amazon, Facebook, intel, AMGEN,Medtronic were not created in whatever statist, socialist utopian daydream you seem to think creates anything.

WIederling · Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:27 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Wiederling,

Competition created the F35.... among many other things.

Google, Amazon, Facebook, intel, AMGEN,Medtronic were not created in whatever statist, socialist utopian daydream you seem to think creates anything.

F35 is the ultimate game in "offset" mirages. come play with us. We tell you where to go and where to pay :-)

I'd see your enumeration more as support for my argument than against.

Which was:
US is good at competing not at creating.
i.e. the machiavelistic attitudes needed for competing are not conducive to cooperative productivity.

Planeflyer · Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:30 pm

I think you don’t like the F35 because it wasn’t created where you live. I’m sure there are many items that are and that are sold where I live.

This is the essence of trade.

Assuming you live in Europe you have lots of 4th gen AC. The problem is none of them will keep pilots alive in contested environments. You might not like that the F35 was created in the USA but you have to decide if this more important then defending your country and deterring potential enemies.

Ozair · Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:51 pm

YIMBY wrote:
If a country like Sweden can design and build a modern fighter and write software from scratch, countries like Finland and Switzerland can build capacity to maintain both hardware and software. A country like Germany would have even an order of magnitude better resources. It would certainly cost a lot of money, but not necessarily more what they pay to US for the maintenance.

I did not say a small country could not do it. I said a small country would not do it. There is a big difference between the two. One thing it would do though is cost more money.
Looking at some of the US airframes that have seen wide sales success, including the F/A-18, F-16, C-17, C-130 etc. When a nation acquires this aircraft it also joins a global sustainment and support team. The team works together to improve the aircraft, jointly funds development including software development. Some aspects of development are handled by individual nations, as is primarily the case with most avionics software, where the OEM generally handles development for all the partner nations.

YIMBY wrote:
The maintenance contracts tend to cost more then the initial purchase, up to a billion a year.

Stop creating numbers out of thin air than have no factual basis in reality!
My previous post made it very clear what the RAAF paid for the SH in sustainment and support for five years, $264 million. That is not more than the initial purchase of the SH aircraft for the RAAF, which was approximately US$3 billion.

YIMBY wrote:
And what would you do if your customer breaks the cryptic contract (that no one even has bothered to read)? Send a nuke?

They don’t because they are contractually bound not to. Now should relations deteriorate such as with the US and Iran then of course a nation is likely to go down that route but that is a completely different situation to what we are talking about here.

YIMBY wrote:
Do not believe that those reverse engineering the software would shout it in the public.

The contract is something to agreed with two parties, and usually neither party has dictatorial powers, as there are still alternatives.

Hold on. Earlier you claimed that a supplier should not break a contract with a government and yet you now advocate that a government should break a contract with a supplier?

YIMBY wrote:
It may be different in your idealized world with LM monopoly.

What does LM have to do with this? When aircraft are sold they are almost universally government to government contracts. For the F-35 while LM is the OEM, who is developing to the requirements provided to them, the whole program is funded and structured by the partner nations and managed by the JPO.

YIMBY wrote:
If the Air Force does not have sufficient maintenance capacity, they have neglected their duties.

Well what happens in reality may not fit with your ideal but it is what is actually occurring in spares holdings and sustainment of military and civilian aircraft.

YIMBY wrote:
The RFB's usually include their paragraphs on technology transfer. They are not only to give jobs to local people on the assembly but also to learn how to do all the maintenance in case of a long-term crisis with all connections broken. Of course, the manufacturers hesitate to give that, for commercial reasons, to extort their customers on maintenance.

Can you provide a single example of a manufacturer not providing the ability to undertake local maintenance tasks?
What actually happens is most militaries recognise that 2nd and 3rd level support can often be completed by qualified commercial entities for cheaper that what it can be done by the military organisation, and also allows the military to focus their staff on their war fighting capability.

YIMBY wrote:
There are also second-hand markets for spare parts, e.g. from air forces quitting the type. Whether peace-time bureaucracy allows that is then another story, but in a crisis even the military may forget bureaucracy.

Sure, but in the US airframe case these spares and the organisations that harvest them are still required to receive approval to transfer these parts across geopolitical lines.
You keep talking about a crisis where a military may forget bureaucracy and I agree, when a crisis happens the flood gates open and a lot of agreements are waived.
Can you name a single time in the last 30 years when that occurred?

vr773 · Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:15 am

Planeflyer wrote:
No 4 th gen fighter can penetrate contested airspace as well as a 5th gen fighter.
The only reason not to buy F35 is politics. Germany is too competent to let this happen

It would be incompetent if politics wasn't part of the equation that determines the Tornado replacement decision. ever since Snowden, we all know that the United States doesn't consider Germany to be a trusted ally. The fact that Trump, or whatever lunatic might come after him, owns a kill switch for German defense assets is a security risk from a German perspective. This has to be taken into consideration when making this decision.
The ideal outcome for Germany might actually be to consider upgrading and extending the lifespan of the Tornados as much as possible and simultaneously working on changing NATO's nuclear sharing policy.

tommy1808 · Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:34 am

Planeflyer wrote:
You might not like that the F35 was created in the USA but you have to decide if this more important then defending your country and deterring potential enemies.

Yup, and we may come to the conclusion that we want an aircraft that isn´t out-supercruised by likely opponents when running on full burner.

best regards
Thomas

seahawk · Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:12 am

Which matters diddly squat for the Tornado replacement role though.

YIMBY · Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:45 am

Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
The maintenance contracts tend to cost more then the initial purchase, up to a billion a year.

Stop creating numbers out of thin air than have no factual basis in reality!
My previous post made it very clear what the RAAF paid for the SH in sustainment and support for five years, $264 million. That is not more than the initial purchase of the SH aircraft for the RAAF, which was approximately US$3 billion.

Of course it depends on the fleet size. Poland pays less, Germany more. And that is not limited to licence fees to original manufacturer but also every single weapon provider and other subcontractor, including local companies to which the tasks are outsourced just as you advocate.

Ozair wrote:

Hold on. Earlier you claimed that a supplier should not break a contract with a government and yet you now advocate that a government should break a contract with a supplier?

Where did I advocate that?

Take as seen that the most unreliable contract party today is Trump who has threatened to annulate every second contract, including commitments to NATO. Even worse, he has already withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Ozair wrote:
What does LM have to do with this? When aircraft are sold they are almost universally government to government contracts. For the F-35 while LM is the OEM, who is developing to the requirements provided to them, the whole program is funded and structured by the partner nations and managed by the JPO.

It doesn't really matter if it is LM or Boeing, but if there is only one provider it can dictate the sales conditions unilaterally. Not every nation is partner.

Today Sweden is claimed to cede more know-how to the customers than US. I do not know how decisive that has been in the deals, but such things do matter.

Ozair wrote:
Can you provide a single example of a manufacturer not providing the ability to undertake local maintenance tasks?

We are not talking about history but future. My reply was a response to a claim that Boeing /US Government would terminate support for their fighters before the end of their active duty time.
It was also claimed by someone else than me that the manufacturer/US government will not support local maintenance tasks like software updates even when they terminate their own support.
You may know better how credible those claims are.

How much support do Poland and other Eastern NATO countries receive from MiG and Sukhoi?

Ozair wrote:
Can you name a single time in the last 30 years when that occurred?

The armies should not prepare for past but future wars.

But for sure there are historic examples, like Ukraine, and half of Middle East.

tommy1808 · Wed Oct 18, 2017 6:50 am

seahawk wrote:
Which matters diddly squat for the Tornado replacement role though.

There is egress from the target area as well and you sort of want to stay ahead of whatever scrambles to stop you from getting home.

Best regard
Thomas

Planeflyer · Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:49 pm

vr773, OK and when push comes to shove, then what?

Coming home is certainly a very large part of the mission which is why any 4th gen AC makes zero sense. If push comes to shove, 4th Gen are good for one thing; staying home.

Ozair · Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:09 pm

YIMBY wrote:
Of course it depends on the fleet size. Poland pays less, Germany more. And that is not limited to licence fees to original manufacturer but also every single weapon provider and other subcontractor, including local companies to which the tasks are outsourced just as you advocate.

You still haven’t provided a single shred of evidence to support your billion dollar claim… As for fleet size, a larger fleet is likely to see reduced sustainment costs per aircraft compared to a smaller fleet as they can gain greater quantities of scale reductions.

YIMBY wrote:
Take as seen that the most unreliable contract party today is Trump who has threatened to annulate every second contract, including commitments to NATO. Even worse, he has already withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement.

I love how for some everything comes down to Trump. As for Trump and NATO, I don’t see how anyone can complain about what he has stated, it is simply in line with NATO agreements that all member nations maintain a base standard of funding.
Also not sure what Paris has to do with any of this…

YIMBY wrote:
Not every nation is partner.

Of those nations who have acquired the F-35 only Japan and Korea are not JSF partners but both have acquired under FMS. That means they have partnership agreements with the US and the US represents their intent within the partnership.

YIMBY wrote:
Today Sweden is claimed to cede more know-how to the customers than US. I do not know how decisive that has been in the deals, but such things do matter.

Yes lots of claims but little evidence. Given Saab doesn’t own the technology in over 40% of the Gripen I find it hard to believe they are transferring much actual knowledge.

YIMBY wrote:
We are not talking about history but future. My reply was a response to a claim that Boeing /US Government would terminate support for their fighters before the end of their active duty time.
It was also claimed by someone else than me that the manufacturer/US government will not support local maintenance tasks like software updates even when they terminate their own support.
You may know better how credible those claims are.

No, the original claim is that a jet is harder to maintain when the primary operator has retired them. An excellent example of this is the F-111 in RAAF service. The USAF retired the jet in 1996. Despite plenty of airframes in storage the RAAF saw maintenance costs increase over 200% by 2003 and the whole fleet became unsustainable to operate by 2007, hence the decision to retire them early in favour of the SH acquisition.

YIMBY wrote:
How much support do Poland and other Eastern NATO countries receive from MiG and Sukhoi?

What does that have to do with this conversation?

YIMBY wrote:

The armies should not prepare for past but future wars.

But for sure there are historic examples, like Ukraine, and half of Middle East.

So provide an example of where agreements were voided or ignored for the Middle East and Ukraine to allow an air force to do something or get something it needed. Again, plenty of bluster but little substance…

Planeflyer · Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:22 am

Ozair, well said!

RJMAZ · Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:39 am

tommy1808 wrote:
There is egress from the target area as well and you sort of want to stay ahead of whatever scrambles to stop you from getting home.

Best regard
Thomas

You underestimated how hard it is to intercept an aircraft in a tail chase. If a chasing aircraft is 25% faster but is 200 miles behind then the chase won't even begin.

You also underestimate how much extra fuel is burnt while super cruising. You will burn 100% more fuel to only fly 50% faster. Sure its better than using afterburner but free.

You also underestimate the range of the F-35 with internal fuel. Having excess fuel allows you to go faster. If a Eurofighter can supercruise at Mach 1.4 I would bet an F-35 could travel at the same speed for further distance than the Eurofighter can. I'm not saying the F-35 will super cruise at Mach 1.4 I'm saying it has enough fuel capacity to use light afterburner setting to fly at mach 1.4.

Planeflyer · Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:46 am

Moreover EF and any other 4th gen AC will be under attack long before it even reaches the target. 4th gen AC are only useful after air defense system has been taken down by 5th gen AC and even then survival rates will be horrible. The advances in rf components and the radar systems are improving dramiticaly.

YIMBY · Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:59 am

Planeflyer wrote:
vr773, OK and when push comes to shove, then what?

Coming home is certainly a very large part of the mission which is why any 4th gen AC makes zero sense. If push comes to shove, 4th Gen are good for one thing; staying home.

In my country the soldiers have to be ready to sacrifice their lives to complete their duties. Destroying enemy bombers is much more important than getting home.
It may be different for USA making surgical strikes to third world countries, but that is not an issue here.

Do you really anticipate Germany to end up in war against a country with state-of-art F-35''s? Which country?
If it is US (or its closer ally), the German pilot in his brand new F-35 is dead on arrival to the scene.

Any current western fighter is at least on par with any current eastern fighter (depending on weaponry, mission etc, though).
It will take at least a decade before Russia or China have their pseudo-stealth fighters combat-ready.

Russian fighters cannot enter undetected any western country with up-to-date air surveillance system, whether stealth or not, flying high or low. (I do not know, however, how many countries have neglected to build a decent surveillance system). I see little reason why West European fighters should ever enter Russian airspace that also has a very tight surveillance network. For revenge attack, use missiles.

bilgerat · Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:52 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Moreover EF and any other 4th gen AC will be under attack long before it even reaches the target. 4th gen AC are only useful after air defense system has been taken down by 5th gen AC and even then survival rates will be horrible. The advances in rf components and the radar systems are improving dramiticaly.

seahawk · Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:26 pm

There are few basic points that should not be forgotten.

a. the plane must be able to use American atomic bombs
b. it should be suitable for the SEAD role - a ARM should be integrated or planed for integration
c. it should be able to perform the maritime strike role (an certified missile would be nice)

A type other than the EF is preferred, because it gives the Luftwaffe a second type so that a technical grounding of one type does not effect the whole force. Furthermore the costs should be predictable and cost overruns should not happen. A fixed price contract of an existing system is preferred.

And only if these checkboxes are checked, you can talk about technical pros and cons of individual planes.

vr773 · Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:08 pm

Ozair wrote:
I love how for some everything comes down to Trump. As for Trump and NATO, I don’t see how anyone can complain about what he has stated, it is simply in line with NATO agreements that all member nations maintain a base standard of funding.

Trump has stated that NATO nations not meeting the 2% goal owe the US money, which is false. It's also incorrect that NATO members are required to be at 2% now. What they have committed to is moving towards that goal until 2024. I'm sure you now see how anyone can complain about what he has stated.

vr773 · Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:21 pm

I don't think the F-35 sales talk in this thread is helpful - sales talk which by the way pretty much only focuses on the aircraft's stealth capabilities, acknowledges that radar systems will advance, but ignores the possibility that they might advance to a level where they could detect the F-35.

It's not helpful because it's pretty clear that Germany intends to replace its Tornados with the FCAS by 2040. There is no hard expiry date for the Tornados and I assume the gap that Germany will need to fill will be 5-15 years. That's just not enough to justify the purchase of any # of F-35 given the associated financial and political risks.

Ozair · Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:51 pm

vr773 wrote:
Trump has stated that NATO nations not meeting the 2% goal owe the US money, which is false. It's also incorrect that NATO members are required to be at 2% now. What they have committed to is moving towards that goal until 2024. I'm sure you now see how anyone can complain about what he has stated.

So here is where you use your common sense and separate the bluster of Trump with the actual policy. I am staggered that so many people take Trump literally instead of recognising that his particular brand of politics, while different and more public facing than previous US presidents, is still seeking the same result. Clearly no one in any US political party is expecting European NATO members to pay the US back funds. What they do expect is for NATO countries to meet their commitments which is fair enough.

Second, the NATO commitment to 2% goes further back than 2014. From a NATO defence ministers meeting in 2006,

Finally, I should add that Allies through the comprehensive political guidance have committed to endeavour, to meet the 2% target of GDP devoted to defence spending. Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment that they will do it. But it is a commitment to work towards it. And that will be a first within the Alliance. So there was, I think, quite substantial developments in the first two meetings.

...

Q: James, could you refresh my memory as far the countries already meeting the 2% target who are concerned. How many are there? Are there any at all?

APPATHURAI: Yes, my understanding is that there are seven countries of the Alliance that are meeting the 2% target... that are meeting it.

http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060608m.htm

In place of that 2006 commitment we have seen further reductions form European nations on percentage vs GDP to the point where European NATO capability is significantly eroded and close to becoming irrelevant.

Ozair · Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:07 pm

vr773 wrote:
I don't think the F-35 sales talk in this thread is helpful - sales talk which by the way pretty much only focuses on the aircraft's stealth capabilities, acknowledges that radar systems will advance, but ignores the possibility that they might advance to a level where they could detect the F-35.

Well there are two sides to that. F-35 has now proven in numerous exercises that is has overwhelming superiority to 4th gen aircraft. Red Flag and even Atlantic trident demonstrated this.
As for radar, sure it will get better but if those advances assist the radar in detecting the F-35 then how much more effective will those same systems be against non stealth aircraft? The F-35 is already starting from a point orders of magnitude lower than 4th gen aircraft, which has been proven by a number of studies already posted in this thread.

vr773 wrote:
It's not helpful because it's pretty clear that Germany intends to replace its Tornados with the FCAS by 2040. There is no hard expiry date for the Tornados and I assume the gap that Germany will need to fill will be 5-15 years. That's just not enough to justify the purchase of any # of F-35 given the associated financial and political risks.

FCAS is not one single physical element, it is currently viewed as a overall capability and not a specific platform and given the comments below it appears that FCAS is still not certain either.

The German Air Force has requested for classified data regarding Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet for evaluation of possible solutions to replace its aging Tornado multi-role combat aircraft.
The application states that the German defense ministry would carry out an in-depth evaluation of market available solutions including the F-35, later this year. The ministry will issue a formal ‘letter of request’ in the coming months, Reuters reported Wednesday.
The letter, sent by the Air Force's planning command and seen by Reuters, makes clear that the German government has not yet authorized a procurement program and is not committed to any particular aircraft to replace its current warplanes.
The request might come as a surprise as Germany in December 2015 had planned to develop a new fighter along with its European partners. A draft document by the Defense Ministry on ‘military aviation strategy’ had stated it was still unclear whether the new jet would be manned or unmanned.
The Future Combat Air System (FCAS)—as the Bundeswehr program is called—would likely be a system of systems that combines manned and unmanned elements.
"The German government asked Airbus to consider alternatives for a Tornado replacement that will be complementary with the Eurofighter,” Alberto Gutierrez, head of the Eurofighter program was quoted as saying by The National Interest in March this year.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/19320/Germany_Considering_F_35_As_Possible_Tornado_Replacement

YIMBY · Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:12 am

Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Of course it depends on the fleet size. Poland pays less, Germany more. And that is not limited to licence fees to original manufacturer but also every single weapon provider and other subcontractor, including local companies to which the tasks are outsourced just as you advocate.

You still haven’t provided a single shred of evidence to support your billion dollar claim… As for fleet size, a larger fleet is likely to see reduced sustainment costs per aircraft compared to a smaller fleet as they can gain greater quantities of scale reductions.

The exact contracts are always classified, but my air force generals claim that the lifetime costs of a fighter are about five times higher than the initial purchase price, excluding local salaries etc.
So if you buy a fleet of 100 fighters with 100 billion you should prepare to pay 500 billion more. For a typical use that exceeds billion dollar a year.

If you can guarantee the maintenance costs of a major F-35 fleet to be 100 M a year I would buy it tomorrow.

BTW, your claims seem to be more extraordinary than mine, so you should show evidence instead of just blaming me.

Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Take as seen that the most unreliable contract party today is Trump who has threatened to annulate every second contract, including commitments to NATO. Even worse, he has already withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement.

I love how for some everything comes down to Trump. As for Trump and NATO, I don’t see how anyone can complain about what he has stated, it is simply in line with NATO agreements that all member nations maintain a base standard of funding.
Also not sure what Paris has to do with any of this…

Think what. With your intelligence, you certainly can get it. The climate change is larger risk for the Earth than a local apocalypse in Europe.

Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Not every nation is partner.

Of those nations who have acquired the F-35 only Japan and Korea are not JSF partners but both have acquired under FMS. That means they have partnership agreements with the US and the US represents their intent within the partnership.

So you are not trying to sell them to non-partner nations? Or do not care of them?

Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Today Sweden is claimed to cede more know-how to the customers than US. I do not know how decisive that has been in the deals, but such things do matter.

Yes lots of claims but little evidence. Given Saab doesn’t own the technology in over 40% of the Gripen I find it hard to believe they are transferring much actual knowledge.

They claim that rather explicitly, see their homepage and quotes of salesmen in Brazil and India. Of course, sales talk is sales talk and no one who knows the actual contents is allowed to leak it here.

Ozair wrote:

YIMBY wrote:
We are not talking about history but future. My reply was a response to a claim that Boeing /US Government would terminate support for their fighters before the end of their active duty time.
It was also claimed by someone else than me that the manufacturer/US government will not support local maintenance tasks like software updates even when they terminate their own support.
You may know better how credible those claims are.

No, the original claim is that a jet is harder to maintain when the primary operator has retired them. An excellent example of this is the F-111 in RAAF service. The USAF retired the jet in 1996. Despite plenty of airframes in storage the RAAF saw maintenance costs increase over 200% by 2003 and the whole fleet became unsustainable to operate by 2007, hence the decision to retire them early in favour of the SH acquisition.

Harder is not impossible. For a symbolic fleet of 10 planes (as many smaller nations in Europe) it may be beyond capacity, but with a major fleet of 100 planes (as many larger countries in Europe) everything is possible.

Also, talks about unsustainabiilty may be excuses to get more toys. Of course, sometimes there is a good reason to get modern equipment if the old equipment is obsolete, even when is is still maintainable.

Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
How much support do Poland and other Eastern NATO countries receive from MiG and Sukhoi?

What does that have to do with this conversation?

An example you requested. Don't play fool. The world is not just US and its allies.

Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
The armies should not prepare for past but future wars.
But for sure there are historic examples, like Ukraine, and half of Middle East.

So provide an example of where agreements were voided or ignored for the Middle East and Ukraine to allow an air force to do something or get something it needed. Again, plenty of bluster but little substance…

If you are at war, like Ukraine against Russia, every agreement is void. Air forces are not more sacred than armies or civil sector.
Can you give counterevidence that Ukraine, Irak, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan etc have kept all their agreement, air forces or elsewhere. Even the Nato country Turkey is in breech with many of its commitments.

YIMBY · Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:25 am

RJMAZ wrote:
You underestimated how hard it is to intercept an aircraft in a tail chase. If a chasing aircraft is 25% faster but is 200 miles behind then the chase won't even begin.

You also underestimate how much extra fuel is burnt while super cruising. You will burn 100% more fuel to only fly 50% faster. Sure its better than using afterburner but free.

You also underestimate the range of the F-35 with internal fuel. Having excess fuel allows you to go faster. If a Eurofighter can supercruise at Mach 1.4 I would bet an F-35 could travel at the same speed for further distance than the Eurofighter can. I'm not saying the F-35 will super cruise at Mach 1.4 I'm saying it has enough fuel capacity to use light afterburner setting to fly at mach 1.4.

I could not get how Thomas underestimated anything? Are you referring to some previous claim?

Speed is important to intercept, also other directions than behind. It is equally important to avoid being intercepted. Given that today's fighters are not faster than those of last century, it is not considered that important as it compromises other properties. That depends a lot, however, what size of a country you have to do defend and with what resources or how far away country you want to strike to.

200 nm is a very large distance in Europe. It is more than the distance from most capitals to the frontier. If you can keep your enemy 200 nm away from every strategic target, you have already completed a mission. To achieve that, you have to be there first.

Note that in a chase both planes consume extra fuel. If you make your opponent to consume its fuel before it reaches home, it is equivalent to shooting it down. The defendant has always an advantage over the aggressor with fuel. Of course, with whichever fighter, the chaser may turn up to be chased if he follows the target too far into enemy's territory where other fighters are waiting.

The amount of fuel, whether F-35 or MiG-21, is always a compromise. You cannot have a full weapon load and maximum fuel simultaneously. In F-35 the first limit is what to store internally, as external loads destroy the stealth properties. Also, an excess amount of fuel compromises manoeuvrability and speed.

Typhoon is not designed for long-distance strikes to faraway countries so it is not expected to excel in such. I question the need of Germany to have such capacity.

Note that F-35 is most vulnerable when being chased from behind, having used its self-defence missiles (if it even had any) and showing the backside with a huge RCS.

bilgerat · Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:58 am

I find it very interesting to note that Trump has been dragged into this conversation several times already, yet nobody has mentioned the EU's trajectory towards further federalisation and its desire for a centralised EU military force.

Germany's Tornado replacement will be more advanced strike aircraft from other EU member states who have subsumed their military into an EU command. Long term they will develop new aircraft with the French.

RJMAZ · Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:13 am

vr773 wrote:
There is no hard expiry date for the Tornados and I assume the gap that Germany will need to fill will be 5-15 years. That's just not enough to justify the purchase of any # of F-35 given the associated financial and political risks.

Australia bought some Super Hornets as a stop gap.

There are advantages of purchasing 50 aircraft every 10 years versus 100 aircraft every 20 years. You are effectively forming a high/medium combat mix. With the new aircraft forming the tip of the spear and the existing aircraft providing an equally important role.

An F-35 purchase would also reduce the need for upgrades to the Eurofighter fleet. Mid life upgrades to an existing aircraft are often very costly. So putting the funds towards additional more advanced aircraft can provide more capability for less cost.

The Eurofighter would be able to do combat air patrol, interception and second day of war bombing for another 20+ years.

Ozair · Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:54 am

YIMBY wrote:

The exact contracts are always classified, but my air force generals claim that the lifetime costs of a fighter are about five times higher than the initial purchase price, excluding local salaries etc.
So if you buy a fleet of 100 fighters with 100 billion you should prepare to pay 500 billion more. For a typical use that exceeds billion dollar a year.

Yimby, you still haven’t provided a source and the sustainment costs of fighter aircraft are often available if you know where to look. Just to be very clear, I will provide another source on RAAF Sustainment costs.
In 2012 the ANAO, using Australian Department of Defence data, found the following,

So we can be very clear, overall cost to sustain the classic Hornet fleet for a 12 year period was $1.4 billion compared to the acquisition cost of the fleet at $4.4 billion dollars. The cost to sustain the fleet from 2012 to 2021 is higher at $1.5 billion but given the jet is entering the twilight of its service career with most frames having high hours that shouldn’t be a surprise.
So what does that mean for yearly sustainment costs? Approximately $116 million per year for the sustainment through the twelve year period. For an average service life of type of 30 years that is approximately $3.5 billion. Include upgrades and refurbishment of $4 billion and perhaps a couple of billion for infrastructure upgrades and we arrive at a grand total of approximately 10 billion dollars.
That is remarkably consistent with the industry standard claim of two to three times the acquisition price of the jet in sustainment costs.
Just to make sure you understand, the RAAF is not a second tier air force. It flies and fights top of the line aircraft (the most capable classic hornets in the world) and highly trained aircrew who get good hours each year.

If you can guarantee the maintenance costs of a major F-35 fleet to be 100 M a year I would buy it tomorrow.

BTW, your claims seem to be more extraordinary than mine, so you should show evidence instead of just blaming me.

My claims are not extraordinary, they are based on factual data…
As for F-35 sustainment costs, the US currently estimates it will cost them approximately US$1 trillion dollars (in then year dolloars) to sustain US F-35 aircraft, 2447 of them, over a 50 year period. That is approximately 8 million per year per F-35. Over a 50 year lifetime then the US expects an F-35 to cost approximately 400 million, of which approximately 30% is inflation and not direct operating costs.

YIMBY wrote:

Think what. With your intelligence, you certainly can get it. The climate change is larger risk for the Earth than a local apocalypse in Europe.

And climate change has what to do with this discussion on sustainment costs of military fighter jets?

YIMBY wrote:
So you are not trying to sell them to non-partner nations? Or do not care of them?

I’m not trying to sell anything, the JSF program on the other hand certainly wants to sell as many as they can. As already stated, when a new nation that is not a partner of the JSF program acquires the jet it joins the sustainment program and usually will acquire the jet via FMS, meaning the US represents their interests to the JSF program.

YIMBY wrote:
They claim that rather explicitly, see their homepage and quotes of salesmen in Brazil and India. Of course, sales talk is sales talk and no one who knows the actual contents is allowed to leak it here.

Gripen C's foreign content.

YIMBY wrote:
An example you requested. Don't play fool. The world is not just US and its allies.

This whole conversation has been based on the withdrawl of US support for a fighter jet. Poland and other NATO countries support for Russian Airframes has nothing to do with it and is frankly a poor example given that Russia themselves struggled to sustain their own aircraft for almost 20 years.

Ozair wrote:
If you are at war, like Ukraine against Russia, every agreement is void. Air forces are not more sacred than armies or civil sector.
Can you give counterevidence that Ukraine, Irak, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan etc have kept all their agreement, air forces or elsewhere. Even the Nato country Turkey is in breech with many of its commitments.

Yimby, why do I need to give counterevidence? You made a claim which you still have not supported.

Ozair · Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:23 am

YIMBY wrote:
I could not get how Thomas underestimated anything? Are you referring to some previous claim?

A tail chase in the fighter world is never a great idea. Aircrew can get target fixated for a start, second it leaves the chaser open to interception and third numerous aircraft today can launch over their shoulders. If an aircraft such as Rafale or the F-35 did launch over their shoulder, then the dynamics of missile energy in a tail chase translate to a potentially longer range for the over the shoulder missile than a missile fired at a target flowing cold.

YIMBY wrote:
The amount of fuel, whether F-35 or MiG-21, is always a compromise. You cannot have a full weapon load and maximum fuel simultaneously. In F-35 the first limit is what to store internally, as external loads destroy the stealth properties. Also, an excess amount of fuel compromises manoeuvrability and speed.

The F-35A can carry a full load of 18,000 lbs of fuel and a full internal load and remain a 9G fighter aircraft. Ironically what you should note is that an F-35 is going to have lower drag than comparable 4th gen fighters because it does not need to carry anything external thereby being significantly more efficient in burning that fuel.

YIMBY wrote:
Note that F-35 is most vulnerable when being chased from behind, having used its self-defence missiles (if it even had any) and showing the backside with a huge RCS.

The F-35 is all aspect stealth design. The rear nozzle is a further developed version of the LOAN tested on the F-16 in the 90s.

angad84 · Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:16 pm

LOAN/F135 are not VLO, just "more stealthy" than their plain-jane counterparts. The F-35 (along with most fighters) does have a higher rear-aspect RCS.

YIMBY · Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:22 pm

Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
I could not get how Thomas underestimated anything? Are you referring to some previous claim?

A tail chase in the fighter world is never a great idea.

Never say never. There are cases when it can be quite a brilliant idea, or the least bad at least.
An even when it is not, exhausted pilots may do less than smart decisions, e.g. to revenge the kill of their fellow pilot.

Ozair wrote:
Aircrew can get target fixated for a start, second it leaves the chaser open to interception and third numerous aircraft today can launch over their shoulders. If an aircraft such as Rafale or the F-35 did launch over their shoulder, then the dynamics of missile energy in a tail chase translate to a potentially longer range for the over the shoulder missile than a missile fired at a target flowing cold.

Only if you have some missiles left. If you are going to strike Germany with your F-35, you are not going there to play around, but to drop bombs to strategic targets. A big bunker buster bomb fills the entire internal weapon bay. Hence you have to decide, if you
1) count on your stealthness and leave air-to-air missiles home
2) sacrifice bombing capability to carry self-defence missiles in internal bay, or
3) hang missiles or bombs in external bays increasing your RCS.

Even with a full missile load, you may consume them all in the battle and then go home defenceless.

Ozair wrote:
The F-35 is all aspect stealth design.

All aspect stealth designs do not exist, and will not. It is just a physical impossibility.
Every stealth fighter (also 4.5th gen fighter) is optimised to minimize the forward RCS.
The downwards RCS is particularly big for every object with wings.

Ozair · Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:45 pm

angad84 wrote:
LOAN/F135 are not VLO, just "more stealthy" than their plain-jane counterparts. The F-35 (along with most fighters) does have a higher rear-aspect RCS.

You're mixing technologies. LOAN is not the nozzle used on the F135. PW has a plethora of technologies and patents on their dev of the nozzle used on the F135. Sure the F-35 has a higher rear aspect RCS as a basis of the nozzle being present but it is likely to be significantly lower than previous generation aircraft, in both RCS and IR signatures.

angad84 · Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:02 pm

Ozair wrote:
angad84 wrote:
LOAN/F135 are not VLO, just "more stealthy" than their plain-jane counterparts. The F-35 (along with most fighters) does have a higher rear-aspect RCS.

You're mixing technologies. LOAN is not the nozzle used on the F135. PW has a plethora of technologies and patents on their dev of the nozzle used on the F135. Sure the F-35 has a higher rear aspect RCS as a basis of the nozzle being present but it is likely to be significantly lower than previous generation aircraft, in both RCS and IR signatures.

I was being lazy with the slash, it should have been an ampersand or whatever. Point being that rear-aspect RCS is significant, and tailchases are best avoided. Most decent modern radar guided AAMs typically have the legs to create a sizeable NEZ even in the chase. Try catching F-35 pilots when they're not on PR duty, it's usually good fun

Ozair · Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:04 am

YIMBY wrote:
Only if you have some missiles left. If you are going to strike Germany with your F-35, you are not going there to play around, but to drop bombs to strategic targets. A big bunker buster bomb fills the entire internal weapon bay. Hence you have to decide, if you
1) count on your stealthness and leave air-to-air missiles home
2) sacrifice bombing capability to carry self-defence missiles in internal bay, or
3) hang missiles or bombs in external bays increasing your RCS.

Even with a full missile load, you may consume them all in the battle and then go home defenceless.

So instead of looking at contrived scenarios where I have no idea what you are trying to conjour, for instance why have we moved from the F-35 as a possible acquisition by Germany to it now attacking Germany… let us look at your points in turn.

Internally the F-35 has a A2G pylon and an A2A pylon in each weapon bay, hence when loaded internally the F-35 is not required to leave A2A missiles behind. The internal weapons capacity is shown below.

There are a number of different configurations including using the A2G pylon to carry 8 SDB II weapons when they arrive. Block 4 will see the A2G pylon capable of carrying two AIM-120, lifting the total internal A2A load to six AIM-120. An overview of pylon capabilities is below.

The other side of this issue is the logical error people claim when they state that the F-35 loses its stealth with external pylons. Of course it does but that just brings it back into line with the rest of the group. The difference always remains that an F-35 can choose to go out with an internal load only, a load which in many cases rivals that of a 4.5g aircraft, and preserve stealth and manoeuvre capability.

Finally, aircraft fight in at least pairs and usually a four ship. That allows them to provide each other mutual support.

YIMBY wrote:
All aspect stealth designs do not exist, and will not. It is just a physical impossibility.
Every stealth fighter (also 4.5th gen fighter) is optimised to minimize the forward RCS.
The downwards RCS is particularly big for every object with wings.

You need to understand the terminology of stealth.

All aspect stealth is what is termed when signature is managed across 360 degrees of the aircraft. Of course that does not mean that an all aspect stealth airframe is not detectable from every direction. The whole point of shaping, which is foundation for stealth, is to focus and direct radar waves in specific directions. For example, the following RCS plot shows what is commonly called the bow tie effect of all aspect stealth.

The radar energy is shaped and reflected into four main directions. Platforms such as the F-22 and F-35 know the angles the airframes reflect radar energy and therefore ensure the pilot is aware of where his big spikes are pointing.

All aspect stealth then is different to that found in 4th gen aircraft where as you state the focus is on the front aspect of the aircraft.

As for the underside of the aircraft, how many radars do you know that point directly upwards?

Planeflyer · Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:01 pm

This discussion of rear chases allows for some clarity on the issue at hand.

F35's, either flown by German or other NATO pilots will not be alone and any Russian ( let’s be honest , this is the primary threat) will be very well aware that F22's will be targeting them while they are chasing F35's. What’s more the Russians understand this very well which is why a push comes to shove scenario is unlikely. This is the essence of deterrence.

So it is very likely that vr773 is correct and Germany will stay with the Tornado. But let’s be honest, this is the most likely outcome not because the US is an unreliable partner but because Germany so trusts that the US will bring necessary capabilities including both the F35 and F22 if push comes to shove.

After all, given the history of Europe, global warming can only even be brought into this conversation because the deterrence provided by the USA has made a conflict so unlikely on a continent that previous to 1945 engaged in major wars every generation or two for a thousand years.

Can anybody deny the US has provided Europe a darn good value?

It is beyond dispute that Europe is only possible with NATO and NATO is only possible with US.

Ozair · Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:23 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
So it is very likely that vr773 is correct and Germany will stay with the Tornado. But let’s be honest, this is the most likely outcome not because the US is an unreliable partner but because Germany so trusts that the US will bring necessary capabilities including both the F35 and F22 if push comes to shove.

For me the decision probably rests on whether Germany wants to continue to have NATO sharing nuclear delivery or not. If yes either a Tornado upgrade or the the F-35 are the options, if not then additional Eurofighters is probably the safer bet and to rationalise the fleet around a single type.

By 2025 Germany and Saudi Arabia will be the remaining Tornado operators and Saudi Arabia is likely to retire the fleet in favour of more Eurofighters shortly.

Planeflyer · Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:41 pm

I'm happy to defer to your wealth of knowledge on this subject.

How about the EF Austria wants to dispose of?

For all the reasons discussed above, Germany has lots of options.

seahawk · Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:59 am

Too few to replace the Tornados. Not nuclear capable and Tranche 1.

Planeflyer · Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:56 pm

I could see Germany dropping the capability to deliver nuclear weapons. Strangely the advent of stealth with all the deterrence it confers has made nukes less likely and in any case Germany may want to opt out.

Noshow · Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:53 pm

I don't see the Germans opting out. This is a long term political commitment with strategic importance for NATO.

vr773 · Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:49 pm

Ozair wrote:
So here is where you use your common sense and separate the bluster of Trump with the actual policy. I am staggered that so many people take Trump literally instead of recognising that his particular brand of politics, while different and more public facing than previous US presidents, is still seeking the same result. Clearly no one in any US political party is expecting European NATO members to pay the US back funds. What they do expect is for NATO countries to meet their commitments which is fair enough.

Second, the NATO commitment to 2% goes further back than 2014. From a NATO defence ministers meeting in 2006,

I disagree. Trump is frankly too dump to utilize any sort of negotiation strategy in foreign policy. He says/tweets stuff to feed his shrinking base and then he may mean it or not. It doesn't really matter for this discussion. What matters is that the US is not a reliable partner anymore which is why Germany won't purchase a US aircraft in the years to come.

It's interesting to look at possible scenarios and how they will affect decision making around the Tornado. I do believe that pulling out of nuclear sharing is a possibility in the current political climate in Germany.

Staying in while substituting the US with France could be another possibility. I'm speculating here but this could be part of a deal necessary to convince France to partner in developing a new system. In the meantime, to fill a potential Tornado gap, Germany might even get Rafales.

Ozair · Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:22 pm

vr773 wrote:
I disagree. Trump is frankly too dump to utilize any sort of negotiation strategy in foreign policy. He says/tweets stuff to feed his shrinking base and then he may mean it or not. It doesn't really matter for this discussion.

Agree wholeheartedly that trump has nothing to do with this issue.

vr773 wrote:
What matters is that the US is not a reliable partner anymore which is why Germany won't purchase a US aircraft in the years to come.

Sorry but the link between trump tweeting and the US not being a reliable partner is flawed. In what way is the US now not a reliable partner? Have they walked away from Europe, withdrawn funding and support for NATO, stopped providing joint development programs with European nations?

vr773 wrote:
It's interesting to look at possible scenarios and how they will affect decision making around the Tornado. I do believe that pulling out of nuclear sharing is a possibility in the current political climate in Germany.

And if that is the case then more Eurofighters is by far the smartest decision Germany could make.

vr773 wrote:
Staying in while substituting the US with France could be another possibility. I'm speculating here but this could be part of a deal necessary to convince France to partner in developing a new system. In the meantime, to fill a potential Tornado gap, Germany might even get Rafales.

Germany will not buy Rafales, that just makes zero sense. There is nothing the Rafale offers Germany that cannot be provided by the Eurofighter except for nuclear delivery and we have already shown that French air delivered nuclear warheads are few in number and may very well be withdrawn from service when the Mirage 2000D retires.

Aesma · Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:01 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
It is beyond dispute that Europe is only possible with NATO and NATO is only possible with US.

I dispute it. But then, I'm French, so that might have something to do with it !

Planeflyer · Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:13 am

Aesma, let me give you some dates that I can recite w/o even doing a google search.

1939-1945, 1914-1918, 1870-1871, 1795-1815, 1757-1763, 1738-1745 1689-1715, 1614-1648 and these are just the wars that involved major European powers which is by no means an exhaustive list. So, over the past 400 years, on avg there is major war in Europe roughly every generation.

But since the formation of NATO there has been one major conflict, in the Balkans. So, the one time since 1945, that Europe takes point on a major foreign policy issue, w/i two years we are right back into concentration camp dynamics.

Dispute all you want but the data does not support your assertion.

steman · Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:53 am

Planeflyer wrote:
But since the formation of NATO there has been one major conflict, in the Balkans. So, the one time since 1945, that Europe takes point on a major foreign policy issue, w/i two years we are right back into concentration camp dynamics.

Dispute all you want but the data does not support your assertion.

You could also say "since the formation of the European Union (formerly known as European Economic Community)"
And if you argue that the EU does not prevent European Countries from having quarrels or disputes, I´ll say that Nato did not prevent Greece and Turkey
from shooting down each others planes every now and then.
The truth, as always, is in the middle. Though it´s true that Nato has contributed immensely to the safety and cohesion of Europe, so did the European Union and the latter exists without the US.
I actually think it´s time for Europe to move to the next level and take care of its own security, without relying so much on the US Armed Forces´ help.

Dutchy · Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:40 am

I am all for the EU forming a real standing army and take care of its own defense. NATO still has its uses even if the EU has his own army. But forming such an integrated force, will need a level of commitment from EU countries that are not there and is not opportune.

As for American forces in Europe, much reduced since the end of the cold war and most of them are logistical in support of African or Asian commitments. The American nuclear weapons stored in various European countries are quite ridiculous, they can be taken away as soon as possible, that is fine with me. No real use for them. The UK and France its arsenal is enough for a deterrent, no need for more weapons.

As for the American / NATO commitment to eastern flank, well look at in this way, America puts its defense line in Eastern Europe, not on the eastern shore of America. So that is a NATO operation and it is a good thing all are going to participate in that, including the US.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net