keesje wrote:

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.

What is the range in that config keesje?

How about we look at the numbers and compare.

Tornado
Up to 19,840lbs of external ordnance to include guided air-to-air/air-to-surface missiles, conventional drop bombs, precision-guided ordnance, fuel tanks and mission pods
Info taken from here https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... aft_id=317

F-35A
18,000lbs of fuel all held internally as well as the capability to carry 18,000lb payload.


Difference between the jets is very clear so while trying to compare the F-35 to an F-16 may be fun, it isn’t accurate. The F-35 is above the F-16 in weight class and very comparable to Tornado in payload/range while having the ability to defend itself and retain better than F-16 manoeuvrability and speed with superior sensors and EW capability.

keesje wrote:

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.

Actually dude, why don’t you post some facts, links and actual reporting to substantiate your claims. Instead you, as demonstrated already on the last page, cherry pick a line or two from media reporting to support your claims, while ignoring the rest of the article.

As for unsubstantiated, the forum rules are very clear. “When stating facts, statistics or newsworthy bulletins, please be sure to include an HTML link or reference to the publication. If you are merely providing an opinion, please MENTION THIS in your post. It is each member’s responsibility to avoid arguments based on rumours or misinformation. “
If you make a claim that is unsubstantiated by the link you provided, or when you don’t provide a link, then I see no reason why it should not be pointed out. I expect the same standard to be applied to me for anything I post.

As for pushing the F-35, again people seem to confuse pushing one airframe against ensuring the capabilities posted about the F-35 is accurate. Let us be clear, you have done a similar thing with Airbus aircraft in CivAv.

We have reviewed a number of times the requirements that Germany have for Tornado retirement and replacement. The German Air Force has made it very clear what they want from a replacement and how long they expect the Tornado to economically last. Personally, I think the Germans should ditch Nuclear Sharing and go for more Eurofighters, probably a Tranche 4 version of some sort. It makes the most economic sense especially in light of the reluctance of Germany to commit military forces to conflict and a strong preference for a military for home defence only. But, if they opt to acquire an aircraft, they would be mad to choose anything other than F-35.

The USAF would not send 15E into contested environments just as they did not in the Gulf War. Back then the 117 did all the heavy lifting until the air defense net was degraded( The relative performance between stealth and non stealth ac in the Gulf War was what drove the development of the F35. The Europeans had access to the same knowledge and instead of investing in stealth, developed 4th gen AC which were obsolete even while on the CAD screen).

Today most of eastern Germany is already under S400 coverage so if push comes to shove you better hope the US, Italians, Dutch, Norwiegans or Brits can spare enough of their 35's to even allow your Tornados to be get to the refueling craft which will have to be back in France .

rheinwaldner, .4% loss rate per sortie means losing about 1 AC per day( 80 ac at 3 sorties per day) and this, only after the 117 made it safe for the Tornado to fly.

I have no idea how high the rates would be today but you don't need to rely on LM marketing spin to know losses would be unacceptable especially, when it counts, in the first week. Don't blame LM that your people could not read what was obvious 25 years ago.

rheinwaldner wrote:

Sources?

You need a source for your claim "The British Tornado losses in First Gulf War, which were above average, were 0.4% of all Tornado sorties."
I ask for this because I find completely different numbers when I look online, including: "Britain's own field generals say ...... that the RAF is losing a Tornado jet every 80 sorties"
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-01-23/ ... _air-force

I think you were counting training sorties too with your 0.4% number.

My source for the F-35 being the replacement for the F-15s is based on the very public knowledge that the F-35 is expected to keep flying into the 2070s.

rheinwaldner wrote:

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.

If hauling passengers is a priority why not buy 737s?

rheinwaldner wrote:

My post was an answer to someone who believes, that every pilot except F-35 pilots have to die during Tornado kind of attacks.

You're creating a strawman with that extrapolation of Planeflier's message.

rheinwaldner wrote:

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.

True. And if you can guarantee that your nation will never have a need to defend itself from a top tier military, then all you'll ever need is 4th gen aircraft or possibly turboprop Stukas with carbon fiber wings.

rheinwaldner wrote:

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

If hauling a lot of weight is your only requirement I may have a cost saving plan for you.

keesje wrote:

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.

The RAF deployed the Tornado, because Project Centurion was not done and the Typhoon was not certified to carry the same weapons. After that was done, they deployed Typhoons and are looking at accelerating the Tornado retirement

Kiwirob wrote:

Ok what if you install microphones everywhere, the US has sprinkled noise detectors all through the oceans to track the oppositions subs, a mircophone which is land based would be significantly cheaper than an undersea device, you could install thousands of them everywhere, power pilons, buildings, bridges, cell towers, mountain tops, tall trees with enough computing power and the sound being collected from many devices it should be relatively simple to locate and track a stealth aircraft. It would also be pretty difficult to locate and destroy all the mircophones, a country the size of Germany could be covered with thousands of microphones.

We don't need to install microphones every where. There are ~40million smartphones in the UK (I'll use UK as an example because I live there and expect Germany isn't too different). Each one has a connection to the internet each one knows where it is via GPS. There is technology that can tell my voice from my wifes voice so it can sure as hell tell one plane type from another as well as how many there are, where they are going and what speed they are going, they could do this with a single microphone to detect friend or foe in helicopter mines the 80's. Sound recordings can be time stamped by matching the electric background hum frequency and pattern and matching to the specific frequency of the national electricity network.

I think the use of sound is a fantastic one and the use of sensor fusion (doesn't only happen in the cockpit) to combine with weak radar signals or even to pinpoint a much more sensitive/powerful/expensive radar/Infrared in the correct direction. Humans with our 2 ears are good to about 30° resolution and with our 4 ears are good to about 15° (watch someone cock their head when trying to listen to a quiet sound). A distributed network of millions of sensors is pretty hard/expensive to knock out with multi-million dollar bombs and planes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_mirror
looks like it has been done already.

Fred

salttee wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

Sources?

You need a source for your claim "The British Tornado losses in First Gulf War, which were above average, were 0.4% of all Tornado sorties."
I ask for this because I find completely different numbers when I look online, including: "Britain's own field generals say ...... that the RAF is losing a Tornado jet every 80 sorties"
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-01-23/ ... _air-force

I think you were counting training sorties too with your 0.4% number.

The RAF lost 6 Tornados in combat, flying about 1900 sorties. (600 sorties were carried out by Jaguars, one of which was lost.) That's a ratio of 0.5 %, much less than your 1.25 %. Initial losses were higher, though, as 5 of 6 were lost within the first 5 days.

Granted, the F-117 flew some 1300 missions and didn't lose one. But I think it is wrong to assume that 4th gen (or really 4.5 gen, in the case of Eurofighter & Rafale) are completely worthless compared to stealth aircraft. Especially considering that 4th gen fighters do not rely on not being seen and do not lose their strengths as radars advance. After all, the Tornado outlived the F-117 and the U2 outlived the SR-71.

https://books.google.de/books?id=DqaZBw ... es&f=false
https://defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com ... ert-storm/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Granby

flipdewaf wrote:

There are ~40million smartphones in the UK ..............

Your proposal is technically weak (impossible) for several reasons beginning with receiver sensitivity, the microphones in those phones are designed to pick up comparatively loud noises and have a limited bandwidth. A plane flying at near the speed of sound wouldn't be detectable until it was overhead if it was detected at all. One receiver cannot detect location, let alone direction. Phones that were constantly running sound analysis routines would suck their batteries dry far too soon.

You would have to revert to Kiwirob's version of sound detection, which would only achieve a fraction of a percent of the resolution of radar (which detects targets hundreds of miles away).

The WW2 sound detection was nearly worthless even back then.

mxaxai wrote:

The RAF lost 6 Tornados in combat, flying about 1900 sorties...........

If those Tornadoes had tried to fly the same missions as the 117s you would have lost your whole inventory.

Ozair wrote:

The F-15E is capable of self escort strike, the Tornado is not.

Wow. I'd always assumed that since there is the Tornado ADV, that the IDS is capable of self escort/ carrying radar-guided AAMs. Turns out all it can do is carry short range IR missiles. I am surprised a multirole capability has not been added.

seahawk wrote:

keesje wrote:

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.

The RAF deployed the Tornado, because Project Centurion was not done and the Typhoon was not certified to carry the same weapons. After that was done, they deployed Typhoons and are looking at accelerating the Tornado retirement

Project Centurion is still a fair ways from being completed. Although the en mass introduction of storm shadow/meteor (P2E) and soon after Brimstone II (P3E) should be underway sometime in the new year. I know the Typhoon TEU squadron (41 sqn) has finished or nearing completion of evaluations for the ordinance at this time. Indeed 41 squadron has retired their Tornado units as of November, which have been transferred to active duty at Marham finally being pulled from service in early-mid 2019.

To add to that however relating to Keesje's post; Typhoon aircraft have been operating independently over the middle east in recent deployments, using Paveway IV and Litening pods. It was only over Libya, that the Typhoon fleet relied on a Tornado crew to laser designate a target in order to release their ordinance. Indeed this was during early conversion of the Typhoon from F2 to FGR4 status.

sharles wrote:

Ozair wrote:

The F-15E is capable of self escort strike, the Tornado is not.

Wow. I'd always assumed that since there is the Tornado ADV, that the IDS is capable of self escort/ carrying radar-guided AAMs. Turns out all it can do is carry short range IR missiles. I am surprised a multirole capability has not been added.

Due to the way the program was put together, I guess such a capability was never required or perhaps deemed financially viable at the time. And since the introduction of Typhoon which fulfilled the AA role, and can now indeed self escort, it would be a pointless exercise to spend the money.

sharles wrote:

Wow. I'd always assumed that since there is the Tornado ADV, that the IDS is capable of self escort/ carrying radar-guided AAMs. Turns out all it can do is carry short range IR missiles. I am surprised a multirole capability has not been added.

Gingersnap wrote:

Due to the way the program was put together, I guess such a capability was never required or perhaps deemed financially viable at the time. And since the introduction of Typhoon which fulfilled the AA role, and can now indeed self escort, it would be a pointless exercise to spend the money.

The IDS/GR Tornados have a different radar to the ADV Tornado flown by the UK. The IDS/GR version has essentially no A2A capability and the radar was primarily used for terrain following while the ADV had the Foxhunter radar that was capable of guiding semi-active Skyflash and subsequently AIM-120.

All this talk about specific technical capabilities of a Tornado to self escort or a Typhoon to find a target is besides the point because, as Saltee so succinctly stated, had the Tornados( or F15E) flown the missions carried out by the F117 the entire fleet would have been lost.

seahawk wrote:

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

1. Is there that the overall cost increase is entirely due to currency fluctuation?
2. even it was true, a good procurer hedges for forex changes when making foreign currency purchases.

salttee wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

There are ~40million smartphones in the UK ..............

Your proposal is technically weak (impossible) for several reasons beginning with receiver sensitivity,

Smartphones may be an opportunity/threat if phones in foreign countries are abused for far detection, with or without consent of the phone owner.

To build a network at homeland, they are too expensive for this purpose, even if mass production lowers their prices. Much cheaper devices are sufficient.

salttee wrote:

the microphones in those phones are designed to pick up comparatively loud noises and have a limited bandwidth

Jet engines emit loud noises. Microphones have bandwidth but low frequencies are filtered out to facilitate hearing.

salttee wrote:

. A plane flying at near the speed of sound wouldn't be detectable until it was overhead if it was detected at all.

The idea is to locate the detectors so far out that it is sufficient to detect the sound overhead.

salttee wrote:

One receiver cannot detect location, let alone direction.

Unissue, as three units can detect direction.

salttee wrote:

Phones that were constantly running sound analysis routines would suck their batteries dry far too soon.

That is true. They need to be constantly charged. It is, of course, possible to have them always connected to power line.

salttee wrote:

You would have to revert to Kiwirob's version of sound detection

Yes, Kiwirob got is perfectly right.

salttee wrote:

, which would only achieve a fraction of a percent of the resolution of radar (which detects targets hundreds of miles away).

A grid of sound detectors can achieve much better resolution than a radar whenever the target is contained within the grid area.

The issue is how far you can install hidden sensor in the adversary's area, in peace or war times. There are ways to do it.

salttee wrote:

The WW2 sound detection was nearly worthless even back then.

No, it was very important and also thereafter. Whether there were more important tasks for the persons is another debate.

Radars did not make human sound detection (and visual) worthless as pilots learned to avoid radars flying low.

flipdewaf wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_mirror
looks like it has been done already.

Acoustic mirrors are unnecessary. We can obtain the position and direction just comparing the sound profiles of different sound sensors. The mirrors just add the cost. Nevertheless, if the dominant cost comes from the installation, more expensive sensors may be worthwhile.

flipdewaf wrote:

I think the use of sound is a fantastic one and the use of sensor fusion (doesn't only happen in the cockpit) to combine with weak radar signals or even to pinpoint a much more sensitive/powerful/expensive radar/Infrared in the correct direction.

That's the point.

We should not be confused by LM fans that build strawmen to refute any scenario to detect stealth planes and to maintain the illusion of their invisibility,whether ex officio or ego protection.

vr773 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

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

1. Is there that the overall cost increase is entirely due to currency fluctuation?
2. even it was true, a good procurer hedges for forex changes when making foreign currency purchases.

As the British defence ministry called it a side effect of the Brexit, I would say so. Which also answers point 2, because the UK did not. Apart from that they see costs increases with every program paid for in Dollar or Euro.

flipdewaf wrote:

I think the use of sound is a fantastic one and the use of sensor fusion (doesn't only happen in the cockpit) to combine with weak radar signals or even to pinpoint a much more sensitive/powerful/expensive radar/Infrared in the correct direction.

That's the point.
[/quote]

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/781 ... eload=true

I get the points about mobile phones but the point still stands that you can have multiple acoustic envelope detectors. One on top of every mobile phone mast, pylon, tall building, tops of hills, oil and gas platforms on top of ferries. Even if 10% are out of action at any one time its still fine, sort of like a sound version of GPS, you don't need all the satellites to make it work. You may not get the long range detection capabilities of radar but then you have a distributed network that is pretty hard to knock out that can track aircraft accurately over your airspace. Why would we continue to use radar if, as the diagrams above show, it can be easily circumvented.

Fred

salttee wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

The RAF lost 6 Tornados in combat, flying about 1900 sorties...........

If those Tornadoes had tried to fly the same missions as the 117s you would have lost your whole inventory.

That's ridiculous. Tornados (and other non-stealth aircraft) were flying missions against heavily defended areas from day 1 of the attack. Granted, two Tornados were lost that day, but their larger radar return does not make them flying coffins. Assuming the "80 sorties until one Tornado lost" figure had been true for the entire war, about 23 would have been lost out of a fleet of 60. Not too bad for a full fledged war against one of the then strongest military powers worldwide. In reality the degradation of the Iraqi air defense system would have been achieved to a similar level without the F-117.

Note that one of the first F-117 missions was escorted by obviously non-stealth EF-111 ECM aircraft all the way to Baghdad.

I'll remind you that the F-117 has been retired while other, older aircraft soldier on. If stealth was the ultimate solution to all problems I highly doubt that this decision would have been made. At the time, the F-22 was just barely entering service and the F-35 was still a decade away from any combat readiness. A weak radar return is a nice-to-have, not a must-have.

From the link:

The calculated tracks were used for steering the cameras to the acoustically tracked target to capture pictures. The extended test spanning more than two years has uncovered many challenges that are part of such deployment including the impact of the weather, natural and man-made interfering sources of noise, effects of terrain and the variety of types and modes of operation of the targets of interest.

Looks like the detection range is very short.

Is there one of these systems in place?

The signal to noise ratio is so much lower that for this too have any chance of adding value it would need to be paired with a radar.

mxaxai wrote:

That's ridiculous. Tornados (and other non-stealth aircraft) were flying missions against heavily defended areas from day 1 of the attack.

Non stealth aircraft mostly avoided heavily defended areas, An exception was the Tornados which had the task of using paveway munitions to crater runways, so their tactic was to fly low (under the radar) which is not a desired tactic to execute normally (speed and fuel burn are adversely affected by low level flight among other things) and was especially dangerous when it required the pilot to fly down the length of a defended runway. If I remember correctly, the Tornado paveway missions were cancelled as being too costly.

My premise above was that had Tornados been given the job of flying against the air defense network and targets in Baghdad and other heavily defended AD concentrations they would fared even worse.

The EF-111 ECM missions were not flown alongside the F-117s, they stayed on the periphery of the AD network.
The F-117s were replaced by F-22s and F-35s. The 117s suffered from performance and maintenance issues that were corrected in 2nd gen stealth.

mxaxai wrote:

A weak radar return is a nice-to-have, not a must-have.

I can't understand the naivete behind a statement like that coming from someone who would seek out a forum such as this to participate in.

salttee wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

The RAF lost 6 Tornados in combat, flying about 1900 sorties...........

If those Tornadoes had tried to fly the same missions as the 117s you would have lost your whole inventory.

That's rubbish, you are making the same mistake as PlaneFlyer. From 0.4% losses to 100% is not possible. Don't forget, the Tornados were intensively used initially to attack the airfields. The airfields belong to the most protected places on enemy territory. The Tornados were the only aircraft capable to attack airfields in the first Gulf war. Neither F-117 nor F-15E were used for that task...

On this link you can see that 6 Tornados were lost in 1640 sorties...:
https://www.raf.mod.uk/history/AirPowerintheGulfWar.cfm

That makes a loss rate of 0.365%.

However the loss tate of the air field attacks with JP233s was much higher. The loss rate became normal when the Tornado switched to medium altitude attacks using LGBs guided by either the first available targeting pods of by the old Bucs.

seahawk wrote:

JP233s

Where those actually deemed effective?

Interesting read, that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP233#Deployment

Hmm, losses from illumnation.

7th gen fighters will again be midnight black.

rheinwaldner wrote:

That's rubbish, the Tornados attacked initially the airfields. Do you think the airfields are not the most protected places on enemy territory? The Tornados were the only aircraft capable to attack airfields. Neither F-117 nor F-15E were used for that task...

The JP233 was a British munition and the only plane equipped to deploy it were the Tornados, but that does not mean that the Tornados were the only aircraft capable of attacking runways. After the Gulf war the British eliminated the JP233 from their inventory.

As Wiederling points out, it turns out that the JP233 delivery wasn't the reason for the Tornado losses. The bulk of the losses can be attributed to the low level flying and the lack of stealth. https://defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com ... ert-storm/

Your .4% number is deceptive, as the vast bulk of the Tornado missions were flown after the Iraqi air defense network was taken down. As I said above, if the Tornados had attempted to fly the missions flown by the F-117s, you would have run out of Tornados, whether you flew them high or low.

salttee wrote:

As Wiederling points out, it turns out that the JP233 delivery wasn't the reason for the Tornado losses. The bulk of the losses can be attributed to the low level flying and the lack of stealth. https://defenceoftherealm.wordpress.com ... ert-storm/

I did not.

Losses were attributed to low level delivery _and_ illumination of the Tornados from below by the exploding munitions on the ground.

nothing around to link this to stealth or not.
IMU most of the "stealth is top, this is proven" stems from carefully massaged information.
This is a persistent feature in the US information sphere. Overstatements, misattributions and plain lies abound.

WIederling wrote:

I did not.

You should have read your own link: "none of the losses occurred during the attack phase of a JP233 mission.."

Yet, all but one happened during missions flown at low level. With loft bombing even more dangerous than JP233 runs. Losses were normal once the Tornado switched to medium altitude missions, even though it remained non-stealthy.

seahawk wrote:

However the loss tate of the air field attacks with JP233s was much higher. The loss rate became normal when the Tornado switched to medium altitude attacks using LGBs guided by either the first available targeting pods of by the old Bucs.

Per the Wiki the greatest danger during those runs was AAA and MANPADS, not your typical medium-range radar guided missile. Additionally, the bombs themselves apparently weren't entirely safe either. In any case, at such short range any of the current stealth aircraft will show up on radar (and virtually all other detection methods).

A weak radar return is a nice-to-have, not a must-have.

Let me clarify:
I agree that stealth significantly increases the mission sucess rate and survivability in medium to high-threat environments. I however reject the notion that this renders all older aircraft worthless.
I especially wouldn't buy an aircraft for stealth alone. I would, though, always choose an aircraft that is stealthy over one that is not, if they were equal in everything else.

The less likely you are to actually use your aircraft in such a scenario the lower the actual benefit by stealth becomes. You do not need it e. g. for training. In a world where there is no credible military threat (to Germany) for at least the next 10 years, I highly doubt that replacing the Tornado will bring a huge operational benefit. Many air forces seem to agree: Out of more than 10.000 fighter jets worldwide, only some 400 are 5th gen, or 4 %.

seahawk wrote:

Yet, all but one happened during missions flown at low level. With loft bombing even more dangerous than JP233 runs. Losses were normal once the Tornado switched to medium altitude missions, even though it remained non-stealthy.

By the time the Tornados changed missions, the Iraqi air defense network had been rendered ineffective and all that was left were SAM sites that came on only when they thought it safe and they could get a shot in. By that time, there were always aircraft above loaded with HARM missiles looking for targets. That's why that .4% number is so meaningless.

salttee wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Yet, all but one happened during missions flown at low level. With loft bombing even more dangerous than JP233 runs. Losses were normal once the Tornado switched to medium altitude missions, even though it remained non-stealthy.

By the time the Tornados changed missions, the Iraqi air defense network had been rendered ineffective and all that was left were SAM sites that came on only when they thought it safe and they could get a shot in. By that time, there were always aircraft above loaded with HARM missiles looking for targets. That's why that .4% number is so meaningless.

The same environment would make non losses on the stealthy craft meaningless as well, doesn't it?

WIederling wrote:

The same environment would make non losses on the stealthy craft meaningless as well, doesn't it?

Why are you trying soooo hard to ignore the fact that it was the stealth aircraft that shut down the air defense network?

This reminds me of the time in the recent past when you made the blunt statement that the danger of U-238 uranium by itself is worse than the byproducts of runaway nuclear reaction.

You repeatedly let your politics get in the way of your understanding of physical reality.

salttee wrote:

The EF-111 ECM missions were not flown alongside the F-117s, they stayed on the periphery of the AD network.

Means in Saudi Arabia? Sounds credible.

salttee wrote:

Your .4% number is deceptive, as the vast bulk of the Tornado missions were flown after the Iraqi air defense network was taken down.

To the opposite. The 0.4% simply mean, that in a war the dangerous missions account for a very small percentage of all the missions. And that means, that the 4gen fighters are still legitimate assets in such a war.

It is a big difference whether you or Planeflyer say that all non-stealth aircraft are just canon fodder, or whether non-stealth aircraft may have a notable loss rate initially but for 99% of the time they are fit for purpose.

And b.t.w. knocking out air bases also belongs to the task "taking down the Iraqi air defense network". And that was Tornado core competence throughout the whole war.

salttee wrote:

As I said above, if the Tornados had attempted to fly the missions flown by the F-117s, you would have run out of Tornados, whether you flew them high or low.

It is not credible that any places are more heavily defended than air bases. And yes, the Tornados had some losses attacking them. But not 100% as you suggest ("run out of Tornados"). The Tornados through the whole war attacked airfields which are as heavily defended as any other area.

Scoreboards don’t lie; how many 117’s were lost?

Depends on the weapon used.

In 1991 no Tornado could fly the mission of the F-117A as they lacked TIALD until the last weeks of the conflict, so they could not self designate LGBs. Today they could probably hit the same targets using Storm Shadow and Taurus.

So far it is not yet decided which approach is better. Improve the plane to safely employ simple weapons, or improve the weapons to keep the plane out of the reach of enemy defences.

Sorry, wanted to edit my post, but this created a new one...

I just wanted to add this to my last post:
That airfields are as heavily defended as any other area is generally the case. I know because in my military times, I was radar operator and fire controller of an AAA battery. We were placed where the air bases were and not in the cities. We were capable to lock on aircraft (obtaining azimuth, elevation and distance) using entirely passive and non-emitting techniques. Stealth aircraft would have only a small advantage in such a setup.

Planeflyer wrote:

Scoreboards don’t lie; how many 117’s were lost?

The disagreement is about non-stealth aircraft. There the scoreboards also don't lie: they tell us nothing about that 100% loss rate of non-stealth aircraft, that you want us to believe. There is quite a difference between less than 0.4% and 100%.

B.t.w. other non-stealth fighters also had acceptable loss rates. The F-15E had a loss in less than 0.1% of all the sorties. One of the two F-15Es, that was shut down, operated in an environment that was described as "the most difficult and dangerous of the war as it was heavily defended by SA-3s, SA-6s, SA-8s and Rolands as well as by anti-aircraft artillery".

seahawk wrote:

So far it is not yet decided which approach is better. Improve the plane to safely employ simple weapons, or improve the weapons to keep the plane out of the reach of enemy defences.

That comes down to the length of the conflict. The longer the conflict the more likely simple weapons will be used. Additionally the number of potential targets directly impacts the number and type of weapons that will be used.

This study by RAND https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2012/RAND_TR1230.pdf has some good analysis on the use and cost effectiveness of cruise missiles versus bombers as well as this very short working paper, https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR778.html

salttee wrote:

This reminds me of the time in the recent past when you made the blunt statement that the danger of U-238 uranium by itself is worse than the byproducts of runaway nuclear reaction.

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? Do you have enough lifetime left to work on compensating ?

Planeflyer wrote:

Scoreboards don’t lie; how many 117’s were lost?

Losses are always known 20-25 yrs later. Both sides always have totally different numbers.
Earlier on aircraft "missing", "unconfirmed", "suffered technical failures", never "they blew us out of the sky"

Propaganda totally rules in conflicts & no one wants to anything else.


On Scoreboards stating the F35 is unproven in combat contrary to other competitors could also be used to influence perceptions.

WIederling wrote:

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? Do you have enough lifetime left to work on compensating ?

The defeated knight raises his finger in disgust as he marches off the field of battle,

keesje wrote:

Losses are always known 20-25 yrs later. Both sides always have totally different numbers.
Earlier on aircraft "missing", "unconfirmed", "suffered technical failures", never "they blew us out of the sky"

Propaganda totally rules in conflicts & no one wants to anything else.

But keesje, try to imagine if it were true: no F-117s were shot down in the gulf war. Wouldn't your argument then fall on its face?

keesje wrote:

On Scoreboards stating the F35 is unproven in combat contrary to other competitors could also be used to influence perceptions.

You have made this claim previously but it is false and not represented by procurement reality. What environment has the competitors of the F-35 proved themselves in? Afghanistan, Libya, Syria? Hardly high threat scenarios. The F-22 did not see combat till Syria in 2014 but few denied it was an impressive aircraft likely to dominate all others.

To take the analogy further, most European nations purchased the F-16 long before it entered combat, clearly that didn't influence their perceptions. Canada, Australia and Spain all purchased the Classic Hornet before it saw conflict, clearly that didn't influence their perceptions. Saudi Arabia purchased the Eurofighter before it has seen combat, that didn't alter their perceptions. Hungary, South Africa, Thailand and Czech Republic purchased or leased Gripen long before it saw its limited combat experience over Libya, that clearly didn't influence their perceptions.

Maybe we can return to a more factual debate.

Not every new fighter purchase needs to be a debate about the pros and cons of the F-35.

In the German case the first question is how long can you fly the Tornado. Airbus thinks until 2035+, the Luftwaffe sees incalculable risks in flying the Tornados after 2030.
The second is that Germany has pledged a SEAD capability to NATO currently covered by the ECRs, this is to be preserved.
Third is the question of the NATO shared use of atomic weapons. The decision to keep it or not is still open.

In addition the new fighter must be ready to fly with up-dates and full support until 2050+.

Contacts were made about the F-35, EF, F-15 and F-18. Airbus wants to offer the FCAS, but the time frame needed to get that going is unrealistic when you look at the political reality. They would need a definite contract from the governments (including workshares, etc.) in 2018 to achieve an EIS at 2030.

My bet is on the Luftwaffe keeping the Tornado, it seems to be the cheapest option with the fewest political problems.

seahawk wrote:

Depends on the weapon used.

In 1991 no Tornado could fly the mission of the F-117A as they lacked TIALD until the last weeks of the conflict, so they could not self designate LGBs. Today they could probably hit the same targets using Storm Shadow and Taurus.

So far it is not yet decided which approach is better. Improve the plane to safely employ simple weapons, or improve the weapons to keep the plane out of the reach of enemy defences.

It is a completely skewed discussion. In the first Gulf war, stealth was absolutely new and the F117 was top secret: not known to exist. Therefore, the F117 had an element of surprise which is unlikely to be ever repeated again. Taking this unique situation and then stating it as always valid is not a sound reasoning. Note that the F117s have long been retired because even though they did the job in the Gulf war, they had other issues and cost was a major one. That is another point: no country has infinite funds for defense, so compromises always need to be made.

AngMoh wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Depends on the weapon used.

In 1991 no Tornado could fly the mission of the F-117A as they lacked TIALD until the last weeks of the conflict, so they could not self designate LGBs. Today they could probably hit the same targets using Storm Shadow and Taurus.

So far it is not yet decided which approach is better. Improve the plane to safely employ simple weapons, or improve the weapons to keep the plane out of the reach of enemy defences.

It is a completely skewed discussion. In the first Gulf war, stealth was absolutely new and the F117 was top secret: not known to exist. Therefore, the F117 had an element of surprise which is unlikely to be ever repeated again. Taking this unique situation and then stating it as always valid is not a sound reasoning. Note that the F117s have long been retired because even though they did the job in the Gulf war, they had other issues and cost was a major one. That is another point: no country has infinite funds for defense, so compromises always need to be made.

The F-117 first saw combat action in 1989 in the US invasion of Panama, and were publicly known for years leading up to the 1991 Gulf War. Even propaganda leaflets that were dropped during the Gulf War against the Iraqi's showed a silhouette of the F-117 on it.

seahawk wrote:

Maybe we can return to a more factual debate.

Not every new fighter purchase needs to be a debate about the pros and cons of the F-35.

In the German case the first question is how long can you fly the Tornado. Airbus thinks until 2035+, the Luftwaffe sees incalculable risks in flying the Tornados after 2030.
The second is that Germany has pledged a SEAD capability to NATO currently covered by the ECRs, this is to be preserved.
Third is the question of the NATO shared use of atomic weapons. The decision to keep it or not is still open.

In addition the new fighter must be ready to fly with up-dates and full support until 2050+.

Contacts were made about the F-35, EF, F-15 and F-18. Airbus wants to offer the FCAS, but the time frame needed to get that going is unrealistic when you look at the political reality. They would need a definite contract from the governments (including workshares, etc.) in 2018 to achieve an EIS at 2030.

My bet is on the Luftwaffe keeping the Tornado, it seems to be the cheapest option with the fewest political problems.

Agree with most you state. If the Germans have learned, I think they did, they found out extensive political influence and a wide pan european supply chain spread out over a large number of industries posses a big ri$k. Same at the end user site. Many different, changing requirements pose a real thread to costs and planning.

Maybe they found out they pay, they control, they need the french (Dassault) & keep the rest at arms length. Those are welcome to supply, buy, but leave politics / long term commitments out. Same for US, current leadership priorities seem to deviate.

I would say Germany learned to evaluate all options before committing. This does include buying F-35s. In the end Airbus has not yet shown how they believe they can make a 6th gen. fighter for less than the Americans needed for their 5th gen and how they want to keep the unit price under control and how many frames they need to build.In additiuon it will be mostly a French challenge to agree on the work distribution between Dassault and Airbus, but it will be a challenge nevertheless.

If it turns out that the production run needs to be bigger than the requirements of France and Germany other European partners will have to found and even if not, the contract will be a challenge. Without a fixed price or hefty fines for delays and cost overruns, no contract will be signed and this makes sense, because as politically desirable the FCAS is, it still must make economic sense.

seahawk wrote:

My bet is on the Luftwaffe keeping the Tornado, it seems to be the cheapest option with the fewest political problems.

Not going to happen. The defense budget is increasing and they are already struggling to spend it. There will be purchases.

The entire German defense contracting industry is already moving full steam ahead with a fourth tranche of Eurofighters. They are all safely assuming this is going to happen, and their sources are far closer to the decision making process than any of us here.

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

aviationaware wrote:

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

So the only issue I see with your ratios is the nuclear delivery role. Any rumblings on what Germany will be doing with that given the Eurofighter is very unlikely to have that role added. Could we see a split order, 24 F-35s leased for 15 years to cover that role and the Eurofighter numbers expanded with a Tr4 acquisition?
Any chance the older fleet of Tr 2 & 3 Eurofighters will be upgraded to a notional Tr4 standard?

Edit: Some reporting on comments made by the German Defence Ministry.

BERLIN, Dec 11 (Reuters) - The German Defence Ministry said on Monday that the European fighter jet was in poll position to replace its Tornado jets, which it wants to phase out starting in 2025.

It added in a statement that Boeing’s F-15 and F-18 fighters, as well as Lockheed Martin’s F-35 aircraft, were secondary options. No final decision has been made.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is a joint project between British defence group BAE, France’s Airbus and Italy’s Finmeccanica.

France and Germany said earlier this year they plan to develop an European fighter jet as they seek to tighten defence and security cooperation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/germany-defence/germany-favours-eurofighter-as-it-seeks-to-replace-tornado-idUSB4N1LS028

aviationaware wrote:

seahawk wrote:

My bet is on the Luftwaffe keeping the Tornado, it seems to be the cheapest option with the fewest political problems.

Not going to happen. The defense budget is increasing and they are already struggling to spend it. There will be purchases.

The entire German defense contracting industry is already moving full steam ahead with a fourth tranche of Eurofighters. They are all safely assuming this is going to happen, and their sources are far closer to the decision making process than any of us here.

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

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

seahawk wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

seahawk wrote:

My bet is on the Luftwaffe keeping the Tornado, it seems to be the cheapest option with the fewest political problems.

Not going to happen. The defense budget is increasing and they are already struggling to spend it. There will be purchases.

The entire German defense contracting industry is already moving full steam ahead with a fourth tranche of Eurofighters. They are all safely assuming this is going to happen, and their sources are far closer to the decision making process than any of us here.

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

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

It's not too early to talk about budget though the exact timing of spending is what's unclear at this point in light of competing priorities.

The commitment of most EU members (all except Denmark and Malta) towards gradually increasing military spending as part of PESCO is much firmer than the 2% NATO spending pledge in my opinion. The political will to fulfill the PESCO requirements is likely going to be there in any of the possible coalition government constellations (incl. a minority government) in Germany.

More on PESCO: http://www.dw.com/en/twenty-five-eu-sta ... a-41741828

However, in 2018 the purchase of MEADS, funding the development of 6 new multi-role warships, the G36 rifle replacement, and Germany-led projects directly related to PESCO (European Medical Command, European Network of Logistics Hubs, Military Mobility, and EUFOR Crisis Response Operation Core) will probably be higher on the list of priorities than the Tornado replacement.

Yes, but people often fail to read statements from the BMVG. Stating that they are looking primarily at Eurofighters as an European solution with secondary consideration being given to US planes is nothing but empty words. You can look primarily at the EF and still come to the conclusion that it fails to meet one or more critical requirements.

Ozair wrote:

It's 90% Eurofighter Tr4, 10% F35. All other options are DoA.
So the only issue I see with your ratios is the nuclear delivery role. Any rumblings on what Germany will be doing with that given the Eurofighter is very unlikely to have that role added. Could we see a split order, 24 F-35s leased for 15 years to cover that role and the Eurofighter numbers expanded with a Tr4 acquisition?

Ever since the election this topic hasn't been brought up much. Before the election, both the Green Party and the Social Democrats were pretty outspoken about their intention to exit nuclear sharing and it would be a move that's popular among Germans. The CDU aversion to any change in this regard likely explains the current silence on the topic.

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

Ozair wrote:

Any chance the older fleet of Tr 2 & 3 Eurofighters will be upgraded to a notional Tr4 standard?

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