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

angad84 · Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:51 am

That's a re-touched picture to show what it WOULD look like without the rudder. The v-stab was never actually removed, they only simulated how the plane would fly without the stabilising effect of the vertical tail (essentially de-stabilising it with the rudder and letting FBW take over).

See here for original source: https://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo ... 734-6.html

Planeflyer · Sat Nov 10, 2018 7:25 pm

Could the X-31 be a model for a future 6 gen international program?

Ozair · Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:09 am

Some interesting insights into the new Franco-German combat aircraft from the article.

1. A clear indication that France and Germany expect Spain to join the program which makes sense given they will have a Eurofighter fleet to replace at some point. What Spain choose to replace their classic
Hornets with is likely still up for debate.
2. The French aircraft will replace the Rafale in the nuclear delivery role with the ASMP.
3. The French have identified some constraints around the carrier version
4. Four different variants are currently being studied/planned for the manned aircraft.
5. Germany have no need for carrier or nuclear delivery.
6. Dassault has taken hold of the manned combat aircraft while Airbus is trying to secure the lead for the systems to systems and unmanned work.
7. Thales is still interested in taking Airbus’s role in the systems to systems work.

From my perspective, I see Spain as a weak partner who will likely take workshare but probably offer very little development benefit to the program except for perhaps a lower manufacturing cost base. I’m not even sure they can offer a lot in the way of funding.

I am also stunned they are considering four different manned variants and if so think it is too much customization for specific requirements.

I would also be interested to see the initial export expectations for the platform. With both the Rafale and Eurofighter the programs have not met even a third of their export expectations so that must have an impact on the viability of multiple variants and specific customizations.

With nukes in mind, French officials stake out must-haves for Franco-German warplane

French defense officials said they will bring requirements to the future Franco-German combat aircraft that they believe are deeply connected to the country’s sovereignty: the ability to fire nuclear weapons and operate from aboard aircraft carriers.

These two must-have capabilities take a special place in what will be a growing list of feature requests to be developed by analysts over the coming years. What makes them unique is that the importance Paris ascribes to them likely will place them outside of the give and take in requirements negotiations that happen in all cooperative projects.

“France has a specific policy about deterrence,” Maj. Gen. Jean-Pascal Breton, the French lead for the Future Combat Air System, told attendees at the International Fighter industry conference in Berlin. “That’s why we don’t want any countries to dictate to us what to do.”

The aerial leg of France’s strategic deterrent consists of nuclear-tipped ASMP cruise missiles, made by MBDA. The delivery aircraft — special versions of the Rafale and Mirage — will be phased out in place of the future Franco-German aerial weapon. Meanwhile, France’s desired carrier-operations capability comes with specific design requirements for how planes take off and land on short runways at sea.

French defense officials also hope to incorporate dedicated combat drones into the mix of Future Combat Air System platforms, which France has studied together with the United Kingdom for years. Those carrier-capable unmanned aircraft would be bigger than the drones envisioned to be swarming around the main, manned aircraft, and their task would be striking targets deep behind enemy lines.

Germany needs none of those features. Still, officials from both countries here at the conference insisted the diverging requirements would be sorted out amicably as the program progresses. The Germans hope that the system’s envisioned modular architecture will help limit country-specific variations, allowing nations to configure one common, base-aircraft design to fit their needs.

Brig. Gen. Gerald Funke, the German Air Force’s lead for the project, equates the planned setup to that of a smartphone: The hardware is largely the same, as interchangeable “apps” provide the desired military effects.

France's atomic-weapons requirement dictates that the central fighter aircraft for the FCAS system will be manned, at least initially, Breton told reporters. Asked whether it's conceivable to instead have a drone fire French nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, he replied: “It's a political decision. For the moment, we don't see it.”

According to the French two-star, the program plan foresees agreement on an architecture strategy in 2020, building a demonstrator platform in 2025 or 2026, and freezing the design specifications in 2030 to enable manufacturing in time for a 2040 fielding date.

Analysts are currently toying with four variants for the main, manned, combat aircraft, which is called the next-generation fighter, or NGF, in French FCAS lingo, Breton said.

Each boasts specific strengths, like maneuverability in one case. It is unclear, however, how many distinct versions there will be in the end, he stressed, as Germany and France each fine-tune their visions.

Spain is expected to formally join the project soon. The plan is to have Madrid sign similar cooperation documents as Berlin and Paris have already inked, including a finalized, high-level requirements document in the next few months.

The door is also open for the United Kingdom — which has its own next-generation air project cooking, the “Tempest” — to partake. “When it’s possible to include Tempest at a later time, we will do that,” Breton said.

Airbus and Dassault are the main contractors for the FCAS program. They are slated to receive initial study contracts early next year.

While Dassault will be in charge of the central combat aircraft, as agreed by all, Airbus has claimed the lead for the so-called “system of systems” for the entire project. The term refers to the sensor and command connections linking all FCAS components as part of what Airbus calls the “Combat Cloud Ecosystem.” That piece is considered the secret sauce meant to turn a bunch of flying objects into a highly autonomous, lethal and coordinated weapon.

Asked about the industrial leadership for the “system of systems” going to Airbus — as opposed to Thales, France’s go-to electronics vendor for the domestic military market — Breton thought for a moment and smiled. “There will be a European answer,” he said.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... plane-bid/

RJMAZ · Tue Nov 20, 2018 4:00 am

Ozair wrote:
I am also stunned they are considering four different manned variants and if so think it is too much customization for specific requirements.

I would also be interested to see the initial export expectations for the platform.

It depends on the similarities between the models. They might also consider the single and twin seat versions as different variants. They might all be 95% similar with just a stronger undercarriage for the carrier versions.

Ideally the strike versions would want extra fuel. Conformal fuel tanks would be the best solution for a 4th gen platform like how they turned the F-15C into the F-15E. For 5th gen these conformal tanks would have to be fully integrated under the skin. The load bearing structure could be the same but the strike version simply has a new upper fuselage skin that holds the conformal tanks underneith. The strike version would then have a slight weight and drag penalty but increased range.

I also doubt the export potential. It will be in direct competition with the F-35. As we both know the F-35 will be improved by then.

seahawk · Tue Nov 20, 2018 6:01 am

4. Versions

1. land based single seat
2. land based twin seat
3. carrier based
4. Nuke strike

keesje · Tue Nov 20, 2018 5:07 pm

seahawk wrote:
4. Versions

1. land based single seat
2. land based twin seat
3. carrier based
4. Nuke strike

2. Would be the German Tornado replacement.

mxaxai · Tue Nov 20, 2018 5:33 pm

Ozair wrote:

From my perspective, I see Spain as a weak partner who will likely take workshare but probably offer very little development benefit to the program except for perhaps a lower manufacturing cost base. I’m not even sure they can offer a lot in the way of funding.

Spain has decent development resources, as shown by their participation in the Eurofighter & A400M program. Although Airbus can tap into those resources easier than Dassault or Thales.

IMHO they should look to include the eastern European countries as well. Expecting them to buy used F-16s (or possibly used F-35s by 2040) indefinitely is not a viable solution. Not that they can do much development but production there should help to reduce the manufacturing cost.
I'm sure the Italians will be interested in an eventual Eurofighter successor too, though that needn't be the FCAS. Then there's Finland who still have to decide on an F-18 replacement.

I agree that the worldwide export market is probably limited. Heck, the international market for high-performance fighter jets is already small with or without competition.

keesje · Tue Nov 20, 2018 6:41 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Ozair wrote:

From my perspective, I see Spain as a weak partner who will likely take workshare but probably offer very little development benefit to the program except for perhaps a lower manufacturing cost base. I’m not even sure they can offer a lot in the way of funding.

Spain has decent development resources, as shown by their participation in the Eurofighter & A400M program. Although Airbus can tap into those resources easier than Dassault or Thales.

IMHO they should look to include the eastern European countries as well. Expecting them to buy used F-16s (or possibly used F-35s by 2040) indefinitely is not a viable solution. Not that they can do much development but production there should help to reduce the manufacturing cost.
I'm sure the Italians will be interested in an eventual Eurofighter successor too, though that needn't be the FCAS. Then there's Finland who still have to decide on an F-18 replacement.

I agree that the worldwide export market is probably limited. Heck, the international market for high-performance fighter jets is already small with or without competition.

I think Europeans nations experienced that many nations having special interest, changing political climates, investments, local industries, weakens, leads to delays and cost fights. Always a political party somewhere to opportunistically block the "weapons industry lobby". It seems France and Germany want to avoid this, paying the bills.

mxaxai · Tue Nov 20, 2018 7:37 pm

keesje wrote:
It seems France and Germany want to avoid this, paying the bills.

Of course. Perhaps I didn't express myself clear enough. I wouldn't have these other nations participate much during the definition and initial development. But when the time comes, a FAL or some workshare may get outsourced in exchange for an order. I doubt Poland, for example, would say no to an order if they got their own FAL. And they do have a low labour cost that the manufacturer could benefit from.

Ozair · Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:58 pm

seahawk wrote:
4. Versions

1. land based single seat
2. land based twin seat
3. carrier based
4. Nuke strike

Do France really need a dedicated nuclear strike variant? As far as I can tell there is no dedicated Rafale variant for nuclear strike so I don’t see why France would be forced that way with FCAS.

You would also like to think that they will have moved on from two seats jets by then. The trend for current 5th gen fighters is no second seat and it would seem a backward step to move that way with FCAS.

keesje wrote:

2. Would be the German Tornado replacement.

Except again Keesje the Tornado replacement will happen before this aircraft enters service. This aircraft has been defined multiple times by both France and Germany as a replacement or the Eurofighter and Rafale fleets.

Yes perhaps as this aircraft enters service in 2040+ Germany may move the already acquired Tornado replacement to other roles and use FCAS for strike but that is a decision 15 years from now. Additionally, it is likely the FCAS will enter service with a limited number of functions, in the same way Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen E did/will enter service so it may not be capable of conducting that strike mission set from day one.

mxaxai wrote:

IMHO they should look to include the eastern European countries as well. Expecting them to buy used F-16s (or possibly used F-35s by 2040) indefinitely is not a viable solution. Not that they can do much development but production there should help to reduce the manufacturing cost.

These countries simply don’t have the funding to buy a new build aircraft to that capability. Most of those competitions have been between new build/used Gripens and new build/used F-16s. I don’t see the FCAS being affordable to them even 20 years from now. Conversly, I do see used or new F-35s being affordable, especially at the current end of planned production in 2040 when the aircraft will have 3000 plus delivered airframes and be very cost effective to acquire and operate. There is zero chance of an FCAS production line coming in Eastern Europe but some component work is certainly possible.

mxaxai wrote:
I'm sure the Italians will be interested in an eventual Eurofighter successor too, though that needn't be the FCAS. Then there's Finland who still have to decide on an F-18 replacement.

I’d suggest Italian participation probably depends on what the UK does with Tempest. They seem a more likely candidate for Tempest than FCAS. The problem becomes more partners dilute the industrial benefits and also significantly increases the likelihood of getting into the same debacle of the Eurofighter of multiple inefficient production lines. With Spain potentially joining they are going to want some production capability, Germany and France likely to want their own lines and then add the Italians…

seahawk · Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:57 am

Ozair wrote:
seahawk wrote:
4. Versions

1. land based single seat
2. land based twin seat
3. carrier based
4. Nuke strike

Do France really need a dedicated nuclear strike variant? As far as I can tell there is no dedicated Rafale variant for nuclear strike so I don’t see why France would be forced that way with FCAS.

You would also like to think that they will have moved on from two seats jets by then. The trend for current 5th gen fighters is no second seat and it would seem a backward step to move that way with FCAS.…

I believe they will stay with a twin seat version, as for missions like drone control it is thought to be an advantage.

Nuke strike is a separate version because Germans frames won´t be equipped for it.

So it can easily be:

1. land based single seat - German version / French version
2. land based twin seat - German version / French version
3. carrier based
4. unmanned

tommy1808 · Wed Nov 21, 2018 6:14 am

seahawk wrote:
Ozair wrote:
seahawk wrote:
4. Versions

1. land based single seat
2. land based twin seat
3. carrier based
4. Nuke strike

Do France really need a dedicated nuclear strike variant? As far as I can tell there is no dedicated Rafale variant for nuclear strike so I don’t see why France would be forced that way with FCAS.

You would also like to think that they will have moved on from two seats jets by then. The trend for current 5th gen fighters is no second seat and it would seem a backward step to move that way with FCAS.…

I believe they will stay with a twin seat version, as for missions like drone control it is thought to be an advantage.

i would think so too. A lot more Rafale where supposed to be single seat, they changed their mind based on combat experience.

best regards
Thomas

keesje · Wed Nov 21, 2018 10:49 am

Although apparently nobody agrees, I still see can German / France co financed Rafale strike squadrons pop-up as interim Tornado replacement proposal. As part of the bigger Future Combat Air System program.

https://www.ft.com/content/8a3ef664-8373-11e8-96dd-fa565ec55929

As expected the french lobbying machine is trying to gain the upper hand, but increasingly the Germans want a fair deal, they'll pay most. Because Airbus military is mostly German based, they'll probably push that forward in the project.

https://global.handelsblatt.com/companies/franco-german-combat-air-system-fcas-squabble-979086

Ozair · Wed Nov 21, 2018 11:23 am

keesje wrote:

https://global.handelsblatt.com/companies/franco-german-combat-air-system-fcas-squabble-979086

Yikes, I don't think I could have found a more bleak assessment.

tommy1808 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Do France really need a dedicated nuclear strike variant? As far as I can tell there is no dedicated Rafale variant for nuclear strike so I don’t see why France would be forced that way with FCAS.

You would also like to think that they will have moved on from two seats jets by then. The trend for current 5th gen fighters is no second seat and it would seem a backward step to move that way with FCAS.…

I believe they will stay with a twin seat version, as for missions like drone control it is thought to be an advantage.

i would think so too. A lot more Rafale where supposed to be single seat, they changed their mind based on combat experience.

best regards
Thomas

I don't agree. If the associated FCAS drones aren't operating semi autonomously by 2040 there are big problems.

I expect they will start with the concept of a two seater and will remove the version once they develop a 5th generation software and fusion architecture and understand how much of a difference it makes.

vr773 · Wed Nov 21, 2018 5:01 pm

Differences between Airbus and other industry partners re: FCAS work share have been resolved:

https://app.handelsblatt.com/politik/in ... 63798.html

Ozair · Thu Nov 22, 2018 2:01 am

vr773 wrote:
Differences between Airbus and other industry partners re: FCAS work share have been resolved:

https://app.handelsblatt.com/politik/in ... 63798.html

Noting I have read it via google translate is the assertion that France is ceding the tank design to Germany so France takes the lead on fighter jet design?

Seems a bad trade as a new tank might be US$10-20 billion development plus another approx. US$30 billion in production (based on 2000 tanks, 600 for Germany, 250 for France plus export). Compare that to the link Keesje provided that expected the whole FCAS systems of systems to likely require upwards of US$100 billion in development before production begins which would likely be at least a 100 billion more.

Interestingly the following from Janes seems to indicate that each nation is coming up with their own demonstrator designs which will all be merged together at some later point.

France and Germany agree next-gen fighter design studies

France and Germany have agreed to progress development of a next-generation combat aircraft, with an announcement on 20 November that both countries are to launch demonstrator design studies next year.
The announcement was made on Twitter by French defence minister Florence Parly, who said the agreement she signed in June with her German counterpart, Ursula von der Leyen, to approve the next-generation combat aircraft project had now been firmed up with a commitment to begin the formal design of aircraft and powerplant demonstrators in 2019.

"In June, France and Germany decided to develop, together, the combat aircraft of the future. [There was a] decisive step today with the agreement to begin the studies of architecture and design and the launch of demonstrators (aircraft and engine) by mid-2019. It's moving!", Parly tweeted.

The June agreement came two months after the project was given the formal go-ahead at the ILA Berlin Airshow in April. Referred to as the New Fighter (NF) or Next-Generation Fighter (NGF), the manned combat aircraft is to be developed to operate in conjunction with a swarm of unmanned 'wingmen' as a next-generation weapon system (NGWS).

This NGWS will form part of a wider future combat air system (FCAS, or Système de Combat Aérien Futur [SCAF]) that will include the European medium-altitude long-endurance (MALE) remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS); an ultra-low observable (LO) unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV); future cruise missiles; and other legacy airborne platforms operating in the future battlespace.

When the project was approved, it was decided that France and Dassault should be the lead nation for the NF/NGF component, with Germany and Airbus taking charge of the other FCAS systems. According to Reuters, French engine manufacturer Safran is to announce a joint venture with Germany's MTU to develop the aircraft's powerplant.

Speaking at the IQPC International Fighter conference in Berlin the week prior to Parly's pronouncement, senior military sources from both countries as well as Spain, which is set to join the effort later this year, said that they are currently engaged in their own national studies, and that these studies will be coalesced into a single solution over the coming years.

https://www.janes.com/article/84738/fra ... gn-studies

keesje · Thu Nov 22, 2018 5:11 pm

vr773 wrote:
Differences between Airbus and other industry partners re: FCAS work share have been resolved:

https://app.handelsblatt.com/politik/in ... 63798.html

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement
by Ozair » 22 Nov 2018 03:01

Indeed you have to be a bit careful with the French. At the start, when work shares have to be decided upon, they promise to buy e.g. 1034 tanks. Then, in 2025, after everything is set, the international situation has changed, they have a study showing 360 tanks is enough for them. Still they have the big work $hare based on taking 1034.. Happened on the NH90 program.

mxaxai · Thu Nov 22, 2018 6:51 pm

Ozair wrote:
Seems a bad trade as a new tank might be US$10-20 billion development plus another approx. US$30 billion in production (based on 2000 tanks, 600 for Germany, 250 for France plus export). Compare that to the link Keesje provided that expected the whole FCAS systems of systems to likely require upwards of US$100 billion in development before production begins which would likely be at least a 100 billion more.

KMW expects an overall market volume of over 100 billion € for tanks in Europe until 2050. EIS of this new tank around 2035. At 10 million € per tank, and assuming 1000 tanks built, that's easily reached.
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article1 ... anzer.html

Anyway, the connection between the tank and aircraft workshares is neither official nor set in stone. Airbus has also been very active in developing UAV's and UAV systems. So even if they don't get too much workshare on the aircraft itself, the surrounding UAV fleet should keep them busy.
You can get an overview of their defense fleet here: https://www.airbus.com/defence/uav.html
But they also have been active with civilian & experimental programs, like the record-breaking Zephyr S or Vahana:

Obviously, Dassault and other companies have done their homework too. Nevertheless, I think Airbus is in the lead right now.
(E. g. the neuron by Dassault)

Ozair · Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:23 pm

mxaxai wrote:
KMW expects an overall market volume of over 100 billion € for tanks in Europe until 2050. EIS of this new tank around 2035. At 10 million € per tank, and assuming 1000 tanks built, that's easily reached.
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article1 ... anzer.html

Not sure the math works there, 1000 tanks at 10 million € per tank is 10 billion right, not 100 billion...? So KMW expects the market to be 10,000 tanks in Europe which, unless you are including Russia which would be absurd, is a crazy huge number. My numbers were based on US$15 million per tank and only gets to 30 billion for a 2000 tank production run.

mxaxai wrote:
Anyway, the connection between the tank and aircraft workshares is neither official nor set in stone.

Fair enough, hence the reason I asked as the article vr773 linked seemed to insinuate it was politically linked.

mxaxai wrote:
Airbus has also been very active in developing UAV's and UAV systems. So even if they don't get too much workshare on the aircraft itself, the surrounding UAV fleet should keep them busy.

That is an interested point as I consider the industrial potential for the UCAV fleet higher than the manned aircraft, more systems while a lower per unit cost should equate to greater overall revenue as well as a greater likelihood of export.

mxaxai · Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:44 pm

Ozair wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
KMW expects an overall market volume of over 100 billion € for tanks in Europe until 2050. EIS of this new tank around 2035. At 10 million € per tank, and assuming 1000 tanks built, that's easily reached.
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article1 ... anzer.html

Not sure the math works there, 1000 tanks at 10 million € per tank is 10 billion right, not 100 billion...? So KMW expects the market to be 10,000 tanks in Europe which, unless you are including Russia which would be absurd, is a crazy huge number. My numbers were based on US$15 million per tank and only gets to 30 billion for a 2000 tank production run.

Oh, you're right. My mistake. Anyway,...

KMW expects the overall tank market to be this size. Supposedly there's a market for some 5000 tanks. So the € figure is probably including maintenance, maybe also light tanks and other armoured vehicles and definitely including ammunition & supporting equipment. They're looking at uncrewed vehicles too. But my knowledge of modern tanks is limited.

vr773 · Thu Nov 22, 2018 11:58 pm

Next steps on Tornado replacement to be announced by the BMVG before the end of the year:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germa ... KKCN1NR1SZ

That’s much sooner than what I would have expected. I expected them to wait it out until after Trump.
Now a lot will depend on whether Germany will continue with nuclear sharing or develop a plan to phase it out. Without such a plan, they would likely have to pick a US airplane since the US government will certainly not certify the Eurofighter for nuclear sharing, for obvious reasons.
I‘m hypothesizing here but if the BMVG picked a US model and justified it with nuclear sharing, then that could put a lot of pressure on the SPD and even mark the beginning of the end of the current government. We‘ll see.

Ozair · Fri Nov 23, 2018 12:32 am

vr773 wrote:
Next steps on Tornado replacement to be announced by the BMVG before the end of the year:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germa ... KKCN1NR1SZ

That’s much sooner than what I would have expected. I expected them to wait it out until after Trump.

The Tornado capability appears to be an increasingly pressing issue for the German Air Force. I imagine there is pressure to identify the replacement soon given the timeframe required.

vr773 wrote:
Now a lot will depend on whether Germany will continue with nuclear sharing or develop a plan to phase it out. Without such a plan, they would likely have to pick a US airplane since the US government will certainly not certify the Eurofighter for nuclear sharing, for obvious reasons.

I don’t see an issue with certifying the Eurofighter from a US perspective, it is just the cost and timeframe required to do so (and potentially the appetite of Airbus and the partner nations to provide that scrutiny). Clearly the US isn’t opposed to a non US plane carrying B-61s given the Tornado carries it today. If the article is correct though on a nearly one billion and seven year price tag that essentially won’t meet the German replacement timeframe anyway and still places the nuclear weapons on a platform with a higher chance of being interdicted.

vr773 wrote:
I‘m hypothesizing here but if the BMVG picked a US model and justified it with nuclear sharing, then that could put a lot of pressure on the SPD and even mark the beginning of the end of the current government. We‘ll see.

For me it is increasingly looking like a dual F-35/Eurofighter buy is a valid option. It doesn’t appease the European anti-trumpers but likely delivers overall better capability and value for money. It would also provide the German Air Force with some experience operating 5th gen platforms before they move in to the FCAS or now NGF.

vr773 · Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:00 am

Ozair wrote:
Clearly the US isn’t opposed to a non US plane carrying B-61s given the Tornado carries it today.

It was a different time when that decision was made. The playbook of this and recent US governments has been to advance the interests of their domestic defense industry when these types of decisions were made.

Ozair wrote:
For me it is increasingly looking like a dual F-35/Eurofighter buy is a valid option.

That might be what the CDU-led BMVG is thinking right now but I'm not sure they are considering all political implications. The SPD is on the record strongly opposing nuclear sharing. I guess it depends on how much this topic becomes a public debate once the decision is made.

Ozair wrote:
It doesn’t appease the European anti-trumpers

You mean 95% of the German population? Getting them worked up is a political own goal. Again, the strategy might be to keep the decision out of the public debate as much as possible. In any case, it will be interesting to see what the BMVGs comms strategy is in the weeks/months after the announcement.

Ozair · Fri Nov 23, 2018 1:32 am

vr773 wrote:
It was a different time when that decision was made. The playbook of this and recent US governments has been to advance the interests of their domestic defense industry when these types of decisions were made.

I agree it was a different time when the previous decision was made but there haven’t exactly been a lot of requests to integrate US nuclear weapons onto foreign platforms (can anyone even name one?) since then so I don’t think you are representing the issue accurately.

vr773 wrote:
That might be what the CDU-led BMVG is thinking right now but I'm not sure they are considering all political implications. The SPD is on the record strongly opposing nuclear sharing. I guess it depends on how much this topic becomes a public debate once the decision is made.

I’ll leave the murkiness of German political alone…

vr773 wrote:
You mean 95% of the German population? Getting them worked up is a political own goal. Again, the strategy might be to keep the decision out of the public debate as much as possible.

Ha, well to be accurate apparently it is 90% not 95… although as per the quote below “confidence in” is likely the opposite to “be against” with some ground in the middle.

Frustrations with the U.S. in the Trump era are particularly common among some of America’s closest allies and partners. In Germany, where just 10% have confidence in Trump, three-in-four people say the U.S. is doing less these days to address global problems, and the share of the public who believe the U.S. respects personal freedoms is down 35 percentage points since 2008.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2018/10/01/tru ... ey-allies/
That article would be a great discussion point for a non-av thread but some interesting comparisons and a large percentage of Germans who don’t think the US is doing enough on global problems…

tommy1808 · Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:05 am

Ozair wrote:
I agree it was a different time when the previous decision was made but there haven’t exactly been a lot of requests to integrate US nuclear weapons onto foreign platforms (can anyone even name one?) since then so I don’t think you are representing the issue accurately.

Isn´t the key point of integrating a nuke integrating PAL, and the US is generally not against proliferating that anyways, because it makes stockpiles safer but doesn´t offer new weapons "Capabilities"?

Ozair wrote:
vr773 wrote:
That might be what the CDU-led BMVG is thinking right now but I'm not sure they are considering all political implications. The SPD is on the record strongly opposing nuclear sharing. I guess it depends on how much this topic becomes a public debate once the decision is made.

I’ll leave the murkiness of German political alone…

Not that murky. The Air Force wants a state of the art aircraft, to gather experience and improve capabilities, but politics would rather keep them until a European Replacement can EIS, since each F35 they buy is one less of the new bird, making those more expensive. The Airforce clearly has the more realistic outlook on development timelines. And they want a good ECR replacement, something the F35 should be pretty good at. As a side note, a couple of F35 for that role would probably be able to pave a quite neat entry path for Tornados...

That article would be a great discussion point for a non-av thread but some interesting comparisons and a large percentage of Germans who don’t think the US is doing enough on global problems…

That could make for an interesting thread, but probably hard to keep from derailing. That being said, at least the quote says Trump is doing less, that doesn´t qualify it on the "enough/not enough" scale though
They should ask how many think that Trump is a global problem... ;-)

best regards
Thomas

seahawk · Fri Nov 23, 2018 5:38 pm

It will be split buy. Eufis to replace the non nuclear Tornados and first Batch Eurofighters and about 36-40 F-35s for the nuke role. There is a strong desire to keep 2 types in the fleet, so that you are less likely to have all fighters grounded in case of a technical problem.

mxaxai · Fri Nov 23, 2018 8:55 pm

Ozair wrote:
The aerial leg of France’s strategic deterrent consists of nuclear-tipped ASMP cruise missiles, made by MBDA. The delivery aircraft — special versions of the Rafale and Mirage — will be phased out in place of the future Franco-German aerial weapon.

Germany needs none of those features.

This seems to imply that either
(a) Germany has decided to end nuclear sharing
or
(b) Germany has already decided to buy the F-35 for the nuclear sharing role

So the nuke-carrying Eurofighter model wouldn't be considered anymore. Nor would they want French nukes. But I can't reliably tell if this is just conjecture by the journalist or based on statements by those who do know (confidential or public).

columba · Sat Nov 24, 2018 2:36 pm

seahawk wrote:
It will be split buy. Eufis to replace the non nuclear Tornados and first Batch Eurofighters and about 36-40 F-35s for the nuke role. There is a strong desire to keep 2 types in the fleet, so that you are less likely to have all fighters grounded in case of a technical problem.

I do hope so but still have my doubts....keeping my fingers crossed

seahawk · Sat Nov 24, 2018 2:41 pm

In the end it is a political decision. If you drop the nuke sharing, you also loose influence in the NATO nuclear strategy planning group and any direct influence on the delivery of that weapons. The nukes would probably also not go away, but be moved to an US airbase or to the Dutch and Belgian bases already used for storing them.

Planeflyer · Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:07 am

US Navy is desperate to upgrade the relatively new tower EW jammer in the face of upgrades to missiles

http://aviationweek.com/electronic-warf ... wed-decoys

If the US which knows more about contested environments is so desperate to upgrade EW for 4th gen AC an analysis tells the objective reade all one neds to know about the value of stealth

tommy1808 · Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:58 am

Planeflyer wrote:
US Navy is desperate to upgrade the relatively new tower EW jammer in the face of upgrades to missiles

http://aviationweek.com/electronic-warf ... wed-decoys

If the US which knows more about contested environments is so desperate to upgrade EW for 4th gen AC an analysis tells the objective reade all one neds to know about the value of stealth

The objective reader will also notice that the last time the US faced anything remotely resembling a contested airspace was 50 years ago, or that the US basically tells Taiwan "Don´t worry about stealth, just put this AESA Radar on your Falcons and you´d be good".

best regards
Thomas

Ozair · Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:52 am

tommy1808 wrote:

The objective reader will also notice that the last time the US faced anything remotely resembling a contested airspace was 50 years ago

While that may be true (arguably GW1 was a reasonable representation of contested airspace) if anyone has an idea of how difficult contested airspace is today it is the nation with the most comprehensive and capable intelligence apparatus in the history of the world.

tommy1808 wrote:
or that the US basically tells Taiwan "Don´t worry about stealth, just put this AESA Radar on your Falcons and you´d be good".

Tommy that isn't an accurate representation of the reason why the US hasn't sold the F-35 to Taiwan. It has nothing to do with the US's belief in the capability of the F-16's AESA upgrade and everything to do with not trusting Taiwan with F-35 tech.

tommy1808 · Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:57 pm

Ozair wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

The objective reader will also notice that the last time the US faced anything remotely resembling a contested airspace was 50 years ago

While that may be true (arguably GW1 was a reasonable representation of contested airspace) if anyone has an idea of how difficult contested airspace is today it is the nation with the most comprehensive and capable intelligence apparatus in the history of the world. .

I would think countries that actually do care about ground based air defense have a better understanding than the US.
But of course it could be that the US Intel community found a specific weakness (or rather strength in an opposition system) to be addressed by the update.

Tommy that isn't an accurate representation of the reason why the US hasn't sold the F-35 to Taiwan. It has nothing to do with the US's belief in the capability of the F-16's AESA upgrade and everything to do with not trusting Taiwan with F-35 tech.

So you are saying the current and previous administration deny Taiwan then means to mount an effective defense in violation of laws made by congress?

Taiwan Relations Act wrote:
the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities

best regards
Thomas

Ozair · Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:46 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
I would think countries that actually do care about ground based air defense have a better understanding than the US.

The logic on that claim is pretty thin. Georgia shoot down numerous Russian Air Force aircraft in 2008. Russia as the manufacturer and provider of a vast portion of the world’s ground based air defence should have known better right, because they obviously do care about ground based air defence?

tommy1808 wrote:
But of course it could be that the US Intel community found a specific weakness (or rather strength in an opposition system) to be addressed by the update.

The Super Hornets uses both the ALE-50 and ALE-55 towed decoys, which are now technologically getting long in the tooth. A general upgrade of the towed decoy for the Super Hornet is overdue and understandable given the USN expects the aircraft to operate until at least the middle 2030s.

tommy1808 wrote:
So you are saying the current and previous administration deny Taiwan then means to mount an effective defense in violation of laws made by congress?

Taiwan Relations Act wrote:
the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities

The Taiwan Relations Act is hardly a point of law to hang your hat on… If we take the context of how you are interpreting the law then the US is in violation today and has been since it was signed. After all they should have sold several Nimtz class carriers to the Taiwanese because, with their runways so prone to destruction, the Taiwanese air force could continue operating from sea based assets. Why not the F-22, or Arleigh Burke destroyers, or the Commanche helicopter?

But despite the misdirection, your claim remains logically false, the US is not telling Taiwan that the F-16 AESA upgrade invalidates Chinese stealth advantages and all is good. At this point in time they are saying this is the best we can do for you…

bigjku · Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:53 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
US Navy is desperate to upgrade the relatively new tower EW jammer in the face of upgrades to missiles

http://aviationweek.com/electronic-warf ... wed-decoys

If the US which knows more about contested environments is so desperate to upgrade EW for 4th gen AC an analysis tells the objective reade all one neds to know about the value of stealth

The objective reader will also notice that the last time the US faced anything remotely resembling a contested airspace was 50 years ago, or that the US basically tells Taiwan "Don´t worry about stealth, just put this AESA Radar on your Falcons and you´d be good".

best regards
Thomas

I would say that while the US isn’t engaged in large scale ground based air defense it does possess what I would say is still likely the best multi-threat single area air defense system on earth with AEGIS and which will be by a good margin the most capable system as AN/SPY-6 comes into play along with SM-6 and ESSM Blk II. So there is plenty of theoretical work on layered defensive assets for them to use as material to work against.

There is probably a very good idea of what very high end radars can do against low observable targets. Indeed I have had it explained to me by numerous people that stealth doesn’t eliminate the need for electronic warfare it just multiplies it’s effectivness many times over.

I think the giveaway that the US doesn’t see 4th generation aircraft as surviveable against modern air defense systems is the push for greater standoff range for things like the AARGM-ER and the proliferation of the MALD. The towed decoys are part of that as well. I suspect the operational concept against a true first world defensive network would be to generate a large volume of fire against high value targets with JASSM, TLAM and lots of MALD-J/X and likely CHAMP. You would like to get your conventional fighters close enough to utilize AARGM-ER which can also be used by F-35. Make the system respond to what you are doing. Use a good EW platform like the F-35 in close to identify and prosecute pop-up targets quickly and go from there. But the role of 4th generation fighters won’t be to carry non-powered weapons. And large numbers of those weapons are critical to really kill a defense system in detail. A squadron of F-35’s in close can deliver dozens of SDB’s along with a few AARGM that will get onto opposing defenders very quickly. My goal would be to have F-35 working in among the noise and mess of lots of cruise missiles, decoys and remote jamming drones (all of which the US already has). Given the EW capabilities the jet has you can very effectively go after the launchers and smaller targeting radars that are hard to attack with stand-off weapons. That’s where stealth is needed. If you really want to gut a defensive system for the long-term I think you have to get close in to an extent.

I also think you are too dismissive of the Iraqi defensive network. It was formidable enough. Yes it wasn’t East Germany in 1988 or anything but it was a fairly dense system with a mixture of newer and older technology that had to be dealt with.

It’s an interesting theoretical issue from both ends. Most ground based defenses haven’t been tried out in full either.

mxaxai · Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:01 pm

Ozair wrote:
~~Georgia~~ Russia shoot down numerous Russian Air Force aircraft in 2008.

Fixed that for you.

Losses:

Su-25BM to Russian MANPAD's. Pilot survived
Tu-22M3 to Georgian SA-8B or SA-11. 1 out of 4 crew survived
Su-24M to Georgian MANPAD's. 1 out of 2 crew survived
Su-25SM to unidentified MANPAD's (most likely 1 Georgian and 1 South-Ossetian). Pilot survived
Su-25BM to Russian ZSU-23-4. Pilot killed
Su-24M to Russian MANPAD's. 2 crew survived

Damages:

3 Su-25SM to unknown causes
1 Su-25 to Russian MANPAD's

Initial assessments of the effectiveness of Georgia's air defense system were clearly exaggerated. [...] Even though Georgia's air defense forces possesed such effective SAM systems as the BUK-M1, the Osa-AK/AKM and the Spyder-SR, as well as a significant number of MANPADs, they were unable to protect Georgian troops or territory. During the first day of the war, on August 8, Georgia's air defense system was still intact, and it had radar control of the entire Georgian territory, the separatist provinces and the surrounding areas. Nevertheless, it failed to down even a single Russian aircraft that day, during which Russia's military aviation flew dozens of sorties, raiding targets not just in the theater of combat operations but deep in Georgian territry as well, using almost exclusively unguided weapons.

The confirmed losses of the Georgian Air Force stand at three transport planes and four helicopters. Out of that number, three An-2 light transport aicraft were destroyed during a Russian air raid [...].

By the end of the hostilities, Russian anti-radar missiles had destroyed a 36D6-M fixed military radar [...] and two civilian air traffic control radars [...]. By the time the hostilities ended, the system had been seriously damaged. Some of its main radars had been disabled, and some switched off to prevent them from being hit by anti-radar missiles. It appears that none of Georgia's mobile air defense systems was lost to enemy fire.

http://www.css.ethz.ch/en/services/digi ... tml/119867

Just an FYI.

Planeflyer · Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:18 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

The objective reader will also notice that the last time the US faced anything remotely resembling a contested airspace was 50 years ago

While that may be true (arguably GW1 was a reasonable representation of contested airspace) if anyone has an idea of how difficult contested airspace is today it is the nation with the most comprehensive and capable intelligence apparatus in the history of the world. .

I would think countries that actually do care about ground based air defense have a better understanding than the US.
But of course it could be that the US Intel community found a specific weakness (or rather strength in an opposition system) to be addressed by the update.

Tommy that isn't an accurate representation of the reason why the US hasn't sold the F-35 to Taiwan. It has nothing to do with the US's belief in the capability of the F-16's AESA upgrade and everything to do with not trusting Taiwan with F-35 tech.

So you are saying the current and previous administration deny Taiwan then means to mount an effective defense in violation of laws made by congress?

Taiwan Relations Act wrote:
the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities

best regards
Thomas

OK, if it is a contrarian stance you prefer what is the list of countries you think know about contested airspace and what AC are they investing in?

Ozair · Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:32 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
~~Georgia~~ Russia shoot down numerous Russian Air Force aircraft in 2008.

Fixed that for you.

Losses:

Su-25BM to Russian MANPAD's. Pilot survived
Tu-22M3 to Georgian SA-8B or SA-11. 1 out of 4 crew survived
Su-24M to Georgian MANPAD's. 1 out of 2 crew survived
Su-25SM to unidentified MANPAD's (most likely 1 Georgian and 1 South-Ossetian). Pilot survived
Su-25BM to Russian ZSU-23-4. Pilot killed
Su-24M to Russian MANPAD's. 2 crew survived

Damages:

3 Su-25SM to unknown causes
1 Su-25 to Russian MANPAD's

Initial assessments of the effectiveness of Georgia's air defense system were clearly exaggerated. [...] Even though Georgia's air defense forces possesed such effective SAM systems as the BUK-M1, the Osa-AK/AKM and the Spyder-SR, as well as a significant number of MANPADs, they were unable to protect Georgian troops or territory. During the first day of the war, on August 8, Georgia's air defense system was still intact, and it had radar control of the entire Georgian territory, the separatist provinces and the surrounding areas. Nevertheless, it failed to down even a single Russian aircraft that day, during which Russia's military aviation flew dozens of sorties, raiding targets not just in the theater of combat operations but deep in Georgian territry as well, using almost exclusively unguided weapons.

The confirmed losses of the Georgian Air Force stand at three transport planes and four helicopters. Out of that number, three An-2 light transport aicraft were destroyed during a Russian air raid [...].

By the end of the hostilities, Russian anti-radar missiles had destroyed a 36D6-M fixed military radar [...] and two civilian air traffic control radars [...]. By the time the hostilities ended, the system had been seriously damaged. Some of its main radars had been disabled, and some switched off to prevent them from being hit by anti-radar missiles. It appears that none of Georgia's mobile air defense systems was lost to enemy fire.

http://www.css.ethz.ch/en/services/digi ... tml/119867

Just an FYI.

While I have issues with the source of those stats how does that invalidate what I said or what Tommy claimed?
Did Georgia shoot down Russian aircraft? Yes.
Clearly the Russians also shot down their own aircraft…

Does that mean that Russia, because they have a vested interest in ground based air defence, know better than the US on how to penetrate and defeat contested airspace? No, the logic doesn’t add up.

mxaxai · Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:25 pm

Ozair wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
~~Georgia~~ Russia shoot down numerous Russian Air Force aircraft in 2008.

Fixed that for you.

Losses:

Su-25BM to Russian MANPAD's. Pilot survived
Tu-22M3 to Georgian SA-8B or SA-11. 1 out of 4 crew survived
Su-24M to Georgian MANPAD's. 1 out of 2 crew survived
Su-25SM to unidentified MANPAD's (most likely 1 Georgian and 1 South-Ossetian). Pilot survived
Su-25BM to Russian ZSU-23-4. Pilot killed
Su-24M to Russian MANPAD's. 2 crew survived

Damages:

3 Su-25SM to unknown causes
1 Su-25 to Russian MANPAD's

Initial assessments of the effectiveness of Georgia's air defense system were clearly exaggerated. [...] Even though Georgia's air defense forces possesed such effective SAM systems as the BUK-M1, the Osa-AK/AKM and the Spyder-SR, as well as a significant number of MANPADs, they were unable to protect Georgian troops or territory. During the first day of the war, on August 8, Georgia's air defense system was still intact, and it had radar control of the entire Georgian territory, the separatist provinces and the surrounding areas. Nevertheless, it failed to down even a single Russian aircraft that day, during which Russia's military aviation flew dozens of sorties, raiding targets not just in the theater of combat operations but deep in Georgian territry as well, using almost exclusively unguided weapons.

The confirmed losses of the Georgian Air Force stand at three transport planes and four helicopters. Out of that number, three An-2 light transport aicraft were destroyed during a Russian air raid [...].

By the end of the hostilities, Russian anti-radar missiles had destroyed a 36D6-M fixed military radar [...] and two civilian air traffic control radars [...]. By the time the hostilities ended, the system had been seriously damaged. Some of its main radars had been disabled, and some switched off to prevent them from being hit by anti-radar missiles. It appears that none of Georgia's mobile air defense systems was lost to enemy fire.

http://www.css.ethz.ch/en/services/digi ... tml/119867

Just an FYI.

While I have issues with the source of those stats how does that invalidate what I said or what Tommy claimed?
Did Georgia shoot down Russian aircraft? Yes.
Clearly the Russians also shot down their own aircraft…

Does that mean that Russia, because they have a vested interest in ground based air defence, know better than the US on how to penetrate and defeat contested airspace? No, the logic doesn’t add up.

I didn't mean to invalidate your point, but saying that "numerous" jets were shot down is clearly an exaggeration (2). And it is undeniable that Russia shot down more Russian jets than Georgia.

However,...
Russia clearly knew how to penetrate and defeat contested airspace, as shown by the weak performance of the fairly well prepared Georgian air defense. Coincidentally, those air denfese systems had been of Russian origin. At the same time, the majority of losses (by friend and foe) were to infrared-seeking MANPADs at low altitude, one loss even to AAA, with a range of a few km, at most. While this says more about the way the jets were used than about their technology, it also means that stealth would not have mattered. The F-35 may be able to push the radar detection range from 100 to 20 km but if you're within range of a MANPAD it has no advantage.
Stealth does not make you invulnerable, especially not to infrared seekers. You cannot just hover over the battlefield and provide intel or drop bombs, like some seem to think. At the same time, despite advances in radar-guided missile technology they are still far from offering an "iron dome". Particularly against an enemy who has anti-radar missiles. The F-35 may be quite capable but I have no doubt that 4.5th gen fighter jets still are and will be effective on the battlefield (for some time at least).

bigjku · Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:57 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
mxaxai wrote:

Fixed that for you.

Losses:

Su-25BM to Russian MANPAD's. Pilot survived
Tu-22M3 to Georgian SA-8B or SA-11. 1 out of 4 crew survived
Su-24M to Georgian MANPAD's. 1 out of 2 crew survived
Su-25SM to unidentified MANPAD's (most likely 1 Georgian and 1 South-Ossetian). Pilot survived
Su-25BM to Russian ZSU-23-4. Pilot killed
Su-24M to Russian MANPAD's. 2 crew survived

Damages:

3 Su-25SM to unknown causes
1 Su-25 to Russian MANPAD's

http://www.css.ethz.ch/en/services/digi ... tml/119867

Just an FYI.

While I have issues with the source of those stats how does that invalidate what I said or what Tommy claimed?
Did Georgia shoot down Russian aircraft? Yes.
Clearly the Russians also shot down their own aircraft…

Does that mean that Russia, because they have a vested interest in ground based air defence, know better than the US on how to penetrate and defeat contested airspace? No, the logic doesn’t add up.

I didn't mean to invalidate your point, but saying that "numerous" jets were shot down is clearly an exaggeration (2). And it is undeniable that Russia shot down more Russian jets than Georgia.

However,...
Russia clearly knew how to penetrate and defeat contested airspace, as shown by the weak performance of the fairly well prepared Georgian air defense. Coincidentally, those air denfese systems had been of Russian origin. At the same time, the majority of losses (by friend and foe) were to infrared-seeking MANPADs at low altitude, one loss even to AAA, with a range of a few km, at most. While this says more about the way the jets were used than about their technology, it also means that stealth would not have mattered. The F-35 may be able to push the radar detection range from 100 to 20 km but if you're within range of a MANPAD it has no advantage.
Stealth does not make you invulnerable, especially not to infrared seekers. You cannot just hover over the battlefield and provide intel or drop bombs, like some seem to think. At the same time, despite advances in radar-guided missile technology they are still far from offering an "iron dome". Particularly against an enemy who has anti-radar missiles. The F-35 may be quite capable but I have no doubt that 4.5th gen fighter jets still are and will be effective on the battlefield (for some time at least).

You are missing the complementary nature of the systems here.

MANPAD don’t work at medium to high altitude. You are pretty much immune to such weapons at 20,000 or more feet. Just go through the list of terminal IR homing missiles and their ground based ranges. Stealth lets you stay up high and play the EW game rather than forcing you down. Living in the 30,000 foot range against the tactical systems which are universially radar cued is not radar terminal is a nightmare for a 4th generation plane.

You go down into the weeds to avoid that but you will take losses just as the RAF did in GWI. Stealth’s greatest defense against MANPADS is using its low RCS to retain altitude and avoid the issue entirely.

Planeflyer · Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:24 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
US Navy is desperate to upgrade the relatively new tower EW jammer in the face of upgrades to missiles

http://aviationweek.com/electronic-warf ... wed-decoys

If the US which knows more about contested environments is so desperate to upgrade EW for 4th gen AC an analysis tells the objective reade all one neds to know about the value of stealth

The objective reader will also notice that the last time the US faced anything remotely resembling a contested airspace was 50 years ago, or that the US basically tells Taiwan "Don´t worry about stealth, just put this AESA Radar on your Falcons and you´d be good".

best regards

So what?

The key questions are these :

if Germany needs To fly combat missions which ac has the best chance to complete the mission

Which ac provides the best deterrence.

Everything else is secondary.

Ozair · Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:30 am

Planeflyer wrote:

So what?

The key questions are these :

if Germany needs To fly combat missions which ac has the best chance to complete the mission

Which ac provides the best deterrence.

Everything else is secondary.

I don't consider everything else as secondary. Nations have valid interests in furthering domestic industry and in selecting aircraft that are interoperable with their allies. If you look at some of the tender evaluations that have recently been run the capability of the aircraft is typically 30-50% of the selection criteria, with other considerations making up the remaining.

Planeflyer · Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:56 am

Ozair wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:

So what?

The key questions are these :

if Germany needs To fly combat missions which ac has the best chance to complete the mission

Which ac provides the best deterrence.

Everything else is secondary.

I don't consider everything else as secondary. Nations have valid interests in furthering domestic industry and in selecting aircraft that are interoperable with their allies. If you look at some of the tender evaluations that have recently been run the capability of the aircraft is typically 30-50% of the selection criteria, with other considerations making up the remaining.

I understand that there is a large school of thought that conforms to your thinking.

But the history of Europe is characterized by periods of prosperity followed by catastrophic wars that almost none was able to predict.

Yes the possibility of war seems remote but no more so than it looked in 1905, 30 or 80 and 10 years later entire countries lay in ruins w millions and 10’s of millions of casualties.

Assuming an air force is prudent for Germany there is only one choice.

seahawk · Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:59 am

Planeflyer wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
US Navy is desperate to upgrade the relatively new tower EW jammer in the face of upgrades to missiles

http://aviationweek.com/electronic-warf ... wed-decoys

If the US which knows more about contested environments is so desperate to upgrade EW for 4th gen AC an analysis tells the objective reade all one neds to know about the value of stealth

The objective reader will also notice that the last time the US faced anything remotely resembling a contested airspace was 50 years ago, or that the US basically tells Taiwan "Don´t worry about stealth, just put this AESA Radar on your Falcons and you´d be good".

best regards

So what?

The key questions are these :

if Germany needs To fly combat missions which ac has the best chance to complete the mission

Which ac provides the best deterrence.

Everything else is secondary.

That is not the question, as nobody intends to fly combat missions with those planes.

The questions are:

1. Does Germany want to keep the nuclear sharing with the US and the influence in gets in the nuclear planning groups of NATO through it?
2. Which solution is best for German industries?
3. Do we really need to replace the Tornado or can we not simply reduce the force?
4. Can we still make our NATO commitments with a reduced force at least on paper?

My guess:

1. No, we want nothing to do with evil nukes and asking the US to remove all nuclear weapons would be a nice play to please the Green party.
2. Eurofighter
3. We can do with less.
4. We need some Recce/SEAD planes - modified twin set Eurofighters will do. So imho it will be 24-36 SEAD/Recce Eurofighters (Recce will see the Reccelite pod certified and SEAD means integration of HARM) and that will be all.

tommy1808 · Fri Nov 30, 2018 9:40 am

seahawk wrote:
The questions are:

1. Does Germany want to keep the nuclear sharing with the US and the influence in gets in the nuclear planning groups of NATO through it?
2. Which solution is best for German industries?
3. Do we really need to replace the Tornado or can we not simply reduce the force?
4. Can we still make our NATO commitments with a reduced force at least on paper?.

5. What timescale does the German government expect to need to prepare for an actual war, i.e. do they expect to be in a real war on a 10 year timescale, that can´t be won with current tech. I don´t think so.

Against Russia? They are outgunned, outspend and outmanned vs. Europe, let alone against NATO.
China? We don´t have the plattforms to participate anyways, outside of providing ASW/AAW for naval units.

And that would be anyone with a risk of going against with a military worth mentioning.

That being said, i would not mind replacing the Tornado with the F35B, that would be still very useful, beyond just not being obsolete, when the European Gen. 6 comes online in 15 years or so. It would provide capabilities, S/VTOL, that are unique and would allow to cross-deck with our allies. Even for 50-70 Units it would not cost that much more.
The shorter range vs. the F35A would also make it less threatening in the nuclear delivery role.

best regards
Thomas

Planeflyer · Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:01 pm

seahawk wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

The objective reader will also notice that the last time the US faced anything remotely resembling a contested airspace was 50 years ago, or that the US basically tells Taiwan "Don´t worry about stealth, just put this AESA Radar on your Falcons and you´d be good".

best regards

So what?

The key questions are these :

if Germany needs To fly combat missions which ac has the best chance to complete the mission

Which ac provides the best deterrence.

Everything else is secondary.

That is not the question, as nobody intends to fly combat missions with those planes.

Uh?

So what do plan to do with combat ac?

tommy1808 · Fri Nov 30, 2018 4:20 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
So what do plan to do with combat ac?

You said it yourself: deterrence. So what when and how much you buy is determined by when you expect to lose the ability to win in a worst case scenario. We are far from it with regards to any potential opponent.

Best regards
Thomas

Planeflyer · Sun Dec 02, 2018 3:01 am

Cmon, target drones w highly trained pilots offer almost zero deterrence.

seahawk · Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:46 am

The only reason is to meet NATO requirements on paper. So a certain number of planes for a certain role. But preferably not of a quality that NATO would actually ask for them.

tommy1808 · Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:11 am

Planeflyer wrote:
Cmon, target drones w highly trained pilots offer almost zero deterrence.

Outside the first couple of days of the Yom Kippur war we are yet to see any conflict in which SAMs are more than an inconvenience and had any shot to influence the outcome of that conflict.
There is no credible air to air thread anywhere with the exception of our allies.

best regards
Thomas

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net