JSF ITF: Year in Review [Dual-Capable Aircraft]

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 29 Jun 2020, 10:15

magitsu wrote:Recent events is all Trump. The longer term German outlook is not really Merkel-specific.

Merkel not acquiring the F-35A for the German Air Force. Which, was the only viable option in the Nuclear Strike Role. Against the wishes of the German Military Leadership. Clearly, makes this very much a political matter.....

magitsu · by **magitsu** » 29 Jun 2020, 10:19

Corsair1963 wrote:
magitsu wrote:Recent events is all Trump. The longer term German outlook is not really Merkel-specific.

Merkel not acquiring the F-35A for the German Air Force. Which, was the only viable option in the Nuclear Strike Role. Against the wishes of the German Military Leadership. Clearly, makes this very much a political matter.....

Yes, but they have a fighter program that they've already committed to. The Tornado ECR replacement is almost as relevant as the nuke role. That steers it towards Growler. Still, F-35A would've been the obvious choice, if there wasn't FCAS in the horizon.
Canada on the other hand is a F-35 partner and doesn't have anything that represents sunk cost. They have the Norad compatibility question.

Trump doesn't seem to have anything direct to link to. Germany owing money Nato is clear lie and dangling the troops between Germany and Poland are quite an improv.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 29 Jun 2020, 10:34

magitsu wrote:
Yes, but they have a fighter program that they've already committed to. The Tornado ECR replacement is almost as relevant as the nuke role. That steers it towards Growler. Still, F-35A would've been the obvious choice, if there wasn't FCAS in the horizon.
Canada on the other hand is a F-35 partner and doesn't have anything that represents sunk cost. They have the Norad compatibility question.

Trump doesn't seem to have anything direct to link to. Germany owing money Nato is clear lie and dangling the troops between Germany and Poland are quite an improv.

As a matter of fact a mixed buy of F-35's and Typhoons was proposed as a compromise. The former would have replaced the Tornados in the Nuclear Strike and ECR Roles. While, the new Typhoons would have replaced the earlier block Typhoons. Which, would have been expensive to upgrade.....

So, actually buying the Super Hornets is really a slap in the face. As Merkel knew the US and NATO wanted them to acquire the new F-35's. Especially, for the Nuclear Strike Role...

The Super Hornet is not a better alternative in "any" role vs the F-35. :wink:

lbk000 · by **lbk000** » 29 Jun 2020, 16:48

I don't think it actually has anything to do with Trump. I don't think there was ever any intention from Germany to ever acquire the F-35 before 2016, when their EF2000 fleet was already in the dumps. Rather, it makes sense to me that Germany, like France, always had intentions to exert its own influence, and that can't be accomplished relying on American blackbox weapons. Threatening the integrity of an organization by walking away is a power move that shifts initiative.

India, take note: this is how to really play the bargaining game.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 30 Jun 2020, 00:57

lbk000 wrote:I don't think it actually has anything to do with Trump. I don't think there was ever any intention from Germany to ever acquire the F-35 before 2016, when their EF2000 fleet was already in the dumps. Rather, it makes sense to me that Germany, like France, always had intentions to exert its own influence, and that can't be accomplished relying on American blackbox weapons. Threatening the integrity of an organization by walking away is a power move that shifts initiative.

India, take note: this is how to really play the bargaining game.

Then why is Germany buying the Super Hornet then??? Sorry, your logic escapes me....

Regardless, simple fact is the Typhoon and/or Super Hornet. Are not adequate for the Nuclear Strike Role. Just not survivable post 2030....