The Germans are coming!

citanon · by **citanon** » 20 Apr 2020, 15:39

Maybe not a bad thing for NATO overall as Germany can contribute the Growlers to different missions?

magitsu · by **magitsu** » 20 Apr 2020, 19:20

citanon wrote:Maybe not a bad thing for NATO overall as Germany can contribute the Growlers to different missions?

I've always fancied this idea. German politics rarely allows them to engage in actual bombing (if they even participate), but EW is in very very high demand and raises next to no public outcry.

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 20 Apr 2020, 20:19

magitsu wrote:
citanon wrote:Maybe not a bad thing for NATO overall as Germany can contribute the Growlers to different missions?

I've always fancied this idea. German politics rarely allows them to engage in actual bombing (if they even participate), but EW is in very very high demand and raises next to no public outcry.

There's indeed some 'reasoning' about what you say above (although I still think that this German procurement is plain stupid).

For instance the only situation that I'm aware where Germany or more precisely the German Air Force participated with 'combat' aircraft in multinational military operations was quite recently over Syrian where they (the Germans) participated with their Tornado ECR's, a dedicated SEAD/EW aircraft which supposedly will or would be replaced by the Growler.

Tiger05 · by **Tiger05** » 20 Apr 2020, 21:07

Luftwaffe Tornado ECRs made a valuable contribution to Operation Allied Force over Kosovo back in 1999. They were one of the few dedicated SEAD assets along with EA-6Bs and F-16CJs and they performed well. By the end of the conflict, German Tornado ECR had fired 236 HARMs (about 1/3 of all HARMs fired in Allied Force). Procuring the Growler to renew their SEAD/EW capability, a mission where the Luftwaffe has now acquired a significant experience, doesnt strike me as odd. I can see the logic behind it.

Replacing the Tornado IDS (strike) with the SH, however, is much more questionable...

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 20 Apr 2020, 22:07

milosh wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:Pairing the F-35 with a tactical weapon is a game changer. It is an excellent 1st strike option. The F-18 would fail in this mission. Knowing that the 1st nuclear strikes could take out the Russian leadership without them even knowing a jet was overhead SHOULD be a deterrent.

They developed systems which can launch nukes if Kremlin is wipe out. First such system became operational in 1967, named "Signal".

Perimtr was (is?) semi-automated. You have to have leadership to enable it.

Unless the F-35 is flying from Poland, there's no way without aerial refueling for it to reach Moscow
or the ICBM fields/mobile ICBM garrisons in Western Russia.

Tacair would be a strange first-strike weapon given the long transit times and the fact the airbases
are all readily observable.

jessmo112 · by **jessmo112** » 20 Apr 2020, 22:19

This is true, but then it begs the question of the relevance of tac air delivered nukes anyway. The F-35 is the only survivable option. Maybe they need to modify a cruise missile like the JSM to carry a tactical nuclear weapon.
If there isnt a tactical jet alive that can reach Moscow then what is the purpose? Are we going to keep B-61s in case we have a game of tactical nuke tit for tat?

talkitron · by **talkitron** » 20 Apr 2020, 22:36

jessmo112 wrote:This is true, but then it begs the question of the relevance of tac air delivered nukes anyway. The F-35 is the only survivable option. Maybe they need to modify a cruise missile like the JSM to carry a tactical nuclear weapon.
If there isnt a tactical jet alive that can reach Moscow then what is the purpose? Are we going to keep B-61s in case we have a game of tactical nuke tit for tat?

No country wants to host US nuclear weapons. Military spending is unpopular in Europe. Nuclear weapons are unpopular in South Korea and Japan and the US does not station troops in Taiwan. So the US cannot deploy nuclear cruise missiles or hypersonic weapons overseas. The only nuclear weapons acceptable to local politicians are these bombs that have been there forever.

jessmo112 · by **jessmo112** » 20 Apr 2020, 23:30

They need a cruise missile kit that fits onto a B-61.
The the airforce currently wants powered JDAM which is a similiar concept. This would kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

madrat · by **madrat** » 21 Apr 2020, 02:14

The Russians reneged in the Ukraine. That is the logical place for random nuke placement. Build shelters. Keep them guessing if we use them.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 21 Apr 2020, 02:24

talkitron wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:This is true, but then it begs the question of the relevance of tac air delivered nukes anyway. The F-35 is the only survivable option. Maybe they need to modify a cruise missile like the JSM to carry a tactical nuclear weapon.
If there isnt a tactical jet alive that can reach Moscow then what is the purpose? Are we going to keep B-61s in case we have a game of tactical nuke tit for tat?

No country wants to host US nuclear weapons. Military spending is unpopular in Europe. Nuclear weapons are unpopular in South Korea and Japan and the US does not station troops in Taiwan. So the US cannot deploy nuclear cruise missiles or hypersonic weapons overseas. The only nuclear weapons acceptable to local politicians are these bombs that have been there forever.

Your wrong I am sure a number of Eastern European NATO Members would take B-61's in a heartbeat.........

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 21 Apr 2020, 02:27

jessmo112 wrote:This is true, but then it begs the question of the relevance of tac air delivered nukes anyway. The F-35 is the only survivable option. Maybe they need to modify a cruise missile like the JSM to carry a tactical nuclear weapon.
If there isnt a tactical jet alive that can reach Moscow then what is the purpose? Are we going to keep B-61s in case we have a game of tactical nuke tit for tat?

For the West and NATO the F-35 is the "only" real options for Tactical Nuclear Weapons. Which, is why Germany buying the Super Hornet for the role is foolhardy............(just not survivable post 2030)

:doh:

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 21 Apr 2020, 02:33

jessmo112 wrote:This is true, but then it begs the question of the relevance of tac air delivered nukes anyway. The F-35 is the only survivable option. Maybe they need to modify a cruise missile like the JSM to carry a tactical nuclear weapon.
If there isnt a tactical jet alive that can reach Moscow then what is the purpose? Are we going to keep B-61s in case we have a game of tactical nuke tit for tat?

The main relevance would be in defeating some Russian incursion into NATO countries;
a counter as you say to the Russian tactical nukes.

The range constraint is by design much in the same way that Pershing II was deliberately range
constrained so as not to be able to reach Moscow.

A tac-air launched nuclear armed cruise missile of any useful range would likely be countable
under New START for which there's an even chance the treaty will be renewed.

So it would have to be something like an ALBM e.g. SRAM-T.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 21 Apr 2020, 05:52

Germany approves Super Hornet/Growler buy, national media reports
20 Apr 2020 Gareth Jennings

"...German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has told the US government that Berlin has given clearance for the Luftwaffe to acquire 45 Super Hornet and Growler aircraft as part of its wider plans to replace 90 Panavia Tornado Interdiction and Strike (IDS)/Electronic Combat Reconnaissance (ECR) aircraft with 85 new platforms from 2025.

The 30 Super Hornet multirole and 15 Growler electronic attack (EA) jets would enable the Luftwaffe to fulfil its airborne nuclear strike and EA requirements within the required timeframe, Der Spiegel reported Kramp-Karrenbauer as saying in mid-April. The remaining 40 aircraft would comprise additional Eurofighters to add to the 143 already received (of these, 38 early Tranche 1 aircraft are set to be replaced by the same number of Tranche 3 aircraft under Project Quadriga).

While Der Spiegel has reported Kramp-Karrenbauer's comments to her US counterpart, Secretary Mark Esper, no official announcement has been made and no contracts signed. An announcement was expected at the ILA Berlin Airshow in May, and despite that event recently being cancelled due to the coronavirus an announcement is still expected in approximately the same timeframe (although it is unclear as to whether this will be a down-select or a type selection)."

Source: https://www.janes.com/article/95625/ger ... ia-reports

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 21 Apr 2020, 06:01

In the end the mixed buy of Super Hornets/Growlers. Plus, the upgrade to use Nuclear Weapons. Will cost more than just buying the F-35A.

Plus, this doesn't even touch on the fact. The former is far less capable and survivable.... :shock:

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 21 Apr 2020, 06:10

US set to upgrade controversial nukes stationed in Germany

The US has stored nuclear bombs across Europe as a deterrent against Russia — including in Germany, where parliament voted in 2010 to withdraw the bombs. But for now, they are here to stay — and set to be modernized.

https://www.dw.com/en/us-set-to-upgrade ... a-52855886