The Germans are coming!

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1238
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Jul 2017, 15:25

Independently of that will be the actual A-400M fleet availability and maintenance cost in 10-20 years from now and whether or not the A-400M is capable of sustained rough terrain operations, I fully agree with the following that vilters have said (which he said better and in a more resumed way than I could):

vilters wrote:The A-400 is a wannabe C-17 but fails.
It is also a wannabe C-130 but fails again.
Offline

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 952
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post21 Jul 2017, 15:26

ricnunes wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
vilters wrote:A "T" tail on a C-17, OK. They are never supposed to land in the dirt anyway.
:



Really?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2pSSdjgQ5Lc/maxresdefault.jpg

Because one of their first requirements was operating from small and improvised strips.


Yes indeed the C-17 can technically operate on the same/similar environments as even the C-130.
However it doesn't seem that the C-17 usually operates in such environments or resuming operations on such environments (small and improvised strips) are more of an exception than a rule when it comes to the C-17.


I don't know about that, my unscientific survey of YouTube (search "C-17 dirt") seems to indicate using improvised strips is something they train for and actually do reasonably often, which is pretty impressive.

And yeah, the A400M always seemed like a bizarre compromise aircraft, the in-between that nobody really asked for.
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1238
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Jul 2017, 15:40

Prinz_Eugn wrote:I don't know about that, my unscientific survey of YouTube (search "C-17 dirt") seems to indicate using improvised strips is something they train for and actually do reasonably often, which is pretty impressive.


Do I think or believe that the C-17 aircrews train "reasonably often" on improvised/rough airstrips?
- Yes, absolutely.
Do I think or believe that the C-17 aircrews operate "reasonably often" (operationally) on improvised/rough airstrips?
- No, I don't think so. But I could be wrong thou...

Prinz_Eugn wrote:And yeah, the A400M always seemed like a bizarre compromise aircraft, the in-between that nobody really asked for.


Yeap, "amen" to that.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4538
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post21 Jul 2017, 16:01

C-17s have flown to Antarctica and landed on snow runways. Re: the A400, they should have just built the YC-14. Better than the A400 in almost every regard. (Though if we'd built that we might not have the C-17 so. . . :shrug: )
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

durahawk

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 20:35

Unread post21 Jul 2017, 18:44

ricnunes wrote:
If there's someone who should be concerned about this decision, those would be the French and German taxpayers but again their "nationalistic pride" would prevent them of such concerns.


The thing about that German "nationalistic pride" is that it doesn't seem to extend to the military itself. The pathetic level of funding and attention it is given sure makes it seem like many Germans would rather forget they have a military, let alone maintain an effective fighting force.

I think a German F-35 could represent a signal to its allies that intends to turn a corner and get serious on defense, but I suspect industrial base protection and offset considerations will ultimately win the day. I don't think we will ever be seeing F-35's in Luftwaffe livery.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1238
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Jul 2017, 11:44

durahawk wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
If there's someone who should be concerned about this decision, those would be the French and German taxpayers but again their "nationalistic pride" would prevent them of such concerns.


The thing about that German "nationalistic pride" is that it doesn't seem to extend to the military itself. The pathetic level of funding and attention it is given sure makes it seem like many Germans would rather forget they have a military, let alone maintain an effective fighting force.


Yes, you're absolutely right.
The German "nationalistic pride" that I mentioned about was related with their (German) Industrial capability and the perception of what such Industrial capability can manufacture (including military equipment) and not so much about their (German) Military capability itself.


durahawk wrote:...but I suspect industrial base protection and offset considerations will ultimately win the day. I don't think we will ever be seeing F-35's in Luftwaffe livery.


To be honest this is the part that I don't get or that I "don't buy".
I'm sure that if Germany would select the F-35 that the industrial offsets for the German industry would certainly be very good and probably in level with those of that proposed future Franco-German fighter aircraft - Just look at the Japanese case for example - And here I'm strictly speaking of Industrial and Technological Benefits alone.
If we add the "Economics dimension" then the difference/advantage of what the German industry would gain versus the money that Germany would need to invest if Germany decided to buy the F-35 would be far more advantageous than going this future Franco-German fighter aircraft "route".
Offline

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post22 Jul 2017, 12:08

I was joking in another thread that Germany will probably end up renting F35s by the flight hour from neighbors like Austria. With this resurgent post-brexit European defense force that German politicians fantasize about, that might not end up far from the truth.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post22 Jul 2017, 19:52

citanon wrote:I was joking in another thread that Germany will probably end up renting F35s by the flight hour from neighbors like Austria. With this resurgent post-brexit European defense force that German politicians fantasize about, that might not end up far from the truth.


...with Brexit, the Germans will not have to look over their shoulders at the Brits when advancing their interests in the EU; especially with the potential offsets (Euros in the pocket) that the F-35 selection will bring them, as others have said about Japan. The French will be left holding the bag, as usual; left behind (sad).
:)
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post30 Sep 2017, 06:32

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 7a474.html

Germany asks for Boeing fighter data as weighs order options

By Andrea Shalal
Reuters


BERLIN •
Germany has asked the U.S. military for classified data on two Boeing fighter jets as it looks to replace its aging (85) Tornado warplanes, giving a potential boost to the U.S. company locked in a trade dispute with Canada and Britain. A letter sent by the German defense ministry's planning division, reviewed by Reuters, said it had identified Boeing's F-15 and F/A-18E/F fighters as potential candidates to replace the Tornado jets, which entered service in 1981. Both fighters are made in St. Louis. A classified briefing is expected to take place in mid-November, following a similar briefing provided by U.S. officials about the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 fighter jet in July.

The ministry has said it is also seeking information from European aerospace giant Airbus, which builds the Eurofighter Typhoon along with Britain's BAE Systems and Italy's Leonardo. The development is a boost for Boeing at a time when it is under fire from Canada and Britain after its complaint prompted the United States to impose a preliminary 220-percent duty on CSeries jets built by Bombardier. Boeing said it was working with the U.S. government to provide the information that Germany had requested. Germany, due to decide in mid-2018 about how to replace the (85) Tornado planes, announced plans in July to build a European fighter jet together with France. But the new jet is unlikely to be available by 2025, when Germany's fleet of Tornado fighters are slated to start going out of service. Sources familiar with the process said Germany was pursuing a two-pronged approach under which it would buy an existing fighter to replace the Tornado, while working with France on a new European jet to replace its Eurofighters at a later point. Analysts said the Tornado replacement order could be worth tens of billions of dollars, although Germany is still reviewing how many jets to buy and at what pace. The letter said a formal request for information about the pricing and availability of all three U.S. fighter jets was being compiled and would be issued by the end of the month.

Boeing under fire

Britain told Boeing this week that future defense contracts could be in jeopardy because of its trade dispute with Canada's Bombardier, noting that U.S. tariffs would put up to 4,200 jobs at risk at a plant in the British province of Northern Ireland that makes the CSeries jet's carbon wings. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has also said he will not go ahead with plans to buy 18 Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet jets unless the dispute is dropped. Any move by Germany to buy a U.S. warplane could run into political resistance from strong labor unions and Airbus, which has also raised concerns about the ministry's plans to choose between two U.S. helicopters for its heavy lift program. Britain, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey and Italy — key NATO allies of Germany — are already buying the F-35 fighter jet to replace their current aircraft, and other European countries such as Switzerland, Belgium and Finland are also looking at purchasing the fifth-generation warplane at time when tensions with Russia are running high. Military sources say buying a U.S. jet could make sense for Germany given technical challenges with the Eurofighter.
:)
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1906
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post30 Sep 2017, 22:16

The German operate neutered fighters due to treaty limitations. Seems silly if they bought F-15's when they could just as easily opted for keeping Tornado in service. Which one do you want flying nap of the earth in Germany's terrain? Only sentimental types would insist F-15.

I also think if Germany had decided to go a medium role they would have opted for a single EF200-powered design resembling the X-31 project they co-opted, rather than going Mirage, Gripen, or F-16. I'm pretty sure they floated all sorts of options before settling on Typhoon as good enough to replace everything.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post09 Jan 2018, 03:31

http://www.iiss.org/en/militarybalanceb ... erlin-ecf0

Dogfight over Berlin: Germany’s Tornado replacement aspirations


By Douglas Barrie, Senior Fellow for Military Aerospace
Date: 21 December 2017

Germany’s selection of a future combat aircraft for the air force may not be a binary choice. Senior Luftwaffe officials and the German defence ministry appear at loggerheads over whether a European or US combat aircraft should replace the air force’s Tornado, with the former preferring the F-35 Lightning II and the latter in favor of the Typhoon. However, some of them could perhaps be asking the wrong question.

Rather than asking what aircraft type is needed, greater clarity may be achieved by asking what roles the aircraft will be required to carry out. In Luftwaffe service, the Tornado provides the ability to deliver both conventional and nuclear payloads. The latter role is part of NATO’s dual-capable aircraft capability, with the Tornado equipped to carry the B61 gravity bomb. If Germany intends to continue to fulfill this mission, whichever type is selected to replace the Tornado will also need to be able to meet this role.

The other combat aircraft in the Luftwaffe’s fleet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, is presently not ‘wired’ to carry nuclear weapons. There was some consideration given to this in the early days of the development program, but was not pursued. Introducing a nuclear-assurance and -release system for Typhoon is possible, but at a cost. European industrialists suggest prices ranging from €300–500 million, while there is the likelihood that the US would require very detailed access to the aircraft’s design and systems. Furthermore, officials estimate that the necessary certification process would take upwards of seven years. Even if certification were to start straightaway, this makes it challenging to meet the Luftwaffe’s timeline, since it wants to begin replacing its Tornados in 2025, with the fleet to be fully withdrawn likely by 2030.

Germany’s dual-capable Tornado aircraft are part of NATO’s nuclear-deterrence strategy; for this to be effective, it also has to be credible. If the weapon to be delivered remains a nuclear free-fall bomb, the challenge of hitting a target through airspace defended by capable combat aircraft and advanced surface-to-air missiles is considerable. In other words, where long-range stand-off strike is not an option, a low-observable combat aircraft offers the best chance of at least reaching the target.

However, one possible solution could be that the nuclear and conventional roles now both met by the Tornado could be split between a relatively small F-35 fleet and a larger Typhoon fleet, thereby reconciling Luftwaffe and German defense-ministry aspirations. The former aircraft would meet the nuclear-delivery requirement with the B61-12 bomb and provide a low-observable platform capable of conventional weapons delivery, while a proportion of the air-to-surface missions now addressed by the Tornado could be migrated to the Typhoon.

Nevertheless, the Luftwaffe is presently not only working on how to replace the Tornado, but in the longer term, also the Typhoon. Under its Future Combat Air System (FCAS) work, it had initially looked to introduce a new combat aircraft into service from 2035, with the emphasis on the air-to-surface role, as a Tornado replacement. As thinking has developed during the course of 2017, and the F-35 has found increasing favor, Germany’s longer-term combat-aircraft requirement has placed greater emphasis on the air-to-air role for the Typhoon’s successor. The notional entry into service date has also moved to 2045.

The FCAS study work is now being carried out in collaboration with France. Moving back the entry into service date aligns more closely with France’s requirement for a Rafale successor, while also providing a more palatable gap between the cost of the possible introduction of the F-35 and the acquisition of a new fighter aircraft.
:)
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1906
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post09 Jan 2018, 04:00

Let them eat <del>cake</del> Rafale
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4405
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post09 Jan 2018, 04:10

neptune wrote:http://www.iiss.org/en/militarybalanceblog/blogsections/2017-edcc/december-d13d/dogfight-over-berlin-ecf0

Dogfight over Berlin: Germany’s Tornado replacement aspirations


By Douglas Barrie, Senior Fellow for Military Aerospace
Date: 21 December 2017

Germany’s selection of a future combat aircraft for the air force may not be a binary choice. Senior Luftwaffe officials and the German defence ministry appear at loggerheads over whether a European or US combat aircraft should replace the air force’s Tornado, with the former preferring the F-35 Lightning II and the latter in favor of the Typhoon. However, some of them could perhaps be asking the wrong question.

Rather than asking what aircraft type is needed, greater clarity may be achieved by asking what roles the aircraft will be required to carry out. In Luftwaffe service, the Tornado provides the ability to deliver both conventional and nuclear payloads. The latter role is part of NATO’s dual-capable aircraft capability, with the Tornado equipped to carry the B61 gravity bomb. If Germany intends to continue to fulfill this mission, whichever type is selected to replace the Tornado will also need to be able to meet this role.

The other combat aircraft in the Luftwaffe’s fleet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, is presently not ‘wired’ to carry nuclear weapons. There was some consideration given to this in the early days of the development program, but was not pursued. Introducing a nuclear-assurance and -release system for Typhoon is possible, but at a cost. European industrialists suggest prices ranging from €300–500 million, while there is the likelihood that the US would require very detailed access to the aircraft’s design and systems. Furthermore, officials estimate that the necessary certification process would take upwards of seven years. Even if certification were to start straightaway, this makes it challenging to meet the Luftwaffe’s timeline, since it wants to begin replacing its Tornados in 2025, with the fleet to be fully withdrawn likely by 2030.

Germany’s dual-capable Tornado aircraft are part of NATO’s nuclear-deterrence strategy; for this to be effective, it also has to be credible. If the weapon to be delivered remains a nuclear free-fall bomb, the challenge of hitting a target through airspace defended by capable combat aircraft and advanced surface-to-air missiles is considerable. In other words, where long-range stand-off strike is not an option, a low-observable combat aircraft offers the best chance of at least reaching the target.

However, one possible solution could be that the nuclear and conventional roles now both met by the Tornado could be split between a relatively small F-35 fleet and a larger Typhoon fleet, thereby reconciling Luftwaffe and German defense-ministry aspirations. The former aircraft would meet the nuclear-delivery requirement with the B61-12 bomb and provide a low-observable platform capable of conventional weapons delivery, while a proportion of the air-to-surface missions now addressed by the Tornado could be migrated to the Typhoon.

Nevertheless, the Luftwaffe is presently not only working on how to replace the Tornado, but in the longer term, also the Typhoon. Under its Future Combat Air System (FCAS) work, it had initially looked to introduce a new combat aircraft into service from 2035, with the emphasis on the air-to-surface role, as a Tornado replacement. As thinking has developed during the course of 2017, and the F-35 has found increasing favor, Germany’s longer-term combat-aircraft requirement has placed greater emphasis on the air-to-air role for the Typhoon’s successor. The notional entry into service date has also moved to 2045.

The FCAS study work is now being carried out in collaboration with France. Moving back the entry into service date aligns more closely with France’s requirement for a Rafale successor, while also providing a more palatable gap between the cost of the possible introduction of the F-35 and the acquisition of a new fighter aircraft.
:)


Honestly, simple fact is the Typhoon will be nearly obsolete by 2030. (if not before) So, to acquire more would be a complete waste of time and resources. A far better plan would be to acquire a modest number of F-35A's in the short-term to replace the Tornado's. While, jointly developing a future 6th Generation Fighter with France long-term.
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post09 Jan 2018, 08:35

However, one possible solution could be that the nuclear and conventional roles now both met by the Tornado could be split between a relatively small F-35 fleet and a larger Typhoon fleet, thereby reconciling Luftwaffe and German defense-ministry aspirations. The former aircraft would meet the nuclear-delivery requirement with the B61-12 bomb and provide a low-observable platform capable of conventional weapons delivery, while a proportion of the air-to-surface missions now addressed by the Tornado could be migrated to the Typhoon


Sounds like the best plan. Say buy about 40-60 F-35A to become your premier strike aircraft. Put CFTs and AESA on your Tranche 2/3 Typhoons to act as their non-stealthy but heavy load carrying rear backup. Finally keep your Tranche 1s as your hot-rod interceptors, job done ! Then the Luftwaffe would be set until the FCAS is ready.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4405
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post09 Jan 2018, 09:06

mas wrote:
However, one possible solution could be that the nuclear and conventional roles now both met by the Tornado could be split between a relatively small F-35 fleet and a larger Typhoon fleet, thereby reconciling Luftwaffe and German defense-ministry aspirations. The former aircraft would meet the nuclear-delivery requirement with the B61-12 bomb and provide a low-observable platform capable of conventional weapons delivery, while a proportion of the air-to-surface missions now addressed by the Tornado could be migrated to the Typhoon


Sounds like the best plan. Say buy about 40-60 F-35A to become your premier strike aircraft. Put CFTs and AESA on your Tranche 2/3 Typhoons to act as their non-stealthy but heavy load carrying rear backup. Finally keep your Tranche 1s as your hot-rod interceptors, job done ! Then the Luftwaffe would be set until the FCAS is ready.



Plus, the 40-60 F-35's would help Germany get closer to the 2% of GDP on Defense Spending. Which, would make NATO and the US (i.e. Trump) happy! :wink:
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests