The Germans are coming!

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

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 12:48

magitsu wrote:They probably should've just leased/bought F-16s if F-35 was a no-go. Now Germany gets to pay the full price of integration, so they bought US R&D work. They could've bought domestic ECR R&D to Typhoon and FCAS instead with the nuke integration money.

AFAIK there are already plans to integrate nukes for the SH, so most likely Germany will not have to pay for it. The F-16 is less capable than the SH block; furthermore, if they decided that they needed the Growler, it makes more sense to go for SH than F-16 also from a logistics point of view...
Offline

Tiger05

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 112
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 15:55

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 14:45

I wonder why they went for the SH and not for the F-15 Advanced Eagle which had also been offered by Boeing. The F-15E is already certified for the B61 and is arguably a more capable strike aircraft than the SH: has longer legs, can carry more, has a terrain-following radar (F-15QA), etc. It was probably the second best option after the F-35.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4153
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 15:05

There were so many more logical, capable and affordable options. But no, a "split buy" was the outcome and with it, the worst possible deal for Germany.

They'll be getting 2 aircraft now, neither of which is capable of the nuclear mission. Ironic the legacy Hornet is qualified to carry the B61, but not the SH. Perhaps they should have followed the Canadian acquisition model, LOL. I'm sure their logistics people will welcome this decision too. I wonder if anybody asked them what they thought about acquiring and maintaining a small number of SH's/Growlers.

I'd say Canada ending up with a similar "split buy" is 50/50. Seems like a fitting end to an acquisition model that was f*#$ed up from the beginning. Gripen + SH's woud be epic. Trudeau and his friends could zip around in their toy Gripens high over Syria, while S-400's blast them out of the sky.

Perhaps then he can come back and tell us why he didn't buy the F-35 in the first place...
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2763
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 16:37

Tiger05 wrote:I wonder why they went for the SH and not for the F-15 Advanced Eagle which had also been offered by Boeing. The F-15E is already certified for the B61 and is arguably a more capable strike aircraft than the SH: has longer legs, can carry more, has a terrain-following radar (F-15QA), etc. It was probably the second best option after the F-35.


Well, here's two reason why IMO the Super Hornet was preferred to the F-15 Advanced Eagle in Germany:
1- The Super Hornet is cheaper.
2- Probably more important than 1-, the Growler purchase. Germany wants an Electronic Warfare aircraft to replace their Tornado ECR's and the Super Hornet presents such option in the form of the EA-18G Growler while the F-15 Advanced Eagle does not.
Actually the intended purchase of 30 Super Hornet and 15 Growlers by Germany seems to support this.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2763
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 16:45

magitsu wrote:Let's see whether Canada manages to do worse. Split buy Gripen/SH? :mrgreen:


mixelflick wrote:I'd say Canada ending up with a similar "split buy" is 50/50. Seems like a fitting end to an acquisition model that was f*#$ed up from the beginning. Gripen + SH's woud be epic. Trudeau and his friends could zip around in their toy Gripens high over Syria, while S-400's blast them out of the sky.

Perhaps then he can come back and tell us why he didn't buy the F-35 in the first place...


Hell no!!

However, I wouldn't totally rule out a 50/50 split buy between F-35/Gripen.
This way and in theory the RCAF and all the Canadian companies participating in the F-35 program would be pleased (as well as purchasing the best choice) as well as the Canadian closest allies while at the same time pleasing those who defend a "Canada made" option (whatever that might be).

However (and again) I don't think this will happen because:
1- Canada will always go with a single fleet option.
2- Germany participates in a 5th gen fighter aircraft project which is called FCAS. Canada participates in a 5th gen fighter aircraft project which is called the F-35. So in the end and again I believe that Canada will go with the F-35 (single fleet) option.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

131stfwfan

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2010, 23:41
  • Location: St. Louis

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 16:46

ricnunes wrote:
Tiger05 wrote:I wonder why they went for the SH and not for the F-15 Advanced Eagle which had also been offered by Boeing. The F-15E is already certified for the B61 and is arguably a more capable strike aircraft than the SH: has longer legs, can carry more, has a terrain-following radar (F-15QA), etc. It was probably the second best option after the F-35.


Well, here's two reason why IMO the Super Hornet was preferred to the F-15 Advanced Eagle in Germany:
1- The Super Hornet is cheaper.
2- Probably more important than 1-, the Growler purchase. Germany wants an Electronic Warfare aircraft to replace their Tornado ECR's and the Super Hornet presents such option in the form of the EA-18G Growler while the F-15 Advanced Eagle does not.
Actually the intended purchase of 30 Super Hornet and 15 Growlers by Germany seems to support this.


Boeing's original pitch internally was for a German Eagle, but yes, once EA capability became exportable to Europe (Finland, etc.) the pitch changed. The EX and F-15IA also took the pressure off the line.

To clarify from another post, Boeing has not 'turned down' the Block III work. That quote comes from a Navy office to soften the current gridlock between the Hornet's future post-2021.

Nothing has changed with Kuwait.
Offline
User avatar

durahawk

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 539
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 20:35

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 19:11

loke wrote:
magitsu wrote:They probably should've just leased/bought F-16s if F-35 was a no-go. Now Germany gets to pay the full price of integration, so they bought US R&D work. They could've bought domestic ECR R&D to Typhoon and FCAS instead with the nuke integration money.

AFAIK there are already plans to integrate nukes for the SH, so most likely Germany will not have to pay for it. The F-16 is less capable than the SH block; furthermore, if they decided that they needed the Growler, it makes more sense to go for SH than F-16 also from a logistics point of view...


Do you have a source for this? I was unable to find anything indicating that NAVAIR is paying for the integration of the B-61 on the Super Hornet, and it really wouldn't make much sense given it's presumptive integration onto the F-35C. So, even if Boeing is currently footing the bill, it will almost certainly pass those costs along to Germany when they price the aircraft.

Honestly, I don't see much use in gravity dropped tactical nuclear weapons on the modern battlefield having much utility on the modern battlefield to begin with. By far the most likely outcome of employment of a tactical nuclear weapon by NATO against Russia has always been the entire Northern Hemisphere turning to glass within the hour. Limited Nuclear strike has been a flawed concept from the moment of conception. In the strategic deterrent sense, there are far reliable and survivable methods of Nuclear delivery.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24750
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Apr 2020, 16:12

Typhoon Targets the Future [Six page PDF of article attached below]
May 2020 Jamie Hunter & Jon Lake

"Eurofighter and its industry partners are making significant moves on future capability development. Jamie Hunter and Jon Lake examine what lies ahead for the Typhoon....

...Eurofighter vs F-35
Many believe an advanced Eurofighter variant will afford more useful and complementary elements to the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) now under development with France and Spain. The company has described an advanced Eurofighter as “a stepping stone to a European FCAS programme”. By contrast, procurement of the F-35 would have threatened the continuation of the entire FCAS project and in particular would have put development of the central FCAS element, the NGF (Next Generation Fighter), in jeopardy.

Dirk Hoke, Chief Executive Officer of Airbus Defence and Space said that any decision to buy the F-35 would have killed off this new Franco-German European fighter: “As soon as Germany becomes an F-35 nation, all co-operation with France on combat jet issues will die.” Jon Lake"..."

Source: AirForces Monthly Magazine May 2020 Issue 386
Attachments
Typhoon Targets the Future AirForces Monthly May 2020 pp6.pdf
(2 MiB) Downloaded 310 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2793
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post18 Apr 2020, 00:28

So they want to take that 5% READINESS RATE and add an exponentially more level of complexity to Eurofighter. Otay.
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 227
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post18 Apr 2020, 22:44

durahawk wrote:
loke wrote:
magitsu wrote:They probably should've just leased/bought F-16s if F-35 was a no-go. Now Germany gets to pay the full price of integration, so they bought US R&D work. They could've bought domestic ECR R&D to Typhoon and FCAS instead with the nuke integration money.

AFAIK there are already plans to integrate nukes for the SH, so most likely Germany will not have to pay for it. The F-16 is less capable than the SH block; furthermore, if they decided that they needed the Growler, it makes more sense to go for SH than F-16 also from a logistics point of view...


Do you have a source for this? I was unable to find anything indicating that NAVAIR is paying for the integration of the B-61 on the Super Hornet, and it really wouldn't make much sense given it's presumptive integration onto the F-35C. So, even if Boeing is currently footing the bill, it will almost certainly pass those costs along to Germany when they price the aircraft.

Honestly, I don't see much use in gravity dropped tactical nuclear weapons on the modern battlefield having much utility on the modern battlefield to begin with. By far the most likely outcome of employment of a tactical nuclear weapon by NATO against Russia has always been the entire Northern Hemisphere turning to glass within the hour. Limited Nuclear strike has been a flawed concept from the moment of conception. In the strategic deterrent sense, there are far reliable and survivable methods of Nuclear delivery.


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.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1126
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post20 Apr 2020, 08:50

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".
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6890
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post20 Apr 2020, 10:19

spazsinbad wrote:
Typhoon Targets the Future [Six page PDF of article attached below]
May 2020 Jamie Hunter & Jon Lake

"Eurofighter and its industry partners are making significant moves on future capability development. Jamie Hunter and Jon Lake examine what lies ahead for the Typhoon....

...Eurofighter vs F-35
Many believe an advanced Eurofighter variant will afford more useful and complementary elements to the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) now under development with France and Spain. The company has described an advanced Eurofighter as “a stepping stone to a European FCAS programme”. By contrast, procurement of the F-35 would have threatened the continuation of the entire FCAS project and in particular would have put development of the central FCAS element, the NGF (Next Generation Fighter), in jeopardy.

Dirk Hoke, Chief Executive Officer of Airbus Defence and Space said that any decision to buy the F-35 would have killed off this new Franco-German European fighter: “As soon as Germany becomes an F-35 nation, all co-operation with France on combat jet issues will die.” Jon Lake"..."

Source: AirForces Monthly Magazine May 2020 Issue 386



Honestly, weak argument in my opinion. As the FCAS (and Tempest) won't arrive for a good twenty years. Even then it would take another decade or two to replace all of the Typhoons and/or Rafales.

Which, is why I think it would be nothing short of foolhardy. For Germany to replace her Tornados with Super Hornets.

:2c:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6890
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post20 Apr 2020, 10:23

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.



No way the Super Hornet could remotely come close to the F-35. In the Tactical Nuclear Strike Mission. That is plain fact...
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6890
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post20 Apr 2020, 10:24

loke wrote:
magitsu wrote:They probably should've just leased/bought F-16s if F-35 was a no-go. Now Germany gets to pay the full price of integration, so they bought US R&D work. They could've bought domestic ECR R&D to Typhoon and FCAS instead with the nuke integration money.

AFAIK there are already plans to integrate nukes for the SH, so most likely Germany will not have to pay for it. The F-16 is less capable than the SH block; furthermore, if they decided that they needed the Growler, it makes more sense to go for SH than F-16 also from a logistics point of view...



They have no such plans........
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24750
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post20 Apr 2020, 10:32

This news was posted first on another part of this forum - I guess I should find it... why 'tbarlow' put it there I dunno….

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=56897
Germany to Order 45 Fighter Jets From Boeing, Report Says
20 Apr 2020 Iain Rogers

"(Bloomberg) -- Germany will order 45 fighter aircraft from Boeing Co. to replace the Luftwaffe’s aging Tornado jets, Der Spiegel magazine reported on Sunday.

Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer emailed her U.S. counterpart Mark Esper on Thursday to inform him of the decision, the magazine said, without identifying the source of its information. Germany will order 30 F/A-18 Super Hornets and 15 EA-18G Growlers, the report added.

The German ministry couldn’t immediately be reached outside regular business hours. The Pentagon in Washington declined to comment.

“While we continue to await an official announcement, we remain committed to working in support of both the German and U.S. governments on this important procurement,” a spokesman for Chicago-based Boeing wrote in an email. A combination of Hornets and Growlers “is ideally suited to meet Germany’s strike fighter and electronic warfare aircraft requirements.”..."

Source: https://news.yahoo.com/germany-order-45 ... 46385.html
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests