Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
keesje wrote:The Germans are looking for solutions. Life extension for the Tornado's could be part of a proposal.
vr773 wrote:The software is significantly more complex than in any other airplane. Not giving your customer insights in light of that is a recipe for disaster imo.
Ozair wrote:vr773 wrote:To clarify, I do believe that his words and actions affect military procurement decisions and it would be bad if they didn't. In this particular case, it makes it politically impossible for Germany to spend a lot of money on a US controlled product at least in the next couple of years. What I meant was that it doesn't really matter what his intention is on any given day because the damage is already done.
So if you think that Trump has impacted military procurement, show an example of where this has happened?vr773 wrote:The US is not reliable because Trump is erratic. If Russia deploys little green men to Lithuania tomorrow, Trump might just say that it's not his business and intervention does not maga. I don't find that to be an unlikely scenario.
Again, in the absence of evidence of this I find your claim is baseless. For example, Trump fired cruise missiles into Syria when the use of chemical weapons was verified while Obama, the darling of Europe, didn’t do a thing despite promising to…
In that context, which was/is more likely to come to the aid of allies?vr773 wrote:It's possible that Germany buys the remaining 37 3b Eurofighters but unlikely in the next couple of years given some other big planned purchases (MEADS, MKS180, etc.); but it's probably not a smart decision to make them compatible with US nuclear weapons. I can only speculate what'll happen once the Tornado is out of the game but I think that getting out of nuclear sharing or seeking an alternative solution involving France is a possibility.
It would seem counter to leave NATO nuclear sharing and start an agreement with the French on the same issue. NATO nuclear sharing somewhat sneaks through the NPT because it existed before the NPT was signed. Any direct French German co-operation, which would almost certainly be required as it would occur outside of NATO channels, would likely be in violation of the NPT.vr773 wrote:I'm sure right now French and German defense officials are working on how to make the FCAS happen. I think they'll announce something in the next 6 months. I said it's speculative that Germany buys Rafales but it might be part of a deal if Germany and France were to cooperate more at the WMD level as well.
Again, the Rafale offers nothing for Germany and I would suggest that German Industry would have some issues acquiring an essentially wholly manufactured French jet when a German one is available.
FCAS is a long term project for a family of systems, what that looks like will not even be a high level concept until late 2018, let alone perhaps 10-15 years of development and production.vr773 wrote:I didn't know that France is considering getting rid of air delivered nuclear warheads entirely.
I haven’t seen a direct statement of that, just my assessment looking at their weapons stocks. What we know is France now has only 40 air dropped weapons and 300 warheads in total.On 21 March 2008, President Nicolas Sarkozy announced that France will reduce its aircraft deliverable nuclear weapon stockpile (which currently consists of 60 TN 81 warheads) by a third (20 warheads) and bring the total French nuclear arsenal to fewer than 300 warheads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-37
keesje wrote:A larger sixt gen European fighter bomber seems likely.
keesje wrote:It seem the aircraft Airbus offers at this stage (Typhoon) is far from ideal to meet the Canadian requirements.
YIMBY wrote:vr773 wrote:The software is significantly more complex than in any other airplane. Not giving your customer insights in light of that is a recipe for disaster imo.
For sure it is. You are more than right here.
Not that much that Americans would program it to bomb Berlin if they want, but that it bounds the buyer to the supplier forever. The buyer will be forced to pay software licences and upgrade fees as long as they use the product and they cannot make any independent changes or develop own add-ons but are bound to use US certified and probably supplied bullets, missiles, fuel, tyres etc. Ans US/LM can terminate the support when they want and try to sell the next generation fighter.
thumper76 wrote:The trump administration prompted Canada to look for a different procurement then the SH, and Canada has walked away from your beloved F35. I am fully aware that you are pushing the F-35 but am unaware of why. I will not respond to your reply... And your friend... You know who you are.
Have a great day
Ozair wrote:What you choose to believe is up to you but any deal conducted as an FMS sale follows the conditions stipulated.
Ozair wrote:
And where in that article does it say Singapore will order soon. Statements made by the Singaporean Ministry of defence tend to outweigh random google articles…
Ozair wrote:In that case you are mistaken. The F-35C was never intended to replace the SH in USN service, it was always intended to replace the classic Hornet. The USN will only field approx. 260 or so F-35Cs while the SH fleet is greater at 500+. That was always the USN plan!
Ozair wrote:Of course the F-35 has had problems, all new aircraft have problems but they typically overcome them. The F-35 will be no different and that is the point of the airframe undergoing the most extensive test program in the history of military aviation, to sort out those problems.
Ozair wrote:So you would prefer I go to a secondary source against information coming straight from the program office? They would have the most up to date information.
As for your link, it is talking about OT&E which is not safety testing, it is Operational Test and Evaluation, so testing the airframe in combat scenarios and is talking specifically of software load 3F testing. The jet has already undergone OT&E for all previous software blocks to now.
Ozair wrote:You can choose to believe that but it a well known fact that DOT&E has not had a functional place in the process for a number of years. They have consumed funding for zero benefit.
Ozair wrote:Why, is the RAAF or the RAF or any other customer going to review every line of code to check it? No. Instead all the partner nations participated in the SDD phase, have been trained at Luke AFB and feed results back into the program office to increase capability and reduce risk.
Ozair wrote:Sure, but at what point does economic reality set in and Germany/France acknowledge that any jet they produce will come at terrific cost to develop and will likely reach either parity or be just above the F-35 from a capability perspective. Why wait 20 years for a capability you could have today for a third the cost?
Ozair wrote:You both need to take a step back and stop looking at the USA as an adversary.
Ozair wrote:Yimby I give up. Ignorance is clearly bliss.
seahawk wrote:If the jets can fly another 10 years. The older a plane gets the more time a check takes, as you need to check more and more parts more and more closely for cracks and corrosion. And hope that you do not find a frame with cracks, because then you are looking at a very very long grounding if replacement parts need to be designed and produced, while the OEM that produced the original parts has thrown away the machines years ago or is out of business. It makes sense to have 2 types in the fleet anyway. Canada could order some Rafales or Typhoons and keep the best F-18 frames in service and then replace them later with the rest being used as spare donors.
thumper76 wrote:seahawk wrote:If the jets can fly another 10 years. The older a plane gets the more time a check takes, as you need to check more and more parts more and more closely for cracks and corrosion. And hope that you do not find a frame with cracks, because then you are looking at a very very long grounding if replacement parts need to be designed and produced, while the OEM that produced the original parts has thrown away the machines years ago or is out of business. It makes sense to have 2 types in the fleet anyway. Canada could order some Rafales or Typhoons and keep the best F-18 frames in service and then replace them later with the rest being used as spare donors.
I would agree that a two type fleet is also an option.
Planeflyer wrote:Has anyone wondered, if stealth aircraft are no more effective than 4 th gen ac( might as well call them target drones) why the Russians and Chinese are spending tens of billions developing 5 th gen AC?
Just a bit of critical thinking could make this thread a fair bit shorter.
vr773 wrote:I don't think this article has been posted yet:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15 ... s-tornados
seahawk wrote:Well vdL did one good thing and that is to look at the results.
Planeflyer wrote:Facts! Fiction is your domain.
Planeflyer wrote:Has anyone wondered, if stealth aircraft are no more effective than 4 th gen ac( might as well call them target drones) why the Russians and Chinese are spending tens of billions developing 5 th gen AC?
Just a bit of critical thinking could make this thread a fair bit shorter.
tommy1808 wrote:You nean like keeping in mind that both, Russia and China, are more likely to engage technologically less savvy enemies that don't dot the landscape with modern radars and AWACS.
vr773 wrote:This article says it:
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/s ... ase-report
..and there are numerous others
Your claim that Singapore did not delay the purchase is not backed up by the short comment of Ng that you quoted. Also, the comment clearly happened in a diplomatic context using diplomatic language.
Dr Ng, who saw the F-35 in action in 2013, visited Luke Air Force Base in Arizona last December, on the sidelines of an exercise, to see another variant of the jet. He said on both occasions that Singapore was in no hurry to make a purchase.
vr773 wrote:Maybe I am, but then the marketing was misleading. I don't know of any company operating in this dimension who has promised so much and kept so little like Lockheed Martin with the F-35.
vr773 wrote:I didn't say I have a problem with them having any problems. I have a problem with the amount and severity of the problems. The fact that testing is still not finished is quite telling.
vr773 wrote:Yes, I would. Anything else would be naive because the job of the guy you quoted is to market a product that he wants to sell.
vr773 wrote:No offense, but your view doesn't surprise me because it seems like you interpret anything that comes out of LMs marketing department as the ultimate truth. Others see the DOT&E as one of the few capable checks on US military procurement.
vr773 wrote:We're talking about the German Luftwaffe and not the RAAF or RAF. Germany didn't participate in the SDD phase (for good reasons).
vr773 wrote:Hypothetically, after signing the contract, Germany would have to pay a lot of money for code updates (that they again couldn't control) or live with errors. That's not an acceptable scenario form my perspective as a German taxpayer.
vr773 wrote:You know that the FCAS would likely have different capabilities than the F-35.
vr773 wrote:The F-35 doesn't even have many capabilities that the Tornado has today (it also has many that the Tornado doesn't have of course). I don't think Germany's options are as limited as you and others claim and I explained a couple of scenarios in previous posts that I think could form part of a solution for Germany.
YIMBY wrote:
What is then our adversary? If there is none, we need no armies.
In many civil issues Europe looks at the USA as an adversary, and even more vice versa. USA has made several hostile actions against Europe:
- US spied European leaders, already before Trump
- US breached from the Paris agreement
- POTUS has involved in European matters promoting the demise of the European Union
- POTUS has threatened on a trade war against Europe (and the rest of the world, too)
- POTUS did hint on a new Jalta or Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement with Putin
- POTUS has insulted European leaders after threats and terrorist attacks, when friendly leaders show support and consolation.
- POTUS has demonstrated admiration and support to many dictatorial leaders around the world who threaten Europe or European (universal) values
- POTUS threatened to withdraw military support from NATO allies he does not like, e.g. for the excuse that that they do not fulfil his requirements of military spending (from the USA?)
- US law does not allow to buy almost any European weapons - and almost any product that can be used by the military in case of war is considered a weapon - but requires Europe to buy US made weapons.
USA has the keys to release tension and build trust, if they just want.
Certainly the majority of the people do want it, but the country is run by a privileged or fooled minority.
Fortunately there are still law-abiding officers, secretaries, senators etc that keep the country on its track, but who knows how long.
Currently US is represented in Europe by Mattis and Tillerson who show some professionalism and respect but POTUS has hinted firing them any moment.
YIMBY wrote:While any direct war between Europe and America is out of imagination, proxy wars in third world may be much more probable. There are cases when US ally has bombed civil targets in an area that was supposed to be protected by Europe. It is imaginable that European countries send their forces to protect their ally that is then attacked by US ally or even US itself. ME is such a mess that US may even enter in a war against itself (how close that was in Qatar?).
Note that 15 year ago hardly anybody could imagine that Russia could ever threaten western Europe, and many countries castrated their armies and some countries did not bother to build up any credible army at all.
WIederling wrote:vr773 wrote:I don't think this article has been posted yet:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15 ... s-tornados
Is Joseph Trevithick the person to ask for an assessment?
Most of his articles appear to be about lifting the US on a pedestal.
Though as long as Ms. von der Leyen leads German defence moving in that direction would not be unsurprising.
compare to the Starfighter acquisition back then.
Just getting the aircraft is only one part of the picture, though. The War Zone’s own Tyler Rogoway has repeatedly highlighted, the high costs associated with operating and maintaining fifth generation aircraft. The F-35 in particular has already shown itself to have particularly complicated maintenance and logistics chains.
This is in no small part due reliance on Lockheed Martin’s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which is both at the core of the Joint Strike Fighter’s internal computer brain and is the basis of the cloud-based network that supports the jets and their operations. In October 2017, the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a scathing report on this sustainment infrastructure as it applies to American F-35s, having found that at any time, on average, more than 20 percent of the existing U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps jets were not flyable at all because of a lack of appropriate spare parts.
All of this begs the question of whether any F-35s the Luftwaffe might acquire would be truly combat ready by the time it needs them to take over for the Tornados. And with the parallel plans to replace its Eurofighter Typhoons with an Anglo-French fifth generation fighter jet, Germany could be looking at having to manage the combined costs of supporting two distinct types of highly advanced aircraft...
...All of this could make the German Ministry of Defense hesitant to go with the F-35 as a replacement for its Tornados in the near term, despite any particular service preferences. An in production late fourth generation type, such as the French Rafale, the Swedish Gripen E, Boeing's F-15 Advanced Eagle, or Lockheed Martin’s own Block 70 F-16 Viper, could be a more attractive option. With regards to the Tornados and their primary air interdiction mission, the F-15 with its heavy bomb load might be the best analogue. Boeing also says it is looking to offer limited low-observable features on its Block III F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which might present another avenue to a more affordable stealthy capability.
And though less advanced than the F-35, these aircraft – likely also on the shortlist of options – would offer a significant increase in capability over the Tornados now and would be more than able to support Germany’s immediate domestic and overseas needs. It could even allow the country to expand its ability to take on NATO air policing duties, a job that only its Eurofighters are able to do at all credibly at present.
Combined with long-range stand-off weapons, a fourth generation multi-role combat aircraft could still provide an important service in a potential high intensity European conflict, in which Germany would unlikely be operating outside of a coalition of other NATO members, including the United States. German Tornados are already capable of carrying the German-Swedish KEPD 350 Taurus cruise missile.
Planeflyer wrote:Meantime in the real world:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ti-443287/
F18 won’t last minutes in airspace defended with systems capable of shooting down irbm
Planeflyer wrote:Trump is not against Germany or NATO he is against the lack burden sharing and lopsided trade relationship.
WIederling wrote:An obvious problem.
The US does spent less than the EU on defense. 90% of the military budget is power projection and fanning conflicts in their own interest.
WIederling wrote:The US is unable to produce stuff that finds interest abroad. Even what is sold required some armtwisting or massive subsidy.
tjh8402 wrote:It would be a great vote of confidence in the Lightning from a country that really has its pick of the fighter lot, and I like the idea of a Europe bristling with hundreds of 5th generation assets (whether European or American in origin) while Russia struggles to deploy a few dozen. But, I could also understanding them saying they want to stick with something proven, simpler, and/or cheaper, or that has higher performance and payload even if it loses 5th gen capabilities.
Ozair wrote:Low observable – F-35 Check
Extended range – F-35 Check
C2 on unmanned affecters – F-35 Already planned.
Survivable – F-35 Check
ISR + data fusion and distribution – F-35 Check
Ozair wrote:Germany can continue with their Joint dev with France and spent a lot of money on essentially an internal jobs program and replace both Tornado and Eurofighter from 2040 with the next gen fighter. Problem is this leaves Germany in a difficult place from a capability perspective as it will have an aging strike platform and an underfunded Eurofighter program competing for funding with the next gen fighter.
Planeflyer wrote:My only dispute is pilot survival. In any worst case conflict, pilots will be the most precious of resources and any pilot in any 4th gen AC will have very low survival rates no matter their skill level. And while potential adversaries will certainly struggle fielding 5th gen AC, just the US has, missile and radar technology has progressed so far so fast the West must leverage its advantage.
mxaxai wrote:The F35 is a powerful aircraft, no doubt. But don't you think that technology - both aircraft and anti-air - might advance a bit until 2030 - 40?
mxaxai wrote:Since NATO has the 2% demand Germany would have ~ $ 20 billion more to spend each year. That's more than what they spent on the entire Eurofighter fleet. Add to that what France is willing to pay and perhaps other partners and you might end up having quite a formidable budget.
mxaxai wrote:
If this is more of a heavy twin seater attack / control center plane rather with considerable differences to the F35 we might even see more exports. It was always difficult for the EU fighters to compete while the US offered fairly similar products.
mxaxai wrote:
In any case, it is important for the EU to retain the knowledge. It is not acceptable to be so dependent on the US. Even if the F35 is bought, there will - should - be a program to develop a European combat aircraft.
mxaxai wrote:tjh8402 wrote:It would be a great vote of confidence in the Lightning from a country that really has its pick of the fighter lot, and I like the idea of a Europe bristling with hundreds of 5th generation assets (whether European or American in origin) while Russia struggles to deploy a few dozen. But, I could also understanding them saying they want to stick with something proven, simpler, and/or cheaper, or that has higher performance and payload even if it loses 5th gen capabilities.
They have "free choice" but if they decide that low observability is a must-have, there is little choice but the F35 for the foreseeable future.
mxaxai wrote:So we agree that any and all 4th gen AC will struggle over modern enemy territory? Doesn't that also mean that any current enemy would face serious problems trying to attack a European country? Shouldn't we then invest more in better radars and accurate long-range, high-speed missiles, rather than in attack aircraft whose low observability may not be so low in the future?
I just find it difficult to argue that EU 4th gen fighters will be knocked out of the sky by enemy SAM batteries and other 4th gen fighers immediately while enemy 4th gen fighters will do as they please over hostile territory without any fear of being attacked from below.
Either any and all 4th gen AC are obsolete or they are not. You can't just pick cherries.
Planeflyer wrote:Wiederling, I truly enjoy reading your posts. You have a vivid imagination. Really no sarcasm here. I disagree with much, well maybe most of what you say but hey the world would be so much more boring if everything written were non fiction.
You do realize that Norway who in their north is already in a contested airspace as Germany does in the East has already received 10 F35's .
tjh8402, you said it very well.
My only dispute is pilot survival. In any worst case conflict, pilots will be the most precious of resources and any pilot in any 4th gen AC will have very low survival rates no matter their skill level. And while potential adversaries will certainly struggle fielding 5th gen AC, just the US has, missile and radar technology has progressed so far so fast the West must leverage its advantage.
thumper76 wrote:Your only reason to purchase a fighter is war. Hate to say it but most of us would prefer not to be at war. So unless you can ensure us all that we are at war why not consider the FACT that maybe just maybe a airforce might purchase a aircraft for anything other than war?
Most countries.. Canada encluded need fighters to maintain sovereignty of their territory. If one was not a war manger one might realize fighter purchases are ment for more than just killing people! If killing people and assured war was the only reason to buy fighters then you should count most countries out. Let me make this simple.... Most countries have no intention of starting a military confrontation. Where do you stand in this regards? Should I guess buy a f35? Sorry dose not answer question.
Countries buy their fighters with more in mind than present day conflict superiority. What must also be considered is use in peace (I know "how boring")
I for one am not a fan of MAD, but am a huge fan of sovereignty. I hope war can be eliminated, and that all will appreciate the value of life.
tjh8402 wrote:Any enemy Air Force would absolutely have challenges trying to attack a European country. The problem is the Russians and others are less reliant on air superiority than we are. There have been no shortage of reports in simulation stating that a Russian army could easily overrun Eastern Europe. They don't need air superiority to do that. What they can do though is utilize their IADS to neutralize Western air assets, which we are dependent on.
I don't think the fear is so much Russian fighters and bombers over Germany and Poland. It's an active S300/S400 system in Kaliningrad, or God forbid, hypothetically in the hands of ethnic Russian revolutionaries in Poland who have suddenly decided to overthrow the Polish government and join Russia. With that, they could keep all 4th generation assets out of any conflict zone and deprive NATO of its needed air power. We lose much more by having our air assets grounded than they do.
That being said, Russians do have long range aircraft launched cruise missiles that can be safely fired from out of the range of Western SAMs. if you want to hunt those in airspace protected by enemy SAMs, you need a LO fighter to penetrated that airspace. The F35 will give the capability to establish air superiority not only over friendly territory, but enemy territory as well.
Ozair wrote:While it may be easy to say they can do it we can see with both Russia and China that their first big attempts have arrived with compromises.
The other side of that is the F-35 will continue to move forward, just as the 4th gen aircraft have done. There are already plans for a new engine with more thrust and more range, 5th gen weapons and likely upgraded radar with new technology.
Ozair wrote:The Rafale, Eurofighter and A400M were all sold internally on the premise of large export potential and frankly all have failed to deliver on that. The A400M still has a chance, for the previous two their time has gone. I would be very sceptical of promising exports for a European jet that may either never reach production or be procured in such small numbers that the per unit costs are simply too high to provide wide export appeal.