Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14017
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:03 am

seahawk wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Some interesting thoughts comparing how the RAAF is transforming to the decisions Germany is making with respect to the Tornado replacement.

The Australian F-35 Decision and the German Tornado Replacement Decision


https://sldinfo.com/2019/02/the-austral ... -decision/


The author misses one basic point, Germany does not buy fighters to actually use them. There is neither will nor intention to do so.

Germany buys fighters to

1. pacify allies who are unhappy with the little money Germany contributes to defence
2. support Airbus and MTU as well as smaller German firms
3. protect jobs in Germany
4. make the partnership with the French work

Capability is of no concern to them.


Nonsense. But there is a category of people that find defense spending too low per definition. Not knowing how much is actually spend on defense, in balancing it against e.g. healthcare, education and foreign aid. Just MORE awesome weapons.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9682
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:42 am

Imho in that case it is sadly true.

The F-35 was ruled out due to the fact that it would make the FCAS project kind of pointless.
The F-18 is included to make the USA happy.
The Eurofighter is preferred because it helps the industry.

The whole new fighter deal is imho badly handled. In the civilian sector any government entity would be forced to write down the requirements and then to hold an open tendering process and selected the bidder that offers the best value based on predefined criteria. Kind of like the heavy lift helicopter tender is run.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:49 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Yes, today the Mideast is where all the focus is but the point is wars have started in Europe many times. From seemingly nowhere.


The two WW's did not seem to come from nowhere. History has shown that there was much tension prior to each of the war. What trigger the initial shooting was irrelevant, Germany invaded France both time because they thought France and England was weak and that German can win the war or at least obtains some land concession before both England and France would be tired of the war and sue for peace. In both cases, they did not foresee the United States entering the war and providing the needed manpower and supplies to win by attrition.

The war in the Ukraine was base on the same principle. My guess was that the Russian only wanted to take enough land to reach Crimea and then settle down with a stale mate. They got only half of what they wanted as they could not get enough "non-Russian Ukrainian" to go over to their side. Now imagine if they try to do that with Poland. There would be no local partisan to support their cause. Would they think they can win in such a war of attrition?


Planeflyer wrote:
How could Western Europe have been a buffer zone when US troops were stationed right across the border from Soviet Forces?
.

During the cold war, the US troops stationed at the border was not sufficient to stop a Russian invasion. They were only meant to slow the invading force long enough so that reinforcement from the UK and US (and perhaps non-NATO France) can mobilize to stop the force (REFORGER). So Germany was the buffer zone.

So strategically thinking, if Germany was to make sure that the Russian army does not get to it's border, then they should invest in their arm forces. But they should also invest economically in Poland, Ukraine and other Baltic States. If those buffer countries becomes strong economically, they would better resist a Russian incursion (politically and militarily).

What if Germany take those F-18's and when the new fighters come along, they can "donate" those F-18's to the Poland? Now that would kill two birds with one stone :mischievous:


bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13544
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:04 pm

bikerthai wrote:
They were only meant to slow the invading force long enough so that reinforcement from the UK and US (and perhaps non-NATO France) can mobilize to stop the force (REFORGER)


much of them where just here to die, to make sure the US public is committed to NATO. Just like now in the Baltics.

So Germany was the buffer zone.


Wich we where obviously not very happy with, as NATO didn´t really expect to stop the USSR before getting to the Rhine.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
FW200
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:35 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:40 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Germany invaded France both time because they thought France and England was weak and that German can win the war or at least obtains some land concession before both England and France would be tired of the war and sue for peace. In both cases, they did not foresee the United States entering the war and providing the needed manpower and supplies to win by attrition.


That's nonsense. Germany invaded France in 1914, because France had a military alliance with Russia (since 1892) and Russia had mobilized its whole army on July 29, 1914 against Germany and Austria-Hungary after French president Poincaré having held a conference with the Russian government in St. Petersburg from July 13 to July 23.
And nobody in Germany considered France and the United Kingdom to be "weak", neither in 1914 nor in 1939. In 1914 the French army was as large as the German army, although France had only 40 million inhabitants and Germany 60 million. The German army on the western front was inferior in numbers to the French and British armies. And in addition to that the Russian army (the largest in the world) was preparing for invasion on the eastern borders of Germany. It's pretty obvious looking at the strength of the respective armies that a defense against Russia, France and the UK in a long war simply wasn't possible. So the only possible solution for a successful outcome of the war for Germany would be to try to defeat the Anglo-French armies on the western front, before the Russians were ready to invade from the east. As for the British: everybody in Germany was aware that the UK had the largest and most powerful navy in the world and that the British Empire was one of the largest powers on the globe and that the given situation in August 1914 with the British Empire on the side of the hostile powers was very, very serious.
And for 1940: Germany invaded France in the first place, because France had declared war on Germany together with the British Empire on September 3rd, 1939 and time was working for the western powers and against Germany in armament (and they got every support possible from the US, while Germany was on its own). And nobody in Germany considered France and GB to be "weak". Their armies on the western front were superior to the German army in numbers (the French army was considered to be the most powerful in Europe before May 10th, 1940) and in every category of weapons (tanks, artillery, aircraft, navies).
.
bikerthai wrote:
Now imagine if they try to do that with Poland. There would be no local partisan to support their cause. Would they think they can win in such a war of attrition?


Taking a look on the map might be helpful. How could they "do that with Poland", when Russia and Poland have no common border other than that of the northern part of the former East-Prussia. Interesting fact here: Gorbachev offered to give that territory back to Germany in 1990/91 in exchange for 40 billion DM (20 billion Euros). The West-German puppet-regime was not allowed to make this deal.

bikerthai wrote:
So strategically thinking, if Germany was to make sure that the Russian army does not get to it's border, then they should invest in their arm forces. But they should also invest economically in Poland, Ukraine and other Baltic States. If those buffer countries becomes strong economically, they would better resist a Russian incursion (politically and militarily).

What if Germany take those F-18's and when the new fighters come along, they can "donate" those F-18's to the Poland? Now that would kill two birds with one stone :mischievous:


Great idea: building up Polish military strength and making Germany pay for it. Given the amount of German debt as well as loans and bail-outs for the junk-currency €uro that's exactly what Germany needs to do next.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 724
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:00 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
Deterrence is required and stealth is a powerful measure of this. Nothing deters warmongers like the the threat of their strategic assets and even personal safety put in harms way.

The only russian assets threatened by the nuclear-sharing bombs are in Kaliningrad. And even that is just barely within range of F-35s (or other multi-role fighters) based in west Germany (assuming it's not a one-way trip). Their ferry range would allow them to get to Moscow and land there.

Which russian assets in the bright circle do you want to target?
Image


With mid-air refueling Moscow is in range.

And retaliatory nuclear strike is supposed to be one-way trip. (most likely half-way trip)
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:56 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
It is rare that the people who start wars face direct consequences. This is changing.

While this is true...
Planeflyer wrote:
I’m not thinking about nuclear weapons and the F35 for deterrence. Stealth + precision weapons allows leader ship targets to be under threat from day 1.

... any attack on key Russian mainland targets will (have to) be nuclear. If, for example, Moscow was under attack, Russia has all the motivation it needs to launch a nuclear first strike. So it's "go big or go home".
Even if Russia openly attacked like they did in Georgia, any counter force would limit themselves to the conflict area and its immediate vicinity. Russia is not Iraq. It's difficult to negotiate a peace when it looks like you're using unreasonable force.

YIMBY wrote:
With mid-air refueling Moscow is in range.

And retaliatory nuclear strike is supposed to be one-way trip. (most likely half-way trip)

The F-35A does not have a refueling probe, so it'd need either US tankers or EU A330mrtt's. Good luck getting those in place when you don't even expect the relatively stealthy Eurofighter to survive. None of the F-35s can buddy refuel, so there's no stealthy tanker for you either.

Granted, a one-way trip is possible but if you're going to throw away the jet and its crew anyway you might as well stick with cheaper 4th gen fighters. Their frontal radar cross-section should be small enough to survive until the bomb has been dropped. Who cares what happens afterwards.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:21 pm

FW200, your point is well taken on whether one side considered the other as "weak". However, mobilization is not invasion. If it turned out the it would have been France or Russia to invade Germany in WWI, then the argument would still have been true that the "invader" perceived that they can achieve their goal through conflict. If they knew ahead of time the cost involved, it would be hard press to initiate the conflict.

In WWII France and England declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland with the calculation that France and England would not react. When the two allies reacted, German invaded France. The calculation would have been before they invaded Poland that any conflict with England and France could be win-able.

FW200 wrote:
Great idea: building up Polish military strength and making Germany pay for it. Given the amount of German debt as well as loans and bail-outs for the junk-currency €uro that's exactly what Germany needs to do next.


Unlike post WWII where the US (which was spared invasion) was able to carry the burden to help re-build the European economy, Germany need not to carry the whole burden to building up the Polish economy. The US has it's own debt but that is not the point. The point is the best way to prevent a conflict may not necessary be buying the latest and greatest military hardware, or building the best and largest military may also not be the only solution to preventing invasion.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:01 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
Yes, today the Mideast is where all the focus is but the point is wars have started in Europe many times. From seemingly nowhere.


The two WW's did not seem to come from nowhere. History has shown that there was much tension prior to each of the war. What trigger the initial shooting was irrelevant, Germany invaded France both time because they thought France and England was weak and that German can win the war or at least obtains some land concession before both England and France would be tired of the war and sue for peace. In both cases, they did not foresee the United States entering the war and providing the needed manpower and supplies to win by attrition.

The war in the Ukraine was base on the same principle. My guess was that the Russian only wanted to take enough land to reach Crimea and then settle down with a stale mate. They got only half of what they wanted as they could not get enough "non-Russian Ukrainian" to go over to their side. Now imagine if they try to do that with Poland. There would be no local partisan to support their cause. Would they think they can win in such a war of attrition?


Planeflyer wrote:
How could Western Europe have been a buffer zone when US troops were stationed right across the border from Soviet Forces?
.

During the cold war, the US troops stationed at the border was not sufficient to stop a Russian invasion. They were only meant to slow the invading force long enough so that reinforcement from the UK and US (and perhaps non-NATO France) can mobilize to stop the force (REFORGER). So Germany was the buffer zone.

So strategically thinking, if Germany was to make sure that the Russian army does not get to it's border, then they should invest in their arm forces. But they should also invest economically in Poland, Ukraine and other Baltic States. If those buffer countries becomes strong economically, they would better resist a Russian incursion (politically and militarily).

What if Germany take those F-18's and when the new fighters come along, they can "donate" those F-18's to the Poland? Now that would kill two birds with one stone :mischievous:


bt


WW1 came out on nowhere over an assaniation

Yes WW2 had a longer buildup but who in 1925 or even 1930 saw what happened in 1939?

Churchill who was way ahead of everyone in seeing the danger posed by Hitler was laughed at up untill he was appointed PM.

Even after the war started the Germans and Japanese achieved strategic and tactical surprise on multiple occasions.

Going back further do you think the Brits or Austrian’s had any idea who Napoleon was before they started to meddle on French soil in 1793?

Like now there have always been tensions in Europe because what hasn’t changed and what makes Europeon security so tricky is the stuck in the middle dynamic that has led to almost every Europeon war for a thousand years.

Given all this the prudent course of action is to be prepared.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:27 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
WW1 came out on nowhere over an assaniation

WW1 did not come out of nowhere. Most historians agree that the assassination was merely the spark that made everything explode. Hostilities had been increasing since the french-german war of 1870; while the inter-war years were one of the longer peace periods of Europe, they saw aggresive colonialism, a massive arms race and shifting centres of power. In 1914 most participants expected a swift victory.

But this is getting off-topic. I see little connection between the Europe of the early 20th century and the Europe of today, nor do I think can it tell us anything about which new jet fighters Germany should buy.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:02 am

mxaxai wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
WW1 came out on nowhere over an assaniation

WW1 did not come out of nowhere. Most historians agree that the assassination was merely the spark that made everything explode. Hostilities had been increasing since the french-german war of 1870; while the inter-war years were one of the longer peace periods of Europe, they saw aggresive colonialism, a massive arms race and shifting centres of power. In 1914 most participants expected a swift victory.

But this is getting off-topic. I see little connection between the Europe of the early 20th century and the Europe of today, nor do I think can it tell us anything about which new jet fighters Germany should buy.


Which historian?

Stealth gives you unprecedented abilities to develop intelligence and to put at risk strategic assets including the adversaries entire AF.

That kind of deterrence is useful.

The Germans know this full well which is why they have signed on for FCAS.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9682
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:32 am

If you look at the history of Europe a military incompetent Germany is a good thing btw.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:54 pm

seahawk wrote:
If you look at the history of Europe a military incompetent Germany is a good thing btw.



France in the 17th and 18th centuries were no less problematic to their neighbors. Like Germany recently, France then was trapped between the British and the Austrians, Germans or Dutch or all three and so at various times developed Russian and even the Turks and US as allies to escape the noose or at least put the same squeeze on the adversaries

British policy from the 15th century to 1945 was to align themselves with the second greatest power on the Continent trapping the first between themselves and their ally.

It was asked what all this has to do with the Tornado replacement.

All through this thread, posters have fallen back on the argument that Germany has the luxury of doing nothing or choosing a substandard replacement because there is no credible threat. The problem with this is that any objective review of European history demonstrates that the threats have always been around very opaque corners. And the lesson since 1945 is that credible deterrence and NATO is the best way to solve the trapped in the middle dynamic that has characterized European security.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9348
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:38 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Unlike post WWII where the US (which was spared invasion) was able to carry the burden to help re-build the European economy, Germany need not to carry the whole burden to building up the Polish economy. The US has it's own debt but that is not the point. The point is the best way to prevent a conflict may not necessary be buying the latest and greatest military hardware, or building the best and largest military may also not be the only solution to preventing invasion.

bt

If you find the time read up on the "special" conditions demanded by the US in scope of the Marshall Plan
designed to enable Europe to buy US gods and keep the economy running there.
Pretty good documentary from Arte available.

Poland isn't really a loyal member of the EU.
Why should Germany finance Poland ( industry, military ) to enable them to do the US bidding?
Murphy is an optimist
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13544
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:22 pm

WIederling wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
Unlike post WWII where the US (which was spared invasion) was able to carry the burden to help re-build the European economy, Germany need not to carry the whole burden to building up the Polish economy. The US has it's own debt but that is not the point. The point is the best way to prevent a conflict may not necessary be buying the latest and greatest military hardware, or building the best and largest military may also not be the only solution to preventing invasion.

bt

If you find the time read up on the "special" conditions demanded by the US in scope of the Marshall Plan
designed to enable Europe to buy US gods and keep the economy running there.
Pretty good documentary from Arte available.


:checkmark:
Funny that much of what the EU is today was an initial demand by the US for the Marshall plan. France was not happy that they had to release all German POWs to be eligible for those funds..... I think we watched the same documentary....
But we are really getting of topic.

Planeflyer wrote:
All through this thread, posters have fallen back on the argument that Germany has the luxury of doing nothing or choosing a substandard replacement because there is no credible threat.


Not just is that a strawman, the argument is that those aircraft add unique capabilities to European NATO forces that the F35 doesn't, and that fall in line with the GAFs role within NATO, but that there is no credible thread is simply a fact. There isn't one in the horizon either. I think we'd notice if Russia starts massproducing the SU-57, tanks and such in numbers that would create a credible threat.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:17 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
but that there is no credible thread is simply a fact. There isn't one in the horizon either.


I would disagree that there is no credible threat. The argument would be what kind of threat Germany perceive and what kind of response should Germany partake.

Threats like Russian meddling in governmental politics, are responded to differently than Russian aircrafts. Both responses takes funding. The response can be offensive or defensive in nature. And it should be up to the German government to decide how best to use their recourses. To do this they would have to coordinate their effort with their neighbor and allies. Similar to the F-15X decision with the US Air Force. There are many factors involved, and politics is one of them.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14017
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:23 am

mxaxai wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
Tommy, I am sorry but this legacy thinking.

Non-stealth assets will be part of the forces for the foreseeable future. That ranges from small drones, large UAVs and cruise missiles over helicopters and transport aircraft to AWACS, ASW, legacy fighters and also artillery. All those will need protection. If Eurofighter pilots in Cyprus feel threatened by Syrian SAMs, how do you expect those other assets to survive anywhere remotely close to the frontline?

keesje wrote:
A design with vertical stabilizer seems to be studied

Didn't you mean without? :duck:
What do you think about this concept art showing the belly?
Image
FCAS moves into programme set-up under Dirk Hoke
[...]
Like FCAS, the new internal set-up is designed to be more integrated, connected and global in its approach. The programme aims to create an eco-system of linked assets which can deliver the full range of air power missions and provide more effective operations in denied environments.
Responding to current and future threats, such as advanced integrated air defence systems and hypersonic weapons, can no longer be done solely by a next-generation fighter. As such the team will work to create a comprehensive, open and scalable system of systems, leveraging physical and data assets such as Remote Carriers and an Air Combat Cloud.
"The big challenge is how to integrate a highly complex project into a transversal team. The first half-year will focus on ramping up the necessary resources in engineering, programme and other relevant functions," explains Bruno Fichefeux, Head of FCAS programme.

What's happening in 2019?
• The first FCAS contract between France and Germany will start in March 2019, with a Joint Concept Study which will last 2 to 3 years. This study will be steered jointly by Airbus and Dassault with the support of selected key national industry players.
• In parallel, Airbus and Dassault will initiate their operational cooperation (establishing a joint plateau for the concept study, defining governance for future programme phases, etc.)

Who does what?
Airbus Defence and Space will have the lead in the Unmanned Air Systems domain, as well as on the connectivity, combat cloud and global system-of-system architecture level. The company will also jointly build the next-generation fighter – with Dassault Aviation as lead architect. Whilst shaping the interface with the French and German customers, Airbus Defence and Space will prepare and support the integration of Spain as a third partner in the programme.


I would not envy the person that has to do to a single engine landing with strong cross crosswind on such design without vertical stabilizer on a narrow landing place. A strong, redundant FBW / responsive thrust vectoring autoland capability seems required..

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24641
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:37 pm

seahawk wrote:
Imho in that case it is sadly true.

The F-35 was ruled out due to the fact that it would make the FCAS project kind of pointless.
The F-18 is included to make the USA happy.
The Eurofighter is preferred because it helps the industry.

The whole new fighter deal is imho badly handled. In the civilian sector any government entity would be forced to write down the requirements and then to hold an open tendering process and selected the bidder that offers the best value based on predefined criteria. Kind of like the heavy lift helicopter tender is run.

AvWeek ( https://aviationweek.com/defense/opinio ... y-bad-idea ) has an opinion piece.

It points out that FR and DE foreign policies are not always in alignment, that FR will export to some countries that DE will not.

The export customers for these French jets also indicate a big difference. The biggest single Mirage F1 customer was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Apartheid-era South Africa and Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya were also notable customers. Post-Arab Spring Egypt was the first Rafale export customer. It is highly unlikely that Germany would permit arms exports to these governments.


It points out that DE has already blocked Airbus from exporting Eurofighters and A330s in cases that FR did not.

It also points out that FR will be the dominant contributor of intellectual property to this effort, and thus will get a much larger work share, which in the end could make it hard for DE to feel bound to stay committed to the program when the inevitable cost increases happen, and may make FR again resent giving DE the ability to block profitable exports.

Yet it contains a projection that European military aircraft output will fall by more than 60% over the next 10 years.

Image

In the end the prediction is the FR/DE pairing is a reaction to Brexit and once that situation sorts itself one way or the other the more traditional alignments will stage a comeback.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
SuperiorPilotMe
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:55 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:13 pm

Thread summary so far:

We should deny France and Germany military technology because Hitler and Napoleon are still threats, also something something Brexit.
Stop the stupids!- Claus Kellerman
 
texl1649
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:49 pm

Germany might as well buy a fleet of those new Iranian stealth fighters, with what they invest in MRO the availability will be similar over the next few decades.
 
SuperiorPilotMe
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:55 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:28 am

Ok I’m bored so I’ll play along.

Germany has few realistic options if they want to maintain credible ground interdiction capability (the cornerstone of having a not pure defensive Air Force)

They can join a second party which realistically means France or join Britain’s Tempest. Possibly Italy and other countries but they may opt for third party involvement as well.

They can join an F-35 waiting list

They can hope Boeing is serious about Stealth Eagles and Hornets.

They can buy F-15s (“F-15EX” standard really Saudi/Korean standard) and accept any compromises from not having a stealth fighter.

That is it.
Stop the stupids!- Claus Kellerman
 
WIederling
Posts: 9348
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:42 pm

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:
Thread summary so far:

We should deny France and Germany military technology because Hitler and Napoleon are still threats, also something something Brexit.


ROFLMAO.
What do you want to withhold? The stuff that was filched from Germany after WWI and/or WWII ? :-))

That is the trap that people that see IP as tangible property fall into.
If you are good at creating IP it is a stream. You can always easily create more and stay ahead.
Only those that have no ideas ...
Murphy is an optimist
 
SuperiorPilotMe
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:55 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:33 pm

WIederling wrote:
SuperiorPilotMe wrote:
Thread summary so far:

We should deny France and Germany military technology because Hitler and Napoleon are still threats, also something something Brexit.


ROFLMAO.
What do you want to withhold? The stuff that was filched from Germany after WWI and/or WWII ? :-))

That is the trap that people that see IP as tangible property fall into.
If you are good at creating IP it is a stream. You can always easily create more and stay ahead.
Only those that have no ideas ...


Please don’t post while under the influence it’s a bad look on you.
Stop the stupids!- Claus Kellerman
 
Ozair
Posts: 5311
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:36 pm

An article outlining some of the expected issues that the new Franco-German fighter project is likely to content with. Obvious issues remain on the capability set that both the nations will accept as well as how workshare and exports will be handled.

I stil have doubts this process will make it past the early 2020s.

Entente discordiale: will we ever see a future Franco-German fighter aircraft?

France and Germany have joined forces to work on a new European fighter aircraft. The project is ambitious - both technically and politically - and is already raising a series of challenges as both countries vie for influence. Will it take off or take a nose dive?

To say that common European defence projects are a difficult process is possibly a gross understatement. The last few decades have seen several pan-European defence programmes attempt to bring nations together to deliver a single platform that addresses multiple requirements, allowing allies to spread costs and enhance cooperation. In theory, this should be a no-brainer, especially when funds are finite. But, in practice, these programmes can be problematic.

“Look at any European bilateral or multilateral programme over the past three or four decades and Politics – with a capital P – is always a challenge,” explains Doug Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Thirty years ago, five European countries – the UK, West Germany, Spain, Italy and France – began work on the European Fighter Aircraft, a highly agile fighter optimised for air-to-air combat against advanced Soviet jets. From the outset, France demanded design leadership, sovereign control over the programme’s industrial grouping, and responsibility for all exports.

The inevitable dispute among the partners eventually led France to withdraw from the European Fighter Aircraft, going on to develop its own indigenous Rafale fighter instead. The other nations continued the programme, with the resultant fighter being the Eurofighter Typhoon, which also suffered several delays.

Fast-forward to today and several European nations are once again looking at the next-generation of fighter aircraft, both in terms of the capability required and, importantly, who to work with at the political and industrial level.

France and Germany’s close governmental relationship over recent years, and the UK’s castigation as a result of its European Union exit, means that the former two countries have collaborated on a future fighter while the UK began its own Tempest project.

Berlin and Paris signed a joint declaration in June 2018 that cemented their commitment to a new Future Combat Aerial System (FCAS) led by France, and a new tank known as the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS), led by Germany.

While the details are still largely unknown, one thing for certain is that the project will involve the two countries’ aerospace powerhouses: France’s Dassault Aviation, and Germany’s Airbus Defence and Space (DS). Both have significant pedigrees when it comes to developing world-class military aircraft, with Dassault, leading the development of the successful Rafale, and Airbus DS playing a key role on the Typhoon project.

In April 2018, both companies signed an agreement to pursue the FCAS – this nomenclature has seemingly now been superseded by the New Generation Fighter (NGF) – highlighting how the industrial partnership would bolster European sovereignty and technical expertise in military aerospace for decades to come.

“Never before has Europe been more determined to safeguard and foster its political and industrial autonomy and sovereignty in the defence sector. Airbus DS and Dassault Aviation have absolutely the right expertise to lead the FCAS project,” says Dirk Hoke, CEO of Airbus Defence and Space. “The schedule is tight, so we need to start working together immediately by defining a joint roadmap on how best to meet the requirements and timelines to be set by the two nations.”

An initial study phase for design and architectural approaches will come first, with French sources suggesting that another two contracts will follow in 2019 to begin work on both airframe and engine demonstrators. These are likely to be announced at this year’s Paris Air Show, Europe’s flagship aerospace event.

Eric Trappier, the CEO of Dassault Aviation, has indicated that demonstrators could be flying as soon as 2025, an ambitious timeline for what promises to be a technologically complex programme.

An important, and no doubt challenging, job will be to standardise each nation’s requirements for a sixth-generation fighter.

“What are the commonalities? You are looking for a balanced stealth design that will supercruise at Mach 1.5 or 1.7, it will need endurance and significant internal weapons carriage,” said Barrie.

Despite these commonalities, there remains a “significant difference” between France and Germany and their operational use of air power, according to Justin Bronk, an air power specialist at the Royal United Services Institute: “We have seen that, throughout the Eurofighter programme, Germany has been unwilling to fund some of the more ambitious multi-role enhancements,” he explains.

“France places a lot of importance on projecting power across significant distances, particularly in Africa,” added Bronk. “There is also, of course, a very strong nuclear component for whatever replaces Rafale. It will have to carry the airborne component of the French nuclear deterrent which Germany is absolutely not interested in.”

Last year, the two companies emphasised their various designs and concepts that will underpin a sixth-generation fighter. Airbus DS has promoted FCAS as being not just a fighter, but a systems-of-systems programme that will also incorporate drone swarms, stand-off cruise missiles and legacy aircraft, which are all connected through a highly-digitised battlespace.

Dassault Aviation, meanwhile, unveiled a new NGF concept model at the Euronaval exhibition in Paris in October.

The design shows a sleek twin-engine fighter aircraft with clear stealth characteristics, as well a compound delta wing to increase manoeuvrability and, notably, a lack of vertical/horizontal stabilisers to lower its radar cross section. The company has clearly leveraged some of the work it has carried out on its advanced stealth drone, known as nEUROn, which has flown developmental flights for several years.

While momentum is growing for a next-generation fighter – and importantly it has high-level political backing – there are clearly several hurdles to overcome.

The first of these hurdles is workshare, with the initial design study phase not expected to explicitly state what each company is responsible for and instead allowing Airbus and Dassault Aviation to set out their respective business cases. If recent history is anything to go by, however, France will drive for significant workshare that could force Germany to question its industrial involvement.

“They will have a lot of work to do to come up with a compromise between cost, ambition and capability that suit both,” said Bronk.

Another area that is ripe for dispute is future exports, with France and Germany differing considerably when it comes to national export policy. This was laid bare recently when Germany cut off defence exports to Saudi Arabia following the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, while for Paris it was “business as usual” with the Gulf state.

“You have all of these national pressures that have to be managed, and will occasionally not be managed as well as they should and result in, at the very least, friction, or in some cases projects unravelling,” said Barrie.

“If there’s one thing that I would bet on now, it’s that the industrial and political constellations that we see at the moment probably won’t be exactly the same as the ones that go and produce an aircraft.”

https://www.airforce-technology.com/fea ... -aircraft/
 
SuperiorPilotMe
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:55 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:59 am

keesje wrote:

Nonsense. But there is a category of people that find defense spending too low per definition. Not knowing how much is actually spend on defense, in balancing it against e.g. healthcare, education and foreign aid. Just MORE awesome weapons.


I’m honestly struggling to think of how to appropriately emphasize the wisdom expressed here. I legitimately fear my country mortgaging its own social welfare for the sake of what amounts to cool toys capable of only two purposes: breaking things and killing people.
Stop the stupids!- Claus Kellerman
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:07 pm

Ozair wrote:
I stil have doubts this process will make it past the early 2020s.

What's the alternative? Buy US-made fighters for eternity? Join the Tempest program at a point where all important decisions have been made? Develop a German, a French and a Spanish FCAS separately?

IMHO the only viable alternative is to join the Tempest soon. And that would mean less workshare and less political influence than what FCAS offers. All FCAS partner nations are currently conducting their own preliminary studies and mission analysis. So any conflicts should become visible quickly. They'll have to commit to FCAS by ~ 2021 or risk a multi-year delay.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5311
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:00 am

mxaxai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
I stil have doubts this process will make it past the early 2020s.

What's the alternative? Buy US-made fighters for eternity? Join the Tempest program at a point where all important decisions have been made? Develop a German, a French and a Spanish FCAS separately?

IMHO the only viable alternative is to join the Tempest soon. And that would mean less workshare and less political influence than what FCAS offers. All FCAS partner nations are currently conducting their own preliminary studies and mission analysis. So any conflicts should become visible quickly. They'll have to commit to FCAS by ~ 2021 or risk a multi-year delay.


The alternative is an interesting decision and agree Germany doesn’t have a lot of options. A US aircraft is an option but likely not a viable one politically, at least for the next few years. Joining the Tempest program is a good option as I expect the UK and German requirements will likely be more closely aligned than Germany and France. A wholly separate German FCAS is a possibility but I doubt it would happen. Germany has demonstrated a lack of desire to keep upgrading the Eurofighter, or even outfitting their aircraft with all the systems. A German FCAS then would be an excellent “fitted for but not with” aircraft.

Spain plays essentially no role in the future process other than trying to gain workshare, I expect it will have almost zero influence on the current FCAS requirements.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:15 am

Ozair wrote:
Joining the Tempest program is a good option as I expect the UK and German requirements will likely be more closely aligned than Germany and France.

I actually expect coordination with the UK to be even more difficult. There are three main conflict areas between France and Germany:
- Multirole / nuclear strike capability
- Workshare
- Exports

The UK have been the primary force behind the ground strike capabilities of the Eurofighter. As you note, Germany has been very slow in adapting recent developments. So unless the UK make the F-35 their primary ground strike jet, the Tempest will have to be just as capable of A2G attacks as FCAS.

Workshare is even more complicated. With the UK out of the EU, transferring employees, knowledge and goods may become much more difficult than between France, Spain and Germany. Acquiring US products and knowledge is already quite difficult, and the US and EU are fairly close partners. Even Canada, who recently signed CETA, had information-sharing requirements that pushed the Rafale out.

The UK is just as keen on exports as France. There have been suggestions to create an EU board for arms export control, which the UK would probably not be party to. (OT: How you can sanction Iran but sell arms to Saudi Arabia is, in light of recent events, beyond my understanding)

Personally, I'd prefer it if Tempest and FCAS could be complementary instead of competitors; more like F-15 / F-16 than Eurofighter / Rafale. Doesn't seem likely, though.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5311
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:15 am

Some recent commentary about Germany’s decision to exclude the F-35 from its Tornado replacement program with acknowledgement from some European nations that Germany won’t have the capability necessary to participate fully in an air war.

Germany’s F-35 fighter rebuff raises questions for Nato partners

Germany’s decision not to buy the F-35 stealth fighter jet is a “retrograde step” that could hamper the country’s ability to operate at the same level as its Nato partners, according to the European head of Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the aircraft.

Jonathan Hoyle, vice-president for Europe at the US defence group, said the German decision in January to exclude the F-35 from further consideration as a replacement for its ageing Tornado fleet had caught a lot of governments “on the hop”. The German defence ministry said at the time it had decided to acquire either more Eurofighters from Airbus, the European group, or Boeing-made F-18s.

With the German rhetoric in the past three years having been about stepping up its defence capabilities, the decision not to consider the F-35 had prompted questions among other European governments over “Germany’s position going forward, and therefore what does it mean for Nato”, Mr Hoyle told the Financial Times in an interview.

He added that during a recent visit to Nato several ambassadors had expressed “disappointment” at the German decision. They had noted that while many of their countries were investing in fifth-generation fighter jet technology by opting for the F-35, “Germany, which has the biggest defence budget, has just taken this retrograde step and isn’t going to be there”.

“So when we go off and collaborate together operationally, if you are flying stealth, fifth-generation jets, you don’t want a fourth-generation jet in the middle of your operations because everyone can see that,” he added.

...

https://www.ft.com/content/4b56e040-699 ... ee53e6681d

More at the link.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5311
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:54 am

I have mentioned this on numerous occasions. The ability to export the FCAS to whoever remains a massive issue for France and the refusal of Germany to lift its ban on military exports to Saudi Arabia generates this type of article and clearly highlights the risks of going into partnership with Germany when armaments are concerned.

While nothing in the article is official it is interesting to see how de Briganti, who is a staunch Dassault and French fanatic, sees a tie up with the UK, including allowing RR primacy on the engine development, as key to success for future French aircraft and export…

France Cannot Risk Developing Future Fighter with Germany

European allies have been prompting Germany to lift its export ban on Saudi Arabia for several months, but to no avail, so it’s time to take this state of affairs to its logical conclusion, and to change tack before contracts are signed at June’s Paris Air Show that would set the status quo in concrete.

When French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced in July 2017 that their countries would together develop a next-generation combat aircraft, no-one was more surprised than the British government.

Since the Lancaster House treaties of 2010, France had thrown its defense lot in with Great Britain, and after surviving the failure of several projects – joint aircraft carrier procurement, cross-procurement of armored vehicles and UAVs, etc. – their cooperation had coalesced around unmanned aircraft.

This was a return to the origins of European defense cooperation, which began in earnest when France and the UK decided in the 1960s to develop the Jaguar light attack jet / training aircraft and the Anglo-French family of Gazelle, Lynx and Puma helicopters, which went a long way to establish Europe’s helicopter industry.

Britain and France decided to jointly develop a combat drone and a MALE reconnaissance drone, and initial studies were commissioned, and were progressing nicely until early 2017, when the British explained to the French that they no longer had the cash to launch both projects.

This was also when Macron, newly elected on a pro-European platform and thus ideologically opposed to a Brexiting Britain, hastily – perhaps too hastily -- decided to turn to France’s other defense cooperation partner, Germany.

Thus, the two agreements announced in July 2017 and reaffirmed at the Berlin Airshow last April: the development of a New-Generation Fighter (NGF) by Dassault Aviation, as part of an integrated Future Combat Air System (FCAS) to be developed by Airbus Defence & Space.

Germany’s government coalition upsets the apple cart

What Macron and Merkel could not imagine is that, following a bad showing at the September 2017 elections, Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) would be forced to form a coalition government with the leftist Social Democratic Party (SPD).

Even more unimaginable was the SPD’s restriction – first informal, and later official - of German arms exports to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, first to impede both countries’ aggressive involvement in the Yemen civil war, and then in retaliation for the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi Arabia.

This embargo had a collateral effect of stopping exports to those two countries of any European-built weapon which included German-made parts or components, of which there are many.

Despite private and public calls from German industry and from European allies, notably France, Italy and the UK, to end the export freeze the German government seems gridlocked, and incapable of agreeing on an arms export policy that meets its main international obligations: the 2006 EU treaty on arms exports and the 1971 Schmidt-Debré bilateral agreement with France.

While of immediate concern for those allies whose export deliveries it is blocking because their products include German parts or components, Germany’s inability to work out this contentious issue raises fundamental questions whether it can still be a reliable partner for Europe’s defense industry.

Clearly, the answer is that it cannot.

The toothpaste is out of the tube, and the entire world has seen it

Having demonstrated that it is perfectly capable of disregarding contracts, regulations and international agreements at the whim of one of its senior politicians – in this case, SPD chief Andrea Nahles – and given the German public’s strong opposition to all things military, and especially to arms exports, no sensible European government should risk spending billions of euros to develop weapons whose exportability depended on the whim of the German government of the day.

And, as the SPD as well as many Germans oppose selling weapons – and providing spares and support – to countries that are at war, foreign customers will think twice before buying German weapons, or weapons of which Germany makes parts, lest they be deprived of spares and support when they most need them. This could threaten the very existence of Germany’s defense industry.

In the past, disagreements about export between partners were worked out because a common solution was in everybody’s interests. Now, however, the SPD has demonstrated that it cares more about implementing its own policies and pushing its parochial interests than about the interests of German and European industry.

And it’s not as though there has been no opportunity to find a solution: since October, there have been several highly-publicized meetings between German officials and their British and French counterparts, all of which failed to solve the problem.

An industrial silver lining?

While the French and Germany industrial bases have the technological know-how to design and develop combat aircraft, their subsystems and their weapons, there is a an area where their capabilities are more limited: fast jet engines.

The French-German agreement on FCAS / FSAF calls for Snecma and MTU Aero to develop together the Next-Generation Fighter’s engine, but some observers doubt that these two companies can develop it alone.

Snecma designed Rafale’s M-88 engine, and France’s insistence on having a domestically-designed engine was one of the reasons it left the European Fighter Aircraft project in 1985 and instead developed Rafale – but this was 34 years ago.

Today’s Snecma, however, is far different from what it was back then, while MTU Aero is principally involved in MRO of military engines.

Snecma, now Safran, has become a hugely successful company by producing very large numbers of CFM-56 engines for commercial airplanes in cooperation with General Electric, and is perforce more focused on production than on development.

Since it entered service in 1982, more than 32,000 CFM56s have been delivered, and over 14,000 improved LEAP variants have been ordered. Over 2,000 of these engines are produced each year, and generate most of Snecma’s sales and profit, so there is little motivation to develop new military engines in an international market that needs fewer than 100 each year.

So Snecma has not developed an engine since the M-88, and its latest attempt to develop one was the ill-fated Silvercrest, designed to power Dassault’s 5X. The program was first delayed by several years, and when Dassault eventually terminated the contract in December 2017 for non-performance, Safran has paid $280 million in compensation.

Europe’s most experienced maker of military engines remains Rolls-Royce plc, which designed the RB-199 which powers the three-nation Tornado, and Eurofighter’s EJ-200 engine is based on Rolls-Royce’s XG-40 technology demonstrator. Rolls-Royce engines have given a good account of themselves, and currently power most of the European-produced combat aircraft in service.

Clearly, given this experience, an alliance of Rolls-Royce and Snecma is more likely to produce the NGT’s engine than a Snecma-MTU pairing.

Back to the future?

Given Germany’s fluctuating position on arms exports, France would be taking an unreasonable risk by persisting in its alliance with Germany to develop its next generation of weapons, especially as its cost is so high that it would be impossible to backtrack once it had committed financially.

The same argument regarding export also holds for the other bilateral programs ready to be launched, including the next-generation tank, the future maritime patrol aircraft, the European MALE drone and others. And after Angela Merkel’s imminent retirement from the German political scene, no-one knows where the new CDU of Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer stands on defense, defense spending and weapons exports.

Given that France and the UK share the same pragmatic approach to arms exports, have been working to train their militaries to work together for a decade, and have a similarly supportive approach to their defense industries, they are more compatible partners to develop future weapons.

Brexit is no obstacle: Jaguar, the Anglo-French helicopters and Concorde were all developed while the UK was not a member of the European Community, and there is no reason at all why exiting the European Union – if it ever does – should prevent the UK from developing weapons jointly with France.

Furthermore, the British government announced last July that it was already working to develop Tempest, its own next-gen fighter to compensate the F-35’s shortcomings and, eventually, replace the Typhoon. It also says it has the money – at least £5 billion for initial work.

F-35 is the fly in the ointment

Britain’s participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is a much bigger obstacle to Anglo-French cooperation on future weapons than Brexit. Britain is the program’s main non-US partner, and produces about 15% by value of every F-35 built world-wide.

This could be just a political issue, as it looks increasingly likely that London will not order the 90 F-35As it said it would, given the aircraft’s technical shortcomings, its high price and its astronomical operating costs – not to mention the cost of the Block 4 upgrade – and which the UK cannot afford anyway, given its current long-term funding plans.

The issue here is primarily one of protecting FCAS data from leaking to the United States via BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, and it would require a Chinese Wall of massive proportion to keep the two programs meticulously separate. But, as the Chinese demonstrated many centuries ago, walls of even gigantic proportions can be built as long as there’s a will.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... rmany.html

Image
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:07 pm

Ozair wrote:

The article is behind a paywall. But your excerpt consists of statements from Lockheed Martin only, who are probably a bit biased in these matters.

Also regarding sales to Saudi Arabia (or other similar countries), there's a simple solution: Stop getting involved in proxy wars, cease support for terrorist groups and don't murder your own citizens. Germany / German companies have shown to provide all the neccessary support and equipment to peaceful & stable governments. The numerous Leopard 2 operators worldwide are proof of that.
 
vr773
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:10 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:32 pm

I sometimes also wonder why the SPD and the majority of Germans are against these exports to Saudi Arabia. Then the news comes on and shows the atrocities and suffering in Yemen and I know why.

@Ozair: the article you quoted is from a guy who you claimed "has a good habit of not actually logically making sense". So maybe just don't quote his articles then? But I can see your conflict here.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5311
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed May 01, 2019 12:29 am

mxaxai wrote:
Ozair wrote:

The article is behind a paywall. But your excerpt consists of statements from Lockheed Martin only, who are probably a bit biased in these matters.

Not sure why it disappeared behind a paywall, I read the full article yesterday before I posted it. I agree that it is LM focused and also agree we take can his comments with a massive grain of salt but I don’t think we can deny that the move from Germany wasn’t in line with the expectations of NATO partners.

mxaxai wrote:
[Also regarding sales to Saudi Arabia (or other similar countries), there's a simple solution: Stop getting involved in proxy wars, cease support for terrorist groups and don't murder your own citizens. Germany / German companies have shown to provide all the neccessary support and equipment to peaceful & stable governments. The numerous Leopard 2 operators worldwide are proof of that.

Respectively, what you are actually talking about is a threshold or simply a lack of German insight into other nations outside their sphere of interest. Indonesia for example has and continues to have a very poor human rights record, especially in West Papua, but now operates Leopard 2s and is a likely A400M customer. The fact the enforcement of this type of ban isn’t consistent is probably half of the problem France has.

vr773 wrote:
I sometimes also wonder why the SPD and the majority of Germans are against these exports to Saudi Arabia. Then the news comes on and shows the atrocities and suffering in Yemen and I know why.

@Ozair: the article you quoted is from a guy who you claimed "has a good habit of not actually logically making sense". So maybe just don't quote his articles then? But I can see your conflict here.

I agree 100% that the website is not a source of truth, hence why I noted it was commentary and not official but his comments reinforce the issues that France will face going forward working/exporting with Germany major military equipment. It also makes more sense and again cannot be denied that France has had more success collaborating with the UK than Germany when it comes to military equipment.

If we consider that Saudi Arabia may have been an A400M customer the German position on Saudi Arabia now stops that from happening. How does France see that change or loss of a likely large export order?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14017
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed May 01, 2019 4:32 pm

I think the Brits don't want to have anything to do with German or French bureaucrats telling them what to do!

They will go independent, making their own decisions what's best for the UK. .

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Ozair
Posts: 5311
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed May 01, 2019 10:24 pm

keesje wrote:
I think the Brits don't want to have anything to do with German or French bureaucrats telling them what to do!

They will go independent, making their own decisions what's best for the UK. .


They already have Keesje but as the opinion I linked suggested the French and British collaborated multiple times successfully before the UK was a member of the EU. Being a member of the EU is not a significant factor when it comes to defence cooperation. It may assist in some areas but hardly the issue many are making it out to be.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9682
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu May 02, 2019 5:56 am

Germany is not a suitable partner for such a project as they are not reliable. Imho the French-German fighter is dead.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14017
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu May 02, 2019 7:11 am

I think French German politcal & economical cooperation is closer and more mature than ever.

Image

Mature in the sense they demonstrated they can step over short term national interest / pride & get the back up of their parliaments for that. There was an enormous amount of blood-shed between the two countries over the last 200 years & both live with that heritage.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9682
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu May 02, 2019 7:40 am

It is not national interest, it is a commercial question. If Dassault is not free to export the plane without German interference, the concept is not financially viable, because the business case depends on them selling the plane to nations that the US might not sell their fighters and/or have bad human rights records or are involved in open conflicts.

Germany on the other hand has made the rules on weapons exports stricter and sales to such countries would be forbidden. This includes the sales of parts and components via third countries.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu May 02, 2019 5:59 pm

seahawk wrote:
It is not national interest, it is a commercial question. If Dassault is not free to export the plane without German interference, the concept is not financially viable, because the business case depends on them selling the plane to nations that the US might not sell their fighters and/or have bad human rights records or are involved in open conflicts.

Making your national defense dependent on the purchase of weapons by countries with dubitable record is a poor strategy. The US saw that backfire when post-revolution Iran suddenly had sizeable fleets of modern F4 and F14 fighter jets, and is currently facing the problems of having an unstable Turkey as an important partner in the F35 program.
Either pay for it yourself or surrender your external affairs to the country paying for it. Exports are a bonus, not a requirement.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3492
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat May 04, 2019 7:08 am

mxaxai wrote:
seahawk wrote:
It is not national interest, it is a commercial question. If Dassault is not free to export the plane without German interference, the concept is not financially viable, because the business case depends on them selling the plane to nations that the US might not sell their fighters and/or have bad human rights records or are involved in open conflicts.

Making your national defense dependent on the purchase of weapons by countries with dubitable record is a poor strategy. The US saw that backfire when post-revolution Iran suddenly had sizeable fleets of modern F4 and F14 fighter jets, and is currently facing the problems of having an unstable Turkey as an important partner in the F35 program.
Either pay for it yourself or surrender your external affairs to the country paying for it. Exports are a bonus, not a requirement.

It's the unavoidable circumstance when development costs of new weapon systems increases beyond the ability of the primary user to pay, and there's limited export potential because the more politically reliable customers have all gone and bought an alternative system.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14017
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat May 04, 2019 11:59 am

Exporting 6th Generation Stealth Strike aircraft to questionable nations is no real obstacle I think. And yes, this goes further than commercial cooperation.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat May 04, 2019 8:21 pm

I think the horse is not even born and already we have the cart out in front. This acid 25-40 years out if everything goes perfectly.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14017
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed May 15, 2019 11:03 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
I think the horse is not even born and already we have the cart out in front. This acid 25-40 years out if everything goes perfectly.


It seems the germans as biggest financer decided to keep it simple. Only two nations and design lead with one design office, Dassault with Airbus as industrial partner. Of course work will be outsourced in the EC aerospace industry. But no political push & pull with 5-6 constantly changing political entities. It seems they learned their lessons on Typhoon and NH90.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Ozair
Posts: 5311
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu May 16, 2019 12:07 am

keesje wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
I think the horse is not even born and already we have the cart out in front. This acid 25-40 years out if everything goes perfectly.


It seems the germans as biggest financer decided to keep it simple. Only two nations and design lead with one design office, Dassault with Airbus as industrial partner. Of course work will be outsourced in the EC aerospace industry. But no political push & pull with 5-6 constantly changing political entities. It seems they learned their lessons on Typhoon and NH90.


what...

Madrid says that the country is joining the initiative on "equal terms with France and Germany" and that the project will give Spain "leadership visibility" within European security and defence policies

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... me-455828/

One additional and France keeps offering partnership as part of their sales campaign for Rafales.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14017
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu May 16, 2019 6:26 am

Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
I think the horse is not even born and already we have the cart out in front. This acid 25-40 years out if everything goes perfectly.


It seems the germans as biggest financer decided to keep it simple. Only two nations and design lead with one design office, Dassault with Airbus as industrial partner. Of course work will be outsourced in the EC aerospace industry. But no political push & pull with 5-6 constantly changing political entities. It seems they learned their lessons on Typhoon and NH90.


what...

Madrid says that the country is joining the initiative on "equal terms with France and Germany" and that the project will give Spain "leadership visibility" within European security and defence policies

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... me-455828/

One additional and France keeps offering partnership as part of their sales campaign for Rafales.


That's what Spain says. Everybody wants the jobs, technology, prestige and long term involvement. This time its different.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Ozair
Posts: 5311
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu May 16, 2019 10:18 am

keesje wrote:
Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:

It seems the germans as biggest financer decided to keep it simple. Only two nations and design lead with one design office, Dassault with Airbus as industrial partner. Of course work will be outsourced in the EC aerospace industry. But no political push & pull with 5-6 constantly changing political entities. It seems they learned their lessons on Typhoon and NH90.


what...

Madrid says that the country is joining the initiative on "equal terms with France and Germany" and that the project will give Spain "leadership visibility" within European security and defence policies

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... me-455828/

One additional and France keeps offering partnership as part of their sales campaign for Rafales.


That's what Spain says. Everybody wants the jobs, technology, prestige and long term involvement. This time its different.

Sure mate, click those ruby slippers together three times and say this time it's different...

Meanwhile Spain is in the process to shortly become an equal partner.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14017
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu May 16, 2019 12:25 pm

Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:
Ozair wrote:

what...


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... me-455828/

One additional and France keeps offering partnership as part of their sales campaign for Rafales.


That's what Spain says. Everybody wants the jobs, technology, prestige and long term involvement. This time its different.

Sure mate, click those ruby slippers together three times and say this time it's different...

Meanwhile Spain is in the process to shortly become an equal partner.


Right on dude, it's all about conditions, specifications and financing. If you make industrial participation, orders and industrialization interdependent, you'll be strangled later on. Partners will have rights to bid, support, participate and order. Specification & control will be limited.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
texl1649
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu May 16, 2019 5:22 pm

This sounds like a re-run of the A400M to me. Next, a very unique all Euro-sourced engine will be required, surely. Heck, the US/partners spent a trillion bucks developing the F-35. What could go wrong?
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu May 16, 2019 5:49 pm

Let’s assume the stays a Franco/German program. What do we all think entry into service will be?

I’d say 20-25 years but I’ll admit this is a guess.

Anyone else?

Could we then assume adding 3-5 years for each incremental partner nation?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14017
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu May 16, 2019 8:58 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
Let’s assume the stays a Franco/German program. What do we all think entry into service will be?

I’d say 20-25 years but I’ll admit this is a guess.

Anyone else?

Could we then assume adding 3-5 years for each incremental partner nation?


From contract (1978) to first Rafale demonstrator flight took Dassault 8 years. I assume the reason to keep it small. I think soon a contrct will be signed for developing a demonstrator aircraft - a proof-of-concept vehicle that would pave the way for a full prototype. Maybe full prototype 2028? There is some pressure..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dobilan and 9 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos