texl1649 wrote:

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?

Well not quite a trillion dollars... the dev to end of SDD program for the F-35 cost the US and partners US$59 billion.

I would expect for the type of aircraft being suggested here, including size and complexity, that US$60 billion is likely going to be required. There are a lot of technologies that still need to be developed and while some may exist as concepts or prototypes making those mass producible and affordable is a significant step that requires investment. Add in the additional European fudge factor for political and economic partnership and you arrive at a big number.

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?

It really depends on how the aircraft is developed. The very first single role version will likely enter service around 2040 with later capabilities coming 5-7 years later. The issue will be production numbers and how fast the rate increases. If it remains low then it is likely the aircraft will follow a similar design path to the Rafale and Eurofighter programs, very slowly introducing new capabilities over time and as funding allows.

Although at this point there is more chance than not that this program never produces an aircraft and fizzles out in the early 2020s due to economic and political issues.

Any thoughts on development costs?

Planeflyer wrote:

Any thoughts on development costs?

As I said in the post above I expect they are looking at around US$60 billion. If you consider what Rafale and Eurofighter cost to develop, pushing US$30 billion each, then double that for likely a larger aircraft with more research and development work required, that seems a decent ballpark figure, if they don't cheap out.

Boeing’s SH option for the German Tornado replacement just got a whole lot more competitive. If the SH is certified for nuclear delivery by 2025, and Germany doesn’t have to pay for these costs, then this would make it a very attractive option for Germany. They could continue to replace T1 Eurofighters with new T3 Eurofighters while also acquiring a SH/Growler combination that covers the SEAD as well as NATO nuclear delivery role and not go the expensive and risk prone route of certifying the Eurofighter for nuclear delivery.

BOEING F/A-18E/F SUPER HORNET BLOCK III NUCLEAR CAPABLE BY 2025

During the bi-annual Pre-Paris Air Show Media Tour in St. Louis, Boeing executives informed MONCh that their F/A-18E/F Super HORNET Block III multirole fighter jets will be be more stealthy, pack a more powerful punch, fly with increased stamina and carry a more robust communication and targeting system, as the US Navy awarded the company a U$4 billion contract for the production of 78 Block IIIs (61 single seat E’models and 17 two seat F models) to start being delivered by 2022.

...

As the Block III Super HORNET (and incidentally the E/A-18 GROWLER) will be offered to Germany to replace its fleet of aging TORNADOs, Boeing states during the Media tour that, "by 2025 we will have nuclear capability." The German Ministry of Defense is looking at the nonstealthy Eurofighter TYPHOON and F/A-18 Super HORNET and to replace Germany's 90 TORNADO aircraft set to retire in 2035, but the jets will have to carry nuclear weapons. The TYPHOON is not nuclear capable yet ,but a purchase of 45 Super HORNETs could complement 143 TYPHOONs.

https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/air/5450-f18blk3.html

Germany is to significantly enhance the capability of its simulator-based training for the Panavia Tornado, as it looks to continue operations with the strike and reconnaissance type until at least 2030.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/simulator-update-to-boost-german-tornado-fleet-458403/

For confirmation the Luftwaffe wants a 2 crew strike aircraft for longer complicated missions.

An F35 or Eurofighter just don't fit the specification.

A pumped up F18 or Rafale does fit the bill, but would it be worth the investment when you have a Tornado fleet..

What is the “complexity” of a tactical fighter bomber mission requiring a weapons/nav officer in the plane moving forward? It kind of made sense in the 70’s (F-111/F-14/F-4 era) but I really didn’t even think it made sense for the F-15E models. It barely makes sense to even have pilots for most of those missions, heading into the 2030’s, imho.

texl1649 wrote:

What is the “complexity” of a tactical fighter bomber mission requiring a weapons/nav officer in the plane moving forward? It kind of made sense in the 70’s (F-111/F-14/F-4 era) but I really didn’t even think it made sense for the F-15E models. It barely makes sense to even have pilots for most of those missions, heading into the 2030’s, imho.

Unless you want someone locally to control all the wingmen/drones.

bt

But in those situations, BK, you don’t want to use a Tornado/Super Hornet/Eurofighter either, moving forward. You’d have to have a stealthy platform, period.

But don't strike platform have wingmen as well? You'll just have more bombs on the scene without the equivalent number of pilots. Or the controlling aircraft can be slightly further away while the drone does the final bombing run.

bt

keesje wrote:

Germany is to significantly enhance the capability of its simulator-based training for the Panavia Tornado, as it looks to continue operations with the strike and reconnaissance type until at least 2030.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/simulator-update-to-boost-german-tornado-fleet-458403/

For confirmation the Luftwaffe wants a 2 crew strike aircraft for longer complicated missions.

An F35 or Eurofighter just don't fit the specification.

A pumped up F18 or Rafale does fit the bill, but would it be worth the investment when you have a Tornado fleet..

They sure are going old school.

Maybe they could just pull some F-4's out of retirement/the boneyard, and put new drone comm's in them. Did theirs ever get the Turkish/Israeli upgrades from about 30 years ago?

Or, perhaps more modernity is required. The 2 seat Mig-29's could also I suppose be called upon/certified for drone strike coordination/nuclear carriage, if needed. I'm sure the Russians would agree.

https://migflug.com/jetflights/mig-29-versus-fa-18/

If I understand it correctly the idea is have a two seater for complex missions but what is more complex than to be detected by enemy radar and to be under missile attack almost upon take off? The AC they are proposing to buy was obsolete 10 years ago.

keesje wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/simulator-update-to-boost-german-tornado-fleet-458403/

For confirmation the Luftwaffe wants a 2 crew strike aircraft for longer complicated missions.

An F35 or Eurofighter just don't fit the specification.

A pumped up F18 or Rafale does fit the bill, but would it be worth the investment when you have a Tornado fleet..

Keesje that isn't what that article says. It just talks about the Germans improving the simulators of the Tornados...

By the way the Eurofighter remains the most likely option to replace the Tornado in German service and no the Rafale is not in the picture, never has been and never will be.

Planeflyer wrote:

If I understand it correctly the idea is have a two seater for complex missions but what is more complex than to be detected by enemy radar and to be under missile attack almost upon take off? The AC they are proposing to buy was obsolete 10 years ago.

Keesje doesn't have any evidence to support the two person crew concept and yes the concept is significantly outdated. Every single 5th gen aircraft flying today has only a single seat cockpit. The US is already planning to integrate loyal wingman operations into the F-35 in Blk 4, without requiring a second cockpit to do so. Western airpower has moved on from dedicated strike aircraft to multi-role self escort strike. Single seat jets are more than capable of accomplishing that mission set.

texl1649 wrote:

Or, perhaps more modernity is required. The 2 seat Mig-29's could also I suppose be called upon/certified for drone strike coordination/nuclear carriage, if needed. I'm sure the Russians would agree.

https://migflug.com/jetflights/mig-29-versus-fa-18/

What a terrible website. How can you reference an exercise that occurred in the early 90s as a factor in how effective the aircraft is today. Yes the MiG-29 in 1992 was a good WVR aircraft due to the HMS and AA-11 combo (but with sever limitations in other areas). Problem is today the MiG-29 hasn't moved beyond that capability while the F-15,16,18, 22, 35, Eurofighter, Gripen etc all have HMS with HOBS missiles that are significantly more capable.

Ozair wrote:

. Every single 5th gen aircraft flying today has only a single seat cockpit. The US is already planning to integrate loyal wingman operations into the F-35 in Blk 4, without requiring a second cockpit to do so.

But just like the F-15EX buy, if the need is now, then waiting for Blk 4, may not be an option. The question really is, is Stealth really needed for the any deployment scenario for the German? Any offensive operation would surely be in conjunction with allies with plenty of stealth capabilities. Defensive operation would be under their SAM umbrella. Sure there are times when stealth would be very useful, but when balancing it with a budgets, what makes the most sense?

bt

The two seat requirement rumor cited above just made me laugh, sorry, my post (F-4, or MiG-29) was intended to be sarcastic. It surely is a throwback mentality, although it’s true Qatar very recently took some 2 seat F-15QA’s. I also don’t really understand the thinking there, unless it was just cheaper for Boeing to keep the Super Eagle cockpit configuration basically somehow.

I doubt there will ever be another new two seat tactical aircraft. There surely won’t be any new designs that don’t incorporate low visibility from the start. But the Germans do have a penchant for the unusual/unconventional going back....well all the way back in combat aviation.

bikerthai wrote:

Ozair wrote:

. Every single 5th gen aircraft flying today has only a single seat cockpit. The US is already planning to integrate loyal wingman operations into the F-35 in Blk 4, without requiring a second cockpit to do so.

But just like the F-15EX buy, if the need is now, then waiting for Blk 4, may not be an option.

What need now? There isn't an in production loyal wingman flying today.

bikerthai wrote:

The question really is, is Stealth really needed for the any deployment scenario for the German? Any offensive operation would surely be in conjunction with allies with plenty of stealth capabilities. Defensive operation would be under their SAM umbrella. Sure there are times when stealth would be very useful, but when balancing it with a budgets, what makes the most sense?

bt

[/quote]
The German cost to operate the Eurofighter is not insignificant. The value a debate-ably small increase in operating cost, if it would actually be an increase, compared to the operational value of operating a stealth aircraft speaks for themselves. No SAM umbrella is going to be everywhere and/or offensive operations may atrite that SAM umbrella shows where stealth adds value.

Ozair wrote:

What need now?

Wasn't referring to the need for the wingman drone. It seems to me Germany needs to replace their Tornados with a specific budget and time constraint.

I'm sure if the 35 can meet those contraints, and satisfy the German's requirement, they will buy 'em. If only to leave them on the tarmac for lack of maintenance.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Ozair wrote:

What need now?

Wasn't referring to the need for the wingman drone. It seems to me Germany needs to replace their Tornados with a specific budget and time constraint.

I'm sure if the 35 can meet those contraints, and satisfy the German's requirement, they will buy 'em. If only to leave them on the tarmac for lack of maintenance.

bt

They have already removed the F-35 from the competition, it is between the SH/Growler and Eurofighter now.

F4 =injured baby seal, mig29= newborn seal, SH/typhoon = seals

F35= Orca

Seriously the typhoon and SH will have survivability rates a lot closer to the 29 and F4 than they will to the 35.

Planeflyer wrote:

Seriously the typhoon and SH will have survivability rates a lot closer to the 29 and F4 than they will to the 35.

Perhaps getting a less survivable frame is a political move to not antagonize Russia? After all,what scenario would German need Stealth? I can not foresee any war Germany would engage in that would not involve the massive stealth fleet of the US Air Force. And not having any stealth, would make it less likely their planes would be tasked for first strike (unless they are getting the Growlers).

bt

Ozair wrote:

They have already removed the F-35 from the competition, it is between the SH/Growler and Eurofighter now.

I know it's a political decision, they even sack their Ari Force chief over F-35. But choosing 4 gen airframe, over 5 gen, considering the price is practically the same is beyond me.

texl1649 wrote:

It kind of made sense in the 70’s (F-111/F-14/F-4 era) but I really didn’t even think it made sense for the F-15E models. It barely makes sense to even have pilots for most of those missions, heading into the 2030’s, imho.

Tell that to all the nations buying F-15Es. Since the turn of the millennium it’s been vastly outselling the single-seater. Even two-seat Falcons are becoming more popular in actual combat roles.

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/bun ... -1.4625463

It seems like, that Germany has to buy the F/A-18 to keep the nuclear capability. The certification of the Eurofighter will take too long. Which is in my opinion not very surprising. I guess at the end they will buy both of them, to make everyone happy. The F/A-18 for the nuclear capability and the electronic warfare capability and for the rest of the Tornado capabilities the Eurofighter.

duboka wrote:

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/bundeswehr-kampfjet-f-18-eurofighter-1.4625463

It seems like, that Germany has to buy the F/A-18 to keep the nuclear capability. The certification of the Eurofighter will take too long. Which is in my opinion not very surprising. I guess at the end they will buy both of them, to make everyone happy. The F/A-18 for the nuclear capability and the electronic warfare capability and for the rest of the Tornado capabilities the Eurofighter.

The article is also mentioning the F-35. So even if the decision has been made to develop a European aircraft I would not be surprised to see a few F-35 instead of F/A-18 in that role, but this is my very personal opinion.

If the F/A-18 would be bought just to keep the nuclear option open, then indeed, why not buy the F-35 instead. The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, UK and Italy are getting them (and probably more to come). Easier to cooperate within Europe than the oddball F/A-18E/F fleet.

texl1649 wrote:

This sounds like a re-run of the A400M to me. Next, a very unique all Euro-sourced engine will be required, surely.

Of course it would since there isn´t a halfway advanced western engine in that thrust ballpark available at all. Plus that didn´t cause problem with either the EJ200 nor the RB199 either.....

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

If the F/A-18 would be bought just to keep the nuclear option open, then indeed, why not buy the F-35 instead. The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, UK and Italy are getting them (and probably more to come). Easier to cooperate within Europe than the oddball F/A-18E/F fleet.

Turkish delivery slots are now available and we know the German Air Force has previously had a preference for the aircraft. I still consider it an outside chance though given the political resistance.

No surprise that the Eurofighter will take too long to certify although I thought the likelihood of Germany continuing NATO nuclear sharing was low. Once you hand that back it is probably very hard to get back in...

Ozair wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

If the F/A-18 would be bought just to keep the nuclear option open, then indeed, why not buy the F-35 instead. The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, UK and Italy are getting them (and probably more to come). Easier to cooperate within Europe than the oddball F/A-18E/F fleet.

Turkish delivery slots are now available and we know the German Air Force has previously had a preference for the aircraft. I still consider it an outside chance though given the political resistance.

No surprise that the Eurofighter will take too long to certify although I thought the likelihood of Germany continuing NATO nuclear sharing was low. Once you hand that back it is probably very hard to get back in...

Isn't the political resistance mostly towards American aircraft in general and not so much focust on the F-35? My two cents are on about two squadrons of F-35 in Luftwaffe colors. And indeed the Turisk slots are available, but on the other hand, they would probably be produced in Italy and thus give them some Euro credibility.

Dutchy wrote:

Isn't the political resistance mostly towards American aircraft in general and not so much focust on the F-35? My two cents are on about two squadrons of F-35 in Luftwaffe colors. And indeed the Turisk slots are available, but on the other hand, they would probably be produced in Italy and thus give them some Euro credibility.

No I think the F-35 is the aircraft that Airbus and Dassault really fear and will do a lot to prevent Germany acquiring it.

Airbus Defence and Space chief Dirk Hoke told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper over the weekend that if Germany picks the American F-35, it would upend plans for the European co-development of a new-generation aircraft that would begin service sometime in the 2040s.

http://www.defensenews.com/industry/201 ... -politics/

The SH does not present any competition to FCAS or other European programs and defence cooperation, the F-35 on the other hand most certainly does.

Agree Italian built F-35s make sense but Italy also isn't politically popular in Europe right now.

Ozair wrote:

I still consider it an outside chance though given the political resistance.

From above article:

Es gilt als unwahrscheinlich, dass der Koalitionspartner SPD dem Kauf eines solchen Bombers ausgerechnet bei den Amerikanern zustimmt. Die SPD-Fraktion wird mittlerweile von Rolf Mützenich geführt, einem ausgesprochenen Kritiker der amerikanischen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik und Abrüstungsbefürworter. Trump hatte er vor den Abgeordneten des Bundestags im Sommer als "Rassisten im Weißen Haus" bezeichnet. Der F-18 den Vorrang zu geben, lehnte Mützenich schon ab, bevor er an die Spitze der Fraktion gerückt ist.

"It is unlikely that the second party of the government coalition, the SPD, accepts the purchase of an american bomber. The parliamentary group of the SPD is currently led by Rolf Mützenich, who is an expressed critic of US foreign and security politics, as well as a proponent of disarmament. He called Trump a "racist in the white house" during a parliamentary debate. Mützenich rejected choosing the F-18 [over the Eurofighter] already before he took on his current leadership position."

Nach SZ-Informationen ist der Ministerin bei ihren politischen Gesprächen seitens der Amerikaner auch klargemacht worden, dass aufmerksam verfolgt werde, wie in Europa die militärische Zusammenarbeit vertieft würde. Diese dürfe nicht dazu führen, dass die Amerikaner mit ihren Rüstungsprojekten außen vor blieben.

"According to information gathered by SZ [the newspaper], German defence minister Kramp-Karrenbauer was informed by her US colleagues during a recent visit [to Washington], that they are closely monitoring the increased military cooperation in Europe. They unambiguously clarified that any such cooperation must not hinder the sale of US weapons."

With the public focus on the F-35, as well as its reputation for being complex and expensive, choosing it over the F-18 seems even less likely. The F-18 can be marketed as a stopgap solution that is required to appease the US government. It can fly below the radar and avoid the inevitable discussions that the F-35 brings.
The F-35 also might put a spotlight on nuclear sharing; there are many people in government who aren't too keen on opening that can of worms. The capability is not well known in the public and many of those who do know accept it as a legacy of the cold war. The German public isn't too fond of nuclear weapons if it is brought to their attention: When the US brought nuclear-armed pershing II to Germany, protests with over 500,000 people arose for several months.

duboka wrote:

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/bundeswehr-kampfjet-f-18-eurofighter-1.4625463

It seems like, that Germany has to buy the F/A-18 to keep the nuclear capability. The certification of the Eurofighter will take too long. Which is in my opinion not very surprising. I guess at the end they will buy both of them, to make everyone happy. The F/A-18 for the nuclear capability and the electronic warfare capability and for the rest of the Tornado capabilities the Eurofighter.

The article in the Süddeutsche tries too hard to make their average reader angry. The author’s conclusion that Germany “has to” buy the F-18 is purely based on the 3-5 years timeframe for the Eurofighter certification. He doesn’t have a quote to back up the conclusion.
But the more I think about it I don’t find 3-5 years that long. We’ve been waiting for years for them to select a model and it’s not like they can’t start with the project (training pilots, building infrastructure, etc.) in the meantime.

Also, the other benefit to the SH as an interim option until FCAS is that when the latter does happen, Germany can just sell the used SH's to Canada, which will still need a stopgap itself in all likelihood.

duboka wrote:

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/bundeswehr-kampfjet-f-18-eurofighter-1.4625463

It seems like, that Germany has to buy the F/A-18 to keep the nuclear capability. The certification of the Eurofighter will take too long. Which is in my opinion not very surprising. I guess at the end they will buy both of them, to make everyone happy. The F/A-18 for the nuclear capability and the electronic warfare capability and for the rest of the Tornado capabilities the Eurofighter.

English language report: https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... rofighter/

Has some short term context:

The German defense minister’s visit to Washington last month put the spotlight back on the prospect of an American buy, however. “We want to treat this question jointly,” Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer told reporters in the U.S. capital on Sept. 23. She added that Germany wants a “gap-less” continuation of the Tornado’s capabilities, adding that she envisions a “tight schedule” for the replacement.

Airbus, meanwhile, doesn’t see the need to rush. With 10 years or so left before ditching the Tornado, the reported nuclear-certification time seems to still fit into the overall replacement schedule, spokesman Florian Taitsch told Defense News.

And long term:

The government is expected to announce a winner between the F-18 and the Eurofighter Typhoon early next year. In January 2019, defense officials eliminated the F-35 as a candidate, largely because picking an American plane would weaken the case for having such weapons be made by European companies in the future.

Such is the case with the Future Combat Air Systems program, led by Airbus and Dassault. Airbus says if Germany chooses the Eurofighter as a Tornado replacement, it would be easier for companies on the continent to transition to an eventual development of the German-Franco-Spanish platform.

I understand why a Tornado -> EF -> FCAS transition is desirable, but man it will be costly.

Doing this will give Airbus an even greater sense of entitlement and protection, and as we've seen with A400M they are quite capable of using that to their benefit.

vr773 wrote:

The article in the Süddeutsche tries too hard to make their average reader angry. The author’s conclusion that Germany “has to” buy the F-18 is purely based on the 3-5 years timeframe for the Eurofighter certification. He doesn’t have a quote to back up the conclusion.
But the more I think about it I don’t find 3-5 years that long. We’ve been waiting for years for them to select a model and it’s not like they can’t start with the project (training pilots, building infrastructure, etc.) in the meantime.

DefenseNews has interpreted the Süddeutsche article and is reporting that the 3-5 years is additional to the time required to certify the SH for nuclear delivery.

That is after German defense officials received information from the Pentagon about the time needed to certify the Eurofighter to carry nuclear weapons, according to an article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Getting the Eurofighter approved for that mission would take between three and five years longer than the F-18, which is considered a nuclear weapons-capable aircraft in the U.S. military, the newspaper reported.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... rofighter/

The SH is not currently certified for nuclear delivery but was planned for this to occur by 2025. A German requirement could speed this up a bit but realistically that means the Eurofighter was unlikely to be certified until the late 2020s. While the German Tornado is supposed to be in service that long I expect there is a strong internal push from the GAF to replace it by that 2025 timeframe and therefore a combination of SH and more Eurofighters would make sense. It would also mean the GAF can continue to acquire T3 Eurofighters and not go for an expensive and undefined T4 upgrade and keep the current production line running without a pause. Of course Germany may get some sticker shock when they get a DSCA notification of the cost of the SH, it will likely be at least US$150 million per airframe including spares and support.

All unless Bundestag (parliament) votes against it.

The Bundestag is betting a parlay that a situation does not arise that requires modern front line AC.

Or if a situation does arise that other NATO protect German airspace.

Not a bad bet so pretty smart move.

The nuke role is purely political, the important roles are SEAD and Recce and for this the F-18 / EA-18G would add a unique capability to the NATO line-up in Europe. I would say 18 Growlers add more to NATO strength than 36 F-35s - as there will be plenty of F-35s around, but no plane with the capabilities of the Growler.

seahawk wrote:

The nuke role is purely political, the important roles are SEAD and Recce and for this the F-18 / EA-18G would add a unique capability to the NATO line-up in Europe. I would say 18 Growlers add more to NATO strength than 36 F-35s - as there will be plenty of F-35s around, but no plane with the capabilities of the Growler.

Are the ECR's retired already ?

No, they are still in the fleet.

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The nuke role is purely political, the important roles are SEAD and Recce and for this the F-18 / EA-18G would add a unique capability to the NATO line-up in Europe. I would say 18 Growlers add more to NATO strength than 36 F-35s - as there will be plenty of F-35s around, but no plane with the capabilities of the Growler.

Are the ECR's retired already ?

The ECR is a SEAD platform which the Growler can do but the ECR is not an escort or standoff jammer which the Growler can do.

seahawk wrote:

The nuke role is purely political, the important roles are SEAD and Recce and for this the F-18 / EA-18G would add a unique capability to the NATO line-up in Europe. I would say 18 Growlers add more to NATO strength than 36 F-35s - as there will be plenty of F-35s around, but no plane with the capabilities of the Growler.

Disagree. If the intent is to deliver a B-61 to a target then the F-35 is superior to the SH/Growler combo. I have doubts that Germany would maintain the Growler capability to the level required, updated programs for threats etc to make it effective for NATO although the same could probably be said of a German F-35 fleet.

Overall NATO capability may be enhanced with more Growlers but it is a costly and difficult capability to sustain. An F-35 fleet would be far easier and integrate more easily into the rest of NATO and cost a whole lot less, noting it is no longer an option...

All good points but the decision does seem to be political so it’s important to understand the thinking of the parliament and the German people to have an idea of what will transpire.

So far it seems they want to buy local even at the sacrifice of capabilities and even cost.

This only works if nothing bad happens or if it does their partners come to the rescue.

Having said this I see that this is a tough call. The chances are slim that Germany will need the F35 but if it does the costs of not being able to maintain air superiority over the homeland will be so costly that any politician associated w the decision still in office will be booted out....or worse.

If the decision to buy obsolete ac is carried out Germany will be planning for the best case and hoping it comes true rather than planning for the worst and hoping for the best.

None of our European friends want to hear this but this decision is only possible because the German populace despite posturing to the contrary know full well the US will defend NATO

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The nuke role is purely political, the important roles are SEAD and Recce and for this the F-18 / EA-18G would add a unique capability to the NATO line-up in Europe. I would say 18 Growlers add more to NATO strength than 36 F-35s - as there will be plenty of F-35s around, but no plane with the capabilities of the Growler.

Are the ECR's retired already ?

The ECR is a SEAD platform which the Growler can do but the ECR is not an escort or standoff jammer which the Growler can do.

seahawk wrote:

The nuke role is purely political, the important roles are SEAD and Recce and for this the F-18 / EA-18G would add a unique capability to the NATO line-up in Europe. I would say 18 Growlers add more to NATO strength than 36 F-35s - as there will be plenty of F-35s around, but no plane with the capabilities of the Growler.

Disagree. If the intent is to deliver a B-61 to a target then the F-35 is superior to the SH/Growler combo. I have doubts that Germany would maintain the Growler capability to the level required, updated programs for threats etc to make it effective for NATO although the same could probably be said of a German F-35 fleet.

Overall NATO capability may be enhanced with more Growlers but it is a costly and difficult capability to sustain. An F-35 fleet would be far easier and integrate more easily into the rest of NATO and cost a whole lot less, noting it is no longer an option...

MMmmh... i read his statement more along the lines of "there won´t be a nuklear war", as a war with nukes only serves to find out who loses 2nd, and hence nuclear sharing is just political, but has no operational reality attached to it. Growlers are useful in any conflict, nukes only in a war we want to avoid at close to all cost.

Germany promised NATO to maintain SEAD/DEAD capabilities, and while the F35 may be exceedingly good at some parts of that, it would just be more of whats already there and all you get is some 20 Pilots that dedicate much of their training to the task, instead of an aircraft with dedicated capabilities to go with it.

However, i do think we should decide to buy both, operate the F35 is tandem with a neighbor, there is good experience with multifunktional forces down to the brigade level, so why not try for Air power, and the 18G, essentially getting a 2.5 Types Air Force.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

MMmmh... i read his statement more along the lines of "there won´t be a nuklear war", as a war with nukes only serves to find out who loses 2nd, and hence nuclear sharing is just political, but has no operational reality attached to it. Growlers are useful in any conflict, nukes only in a war we want to avoid at close to all cost.

I’m not sure I agree that a nuclear war is a political thought bubble only but I can see what you’re suggesting was the point behind Seahawks comment.

tommy1808 wrote:

Germany promised NATO to maintain SEAD/DEAD capabilities, and while the F35 may be exceedingly good at some parts of that, it would just be more of whats already there and all you get is some 20 Pilots that dedicate much of their training to the task, instead of an aircraft with dedicated capabilities to go with it.

I don’t agree, while a Growler is a capable airframe it isn’t survivable in the battlespace, especially if we look forward 15 years to the threat landscape it would potentially operate in with Su-57s and S-500s etc.

What a Growler does provide is a significant non-lethal force capability,

The Boeing EA-18G Growler — the electronic warfare version of the F/A 18 Super Hornet multirole fighter — is designed to jam radio and cellphone communications that could be used to coordinate ambushes or other forms of attack. It also can disrupt electronics used to set off improvised explosive devices.
“Anything that can make a signal, that’s what we are there for,” said electronic warfare officer Lt. Chris Long, who is deployed with the “Patriots” of Electronic Attack Squadron 140. “If you talk on it, we go after it.”

https://www.stripes.com/news/navy-s-gro ... e-1.410142

I can see why that would be attractive to the German Government as it would provide an ability to participate in a NATO operation using airpower but not have to use lethal force except for self-protection.

tommy1808 wrote:

However, i do think we should decide to buy both, operate the F35 is tandem with a neighbor, there is good experience with multifunktional forces down to the brigade level, so why not try for Air power, and the 18G, essentially getting a 2.5 Types Air Force.

An interesting concept. Who do you see partnering with Germany for this, perhaps the Dutch given the already existing army cooperation? Assume the intention would be that NATO Nuclear sharing continue through that joint unit?

Growlers help F-35s through their jamming capability. Sure for the doomsday role F-35s would be better, but when this role comes up the survival of the plane is no longer important as one must assume there would be no airbases to land on remaining anyway. I do not see how this changed compared to the Tornado or F-104 days. Nobody expected to fly more than one nuke mission.

When looking at the Luftwaffe alone, F-35s would benefit the force much more, as it would gain a 5th gen. capability, but the Luftwaffe will never deploy alone and when looking at a combined EU/NATO force the Growlers add more than a small number of F-35s. In addition the role of the Growler fits German political realities much better and the political will to deploy them would be greater than deploying F-35 for bombing. (like Germany preferred to deploy recce and SEAD assets in the past)

Ozair wrote:

An interesting concept. Who do you see partnering with Germany for this, perhaps the Dutch given the already existing army cooperation? Assume the intention would be that NATO Nuclear sharing continue through that joint unit?

I would think the Dutch are the obvious choice given the long experience of joint command structures in combat. And since both participate in Nuclear Sharing it would make sense to carry that over.

Best regards
Thomas

seahawk wrote:

Growlers help F-35s through their jamming capability.

Actually I think it is the opposite. The F-35 has more than sufficient EW capability to protect itself. Having a Growler in the area would simply alert defences to the presence of aircraft while an F-35 is far more likely to slip in and out undetected by itself. Additionally the Growler would also require additional assets to protect it.

seahawk wrote:

Sure for the doomsday role F-35s would be better, but when this role comes up the survival of the plane is no longer important as one must assume there would be no airbases to land on remaining anyway. I do not see how this changed compared to the Tornado or F-104 days. Nobody expected to fly more than one nuke mission.

There are probably grades of escalation before that occurs but that is for another thread.

seahawk wrote:

When looking at the Luftwaffe alone, F-35s would benefit the force much more, as it would gain a 5th gen. capability, but the Luftwaffe will never deploy alone and when looking at a combined EU/NATO force the Growlers add more than a small number of F-35s. In addition the role of the Growler fits German political realities much better and the political will to deploy them would be greater than deploying F-35 for bombing. (like Germany preferred to deploy recce and SEAD assets in the past)

I agree the Growler is probably a better fit for overall German capability but we are talking about a Tornado replacement to conduct a majority strike role with a secondary SEAD capability. There are approx 68 IDS and 22 ECR in service. The IDS are the ones carrying the nukes, so those are the primary platform for replacement if Germany buys a US aircraft, being the SH and probably an F model.

For a SEAD platform the German Air Force might be better served, and long term cheaper to sustain, by a modified Eurofighter than a Growler? The Eurofighter already has HARM integrated, AARGM shouldn't be too much more difficult to integrate, and could probably have its wingtip pods modified with a AN/ALQ-218 type wideband receiver. That would seem to me a reasonably light modification that would provide the required SEAD capability in a platform that is probably better equipped, and longer ranged, for that specific SEAD mission set. If a stand-off jammer is required then of course the Growler trumps but it appears that, as per Tommy's comments, a specific German contribution via SEAD is desired.

Stand off jamming would be unique capability in Europe. The ECR was developed when the EF-111A was still in service.

And I think the EA-18 helps the F-35 by a lot. Detecting the F-35 in the jamming of a EA-18 will be next to impossible, especially as the EA-18 can also reduce the effectiveness of the communications and data link networks.

seahawk wrote:

Stand off jamming would be unique capability in Europe. The ECR was developed when the EF-111A was still in service.

That matters little. The USAF, the largest operator of 4th and 5th gen aircraft, has not operated a manned stand-off jammer since the EF-111 was retired and has no plans to operate one in the future. The ECR is not a stand-off jammer and has never been expected to fill that role nor was it conceived to fill a SEAD role because the EF-111 existed. A SEAD capability already existing within the USAF as well yet Germany and Italy developed the ECR for that SEAD mission specifically.

While the Growler would be a unique capability for Europe, why would Germany go out of their way to pay and provide it? What benefit does Germany gain from that except for helping out NATO? That goal hasn’t motivated Germany on Defence procurement for the last 20 years, why would this selection suddenly change that? As I have already suggested the ability of the Growler to provide a comms jamming capability within a permissive environment is highly valued but it is a high price to pay for Germany to maintain that capability.

seahawk wrote:

And I think the EA-18 helps the F-35 by a lot. Detecting the F-35 in the jamming of a EA-18 will be next to impossible especially as the EA-18 can also reduce the effectiveness of the communications and data link networks.

Again, the F-35 is far better off being unescorted than using a stand-off jammer that would announce its presence and require itself to be escorted. How many nations operate the F-35 and how many of them have acquired the Growler or another form of stand-off jamming capability? Why doesn’t the USAF acquire a stand-off jamming capability for its 5th gen fleet?

The solution to jamming being required could be far more easily fulfilled by using MALD-J/X than operating a manned platform. Additionally, a Growler capability isn’t needed to prevent targeting of a 5th gen aircraft when the noise floor is so low that the aircraft’s own internal jamming system is more than capable of hiding it. Jamming is even more effective when being applied from a stealth platform because the RCS is already so incredibly low the power required to hide it is minimal.

Ozair wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Stand off jamming would be unique capability in Europe. The ECR was developed when the EF-111A was still in service.

That matters little. The USAF, the largest operator of 4th and 5th gen aircraft, has not operated a manned stand-off jammer since the EF-111 was retired and has no plans to operate one in the future. The ECR is not a stand-off jammer and has never been expected to fill that role nor was it conceived to fill a SEAD role because the EF-111 existed. A SEAD capability already existing within the USAF as well yet Germany and Italy developed the ECR for that SEAD mission specifically.

While the Growler would be a unique capability for Europe, why would Germany go out of their way to pay and provide it? What benefit does Germany gain from that except for helping out NATO? That goal hasn’t motivated Germany on Defence procurement for the last 20 years, why would this selection suddenly change that? As I have already suggested the ability of the Growler to provide a comms jamming capability within a permissive environment is highly valued but it is a high price to pay for Germany to maintain that capability.

seahawk wrote:

And I think the EA-18 helps the F-35 by a lot. Detecting the F-35 in the jamming of a EA-18 will be next to impossible especially as the EA-18 can also reduce the effectiveness of the communications and data link networks.

Again, the F-35 is far better off being unescorted than using a stand-off jammer that would announce its presence and require itself to be escorted. How many nations operate the F-35 and how many of them have acquired the Growler or another form of stand-off jamming capability? Why doesn’t the USAF acquire a stand-off jamming capability for its 5th gen fleet?

The solution to jamming being required could be far more easily fulfilled by using MALD-J/X than operating a manned platform. Additionally, a Growler capability isn’t needed to prevent targeting of a 5th gen aircraft when the noise floor is so low that the aircraft’s own internal jamming system is more than capable of hiding it. Jamming is even more effective when being applied from a stealth platform because the RCS is already so incredibly low the power required to hide it is minimal.

Compelling info which the GAF must understand.