tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:38 am

Ozair wrote:
That goal hasn’t motivated Germany on Defence procurement for the last 20 years, why would this selection suddenly change that?


International commitments are the only reason for any increased spending we had, and especially fulfilling NATO commitments had a high priority. Having committed that capability to NATO is well reason enough.

[quote]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.[/quite]

I know you don't believe in the power of signal processing, but it will make stealth aircraft quite well detectable within the F35s lifespan.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8712
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:56 am

If you look at German defence needs, the question is why they should buy any fighter? You just pointed out that the jamming and SEAD role is obsolete and nobody really wants to fly the doomsday mission either - so best choice - buy nothing.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13179
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:30 am

seahawk wrote:
If you look at German defence needs, the question is why they should buy any fighter? You just pointed out that the jamming and SEAD role is obsolete and nobody really wants to fly the doomsday mission either - so best choice - buy nothing.


Yes that could very well be reality. Maybe heavy helicopters, MPA's, long range drones and tactical transport get priority. Upgrade the Typhoons a bit for the continued Air Defense roles, maybe add 4-5 squadrons of 2 seat IDS optimized Rafales F4's, to replace Tornado's and do international commitments, nucleair striike. In a governent-government deal, where the French buy other defense materials from Germany. FCAS can start taking over roles from 2040 or so.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Ozair
Posts: 4264
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:12 am

tommy1808 wrote:

I know you don't believe in the power of signal processing, but it will make stealth aircraft quite well detectable within the F35s lifespan.

Best regards
Thomas

Tommy, what I don't believe in is statements like above that contradict the evidence present. If that is the case you need to let the top 20 militaries on the globe including France, Germany, Russia, China, the US, Japan, UK, Italy etc who are all either developing or fielding 5th gen aircraft that all utilize stealth. You also need to let Dassault, Airbus, LM, Boeing, NG, Sukhoi, Chengdu know it isn't going to work. Of course the alternative is to believe that all those militaries and manufacturers have actually done some analysis and have determined that Stealth is still important, and given the money still going into it from all of those nations, probably pivotal to the modern and future battlefield. That isn't to say that some radical technology could arrive that displaces stealth from the podium but at this point in time they are all betting on it and, with their knowledge, access and resources, based on that evidence so am I.

seahawk wrote:
If you look at German defence needs, the question is why they should buy any fighter? You just pointed out that the jamming and SEAD role is obsolete and nobody really wants to fly the doomsday mission either - so best choice - buy nothing.

No I haven't pointed out they are obsolete. The SEAD role will continue for years as the US looks to equip and support its 4th gen fleet from 5th gen aircraft, including arming the F-35 with the AARGM-ER. The jamming role will continue in the same way as it isn't just IADS that a stand-off jamming capability is useful for and even then those platforms such as Growler still have thousands of 4th gen aircraft to support. I'm certainly not suggesting a Growler is useless, what I am suggesting is that it is an expensive and difficult to sustain capability for Germany to take on and the benefits for Germany may not out-way the costs.

keesje wrote:
Yes that could very well be reality. Maybe heavy helicopters, MPA's, long range drones and tactical transport get priority. Upgrade the Typhoons a bit for the continued Air Defense roles, maybe add 4-5 squadrons of 2 seat IDS optimized Rafales F4's, to replace Tornado's and do international commitments, nucleair striike. In a governent-government deal, where the French buy other defense materials from Germany. FCAS can start taking over roles from 2040 or so.

LOL, makes sense Keesje. Of course Germany would spend literally billions on developing the Eurofighter that has essentially the same capabilities as the Rafale and with no industrial stake in the Rafale at all select that to equip their air force all while their own country is sliding into recession... :roll:
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8712
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:24 am

I personally think that political realities rule out the F-35 (a real theoretical first strike capability is bad- especially with Germany completely in control by left wing parties) and financial realities will rule out a fighter buy completely in the end, as the economy is falling into a recession, the trade war with the USA hurts Germany badly and the Brexit will be the end for the economy.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:51 pm

Ozair wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

I know you don't believe in the power of signal processing, but it will make stealth aircraft quite well detectable within the F35s lifespan.

Best regards
Thomas

Tommy, what I don't believe in is statements like above that contradict the evidence present. If that is the case you need to let the top 20 militaries on the globe including France, Germany, Russia, China, the US, Japan, UK, Italy etc who are all either developing or fielding 5th gen aircraft that all utilize stealth. You also need to let Dassault, Airbus, LM, Boeing, NG, Sukhoi, Chengdu know it isn't going to work. Of course the alternative is to believe that all those militaries and manufacturers have actually done some analysis and have determined that Stealth is still important, and given the money still going into it from all of those nations, probably pivotal to the modern and future battlefield. That isn't to say that some radical technology could arrive that displaces stealth from the podium but at this point in time they are all betting on it and, with their knowledge, access and resources, based on that evidence so am I.


So, in short, we are talking about the same organisational and industrial systems that kept buying battleships decades after they had become a waste of resources, and despite own experimentation showing them almost helpless against air power didn't even bother to put sufficient AAA on them before ships where sunk by planes left and right....

The same mindset that decided superior airpower, superior C4I and smart weapons would make boots on the ground almost unnecessary, despite all the evidence that a bunch of guys with AK can't be defeated that way?

You can track the radar return from a jet engines exhaust, needs top equipment and some supercomputer time, but you can. It is just a matter of time, even if Moore's law does get longer intervals, until sufficient computing power to do that in real time in a mobile system becomes available.

The only advantage of stealth will be forcing the opponent to have more expensive radars instead of lots of small ones*, which is a value in itself, and may very well offset the, likely small, extra cost of developing, deploying and maintaining stealth aircraft vs. New non-stealthy ones. Most of that goes into electronics and software anyways. I do vaguely recall that one of the arguments for the expensive B2 was it would be a lot cheaper than the Soviets dotting the landscape with enough radars to pick them up would cost them.

Best regards
Thomas

*at that time those will have sufficient computing power available that even the smallest air or ground radar can pick up any non-LO type craft all thr way to the horizont.
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13179
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:07 pm

They better put resources in FCAS instead of trying to transform the Typhoon interceptors into a so-so dual seat IDS aircraft. A road taken by the french already years ago with the more suitable Rafale. Workshare on FCAS other defense projects provide ample opportunities to turn this into a win-win.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8712
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:10 pm

Not much needed to do really. Slap on the conformal fuel tanks and you are done.
 
vr773
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:10 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:40 pm

seahawk wrote:
I personally think that political realities rule out the F-35 (a real theoretical first strike capability is bad- especially with Germany completely in control by left wing parties) and financial realities will rule out a fighter buy completely in the end, as the economy is falling into a recession, the trade war with the USA hurts Germany badly and the Brexit will be the end for the economy.


People who envy the higher quality of life and relatively fair distribution of wealth in Germany have made that argument for ages. I’m still waiting for the “end of the economy”.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4264
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:36 pm

tommy1808 wrote:

So, in short, we are talking about the same organisational and industrial systems that kept buying battleships decades after they had become a waste of resources, and despite own experimentation showing them almost helpless against air power didn't even bother to put sufficient AAA on them before ships where sunk by planes left and right....

Nope, historical inaccuracy from the above claim aside, that isn’t even close to what we are talking about.

tommy1808 wrote:
The same mindset that decided superior airpower, superior C4I and smart weapons would make boots on the ground almost unnecessary, despite all the evidence that a bunch of guys with AK can't be defeated that way?

Without doubt militaries are guilty of preparing to fight the last war and not the next but within that context now the forces of most western powers are better structured for permissive environments than near peer scenarios. That is slowly changing as nations requip with post cold war 21st century weaponry.

tommy1808 wrote:
You can track the radar return from a jet engines exhaust, needs top equipment and some supercomputer time, but you can. It is just a matter of time, even if Moore's law does get longer intervals, until sufficient computing power to do that in real time in a mobile system becomes available.

The only advantage of stealth will be forcing the opponent to have more expensive radars instead of lots of small ones*, which is a value in itself, and may very well offset the, likely small, extra cost of developing, deploying and maintaining stealth aircraft vs. New non-stealthy ones. Most of that goes into electronics and software anyways. I do vaguely recall that one of the arguments for the expensive B2 was it would be a lot cheaper than the Soviets dotting the landscape with enough radars to pick them up would cost them.

It is all well and good for you to claim those things Tommy but it doesn’t at all support your position. Every single nation I mentioned above has access to super computers, vast intelligence agencies, scientific rigour both within their militaries and with linkages to academia. Do you think they don't know what you are stating can occur? Yet they still continue to develop stealth aircraft and other platforms for their future military force structure. You can claim that is simply bad acquisition policy or institutional bias but that just isn't represented by the facts.

Once a disruptive technology emerges that makes the use of stealth irrelevant then I will tip my hat to them and jump off the stealth bandwagon, until that time it is clearly evident that nations and militaries with billions of dollars of yearly funding are putting their investment into stealth platforms.

seahawk wrote:
I personally think that political realities rule out the F-35 (a real theoretical first strike capability is bad- especially with Germany completely in control by left wing parties) and financial realities will rule out a fighter buy completely in the end, as the economy is falling into a recession, the trade war with the USA hurts Germany badly and the Brexit will be the end for the economy.

I don’t see a no aircraft being acquired scenario. I can see a very small buy for SH only, perhaps 24 aircraft to support NATO nuclear sharing, and a top up order for 40+ Eurofighters to give the recessive Germany economy a domestic kick.

seahawk wrote:
Not much needed to do really. Slap on the conformal fuel tanks and you are done.

That would help immensely, it alleviates the pylon fuel issue and provides a better and likely less draggy profile in a strike configuration.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:36 am

So, in short, we are talking about the same organisational and industrial systems that kept buying battleships decades after they had become a waste of resources, and despite own experimentation showing them almost helpless against air power didn't even bother to put sufficient AAA on them before ships where sunk by planes left and right....

I thought the GAF was in favor of the F35 but were overruled by elected officials. Plz correct me if have this wrong.

The same mindset that decided superior airpower, superior C4I and smart weapons would make boots on the ground almost unnecessary, despite all the evidence that a bunch of guys with AK can't be defeated that way?

Now whose fighting the last war? With every conflict AirPower becomes more and more important in determining outcomes.

You can track the radar return from a jet engines exhaust, needs top equipment and some supercomputer time, but you can. It is just a matter of time, even if Moore's law does get longer intervals, until sufficient computing power to do that in real time in a mobile system becomes available.

Who has demonstrated this ?

The only advantage of stealth will be forcing the opponent to have more expensive radars instead of lots of small ones*, which is a value in itself, and may very well offset the, likely small, extra cost of developing, deploying and maintaining stealth aircraft vs. New non-stealthy ones. Most of that goes into electronics and software anyways. I do vaguely recall that one of the arguments for the expensive B2 was it would be a lot cheaper than the Soviets dotting the landscape with enough radars to pick them up would cost them.


Tell that to red flag participants.

40 or even 80 more EF’s are mice nuts to an economy the size of Germany.

I respect that Germany is careful with spending but this seems penny smart pound foolish.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8712
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 am

You need to understand that it is a pure political decision and operational needs do not matter.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:13 am

Ozair wrote:
Do you think they don't know what you are stating can occur? Yet they still continue to develop stealth aircraft and other platforms for their future military force structure. You can claim that is simply bad acquisition policy or institutional bias but that just isn't represented by the facts. .


I explained why stealth still makes sense for the military even when they know damn well it will lose most of its effectiveness in the foreseeable future.

Planeflyer wrote:
Who has demonstrated this ?


just about any radio astronomer in the last couple of decades, that routinely pick out signals not just way weaker than those on Ozirs graph, but actually well below the noise floor. They could literally pick targets out of the data by the local reduction in background radiation. Go talk to some folks in cosmology, it is absolutely mind boggling what they can do with lots of raw data and computing power. We can, for quite a while, detect single photons.

The computers at the Square Kilometre array have tender specifications aiming for radio noise suppression on almost Tempest levels, and are still put in cabinets that dampen another 130db. Because otherwise the equipment could pick that noise up, while the Antenna is looking in a completely different direction. And we are talking about very, very focused pieces of equipment with almost optical quality surfaces, designed to minimize side lobes..... and yet they can pick up the stray signals from a computers bus, in a concrete building 100 metres away, in a radio shielding cabinet.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8712
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:44 am

It is even easier, with today´s background noise in signals (TV, radio, mobile, civil radar and so on) you do not even have to detect the signal reflected by a VLO aircraft, you only need to detect the change in stray signals it creates. This has been demonstrated with a lot of success and only needs rather cheap passive receivers. And this is were the EA-18 becomes interesting, as these passive and mobile receivers need to feed their data into a network to allow engagement of the VLO plane, and this network can be jammed and you can also saturate the passive receivers by creating a sudden dramatic change in background signals.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:04 am

tommy1808 wrote:
I explained why stealth still makes sense for the military even when they know damn well it will lose most of its effectiveness in the foreseeable future.
Thomas


May I say that you are 100 % right in your postings and clearly understand what you are talking about. The salesmen want to deny it, of course.

Stealth is always an advantage, but it does not make you undetectable and invulnerable. It requires other nations to invest in the development of new radar and non-radar technology, instead of other weaponry, but after the new technologies are there, the level is different. I, too, have enough access to scientists working with lower signal to noise ratios than the military to know what is possible.

Of course, it is possible that also the Russian military believe more in cryptic acronyms than in laws of physics and refuse to develop something new and invest on copy-cat models of western technology (Su-57, Buran, ...). (And the main adversary may not even be Russia but some one else with lower technology level or higher conservativeness.)

Summa summarum, non-stealth fighters and bombers are not obsolete and you should not pay too much extra only to get stealth. (And for nuclear retaliation and other one-way missions it is best to use unmanned vehicles, even though it is good to let your opponent uninformed what you use to carry the lethal weapons.)
 
art
Posts: 2932
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:52 am

I am a little cofused as to why it would take several years to migrate nuclear capability from Tornado to Typhoon. If the systems required exist in an aircraft developed by an Anglo-Gernan-Italian consortium, do those goverments not own the IP involved (or perhaps only Germany if Germany alone financed the nuclear ability)?

Any explanation would be welcomed.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3212
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:35 am

art wrote:
I am a little cofused as to why it would take several years to migrate nuclear capability from Tornado to Typhoon. If the systems required exist in an aircraft developed by an Anglo-Gernan-Italian consortium, do those goverments not own the IP involved (or perhaps only Germany if Germany alone financed the nuclear ability)?

Any explanation would be welcomed.

There's a new version of the B61 bomb designated the B61 Mod 12, which has increased accuracy. The new weapon is fully digitized and is being rolled out as a replacement for the existing stockpiles.

Because the systems onboard the bomb is now fully digitized, the bombs are no longer capable of talking with the bomb control units on older aircraft, such as the Tornado and even the F-16 in service with European air forces.

Many of the European air forces which engage in nuclear sharing (Belgians, Dutch, and the Italians) are already in the process of turning over their fleets with new aircraft, specifically the F-35, which can talk with the new version of the B61. The Turks were also buying the F-35 as well, which would have been integrated with the new bomb, but due to current events, that plan is now up in the air.

The Germans as shown here have not fully made up their mind yet, but bear in mind that if Germany decides to procure a non-American aircraft for the nuclear sharing role, the Germans would solely be responsible for all of the development and integration costs associated with integrating the B61 Mod 12 onto whatever aircraft they choose.

The situation is different compared to the past, where the Germans could share some of the costs associated with development and integration with other users, such as the case with Tornado.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:36 am

art wrote:
I am a little cofused as to why it would take several years to migrate nuclear capability from Tornado to Typhoon. If the systems required exist in an aircraft developed by an Anglo-Gernan-Italian consortium, do those goverments not own the IP involved (or perhaps only Germany if Germany alone financed the nuclear ability)?.


It could probably be done rather quickly, but without an conflict on the Horizon or ongoing weapons integration just takes its sweet time.

I would assume the PAL for the nukes is US sourced, and not locally developed. And one would like to have the new B61 version, you sort of need practice ammunition to do that, and we don´t have practice nukes or real ones ourselves.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Ozair
Posts: 4264
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:55 am

tommy1808 wrote:

I explained why stealth still makes sense for the military even when they know damn well it will lose most of its effectiveness in the foreseeable future.

Tommy you made a claim that is completely unsupported by facts. Just to show how flawed it is, lets compare the cost of developing the F-35, approx US$59 billion let alone actually acquiring the aircraft, another US$330 billion and average of US$80 million per copy. Instead of the JSF program if stealth didn't matter the US could almost certainly have continued to acquire F-15s and F-16s. It would likely have been overall cheaper to keep those production lines pumping out mature designs with incremental modifications instead of funding an expensive development and acquisition program for an airframe that would lose its advantage so quickly. Both Boeing and LM would have happily continued producing those 4th gen aircraft for the USAF for as long as they would take them.

Compare that to the latest radar being developed for the USMC, the AN/TPS-80 G/ATOR. Total development of the radar, which uses the latest GaN AESA technology, was just over US$1 billion dollars. The SAR is here, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a613516.pdf FRP of thirty AN/TPS-80 was US$958 million or approx US$32 million each. https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/r ... ar-systems

For the cost to develop the F-35 the USMC could develop and acquire 1903 radars, at the moment they intend to acquire 57. Then if you added the cost to build all the F-35s then the number of radars could be another 10645...Imagine signing a contract for 12000 radars, you'd clearly get a volume discount... It is evidently clear that the cost to develop and field an advanced radar, with the AN/TPS-80 likely the most advanced mobile battlefield radar in production today, is nowhere near the cost of a manned stealth aircraft nor has the development of stealth aircraft seen the Russians and Chinese develop and field thousands of cheap but capable radars. Instead both nations have poured more money into manned stealth aircraft than probably all of their radar projects combined for the last 30 years.

Please can we move on from the fantasy that stealth is developed and continued to force a nation to spend more money on radar...

seahawk wrote:
It is even easier, with today´s background noise in signals (TV, radio, mobile, civil radar and so on) you do not even have to detect the signal reflected by a VLO aircraft, you only need to detect the change in stray signals it creates. This has been demonstrated with a lot of success and only needs rather cheap passive receivers.

Seahwak, I posted in the F-35 thread the story on the German system. You do know that they had to use ADS-B data to track the aircraft and thereby correlate to their passive systems? Had they not had that information they either would not have detected it or been able to pick it out of the traffic... To take this a step further, do you think a military, knowing that an adversary has a passive radar network going, isn't going to kill the power or destroy the major antennas transmitting these signals? To take it a step further again, you do know that LM has patented a RAM that is effective from 0.10 MHz to 60 GHz.

A radar absorbing composite includes a (CNT)-infused fiber material disposed in at least a portion of a matrix material. The composite absorbs radar in a frequency range from about 0.10 Megahertz to about 60 Gigahertz. The CNT-infused fiber material forms a first layer that reduces radar reflectance and a second layer that dissipates the energy of the radar. A method of manufacturing this composite includes disposing a CNT-infused fiber material in a portion of a matrix material with a controlled orientation of the CNT-infused fiber material within the matrix material, and curing the matrix material. The composite can be formed into a panel which is adaptable as a structural component of a transport vessel or missile for use in stealth applications.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100271253A1/en

How much signal do you honestly expect to get reflected off the airframe with the above RAM?

Just so you know, passive radars are nothing new, they have been around since radars were invented and the major powers are well aware of their strengths and clear limitations.

seahawk wrote:
And this is were the EA-18 becomes interesting, as these passive and mobile receivers need to feed their data into a network to allow engagement of the VLO plane, and this network can be jammed and you can also saturate the passive receivers by creating a sudden dramatic change in background signals.

So tell me how a Growler is going to survive in that battlespace where a stealth aircraft can be detected but apparently the Growler won't? The adversary will just let the Growler stroll right up to the passive radar system and jam its comms? How will the Growler even know which frequency to jam given the passive radar station could simply use a 4G mobile data signal, mixed within a network of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of 4G connections. How do you saturate a passive receiver, don't you think if you add more active electronic signal to the spectrum it would actually have the opposite effect, the passive receiver could use that energy to locate a target? How do you know which frequency the passive receiver is even using, its passive so it isn't broadcasting to tell you that...

YIMBY wrote:

May I say that you are 100 % right in your postings and clearly understand what you are talking about. The salesmen want to deny it, of course.

Stealth is always an advantage, but it does not make you undetectable and invulnerable.

Yimby, no one here believes a stealth aircraft is invisible... You and Tommy talk about stealth as if it is a simple addition to an airframe, it is not and China and Russia will tell you how difficult and hard it is to make a stealth airframe that is actually effective.

YIMBY wrote:
It requires other nations to invest in the development of new radar and non-radar technology, instead of other weaponry, but after the new technologies are there, the level is different. I, too, have enough access to scientists working with lower signal to noise ratios than the military to know what is possible.

Guys, do you seriously think that militaries are not aware of current, planned and future designs for processing of lower signal to noise ratios? The suggestion is patently absurd...

YIMBY wrote:
Of course, it is possible that also the Russian military believe more in cryptic acronyms than in laws of physics and refuse to develop something new and invest on copy-cat models of western technology (Su-57, Buran, ...). (And the main adversary may not even be Russia but some one else with lower technology level or higher conservativeness.)

So your theory is that Russians are stupid and only build things because the US does...
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3212
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:02 am

tommy1808 wrote:
art wrote:
I am a little cofused as to why it would take several years to migrate nuclear capability from Tornado to Typhoon. If the systems required exist in an aircraft developed by an Anglo-Gernan-Italian consortium, do those goverments not own the IP involved (or perhaps only Germany if Germany alone financed the nuclear ability)?.


It could probably be done rather quickly, but without an conflict on the Horizon or ongoing weapons integration just takes its sweet time.

I would assume the PAL for the nukes is US sourced, and not locally developed. And one would like to have the new B61 version, you sort of need practice ammunition to do that, and we don´t have practice nukes or real ones ourselves.

best regards
Thomas

Weapons integration on an aircraft does take a ton of time and resources, regardless if it is a conventional weapon, or a nuclear one.

Basically, control hardware, software, and the weapons mounts all need to be developed and integrated onto the aircraft. The more complicated the weapon, the more work needs to be done, with more work needing to be done to the aircraft's systems in order to integrate it; sometimes, the aircraft's entire system software might need to be re-written to accommodate a new weapon.

Then, comes all of the validation and testing of the software and interfaces; does the weapon fully talk with the aircraft's systems? Does the aircraft's systems fully recognize the weapon being attached? Is it bug-free?

This is followed up the fun part; separation testing. You want to make sure said weapon leaves the aircraft cleanly and in a controlled fashion so it doesn't become a hazard to the launch aircraft, or to other nearby aircraft. And this test needs to be done dozens, maybe even hundreds of times under different scenarios and aircraft configurations to validate the weapon on a new aircraft. Plenty of videos online of stores separation testing gone wrong, where said weapon being tested strikes the test aircraft, causing damage.

At times, you might discover that a certain weapon can't be safely dropped at a certain speed (say, at transonic speeds), under a certain aircraft configuration (say, a pair of drop tanks inboard of the weapon on the wing). Then you have to consider if the restrictions make sense, or do you have to go back to the drawing board and and redesign the mount or weapon...

In short (and I'm glossing over a ton of stuff), a lot of headaches.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:04 pm

Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
May I say that you are 100 % right in your postings and clearly understand what you are talking about. The salesmen want to deny it, of course.

Stealth is always an advantage, but it does not make you undetectable and invulnerable.

Yimby, no one here believes a stealth aircraft is invisible...

Several here evidently believe it, at least the troll.
Ozair wrote:
You and Tommy talk about stealth as if it is a simple addition to an airframe, it is not and China and Russia will tell you how difficult and hard it is to make a stealth airframe that is actually effective.

No one has said that stealth is a simple addition. The whole point is that it is extremely expensive and compromises other design. Should I remind you how much it cost?
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
It requires other nations to invest in the development of new radar and non-radar technology, instead of other weaponry, but after the new technologies are there, the level is different. I, too, have enough access to scientists working with lower signal to noise ratios than the military to know what is possible.

Guys, do you seriously think that militaries are not aware of current, planned and future designs for processing of lower signal to noise ratios? The suggestion is patently absurd...

Most militaries are definitely not aware of even past designs. Certainly not those representatives who pretend to know all here. (You are evidently from industry and not military, if that matters, and are probably aware but tell otherwise ex officio).

When I served in the air force anything acronymized was sacred while laws of physics were considered relative.

And it is not what the military are aware, it is what the politicians are aware, when they make the decisions, based on all sales talk. Where on Earth are politicians who are aware of the latest technology, or anything else?
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Of course, it is possible that also the Russian military believe more in cryptic acronyms than in laws of physics and refuse to develop something new and invest on copy-cat models of western technology (Su-57, Buran, ...). (And the main adversary may not even be Russia but some one else with lower technology level or higher conservativeness.)

So your theory is that Russians are stupid and only build things because the US does...


It is your theory, not mine.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:13 pm

Ozair wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

I explained why stealth still makes sense for the military even when they know damn well it will lose most of its effectiveness in the foreseeable future.

Tommy you made a claim that is completely unsupported by facts.


Aside of most radio astronomy in the last couple of decades of course, that works with signals, on a day to day basis, so week that it makes the radar return of a needle head look like a beacon. We, again on a day to day basis, extract useful signals that are embedded deep into the noise floor. Even with perfect RAM and absolutely zero return a stealth aircraft would still stand out as a gap in the background.

You have to make up your mind. Either we already have the technology, just not the computing power to use it against stealth aircraft in a militarily useful way, yet, or, you may very will start promoting the conspiracy theory that all Radio astronomy is a scam to defraud billions of taxpayer money, because that is in essence what you are doing already.

Ozair wrote:
Guys, do you seriously think that militaries are not aware of current, planned and future designs for processing of lower signal to noise ratios? The suggestion is patently absurd...


I didn't claim they where not aware, and even explained why stealth makes sense. You apparently start detecting things so stealthy that they really aren't there.

Best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8712
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:16 pm

I think nobody disputes that the F-35 is most logical and best choice for Germany, sadly one that the politicians turned down. So imho Growlers would at least be somewhat useful to EU/NATO forces. Normal SHs or Eurofighters are so useless, it would make more sense to built a new Autobahn with the money.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:17 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Do you think they don't know what you are stating can occur? Yet they still continue to develop stealth aircraft and other platforms for their future military force structure. You can claim that is simply bad acquisition policy or institutional bias but that just isn't represented by the facts. .


I explained why stealth still makes sense for the military even when they know damn well it will lose most of its effectiveness in the foreseeable future.

Planeflyer wrote:
Who has demonstrated this ?


just about any radio astronomer in the last couple of decades, that routinely pick out signals not just way weaker than those on Ozirs graph, but actually well below the noise floor. They could literally pick targets out of the data by the local reduction in background radiation. Go talk to some folks in cosmology, it is absolutely mind boggling what they can do with lots of raw data and computing power. We can, for quite a while, detect single photons.

The computers at the Square Kilometre array have tender specifications aiming for radio noise suppression on almost Tempest levels, and are still put in cabinets that dampen another 130db. Because otherwise the equipment could pick that noise up, while the Antenna is looking in a completely different direction. And we are talking about very, very focused pieces of equipment with almost optical quality surfaces, designed to minimize side lobes..... and yet they can pick up the stray signals from a computers bus, in a concrete building 100 metres away, in a radio shielding cabinet.

best regards
Thomas


C’mon Tommy, are those radio astronomers able to discriminate these signals in real time?

If GAF believed stealth will become obsolete why would they invest In FCAS. After all by your reckoning it’ll be obsolete before it is fielded.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4264
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:15 pm

tommy1808 wrote:

You have to make up your mind. Either we already have the technology, just not the computing power to use it against stealth aircraft in a militarily useful way, yet, or, you may very will start promoting the conspiracy theory that all Radio astronomy is a scam to defraud billions of taxpayer money, because that is in essence what you are doing already.

Tommy I don't need to make up my mind, you need to actually support statements with facts. I made it very clear your radar development versus stealth theory was not accurate. I'm also have not and have never claimed radio astronomy is a scam but it is a discreet application under very controlled conditions looking for signals within very defined and discrete frequency ranges. It is not a battlefield technology today and the technologies that allow the sensitivities necessary for it to work do not translate well to battlefield applications.

tommy1808 wrote:
I didn't claim they where not aware, and even explained why stealth makes sense. You apparently start detecting things so stealthy that they really aren't there.

Tommy your inference was very clear, so much so that Yimby jumped on the bandwagon and agreed with you with the following "I, too, have enough access to scientists working with lower signal to noise ratios than the military to know what is possible. "

YIMBY wrote:
Several here evidently believe it, at least the troll.

Really, please point out who is the troll and where they claimed it?

YIMBY wrote:
No one has said that stealth is a simple addition. The whole point is that it is extremely expensive and compromises other design.

So when Tommy said,

tommy1808 wrote:
The only advantage of stealth will be forcing the opponent to have more expensive radars instead of lots of small ones*, which is a value in itself, and may very well offset the, likely small, extra cost of developing, deploying and maintaining stealth aircraft vs. New non-stealthy ones.

he wasn't actually talking about developing stealth aircraft...

YIMBY wrote:
Should I remind you how much it cost?

Please don't try, your confusion over current topics makes it not worth your time.


YIMBY wrote:
Most militaries are definitely not aware of even past designs.

And your evidence for this baseless claim is?

In response to this clearly factless claim, why don't you spend even a few minutes reviewing the Australian DSTG, https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/ They are a simple example of an Australian Department of Defence Organisation that brings in world class scientists and engineers to advise and develop on military technologies. Do these people simply forget their time in Academia when they come to DSTG?

How about DSTL in the UK whose stated purpose is "to maximise the impact of science and technology for the defence and security of the UK." https://www.gov.uk/government/organisat ... laboratory

Or perhaps DARPA in the US, "DARPA’s success depends on the vibrant ecosystem of innovation within which the Agency operates, and is fueled by partners in multiple sectors." https://www.darpa.mil/

YIMBY wrote:
Certainly not those representatives who pretend to know all here. (You are evidently from industry and not military, if that matters, and are probably aware but tell otherwise ex officio).

Who are the representatives who pretend to know all here?

I am not sure why you think I am from industry or military or whatever or why that even matters to this discussion. If I was from Industry does that make the factual supported statements I have provided less factual? If I was from military does that make the factual supported statements I have made less factual? If I was from neither, and just really interested in military aviation, does that make the factual supported statements I have made less factual?

YIMBY wrote:
When I served in the air force anything acronymized was sacred while laws of physics were considered relative.

I'm sorry you had to serve in a second rate military but using your own experience/bias and laying that on the rest of the globe is clearly not an analytical technique that supports your position.

YIMBY wrote:
And it is not what the military are aware, it is what the politicians are aware, when they make the decisions, based on all sales talk. Where on Earth are politicians who are aware of the latest technology, or anything else?

Yimby, as has been made very clear to you on a number of occasions politicians don't review the technical details of military equipment, how could they given in most cases they have no experience, knowledge or expertise to make such a determination? Most credible militaries use a tender process staffed by experts including scientists from academia and industry, military officers and public servants from Government departments and contracted technical and legal experts from industry to select military equipment. They made recommendations to politicians who then decide.

YIMBY wrote:
Of course, it is possible that also the Russian military believe more in cryptic acronyms than in laws of physics and refuse to develop something new and invest on copy-cat models of western technology (Su-57, Buran, ...). (And the main adversary may not even be Russia but some one else with lower technology level or higher conservativeness.)

It is your theory, not mine.

Sure mate, you call the Russians stupid by saying they believe more in cryptic acronyms than the laws of physics but apparently it is my theory...
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:40 am

Ozair wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

You have to make up your mind. Either we already have the technology, just not the computing power to use it against stealth aircraft in a militarily useful way, yet, or, you may very will start promoting the conspiracy theory that all Radio astronomy is a scam to defraud billions of taxpayer money, because that is in essence what you are doing already.

Tommy I don't need to make up my mind, you need to actually support statements with facts. I made it very clear your radar development versus stealth theory was not accurate. I'm also have not and have never claimed radio astronomy is a scam but it is a discreet application under very controlled conditions looking for signals within very defined and discrete frequency ranges. It is not a battlefield technology today and the technologies that allow the sensitivities necessary for it to work do not translate well to battlefield applications.

tommy1808 wrote:
I didn't claim they where not aware, and even explained why stealth makes sense. You apparently start detecting things so stealthy that they really aren't there.

Tommy your inference was very clear, so much so that Yimby jumped on the bandwagon and agreed with you with the following "I, too, have enough access to scientists working with lower signal to noise ratios than the military to know what is possible. "

YIMBY wrote:
Several here evidently believe it, at least the troll.

Really, please point out who is the troll and where they claimed it?

YIMBY wrote:
No one has said that stealth is a simple addition. The whole point is that it is extremely expensive and compromises other design.

So when Tommy said,

tommy1808 wrote:
The only advantage of stealth will be forcing the opponent to have more expensive radars instead of lots of small ones*, which is a value in itself, and may very well offset the, likely small, extra cost of developing, deploying and maintaining stealth aircraft vs. New non-stealthy ones.

he wasn't actually talking about developing stealth aircraft...

YIMBY wrote:
Should I remind you how much it cost?

Please don't try, your confusion over current topics makes it not worth your time.


YIMBY wrote:
Most militaries are definitely not aware of even past designs.

And your evidence for this baseless claim is?

In response to this clearly factless claim, why don't you spend even a few minutes reviewing the Australian DSTG, https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/ They are a simple example of an Australian Department of Defence Organisation that brings in world class scientists and engineers to advise and develop on military technologies. Do these people simply forget their time in Academia when they come to DSTG?

How about DSTL in the UK whose stated purpose is "to maximise the impact of science and technology for the defence and security of the UK." https://www.gov.uk/government/organisat ... laboratory

Or perhaps DARPA in the US, "DARPA’s success depends on the vibrant ecosystem of innovation within which the Agency operates, and is fueled by partners in multiple sectors." https://www.darpa.mil/

YIMBY wrote:
Certainly not those representatives who pretend to know all here. (You are evidently from industry and not military, if that matters, and are probably aware but tell otherwise ex officio).

Who are the representatives who pretend to know all here?

I am not sure why you think I am from industry or military or whatever or why that even matters to this discussion. If I was from Industry does that make the factual supported statements I have provided less factual? If I was from military does that make the factual supported statements I have made less factual? If I was from neither, and just really interested in military aviation, does that make the factual supported statements I have made less factual?

YIMBY wrote:
When I served in the air force anything acronymized was sacred while laws of physics were considered relative.

I'm sorry you had to serve in a second rate military but using your own experience/bias and laying that on the rest of the globe is clearly not an analytical technique that supports your position.

YIMBY wrote:
And it is not what the military are aware, it is what the politicians are aware, when they make the decisions, based on all sales talk. Where on Earth are politicians who are aware of the latest technology, or anything else?

Yimby, as has been made very clear to you on a number of occasions politicians don't review the technical details of military equipment, how could they given in most cases they have no experience, knowledge or expertise to make such a determination? Most credible militaries use a tender process staffed by experts including scientists from academia and industry, military officers and public servants from Government departments and contracted technical and legal experts from industry to select military equipment. They made recommendations to politicians who then decide.

YIMBY wrote:
Of course, it is possible that also the Russian military believe more in cryptic acronyms than in laws of physics and refuse to develop something new and invest on copy-cat models of western technology (Su-57, Buran, ...). (And the main adversary may not even be Russia but some one else with lower technology level or higher conservativeness.)

It is your theory, not mine.

Sure mate, you call the Russians stupid by saying they believe more in cryptic acronyms than the laws of physics but apparently it is my theory...


+ 1
 
YIMBY
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:46 pm

Ozair wrote:

YIMBY wrote:
Most militaries are definitely not aware of even past designs.

And your evidence for this baseless claim is?

In response to this clearly factless claim, why don't you spend even a few minutes reviewing the Australian DSTG, https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/ They are a simple example of an Australian Department of Defence Organisation that brings in world class scientists and engineers to advise and develop on military technologies. Do these people simply forget their time in Academia when they come to DSTG?

How about DSTL in the UK whose stated purpose is "to maximise the impact of science and technology for the defence and security of the UK." https://www.gov.uk/government/organisat ... laboratory

Or perhaps DARPA in the US, "DARPA’s success depends on the vibrant ecosystem of innovation within which the Agency operates, and is fueled by partners in multiple sectors." https://www.darpa.mil/

Are specific organisations of Australia, US and UK most militaries?
Isn't there anything outside them?
Ozair wrote:

I am not sure why you think I am from industry

You speak like a salesman of Lockheed Martin.
Ozair wrote:


YIMBY wrote:
When I served in the air force anything acronymized was sacred while laws of physics were considered relative.

I'm sorry you had to serve in a second rate military but using your own experience/bias and laying that on the rest of the globe is clearly not an analytical technique that supports your position.

You made a general statement, so my experience is sufficient to claim that the general statement is not true.
Ozair wrote:

YIMBY wrote:
And it is not what the military are aware, it is what the politicians are aware, when they make the decisions, based on all sales talk. Where on Earth are politicians who are aware of the latest technology, or anything else?

Yimby, as has been made very clear to you on a number of occasions politicians don't review the technical details of military equipment, how could they given in most cases they have no experience, knowledge or expertise to make such a determination? Most credible militaries use a tender process staffed by experts including scientists from academia and industry, military officers and public servants from Government departments and contracted technical and legal experts from industry to select military equipment. They made recommendations to politicians who then decide.

And there were good technical and military reasons to drop F-35 out of the competition in Germany? Would you remind me of the reasons.

What about Canada? Switzerland? Bulgaria? Japan? India?
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Of course, it is possible that also the Russian military believe more in cryptic acronyms than in laws of physics and refuse to develop something new and invest on copy-cat models of western technology (Su-57, Buran, ...). (And the main adversary may not even be Russia but some one else with lower technology level or higher conservativeness.)

It is your theory, not mine.

Sure mate, you call the Russians stupid by saying they believe more in cryptic acronyms than the laws of physics but apparently it is my theory...


I did not say. I have great respect to the Russian (except their leaders, but that is not limited to the Russian). You tend to believe that when you send your retaliation mission into Russia in the 30's they will be met with the air force of last century. (Not that a number of MiG-21F's would make the life of a solitary F-35 pilot vary hard, if even short.)
 
Ozair
Posts: 4264
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:45 pm

YIMBY wrote:
Are specific organisations of Australia, US and UK most militaries?
Isn't there anything outside them?

Yimby, the discussion is clearly about developing and fielding stealth aircraft. We aren’t talking about tin pot African militaries etc, we are talking about those nations developing and/or fielding 5th gen aircraft. All of those have the same links and similar organisations whose role is to support and advise their uniform personnel on scientific and engineering matters. To remind you, because you want to move the goalposts to support your position, the claim is that stealth will be rendered useless by advances in signal processing. To have that theory validated it would have to cover those militaries and nations operating or developing stealth aircraft. That is essentially the top 20 militaries by budget. If you take the top 15 here,

Image

only Brazil and Saudi Arabia do not have or are attempting to field a 5th gen + aircraft, Brazil because they can't afford it and Saudi Arabia because no one will sell to them.

YIMBY wrote:
You speak like a salesman of Lockheed Martin.

I have never met a LM salesperson to know what they talk like. Again, I do not work for LM or their subsidiaries, have never working for LM or a subsidiary. My fast jet experience is all with McDD/Boeing aircraft. I do have to use some LM built software in my current position and it is terrible so I have no plans to work for a company that builds terrible software. What I do have though is fast jet experience, knowledge of current operating concepts and an ability to read, comprehend, analyse and make an assessment on information I read. I post all sorts of things here on airliners.net about fast jet aviation, not just the F-35.

The irony here is it wouldn’t matter if I showed you my payslip, resume and explained my life experience. You still would make the same baseless claim because instead of providing evidence to support your statements you just try and invalidate the factual statements of others though baseless accusations.

YIMBY wrote:
You made a general statement, so my experience is sufficient to claim that the general statement is not true/

No Yimby it isn’t, all it proves is you’re not actually here to discuss a topic but to push a factually unsupported, and clearly demonstrated, inaccurate position.

YIMBY wrote:
And there were good technical and military reasons to drop F-35 out of the competition in Germany? Would you remind me of the reasons.

We know the F-35 was excluded because both Dassault and Airbus stated it was too much competition for FCAS but again you are taking the statement out of context. The F-35 wasn’t excluded because German politicians evaluated the technical data and made their determination or even listened to the sales talk as you claim, it was done to support domestic industry as is their right. Most people, including Tommy and Seahawk, think the F-35 is probably the best aircaft for the job but also can comprehend enough to know that the decision to not acquire it wasn't made after evaluating its technical merits.

YIMBY wrote:
What about Canada? Switzerland? Bulgaria? Japan? India?

What about them. Canada is a good chance to order F-35 and is running an open competition, as is Switzerland. Why do you want to talk about Bulgaria, it selected the F-16 over the Gripen, as has happened in multiple previous competitions, Japan has just signed for 140+ F-35s but is also keen to develop a domestic 5th gen aircraft. Better tell the country with one of the most advanced electronic industries that their stealth plans are a waste of time. Also India is very keen to develop a 5th gen aircraft, the AMCA, but is also a chance to acquire the Su-57 once the program starts actually delivering production aircraft.

YIMBY wrote:
I did not say. I have great respect to the Russian (except their leaders, but that is not limited to the Russian). You tend to believe that when you send your retaliation mission into Russia in the 30's they will be met with the air force of last century. (Not that a number of MiG-21F's would make the life of a solitary F-35 pilot vary hard, if even short.)


Yimby, I think we have a comprehension problem. Can you point out to me where I spoke about a mission into Russia other than pointing out to Tommy the following on the 9th of October?
Ozair wrote:
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.

No Mig-21s there... So where did I talk about meeting a Russian air force of last century?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8712
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:12 am

Pointless debate - the German purchase is dictated by political wishes - the F-35 could be an UFO shooting lasers in a 360° arc - it would not matter when politicians do not want it.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:05 pm

seahawk wrote:
Pointless debate - the German purchase is dictated by political wishes - the F-35 could be an UFO shooting lasers in a 360° arc - it would not matter when politicians do not want it.


Well said!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 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