Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:51 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Ukraine will never get Crimea back, that's not really a problem for them anymore, the problem is in Eastern Ukraine where the population is Russian, that's where the fighting happened.


Such is the way of the world. Ultimately the most sensible thing for Ukraine is to redraw the border. Stop the fighting and rebuild the economy toward the West. In time they will be the envy of those in Eastern Ukraine and may even reintegrate it economically if not politically.

The same can be said about Kaliningrad. The most logical solution if Russia decides that it no longer need the city strategically, is for the city to become a city state and become the Monaco of the north.

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

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Sep 17, 2020 4:06 am

It all sounds good until I wake up and realize we are dealing w a guy who uses nerve agents on his political allies.

The leadership in the countries closest to Russia, I’m sure are very cognizant of this.

While nerve agents didn’t exist in 10-19 th centuries the security dynamics in Europe are largely the same, which is to say tricky as hell.

The German AF knows all this which is why they wanted the AC that provided the best deterrence.
 
Nick614
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:55 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:06 pm

The same could be argued about many territories which are occupied by a foreign power, take Hawaii for example what benefit does it provide to the US? It's was taken from it's people in a bloodless coup and annexed to the US, when in reality it was a sovereign nation with it's own government and monarch.


Terrible analogy. Either Britain or the United States was taking over Hawaii. United States was stronger, so we got it. Hawaii has been and is very valuable to the United States for many reasons. I would have left it as a territory though.

Just look at the US in 2016?


Trump has been good for NATO and for the US in general. Has forced NATO countries to pay up. Obama and Bush politely asked many times for them to do so. Sometimes it takes a rude, brash person to get things done.

New trade deals with Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea. Soon to be with the UK.

If he wins re-election China and the EU are going to be forced into making a US friendly deal as well.

No new wars.

Iran is contained and Arab states are now signing peace deals with Israel and recognizing them.

It all sounds good until I wake up and realize we are dealing w a guy who uses nerve agents on his political allies.


Yes but Putin won't be there forever. Eventually someone will come to power that cares for the Russian people. It happened under communism, it can happen under their oligarchy, too.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:00 pm

Nick614 wrote:
Trump has been good for NATO and for the US in general.


I'll trust this statement more if it came from an European NATO member.

Nick614 wrote:
Eventually someone will come to power that cares for the Russian people.


Same can be said about the American people. This coming from a State our president has written off.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Nick614
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:55 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:04 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
Trump has been good for NATO and for the US in general.


I'll trust this statement more if it came from an European NATO member.

Nick614 wrote:
Eventually someone will come to power that cares for the Russian people.


Same can be said about the American people. This coming from a State our president has written off.

bt


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor ... 695799002/
 
vr773
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:10 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:54 am

Nick614 wrote:
Trump has been good for NATO and for the US in general. Has forced NATO countries to pay up. Obama and Bush politely asked many times for them to do so. Sometimes it takes a rude, brash person to get things done.

- Military spending of NATO members increased the years before Trump. Trump has not caused the increases.
- This hasn’t been “done”. The 2% goal is an idiotic goal, but it’s a goal. A goal that hasn’t been reached by the NATO members you’re referring to.

Nick614 wrote:
Iran is container and Arab states are now signing peace deals with Israel and recognizing them.

- It‘s not a “peace deal“. No peace has been accomplished by its signing. Just ask the people of Jemen...or the Palestinians.
- Iran is much closer to the bomb now than they were before Trump. Nothing is contained.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:40 am

bikerthai wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
Trump has been good for NATO and for the US in general.


I'll trust this statement more if it came from an European NATO member.


Plz, Obama’s policy was to pivot to the Pacific which like most of his policies was empty. Every bad actor on the world stage was emboldened under his leadership.

Trump has insisted European members pay more and do more. Where the disaster in this or for that matter anything else he has done?

You can only claim the sky is falling so many times, especially considering what has been transpiring in the Mid East compared to what all the “experts” predicted.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:11 am

Planeflyer wrote:
I'll trust this statement more if it came from an European NATO member.


I meant European members on this forum.

The statement from NATO head just prove that they are smart enough politician to complement Trump. Its easier to get him off your back if you talk nice. Then you can do your own thing and save face.

Example: Boeing's PAR cost reduction experience.

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

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:22 am

Again plz, It’ll go like this; Nato is essential but there is no need for us to spend any money( unless it is for a European product) because there is no current threat.

Then, when it is pointed out that most of the hundreds of European wars over the past thousand years were not preceded by a threat that anyone saw coming, a long silence ensues.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:38 am

Planeflyer wrote:
Then, when it is pointed out that most of the hundreds of European wars over the past thousand years were not preceded by a threat that anyone saw coming, a long silence ensues.


Please, we are getting off subject. As for the silense. Its because the statement is in fact incorrect. All these wars, including WWI and WWII were brewing long before the shooting started. Its just such naratives were not taught in US history classes because all the prelude did not involve Americans.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Nick614
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:55 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:49 am

- It‘s not a “peace deal“. No peace has been accomplished by its signing. Just ask the people of Jemen...or the Palestinians.
- Iran is much closer to the bomb now than they were before Trump. Nothing is contained.



Why would I ask other parties about a peace deal when they aren't involved in it? Yemen is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Arab countries are choosing Israel/West to counter Iran. Iran coasted for awhile with the money Obama allowed to them access.

Yes Iran and Europeans are against the deal because they have economic interests in Iran and have a long history of antisemitism.

But guess what? They are irrelevant parties, they also said the US moving the embassy to Jerusalem would destabilize the middle east and it is only getting incrementally better under Trump.

I meant European members on this forum.


Yes because a random guy on a forum knows exactly the NATO/EU/USA dynamics and all the behind the scene dealings. IMO the best way to get Germany to modernize their military is for the US to completely remove everything from Europe. It is a financial burden to house close to 100,000 in all there (Europe) and a huge economic boon to the local European towns which would be better spent in the USA or better yet to reduce the size of the standing Army.
 
vr773
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:10 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:19 am

Nick614 wrote:
- It‘s not a “peace deal“. No peace has been accomplished by its signing. Just ask the people of Jemen...or the Palestinians.
- Iran is much closer to the bomb now than they were before Trump. Nothing is contained.



Why would I ask other parties about a peace deal when they aren't involved in it? Yemen is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Arab countries are choosing Israel/West to counter Iran. Iran coasted for awhile with the money Obama allowed to them access.

Yes Iran and Europeans are against the deal because they have economic interests in Iran and have a long history of antisemitism.

But guess what? They are irrelevant parties, they also said the US moving the embassy to Jerusalem would destabilize the middle east and it is only getting incrementally better under Trump.


You're commenting on my post without really commenting on it. The "Europeans" aren't against the deal but they - just like everyone in the US who hasn't been brainwashed by FoxNews - are rightfully asking what this "peace deal" has accomplished. It hasn't accomplished anything. It was a photo op for Trump to help his reelection which is in the interest of fellow autocrats MBS and Netanyahu.

Nick614 wrote:
It is a financial burden to house close to 100,000 in all there (Europe) and a huge economic boon to the local European towns which would be better spent in the USA or better yet to reduce the size of the standing Army.


Why don't they leave? The majority of Germans is also for a further reduction or complete removal.
Also, the economic "boon" is tiny, not huge.
 
Nick614
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:55 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:38 pm

The "Europeans" aren't against the deal but they - just like everyone in the US who hasn't been brainwashed by FoxNews - are rightfully asking what this "peace deal" has accomplished. It hasn't accomplished anything. It was a photo op for Trump to help his reelection which is in the interest of fellow autocrats MBS and Netanyahu.


Ew, who would waste time watching Fox news? They are almost as bad as CNN and MSNBC. I wouldn't watch any US cable "news" channel... If the deal was good for Saudi Arabia then why didn't they sign the deal too? The Europeans want to reinstate the JCPOA and this is going in the complete opposite direction. I would say economic relationships, official recognition of Israel and flights between the countries are huge accomplishments. Just look at the past 60 years...

Why don't they leave? The majority of Germans is also for a further reduction or complete removal. Also, the economic "boon" is tiny, not huge.


Every time the US tries to remove troops from Europe, the host nation practically begs for it not to happen. See below, plus there are papers written on the subject of US withdrawal from Europe as well.

in 2001, a study by the University of Trier showed that the Ramstein Air Base and the nearby Spangdahlem Air Base contributed around €1.4 billion ($1.7 billion) to the local economy and supported about 27,000 jobs in the region.


https://www.dw.com/en/german-towns-face ... a-53726117

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... ommunities
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:47 pm

Nick614 wrote:
Yes because a random guy on a forum knows exactly the NATO/EU/USA dynamics and all the behind the scene dealings.


Depending on the forum. I find here that despite many difference in opinions on tech matter, the majority of those posting here are knowledgeable and not as random as elsewhere.

How does the current mid-east accord relate to German's weapon buy decision?

Well prior to WWI and WWII you see nations starting align anticipating a conflict. Are we seeing that right now?

If a future conflict would erupt with Iran, as Israel's neighbor is preparing for, what decision today for Germany may be influenced by that suppositions?

I see Growlers and F-32's. Nukes will be of no use as any use be cause it would be unlikely Germany would use nuke on foreign soil, and if it comes to that, Israel and the US would more likely deploy it before Germany.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Nick614
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:55 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:03 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
Yes because a random guy on a forum knows exactly the NATO/EU/USA dynamics and all the behind the scene dealings.


Depending on the forum. I find here that despite many difference in opinions on tech matter, the majority of those posting here are knowledgeable and not as random as elsewhere.

How does the current mid-east accord relate to German's weapon buy decision?

Well prior to WWI and WWII you see nations starting align anticipating a conflict. Are we seeing that right now?

If a future conflict would erupt with Iran, as Israel's neighbor is preparing for, what decision today for Germany may be influenced by that suppositions?

I see Growlers and F-32's. Nukes will be of no use as any use be cause it would be unlikely Germany would use nuke on foreign soil, and if it comes to that, Israel and the US would more likely deploy it before Germany.

bt


Depends on the US election in November, IMO. If Trump is reelected then I think Europe will have to give up hope of the JCPOA and economic relations with Iran. This is going to force Iran into a US/Arab favored deal, or to continue on alone like North Korea.

If Biden is elected, he said he would go back into JCPOA, which IMO, will lead to an open war. Right now those wars have been proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and sponsored terrorism. But the Arabs and Israel see JCPOA as a path to Iranian nukes and both parties will not let that happen under any circumstances.

I think Germany wants to have all the benefits of being a world power without any of the responsibilities that come with it. Germany needs to realize that isn't realistic and needs to step up and modernize their forces. If they want German equipment, I think that is great. They should have bought a couple F-16s to carry the B61 and could sell them when they have their homegrown solution in place. The F-18 buy is a rather odd decision.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:31 pm

Nick614 wrote:
If they want German equipment, I think that is great. They should have bought a couple F-16s to carry the B61 and could sell them when they have their homegrown solution in place. The F-18 buy is a rather odd decision.

The F-18 is primarily motivated by the F-18G, since Germany not only has the internal desire for nuclear sharing but also the NATO commitment to electronic warfare. It will replace the current Tornado ECR fleet. An Eurofighter ECR / Recce modification has been suggested but it's not available in the desired timeframe (and is relatively high risk compared to the proven F-18G). Making the F-18 carry nukes is the logical consequence, since the US haven't shown much enthusiasm to certify the Eurofighter, nor would it be as quick as the F-18.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:31 pm

Nick614 wrote:
or to continue on alone like North Korea.


But unlike Korea, Iran will have the backing of Russia as it consolidate it's middle east presence with Syria and maybe in to Libya.

Nick614 wrote:
The F-18 buy is a rather odd decision.

See post above.

From a business stand point. If Germany can bundle the buy with the heavy lift helo, they might be able to wrangle out some discount from Boeing. I know this is an FMS buy, so the price is fixed by the US government, but they may be able to get side deals.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
GDB
Posts: 13785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:34 pm

Their strikes in retaliation against targets in the region injured many US personnel, mainly concussion injuries, which Trump, draft dodging coward that he is, called 'minor headaches'.
Trump thought he could have a nice little 'war' to boost him, he backed off after that. At least that's the opinion of actual military experts.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ttack-iraq

Aforementioned NATO agreement, point 14, (the last so scroll down), proving my point and not your Trumpist PR.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/offi ... 112964.htm

Who is engaging in 'political talking points?'
Always better to have a bit of knowledge, though I understand that runs counter to Trumpist BS.

Iran has another card to play, US aversion to body bags.
Nasty regime agreed, not that the ones the US backs are any better.
The biggest threat to Iran? Internal dissent.
The biggest boost to the regime, threats from abroad, countries that have actually had modern war on their soil or just above it, understand this. It tends to unite even opponents of said regime.

Back to topic.
Germany and NATO nukes.
Yes they are symbolic, as are all such weapons.

Over the past 15 years, Trump's best bud Vlad, has;
Engaged in radiation poisoning in London (and caused 2 BA 767's to be checked for radiation as the perps flew in on them).
Attacked Georgia.
Did a major cyber attack on a sovereign nation (Estonia) crippling it's infrastructure.
Annexed a region and shot down a Malaysian 777 while doing so.
Carried out a nerve agent attack on a British city, injuring not just the targets but one UK police officer and member of the public, both still affected by it, murdering another and leaving enough of the agent lying around to kill 100's.

Which begs the question, what if he thinks he can push more, until one day he does something that NATO cannot counter with anything other than military force?
Do we really want to reach that situation?
The best defence is a united front, don't try and BS me and pretend he hasn't constantly whined about NATO and other international bodies, said so himself on numerous occasions.
A second Trump term will encourage Putin, after all Trump only agreed to follow other NATO sanctions after the nerve agent attack after extreme pressure from his military/intel people (who he constantly undermines and insults), and the few remaining sane GOP senior politicians. He didn't like it and said so.

If reaffirming Germany's access to and post Tornado nuke delivery capability is part of that, so be it.
However Cold War-ish it might seem.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1528
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:48 pm

GDB wrote:
Their strikes in retaliation against targets in the region injured many US personnel, mainly concussion injuries, which Trump, draft dodging coward that he is, called 'minor headaches'.
Trump thought he could have a nice little 'war' to boost him, he backed off after that. At least that's the opinion of actual military experts.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ttack-iraq

Aforementioned NATO agreement, point 14, (the last so scroll down), proving my point and not your Trumpist PR.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/offi ... 112964.htm

Who is engaging in 'political talking points?'
Always better to have a bit of knowledge, though I understand that runs counter to Trumpist BS.

Iran has another card to play, US aversion to body bags.
Nasty regime agreed, not that the ones the US backs are any better.
The biggest threat to Iran? Internal dissent.
The biggest boost to the regime, threats from abroad, countries that have actually had modern war on their soil or just above it, understand this. It tends to unite even opponents of said regime.

Back to topic.
Germany and NATO nukes.
Yes they are symbolic, as are all such weapons.

Over the past 15 years, Trump's best bud Vlad, has;
Engaged in radiation poisoning in London (and caused 2 BA 767's to be checked for radiation as the perps flew in on them).
Attacked Georgia.
Did a major cyber attack on a sovereign nation (Estonia) crippling it's infrastructure.
Annexed a region and shot down a Malaysian 777 while doing so.
Carried out a nerve agent attack on a British city, injuring not just the targets but one UK police officer and member of the public, both still affected by it, murdering another and leaving enough of the agent lying around to kill 100's.

Which begs the question, what if he thinks he can push more, until one day he does something that NATO cannot counter with anything other than military force?
Do we really want to reach that situation?
The best defence is a united front, don't try and BS me and pretend he hasn't constantly whined about NATO and other international bodies, said so himself on numerous occasions.
A second Trump term will encourage Putin, after all Trump only agreed to follow other NATO sanctions after the nerve agent attack after extreme pressure from his military/intel people (who he constantly undermines and insults), and the few remaining sane GOP senior politicians. He didn't like it and said so.

If reaffirming Germany's access to and post Tornado nuke delivery capability is part of that, so be it.
However Cold War-ish it might seem.


You run on about as much as Obama and all the European soft power types that appease first and ask questions later.

All the left’s bluster can’t dampen the impact of the Trump’s success in the Mid East. And I think you know it but more importantly so do voters.

Btw, Plz make the case for Biden if you dare especially in light of the money, Putin arranged to have paid to his son.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:25 pm

Nick614 wrote:
Trump killed their top general

Murdered would be a better term. Others get locked up for life for lesser crimes. But hey, if jingoism makes you happy...
 
GDB
Posts: 13785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:12 am

Planeflyer wrote:
GDB wrote:
Their strikes in retaliation against targets in the region injured many US personnel, mainly concussion injuries, which Trump, draft dodging coward that he is, called 'minor headaches'.
Trump thought he could have a nice little 'war' to boost him, he backed off after that. At least that's the opinion of actual military experts.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ttack-iraq

Aforementioned NATO agreement, point 14, (the last so scroll down), proving my point and not your Trumpist PR.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/offi ... 112964.htm

Who is engaging in 'political talking points?'
Always better to have a bit of knowledge, though I understand that runs counter to Trumpist BS.

Iran has another card to play, US aversion to body bags.
Nasty regime agreed, not that the ones the US backs are any better.
The biggest threat to Iran? Internal dissent.
The biggest boost to the regime, threats from abroad, countries that have actually had modern war on their soil or just above it, understand this. It tends to unite even opponents of said regime.

Back to topic.
Germany and NATO nukes.
Yes they are symbolic, as are all such weapons.

Over the past 15 years, Trump's best bud Vlad, has;
Engaged in radiation poisoning in London (and caused 2 BA 767's to be checked for radiation as the perps flew in on them).
Attacked Georgia.
Did a major cyber attack on a sovereign nation (Estonia) crippling it's infrastructure.
Annexed a region and shot down a Malaysian 777 while doing so.
Carried out a nerve agent attack on a British city, injuring not just the targets but one UK police officer and member of the public, both still affected by it, murdering another and leaving enough of the agent lying around to kill 100's.

Which begs the question, what if he thinks he can push more, until one day he does something that NATO cannot counter with anything other than military force?
Do we really want to reach that situation?
The best defence is a united front, don't try and BS me and pretend he hasn't constantly whined about NATO and other international bodies, said so himself on numerous occasions.
A second Trump term will encourage Putin, after all Trump only agreed to follow other NATO sanctions after the nerve agent attack after extreme pressure from his military/intel people (who he constantly undermines and insults), and the few remaining sane GOP senior politicians. He didn't like it and said so.

If reaffirming Germany's access to and post Tornado nuke delivery capability is part of that, so be it.
However Cold War-ish it might seem.


You run on about as much as Obama and all the European soft power types that appease first and ask questions later.

All the left’s bluster can’t dampen the impact of the Trump’s success in the Mid East. And I think you know it but more importantly so do voters.

Btw, Plz make the case for Biden if you dare especially in light of the money, Putin arranged to have paid to his son.


Look, I get it, the US right are unable to be in any way rational about Iran, much like Cuba.
Still butthurt after the hostage crisis and the botched rescue attempt, 40 years on.
FACT - The US gave weapons to Iran to get a few hostages out, those of us with memories longer than a US electoral cycle know this.
So don't you EVER attack other nation's rational responses.
The 2015 deal stopped Iran's nuke program as sanctions were hurting, which in turn created the internal dissent the hardliners feared, they came too close for their own comfort in losing control in 2009 for instance.

Then Trump ended it because President black guy brokered it, cannot have those who should just be the help do things like that can we?
Which in turn empowered the regime's hardliners again, as anyone with the remotest clue could have seen.
You are fooling no-one but yourselves.
Besides, how else are you going to end the Iranian regime? A full scale war? Don't make me laugh.

France did screw up in 1979 granted, the French Security Service urged that that mad mullah then exiled in France should be 'dealt with' before he flew back a hero, the then French President, Giscard, refused. The same buffoon who allowed him in, ironically his successor from 1981, Mitterand, (oohhh, scary Socialist), likely would have green lit such an op had he been in office then, he could be ruthless like that.

But then who overthrew a democratic Iranian government in 1953? Installed a once fascist supporting fake monarch? The US and to our shame, the UK too, at least the latter, until recently at least, realized this.
Do you really think that the Iranians don't know all of this?
Stop assuming they are as ignorant about this as too many in the US are.
Biggest CIA station in the region, maybe in the world in 1979, didn't see it coming did they, even those mere poor relation Limey's at MI6 were warning what was coming from 1977. What did they know eh?

Which brings us back to NATO, whose members, and others, all worked hard to broker the deal, which the orange racist and his minions ripped up.
Now that is a crisis of confidence, quite apart from the insults aimed at the leaders of allies, especially female ones, another thing Trump cannot handle, mere women as leaders.
So really the US is in no position as things stand right now to tell any NATO nation what they should or should not do as regards defence, why the hell should they listen to that overgrown, irrational child?

100's of European NATO service personnel were killed in Afghanistan, so back off with any suggestion of being 'ungrateful'.
453 from the UK alone.
Worse coming from a draft dodger who also cannot handle expert opinion from his security/intel people, (if he even comprehends it).

Now if Germany does not seek to renew it's commitment to NATO nuclear delivery, that is their right, I would not agree with it, I don't think it's likely, even so, it's it their right as a sovereign nation and grown ups can handle it/find a way around it.

Trump is not to be trusted, nor should he be.
Though I suspect if the F-18E/G is eventually chosen as the platform, at least in the near to medium term, the defence dollars won't be sniffed at will they?
Because it's all about $ with the current US admin.

Granted it does seem to be the quickest way of doing it, as well as retaining their SEAD role, (which they used in combat over Kosovo), I note that the UK are pressing ahead with (mostly radar) based upgrades to the RAF Batch 3 and likely 2 airframes, which may encourage Germany to follow.
But that does not involve nuclear delivery, at least for the RAF.

As discussed further up more work would be needed for German Typhoons for nuke delivery, if Germany is at fault here it is that they should have seen this issue coming sooner. Since it was never designed in to the aircraft.
Though to be fair, the RAF Tornado fleet, on constant operational deployments since 1990, were subject to rather more wear and tear than the German AF fleet, hence their retirement last year.
 
Nick614
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:55 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:21 am

mxaxai wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
Trump killed their top general

Murdered would be a better term. Others get locked up for life for lesser crimes. But hey, if jingoism makes you happy...


False, if you are the commander in charge of 1000s of US soldiers' deaths than you are open to targeting and death.
 
Nick614
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:55 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:35 am

GDB wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
GDB wrote:
Their strikes in retaliation against targets in the region injured many US personnel, mainly concussion injuries, which Trump, draft dodging coward that he is, called 'minor headaches'.
Trump thought he could have a nice little 'war' to boost him, he backed off after that. At least that's the opinion of actual military experts.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ttack-iraq

Aforementioned NATO agreement, point 14, (the last so scroll down), proving my point and not your Trumpist PR.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/offi ... 112964.htm

Who is engaging in 'political talking points?'
Always better to have a bit of knowledge, though I understand that runs counter to Trumpist BS.

Iran has another card to play, US aversion to body bags.
Nasty regime agreed, not that the ones the US backs are any better.
The biggest threat to Iran? Internal dissent.
The biggest boost to the regime, threats from abroad, countries that have actually had modern war on their soil or just above it, understand this. It tends to unite even opponents of said regime.

Back to topic.
Germany and NATO nukes.
Yes they are symbolic, as are all such weapons.

Over the past 15 years, Trump's best bud Vlad, has;
Engaged in radiation poisoning in London (and caused 2 BA 767's to be checked for radiation as the perps flew in on them).
Attacked Georgia.
Did a major cyber attack on a sovereign nation (Estonia) crippling it's infrastructure.
Annexed a region and shot down a Malaysian 777 while doing so.
Carried out a nerve agent attack on a British city, injuring not just the targets but one UK police officer and member of the public, both still affected by it, murdering another and leaving enough of the agent lying around to kill 100's.

Which begs the question, what if he thinks he can push more, until one day he does something that NATO cannot counter with anything other than military force?
Do we really want to reach that situation?
The best defence is a united front, don't try and BS me and pretend he hasn't constantly whined about NATO and other international bodies, said so himself on numerous occasions.
A second Trump term will encourage Putin, after all Trump only agreed to follow other NATO sanctions after the nerve agent attack after extreme pressure from his military/intel people (who he constantly undermines and insults), and the few remaining sane GOP senior politicians. He didn't like it and said so.

If reaffirming Germany's access to and post Tornado nuke delivery capability is part of that, so be it.
However Cold War-ish it might seem.


You run on about as much as Obama and all the European soft power types that appease first and ask questions later.

All the left’s bluster can’t dampen the impact of the Trump’s success in the Mid East. And I think you know it but more importantly so do voters.

Btw, Plz make the case for Biden if you dare especially in light of the money, Putin arranged to have paid to his son.


Look, I get it, the US right are unable to be in any way rational about Iran, much like Cuba.
Still butthurt after the hostage crisis and the botched rescue attempt, 40 years on.
FACT - The US gave weapons to Iran to get a few hostages out, those of us with memories longer than a US electoral cycle know this.
So don't you EVER attack other nation's rational responses.
The 2015 deal stopped Iran's nuke program as sanctions were hurting, which in turn created the internal dissent the hardliners feared, they came too close for their own comfort in losing control in 2009 for instance.

Then Trump ended it because President black guy brokered it, cannot have those who should just be the help do things like that can we?
Which in turn empowered the regime's hardliners again, as anyone with the remotest clue could have seen.
You are fooling no-one but yourselves.
Besides, how else are you going to end the Iranian regime? A full scale war? Don't make me laugh.

France did screw up in 1979 granted, the French Security Service urged that that mad mullah then exiled in France should be 'dealt with' before he flew back a hero, the then French President, Giscard, refused. The same buffoon who allowed him in, ironically his successor from 1981, Mitterand, (oohhh, scary Socialist), likely would have green lit such an op had he been in office then, he could be ruthless like that.

But then who overthrew a democratic Iranian government in 1953? Installed a once fascist supporting fake monarch? The US and to our shame, the UK too, at least the latter, until recently at least, realized this.
Do you really think that the Iranians don't know all of this?
Stop assuming they are as ignorant about this as too many in the US are.
Biggest CIA station in the region, maybe in the world in 1979, didn't see it coming did they, even those mere poor relation Limey's at MI6 were warning what was coming from 1977. What did they know eh?

Which brings us back to NATO, whose members, and others, all worked hard to broker the deal, which the orange racist and his minions ripped up.
Now that is a crisis of confidence, quite apart from the insults aimed at the leaders of allies, especially female ones, another thing Trump cannot handle, mere women as leaders.
So really the US is in no position as things stand right now to tell any NATO nation what they should or should not do as regards defence, why the hell should they listen to that overgrown, irrational child?

100's of European NATO service personnel were killed in Afghanistan, so back off with any suggestion of being 'ungrateful'.
453 from the UK alone.
Worse coming from a draft dodger who also cannot handle expert opinion from his security/intel people, (if he even comprehends it).

Now if Germany does not seek to renew it's commitment to NATO nuclear delivery, that is their right, I would not agree with it, I don't think it's likely, even so, it's it their right as a sovereign nation and grown ups can handle it/find a way around it.

Trump is not to be trusted, nor should he be.


You seem upset, if it were up to me the USA would leave NATO and Europe completely. Yes, Western European governments are inept, condescending, ungrateful and entitled. You think 100s of casualties in a war in Afghanistan is anything close to what the USA has given to Europe? The free and peaceful Europe wouldn't even exist today without the USA. And no one is defending Putin, he is no different than the leaders of Iran and North Korea, stealing the wealth of their nation for their own personal benefit and power.

In the end it doesn't matter Iran will be isolated because the EU would rather trade with the USA than Iran. Iran will be poor and a shitty place to live and one day the people there will overthrow their government like they have many times in their history. All that means nothing to the USA, we only care about Iran giving money for terrorism and trying to get nukes, which would start a war. Without Obama's deal they will have no money to do either.
 
stratable
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:22 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:49 am

Nick614 wrote:
GDB wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:

You seem upset, if it were up to me the USA would leave NATO and Europe completely. Yes, Western European governments are inept, condescending, ungrateful and entitled. You think 100s of casualties in a war in Afghanistan is anything close to what the USA has given to Europe? The free and peaceful Europe wouldn't even exist today without the USA. And no one is defending Putin, he is no different than the leaders of Iran and North Korea, stealing the wealth of their nation for their own personal benefit and power.

In the end it doesn't matter Iran will be isolated because the EU would rather trade with the USA than Iran. Iran will be poor and a shitty place to live and one day the people there will overthrow their government like they have many times in their history. All that means nothing to the USA, we only care about Iran giving money for terrorism and trying to get nukes, which would start a war. Without Obama's deal they will have no money to do either.



I would disagree with you, a lot of your issues seem to arise from cultural differences.
From a European perspective, the governments lean more towards diplomacy and non-violent intervention than the US does, partially because Europe has experienced a tremendous amount of war
on its own soil in the last few centuries. It has little to do with appeasing anyone but with finding the best option for oneself while also promoting peace and democracy abroad. This also involves doing deals with adversaries that may benefit the general population, such as the gas deal with Russia or business deals as part of a nuclear deal with Iran.
The US has been extremely supportive of Europe after the second world war, both because they believed it was the right thing to do but also because it benefited themselves. Imagine the US leaving NATO
and all European partners telling them to close their bases. That would be a significant strategic loss to the US.
I agree with you that the EU needs to step up their international commitment, but they are already doing so. Germany and especially France are highly involved in Africa and European nations are closely
integrating their militaries, such as creating a common taker fleet. Any current aircraft could likely meet all operational requirements in that environment.

Russia is Europe's primary adversary, however, European airforces primarily operate for self-defense and not attacking foreign airspaces. The F-18 in my opinion makes sense to fulfill Germany's commitment for electronic warfare and easily maintain nuclear capability until their own FCAS will arrive in 20-30 years. More Typhoons would take care of the air defense and other Tornado roles. As initially planned.
Governments are slow sometimes but that is the case in any nation. Maybe the F-18 also has other capabilities that the Typhoons even in their updated role do not offer, that I don't know. But it would be interesting to find out..
A313 319/20/21 332/3 343 359 B734/8 742/4/4M 752/3 763ER 772/E/W 787-8/-9 CRJ900 CS300 ERJ-145 F70 Q100/300/400
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13544
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:08 am

Nick614 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
Trump killed their top general

Murdered would be a better term. Others get locked up for life for lesser crimes. But hey, if jingoism makes you happy...


False, if you are the commander in charge of 1000s of US soldiers' deaths than you are open to targeting and death.


Correct, it was murder, since it was murder under Iraqi law. And since it was an Iranian in Iraq, Irans and Iraqs laws are the only relevant ones.

But surprisingly generous of you to give Iran permission to target anyone in the US chain of command.

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

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:04 pm

Nick614 wrote:
Yes, Western European governments are inept, condescending, ungrateful and entitled.


Please, we just because these government places their people's standard of living above their defense priorities does not mean they are inept.

As with all democracies the government reflect the will of the people. And if you do not believe that, then what would you say about the will of the American people to elect Trump?

We are not talking about Obama's failing nor Trump's failing. We are talking about Germany's nuke requirement in the fighter buy.

Bring in the Middle East accord between the Gulf States and Isreal if you wish. If is is as stabilizing as you would contend, then why would Germany need the nukes.

As for the Russian treatment of their opposition, and paramilitary influence in their border states. The best counter would be build up the economy of your own border states so people would not be tempted to go to Russia for assistance.

You can also build up a resistance to the Russian troll farms, so as to counter their disinformation. False narratives are the worst enemy of democracies, not the lack of nukes.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
GDB
Posts: 13785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:33 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
Yes, Western European governments are inept, condescending, ungrateful and entitled.


So ill informed as not to be worthy of a detailed response, though it seems to illustrate a profound lack of knowledge, not all the governments are the same and neither should they be US vassal states, it's NATO we are at heart talking about not the defunct Warsaw Pact after all.

It might surprise many to know who was the prime driver in the formation of NATO, notwithstanding that the US would, of course, be the largest member.
Happens this prime driver is one of my political heroes, don't have many and none around today;

https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/on ... tion-nato/

A recent book on him;

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/ ... nis-review

On one of his blind spots, as there is much debate these days about ascribing today's values to historical figures, Bevin was the target of attempts by terrorists such as the Igrun and the Stern Gang to assassinate him.
Thugs who were killing British troops trying to keep the peace in Palestine, blowing up hotels full of civilians, as well as Palestinian civilians, they called the British troops 'Nazis', despite the fact that many of them had actually fought the Nazis while the Igrun and Stern Gang had for the most part spent WW2 sunning themselves in the Kibbutz as well as aforementioned attacks on Arabs.

On the other, well his boss, PM Clement Attlee, did not share his idea of Empire 2.0, after all he pushed through Indian independence having been converted to the idea 20 years before.

As stated in the review, he even managed to put aside his gut views of Germans, common with those who has experienced two world wars started by Germany.
Indeed, one reason why the post war UK still had rationing long afterwards was the responsibility of garrisoning it's area of occupied Germany, which meant feeding them.
Try telling that to a war weary population many of whom had lost people in war, in bombing at home.

There was a price to pay for Bevin's great triumph of committing the US to change the habits embedded since it's independence, with NATO.
When the Korean war broke out the US demanded that the far from war recovered UK to not only triple it's defence spending, already high and a drag on post war recovery and to commit forces to Korea, despite it never having been in the British sphere of influence.
It caused a deep rupture in the Labour government, spending was doubled and the UK became the second largest external contributor to the Korean war after the US. The spending though was to quickly ramp up the defence of Europe since many believed the North Korean aggression was a diversion planned by Stalin, whose designs on Germany was in very recent memory with the Berlin blockade.

Bevin was also the prime driver in the UK going nuclear after the US reneged on the 1943 agreement in 1945.
Truman's Sec of State Byrnes was an Anglophobic isolationist at heart so he and Ernie did not get on, luckily Truman would replace him later with the great George Marshall, who Bevin not only got on with but respected.
 
GDB
Posts: 13785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:17 pm

To add to my previous post, below is a 30 min talk on the history of the UK bomb, by a foremost expert on the subject, Bevin's colourful contribution is described between 8-11 mins, the famous 'Bloody Union Jack On Top Of It', perhaps his most famous quote.

I know the above post and this seems off topic, however we at heart talking about NATO and nuclear weapons, it is instructive to know the routes of where we are now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeARYkdDDto

Other major steps to this were of course the Eisenhower Admins new look policies, born out of a desire to slash US conventional defence spending, which lead to the current arrangements which put US supplied bombs, under dual key control, into European AF's delivery systems. F-84's, F-104's etc.
As well as RAF aircraft based in West Germany.

Had it not been for Putin's policy of aggressive bitterness, which I believe is from his belief that the Warsaw Pact then USSR, collapsed due to a Western plot, rather than it's own internal fissures and contradictions, we would not be having this discussion at all, since the idea of replacing tactical nuclear delivery systems in German service would be a moot point.

Finally, many of you will know of the person below, check out 'Early Life And Education', who and what he studied, Ernie and Clem was of great interest to a US Republican, not what you would expect, two British democratic Socialists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Baker
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:09 pm

GDB,

Thanks for the perspective and the readings/vids. Some of us on this side of the Atlantic still have respect for our allies, instead of viewing them as temporary commodities best used as bargaining chips.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
GDB
Posts: 13785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:26 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
GDB,

Thanks for the perspective and the readings/vids. Some of us on this side of the Atlantic still have respect for our allies, instead of viewing them as temporary commodities best used as bargaining chips.


Thanks, I think that is generally understood, my ire is aimed at one man and his admin.
Not the US as a whole (though god knows we have our own clowns in charge at the moment).

Outside of Hennessy's talk I recall in 1990, with the Cold War ending, Germany re-unifying to become, inevitably, the leading European power in terms of economy (which West Germany already arguably already was) and population.
Thatcher was very anxious about this, fearing the UK would be sidelined in influence, hence her doubts about the whole idea, (and being blind to the increasingly opposition in her own party about this and issues such as the Poll Tax).

George HW Bush seemed to add to her fears, with his enthusiasm for reunification.
What has this got to do with nukes and Germany?
Look what happened next, the first Gulf War.
Germany could not, due to it's post war Constitution and understandable mindset, be a military contributor to deter further Iraqi aggression.

The UK however could and with the Cold War force structure still intact for the moment, did again provide the 2nd biggest contribution to the Coalition. The RAF were in theater the same time as the initial US forces, then elements of the British Army Of The Rhine, configured eventually to a full armoured division and a big RAF presence by Jan 1991.
Suddenly all those worries about losing influence were gone.

Germany eventually, within the bounds of NATO and/or UN approval, has steadily become more of a contributor to 'out of area' operations as well as playing it's full part in ops like NATO Air Policing.
Which returns us to some parts of Hennessy's talk and some quotes, which apply as much to NATO and Putin as to the UK's 'Paradox Of The Double Reluctance', as reluctant to pay for a strategic deterrent but more reluctant to give it up.
Or 'a nuclear armed nation is one that you cannot make desperate'.
The latter equally applies to NATO and nuclear weapons, with Putin's increasingly aggressive stance and loathing of ex Warsaw Pact states now in NATO or the EU or both.

In terms of losing influence however, well we in the UK, also in 2016, via the most dishonest political campaign I have ever seen, with a PM desperate to appease the headbangers in his own party and of losing support to a fringe party run by a racist drunk ex City spiv, voted, narrowly, to massively harm ourselves.
On the back of 30 years of BS from our tabloids and having only 3 PM's since 1973 making the case for the EU, (Heath, Major, Blair).
But that is an ongoing thread on non Av which I steer clear of, since any posts by me would end up as profane as a script from 'Veep' or 'Succession'.
 
Nick614
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:55 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:47 pm

mxaxai wrote:
An Eurofighter ECR / Recce modification has been suggested but it's not available in the desired timeframe


The F-16 would be a cheaper alternative that would have a much better second hand market. But I guess if Germany plans to keep the F-18s as long as their Tornados then it would be the better choice. This just seemed like an interim deal.

bikerthai wrote:
But unlike Korea, Iran will have the backing of Russia as it consolidate it's middle east presence with Syria and maybe in to Libya.


Not with the new US-Israel-Arab alliance forming. Do you think Russia is going to rely on Turkey and Iran vs that coalition? Probably not. Russia has their own economic problems to deal with and those problems would be much worse if Germany wasn't rewarding them with oil contracts.

stratable wrote:
I would disagree with you, a lot of your issues seem to arise from cultural differences.
From a European perspective, the governments lean more towards diplomacy and non-violent intervention than the US does


Then the Europeans should support the sanctions and forget JCPOA. All you have to do is ask the other parties how they feel about that deal and they hate it. It would have lead to a war. Might as well call it another Munich Agreement.

What the USA is doing in the Middle East right now is diplomacy and showing Iran that their actions now have consequences.

stratable wrote:
US leaving NATO
and all European partners telling them to close their bases. That would be a significant strategic loss to the US.


No it actually wouldn't. This isn't 1943 when we need a beach head to project the US military into Europe, if we wanted to. Leaving Europe would be a financial windfall for the United States and a huge blow to Europe and not much else.

tommy1808 wrote:
Correct, it was murder, since it was murder under Iraqi law. And since it was an Iranian in Iraq, Irans and Iraqs laws are the only relevant ones.


False even if you want to apply some psuedo law to it, it was illegal for Suleimani to be in Iraq in the first place. When you plan attacks on American installations, you are subject to hostile intention.

bikerthai wrote:
Please, we just because these government places their people's standard of living above their defense priorities does not mean they are inept.


That's not why I think they are inept (those reasons are completely off topic and not related), and they are free to ignore their defense... Just don't expect it to be subsidized by the USA anymore!

GDB wrote:
neither should they be US vassal states

The US is asking to spend more money on their own military to protect themselves. We aren't asking for tribute or demanding you fight in a war.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:17 am

Nick614 wrote:
Do you think Russia is going to rely on Turkey and Iran vs that coalition? Probably not.


Rusia have no choice. They are already knee deep in Syria. They are not using Iran or Syria as a buffer against the Israelis/Arab aliance. Russia is using Syria and Iran to as a foil to US pressense in the area. Thet may not support either Iran or Syria to the bitter end, but if you don't think it will provide enough support for either country to do some damage, then you blind to the decades of Russian history in the Middle-East.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:35 am

Nick614 wrote:
The F-16 would be a cheaper alternative that would have a much better second hand market. But I guess if Germany plans to keep the F-18s as long as their Tornados then it would be the better choice.


Did LM even pitched the F-16? Or are they focusing on the F-35? If LM has no interest in pitching the F-16, then it would not be cheaper in the long run.

The F-18 has greater protential, specially if India decide to get the frame for both their Navy and Air Force.

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

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:25 am

bikerthai wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
The F-16 would be a cheaper alternative that would have a much better second hand market. But I guess if Germany plans to keep the F-18s as long as their Tornados then it would be the better choice.


Did LM even pitched the F-16? Or are they focusing on the F-35? If LM has no interest in pitching the F-16, then it would not be cheaper in the long run.


I don´t think there is any intention to replace the Tornado with a frame that is only equal or worse in all of the Tornados roles within the Luftwaffe, hence no interest...

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
stratable
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:22 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:35 am

Nick614 wrote:

stratable wrote:
I would disagree with you, a lot of your issues seem to arise from cultural differences.
From a European perspective, the governments lean more towards diplomacy and non-violent intervention than the US does


Then the Europeans should support the sanctions and forget JCPOA. All you have to do is ask the other parties how they feel about that deal and they hate it. It would have lead to a war. Might as well call it another Munich Agreement.

What the USA is doing in the Middle East right now is diplomacy and showing Iran that their actions now have consequences.

stratable wrote:
US leaving NATO
and all European partners telling them to close their bases. That would be a significant strategic loss to the US.


No it actually wouldn't. This isn't 1943 when we need a beach head to project the US military into Europe, if we wanted to. Leaving Europe would be a financial windfall for the United States and a huge blow to Europe and not much else.



To the first point:
That is one way of looking at it. Obviously many governments and different experts around the world and even inside the US see it differently.
We were not on track to a war under the nuclear agreement with Iran, quite the opposite.

And to the second point:
It obviously would be if the US wants to continue to be the world's most influential country. The bases in Europe are used to conduct military operations in Africa and the Middle East, and to deter Russian aggression. Losing all bases on European soil would put the US at a significant strategic disadvantage.
A313 319/20/21 332/3 343 359 B734/8 742/4/4M 752/3 763ER 772/E/W 787-8/-9 CRJ900 CS300 ERJ-145 F70 Q100/300/400
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9682
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:54 am

GDB wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
GDB,

Thanks for the perspective and the readings/vids. Some of us on this side of the Atlantic still have respect for our allies, instead of viewing them as temporary commodities best used as bargaining chips.


Thanks, I think that is generally understood, my ire is aimed at one man and his admin.
Not the US as a whole (though god knows we have our own clowns in charge at the moment).

Outside of Hennessy's talk I recall in 1990, with the Cold War ending, Germany re-unifying to become, inevitably, the leading European power in terms of economy (which West Germany already arguably already was) and population.
Thatcher was very anxious about this, fearing the UK would be sidelined in influence, hence her doubts about the whole idea, (and being blind to the increasingly opposition in her own party about this and issues such as the Poll Tax).

George HW Bush seemed to add to her fears, with his enthusiasm for reunification.
What has this got to do with nukes and Germany?
Look what happened next, the first Gulf War.
Germany could not, due to it's post war Constitution and understandable mindset, be a military contributor to deter further Iraqi aggression.

The UK however could and with the Cold War force structure still intact for the moment, did again provide the 2nd biggest contribution to the Coalition. The RAF were in theater the same time as the initial US forces, then elements of the British Army Of The Rhine, configured eventually to a full armoured division and a big RAF presence by Jan 1991.
Suddenly all those worries about losing influence were gone.



Sorry, but this overlooks one big point and that is the huge financial contribution of Germany to the IIPGW. Germany paid about 17 Billion Marks to the US and the other allies. Depending on the source it shouldered between 15-20% of the costs of the whole war. Germany even invented a new tax for that. So I dare say Germany did have a massive contribution to the IIPGW.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13544
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:18 am

stratable wrote:
Nick614 wrote:

stratable wrote:
I would disagree with you, a lot of your issues seem to arise from cultural differences.
From a European perspective, the governments lean more towards diplomacy and non-violent intervention than the US does


Then the Europeans should support the sanctions and forget JCPOA. All you have to do is ask the other parties how they feel about that deal and they hate it. It would have lead to a war. Might as well call it another Munich Agreement.

What the USA is doing in the Middle East right now is diplomacy and showing Iran that their actions now have consequences.

stratable wrote:
US leaving NATO
and all European partners telling them to close their bases. That would be a significant strategic loss to the US.


No it actually wouldn't. This isn't 1943 when we need a beach head to project the US military into Europe, if we wanted to. Leaving Europe would be a financial windfall for the United States and a huge blow to Europe and not much else.



To the first point:
That is one way of looking at it. Obviously many governments and different experts around the world and even inside the US see it differently.
We were not on track to a war under the nuclear agreement with Iran, quite the opposite.


and the diplomacy thing is much less impressive when you know that those deals where in the making for far longer than Trump is in office, since Clinton actually, and Trump just happened to be there when they concluded. Jeremy Issacharoff, back then policy advisor in the Israeli Embassy in DC, does not nearly get the credit he deserves for it.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
GDB
Posts: 13785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:49 am

seahawk wrote:
GDB wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
GDB,

Thanks for the perspective and the readings/vids. Some of us on this side of the Atlantic still have respect for our allies, instead of viewing them as temporary commodities best used as bargaining chips.


Thanks, I think that is generally understood, my ire is aimed at one man and his admin.
Not the US as a whole (though god knows we have our own clowns in charge at the moment).

Outside of Hennessy's talk I recall in 1990, with the Cold War ending, Germany re-unifying to become, inevitably, the leading European power in terms of economy (which West Germany already arguably already was) and population.
Thatcher was very anxious about this, fearing the UK would be sidelined in influence, hence her doubts about the whole idea, (and being blind to the increasingly opposition in her own party about this and issues such as the Poll Tax).

George HW Bush seemed to add to her fears, with his enthusiasm for reunification.
What has this got to do with nukes and Germany?
Look what happened next, the first Gulf War.
Germany could not, due to it's post war Constitution and understandable mindset, be a military contributor to deter further Iraqi aggression.

The UK however could and with the Cold War force structure still intact for the moment, did again provide the 2nd biggest contribution to the Coalition. The RAF were in theater the same time as the initial US forces, then elements of the British Army Of The Rhine, configured eventually to a full armoured division and a big RAF presence by Jan 1991.
Suddenly all those worries about losing influence were gone.



Sorry, but this overlooks one big point and that is the huge financial contribution of Germany to the IIPGW. Germany paid about 17 Billion Marks to the US and the other allies. Depending on the source it shouldered between 15-20% of the costs of the whole war. Germany even invented a new tax for that. So I dare say Germany did have a massive contribution to the IIPGW.


You are quite right and I should have mentioned that.
It also illustrates there is more than one way to be a good NATO member, in Germany's case we could hardly complain about no direct military contribution then since their post war constitution was written by the Western Allies.
To today, we should be judge contribution from NATO members, not in absolute terms of GDP spent but what they do.
I would rather have members do what they can in terms of things like air policing and frequent exercises, rather than spending 2% or even more but spends it's time and effort engaging in ancient feuds with another NATO member, (wonder what two I am thinking of!?)
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:49 am

Nick614 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
An Eurofighter ECR / Recce modification has been suggested but it's not available in the desired timeframe


The F-16 would be a cheaper alternative that would have a much better second hand market. But I guess if Germany plans to keep the F-18s as long as their Tornados then it would be the better choice. This just seemed like an interim deal.

The F-16 was never an option. It does not carry the F-18G's equipment or anything comparable, nor has LM offered it. The competition was always between F-35, F-15, F-18 and Eurofighter. F-35 was ruled out for political reasons, F-15 got dropped quickly as well for the same reason as the F-16 (though Boeing did, briefly, discuss the option).

The only remaining questions were / are:
How many F-18E/F/G + Eurofighter, at what price?
Nukes yes/no? On which aircraft, F-18 or Eurofighter?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13544
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:57 am

GDB wrote:
, rather than spending 2% or even more


At 2%/GDP Germany would outspent Russia by quite a margin, and the EU NATO members would outspend Russia by a factor of roughly six. I wouldn't blame Russia to feel honestly threatened by that on top of the US outspending them by a factor of ten....

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9682
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:31 am

2% is just a meaningless number until you define what counts towards the 2%. If you, for example, just add the Budget of the Bundespolizei (which is quite similar to the Guardia Civil in Spain for example) Germany makes good another 0,1%. Now imagine that some countries have fire fighting planes, large police forces, border protection, customs, coast guard and whatever also inside their military budget and other do not, the whole comparison becomes pointless. Without a doubt Germany needs to increase defence spending and improve the operational readiness of the Bundeswehr, but if it is 1,8%, 2,0% or 2,2% does not matter, especially as the Corona crisis shows that a hit on the economy automatically increases defence spending when looking at the percentage.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13544
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:41 am

seahawk wrote:
2% is just a meaningless number until you define what counts towards the 2%.


it is defense spending, not military budget, and all members are of course free to define what counts towards defense. Foreign aid and state department budgets could also be included in part....

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Nick614
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:55 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:28 am

stratable wrote:
That is one way of looking at it. Obviously many governments and different experts around the world and even inside the US see it differently.


Yes and all those people in Government have been wrong about everything for the past 30 years or more.

Then Trump came in and they said moving the embassy (which was US law) would start a war in the Middle East and would make peace with Arab countries impossible. Now Arab countries are recognizing Israel and signing peace deals with them.

JCPOA gave a path to nukes for Iran the agreement only delayed them by 10 years (maybe) in exchange for a huge infusion of cash and the ability to improve their economy, which allowed them to fund more terrorism and strengthen their power internally.

Now, Iran is going to be under sanctions and have a uniting region against them.

I'm not sure how you cant see that. Like I said look at the other side of the JCPOA (Arabs/Israel) and there is no doubt there would have been a war. And who knows maybe there will be one in the future anyways, this is a 1000 year hatred between the parties. But one thing is certain, without the JCPOA Iran will not have the money or internal support to be successful.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13544
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:47 am

Nick614 wrote:
JCPOA gave a path to nukes for Iran the agreement only delayed them by 10 years


Wrong
a) for all intents and purposes they already had nukes at the time of the agreement, they just designed their program that it does arguably not technically violate the NPT, which
b) they could also always quit on short notice, and build all the nukes they want. The United States signed and ratified that all nations have a sovereign right to have nukes as well.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Nick614
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:55 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:06 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
JCPOA gave a path to nukes for Iran the agreement only delayed them by 10 years


Wrong
a) for all intents and purposes they already had nukes at the time of the agreement, they just designed their program that it does arguably not technically violate the NPT, which
b) they could also always quit on short notice, and build all the nukes they want. The United States signed and ratified that all nations have a sovereign right to have nukes as well.

best regards
Thomas


a) No they didnt

b) No the US has not ratified any agreement stating such. Yes the fact they could quit and build the nukes shows how the agreement was pointless. It only gave money to Iran.

Now Iran wont get economic normalization and their economy is going to suffer until they make a real, binding agreement that Israel and the Arab states agree to.

also the JCPOA was never a treaty and was never agreed to by the US Senate.
 
art
Posts: 3494
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:13 pm

Nick614 wrote:
Then Trump came in and they said moving the embassy (which was US law) would start a war in the Middle East and would make peace with Arab countries impossible. Now Arab countries are recognizing Israel and signing peace deals with them.


What countries that have been at war with Israel are signing peace deals?

I recall Egypt. No credit to Trump for that one. Jordan also. Again, nothing to do with Trump. Lebanon signed an accord with Israel. No sign of Trump being involved there. If Trumpet wants to trumpet his peace-making abilities, Syria is there to be won over by his diplomatic brilliance.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13035
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:18 pm

Nick614 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
Trump killed their top general

Murdered would be a better term. Others get locked up for life for lesser crimes. But hey, if jingoism makes you happy...


False, if you are the commander in charge of 1000s of US soldiers' deaths than you are open to targeting and death.


So why aren't we assassinating dozens of US generals and political leaders who are responsible for the deaths of over 1m Iraqi and Afghan civilians, your war on terror resulted in significantly more casualties than knocking down those buildings, has the carnage been worth it?

Also that General beat ISIL, yours couldn't.
 
Nick614
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:55 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:29 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Murdered would be a better term. Others get locked up for life for lesser crimes. But hey, if jingoism makes you happy...


False, if you are the commander in charge of 1000s of US soldiers' deaths than you are open to targeting and death.


So why aren't we assassinating dozens of US generals and political leaders who are responsible for the deaths of over 1m Iraqi and Afghan civilians, your war on terror resulted in significantly more casualties than knocking down those buildings, has the carnage been worth it?

Also that General beat ISIL, yours couldn't.


I get it, you hate America, good for you.
 
Nick614
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:55 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:34 pm

art wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
Then Trump came in and they said moving the embassy (which was US law) would start a war in the Middle East and would make peace with Arab countries impossible. Now Arab countries are recognizing Israel and signing peace deals with them.


What countries that have been at war with Israel are signing peace deals?

I recall Egypt. No credit to Trump for that one. Jordan also. Again, nothing to do with Trump. Lebanon signed an accord with Israel. No sign of Trump being involved there. If Trumpet wants to trumpet his peace-making abilities, Syria is there to be won over by his diplomatic brilliance.


You are being disingenuous since you know the embassy move meant no peace between plo/arabs and israel, according to the "experts". When that is clearly not the case.

Even though regional heavyweight and Iran's archenemy Saudi Arabia has so far signalled it is not ready to take the same step itself, analysts say the recent deals would not have happened without its support.


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/ ... 38123.html

Trump says Saudi will sign soon, we will see.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 13035
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:35 pm

Nick614 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Nick614 wrote:

False, if you are the commander in charge of 1000s of US soldiers' deaths than you are open to targeting and death.


So why aren't we assassinating dozens of US generals and political leaders who are responsible for the deaths of over 1m Iraqi and Afghan civilians, your war on terror resulted in significantly more casualties than knocking down those buildings, has the carnage been worth it?

Also that General beat ISIL, yours couldn't.


I get it, you hate America, good for you.


It's amazing how you can so easily write off the deaths over 1m plus people but have an absolute hissyfit over a handful of dead Americans in Benghazi.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lysflyer and 25 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