Updated: Germany selects F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon for Tornado replacement

tommy1808 · Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:58 pm

Nick614 wrote:
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

They had enough HEU for 10 ~12 gun type nuclear weapons, that they handed over. Gun type nukes are so simple you can build one in any decent equipment machine shop and the USA didn't even bother testing it before dropping the prototype onto Hiroshima.
Figure a week tops to assemble them.

b) No the US has not ratified any agreement stating such.

Signed 1 Jul 1968, ratified and deposited in London, Moscow and DC on 5 Mar 1970.

also the JCPOA was never a treaty and was never agreed to by the US Senate.

Oh.. you think a multilateral treaty isn't a treaty because the USA failed to ratify it. That is cute.
Without it Iran would have essentially as many nukes as they'd like by now.

Best regards
Thomas

Nick614 · Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:32 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

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

They had enough HEU for 10 ~12 gun type nuclear weapons, that they handed over. Gun type nukes are so simple you can build one in any decent equipment machine shop and the USA didn't even bother testing it before dropping the prototype onto Hiroshima.
Figure a week tops to assemble them.

b) No the US has not ratified any agreement stating such.

Signed 1 Jul 1968, ratified and deposited in London, Moscow and DC on 5 Mar 1970.

also the JCPOA was never a treaty and was never agreed to by the US Senate.

Oh.. you think a multilateral treaty isn't a treaty because the USA failed to ratify it. That is cute.
Without it Iran would have essentially as many nukes as they'd like by now.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:
Oh.. you think a multilateral treaty isn't a treaty because the USA failed to ratify it. That is cut

Yes that is literally US law and how it works.

Having material does not mean they have a weapon and no they would not have one by now if the deal wasn't made because there would have been a war over the issue. It is US policy and has been US policy to prevent both North Korea and Iran from having nuclear weapons.

tommy1808 · Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:01 pm

Nick614 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Nick614 wrote:

a) No they didnt

They had enough HEU for 10 ~12 gun type nuclear weapons, that they handed over. Gun type nukes are so simple you can build one in any decent equipment machine shop and the USA didn't even bother testing it before dropping the prototype onto Hiroshima.
Figure a week tops to assemble them.

b) No the US has not ratified any agreement stating such.

Signed 1 Jul 1968, ratified and deposited in London, Moscow and DC on 5 Mar 1970.

also the JCPOA was never a treaty and was never agreed to by the US Senate.

Oh.. you think a multilateral treaty isn't a treaty because the USA failed to ratify it. That is cute.
Without it Iran would have essentially as many nukes as they'd like by now.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:
Oh.. you think a multilateral treaty isn't a treaty because the USA failed to ratify it. That is cut

Yes that is literally US law and how it works.

Having material does not mean they have a weapon and no they would not have one by now if the deal wasn't made because there would have been a war over the issue. It is US policy and has been US policy to prevent both North Korea and Iran from having nuclear weapons.

US law doesn't apply outside the US and neither in the EU, Russia or China. It's a treaty under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is the only relevant definition of treaty.

Since we know have established you have no idea how nukes work and how simple they are, I am still glad you finally accept that the US has signed and ratified that all sovereign nations have a right to get themselves some nukes.

Best regards
Thomas

Kiwirob · Wed Sep 23, 2020 7:24 am

Nick614 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Nick614 wrote:

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.

"US leaders are responsible for the 3 million Japanese dead over the few thousand casualties at Pearl Harbor, was the carnage worth it?"

-Kiwirob

That's a strawman argument if ever there was one.

seahawk · Wed Sep 23, 2020 7:28 am

Nick614 wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
Same thing with the German buy. There is much to discuss, technically and politically. No one reason will carry the day.

I think poltical clearly wins the day against F-35 since it would be the best choice

No, not necessarily. While the F-35 would probably be best for the nuclear strike role, Germany also pledged to NATO special jamming and SEAD capabilities, which the Growler offers.

Ozair · Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:55 am

seahawk wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
Same thing with the German buy. There is much to discuss, technically and politically. No one reason will carry the day.

I think poltical clearly wins the day against F-35 since it would be the best choice

No, not necessarily. While the F-35 would probably be best for the nuclear strike role, Germany also pledged to NATO special jamming and SEAD capabilities, which the Growler offers.

Growler may offer SEAD but the F-35 would be an order of magnitude more capable in the SEAD/DEAD role. It is also taking on that role for the USAF,

Lockheed to Retrofit F-35s for Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses Role

The Pentagon awarded Lockheed Martin a $26.7 million contract on June 1 to develop a structural modification for the F-35 strike fighter to improve its Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses capability (SEAD/DEAD). The retrofit design will be applied to both U.S. and foreign F-35s in Lots 14 and 15, and will be completed by August 2022.

The contract, issued by Naval Air Systems Command on behalf of all F-35 users, says Lockheed will perform the engineering necessary to modify the aircraft to perform “full up” SEAD and DEAD. When the Air Force declared the F-35 operational in 2016, it described the F-35’s SEAD/DEAD suite as able to perform the mission in a “limited” fashion. The need for a structural modification indicates the aircraft will be fitted with new munitions and/or sensors to carry out the role, which usually involves detecting, fixing, and attacking ground-based air defense threats, which can be mobile or stationary.

When the service declared initial operational capability for the F-35A, the aircraft was in the 3i configuration, which gave it capability to release satellite-guided bombs. With the 3F version, the F-35 gained capability for the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb and AGM-154 Stand-Off Weapon—both used for SEAD/DEAD. The Block 4 upgrade will enable the F-35 to carry the in-development Stand-in Attack Weapon (SiAW).

The Navy plans to field its AGM-88E Anti-Radiation Guided Missile, a successor to the HARM anti-radiation missile, and the Air Force is considering the weapon, as well. The ARRGM and HARM home in on the last known emissions of a surface-to-air missile radar at high speed; their presence and success in previous conflicts has dissuaded enemies from turning their radars on in some instances, hence “suppression.”

The F-35’s ASQ-239 electronic warfare system can passively detect an enemy air defense system’s emissions and geo-locate these targets in concert with the F-35’s other systems. Air Force leaders have said the F-35, by virtue of its stealth, will become the main platform for the SEAD/DEAD mission in the coming decade. That role is now primarily performed by the F-16 with the HARM.

https://www.airforcemag.com/lockheed-to ... nses-role/

F-35 is not optimised for the large EA role the Growler currently fulfils noting the USMC has floated a couple of times putting NGJ onto the F-35B. Seems a lot to do for the program and the USMC before that is a realistic proposition though.

Nick614 · Wed Sep 23, 2020 12:30 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

They had enough HEU for 10 ~12 gun type nuclear weapons, that they handed over. Gun type nukes are so simple you can build one in any decent equipment machine shop and the USA didn't even bother testing it before dropping the prototype onto Hiroshima.
Figure a week tops to assemble them.

Signed 1 Jul 1968, ratified and deposited in London, Moscow and DC on 5 Mar 1970.

Oh.. you think a multilateral treaty isn't a treaty because the USA failed to ratify it. That is cute.
Without it Iran would have essentially as many nukes as they'd like by now.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:
Oh.. you think a multilateral treaty isn't a treaty because the USA failed to ratify it. That is cut

Yes that is literally US law and how it works.

Having material does not mean they have a weapon and no they would not have one by now if the deal wasn't made because there would have been a war over the issue. It is US policy and has been US policy to prevent both North Korea and Iran from having nuclear weapons.

US law doesn't apply outside the US and neither in the EU, Russia or China. It's a treaty under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is the only relevant definition of treaty.

Since we know have established you have no idea how nukes work and how simple they are, I am still glad you finally accept that the US has signed and ratified that all sovereign nations have a right to get themselves some nukes.

Best regards
Thomas

International law only has force if the US agrees with it. And yes US law is applied outside the US, that is what extradition treaties are for. Many people that never set foot in the US are prosecuted under US law.

Nick614 · Wed Sep 23, 2020 12:31 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

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.

"US leaders are responsible for the 3 million Japanese dead over the few thousand casualties at Pearl Harbor, was the carnage worth it?"

-Kiwirob

That's a strawman argument if ever there was one.

No that is the logical conclusion of your asinine comments. I'll stop replying to you since you are clearly, blindly anti-American.

tommy1808 · Wed Sep 23, 2020 12:55 pm

Nick614 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Nick614 wrote:

Yes that is literally US law and how it works.

Having material does not mean they have a weapon and no they would not have one by now if the deal wasn't made because there would have been a war over the issue. It is US policy and has been US policy to prevent both North Korea and Iran from having nuclear weapons.

US law doesn't apply outside the US and neither in the EU, Russia or China. It's a treaty under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is the only relevant definition of treaty.

Since we know have established you have no idea how nukes work and how simple they are, I am still glad you finally accept that the US has signed and ratified that all sovereign nations have a right to get themselves some nukes.

Best regards
Thomas

International law only has force if the US agrees with it.

international law always applies in the US. The only problem is enforcement. Otherwise international law doesn´t apply to Iran and North Korea either btw....

And yes US law is applied outside the US, that is what extradition treaties are for.

If they applied outside the USA you wouldn´t need an extradition treaty.

Many people that never set foot in the US are prosecuted under US law.

So? That a country decides to prosecute someone abroad does not mean their law applies.... the country that person is in still decides if they think it is a crime, and *only* if they think it is, they will hand that person over according to the extradition treaty, and even that only if they think the potential punishment is reasonable under their law. Because in their country, only their law applies.... try to get someone extradited for a capital offense from Germany, or a ton of other countries, and you wouldn´t get even Osama Bin Ladin extradited ....... since capital punishment is murder, we won´t hand over anyone to be murdered, regardless of what they did. Because your law only matters to the extend that it happens to be close to our law.

best regards
Thomas

art · Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:40 pm

Nick614 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
US law doesn't apply outside the US and neither in the EU, Russia or China. It's a treaty under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is the only relevant definition of treaty.

Best regards
Thomas

Sounds right.

Nick614 wrote:
International law only has force if the US agrees with it.

Sounds wrong.

If you think about it, your statement is, by definition, nonsensical. And the effect if it were not nonsense? If any state were to disagree with any international law, that state's view would apply internationally. A state could, for example, disagree with slavery being illegal and unilaterally abolish the illegality of slavery in all the states of the world.

Planeflyer · Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:49 pm

GDB, I give you credit for some truly great rants. They remind me of the hilarious scene in the Holy Grail where the black knight fights on despite losing all his limbs.

The argument is over.

Despite some major disasters and losses, the US efforts to repel communism were a godsend most especially to the people such as Iran who had their “Democratic( Sure the Soviets were just bystanders like they were in Eastern Europe”) governments overthrown. The proof of this is the places where we lost. Be honest would you move to NK, China or Cuba.

And since you brought it up, far from sunning in WW2, Hagenah and Irgun spied, fought and died for the British. The Arabs allied themselves with the Nazi's in large part because they knew exactly what Hitler was doing the Jews. The British enforced the White Paper because they knew, full well they needed the Arabs to maintain colonial rule after the War. This was cold calculated colonial decision and the costs were high.

With NATO Europe has given the US a large say and even veto Power in one area, security. This, naturally means there will be friction and lots of give and take which is playing out right now. You may not like Trump but trust me a few more Obama’s would have been a disaster for NATO and Europe.

Nick, tempting as it is to take the ball and go home, how long do think it would take for our kids or grandkids to do what our parents, uncles and grandparents did the last time?

Suggest you pay a visit to one of the American cemeteries in Europe. You will see that despite all the noise there is plenty of heartfelt gratitude

Kiwirob · Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:50 am

Nick614 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Nick614 wrote:

"US leaders are responsible for the 3 million Japanese dead over the few thousand casualties at Pearl Harbor, was the carnage worth it?"

-Kiwirob

That's a strawman argument if ever there was one.

No that is the logical conclusion of your asinine comments. I'll stop replying to you since you are clearly, blindly anti-American.

And you're clearly anti-the rest of the world, Team Merica, you probably have Trump 2020 bumper stickers and a MAGA hat.

GDB · Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:07 am

Planeflyer wrote:
GDB, I give you credit for some truly great rants. They remind me of the hilarious scene in the Holy Grail where the black knight fights on despite losing all his limbs.

The argument is over.

Despite some major disasters and losses, the US efforts to repel communism were a godsend most especially to the people such as Iran who had their “Democratic( Sure the Soviets were just bystanders like they were in Eastern Europe”) governments overthrown. The proof of this is the places where we lost. Be honest would you move to NK, China or Cuba.

And since you brought it up, far from sunning in WW2, Hagenah and Irgun spied, fought and died for the British. The Arabs allied themselves with the Nazi's in large part because they knew exactly what Hitler was doing the Jews. The British enforced the White Paper because they knew, full well they needed the Arabs to maintain colonial rule after the War. This was cold calculated colonial decision and the costs were high.

With NATO Europe has given the US a large say and even veto Power in one area, security. This, naturally means there will be friction and lots of give and take which is playing out right now. You may not like Trump but trust me a few more Obama’s would have been a disaster for NATO and Europe.

Nick, tempting as it is to take the ball and go home, how long do think it would take for our kids or grandkids to do what our parents, uncles and grandparents did the last time?

Suggest you pay a visit to one of the American cemeteries in Europe. You will see that despite all the noise there is plenty of heartfelt gratitude

Some did, many did not, if US troops had been pitched into Israel/Palestine they would have been targets, wonder what the attitude would be in the States then. Igrun and the Stern Gang were no better than any other terrorist organsization.
However, once it was handed over to the UN, you are right.

It might surprise many to know that in the 50's to the 70's there was a lot of genuine sympathy and support for Israel in Europe, especially those politically on the centre/left, where they were seen as democratic in a region where that was rare, progressive in many ways too.
From the horror of the 1972 Olympic massacre to the 1979 peace treaty with their once arch enemy.
That started to change after another massacre, this time in 1982 with their very morally dubious invasion of Lebanon, by their proxies in country.
Even after that, the 1993 accords with the Palestinians but look what happened to the Israeli PM who brokered it, killed by an Israeli extremist, just like Sadat in 1981 by another bunch of nutters .

However, look at the last few decades, I highly recommend this documentary, about Israeli counter intelligence, Shin Bet, by veterans of that service going back to the 50's, their operations.
The conclusions of these veteran professionals in the trade are stark, Israeli polices in Palestine of the last few decades are a cancer eating away at their beloved homeland. Having a deeply corrupt PM does not help either.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2309788/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

I am not and never have been anti-American either, just anti stupidity, so you can imagine what I think of Trumpism and it's supporters. He has been pissing on the legacy of the great actions the US done, not me, look at that disgusting behavior at the graves of the fallen US soldiers for just one example.

Nick614 · Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:51 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
international law always applies in the US

No, it doesn't. Only if the US congress and President sign it into US law.

art wrote:
Sounds wrong.

If you think about it, your statement is, by definition, nonsensical.

And who do you think enforces international law? Remember the European countries sat around and watched genocide happening in the Balkans. It took the US to do anything about it. And that was happening next door to "European powers".

Planeflyer wrote:
Nick, tempting as it is to take the ball and go home, how long do think it would take for our kids or grandkids to do what our parents, uncles and grandparents did the last time?

I wouldn't say it is that simple. European powers have long neglected their own defense because the USA is massively subsidizing their defense with ~100,000 personnel in Europe. There is no reason for this. Leaving would be the best thing for them because they will have to grow up and fulfill their responsibilities. If they think peace is expensive, they clearly forgot how expensive war is.

Planeflyer · Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:27 pm

Nick, you are certainly correct regards what happened in the Balkans.

Once again, a relatively small conflict morphed into a disaster because individual countries, allies though they were, could not agree......which is why the US is indispensable.

The Europeans know this which is why they will eventually agree with most of what Trumps wants.

tommy1808 · Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:24 am

Nick614 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
international law always applies in the US

No, it doesn't. Only if the US congress and President sign it into US law.

Under US law perhaps, so that is irrelevant. Would e quite hilarious if countries could decide whether international law applies to them or not. The ICC certainly doesn't care what the US thinks about its jurisdiction.

Best regards
Thomas

seahawk · Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:21 am

Nick614 wrote:

I wouldn't say it is that simple. European powers have long neglected their own defense because the USA is massively subsidizing their defense with ~100,000 personnel in Europe. There is no reason for this. Leaving would be the best thing for them because they will have to grow up and fulfill their responsibilities. If they think peace is expensive, they clearly forgot how expensive war is.

Please by all means go home. It would be best for Europe if that happens.

tommy1808 · Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:24 am

seahawk wrote:
Nick614 wrote:

I wouldn't say it is that simple. European powers have long neglected their own defense because the USA is massively subsidizing their defense with ~100,000 personnel in Europe. There is no reason for this. Leaving would be the best thing for them because they will have to grow up and fulfill their responsibilities. If they think peace is expensive, they clearly forgot how expensive war is.

Please by all means go home. It would be best for Europe if that happens.

It is really funny to read the "you are not spending enough money" when Europe spends more money than anyone else other than the US and outspends Russia by somewhere between 3 and 4.
Its fairly obvious what they mean is "You don´t spend enough money in the US!".

best regards
Thomas

seahawk · Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:38 am

tommy1808 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Nick614 wrote:

I wouldn't say it is that simple. European powers have long neglected their own defense because the USA is massively subsidizing their defense with ~100,000 personnel in Europe. There is no reason for this. Leaving would be the best thing for them because they will have to grow up and fulfill their responsibilities. If they think peace is expensive, they clearly forgot how expensive war is.

Please by all means go home. It would be best for Europe if that happens.

It is really funny to read the "you are not spending enough money" when Europe spends more money than anyone else other than the US and outspends Russia by somewhere between 3 and 4.
Its fairly obvious what they mean is "You don´t spend enough money in the US!".

best regards
Thomas

Or stupid reasoning, like Europe needs to spent more to contain the Chinese - because the the South China Sea is surely covered by NATO.

stratable · Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:23 am

Nick614 wrote:
art wrote:
Sounds wrong.

If you think about it, your statement is, by definition, nonsensical.

And who do you think enforces international law? Remember the European countries sat around and watched genocide happening in the Balkans. It took the US to do anything about it. And that was happening next door to "European powers".

This is plainly wrong. The NATO intervention in the Balkans was conducted by primarily by US, UK, French, Belgian and German forces. The European countries also took in a large number of refugees
and the European Union has been working there ever since to improve the standard of living and potentially expand its member base.

GDB · Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:23 am

stratable wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
art wrote:
Sounds wrong.

If you think about it, your statement is, by definition, nonsensical.

And who do you think enforces international law? Remember the European countries sat around and watched genocide happening in the Balkans. It took the US to do anything about it. And that was happening next door to "European powers".

This is plainly wrong. The NATO intervention in the Balkans was conducted by primarily by US, UK, French, Belgian and German forces. The European countries also took in a large number of refugees
and the European Union has been working there ever since to improve the standard of living and potentially expand its member base.

Thank you, enough of this, to be very polite, limited understanding of that situation.
You know who the main exponent of military action was in the Balkans, not at the start in the early 90's, it was after he came to power and two years later the Serbs went on the rampage in Kosovo.
Luckily he had a very good working relationship with President Clinton, guessed who it is yet?

Yes, in 1999 it was one Tony Blair.
They had, being humans dealing with a complex situation, had some arguments, since Clinton knew any major US intervention beyond what had already been done by the US since the mid 90's had very little support at home and for many Americans the question of 'why should we commit more, including ground forces', was not an unreasonable question.

Turns out, I remember reading this at the time, the UK was more than prepared to as the Americans say 'step up'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jul/18/balkans1

I also suspect this threat of direct use of UK or UK led ground forces was leaked to the press, to give the Serbs pause, certainly they were running a PR campaign here as (laughably) innocents picked on by NATO.
Knowing friends who have worked at The Ministry Of Defence for many years, I asked 'was this plan serious?'
It was.

As it turned out, some ground forces did 'go in' at the endgame, then this happened;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_ ... na_airport

I recall some years later that well known geo-political expert Madonna endorsed Wesley Clark as a potential candidate for POTUS!

As for Blair, a sting in the tail, as he left office Clinton warned him about who his successors were and they would not be so easy to deal with. As we all know, Blair and GW Bush got on well, that would not be the issue after 9/11, since in that admin Cheney and his gang were running the show.
For all that, in the wake of that event, November 2001 saw the largest deployment of UK special forces since WW2, in Afghanistan.
But after success, (including for the UK in Sierra Leone in 2000), can come hubris.
Hubris spelt I-R-A-Q.

art · Fri Sep 25, 2020 11:40 am

@GDB

Interesting to read about what happened at Pristina. Thanks for the pointer.

Planeflyer · Sat Sep 26, 2020 11:29 am

stratable wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
art wrote:
Sounds wrong.

If you think about it, your statement is, by definition, nonsensical.

And who do you think enforces international law? Remember the European countries sat around and watched genocide happening in the Balkans. It took the US to do anything about it. And that was happening next door to "European powers".

This is plainly wrong. The NATO intervention in the Balkans was conducted primarily by US, UK, French, Belgian and German forces. The European countries also took in a large number of refugees
and the European Union has been working there ever since to improve the standard of living and potentially expand its member base.

The intervention was not the issue and was an example of the good that NATO could do.

The key failures occurred in 1989 and 1990 when the Europeans saw Yogolsolvia as a European issue. The Bush administration was happy to go along with this given the collapse of the Soviet Union. And instead of handling it in a concerted fashion, Britan, France and Germany each pursued their own interests which, when combined with the US deferral, lead to 100K casualties most of which were Bosnians.

The problem with security in Europe is that no single power has enough strength to provide deterrence, despite the EU and the UN many factions exist and there are really no defensible borders.

The lesson in Bosnia is proof positive that w/o a US lead NATO, European security falls back into the classic patterns that have lead to all the wars that we all learned about in school.

bikerthai · Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:17 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
The lesson in Bosnia is proof positive that w/o a US lead NATO, European security falls back into the classic patterns that have lead to all the wars that we all learned about in school.

With alies, however it is better to lead with a carrot an not necessarily a stick.

Which goes back to the topic at hand, nuke capability would not have helped with the Bosian war.

Ethnic conflict other than the one currently going on in Ukraine is less likely in the future, I see Europe next flash point (besides the mid east) may be in North Africa.

Such a conflict really desire a good capable all around fighter with range and payloads and not necessarily stealth.

bt

bikerthai · Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:26 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
despite the EU and the UN many factions exist and there are really no defensible borders.

Only in North America does the notion of a defensible border have any relavent any more. The strength of a nation lies in the strength of its economy which in time of crisis can produce war materiel, or the strength of its diplomacy which can produce allies willing to shed blood for the same cause, or the strength if it's ideology which provide the base for gaining those allies. Using money as a basis for allies (as China is doing) only gain you so much and may not count for much when blood begin to spill.

bt

Planeflyer · Sun Sep 27, 2020 2:23 pm

While a strong economy is necessary it is not sufficient.

China’s allies are Iran and NK.

As long as NATO is vibrant it does not matter the direction of the threat.

LyleLanley · Sun Sep 27, 2020 3:44 pm

GDB wrote:
...Pristina article...

Wow! That James Blunt? The "You're beautiful" singer? Talk about a small world.

Kiwirob · Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:09 am

LyleLanley wrote:
GDB wrote:
...Pristina article...

Wow! That James Blunt? The "You're beautiful" singer? Talk about a small world.

Yip that James Blunt, he was a captain in the Life Guards.

GDB · Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:23 am

As Kiwirob says, he was an officer in the most senior in terms of longevity, regiment in the British Army.
When not doing those ceremonial duties so familiar to tourists in London, they are an armoured recon unit;
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/James_Blunt

As can be seen above, he comes from an old army family, though increasingly an caricature rather than still a fact in the army in general, the Life Guards does tend to still attract officers from the upper class.
Perhaps best illustrated in an apparent exchange in 1982, on the way down to the South Atlantic, which had a detachment of them in the Task Force, what possible role could they have a journalist asked an officer?
(The CVR(T) vehicles being light, fast, with wide spaced tracks in fact could cope with the boggy terrain on the Falklands, unlike the enemies AML series armoured cars being confined to the very few roads there, so they could carry out recon, in addition their thermal images and 76mm gun or 30mm cannon on the light tanks, provided fire support).
But the journalist got the stock reply in a posh accent 'to lend some class to what would otherwise be a quite vulgar brawl'.

I have to agree with Planeflyer, at the onset of the crisis Europe did not cover itself in glory.
Not to excuse but perhaps explain, the crisis was unknown territory, the Cold War was just over, on Yugoslavia France and Germany, unusually were not in agreement.
Germany I think was also distracted by re-unification.

By the time of operation Allied Force in Kosovo, things were running much more smoothly, lessons were learnt.
Ironically, one of the scenarios NATO used in the Cold War in 'transition to war' exercises with the Warsaw Pact was the latter invading Yugoslavia!

Nick614 · Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:35 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Nick614 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
international law always applies in the US

No, it doesn't. Only if the US congress and President sign it into US law.

Under US law perhaps, so that is irrelevant. Would e quite hilarious if countries could decide whether international law applies to them or not. The ICC certainly doesn't care what the US thinks about its jurisdiction.

Best regards
Thomas

Learn about sovereignty your posts are 100% factually incorrect.

Planeflyer · Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:12 pm

I’m not schooled up on the legal issues being discussed but the recent recognitions of Israel by Gulf States would not have been possible w/o the action Trump has taken against Iran.

bikerthai · Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:17 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
I’m not schooled up on the legal issues being discussed but the recent recognitions of Israel by Gulf States would not have been possible w/o the action Trump has taken against Iran.

I agree that Trump precipitated this action as through his actions in Syria, these states no longer can depend on the US as a partner and must prepare to fend for themselves. I would agree that Trump should also get credit for these Gulf states getting F-35s.

In the short run for Germany however is the fighting going on in Armenia/Azerbaijan will be their primary focus.

bt

Planeflyer · Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:27 pm

Fantasy, neither Gulf state would have signed this agreement on US soil w Trump at the ceremony if they not trust the US.

Who trusted Obama? Iran, Cuba, NK, China Russia to be a patsy!

LyleLanley · Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:45 am

Kiwirob & GDB,

Thanks gents! I'm not very schooled in the British Armed Forces, so that was an interesting rabbit hole to explore! Life Guards, Gurkhas, the Royal Regiments, and more. Wow! Very fascinating.

It's especially interesting, to me at least, to see a ceremonial unit with an actual wartime mission. In the United States at least, I don't think our ceremonial units have wartime missions that they can realistically be called upon to perform. The bands don't tuba people to death or the guardsman details don't knife-hand people on the front.

bikerthai · Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:15 am

Planeflyer wrote:
ceremony if they not trust the US.

Trust in the US. I may agree with that. Trust in Trump? I would prefer to believe they know how to deal with him.

bt

Slug71 · Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:09 am

bikerthai wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
I’m not schooled up on the legal issues being discussed but the recent recognitions of Israel by Gulf States would not have been possible w/o the action CONGRESS has taken against Iran.

I agree that CONGRESS precipitated this action as through his actions in Syria, these states no longer can depend on the US as a partner and must prepare to fend for themselves. I would agree that CONGRESS should also get credit for these Gulf states getting F-35s.

In the short run for Germany however is the fighting going on in Armenia/Azerbaijan will be their primary focus.

bt

Fixed that for you.

tommy1808 · Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:12 am

Nick614 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Nick614 wrote:

No, it doesn't. Only if the US congress and President sign it into US law.

Under US law perhaps, so that is irrelevant. Would e quite hilarious if countries could decide whether international law applies to them or not. The ICC certainly doesn't care what the US thinks about its jurisdiction.

Best regards
Thomas

Learn about sovereignty your posts are 100% factually incorrect.

The ICC disagrees with you, and they got better lawyers than you are. Plus you don´t even know what treaties the US has singed, ratified and whats in it, so i am not sure why anyone would assume you would know better.

best regards
Thomas

Planeflyer · Tue Sep 29, 2020 11:43 am

bikerthai wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
ceremony if they not trust the US.

Trust in the US. I may agree with that. Trust in Trump? I would prefer to believe they know how to deal with him.

The bottom line is that under Trump, Arab governments are formally recognizing Israel.

If you want to downplay this or Trump’s role in accomplishing this, that’s on you.

smithbs · Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:55 am

Funny, I came to this thread to see what was happening with German Tornado replacements and maybe the F-18 purchase, yet it seems to be the last thing being talked about. Any news about the topic at hand?

WIederling · Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:14 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Plus you don´t even know what treaties the US has signed, ratified and whats in it, so i am not sure why anyone would assume you would know better.

Even if the US has signed or even ratified anything. That has limited value.
Either the topic is "redefined" in strange ways or it is nixed completely.

Same for small countries doing the US bidding:
Invariably there is out of sight force applied by "carrot and/or stick" tactics.
NSA' snooping must be good for something, right?

mxaxai · Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:35 am

smithbs wrote:
Funny, I came to this thread to see what was happening with German Tornado replacements and maybe the F-18 purchase, yet it seems to be the last thing being talked about. Any news about the topic at hand?

Nothing new right now. The replacement tender is run very differently compared to Switzerland and Finland and, currently, has not progressed enough to warrant a formal bid from either supplier or the DSCA approval that would come with an F-18 purchase.

bikerthai · Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:34 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Nothing new right now.

Maybe we should lay off this thread until after the US election. :white:

bt

Ozair · Thu Nov 05, 2020 8:29 pm

The Eurofighter acquisition to replace Tranche One aircraft has now been approved. I expect this will improve serviceability of the overall Eurofighter fleet by removing the Tranche One aircraft and therefore a subfleet with significant differences. These orders will also push Germany past the UK as the Air Force with the largest number of Eurofighters in service.

Germany approves ‘Quadriga' Eurofighters

Germany has approved the procurement of additional Eurofighter combat aircraft for the Luftwaffe under the country’s Project Quadriga procurement plan.

The country’s parliament cleared the launch of the multi-billion Euro project for 38 newbuild Eurofighters on 5 November, one day after the Defence Committee had given its approval.

“We [will] procure 38 Eurofighters [of the] the latest generation. Today the Haushaltsausschuss [Budget Committee] gave the green light to the German Bundestag. The aircraft will be delivered to the Bundeswehr for a modern and sustainable Luftwaffe,” the Federal Ministry of Defence (BMVg) tweeted. A contract is now expected to be signed in the coming days.

As previously reported by Janes , Project Quadriga will see the Luftwaffe replace 38 Tranche 1 Eurofighters, which will be sold to the international market, with new-build Tranche 3 aircraft (although Airbus officials are increasingly referring to these new aircraft as Tranche 4). These 31 single-seater (currently planned to comprise 26 firm orders with options for five more) and seven twin-seater aircraft will be equipped with the E-Scan Radar 1 active electronically scanned array (AESA) sensor and updated software.

While Airbus first briefed about Project Quadriga in November 2019, the German government announced its intent to award the contract in April. This planned procurement is part of a wider buy of 138 new aircraft for the Luftwaffe that will also include 55 Eurofighters and 30 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for the Tornado replacement programme, and 15 Boeing EA-18G Growlers for the requirement for the Luftgestützte Wirkung im Elektromagnetischen Spektrum (luWES) electronic attack (EA) programme for NATO.

...

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... rofighters

Interestingly the article claims that the T1 aircraft are going to be sold on the international market. Will be interesting to see who is a likely candidate for these aircraft. Italy is trying to sell their T1s, Austria has a love hate relationship with their T1s and now Germany will have a significant number enter the market. Perhaps the UK should buy some on the cheap as parts stock for their remaining T1s being moved to Air Defence duties and there is always Indonesia that expressed interest in the Austrian Eurofighters. I don’t think Indonesia’s interest was actually very serious, more political games, but they, or another Air Force, could conceivably build up a very sizable Eurofighter T1 fleet if they were interested.

With respect to Tornado replacement, now we just have to wait and see on what happens with the potential SH/Growler order and the subsequent Eurofighter order, which must be a lot more certain now these additional 38.

mxaxai · Fri Nov 06, 2020 2:28 pm

Ozair wrote:
These 31 single-seater (currently planned to comprise 26 firm orders with options for five more) and seven twin-seater aircraft will be equipped with the E-Scan Radar 1 active electronically scanned array (AESA) sensor and updated software.

This is, AFAIK, the first official confirmation that Germany will receive new-built Eurofighters with an AESA radar. Previous announcements had mostly focused on the further development of AESA radars and retrofitting existing (T2 & T3) and future aircraft. No information yet whether the German T4 aircraft will receive an integrated IRST (but I don't expect it).

Additional info from the press release:
3 aircraft will be fitted with extra sensors and assigned to test programs, especially to further develop the AESA radar and overall system integration. (Some reports say 4 aircraft)
2 aircraft will replace the 2 that crashed (collided) last year.

The 38 aircraft will cost EUR 5.5 billion (USD 6.54 billion), or USD 172 million each.

Press release: https://www.bmvg.de/de/aktuelles/bundes ... er-4151308 [German]

Noray · Fri Nov 06, 2020 3:10 pm

mxaxai wrote:
The 38 aircraft will cost EUR 5.5 billion (USD 6.54 billion), or USD 172 million each.

The price includes an unspecified range of ground equipment and spare parts to increase combat readiness, so you can't really deduce a price per unit.

30989 · Fri Nov 06, 2020 3:23 pm

What is the big deal with the T1 Eurofighters, btw? Why cannot you just buy some avionic, throw the old one out and you have a decent new EF? Compared to how long the Phantom or even the Tornado was used, I wonder, why do they want to get rid of the T1?

mxaxai · Fri Nov 06, 2020 7:57 pm

Noray wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
The 38 aircraft will cost EUR 5.5 billion (USD 6.54 billion), or USD 172 million each.

The price includes an unspecified range of ground equipment and spare parts to increase combat readiness, so you can't really deduce a price per unit.

Correct, this is not the fly-away-cost, this is the full systems, weapons, integration and support package. Perhaps I should've clarified that in my original post.

TheSonntag wrote:
What is the big deal with the T1 Eurofighters, btw? Why cannot you just buy some avionic, throw the old one out and you have a decent new EF? Compared to how long the Phantom or even the Tornado was used, I wonder, why do they want to get rid of the T1?

Part of this order is politically motivated to keep the FAL running.

However, retrofitting new avionics to the T1 jets is quite a bit of work. They can be improved, for example Spain started work on theirs last year https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... force.html . But the amount of low-hanging fruit is limited, the Airbus PR makes it seem like a lot more than it actually is. Going from T1 to T3 would require a complete overhaul of the avionics suite. The UK has decided to keep the T1 for QRA duties only https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/tranche ... ert-force/ . The lack of T1 capabilities was always known, and a potential upgrade of T1 aircraft to T2/T3 standard was first considered (and dismissed) more than 10 years ago already. It's just that - at least in Germany - support for several components was discontinued last year, with a corresponding hit to operating costs and mission readiness. I assume some of those parts are being addressed by Spain's upgrade program.

texl1649 · Sat Nov 07, 2020 1:11 pm

Interesting there’s relatively little/no criticism of the Luftwaffe grabbing more non-stealth platform fighters vs. the USAF re: F-15EX.

spudh · Sat Nov 07, 2020 2:05 pm

Ozair wrote:

Interestingly the article claims that the T1 aircraft are going to be sold on the international market. Will be interesting to see who is a likely candidate for these aircraft. Italy is trying to sell their T1s, Austria has a love hate relationship with their T1s and now Germany will have a significant number enter the market. Perhaps the UK should buy some on the cheap as parts stock for their remaining T1s being moved to Air Defence duties and there is always Indonesia that expressed interest in the Austrian Eurofighters. I don’t think Indonesia’s interest was actually very serious, more political games, but they, or another Air Force, could conceivably build up a very sizable Eurofighter T1 fleet if they were interested.

If they had any sense the Indian Air force should be all over these. Buy the airframes and then tender an avionics upgrade which might have some hope of coming to fruition in the coming decades

tommy1808 · Sat Nov 07, 2020 2:22 pm

Noray wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
The 38 aircraft will cost EUR 5.5 billion (USD 6.54 billion), or USD 172 million each.

The price includes an unspecified range of ground equipment and spare parts to increase combat readiness, so you can't really deduce a price per unit.

And its 144 Million + 28 million in VAT.

mxaxai wrote:

Additional info from the press release:
3 aircraft will be fitted with extra sensors and assigned to test programs, especially to further develop the AESA radar and overall system integration. (Some reports say 4 aircraft)
2 aircraft will replace the 2 that crashed (collided) last year.

Four makes sense as there are 33 T1 to replace.

Best regards
Thomas

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net