This excellent German aviation You Tuber, who has previously uploaded detailed interviews with experts, combines great knowledge and a dry wit, responds to the recent huge changes in German policy, he does go into great detail about how the defence and procurement system works, or did since it is likely changes are afoot there, the broader implications beyond the replacement of the Tornados;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B4njJatAhA

GDB wrote:

This excellent German aviation You Tuber, who has previously uploaded detailed interviews with experts, combines great knowledge and a dry wit, responds to the recent huge changes in German policy, he does go into great detail about how the defence and procurement system works, or did since it is likely changes are afoot there, the broader implications beyond the replacement of the Tornados;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B4njJatAhA

Thanks for sharing that. He produces really good content.

TheSonntag wrote:

Contrary to some popular belief on Germany, Germany has become the stability anchor in Europe with regards to peace politics. Germany learned a hard lesson in WW2, and this fundamentally changed the german behaviour. The german democracy is stable and resilient, despite some issues in eastern germany.

The idea was also to trade with russia to ensure stability there, too. This now has been revised. 10 years too late, granted, but a significant move.

I just hope this ends more or less well and russia gets rid of Putin and really shifts policy, like we were forced to from 1945 onwards. In some respects, for Putin, 1990 was what was the 1918 Versailles Treaty for Germany. A loss which German elites then, and Russian elites now, wanted to change.

Funny thing is, when Germany choose another part after WW2 including the EU, we achieved what war did not: Having influence in Europe, without dominating. The german dominance also was and is seen critical by others, that is why France and UK were rather critical to German reuinification in 1989, unlike Bush and Gorbatchew.

We have not forgotten that the russians accepted this reunification and left our soil until 1994. This was due to weekness, granted, but nevertheless in hindsigt Kohls biggest achievement. But this, and our geographic position, probably explains why we had a rather russia friendly position and maybe "did not want to see reality in the last 20 years".

Even now, we must try to get russia on a reliable path again. But this can only be achieved by strength, unfortunately.

Interesting ruminations. Last 23 years have proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that russia on any path ends up shooting its way West. "Geopolitical reality of European Plain dooms us to" is their mantra. The only reliable path is multiple russias, with strongly embedded inability to merge. "Pipeline route republic", "Novgorod/St.Petersburg republic" for maritime and border trade, "Golden RIng republic" for sightseeing, "Siberia republic" that needs to be stronger to prevent falling victim to China, etc. Otherwise this nonsense will flare up, the moment russia gets a bot of money and turns "russia great" again.

Versailles 1919 is kid's gloves compared to what needs to be done. Morgentau is more like it.

Phosphorus wrote:

TheSonntag wrote:

Contrary to some popular belief on Germany, Germany has become the stability anchor in Europe with regards to peace politics. Germany learned a hard lesson in WW2, and this fundamentally changed the german behaviour. The german democracy is stable and resilient, despite some issues in eastern germany.

The idea was also to trade with russia to ensure stability there, too. This now has been revised. 10 years too late, granted, but a significant move.

I just hope this ends more or less well and russia gets rid of Putin and really shifts policy, like we were forced to from 1945 onwards. In some respects, for Putin, 1990 was what was the 1918 Versailles Treaty for Germany. A loss which German elites then, and Russian elites now, wanted to change.

Funny thing is, when Germany choose another part after WW2 including the EU, we achieved what war did not: Having influence in Europe, without dominating. The german dominance also was and is seen critical by others, that is why France and UK were rather critical to German reuinification in 1989, unlike Bush and Gorbatchew.

We have not forgotten that the russians accepted this reunification and left our soil until 1994. This was due to weekness, granted, but nevertheless in hindsigt Kohls biggest achievement. But this, and our geographic position, probably explains why we had a rather russia friendly position and maybe "did not want to see reality in the last 20 years".

Even now, we must try to get russia on a reliable path again. But this can only be achieved by strength, unfortunately.

Interesting ruminations. Last 23 years have proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that russia on any path ends up shooting its way West. "Geopolitical reality of European Plain dooms us to" is their mantra. The only reliable path is multiple russias, with strongly embedded inability to merge. "Pipeline route republic", "Novgorod/St.Petersburg republic" for maritime and border trade, "Golden RIng republic" for sightseeing, "Siberia republic" that needs to be stronger to prevent falling victim to China, etc. Otherwise this nonsense will flare up, the moment russia gets a bot of money and turns "russia great" again.

Versailles 1919 is kid's gloves compared to what needs to be done. Morgentau is more like it.

The Morgentau plan was rejected since it was seen as indiscriminate punishment not to mention fear that it could lead to mass starvation. Not a good look when putting the Nazi war criminals on trial.

As it was one reason why in the UK wartime rationing persisted long after, was the need for Britain, the occupying power in large parts of Germany, had to feed them, if rationing eventually eat into the government’s popularity just imagine if people knew one of the reasons why, feeding the people who they had recently been fighting, been bombed and V weaponed by. But it had to be done, not to do so would be immoral and the resentment would grow, Versailles was much in the mind with those making these policies. Or as Attlee’s Foreign Secretary Bevin, a leading player in rebuilding and establishing the Federal Republic and NATO put it ‘I tries ‘ard but I ‘ates them’.
Still, pragmatism had to win out.

The unpopular and In peacetime unprecedented return of conscription also was in large part to garrison the occupied zone, that’s where most went, my father included.

Many Russians despite the deluge of Putin propaganda have demonstrated on pain of up to 15 years in a harsh prison, in over 50 cities with many thousands arrested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan

Also, we have to accept our own culpability in Putin's consolidation of power, guess who owns the second largest private residence after Buckingham Palace in London? Owned by a Russian and in previous years guess who has been seen there, not as somewhere to stay on a state visit but coming via private jet?

One way to make them pay, make them count lads. For Salisbury;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqciopjTd3s

Please keep this thread on topic, thanks.

The Luftwaffe needs a deep interdiction aircraft, with the range, two man cockpit, ECR and stealth capability.
The Typhoon interceptor isn't and never will be that aircraft. But still it's there & you can hang bombs under it.

Funny thing is the Luftwaffe addressed this concern 25 years ago, but was pushed back in line by allies, industry & politics.
And now the Tornado project turned 50, 4 years ago.

In the past war situations tended to wipe away interest groups & build what's required quickly.

keesje wrote:

The Luftwaffe needs a deep interdiction aircraft, with the range, two man cockpit, ECR and stealth capability.
The Typhoon interceptor isn't and never will be that aircraft. But still it's there & you can hang bombs under it.

Funny thing is the Luftwaffe addressed this concern 25 years ago, but was pushed back in line by allies, industry & politics.
And now the Tornado project turned 50, 4 years ago.

In the past war situations tended to wipe away interest groups & build what's required quickly.

RAF Typhoons have done more than ‘hang bombs on it’, on operations while they have used Paveway IV, also Brimstone and Storm Shadow missiles. The Luftwaffe chose not to invest much in Typhoon for the usual reason, which itself has its roots in the 90’s when the German government tried to pull out of the project for ‘something cheaper’ and not ‘Cold War’ whatever that meant. What they found was starting from scratch, cheaper wasn’t going to be plus the politics of pulling out of a pan European program. So instead they insisted the Luftwaffe got ‘cheaper Typhoons’, which they were not. Just less capable.

Small wonder the French got nervous with that future combat aircraft system project, that the major other partner would get cold feet again, until that is Ukraine happened.

But for that they could have had a Typhoon ECR in service right now.

GDB wrote:

keesje wrote:

The Luftwaffe needs a deep interdiction aircraft, with the range, two man cockpit, ECR and stealth capability.
The Typhoon interceptor isn't and never will be that aircraft. But still it's there & you can hang bombs under it.

Funny thing is the Luftwaffe addressed this concern 25 years ago, but was pushed back in line by allies, industry & politics.
And now the Tornado project turned 50, 4 years ago.

In the past war situations tended to wipe away interest groups & build what's required quickly.

RAF Typhoons have done more than ‘hang bombs on it’, on operations while they have used Paveway IV, also Brimstone and Storm Shadow missiles. The Luftwaffe chose not to invest much in Typhoon for the usual reason, which itself has its roots in the 90’s when the German government tried to pull out of the project for ‘something cheaper’ and not ‘Cold War’ whatever that meant. What they found was starting from scratch, cheaper wasn’t going to be plus the politics of pulling out of a pan European program. So instead they insisted the Luftwaffe got ‘cheaper Typhoons’, which they were not. Just less capable.

Small wonder the French got nervous with that future combat aircraft system project, that the major other partner would get cold feet again, until that is Ukraine happened.

But for that they could have had a Typhoon ECR in service right now.

I think that pretty much everyone agrees that a stealth aircraft is better than a non-stealth aircraft when striking into defended air space. F-35 is a much better platform to use in that environment than Typhoon, F-18, F-15, Rafale etc Sure, spend a lot of money on creating an ECM version of Typhoon. What would be good would be if that could feed off ECM tech being developed for FCAS. 1 investment with 2 applications, Typhoon testing and proving the tech involved in FCAS.

art wrote:

GDB wrote:

keesje wrote:

The Luftwaffe needs a deep interdiction aircraft, with the range, two man cockpit, ECR and stealth capability.
The Typhoon interceptor isn't and never will be that aircraft. But still it's there & you can hang bombs under it.

Funny thing is the Luftwaffe addressed this concern 25 years ago, but was pushed back in line by allies, industry & politics.
And now the Tornado project turned 50, 4 years ago.

In the past war situations tended to wipe away interest groups & build what's required quickly.

RAF Typhoons have done more than ‘hang bombs on it’, on operations while they have used Paveway IV, also Brimstone and Storm Shadow missiles. The Luftwaffe chose not to invest much in Typhoon for the usual reason, which itself has its roots in the 90’s when the German government tried to pull out of the project for ‘something cheaper’ and not ‘Cold War’ whatever that meant. What they found was starting from scratch, cheaper wasn’t going to be plus the politics of pulling out of a pan European program. So instead they insisted the Luftwaffe got ‘cheaper Typhoons’, which they were not. Just less capable.

Small wonder the French got nervous with that future combat aircraft system project, that the major other partner would get cold feet again, until that is Ukraine happened.

But for that they could have had a Typhoon ECR in service right now.

I think that pretty much everyone agrees that a stealth aircraft is better than a non-stealth aircraft when striking into defended air space. F-35 is a much better platform to use in that environment than Typhoon, F-18, F-15, Rafale etc Sure, spend a lot of money on creating an ECM version of Typhoon. What would be good would be if that could feed off ECM tech being developed for FCAS. 1 investment with 2 applications, Typhoon testing and proving the tech involved in FCAS.

So why the large USN investment in the SEAD/ECM version of the F-18? They are getting F-35’s too. Though I used the term ‘could be in service now’ for a reason. Germany is now very likely to buy some F-35’s, as you know they were also considering the Growler too.

GDB wrote:

keesje wrote:

The Luftwaffe needs a deep interdiction aircraft, with the range, two man cockpit, ECR and stealth capability.
The Typhoon interceptor isn't and never will be that aircraft. But still it's there & you can hang bombs under it.

Funny thing is the Luftwaffe addressed this concern 25 years ago, but was pushed back in line by allies, industry & politics.
And now the Tornado project turned 50, 4 years ago.

In the past war situations tended to wipe away interest groups & build what's required quickly.

RAF Typhoons have done more than ‘hang bombs on it’, on operations while they have used Paveway IV, also Brimstone and Storm Shadow missiles. The Luftwaffe chose not to invest much in Typhoon for the usual reason, .

Mmm. Taurus is qualified for the German Typhoons, just won't be operational as long as the Tornado are still around and GBU-24/48/54 have been integrated and are available to operational units. That leaves Brimstone as unique UK weapon.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

GDB wrote:

keesje wrote:

The Luftwaffe needs a deep interdiction aircraft, with the range, two man cockpit, ECR and stealth capability.
The Typhoon interceptor isn't and never will be that aircraft. But still it's there & you can hang bombs under it.

Funny thing is the Luftwaffe addressed this concern 25 years ago, but was pushed back in line by allies, industry & politics.
And now the Tornado project turned 50, 4 years ago.

In the past war situations tended to wipe away interest groups & build what's required quickly.

RAF Typhoons have done more than ‘hang bombs on it’, on operations while they have used Paveway IV, also Brimstone and Storm Shadow missiles. The Luftwaffe chose not to invest much in Typhoon for the usual reason, .

Mmm. Taurus is qualified for the German Typhoons, just won't be operational as long as the Tornado are still around and GBU-24/48/54 have been integrated and are available to operational units. That leaves Brimstone as unique UK weapon.

Best regards
Thomas

I was wondering about that, here BAE and the RAF did the work for these weapons on Typhoon before our Tornado fleet was retired. This I think was due to the fact that they would have to take the place of Tornado on operations immediately, god knows we are allowing too many 'capability gaps' as it is but for ongoing operations, not an option.

With the boost in German spending, this is a low hanging fruit item that can be quickly addressed, including buying more Taurus rounds.
It is being reported that the UK will likely raise spending too, without figures or confirmation until the scheduled financial statement, I won't do a shopping list (don't want to go off topic again!)
However, I DO think a top up buy of more Batch 3 Typhoons to raise two more RAF squadrons would be smart and again, near term not 'blue sky'. As well as retaining and updating as needed for the Batch 1's for purely AD/QRA in UK assigned airspace.

In particular I would like to see a dedicated RAF SEAD unit from that, perhaps developed in conjunction with Germany, also while doing so a program of cross munitions for Typhoon users, so that all can use Taurus, Storm Shadow, Brimstone and systems doing the same role as the latter in other NATO Typhoon users, so that it is possible to on operations use each other's munitions if required.

With all these deployments in the NATO area, beyond just Air Policing now, would this not make sense, spend some to save a lot more, plus sustainability too.

I wonder if this means that more F35Bs will be assigned to the carriers for deployments?

Please keep this thread on topic. Feel free to discuss RAF options in a spearate thread. Thanks.

stratable wrote:

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

stratable wrote:

My whole point here is that I'd assume the Luftwaffe knows what they're doing. They will know their mission profiles, the types of aircraft they need, and how to use each aircraft.

No doubt. They are already heavily invested in Eurofighter so more makes sense for them. There has always been lots of talk of Eurofighter improvements like CFTs (not happening https://twitter.com/garethjennings3/sta ... 56?lang=en ), TVC, EJ200 etc but have never gone anywhere. With ECR they may open up the additional suggested pylons for wet carriage and increase electrical generation on the EJ200 but that is about it.

Problem with things like AMK is unless you upgrade the whole fleet you end up with a sub fleet of aircraft with different flight behaviour. You also have to clear the flight envelope again not just for clean aircraft but for using weapons in that expanded envelope. Maybe the 100 bills will buy that work but I doubt it. Easier to just keep the aircraft as it is and focus money on upgrades like ECR.

stratable wrote:

The Tornado has been updated throughout its life, too.

Slowly for the GAF… and far behind the RAF models until recently. Even then Germany never operated the ADV, the vanilla Tornados don’t have BVR A2A capability nor long range radar for air tracks, just AIM-9 or ASRAAM.

stratable wrote:

The Luftwaffe has been asking for F-35 in the past, seems like they're getting some in the future, even if it has taken a while to get there.

Better chance now than ever before. Reckon Muellner should sue for compensation.

Thanks for the insights.

According to German news reports, Luftwaffe is getting 15 billion Euros for a Tornado successor and 2.5 billion Euros for the Typhoon platform.
Typhoon will be further developed into the electronic warfare version.
From these sources it is not clear what the actual distribution for new aircraft, and development spending will be, i.e. if the 2.5 billion for Typhoon is for
the ECR version, or if those 2.5 billion are for additional upgrades and the 15 billion includes a potential F-35 purchase and ECR.

Federal budget will be announced next week and could provide more detail.

Sources [in German]:
https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Wofuer-werden-die-100-Milliarden-Euro-ausgegeben-article23161637.html
https://www.waz.de/politik/100-milliarden-fuer-bundeswehr-scholz-reaktion-putin-id234682661.html

So a E 15B budget for a Tornado replacement. What would be the deadline for completion?

I feel like buying a future aircraft right now doesn't make sense, unless it's just an upgrade of an existing one. EIS has to be soon. In that case, upgraded Typhoons or Rafales. If it's deemed that it is superior, the F35, however we're seeing with the Mig29 saga that the US is ready to help us, until help is really needed. Can we europeans rely on their aircraft, won't they put their veto on their use against someone at one point ?

If the nuclear option is the deal breaker, maybe the French can sell Germany the ASMP-A with its nuclear warhead, in a package with Rafales.

Aesma wrote:

I feel like buying a future aircraft right now doesn't make sense, unless it's just an upgrade of an existing one. EIS has to be soon. In that case, upgraded Typhoons or Rafales. If it's deemed that it is superior, the F35, however we're seeing with the Mig29 saga that the US is ready to help us, until help is really needed. Can we europeans rely on their aircraft, won't they put their veto on their use against someone at one point ?

If the nuclear option is the deal breaker, maybe the French can sell Germany the ASMP-A with its nuclear warhead, in a package with Rafales.

The German 'nuclear' bombs are not, they are supplied by the US and under NATO control.
It would be quicker and more logical to integrate ASMP-A on to Typhoon, from a cost perspective, not least to avoid adding a new aircraft type to Germany. If you are going to do that, in small numbers for a specialized role, best to go for the top tier design for the medium term, which is also much used by other NATO nations. The F-35 with SEAD Typhoon. The former could have near term EIS if an order, training and delivery were expedited. The latter if the effort put in, not that long down the road.

Just getting ASMP-A would be a major problem, not being from NATO stocks, thus giving Germany an independent nuclear capability, or at least one pooled with France.
Germany does not seek that.
The only acceptable interaction for them with nuclear weapons is via NATO, a stand off weapon like ASMP-A would also likely be deemed provocative, less defensive, these are political rather than military considerations but who provides the money and the authority on procurement?
I can see no other way if Germany wants to be part of the NATO nuclear force, more likely now than pre Ukraine, other than US supplied, NATO held bombs on F-35's.

Also, if we have learned anything in the past few weeks predicting the future is very risky, I would not risk future proofing airpower, which means programs like FCAS, Tempest.
A post Putin Russia, scarred by Ukraine, still resentful, might chose to this time to learn lessons and push for quality, training, quality over quantity also eases logistics.
In the air, they are behind, their it seems small numbers of answers to the F-22 and F-35 are not really, fewer aircraft, fewer types, more PGM's, better C3. The latter two they can certainly do, in a less corrupt environment.

Then there's China.

You mean Germany didn't seek that until the 24th of February. Now all bets are off. I can tell you that even if a US buy from Germany seemed a done deal in France until then, and has even been reiterated a couple days ago by Dassault's CEO on French TV, it would still go like a lead balloon here, while pretending to commit to an European defense.

Aesma wrote:

You mean Germany didn't seek that until the 24th of February. Now all bets are off. I can tell you that even if a US buy from Germany seemed a done deal in France until then, and has even been reiterated a couple days ago by Dassault's CEO on French TV, it would still go like a lead balloon here, while pretending to commit to an European defense.

As regards to the many huge changes in German defence and foreign policy post 24th Feb, the effect on the long controversial nuclear debate in Germany, the effect there is most likely to make it less of a divisive issue, which in turn means retaining it as credible becomes more urgent. Meaning F-35 with those NATO held bombs.

Germany will buy F35 several sources say.

Finally...a good decision......

https://augengeradeaus.net/2022/03/nun- ... -gefallen/

Link to a german blogger which usually is very accurate and who cites DPA and Reuters.

TheSonntag wrote:

https://augengeradeaus.net/2022/03/nun-angeblich-endgueltige-entscheidung-fuer-f-35-als-tornado-nachfolger-gefallen/

Link to a german blogger which usually is very accurate and who cites DPA and Reuters.

Reportedly 35 F-35 + 15 Eurofighter with ECR configuration. Would be a significant reduction from 85 Tornados currently, so we might see some changes / additions to those numbers.

Also note that the decision has not been officially confirmed by the government yet.

TheSonntag wrote:

Germany will buy F35 several sources say.

Makes a lot of sense in terms of longevity, capabilities, interoperability with allies, etc.

It's official.

https://twitter.com/BMVg_Bundeswehr/sta ... 8427281411

Joint statement by the minister of defence and the Luftwaffe inspector general, translated:

There is only one answer to Putin's aggression: unity in NATO and credible deterrence. This is precisely why the decision in favor of the F-35 is without alternative. The F-35 is the most modern combat aircraft in the world, and many of our European partners have also opted for this aircraft. It strengthens our ability to work with them to secure NATO airspace and defend the Alliance. With the F-35, we are procuring a market-available 5th generation fighter aircraft. Systems available on the market are exemplary for accelerating the modernization of our armed forces. Together with the further development of the Eurofighter for electronic warfare, we are taking an important step toward positioning the Air Force and thus the German armed forces for the future.

Our intention is to initiate the procurement of 35 F-35As and 15 Eurofighter ECRs.
We will subject the corresponding schedules, including unit numbers, to continuous risk assessment, as is already customary in other major projects.

https://augengeradeaus.net/2022/03/luft ... eufassung/

But will the Luftwaffe be able to have sufficient spares or will there be a continuation of the current situation where many aircraft are waiting for spares to be authorised?

SamYeager2016 wrote:

But will the Luftwaffe be able to have sufficient spares or will there be a continuation of the current situation where many aircraft are waiting for spares to be authorised?

The recent ramp up with German defence spending is likely as much as those issues than shopping for big ticket items, the F-35/Typhoon ECR and likely the CH-53G replacement notwithstanding.
They are to be spending a lot more.

Not that we in the UK should be too smug, arguably when we need AWACS the most, what has happened?
The Sentinal aircraft would be very useful right now, for years the government wanted to get rid of them, only use in Afghanistan then repeated requests from allies kept that back for a few years, we only got back after a 10 year holiday, maritime patrol aircraft for an island nation reliant on trade, after what is seen to be the most botched post war review, the 2010 one.

So for all the posing around Union Jacks, the last Defence Review, just year, joins the Thatcher 1981 review and what happened the next year (arguably in part as a direct result of it), in being made out of date almost immediately.
We are going to have to spend more and quickly.

SamYeager2016 wrote:

But will the Luftwaffe be able to have sufficient spares or will there be a continuation of the current situation where many aircraft are waiting for spares to be authorised?

My personal opinion is with the additional money they can pay the big urgent projects and are able to pay the necessary spares etc. from the regular budget.

In terms of feet size, where does 35 F-35A put the German Luftwaffe? Behind the RAAF?

GDB wrote:

SamYeager2016 wrote:

But will the Luftwaffe be able to have sufficient spares or will there be a continuation of the current situation where many aircraft are waiting for spares to be authorised?

The recent ramp up with German defence spending is likely as much as those issues than shopping for big ticket items, the F-35/Typhoon ECR and likely the CH-53G replacement notwithstanding.
They are to be spending a lot more.
.

There is also the little bit that the Tornado flying hour is quite a bit more expensive than an F35s these days. That amount to quite a bit per aircraft and year. Good deal all around.

Best regards
Thomas

889091 wrote:

In terms of feet size, where does 35 F-35A put the German Luftwaffe? Behind the RAAF?

Yes. Finland ordered over 60, for comparison, and just behind the Belgians at 34. RAAF has 44 of 72 ordered, delivered. Likely, the Germans will decide they either 'like' supporting the aircraft and order more, or not. Very good timing though, as I bet they are getting these before some inflation adjusted pricing kicks in, and as the program has matured from a support/maintenance perspective (will it include the 'odin' support software package? I admit I bring that up almost as a funny cultural cross reference).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ghtning_II

https://www.airforcemag.com/f-35-progra ... -for-odin/

texl1649 wrote:

889091 wrote:

In terms of feet size, where does 35 F-35A put the German Luftwaffe? Behind the RAAF?

Yes. Finland ordered over 60, for comparison, and just behind the Belgians at 34. RAAF has 44 of 72 ordered, delivered. Likely, the Germans will decide they either 'like' supporting the aircraft and order more, or not. Very good timing though, as I bet they are getting these before some inflation adjusted pricing kicks in, and as the program has matured from a support/maintenance perspective (will it include the 'odin' support software package? I admit I bring that up almost as a funny cultural cross reference).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ghtning_II

https://www.airforcemag.com/f-35-progra ... -for-odin/

Don't forget for Belgium, Finland etc the F-35 will be the sole fighter/bomber, whereas the Luftwaffe has a handful of Eurofighters to compliment the F-35s (or rather the other way round!)

I did read somewhere that having a stealth ECM/jamming aircraft a bit counterproductive as it's the opposite of being stealthy.

Maybe it was the translation, but something has me a bit baffled. While many here have said the F35 is the Tornado replacement for strike missions, the press release keeps talking about it being a "fighter". I wonder if they are considering ordering more in the future to cover both roles?

johns624 wrote:

Maybe it was the translation, but something has me a bit baffled. While many here have said the F35 is the Tornado replacement for strike missions, the press release keeps talking about it being a "fighter". I wonder if they are considering ordering more in the future to cover both roles?

The German word used is Kampfflugzeug, which litteraly means combat aircraft. It's a generic word for various kinds of warplanes, you need to know the context to find the correct word in English. https://www.dict.cc/?s=Kampfflugzeug

ReverseFlow wrote:

I did read somewhere that having a stealth ECM/jamming aircraft a bit counterproductive as it's the opposite of being stealthy.

There might be one benefit to an F-35 variant. This is pure conjecture but Aviation Week suggested that an F-35B variant with the lift fan replaced by a generator would make an excellent laser platform. Could the same be true for EW?

johns624 wrote:

Maybe it was the translation, but something has me a bit baffled. While many here have said the F35 is the Tornado replacement for strike missions, the press release keeps talking about it being a "fighter". I wonder if they are considering ordering more in the future to cover both roles?

most media here refer to the F-35 as a Tarnkappenbomber (invisibility cloak bomber) and lump it into the same group as the B2.

For ordering more? Well, this replaces 50 of the 85 Tornados, so there will be more orders, since target fleet size is still ~230, which i suspect will revert to the previous 260~270 aircraft target. With the ECR role going to the Eurofigher i could imagine topping up the F-35 order to 60 to have two deep strike wings, and the rest being Eurofighters.

What i find most puzzling is that out of the 102 Billion extra budget, only 600 Million seem to be dedicated to ground based AD, soley for Patriot improvements. With litterlally nothing between Stinger and Patriot and Gepard, Roland and Hawk replacement stuck in procurement hell. There used to be 36 Hawk batteries across Germany north to south, they where phased out without replacement (MEADS was supposed to be that) 17 years ago. And they where used to protect Patrio batteries from being picked of from the rear, so kinda important. Roland for point defense and battlefield cover where phased out without replacement the same time, the Gepard (SPAAG) followed 2010.

Right now the German armed forces have to expend a Patriot to shot down a drone at 15k feet. On the good side they plan ~20 Billion for munitions. Finally.

best regards
Thomas

N328KF wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

I did read somewhere that having a stealth ECM/jamming aircraft a bit counterproductive as it's the opposite of being stealthy.

There might be one benefit to an F-35 variant. This is pure conjecture but Aviation Week suggested that an F-35B variant with the lift fan replaced by a generator would make an excellent laser platform. Could the same be true for EW?

For this I'd wonder if the single engine would generate enough power not to interfere with its primary functions (thrust, electricity generation for primary systems etc). And probably if you'd take out the lift fan you'd have a lot of spare space unless you fill it with the generator and other things (like EW computers/fuel)

Nothing is firm yet, there will be more ground based AD not only for Patriot improvements - TLVS the successor of MEADS will be part of it and likely a short range system by Rheinmetall based on the Boxer pattform...

Just saw this on DW news
https://youtu.be/jKke0HZFwzk?t=854

texl1649 wrote:

889091 wrote:

In terms of feet size, where does 35 F-35A put the German Luftwaffe? Behind the RAAF?

Yes. Finland ordered over 60, for comparison, and just behind the Belgians at 34. RAAF has 44 of 72 ordered, delivered. Likely, the Germans will decide they either 'like' supporting the aircraft and order more, or not. Very good timing though, as I bet they are getting these before some inflation adjusted pricing kicks in, and as the program has matured from a support/maintenance perspective (will it include the 'odin' support software package? I admit I bring that up almost as a funny cultural cross reference).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ghtning_II

https://www.airforcemag.com/f-35-progra ... -for-odin/

It will most probably be more than those 35 ordered considering they can't even move forward with the FCAS which was planned to be fielded in 2040 which is simply not fast enough.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... stry-deal/

The negotiations, which have dragged on for months now, risk bringing the program to a complete standstill. “There is a moment where we say ‘yes,’ or we say ‘no,’” Trappier continued. “In my opinion, this has gone on a bit too long.”

744SPX wrote:

The F-35 fanboyism on here is pretty amazing, especially when it comes to its air to air performance. For every debunking there is another debunking, and for every pilot or general who says how great it is there is another who rips it to shreds. This has been going on for the last 12+ years. People used to say "well, the F-35 was never designed to be an air superiority fighter, its an attack aircraft". Now they say its the best air to air fighter there is. I've talked to a Navy F-18E pilot who worked on the F-35 program for a number of years but quit because of the aircraft's inherent deficiencies.

Funny how once people accepted that the F-35 program was too big to fail everyone started screaming how its the most amazing, perfect fighter ever built, and how dare you say anything against it.

Even when Lockheed decided they wouldn't fix the B and C speed deficiency/limitations people just said "oh, top speed doesn't really matter anyway". And that's only one of the contractual failure's they have failed to meet.

Sure the Typhoon isn't a great air to ground aircraft, but I'll take it any day over the F-35 for the interceptor/air to air mission.

and yet country after country in Europe are buying that "crap"
please don't tell me that the US of A "forced" those countries to buy a defective product
or using the CCP narrative that the US of A "forced" the Russia federation to invade Ukraine and thus creating a crisis that lead to Germany to choose the F-35

I guess the SCAF/FCAS will be French only, then.

Aesma wrote:

I guess the SCAF/FCAS will be French only, then.

Don't see why, other F-35 users have projects going forward. This is for a specific need with some urgency.
They still have all those Typhoons to eventually replace, as France eventually will also need for Rafale.
Certainly the situation in Ukraine and the big changes in German defence policy has driven this forward, they might have picked it anyway but politically that would have been difficult.

Aesma wrote:

I guess the SCAF/FCAS will be French only, then.

That those certain Tornados would be replaced with a US Type has been clear for years. Yesterdays news didn´t change anything regarding FCAS.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I guess the SCAF/FCAS will be French only, then.

That those certain Tornados would be replaced with a US Type has been clear for years. Yesterdays news didn´t change anything regarding FCAS.

best regards
Thomas

If anything the change in German defence spending, not only being about short term, the Chancellor himself said that a more independent capacity for defence is needed, which to me is a positive for FCAS.
Taken along with various other projects, notably the Franco-German new MBT.

I don't think anyone is doubting that FCAS will happen
but 2040s is 20 years away and a lot can and will happen during that time.

What do think will happen if the PRC decides to join the war and send equipment and soldiers to Europe?
https://www.ft.com/content/30850470-8c8 ... 497064a7b7
This is why those 35 F-35s will not be enough.

bajs11 wrote:

I don't think anyone is doubting that FCAS will happen
but 2040s is 20 years away and a lot can and will happen during that time.

What do think will happen if the PRC decides to join the war and send equipment and soldiers to Europe?
https://www.ft.com/content/30850470-8c8 ... 497064a7b7
This is why those 35 F-35s will not be enough.

The last thing the PRC will do is that. I doubt they send anything significant equipment wise.
For them the performance of the Russian Army will bring back memories of when they thought they could push around Vietnam in 1979, a huge army in the ‘model’ of the thoughts of Mao Tse Tung versus the most battle hardened army in the world at the time.

The PRC is all about their own industry/secrecy, there is no chance they join FCAS and somehow become dependent on any components/cooperation with a NATO country/group. They’ve already developed a stealth manned strike/interceptor aircraft well beyond anything France/Germ/Brits have done. Engines/alloys are a challenge, sure, but they will get there. Also, the Euro’s don’t want the software code all written in Chinese.

FCAS might, could, perhaps happen by 2040, but realistically an IOC is probably more like 2050. Germany will almost certainly top up further on both Eurofighter and F-35 well before then, or deliveries in significant quantity happen.

texl1649 wrote:

The PRC is all about their own industry/secrecy, there is no chance they join FCAS and somehow become dependent on any components/cooperation with a NATO country/group. They’ve already developed a stealth manned strike/interceptor aircraft well beyond anything France/Germ/Brits have done. Engines/alloys are a challenge, sure, but they will get there. Also, the Euro’s don’t want the software code all written in Chinese.

FCAS might, could, perhaps happen by 2040, but realistically an IOC is probably more like 2050. Germany will almost certainly top up further on both Eurofighter and F-35 well before then, or deliveries in significant quantity happen.

He was referring to China joining in Russias war, not the FCAS program

Best regards
Thomas

Well if China joins this war, we have different problems. And the F35 order is useless for that anyway, since they are able only in 10 years.