Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting columba (Thread starter): Germany considers the Super Hornet |
Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 1): I wonder if it would be reasonable to make a Typhoon variant for this. |
Quoting columba (Thread starter): On the other hand all European partner already have the F35 on order and won´t have any interest in developing a new aircraft. |
Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 1): I guess it depends if they want something where the R&D is complete or if they're willing to do it themselves. |
Quoting Ozair (Reply 2): I can't find a realistic European nation to partner with them. France are unlikely to co-develop a ground attack jet, even though something like this would be a significantly better replacement for the Mirage 2000 nuclear fleet than the Rafale. Italy, the UK and probably Spain are going F-35 and the smaller nations are either in the F-35 camp or not going to spend any money developing/buying a long range strike aircraft. Germany also has no Middle Eastern or Asian security agreements they could leverage. |
Quoting columba (Thread starter): since this would be the logical thing to do I highly doubt it. |
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 3): they aren't interested in another fighter jet development project. |
Quoting Ozair (Reply 2): something like this would be a significantly better replacement for the Mirage 2000 nuclear fleet than the Rafale. |
Quoting Pihero (Reply 6): To compare the Mirage 2000N and the Rafale ( B, I suppose ) ands find the former to be superior is asinine... |
Quoting Pihero (Reply 6): Oh ! I forgot you are the proponent of the best-ever fighter since the Foikker Eindecker : the SH isn't it ? |
Quoting Pihero (Reply 6): ...andf btw, I do not think that the Germans would ever consider the Rafale to replace their Tornadoes : It would be saying that the French were right since the ACF 2000. |
Quoting Pihero (Reply 6): I think, it's grezat time for the Germans to go their own way : the Eurofighter has taken a lot of the TKF 2000. It could be revived and improved upon. |
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 3): Almost every previous partner that Germany has developed aircraft with is buying F-35's |
Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 18): The Tornado is still a formidable weapon, I´d Neo the engines, update de avionics, and make it lighter, sure the tooling still exists and make another 50 and refurbish the existing ones to Neo standard...the cheaper and a surefire way to ensure a working solution... |
Quoting steman (Reply 19): The only two viable options, F-35 or a specialised version of the Typhoon, will attract so much criticism and opposition that it will be close to impossible to get it done. |
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 21): What happens if there is a war and the military have to make up for combat losses? |
Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 22): Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 21): What happens if there is a war and the military have to make up for combat losses? if you have the plans in digital form, it is probably easier, faster, cheaper, more sturdy and lighter to just 3-D print them. best regards Thomas |
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 21): What happens if there is a war and the military have to make up for combat losses? |
Quoting moo (Reply 24): You cant restart production pines just like that - some parts take years to build (for example all modern US warplanes have parts built on the Heavy Press Program presses, which are booked up for years), and it could take a year or more to clear out specialist factories and reinstate toolings. This isnt like WW2 where you could bung out a bf109 or Spitfire in 24 hours, that loss you take today over Syria may take 2 years to cover. And of course these days aircraft are much much more than the toolings, for example the processor that the F-22 uses for most of its systems has been out of production at Intel for 5 years now - Intel couldnt keep their line running for spare because that means keeping $10billion of chip fab lines around, including silicon wafer production, just for that one low purchaser. Want more F-22s to replace destroyed airframes? Then you need to pull avionics from the spares catalog, which means you are depleting the spares catalog faster than planned. |
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 25): I repair aircraft for a living, and I think that I know how aircraft are being made |
Quoting bilgerat (Reply 29): Germany does, as does the UK, France and Sweden. |
Quoting bilgerat (Reply 29): What they don't have is the political will. |
Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 30): I am also sure that it can be done for 10% of the F35 budget if one can keep politics out of it and do it with a cost optimized development, test and production program. |
Quoting moo (Reply 26): We might be able to have the first in five to ten years, if we are lucky. And thats without validating any design changes bringing the Tornado up to date. We could have a customised Eurofighter in half that at a lot lower cost. |
Quoting steman (Reply 19): The only two viable options, F-35 or a specialised version of the Typhoon, will attract so much criticism and opposition that it will be close to impossible to get it done. |
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 27): And one engine. I know, this is no issue for the rest of the world, but it was for many years in germany since the Starfighter crisis. |
Quoting bilgerat (Reply 29): Germany does, as does the UK, France and Sweden. |
columba wrote:Airbus Defence and Space is working with the German military on a Tornado replacement.
Link includes picture of the concept:
http://www.janes.com/article/61628/airb ... bundeswehr
With the upgrade of the TORNADO to ASSTA 313, the foundation has been laid for sustaining the operational capability of this weapon system. With the augmentation of capabilities of the EUROFIGHTER, the future focus of the TORNADO will be on SEAD and the employment of heavy weapons (e.g. GBU-24 and MAW TAURUS14).
According to current plans, the TORNADO will be kept in service until the mid-2020s. In order to provide enough time for the development and procurement of a successor system and to maintain the capability spectrum within the context of FCAS, studies are being carried out to determine whether the in-service period can be prolonged by stretching the remaining flight hours or whether a service life extension of the TORNADO until the mid-2030s is possible. The studies are assessing the technological risks and economic efficiency of these options with a view to reducing risks. A decision will likely be made in 2016.
With its AGM-88B Block III A guided missile (HARM), the TORNADO is the mainstay of the SEAD capability. Among other things, this missile no longer meets the requirements with regard to target location mechanisms and intelligent terminal control to increase hit probability.
Depending on the decision to extend the service life of the TORNADO, it may be necessary to introduce a follow-on solution for the engagement of ground-based air defence systems.
A NextGenWS is envisaged as a future complementary system to the EUROFIGHTER in the FCAS network and in some areas as a potential successor of the TORNADO. It must thus be geared to the future requirements of airborne weapon systems. A focus must be placed on possible options for using capabilities in an Alliance context. The resulting capability requirements should be defined in a complementary approach, taking into account the augmentation of capabilities for the EUROFIGHTER, the capabilities of the MALE UAS target solution, technological developments, trends, and threats.
The NextGenWS could be unmanned, manned or optionally manned. This decision should be taken on the basis of further analyses and in the context of a European solution.
In order to seamlessly maintain the current capabilities of the Bundeswehr, the initial operational capability of a NextGenWS must be achieved before the TORNADO reaches the end of its service life. In accordance with the strategic vector, this should be implemented in a multinational context. With the definition of concepts and operational requirements for an FCAS in 2016, the foundations will be laid for European cooperation.
epten wrote:Isn't ground attack role obtained simply by mounting a targeting pod and weapons?
steman wrote:The Tornado is compatible with US atomic weapons and it´s been so since the beginning. So is the SEAD role. These are not the discriminating factors that will make the F-35 the only option for the Luftwaffe.
Ozair wrote:Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 30):I am also sure that it can be done for 10% of the F35 budget if one can keep politics out of it and do it with a cost optimized development, test and production program.
That is a claim that has no basis in reality. Even SAAB could not develop the Gripen for the cost you are claiming and the Gripen is very very far from a 5th gen aircraft.
Shaping provides 90 percent of the stealth of the invisibility cloak of a stealth aircraft with the remaining 10 percent coming from the RAM coating. The operational doctrine of the F-22 is based on the F-22 flying around without its radar on and not making any other electronic emissions either. At the same time it is vacuuming up the electronic emissions of enemy aircraft, triangulating their position and then pouncing at a time of its choosing. The world has moved on from that. Stealth, as practiced by the F-22 and F-35, is optimized on radar in the X band from 7.0 to 11.2 gigahertz. Detection in other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum has improved a lot over the last twenty years. Chief of these is infrared search and track (IRST) which enables an F-35 to be detected from its engine exhaust from over 60 miles away. The latest iteration of the Su-27 Flanker family, the Su-35, has IRST and L band radar on its wings. L band and lower frequency radars can see stealthy aircraft over 100 miles away. So an Su-35 can see a F-35 well before the F-35 can detect it. Stealth, as an end in itself, has outlived its usefulness, and maintaining that RAM coating is killing the budget for no good reason.
Mar 24, 2014 Bill Sweetman | Aviation Week & Space Technology
Lockheed Martin labeled the F-35 a “fifth-generation” fighter in 2005, a term it borrowed from Russia in 2004 to describe the F-22. Some of their rivals tumbled into this rhetorical trap and tried to argue that “fourth-generation” was just as capable. Whether it is true or not, making such a case is an uphill struggle.
But if “fifth-generation” means more than “the ultimate driving machine,” a sixth generation will emerge. Saab can argue that the JAS 39E Gripen, rather than some of the wildly expensive-looking artist’s concepts we have seen, is the first such aircraft....The reason that the JAS 39E may earn a Gen 6 tag is that it has been designed with these issues in mind. Software comes first: The new hardware runs Mission System 21 software, the latest roughly biennial release in the series that started with the JAS 39A/B.
seahawk wrote:Spain is practically out, as they have clearly stated that the next fighter would not only replace the Hornets but also the Harriers of the Armada. Add the fact, that Germany needs a plane compatible with US atomic weapons and also for the SEAD role it becomes clear that F35 it is.
Balerit wrote:
5th generation is a Lockheed marketing term and as far as I'm concerned the Gripen is even better than the F35 or F22, here is an interesting article: