Page 26 of 27

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:38 am
by tommy1808
Ozair wrote:
That goal hasn’t motivated Germany on Defence procurement for the last 20 years, why would this selection suddenly change that?


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

[quote]Jamming is even more effective when being applied from a stealth platform because the RCS is already so incredibly low the power required to hide it is minimal.[/quite]

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

Best regards
Thomas

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:56 am
by seahawk
If you look at German defence needs, the question is why they should buy any fighter? You just pointed out that the jamming and SEAD role is obsolete and nobody really wants to fly the doomsday mission either - so best choice - buy nothing.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:30 am
by keesje
seahawk wrote:
If you look at German defence needs, the question is why they should buy any fighter? You just pointed out that the jamming and SEAD role is obsolete and nobody really wants to fly the doomsday mission either - so best choice - buy nothing.


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

Image

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:12 am
by Ozair
tommy1808 wrote:

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

Best regards
Thomas

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

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

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

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

LOL, makes sense Keesje. Of course Germany would spend literally billions on developing the Eurofighter that has essentially the same capabilities as the Rafale and with no industrial stake in the Rafale at all select that to equip their air force all while their own country is sliding into recession... :roll:

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:24 am
by seahawk
I personally think that political realities rule out the F-35 (a real theoretical first strike capability is bad- especially with Germany completely in control by left wing parties) and financial realities will rule out a fighter buy completely in the end, as the economy is falling into a recession, the trade war with the USA hurts Germany badly and the Brexit will be the end for the economy.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:51 pm
by tommy1808
Ozair wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

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

Best regards
Thomas

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


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

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

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

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

Best regards
Thomas

*at that time those will have sufficient computing power available that even the smallest air or ground radar can pick up any non-LO type craft all thr way to the horizont.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:07 pm
by keesje
They better put resources in FCAS instead of trying to transform the Typhoon interceptors into a so-so dual seat IDS aircraft. A road taken by the french already years ago with the more suitable Rafale. Workshare on FCAS other defense projects provide ample opportunities to turn this into a win-win.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:10 pm
by seahawk
Not much needed to do really. Slap on the conformal fuel tanks and you are done.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:40 pm
by vr773
seahawk wrote:
I personally think that political realities rule out the F-35 (a real theoretical first strike capability is bad- especially with Germany completely in control by left wing parties) and financial realities will rule out a fighter buy completely in the end, as the economy is falling into a recession, the trade war with the USA hurts Germany badly and the Brexit will be the end for the economy.


People who envy the higher quality of life and relatively fair distribution of wealth in Germany have made that argument for ages. I’m still waiting for the “end of the economy”.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:36 pm
by Ozair
tommy1808 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would help immensely, it alleviates the pylon fuel issue and provides a better and likely less draggy profile in a strike configuration.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:36 am
by Planeflyer
So, in short, we are talking about the same organisational and industrial systems that kept buying battleships decades after they had become a waste of resources, and despite own experimentation showing them almost helpless against air power didn't even bother to put sufficient AAA on them before ships where sunk by planes left and right....

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

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

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

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

Who has demonstrated this ?

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


Tell that to red flag participants.

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

I respect that Germany is careful with spending but this seems penny smart pound foolish.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 am
by seahawk
You need to understand that it is a pure political decision and operational needs do not matter.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:13 am
by tommy1808
Ozair wrote:
Do you think they don't know what you are stating can occur? Yet they still continue to develop stealth aircraft and other platforms for their future military force structure. You can claim that is simply bad acquisition policy or institutional bias but that just isn't represented by the facts. .


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

Planeflyer wrote:
Who has demonstrated this ?


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

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

best regards
Thomas

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:44 am
by seahawk
It is even easier, with today´s background noise in signals (TV, radio, mobile, civil radar and so on) you do not even have to detect the signal reflected by a VLO aircraft, you only need to detect the change in stray signals it creates. This has been demonstrated with a lot of success and only needs rather cheap passive receivers. And this is were the EA-18 becomes interesting, as these passive and mobile receivers need to feed their data into a network to allow engagement of the VLO plane, and this network can be jammed and you can also saturate the passive receivers by creating a sudden dramatic change in background signals.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:04 am
by YIMBY
tommy1808 wrote:
I explained why stealth still makes sense for the military even when they know damn well it will lose most of its effectiveness in the foreseeable future.
Thomas


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

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

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

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

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:52 am
by art
I am a little cofused as to why it would take several years to migrate nuclear capability from Tornado to Typhoon. If the systems required exist in an aircraft developed by an Anglo-Gernan-Italian consortium, do those goverments not own the IP involved (or perhaps only Germany if Germany alone financed the nuclear ability)?

Any explanation would be welcomed.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:35 am
by ThePointblank
art wrote:
I am a little cofused as to why it would take several years to migrate nuclear capability from Tornado to Typhoon. If the systems required exist in an aircraft developed by an Anglo-Gernan-Italian consortium, do those goverments not own the IP involved (or perhaps only Germany if Germany alone financed the nuclear ability)?

Any explanation would be welcomed.

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

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

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

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

The situation is different compared to the past, where the Germans could share some of the costs associated with development and integration with other users, such as the case with Tornado.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:36 am
by tommy1808
art wrote:
I am a little cofused as to why it would take several years to migrate nuclear capability from Tornado to Typhoon. If the systems required exist in an aircraft developed by an Anglo-Gernan-Italian consortium, do those goverments not own the IP involved (or perhaps only Germany if Germany alone financed the nuclear ability)?.


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

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

best regards
Thomas

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:55 am
by Ozair
tommy1808 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YIMBY wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:02 am
by ThePointblank
tommy1808 wrote:
art wrote:
I am a little cofused as to why it would take several years to migrate nuclear capability from Tornado to Typhoon. If the systems required exist in an aircraft developed by an Anglo-Gernan-Italian consortium, do those goverments not own the IP involved (or perhaps only Germany if Germany alone financed the nuclear ability)?.


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

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

best regards
Thomas

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

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

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

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

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

In short (and I'm glossing over a ton of stuff), a lot of headaches.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:04 pm
by YIMBY
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
May I say that you are 100 % right in your postings and clearly understand what you are talking about. The salesmen want to deny it, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


It is your theory, not mine.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:13 pm
by tommy1808
Ozair wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

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

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


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

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

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


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

Best regards
Thomas

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:16 pm
by seahawk
I think nobody disputes that the F-35 is most logical and best choice for Germany, sadly one that the politicians turned down. So imho Growlers would at least be somewhat useful to EU/NATO forces. Normal SHs or Eurofighters are so useless, it would make more sense to built a new Autobahn with the money.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:17 pm
by Planeflyer
tommy1808 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Do you think they don't know what you are stating can occur? Yet they still continue to develop stealth aircraft and other platforms for their future military force structure. You can claim that is simply bad acquisition policy or institutional bias but that just isn't represented by the facts. .


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

Planeflyer wrote:
Who has demonstrated this ?


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

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

best regards
Thomas


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

If GAF believed stealth will become obsolete why would they invest In FCAS. After all by your reckoning it’ll be obsolete before it is fielded.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:15 pm
by Ozair
tommy1808 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So when Tommy said,

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

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

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

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


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

And your evidence for this baseless claim is?

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

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

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

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

Who are the representatives who pretend to know all here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is your theory, not mine.

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

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:40 am
by Planeflyer
Ozair wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So when Tommy said,

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

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

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

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


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

And your evidence for this baseless claim is?

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

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

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

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

Who are the representatives who pretend to know all here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is your theory, not mine.

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


+ 1

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:46 pm
by YIMBY
Ozair wrote:

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

And your evidence for this baseless claim is?

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

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

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

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

I am not sure why you think I am from industry

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is your theory, not mine.

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


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

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:45 pm
by Ozair
YIMBY wrote:
Are specific organisations of Australia, US and UK most militaries?
Isn't there anything outside them?

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

Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Yimby, I think we have a comprehension problem. Can you point out to me where I spoke about a mission into Russia other than pointing out to Tommy the following on the 9th of October?
Ozair wrote:
I don’t agree, while a Growler is a capable airframe it isn’t survivable in the battlespace, especially if we look forward 15 years to the threat landscape it would potentially operate in with Su-57s and S-500s etc.

No Mig-21s there... So where did I talk about meeting a Russian air force of last century?

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:12 am
by seahawk
Pointless debate - the German purchase is dictated by political wishes - the F-35 could be an UFO shooting lasers in a 360° arc - it would not matter when politicians do not want it.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:05 pm
by Planeflyer
seahawk wrote:
Pointless debate - the German purchase is dictated by political wishes - the F-35 could be an UFO shooting lasers in a 360° arc - it would not matter when politicians do not want it.


Well said!

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 3:14 pm
by YIMBY
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Are specific organisations of Australia, US and UK most militaries?
Isn't there anything outside them?

Yimby, the discussion is clearly about developing and fielding stealth aircraft.

Not about replacing aging Tornados with existing planes like Typhoon and SuperHornet?
Ozair wrote:
We aren’t talking about tin pot African militaries etc,

How many wars have there been after WW2? How many of them took place in Africa etc?
How many times foreign troops have attacked mainland UK, USA or Australia? When was last time that happened?
Ozair wrote:
we are talking about those nations developing and/or fielding 5th gen aircraft. All of those have the same links and similar organisations whose role is to support and advise their uniform personnel on scientific and engineering matters. To remind you, because you want to move the goalposts to support your position, the claim is that stealth will be rendered useless by advances in signal processing.

No one claims stealth will be rendered useless. It will be less useful, when and where the adversary develops and installs countermeasures, which is not only signal processing but also sets of very different kind of detectors. It is then to be evaluated what recountermeasures should be done to overcome those, and what features will be emphasized in the selection and design processes.
Ozair wrote:
To have that theory validated it would have to cover those militaries and nations operating or developing stealth aircraft. That is essentially the top 20 militaries by budget. If you take the top 15 here, only Brazil and Saudi Arabia do not have or are attempting to field a 5th gen + aircraft, Brazil because they can't afford it and Saudi Arabia because no one will sell to them.

So what? Tempest and FCAS could be labelled 6th gen aircraft. We do not yet know how stealthy they are, i.e. what kind of compromises they will make on radar cross section, aerodynamics, maneuverability, weight and cost. You cannot get all simultaneously.
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
You speak like a salesman of Lockheed Martin.

I have never met a LM salesperson to know what they talk like. Again, I do not work for LM or their subsidiaries, have never working for LM or a subsidiary.

Then, why do you react so emotionally when someone writes something that you can interpret non-positive to F35?
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
You made a general statement, so my experience is sufficient to claim that the general statement is not true/

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

Yes, really, really, really, one contradictory observation can refute the whole theory. One is enough.

In practice you need more, though, because one observation may be wrong and many people stuck with the old theory come what may. Moreover, the old theory may not be thrown away, but modified or its validity region reduced.

See Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962 and Popper, The logic of scientific discovery. (Logik der Forschung, 1934.) or better any modern textbook on the philosophy of science.
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
And there were good technical and military reasons to drop F-35 out of the competition in Germany? Would you remind me of the reasons.

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

And that was a political decision made by politicians. And I too agree that F-35 would have merited to be in the contest.
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
What about Canada? Switzerland? Bulgaria? Japan? India?

What about them. Canada is a good chance to order F-35 and is running an open competition, as is Switzerland.

You should go back into history. Canada did already order F-35 but then something happened. Was it wise to get your Hornets? How open is the competition if three contenders were essentially ruled out by the rules from the start?
Switzerland is stuck with F-5 or what because they have not made their decision, though it was the people, not politicians who once rejected the deal proposed them by poiticians. Japan had one of the most shocking corruption scandals. How many times Bulgaria did decide and redecide?
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
I did not say. I have great respect to the Russian (except their leaders, but that is not limited to the Russian). You tend to believe that when you send your retaliation mission into Russia in the 30's they will be met with the air force of last century. (Not that a number of MiG-21F's would make the life of a solitary F-35 pilot vary hard, if even short.)

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

Who else would threaten Germany than Russia? China, India, Japan, Australia and Fidzi are too far away to be a credible threat even if they would get angry. Middle East and Africa are too poor and too disorganized to pose a credible military threat (terrorism is another issue). I do not foresee UK or France attacking Germany. What is left? The USA. That is a very tiny probability, though I have to say that 20 yeas ago I saw the possibility of Russia ever being military threat much lower than that.

Tornado was specifically designed to be used against the Soviet forces. Its first task is to strike against the attacking Soviet troops and last task to make a revenge nuclear strike in the heart of Russia. Similarly, the main purpose of its successor will be to strike Russia, or more exactly, not to strike Russia.

German people would never accept to pay billions for a plane whose only purpose would be to make questionable strikes to distant third world countries.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 10:27 am
by Ozair
YIMBY wrote:
Not about replacing aging Tornados with existing planes like Typhoon and SuperHornet?

Yes Yimby, the discussion on the replacement includes the development of stealth aircraft given Germany is both acquiring a new aircraft and developing a stealth aircraft.

Ozair wrote:
We aren’t talking about tin pot African militaries etc,

YIMBY wrote:
How many wars have there been after WW2? How many of them took place in Africa etc?
How many times foreign troops have attacked mainland UK, USA or Australia? When was last time that happened?

What does any of that have to do with the topic?

YIMBY wrote:
No one claims stealth will be rendered useless.

Why don’t you actually read the thread Yimby… Case in point below,
tommy1808 wrote:
I explained why stealth still makes sense for the military even when they know damn well it will lose most of its effectiveness in the foreseeable future.



YIMBY wrote:
Then, why do you react so emotionally when someone writes something that you can interpret non-positive to F35?

I post plenty of non-positive news articles about the F-35 in that thread but I really like facts and truth Yimby. Of course I find it amusing to be called a salesman for so many different pieces of military equipment, for example apparently not only the F-35 but I am a salesman for Boeing on the F-15EX thread, for the Japanese C-2 on the A400M thread, Tejas, P&W, GE etc etc etc.

I suggest you spend more time actually reading factual data than wondering why I am apparently passionate when I post facts supported by source references…

YIMBY wrote:
You should go back into history. Canada did already order F-35 but then something happened. Was it wise to get your Hornets? How open is the competition if three contenders were essentially ruled out by the rules from the start?

Yimby, this clearly demonstrates the issues that are faced in posting on this forum. The evidence that Canada never ordered the F-35 is very clear and well known.
Canada has participated in the joint strike fighter programme since 1997, and the former Harper government announced the purchase of 65 F-35s in 2010 without a formal competition.

That loss of 65 orders, none of which have been put on contract,

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-420264/

Canada never signed a contract for the 65 jets but you choose to make claims that have no basis in fact. If you want to talk about the Canadian competition you are welcome to read the entire Canada Hornet replacement thread and then post there, or you could just throw out more unsubstantiated claims…

YIMBY wrote:
Switzerland is stuck with F-5 or what because they have not made their decision, though it was the people, not politicians who once rejected the deal proposed them by poiticians. Japan had one of the most shocking corruption scandals. How many times Bulgaria did decide and redecide?

What do any of these have to do with the discussion?

YIMBY wrote:
Who else would threaten Germany than Russia? China, India, Japan, Australia and Fidzi are too far away to be a credible threat even if they would get angry. Middle East and Africa are too poor and too disorganized to pose a credible military threat (terrorism is another issue). I do not foresee UK or France attacking Germany. What is left? The USA. That is a very tiny probability, though I have to say that 20 yeas ago I saw the possibility of Russia ever being military threat much lower than that.

Yimby, what does any of this have to do with the discussion? You made a false claim and then not only haven’t backed it up but are just trying to steer the conversation away.

YIMBY wrote:
Tornado was specifically designed to be used against the Soviet forces. Its first task is to strike against the attacking Soviet troops and last task to make a revenge nuclear strike in the heart of Russia. Similarly, the main purpose of its successor will be to strike Russia, or more exactly, not to strike Russia.
German people would never accept to pay billions for a plane whose only purpose would be to make questionable strikes to distant third world countries.

LOL, sure Yimby. The irony of your claim is that German Tornados never went into Russia but did conduct operations over Bosnia and Afghanistan.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:05 pm
by Planeflyer
The best argument advanced by those against the F35 is that it is not needed given the current low threat environment which is almost 100% due to the success of NATO.

Given this Germany's choice should be largely influenced by the AC that best supports NATO which points to the F35.

Aside from the politics of it an easy decision.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:10 am
by Ozair
Related to the current German competition is long term support of a likely top up Eurofighter order to replace to Tornado. This Self-protection upgrade will be needed to allow the whole fleet to operate over future battlespaces. Good to see the system going fully digital with the expectation it can be upgraded in flight. The key question will be how many existing Eurofighters receive the upgrade and whetehr it will be confined to T2/3 aircraft and not T1s as with the AESA.

Industry details self-protection update bid for Eurofighter

The Eurofighter Typhoon’s self-protection equipment will be the subject of a major modernisation effort, with industry partners having launched plans for a so-called Praetorian Evolution, or “Evo” package of capabilities.

Details of the proposed enhancement were outlined to partner air forces, the Eurofighter consortium and the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency on 9 October by EuroDASS: a venture involving Elettronica, Hensoldt, Indra and led by Leonardo.

“The [current Praetorian] system has protected crews for over 20 years, including on operations in Libya and Syria,” EuroDASS says. “However, the Typhoon’s traditional position of air dominance could face threats in the future from the rapidly evolving nature of air and surface threats, such as integrated air-defence systems.”

Key elements of the suggested update include moving to a fully digital architecture, which will enable operators to continuously update capabilities until the combat aircraft leaves service – currently expected to be around 2040.

...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ro-461627/

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:45 pm
by Planeflyer
Disagree, the threats are well known and while this self protection system improves survivability at the margins the real answer is the F35.

If push comes to shove 4 th gen ac will be way in the rear which is acceptable if they are much less expensive but since they are not this is a terrible decision.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:45 pm
by seahawk
That the politicians do not want. If operational capability would matter, Germany would buy 200 new F-35 to replace both obsolete systems, but operational capability does not matter.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:11 pm
by vr773
seahawk wrote:
That the politicians do not want. If operational capability would matter, Germany would buy 200 new F-35 to replace both obsolete systems, but operational capability does not matter.


Repeating this argument sounds like whining and doesn’t make it true. The Eurofighter is the superior aircraft in crucial performance categories. More importantly, it’s strategically smart to strengthen European industries.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:52 pm
by Planeflyer
Nonsense, the only category it is superior is as a target drone.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:56 pm
by Ozair
vr773 wrote:
Repeating this argument sounds like whining and doesn’t make it true. The Eurofighter is the superior aircraft in crucial performance categories.

What would those crucial performance categories be? I could see acceleration in a specific portion of the flight envelope for a likely non-combat representative fuel/payload configuration but nothing else sticks out.

The evaluation conducted by Denmark is very clear that the F-35 is the superior aircraft when it comes to mission effectiveness and survivability.

Image

As well as more detailed assessment in Figures 3.4 and 3.3 available in their evaluation here, https://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Docum ... 160509.pdf

vr773 wrote:
More importantly, it’s strategically smart to strengthen European industries.

Agree 100%. At the very least it allows industry to transition to FCAS a little smoother although some of the Eurofighter DASS participants are not yet FCAS participants.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:49 am
by Ozair
This obviously hasn’t left the concept stage yet but seems a likely candidate for future SEAD operations by Germany and other European militaries. This is another program that could lead in nicely to FCAS or at least allow a transition path from the Tornado ECR that doesn’t involve a Growler or other dedicated jammer platform.

Europeans propose siccing self-learning drone swarms on air defenses

A European consortium has pitched the idea of grooming intelligent drone swarms to confuse, disable and destroy enemy air defenses.

The proposal is part of the Preparatory Action on Defence Research effort by the European Union to improve collaboration on among member states. Under the heading “Emerging Game Changers,” EU officials asked companies earlier this year to submit ideas for “promising breakthrough technologies” in the field of artificial intelligence for defense applications.

The idea behind “SEAD Swarm” is to create the necessary algorithms that would enable a mass of aerial drones to inspect the characteristics of air defense systems, distribute the information within the swarm and derive a plan of attack against weak points. Actions taken could include blinding radar sensors, overwhelming anti-aircraft fire with kamikaze-type tactics, or attacking sites with explosive or electronic-warfare payloads.

The acronym SEAD is short for “suppression of enemy air defenses,” military platforms that often expose pilots of manned aircraft to significant risk of getting shot down.

...

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... -defenses/

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 3:55 am
by Planeflyer
Better would be take the money saved on the F35 and Invest this in FCAS

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:16 am
by vr773
Planeflyer wrote:
Nonsense, the only category it is superior is as a target drone.


We‘re talking about the Eurofighter. Stop posting about your mom.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:54 am
by Planeflyer
vr773 wrote:
Planeflyer wrote:
Nonsense, the only category it is superior is as a target drone.


We‘re talking about the Eurofighter. Stop posting about your mom.


Nice momma joke but face it while the EF is an advanced AC, the lack of stealth makes it as obsolete.as the F15, F18 or any other 4th Gen AC.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 12:04 pm
by jownes
For what purposes does Germany need fighter jets?
1) to control their own airspace
2) for some small missions e.g. In Syria, where the opponent has no or only low tech equipment

For everything else the military has not enough capabilities let alone political backing

So does Germany really need stealth fighters, because there I cannot imagine a realistic scenario where stealth capabilities make a difference.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:32 pm
by ThePointblank
jownes wrote:
For what purposes does Germany need fighter jets?
1) to control their own airspace
2) for some small missions e.g. In Syria, where the opponent has no or only low tech equipment

For everything else the military has not enough capabilities let alone political backing

So does Germany really need stealth fighters, because there I cannot imagine a realistic scenario where stealth capabilities make a difference.


At this point, having stealth capabilities is basically a freebie because the cost of a stealth fighter (the F-35) is the same price or cheaper than the non-stealth option. Eurofighter is not getting cheaper to buy, while the F-35 continues its downward cost trajectory.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:24 am
by Ozair
Interesting comment from the LM Exec VP and CFO who thinks that the F-35 isn’t out of contention for Germnay yet.

New F-35 Block Buy is Close, Lockheed Says


Getting the price under $80 million in lot 13 will “certainly help with those possibilities,” he said. Germany has indicated a preference for the F/A-18E/F, but Possenriede said, “We don’t think we’re out of the German competition yet.”

http://airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2 ... Says-.aspx

I think he is just talking earnings call sales talk but would certainly be a coup if it did come back into contention.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:17 am
by YIMBY
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
No one claims stealth will be rendered useless.

Why don’t you actually read the thread Yimby… Case in point below,
tommy1808 wrote:
I explained why stealth still makes sense for the military even when they know damn well it will lose most of its effectiveness in the foreseeable future.


These are very different claims. Losing effectiveness is not the same as rendering useless. Stealth fighters will be useful even in non-stealth mode, just may be wasting money.

World is not black and white: there are more than 50 shades of gray and even colours.
Ozair wrote:

I suggest you spend more time actually reading factual data than wondering why I am apparently passionate when I post facts supported by source references…

It is just not about facts, but also theory. Facts describe the past, theory predicts the future.

Theory tells what can be done. What will be done is decided by fallible humans beings and constrained by available resources.

And LOL is not equal to QED.
Ozair wrote:

Canada never signed a contract for the 65 jets but you choose to make claims that have no basis in fact. If you want to talk about the Canadian competition you are welcome to read the entire Canada Hornet replacement thread and then post there, or you could just throw out more unsubstantiated claims…

It may be bureaucratically true that Canada did not sign a formal order, but they really did participate in the development program and pay for it in order to order F-35, and the plan was changed because Trudeau made a less founded promise in the election campaign, as F-35 was plagued with different scandals.
Ozair wrote:


What do any of these have to do with the discussion?

I do not know. You asked it.
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Who else would threaten Germany than Russia? China, India, Japan, Australia and Fidzi are too far away to be a credible threat even if they would get angry. Middle East and Africa are too poor and too disorganized to pose a credible military threat (terrorism is another issue). I do not foresee UK or France attacking Germany. What is left? The USA. That is a very tiny probability, though I have to say that 20 yeas ago I saw the possibility of Russia ever being military threat much lower than that.

Yimby, what does any of this have to do with the discussion?

What has more to do with this discussion?

The most fundamental question when planning to acquire new equipment is why do you need it. Evaluating the future military threats is the very starting point.

Fighters are not just toys for the pilots. They are to protect us.
Ozair wrote:
You made a false claim and then not only haven’t backed it up but are just trying to steer the conversation away.

What was false?
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Tornado was specifically designed to be used against the Soviet forces. Its first task is to strike against the attacking Soviet troops and last task to make a revenge nuclear strike in the heart of Russia. Similarly, the main purpose of its successor will be to strike Russia, or more exactly, not to strike Russia.
German people would never accept to pay billions for a plane whose only purpose would be to make questionable strikes to distant third world countries.

LOL, sure Yimby. The irony of your claim is that German Tornados never went into Russia but did conduct operations over Bosnia and Afghanistan.

When, where and why should German Tornados or whatever else have gone into Russia?

The most useful weapon is the one that is never used!^n

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:48 am
by Planeflyer
And what provides more deterrence;

A F35 that can penetrate enemy air defenses to target leadership or a 4 th gen ac which will have a hard time surviving overs it’s own airspace?

The argument was settled in 1991 when a gen 1 stealth ac did all the heavy lifting to take down Iraq’s air defense system.

Big picture Sadam was a minor tyrant.

But out of seemingly nowhere Europe has suffered from major tyrants. Just two examples; who knew who Napoleon was in 1790 or who Hitler was as late as 1928?

Hopefully we don’t face these types in the future but if we do well armed is well prepared.

the F35 is in a class by itself when it comes to air to air and to ground operations.

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:48 am
by Ozair
YIMBY wrote:
It is just not about facts, but also theory. Facts describe the past, theory predicts the future.

Theory tells what can be done. What will be done is decided by fallible humans beings and constrained by available resources.

And LOL is not equal to QED.

Yimby, you haven’t provided any theories, you haven’t provided anything to support your position.

YIMBY wrote:
It may be bureaucratically true that Canada did not sign a formal order, but they really did participate in the development program and pay for it in order to order F-35, and the plan was changed because Trudeau made a less founded promise in the election campaign, as F-35 was plagued with different scandals.

Yimby, again if you are going to throw out baseless claims then there is no point discussing this. For example, even a small amount of research on this topic would have let you to this article,

Industry Engaged to Advance Evaluation of Options to Replace Canada's CF-18 Fleet

GATINEAU, Quebec, January 25, 2013 – The National Fighter Procurement Secretariat is reaching out to industry by issuing a draft questionnaire today in order to obtain detailed information on the capabilities of available fighter aircraft, a key element of the evaluation of options to replace Canada’s CF-18 fleet.
This request for information from industry has benefitted from the oversight and guidance of the Independent Review Panel that is ensuring that all of the work supporting the evaluation of options is both rigorous and impartial, and that the results to be made public are comprehensive and understandable. The members of the Panel are Mr. Keith Coulter, Mr. Philippe Lagassé, Mr. James Mitchell and Mr. Rod Monette.
The five identified companies who do or will have aircraft in production over this period being engaged—The Boeing Company, Dassault Aviation, EADS Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin and Saab Group—will be asked to provide comments on the form and content of the draft questionnaire. The draft questionnaire seeks detailed information on technical capabilities of fighter aircraft in production or scheduled to be in production. After feedback from the companies is reviewed and incorporated, a final questionnaire will be sent to the companies for completion.
A second questionnaire to obtain information on costs and the potential benefits to Canadian industry will be developed and reviewed by the Independent Review Panel, and subsequently sent in draft form to industry for comment. Engaging with industry is consistent with the Secretariat’s commitment to transparency and openness, and integral to a comprehensive evaluation of options.
The evaluation of options to replace Canada’s CF-18 fleet is part of the Government’s Seven-Point Plan launched in response to the Auditor General's Spring 2012 Report on Replacing Canada's Fighter Jets. The Plan was put in place to assist the government in making the best possible decision on replacing Canada's fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft. Until the Seven-Point Plan is complete, the Government will not make a decision on the replacement for the CF-18 fighter jets.
For additional information, visit the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat Web site at http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/st ... s-eng.html.


https://archive.fo/20130628032737/http: ... nid=717489

In that context, please do some research before you make inaccurate claims.

YIMBY wrote:
I do not know. You asked it.

Yimby, if you aren’t even going to support your random statements with the intent behind them then why bother posting at all?

YIMBY wrote:
What has more to do with this discussion?

The most fundamental question when planning to acquire new equipment is why do you need it. Evaluating the future military threats is the very starting point.

Fighters are not just toys for the pilots. They are to protect us.

The German Government has already established this, we don’t need to debate it because they will replace the Tornado fleet with another aircraft. The question isn’t why, the question is which. To take it a step further Germany has already agreed to develop a stealth aircraft. They are fully aware of the future military threat and what is required.

YIMBY wrote:
What was false?

Again, stand by your points or don’t bother posting them at all.

YIMBY wrote:
When, where and why should German Tornados or whatever else have gone into Russia?

The most useful weapon is the one that is never used!^n

Yimby, you can’t stay on topic, if you make a claim then support it. What point is there to responding if you keep changing the direction and never answering anything?

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:47 pm
by bikerthai
Planeflyer wrote:
But out of seemingly nowhere Europe has suffered from major tyrants. Just two examples; who knew who Napoleon was in 1790 or who Hitler was as late as 1928?


:old: In that case, we do not want Germany to have the F-35 just in case somehow Germany becomes a tyrant state. :rotfl:

You laugh, but just look at what happened in Turkey. All the hubbub about F-35 not going to Turkey, but little mention of the highly advanced 737 AEW&C already there and the potential of the new friend Russia getting their hands on those hardware.

And not to mention what is happening here in the US. While our current president is not yet at the tyrant level, his policies (or foreign policy decisions) are unpredictable at best and scary at the other extreme.

bt