mxaxai
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: RE: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:35 am

Ozair wrote:
Quoting ZaphodHarkonnen (Reply 1): I wonder if it would be reasonable to make a Typhoon variant for this.
From the article either of those options would bring forward the replacement timeframe. Both the Typhoon and the SH will be out of production by 2020 and the article indicates a replacement timeframe in the mid 2020s and possibly even as far out as mid 2030s. The Tornado also comfortably outranges a SH and in an A2G configuration would probably also outrange a similarly equipped Typhoon.

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.
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.
An out of left field partner for co-development could be Russia...?

How much would Germany be willing to spend on R&D? Any new development would probably cost a minimum of US$20 billion before production even started and that is before we consider at least 10 years to reach production. Fiscally, it might be wiser to invest back into the Tornado and zero hour 100 airframes. That could give them another 20-25 years of service out to 2050.

65 years ago, the first nuclear bombs were brought to Germany
34 years ago, the Eurofighter company was founded
26 years ago, the first Eurofighter prototype flew in Germany
17 years ago, the first Eurofighter was delivered to Germany
8 years ago, the German government decided _not_ to order 37 further tranche 3 Eurofighters
5 years ago, the German military discovered that their Tornados would not fly forever

Today, there still hasn't been a firm decision and the 5 to 8 years required for nuclear certification are threatening the seamless transition to newer aircraft. Nor is there any long term vision for the role and equipment of the Luftwaffe beyond "keep doing what we've done for the last 70 years". Stealth capabilities will arrive decades after the technology was first employed. It's not a problem of technology. It's not an issue with funding or ability. It's really just an extreme case of lack of long term planning and inability to take decisions.
 
Nick614
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:55 am

Re: RE: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:41 am

mxaxai wrote:
Stealth capabilities will arrive decades after the technology was first employed. It's not a problem of technology. It's not an issue with funding or ability. It's really just an extreme case of lack of long term planning and inability to take decisions.


Perhaps the decision is to not make a decision. Look at the state of other German military equipment... it is not hard to say this is not a lack of planning, but an intentional desire to not adequately fund and equip the military.

Honestly, if I was in charge, I might make the same choice as well because there hasn't been and won't be any consequences for it.

Since 2006, you can say Germany has saved almost 300 billion dollars by not doing anything-- and you can probably go back farther and make a claim for a much larger number.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:07 am

Ozair, technically all you need is hard and soft compatibility. Anything beyond that is political. Nuclear weapons are not flied around for fun but used only in case of extreme war. In that case it does not even matter if they work 100 %.

Evidently it is all about that the planes can be remote-controlled by Americans and only by them, as they mistrust others but require others to trust them.

It might be easier to share French nukes.
 
Nick614
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:55 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:53 am

YIMBY wrote:
Ozair, technically all you need is hard and soft compatibility. Anything beyond that is political. Nuclear weapons are not flied around for fun but used only in case of extreme war. In that case it does not even matter if they work 100 %.

Evidently it is all about that the planes can be remote-controlled by Americans and only by them, as they mistrust others but require others to trust them.

It might be easier to share French nukes.



If Germany doesn't trust the US, they might want to reconsider having ~40,000 personnel stationed there. I'm sure Poland, or another NATO country, would love to have that economic injection of American service members spending their money in the country.

You could argue that the German military is the 2nd strongest military in their own country.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4518
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:20 am

YIMBY wrote:
Ozair, technically all you need is hard and soft compatibility. Anything beyond that is political. Nuclear weapons are not flied around for fun but used only in case of extreme war. In that case it does not even matter if they work 100 %.

Yimby, if you want to make stuff up go right ahead, I'm interested in a discussion based on reality.

YIMBY wrote:
Evidently it is all about that the planes can be remote-controlled by Americans and only by them, as they mistrust others but require others to trust them.

LOL, sure mate, it of course completely makes sense that the US would provide nuclear weapons under a sharing agreement to NATO countries because they mistrust others and want to control them :roll:

YIMBY wrote:
It might be easier to share French nukes.

Not if they want to remain compliant with the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty, to which both Germany and France are signatories.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9052
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:08 am

The political will is to drop the nuke sharing role and reduce the order by a lot, to just cover the promises made to NATO when it comes to SEAD.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: RE: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:15 am

Nick614 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Stealth capabilities will arrive decades after the technology was first employed. It's not a problem of technology. It's not an issue with funding or ability. It's really just an extreme case of lack of long term planning and inability to take decisions.


Perhaps the decision is to not make a decision. Look at the state of other German military equipment... it is not hard to say this is not a lack of planning, but an intentional desire to not adequately fund and equip the military.

Honestly, if I was in charge, I might make the same choice as well because there hasn't been and won't be any consequences for it.

Since 2006, you can say Germany has saved almost 300 billion dollars by not doing anything-- and you can probably go back farther and make a claim for a much larger number.

I wish there was a conscious decision to "right-size" the military but I'm pretty sure that it's purely coincidence. There are simply so many dilemmas that paralyse the political side:

They want nuclear weapons for self-defence but don't want to be seen wielding WMD's for numerous reasons.
They want the USA as closest ally but don't want to get caught in one of their many military adventures nor be subject to political bullying by the US.
They want to be a key member of NATO yet disapprove of NATO (or EU) missions without a UN mandate.
They want military cooperation in Europe but don't want to release control in favor of multi-national activities nor actively support their weaker partners.
They want regional, if not global influence but don't want to risk personnel or equipment in over-seas deployments.
They want profitable weapons manufacturers but don't want to sell to anybody but their closest allies.
They want local R&D but don't want to have large experimental projects that never result in serial production (like the YF-23 or X-32 in the US).
They want highly advanced technology but not to the point that it might trigger an arms race or lead to ethical issues.
They want a force that is ready for WW3 (keep doing the same thing as the last 70 years...) but can't tell against whom so can only justify the minimum funding to maintain credible self-defence forces.

I could go on. The government is walking a wriggling line that eventually gets them nowhere; here to there and back here by tomorrow. Not as a secret plan but because they only ever fight the "monster of the week".

Other countries have it easier because they consciously desire to be a regional or global power (USA, Australia, China, Qatar), see themselves as an integral part of an alliance with all its pros and cons (Netherlands, Norway, Belgium) or consciously stay out of international conflicts and focus on self-defence (Korea, New Zealand, Ireland, Sweden). Germany simply wants a little bit of everything.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:13 pm

Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Ozair, technically all you need is hard and soft compatibility. Anything beyond that is political. Nuclear weapons are not flied around for fun but used only in case of extreme war. In that case it does not even matter if they work 100 %.

Yimby, if you want to make stuff up go right ahead, I'm interested in a discussion based on reality.

This is reality. Nuclear war is, fortunately, so far only imagination of war lunatics.
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
Evidently it is all about that the planes can be remote-controlled by Americans and only by them, as they mistrust others but require others to trust them.

LOL, sure mate, it of course completely makes sense that the US would provide nuclear weapons under a sharing agreement to NATO countries because they mistrust others and want to control them :roll:

When you laugh I know I am right.
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
It might be easier to share French nukes.

Not if they want to remain compliant with the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty, to which both Germany and France are signatories.

What is the difference? Other than Trump being the ultimate judge?
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12472
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:29 pm

Ozair wrote:

YIMBY wrote:
It might be easier to share French nukes.

Not if they want to remain compliant with the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty, to which both Germany and France are signatories.


What would be the difference it they started borrowing French nukes, borrowing is borrowing, who you are borrowing them off shouldn’t make a difference?

So the US can lend nuclear weapons out but France can’t is that what you are saying?
 
vr773
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:10 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:06 pm

Ozair wrote:
vr773 wrote:

The US has a very clear financial interest in a slow process to certify the Eurofighter.

Using some common sense, let us suggest that tomorrow Germany announces that they are ordering an additional 90 Eurofighters to replace the Tornado and will start the formal certification process with the US for nuclear weapon carriage. The competition is over and there is no incentive for the US to delay certification other than sour grapes and frankly that is silly to even suggest.


The delay is designed to prevent this very outcome. You’re saying they can’t try to prevent something because “what if it doesn’t work?”. That’s the opposite of common sense.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 7:44 pm

Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
It might be easier to share French nukes.

Not if they want to remain compliant with the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty, to which both Germany and France are signatories.

That is wrong, at least in the opinion of the German parliament.

They studied this very issue in 2017 (pdf download here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... aHWZjVTSJc) and concluded that nuclear sharing between any two countries is perfectly legal as long as the original owner of the weapons remains fully in control over their use. It would also not be illegal for Germany to financially or technologically support a country that already owns nuclear weapons. The report notes, though, that both the French and British weapons are mostly deployed on submarines and would thus be difficult to share with Germany (purely due to the lack of suitable delivery platforms). Further, France, the UK and the USA would be obliged to support NATO and, in the case of France, fellow EU members if they were under attack; such support can also include nuclear weapons. Thus, the report concludes that Germany has nothing to gain from nuclear sharing with France or the UK. It does not discuss the pros and cons of maintaining the current arrangement with the USA.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4518
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:25 pm

YIMBY wrote:
This is reality. Nuclear war is, fortunately, so far only imagination of war lunatics.

The very low chance of nuclear war occurring does not remove the requirement to certify weapons for platforms and follow established procedures for that process, procedures that literally take years, no matter if it is a US or foreign airframe. There is no short cut to nuclear certification.

YIMBY wrote:
When you laugh I know I am right.

When I laugh I know ten thousand others are as well…

It is beyond comprehension that you can claim that a nation sharing the most powerful destructive force is mistrustful of others. If they are so mistrustful then why would they even bother sharing, why not just base weapons back in their own country, or on their own platforms only. Your claim literally makes no sense…
 
Ozair
Posts: 4518
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 8:47 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Ozair wrote:

YIMBY wrote:
It might be easier to share French nukes.

Not if they want to remain compliant with the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty, to which both Germany and France are signatories.


What would be the difference it they started borrowing French nukes, borrowing is borrowing, who you are borrowing them off shouldn’t make a difference?

So the US can lend nuclear weapons out but France can’t is that what you are saying?

The NPT factored in the existing NATO nuclear sharing, including knowledge by the Soviet Union of the sharing agreements.


mxaxai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
It might be easier to share French nukes.

Not if they want to remain compliant with the Nuclear Non proliferation treaty, to which both Germany and France are signatories.

That is wrong, at least in the opinion of the German parliament.

They studied this very issue in 2017 (pdf download here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... aHWZjVTSJc) and concluded that nuclear sharing between any two countries is perfectly legal as long as the original owner of the weapons remains fully in control over their use. It would also not be illegal for Germany to financially or technologically support a country that already owns nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately I do not read German so will take your word for the content but I also don’t agree with the claim. Reading the text of the treaty, https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text , I believe that it is clear that outside of agreements that existing when the treaty was signed the subsequent sharing of nuclear weapons is in violation.

For example Article One speaks directly to France.
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage,
or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.


Article Two speaks directly to Germany.
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons
or other nuclear explosive devices.


The only reason the US can share with NATO is because NATO nuclear sharing existed before the treaty was signed.

mxaxai wrote:
The report notes, though, that both the French and British weapons are mostly deployed on submarines and would thus be difficult to share with Germany (purely due to the lack of suitable delivery platforms).

The part of the report I agree with. France has few air launched weapons remaining and plans to eventually remove them entirely from the inventory while the UK has now only sea based weapons.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4518
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:39 pm

vr773 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
vr773 wrote:

The US has a very clear financial interest in a slow process to certify the Eurofighter.

Using some common sense, let us suggest that tomorrow Germany announces that they are ordering an additional 90 Eurofighters to replace the Tornado and will start the formal certification process with the US for nuclear weapon carriage. The competition is over and there is no incentive for the US to delay certification other than sour grapes and frankly that is silly to even suggest.


The delay is designed to prevent this very outcome. You’re saying they can’t try to prevent something because “what if it doesn’t work?”. That’s the opposite of common sense.

No it has nothing to do with it not working, no one is suggesting nor has suggested that the Eurofighter is not compatible with nuclear delivery systems. In support of my position and basic common sense, review comments made by the head of the Eurofighter program in 2018.

Volker Paltzo, chief executive of Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH, told reporters at the ILA Berlin Air Show that U.S. certification was required, but said he was confident Eurofighter could take over the roles of the Tornado.
“This is a subject where we would not expect the U.S. to leverage over Eurofighter in this competition,” he said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germ ... SKBN1HW13J

So the head of Eurofighter has that opinion. To further support the position, this DefenseNews article stated the time for Eurofighter certification was an additional three to five years over the SH.
Getting the Eurofighter approved for that mission would take between three and five years longer than the F-18, which is considered a nuclear weapons-capable aircraft in the U.S. military, the newspaper reported.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... rofighter/

No one has said the Eurofighter cannot be certified but only that it will take longer than the SH. Should that be a surprise to anyone? No as the SH is an American aircraft built by a company that has previously built, operated and maintains nuclear weapons delivery platforms and already has the systems, procedures, policies, ICT infrastructure etc in place to handle nuclear integration work.

Is it playing politics? The head of Eurofighter didn’t think so.

Again, all Germany has to do is announce the Eurofighter wins the competition and then request certification. Delaying that certification impacts NATO capability and that is something the US Military, who actually does the nuclear certification work, does not want. To claim that the US is playing politics by throwing out a longer number just to muddy the decision is hearsay and not based on any factual or reasonable analysis nor does any source material support it. Airbus haven’t come out and cried foul to the longer certification claim either.

Let us also be clear that nuclear delivery is likely not a great determiner for who wins this competition, nor actually is capability, as the F-35 is already more capable than both other options and will be certified for nuclear use earlier but has been excluded for political/industrial reasons.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12472
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:58 pm

The NPT does not factor in nuclear sharing.

Both the Non-Aligned Movement and critics within NATO believe that NATO's nuclear sharing violates Articles I and II of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibit the transfer and the acceptance of direct or indirect control, respectively, over nuclear weapons.


So if the US can circumvent the NPT so can France. And then there is KSA and Pakistan.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:17 pm

Ozair wrote:
For example Article One speaks directly to France.
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.


Article Two speaks directly to Germany.
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons
or other nuclear explosive devices.


The only reason the US can share with NATO is because NATO nuclear sharing existed before the treaty was signed.

The study explains its point as follows:
"It is acknowledged that non-nuclear-weapon states may not receive or manufacture nuclear weapons, nor may nuclear-weapon states transfer weapons or technology & knowledge on how to build nuclear weapons. However, this does not explicitly forbid "two-key" agreements, where the nuclear-weapon state (i. e. the owner) and the state on whose territory the weapons are based in can only jointly control these weapons (i. e. using the weapons without permission by the owner is impossible). Key point being that the non-nuclear state does not acquire the sole control over the weapons (which would be forbidden per the NPT) nor is transferred ownership of the weapons.
Nuclear-weapon states may base their weapons in any state as long as ownership and sole control are not transferred to a non-nuclear state."

Transfer of control like this is okay: Nuclear-weapon state --> Nuclear-weapon state AND non-nuclear-weapon state (i. e. only both combined can use them)
But not this: Nuclear-weapon state --> Non-nuclear-weapon state
Nor this: Nuclear-weapon state --> Nuclear-weapon state OR non-nuclear-weapon state (i. e. any of the two could use them)

It then goes on:
"The NPT does not forbid joint consultation, planning or exercises that concern nuclear defence of any members of defence treaties. It also does not forbid non-nuclear-weapon states to assist nuclear-weapon states technologically or financially in the development and maintenance of their nuclear arsenal (as long as the ownership and control of the weapons remains with the nuclear-weapon state. Even further, non-nuclear-weapon states could legally assist other non-nuclear-weapon states in acquiring or manufacturing nuclear weapons (although the latter state would violate the treaty)."

In other words, support in this direction is okay: Non-nuclear-weapon state --> any other state
But this is not: Nuclear-weapon state --> Non-nuclear-weapon state

And:
"The intention of the NPT was and is the eventual abolishment of nuclear weapons. It does not, however, contain the obligation to abolish nuclear weapons entirely. Both the USA, the Soviet Union and other nuclear-weapon states that signed the treaty have been very careful to follow the exact wording of the treaty. Any action that is not explicitly forbidden by the treaty is generally considered to be allowed, including ownership, development, modernisation and manufacturing of nuclear weapons by existing nuclear-weapon states."
 
Ozair
Posts: 4518
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:23 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
The NPT does not factor in nuclear sharing.

Both the Non-Aligned Movement and critics within NATO believe that NATO's nuclear sharing violates Articles I and II of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibit the transfer and the acceptance of direct or indirect control, respectively, over nuclear weapons.


So if the US can circumvent the NPT so can France. And then there is KSA and Pakistan.

Rob give a source link when quoting something please.

The NPT factored in NATO Nuclear sharing within the context of when it was agreed to. While the treaty language does not state as such signers of the treaty understood NATO nuclear sharing existed and pre-dates the NPT.

Are there groups that dispute that legal position? Of course. Is NATO Nuclear sharing still in existence? Yes.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:19 am

Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
This is reality. Nuclear war is, fortunately, so far only imagination of war lunatics.

The very low chance of nuclear war occurring does not remove the requirement to certify weapons for platforms and follow established procedures for that process, procedures that literally take years, no matter if it is a US or foreign airframe. There is no short cut to nuclear certification.

Of course there is. If there is a war, you use whatever weapons and platforms you have without waiting for certifications. Many countries do that.
Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
When you laugh I know I am right.

When I laugh I know ten thousand others are as well…

Show me the evidence.
Ozair wrote:
It is beyond comprehension that you can claim that a nation sharing the most powerful destructive force is mistrustful of others. If they are so mistrustful then why would they even bother sharing, why not just base weapons back in their own country, or on their own platforms only. Your claim literally makes no sense…


You yourself quote that the Non-Proliferation treaty requires US not to trust the nuclear weapons on others. (Though we know what Trump cares about international treaties, so this may be a non-argument.)

Anyway, US mistrusting Germany (Trump - Merkel) is a fact. See e.g. https://www.dw.com/en/why-is-donald-tru ... a-50126743

Has US promised to give the source code of F-35 to its users?

And finally: Give one scientifically sound, non political argument why it takes 10 years to certify a more than 10-years old platform for a more than 10-years old nuclear bomb. You have not even tried so far.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9052
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:30 pm

Nobody wants to sign a contract, as with the next elections it is very likely that the Greens will be in the government and they would kill this order quickly and drop the nuke sharing role as well.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3281
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:00 pm

YIMBY wrote:
Of course there is. If there is a war, you use whatever weapons and platforms you have without waiting for certifications. Many countries do that.

Certification also involves testing and development to ensure compatibility. Modern weapons these days are incredibly computer reliant, and they don't often speak to each other unless hardware or software modifications are made so they do interface with each other.

Then, a whole round of testing is required to ensure said changes don't affect safety or reliability of both platforms, and if issues are discovered, they need to be address.


YIMBY wrote:

You yourself quote that the Non-Proliferation treaty requires US not to trust the nuclear weapons on others. (Though we know what Trump cares about international treaties, so this may be a non-argument.)

Anyway, US mistrusting Germany (Trump - Merkel) is a fact. See e.g. https://www.dw.com/en/why-is-donald-tru ... a-50126743

Has US promised to give the source code of F-35 to its users?

And finally: Give one scientifically sound, non political argument why it takes 10 years to certify a more than 10-years old platform for a more than 10-years old nuclear bomb. You have not even tried so far.

1. The NPT Treaty does not permit recognized nuclear states (recognized as being the US, France, the UK, China, and Russia) to transfer nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices to any recipient or in any way assist, encourage or induce any non-nuclear-weapon state in the manufacture or acquisition of a nuclear weapon, nor does it permit the signatory non-nuclear states to acquire or exercise control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and not to seek or receive assistance in the manufacture of such devices.

Nuclear sharing is a technical way around this; the weapons are still under the custody and control of the US, and US military personnel are required to maintain, arm, and equip the weapons onto the host country's aircraft, until there is a nuclear war; then the weapons are released for use.

2. Source codes for aircraft are a red herring.

Unless you intend on seriously making deep modifications to the hardware and software of the aircraft, by which time, you probably already involved and have permission from the OEM to begin with, the majority of users do not need access to source codes. With the F-35, you can do a lot of the integration stuff without having to touch the source code; the aircraft was built with software interfaces that communicate using a common standard so all the user has to worry about is ensuring that whatever they wanted to hang off the aircraft is developed to communicate with the standard, and conduct stores testing to ensure that the weapons can be operated safely from the aircraft.

3. Because the old bomb is on it's way out and being replaced by a new variant, which has a totally different electronic interface compared to the old weapon. The new B61 Mod 12 is a lower yield, GPS guided munition, which requires a new computer interface in order to fully take advantage of all of it's capabilities.

Basically, whatever aircraft Germany picks needs testing and development so the aircraft can safely drop the bombs at all, as well as developing appropriate mission systems and software to enable this capability under various different attack parameters.

In addition, engineers would have to find ways to install the necessary systems and linkages so that the pilot can arm the weapon in flight. Each one of the bombs has a so-called “Permissive Action Link,” or PAL, that prevents the warhead from functioning until an individual puts in a specific code.

While the US has been actively working on ensuring their aircraft can carry and operate the B61's, the Germans haven't made up their mind regarding which direction they want to take. That's what's causing the delays; the foot dragging on the part of the Germans. If the Germans decide today that they want a specific aircraft to carry the weapons, then work can begin immediately to integrate the bombs onto that aircraft, or if they choose an American aircraft for the job, the aircraft will come with the hardware and software to do it.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4518
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:21 pm

YIMBY wrote:
Of course there is. If there is a war, you use whatever weapons and platforms you have without waiting for certifications. Many countries do that.

Yimby, is there a war going on that requires a rush on the nuclear certification of the Eurofighter? The answer to that is of course no. That is why the Eurofighter, and the SH, will take 5 and likely 8 years respectively to be certified for nuclear delivery.

YIMBY wrote:
You yourself quote that the Non-Proliferation treaty requires US not to trust the nuclear weapons on others. (Though we know what Trump cares about international treaties, so this may be a non-argument.)

No Yimby I did not say that. Additionally, please do not bring Trump in to this argument. He has nothing to do with this discussion.

YIMBY wrote:
Anyway, US mistrusting Germany (Trump - Merkel) is a fact. See e.g. https://www.dw.com/en/why-is-donald-tru ... a-50126743

This has nothing to do with Trump. Those timeframes would have been the same had Obama still been president because neither Obama or trump had anything to do with the timeline, it would have come directly from the US Agency tasked with certifying the aircraft.

YIMBY wrote:
Has US promised to give the source code of F-35 to its users?

What does this have to do with the discussion? It has nothing to do with NATO nuclear sharing and clearly US has already integrated nuclear weapons onto a non US platform with the Tornado…

YIMBY wrote:
And finally: Give one scientifically sound, non political argument why it takes 10 years to certify a more than 10-years old platform for a more than 10-years old nuclear bomb. You have not even tried so far.

I have provided the USAF document that details the certification process. If you would like to review that, I know reading source documents isn’t your strong point, and tell me how it is not a multi-year process then I am happy to discuss this further with you.

Additionally no one has said ten years, what has been said is three to five years longer than the SH. Given the SH is likely already going through the process right now and expects to come out of it by 2025 all that has been started is a timeframe between 2028 and 2030 is likely. As already stated, that timeframe means nothing until Germany actually requests integration work to begin, so far they have not done so. That integration work would be at the cost of the German Government and would likely be over US$1 billion dollars. Is it any surprise then that Germany hasn't made the decision yet...
 
WIederling
Posts: 8913
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:26 pm

bikerthai wrote:
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:


Too late.
That baby has been drowned already. the US has the F-35 and is ....
Murphy is an optimist
 
YIMBY
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:11 am

Ozair wrote:
YIMBY wrote:
And finally: Give one scientifically sound, non political argument why it takes 10 years to certify a more than 10-years old platform for a more than 10-years old nuclear bomb. You have not even tried so far.

I have provided the USAF document that details the certification process. If you would like to review that, I know reading source documents isn’t your strong point, and tell me how it is not a multi-year process then I am happy to discuss this further with you.


Do not reverse again. You are actively and loudly defending the very long process and have to give justifications. If you cannot explain it, you do not understand it.

And remember: protocols, procedures, agreements and treaties are outcomes of politics. We need to know the scientifically justifiable reasons behind those. I have been long enough in military to know that the military tend to do things the hard and long way just because of traditions, stubbornness, impressions and showing power.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:14 am

ThePointblank wrote:
3. Because the old bomb is on it's way out and being replaced by a new variant, which has a totally different electronic interface compared to the old weapon. The new B61 Mod 12 is a lower yield, GPS guided munition, which requires a new computer interface in order to fully take advantage of all of it's capabilities.


Then, why doesn't the certification of Tornado expire? Or does it? The age itself poses already risks.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3281
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:35 am

YIMBY wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
3. Because the old bomb is on it's way out and being replaced by a new variant, which has a totally different electronic interface compared to the old weapon. The new B61 Mod 12 is a lower yield, GPS guided munition, which requires a new computer interface in order to fully take advantage of all of it's capabilities.


Then, why doesn't the certification of Tornado expire? Or does it? The age itself poses already risks.

The bomb can still be used as a dumb bomb, but you loose the point of a low-yield, GPS guided nuclear bomb.

And the existing stockpile of bombs are already getting very old, and need replacement; the B61 Mod 12 is the replacement for all existing US tactical nukes. Basically, there are two systems that are starting to age out; the German Tornado fleet, and the US's European stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4518
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:41 am

YIMBY wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
3. Because the old bomb is on it's way out and being replaced by a new variant, which has a totally different electronic interface compared to the old weapon. The new B61 Mod 12 is a lower yield, GPS guided munition, which requires a new computer interface in order to fully take advantage of all of it's capabilities.


Then, why doesn't the certification of Tornado expire? Or does it? The age itself poses already risks.

The certification doesn't expire but the weapon that the certification exits for will be removed from service. The B61s are all very old already and the Mod 12 is an upgrade and life extension of previous B61 weapons.

YIMBY wrote:

Do not reverse again. You are actively and loudly defending the very long process and have to give justifications. If you cannot explain it, you do not understand it.

And remember: protocols, procedures, agreements and treaties are outcomes of politics. We need to know the scientifically justifiable reasons behind those. I have been long enough in military to know that the military tend to do things the hard and long way just because of traditions, stubbornness, impressions and showing power.

LOL, Yimby how am I reversing and why do I need to explain why it will take as long as it does? I am flattered that you think I gave the time frames for integration and certification but sadly I did not, I had nothing to do with the process or estimation. That was the US Military and communicated to the German Government via the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

I do understand the difficulties of the process though, as well as how sensitive the US, as are all countries with nuclear weapons, to safe guarding them and therefore why such a long, detailed and thorough process is used. You obviously don't get the sensitivities that are associated with nuclear weapons but that is okay, I have found that to be par for the course...
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Jan 16, 2020 11:17 am

Just a guess but In not choosing the F35 I think Germany has also decided they will remove themselves from the current nuclear sharing agreement.

At the risk of trolling to some I’m sure someone in the German decision making chain has posed the following question;why carry a nuke on a plane that has huge chance of being downed over your own territory?
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3034
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:52 pm

Maybe we are looking at it all wrong. The reason why there was a need for tactical nukes in Germany is the fear of Europe being over run in he first two weeks of the war.

Now with a larger buffer and a weaker Russia without the Eastern Block and the ability to deploy tactical nukes from long range bombers, it may justify Germany to revise the the agreement and go for the non nuke F-35 instead. Or just proceed with the new fighter and the long certification process knowing there will be a gap and someone else will have to fill it - AKA pay for a rotation of US aircraft by taking up additional responsibility some where else.
bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:00 pm

Ozair wrote:
I do understand the difficulties of the process though, as well as how sensitive the US, as are all countries with nuclear weapons, to safe guarding them and therefore why such a long, detailed and thorough process is used. You obviously don't get the sensitivities that are associated with nuclear weapons but that is okay, I have found that to be par for the course...


Show that you understand by explaining. It is empty talk to claim understanding without any evidence than lolling others.

To start, describe the chain of serial tests that takes so much time and cannot be boosted by parallel tests. Papers circulating unnecessarily between officers is just bad management and not sensitivity, though it may give a false impression of thorough work.
 
YIMBY
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:59 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
3. Because the old bomb is on it's way out and being replaced by a new variant, which has a totally different electronic interface compared to the old weapon. The new B61 Mod 12 is a lower yield, GPS guided munition, which requires a new computer interface in order to fully take advantage of all of it's capabilities.

Basically, whatever aircraft Germany picks needs testing and development so the aircraft can safely drop the bombs at all, as well as developing appropriate mission systems and software to enable this capability under various different attack parameters.

In addition, engineers would have to find ways to install the necessary systems and linkages so that the pilot can arm the weapon in flight. Each one of the bombs has a so-called “Permissive Action Link,” or PAL, that prevents the warhead from functioning until an individual puts in a specific code.

While the US has been actively working on ensuring their aircraft can carry and operate the B61's, the Germans haven't made up their mind regarding which direction they want to take. That's what's causing the delays; the foot dragging on the part of the Germans. If the Germans decide today that they want a specific aircraft to carry the weapons, then work can begin immediately to integrate the bombs onto that aircraft, or if they choose an American aircraft for the job, the aircraft will come with the hardware and software to do it.


The nuclear bombs are not to be used for missions in Iran, Iraq or likes. They were placed there to be used in the extreme case, if the Soviet Union makes a massive attack against Germany and there is no other way to stop the attack. In that case millions of people are already dyeing and tens of millions under threat of dying.

Today's Russia is weak and far apart (though definitively strong enough for self defence), but I recognize that you may want to prepare for any new incarnation of the Soviet Union in 20 years or so.

The true risk associated with the nuclear bomb is that the pilot goes rogue and drops the bomb over the own base. That is to be prevented by double and triple checks and there should be sufficient intelligence in the bomb itself not to blow up in the wrong place. The risk that the plane/bomb misses the target is bearable (relatively) and you may consider it much more risky of not having nukes due to overcomplicated certification process. The primary purpose of nuclear weapons is anyway not to use them, ever. It is the most important to signal that they are there and can be used by any available platform in the case of WW3. (Not that I particularly endorse nuclear weapons anywhere)
 
Ozair
Posts: 4518
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:55 pm

YIMBY wrote:
Show that you understand by explaining. It is empty talk to claim understanding without any evidence than lolling others.

To start, describe the chain of serial tests that takes so much time and cannot be boosted by parallel tests. Papers circulating unnecessarily between officers is just bad management and not sensitivity, though it may give a false impression of thorough work.


Yimby first let me be very clear. I do not understand every step of the process and, other than the source document I posted which you obviously still haven’t read, I doubt the full process is available on the internet. Additionally, I never once claimed that I knew every step of the process for nuclear certification. What I have stated time and again is that it is a long process. This should be obvious as evidenced by the fact the certification of the Boeing SH, an American aircraft, still takes at least five years and hence I can understand why Airbus, with no previous experience with nuclear certification, will take longer to step through the process than Boeing. Boeing has been through this process multiple times and has the staff, knowledge, access, permissions, ICT infrastructure etc already established, Airbus has not done it even once.

Even if I knew each minute step of the process, what value is there in me explaining the process to you. I cannot adjust the process, it isn’t mine. If I explain the process and you don’t believe it should take as long as it does who cares, you don’t get a say in how long the process is either. The process belongs to the US Government/Military and they determine how long it is going to take. If there is too much administration for you or you think things can be done in parallel, tough luck, it won’t make a single difference to the timeframe.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:41 pm

YIMBY wrote:
The true risk associated with the nuclear bomb is that ....
The primary purpose of nuclear weapons is anyway not to use them, ever.

The true risk of nuclear weapons is that they might blow up in peacetime. That must not happen, ever.

It is conceivable that aircraft take off equipped with nuclear weapons in peacetime, in times of high alertness but without war. An accidentally dropped nuke would be a disaster far beyond the recent airliner shootdowns or any terrorist attack. Worst case, the enemy detects an explosion, mistakenly thinks they are under attack and launches a nuclear counter-attack.

Beyond that, any weapon must be integrated into the aircrafts fire control system and also may not endanger the aircraft when it is released. Certification is a fairly long process for non-nuclear weapons already and I doubt that nuclear weapons are designed with easy & flexible integration in mind. The number of people who can get the required clearances is probably low. Germany is not at war, the USA is not at war and there is no immediate threat. 5-7 years seems fairly reasonable.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4518
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:27 am

mxaxai wrote:
It is conceivable that aircraft take off equipped with nuclear weapons in peacetime, in times of high alertness but without war. An accidentally dropped nuke would be a disaster far beyond the recent airliner shootdowns or any terrorist attack. Worst case, the enemy detects an explosion, mistakenly thinks they are under attack and launches a nuclear counter-attack.

The weapon will only explode if it is activated. It could be carried and dropped multiple times from great heights and it would not initiate the nuclear chain reaction, they are designed specifically with fail safes for these types of scenarios.

Saying that, it doesn’t mean that accidents haven’t happened and the worst of these resulted in dirty bombs where the conventional explosive around the fissile material spreads radioactive material but does not result in an accidental nuclear detonation. The dirty bomb risk has been mitigated further as new designs have emerged. An old article, 1990, from the NY Times that goes into some high level detail, https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/24/us/a ... small.html

mxaxai wrote:
Beyond that, any weapon must be integrated into the aircrafts fire control system and also may not endanger the aircraft when it is released. Certification is a fairly long process for non-nuclear weapons already and I doubt that nuclear weapons are designed with easy & flexible integration in mind. The number of people who can get the required clearances is probably low. Germany is not at war, the USA is not at war and there is no immediate threat. 5-7 years seems fairly reasonable.

Sanity prevails...
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3281
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:04 am

YIMBY wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
3. Because the old bomb is on it's way out and being replaced by a new variant, which has a totally different electronic interface compared to the old weapon. The new B61 Mod 12 is a lower yield, GPS guided munition, which requires a new computer interface in order to fully take advantage of all of it's capabilities.

Basically, whatever aircraft Germany picks needs testing and development so the aircraft can safely drop the bombs at all, as well as developing appropriate mission systems and software to enable this capability under various different attack parameters.

In addition, engineers would have to find ways to install the necessary systems and linkages so that the pilot can arm the weapon in flight. Each one of the bombs has a so-called “Permissive Action Link,” or PAL, that prevents the warhead from functioning until an individual puts in a specific code.

While the US has been actively working on ensuring their aircraft can carry and operate the B61's, the Germans haven't made up their mind regarding which direction they want to take. That's what's causing the delays; the foot dragging on the part of the Germans. If the Germans decide today that they want a specific aircraft to carry the weapons, then work can begin immediately to integrate the bombs onto that aircraft, or if they choose an American aircraft for the job, the aircraft will come with the hardware and software to do it.


The nuclear bombs are not to be used for missions in Iran, Iraq or likes. They were placed there to be used in the extreme case, if the Soviet Union makes a massive attack against Germany and there is no other way to stop the attack. In that case millions of people are already dyeing and tens of millions under threat of dying.

Today's Russia is weak and far apart (though definitively strong enough for self defence), but I recognize that you may want to prepare for any new incarnation of the Soviet Union in 20 years or so.

The true risk associated with the nuclear bomb is that the pilot goes rogue and drops the bomb over the own base. That is to be prevented by double and triple checks and there should be sufficient intelligence in the bomb itself not to blow up in the wrong place. The risk that the plane/bomb misses the target is bearable (relatively) and you may consider it much more risky of not having nukes due to overcomplicated certification process. The primary purpose of nuclear weapons is anyway not to use them, ever. It is the most important to signal that they are there and can be used by any available platform in the case of WW3. (Not that I particularly endorse nuclear weapons anywhere)


Nuclear bombs carried by aircraft have multiple layers of security to prevent accidental use and detonation.

Generally, nuclear bombs in use by the US have what's called a Permissive Action Link, or PAL. PALs are, broadly, safety devices to prevent unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon, the exact specifics of which are classified. The PAL is activated through use of the Aircraft Monitoring and Control (AMAC) systems installed on the aircraft, which communicates with the bomb regarding the arming sequence.

The current deployed generation of bombs use a fairly sophisticated PAL, which requires a 12 digit access code to be entered by the pilot which is issued only when the bomb is to be used on a mission. The pilot can only enter the access code a small number of times incorrectly before the bomb fries the electronic circuits, effectively rendering the bomb inert, until the bomb is returned to depot for a technician to repair.

Plus, the current inventory of free-fall nuclear bombs also incorporate insensitive explosives to prevent accidental detonation, and have incorporated Enhanced Nuclear Detonation Safety (ENDS) features that better protected the bombs from physical shocks, extreme temperatures, electromagnetic interference, and any other “abnormal conditions.” At its most basic, an ENDS setup isolates the portions of the warhead that are essential for its functioning inside a shell that keeps out any unwanted “energy.”

These are just some of the many physical security features on today's American nuclear bombs to prevent accidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear bomb. The Russians, French and Chinese have similar systems installed in their weapons as well.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GalaxyFlyer and 6 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos