Jump to content


Photo

Only 4 Of Germany's 128 Eurofighter Jets Combat Ready


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#41 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Contemporary armor - tactics and technology

Posted 07 May 2018 - 1129 AM

Well, I've also heard positive estimations (not the least from British mil intelligence officers) in that Germany, unlike other NATO members, was at least not only acknowledging a new strategic situation in Europe post Krim-annexation, but that there were also tangible changes of the force structure reflecting that new assessment.

That doesn't, of course, address the question of who in western Europe was willing to freeze his ass off (much less to die) for Estonia. Not that _I'm_ advocating that we shouldn't --- but if only 20...30% of the population are willing to put their own life on the line in defense of their own country, well, I guess that 50 years of neomarxist assault on the purity of our essence have achieved strategic victory for the water fluoridators.

 

So, taking the complaint of the population's lack of enthusiasm for self-defense to the Bundeswehr (or any army) is barking up the wrong tree. Likewise, the politicians' actions in our liberal democracies usually reflect the preferences of the population, and I think we can see in many countries a disconnect between the population at large, their trust and support for the armed forces, not just specifically Germany; be it in the US where among some "dissent is the highest form of partriotism" and "criticizing the wars doesn't mean a lack of support for the troops" who however are "the lowest form of life" according to some teachers. :rolleyes:

Or, as I heard from the UK, where some people resisted the establishment of a rehabilitation clinic for soldiers because they didn't want to bear the sight of all those cripples.

 

All these cases have rightfully drawn a lot of criticism (not the least here on TankNet), and I'm not saying that they reflect the attitude of the entire population, but they all create a bit of a worry about the level of political support that we can expect from the general population. To that extent I'm not sure if it is a specifically "German" problem.

Nominally the UK spends more than its 2% GDP on defense, but when half of that is sunk in two aircraft carrier projects that won't have squadrons to carry once that they are ready, I'm beginning to wonder if our current missile & fighter disaster really is so much worse for the overall NATO defense capability. The 1.4% that Germany spends arguably yield a more capable land force, at least.


  • 0

#42 chino

chino

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Now in Macau
  • Interests:S2 Branch & Rifle Platoon Runner

Posted 07 May 2018 - 1129 AM

In truth, Germany is not under immediate threat from anyone in the forseeable future, is it? The real and present danger is terrorism.

 

So, please let us know when you would like to give away the rest of your Leopard 2 tanks. ; P


  • 0

#43 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 07 May 2018 - 1140 AM

 

Nominally the UK spends pretends to spend more than its aribtrarily chosen 2% GDP on defense by cooking the books, but when half of that is sunk in two highly vulnerable and fundamentally pointless* aircraft carrier projects that won't have squadrons to carry once that they are ready, I'm beginning to wonder if our current missile & fighter disaster really is so much worse for the overall NATO defense capability. The 1.4% that Germany spends arguably yield a more capable and mostly relevant land force, at least.

 

FIFY.

 

*Or maybe not. Allegedly they could be used to pose a credible threat to the Chinese (the same Chinese we are letting build and own our nuclear infrastructure) over some tiny artificial islands in a part of the world where we have no axe to grind and which is ultimately of no consequence to us.


  • 0

#44 Red Ant

Red Ant

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 682 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Erlangen, Germany

Posted 07 May 2018 - 1202 PM

I'm not even sure if a lack of funding is the real (or at least the main) problem about the Bundeswehr. It's how that money is mishandled. Rather than investing in sensible capabilities, it always has to be the ultra-high tech gold-plated stuff, with constantly shifting requirements during development and the resulting time and budget overruns. In the end we buy a ridiculously low amount of very expensive platforms instead of getting a more reasonable number of somewhat less advanced but cheaper stuff. And then we forget to order spare parts for the stuff, too.  :angry:


  • 0

#45 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,951 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 07 May 2018 - 1250 PM

Well, I've also heard positive estimations (not the least from British mil intelligence officers) in that Germany, unlike other NATO members, was at least not only acknowledging a new strategic situation in Europe post Krim-annexation, but that there were also tangible changes of the force structure reflecting that new assessment.

That doesn't, of course, address the question of who in western Europe was willing to freeze his ass off (much less to die) for Estonia. Not that _I'm_ advocating that we shouldn't --- but if only 20...30% of the population are willing to put their own life on the line in defense of their own country, well, I guess that 50 years of neomarxist assault on the purity of our essence have achieved strategic victory for the water fluoridators.

 

So, taking the complaint of the population's lack of enthusiasm for self-defense to the Bundeswehr (or any army) is barking up the wrong tree. Likewise, the politicians' actions in our liberal democracies usually reflect the preferences of the population, and I think we can see in many countries a disconnect between the population at large, their trust and support for the armed forces, not just specifically Germany; be it in the US where among some "dissent is the highest form of partriotism" and "criticizing the wars doesn't mean a lack of support for the troops" who however are "the lowest form of life" according to some teachers. :rolleyes:

Or, as I heard from the UK, where some people resisted the establishment of a rehabilitation clinic for soldiers because they didn't want to bear the sight of all those cripples.

 

All these cases have rightfully drawn a lot of criticism (not the least here on TankNet), and I'm not saying that they reflect the attitude of the entire population, but they all create a bit of a worry about the level of political support that we can expect from the general population. To that extent I'm not sure if it is a specifically "German" problem.

Nominally the UK spends more than its 2% GDP on defense, but when half of that is sunk in two aircraft carrier projects that won't have squadrons to carry once that they are ready, I'm beginning to wonder if our current missile & fighter disaster really is so much worse for the overall NATO defense capability. The 1.4% that Germany spends arguably yield a more capable land force, at least.

 

Well as far as the rehabilitation clinic, ive not heard of such a thing. I wont say it didnt happen because such things can happen, but as they are doing it in Tedworth house in Tidworth barracks, im not sure why it would be an issue.

 

The 2 supercarriers, in part this is part of the problem. In truth, the Germans have ALWAYS been dismissive of the British Army and the Navy having a global role. They complained about our wish to make our forces more mobile in the 1980s, and Im not surprised the logic of a carrier doesnt impress. Ultimately if security is a global problem, somehow thinking that our little tiny European corner is the only significant part should be defended and the rest of the world can get lost, is really just repeating Trumpian logic. If our values are to prevail, we HAVE to think beyond the European corner. Because if Afghanistan hasnt impressed the idea that even the most Godforsaken parts of the world can breed insecurity for us, then nothing will. Its not as if the Carrier wont be useful in guaranteeing European security either, as the 3 invincibles proved.

 

As for the lack of aircraft, well you can blame the dunderhead David Cameron for the lack of Harriers, or they would already be working up the fixed wing component right now. As it stands, they are due to fly on this year, on trials at first, but it usually took RN carriers about 2 years to work up so this is not unusual. So its going to be a small compliment to begin with, but there will be enough to fill up 2 squadrons for each carrier. Id like more, but then F35B is a bit on the pricy side.

 

 

 

 

Nominally the UK spends pretends to spend more than its aribtrarily chosen 2% GDP on defense by cooking the books, but when half of that is sunk in two highly vulnerable and fundamentally pointless* aircraft carrier projects that won't have squadrons to carry once that they are ready, I'm beginning to wonder if our current missile & fighter disaster really is so much worse for the overall NATO defense capability. The 1.4% that Germany spends arguably yield a more capable and mostly relevant land force, at least.

 

FIFY.

 

*Or maybe not. Allegedly they could be used to pose a credible threat to the Chinese (the same Chinese we are letting build and own our nuclear infrastructure) over some tiny artificial islands in a part of the world where we have no axe to grind and which is ultimately of no consequence to us.

 

Thats not quite right Chris. If you mean the Hinkley reactor (of which Im due to be downwind when it fires up..) its actually a French reactor, with the Chinese providing the financing. The only chinese connection is the money they will make every time you and I make a cup of tea.

 

As far as those islands, its freedom of navigation isnt it. If we wont defend it in the Pacific, why should anyone believe we would defend it off the Falklands? Or indeed, the Straits of Hormuz. We like to think these things arent connected, but its notable every time we drop the ball somewhere, say Syrian chemical weapons, someone interprets it as weakness and there is a response elsewhere, say, Salisbury.

 

Thats not a popular viewpoint, but for me its just recognising that the 21st Century is going to be full of pushback, and anywhere we dont stand by our own values, they are going to be eroded. I dont really want undemocratic China laying down the terms of reference for the rest of the Century personally.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 07 May 2018 - 1257 PM.

  • 0

#46 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,951 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 07 May 2018 - 1258 PM

I'm not even sure if a lack of funding is the real (or at least the main) problem about the Bundeswehr. It's how that money is mishandled. Rather than investing in sensible capabilities, it always has to be the ultra-high tech gold-plated stuff, with constantly shifting requirements during development and the resulting time and budget overruns. In the end we buy a ridiculously low amount of very expensive platforms instead of getting a more reasonable number of somewhat less advanced but cheaper stuff. And then we forget to order spare parts for the stuff, too.  :angry:

 

Not that different from the British MOD then.


  • 0

#47 bd1

bd1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:estonia

Posted 07 May 2018 - 1409 PM

Well, I've also heard positive estimations (not the least from British mil intelligence officers) in that Germany, unlike other NATO members, was at least not only acknowledging a new strategic situation in Europe post Krim-annexation, but that there were also tangible changes of the force structure reflecting that new assessment.

That doesn't, of course, address the question of who in western Europe was willing to freeze his ass off (much less to die) for Estonia. Not that _I'm_ advocating that we shouldn't --- but if only 20...30% of the population are willing to put their own life on the line in defense of their own country, well, I guess that 50 years of neomarxist assault on the purity of our essence have achieved strategic victory for the water fluoridators.

 

So, taking the complaint of the population's lack of enthusiasm for self-defense to the Bundeswehr (or any army) is barking up the wrong tree. Likewise, the politicians' actions in our liberal democracies usually reflect the preferences of the population, and I think we can see in many countries a disconnect between the population at large, their trust and support for the armed forces, not just specifically Germany; be it in the US where among some "dissent is the highest form of partriotism" and "criticizing the wars doesn't mean a lack of support for the troops" who however are "the lowest form of life" according to some teachers. :rolleyes:

Or, as I heard from the UK, where some people resisted the establishment of a rehabilitation clinic for soldiers because they didn't want to bear the sight of all those cripples.

 

All these cases have rightfully drawn a lot of criticism (not the least here on TankNet), and I'm not saying that they reflect the attitude of the entire population, but they all create a bit of a worry about the level of political support that we can expect from the general population. To that extent I'm not sure if it is a specifically "German" problem.

Nominally the UK spends more than its 2% GDP on defense, but when half of that is sunk in two aircraft carrier projects that won't have squadrons to carry once that they are ready, I'm beginning to wonder if our current missile & fighter disaster really is so much worse for the overall NATO defense capability. The 1.4% that Germany spends arguably yield a more capable land force, at least.

did the loss of conscription system change these attitudes much? 


  • 0

#48 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Contemporary armor - tactics and technology

Posted 07 May 2018 - 1525 PM

I'm not even sure if a lack of funding is the real (or at least the main) problem about the Bundeswehr. It's how that money is mishandled.

 

A lot of the perception of mishandling is, of course, a result of army planners fighting a delaying action against the effects of budget cuts. The Eurofighter was a good example where a lot of features that were originally planned for would not be fitted during the initial procurement, so that 148 fighters could still be ordered (of the 200+ that were originally planned). Everybody KNEW that immediately after the purchase a follow-on program would have to be signed to retrofit the very components that had been removed from the initial delivery. In sum, this was more costly, of course.

But whose fault is it, in this case? Parliament could have voted for a higher budget for just this specific program but chose not to do so.

Same with Puma. Everybody knew it would need an anti-tank missile, but to keep the original procurement cost lower so a larger number of vehicles could still be ordered, the order was for a vehicle fitted for, but not with MELLS (should sound familiar to our British friends), and now the Puma, while not yet actually accepted by the Bundeswehr, is already scheduled for a retrofit.

 

The real waste happens when Parliament forces the Navy to order five more corvettes that the Navy actually doesn't want and doesn't really need, so we're blowing billions on tiny ships that won't stop the Russians to close down the Baltic if they so choose to do. We could just as well have used those billions to order more spare parts for army and airforce (and the submarines, which would have accomplished infinitely more for the deterrence value of the Bundesmarine).

 

Compared with the derailing of so many programs internationally, I don't see the Bundeswehr being particularly inept to be honest. Sure, there were blunders, particularly with the Eurohawk. But again, it was mostly a political decision to bleed the (then) BWB dry of capable lawyers and engineers for contracting and project management, at which point it's not a matter of IF contracting and management blunders occur, but only WHEN.

Also, program managers know that they usually get only one shot to push a certain procurement. So they then try to cram everything in there, which of course complicates the systems and drives up costs. But it's a rational behavior if you actually want to get shit done while the whole system is designed to reward low-balling of prices - at any cost.


  • 0

#49 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Contemporary armor - tactics and technology

Posted 07 May 2018 - 1546 PM

 

So, taking the complaint of the population's lack of enthusiasm for self-defense to the Bundeswehr (or any army) is barking up the wrong tree. Likewise, the politicians' actions in our liberal democracies usually reflect the preferences of the population, and I think we can see in many countries a disconnect between the population at large, their trust and support for the armed forces, not just specifically Germany; 

 

did the loss of conscription system change these attitudes much? 

 

I think that's confusing cause and effect.

As long as there was a highly visible military threat just across the death strip of the inner German border, people understood the necessity for defense without much thinking; likewise, to counter that threat conscription was a necessity. Plus, you had people that had fled the commie zone to then join the army, and be among the most enthusiastic about training because they knew very well what they were defending against.

 

This discussion seems to belong more into the FFZ than here, see also my remarks on Germany in general (April 3rd) and the SPD (April 4th) in the Nerve Agent Attack thread.


  • 0

#50 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 07 May 2018 - 1553 PM

Stuart, the article was about the Bradwell reactor which will be Chinese.
  • 0

#51 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,951 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 08 May 2018 - 0155 AM

Stuart, the article was about the Bradwell reactor which will be Chinese.

 

Not sure about that one, but I think after the Hinkley debacle, Id be surprised if its ever built. 


  • 0

#52 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 08 May 2018 - 0339 AM

The real waste happens when Parliament forces the Navy to order five more corvettes that the Navy actually doesn't want and doesn't really need, so we're blowing billions on tiny ships that won't stop the Russians to close down the Baltic if they so choose to do. We could just as well have used those billions to order more spare parts for army and airforce (and the submarines, which would have accomplished infinitely more for the deterrence value of the Bundesmarine).

 

And the same eminence gris of the budget committee who pushed for the corvettes, the maker of which happens to be located in his electoral district, criticized the defense minister for her additional financial demands just last week BTW, accusing her of mismanagement and not even being able to spend the money she has. Though in fairness, the additional K 130s could only be plugged in because the Type 180/F 126 the money was meant for were delayed, and the Navy has long been complaining they need more ships period because the existing fleet is being run down by deployments.

 

[Naval Nazi] Also, Bundesmarine was only ever used inofficially to distinguish the West German navy from the DDR's Volksmarine. Today it's just (Deutsche) Marine. [/Naval Nazi]


  • 0

#53 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,361 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 12 May 2018 - 1725 PM

 


 

[Naval Nazi] Also, Bundesmarine was only ever used inofficially to distinguish the West German navy from the DDR's Volksmarine. Today it's just (Deutsche) Marine. [/Naval Nazi]

 

 

Journalists still have not nticed the cold war has ended.  :D  heck I remember reading about a german "Bundesheer" in an article. There is also still a surprising number of battle ships and battle cruisers sailing in newspaper articles...


  • 0

#54 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,655 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Contemporary armor - tactics and technology

Posted 13 May 2018 - 1525 PM

Well, Frigates these days are basically battle cruisers, it just "sounds nicer". Just like today's Corvettes are a euphemism for Destroyer. The War Ministry mutated its name into Defense Ministry, etc. etc.


  • 0

#55 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,361 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 13 May 2018 - 1555 PM

Well, Frigates these days are basically battle cruisers, it just "sounds nicer". Just like today's Corvettes are a euphemism for Destroyer. The War Ministry mutated its name into Defense Ministry, etc. etc.

 

while true, I think that there are still so many battle cruisers in articles goes back to the big public discussion around fleet tonnages etc. between the wars and before WW1 that term got stuck in the collective journalism. Well they also call everything a battle ship at times. Agree on the euphemistic newspeak.

 

 

Everything armoured and painted olive drab is a tank of course. Really even wikipedia gets it right in 99% of cases.


Edited by Panzermann, 13 May 2018 - 1555 PM.

  • 0

#56 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 13 May 2018 - 1722 PM

Well, Frigates these days are basically battle cruisers, it just "sounds nicer". Just like today's Corvettes are a euphemism for Destroyer. The War Ministry mutated its name into Defense Ministry, etc. etc.

 

For some navies (well, one in particular, largely to get around the INF treaty), corvettes are strategic assets.


  • 0

#57 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 24 June 2019 - 0803 AM

Two Eurofighters from a flight of three crashed after a mid-air collision during training in restricted airspace over Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Pilots reportedly ejected, status unknown at this time. Developing.

Update 1: One pilot recovered from a treetop alive.

Edited by BansheeOne, 24 June 2019 - 0838 AM.

  • 0

#58 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,361 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 24 June 2019 - 0856 AM

Two Eurofighters from a flight of three crashed after a mid-air collision during training in restricted airspace over Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Pilots reportedly ejected, status unknown at this time. Developing.

Update 1: One pilot recovered from a treetop alive.

 

What were they doing to get so close to each other?  :huh:

 

And that makes 138 136 EuFi for the Luftwaffe.


  • 0

#59 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,951 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 24 June 2019 - 0913 AM

 

Seriously though, I hope they are both alright. Just be thankful it wasnt an F4 or Mig29, or something with an older generation seat.


  • 0

#60 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,778 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko yarou
  • Interests:sleeping

Posted 24 June 2019 - 0915 AM

Accedents get the best of air forces. Hope they find the other pilot alive.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users