Jump to content


Photo

F-35 Dropped From German Competition


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#21 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,833 posts

Posted 01 February 2019 - 1340 PM

One argument for a manned aircraft carrying a nuke is that (theoretically, at least) there's a chance that it could be recalled if the situation changes. In the presence of jamming, equipment failure, etc. that becomes problematic.


  • 0

#22 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,118 posts

Posted 01 February 2019 - 1406 PM

Well, the French ASMP-A missile would be en route for no more than 7 1/2 minutes. SRBMs would be en route for even less minutes.

I suppose the theoretical ability to recall a manned aircraft that's been sent en route after a nuclear delivery authorisation process that took hours if not days doesn't really matter much during those up to 7.5  minutes.

 

Also, ask Rotterdam about its opinion on the ability to recall manned bombers.

 

The "we can recall a bomber" argument was already deceptive with B-52s during the 70's. An ICBM is en route for 30 minutes or so. A B-52 would spend a lot more time between last opportunity to recall and the nuclear explosion.


  • 0

#23 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,833 posts

Posted 01 February 2019 - 1429 PM

The "recall the bombers" was more realistic during the 1960's when ICBM/SLBM's weren't in the picture to any great extent yet. I don't know how much that would have applied to the UK's V-Bomber force.


  • 0

#24 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,805 posts

Posted 01 February 2019 - 1508 PM

It doesn't make much practical sense for Germany to have B-612. But it make absolute sense to over them to the Poles. In fact I'd use that stick to push the Russians back into INF compliance if it were my circus and monkeys.


  • 0

#25 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,192 posts

Posted 01 February 2019 - 1521 PM

Has Eurofighter had parts issues?


Yes, they're expensive.
  • 0

#26 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,956 posts

Posted 01 February 2019 - 1528 PM

As far as this competition is concerned, I really can't see the F/A-18 in Luftwaffe markings when the Eurofighter is already in service with an established logistics/support base. And European companies would like the business.

 

Other than maybe cost, does the Super Hornet offer any advantages over the Eurofighter? Possibly the new Block III with conformal tanks may have some advantage in range and stores capability.

 

 

But then a "EuroFighter ECR" would have to be developed from scratch. Just adding new systems replacing the systems the Pentagon does not want to share would seem cheaper to me. But then the BmVg has proven to explode costs and deliver nothing (Eurohawk...)

 

 


Some even point to the Super Hornet's carrier capability and dream about the Bundeswehr reestablishing a naval fast jet wing, which might then take over naval air warfare, SEAD (both currently done by Luftwaffe Wing 51, though they promptly let the former role wither), possible deployments to allied carriers (which Marine jet pilots hoped would justify their continued existence before they were disbanded) plus the nuclear role. Except the German B61 storage facilities are in Büchel, Rhineland-Palatinate - rather far from the sea, and unlikely to be moved due to the associated cost, and it ultimately being an American call.

 

 

Establishing the naval aviation again I am much in favour of, not becuase the crack pipe dream of carrier air, but to have trained pilots for over sea flight. totally surprisingly and unexpected that capability has lapsed in the Luftwaffe, because other missions took precedence. Told you so.


  • 0

#27 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,956 posts

Posted 01 February 2019 - 1703 PM

NO, that's a MYTH. It's what I referred to earlier as false arguments. Again, HERE is the link. Also, NATO agrees with me:

 
While as usual your obnoxious arrogant dick tone doesn't invite listening to no matter whether you happen to be right or are talking out of your ass like about T-72 reliability on another current thread, that's an interesting case of outdated information being carried on. Seems the link between nuclear sharing and NPG membership represents the state of affairs pre-1979, not even as recent as the end of the Cold War.

Edited by BansheeOne, 01 February 2019 - 1704 PM.

  • 0

#28 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,118 posts

Posted 01 February 2019 - 1710 PM

The "recall the bombers" was more realistic during the 1960's when ICBM/SLBM's weren't in the picture to any great extent yet. I don't know how much that would have applied to the UK's V-Bomber force.

 

IIRC their mode was to sortie just in case, then wait over the Arctic with tankers. This gave the president hours to think about it, but SAC would have them off the ground where they were vulnerable.

That 'recalling' then would rather have been a 'we didn't give the attack order' thing rather than a 'we cancelled the attack order' thing. It was more comparable to SSBNs leaving port or Tomahawk GLCMs leaving barracks and disperse.

 

@Panzermann; our less than 100 Kormoran 2 would need replacement, a decent munition stock for anti-ship strikes alone would cost a nine figures sum on its own and the generals would not have any fun with it (while more supersonic jets give them joy). The additional munitions would creaty very few very shitty depot jobs (no additional officers needed), and presumably less than 5 officer job slots in staffs. Meanwhile: "STEALTH" jets! That's SEXY!

 

Every Western navy and air force appears to neglect this, even the maritime-minded Italians and the maritime-minded British. IIRC even the French didn't buy any new AM.39 in a long time and cancelled ANS long ago.


Edited by lastdingo, 01 February 2019 - 1747 PM.

  • 0

#29 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,467 posts

Posted 01 February 2019 - 2119 PM

Is Germany and other NATO countires signatories to INF?


  • 0

#30 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,434 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 0323 AM

They are not signorities to it, but they likely have been subject to it. I know that the Soviets (and latterly the Russians's) had the right to inspect facilities in the UK for GLCM up till 2002, long after Greenham Common closed. Likely similar inspections too place on the Continent for GLCM and perhaps even Pershing facilities.

 

 

The "recall the bombers" was more realistic during the 1960's when ICBM/SLBM's weren't in the picture to any great extent yet. I don't know how much that would have applied to the UK's V-Bomber force.

 

There was a line over the west coast of Denmark IIRC. They would fly to that line and either get a recall, or an instruction to continue to target. We didnt have the airborne alert system the Yanks had, partly because at the time we didnt have that big a tanker fleet. What we tended to do was put aircraft on QRA, on which every 10000 foot runway had a pad for QRA dispersal V Bombers. In a crisis the PM would order dispersal, so to get the entire fleet they had to turn the entire UK into a glass lined parking lot. Which they probably would have done anyway. Bless.


  • 0

#31 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,214 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 0330 AM

Considering that the AGM-84 is still used in the ship based role my Germany, adding a number of AGMs for a Hornet fleet seems easier, than to integrate the capability into the EF. Same with HARM and so on.


  • 0

#32 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,434 posts

Posted 02 February 2019 - 0505 AM

Ive never quite understood why, after funding so much development work to build a European Fighter, that having got it, the member nations go their own way in weaponizing it. Is it that hard to get all the operators of Eurofighter to stump up some money to put together a collective program to hang harpoon on it? Im sure we would be interested in having the capablity on the aircraft, even if we didnt use it. It would make it a hell of a lot easier to sell abroad.

 

Ditto B61. Nobody ever wants to use it, but it doestn strike me as unreasonable to expect a European consortium would figure out that putting the software and wiring in the aircraft to enable it to do it, might not be a bad idea.

 

I would assume that this was just a post cold war thing. But we made exactly the same mistakes with Tornado.


  • 0

#33 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,118 posts

Posted 05 February 2019 - 0407 AM

The issue regarding B61 is that it cannot be integrated without American cooperation, for one needs to know the bomb to do it. Else the Europeans would need to re-engineer the integration from the older aircraft, and the Americans would not accept that as sufficient, so wouldn't allocate B61s.

 

The American demands are excessive; they want to look so much into Typhoon software and ahrdware tha it's not considered a munitions integration, but industrial espionage by the Europeans.

So essentially they poison-pilled the Typoon as B61 carrier.


  • 0

#34 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,434 posts

Posted 05 February 2019 - 0417 AM

Wasnt the Tornado designed with B61 integration in it?


  • 0

#35 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,956 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 0336 AM

The decision between the F-18 and Eurofighter for a Tornado replacement has now been announced to be made next year (but don't hold your breath).
  • 0

#36 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,181 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 1701 PM

I was surprised to see AM-39 as the only anti ship missile used by France on the Rafale.


  • 0

#37 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,833 posts

Posted 24 September 2019 - 2021 PM

Presumably the Eurofighter is the favorite?


  • 0

#38 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,956 posts

Posted 04 October 2019 - 0504 AM

Per a report of the "Süddeutsche Zeitung", the US says Eurofighter will take three to five years longer to certify for the B61 than the Super Hornet. Which is unsurprising (in various ways) and indicates the latter is the favorite, though I'm not in the camp concluding the Eurofighter has no more chance at all. The German MoD refused a statement when asked.


  • 0

#39 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,833 posts

Posted 04 October 2019 - 0836 AM

Sounds like the nuclear role is dictating the choice of aircraft.


  • 0

#40 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,956 posts

Posted 04 October 2019 - 1512 PM

Wasnt the Tornado designed with B61 integration in it?

 

Yes of course. the problem is in the new B61 having a new electronic arming and safety system that will have to be integrated. The bomb itself can hang off of a Tornado without much problem, though the new guidance kits need testing if they interfere with anyhting on the Tornado or during release. But the biggest problem is the electronics.

 

 

 

Sounds like the nuclear role is dictating the choice of aircraft.

 

Not quite. EuFi is primarly a fighter jet, not a bomber, whereas the F/A-18 is more on the bomber of fighter-bomber and the Tornado is clearly more on the bomber side of things. The superbug also would need the nuclear bomb integration, because the USN ones are not prepared for the new nuke generation, but for the EUFi it would be a totally new capability to be somehow squeezed into the airframe. Also the long range with the conformal fuel tanks on the newest Superbugs is attractive.


  • 0