Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

German Tornado replacement

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

German Tornado replacement

Old 12th Apr 2019, 07:59
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,786
Received 75 Likes on 34 Posts
The trouble is that integration of a new weapon on Typhoon means getting a slot on the ‘to-do’ list at the multinational programme level, which automatically pushes things into the ‘several years’ timeframe. I wouldn’t be surprised if this issue was among the main reasons for the somewhat surprising announcement that the UK was embarking on a 6th-gen project on its own.
Easy Street is online now  
Old 12th Apr 2019, 11:38
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
Originally Posted by tartare
But 7 years?
I think 7 years is just to get all the liver transplants completed as jaundice will have set in in the EF community with Germany's reluctance to progress anything on Typhoon, especially for anything with a hint of air-to-ground about it. After years of dragging their feet and the 'air defence only' and 'not paying for that' mantra they now want to turn it into a fully-fledged strike/attack platform.

If Germany had been onboard from the beginning the UK Typhoon programme would have been years ahead of where it is now.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2019, 13:35
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 344
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...-idUSKCN1RM219

Exclusive: Germany sees 8.86 billion euro cost to operate Tornado jets to 2030

BERLIN (Reuters) - The German Defence Ministry estimates it will cost nearly 9 billion euros to keep its aging fleet of 93 Tornado fighter jets flying until 2030, according to a classified document provided to German lawmakers this week. The steep cost forecast includes 5.64 billion euros to maintain the warplanes, which first entered service in 1983, 1.62 billion euros to design replacements for obsolete parts, and 1.58 billion euros to procure them, according to the document, which was viewed by Reuters.

Germany in January decided to pick either the Eurofighter or Boeing Co’s F/A-18E/F fighter jet to replace its Tornado fleet in coming years, dropping Lockheed Martin’s F-35 stealth fighter from a tender worth billions of euros. But neither the F/A-18 nor the Eurofighter, built by Airbus, Britain’s BAE Systems and Italy’s Leonardo SpA, are currently certified to carry U.S. nuclear weapons, as required under Germany’s obligations to NATO. That means Germany will be dependent on its Tornado fleet until it gets new certified planes - a process that could take years.

The estimate came in response to a query by lawmakers from the opposition Free Democrats, who have criticized the ministry for dropping the F-35 - the only aircraft already certified. The ministry did not specify the cost of operating the Tornado fleet until 2035, the current target, despite a specific request to do so from the lawmakers, and said it could adjust the retirement schedule.

Parliamentary sources said the estimate was even higher than expected at around 100 million euros per plane, and it would be cheaper to purchase new aircraft. However Germany’s sluggish defense procurement process, and the complicated process of certifying new aircraft to carry nuclear weapons, meant any new warplanes were unlikely to enter service until 2025 or even later.

Of Germany’s 93 Tornado jets, 85 are operated by the Luftwaffe, or air force, but not all are equipped to carry nuclear weapons. The remaining planes are used for training.

The current Tornado fleet has a combat readiness rate of under 40 percent, according to sources familiar with new ministry data. Germany in past years had published such data, but this year made the readiness of its weapons a classified matter for security reasons.

These figures seem surprising.
The RAF has just retired its fleet of Tornado and I have been told that the vast majority of the airframes and systems have been reduced to produce. I also understand that the majority of the RTP items have been supplied to the Saudis. Apparently the German MoD were not prepared to pay as much as the Saudis for these parts.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2019, 13:40
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 344
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by TBM-Legend
Gee the first delivery aircraft, the B-29, was certified and proven in weeks!
Let's at least try to compare apples with applesshall we.
Yes seven years does seem a long time. But certifying anything where Nuclear Safety is involved can become a massive exercise.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2019, 17:57
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Buster15
Let's at least try to compare apples with applesshall we.
Yes seven years does seem a long time. But certifying anything where Nuclear Safety is involved can become a massive exercise.
It could probably be done quicker if money was thrown at it. Thing is though, that it's a darn sight easier to design the requirement, with all its little foibles, in from the start. I would imagine introducing certified SW looms to the electric jet as an afterthought would have design organisations alternately grinning and grimacing as the requirement gets changed seemingly at the whim of a politician. Remember the angst changing to the C variant for F-35 caused?
Harley Quinn is offline  
Old 1st May 2019, 11:11
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Eurofighter program has been going on for 35 yrs, flying for 25. It's a good interceptor / air defense platform.

I don't see it as an interdiction solution for the next 35 years. Things moved on, you don't operate in isolation.


https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/0...hter-fc31.html
keesje is offline  
Old 1st May 2019, 16:54
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by keesje
The Eurofighter program has been going on for 35 yrs, flying for 25. It's a good interceptor / air defense platform.

I don't see it as an interdiction solution for the next 35 years. Things moved on, you don't operate in isolation.


https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/0...hter-fc31.html
God that F22 is beautiful.
WingsofRoffa is offline  
Old 1st May 2019, 17:43
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Scotland
Age: 54
Posts: 279
Received 82 Likes on 23 Posts
Originally Posted by keesje
The Eurofighter program has been going on for 35 yrs, flying for 25. It's a good interceptor / air defense platform.

I don't see it as an interdiction solution for the next 35 years. Things moved on, you don't operate in isolation.


https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/0...hter-fc31.html
Really looks like a lineup of studio models for a Buck Rodgers or Battlestar G. film!
Thrust Augmentation is offline  
Old 1st May 2019, 18:11
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: front seat, facing forwards
Posts: 1,156
Received 12 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Thrust Augmentation
Really looks like a lineup of studio models for a Buck Rodgers or Battlestar G. film!
And what exciting times we live in!
just another jocky is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 06:15
  #50 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,375
Received 1,573 Likes on 715 Posts
https://www.reuters.com/article/germ...-idUSL2N26E1ED

German defense minister wants quick decision on Tornado replacement

WASHINGTON, Sept 23 (Reuters) - German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer on Monday said she aimed to decide as soon as possible next year how to replace Germany’s aging fleet of Tornado fighter jets to prevent a lapse in Germany’s ability to carry out missions for NATO. Kramp-Karrenbauer, leader of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, said she discussed the issue with U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper during her first official visit to Washington since taking on her new role as defense minister.

Germany in January decided to pick either the Eurofighter - built by Airbus, Britain’s BAE Systems and Italy’s Leonardo SpA - or Boeing Co’s F/A-18 fighter, dropping Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter out of a tender worth billions of euros. However neither the F/A-18 nor the Eurofighter is currently certified to carry U.S. nuclear weapons, as required under Germany’s obligations to NATO. Germany is asking Washington to spell out what it will take to get those aircraft certified.

“My goal is that we make clear decisions as quickly as possible next year, so there is no time period in which there is no reasonable solution for replacing the Tornado fleet,” Kramp-Karrenbauer told reporters. She said she would work closely with Esper on the issue in coming months. But experts say it could take years to get the new planes certified to carry nuclear weapons, and the cost of maintaining the current aircraft is rising rapidly.

Kramp-Karrenbauer said she also had a frank discussion with Esper about Germany’s rejection of the F-35 as a possible replacement for the Tornado jets, given concerns that it could impede work on a Franco-German next-generation combat jet. “We made clear that ... the Future Combat Air System with the French was one of the reasons that ... we had to seek other solutions,” she said, when asked if she ruled out taking another look at the F-35.

Lockheed officials had hoped that Germany could reconsider its decision after the departure of former Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen........
ORAC is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 08:55
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 63
Posts: 1,853
Received 77 Likes on 43 Posts
Originally Posted by Buster15
These figures seem surprising.
The RAF has just retired its fleet of Tornado and I have been told that the vast majority of the airframes and systems have been reduced to produce. I also understand that the majority of the RTP items have been supplied to the Saudis. Apparently the German MoD were not prepared to pay as much as the Saudis for these parts.
On the point of a need to find a nuclear bomb carrying capable airframe, if it doesn't have to be American, then given Germany's current relation with France and given that the French have now replaced their Mirage 2000N with the Rafale. Could an arrangement be made for Germany to buy some Rafales, strike capable? The use of a French bomb instead of a US B61 should be possible. We transferred from B43 carrying Canberras and Phantoms to Buccaneers and Jaguars which all carried the home spun WE177 instead.

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 18:53
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 831
Received 98 Likes on 51 Posts
Use of French weapons would mean they would be stored under French control and released to the delivery unit after a French political decision in the same way that US weapons always have been. I’m not sure that either party is ready for that sort of arrangement.
Timelord is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 18:13
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,076
Received 53 Likes on 33 Posts
The use of a French bomb instead of a US B61 should be possible.
Why should it be possible?
West Coast is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 23:42
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I'd think that the prime directive for the German military would be to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used in Europe.
Getting rid of US certified nuclear carriers would be positive early result of such a directive.
However, I see zero desire to substitute a French nuke for a US nuke. Rather the German government will feel very comfortable having no nuclear capable aircraft because of jurisdictional issues.
etudiant is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2019, 11:28
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,803
Received 270 Likes on 109 Posts
Originally Posted by West Coast
Why should it be possible?
Indeed. I suspect that certification cost would not be the sole issue - political agreements will probably dictate the outcome.
BEagle is online now  
Old 27th Sep 2019, 09:44
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,073
Received 66 Likes on 40 Posts
The Germans want to keep their US NATO nuke role. This is why they practically need some US aircraft capable to be certified for the B61-12. Certifying the Eurofighter would mean to technically disclose everything to the US for nuke-certification. This is what they want to avoid by buying something else. They seem to prefer two seats and two engines.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 27th Sep 2019, 18:15
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,334
Received 80 Likes on 32 Posts

Originally Posted by Less Hair
The Germans want to keep their US NATO nuke role. This is why they practically need some US aircraft capable to be certified for the B61-12. Certifying the Eurofighter would mean to technically disclose everything to the US for nuke-certification. This is what they want to avoid by buying something else. They seem to prefer two seats and two engines.
So a 2-seat Strike Typhoon is needed (which was on the table at one point before the idiot single-seat mafia got involved). Producing one would be easy, and with the proposed conformal tanks would be an excellent aircraft. It might even make sense for the Brits to look at this too - single seat is fine for small skirmishes like Libya or Syria, but for full-on high-end war fighting then using one aircraft to do one thing and its wing man to do another on the same mission is a waste if you want to achieve mass effect on a target.






Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2019, 18:54
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 344
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Lima Juliet



So a 2-seat Strike Typhoon is needed (which was on the table at one point before the idiot single-seat mafia got involved). Producing one would be easy, and with the proposed conformal tanks would be an excellent aircraft. It might even make sense for the Brits to look at this too - single seat is fine for small skirmishes like Libya or Syria, but for full-on high-end war fighting then using one aircraft to do one thing and its wing man to do another on the same mission is a waste if you want to achieve mass effect on a target.






But how does this help if they don't want to disclose all the design data to the US to allow nuclear certification.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2019, 19:15
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Wisbech, cambs
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Well in my distant past I do remember loading American Special weapon training rounds onto Nimrod so there is a precedent for Bae to work with the USA in that area -weapons were controlled (at least at one base ) by a USN facility - and
at the same time the Bucc was still capable of carrying WE177 as Tornado was being brought worked up into that role --with the Jaguar also being capable of carrying WE177 as it often did in RAFG when on QRA....prior to Tonka taking over that role......

Last edited by Dave Sharpe; 29th Sep 2019 at 15:38. Reason: Clarity on Jaguar
Dave Sharpe is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2019, 09:19
  #60 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,375
Received 1,573 Likes on 715 Posts
IIRC the “special certification” for the Jaguar was a US Marine sitting on a ladder with his gun pointed at the pilot’s head and instructions to shoot if he took his hands off the cockpit sides without permission......
ORAC is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.