think we could ask the MoD for the UK equivalent numbers to be published????

Being as Germany doesn't seem have much interest even in maintaining it's present fleet of Tornadoes, its hard to see a shiny new replacement coming in any time soon. The fact that it's not even been decided whether they want an aeroplane or RPAS suggests we needn't hold our breath.

This proposal, clearly, is meant to test the waters in order to decide what to do after Tornado. After all the mess we've been causing with most multi-national aviation programs, I currently can't see anybody risking to develop another expensive aircraft with the Germans.

Even more importantly, the Tornado replacement in ITA and GBR has already been decided. So it may well be the result of this proposal - "well, we haven't found anybody willing to cooperate, so we have to look for what's available right now".

"Coincidentally", I know that the German MoD is actually looking into different options on how to deal with Tornado. Another extension of its service life (possibly up to 2040) is one of them. However, purchasing a new, market-ready aircraft is being seriously considered.*

Given the growing awareness of the German public for defense matters, and considering the crucial role of Tornado with regards to Nuclear Sharing, an American aircraft may well be the answer. F-35G anyone? :E

_________________
* This is actually not as improbable as it may seem. Quite recently, the MoD ordered the CH-53G out-of-service date to be brought forward, and since the European HTH program is officially dead, the replacement will be, has to be a "foreign" helicopter.

"After all the mess we've been causing with most multi-national aviation programs, I currently can't see anybody risking to develop another expensive aircraft with the Germans."

but then who do we deal with? It seems no major aircarft programme can be executed outside the USA and maybe Russia

The UK has had some terrible experiences with just about every European country on all sorts of weapons (frigates anyone?)

Until the European defence industry is genuinly pan-european with only one or two contractors countries will always bend and twist to maximise advantages for their own boys at home

The French often go their own way but it's very expensive and very risky if what you build doesn't sell overseas so you have to accept a less than state-of the art solution in order to maximise export potential

The UK always goes for the best, most expensive kit and thus we have problems exporting

I disagree with the best bit, but yes the most expensive is often true!

We aim for the best but struggle to build it. I've seen it all over - multi-role-do-anything specifications that are way over the top for the scenarios we actually have to deal with day-to-day. We then struggle to build things to those specs, thus draining all the money from the budgets.

The real cost is the manpower, their salaries and future pensions. By having multi-role equipment we also have multi-role people. That's kind of the unwritten requirement of all the big kit we build.

Same People, More Kit
Maybe the whole thing would be cheaper overall if we had single role equipment with multi-role people? E.g. pilots who can fly a pure fighter and also a pure ground attack aircraft. They'd have to learn both trades in a multi-role aircraft anyway.

It would mean a lot of kit being parked up for long periods of time, but that might be far cheaper than smaller quantities of multi-role kit that costs a ton of cash to make it work at all.

Shame we no longer have Jags or even the bionic budgies to drop bombs and shoot things. However...are those surplus A-10s still sitting in the desert?;)

They seem like an ideal way of dealing with `so called`

Really? It's slow so has a very poor reaction time if the TiC is far away, has to carry many different types of weapon to deliver the same effect as GR4 does with 2 weapon types and therefore can only carry a very limited number of them. GR4 can carry 3 x Paveway 4 programmable high-collateral bombs, 3 low-collateral DMS Brimstone missiles and the gun is very accurate and low-collateral, is much faster and has 2 crew so far easier to manage radios/9-lines/RoE etc.

On the plus side, it has a justifiably proud service history and they carry sat phones.

The gun is good, as long as there are no friendlies nearby.

It's difficult to see and justify where GR4 could be improved upon. How many billion would a new build strike aircraft cost? Would it be worth it to bomb high vis white Toyota pickups and a couple of hipster bearded bed sheet attired AK packing Durka Durkas holding hands on Honda 50s???

Ah, a cost/benefit analysis!

I agree, on the face of it at the moment there seems to be no need for anything other than a GR4.

If we were to build a new aircraft, couldn't we do a Super-Tornado (think: Super-Hornet vs the Hornet)? Keeping the air frame shape the same but bigger sounds low risk, it would make room for the EJ200, it could be beefed up where necessary to take the additional thrust, all the existing systems would fit (maybe there'd be room for future additional systems). You'd end up with more wing area, probably not too much extra weight, a load more thrust, more fuel, the same weapons capability + room to grow, and there may even be room for an extra pylon here and there. As far as new builds are concerned it ought to be the cheapest "new" design available to us.

What's not to like?! Or am I talking out of my :mad:?

Better idea would be to put the Skyraider back into production.

Get the tool for the job.

Why, do we need to drop toilets on an enemy?

USS Midway - VA-25 Toilet Bomb

I wonder if they did any drop tests before clearing the pan for use?

msb, you think any of that would be cheap?

Far cheaper just to buy off the shelf F-18G Growlers and hang Brimstone off them. Then You'd also have a stand-off EW platform to improve the F-35Bs chances on Day-1 against a modern AD system.......

Does the Tornado ECR have any standoff jamming ability? If so, can the kit be fitted to GR4?

What made the EF-3 so effective in its SEAD role? I remember reading about it being an excellent platform. Not sure why it was given the capability when GR4 carried ALARM anyway??

I started out with...

If we were determined to build our own new design, doing it the way I outlined could be the cheapest. Particularly as an awful lot of the man power (training, etc) and systems costs (we'd be reusing the designs we've already got) would be tiny.

Obviously if we were not interested in owning the design then buying off the peg is going to be cheaper still. But then we'd have no control over it.

Spot on :D:D.



Look at the F-35 program for further clarification.......how obsolete [in the broadest sense] will it be when it finally gets on the carrier and how will we be able to materially offset this..we won't.

Could one reuse the typhoon design in some way? Presumably it is expensive for some good reasons but I wonder what they are and whether you could drop them for an aircraft not intended for air superiority?

The lines are running so presumably there might be some economy in designing an aircraft that was similar.

I suggest they hand over the programme to the French and get them to build the whole thing.
the rafale turned out fine.



Good comment..Yes, if thats true which I believe is, it clearly confirmes once again the fact that the Eurofighter is not good in air-to -ground roles.it was developed as a pure interceptor..If you have the Rafale, you don't need anything else, very agile dogfighter with impressive ground attack capability and capable of operating from carriers as well.

It's well known that they're giving Typhoon a level of ground attack capability. The real questions are whether that's ever going to be enough, will it be available in time, will it be all we need once Tornado GR4s finally retire, will it be better / worse than GR4s?

If they can do all that, then Typhoon could be a really good replacement for Tornado. However, if we're to take Wikipedia at face value, Tornado can carry 1.5 tons more payload than Typhoon. In the ground attack role, I reckon tonnage counts.

The fine azimuth resolution due to the different positioning of the forward RHWR antennae.