VnomadThere are 26 flags currently operating Mig 29’s.
There are 9 flags operating Mirage 2000’s
Most of which retain MiG-29s in limited quantities of which an even smaller number are actually airworthy. Not exactly a fitting analogue to the F-16. Outside of the former-Soviet states, the only major operators are India & Poland. Four major operators for the Mirage 2000; India, Greece, Taiwan, UAE. (The F-16 of course is in a different league in that respect.)
VnomadOne missile alone probably exceeds bring back weight. Plus issues with heavy asymmetric loadout.
Actually bring-back weight for the F-35B is about 2.2 tons IIRC with another 1.8 tons achievable through the SVRL profile ~ 4 tons. About 3 tons for two missiles & pylons with another 1 ton left over for fuel, AAMs & sundries.
Definitely doable for the SPEAR Cap 5 (assuming the weight is similar to the Storm Shadow).
VnomadNope, from Panavia itself:
http://www.panavia.de/aircraft/ongoing-development/gaf/
Not sure the GAF would agree.
They would be slightly younger than the USAF F-15C/D´s that will (almost certainly) be retired by the late 2030´s.
The USAF’s F-15C/D would be the same age as the GAF’s Tornado IDS. And the F-15C/D life extension involves a major rebuild of the airframe.
Which might still not happen –
Center Fuselage Rebuild Could Be F-15C/D Achilles’ Heel
U.S. Air Force considers major F-15C life-extension too costly
The F-15C may still have an undefeated aerial combat record, but the 38-year-old aircraft could be slated for retirement if the U.S. Air Force decides not to fund a major structural life-extension program. Air Combat Command (ACC) chief Gen. Mike Holmes says it could cost $30-40 million per aircraft to keep the Eagle soaring beyond the late 2020s, including rebuilding the center fuselage section, among other refurbishments. “We’re probably not going to do that,” he tells Aviation Week.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-pushes-back-on-f-15-retirement-435721/
While the USAF is saying news of the F-15’s demise has been greatly exaggerated, the service’s head of Air Combat Command also outlined the increasing costs to keep the Eagle flying. The F-15 would require a series of service life extension programmes including a center fuselage overhaul estimated at $40 million per unit, Gen Mike Holmes told reporters during a 29 March event in Washington.
“I’m probably not going to do that,” he says. “So the question is, what year does that happen at the rate we’re flying them and then there’s an end out there and somewhere in the late 20s that you either have to put $30 million or $40 million an airplane into them or stop flying them.”
VnomadThe Mig 29/35 is simply the F-16 of the non US controlled world. Always has been. Always will be.
Going by export figures, that would actually be the Mirage 2000.
Vnomad2030, or even 2040.
http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/ge…ast-until-2030
http://aviationweek.com/defense/indu…ice-until-2040
I think the 2030 date is intended to be read as retiring between 2025 and 2030.
Britain and Germany Are Still Upgrading the Tornado
The deployment of four UK Royal Air Force Tornadoes to perform overwatch of Iraq, and an unconfirmed report last week that more might be deployed for surveillance of northern Nigeria, serves to illustrate the ongoing value of the aging but effective “Tonka.” Although the RAF fleet is scheduled to be retired in 2019 in favor of the F-35, upgrades continue, with another one announced recently. Meanwhile, the German air force intends to keep its Tornado fleet until at least 2025, with its own upgrades.
Stefan Riesenecker, a development flight-test engineer with Airbus D&S, said the 3.1 version offers a tenfold improvement in display and communication. The German Tornado airframes have been life-extended from 4,000 to 8,000 hours, and could remain in service until 2030, he added.
US-based German Tornados receive life-extending upgrades
Deliveries of upgraded Panavia Tornados to the German air force’s training wing at Holloman AFB in New Mexico are now under way, with five modified examples from the 15 aircraft based in the USA having been delivered to date.
Under the Avionics System Software Tornado Ada (ASSTA) 3.0 upgrade programme, the air force’s fleet of Tornados are receiving new avionics, radios and digital video and voice recorders, plus integrated laser joint direct attack munitions, with work carried out by Airbus Defence & Space.
The first delivery of the modified Tornado to the air force in Germany was made in 2012, and now the overseas training wing is receiving its share of the upgraded type, with deliveries expected to be completed next year.
The ASSTA upgrade will extend the life of the Tornado fleet to 2025, although the basing at Holloman will expire in 2019. Following this, it will be renewed on a year-by-year basis.
“We will need the Tornado for far more than a decade,” Weber noted, adding that the upgrade is what will keep the type going this long. “However, this will probably be the last upgrade to the Tornado.”
They should be approximately 40 years old at the time; inducted 1981-87 for the IDS (64 in-service), 1985-91 for the ECR (29 in-service). I suppose you could flog them further but really, at that point, retiring them without replacement would probably be a more merciful solution.
VnomadI strongly suspect the F-16CJ’s used for Wild Weasel work now in the USAF will be replaced by F-35s. I am not sure if any particular radar homing missile will be integrated onto the F-35 platform.
VnomadI think that Storm Shadow carriage on the F35 is so far distant that it isn’t relevant to the discussion at this stage (I was talking about IR missiles universally having to hang under the wings, not cruise missiles)
Possible. IIRC there was talk about dropping the Storm Shadow and focusing on integrating the NG Spear 5 weapon instead.. so :shrug:
But cruise missiles aside, there’s still the AAMs & PGMs to consider on the wings.
With particular relevance to this Franco/German project and the German interest in the F35, I am merely saying that the F35 is not a defacto Tornado replacement.
Like I said, the Franco-German project is just at the inception stage. It’ll be at least another four or five years in project definition before development is green-lighted, unless the program is cancelled on grounds of say.. differing requirements or disagreement over workshare.
Thereafter, it’ll be another 12-15 years before the first aircraft are delivered to the respective services. And another 3-4 years before full capability is achieved. We’re talking 2040 tentatively.
The GAF meanwhile needs a replacement for its Tornado no later than 2025.
We have already concluded that for the next 10 (?) years the RAF will only have PW type bombs in the internal bay, and may get more than AMRAAM in the internal bay of their F35B . This is why they are putting the big missiles on the Typhoon (whether that’s Meteor or Storm Shadow) and using the F35 to help them get to where they need to go.
The SPEAR III capability is already slotted to be part of the Block 4 (along with the Meteor) software release – unless its at the back of the bus (4.3 or 4.4) that should be before 2025.
I do agree that the SEAD and nuclear mission is not something the RAF have a specific platform for (unlike the Germans), but they certainly are advanced in Tornado replacement thinking.
The Italians, as Marcellogo pointed out, have done a fair bit of Tornado replacement thinking as well. Consists of 60 F-35As.
VnomadI think it’s disingenuous to suggest that carrying your short range missile AA on external pylons and ejecting them when used is a great way to use an aircraft that is designed not to be seen from range.
Where does it say that the pylon must carry an IR-missile? You can fire off cruise missiles, or PGMs or MRAAMs, jettison your pylons and proceed further into defended space with an internal payload. Point is, the idea of a payload disadvantage for the F-35A vis a vis its peers, is pretty much a canard.
I also think SPEAR III is a great weapon for the F35 and am not knocking the aircraft, just pointing out that it is not in fact the Tornado replacement aircraft in the UK or of choice at the moment. If you have several hundred miles of range on your cruise missile, then a stealth aircraft is not a priority is it? I would be very surprised if the RAF gets funding to put Stormshadow underwing of the F35s in the next several years.
You don’t even need a fighter jet, if its sole purpose is to launch cruise missiles from several hundred miles off. Modern fighters are multi-role for a reason. The same argument that goes for equipping an aircraft with a radar, an EW system and high performance turbofan also applies to VLO characteristics. You can use a stealth aircraft for ISR deep in enemy airspace one day, use it for cruise missile strikes the next day and then use it for air combat the day after.
With respect to the Storm Shadow, I imagine we’ll see it on the F-35B for the same reason that the Rafale-M is equipped with it. Support from land based fighters may not always be available and the target may be out of range for a ship-silo based missile.
VnomadSurely, if you are the Germans, you look at what other Tornado operators are doing with regard to its replacement?
In the UK, the F35 is categorically not the Tornado replacement, the Typhoon is. Tornado unique capabilities were RAPTOR pod (not being directly replaced),PWIV (Typhoon), Brimstone (Typhoon), Stormshadow (Typhoon) .
The Paveway IV and ASRAAM are part of the Block 3F release, which will be released to the fleet by the end of the year. The SPEAR III has been designed for internal carriage on the F-35. And while a decision on the Storm Shadow hasn’t officially been taken yet – its very likely to be sanctioned (the QEs can’t embark Typhoons).
The fact is that for now, the F35 cannot carry European IR missiles internally, cannot carry Stormshadow or Taurus internally and cannot carry as many weapons as the competition if you wish to make the most of its stealth.
Doesn’t need to carry IR missiles internally. Can carry munitions externally, expend them, jettison the hardpoints, and revert to an LO configuration in-flight.
If you don’t want to use it for stealth purposes, then why buy the F35 other than to drop a nuke?
I would have thought that’s pretty obvious. Its the best strike fighter available in the West – and no Eurocanard can offer a similar capability.
VnomadAnyway , Nowhere is purchasing Rafale a pre-requisite . Rather an opportunity to get date alignement while preserving in-house competence and investing toward the future with short term immediate benefit . And yes while this is not likely to happen, that does not make it irrational.
As for Eurofighter , sorry but in communication or action neither Airbus ( with the NWGS for tornado replacement ) nor the German show any signs leading to beleive Eurofighter is seen as a valid alternative for Tornado replacement.
Has there been the slightest communication or action or any signs leading one to believe that the Germans see the Rafale “as a valid alternative for Tornado replacement”?
If the preferred F-35 proposal falls through, then the GAF will either downsize or induct more EFs. That’s just plain commonsense. Wishful thinking shouldn’t blind one to the obvious.
VnomadGermany solliciting France collaboration , along with Airbus earlier, tend to suggest neither beleive Eurofighter to be the way forward , not even for Tornado replacement.
It suggests nothing of the sort. The timeline clearly shows that the aircraft being pursued will be a Eurofighter & Rafale replacement (2040) NOT a Tornado replacement (2025).
So ordering rafale , however unlikelly it is, would not be out of sheer obstinate “solidarity” but rather a significant signal and step toward not only to for collaboration on next generation fighter, but also in relativelly short term the initial brick of EU defense. . As mentionned pooling airframes would short term reduce cost drastically , allow Germany to retain their capacity while building up the premisses of a European Air force . It will also re-align dates between Germany and France Air force inventory replacement. Participation to the MLU would allow Germany to invest and retain competence for the future. All in All a win -win in the context of a collaboration toward a future European fighter and defense.
Purchasing the Rafale is NOT prerequisite to developing a next generation fighter. And its a win-win only if you’re French. If the German govt turns down the GAF’s interest in the F-35 then the obvious alternative is the Eurofighter – with upgrades, if necessary.
VnomadFive European countries have ordered the F-35 so far (UK, Italy, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark) and another four likely future customers (Spain, Belgium, Finland, Poland). Defence rhetoric is exactly at that.. rhetoric. The ship has all but sailed on a European alternative to the F-35.
And even if Germany decided to be the exception the obvious European solution would be the Eurofighter not the Rafale. Aside from the domestic German input, its operated by four other European states and will provide commonality with the existing fleet. Ordering the Rafale out of sheer obstinate ‘solidarity’ is an idea that might appeal to the French but wouldn’t hold water during German deliberations.
VnomadYeah let them kill their fighter expertise. Good idea (if you can call it that, though).
Germany hasn’t designed a fighter jet in-house for decades. Your lamentations about preserving domestic capabilities are about 70 years too late.
Meanwhile, the mooted project with France should provide a level of participation roughly equivalent to the Eurofighter program. Selecting the F-35 to replaced their ageing Tornados (just as UK & Italy are doing) loses them nothing.
VnomadI did, because at some point you have to think about decreasing your RCS.
Indeed. Hence, the GAF’s interest in the F-35.
VnomadGood luck fitting stealthy weapons pods on the EF.
Who said anything about ‘stealthy weapons pods’? Why would you need them?
Sign In
