If there will be a new aircraft it has to cover serveral missions: CAS, SEAD, interdiction, recce, strike and nuclear deterrence.

Typhoon is earmarked for the CAS/interdiction part with GBU-54/B, GBU-48 and the already hinted purchase of Brimstone. There were some very basic loadout tests with Taurus, but the aircraft isn’t an ideal platform for large and heavy weapons. More Typhoons are unlikely.

The F-35:
Can carry the aforementioned weapons (minus Taurus). It’s an excellent intelligence gathering and processing platform. The current arrangement with American B61’s under NATO command could get extended without much noise. The UK and Italy are already working on the integration of F-35 and Typhoon. The Netherlands, Danmark will operate them, too. Lots of opportunities for cooperation.
Of course there is the industrial side with the US basically giving a fck about offsets and the built in spy ware and blackboxes, the Turkish parts and the Turkish maintenance center for all European F-35 engines.
My personal opinion: technically the ideal aircraft and the jack of all trades the Tornado should have been. But on the political/economical level a nightmare. Even more so now with the orange guy in the white house.

Rafale would be a great carrier for Taurus. And here it ends. Good aircraft, but except for Meteor and maybe some existing GBU’s all weapons would have to be integrated. Even worse: nuclear deterrence would require a new arrangement. Extremely unrealistic.
Makes no sense to me unless this new French/German military cooperation is meant to replace the strong US ties we currently have.

@Tornado upgrade. Well, the airframes are still in a good condition and there are plenty of wings in storage. But it is basically obsolete and avionics are ancient. But I guess we will see them soldiring on for another two decades with some minor upgrades (Assta 4,5,6…). Not much of an usefull military capability and therfore prolly not much in demand for coalition operations and airbus will make a nice profit keeping them flying. In short: perfect.
With a bit of luck unmanned options will mature enough to replace it in the roles the Typhoon can’t cover. Recruiting is a serious problem as very few people want to fly obsolete fighters and even less so obsolete simulators.

So basically they want what they had in their original Eurofighter contract but then removed for political reasons. They complain about high running cost for a fleet of 15 orphan aircraft, once again of their own making. :very_drunk:
Hopefully they replace the Phoons with an all inclusive package from Saab, similar to the Czech deal.

Everyone an their aunty thinks the Germans will go down the F35 route in the medium term. It may be that they choose to let the French supply them with a Rafale MLU or something to replace the Typhoon (given that the idea of replacing Rafale is not being discussed).

The notion of Germany joining Britain and Japan (were that to happen), makes not sense in the post Brexit age. Eurofighter was a product of it’s time and whether the French would unilaterally be able to replicate Rafale in the future is just as uncertain.

Just some observations:
The aircraft to replace is the Tornado, that means primary mission is air to ground.

-There is a strong lobby within Luftwaffe circles for a double seater.
-The platform should be able to deliver nuclear weapons (basically B61’s), favouring an American aircraft
-The platform should have an stealthy airframe

As there is no aircraft checking all the boxes the favoured solution is a new development of a stealthy doubleseater. Yep, fat chance given the associated price tag. :stupid:
Remaining options:
F-35: not available as doubleseater, but ticks all the other boxes. The most likely outcome.
Rafale B + Neuron: never heard it mentioned anywhere. Could the Rafale carry the Taurus as it carries the Apache/Scalp, meaning togehter with 3 EFT’s ? Would the French lend the ASMP’s the same way as Americans provide B61’s ?
Eurofigher T4 + some yet to identify UAV: Some noises from industry side, but not even an acknowledgement from Luftwaffe/MOD: very unlikely.
Joining a yet-to-be-defined UK/Jpn fighter project: pulling a FGFA on the son of Shin Shin ? Please no !

I still fail to imagine a scenario where both Typhoon and a vlo theatre bomber would complement each other. It’s either lightly defended airspace (some fixed SAM installations, some legacy fighters) then Typhoon will handle it with ease. (no need for a fancy stealth bomber with bomb bays large enough to carry alcm’s internally)
Or it’s heavily defended airspace with mobile double digit SAMs and a notable number of modern fighters then Typhoon won’t operate in said airspace until air defenses are decimated.

Since all users are keeping their T1 airframes, is there anything going on regarding a MLU ?
Requirenments are pretty similar, strictly a2a for QRA duties @ the lowest possible costs.

If the F35 is the right airplane for Canada and does not cripple the military for the forseeable future as a result of purchasing it, then I hope it’s the one we get. I have serious concerns about that being the case though. At least we can count on a fair and transparent competition rather than what the Conservatives tried to pull off.

I prefer the single vendor aproach to the show the Norwegians pulled off. If single engine is no issue, then there are not that many advantages the other competitors offer.

Typhoon may be the best interceptor, Gripen is the cheapest and Rafale/Shornet are extremely capable multirole fighters. But in the end the F-35 is not that far behind in old fashioned performance parameters and offers all the advantages of a clean sheet 5 gen design.

And for Typhoon/SHornet time is running out. I would bet on the F-35 in an open competition.

The AASM’s and the SCALP gives the Dassault aircraft a flexibility that Typhoon at the present doesn’t have, on top of that, the three 2000l external’s add quite a lot of range and/or persistence.

Yes, the Rafale is more flexible regarding a2g. I don’t dispute that. My point is, that for bombing tactical camels and technicals expansive weapons may not always be the first choice. Right after Libya many stories popped up about Adla beeing interested in Brimstone, laser guided missiles and what not. I’m not aware of any contract signed covering such items.

Typhoon on the other hand is earmarked for Brimstone and there is the contract for the triple/double racks. Looks to me like a very solid upgrade path. Coming back to the Libya scenario: Brimstone + Paveways are easier on the budget than AASM + Paveways.

I think your conclusion is wrong. In a bombing campaign like say Libya both a re quite evenly matched atm. And as soon as the rather low cost and low risk dual purpose rack for Paveways and Brimstones is operational the Typhoon will be better at interdiction and CAS.
Rafale excells in the strike role, Typhoon is better high and fast in a2a. I would say they complement each other quite good atm.