Aurelthere nothing like any airbase the sites are made from roads and shelters cut out of the hill side
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237064[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237065[/ATTACH]
Unfortunately the Swedish system is completely different to the Swiss one. They don’t have dispersed sites, they have caverns to protect their aircraft.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237068[/ATTACH]
Picture from Meiringen
AurelA better question would be if it was the right decision to replace it that early. Imho it would have been better to follow the Dutch and Scandinavion examle and replace the 104 with F-16’s in the late 70’s early 80’s.
AurelIn the current political climate I think Chinese hardware is the only realistic option. As interesting as those F-5’s maybe, they are a dead end. China could supply JF-17 now and J-31 later down the road. Not glamorous, but should do the trick and fit the budget. If rumors about a J-31 carrier variant are true, then it’s the ideal A-4 replacement, too.
AurelNot true. Quite a few countries don’t ask for offsets for arms imports, e.g. the UK, USA, & I’m pretty sure also France & Germany. AFAIK offsets are generally deplored within NATO & by the EU (though it does not forbid them) nowadays. Indirect offsets – i.e. those not directly connected to the purchase – may be regulated by the EU if they’re considered market-distorting.
Well, Poland had an offset clause in their fighter tender. Austria had, too. And I’m pretty sure both of them are EU members. I’m not even sure if dropping out of all those money pits would have been a net loss for the German industry. Israel is doing quite well as subsystem supplier. Money would have been available for other projects, for example afore mentioned subsystems.
I’d rather have now full spec and constantly upgraded Gripen C in service then those castrated Eurofighters the Luftwaffe can’t effort to properly arm,upgrade and fly.
Even worse are the Eurocopters. Thanks to insufficient development funds or just pure incompetence of AHD all the delivered NH-90’s and Tigers are riddled with bugs one would expect from prototypes but not mass produced aircraft. And they cost an arm and a leg to buy.
AurelUm how much of a Gripen is made in Germany vs Eurofighter?!
How much of a Blackhawk and Apache is made in Germany vs what comes out of Eurocopter?!
Not bad buuuuut how much of a Merlin is made in Germany vs an NH90?!
I refer you to the above point about Eurofighter…
Why should subsidizing of uncompetitive companies be of any concern to me ? I’m interested in affordable eqipment for our armed forces. Now we have those overly expansive crap equipment sitting on the tarmac, and no money left for continous upgrades and pilot training. German bureaucracy and EADS have proven over and over again they can’t handle project management. Oh, and I forgot the A400M. A mix of C17’s, C-27’s and MRTT’s would have been cheaper and delivered on schedule.
The recent EC 645 procurement is an example of how it can work, existing design with some minor modifications, one year between contract signature and first flight.
Besides, arms deals always include offsets. This would benefit competive industries instead of the failure that is EADS/Cassidian/Airbus military.
AurelGermany should have dropped Eurofighter, and got EJ-powered Gripens instead. Blackhawks and Apaches instead of the miserable junk Eurocopter is delivering. Merlins as SeaKing replacement.
Iraq should have bought MiG-29 SMT’s + Su-25 instead of F-16’s.
AurelBut in all honesty, how many Nations are going to be making Deep Penetrations into hostile environments….by far and large the days of striking at and bombing any Nation more than a third world Nation, simular to the Afghanistan . Iraq experiences, even the current Syria, Iraq / ISIS issue is next to nil….
NO ONE, is going to be flying deep strikes into a European Nation or an advanced Nation anywhere……so WHY does this falacy, this pretend ability exist?…
If Defence of ones own Nation and airspace is no longer the paramount capability desired than the situation is dire indeed, I mean, I am all for being prepared, and support having a CAPABLE airforce, but one capable to logical and rational extents, not some rediculous notion that EVERY Nation will be flying strikes into some very hostile Nation….not happening. I mean bombing a terrorist type organization is far from an organized Nation, is a super stealth plane needed there?…
NO, planes such as the Rafale and EF will always have a place, they may grow more advanced and intigrate more electronics and sensors etc…maybe even be more “stealthy” but Germany and other Nations won;t be needing big old “strike” planes for Deep penetrations. Networking is capable of being achieved without a “single airframe type” across the board…long Range? maybe, but less likely, A2A capability can get planes to where they need to go….and Stealth is a “whatever” it is NOT going to be the sole feature in the future, it;s the flavour of the month, but reality is, it;s NEVER been tried. It could all prove to be counterable in the near future and make it an expensive gimmick.
As I already wrote I don’t think it’s a matter of singled out platforms. It is a given that there will be a next generation American fighter. But will it have significant input from Europe and thus becoming a “NATO” fighter as the thread title suggests ? This would necessitate that European manufactures can bring something to the table. Be it technology or acces to a large domestic market. Since we can more or less forget about the latter it’s all about the former.
If this French/British FOAS comes with newtechnologies such as variable cycle engines, smart skin or whatever else then yes this hypothetical transatlantic NATO fighter may very well have significant European input. I’m just not that optimistic, given past experiences. It took years and at least 2 lost competitions to finally get a roadmap to a working AESA for Eurofighter.
France and the UK seem to have at least very similar requirenments, and are more willing to invest in military tech than most other European countries. Maybe that’s what we are going to see in the future. France and the UK as partners in the next US (naval) fighter for a high end design and Saab offering a low budget solution. A common type to replace EF, Rafale and Shornet. BAE, Boeing, Dassault + some minors providing screwdriver tech and offering market acces.
Guess screwdriver tech may be within the capabilities of Airbus.
Aurelhttps://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-11-12/anglo-french-fcas-may-not-be-unmanned
“…the FCAS will have to be “very stealthy, and able to make deep penetration strikes in a very hostile environment.” It will include new-generation sensors, internal weapons carriage and low-frequency satcom…”
Given that this programme effectively gives the lie to your claim i quoted above how much credibility does the rest of your comment have?
No, it doesn’t contradict anything. Could be as well from a F-35 ad. Same priorities: stealth, long range and networking. What’s new ? A HALE type UAV, maybe optionally manned. Big deal. If this will lead to new ideas how to achieve these design goals remains to be seen.
AurelTeething problems are nothing out of the ordinary. If they are fixed. However, airbus companies don’t fix anything. Let’s take Eurocopter, pardon, Airbus helicopters as example. Whenever the Bundeswehr reports a problem, it works like this:
1. deny, that there is a problem
2. blame it on user error
3. demand lowered design specs
4. demand more money
5. to be sure, blame it on user error again (soldiers are idiots by default !)
6. claim it will be fixed with the next software release (eventually)
7. demand more money
/rant off
In the end it comes down to what will be available in the future. There are no coordinated efforts to develop key technologies for next gen fighters in Europe. There is not even much effort to identify such technologies. The little development money that is available is usually invested in direct applications of existing technology. Long term investments with unclear prospects are usually avoided. This may save money, but of course will never lead to cutting edge future technology.
Aureler, the F-35 fits the “US bill”, not everyone’s else… besides, strangely, Germany obviously doesn’t feel it fits theirs ^^
The lil fatty is the closest thing to a NATO fighter we have ever seen. After the last EF rolls off the production line in Germany, that’s it for fighter production. There is nothing in the pipeline to succeed it. If there will ever be a replacement, it will be an off the shelf solution. And thus, most likely American.
AurelThere is already an aircraft that fits the bill: the F-35. And at least I hope that Germany will never again buy anything from Airbus after all those failed programmes (Tiger, NH-90, A400M…) They are just incapable of designing military hardware.
AurelThey may have copied serveral aspects of the aircraft, but at least they did the sensible thing and went twin engine resulting in a much cleaner looking airframe.
AurelIf the Falklands are still an issue for Argentina, they should reconsider their attitude and buy Russian or Chinese.
AurelIsn’t this exactly what Brimstone is designed for ? …if IS continues to use those cavalry charge tactics.
AurelAt least the Apache deal seems to be dead:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140923/DEFREG04/309230037/Sale-24-Apache-Helicopters-Iraq-Collapses
Sign In
