Thanks Erez, but this is not what I had in mind. It looked like a Bell 222 with pretty large wings for a chopper, and was about the size of a Hind. I try to regain this book where I saw it about a decade ago.

For normal cruise, lower throttle settings are possible, so I think the new engine would increase the range, not decrease it. Better climbing rates, supercruise, higher payload, would be further results of an stronger engine. One hidden plus of the EJ-200 is that it produces more dry thrust, compared to the RM-12. 66% of the maximum thrust is reached without afterburner, while the RM 12 reaches only about 50 % of the maximum thrust without afterburner. That means the Gripen could cruise at considerable higher speeds, without loosing too much range.

After looking deeply into my crystal ball, I predict there will be no predecessor for the German Tornadoes.
Reason:

In 10 to 15 years, Germany and most western countries in general will be up to their ears in pension payments to seniors and in a poor position to fund defence. I don’t think a Tornado follow on is likely.

Additionally I don’t believe in a FOAS as a platform produced in Europe. JSF + U.S. Drohnes + Stormshadow. That’s it.

What I would like to see is a (smaller) reincarnation of the British Vulcan. Nothing revolutionary. Simply as many parts of the Typhoon (AMSAR, DASS, EJ-200, …) stuffed into a new airframe, a simple canard delta, 4 engines, max t/o-weight around 45-50 tonnes. Even parts of the airframe could be ‘recycled’ Typhoon parts, such as the canards and the rudders. Armament would be 2-4 Meteors, 2 ASRAAM/Iris-T, 6-8 Stormshadows/Taurus.
Range and high cruising speed would be priority, as well as a maximum of commonality with the Typhoon. All aspect stealth would be less important, it should be only low observal. In the end something comparable to a Su-34.

I am really glad that Germany has decided to buy the dutch P-3C Orions, so at least there is still one Navy Air Wing left flying with planes.

This is still not for shure. The hangars in Nordholz are to small for the P-3C’s.
Addtionally, there is some dispute with the Dutch about the delivery of groundequipment and spares. There is a rumor that we don’t get the Orions, therefore we would get surplus French Atlantique 4.

Judging from the Germans studying in London, its drinking, drinking and drinking which is great

This is this thin British beer. You have to drink so much, to feel an effect, and then the effect affects you suddenly. 😀

The ECR should be replaced with tranche 3 Typhoons. The RECCE’s with Gripens as well as the Squadron that should get the tranche 3 Typhoons. The Drohnes should be left for the Army. (small models for tactical reconaissance)
With the Gripens, we were interoperable with the Czech and the Hungarians, and we would have some high rated jobs for our conscripts.

This thing with the Mako makes only sense if Eurotraining will be realised. I would rather have some downrated Gripens then the Mako as advanced trainer. The least thing we need in Europe is another airframe. The Gripen is for me the ideal design, to base an advanced trainer up on it (comparable to T-38/ F-5 combination) So we had Gripens with the full avionics and a trainerversion, both with the same engine (EJ-2X0 of course) and the same cheap airframe.

And the A-440M, well it is able to carry APC’s. This should be enough for peacekeeping. Everything else, such as Iraq safaris I think we will never participate in, therefore no need to transport MBT’s in wartimes anywhere. For large NATO exercises in the US, a leased civilian Antonov is cheaper than the costs of maintaining an own strategic transportfleet.

One of my alltime favourites is the XF-108.
One interesting design that was never realized is this Sukhoi (?) turboprop shturmovik. I think it was discussed here in the forum already.

Why do they have to buy engines from the US ? If they are serious in developing an own fighter, than they can choose between European, Russian and US engines. For their existing fleet, they have to buy from the US, that is for shure. An own engine makes no sense. They will never export their weapons, so no problem with an imported engine. The saved money can be better spend on electronics and the airframe development.

How do they plan to use them ? I guess a 65 kt vessel will be no litoral ship. So they have to keep some distance to the shore. That means you loose loiter time anyway. If they choose now the JSF with the shortest range, and have only half the airwing of an Nimitz, what does this mean for availability of CAS for landing operations ? Further more, the jumpjet has a smaller internal weapons bay (you may remember, the weight issue), was does this mean for priority strikes ? I mean normally it should be no problem to carry heavier weapons on external hardpoints, but for priority strikes ? That is normally the only case where this stealth voodoo makes sense…
I still think they should rather buy some landing ships, with an airwing of 8 Jumpjets and some helos. The saved money is better spend for modern infantry equipment and some new projects like FOAS and survaillance drohnes…