eagleA Gripen C is not, with the best will in the world, going to provide sufficient overmatch to deal with a horde of Su-35s, whereas by upgrading the Tranche 1 Typhoons to the latest RAF standards, then a small degree of superiority would be assured. Add Meteor and the job’s done.
What? Gripen C fully equipped is more than able to meet the official requirements. Hordes of Su-35s are not very likely to appear over Vienna anytime soon.
The lone renegade Su-27 could be handled by pretty much anything.
eagletechnically, they could always buy used Mirages 2000-9 from the UAE (excellent aircraft with low hours overall), but while it is technically a possible choice, it’s more than highly unlikely… if they maintain the idea of ditching Typhoons, then, most probably they’ll opt for a Gripen
Yes most probably. Austrian socialist party (probably) has no links to UAE but strong links to Sweden. If they are in charge after October 15th and decide to retire EF, they’ll buy Gripen.
People have to understand: this is 100% politics. Socialists are still very mad about conservatives decision to buy EF. Money from EADS compensation deals didn’t find its way to the right recipients, money from Saab will.
Also, Tyhpoon in particular and armed forces in general are hated by a majority, so anti-EF rhetorics are excellent campaign tactics. After the elections, socialists can still blame Airbus/other parties/EU or whomever for “forcing” Austria to keep the Typhoons if they should secretly decide to keep them.
eagleA French product? No. Either a European (i.e. Tyhpoon) or a Swedish product. 1% chance for a US product (F-16).
Just wait until after elections have been held on October 15th. And a new government has been formed. The next gov. does not have to follow current Def. Min. Doskozil’s report.
eagleThey looked pretty topped out with fuel.. some 17000kg perhaps.
Internal fuel is 12100 kg, no? Plus one 3000 l or 2400 kg fuel tank, that’s 14500 kg.
eagleLong range strike with stand-off cruise missiles like Storm Shadow or Taurus? Nope. JASSM was integrated on the F-15E but i have yet to see any evidence of its use on USAF F-15Es. And apparently only a single missile can be carried due to store separation problems…
SEAD/DEAD with HARM/AARGM or ALARM? Nope.
Reconnaissance? Nope. No pods like RAPTOR or RecceLite on the F-15E.
Battlefield air interdiction with fire-and-forget AGMs like Brimstones? Nope.
Anti-ship mission with ASMs? Nope. (this is a defunct capability on the Tornado though since the Sea Eagle and Kormoran are no longer in use but the capability existed unlike on the F-15E).
Cruise missiles: Yes, 2 missiles. SLAM-ER and Taurus: http://www.janes.com/images/assets/495/49495/Taurus-for-F-15.jpg
USAF really has no need as F-16s can carry JASSM.
SEAD: HARM can be carried. But yes, a specialised SEAD version does not exist. Tornado ECR is a specialised version too.
Recce: USAF doesn’t really have tactical recce assets anymore, but pods can be carried. DB-110: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBnUrZvUoAASOu9.jpg And AN/ASQ-236 if you consider that reconnaissance: https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/img_1148_fc.jpg?w=625
Fire and forget AGMs: Maverick is possible. F-15 users don’t use Brimstone or have other jets (Saudis). I don’t see why it couldn’t be added if anyone wants it.
ASM: Harpoon, SLAM-ER: http://pds19.egloos.com/pds/201005/11/08/F_15K_020004_AGM_84.jpg
Edit: if you’re thinking USAF only, they don’t care about much of that stuff. ASM for example not at all. But as you see, it can be done.
eagleCertainly not the F-15E that is actually been produced in less than 500 planes until now against the 827 IDS and ECR.
Before the end of the cold war, 390 F-15Es were planned, possibly more of specialised versions to replace the EF-111, F-4G and RF-4C fleets. Instead nothing resp. USN EA-6Bs and cheaper F-16 with less cabable pods were chosen.
and:
In USAF it was introduced as an exclusive substitute for the F-111, hence the (relatively) low numbers they have acquired.
There were 12 F-111 squadrons before the F-15E came in (not counting EF-111/FB-111). Those and some F-4E (maybe all remaining active duty?) squadrons were planned to transition to F-15Es. The first F-15E units were ex-F-4E units. That’s 4 out of 8 F-15E squadrons flying today so the F-15E was in fact as much an F-4E replacement as an F-111 replacement.
eagleNo that was the very crux of the point with respect to Tornado replacement. That the Tornado was rendered an anachronism by PGMs and the danger from low-level air defences. And that the considerations that went into the Tornado don’t apply to its replacement, there being no real ‘Tornado role’.
I agree about the low level mission. I think it still has some value, but not enough to warrant a swing wing thoroughbred. The interdiction/strike role is still very relevant today tough. Meaning I agree here:
The EF might suffice (with certain minor upgrades), the F-35 would be ideal. At least from a technical standpoint.
Yes F-35 is the better choice for the mission. Thanks to its pretty high wing loading it’s probably not that bad at low level either 😉
Not misunderstood just rendered obsolete (the concept not the aircraft) very soon while other aircraft (same class, different concept) thrived. Much like the 1957 Sandys Paper, had the ASR drafters known then what is known now, the Tornado would not have come into existence.
I don’t think so. Even with stealth and PGMs around the corner, against WP forces, low level attack would have remained a valid tactic. Unless you think the end of the SU should have been taken in account in the late 60s but that would have made a lot of weapon systems pointless. Not to forget also, if the cold war had continued, the need to replace Tornados would have come up much sooner, i.e. a replacement would be in service right now and Tornado would be obsolete by default.
eagleEagle, what is the point of Taurus I’m wundrin’ if lugging big old LGBs around is so important to the Germans?
Taurus is a bit more expensive I guess.
But actually, knowing the Germans, they would easily give up the 2000 pounders if a future Tornado replacement can’t effectively carry them.
Typhoon is CFT ready and a lot of the testing has already been done, but the Germans have to want them. I question the need personally, but that is neither here nor there. We all make the link between cruise missile carriage clashing with EFT positioning on the Typhoon. It seemed like a big deal to us for the RAF, and so far they have said they are perfectly content to use their air refuelling assets rather than pay for CFTs on the Storm Shadow carrying Typhoons. That is with a long range missile often used on very long missions (not Taurus).
No Typhoon has ever flown with CFTs. Is the design even finalised, even the shape?
The RAF can rely on a larger tanker fleet for the odd Storm Shadow strike. The GAF plans to replace its 4 A310 MRTT with 3 A330 MRTT (which as the name suggests are also transporters).
I just don’t think the Germans will be able to support a switch to the F35 and also jump in on the UCAV. Industry looks like it wants the latter, and buying the F35 will kill their involvement in anything other than the potential Typhoon replacement. That is a big skills gap to fill.
Industry just has been promised a new fighter aircraft. No point in keeping them busy with UCAV studies then.
But of course, German industry doesn’t like F-35, just as they don’t like the CH-47 or 53. But it seems some people have finally realised that you can either develop everything at home and run out of money to actually buy it, or buy foreign stuff that actually works for a change.
eagleAttack radar sites with HARMs and take down AAA & SRSAMs with PGMs from standoff ranges. The coalition suffered far more from the Tornado missions than any damage the Iraqi fighters operating from those bases could have done.
Now you’re criticizing the mission, not the aircraft. The rest is debatable.
Not sure the Tornado’s maneuverability compares but alright. Still leaves the F-4.
Compared to the F-105? The F-105 is bad. Tornado can probably hold its own at low level against F-4s. But it’s a moot point as the F-4 is not suited well for low level strike. Its range sucks. Before Tornado the Germans used F-104s for that role, outranging the Phantoms easily (an early F-15A vs. F-16A case 😉 )
Doesn’t need to. And wouldn’t want to. The F-111’s been retired for years. Its not missed.
Again, now you’re saying the mission is not required? Well, that’s something completely different than criticizing the aircraft that excels in it. And the mission was important back in the days. Yes, it might not exist anymore today, but that doesn’t make Tornado a bad aircraft.
Sometimes I feel Tornado is a very misunderstood aircraft and concept. Again: It’s main role was low level nuclear strike into WP countries. A role it was designed around and a role it fulfilled very well.
eagleThe Tornado was tasked with low level penetration missions less than 10 years after its induction. The outcome was.. not inspiring.
Tornado was tasked with shutting down airfields. More than likely any other system would have suffered similar losses. Those were the highest risk missions.
The F-105 & F-4 engaged in both air combat and strike missions, something the Tornado is incapable of AFAIK.
The F-105 did not engage in A/A missions but defended itself when attacked. Tornado has guns and Sidewinders for the same reason.
The F-15E can perform all the Tornado’s functions with the same or better efficacy, no problem. And then do plenty more besides. It is however a marginally newer plane, I’ll concede.
The F-15E can’t deliver a tactical nuke several hundred miles into WP territory flying at tree top level, not with the same efficacy. And not before 1990. The F-111 could however.
eagleBoth nuclear strike and SEAD/DEAD are easily fixed (actually i would say that the RAF Phoons with Spear III arguably have a capability for DEAD), on the “heavy interdiction” bit the only thing needed are CFT´s. IF (big if) the Luftwaffe were in a hurry to replace the Tornados (i dont think they are) and by some reason were not allowed to acquire the F-35A, another batch of Typhoon´s would be the obvious solution.
EF isn’t nuclear hardened afaik – on German request to reduce cost I think? Fixing that would be expensive. And integrating B61-12 would require to let the Americans have a close look at all the nice black boxes, which I’m sure no one would like.
SEAD/DEAD: The way I see it you need either a HARM type of missile which EF doesn’t have, or you need stealth which allows you to get close enough to drop bombs. Sensor suite needs to be up for the job of course, no idea if Tyhoons ESM suite is good enough, F-35s reportedly is. But sure, you could go ahead and integrate AGM-88 and maybe add a system similar to Tornados ELS in a pod. But it’s not that easy.
Interdiction: Only the 31 T3A jets have the CFT plumbings. CFTs themselves of course exist only in mock-up form, lots of testing ahead.
All in all I think it’s a lot easier to go for F-35, especially after 2018 when the German final assemby line is closed. When/if the Germans finally make up their mind, there’s more than a good chance EF is out of production for good and the only alternatives are F-35, something else or nothing.
eagleEagle, Sintra was talking about RAF T1 numbers, and with total respect to you, only a crazy man would consider T3B numbers as a cut. T3B hasn’t featured in anyone’s planning since the Typhoon began service acceptance- in itself a feature of post Cold War cuts.
You’re right, you probably can’t cut what doesn’t exist.
As to UCAVs, FCAS is all about SEAD, recon and interdiction so it would be the perfect support to the non stealthy Typhoon/Rafale combo. The only one which is a genuine problem (I don’t thing big PGM carriage is a problem for Typhoon) is the nuke role. Does that justify anything more than a fleet modification rather than purchase of a whole type for a role e all hope they wont have to fulfil?
UCAV for real combat roles in a country that couldn’t get a SIGINT UAV to work? Surely not in time to replace Tornado.
eagleSintra, Typhoon numbers have not been cut though have they? In fact they were cemented with additional squadrons because Tornado was being replaced alongside Typhoon numbers ramping up.
T3B?
We can’t discuss Cold War system drawn downs here, the fact is that Typhoon is available for the Germans to replace Tornado with relatively cheaply and easily. Typhoon, plus UCAV does it all. They are then free to develop a Typhoon replacement with the French who will also run their Euro Canard alongside the UCAV.
No, Tyhpoon can’t replace Tornado. No nuclear strike, no SEAD, heavy interdiction with GBU-10 questionable. Easily available is reconnaissance since the Germans seem to be satisfied with the performance of Reccelite on their Tornados, and Reccelite fits on Typhoon’s centerline. And CAS using 500 lbs bombs, integrating LJDAM which the Germans use should be straightforward.
UCAV? Name one that does it all.
eagleAFAIK its 4500 lbs plus fuel. 5000 lbs in total. 2 JDAMs and 2 Aim-120s is the minimum payload required to be recovered, not the maximum load than can actually be recovered.
OK, it’s 5000 lbs but that includes more than 500 lbs of fuel. 500 lbs will not get you very far. Payload of 2 JDAMs and 2 AIM-120 is both objective and threshold. Actual performance hasn’t been demonstrated yet but its highly unlikely the overweight F-35B will outperform the objective by any meaningful margin after years have been spent saving enough weight to even meet the minimum.
Also, the SVRL recovery profile allows RAF/RN fighters to recover with an additional 4000 lbs of payload. For a total of 9000 lb of recoverable payload. Two Storm Shadows would weigh 5,800 lbs. Leaving 3,200 lbs for pylons, missiles & fuel.
That’s what they hope to achieve. But the idea is to wait for SPEAR Cap 5 anyway. From janes:
“We will not certify Storm Shadow on F-35,” he said, adding that the plan “is that the aircraft will get SPEAR Cap 5 as a future deep fire capability”.
eagleActually 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).
Yes I think its 4500 pounds including fuel. “Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile.” (from Dec 16 SAR) That’s about 2700 lbs of weapons – which is less than a single Storm Shadow plus pylon.
Is SPEAR cap 5 supposed to be a Storm Shadow replacement? If they want it to be deployed from carriers, they will make sure it works with the F-35B. I guess that would result in a lighter missile.
I agree about missions. But if Russia attacks NATO with short notice, Germany will have short notice to make inoperable planes operable. If there are few spare parts in inventory, then it is close to impossible to get the inoperable planes into the air to conduct militarily relevant wartime missions.
No question GAF is not combat ready on short notice. But I don’t think an attack from Russia is imminent 😉
Sign In
