Any new European clean sheet design won’t be ready for combat until 2040. The required lead time on these European projects is enormous. Today there were news stories about talks on a tank replacement program involving France and Germany getting started around 2030.

On aircraft, likely partner France will be procuring new Rafales for a long while. France has only received half of the 280 it wants to order, according to Wikipedia.

2040 is way after Germany needs to retire the Tornados. I agree that muddling through with the existing Typhoon buy is the most likely scenario.

The question has pretty much been answered by the German MoD. The recently published report available here, http://www.bmvg.de/portal/a/bmvg/en has plenty of detail on the Tornado and what will replace it.

With the upgrade of the TORNADO to ASSTA 313, the foundation has been laid for sustaining the operational capability of this weapon system. With the augmentation of capabilities of the EUROFIGHTER, the future focus of the TORNADO will be on SEAD and the employment of heavy weapons (e.g. GBU-24 and MAW TAURUS14).

According to current plans, the TORNADO will be kept in service until the mid-2020s. In order to provide enough time for the development and procurement of a successor system and to maintain the capability spectrum within the context of FCAS, studies are being carried out to determine whether the in-service period can be prolonged by stretching the remaining flight hours or whether a service life extension of the TORNADO until the mid-2030s is possible. The studies are assessing the technological risks and economic efficiency of these options with a view to reducing risks. A decision will likely be made in 2016.

With its AGM-88B Block III A guided missile (HARM), the TORNADO is the mainstay of the SEAD capability. Among other things, this missile no longer meets the requirements with regard to target location mechanisms and intelligent terminal control to increase hit probability.

Depending on the decision to extend the service life of the TORNADO, it may be necessary to introduce a follow-on solution for the engagement of ground-based air defence systems.

A NextGenWS is envisaged as a future complementary system to the EUROFIGHTER in the FCAS network and in some areas as a potential successor of the TORNADO. It must thus be geared to the future requirements of airborne weapon systems. A focus must be placed on possible options for using capabilities in an Alliance context. The resulting capability requirements should be defined in a complementary approach, taking into account the augmentation of capabilities for the EUROFIGHTER, the capabilities of the MALE UAS target solution, technological developments, trends, and threats.

The NextGenWS could be unmanned, manned or optionally manned. This decision should be taken on the basis of further analyses and in the context of a European solution.

In order to seamlessly maintain the current capabilities of the Bundeswehr, the initial operational capability of a NextGenWS must be achieved before the TORNADO reaches the end of its service life. In accordance with the strategic vector, this should be implemented in a multinational context. With the definition of concepts and operational requirements for an FCAS in 2016, the foundations will be laid for European cooperation.

All suitabily vague but the plan is mid 2020s Tornado retirement but they will be conducting a study to determine the cost effectiveness of extending the life of the Tornado fleet until NextGenWS arrives. It will then be a Typhoon/NextGenWS fleet with the possibility of an additional FCAS UAV. Also pretty clear that unless the mission is SEAD or GBU-24/cruise missile delivery the Typhoon will be the platform of choice.

NextGenWS is completely undefined so even a mid 2030 retirement of the Tornado is ambitious unless FCAS delivers what they need earlier…

As an aside, anyone know if there is a specific reason Germany won’t use GBU-24 or TAURUS with the Eurofighter or is it just related to the Tornado airframe being available?

Thanks Ozair. Is there any particular logic behind the 3C designation?

Just a guess but probably related to 2A, 2B, 3C incremental but 3I represents IOC and 3F FOC.

Howell [5] carried out a field study in which pilots attempted to detect another aircraft (DC-3) approaching on a collision course. Over various conditions, the average distance at which detection by the pilot occurred (“detection distance”) was from 5.5 to 8.7 km. Of greater relevance to this study, the subject aircraft also carried an experimenter who knew exactly the approach angle of the target aircraft, and “kept constant vigil with his naked eye” until he detected the intruder aircraft. This “threshold distance”, over the same conditions, averaged from 17.3 to 23 km, about three times larger than the detection distance. We will return to these results later in this paper. Analyzing these data, Graham and Orr concluded that see and avoid failures were due primarily to failure to detect the target [1]. No attempt was made to predict aircraft visibility.

A light fighter (JAS39) has wingspan 3.4 times smaller than a DC-3 while being ~30% shorter.. Not knowing its approach angle I think it can be detected at less than half the range of an DC-3, say 2-2,5 km.

Not sure where you source from above came from but a far better source is the following, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA241347

On page 6 the graph shows that for a MiG-21 the front aspect provides a visual range of 2nm or 3.7kms, for a MiG-23 the distance is 3nm or 5.5km. For an F-14/MiG-25 sized target the distance is over 4nm or greater than 7.4km.

If we look at side aspect a Mig-21 is visible at greater than 6nm or 11km with the other aircraft at significantly greater distances than that.

Those ranges do not take into account the added benefit of radar or IR missile cueing to helmets, common to almost all modern western fighters. It does not take into account engine exhaust smoke, contrast of the target to the background, sun position, clutter etc.

So at the best front aspect profile, the MiG-21 with a wingspan 20% less than the Gripen, can be seen at almost twice the range you are suggesting…

The source is also pretty clear that it dates back to 2009 when combat radius was expected to be far greater than the numbers disclosed in 2010. It looks like these apples are rotten…

The 2009 F-35 SAR has the F-35A combat radius current estimate as 610nm for the specified profile. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2009/sar/jsf_dec_2009_sar.pdf
While the 2016 F-35 SAR has the F-35A combat radius current estimate at 625nm for the specified profile. https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf
Yes 2010 went down to 584nm http://fas.org/man/eprint/F-35-SAR.pdf but the current estimate is now greater than the 2009 number, which should not be surprising given how much further they are in the test program with both aircraft and engine.

You are quite correct we are not going to agree. That is plain.

My position is clear and the facts provided support it, therefore I decided I would enact Murphy’s First Law of Debate and move on.

#itsokwhenwedoit

Canada is looking to get the fighter the Danes just rejected. The Boeing line will go on longer which will keep more Americans employed, and if Canada bails on the F-35, F-35 partners get their workshare.

I’m feeling fine. If it is an interim purchase the Canadians can just buy the F-35 in a more expensive and roundabout route.

This decision, if it is actually a decision and what we are seeing is a float of the decision in the media before anything official is announced, is very much in favour of F-35 for the long term replacement of the Hornet in Canadian Service. After all, the Libs won’t be in power when that decision needs to be made anyway…

The USN is already facing a significant aircraft shortage. Why on earth would they lease planes to Canada when they can’t fill their own squadrons?
https://news.usni.org/2016/04/26/navy-digging-out-of-fighter-shortfall-marines-still-struggling-to-fly-at-home

Fully understand the Hornet shortage, I planned on quoting that article but deleted it when i edited my post.

What we know is that Congress added 12 additional jets to the USN in this years budget request. If the USN approached Congress today and said the Canadians want to borrow 24 jets, can we give them to the Canadians who will pay handsomely for their use over the next ten years while you add a few more to cover the gap, I can’t see any glaring issues with it.

it only makes sense if USN signed up to buy them, and/or a lease

Agree, a lease arrangement with the USN makes a lot of sense. Let the Canadians lease some USN aircraft that come off the production line now, put 3000 hours on them during the next ten years and phase out the classic Hornet as the next fighter is introduced. The SH lease aircraft are then the last to leave.