ED Forums

ED Forums (https://forums.eagle.ru/index.php)
-   DCS: Eurofighter (https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=730)
-   -   What model / batch is the aircraft in? (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=267620)

Kev2go 03-30-2020 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AeriaGloria (Post 4265184)
Yeah and the British got F-35s

Their F35 isn't an RAF replacement for Tornados.


It is going to fill the role of now retired Harriers. The F35B is the only real option due to VTOL/STOL needed for operating off the new Queen Elizabeth class carriers.

That said regardless of variant, the F35 is a totally next generation aircraft with vastly better sensor suite and low observable technology than either the SH or EF,
offering a game changing advantage, whereas the Super hornet is a sidegrade to the EF.

Besides UK was partner nation to the JSF program. They were already looking for such a capability long ago. It would be a wasted investment if they didn't especially considering the better pricing for partner nations.

TLTeo 03-30-2020 03:34 PM

That's an over simplification. If they were replacing only the Harriers, why would they also buy F35As?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Cunctator (Post 4265163)
ALARM was never integrated into the Typhoon. The Super Hornet has a much greater number of A2G weapons already integrated and can directly take over the maritime strike role from the Tornados with their Kormoran missiles. Super Hornets can do aerial refueling just as the Tornados. Kuwait has chosen the same mix for a reason.

The Luftwaffe has always used multiple types of fighters simultaneously since its rebirth after WW2. Logistics won't be much different to the 80ties (Alpha Jet, Tornado, Phantom), 90ties (MiG 29, Tornado, Phantom) or now with Tornados and Typhoons.


At least in Italy, Kormoran was retired a while ago. The go-to maritime strike weapon now is Storm Shadow/Taurus.


And yeah, imo it's not an easy choice. They have to pick between the extra cost of operating another airframe (and integrating a relatively small amount of features in it), vs the extra cost of integrating a large amount of features into an existing one (and having to give access to the US to a bunch of stuff for the nuclear mission). I agree it doesn't necessarily make sense, but once you rule out the F-35 there's not an easy answer.

Kev2go 03-30-2020 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLTeo (Post 4265250)
That's an over simplification. If they were replacing only the Harriers, why would they also buy F35As?





At least in Italy, Kormoran was retired a while ago. The go-to maritime strike weapon now is Storm Shadow/Taurus.


And yeah, imo it's not an easy choice. They have to pick between the extra cost of operating another airframe (and integrating a relatively small amount of features in it), vs the extra cost of integrating a large amount of features into an existing one (and having to give access to the US to a bunch of stuff for the nuclear mission). I agree it doesn't necessarily make sense, but once you rule out the F-35 there's not an easy answer.


Fair point. But I am wondering if the exact costs are published for the public to actually crunch the numbers to verify once and for all what would have been more cost effective.

Typically looking at past examples to this point it has been cheaper to integrate new weapons features ( even more so in the digital era, where all you need is software upgrade for a weapon mode, if the weapon is already compatible with pylon wiring for a data bus of the same mil standard) into an existing air frame than buy a new platform, and the additional costs associated with such a endeavor.


I mean look at foreign F16 operators. For users with additional requirements of for missions not in use with the USAF Vipers such as maritime attack capability , they just decided to invest some $$ to integrate the Harpoon instead of buying Hornets to use that same weapon. ( just as an example)

TLTeo 03-30-2020 05:02 PM

True, but I imagine implementing capabilities similar to a Growler is a lot more complicated than integrating the AGM-84 for example.


edit: besides, they would have operated a second modern airframe if they had chosen the F-35 too, like the UK and Italy are doing. In that sense, getting the Super Hornet/Growler does save some money.

schroedi 04-07-2020 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLTeo (Post 4265390)


edit: besides, they would have operated a second modern airframe if they had chosen the F-35 too, like the UK and Italy are doing. In that sense, getting the Super Hornet/Growler does save some money.

No, the SH+Growler+EF solution was not choosen because of money.
German Luftwaffe wanted to have the F-35, but France threated Germany that they will kick out Germany from the FCAS programm, if they buy the F-35.

QuiGon 04-07-2020 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schroedi (Post 4276018)
No, the SH+Growler+EF solution was not choosen because of money.
German Luftwaffe wanted to have the F-35, but France threated Germany that they will kick out Germany from the FCAS programm, if they buy the F-35.

I'm not sure if France directly threated to kick Germany out of the FCAS program (or rather leave the program, as Germany and France are equal partners), but France did indeed put a lot of political pressure on Germany to not procure the F-35, as they are afraid that it would have a negative impact on the development of European technologies for FCAS.

It's not the only reason though, why the F-35 got ruled out by the German MoD. The other reason is the internal political situation in Germany, where "Buy American" is highly unpopular atm, which would have made it rather difficult to get the social democrats (Merkels coalition partner) to agree on it and then push it through parliament. While the Super Hornet is still American, it is not such a prestige project as the F-35, which makes that easier.

The former Chief of Staff of the German Air Force was sent to early retirement because he did publicly argue that Germany should procur the F-35. He then published an article in a german newspaper, where he, together with one of his predecessors, criticised the government for their rejection of the F-35:
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschl...olitik-an.html (german)

jojo 04-09-2020 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuiGon (Post 4264632)
As schroedi has said, it seems it is planned to introduce nuclear capabilities into the Super Hornet for their use with the Luftwaffe.

The reason why Germany plans on replacing the Tornado with a mix of Super Hornets, Growlers and Eurofighters is, because the only aircraft that would be capable of taking on the Tornados mission of SEAD/EA as well as conventional and nuclear strike would have been the F-35, which was ruled out for political reasons. The Eurofighter is not nuclear capable and a request by the german MoD to the US DoD showed that integrating this capability for the Eurofighter would take 3-5 years longer than integrating it for the Super Hornet and it would also require Germany to provide insight for US authorities into Eurofighter systems for them to get certified for the nuclear role.

The importance of the nuclear strike role for the Luftwaffe, is less a tactical one and more a political one (having a say in NATOs Nuclear Planning Group and such).

This apparently now lead to the decision to buy Super Hornets and Growlers.

I know this is the official reason, still I laugh every time I read it.

Geramny: dear uncle Sam, should we put your B-61 on our home built Eurofighter, or should we spend billions into your industry to buy US made fighter ?
Uncle Sam: spend billions to buy US fighter.

End of negotiations...

Off course US says it will take more time to integrate to Eurofighter if they can sell their fighter instead.
During Cold War, fitting B-61 to Tornado wasn't a problem.

B-61 was also a selling point for F-35 in Belgium.

And yet, B-61 isn't operational yet on either of these US fighters...
End even if it's guided, it's still not propelled, it's obsolete compared to ASMP-A (ramjet).

Moreover, buying a few F-35 for nuclear strike would open the door to follow on orders. And this would indeed threaten FCAS program.
And FCAS isn't only French interest, it's also the future of German industry which has a lot of political weight.
[End of out of topic]

I will be very curious to discover this generation of aircraft.
Even if the weapon system doesn't bring new features compared to F/A-18C Lot 20, dynamic performances will bring a lot more energy to launch missile. Very high thrust to weight ratio and super cruise.
Also it's interesting to discover new avionics logic :thumbup:

Bananabrai 04-15-2020 04:51 PM

Also a reason against F-35: After the era of the F-104, germany kind of abandoned the idea of single engine fighters.
That's a doctrine.

Germany was also interested in the F-15E, which would have been a good strike replacement for the Tornado.
But it can't fullfill the ECR role.

The Growler is a Super Hornet variant. That's at least 2 roles ticked with having maintenance for 1,5 types of planes.
Even though not a very good strike platform, germany isn't doing any kind of strike with Tornado any more anyway.
ASSTA 3.0, 3.1 and following are all about medium alt JDAM and other stuff, which a 2-seatet SH can do pretty well.

Back to the Typhoon. So with the GAF, Tranche 1 is A/A only! (I am not sure about the gun)
Typhoon ECR development would take pretty long, trust me, I am working on Tornado ECR.

Speaking about SEAD, the ALARM is not a SEAD weapon, its purpouse was a bit different.
I would describe it more as a very flexible D-SEAD self defense weapon, carried by the striker itself and not by a seperate dedicated SEAD package.
At least it was seen as that. I have a nice short article about it, PM me if interested.

About Taurus, it is not flying on the EF yet, at least with the troops. There were tests.
The EF in general is not very good for strike.
The landing gear is a perfect design for an interceptor/air-superiority fighter.
That comes with a trade-of of course. It's not very good for hauling heavy stuff.

See it like that. The Tornado is an old Volvo Saloon. The EF is a sports car.
That's what we say in the company some times.

Tiger-II 05-10-2020 07:53 PM

Eurofighter is largely a project about keeping the European aerospace industry in business.

The different Tranches are a joke - to "upgrade" they must scrap the airframes and buy new ones as the upgraded/new avionics do not fit the old models.

This is why Tranche 1 is AA only, with basic AG capability.

Tranche 2 added ability to carry a TGP and for it to lase its own targets.

Tranche 3 adds AESA RADAR, and the stuff it should have had as Tranche 1.

From first operational flight to when it becomes as capable as Tornado/Harrier it will be nearly 30 years old.

It's a joke.

TLTeo 05-11-2020 10:43 AM

Yeaaah no that's wrong. Like, very wrong. Very very very wrong.


https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=267730


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.