Germany has no security threat. They can vastly reduce flight time of Tornado if not ground them. With the economic situation they aren't going to buy new jets for years to come anyway.
Luftwaffe/German Air Force News, Discussions & Updates
- Thread starter A4kscooter
- Start date
Correct. But to save money they simply not fly their Tornado nor do they phase them out of service.
Terran
Well-Known Member
That doesn’t solve any problems at all. It creates more. In order to maintain capabilities you have to keep the flight crews and pilots trained. That means flights. If they don’t fly they are scrap metal. You can’t maintain the skills and training by having them grounded.
It’s the quickest surest way to lose the capacity they want to maintain. Pilot skills demand more than simulation and simply putting them into other aircraft doesn’t help unless those are replacement birds.
It’s the quickest surest way to lose the capacity they want to maintain. Pilot skills demand more than simulation and simply putting them into other aircraft doesn’t help unless those are replacement birds.
F-35 conducting the first steps - Store separation testing - with the B-61
Air Force Brat
Member
Its a bit more complicated than that, the German Air Force Chief of Staff was fired when he insisted that the F-35 was the bird the German Air Force needed to remain competitive in the coming Century, he would not recant and was fired... it seems that their is a lot of animas at present between Germany and the present administration in the US, "Hail to the Chief!"
Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet to replace the German Tornado?
Since 2017, the German government has been actively looking to replace its aging fleet of Panavia Tornado aircraft. The strike aircraft that entered service in the 1970s is now even too old to participate in NATO missions. After eliminating the Lockheed F-35 and the Boeing F-15 SE, the German...www.aerotime.aero
I really read somewhere the F35 was rejected because it only has 1 x engine and after their experience operating F104 Germany would never operate a fight with 1 x engine again.
While the British, Dutch, Danes, Italians, Poles, Norwegian etc are operating or have ordered the F35 don't see this as an issue especially as the F104 first flew in 1958 and engines have improved incredibly over the last 60 years
In a serious peer on peer shooting match, only the F-35 would have the L/O necessary to operate in the extremely caustic AA environment in Europe and Asia, but that's just my opinion...
Air Force Brat
Member
True, and as we speak my friend, it is once again "verboten" that our glorious little A model fly within 25 nautical of a thunderstorm, more issues with the fuel vapor inerting system, it seems to me my friend that possibly you have left the "dark side"???, lol welcome to DT...
How do you know that Germany isn't retiring the Tornado soon? Explain why they are actively pursuing the Superhornet and Growler options? US not manufacturing aircraft at the moment? That doesn't seem to be the case, although it is possible that the aviation manufacturing industry could shut down for a while, it is not happening at the moment.
We do have a set of rules here and I very strongly suggest that you read them, because you have broken a couple so far. We are quite strong on people providing reputable verifiable reliable sources for claims that they make. This is because we are a professional defence forum.
Air Force Brat
Member
I am extremely happy to see you here my friend, and you're exactly right about flying skills requiring actual "stick time", simulators are awesome, and yes they can get the pucker factor dialed up and make you sweat like a pig, but the airplane is a whole different animal, people don't normally die in simulators, though I'm sure some actually have, but pilots die all the time in training in real aircraft, it is especially tough for low time guys or girls??? to get in a grove.... hell, I'm out of my "flying mojo" right now, an acquaintance was killed attempting to roll a YAK-52 at about 100' to 200' feet, all he would have had to do was apply some positive alpha right off the deck and he would be here today, I flew the next morning and we attempted to find the accident site. I was so far off my mojo, we didn't find the sight as the aircraft had been removed during the late evening, went down to my farm and flew over to check the cows, ands I haven't been in an airplane since, and don't want to be....
a couple of weeks after that, four lads died less than 20 air miles from here on a Sunday afternoon,,, it just makes me sick, so there no substitute for good training and lots of flying...
Terran
Well-Known Member
Yup. Glad to have my Wingman.
Not just the Stick jockeys the Ground crews need on their game. That means handling ordinance. Fixing the Birds and making the Guy on the Stick look good.
You can’t do that with a glorified play station. Pilot training, Maintenance training those are skills that atrophy with lack of practice and lack of use.
Germany like any country spent a lot of money on those old Tornado. They want to milk them for every single hour they can. Having them soak up the sun in a boneyard like retirees in Florida isn’t doing that.
Not just the Stick jockeys the Ground crews need on their game. That means handling ordinance. Fixing the Birds and making the Guy on the Stick look good.
You can’t do that with a glorified play station. Pilot training, Maintenance training those are skills that atrophy with lack of practice and lack of use.
Germany like any country spent a lot of money on those old Tornado. They want to milk them for every single hour they can. Having them soak up the sun in a boneyard like retirees in Florida isn’t doing that.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Germany has announced an intention to purchase new Aircraft to replace the Tornadoes and some early Typhoons, so unless you can provide a reputable source that proves otherwise this is pure conjecture on your part.
Sorry I haven’t seen any announcements on Aircraft production stopping in the US, we may see a slowdown but that is only conjecture and considering the number of UK, Australian and NZ posters on here, who‘s AF all have multiple Aircraft types on order from the US, any stoppage of Aircraft production in the US would cause a considerable amount of comment. New Zealand actually ordered C-130s from the US last week for delivery in 24-25, so LM can’t be closing Factories down if they have accepted new orders.
What has Canada’s plans got to do with Germany’s?
And send the air crew on extended furlough of indeterminate length? Within months they'd need to start requalifying pilots with the hours needed just to fly the grounded Tornados if they ever need to use them (Tornados which will be eating up Euros just to be kept airworthy)
Most of the aircrew will reach retiring age before the Euro 6th gen aircraft is ready to test, much less in production. And a lot will would retire rather than wait on Airbus and the USA agreeing on B61 integration
oldsig
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Boeing continues to manufacture 787s, 747-8Fs, F-18s and Lockheed F-35s continue to roll off the assembly line. If Germany is to continue to meet its NATO obligation to field nuclear weapons capable jets, the F-18 or F-35 are the most economical choices.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Manned Jet Fighters have been getting written off since the first Ballistic Missiles in the 1950s, then Cruise Missiles in the 80s, then Hypersonic Missiles in the 2000s, funny thing they are still around.
Nuclear Armed Drones? Considering the amount of opposition.there is to Conveniently armed Drones, i can just see certain groups going into apoplexy over ones carrying Nukes.
That's a very theoretical proposal. Currently larger drones are not permitted in German airspace. Therefore drones are just leased and are stationed abroad. Why is Germany leasing armed drones ?
The idea of getting Drones armed with nuklear weapons AND flown from German bases is unrealistic. And which existing drone would that be ?
Estimated costs for keeping the Tornado around for another ten years are 3 billion Euros. This is the motivation behind the replacement. The Government would be quite happy to keep an obsolete fleet of aircraft if this wouldn't be so expensive.
Unfortunately their Mc Kinsey buddies didn't tell them cancelling support contracts isn't a great idea. When you can't sustain your fleet of old combat aircraft with commercially available ots parts.
Hail Mc Kinsey, thanks to them the Luftwaffe might actually get some moderately modern hardware plus support package.
A MALE drone is not survivable enough for the nuclear mission in what will certainly be contested battlespace.
Let's compare that against a Tornado, shall we?
| Tornado IDS (1 aircraft) | MQ-9 Reaper (2 UAVs) | |
|---|---|---|
| Notional cost to get four B-61 to 1400 km | €28,000 | €22,000 |
| Annual training flight cost | €6,500,000 | €1,000,000 |
| Procurement Cost | €60,000,000 | €64,000,000 |
| Chance of Interception due to flight profile | Moderate (<75%) | Abysmally High (>90%) |
| Post-Sortie Reusability | Good (>25%) | Low (< 10%) |
| Investment cost to bring 40 nukes on target once within one 40-year lifecycle of airframes | €1,811,520,000 | €23,064,800,000 |
Last edited:
Neither is attempt to drop a B61 bomb. These days cruise missiles armed with nuclear warhead can strike thousands of km. Dropping a nuke bomb at point blank range is a suicide mission. That's why B61 is outdated.
B61 may have been state of the art in the 1960s. But these days? There are way better options. Introducing: Stand Off Munitions.
HOPE/HOSBO - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
There are reasons for why practically all nuclear power retain regular bombs in addition to their cruise missiles. Bombs offer flexibility, in that the strike can be called off, or redirected, at the last minute. They're also simpler to maintain and store, and frequently have a longer shelf life. They're also easier to use even after the first round of nuclear exchanges. Final point, you're dead wrong. The Tornado fleet does represent an "attempt to drop a B61 bomb". That's literally their mission. You can argue that this should be replaced by a cruise missile, but as it stands the nuclear mission is to fly over a target and drop a bomb. And it's not up to Germany necessarily to get that replaced with a cruise missile. Remember the nukes in question are American. Germany is merely providing delivery platforms.Neither is attempt to drop a B61 bomb. These days cruise missiles armed with nuclear warhead can strike thousands of km. Dropping a nuke bomb at point blank range is a suicide mission. That's why B61 is outdated.
B61 may have been state of the art in the 1960s. But these days? There are way better options. Introducing: Stand Off Munitions.
HOPE/HOSBO - Wikipedia
Which raises the next question. Your first suggestion was to integrate the B61 specifically into an unspecified UAV. Your second one is to replace the B61 with a nuclear cruise missile, with no answer as to the type of missile (ground, air or sea based) or the type of launch platform. What's your actual proposition here? That Germany drop their B61 capability all together and instead demand the US provide a cruise missile already compatible with a current Luftwaffe fighter jet? That Germany develop their own MALE UAV or buy one abroad and adapt it to carry the B61? Neither is a realistic option. And since the nuclear arsenal in question isn't German, they have to work with what the US is providing them.