Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure. The original European successor to HARM was supposed to be the long-range French-German ARAMIS with ramjet propulsion and dual passive radar/IIR seeker. France dropped out in the late 90s, and the program was continued by Diehl BGT as ARMIGER. By 2001, the idea was to take the dual seeker and fit it to Meteor, but it seems to have died after 2005 when Italy decided on the lower-risk AGM-88E for its own Tornado ECRs. I guess this seals it.

 

Note that after the F-35 has been dropped from selection for a German Tornado follow-on, the F/A-18E/F - possibly including the Growler variant, since ECR is a capability Germany has announced to NATO for the defense planning from 2025 - still remains in the race against a further developed Eurofighter variant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How realistic is a Super Hornet/Growler purchase by Germany?

 

I think it is the lowest risk option currently to replace Tornado. The Super Hornet pretty much covers the same spectrum as the Tornado. fighter-bomber, ECR, nuclear capable and there is also floating the idea around to give the Marine their own anti-ship planes back. All roles that the Eurofighter needs to be developed into at the moment to replace the aging Tornados.

Edited by Panzermann
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How realistic is a Super Hornet/Growler purchase by Germany?

 

I think it is the lowest risk option currently to replace Tornado. The Super Hornet pretty much covers the same spectrum as the Tornado. fighter-bomber, ECR, nuclear capable and there is also floating the idea around to give the Marine their own anti-ship planes back. All roles that the Eurofighter needs to be developed into at the moment to replace the aging Tornados.

 

 

Is F-35 out of the race?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How realistic is a Super Hornet/Growler purchase by Germany?

 

I think it is the lowest risk option currently to replace Tornado. The Super Hornet pretty much covers the same spectrum as the Tornado. fighter-bomber, ECR, nuclear capable and there is also floating the idea around to give the Marine their own anti-ship planes back. All roles that the Eurofighter needs to be developed into at the moment to replace the aging Tornados.

 

 

They would be able to get the Block III which would extend range and other capabilities as well. But I still bank on them buying Typhoon for made in EU reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How realistic is a Super Hornet/Growler purchase by Germany?

 

Not going to threaten the FCAS withthe French is a plus

2 engines - is a plus

probably affordable and in production - is a plus

fully developed SEAD version that would be the only one in Europe - big plus

able to carry nukes coming in 2025+ - another plus

has an Anti--ship missile - another plus that will not matter though

 

I am certain that at least 2/3rds of the buy will be F-18s

Link to post
Share on other sites

The French-German (possibly -Spanish and other partners) Next Generation Fighter is planned to be available from ca. 2038. Of course multi-national projects have a habit to exceed planned IOC even more than already usual for complex military systems. Eurofighter was originally named "Fighter 90" and supposed to enter service in that decade, but after much back and forth (end of the Cold War etc.) delivery started only in 2003. Initial delivery of the A400M was delayed from 2008 to 2013. Adding at least five years to any planned IOC date is probably prudent.

 

At least the attempt is being made top avoid the mistakes of the past, like distributing workshare with a view to politics rather than technical competence, which caused no end of trouble with development of the A400M engines. MTU and Safran are currently sharing pre-development of the NGF powerplant, though the exact requirements haven't been fixed yet. For the timetable to work, they'll need a development contract in about five years, which at that point will likely include ITP of Spain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The NGF engine is likely to be a serious issue. For example, they cannot realistically use an upgraded M88, it apparently doesn't have the growth potential.

 

Also, I'll believe competency-based workshare when they deliver it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NGF engine is likely to be a serious issue. For example, they cannot realistically use an upgraded M88, it apparently doesn't have the growth potential.

 

Also, I'll believe competency-based workshare when they deliver it.

 

Hear, hear!

 

There were several aspects of that kind of theoretical workshare in the A400M program, like the engine part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

An order for upgrading 85 AGM-88B to E standard has been given, worth 127 million Euro plus 68 million for certification and integration with Tornado. Which seems slightly uneconomic given that Tornado is to be replaced itself in a few years, but I guess "we wanted to save the money" is a bad excuse when you should happen to really need them to deploy a capable ARM before that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An order for upgrading 85 AGM-88B to E standard has been given, worth 127 million Euro plus 68 million for certification and integration with Tornado. Which seems slightly uneconomic given that Tornado is to be replaced itself in a few years, but I guess "we wanted to save the money" is a bad excuse when you should happen to really need them to deploy a capable ARM before that.

 

The -E can also be used on a successor to the Tornado. So not so uneconomic I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

An order for upgrading 85 AGM-88B to E standard has been given, worth 127 million Euro plus 68 million for certification and integration with Tornado. Which seems slightly uneconomic given that Tornado is to be replaced itself in a few years, but I guess "we wanted to save the money" is a bad excuse when you should happen to really need them to deploy a capable ARM before that.

 

The -E can also be used on a successor to the Tornado. So not so uneconomic I think.

 

 

But the integration on Tornado is a waste of money if war does not kick off between now and its replacement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's somewhat surprising that MBDA or some other company hasn't come up with a viable European ARM by now.

 

Well, we had one - we retired it, the ALARM Mk 2. Before that we had the Martel ARM version and the Shrike in small numbers for Vulcans. The French only operated the anti-radar Martel variant which they supplemented or replaced with the ARMAT. According to Wiki ARMAT got upgraded and is still around, but I have my doubts. There has been talk of an anti-radar version of Meteor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the RAF doesn't seem to care for a dedicated ARM in the inventory. I wonder if OA after Bosnia came to some conclusions related to anecdotes that Bojan had provided about relatively poor effectiveness against an intelligent opponent.

 

I think I've mentioned before that the emphasis seems to be on emitter location by the launching platform or other assets, followed up by generic guided weapons for effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironic, considering that British were way ahead of game with ALARM which was considered way more dangerous then HARM*, both due the mode of operation and the fact that it covered some of the frequencies that HARM did not.

 

*Thing is, that is a perception. But since whole thing is incredibly badly covered in the serious literature, only exception being RAND's "NATO's Air War for Kosovo", (and it covers only US participation) it hard to correlate to gain anything close to truth. In fact none has came even with claims of ALARM effectiveness...

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's speculation on my part, of course.

 

It's also possible that ALARM was "capability gapped" at the MLU point to save money. Sea Eagle went the same way, I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Local experience was that most dangerous was visual observation (well, assumed to be visual visual observation since radars were not emitting and radio silence was observed) followed by guided weapons strike. Heaviest loses were inflicted that way.

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...