quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Really don't care if Germany is well armed or not. The world is likely a better place if they remain impotent whores.

Besides they spent all their military DNA in WW2, that warrior seed has been culled from their proud lineage.

It's hard to disagree. I'd rather see a military resurgence in Japan rather than Germany.

Reference arming a future caliphate, within recent years I have seen statements attributed to two different officials in the German government remarking that Germany WILL become an Islamic republic. IIRC, one gave a timeline I cannot now recall.

No, I don't have a link or their names. It's just something I noted in passing at the time. So "arming a future caliphate" may not be all that far off the mark.........ymmv

quote:

Originally posted by rock185:
...I have seen statements attributed to two different officials in the German government remarking that Germany WILL become an Islamic republic.

'Twas Merkel herself.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Really don't care if Germany is well armed or not. The world is likely a better place if they remain impotent whores.

Besides they spent all their military DNA in WW2, that warrior seed has been culled from their proud lineage.

Exactly.

I'm fine with ensuring they remain militarily weak for the duration of my life at the very least.

quote:

Originally posted by JoseyWales2:
I don't think this has really anything to do with Trump. For quite some time, probably the since the 60's and 70's, some European countries (especially France) have taken a view to "buy European" when they can do so. I can't think of any US military aircraft the French have except for a handful of tankers and AWACS. They have built their Mirages and Rafales instead. It's pretty much the same for Germany. They built their Tornados and Eurofighters instead. Instead of buying a mix of C-17s and C-130s, they opted to spend endless billions and decades to develop the troubled A400M. All of that happened decades before Trump.

So the fact that Germany isn't buying F-35s and wants to develop a new plane instead is of no surprise to me. I agree with the headline

quote:

German F-35 decision sacrifices NATO capability for Franco-German industrial cooperation

.

The headline is true but has little to nothing to do with Trump Derangement Syndrome, it's about jobs and developing in-house technology. Don't get me wrong, I don't think their ruling elite like Trump at all, but that has nothing to do with them passing on the F-35. They have a long history of passing on buying US weapon systems.

Yeah, the article is of course some straight-up industrial lobbying for Lockheed Martin. I suspect Boeing sees the fact that the selection is now down to their Super Hornet vs. a not-yet-existing Eurofighter variant as not nearly as catastrophic for NATO, or indicative of TDS. The last is just a red-white-and-blue herring thrown in for the easily inflamed among the audience. What it really boils down to is increasingly divergent development cycles.

The F-35 is being bought by those European countries which currently operate the F-16 (and the Harrier for their aircraft carriers). At the time most of them procured their Falcons around 1980, France introduced the Mirage 2000, and the UK, Germany and Italy the Tornado. Which was a ground attack aircraft first, including ECR/SEAD and nuclear attack (under NATO's nuclear participation scheme for Germany and Italy). Only the UK introduced the ADV fighter variant, but the real fighter for those three countries (originally including France which split off to build the Rafale, but later joined by Spain) was to be the future Eurofighter (known then in Germany as the Fighter 90).

As for many systems of that period, the end of the Cold War, changing requirements and shrinking budgets meant delays in development until past the Millennium. Meanwhile Germany stuck to its old F-4 Phantoms, modernizing them with APG-65 radar and AMRAAMs, Italy further upgraded ist locally-made F-104S Starfighters and got F-16s as a stopgap, and Spain procured F-18s. Eventually the Eurofighter/Typhoon emerged as a Generation 4.5 aircraft along with the Rafale and Swedish SAAB Gripen. The only true US fighter of that half-generation is the Super Hornet, which despite the F-18 designation is really a whole new aircraft developed in the same time.

Overall though, US industry was already going for the full generation change with the future F-22 and -35. The Europeans meanwhile are jumping the fifth generation entirely and going for the sixth with the French-German-Spanish New Generation Fighter, and the British-Swedish-Italian Tempest project. On the US side, Boeing pursues the F/A-XX as a future replacement of both the Super Hornet and F-35 for the US Navy in the ca. 2040 timeframe. So they can comfortably look to compete on the European market in the next decades.

OTOH, the USAF is projecting Penetrating Counter Air, a long-range fighter to escort its stealth bombers. That's not a mission any other Western nation needs, if the aircraft will even be cleared for export. Since the F-22 wasn't, Lockheed Martin is essentially stuck with the F-35 - maybe for the rest of the century, given lifetimes and development cycles of modern military system. They have already used a sanction-happy administration to try defeating competition from allied nations; recently Trump threatened Japan over thinking to partner with the UK for their own sixth-generation fighter project.

Interoperabilty was the ostentative argument there, too, and there's nothing to be said against that as such. The German Luftwaffe is steeped in US training, and if in doubt will prefer the latest American systems when faced with a choice off the market. Of course Germany is just as bad as the US when it comes to the NIH syndrome, and there are other political considerations beyond national industry interests. Back when the decision was about an optionally armed MALE UAV, the Luftwaffe wanted Predator, but got the Israeli Heron. Part of that was again not to block the way for a future Eurodrone, but one argument was also an increasing distrust of US technology compromising national intelligence and freedom to act following the NSA eavesdropping affair some years ago.

The same played a role in the exclusion of the F-35, as the US has been very restrictive with looks at the technology even towards first-tier partners in the project like the UK, who shared the development cost. There seems also to have been some concern about persistent technical problems of the aircraft. Plus while it would almost certainly have been the best choice for the nuclear delivery mission, that's the least likely one; and part of the Tornado succession is the ECR/SEAD capability, which Germany has announced to NATO to continue for the 2031 defense planning period. Both Lockheed Martin and Airbus for the Eurofighter have so far only made promises about providing for that with bolt-on solutions.

The Super Hornet/Growler combination however is a mature system available now. It would address the concerns about a unitary fleet mentioned in the article, and while not currently certified to carry the B61 nuclear bomb, it could happen quicker than for the Eurofighter, and without revealing all of the latter's technology to the US. Some are even dreaming of re-establishing a German naval fast jet capability, including deployment to allied carriers. That was the naval aviators' argument for their continued existence after the Millennium, but eventually the maritime air strike mission went over to the Luftwaffe, which promptly let it slip. It would be nice if it was reinstated within the current capability rebuilding since 2014, but I'm not seeing it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BansheeOne,

I had a feeling Herr Professor Ambien would be along soon enough to lecture us in the error of our ways and I wasn't wrong...

The French and Germans have been building their own military hardware for decades. It's a jobs program, just like here.

The F-35 has problems. It's expensive. It's not absolutely required for adequate air defense.

I'd rather not give / sell F-35 to anyone. Let's keep our USAF / USMC / USN air power the absolute best. Don't let anyone else have anywhere close to our capabilities.

If you don't think you could fight off a few enemy combatants with a Super Hornet, then by all means, enjoy your Tornados. Feel free to purchase all the Mirage or Dassault or Migs you want. I'm done with helping contain communism by offering latest generation hardware to recalcitrant nation-states. Call me Woodrow Wilson, but I'm done with most every nation.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
I had a feeling Herr Professor Ambien would be along soon enough to lecture us in the error of our ways and I wasn't wrong...

LOL I was thinking the same thing, how long before we're lectured

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
I had a feeling Herr Professor Ambien would be along soon enough to lecture us in the error of our ways and I wasn't wrong...

LOL I was thinking the same thing, how long before we're lectured

Say what you want, but I enjoyed reading that perspective.

The US government, especially the DoD probably doesn't agree with you, as they'd like the money of foreign buyers to defray some of the costs to the US. And the F-35 already has a few foreign users (UK, Japan, and Israel come immediately to mind.) They even sold them to Turkey, which was a stupid move.

quote:

Originally posted by 4MUL8R:
The F-35 has problems. It's expensive. It's not absolutely required for adequate air defense.

I'd rather not give / sell F-35 to anyone. Let's keep our USAF / USMC / USN air power the absolute best. Don't let anyone else have anywhere close to our capabilities.

If you don't think you could fight off a few enemy combatants with a Super Hornet, then by all means, enjoy your Tornados. Feel free to purchase all the Mirage or Dassault or Migs you want. I'm done with helping contain communism by offering latest generation hardware to recalcitrant nation-states. Call me Woodrow Wilson, but I'm done with most every nation.

That article aside, if you're a NATO member, then as a member you need to make the investments. Doesn't mater if it's a F-35, JAS 39 Grippen, Rafale, Typhoon...just get serious.

Germany, being the wealthiest of the European members, dithers and foot drags its reasons for not making such investments. I have no issues if they don't invest in their Navy, Germany has never historically been a naval power (not like the UK, Spain, France, Dutch or, Danes) however, with so much flat, traversable land mass, being adjacent to Eastern threats they puzzlingly neglect their Air Force and Army.

The amount of irony should Poland have to rescue and bail-out Germany should conflict happen
Poland just signed a $4.6b F-35 contract

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:...They even sold them to Turkey...

Turkey was carved out of the program.

IIRC, they did receive some. I could be wrong, though.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:...They even sold them to Turkey...

Turkey was carved out of the program.

Nope.

The issue was in discussion for a couple of years.
No aircraft were yet delivered during that time, and all aircraft in the pipeline were put on hold.

Maintenance (at Eglin) and Aircrew (at Luke) training was still ongoing, but when the Trump administration stepped on the brake, the Turks were gone in about a week.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Really don't care if Germany is well armed or not. The world is likely a better place if they remain impotent whores.

Besides they spent all their military DNA in WW2, that warrior seed has been culled from their proud lineage.

Bang.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
There are some that would be perfectly happy with seeing Germany not become a military powerhouse ever again...

Bang.

quote:

Originally posted by bobtheelf:
I'm perfectly OK with Germany not building a powerful military.

And bang.

With what Germany has tried to do in the EU, I say this is a good thing. More than fine with it. Better than fine with it. They don't need F-35's, and we don't need to be sharing our advanced military tech with nations that have leaders that have been fairly hostile with our head-of-state. Angela Merkel can build her own modern fighter jet. Hell, as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't be sharing any of it with anybody.

I’m not going to quote BullshitOne’s post, but we would be idiots to allow ANY buyers of the F-35 too much access to the technology in the aircraft.

Our nation is loved by few, and the fewer people with full knowledge of that aircraft, the better. It’s difficult enough keeping some American traitors from selling out, much less anyone else.

They took "Ceremonial" delivery of them, but the aircraft stayed at Luke.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunset_Va:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
I had a feeling Herr Professor Ambien would be along soon enough to lecture us in the error of our ways and I wasn't wrong...

LOL I was thinking the same thing, how long before we're lectured

Say what you want, but I enjoyed reading that perspective.

As did I.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
I have no issues if they don't invest in their Navy, Germany has never historically been a naval power (not like the UK, Spain, France, Dutch or, Danes) however, with so much flat, traversable land mass, being adjacent to Eastern threats they puzzlingly neglect their Air Force and Army.

I'd argue the opposite to some degree. Germany's role in expanded NATO has changed somewhat from the Cold War. It is no longer a frontline country rather than an essential rear area/logistics hub within the alliance, including lots of important headquarters and other installations. Most reinforcements and supplies for the new frontline countries from about anywhere in Western Europe and North America must pass across or by its territory. There are two main national missions following from this. We are arguably making much more progress in preparing for the second than the first one.

The first mission is protecting those installations and lines of communication. This also includes a naval dimension. During the Cold War, Germany along with Denmark and Norway was the guardian of the Baltic Approaches, which expressed itself in a large fleet of fast attack craft, mine warfare craft, and coastal submarines. The mission then was to deny Warsaw Pact forces a breakout into the Atlantic. Today it is to enable NATO to operate in the Baltic Sea - though most transports by sea will doubtlessly unload in North Sea ports and take the safer land route from there.

The customized Cold War fleet of course is long gone, since like everybody in NATO, we focused on fighting sandal warriors in hot places for much of the last three decades. Though the Type 212A submarines remain capable of operating in the confined Baltic waters - they were still designed in the 80s after all. Germany used to be NATO's center of competence for anti-mine warfare, but this capability has atrophied in the expeditionary-focused period. Of nearly 60 units, only ten dating from the 90s remain active in the mission. A follow-on system has been long debated, but nothing concrete has emerged so far.

The days of the FAC, another German chief competence, are probably gone. Even in the late 80s, thoughts for follow-on systems went towards either more smaller platforms, a complete change to shore-based missiles or, in view of the Cold War thaw, bigger units which could also be deployed in other European littorals, and eventually materialized as the Type 130 corvette. We are actually building a second lot of five now, which is probably the most cost-effective solution for control of Baltic waters, though the design could use some updates.

The most important measure for anti-surface warfare thus might be giving the Marine its own aerial warfare capability back, or at least make the Luftwaffe finally take it serious. The Kormoran anti-ship missile carried by the Starfighter and later the Tornado has been gone since 2012 without successor, for example.

The second mission is of course providing quick backup/reinforcements to the frontline countries. Germany's traditional role here is in mechanized warfare, and a lot is actually going on for NATO's 2031 defense posture - increasing troop strength from a low of 177,000 in 2015 to 203,000 planned for 2025 (currently at 183,000), buying back and upgrading Leopard 2 tanks and developing a successor with France, procuring other armored vehicles and support capabilities, etc. A lot also remains to be done, but I think too little (at least public) attention is paid to the first mission - which needs to be secured to enable the second.