Being that the F-35 still has 13 critical issues that need resolving, dont think Germany is losing much. They should buy the F-15EX

The F-35, is, was and always will be a POS. Right off the bat the production model came in overweight from the model that beat Boeing.

Given Germany's track record, I too would rather not see a German super military resurgence.

It's sad, because all the Germany AF / Navy aircrew I came into contact with in training (back in the 90s, when they were training Flight Officers for the Tornado and F-4 Phantom). Really great, professional guys (only at the time, I'm sure they train women now too) and they held an AWESOME Octoberfest party for the whole group. In fact we flew a training sortie to Luke AFB where their F-4 crews when for follow on training, in order to pick up some German liquor for the party. No idea what it was, it was clear and strong as hell.

But as far as Germany as a country having military might, no thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:...

The F-35, is, was and always will be a POS....

You are talking out of your ass.

It and the F22 are near similar in the issues faced with Mission Capable Rates, sue to the complexities of the airframes, Low Observable coatings and the required maintenance of LO.

With so much of the systems being computer controlled, that also introduces a myriad of maintenance efforts.

Our military as a big onion, with a lot of layers in order to be able to poke as many fingers in the eyes of the multi headed beasts we find ourselves fighting.

Do you, in law only have one argument in court?

There is a lot about the F35 system that you do not know about.

As for the gun, it only affects the A model, the boresight issue is not that big a deal and can be fixed in the field. An upgrade to the mounting components can be fitted during phased inspections. (both type issues have been and will always be addressed in operational airframes of every type).

I worked on several dozen mission design series aircraft, and "fighters" are always "struggling" with MC rates in the 70-80% (the highest was post Vietnam, when we had a fuckton of aircraft, a large number of maintenance folks and some folding money, with no real conflict in a world of sand and a battle tempo that was non-stop.

Yeah, we worked hard in Cold War Readiness, and we pushed, but we always stood down and recovered, and sortie generation was mostly driven to maintain a high Readiness Rate.

Contrast to the past 30 years of pushing everything further than it was designed to be pushed, and things will break.

Likewise, the F-35 was "pushed" ahead with the foreknowledge that we would be "fixing shit" in the delivered aircraft.

As RhinoWSO sez. "This shit is Chess..."

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
We shouldn’t be arming future caliphates anyways.

That could include most of the EU. My money is for Poland to protect its borders.

I spent 3 years in Germany in the late 80s. I was stationed in Augsburg in Bavaria. It was a great place to live during that era. My wife and I were young then and living there 15 miles from the nearest base was an adventure. My son was born there. Ironically one of my neighbors here is married to a German lady from Augsburg, so we get regular updates on how bad it’s gotten there with the refugees that Merkel has invited in. What is going on there now makes me sad. The Germans used to be people we could count on. The Bundeswehr guys we worked with were very good soldiers and good guys.


+

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:..

You are talking out of your ass.

I've had the opportunity to speak to some of the people that were on this program from the ground floor, during the Boeing/LM competition, R&D after LM won, to present day. Not that it isnt a "good plane" but it is not what LM promised, no where close. And it is still not mission ready.

But maybe I am.....

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law: But maybe I am.....

Probably so. Either that, or the USAF and USMC have made (and are making) multiple deployments around the world with non-mission ready aircraft. What a complete scam that would be, eh?

Southern law, using your criteria the F18 program is also a complete bust. They over promised and under delivered.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Southern law, using your criteria the F18 program is also a complete bust. They over promised and under delivered.

F-18 was a classic example of that, but it was not really the plane's fault, the Navy kept adding "mission" perimeters to its design.

The military is always looking for that one shoe that fits all, and they end up with a POS that does nothing well.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:..

You are talking out of your ass.

I've had the opportunity to speak to some of the people that were on this program from the ground floor, during the Boeing/LM competition, R&D after LM won, to present day. Not that it isnt a "good plane" but it is not what LM promised, no where close. And it is still not mission ready.

But maybe I am.....

Ask Israel what they think of the F-35.

quote:

Originally posted by mrmn50:

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
We shouldn’t be arming future caliphates anyways.

That could include most of the EU. My money is for Poland to protect its borders.

There shouldn't even be a Germany, it should be East France and West Poland.

quote:

Originally posted by walker77:

Ask Israel what they think of the F-35.

That would be in interesting answer since as of just a few days ago the gun on the F-35 still doesn't shoot straight and the mounting brackets are already cracking. Plus the 11 other critical problems, some of which is software related.

They F-35 flys, it is stealthy, and (supposedly) it has greater survive-ability" , but at the cost of reduced payload. Severely reduced. Time will tell if the F-35 is as good as the F-16, out of the box, during Operation Opera?

You seem really hung up on the whole gun thing.

Israel can fix any issues and probably make it better.

They figured out how to make a trip to Tehran and back without refueling with the F-35.

quote:

Originally posted by walker77:
You seem really hung up on the whole gun thing.

Israel can fix any issues and probably make it better.

They figured out how to make a trip to Tehran and back without refueling with the F-35.

Yeah, a broken gun mount. Scrap the ENTIRE project and start over.


The F-35 is the pit bull for aircraft threads. Any mention of the F-35 (whether relevant or not) instantly invokes a whole line of "The F-35 Sucks And Can Never Work" comments.

The first F-14 crashed on its maiden flight. The entire P-51 Mustang fleet was grounded shortly before D-Day because of a main gear problem (that caused the gear to drop at high speed, with catastrophic results to the airframe). Heck, the F-16 is considered one of the most versatile aircraft in the world, and from the beginning, all it had was a 20mm gun and 2 Sidewinder missiles.

Give it time. It will work.

As for the Germans, let them wither and die. If they were capable of throwing away their proud martial heritage and go full retard in just over a generation or two, they don't deserve our hardware.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
The F-35 is the pit bull for aircraft threads. Any mention of the F-35 (whether relevant or not) instantly invokes a whole line of "The F-35 Sucks And Can Never Work" comments.

There's a lot of people who are stuck on the early issues and points, and simply keep regurgitating them despite that the fact that the F-35 is operational, over 100 are in service and its seen combat.

There's plenty of issues with the plane and its gestation, however its best feature is it's sensor suite, which doesn't translate to the public or, non-operators.

^^^
yep.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
The F-35 is the pit bull for aircraft threads. Any mention of the F-35 (whether relevant or not) instantly invokes a whole line of "The F-35 Sucks And Can Never Work" comments.

There's a lot of people who are stuck on the early issues and points, and simply keep regurgitating them despite that the fact that the F-35 is operational, over 100 are in service and its seen combat.

There's plenty of issues with the plane and its gestation, however its best feature is it's sensor suite, which doesn't translate to the public or, non-operators.

Ahh, the old "you can't understand it, so just trust the experts". I'll trust the experts when they actually beat previous gen aircraft in force on force trials using their linked sensor suites and weapons systems. Which, BTW, requires a complete Verification and Validation of their entire software suite every time a change is made. And since it is the largest on board software program in the history of aviation, that takes weeks of time. Unless the military is going forward with no idea how those software changes affects all of the planes systems, both individually and linked.

But I'm sure it is the best thing since the B-58 Hustler.

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
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.

Case in point, since I just found this illustrative chart for upcoming exercise Defender 2020, the biggest US deployment to Europe since the days of REFORGER (though still at a much smaller level):



The Baltic Sea is certainly not the main line of communication. But that primary mission to secure those lines also needs some other upgrades against possible threats:

- By air, including conventional aircraft and UAVs, ballistic and cruise missiles, and airborne operations. The conventional threat is the least problematic; with the current fleet of 140 Eurofighters, the chief issue is overcoming availability problems via sufficient stocks of spare parts and ammunition (at one point there were slightly misleading headlines that only four of them were mission-ready for want of either), and crew readiness via budgeted flight hours. Ground-based air defense however is sparse and in need of capability updates.

The replacement of Patriot (twelve squadrons of eight launcher each) by MEADS is still in limbo, with completion planned for 2031. While MEADS will use the PAC-3 MSE missile, an emerging threat of new IRBMs after the demise of the INF Treaty may require additional capabilities; despite housing NATO's missile defense headquarters at Ramstein, there are currently none national ly. THAAD or SM-3/6, the latter for land and/or sea use, would be most likely. So far though, the Type 124 frigates are at best envisioned to supply target data rather than provide effectors within the allied missile defense scheme.

- On the ground, though mostly by commando raids and hybrid warfare, including fomenting public unrest directed against NATO operations, all the way from civil disobedience by blocking bases and transports with peaceful protests to terrorist acts, as seen in the 70s/80s (only now we also have a domestic pro-Russian Right in addition to the Left). The possible use of NBC agents against military targets or society at large shouldn't be neglected. This is partly a question of intelligence and policing, but constitutes a situation where civil means quickly meet their limits.

In the Cold War, there was an extensive territorial defense and host nation support system. Very little of that remains after the expeditionary fashion era. We also need to rebuild the material, legal and administrative means for enabling quick military transports across German territory, another Cold War capability largely lost. Authorizing and securing military convoys has devolved to the state level, for example. Work is underway to improve the situation, but it will take some time.

- Cyber warfare, not just against military installations but the civilian infrastructure enabling them, and the population via information warfare (also see above under hybrid warfare). Not exclusively a military mission either, and we've been making some steps to address this threat. The Bundeswehr established its Cyber and Information Space branch as its third inter-service branch in 2017, combining signals and electronic warfare troops with military intelligence, operative communication and cyber security (plus geographic information).

Various other authorities are involved in the cyber security field, chiefly the Federal Office for Security in Information Technology, which also runs the small National Cyber Defense Center supposed to coordinate between other federal agencies - the foreign and domestic intelligence services, the Bundeswehr's counter-intelligence agency, Federal Police, the Customs Criminal Investigations Office, and the Federal Office for Public Protection and Disaster Relief. Operators of critical infrastructures (water, electricity, communications etc.) are also supposed to cooperate.

It's mostly stuff that is a lot less visible and sexy than shiny tanks and aircraft. But as they say, amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and you have to get your toys to the fight first before you can use them.

Why would Germany buy them when they figure we'll just fly ours in if they step in something? Then they can spend their measly 1.38% GDP defense budget on beer and obsolete home-grown aircraft.