Germany plans to develop new fighter jet to replace Tornado: Airbus NGWS

[bring_it_on]

 

[sferrin]

Just buy into the JSF program as a Partner and be done with it.
:

Yeah, replace the Tornado with a light attack fighter, that carries.... let's count 'em, one bomb, two bombs. Woo hoo! And limited range on top of it too when in "stealth" mode.

How much range does the Tornado have in stealth mode? How many bombs does it carry internally? Reading your post, one can't help but wonder if you even know what an F-35 is.

 

[Airplane]

Just buy into the JSF program as a Partner and be done with it.
:

Yeah, replace the Tornado with a light attack fighter, that carries.... let's count 'em, one bomb, two bombs. Woo hoo! And limited range on top of it too when in "stealth" mode.

How much range does the Tornado have in stealth mode? How many bombs does it carry internally? Reading your post, one can't help but wonder if you even know what an F-35 is.

The Tornado is stealthier than i...

There are many who recognize that a 90s replacement for the F-117 (2 bombs with limited range) fielded 20 years after conception is not the optimal solution for all their requirements.

 

[sferrin]

Just buy into the JSF program as a Partner and be done with it.
:

Yeah, replace the Tornado with a light attack fighter, that carries.... let's count 'em, one bomb, two bombs. Woo hoo! And limited range on top of it too when in "stealth" mode.

How much range does the Tornado have in stealth mode? How many bombs does it carry internally? Reading your post, one can't help but wonder if you even know what an F-35 is.

The Tornado is stealthier than you think.

There are many who recognize that a 90s replacement for the F-117 (2 bombs with limited range) fielded 20 years after conception is not the optimal solution for all their requirements.

Sounds like somebody forgot their meds this morning. How many 2000lb bombs does the Tornado carry?

 

[mrmalaya]

How many 2000lb bombs have Luftwaffe Tornadoes dropped in combat?

It's all a little theoretical, but I cannot see the Germans (given how they are so very Eurocentric) doing anything other than spending the bare minimum on Typhoon and hoping that the Anglo/French work amounts to something.

 

[Avimimus]

True. But the F-35 runs into more trouble if it tries to match the Brimstone or ALARM loads... of course the F-35 could be developed to use external hardpoints - but then how is it superior to the Tornado? Avionics perhaps.

"Could be developed"? The F-35 is flying with weapons on external hard points right now. It was always intended to fly with external loads for most of its missions. But unlike Tornado, it has the option of going all internal and having a credible degree of stealth for Day One strikes when needed.

True. I was referencing integration of European weapons like the Brimstone and ALARM though. The F-35 can't currently field them.

 

[Airplane]

How many 2000lb bombs have Luftwaffe Tornadoes dropped in combat?

How many US fighters have shot down another fighter with a cannon, but yet the requirement for a cannon remains. Just because 'you' haven't used something in combat does not mean that the requirement is thrown out.

Also there are heat issues with F-35's weapons bays............... Are all European munitions rated for those bays, and or those operating temps?

 

[TomS]

True. I was referencing integration of European weapons like the Brimstone and ALARM though. The F-35 can't currently field them.

ALARM is already retired, which is why it's not integrated on the F-35. Brimstone is supposed to be integrated, I believe, and then replaced by SPEAR-3, which can be carried internally or externally. It's going to take a couple of years, but it's budgeted and scheduled.

 

[GTX]

True. I was referencing integration of European weapons like the Brimstone and ALARM though. The F-35 can't currently field them.

Interesting that in a thread regarding German requirements you reference two weapons that Germany does not use. The RAF which does/did use them though seems quite happy with the F-35 in regard to them. They (more likely the SPEAR-3 derivative will be integrated in the near future.

 

[marauder2048]

True. I was referencing integration of European weapons like the Brimstone and ALARM though. The F-35 can't currently field them.

Interesting that in a thread regarding German requirements you reference two weapons that Germany does not use. The RAF which does/did use them though seems quite happy with the F-35 in regard to them. They (more likely the SPEAR-3 derivative will be integrated in the near future.

Curious if MBDA's teaming arrangement on AARGM extends to a derivative like AARGM-ER (including sharing integration costs on platforms); the Navy's paying for internal carriage on the F-35 A/C models and external carriage on the Super Bug.

 

[Avimimus]

True. I was referencing integration of European weapons like the Brimstone and ALARM though. The F-35 can't currently field them.

Interesting that in a thread regarding German requirements you reference two weapons that Germany does not use. The RAF which does/did use them though seems quite happy with the F-35 in regard to them. They (more likely the SPEAR-3 derivative will be integrated in the near future.

Very true about the ALARM. I'm also not that sure what Germany's doctrines are with regard to deploying the Tornado. I was just indicating that we have yet to see if the JSF will be adapted to deploy a large number (9-12 per sortie) of anti-radiation or anti-vehicle missiles.

Also, I wouldn't deny that the F-35 is pretty well suited to replace the Tornado. There may be a couple of exceptions:
- Single seat rather than two-seat design
- Required runway length may be higher
- I suspect that the Tornado may be able to spend more time supersonic at sea level (heating issues mainly)

In all other areas the F-35 seems to have an advantage (except perhaps cost).

 

[bring_it_on]

SDB-2, JSM, SPEAR, AARGM-ER (externally and internally) and once that is integrated the standard AARGM shouldnt be a stretch externaly. There are plenty of. Choices... And if those aren't enough one could always get in and ask for Brimstone or JAGM integration.

 

[GTX]

Some comments in red.

Also, I wouldn't deny that the F-35 is pretty well suited to replace the Tornado. There may be a couple of exceptions:
- Single seat rather than two-seat design - why would you need the second seat? No-one else seems to view it as a requirement anymore especially since software/systems etc can provide enhanced SA etc.
- Required runway length may be higher - hardly an issue (has anyone done a comparison?) and if it were, there is always the F-35B
- I suspect that the Tornado may be able to spend more time supersonic at sea level (heating issues mainly) - again, is this really an issue?

In all other areas the F-35 seems to have an advantage (except perhaps cost). - I think you will find a production F-35 will cost much less than a specialised newly developed Tornado replacement.

 

[Reaper]

I suspect the Tornado replacement discussion with governments and industry will take so long that it will end in a EF replacement discussion.

 

[Jeb]

- I suspect that the Tornado may be able to spend more time supersonic at sea level (heating issues mainly)

Tornado's supersonic at sea level performance is only of value because it was developed when swing-wings were still in vogue and "stealth" was something catburglers were concerned with. F-35s don't have to stay in the weeds to avoid becoming SAM pincushions.

 

[GTX]

Tornado's supersonic at sea level performance is only of value because it was developed when swing-wings were still in vogue and "stealth" was something catburglers were concerned with. F-35s don't have to stay in the weeds to avoid becoming SAM pincushions.

Indeed - see the '91 Gulf War (specifically RAF Tornado operations) for an example of why this is the case.

 

[marauder2048]

- I suspect that the Tornado may be able to spend more time supersonic at sea level (heating issues mainly)

Tornado's supersonic at sea level performance is only of value because it was developed when swing-wings were still in vogue and "stealth" was something catburglers were concerned with. F-35s don't have to stay in the weeds to avoid becoming SAM pincushions.

OTOH, low altitude, supersonic delivery might be important for ensuring the survival of a glide bomb like B61-12 which doesn't appear to have even SRAM's level of signature reduction.

 

[sferrin]

Tornado's supersonic at sea level performance is only of value because it was developed when swing-wings were still in vogue and "stealth" was something catburglers were concerned with. F-35s don't have to stay in the weeds to avoid becoming SAM pincushions.

Indeed - see the '91 Gulf War (specifically RAF Tornado operations) for an example of why this is the case.

They didn't have a great time. IIRC they were tasked with anti-runway missions, right in the middle of AAA. Don't recall if they were using the MW-1 or JP233. (I seem to recall only Germany used the MW-1 and they sat the Gulf War out.)

 

[TomS]

One loss using JP223. A couple others on low-level laydown or toss deliveries of 1000-lb bombs. And several more in medium-level deliveries of either 1000-lb dumb bombs or LGBs. The common thread was attacks on highly defended targets, mostly airfields. Turns out that flying near defended airfields was risky at any altitude.

 

[muttbutt]

Tim Robinson ‏@RAeSTimR 5h5 hours ago

Systems of systems FCAS not a Eurofighter replacement - but a Tornado successor concept for 2030-40s. Gutierrez #TMB16

Tim Robinson ‏@RAeSTimR 5h5 hours ago

FCAS, like Tornado, would be a 2-pilot combat aircraft. #TMB16

Tim Robinson ‏@RAeSTimR 5h5 hours ago

FCAS - scalable, adaptable, would give operational sovereignty and open to partnerships beyond Europe. #TMB16
0 retweets 1 like

Tim Robinson ‏@RAeSTimR 5h5 hours ago

Don't call FCAS a '6th gen fighter' says Gutirrez - "that's a Lockheed Martin classification" #TMB16
2 retweets 1 like

From here.
https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR

 

[Grey Havoc]

Interesting development: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,27454.0.html

 

[marauder2048]

Interesting development: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,27454.0.html

The early 2040's would also coincide with the currently planned End-of-Life for the B61-12.

 

[Airplane]

True. I was referencing integration of European weapons like the Brimstone and ALARM though. The F-35 can't currently field them.

Interesting that in a thread regarding German requirements you reference two weapons that Germany does not use. The RAF which does/did use them though seems quite happy with the F-35 in regard to them. They (more likely the SPEAR-3 derivative will be integrated in the near future.

Very true about the ALARM. I'm also not that sure what Germany's doctrines are with regard to deploying the Tornado. I was just indicating that we have yet to see if the JSF will be adapted to deploy a large number (9-12 per sortie) of anti-radiation or anti-vehicle missiles.

Also, I wouldn't deny that the F-35 is pretty well suited to replace the Tornado. There may be a couple of exceptions:
- Single seat rather than two-seat design
- Required runway length may be higher
- I suspect that the Tornado may be able to spend more time supersonic at sea level (heating issues mainly)

In all other areas the F-35 seems to have an advantage (except perhaps cost).

The f35 has such a piss poor time trying to shed heat that it can't fly low level at high speed. It physically can't do low altitude and high speed. Ironic that with its radar, ir, das, and sensor fusion it could have been the best low altitude high speed penetrator, but it can't fly that profile to save its life because of thermal management.

 

[TomS]

Not sure anyone is terribly broken up about that. Low and fast hasn't been an attractive profile for a long time.

 

[Hood]

Note sure what to make of the Airbus fighter.

Personally I think its easy publicity material to make some hazy generic 6th gen fighter 3-D models and say this is what might happen for the 2040s. I seriously doubt there would be many 6- year old Tornados left in any European country by then.

Also, Airbus doesn't make military aircraft (I'm discounting the Atlas and armed regional airliners and helicopters). The Eurofighter has its own consortium and I have doubts that unless the European partners feel giving development to Airbus is going to be cheaper, easier and quicker than forming another consortium of national companies to develop a Tornado successor that Airbus would be entrusted with it alone. BAE Systems might have something to say about that (unless of course they view anything but component assembly as not being profitable enough for them to bother with). At this point in time BAE and Dassault can point to Taranis and Neuron while Airbus has no such experience in design. Also, who is going to develop the engine since I'm assuming very little of the Eurofighter can be used without some modernisation and optimisation.

 

[mrmalaya]

That was my thinking too. MAKO or Barracuda are both a long time ago and even longer by the time you get to 2030. I suppose it's the German portion of Airbus trying to be relevant to a domestic requirement.

 

[TomS]

Also, Airbus doesn't make military aircraft (I'm discounting the Atlas and armed regional airliners and helicopters). The Eurofighter has its own consortium ...

And about half of that consortium (46%) is Airbus DS. It doesn't see that outlandish that Airbus DS would do its own design studies with an eye toward a leading role in a new consortium for a future strike aircraft.

 

[sferrin]

Also, Airbus doesn't make military aircraft (I'm discounting the Atlas and armed regional airliners and helicopters). The Eurofighter has its own consortium ...

And about half of that consortium (46%) is Airbus DS. It doesn't see that outlandish that Airbus DS would do its own design studies with an eye toward a leading role in a new consortium for a future strike aircraft.

Yeah. Not any crazier than Boeing trying to do a fighter.

 

[Deino]

Surely much too early ... but at least a concept from Airbus:

https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR/status/744890511199207424

 

[GTX]

The f35 has such a piss poor time trying to shed heat that it can't fly low level at high speed. It physically can't do low altitude and high speed. Ironic that with its radar, ir, das, and sensor fusion it could have been the best low altitude high speed penetrator, but it can't fly that profile to save its life because of thermal management.

Facts please

 

[DrRansom]

The f35 has such a piss poor time trying to shed heat that it can't fly low level at high speed. It physically can't do low altitude and high speed. Ironic that with its radar, ir, das, and sensor fusion it could have been the best low altitude high speed penetrator, but it can't fly that profile to save its life because of thermal management.

Facts please

The F-35's low altitude heat problems has been known for a while, see this story which references it:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/f-35-needs-bigger-more-powerful-engine-12491

That doesn't answer the question if low altitude penetration is necessary or not in the future A2/AD environment. That is better answered by people with access to classified combat analysis tools.

For two pilots, I can see that being a great advantage for a plane managing an attending UAV swarm.

 

[sferrin]

The f35 has such a piss poor time trying to shed heat that it can't fly low level at high speed. It physically can't do low altitude and high speed. Ironic that with its radar, ir, das, and sensor fusion it could have been the best low altitude high speed penetrator, but it can't fly that profile to save its life because of thermal management.

Why the HELL would you want to fly a stealth aircraft at low level where any dummy with a gun can shoot you? :

 

[sferrin]

Not sure anyone is terribly broken up about that. Low and fast hasn't been an attractive profile for a long time.

Since about 20 minutes after Desert Storm started.

 

[DrRansom]

Not sure anyone is terribly broken up about that. Low and fast hasn't been an attractive profile for a long time.

We will have to see how this evolves, as more advanced / integrated radar systems proliferate. Multi-static radar systems (perhaps even based off emitters on expendable UAVs) + active homing seeking SAMs with terminal shaping could make medium altitude much more dangerous that it has been in the past.

 

[marauder2048]

Not sure anyone is terribly broken up about that. Low and fast hasn't been an attractive profile for a long time.

We will have to see how this evolves, as more advanced / integrated radar systems proliferate. Multi-static radar systems (perhaps even based off emitters on expendable UAVs) + active homing seeking SAMs with terminal shaping could make medium altitude much more dangerous that it has been in the past.

IMHO, all of the C-RAM/C-UAV efforts coupled with the proliferation of aerostats with multi-mode sensors (the Israelis just showed off a new Aerostat sensor payload and the Russians are standing up a dedicated Aersotat/Balloon corp) makes low-and-whatever just as problematic from a manned aircraft survivability standpoint.

 

[muttbutt]

Airbus DS defining FCAS aircraft requirements with Bundeswehr
Gareth Jennings, Munich - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
20 June 2016

Airbus Defence and Space (DS) is currently working with the German armed forces (Bundeswehr) to identify future threats and capability needs to inform its work on the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), a senior company official told reporters on 20 June.

An illustrative rendition of what the FCAS might look like. Airbus is currently working with the German government to define future requirements and threats as it looks to refine its concept for the platform. (Airbus DS)An illustrative rendition of what the FCAS might look like. Airbus is currently working with the German government to define future requirements and threats as it looks to refine its concept for the platform. (Airbus DS)

Speaking at the company's Ottobrun facility near Munich, Alberto Gutierrez, head of the Eurofighter programme, said that Airbus DS and the Bundeswehr are looking at expected operational requirements and the latest technologies that will be available in the 2030-40 timeframe that the FCAS is expected to enter into service.

The FCAS project to replace the German Air Force's Panavia Tornado and to complement the Eurofighter Typhoon manned combat aircraft was first revealed in the Air Capability Strategy Paper released by the German government in January. No details were released at that time, except that the platform might be manned, unmanned, or optionally manned.

Dubbed the Next-Generation Weapon System by Airbus DS, the FCAS will likely be "a system of systems" according to Gutierrez. Given the aircraft's relatively near-term entry-into-service date of between 2030 and 2040, he noted that unmanned technologies will probably not be sufficiently advanced by that time for it to be a completely unmanned solution.

"The German government asked Airbus to consider alternatives for a Tornado replacement that will be complementary with the Eurofighter. In principle, it could be a system of systems - either a manned and unmanned combination. [We have determined that unmanned combat air vehicles] UCAVs will not be at technology state ready by 2030-40 to support Eurofighters. It could be optionally manned, with two crew - one for command and control [and one pilot]," he said.

Gutierrez noted that the tight timelines and the need to keep costs at a minimum means that Airbus DS is looking at incorporating existing technologies and programme structures and partnerships into the project.

rest on here
http://www.janes.com/article/61628/airbus-ds-defining-fcas-aircraft-requirements-with-bundeswehr

 

[muttbutt]

Airbus DS defining FCAS aircraft requirements with Bundeswehr
Gareth Jennings, Munich - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
20 June 2016

Airbus Defence and Space (DS) is currently working with the German armed forces (Bundeswehr) to identify future threats and capability needs to inform its work on the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), a senior company official told reporters on 20 June.

An illustrative rendition of what the FCAS might look like. Airbus is currently working with the German government to define future requirements and threats as it looks to refine its concept for the platform. (Airbus DS)An illustrative rendition of what the FCAS might look like. Airbus is currently working with the German government to define future requirements and threats as it looks to refine its concept for the platform. (Airbus DS)

Speaking at the company's Ottobrun facility near Munich, Alberto Gutierrez, head of the Eurofighter programme, said that Airbus DS and the Bundeswehr are looking at expected operational requirements and the latest technologies that will be available in the 2030-40 timeframe that the FCAS is expected to enter into service.

The FCAS project to replace the German Air Force's Panavia Tornado and to complement the Eurofighter Typhoon manned combat aircraft was first revealed in the Air Capability Strategy Paper released by the German government in January. No details were released at that time, except that the platform might be manned, unmanned, or optionally manned.

Dubbed the Next-Generation Weapon System by Airbus DS, the FCAS will likely be "a system of systems" according to Gutierrez. Given the aircraft's relatively near-term entry-into-service date of between 2030 and 2040, he noted that unmanned technologies will probably not be sufficiently advanced by that time for it to be a completely unmanned solution.

"The German government asked Airbus to consider alternatives for a Tornado replacement that will be complementary with the Eurofighter. In principle, it could be a system of systems - either a manned and unmanned combination. [We have determined that unmanned combat air vehicles] UCAVs will not be at technology state ready by 2030-40 to support Eurofighters. It could be optionally manned, with two crew - one for command and control [and one pilot]," he said.

Gutierrez noted that the tight timelines and the need to keep costs at a minimum means that Airbus DS is looking at incorporating existing technologies and programme structures and partnerships into the project.

rest on here
http://www.janes.com/article/61628/airbus-ds-defining-fcas-aircraft-requirements-with-bundeswehr

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Looks like the T-50.

 

[DrRansom]

IMHO, all of the C-RAM/C-UAV efforts coupled with the proliferation of aerostats with multi-mode sensors (the Israelis just showed off a new Aerostat sensor payload and the Russians are standing up a dedicated Aersotat/Balloon corp) makes low-and-whatever just as problematic from a manned aircraft survivability standpoint.

Good point, I wonder if the first rule of future air combat is don't get within 10 - 30nm of the target. There'll be so many weapon systems and sensors in that zone that anything broadband stealth, low and fast, high and faster, will get killed.

Though, C-RAM / C-UAV will still be focused on relatively slow targets. (For now, I suspect future tactical UAVs will start getting faster.)

 

[TomS]

Though, C-RAM / C-UAV will still be focused on relatively slow targets. (For now, I suspect future tactical UAVs will start getting faster.)

A lot of first gen C-RAM solutions are basically repackaged naval CIWS. They can deal with rather fast targets, as long as they're not crossing.