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

[Michel Van]

I thought the Typhoon was the Tornado replacement.

no, the Typhoon is replacement for F-4 Phantom of the Luftwaffe.

Edit: Also, the German MOD has been talking about the F-35 as a possibility all year since they sent a request for a classified briefing on the jet. Remember too that this is not a formal / final declaration of the F-35's selection, it's just the chief of the Luftwaffe saying that a clean-sheet looks implausible given the 7 year timeframe and that they prefer the F-35 over other existing aircraft, which makes perfect sense.

That's normal, if there new weapons on market, The Federal Ministry of Defence get info and do ask for classified briefing on it.
follow by internal committee of inquiry and the dossier end up at the Federal Minister of Defence if he/she say "yes we buy it"
then comes a formal request to Federal government and Parlament for buying them.
follow by Parlament committee of inquiry if this is necessary...

so far i recalled right, the Luftwaffe made valuation of the F-35 project in begin of 2000, under Minister Rudolf Scharping (SPD socialist)
but since that program faced delays and problems, the Luftwaffe put paper in the archives.
we had in mean time five Federal Ministry of Defence, now under Ursula von der Leyen (CDU Christian Democratic)
each if them had there problems and Issues and F-35 was not one of them.

 

[LowObservable]

Oh right...I had forgotten that it was the US and not Germany's Eurofighter partners who had deleted the dual-capable requirement for the EF-2000.

When was such a requirement established and when was it deleted? EF was very much a dedicated A2A platform in the Cold War and was expected to serve alongside the Tornado for much of its life.

 

[TomcatViP]

...

Looks like a stubbier J-20 but with LEVCONs in place of canards.
It's fuselage/body seems to be more like the twin engine arrangement of F22, J20, rather than su57 or yf23

The LERX from the wing to the air intake is particularly distinctive.


In any case, the video shows a reasonable concept that should be well within the technological capacity of Airbus and Europe. Question of course is timespan,and funding, and opportunity/cost of alternatives namely F35.

Absolutely. A very modest improvement that won't match the F35 capabilities. The displayed project comes as a surprise given the wording used in the offer. I am on the opinion that this is a discarded configuration. Noticeably, there is a rather large wingspan with the double delta config. It's surprising unless you put credits on the carrier compatible requirements which will stand as an oddity in a bi-national Franco/German project...

If the EU industry can't make better than the J20 today, then a full decade of heavy R&D might well be better than spend money on something like this.

 

[marauder2048]

Oh right...I had forgotten that it was the US and not Germany's Eurofighter partners who had deleted the dual-capable requirement for the EF-2000.

EF was very much a dedicated A2A platform in the Cold War

Which is why the dual-capable role was only a post-Cold war consideration after
it was shown in GWI that the Tornado could not penetrate without a major SEAD campaign.

The RAF abdicated its nuclear role completely including dual-capable aircraft and
Italy no longer devotes any aircraft to the dual-capable role. That leaves Germany
holding the short-straw in regards to Eurofighter dual-capability in later tranches.

Nevertheless, it's been looked at and RUSI even had a semi-official estimate on cost.
But sustaining that capability in a German-only configuration over the next 25 years
would be prohibitive.

 

[Trident]

...

Looks like a stubbier J-20 but with LEVCONs in place of canards.
It's fuselage/body seems to be more like the twin engine arrangement of F22, J20, rather than su57 or yf23

The LERX from the wing to the air intake is particularly distinctive.

Nah, the LERX on the J-20 is tiny compared to both this and the Su-57, it also lacks the leading edge kink found on both of the others. The Airbus concept, like the Su-57, has caret intakes rather than DSI, too. Add the low aspect ratio tail fins...

You're right about the closely spaced engines, but that notwithstanding, a "Su-57XL" comes closest - and it is worth mentioning that the earlier images of this concept (also in this thread) showed a wider separation.

 

[Trident]

As for the F-35 - it's credible as a Tornado replacement, and of course Germany would need US permission and cooperation to buy or use anything else.

Concur - as a strike-oriented Tornado replacement, it is hard to see an (off the shelf) solution which would better meet the requirements than the F-35, unless you go unmanned. That is not realistic, however - schedule and budget should strongly discourage a clean-sheet effort, if the Typhoon/Rafale replacement for the fighter role is not to be jeopardized.

What alternatives are there? A Typhoon development would be riskier, due to additional development work, plus lack true stealth. Rafale likewise is not a real LO airframe and would require US permission for nuclear integration - I take it that's the issue your comment was aimed at? Perhaps also an advanced Strike Eagle development like the F-15SG/SA (no stealth, high operating cost) or the Super Hornet (not truly stealthy either).

 

[LowObservable]

Which is why the dual-capable role was only a post-Cold war consideration after it was shown in GWI that the Tornado could not penetrate without a major SEAD campaign.

So when was it considered or planned, so that it could be deleted? Specifics please. I don't think it was a remote consideration post-GW1 because it was difficult enough to keep the Germans in, let alone foist a nuke mission on the jet and further incense the opposition. UK of course was different, because it would have been WE177.

 

[marauder2048]

Sure in exchange for specifics on:

Germany would need US permission and cooperation to buy or use anything else.

 

[LowObservable]

Fairly obvious. B61-12 integration. Now stop timewasting and back up your initial assertion.

 

[marauder2048]

Fairly obvious. B61-12 integration. Now stop timewasting and back up your initial assertion.

Not obvious at all since the analog path is still available.

C'mon, LO. We went through this song & dance with "fifth generation" and the RAND study
where I gave you my source but your Google Kung Fu done failed.

 

[Blitzo]

...

Looks like a stubbier J-20 but with LEVCONs in place of canards.
It's fuselage/body seems to be more like the twin engine arrangement of F22, J20, rather than su57 or yf23

The LERX from the wing to the air intake is particularly distinctive.

Nah, the LERX on the J-20 is tiny compared to both this and the Su-57, it also lacks the leading edge kink found on both of the others. The Airbus concept, like the Su-57, has caret intakes rather than DSI, too. Add the low aspect ratio tail fins...

You're right about the closely spaced engines, but that notwithstanding, a "Su-57XL" comes closest - and it is worth mentioning that the earlier images of this concept (also in this thread) showed a wider separation.

Well that is why I said it looks like a stubbier J-20. Hard to judge without knowing the dimensions of the proposal. If we lop a meter and a half from J-20 length near the air intake/canard area and replace it with LEVCONs imo you'd get pretty close.

Doesn't look much like Su57 to me given its fuselage (wing body) configuration which is more akin to F22/J20 than Su57, particularly from the ventral aspect. The only major commonality with Su57 is LEVCONs imo.



In any case it seems like a sensible configuration, overall. It looks a little like what I imagine an actual strike/interceptor J20 would look like, but smaller.

 

[Hood]

It's an promo video. I wouldn't read into it anything more than what a marketing team has cooked up.

 

[DWG]

back to that Airbus Video:
It's nice, but it show a fatal flawed Problem for Airbus 6th generation Fighter
Eskalation in cost !
You not only have pay R&D on that fighter, but also for additional support systems
like A330 AWACS, the unmanned reconnaissance & combat drones
and there Satellite communications systems and new generations reconnaissance satellites.

The networked systems have to be bought anyway, the E-3 fleet won't last forever and all the other elements are likely procurement necessities. And Airbus is the only option for keeping that spending within Germany/the EU.

 

[LowObservable]

Fairly obvious. B61-12 integration. Now stop timewasting and back up your initial assertion.

Not obvious at all since the analog path is still available.

C'mon, LO. We went through this song & dance with "fifth generation" and the RAND study
where I gave you my source but your Google Kung Fu done failed.

I see. You have nothing on your original claim. BTW I do see your posts in other places.

 

[Trident]

...

Looks like a stubbier J-20 but with LEVCONs in place of canards.
It's fuselage/body seems to be more like the twin engine arrangement of F22, J20, rather than su57 or yf23

The LERX from the wing to the air intake is particularly distinctive.

Nah, the LERX on the J-20 is tiny compared to both this and the Su-57, it also lacks the leading edge kink found on both of the others. The Airbus concept, like the Su-57, has caret intakes rather than DSI, too. Add the low aspect ratio tail fins...

You're right about the closely spaced engines, but that notwithstanding, a "Su-57XL" comes closest - and it is worth mentioning that the earlier images of this concept (also in this thread) showed a wider separation.

Well that is why I said it looks like a stubbier J-20. Hard to judge without knowing the dimensions of the proposal. If we lop a meter and a half from J-20 length near the air intake/canard area and replace it with LEVCONs imo you'd get pretty close.

Doesn't look much like Su57 to me given its fuselage (wing body) configuration which is more akin to F22/J20 than Su57, particularly from the ventral aspect. The only major commonality with Su57 is LEVCONs imo.



In any case it seems like a sensible configuration, overall. It looks a little like what I imagine an actual strike/interceptor J20 would look like, but smaller.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the similarity is super close - it is unequivocally a wholly original design. However, it shares more traits with the Su-57 than with perhaps any other existing stealth fighter (again, not that the match is a particularly good one). Certainly more than with the J-20, with which it really has only two features in common (engine arrangement and canopy), both of which - as you have noted - are not unique to the J-20.

So, not particularly close to either, but closer to the Su-57 than to the J-20.

 

[Reaper]

It's an promo video. I wouldn't read into it anything more than what a marketing team has cooked up.

Exactly! Continue working on the real plane internally, put out a nice looking rendering for marketing.

 

[Blitzo]

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the similarity is super close - it is unequivocally a wholly original design. However, it shares more traits with the Su-57 than with perhaps any other existing stealth fighter (again, not that the match is a particularly good one). Certainly more than with the J-20, with which it really has only two features in common (engine arrangement and canopy), both of which - as you have noted - are not unique to the J-20.

So, not particularly close to either, but closer to the Su-57 than to the J-20.

I agree that this concept is definitely not a copy or super close to any particular design.

However, I would argue that the aircraft it is closest to is the J-20 rather than Su-57. Specifically, while the Airbus concept does have in common with Su-57 is the LEVCONs, but the rest of the aircraft -- in particular the fuselage -- is much closer with the F-22/J-20 configuration than the Su-57 which is particularly obvious when looking at the ventral side of the Airbus concept.

Considering how much of an aircraft's external appearance is dictated by its fuselage arrangement with its wings -- the main fuselage body dictates the positioning of important external cues like weapon bays, air intakes -- and considering the rest of the Airbus concept's LERX arrangement and things like the nose etc, I think it does look much more like J-20 than Su-57.

In fact I would say Airbus' concept is marginally more similar to F-22 than Su-57 in terms of overall configuration.

edit: I'm sort of hoping Airbus will actually be able to continue with this vision of theirs, it would be interesting to see what the real thing will end up looking like.

 

[Trident]

I do not wish to prolong this fun but ultimately fruitless debate about similarity too much, but I'll just explain my reasoning in detail this once.

However, I would argue that the aircraft it is closest to is the J-20 rather than Su-57.

Hardly - the similarity practically ends in fuselage and canopy configuration, both of which resemble the F-22 just as much as the J-20 (which begs the question of why you consider the latter closer than the former?). And a variation of the layout with a wider engine separation more reminiscent of the Su-57 has been shown.

Specifically, while the Airbus concept does have in common with Su-57 is the LEVCONs, but the rest of the aircraft -- in particular the fuselage -- is much closer with the F-22/J-20 configuration than the Su-57 which is particularly obvious when looking at the ventral side of the Airbus concept.

Vertical tail configuration is very similar to the Su-57, with a markedly lower aspect ratio than the J-20 fins, it lacks ventral strakes and has caret intakes (in both the latter respects it is more like the F-22 and Su-57 than the J-20 which has DSIs). Also, LERX resemblance to the Su-57 goes far beyond the mere presence of LEVCONs, i.e. the compound LE sweep (mildly swept inboard section, sharp sweep angle outboard) and the intakes which (exactly like the Su-57) are set much further back from the LE than on the otherwise similar F-22.

Considering how much of an aircraft's external appearance is dictated by its fuselage arrangement with its wings -- the main fuselage body dictates the positioning of important external cues like weapon bays, air intakes -- and considering the rest of the Airbus concept's LERX arrangement and things like the nose etc, I think it does look much more like J-20 than Su-57.

Sure, the fuselage configuration dominates visual perception of its shape (appearance and looks, as you put it), but the Su-57-like features go beyond mere aesthetics. At high AoA, the kinked LERX would probably create vortex patterns which are more like those on the Su-57 than the J-20's pure sweep as well as shielding the intakes (with potentially dramatic impact on their performance), also as on the Su-57. I'll grant you that the fuselage will likely dictate a F-22/J-20-style weapons bay arrangement, but otherwise I'd submit the Airbus design is functionally (if not aesthetically) quite a bit more similar to the Su-57.

 

[Blitzo]

I do not wish to prolong this fun but ultimately fruitless debate about similarity too much, but I'll just explain my reasoning in detail this once.

Hardly - the similarity practically ends in fuselage and canopy configuration, both of which resemble the F-22 just as much as the J-20 (which begs the question of why you consider the latter closer than the former?). And a variation of the layout with a wider engine separation more reminiscent of the Su-57 has been shown.

I appreciate your explanation.

I'm not sure which variation with a wider engine separation you speak of, but I'm only talking about the concept shown in the video and the latest poster, whose underside is a flat block like J-20 and F-22 without separated engines and without a pancake.

Vertical tail configuration is very similar to the Su-57, with a markedly lower aspect ratio than the J-20 fins, it lacks ventral strakes and has caret intakes (in both the latter respects it is more like the F-22 and Su-57 than the J-20 which has DSIs). Also, LERX resemblance to the Su-57 goes far beyond the mere presence of LEVCONs, i.e. the compound LE sweep (mildly swept inboard section, sharp sweep angle outboard) and the intakes which (exactly like the Su-57) are set much further back from the LE than on the otherwise similar F-22.

A fair argument, although I would say the LERX and main wing configuration is not too dissimilar to J-20's main wing and LERX as well, the main difference being the presence of canards of course.

Sure, the fuselage configuration dominates visual perception of its shape (appearance and looks, as you put it), but the Su-57-like features go beyond mere aesthetics. At high AoA, the kinked LERX would probably create vortex patterns which are more like those on the Su-57 than the J-20's pure sweep as well as shielding the intakes (with potentially dramatic impact on their performance), also as on the Su-57. I'll grant you that the fuselage will likely dictate a F-22/J-20-style weapons bay arrangement, but otherwise I'd submit the Airbus design is functionally (if not aesthetically) quite a bit more similar to the Su-57.

In terms of control surfaces/wings I think one could argue both J-20 and Su-57 to be equally "similar" to the airbus concept:
-The Airbus concept's wing/lerx/levcon configuration and what looks like all moving V tails, is of course very similar to Su-57's wing/LEVCON and V tails, however the Airbus concept distinctively lacks the Su-57's horizontal tails. So close, but still distinctively different.
-The Airbus concept's wing/lerx configuration also looks quite similar to J-20's main wing+lerx, and J-20 also has all moving V tails but with different geometry/sweep. J-20 also has canards and ventral fins of course, which the Airbus concept does not, so I think the J-20 is not as similar to the airbus concept in terms of control surfaces as Su-57 is, but still not that far.

In terms of fuselage, which imo would dictate a big part of how much one should judge two aircraft's "similarity" (especially for stealth fighters):
-the airbus concept in the video does show an F-22/J-20 esque fuselage like a single "block," rather than having two separate engine/intake nacelles with a space/recess in between them. In that regard, IMO the the fuselage of the airbus concept is very similar to that of F-22 and J-20
-the airbus concept's air intake lip is not that similar to either J-20 or Su-57's air intake lip imo

The rest of the aircraft's nose, canopy, sensor arrangement, which I consider to be not unimportant visually, also looks very much like that of J-20 (or F-35), with a topside nose EO aperture aft to the radome (similar to J-20 and F-35), as well as a chin mounted faceted EO IRST of some kind (also very similar to J-20, F-35). In this aspect, the Su-57 is quite different.


So overall, I can see why Su-57 is considered quite similar to this aircraft, in terms of control surfaces/main wing, but overall, combining the fuselage, control surfaces/main wing, and nose geometry, I think the closest foreign "cousin" is the J-20.


But this is merely a fun thought exercise of course, and we can feel free to agree to disagree.

 

[Trident]

I'm not sure which variation with a wider engine separation you speak of, but I'm only talking about the concept shown in the video and the latest poster, whose underside is a flat block like J-20 and F-22 without separated engines and without a pancake.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,26320.msg302880.html#msg302880

The top one may well include a pancake (though more like the YF-23), while the bottom one probably lacks a tunnel but even has a tail sting (think Japanese 24DMU concept, itself a design which incorporates a number of YF-23 and Su-57 cues).

So overall, I can see why Su-57 is considered quite similar to this aircraft, in terms of control surfaces/main wing, but overall, combining the fuselage, control surfaces/main wing, and nose geometry, I think the closest foreign "cousin" is the J-20.

I dunno - it seems to me that (in very simplified terms) to turn the Su-57 into something very like the bottom Airbus concept, you'd "merely" have to fill the inlet tunnel and cut off the horizontal stabilizers.

With the J-20 you'd have to cut off the Canards and move the engines apart (so far so good - similar scope of changes as with the Su-57), but then massively increase LERX size, add LEVCONs and completely alter their planform, move the intakes aft and switch to a different type, get rid of the ventral strakes and reshape the fins,...

The list is just a whole lot longer, without playing down the scale of the changes to the Su-57, of course (as mentioned in the beginning, the Airbus concept is a completely original design in its own right).

 

[Blitzo]

I'm not sure which variation with a wider engine separation you speak of, but I'm only talking about the concept shown in the video and the latest poster, whose underside is a flat block like J-20 and F-22 without separated engines and without a pancake.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,26320.msg302880.html#msg302880

The top one may well include a pancake (though more like the YF-23), while the bottom one probably lacks a tunnel but even has a tail sting (think Japanese 24DMU concept, itself a design which incorporates a number of YF-23 and Su-57 cues).

Ah I see.

Yes, the first one could possibly be sort of like YF-23 or 24DMU.

Though in this case, I was only talking about the newest iteration of their concept, which looks to have evolved from those previous proposals.

 

[Trident]

Well, engine arrangement apart (pun intended), the bottom concept on that image and the one from the recent video are virtually identical.

 

[Blitzo]

Well, engine arrangement apart (pun intended), the bottom concept on that image and the one from the recent video are virtually identical.

hehe well done.

IMO engine arrangement is a pretty big difference for looking at how fighters, especially stealth fighters "look," given it basically dictates what the fuselage/body/wing arrangement will be like.
I think the engine nozzles on the recent concept from the video also shows round nozzles rather than flat, F119 style nozzles

 

[GTX]

As shown at 2017 Berlin Security Conference

 

[LowObservable]

They really pulled out the First XI graphics team on that one.

 

[Reaper]

He, dont make fun of them! They got at least the right cross!

 

[LowObservable]

I'm actually surprised that they didn't look up "German warplane insignia" on Google and make a really embarrassing mistake - although there's one forum member here who would love it!

 

[litzj]

I briefly reviewed info. from you guys in https://jaesan-aero.blogspot.kr/

TEXT are here

1. Lack of HT and TVC (not certain)

- There is no emphasis on Air-Air Combat or Manuever; OML of the concept seem to be optimized for high speed cruise and LO performance, like YF-23 did (wing-planform is more similar to F-16XL).

- Control surface on the LE like Pak-Fa probably provides least maneuverability for this fighter; this wing-planform and layout of control surface is not for sustained fight, but for instantaneous fight.


2. No emphasis on weapon delivery or 'killer role' of the fighter

- It seems to have at least more than one internal weapon bay (from vids, only one central bay and no-side bays). But vids did not show anything related to it. Vids gave strength on Network capability; providing information, penetration of enemy air-area. Finalizing information and delivering weapon for destruction are probably done by unmanned or cruise missiles.

- not like US' way, Airbus want this fighter to do lead 'Hunt', not 'Kill'. This aircraft seems to have two crew members; it means secondary crew focuses on gathering information and commanding other friendly asset to lead missions.

- If this assumption is true, internal weapon bay or bays are not big enough to contain 'expensive weapons', like NSM, Taurus, Storm-shadow, JASSM. Maybe, Airbus thought minimizing weapon bay could save cost of this fighter. Weapon bay of the fighter probably load relatively light weapons, Meteor, self-defense IRIS-T, or Advanced or replacement version of AGM-88s.


3. Very Large Wing Planform for Long-Time Endurance?

- While it has larger wing planform than similar-size-jet, it only emphasize on 'ISR', 'Leading Friendly Asset'. There is nothing about 'Super-cruise', 'Delivering Silver Bullet on enemy's heart', 'Dramatic Air Combat'.

- Fancy high speed, weapon bay, high-thrust engine, and TVC things cost money and weight of the platform. Maybe if saved weight is changed to fuel and combined with fuel-economy engine, it could achieve extremely long range and endurance than its counter-part.

- From estimation of position of components (weapon bay, LD), extremely large LERX, and nose-cone shape, it probably highly unstable and could achieve low trim drag and high L/D for its mission.


Conclusion of Estimation

- 5 or 6th gen. fighter cannot be cheap, but this concept decisively give up few fancy things escalating cost, and try to save cost and number of required fighters. Few roles, delivering weapon, air-combat, should be done by other conventional jets.

- In given cost, it focuses on 'Endurance', 'ISR', 'Commanding' role in danger area.

- If this concept is right, Airbus targets a small number of production in reasonable cost.

 

[marauder2048]

Its name is a killing word.

 

[Michel Van]

on the Tweet source
Christian Thiels is correspondent for "Tagesschau", Germany's main daily television news, provided by ARD

 

[flateric]

https://www.janes.com/article/79573/ila-2018-mtu-reveals-next-generation-fighter-engine
https://www.flugrevue.de/flugzeugbau/triebwerke/mtu-bereitet-sich-auf-militaerauftrag-vor/753660

 

[TomcatViP]

So there is a plenum around the nozzle that seems also to be 3d TVC. No apparent third stream but the advanced multidisciplinary modelling technique suggests something advanced:

these include multi-disciplinary methods and simulations in the design of engine concepts

 

[muttbutt]

Thought I'd put this in here, it seems to be connected to this.

Airbus Demonstrates Manned-Unmanned Teaming for Future Air Combat Systems
September 25, 2018 DP Press Releases 0 Comments Airbus, Future Combat Air System (FCAS) Europe, Manned Unmanned Teaming (MUMT), Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV)

Airbus has successfully performed manned-unmanned teaming (MUT) test flight campaigns demonstrating the ability to control unmanned systems from a manned aircraft.

These campaigns included demonstrations with five Airbus-built Do-DT25 target drones controlled from a mission group commander who was airborne in a manned command and control (C2) aircraft.

Flown in a test zone of Germany’s Baltic Sea area, the MUT trial flights served multiple purposes, including validating such elements as connectivity, human-machine interface, and the concept of teaming intelligence through mission group management. For the aspect of teaming intelligence, multiple capabilities and enabling technologies are required at sufficient maturity levels – from teaming/swarming algorithms and new sensors to mission management systems for command and control assistance by the manned aircraft’s crew.

A key element contributing to these successful flights was the advanced flight control and flight management system developed by Airbus for unmanned air vehicles – which combines fully automatic guidance, navigation and control with intelligent swarming capabilities.

Manned-unmanned-teaming is expected to increase the mission efficiency of future airborne systems in many ways. Equipped with sensors, the swarm of unmanned systems can provide situational awareness to a mission group commander located a safe distance away aboard the manned aircraft.

The Airbus MUT demonstrations brought together several of the company’s programme and product lines, with the main development and test phases conducted during a short timeframe and at low cost – supported by an agile, rapid prototyping environment and a risk-mitigation approach.

Expertise gained during the manned-unmanned teaming test flight campaigns will be applied by Airbus to develop Europe’s Future Combat Air System (FCAS).

https://defpost.com/airbus-demonstrates-manned-unmanned-teaming-for-future-air-combat-systems/

 

[flateric]

https://www.mtu.de/nefengine/

 

[Deltafan]

https://www.mtu.de/nefengine/

AFAIK : the FCAS is to replace EF and Rafale. For the replacement of the Tornado there are today 4 "contenders" : "modified" EF, F-35, F-18 and F-15.

This previous project (last year AFAIR) of Airbus (the plane shown in the link) is still available for the replacement of the Tornado ?

 

[flateric]

NEFE page shows something generic that resembles Airbus DS 'New Fighter' Concept from 2017.
Now Franco-German FCAS/SCAF study is ledaded by Dassault as a leader, there won't be domestic German FCAS.

 

[Deltafan]

NEFE page shows something generic that resembles Airbus DS 'New Fighter' Concept from 2017.
Now Franco-German FCAS/SCAF study is ledaded by Dassault as a leader, there won't be domestic German FCAS.

OK, thanks.

 

[VTOLicious]

Airbus in “Unprecedented” Drone Swarm Demonstration

https://www.cbronline.com/news/airbus-drone-trial

 

[RavenOne]

As shown at 2017 Berlin Security Conference

When I attended ILA 2018 at the end of April, there were a pair of Luke AFB's F-35A on static and F-35A mock up (aimed at Luftwaffe) Those of us who sat in it got the hat (cap) lol tp prove it....

rest of my photos below

Was chatting to a Belgian contact at the show, subsequently he was laying bets that the F-35 has good chance with both his country and Germany. This simply attributed to both countries NATO nuclear capability and commitment. The Typhoon has not been cleared to carry a 'bucket of sunshine' cue last week, Belgium selected the F-35 over the Typhoon.
Now could Germany follow suit by example? What are the chances the F-35A can be in the apple of the Bundestag's eyes?

Slightly digressing, funding has been made available by the Federal Government in Berlin, for urgent procurement of the CH-53G/GS/GA fleet with either the CH-53K or CH-47F. If L-M Sikorsky wins with the King Stallion, then could it open the doors for F-35 procurment?

Cheers

 

[Grey Havoc]

Union warns Germany against Super Hornet selection

One of Germany's biggest aerospace employee unions has warned the country's government that it risks jeopardising the entire European defence industry if it selects a US-built fighter to replace the Luftwaffe's Panavia Tornado fleet.

www.flightglobal.com