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

wow Typhoon still not fully integrated after all these years. Germany should have joined with France on the Rafale. it better meets their needs in the end. (both politically and functionally).
 
Eurofighter and F-18 Jets Said to Replace Bundeswehr Tornadoes
(Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; posted March 26, 2020)

BERLIN --- From 2025, the Bundeswehr's aging Tornado fleet will be replaced by up to 90 additional Eurofighter jets and 45 F-18 fighter planes from the US manufacturer Boeing, Handelsblatt and other German media reported today, adding that the F-18 will be procured for both electronic warfare and nuclear strike missions.

The internal plan prepared by the Bundeswehr has already been discussed with industry, according to the dpa news agency, but Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (CDU) has yet to approve the plan.

If approved, Handelsblatt reported, Germany would buy 30 F-18E/F Super Hornets to replace the Tornado in the nuclear strike mission, as modifying a US fighter would be faster and simpler than modifying the Eurofighter, assuming the US government would accept.

In addition, Germany would also buy 15 EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft to replace the Tornado ECR variant.

Additional Eurofighters would take on the other missions now carried out by the Tornado fleet, mainly reconnaissance and ground attack. The relatively large number of at least 78 additional Eurofighters -- but possibly over 90 – will be attained because additional new aircraft will also be bought as replacements for older Tranche 1 Eurofighters.

The Bundeswehr currently operates a total of 234 combat aircraft, including 141 Eurofighters from Airbus and 93 Tornado jets built by the European Panavia consortium. The Tornado, which was launched almost 40 years ago, is intended for air attack, tactical reconnaissance and electronic warfare – as well as for nuclear strike using American-supplied gravity nuclear bombs.

There has been a long controversy about the Tornado’s successor, which involves a double-digit billion euro amount over the years. The plan now being negotiated is intended to reconcile security policy requirements with industrial policy, which among other things involves strong Bavarian interests. The Airbus armaments division has its headquarters in Bavaria, Eurofighters are finally assembled in Manching. Either way - a future federal government will only make the final decision on the timeline.

The project is also politically difficult because of the “special role” of the Tornado: NATO's nuclear deterrent concept provides that allies have access to US nuclear weapons in the event of war, i.e. they must be able to carry the bombs to their destination. Officially never confirmed, but a kind of open secret: 20 thermonuclear B61 gravity bombs from the US armed forces are to be stored in Büchel air base, in the Eifel region, can be fitted to the German Tornados in case of war.

-ends-
Click to expand...
 
So let's sum it up:
- The Typhoon is a poor choice for an Electronic attack airplane (low internal volume, low CG range, low internal fuel): let's buy some SH
- The Typhoon is unsuitable for a Nuke carrier (too costly to convert and upgrade): let's buy some SH (because somehow we vowed not to get 35 into service at all cost).
- The Typhoon just got superseded by an aircraft Airbus did bashed during the last decade: let's buy some few Typhoon to keep a straight face.

So if they need a mark number for the next batch, I would suggest the Typhoon "MkF" (or Tranche "F" for Facelift).
 
Last edited:
Actually, I'd see it more as a crude attempt to appease the United States over Germany continuing to short change her NATO obligations. Given the current very poor state of the German armed forces, not to mention the equally dire state of the Ministry of Defence however, not to mention the domestic political scene, I rather suspect that this plan is liable to unravel fast.
 
This sort of crept up on me. Tornado has been part of the furniture for so long.
If only the A12 Avenger II had not been such a fiasco, the RAF and Luftwaffe would have had them and given the Tornado a decent successor.
No there doesnt seem a good answer..
 
The logical solution would be to bite the bullet and pay for the necessary upgrades to, and developments of, the Eurofighter Typhoon.
 
The RAF rather sold the pass on Typhoon by adopting the F35 as its Tornado replacement. No idea whether this was wise or not. BAe dont care either. Of course UK hasnt carried US tac nukes for years
 
German Defense Minister Commits to Buying F-18s to Replace Tornados
Click to expand...
(Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; posted April 20, 2020)

PARIS --- German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer on Thursday officially informed the United States on April 16 that Germany would buy 45 Boeing F-18 fighters to replace its Tornado strike fighters, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported on Sunday.

Kramp-Karrenbauer’s commitment was made by e-mail to US Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Der Spiegel added, and confirmed that the 45 jets would be divided into 30 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets adapted to carry B61-12 nuclear free-fall bombs for the nuclear strike mission, and 15 EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft to replace the current inventory of Tornado ECR electronic reconnaissance aircraft.

However, Airbus will not completely lose out, as a separate purchase of 45 Tranche 3B Eurofighters, probably fitted with AESA radars, is also planned, to replace the Luftwaffe’s early Tranche 1 aircraft that are now obsolete.

Der Spiegel also reported that Kramp-Karrenbauer, a member of the CDU conservative party, ignored the well-known objections of the SPD socialist party, the CDU’s partner in the governing coalition, before committing to buying the Boeing fighters. This, Der Spiegel added, will lead to a major confrontation between the two parties.

Kramp-Karrenbauer’s commitment to buying a fleet of Super Hornets, however, hasn’t closed the issue, as the final decision will rest with the Bundestag, which is required to approve funding for each defense acquisition worth over 25 million euros.

From the SPD’s point of view, the decision to buy an all-F-18 fleet is a clear provocation, Der Spiegel said, adding that while a debate was expected on the issue, Kramp-Karrenbauer decided to cancel a public presentation of her plans on Thursday at short notice. But that didn't stop her from sending the email with the order confirmation to her colleague Esper.

The Tornado replacement is one of Germany’s largest defense contracts of the decade, and one of the most controversial as a strong industry lobby is pushing for the procurement of Eurofighter jets, which would be partially built and assembled in Germany by Airbus.

In 2019, then defense minister Ursula von der Leyen tried to calm the nascent controversy caused by her firing of then Luftwaffe chief of staff for having publicly called for procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35. Her compromise was to buy a combination of Eurofighter jets and US fighters, but her successor Kramp-Karrenbauer did not follow her lead.

The SPD’s opposition is due to the fact that part of its members want Germany to drop the nuclear strike mission, and prefers that the United States withdraw the nuclear bombs it has stockpiled at Büchel air force base. Another SPD faction opposes awarding such a huge arms deal, worth several billion dollars, to an American firm.
Click to expand...
 
The controversy is quite sad to hear. Growler would boost in overall EU position among NATO partnership (and give Germans a unique capability only short to stealth). It's a gigantic step in the right direction that should not be missed (again).

Europe face a pandemia that will drain budgets more surely than a shelf full of rolls of toilet paper in a grocery store: it's the right time to order and given the antecedents here, the right plane.
 
Last edited:
Had they picked the F-35 then the controversy would be intense indeed.

I don't think that the Typhoon ECR was likely to happen. The other partners don't seem to have been interested, even the RAF, so Germany was unlikely to pick up the full development costs.
Saying that was there anything intrinsically preventing the Typhoon for being being wired for the B-61?
A Growler order makes sense, but a penny packet of 30 F/A-18E/Fs for the nuclear mission feels a little untidy, probably necessary but it seems odd to split your spares requirements just for the sake of one day maybe carrying a B-61 when the F/A-18 probably adds very little to anything that the Typhoon can already do. But I suppose with the Growler its an acceptable logistical compromise.
But it does certainly stake out Germany's nuclear capability and the fact that Berlin is willing to keep it up to date, something that I feel we would have seen previously.
 
Hood said:
Had they picked the F-35 then the controversy would be intense indeed.

I don't think that the Typhoon ECR was likely to happen. The other partners don't seem to have been interested, even the RAF, so Germany was unlikely to pick up the full development costs.
Saying that was there anything intrinsically preventing the Typhoon for being being wired for the B-61?
A Growler order makes sense, but a penny packet of 30 F/A-18E/Fs for the nuclear mission feels a little untidy, probably necessary but it seems odd to split your spares requirements just for the sake of one day maybe carrying a B-61 when the F/A-18 probably adds very little to anything that the Typhoon can already do. But I suppose with the Growler its an acceptable logistical compromise.
But it does certainly stake out Germany's nuclear capability and the fact that Berlin is willing to keep it up to date, something that I feel we would have seen previously.
Click to expand...

Technically I don't think so, but US would oppose. To push the purchase of a US plane, and it works.
Imagine the circus in White House nowadays if you ask, "hey would you help us wiring OUR planes for YOUR bombs, so that we don't buy YOUR planes..."
 
Last edited:
galgot said:
Technically I don't think so, but US would oppose. To push the purchase of a US plane, and it works.
Imagine the circus in White House nowadays if you ask, "hey would you help us wiring OUR planes for YOUR bombs, so that we don't buy YOUR planes..."
Click to expand...

Well, they did it for Tornado but that was a different era, to be sure.
 
TomS said:
galgot said:
Technically I don't think so, but US would oppose. To push the purchase of a US plane, and it works.
Imagine the circus in White House nowadays if you ask, "hey would you help us wiring OUR planes for YOUR bombs, so that we don't buy YOUR planes..."
Click to expand...

Well, they did it for Tornado but that was a different era, to be sure.
Click to expand...

It’s a compromise; probably the cheapest and quickest way to field a viable replacement for the Tornado ECR and signal your commitment to the NATO nuclear-armed mission while also avoiding an argument with the current US administration re: arriving at a B-61 armed Typhoon. Now how good a choice those F-18E/Fs are (in isolation) a deep strike nuclear weapon delivery mission in the longer term is debatable (hard not to see, for example, the F-35 being better suited to that specific mission).
And more advanced Typhoons to sweeten the deal for industry and for general capability.
 
TomS said:
galgot said:
Technically I don't think so, but US would oppose. To push the purchase of a US plane, and it works.
Imagine the circus in White House nowadays if you ask, "hey would you help us wiring OUR planes for YOUR bombs, so that we don't buy YOUR planes..."
Click to expand...

Well, they did it for Tornado but that was a different era, to be sure.
Click to expand...

Yes, different times... But now trump will be happy, Germany finally spending money on defense (read buying US) and helping Boeing :p
 
Last edited:
Hood said:
Had they picked the F-35 then the controversy would be intense indeed.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The F-35 was by far the best technical/operational solution (hence why the head of the Luftwaffe, Lt. Gen. Karl Müllner, was apparently supporting it before being reportedly fired. That said, doing so would have essentially derailed the plans for a joint Airbus new fighter which would have potentially put perceived industrial benefits at risk.
 
I am not sure that down low the Typhoon huge delta would be as much efficient as the SH wing. Also low, a Hornet frontal aspect that bears significant RCS reduction is an acute advantage for the Nuclear delivery mission.
Think also conformal tanks (officially in production today) to extend range.

Then they can double use the SH & Growler to build an efficient rapid deployment force for NATO: one airframe, one logistic supply line with commune ressources with partners.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
I am not sure that down low the Typhoon huge delta would be as much efficient as the SH wing. Also low, a Hornet frontal aspect that bears significant RCS reduction is an acute advantage for the Nuclear delivery mission.
Think also conformal tanks (officially in production today) to extend range.

Then they can double use the SH & Growler to build an efficient rapid deployment force for NATO: one airframe, one logistic supply line with commune ressources with partners.
Click to expand...

Neither the Super Hornet or the Typhoon are particularly well suited to low altitude operations, though that’s less of as an issue given they may well not fly those types of mission profiles. Honestly don’t see much of the difference in this regard though you could see a modern relaxed stability canard aircraft potentially having better automatic dampening for better ride/ reduced gust response plus a bonus in range

Similarly from all the information I am aware of there is little to nothing in the Super Hornet versus the Typhoon in terms of frontal radar cross section (for example the former has blockers in its inlet while the latter has an S-bend designed for low frontal radar cross section).

An given it’s small size and it very specific mission focus appears unlikely German airforce F-18E/Fs would form the core of most rapid deployment forces (unless that rapid deployment was tide to intended use of B-61s, which would be a very dark day).
Small numbers of F-18Gs would deploy in support of larger numbers Typhoons which would be the core of any such rapid deployment force.
And while having both Super Hornets and Growlers would simply some of the logics for the German airforce versus have just one of them it is unlikely that any allied nation they would deploy to as part of such a rapid deployment force would also have Super Hornets (unlikely to deploy to US carriers or to Australia).
 
I guess that the Luftwaffe have decided that on the basis of the 1991 and 2003 RAF Toenado experience and various others from Bosnia to Syria and looking at the way the US has used its Hornets and Growlers together with modern weapons, this was the best way to go.
Back in the 70s the Luftwaffe liked its F4s so much that it would have happily ordered more instead of Tornado. It was not that enthusiastic about Typhoon believing its F4 ICE was enough for Post Cold War work.
Although its now Boeing, the FA18 is an McD design.
The F35 is too new and untested in action. Added to that its a Lockheed product. Headlines in the lively German media about Starfighter company to build our new nuclear bomber are probably not an aset.
NATO reinforcement of the North Sea and Baltic areas would almost certainly involve USN and USMC Super Hornets. It is also possible that USAF might be planning to replace their F15Es with them and the Germans got wind of that too.
 
im gonna post this again since some one made another Tornado topic for some reason..

on the subject of the Tornado.
I'm surprised Germany chose the Super Hornet and Typhoon as its replacement.
should have went F-35, especially since they wanted something that could drop the gravity bombs

by the way.. could the Tornado have been navalized (both versions)?
I am wondering if they could.. would a navalized Tornado IDS and ADV been a better option for the British carriers than the Harriers.
the IDS flew before the Ark Royal and Hermes (catapult UK carrier) retired
and was about the same weight as the F-4 that the Ark utilized. and also shorter than the F-4 so I think it could fit on the same elevators.
the swing wing would probably make it easier to land on the Ark than the F-4
Ark and Hermes flying Torando IDS and ADV would have probably done more damage to the Argentinians in 82

and perhaps instead of ski-jump follow-ons like the Invincible, the next line of ships would have been CTOL.
 
uk 75 said:
I guess that the Luftwaffe have decided that on the basis of the 1991 and 2003 RAF Toenado experience and various others from Bosnia to Syria and looking at the way the US has used its Hornets and Growlers together with modern weapons, this was the best way to go.
Back in the 70s the Luftwaffe liked its F4s so much that it would have happily ordered more instead of Tornado. It was not that enthusiastic about Typhoon believing its F4 ICE was enough for Post Cold War work.
Although its now Boeing, the FA18 is an McD design.
The F35 is too new and untested in action. Added to that its a Lockheed product. Headlines in the lively German media about Starfighter company to build our new nuclear bomber are probably not an aset.
NATO reinforcement of the North Sea and Baltic areas would almost certainly involve USN and USMC Super Hornets. It is also possible that USAF might be planning to replace their F15Es with them and the Germans got wind of that too.
Click to expand...

The US Marine Corp does not operate the Super Hornet and does not intend to.
Any there is zero chance of the Super Hornet replacing F-15Es - the Super Bug will be long out of production before the F-15Es are due for replacement.
 
kaiserd said:
uk 75 said:
I guess that the Luftwaffe have decided that on the basis of the 1991 and 2003 RAF Toenado experience and various others from Bosnia to Syria and looking at the way the US has used its Hornets and Growlers together with modern weapons, this was the best way to go.
Back in the 70s the Luftwaffe liked its F4s so much that it would have happily ordered more instead of Tornado. It was not that enthusiastic about Typhoon believing its F4 ICE was enough for Post Cold War work.
Although its now Boeing, the FA18 is an McD design.
The F35 is too new and untested in action. Added to that its a Lockheed product. Headlines in the lively German media about Starfighter company to build our new nuclear bomber are probably not an aset.
NATO reinforcement of the North Sea and Baltic areas would almost certainly involve USN and USMC Super Hornets. It is also possible that USAF might be planning to replace their F15Es with them and the Germans got wind of that too.
Click to expand...

The US Marine Corp does not operate the Super Hornet and does not intend to.
Any there is zero chance of the Super Hornet replacing F-15Es - the Super Bug will be long out of production before the F-15Es are due for replacement.
Click to expand...

The Marine Corp has put all its eggs into the F-35 basket for now, that includes the F-35B/C models. If the Marine Corp wanted to operate the Super Hornet then they would have replaced the F/A-18C model with them.
 
The way things are going presently, there won't be much left of the USMC within a few years.
 
Sorry folks, I tend to just see Hornets.Thanks for correcting.
The F15E replaced F111s. I just cannot see F35s in that role as they are single seaters with not much range. The Germans and USAF in Europe are very close in working and I still think this is one of the reasons. Also the Lockheed factor.
The UK no longer has the RAF in Germany and its F35s are different anyway. The UK is already working apart from Germany on a Typhoon successor. So Typhoon is a dead end.
I dont know how much life the airframes of the German Tornado force have, but I would have been tempted to keep them until it was clearer that F35 was going to replace F15E.
 
GTX said:
Agreed. The F-35 was by far the best technical/operational solution (hence why the head of the Luftwaffe, Lt. Gen. Karl Müllner, was apparently supporting it before being reportedly fired. That said, doing so would have essentially derailed the plans for a joint Airbus new fighter which would have potentially put perceived industrial benefits at risk.
Click to expand...
Spot on.
 
TomcatViP said:
Grey Havoc said:
The way things are going presently, there won't be much left of the USMC within a few years.
Click to expand...
?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far, but the new commandant has ... ideas. It's a pretty radical new look, if it happens as Berger is advocating -- no tanks, a lot less tube artillery, a lot more long-range missiles and rockets, and a significantly smaller end-strength (at least 10% smaller).
 
The F-35 choice was a political non-starter. Anything that jeopardises a joint Franco-German SCAF force is politically and industrially unsound.

I suspect there are a few ageing retired Luftwaffe officers with a wry smile, they had proposed the F-18L back in the late 1970s instead of the ACA commitment. History has a tendency to come full circle.

The question now is, if SCAF is going to replace Typhoon in the 2040s, is it also going to have the EW and nuclear capabilities to replace the Growler and Super Hornet? Its a very expensive interim solution if not and how do you break the reliance on US-EW kit and nuclear weapons. If Berlin ends up having to buy an updated F-35D in 2040 then it might of wasted its money anyway.
 
uk 75 said:
France will want a nuclear capable successor to Rafale.
Click to expand...

But French nuclear control wiring seems unlikely to be compatible with US nuclear devices. Both physically and, probably more importantly, in terms of certification and validation processes.
 
uk 75 said:
The F15E replaced F111s. I just cannot see F35s in that role as they are single seaters with not much range.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Panavia TornadoF-15EF/A-18FF-35AF-35BF-35C
Combat Range*/Radius*​
1,390 km​
1,272 km​
722 km​

1,093 km​

833 km​

1,100 km​

* - essentially meaningless given aerial refuelling options.


 
Bundeswehr Looks for Bridging Solution for Tornado Successor
Click to expand...
(Source: German Ministry of Defense; issued April 22, 2020)
(Unofficial translation by Defense-Aerospace.com)

To avoid a direct confrontation with coalition partner SPD, German defense minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer on Wednesday told the Bundestag that a final decision on the replacement of Tornado fighters is not necessary before 2022 or 2023. (GE MoD photo)

The German Ministry of Defense plans to begin procuring a replacement for the Tornado fighter jet in 2025. Two thirds of the fighter jets will come from Europe, but jets from the USA will also be bought.

It does its job faithfully, but is getting on in years: the Tornado fighter jet has been used by the German Air Force for around 40 years. Slowly but surely, it's time for a more modern weapon system. A successor is needed by 2030 at the latest. That is when the useful life of the multi-purpose combat aircraft, which can be equipped with nuclear weapons among other things, will end.

This is an important military capability of the Bundeswehr, and is required both by the Federal Government’s White Paper and by NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) allies.

The new European fighter aircraft, which is being developed as part of the "Next Generation Weapon System" project with France and Spain, will not be available until 2040. Therefore, there must be a bridging solution based on models available on the market for the time after the Tornado has become obsolete and before the FCAS Future Combat Air System is launched. The development of FCAS Future Combat Air System should not be endangered.

The planning for this has already started, because time is short: "In order to maintain unbroken capability, procurement must start from 2025," the ministry said. "To be able to replace the Tornado in good time, the procurement process must therefore be started now."

The overall proposal will provide up to 93 new Eurofighters with advanced and expanded capabilities for the Bundeswehr. The Eurofighter will foreseeably form the backbone of the Air Force. Few special skills are to be temporarily replaced by another aircraft type. The plan is to purchase 45 [F-18E Super Hornet] aircraft as a bridging solution for nuclear [mission] participation and for airborne electronic combat.

Partner countries informed about projects

The Ministry of Defense relies on a mixed calculation. On the one hand, according to the ministry, investments should be made in “developing the capabilities of the German and European defense industries” in order to maintain and promote their own technical and industrial know-how. On the other hand, the US fighter jets that will be bought are already fully developed and available on the armaments market.

Initial talks with the US administration have already been held. The partner nations France and Great Britain were also informed of the planning process.

Purchase decision in two years at the earliest

Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer's proposal was presented to the Defense Committee of the Bundestag on Wednesday. If the deputies agree with the proposal, the detailed planning begins.

These should be presented to parliament in the next legislative period - in other words, in 2022 at the earliest, probably in 2023. The Bundestag will then make the final decision on the investment.

"Knowing the established, also parliamentary, processes, we are only at the beginning of a procurement that will take years," said the Ministry of Defense.
Click to expand...
 
Looks like keeping the hot potato for the next admin. A lot can happen in 2/3 years.
 
Seems quite reasonable to me.
The NATO required nuclear role for SACEUR is not set in stone and by the time FCAS arrives there may even be a European Defence Force.
Maybe the UK will get some FCAS to replace its short legged F35b.
 
uk 75 said:
Maybe the UK will get some FCAS to replace its short legged F35b.
Click to expand...

Is FCAS going to have STOVL capability? Enough with the "short legged" rubbish - refer to post on the previous page. I could just as easily say the the F-35B gives a 50% increase in combat radius over the Harrier GR.9s the RAF were previously operating.
 
I am impressed by the staunchness of GTX's support for F35 and read the impressively long and acrimonious thread about it with interest.
The Germans I suspect want a plane that does not need inflight refueling.
The RAF (as opposed to the RN) need an aircrsft like the much-used and missed Tornado rather than a Harrier replacement.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom