Re-arming the Bundeswehr: Which Projects?

The German text says Trägerflugzeug - I'm not a native German speaker, but I believe the word covers both meanings. Which leaves open the possibility of an F-35A buy. Thank you, @kaiserd
Das Kampfflugzeug F‑35 kommt als Trägerflugzeug in Betracht.
Click to expand...
Which translates roughly to: the combat aircraft F-35 comes into consideration as carrier aircraft.
 
Last edited:
What Scholz said with context mean “nuclear bombs carrier” not carrier based plane. He said that they need to replace Tornados as nuclear bombs carrier, then said about electronic warfare Typhoons and then come back to the topic of F35 as Träger which mean carrier as “carry something” - nuclear bombs in context.
 
True - it is in fact equally ambiguous in both languages, but based on context it is fairly obvious that its use as a B61 platform is being referred to.
 
US just inform them that nuclear qualification for Typhoon require 4-5 years. And I think anyway F35 offer better chance to deliver B61 and as well they are available for Germany within 2-3 years in correct version.
 
Given that UK no longer has its own tactical nuclear weapons a B61 clearance for Typhoon in the RAF (and Italy and Spain) might make sese.
 
But most probably it requires certain changes:
  1. Cockpit rearrangement to fit PAL panel,
  2. Cabling for B61 hard point,
  3. B61 ballistics for weapon comp. For B61-12 it will be more complicated.
  4. Diagnostic software integration with airframe.
Then flight tests. For me it is at least some heavy airframe rebuild or just new airframe required + development cost. I assume F35 could be at the end cheaper or equal. And it’s stealth so has better survivability.
 
Träg is cognate with English Tray.....
Which is of course used to carry things...

Yes it gets quite entertaining to translate literally from German into English.

It gets worse when you discover zeug is toy, making flugzeug fly-toy.......
 
zen said:
Träg is cognate with English Tray.....
Which is of course used to carry things...

Yes it gets quite entertaining to translate literally from German into English.

It gets worse when you discover zeug is toy, making flugzeug fly-toy.......
Click to expand...
Zeug: Thing
Spielzeug: Plaything or Toy
Flugzeug: Flight Thing or Aircraft
Werkzeug: Work Thing or Tool
I really should get out more..
Oh well while I am it
Flugzeugtraeger (The a should have two dots which mean an e sound after the a)
Airthingcarrier.
Traegerflugzeug can thus be either a carrier aircraft or a carrier aircraft. Sometimes German doesnt work as well as it normally does but the English is similar.
(At this point his careworker found uk 75's medication)
 
Last edited:
Are leparpard 2's still in production? Because if they are Germany really should start buying a hole lot of them (and pumas sense i know they are still being built) frankly Germany had 8 years to prepare for future weapons and they failed to doing anything with it. Right now they need to focus on getting the army equipmented to fight then worry about future projects. So f-35s and enuff equipment to put as many armored divisions into poland as possible, then worry about new tanks and FCAS, they won't be around until 2030, Germany needed to get its act together in 2014, mite as well get going now.
 
Cjc said:
Are leparpard 2's still in production? Because if they are Germany really should start buying a hole lot of them (and pumas sense i know they are still being built) frankly Germany had 8 years to prepare for future weapons and they failed to doing anything with it. Right now they need to focus on getting the army equipmented to fight then worry about future projects. So f-35s and enuff equipment to put as many armored divisions into poland as possible, then worry about new tanks and FCAS, they won't be around until 2030, Germany needed to get its act together in 2014, mite as well get going now.
Click to expand...
They ran out of old tanks to convert so they restarted production of 2A7s and 2A7Vs, and the planned fleet was reasonnable (400+). It might be best to use the remaining years of production and the full capabilities of the line to convert/replace old European tank fleets with 2A7Vs or the future 2AX. Not Leclercs, Arietes or Challenger 2s since they are being upgraded, but replacing the remaining T-72M1s in Eastern Europe would do wonders.
 
Elan Vital said:
Not [...] or Challenger 2s since they are being upgraded
Click to expand...
There's an argument that new Leopard 2A7s would be a better bet than upgraded Challengers. It's not one the British government is keen on, because 'new' might mean 'expensive', whereas 'upgraded' always means 'cheap', as successive British defence procurement programmes have demonstrated.
 
RLBH said:
Elan Vital said:
Not [...] or Challenger 2s since they are being upgraded
Click to expand...
There's an argument that new Leopard 2A7s would be a better bet than upgraded Challengers. It's not one the British government is keen on, because 'new' might mean 'expensive', whereas 'upgraded' always means 'cheap', as successive British defence procurement programmes have demonstrated.
Click to expand...
I agree, but as you said, gotta convince the British govt...
 
Not sure at this stage, that the UK should be buying German tanks.

Right now Germany should just focus on bringing extent forces to a operable, effective and sustainable level.
Spares, training, and investment in personnel. That is what is needed to stand up and effect moral.

Grandiose plans are for the long term and right now raising the German Military back to a high standard will reveal what is possible dor that long term.
 
Apophenia said:

Basically, give Rheimetall €42 Billion and we'll deliver munitions within a year, wheeled armour with a year and a half, and tracked armour within two years.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think getting the equipment already in inventory up to usable standards of mission availability is the immediate priority. New equipment purchases might have to wait a bit until "lessons from Putin's War" can be digested. And by "a bit" I mean a couple months. A sense of urgency is a good thing after 30 years of allowing NATO's capability to be hollowed out, but throwing money around willy nilly isn't*. Maybe it will turn out the money would be better spent in Turkey than on Rheinmetall.

*F-35s for nuclear sharing may be an exception. Speaking of nuclear sharing, dropping dumb B-61s is dumb. Before SRAM T got cancelled it was a candidate for a replacement for B-61s. How viable would something like a JASSM armed with a tactical nuke be?
 
apparition13 said:
*F-35s for nuclear sharing may be an exception. Speaking of nuclear sharing, dropping dumb B-61s is dumb. Before SRAM T got cancelled it was a candidate for a replacement for B-61s. How viable would something like a JASSM armed with a tactical nuke be?
Click to expand...
I like this train of thought a lot.

B61-12's major benefit would be internal carriage for the F-35, does anyone know if the F-35B could also carry the B61?
 
isayyo2 said:
apparition13 said:
*F-35s for nuclear sharing may be an exception. Speaking of nuclear sharing, dropping dumb B-61s is dumb. Before SRAM T got cancelled it was a candidate for a replacement for B-61s. How viable would something like a JASSM armed with a tactical nuke be?
Click to expand...
I like this train of thought a lot.

B61-12's major benefit would be internal carriage for the F-35, does anyone know if the F-35B could also carry the B61?
Click to expand...
The answer is a conditional “no” - at least internally the F-35B can’t carry 2,000lb JDAM/ B61 sized weapons in its smaller weapon bays. Externally may be possible but that wouldn’t be ideal and not aware of the US Marines (or any other F-35B customer) having pursued this so far.
 
kaiserd said:
isayyo2 said:
apparition13 said:
The answer is a conditional “no” - at least internally the F-35B can’t carry 2,000lb JDAM/ B61 sized weapons in its smaller weapon bays. Externally may be possible but that wouldn’t be ideal and not aware of the US Marines (or any other F-35B customer) having pursued this so far.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Only F-35A is going to be certified and it will be carried internally B61-12. Video with drop from internal in link below:

www.thedrive.com

F-35A Completes Final Inert Drop Test Of New B61-12 Nuclear Bomb

The F-35A is now on a trajectory to become fully certified to deliver thermonuclear weapons in the near future.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
 
Hanz2k said:
kaiserd said:
isayyo2 said:
apparition13 said:
The answer is a conditional “no” - at least internally the F-35B can’t carry 2,000lb JDAM/ B61 sized weapons in its smaller weapon bays. Externally may be possible but that wouldn’t be ideal and not aware of the US Marines (or any other F-35B customer) having pursued this so far.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Only F-35A is going to be certified and it will be carried internally B61-12. Video with drop from internal in link below:

www.thedrive.com

F-35A Completes Final Inert Drop Test Of New B61-12 Nuclear Bomb

The F-35A is now on a trajectory to become fully certified to deliver thermonuclear weapons in the near future.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
That was kaiserd, not me. You have your quotes nested incorrectly. :)
 
Sorry, I just reply wrong post :). Should go like this:
kaiserd said:
The answer is a conditional “no” - at least internally the F-35B can’t carry 2,000lb JDAM/ B61 sized weapons in its smaller weapon bays. Externally may be possible but that wouldn’t be ideal and not aware of the US Marines (or any other F-35B customer) having pursued this so far.
Click to expand...
Only F-35A is going to be certified and it will be carried internally B61-12. Video with drop from internal in link below:

www.thedrive.com

F-35A Completes Final Inert Drop Test Of New B61-12 Nuclear Bomb​

The F-35A is now on a trajectory to become fully certified to deliver thermonuclear weapons in the near future.
www.thedrive.com
 
Given recent events:

The "Correct" choice is to develop a system of man portable and autonomous weapons with most hardware sourced from open civilian market parts. Than somehow a bunch of this show up in insurgent groups against whatever regime against German interests, if needed. Aka the Iranian model. They value would be in software.

A proper army that has a bijion logistical, political and other practical constrains is likely to be pretty useless beyond sitting there being scary given German's position, unless it wants another swing at France or something.
 
RLBH said:
Elan Vital said:
Not [...] or Challenger 2s since they are being upgraded
Click to expand...
There's an argument that new Leopard 2A7s would be a better bet than upgraded Challengers. It's not one the British government is keen on, because 'new' might mean 'expensive', whereas 'upgraded' always means 'cheap', as successive British defence procurement programmes have demonstrated.
Click to expand...
I suspect that it is more a matter of upgrade money coming from a different "shoe box" than money for new equipment.
New equipment needs to pass a vote in the Diet, Bundestag, Parliament, Senate, House of Lords, etc. where as "upgrade" money can be "found" in other parts of the defense budget.
 
Who would Germany be re-arming to protect against? Russia?

Russia has shown themselves...currently, and for the foreseeable future...to be unable to protect or hide their logistics and command-and-control operations and their own artillery from precision missiles and precision artillery fire. So have a bunch of that capability...preferably long ranged so it's harder to find. All shoot and scoot mounted.

Russian air power has shown itself to be unable to operate in even an S300/Buk defensive space. So, ample numbers of SAMs, mobile mounted, constantly shifting positions.

Their cruise missiles have a better record of getting through. The German SAMs must be good and numerous enough to prevent that.

And, Russian air defenses' susceptibility to HARM attacks has shown that point radars are obsolete...so German air defense networks should use redundant-mesh sensor systems and inter-element communications.

Cheap drones are ubiquitous...even the Russians are using them effectively...so correspondingly cheap (propeller-powered?) anti-drone SAMs are needed, in large quantities, everywhere. Homing warhead with multi-band sensors, to work against semi-stealth at night and in inclement weather, so as to have the ability to shoot down drones flying to GPS coordinates and thus unhampered by adverse conditions. Preferably at least semi-stealth, so Russian sensor networks don't readily identify launch points.

Dumb artillery and heavy-mortar rounds are a waste of tonnage. Ditto towed guns. No more area fires. Everything must be shoot and scoot, most everything should be precision. Each shell is individually targeted. So, fewer guns will be needed per battery...maybe just one or two...and there will be much less tonnage of ammo movement.

No rail logistics. No limitation to Grade 1 highways. All truck movement, and extensive usage of secondary and tertiary roads. Constantly changing routes. Route all trucks singly...no convoys.

Immediately upon a readiness determination, commence construction/installation of backup bridges everywhere, with plans for rapid replacement of everything that goes down. No part of the logistics mesh should be a single critical path. Similarly, all warehousing and dumps should be distributed.

Obviously infantry needs plenty of state of the art MANPADs/MANPATs.

No need to upgrade tanks or other infantry weapons. Everything is still effective. The Russians at present don't have more than a few tanks still operational that could get as far as the German border without breaking down, and long since would have been out of fuel. Spend the money elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Poorly equipped German army awaits financial reinforcement from Berlin (ft.com, registration or subscription may be required)

Nine months ago, in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Olaf Scholz declared a Zeitenwende — a turning point — for Germany’s military and its place in the world. But since then, barely any of the €100bn in extra funding the German chancellor pledged has made its way to the armed forces.

The parliamentary body set up in the spring to allocate money to modernisation and reform programmes has met once. The defence ministry had no procurement proposals to submit to it. Its next sitting will not be until February.

Now opposition lawmakers, and some of the country’s leading security experts, are beginning to ask whether Germany’s commitment to a leading role in European defence is anything more than rhetoric.

“Mr Chancellor — I can’t call it anything else, you are breaking your promise to the parliament and especially to the Bundeswehr [federal army],” opposition leader Friedrich Merz said in an attack on Scholz in the Bundestag on Wednesday morning.

Far from rising, the 2023 defence budget, Merz noted, was set to shrink by €300mn based on current government plans. The lack of German action was “[giving] rise to considerable distrust” at Nato and in allied capitals, he claimed. Germany has long fallen short of its Nato-set obligation of spending the equivalent of 2 per cent of GDP on defence.

“It’s a long-term plan, not fast, hectic PR statements,” Scholz retorted. “We want to ensure . . . that we order the right things and that the Bundeswehr is equipped in such a way that it works for decades to come.”

[snip]
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom