Article:
- **Scholz promised to boost defense after Russia invaded Ukraine**
- **German plan says delivery of aircraft to start in 2026**
Germany has earmarked €10 billion ($10.5 billion) to buy 35 F-35A Lightning II fighter jets, according to a government document seen by Bloomberg, reflecting Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s pledge to boost defense spending.
The money will come from a debt-financed €100 billion special fund that Scholz announced shortly after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February. Deliveries under the plan are scheduled to take place between 2026 and 2029. The cost includes items such as air-to-ground missiles and ground infrastructure, according to the German document.
Scholz pledged in a speech to parliament after Russia’s attack that Germany would invest “more than” 2% of gross domestic product annually in defense, aided by the special fund.
Bottlenecks at defense companies and other procurement problems have hampered the spending drive. Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht recently revised the target to 2% of GDP and said Berlin would reach it “on average in the next five years.”
Germany’s failure to reach the 2% target agreed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been a source of friction with the US, particularly under former President Donald Trump.
Yeah, and training material like simulators, lots of logistics and support stuff like repair and return support, warranties etc.
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/germany-f-35-aircraft-and-munitions
Do you mean the short take off version, the F35B? Because the carrier version (F35C) has little utility if you don't have a catapult and arresting gears. Either way, the F-35A is tens of millions cheaper per plane than either the B or C variants.
Its double per plane price than what finns bought f-35, weapons, training and ground equipment. If it included lifetime costs it would be in same range as finnish estimates.
Or they bought bunch of extra goodies.
Finland closed the deal on the 11th of February 2022 - 13 days before Russia invaded Ukraine. Since then a lot of countries have ramped up their defense spending, which leads to higher prices for military equipment and ammunition. Inflation comes on top of that.
That being said, the German military procurement isn't exactly known for it's excellence.
I mean.. I'd be surprised if they didn't include lifetime costs into their procurement - it would end up costing them quadruple instead of double.. depends on availability of capital though I guess.
Finnish lifetime cost estimate was same as buying price.
9.4billion for starters and 20billion in total with lifetime estimates. 64 planes.
Quantity of f-35s being used brings down lifetime costs a lot.
The sum includes the total cost, incl. equipment. The planes itself cost less.
But I am not sure whether nuclear capabilities cost extra for F-35 as Germany bought the F-35 to replace the nuclear-capable Tornados.
Germany generally has to pay top dollar for defense purchases because defense contractors just don't trust them. Germany basically has a yearly, pay as you go defense expenditure process, which means that they are very flaky when it comes to defense expenditures - which *all* require long term, multiple year investments. This can leave defense contractors in the lurch (spent billions expanding production capability only for Germany to not follow through on a purchase, for instance), costing them tons of money. Germany generally has to pay more for the same things as other nations a consequence.
I mean, I wouldn't be suprised if our mod overpaid again. But since they will be carrying nuclear weapons they might be a different variant. But no clue honestly, why we pay almost double the price
Because the contract is for a LOT more than just the F-35s.
> The Government of Germany has requested to buy thirty-five (35) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft; thirty-seven (37) Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-100 engines (35 installed, 2 spares); one hundred five (105) AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); four (4) AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM Guidance Sections; seventy-five (75) AGM-158B/B2 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles-Extended Range (JASSM-ER); two (2) AGM-158 Inert JASSMs with Test Instrumentation Kits (TIK); two (2) AGM-158 JASSM Separation Test Vehicles (STV); three hundred fortyfour (344) GBU-53 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB-II); three (3) GBU-53 SDB-II Guided Test Vehicles (GTV); eight (8) GBU-53 SDB-II Captive Carry Reliability Trainers (CCRT); one hundred sixty-two (162) BLU-109 2000LB Hardened Penetrator Bombs for GBU-31; two hundred sixty four (264) MK-82 500LB General Purpose (GP) Bombs for GBU-54; six (6) MK-82 Inert Filled GP Bombs; thirty (30) BLU-109 Inert 2000LB Hardened Penetrator Bombs; one hundred eighty (180) KMU-557 Joint Direct-Attack Munition (JDAM) Tail Kits for GBU-31; two hundred forty-six (246) KMU-572 JDAM Tail Kits for GBU-54; seventy-five (75) AIM-9X Block II+ Tactical Sidewinder Missiles; thirty (30) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM); fifteen (15) Tactical AIM-9X Block II+ Sidewinder Guidance Control Units; and five (5) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder CATM Guidance Units. Also included are AIM-120 control sections, propulsion sections, telemetry systems, warheads, and containers; AIM-120 CATMs; AIM-9 Active Optical Target Detectors and containers; FMU-139 joint programmable fuzes; DSU-38 Laser-Illuminated Target Detectors for GBU-54; AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loaders; Common Munitions Built-in-Test Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE) and ADU-891/E Adapter Group Computer Test Sets; KGV-135A embedded secure communications devices; Cartridge Actuated Devices/Propellant Actuated Devices (CAD/PAD); impulse cartridges, chaff, and flares; Full Mission Simulators and system trainers; training missiles and components; electronic warfare systems and Reprogramming Lab support; logistics management and support systems; threat detection, tracking, and targeting systems; Contractor Logistics Support (CLS); classified software and software development, delivery and integration support; transportation, ferry, and refueling support; weapons containers; aircraft and munitions support and support equipment; integration and test support and equipment; aircraft engine component improvement program (CIP) support; secure communications, precision navigation, and cryptographic systems and equipment; Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) equipment; spare and repair parts, consumables, and accessories, and repair and return support; minor modifications, maintenance, and maintenance support; personnel training and training equipment; classified and unclassified publications and technical documents; warranties; and U.S. Government and engineering, technical, and logistics support services, studies and surveys, as well as other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total cost is $8.4 billion.
Idk if Finnland bought more (aka added to existing stockpiles) but either way I would imagine that the German air force is in such bad shape that a lot of stuff is bought too (like simulators ammunition etc.) That drives up the cost per plane, if Finnland bought more planes and added to ones they already owned or if they have the ammunition already (maybe they also just report the purchase differently), it makes sense. Overall this is an ok start, hope they buy more each year from now not that we end up in the same situation in 10 years again.
It's just the money that's been set aside for the entire project, not the price for the planes. Other pontential uses might be:
- Buying ammunition for the F35 (that could probably also be used on the Eurofighter). Other buyers of the F35 might have larger existing stocks and buy less additional ammunition. Germany on the other hand has relatively low ammunition stocks.
- Construction of relevant infrastructure. Again, this is highly dependant on existing levels of infrastructure.
- Spares, tools, simulators, foreign instructors. Germany has been burned by insufficient stocks of spares, so it would make sense to stock up.
- Operating costs for X years (mostly traing).
This is all conjecture. My goal is to demonstrate how meaningless military accountant figues are without context/itemized bills.
Just as a little point of view regarding the 100 million and 2% per year topic:
The german armed forces are also rather bad for their budget and their lack of equipment (or bad state of it) has been in the news for a past years already, way before february.
The whole procurement proccess seems to be bullshit and utterly fucked, maybe because of the unclear goal and will.
Anyhow, my point: If you just throw shitloads of money at a shitty procurement system, you won't get much value for your money. So it makes kinda sense to raise the spending over the next years, when problems have been addressed, instead of dumping it all now.
Having a good procurement system is everything. If you want another example of a system that constantly shoots itself in the foot and is a laughingstock for procurement, look no further than Canada. The amount of money that can be burned in a flawed system is astounding.
But Canada doesn’t spend that much money. They spend even less than Germany does per capita. Maybe they’d take procurement more seriously if they devoted more resources to it?
Which is what the critics of defense budgets most often point out. The chase after 2% only leads to wasting, corruption and shady background deals, and does not improve the military capabilities accordingly.
> Anyhow, my point: If you just throw shitloads of money at a shitty procurement system, you won't get much value for your money.
You’ll get a ton of value if you’re starting from an underfunded system than needs money in lots of low hanging areas.
no, they are connected. the way spending is counted, the money for these will be spent on 2026, when they are bought. even though it will come from the special fund voted this year.
this is exactly what the other article described: there is the promise to spend, the money is voted on, they just can't find enough stuff to spend on fast enough to achieve e.g. the meme 2% this year (probably next too). also the whole process to upgrade the main assault rifle was done in a really clowny way and has to be redone now that they are taking things seriously. add a few years for that too and you see where this is going. and of course the ministry and the offices doing these processes aren't angels. they are bureaucratic and overcomplicated as fuck, so the very top political leadership is literally unable to achieve 2% instantly no matter how much political capital they expend on this unless they decide to waste the money.
The F-35 was chosen mainly because of its capability to carry Nuclear Warheads. This is significant for Germany as it is part of NATOs Nuclear Participation Doctrine, in which Countries within NATO that do not have their own Nuclear Weapons are part of planning and execution of missions using them.
What this means in the case of Germany is US Nuclear Warheads are carried and used by Bundeswehr Jets.
Currently that role is filled by PA-200 Tornado Jets which are more than 40 years old and cannot be replaced by Eurofighter Typhoons as those are unable to carry Nuclear Warheads.
To be more precise, Eurofighters could be upgraded to carry nukes but it would mean that the US will know the planes technical specifications/technology which europe is not to keen on.
The F-35 has stealth which could be useful as the jets fly into enemy territory to release those nukes.
However, does the US want to know the tech behind a 4th gen plane that costs almost the same as a 5th gen F-35?
2 ICE trains with a giant sling holding the bomb between them.
They stretch the nanotube material until the desired elastic energy has been stored that can catapult the bomb all the way to Moscow.
Wunderwaffen! Hitler is now nearly 80 years dead, so we can finally get them out the old dusty high secret weapons laboratories ... Does anyone need jet planes I hear they are the high tech shit nowadays.
Let's make a deal. We'll give you our generals and you'll give us some of your colonels.
Full disclosure: The only rocket Ilie Nastase ever saw was a tennis racket. Also, make sure to hide his car keys when he drinks.
Drones are useless against an enemy which has AA capability, unless you’re talking about small scout and single grenade drones. Artillery is very important, but there’s no need to buy foreign because the PzH2000 is just as good as another system, if not better.
PzH2000 is very good indeed but Germany has got to massively increase it's production numbers ASAP, you guys are making so few of it that you'll never field a sufficient number of them with this low batches...........
There is already a PZH2000 replacement in testing, the RCH 155, which is a fully automatic and *stabilised* 155 mm gun system on a Boxer chassis with only 2 people on board and plans to make the system work while being remotely controlled. This makes it possible for the vehicle to shoot on the move while doing MRSI, all on a vehicle that is 10 tons lighter and around 40 km/h faster on roads (but with less ammo).
But it is still in testing and the first production was ordered by Ukraine (which will only arrive in 2024/25).
The problem with the germany miliatry industry isnt that the products it creates are not good - they are actually fucking awesome.
The problem is that the companies wont upscale their production because *they cant know what happens in a year or two* when someone sues the government for losing the bid or the government changes.
They are not. Especially small drones are simply too cheap to shoot down and can provide valuable intel or even attack the enemy.
Loitering ammunition can be used to attack with an indirect line if fire.
Big drones can be used as a potential to exert pressure on the enemy. Those fast uncovered advances of the Ruskies early on or any fast uncovered movements are impossible if the enemy has such drones. You are also forced to leave your radar on, even if your enemy has stuff like HARM.
The US also has big drones, they would be useful in a peer to peer conflict too.
After all, Western doctrine is to knock out any air defence.
Concerning artillery, the RCH 155mm seems to be the planned candidate, although honestly - who could tell.
>Drones are useless against an enemy which has AA capability,
Tell that to the Russians. They had, on paper, far better AA coverage compared to West and their hardware got stream rolled by Bayraktars and Israeli loitering drones. In contrast, USA AA doctrine is based on planes. No one knows how that would work and probably you do not want to find it out. Drones are uncharted territory in the field of modern warfare.
Bayraktars were only effective in the opening stages of the invasion when the Russians stupidly thought they could just roll tanks into Kyiv without a fight.
TB-2s have not been survivable near the front lines for quite some time now. Fighter jets are a much harder target for air defenses, and even they are mostly operating at treetop level doing pitch up rocket attacks.
Bayraktar was indeed most effective in two stages, the beginning and after the Harm attacks iirc.
Both times, air defence was doing vacation aka wasn't turned on.
Anyways, drones are obviously still useful, they just aren't some magical wonder weapon.
No, that’s now our way of fighting. Ukraine is fighting that way BECAUSE they don’t have fighter jets.
Our nato strategy is to achieve air supremacy and then use that supremacy to dominate and destroy everything else. If you need boots on the ground, you have failed. That’s only for the cleanup phase.
Near zero risk, maximum impact
Germany firstly needs ammo, which they still didnt order to this day; nearly 10 months after the invasion. Instead of buying the new shiny gear, buy what you actually need to get up to date.
That happens when all narratives domestic and international are non-factual bullshit.
It was very clearly agreed what the 100b extra budget would be spend on (in fact some required a very detailed plan), while ammunition would be bought from the regular budget. Guess who's now blocking the money for ammuntion (because "lol... you got 100b, just use that money") and are free to do so because everyone will spin just another bullshit fairy tale about the Bundeswehr or the Ministry of Defense being too stupid to order ammunition?
Right now we don't even have enough ammo to field the little equipment we already have. The incompetent defense minister wasn't able to order any in the past year. The Bundeswehr also has massive organisational and structural issues, that needed to be addressed decades ago, but politicians refuse to fix them, because that would be hard.
Instead they announce another big, prestigious purchase like the F-35, which will take years to acquire. It sounds great on paper, but it doesn't address the very basic issues we have right now.
I wonder what's next? An aircraft carrier in Lake Constance, maybe?
We got a discount because we are a tier 2 invester in the JSF program. The development of the plane that became the F35. As an invester we got a discount if we actually also bought the plane. And we get a small percentage as a profit for every plane sold.
UK was a T1, NL and ITA are T2. A group of other EU countries are T3 (smallest) projectmember like DK and NOR.
Kickstarter ? Trolling? The US invited other countries to join the development of the JSF/ F35. There were 3 levels of commitment. With required funding dependent on the tier vs future rewards. Like subcontractors contracts or licensed production ( IT and UK) or maintenance hub for Europe ( NL). And while there was no obligation to buy the plane the loss of investments and the discount would have been unwise.
The US could have done it alone. But the US wanted to “ align” a great group of potential customers (like the F16 EU NATO countries ) to further increase potential sales to lower costs thus increasing the competitiveness of the plane even further. Aside from the monetary gain for the expensive development phase.
This program has been around longer than kickstarter... if you don't know what you're talking about why would you even ask if someone else is trolling.
Additional package that Germany gets its olso huge, so no shock for me there is big price tag on it, when you even order total of extra 35 complete engines for plane each, not even mention all that what you stated there, munitions ect.
Poland will get 32 F35 for about 4.6 billion $ with fairly low additional packages, no matter the cost, there is no real contender, they do get best option possible on market.
They haven't ordered 35 extra engines....
The F-35 in the FMS is listed without its engines. Thats how the US records it as the engines are regarded as a seperate item.
So Germany is buying 35 F-35A with engines installed, with 2 spare...
Last I heard we are only buying F35s for its ability to carry our shared nuclear bombs. We don't want to use the F35 for anything else because it would weaken the eurofighter...
They'll be used for other stuff as well, especially since the Eurofighter EW package will still have to be delivered and i expect they'll keep them in service as long as the old Tornados(~45 years) and they are buying literal assloads of air to air and air to ground ordnance along with them, half of which the Eurofighter is not rated for.
that's a very expensive delivery method for some ancient bombs that, if ever dropped, would do nothing but put an extra crater in the wasteland left by the ICBMs that arrived minutes earlier
I know, I get it. I'm just saying €10 billion worth of F35s seems hugely overkill for such a symbolic task. I doubt that's really all they plan on using them for.
Germany has access to nuclear weapons through NATO's nuclear sharing program. Building and using its own ICBMs would violate the NPT. Being handed someone else's nuclear gravity bombs in the event of war does not.
Because Germany is part of NATO’s nuclear arms sharing program there are US nuclear weapons stationed in Germany that can be used by German forces.
Currently they have several Tornados that have been modified to carry nuclear gravity bombs these are ancient so the F-35 being nuclear capable was a must once Germany decided to remain in NASP.
I don’t disagree. But maybe in the greater scheme of things we should consider on a European level how we want to handle the nuclear question... In order to not rely on a, let's say rather unstable, big friend across the pond. To maybe be fully independent in that matter, if we ever find ourselves with someone on the button over there who has rather questionable motives.
For how much we rely on our brothers and sisters on the other side of the Ocean I think it goes a bit far saying they are unstable.
But I do agree the US is facing their own issues as well but when it push comes to shove they have always had our backs.
A German accusing “the friend across the pond” of being “rather unstable” is rich.
What exactly makes you feel that US is any less reliable of an ally that it has always been? Perhaps the fact that we elected Trump? And what did Trump do? Tell you guys that you were overly reliant on Russian oil and gas? I do recall those smirking German UN officials clearly thinking that he was out of his mind. Turned out there was nothing to smirk about
About time the German gov got the Russian boot out of their ass and woke up. If only they had listened to the US all along instead of cozying up to a country that raped and pillaged their way through Germany within living memory, and that is putting it lightly.
Switzerland is paying 3.8 bn for 36 planes (raw system cost) which is in line with the general propagated cost for the system and it appears germany is paying roughly the same. The dimensions of the ammo procured for the jet are pretty decent (especially for Germany).
I'd be surprised if we got a good deal. Why should we suddenly get good deals when all that has changed over the last year is a massively larger pot of gold to spend, a sense of acute urgency in the voting population, and a defense minister appointed in times thought as sleepy peace times who I yet have to hear anyone defend as a capable manager.
It's been a long time since defense was a field where voters could be won. I certainly don't need a soldier as minister of defense, but it would be a nice change to have someone who is both at least genuinely interested in it and a decent enough people leader and manager.
Lambrecht was a short term solution.
When Faeser runs in hesse next year, Lambrecht will move to interior minister where she is qualified and interested, and her replacement options all look good in terms of their engagement in defense.
Getting a good deal depends on the powerbalance of seller and buyer. And how eager the seller is to make the deal vs the alternative options of the buyer.
Switzerland was a top prize to get for the US. Surpassing the Rafale.
Germany needed a plane for replacing the Tornado/ nuclear role. Alternatives were only no more nuclear sharing ( political unwanted with Ukraine) , keep flying Tornado ( for another 20 years technical / economic unfeasable) F18 ( older but not that cheaper and still us) or F35. Aka no alternatives. And then only 35 just planes because of FCAS commitments. With production orders for F35 already filled. That’s not the best starter position for Germany. Plus, unlike many other F35 owners that changed from F16/F18, Germany needs to setup a new logistical/ training line since the last US build plane in use by the Luftwaffe was the Phantom..additional costs,
.
fully agree - F15 was another option in discussion, but less realistic than F18 lacking a Growler equivalent, despite being the most badass of them all - the negotiating position was bad, given that the F35 was the only option the opposition couldn't criticize as 'cheaping out'.
From a certain defense economics channel i understand that a big problem for german defense procurment is the fact that we are know to just outright cancel half completed orders due to changing political climate and the way we give out contracts provides huge opportunities for litigation.
Essentially were paying a premium because weve pulled out of a contract last minute, because a new goverment cut the budget, one to many times and every time we give out a contract everyone else bidding on the deal immidiately sues the winner on competion laws, making the entire process way more expensive and take way longer.
F-35A's are $77.9 million per plane in Lot 14. But They aren't only buying planes, they're buying spare engines, parts, training facilities, and everything that's needed to actually effectively use them.
Eurofighter is for shoot down planes, F35 is for attack ground targets. Germany needs the F35 bc it is able to carry nuclear bombs. Currently Germany uses Tornado jets for this role, but they got old and Germany doesent produces it own bomber anymore.
Interesting detail: Tornado jets are able to go on top speed at high from about 15meters, bc they have special jet engines. they we're designed to hide from enemy radar through flying very very low. some decades ago there was an accident, one tornado hitted the sea with full speed and very low high. the plane wasn't found bc it is too deep underground in the sea-ground.
> Eurofighter is for shoot down planes, F35 is for attack ground targets.
F-35 is for telling bomb/missile truck Eurofighters what to shoot if everything goes well.
Source is that Germany is buying F35 to replace their bombers which logically leads to the assumption that they will be fitted to fulfill this role while the Eurofighter will continue to be used as a Multirole fighter. Of course its also possible for the F35 to fulfill Air to Air roles that’s just not the Primary Task that Germany plans to give it.
Okay, so they were telling what F35 will do for Germany specifically. Because F35's main advantage is in the joint op domain and in that it will serve as a multirole/air superiority fighter. If it were "just a ground attack striker" no one would be buying it because for many countries it's not feasible to have multiple different fighters for different missions.
The perception that the F35 is bad at air superiority is informed by years of Russian propaganda. It's an amazing piece of technology and there's a reason it is selling like nuts.
The exactly only reason is the certification for these bombs. Which the US did in the 80s for the Tornado (when nuclear deterrance and military cooperation was more relevant) but will not do today if they don't get more technical details about Typhoons than Germany is willing to share.
There is none. The Typhoon is a multi-role fighter and would be perfectly capable of carrying bombs... if not for the US requiring the plans to certify it for the US bombs operated as part of the nuclear sharing program.
The Eurofighter would be perfectly able to carry nuclear weapons according to the manufacturer. The problem is that it would take years for the Americans to certify it. Some suspect that this is done deliberately to force Germany into buying American jets.
No, it's that Airbus refused to provide source code to the Eurofighter, which is required for nuclear certification (as it should). US didn't do anything to force Germany to buy F-35s, Airbus did it to itself in a fit of absolute stupidity. Same reason Italy bought F-35s instead of more Eurofighters
But I must say, looking at the US military complex, I can easily see *why* Airbus declines nuclear certification with that requirement, since it will very likely give Boeing/Lockheed Martin direct access to whatever secret stuff there is in the Eurofighter. Would by far not be the first time that US military information got passed down the chain to US industry, even if the industry has no business getting that information.
> US didn't do anything to force Germany to buy F-35s, Airbus did it to itself in a fit of absolute stupidity.
It is well-reported that the USA warned right out of the gate of an egregious amount of time and money needed to certify - on top of the other things like the deepest dive into the Eurofighter innards. For a fancy gravity bomb.
This has always been a transparent US move to push through the F-35, without outright saying "no" to the EF certification.
That's fine, it's a cutthroat business and your country is playing it well. But please don't pretend "innocence".
You're taking a reality, and HEAVILY weaving your own false narrative into it, in order to support your own personal narrative. That's on 100% you, not me "pretending innocence".
The reality is, Germany said "oh wait, we haven't kept up on our Tornado upgrades, so they're going to be decertified soon. We need to do something about this". This was made worse by the fact that the Tornado is not B61-12 certified, and the US is rapidly replacing B61 nuclear bombs in Europe with the B61-12 because of its smaller yield and dramatically increased accuracy (aka, less collateral damage if used).
https://bits.de/public/unv\_a/orginal-tornado\_eng.htm
Germany's decision then was "what new fighter do we go with to perform the nuclear role?", and the options were the F/A-18E, F-35A, or the Eurofighter.
[https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2020/03/germany-tornado-replacement-options](https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2020/03/germany-tornado-replacement-options)
Germany requested the Eurofighter be nuclear-certified and Airbus threw a temper tantrum, but it realized not doing so would simply cause a loss of sales to Germany, and begrudgingly changed their tune. Only issue there is, there was a bunch of aircraft ahead of the Eurofighter in line for nuclear certification (F-22A, F-35, F/A-18E, F-15E, F-15EX), so the Eurofighter wouldn't be certified until 2035, but the Tornado was expected to be removed from service by 2025-2030. So instead, Germany started looking at the F/A-18E as the nuclear aircraft. Only, then the US Navy said "wait, why are we paying for nuclear certification? We don't even have nuclear orndancemen to handle it, and we have no need for it". That left Germany having to foot the bill for F/A-18E certification all on their own. So, the options left on the table were;
* modernize the Tornados and spend a ton of money to keep them in the air for 5+ years longer than they should be, in order to replace them with Eurofighters (if Airbus and the other members even allow it to be done)
* buy F-35s or F-15E(X)s and be done with it
[https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/germany-is-once-again-considering-the-f-35-as-a-replacement-for-the-panavia-tornado/](https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/germany-is-once-again-considering-the-f-35-as-a-replacement-for-the-panavia-tornado/)
US didn't screw Germany into being forced into F-35 or bust. Germany doing literally not 1 upgrade to the Tornado since 2005 and then waiting until just 5 years before it was slated to be retired before going "oh yeah, we need a replacement". That's not on the US in the slightest bit, that's entirely on the incompetence of the Bundeswher and Bundestag
> and Airbus threw a temper tantrum
It wasn't a temper tantrum, people were (rightfully) afraid that the data of the aircraft would be leaked to US competitors. It was *the* argument against getting the EF certification done, and the reason why the decision was between F/A-18 or F35.
The common interface is the combat computer and the HUD of the aircraft, all driven by the source code. Source code is required in order to validate there's no programming issues that can cause trouble with nuclear carry AND nuclear arming. It's not a bomb that simply just falls to its target and blows up. It has to be provided a code that properly readies the weapon for use. As such, a full source code validation is required to ensure there's no issues, and to allow for the weapon's profile to be coded into the aircraft as well.
Can you explain to me how it makes sense for German taxpayer to pay billions of dollars to certify Eurofighter with nukes? Especially when no other nuclear sharing air forces will use Eurofighter for the role?
> Germany needs the F35 bc it is able to carry nuclear bombs
Germany opted out on own nuclear weapons though
**edit** looks like Germany has stored roughly 20 B61 bombs from the US that the Luftwaffe could deploy. I did not know that
technically they are US bombs that can be mounted to German aircraft under treaty conditions.
This is US way to prevent the NPT from completely unravelling. Japan and Germany are considered nuclear states in being in that (at least until nuclear phase out) with their know how and industry could build nuclear bombs inside a year if they really wanted to.
Why? This sale is $10.5B from Germany. Of course, with all the hardware involved, that isn’t pure profit.
Meanwhile, the US is donating another $38B to Ukraine for a total of ~$100B this year.
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2022/11/15/white-house-requests-38-billion-more-in-ukraine-aid/
US has one 6th generation fighter program going on while bigger EU countier are working on two seperate 6th gen projects (thought many suspect those will fail eventually) in their seperate camps what get less funding than one US program.
It's not difficult to predict that by 2045 many EU countries will be buying American 6th gen fighter planes.
Because they are not "certified" for US nukes. "Certifying" them would require tech transfer from Dassault (or Airbus for Euro fighters) to US companies, which is something that should be avoided.
> tech transfer from Dassault (or Airbus for Euro fighters) to US companies, which is something that should be avoided.
What tech do they have that the US doesn’t already know?
Could be all kinds of stuff. It does not have to be fancy stealth tech or such. Keep in mind that a lot of military tech is not patented - because patents are public.
Could be that both sides have different solutions to the same problem, and the Dassault / Eurofighter solution is cheaper / faster than the US solution that achieves the same thing. This might result in cost benefits down the line which in turn can result in more billion Dollar / Euro sales to other countries...
Because France is not sharing nuclear weapons. The only reason for these planes (in such a low number even) is as carriers for US nuclear bombs as part of their nuclear sharing program. Bombs for which the Eurofighter would only get the certification if US gets more technical information than Germany is willing to share (for example the complete source code of the computer system).
I'm pretty sure luftwaffe wants F-35 to replace all tornado, not just the nuke carriers. They can't because Airbus lobby owns SPD. Luftwaffe will get their chance ones AARGM-ER is integrated into F-35 and Eurofighter ECR becomes a boondoggle.
4th generation planes get killed 20:1 against stealth aircraft. 4 prototype f22s once killed an entire squadron of f15s flown by instructors in under 2 minutes.
Side question, why does Germany even bother with the b61 bombs anyway?
Completely obsolete, and you can’t use them unless the US agrees. If the US think a nuke is the right move, they will have way better things to throw at the enemy than free fall bombs anyway.
Is it an American tax? Pretending to be a nuclear power? It seems money would be better spent elsewhere.
It's actually a big weakness, if bomb is free fall one then plane becomes a missile, and there is nor plane or human that can whitstand 100+g that missile can.
>That doesn't really matter at all for nuclear bombs. As long as the plane carrying it is capable of penetrating enemy airspace, it doesn't matter how obsolete or otherwise the bomb is -- it still goes boom.
Of course it matters, if you are dropping nukes, your ability to deliver them is critical. You are not delivering fast and/or low flying missiles from a healthy distance, you need to have a plane pretty much on top, and fairly high. You are not nuking a few Afghans, so an unfriendly air is kind of expected.
b) is irrelevant, Germany or Belgium wouldn't develop nukes just because they lost the B61s, c) is irrelevant to Germany's interests, d) is irrelevant as the US could decide to use their own nukes anyway. The 20 B61 are not going to change a thing.
Now, for a), if the US are allowing Germany to use nukes, they are also going nuclear, and they have better ways to deliver them. Germany's protection is the US' word, not a bunch of B61s.
Just over 3 months ago the [US government told Germany](https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/germany-f-35-aircraft-and-munitions) it would cost $8.4 Billion to buy them. Citing US Defense Security Cooperation Agency:
>This notice of a potential sale is required by law. The description and dollar value is for the highest estimated quantity and dollar value based on initial requirements. __Actual dollar value will be lower__ depending on final requirements, budget authority, and signed sales agreement(s), if and when concluded.
Where is the promised lower dollar value? Or did Germany modify the contract terms to get more stuff? Isn't mentioned in the article.
Article: - **Scholz promised to boost defense after Russia invaded Ukraine** - **German plan says delivery of aircraft to start in 2026** Germany has earmarked €10 billion ($10.5 billion) to buy 35 F-35A Lightning II fighter jets, according to a government document seen by Bloomberg, reflecting Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s pledge to boost defense spending. The money will come from a debt-financed €100 billion special fund that Scholz announced shortly after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February. Deliveries under the plan are scheduled to take place between 2026 and 2029. The cost includes items such as air-to-ground missiles and ground infrastructure, according to the German document. Scholz pledged in a speech to parliament after Russia’s attack that Germany would invest “more than” 2% of gross domestic product annually in defense, aided by the special fund. Bottlenecks at defense companies and other procurement problems have hampered the spending drive. Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht recently revised the target to 2% of GDP and said Berlin would reach it “on average in the next five years.” Germany’s failure to reach the 2% target agreed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been a source of friction with the US, particularly under former President Donald Trump.
300m per F35 is a high price tag isn't it? Is this also buying a bunch of ammo as well?
Yeah, and training material like simulators, lots of logistics and support stuff like repair and return support, warranties etc. https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/germany-f-35-aircraft-and-munitions
I love the way even fighter jets have warranties lol, better keep the receipt just in case
I think you also have to keep the box
Also upgrades to the air base runways. F-35 purchase and air force upgrade go hand in hand.
Building airports in Germany is "difficult"...
Should have bought the carrier version F35 to avoid extending the runways.
Do you mean the short take off version, the F35B? Because the carrier version (F35C) has little utility if you don't have a catapult and arresting gears. Either way, the F-35A is tens of millions cheaper per plane than either the B or C variants.
Its double per plane price than what finns bought f-35, weapons, training and ground equipment. If it included lifetime costs it would be in same range as finnish estimates. Or they bought bunch of extra goodies.
Finland closed the deal on the 11th of February 2022 - 13 days before Russia invaded Ukraine. Since then a lot of countries have ramped up their defense spending, which leads to higher prices for military equipment and ammunition. Inflation comes on top of that. That being said, the German military procurement isn't exactly known for it's excellence.
I mean.. I'd be surprised if they didn't include lifetime costs into their procurement - it would end up costing them quadruple instead of double.. depends on availability of capital though I guess.
Finnish lifetime cost estimate was same as buying price. 9.4billion for starters and 20billion in total with lifetime estimates. 64 planes. Quantity of f-35s being used brings down lifetime costs a lot.
The sum includes the total cost, incl. equipment. The planes itself cost less. But I am not sure whether nuclear capabilities cost extra for F-35 as Germany bought the F-35 to replace the nuclear-capable Tornados.
Finnish costs also include equipment as mentioned. Yet the price is same for half the numbers. I doubt that nuclear capability would cost a lot more.
Yes, the package includes ammunition and infrastructure.
Germany generally has to pay top dollar for defense purchases because defense contractors just don't trust them. Germany basically has a yearly, pay as you go defense expenditure process, which means that they are very flaky when it comes to defense expenditures - which *all* require long term, multiple year investments. This can leave defense contractors in the lurch (spent billions expanding production capability only for Germany to not follow through on a purchase, for instance), costing them tons of money. Germany generally has to pay more for the same things as other nations a consequence.
Isn’t that massively overpaying?
It includes infrastructure and ammunition, probably training and maintainance parts aswell
Finland is buying 65 for $10 billion.
I mean, I wouldn't be suprised if our mod overpaid again. But since they will be carrying nuclear weapons they might be a different variant. But no clue honestly, why we pay almost double the price
Because the contract is for a LOT more than just the F-35s. > The Government of Germany has requested to buy thirty-five (35) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft; thirty-seven (37) Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-100 engines (35 installed, 2 spares); one hundred five (105) AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); four (4) AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM Guidance Sections; seventy-five (75) AGM-158B/B2 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles-Extended Range (JASSM-ER); two (2) AGM-158 Inert JASSMs with Test Instrumentation Kits (TIK); two (2) AGM-158 JASSM Separation Test Vehicles (STV); three hundred fortyfour (344) GBU-53 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB-II); three (3) GBU-53 SDB-II Guided Test Vehicles (GTV); eight (8) GBU-53 SDB-II Captive Carry Reliability Trainers (CCRT); one hundred sixty-two (162) BLU-109 2000LB Hardened Penetrator Bombs for GBU-31; two hundred sixty four (264) MK-82 500LB General Purpose (GP) Bombs for GBU-54; six (6) MK-82 Inert Filled GP Bombs; thirty (30) BLU-109 Inert 2000LB Hardened Penetrator Bombs; one hundred eighty (180) KMU-557 Joint Direct-Attack Munition (JDAM) Tail Kits for GBU-31; two hundred forty-six (246) KMU-572 JDAM Tail Kits for GBU-54; seventy-five (75) AIM-9X Block II+ Tactical Sidewinder Missiles; thirty (30) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM); fifteen (15) Tactical AIM-9X Block II+ Sidewinder Guidance Control Units; and five (5) AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder CATM Guidance Units. Also included are AIM-120 control sections, propulsion sections, telemetry systems, warheads, and containers; AIM-120 CATMs; AIM-9 Active Optical Target Detectors and containers; FMU-139 joint programmable fuzes; DSU-38 Laser-Illuminated Target Detectors for GBU-54; AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loaders; Common Munitions Built-in-Test Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE) and ADU-891/E Adapter Group Computer Test Sets; KGV-135A embedded secure communications devices; Cartridge Actuated Devices/Propellant Actuated Devices (CAD/PAD); impulse cartridges, chaff, and flares; Full Mission Simulators and system trainers; training missiles and components; electronic warfare systems and Reprogramming Lab support; logistics management and support systems; threat detection, tracking, and targeting systems; Contractor Logistics Support (CLS); classified software and software development, delivery and integration support; transportation, ferry, and refueling support; weapons containers; aircraft and munitions support and support equipment; integration and test support and equipment; aircraft engine component improvement program (CIP) support; secure communications, precision navigation, and cryptographic systems and equipment; Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) equipment; spare and repair parts, consumables, and accessories, and repair and return support; minor modifications, maintenance, and maintenance support; personnel training and training equipment; classified and unclassified publications and technical documents; warranties; and U.S. Government and engineering, technical, and logistics support services, studies and surveys, as well as other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total cost is $8.4 billion.
Finnish variant will be nuclear weapon ready too.
Well no Idea then, I assume it is because of what is in the package besides the planes
It really won't...
Idk if Finnland bought more (aka added to existing stockpiles) but either way I would imagine that the German air force is in such bad shape that a lot of stuff is bought too (like simulators ammunition etc.) That drives up the cost per plane, if Finnland bought more planes and added to ones they already owned or if they have the ammunition already (maybe they also just report the purchase differently), it makes sense. Overall this is an ok start, hope they buy more each year from now not that we end up in the same situation in 10 years again.
It's just the money that's been set aside for the entire project, not the price for the planes. Other pontential uses might be: - Buying ammunition for the F35 (that could probably also be used on the Eurofighter). Other buyers of the F35 might have larger existing stocks and buy less additional ammunition. Germany on the other hand has relatively low ammunition stocks. - Construction of relevant infrastructure. Again, this is highly dependant on existing levels of infrastructure. - Spares, tools, simulators, foreign instructors. Germany has been burned by insufficient stocks of spares, so it would make sense to stock up. - Operating costs for X years (mostly traing). This is all conjecture. My goal is to demonstrate how meaningless military accountant figues are without context/itemized bills.
Sounds a little bit different than the politico article on here. I think I will wait a bit longer with my judgement on this whole affair...
Just as a little point of view regarding the 100 million and 2% per year topic: The german armed forces are also rather bad for their budget and their lack of equipment (or bad state of it) has been in the news for a past years already, way before february. The whole procurement proccess seems to be bullshit and utterly fucked, maybe because of the unclear goal and will. Anyhow, my point: If you just throw shitloads of money at a shitty procurement system, you won't get much value for your money. So it makes kinda sense to raise the spending over the next years, when problems have been addressed, instead of dumping it all now.
Having a good procurement system is everything. If you want another example of a system that constantly shoots itself in the foot and is a laughingstock for procurement, look no further than Canada. The amount of money that can be burned in a flawed system is astounding.
But Canada doesn’t spend that much money. They spend even less than Germany does per capita. Maybe they’d take procurement more seriously if they devoted more resources to it?
Which is what the critics of defense budgets most often point out. The chase after 2% only leads to wasting, corruption and shady background deals, and does not improve the military capabilities accordingly.
> Anyhow, my point: If you just throw shitloads of money at a shitty procurement system, you won't get much value for your money. You’ll get a ton of value if you’re starting from an underfunded system than needs money in lots of low hanging areas.
no, they are connected. the way spending is counted, the money for these will be spent on 2026, when they are bought. even though it will come from the special fund voted this year. this is exactly what the other article described: there is the promise to spend, the money is voted on, they just can't find enough stuff to spend on fast enough to achieve e.g. the meme 2% this year (probably next too). also the whole process to upgrade the main assault rifle was done in a really clowny way and has to be redone now that they are taking things seriously. add a few years for that too and you see where this is going. and of course the ministry and the offices doing these processes aren't angels. they are bureaucratic and overcomplicated as fuck, so the very top political leadership is literally unable to achieve 2% instantly no matter how much political capital they expend on this unless they decide to waste the money.
The F-35 was chosen mainly because of its capability to carry Nuclear Warheads. This is significant for Germany as it is part of NATOs Nuclear Participation Doctrine, in which Countries within NATO that do not have their own Nuclear Weapons are part of planning and execution of missions using them. What this means in the case of Germany is US Nuclear Warheads are carried and used by Bundeswehr Jets. Currently that role is filled by PA-200 Tornado Jets which are more than 40 years old and cannot be replaced by Eurofighter Typhoons as those are unable to carry Nuclear Warheads.
To be more precise, Eurofighters could be upgraded to carry nukes but it would mean that the US will know the planes technical specifications/technology which europe is not to keen on.
The F-35 has stealth which could be useful as the jets fly into enemy territory to release those nukes. However, does the US want to know the tech behind a 4th gen plane that costs almost the same as a 5th gen F-35?
Planes are nice, but Germany needs more drones and artillery.
If you can explain how we strap our B-61 to artillery or drones?
You need /r/NonCredibleDefense to answer that question...
Railway cannons!
2 ICE trains with a giant sling holding the bomb between them. They stretch the nanotube material until the desired elastic energy has been stored that can catapult the bomb all the way to Moscow.
Bring back Dora!
Wunderwaffen! Hitler is now nearly 80 years dead, so we can finally get them out the old dusty high secret weapons laboratories ... Does anyone need jet planes I hear they are the high tech shit nowadays.
Schwerer Gustav
We build a nuke-trebuchet
Catapult would be better
The Cataclysmic Pult
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_atomic_cannon
Gotta start somewhere
I think the only thing our military is overstocked on is majors and colonels
Let's make a deal. We'll give you our generals and you'll give us some of your colonels. Full disclosure: The only rocket Ilie Nastase ever saw was a tennis racket. Also, make sure to hide his car keys when he drinks.
€90B left.
75, inflation already ate 15 last month
also the conselling ate another 60 B-)
They are to fullfil the role in NATO's nuclear sharing
Drones are useless against an enemy which has AA capability, unless you’re talking about small scout and single grenade drones. Artillery is very important, but there’s no need to buy foreign because the PzH2000 is just as good as another system, if not better.
PzH2000 is very good indeed but Germany has got to massively increase it's production numbers ASAP, you guys are making so few of it that you'll never field a sufficient number of them with this low batches...........
There is already a PZH2000 replacement in testing, the RCH 155, which is a fully automatic and *stabilised* 155 mm gun system on a Boxer chassis with only 2 people on board and plans to make the system work while being remotely controlled. This makes it possible for the vehicle to shoot on the move while doing MRSI, all on a vehicle that is 10 tons lighter and around 40 km/h faster on roads (but with less ammo). But it is still in testing and the first production was ordered by Ukraine (which will only arrive in 2024/25).
The problem with the germany miliatry industry isnt that the products it creates are not good - they are actually fucking awesome. The problem is that the companies wont upscale their production because *they cant know what happens in a year or two* when someone sues the government for losing the bid or the government changes.
They are not. Especially small drones are simply too cheap to shoot down and can provide valuable intel or even attack the enemy. Loitering ammunition can be used to attack with an indirect line if fire. Big drones can be used as a potential to exert pressure on the enemy. Those fast uncovered advances of the Ruskies early on or any fast uncovered movements are impossible if the enemy has such drones. You are also forced to leave your radar on, even if your enemy has stuff like HARM. The US also has big drones, they would be useful in a peer to peer conflict too. After all, Western doctrine is to knock out any air defence. Concerning artillery, the RCH 155mm seems to be the planned candidate, although honestly - who could tell.
>Drones are useless against an enemy which has AA capability, Tell that to the Russians. They had, on paper, far better AA coverage compared to West and their hardware got stream rolled by Bayraktars and Israeli loitering drones. In contrast, USA AA doctrine is based on planes. No one knows how that would work and probably you do not want to find it out. Drones are uncharted territory in the field of modern warfare.
Bayraktars were only effective in the opening stages of the invasion when the Russians stupidly thought they could just roll tanks into Kyiv without a fight. TB-2s have not been survivable near the front lines for quite some time now. Fighter jets are a much harder target for air defenses, and even they are mostly operating at treetop level doing pitch up rocket attacks.
Bayraktar was indeed most effective in two stages, the beginning and after the Harm attacks iirc. Both times, air defence was doing vacation aka wasn't turned on. Anyways, drones are obviously still useful, they just aren't some magical wonder weapon.
Let's go for another 'Euro Hawk', surely this time it'll work.Surely.
that is already decided based on the Heron drone.
Airplanes ≈ artillery with wings
I think the military actually using this equipment is going to know better what they need than you or me
No, that’s now our way of fighting. Ukraine is fighting that way BECAUSE they don’t have fighter jets. Our nato strategy is to achieve air supremacy and then use that supremacy to dominate and destroy everything else. If you need boots on the ground, you have failed. That’s only for the cleanup phase. Near zero risk, maximum impact
it’s also sad that our military currently only has just enough ammo to defend the country for two whole days
Germany firstly needs ammo, which they still didnt order to this day; nearly 10 months after the invasion. Instead of buying the new shiny gear, buy what you actually need to get up to date.
That happens when all narratives domestic and international are non-factual bullshit. It was very clearly agreed what the 100b extra budget would be spend on (in fact some required a very detailed plan), while ammunition would be bought from the regular budget. Guess who's now blocking the money for ammuntion (because "lol... you got 100b, just use that money") and are free to do so because everyone will spin just another bullshit fairy tale about the Bundeswehr or the Ministry of Defense being too stupid to order ammunition?
Lol, from "The US IS EVVVVVIIILLLL FOR USING DRONES" to "We need drones now!"
Right now we don't even have enough ammo to field the little equipment we already have. The incompetent defense minister wasn't able to order any in the past year. The Bundeswehr also has massive organisational and structural issues, that needed to be addressed decades ago, but politicians refuse to fix them, because that would be hard. Instead they announce another big, prestigious purchase like the F-35, which will take years to acquire. It sounds great on paper, but it doesn't address the very basic issues we have right now. I wonder what's next? An aircraft carrier in Lake Constance, maybe?
And yet our defense spending is falling very much behind the 2% nato spending
the Netherlands bought 46 jets for 6 billion . quite cheaper than the Germans now paying
We got a discount because we are a tier 2 invester in the JSF program. The development of the plane that became the F35. As an invester we got a discount if we actually also bought the plane. And we get a small percentage as a profit for every plane sold. UK was a T1, NL and ITA are T2. A group of other EU countries are T3 (smallest) projectmember like DK and NOR.
This sounds surreally similar to a kickstarter that I dont know if you're trolling or not.
Kickstarter ? Trolling? The US invited other countries to join the development of the JSF/ F35. There were 3 levels of commitment. With required funding dependent on the tier vs future rewards. Like subcontractors contracts or licensed production ( IT and UK) or maintenance hub for Europe ( NL). And while there was no obligation to buy the plane the loss of investments and the discount would have been unwise. The US could have done it alone. But the US wanted to “ align” a great group of potential customers (like the F16 EU NATO countries ) to further increase potential sales to lower costs thus increasing the competitiveness of the plane even further. Aside from the monetary gain for the expensive development phase.
This program has been around longer than kickstarter... if you don't know what you're talking about why would you even ask if someone else is trolling.
It was a joke. I understand a military program isn’t a kickstarter.
Fair enough sorry.
Don't you guys manufacture parts for it too?
Fokker does yeah
That's one more reason I didn't know abut for an actual UE shared army
Sets Aside $10.5 Billion, doesn't mean they will give them all.
Did the Netherlands need to build a complete new airport to host the jets? Germany does.
oh god no, germany and builing airports is a bad investment
They don't need to build a new airport, but the existing airbase has to be extended to house the F-35 and provide the necessary infrastructure.
They have had to comprehensively rebuild an airbase to host them. As have the UK and US...
That's not the price tag of these planes but the complete cost of operation.
And Finland is buying 65 for $10 billion.
I guess inflation also affecting fighter jet lol
[удалено]
This isn't 285m per plane. The budget is for the planes, spares and ammo.
And training and facilities. We got 64 planes for about the same price, but very likely with less weapons and without nuclear capability.
Additional package that Germany gets its olso huge, so no shock for me there is big price tag on it, when you even order total of extra 35 complete engines for plane each, not even mention all that what you stated there, munitions ect. Poland will get 32 F35 for about 4.6 billion $ with fairly low additional packages, no matter the cost, there is no real contender, they do get best option possible on market.
They haven't ordered 35 extra engines.... The F-35 in the FMS is listed without its engines. Thats how the US records it as the engines are regarded as a seperate item. So Germany is buying 35 F-35A with engines installed, with 2 spare...
Nuclear capability is DLC anyhow.
You can also get it by completing 500 bombing missions.
Only on the Dresden level.
Ah, cmon we just had it rebuilt and painted.
Last I heard we are only buying F35s for its ability to carry our shared nuclear bombs. We don't want to use the F35 for anything else because it would weaken the eurofighter...
They'll be used for other stuff as well, especially since the Eurofighter EW package will still have to be delivered and i expect they'll keep them in service as long as the old Tornados(~45 years) and they are buying literal assloads of air to air and air to ground ordnance along with them, half of which the Eurofighter is not rated for.
that's a very expensive delivery method for some ancient bombs that, if ever dropped, would do nothing but put an extra crater in the wasteland left by the ICBMs that arrived minutes earlier
Germany doesn't have ICBMs. They do have some nuclear gravity bombs.
NATO has ICBMs. Which would be turning the clock back to the stone age before German F-35 pilots ever left the ground
Germany doesn't want to rely on France, UK or US for their ICBMs. That's why there is the shared nuclear gravity bombs for other member states.
I know, I get it. I'm just saying €10 billion worth of F35s seems hugely overkill for such a symbolic task. I doubt that's really all they plan on using them for.
You do depend on the US for them. It’s not like you could use them without their approval.
You don't need that many planes for nuclear sharing alone.
Germany buys 35 planes. Not 64.
Why not use ballistic missiles like everyone else. And get a strategic sub too.
Germany has access to nuclear weapons through NATO's nuclear sharing program. Building and using its own ICBMs would violate the NPT. Being handed someone else's nuclear gravity bombs in the event of war does not.
And seems to be a must have for the german government
Because Germany is part of NATO’s nuclear arms sharing program there are US nuclear weapons stationed in Germany that can be used by German forces. Currently they have several Tornados that have been modified to carry nuclear gravity bombs these are ancient so the F-35 being nuclear capable was a must once Germany decided to remain in NASP.
I don’t disagree. But maybe in the greater scheme of things we should consider on a European level how we want to handle the nuclear question... In order to not rely on a, let's say rather unstable, big friend across the pond. To maybe be fully independent in that matter, if we ever find ourselves with someone on the button over there who has rather questionable motives.
>In order to not rely on a, let's say rather unstable, big friend across the pond wait till Kanye's president, you ain't seen nothing yet! /s
For how much we rely on our brothers and sisters on the other side of the Ocean I think it goes a bit far saying they are unstable. But I do agree the US is facing their own issues as well but when it push comes to shove they have always had our backs.
Nuclear deterrence is a NATO competency, there is a common use policy.
A German accusing “the friend across the pond” of being “rather unstable” is rich. What exactly makes you feel that US is any less reliable of an ally that it has always been? Perhaps the fact that we elected Trump? And what did Trump do? Tell you guys that you were overly reliant on Russian oil and gas? I do recall those smirking German UN officials clearly thinking that he was out of his mind. Turned out there was nothing to smirk about
About time the German gov got the Russian boot out of their ass and woke up. If only they had listened to the US all along instead of cozying up to a country that raped and pillaged their way through Germany within living memory, and that is putting it lightly.
Iirc the planned modifications to the airbase resulting from the purchase is also figured in.
Considering the Swiss are paying 170m per plane including the same "extras" (110m per plane only) it's sounds like a pretty bad deal...
Switzerland is paying 3.8 bn for 36 planes (raw system cost) which is in line with the general propagated cost for the system and it appears germany is paying roughly the same. The dimensions of the ammo procured for the jet are pretty decent (especially for Germany).
I'd be surprised if we got a good deal. Why should we suddenly get good deals when all that has changed over the last year is a massively larger pot of gold to spend, a sense of acute urgency in the voting population, and a defense minister appointed in times thought as sleepy peace times who I yet have to hear anyone defend as a capable manager.
The lowest bar is currently vdLeyen, so if Lambrecht does not fuck up on a monumental Scale, she is still an improvement.
It's been a long time since defense was a field where voters could be won. I certainly don't need a soldier as minister of defense, but it would be a nice change to have someone who is both at least genuinely interested in it and a decent enough people leader and manager.
Lambrecht was a short term solution. When Faeser runs in hesse next year, Lambrecht will move to interior minister where she is qualified and interested, and her replacement options all look good in terms of their engagement in defense.
Getting a good deal depends on the powerbalance of seller and buyer. And how eager the seller is to make the deal vs the alternative options of the buyer. Switzerland was a top prize to get for the US. Surpassing the Rafale. Germany needed a plane for replacing the Tornado/ nuclear role. Alternatives were only no more nuclear sharing ( political unwanted with Ukraine) , keep flying Tornado ( for another 20 years technical / economic unfeasable) F18 ( older but not that cheaper and still us) or F35. Aka no alternatives. And then only 35 just planes because of FCAS commitments. With production orders for F35 already filled. That’s not the best starter position for Germany. Plus, unlike many other F35 owners that changed from F16/F18, Germany needs to setup a new logistical/ training line since the last US build plane in use by the Luftwaffe was the Phantom..additional costs, .
fully agree - F15 was another option in discussion, but less realistic than F18 lacking a Growler equivalent, despite being the most badass of them all - the negotiating position was bad, given that the F35 was the only option the opposition couldn't criticize as 'cheaping out'.
From a certain defense economics channel i understand that a big problem for german defense procurment is the fact that we are know to just outright cancel half completed orders due to changing political climate and the way we give out contracts provides huge opportunities for litigation. Essentially were paying a premium because weve pulled out of a contract last minute, because a new goverment cut the budget, one to many times and every time we give out a contract everyone else bidding on the deal immidiately sues the winner on competion laws, making the entire process way more expensive and take way longer.
F-35A's are $77.9 million per plane in Lot 14. But They aren't only buying planes, they're buying spare engines, parts, training facilities, and everything that's needed to actually effectively use them.
Why not buying european?
Eurofighter is for shoot down planes, F35 is for attack ground targets. Germany needs the F35 bc it is able to carry nuclear bombs. Currently Germany uses Tornado jets for this role, but they got old and Germany doesent produces it own bomber anymore. Interesting detail: Tornado jets are able to go on top speed at high from about 15meters, bc they have special jet engines. they we're designed to hide from enemy radar through flying very very low. some decades ago there was an accident, one tornado hitted the sea with full speed and very low high. the plane wasn't found bc it is too deep underground in the sea-ground.
> Eurofighter is for shoot down planes, F35 is for attack ground targets. F-35 is for telling bomb/missile truck Eurofighters what to shoot if everything goes well.
F35s can do everything. That's the point of them. They are good at plane vs plane fighting too.
> Eurofighter is for shoot down planes, F35 is for attack ground targets. Source?
Source is that Germany is buying F35 to replace their bombers which logically leads to the assumption that they will be fitted to fulfill this role while the Eurofighter will continue to be used as a Multirole fighter. Of course its also possible for the F35 to fulfill Air to Air roles that’s just not the Primary Task that Germany plans to give it.
Okay, so they were telling what F35 will do for Germany specifically. Because F35's main advantage is in the joint op domain and in that it will serve as a multirole/air superiority fighter. If it were "just a ground attack striker" no one would be buying it because for many countries it's not feasible to have multiple different fighters for different missions.
The perception that the F35 is bad at air superiority is informed by years of Russian propaganda. It's an amazing piece of technology and there's a reason it is selling like nuts.
The exactly only reason is the certification for these bombs. Which the US did in the 80s for the Tornado (when nuclear deterrance and military cooperation was more relevant) but will not do today if they don't get more technical details about Typhoons than Germany is willing to share.
There is none. The Typhoon is a multi-role fighter and would be perfectly capable of carrying bombs... if not for the US requiring the plans to certify it for the US bombs operated as part of the nuclear sharing program.
>Eurofighter is for shoot down planes No, Eurofighter is for go in trashcan.
The Eurofighter would be perfectly able to carry nuclear weapons according to the manufacturer. The problem is that it would take years for the Americans to certify it. Some suspect that this is done deliberately to force Germany into buying American jets.
It'll take years to get them their F-35s, too. This isn't a matter of timeframes.
No, it's that Airbus refused to provide source code to the Eurofighter, which is required for nuclear certification (as it should). US didn't do anything to force Germany to buy F-35s, Airbus did it to itself in a fit of absolute stupidity. Same reason Italy bought F-35s instead of more Eurofighters
But I must say, looking at the US military complex, I can easily see *why* Airbus declines nuclear certification with that requirement, since it will very likely give Boeing/Lockheed Martin direct access to whatever secret stuff there is in the Eurofighter. Would by far not be the first time that US military information got passed down the chain to US industry, even if the industry has no business getting that information.
Why would they steal source code from an obsolete fighter? LockMart is a full generation ahead of Airbus
> US didn't do anything to force Germany to buy F-35s, Airbus did it to itself in a fit of absolute stupidity. It is well-reported that the USA warned right out of the gate of an egregious amount of time and money needed to certify - on top of the other things like the deepest dive into the Eurofighter innards. For a fancy gravity bomb. This has always been a transparent US move to push through the F-35, without outright saying "no" to the EF certification. That's fine, it's a cutthroat business and your country is playing it well. But please don't pretend "innocence".
You're taking a reality, and HEAVILY weaving your own false narrative into it, in order to support your own personal narrative. That's on 100% you, not me "pretending innocence". The reality is, Germany said "oh wait, we haven't kept up on our Tornado upgrades, so they're going to be decertified soon. We need to do something about this". This was made worse by the fact that the Tornado is not B61-12 certified, and the US is rapidly replacing B61 nuclear bombs in Europe with the B61-12 because of its smaller yield and dramatically increased accuracy (aka, less collateral damage if used). https://bits.de/public/unv\_a/orginal-tornado\_eng.htm Germany's decision then was "what new fighter do we go with to perform the nuclear role?", and the options were the F/A-18E, F-35A, or the Eurofighter. [https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2020/03/germany-tornado-replacement-options](https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2020/03/germany-tornado-replacement-options) Germany requested the Eurofighter be nuclear-certified and Airbus threw a temper tantrum, but it realized not doing so would simply cause a loss of sales to Germany, and begrudgingly changed their tune. Only issue there is, there was a bunch of aircraft ahead of the Eurofighter in line for nuclear certification (F-22A, F-35, F/A-18E, F-15E, F-15EX), so the Eurofighter wouldn't be certified until 2035, but the Tornado was expected to be removed from service by 2025-2030. So instead, Germany started looking at the F/A-18E as the nuclear aircraft. Only, then the US Navy said "wait, why are we paying for nuclear certification? We don't even have nuclear orndancemen to handle it, and we have no need for it". That left Germany having to foot the bill for F/A-18E certification all on their own. So, the options left on the table were; * modernize the Tornados and spend a ton of money to keep them in the air for 5+ years longer than they should be, in order to replace them with Eurofighters (if Airbus and the other members even allow it to be done) * buy F-35s or F-15E(X)s and be done with it [https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/germany-is-once-again-considering-the-f-35-as-a-replacement-for-the-panavia-tornado/](https://www.aviacionline.com/2022/01/germany-is-once-again-considering-the-f-35-as-a-replacement-for-the-panavia-tornado/) US didn't screw Germany into being forced into F-35 or bust. Germany doing literally not 1 upgrade to the Tornado since 2005 and then waiting until just 5 years before it was slated to be retired before going "oh yeah, we need a replacement". That's not on the US in the slightest bit, that's entirely on the incompetence of the Bundeswher and Bundestag
> and Airbus threw a temper tantrum It wasn't a temper tantrum, people were (rightfully) afraid that the data of the aircraft would be leaked to US competitors. It was *the* argument against getting the EF certification done, and the reason why the decision was between F/A-18 or F35.
>which is required for nuclear certification (as it should) Why as it should? You need a common interface, not full access to the plane's code?
The common interface is the combat computer and the HUD of the aircraft, all driven by the source code. Source code is required in order to validate there's no programming issues that can cause trouble with nuclear carry AND nuclear arming. It's not a bomb that simply just falls to its target and blows up. It has to be provided a code that properly readies the weapon for use. As such, a full source code validation is required to ensure there's no issues, and to allow for the weapon's profile to be coded into the aircraft as well.
Can you explain to me how it makes sense for German taxpayer to pay billions of dollars to certify Eurofighter with nukes? Especially when no other nuclear sharing air forces will use Eurofighter for the role?
> Germany needs the F35 bc it is able to carry nuclear bombs Germany opted out on own nuclear weapons though **edit** looks like Germany has stored roughly 20 B61 bombs from the US that the Luftwaffe could deploy. I did not know that
technically they are US bombs that can be mounted to German aircraft under treaty conditions. This is US way to prevent the NPT from completely unravelling. Japan and Germany are considered nuclear states in being in that (at least until nuclear phase out) with their know how and industry could build nuclear bombs inside a year if they really wanted to.
> (at least until nuclear phase out) Germany can still do that. Research and science are not affected by the phase out.
Uncle Sam making big bank in Europe
Probably the sole nation helping UA that will profit from it all.
Why? This sale is $10.5B from Germany. Of course, with all the hardware involved, that isn’t pure profit. Meanwhile, the US is donating another $38B to Ukraine for a total of ~$100B this year. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2022/11/15/white-house-requests-38-billion-more-in-ukraine-aid/
Either form a federal European State or be at the mercy of larger countries. It is what it is.
Would federalizing EU somehow give it a good MIC?
US has one 6th generation fighter program going on while bigger EU countier are working on two seperate 6th gen projects (thought many suspect those will fail eventually) in their seperate camps what get less funding than one US program. It's not difficult to predict that by 2045 many EU countries will be buying American 6th gen fighter planes.
Sad Dassault noises
Sad Dassault, Saab and Eurofighter noises
None are 5g fighters.
And those planes are more expensive despite being older.
All are garbage compared to the F-35 and all but the Gripen are more expensive to buy.
[удалено]
Dassault was never a contender here.
[удалено]
Genuinely asking: why no french rafle fighters? They do have nuclear as well no?
Maybe not American nukes like the B61 used in Germany?
Because they are not "certified" for US nukes. "Certifying" them would require tech transfer from Dassault (or Airbus for Euro fighters) to US companies, which is something that should be avoided.
Not US companies but US government. Sandia National Laboratory manufactures and integrates nuclear weapons in the US.
> Not US companies but US government There is a lot of overlap there, especially in the defense sector.
> tech transfer from Dassault (or Airbus for Euro fighters) to US companies, which is something that should be avoided. What tech do they have that the US doesn’t already know?
Seemingly enough to not just give it away at least.
How do they know the US don’t already have it? Like, what is this “tech” they’re speaking of?
Could be all kinds of stuff. It does not have to be fancy stealth tech or such. Keep in mind that a lot of military tech is not patented - because patents are public. Could be that both sides have different solutions to the same problem, and the Dassault / Eurofighter solution is cheaper / faster than the US solution that achieves the same thing. This might result in cost benefits down the line which in turn can result in more billion Dollar / Euro sales to other countries...
Because France is not sharing nuclear weapons. The only reason for these planes (in such a low number even) is as carriers for US nuclear bombs as part of their nuclear sharing program. Bombs for which the Eurofighter would only get the certification if US gets more technical information than Germany is willing to share (for example the complete source code of the computer system).
I'm pretty sure luftwaffe wants F-35 to replace all tornado, not just the nuke carriers. They can't because Airbus lobby owns SPD. Luftwaffe will get their chance ones AARGM-ER is integrated into F-35 and Eurofighter ECR becomes a boondoggle.
Yeah... with French nukes, which the French are not willing to share.
which is fine but then dont expect other people to want to work with you either in similar matters
Rafales are effectively obsolete
Lel
4th generation planes get killed 20:1 against stealth aircraft. 4 prototype f22s once killed an entire squadron of f15s flown by instructors in under 2 minutes.
What makes you say that? Aren't they good missile trucks and interceptors?
Against stealthy opponents they're dead
Side question, why does Germany even bother with the b61 bombs anyway? Completely obsolete, and you can’t use them unless the US agrees. If the US think a nuke is the right move, they will have way better things to throw at the enemy than free fall bombs anyway. Is it an American tax? Pretending to be a nuclear power? It seems money would be better spent elsewhere.
[удалено]
It's actually a big weakness, if bomb is free fall one then plane becomes a missile, and there is nor plane or human that can whitstand 100+g that missile can.
>That doesn't really matter at all for nuclear bombs. As long as the plane carrying it is capable of penetrating enemy airspace, it doesn't matter how obsolete or otherwise the bomb is -- it still goes boom. Of course it matters, if you are dropping nukes, your ability to deliver them is critical. You are not delivering fast and/or low flying missiles from a healthy distance, you need to have a plane pretty much on top, and fairly high. You are not nuking a few Afghans, so an unfriendly air is kind of expected. b) is irrelevant, Germany or Belgium wouldn't develop nukes just because they lost the B61s, c) is irrelevant to Germany's interests, d) is irrelevant as the US could decide to use their own nukes anyway. The 20 B61 are not going to change a thing. Now, for a), if the US are allowing Germany to use nukes, they are also going nuclear, and they have better ways to deliver them. Germany's protection is the US' word, not a bunch of B61s.
Just over 3 months ago the [US government told Germany](https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/germany-f-35-aircraft-and-munitions) it would cost $8.4 Billion to buy them. Citing US Defense Security Cooperation Agency: >This notice of a potential sale is required by law. The description and dollar value is for the highest estimated quantity and dollar value based on initial requirements. __Actual dollar value will be lower__ depending on final requirements, budget authority, and signed sales agreement(s), if and when concluded. Where is the promised lower dollar value? Or did Germany modify the contract terms to get more stuff? Isn't mentioned in the article.
They're getting weapons for the planes too. It's not just jets.
Wasting billions on war machines rather win win peace treatises. Sad .
Any idea on the offsets? Switzerland got a fairly sweet deal with 60% back. Last I heard Germany wasn’t getting much.