Given that the F-16 has been used for wild wiesel/SEAD missions here, it's ironic that its ranking is so low. Add: And that's being done with block 52s. Newer dual seat block 70 versions have extra space and you can certainly put jamming equipment in there. The Growler started as a Hornet after all. Add2: Does Germany have preference for dual engine planes? Seems that everything in inventory is. Don't want to spam with multiple posts. Already commenting without watching whole video. Edit: Yes, I did finish the video.
Rafale is the Futur proof and effective combat proven choice, Gripen is the economic but enough choice, F-35 is the murica dumb and corrupted bribed politician choice, F15 EX is the continuity choice that won't need training for the pilots and still ok for a few more years.
The best buy for Germany, financially, work basis and so much more, is the Swedish Gripen E - you get one plane from Sweden, the template - Germany can them self start a industry to continue develop the plane, and the factory WILL be in Germany, so that means more work for Germans, AND, the support from Saab means that any further development of the plane will be with the full support of Saab, regarding Integration, and more, so this will also create a lot more jobs in Germany, for radars, communication, weapons, and so much more.....so, Germany will build the plane itself, Saab will moste likely only send engines and computers for the plane, everything else is to be handled by the country making the plane...This is the plan they made for Norway during the procurement procedure, and same given to Canada, and Brazil has already received the "Template" plane, and factory is being made as we speak (if not done already with production started). The Gripen E is not the best plane, but with the Meteor missile, IS the best BWR (Beyond visual range) with their extended Integration Saab surveillance suite with both AWACS and ground radar, connected to one system, and already has a german made gun with full support for NATO arms. Grippen E is the only plane that sees itself as the Sukhoi Su-35 / Mikojan-Gurevitsj - Mig 39 killer
How about getting Boeing to give Typhoon the F-15EX treatment? Get a 2 seat Typhoon and give it all of the same radar, etc, that F-15EX has. That way they can domestically produce it while using a US company which would help get it approved to use US nukes.
Paper Planes: You can build Thousands of them each day and outproduce everyone. Some even have a range of 50m. Furthermore they cannot get targeted by missiles because they are too small. And they have good flying characteristics in low speeds. They almost never stall.
And they are unmanned. You won't lose many pilots in air to air combat. They only need a bunker and machine guns to stay alive against enemy ground forces that are typically within 50m of their drone launch facilities.
Toss in a few rubber band motors for increased thrust, and maybe a balsa frame for increases g-tolerance, all you need is a few AAMs and Germany is set!
I actually didn't know about the Swedish government not wanting the Gripen to be used to carry nuclear bombs. Explains why Belgium didn't even consider that aircraft when they made their decision for the next aircraft.
Germany said the same 20 years ago. They refused to add a nuclear strike capability on it. Thats why the Netherlands didnt get the eurofighter in the late 90's .
Considering how Gripen hasn't been making amazing sales, not even to neighbouring Scandinavian countries, I'm surprised Sweden wouldn't be open to negotiations. Sweden is very eager for military cooperation with the USA, the largest nuclear power in the world, below the level of an actual alliance, but somehow allowing Germany, which doesn't even possess nuclear weapons of its own, to carry American nukes on a Gripen would be impossible. I'd understand it if Sweden only leased the aircrafts to Germany, but if they are properly sold, I don't really get it.
@@herrakaarme I think the new F16 (ie F21) has made the Gripen redundant - why buy an aircraft that only a handful will be made, when you can buy one of the most produced aircraft ever that will be supported for decades more, that with modern avionics has essentially the same capabilities.
@@mkyhou1160 Will the US Air Force get the new F-16 version? From what I understood a few years ago, it's basically a renovated, affordable aircraft for (US friendly) countries that can't afford to buy a new type of a fighter jet or that want to wait for the 6th generation and need something in the meantime. I don't really like the idea of a SuperHornet either because it's more or less the same: An updated version of an aircraft that's originally from the 70's, just like the F-16. The original Gripen is from the 90's, so there's a big difference.
@@herrakaarme Part of that failed sales though is Nato/US political pressure. Nato practically forces nations to opt in on the US sales. Norway was practically forced to opt out of the Gripen which was a scandal years back when the papers leaked on the entire affair. There is also the issue that the Gripen is mainly designed with a guerilla defence role in mind. It's meant to fight low and dirty with limited supply and possibly even a lack of trained maintenance crew on a dirty road in heavy rain. Problem quickly becomes though that if you are a nation that doesn't really think about those scenarios much well the Gripen isn't that interesting all of a sudden when you could go buy a bigger heavier and more broadly equipped fighter. Since you can pay and support it a lot better than what a nation like Sweden could. But we also have the other issue that is that the US inteligence and the Swedish one don't really trust one another that much. Sweden is pretty damn good att Cyberwarfare and inteligence and is probably really itching to get their hands deeper into the US cookie jar so to speak. Just like how the US is doing them same to them. Since they have been trying to steal data from SAAB for like 30 years now. Which creates this tense situation where both can't fully move towards cooperation on more advanced weapons. But then again Germany and Sweden have gotten along pretty well in terms of arms development they might strike a deal there. Since even the US have been looking at the Gripen platform as a good option to bolster other aicraft like the F22 and F35. Which might be part of why the aircraft is getting more and more recognition.
"Franco-German friendship has come a long way since the Second World War. We are as tight as ever. *deep breath* But the French are not going to give Germany a nuclear bomb." - Christoph @MilAvHistory I laughed.
@A Fels Your Source is a Fool... Why do you think GERMANY assists FRANCE at "Mali"? What is in MALI....? Is it about "islamic Terrorism"? No... There is "Yellow Cake" and the frensh need this for the nuclear Power Plants (and Bombs..).... Does the USA assist them? Nope... Do the british? NOPE.... Germany does...
@@rembrandt2323 Most of the uranium needed by France is imported from Canada, Kazakhstan and Australia, and a very small percentage actually comes from Africa, you are wrong there.
@A Fels "Germany voted for the south not to drain the north. France voted for this financial vampirism." Oh, please, what utterly disgusting hypocrisy. Germany is bleeding the rest of the EU dry. It is bleeding their workforces, causing insane brain drain, and destroying their industry with it's insistance on maintaining a massive trade surplus. Without the financial transfers made through the EU framework, that bleeding would create a complete economic wasteland out of Southern and Eastern EU. Germany is profiting from EU membership more than any other EU country, and for it's own sake it has to reinvest it's accumulated riches back into the places it drained - otherwise it couldn't keep leeching off of other member state's workforces any more.
For context, as a Jew, he changed his name to share his brother's pseudonym to avoid persecution in occupied France. His brother's pseudonym was Dassault, derived from the term, "Char d'assaut." Literally means assault tank, interpretively means tank.
As a Ukrainian, we have a similar dilemma about what aircraft should we buy. Was very nice to hear the points about all of those aircraft. Well, we gave up our nukes. I guess Gripen for us is one of the best variants. And it's my personal favourite too.
There was a time when that was practical. Airfield defence missiles are optimised for a moderate number of high speed jets. A slower but agile aircraft which can fly low, slow and sill carry a punch with precision bombs and cannons has some advantages. North Korea I believe still has a large number of single engined biplanes for this very reason. Cheap expendable but able to swamp the air defence of S Korea.
EXACTLY! I refuse to believe that a variant of the the Eurofighter couldn't be made for this mission type, and since we're already operating Eurofighters, this would make sense from a logistical point of view as well.
"Beim EUROFIGHTER ist die Luftwaffe mittlerweile so weit, dass das erreichte Niveau von rund 70 Prozent weiter verstetigt und in einzelnen Wochen sogar die 75 Prozent-Marke übersprungen wurde." Quelle: Bericht zur materiellen Einsatzbereitschaft der Hauptwaffensysteme der Bundeswehr I/2021
@@1barnet1 where is this myth that Russian fighters are reliable coming from? The Russian MiG-29SMT fleet has something like a 50% readiness rate last I heard.
@@TheJacobshapiro Not reliable. More easily repaireable due to being less complicated. It was also a pun given germany had an old DDR Mig 29 fleet themselves.
22:00 That is why Rafale withdrew from the short list for Canada's next fighter: they would not allow the information exchange with the USA that Canada required.
@@scottcrawford3745 If you look back in history, the exact same BS occurred when they were replacing the Voodoos. Only then, Common Sense was still somewhat in evidence, and they made a decision. Now, they can delay indefinitely… Canada will never need to defend itself. Right? 🤦♂️
Actualy thats not why at all.. They offered Canada a full access deal on it unlike most other potential buyers.. but it was elminated due to the absurd costs to make it Nato interoperable.... if that had not been an issue then it easily would be one of the 2 best possible picks for Canuckistan hands down. If I were still flying and had a pick I'd be very happy with either the Gripen of the Rafale.. but of the 2 given canadaas actual needs the Gripen is the hands down winner.. esp of the 3 official choices we have avail Its the only one of the 3 that isnt ftarded from the get go.
I'm French and the Rafale is my baby. And damn it felt good when the only criticism against it was geopolitical and not on the performance of the A/C :D
If the options are Rafale or Gripen the Rafale makes the most sense. It's closer in capability to both the Typhoon and Tornado and Germany and France are already collaborating with France on the FCAS stealth fighter (as well as a new main battle tank)
Thank you for this very comprehensive overview! Very interesting and I like that you branched out your channel to these very actual topics in military aviation. I also like the interviews with the experts a lot. Thank you and keep it up!
Don't tell the English , but some of their naval war ships are being built in France as we speak lol. And I'm sure you're well aware of their European sibling rivalry with each other :)
I think the other point is that the Rafale is also kind of out on a limb. France the main operator, the rest have low level numbers of lower capabilities. Some of the operators have second hand planes from France. Looking for longevity this aircraft is already 20 years old, with limited deployment, despite how capable the aircraft is.
@@jamesoswald1732 Neither does the alternative. If you have no domestic industry and depend solely on imports, you are a banana republic. When we are talking about military matters, if a war happens, there are zero guarantees you can even get anything from abroad, or the price might jump really high and the selection become limited.
That is probably what they will do, they will not maintain them properly, so what, he determined enemy will destroy them on the ground at the onset of their sneak attack. Get ready for the real world
@@herrakaarme In any scenario where Germany has to fight someone without the support of the rest of the EU and America, the best case scenario is that Germany is defeated quickly.
@@jamesoswald1732 Such a scenario is not realistic in the foreseeable future, though. Germany's military spending is still within the top 10, as well, and they do possess a strong domestic defence industry. Above all, there's simply no one around to attack Germany suddenly like that. During the Cold War, (West) Germany's fate was predicted to be exceptionally dire, but those times are long gone.
By the Gripen! I've been working with the aircraft engine, seen it in first hand, talking with the guys who are doing the programming of it, talked to the pilot, etc. The aircraft is awesome, easy to maintain, suitable for ruff terrain landings, cheap to fly, etc. Unbeatable for most of the modern aircraft. The possibility to let one aircraft have an active radar and control x number of aircraft with passive radar is outstanding.
I live in the flight path of Canada's F-18 air base, I always forget there's other fighter planes out there, all I ever see is F-18's all day every day!!
What? No Chinese aircraft. I know they are flying out of CFB Pembroke in Alberta Canada. Canada's Liberal Government training Chinese military. Shameful for all Canadians.
@@lessharratt8719 You're referring to the RebelNews article on Chinese nationals training in Cold Lake, this never took place, it never happened, RebelNews just made it up, that's what they do, look into them deeper and you will see that RebelNews is only about money.
@@masaharumorimoto4761 No I am not referring to Rebel News or Cold Lake. I have friends in Innasvale that is beside CFB Pembroke. They have seen Chinese fighters with their own eyes. They have promised me video if they can.
Sitting here in Canada we are struggling with the same thing. I think that most people are concerned about firstly the price of the F35 and secondly that the plane may perhaps too advanced and run in to the same category of technical difficulties that the US experienced with their newest aircraft carrier
@@Maple_Cadian you are talking out of your ass with the final opinion. The us is first and foremost Canada's closest ally. Especially when it comes to air defence.
There is a lot of sales hype surrounding the F-35 but a quick review of US govt publications reveals that it still has significant technical problems. Also operational costs are way too high for most nations too afford. As a Canadian I think Gripen E/F would work best for Canada.
@@wiskadjak I like the griphen but I'm almost Shure the super hornets will be bought. Commonality, good price capable and most importantly for primary mission in NORAD, best ferry range
@@Maple_Cadian you are confusing with what we ought to do with reality. We both practice protectionism (especially when a nationalist comes in powered in the us) but this does not outway our economic interdependence. I don't disagree that we should be more independent of them, but the extent your talking about is fiction
Yet, the F35 might still be the smartest option in this squeeze we are in as of today. Norway chose F35 despite all discussions and I think they chose well in the end despite the costs. We’ll see what will happen after the elections.
Luftwaffe: "I want an F-35! No, I want a Super Hornet! I want a Growler and a Eurofighter ECR, and..." Everyone else: *slaps Luftwaffe* "YOU'LL GET NOTHING AND LIKE IT!!"
143 Eurofighter in the Luftwaffe and 40 more coming. Super Hornets first were wanted because able to carry nuclear weapons. Now the 40 new Eurofighter will be able to.
@@Bjoern211 No, the 40 Eurofighters (Tranche 4) are purchased to replace obsolete Tranche 1 Eurofighters. Some of the actual 143 Eurofighters will be retired with the Tranche 4 delivery. The F-18s will come to replace the Tornados for nuclear share and the ECR versions for SEAd with some F-18 Gs. Eurofighters are not gonna to be certified for US B-61 bombs.
Thank you for another great video. I am always impressed and delighted with your fact and research based approach and thorough analysis. Often we see RUclips creators obsessing over refighting past battles with tons of what if's and fantasy but history is done and I would much rather have solid history and research. Thanks again!
As a French, i can only say that he is totally right. France likes the US. But we want to keep our technology for ourself (or Europe at most). So, the Rafale is not meant for countries that might share informations with the US, China, or Russia.
@@bruh8057 He's kinda wrong. The Rafale isn't an open system, so you clearly need the French to improve or upgrade it. No risks in selling it abroad. The Rafale was made since birth to be sold to export clients.
It is practical not to order a Chinese or Russian aircraft. You'll only be able to get replacement parts through them and I doubt they will be forthcoming if your at war
The Gripen is a clever concept suited for countries that have many islands, mountains and narrow valleys such as Greece, Austria and Switzerland. As well countries with less infrastructure that are close to European Russian Frontier such as Finnland Poland or the Baltics. They can start and land on roads and the re-amummition can be done decentralized which makes it perfect for Greek Islands which function as natural aircraft carriers or states at the Russian border.
@@johanlassen6448 not at that operational cost, which as proven didn't spare much money for buying weapons for it, and not with the US software suite....Israel bought them as long as they'd use their own code to have total control. The F35 is a super expensive jet that the US is forcing upon whoever they can, to milk as much money as possible. Just because it's high tech on paper doesn't mean it fullfills the strategic needs of different countries. Greetings from Greece...
@@johanlassen6448 yes, and this is because of political pressure from the US as I clearly explain. Not because it's the best choice for everyone. Every aviation and military analyst as well as fighter pilots in Greece strongly protested against the F35. Obviously the formal statement after the purchase was in favor of it. It is an excellent jet if you are already a superpower with a superpower's budget, not for countries like us.
@@apolitis1 It isn't. Several actual evaluations have been done again and again and they all show that the F-35 is not more expensive than 4.5 gens while also being far superior in performance. Unless you have actual tangible proof that there was political pressure involved, I suggest you retract your statement.
What is always overlooked when it comes to multinational projects are the national restrictions on military sales to certain countries / regions. Imho a main reason why any franco-german cooperation is bound to fail due to different export policies.
I am always surprised by the amount of nostalgia people display when making policy arguments related to weapon systems. Nostalgia has no place in the selection of weapon systems, even the glorious A-10. If it can't do the job the military planners believe it needs to do 10 years from now, then we shouldn't be planning on using it. Air strategy, like naval strategy, has become build strategy.
The a10 was not stopped be abuse of nostalgic reasons, because Afghanistan showed it still had its purpose that it could provided long term, long duration CAS support, and take fire. Same reason why the su24 was updated in the russian air force.
@@Robert53area I wasn't making an argument of the validity of the a-10 project, more about the nostalgic way that senators and congressman talked about the a-10 when debating whether the project should be continued.
@@Robert53area The A-10 can provide ground support in low intensity environment, sure. But so can drones, and the Super Tucano both of which are cheaper to operate and more suitable for low intensity conflicts. Keep in mind the A-10 was designed with the Soviets in mind, not insurgents so its operating costs is not in line with asymmetric warfare. Meanwhile, in high intensity conflicts like one against the Soviets (now Russia), it won't stand a chance without gaining air superiority first. In that case, you'll just go F-35s who can shoot down enemy planes then proceed to bomb stuff all with one platform. A-10 is great but its cost is a lot higher than other low-intensity options available along with outright aging air frames. A-10 may be cheaper per air frame basis compared to the F-35, but the cost of maintaining an extra aircraft design like the logistics, the training, etc. is tough to justify. The US will always need the F-35 for air superiority, amphibious and carrier-based operations. Tackling on an extra aircraft like the A-10 for ground pounding is just extra cost for a marginal increase in capability as the F-35 can already do the ground pounding. Not to mention a good part of the A-10's kit is not even used (the famous GAU) as 90% of ground strikes are done by stand-off weapons like missiles nowadays. There're other drawbacks like data-link, battle management system and sensor suite that may make it less able to cooperate with other branches like the F-35 can. The latter is quite a big thing for effective close air support. Also having both roles on one plane can boost surge capacity in either categories depending on the situation. If we have 50 fighters and 50 CAS available, the max CAS we can send out at a time is 50. With 100 fighter-bombers that can do both, we can have a surge capacity of 100 CAS missions. We can also choose to send 70 fighters and 30 CAS missions if the situation demands. Where as a 50/50 mix can only send 50 fighters and 30 CAS with 20 CAS doing nothing as they aren't needed while in turn 20 fighters short. A-10 single mission profile is too inflexible. Lastly, I'm unsure if A-10 production have even been kept running for the past few years which only put the whole design at risk further. If production have ceased for any significant amount of time, especially if said factories get retooled... the A-10 will be doomed like the F-22 where it is too expensive to restart production. Old air frames will increasingly become more expensive to maintain along with longer down times. The upgrade potential will also eventually hit a wall where the performance increase doesn't justify the upgrade cost. The F-35 is new and a lot more future proof.
@@randomdude4505 The USAF now wants to keep the Hawg around for another Decade, not just the senators. It’s not nostalgia. Though I understand the point of your original comment and agree
@@randomdude4505 You are confusing nostalgia for trust and it is showing your bias. Six month old accounts in russian time zone always have such interesting opinions on the A-10.
The F-15EX is a long-used and fantastic platform and worthy of consideration. It's truly a multi-role workhorse and will pay enormous dividends for decades to come.
It seems to me that a lot of the issues come back to Germany being committed to using the B-61 nuclear bomb, and difficulties arising from trying to match that weapon with any potential airframe purchase. Do you see any way to navigate around that, or is Germany basically stuck in a scenario where the only two reasonable options are buying aircraft from America or designing one themselves?
One option that would work is to get a non-compatible airframe for normal use and a few dedicated B-61 carriers. The reality is that not every airplane would need to carry the bomb anyway.
@@Robert-nz2qw Kind of paints a great big target on an obsolescent platform, in a worst case scenario. It would mean having to establish local air superiority before you can even deploy and that's not guaranteed. So, it comes down to how seriously you want people to take your nuclear capability.
Well Germany has always been in a scenario of buying foreign or designing with somebody. Germany is in a quagmire, it needs to show they are capable and an equal partner in NATO. Lacking in those capabilities will not help Germany in future arrangements.
@@jkeelsnc If Germany had taken it's own defense situation seriously years ago, it wouldn't need Trump to verbally chastise them over their lack of commitment to NATO.
I know it's out of the table, I watched your F-35 video, but man, I can't stress enough how Germany should really go F-35. The Swiss recently selected it against the Rafale, Eurofighter and Super Hornet, and, somewhat surprisingly, the F-35 didn't only turn out to be the most effective aircraft but it was also the cheapest of the bunch, not only at procurement costs but also operating costs! (economies of scale, I guess?). It's also the most future proof of them as it's a 5th gen, and it'll work not only as a bridge until FCAS (and a very solid bridge if FCAS is delayed) but will be able to serve in parallel with that one for decades. Oh, and apart from the B-61, integration with the Meteor AAM is in progress already, IRIS-T should be compatible. One other thing I was thinking about,I can see so many people saying "until FCAS", and I'm not too hopeful about that. Eurofighter had plenty of issues until it entered service, and many are only being solved recently. It wouldn't surprise me if FCAS didn't enter service until 2050, or if it entered service with much lower capabilities than they initially want. Being from one of the countries involved I hope I'm wrong and that everything will go smoothly, but the point stands that we should be careful not to put all out hopes into FCAS when it comes because anything could happen. Also this video leaves me with a doubt... What are they even going to do? You pretty much discarded all of the options in the video. If you want nukes you have to go American, but they don't want to go American because of politics. So what?
By the time the FCAS enters service, the cadets that are starting their training today, would be generals by then. When you factor the cost of development and integration of a modernized Typhoon or the cost of building a new suport line for any other airplane, the F35 is the cheapest option, a real turn key option
@@jkeelsnc the operatin cost of the typhoon is not any cheaper and Germany would not depend of the USA, there are already all kind of logistical suport already in place in Europe. If the is no war good, the consecuence of this mistake would never be perceived, but if things turns to worst, the deservice to the german people by their lidership will be patent. Elections has consecuences
There's just one answer ! Of course the capable beautiful Dassault Rafale...👍 What else ??? 🤔😉 I mean, let's face it, the EU is not being very united when it comes to buy a new plane like for instance! Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, and UK no more in the EU since 2020 bought the F-35, so why have those states not bought an EU fighter ? Since the Rafale is a very capable combat jet which can face its duty...
23:00 Your French is actually very good and rather funny... On a more serious note, I'm not sure we refuse to integrate US A-bombs into the Rafale for fear of the US having knowledge of our aircrafts. In fact, the French Aéronavale and US Navy have been cross-qualified for years. French planes can land on US carriers and vice-versa (and we are the only US allied to do so). There are even pilots exchange between our countries, so the Rafale has certainly little secrets for the US already. I think the reason the Rafale doesn't carry the US bomb is a) in the small club of potential operators, no-one asked b) consequently, the only remaining nuclear capable country with Rafales is France, and we have our own bomb thank you very much, and c) the US are certainly more wary to spill their atomic secrets with us than we are afraid of divulging the Rafale's capabilities they already know about after we did that little skirmish together over Libya a couple of years ago.
French naval aviators start their training in France but finish their carrier training in the US (Mississippi). This is because of carrier landing related training facilities. Like wise, because the US Navy has airfields with carrier catapults, the French navy is dependent on US Navy Patuxtent for testing weapons on Rafael for catapult testing. Also, the French navy has a legal agreement with the US navy for support on its catapult, it’s been suggested that this is legally written for even in the case of war. The CDG sails with 2 US Navy sailors as catapult technicians, there’s interviews with them on the CDG. This is also why the French navy has all but settled on EMALS for PA2, which is smart given that they only need it for 1 carrier and developing your own would be horribly expensive. And the USN will have paid all the development costs and associated problems. The PA2 will probably sail with US navy sailors as technicians as well. The reason this is done is because companies like General Atomics can go out of business or end support for products but the US Navy will not. Having an agreement with the USN is a national security guarantee.
Its more a matter of the actual integration being an $$$$$$$ nightmare from hell i'm sure than that is their worrying about the secret.. they are both either telling each other already or spying on each other for the same lol But on a commercial side Boeing with its head up its ass is not happy with AB kickin them in the face repeatedly so that part with the whiners in office and lobbyists as well.. well.. kindergarden recess with way too few toys would be less of a riot of stupidity.
Ordinosaurs & retro computers US Atomic bomb from planes are not anymore a possibility or alternative in case of war since they can do the same with missile launch far far away from the dropping zone. It was one of US fake argument to force the sale their F35 to Belgium under its NATO obligation. F35 is one of the most expensive mistake US has ever made (budget, development, flying cost etc) in developing new fighter jet (dixit American congress itself).
@@alainmare8081 : I won't contradict you on the F35, but aircraft delivery of a nuclear payload isn't off the table in case of conflict. Of course, current policies exclude it, but it's not the same as a retaliation nuke that would be delivered by an ICBM launched from a submarine. We're talking tactical nukes here, to wipe off a battle field or a limited radius, targeting military objectives. ICBMs are weapons of mass destruction aimed at obliterating an aggressor, and targeting largely civilians. Which doesn't mean tactical nukes are clean or limited in scope in any way shape or form, but aircraft delivery makes sense.
What aircraft-nerds (and, frankly, most people) don't understand is that a choice of aircraft is not based just or even mostly on performance or payload. In the real world it's not about comparing aircraft specs, there are a huge number of logistical, economical, political and other considerations that makes countries adopt military materiel. The same thing goes for aircraft design. The JAS-39, for example, was designed for specific needs that Sweden had during the cold war (and, ironically, have again), for example the ability to operate from "dispersed"/improvised air fields consisting of bits of highway as this is required for a Scandinavian country who is attacked by the (then) Soviet Union. Obviously, this is a pointless capability for, for example, the US since they operate from big well defended bases. Ukraine, in their current situation, would probably benefit hugely from having Gripen in its inventory, as their situation is exactly what it's designed for. This is just an example, obviously, there are thousands of specific requirements built into each aircraft. So, to sit in the armchair and compare stats trying to figure out "which is best" is silly to the point of being childish. Best aircraft? It all depends. In Germany's case, their needs are neither like Sweden's nor like the United States'.
Nope. Saab doesn't want to sell it to Ukraine. Suddenly Saab went silent after the Russian invasion. Saab doesn't want to expose its flying coffin, marketed as better than f-22.
Thank you for explaining the difficulties the restrictions place on the purchase. I had no idea the Swedes wouldn't sell their equipment to anyone who might load a nuclear payload, for example.
Technically, Swedish defence industries are not allowed to sell weapons or munitions to any country that's likely to use them offensively. Bofors and a few others circumvent that through selling licences for local production of things like the AT4 and the Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle.
@@LDZMarder it was a joke. I was joking that the French would like to 'give' Germany a nuclear bomb by dropping one on them,,,and the only reason they don't is because France would suffer too. A joke.
Rafael is the best 1- Meteor BVR missile (No escape range of 150 km) the best in the world. 2- Scalp deep strike missile( 300 km with accuracy of 3 metres) 3- It weighs 9.5 tonne but can lift 2.5 times more than its weight (24.5 tonne) best in its class. 4- Load factor is the highest 5- Capable of nuclear mission 6- Excellent swing role capability 7- Spectra electronic warfare system 8- Range 780 to 1055 km (one of the finest in world) 8- 14 hard points for carrying weapons 9- Rafael can have 5 sorties a day (best in world) 10- Infrared tracking and surveillance 11- Maintenance is very simple (F- 35 has severe maintenance issues) 12- Rafael can get fuel from any air fueler 13- It can operate in any circumstances RAFAEL is the BEST
Switzerland is a direct democracy and the Swiss peoples are already doing everything to get the referendum to brake that deal... heard that from the family have over there...
@@benoitbvg2888 Well no, as a drone controller plattform this would be amazing for the swiss. Take in possible VTOL capabilities and the Swiss could build many more air bases within their mountains, employ lots of drones and basically be untouchable. Of course they can also wait for FCAS.
Germany signed the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it can't change the nuclear partner without resign from this treaty. The US nuclear share is older than the treaty and not affected, however a new nuclear share with a different country would be illegal under it.
Great explanation. Two thumbs up. I have to say, this series of videos on Germany's dilemma on plane procurement have been... entertaining to watch, to be frank. Poor Germany, lol. x) After watching this video, my personal opinion is that Germany should (1) bite the bullet, and pay & wait for the development of the needed variant(s) of EF Typhoon; OR (2) bite the bullet and just go for F/A-18 combo... and do it FAST as the video said; OR (3) bite the BIGGER bullet and go back to the plan for getting F-35. Every other option just sounds like somebody's Amazon wish list. If I were Germany, then I would personally go for either Typhoon or F-35. It's gonna cost lots of money either way, so it might be better to pick between streamlined logistics of Typhoon or future proofed F-35. I personally like F/A-18, but that plane is very old and probably not worth the investment at this point, especially considering the duration that Germany might want to use the plane for. That's just me though.
Then again the germanys higher echelons of the MOD & Beschaffungsamt have massive problems with completly new, revolutionary concepts (so called "Neuland") like ... ""not apearing like completly incompetent bureaucrats without any inclination to do their job, while waiting for retirement", "reasonable investment & maintainging the worth of the investment", "competent leadership, planing and procurement", "internet", "sparepart management", "maintenance of equipment", "buying the correct fuel", "not selling capable equipment for a pitance, and then not buying new equipment", "not giving uncontrolled acces to ALL secret defense related information to big companies" .... ya know ... really new and revolutionary, absolutly never ever tried before concepts. And sadly ... that is not even hyperbole. I mean they had to loan Helis from the ADAC (a german automobile club), so that at least a few flight trainers don`t lose their licenses because of lack of yearly mandatory flight hours, the same kind of trainer that then gets send to crisis zones instead of normal pilots, that are grounded ... and without machines that can fly, possibilities to train the required amount of time with said trainers, ect. So while your reasoning is ... well reasonable ... the MOD and co., aren`t exactly a bunch of people that appear to have a aversion against looking reasonable. Or competent. Or actually doing their job (good) :P
Great video! I like your explanation of the politics behind it all, that one is easy to forget. Like the German need for nuclear capability ruling out the Gripen. Or how unlikely it is that China would sell their top of the line fighters to a country closely allied to the US. A very good watch!
Further afield I also heard of how Indonesia buys a mix of both American & Soviet/Russian fighters as it worries about being unable to maintain them if relations with either country go south e.g. it was sanctioned by the USA when Suharto was president I think
ADFX-01 Morgan is the best route forward. An unrivaled electronic warfare package capable of even deflecting incoming gunfire, a tactical laser for SEAD, and the MPBMs could serve as an alternative for nuclear strike capability. Also the Belkan/German language similarities means you wouldn't have to bother translating training/maintenance manuals.
The Australian Airforce (RAAF) took a long hard look at all the options available and after due consideration chose the F-35 as their new frontline fighter/fighter bomber. Our pilots are reportedly very pleased with its performance so far(we have 75). I have personally spoken to pilots in training on the aircraft. Perhaps the German Govt would be well served to consider that, given the Aussies stellar warfighting record and typically common sense approach to military equipment purchases. It is clearly superior to ALL the available aircraft on your list and would put Germany immediately at the cutting edge of fighter aircraft capability.
Yes, I have heard the same. The aircraft is a flying wifi router, a super useful target acquisition platform for every kind of ship launched ordinance. Each one is a mini AWAC. Still, Australia may actually have to fight part of a real war in the coming years, in support of an actual ally they actually like fighting with. Makes things simpler.
Currently the RAAF have taken delivery of 33 F-35’s and have committed to purchasing 72 airframes (full delivery is expected by mid 2023) with an option to push that out to 100
The problem with a fictive German F-35 is it's too advanced, Germany currently launched the FCAS program for a new 6tg gen Fighter as Eurofighter successor, and a fleet of German F-35s would jeopardize the FCAS program. Since Australia won't develop own fighters they are in a different position, but Germany wants to have 2 different fighter aircraft in inventory (nuclear capable F-35 As would not be allowed to be stationed on former east German soil because of the 2+4 treaty signed at reunification with the former WW2 allies and both German states). Australia did the right decision, but it's a little bit more complicated in Germany than only looking for a fighter.
The idea that the A10 is especially terrifying to the enemy is hilarious. No. What's really terrifying is being a hundred miles from the front and seeing half the tanks in your formation brew up and burn their crews to death without ever seeing an aircraft, because a semi autonomous missile just got them. You'll be constantly terrified every waking moment after. ...This ended up double posted - it should have been in an A10 thread. Sorry!
A-10s are slow and should, theoretically, be relatively easy to shoot down. Even an old Hawker Typhoon or later Spitfires can outrun a Thunderbolt II. 1 skilled enough gunner of a 40mm Bofors and a few magazines and the "Warthog" is down. Seriously, though, not even 700km/h top speed and people talk about it like it can take on anything. Send out a Gripen and it's dealt with. Hell, even an F35 barely stands a chance against a Gripen. 15 F35s vs 3 Gripens wouldn't be called an air battle. It would be a turkey shoot.
@@tntfreddan3138 absolutely true on the a10 The F35, however, mainly due to the combination of its EOTS system, integral jamming, and data fusion makes gripen have almost no chance against 15 of them. F35 has power in numbers. In WVR, Gripen can definitely stand toe-to-toe with F35, but at BVR, and with 15 F-35's, 3, or even 15 Gripen don't stand a chance. Also he mentions why they wouldn't get the gripen pretty thoroughly Why Germany shouldn't and won't get the F35 is that it already has a record of not having great maintenance, flight cost, and those are both current problems Germany needs to deal with. Eurofighter and the involved logistics therefore make it the best choice here
There are some interesting parallells to the ongoing finnish HX-project in this video, as Finland is currently choosing between the Rafale, Gripen, F-35, Superhornet or Eurofighter. The final decision is expected late this year, the main deciding factor apparently being outright combat performance over cost, compatibility, geopolitics or other factors. I saw most of those at the Helsinki 2021 airshow earlier in August, and any of them would be a good replacement for our aging Hornets. Not being an aviation expert in the least (just an interested observer), I've no idea what would be the best option for us in the long run. Vielen dank for an interesting video!
Ils sont fous ces Allemands. Brilliant Asterix reference. Rafale would be a great option. I am not sure a dumb bomb (B61) requires that much information sharing. Compared to ASMPA (that requires specific circuitry) this may be just fine).
The arming and launch authorization system of B-61 is as complex as any other nuclear weapon. Without a valid arming signal you have just a very expensive lawn ornament.
didn't the us retrire their B61 bomb or something ? i don't remember the full story but there was these shananigans with belgium who choose the F35 because it was the only one able to carry american nuclear bombs, and just after they signed, they retired said bomb from service.
@@Lapantouflemagic0 what B61 bomb? There are 13 variants of the B61 and over 3000 were made. The mod 12 is in production right now (mod 4's are dismantled and rebuilt as mod 12). B61-3, B61-4(going to be converted to B61-12) B61-7 and B61-11 are in service. 215 B61-10 are in stock but not deployed. Yes B61-0, B61-1, B61-2 and B61-5 are retired. The mod 1's were used as parts in the production of the B61-7.
@@blegi1245 You can't even deter a balkan country with a B-61. Gravity nuke dumb bomb, what joke is this any decent AA system will kill the vector, fighter jet well before it gets in range to drop that thing. I highly doubt the range is more than 50km to 70km dropped FROM VERY HIGHT ALTITUDE, AKA sticking like a sore thumb on radar.
@@Lapantouflemagic0 It's an obsolete bomb designed in the 60s. France, Russia, and India have high supersonic nuclear tipped missiles these days with 500km range... Belgians just got ripped off lol.
What a mess. The F-35 is the smart choice for the long term but politics won't allow that to happen. I can't believe the Germans are actually considering purchasing any aircraft from Boeing. I like the Super Hornet but it is an aging platform. The idea that Germany might be the reason the Boeing assembly line in St. Louis, Missouri stays open for several more years is difficult to swallow. Airbus will surely love that. No doubt Germany will do what they can to prop up the Eurofighter. That will be very expensive for sure. Of course, Germany can always just delay and delay and delay like the Canadians have. Then they can shop the world markets for used aircraft to hold them over.
B61: Who thinks seriously that anybody will ever use a gravity nuclear bomb in the future? There are a lot of reasons for choosing a plane, but this one is just an alibi.
@@davidhouseman4328 Still, there are less risky vectors than a gravity bomb: cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, etc... Risking a plane and it's crew is not necessary. It just doesn't make sense, the 60's are over.
Both the US and British are investing heavily in automated factories using robots rather than assembling by hand their next aircraft and 3D printing / In factory fabrication / in theater spares fabrication of components. Might make an interesting video.
I remember reading an article about in-theatre 3D printing of parts for vehicles like Bradleys and Humvees in Afghanistan. I think the article specifically mentioned that one of the 3D packages was for a new style of armor for Humvees, as well as standard replacements for parts that typically needed replacing. I would definitely be interested in seeing a video about 3D printing techniques like this brought to the aviation field.
Interesting concept, but I have a suspicion that when you need to repair 100 vehicles, so let's say 100 parts, the in theater fabrication will struggle a lot, or you wood need a lot of printers. Simply shipping in the parts seems far more practical.
@@vladconstantinminea No the idea isnt you print the common parts in theatre, if theres a constant demand for them then there will be an existing supply train and local inventory. The idea is you print the rare parts, the ones that hardly ever break so no point to carry with you and when they do break then you need to ship from home taking days or weeks to arrive.
Great video. I am wondering why the F-22 is even in there: it is a high-altitude, stealth air superiority fighter. It's air-to-ground capabilities are very limited, not to mention that any ordinance it would carry outside of its weapon bay would ruin the stealth and question why bother with it in the first place. And there is not EW version as well. It is a very capable, but very focused airframe, one that doesn't fit the bill for replacing a Tornado.
I don' t think that there is any swedish laws that prohibits the sale of aircraft to another country if they intend to use them in the nuclear role. This is probably only because the issue hasn't come up and if it comes up it will be very controversial and would be politically difficult.
I agree. Germany could add these weapons themselves. Gripen has made it very easy to add new weapons systems, and I doubt Sweden would raise hell over what Germany do to the planes they bought.
@@henrikg1388 I agree with you it would probably be something like a "twitterstorm" that would soon die out but i think that SAAB took one look at this procurment and quickly said no ain't gonna happen and then moved on.
@@henrikg1388 I didn't mean that they didn't go for this because of the eventual protests but they realised that Gripen would never even be considered by Germany.
@@bengtjakobsson5177 Politically speaking, you may be right, but rationally speaking, I see no reasons why not. Neutral country, excellent product, that can keep most fighters in the air at one time. One of the best EW suites at that. Not to mention that most manufacturing ca be done in Germany. All the cons are political.
It would be really interesting if you could do a Video about how the Luftwaffe prepared their aircrafts for the Africa campaign. And may some footage how it effected the planes :D
The Gripen ticks all the boxes cost , maintenance, different roles and strike packages only negatives combat radius and weapons payload isn't heavy enough but it's the best option in my opinion
A reasonable solution in my book is to get a platform that is good for most of the requirements excluding the use of the B61 - Perhaps Gripen as it is made do be able to use many of the same weapons as the Typhoon - while keeping the Tornado alive to be able to deliver the B61 to bridge the time for Germany to develop their own new aircraft (say 10 years) that can then replace most if not all of the older aircraft.
@@garnetmichel5517 not a chance. Say in at least 15 years when Germany may start to get delivery if they make a quick decision it will be so outdated. Put that with the reasons not to stated in this video it just doesn’t make sense. ATM I can’t see a better decision than the F18 Super hornet as it ticks all the boxes financially & operationally.
Is it fair to say that alot of the problems are based around the low number of ECR planes and that buying existing planes with ECR capacitys is difficult because of forgein countries adn the attached politcis? My take would be that the best solution witout looking at money would be all Eurofighter with maybe some upgrades for the Eurofighters thrown in. If it wont be all Eurofighter and 2 platforms are needed, what are the chances they go for Strike Eurofighter plus 15 Growlers? Or is it the same as with the Gripen that the infrastructur cost for just 15 Planes makes it a bad idea? If so it would mean running into the same problem and we would come back to the F/A 18 solution that is cheap but would mean Planes that are on the end of there production or the more expensive Eurofighter option that is still in production.
The high wing loading of the Tornado enabled it for flying high speeds at extremely low altitude through the turbulent ground air layer. Eurofighter has too much lift in its wings to do that without extreme stresses to man and machine. This is a capability only Tornado has.
Small orders are more expensive per plane. Buying SH/growlers is basically the same aircraft so they bundle together. To buy a single f22 it's like 10.25 billion dollars, but if you buy a hundred that cost is 350 million per plane. Economy of scale
@@ryanestes7331 i generally see what you mean, even if the F22 might be a bad example, since its not in active production anymore. Best be to get more then 15 planes of one type. But because of the problems with the B61 bomb and politics not many planes are suited for the strike fighter role. While the restrictions for the ECR planes are fewer. So if the Eurofighter could fill that role without to much of changes. I dont know if that is realistic but lets roll with it. Then there would only be a limited amount of ECR planes left to replace. Then it would be a question if it makes more sense to develope a new Eurofighter version for big money or if the buying a other type just for that might still be a better solution in terms of costs to performance. Like i said all Eurofighter is probably best solution overall but because of the ECR component especally not cheap. Maybe a politic deal of ordering 15 Gripen along a order of an other country or such could help to get 15 ECR Gripen for a realtiv good price. Gripen was only used as example.
"Franco-German friendship has come a long way since the Second World War. We are as tight as ever." the Carolingian Empire would like to have a word. I'm sure if Charlemagne had nukes he'd let the Germans use them...
@@juanmanuelnavarropauwels6114 "Franco-German" doesn't necessitate nation-states, it can just as easily relate to ethnic groups within a single federal state, which is what the Carolingian Empire was. Following the death of Charlemagne, the empire was split into what would roughly be defined as the regions of modern France and Germany in the Treaty of Mersen(870). Originally called the Kingdoms of West and East Francia they contained groups which would eventually be tied to either the Kingdoms of France or Germany, both established in the 10th century.
@@juanmanuelnavarropauwels6114 Charlemagne isn't the first king of the Kingdom of France. He is far from being the first frankish king. The French are the inheritors of the French, period. Always has been. Always will be. The French consider Clovis as their first king. Germans with Otto never ever considered the Franks as their ancestors. They call France, Frankreich= Land of the Franks. So it was 100% nationalism propaganda of the XIXth century germany used for creating their country in 1870-1871 after defeating Napoleon III. Reminder that Germans only talk about Charlemagne because they stayed barely 50 years in the Frankish empire while Modern France stayed centuries building that empire and the state created by Clovis was in Paris (Lutece).
The Gripen F with the Arexis system would give a similar capability to SH Growler allowing Arexis to give cover for nearby friendly units. The only problem is nuclear as the Swedes will not want to help. As for integrating weapons the Gripen has Meteor , IRIS T, Taurus KEPD 350, RBS15 and let's face it , intergeneration is a Gripen speciality! Added to that Gripen is cheap to operate and back up nearby. Obviously Gripen is small and can't carry as much ordance but other packages can do the lugging while sitting under the Arexis umbrella.
@@johanlassen6448 The Meteors are operational on Gripen C, it was the launch vehicle back in 2016 and even if the newer model E / F is still being integrated the weapons release is similar to the previous model so not a priority like the Radar/ EW capabilities which is different.
@@NATObait Why not a priority? Gripen E is specifically marketed as being capable of launching Meteor yet it can't. It is also specifically marketed as being easy to integrate with new weapons and yet here we are with no operational Meteors. Rafale can launch Meteor. Eurofighter can launch Meteor. But not "easy to integrate/the iPhone of airplanes" Gripen E. Could it maybe be that the whole "hurr durr Gripen E so easy to upgrade and integrate" is actually just marketing BS from SAAB? I think so, just like 95% of all the shit SAAB spews these days. Sincerely, a Swede.
@@johanlassen6448 As you said Gripen E has launched Meteor in July 2022 , so obviously it can . Or maybe you are suffering from amnesia as you stated that. Perhaps you are not what you think.
@@NATObait No, it testfired Meteor. That does not mean Meteor is operationally available on Gripen E. You are being disingenuous. Its like saying SU-57 is available for the Russian airforce.
Eurofighter is probably the best option for Germany IMO. 4.5 gen aircraft will be relevant for years to come given the US, Russia and China will be purchasing enhanced 4th gen aircraft (F-15EX, su35's etc). The Eurofighter has plenty of sale option in the future with Tranche 1 replacements in the UK, legacy hornets replacements for Spain and Tornado replacements in Italy
As I understand it, the Super Hornet has a latent capability to carry the B61 but because USN carriers no longer had a nuclear delivery role by the time it entered service it has never actually been certified to do so.
Yes, but it can be certified, while Airbus don't want to certify the Eurofighter for this job since they would have to give insights in secret details to the US. The early Hornet variants from the 80s have been nuclear capable.
@@simonm1447 Oh I was referring more in relation to the F-35A which is already being certified for B61 carriage. But you are absolutely right about the Eurofighter. And even if Airbus were willing to cooperate it would still be much less cost-effective than just paying extra for B61-certified Super Hornets.
@@mortified776 That's right, the F-35 is already certified and would be ready for the mission. However, the ''problem'' German politics have with the F-35 is it's too sophisticated, they started development of the 6tg gen fighter program FCAS a couple of months ago (EiS around 2040), and a purchase of already capable Gen 5 stealth aircraft would jeopardize the program, which has strategic importance for the European defense industry. France (which has much interest in the FCAS since they always had own fighters) would not accept German F-35s.
@@simonm1447 Yeah it's an incredibly awkward situation timing wise. I keep trying to think of ways the Germans could fudge this so they can have the F-35, but everything I think of is harder, more expensive or makes less sense than just certifying the Super Hornet.
@@mortified776 The problem with FCAS is the timing of this program is also everything but optimal. The Eurofighter is still a product of the cold war, but unlike the F-22 (which was developed at the same time) it's no stealth aircraft, it became operational way too late, and it's not multirole but an air superiority fighter. The FCAS program was launched after a couple of nations decided to buy F-35s, so these nations are no potential partners or customers of the FCAS program any more , and Britain intends to develop an own fighter with the Tempest program. Together with Italy (F-35A) and Britain (Tempest and F-35 B) the program would had a much broader base, so it's just a French/German program with Spain as a 3rd partner.
Hi mate! I've been checking lately your videos and they are just amazing, very informative and well made, I do like them a lot and I think they are as accurate and well searched as they can be. I would love to make you a question kinda off topic for this video but I believe you have touched the subject in another one. We are a bunch of aviation enthusiast and we have been debating about interception of the V1 during WW2. It seems that anything that anything that we find on the internet is based in the same few info available, and they don't actually say many things about it (It's like if they all read wiki and created a video o short test based on it) We were debating about V1 hunters, and, here's the question the distance they normally shooted at the flying bombs with their cannons/MG. I watched an interview of a real V1 hunter and he mentioned something about they had their mg sincronization set officially but he couldn't hit a thing, so he change it, but can't find any more data, nor the official distance neither what they actually did. We argue that a short burst would make an unpleasant situation for the plane as well as for the V1, and that over 750mts you would probably hit nothing, or not, due to the steady trajectory and constant velocity I believe any good pilot could bring some hits to a target well over 500 mts, taking in consideration the use of multiple machine guns and that few hits would probably make that thing go down or at least off course. What you think? Do you know anything about this? Thank you. Keep working, we really enjoy your vids.
I don't know how he can be so certain that Sweden would not sell the Gripen to Germany. To me as a Swede, it would be an easy sell. We didn't sign the TPNW in part because it would limit exports of Gripen. Gripen is a much better choice than the Super Hornet.
Taking politics out of the equation, Gripen would have been ideal. Has the same cannon & can carry the same weapons that Eurofighter can. Cheap to purchase & to operate.
The risk with Euro collaboration is that the initial order quantity will be reduced and if France are involved they will change requirements and do their own stuff from the research already done. Then they leave the program.
Yes of course, the French are still afraid that literally the ceremony day of the first Rafale with the nuclear warhead gets handed off to the Luftwaffe they will fly it straight to Paris airspace.
@@hyrikul602 nice whataboutism. We literally have US nukes in Germany. If you really care about the nuke's brand you are insane. Heck, even if you think nukes are still necessary, you are mad too.
@@XR190190 so can I take it that the sudden popping up of a SAM battery net/wall all across Belgium as an indication that the French govt might finally agree to the sale of nuclear-armed Rafales to the Luftwaffe?
Shame Germany can’t get the F35 but looking at the options I think the F18 variants are the best option as they will certainly give Germany the best bang for there buck.
Germany needs a replacement for the Tornado not for the EF Typhoon wich comparable to the F-18. Germany was also asked to buy the F35, but declined thankfully - to expensive and the stealth does not work.
24:51 "Gripen in a strike role, not that good, it's a downgrade from the Eurofighter" Where have you got that from? From what I know the Gripens wings are higher from the ground giving more space for ordinance than in the Eurofighter. Its EW suite is better in most areas especially if you compare to the Gripen E. Sure it can't carry as much ordinance weight wise but the Gripen E will make up for that. When other experts compare the Gripen (current models) to the Eurofigther they almost always end up with the Eurofighter having a small advantage in air superiority, speed, range and nothing else. The air superiority part then again gets negated to some extend by the Gripens EW suite.
BTW, the current Gripens make up for the smaller carrying capacity weight vise by being much cheaper to operate, have higher availability and faster turnaround time.
From what I remember from the FX-BR program, that ended up in the purchase of the Gripen by Brazil, one of the main reasons the Rafale was out is the price per hour of operation, it was one of the most expensive, while the grippen is one of the most economic in this aspect. This alone should matter, even for a rich country like Germany, specially because the gripen is not leagues behind.
If swiss army did not buy the Rafales, it is only because the politicians did not want to pay the price; in military evaluations, the Rafale was the best in every kind of missions, the Eurofighter below, and the Gripen just unable to fulfill the missions. The F-35 was not even scheduled, and imposed by political (and economical) pressions by Biden ...
@@felix25ize well, it all depends on mission profiles and requirements. While both are great fighters, the rafale indeed is a much more capable attack vector against grounds targets.
Here's an idea- give up the nuke capability and buy additional advanced Typhoons. Believe Spain is acquiring addition Typhoons as well? While I like the SH/Growler combo, it's probably not long for production, unless Finland and Canada decide to order.
Yes, my thoughts too. The alliance with the US is getting shaky anyway. Either make ourselves honest and get our own nukes or go for French nukes. They have offered their nuclear umbrella before. Then we could also go for the Rafale option. Or as you say drop nukes altogether.
Is the SH nuclear capable? I always thought Navy pilots were happy that they did NOT have to do the "nuclear consent" training every year, because they dont have the nuclear consent button in the cockpit?
Infrared sensors coupled with radar can give the Chinese and edge. Not just that IR sensors don't give your position away like radar (up close), but I wonder how well, or if, they would acquire the trail/lock on of an F-35 ?!?
@@jayklink851 Passive radar has existed for decades. IR sensors have existed for decades. Stealth is not an invisibility cloak, it is a surprise attack creator.
@@BeKindToBirds Yeah I know, but the Chinese/Ruski's have IR missiles, which can be pretty sneaky in DCS lol. If ur on the deck people can't detect ur radar or even noticed they have been locked on.
Id love to hear Germanys standpoint on Aircraft carriers. A lot of mayor powers do have carriers, for example france. Maybe you could interview someone on that subject
@@Lemmuy Yes, there are some idiots in German politics who stated that Germany needed a carrier. I bet the same person who said that would also lift the Bismarck and repair it.
Well the original position is simple. The German Military, incl. the Luftwaffe, is a defensive power. The North and Baltic Sea are very shallow waters, particularly the North sea with its enormous tide, that limit deployment zones for aircraft carriers and make them extremely vulnerable. That is the ORIGINAL position and it is the constitutional view. Aircraft carriers are tools of power projection andand off the cuff remark that the German military is a tool to project Germany's power in the world on a flight home cost a German president his job a few years ago. It is extremely difficult to make the case that aircraft carriers are useful for defending the Fatherland, given teh geography and political they are an incredibly hard sell for anything else. So no, there won't be any aircraft carriers in German's Navy any time soon. Carrier capable aircraft on the other hand are a completely different topic when it comes to cooperation etc.
Germany doesn't need that level of maritime power projection. Germany should heavily focus on Ground and air forces though. So Tanks, Jets, Bombers and more Tanks
@@Rauschgenerator One Carrier would make symbolic sense though, But I think Germany should get smaller watercraft like destroyers and submarines. Remember a military force of a country of that relevance needs offensive capability, not just defensive. And the general geopolitical challenge of EU and in association Germany, requires eastern expansion of influence, which should be backed by military power. And as Germany is a central part of the EU, it definitely needs some ships for the baltic and mediterranean seas. Power projection into Africa would also be necessary in the medium term future. And Africa has a huge coastline. Also After US withdrawal from the world, Countries need to fill the vacuum for trade security. And Germany is definitely very export based.
@@looinrims Germany should definitely invest in maritime projection. The status quo in the next 20 years will be very different since the US is implementing their planned withdrawal from the world. That includes the Navy.
I still think F-35 is the only real option. The only reason you have against it is essentially summed up by: „Because some dude decided we don’t want it!“ - „Why?“ - „Because!!!“ That’s not a real reason like the ones speaking against the rest of the options. As for the only 2 other realistic options: Eurofighter ECM suite is also very expensive and „Zukunftsmusik“, and the F-18?! Well might as well just further upgrade Tornado then, instead of switching an old plane for a slightly less old, slightly more capable one.
F-35s are too good, Germany started the FCAS program for a stealth 6th gen aircraft as a Typhoon successor only months ago. The F-35 would be too sophisticated to be an interim solution, and later governments may buy additional F-35s and cancel the FCAS program. One additional point is the F-18 G, a replacement for the ECR Tornados, which is not available yet with the F-35 platform or the Typhoon. So they buy just one aircraft type (F-18s in different variants) and have nuclear share plus the Growler as a SEAD aircraft
@@LarS1963 it was not just the fault of Lockheed - the Luftwaffe wasn't really ready for the F-104, which was way faster and more complex then the subsonic F-86 they had before. Other nations lost a far smaller percentage of F-104s, it was popular in Europe. The aircraft was very demanding for the pilots, it was capable in the hand of aces but dangerous in the hand of less skilled pilots, it was a 1950s aircraft from a time when carefree handling simply didn't exist. F-16s and F-35s are built for carefree handling, they are relatively easy to fly for a fighter jet due to the fly by wire system and they are made to get the best out of average pilots, not made just for aces.
@@simonm1447 It was not popular in Europe. In Denmark it was called Den Flyvende Ligkiste. We lost 12 out 60 in ten years. In the Netherlands it was Het Fliegende Doodkist and eventually caused a scandal, that reached all the way into the Royal House. In Germany a devastating report about how Lockheed had bribed officials was produced, but then 'conviniently' vanished. It was a disaster and a complete scandal.
@@LarS1963 Just look to the US, they haven't had much F-104s, but other aircraft, the crash rates back then were horribly high, also for other fighters like the Hun. Lockheed has made mistakes for sure, but it's not just Lockheed, the Luftwaffe also had some fault, so they eventually got it relatively safe in the mid 60s. Another thing is the Germans bought a interceptor to use it as a fighter bomber - which isn't a really smart thing to do, modern multi role fighters didn't exist back then, but there were alternatives. The F-16 (which wasn't a Lockheed aircraft, but was built with the F-104 experience, it's today built by LM due to company acquisitions), it's the Nr 1 fighter jet in pure numbers in the west and it has a good safety record. The F-35 is more or less a stealthy F-16 successor.
Well-thought-out analysis on Germany's options. My guess if Germany waits a full year to make the decision on which air-frame to pick, they will circle back around to the F-35. A note of the two advance sixth generation Aircraft that European nations are developing; it has taken the US defense department 10 years to work out the major bugs in the F-35? The US had built or is still building five True Gen 5 aircraft: F-117, F-22, F-35, B-2 and the B-21. Be very careful putting your money on the 6th gen fighters in development. As you stated very clearly, the two groups developing the 6th gen airframes have not defined the requirements. My last point on waiting on the new sixth gen airframes, the two groups who are developing these platforms, never built a 5 gen airframe. Working with the materials alone are going to take years. No, the French companies will not share information, hell Boning and Lockheed do not share information, and they are both US companies. If Germany does decide to buy into the F 35 program they will be able to integrate their air defense with other NATO nations.
Pretty, good, just one minor detail. Boeing and Lockheed do work together, just not when I’m direct competition. Boeing works on Lockheed’s F-22, F-35, and F-16, and Lockheed helps out with the F-15EX. ULA is a joint Boeing and Lockheed company. The only time they really compete is for DoD bids, but after that, they will often work together to deliver the final product.
A bit late , but I'm curious as to why you think Gripen is weak in ground attack role? Because the A in JAS 39 is for the attack role. Also, by the looks of it, Viggen was a good one for that role, and I don't think SAAB has made any downgrades in that aspect. And also also, being able to rearm from a road base must be a good thing for that role?? Maybe content for a future video? What is a good ground attack plane these days?
Because « combat proven » for the Rafale : Daesh was affraid by it and nicknamed it “the black pigeon.” Also in Afghanistan, ground soldiers requested specific « Rafale air supports » in case of high-precision needed. Actually Rafale has sensors and very advanced capabilities provided by Thales for this kind of mission. It is a word class reference on that.
BISMARK: Please do a video explaining why certain Yak models only have one single asymmetric nose-mounted machine gun in the cowling instead of the typical two. PLEASE
I suggest mig 15 The glorious airforce of the best korea use them Easily destroy any army single handedly Big 37mm potato canon Electronic warfare is not needed the glory of kim's blessing is enough
Regarding the Indian patriot suggesting the Tejas, I would like to apologize for his/her enthusiasm. He truly didn’t understand Germany’s need of the hour. Tejas is an interceptor with limited ground support (defensive role) as the range is limited. The MWF is far into the future (the Tejas mk2 I guess). The AMCA is way into the future. India bought the Rafale and the MRFA tender is the category is where the Germans are interested.
Yes. Making a Gripen to a strike aircraft is something like... hm... converting the F-104 Starfighter to a fighter-bomber... who could be this dumb... oh wait.
Actually the Gripen given it;'s size is again punching way above it's weight class.. and lb4lb it's carrying a load that embarrass the crap out of the lame as shit 35 and the bloated bumble as well despite it's massive size. (35 is a farce with or w/o stealth for this.. the bloated bumble is the size of an F15 yet maxes at 17,500, not even 2000 higher than the Gripen despite the massive size difference and the bloated bumbles pylons alone are another massive disaster) No the Gripen would not be the best for a strictly strike only aircraft but it was never designed to be and again given it's size and what it can carry and it's extremely capable electronics systems it should be easily capable of doing more than many much bigger opponents just to do being a hell of alot harder to hit right off the bat. Its also one of the reasons why I say it is the #1 smart choice for Canada's actual needs and the only one of the 3 official choices that makes any sense at all. The other 2 are disasters in so many ways it could fill a book. (And yes the Rafale would be #2 and could have been if they had solved some of the issues before it was removed formally.. but thats moot now)
@@kindanyume Thats what I mean, for a coutry that already have the Eurofighter getting the Gripen as a dedicated strike aircraft makes very little sense. I mean it could work, but there are plenty better options. If you are only going to have one aircraft rhe Gripen starts to make much more sense.
This mess makes the Netherlands deciding on the F-35 in 2001, 18 years before the first plane was delivered, actually somewhat rational. And that includes going down from the original 85 to 37 planes and then spending even more on an additional nine. This is basically minimum levels to even carry out NATO obligations. It also makes deployments difficult because ever since Sebrenica in 1995, any serious Dutch mission has its own air force compliment under direct Dutch command. Basically getting the planes for such a mission is very difficult with most being tied up either in training in the USA, training locally or needed for stand by over Dutch or Baltic airspace when the KLu covers that area. And since 2019, the planes have been grounded multiple times for things like concerns about lightning impacts or engine damage because of the tarmac used on a Dutch airbase apparently causing FOB related issues. Then the planes we got, will have to undergo some kind of major upgrade to even get the full expected capability. Further with the Dutch defence spending at a continued unsustainable low point, I seriously wonder how these planes are supposed to fly the required hours for pilots to remain qualified. Because the F-35 seems to be at least three times as expensive per flight hour and the F-16 was already difficult. And then issues will probably keep coming up for some time. But I think this will end up with Germany developing an ECR variant of the Eurofighter. And it won't be because the Germans want to, but because they have to. Because if the F-18 production line does indeed shut down completely in favour of overhauling capacity for the existing fleet like is planned, well that is it for alternatives.
@@tellyonthewall8751 Most of Europe is sadly like that. The fundamental problem isn't that the F-35 isn't a great aircraft. It objectively is impressive in terms of technology and its capabilities. It is better than all alternatives when it works and you can afford flying it. And that is the problem. Its operational costs and its maintenance hours per hour of flight just seem way to high for any smaller air force. With numbers in the several dozens, a good portion will only be in usage for training or be stuck in maintenance. And that kills operational readiness for so many of these smaller air forces. If the Netherlands could have bought its intended 85 planes and cost per flight hour wasn't so high, I would have no issue with the F-35 whatsoever. But like this, you kinda need a larger number of less capable planes that you can actually operate alongside a few F-35s. And I seriously doubt anything other than a specked out F-16 with as much F-35 sensors is the correct answer for that question. Because with current budgets, these heavy planes like the F-35 are just not affordable as a replacement for the F-16. And even the USAF seems to be coming to that conclusion. In turn, USAF slashing of numbers will only drive the production and maintenance costs up because the investment in tooling up, will have to be earned back with fewer planes. And that can create a death spiral.
@@ALSea24 ok. If you say so. But Germany already have Eurofighter. The Gripen is a cheaper completion to the fleet. Why should they buy another expensive jetfighter?
My take: Hornets or Growlers are too old. makes no sense to buy a jet that is already being replaced by its main user. The F35 is killed politically. So unless Germany is buying US Jets, it's either gonna need to certify the Typhoon for the nukes or drop out. Here comes the Gripen again. Buying 15-20 aircraft for EW is certainly better than developing and then buying 15-20 Eurofighters with EW. Gripen also shares the Meteor and IRIS-T with the Typhoon, it can use the StormShadow which is very similar to the Taurus. how much that eases the transition, idk. And the Gripen may be a step down from the Tornado in strike capability but it beats the German Eurofighter. Which carries a grand total of two different A/G weapons. One of them being the board cannon. So it could probably also take the Strike role (except nukes) and be as good as or better than a German Tyhpoon
Your information on the Eurofighters air-to-ground capabilities is outdated by now as far as I know. Taurus could also be adjusted for F-18 Block III and Eurofighter. The Block III Hornet is ordered by the US Navy btw.
@@theTutenstien *too* old. its like ditching your 1990s car to get a used one from 2009 instead of a new one from 2018. not to say a Hornet is bad. but I think there are better and newer options out there
*Regarding F-15EX , I'll make a dedicated video on that aircraft to give it a fairer shot. ETA: no idea™*
Given that the F-16 has been used for wild wiesel/SEAD missions here, it's ironic that its ranking is so low.
Add: And that's being done with block 52s. Newer dual seat block 70 versions have extra space and you can certainly put jamming equipment in there. The Growler started as a Hornet after all.
Add2: Does Germany have preference for dual engine planes? Seems that everything in inventory is.
Don't want to spam with multiple posts. Already commenting without watching whole video.
Edit: Yes, I did finish the video.
Rafale is the Futur proof and effective combat proven choice, Gripen is the economic but enough choice, F-35 is the murica dumb and corrupted bribed politician choice, F15 EX is the continuity choice that won't need training for the pilots and still ok for a few more years.
Can you you make these videos 10 minutes shorter
The best buy for Germany, financially, work basis and so much more, is the Swedish Gripen E - you get one plane from Sweden, the template - Germany can them self start a industry to continue develop the plane, and the factory WILL be in Germany, so that means more work for Germans, AND, the support from Saab means that any further development of the plane will be with the full support of Saab, regarding Integration, and more, so this will also create a lot more jobs in Germany, for radars, communication, weapons, and so much more.....so, Germany will build the plane itself, Saab will moste likely only send engines and computers for the plane, everything else is to be handled by the country making the plane...This is the plan they made for Norway during the procurement procedure, and same given to Canada, and Brazil has already received the "Template" plane, and factory is being made as we speak (if not done already with production started).
The Gripen E is not the best plane, but with the Meteor missile, IS the best BWR (Beyond visual range) with their extended Integration Saab surveillance suite with both AWACS and ground radar, connected to one system, and already has a german made gun with full support for NATO arms.
Grippen E is the only plane that sees itself as the Sukhoi Su-35 / Mikojan-Gurevitsj - Mig 39 killer
How about getting Boeing to give Typhoon the F-15EX treatment? Get a 2 seat Typhoon and give it all of the same radar, etc, that F-15EX has. That way they can domestically produce it while using a US company which would help get it approved to use US nukes.
I thought my BF-109 suggestion was VERY reasonable lmao
XD
Well I did say it was 'courageous'
@@MilitaryAviationHistory yup make a versus BF 109 v. JAS 39
@@MilitaryAviationHistory lol, very true
I mean would be nice if they made jets of the Ta series
Paper Planes: You can build Thousands of them each day and outproduce everyone. Some even have a range of 50m. Furthermore they cannot get targeted by missiles because they are too small. And they have good flying characteristics in low speeds. They almost never stall.
And they are unmanned. You won't lose many pilots in air to air combat. They only need a bunker and machine guns to stay alive against enemy ground forces that are typically within 50m of their drone launch facilities.
Germans only like a bargain on something expensive.
But cannot carry nukes.
Toss in a few rubber band motors for increased thrust, and maybe a balsa frame for increases g-tolerance, all you need is a few AAMs and Germany is set!
@@jacobakana5649 you’re essentially making a ww1 fighter at that point
I actually didn't know about the Swedish government not wanting the Gripen to be used to carry nuclear bombs. Explains why Belgium didn't even consider that aircraft when they made their decision for the next aircraft.
Germany said the same 20 years ago. They refused to add a nuclear strike capability on it. Thats why the Netherlands didnt get the eurofighter in the late 90's .
Considering how Gripen hasn't been making amazing sales, not even to neighbouring Scandinavian countries, I'm surprised Sweden wouldn't be open to negotiations. Sweden is very eager for military cooperation with the USA, the largest nuclear power in the world, below the level of an actual alliance, but somehow allowing Germany, which doesn't even possess nuclear weapons of its own, to carry American nukes on a Gripen would be impossible. I'd understand it if Sweden only leased the aircrafts to Germany, but if they are properly sold, I don't really get it.
@@herrakaarme I think the new F16 (ie F21) has made the Gripen redundant - why buy an aircraft that only a handful will be made, when you can buy one of the most produced aircraft ever that will be supported for decades more, that with modern avionics has essentially the same capabilities.
@@mkyhou1160 Will the US Air Force get the new F-16 version? From what I understood a few years ago, it's basically a renovated, affordable aircraft for (US friendly) countries that can't afford to buy a new type of a fighter jet or that want to wait for the 6th generation and need something in the meantime.
I don't really like the idea of a SuperHornet either because it's more or less the same: An updated version of an aircraft that's originally from the 70's, just like the F-16.
The original Gripen is from the 90's, so there's a big difference.
@@herrakaarme Part of that failed sales though is Nato/US political pressure. Nato practically forces nations to opt in on the US sales.
Norway was practically forced to opt out of the Gripen which was a scandal years back when the papers leaked on the entire affair. There is also the issue that the Gripen is mainly designed with a guerilla defence role in mind. It's meant to fight low and dirty with limited supply and possibly even a lack of trained maintenance crew on a dirty road in heavy rain.
Problem quickly becomes though that if you are a nation that doesn't really think about those scenarios much well the Gripen isn't that interesting all of a sudden when you could go buy a bigger heavier and more broadly equipped fighter. Since you can pay and support it a lot better than what a nation like Sweden could.
But we also have the other issue that is that the US inteligence and the Swedish one don't really trust one another that much. Sweden is pretty damn good att Cyberwarfare and inteligence and is probably really itching to get their hands deeper into the US cookie jar so to speak. Just like how the US is doing them same to them. Since they have been trying to steal data from SAAB for like 30 years now. Which creates this tense situation where both can't fully move towards cooperation on more advanced weapons.
But then again Germany and Sweden have gotten along pretty well in terms of arms development they might strike a deal there. Since even the US have been looking at the Gripen platform as a good option to bolster other aicraft like the F22 and F35. Which might be part of why the aircraft is getting more and more recognition.
"Franco-German friendship has come a long way since the Second World War. We are as tight as ever. *deep breath* But the French are not going to give Germany a nuclear bomb." - Christoph @MilAvHistory
I laughed.
@A Fels Your Source is a Fool...
Why do you think GERMANY assists FRANCE at "Mali"?
What is in MALI....? Is it about "islamic Terrorism"? No...
There is "Yellow Cake" and the frensh need this for the nuclear Power Plants (and Bombs..)....
Does the USA assist them? Nope... Do the british? NOPE.... Germany does...
@@rembrandt2323 the Dutch were overthere... Should we be worried?
@@rembrandt2323 Most of the uranium needed by France is imported from Canada, Kazakhstan and Australia, and a very small percentage actually comes from Africa, you are wrong there.
@@themax9913 at this time. Who knows what the future brings.
@A Fels "Germany voted for the south not to drain the north. France voted for this financial vampirism."
Oh, please, what utterly disgusting hypocrisy. Germany is bleeding the rest of the EU dry. It is bleeding their workforces, causing insane brain drain, and destroying their industry with it's insistance on maintaining a massive trade surplus. Without the financial transfers made through the EU framework, that bleeding would create a complete economic wasteland out of Southern and Eastern EU. Germany is profiting from EU membership more than any other EU country, and for it's own sake it has to reinvest it's accumulated riches back into the places it drained - otherwise it couldn't keep leeching off of other member state's workforces any more.
The french dude has canard as his last name lol. I fucking love those little skits :D
Orale canard
Dassault has the last name, "of combat," so.
For context, as a Jew, he changed his name to share his brother's pseudonym to avoid persecution in occupied France.
His brother's pseudonym was Dassault, derived from the term, "Char d'assaut." Literally means assault tank, interpretively means tank.
As a Ukrainian, we have a similar dilemma about what aircraft should we buy. Was very nice to hear the points about all of those aircraft.
Well, we gave up our nukes. I guess Gripen for us is one of the best variants.
And it's my personal favourite too.
Rafale would fit better in all variants (B&C) for Ukraine in mt opinion. Gripen is less performant
@@jkeelsnc sure, i dont deny it, but for Germany needs, Rafale would fit waaayyyyy better
Honestly would opt to f-35A or f-15EX if I was ukraine or Germany, both are new made and are capable
If ukraine can't afford them then f-16 block 70
@@lil__boi3027 f35 is a crash plané, even us officials admit it
@@ivanbarbancon8750 the f-35 mogs the rest of the aircraft here
Also in it's service from 2014 it had only one crash
Shoutout to the Person who suggested th Bf-109, you made me giggle seeing it in the video
There was a time when that was practical. Airfield defence missiles are optimised for a moderate number of high speed jets. A slower but agile aircraft which can fly low, slow and sill carry a punch with precision bombs and cannons has some advantages. North Korea I believe still has a large number of single engined biplanes for this very reason. Cheap expendable but able to swamp the air defence of S Korea.
I mean, the need is for a fighter that can fulfill a ground-attack role, so the Fw-190 is a clearly superior choice.
@@mbak7801 Are you sure those aren't transport planes?
I was looking for a piper cub and a spitfire in there as well as the Avro Arrow!
Like someone said under a Spitfire video in a airshow, Britian can rely on the good ol' Spits if their jets get destroyed.
Germany should contract SAAB to make an EW-suite for their Eurofighters. Problem solved.
EXACTLY! I refuse to believe that a variant of the the Eurofighter couldn't be made for this mission type, and since we're already operating Eurofighters, this would make sense from a logistical point of view as well.
And that is what happened.. You made a very qualified comment. :-)
you had inside information mate 😂
Can’t wait to see which fighter the luftwaffe will fail to maintain
If that is their greatest flaw then the Gripen should be their one and only pick. Or a confiscated Russian one.
"Beim EUROFIGHTER ist die Luftwaffe mittlerweile so weit, dass das erreichte Niveau von rund 70 Prozent weiter verstetigt und in einzelnen Wochen sogar die 75 Prozent-Marke übersprungen wurde."
Quelle: Bericht zur materiellen Einsatzbereitschaft der Hauptwaffensysteme der Bundeswehr I/2021
@@1barnet1 where is this myth that Russian fighters are reliable coming from? The Russian MiG-29SMT fleet has something like a 50% readiness rate last I heard.
@@TheJacobshapiro Not reliable. More easily repaireable due to being less complicated. It was also a pun given germany had an old DDR Mig 29 fleet themselves.
Said the toxic spam account.
22:00 That is why Rafale withdrew from the short list for Canada's next fighter: they would not allow the information exchange with the USA that Canada required.
Pretty sure they withdrew because they were sick and tired of our (Canada’s) BS and dallying. Rightly so…
@@troyjollimore4100 Yup... Like...#*cough*# Sea King Helicopters...#*cough*#
@@scottcrawford3745 If you look back in history, the exact same BS occurred when they were replacing the Voodoos. Only then, Common Sense was still somewhat in evidence, and they made a decision. Now, they can delay indefinitely… Canada will never need to defend itself. Right? 🤦♂️
Actualy thats not why at all.. They offered Canada a full access deal on it unlike most other potential buyers.. but it was elminated due to the absurd costs to make it Nato interoperable.... if that had not been an issue then it easily would be one of the 2 best possible picks for Canuckistan hands down.
If I were still flying and had a pick I'd be very happy with either the Gripen of the Rafale.. but of the 2 given canadaas actual needs the Gripen is the hands down winner.. esp of the 3 official choices we have avail
Its the only one of the 3 that isnt ftarded from the get go.
@@kindanyume Would have been a much clearer pick if it had two engines, like the Rafale. North America doesn’t seem to like delta wings, either.
The Rafale is marginally prettier sitting in the hangar, so that's probably the best choice for Germany.
Exactly
just marginally? :)
"sitting in the hangar" ?
@@johndoe-cd9vt Yes, sitting in the hangar, not actually engaged in combat.
@@chuckschillingvideos LOL WTF are you talking about, the rafale not engaged? where were you the last 5 years? In your cave? LOL
My goodness! Your Parisian accent French and the acting skills are impressive! Sehr gut! 👍
I'm French and the Rafale is my baby. And damn it felt good when the only criticism against it was geopolitical and not on the performance of the A/C :D
The Rafale is a gorgeous plane! If the Germans won't go Gripen, my vote is for the Rafale. Greeting from Sweden
Go look at the failed bid section of the rafales wiki page lmao
It's a great plane which has flown all the way fram Europe to Asia without getting shot down.
Rafale is jack of all trades and the most sexy modern aircraft, no wonder why Croatia chose the Rafale.
If only it worked.
If the options are Rafale or Gripen the Rafale makes the most sense. It's closer in capability to both the Typhoon and Tornado and Germany and France are already collaborating with France on the FCAS stealth fighter (as well as a new main battle tank)
Rafael and Eurofighter have the same origin, but then France left the development program for the EF Typhoon...
Thank you for this very comprehensive overview! Very interesting and I like that you branched out your channel to these very actual topics in military aviation. I also like the interviews with the experts a lot. Thank you and keep it up!
Germany will never buy Rafale, simply because it's French 😁
Greetings from France, German friends 🇫🇷🇩🇪
Don't tell the English , but some of their naval war ships are being built in France as we speak lol. And I'm sure you're well aware of their European sibling rivalry with each other :)
Even Israël didn't buy them and they are made by them lol
I think the other point is that the Rafale is also kind of out on a limb. France the main operator, the rest have low level numbers of lower capabilities. Some of the operators have second hand planes from France. Looking for longevity this aircraft is already 20 years old, with limited deployment, despite how capable the aircraft is.
And yet the French army replaced the FAMAS with German rifles...
@@tedferkin but still more capable that eurofighter
Basic Economics: every Euro spent at home stays at home and helps run and develop your economy. Tailored Eurofighter is the logical solution.
Mercantilism doesn't work, especially in a globalized world with fiat currency, despite its popularity in Germany.
@@jamesoswald1732 Neither does the alternative. If you have no domestic industry and depend solely on imports, you are a banana republic. When we are talking about military matters, if a war happens, there are zero guarantees you can even get anything from abroad, or the price might jump really high and the selection become limited.
That is probably what they will do, they will not maintain them properly, so what, he determined enemy will destroy them on the ground at the onset of their sneak attack. Get ready for the real world
@@herrakaarme In any scenario where Germany has to fight someone without the support of the rest of the EU and America, the best case scenario is that Germany is defeated quickly.
@@jamesoswald1732 Such a scenario is not realistic in the foreseeable future, though. Germany's military spending is still within the top 10, as well, and they do possess a strong domestic defence industry. Above all, there's simply no one around to attack Germany suddenly like that. During the Cold War, (West) Germany's fate was predicted to be exceptionally dire, but those times are long gone.
1:13 me262 is clearly the best choice here ^^
The Me262 is just so beautiful 😍
what fighter plane should buy Germany next?War thunder players: yes
By the Gripen! I've been working with the aircraft engine, seen it in first hand, talking with the guys who are doing the programming of it, talked to the pilot, etc. The aircraft is awesome, easy to maintain, suitable for ruff terrain landings, cheap to fly, etc. Unbeatable for most of the modern aircraft. The possibility to let one aircraft have an active radar and control x number of aircraft with passive radar is outstanding.
I live in the flight path of Canada's F-18 air base, I always forget there's other fighter planes out there, all I ever see is F-18's all day every day!!
What? No Chinese aircraft. I know they are flying out of CFB Pembroke in Alberta Canada. Canada's Liberal Government training Chinese military. Shameful for all Canadians.
@@lessharratt8719 You're referring to the RebelNews article on Chinese nationals training in Cold Lake, this never took place, it never happened, RebelNews just made it up, that's what they do, look into them deeper and you will see that RebelNews is only about money.
@@masaharumorimoto4761 No I am not referring to Rebel News or Cold Lake. I have friends in Innasvale that is beside CFB Pembroke. They have seen Chinese fighters with their own eyes. They have promised me video if they can.
@@lessharratt8719 I hope they catch one of Bigfoot while they are at it.
@@PalleRasmussen 😂
Sitting here in Canada we are struggling with the same thing. I think that most people are concerned about firstly the price of the F35 and secondly that the plane may perhaps too advanced and run in to the same category of technical difficulties that the US experienced with their newest aircraft carrier
@@Maple_Cadian you are talking out of your ass with the final opinion. The us is first and foremost Canada's closest ally. Especially when it comes to air defence.
There is a lot of sales hype surrounding the F-35 but a quick review of US govt publications reveals that it still has significant technical problems. Also operational costs are way too high for most nations too afford. As a Canadian I think Gripen E/F would work best for Canada.
@@wiskadjak I like the griphen but I'm almost Shure the super hornets will be bought. Commonality, good price capable and most importantly for primary mission in NORAD, best ferry range
@@Maple_Cadian you are confusing with what we ought to do with reality. We both practice protectionism (especially when a nationalist comes in powered in the us) but this does not outway our economic interdependence.
I don't disagree that we should be more independent of them, but the extent your talking about is fiction
Yet, the F35 might still be the smartest option in this squeeze we are in as of today. Norway chose F35 despite all discussions and I think they chose well in the end despite the costs. We’ll see what will happen after the elections.
28:58 "Unless something big happens and I don't see it happening at the moment"
xD
Luftwaffe: "I want an F-35! No, I want a Super Hornet! I want a Growler and a Eurofighter ECR, and..."
Everyone else: *slaps Luftwaffe* "YOU'LL GET NOTHING AND LIKE IT!!"
143 Eurofighter in the Luftwaffe and 40 more coming. Super Hornets first were wanted because able to carry nuclear weapons. Now the 40 new Eurofighter will be able to.
@@Bjoern211 No, the 40 Eurofighters (Tranche 4) are purchased to replace obsolete Tranche 1 Eurofighters. Some of the actual 143 Eurofighters will be retired with the Tranche 4 delivery.
The F-18s will come to replace the Tornados for nuclear share and the ECR versions for SEAd with some F-18 Gs.
Eurofighters are not gonna to be certified for US B-61 bombs.
It sounds like Hermann Goering is back in charge
@@jamesricker3997 such a underrated comment
Thank you for another great video. I am always impressed and delighted with your fact and research based approach and thorough analysis. Often we see RUclips creators obsessing over refighting past battles with tons of what if's and fantasy but history is done and I would much rather have solid history and research. Thanks again!
As a French, i can only say that he is totally right. France likes the US. But we want to keep our technology for ourself (or Europe at most). So, the Rafale is not meant for countries that might share informations with the US, China, or Russia.
then what about your sale to egypt and india
@@bruh8057 He's kinda wrong. The Rafale isn't an open system, so you clearly need the French to improve or upgrade it. No risks in selling it abroad. The Rafale was made since birth to be sold to export clients.
The vast majority of obstacles for every realistically capable aircraft seem to be political in nature, rather than practical /operational ones.
Welcome to military procurement
Exactly!
Peacetime procurement
It is practical not to order a Chinese or Russian aircraft. You'll only be able to get replacement parts through them and I doubt they will be forthcoming if your at war
@@ryanestes7331 No question about Russian or Chinese aircraft. The elephant in the room is F-35 here. :o)
The Gripen is a clever concept suited for countries that have many islands, mountains and narrow valleys such as Greece, Austria and Switzerland.
As well countries with less infrastructure that are close to European Russian Frontier such as Finnland Poland or the Baltics.
They can start and land on roads and the re-amummition can be done decentralized which makes it perfect for Greek Islands which function as natural aircraft carriers or states at the Russian border.
Eh, no.
JAS-39 would not change the balance of power in the Aegean. F-35 would.
@@johanlassen6448 not at that operational cost, which as proven didn't spare much money for buying weapons for it, and not with the US software suite....Israel bought them as long as they'd use their own code to have total control. The F35 is a super expensive jet that the US is forcing upon whoever they can, to milk as much money as possible. Just because it's high tech on paper doesn't mean it fullfills the strategic needs of different countries. Greetings from Greece...
@@apolitis1 Literally every airforce in the world disagrees with you bro. Even the Greek one.
@@johanlassen6448 yes, and this is because of political pressure from the US as I clearly explain. Not because it's the best choice for everyone. Every aviation and military analyst as well as fighter pilots in Greece strongly protested against the F35. Obviously the formal statement after the purchase was in favor of it. It is an excellent jet if you are already a superpower with a superpower's budget, not for countries like us.
@@apolitis1 It isn't. Several actual evaluations have been done again and again and they all show that the F-35 is not more expensive than 4.5 gens while also being far superior in performance. Unless you have actual tangible proof that there was political pressure involved, I suggest you retract your statement.
“….unless something big happens, but I don’t see that happening”
Enter: Vladimir Poetin
What is always overlooked when it comes to multinational projects are the national restrictions on military sales to certain countries / regions. Imho a main reason why any franco-german cooperation is bound to fail due to different export policies.
I am always surprised by the amount of nostalgia people display when making policy arguments related to weapon systems. Nostalgia has no place in the selection of weapon systems, even the glorious A-10. If it can't do the job the military planners believe it needs to do 10 years from now, then we shouldn't be planning on using it. Air strategy, like naval strategy, has become build strategy.
The a10 was not stopped be abuse of nostalgic reasons, because Afghanistan showed it still had its purpose that it could provided long term, long duration CAS support, and take fire. Same reason why the su24 was updated in the russian air force.
@@Robert53area I wasn't making an argument of the validity of the a-10 project, more about the nostalgic way that senators and congressman talked about the a-10 when debating whether the project should be continued.
@@Robert53area The A-10 can provide ground support in low intensity environment, sure. But so can drones, and the Super Tucano both of which are cheaper to operate and more suitable for low intensity conflicts. Keep in mind the A-10 was designed with the Soviets in mind, not insurgents so its operating costs is not in line with asymmetric warfare. Meanwhile, in high intensity conflicts like one against the Soviets (now Russia), it won't stand a chance without gaining air superiority first. In that case, you'll just go F-35s who can shoot down enemy planes then proceed to bomb stuff all with one platform. A-10 is great but its cost is a lot higher than other low-intensity options available along with outright aging air frames. A-10 may be cheaper per air frame basis compared to the F-35, but the cost of maintaining an extra aircraft design like the logistics, the training, etc. is tough to justify.
The US will always need the F-35 for air superiority, amphibious and carrier-based operations. Tackling on an extra aircraft like the A-10 for ground pounding is just extra cost for a marginal increase in capability as the F-35 can already do the ground pounding. Not to mention a good part of the A-10's kit is not even used (the famous GAU) as 90% of ground strikes are done by stand-off weapons like missiles nowadays. There're other drawbacks like data-link, battle management system and sensor suite that may make it less able to cooperate with other branches like the F-35 can. The latter is quite a big thing for effective close air support.
Also having both roles on one plane can boost surge capacity in either categories depending on the situation. If we have 50 fighters and 50 CAS available, the max CAS we can send out at a time is 50. With 100 fighter-bombers that can do both, we can have a surge capacity of 100 CAS missions. We can also choose to send 70 fighters and 30 CAS missions if the situation demands. Where as a 50/50 mix can only send 50 fighters and 30 CAS with 20 CAS doing nothing as they aren't needed while in turn 20 fighters short. A-10 single mission profile is too inflexible.
Lastly, I'm unsure if A-10 production have even been kept running for the past few years which only put the whole design at risk further. If production have ceased for any significant amount of time, especially if said factories get retooled... the A-10 will be doomed like the F-22 where it is too expensive to restart production. Old air frames will increasingly become more expensive to maintain along with longer down times. The upgrade potential will also eventually hit a wall where the performance increase doesn't justify the upgrade cost. The F-35 is new and a lot more future proof.
@@randomdude4505 The USAF now wants to keep the Hawg around for another Decade, not just the senators. It’s not nostalgia. Though I understand the point of your original comment and agree
@@randomdude4505 You are confusing nostalgia for trust and it is showing your bias.
Six month old accounts in russian time zone always have such interesting opinions on the A-10.
The F-15EX is a long-used and fantastic platform and worthy of consideration. It's truly a multi-role workhorse and will pay enormous dividends for decades to come.
It seems to me that a lot of the issues come back to Germany being committed to using the B-61 nuclear bomb, and difficulties arising from trying to match that weapon with any potential airframe purchase. Do you see any way to navigate around that, or is Germany basically stuck in a scenario where the only two reasonable options are buying aircraft from America or designing one themselves?
One option that would work is to get a non-compatible airframe for normal use and a few dedicated B-61 carriers. The reality is that not every airplane would need to carry the bomb anyway.
@@Robert-nz2qw Kind of paints a great big target on an obsolescent platform, in a worst case scenario. It would mean having to establish local air superiority before you can even deploy and that's not guaranteed. So, it comes down to how seriously you want people to take your nuclear capability.
Well Germany has always been in a scenario of buying foreign or designing with somebody. Germany is in a quagmire, it needs to show they are capable and an equal partner in NATO. Lacking in those capabilities will not help Germany in future arrangements.
Depends on how you interpret "committed" *cough*
@@jkeelsnc If Germany had taken it's own defense situation seriously years ago, it wouldn't need Trump to verbally chastise them over their lack of commitment to NATO.
I know it's out of the table, I watched your F-35 video, but man, I can't stress enough how Germany should really go F-35. The Swiss recently selected it against the Rafale, Eurofighter and Super Hornet, and, somewhat surprisingly, the F-35 didn't only turn out to be the most effective aircraft but it was also the cheapest of the bunch, not only at procurement costs but also operating costs! (economies of scale, I guess?). It's also the most future proof of them as it's a 5th gen, and it'll work not only as a bridge until FCAS (and a very solid bridge if FCAS is delayed) but will be able to serve in parallel with that one for decades. Oh, and apart from the B-61, integration with the Meteor AAM is in progress already, IRIS-T should be compatible.
One other thing I was thinking about,I can see so many people saying "until FCAS", and I'm not too hopeful about that. Eurofighter had plenty of issues until it entered service, and many are only being solved recently. It wouldn't surprise me if FCAS didn't enter service until 2050, or if it entered service with much lower capabilities than they initially want. Being from one of the countries involved I hope I'm wrong and that everything will go smoothly, but the point stands that we should be careful not to put all out hopes into FCAS when it comes because anything could happen.
Also this video leaves me with a doubt... What are they even going to do? You pretty much discarded all of the options in the video. If you want nukes you have to go American, but they don't want to go American because of politics. So what?
By the time the FCAS enters service, the cadets that are starting their training today, would be generals by then. When you factor the cost of development and integration of a modernized Typhoon or the cost of building a new suport line for any other airplane, the F35 is the cheapest option, a real turn key option
@@looinrims from the same group that don't want an army.
@@jkeelsnc the operatin cost of the typhoon is not any cheaper and Germany would not depend of the USA, there are already all kind of logistical suport already in place in Europe. If the is no war good, the consecuence of this mistake would never be perceived, but if things turns to worst, the deservice to the german people by their lidership will be patent. Elections has consecuences
There's just one answer ! Of course the capable beautiful Dassault Rafale...👍 What else ??? 🤔😉 I mean, let's face it, the EU is not being very united when it comes to buy a new plane like for instance! Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, and UK no more in the EU since 2020 bought the F-35, so why have those states not bought an EU fighter ? Since the Rafale is a very capable combat jet which can face its duty...
Very simple puppet of Dady yankee
23:00 Your French is actually very good and rather funny... On a more serious note, I'm not sure we refuse to integrate US A-bombs into the Rafale for fear of the US having knowledge of our aircrafts. In fact, the French Aéronavale and US Navy have been cross-qualified for years. French planes can land on US carriers and vice-versa (and we are the only US allied to do so). There are even pilots exchange between our countries, so the Rafale has certainly little secrets for the US already. I think the reason the Rafale doesn't carry the US bomb is a) in the small club of potential operators, no-one asked b) consequently, the only remaining nuclear capable country with Rafales is France, and we have our own bomb thank you very much, and c) the US are certainly more wary to spill their atomic secrets with us than we are afraid of divulging the Rafale's capabilities they already know about after we did that little skirmish together over Libya a couple of years ago.
French naval aviators start their training in France but finish their carrier training in the US (Mississippi). This is because of carrier landing related training facilities. Like wise, because the US Navy has airfields with carrier catapults, the French navy is dependent on US Navy Patuxtent for testing weapons on Rafael for catapult testing. Also, the French navy has a legal agreement with the US navy for support on its catapult, it’s been suggested that this is legally written for even in the case of war. The CDG sails with 2 US Navy sailors as catapult technicians, there’s interviews with them on the CDG.
This is also why the French navy has all but settled on EMALS for PA2, which is smart given that they only need it for 1 carrier and developing your own would be horribly expensive. And the USN will have paid all the development costs and associated problems. The PA2 will probably sail with US navy sailors as technicians as well. The reason this is done is because companies like General Atomics can go out of business or end support for products but the US Navy will not. Having an agreement with the USN is a national security guarantee.
Its more a matter of the actual integration being an $$$$$$$ nightmare from hell i'm sure than that is their worrying about the secret.. they are both either telling each other already or spying on each other for the same lol
But on a commercial side Boeing with its head up its ass is not happy with AB kickin them in the face repeatedly so that part with the whiners in office and lobbyists as well.. well.. kindergarden recess with way too few toys would be less of a riot of stupidity.
Ordinosaurs & retro computers US Atomic bomb from planes are not anymore a possibility or alternative in case of war since they can do the same with missile launch far far away from the dropping zone. It was one of US fake argument to force the sale their F35 to Belgium under its NATO obligation. F35 is one of the most expensive mistake US has ever made (budget, development, flying cost etc) in developing new fighter jet (dixit American congress itself).
The Queen Elisabeth has US Marine F35 aircraft operating aboard.
@@alainmare8081 : I won't contradict you on the F35, but aircraft delivery of a nuclear payload isn't off the table in case of conflict. Of course, current policies exclude it, but it's not the same as a retaliation nuke that would be delivered by an ICBM launched from a submarine. We're talking tactical nukes here, to wipe off a battle field or a limited radius, targeting military objectives. ICBMs are weapons of mass destruction aimed at obliterating an aggressor, and targeting largely civilians. Which doesn't mean tactical nukes are clean or limited in scope in any way shape or form, but aircraft delivery makes sense.
What aircraft-nerds (and, frankly, most people) don't understand is that a choice of aircraft is not based just or even mostly on performance or payload. In the real world it's not about comparing aircraft specs, there are a huge number of logistical, economical, political and other considerations that makes countries adopt military materiel. The same thing goes for aircraft design. The JAS-39, for example, was designed for specific needs that Sweden had during the cold war (and, ironically, have again), for example the ability to operate from "dispersed"/improvised air fields consisting of bits of highway as this is required for a Scandinavian country who is attacked by the (then) Soviet Union. Obviously, this is a pointless capability for, for example, the US since they operate from big well defended bases. Ukraine, in their current situation, would probably benefit hugely from having Gripen in its inventory, as their situation is exactly what it's designed for. This is just an example, obviously, there are thousands of specific requirements built into each aircraft. So, to sit in the armchair and compare stats trying to figure out "which is best" is silly to the point of being childish. Best aircraft? It all depends. In Germany's case, their needs are neither like Sweden's nor like the United States'.
Actually the U.S. interstate system was in fact partially designed to be used as improvised runways
They're getting f35s now anyway
Nope. Saab doesn't want to sell it to Ukraine. Suddenly Saab went silent after the Russian invasion. Saab doesn't want to expose its flying coffin, marketed as better than f-22.
Economics has a large part, too. (cost)
There's one other thing the Gripen does well.
Low flying time/maintenance cost due to it's easy maintenance system/cycle.
Cost is a huuuge factor.
Written in March 2022 - 'I don't see anything big happening' mmm famous last words!!
Thank you for explaining the difficulties the restrictions place on the purchase. I had no idea the Swedes wouldn't sell their equipment to anyone who might load a nuclear payload, for example.
Technically, Swedish defence industries are not allowed to sell weapons or munitions to any country that's likely to use them offensively.
Bofors and a few others circumvent that through selling licences for local production of things like the AT4 and the Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle.
@@SonsOfLorgar And the swedish goverment can at any time ignore this law by declaring that the sale is vital to Swedens national interest or security.
"...the French are not going to give Germany a nuclear bomb"
because the fallout would be too close.
That´s wrong, they even want to give us access to there ICBM´s as Germany is under France nuclear protection.
the french like to use their nuclear bombs in Germany an the fallout is too close!
@@LDZMarder it was a joke. I was joking that the French would like to 'give' Germany a nuclear bomb by dropping one on them,,,and the only reason they don't is because France would suffer too.
A joke.
Rafael is the best
1- Meteor BVR missile (No escape range of 150 km) the best in the world.
2- Scalp deep strike missile( 300 km with accuracy of 3 metres)
3- It weighs 9.5 tonne but can lift 2.5 times more than its weight (24.5 tonne) best in its class.
4- Load factor is the highest
5- Capable of nuclear mission
6- Excellent swing role capability
7- Spectra electronic warfare system
8- Range 780 to 1055 km (one of the finest in world)
8- 14 hard points for carrying weapons
9- Rafael can have 5 sorties a day (best in world)
10- Infrared tracking and surveillance
11- Maintenance is very simple (F- 35 has severe maintenance issues)
12- Rafael can get fuel from any air fueler
13- It can operate in any circumstances
RAFAEL is the BEST
Rafale*. Maybe if you don't even know how to spell the name you should not regurgitate your uninformed opinion on the internet?
Two relevant issues:
1) actual availability of aircraft (how many will be flyable at any moment)
2) the neighborhood (Switzerland is buying the F35)
Switzerland is a direct democracy and the Swiss peoples are already doing everything to get the referendum to brake that deal... heard that from the family have over there...
@@flo__60 Good on the swiss. Decision to take F35 makes no sense.
@@benoitbvg2888 Well no, as a drone controller plattform this would be amazing for the swiss. Take in possible VTOL capabilities and the Swiss could build many more air bases within their mountains, employ lots of drones and basically be untouchable. Of course they can also wait for FCAS.
“The French are NOT going to give the Germans a nuclear bomb” its funny 75 years ago its still funny today.
actually we seriously thought lately of sharing our nato security council seat and nuclear deterent capacity with germany.
@@bertrandbarbe245 And Germany rejected the idea. 🙅 US nukes are more than enough and Germany could build thousand warheads themselves if they wanted.
we lately saw German’s latest actions on the Security Council, it was catastrophic. Omg
Germany signed the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it can't change the nuclear partner without resign from this treaty. The US nuclear share is older than the treaty and not affected, however a new nuclear share with a different country would be illegal under it.
@@dominationsrebellion6433 Enlighten us, what riled you up?
Germany should definitely go with jas gripen E modell.
I am getting more impressed the more I learn about it.
Big fan!
Great explanation. Two thumbs up. I have to say, this series of videos on Germany's dilemma on plane procurement have been... entertaining to watch, to be frank. Poor Germany, lol. x)
After watching this video, my personal opinion is that Germany should (1) bite the bullet, and pay & wait for the development of the needed variant(s) of EF Typhoon; OR (2) bite the bullet and just go for F/A-18 combo... and do it FAST as the video said; OR (3) bite the BIGGER bullet and go back to the plan for getting F-35. Every other option just sounds like somebody's Amazon wish list.
If I were Germany, then I would personally go for either Typhoon or F-35. It's gonna cost lots of money either way, so it might be better to pick between streamlined logistics of Typhoon or future proofed F-35. I personally like F/A-18, but that plane is very old and probably not worth the investment at this point, especially considering the duration that Germany might want to use the plane for. That's just me though.
Then again the germanys higher echelons of the MOD & Beschaffungsamt have massive problems with completly new, revolutionary concepts (so called "Neuland") like ... ""not apearing like completly incompetent bureaucrats without any inclination to do their job, while waiting for retirement", "reasonable investment & maintainging the worth of the investment", "competent leadership, planing and procurement", "internet", "sparepart management", "maintenance of equipment", "buying the correct fuel", "not selling capable equipment for a pitance, and then not buying new equipment", "not giving uncontrolled acces to ALL secret defense related information to big companies" .... ya know ... really new and revolutionary, absolutly never ever tried before concepts.
And sadly ... that is not even hyperbole. I mean they had to loan Helis from the ADAC (a german automobile club), so that at least a few flight trainers don`t lose their licenses because of lack of yearly mandatory flight hours, the same kind of trainer that then gets send to crisis zones instead of normal pilots, that are grounded ... and without machines that can fly, possibilities to train the required amount of time with said trainers, ect.
So while your reasoning is ... well reasonable ... the MOD and co., aren`t exactly a bunch of people that appear to have a aversion against looking reasonable. Or competent. Or actually doing their job (good) :P
Great video! I like your explanation of the politics behind it all, that one is easy to forget. Like the German need for nuclear capability ruling out the Gripen. Or how unlikely it is that China would sell their top of the line fighters to a country closely allied to the US. A very good watch!
Further afield I also heard of how Indonesia buys a mix of both American & Soviet/Russian fighters as it worries about being unable to maintain them if relations with either country go south e.g. it was sanctioned by the USA when Suharto was president I think
Chris, very professional the way you present your views and everybody's views on the subjects. You are a professional historian/journalist, ofcourse.
ADFX-01 Morgan is the best route forward. An unrivaled electronic warfare package capable of even deflecting incoming gunfire, a tactical laser for SEAD, and the MPBMs could serve as an alternative for nuclear strike capability.
Also the Belkan/German language similarities means you wouldn't have to bother translating training/maintenance manuals.
The Australian Airforce (RAAF) took a long hard look at all the options available and after due consideration chose the F-35 as their new frontline fighter/fighter bomber.
Our pilots are reportedly very pleased with its performance so far(we have 75). I have personally spoken to pilots in training on the aircraft.
Perhaps the German Govt would be well served to consider that, given the Aussies stellar warfighting record and typically common sense approach to military equipment purchases.
It is clearly superior to ALL the available aircraft on your list and would put Germany immediately at the cutting edge of fighter aircraft capability.
Yes, I have heard the same. The aircraft is a flying wifi router, a super useful target acquisition platform for every kind of ship launched ordinance. Each one is a mini AWAC.
Still, Australia may actually have to fight part of a real war in the coming years, in support of an actual ally they actually like fighting with. Makes things simpler.
Currently the RAAF have taken delivery of 33 F-35’s and have committed to purchasing 72 airframes (full delivery is expected by mid 2023) with an option to push that out to 100
The problem with a fictive German F-35 is it's too advanced, Germany currently launched the FCAS program for a new 6tg gen Fighter as Eurofighter successor, and a fleet of German F-35s would jeopardize the FCAS program.
Since Australia won't develop own fighters they are in a different position, but Germany wants to have 2 different fighter aircraft in inventory (nuclear capable F-35 As would not be allowed to be stationed on former east German soil because of the 2+4 treaty signed at reunification with the former WW2 allies and both German states).
Australia did the right decision, but it's a little bit more complicated in Germany than only looking for a fighter.
I totally agree. Comparing it to the Norwegian decision.
"given the Aussies stellar warfighting record"
didn't you guys lost to some emus?
The idea that the A10 is especially terrifying to the enemy is hilarious. No. What's really terrifying is being a hundred miles from the front and seeing half the tanks in your formation brew up and burn their crews to death without ever seeing an aircraft, because a semi autonomous missile just got them. You'll be constantly terrified every waking moment after.
...This ended up double posted - it should have been in an A10 thread. Sorry!
A-10s are slow and should, theoretically, be relatively easy to shoot down. Even an old Hawker Typhoon or later Spitfires can outrun a Thunderbolt II. 1 skilled enough gunner of a 40mm Bofors and a few magazines and the "Warthog" is down. Seriously, though, not even 700km/h top speed and people talk about it like it can take on anything. Send out a Gripen and it's dealt with. Hell, even an F35 barely stands a chance against a Gripen. 15 F35s vs 3 Gripens wouldn't be called an air battle. It would be a turkey shoot.
@@tntfreddan3138 absolutely true on the a10
The F35, however, mainly due to the combination of its EOTS system, integral jamming, and data fusion makes gripen have almost no chance against 15 of them. F35 has power in numbers.
In WVR, Gripen can definitely stand toe-to-toe with F35, but at BVR, and with 15 F-35's, 3, or even 15 Gripen don't stand a chance. Also he mentions why they wouldn't get the gripen pretty thoroughly
Why Germany shouldn't and won't get the F35 is that it already has a record of not having great maintenance, flight cost, and those are both current problems Germany needs to deal with. Eurofighter and the involved logistics therefore make it the best choice here
@@tntfreddan3138 You're being sarcastic, or joking, right? You're obviously delusional, Gripen fanboy.
29:00 "Unless something big happens". Well...
xD
There are some interesting parallells to the ongoing finnish HX-project in this video, as Finland is currently choosing between the Rafale, Gripen, F-35, Superhornet or Eurofighter. The final decision is expected late this year, the main deciding factor apparently being outright combat performance over cost, compatibility, geopolitics or other factors. I saw most of those at the Helsinki 2021 airshow earlier in August, and any of them would be a good replacement for our aging Hornets. Not being an aviation expert in the least (just an interested observer), I've no idea what would be the best option for us in the long run. Vielen dank for an interesting video!
Gripen E/F! My knowledge of fighters is adapt, but very interested in the area.
@@RedwihteGame Sorry. It is F-35.
@@jamiered2659 lol yeah, what western country isn't getting the F-35? Everyone want that gen 5 technology!
Ils sont fous ces Allemands. Brilliant Asterix reference.
Rafale would be a great option. I am not sure a dumb bomb (B61) requires that much information sharing.
Compared to ASMPA (that requires specific circuitry) this may be just fine).
The arming and launch authorization system of B-61 is as complex as any other nuclear weapon. Without a valid arming signal you have just a very expensive lawn ornament.
didn't the us retrire their B61 bomb or something ? i don't remember the full story but there was these shananigans with belgium who choose the F35 because it was the only one able to carry american nuclear bombs, and just after they signed, they retired said bomb from service.
@@Lapantouflemagic0 what B61 bomb? There are 13 variants of the B61 and over 3000 were made. The mod 12 is in production right now (mod 4's are dismantled and rebuilt as mod 12). B61-3, B61-4(going to be converted to B61-12) B61-7 and B61-11 are in service. 215 B61-10 are in stock but not deployed. Yes B61-0, B61-1, B61-2 and B61-5 are retired. The mod 1's were used as parts in the production of the B61-7.
@@blegi1245 You can't even deter a balkan country with a B-61. Gravity nuke dumb bomb, what joke is this any decent AA system will kill the vector, fighter jet well before it gets in range to drop that thing. I highly doubt the range is more than 50km to 70km dropped FROM VERY HIGHT ALTITUDE, AKA sticking like a sore thumb on radar.
@@Lapantouflemagic0 It's an obsolete bomb designed in the 60s. France, Russia, and India have high supersonic nuclear tipped missiles these days with 500km range... Belgians just got ripped off lol.
What a mess. The F-35 is the smart choice for the long term but politics won't allow that to happen. I can't believe the Germans are actually considering purchasing any aircraft from Boeing. I like the Super Hornet but it is an aging platform. The idea that Germany might be the reason the Boeing assembly line in St. Louis, Missouri stays open for several more years is difficult to swallow. Airbus will surely love that. No doubt Germany will do what they can to prop up the Eurofighter. That will be very expensive for sure. Of course, Germany can always just delay and delay and delay like the Canadians have. Then they can shop the world markets for used aircraft to hold them over.
@kevin barker Boeing bought it
B61: Who thinks seriously that anybody will ever use a gravity nuclear bomb in the future? There are a lot of reasons for choosing a plane, but this one is just an alibi.
@@davidhouseman4328 Still, there are less risky vectors than a gravity bomb: cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, etc... Risking a plane and it's crew is not necessary. It just doesn't make sense, the 60's are over.
Intelligent reply
Both the US and British are investing heavily in automated factories using robots rather than assembling by hand their next aircraft and 3D printing / In factory fabrication / in theater spares fabrication of components. Might make an interesting video.
I remember reading an article about in-theatre 3D printing of parts for vehicles like Bradleys and Humvees in Afghanistan. I think the article specifically mentioned that one of the 3D packages was for a new style of armor for Humvees, as well as standard replacements for parts that typically needed replacing. I would definitely be interested in seeing a video about 3D printing techniques like this brought to the aviation field.
I hadn't thought/heard of this, printing/manufacturing in theater, facinating idea, would love a video
Interesting concept, but I have a suspicion that when you need to repair 100 vehicles, so let's say 100 parts, the in theater fabrication will struggle a lot, or you wood need a lot of printers. Simply shipping in the parts seems far more practical.
@@vladconstantinminea No the idea isnt you print the common parts in theatre, if theres a constant demand for them then there will be an existing supply train and local inventory. The idea is you print the rare parts, the ones that hardly ever break so no point to carry with you and when they do break then you need to ship from home taking days or weeks to arrive.
Great video. I am wondering why the F-22 is even in there: it is a high-altitude, stealth air superiority fighter. It's air-to-ground capabilities are very limited, not to mention that any ordinance it would carry outside of its weapon bay would ruin the stealth and question why bother with it in the first place. And there is not EW version as well. It is a very capable, but very focused airframe, one that doesn't fit the bill for replacing a Tornado.
Also it's against US law for them to be sold to any country other than the United States.
Currently Germany, Spain and Bulgaria are trying to buy Pakistani JF17 Super fighters to replace the outdated Rafale and Eurofighter!
I don' t think that there is any swedish laws that prohibits the sale of aircraft to another country if they intend to use them in the nuclear role. This is probably only because the issue hasn't come up and if it comes up it will be very controversial and would be politically difficult.
I agree. Germany could add these weapons themselves. Gripen has made it very easy to add new weapons systems, and I doubt Sweden would raise hell over what Germany do to the planes they bought.
@@henrikg1388 I agree with you it would probably be something like a "twitterstorm" that would soon die out but i think that SAAB took one look at this procurment and quickly said no ain't gonna happen and then moved on.
@@bengtjakobsson5177 SAAB cannot afford to stay out of all NATO competitions because of this. "twitterstorms" can be weathered.
@@henrikg1388 I didn't mean that they didn't go for this because of the eventual protests but they realised that Gripen would never even be considered by Germany.
@@bengtjakobsson5177 Politically speaking, you may be right, but rationally speaking, I see no reasons why not. Neutral country, excellent product, that can keep most fighters in the air at one time. One of the best EW suites at that.
Not to mention that most manufacturing ca be done in Germany.
All the cons are political.
It would be really interesting if you could do a Video about how the Luftwaffe prepared their aircrafts for the Africa campaign. And may some footage how it effected the planes :D
The Gripen ticks all the boxes cost , maintenance, different roles and strike packages only negatives combat radius and weapons payload isn't heavy enough but it's the best option in my opinion
A reasonable solution in my book is to get a platform that is good for most of the requirements excluding the use of the B61 - Perhaps Gripen as it is made do be able to use many of the same weapons as the Typhoon - while keeping the Tornado alive to be able to deliver the B61 to bridge the time for Germany to develop their own new aircraft (say 10 years) that can then replace most if not all of the older aircraft.
Gripen hands down
@@garnetmichel5517 not a chance. Say in at least 15 years when Germany may start to get delivery if they make a quick decision it will be so outdated. Put that with the reasons not to stated in this video it just doesn’t make sense. ATM I can’t see a better decision than the F18 Super hornet as it ticks all the boxes financially & operationally.
Is it fair to say that alot of the problems are based around the low number of ECR planes and that buying existing planes with ECR capacitys is difficult because of forgein countries adn the attached politcis? My take would be that the best solution witout looking at money would be all Eurofighter with maybe some upgrades for the Eurofighters thrown in. If it wont be all Eurofighter and 2 platforms are needed, what are the chances they go for Strike Eurofighter plus 15 Growlers? Or is it the same as with the Gripen that the infrastructur cost for just 15 Planes makes it a bad idea? If so it would mean running into the same problem and we would come back to the F/A 18 solution that is cheap but would mean Planes that are on the end of there production or the more expensive Eurofighter option that is still in production.
The high wing loading of the Tornado enabled it for flying high speeds at extremely low altitude through the turbulent ground air layer. Eurofighter has too much lift in its wings to do that without extreme stresses to man and machine. This is a capability only Tornado has.
Small orders are more expensive per plane. Buying SH/growlers is basically the same aircraft so they bundle together. To buy a single f22 it's like 10.25 billion dollars, but if you buy a hundred that cost is 350 million per plane. Economy of scale
SAAB would definitely sell 50 Gripen at a fair price, and it has a very low TCO.
@@ryanestes7331 i generally see what you mean, even if the F22 might be a bad example, since its not in active production anymore. Best be to get more then 15 planes of one type. But because of the problems with the B61 bomb and politics not many planes are suited for the strike fighter role. While the restrictions for the ECR planes are fewer. So if the Eurofighter could fill that role without to much of changes. I dont know if that is realistic but lets roll with it. Then there would only be a limited amount of ECR planes left to replace. Then it would be a question if it makes more sense to develope a new Eurofighter version for big money or if the buying a other type just for that might still be a better solution in terms of costs to performance. Like i said all Eurofighter is probably best solution overall but because of the ECR component especally not cheap. Maybe a politic deal of ordering 15 Gripen along a order of an other country or such could help to get 15 ECR Gripen for a realtiv good price. Gripen was only used as example.
Personal Favorite is Rafale
Most affordable in maintenance and multi role is Gripen
But best option is probably an updated version of Eurofighter.
"Franco-German friendship has come a long way since the Second World War. We are as tight as ever."
the Carolingian Empire would like to have a word. I'm sure if Charlemagne had nukes he'd let the Germans use them...
In the first WW , French and German disputed in propaganda if Carlomagno was from one or other ,but there s not nations at those times ...
@@juanmanuelnavarropauwels6114 "Franco-German" doesn't necessitate nation-states, it can just as easily relate to ethnic groups within a single federal state, which is what the Carolingian Empire was. Following the death of Charlemagne, the empire was split into what would roughly be defined as the regions of modern France and Germany in the Treaty of Mersen(870). Originally called the Kingdoms of West and East Francia they contained groups which would eventually be tied to either the Kingdoms of France or Germany, both established in the 10th century.
@@juanmanuelnavarropauwels6114 Charlemagne isn't the first king of the Kingdom of France.
He is far from being the first frankish king. The French are the inheritors of the French, period. Always has been. Always will be.
The French consider Clovis as their first king. Germans with Otto never ever considered the Franks as their ancestors.
They call France, Frankreich= Land of the Franks. So it was 100% nationalism propaganda of the XIXth century germany used for creating their country in 1870-1871 after defeating Napoleon III.
Reminder that Germans only talk about Charlemagne because they stayed barely 50 years in the Frankish empire while Modern France stayed centuries building that empire and the state created by Clovis was in Paris (Lutece).
Only for 50 years.
The Frankish empire was largely current France and Lotharingia.
The Gripen F with the Arexis system would give a similar capability to SH Growler allowing Arexis to give cover for nearby friendly units. The only problem is nuclear as the Swedes will not want to help. As for integrating weapons the Gripen has Meteor , IRIS T, Taurus KEPD 350, RBS15 and let's face it , intergeneration is a Gripen speciality! Added to that Gripen is cheap to operate and back up nearby.
Obviously Gripen is small and can't carry as much ordance but other packages can do the lugging while sitting under the Arexis umbrella.
Integration is a Gripen specialty.
Gripen E still does not have operational Meteors. It test-fired Meteor as of July 2022. Just FYI.
@@johanlassen6448 The Meteors are operational on Gripen C, it was the launch vehicle back in 2016 and even if the newer model E / F is still being integrated the weapons release is similar to the previous model so not a priority like the Radar/ EW capabilities which is different.
@@NATObait Why not a priority? Gripen E is specifically marketed as being capable of launching Meteor yet it can't. It is also specifically marketed as being easy to integrate with new weapons and yet here we are with no operational Meteors. Rafale can launch Meteor. Eurofighter can launch Meteor. But not "easy to integrate/the iPhone of airplanes" Gripen E.
Could it maybe be that the whole "hurr durr Gripen E so easy to upgrade and integrate" is actually just marketing BS from SAAB? I think so, just like 95% of all the shit SAAB spews these days.
Sincerely, a Swede.
@@johanlassen6448 As you said Gripen E has launched Meteor in July 2022 , so obviously it can . Or maybe you are suffering from amnesia as you stated that. Perhaps you are not what you think.
@@NATObait No, it testfired Meteor. That does not mean Meteor is operationally available on Gripen E. You are being disingenuous. Its like saying SU-57 is available for the Russian airforce.
Eurofighter is probably the best option for Germany IMO. 4.5 gen aircraft will be relevant for years to come given the US, Russia and China will be purchasing enhanced 4th gen aircraft (F-15EX, su35's etc). The Eurofighter has plenty of sale option in the future with Tranche 1 replacements in the UK, legacy hornets replacements for Spain and Tornado replacements in Italy
As I understand it, the Super Hornet has a latent capability to carry the B61 but because USN carriers no longer had a nuclear delivery role by the time it entered service it has never actually been certified to do so.
Yes, but it can be certified, while Airbus don't want to certify the Eurofighter for this job since they would have to give insights in secret details to the US. The early Hornet variants from the 80s have been nuclear capable.
@@simonm1447 Oh I was referring more in relation to the F-35A which is already being certified for B61 carriage. But you are absolutely right about the Eurofighter. And even if Airbus were willing to cooperate it would still be much less cost-effective than just paying extra for B61-certified Super Hornets.
@@mortified776 That's right, the F-35 is already certified and would be ready for the mission.
However, the ''problem'' German politics have with the F-35 is it's too sophisticated, they started development of the 6tg gen fighter program FCAS a couple of months ago (EiS around 2040), and a purchase of already capable Gen 5 stealth aircraft would jeopardize the program, which has strategic importance for the European defense industry. France (which has much interest in the FCAS since they always had own fighters) would not accept German F-35s.
@@simonm1447 Yeah it's an incredibly awkward situation timing wise. I keep trying to think of ways the Germans could fudge this so they can have the F-35, but everything I think of is harder, more expensive or makes less sense than just certifying the Super Hornet.
@@mortified776 The problem with FCAS is the timing of this program is also everything but optimal. The Eurofighter is still a product of the cold war, but unlike the F-22 (which was developed at the same time) it's no stealth aircraft, it became operational way too late, and it's not multirole but an air superiority fighter. The FCAS program was launched after a couple of nations decided to buy F-35s, so these nations are no potential partners or customers of the FCAS program any more , and Britain intends to develop an own fighter with the Tempest program.
Together with Italy (F-35A) and Britain (Tempest and F-35 B) the program would had a much broader base, so it's just a French/German program with Spain as a 3rd partner.
Hi mate!
I've been checking lately your videos and they are just amazing, very informative and well made, I do like them a lot and I think they are as accurate and well searched as they can be.
I would love to make you a question kinda off topic for this video but I believe you have touched the subject in another one.
We are a bunch of aviation enthusiast and we have been debating about interception of the V1 during WW2.
It seems that anything that anything that we find on the internet is based in the same few info available, and they don't actually say many things about it (It's like if they all read wiki and created a video o short test based on it)
We were debating about V1 hunters, and, here's the question the distance they normally shooted at the flying bombs with their cannons/MG.
I watched an interview of a real V1 hunter and he mentioned something about they had their mg sincronization set officially but he couldn't hit a thing, so he change it, but can't find any more data, nor the official distance neither what they actually did.
We argue that a short burst would make an unpleasant situation for the plane as well as for the V1, and that over 750mts you would probably hit nothing, or not, due to the steady trajectory and constant velocity I believe any good pilot could bring some hits to a target well over 500 mts, taking in consideration the use of multiple machine guns and that few hits would probably make that thing go down or at least off course.
What you think?
Do you know anything about this?
Thank you.
Keep working, we really enjoy your vids.
On the other hand buying Rafale could make sense as the FCAS will exploit a lot from the Rafale including an upgraded version of the Rafale Engine.
I reckon JAS 39 would have been a good choice. Too bad about the neuclear payload requirments. Informative video in any case.
I think it would be better to hire you with a fw 190a
It would be an incredibly good fit for Germany, in a fighter role.
I don't know how he can be so certain that Sweden would not sell the Gripen to Germany.
To me as a Swede, it would be an easy sell. We didn't sign the TPNW in part because it would limit exports of Gripen.
Gripen is a much better choice than the Super Hornet.
Taking politics out of the equation, Gripen would have been ideal. Has the same cannon & can carry the same weapons that Eurofighter can. Cheap to purchase & to operate.
@@jkeelsnc Gripen is a smaller aircraft, which means it carries a smaller load. Saying that Gripen can operate in where EF can't.
The risk with Euro collaboration is that the initial order quantity will be reduced and if France are involved they will change requirements and do their own stuff from the research already done. Then they leave the program.
Yes of course, the French are still afraid that literally the ceremony day of the first Rafale with the nuclear warhead gets handed off to the Luftwaffe they will fly it straight to Paris airspace.
Correction : They will fly to Paris airspace *through Belgium*
Quite childish of the French but what can you do...
@@Leon_der_Luftige And it's not childish of USA to put hard brake on Germany nuke program?
@@hyrikul602 nice whataboutism.
We literally have US nukes in Germany. If you really care about the nuke's brand you are insane.
Heck, even if you think nukes are still necessary, you are mad too.
@@XR190190 so can I take it that the sudden popping up of a SAM battery net/wall all across Belgium as an indication that the French govt might finally agree to the sale of nuclear-armed Rafales to the Luftwaffe?
Great video. Speaking on the F-22, the United States Congress made it unlawful to export the F-22, even to US Allies.
Yeah I like how he didn’t mention that at all. Even if Germany wanted to buy the f22 the Americans wouldn’t want to sell it to them anyway.
Shame Germany can’t get the F35 but looking at the options I think the F18 variants are the best option as they will certainly give Germany the best bang for there buck.
Germany needs a replacement for the Tornado not for the EF Typhoon wich comparable to the F-18. Germany was also asked to buy the F35, but declined thankfully - to expensive and the stealth does not work.
24:51 "Gripen in a strike role, not that good, it's a downgrade from the Eurofighter" Where have you got that from?
From what I know the Gripens wings are higher from the ground giving more space for ordinance than in the Eurofighter.
Its EW suite is better in most areas especially if you compare to the Gripen E.
Sure it can't carry as much ordinance weight wise but the Gripen E will make up for that.
When other experts compare the Gripen (current models) to the Eurofigther they almost always end up with the Eurofighter having a small advantage in air superiority, speed, range and nothing else. The air superiority part then again gets negated to some extend by the Gripens EW suite.
BTW, the current Gripens make up for the smaller carrying capacity weight vise by being much cheaper to operate, have higher availability and faster turnaround time.
Yes, i also had a question about that. Right now in my room there's a poster. Gripen with 8 SDB, 2 Meteor, 2 MICA. Also with a targeting pod.
From what I remember from the FX-BR program, that ended up in the purchase of the Gripen by Brazil, one of the main reasons the Rafale was out is the price per hour of operation, it was one of the most expensive, while the grippen is one of the most economic in this aspect. This alone should matter, even for a rich country like Germany, specially because the gripen is not leagues behind.
If swiss army did not buy the Rafales, it is only because the politicians did not want to pay the price; in military evaluations, the Rafale was the best in every kind of missions, the Eurofighter below, and the Gripen just unable to fulfill the missions. The F-35 was not even scheduled, and imposed by political (and economical) pressions by Biden ...
@@felix25ize well, it all depends on mission profiles and requirements. While both are great fighters, the rafale indeed is a much more capable attack vector against grounds targets.
Excellent, sober, analysis of a complicated decision process.
Here's an idea- give up the nuke capability and buy additional advanced Typhoons. Believe Spain is acquiring addition Typhoons as well? While I like the SH/Growler combo, it's probably not long for production, unless Finland and Canada decide to order.
Yes, my thoughts too. The alliance with the US is getting shaky anyway. Either make ourselves honest and get our own nukes or go for French nukes. They have offered their nuclear umbrella before. Then we could also go for the Rafale option. Or as you say drop nukes altogether.
@@zzeegermantube nobody wants to drop nukes. It is the ultimate protection.
@A Fels ride any horse going your way.
Is the SH nuclear capable? I always thought Navy pilots were happy that they did NOT have to do the "nuclear consent" training every year, because they dont have the nuclear consent button in the cockpit?
@@TheCloudhopper To my knowledge, the SH is not nuclear capable, but could be made capable. Who knows at what expense?
Aha man what a great tease for the upcoming video about Chinese Jets. Can't wait.
Already in early access for Patreons :) www.patreon.com/posts/early-access-air-55343309
Infrared sensors coupled with radar can give the Chinese and edge. Not just that IR sensors don't give your position away like radar (up close), but I wonder how well, or if, they would acquire the trail/lock on of an F-35 ?!?
@@jayklink851 Passive radar has existed for decades. IR sensors have existed for decades. Stealth is not an invisibility cloak, it is a surprise attack creator.
@@BeKindToBirds Yeah I know, but the Chinese/Ruski's have IR missiles, which can be pretty sneaky in DCS lol. If ur on the deck people can't detect ur radar or even noticed they have been locked on.
@@BeKindToBirds I'm not exactly sure of the title, but Operator drewski has a few SU-27 IR (sneaky videos). I'm sure you'd get a kick out of it.
Hello, I’m from the future. You bought the F-35. Why? Because you aren’t stupid. Congratulations.
N1 starfighter. Elegant, practical and it even fires proton torpedos.
Id love to hear Germanys standpoint on Aircraft carriers. A lot of mayor powers do have carriers, for example france. Maybe you could interview someone on that subject
@@Lemmuy Yes, there are some idiots in German politics who stated that Germany needed a carrier. I bet the same person who said that would also lift the Bismarck and repair it.
Well the original position is simple. The German Military, incl. the Luftwaffe, is a defensive power. The North and Baltic Sea are very shallow waters, particularly the North sea with its enormous tide, that limit deployment zones for aircraft carriers and make them extremely vulnerable. That is the ORIGINAL position and it is the constitutional view. Aircraft carriers are tools of power projection andand off the cuff remark that the German military is a tool to project Germany's power in the world on a flight home cost a German president his job a few years ago. It is extremely difficult to make the case that aircraft carriers are useful for defending the Fatherland, given teh geography and political they are an incredibly hard sell for anything else. So no, there won't be any aircraft carriers in German's Navy any time soon. Carrier capable aircraft on the other hand are a completely different topic when it comes to cooperation etc.
Germany doesn't need that level of maritime power projection.
Germany should heavily focus on Ground and air forces though.
So Tanks, Jets, Bombers and more Tanks
@@Rauschgenerator One Carrier would make symbolic sense though, But I think Germany should get smaller watercraft like destroyers and submarines.
Remember a military force of a country of that relevance needs offensive capability, not just defensive.
And the general geopolitical challenge of EU and in association Germany, requires eastern expansion of influence, which should be backed by military power. And as Germany is a central part of the EU, it definitely needs some ships for the baltic and mediterranean seas.
Power projection into Africa would also be necessary in the medium term future. And Africa has a huge coastline.
Also After US withdrawal from the world, Countries need to fill the vacuum for trade security. And Germany is definitely very export based.
@@looinrims Germany should definitely invest in maritime projection.
The status quo in the next 20 years will be very different since the US is implementing their planned withdrawal from the world. That includes the Navy.
I still think F-35 is the only real option.
The only reason you have against it is essentially summed up by: „Because some dude decided we don’t want it!“ -
„Why?“ - „Because!!!“
That’s not a real reason like the ones speaking against the rest of the options.
As for the only 2 other realistic options: Eurofighter ECM suite is also very expensive and „Zukunftsmusik“, and the F-18?! Well might as well just further upgrade Tornado then, instead of switching an old plane for a slightly less old, slightly more capable one.
Sounds like the Super Hornet is their best option then. I still do not get why Germany will not just spend the money and get the F-35's though.
F-35s are too good, Germany started the FCAS program for a stealth 6th gen aircraft as a Typhoon successor only months ago. The F-35 would be too sophisticated to be an interim solution, and later governments may buy additional F-35s and cancel the FCAS program.
One additional point is the F-18 G, a replacement for the ECR Tornados, which is not available yet with the F-35 platform or the Typhoon. So they buy just one aircraft type (F-18s in different variants) and have nuclear share plus the Growler as a SEAD aircraft
More than 200 dead pilots caused by the last Lockheed fighter Germany bought, might be one of the reasons?
@@LarS1963 it was not just the fault of Lockheed - the Luftwaffe wasn't really ready for the F-104, which was way faster and more complex then the subsonic F-86 they had before. Other nations lost a far smaller percentage of F-104s, it was popular in Europe.
The aircraft was very demanding for the pilots, it was capable in the hand of aces but dangerous in the hand of less skilled pilots, it was a 1950s aircraft from a time when carefree handling simply didn't exist.
F-16s and F-35s are built for carefree handling, they are relatively easy to fly for a fighter jet due to the fly by wire system and they are made to get the best out of average pilots, not made just for aces.
@@simonm1447 It was not popular in Europe. In Denmark it was called Den Flyvende Ligkiste. We lost 12 out 60 in ten years. In the Netherlands it was Het Fliegende Doodkist and eventually caused a scandal, that reached all the way into the Royal House. In Germany a devastating report about how Lockheed had bribed officials was produced, but then 'conviniently' vanished. It was a disaster and a complete scandal.
@@LarS1963 Just look to the US, they haven't had much F-104s, but other aircraft, the crash rates back then were horribly high, also for other fighters like the Hun.
Lockheed has made mistakes for sure, but it's not just Lockheed, the Luftwaffe also had some fault, so they eventually got it relatively safe in the mid 60s.
Another thing is the Germans bought a interceptor to use it as a fighter bomber - which isn't a really smart thing to do, modern multi role fighters didn't exist back then, but there were alternatives.
The F-16 (which wasn't a Lockheed aircraft, but was built with the F-104 experience, it's today built by LM due to company acquisitions), it's the Nr 1 fighter jet in pure numbers in the west and it has a good safety record. The F-35 is more or less a stealthy F-16 successor.
Well-thought-out analysis on Germany's options. My guess if Germany waits a full year to make the decision on which air-frame to pick, they will circle back around to the F-35. A note of the two advance sixth generation Aircraft that European nations are developing; it has taken the US defense department 10 years to work out the major bugs in the F-35? The US had built or is still building five True Gen 5 aircraft: F-117, F-22, F-35, B-2 and the B-21. Be very careful putting your money on the 6th gen fighters in development. As you stated very clearly, the two groups developing the 6th gen airframes have not defined the requirements. My last point on waiting on the new sixth gen airframes, the two groups who are developing these platforms, never built a 5 gen airframe. Working with the materials alone are going to take years.
No, the French companies will not share information, hell Boning and Lockheed do not share information, and they are both US companies. If Germany does decide to buy into the F 35 program they will be able to integrate their air defense with other NATO nations.
Pretty, good, just one minor detail. Boeing and Lockheed do work together, just not when I’m direct competition. Boeing works on Lockheed’s F-22, F-35, and F-16, and Lockheed helps out with the F-15EX. ULA is a joint Boeing and Lockheed company. The only time they really compete is for DoD bids, but after that, they will often work together to deliver the final product.
A bit late , but I'm curious as to why you think Gripen is weak in ground attack role? Because the A in JAS 39 is for the attack role. Also, by the looks of it, Viggen was a good one for that role, and I don't think SAAB has made any downgrades in that aspect. And also also, being able to rearm from a road base must be a good thing for that role??
Maybe content for a future video? What is a good ground attack plane these days?
Because « combat proven » for the Rafale :
Daesh was affraid by it and nicknamed it “the black pigeon.”
Also in Afghanistan, ground soldiers requested specific « Rafale air supports » in case of high-precision needed.
Actually Rafale has sensors and very advanced capabilities provided by Thales for this kind of mission. It is a word class reference on that.
BISMARK: Please do a video explaining why certain Yak models only have one single asymmetric nose-mounted machine gun in the cowling instead of the typical two. PLEASE
I suggest mig 15
The glorious airforce of the best korea use them
Easily destroy any army single handedly
Big 37mm potato canon
Electronic warfare is not needed the glory of kim's blessing is enough
I just saw a BF109 and a U 505 at the Museum Of Science and Industry in Chicago. The U 505 exhibit was awesome
The answer to Gripen or Rafale is F35
I was hoping someone came back to say it XD
I've just seen both fly and bros, get dem Rafale. That thing is wayyy sexier and spectacular B-)
Regarding the Indian patriot suggesting the Tejas, I would like to apologize for his/her enthusiasm. He truly didn’t understand Germany’s need of the hour. Tejas is an interceptor with limited ground support (defensive role) as the range is limited. The MWF is far into the future (the Tejas mk2 I guess).
The AMCA is way into the future.
India bought the Rafale and the MRFA tender is the category is where the Germans are interested.
I'm Swedish and biased as hell in favor for the Gripen, and I could immediately say that using the Gripen as a dedicated strike aircraft is a bad fit.
I think its a good fighter, but too lightweight for strike. The F-15EX can do everything it can with more flexibility and higher payload/range.
Yes. Making a Gripen to a strike aircraft is something like... hm... converting the F-104 Starfighter to a fighter-bomber... who could be this dumb... oh wait.
Actually the Gripen given it;'s size is again punching way above it's weight class.. and lb4lb it's carrying a load that embarrass the crap out of the lame as shit 35 and the bloated bumble as well despite it's massive size.
(35 is a farce with or w/o stealth for this.. the bloated bumble is the size of an F15 yet maxes at 17,500, not even 2000 higher than the Gripen despite the massive size difference and the bloated bumbles pylons alone are another massive disaster)
No the Gripen would not be the best for a strictly strike only aircraft but it was never designed to be and again given it's size and what it can carry and it's extremely capable electronics systems it should be easily capable of doing more than many much bigger opponents just to do being a hell of alot harder to hit right off the bat.
Its also one of the reasons why I say it is the #1 smart choice for Canada's actual needs and the only one of the 3 official choices that makes any sense at all. The other 2 are disasters in so many ways it could fill a book.
(And yes the Rafale would be #2 and could have been if they had solved some of the issues before it was removed formally.. but thats moot now)
@@kindanyume Thats what I mean, for a coutry that already have the Eurofighter getting the Gripen as a dedicated strike aircraft makes very little sense. I mean it could work, but there are plenty better options. If you are only going to have one aircraft rhe Gripen starts to make much more sense.
This mess makes the Netherlands deciding on the F-35 in 2001, 18 years before the first plane was delivered, actually somewhat rational. And that includes going down from the original 85 to 37 planes and then spending even more on an additional nine. This is basically minimum levels to even carry out NATO obligations. It also makes deployments difficult because ever since Sebrenica in 1995, any serious Dutch mission has its own air force compliment under direct Dutch command. Basically getting the planes for such a mission is very difficult with most being tied up either in training in the USA, training locally or needed for stand by over Dutch or Baltic airspace when the KLu covers that area.
And since 2019, the planes have been grounded multiple times for things like concerns about lightning impacts or engine damage because of the tarmac used on a Dutch airbase apparently causing FOB related issues. Then the planes we got, will have to undergo some kind of major upgrade to even get the full expected capability. Further with the Dutch defence spending at a continued unsustainable low point, I seriously wonder how these planes are supposed to fly the required hours for pilots to remain qualified. Because the F-35 seems to be at least three times as expensive per flight hour and the F-16 was already difficult. And then issues will probably keep coming up for some time.
But I think this will end up with Germany developing an ECR variant of the Eurofighter. And it won't be because the Germans want to, but because they have to. Because if the F-18 production line does indeed shut down completely in favour of overhauling capacity for the existing fleet like is planned, well that is it for alternatives.
count DK in with the NL as well ... DK just as stupid
@@tellyonthewall8751 Most of Europe is sadly like that.
The fundamental problem isn't that the F-35 isn't a great aircraft. It objectively is impressive in terms of technology and its capabilities. It is better than all alternatives when it works and you can afford flying it. And that is the problem. Its operational costs and its maintenance hours per hour of flight just seem way to high for any smaller air force. With numbers in the several dozens, a good portion will only be in usage for training or be stuck in maintenance. And that kills operational readiness for so many of these smaller air forces.
If the Netherlands could have bought its intended 85 planes and cost per flight hour wasn't so high, I would have no issue with the F-35 whatsoever. But like this, you kinda need a larger number of less capable planes that you can actually operate alongside a few F-35s. And I seriously doubt anything other than a specked out F-16 with as much F-35 sensors is the correct answer for that question. Because with current budgets, these heavy planes like the F-35 are just not affordable as a replacement for the F-16. And even the USAF seems to be coming to that conclusion. In turn, USAF slashing of numbers will only drive the production and maintenance costs up because the investment in tooling up, will have to be earned back with fewer planes. And that can create a death spiral.
Definitely should go with Gripen!!!! Great analysis!!! Great journalism!!!
Gripen of course! A perfect completion to Eurofighter. And a plane Germany actually can afford flying.
@@ALSea24 gripen is the first fighter operational with the Meteor.
@@ALSea24 ok. If you say so. But Germany already have Eurofighter. The Gripen is a cheaper completion to the fleet. Why should they buy another expensive jetfighter?
@@martinw3577 he said in the video why they shouldnt buy it 24:19
My take:
Hornets or Growlers are too old. makes no sense to buy a jet that is already being replaced by its main user.
The F35 is killed politically.
So unless Germany is buying US Jets, it's either gonna need to certify the Typhoon for the nukes or drop out.
Here comes the Gripen again. Buying 15-20 aircraft for EW is certainly better than developing and then buying 15-20 Eurofighters with EW. Gripen also shares the Meteor and IRIS-T with the Typhoon, it can use the StormShadow which is very similar to the Taurus. how much that eases the transition, idk. And the Gripen may be a step down from the Tornado in strike capability but it beats the German Eurofighter. Which carries a grand total of two different A/G weapons. One of them being the board cannon. So it could probably also take the Strike role (except nukes) and be as good as or better than a German Tyhpoon
The 1980s called they want their planes back. Maybe start talking to India
Your information on the Eurofighters air-to-ground capabilities is outdated by now as far as I know. Taurus could also be adjusted for F-18 Block III and Eurofighter. The Block III Hornet is ordered by the US Navy btw.
Hornets and growlers old? What are you smoking 😂😂
@@bobflatman278 the Gripen is about 10 years newer than Hornets. if you want a F35, yes, good jet but again, killed politically
@@theTutenstien *too* old. its like ditching your 1990s car to get a used one from 2009 instead of a new one from 2018. not to say a Hornet is bad. but I think there are better and newer options out there