France, Germany Expected to Announce Next Gen Fighter Program Later This Month

a reply to: intrptr

This discussion is on the Franco German fighter. Not your misgivings about NATO and how Russia is great, et al.. Stop trying to derail, please.

a reply to: intrptr

Like I said, please keep to topic. This is about a Franco-German proposed fighter collaboration. Not the Roman or Russia.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: paraphi

And France isn't a member state of NATO, hasn't used its air assets in support of NATO operations, round the globe.

Rubber, meet runway.

The only reason France is proposing building more super fighters is "because of Russia".

We will get some mods in here to clean this up. Sick of Russian trolls ruining threads.

2040 must be based on the out of service date and the time to develop a new aircraft, pretty sure F-35 is nearing 20 years old (although obviously they introduce newer technologies that are much newer). But the concept must be.

France and Germany planning to replace their current 4th generation fighters starting by 2040 is obviously an extremely aggressive act. This is the biggest military arms build-up in history. They are clearly planning for war. Due to this destabilizing act, Russia must act, via:

- More election meddling
- More shooting down civilian airliners
- More poisoning people they don't like via weapons of mass destruction.
- More threats of nuclear warfare.
- Accelerating their 5th generation fighter (that Germany and France have no equivalent to) which is already in service.
- More invading sovereign nations to keep France/Germany away from glorious Russia.

/s

As I have previously said, a common tactic of Russian trolls and indeed the Russian government itself is to simply paint whatever their adversaries do to be a provocation and themselves a victim. For example:

The ABM treaty was "Shredded" by the west by emplacing these systems along the borders with Russia and China. The west voided MAD and there by Detente by doing this, giving an edge to the west in case of conflict,

This is lying.

In reality ABM systems are not capable for "voiding" MAD. Both Russia and the United States have thousands of nuclear weapons that can be deployed from sea, and therefore any direction, and therefore destroy the opponent. The notion that MAD was threatened by a small number of ABM missiles is merely used as a justification for more aggressive weapons used for nuclear blackmail, such as nuclear powered cruise missiles. Russia using a small number of nuclear weapons in a "limited" conflict is actually a concern (and is what these ABM systems are intended to deal with) and the threat of which helps Russia's geopolitical goals. Again, blackmail.

This is what is happening here. Germany/France starting to replace their 4th generation fleet by 2040 is being painted in this thread as a provocation and a victim of NATO, thereby enabling Russia to justify its own extremely aggressive policies.

This is why intrptr brought it up (and has been alerted to the mods).

In my opinion, the fact that Russia uses this tactic should be further evidence that Europe should act within its interest and more strongly advance its defence goals. They are clearly being undermined. And stop buying Russian gas. Preferably cause the Russian economy to implode.

Aside 1: Speaking of threats to MAD. The US has thousands of nuclear weapons, "Europe" does not. Russia trying to drive a wedge between Europe and the United States is a far bigger threat to MAD than a few ABM missiles. If this keeps going, Europe will be compelled to act.

Aside 2: Here in Australia, we will have a 5th generation force by 2023. We won't begin "by 2040".

a reply to: C0bzz

Let me add:

The ABM Treaty was withdrawn from by the US in 2002:

en.wikipedia.org...

China, it should be noted, was never a signatory.

Aegis Ashore was not put into operation until 2016:

en.wikipedia.org...

THAAD had an IOC of 2008, but was considered allowed under the ABM treaty:

en.wikipedia.org...

A single site for the GBM was allowed under the ABM treaty. That was Alaska. We have since added Vandenberg AFB in California:

en.wikipedia.org...

It should be noted, the Russians have had a working ABM system since the original treaty. It is defending Moscow and has been in continuous operation the entire time. even when the US did NOT have an ABM system.

a reply to: anzha

To add:

The situation at the end of the cold war was not sustainable, with NATO only as far east as western Germany. This was a very precarious position as the Soviet Union could simply drive into western Europe, with tanks, in mere hours. Any suggestion that NATO should not have expanded east into Poland is therefore absurd - especially if Poland itself wanted to join NATO. Any idea that Poland is "far east" is simply absurd. They are Central Europe, as indicated by basically all resources, even the baltics are regarded as Central Europe by some sources for cultural reasons.

Look at a map. Draw a line between Moscow and Berlin. You will probably get the Belarus & Polish border.

Perhaps I could agree that expanding NATO to the baltics is actually threatening to Russia, however the NATO contingent in the baltics is extremely small. Speaking of the baltics, there are ethnic Russians in the baltics who refuse to learn the local languages, refuse to acknowledge the USSR occupied the land, and refuse to become citizens. Russia even complained when a baltic nation (I think it was Lithuania or Latvia) decided to stop teaching them Russian in public schools - Russia thought this was an aggressive action (the only reason the ethnic Russians are there is because of the imperialistic USSR). I could see expanding NATO to Ukraine or Belarus as an actual threat to Russia.

And, the notion that military exercises in Poland are some huge threat to Russia is absurd. Poland does border Russia, but not mainland Russia. They border Kaliningrad. Russia probably stations nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad. Anyway, Kaliningrad was not part of Russia before WW2, it was part of Germany. So the claim that military exercises in Poland are equivalent to Nazi Germany having tanks along the Russian border is completely nonsensical and a lie:

The speed with which NATO has encroached into Eastern Europe, installed missile 'shields' ( a clear violation of ABM< treaties), established bases and run exercises along the Russian border as far east as Poland, is surely provocative. The Russians haven't seen German armor along their borders since WWII.

In reality, Russia has gained territory from Germany, several hundred kilometers from mainland Russia. Russia probably stations nukes there. Now apparently it is a "provocation" when a military exercise takes place near it.

Like I said, anything NATO does which is not in the direct interest of Russia is regarded as some humongous threat, a provocation and an encircling of Russia. This is used as justification for any extremely aggressive action on the part of Russia.

Like I said, France & Germany building a fifth generation fighter by 2040? It's a "provocation" to Russia. If only these western nations would stop bullying poor Russia! (with its 4000 nukes).

It's called a victim complex. They think they are special snow-flake and a perpetual victim, subject to "microaggressions". Also Russia isn't a super-power.

If Russia touches Poland, then not even a cockroach in Russia will survive.

a reply to: intrptr

I don't think many people care about your views, they simply think you are being disruptive and/or trolling. Also, freedom of speech does not mean freedom to break T&Cs, freedom to disrupt, and freedom to troll on a privately owned internet forum - although whether that has actually taken place is not for me to decide, it's for the mods to decide.

This thread was about "France, Germany Expected to Announce Next Gen Fighter Program Later This Month". You diverted it with:

- Mentioning Wunderwaffe, an empire, flattops, walls, and ABM systems.
- Brexit, Russian chemical weapons attacks.
- NATO encroaching Russia.
- ABM treaties
- West attacking poor Russia every hundred years
- more ABM treaties

When questioned you're complaining about a war on freedom of speech. Is this not trolling? Unfortunately I am compelled to respond, further going off-topic, but I would rather the mods nuke (heh..) it all. Its like the ABM treaty. US breaks the ABM treaty, Russia is forced to act. You disrupt the discussion to push an agenda, I am compelled to act. After all "for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction". I believe that's line the Russian government likes to use.

Feel free to report me for implying that you're a liar. Also you say that people here lie all the time, no?

Also first-strike usually refers to the ability of neutralize the adversaries arsenal by striking first. The ABM systems as fielded are completely useless for helping that. At most, you could argue that it allows NATO to conduct a limited nuclear strike and then be able to shoot down some forms of limited (tit-for-tat) Russian retaliation in the theater, thereby gaining an advantage in the highly speculative notion of a "limited" nuclear war. That's the real unfair advantage that ABM could bring and is different from threatening MAD. Even then the ABM systems aren't particularly effective against many or even most kinds of the Russian arsenal.

So this doesn't give the US a humongous advantage or threaten MAD.

The US also withdrew from the treaty before it deployed treaty defying systems. But yes, an advantage is an advantage, I would rather the US have stayed within the treaty when it came to Russia (I am a very "Jon Snow" kind of guy - you make an agreement, you follow it).

who call anyone that questions US foreign policy 'commies'..

There's a difference between criticizing the US for bad policy such as invading Iraq. And saying that NATO is provoking Russia for accepting Poland. There's also a difference between saying that NATO members shouldn't help overthrow dictatorships and NATO members shouldn't develop more advanced fighters. NATO does all sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons.

There's all different kinds of war-hawks in the US government with all different agendas. Neoconservatives for example. The "US foreign policy" is different things depending on who is in charge. Sometimes NATO militaries get "hijacked" (at least in my opinion) when the nutjobs get voted into office in the US. All the more reason to want a more "European" NATO (or a strong EU-military) which is one reason why I keep defending European defense initiatives like this one.

Also the Russian government are top-heavy and could be described as fascist. Or nationalist. Not commies. It's why I despise them (along with the current US administration) so much.

Also given the tactics and prevalence of Russian trolls (or influencers of any kind for that matter) it becomes difficult to tell who is a troll and who is actually trying to have a genuine discussion. You're not acting like you want a genuine discussion, many/most of your points are either incorrect or are identical to the position of either the Russian government/state media/trolls. I think I've outlined many of those. Hence accusations of trolling.

I think the idea that you're putting forth is really that anyone who disagrees with the Russian government or defends NATO in any way, thinks that "anyone that questions US foreign policy (are) 'commies'..", which isn't true at all.

a reply to: C0bzz

I don't have a problem with opinions that differ from my own. I am even willing to listen to those whom disagree with me and even be convinced I have been wrong: I have been wrong before and will be so again.

OTOH, I do have a serious problem with people going full dogmatic and not being willing to back up their POV with anything more than spouting off. Provide sources and we can discuss them. Just saying 'it is because I say so' is nonsense that must be called out.

a reply to: anzha

OTOH, I do have a serious problem with people going full dogmatic and not being willing to back up their POV with anything more than spouting off. Provide sources and we can discuss them. Just saying 'it is because I say so' is nonsense that must be called out.

Exactly! That is why so many people have no time for the chemtrailers. No arguments backed by logic and/or facts, just smug blanket statements that walk and talk like trolling.

Now as for Franco-German fighter by 2040, it better be 6th gen and they better have a plan in place to get their current air force there. I cant see anything in their arsenal surviving that long other than the few late model Rafale's and Typhoons. Germany is especially in a precarious place with many earlier legacy fighters now at or effectively beyond their service lives. 22 years is a long way away.

Glad this thread is back on topic and Mods have cleared out the rubbish.

In the EU (not inc. UK who won't be in the EU for very much longer) there are the following fighters in use:

Typhoon
Mirage 2000
Rafale
Gripen
F16
F18
F35
Tornado
Harrier
Mig-29
Mig-21
F4
L39
L159
Saab 105
AMX

All those types, with the exception of F35, Typhoon and Rafale will be totally obsolete by 2040. Around 1,800 fast jets. I wonder what will be the interim solution? Belgium are looking at Typhoon and Germany are looking (apparently) at F35. F35 will also replace some aircraft in other places, e.g. the Netherlands and Italy.

a reply to: paraphi

The Germans basically fired the head of the Luftwaffe, at least in part, for advocating the F-35. So I'd say that's off the table for them.

a reply to: paraphi
You should probably include Gripen in the list of fighters that wont be totally obsolete by 2040. Particularly if we are talking about the E model which may well supplant earlier versions in some NATO stocks.

a reply to: anzha
Yes the Germans seem quite paralyzed now when it comes to making decisions about reequipping and the growing threat from Russia as well as other destabilizing influences in Europe. Its very sad and worrying to see. Maybe its just me but this attitude seems to coincide with reunification in the early 90's. Some may dismiss it as a side effect of the post cold war peace dividend, but I'm not so sure. The earlier shenanigans on this thread make me wonder if this is not the German society being white anted from within by Communists disguised as Greens and various sleeper agents left behind after the USSR and WarPac retreated East. The fact that the head of the German Air force was sacked for doing his job of suggesting alternatives along with a ridiculously long and inadequate development time frame makes me suspicious.

a reply to: thebozeian

I think there is a bit of the ghost of past german militaries haunting some politicians in Germany, to be sure, and I also think the Germans would like, due to that past, want to negotiate and attempt to use soft power instead of military...perhaps even to Germany's detriment.

But! I also think the Germans want a European solution that is separate from the US. There are reasons for this. Some legit. Some silly. Given the distrust between Europe and the US right now, I'm not overly surprised. I am surprised that the Germans didn't consider buying a few F-35s as an interim measure and then move to build an European aircraft as well.

So the main issue other than the usual procurement drama is going to be the requirements.

I'm betting that the French will want something that will have a naval version (hence the Rafale) and the Germans not so much. As noted above, there will no longer be a viable 4-4.5 generation fighter (at least for front line service) by 2040 and lets be honest the F-22 and the F-35 will also be there. The F-22 dates back to the ATF requirement in 1981 and even if you go with the first flight date of 1990 it will be 50 years old by then. The F-35 is newer, but less stealthy than the Raptor and will be approaching almost 40 years. This assumes that detection technology continues to advance.

The rest is about preserving industrial base.