Mil News Western Europe Military News

[muck]

German Tornado approaching Edwards AFB armed with a B61-12 nuclear weapon. The fact that the integration into the Tornado continues despite the aircraft rapidly approaching its retirement is very telling.

 

[TheKiwi]

I still don't understand why, though. Apparently, Airbus even offered to buy them back and cannibalise them for parts. Since when do governments pass over a chance to make a quick buck?

Best guess - to make it impossible to come back from that descision. Who knows if a future government might have changed their minds when the UH-60 costs went up and tried to roll back to these POS choppers. This way there is ZERO chance of that happening.

 

[Mike1976]

Best guess - to make it impossible to come back from that descision. Who knows if a future government might have changed their minds when the UH-60 costs went up and tried to roll back to these POS choppers. This way there is ZERO chance of that happening.

It's never impossible, just even more costly.

That's rarely ever stopped politicians before. Gambling is fun when you're doing it with other people's money.

 

[muck]

Frankly, I can't help but wonder if the drastic step of burying airworthy helicopters in the desert was not at least partially intended to avoid a legal battle with Airbus. The NH90 does have problems (particularly earlier lots), but they were exacerbated by incompetent decision-making and untimely penny-pinching (in Australia's case, the inadequate stocking of spare parts and the deployment of non-navalised helicopters on ships).

Had Airbus reacquired the decommissioned Taipans, they would've sold them to Ukraine and/or embarked on a campaign to prove their product was adequate. Which could've led to some uncomfortable questions, at least in the court of public opinion if not one of law. Case in point, Norway's long-announced lawsuit against Airbus has yet to be filed. There has to be a reason for that.

And I do suspect that reason has something to do with the fact that some operators (e.g. Norway and Australia) reported way more issues than others (e.g. France and Oman). In other words, it cannot be the helicopter alone. There's something else to the whole story.

 

[muck]

The German government has informed its Swiss counterpart that Germany will no longer buy weapons from Swiss companies. Switzerland, its letter said, is no longer regarded a reliable partner due to its strict arms export controls. The ongoing disputed stems not only from a Swiss veto against German munition stocks being handed over to Ukraine, but also from the realisation that Swiss laws would cut Germany off from supplies for Swiss-made weapons even if it found itself under attack. Politicians from almost all Swiss parties reacted angrily to the announcement and complained that Germany was disregarding Swiss neutrality. (Source)

This coming from Berlin is a bit hypocritical, but I cannot understand the Swiss accusation. International law does not require Switzerland to stop trading arms with countries engaged in a conflict; that is a decision which Switzerland has made for itself. I don't see why Germany shouldn't be allowed to react to this and decide that it will no longer buy Swiss-made weapons.

 

[Mike1976]

Frankly, I can't help but wonder if the drastic step of burying airworthy helicopters in the desert was not at least partially intended to avoid a legal battle with Airbus. The NH90 does have problems (particularly earlier lots), but they were exacerbated by incompetent decision-making and untimely penny-pinching (in Australia's case, the inadequate stocking of spare parts and the deployment of non-navalised helicopters on ships).

Had Airbus reacquired the decommissioned Taipans, they would've sold them to Ukraine and/or embarked on a campaign to prove their product was adequate. Which could've led to some uncomfortable questions, at least in the court of public opinion if not one of law. Case in point, Norway's long-announced lawsuit against Airbus has yet to be filed. There has to be a reason for that.

And I do suspect that reason has something to do with the fact that some operators (e.g. Norway and Australia) reported way more issues than others (e.g. France and Oman). In other words, it cannot be the helicopter alone. There's something else to the whole story.

Improper use might partially be to blame, for instance Belgium spends so little money on defence that they also use the regular transport version (TTH) at sea for which it was never designed. They also complain that often there are zero aircraft available which isn't that unthinkable when you only buy eight of them (4 TTH & 4 NFH) and don't bother to stock spares or pay for maintenance.

But did you know that Belgium is a major international player because several actual major players in NATO compromised to put their HQ there?

But the naval version (NFH) has also had rust and corrosion issues for users due to salt water which it was designed for, but the paint not resistant to.

Dutch pilots reported excessive noise after which flight times were cut down to an hour (very helpful).

The engine fire suppression system short circuited the engine according to the Germans. Fire extinguished successfully, engine completely dead ...

Australia reported rotor vibration (the excessive noise reported by Dutch pilots?).

Norway sent theirs back and asked for a full refund because they required excessive amounts of maintenance and therefore cost far more than normal to operate.

The technical documentation was incomplete what was there was often plainly wrong.

French state = Airbus, so I wouldn't look to much into their lack of complaints (probably just swept under the rug).

It's like this thing was designed and engineered by politicians.

 

[muck]

It's like this thing was designed and engineered by politicians.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that platform solutions are a bad idea altogether. It rarely ever works well.

And even if it works, it's often more expensive than two separate products.

 

[Mike1976]

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that platform solutions are a bad idea altogether. It rarely ever works well.

And even if it works, it's often more expensive than two separate products.

All European development programs of the 90's that I can think of have failed to deliver what they set out to do, whether it's tanks, helicopters, frigates etc.

Always countries wanted to have things their way and you ended up mostly with usable but much more expensive nation-specific equipment even for the countries which hadn't broken away during development and stuck it out until the end.

Maybe the Germsn Leopard purchasing initiative will change things, but that only validates the lesson from history: that development and procurement only get unf*cked due to external pressure.

 

[muck]

I hear ya. Boxer and Fennek turned out pretty well, but I get what you mean.

 

[Picanha]

Well the droop stops need better inspections Airbus helicopter didn't change them. Seems to work for everyone else.

About droop stops

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The problem seemed to be not properly disengaging/engaging droop stops.

 

[Mike1976]

I hear ya. Boxer and Fennek turned out pretty well, but I get what you mean.

That shows that the less participants there are the better the odds are.

 

[Redav]

The Italian Ministry of Defense has allocated a budget of €2 billion for two (2) FREMM EVO frigates, €500 million for a third LSS (Vulcano Class), and €45 million for the modernization of the Etna (A-5326) replenishment and logistic support ship, which has been in service since 1998, until the third LSS enters service.

Regarding the surface fleet, the MoD plans to invest up to €2.7 billion by 2036 for the acquisition of two new 180-meter DDX destroyers for the Marina Militare. These ships will replace the two obsolete Durand de la Penne-class destroyers (equipped with Mk13 launcher for SM-1MR SAM). Additionally, the two Orizzonte-class (Andrea Doria) destroyers will undergo a significant mid-life upgrade (MLU) costing up to €1 billion by 2033, after which they will also be replaced by a pair of new DDX destroyers.

This plan will establish a formidable surface force comprising 4 destroyers (DDX), 19 frigates (12 x FREMM ASW/GP/MM/EVO and 7 x PPA), and at least 10 well-armed corvettes and offshore patrol vessels (4? x EPC and 6 x PPX)!

When factoring in the two new aircraft carriers (Cavour CV and Trieste LHD), 12 minehunters, 3 LPDs (LxD), 3 LSSs (Vulcano Class), 8 submarines (U212A and U212 NFS), and various auxiliary units, the #ItalianNavy emerges as one of the most powerful maritime forces in Europe, second only to the #UK and #France, which maintain a strategic edge with their nuclear-powered submarines and ballistic missile submarines.

Source:
Naval Analyses

 

[TheKiwi]

Extra 25 f-35's budgeted for by Italy. 15 F-35A and 10 F-35B.

Italy to Buy 25 Additional F-35s for Over $7 Billion

The Italian government has budgeted a total of 7 billion euros ($7.79 billion) for the acquisition of 25 F-35 fighter jets in 2024.

thedefensepost.com

 

[Mike1976]

View attachment 499098
View attachment 499099
View attachment 499100
View attachment 499101

Source:
Naval Analyses

Plans are cheap, going through with them across many radically different governments is not. Let's see what they actually end up getting by 2040.

 

[Mike1976]

Extra 25 f-35's budgeted for by Italy. 15 F-35A and 10 F-35B.

Italy to Buy 25 Additional F-35s for Over $7 Billion

The Italian government has budgeted a total of 7 billion euros ($7.79 billion) for the acquisition of 25 F-35 fighter jets in 2024.

thedefensepost.com

Going off on a tangent, but it was imo a huge mistake to design the Eurofighter primarily as an air-superiority aircraft rather than making it multi-role, especially considering it was designed in the 90s with the ever decreasing budgets.

First generation being replaced after less than 20 years of limited service where as F-16 airframes have served for 30+ years.

 

[muck]

Germany choses Patria CAVS 6×6 to replace its ageing Fuchs armoured personnel carriers, and Patria NEMO as its next self-propelled mortar: (Source) 1,000 vehicles will be ordered. The number of mortar carriers amongst these isn't specified, the article only says the order will be placed before the end of 2024.

Going off on a tangent, but it was imo a huge mistake to design the Eurofighter primarily as an air-superiority aircraft rather than making it multi-role, especially considering it was designed in the 90s with the ever decreasing budgets.

First generation being replaced after less than 20 years of limited service where as F-16 airframes have served for 30+ years.

Wasn't so much a design choice than a fiscal one, though. Tranche 1 was a stop-gap solution with limited capabilities to speed up the aircraft's entry into service. The upgrade of Tranche 1 was always intended and only dropped by most users for fiscal reasons. Only the Spanish have gone down that route, I think.

 

[TheKiwi]

Almost all the participants in the Eurofighter program had (at the time) a significant fleet of Tornado's that could do the ground pounding role (rather well) making it much less of an issue. Of course here we are 20 years later where thanks to a lot of waffling about Tornado replacement there is a much greater need to multi-role the Eurofighter.

 

[PEMM]

Germany choses Patria CAVS 6×6 to replace its ageing Fuchs armoured personnel carriers, and Patria NEMO as its next self-propelled mortar: (Source) 1,000 vehicles will be ordered. The number of mortar carriers amongst these isn't specified, the article only says the order will be placed before the end of 2024.

Will any Fuchs be given to Ukraine?

 

[PEMM]

Finland also orders more Patria 6x6's. Making it to 161 vehicles total. Options from the contract are now ordered fully, but I doubt this will be the last order. All should be delivered by next year.

The Defense Forces will claim more 6x6 crew transport vehicles from the defense equipment manufacturer Patria, says Patria.

It's about an additional procurement reservation, which is already included in the previously signed series contract.

In the summer of last year, Patria and the Logistics Department of the Defense Forces signed a contract for 91 armored personnel carriers with equipment.

The procurement contract included an additional procurement reservation for 70 vehicles, of which the Finnish Defense Forces redeemed 41 at the turn of the year and now 29 more vehicles.

The ordered vehicles will be delivered by the end of 2025.

Puolustusvoimat lunastaa Patrialta lisää miehistönkuljetusajoneuvoja

Tilatut ajoneuvot toimitetaan vuoden 2025 loppuun mennessä.

yle.fi

 

[muck]

The Dutch Army has decided to buy 72 Boxer RCT30 wheeled infantry fighting vehicles and 10 EW vehicles on the same platform. (Source)

Incidentally, Diehl is now in talks to integrate the IRIS-T SLM air defence system into the F125 class frigate. It seems as though a true vertical launch system is out of the question due to requiring cost-prohibitive changes to the entire foreship, but the company says they could install two 8-cell launchers also used in the vehicle-borne variant. These would be able to be lowered below the deck surface when not in use. This solution would yield numerous advantages: The F125 class already carries a navalised variant of the TRML-4D radar also used by the IRIS-T SLM complex; and the missile's range is almost as good as an ESSM's, though at a much lower per-unit cost. (Source)

Trials with an IRIS-T SLM battery aboard a F125 class frigate will commence soon, it has been reported. In order to speed things up, the entire system will not be integrated into the ship at first but tested as a containerised package. (Source)

Will any Fuchs be given to Ukraine?

Good question. I'd suppose that'll be on the table.