I wish my country, Germany, would cancel its F35 orders
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
152 points (98.1% liked)
Europe
5605 readers
1848 users here now
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: RT, news-pravda:com, GB News, Fox, Breitbart, Daily Caller, OAN, sociable:co, citjourno:com, brusselssignal:eu, europesays:com, geo-trends:eu, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to any of the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
That would be very expensive
Why? What's the expensive part?
They have contracts. I don't know the specifics. But that can sometimes amount to 1/3 of the price if they cut the deal after agreeing to the contract.
The answer? Yes. The solution, though? No.
The F35 is the overall more advanced platform. That's simply a fact. But given the current state of the world, it is definitively the correct answer to the US' new attitude.
The solution for the future however is pushing the two big fighter programs currently in development in the EU.
If EU does not start investing into its own fighter they will never have one as capable as the american ones.
We need to stop thinking in short-term solutions.
PS: this comment is not directly against yours. Just an addition
Yeah but wasnt f35 a joint project between EU and america
Depends. You want 20 Gripen E/F flying or 2 F-35 ? Because that's the difference in running costs.
Running costs are the least of your concerns when shit hits the fan. The F-35 is simply more capable, there's really no way around it. This isn't an issue vs Russia but against China it could be.
I fail to see a scenario where Europeans and China come into direct conflict. Even if/when China invades Taiwan I don't see the Europeans committing to the Pacific, given the Russian threat directly at home. Therefore the only real war scenario seems to be a direct war with Russia. For this the Gripen should be solid, especially with uncertainty about the availability of some capabilities of the F-35 likely depending on US support.
You're right, but these aircraft will have a service life of at least 20 years, and who knows what the world will look like then? Russia could be a Chinese vassal by that point. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that anybody buys more F-35s, I'm just saying they are not comparable. What needs to happen is Gripen/Rafale short term and a serious fast-tracking of the FCAS.
The last sentence is the one important one. Any Plattform bought at the moment has it's downsides. Grippen/Raffaele/Typhoon all have massive downsides in terms of capabilities, survivability, integration. They can be overcome by now, but the difference to the F35,F22, Su57, and similar aircraft will only become bigger - and that doesn't even consider the sixth generation fighters that will enter the market during their lifetime.
So any European jet can only be a bridge for Europe finally get their fucking act together and get the whole FCAS Plattform up and make that shit competitive. Which is absolutely possible, necessary and mit be achieved at all costs.
My instincts say 20 Gripens (Sherman v Tiger comes to mind)
load more comments
(4 replies)
The problem with the Gripen is it is a 4th generation fighter. Nice, but it lacks the stealth of the F35 which means you either lose pilots a lot or you keep them well away from the fights. They are still useful in their role, but you want a better plane for a lot of roles that it cannot do. And of course 6th generation fighters are already on the drawing board.
The advantage with the Gripen is that the Americans can't turn it off on a whim
The way to run it would be dispersed across the wilderness and not in the air for too long at any one time. That was Sweden's plan (and why it's built to resist ingestion of loose rocks among other things), and it would be Canada's as well just on a much larger scale. That may or may not be enough to overcome the lack of stealth, though. It's hard to say with public information.
The rest of the EU has a bit of a wilderness shortage, so probably it's not a good fit. South Korea has an F-35 clone they're selling, or the EU could just break their agreement with the US and code their own jailbroken software for the F-35.
Untill we see Gripens EW suite in action, we don't know how relevant stealth is.
I read a random article several years back talking about Gripen and the Eurofighter finding eachother out in the skies and the Gripen pilot turned on the EW suite, which wrecked havok on the sensors of the Eurofighter.
Gripen is actually very capable fighter jet with very modular design. It's not as cool looking as F-35, but makes up for it with capabilities, reliability and ease of maintenance.
The F35 is so much more advanced as an operations platform that the two are barely comparable and I say this as a staunch European.
Could you explain why, please?
This was already covered in great detail all over the internet, but the main two factors are:
-
Stealth. The F-35 is much harder to detect, and you can't attack what you don't know is there.
-
Less talked about is "sensor fusion" which aggregates sensor data from the aircraft and others to give a much fuller view of the situation.
Sensor fusion is something that any 4.5 gen fighter is capable of. Cool HUDs and XR is just marketing bling. It doesn't really matter. Scale, sensors, ew, range, load and cost benefit matter.
F-35 is good if you need first strike tactical nuke capabilities today. Or small carrier capabilities. However, modern sensors can probably catch your F-35s quite early on anyway. The extra stealth might be good if you're fighting goat herders with Soviet AA and radars from the 50s. But hey, then you can just go for an upgraded F-16 with some fancy EW.
Any rational state actor should skip 5th gen, push their 4.5s to the limit and go for unmanned gen 6+.
I don't necessarily disagree with your take here, but this is all conjecture until we see a 5th-gen in real combat. There was that story about an Israeli F-35 sneaking right up to a... I forget what, Syrian AF probably, but even if that anecdote really happened we haven't really seen them used in anger. As I said elsewhere here, China is really the only one who'd offer a near-peer opponent (unless god forbid the US go so far off the rails that they turn on NATO).
Thanks. This leaves me with follow up questions:
-
If the plane is used for defence, is visibility that important?
-
Sensor fusion is a software feature. Why can't it be replicated in other aircrafts easily?
I dont know the second thing but even defensively, stealth fighters are much more difficult to accurately aim at with sensors and guidance systems and such, and it also helps a ton if the enemy doesn't know how many planes you have and where they are from a strategic point of view. Stealth is simply a modern requirement to not be at a severe disadvantage.
If the plane is used for defence, is visibility that important?
Sure, it reduces losses and gives much more tactical advantage.
Sensor fusion is a software feature. Why canβt it be replicated in other aircrafts easily?
It isn't just software. Even the pilot's helmet in the F-35 is highly specialized and has integrated HUD:
Why can't the helmet be used in the Gripen?
The Gripen doesn't have the systems (hardware or software) to run it. The F-35 was designed from the ground up to use this.
SAAB have a basic version but there's less info about it and it's certainly less advanced. https://www.saab.com/newsroom/press-releases/2016/saab-receives-order-from-fmv-for-a-new-helmet-mounted-display-system
The planes are designed to carry several tons of bombs. For sure there must be some space to store some CPUs and memory.
If the helmet is such a key feature then it's worth developing a European version. The good thing about a helmet is that it's easy to replace, unlike other parts of the plane. So the Gripen can be bought right now, and then suppliers can deliver helmets. Have an open market for them with a public specification of the interfaces and thus a thriving European helmet industry.
I must not be explaining this very well if that's your takeaway.
Well, I don't understand how a helmet can be so tightly coupled to a plane. There could be less cameras or less radar systems, but that can't limit the helmet to show whatever the sensors track.
Of course it could limit the helmet somehow, but that's what I want to understand.
One example I should have mentioned earlier is that the F-35 has cameras outside the plane so that the helmet HUD allows the pilot to look "through" the fuselage. It does much more than simply show sensor readings inside the visor.
Ok, and that's difficult to replicate on the Gripen?
With all the 3D gaming technology I cannot imagine that creating a 3D scene inside a helmet is so difficult that it's worth buying this superexpensive plane instead of paying mabe the price of one plane for 3 companies to develop helmets for a Gripen with some additional cameras.
The plane only has to be better than European opponents, which hopefully doesn't require being better than the F35.
The entire plane has to be redesigned from the ground up, that's what he's explaining. The F-35s are caked in sensors like a valve index. They have special paints and materials that absorb radar, making the radar profile look more like a bird than aircraft-sized hunk of metal, which is useful against Russian and Iranian anti air SAMs, the same ones taking down Ukrainian jets. But that also includes the body shape, the engine intakes (even engine blade materials), everything.
Can the Europeans create an F-35 class platform? Absolutely. But you can't just retrofit your way out of a brand new generation of plane. It's like trying to retrofit a Ford F-350 super duty to conform to Japanese Kei truck regulations and weight classes. You end up redesigning the whole thing.
Your comment is mostly about the stealth properties. If the plane is for defence and stealth is not that important, is the F-35 still needed for the 3D helmet or could a Gripen be enough?
I'm not an expert so you should look into this yourself but the way I understand it is that the F35 has leading EFW capabilities, the ability to be fully integrated into a digital battle management system (which is crucial in the NATO combined arms doctrine), can coordinate with autonomous drones and also has the best stealth factor.
The F35 looks like a fat boat, Gripen looks like a fighter plane.
Looking at the Ukraine and Armenia war I am getting curious about "cheap" drones or drone version of light aircraft. For the price of a Grippen, you can get 100 VL3 (even counting the modification for a drone version). Sure a cool ultra light plane isn't barely as cool as fighter jet.
However, With a swarm of 100, I doubt air defence will intercept all of them even in modern countries. Let alone operations in countries with no air defences
Drones have without a doubt changed warfare a ton, but there's still no fighter jet equivalent on speed and impact power. Situation in Ukraine is a bit different as Ukraine doesn't have much hardware to spare and Russians seem to be afraid of modern defences and neither of them have real infrastructure in place for fighter jet maintenance close enough to the front lines.
Drones work now because they are $1000 (random number in the right range), while a patriot missile is $4 billion dollars each. Sure you could shoot a drone down with one, but if you do the enemy will just send more and bankrupt you.
Ukraine has already seen some success using WWII air defense rifles, or hunting shotguns to take out drones, there the cost is around $1 each. It will need more effort, but there is no reason we cannot automate building such things, and from there mass production means drones are no longer cost effective because they get shot down. (note that shotguns have a range of about 50 meters, and the rifles maybe 10km - we need a lot of this on the lines to make a difference, but that means large amounts of mass production and so the cost should be maybe $5-10k each)
Drones work now because they are $1000 (random number in the right range), while a patriot missile is $4 billion dollars each. Sure you could shoot a drone down with one, but if you do the enemy will just send more and bankrupt you.
I agree with the point but these numbers are some orders of magnitude off. A patriot missile is typically 4 million dollars (so not billion). Drones vary widely depending on the type. Man-portable scouting drones can go as low as a few hundred dollars. I don't think a patriot missile would ever target something that small flying that low though. The Iranian Shahed is estimated to cost around $30-50k. Russia produces its own upgraded version (better navigation systems, bigger warheads, etc.) that costs around $80k.
Even then, you can make 50 drones for the cost of a single patriot. The economics are not favourable.
The source I found for patriot cost was billion, but agree that looks unreasonably high. Maybe a typo on the source's part? I don't remember which source I found yesterday.
FCAS is the answer, not Gripen or for that matter Eurofighter or Rafale.
Not for 15 years or more...
Any order of new fighter jets takes about a decade as well. If you do not have them on order already, then why order new ones, when you could buy FCAS, which is a much better system instead.
I cannot comment on this because Iβm just a mere civilian
view more: next βΊ