German Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

gelgoog said:

Even worse. The F-35 infiltration rot continues.

Click to expand...

At least as tornado replacement it isn't rot, it's best platform out there. Best platform and basis for nuclear share - which doesn't have to work, it has to have a possibility of working.
I.e. serve as a deterrent.
They already stretched everything to limits by squeezing EK role into typhoon. But only french would really take rafale as penetration fighter over F-35. Even without block 4.

gelgoog said:

The Eurofighter is basically contemporary with the Super Hornet and yet it came out with electronics like a decade older.

Click to expand...

Ugh, no.
If you mean radar front end - then for early 2000s planar array is still absolutely state of the art.
Furthermore, early superbugs weren't aesa.

Money wasted on the F-35 means less money for a European 5th generation fighter.

Germany is going backwards by going back to US fighters.

The whole idea of dropping nuclear gravity bombs on Russia is retarded anyway.

The Russians will just vaporize NATO Europe if they do it.

Gloire_bb said:

Ugh, no.
If you mean radar front end - then for early 2000s planar array is still absolutely state of the art.

Click to expand...

No it is shit. The MiG-31 had PESA like two decades before. The Japanese had AESA in the F-2 fighter in 2000. Heck, the Bars in the Su-30 is better.

Gloire_bb said:

Furthermore, early superbugs weren't aesa.

Click to expand...

The Super Hornet got AESA in 2005. Just two years after the Eurofighter entered service.

The real specs of such systems are classified. Anyways you don't have to worry anymore as all Eurofighter will get the most advanced dope Radar from Hensoldt.

gelgoog said:

The whole idea of dropping nuclear gravity bombs on Russia is retarded anyway.

The Russians will just vaporize NATO Europe if they do it.

Click to expand...

That's the whole point of nuclear deterrence. Nuclear war is retarded for everyone.
Congratulations on your new insight, good for you.

You have no deterrence because the US has the nuclear codes. You will just be the US's delivery boy. The next Ukraine. Worse because the Russians don't think of Germans as their own people. They would have zero qualms nuking your country.

You would be better off getting a nuclear sharing deal with France. Or just making your own nukes.

gelgoog said:

No it is shit. The MiG-31 had PESA like two decades before. The Japanese had AESA in the F-2 fighter in 2000. Heck, the Bars in the Su-30 is better.

Click to expand...

Mig-31 PESA is a monster which weights more like the entire eurofighter front section, requiring RIO just for itself. Note that NIIP tried and failed to make acceptable fighter PESA for T-10 in 1980s.

Before 2010s, Japanese joke of AESA had a detection range for frontal fighter target reaching out to incredible 40 km. For more than full AESA price (early comer disadvantage), and japanese "stupidly expensive" coefficient on top. It's worse than vanilla phantom radar from Eisenhower era, not just captor.

Bars is bigger, and is one hell of a mixed bag (vertical electronic scan with limited FoV as a result; mostly mechanical scan horizontally with electronic 12deg; unreliable, though it applies to most Russian aircraft radars in the first place). Captor is certainly not much worse than that. Much worse than irbis - sure, but that's way later.

gelgoog said:

The Super Hornet got AESA in 2005. Just two years after the Eurofighter entered service.

Click to expand...

Still, later. And IOC was in 2001. Just two years prior.
Problem wasn't captor-m, problem was that captor-e took 1.5 decade(and will take two decades to reach Germany)

I'd start to worry when us military starts leaving Germany during a conflict with Russia.
In this case Germany would be forced to build some improvised nukes and tape them into Taurus. This would take approx. 2 weeks.

Gloire_bb said:

Bars is bigger, and is one hell of a mixed bag (vertical electronic scan with limited FoV as a result; mostly mechanical scan horizontally with electronic 12deg; unreliable, though it applies to most Russian aircraft radars in the first place). Captor is certainly not much worse than that. Much worse than irbis - sure, but that's way later.

Click to expand...

Even before Irbis the Russians had upgraded N011M Bars on the Su-30SM. IOC 2013. It is a PESA.

Gloire_bb said:

Still, later. And IOC was in 2001. Just two years prior.

Click to expand...

And yet how many Eurofighters in Europe have the AESA radar even today? *crickets*

ger_mark said:

I'd start to worry when us military starts leaving Germany during a conflict with Russia.
In this case Germany would be forced to build some improvised nukes and tape them into Taurus. This would take approx. 2 weeks.

Click to expand...

Good luck miniaturizing a nuke like that in 2 weeks. And getting the components.

Aegrotare said:

Yes it has even before the on Ukraine and the bigger budgets, in 2020 the readyness of the Eurofighter was by >70%

Click to expand...

Appreciate the link to the report. But the report doesn't say that readiness was >70%.
What the report did say is that "Im Spitzenwert lag", or that the peak value for readiness was >70% for the period, meaning also that there were periods where the readiness was lower?
I'd daresay it's quite common across all militaries to beg/borrow/steal parts from other units when your own unit is up for readiness reviews which gives a very nice "peak value" readiness rating but the day-to-day rating is significantly lower when those "borrowed" items get "returned" when the auditors move on to the next unit.

Which begs the question, has there been any internal audit since 2020? Or has this gone the way of US crime stats and inflation reports?
For that matter, are there figures available for monthly or annual average readiness compiled from daily strength reports as opposed to a cryptic mention of peak readiness?
This is not a criticism so much as simple curiosity. My country's military, for example, releases absolutely no readiness reports.

Critically though, reading labouriously around that page, it mentions that flight instruction is at half of required manning levels which hamper pilot training. Which touches on what I was mulling over in my earlier question - how much of the increased spending package is cosmetically on hardware when there are, I suspect, systemic problems that need even more urgent funding and that will bring better qualitative improvements than simple quantitative solutions that don't address the root problem.

On the Tornado issue, the report mentions, without providing details, that the Tornado platform remains problematic. As such, any replacement, is a good replacement with the only learning point from this being that someone dropped the ball on the timelines.

Aegrotare said:

Sadly the most up to date numbers are from 2020, the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the report link. That is my reading material for the coming week when I'm on the road.

Heliox said:

Appreciate the link to the report. But the report doesn't say that readiness was >70%.
What the report did say is that "Im Spitzenwert lag", or that the peak value for readiness was >70% for the period, meaning also that there were periods where the readiness was lower?

Click to expand...

Thats certainly up to interpretaion, but thats most of this report anyway. for Example we dont know what "ready" means in the same context.

Heliox said:

I'd daresay it's quite common across all militaries to beg/borrow/steal parts from other units when your own unit is up for readiness reviews which gives a very nice "peak value" readiness rating but the day-to-day rating is significantly lower when those "borrowed" items get "returned" when the auditors move on to the next unit.

Which begs the question, has there been any internal audit since 2020? Or has this gone the way of US crime stats and inflation reports?
For that matter, are there figures available for monthly or annual average readiness compiled from daily strength reports as opposed to a cryptic mention of peak readiness?

Click to expand...

Yes this readiness reports to the German Bundestag happen yearly its the Wehrbericht from the Wehrbeauftragten but it has an public and not public part and in 2022 the readiness of the Bundeswehr was moved to the secret part. The Wehrbericht sadly doesnt mention the readiness part in any detail anymore the ist the last to do so. The last Wehrbericht from .

Heliox said:

This is not a criticism so much as simple curiosity. My country's military, for example, releases absolutely no readiness reports.

Critically though, reading labouriously around that page, it mentions that flight instruction is at half of required manning levels which hamper pilot training. Which touches on what I was mulling over in my earlier question - how much of the increased spending package is cosmetically on hardware when there are, I suspect, systemic problems that need even more urgent funding and that will bring better qualitative improvements than simple quantitative solutions that don't address the root problem.

Click to expand...

I mean this question is something we really cant aswer because the lack of public sources after 2021, the best estimation is from the 2024 report (page 54).

Die Anzahl der Pilotinnen und Piloten der Bundeswehr hat sich unter Berücksichtigung des sich in Ausbildung
befindenden Personals in den vergangenen Jahren querschnittlich leicht erhöht. Trotzdem bleibt die Personallage
mit fast 390 vakanten Dienstposten, was einer Besetzungsquote von nur rund 79 Prozent entspricht, weiterhin
angespannt.
Zumindest blieb die Anzahl der Jetpilotinnen und -piloten stabil. Die Bundeswehr hat zudem Maßnahmen
ergriffen, die perspektivisch zur Reduzierung von Wartezeiten in dieser Ausbildung führen sollen. Dazu zählen
die Erhöhung der Anzahl an Ausbildungsplätzen im Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Programm (ENJJPT) ab
dem Jahr 2026, die Inanspruchnahme von zusätzlichen Ausbildungsplätzen bei befreundeten Nationen sowie die
Prüfung einer zivil-militärischen Kooperation im Zeitraum 2027 bis 2029.
Die leicht positive Entwicklung der Besetzungsquote bei den Hubschrauberpilotinnen und -piloten der Luftwaffe
verstetigte sich weiter. Im Bereich der Luftfahrzeugführerinnen und Luftfahrzeugführer sowie im Werdegang
Remotely Piloted Aircraft ist darüber hinaus ein weiterer Anstieg zu erwarten, wenn das sich in Ausbildung
befindende Personal eingesetzt werden kann.
Im Fliegerischen Dienst des Heeres wirkte sich nach wie vor die unzureichende Personalgewinnung der
vergangen. en Jahre aus. Allerdings konnten gezielte Maßnahmen wie beispielsweise Dienstzeitverlängerungen
und die Gewinnung einer vergleichsweise hohen Anzahl an Berufssoldatinnen und Berufssoldaten zur
Entspannung der Personallage beitragen. Zumindest die Personalzahlen der Hubschrauberpilotinnen und -piloten
im Heer blieben daher insgesamt stabil.

Click to expand...

Basicly the Luftwaffe has a positiv trend but is still not at a good place because of the abysmal start point. But sadly one cant really compare the reports because they often have different focus.

Heliox said:

On the Tornado issue, the report mentions, without providing details, that the Tornado platform remains problematic. As such, any replacement, is a good replacement with the only learning point from this being that someone dropped the ball on the timelines.

Click to expand...

Yes but that was already clear like 10 years ago, but the worst German Chancelor since Hitler (Merkel) dint want to buy planes because they are expensive and it would anger the French.

Heliox said:

Thanks for the report link. That is my reading material for the coming week when I'm on the road.

Click to expand...

I would read more then one report so you have a better and more uptodate picture of the Bundeswehr, i already linked you 2020, 2021, 2024 but if you want read other ones just search for Wehrbericht + the Year they exist since atleast 2015.