undefined | Better HN

0 pointslittlestymaar1y ago0 comments

Probably not, you're right, the logical choice, from a capability perspective, would have been a modernization of the Eurofighter and/or and the pursuite of a Next Generation European Fighter program. (Which could have been much less expensive than the f-35 program if given less exotic requirements).

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

nradov1y ago· 2 in thread

The Eurofighter was not a logical choice because Germany couldn't afford to get it certified for participation in the NATO nuclear sharing program. That would have driven the cost way higher than the F-35A.

littlestymaarOP1y ago

The ability to deploy US nukes has been useless since the end of the cold war, and now that it's starting to get relevant again, it's not reliable anymore.

And how is Germany supposed to integrate French nukes on the F-35 if Scholz wants to pursue “strategic independence” now?

Also, it was likely not a matter of cost, as the US has nothing to gain from allowing Germany to use a European plane to carry their nukes in the first place when they can sell them US planes instead.

nradov1y ago

Cost was absolutely a factor. The Panavia Tornado was previously certified to carry US nuclear bombs. The same could have been done with the Eurofighter but Germany would have had to pay 100% of the program cost because no other NATO member was interested.

I can't see any scenario where France would agree to share nuclear weapons with Germany. The only approach that might work would be to forward deploy French nuclear forces on German territory, with Germany picking up the cost.

1 more reply

eduction1y ago

Ah interesting, I didn’t know about the next generation, link for anyone else interested -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Air_System

FWIW I think the US should be more willing to buy euro fighters, because the number of US suppliers is getting smaller and they have too much leverage over US government.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse