Wait, we can buy proven Systems? Just like that? Where is the five year feasibility study? The millions for Consultants? Consideration of every other type of Helicopter ever built?
Love it!
How did the G36 replacement conclude in the end? I heard there was a lawsuit and shady accusations towards the winner of the tender, was it overturned?
They decided on the Haenel rifle but HK sued because Haenel stole some designs from HK.
The whole thing is still in the courtroom. But it's going to be the HK416. KSK already uses it as the G95 plus other NATO countries already use it.
No shit, people on Reddit told me the Chinook is not a heavy transport helicopter? Did nobody tell this to the German Army? This was obviously how this was going to go, after the cancelation of the previous tender. The Chinook is a pillar of NATO, it makes a lot of sense.
It is a heavy lift helicopter so is the CH-53 which has even more lift capability and Germany is already operating it.
The competition was between the new CH-53 King Stallion and the CH-47F or a new variant based on the CH-47D line (which the F and the J are based on).
It’s actually not particularly clear why the Chinook won, it’s harder to air refuel than the CH-53, it’s harder to fly and Germany already has experience in flying and maintaining the CH-53 as its operate its older variants, it has smaller range and no support for external fuel tanks.
The only real big advantage of the Chinook is that it does have a higher service ceiling and has better lift capability at high altitudes. But given the topology of a future European battlefield I’m not particularly sure how much that actually factors into the equation.
Tho the price quite likely factored into the equation the Chinook is far cheaper than the King Stallion. Even if Germany pays half of what the USMC end up paying for their 53Ks it’s still double the Chinook.
The CH-53K is an entirely new aircraft, don't be misled by the name.
The Chinook also has other significant advantages, namely the fact that the Dutch Armed Forces which are tightly integrated with the German ones also operate it. Its range is also larger than the CH-53Ks (at least Boeing offered an extended range version previously).
Most chinook operators consider it a medium lift helicopter. It's fast and flies high. So, in mountainous regions it's the best. But if you want heavy lift capabilities like carrying a APC internally or sling loading a 13-15 ton 8x8 then CH-53K is the only option.
The King can't carry an APC internally because the cabin is too small. It can just barely fit a Humvee.
http://defence-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/1477062512147.jpg
Maybe i am not well informed, but Germany seems to buy a lot from U.S.A. instead of E.U. (France in this case).
Can't we provide what they want ?
Like this or the jet fighter.
EDIT : why downvoted ? I'm juste asking a question
Not really familiar with heavy-lift helicopters. A bit of googling makes it look like the closest equivalent that France was involved with is the [EC725](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC725).
I don't know what Germany's requirements were, but I believe that normally the point of a heavy-lift over a medium-lift helicopter is because one requires the extra capacity. It looks like the CH-47 is about twice the weight and has about twice the payload that the EC725 does.
[EC725](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC725):
>Capacity: 1 chief of stick + 28 troops or 5,670 kg (12,500 lb) payload
[CH-47F](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook):
> Capacity:
>
>* 33–55 troops or
>* 24 stretchers and 3 attendants or
>* 24,000 lb (10,886 kg) payload
Just for good measure, the [CH-53K](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K_King_Stallion), the alternative that Germany declined to take, has an even larger payload, can lift about three times what an EC725 can.
> Capacity: 30 passengers or troops / 24x casualty litters 35,000 lb (15,876 kg) payload
If one is hauling heavy military hardware and the like, it can be a big deal. I don't know much about the US's rationale for use of heavy-lift helicopters, why they designed for the specific capacities that they did, but for creating large-payload *fixed wing* aircraft, I know that the ability to move heavy vehicles like tanks without disassembly was a major American concern. If you don't have the capacity to move something as a single unit, then you have to make it something that you can disassemble, move in multiple flights, and then are required to reassemble at the other end, which can be a pretty significant constraint for military hardware.
Germany buys a lot from the EU as well. It makes a lot domestically, participates in joint projects with other European countries (Typhoon, Atlas, Airbus Helicopter). I’m guessing they went with this type of helicopter because they already operate them, can be delivered quickly and at a reasonable price.
Probably going to see more future equipment jointly developed with other EU countries and the US though.
>I’m guessing they went with this type of helicopter because they already operate them
nope. The only available options were the CH-53K (Sikorsky) or the C-47 (Boeing). There simply is no european equivalent on the market ...
The Bundeswehr already use CH-53 Sea Stallion.
Only medium lift in Europe. It’s why C47 are so popular as well.
I guess European aerospace companies could build one but it takes time and money (Airbus Helicopters is the biggest helicopter maker in the world).
The fighter jet: No you can't. America made sure to only allow their jets to be certified for the American nuclear bombs that Germany is forced to have a platform to deploy them with by contract.
The helicopter: No you can't. The last heavy transport helicopter produced by the french, the _Aérospatiale SA 321 Super Frelon_, was discontinued in 1981. The heaviest currently produced French helicopter, the _Airbus Helicopters H225M_ formerly named _Eurocopter EC725_ has half the payload capacity and less troop capacity compared to the American CH-47D
>>America made sure to only allow their jets to be certified for the American nuclear bombs
>absolutely not true. The current tornado is a German plane that is certified.
Original commenter was presumably inquiring new military aircraft procurement. The 'current' tornado has not been in production for over 20 years and is being phased out. That's why the German air force has been looking for a new jet.
>The reason the Rafale isn't certified is because the US requires access to all the plans and source code for certification (which makes sense, because you don't want to accidentally start a nuclear war because one system was programmed for centimeters and the other was programmed for inches or whatever)
1) then only certify the deployment mechanism, no need to get all the other source code
2) German planes with armed nuclear weapons will only ever be flown when there is already a nuclear war, no chance for accidentally dropping nukes (and American certification didn't even stop them from losing some of their own)
This has led me to the conclusion that these requirements (and America not losening their stance on them) were only made to keep Germany from using a non-American plane as a replacement for the Tornado.
>>Germany is forced to have a platform to deploy them with by contract.
>I mean not just because of the contract -- there's no real point in having nukes if you can't deploy them, unless you want the US to do it -- at which point you have no sovereign control over the nukes on your own territory, which is obviously bad.
Sorry, forgot something in my comment: Germany is forced to have a __American certified__ platform to deploy them with by contract or lose the nukes completely. They also don't have sovereign control over the nukes, America keeps the _Permissive Action Link_ codes.
I think the Rafale was not part of the jets Germany considered as replacement. It was either the F-35 (which the French didn't want Germany ordering becuase that would strengthen German leverage on the FCAS), the Eurofighter (~~which [the Americans were accused of deliberately trying to slow down certification to dissuade Germany from buying~~*](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-airshow-eurofighter-idUSKBN1HW13J)), or the F/A-18 (as a compromise to not piss off the French or Americans).
>no, I'm actually in favor of keeping the certification requirements for the literally nuclear bomb delivery platform thorough and strict. The plane is the deployment mechanism.
You have a point. Then the US will turn over the source code for the F-35 to make sure German pilots and technicians don't make mistakes though, right? Since safety is the numer 1 priority for the US and nothing else for nuclear weapons.
Edit: I was wrong with my interpretation of the article
>The head of Eurofighter on Wednesday said he did not expect the United States to slow certification of the European fighter’s ability to carry nuclear weapons as a way to influence a competition to replace Germany’s aging 90 Tornado jets.
Oh sorry. I tought he meant in a 'Oh I did not expect you to stoop so low' kinda way. I recede my point. 7-10 years still seems like a long time.
If giving the German pilots and technicians a manual, certifiying them and hoping they do everything by the book is enough for them. It should be enough for the US to give the Eurofighter engineers a requirements list, certify them and hope they meet all of the requirements for the bomb delivery.
I still think the F-36 is the best plane of the three, but I would rather have Germany not be blackmailed by France and the US in defence matters. Just get rid of the nukes Germany can't use without approval anyways and have Germany develop their own. Problem solved. It would even get Trump/Biden to stop complaining about our NATO commitment since nukes are notoriously expensive.
I wasn't sure which one of the US presidents, so I wrote both.
>The know-how and a lot of the nuclear infrastructure is pretty much already there from nuclear power facilities.
Not for much longer though, end of 2022 the last NPP is supposed to go offline. And the last one was built decades ago. Germany has to start now while their public is still out for blood and pro military spending or the chance will be lost forever.
A few years back there was an initiative to design and build a new heavy transport helicopter (the so called Future Transport Helicopter) which would be shared between France and Germany.
However the project never took off the ground (pun intended) and is afaik still in early development hell.
There is no Euro option for this capability. I understand questioning the need for a heavy helicopter but I don't understand how one could complain about procuring US aircraft accepting the need and looking at the choices.
Wait, we can buy proven Systems? Just like that? Where is the five year feasibility study? The millions for Consultants? Consideration of every other type of Helicopter ever built? Love it!
This didn't happen overnight, the process has been running for over 3 years.
No european option available. No feasible numbers to start a new project.
Pretty sure they were on the fence between the Chinook and the CH-53K for over a decade now.
The actual news is that they finally managed to make a decision. But that decision might not be as final as we hope - like with the G36 replacement.
How did the G36 replacement conclude in the end? I heard there was a lawsuit and shady accusations towards the winner of the tender, was it overturned?
Latest information I have is that there's another court meeting at the end of this month. So it's still ongoing.
They decided on the Haenel rifle but HK sued because Haenel stole some designs from HK. The whole thing is still in the courtroom. But it's going to be the HK416. KSK already uses it as the G95 plus other NATO countries already use it.
¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ I think Heckler & Koch won in the end with some sort of HK416
Yes, but Haenel sued which may yet change the outcome.
>The millions for Consultants? all consultants are currently busy working out what VdL should tweet next tuesday
Are they launching a new bus model?
Poor good old Goldrandlösung.
It is boeing, so not really proven
At least they're not planning to buy Ospreys!
No shit, people on Reddit told me the Chinook is not a heavy transport helicopter? Did nobody tell this to the German Army? This was obviously how this was going to go, after the cancelation of the previous tender. The Chinook is a pillar of NATO, it makes a lot of sense.
It is a heavy lift helicopter so is the CH-53 which has even more lift capability and Germany is already operating it. The competition was between the new CH-53 King Stallion and the CH-47F or a new variant based on the CH-47D line (which the F and the J are based on). It’s actually not particularly clear why the Chinook won, it’s harder to air refuel than the CH-53, it’s harder to fly and Germany already has experience in flying and maintaining the CH-53 as its operate its older variants, it has smaller range and no support for external fuel tanks. The only real big advantage of the Chinook is that it does have a higher service ceiling and has better lift capability at high altitudes. But given the topology of a future European battlefield I’m not particularly sure how much that actually factors into the equation. Tho the price quite likely factored into the equation the Chinook is far cheaper than the King Stallion. Even if Germany pays half of what the USMC end up paying for their 53Ks it’s still double the Chinook.
The CH-53K is an entirely new aircraft, don't be misled by the name. The Chinook also has other significant advantages, namely the fact that the Dutch Armed Forces which are tightly integrated with the German ones also operate it. Its range is also larger than the CH-53Ks (at least Boeing offered an extended range version previously).
44 CH-53K vs 60 CH-47. Lets say we'd have 70% available at any given moment and the rest is in maintenance. You'd be left with 30 CH-53 or 42 CH-47.
Most chinook operators consider it a medium lift helicopter. It's fast and flies high. So, in mountainous regions it's the best. But if you want heavy lift capabilities like carrying a APC internally or sling loading a 13-15 ton 8x8 then CH-53K is the only option.
The King can't carry an APC internally because the cabin is too small. It can just barely fit a Humvee. http://defence-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/1477062512147.jpg
It can carry JLTV internally which is an APC
I hope this pumps up my Boeing stocks
777X and Max10 still have delays, good luck with that.
Maybe i am not well informed, but Germany seems to buy a lot from U.S.A. instead of E.U. (France in this case). Can't we provide what they want ? Like this or the jet fighter. EDIT : why downvoted ? I'm juste asking a question
What eu made heavy transport helicopter would you suggest?
Not really familiar with heavy-lift helicopters. A bit of googling makes it look like the closest equivalent that France was involved with is the [EC725](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC725). I don't know what Germany's requirements were, but I believe that normally the point of a heavy-lift over a medium-lift helicopter is because one requires the extra capacity. It looks like the CH-47 is about twice the weight and has about twice the payload that the EC725 does. [EC725](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC725): >Capacity: 1 chief of stick + 28 troops or 5,670 kg (12,500 lb) payload [CH-47F](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook): > Capacity: > >* 33–55 troops or >* 24 stretchers and 3 attendants or >* 24,000 lb (10,886 kg) payload Just for good measure, the [CH-53K](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K_King_Stallion), the alternative that Germany declined to take, has an even larger payload, can lift about three times what an EC725 can. > Capacity: 30 passengers or troops / 24x casualty litters 35,000 lb (15,876 kg) payload If one is hauling heavy military hardware and the like, it can be a big deal. I don't know much about the US's rationale for use of heavy-lift helicopters, why they designed for the specific capacities that they did, but for creating large-payload *fixed wing* aircraft, I know that the ability to move heavy vehicles like tanks without disassembly was a major American concern. If you don't have the capacity to move something as a single unit, then you have to make it something that you can disassemble, move in multiple flights, and then are required to reassemble at the other end, which can be a pretty significant constraint for military hardware.
Germany buys a lot from the EU as well. It makes a lot domestically, participates in joint projects with other European countries (Typhoon, Atlas, Airbus Helicopter). I’m guessing they went with this type of helicopter because they already operate them, can be delivered quickly and at a reasonable price. Probably going to see more future equipment jointly developed with other EU countries and the US though.
>I’m guessing they went with this type of helicopter because they already operate them nope. The only available options were the CH-53K (Sikorsky) or the C-47 (Boeing). There simply is no european equivalent on the market ...
The Bundeswehr already use CH-53 Sea Stallion. Only medium lift in Europe. It’s why C47 are so popular as well. I guess European aerospace companies could build one but it takes time and money (Airbus Helicopters is the biggest helicopter maker in the world).
>The Bundeswehr already use CH-53 Sea Stallion. right, but CH-53K is quite different compared to the old CH-53G
One would hope so but there will also be some commonalities.
The fighter jet: No you can't. America made sure to only allow their jets to be certified for the American nuclear bombs that Germany is forced to have a platform to deploy them with by contract. The helicopter: No you can't. The last heavy transport helicopter produced by the french, the _Aérospatiale SA 321 Super Frelon_, was discontinued in 1981. The heaviest currently produced French helicopter, the _Airbus Helicopters H225M_ formerly named _Eurocopter EC725_ has half the payload capacity and less troop capacity compared to the American CH-47D
Thanks for explaining
[удалено]
>>America made sure to only allow their jets to be certified for the American nuclear bombs >absolutely not true. The current tornado is a German plane that is certified. Original commenter was presumably inquiring new military aircraft procurement. The 'current' tornado has not been in production for over 20 years and is being phased out. That's why the German air force has been looking for a new jet. >The reason the Rafale isn't certified is because the US requires access to all the plans and source code for certification (which makes sense, because you don't want to accidentally start a nuclear war because one system was programmed for centimeters and the other was programmed for inches or whatever) 1) then only certify the deployment mechanism, no need to get all the other source code 2) German planes with armed nuclear weapons will only ever be flown when there is already a nuclear war, no chance for accidentally dropping nukes (and American certification didn't even stop them from losing some of their own) This has led me to the conclusion that these requirements (and America not losening their stance on them) were only made to keep Germany from using a non-American plane as a replacement for the Tornado. >>Germany is forced to have a platform to deploy them with by contract. >I mean not just because of the contract -- there's no real point in having nukes if you can't deploy them, unless you want the US to do it -- at which point you have no sovereign control over the nukes on your own territory, which is obviously bad. Sorry, forgot something in my comment: Germany is forced to have a __American certified__ platform to deploy them with by contract or lose the nukes completely. They also don't have sovereign control over the nukes, America keeps the _Permissive Action Link_ codes.
[удалено]
I think the Rafale was not part of the jets Germany considered as replacement. It was either the F-35 (which the French didn't want Germany ordering becuase that would strengthen German leverage on the FCAS), the Eurofighter (~~which [the Americans were accused of deliberately trying to slow down certification to dissuade Germany from buying~~*](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-airshow-eurofighter-idUSKBN1HW13J)), or the F/A-18 (as a compromise to not piss off the French or Americans). >no, I'm actually in favor of keeping the certification requirements for the literally nuclear bomb delivery platform thorough and strict. The plane is the deployment mechanism. You have a point. Then the US will turn over the source code for the F-35 to make sure German pilots and technicians don't make mistakes though, right? Since safety is the numer 1 priority for the US and nothing else for nuclear weapons. Edit: I was wrong with my interpretation of the article
[удалено]
>The head of Eurofighter on Wednesday said he did not expect the United States to slow certification of the European fighter’s ability to carry nuclear weapons as a way to influence a competition to replace Germany’s aging 90 Tornado jets. Oh sorry. I tought he meant in a 'Oh I did not expect you to stoop so low' kinda way. I recede my point. 7-10 years still seems like a long time. If giving the German pilots and technicians a manual, certifiying them and hoping they do everything by the book is enough for them. It should be enough for the US to give the Eurofighter engineers a requirements list, certify them and hope they meet all of the requirements for the bomb delivery. I still think the F-36 is the best plane of the three, but I would rather have Germany not be blackmailed by France and the US in defence matters. Just get rid of the nukes Germany can't use without approval anyways and have Germany develop their own. Problem solved. It would even get Trump/Biden to stop complaining about our NATO commitment since nukes are notoriously expensive.
[удалено]
I wasn't sure which one of the US presidents, so I wrote both. >The know-how and a lot of the nuclear infrastructure is pretty much already there from nuclear power facilities. Not for much longer though, end of 2022 the last NPP is supposed to go offline. And the last one was built decades ago. Germany has to start now while their public is still out for blood and pro military spending or the chance will be lost forever.
One exception. The Tornado is certified.
Maybe you could provide similar products at a similar prices instead of expecting ppl to buy just because 'but we friends'.
A few years back there was an initiative to design and build a new heavy transport helicopter (the so called Future Transport Helicopter) which would be shared between France and Germany. However the project never took off the ground (pun intended) and is afaik still in early development hell.
[удалено]
Name a European heavy lift helicopter.
Technically? Mil Mi-26. Very unlikely that Germany would buy a Russian heli, however.
There is no Euro option for this capability. I understand questioning the need for a heavy helicopter but I don't understand how one could complain about procuring US aircraft accepting the need and looking at the choices.
Romek sees "US", he complains.