Hint: they took part in MSD-2000s development (via AEG)
1 Like
Forgive me, but was there not an equivalent to Ferranti in Germany that was also invested in ECR-90?
When people realize APG-65 is from the 1970s, and more recent sales is cause it’s cheap to produce having all of its R&D costs paid off.
sigh…
No one in Europe seems to understand or have understood the crime of cheaping on defence haha
2 Likes
Don’t think so.
Another reason: MSD-2000 was already pre-selected by Germany due to the TKF-90 program.
Allegedly less than 15% of the radar would come from US, and APG-65GY was already produced under license in Germany - afaik US hasn’t got a veto on products that were developed from their technology, hence why AIM-9L-I(1) took over the market.
1 Like
The comment about Germany wanting to make an F-18 equivalent 20 years too late is even funnier when you consider that Germany wanted to use the F404 engines from the F-18 instead of developing the EJ200:
That comes from a letter written by Ministerial Director Wolfgang Ruppelt, Head of Armaments Department at the Federal Ministry of Defense.
6 Likes
ASRAAM in the corner with restricted export
Germany: “Do we buy F-16s or F-18s to replace our F-4s? Nah, just upgrade the F-4F.”
3 Likes
So was Ferranti’s fear of veto on exports completely unfounded? Because in the letter Flame posted that seems to be their concern.
They might have get their parts to a US supplier for their engines however. And then ITAR can gets in the way.
I would assume an american design would integrate more US made parts
ASRAAMs seeker pre whatever upgrade they call it over there on the island was wholey identical to 9Xs and entirely a US development, no? So they have a veto on it because because of that.
MSD-2K was created by AEG & GEC-Marconi with minimal US involvement, and due to Germany holding a license for the APG-65 anyhow, they could do whatever they wanted with it (pretty sure they’re the ones behind Greece’s ICARUS F-4s too).
I think this is more of a case by case situation, but at the end of the day Ferranti’s fear was still warranted. I wouldn’t want US meddling in a European project in any way if possible… especially considering they’ve vetoed Germany’s F-104 zero-zero capable seat upgrade just a few years earlier, and we all know how that ended don’t we.
1 Like
Other countries (Sweden^^ e.g.) get TT gaps fixed with foreign nation imports. Or even full subtree imports. Germany gets nothing it seems. Dutch F-16? Polish F-16?
2 Likes
Hunter shhhhh
I’d push for Austrian or Swiss rather than Netherlands and Poland.
AIM-9L and AIM-7 only F-18C would be a valid 12.0 for Germany, or 9Ms for 12.7.
Been awhile seeing you lol
Yeah the plane no one asked for. I don’t like it.
- There wasn’t a gap at 9.7 BR. So why did we get it?
- Its just not a good plane for Air RB and for GRB ordnance pieces are too limited.
2 Likes
I mean, the Brits wanted it lmao
APG-73 didn’t have a CW illuminator so AIM-7 can’t be used.
AIM-7F/M don’t use CW illuminators to begin with, they’re backward compatible, but that’s not their primary method.
1 Like
Or trusting the americans
3 Likes