Register here

Author Topic: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)  (Read 43054 times)

Offline Deltafan

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 727
Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Reply #210 on: March 02, 2019, 04:24:57 pm »
I have yet to see a project of any kind, involving the french, that went anywhere worth going.  Dumbed down cheapened products for huge amounts of outlay, not much of it french.  Personally I would leave them to develop their own products and do likewise.  It would be cheaper and we would have a better product at the end.
-In 2010, the French National Audit Office said that the Rafale program has increased by 16.5% since the beginning of the program
https://www.lesechos.fr/10/04/2015/lesechos.fr/0204293660236_le-rafale-en-cinq-questions.htm
(translation of the relevant sentence) : "These figures show that the unit price increased by 16.5% compared to the original estimate of 1988)

-In 2011, the British National Audit Office said that the EF program has increased by 75% since the beginning of the program
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1011755.pdf

For better product or not It would be too long to bring here tons of anglo-saxonians articles which say since 30 years that the EF is better and tons of french articles which say since 30 years that the Rafale is better.

Good night ;)


Offline Deltafan

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 727
Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Reply #211 on: March 02, 2019, 04:30:39 pm »
And had France not done this selfish silliness rafalish thing, we would have had a beautifully designed fighter like the Typhoon, and would have had to order the all mighty F-35 later as a striker and for the carrier... Oh god, how stupid we are, it would certainly have been much cheaper..
and Blair even mentioned for a while the possibility of a navalized EF (one of the reasons for the disagreement between the countries of the EF consortium with France when the program had to be common ;) )

Well, maybe if everyone agrees that the builders and the users of the EF are satisfied and that the builder and users of the Rafale are also satisfied, it would avoid unnecessary discussions that lead to nothing, since everyone will remain anyway on his opinion ;)

And for NGF and Tempest II, they have around 22 years to success or collapse. It may be better to judge at this time what has worked or not (even if, if they succeed, the builders and users of everyone will say that theirs is the best ;D )

« Last Edit: March 02, 2019, 04:48:48 pm by Deltafan »

Offline red admiral

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 546
Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Reply #212 on: March 03, 2019, 12:33:55 am »
It didn't worked out well ? how so ?

I don't remember Dassault leading a European partnership for a new fighter last time that produced more than double the number of aircraft.

If Rafale worked out so for Dassault and France well last time, why are they pushing for a multinational approach this time around?

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Reply #213 on: March 03, 2019, 12:51:55 am »
It didn't worked out well ? how so ?

I don't remember Dassault leading a European partnership for a new fighter last time that produced more than double the number of aircraft.

If Rafale worked out so for Dassault and France well last time, why are they pushing for a multinational approach this time around?

By the same logic why would the UK now be undertaking a “solo run” re: whatever will emerge from “Project Tempest” when their last sole successful solo combat aircraft development was the first generation Harrier approx. 50 years ago and even that followed a string of failed “solo” developments with their international cooperation combat aircraft projects having a far better track record of success.

In the current context France & Dassault appear to see the merits of staying in the combat aircraft game going forward by teaming with Germany (principally) and Airbus.

While the UK and BaE are in contrast left investing in technology to demonstrate usefulness to potential partners while hopping/ praying they can build partnerships they realistically need for such a project to go anywhere in the future.
Mainly because of the “B” word....
« Last Edit: March 03, 2019, 01:07:38 am by kaiserd »

Offline galgot

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 289
Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Reply #214 on: March 03, 2019, 02:16:31 am »
It didn't worked out well ? how so ?

I don't remember Dassault leading a European partnership for a new fighter last time that produced more than double the number of aircraft.

If Rafale worked out so for Dassault and France well last time, why are they pushing for a multinational approach this time around?

You can't remember that because it never happened. Dassault never "leaded" a European partnership for a new fighter. So there is no way you know how it would have turned out… The point wasn't to be in a Euro fighter program at all cost, it was to be in it at terms they would be sure it would have been profitable to them, and to keep their knowhow in fighter planes. If these conditions weren't there, why be in?
And even more, if the plane that was to be build wasn't the one their principal customer (France) wanted.

They are pushing now for a multinational approach because, (a) they know a next gen fighter will be too expensive for a single country to finance, (b) they agree with it as long as they have the lead on the airframe design (as agreed by Fr/Gr govs so far), (c) and it's been agreed (so far) that the aircraft spec requirements will be defined only by the two starting project countries (Fr/Gr), which is at least better than having 5/6 countries asking what they want.

As far as Rafale, Dassault is very happy (and making lots €€) with it, and AdlA and Marine are delighted.
Just as Bae is happy with Typhoon, and RAF/RN are delighted with their Typhoon and F-35s…
« Last Edit: March 03, 2019, 02:27:57 am by galgot »

Offline red admiral

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 546
Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Reply #215 on: March 03, 2019, 03:32:31 am »
I find some of the views expressed here bizarre.

Dassault uber alles!

Offline galgot

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 289
Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Reply #216 on: March 03, 2019, 03:45:34 am »
As you like… I myself find bizarre that you think it didn’t worked out well for Dassault, when they are still in the fighter business and selling planes. And the AdlA/Marine have the plane they wanted and needed.

(Dassault (Marcel) being originally named Bloch and deported, the "uber alles!" is a nice touch…  ??? ...)

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3333
Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Reply #217 on: March 03, 2019, 04:35:28 am »
Please try to avoid going personal. FCAS could end as a conflictive topic if we put the focus in European Aerospace Industry rivalry only.

Offline _Del_

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 339
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Reply #218 on: March 03, 2019, 05:27:52 am »
I know politics made the split mostly inevitable, but I cannot help but imagine that both sides would have ultimately been happier with a joint product. The cost savings on development alone would be a bundle. Smaller workshare is offset by a larger program/production run. Which would have helped drop unit price for exports outside of the consortium, leading to possibly even more sales.
I have no dog in the fight. I sort of prefer the Rafale approach, but the Tiff is probably better suited to the UK requirements. Hard not to imagine that both parties could have been content, if not elated, about a compromise design, especially in light of the financial savings.
I don't think there is enough money/demand to support two healthy and independent 5/6-gen strike fighter programs out of Europe again. It's hard to believe neither "side" sees this.

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Reply #219 on: March 03, 2019, 06:43:26 am »
Considering the 'potential' savings from scale economics, it would make sense for a europe wide collaboration but frankly put, something always gets in the way.  This creates a situation where US companies gain the advantage and sales.  Very sad.

Offline galgot

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 289
Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Reply #220 on: March 03, 2019, 07:01:12 am »
Indeed. The problem are not much the Euro manufacturers, Bae, Dassault, Saab, you name it. They are working for their best interests and it’s understandable, it’s the business.
They have almost as many manufacturers in The US, that are also working each for their own interests, only there they deal with ONE very rich admin, where in Europe the Euro manufacturers have to deal with xx admins with less and less money demanding different things… So I wouldn’t put the blame on X company against Y company.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2019, 08:34:15 am by galgot »

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2148
Re: Future Combat Air System (FCAS)
« Reply #221 on: March 03, 2019, 08:18:37 am »
Rafale has been a well executed program in many ways, given PCW budget constraints (nuclear vs. conventional) and force structure: the smaller PCW air force had a very young fleet because the older F1s, IVs &c were retired, leaving a lot of very young M2Ks, but the Aeronavale could only stretch the F-8 so far. Hence the slow delivery starting with the very basic F1 standard; F2 and F3 arrived pretty much according to the late-90s schedule.

I can't blame Dassault in the least for not wanting to see a repetition of the Panavia/Eurofighter political problems. With four parliamentary democracies involved, it's almost inevitable that one or more will be in the throes or aftermath of an election whenever a decision has to be taken on a production tranche or upgrade investment, and while at present everyone is united against the Pootster there is no guarantee that this will prevail over the time taken to develop a major military capability.