NEWS ONLY: France-Germany-Spain Future Combat Air System (FCAS / SCAF / FSAC)

[kqcke for you]

Just a reminder with enough time and Money likely all nations could build a 6 Gen fighter...

 

[Big_Zukini]

Just a reminder with enough time and Money likely all nations could build a 6 Gen fighter...

Ahh yes. The Uganda air force.

 

[Reddington777]

I think the whole discussion here is kind of drawing arbitrary lines in the sand to a certain extent. Instead of speaking of fighters by generations, lets just stick to requirements, because beyond certain basic requirements, each country has their own needs. Of the five 6th gen fighters in development, China has already possibly took two different routes with theirs as has the US, which defined requirements for an air superiority fighter and a strike fighter. All four fighters would have different set of requirements on top of some shared trends.

We ought to ask ourselves what those core trends are:

1. High power generation
2. High thrust or variable thrust engines
3. Built in ability to function as a processing and command node for CCAs
4. Wide band gap / high capability AESA + EO/IR sensors.
5. Broadband, all aspect VLO.
6. Expanded range

We don't have to draw lines and say France needs to develop a F-47 or a J-36 for it to be a 6th gen fighter. We instead must ask: of those core requirements, at what level of each does SCAF want to deliver on? and at what level can France deliver on alone, albeit with a lesser pool of funds?

If new comers like Turkey and SK can deliver on a 5th generation fighter, I don't for a moment believe that France will struggle with the LO shaping, sensor, range, and processing requirements that France envisions for its own requirements of SCAF. France may or may not be able to execute on a F-47 or J-36 caliber of fighter, but again - France doesn't necessarily need an F-47 or a J-36 does it? As long as it can achieve the requirements it laid out for itself, there's no reason to believe France can't execute. If those requirements require a necessary reduction thanks to a collapse in the cooperation, then that's still achievable here.

Just as there's a capability spectrum of every fighter generation that came before, just because a fighter made certain tradeoffs and isn't as capable as others of the same generation are doesn't make it a lesser generation. You wouldn't say the F-16 was a 3rd generation fighter just because it had less range, weaponry and sensors as the F-15 or the F-14 did.

 

[H_K]

6. Expanded range

I'd quibble only with this last item, which reflects a very specific requirement for countries focused on the Pacific theatre (as well as the UK for very obvious reasons related to patrolling the GIUK gap).

There are plenty of countries who probably don't need long range - most European air forces, the Gulf states etc. So if someone comes up with a next gen fighter that meets requirements #1 through #5, but this fighter only has similar range to the F-22 or F-35, I don't see why it wouldn't be "6th gen" (whatever that means, anyway).

Of course more range on internal fuel is always nice, but there may be acceptable compromises for long range strike missions such as stealthy drop tanks, CFTs, and buddy refueling. These would still allow full VLO when needed and the resulting smaller platform would actually have better kinematic performance for air superiority missions.

 

[EmoBirb]

I've listened to all the audits of Dassault/Safran/Thales at the french parliament/senate and they all affirm that France CAN do it alone.

In my opinion this is the most important point you made.

However we should also keep in mind that industry players constantly say they're up to the task just to fall utterly flat in the process. Lockheed Martin and the F-35 are one such example, a rather recent, high profile and famous example on top of that. So I don't doubt that French industry would proclaim something like that, as they did. But reality would probably be devastatingly different and it seems like the French government shares these doubts and thus tries to remain attached to the multinational effort.

I wouldn’t say France is lagging behind, even if Turkey and South Korea are making impressive strides and their efforts have to be applauded !

I believe this could be it's very own debate. Contrary to what one may think reading my comments here I genuinely value and believe in the French MIC (I'm an avid observer of their naval efforts, which repeatedly turn out to be rather impressive and unique). But over recent decades the French aviation industry hasn't shown something that would make me confident in their capabilities to outpace Turkey and South Korea which got a headstart in the same segment. Their greatest asset is obviously the ability to develop indigenous engines, which is an impressive capability and sets them apart from many players in the global military aviation scene. So while I wouldn't say France is lagging behind, I also don't see much evidence to suggest that France on it's own is comfortably ahead of such nations. The Rafale is, all things considered, yesterday's news while KAAN and KF-21 are promising recent developments with considerable effort behind them. Not only to deliver the aircraft in question but efforts are made to involve international partners and finding customers.

Because of this I view France as a top notch participant in a multinational effort, bringing much to the table. But on their own? I'm much less sure of what they can deliver in this day and age (and I think this cannot be understated, we live in a very different era of aviation today) on their own. And I seriously doubt that they could deliver something comparable to GCAP, NGAD and FCAS without other partners. And while some partners are preferable than others, most of the ones brought up in this discussion/speculation so far have benefits. Even the least high profile one I proposed, like HAL would be able to provide a large workforce, expansion potential, cash and most likely a very large initial order (perhaps even opting for a carrier version too) as well as serving as a jumping point in the Asian market.

So unless France carts out some insane technology demonstrator, it remains unknown where their industry (Dassault in particular) stands compared to emerging and established players in the military aviation sector.

______________________________

On the note of comparisons to other programs and requirements:

France/Dassault has in large part penned the requirements for FCAS in cooperation with Germany/Airbus and Spain/Indra. So the scope and requirements laid out for FCAS so far should be, in large part, representative of what France wants out of such a development or needs. And FCAS can be compared to the likes of GCAP and NGAD I'd say, being contemporary projects which in certain parts have shared requirements (system of systems, improved sensor suite, improved signature reduction, new and advanced engines/variable cycle engines, network centric approach etc). And seeing the scope of FCAS right now, of NGAD and the GCAP program (and just suspecting the scale of the chinese effort), it's where my doubts originate that Dassault could deliver something comparable on their own in a comparable time frame. If the French requirements would be vastly different from FCAS, it would be more than surprising, given their influence on setting up these requirements and knowing that there may have been some compromises, they are certainly not complete unaligned with French desires.

______________________________

Last but not least, this program isn't only about delivering a satisfying service aircraft/system but also about retaining core competencies and knowledge to remain first class players in the aviation sector. So aiming for anything that's not equally advanced as the Chinese and American efforts fails in this important goal and would basically spell defeat for the continental European military aviation industry (which has been lagging behind the US, then China, then Russia, now South Korea and Turkey for a while now). FCAS is in part meant to proof that "Europe still has it". The other option is continuing to rely on the Eurofighter and Rafale (hey they're still selling, right?), maybe getting a couple drones off the ground here and there and quicker than one may expect complete irrelevance on the international market has set in. This is awfully clear to the folks at Airbus, Dassault and whoever else has a stake in this program. If that wasn't the case, this program would have already fallen apart for good.

 

[Titus K]

I believe this could be it's very own debate. Contrary to what one may think reading my comments here I genuinely value and believe in the French MIC (I'm an avid observer of their naval efforts, which repeatedly turn out to be rather impressive and unique). But over recent decades the French aviation industry hasn't shown something that would make me confident in their capabilities to outpace Turkey and South Korea which got a headstart in the same segment. Their greatest asset is obviously the ability to develop indigenous engines, which is an impressive capability and sets them apart from many players in the global military aviation scene. So while I wouldn't say France is lagging behind, I also don't see much evidence to suggest that France on it's own is comfortably ahead of such nations.

I find that statement pretty astonishing, to be honest. Are we really saying that France’s entire aviation industry is somehow lagging behind Turkey and South Korea ? That seems like quite an overreach...

You brought up the naval sector, and while France certainly distinguishes itself there, nuclear propulsion being a particularly major differentiator, I’d argue that outside of that unique capability, other European nations, as well as Turkey and South Korea, have much less to envy in France’s naval ecosystem than in its aviation sector.

The Rafale is, all things considered, yesterday's news while KAAN and KF-21 are promising recent developments with considerable effort behind them. Not only to deliver the aircraft in question but efforts are made to involve international partners and finding customers.

Of course, KAAN and KF-21 are noteworthy and they deserve credit for the progress made.

But again, you seem to completely dismiss the first Neuron and the ongoing UCAV program that aim to deliver a stealth aiframe of the same empty mass as a Rafale to the Air Force in the early 2030's and ~5 years later to the Navy...

To be honest, I’d even argue that this UCAV program poses greater challenges than manned fighter projects like KAAN or KF-21 in many aspects.
Especially when you consider s that France is pursuing it while simultaneously carrying out major upgrades to the Rafale, and at the same time preparing to work on a next-generation Rafale successor ... whether independently or within the FCAS framework.

 

[snne]

@H_K let's just say that until Dassault rolls out a demonstrator or prototype for a manned stealth aircraft, one shouldn't overestimate their capabilities or believe they're firmly ahead of countries that did such a thing already.

Next people will claim Dassault and their 80s design are ahead of CAC and SAC...

Their industry in general is more mature and experienced, but unless it keeps getting refined by developing new major technologies and products, they will actually fall behind by a bit even with a head start.

I'd say these countries are roughly in the same league (besides France having Safran) capability-wise, but TAI and KAI have both already developed (i.e., frozen teh design of) their flying wing, CCA and stealth manned jets (Kaan and KF-21B3); whereas the Neuron was -for a long time-, only a technology development project, and the FCAS is meant to become available in the 2040s with no intermediary product in between. Upgrading the Rafale continously simply won't cut it and they're late by a decade/a decade and a half to fix things.

 

[red admiral]

The other less visible aspect with all these programmes is the software to make it all work. More functionality generally means more software and more complexity. I'm unclear whether any of these programmes is doing to be able to successfully deliver this quanity of software in a reasonable time, and keep it updated.

We ought to ask ourselves what those core trends are:

1. High power generation
2. High thrust or variable thrust engines
3. Built in ability to function as a processing and command node for CCAs
4. Wide band gap / high capability AESA + EO/IR sensors.
5. Broadband, all aspect VLO.
6. Expanded range

National requirements are likely to vary a lot depending on context

Currently "6th gen" characteristics are pretty unclear, apart from maybe better sensors

 

[Reddington777]

The other less visible aspect with all these programmes is the software to make it all work. More functionality generally means more software and more complexity. I'm unclear whether any of these programmes is doing to be able to successfully deliver this quanity of software in a reasonable time, and keep it updated.

As much as you guys hate these terms - "open sourced", common interface / APIs, plug and play subsystems + subsystems software. Nobody writes monolithic software anymore and the more modular and independent your software is these days, the more flexibility and resilience you will have.

Your central control software will have interfaces/sockets for sensors and weapon systems completely agnostic of software and hardware. It just needs a common set of parameters that any hardware + software plugging into the system needs to provide to the central control software.

So the long lead item in software would be the central control system + whatever interface and APIs the plane needs to do it's job. The parameters required by these central components are then shared with individual vendors for sensors, weapons and what not, where they can work in parallel with each other given that their software sufficiently feeds into the central systems.

With the same philosophy, you can regularly update individual software components without the need to touch the central system or other parts of the system. You can also plug in new hardware provided that it fits and it provides all the requisite arguments to the central system. Central systems updates would probably be relatively infrequent once mature. Subsystem updates would happen constantly and as quickly as possible while also have updates that need to keep up with the central system updates.

The difficulty here probably lies in how you plan out your central hardware to be the processor, translator and director of data sources to data consumers so that it is truly hardware and software agnostic. If you screw this part up, then vendors potentially have to update or even rewrite portions of the software to keep up.

 

[H_K]

Currently "6th gen" characteristics are pretty unclear, apart from maybe better sensors

6th Gen fighter requirements (my take)

1) Avionics: F-35 Block IV or better (advanced AESA and electro-optical sensors, collaborative targeting etc)
2) Stealth: F-22 or better (ideally YF-23 level)
3) Kinematics: Eurofighter or F-22 like
4) Manned-unmanned teaming: able to quarterback unmanned offboard sensors, decoys, and effectors
5) Wild card: AI-driven onboard intelligence

 

[EmoBirb]

Power generation and management is one of the most publicly discussed criteria, laid out by the Chinese designers on multiple occasions as an important aspect of next generation designs. After all advanced avionics, sensors and networking capabilities (and DEWs in the future) need to be powered and their power draw and cooling needs to be meticulously managed.

 

[Avimimus]

National requirements are likely to vary a lot depending on context

Currently "6th gen" characteristics are pretty unclear, apart from maybe better sensors

I agree, it is unclear.

Another way of looking at this is from a 'push' rather than 'pull' perspective: What factors are driving development of these technologies?

Observations:
- The last decade has seen considerable improvements in radar technologies.
- We're also seeing the development of sensor fusion across multiple platforms and the ability to hand-off guidance of missiles between multiple aircraft or even between airborne and ships.
- There may also be improvements in sensor autonomy and missile on-board IFF (little evidence for this other than as a potential implication of greater networking/datalinks for the latter and fear of forward basing for the former).

This means that sensor/sensor denial warfare is more important. It explains why broadband stealth, more powerful sensors (and greater power generation to support them), and heavier payloads are important. It also gives a reason why you'd go for supercruise and generally avoid WVR - because other networked assets may be firing on you, you want to avoid remaining in the acquisition window for longer than necessary.

The increased range requirements might be a result of Japan, the United States, and China preparing for Pacific operations. The appearance of variable-cycle engines would seem to be non-essential - it is a nice technology if it is already matured enough, but can partly be compensated for not having the technology maturity through carrying more fuel (if you really need it). DEWs are more a matter of technology maturity (and having increased feasibility due to greater onboard power already being in place for supporting more powerful sensors). Both may be common, but aren't essential.

So based on that I would go with:
- Broadband stealth.
- More power generation for sensors (as well as modern sensors).
- Datalinks networking with other systems (manned or unmanned) to allow sharing detection or guidance.
- Supercruise capabilities?

Everything else is negotiable. I'm even a bit unsure if supercruise should be in there.

 

[Reddington777]

Sorry but for me, these enumerations are merely the natural progressions of a 5thGen. fighter.
In my mind, I would even characterize a tailless-design as a +5thGen. feature.

Sure. Thats if you ignore the leaps and bounds these areas of technologies have come since the latest 5th gens were first developed and only look at surface level stuff.

But if you are talking about an unmanned, high-end fighter aircraft with an AI-Pilot for 99% of the time (with dedicated satellites etc.) or a mesosphere fighter…

You realize that all CCAs are capable of being 100% AI piloted right? The pilot isnt controlling how the planes fly and with AI being integrated to BMS, CCAs can already just take the mission autonomously, plan out and execute tactical maneuvers already.

The only reason you dont want that is because AI tends to have limited contextual ability that lends itself to making stupid mistakes and also because you want to have human oversight no matter how good your AI is. These two things are never going away. That means the chance of there being a fully autonomous system that spends its entire service life being fully autonomous is basically zero - both now and in the future until we not only get general AI (which wont happen) and it matures enough to become trusted (which also wont happen).

 

[galgot]

Sure. Thats if you ignore the leaps and bounds these areas of technologies have come since the latest 5th gens were first developed and only look at surface level stuff.

You realize that all CCAs are capable of being 100% AI piloted right? The pilot isnt controlling how the planes fly and with AI being integrated to BMS, CCAs can already just take the mission autonomously, plan out and execute tactical maneuvers already.

The only reason you dont want that is because AI tends to have limited contextual ability that lends itself to making stupid mistakes and also because you want to have human oversight no matter how good your AI is. These two things are never going away. That means the chance of there being a fully autonomous system that spends its entire service life being fully autonomous is basically zero - both now and in the future until we not only get general AI (which wont happen) and it matures enough to become trusted (which also wont happen).

How IA is implemented is also a sensitive issue for the policy makers, particularly with something that could carry a nuke :

... there is the third level of AI, which we are going to introduce into civil and military cockpits. It is much more sensitive and we are developing it internally with our engineers, although we do occasionally use start-ups and external capabilities. The amount of data coming into a cockpit is becoming unmanageable for a single pilot; we have put filters in place, so we will need to have ‘cockpit crew members’, i.e. AI that can assist the pilot. In the military field, the aim is to help the pilot accomplish their mission, particularly if there is a combat drone, bearing in mind that in the algorithm we are designing, humans are involved in every stage of the decision-making process, whether on the ground or in the Rafale aircraft. we will have to demonstrate to our leaders that it is indeed humans who make the decisions, and not AI capable of making decisions on its own, which would worry our fellow citizens.

From COMPTES RENDUS DE LA COMMISSION DES AFFAIRES ETRANGERES, DE LA DEFENSE ET DES FORCES ARMEES, Fr Sénat.
And yes, it's him again, sorry (not) to Trappierphobics.

 

[Reddington777]

Difference between 3rd and 4th generation aircraft were the fly-by-wire controls.
For the 5th Gen., there was the introduction of the computer powered sensor fusion + stealth.

Excuse me if I’m expecting a bigger change/leap to call something next generational.

You have not grasped what system of systems warfare is let alone what 6th gen (or really next gen from 5th gen) platform really means. You are still stuck comparing air frame to air frame when that's far from what 6th gen fighters embody.

Sure, you can say system of systems warfare comes from an evolution of what we already knew during the gulf war and what the latest batch of 5th gen fighters embody (namely F35, J20 and J35), but the hardware to support such a concept far exceeds what 5th gen fighters are capable of - even after upgrading them to their fullest extent.

Network centric warfare, datalink and PGMs are nothing new nor is stealth, but by today's standards, that mode of connectedness is increasingly limited. 5th gen fighters sought to become processing nodes of information in addition to their sensing and stealth capabilities, but even then - the amount of information you need to integrate and the scale of what you can do with that information requires computation far in excess of what even latest 5th generation fighters can provide. With 4th gen fighters, each plane was it's own organism and that only changed towards the end of 4th gen development. 5th gen fighters, you had individual flights that functioned as a single organism as your sensors and shooters were all coming from the same general area. 6th gen system refers to the entire joint force in theater functioning as a single organism.

Systems of systems warfare was the answer to increasingly interconnected IADS and truly fully networked, and resilient warfare. Your sensors, shooters, jammers and command nodes may or may not be the same platform and may or may not even be in the same immediate battlespace. The sheer amount and speed of information sharing you have to receive, process and transmit expands exponentially. Your sensors are as large as ground based radars and as small as quadcopters that guide stand off munitions from F-35s. Your shooters can be a LAV sitting behind you or a hypersonic weapon fired halfway across the world. Everything from ground based systems to hundreds of thousands of quadcopters operating across the theater, plus thousands of satellites in the sky - they all need to be connected by a single nervous system with ABMS as the brain. If I had to liken this operating concept to an animal, it would be an octopus.

Just as octopi's entire nervous system functions also as the brain, the manned/PCA part of the system of systems serves a similar purpose making up the major architecture of the nervous system:

• A processing node for data coming from possibly mid hundreds of sensors within a battlespace (which is far greater information required of 5th gens)
• A relay node that enables fires that increasingly come from far outside your immediate battlespace (can't do this without high loiter time, much greater power gen, and low observability an order of magnitude greater than 5th gens when averaged across all aspects)
• An AI enhanced command node that pushes processing to the edge of the network to allow faster response loops while greatly diminishing the amount of network traffic and delay that would occur passing information back to ABMS constantly

This necessarily requires the following technology that, in some cases, are almost the same generational leap between your first IBM computers and a recent smart phone.

1. High power generation
   • The F-35 engine mounted generators supplies 160kW, you're looking at up to 1 mW of power for 6th gen fighters - probably with capacity for future growth too as DEW weapons make their way to fighters. Good luck getting that into a 5th gen jet.
2. High thrust or variable thrust engines
   • You no longer have to make a choice between supersonic and subsonic efficiency. You could transit far greater distances with far greater loiter time while employing just as much combat thrust as before with the added benefit of providing unprecendent cooling.
3. Built in ability to function as a processing and command node for CCAs
   • Been through this already. The sheer amount of information being processed onboard far exceeds 5th gens. You'll likely have AI software onboard doing signals processing, flying your plane, suggesting maneuvers and providing command guidance to units in and out of theater. If you've ever bothered running an ML model on a shitty computer, you'd know that the processing power and corresponding power requirement far exceeds what your walmart bought 300USD laptop can handle.
4. Wide band gap / high capability AESA + EO/IR sensors.
   • Wide band gap sensors (Ga2O3, AlN, Diamond) - much higher power and heat tolerance than GaN let alone GaAs, which still is the norm for most currently active 5th gen fighter fleets. That means they are much higher resolution, with narrower beams, greater range with less cooling demands. It also means that you have a far greater set of parallel functionality that can be ran on any number of distributed arrays across the platform - transmission, detection, jamming and receiving happening at the same time, with a lot less reduction in power to each parallel process.
   • Sure - you can integrate much of this into current fighters, but once again, you hit a power ceiling at a certain point that limits their ability to take advantage of these sensors. Even current iterations of airborne GaN radars retrofitted onto 4th and 5th gens still don't fully take advantage of just how much greater functionality you can squeeze out of GaN let alone AIN and Diamond - hence the 1 MW of power requirements for 6th gen fighters even though at their introduction, they likely will only have GaN arrays.
5. Broadband, all aspect VLO
   • IR signature management is likely to be much greater. This is pretty evident already in the exhaust configuration on the J-36. If PW's render for the X103 is true to form, then F-47 will likely also have a highly concealed exhaust
   • 6th gen's aren't likely to have substantially lower frontal RCS, but it's RCS signature may well reach frontal aspect reduction levels at other aspects as well - thanks to generally having less reflectors than 5th gen fighters.
6. Purpose built battlespace management control node
   • As mentioned above, given 6th gen fighter's roles as a command platform, it'll likely have some form of battle management system onboard that can command a wide range of aerial assets. To my knowledge - that's not a feature that most 6th gen fighters have yet (maybe with the exception of the J20S and possibly a block4 F-35 which ... is only getting started on). Even the F-22 is getting that in a form of a tablet.
7. Much more developed modular software architecture - the one thing that truly stands out in terms of a next generation fighter.
   • I already went through the software portion in a previous comment so I'm not going to talk about it too much. You can't be competitive in the current level of network integration given the intensity and rate of EW and cyber warfare being undertaken today.
   • You also can't be competitive if you cannot treat your new platform like a gaming computer. New ultra-semis enabled sensors and software, new arrays need to be integrated as they become available. That necessarily means future engine upgrades and air frame changes to accommodate such hardware. Upgrades need to be integrated as they become available and not as part of a proprietary package from a sole vendor that takes 10 years to hit the front lines, in which time it's already become obsolete. As much as people hate the terms modular, open mission systems and dismiss it as bullshit, the future of warfare belongs to the one who can most quickly take technology from academia to industry and from industry to military. If every single time you need to update a sensor, you necessarily have to build a new aircraft or even make outer mold line changes, you are for all intents and purposes, done for.

These functions, taken in tandem with the sheer amount of distributed sensing, jamming, and shooters as well as the broader information network, completes the 6th generation system and not simply a single air frame.

Omitting the human inside the fighter would be one of these kind of big changes. (possible or not, that is a story for another thread)

If this were the case, MQ-9 Reaper would, by your definition, be next gen. And we've been through this in other threads too - that's not happening. Not now and not into the future. There will always be manned fighters and manned platforms alongside unmanned ones.

 

[DWG]

As much as you guys hate these terms - "open sourced", common interface / APIs, plug and play subsystems + subsystems software. Nobody writes monolithic software anymore and the more modular and independent your software is these days, the more flexibility and resilience you will have.

Your central control software will have interfaces/sockets for sensors and weapon systems completely agnostic of software and hardware. It just needs a common set of parameters that any hardware + software plugging into the system needs to provide to the central control software.

That's how every system I worked on from 1985 worked.

 

[Reddington777]

That's how every system I worked on from 1985 worked.

Surprising comment considering you apparently write code.

If you touched code before, you ought to know how far open architecture systems have come since even the F-35. Even more so if you actually stop to think about how much trouble the F-22 and F-35 have had integrating new systems onboard.

Sure, stuff like MIL-STD-1760 dictated a certain level of plug and play for the mechanical and electrical interface for pylons, connectors and what not, but you still needed aircraft specific software to employ it. The same applied to comms and sensors. You could never change one thing and not make changes to something else in the actual aircraft's software. Even 5th gen fighters with their tightly integrated avionics still required software coupling between the thing being integrated and the software for the jet itself.

The F-22's software was already described before as being monolithic - as in highly integrated, interdependent code bases from machine code on up. It's what makes upgrading the F-22 difficult. F-35's software was already a large improvement over that, but that's partially hampered due to the nature of the program itself. Might I remind you too - that as recent as this year, LM said the integration of the APG-85 is delayed as there needs to be outer mold line changes made to the nose to accommodate it. Whether it's hardware or software (as mentioned above), 4th, 5th and 6th gen fighters developed of late have all embraced MOSA at a hardware and software level in excess of the F-35 let alone... 1985.

MOSA dictates standard, verifiable interfaces with swappable modules on both hardware and software. It strives to completely insulate each system. That's not something that was done for 5th gen fighters let alone .... 1985. Even then - complete insulation and modularity is an aspiration. New hardware may well invite new forms of data being processed, which necessarily means updates to the aircraft's own controlling software must be updated to (coupling) in order to take full advantage.

Your comment is just like the other guys above - leaps in technology doesn't have to be a new technology per se (even though in both cases it is both). It can be greatly expanding what already exists but was previously limited, let alone open architecture software, which is absolutely not something that existed in its current form in ... 1985. Is an IBM main frame the same as your Iphone? Is your car the same level of sophistication as a Ford model T? Is your logistic regression the same as a ChatGPT?

 

[DWG]

Surprising comment considering you apparently write code.

Yes, software practises have moved on, but the picture you're drawing of earlier systems is inaccurate. Systems talked to each other via databus, as long as they could send and receive data in the correct format, the aircraft didn't care what hardware or software they were running. In fact in the 777 PFCS we were compiling precisely the same software onto three different processors, it made zero difference.

The same applied to comms and sensors. You could never change one thing and not make changes to something else in the actual aircraft's software.

Take flight control systems. As long as the air data and aircraft attitude is being transmitted over the databus, and stick/switch info is coming from the cockpit, we could add new functionality without any impact on other systems. Similarly with HUDs, as long as they get the relevant aircraft info and switch info, we could add new functionality - for instance a new gunsight symbol and algorithm, with precisely zero changes required to the rest of the aircraft.

 

[Reddington777]

Yes, software practises have moved on, but the picture you're drawing of earlier systems is inaccurate.

I will acknowledge that modularity as a concept isn't new and if you say so, then I'll take your word for it, but what I will not agree with you on is what you said - that everything I listed was already being done in 1985 because that's just not true.

Yeah, you have common data buses and that made boxes interchangeable, but even in your own example - you weren't integrating completely new systems. There weren't weapons and sensors being added. There was no way to add a weapon / sensor to an aircraft without touching the OFP and there was no way you could shove it onto different platforms without bespoke work. So sure - consider that to be modularity but it's still in no way comparable. Hell even with current standards, there's still stuff that you can't just put on a plane just because it requires data that your plane's software either doesn't have the interface for yet or requires extra work for - like adding a DEW.

The universal armament interface as defined by the USAF is explicitly about integrating weapons independent of the OFP. It puts forth a common interface that standardizes aircraft, weapon and mission planning so weapons can be added independent of an aircraft's OFP cycle. UAI is just one part of it. There are also hardware/backplanes that allow you to swap RF/compute cards that allow high interoperability across platforms. This is a significant and concerted effor that spans far wider than a single platform, sensor or weapon system.

 

[Hood]

Hey folks, there is a whole thread where you can splurge your fantasy 6th Gen tech wishlists: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sixth-generation-fighter-design-and-speculations.44857/

Can we please keep to the topic in hand - seems a hard skill to do these days.

 

[DWG]

There was no way to add a weapon / sensor to an aircraft without touching the OFP

Which OFP? You keep talking like there's only one of them.

And it is in fact possible to add weapons or sensors without modifying existing software/hardware, it's been done using tablets as the interface/controller. For that matter there's a discussion on here somewhere of a patent that basically provided for layering another weapons interface over the top of the existing one without changing the original - I think it was in relation to adding either Western weapons onto a Russian system or vice versa. Though that's also been achieved using the tablet approach.

Ukrainian Fighter Jets “Using iPads” To Control Western Weapons

The Pentagon's top weapons buyer talked about Ukraine’s success in using tablets to integrate Western weapons on its Soviet jets.

www.twz.com

Turkish F-16s Are Using Tablets To Control Locally Made Weapons

Tablets are an increasingly popular way of fast-tracking the integration of new capabilities on a variety of aerial platforms. Tablets are an increasingly popular way of fast-tracking the integration of new capabilities on a variety of aerial platforms.

www.twz.com

It's possible there is some modification of existing hardware/software in these cases, it's also possible there's precisely none. It will be simpler if you can piggyback on the 1553 and 1760 databuses, but it isn't essential, and it will be far simpler for testing purposes/implementation speed if you stay out of the existing hardware/software.

Just because something can be done one way doesn't mean it can only be done one way, and just because something is built to be used in one specific way doesn't mean you can't subvert that for other purposes - as an example, the discussions around the Ahmedabad crash revealed that Boeing were using the data fields of the 777's databus messages to carry the complete messages of an entirely different proprietary protocol (I've done something similar myself, using redundant fields in a database we couldn't modify to add entirely different functionality).

 

[Reddington777]

Which OFP? You keep talking like there's only one of them.

Mission computers, armament stores, sensor formats, modes, cueing etc plus the weapon's own OFPs. In your 777 example, all of those new features you could add did not involve tacking on hardware and software that wasn't made for the plane originally did it?

You said yourself "as long as you can send and receive data in the correct format" then you didn't require any software changes. That's all well and true. But do tell me - what happens when a new sensor provides different types of data in formats that aren't directly translatable to previously known sensor formats, possesses different modes of operation and requires symbology that's different?

Is retrofitting an AESA radar onto what was previously a pulse doppler going to require zero changes in your aircraft's own systems? How are you going to integrate an ARH missile onto an interface that used to only support SARH? How would you integrate a foreign made weapon onto your own platform without jerry rigging suboptimal solutions?

Even in less extreme cases where weapons may or may not share a similar function/form factor/guidance, if it speaks a different "language" than other similar weapons i.e different ICDs, different mission planning data that requires different displays, different arming logic, inflight updates etc - if any of these things require something different than what is currently in place, you have OFP changes.

Hell even with MOSA and UAI, these problems don't completely go away. It just mitigates more of these issues.

And it is in fact possible to add weapons or sensors without modifying existing software/hardware, it's been done using tablets as the interface/controller.


It's possible there is some modification of existing hardware/software in these cases, it's also possible there's precisely none. It will be simpler if you can piggyback on the 1553 and 1760 databuses, but it isn't essential, and it will be far simpler for testing purposes/implementation speed if you stay out of the existing hardware/software.

And that's not at all the same as what we were talking about. If FCAS/SCAF slaps a tablet into it's cockpit at first introduction, something's gone very very wrong.

You can always add proprietary software onto an underlying system but if I wasn't limited by time (as in actively in war like UAF is) and wasn't limited by software access (as in not vendor locked, or different country i.e F-22 or any number of aggressor aircraft), why the hell would I want to choose suboptimal software layering overhead and extra hardware in an already stuffed cockpit?

We aren't talking about just legacy platform compatibility here. We are talking about an entire new framework built from the bottom up for a new generation of fighters that will herald in an entirely new generation of weapons. The added benefit is that it also encompassed legacy platforms and weapons into the guidelines.

Just because something can be done one way doesn't mean it can only be done one way, and just because something is built to be used in one specific way doesn't mean you can't subvert that for other purposes

As I said previously - when technology allows you to develop a much much better solution that is applicable to a wide variety of platforms, why would I still choose the less efficient, less optimal solution?

Also adapting things for what it wasn't intended for sounds like shitty software practices by modern standards. Sure - if you didn't have a choice you didn't have a choice but the key here is we have a choice now to change how things are done going forward that precludes the need for you to jerry rig shit that wasn't meant to be.

And just for the sake of it - according to a certain ppt from the Air Armaments Center, SDBII was the first capability to be fielded that didn't require OFP changes - done in 2014:

 

[DWG]

In your 777 example, all of those new features you could add did not involve tacking on hardware and software that wasn't made for the plane originally did it?

My 777 example was: "Yes, software practises have moved on, but the picture you're drawing of earlier systems is inaccurate. Systems talked to each other via databus, as long as they could send and receive data in the correct format, the aircraft didn't care what hardware or software they were running. In fact in the 777 PFCS we were compiling precisely the same software onto three different processors, it made zero difference." Which was intended to illustrate that the system is hardware agnostic, as long as the right messages turn up it didn't matter if they were being executed on a box containing an AMD 29010, Power PC or 68000 series processor (three of each on the aircraft), or if that hardware had been changed. And also to illustrate that we expected updates, some of which added entirely new functionality. ISTR the gust alleviation function on the 777 was either completely new post 777-300 entry into service, or substantially redesigned, to cater for increased 'tail wag' forces in the longer fuselage making passengers air sick (after my time on the project, so I'm going off second-hand reports). AIUI that added entirely new sensors on the tail. Another example (software only) would be the Enhanced Envelope Gunsight on the F-16, which was being written from scratch just as I joined Airborne Displays, as an in-service update for the existing F-16C/D Wide Angle HUD, so suddenly pilots had an extra option as they cycled through HUD modes.

You said yourself "as long as you can send and receive data in the correct format" then you didn't require any software changes.

That's a rather misleading quotation, what I said was "Systems talked to each other via databus, as long as they could send and receive data in the correct format, the aircraft didn't care what hardware or software they were running." It's like adding a new PC or printer to your home network, as long as it's ethernet compatible the network doesn't care. If you mean not requiring software changes in adding new functionality, then was a different point entirely relating to the use of tablets to bypass the existing weapons management system. You seem to be squishing together two separate points: 1) that 80s/90s era OFPs were much more modular than you were presenting, and 2) that it's possible to piggyback new systems into aircraft without opting for full integration, as seen in tablet solutions.

And that's not at all the same as what we were talking about.

You were saying things couldn't be done without open systems, I provided a few examples where they were.

As I said previously - when technology allows you to develop a much much better solution that is applicable to a wide variety of platforms, why would I still choose the less efficient, less optimal solution?

I thought the Turkish and Ukrainian examples were pretty clear about reasons you might do it, such as not having access into the existing software/hardware.

Also adapting things for what it wasn't intended for sounds like shitty software practices by modern standards.

Sounds like real-life to me. The statistical defect tracking/continual process improvement programme I developed by layering it on our existing problem reporting tool was a significant contributor to BAE Systems Rochester being awarded CMM Level 4, so if the Capability Maturity Model assessors from USAF Systems Command considered it an example of industry-wide best practise ....

 

[Reddington777]

This is veering far off topic.

You were saying things couldn't be done without open systems, I provided a few examples where they were.

No. I said:

Nobody writes monolithic software anymore and the more modular and independent your software is these days, the more flexibility and resilience you will have

I'll let RAND do the talking for me. Directly from this report:

[On federated avionics systems]

Early OFPs had software for each embedded subsystem with sequential logic and Boolean
decision trees...For EW, mission data were hardwired
into the OFP software. This resulted in the addition of conditional logic for special cases with
each update (new capability or mission requirement), creating monolithic software that is
difficult to maintain and does not lend itself to redesign into logical components

[On Integrated Modular Mission Systems]

For legacy platforms with federated avionics architecture, many of the OFPs (in
the OFP suite for various subsystems) have monolithic software with no specific core design.197
New capabilities and enhancements result in additional layers of conditional software code and
updates to interfaces between subsystems. Due to this lack of decoupling of deployable code, an
OFP software deployment for even a single subsystem generally requires end-to-end platform
testing for safety certification, DT&E, and OT&E.

[On OMS]

The concepts of open avionics and OSA have been around for over two decades. SOA and OSA have been applied to embedded weapon systems and avionics software design and implementation for several years...

Even in legacy platforms with federated architecture, SOA has been implemented in subsystem OFPs—for example, the OFP for the fire control computer of
the Block 30 F-16 aircraft...

And yet:

While the number of systems implementing some form of portable modules is growing, weapon system software is very far from being platform agnostic, reusable, or extensible. Platforms with complex avionics software systems with varied supply chains of modules that are developed on different architectures and standards are still the norm. Many platforms still have system integration
issues with every release, as mentioned above.

OMS has been around as a concept for a long time and certain things have adopted OMS but it sounds like that's far far away from being the norm

By your own words, you've added the very qualifier that justifies what I'm talking about:

long as the right messages turn up

It depends entirely upon what kind of data you want to extract from the added item and whether that data can or cannot be transferred via the current interface you have. Just because you think a few instances here and there allowed you to add stuff without changing anything doesn't mean that it's the norm.

ISTR the gust alleviation function on the 777 was either completely new post 777-300 entry into service, or substantially redesigned, to cater for increased 'tail wag' forces in the longer fuselage making passengers air sick (after my time on the project, so I'm going off second-hand reports).

From the FAA air worthiness directive:

The gust suppression function on the Boeing Model 777 airplanes is a non-essential feature of the essential flight control system.

From the Avionics Handbook:

... the command for these functions are calculated in the PFCs and included as part of the normal rudder command to the main rudder actuators....The gust suppression system reduces airplane tag wag by sensing wind gusts via pressure transducers mounted on the vertical tail fin and applying a rudder command to oppose the movement ...

Sounds like adding a sensor requires modification to control logic too, which is an OFP change.

Another example (software only) would be the Enhanced Envelope Gunsight on the F-16, which was being written from scratch just as I joined Airborne Displays, as an in-service update for the existing F-16C/D Wide Angle HUD, so suddenly pilots had an extra option as they cycled through HUD modes.

...even if only an OFP change for a subsystem that didn't require anything else, this is hardly the same as integrating and entirely new set of sensors (let alone sensors with sensing hardware that generates data in format your current avionics doesn't ingest).

I thought the Turkish and Ukrainian examples were pretty clear about reasons you might do it, such as not having access into the existing software/hardware.

And none of them applies when those reasons don't exist.

None of the countries developing 6th gen fighters are in a war. Zero reason to take the redneck engineering route while you engineer a new system from the ground up, as time to field is measured in years (not hours) and you don't have problems accessing and changing legacy code. The whole point of stuff like MOSA and UAI are to ensure that for all sensors and weapons, you have a full integration route that doesn't require you to jerry rig shit together.

Sounds like real-life to me. The statistical defect tracking/continual process improvement programme I developed by layering it on our existing problem reporting tool was a significant contributor to BAE Systems Rochester being awarded CMM Level 4, so if the Capability Maturity Model assessors from USAF Systems Command considered it an example of industry-wide best practise ....

Lol and? Our department is constantly commended for our software too and we also do hacky shit in some of our systems.

We all do some level of shitty software practice when we don't want to touch the underlying code. Still doesn't change the fact that it's shitty software practice.

 

[Jackonicko]

You wouldn't say the F-16 was a 3rd generation fighter just because it had less range, weaponry and sensors as the F-15 or the F-14 did.

The F-16 was not operating in an A2/AD envelope that kept its enablers 1,000 miles back, was it?

 

[Jackonicko]

6th Gen fighter requirements (my take)

1) Avionics: F-35 Block IV or better (advanced AESA and electro-optical sensors, collaborative targeting etc)
2) Stealth: F-22 or better (ideally YF-23 level)
3) Kinematics: Eurofighter or F-22 like
4) Manned-unmanned teaming: able to quarterback unmanned offboard sensors, decoys, and effectors
5) Wild card: AI-driven onboard intelligence

Agree, but with a few additions

1) needs to be far better than F-35 Block IV
2) needs to include growth potential for new apertures and antennas which the 5th Gen don't have
3) also range and INTERNAL payload
4) plus more importantly, to exploit and fuse offboard sensor data from systems across all domains

 

[Ainen]

Agree, but with a few additions

1) needs to be far better than F-35 Block IV
2) needs to include growth potential for new apertures and antennas which the 5th Gen don't have
3) also range and INTERNAL payload
4) plus more importantly, to exploit and fuse offboard sensor data from systems across all domains

(1) Industry state of the art(big data). F-35 is kinda slow with this one, yet it's often treated as some godly bar("5 millions lines of code" scare).
(2) That's really debatable, depending on whether you actually need it. Su-57 isn't 6th gen.
(3) neither is truly deciding, and reflect just that - range and payload requirements (driving size). Again, su-57 isn't 6th gen.
One may suggest, that a more revolutionary approach may be to offload bulky armament entirely to CCAs, and go for higher cruise efficiency and stealth bar instead.Neither does processing really needs to happen exactly on this aircraft.
(4) this one, though it's, again, more or less (1).

 

[DWG]

It depends entirely upon what kind of data you want to extract from the added item and whether that data can or cannot be transferred via the current interface you have. Just because you think a few instances here and there allowed you to add stuff without changing anything doesn't mean that it's the norm.

I never claimed anything was 'the norm', the original point of dispute was your claim certain changes could not be done prior to open systems. I only needed to show one example to prove that's not the case.

If you have a data field in your comms protocol then any info* can be transferred, whether specified in the original protocol or not, as we see with Boeing using the data field in the baseline 787 ARINC 664 comms messages to carry messages of Boeing's proprietary Error Detection Encoding protocol. You just need appropriate software at both ends to encode/decode the transmitted data.

* Subject to data rate limitations, you might struggle to send full motion video, for instance.

Sounds like adding a sensor requires modification to control logic too, which is an OFP change

Where did I say no OFP change was required? I mentioned the tail sensors because I'm not sure if they were there prior to the gust protection system update or not. The whole point was about a software change adding a completely new requirement not anticipated at time of first design.

 

[Reddington777]

I never claimed anything was 'the norm', the original point of dispute was your claim certain changes could not be done prior to open systems. I only needed to show one example to prove that's not the case.

Don't think I said that and if I did anywhere, then I apologize because that's really not what I meant. Like I said - modularity isn't a new concept and you could definitely implemented at different levels before, but that's still not the same as having OMS or integrating stuff agnostic of platform like MOSA and UAI does.

My point of dispute was the "we've been doing this since 1985" comment and I think I've put out enough evidence to show that no - you were not doing the kind of things being done now in 1985 already.

So - lets just wrap it up here. I've done enough to poison this thread.

 

[had]

When I bring certain information together, an interesting overall picture emerges for me.
1. France currently has a big problem with his expenses. (Perhaps one of the reasons why FCAS is only supposed to be finished so late?)
2. Saudi Arabia is trying desperately (rightly so) to free itself from its US dependence with the help of its oil-billions by building a national defense industry.
3. The Saudis would like to buy into the GCAP consortium, but Japan has concerns (IMO, a good call)
4. Saudis have a problem with German armaments (keyword “German free”), which is why FCAS was never really an alternative.
5. France and Germany have different ideas about FCAS (always had, but suddenly more extreme)
Edit 6. There has been a connection in the past between Dassault and Saudi Arabia over the Mirage 4000 project (Pointed out by Archibald)

Now we have a country that has a very good aircraft manufacturing history, that could very likely design a stealth fighter on its own, but that has real money problems.
Then we have a country that desperately wants to improve its image in the world, become more independent in defense and wants to produce instead of just buying. In addition, it is owned by one of the richest families ever. (_edited)
Match made in heaven?

 

[BonPlan2]

FCAS was imagined by Marcron and Merkel without any defined specifications.
It was a political move built on sand.
Now that the differents air forces explain their needs it seems clear they don't agree, like in the good old time of EFA/ACX.

And now that Macron is the weakest french president of the last 50 years, without a stable government, we are running to a failure. Is it unfortunate? probably not because nearly all the commun weapons studied with Germany by France since Tiger helo are failures.

 

[Reaper]

When I bring certain information together, an interesting overall picture comes together for me.
1. France currently has a big problem with his expenses. (Perhaps one of the reasons why FCAS is only supposed to be finished so late?)
2. Saudi Arabia is trying desperately (rightly so) to free itself from its US dependence with the help of its oil-billions by building a national defense industry.
3. The Saudis would like to buy into the GCAP consortium, but Japan has concerns (IMO, a good call)
4. Saudis have a problem with German armaments (keyword “German free”), which is why FCAS was never really an alternative.
5. France and Germany have different ideas about FCAS (always had, but suddenly more extreme)

Now we have a country that has a very good aircraft manufacturing history, that could very likely design a stealth fighter on its own, but that has real money problems.
Then we have a country that desperately wants to improve its image in the world, become more independent in defense and wants to produce instead of just buying. In addition, it is one of the richest countries ever.
Match in heaven?
P.s. I don't know how Spain fits in yet.

The French have a different understanding how they want to use their forces. They have an aircraft carrier and want to project power, the Germans not so much. If the French and German governments dont force the industry to work together, then this wont work.
Airbus Defence in Spain belongs to Airbus Defence led by Germany.
The Saudis want to build a defense industry, have the money, but I assume they dont have the breadth in skilled labour to do so.

 

[galgot]

Tbh, if France was to seek defense industrial partners outside Europe, I see that happening with India rather than Saudi Arabia.

 

[Reddington777]

Tbh, if France was to seek defense industrial partners outside Europe, I see that happening with India rather than Saudi Arabia.

Agreed. I'm not trying to be political or controversial by any means, but isn't most of the skilled labor/ blue collar work taken up by foreign nationals from countries that aren't known for their high tech manufacturing?

India on the other hand at least has a greater breadth of worker skill to choose from not to mention an existing thirst for greater expertise.

 

[EmoBirb]

Tbh, if France was to seek defense industrial partners outside Europe, I see that happening with India rather than Saudi Arabia.

Indeed. The Rafale deal and general history of French aircraft, systems and weapons in service with the Indians should create a large basis of understanding each others needs and common ground. Also plenty of good will from either side.

And I don't remember if I already mentioned it or just thought about it to myself, but just like the French, the Indians have carriers and are probably seeking to build larger and better ones in the future. Meaning they need jets for them. Both ordering the land and carrier based version of a jointly developed aircraft would be ultimately be huge win for France tbh. And the Indians would get the sweet tech transfer out of it they crave so much. Furthermore, it would provide India with the capability to deter not only Pakistan but also China in the air more effectively, rather than being completely out gunned like they're now. Similarly to how I view Sweden or even Turkey as a suitable partner for Germany and Spain, I believe India is a suitable partner for France in that regard.

Is there enough room for GCAP, GER-FCAS, FR-FCAS, F/A-XX, F-47, J-36 and J-50? I'd say so. Given that only the European offerings seem to even seriously consider exports.

 

[BonPlan2]

The French have a different understanding how they want to use their forces. They have an aircraft carrier and want to project power, the Germans not so much.

Indeed,
And it is very incomprehensible that Germany wanted and want a heavier fighter than the french as they don't have the habbit to make expeditionary missions.

 

[BonPlan2]

Indeed. The Rafale deal and general history of French aircraft, systems and weapons in service with the Indians should create a large basis of understanding each others needs and common ground. Also plenty of good will from either side.

And I don't remember if I already mentioned it or just thought about it to myself, but just like the French, the Indians have carriers and are probably seeking to build larger and better ones in the future. Meaning they need jets for them. Both ordering the land and carrier based version of a jointly developed aircraft would be ultimately be huge win for France tbh. And the Indians would get the sweet tech transfer out of it they crave so much. Furthermore, it would provide India with the capability to deter not only Pakistan but also China in the air more effectively, rather than being completely out gunned like they're now. Similarly to how I view Sweden or even Turkey as a suitable partner for Germany and Spain, I believe India is a suitable partner for France in that regard.

Is there enough room for GCAP, GER-FCAS, FR-FCAS, F/A-XX, F-47, J-36 and J-50? I'd say so. Given that only the European offerings seem to even seriously consider exports.

The (late) Rafale export success give extra money to Dassault, Safran, Thales.
As with Rafale program, the french government may ask them to finance part of the R&D phase of a pure french SCAF, reducing the financial burden for the french economy.

The Rafale export customers can also be sollicited to enter in a SCAF fr program.... (Greece, UAE, Egypt are proper targets).

 

[EmoBirb]

The Rafale export customers can also be sollicited to enter in a SCAF fr program.... (Greece, UAE, Egypt are proper targets).

I imagine many customers of French hardware would be interested, especially the ones who haven't or cannot pick up F-35s to bridge the gap. But which of these may have the stuff to be more than a mere customer? That's the big question.

Meanwhile former and current Eurofighter users would probably look towards either GCAP or the German led FCAS spin off if the program should end up splitting. And then it's the question of who offers the better deal and what are the needs of that specific country.

I've seen people argue that maybe two next generation programs are too much for Europe, whereas it seems two might not be enough to satisfy everyone.

 

[Titus]

When I bring certain information together, an interesting overall picture comes together for me.
1. France currently has a big problem with his expenses. (Perhaps one of the reasons why FCAS is only supposed to be finished so late?)
2. Saudi Arabia is trying desperately (rightly so) to free itself from its US dependence with the help of its oil-billions by building a national defense industry.
3. The Saudis would like to buy into the GCAP consortium, but Japan has concerns (IMO, a good call)
4. Saudis have a problem with German armaments (keyword “German free”), which is why FCAS was never really an alternative.
5. France and Germany have different ideas about FCAS (always had, but suddenly more extreme)
Edit 6. There has been a connection in the past between Dassault and Saudi Arabia over the Mirage 4000 project (Pointed out by Archibald)

Now we have a country that has a very good aircraft manufacturing history, that could very likely design a stealth fighter on its own, but that has real money problems.
Then we have a country that desperately wants to improve its image in the world, become more independent in defense and wants to produce instead of just buying. In addition, it is one of the richest countries ever.
Match made in heaven?

Agree with most of this except highlighted. SA is about the 20 th largest economy (behind Turkey and Mexico) and its GDP/Capita is ranked about 39th or 40th, behind such countries as Guyana and Slovenia. The perception of great wealth is due to the fact that it's royal family owns a large part of its annual income and is free to spend it outrageously.
Most Americans would agree with you that the Saudis should go thier own way on defense.

 

[WatcherZero]

French government collapse risks upsetting fighter jet talks with Germany

Paris is significantly weakened, and a trilateral meeting between France, Germany and Spain scheduled for October is now on hold.

www.politico.eu