Because the US and India have always been BFFs?
France-Germany-Spain Future Combat Air System (FCAS/SCAF/FSAC)
- Thread starter Deltafan
- Start date
Because the US and India have always been BFFs?
Deltafan
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 8 May 2006
- Messages
- 1,569
- Reaction score
- 1,810
During Cold War, India, as a leader of Non-Aligned Movement, and US were not necessarily BFF. During the Indian atomic test either.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 5,744
- Reaction score
- 5,613
The main problem for the European jet is the absence of a threat. Putin's Russia is bellicose but has a Mussolini quality about it. I doubt German taxpayers want to send their air force up against China.
France may have the appetite for a Rafale successor. But its lucrative customer base of countries not wanting or able to buy US products has dried up.
There will be a Rafale successor but it may take a long time to emerge. France may even buy F35s for some roles.
France may have the appetite for a Rafale successor. But its lucrative customer base of countries not wanting or able to buy US products has dried up.
There will be a Rafale successor but it may take a long time to emerge. France may even buy F35s for some roles.
Well that and Pakistan. But Obama's pushing for the NSG sure accelerated the relationship.
No immediate threat, but not very reassuring still, given the situation in Ukraine, German dependence on Russian gaz and stuff like that.
I think German Govs are very attached to NATO, because their defense structure was built on it . Alas the alliance is clearly not in her best shape nowadays. Plus distrust as grown since revelations of German chancellery being spied for decades by NSA. Add to that the Trump episode, and it really fires some thinking about how to be more independent from US in term of defense.
Just as in the US , the industrial-military complex lobby in Fr is very powerful/tied to powers in place, even with Gov change, and buying F-35 would be giving up that.
So I don't see that happening. They will make whatever possible to keep their lucrative business running, and they have been very good at that for some time now.
SCAF/NGF will be even more expensive than Rafale, Surprise surprise, just as Rafale was more than M2000, itself more than M F1. New thing is that it reaches a point where Fr would have difficulty doing it alone. Thus trying to do it with the Germans. Could work … or not…
There are some convergence of interests to do it, but still fights on who will have the bigger part of the cake.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 5,744
- Reaction score
- 5,613
Ironically, Trump rather than Putin may be the spur to this programme. Added to which, the UK is now out of the EU so no longer a natural partner for Germany (Tornado, Typhoon).
My only reason for mentioning possible French F35s was the Aeronavale requirement. Though the new plane may prove so expensive that for some roles F35s may be cheaper to buy.
My only reason for mentioning possible French F35s was the Aeronavale requirement. Though the new plane may prove so expensive that for some roles F35s may be cheaper to buy.
Re-Aeronavale requirement, yes I understand the point. But still seeing how they kept the Crusaders so long, and replaced it with Rafale M F1s, is very telling.
The Navy was pushing to buy F-18s as interim, cause at the time Rafale development was slowed down due to defense cuts. But no, the idea of buying US was rejected, and they found money to rush the Rafale M F1 with only AA capability in service.
The Hornet affair indeed - 1988-89 - was atrocious. One of the strangest irony in the whole thing was that, in the days PH75 morphed into PA75 / PA80, the Rafale did not existed yet (that was before 1983) and the reference aircraft they used to size the future CdG was (drums rolling) the Hornet.
(facepalm)
What's more, the Rafale was imagined as a subscale, least expensive Mirage 4000 thanks to M88 being much more compact than M53.
Same for Typhoon: both RB.199 and EJ.200 are in F404 league rather than F100 / F110.
In both cases, when studies started in 1977, the reference was... the Hornet (facepalm 2.0) as a cheaper, miniature F-15 / Mirage 4000. Also Mig-29 to Su-27.
(facepalm)
What's more, the Rafale was imagined as a subscale, least expensive Mirage 4000 thanks to M88 being much more compact than M53.
Same for Typhoon: both RB.199 and EJ.200 are in F404 league rather than F100 / F110.
In both cases, when studies started in 1977, the reference was... the Hornet (facepalm 2.0) as a cheaper, miniature F-15 / Mirage 4000. Also Mig-29 to Su-27.
Indra copartnering at equal share on FCAS:
Time to ammend the title of this thread
Indra confirms equal status with Airbus and Dassault on NGWS/FCAS | Shephard
Indra has confirmed that it is participating in the New Generation Weapon System/Future Combat Air System (NGWS/FCAS) Joint Concept Study as the national co-ordinator for …
www.shephardmedia.com
Time to ammend the title of this thread
Last edited by a moderator:
Deltafan
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 8 May 2006
- Messages
- 1,569
- Reaction score
- 1,810
-first : typo : I presume that it's $350 billion
-secondly : comparison. The cost for F-35 is, today, around 428.4 + 1196.4 = $1624.8 billion for around 3 200 today for a plane in service in 2015
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia
Foreseen at the beginning for the SCAF (NGF + System of Systems) : 200 for France + 200 for Germany + Spain. If Spain order 100, it will be $350 billion for around 500, not only for the NGF plane but for all the SCAF System (including at least two models of remote carriers) in service in 2040.
And it will be interesting to know from where, EXACTLY, come these "potential" $350 billions (with export markets ?) as, according to the report of the French Senat, above in the topic, the foreseeen costs for the SCAF program (but only for Germany-France-Spain) are 50 ($58.33 billion) to 80 billion € ($93.33 billion).
Last edited by a moderator:
The 350 number is as I understand the projected cost (revenue here) during the life of the program as put on the table by Indra.
Normally, the 80 Billions that we've been discussing before does not include sustainment (dev pogram + acquisition only).
I Invite you to pursue your cost comparison of both programs (F-35) since we have now relevant number to start a discussion.
Normally, the 80 Billions that we've been discussing before does not include sustainment (dev pogram + acquisition only).
I Invite you to pursue your cost comparison of both programs (F-35) since we have now relevant number to start a discussion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Now that the F-35 has solved its most teething issues, the steamroller can start moving forward and flatten every oponent standing on its way.
That was the JAST / JSF goal right from 1995, 25 years ago: win through colossal numbers.
The official story is: win through colossal numbers - in a war against (possibly) China.
The non-official story is: win through colossal numbers - to crush the worlwide combat aircraft market
By churning 2000 to 5000 of these birds.
Mass production to lower the price.
Even if the F-35 is not an optimal combat aircraft (because VSTOL and stealth were never easy to blend into the smale airframe) fact is, now it brings together
- mass production, thousands of airframes
- supersonic performance
- stealth
- AMRAAM & networked platforms
The deal was always
- gets the best of Harrier: VSTOL
- get the best of F-16 and Phantom: nearly 5000 build (average)
- get the best of Hornet: enlist the USN and USMC into a single giant production run
- get the best of F-22: stealth air combat with AMRAAM
- get foreign partners on board, notably in Europe: screw Rafale, Typhoon and Grippen.
The F-35 might be an insanely expensive program (trillion of dollars, WTH) and might have had some serious development issues, from 2020 onwards, if all goes well, it should conquest the world.
Can't remember, how large is the planned production run - USAF + USN + USMC + rest-of-the-world ? 3000 ?
Note that I say this a) as a not-great-enthusiast about the F-35 and b) as somebody having grown since 1995 (I was 13) following that aircraft development pros and cons.
We need an alternate history where a single type manages to pull a F-35 in 1958 (first generation Mach 2 aircraft, think Phantom but even larger) and in 1973 (F-17 everywhere for everyone ?)
That was the JAST / JSF goal right from 1995, 25 years ago: win through colossal numbers.
The official story is: win through colossal numbers - in a war against (possibly) China.
The non-official story is: win through colossal numbers - to crush the worlwide combat aircraft market
By churning 2000 to 5000 of these birds.
Mass production to lower the price.
Even if the F-35 is not an optimal combat aircraft (because VSTOL and stealth were never easy to blend into the smale airframe) fact is, now it brings together
- mass production, thousands of airframes
- supersonic performance
- stealth
- AMRAAM & networked platforms
The deal was always
- gets the best of Harrier: VSTOL
- get the best of F-16 and Phantom: nearly 5000 build (average)
- get the best of Hornet: enlist the USN and USMC into a single giant production run
- get the best of F-22: stealth air combat with AMRAAM
- get foreign partners on board, notably in Europe: screw Rafale, Typhoon and Grippen.
The F-35 might be an insanely expensive program (trillion of dollars, WTH) and might have had some serious development issues, from 2020 onwards, if all goes well, it should conquest the world.
Can't remember, how large is the planned production run - USAF + USN + USMC + rest-of-the-world ? 3000 ?
Note that I say this a) as a not-great-enthusiast about the F-35 and b) as somebody having grown since 1995 (I was 13) following that aircraft development pros and cons.
We need an alternate history where a single type manages to pull a F-35 in 1958 (first generation Mach 2 aircraft, think Phantom but even larger) and in 1973 (F-17 everywhere for everyone ?)
Last edited:
Yeah... well , depends of the point of view
I have my doubts they will do better than the F-16 market wise (Something like 26 users ?). Which still leaves some (small) place to countries wanting more independence from the US, as before. Plus, the world is changing fast. Who know how NATO, which is a big drive force for marketing the F-35 (as it was for F-16), will be like in 10 years.
Last edited:
Sure.
en.wikipedia.org
www.defensenews.com
3100 aircraft planned.
Presently some serious flaws (although the situation seems to have improved a little since 2017, when F-35 issues were David Axe - to grin, against the F-35 - bread and butter at War is boring... )
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement - Wikipedia
The Pentagon is battling the clock to fix serious, unreported F-35 problems
Defense News exclusively obtained documents detailing the F-35 jet's most serious deficiencies.
www.defensenews.com
3100 aircraft planned.
Presently some serious flaws (although the situation seems to have improved a little since 2017, when F-35 issues were David Axe - to grin, against the F-35 - bread and butter at War is boring... )
Last edited:
I have my doubts, too. Consider that I'm not cheerleading the F-35 here, rather trying to grasp how big it is presently and how large they hope to grow it - if all goes well, as you said.
It boils down to (give or take): with the F-35 now deeply engrained into many European air forces, and backed by orders for 3100 airframe (of which 2500 are America all by itself):
Can Tempest and SCAF survives over the long term ? also Sweden Gripen successor, if there is one someday ?
That's the main question. Well, it has been, since 1994 and 2001, at least.
Could a case be make that the F-35 is kind of giant Ponzi scheme by Lockheed ? over US and worlwide combat aircraft ? swallowing all money like a big black hole to kill any competitor(s) and leave only the F-35 standing ?
My guess for Europe fighter industry survival would be to bet on the F-35 / Grippen card. Make the thing simple, single-engine. Something that can survives against the F-35 onslaught.
Well that's how the Mirage III broke the bank back then. R530, Atar and Cyrano II were subpar (to stay polite) but the airframe was good enough to fill the gaps and boom, 1400 build. The F1 and 2000 were more balanced but still scored a 700+600 between them, nearly similar.
Rafale, by contrast... hmmm...
Maybe we should have build a M88 Mirage 2000 with digital FWB and canards. Oh wait... that's (more or less), the Grippen.
Well that's how the Mirage III broke the bank back then. R530, Atar and Cyrano II were subpar (to stay polite) but the airframe was good enough to fill the gaps and boom, 1400 build. The F1 and 2000 were more balanced but still scored a 700+600 between them, nearly similar.
Rafale, by contrast... hmmm...
Maybe we should have build a M88 Mirage 2000 with digital FWB and canards. Oh wait... that's (more or less), the Grippen.
Deltafan
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 8 May 2006
- Messages
- 1,569
- Reaction score
- 1,810
-The term used is "potential". Then export is potential. That's why I said "it will be interesting to know from where, EXACTLY, come these "potential" $350 billions"
-Nothing is said anywhere if 80 billions includes sustainment or not. ("the costs of such a program are too great to be borne by a single country [estimates range from 50 to 80 billion euros").
-Sure I'll continue to pursue the cost comparison of both programs for the non-oriented information of the readers, especially because :
I think too. Especially when we put into perspective the effect of scale with the number of sales and the final price. And it will be very interesting to see what will be the costs for little fleets of export customers of F-35, in particular the day when comes the first anti-stealth radar.
Last edited:
I think it ends up being political (sorry mods), not about how many you can export and for how much. Are these countries ready to pay enough to keep their indigenous aero mil industry independent and running for their own Air Forces, for the sake of keeping expertise and jobs and spend their money at home. And just the simple fact of being able to produce their own weapons, which, you know, can be helpful some times… They have been ready to do so up to now, even with quite small export prospects.
It’s obviously getting more and more expensive.
So yes, having an "up to date" Air Force is more and more expensive, but that is for everyone, and that is the thing : including for Lockheed customers.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 3,724
- Reaction score
- 2,681
I appreciate the F-35 is a decent bit of kit but also believe that there needs to be real competition for the best equipment to be available. There is plenty of room to cooperate with electronics and low observable coatings etc but to sink into a situation where other nations are merely clients is a short sighted move that will hurt us all in the future.
kaiserd
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 October 2013
- Messages
- 1,665
- Reaction score
- 1,614
The US will develop a follow-on 6th generation fighter and hopefully at least one viable European equivalent will emerge.
Japan will likely develop their own equivalent or partner with someone else (very much most likely with the US) to do so.
The F-35 is likely the best overall package for a “Western” country that is allowed to buy it right now and for some time, but it’s not the final word.
Japan will likely develop their own equivalent or partner with someone else (very much most likely with the US) to do so.
The F-35 is likely the best overall package for a “Western” country that is allowed to buy it right now and for some time, but it’s not the final word.
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,461
- Reaction score
- 1,525
Yes. This is the main rationale. But it's a lot of money.
Yes, lot of money, more and more, but if spent at home, it's not at loss. You are supporting your own industry, creating jobs, ect... It's an investment.
Spending also a lot of money buying F-35s, it's just putting more in Lockheed deep pockets, which you'll never see the color again, or a very small part, for the sake of having the latest "xx gen fighter" and please the US.
Anyway... Wouldn't the world be so boring with just one western fighter type ?
I was already so bored seeing all these F-16s... But that's just me.
Last edited:
Deltafan
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 8 May 2006
- Messages
- 1,569
- Reaction score
- 1,810
German Air Force Eurofighters connect with remote carriers
world.eurofighter.com
GERMAN AIR FORCE EUROFIGHTERS CONNECT WITH REMOTE CARRIERS
Indra to lead sensor development for mainland Europe’s next-gen fighter
The companies involved said the suite will contribute to the FCAS and next-generation weapon system’s situational awareness “and ability to operate without being detected.”
www.defensenews.com
Airbus recently released picture of an air launched integration test for an UCAS aboard the A400M:
www.usinenouvelle.com
[L’image du jour] Airbus dévoile les coulisses de ses travaux sur l’avion de combat du futur (SCAF)
Le chantier du Système de combat aérien du futur (Scaf) se concrétise. Airbus a dévoilé le 9 décembre l’une des premières images d’un...-Aéro - Spatial
www.usinenouvelle.com
MTU AEROREPORT
Aviation magazine AEROREPORT from MTU Aero Engines reports on the world of engines and aviation topics in general.
aeroreport.de
Direct link to a short video of the concept.
A turbofan doubled with an ejector. Single crystal metallic blades. Carbon reinforced plastic...
And a 15 seconds single pattern annoyingly repetitive music also right from the 1980s...
Really?!
That engine would be otherwise a nice one for an upgrade of the M2K.
And a 15 seconds single pattern annoyingly repetitive music also right from the 1980s...
Really?!
That engine would be otherwise a nice one for an upgrade of the M2K.
Last edited:
France own star tracker system on test (ATR-72):
www.latribune.fr
Safran et Sodern : le "génie français" au service de la souveraineté des armées
Safran Electronics & Defense et Sodern, développent un système de visée stellaire diurne et nocturne pour avions militaires, baptisé Vision. Ce système devra être "permanent et totalement discret, sans émission de signaux radio électriques et permettra une navigation précise et sûre, non...
www.latribune.fr
IP concerns could delay FrancoGermanSpanish FCAS project launch:
www.defensenews.com
Companies seek end to haggling over FCAS rights with fresh offer this week
At issue is whether countries participating in the development of mainland Europe’s futuristic weapon system are free to use the technology to make adjustments of their own later on.
www.defensenews.com
Ingraman
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 24 September 2013
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 116
For those who wonder, unfortunately there's not much substance apart from the model in the video... Mybe I am asking too mcuh of an information prematurely?
Heard that apparently the French weren't really enthusiastic in having Spain onboard the program from the get go, although I'm not sure of how true that is.IP concerns could delay FrancoGermanSpanish FCAS project launch:
Companies seek end to haggling over FCAS rights with fresh offer this week
At issue is whether countries participating in the development of mainland Europe’s futuristic weapon system are free to use the technology to make adjustments of their own later on.
- Joined
- 29 November 2010
- Messages
- 1,696
- Reaction score
- 3,188
Heard that apparently the French weren't really enthusiastic in having Spain onboard the program from the get go, although I'm not sure of how true that is.IP concerns could delay FrancoGermanSpanish FCAS project launch:
Companies seek end to haggling over FCAS rights with fresh offer this week
At issue is whether countries participating in the development of mainland Europe’s futuristic weapon system are free to use the technology to make adjustments of their own later on.
any reason why?
so far it seems like the
Brit/Italian/Swedish project is a bit more smooth sailing than the French/Spain/German one
Why did Italy choose Tempest project team over FCAS, though? Has there ever been an analysis of what does a certain country get (or hope to get) from each of the two projects? And what does Italy think it will get via Tempest that it won't get via FCAS?
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,307
- Reaction score
- 7,436
Leonardo has a factory in the UK and the UK is a large user of Leonardo helicopters so they are well bedded in with the MoD and have an industrial base and Italy have been successful aeronautical partners with the UK since the 1960s.
Likely the Tempest workshare is going to be higher for Leonardo than it is for FCAS. It will be interesting to see where and how FCAS is built. Final assembly is 99% likely to be by Dassault with Airbus building parts.
Likely the Tempest workshare is going to be higher for Leonardo than it is for FCAS. It will be interesting to see where and how FCAS is built. Final assembly is 99% likely to be by Dassault with Airbus building parts.
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,461
- Reaction score
- 1,525
Italy also operates F-35. Spending billions on SCAF that is specifically being designed so it won't be interoperable with your F-35s would be an interesting choice.
Deltafan
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 8 May 2006
- Messages
- 1,569
- Reaction score
- 1,810
Never red this. But maybe because on the French side Thales is the great looser for the moment, as Spanish Indra was chosen as leader for the sensors.any reason why?Heard that apparently the French weren't really enthusiastic in having Spain onboard the program from the get go, although I'm not sure of how true that is.IP concerns could delay FrancoGermanSpanish FCAS project launch:
Companies seek end to haggling over FCAS rights with fresh offer this week
At issue is whether countries participating in the development of mainland Europe’s futuristic weapon system are free to use the technology to make adjustments of their own later on.
Last edited:
Deltafan
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 8 May 2006
- Messages
- 1,569
- Reaction score
- 1,810
At the beginning of the program, to avoid the mistakes of the A-400 M (too many participants requiring too many specificities, leading to delays and additional costs), France and Germany have announced that they want to advance alone until the end of the definition phase and will not accept other participants until after the end of this definition phase.
But, probably to take advantage of the European defense fund (awarded for a program involving at least three countries of the European Union), they allowed Spain, which had asked to join the program, to participate from the phase 1A.
Italy not having been invited at this stage of the program, preferred to turn to Tempest.
For the SCAF/FCAS phase 1A is foreseen ("pillars") :
-Next Generation Fighter Pillar, led by Dassault Aviation, Airbus D&S SAU is the Main Partner alongside Airbus D&S GmbH.
-Engine Pillar Safran Aircraft Engines is the Main Contractor, with ITP Aero and MTU Aero Engines as the Main Partners.
-Remote Carriers Pillar, led by Airbus D&S GmbH, SATNUS (a consortium comprising GMV, SENER Aeroespacial and TECNOBIT) is the Main Partner alongside MBDA.
-System of Systems/Combat Cloud Pillar, led by Airbus D&S GmbH, Indra is the Main Partner alongside Thales.
-JIPC/SIMLAB (Joint Inter-pillar Consistency/Simulation Laboratory) Pillar Indra is a Co-Contractor alongside Dassault and Airbus D&S GmbH.
-Sensors Pillar Indra is the Main Contractor, with Thales and the German FCMS as the Main Partners.
-ELOT (Low Observable Technologies) Pillar Airbus D&S SAU is the Main Contractor, with Dassault and Airbus D&S GmbH as the Main Partners
