The big question would be how is the work split by export. Also what if spain wants to export it? doesnt make mutch sense for all to be able to export it.
My guess would also be for voting where the the side with more votes win. With 3 countries there allways is a winner if all have to vote.
Compromise for mgcs?
Let them try that and hurt themselve as mutch as the rest.
France has the national will to build a carrier capable 6th gen fighter. (or 5.5gen, take your pick).
Further, since how many years are France and Germany already talking about export rights an conditions?
So far I remember the split between France and Eurofighter Consortium cam from a different opinion about leadership and not from a carrier requirement.
I would love to see 2 Pang and maybe 2-3 smaller. But thats to mutch for them alone i think.
They will. But it could (and probaly will) hurt them and in general the relationship between the 2.
That wouldn't be a variant though, that would be a wholly new aircraft. And in that case, in 2040s, it would make more sense to make it unmanned to get the most out of its potential.
Multiple Options. Maybe ucav's to free up the prime Carrier or even normal scaf jets just less of them. Single jet would also be possible but mutch more expensive
Bluntly, Germany has revealed itself to be untrustworthy in negotiations.
The ideal would be 3 PANGs and anything smaller would be Mistral LHDs (perhaps even fitted with an angled deck and a catapult or two)
No i meant a UCAV which you in normal way use with scaf but in this case as its own fighter like the turks kinda wanne do. Or simply use scaf but way less jets per carrier.
For me both are at wrong for MGCS and SCAF.
Yeah but i heard atleast that a second could be on the table and i believe 2 are more realistic than 3.
Was this actually what was written down and in what enforceable document? There's a lot of speculation here.
This is another point.
Yes. The Germans are walking back on a signed agreement and knowingly putting the entire program at risk.
www.defense-aerospace.com
Where do they walk back? They just want the whole export deal on a european level (which leaves a lot of interpretation) but this could just mean they want to "unite" so not all go solo on exports. After all why should all there be able to export it if they could just do it together as one seller.Yes. The Germans are walking back on a signed agreement and knowingly putting the entire program at risk.
French-German Deal on Arms Exports Advances FCAS and MGCS Programs
PARIS --- Meeting in Toulouse on Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel significantly advanced their next...
Oct. 17, 2019
Meeting in Toulouse on Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel significantly advanced their next generation of weapons by agreeing new rules governing the export of jointly-produced weapons.
Ending years of controversy, the two leaders on Wednesday signed a “legally binding agreement” to automatically agree to the export by the other country of jointly-developed weapons, which according to a note by the French presidency “is the condition for the success of joint projects such as the tank and the aircraft of the future.”
It's pretty unclear that that was ratified, and from the details reported may not be inconsistent with the recent report. It's very difficult to understand these things without having the actual text.
OK lets say thats true. What would they get out of this? They know france wont back down and they can't get a better position anyway. They need france for the jet while france doesnt need Germany. So they can't win anything from this so why would they do just that? Like R. Admiral or i said there is a lot of context we dont have to make mutch out of this.
Has Germany really the intention to build the FCAS?
They will need something to replace the Typhoons in service, and F-35 is unlikely to make a good air superiority fighter or drone wrangler.
The question is who you ask.
.
Tony Osborne is a very serious and well connected aviation journo. Worth folllowing on X/Twitter as well.
I never Said hé was not serious, as a regular reader of Aviation Week myself.
Dassault winning friends again, I see.
Devil may be in the details as Dassault is providing the FCS, which is mostly software. Did Airbus contract for a functioning flight control system or for all the underlying proprietary technology and source code?
Can't speak for 787, but for 777* we had Boeing engineers embedded in the team, not many, just a couple. IIRC they were operating in a QA role. They'd likely have full access to the code in that case, though I don't know if the source code was a deliverable or not. We were implementing a Boeing requirement - control laws, so they'd have a fair idea what the code said anyway. Even stuff like the GMAv developed redundancy management system, they'd need the details of how it works to go into the flight manuals. FAA were a bit hands off**, so I don't know if they were digging into the software or not.
And I'm somewhat in agreement with that. Specific parts are _your skills_ and you don't necessarily want to teach others how to do what you do without getting paid for that.
Ah, if you won't show your work you won't get any credit.
That sounds like all sorts of "fun".
And that's what it seems like FCAS and Dassault are butting heads over.
