• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Future Combat Air System (FCAS)

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,026
Reaction score
4,761
This will be, rightly or wrongly, likely seen as a sign that they are not that serious about the program.
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
143
Reaction score
255
I mean, it's a demonstrator. Having 2 of them built like in ATF or JSF, or 3 built so that each nation can have one, can be ideal, but 1 isn't necessarily bad at all I feel.

Also, given the past examples, if all things goes as planned, we would probably see the EMD prototypes around 2034~35, so around 7 years after the TD.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,799
Reaction score
2,885
Given that there was no competition and that most budget allocations were done on the sole basis of the reputation of the firms involved, a 5% price decrease would even be a bargain.
 
Last edited:

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
495
My gut reaction was:

1) This report is coming from an organization which has a poor record in combat aircraft procurement.

2) Bearing in mind that there cannot be many solutions nailed down at this point, how does one possibly arrive at an assessment one way or another on whether it will be up to date?

Reading the rest of the thread only amplifies the suspicion that the document likely won't pass the sniff test.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,026
Reaction score
4,761
Reading the rest of the thread only amplifies the suspicion that the document likely won't pass the sniff test.
On the other hand, it may just be intended to provide a fig leaf, no matter how flimsy, for the German government to cancel the FCAS program.
 

Geo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
62
Reaction score
81
Reading the rest of the thread only amplifies the suspicion that the document likely won't pass the sniff test.
On the other hand, it may just be intended to provide a fig leaf, no matter how flimsy, for the German government to cancel the FCAS program.

And the Tempest pre-project goes like clockwork. Without needless BSs.
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
495
And the Tempest pre-project goes like clockwork. Without needless BSs.

We can't know that, the German report referenced above was not intended for public consumption, either. Who knows what the Swedes have to say about the British behind closed doors - the current UK government has a patchy record in international relations, to put it mildly.
 

Geo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
62
Reaction score
81
And the Tempest pre-project goes like clockwork. Without needless BSs.

We can't know that, the German report referenced above was not intended for public consumption, either. Who knows what the Swedes have to say about the British behind closed doors - the current UK government has a patchy record in international relations, to put it mildly.

What is the difference between the hypothetical withdrawal of Swedes from the Tempest program and Germans from the FCAS? There's an inconspicuous difference, right?
 

trose213

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
192
Reaction score
76
Reading the rest of the thread only amplifies the suspicion that the document likely won't pass the sniff test.
On the other hand, it may just be intended to provide a fig leaf, no matter how flimsy, for the German government to cancel the FCAS program.

And the Tempest pre-project goes like clockwork. Without needless BSs.
You can build a true 6th gen fighter for pennies in your pocket?

And the Tempest pre-project goes like clockwork. Without needless BSs.

We can't know that, the German report referenced above was not intended for public consumption, either. Who knows what the Swedes have to say about the British behind closed doors - the current UK government has a patchy record in international relations, to put it mildly.

What is the difference between the hypothetical withdrawal of Swedes from the Tempest program and Germans from the FCAS? There's an inconspicuous difference, right?
The Swedes aren't providing more funding than workshare and the orders.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
658
Reaction score
981
for those who cant read German, it basically says
there's concern that the technologies required cannot be produced.. or produced at a later stage but concerns over its funding
what exists or proposed is not innovative enough or sufficient.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,799
Reaction score
2,885
The most astonishing aspect of this story is that Germans have to classify documents to be able to discuss such points among themselves* when we here or also here for example have mentioned openly those arguments.

This should be an open conversation b/w their military experts and the Bundestag.

On one hand, I see that concerning. On the other, it gives even more credence to this forum name!

* But to no avails
 
Last edited:

H_K

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
209
Reaction score
413
concerns over what exists or proposed is not innovative enough or sufficient
Never throw rocks unless you have a Plan B.

What is the German Plan B to create a super duper stealthy air dominance system? Import 100 F-35s, withhold money for maintenance, training, upgrades and spares (per usual), and then tractor them onto the runway once a year for a fake elephant walk?
 
Last edited:

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,254
Reaction score
2,107
Not sure what to make of it to be honest.
On the one hand they seem to be saying its not advanced enough to be 6th Gen (whatever the hell that actually means since nobody has built one yet or demonstrated how it differs from the very small number of 5th Gen fighters), but that there are advanced technologies involved that won't be ready in time and others that might not be considered until later? Which kind of seems to be the opposite.

I'm not a German speaker but is there some subtle difference between "critical technologies" and "essential technologies"?
If I was purely to speculate I would say maybe the former is Dassault's lack of LO design experience and latter being perhaps optionally unmanned or AI features pushed down the road.

Airbus have the lead on the UAVs, Combat Cloud and LO technology aspects of SCAF and Indra is the main sensors contractor and involved closely with the systems/Combat Cloud. France is only leading the fighter and engine pillars, so really if the German MoD has major beef it must be with the aircraft portion, it would be churlish to blame Dassault for technology issues if they are referring to technologies under Airbus' remit.

Is this a smokescreen? The German MoD blaming the French for not using enough technology when they fully know that they have to try and get the Government to commit to 20 years of R&D funding for the aircraft, the engine, the UAVs and the Combat Cloud systems - a government that notoriously hates defence spending. It could blow back if Dassault ups the ante with new gizmos and then requests a greater R&D contribution. Already there are attempts to cut the cost of the demonstrator programme...
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,254
Reaction score
2,107
I'm not sure I buy into the "Europe cannot sustain two fighters" argument.
Europe can support as many fighters as it can pay for, as long as there are large industrialised nations in Europe they are going to spend money on military projects.
Tempest and SCAF don't have to necessarily generate F-16 levels of exports to pay for themselves, as long as industry remains strong it can invest and governments invest money. An industry keeps people employed and a whole supply chain in business and generates far more than is put in and an industry only remains strong with continued R&D and production orders. The alternative is shrinkage and terminal decline.

The UK has paid a pretty penny for its F-35 Tier 1 status and the other European partners have paid in too - so effectively Europe is funding 3 fighters.
South Korea and Japan are developing a fighter each, yet no-one says Asia cannot sustain two fighters. Where there is willpower, capability and finance there is way.

Anyway, worrying about duplication in NATO now is probably 60 years too late...
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,799
Reaction score
2,885
Well what he says is that they should be interoperable. Not that they shouldn't exist.

The fact that a single design would be better for all (on military grounds) is an evidence.
He also points toward the F-35 that provides today a similar effect (interoperability) through the benefices of distributed sensors data among airframes flying under different flags.
If Tempest and FCAS can't talk at hardware level, it will be for long better to rely on F-35s than those two.

In effect, he is speaking more accurately than most salesmen have so far done representing the two parties.
 
Last edited:

H_K

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
209
Reaction score
413
The fact that a single design would be better for all (on military grounds) is an evidence.
Two designs might be OK if they are differentiated (eg. Twin. vs single engine, interceptor vs strike etc). That would let each country pick based on their different needs.

Higher priority (in my opinion) would be to aim for common systems/hardware, I.e. common engine, radar, ECM, missiles etc.
 

Ingraman

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
28
Reaction score
61
I'm mostly worried about the new engine... at least if you wanna build a really advanced unit... at least Japan has something (apparently pretty advanced) running on the bench... we know almost NOTHING about the new european engines!
 

Similar threads

Top