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

Future Combat Air System (FCAS)

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,050
Reaction score
1,547
@Hood :Misinformation?! Do you feel OK insulting people? I don't being, in case you wonder :mad:

For your govern the author is going after cultural & managerial behavior and to our knowledge, there are no segregated business management (civil/Mil) in French aerospace.
So, I think you should weight better your words before...

Nothing personal meant, but you should be clearer what you are posting and why. To just post a quoted webpage without any commentary is ambiguous to say the least.

I don't see anything specifically 'French' about the Eurodrone programme.
It seems clear that any problems with seem to stem from the three governments involved all wanting different things - particularly the German demands such as insistence on twin engines for engine-out safety over populated areas which pushed up the size and cost. The European defence procurement body OCCAR is handling the programme and Germany is leading the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) project. Airbus is leading the Eurodrone development in cooperation with Dassault and Leonardo - so its not an all-French programme and the last time I looked Airbus was a multi-national company.

I don't doubt there are cultural and managerial problems in Airbus or Dassault or indeed Leonardo, Boeing, BAE Systems and any number of other global corporations around the world. In fact it seems pretty much par for the course these days and effects all their business decisions so really the permeation of such problems hardly specifically fits SCAF.
if anything the German-French Airbus-Dassault SCAF should be simpler to manage and agree than Eurodrone without its multiple partners and observers all putting in their two pennies worth. Multinational collaborations are expensive and messy and just maybe Dassault was right all these years to just go it alone?
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,929
Reaction score
1,539
Your words:
Apologies, I was led astray by the poster's misinformation
And that's was not personal? The poster's...

As it seems also your are very selective in your apologies.
That and your denial is even more insulting to say the least.
 

muttbutt

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
241
Reaction score
49

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,929
Reaction score
1,539
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.
 
Last edited:

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,929
Reaction score
1,539
France own star tracker system on test (ATR-72):
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
55
Reaction score
81
IP concerns could delay FrancoGermanSpanish FCAS project launch:
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.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
358
Reaction score
400
IP concerns could delay FrancoGermanSpanish FCAS project launch:
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.

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
 

totoro

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
386
Reaction score
106
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?
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,050
Reaction score
1,547
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.
 

red admiral

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
635
Reaction score
95
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
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,085
Reaction score
452
IP concerns could delay FrancoGermanSpanish FCAS project launch:
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.
any reason why?
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.
 
Last edited:

Deltafan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,085
Reaction score
452
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?
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
 

Deltafan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,085
Reaction score
452
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.

Difficult to know what will be made by whom, as nothing is sure for the moment.

The three participating countries are expected to invest a third of the expenditure in the definition phase. But not all the sharings have been made (see articles above). In addition, the continuation will also depend on the quantity of purchases of each country (initially, France and Germany were to acquire 200 planes each. Spain wants to replace its around hundred of F-18 with the SCAF).
 
Last edited:

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,929
Reaction score
1,539
And FCAS could be born twins like Romulus and Remus:
founders-Romulus-and-Remus-Rome-wolf-foster.jpg
*
One French source said Germany also aimed for intellectual property developed at national level in France, something a German source denied.

Disagreements run so deep that there are even considerations to build two demonstrators instead of just one, one source told Reuters.

A senior French parliamentary figure also expressed doubts about the project's viability, citing diverging approaches and political constraints, such as Berlin’s refusal to participate in combat operations abroad.

"To be honest, it would be a lot easier for us to work with Britain because we share the same military culture," the MP told Reuters.

*MHEU
 
Last edited:

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
770
Reaction score
505
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.
Don't forget that Leonardo also incorporates what was Selex, which rolled together Finmeccanica's avionics operation plus the sensors and comms half of BAE Systems Avionics. They're a very significant UK avionics supplier, not just airframe.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
358
Reaction score
400
And FCAS could be born twins like Romulus and Remus:

"To be honest, it would be a lot easier for us to work with Britain because we share the same military culture," the MP told Reuters.
kinda agree with that point.
some of the recent Franco-German stuff has been plagued with issues. Tiger, A400, (although I liked Alpha-jet)
French-UK stuff has often been beautiful. Jaguar, the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, Concorde

make it happen BAe and Dassault!
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,050
Reaction score
1,547
I always said 2040 was a long way away....

Maybe this is why the Anglo-French FCAS fell apart with little results and why Taranis and Neuron appeared to duplicate each other?
I don't see how working with Britain would lessen the IP worries.
I am curious why Spain hasn't made its share through Airbus Getafe rather than Indra?

Dassault is plucky to take on Airbus, I still think ultimately that Dassault will end up taken-over at some stage.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,929
Reaction score
1,539
The problem with Dassault is that it doesn't have the funds for an alternative scenario. If Dassault owner don't open the cash register to pay for development, the stop and go will be a thing to be accustomed with and Airbus might well get away with a win (Airbus still have the cash). Also, meanwhile, the market will have evolved, leaving Dassault with their only remaining product that would have to compete as an antic among an onslaught of shiny new airframe.
Once again it's the infamous foot blasting policy that's sketched here.
 
Last edited:

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,050
Reaction score
1,547
Its seems as if SCAF is diverging with Dassault responsible for the manned fighter element and Airbus the loyal wingman.
Dassault might think that this is a winner; some nations might buy the manned fighter and not the loyal wingman so they could pocket the extra sales cash, while Airbus have a drone they can't sell to anyone as a standalone system - hence Dassault's fuss over IP in case Airbus tries to repackage the SCAF wingman as a standalone UCAV. Or am I being super-cynical?

Its clear Dassault don't want their export policy dictated to by Berlin. BAE Systems largely has a free hand in exports, though presumably Stockholm might want to ensure its neutral stance is not endangered by Tempest sales, SAAB has always been picky about who it sells to. So, Dassault joining Tempest wouldn't necessarily solve their headache. But Dassault are no fools, they know that to make a commercial success when the UK, US, Russia and China will sell to anyone, that they have to follow suit or potentially write off much of their Middle Eastern customer base.

Re-reading the source, its clear that Dassault wants to keep its nuclear secrets and special clearance to deal with France's own nuclear projects. Where does that leave SCAF as a NATO-compatible nuclear-capable Super Hornet replacement for the Luftwaffe?

IP is a serious issue but it shouldn't be insurmountable, given examples like Eurofighter and F-35. Its not clear to me how Germany would take French technology from SCAF and implement it in its own defence programmes without the involvement of companies like Airbus, Thales and MBDA who are all multinational enterprises with French involvement.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,929
Reaction score
1,539
IMOHO (and as notified by Reuters), it's not their intend. Their goal might be more toward having a way to restrict the dissemination of FCAS technologies by having more control on it.
I can't see how a double (triple in fact) export license might not be the point of contention here, explaining the highly verbose echoes of the debate that would reflect a more political stance.
 

coanda

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
178
Reaction score
49
Dassault are very sharp business operators. If I were a business I would be very wary of them from what I've seen in regard to how they treat their suppliers. Very wary indeed.
 

galgot

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
1,157
Website
galgot.com
Dassault are very sharp business operators. If I were a business I would be very wary of them from what I've seen in regard to how they treat their suppliers. Very wary indeed.
Indeed. It's either done how they want and in a way that is profitable to them, or it's not done with them. Just like the EFA.
 

Similar threads

Top