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

Future Combat Air System (FCAS)

Deltafan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
542
Last edited:

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,099
Reaction score
1,805
I think Dassault are benefiting from the realisation in Berlin that France is Germany's most important ally and that neither UK nor the US can be relied on.
The close relationship between Italy and the UK in the EH101 and Typhoon programmes plus Sweden's growing concerns about Russia may help keep Tempest on track as long as the UK does not decide to switch resources to much needed health, social and infrastructure programmes.
By buying F18s the Germans have kept the door open to reverting to a US type.
A number rather than a name common to German and French (Alpha or Tiger did not work too well) might make sense.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
501
Reaction score
657
I think Dassault are benefiting from the realisation in Berlin that France is Germany's most important ally and that neither UK nor the US can be relied on.
The close relationship between Italy and the UK in the EH101 and Typhoon programmes plus Sweden's growing concerns about Russia may help keep Tempest on track as long as the UK does not decide to switch resources to much needed health, social and infrastructure programmes.
By buying F18s the Germans have kept the door open to reverting to a US type.
A number rather than a name common to German and French (Alpha or Tiger did not work too well) might make sense.
its a surprise for me too
i always assumed that between the two European stealth projects, I thought FCAS would be the one that had a stable path forward.
but surprised it seems that it might actually be Tempest, despite Brexit
 

Geo

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
45
Reaction score
51
I think Dassault are benefiting from the realisation in Berlin that France is Germany's most important ally and that neither UK nor the US can be relied on.
The close relationship between Italy and the UK in the EH101 and Typhoon programmes plus Sweden's growing concerns about Russia may help keep Tempest on track as long as the UK does not decide to switch resources to much needed health, social and infrastructure programmes.
By buying F18s the Germans have kept the door open to reverting to a US type.
A number rather than a name common to German and French (Alpha or Tiger did not work too well) might make sense.
its a surprise for me too
i always assumed that between the two European stealth projects, I thought FCAS would be the one that had a stable path forward.
but surprised it seems that it might actually be Tempest, despite Brexit

Despite Brexit? Thanks to Brexit.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,397
Reaction score
2,197

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
452
I think Dassault are benefiting from the realisation in Berlin that France is Germany's most important ally and that neither UK nor the US can be relied on.
The close relationship between Italy and the UK in the EH101 and Typhoon programmes plus Sweden's growing concerns about Russia may help keep Tempest on track as long as the UK does not decide to switch resources to much needed health, social and infrastructure programmes.
By buying F18s the Germans have kept the door open to reverting to a US type.
A number rather than a name common to German and French (Alpha or Tiger did not work too well) might make sense.
its a surprise for me too
i always assumed that between the two European stealth projects, I thought FCAS would be the one that had a stable path forward.
but surprised it seems that it might actually be Tempest, despite Brexit

Despite Brexit? Thanks to Brexit.
Any chance of the Tempest project succeeding will be despite the “B word”.
Apart from the sense that there shouldn’t be separate FCAS and Tempest programs at all, and perhaps wouldn’t be if it wasn’t for that folly; one folly inevitably leading to others.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,099
Reaction score
1,805
The political upheaval around Brexit has undoubtedly made European co-operation less easy, as has its ham-fisted implementation.
But sticking to the "known unknowns" :
Dassault and BAe have never worked together on a programme (Jaguar was a Breguet project)
Germany is not an especially helpful partner.Tornado and Typhoon both faced the axe because of German domestic politics.
Britain and Italy will both go with any international programme if it helps finance something they want for their military and industry.
Sweden is pragmatic and has made good use of its international partnerships and will go it alone if necessary.
The United States will use all of the above factors to persuade European countries to buy their products.
 

red admiral

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
662
Reaction score
138
Apart from the sense that there shouldn’t be separate FCAS and Tempest programs at all,
I don't understand this argument. The same Defence Industrial sustainment drivers will still be there across the different countries. Its really difficult to make the argument that you should give Dassault tens of billions of euros to destroy the Defence Aerospace Industry in your own country. If everyone gets 1/6th of the pie, that isn't really enough for industrial sustainment, hence revert back to 2 programmes for 1/3rd of the pie.
 

galgot

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,419
Website
galgot.com
Apart from the sense that there shouldn’t be separate FCAS and Tempest programs at all,
I don't understand this argument. The same Defence Industrial sustainment drivers will still be there across the different countries. Its really difficult to make the argument that you should give Dassault tens of billions of euros to destroy the Defence Aerospace Industry in your own country. If everyone gets 1/6th of the pie, that isn't really enough for industrial sustainment, hence revert back to 2 programmes for 1/3rd of the pie.
Kinda agree there... Moreover if one is already paying billions to LM that could have been assigned to domestic industry. One "destroyer" is enough :D
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
452
Apart from the sense that there shouldn’t be separate FCAS and Tempest programs at all,
I don't understand this argument. The same Defence Industrial sustainment drivers will still be there across the different countries. Its really difficult to make the argument that you should give Dassault tens of billions of euros to destroy the Defence Aerospace Industry in your own country. If everyone gets 1/6th of the pie, that isn't really enough for industrial sustainment, hence revert back to 2 programmes for 1/3rd of the pie.
1) not proposing shovelling money at Dassault
2) the very obvious point that 1/3 of a pie that’s half the size is literally the same size as 1/6 of that twice as big a pie. Hence industry sustainment arguments on this basis are verging on the nonsensical (in current context also deeply misguided to think you’ll see more specific defense expenditure prompted/ required for such a split-approach to be successful). One bigger more viable program would be more likely to survive and be more commercially competitive with what emerges from the US etc.
3) the necessary work share for a single project would involve various “loyal-wingman” and other necessary systems, weapons etc. So there is inherently more scope for broader work share than seen for the likes of the Tornado and Typhoon.
4) I’d query if some contributors views would be the same if it was France, and not the UK, that was seen to be off “leading” the clear industrially (and likely orders) smaller/ weaker of these projects?
 

red admiral

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
662
Reaction score
138
2) the very obvious point that 1/3 of a pie that’s half the size is literally the same size as 1/6 of that twice as big a pie. Hence industry sustainment arguments on this basis are verging on the nonsensical (in current context also deeply misguided to think you’ll see more specific defense expenditure prompted/ required for such a split-approach to be successful). One bigger more viable program would be more likely to survive and be more commercially competitive with what emerges from the US etc.
3) the necessary work share for a single project would involve various “loyal-wingman” and other necessary systems, weapons etc. So there is inherently more scope for broader work share than seen for the likes of the Tornado and Typhoon.

2. Industrial sustainment is about Skills, Knowledge, People, Facilities rather than income. If making money was the only concern then it's time to close and invest in something other than Defence aerospace that has a much higher rate of return. Like making saucepans or beer barrels.

One programme is only more competitive by adopting a best athlete approach and a single production line. That means some countries pay 1/6th but basically get work i.e. no sustainment or income.

For France coming from all French Rafale, how do you decide which bits of your Industry to bin? Or do you just assume that you're best athlete across everything?

3. There's obviously less income from the loyal wingman / remote carriers / weapons and they won't sustain the same skills as the Next Gen Fighter. Even if governments / customers are forced to buy both NGF + Remote Carriers.

MBDA is often held up as how to do joint European programmes and yet just look at the duplication ( or more) across the portfolio on national basis. e.g. France could buy SPEAR 3 from MBDA but has chosen to develop Smart Glider and then a powered version of this that is basically identical to SPEAR 3 because that's not being done in France. Lol
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,397
Reaction score
2,197
The only way to satisfy both the need to sustain a robust industry and have a cost effective weapon system is to have a competition. Boeing didn't disappear post X-32 nor did LM after loosing the B-21 for NG.
What's really killing the European industry is the sovietization of project management.
Small European aircraft manufacturer like those on the GA market have bloomed in the past 20 years, thanks to being somewhat hidden from the preying eyes of state descion makers despite being on a very competitive, innovation driven, segment.

That should be a modesty lesson to teach to all those overmediatized aerospace CEOs (easy when you own a large share of the media) that seems unable to do simple things without being guaranteed both the cheese and the cake.
 
Last edited:

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
1,827
Boeing didn't disappear post X-32 nor did LM after loosing the B-21 for NG.
No, Boeing just kept flogging F/A-18s to the USN and USMC and F-15s to the USAF. They couldn't even build an advanced jet trainer without help from SAAB despite being one of the biggest aircraft manufacturers in the world.
LM has its hands more than full with F-35 and keeping F-22 updated (and black programmes).
Both have the joys of NGAD to keep their designers doodling for a while longer.

What's really killing the European industry is the sovietization of project management.
Small European aircraft manufacturer like those on the GA market have bloomed in the past 20 years, thanks to being somewhat hidden from the preying eyes of state descion makers despite being on a very competitive, innovation driven.
I don't think that is necessarily true.
Europe has been continually rationalising its industries as smaller firms went out of business and as merger-mania took hold in the wheeler-dealer 1990s. So competition is harder because there are fewer companies around with the necessary capabilities. Innovation requires resources too. Since the 1960s the mantra from government (and industry) has been collaboration to share R&D costs and few companies now are able to function as complete design and production houses like they could in the 1950s as collaborations reduced them to largely being sub-contractors to umbrella organisations like Panavia GmbH and Eurofighter GmbH.

What do we have:
Airbus - has been the flagship Franco-German aviation cooperation since 1969 and has absorbed most of the German and French aircraft industries. Its subsidiary parts designed and built Eurofighter but Airbus itself has only achieved the A400M in fixed-wing military aircraft. Like Boeing, it's giant but paradoxically weak in terms of R&D ability (only A350 is new, A220 was brought) and AFJT seems purely to be a Spanish national project from Getafe.
If SCAF fails it looses nothing as Premium AEROTEC already has a lot of other Airbus work to keep it busy.

BAE Systems - a giant defence company but Typhoon is its last aircraft product, now they have to figure how to keep Warton open for the next 15 years with no aircraft to build beyond F-35 parts... (Taranis and UCAVs seem to be a dead end so far). If Tempest fails and BAE Systems will shut up shop and concentrate on more profitable systems.

Dassault - was able to keep itself out of Aerospatiale and Airbus because its fighters kept cash rolling in. Business jets help but the market (and development) is bumpy, so its make or break, Rafale stops selling and they are in big trouble. SCAF is a lifeline, like Tempest it has to work or its game over.

Leonardo - Aermacchi and Augusta of old, mainly rotary-wing and the M-series of trainers are modest sellers. Capable but lacking the resources to go it alone on a major project and Tempest is a welcome boost, but they have lucrative F-35 assembly too.

SAAB - like BAE and Dassault, Gripen is a sole lifeline plus some T-7 work. Tempest ensures that they keep going.

5 companies - 3 have essential need of a new fighter to survive, 2 do not. Dassault and perhaps SAAB could go it alone with enough government support, the others less so.
In theory SCAF and Tempest should be nearly balanced between partners and both feel like natural groupings.

Innovation means R&D cost. Developing a new ultralight sports plane isn't cheap but its not in the same league as multi-billon defence projects. Ultimately someone has to pick up the R&D cost, in the GA sector you can get that back over large production runs or licence the design to others or find an investor with big pockets.
For airliners the airlines ultimately pick up the cost, for military aircraft its governments.
Governments have a more direct stake in military aircraft as they specify what they want and stump up the cash for R&D and the purchase price, hence the desire to meddle more in things like IP.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,099
Reaction score
1,805
As I wrote elsewhere I fear Tempest is a TSR2 in the making. BAe have form on overpriced complex weapons systems.
Dassault will build Mirage X come what may.
Germany, Italy and Spain will go wherever they can get workshare and a politically acceptable solution.
Saab is resilient as Gripen and Viggen demonstrate. Whatever they do will be worth watching.
 

Deltafan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
542
Hearing of the CEO of Dassault before the French committee on Foreign Affairs, Defense and Armed Forces


For the moment, only this in English :


At the start of the program, I was very enthusiastic about it, but since the beginning of the differences, I am more and more pessimistic ...
 
Last edited:

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,397
Reaction score
2,197
It's only my own opinion but personally I do not consider French commitment to the Navy version of the FCAS rock solid.
Canceling the replacement of 45 Navy Rafale by an equal number of navalized FCAS and the cost of the mammoth aircraft carrier that comes with would be too natural to not see it as highly plausible.

Two smaller carriers fitted with F-35s would look like a natural move to get the force modernized for cheaper as way faster (and more integrated, something any Navy would want as a priority to survive any future conflict).

That being said, the French forseeable buy in FCAS airframe as put forward by Trappier as a basis in his argumentation would look notably different. From 230 airframe down to a more realistic 100...

From second link above:
Another way to look at this is by the number of fighters in each Air Force: Spain has 68 Eurofighters and 72 FA-18As, Germany has 60 Tornado (which will be replaced by Eurofighters and FA-18E/F/Gs, not FCAS) and 141 Typhoons (with teething readiness problems due to low maintenance funding) and France 55 renovated Mirage 2000D, 28 Mirage 200-5F, 105 Rafale B&C and 42 Rafale M. Based on these numbers, the fighters to be replaced by FCAS are 140 for Spain, 140 for Germany and 230 for France, ie 510 in total, suggesting a 27.5%/27.5%/45% split.
Most Mirage would realistically be replaced by soldering Rafale and thus should be kept out of the equation:
Final numbers should then be 230 minus 80 minus 45, hence solely 100+ airframe, putting France buy share much closer to their partners.
 
Last edited:

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
452
But considering the associated timescales, likely production rates etc. the aircraft that would emerge from the FCAS program would (in combination with unmanned “loyal wingmen etc.) would eventually replace all Rafales and Eurofighters (and other fighter/ strike aircraft) in the relevant airforces.
Hence it’s not really a case that “soldering on” airframes will have that much impact on numbers apart from less pressure for rapid fielding of the FCAS aircraft and on the required production rates. Rather more important are decisions around overall force numbers (and the budgets to pay for them).
To give context at the soonest (at least in my opinion) we might see a prototype FCAS aircraft flying is before the end of this decade and the first few production aircraft by the middle the next decade, with full operational status in any numbers by the end of that next decade.
 
Last edited:

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
170
Reaction score
324

At the start of the program, I was very enthusiastic about it, but since the beginning of the differences, I am more and more pessimistic ...

Good article, sums the situation up nicely.

Germany still seems like the root of all evils. What if France & Spain dumped Germany and went ahead in a Neuron-style partnership?
 

galgot

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,419
Website
galgot.com
Mmmhh... I think Airbus Spain will follow Airbus anyway.
Funny, it's like these demands are made to crash the program. I mean, it's obvious Dassault can't work on that base (tho they already made some concessions). They don't want a Eurofighter program redo.
Now wait for a French Gov reaction... And I fear this is the weak point.
 
Last edited:

totoro

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
395
Reaction score
128

I don't see the reasoning behind Germany's possible move to Tempest camp.

Tempest doesn't have any reported agreement issues so far, allegedly because UK is the only senior partner, calling most of the shots, and two other countries are okay with UK leading the program.

FCAS was, allegedly, arranged from the get go as a shared project, where it was important for Germany to have a big say in the project.
So, if that were true, why would Germany go from a project where it does have a big role, to a project where it would be relegated to a smaller role?

And if Germany were to seek a bigger role in Tempest, why would UK allow it to join under such conditions? And with it, risk Tempest turning into another FCAS/Eurofighter style political tug of wars?
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,397
Reaction score
2,197
French MoD offers Switzerland what was famously denied to their German partners on FCAS:
«Il n’y aura pas de boîte noire» dans le jet de l’avionneur français Dassault, a-t-elle appuyé. Ni dans le système de défense sol-air SAMP/T, du consortium français Eurosam, également en cours d’évaluation par Armasuisse et opposé au système américain Patriot.
--------------

"There will be no black box" in the jet of French aircraft manufacturer Dassault, she said. Nor in the SAMP / T ground-to-air defense system, from the French consortium Eurosam, also being evaluated by Armasuisse and opposed to the American Patriot system.

I guess that now Germans just have to tease their Swiss neighbors to join them in FCAS to nullify any further loudly voiced opposition from Dassault.
 

Deltafan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
542
French MoD offers Switzerland what was famously denied to their German partners on FCAS:
«Il n’y aura pas de boîte noire» dans le jet de l’avionneur français Dassault, a-t-elle appuyé. Ni dans le système de défense sol-air SAMP/T, du consortium français Eurosam, également en cours d’évaluation par Armasuisse et opposé au système américain Patriot.
--------------

"There will be no black box" in the jet of French aircraft manufacturer Dassault, she said. Nor in the SAMP / T ground-to-air defense system, from the French consortium Eurosam, also being evaluated by Armasuisse and opposed to the American Patriot system.

I guess that now Germans just have to tease their Swiss neighbors to join them in FCAS to nullify any further loudly voiced opposition from Dassault.

...


The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Ingo Gerhartz, is demanding access to all the technologies that would be contained in the "black boxes" of the Scaf. During the presentation of Dassault Aviation's 2020 results, Éric Trappier, CEO, clarified the point refuting the qualifier of "black box", reports La Tribune.
"A black box, for example, is an American plane. You do not even have the right to look, to open the box and to know what is in it," replied Eric Trappier.
 
Last edited:

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,397
Reaction score
2,197
Cheap and frankly under par for what you'd expect of a CEO. He seems to have a fixation with his Amerikans , we got it, but then does a business strategy have to be impacted by such personal bias?
Germans have been operating their own modified US hardware for decades...
 
Last edited:

Deltafan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
542
It's your word against Trappier's. Readers will judge...

Otherwise, from Hearing of the CEO of Dassault before the French committee on Foreign Affairs, Defense and Armed Forces, on the NGF (already showed above).


From 25' 40" to 25' 50"

Whatever is on the plane, they will know it. They will even have the possibility to modify it.

So no preference for the Swiss with the Rafale, compared to the Germans and the Spaniards with the NGF ...
 
Last edited:

Deltafan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
542
Otherwise again...


Full text:

FCAS: from negotiations on the precipice to an unexpected agreement?

Dassault Aviation and Airbus are reportedly close to announcing an agreement on the combat aircraft pillar (NGF) of the SCAF program, which brings together France, Germany and Spain.

Everything comes at the right time for those who know how to wait .... According to several corroborating sources, an agreement between Dassault Aviation and Airbus on the SCAF program, and more precisely on pillar 1 (NGF or combat aircraft of the future), would now be on the point to be concluded. Caution is still required, the devil often hiding in the details. However, from the edge of the precipice, the negotiations, which have accelerated in recent weeks between Airbus and Dassault Aviation, have been released to achieve a convergence of interests between the two manufacturers. Which augurs well for a future agreement except for new grains of sand. Maybe by the end of the week an agreement will be announced? The unprecedented operation of public unpacking of the two industrialists on their negotiations will have been beneficial in the end. It will have finally enabled Dassault and Airbus on the one hand, and Berlin and Paris on the other hand, to better understand each other and to start afresh on new bases of trust.

Until now, negotiations between Airbus and Dassault Aviation were seriously stumbling over the organization of phase 1B of the program, which aims to define the architecture of the aircraft demonstrator. And more precisely, they stumbled over the sharing of the leadership of the strategic lots of the NGF, whose leadership has so far been claimed by the French aircraft manufacturer. "We believe that the prime contractor should not control everything and take the decisions of the program alone", explained the boss of Airbus Defense & Space, Dirk Hoke, during a hearing in the Senate. The positions were firm. This is probably ancient history today.

One good news can hide another

As good news may hide another, Safran is also on the verge of reaching an agreement with German engine manufacturers MTU and Spanish ITP. A matter of days ... However, there would still be one point in the negotiations to be ratified between the three manufacturers, the engine that will drive the demonstrator. The Spaniards want to put the Eurojet, the Eurofighter engine developed and designed by Rolls Royce with the support of ITP and Avio, while Safran, as prime contractor for the NGF engine, logically pleads for an improved M88. Which would make sense ...

Finally, Airbus Strategy Director Antoine Bouvier had clearly announced that several agreements had already been signed with four manufacturers on several pillars of the program. "We have conducted negotiations, we have an industrial agreement in France with Thales. We have conducted negotiations, we have an industrial agreement in Spain with Indra. We have conducted negotiations, we have an industrial agreement in Germany with Hensoldt. We have have conducted negotiations, we have an industrial agreement in France and Germany with MBDA ", he had listed. As a result, SCAF is about to take off again ... before landing in the Bundestag, where it may have to endure further turbulence ...
 
Last edited:

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,099
Reaction score
1,805
I never thought I would feel sorry for the mighty Dassault.
But having to deal with quagmire that is the German defence and political set up will need all that company's guile and cunning.
BAe must be hoping that the need for German financial heft will not tempt Britain to seek a rerun of MRCA/Tornado and Eurofighter/Taifun.
Fortunately Tempest is not the same word in German. Sturm might have unfortunate connotations for a military programme.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
501
Reaction score
657
I never thought I would feel sorry for the mighty Dassault.
But having to deal with quagmire that is the German defence and political set up will need all that company's guile and cunning.
BAe must be hoping that the need for German financial heft will not tempt Britain to seek a rerun of MRCA/Tornado and Eurofighter/Taifun.
Fortunately Tempest is not the same word in German. Sturm might have unfortunate connotations for a military programme.
yup same.
German engineers are great, love their designs.
but their biggest enemies has always been German politicians with their constant goal post moving and flip flopping positions.
Perhaps France should just go at it with only Spain.

On a side note I do prefer the Airbus CGI design over the Dassault one. But all three, including the Tempest look a bit off to me. especially the latter's huge frontal half
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
452
I never thought I would feel sorry for the mighty Dassault.
But having to deal with quagmire that is the German defence and political set up will need all that company's guile and cunning.
BAe must be hoping that the need for German financial heft will not tempt Britain to seek a rerun of MRCA/Tornado and Eurofighter/Taifun.
Fortunately Tempest is not the same word in German. Sturm might have unfortunate connotations for a military programme.
With respect the UK would have clearly wished to have Germany (and Airbus) as a partner but the context around Brexit made that impossible (and rendered the UK program that much harder to bring to full fruition - we will see what happens in the years ahead). Ironically Brexit also makes it impossible for its ardent supporters to acknowledge this self-evident reality.
Very much comes across as like jealousy and sour grapes by a person re: the partner and friends they lost due to a bitter divorce (a divorce that person instigated and who was also the primary instigator of the bitterness).
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
1,827
Trappier is not being 100% honest, I'm sure those black boxes pertaining to French nuclear weapons will be firmly sealed with gaffer tape and if he's that chilled why all the IP fuss?
Then again Airbus are being a bit obtuse, a prime contractor should have the lead - no good having two prime contractors, that doesn't usually end well and there is proven track record on that.

A re-run of the EJ2000 and M88 battle! Does this mean that SCAF won't have a bespoke new engine or is this just tinkering with an existing engine for the demonstrator because a new engine won't be ready in time? And if so, why bother with a demonstrator that isn't using the same engine?
 

Deltafan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
542
Trappier is not being 100% honest, I'm sure those black boxes pertaining to French nuclear weapons will be firmly sealed with gaffer tape and if he's that chilled why all the IP fuss?
But why these black boxes in the planes for nuclear missions, would be the same as the black boxes for the planes with no nuclear missions ?

For the IP, it's explained in the video above. Dassault will give all the "foreground" (what is in the plane) to Spain and Germany. But he doesn't want to give the "background" : how to make the "foreground". Because if he gives all the background and the program is canceled in a few years, he will have given his technology to competing companies.

Bouvier (Airbus) said in the following video (with Dirk Hoke in the front of the same French Committee, one week later) that Airbus would gave "guarantees" to Dassault.


Perhaps an agreement has since been reached on this subject. This would explain the (supposed ...) advances mentioned in the last article of the French magazine La Tribune.
 
Last edited:

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,397
Reaction score
2,197
It's your word against Trappier's. Readers will judge...

This is not my word. Those are facts.
Germany had an unlimited access to F-104 and F-4 when they made their custom Gs.
Europe had an unlimited access to the F-16 when they made their MLU; airframe that were extensively manufactured in Europe, with extensive European systems. So much that the cartography of the continental European aerospace industry today (outside of France) reflects the MLU project.
It will be hard to say that Trappier is unaware of that when his company owns in particular part of one of the project leader in the F-16 MLU that is also in forefront to build components for the F-35 (tails) or found inspiration in US systems to build a competitive aircraft radar for the Rafale and modernized 2K in the 1990's

In effect, Trappier is overtly lying to the press. It's the unglamorous fact.
 
Last edited:

galgot

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,419
Website
galgot.com
It’s anyway both Airbus and Dassault interests to have something to keep working and design and build for that big expected budget . So it’s likely it will be done anyway.
What is more bothering is that with all this negotiation circus about who’ll do what (though it was agreed at the start), the plane becomes a compromise from contradicting demands and design cultures (add to that the differences in arms acquirement policies in Fr and Germany, bumpy road ahead) that in the end no one of the intended users AFs is happy with.

Seeing the last Le Bourget mockup, ok I know it’s been a while now, and it’s certainly very far from a definitive thing, is already a bit worrying.
To me the thing is too big. In the weight class of a F-15 or Su-27 ( wrong ?)
If the intention is really for something of that weight class , it is going to be super expensive and difficult to integrate to a carrier.
Looks like an ACF or Mirage 4000 reboot (super fighters, but that no-one really can/want afford to use in numbers in Western Europe), with all the problems of an international cooperation added.

But anyway the thing is far from « frozen », so I hope I’m wrong.
 
Last edited:

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
501
Reaction score
657
It’s anyway both Airbus and Dassault interests to have something to keep working and design and build for that big expected budget . So it’s likely it will be done anyway.
What is more bothering is that with all this negotiation circus about who’ll do what (though it was agreed at the start), the plane becomes a compromise from contradicting demands and design cultures (add to that the differences in arms acquirement policies in Fr and Germany, bumpy road ahead) that in the end no one of the intended users AFs is happy with.

Seeing the last Le Bourget mockup, ok I know it’s been a while now, and it’s certainly very far from a definitive thing, is already a bit worrying.
To me the thing is too big. In the weight class of a F-15 or Su-27 ( wrong ?)
If the intention is really for something of that weight class , it is going to be super expensive and difficult to integrate to a carrier.
Looks like an ACF or Mirage 4000 reboot (super fighters, but that no-one really can/want afford to use in numbers in Western Europe), with all the problems of an international cooperation added.

But anyway the thing is far from « frozen », so I hope I’m wrong.
basically

this
img_6594.jpg

vs
000879916_896x598_c.jpg
 

Deltafan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
542
It's your word against Trappier's. Readers will judge...

This is not my word. Those are facts.
Germany had an unlimited access to F-104 and F-4 when they made their custom Gs.
Europe had an unlimited access to the F-16 when they made their MLU; airframe that were extensively manufactured in Europe, with extensive European systems. So much that the cartography of the continental European aerospace industry today (outside of France) reflects the MLU project.
It will be hard to say that Trappier is unaware of that when his company owns in particular part of one of the project leader in the F-16 MLU that is also in forefront to build components for the F-35 (tails) or found inspiration in US systems to build a competitive aircraft radar for the Rafale and modernized 2K in the 1990's

In effect, Trappier is overtly lying to the press. It's the unglamorous fact.
You speak of F-104, F-4, F-16 MLU, from how much years ago ?

Trappier speaks of today...

sources for this part of Dassault for the F-16 MLU ?

And today, as Trappier speaks of today, the Rafale for export has AESA radar...
 
Last edited:

Deltafan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
542
It’s anyway both Airbus and Dassault interests to have something to keep working and design and build for that big expected budget . So it’s likely it will be done anyway.
What is more bothering is that with all this negotiation circus about who’ll do what (though it was agreed at the start), the plane becomes a compromise from contradicting demands and design cultures (add to that the differences in arms acquirement policies in Fr and Germany, bumpy road ahead) that in the end no one of the intended users AFs is happy with.

Seeing the last Le Bourget mockup, ok I know it’s been a while now, and it’s certainly very far from a definitive thing, is already a bit worrying.
To me the thing is too big. In the weight class of a F-15 or Su-27 ( wrong ?)
If the intention is really for something of that weight class , it is going to be super expensive and difficult to integrate to a carrier.
Looks like an ACF or Mirage 4000 reboot (super fighters, but that no-one really can/want afford to use in numbers in Western Europe), with all the problems of an international cooperation added.

But anyway the thing is far from « frozen », so I hope I’m wrong.
During the Hearing in the French Committee (video above) Hoke said (for the NGF, as far as I understood, as the word "architecture" was used for the demonstrator in the Hearings) :

The partners developed 10 architectures during the Joint Concept Studies (JCS) and the 3 air force chiefs of staff (France, Germany and Spain) selected 5 together. They are currently discussing the specifications of each and will select one architecture and its specifications.

Then, I think that the definitive shape is not frozen.
 
Last edited:

galgot

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,419
Website
galgot.com
It’s anyway both Airbus and Dassault interests to have something to keep working and design and build for that big expected budget . So it’s likely it will be done anyway.
What is more bothering is that with all this negotiation circus about who’ll do what (though it was agreed at the start), the plane becomes a compromise from contradicting demands and design cultures (add to that the differences in arms acquirement policies in Fr and Germany, bumpy road ahead) that in the end no one of the intended users AFs is happy with.

Seeing the last Le Bourget mockup, ok I know it’s been a while now, and it’s certainly very far from a definitive thing, is already a bit worrying.
To me the thing is too big. In the weight class of a F-15 or Su-27 ( wrong ?)
If the intention is really for something of that weight class , it is going to be super expensive and difficult to integrate to a carrier.
Looks like an ACF or Mirage 4000 reboot (super fighters, but that no-one really can/want afford to use in numbers in Western Europe), with all the problems of an international cooperation added.

But anyway the thing is far from « frozen », so I hope I’m wrong.
basically

this
img_6594.jpg

vs
000879916_896x598_c.jpg

Dunno :)
The Mockup at Le Bourget is super basic, and almost looks like a "placeholder" for any future fighter aircraft, like done to show the minimum design detail. But his size still says a lot about it. It's a big plane. How much of that size is really intended in the spec , and how much of that is PR ?… dunno.

Airbus design is indeed much more detailed, and look a bit smaller, thus look more realistic. But it's also just a nice detailed CG, too detailed to be taken for granted at this very early stage.

Like Deltafan confirms above, the thing is far from frozen.

For me the best size was the earlier Dassault model.

Interesting times anyway.
 

Similar threads

Top