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:
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:
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
An edito from one of those sink tank increasingly popular in the French aerospace debate.

You way not want to read such rant if you are German.

 
Last edited:

 
Some interesting viewpoints there, both articles approach the issues from a different angle.
But it does show that IP arguments can be sorted out and there is no reason why sense can't prevail.

Instead of messing around with technology demonstrators maybe they should just get on and build some prototypes?

They lament a closed-network F-35 but are to really believe SCAF will be NATO-compatible and freely networkable to non-SCAF assets?

I would agree that Germany is perhaps punching over its weight, it hasn't really got any recent military aircraft experience, for all its marketing bluster the Typhoon was developed largely by Warton with input from Daimler-Benz and Aeritalia - nowt to do with Airbus GmbH but rather Eurofighter GmbH. Germany and Italy refused to fund the EAP but it didn't kill the partnership.
But then France is no angel, Tiger and NH90 are not without faults and I seem to remember the French ditched Trigat before the Germans did...

I don't quite get the argument that SCAF will fail but then the UK/Italy and Sweden will chuck in their Tempest 'bluff' and join Dassault's dead SCAF instead. The French have chutzpah indeed when it comes to aviation programmes.
 
Dassaut's CEO vaguely invokes alternative measures for Dassault future out of FCAS:
PARIS (Reuters) - Dassault Aviation a un "plan B" en cas d'abandon du projet d'avion de combat du futur
-----------------
PARIS (Reuters) - Dassault Aviation has a "plan B" in case of abandonment of the fighter plane of the future project

https://www.boursorama.com/bourse/a...dg-du-groupe-8a05ba1b92be10db4bce37e22341bfe8


A classic difficult European situation, complicated by the unprecedented crisis of the civil aviation industry. It is a struggle for survival with the help of public money. Korea currently shows a different, much more effective approach.
 
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.
That could be one reason. We already know how things went ugly during their joint submarine program. Maybe the French side feared of somewhat similar kind of a problem in FCAS as well. I don't expect the Spanish Indra to be more capable in developing a 6th gen avionics than Thales and therefore expect some sort of contribution from the French side as well.
 
Likely outcomes if past trends come through

Dassault will end up building France's next fast jet on its own.

The UK and Sweden may get their own national aircraft programmes instead as happened with EAP and Gripen.

The UK may swallow its pride and decide that it needs German money. Then we are back in MRCA and Eurofighter territory.

If the UK is as f&&ked as the Budget statement suggests we may be back to the 60s and running on Typhoons and F35s till the US lets us have their successor plane cheapish.

Germany, Spain and Italy would then follow suit. Oh and the Swedes build their own smaller cheaper version of Tempest.
 
I don't think that Tempest will be affected by what happens on the other side of the channel.
Airbus might join the team with their perepherical systems. Please, don't forget that Italy is part of team Tempest

Dassault will probably head for something shorter term, more in line with a platform that could be easier to sale, perhaps akin to the KFX but with a longer range.
 
Last edited:
As I keep saying, 20 years is a long time, anything could happen to scupper SCAF between now and its planned introduction circa 2040.
EFA was a long and rocky road with German ping-ponging in and out but at least the UK kept the programme alive and Italy added some stability.
There is nothing to say that SCAF won't have a rocky in-out road, the big test in my view is whether Airbus would bite the bullet and stay in with Dassault even if the German government waivered with IP and funding? To some extent EFA survived because the industry wanted it to happen and they stuck to their guns and ultimately the governments came up with the orders.

If Dassault really want a new fighter they will do it. If Airbus wants to prove it can actually make it in the military market, they will stick with it.

The French could go it alone but surely the costs would mean knock-on losses elsewhere in the defence budget.
 
Dassault could seek other joint ventures, especially if F-35 are denied to countries like the UAE or Saudi Arabia. (see that undead 4000).
Unlikely the likes of France, Germany, Italy, Spain (& UK) will want to have the future of their military aviation industries and force structures dependent on those potentially unreliable and unstable regimes which have many many potentialy impactful underlying issues.
The likes of UAE and Saudi are normally referenced in this type of context when people are proposing “what ifs” they know are unaffordable and need a convenient magic tree to suddenly appear.
Both countries track record is of waiting and seeing what already developed and proven options are available when they come shopping; they may have an interest in what eventually emerges from these various programs but appear unlikely to be suckered in to pay for, say, the UK or France prolonging the fantasy that they can still do somethings on their own which they really can’t anymore.
 
@kaiserd : A long term airframe that would need 20 years to surface is obviously not my meaning (read previous post)... but something that would take under a decade and that could be positioned b/w the KFX and the F-35 with, let's say, an equal level of technology in some area, is what I think is probable (that's exactly what was the 2k relatively to the F-16).

Add range and you have a winner.

And is that new to put your fellow posters under?
 
Last edited:
Sorry @TomcatViP don’t really understand your point.
This is a FCAS topic discussion hence my references to and focus on that and the Tempest programs.
There is almost zero chance of what I am trying to interpret (from 2 of your lines, as your suggestion?) of an only-10-years-to/develop F-35-equivalent-but-lighter fighter involving UAE, Saudi and/ or the France or UK etc.
F-35 (eventually) or other pre-existing types buys are far far more likely, with supposed UAE project with Russia looking more like a mechanism for influence/ spreading cash re: Russia’s influence in Syria, and as a way of trying to exert extra pressure on the US to try to get the F-35.
 
of an only-10-years-to/develop F-35-equivalent-but-lighter fighter involving UAE, Saudi and/ or the France or UK etc.
Apart from "10 years", there is nothing that comes from me in what you claim you are trying to interpret.
It will then be hard to have a conversation that way as reasonable people.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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:
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:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom