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?
 
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:
There is no avoiding politics on this subject.
With Britain no longer in the EU France and Germany now need to step up to the plate on this programme.
SCAF/FCAS should be an important part of re-establishing the French-German partnership which is at the core of the EU.
Both countries now have an opportunity to make a new start in Europe. A common combat aircraft programme for its two most important air forces is a crucial part of this.
For the British life is now easier. We can either try and make a joint programme with Italy, Sweden and possibly others work or, as is more likely, become a solely F35 combat force when Typhoon leaves service.
 

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?
 
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.
 
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
 
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
 
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).
 
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?
 
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:
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:
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:
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
 
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:
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:
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.
 
^ do you have a pic of the earlier Dassault model?
 
Much as I enjoy confirming Kaiserd's animus there is a lot of truth in what he says.
Whitehall would undoubtedly have been happier with Airbus and Germany participating just as it was in the 70s and 80s.
BAe and the RAF I suspect contain people who would agree with one, both or neither of us.
To coin a phrase "we are where we are".
I stand by my amateur rune casting:
Dassault will get a new Mirage/Rafale by hook or by crook
BAe will weather UK politics getting either Tempest or more likely some part of something US.
Saab is pretty robust and will come up with something interesting.
That leaves Germany, Spain and Italy.
I actually believe in a strong Europe, as I wrote somewhere above. My chosen outcome would be a Dassault led consortium producing a great aircraft supported by GE, SP and IT. A future UK government might even buy some.
 
Found, at least this for the "tier 1":


In December 2006 the United Kingdom announced that it would acquire 138 F-35s[49] for the Royal Air Force to own, to be flown by pilots from the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy.[50]

The UK became increasingly frustrated by a lack of U.S. commitment to grant access to the technology that would allow the UK to maintain and upgrade its F-35s without US involvement. For five years, British officials sought an ITAR waiver to secure greater technology transfer. Although this had the support of the Bush administration it was repeatedly blocked by U.S. Representative Henry Hyde, on the grounds that British laws were insufficient to prevent unauthorised transfer of U.S. technology to third parties.[51]

On 27 May 2006, President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that "Both governments agree that the UK will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft."[52] In December 2006, an agreement was signed which met the UK's demands for further participation, i.e., access to software source code and operational sovereignty. The agreement allows "an unbroken British chain of command" for operation of the aircraft.[53] The UK was still considering an unspecified "Plan B" alternative to buying the Joint Strike Fighter.

In 2007, the Ministry of Defence placed orders for two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers to operate the F-35B variant.[54] On 2 May 2008, however, the Washington Post reported that an Inspector General's report chided the U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Security Service for failing to ensure that BAE Systems was exercising appropriate controls over access to sensitive technologies, while both BAE and Lockheed Martin denied that any technology had been compromised.[55]
And this


The UK has invested GBP £1.08 billion in development funding for the JSF. Britain has also worked for five years for an ITAR waiver to allow greater technology transfer associated with the project. The effort, backed by the Bush administration, has been repeatedly blocked by US Congressman Henry Hyde because of his concern about potential technology transfer to third countries.[5] On Friday 27 May 2006 President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair issued a joint statement which announced "both governments agree that the UK will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the Joint Strike Fighter such that the UK retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft."[6]

In February 2006 the chairman of the Commons Defence Select Committee stated that unless the UK got "all the information and technology it requires to maintain and upgrade the aircraft independently.... [it] might have to consider whether to continue in the programme.[7] Lord Drayson, Minister for Defence Procurement, while on a government visit to Washington to speak to members of Congress stated "We do expect [the software] technology transfer to take place. But if it does not take place we will not be able to purchase these aircraft", and has mentioned that there is a 'plan B' if the deal falls through.[8] A suggested likely option was the development of a navalised Typhoon. Mike Turner has said it was not what he recommend, but "as Lord Drayson has made clear, there needs to be a fall-back in case something goes wrong."[9]

Interesting to compare with the today's negociations for the FCAS, I think...
 
Last edited:
Well, for Israël, at least :


(...)
Israel was reinstated as a partner in the development of the F-35 on 31 July 2006, after its participation was put on hold following the Chinese arms deal crisis.[4]
(...)
The first squadron of 20 F-35 jets from the first production series would only include a few Israeli-made systems. The United States, meanwhile, has agreed that if Israel buys more F-35 squadrons from later production series, the installation of more Israeli-made systems will be allowed. To sweeten the deal, Lockheed Martin said it would buy parts and systems for the F-35 from Israeli companies at a cost of $4 billion. The aircraft will be designated F-35I, as there will be unique Israeli features installed in them.[15]
(...)
The finance minister said consideration also had to be given to Washington's opposition to the installation of Israeli systems and missiles on the plane. This would bar the plane from being outfitted with radar built by Israel Aerospace Industries' Elta division or missiles produced by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. Finance Ministry officials said the ban on installing Israeli systems on the aircraft would be a major blow to Israel's defense industry. In particular, the purchase of American missiles would hurt development of new Israeli missile systems. The ban also prevents countries that purchase the aircraft from buying such Israeli military systems. This contrasts with previous American fighters, on which Israeli components have been installed. The US has agreed to reciprocal purchases of equipment from Israel's defense industries totaling between $4 billion and $9 billion, which Steinitz acknowledged could remedy this situation.[16]
Israel's three main areas of interest in customization are radar, electronic warfare and communications systems and independent maintenance capabilities.[17]
Richard Genaille, deputy head of the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, has said that installing different electronics on the F-35 would be very costly and "probably will not be in the best interest in the long run of" nations that make such changes.[18]
Israel's guarantees of more than US$4B of aerospace work in exchange for their purchase of 20 F-35s valued at US$2.7B, without any other industrial investment in the program has caused aerospace analysts to question what benefits countries who have invested in the F-35 program will receive. Norway, Denmark and Italy have all expressed concerns that the industrial benefits from the program may be insufficient to justify participation.[19]
(...)
While being interviewed by Haaretz in May 2011, Ehud Shani said that "during the last visit by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to Israel a month ago, we were told that the delay may be shorter than they originally thought. In any case, I am not nervous about it. This [delay] may actually serve our interests. I favor an aircraft with as many Israeli-made systems as possible." He also said that "we will see how they try to meet our requests over this time. In the original timetable, it was argued that there was no time [to incorporate Israeli systems into the Israeli F-35s]. We will hear their conclusions and I expect a dialogue with the Americans over the new timetable and the changes."
(...)
According to a 7 July 2011 Aviation Week article, the United States has agreed to allow Israeli F-35s to be rewired so that Israeli electronic warfare systems can be installed on the aircraft. That would allow Israel to gradually add indigenous EW sensors and countermeasures on its fighters once it receives its first squadron. With that deal in hand, officials for both the IAF and Lockheed Martin expect the $2.7 billion contract for the procurement of 19 or 20 F-35As will be signed by early 2012.[34]
"I believe that Israel could receive its first F-35s in late 2016," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin's general manager of the F-35 program. A senior IAF official, who until then was concerned about delays in the program, said that the schedule agreed upon is "very satisfactory." Israel insisted that only its own EW systems would be suitable to meet the developing anti-aircraft threat in the region, such as the deployment of SA-17 and SA-22 air defense systems in Syria. But now, claimed the official, "the F-35s we will receive will be more than ready to meet those threats."[34]
The IAF initially presented a long list of unique and costly requirements for the JSF, but it has accepted that its first F-35s will be almost identical to those of the U.S. Air Force, with only Israeli command, control, computers, communications and intelligence systems installed in them. The plans to add Israeli EW systems, air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions as well as an external fuel tank, were approved in principle but will be deferred in order to protect the budgetary framework and delivery schedule.[34]
(...)
A senior Israeli air force official stated, "the aircraft will be designated F-35I, as there will be unique Israeli features installed in them." The United States initially refused to allow the integration of Israel's own electronic warfare systems into the aircraft's built-in electronic suite. However, Israel planned the introduction of a plug-and-play feature added to the main computer to allow for the use of Israeli electronics in an add-on fashion, and to fit its own external jamming pod.[62] The IAF dispatched two officers to the US where they discussed issues involving the integration of Israeli technology into the fighter with Pentagon and Lockheed Martin officials.[35] In July 2011, it was reported that the U.S. had agreed to allow Israel to install its own electronic warfare systems and missiles in its F-35s in the future.[63] In 2012 Lockheed was awarded a contract to make changes to the first Israeli F-35s to allow the installation of Israeli electronic warfare equipment produced by Elbit Systems.[64][65] This equipment will use "specific apertures ... in the lower fuselage and leading edge".[66] Israel also plans to install its own indigenously-produced guided bombs and air-to-air missiles in the F-35's internal weapon bays.[62] Benni Cohen compared the Israel Aerospace Industries Command and control system to an iPhone App that would run on top of the central avionics.[67]
Israel Aerospace Industries will manufacture the outer wings of Israel's F-35s.[65] IAI may also play a role in the development of a proposed two-seat F-35. An IAI executive stated, "There is a known demand for two seats not only from Israel but from other air forces. Advanced aircraft are usually two seats rather than single seats."[68] The Israeli F-35s helmet-mounted displays will also be manufactured in Israel.[69] This is part of the Offset agreement provided to Israel, in spite of the purchase being entirely funded by American aid.[70]
Well, easy way too...
 
Benni Cohen compared the Israel Aerospace Industries Command and control system to an iPhone App that would run on top of the central avionics.[67]

This is I think the crux of the issue and a great analogy.

Does Apple allow you to modify iOS? No.
Do they allow you to create and install any app without their approval? No.
If you jailbreak your iOS, will you still get automatic software updates from Apple? No.

Works the same for F-35. For FCAS, my understanding is that Dassault is committing to enabling access to the source code and to enable adding apps without breaking the software.

This has nothing to do with the underlying IP of how the source code was created and the research studies that went into developing different technologies. No one ever gets that in any deal.
 
Last edited:
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.
Internal weapons forces big aeroplanes and hence cost regardless of anything else. Its pretty unclear what size weapon bays any of these concepts have. And Dassault is talking about more range as well, so that'll increase size again.

Definitely an issue for CdeG but maybe it'll only be integrated on PA2

Definitely interested to see how many of these sorts of aircraft any of the European air forces can afford
 
As your "source" did no say anything about the today's situation of "black boxes" on the F-35, to compare with the Dassault politic in the NGF, I found and showed two sources to permit to other readers to compare.

And thank you for bringing up the subject to allow that for us :)
First : It's communes understanding that Israelis F-35s use unique systems developed by Israel industry. It has been stated and follow a long line of US airframe (and prior to that French airframe) customized for the IAF specific needs and tactics.

(see how an explanation can take only two lines).
 
Last edited:
@galgot @red admiral We’re talking about the same weight class as an F-35. Which doesn’t strike me as being particularly expensive on a unit cost basis.

These days costs don’t seem to be tied to the platform size... development costs, system integration costs etc, most of those are fixed.
 
It's communes understanding that Israelis F-35s use unique systems developed by Israel industry.
With US approval required to run Israeli “apps” on top of the US core software platform.

There is no indication that the Israelis are getting access to the source code (which would be necessary if they want to modify how the US radar operates, how the flight control system works, or to modify the weapons interface for a non-standard weapons system etc).
 
@galgot @red admiral We’re talking about the same weight class as an F-35. Which doesn’t strike me as being particularly expensive on a unit cost basis.

These days costs don’t seem to be tied to the platform size... development costs, system integration costs etc, most of those are fixed.
Depends if the countries set up individual production lines in each country for workshare reasons, and whether a best athlete approach is actually used - cue workshare and industry sustainment issues for at least one country.

I'd think development costs here are based on how much each country wants to pay to sustain theiir defence aerospace design teams, not necessarily linked to outturn capability
 
It's communes understanding that Israelis F-35s use unique systems developed by Israel industry.
With US approval required to run Israeli “apps” on top of the US core software platform.

There is no indication that the Israelis are getting access to the source code (which would be necessary if they want to modify how the US radar operates, how the flight control system works, if they need to modify the weapons interface for a non-standard weapons system etc).

Well, it's an effect based strategy. And I will remind you that one of the main drivers in F-35 foreign acquisition lies in the guarantee that no spill of knowledge could result.

But let's not compare what is not. Dassault Aviation has never flown a VLO airframe nor does it have any experience to sustain one. LM had decade of experience in various demanding domain.
The R&D budget of Dassault-Aviation, as publicly available, is so low that most Startups with solid backing have better numbers. That is and was not the case with LM.
 
Last edited:
As your "source" did no say anything about the today's situation of "black boxes" on the F-35, to compare with the Dassault politic in the NGF, I found and showed two sources to permit to other readers to compare.

And thank you for bringing up the subject to allow that for us :)
First : It's communes understanding that Israelis F-35s use unique systems developed by Israel industry. It has been stated and follow a long line of US airframe (and prior to that French airframe) customized for the IAF specific needs and tactics.

(see how an explanation can take only two lines).
Two lines or 100 pages of "commune understanding" are not a source. It's why I liked the links on the F-35 that I showed above. They are precise and give other sources.

For the other older US airframes in Israel, I already answered in the same way for the F-16 MLU and the German F-4 and F-104).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom