NEWS ONLY: France-Germany-Spain Future Combat Air System (FCAS / SCAF / FSAC)

H_K said:
Dassault isn't criticizing the workshare rights though.
Click to expand...
I'm really not sure that's the case, Trappier comes across as wanting to assign work packages solely as he sees fit.

H_K said:
Or if a Spanish company got to reinvent a new FCS software from scratch instead of building off Dassault's own proven solution...
Click to expand...
Why not build off Airbus Germany's own proven solution? (I don't actually expect FCAS to reuse an existing FCS, which would need to be significantly re-engineered)

Because Dassault builds a French aircraft with almost solely French content they can always point to their incumbent supplier as the 'obvious' best choice, but that isn't necessarily the case and will be viewed with suspicion by Germany and Spain.

At this point in time I'd say Trappier has destroyed any chance of Dassault alone being viewed as a neutral arbiter by the other two partners.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Airbus Military seems to have issues delivering A400s. And A400s have quality issues.
Click to expand...
It belatedly occurred to me to pick up on this wrt Boeing. Boeing's had all kinds of quality and technical issues (aileron hinge structures with cracks on KC-46s that haven't flown yet!), yet no one thinks to suggest they aren't capable of building F-47. So why is it different for European companies working on FCAS and Tempest?
 
So, in the end, is the fighter jet being developed by France and Germany intended to be a carrier-based aircraft, a land-based one, or both?
This may be a beginner's question, but if it is decided to be developed as a carrier-based aircraft, would that make it a good fit for Germany?
 
DWG said:
It belatedly occurred to me to pick up on this wrt Boeing. Boeing's had all kinds of quality and technical issues (aileron hinge structures with cracks on KC-46s that haven't flown yet!), yet no one thinks to suggest they aren't capable of building F-47. So why is it different for European companies working on FCAS and Tempest?
Click to expand...
There seems to be this idea on the pop-cultural level amongst a reasonable segment of American commentators in this sphere that European defence projects will always be cancelled or delivered late, less capable and in less numbers than envisioned, be they something like machine guns or jet fighters, whereas American defence projects (on the level of stuff like FCAS/Tempest/F-47, at least) never will, or at least never will to the extent a European equivalent would.

It can become somewhat draining to talk about European (or any non-American, really) projects if one is friends with such people.
 
takacosta said:
So, in the end, is the fighter jet being developed by France and Germany intended to be a carrier-based aircraft, a land-based one, or both?
This may be a beginner's question, but if it is decided to be developed as a carrier-based aircraft, would that make it a good fit for Germany?
Click to expand...

Like the Rafale there will be a land based and a naval version, with Germany (most likely) only operating the land based version. While France will operate both.
 
takacosta said:
So, in the end, is the fighter jet being developed by France and Germany intended to be a carrier-based aircraft, a land-based one, or both?
This may be a beginner's question, but if it is decided to be developed as a carrier-based aircraft, would that make it a good fit for Germany?
Click to expand...
For France to participate in this, there HAS to be a CATOBAR carrier based variant anyway. If the thing is designed from the beginning like the Rafale, with a basis airframe suitable for both land and carrier based, and only specific equipments like LGs and stuff for each versions, then I don't see the problem. I suppose France will pay for the specific Navy equipment development.
And Germany will buy only the land based version. After all they already used a jet originally designed as a navy plane and seems to have been happy with it.

Of note, designing a CATOBAR carrier based jet is another thing Dassault can say only them have recent experience in Europe. But that concerns only France anyway...
 
galgot said:
For France to participate in this, there HAS to be a CATOBAR carrier based variant anyway. If the thing is designed from the beginning like the Rafale, with a basis airframe suitable for both land and carrier based, and only specific equipments like LGs and stuff for each versions, then I don't see the problem. I suppose France will pay for the specific Navy equipment development.
And Germany will buy only the land based version. After all they already used a jet originally designed as a navy plane and seems to have been happy with it.

Of note, designing a CATOBAR carrier based jet is another thing Dassault can say only them have recent experience in Europe. But that concerns only France anyway...
Click to expand...
That sounds like a very expensive development.
 
muttbutt said:
https://www.hartpunkt.de/fcas-erhaelt-frankreich-80-prozent-am-neuen-new-generation-fighter/
Click to expand...
If this is the case, the division of tasks between the nations and industrial partners, which has been determined in lengthy negotiations, would be completely turned on its head. It would no longer be possible to speak of a partnership of equals. Observers assume that France, with the required share of more than three-quarters of the work, is striving for design sovereignty for both the aircraft and the system-of-systems, in which the fighter takes centre stage.
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if the overwhelming workshare wasn't also meant to represent the higher end CCAs/similar systems too. That seems like too profitable a niche to leave unchecked by Dassault.

The next week or two is likely to prove interesting in the Chinese sense for the FCAS project, and the various business and governmental people involved in it.
 
muttbutt said:
https://www.hartpunkt.de/fcas-erhaelt-frankreich-80-prozent-am-neuen-new-generation-fighter/
Click to expand...
Wie hartpunkt nun aus gut informierten Kreisen erfahren hat
Click to expand...
I think it's better to not get ahead of ourselves just yet, because, credibility of Hartpunkt or this misterious "source" aside, I don't think the French are that dumb to think that they could demand something that outrageous to its partners.

In case they really did, it's nothing more than saying "bugger off, we're doing this alone" without saying it.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
I think it's better to not get ahead of ourselves just yet, because, credibility of Hartpunkt or this misterious "source" aside, I don't think the French are that dumb to think that they could demand something that outrageous to its partners.

In case they really did, it's nothing more than saying "bugger off, we're doing this alone" without saying it.
Click to expand...
It's not about being dumb, in my experience French people are generally pretty smart, but it's about attitude. And this is in line with previous displays of the attitude at Dassault and the French MoD.

If it's true, which I don't hope, than FCAS is effectively dead and should better be dropped by Germany.
 
Geo said:
Is it completely absurd to expect Spain to further strengthen its cooperation with TAI and somehow become involved in the development of Kaan? A wild idea?
Click to expand...
It isn't completely absurd but there needs to be more involvement from the Spanish side for that. Are the Turks willing to be as open to collaboration as in the case of Hurjet? Very unlikely. Are the Spaniards willing to accept that? Unlikely too.

But who knows.

I wonder what the Spanish contribution to Kaan would be. Part production? sure. ToT? Very limited if not non-existent in this stage of the project.

Unless they want to go to the lengths of designing their own sensors to put in their version of Kaan. Is Indra up to the task? They don't have the EO experience as other companies have, like Leonardo. They do have experience in Radar and EW though.

Lots of ifs and buts but I won't say it's impossible.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
I don't think the French are that dumb to think that they could demand something that outrageous to its partners.
Click to expand...
I agree 80% sounds high and outrageous but when you look at the math France has outsold Germany & Spain 533 Rafales <-> 314 Eurofighters, which would warrant a 63% work share.

One could even throw in the 47 Mirage 2000-5 Mk2s produced in parallel from 2003-2007 (for UAE and Greece), which would give you 580 Rafale + Mirages 2000-5 Mk2 <-> 314 Eurofighters... a 65% share.

So not quite 80%, but still France could be justified in asking for a higher share... certainly no one would bat an eyelid if it was the Trump administration doing this to an ally for example.
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
I agree 80% sounds high and outrageous but when you look at the math France has outsold Germany & Spain 533 Rafales <-> 314 Eurofighters, which would warrant a 63% work share.

One could even throw in the 47 Mirage 2000-5 Mk2s produced in parallel from 2003-2007 (for UAE and Greece), which would give you 580 Rafale + Mirages 2000-5 Mk2 <-> 314 Eurofighters... a 65% share.

So not quite 80%, but still France could be justified in asking for a higher share... certainly no one would bat an eyelid if it was the Trump administration doing this to an ally for example.
Click to expand...
Those numbers get slighty increase when things like those hornets or the 35 Tornados of germany (those 35 don't have an formal like Eurofighter EK /F-35 replacement but if pilot numbers don't fall they still count). That said even then we aren't even close too 80% of the fighters. And nobody is stupid enough to develop a jet with the USA under the Trump administration (well for now atleast). Afterall one could say the same for MGCS then were with 609 active tanks (or Support vehicles) or on order at 66,4% while france with 302 tanks (or Support vehicles) at only 32,9% and this number could be even smaller if moreaybe up too a 1000) are bought. Excluded are reserve and export sales...
 
Last edited:
More drama...

The Works Council Chair of Airbus Defence and Space, Thomas Pretzl, considers the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), which was planned for the mid-1940s, to be absolutely necessary. However, the French Dassault Aviation was the wrong partner, Pretzl said today at a works meeting at Airbus in Manching, as can be seen from a statement from his office. “Partnership is based on cooperation and not against each other. There are more attractive and suitable partners in Europe,” the works council headed.
Click to expand...


https://www.hartpunkt.de/airbus-betriebsrat-dassault-fuer-fcas-der-falsche-partner/
 
muttbutt said:
More drama...

The Works Council Chair of Airbus Defence and Space, Thomas Pretzl, considers the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), which was planned for the mid-1940s, to be absolutely necessary. However, the French Dassault Aviation was the wrong partner, Pretzl said today at a works meeting at Airbus in Manching, as can be seen from a statement from his office. “Partnership is based on cooperation and not against each other. There are more attractive and suitable partners in Europe,” the works council headed.


https://www.hartpunkt.de/airbus-betriebsrat-dassault-fuer-fcas-der-falsche-partner/
Click to expand...
Ouch... If the project dates from back then, no wonder it goes nowhere. Very bad collaboration memories...

Anyway to me it seems like a response to the Germans, "you buy F-35s ? find out"...
They are the bad Rafale guys who build their aircraft alone with the fewest US components in Europe (almost none), who are these Dassault people daring asking anything ? While they are the good guys giving their money to LM.
 
Last edited:
kqcke for you said:
Those numbers get slighty increase when things like those hornets or the 35 Tornados of germany (those 35 don't have an formal like Eurofighter EK /F-35 replacement but if pilot numbers don't fall they still count). That said even then we aren't even close too 80% of the fighters. And nobody is stupid enough to develop a jet with the USA under the Trump administration (well for now atleast). Afterall one could say the same for MGCS then were with 609 active tanks (or Support vehicles) or on order at 66,4% while france with 302 tanks (or Support vehicles) at only 32,9% and this number could be even smaller if moreaybe up too a 1000) are bought. Excluded are reserve and export sales...
Click to expand...
Actualy running the numbers while assuming that all fighters without replacement will be with FCAS increases the German/Spanish share too 40,6% with 396 Jets and france to 59,4% with 580 aircrafts
 
galgot said:
Ouch... If the project dates from back then, no wonder it goes nowhere. Very bad collaboration memories...

Anyway, to me it seems like a response to the Germans, "you buy F-35s ? find out"...
But anyway, we are the bad Rafale guys, while they are the good guys giving their money to LM.
Click to expand...
Yeah damn how could germany buy F-35 which fits the requierments for the jets it will replace, which had a very specific mission set and not even all of the 85 jets but just 35. Those monsters how could they ....
 
Last edited:
kqcke for you said:
Yeah damn how could germany buy F-35 which fits the requierments for the jets it will replace which had a very specific mission set and not even all of the 85 jets but just 35. Those monsters how could they ....
Click to expand...
Yes.. How could they still be sure these US bombs will still be there to be carried by these F-35s in 5 - 10 years... ? Ah yeah, pay and trust daddy. He's definitely someone you can count on. European policy nowadays it seems.
 
galgot said:
Yes.. How could they still be sure these US bombs will still be there to be carried by these F-35s in 5 - 10 years... ?
Click to expand...
How Sure can you be that any bomb or missile would still be available when they come from outsiders? Also F-35 brings a lot of benefits even for FCAS ...
galgot said:
Ah yeah, pay and trust daddy. He's definitely someone you can count on. European policy nowadays it seems.
Click to expand...
Yeah but you only got 2 Daddy Options. France or USA and non is good....
 
kqcke for you said:
How Sure can you be that any bomb or missile would still be available when they come from outsiders? Also F-35 brings a lot of benefits even for FCAS ...
Click to expand...
Me ? I'm not the one in position to be sure and spend € billions to be able to carry daddy's bombs.
One thing obvious tho, when the "outsider" in question drift more and more "outside" of your own policies/values, it's more a bet than certainty.
Yeah, I believe too F-35 will bring a lot of benefits... Just for the fact that it will bring experience for the next F-47 purchase.

kqcke for you said:
Yeah but you only got 2 Daddy Options. France or USA and non is good....
Click to expand...

I don't know how to take the fact that France could be put on the same footing as the current US administration, and that it would enjoy being called Mummy... With humour perhaps.
Well, one thing is certain: France is in Europe, member of EU, and still somewhat democratic (tho nobody's perfect, as we know) , last time I checked. So, expenditures define priorities I suppose.
 
Last edited:
galgot said:
Me ? I'm not the one in position to be sure and spend € billions to be able to carry daddy's bombs.
One thing obvious tho, when the "outsider" in question drift more and more "outside" of your own policies/values, it's more a bet than certainty.
Yeah, I believe too F-35 will bring a lot of benefits... Just for the fact that it will bring experience for the next F-47 purchase.
Click to expand...
Okay i get it that you see any purchase of american systems as bad and will allways put it like that but those nukes are still there and will be for now. If it ever comes down to using then everything is on a shit path anyway and those few nukes are likely only a drop in the ocean. Also it does allows for experience with those systems something we can hardly get now with just Rafale or Eurofighter....
galgot said:
I don't know how to take the fact that France could be put on the same footing as the current US administration, and that it would enjoy being called Mummy... Well, one thing is certain: France is in Europe, last time I checked. Expenditures define priorities.
Click to expand...
I set them on the same footing because never it better in the end compared to having them for yourself. I would do the same with UK, sweden, poland or the netherlands. Non is better if the goal is usable detterent capabilitys.


But as i don't believe we agree to each other even if we discuss this more and in the end get off topic of the thread then how about we agree to disagree with each other.
 
Do I read the report above correctly? A Super Eurofighter?

Politicians must now act promptly to implement the goal formulated by Chancellor Merz of having the strongest conventional army in Europe.

The works council chairman is calling on the Airbus board and politicians to further develop the Eurofighter into the "Super Eurofighter." He says this could make stealth technology and increased range feasible by the early 2030s.
Click to expand...

So, at the end of a heavy budget lines and many years of heated discussions, FCAS, the forward vision for Europe fighter jets will end as... Rafale 5 Vs Eurofighter Super ?!!
That sounds very much like the scenario of your average cable channel B-rated movie...
 

Attachments

  • 1751920868474.png
    1751920868474.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 132
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Do I read the report above correctly? A Super Eurofighter?



So, at the end of a heavy budget lines and many years of heated discussions, FCAS, the forward vision for Europe fighter jets will end as... Rafale 5 Vs Eurofighter Super ?!!
That sounds very much like the scenario of your average cable channel B-rated movie...
Click to expand...
I'm back from Soul. I'm Super Eurofighter.
 

Attachments

  • twin_tail_Eurofighter.jpg
    twin_tail_Eurofighter.jpg
    23.8 KB · Views: 145
Looks like we will eventually see a similar situation like what happened to the EFA program when France left but this time it will be Germany and Spain leaving.
 
It's kind of ironic since IIRC it was the German MoD who insisted on the phased FCAS approach with negotiations having to restart at each key Phase (Phase 1a, 1b, Phase 2) etc. This was needed to get Bundestag parliamentary sign-off (and also rather conveniently gave them some extra leverage to renegotiate terms in Germany's favor along the way). Meanwhile the French would have loved to lock in the workshare agreement from the beginning.

Now having kicking the can down the road, Germany finds itself facing a much more confident French partner on the back of Rafale's export successes... so instead of having more leverage (as it was hoping), it has less leverage.

With all that said, 80% is still a crazy number... I wonder how it's being justified? Or maybe it's just a way to give Germany an honourable way out of FCAS? (I still think France would like Spain as a junior partner and 1-2 small European countries such as Greece Belgium, Portugal)
 
The national workshare was set by the treaty at a governmental level for each of the individual pillars, 50-50 between France and Germany for the manned pillar and during the awarding of the Phase 1 feasibility/concept design studies that workshare was honoured. But Dassault is trying to muscle its way to an 80% share of the commercial contracts during the commercial contracting for the Pillar 2 flight demonstrator stage, ignoring the pre-agreed workshare. We don't have Thales complaining that they will only get 25% workshare in the Sensors and Combat Cloud pillars but I expect another almighty dustup over the Stealth/Extreme low observability Pillar as it was agreed at the governmental level that Dassault would only due to get a 25% share of that with 50% for Airbus Spain and 25% for Airbus Germany. So far Thales France hasn't complained about its workshare allocations.
 
Last edited:
For those who want to know how we got here, here's some excellent background on the FCAS program, from the SLD (Second Line of Defense) team. Over 60 pages!

The Future Combat System: An Overview
https://defense.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/FCAS-Overview.pdf
Table of Contents
  • The Future Combat Air System: The View from Paris .. 4
  • Extending Combat Air Capabilities With Unmanned Systems: An Airbus Perspective from the International Fighter Conference 2018 .... 8
  • The French Shape an Evolutionary Approach to Their Future Combat Air System................. 10
  • MBDA and FCAS: The Brexit Challenge..... 13
  • Thales and the Future Combat Air System.. 15
  • Future Combat Air System: A Speed Race Between Data And Fighter .......................... 17
  • An Update on the Future Combat Air Systems Program: February 2019 ........................... 18
  • MBDA and FCAS: Building Weapons for the “Combat Cloud” ......................................... 20
  • The Combat Cloud at the Heart of the Future Combat Air System.................................. 21
  • Building the FCAS Combat Cloud: Coming to Terms with the 2 Fives – Fifth Gen and 5G ... 25
  • Reworking the Franco-German Arms Export Policies: A Crucial Challenge Facing FCAS .. 27
  • Putting FCAS Into a Broader European Political Context......................................................... 29
  • France, Germany and New Defense Projects: Framing the Challenge ................................. 30
  • An Update on the Future Combat Air System: International Fighter Conference 2019......... 33
  • Thales and the Future Combat Air System... 35
  • An Update on European Defense Industrial Generated Systems: January 2020............. 37
  • The Next Phase for FCAS: The French and German Governments Commit Development Funding.... 39
  • Dassault: Looking Forward to a European MALE UAV as FCAS Building Block ........... 40
  • An FCAS Update: June 2020....................... 42
  • FCAS Odyssey: July 2020 ....... 44
  • An Update on the Future Combat Air System: December 2020 ......................................... 47
  • Next Gen Fighter: Franco-German Debates and Perspectives ...................................... 50
  • Artificial Intelligence, the Future Combat Air System and Shaping a Way Ahead ............. 53
  • The FCAS Industrial Package: The Saga Continues.... 60
  • French, German and Spanish Air Chiefs Received FCAS Industry Briefings............... 62
  • The Bundestag Budget Committee’s Green Light on FCAS............................................. 64
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • FCAS background Second Line of Defense.pdf
    7.3 MB · Views: 18
Last edited:
Geo said:
Is it unrealistic to expect that France could stick to its traditions and, as a Plan B, independently develop a technologically pragmatic and cost-competitive stealth fighter—initially using technologies from the F5, but equipped with a larger radar and an even more powerful variant of the M88 T-REX—within the same weight class as the KF-21?
Paired with the Neuron 2.0, such a solution would be a rational one.
Click to expand...
Looking at the first Dassault concept models from 2018, which looked to me smaller (Rafale size) and more realistic than the latests NGF super fighters concepts, while retaining the same plan form, I have my idea that was initially their plan.
Something the size of F-47, or J-20, or these latests NGF images seems to me unrealistic and of no need for France anyway, not to talk about the difficulty of exporting these monsters unless you are USA or China.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom