These models just feel too generic to me, good for brightening up a marketing stand but not quite the real deal I think.

Absolutely. These are likely just one of several possible early configurations. At at the time they were deemed either most prospective or even just most marketable. Meaning, picked for the looks, so it looks futuristic, capable, worth the money invested, even though they are well aware the final plane may not look the part.

In several years time, when an actual demonstrator aircraft appears - that's when we'll get a better sense of what they're aiming at. But lets be prepared that the demonstrator looks different. Beefier if needed. With more tail surfaces or more vertical tail surfaces if needed. With different wing shape if needed and so on.

And then from the demonstrator to the actual prototype we also might see some further changes, though by then I do think the changes would be fairly small. Like X-35 was to F35 and YF-22 to F-22.
 

There is also a cashwise question. With next to nothing done in stealth, the complex iterative nature of Stealth development will call for massive private investments.
I am not sure that Dassault will have the willingness to put that amount of money on the table. Also since French gov divested large amount of money on Lullabies (lately we heard about billions on clean aircraft flying with H2 with next to nothing similar to a competitive process), not much more will be available for such a cash strapped country. National non-aerospace industry facing US tariffs in the name of subsedized Airbus will voice hard against further massive payments.

Invariably, cash power is slipping out of the hands France and Dassault toward Germany. I'am not a fan of Faury (far from it) but if he plays hard he might tip the balance in favor of Airbus.
Readers can judge instantly "with next to nothing done in stealth" (since the beginning of the 90s). Future will judge for the rest...

 

Attachments

  • dassault_future_fighter.jpg
    dassault_future_fighter.jpg
    17.2 KB · Views: 88
  • dassault_FACE_2.jpg
    dassault_FACE_2.jpg
    12.7 KB · Views: 84
  • Dassault Petit Duc AVE-C.jpg
    Dassault Petit Duc AVE-C.jpg
    126.6 KB · Views: 77
  • Dassault Moyen Duc.png
    Dassault Moyen Duc.png
    353.6 KB · Views: 68
  • Dassault Neuron.jpg
    Dassault Neuron.jpg
    35.1 KB · Views: 78
  • Dassault SCAF première image.png
    Dassault SCAF première image.png
    601.3 KB · Views: 97
  • Dassault NGF Bourget best.jpg
    Dassault NGF Bourget best.jpg
    54.4 KB · Views: 104
For the forumers who want to see the complete (very long) text, it's the report of two French Senators for the French Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defense and the Armed Forces (in French, sorry).

PDF : http://www.senat.fr/rap/r19-642/r19-6421.pdf

HTML : http://www.senat.fr/rap/r19-642/r19-64212.html#toc296

The passage from the text :

The total cost of the program is estimated by some analysts at a range between 50 and 80 billion euros

Another article on the subject and the opinion of the journalist about the billion (still in French sorry again) :


If this European cooperation were to collapse, what would happen? According to Ms. Conway-Mouret, French industrialists have said they can carry out SCAF on their own.
While the latter do have the necessary know-how, the costs of such a program are too great to be borne by a single country [estimates range from 50 to 80 billion euros, against 40.7 billion for the Rafale program], due to its technological complexity [stealth, more powerful engines, connectivity, artificial intelligence, etc.]
 
Last edited:
France, Germany and Spain are simply doing what's specifically wrong (as they've done before): turning their future defense into an unsecure mist of unfunded priorities on the base of what would be then a 20 years old defense initiative* (see how the F-35 is still the basis of all comparisons when technologies would have evolved thanks to
Chinese short cycle of innovation (hence Roper)) .

That sum represents 1000 F-35 with delivery that could be started securely Now...

*See how key performances points are clearly not even guaranteed as objectives are diluted among the plethora of systems...
** Notice also how power generation and dew shine by their absence in the doc
 
Last edited:
France, Germany and Spain are simply doing what's specifically wrong (as they've done before): turning their future defense into an unsecure mist of unfunded priorities on the base of what would be then a 20 years old defense initiative* (see how the F-35 is still the basis of all comparisons when technologies would have evolved thanks to
Chinese short cycle of innovation (hence Roper)) .
That sum represents 1000 F-35 with delivery that could be started securely Now...
*See how key performances points are clearly not even guaranteed as objectives are diluted among the plethora of systems...
** Notice also how power generation and dew shine by their absence in the doc
Well, and probably more than 1000 Su-57, J-20 or T-50... ^^


I don't know if the NGF/SCAF will succeed or not, but :

-50 to 80 billions are for the whole program SCAF, not only the NGF fighter.

-it would be 1000 F-35 without armament or maintenance in operational condition (and even with the Lot 14 price - 77.9 millions -, It would be between 642 and 1026 nude aircrafts, and certainly less because of the bigger price for the French Navy's C - 94.4 millions)

-France and Germany have foreseen 200 each = 400 + plus Spain.

-In France, F-35 is the basis for delays, additional costs, technical problems and too big dependance for a foreign country. Everything the SCAF / NGF must not reproduce.

-If France buy F-35, its no more money for its fighter industry, which will be dead. And France will depend inevitably and completely of a foreign country for it. It will be also the loss of billions of € and thousands of jobs, and gains for a rival industry.

-The NGF is foreseen to be modular to avoid obsolescence and to face new future menaces as anti-stealth technology. If an anti-stealth technology is discovered, it will be no change for Rafale, EF, F-15 and others, but there will be changes for today's stealth fighters with big costs to maintain.
 
Last edited:
-it would be 1000 F-35 without armament or maintenance in operational condition (and even with the Lot 14 price - 77.9 millions -, It would be between 642 and 1026 nude aircrafts, and certainly less because of the bigger price for the French Navy's C - 94.4 millions)
Well, we just learned that nude is the new black in combat:
View attachment 637785
Absolutely, like a F-35 or any other combat aircraft without armament or means of maintenance in operational condition.
 
-In France, F-35 is the basis for delays, additional costs, technical problems and too big dependance for a foreign country. Everything the SCAF / NGF must not reproduce.

-If France buy F-35, its no more money for its fighter industry, which will be dead. And France will depend inevitably and completely of a foreign country for it. It will be also the loss of billions of € and thousands of jobs, and gains for a rival industry.
No. This is a lullaby. Nobody see U.K industry dying. Korean aerospace industry is still blooming. Japan has also excellent perspectives.
 
Absolutely, like a F-35 or any other combat aircraft without armament or means of maintenance in operational condition.
Maintenance?!
:oops:

And French & German can Excell elsewhere than on a similar performing stealth aircraft. They can do Hypersonic, Space, stealth with demonstrator, hyperstealth, use DEW on something usefull and respectful of their citizen rights...
100Billion Dollars is a lot of expectations thrown inevitably into the bin... (my point above)
 
Last edited:
-In France, F-35 is the basis for delays, additional costs, technical problems and too big dependance for a foreign country. Everything the SCAF / NGF must not reproduce.
-If France buy F-35, its no more money for its fighter industry, which will be dead. And France will depend inevitably and completely of a foreign country for it. It will be also the loss of billions of € and thousands of jobs, and gains for a rival industry.
No. This is a lullaby. Nobody see U.K industry dying. Korean aerospace industry is still blooming. Japan has also an excellent perspectives.
Well,
Let's also wait a few years to see the results of the Tempest II and the KF-X and a few months to see with whom Japan will do the F-3.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely, like a F-35 or any other combat aircraft without armament or means of maintenance in operational condition.
Maintenance?!
:oops:
Sorry for my bad english

 
And French & German can Excell elsewhere than on a similar performing stealth aircraft. They can do Hypersonic, Space, stealth with demonstrator, hyperstealth, use DEW on something usefull and respectful of their citizen rights...
100Billion Dollars is a lot of expectations thrown inevitably into the bin... (my point above)
Yes, to use the same money to loss thousands of jobs and give all the money to another country for that is respectful for the rights of their citizens (and not something thrown into the bin...) ^^

But you are right, It's already above ^^

And money for F-35 or SCAF creates no change for Hypersonic, Space, Stealth hyperstealth or DEW, apart from losses in technological bricks ^^
 
(warning: I'm going to be burned at the stake and shot down in flames for this post: Hint a) I don't give a rat and b) this has nothing to do with some kind of primary anti-F35 or anti-american ill-placed sentiment).

This said,

I used to read the F-35 being only a piece interconnected to much larger network of US systems & US platforms... was not only a strength of that aircraft (and a compensation for its shitty overall performance: big numbers plus network to back it = invincible).

...but also a ploy for Lockheed to dominate the world market of combat aircraft by making countries dependant from the aforementioned US network and US platforms.

For example: Netherlands buy F-35s at bargain prices thanks to a huge buyout on the US side (2000 or 3000 aircraft, can't remember the exact number) - mass production plus all the other countries - total 4000, 5000 F-35s...( see the F-16, F-15, Phantom, F-104 previous "deal of the century". The F-35 is an atempt to go beyond this).

Except that in the long term, they realize that, when used outside a US coalition, NOT networked with US platforms and systems backing it - the aircraft is good for nothing.

Ding, dong: the Netherlands air force has become merely a minor branch of USAF / USN / USMC and the worlwide F-35 fleet.

Guess why Israel is insisting their F-35s have indigenous systems ? To keep some kind of relative independance.

Guess why the non-F35 survivors in Europe are resisting the steamroller ?
 
Totally agree. Lockheed strategy here is very similar to that of computer/electronic industry when creating a closed proprietary market network. See Apple i-devices for which you can only go through Apple online stores to add/buy new softwares ( and I say that as long time Apple client).

The idea is to make so that it’s not much if the plane you buy is effective enough and can do the job, its more if you can integrate in the network to play with the US.
Do you have the latest iF35 ? You need it to play with us.
And there US DoD dictates who can have access to the standards (encryption and stuff) if one wants to build stuff compatible with US network. The problem is not how good your stuff is, it’s if you can plug it to the network.
To have access to these standards, one must be part of the Five Eyes group.
And surprise surprise, within that group , only US and UK have big integrated defense industries.

It's a mean to have a closed, proprietary, market, that favors US and UK defense industries because they are the only ones able to build stuff compatible to that market.
It's not at all like the idea of having some NATO standard for the sake a standardization and integration of NATO forces within the alliance.
Other countries part of NATO having defense industries but not part of Five Eyes can go scr... themselves, they don't have access to these standards.
 
Last edited:
Other countries part of NATO having defense industries but not part of Five Eyes can go scr... themselves, they don't have access to these standards.

Isn't this approach just basic security...

There's lots of French talk of a more open, non-US system for SCAF, but when most partners are going to have US equipment they're still going to need to talk to MADL/L16 etc. Are you effectively just swapping one closed system for another much less widespread system?
 
Totally agree. Lockheed strategy here is very similar to that of computer/electronic industry when creating a closed proprietary market network. See Apple i-devices for which you can only go through Apple online stores to add/buy new softwares ( and I say that as long time Apple client).

The idea is to make so that it’s not much if the plane you buy is effective enough and can do the job, its more if you can integrate in the network to play with the US.
Do you have the latest iF35 ? You need it to play with us.
And there US DoD dictates who can have access to the standards (encryption and stuff) if one wants to build stuff compatible with US network. The problem is not how good your stuff is, it’s if you can plug it to the network.
To have access to these standards, one must be part of the Five Eyes group.
And surprise surprise, within that group , only US and UK have big integrated defense industries.

It's a mean to have a closed, proprietary, market, that favors US and UK defense industries because they are the only ones able to build stuff compatible to that market.
It's not at all like the idea of having some NATO standard for the sake a standardization and integration of NATO forces within the alliance.
Other countries part of NATO having defense industries but not part of Five Eyes can go scr... themselves, they don't have access to these standards.
As far as I’ve read, and maybe it’s just nonsense, it’s because the US doesn’t trust Europe.
 
Other countries part of NATO having defense industries but not part of Five Eyes can go scr... themselves, they don't have access to these standards.

Isn't this approach just basic security...

There's lots of French talk of a more open, non-US system for SCAF, but when most partners are going to have US equipment they're still going to need to talk to MADL/L16 etc. Are you effectively just swapping one closed system for another much less widespread system?

Of course , creating encrypted comm network and intel data base standards is about security. But giving access to it to your own manufacturers only, effectively makes a closed market for your own manufacturers.
 
Totally agree. Lockheed strategy here is very similar to that of computer/electronic industry when creating a closed proprietary market network. See Apple i-devices for which you can only go through Apple online stores to add/buy new softwares ( and I say that as long time Apple client).

The idea is to make so that it’s not much if the plane you buy is effective enough and can do the job, its more if you can integrate in the network to play with the US.
Do you have the latest iF35 ? You need it to play with us.
And there US DoD dictates who can have access to the standards (encryption and stuff) if one wants to build stuff compatible with US network. The problem is not how good your stuff is, it’s if you can plug it to the network.
To have access to these standards, one must be part of the Five Eyes group.
And surprise surprise, within that group , only US and UK have big integrated defense industries.

It's a mean to have a closed, proprietary, market, that favors US and UK defense industries because they are the only ones able to build stuff compatible to that market.
It's not at all like the idea of having some NATO standard for the sake a standardization and integration of NATO forces within the alliance.
Other countries part of NATO having defense industries but not part of Five Eyes can go scr... themselves, they don't have access to these standards.
As far as I’ve read, and maybe it’s just nonsense, it’s because the US doesn’t trust Europe.

I wouldn't go that far. They (Lockheed ?) just want to crush Europe Typhoon / Rafale / Grippen combat aircraft industry once and for all.
It has been like this since the F-104 / F-5 / Phantom, then F-16 / F-18 days. F-35 is just the next step, with a twist to finish the job, once and for all - the one that me and Galgot mentionned.
Note that all three generations combat aircraft production numbers, if cumulated, match pretty well.

A good case could be make that the non-russian / non-chinese "Affordable Combat Aircraft Market" is (give or take) 7000 airframes - 3000 for America and 4000 for export.
(2500 F-5, 2500 F-104s, and half of 5000 Phantoms = 4500 F-16 + export Hornets = F-35 hoped production run...)

F-35 tries to get the whole thing.
 
Combat aircraft aren't an open market though. Its an inherently political decision with many drivers.

The main export markets for a European product now are those that the US (and others) want to restrict technology access (for good reasons), so its little wonder that US technology doesn't just get handed over to be passed on.
 
Combat aircraft aren't an open market though. Its an inherently political decision with many drivers.

The main export markets for a European product now are those that the US (and others) want to restrict technology access (for good reasons), so its little wonder that US technology doesn't just get handed over to be passed on.
Interesting to compare your post and the post of Archie above with the 2007-2012 Indian MRCA competition for 126 fighters (at this time nobody knew that it would be in fact only 36 and that India would order S-400 later)

-First round : F-16 IN, F/A-18 E/F, Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale and MiG-35. USA don't propose F-35.

-Second round : only Rafale AND Typhoon. USA don't propose F-35.

-As soon as Rafale wins, USA immediately propose F-35 and to share information on the plane.

Yes, combat aircraft market is an inherently political decision with many drivers. But business and geostrategy are "good reasons" for export market too.
 
Last edited:
Good analysis of the state of affair (but I fear for Richard audience in France).

As I fear for "Laurent" audience in Britain too, another good analysis of the state of affair (but to translate with google trad, sorry)


"With Brexit and the consequences of the coronavirus crisis, the budgetary context is likely to be difficult in the years to come for such a program" and the "global budget review which should be completed and of which the defense aspects constitute a component important, has been postponed until the end of 2020, or even to 2021. ”Also, the“ 2 billion pounds available for the technological evaluation phase before 2025 appear insufficient, making the search for partners even more necessary, but the British also want a massive industrial return to their territory, which will make cooperation more difficult.



There is this one too (but more difficult to translate, because impossible to copy). Interesting as it can have some opinion exactly opposite to that of "Richard"


On July 20, the date that should initially mark the opening of the Farnborough Airshow, 7 companies from the British aeronautical and defense industrial and technological base announced that they were joining the program launched two years ago by the British government and BAe companies, Rolls-Royc, Leonardo and MBDA. Thus, Bombardier, Collins Aerospace, GE aviation, GKN, Martin Baker, Qinetiq and Thales have joined the new generation fighter program led by Great Britain. But what is presented as a new step aiming to mark the expansion of the Tempest program in Europe, above all demonstrates an increasingly isolated program, which turns out, in the end, to be more British than ever. Indeed, with the exception of the Italian Leonardo at the launch of the program, no non-British company has announced to join the British initiative, and only Italy has signed a letter of intent to join the Tempest program.


Sometimes "Richard", "Laurent" and "Fabrice" agree, sometimes they don't.

Well, as shown it's easy to show an opinion in the way we want. Anyone can do the same (I voluntarily chose only passages going in the oppositte direction to that of "Richard"). Reality is facts and only the future will show them and it alone will say who is right or who is wrong, among the authors of press articles and among the forumers of SPF.
 
Last edited:
There are rocky roads ahead for both programmes there is no doubt.

Problems (as I see them are);
Tempest
- lukewarm Italian and Swedish involvement, Sweden might yet go it alone with something lighter and cheaper more akin to current Turkish/Asian programmes.
- money. The RAF is already looking at ditching more F-35Bs for F-35As, with MoD overspend in billions its hard to see where the long-term investment is going to come from
- F-35, I take dates like 2035 for entry into service with massive heart-attack inducing doses of salt, but even if that were so its likely that the RAF would have only just completed deliveries of all its F-35s. Are they really going to run two parallel fighters by then? Typhoon needs replacing but more F-35s of whatever upgraded standard then in production is likely to be cheaper. France and Germany can ignore F-35 threat as they don't have any. The RAF might have 138 of them. What will Tempest realistically bring that F-35 can't? Typhoon now is a different beast to what it was when introduced, by 2035 Lightning will be a different capability level too.

SCAF
- convincing everyone that its not just a Dassault-Airbus project, right now it seems a closed door
- convincing both governments to keep spending, I have no doubt France will push on, not so sure about Germany (NH90, Tigre, Eurofighter), the force of lukewarmness and U-turns is strong with German defence procurement.
- NATO Vs French bloc, not a topic that has been mentioned often but has cropped in discussion regarding the German Super Hornets. It seems unlikely that French and German SCAFs will have 100% identical avionics fits given Germany has NATO compatibility to consider as well as US weapons to integrate. Ultimately that will be one big cost driver.

Both
- critical mass, I do agree with the view that the Middle Eastern market is going to be the one to crack. Saudi, UAE, Kuwait and Oman are key UK-buyers but that's not always a given as all of these are also heavily in the US camp and have brought French too. Both BAE and Airbus know how to grease the palms out there (ahem), so its a tough fight. They may even follow Turkey's lead and start their own programmes, India is bound to follow Tejas with another programme before 2035. Even so, the export numbers are going to be small and is no substitute for home orders, although its unlikely either will be ordered in the same numbers as Tyhpoon and Rafales.
While the marketing folks dream of monopolies and Europe-wide programmes, the truth is that the fighter market is perhaps more crowded today than it has been since the late 1980s. Many growing economic powers want their own prestige technological programmes and generous offsets, the days of simply buying off the shelf are still in decline.
 
Yeah. So far Tempest seems to have a headstart and a more solid base.
But
"Great Britain wants to develop again a complete combat aircraft, from A to Z, a capability lost since Sea Harrier and Hawk 200 (which were minor programs, incdentally)
This.
Is not a good omen. Not at all. Since 1960, every single time this was tried, it ended in disaster (1965 carnage and TSR-2, cough, cough). By contrast european cooperation seems to have worked well.
Can 2020's Great Britain try again, really ? And suceed ? color me doubtful. Naval procurement "all alone" (Q.E, cough, cough) is not encouraging either.
It is not British bashing, just plain old realism.
 
As for France - Germany alliance... we all know the issues since, what, 1960-62 (when they picked F-104G over Mirage III, then De Gaulle and Adenauer reconciled the two countries only to split over NATO until this very day - note the NATO issue is expressedly mentionned as an issue for SCAF).

I'm not surprise to see the Typhoon - Rafale split repeating.
For all the carnage suffered since 1957, Great Britain (with RR and many others companies) still has a big and powerful aerospace industry that can only clash with the French one.
Particularly over sharing that big cake - the "Future European Combat Aircraft".
Didn't worked in 1969 with Tornado - France missed the train.
It was even worse in 1985 with the Rafale / Typhoon split, after 8 years spent in negociations since 1977.
No surprise it doesn't work either in 2020 - Brexit and COVID wrecked it all by themselves even before it started. At least maybe this time we won't spend 8 years in negociations for nothing...
 
"Great Britain wants to develop again a complete combat aircraft, from A to Z, a capability lost since Sea Harrier and Hawk 200 (which were minor programs, incdentally)

I have a feeling that BAE Systems really wanted to get into the UCAV market, they seem to have channelled most of their efforts into UCAVs for the best part of the 2000s and early 2010s until the Anglo-French FCAS fell apart and the UCAV was tossed aside for a manned fighter and forced BAE Systems to do likewise.
I think they would have been happier with a UCAV, tinkering around with systems and making use of their LO expertise.
 
Well Dassault pursued a similar approach with the "DUC" family - what happened to these birds, incidentally ?
 
There's still a lot of misunderstanding about what the UK is actually doing. There is the FCAS Techonology Initiative of which the UK Team Tempest is part of. This is mostly doing technology development and demonstration as well as STEM etc.. Then there is a UK MOD aircraft acquisition programme starting up which this stuff is being fed into. Most of the announcements e.g. Saab are to do with the former - joint tech work to exploit on Typhoon, Gripen and future aircraft. The latter acquisition programme is only just starting up and doesn't have UK commitment so why would other countries commit? Its too early

As has been rammed home repeatedly in the announcements, the acquisition programme is looking to be international not UK-only. Hence the initial gov-gov work on requirements etc.

Why does the number of aircraft have a link to the viability of the programme? For both Tempest and SCAF this is primarily about sustaining industry capability - basically if the politicians buy off on that then capability/cost of output aircraft are variable
 
And French & German can Excell elsewhere than on a similar performing stealth aircraft. They can do Hypersonic, Space, stealth with demonstrator, hyperstealth, use DEW on something usefull and respectful of their citizen rights...

... They could also do FREMMs!

The winning design is based on the FREMM ("Fregata europea multi-missione") frigate, already in service with the Italian and French navies. A total of 20 frigates will be delivered if the contract runs its course; the first ship will cost about $1.3 billion, with the price for future ships dropping to below $950 million.

 
But sadly, the Totemic way french aerospace management occurs, rules out any cross border thinking...
Dassault chief executive Eric Trappier has stressed that no more countries can be admitted to the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) programme being co-developed by France, Germany and Spain for fear of delaying the effort.

As a reminder, Dassault net profit was divided by 5 this year to a staggering 55M€.

I wonder how many European startups can show better number.
 
Last edited:
", but the British also want a massive industrial return to their territory, which will make cooperation more difficult.


I believe this was the sticking point for the Japanese, and why they decided not to get involved with the Tempest program
and limiting UK involvement to engines and other specific areas
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom