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

Trident said:
Reading the rest of the thread only amplifies the suspicion that the document likely won't pass the sniff test.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, it may just be intended to provide a fig leaf, no matter how flimsy, for the German government to cancel the FCAS program.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Trident said:
Reading the rest of the thread only amplifies the suspicion that the document likely won't pass the sniff test.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, it may just be intended to provide a fig leaf, no matter how flimsy, for the German government to cancel the FCAS program.
Click to expand...

And the Tempest pre-project goes like clockwork. Without needless BSs.
 
Geo said:
And the Tempest pre-project goes like clockwork. Without needless BSs.
Click to expand...

We can't know that, the German report referenced above was not intended for public consumption, either. Who knows what the Swedes have to say about the British behind closed doors - the current UK government has a patchy record in international relations, to put it mildly.
 
Trident said:
Geo said:
And the Tempest pre-project goes like clockwork. Without needless BSs.
Click to expand...

We can't know that, the German report referenced above was not intended for public consumption, either. Who knows what the Swedes have to say about the British behind closed doors - the current UK government has a patchy record in international relations, to put it mildly.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between the hypothetical withdrawal of Swedes from the Tempest program and Germans from the FCAS? There's an inconspicuous difference, right?
 
Geo said:
Grey Havoc said:
Trident said:
Reading the rest of the thread only amplifies the suspicion that the document likely won't pass the sniff test.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, it may just be intended to provide a fig leaf, no matter how flimsy, for the German government to cancel the FCAS program.
Click to expand...

And the Tempest pre-project goes like clockwork. Without needless BSs.
Click to expand...
You can build a true 6th gen fighter for pennies in your pocket?

Geo said:
Trident said:
Geo said:
And the Tempest pre-project goes like clockwork. Without needless BSs.
Click to expand...

We can't know that, the German report referenced above was not intended for public consumption, either. Who knows what the Swedes have to say about the British behind closed doors - the current UK government has a patchy record in international relations, to put it mildly.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between the hypothetical withdrawal of Swedes from the Tempest program and Germans from the FCAS? There's an inconspicuous difference, right?
Click to expand...
The Swedes aren't providing more funding than workshare and the orders.
 
for those who cant read German, it basically says
there's concern that the technologies required cannot be produced.. or produced at a later stage but concerns over its funding
what exists or proposed is not innovative enough or sufficient.
 
The most astonishing aspect of this story is that Germans have to classify documents to be able to discuss such points among themselves* when we here or also here for example have mentioned openly those arguments.

This should be an open conversation b/w their military experts and the Bundestag.

On one hand, I see that concerning. On the other, it gives even more credence to this forum name!

* But to no avails
 
Last edited:
helmutkohl said:
concerns over what exists or proposed is not innovative enough or sufficient
Click to expand...
Never throw rocks unless you have a Plan B.

What is the German Plan B to create a super duper stealthy air dominance system? Import 100 F-35s, withhold money for maintenance, training, upgrades and spares (per usual), and then tractor them onto the runway once a year for a fake elephant walk?
 
Last edited:
Not sure what to make of it to be honest.
On the one hand they seem to be saying its not advanced enough to be 6th Gen (whatever the hell that actually means since nobody has built one yet or demonstrated how it differs from the very small number of 5th Gen fighters), but that there are advanced technologies involved that won't be ready in time and others that might not be considered until later? Which kind of seems to be the opposite.

I'm not a German speaker but is there some subtle difference between "critical technologies" and "essential technologies"?
If I was purely to speculate I would say maybe the former is Dassault's lack of LO design experience and latter being perhaps optionally unmanned or AI features pushed down the road.

Airbus have the lead on the UAVs, Combat Cloud and LO technology aspects of SCAF and Indra is the main sensors contractor and involved closely with the systems/Combat Cloud. France is only leading the fighter and engine pillars, so really if the German MoD has major beef it must be with the aircraft portion, it would be churlish to blame Dassault for technology issues if they are referring to technologies under Airbus' remit.

Is this a smokescreen? The German MoD blaming the French for not using enough technology when they fully know that they have to try and get the Government to commit to 20 years of R&D funding for the aircraft, the engine, the UAVs and the Combat Cloud systems - a government that notoriously hates defence spending. It could blow back if Dassault ups the ante with new gizmos and then requests a greater R&D contribution. Already there are attempts to cut the cost of the demonstrator programme...
 
I'm not sure I buy into the "Europe cannot sustain two fighters" argument.
Europe can support as many fighters as it can pay for, as long as there are large industrialised nations in Europe they are going to spend money on military projects.
Tempest and SCAF don't have to necessarily generate F-16 levels of exports to pay for themselves, as long as industry remains strong it can invest and governments invest money. An industry keeps people employed and a whole supply chain in business and generates far more than is put in and an industry only remains strong with continued R&D and production orders. The alternative is shrinkage and terminal decline.

The UK has paid a pretty penny for its F-35 Tier 1 status and the other European partners have paid in too - so effectively Europe is funding 3 fighters.
South Korea and Japan are developing a fighter each, yet no-one says Asia cannot sustain two fighters. Where there is willpower, capability and finance there is way.

Anyway, worrying about duplication in NATO now is probably 60 years too late...
 
Well what he says is that they should be interoperable. Not that they shouldn't exist.

The fact that a single design would be better for all (on military grounds) is an evidence.
He also points toward the F-35 that provides today a similar effect (interoperability) through the benefices of distributed sensors data among airframes flying under different flags.
If Tempest and FCAS can't talk at hardware level, it will be for long better to rely on F-35s than those two.

In effect, he is speaking more accurately than most salesmen have so far done representing the two parties.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
The fact that a single design would be better for all (on military grounds) is an evidence.
Click to expand...
Two designs might be OK if they are differentiated (eg. Twin. vs single engine, interceptor vs strike etc). That would let each country pick based on their different needs.

Higher priority (in my opinion) would be to aim for common systems/hardware, I.e. common engine, radar, ECM, missiles etc.
 
I'm mostly worried about the new engine... at least if you wanna build a really advanced unit... at least Japan has something (apparently pretty advanced) running on the bench... we know almost NOTHING about the new european engines!
 
Bundestag approves payement of €1.3B (instead of 4.5B) for FCAS Phase1 until further hearings.

"Etant donné la portée politique du projet, en particulier pour la coopération franco-allemande, la commission budgétaire (...) vote en faveur du projet", ont indiqué les députés à l'issue de leur réunion dans un document que s'est procuré l'AFP.
[...]
Les députés évoquent notamment leurs inquiétudes sur les technologies employées, pas encore au point, selon eux, et craignent une gabegie financière. Ils ont finalement accepté de débloquer ces premiers financements, mais "pour tout autre engagement financier, le ministère devra à nouveau demander l'approbation du comité budgétaire", a prévenu Dennis Rohde, référent SPD au sein de la commission.
--------------------//------------------
"Given the political scope of the project, in particular for Franco-German cooperation, the budgetary committee (...) votes in favor of the project", indicated the deputies at the end of their meeting in a document that was obtained by AFP.
[...]
The deputies evoke in particular their concerns on the technologies employed, not yet developed, according to them, and fear a financial mismanagement. They finally agreed to release this first funding, but "for any other financial commitment, the ministry will again have to request the approval of the budget committee," warned Dennis Rohde, SPD referent within the committee.
Click to expand...

www.rtbf.be

Les députés allemands approuvent des financements pour le futur avion de combat européen

Les députés allemands ont avalisé mercredi le financement de la prochaine étape de développement de l'avion de combat...
www.rtbf.be www.rtbf.be
 
Last edited:
Though that plan seems to have now crashed and burned, at least for the time being.
 
the manufacturer Lockheed Martin would propose to use a simulator extensively to reduce actual flight hours, and therefore expenses over the 30-year lifespan.
Click to expand...

Is it just me or does Lockheed tries to make F-35 long term maintenance costs lower by telling the Swiss "make less flights by using more a simulator" ?

Ok, I know that argument is receivable - and even a major one used by M-346 or even PC-21 advanced high-performance trainers.

But this smells something entirely different, akin to "F-35 flying hours / maintenance costs are too high. Simple solution: ground the aircraft. Do not fly them too often. Luckily, simulators are the answer !"

Do they think the Swiss are complete idiots ?

"Eureka ! If the pilots spent a lot of time "flying" inside the simulator rather than flying a F-35, surely enough the F-35 maintenance costs will drop substantially !

Hey, by this metric: if the Swiss F-35s makes one flight per year or decade, maintenance cost goes to zero !"

Why nobody thought about that brilliant idea before, I have no idea. But Lockheed may have a dispruptive concept between their hands...

:D:D:D:eek::eek::eek::eek::p:p:p:p:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Be affraid, foreign invader ! If you try aerial invasion of Switzerland, their SIMULATORs will cripple you !

Seriously: the RAF should ground its fleet at Duxford and France, at Le Bourget. Then fly the pilots into simulators.

Goodbye, MCO costs !
 
Last edited:
All air forces rely heavily on simulator training, even the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers are designed to accommodate four simulators during operational deployments.
You might be staggered at how much training is synthetic and as flying hours cost money its no wonder the percentage of simulator use for training has skyrocketed. This isn't simply tied to F-35, its how its done these days. No doubt Tempest and SCAF will have extensive dedicated simulator facilities and indeed buying any fighter now means having to fork out for these kinds of goodies as part of the support package.
 
THERE IS NO POINT IN BEING RUDE AND SWEARING IN CAPS LIKE A WELL KNOWN DEMENTED TWITTER IDIOT

- SEND REPORT TO MODERATOR

- IT IS MORE EFFICIENT

THANK YOU
 
flateric said:
DON'T WE HAVE FCUKING F-35 THREAD FOR F-35 STUFF?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, this article is more about the Swiss market, the outcome of which is scheduled for next Wednesday around 2:00 p.m., than the F-35 itself. As it addresses a specific aspect of the Swiss market mentioned by certain Swiss media ("simulation") and since this thread is that of the Rafale and the Rafale participates in the competition, like the F-35, the F-18 and the Typhoon, it seemed preferable to me to post it here.
If the F-35 wins, the article is wrong and there is no point in placing it in the F-35 topic.
If the Rafale wins, the article is true, and it belongs in the Rafale topic.
If the F-18 or the Typhoon wins... I am wrong...:oops:
 
flateric said:
Funny to see as 'cooperation partners' continue to post totally different renderings of 'common' project.
Click to expand...
i was thinking the same thing.
For all the news of Dassault and Airbus reaching rapprochement

they still seem far apart on the basic design lol

As far as preliminary CG goes, I like the Airbus one.. looks kind of like a mix of the F-22 with the Su-57s lerx and intakes
 
One is a double seater, what's not on the program (as much as we know it).
It shouldn't however surprise us: never has Airbus Military early payed much attention to any requirements...
Their plan was probably to go through an upgrade program to remove the backseater position after IOC...
;)
 
Last edited:
Two types of loyal wingmen now? The one top left is different.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom