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

[sferrin]

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that Dassault have moved on from the EFA position of "give us most of the money and leadership whilst we shaft your own country's industry"

I thought it was the US position from the JSF...

The JSF was always a US program. Not the same as the Rafale/Eurofighter situation in any way, shape, or form.

Yes, an all US program (apart from maybe a, not US, and, of course, canceled, European RR engine...), incidentally to destroy the European Aircraft Industry, too... And maybe it will completely success... If it demonstrates definitively efficiency, reliability and low operating costs.
See you in 30 years.
Rendez-vous dans 30 ans

There was no "cancelled RR engine". The F136 was GE. And it was meant as a replacement for the F-16, F/A-18 and Harrier, not to "destroy the European Aircraft Industry". If Europe didn't want the F-35 all they had to do was build their own.

 

[Deltafan]

There was no "cancelled RR engine". The F136 was GE. And it was meant as a replacement for the F-16, F/A-18 and Harrier, not to "destroy the European Aircraft Industry".

60% GE, 40% RR. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric/Rolls-Royce_F136

If Europe didn't want the F-35 all they had to do was build their own.

I agree. It's why I said that it was more a result than a conspiracy and that it's not only the fault of US.

 

[LowObservable]

The business plan from the outset was to (1) replace every non-US F-16 and F/A-18 and (2) involve the UK and Italy, who didn't have F-16s or F/A-18s but were EF partners. It wasn't a conspiracy, but an overt project.

 

[Deltafan]

Why this use of the word "conspiracy" ?

On the civilian market, Boeing would be happy to destroy Airbus (and then to buy this competitor) and Airbus would be happy to destroy Boeing (and then to buy this competitor too).

It's market, it's business, it's overt and not conspiracy, but the result would be the same : the end of one for the benefit of the other.

If in 30 years there is no more European own Combat Aircraft Industry, this result will be a business victory for LM and US ("if"... I insist, a lot). No more no less.

 

[Hood]

The real issue here is confusion on what is actually wanted. First its a Tornado replacement (as shown in the Airbus video) but the F-35 has already taken that role. Then the development timeline has been abdicated to 25 years based off experience with the Eurofighter (Lt Gen Muellner openly said that). So then a Typhoon/Rafale replacement tag is raised to fit the ballpark 25 years when a design might be ready.

As has been pointed out, Japan, South Korea and Turkey are progressing with "5th generation" (though we can only guess how much of that is cosmetic F-35 styling rather than full F-35-esque capability) so its not beyond the realms of possibility that Dassault and Airbus couldn't deliver an equivalent within 10 years if the political will and money was there.

The frustration is that Europe has missed the boat. If the Tornado operators had been serious about a replacement work should have begun at least a decade ago. Making an F-35 clone makes no sense as most potential customers will already have F-35s and get a good 40-50 years out of them (2060s) and it does nothing to push European industry further. Adding a second engine and seat just adds complexity and cost and by 2045 there might be an export PCA to compete against. Dassault with Neuron has the much better Tornado replacement within sight and surely that project would do more for Dassault and Airbus and the European industry in general. Who knows what a Eurofighter replacement should be in 2045? I don't think Airbus knows at present but now is the time to lay the groundwork, but it can't be allowed to take 25 years to get it in service.

Exports are vital but neither the Rafale or Eurofighter have been as successful as their predecessors (Jaguar, any Mirage series). The fighter market is saturated and that will only continue in the future, especially as the BRIC nation low-price competitors emerge. But a UCAV could well be more saleable to nations wanting high-end capabilities.

As a final tongue-in-cheek comment, all the Dassault versus Airbus chatter ignores one thing. Without BAe there would have been no Eurofighter.

 

[DWG]

As a final tongue-in-cheek comment, all the Dassault versus Airbus chatter ignores one thing. Without BAe there would have been no Eurofighter.

OTOH, a lot of BAE's Eurofighter FCS team lives in Ottobrunn nowadays.

 

[Deltafan]

As a final tongue-in-cheek comment, all the Dassault versus Airbus chatter ignores one thing. Without BAe there would have been no Eurofighter.

We are on SecretProjects.co.UK. Nobody ignores that

 

[TomcatViP]

The real issue here is confusion on what is actually wanted. First its a Tornado replacement (as shown in the Airbus video) but the F-35 has already taken that role. Then the development timeline has been abdicated to 25 years based off experience with the Eurofighter (Lt Gen Muellner openly said that). So then a Typhoon/Rafale replacement tag is raised to fit the ballpark 25 years when a design might be ready.

As has been pointed out, Japan, South Korea and Turkey are progressing with "5th generation" (though we can only guess how much of that is cosmetic F-35 styling rather than full F-35-esque capability) so its not beyond the realms of possibility that Dassault and Airbus couldn't deliver an equivalent within 10 years if the political will and money was there.

The frustration is that Europe has missed the boat. If the Tornado operators had been serious about a replacement work should have begun at least a decade ago. Making an F-35 clone makes no sense as most potential customers will already have F-35s and get a good 40-50 years out of them (2060s) and it does nothing to push European industry further. Adding a second engine and seat just adds complexity and cost and by 2045 there might be an export PCA to compete against. Dassault with Neuron has the much better Tornado replacement within sight and surely that project would do more for Dassault and Airbus and the European industry in general. Who knows what a Eurofighter replacement should be in 2045? I don't think Airbus knows at present but now is the time to lay the groundwork, but it can't be allowed to take 25 years to get it in service.

Exports are vital but neither the Rafale or Eurofighter have been as successful as their predecessors (Jaguar, any Mirage series). The fighter market is saturated and that will only continue in the future, especially as the BRIC nation low-price competitors emerge. But a UCAV could well be more saleable to nations wanting high-end capabilities.

As a final tongue-in-cheek comment, all the Dassault versus Airbus chatter ignores one thing. Without BAe there would have been no Eurofighter.

Absolutely.

 

[red admiral]

Barracuda and Taranis are less limited ?
Fortunately, when the British-French FCAS/SCAF will fly, France and UK will be as limited as each other...

Barracuda yes, Taranis no. LO is in the details, and there are significant details between Neuron and Taranis. The UK has a long history in LO through Replica, Nightjar, Taranis and other things. Big differences compared to the rest of Europe. UK/FR UCAS, they're building two different variants for each country.

 

[Deltafan]

Barracuda and Taranis are less limited ?
Fortunately, when the British-French FCAS/SCAF will fly, France and UK will be as limited as each other...

Barracuda yes, Taranis no. LO is in the details, and there are significant details between Neuron and Taranis. The UK has a long history in LO through Replica, Nightjar, Taranis and other things. Big differences compared to the rest of Europe. UK/FR UCAS, they're building two different variants for each country.

Sorry the English version seems no more available : http://www.ttu.fr/fcas-retour-taranis/
It seems that :
-BAE feels that it is at a disadvantage compared to Dassault on the program FCAS
-there is allways work with Northrop on the UCAS-D of the US Navy.
-the Taranis would have special batteries to use directed-energy weapon (DEW) (I found too : https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bae-optimistic-about-fighter-borne-directed-energy-441554/ )
-there would be not enough money to continue Taranis and FCAS and UK must choose.

For the DEW, maybe. But I remember EF announcements (Naval Typhoon and Typhoon with thrust vectoring) that I never saw.

For Dassault, AFAIK they began to lightly "stealth" the Rafale A to make the Rafale C (the first name was Rafale D, for "Discrete"). Then there were the "Petit Duc" models UCAV and then the bigger "Moyen Duc". The "Grand Duc" was cancelled to make the Neuron. In Juny 2017, the French ONERA (it's for France what the NASA is for US) get work to study, among others, the compromises between stealth and aerodynamics.

For the FCAS, as far as I remember (the Jane's article that I shared, on another site on the 12.07.2016, is no more available), the basis will be the same but with different systems (but maybe the word system is not good). It will be interesting to compare the two prototypes when they will fly. I am happy in advance to see the announced superiority of the British version

 

[mrmalaya]

Discussing Taranis and FCAS is moving a bit off topic but there is a marked contrast between British stealth efforts and how much they talk about it.

When the FCAS deal was signed the UK had decades of work on LO and VLO aircraft behind it, with some of BAE's designs littering this forum and extending beyond the early JSF period well into the late 90s. BAE had produced its own flying prototypes (not just subscale models) and tested then extensively (potentially since the 90s if you follow UFO reports). It had developed the AI and flight control for such aircraft as well as large scale manufacture of LO assemblies for the 'all American' F35.

Now admittedly both companies wont talk about everything they do, but a rushed redesign of the Rafale to reduce its RCS is not the same as the above. The drawback for the French is that everything they have done (on their own) is based on the Rafale.

I am not rabidly pro or anti either side, but I have never seen the evidence that Dassault is as learned in the area of stealth as is beingsuggested. It certainly isn't markedly ahead of Airbus, who have a lot of work to point to from the early 80s onwards.

 

[Deltafan]

I'am not sure that speaking of Taranis and / or FCAS is off topic, as maybe they will have an influence to a, potentially, future European fighter (maybe not with only France and Germany).

Well, waiting for the advent of Airbus and / or BAE stealths, something to compare for the readers

 

[Deltafan]

X-47b

 

[Deltafan]

FCAS (AFAIK)

 

[sferrin]

Boeing Phantom Ray

 

[mrmalaya]

As you now, I'm still not convinced by the planform on display for FCAS (only Dassault have deigned to provide any imagery for FCAS in the past couple of years).

Do you think that the participation of the rest of Europe in Neuron was just politics and that Dassault could have done it all themselves? Genuine question.

 

[Trident]

I'm sure Dassault found the contributions from the other participants more than just token support, but I would expect that - given more time and more money - they could indeed have done it all by themselves. Let's not delude ourselves here, who among the consortium members other than Saab of course is even remotely a peer to them in terms of military aviation experience, let alone would be able to teach them a thing or two (especially on the core subject of this argument, LO technology)?

 

[mrmalaya]

Trident, I agree with your assessment. Perhaps one day we will see how the two prototypes for FCAS differ (although I suspect we will see lots of the French one and little else).

 

[Archibald]

Everybody in this thread (bar Deltafan) seems to ignore Dassault experience in L.O with Neuron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_nEUROn

 

[Archibald]

Typhoon is becoming antiquated?

Remember, it has a further 20+ years in service as of now, and likely more. It might be easy to dismiss this Franco-German project (actually much of Europe is incorporated in that "German" part) as purely political, but that would be to misunderstand how enthusiastic Europe is to be united.

My opinion is that Europe will produce a successor to Typhoon and Rafale as it will also produce a UCAV, and the only question is how much of that Britain contributes to.

I would rather see the UK join with Japan on a future fighter, but has either country got the balls not to buy American?

Yes. Antiquated. I know exactly that I said and what it infers.

Typhoon is flying radar target. It may have some slick moves at airshows, but it's fucked to use them in A2A like a lot of slick airshow maneuvers. Totally useless.

With Raptor and -35 and Pak Fa and the Chinese stuff, Typhoon is antiquated by comparison. In 13 years when PCA is allegedly going to be fielded, Typhoon will really be antiquated. I remember when Typhoon was a sketch on a napkin (figuratively). It's from a soon to be by-gone era of A2A combat. Granted the overwhelming majority of Russian equipment that Typhoon *would* see in combat is also antiquated, by today's measuring stick, and the measuring stick of what will be in 10 years, Typhoon is old.

Granted (again) there are no other stealth jets in service outside the US, but as soon as the Russians and Chinese are fielded, Typhoon is old school, baby. As is the French delta wing and the Gripen.

Europe is lagging behind the world in developing a LO aerial combat warplane. But hey, they're buying the -35 to fill that role. Hence, they will likely just work on a A2G drone with missilier capability in order to keep their engineers current and the socialist economy steaming ahead.

This is completely stupid. Ever heard of that missile called Meteor ? Armed with Meteor, Rafale, Typhoon and Grippen can quick arse of any fighter in the world for the next three decades.

 

[Archibald]

I would guess there is virtually no fighter experience on the French side of Airbus? Not that there needs to be, Dassault is after all an admirable agent to have in the game (to the extent that I would agree they should take the lead in overall concept design)!

Not since Aerospatiale (EADS since 2000) was told to shut up and let Dassault handle combat aircrafts. Their last atempt was in 1972, when they proposed to build A-7 Corsair II under licence for the Aéronavale. Also Alphajet competition which they lost.

That was 45 years ago.

 

[Archibald]

Yes, a US program, incidentally to destroy the European Aircraft Industry, too... And maybe it will completely success...

It was a program developed to meet the needs of all the major military services in the U.S. It was not developed to destroy the European aircraft industry as they've never required any help from the U.S. in that regard. Please keep the conspiracy theories elsewhere.

conspiracy ? Nice to Deltafan. And mind you, the F-35 was deliberately build as a steamroller to crush european competition, the next logical step after the F-16 and the "deal of the century" in 1974.
Lockheed bought F-16 builder General Dynamics in 1995 and the F-35 is the F-16 successor.

I'm amazed at the amount of siliness and arrogance floating in this thread.

 

[sferrin]

This is completely stupid. Ever heard of that missile called Meteor ? Armed with Meteor, Rafale, Typhoon and Grippen can quick arse of any fighter in the world for the next three decades.

Sure, if you can survive long enough to use them. You won't get first look, first shot against a stealth fighter.

 

[sferrin]

And mind you, the F-35 was deliberately build as a steamroller to crush european competition,

Wrong. It was built to replace the F-16, F/A-18, and Harrier. The End.

 

[muttbutt]

DUBAI, Nov 11 (Reuters) - A senior Italian air force official said on Saturday that he expects French and German plans to develop a new warplane will eventually include other European countries.

France and Germany announced in July they would jointly build a new European fighter jet to eventually replace the European Eurofighter and the French Dassault Rafale.

The joint declaration did not say what role, if any, other European countries would play. Italy is a partner in the Eurofighter project alongside France, Germany, Spain and Britain.

Italian Air Force Chief of Staff Enzo Vecciarelli told Reuters that he could not see the development of “such a complicated system” without including the wider European aerospace industry.

http://www.reuters.com/article/emirates-airshow/airshow-italy-sees-other-european-countries-joining-fighter-jet-programme-idUSL8N1NH0G0

 

[Blitzo]

FCAS (AFAIK)

Interesting cranked delta evolution to look closer to X-47B than the Neuron/Taranis/Phantom Ray/Sharp Swords of the world...

 

[mrmalaya]

As to the FCAS planform, we are told that they have settled on a cranked delta, but both BAE's pet layout and Dassault's one pictured above could fall into that category.

We won't have to wait too much longer before an image of the selected layout appears.

Is it me or does the black model next to Taranis (from Farnborough last year) look different to the Dassault design?

 

[red admiral]

Everybody in this thread (bar Deltafan) seems to ignore Dassault experience in L.O with Neuron

Its not ignored. Building a flying wing doesn't mean you've achieved the same level of RF or IR signature reduxtion. There are many detailed differences.

Blitzo - cranked wing configuration gives higher aspect ratio so better if you've got higher range goals, or want better low speed performande.

 

[kaiserd]

And mind you, the F-35 was deliberately build as a steamroller to crush european competition,

Wrong. It was built to replace the F-16, F/A-18, and Harrier. The End.

The F-35 programmer deliberately involves the industrial involvement of the “European Competition” among many international partners.
For example BAE make approx 15 percent of each F-35 and Italy has its own F-35 factory.
Its European stakeholders see the F-35 as a chance to protect and enhance their aviation industry, not to crush it.

https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/the-f-35-contributes-to-the-global-economy

https://www.f35.com/global

 

[LowObservable]

With the exception of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, nobody overtly says that their mission is to put the competition out of business. However...

Wrong. It was built to replace the F-16, F/A-18, and Harrier. The End.

Statements beginning "Wrong." and ending "The End." are generally incorrect or at least inadequate.

There was also the F-15E and equivalents, and of course "replacing the Harrier" meant involving three out of four Typhoon partners. Added to the promised price and capability, it was difficult (when it all got started, in 1996) to see much of a market for anything beyond Rafale, Gripen and Typhoon.

After 1996, with the exception of BAE Replica, so did any work anywhere in the West on anything other than UCAVs. Whether or not it could be called a "conspiracy", the demise of the European industry as a prime contractor for manned combat aircraft was at best collateral damage in the business plan.

 

[LowObservable]

You won't get first look, first shot against a stealth fighter.

It's really astonishing that, almost a quarter-century after the RFI leading to Meteor hit the streets, there are still people who seem to think that first shot follows first look, as night follows day.

 

[sferrin]

With the exception of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, nobody overtly says that their mission is to put the competition out of business. However...

Wrong. It was built to replace the F-16, F/A-18, and Harrier. The End.

Statements beginning "Wrong." and ending "The End." are generally incorrect or at least inadequate.

There was also the F-15E and equivalents,

Where has the USAF ever said they were replacing the F-15E with F-35s? (That may be the result in the end, but that wasn't the intent when they started the program, and that's an entirely different thing.)

and of course "replacing the Harrier" meant involving three out of four Typhoon partners.

Again, that may have been the end result but nobody forced Europe to buy the F-35. They could have built their own aircraft and there still would have been an F-35.

Added to the promised price and capability, it was difficult (when it all got started, in 1996) to see much of a market for anything beyond Rafale, Gripen and Typhoon.

Again, nothing was forcing Europe to buy F-35s. And, as appears to be the intent going forward, they are indeed looking at collaborating to develop their own 5th gen aircraft (though, where Sweden already has their 6th gen Gripen, I don't know why France, Germany, and the UK couldn't just replace their Rafales and Typhoons with those).

After 1996, with the exception of BAE Replica, so did any work anywhere in the West on anything other than UCAVs. Whether or not it could be called a "conspiracy", the demise of the European industry as a prime contractor for manned combat aircraft was at best collateral damage in the business plan.

And yet, as has been pointed out elsewhere, Japan, South Korea, and even Turkey, are working on 5th gen fighter programs. And, it turns out, so is Europe. All the doomsaying about the F-35 being the end of the world for Europe has, predictably, turned out to be incorrect.

 

[sferrin]

You won't get first look, first shot against a stealth fighter.

It's really astonishing that, almost a quarter-century after the RFI leading to Meteor hit the streets, there are still people who seem to think that first shot follows first look, as night follows day.

It certainly seems to be the case the majority of the time with the F-22 and F-35. Just sayin'.

 

[LowObservable]

Just sayin'.

That usually means "Thank you for listening to my uninformed opinion."

It certainly seems to be the case the majority of the time with the F-22 and F-35.

I can think of many logical reasons why one might get that impression, of which "first look equals first shot" is only one.

 

[LowObservable]

All the doomsaying about the F-35 being the end of the world for Europe has, predictably, turned out to be incorrect.

Errr.... predictably, according to whom? Certainly not this uninformed outsider:

The head of the Pentagon’s F-35 fighter program said on Wednesday that total sales of the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter could reach 6,000 over time, based on the number of fourth-generation fighters in use that would eventually need to be replaced.

Brigadier Gen. David Heinz, program executive officer for the F-35, said development and testing of the new fighter jet was going well, and the United States and its eight foreign partners were expected to order more than 3,100 fighters.

Initial foreign military sales to other countries such as Spain, Israel, Greece, Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Finland could add at least 1,000 more orders.

In time, as world fleets of F-15, F-16, F-18 and other fighter jets need replacements, sales could climb as high as 6,000, Heinz told reporters at the Paris Air Show.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-lockheed-fighter-sb/pentagon-sees-6000-possible-f-35-sales-idUSTRE55G28020090617

I don't recall a lot of people challenging that prediction at the time, and it couldn't come true unless the decline in combat airplane numbers in the West reversed itself in high gear, or unless the F-35 replaced everything else.

And it's a strawman to talk about anyone being forced to do anything. They were to be convinced by overwhelmingly attractive acquisition and operating costs.

PS - There's certainly never been any other replacement plan for the F-15E, nor was any major enhancement/life extension in the budget until the F-35 schedule slipped.

 

[Hood]

I think a 1,000 F-35 airframes between Spain, Israel, Greece, Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Finland is optimistic, the European nations in that list have relatively small fighter fleets and dodgy economies. Israel doesn't seem to be bulk buying as yet, South Korea and Japan will probably buy some but their home-grown efforts are meant to be cheaper fleet-bulkers to operate with a smaller number of F-35s.
But I do think the F-35 is in for the long-haul and sales will accumulate, I doubt it well ever match the F-16 in terms of sales but I think that even in 2045 F-35s will still be rolling off the production line.

I think arguing over the F-35's industrial impact is irrelevant, its keeping facilities open that otherwise would now be idle and shut. Within ten years the Eurofighter lines will be shut, how long can Dassault keep the Rafale going before they run out of work? That's the big hole, the loss of industrial expertise of making stuff. Assembling bits of F-35 at least keeps people in work and the technical know-how running. At least BAE Systems is keeping their design folks busy by sub-contracting them out for other nations' projects.

 

[sferrin]

Errr.... predictably, according to whom? Certainly not this uninformed outsider:

I was never convinced simply because keeping the capability to develop fighter aircraft in-house is too important. One only need to point to Japan, South Korea, Turkey, France, and Sweden for evidence of that. Why would Europe be any different?

 

[LowObservable]

I think arguing over the F-35's industrial impact is irrelevant, its keeping facilities open that otherwise would now be idle and shut.

Wouldn't they be open and building different airplanes?

 

[DWG]

Amazing that in the who did what to whom argument no one mentioned "And then the Warsaw Pact self-destructed and totally screwed all our projections." The problems affecting Typhoon/Rafale etc sales aren't so much an F-35 plot as the end of the Cold War sucking all the momentum out of their development, which as an indirect effect led to them competing with F-35

 

[LowObservable]

Well, yes - NATO in the PCW era suddenly didn't have the threat that they had been arming against. The result (particularly USAF and France) was a drawdown via retirement-without-replacement of the oldest airplanes, which had the secondary effect of reducing the average age of the force. France and the EF nations dealt with that by pushing out the ISDs, while the US took a bet on stopping nearly all procurement and then buying something new at a rate of >150/year from 2010-2025.