art wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

An agreement for work share on a technology demonstrator today makes it seem quite improbable any IOC could be achieved prior to 2035, if past is prelude (Eurofighter, A400M).

Germany will be getting more Eurofighters in coming years and possibly F/A-18. France will be getting more Rafales. Spain could order more Eurofighters/F-35 in the near future to replace Hornets Is there any great urgency in getting FCAS into service before mid-2030's?

Yes, if they want to operate tactical aircraft before the mid-30’s in contested air space. France and Germany will be fully 40 years behind in getting/using/applying tactics for stealth aircraft it seems. The F-15EX is a hot debate topic precisely because it will struggle in any future conflict due to advances/threats from advanced defenses, on the other side of the pond, yet the two primary EU powers are happy to skip another 15 years. It’s sort of shocking, really.

texl1649 wrote:

Yes, if they want to operate tactical aircraft before the mid-30’s in contested air space. France and Germany will be fully 40 years behind in getting/using/applying tactics for stealth aircraft it seems. The F-15EX is a hot debate topic precisely because it will struggle in any future conflict due to advances/threats from advanced defenses, on the other side of the pond, yet the two primary EU powers are happy to skip another 15 years. It’s sort of shocking, really.

I agree with you that Germany and France are a bit late to the stealth game. Then again, it does not really matter as much since they're not planning on engaging in offensive warfare.
Germany's Airforce is supposed to primarily do homeland defense. When you can rely on ground radar, upgraded Eurofighter technologies, American intelligence, etc. (as a layperson) I don't see an urgent need for a stealth aircraft. As far as I understood, the primary benefit of stealth today is in an offensive war against a formidable opponent (i.e. Russia or China). Germany doesn't even fully use its Tornados in Afghanistan. France is (as far as I'm aware) mostly operating in Northern Africa which is hardly a contested airspace.

Re tactics, I don't think it's that much of an issue. They'll have a good idea of how to combat enemy aircraft, especially due to intelligence sharing in Europe and with the Americans.
Stealth tactics are likely already designed, the same goes for counter stealth tactics. You'd have to design your game plan to build an aircraft around it.

Just my two cents

German media reporting that the Bundeswehr and Ministry of Defense were not happy with FCAS in its current form and demanded significant financial and technological changes to the program.
Internal reports apparently state that:
The project was a design based on French needs and was more a Rafale+ rather than a 6th gen fighter. Currently, necessary technologies were not envisioned appropriately
and might arrive late, at too high costs or possibly not at all. German and Spanish goverments were simply there to pay for a French project.

https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Bundeswehr- ... 98142.html (in German).

Coincidentally Merkel in a joint press conference with Macron last week:

Merkel: (...)
We have talked about our cooperation in the defense sector. Here I am pleased that we have reached a widespread agreement on the FCAS project for a combat aircraft of the future, also together with Spain, and that we are also seeing progress on MGCS, the tank project. On FCAS, the negotiations have been anything but easy. But it is an example of how Germany and France can solve even complicated situations well. (...)

and the joint statement:

We renew our commitment to improving European military capabilities through industrial cooperation, such as on the Future Land Combat System (MGCS). We welcome the agreement reached by the governments of Germany, France and Spain with their industries on the Next Generation Weapon System/Future Air Combat System (NGWS/FCAS) with the aim of awarding the relevant contracts before the end of summer 2021. We support the enhanced cooperation between our defense industries and reaffirm our common goal of advancing defense cooperation based on the successful implementation of the Franco-German Agreement on Export Controls in the Armaments Sector.

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/ ... at-1919762 [German]
https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource ... download=1 [German]
Clearly, there are some who would welcome more advanced technology, and others who are happy with a more risk-averse approach. Since the original report is still classified, it remains unclear what the mentioned "necessary technologies" and the "lack of innovative concepts" are.

That sounds a lot like France is pushing to use the avionics, engines, and secondary systems of the Rafale in a more stealthy shape to get what they believe is a low risk path to their own stealth fighter. While that is a logical approach, it does nothing for German or Spanish industry.

LightningZ71 wrote:

That sounds a lot like France is pushing to use the avionics, engines, and secondary systems of the Rafale in a more stealthy shape to get what they believe is a low risk path to their own stealth fighter. While that is a logical approach, it does nothing for German or Spanish industry.

So what options has Germany got? If France is way ahead of Germany in terms of current technology but Germany wants new technology, what technology might Germany be able to develop for the programme? Same question for Spain.

It is a bit late for Germany to pull out but perhaps Merkel's successor will want to renegotiate to get the programme re-balanced to suit Germany better.

I suppose it depends on what is renegotiated. Considering a big gripe has been with intellectual property protection it gives credence to France focusing on a lot of existing technology, meaning that partner nations might struggle with work-share and their own IP development. It's supposed to be cooperation, not license building a Dassault fighter together. As to what the aircraft might not do well enough technically for the different parties is up for speculation considering we don't know exactly what it offers now and what they want. So that's just useless speculation at this point.

But if one of the major gripes is R&D for new generation features to supplant "older" Rafale technology I don't see why package upgrades can't be agreed on. Which would entail work on the initial airframes could start more quickly. So long as everyone is agreed on what kind of packages the airframe will need to carry at some point so it is dimensioned correctly, naturally.

I'm really looking forward to this and the British Tempest. Exciting times!

art wrote:

what technology might Germany be able to develop for the programme? .

Top notch radar, hardware for rf jamming and excellent missile technology. Generally optics/sensors.

Best regards,
Thomas

Top NATO general urges ‘alignment’ between US and European sixth-gen fighter plans

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ter-plans/

Sensible advice, isn't it?

There is no need to think about it really, we already saw what happened with Rafale and Eurofighter. Clearly wasted opportunities.

However politics is a complicated thing. From articles we get here in France, one problem is that Germany is too aligned with the US, with many military brass just wanting to kill FCAS so they can buy F-35s. Others want a FCAS through pillaging Dassault's IP.

Aesma wrote:

Others want a FCAS through pillaging Dassault's IP.

Eh, it's not so much that Germany and Spain want Dassault's IP but rather that many systems are being developed around a core of Dassault technologies, which devaluates the research and experience of the other partners.
From their POV, only Dassault is getting money for cutting edge development while they are relegated to supplier duties. The same is happening on the engine side, where Safran is getting R&D funding for a new 120 kN engine, possibly variable cycle, while MTU "only" gets responsibility for maintenance activities.

Also, as Airbus found out, it's impossible to develop something efficiently when all partners compete against each other. Many of the A380 and A400M problems were the result of inadequate communication and distrust between the various locations.

On the other hand, the US are concerned about efforts, mostly led by France, to make FCAS independent from ITAR regulations and other US / non-EU / non-French technologies.This raises questions regarding the interoperability of FCAS and F-35 (and other US aircraft). There are also some who are calling for a de-americanisation of joint NATO technologies like AWACS.

For example, some desire a French / European alternative to Link 16 (possibly based on the Rafale F4 systems). For the demonstrator, the more powerful EJ200 engine was dismissed in favor of the M88 because (a) Safran is not involved and (b) RR is involved, even if that means that the demonstrator has to be scaled down significantly. Similarly, the demonstrator is planned to use French SatCom, French data management, French stealth technologies ...

From a report of the senate last year: http://www.senat.fr/rap/r19-642-2/r19-642-20.html

mxaxai wrote:

For the demonstrator, the more powerful EJ200 engine was dismissed in favor of the M88 because (a) Safran is not involved and (b) RR is involved, even if that means that the demonstrator has to be scaled down significantly.

Now, that does sound dumb. I'm surprised Germany and Spain did not insist on the use of the more powerful engine.

PS Result will be a demonstrator that is further away from the real thing than it needs to be!

The ITAR thing should be a given. NATO might not even exist when the plane will become operational.

Dassault predicts decade of delay for FCAS fighter

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/air- ... as-fighter

Will this mean more Rafales for France (and F-35's for Germany)?

art wrote:

Dassault predicts decade of delay for FCAS fighter

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/air- ... as-fighter

Will this mean more Rafales for France (and F-35's for Germany)?

I’ve said all along 2050 is the more likely target for this project (and in any realistic/significant quantities, the middle of that decade). The answer to your question is ‘yes, absolutely.’

I predict the Rafale in any case will be in production at least that long. It will be curious if a possible future significantly upgraded variant is offered with more/updated sensor integrations. Still, the F4 variant is anything but outdated in that respect, and a road map of future weapons integrations over the next 5 to 10 years makes a lot of sense.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/can-france’s-upgraded-dassault-rafale-fighter-take-f-35-188660

It seems we are looking at a slightly scaled up Rafale with internal weapons bays and stealth features.

This reminds me of the Hornet to Super Hornet transition. The engines went from F404 to F414 and gained 20% more thrust while still being the same size allowing the airframe to be slightly bigger with more payload/fuel. The Super Hornet had a significant radar cross section reduction. The original Super Hornets also took the avionics and APG-73 radar straight from the FA-18C for minimal development costs. The improved avionics and APG-79 AESA radar was added to the Super Hornet later.

As the Rafale already has a reduced radar cross section like the Super Hornet a further reduction would then mean internal weapons bays. It would also make sense to use Rafale avionics and radar for the first version. It shouldn't be too hard for France to reach F-35 levels of stealth considering this is coming decades later.

RJMAZ wrote:

It seems we are looking at a slightly scaled up Rafale with internal weapons bays and stealth features.

This reminds me of the Hornet to Super Hornet transition. The engines went from F404 to F414 and gained 20% more thrust while still being the same size allowing the airframe to be slightly bigger with more payload/fuel. The Super Hornet had a significant radar cross section reduction. The original Super Hornets also took the avionics and APG-73 radar straight from the FA-18C for minimal development costs. The improved avionics and APG-79 AESA radar was added to the Super Hornet later.

As the Rafale already has a reduced radar cross section like the Super Hornet a further reduction would then mean internal weapons bays. It would also make sense to use Rafale avionics and radar for the first version. It shouldn't be too hard for France to reach F-35 levels of stealth considering this is coming decades later.

You think the FCAS airframe and engine might be based on the Rafale frame incorporating a weapons bay with a thrust boost from an engine derived from the M-88? I read that the 110kN+ engine that SAFRAN is offering to develop with India is based on M-88 so developing a derated version of that design (if it ever gets the go ahead) could save a lot of money in dev costs. I wonder about RCS - could Rafale's form be changed enough to achieve greatly enhanced stealth through form?

What a coincidence - view above post. Indian defence youtube site believes that the engine for the AMCA mooted for co-development with SAFRAN will also be used in FCAS.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYh-cM9eqds

Yes, it does sound like the M88 core is being used for both the FCAS/NGF and the Indian project/collaboration. This is great, as it minimizes risk, imho, and ensures sufficient funding/scale for the development.

Safran is basically putting coatings on the HPT core, and I guess MTU is working on the low pressure sections. Plausibly, Safran has also gained experience with some of the coatings via CFM/GE on the LEAP etc.

I see it as probable that this evolution will wind up finding it’s way into a “Super Rafale” (or the French would select a better name like “Rafale 2040” or “Rafale Mirage”, LOL) though I am not clear how this might also lead to internal bays.

https://eurasiantimes.com/france-tests- ... e-typhoon/

art wrote:

You think the FCAS airframe and engine might be based on the Rafale frame incorporating a weapons bay with a thrust boost from an engine derived from the M-88? I read that the 110kN+ engine that SAFRAN is offering to develop with India is based on M-88 so developing a derated version of that design (if it ever gets the go ahead) could save a lot of money in dev costs. I wonder about RCS - could Rafale's form be changed enough to achieve greatly enhanced stealth through form?

The Super Hornet didn't share many structural parts with the Hornet as it was 20% bigger. I could see the Rafale landing gear being used, also things like actuators, the full cockpit including canopy, flaps, fuel system, seats.

The actual longeron and bulkheads are relatively cheap. The new aircraft might only have 20% commonality with the Rafale in terms of parts when measured by weight. But it might have 50% parts commonality when measured by production cost. It might have 80% commonality with parts in term of development costs as the avionics are ridiculously expensive to develop.

This is basically what the Super Hornet did.

The German government is blaming Airbus & Dassault for the current standstill that FCAS finds itself in:

The industrial contract based on this [next phase of R&D] has not yet been signed due to disagreements in the technology area of the Next Generation Fighter Demonstrator (NGFD). [...]
The disagreements between the industries - here in particular between Dassault Aviation and Airbus - are leading to a delay in the start of the next phase (technology maturation). The continuation of the cooperation must be questioned, should an agreement still not be found that would satisfy the interests of all three nations.

15th report of the federal german ministry of defence (PDF) [German]

There had been some hope that the recent ILA air show in Berlin might lead to movement but nothing has been reported so far.

What does Germany do if it finds France's demands unacceptable? IIRC France made enormous demands when cooperation on a Future European Fighter Aircraft was mooted in the 1980's.

art wrote:

What does Germany do if it finds France's demands unacceptable? IIRC France made enormous demands when cooperation on a Future European Fighter Aircraft was mooted in the 1980's.

To deliberately delay or wreck it.
Hence perhaps two of then EFA partners going a different way this time.

End of last week various actors of the FCAS project announced a deal was close for the next step of the project, the demonstrator platform, but noticeably Dassault didn't communicate anything.

It was said a critical point was still in discussion, basically the Dassault IP on flight controls, that would need to be shared with Airbus. And Dassault was very, very reluctant to do so.

But it seems this last issue is now resolved and Dassault CEO himself announced today they reached a deal and obtain all the needed guarantees from Airbus.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/companies-have-reached-deal-fcas-jet-programme-says-dassault-aviation-head-2022-12-01/

I guess it's a good thing for this program which didn't start on the best bases IMO, until the next block on the road

I remain sceptical re the FCAS. It is difficult to cooperate with the French/Dassault. I am not sure why Germany is trying this again after the Eurofighter experience. Rather join Tempest or even cooperate with South Korea. Either be happy as a junior partner (like with the Ariane program) or be prepared for permanent infighting.
And why do we have two parallel European programs at all? In the end neither will really be able to compete with F35 or NGAD economics of scale and we get another exports dud like the Eurofighter.

WalterFaber wrote:

I remain sceptical re the FCAS. It is difficult to cooperate with the French/Dassault. I am not sure why Germany is trying this again after the Eurofighter experience. Rather join Tempest or even cooperate with South Korea. Either be happy as a junior partner (like with the Ariane program) or be prepared for permanent infighting.
And why do we have two parallel European programs at all? In the end neither will really be able to compete with F35 or NGAD economics of scale and we get another exports dud like the Eurofighter.

I said the same thing about Tempest but then Japan joined.

I assume the FCAS has to be carrier capable and has size limitations for the French carriers. This makes it impossible to merge the euro programs. A supercruising design usually has poor low speed handling for carrier use. A long range stealth design will be too heavy for the French carriers.

FCAS will probably result in an aircraft that struggles to beat the F-35 due to the carrier limitations. I'm not sure why Germany would want to be involved in that.

As Germany and France will never join a US program then the KAI KF-21 Boramae would make the perfect basis for FCAS in my opinion. Swap out the F414 engines for some evolved M88 engines. The KF-21 already has design provisions for internal weapons bays. Now just add a tail hook for the French carriers. The KF21 layout and wing sweep clearly points to having good low speed characteristics for carrier landings. The size and weight is about right. The KF-21 is lighter than the F-35A so with the carrier strengthening and weapons bays added it should be right on the french carrier limit. The KF-21 has a MTOW only 900kg more than Rafale.

If Germany wants to build something then I suggest a going solo and make a replacement for the T-38 trainer. Call it the Eurotrainer. Bring back the EADS Mako trainer design. Using the latest low cost production techniques. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_Mako/HEAT

Or if they want stealth knowledge make a single seat 50% scale B-21 bomber. Fit the standard Eurofighter avionics in it. Use two non afterburning Eurojet EJ200 engines. Call it the Eurobomber. Make it optionally manned. Nice 1,000nm combat radius. Low cost production like what Australia did with the MQ-28 Ghost Bat.

So many options yet FCAS seems the most illogical. It's like every country wants the bragging rights to say they made a stealth fighter.

Good points!

RJMAZ wrote:

WalterFaber wrote:

.

I assume the FCAS has to be carrier capable and has size limitations for the French carriers. This makes it impossible to merge the euro programs. A supercruising design usually has poor low speed handling for carrier use. A long range stealth design will be too heavy for the French carriers.

FCAS will probably result in an aircraft that struggles to beat the F-35 due to the carrier limitations. I'm not sure why Germany would want to be involved in that.

As Germany and France will never join a US program then the KAI KF-21 Boramae would make the perfect basis for FCAS in my opinion. Swap out the F414 engines for some evolved M88 engines. The KF-21 already has design provisions for internal weapons bays. Now just add a tail hook for the French carriers. The KF21 layout and wing sweep clearly points to having good low speed characteristics for carrier landings. The size and weight is about right. The KF-21 is lighter than the F-35A so with the carrier strengthening and weapons bays added it should be right on the french carrier limit. The KF-21 has a MTOW only 900kg more than Rafale.


So many options yet FCAS seems the most illogical. It's like every country wants the bragging rights to say they made a stealth fighter.

I agree. As always, I guess Germany will be again out-negotiated and tricked by France here.

RJMAZ wrote:

I assume the FCAS has to be carrier capable and has size limitations for the French carriers. This makes it impossible to merge the euro programs. A supercruising design usually has poor low speed handling for carrier use. A long range stealth design will be too heavy for the French carriers.

FCAS will probably result in an aircraft that struggles to beat the F-35 due to the carrier limitations. I'm not sure why Germany would want to be involved in that.

Germany could look for an alternative. The KAI KF-21 seems to be progressing well in flight tests so is well down its development path. A programme that might benefit more from Germany joining is the Indian 5G AMCA programme. AMCA has not yet reached the Critical Design Review stage. India has an extremely poor record in managing fast jet procurement, whether buying from abroad or developing indigenously. German input into project management would be very beneficial. German production know how would be very beneficial. Germany would bring funds to the project. An increased production run would lower unit costs. And AMCA may be a design closer to what Germany would choose if not restricted by French carrier operation requirements.

art wrote:

A programme that might benefit more from Germany joining is the Indian 5G AMCA programme.

Tejas took 20 years to go from program launch to first flight and another 14 years from first flight to being operational.

I don't have much hope for an Indian built stealth fighter being operational before 2050.

The proposed Indian AMCA looks identical in photos to the Korean KF-21. Both with the GE F414 engines.

KF-21
Length: 16.9 m
Wingspan: 11.2 m
Wing area: 46.5 m2
Empty weight: 11,800 kg
Max takeoff weight: 25,400 kg
Powerplant: 2 × GE F414

AMCA
Length: 17.6 m
Wingspan: 11.13 m
Wing area: 55 m2
Empty weight: 12,000 kg
Max takeoff weight: 25,000 kg (estimated)
Powerplant: 2 × Modified GE F414

South Korea should be going on a big international sales push with the KF-21. France, Germany, Spain and India could all sign up for development of the block 2. The French and Germans would be able to provide South Korea with engines far superior to the F414. There would be more technology transfer.

Everyone wants the bragging right to say they made a stealth fighter. South Korea was the only country to set a realistic performance target to produce an aircraft quickly. Hats off to them.

As soon as the USAF flew it's 6th generation prototype all of these 5th gen fighter programs started using the word 6th generation. I find this funny as it looks like pure corruption to get government funds.

I don't know how many Tempest and FCAS they intend to built, but it is clear that if they only build 500-600 of each, and the F35 has already reached 1000 airframes in production, then the European 6 gen fighters will either be very expensive or have less capabilities than the US 6 gen platforms.

Perhaps the European partners of FCAS and Tempest should look into joining the two programs?

Schroinx wrote:

I don't know how many Tempest and FCAS they intend to built, but it is clear that if they only build 500-600 of each

France operates around 180 fighters for the Air Force and around 40 fighters for the Navy. That is 220 aircraft but the main problem is that needs to be delivered over a 30 year period. That requires a very low production rate. Instead of France pumping out 200 fighters in 10 years and then shutting the production line down for two decades they have opted for sustainability. The Rafale has been in production for over 30 years and only 250 or so aircraft have been delivered.

In 2030 half of the Rafale fleet will still have more than 50% of their usable life yet. If we assume FCAS starts production in 2035 France would only need a dozen new aircraft per year to replace the entire Rafale fleet.

The Rafale sold well on the international market because it was newer and superior to the improved 1970's designed offered by the USA. The Rafale easily beat the F-16 in overall performance. This time round FCAS will be going against the F-35. I would think all of the existing Rafale customers such as Qatar, Greece, Egypt, UAE and India will be allowed to purchase the F-35 after 2040. If Air Force version of FCAS gets the same wing as the Navy version then it will be compromised. It would be very hard to beat the F-35A version for customers that are operating from land. FCAS would never make a profit.

Airbus issued a press release concerning FCAS.

Future Combat Air System (FCAS) - Enter the Internet of Military Things



https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/stories/2023-11-future-combat-air-system-fcas-enter-the-internet-of-military-things

Highlights

• a fully networked ‘system of systems’ based on open architectures that will allow the integration of other existing platforms such as the A400M or the A330 MRTT tanker
• at the heart of this complex system will be the Air Combat Cloud, which will enable these platforms to work together
• the aim of the project is nothing less than to design an air defence system that will protect Europe while enhancing its strategic autonomy and technological sovereignty.
• development work for FCAS Phase 1B is now underway at the Airbus site in Friedrichshafen
• followed by Phase 2, culminating in a flight demonstration of the advanced Combat Cloud by around 2028
• ‘operating system’ will need to be an open one to accommodate both off-the-shelf and bespoke applications such as manned-unmanned teaming, from Airbus or from any other industrial partner.
• it will be an evolutionary one, with new applications such as new aerial platforms being integrated along the way,”
• our business model around the Combat Cloud won’t be unique. An area such as satellite connectivity could be offered as a service, while an ‘app’ part of an aircraft’s mission system could be sold as a product
• the development of intermediate solutions as part of this ‘internet of military things’ should enable customers to use various levels of cloud capabilities and remote carriers well before FCAS becomes operational in the 2040s

Technological pillars of FCAS programme
The FCAS programme comprises a total of seven main development areas.

In the previous post, what does the presentation in two columns mean ?
Are the primary contractors on the left, and the secondary on the right ?

kelval wrote:

In the previous post, what does the presentation in two columns mean ?
Are the primary contractors on the left, and the secondary on the right ?

That is also my understanding.

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11/bel ... june-2025/

Belgium’s FCAS entry has not been without controversy. A month before Brussels decided to join the effort, Dassault CEO Eric Trappier opposed talk about such a move because of Brussels’s F-35 acquisition, which went against a rival pitch by the manufacturer to replace F-16 jets with Rafale aircraft. Trappier went so far as to say that he would “fight” against any future decision that included giving Belgian companies jobs on the FCAS program, according to the Brussels Times website.

I guess only time will tell if they will buy the FCAS or not.
Does anyone know why they chose the French FCAS instead of the British Tempest?
I mean considering how much headache the French have been giving the Germans.

bajs11 wrote:

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11/belgium-to-join-europes-fcas-program-in-june-2025/

Belgium’s FCAS entry has not been without controversy. A month before Brussels decided to join the effort, Dassault CEO Eric Trappier opposed talk about such a move because of Brussels’s F-35 acquisition, which went against a rival pitch by the manufacturer to replace F-16 jets with Rafale aircraft. Trappier went so far as to say that he would “fight” against any future decision that included giving Belgian companies jobs on the FCAS program, according to the Brussels Times website.

I guess only time will tell if they will buy the FCAS or not.
Does anyone know why they chose the French FCAS instead of the British Tempest?
I mean considering how much headache the French have been giving the Germans.

The Germans gave a lot of headache to the French and are still doing so. For the Tempest, Italy was clear enough: they are full, and the inclusion of Japan was already too much for them.

The real question is why the FCAS decided to include the Belgians? They have nothing valuable to offer and they already chose another aircraft.

LaunchDetected wrote:

bajs11 wrote:

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11/belgium-to-join-europes-fcas-program-in-june-2025/

Belgium’s FCAS entry has not been without controversy. A month before Brussels decided to join the effort, Dassault CEO Eric Trappier opposed talk about such a move because of Brussels’s F-35 acquisition, which went against a rival pitch by the manufacturer to replace F-16 jets with Rafale aircraft. Trappier went so far as to say that he would “fight” against any future decision that included giving Belgian companies jobs on the FCAS program, according to the Brussels Times website.

I guess only time will tell if they will buy the FCAS or not.
Does anyone know why they chose the French FCAS instead of the British Tempest?
I mean considering how much headache the French have been giving the Germans.

The Germans gave a lot of headache to the French and are still doing so. For the Tempest, Italy was clear enough: they are full, and the inclusion of Japan was already too much for them.

The real question is why the FCAS decided to include the Belgians? They have nothing valuable to offer and they already chose another aircraft.

Pretty sure some of the F-35 partner nations and security cooperative participants didn't have anything valuable to offer either other than monetary contributions.
The US could most likely have built the fighter without countries like Denmark or Singapore but they were included because they were contributing monetarily and almost guaranteed to order the finished product. France should be bragging about having Belgium, a nation that just received its first F-35s, joining the FCAS program meaning that they will likely also replace those fighters with a French fighter in the future. It's like an airline replacing Boeing 777 with Airbus A350.

But it seems France simply doesn't like other European nations ordering the F-35.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ope-future

A project between France and Germany for a next-generation combat aircraft critical for the protection of Europe’s skies is slowly and quietly fizzling out. First, because Germany continues to order F-35 fighter jets from the US, but more importantly because – as the Times reported – it could potentially abandon the project altogether and join the UK’s Tempest programme alongside Italy and Japan.

Whether justifiable or not, Germany has blocked possible sales of 48 Typhoon to KSA and of 40 to Turkey. That must be upwards of $15 billion of business denied to the Eurofighter partners. Would UK and Italy want to take the risk of Germany being involved with GCAP except as a customer?

art wrote:

Whether justifiable or not, Germany has blocked possible sales of 48 Typhoon to KSA and of 40 to Turkey. That must be upwards of $15 billion of business denied to the Eurofighter partners. Would UK and Italy want to take the risk of Germany being involved with GCAP except as a customer?

I wonder how UK and Italy will manage the risk of Japan with pacifist constitution being involved with GCAP except as a customer?

Comes down to the contracts and treaties involved.

bajs11 wrote:

But it seems France simply doesn't like other European nations ordering the F-35.

France wants a single fighter able to do all the missions, like the Rafale now. Germany operating the F-35 will just move the FCAS specs away from France needs. They would be really dumb to enjoy seeing their neighbours ordering US-made aircrafts.

For Belgium I don't see them ordering any FCAS. Their last F-16 was delivered in 1991, they took 33 years to replace them with the F-35. Procurement cycles are getting longer and longer so they will, maybe, replace the F-35 in 40 years, just in time to order the next US aircraft (If Belgium still exists).

Another piece of information (from Belgium):
https://fr.businessam.be/chef-armee-reserves-choix-belgique-fcas/
Belgium messed up with the F-35, asked for absolutely no industrial compensation, and try to find a project to involve its industry.

LaunchDetected wrote:

Belgium messed up with the F-35, asked for absolutely no industrial compensation, and try to find a project to involve its industry.

I'm not sure how buying the best aircraft available is considered being messed up.

Would you prefer Belgium to buy aircraft that would get shot down providing they had industrial compensation?

Lockheed does not have to bribe countries with industrial compensation for them to buy the F-35. The F-35 sells itself. If one F-35 went head to head with a Eurofighter, Rafale or Gripen it would win 99% of the time. First look, first shoot, first kill. If you had to strike a target hundreds of miles behind the front line only the F-35 will return from a successful mission.

Bribing countries with industrial compensation to buy their inferior aircraft is what European aircraft manufacturers do best. Too many examples to list here.

RJMAZ wrote:

Lockheed does not have to bribe countries with industrial compensation for them to buy the F-35. The F-35 sells itself. If one F-35 went head to head with a Eurofighter, Rafale or Gripen it would win 99% of the time.

Every country should buy F-35 then if such miracle weapon exists.
There is many examples of countries sacrificing their industrial know-how to buy foreign products, now they are wondering why they let that happen. Canada is a prime example.
With such reasoning USAF should chose the A330 MRTT instead of the almighty KC-46 then. Made in Toulouse, because apparently local jobs (and associated tax revenue) are not important.

Regarding bribery, it is true that Lockheed has an immaculate record when it comes to bribing foreign politicians.