A model of a technology demonstrator was unveiled at the Paris Airshow by Dassault in partnership with Airbus. The new Future Combat Air System is the expected replacement for France's fleet of Typhoon and Rafale fighters, including a carrier-based variant, and will also be a replacement for Germany and Spain. This concept New Generation Fighter will be separate from the UK & Italy's Tempest project.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... lift-spain

aumaverick wrote:

A model of a technology demonstrator was unveiled at the Paris Airshow by Dassault in partnership with Airbus. The new Future Combat Air System is the expected replacement for France's fleet of Typhoon and Rafale fighters, including a carrier-based variant, and will also be a replacement for Germany and Spain. This concept New Generation Fighter will be separate from the UK & Italy's Tempest project.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... lift-spain

A decent picture.



Noting it is merely a model, same as tempest, it doesn't have any of the cosmic features such as no vertical stabiliser or other 6th gen features that have been claimed here for the last 12 months. In fact it looks decidedly similar to the F-35 and even more so like the MDD original concept for the JAST, the precursor to the JSF program, from the early 90s.

It looks a lot more like the Tempest design now. I can't imagine the intakes will remain like that?
Definitely see some F-35 resemblance in the front too.

aumaverick wrote:

In fact it looks decidedly similar to the F-35 and even more so like the MDD original concept for the JAST, the precursor to the JSF program, from the early 90s.

The MDD proposal for, what would eventuelly morph into, the JSF was a joint proposal by MDD and BAe. It seems BAe re-used the basic design. At least for the main fuselage. The wings are different and the air intake has been modified to resemble the F-35's design. Certainly the rear fuselage might be a carbon copy.

petertenthije wrote:

The MDD proposal for, what would eventuelly morph into, the JSF was a joint proposal by MDD and BAe. It seems BAe re-used the basic design. At least for the main fuselage. The wings are different and the air intake has been modified to resemble the F-35's design. Certainly the rear fuselage might be a carbon copy.

BAe isn't involved.

aumaverick wrote:

This concept New Generation Fighter will be separate from the UK & Italy's Tempest project.

Unless anything was announced at the airshow, Italy isn't involved in the Tempest project. One major Italian defence corporation is, Leonardo, but not the state. Should also be pointed out that Leonardo is the result of the merger of UK manufacturers Westland and Marconi with a number of Italian counterparts, so any orientation towards the UK from that company shouldn't come as a complete surprise.

Airbus makes (46% of) the Typhoon but France isn't a customer, to be clear.

This proposed aircraft is so far a French-German effort first, so quite a different situation from the Eurofighter and Rafale. Now Spain has joined, which is good news. Let's hope Italy can join, too.

With the UK leaving the EU and wanting even closer ties with the US, I doubt the UK will ever produce an aircraft independently.

Aesma wrote:

Airbus makes (46% of) the Typhoon but France isn't a customer, to be clear.

This proposed aircraft is so far a French-German effort first, so quite a different situation from the Eurofighter and Rafale. Now Spain has joined, which is good news. Let's hope Italy can join, too.

With the UK leaving the EU and wanting even closer ties with the US, I doubt the UK will ever produce an aircraft independently.

I think it's far MORE likely that the UK will produce an aircraft independently for the same reasons.

Does this new Franco-German FCAS also play into Germany's plans for their own aircraft carrier?

As we're seeing with the F-35 and a bit of the Rafale before it; the biggest feature of such an aircraft will be a pluggable avionics architecture and sensor fusion. And there is going to be a political angle to this. Being able to maintain ones own ability to build such top end weapons has a strategic value.

Now if they're sensible they'll try to make programme changes that will avoid the messes of previous messy projects like the A400M and Eurofighter.

Good luck to Europe.

So best case scenario is that 25 years from now there will be a f35+....... boring.

Planeflyer wrote:

So best case scenario is that 25 years from now there will be a f35+....... boring.

Of course by that time the F-35 will be ++.
With its centralized computing, it is designed for upgradeability.

And I don't put much value in this assumption:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Being able to maintain ones own ability to build such top end weapons has a strategic value.

From what I see, most of the technology used to build a 5th gen stealth fighter is pretty much dead end stuff that's not transferable to anything else. Europe would be better off buying F-35s and investing the residual funds in something with some technological payback.

So that the US can shut down our Air Force when the president has had a bad burger ? Non thanks.

Aesma wrote:

So that the US can shut down our Air Force when the president has had a bad burger ? Non thanks.

Is that really a thing? You really believe that?

Spar wrote:

Aesma wrote:

So that the US can shut down our Air Force when the president has had a bad burger ? Non thanks.

Is that really a thing? You really believe that?

It's not a belief, Spar. I know from first-hand Swiss pilots that our F-18's have to get every period a code directly from the US, so the plane can fly. So if one day communication across the pond gets sour, Washington can anytime ground our airplanes. No lawyers or money will help then. For some countries, there is a good reason not to buy combat fighters from the US, as they are important defensive toolsets for a country which must work at any time, not just home tv sets.

So while I understand that neutral Switzerland and UK/Australia/Israel etc. don't fear something like that can ever happen to them, Paris which gets annihilated first in every 2nd american scifi movie, and Germany which always has to offer the blue-eyed blond hair bad guy in every 2nd american action movie , I completely understand those two countries to try to stay independent.

Alfons wrote:

our F-18's have to get every period a code directly from the US, so the plane can fly

Among the experts here can anybody shed any light on these "period codes"?

Alfons wrote:

Spar wrote:

Aesma wrote:

So that the US can shut down our Air Force when the president has had a bad burger ? Non thanks.

Is that really a thing? You really believe that?

It's not a belief, Spar. I know from first-hand Swiss pilots that our F-18's have to get every period a code directly from the US, so the plane can fly. So if one day communication across the pond gets sour, Washington can anytime ground our airplanes. No lawyers or money will help then. For some countries, there is a good reason not to buy combat fighters from the US, as they are important defensive toolsets for a country which must work at any time, not just home tv sets.

Alfons, no such code exists. I am very familiar with the classic Hornet and this has never been mentioned by any operator. Nor is there a code for the F-15,16 etc.

Alfons wrote:

So while I understand that neutral Switzerland and UK/Australia/Israel etc. don't fear something like that can ever happen to them, Paris which gets annihilated first in every 2nd american scifi movie, and Germany which always has to offer the blue-eyed blond hair bad guy in every 2nd american action movie , I completely understand those two countries to try to stay independent.

So the US Military/Government is now responsible for Hollywood movie hysteria as well?

aumaverick wrote:

Does this new Franco-German FCAS also play into Germany's plans for their own aircraft carrier?

Well a carrier capable version is currently suggested but I expect it would be the first version cut once weight/complexity/cost becomes an issue (and it will...) and I don't expect a German carrier will ever be built.

Ozair wrote:

Alfons, no such code exists. I am very familiar with the classic Hornet and this has never been mentioned by any operator. Nor is there a code for the F-15,16 etc.

As you wish, no problem.

Ozair wrote:

So the US Military/Government is now responsible for Hollywood movie hysteria as well?

Hehe, no. But a chicken egg question. And a very history bound one.

Alfons wrote:

Spar wrote:

Aesma wrote:

So that the US can shut down our Air Force when the president has had a bad burger ? Non thanks.

Is that really a thing? You really believe that?

It's not a belief, Spar. I know from first-hand Swiss pilots that our F-18's have to get every period a code directly from the US, so the plane can fly. So if one day communication across the pond gets sour, Washington can anytime ground our airplanes. No lawyers or money will help then. For some countries, there is a good reason not to buy combat fighters from the US, as they are important defensive toolsets for a country which must work at any time, not just home tv sets.

Along that line of dependence, if true, just think of the damage shutting down a future 5G network can do to a country - without firing a shot. But your claim should be verifiable, do you have a written source?

Looks like a Silent Super Étendard.

J/K, but wow that's a crude model, almost seems that they are not serious about the project.

Alfons wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Alfons, no such code exists. I am very familiar with the classic Hornet and this has never been mentioned by any operator. Nor is there a code for the F-15,16 etc.

As you wish, no problem.

What does "As you wish" mean?

Are you backing off from "I know from first-hand"?

hmmwv wrote:

Looks like a Silent Super Étendard.

J/K, but wow that's a crude model, almost seems that they are not serious about the project.

It really isn't too different in quality to the Tempest concept model though or the F-35 ones that were shown at shows before the airframe flew. Very early days and this is I believe just one suggestion for the layout, it could change drastically once they put some thought into systems integration and learn some of the stealth lessons they need to reach the VLO level.

For the independence thing it's less a worry about not being able to suddenly fly the aircraft one day because the US says no. More that if you're buying US aircraft then you need to pay the US to build the avionics to integrate new weapons and other systems. Remember the UK nearly walked from the F-35 because the US wouldn't give access to the source code to the only other Tier 1 partner. All the other countries participating in the F-35 program have to ask Mother USA to pretty please integrate their new stuff in. I don't understand the specifics of the Israeli relationship where they have some of their own avionics integrated in but I expect it's a similar thing just much smoother.

FCAS is not just a new stealth fighter, but a combat system. I guess that the program will provide funds for the development of technologies that will also be useful in new versions of the Rafale and Eurofighter, long before the new fighter gets airborn, and even if it shouldn't materialize at all.
Airbus pushes MRTT aircraft as test bed for future aerial combat network

aumaverick wrote:

Does this new Franco-German FCAS also play into Germany's plans for their own aircraft carrier?

There is no such plan. The idea was a European carrier with German participation, but that came from a politician who isn't even a member of the government.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

For the independence thing it's less a worry about not being able to suddenly fly the aircraft one day because the US says no. More that if you're buying US aircraft then you need to pay the US to build the avionics to integrate new weapons and other systems. Remember the UK nearly walked from the F-35 because the US wouldn't give access to the source code to the only other Tier 1 partner.

How is this different to acquiring an aircraft from anyone else? You still need French/Dassault help to integrate onto Rafale and Airbus help to integrate onto Eurofighter etc.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

All the other countries participating in the F-35 program have to ask Mother USA to pretty please integrate their new stuff in. I don't understand the specifics of the Israeli relationship where they have some of their own avionics integrated in but I expect it's a similar thing just much smoother.

Not at all. Blk 4 is bringing UAI to the F-35 which will allow weapons and sensor integrations to become exceptionally smooth, just carriage and drop testing required. UAI info is here, http://www.iqpc.com/media/6729/4428.pdf

Israel is using what appears to be API access into specific components such as the EW system. It is likely that Israel, probably via US lobbying, has access to those APIs. No reason another nation cannot have the same but I expect that most don't need it and don't see the value in paying for that access above the current reprogramming lab agreements.

Spar wrote:

Aesma wrote:

So that the US can shut down our Air Force when the president has had a bad burger ? Non thanks.

Is that really a thing? You really believe that?

Codes, kill switches or whatever they are officially called are a real thing, have been for decades. Pakistan and Turkey have been very vocal about it, and India has repeatedly turned down US fighter jets for among other reasons the US' ability to shut them down.

F-35 will be even more susceptible to this, and they won't even need to install anything. The Americans just need to stop the software updates to a particular user and it will be useless in no time.

VSMUT wrote:

Spar wrote:

Aesma wrote:

So that the US can shut down our Air Force when the president has had a bad burger ? Non thanks.

Is that really a thing? You really believe that?

Codes, kill switches or whatever they are officially called are a real thing, have been for decades. Pakistan and Turkey have been very vocal about it, and India has repeatedly turned down US fighter jets for among other reasons the US' ability to shut them down.

And your proof for this is?

Any with other claims of this nature they are the realm of the tin foil hat brigade.

VSMUT wrote:

F-35 will be even more susceptible to this, and they won't even need to install anything. The Americans just need to stop the software updates to a particular user and it will be useless in no time.

And you proof for this claim is where?

The F-35 can be operated without software updates from the US and LM. Yes the aircraft wants to connect to ALIS to conduct diagnostic work but that is for system maintenance and not required for flight operation. In fact we know that due to ALIS issues some units aren't even using it right now anyway.

Ozair wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Spar wrote:

Is that really a thing? You really believe that?

Codes, kill switches or whatever they are officially called are a real thing, have been for decades. Pakistan and Turkey have been very vocal about it, and India has repeatedly turned down US fighter jets for among other reasons the US' ability to shut them down.

And your proof for this is?

Any with other claims of this nature they are the realm of the tin foil hat brigade.

VSMUT wrote:

F-35 will be even more susceptible to this, and they won't even need to install anything. The Americans just need to stop the software updates to a particular user and it will be useless in no time.

And you proof for this claim is where?

The F-35 can be operated without software updates from the US and LM. Yes the aircraft wants to connect to ALIS to conduct diagnostic work but that is for system maintenance and not required for flight operation. In fact we know that due to ALIS issues some units aren't even using it right now anyway.

Surprise surprise, the resident MIC shill disagrees and starts throwing childish tin-foil excuses.

Even The Economist has covered the issue in the past.

VSMUT wrote:

Ozair wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Codes, kill switches or whatever they are officially called are a real thing, have been for decades. Pakistan and Turkey have been very vocal about it, and India has repeatedly turned down US fighter jets for among other reasons the US' ability to shut them down.

And your proof for this is?

Any with other claims of this nature they are the realm of the tin foil hat brigade.

VSMUT wrote:

F-35 will be even more susceptible to this, and they won't even need to install anything. The Americans just need to stop the software updates to a particular user and it will be useless in no time.

And you proof for this claim is where?

The F-35 can be operated without software updates from the US and LM. Yes the aircraft wants to connect to ALIS to conduct diagnostic work but that is for system maintenance and not required for flight operation. In fact we know that due to ALIS issues some units aren't even using it right now anyway.

Even The Economist has covered the issue in the past.

If the Economist has covered this in the past then provide the link, you and Alfons are making the claim so provide some factual evidence to back it up. As usual VSMUT you make lots of claims but support none of them with evidence.

It is not like there aren't other choices for aircraft, Pakistan and Turkey etc could have chosen other airframes that didn't have this mythical kill switch. You don't see either running out to replace their F-16 fleets with Chinese or European jets.

If the kill switches have been used for decades, why is Iran still flying US aircraft? The F-14 is the same vintage as the F-15/16 but clearly doesn't have a kill switch. Instead the US has taken great steps to reduce and eliminate spare parts getting to Iran including scrapping their retiring F-14/111 fleets and requiring Australia to scrap the F-111 fleet at disposal as well.

The F-14 of the time was an analog plane. And I specifically remember at the time that Hughes said that the weapons Iran had would fail to work after a certain amount of time without a Hughes employee doing the service on them.

Kill switches and codes...Good Lord...what some people will believe.

Single engine?

Very surprising but this is a very good sign for Tempest.

The French/German make the light fighter that is carrier capable. The U.K make the heavy long range land based fighter.

This could mean a shared engine development with Snecma and Rolls Royce. Avionics, cockpit and sensors could also be shared with the heavy fighter simply having a radar with more AESA modules.

So the french/german design might end up very similar to the F-35A. It looks like it will be optimised for a higher speed with greater wing sweep in the photos. Trading a bit of range for a higher cruise speed makes sense.

We could see a mini JSF style build. For instance Saab could get a large workshare for the avionics in exchange for Sweden purchasing the smaller french/german fighter after 2030.

The avionics and engines in my opinion make up 75% of the fighters development budget. This could be shared with Tempest and it would be the only way both programs could suceed.

checksixx wrote:

Kill switches and codes...Good Lord...what some people will believe.

There's a nugget of truth there. US manufacturers do not fully release the software code which for example has been a major sticking point in Spanish AF operations of F-18.

Not until 2 years ago, and only partially the SAF got access to rewrite some badly needed software updates.

https://www.elconfidencial.com/tecnolog ... e_1331240/

(I couldn't find any English language source, but you can probably run a translator on it).

With the Typhoon, there are no black boxes or no-go areas. Each partner nation is free to tinker as much as they want to with their a/c.

JJJ wrote:

checksixx wrote:

Kill switches and codes...Good Lord...what some people will believe.

There's a nugget of truth there. US manufacturers do not fully release the software code which for example has been a major sticking point in Spanish AF operations of F-18.

There is no link between access to source code and mythical kill switches.

Source code has never been released by the US to acquiring nations in any of their jets. That is the same for the UK, Australia, Canada etc who are more trusted partners.

JJJ wrote:

Not until 2 years ago, and only partially the SAF got access to rewrite some badly needed software updates.

https://www.elconfidencial.com/tecnolog ... e_1331240/

The claims in the article haven’t been entirely clear. What they are talking about is weapons/sensors/systems integration, not actual flight control software updates. The RAAF went through similar issues with integrations onto US jets including the classic Hornet (lighting pod, JASSM, AIM-132, EL/L-8222 etc) and especially the F-111 (AGM-142). Yes it costs money and if they want to do it themselves takes time. It is one of the prime reasons the US and NATO are moving to the UAI interface I linked above.

The Hornet has had, for 20+ years, a global team that comprises most operators of the jet who collaborate on updates to the jet, including flight control software changes. No one nation goes in and changes this software, all operators get together, collaborate, coordinate and fund the updates to the jet and each receive the updates. Is Spain a member of this group? I’m not sure but expect so and membership requires paying into the joint sustainment team. If they are a member they have benefitted from all the work done to the classic Hornet fight control software, which has significantly opened up the operational capability of the aircraft as well as making it more safe to fly. A lot fewer aircraft are lost today then 20 years ago because the software has continued to evolve and remove/adjust areas of flight control that could lead to departure from controlled flight.

JJJ wrote:

With the Typhoon, there are no black boxes or no-go areas. Each partner nation is free to tinker as much as they want to with their a/c.

There are only four partner nations though. Do the Saudis and Qataris get full access to source code? I highly doubt it. Any work, such as new weapons and systems integrations, is undertaken in collaboration with the partner nation/vendor who sold them the jet. In the same way Spain acquired F-18s not as a partner but as a MOTS acquisition, same as RAAF, and RCAF, Finland, Switzerland, Kuwait etc and operate within the contracts they agreed to.

That is why France and Germany are happy to spend the money to build their own jets, they get to control the technology and can export to other nations. What does an operator get buying a US jet? Typically an aircraft that is cheaper to acquire and sustain because the quantity manufactured is so much higher. The US also continues to upgrade their jets throughout their operational life and other operators benefit immensely from this. Look at the AV-8B and the upgrades the USMC are pushing to the fleet even though the jet will be out of service in 7 years.

RJMAZ wrote:

Single engine?

Where have you seen single engine? I though all the mockups to date have two as well as the concept images.

rlwynn wrote:

The F-14 of the time was an analog plane. And I specifically remember at the time that Hughes said that the weapons Iran had would fail to work after a certain amount of time without a Hughes employee doing the service on them.

Perhaps but that doesn’t really support the suggestion a kill switch exists, it just means the F-14 isn’t a good counter example.

Interestingly Iran has issues but continued to operate the F-14/AIM-54 all through the Iran/Iraq war including apparently shooting down 70+ aircraft with the aircraft/weapon combo, according to Irainian Tomcat in combat book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Iranian-Tomcat ... 1841767875

Ozair wrote:

The claims in the article haven’t been entirely clear. What they are talking about is weapons/sensors/systems integration, not actual flight control software updates.

Because those were never released despite repeated demands. 3 out of 40 computers, I believe it was the line at the time.

Ozair wrote:

JJJ wrote:

With the Typhoon, there are no black boxes or no-go areas. Each partner nation is free to tinker as much as they want to with their a/c.

There are only four partner nations though. Do the Saudis and Qataris get full access to source code? I highly doubt it. Any work, such as new weapons and systems integrations, is undertaken in collaboration with the partner nation/vendor who sold them the jet. In the same way Spain acquired F-18s not as a partner but as a MOTS acquisition, same as RAAF, and RCAF, Finland, Switzerland, Kuwait etc and operate within the contracts they agreed to.

That is why France and Germany are happy to spend the money to build their own jets, they get to control the technology and can export to other nations. What does an operator get buying a US jet? Typically an aircraft that is cheaper to acquire and sustain because the quantity manufactured is so much higher. The US also continues to upgrade their jets throughout their operational life and other operators benefit immensely from this. Look at the AV-8B and the upgrades the USMC are pushing to the fleet even though the jet will be out of service in 7 years.

And this is from the PoV of a partner nation. Between being simply a buyer of US tech or being a partner on a separate program, that's going to weigh heavily on the acquisition.

JJJ wrote:

those were never released despite repeated demands. 3 out of 40 computers, I believe it was the line at the time.

Agree that is what the article says but that was also the agreement of the acquisition. Spain gained access because they paid for it as per the contract. In both their and the US defence, the life cycle for jets essentially tripled with the fourth generation and these issues became more important.

JJJ wrote:

And this is from the PoV of a partner nation. Between being simply a buyer of US tech or being a partner on a separate program, that's going to weigh heavily on the acquisition.

Indeed, each comes with benefits and downsides. I see no reason that France and Germany cannot manufacture a fine aircraft, the technology and infrastructure is available and there are many skilled and technical personnel available. A more interesting question is should they, would that development money be better spent elsewhere which would provide greater benefit to the respective economies.

Ozair wrote:

JJJ wrote:

those were never released despite repeated demands. 3 out of 40 computers, I believe it was the line at the time.

Agree that is what the article says but that was also the agreement of the acquisition. Spain gained access because they paid for it as per the contract. In both their and the US defence, the life cycle for jets essentially tripled with the fourth generation and these issues became more important.

JJJ wrote:

And this is from the PoV of a partner nation. Between being simply a buyer of US tech or being a partner on a separate program, that's going to weigh heavily on the acquisition.

Indeed, each comes with benefits and downsides. I see no reason that France and Germany cannot manufacture a fine aircraft, the technology and infrastructure is available and there are many skilled and technical personnel available. A more interesting question is should they, would that development money be better spent elsewhere which would provide greater benefit to the respective economies.

Exactly, good summary.

If all that is produced is a slightly improved F35 this seems like poor use of funds.

As for kill switches every, 4th gen fighter has its very own kill or at least do not go switch in place right now. This, despite all the teething pains is why the F35 is so succesful.

Ozair wrote:

Spain gained access because they paid for it as per the contract. In both their and the US defence, the life cycle for jets essentially tripled with the fourth generation and these issues became more important.

Exactly, and that's OK as long as there's no alternative. As long as resources can be pooled smaller countries like Spain can aspire to better control over what they're purchasing.

Ozair wrote:

A more interesting question is should they, would that development money be better spent elsewhere which would provide greater benefit to the respective economies.

That development is staying in the local economy instead of the US and can potentially end up as a base for sales to third nations, so the economic case has some merit.

From a defence PoV the technological / capability edge vs the F-35 is moot, it's the gap vs whatever the Russians have or will field in the future the one that counts.

JJJ wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Spain gained access because they paid for it as per the contract. In both their and the US defence, the life cycle for jets essentially tripled with the fourth generation and these issues became more important.

Exactly, and that's OK as long as there's no alternative. As long as resources can be pooled smaller countries like Spain can aspire to better control over what they're purchasing.

Ozair wrote:

A more interesting question is should they, would that development money be better spent elsewhere which would provide greater benefit to the respective economies.

That development is staying in the local economy instead of the US and can potentially end up as a base for sales to third nations, so the economic case has some merit.

From a defence PoV the technological / capability edge vs the F-35 is moot, it's the gap vs whatever the Russians have or will field in the future the one that counts.

Reminds me of the old joke about theory vs reality.

More seriously, the fact that so many defense programs in Europe are political is a testament to the success of NATO.

Ozair wrote:

JJJ wrote:

And this is from the PoV of a partner nation. Between being simply a buyer of US tech or being a partner on a separate program, that's going to weigh heavily on the acquisition.

Indeed, each comes with benefits and downsides. I see no reason that France and Germany cannot manufacture a fine aircraft, the technology and infrastructure is available and there are many skilled and technical personnel available. A more interesting question is should they, would that development money be better spent elsewhere which would provide greater benefit to the respective economies.

Foreign weapons can be political leverage. In order to keep making independent decisions, key defence technologies shouldn't be in the hands of an unreliable (or rather selfish) partner. I don't believe in "kill switches" but withdrawing maintenance or cancelling orders will weaken the fleet. Look at Turkey's cancelled F-35s, just because they bought the "wrong" missiles. Or consider the US veto against the Croatia-Israel F-16 deal. Do you really believe that those middle eastern countries all require the unique capabilities of F-15s, F-18s, Rafales and Eurofighters? Or isn't it rather to distribute the political influence of the manufacturers' countries?

Since several political leaders have been mixing political and economic issues recently, sovereign politics also serve to protect your economy. Hence, developing your own is definitely worth it for countries of the economic size of France, Germany and Spain. Imagine the economic damage that tarrifs and sanctions can cause to them.

mxaxai wrote:

Ozair wrote:

JJJ wrote:

And this is from the PoV of a partner nation. Between being simply a buyer of US tech or being a partner on a separate program, that's going to weigh heavily on the acquisition.

Indeed, each comes with benefits and downsides. I see no reason that France and Germany cannot manufacture a fine aircraft, the technology and infrastructure is available and there are many skilled and technical personnel available. A more interesting question is should they, would that development money be better spent elsewhere which would provide greater benefit to the respective economies.

Foreign weapons can be political leverage. In order to keep making independent decisions, key defence technologies shouldn't be in the hands of an unreliable (or rather selfish) partner. I don't believe in "kill switches" but withdrawing maintenance or cancelling orders will weaken the fleet. Look at Turkey's cancelled F-35s, just because they bought the "wrong" missiles. Or consider the US veto against the Croatia-Israel F-16 deal. Do you really believe that those middle eastern countries all require the unique capabilities of F-15s, F-18s, Rafales and Eurofighters? Or isn't it rather to distribute the political influence of the manufacturers' countries?

Turkey is a member of NATO which continues to have issues with Russia and destabilising influence in Eastern Europe. That is the central issue, not the F-35 which is just a tool in the negotiation.

The Croatia deal was very clear, Israel offered aircraft in a configuration it was legally forbidden from doing. Israel knew this, Croatia knew this and the US knew this. Israel was caught and that is clearly where the blame should lay.

I'm not sure what the middle east has to do with this discussion, sure they use military procurement to acquire influence but that isn't what this discussion is about.

mxaxai wrote:

Since several political leaders have been mixing political and economic issues recently, sovereign politics also serve to protect your economy.

Recently... Perhaps you need to refresh about political history. Politicians have mixed political and economic issues since politics began.

mxaxai wrote:

Hence, developing your own is definitely worth it for countries of the economic size of France, Germany and Spain. Imagine the economic damage that tarrifs and sanctions can cause to them.

But why is developing that specific military component absolutely necessary? If the partners used that money and developed technology that the US could not live without then they can balance those sanctions with their own or prevent them even happening in the first place.

We are in make believe world though because I am sure neither of us believe the above is possible or a likely scenario. Despite the bluster of politicians the respective political systems still remain tightly bound to each other and direct damage to one impacts the other.

Planeflyer wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Spain gained access because they paid for it as per the contract. In both their and the US defence, the life cycle for jets essentially tripled with the fourth generation and these issues became more important.

Exactly, and that's OK as long as there's no alternative. As long as resources can be pooled smaller countries like Spain can aspire to better control over what they're purchasing.

Ozair wrote:

A more interesting question is should they, would that development money be better spent elsewhere which would provide greater benefit to the respective economies.

That development is staying in the local economy instead of the US and can potentially end up as a base for sales to third nations, so the economic case has some merit.

From a defence PoV the technological / capability edge vs the F-35 is moot, it's the gap vs whatever the Russians have or will field in the future the one that counts.

Reminds me of the old joke about theory vs reality.

More seriously, the fact that so many defense programs in Europe are political is a testament to the success of NATO.

Defence projects were political long before NATO existed, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Ozair wrote:

But why is developing that specific military component absolutely necessary? If the partners used that money and developed technology that the US could not live without then they can balance those sanctions with their own or prevent them even happening in the first place.

A nation without fighter jets cannot control its airspace effectively. Further, they cannot be easily or quickly replaced with new equipment. So there is great political leverage, something that cannot be achieved with most other technologies. For example, a missile system can be developed or bought and put to use within a few years, or less. Heavy helicopters are useful but you can do without. Nuclear weapons remain a weapon of only theoretical use.

Further, the US have almost always chosen to develop their own, or dismissed the technology as unnecessary. Even if a better or comparable foreign product was available. I wonder why?

Ozair wrote:

We are in make believe world though because I am sure neither of us believe the above is possible or a likely scenario. Despite the bluster of politicians the respective political systems still remain tightly bound to each other and direct damage to one impacts the other.

That is true only as long as the politicians act rationally, and not selfishly. I have my doubts that all European and American leaders fit those criteria.

mxaxai wrote:

Nuclear weapons remain a weapon of only theoretical use.

Japan on line one for you.

But why is developing that specific military component absolutely necessary? If the partners used that money and developed technology that the US could not live without then they can balance those sanctions with their own or prevent them even happening in the first place.

We are in make believe world though because I am sure neither of us believe the above is possible or a likely scenario. Despite the bluster of politicians the respective political systems still remain tightly bound to each other and direct damage to one impacts the other.

Well said!

It’s very tricky to figure out how and where to invest scarce resources.

I’m no expert but it just seems to me spending tens of billions of $ to come up with a F35 + 20-30 years from now is not a smart move.

Who else is going to buy it?

Planeflyer wrote:

I’m no expert but it just seems to me spending tens of billions of $ to come up with a F35 + 20-30 years from now is not a smart move.

Who else is going to buy it?

Whoever wants to and comes up with the money. But that's secondary to the first and foremost reason: technology independence and job creation (or rather maintenance)

JJJ wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

I’m no expert but it just seems to me spending tens of billions of $ to come up with a F35 + 20-30 years from now is not a smart move.

Who else is going to buy it?

Whoever wants to and comes up with the money. But that's secondary to the first and foremost reason: technology independence and job creation (or rather maintenance)

Technolgy independence and job creation are only priorities over basic defense requirements why?

Planeflyer wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

I’m no expert but it just seems to me spending tens of billions of $ to come up with a F35 + 20-30 years from now is not a smart move.

Who else is going to buy it?

Whoever wants to and comes up with the money. But that's secondary to the first and foremost reason: technology independence and job creation (or rather maintenance)

Technolgy independence and job creation are only priorities over basic defense requirements why?

The a/c will certainly should be capable enough to cover the basic defence requirements, so that's covered.

You were asking "who else is going to buy it" which I understood was refering to sales to 3rd countries.

Planeflyer wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

I’m no expert but it just seems to me spending tens of billions of $ to come up with a F35 + 20-30 years from now is not a smart move.

Who else is going to buy it?

Whoever wants to and comes up with the money. But that's secondary to the first and foremost reason: technology independence and job creation (or rather maintenance)

Technolgy independence and job creation are only priorities over basic defense requirements why?

Because those two only swap places when there is a credible military threat. Right now there isn't one even remotely.

Beat regards
Thomas

When there is a war, belligerents usually buy their own stuff, even if it has been conceived elsewhere.

So the negotiation and campaign from Dassault on the FCAS really begins. They are obviously keen for this to be carrier capable from the start but as I have suggested in the past I doubt the Germans will be as enthused. Carrier capability will add weight and complexity to the basic airframe and possibly turn off some export buyers.

European FCAS fighter to be optimised for carrier ops

The manned New Generation Fighter (NGF) component of the Future Combat Air System/Système de Combat Aérien Futur (FCAS/SCAF) being jointly developed by Dassault Aviation and Airbus will be optimised for carrier operations from the outset, a source close to the programme has confirmed to Jane's .

The NGF will follow a similar development path to that of the three variants of the Dassault Rafale fighter, the source added.

Engineers will take into account the lessons learnt from the Dassault Étendard, Super Étendard, and Rafale programmes for corrosion resistance and catapult shots/deck landings compatibility. During carrier landings, large loads are inflicted upon the airframe when impacting the flight deck. The paths through which these shocks and impact loads are absorbed will have to be carefully engineered, the source said.

...

https://www.janes.com/article/90221/eur ... arrier-ops