Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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
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.
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.
aumaverick wrote:This concept New Generation Fighter will be separate from the UK & Italy's Tempest project.
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.
Planeflyer wrote:Of course by that time the F-35 will be ++.So best case scenario is that 25 years from now there will be a f35+....... boring.
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:Being able to maintain ones own ability to build such top end weapons has a strategic value.
Aesma wrote:So that the US can shut down our Air Force when the president has had a bad burger ? Non thanks.
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?
Alfons wrote:our F-18's have to get every period a code directly from the US, so the plane can fly
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 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.
aumaverick wrote:Does this new Franco-German FCAS also play into Germany's plans for their own aircraft carrier?
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.
Ozair wrote:So the US Military/Government is now responsible for Hollywood movie hysteria as well?
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 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.
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.
aumaverick wrote:Does this new Franco-German FCAS also play into Germany's plans for their own aircraft carrier?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
checksixx wrote:Kill switches and codes...Good Lord...what some people will believe.
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.
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/
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.
RJMAZ wrote:Single engine?
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.
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.
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.
JJJ wrote:those were never released despite repeated demands. 3 out of 40 computers, I believe it was the line at the time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
mxaxai wrote:Since several political leaders have been mixing political and economic issues recently, sovereign politics also serve to protect your economy.
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.
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.
Ozair wrote: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.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.
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.
mxaxai wrote:Nuclear weapons remain a weapon of only theoretical use.
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?
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)
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?
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 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.
...