Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 391011121314 LastLast
Results 361 to 390 of 416

Thread: Airbus: European Future Fighter Program

  1. #361
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,379
    It is all of a piece.

    I am quite sure both sides have something to bring to the party (we have established that the French woke up to stealth slightly after Germany). I just think that one shouldn't run away with the idea that France has a vast lead over the rest of Europe which means it must lead them all into a brighter future.

    neuron was important to France because someone will have said to someone else in the ministry, "What do we know about Stealth?" and they would have replied, "Well we know how to reduce a Rafale's RCS but we haven't really got much else to show you".

    It has been a long time since anyone sober has claimed that frontal RCS reduction work = knowledge of VLO. You wouldn't say that because Germany had a hand in Typhoon's RCS reduction, they are experts would you.

  2. #362
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,953
    I simply answered to Siddars claim:

    For Dassault to have the lead in the project. It would require them to have the lead in low observable aircraft. When compared to Germany. I doubt that is case the Germans have dabbled in low observable sense it's beginning.
    fact is, Dassault and other french companies involved have been working on stealthy stuff since the 1980's, they have infrastructures second to none in Europe for that work and had continuous funding of the research ever since (even if it got slowed down after 1989 like everybody else).. and that work produced results that are the Rafale (on their own), the Neuron with the British, and they keep advancing.. Germans, on the other hand, had a hand in the Typhoon (where they spent a good amount of their time slowing it down by their unwillingness to invest in its modernization) , but other than that, I don't know of any other project with LO or VLO characteristics that they were involved in...

    So, from that standpoint, I feel quite confident that the competence of the French, in VLO domain, compared to the germans, is nothing to be ashamed of, to the least

  3. #363
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,379
    Ok, I understand.

    Obviously you meant neuron with everyone but the British.

    Here is what both sides have produced other than the Eurocanards (which probably have more value as proof that they are both capable of designing fighter aircraft, than for the LO work)

    With credit to the very excellent website listed here: http://translate.google.sk/translate...Fstealth4e.htm

    MBB Lampyridae (early 1980s)
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	lampyridae_transsonic_model_3.jpg 
Views:	145 
Size:	43.1 KB 
ID:	255147


    DASA FTT / FTTU / TDEFS (late 80's/early 90s)
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FTTU2.jpg 
Views:	145 
Size:	43.3 KB 
ID:	255146


    EADS (DASA) AT-2000 MAKO (Late 90s)
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MAKO_mockup_1.jpg 
Views:	148 
Size:	80.7 KB 
ID:	255148


    EADS Barracuda (2006 ongoing)
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1760247.jpg 
Views:	133 
Size:	238.9 KB 
ID:	255149

    Airbus Sagitta (present ongoing)
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	hqdefault.jpg 
Views:	71 
Size:	26.1 KB 
ID:	255150

    French stealth

    see comparative details with SAAB here : http://translate.google.sk/translate...state0=&swap=1


    Stealthy Rafale
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dassault_future_fighter_small.jpg 
Views:	82 
Size:	26.8 KB 
ID:	255151 (late 90s)

    Future Combat Aircraft study (to replace Rafale late 90s)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	dassault_FACE_1.jpg 
Views:	141 
Size:	66.4 KB 
ID:	255152

    Scaled UAV technology demonstrators (late 90s- 2000s)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Petit-Duc-program.jpg 
Views:	144 
Size:	159.1 KB 
ID:	255153

    Neuron (2000s to present)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	untitled.png 
Views:	67 
Size:	81.8 KB 
ID:	255154

    Further UAV studies leading to FCAS
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	AVE-wind-tunnel-ONERA-small.jpg 
Views:	149 
Size:	88.4 KB 
ID:	255155
    Last edited by mrmalaya; 5th August 2017 at 13:26.

  4. #364
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,398
    Mako... What a sad story
    Mako existence would have pulled back T-X in limbo, boosting de-facto Airbus to the leading position for Pilot training. Hundreds of contractors would have participated in the combined training sustaining both Bk117 and Mako.
    Another failure that I failed to add to the list
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 5th August 2017 at 19:04.

  5. #365
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,431
    A political sad story, wasn't it? No political backing for Mako, no apparent European or US interest in buying it.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  6. #366
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,953
    forgot about it... there was a simulator at the Mako stand at the Paris Air Show... quite nice little bird...

  7. #367
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,398
    A political sad story, wasn't it? No political backing for Mako, no apparent European or US interest in buying it.
    C'mon, it was an advanced trainer. Had Airbus kept the line with the high performances/no weapon/embedded virtual training idea that was really revolutionary at the time and the project would have been easily self-funded. Aircraft manufacturers around the world from all times have been down that road creating truly revolutionary designs without barely any inputs from State finances. Here, the Geniuses at Airbus added their low understanding of the market asking things like weapon carriage, fighter level systems etc... that destroyed this project (an error not committed by today Boeing or Northrop).
    The alleged lack of political backing, perhaps a contestable opinion to say the least, has nothing to do here. Airbus failed it by itself. It had the right idea, the bright minds, the technical competences, it could be envisioned that there was an infancy of a market but they missed that opportunity thanks to the conformism and lack of visionary sight at management level. Exactly what killed the 380 before it even flew...

    Today, it would be suicidal to go down that road with an expensive project like a 5th+ fighter aircraft. If you have been dazed by the syphoning of states finance to keep the heads from rolling down the gutter with the A400 project, brace yourself firmly: without any radical changes, the road will be bumpy and a large share of weapon design capital could be sunk forever irreversibly exposing Europe's east, south and far frontiers.

    Again, this is only plain logic.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 6th August 2017 at 12:41.

  8. #368
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,379
    Actually, although it was timing that killed the MAKO (exactly when did all of those countries buy their trainers- several to tens of years later at best), it is of great value to this discussion because of the engineering that was pumped into it.

    My little timeline suggests that this Airbus fighter has plenty going for it, that France is not so clear a leader as the Rafale fans would like to think, and that a third party can only be included in the arrangement as a second tier member with little design authority. That could work for Spain, but for Italy?
    Last edited by mrmalaya; 6th August 2017 at 15:48.

  9. #369
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,486
    @mrmalaya

    To close the ring I post here what will be probably the final product in which all those lines would converge: the MALE RPAS 2025.
    Officialy presented at this year's Paris Air Show.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	09be264950531b83afc3324864c4642b2-31167957d111f8edd656c06f8f08fc471.jpg 
Views:	98 
Size:	80.8 KB 
ID:	255176
    Obviously, in Leonardo's stand.
    Because you know:
    while others with stealth they play,
    Poor Italians real drones make fly.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	300px-Salon_du_Bourget_20090619_227.jpg 
Views:	66 
Size:	19.3 KB 
ID:	255182
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	HammerHead-Prototype001.jpg.5998640.jpg 
Views:	66 
Size:	41.4 KB 
ID:	255183
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 6th August 2017 at 15:48.

  10. #370
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,398
    It is clear that comparing Spain and Italy here is weird, to say the least.

  11. #371
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,486
    Even more in this case, as we are talking about projects in which the industry, more than governments, have a leading role.

    Leonardo is practically the IT-UK part of European integrated defense industry and she would remain so also after Brexit will be completed.
    In several sectors, UAV being just one of that, they have a technical edge and in particular when it compares to Airbus she has two very important advantages i.e. being almost exclusively in the military business and having a clear internal-lead governance able to take its own decisions with a quite large autonomy from the Italian government itself, let's imagine waiting three different ones to find an accord before making any move.

  12. #372
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,453
    Mako... What a sad story
    Mako existence would have pulled back T-X in limbo, boosting de-facto Airbus to the leading position for Pilot training. Hundreds of contractors would have participated in the combined training sustaining both Bk117 and Mako.
    Another failure that I failed to add to the list
    What the hell has the Dornier/DASA/EADS AT2000/Mako and the Eurotrainer program have to do with Airbus? It was never an Airbus program, it was dead almost a decade before the EADS defense dept consolidated into Airbus. Its like blaming Airbus for the ME109 short legs, or for not producing the MBB Lampyridae.
    And by the way, if the EADS design was a failure, what would we call the equivalent Dassault and Saab offers for the "Eurotrainer" program?


    The BK117 is called today H145 or UH-72 and its an incredibly sucessful airframe.
    Last edited by Sintra; 7th August 2017 at 16:41.

  13. #373
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,453
    The alleged lack of political backing, perhaps a contestable opinion to say the least, has nothing to do here. Airbus failed it by itself.
    Here, the Geniuses at Airbus added their low understanding of the market asking things like weapon carriage, fighter level systems etc... that destroyed this project
    The MAKO died, just like the contemporary SAAB Project 518 and Dassault "Advanced Trainer", because a) the 12 nations "Eurotrainer" (AEJPT) program died and b) unlike the M346, no one else footed the bill (the UAE almost did), it had absolutely nothing to do with "weapons carriage"!
    The two combat versions, single and two seater, were studied at the request of two of the main prospective customers, the UAE and South Korea. It was not some "out of the blue" idea from the EADS chaps, quite the oposite, they were answering clients requirements.


    And, again, Airbus was not involved.
    Last edited by Sintra; 7th August 2017 at 16:47.

  14. #374
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,398
    The BK117 is called today H145 or UH-72 and its an incredibly sucessful airframe.
    Yes it is. What's the point ?!

    Regarding the Mako, check back your timeline*

    *Cancellation 2006 - a that time EADS was part of airbus -
    In 2006, EADS acquired BAE Systems's remaining 20% of Airbus
    And...
    EADS also confirmed that Tom Enders will replace Louis Gallois** as chief executive on May 31. Mr Enders is presently chief executive of Airbus, EADS's plane-maker division. He will be succeeded at Airbus, the world's biggest manufacturer of aircraft, by Fabrice Bregier, Airbus's chief operating officer.
    You'll find back the source/date... B/w...
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EADs Mako Airbus.jpg 
Views:	48 
Size:	47.6 KB 
ID:	255202
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 8th August 2017 at 07:15.

  15. #375
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    220
    One can note , aside the sagitta , one side oriented toward facet while the other priviledge a curve approach a bit like F117 vs B2/F22/F35, so I guess there are a generation gap there.

  16. #376
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,453
    Regarding the Mako, check back your timeline*

    *Cancellation 2006 - a that time EADS was part of airbus -
    In 2006, EADS acquired BAE Systems's remaining 20% of Airbus
    And...
    EADS also confirmed that Tom Enders will replace Louis Gallois** as chief executive on May 31. Mr Enders is presently chief executive of Airbus, EADS's plane-maker division. He will be succeeded at Airbus, the world's biggest manufacturer of aircraft, by Fabrice Bregier, Airbus's chief operating officer.
    You'll find back the source/date... B/w...
    EADS Defence and Security/Cassidian was integrated into Airbus in 17 January 2014, untill then it was entirely out of the Airbus consortium.
    There´s has much "Airbus" in MAKO has in the F-104G or the Focke Wul 190.
    Last edited by Sintra; 9th August 2017 at 10:39.

  17. #377
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,453
    One can note , aside the sagitta , one side oriented toward facet while the other priviledge a curve approach a bit like F117 vs B2/F22/F35, so I guess there are a generation gap there.
    The last German faceted stealth design that i am aware was made in the late eighties and the industry was still called Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm.

    Cheers

  18. #378
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,195
    TooCool- Don't despair, you might see a PAK-FA in Normandie-Nieman colors at some point .
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  19. #379
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,953
    don't worry, as far as NN goes, I'm perfectly happy right now


  20. #380
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,398
    EADS Defence and Security/Cassidian was integrated into Airbus in 17 January 2014, untill then it was entirely out of the Airbus consortium.
    There´s has much "Airbus" in MAKO has in the F-104G or the Focke Wul 190.
    did you read this?
    EADS also confirmed that Tom Enders will replace Louis Gallois** as chief executive on May 31. Mr Enders is presently chief executive of Airbus, EADS's plane-maker division. He will be succeeded at Airbus, the world's biggest manufacturer of aircraft, by Fabrice Bregier, Airbus's chief operating officer.
    and this:
    The alleged lack of political backing, perhaps a contestable opinion to say the least, has nothing to do here. Airbus failed it by itself. It had the right idea, the bright minds, the technical competences, it could be envisioned that there was an infancy of a market but they missed that opportunity thanks to the conformism and lack of visionary sight at management level.
    ?

    I don't think we have a discussion here. I think you are in plain denial of what could be encompassed with the reality of my assertion: 20 years of failure with an unchanged team of manager to lead the way in the most technically challenging and potentially expensive project that Airbus as ever taken part... EoA.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 10th August 2017 at 00:25.

  21. #381
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    136

  22. #382
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,398
    This thread is about Airbus and the future European fighter program ("Airbus: European Future Fighter Program"). I think that it is a valid input to question the idea of going business as usual given past experiences. Unless obviously you think that a multi-billion euro loss is anecdotical...
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 10th August 2017 at 14:27.

  23. #383
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    BAE Systems says the TF-X program is "much more" advanced than European program.

    BAE Systems dismisses concerns about its lack of involvement in a new French-German fighter jet

    By Alan Tovey
    14 JULY 2017 • 12:36PM

    BAE Systems has dismissed concerns about its lack of involvement in a new French-German fighter jet, with the FTSE 100-listed defence saying it is already involved in a similar but more advanced programme in Turkey.

    Speaking at the RIAT military airshow at RAF Fairford, Chris Boardman, managing director of BAE’s military aircraft business, played down worries about BAE’s lack of participation.

    Some have questioned the exclusion, saying it is a sign of Britain’s waning influence as Europe’s leading military power in the wake of the vote for Brexit.

    “BAE - and Britain - are already doing the next generation fighter with Turkey,” Mr Boardman, speaking at the Royal International Air Tattoo, said. “We have engineers deploying to Turkey as we speak to start work on that process.”

    BAE - along with Rolls-Royce - have both signed early agreements with Turkey to help develop the so-called TF-X fighter, of which as many as 250 could be ordered.
    BAE was a major player in previous pan-European fighter projects such as Tornado and Typhoon - neither of which France bought - and also the Jaguar, when the UK worked with France.

    The new European project was announced on Thursday night in Paris by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

    Defence analysts says the new system could use a combination of manned and unmanned aircraft.

    Mr Boardman added that a current Anglo-French agreement to develop a new unmanned drone - FCAS - would not be threatened by the new announcement.

    “I don feel threatened by anything I have seen. We have a contract to develop an FCAS demonstrator which we are working closely with Dassault on,” he said. “Nothing I see is stopping the pace of that development.”

    BAE also collaborates extensively with defence companies around the world and the BAE chief said he was certain that the company’s experience would mean that it would find a place in the newly announced project.

    "I am absolutely convinced that we the UK and BAE Systems will in one way or another have an involvement,” he added.

    The BAE chief called the new project "interesting and useful" but said he saw it at a stage behind BAE's work with Turkey.

    "They are looking at a future requirement, we are working on one," he said.

  24. #384
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,953
    you really must have some confidence problems with your pet program, to repeatedly bring it back into a thread that's not about it (and where probably most don't give a damn about it).. like posting a comment made one month ago on the signature between germans and french..

  25. #385
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    437
    It is quite evident who has an "allergy" here to BAE Systems and the TF-X program.

    Comparing the European project to other programs is actually quite relevant to this thread. You would note that I was in fact the one who started this thread and began following the developments within it.

    If you don't like news updates on the dynamics of the program and its interaction and position within the European aerospace scene its quite easy to ignore my posts.

  26. #386
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,486
    I am (begrundigly) with Bayar on this one:the fact that the Bae has denied that its not interested in the Airbus project has certainly a great relevance there.
    Still Bae i.e. is just a firm, the most important but not the only British one working in the defence sector.
    So it can speak for itself only not for the rest of them or even more in British government's behalf.

  27. #387
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,953
    Discussing about the project is one thing, bringing repeatedly another one into the discussion, including by posting old "news" just to bring it back is another...

  28. #388
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    19
    The TF-X program is clearly more advanced in a chronological sense than any Franco-German collaboration as the latter was just initiated at the government-to-goverment level a month or so ago and the former has preliminary designs and some subcontractors lined up.

    In a military technology sense, the Franco-German partnership is more likely to produce an aircraft that is competitive with the F-35 block 3F, in my opinion. This is because the Typhoon and Rafale are competitive with export versions of the F-15E, like the recent F-15SA and F-15QA. The Turkish project would require a humongous budget to be competitive with the F-35 block 3F.

    Neither program seems at all as ambitious as the vague next round of fighter aircraft for the US Navy and US Air Force, which seem to be focusing on low range, high magazine capacity, all aspect stealth (no vertical tail fins), electronic warfare, and who knows what else.

    Producing an aircraft in twenty years competitive with an aircraft available for sale now is not a big accomplishment.

  29. #389
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,953
    Neither program seems at all as ambitious as the vague next round of fighter aircraft for the US Navy and US Air Force, which seem to be focusing on low range, high magazine capacity, all aspect stealth (no vertical tail fins), electronic warfare, and who knows what else.
    Considering the french have an international policy that requires them to go to wars around the planet, and the fact that they produced quite competitive fighters until now, I'm wondering on what you base your assumption that they plan for introduction in 2040-2050 timeframe something that would be comparable to the F-35 version that would fly in a couple of years from now...

  30. #390
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    French international ambition will be curtailed . I doubt Germany is capable of arranging funds for such project. Turkish project is joke.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 9 users browsing this thread. (2 members and 7 guests)

  1. Deino,
  2. mupp

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES