Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 425

Thread: Airbus: European Future Fighter Program

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    The main point about Airbus asking Dassault to partner is that they are running out of fast jet work. Once Typhoon production stops what upgrades are they looking at? I know they have had in house uav design work but again, what has that achieved?
    Airbus was never interested in Typhoon development work, it's one of the reasons it is where it is.

    Which UAV are you talking about? Taranis learning will become part of FCAS development.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,166
    Oh, I never said it was likely to happen, only that it would be the only sensible thing to do if one wants to have a relatively affordable fighter.. doing it as they want (choose a manufacturer without any competition and then, let do while pulling whatever production they can to themselves) is the perfect way to pay as much as if they developed it all alone, for a lesser product in the end..

    When I see that proposal, I can only say that France is way better off staying alone... in the end it won't cost them more, but they'll have the product that really does suit their needs and they'll have their industry work guaranteed
    That is what France will say it is doing... but in reality what it will do is... not much. France hasn't even been able to fund procurement of its previous fighter... it was buying only a handful per year before exports allowed them to cut even that. Now you expect them to undertake an entirely new program?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    I don't expect.. they will do it.

    The public doesn't like spending too much on weapons, but they like even less the idea of depending on the americans (for different reasons that are OT here), what's more, while they did not buy many rafales (the idea being to reduce annual costs but also to keep the line busy for as long as possible) the kept investing in research and development of new technologies around it...

    Basically, the investment is there (maybe not as much as one would like, but it is there, unlike "some other aircraft" who had all the trouble in the world keeping its development running as different partners dragged their feet all the time )

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,379
    Ryan,

    There is a difference between the German government not wanting Typhoon and the manufacturers not wanting to develop it. Airbus has had as much to do with Typhoon development up to this point as BAE. It could be argued that BAE is looking at more future Typhoon work because the RAF is totally committed to Typhoon, but again BAE is not the only manufacturer that will benefit from upgrades to Typhoon through to 2040.

    Airbus has both Barracuda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_Barracuda
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1760247.jpg 
Views:	55 
Size:	238.9 KB 
ID:	254109

    and Sagitta to it's name: http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/ne...idian_uas.html
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	sagitta-1680.2017-03-21-12-47-30.jpg 
Views:	64 
Size:	454.1 KB 
ID:	254110

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,166
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f
    I don't expect.. they will do it.

    The public doesn't like spending too much on weapons, but they like even less the idea of depending on the americans (for different reasons that are OT here), what's more, while they did not buy many rafales (the idea being to reduce annual costs but also to keep the line busy for as long as possible) the kept investing in research and development of new technologies around it...

    Basically, the investment is there (maybe not as much as one would like, but it is there, unlike "some other aircraft" who had all the trouble in the world keeping its development running as different partners dragged their feet all the time )
    This is just wishful thinking. Fighter programs are devilishly expensive and slow moving. If France were to get serious about developing a new aircraft today they would be lucky to have it available in the early 2030s... at a cost of several tens of billions of dollars in development alone. Such a program could only happen in the context of a completely different fiscal/security environment. The same applies to the rest of Europe. Even if several of the bigger players pooled their resources a new project wouldn't come close to making sense.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Basically, the investment is there (maybe not as much as one would like, but it is there, unlike "some other aircraft" who had all the trouble in the world keeping its development running as different partners dragged their feet all the time )
    Those partners are now France's partners in this Airbus thing though.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    There is a difference between the German government not wanting Typhoon and the manufacturers not wanting to develop it. Airbus has had as much to do with Typhoon development up to this point as BAE. It could be argued that BAE is looking at more future Typhoon work because the RAF is totally committed to Typhoon, but again BAE is not the only manufacturer that will benefit from upgrades to Typhoon through to 2040.
    Not fundamentally. The money comes from the government, so if the government drags their heels, what the manufacturer wants to do makes no odds. And if Germany didn't want the Typhoon, WTF did they join the project? Doesn't really inspire one with confidence does it? Maybe they'll end up not wanting this Airbus fighter either.

    This is just wishful thinking. Fighter programs are devilishly expensive and slow moving. If France were to get serious about developing a new aircraft today they would be lucky to have it available in the early 2030s... at a cost of several tens of billions of dollars in development alone. Such a program could only happen in the context of a completely different fiscal/security environment. The same applies to the rest of Europe. Even if several of the bigger players pooled their resources a new project wouldn't come close to making sense.
    I don't know about that, but Spain is definitely a weak link economically.
    Last edited by Ryan; 15th June 2017 at 12:56.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,431
    The Spanish economy is now growing at rates that Germany, France & Italy can only dream about.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    19
    I imagine European politicians might very well be willing to fund a fifth generation fighter. The only reason countries like Germany and Spain are promoting a fifth generation fighter is to keep domestic defense industry workers employed. There is no chance that such a weapon system would exceed whatever "block 5" or "block 6" F-35 it would be competing with.

    European countries spend tremendous amounts of money to keep domestic workers employed. It is amazing how many different weapons systems Italy produces. For example, Italy produces its own attack choppers although the export sales record and likely combat capability is demonstrably inferior to the US Apaches.

    European countries like Germany, France and Spain probably fund development of prestige programs like fighter aircraft development because they get plenty of attention from voters and support already existing companies and workers. From the viewpoint of NATO and the defense of Europe against Russia, these aircraft will provide little capability over "block 5" or "block 6" F-35s, which will have a budget for new avionics and weapons dwarfing anything in Europe. Oh yeah, the B-21 will have more capabilities lacking in non-Russian Europe and penetrating counter air (PCA) will be unique outside of maybe China, although who knows at that program just getting started.

    Shipbuilding is another issue. Every European country funds a domestic military shipbuilding industry to keep workers employed. Because of the parochial approach, the total effectiveness of all NATO navies other than the US Navy is far less than the US Navy.

    What Europe should unite to fund and will not are things like logistics capabilities, electronic warfare capabilities and additional armored brigades to fight a land war in eastern Europe. I doubt Germany has the capability of moving its poorly trained mechanized infantry brigades to Poland or the Baltics during a crisis and I imagine they will be underfunded in terms of fuel, ammunition, training, air defense, artillery and overall combat capability compared to Russian maneuver units of equivalent size once they get there. If Germany has issues actually fighting a war with Russia, Italy and Spain will be far worse. A small country like Belgium actually divested all its tanks so they would be right out in a land war.
    Last edited by mil; 15th June 2017 at 16:06.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    The Spanish economy is now growing at rates that Germany, France & Italy can only dream about.
    The kind of GDP Spain is creating is simply not conductive for industrial project like 5G fighter.

    http://www.citymetric.com/business/m...me-airbnb-3048

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    The Spanish economy is now growing at rates that Germany, France & Italy can only dream about.
    But their debt is at 100% GDP and they have a 4.5% deficit and Banco Popular may have been an omen.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,147

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,371
    European defence industry should consolidate. They should arrange a 3-way competition between Airbus, Saab and Dassault for the future fighter; and do similar competition for other main weapons systems, e.g., future main battle tank. Europe is not big enough to support so many independent vendors.
    Complete ********.

    If you do that you kill the other two bidders that don't get chosen and the corresponding skill set in the corresponding countries. Each of those firms should develop their design and compete to sell them to different countries. Anything else is pure communism.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,371
    Nice censorship btw

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,148
    If you do that you kill the other two bidders that don't get chosen and the corresponding skill set in the corresponding countries.
    What countries?

    The UK is leaving the EU.

    Welcome to the United States of Europe.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,371
    Airbus -> Deutschland/España, Dassault -> France, Saab -> Sverige.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    What countries?

    The UK is leaving the EU.

    Welcome to the United States of Europe.
    It's about capability both financial and technical. UK is losing both as Trump implement American first.
    Dassault simply has wider market from Egypt to India to Qatar. These countries will have money but Saudis will have far less for follow-up order for UK and even that is shared with rest of EU consortium.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    677
    Spain can´t invite France to join nothing because we don´t have any (At least for now) program of an european fighter along with the germans. Frankly both the AF and the Navy are more interested in F-35 versions as replacements for the EF-18/Harrier II+ fleets.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    127
    Did the development of Typhoon AND Rafale mean that NATO is crumbling?

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    219
    I feel sorry for anyone partnering with Germany on this plane. The Germans have a reputation for being very stubborn partners and don't hesitate to throw their weight around.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    Quote Originally Posted by APRichelieu View Post
    Did the development of Typhoon AND Rafale mean that NATO is crumbling?
    Is NATO functioning as NATO?. Volga Denpr made alot money from from NATO countries that is consequences of
    development of Rafale and Typhoon and it also contributed to failure in Libya when you look at over all force structure. more to come.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10
    If you do that you kill the other two bidders that don't get chosen and the corresponding skill set in the corresponding countries. Each of those firms should develop their design and compete to sell them to different countries. Anything else is pure communism.
    I think LockMart & Boeing will approve of that idea. Use higher production volume to suppress the cost and beat the competition on price. Pure capitalism.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,453
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    Airbus was never interested in Typhoon development work, it's one of the reasons it is where it is.
    Nonsense, a great big chunk of what become the Eurofighter Typhoon was MBB's work.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,453
    Quote Originally Posted by Bayar View Post
    Germany and Spain invite France to join the Airbus program to develop a new successor for the Typhoon but reject the United Kingdom.

    It explains why the UK has joined the TF-X program.
    More like "Airbus" invites "France"... There's too much indefinition in Germany's MOD regarding this particular theme, so Airbus and the rest of the industry is doing their job, lobbying.

    And the the UK didnt join the TF-X. BAE won an international tender for consulting work for TF-X, vastly different thing. Chances of any hardware coming out of TF-X (if any actually comes out) ending with RAF colours are almost nill.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    977
    1. German AF:
    * 85 Tornado --> Retirement: around 2030.
    * 143 Eurofighter --> Retirement: post-2040.

    2. Spanish AF and Navy:
    * 71 EF-18A --> Retirement: around 2025 ~ 2030.
    * 13 AV-8B --> Retirement: around 2025 ~ 2030.
    * 73 Eurofighter --> Retirement: post-2040.

    3. Royal AF:
    * 30 EF-2000 Tranche 1 --> Retirement: around 2030
    * 107 EF-2000 Tranche 2&3 --> Retirement: post-2040.

    4. French AF and Navy:
    * 125 Mirage 2000 series --> Retirement: 2018 ~ 2030, successor: Rafale F3, F3-O4T, and F4.
    * 61 early productional Rafale B/C/M --> Retirement: 2030 ~ 2040.
    * 164 late productional Rafale B/C/M --> Retirement: 2040 ~ 2060.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,453
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    This is just wishful thinking. Fighter programs are devilishly expensive and slow moving. If France were to get serious about developing a new aircraft today they would be lucky to have it available in the early 2030s... at a cost of several tens of billions of dollars in development alone. Such a program could only happen in the context of a completely different fiscal/security environment. The same applies to the rest of Europe. Even if several of the bigger players pooled their resources a new project wouldn't come close to making sense.
    In Europe alone there are more than one thousand airframes that will need replacement in the thirties and fourties, its common sense to pool Europe's resources in order to develop and field that replacement.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    977
    1. German AF:
    * 85 Tornado --> Retirement: around 2030.
    * 143 Eurofighter --> Retirement: post-2040.

    2. Spanish AF and Navy:
    * 71 EF-18A --> Retirement: around 2025 ~ 2030.
    * 13 AV-8B --> Retirement: around 2025 ~ 2030.
    * 73 Eurofighter --> Retirement: post-2040.

    3. Royal AF:
    * 30 EF-2000 Tranche 1 --> Retirement: around 2030
    * 107 EF-2000 Tranche 2&3 --> Retirement: post-2040.

    4. French AF and Navy:
    * 125 Mirage 2000 series --> Retirement: 2018 ~ 2030, successor: Rafale F3, F3-O4T, and F4.
    * 61 early productional Rafale B/C/M --> Retirement: 2030 ~ 2040.
    * 164 late productional Rafale B/C/M --> Retirement: 2040 ~ 2060.

    5. ItAF"
    * 68 EF-2000 Tranche 2&3 --> Retirement: post-2040.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,453
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad View Post
    I think LockMart & Boeing will approve of that idea. Use higher production volume to suppress the cost and beat the competition on price. Pure capitalism.
    You are entirely correct. Lockheed and Boeing will be delighted if Europe doesnt get its act together.
    There's absolutely no reason why Europe cant emulate what it did in the missile, the comercial aircraft area, the helicopter and the space business. The market is there, the resources are there (for crying out loud, even in this "almost nill defense budget" times, Western Europe spends three times more than Russia!), the industry is there. Do an "MBDA" out of Dassault and Airbus, get some realistic KKP's, throw in 35 billion euros in R&D, wait till 2035 and serve the dam thing with white wine.
    What it cant happen is having three european xerox airframes that do the same bloody thing.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,148
    Consolidating fighter manufacturing is a noble vision – but is it one that makes practical sense?

    As seen during ambitious initiatives over the past few years, such as on the pan-European Neuron unmanned combat air vehicle demonstrator and the Anglo-French future combat air system, manufacturers are willing and able to work together… right up to the point where someone has to give up work to a foreign partner. Would Airbus sacrifice a Spanish final assembly line for a future type, or France export opportunities, for the greater good of the continent as a whole?

    Having the Rafale and Typhoon go head-to-head – and in competition with Saab’s single-engined Gripen in some cases – is good for Europe, and for the industry champions in all those nations which want to retain vital skills and national control over their combat assets. One may triumph in Egyptian and Indian contests in part due to industrial heritage or geopolitical influence, while the other can win in Gulf states such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for the very same reasons. It is by no means certain that a combined entity would win both.
    Perhaps the Paris air show will offer an indication of France’s response to Alonso’s call to join formation on future fighters. But with the Rafale’s production backlog currently stretching beyond that of the Typhoon, it would seem unlikely that it would decide to apply full afterburners just now.
    Read more: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ighter-438272/

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    609
    Nonsense, a great big chunk of what become the Eurofighter Typhoon was MBB's work.
    I mean the actual development work post ISD, i.e. upgrades, which never got funding whilst 80% of the German air force remained inoperable. But yes they were responsible for the fuselage, with the landing gear that opens into the inner pylon store.

    And the the UK didnt join the TF-X. BAE won an international tender for consulting work for TF-X, vastly different thing. Chances of any hardware coming out of TF-X (if any actually comes out) ending with RAF colours are almost nill.
    That was the impression I got too, much more likely to go with Japan.

    You are entirely correct. Lockheed and Boeing will be delighted if Europe doesnt get its act together.
    There's absolutely no reason why Europe cant emulate what it did in the missile, the comercial aircraft area, the helicopter and the space business. The market is there, the resources are there (for crying out loud, even in this "almost nill defense budget" times, Western Europe spends three times more than Russia!), the industry is there. Do an "MBDA" out of Dassault and Airbus, get some realistic KKP's, throw in 35 billion euros in R&D, wait till 2035 and serve the dam thing with white wine.
    What it cant happen is having three european xerox airframes that do the same bloody thing.
    Sounds good in theory until they start arguing over which engine is the best etc. (And it was the EJ200 BTW, just in case anybody is still wondering.)
    Last edited by Ryan; 16th June 2017 at 12:59.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

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