Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 152122232425
Results 721 to 746 of 746

Thread: Airbus: European Future Fighter Program

  1. #721
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,209
    The problem is that people want something to be true and don't look at facts.

    Every country has its own needs. If it shares the same needs as another nation, they can cooperate successfully and have a common aircraft. But when interests diverge, it becomes much more complicated. It is not that "Rafale should only be replaced by a pure French aircraft" but rather "what needs France has?" and then "who shares the same needs?"

    France has opted for a single model air force, as they find it more economical to manage a pool of fighters so the flying hours and maintenance can be optimized. They have the Air Force and the Navy, so that fighter has to be able to perform all the missions one can ask from it from land or sea (CATOBAR)

    What other country shares those needs? there's only one that "may" share them: the USA. They have the Air Force and the Navy (and the USMC on top of that) , with carriers operating CATOBAR aircraft. And with the F-35 they try to do what the french have done with the Rafale: one common aircraft that does it all (more or less).

    Now, if you put that into european fighter project, it is quite obvious that what France wants should fulfill all the missions of the other partner(s) as well, but in the same time, what France wants goes beyond what other partners are after.. From there on, how can one be certain that Germany (or UK, or Italy, or Spain or anybody alse) will be ready to participate in expenses for, say, the naval version of the aircraft? If one looks at the recent history (Typhoon) it is clear that it will be more political than anything else, and each partner will try to get as much as workshare as possible, while limiting the expenses to only what his needs are. With one partner, it may, eventually, be possible to negotiate a way to finance it anyway, and even that is far from being easy, but add some more and it becomes a nightmare, where only the smallest common interest will be covered and the rest will be only source of delays and negotiations, and so on...

    So there's already one problem with the idea of "european fighter".. There are people who'd want the UE to behave like USE.. United States of Europe. But that USE simply does not exist. After all, the USA buy a fighter for the USAF or USN or USMC, not for Texas, California, New York and so on, each and every one having own requirements and fighting to get its share of manufacturing work. In UE, every country wants its share. In the USA, there was a competition, manufacturers competed, presented their projects and the winner takes it all, makes the aircraft as they see fit, where they see fit. If the european countries want to make a common fighter that will benefit from common financing capabilities, they have to do it properly, meaning, define requirements that cover the missions of services who will need it, define the budget to develop it and then, let the manufacturers present what they can produce, and let the winner do it. And if it's Dassault, the Dassault makes the fighters for everybody. If it's Airbus, then Airbus makes the fighters for everybody, and so on...

  2. #722
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,698
    Also Germany not commited to 2% GDP. which is bare minimum to afford 5G fighter.
    https://www.usnews.com/news/world/ar...ussia-document
    Also missing from the draft is any mention of the NATO target of moving toward spending 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense by 2024. Officials close to the talks say the target should not be included in the coalition agreement since the target date is well beyond the four-year scope of the deal.
    Also Dubai airshow US companies getting much bigger orders. Arabs are determined to punish EU for its Iran dealing. and on top of that US will impose its own fines. I dont see any way for EU to move forward.
    http://www.arabnews.com/node/1191956
    Washington is determined to pressure the Europeans into ending their economic dealings with Iran, or else force their companies to pay a price.

  3. #723
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    JSR
    Also Germany not commited to 2% GDP. which is bare minimum to afford 5G fighter.
    The 2% number is just some arbitrary nonsense dreamed up by the Atlantic council and put into the Nato rules. This is all politics. Germany and Europe could afford a fighter. They just don't want to spend 2% unless the US forces them. And since Germany is effectively an occupied country, they will. And if they do, they would rather spend it on themselves rather than subsidize the F-35 program further than they already are.
    Also Dubai airshow US companies getting much bigger orders. Arabs are determined to punish EU for its Iran dealing. and on top of that US will impose its own fines. I dont see any way for EU to move forward.
    Whats the US going to do ? Deny them the F-35 ? This is exactly why Europe has to go its own way and when push comes to shove, they will.

  4. #724
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,698
    the point I am making there is no official commitment to substantially increase Germany defence budget and without that increase its moot point building 5G fighter with them.
    US can certainly deliver energy shock to EU if they don't toe the line plus a lot of other things.
    this will not help. they will have to deliver a lot more.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-t...-idUSKBN1CS1E8
    BERLIN (Reuters) - The German government has approved the sale of three Thyssenkrupp submarines to Israel and will provide financial support for the purchase, government spokesman Steffen Seibert told a regular news conference on Monday

  5. #725
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    244
    How does the US deliver an energy shock to the EU? US has only begun shipping oil and gas to the EU with in past two years. The only energy shock the US is delivering is lower energy prices for EU.

  6. #726
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,584
    And since Germany is effectively an occupied country, they will
    The sillyness is strong in this one.

    KGB, Germany, is an occupied country? By whom?

    Let me remind you that we are talking of one of the richest, most prosperous and peacefull countries in the world here...


    Hell, something i´ve just remarked, a chap calling himself "KGB" on the internet making claims on Germany being "occupied"! Oh the irony of it!
    Last edited by Sintra; 13th November 2017 at 14:10.

  7. #727
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,584
    What good did it do for the EF to be multinational?
    a) Vastly inferior costs by unit for the four partners by comparison with France
    b) More external sales than what Dassault obtained
    c) Money spent on the program maintained in Europe (not gone to MCDouglas or General Dynamics)
    d) Maintaining in house design capability in Great Britain, Germany and Italy. Without the FEFA/EFA/Eurofighter program, you wouldnt seen Airbus throwing its weight around today and BAE would not be the prefered partner for the TAI program and would not be working with Mitsubishi on the I3.
    By 1989, right after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the alternative was not to develop severall diferent aircrafts, one German, another one British and another one Italian, it was acquiring American.


    It's only advantage over the Rafale is the biased reporting on the english speaking press for many years until it was pretty obvious it was completely false, at which point only jon lake kept at it.
    Blind nationalism is blind.
    The two airframes are quite similar, both have their (small) advantages, one climbs a mit faster and has more real estate in the nose, the other can carry an awfull lot of external fuel and ordnance coupled with an Aircraft Carrier variant, and thats about it.
    Actually they are so similar that a common program would have been an idea to be considered. Oh wait...


    An historical note - If by 1986 the French MOD and Dassault were aware that the hoped 600+ external sales would turn out to be 84 airframes sold by 2017, its arguable that the Rafale program would never went forward, the Marine would have got the Hornet and the Adla would have kept improving its Mirage 2000´s.
    This coupled with a receding defense budget might be the explanation for not having any French MOD or Dassault executive calling for a "Franco/French" FCAS for the last decade and a half and going full "European" with the NEURON.

    Cheers
    Last edited by Sintra; 13th November 2017 at 15:03.

  8. #728
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    255
    Nationalism or some form of xenophobia can indeed corrupt judgment.

    A point . Is non factual . Neither on production unit cost nor program unit cost. Added to that yet to be deployed capacities AESA and A2G already available on French program, along a Naval version ,which stayed a marketing stunt on the EF program

    B point. Have lost count , but true export gap is shrinking fast

    C point is incorrect. Beside Germany which has yet to decide all other EF Partners had to divert and invest in F35. Even integrating/networking EF with F35 implies US proprietary tech.

    D point. Granted if one consider this to be significant beside from securing jobs at the expense of TOT

    And no, while the euro airframes might look alike , they are significantly different in their goals and purposes. There is a reason Germany do not consider EF for tornado replacement, as neither any of the others EF partner did. That in itself should answer why a common solution did not come to pass.

  9. #729
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,495
    a) Vastly inferior costs by unit for the four partners by comparison with France
    Just for giggles care to prove that?

    b) More external sales than what Dassault obtained
    4 times as much? I doubt it. And I won't even delve into the kickback aspect of things.

    c) Money spent on the program maintained in Europe (not gone to MCDouglas or General Dynamics)
    Oh boy a national program would send so much money to MDDouglas or GE.

    d) Maintaining in house design capability in Great Britain, Germany and Italy. Without the FEFA/EFA/Eurofighter program, you wouldnt seen Airbus throwing its weight around today and BAE would not be the prefered partner for the TAI program and would not be working with Mitsubishi on the I3.
    By 1989, right after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the alternative was not to develop severall diferent aircrafts, one German, another one British and another one Italian, it was acquiring American.
    A national program maintains even more in house design capabilitty. What's your damn point? Seriously?

    An historical note - If by 1986 the French MOD and Dassault were aware that the hoped 600+ external sales would turn out to be 84 airframes sold by 2017, its arguable that the Rafale program would never went forward, the Marine would have got the Hornet and the Adla would have kept improving its Mirage 2000´s.
    This coupled with a receding defense budget might be the explanation for not having any French MOD or Dassault executive calling for a "Franco/French" FCAS for the last decade and a half and going full "European" with the NEURON.
    This drivel proves that you haven't even read my other posts on the subject. Being broke enough to not be able to defend yourself means you suck at governing, means you need to go and be replaced by someone who actually knows how to do stuff. It NEVER means that you have to build your stuff with major enemies (UK).

    Nic
    Last edited by Nicolas10; 13th November 2017 at 19:23.

  10. #730
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,584
    A point . Is non factual . Neither on production unit cost nor program unit cost. Added to that yet to be deployed capacities AESA and A2G already available on French program, along a Naval version ,which stayed a marketing stunt on the EF program
    The exact numbers for the British part of the program, including P3E are here in the Appendices and project summary sheets (pdf - 1795KB), page 170, obviously they dont include an the Naval version, or the AESA set:
    https://www.nao.org.uk/report/major-...-2015-to-2025/

    The development, production of 160 airframes and the upgrades till P3E costed the British taxpayer 18189 million pounds.


    On the Rafale, if i remeber correctly, by 2010, the French state had already spent more than 30 billion Euros for a total of 180 airframes contracted (that was described in the French Couer de Comptes at the time, and appeared in severall French aerospace magazines, namely Air&Couscous).
    While i have been following the French Defense Budget every year for quite some time, since 2014 that i havent seen anything describing the program costs (they are not described in the french MOD Budget), i would be very happy if someone could point me to more recent numbers.

    Cheers

  11. #731
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,545
    I love the idea of Air and Couscous! Where do I subscribe?

    Xman. The only aircraft replacing Tornado in RAF service is Typhoon. That it may not in Germany is down to them wanting to string out the service life for a looong time and being less motivated to integrate the weaponry on the aircraft until it was too late.
    Last edited by mrmalaya; 13th November 2017 at 20:01.

  12. #732
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,584
    Just for giggles care to prove that?
    Read the post above.

    4 times as much? I doubt it. And I won't even delve into the kickback aspect of things.
    Why did you choose the number "4"? Because there were four Eurofighter partners?
    Did Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain together ever managed to export more combat aircrafts since the sixties than France? No?
    Here you go.

    Oh boy a national program would send so much money to MDDouglas or GE.
    A German fighter jet program right after the Berlim wall went to pieces and bits?
    In 1989 the Soviet Union threat disapeared and Germany was facing a massive bill in order to get the old RDA to Western living standards, there was no money for a German fighter project or anything remotely looking military R&D, the alternatives were a scaled down European program (what they´ve choose) or a MCDouglas/General Dynamics aircraft.
    The other three, Great Britain was the leading partner in the Eurofighter program and with "peace dividend" and all, was perfectly happy to go along, Italy toyed with the idea of a very light fighter equiped with a single RB199, did the business case (they had a very recent benchmark, the AMX while being a very light aircraft ended up in the same price tag of a Viper, lack of production scale, and it didnt get one single export) and decided to keep with the EF program, the Spanish didnt the have the budget, or the technology, to go for it alone, so it was either American, or "European", or "French", Good old Helmut Kohl was decisive on that.

    A national program maintains even more in house design capabilitty. What's your damn point? Seriously?
    The point is quite obvious, at today´s level of defense spending any Western European country will have problems in funding an entirely national FCAS program while maintaining its other compromises/programs.
    France, Great Britain and (specially) Germany have the money to do it, but either they cut another military programs, or they raise the defense budget.
    The only ones who could raise the defence budget confortably are the Germans, by historical reasons (and a lack of a perceived threat) they are not particulary confortable in doing so, wich is understandable. France and Great Britain would have to cut social programs to raise the defense budget.
    The other two alternatives are working together or buy American.

    This drivel proves that you haven't even read my other posts on the subject. Being broke enough to not be able to defend yourself means you suck at governing, means you need to go and be replaced by someone who actually knows how to do stuff. It NEVER means that you have to buy your stuff with major enemies (UK).
    "Buy your stuff with major enemies (Uk)"?! Did i understood correctly? The UK is a "major enemy"?!
    Actually i have read your posts, you were the chap who wrote that today´s Russia was a "de facto" ally of France in its war against islamic terrorism... You have a very interesting definition of allies and enemies.
    Independently of that, the thing is, the costs of military R&D and Hardware have had a geometrical inflation for the best part of a century, developing one single combat air system and acquiring it its a lot more expensive today than lets say, to develop a Dewoitine 520 in 1939.
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...oing-up-up-up/

    Europe is getting hit by Norman Augustine law:
    "In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day."

    And without 50 Warsaw Pact divisions at its doors, neither the Germans, the British and the French (well mostly, i know your opinion) are much predisposed to increase much its defense budgets. And its not that the leaderships of the Western Europeans have failed them, at least by comparison with the rest of the world. Lets be honest, sitting in Western Europe its a pretty confortable place to be, there´s not one single country that surrounds Europe that has anything close to our living standards, we have to look across the Atlantic pond to Canada or the US to see something similar to our societies. Even i, a Portuguese, living in one of the poorest countries in Western Europe can write such a thing (when i was borne i couldnt...).

    So here we are, three options, increase the defense budget, cooperate with the rest of Europe (at least they are, more or less, of the same size, and have, more or less, the same needs) or buy American.
    Mind you, if i was in the German MOD i would be yelling my lungs out for a (quite decent) funds raise.

    Cheers
    Last edited by Sintra; 13th November 2017 at 20:55.

  13. #733
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,584
    I love the idea of Air and Couscous! Where do I subscribe?
    Mrmalaya, here:
    http://www.air-cosmos.com/

    Its a great magazine.

    (For the moderators, yes i know, we are in the Key Publishing Forum, the french chaps are competition, sorry about that, but i admit, i still buy "Air International")

    Cheers
    Last edited by Sintra; 13th November 2017 at 20:57.

  14. #734
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,495
    France and Great Britain would have to cut social programs to raise the defense budget.
    Which is the best thing that could happen to France. Get my drift now?

  15. #735
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,698
    How does the US deliver an energy shock to the EU? US has only begun shipping oil and gas to the EU with in past two years. The only energy shock the US is delivering is lower energy prices for EU.
    are you sure about lower energy prices. In 2008. there were 2 dollars in a british pound and 1.65 dollars in a Euro. Europe introduced austerity while US spend vast amount of credit expansion to frack the ground for energy and military budget even larger. They have other negative impacts long term but for now that vast Military budget impresses Arabs to buy more US military hardware and invest even more in US. Wars are necessary for higher military exports and energy prices.

    Let me remind you that we are talking of one of the richest, most prosperous and peacefull countries in the world here...
    you really need to understand before replying. importing third world labor for decades and creating final product based on imports not make it rich. it is creating a less scientific country. why you think MB cars are using MELCO command system.

    there is difference in application of scientific power.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0628122827.htm
    No need for supercomputers
    Russian scientists suggest a PC to solve complex problems tens of times faster than with massive supercomputers
    We reached the speed we couldn't even dream of," Vladimir Kukulin said. "The program computes 260 million of complex double integrals on a desktop computer within three seconds only. No comparison with supercomputers! My colleague from the University of Bochum in Germany (recently deceased, mournfully), whose lab did the same, carried out the calculations by one of the largest supercomputers in Germany with the famous blue gene architecture that is actually very expensive. And what his group is seeking for two or three days, we do in 15 minutes without spending a dime."

  16. #736
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    @JSR
    The US could never deliver an energy shock to the EU. US gas is totally uneconomic and based on politics. Russian gas still gets into these markets that the US is trying to corner, by making stops in 3rd countries. Baltics get gas that they think isn't Russian when it actually is.

    And your whole speal about economics is wrong. The EU is a net creditor with no trade deficit. The EU has a trillion in FX reserves and has 10,000+ tons of gold. The EU is China's biggest trade partner. Not US. It is the EU that could drop its US treasury debt on the market and plunge the dollar if it wanted to.

    The US gets a massive subsidy from the EU every year.
    Last edited by KGB; 14th November 2017 at 06:14.

  17. #737
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,698
    I already know trade deficit but despite it dollar has gained strength and US stocks has outperformed.
    It is not US gas about Middleastern exporters that will deliver the shock under US leadership. US has tremendously increased its weopons exports and has ramp global war on terror. this need to be paid one way or another. EU will pay the price. Arab consider Iran deal as betrayal by EU. The first message was Airberlin bankruptcy.
    the point I am making is EU has neither the money nor the technology. it will have to import supercomputers from either US or China and i doubt there a such scale of software developers for 5G fighter that can write millions of lines of code. it is way big project for them.

  18. #738
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,495
    Dassault would be perfectly capable of developing a 5th gen fighter. The core software architecture is already there in the Rafale. The french gvt can't afford to buy a 5th gen fighter because it's run by a corrupt socialist mafia who vampirizes everything they can & more.

  19. #739
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    244
    Yes but could France afford to buy it? Without international support for the program the answer appears to be no.

    France faces the same problem as B1, B2, C17, C53K, CV22, A400M, and will impact B21 that being low total production rate.

    All of the above programs produced high cost platforms because of limited production rates. France is a high end of production versus these platforms on Rafale. But going forward France will confront the declining numbers needed for replacement. That will place a future all French fighter into heart of low production programs listed.

    I don't think it can all be blamed of socialist governments.
    Last edited by Siddar; 14th November 2017 at 11:17.

  20. #740
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,545
    If we look at this logically, it is going to be the case that France will share its production with other countries. The rabid nationalism is going to have to become a thing of the past.

    However, if you only do it bilaterally, then there are plenty of examples where that has worked in the past. Don't keep putting the Eurofighter delays up as a reason not to share production. The Germans were totally overwhelmed by the end of the Cold War, both psychologically and financially. That is the principle reason why Typhoon was delayed, more expensive than planned and involved a lower spec which in turn led to different standards being applied to different fleets where once they had look to something like uniform development. It is also the reason that the Tranche development structure died a death.

    Very specific reasons why we don't have uniform T3B aircraft flying around with CFTS, AESA and TVC armed with Meteor, ALARM etc etc.

    Now, if you take the FCAS UCAV, and if my little find is what it seems to be (see the thread for details), it is perfectly possible to share enough of the development and production costs and still produce significantly differing designs suited to each of the two nations involved.

  21. #741
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,495
    France could afford a 5th gen if it wanted to. There is never a question to buy B1, B2, B21 & what not... we're just talking about a 5th gen fighter there. If you put the US budget in relation to the US population & French budget in relation to the french population... France should be able to buy way more than just 5th gen fighter.

    France is broke because it is run by traitors.

    But hey let's just ignore why we are broke and sabotage our ability to build fighter planes by partnering with our oldest enemies.

    Nic
    Last edited by Nicolas10; 14th November 2017 at 21:57.

  22. #742
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,545
    Wow. Nicholas10, this is a new level of paranoia even for you.

    I doubt you could find anyone in the UK that thinks of France as an enemy. I suppose your list of friends must be pretty short if you are going back centuries to define your enemies. What have you got Le Roi's diplomatic policy to work to?

    Which European country hasn't fought the French at some point?

    Bizarre.

    Anyway, you don't want to build a 5th generation fighter because other than the lack of stealth the Rafale does everything else to earn that title.


    Enemies?.... wow!
    Last edited by mrmalaya; 14th November 2017 at 23:00.

  23. #743
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,463
    I doubt you could find anyone in the UK that thinks of France as an enemy.
    ? Do you include Ukip supporters ?

    Anyway, you don't want to build a 5th generation fighter because other than the lack of stealth the Rafale does everything else to earn that title.
    WILL BE with F4 comm suite.

  24. #744
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,895
    Enemies?.... wow!
    Wish it will give you my dear friends a sense of the terrible backlog in troubles we face today. And if things seems moving at a slow pace, they are not in anyway a sign of any inactivity. A tremendous dynamism reigns under the surface in order to spur that old horse forward.

    Good news is that "La pucelle d'Orleans" is alive and still have good hearing.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 15th November 2017 at 19:37.

  25. #745
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    ContEU/RU/UAE
    Posts
    4,763
    Funny to see these EADS video game phantasies. Advertising an airframe for what? 2040? that is not more advanced than what is already operational today. Let's face it. EADS desperately needs a new major programme, otherwise the military aviation branch is out of business after A400M production ends. And the Luftwaffe people also hope to re-expand their business after being starved for a quarter of a century. These video game phantasies are primarily driven by European industry policy, not defense policy. There is ever less common ground in the question what the capabilities of the next European tactical aerial system should be than back in the 1990's when they decided to continue with EF2000. Defensive?
    Offensive? Or even power projecting beyond the European periphery to "protect" resource areas in far away brown lands? Penetrating? Stand-off? Etc. Someone mentioned "old enemies". That question is as legit these days as the question where Continental Europe stands between Anglo interests and Russian (and Chinese) interests. Things in Europe are way too much in a flux than to decide on a new manned fighter/destroyer now. Before such a system is initiated the political question of whether the Continental EU will really become its own entity and re-arm, or whether it remains a vassal of Anglo interests need to clarify. And I purposely use "need to clarify", and not "need to be clarified", since this question will not be decided in Europe. Maybe five years from now things are clearer ...

  26. #746
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,698
    The problem with EU is the clue less politicians. Since Trump tough with China. they bring usefulness of EU against China. not realizing that China importance will increase to EU.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politi...les/index.html
    Former British PM Tony Blair to Trump: Keep your allies with you
    That change, Blair believes, will be the emergence of China as the dominant global power.

    it already happening to Saudi who bought expensive weopons now have to import cheaper food.

    https://sputniknews.com/business/201...-saudi-arabia/
    https://www.globalmeatnews.com/Headl...ens-meat-trade


    how many compromises EU will have to make if they start building 5G fighter?. look at the speed of Galileo navigation project implementation.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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