Can we talk about the Airbus study for a potential replaceme

File: Tornado2000-3.jpg (44KB, 750x280px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 750x280px

Are they getting France involved in any way?

>Airbus

I'd rather drag my dick through broken glass

>>32156179
We will be involved until the end to crash this plane with no survivors.

T. Serge Dassault

>>32156272
You mean go out of your way to hamstring the project before dropping out and developing your own sub-par design in direct competition, right?

>>32156240

Why?

>>32156301
>Working with France
>ever

>>32156299
Go out of our way to develop a better design than 4 countries united to show them how bad they are at making military stuff.

File: 1472112143610.jpg (16KB, 500x163px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 500x163px

>>32156339
>NBMR-3
>Slap 8 lift jets in a Mirage 3
>manage to kill two test pilots in accidents
>throw a shitfit when NATO decides they want Hawker's proposal instead

>Anglo French Variable Geometry
>Conostantly whine and try to force BAC to serve as a subcontractor for Dassault
>Literally develop an aircraft in direct competition to the program they're a part of

>SEPECAT Jaguar M
>Pitch a "cheaper" upgrade package for the Etendard as an alternative
>convince French government to cancel the Jaguar M
>suddenly prices balloon
>end up with a massively less capable platform that costs as much as the Jaguar M

>Eurofighter
>Join late
>whine about how they're not meeting exclusively French requirements to the detriment of the other partners
>whine about how they're not letting Dassault lead the program
>withdraw, nearly killing the program
>end up with a special-snowflake fighter hamstrung behind the lack of integration with any non-French (read: non-shit) munitions
>only twice the cost of the Eurofighter

France is a cancer to cooperative programs.

>>32156015
just buy an f-35

>>32156326
ok kiddo

>>32156421
But the Tigre works rather well isn't it ?

>>32157353
Because Dassault doesn't build helicopters

>>32156421
>France is a cancer to cooperative programs.

That's why the UK decided to work with us on the FCAS program, the Krauts to work with us on the next MBT and the Spaghettis to work with us on ship design

>>32158249
Nope, individual poverty is the reason for that.

>>32157353

Fuck no it doesn't.

Australia is getting rid of them for a VERY good reason. Eurocopter can't support them worth shit, they're overly expensive, take far too long for updates and have awful availability due to a combination of the above.

>>32156015
Why would we need a replacement? In fact why would we need the Tornado?
For the usual token support of other nations, to give a resemblance of legitimacy to conflicts, we dont need an aircraft in that role.
Neither can it be financed because there is no money. What are they gonna do? Probably some kind of "Order 100, reduce to 60 in two years and then ground 55 because we forgot to order spare parts" again.

>>32156015
>>32156272
>>32156299
>Waaaah waaaaah it's the fault of the frogs if we suck
the post.

From the brits complaining we don't buy hundreds of under powered Jaguar while the french jaguar jockeys were arguably the most prolific users of that thing. And yes, the Mirage F1 was superior in EVERYTHING to the jaguar. Range, payload, speed, radar, sensors, which made it a real cheap multimission aircraft.

To the germans always trying to lure us into killing our defense companies so they can feast on their corpses. See the "franco-german tank" where everything was supposed to be german (but they would name it "napoleon" to please the stupid french) see the refusal of the germans to mount a french GIAT 30mm gun on their tigers because surely mauser can do better... Except they didn't and their choppers still don't have a gun.

To the italians selling military secrets related to the VEGA launcher to the US so they could gain some influence with raytheon or LM...

To the spaniards working with DCNS on their own version of the scorpene, the S80, then brutally cancelling the cooperation thinking they stole enough tech to build their own sub themselves... and still failing to make the thing FLOAT even after YEARS of tries.

To the fucking swedes destroying renault trucks defense because it was too french (now they want to get rid of it because they're cucks, which is great since Nexter will buy it back)

To of course the fucking poles who recently cancelled the chopper contract because vodka polka

No, really, with """"""cooperators"""""" like you, who needs saboteurs ?

I hope France will never cooperate anymore with europe and the cucks will gtfo so we can have nice things.

Meanwhile you keep crying about the urofarter because somehow its problems would be related to design choices THE FRENCH DIDN'T MADE ???

Who do you think you are ???

>>32158446
say thanks to the germans.
Aerospatiale should have not become eurocoper.
Name ONE bad aerospatiale chopper. You can't.

File: JaguarM carrier trials.jpg (149KB, 1113x709px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1113x709px

>>32158826
They didn't fuck anyone but themselves with the Jaguars. They dropped the Jaguar M because Dassault claimed that the Super Etendard would be a "cheap" conversion of the existing force.

Then once the Jaguar M was definitively canceled, costs magically ballooned to roughly that of the Jaguar M and the French ended up with an "attacker" capable of carrying a whopping one (1) Exocet.

>>32159653

Given even the Rafale can only carry a single Exocet as well...

Centreline hardpoint only.

File: JaguarM.jpg (77KB, 966x571px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 966x571px

>>32159772
Granted the Jaguar M likely would have only been able to carry a single Exocet too, but the difference was that the Jaguar M could also carry a useful combat payload, whereas the Super Etendard was limited to a single missile and a drop tank.

>>32157150
Doesn't have the command and control capacities.

>>32161162
yes it does

>>32156015
>mission profiles include reconnaissance, target acquisition, electronic warfare and even air strikes.
>Though the main selling point of the aircraft will be the command and control capacities of manned and unmanned assets. It's basically a new aircraft type.

Who would buy this?

>>32161108

And the hilarious part is that they were stuck with the Super Entendard until THIS SUMMER!

For Tornado replacement I always imagined something like FB-22. Supersonic, two engines, medium agility, large radar, two man crew, DAS, big internal bays for AA missiles, bombs, extra recon or ECM equipment.

Or, when looking at it from the other side - a smaller, stealthy F-111 with decent radar.


>>32158784
Because by 2030 they will be old. And Germany isn't buying F-35s and they have too few Eurofighters to cover all their needs.

>>32156015
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.

File: wthh.jpg (42KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 550x550px

>>32161162
Are you retarded?

>>32164513

If it ain't Airbus, it ain't worth the fuss.

>>32156179
only until they throw a tantrum that the project isn't solely about them and contract dassault to make the same jet with blackjack and hookers

t. EADS and Panavia

>>32161734
people who thought the F-35 wasn't an effective enough waste of money

>>32161162
>literally designed around networked warfare
>compromised agility, stealth capability, and cost-effectiveness for this one single goal (well, *and* the vtol)
>nah m8 theyre shit at C2

>>32164687

Except the F-35s retarded program costs are more or less borne by the USA. Once it is in full rate production ~2020, the costs to buy and maintain an air force of F-35A will be competitive with any other capable medium-large 4.5+ gen aircraft.

The big downside to buying the F-35 will be how dependant you will be on US support for defence. Considering for anyone except the closest partners the technology behind the F-35 is more or less a black-box.

>>32164738
The F-35 is literally not designed around command and control of manned and unmanned aircraft.

The Tornado replacement is gonna be a EW rape machine.

File: broken down piece of crap.jpg (182KB, 1200x808px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1200x808px

>>32158249
And in 10 years you will have fucked up all three.
Remember the PA2 carrier?

It's basically the only logical option for a manned aircraft in 2030 and later.

Manned aircraft will end as drone observer so having a second man on board makes quite a lot of sense.

The Euros should take a hard look at developing a 2-seat variant of the F35A. It'd likely provide them significant cost savings vs. developing their first operational stealth/5th Gen aircraft.

File: 160713-F-HC633-968.jpg (2MB, 5428x3054px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5428x3054px

>>32165878
It doesn't have to be, you can throw whatever computer shit you want in that cavernous interior.

>>32156015
>Airbus

It will be too expensive
It will come 20 years too late
It will have severe production errors
It will have critical features cut
It will be bought in numbers so low the project will fail

>>32166984
>market leader because they fail all the time

yes

>>32166968
As someone who does this for a living.
This.

>>32166987
Remember when Airbus won the bid for 100 tankers for the Airforce?

And all the butthurt happened and they skewed the next bid in favour of Boeing.

>>32166968
>so it doesn't have it

good

Not that it will change anything becaues the F-35 being a single-seater.

>>32167014
F-35 can already launch a ship's cruise missiles. That's hardly different from "launch a drone's missile".

>>32167014
The but but F-35 posts are sure funny aren't they?

>>32167014
>NGJ won't change anything because F-35 is single-seat
Where's my rear gunner, radioman, bombardier and navigator?

A400m all over again incoming

>>32167115
Doesn't help that an aircraft designed for >2030 will run circles around the F-35 in avionics.

>>32167205
>Where's my
Replaced by bots.

Next up the pilot will be replaced by a bot. The F-35 might be the last manned large fighter project. If you already can kill based on metadata you might as well automate it,

>Germany
>new MBT
>new aircraft
>new large frigate
>new rifle

What a time to be alive

>all the butthurt F-35fags

How can that happen in a Tornado replacement aircraft thread?

>>32167310
Are you new here??

>>32167276
It's going to be interesting, considering our less than stellar recent history in terms of arms acquisition.
Also don't forget the MEADS, if that is meant to happen after all.
Also the "new" rifle will just be something already existing being bought *cough*HK416*cough* rather than designing something new.

>>32167223

Right, because an aircraft that is intended to stay in operation until 2070 among as the primary aircraft of all three fixed wing combat aircraft operating services in the USA, as well as a dozen or so allies, isn't going to get any upgrades after it enters FRIP?

>>32167905
>intended to stay in operation until 2070
>as the primary aircraft
my sides have suffered a critical structural failure

[spoiler]in seriousness, I'm not a F-35 basher like the fucking Mail Online - it's a pretty good design and a demigod in terms of standardisation - but unless it's first rate in pretty every field (instead of God Tier in C2 and Pretty Good everywhere else) there's no way it'll be THAT futureproof. Hell, only thing I can really think of with that kinda kind of staying power would be the Eagle [/spoiler]

>>32168345
haha good one newfag

>>32166984
t. faggot salty because Boeing lost JSF

>>32168345

The F-16 was introduced in 1978, and will be the most numerous USAF aircraft for years to come. That is 40+ years.

Look at the increase in capabilities between a block 1 F-16 and the block 52+ and now imagine how big the increase in capability would have been if it was getting upgrade funding from all US services, and all major US allies.

I don't expect the current airframes to be in service in 2070, but as a series of aircraft, it has a good chance of making it that far.

>>32157150

>single seater
>too short range for a good recon plane
>not an especially good interceptor
>no short field or STOL capabilities without the lift-fan

>>32164874
The bigger downside from a politicians view is that you don't generate jobs in your own country.
If you are about to spend a shitton of money on a new plane you can at least put it in the pockets of your down defence industry instead giving it to LM.

>>32163391
>Because by 2030 they will be old.
Correct. They were used how often? A few times to bomb some AK wielding rebels in some desert? The original danger of Russian invasion of Germany is gone and what is left is a population that couldnt be arsed to go to war with them at gun point.
There is no need for Germany to get a replacement after phasing them out. The Eurofighters are more than enough for the current situation.

>>32167212
The biggest problem of the A400M was that politics forced Airbus to develop a new extremly powerful turboprop engine instead of buying one from P&W and the subcontractors weren't up to the job.
They get all the blame for a political fuckup.

>>32168700

Sure, but if Germany doesn't want to spend money on the equipment it already has, which it can't maintain ready for use, I sincerely doubt they'll be able to fund and field in numbers a big expensive new aerospace project. The Eurofighter project was initiated during the Cold War when Western Europe still had military spending.

Of the potential partners (big European economies), the UK, Italy & Netherlands have already committed to the F-35, France is ...protective.... of their own aerospace interests so will be a difficult partner, Spain is possible but not likely to contribute much, Sweden is committed to the Gripen NG as their sole multirole for the foreseeable future, and Poland seems to be happy to buy American.

>>32168987
All true, the point is if Germany is willing to spend the money for the development, they for sure could afford it and also have the industrial base.
Don't see it happening in the current climate or with Merkel as chancellor - but let's see how relations with the US develop with Trump in the white house.

>>32156421
>Eurofighter
>The Consortium INVITES, not the other way around, France to join
>EF2000 doesn't meet their needs in A2G capabilities since all three countries have Tornados for this, nobody want to support the cost of additonal upgrades with them at that point. Why bother, the frogs DO need them and will have to pay for it.
>The EF200 has no planned naval version, is extremely poorly suited for such a conversion and nobody wants to help France cover the cost of it
>the EF200 has no planned nuclear strike capability that france would have to pay for out of its own pocket once again
>A potential EF2000 naval would be too big for the planned CdG and would require a complete redesign of the carrier
>which would actually require to build a new larger shipyard
>Would end up buying the largest batch of fighters (because it needs to cover both A2G and A2A roles) AND the sole batch of naval fighter
>demands industrial compensations in regards of the effort, major size of the order and the abandon of a national sovereign program
>Everyone bitches and moans at those damn frogs for not shutting the fuck up and daring to demand industrial kickbacks

The frenchs where right to tell everyone to fuck off.

Jaguar M is a goddamn disgrace from the old Dassault CEO, though, I agree

>>32167270

well it's more that there's been no real backlash from the US drones blowing the fuck up out maybe 1 terrorist for every 10 arabs they blow up - the presumption when UCAV were first touted was that you always need a man in the loop to "discriminate" actual targets from civilians... and then a few years later it turns out no one gives a shit.

Might as well move onto to full on 2nd gen, full automated "anything that moves" UCAVs.

Call them "H/Ks", do the same thing for Automated tankettes on the ground. Just create a wall of area denial out of the damn things and keep "manned" drones for close in operations to support living troops only.