Airbus D&S CEO calls on France to join Germany & Spa

>>34243053
>"We have to do this in Europe. There's no place to do two or three different systems."

>Shooting himself in the foot as most relevant euro countries take delivery of F-35s

>>34243053
I think it's a little early to replace the typhoon/rafale

>>34243053
Yeah, because the last attempt or the A400M went real well, all those countries got carriers now and take an active part regularly in military operations. Oh wait, they don't. Let's not.

>>34243053
>the Typhoon is an undustrial clusterfuck and nobody within the consortium wants to pay for the upgrades and waiting for some other country to give up and pay more than their share
>The A-400M is both a technological and industrial clusterfuck at that point and political demands took precedence over industrial logics, ending up with CASA of fucking Spain assembling the goddamn plane, among other numerous stupid ideas
>the NH-90 suffers the exact same problems
>Hey France, despite having a company with the technological and industrial base to do it all on its own, autonomously, as long as you're willing and able to allocate budget, despite the fact that you're the sole country demanding a carrier variant and nuclear strike capability that you will anyway have to pay on your own, please join the club on the next gen unique european fighter, and gut your industry and strategic autonomy, xthxbaï

I can totally see this happening...

Doesn't France have a really shit track record when it comes to joint development programs?

>>34243156
People like to give them shit over the Typhoon/Rafale stuff, but frankly that was probably the very single time they were that justified to drop out of a common program, and overall, well, not really. Plenty of programs just went along perfectly fine.

They were total assholes on the VTOL program that ended with the Harrier, though, that is true.

>>34243153
>>the Typhoon is an undustrial clusterfuck and nobody within the consortium wants to pay for the upgrades and waiting for some other country to give up and pay more than their share

Germany and Spain are literally the two worst offenders in this regard too.

At least the Italians have done a bit to push along SCALP/Storm Shadow integration, and demonstrated fitting their own ASMs

Spain is poor as fuck these days and Germany has no interest in its own defence other than securing German jobs.

After they've promised to buy hundreds of these planes and secured the biggest workshare, you will inevitably see those orders get cut and cut and cut. Or they will offloaded them on to other countries.
Certainly if they manage to set up an EU military, where member states will inevitably be forced to buy the same aircraft chosen by the central procurement agency (run by Germany, and France to a lesser extent)

File: 1311098059369.jpg (590KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 1680x1050px

Shouldn't the focus on a Tornado replacement instead?

>>34243327
I'd rather see the Frogs/Brits developp an entity a bit akin to how they went to "One MBDA" with Dassault and BAE to developp the Future Combat System Program on their own than fit into the german/spanish Airbus clusterfuck that this thing is bound to happen.

>>34243375
That's what the germans seem to want. But that sure as shit is by no means what Airbus wants to have on their catalog.

>>34243156
>joint development programs?

For the military maybe not but france is even MORE hung up about their industry than britain. They almost never compromise.

>>34243079
It's not early for r&d.

>>34243469
This
France and UK are way more able to produce something valuable. Bilateral partnership is the best idea, trilateral cooperation would just be a clusterfuck.

>>34243375
What the fuck do you think the F-35 is

>>34243079

It's better to get the negotiations done early without time pressure. Besides some aspects of the aircraft, such as the engine need to be decided on much earlier than the rest of the plane.

>>34243469

BAE is already leveraging their participation in both the Typhoon and F-35 programmes to get in on helping Japan and Turkey with their own indigenous air superiority 5th gen fighters. While an Anglo-French fighter could be excellent, the UK should keep its options open with Japan, which has similar requirements for a air superiority / interceptor aircraft to fight alongside the F-35.

>>34243469
The killer point would be whether or not to make a naval version of it. If the Brits refuse as they don't feel the need with the F-35 then the Frogs will have to beg Airbus to implement it.
If Airbus refuse then Dassault will ruin itself and go at it alone.

>>34243053
Fucking Germans can't resist taking over Europe

>>34243548
Something that Germany is not involved with?

>>34243648
Yes, they're actively avoiding the no-brainer choice that is already replacing the Tornado in the RAF.

Because its perfectly suited to replace it, isn't going to take another 20+ years to make, and won't cost $200,000 a unit

>>34243053

>last time the project was fucking terrible and they couldn't agree on anything
>France jumped ship after demanding majority production because their aerospace industry was fucked and losing market to Russian and Chinese fighters being sold cheaper and US models being better
>thinks it'll change this time

Bare in mind that Italy and Britain had to domestically design and fit the A2G unit after Germany blocked any development of it and thus increased the development costs constantly.

The only countries that could reasonably do it are Britain and France and Britain's not going to dive balls deep into a new fighter when it's getting F-35s when it can just use it's Typhoons for air supremacy.

The only country that France should team up with to make a new fighter in Britain and there's currently ZERO demand for a new air supremacy platform while Typhoons and Rafales are still better than chink and Russian tech.

Plus France will demand 60% of production as normal and get butthurt when told to fuck off.

>>34243053
Problem is that Europeans can't into stealth. Good news is that Russians sure as hell can't either.

>>34243118
Ah you figured out the solution. Just give up and rely on the Americans for everything.

File: 1488877038670.gif (899KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 600x600px

>>34243694
>Problem is that Europeans can't into stealth

>>34243675
>US models being better

What makes Rafale worse than F-16?

>>34243675
Do you know for sure? Macron seems less provincial than his predecessors.

>>34243705
>Let me compare aircraft intended for completely different things

If you want to go full meme on us how about you tell us how good the Rafale is in BVR? :^)

>>34243713
Against 4th gen? Very.

>>34243730
Thats interesting, considering the Rafale has no functionally BVR missile you dumb shit

>>34243053

I am a cost estimator for a tooling shop

airbus is a fucking joke

Boeing is cheap as fuck but gets it right

JSF is fun

there is No fucking way that yourup could
ever
ever
ever

get on lockheed's level

never.

Its a laugh... if I could post the tooling, I would, because its silly how behind the euros are. fucking stupid.


frenchies could probably catch up in about a decade, germans, fucking never, italy omfgNO

>>34243734
I didn't know you could see 50km. My bad.

>>34243705

Read it again and think about what platforms France was running when the Eurofighter was being floated as an idea.

>>34243712

Even if he's less provincial, allowing the collapse of the aerospace/military industry due to globalism would kill his chances of reelection and increase disparity with the EU. He simply can't allow it.

It's the same reason that they didn't buy into the F-35. They simply can't allow it or have to at least demand a total tech handover and domestic production which won't happen.

>>34243748
I can certainly see 50km, anon. Can see the moon from 384,400km.

BVR is a fixed distance, and the Rafale has no missile capable of engaging out to those kinds of distances. It is essentially a bomb truck with longer range AIM-9s. No AIM-120 equivalent yet, nor has it ever.

>>34243750
>It's the same reason that they didn't buy into the F-35.


they strive to fall behind in a way that only the euros could comprehend,

they'll forever be 4th gen.... and pray to god that america doesn't actually enact nationalism as a defense doctrine.

Otherwise, Russia will BTFO all of yurope. meanwhile fakenewsTrump will end up in jail and pence wont spurt two cumshots to stop them

>>34243053
>"We have to do this in Europe. There's no place to do two or three different systems."
How long until they use that shit for warships?
The shitstorm would be glorious.
Don't get me started on subs.

File: 7cb2d6054e090ba60b53306e242976dc.jpg (55KB, 640x465px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 640x465px

>>34243053
>Typhoon kek
Oh Europeans,
i know you guys are short of funds but please learn something

just buy F-35

>>34243766
Da Meteor still not there?

>>34243675
>>France jumped ship after demanding majority production because their aerospace industry was fucked and losing market to Russian and Chinese fighters being sold cheaper and US models being better

Well, to be fair, they asked majority production because, with the carrier variant, at that time they were planned to have the largest combined order, while at the same time paying entirely for said naval variant, having to redimension and redesign their planned carriers, change the dock were said carriers were to be build, and pay also on their own for all nuclear strike capabilities system they needed to implement on an airframe which didn't exactly fit their requirement in terms of performance/dimensions tradeoffs.
While at the same time loosing the autonomy of doing all of this on their own and the entirety of the budget being dispersed all over europe rather than spent in France. So asking for Dassault to have some non unsignificant compensation in terms of production doesn't exactly seem to me to be an abusive demand from them.

File: Spanish_Navy_AV-8B_Harrier_II_070223-N-3888C-004.jpg (264KB, 1600x1071px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1600x1071px

>>34243053

This project is dead in the water.

If there was ever going to be a joint European 5th gen fighter program it should have started years ago.
It also would have to include all major European NATO countries that have the industrial capacity to participate (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, UK).
Italy and the UK are already out because they're getting the F-35.
When Spain replaces their Harriers and Hornets in the 2020's it will probably also get F-35s since the Harriers can only be replaced by the F-35B, getting F-35A to replace the F-18 is then only logical.
So this leaves only Germany and France to finance a huge research and development program.
The numbers the 2 countries would then buy would never be high enough to make the project profitable for Airbus.

So this will never happen, the Germans will probably decide to buy the F-35 sometime in the 2020s.

File: tumblr_nicu09RL3w1u3w4kao1_1280.jpg (133KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 683x1024px

airbus cant into stealth

>>34243153

Yep, pretty crazy to think having France be part of this is a good idea.

Sure, they will add a lot of expertise and some very useful facilities, but the requirements the french want is the entire reason they had to drop out of the typhoon program last time. And what has changed since last time and now?

>>34244085
Yup. And France would be just as crazy to get onto this. The only one who'd have an interest in this Tom Enders seeing the competition disappear and the program budget skyrocketting out of all the added features it would demand.

>>34243745
/thread

>>34244060
Do the german or the spanish have any experience in RCS reduction technologies? Both the frogs and brits have their nEUROn and Taranis to test low RCS shapes, Brits certainly got some technology out of the F-35 program that they may not be willing nor have the right to share, while the frogs are busy developping the "discreet rafale" upgrade and have invested in the largest radar echo chamber outside of the US (where the japanese tested the RCS of their 5th gen prototype, btw) and most certainly don't have any interest in sharing with Airbus.

>>34243745
like what sort of tooling? alot of the leading toolmakers are based in germany so... and if you see lockheeds shop you wont likely see airbus shop so how would you know. where airbous is likely very behind is radar and electronics

>>34244260
I dont think hes talking about civilian tools, hes talking about the milspec tooling and machinery used by Yanks on their own planes, something which they certainly wouldn't import

>>34243053
>yuros decide to build something together
>opportunity to make something great
>just spend all of the effort arguing over who'll pay for it

Same shit as always.

>>34243053
With what money Spainards are broke.

File: portugal drone.webm (2MB, 521x365px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 521x365px

>>34244148

Germans started looking at rcs back in the 70s with the lampyridae. I think they have a few drones and what not too, but more as test vehicles then service.

Spain I'm not sure about, but if portugal can have an advanced drone program than I'm sure spain can too.

>>34243053
Yes it's a good idea, but who knows if France will go along with it. They are extremely protective of their domestic defense industry.

>>34243626
A UK/Japanese air superiority fighter is a great idea. The biggest problem I can think of is differing range requirements.

>>34243846
No, and when it is it'll be an inferior version (lacking proper 2-way datalinks).

File: BAe_Replica.jpg (178KB, 900x601px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 900x601px

>>34244148
>Brits certainly got some technology out of the F-35 program

BAe did design studies in low-RCS long before JSF

Some of the work went in to the basis of their initial JSF venture with McDonnell Douglas, before Lockheed and Boeing's proposals were down-selected

File: 0_5e1b5_5dc1ffb7_XL.jpg (60KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x532px

>>34243748
>>34243766

WVR nowaydays is more or less the range of which your camera's (IRST/OLS) can see enemy planes. In cases it can be as much as 90+ kilometers.

Pic related.

>>34244543
WVR/BVR have not changed distances because of IRST, jesus christ..

File: C-3zfAoXYAADNFW.jpg (38KB, 650x657px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 650x657px

>>34244543
whatabout other sensors? drones/awacs/satellites/atmosperhic lensing/quantumspacemagic?

>>34244148
>Do the german have any experience in RCS reduction technologies?
Only if the US doesn't force us to shut down our programs.

>>34244632

>Most aircraft's BVR distance
>100km+

>Rafale's """"""BVR"""""" distance
>50km
>Using a missile that loses most of its power past 20km
>Using WVR optimised flight kinetics and designs
>Which can't even fly as well at long ranges as other nations' own WVR missiles can

Sure buddy. If a marketing leaflet gets to say three letters you be happy.

Meanwhile in reality the Rafale's limp dick missile range firmly put it out of modern BVR engagement requirements.

>>34245077
BVR is BVR, its not something that changes based on the plane or its sensors because it involves more than just weapons deployment, it changes how you fly the aircraft in response to threats.

No idea why you're talking about the Rafale, either. I'm the guy that said it had no BVR weapon.

>>34244489

Different range requirements? I'm not so sure. Both countries air superiority fighters spend a lot of time intercepting Cold War bombers turned cruise missile trucks over open ocean as well as warships heading through island gaps. In fact, when UK Typhoons visited Japan last year, a large part of the exercises they were doing was effectively comparing notes on interception procedures. https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/historic-first-training-exercise-celebrated-in-japan-02112016

>>34244543
>which your camera's (IRST/OLS) can see enemy planes
>Pic related.
But this is not a camera.

>>34243053
>>34243078

E U A R M Y
U
A
R
M
Y

>>34244148
Oddly enough, the Rafale prototype had some kind of RAM coating, but it was removed from production aircraft for budget reasons.

>>34243053
>Good idea, yes or no?
Horrible idea, they should all buy tucanos.

>>34247082
Tucanos aren't going to intercept Tu-95s over the Channel

>>34243999
>>34245077
>>34245177
>>34243777

Why is nobody checking these numbers?

>>34247096
Give it counter rotating props and it might, with double the meme value

>>34248354
I mean a this point maybe we should just re-engine the P-51

>>34244940

They usually steal them and sell them as their own invention. Though the technology is useless with our new radar system.

>>34243548
something that will crash and burn?

>>34243053
>Spain

>>34243053
> Arguably the three most potent combat ready platforms of the western hemisphere flying together

NATO boner intensifies