FCAS is clearly dead, there will be no shared plane. France is able to develop it's own plane, Germany is not. That leaves the question, does Germany back down? Do they enlist the US/France/UK to build vital components? What other methods can they do to produce a future fighter?
They need to go all in on the CCA/UCAV/Combat cloud pillar of FCAS, and then try to get as much out of GCAP as they can (minor manufacturing role likely).
>>64599739>France is able to develop it's own plane, Germany is not.the only thing Germany can't fully do on its own is the engine, everything else can be done in Germany too. and Germany has way higher budget than France.>What does Germany do?either pursue its own design, maybe even keep the Safran-MTU Aero joint venture for the engine.or buy/license produce GCAP.>FCAS is clearly dead, there will be no shared plane. most likely yes. imo there probably won't even be a shared combat cloud, as Thales and Dassault have very recently founded a purely French joint venture for that too, making FCAS redundant in that regard too.a German defense politician recently openly called for the cancellation of the program, and I think there's a new French-German meeting scheduled for December 11th, we'll probably hear news then.
>>64599739So, let me get this straight. After forcing a joint venture between Safran and MTU and imposing Spain and its Spanish Airbus subsidiary early in the project, resulting in Airbus having twice the weight in the aircraft pillar where Dassault was supposed to lead, Germany will probably leave FCAS just to buy the shelf-ready GCAP with little to no influence on the design or industrial workshare. What kind of 4D chess move is this?
>>64599963no, you didn't get it straight.
>>64599963Considering france wasn't going to give germany any significant IP rights from the manned fighter portion of FCAS, and was going to make it so germany had essentially no design input or any way to influence future upgrades. And zero veto rights, AND only ~10-15% of the workshare. Why the fuck would france ever expect someone to pay $50B for basically nothing in return? Germany doesn't need a catapult-launched navalized nuclear-capable fighter, but france still expected germany to fund development for those portions with ZERO industrial return on that investment.
>>64599963As I understand, pretty much.
>>64599739This thread feels like it was made by a Frenchman, or at the very least a Francophile.
>>64600010>And zero veto rights, AND only ~10-15% of the worksharenow you are just deliberately misrepresenting things France would like Germany under 20% work share because that means that as per a german-french treaty Germany can't veto exports ect. this is probably due to a gentleman's agreement that was mad during negotiations that Germany wouldn't use said veto being pulled.getting them under that 20% threshold doesn't mean going all the way down to 10%> pay $50B for basically nothing in return?a 6th gen fighter aircraft that works, meaning that Germany would be part of a very select club of countries that can say they build their own.>>64600021no, it's made by the same guy that makes bait FCAS bait treads
>>64600070>a 6th gen fighter aircraft that worksSo france is gambling on the idea that GCAP won't work (and be out 10+ years earlier). Good luck i guess.
>>64600010It is well known that the military doctrines of France and Germany have almost nothing in common. Germany only needs an air superiority fighter to enforce air policy over its territory and an American-made aircraft to carry the B61 for its NATO obligations. Why did Germany accept this project with France in the first place?
>>64600087>Why did Germany accept this project with France in the first place?Boomer German politicians are still stuck in the mindset of the early days of the European project, when Franco-German cooperation was the entire point. It's the same reason why Merkel clung to Ostpolitik her entire reign, ignoring newer European partners who warned her against it.German politics are very slow to change.
>>64600084>just buyand they won't rip you if they even sell to you at allthat also means getting 0% workshare
>>64600087Because they wanted to try and keep their domestic aircraft industry alive, and under the current FCAS proposal, that's basically impossible, their portion of the manned fighter wouldn't allow them to survive and retain the expertise for modern fighter aircraft development, they would instead be relegated to a parts supplier/manufacturer for french designs. They'll get more or less the same deal with GCAP, but at least they're not being asked to develop GCAP, either way it looks as if Germany is losing their domestic fighter aircraft industry expertise in its entirety. If FCAS gave them the workshare they wanted, then they could've at least retained SOME of that domestic capability, but without significant workshare, that's just not possible. So yeah, would you rather be a co-developer expected to fund 30-40%+ of the budget for a program you'll have minimal substantive input on, and minimal economic benefits from the manufacture/sales of the final fighter, or get minor economic benefits as a major customer to a neighbouring european fighter program (GCAP)?
>>64600021>This thread feels like it was made by a Frenchman, or at the very least a Francophile.>>64600070>no, it's made by the same guy that makes bait FCAS bait treadsI made it as I'm curious, not French, I don't see many great options for Germany so I was wondering what others thought as I am no expert.
>>64600112>or get minor economic benefits as a major customer >end up spending as much money>get less benefitgreat idea
>>64600070>part of a very select club of countries that can say they had france build it for them
>>64600118>I don't see many great options for Germany so I was wondering what others thought as I am no expert.I am an idiot, and even I know that doing a joint defense procurement project with the French is a big no-no.
>>64600087>Why did Germany accept this project with France in the first place?Politics, it was partly off the back of Brexit to leave Britain in the wilderness and partly to increase Franco-German integration.
>>64600112>So yeah, would you rather be a co-developer expected to fund 30-40%+ of the budget for a program you'll have minimal substantive input on, and minimal economic benefits from the manufacture/sales of the final fighterCome on. FCAS is a SoS. The jet is only one of the six pillars and Germany is leading two of them. The aircraft design is probably the easiest part and considering German's economy, they could have proposed a second fighter, designed by Airbus that is fully oriented in air superiority.
>>64599739does swept wings mean its more of a cruiser, optimized for sub-sonic range?
>>64600010Why would they accept to deal with them in the first place ?
>>64600165>The aircraft design is probably the easiest part and considering German's economy, they could have proposed a second fighter, designed by Airbus that is fully oriented in air superiority.That's what I was thinking, share common components, but have different planes. Probably would need its own engine, due to the larger size.
>>64600127There is no chance in hell they'll spend "just as much".They were expected to FUND FCAS development, they're only going to be an export customer of GCAP.They expected to FUND FCAS for ~$50B. GCAP is expected to cost ~$200M per airframe. FCAS will likely also end up costing around that much.GCAP on the export market will likely cost a bit more, but not significantly so.So in what reality is buying the $200-250M jet instead of a $180-220M jet going to matter when the cheaper one you had to spend $40-50B on R&D for?
>>64600188>Probably would need its own engine, due to the larger size.Considering the extraordinary power needs of a sixth-generation aircraft, including computing power, electronic warfare, and next-generation weapons such as lasers, as well as the fact that France will navalize it, the future engine developed by Safran would have sufficed.
>>64600153>Brexitthe brits where invited to and where part of the precursor program but chose to leave it to pursue their own program
>>64599739Germans will just buy more F35s, what will the French do?
>>64600215I doubt it, from what we've seen of the FCAS it's F-35 size likely due to space requirements from being on a carrier. While GCAP is close to F-15 from what we've seen. If Germany made something similar, then the engines would be too small.
>>64599739Germany is going to develop it's own plane. Anyone who thinks Germany can't, should just troon out already.
>>64600010This. Frogs should just kill themselves already.
>>64600288I've been saying this ever since I read pic rel.
>>64599847>the only thing Germany can't fully do on its own is the engine,France can't either.
>>64600261>While GCAP is close to F-15 from what we've seenIt's breaching closer to F-111 size and payload.
>>64600317Which jedi used this one?
>>64600317What components are you talking about? Pretty sure the FCAS engine share was them taking all the hot parts.
>>64600339>Which jediProbably Qui Gon idk. As for jets tho, its the plan for joint development of FCAS engine. MTU is German share, ITP is Spanish share
>FCAS IS KILL>FROGS DID IThow long has it been killed now? if it was the Spanish would be bitching about it the loudest but you don't hear a peep from them
>>64600389Just wait until the siesta is done.
>>64600348Its basically identical to GCAP:IHI Corporation - is developing the compressorAvio Aero - the low-pressure turbineRolls-Royce - has the lead on the combustor, high-pressure turbine and exhaust nozzles.It's not that Safran or RR can't do it, it is that they have to share and dont mind giving those parts away.
>>64600395pic rel
>>64600407Except that 2/3 members of GCAP have the ability to produce a 15 ton class engine. Meanwhile the M88 is especially anemic and Safran hasn't shown any ability to even achieve a 10 ton engine even with later M88 variants.
>>64600452>Except that 2/3 members of GCAP have the ability to produce a 15 ton class engine. Meanwhile the M88 is especially anemic and Safran hasn't shown any ability to even achieve a 10 ton engine even with later M88 variants.Pretending IHI is on the level of Safran is cope. The XF9 was built upon knowledge gained from the F100,F135 etc. and uses licensed parts. We can even see IHI not being up to level if you look at the uneven workshare. The Brits are getting a better deal than Safran was in the FCAS.
>>64600407We also know they're roughly targeting ~180kW of power generation per engine and ~190-200kN of thrust.Japan is likely contributing the super alloy they developed for the XF9 engine hot section which had turbine inlet temps of 1800C.
>>64600553>and uses licensed partsUhhh source?There are multiple japanese sources that say it's fully domestic and ITAR free and I can't find any source claiming otherwise.
>>64600553Lmao why do you always lie? The XF9 is nothing like the F100/F135. If you're trying to say japan got to observe what those engines were before they designed the XF9, then yeah sure, that's just the reality of technology.But the XF9 is in no way BASED on the F100 or F135 and takes no obvious major design cues from them that differ from earlier engine designs.
>>64600584>>64600597I got that wrong, you are correct. I still don't agree with the criticisms >>64600452 a lot of it can be blamed on engine size. If IHI is a leader in this field like RR why are they then getting cucked on workshare?
>>64600639They're not getting cucked on workshare, they're letting the obvious industry leader LEAD.Just because RR is LEADING more of the engine work doesn't mean IHI isn't contributing to that work as well, they're just not leading it.RR and IHI are both likely in the 40% workshare range, with italy getting 20%.RR has the history for integration into larger multi-national programs and working with other engine corporations on large projects like this one, so yeah why WOULDN'T you let RR lead the way when IHI has never worked on a major engine program with another country?We know RR and IHI have been working together since 2019, before GCAP was even a thing officially.
>>64600708Sorry I wasn't clear, I'm not talking about the percentages which haven't been defined to the public, I'm talking about the areas they are leading as seen here >>64600407 . RR, with the combustor and high-pressure turbine compared to IHI leading the compressors.
>>64600742Yes, again that's LEADING, not meaning they're the only contributor for that section.Do you not understand what i'm saying or are you simply refusing to acknowledge it and pretending I must be confused about what you said instead?
>>64600795I do understand leading, but it means the have the largest portions of that section and they have the larger focus on it. Giving all the best stuff to RR, doesn't seem right to me if IHI is an equal competitor. It's clearly balanced towards RR and my point was if IHI was so much better than Safran why would they allow the best parts of the engine to be lead by RR, instead of themselves getting some of that good stuff.
>>64600830Again, you're either being obtuse or are just an idiot.LEADING DOES NOT MEAN THEY'RE DOING ALL OF THE WORK FOR THAT SECTION.I don't know how many different ways I can say it until you understand this.RR could lead EVERY portion of the engine and IHI could STILL wind up getting 40% of the workshare.
>>64600840I think you are being stupid here. Leading is leading, it means you have more investment and development into the area. Dassault wants to lead basically everything on the plane section, Germany doesn't want that (I get France has general lead on the plane but I think there are subdivisions on plane parts, could be wrong). You are trying to trivialize the workshare breakdown by arguing semantics.
>>64600859You are trying to imply that if RR is leading then IHI contributes nothing, it's fucking retarded and it makes you look biased as fuck, as either you're ACTUALLY this stupid, or you want to get people talking about this on /k/ to start the sentiment that RR is fucking over IHI for whatever reason, probably to imply there is greater instability potential in GCAP because "RR is cucking IHI" despite the fact it's not what's happening.IHI is contributing significantly to the engine, just because they're not LEADING the hot section for example doesn't mean RR isn't taking the IHI super alloy and information gained from the XF9 engine into their design for the hot section into consideration. Nor does it mean they're going to entirely ignore all hot section design work IHI has ever done.
>>64600875>>64600859Also, the whole reason germany doesn't want france to be lead is because france ISN'T sharing IP rights, GCAP IP rights are being shared 33% across the board, as are veto rights (which germany also wasn't getting in FCAS).Japan still retains 33% of the engine IP, regardless of who develops it.
>>64600875No, I'm saying if a company is leading X area of the engine, they are going to take the best parts of that section themselves. There's no guarantee that the other two partners get a portion of something the other leads. You are injecting a lot of conjecture into this. Everything you've said predicates on mights, maybes and possibles.>>64600894Sure, my entire point was if IHI is so great and Safran is so shit, why isn't IHI leading more of the advanced pieces of the engine.
>>64600875>RR isn't taking the IHI super alloy and information gained from the XF9 engineDoesn't the F135 run at hotter temperatures than the XF9? Like 2000C to the XF9's 1800C? And the F136 was better than the F135, but not cheaper; meaning it likely reached the same temperature if not surpassed it.
>>64600977>The F136 produced 28,000 lbf (125 kN) of thrust in military power and 43,000 lbf (191 kN) in full afterburner, same as the F135 but with greater temperature margins due to the higher air mass flow, resulting in longer hot-section parts life and greater potential for future growth.
>>64600922>why isn't IHI leading more of the advanced pieces of the engine.Because they've never done a project of this scale and are happy to give the lead to a company with arguably the most experience outside of the US in this specific area of work. Again, just beacuse RR is taking the lead doesn't mean IHI is somehow getting shafted and unable to contribute significantly.
>>64599739They'll just crawl back and buy F-35s.
>>64601014Doesn't suit their needs and gives them no development experience, basically killing their capability to produce jets. European defense think tanks have said that they are worried about Russia flying 6th gen Chinese jets, F-35s aren't up for that job. If they were to buy American it would be the F-47 lite.
>>64601014>>64601071more F-35 is a given for Germany, but that doesn't mean a new design won't be pursued. It will likely be either GCAP or a new own design.
>>64599739I just hope neither France, Spain, or Germany ends up in GCAP. They would doom it.
>>64599739>France is able to develop it's own plane, Germany is not.Technologically all participants are able to develop their own plane. It's just a question of money. Germany has it, France doesn't.
>>64601071>6th gen Chinese jetsShould only take them another 50 years to crank out, depending on what even constitutes '6th gen.' However long it takes them, Russia won't exist as a credible threat by then (and hardly does now).
>>64602185UK/Japan/Italy likely wouldn't allow a big say in the project to any potential new member, it would probably be just license production and maybe the right to integrate/modify the plane to the customer's needs, something like a preferential customer or something like that. The extra funding would be good for the project.
>>64600087>Why did Germany accept this project with France in the first place?By being pretty much out of options. Trump's America is completely unreliable, the Brits just Brexited, the Japanese have a far more stringent timeline (Brit and Italians are gonna feel that down the line). So they made thehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aachen_Treatywith France, hoping that for once French enthusiasm for European defense doesn't equate to France trying to have European taxpayer money finance French arms industry. Alas, it was for naught.
>>64602210>Brits just BrexitedDidn't stop Italy?
>>64602214Yes, but as you may have noticed, I didn't even mention Italy and Spain as possible options. They're more like junior partners.And tbf Britain and Italy essentially are bandwagoning on a Japanese project. Sure, Britain has the engine expertise, so they are welcome, but apart from a little bit of radar expertise there's not much that Italy can contribute.
>>64602220That's a disgustingly vast underestimation of both the wop and bong aerospace industries
>>64600010>Why the fuck would france ever expect someone to pay $50B for basically nothing in return?You get the chance to work with us.
>>64599739>France is able to develop it's own plane, Germany is not.Germany has designed just as a many 5th-generation fighters as France has.
>>64602227And a massive overestimation of nip jet fighter production
>>64602220That's not at all true, it's closer to Japan and Italy bandwagoning on a British project. It's why it's all being headquartered in the UK rather than Japan.
>>64599847https://www.opex360.com/2025/11/29/selon-un-senateur-dassault-reproche-a-airbus-de-ne-pas-avoir-pu-realiser-des-sous-ensembles-techniques-du-scaf/>Dassault criticises the German subsidiary of Airbus for failing to produce the technical sub-assemblies for which it was responsible, which contributed to the deterioration of relations between the design offices and led Dassault to request a review of governance for greater efficiency.And the Rafale cost France less on its own than the Eurofighter, which was designed and manufactured by several countries.... France can do it, and above all, France could find better partners. (Sweden?)
>>64599963> resulting in Airbus having twice the weight in the aircraft pillar where Dassault was supposed to leadAnon, you realize Airbus is not a German company, right?Even ignoring that, what in the fuck is the problem here? Three countries, each get's 33% workshare, Dassasult get's to be lead.Seems pretty normal to me, but then I am not french, if I was I would probbably have an anurism just talking about it.
>>64602622You realise Airbus Defence is majority German?
>>64602571Sweden has zero interest in paying for a navalized carrier capable, nuclear capable fighter.Not to mention they're allergic to twin engined fighters and FCAS will be twin engined.
>>64602673Technically noThe French goverment owns 10.83% of airbusThe German government owns 10.82%The Spanish government owns 4.08%And the defense and space division of airbus is looking like it'll be combined into a new joint venture with Airbus, Leonardo, and Thales. Split 35%/32.5%/32.5%.As stated, France owns the majority of Airbus (10.82%), Italy owns the majority of Leonardo (~30.2%), Germany owns a portion of Airbus (10.81%), and France owns the majority stake in Thales (around 26%), as well as having a 10% stake (through airbus) in Dassault (which is also privately French owned), and Dassault has a significant stake in Thales as well (another 25%).This means France would control the majority stake in 2 if the 3 companies in the joint venture, accounting for 67.5% ownership (35% via airbus and 32.5% via thales)No matter how you slice it, airbus is French and the new airbus joint venture will also be French.
>>64602900NTA, but you are confusing plurality and majority.
>>64602904Then so is he. In no way can Germany be considered the "majority" owner in airbus.Also in business, being the majority owner doesn't mean you hold 50%+ of the shares. In major corporations like this, most shareholders own fractional percentages of the company, and owning the largest single block of shares makes you the defacto majority stakeholder. Regardless of the actual ownership split.Airbus for example, France at 10.82% and Germany at 10.81% the two largest shareholders, by significant margin. Spain is next at 4.08% and then a hedge fund at around 3%, followed by more hedge funds and investment banks/families are all less than 0.2% each.So even though France and Germany only hold about 10% each, they are the majority shareholders, with France having the slight edge (which Germany relies on Spain to keep France from having unilateral control).
>>64602924I said majority German, I didn't talk about the ownership structure. Airbus D&S is majority based in German, Maching and Ottobrunn are it's most important locations for aeronautical development.
>>64602964And yet, the largest owner is France, and thus calling them "majority" German is factually incorrect. Especially in the grander context of a joint German/French aircraft program.Acting like airbus is WHOLLY German in this context is frankly retarded and only a frog trying to make France look better would try and frame it this way.
>>64602270France and Germany have more experience with fifth gens than the GCAP partners (UK, Italy and Japan), where none of the companies involved (BAE, Leonardo or Mitsubishi/IHI) have any experience as part of the original JSF design program or assembling F-35s locally
>>64602995Anon... they assemble F-35's in Italy and Japan.
>>64603007He has posted the exact same thing for months, it's just delusional retardation.
>>64602992Leonardo UK is an Italian owned company, but it is British. BAE land systems is British owned but American. Nations care more about workers than ownership.
>>64603089For economic benefits, sure. But Germany was counting on FCAS giving airbus more than just economic benefits. Germany wanted IP rights and substantive input on overall design. Which they're not getting in the current FCAS. Again, in a joint program like FCAS, calling Airbus "German" is retarded.Germany is airbus's 2nd largest shareholder behind France.Germany NEEDS FCAS to be more than just a parts manufacturing deal where they manufacture components for a French design. At the moment that's all they're getting.And trying to frame Airbus as 100% wholly German and that they should be happy to be included in FCAS, while ignoring the majority shareholder (and a large economic benefactor in this program) is France and that it ultimately benefits France more than Germany (even if Germany gets the economic benefit from the German manufacturing locations), it just makes you look either retarded, or French.So what are you, are you a retard or are you french?
>>64602220>They're more like junior partners.Spain maybe, Italy can pull its own weight like they already did with the F-35 program and both the Tornado and Eurofighter.
>>64603089Leonardo UK is an Italian owned and run company. The only british thing inside are the workers. The UK government has no say in anything they do.
>>64603939Yeah, italy is actually expected to contribute to the EW suite and AI shit
>>64602924>Airbus for example, France at 10.82% and Germany at 10.81% the two largest shareholders, by significant margin. Spain is next at 4.08% and then a hedge fund at around 3%, followed by more hedge funds and investment banks/families are all less than 0.2% each.So the rest of the company belongs to some elite families and private banks ?If you add them all up you'd get around 75% of the ownership.
>>64602995Why do you keep posting this?
>>64603969>So the rest of the company belongs to some elite families and private banks ?>If you add them all up you'd get around 75% of the ownership.Hedge funds, individual investors, pension funds, elite families (Rothschilds own like 0.1%), etc.
>>64602498>>64602220The Convention on the Establishment of the GIGO mandates the posting of the following statement:"Britain and Japan essentially are bandwagoning on an Italian project".
>>64602900Why would anyone make joint ventures with fr*nch defense companies in 2026
>>64604135Sounds like a mess, is Boeing also like this ?
>>64604567No, Boeing is more than 50% owned by major financial institutions.
>>64602924So then none of those companies are Spanish, German or French and the markets own them. Those nations do not have those capabilities which can be then moved around the world to whatever country they wish to.
>>64603947also ISANKE and ICS
>>64604567>kid discovers how the stock market works
>another stealth fighter thread
>>64606817The only non-stealth fighters being developed are from shitholes
>>64600010France is the nation of hubris, that's why.
>>64607387i'd call it arrogance, but sure.
>>64600010>Why the fuck would france ever expect someone to pay $50B for basically nothing in return?because they're france.
>>64603946>Leonardo UK is an Italian owned and run company. The only british thing inside are the workers.They're also incredibly shit at their job. Fuck Yeovil, they're fucking idiots.>t. knower
Manned fighters are DOA.All manned fighter projects are commamd and control projects and civilian identification only.
>>64600584>multiple japanese sources>japanese sources>"m-m-muh hecking japarinos told me that japarinos can do anything!!1!"itar free yet zero exports, not even so much as rumors. even with weeb brainrot it's not hard to put 2 and 2 together.
>>64613229Anon, it was never put into production, why the fuck would they export it?
>>64613238huh? what? how is this a dunk? it's literally the biggest self-own everyou claim that this magical 100% domestic engine exists and yet the japanese don't even make it for themselves?you realize that it's literally worse if what you say is true, right? because if it's true then the gcap is literally a british technology extraction project.I don't like frogs but the above frog is totally right. If these japs are so good at engines then why the hell are the British in charge?we all get that you're a hopeless weeb but are you really so weebed up that you don't understand that the situation is not actually beneficial to the japs?
>>64613592Gookshill/warriortard, you always give yourself away so fucking easily.
>>64613634He was talking about GCAP specifically, so the US wouldn't be involved.
>>64613638I tried to hide my shame after I noticed and was rightfully exposed.Mea culpa, all. Time for bed.
i wish australia had an aircraft industry
>>64612550>t. knowerYeah no, you're a fat neet who still lives with his parent's.
>>64613592>>64613229hello gookshill
>>64614378That ship sailed long ago.Looks like you guys might get interested in GCAP to replace/complement your F/A-18Fs
>>64599739Little late to ask a new question, but I will. How many Meteors do y'all think that the FCAS IWB will be able to hold? Any difference from GCAP on that count?
>>64616927My guess is 2 for each and if they need more they can stick them in the CCAs. I'm curious though if they'll have bays large enough to fit something like AIM-174 or LREW, or if they're of the opinion that Meteor is enough of a qualitative advantage that they won't need a larger weapon for the duration of the program.
>>64617042Minimally the Japanese will want to internally fit at least 2 of their anti ship missiles and likely plan ahead for at least 2 of whatever their next anti ship missile will be in 10+ years.
>>64617065I don't know much about Japanese weaponry. Are they NSM sized? GCAP is gonna be a big boy.
After the shitshow that was the F35 development process, why would eurotards think they can do better
>>64617083ASM-3Its 20 feet long and weighs 2000lbs.
>>64617131That would be incredibly difficult to fit internally, GCAP would need to be F-111 sized or larger
>>64599739>FCAS is clearly dead, there will be no shared planeCorrect>France is able to develop it's own planeHahaha, how drunk are you Pierre? >Do they (Germany) enlist the US/France/UK to build vital components? Lolwut? Why would the US/UK support a failed German effort when they have their own projects that seem to be progressing well enough (NGAD and Tempest respectively)? Why would France stop being French and work well with partners?>What other methods can they do to produce a future fighter?None. It's not 1960 anymore, developing genuine 6th Gen fighters is so expensive that if you're not the US you're going to have to do it as a coalition.
>>64617131>It's an NSM and an AMRAAM glued end to endDon't think you'll be carrying that one internally, chief. Unless GCAP is secretly a strategic bomber, I guess.
>>64614486Found one of the Yeovil retards
>>64618362Sounds like someone was too dumb to get headhunted by a proper company and now is salty.
>>64600010>Why the fuck would france ever expect someone to pay $50B for basically nothing in return?Reparations for fucking up the European detterence and unity in favour of foreign powers for several decades ?France could demand the Saarland back as collateral and they would still be on the right
>>64619507
>>64619507Come get it pierre. A rematch is overdue and we haven't forgotten elsass-lothringen.
>Volker Mayer-Lay, the CDU/CSU parliamentary group's rapporteur for the Air Force in the German Bundestag's Defense Committee, sees no future for the European Future Combat Air System (FCAS) fighter jet project and is therefore demanding its termination. In a press release, the CDU politician writes: "Trust between the participating governments and companies is severely damaged, so terminating FCAS is likely the only functional solution to the existing problems.">He criticizes Dassault CEO Éric Trappier, who is demanding a leading role for France at FCAS and recently threatened to go it alone if Dassault is not given sole decision-making power. "Anyone who acts in this way demands subordination. Anyone who pushes others out is not looking for a partnership," writes Mayer-Lay.[...]>A few days before the decision expected next week on the future course of action for the troubled Franco-German-Spanish Future Combat Air System (FCAS), the IG Metall union is taking a stand and demanding the development of two fighter jets, while withdrawing confidence from the French aircraft manufacturer Dassault.>“From our perspective, German politics and industry made concessions regarding FCAS from the very beginning. Nevertheless, Dassault has been trying from the outset to defame us, push us back, and work against us,” wrote Jürgen Kerner, Second Chairman of IG Metall, and Thomas Pretzl, Chairman of the Works Council of Airbus Defence and Space, in a letter to Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil and Defense Minister Boris Pistorius dated Monday, which hartpunkt has obtained.>Dassault has not yet withdrawn its demand for full takeover of fighter jet development. "On the contrary: Mr. Trappier is publicly and loudly railing against our local industry and the Bundestag in parliament and the press. We are firmly convinced that Dassault has completely disqualified itself as a reliable partner within Europe in times of acute threat," the two union representatives wrote.
>>64619524Also Germans are known to veto exports of weapons because they kill peopleIf you give Germans a significant role then their CIA and KGB controlled politicians can just sabotage it whenever>>64619526Nigga please the foreign legion + the police forces of Alsace alone would push your shit in
>>64599754Dassault has its own software/cloud company. The same one that provides CAD software to Lockheed. That company was supposed to do the cloud part of the FCAS weapons system.Even on the software side I think we were better positioned.France is the most successful airplanes manufacturer in Europe, FCAS could never be a balanced project given the vast disparity between our two countries.My only regret is that we couldn't built a tank together. We have the best turret and they have the best vehicle.Rip Kampfpanzer/Napoleon
>>64619507>Reparations for fucking up the European detterence and unity in favour of foreign powers for several decades ?yeah, when is france paying everyone back?
>>64619656there could have been a fair workshare like in the Eurofighter and Tornado, Dassault is just a shit company to work with. It was a politically forced project from the start and if French politicians are unwilling to pull back Trappier and even implicitely encourage his bullshit, they are to blame for the failure of the project. As for the tank, Germany has no reason to do it with France if FCAS doesn't work either.
>>64599739>FCAS is clearly dead>France is able to develop it's own plane, Germany is not.Seething French is writing this.
>>64619712Germany can easily do a tank alone. And germany can easily find junior partners with aligning requirements in a tank.
>>64619712>and if French politicians are unwilling to pull back TrappierI think it's more of a case of UNABLE rather than unwilling.
>>64600087Because Germany is desperate to get rid of its lockheed jets.The EU might for the first time in its history have to defend itself or at the very least project strength to fend off more "special military operations".That can't be done when your main defense supplier makes deals with your foe behind while putting tariffs on his allies.I'm a big lockheed fan and I think it's a fantastic company, but the past 10 years of us foreign policy might have done them more harm than good.
>>64600201I think Trapper wilfully sabotaged FCAS. He'd rather die than work with any country that bought F35s.
>>64619819I'm not sure about the F-35 connection, but I agree Trappier (potentially with permission/instructions from the french government, but possibly done entirely by himself) has willfully sabotaged FCAS. At pretty much every opportunity, Dassault fucked around trying to bully germany into conceding almost ANY german benefits to the point it would be impossible for germany to agree to join FCAS under the conditions offered.
>>64619832When asked in front of the senate why he wouldn't let belgians in on FCAS, even symbolically, he said that he saw no reasons to give work to a country that chose F35s.That was it. No other arguments. Just fuck them and their F35s.He cannot say the same thing about Germany obviously.
>>64619863he's a fucking retard, it's an absolutely nonsensical "argument"
>>64619819>>64619832>>64619863>>64619869I haven't been paying attention. Are there people in the French state who are seriously this butthurt about Euro F-35s?
>>64619914Not in the french state. At Dassault specifically.They're worse than the french government.
>>64619934Is Dassault a breeding ground for Gaullists or something?
>>64619799>The EU might for the first time in its history have to defend itselfare you retarded? what about 40 years of cold war, did you miss that? what about what happened in kosovo, albania, or romania? do you think europe is just a placid island of US enforced peace?
>>64619941Ask anyone who has ever worked with them or for them
>>64619956The EU was safer with the USSR as a neighbors than with modern day Russia. I have lived in both Western Europe and in in a former Soviet satellite.No I won't develop my argument
>>64619965ok you're clearly a retard. have a nice day.
>>64619967It's past my bedtime but mom isn't looking so here's why: the US was an infinitely more reliable ally during the cold war than it is today. And EU countries are considering downgrading their air defense to reduce exposure to US foreign policy instability. That's how you get a more dangerous world despite a weaker foe.
>>64619528Lmao what a shit show, France are cunts
>The range of possible scenarios extends from ending the program in its current form with seven pillars and limiting it to individual system components, i.e., an FCAS light, to continuing it with a readjusted division of labor.>The latter would mean that they would continue to jointly develop a completely new fighter jet, including a new engine.>Unlike before, Dassault, Airbus Germany and Airbus Spain would probably no longer each have a 33 percent stake in this core part of the program, but Dassault would have a work share of at least 50 percent.>Dassault, as well as influential figures in French politics and defense procurement, are pushing for such a realignment. The current division of labor is inefficient and threatens to jeopardize the commissioning of the new fighter jet in the early 2040s.>In Germany, this realignment in a key sovereign domain like fighter jet manufacturing has so far been considered unacceptable. However, this scenario is apparently not out of the question. Airbus could, for example, receive a larger share of the drone work in return.>It is also said that strengthening Airbus's position in the more mature Eurodrone program, from which Dassault recently threatened to withdraw, could become part of a package deal at the defense ministers' meeting in Berlin.if German politicians agree to this utter subordination in return for the "concession" of getting more Eurodrone workshare, it would be so incredibly stupid and pathetic. But it also wouldn't surprise me.
>>64619528Keep crying faggots, you won't get our superiour tech.
>>64622284you have no superior tech. Your jet got shown down by Chinese F-16 clones. All you have is arrogance and a budget deficit. It's a farce that the program hasn't been terminated yet.
>>64622292NTA and not interested in defending the French, but the J10 was networked with an AWACS and the Rafale was loaded for an A2G config with no BVR missiles (and piloted by a jeet, lol). So hardly an engagement representative of these bird's capabilities.
>>64619967>>64619965>The EU was safer with the USSR as a neighbors than with modern day RussiaUnironically there is a point in this, despite threatening nuclear annihilation several times the USSR was also a more reliable business partner than the current day Russia Russia might be weaker than the soviet union but it uses every tool in it's arsenal to influence/screw up the west, even those the soviet union didn't (sure it didn't use them not because the ussr was soft-hearted mind you, but rather had long term goals in mind, like self preservation), making putins "after me, the flood" attitude more dangerous for it's unpredictability
>>64622415Also nta, but pretty sure the spectra ew could’ve done a lot better, potentially saving at least some of those rafales if you can take dassault sales department words for 100% certainty.All this pointless shit flinging could’ve been avoided if frogs hasn’t been some arrogant ass and shit on EF every chance they get, even when their whole point is a 2008 trial that involved a tranche 1 EF against Rafale f3.Tranche 2+3 that actually making up the majority of any operating country is easily second to none in 4th gen category. Even tranche 4 service entry is just right around the corner.And in 5th/6th gen, frogs has no more experience than the likes of italy/germany/uk/japan, which they do have a habit of shitting on just because their boomer engineers made something on their own 40 years ago
>>64622453Fair enough.I don't disagree with any of that.
>>64602244You have a plane that is real and works ok?
>>64617993>Hahaha, how drunk are you Pierre?Still buzzing from rafale sales, the,other plane everyone said we couldn't build
>>64599739please tell mewould it be really impossible for airbus alone to design and produce a 5th/6th gen?i mean they are the better of the only 2 relevant airliner producers. given the funds by germany
>>64619528Don't demand French to cooperate. That is racist.
>>64622474Most people didn't doubt you could build rafale, they doubted it would ultimately be WORTH building since it required leaving the euro fighter program.
>>64622502No it wouldn't. Simply a matter of providing the necessary funds. But that's the thing. Combat aircraft programs are the single greatest procurement programs of modern militaries. So it's only natural that nations seek to pool their resources.
>>64622570In retrospect it'd be difficult to argue it wasn't worth it given its commercial success
>>64624145Only cause you'll sell to almost anyone willing to pay.And france is (stupidly) hoping to have a similar success with their 6th gen fighter, but fat fucking chance of that since half of the export market france has sold Rafale to can't possibly afford a 6th gen fighter, and by the time france finishes development, GCAP will likely have been on the market for 5-10 years already and the wealthier export customers who CAN afford 6th gen fighters (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Australia, Germany, etc) will likely just go with GCAP as by that point it'll have industrial momentum in its favor and likely a lower sticker price and larger parts supply chain, not to mention global manufacturing/support (UK/Italy cover europe, Japan covers Asia), and you're not funding the unecessary R&D (navalization and nuclear capability you can't use) that frances fighter will ineviteably have. france made a bet that they'll magically manage to produce a true blue 6th gen aircraft for under $200/m per aircraft on the export market when in all likelihood a 6th gen will be $250M+ without massive scale production.
>>64624170Sounds familiar...Oh yeah that's right. Said the same shit for the eurofighter/rafale.
>>64624170> you'll sell to almost anyone willing to pay.We have to sell to brownies because you kill any deal we try to make with western-aligned countries.The way you fucked with the australian nuclear submarine contract was a national scandal. Both in France and Australia.So fuck off with your morality lol
>>64624186No one said that about Rafale, the argument then was that it would steal sales from eurofighter.No one is particularly worried about France's future 6th gen stealing market share from GCAP. It will be funny watching france have to pump out 200+ domestic airframes at $400M+ each, while at the same time they struggle to find export customers until they finally have an upgrade tranche and then they'll do some lease deal with some shit tier country, maybe Egypt where they'll then insist it is an export success. >>64624198I'm american
>>64624207I'm french if that wasn't clear. Your argument made it painfully obvious you're american.
>>64619863>>64619869Since when is excluding a country that buys weapons from the enemy a bad thing?
>>64600112>If FCAS gave them the workshare they wantedThe problem is that there are no guarantees that Germany won't cut orders once they get the workshare they want like what happened with the Eurofighter. For all its faults France has bipartisan support on defense spending and strategic autonomy, meanwhile you just know what the first target of budget cuts will be once the next budget-conscious German government is in charge.
>>64624267bruh you literally rely on the US for your naval AWACS.You don't have much room to talk.
>>64624413Is there an European alternative? Are we in a naval AWACS program with other European countries?
>>64624481Well I don't see your 5th generation fighter for sale you dumb prick, so germany went to the US and bought the F-35 instead.
>>64624482We should exclude them from the program then, they are happy buying equipment from their master, in fact we should nuke Berlin and seize all their factories so people who actually want to play the game of geopolitics get to play instead of a pathetic puppet state with a castrated self hating dead husk populationNeither Belgium nor Germany deserve to exist
>>64624501>they are happy buying equipment from their masterthe absolute irony, coming from a frognigger no lessPerhaps you would be more willing to explain the purchase of EMALS supplied by none other than General Atomics itself ? The very same EMALS that will be launching the NGF component of FCAS ?And placing carrier restriction will definitely results in negative consequence onto the airframe itselfhttps://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fate-and-ice-studies.3547/So let's get this straight, frogniggers demands absolute submission and concession from their „partners” while refusing to compromise on any aspect whatsoever, even when frognigger budget is in a decrepit state ?If only frognigger can act as a half sentient being, they would realize a joint project can allow multiple states to achieve a true strategic supremacy over china and vatnikstan.https://www.leonardo.com/en/focus-detail/-/detail/michelangelo-sistema-multidominio-difesa-aerea-leonardoSomething like this, with a coordinated effort could turn out into a EU golden dome. Sure, it would cost a lot and no eu state can fund this on their own. But frognigger just has to act as total subhuman imbecile, just to try to keep dassault barely relevant by selling off everything they could to jeets
>>64624501>Neither Belgium nor Germany deserve to existfeel free to split us with the Dutch at any time, we'll even take the Departement du Nord up to Orchies off of you>>64625632look man what every you say that might be valid get's drowned out by how blatantly biased you arethe frogs for all their arrogance know they can't do everything. they simply haven't the means to do everything. so they prioritize, nuclear deterrent comes first then the rest. if buying the one catapult they need is something they have to do to save billion or two they'll gladly spend it on an other Suffren class.Naval group hasn't stuck around for close to 400 years by being retarded like that
>>64625632> keep dassault barely relevant by selling off everything they could to jeetsYou have no idea. Trappier, not even an aerospace engineer (a mere former accountant), singlehandedly saved Dassault from bankruptcy by striking the Indian deal. That's how he got the confidence of the Dassault family and became CEO of the group (both aviation and software).Trappier is seething because everytime he tried to make a deal with a non-third world country US glowniggers would sabotage it.That's why he doesn't play nice with EU countries who bought F35s. He unironically sees glowniggers everywhere.> inb4 arms deals don't glow
>>64618369Nah, unfortunately I work with those retards from Leonardo UK, I just have no clue why we outsource work to such idiots instead of doing everything here in Italy
>>64625781>he doesn't play nice with EU countries who bought F35sHe doesn't play nice with them because he knows they won't buy shit.It's not like everyone have unlimited budget, even with all the planned increase (and not taking into account of what will become of all these announcements if things calms down). Countries that already bought or plan to buy F35 likely won't buy a lot of FCAS. Most of them are in for the industrial work, the $$ for the R&D... It's unlikely that Belgium buys a lot, unlikely that Germany buys a lot of (and they are notorious for inflating their "pre-orders" to get more workload for their industry and then bailing out on real buys).France won't have a choice to buy the FCAS. They don't have an alternative (they will never buy F35 or whatever else). And they need it for their next aircraft carrier and for their nuclear deterrence.In addition, the FCAS is not only the aircraft, but the whole system with drones... and the cloud. And obvciously, countries that have F35s will want, with reason, for the cloud to be compatible with their F35, which the US will never allow or use as an entry point into the program
>>64625793Because if you did that then the British wouldn't buy them in the first place.
>>64619541>the foreign legionSo just the regular French Armed Forces then?
>>64625819Yeah, fair enough, but we always have to fix the crap they do. It's really annoying. I also have strong opinions about those other fucks in Philadelphia, but mostly thanks to my colleagues.
>>64624501>Neither Belgium nor Germany deserve to existRight. Belgium doesn't really exist anyway.>>64625640>we'll even take the Departement du Nord up to Orchies off of youNope. Keep your retarded Charleroi dysgenic cesspool region free from our département.
>>64625781western countries bought F-35 because it's superior to Rafale.
>>64622453>no moreRealistically it's a lot less, bongland, nipland and wopland all had a lot of input, especially the bongs at a design and wops at manufacturing level
>>64625813Good points.It's not secret but it's not common knowledge either that Dassault systèmes can/has its own sovereign military cloud.I think that part wasn't advertised too loudly in FCAS because Dassault already had the lion's share and wasn't supposed to touch cloud. But it would have done a lot of it. Way more than what was publicly disclosed
>>64625847what is we throw in say limburg as sweetener? or we turn Charleroi into a reverse Monaco city state
>>64626041Hard pass, except if you turn Charleroi into 60km radius ground zero and grant me personal ownership of the Orval brewery.Looks like you're stuck with walloon retards, sorry.
>>64626061I'm amenable to that, got any spare WMD laying around? or 3? might as well knock out Mons Liège while we are at it.
>>64625864You need to be 18 to post here
>>64622284You're superior tech will be in the hands of India soon, everyone will get it for a modest bribe to Patel.
>>64626345>t.seething frogcan't wait to laugh some more after the jeets devastate the rafails internationally
>>64625864Actually they bought the Eurofighter.
>Trump cancels 6th gen naval fighter>Frogs make a carrier capable 6th gen>the US ends up buying frog carrier capable 6th gens what a world we live in
>>64626460Originally, they did sure, but then bought the F-35 because there was no european 5th gen alternative, including rafale.
>>64626465Even with the F/A-XX delay, there is no chance in hell france gets a manned 6th gen carrier capable fighter first.
>>64626465>Frogs make a carrier capable 6th genHa! good one pierre.
>>64626515The UK, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway helped develop it. (As well as Canada and Australia outside of Europe).
>>64626580What does that have to do with Germany and Belgium buying F-35s and France throwing a hissy fit about it?
>>64626585>because there was no european 5th gen alternativeThat would be because a lot of Europe was making the F-35.
>>64626589And yet france doesn't see it that way.Which goes back to the original point of the conversation, no one gives a fuck about france getting pissy about countries buying the F-35 instead of an upgraded Rafale.France acts as if they're entitled to euopean defense sales BECAUSE they're european and buying ANYTHING else, (even the jointly european developed F-35) as buying non-european arms.
>>64626602>even the jointly european developed F-35lel stop deluding yourselves
>>64626616Even if it wasn't, it's STILL the only 5th generation fighter on the market for europe.And again, france buys US shit when they can't build it themselves as well. See E-2D, EMALs, AGM-114R2, etc.
>>64626602If European nations were looking for something like an upgraded Rafale then we would just get the new Tranche 4 Typhoon.
>>64626630>france buys US shit when they can't build it themselves as well. See E-2D, EMALs, AGM-114R2, etc.We can. It's just not worth it considering the numbers (count them on one hand in our forces)That's not the case with aircrafts. Same for everyone in the EU.
>>64626653The only real reason to get the Rafale over the Typhoon is that it's carrier capable however you need a large carrier with catapults even then which basically only France and the USA have.
>>64626658France bought ~2000 Hellfires between 2015 and 2023. But whatever cope helps you I guess.France IS supposedly working on a domestic missile, but they keep buying hellfires in the meantime.
>>64626658Because there are so many euro nations building aircraft that are cleared to carry B61s while being more modern than the Tornado?, going by germoney's use case.
Rumor has it FCAS will continue but when it comes to the NGWS component of the programme (i.e. the manned fighter jet) Germany and France will each develop their own.
>>64626779From who?https://www.euractiv.com/news/wall-of-silence-from-fcas-partners-following-defence-minister-meeting/The only "source" i can find for that is IG Metal saying it would be a good idea, but no one has really confirmed that's a real possibility.
>>64600247>lets buy more jets from the nation that just outlined you as their greatest geopolitical enemy
>>64626779>>64626787we know nothing yet after the minister meeting. We will probably hear news when Merz and Macron meet next week.these are the options imo:>1. Germany backs down and accepts Dassault's demands>2. France makes Dassault back down and reduce demands and the project continues>3a. France and Germany+Spain build two separate jets but do the cloud and drones together>3b. FCAS dead in its entirety, Germany pursues its own jet>3c. FCAS dead, Germany joins GCAP as a junior memberI think the most likely outcome is 2., 3b. or 3c. since France said they either want everything done together or nothing and I don't quite think Merz is cucked enough to give in completely given the German military budget
>>64626602> jointly european developed F-35
>>64626779Sounds good. Germany can finally pursue a real sixth gen design.
Air combat is evolving, you can tell that low intensity drone warfare has replaced the previous form of establishing air superiority into bombing runsI guess that means that Jets will need to be adapted further, since they can not engage drone swarms effectively enough.I guess that is why Germany and France are stalling the projects.
>>64599739Germany buys f-35s. Germany decides the F-35 is sufficient enough for regional threats. Germany then proceeds to buy a homogeneous force of F-35s.Why? Because despite being in Europe, Germany is German. Not European. It already fought the US once, and knows its not pratical to do so again, so between the US and Europe on the high level, it will go with the US for its aerospace, which is the only part of the military that matters at a strategic level.Same for England. Same for any other country buying F-35s. Spend whatever on the small boutique shit, support your pet projects, but buy American when it comes to the shit that matters.
>>64628763You do know England is building a 6th gen fighter with Japan and Italy...right?
>>64628763If American gear was so good explain the LCS/Zumwalt/Constellation
>>64628806>a VTOV that looks like a gundam and has an inbuilt espresso machine
Easy, Rheinmetall and Helsing are nearly ready to reveal the german 6th gen fighter.
>>64630244Damn I'd love to know what you're smoking
>>64630244source ? UCAV is not a fighter
>>64599739I am fully convinced that Dassault is already developing a 6th gen fighter demonstrator on the side. They are trying to sabotage the whole FCAS project. It was three options for them:1. Win majority on FCAS fighter and relegate Airbus DS to a supplier and crush Germany's aero industry2. Scuttle FCAS so France has to stay with them as a sole supplier3. Lose majority on the FCAS fighter and have Airbus DS become a rival in the fighter jet industry.It seems like they will go down route 2 since the French Parliament is basically in their pocket and route 1 was always a gamble.
