British/Italian Tempest (GCAP) Fighter : News and Discussion

Let's be real. Russians can't handle the sophistication of a military like France. They will zergrush and force them into an artillery battle. The French will be depended on the Yanks facing the Russians. In case of China the French will be riding the coattails of the USN. The French have 7000 ton destroyers.
The PLA has 10000 ton destroyers that they can chuck out within a span of 3 months and are far more heavily armed than the average French FREMM frigate.
The average French "destroyer" has 48 VLS for air-defence and 8 anti-ship missiles. The average PLAN Destroyer has 112 VLS on top of that 24 more for anti-air.

The Russians are far more advanced than you think.

As for destroyers, it's about anti-ship firepower, not anti-ship and anti-land. For the former, small ships with 8-16 missiles are sufficient. But yeah, they have buried their heads in the sand concerning China. They have focused almost entirely on protecting only France instead of working to double their navy.
 
The Russians are far more advanced than you think.

As for destroyers, it's about anti-ship firepower, not anti-ship and anti-land. For the former, small ships with 8-16 missiles are sufficient. But yeah, they have buried their heads in the sand concerning China. They have focused almost entirely on protecting only France instead of working to double their navy.
The Russians still don't have fire and forget atgm. There artillery is nowhere close to the accuracy of French artillery. Sure they have more numbers but they don't have the sophistication, accuracy and automation of the French military.
 
The Russians still don't have fire and forget atgm. There artillery is nowhere close to the accuracy of French artillery. Sure they have more numbers but they don't have the sophistication, accuracy and automation of the French military.
The sophistication doesn't make up for vast difference in no. Of artillery Russians have over French.

For example, I would rather have 1000 t90s than 200 leclerc tanks.
 
True, asymmetrically high quantity wrt your adversary becomes one of event deciding quality. But if other technological gaps are vast, having large quantity is useless, Romans vs Boudica in 61 CE is great example of that.
 
Last edited:
The British and Japanese use American comm systems.

Our datalink tech is more robust than what the Americans currently have. Phalcon and Netra use L band, not suitable for Astra. At least S band is necessary, the type Pakistan uses.
Sure? I think phalcon & Netra uses s band radar.
 
The Russians still don't have fire and forget atgm. There artillery is nowhere close to the accuracy of French artillery. Sure they have more numbers but they don't have the sophistication, accuracy and automation of the French military.

ATGM? Where is France's Avangard and Oreshnik? What about an S-400/500 class system? Where are France's heavy supersonic and subsonic bombers? What about 4th gen armor? Does France have an active hypersonic fighter program?

As for artillery, France is planning on buying India's Pinaka, whereas India is still dreaming about creating systems the Russians are actually using in Ukraine, like the Tornado-S. And there currently isn't a better SPH in the world than the 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV, already fighting in Ukraine. A Western equivalent closest to it is the K9A3 which is still a few years away from being fielded.

As for ATGM, Russia's been developing a dual-purpose ATGM since 2021.

France has modernized its infantry but is still using older heavy weapons that need replacement.
 
Sure? I think phalcon & Netra uses s band radar.

Nah, both L band.

Other air forces compensate by placing S band in the nose and tail of their AWACS, but DRDO did not do that.

Only P-8I uses X band, nose and tail.

We don't need it anyway, we will operate a global satellite network and a few of those will be able to track and engage enemy aircraft.
 
Nah, both L band.

Other air forces compensate by placing S band in the nose and tail of their AWACS, but DRDO did not do that.

Only P-8I uses X band, nose and tail.

We don't need it anyway, we will operate a global satellite network and a few of those will be able to track and engage enemy aircraft.
What about upcoming aews/awacs from DRDO?

Also do Eriey of PAF have tge capability to que missile to targets,?
 
As for artillery, France is planning on buying India's Pinaka,
In fact, no, when we detect a need where we are ready to buy, there is always a company that says "here is an opportunity to diversify" for example:
Une start-up française dévoile le "Foudre", un lance-roquettes "made in France" qui promet de frapper des cibles à 1 000 km
A French startup unveils "Foudre," a "made in France" rocket launcher that promises to hit targets 1,000 kilometers away

Following the warning sounded by two French parliamentarians, things are beginning to move. A French company has announced the development of a military device called "Foudre," capable of hitting targets 1,000 kilometers away.

It could strike up to 1,000 kilometers away. Developed by the French group Turgis et & Gaillard, the multiple rocket launcher dubbed "Foudre" would be capable of firing French and foreign munitions to hit targets between 75 and 1,000 kilometers away, according to a report presented last Wednesday by MPs Jean-Louis Thiériot (LR) and Matthieu Bloch (UDR).

The company explains that it is focusing on a "highly mobile" product, a "compact and armored" vehicle transportable on C-130 or A400M aircraft, according to BFMTV.

An exhibition coming soon


This initiative came following the parliamentary report sounding the alarm regarding France's long-range artillery capabilities. There are only nine units in the French Army, according to an IFRI study published in November 2024. Indeed, the French Army's aging unitary rocket launchers (LRU) are likely to be obsolete by 2027.

This mid-sized company (ETI) was founded in 2011 and employs 400 people with a turnover of €75 million. In 2023, it had already unveiled the Aarok, a drone presented as the "little brother" of the Eurodrone. Its first flight is expected very soon.

A prototype of the Foudre will be exhibited in mid-June at the flagship Paris Air Show.
 
Our problem isn't that we don't know how to do it: we know how to do everything. It's that we don't want to spend too much on military activities, and we always have just the systems we need, and no more, with very powerful prospective cells. The fact that we are rearming at a rapid pace is a sure indicator that troubled times are ahead, but we will be ready.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RASALGHUL
In fact, no, when we detect a need where we are ready to buy, there is always a company that says "here is an opportunity to diversify" for example:
Une start-up française dévoile le "Foudre", un lance-roquettes "made in France" qui promet de frapper des cibles à 1 000 km
A French startup unveils "Foudre," a "made in France" rocket launcher that promises to hit targets 1,000 kilometers away

Following the warning sounded by two French parliamentarians, things are beginning to move. A French company has announced the development of a military device called "Foudre," capable of hitting targets 1,000 kilometers away.

It could strike up to 1,000 kilometers away. Developed by the French group Turgis et & Gaillard, the multiple rocket launcher dubbed "Foudre" would be capable of firing French and foreign munitions to hit targets between 75 and 1,000 kilometers away, according to a report presented last Wednesday by MPs Jean-Louis Thiériot (LR) and Matthieu Bloch (UDR).

The company explains that it is focusing on a "highly mobile" product, a "compact and armored" vehicle transportable on C-130 or A400M aircraft, according to BFMTV.

An exhibition coming soon

This initiative came following the parliamentary report sounding the alarm regarding France's long-range artillery capabilities. There are only nine units in the French Army, according to an IFRI study published in November 2024. Indeed, the French Army's aging unitary rocket launchers (LRU) are likely to be obsolete by 2027.

This mid-sized company (ETI) was founded in 2011 and employs 400 people with a turnover of €75 million. In 2023, it had already unveiled the Aarok, a drone presented as the "little brother" of the Eurodrone. Its first flight is expected very soon.

A prototype of the Foudre will be exhibited in mid-June at the flagship Paris Air Show.

Nothing wrong with a little competition. Pinaka can deliver in time and in mass whenever required versus whatever scale Foudre will achieve. Even if Pinaka's rockets are made available for Foudre, it will be a significant success. Other advantages include double the firepower per launcher and combat tested during Kargil War.

By the time Foudre is ready, a Pinaka Mk3 will become available with bigger rockets and more range. So there is space for both systems to operate together.

As for Foudre's plan to use the American Prsm. I'm sure you will agree that getting into a joint development for a modernized Pralay missile would be a better bet than relying solely on American production. India also has exotic weapons like the new hypersonic LRAShM and the SMART missile.
 
Our problem isn't that we don't know how to do it: we know how to do everything. It's that we don't want to spend too much on military activities, and we always have just the systems we need, and no more, with very powerful prospective cells. The fact that we are rearming at a rapid pace is a sure indicator that troubled times are ahead, but we will be ready.

Yeah, there's a significant disconnect between what someone is trying to achieve in relation to others and that solutions meant for one doesn't necessarily work for others.
 
Yeah, there's a significant disconnect between what someone is trying to achieve in relation to others and that solutions meant for one doesn't necessarily work for others.
Generally, we don't try to supply Europe or the US; for others, we often have needs before they do. India is a special case, but we still manage to sell you systems until you want to do everything yourself.
 
Generally, we don't try to supply Europe or the US; for others, we often have needs before they do. India is a special case, but we still manage to sell you systems until you want to do everything yourself.

I think there's a lot of opportunity for cooperation in munitions between India and France. For Europe as a whole, I think there will be a need to use India's production to offset recurring costs and scaling if they are to compete with Russia's buildup after the Ukraine war and France will have to play a key role in that.

With long wars back in fashion, Europe will need an international supply chain to keep things affordable. And we need an international push to improve our quality standards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoungWolf
I think there's a lot of opportunity for cooperation in munitions between India and France. For Europe as a whole, I think there will be a need to use India's production to offset recurring costs and scaling if they are to compete with Russia's buildup after the Ukraine war and France will have to play a key role in that.

With long wars back in fashion, Europe will need an international supply chain to keep things affordable. And we need an international push to improve our quality standards.
The war in Ukraine has clearly demonstrated one thing: in today's world, endurance and production capacity are as crucial as technological superiority. Europe, and France in particular, are relearning what it means to prepare for a high-intensity and prolonged war. In this context, it is now clear that we cannot rely exclusively on limited national supply chains; we need trusted industrial partners with exceptional scale, resilience, and adaptability.

India is uniquely positioned to become a pillar of this expanded industrial base. Its existing technological capabilities, scale, and long-standing strategic autonomy make it an ideal partner for Europe in this new reality. France is, naturally, one of the best candidates to lead such cooperation, not only because of its comprehensive defense capabilities, but also because of its willingness to engage in truly sovereign, government-to-government partnerships.

Jointly addressing the challenge of recurring costs, large-volume procurement, and even the diversification of critical components and subsystems offers real potential. Munitions are, of course, an obvious first area, but others could follow.

You are also right to emphasize the importance of quality and standards. If we want to build a defense supply chain that is both cost-effective and interoperable, we must share high ambitions in terms of certification, integration, and traceability. This could be a win-win scenario: India strengthens its quality standards and visibility on the global defense stage, and Europe gains resilient and affordable strategic depth.

In fact, one could imagine this collaboration evolving into a broader "Indo-European Defense Industrial Pact," distinct from existing frameworks like NATO, but highly complementary. This would send a strong strategic signal in the current geopolitical context.
 
The war in Ukraine has clearly demonstrated one thing: in today's world, endurance and production capacity are as crucial as technological superiority. Europe, and France in particular, are relearning what it means to prepare for a high-intensity and prolonged war. In this context, it is now clear that we cannot rely exclusively on limited national supply chains; we need trusted industrial partners with exceptional scale, resilience, and adaptability.

India is uniquely positioned to become a pillar of this expanded industrial base. Its existing technological capabilities, scale, and long-standing strategic autonomy make it an ideal partner for Europe in this new reality. France is, naturally, one of the best candidates to lead such cooperation, not only because of its comprehensive defense capabilities, but also because of its willingness to engage in truly sovereign, government-to-government partnerships.

Jointly addressing the challenge of recurring costs, large-volume procurement, and even the diversification of critical components and subsystems offers real potential. Munitions are, of course, an obvious first area, but others could follow.

You are also right to emphasize the importance of quality and standards. If we want to build a defense supply chain that is both cost-effective and interoperable, we must share high ambitions in terms of certification, integration, and traceability. This could be a win-win scenario: India strengthens its quality standards and visibility on the global defense stage, and Europe gains resilient and affordable strategic depth.

In fact, one could imagine this collaboration evolving into a broader "Indo-European Defense Industrial Pact," distinct from existing frameworks like NATO, but highly complementary. This would send a strong strategic signal in the current geopolitical context.
I wouldn't lay much stock in India being the kind of industrial hub supporting le Francais or even European endeavours in this field if I were le Francais .

Why , you ask ? Good question. We're still tied at the hip with the Russkies. At any given point in time from now to 2040 be it our army navy or air force , we'd have anywhere between 2/3rds - 1/2 of our equipment of Soviet / Russian origin.

So you go into a war over Ukraine say in 2030 depending on India to supplement European war time supplies & you're literally asking for the moon.

Of course nothing would please us more than to screw with Europeans especially the Anglos & ze Germans given they've let us down plenty of times in the past when we were most in need of their assistance say in a war or war like situation, to service equipment they supplied us .

Not the case with le Francais who stood by us & assisted us even if they demanded & got their pound of flesh .

Hence long story short . Co development always welcome . Co manufacturing , at your risk.
 
If you manage to knock some sense into him which is highly unlikely I owe you a bottle of Johnny Walker .

On the other hand if you're not careful this could end up in a roller coaster ride down a rabbit's hole with lots of twists & turns aka goal post shifting which if you aren't alert enough to spot would usually result in him drifting so far off from his original position so as to resemble yours in different wording of course 10 pages from here.

Happened all the while with him irrespective of whomsoever he tangled with. For starters you can ask him when's MiG-41 going to make first flight. We've been hearing about the Su-75 Checkmate since at least 3 years now. It's not even on the drawing board & this guy has already trialed the MiG-41 coming up with this gem of an equation - GCAP < MiG-41 < AMCA.

Talk about low quality posts. The only reason he gets a pass I reckon is nobody in moderation team reads his short stories.
I usually give up in the initial arguments. So I don't try too hard. I Just want exchange of information and he occasionally does drop small bits of useful info.

Why people going off-topic on GCAP thread with army & naval weapons? 🤦‍♂️ :LOL:
MiG-41 Sales pitch, 7gen hypersonic space fighter, that too for IAF, here also. o_O😵‍💫🤢 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Someone 1st please define 7gen.

Engineering - Aeronautical, Computer/IT, Electronics & telecom, etc, H/w driven Vs S/w driven, before passing statements directly related to Engineering, 1st people should know the basics of Computer Engineering, basics of CPU & programming, protocols stack like OSI, TCP/IP, etc. People can check 8085/8086 taught in B.E./B.Tech. degreee in colleges. How many know diff. b/w Ethernet Vs Fiber Channel protocols? Both have been used in fighter jets.
My MNC colleagues literally ROFLed :ROFLMAO:
Software has been there since decades now. Consumer electronics like watches, washing machine, etc, anything with LCD/LED panel, also has tiny script of code. But S/w driven tech means something else. Everything cannot be offloaded to S/w completely. Just adding AI/ML is not enough.
H/w defiines the ultimate performance limit. S/w can enhance but not transform the H/w. S/w is custom made for every H/w.

Our DRDO is coming up with many good things & we need the AMCA but if it is better than GCAP, FCAS then USA should stick to F-22, F-35. No NGAD, F/A-XX needed.🤦‍♂️:ROFLMAO:☠️🙏
 
Ah, the simple life of a fanboy rofling through jokes only they get. I think the esteemed member and his two friends should watch 3 Idiots.

I even have to explain what hardware-driven vs software-driven is.

Hardware-driven means there are physical restrictions to conducting an action. For example, if I want to buy something from a shop using a card, I gotta swipe my card at the merchant's kiosk. But with UPI, a software-driven system, I can make the transaction from anywhere using a smartphone. And even a duffer understands that a smartphone is more sophisticated than a merchant's card reader. But the point is you make things easier for the user by using more complex hardware at the backend.

And no, backend doesn't mean the backside of a phone, it refers to the base station and the switching center. Once upon a time, to make a phone call you had to go through an operator. You tell the operator who you want to speak to and they perform a physical switch to establish the connection. But today, that's been automated, that's why you connect instantaneously. The harddware in the backend became more sophisticated and the switching system became software-driven.

Simple, right? So, yeah, it's annoying to deal with dhakkans who can't tell their a** from their elbows. People use software-driven systems every single day of their lives. Anything to do with off-location servers and cloud is software-driven. Accessing this forum is software-driven. Using Gmail is software-driven. Ordering food from Zomato is software-driven.

Even modern TV remote using bluetooth is software-driven vs the earlier IR system that needed LoS. And even before that you physically had to make your way to the TV and spin dials to change channels while beating it a few times in the process.

Playing games on my PC with my own hardware is hardware-driven. But if I use GeForce Now to stream games at 4K without using my primary hardware, that's software-driven.

Yeah, that's how simple it is. That's the level of duffers I have to deal with.

When it comes to AMCA, to make the pilot's life easier, you make the backend system on the ground more complex. That's part of what they call Command and Control. When the C2 is less sophisticated, the pilot has to put in more work. The more sophisticated the C2, the less work the pilot needs to put in. Ultimately, the C2 will be so advanced that the pilot will be removed from the cockpit. That's the final goal of AMCA.

When the AMCA turns off its radar for stealth and uses radar data from 10 overhead satellites to generate tracking, that's a software-driven system. And if I can send that tracking data to an isolated army SAM system on the ground with a non-functioning/destroyed radar, they can use that data to generate fire control for their SAM, that's a joint C4ISR system.

To make this connection possible, you need a later 5G or an early 6G wireless network. Current 4G systems can only handle tens of Mbps to a few hundred Mbps, similar to today's broadband Internet systems. To use basic capabilities, I need 1-10 Gbps. And to fully use such a system I need a few dozen Gbps to a few hundred. 6G can provide up to 1 Tbps. This is not possible using copper wires, you need optic fiber systems, hence the need for FBL.

While GCAP will naturally use OFC for data, a wired flight control prevents automatic transfer of control to offboard systems that can use more resources to support the flight group.

The Americans and British need GCAP, NGAD etc for more range and payload. Increased survivability is an added bonus for a newly designed system. AMCA's objective doesn't require it to have more range and payload because it will fight with a more robust support system, like more air bases, more reserves, and SAMs. NGAD and GCAP have to act alone. That's why AMCA's designed for endurance, while NGAD is designed for range. The design philosophies are different, and our engineering capacity limits us to a 5th gen airfame and engine. If the Americans used our design philosophy within our operational constraints, they would also design an AMCA but the airframe and engine would be 6th gen, signifying their higher tech level. That's the only difference.

What's funny is everybody has a wishlist, even me, but whatever I'm saying the IAF is acting on it too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoungWolf
Why people going off-topic on GCAP thread with army & naval weapons? 🤦‍♂️ :LOL:
MiG-41 Sales pitch, 7gen hypersonic space fighter, that too for IAF, here also. o_O😵‍💫🤢 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Someone 1st please define 7gen.

Engineering - Aeronautical, Computer/IT, Electronics & telecom, etc, H/w driven Vs S/w driven, before passing statements directly related to Engineering, 1st people should know the basics of Computer Engineering, basics of CPU & programming, protocols stack like OSI, TCP/IP, etc. People can check 8085/8086 taught in B.E./B.Tech. degreee in colleges. How many know diff. b/w Ethernet Vs Fiber Channel protocols? Both have been used in fighter jets.
My MNC colleagues literally ROFLed :ROFLMAO:
Software has been there since decades now. Consumer electronics like watches, washing machine, etc, anything with LCD/LED panel, also has tiny script of code. But S/w driven tech means something else. Everything cannot be offloaded to S/w completely. Just adding AI/ML is not enough.
H/w defiines the ultimate performance limit. S/w can enhance but not transform the H/w. S/w is custom made for every H/w.

Our DRDO is coming up with many good things & we need the AMCA but if it is better than GCAP, FCAS then USA should stick to F-22, F-35. No NGAD, F/A-XX needed.🤦‍♂️:ROFLMAO:☠️🙏
No amount of software can outdo pure Hardware. Everybody was hyping up that Chinese AI using inferior gpu for processing and now nobody cares anymore. The thing with software is optimization matters most from my limited understanding. Superior hardware will run the same software more easily provided the software integration is well done. There is a reason why Iphone dominates over flagship android phones even though they have inferior hardware. But that inferior hardware argument goes out the window if apple could integrate and optimize their OS on the superior hardware packed phone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _Anonymous_
No amount of software can outdo pure Hardware. Everybody was hyping up that Chinese AI using inferior gpu for processing and now nobody cares anymore. The thing with software is optimization matters most from my limited understanding. Superior hardware will run the same software more easily provided the software integration is well done. There is a reason why Iphone dominates over flagship android phones even though they have inferior hardware. But that inferior hardware argument goes out the window if apple could integrate and optimize their OS on the superior hardware packed phone.

That's basically AMCA compared to GCAP. The baseline hardware like FBL is superior.