Future Combat Air System (FCAS) - France/Germany

[_Anonymous_]

We can help you make a development and share ownership with you, but not give you ownership rights to developments that were made before without you. We have been investing in military aeronautics for 70 years and the Germans would like to be on the same level as us after the SCAF programme, even though they have bought most of their aeronautical equipment or produced it in cooperation without having the most difficult parts.

As I remarked earlier what we have is only the French version. We don't have any access to the German version of events though if that's the stand of the Germans , it doesn't make sense or logic . I don't think anyone would agree to it but I don't know who would make such demands in the first place & then hinge progress of the entire talks on this one premise.

 

[randomradio]

We can help you make a development and share ownership with you, but not give you ownership rights to developments that were made before without you. We have been investing in military aeronautics for 70 years and the Germans would like to be on the same level as us after the SCAF programme, even though they have bought most of their aeronautical equipment or produced it in cooperation without having the most difficult parts.

JVs share foreground IP, not background IP anyway. If the Germans want to steal background IP, then that's a huge problem.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

The mathematics doesn't make sense . How can joint funding of a venture be a total of 100 billion Euros but on an individual basis cost only 40 billion Euros ? If anything solo projects like this will need more funds .

This is not a mathematical question, it is simply German behaviour:

• They always try to get the works pakage where they are weakest to catch up at the expense of the community.
• They have requirements that complicate projects enormously and are of no operational use.
• They refute the requirements that result from good practice in previous programmes.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

As I remarked earlier what we have is only the French version. We don't have any access to the German version of events though if that's the stand of the Germans , it doesn't make sense or logic . I don't think anyone would agree to it but I don't know who would make such demands in the first place & then hinge progress of the entire talks on this one premise.

The Germans think that they should be the strongest in Europe in all areas of divine right.

For example, they don't mind asking us to give up our participation in the Security Council in favour of Europe (in other words, Germany will define Europe's position) or to put our nuclear forces under European command.

 

[_Anonymous_]

The Germans think that they should be the strongest in Europe in all areas of divine right.

For example, they don't mind asking us to give up our participation in the Security Council in favour of Europe (in other words, Germany will define Europe's position) or to put our nuclear forces under European command.

Ze Germans along with Japan & India are seeking a permanent seat on the UNSC with veto power. I think this could be either Plan B of ze Germans or this could be a pressure tactic by ze Germans to get France to endorse it's candidature in the UNSC. What's the stance of France with respect to Germany seeking a permanent seat at the UNSC ?

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Ze Germans along with Japan & India are seeking a permanent seat on the UNSC with veto power. I think this could be either Plan B of ze Germans or this could be a pressure tactic by ze Germans to get France to endorse it's candidature in the UNSC. What's the stance of France with respect to Germany seeking a permanent seat at the UNSC ?

The Germans are not asking us to support them, that would put them in a position of inferiority (at least psychologically) and that is unbearable for them. So this is an issue that the French never address.

 

[_Anonymous_]

The Germans are not asking us to support them, that would put them in a position of inferiority (at least psychologically) and that is unbearable for them. So this is an issue that the French never address.

Without the support of the P-5 the expansion of the Security Council cannot take place eg : China has explicitly opposed the membership of Japan to the Security Council.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Without the support of the P-5 the expansion of the Security Council cannot take place eg : China has explicitly opposed the membership of Japan to the Security Council.

We are not against

 

[BMD]

Without the support of the P-5 the expansion of the Security Council cannot take place eg : China has explicitly opposed the membership of Japan to the Security Council.

That's the problem with giving a vote (and a veto) to leaders that haven't been voted for. A lot of the leaders voting at the UN don't even believe in voting. That's pretty much the problem with it.

I think Japan should be a permanent member and develop nukes. Germany no, because the EU already has one seat. Russia should lose their seat due to invading a democracy and massacring a town or two on the way, plus their economy is terrible and their military appears to be only fit for parade purposes.

 

[_Anonymous_]

That's the problem with giving a vote (and a veto) to leaders that haven't been voted for.

So why don't you revoke their privilege or better still surrender yours to make the world a fairer place.

 

[Bon Plan]

Coming back to FCAS , I've no doubt in my mind that Dassault will build a true 6th Gen FA on its own , come what may & France would effortlessly bankroll the entire endeavour come what may no matter if it costs 50 or 100 billion Euros . It's a win win situation all around.

With the Ukrainian war, all the european country including France will increase their defense budget.
So when yesterday it could be found hard to finance alone a 100 billions € budget with a 1,6% defense effort on GDP will tomorrow be easier with a 2 or 2,5% one.
And if there is a stop with ze germans, it remains posible to work with Spain and may be some others (belgium? east european country) less greedy.

For India, a JV is not about sharing funds, it's about getting access to technologies. The IAF hopes that MRFA and AMCA will give us the technologies needed to shed our reliance on foreign powers. The goal is to stop imports entirely.

In my mind sharing a program is not only sharing the costs, but also the job to be done.

The Germans think that they should be the strongest in Europe in all areas of divine right.

It's the USA way of thinking...

 

[Bon Plan]

That's the problem with giving a vote (and a veto) to leaders that haven't been voted for. A lot of the leaders voting at the UN don't even believe in voting. That's pretty much the problem with it.

I think Japan should be a permanent member and develop nukes. Germany no, because the EU already has one seat. Russia should lose their seat due to invading a democracy and massacring a town or two on the way, plus their economy is terrible and their military appears to be only fit for parade purposes.

UN will have to modify the rules. in 5 years? 20 years? 50 years?
It will be impossible to stay like today, with 2 countries of nearly 60 millions of people with full rights when India or Brazil are out.
it's only common sense.

 

[Lolwa]

It's the same story as before- if the Rafale can defeat jets like the F-22/F-35/J-20 etc, then fine, else we will need a stopgap of 2 squadrons of Su-57/NGAD until we make a post-AMCA fighter around 2050 to face new threats. The FCAS doesn't fit the bill 'cause we need the capability introduced between 2030-35. But all jets from AMCA Mk2 onwards have to be as indigenous as possible.

@Bon Plan

Su-57 might not happen with the current sanction. FCAS might be the most realistic option since it will be carrier capable as well as nuke capable. Tempest will be another typhoon. And the Germans will join the tempest with the current developments. I hope we join the FCAS program as a minor partner.

 

[BMD]

Su-57 isn't a stealth aircraft anyway.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Su-57 isn't a stealth aircraft anyway.

Come back here when your Tempest & Taranis have been certified. Till then don't pollute this space with your views .

 

[randomradio]

FCAS might be the most realistic option since it will be carrier capable as well as nuke capable. Tempest will be another typhoon. And the Germans will join the tempest with the current developments. I hope we join the FCAS program as a minor partner.

FCAS doesn't meet our timeframe. Both AMCA and TEDBF will see fully indigenous successors. The need for the Su-57 is temporary and survives only on a speculative basis on the internet. In 10 more years, even fighter jets will go into the negative imports list.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Su-57 might not happen with the current sanction. FCAS might be the most realistic option since it will be carrier capable as well as nuke capable. Tempest will be another typhoon. And the Germans will join the tempest with the current developments. I hope we join the FCAS program as a minor partner.

Su-57 Mk-2 is yet to be formally certified. If it meets the IAF's requirements , things can proceed. In any event this seems likely to happen only in the latter half of this decade. Sanctions won't apply as on paper we're still developmental partners ( we haven't withdrawn participation nor terminated the project from our end ) & have contributed to the project which predates CAATSA.

FCAS is too distant in the future to be discussed today. What would be the strategic scenario then can't be predicted today . Hence we can't be reasonably speculate on what would our needs be then .

Tempest would turn into a Typhoon / Eurofighter only if the Germans are let back in otherwise there's a good chance FCAS meets the fate of the Typhoon / Eurofighter .

I doubt whether anyone in the government or the user is interested in the FCAS as of today . In any case membership isn't open nor do we have the funds to fund 2 x 5.5 Gen + Fighter programs.

 

[BMD]

UN will have to modify the rules. in 5 years? 20 years? 50 years?
It will be impossible to stay like today, with 2 countries of nearly 60 millions of people with full rights when India or Brazil are out.
it's only common sense.

India always abstain, so it would be pointless having them as a permanent member anyway. I'm not opposed to it, I just don't see the value in it if they abstain all the time. Japan yes. Brazil, not really big enough economically.

 

[_Anonymous_]

India always abstain, so it would be pointless having them as a permanent member anyway. I'm not opposed to it, I just don't see the value in it if they abstain all the time. Japan yes. Brazil, not really big enough economically.

Ironically whenever the next round of reforms are carried out at the UNSC & it will be carried out as I believe it's a matter of when & not if , the old remnants of the WW-2 which saw constitution of the UN & especially of the UNSC w.r.t the P-5 in the first place would be the first casualties.

Nations with considerable demographics would emerge as foremost contenders. If the seats are distributed as per continents then Europe is already over represented. In any case all this would be contingent on how events evolve in the future. If the past is anything to go by the victors of that WW decided the fate of rest of the world. I don't see why it should be different this time around.

 

[randomradio]

In my mind sharing a program is not only sharing the costs, but also the job to be done.

At this time, there's not much we can take up in the form of workshare. AMCA will give us the experience that Dassault already has due to the Rafale.

Anyway, the sticking point is we can't really afford FCAS R&D. We had already discussed this. FCAS financial requirement is €40-50B. India's AMCA program costs merely $5B. It is a massive difference in financial burden.