Future Combat Air System (FCAS) - France/Germany

[Optimist]

The issue has always been funding. It took till 2015 to get to F3. Something others would buy. Even then it didn't have decent radar, not even GMTI
Call it F10. It is still behind even the old hornet now. The USMC and Canada are even putting GAN AESA radar in them. If you have followed the Frogs spamming, they have been singing about GAN for years. If you compare the Rafale with anything, start with the old hornet with its current systems. when it can match that, move onto the Super hornet I, II and III.

 

[Arpuism]

No venturing in China airspace my dear ! It's far too risky.
And maybe some plight above Syria or Iran. Not very strong air defense in these areas.
F35 is, for now, mainly a very effective marketing project (nice job LM and US succesive governments). Not a weapon.

J20s wont be found over Syria or Iran. Kindly read this:-

F-35s have encountered J-20s over East China Sea: USAF general

A top US Air Force (USAF) general says that Lockheed Martin F-35s have had at least one encounter with Chengdu J-20s, and that the Shaanxi KJ-500 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft has a key role in long-range air-to-air kill chains.

www.flightglobal.com

& also near Russia

'Flying In Stealth Mode' - Four F-35 Fighters Along With Mid-Air Refueller, Spy Plane Spotted Near Ukraine - Reports

Even though the Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin snuck into Ukraine on Sunday for an exceptional wartime meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the F-35 fighter jet appears to be stealing all the limelight with its purported presence in the area. TATA...

eurasiantimes.com

As far as Marketing propaganda is concerned, European companies do it in a same way as US ones.

 

[Arpuism]

No venturing in China airspace my dear ! It's far too risky.
And maybe some plight above Syria or Iran. Not very strong air defense in these areas.
F35 is, for now, mainly a very effective marketing project (nice job LM and US succesive governments). Not a weapon.

Rafale is mature, combat proven, and with a very strong road map. F35 is ten years late on shedule and not yet FOC. We may speak when FOC will be achieved. During this time, it's mainly a dream.

J20s wont be found over Syria or Iran. Kindly read this:-

F-35s have encountered J-20s over East China Sea: USAF general

A top US Air Force (USAF) general says that Lockheed Martin F-35s have had at least one encounter with Chengdu J-20s, and that the Shaanxi KJ-500 airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft has a key role in long-range air-to-air kill chains.

www.flightglobal.com

& also near Russia

'Flying In Stealth Mode' - Four F-35 Fighters Along With Mid-Air Refueller, Spy Plane Spotted Near Ukraine - Reports

Even though the Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin snuck into Ukraine on Sunday for an exceptional wartime meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the F-35 fighter jet appears to be stealing all the limelight with its purported presence in the area. TATA...

eurasiantimes.com

As far as Marketing propaganda is concerned, European companies do it just like US ones.

 

[Optimist]

Already they are putting up monuments in memory of the old planes. Will they have enough of them to last till 2070?

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Already they are putting up monuments in memory of the old planes. Will they have enough of them to last till 2070?

This aircraft is the C01 which is a prototype aircraft that has been on display for a long time at the Citée de l'Air in Balard.

What is new is that the B01, which is also a prototype aircraft, is temporarily on display at the Invalide. The B01 has been used since its reform for the training of aeronautical mechanics.

 

[Optimist]

That makes sense, so they aren't even F1. I guess it's because you count every tail you can to make up the numbers. Even the ones that are stripped and cannibalised. Why turn the old ones into monuments? When you can leave them in a shed and count them in the fleet numbers.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

That makes sense, so they aren't even F1. I guess it's because you count every tail you can to make up the numbers. Even the ones that are stripped and cannibalised. Why turn the old ones into monuments? When you can leave them in a shed and count them in the fleet numbers.

They were never counted in the fleet because they were never delivered to the air force, they remained the property of Dassault until they were retired. In France we are not allowed to deliver prototypes to the air force, only production aircraft, which is an important difference with Lockheed Martin which has delivered more than 600 F-35 prototypes.

 

[Optimist]

They were never counted in the fleet because they were never delivered to the air force, they remained the property of Dassault until they were retired. In France we are not allowed to deliver prototypes to the air force, only production aircraft, which is an important difference with Lockheed Martin which has delivered more than 600 F-35 prototypes.

That is what I said wasn't it? They weren't even F1. They were never counted. I'm just glad you are able to count the 14 wrecks that are being stripped and cannibalised in your current fleet numbers still.. It looks better than telling the truth.

It seems you are trying to be funny now. Call them what you like, but you need to check your numbers... It's over 800 F-35 built now and of course the prototypes from Boeing and LM competition. I don't think they were counted either. That was the first competition that the F-35 won. Unlike the Rafale, it's won every competition since then too.

 

[jetray]

600 F-35 prototypes.

WTF ? then its no longer F-35 it should be called F-600

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

That is what I said wasn't it? They weren't even F1. They were never counted. I'm just glad you are able to count the 14 wrecks that are being stripped and cannibalised in your current fleet numbers still.. It looks better than telling the truth.

It seems you are trying to be funny now. Call them what you like, but you need to check your numbers... It's over 800 F-35 built now and of course the prototypes from Boeing and LM competition. I don't think they were counted either. That was the first competition that the F-35 won. Unlike the Rafale, it's won every competition since then too.

You don't understand the French management of the Rafale potential.
The Rafales of the French Air Force had a potential of 7500 flight hours (I do not deal with the Rafale M which have a similar management but with a potential of 6000 hours).

The operational life of this type of aircraft has been set at 30 years, which means that the aircraft must do 250 hours per year and as the NATO standards for pilot training is 180 hours per year, this means that there are 1.4 pilots per aircraft.

Only in OPEX (Overseas Operations) the aircraft are used at rates of up to 500% of the normal rate, which means that the aircraft reaches its annual flight hour quota in 2 or 3 months. In this case it is stored at the Groupement d'entretien, de réparation et de stockage des aéronefs, (GERSA), until the end of the year, and thus it becomes a source of spare parts for other aircraft. But there are not 14 cannibalised aircraft permanently, all cannibalised aircraft will fly again when it is time to use up their potential.

Our Minister of the Armed Forces has decided to put these planes back in the air and to do so he is buying a stock of additional spare parts. Indeed, we have sold second-hand planes to Greece and Croatia (24 planes in all), which is a large proportion of the planes available for the air force (about 25%), but this has been possible because the potential of the Rafale has increased from 7500 h to 9000 h, which means that we can temporarily increase the number of annual flight hours of our Rafale by 25%, i.e. about 315 h, and we could do this for 23 years (65h * 23 ~1500).
Under these conditions, the aircraft stored at GERSA can fly 65 hours more, but to do so, it is necessary to buy the spare parts they were the source of under the old management.

The fact that the planes are allowed to fly more will also increase the availability rate of the Rafale which is criticized by the Anglo Saxons who don't understand anything.

 

[randomradio]

You don't understand the French management of the Rafale potential.
The Rafales of the French Air Force had a potential of 7500 flight hours (I do not deal with the Rafale M which have a similar management but with a potential of 6000 hours).

The operational life of this type of aircraft has been set at 30 years, which means that the aircraft must do 250 hours per year and as the NATO standards for pilot training is 180 hours per year, this means that there are 1.4 pilots per aircraft.

Only in OPEX (Overseas Operations) the aircraft are used at rates of up to 500% of the normal rate, which means that the aircraft reaches its annual flight hour quota in 2 or 3 months. In this case it is stored at the Groupement d'entretien, de réparation et de stockage des aéronefs, (GERSA), until the end of the year, and thus it becomes a source of spare parts for other aircraft. But there are not 14 cannibalised aircraft permanently, all cannibalised aircraft will fly again when it is time to use up their potential.

Our Minister of the Armed Forces has decided to put these planes back in the air and to do so he is buying a stock of additional spare parts. Indeed, we have sold second-hand planes to Greece and Croatia (24 planes in all), which is a large proportion of the planes available for the air force (about 25%), but this has been possible because the potential of the Rafale has increased from 7500 h to 9000 h, which means that we can temporarily increase the number of annual flight hours of our Rafale by 25%, i.e. about 315 h, and we could do this for 23 years (65h * 23 ~1500).
Under these conditions, the aircraft stored at GERSA can fly 65 hours more, but to do so, it is necessary to buy the spare parts they were the source of under the old management.

The fact that the planes are allowed to fly more will also increase the availability rate of the Rafale which is criticized by the Anglo Saxons who don't understand anything.

Has the Rafale M seen extension as well, at least to 7500 hours?

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Has the Rafale M seen extension as well, at least to 7500 hours?

This has not been said. Even the 9000 hrs were only published to support the Finnish contract. So it is possible but it will only be published if it brings an advantage.

 

[randomradio]

This has not been said. Even the 9000 hrs were only published to support the Finnish contract. So it is possible but it will only be published if it brings an advantage.

I suppose STOBAR is less stressful to the airframe.

 

[BMD]

 

[Amarante]

(opex360, (fr) nov.12)
Bundestag threatens to block Future Air Combat System and Franco-German battle tank

In June 2021, the Finance Committee of the Bundestag [lower house of the German Parliament] decided to release the budget needed to launch Phase 1B of the Future Air Combat System, a programme led by France in cooperation with Germany and Spain. However, German MPs refused to sign a blank cheque as they only agreed to a fraction of the amount they were asked to vote.

This decision of the Bundestag then allowed the signature of Implementation Agreement No. 3 [IA3] by the three involved. This theoretically paved the way for the development of demonstrators. However, as the prime contractor for the new generation fighter aircraft that is to be at the centre of the "system of systems" that the SCAF is to be, Dassault Aviation intends to retain the levers that will enable it to fulfil the role for which it has been designated. This is what Airbus is contesting. Hence the stalemate that still persists today... and which means that the programme is at a standstill.

Another project involving Germany and France is also bogged down, again due to disagreements between the manufacturers concerned. Indeed, the Main Ground Combat System [MGCS - future combat tank] is still at the architecture study stage, which has been extended several times, due to the lack of agreement between Rheinemetall [imposed by Berlin although this was not initially planned] and Nexter on the gun and ammunition of the future tank.

As a result of these blockages, in France the idea of a "plan B", in particular for the SCAF, is more and more often openly mentioned during parliamentary debates, including by members of the current majority. This was the case during the debate on the 2023 budget for the "Defence" mission on 27 October in the National Assembly. "Let us not be naive in the face of difficulties. Our voluntarism should not lead us to ignore the risks of failure of the cooperation undertaken, a fortiori when they come up against blockages that are multiplying", said, for example, Mounir Belhamiti [Renaissance] in the Chamber.

The Bundestag also discussed the future of such cooperation when, on 11 November, it decided to increase German military spending to 50.1 billion euros in 2023 and to release a first tranche of 8.4 billion euros of the 100 billion euros to be allocated to the special fund for modernising the Bundeswehr.

Thus, a "resolution" was adopted in the margin of these budgetary discussions. As a reminder, at the time of launching the SCAF and the MGCS, the members of parliament from across the Rhine had demanded that these two projects be advanced at the "same pace" and that the interests of German industry be better taken into account.

However, according to the text that it has just adopted, the Bundestag considers that these two conditions are not currently being met... even though they are essential in its eyes to free up new resources in the future. The Bundestag therefore calls on the government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz to take the necessary steps to ensure that the MGCS and the SCAF progress at the same pace "as quickly as possible".

In addition, it also asks him to "exhaust all possibilities to bring to a successful conclusion agreements that are particularly necessary for industry", in particular with a view to "consolidating the German land armaments industry", to ensure that partner countries "cooperate with each other on an equal footing" and to extend the measures taken in favour of the development, production and availability of "national key technologies" for Germany. "This includes, in particular, the participation of German companies in national and international demonstration projects," the resolution states.

The fact remains that, unless a pretext is found for calling them into question, linking the MGCS and the SCAF makes no sense, given that these are two programmes of a fundamentally different nature in terms of the issues at stake and that each has its own timetable...

Clearly, to establish a sort of parallelism between them would be to paralyse them. This is what Florence Parly argued when she was Minister of the Armed Forces. What is more, while it has voted the necessary credits for phase 1B of the SCAF, the Bundestag has not yet done the same to move on to the MCGS stage... /deepl

 

[randomradio]

(opex360, (fr) nov.12)
Bundestag threatens to block Future Air Combat System and Franco-German battle tank

In June 2021, the Finance Committee of the Bundestag [lower house of the German Parliament] decided to release the budget needed to launch Phase 1B of the Future Air Combat System, a programme led by France in cooperation with Germany and Spain. However, German MPs refused to sign a blank cheque as they only agreed to a fraction of the amount they were asked to vote.

This decision of the Bundestag then allowed the signature of Implementation Agreement No. 3 [IA3] by the three involved. This theoretically paved the way for the development of demonstrators. However, as the prime contractor for the new generation fighter aircraft that is to be at the centre of the "system of systems" that the SCAF is to be, Dassault Aviation intends to retain the levers that will enable it to fulfil the role for which it has been designated. This is what Airbus is contesting. Hence the stalemate that still persists today... and which means that the programme is at a standstill.

Another project involving Germany and France is also bogged down, again due to disagreements between the manufacturers concerned. Indeed, the Main Ground Combat System [MGCS - future combat tank] is still at the architecture study stage, which has been extended several times, due to the lack of agreement between Rheinemetall [imposed by Berlin although this was not initially planned] and Nexter on the gun and ammunition of the future tank.

As a result of these blockages, in France the idea of a "plan B", in particular for the SCAF, is more and more often openly mentioned during parliamentary debates, including by members of the current majority. This was the case during the debate on the 2023 budget for the "Defence" mission on 27 October in the National Assembly. "Let us not be naive in the face of difficulties. Our voluntarism should not lead us to ignore the risks of failure of the cooperation undertaken, a fortiori when they come up against blockages that are multiplying", said, for example, Mounir Belhamiti [Renaissance] in the Chamber.

The Bundestag also discussed the future of such cooperation when, on 11 November, it decided to increase German military spending to 50.1 billion euros in 2023 and to release a first tranche of 8.4 billion euros of the 100 billion euros to be allocated to the special fund for modernising the Bundeswehr.

Thus, a "resolution" was adopted in the margin of these budgetary discussions. As a reminder, at the time of launching the SCAF and the MGCS, the members of parliament from across the Rhine had demanded that these two projects be advanced at the "same pace" and that the interests of German industry be better taken into account.

However, according to the text that it has just adopted, the Bundestag considers that these two conditions are not currently being met... even though they are essential in its eyes to free up new resources in the future. The Bundestag therefore calls on the government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz to take the necessary steps to ensure that the MGCS and the SCAF progress at the same pace "as quickly as possible".

In addition, it also asks him to "exhaust all possibilities to bring to a successful conclusion agreements that are particularly necessary for industry", in particular with a view to "consolidating the German land armaments industry", to ensure that partner countries "cooperate with each other on an equal footing" and to extend the measures taken in favour of the development, production and availability of "national key technologies" for Germany. "This includes, in particular, the participation of German companies in national and international demonstration projects," the resolution states.

The fact remains that, unless a pretext is found for calling them into question, linking the MGCS and the SCAF makes no sense, given that these are two programmes of a fundamentally different nature in terms of the issues at stake and that each has its own timetable...

Clearly, to establish a sort of parallelism between them would be to paralyse them. This is what Florence Parly argued when she was Minister of the Armed Forces. What is more, while it has voted the necessary credits for phase 1B of the SCAF, the Bundestag has not yet done the same to move on to the MCGS stage... /deepl

The Germans clearly want to sabotage French industry.

 

[Amarante]

The Germans clearly want to sabotage French industry.

If only it were only the Germans.
There is also the whole power of influence, financial and political, of the USA.

 

[randomradio]

If only it were only the Germans.
There is also the whole power of influence, financial and political, of the USA.

Of course, the bigger issue has always been the US. Look at Bombardier.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Extrait de l'audition du DGA à l'Assemblée Nationale le 11 octobre dernier, au sujet du SCAF :

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Extract from the DGA's hearing at the National Assembly on 11 October on the subject of the FCAS:

"To say that "the disagreement between Dassault and Airbus is consummated" on the subject of the FCAS is inaccurate. The manufacturers are in the process of finalising the signature of the statement of work, which will allow the launch of a demonstrator.

In general, cooperative projects are undertaken because they allow more ambitious programmes thanks to the sharing of development costs and the pooling of expertise.

Let me remind you that the FCAS is not just an aircraft: it is the air combat system of the future, in which the new generation fighter aircraft is connected to remote carriers and to weapons systems networked within a "combat cloud".

This system of systems is based on the interoperability of partners; this is the challenge of cooperative programmes. There are cloud champions and drone champions, and there is a national aviation champion, Dassault. All this contributes to creating a robust European BITD in the face of our foreign competitors.

I will not speak on behalf of Dassault and Airbus, but the die is not cast: negotiations are underway, they are progressing, and we keep ourselves informed of this project every day.

I would add that no ambitious industrial project, particularly a European one, takes place in calm waters; difficulties are regrettable but are normal. The states have agreed and stated this in a statement of intent.

As our model deterrent system has an airborne nuclear component, we must have an aircraft capable of ensuring the permanence of our nuclear deterrent in the years to come.

I have no concerns about France's ability to guarantee the future of French combat aviation, should the case arise. But today we are trying to bring the FCAS programme to fruition because it is ambitious, compatible with interoperability requirements and conducive to a strong European BITD

 

[randomradio]

Extrait de l'audition du DGA à l'Assemblée Nationale le 11 octobre dernier, au sujet du SCAF :

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Extract from the DGA's hearing at the National Assembly on 11 October on the subject of the FCAS:

"To say that "the disagreement between Dassault and Airbus is consummated" on the subject of the FCAS is inaccurate. The manufacturers are in the process of finalising the signature of the statement of work, which will allow the launch of a demonstrator.

In general, cooperative projects are undertaken because they allow more ambitious programmes thanks to the sharing of development costs and the pooling of expertise.

Let me remind you that the FCAS is not just an aircraft: it is the air combat system of the future, in which the new generation fighter aircraft is connected to remote carriers and to weapons systems networked within a "combat cloud".

This system of systems is based on the interoperability of partners; this is the challenge of cooperative programmes. There are cloud champions and drone champions, and there is a national aviation champion, Dassault. All this contributes to creating a robust European BITD in the face of our foreign competitors.

I will not speak on behalf of Dassault and Airbus, but the die is not cast: negotiations are underway, they are progressing, and we keep ourselves informed of this project every day.

I would add that no ambitious industrial project, particularly a European one, takes place in calm waters; difficulties are regrettable but are normal. The states have agreed and stated this in a statement of intent.

As our model deterrent system has an airborne nuclear component, we must have an aircraft capable of ensuring the permanence of our nuclear deterrent in the years to come.

I have no concerns about France's ability to guarantee the future of French combat aviation, should the case arise. But today we are trying to bring the FCAS programme to fruition because it is ambitious, compatible with interoperability requirements and conducive to a strong European BITD

It's all good as long as Rafale development progresses alongside SCAF.