Franco-German next generation fighter

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

14 years 5 months

Posts: 1,010

Belgium, as any other country which chose to rely solely on F-35, is pretty much set for the next 40+ years. Won't be getting any other combat aircraft type. Countries in Europe that NGF could be sold to are basically ones that have Eurofighter or Rafale. Everyone else is either gonna be taking the F-35 train or will not have money to go for such planes and will stick to second hand and/or previous generation planes.

Member for

9 years 1 month

Posts: 4,731

the time is now for French to withdraw from this project.


[quote]


https://www.dw.com/en/chancellor-angela-merkel-president-emmanuel-macro…


"I greatly admire those who, even before they know anything, say 'We won't sell any more weapons!' They sometimes sell more than France thanks to their joint ventures."
Threats on jets
German news weekly Der Spiegel reported on Friday that France had threatened to cancel a Franco-German fighter jet project unless it was allowed unlimited exports of the warplanes, even to countries involved in conflicts.[/quote]

Member for

10 years 8 months

Posts: 3,259

The french have proposed to Belgium to join the NGF program as partners if they buy the Rafale... they also said that if Belgium choose otherwise, they can say goodbye to any partnership in NGF, something that some guys in Belgium (foreign relationships advisors or something like that) didn't like... not that the french care whatsoever what they may say, especially now that Belgium seems to have chosen the F-35.. It seems that belgians better make sure they get plenty of work share for the F-35 as the french may very well do what they said and let belgians completely out of the program

Member for

8 years 9 months

Posts: 5,897

just as a reminder of the past history, but Belgium partnerships was highly profitable to Dassault both in term of capital and technology. Perhaps that with the recent debacle should come the time to alleviate the says from some both in terms of capital escape and lags in technology.

Member for

10 years 8 months

Posts: 3,259

the past is the past, I reminded what the french have stated just weeks ago... if they want to be taken seriously, they need also to be consistant with what they say, and if they do, Belgium will only watch the project from the outside (eventually, they'll be in position to buy it off the shelf if they want, but won't benefit from workshare or tech transfers).. of course, the french can also say they didn't really mean it, but then, what eventually remained of their credibility goes down the toilet as well ;)

Profile picture for user BlackArcher

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 3,337

Development hasn't yet started and already there are issues bubbling up in the partnership between France and Germany.

From AW&ST


LONDON—Less than six months after signing agreements to jointly develop a future fighter, French and German officials have reportedly had a falling-out over potential aircraft exports.

German publication Der Spiegel said France threatened to withdraw from the program if Berlin did not allow more freedom of export.

Der Spiegel said it had been sent copies of cables from the German ambassador to France suggesting tensions were already bubbling between the two nations about their approach to the export of arms to countries like Saudi Arabia.

France and Germany previously used an agreed framework for the international sale of jointly-developed weaponry. But recently Berlin has taken a more national stance, even calling for a halt of European arms sales to Riyadh since the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul on Oct. 2.

French officials said full exports of the new fighter would be “central” to financing the program, so long-term guarantees for exports would be “indispensable.”

“Only if such guarantees are given, the political starting point for billions of investments can be launched,” the French are reported to have said.

In a statement to Der Spiegel, Airbus CEO Tom Enders called for the two sides to quickly find agreement.

It was at the ILA Airshow in Berlin in May that German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen and her French counterpart Florence Parly jointly gave the green light for the two countries to begin study work on the new Future Combat Air System. It will go on to replace both the Dassault Rafale operated by France and the Eurofighter Typhoon flown by Germany by 2040.

The two countries are due to begin work on a joint concept study to get underway before year’s end. These studies will pave the way for architectural work which will lead to the rapid development of technology demonstrators, which could be flown by 2025.

France will lead development of the platform, which Dassault is referring to as the Next Generation Fighter.

Member for

8 years 7 months

Posts: 4,168

Better fix potential issues now. France had troubles with Germany not respecting Debré/ Scmidt 1971 deal.

Profile picture for user Vnomad

Member for

9 years 3 months

Posts: 2,661

^ is it me or does it seem that Dassault's NGF has a better likelihood of being developed than the Bae Tempest? It seems Dassault has greater ability to attract partners and funding.
BAe not so much, especially with Brexit... unless they can get a major win with getting Japan on board.

Better likelihood but not by much. BAE will likely end up partnering SAAB. They'll have somewhat smaller budgets but a more agile development team than Dassault-Airbus.

End result will be the same - both aircraft will be adopted domestically in modest numbers, and achieve some minor export wins while getting smoked by the US PCA/FA-XX everywhere else, including Europe.

The only way for the Europeans to avoid fragmentation and achieve credible economies of scale, is for the UK & France to collaborate and that means finding an equitable workshare compromise (and getting past the Brexit snub). Easier said than done.

Member for

2 years 8 months

Posts: 550

I believe partnering ultimately creates a more expensive product. Don't believe in it at all.

Profile picture for user Vnomad

Member for

9 years 3 months

Posts: 2,661

I believe partnering ultimately creates a more expensive product. Don't believe in it at all.

You've mixing up two different things.

Partnering increases the total development cost and timelines, but reduces the net liability for each individual state. Case-in-point: Eurofighter & Rafale. The EF cost much more to develop than the Rafale yet the amount billed to the UK treasury was lower than for France (albeit at the cost of a lower workshare).

There is however no substitute for economies of scale. Case-in-point: F-35. Has a manufacturing base spanning the globe involving a dozen countries with three different assembly lines, yet cheaper than its Western competition despite its sophistication. Achievable only because (in addition to its large domestic orders) over a third of its annual production is exported, thus suppressing the unit cost and further improving its export potential. The other obvious example is Airbus, which was able to emerge as a peer to Boeing only because of European consolidation.

Member for

2 years 8 months

Posts: 550

I agree, but if you want to sell the final product, it is the unit cost that counts not the liability for each state, so saving money doesn't necessarily save money overall.

Profile picture for user Vnomad

Member for

9 years 3 months

Posts: 2,661

And unit cost is a function of the production rate which in turn is broadly linked to the size of the order. Hence the emphasis on economies of scale in my previous post..

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 1,120

It is a given that SCAF or Tempest will not match economies of scale of US NGF or the cheaper approach of Russian aircrafts. But there is a strategic rationale : remain independent and keep the know-how. Price isn't the only factor to go ahead.

Still the rafale managed to win some exports despite lower production output compared to the US so why not the SCAF or Tempest ? You don't necesseraly want to be aligned with US or Russia so it is nice to have another choice.

Member for

9 years 1 month

Posts: 4,731

Rafale has very slow export rate spreading over a decade. the cost of R&D and supply chain for 6G fighter will be such that it will not work with slow procurement of EU.
Airbus and Atar turbo prop cannot be exported without US permission. that give you idea that even less complex stuff the continent is depended on external suppliers.

Member for

2 years 8 months

Posts: 550

Vnomad - Indeed, but if you make a product that's cheaper, it's more likely to sell in higher numbers and hence be built in greater numbers.

Profile picture for user Vnomad

Member for

9 years 3 months

Posts: 2,661

It is a given that SCAF or Tempest will not match economies of scale of US NGF or the cheaper approach of Russian aircrafts. But there is a strategic rationale : remain independent and keep the know-how. Price isn't the only factor to go ahead.

There is an opportunity cost attached to retaining all that know-how. Spending say... $20 bn on R&D would eat up half of France's $40 bn defence budget but only consume 3% of the $650 bn US defence budget. That has an impact on maintenance and procurement budgets all the way down the line.

Fewer tanks. fewer aircraft, fewer naval vessels, fewer personnel... and a reduced capacity for overseas deployment. All elements that go into the making of a so-called "first-rate power".

Still the rafale managed to win some exports despite lower production output compared to the US so why not the SCAF or Tempest ? You don't necesseraly want to be aligned with US or Russia so it is nice to have another choice.

~ Export Numbers:

Mirage III: 1000 units across 21 operators (70% of total)

Mirage 2000: 300 units across 7 operators(50% of total)

Rafale: 100 units across 3 operators (30% of total)

SCAF: ???
_______________________

The SCAF might score a few export orders but the pickings are already slim and they're going to get a lot slimmer.

Its all very well to be unaligned but lets face it, there are only a handful of countries with both the willingness and capacity to pay to acquire such an aircraft. Also, the competition will include not just the Russians but also the Chinese.

Member for

8 years 9 months

Posts: 5,897

This is very good post (not implying that it is your first !).

Profile picture for user Vnomad

Member for

9 years 3 months

Posts: 2,661

Vnomad - Indeed, but if you make a product that's cheaper, it's more likely to sell in higher numbers and hence be built in greater numbers.

You can't build it cheaper if the scale to kickstart that cycle doesn't exist. In that sense, the dispute between France and Germany over exports is a bit ridiculous.

It ought to be less a question of "who should we sell it to" and more one of "who would even buy it".

Its competitors from the US (and China) are going to be ordered in the kind of numbers that will drive the cost down to the point where the European alternatives simply can't compete. Maybe if you got UK, Sweden & Italy on-board it might have a shot, but on its own it'd unlikely to retain even the local European market let alone succeed overseas.

Member for

9 years 1 month

Posts: 4,731


Spending say... $20 bn on R&D would eat up half of France's $40 bn defence budget but only consume 3% of the $650 bn US defence budget

Its not French R&D budget but collecting money at EU level to fund R&D under France that's why it is called Franco-German fighter. there are plenty of other errors in your post.

Every thing is at EU level to collect funds.


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/06/france-le-maire-digital-tax-needs-approval-by-the-end-of-the-year.html
[COLOR=#424858][FONT=Lyon][SIZE=18px]"We want the adoption of the directive on digital taxation by the end of this year. This is a clear red line for the French government," Bruno Le Maire, France's finance minister
[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]