Brexit throws Anglo-French FCAS programme into doubt - Flight
Experimental Aircraft Program (EAP) was actually the last British designed, paid for and flown - I think the Govt stumped up £80M and the company the rest. The Italian Aeritalia was a sub-contractor and MBB couldn’t raise the cash. The Eurofighter and its consortium came from this later down the line.
Experimental Aircraft Program (EAP) was actually the last British designed, paid for and flown - I think the Govt stumped up £80M and the company the rest. The Italian Aeritalia was a sub-contractor and MBB couldn’t raise the cash. The Eurofighter and its consortium came from this later down the line.
I did mention this before in another topic but was told by others who know far more than me about EAP that it was not possible to productionise it.
Evertonian
In no way would we ever be on the same scale as France but to give you an idea about the trajectory they are aiming for here, they've announced an AUD5-15 Billion investment in APC type vehicles. I used Canada as an example because they have an Aerospace industry to start with.
Anyway, just a thought.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As regards my namesake, the Italians were partners (designed one of the wings and contributed to other systems) and while the MOD financed the demonstration of some of the technologies, it would be unfair to omit the fact that all of the suppliers of systems, avionics and parts did so at their own expense. Rolls Royce, GEC Marconi, Smiths, Dowty, Lucas, Normalair, MBA to name only a few. Apols for the ones I've missed.
Productionisation would have been difficult; weight reduction would have been essential, a proper fighter engine fitted and the bits that didn't work out replaced. The lessons were still used to benefit Typhoon so no loss.
EAP
Productionisation would have been difficult; weight reduction would have been essential, a proper fighter engine fitted and the bits that didn't work out replaced. The lessons were still used to benefit Typhoon so no loss.
EAP
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The French design was ECAT. Combat School training was the close defination in English but as a light ground attack aircraft replacing the F84s and Mystere IVs was the French requirement originally, so it was always going to to be more than a two seat trainer to the French (75 would have been single seat ground attack aircraft for the AdA in 1965 when the first MoU was signed)
A sort of FTS Gnat and TWU Hunter replacement...
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the British driven changes didn't help its spinning charectoristics (that they were well aware by the model spinning trials). The Breguet BR1001 Taon had spoiler roll controls. The use of differential tailplane was always suspected to be a requirement in the early wind tunnel reports. The tunnel testing had spotted the shortcomings in 1966/67 (got the papers from Kew). It was really only flight testing in 1969 that proved the unsuitablity of the airframe to have post basic students flying it and with other changes in NATO doctrine that saw the Plan R changes to that the Jaguar was actually really be doing in RAF service from 1970.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me UK could do it all except UK does not have the money. That is why involving a Commonwealth country that has money for defence innovation (like India) and is hungry for opportunity to partner with an honest technilogically advanced country, would be a good idea.
How many past UK French defence collaborative programs have been satisfactory from UK standpoint?
When will UK learn from past events?
