New big German-French Fighter Bomber under development
 

Apparently the Germans and French started working together to develop a new large stealth fighter bomber. Stealth & range are major drivers.


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-K...%2BStealth.jpg

Both the Germans (Airbus Militairy) and French (Dassault) want to be in the lead.:hmm:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-f...-idUSKBN1D31W0

Let's hope the Germans and the French both use the same Catia software version this time.

Interesting shift in German defence doctrine if they really do want a long-range stealth bomber.

I think the German Air Force has now stated that they'd like to buy the F35 . .

If one were being uncharitable it could be seen as a continuation of German doctrine: securing a large workshare of a big European aerospace project.

The GAF will use the F-35 to replace the Tornado around 2025-2035. The new fighter will be to replace their Typhoon and the French Rafale arond 2035 onwards.

That leaves the UK to decide what they will use to replace their Typhoons, the planned next generation US fighter or join the Franco-German programme.

The present plan for the next USAF fighter is a long range Penetrator Counter Air designed to escort the B-21 bomber into contested airspace in the Pacific (China) theatre. Which may be unsuitable for the UK - or not available as with the F-22 it will replace.

As history shows,however, cooperation with the French means they want to be prime for the airframe... and the engine.... and the control software.... etc.... etc...

and the spelling

French (government) hedging their bets against potential 'failure' of BAE/Dassault FCAS (Taranis/nEURON) partnership?

I'm not going to mention the 'B-word'!

Nice nice.

I won’t be letting them forget about this anytime soon either!

Dunno how stealthy the aircraft will be, but the pilot certainly has full stealth mode deployed.... Probably be known as a Dassornier

All O.K until the French claim 51%........

And call it a 'Bombere"

Looks like 2 crew and a move away from the moronic single seat concept in recent years. Both the Germans and the French have strong views on the value of 2-seaters for more complex missions.

Perhaps because it’s main role is as the control platform for multiple combat UAVs. Second pair of hands will probably be necessary.

Probably sitting on a bunch of surplus Jaguar undercarriage legs.

Surely they won't need long range to launch against us for having the temerity to leave their wonderful Euro club ;0

The legacy of Cameron's stupid plebiscite is that exchange rates are uncertain - so it would be utter madness to involve BWoS in any such future European fighter-bomber programme.

Besides, the French and Germans would probably want this aircraft delivered on-time and on-budget...

If it's controlling drones maybe they mean endurance instead of range?

Since we were never in the Euro and government policy has not been to tie the pound to the Euro, I don't believe that to be true.

What will happen to exchange rates over 20 years in the future is not something anyone can estimate - or hedge.

Fortunately your opinion is worth no more than those of us who despise european economic and political integration.

In the UK, if one forgets (thankfully) about BAe, the only company with design and construction capability is Bombardier. In the light of the Boeing contretemps, whether the government might not think in terms of setting Bombardier the task (if they were willing to undertake it) of designing our own future attack/bomber. We've done all this in the past, in fact leading the technology of the day. There is fundamentally no reason why we couldn't do it again, and no reason why we couldn't afford it. The only reason that I can think of to prevent this is Bombardier's willingness to take the step of hiring extra design staff and doing some upgrade training of shop floor staff. The electronics factor is major, but again, I believe it is not outside our capabilities. Always provided that a very hard-headed approach was taken by MoD on schedules and budget .... and probably keeping senior service staff out of it after a given point of design. I realise the mere suggestion will cause lots of sucking of teeth and shaking of heads. However I have advised government on a number of high tech projects in the past and I believe that the many hurdles can be jumped. The only pause I have is whether Bombardier would take the leap and could raise the necessary finance (although there is no reason why the government wouldn't foot the R & D bill at least initially or in part).

OK, I'll bite. Your profile states that you have experience as a banker. Assuming this becomes a Tri-National procurement programme (placed by OCCAR?), who would you expect to underwrite the risks associated with contracting with an industrial partner with very little recent, real world experience of the design, integration and manufacture of a military fast jet?

From my perspective, I can't see the other two nations being happy to take the risk onboard (why should they?) and the other two industrial parties would be more concerned with protecting their own profitability. I'm not aware of Bombardier's capitalisation, but Markets do take a dim view of companies carrying too much risk on their balance sheet. If MOD carries the risk, there could be accusations of unfair competition...

EAP

Unfair competition - from whom? The idea is to specifically ask one company to do a job, so if MoD chooses to underwrite the initial phase, so be it. I agree that Bombardier has no fast jet experience, but there are one or two possible partners who aren't French, German or American that I can think of who do have experience. Even going to Sweden for design and management and letting Bombardier just do building would work.

Roughly speaking, if a government agency is willing to provide something to a company which gives them a significant business benefit (such as a far healthier balance sheet), most of the other companies in that sector would state that if its good enough for one company, its good enough for us all; we want you to underwrite our risks too.

Refusing to provide that benefit across the board is often construed as 'unfair competition'. The EU (or WTO if you prefer) have rules about that type of practice.

EAP

I think the Brits would have been part of this project wouldn't it be for Brexit.

Maybe UK suppliers can be in the supply chain.

No doubt the RAF would be welcome to buy them.

Unless the population changes its mind anytime soon, which seems unlikely.

https://armadainternational.com/wp-c...9/fcas_web.jpg

Military projects have nothing to do with the EU and vice versa.

The Germans don't make an appealing development partner, either.

I think a large proportion of the population have already changed their minds, but the politicians aren't interested in reality.

If we are specifying, ordering, buying and building for our own Air Force, WTO rules just don't have anything to do with it. If the government issues a specification for an aircraft, it may well be that it is necessary for the government to part fund the necessary R & D. The point isn't about our companies being in the supply chain for a foreign aircraft, the point is about being in total control of what kit we buy for our needs and not being reliant on foreign suppliers. Now we can all recite deplorable failures on the part of British companies when supplying stuff for us, not least BAe, but having control and not having big brother America decide if we can be trusted with their precious technology is important, that kind of thing goes right back to the Norden bombsight.

Is it me, or does the CGI look like something from about 15 years ago?

I think Eurofighter, NH90 showed a variety of national requirements and changing political interests can lead to suboptimization, delays, cost escalations. Keeping it under control of 2 determined nations might keep things simple & affordable.

Ensuring long term indepence is also promoted.

https://www.expatica.com/de/news/cou...s_1525235.html

This project does not pass the laugh test.
Germany and France are struggling with aging populations and unintegrated minorities, not foreign military threats (unless the Brexit goes totally haywire).
If the F-35 costs a trillion plus, what price a much larger high performance stealth strike aircraft program?
It seems deeply implausible that the military leadership is so out of touch that it will sacrifice their slender resources on this cuckoo.

The European Air Forces have to replace hundreds of their Tornado's, Typhoon's, Rafales, Mirage2000, F16, F18s and other fleets over the next 20 years. Requirements have changed.

https://www.thenation.com/article/th...uropean-union/

The French have long history of wanting majority stake in such projects without necessarily making majority contributions so good luck with that. What scenario leaves Germany want/needing a dedicated long-range bomber in 2035?

According to the latest polls not many have changed their mind...
Latest polls...

"What scenario leaves Germany want/needing a dedicated long-range bomber in 2035?"

Probably the same as the USAF B-21

If we consider the F35 to be the equivalent of the F15 /Tornado/Typhoon (particularly in cost) - the next big project is the F16 replacement , in terms of cost (hence quantity) and exportability.

An individual country could do that especially if the airframe was tailorable for alternate engines and systems.

"Exportability" and "tailorable" do not seem to be genuine words and my sentences seem to be under the influence as well today !

As with any design project you start with a specific objective, in this case a specific threat scenario. Makes me wonder what the Germans and French see as their most likely type of conflict that would require such an aircraft. Reminds me of a fifth gen (RAF) Buccaneer, and we know what they were intended to do.

Hilarious as it may sound the F-35 is the F-16 cheap replacement, supposedly being less expensive both to buy and maintain. Go figure.

The next generation USAF fighter, the PCA, is the high end of the high/low mix and is the planned F-22 replacement....

Just give it six months!

“Control platform for UAV’s...” Seriously? Why would one spend a trillion dollars for something which could be done from a portakabin?