6th Generation Fighters Projects

[John Fedup]

If there are more delays, it can be attractive for Germany and Spain to move to the Tempest-program. That will be a real replacement fpr the EF2000 and JAS39 Gripen.

France can maybe team up with India, which also needs a aircraft carrier capable jetfighter.

The only positive point of the delays is that in 2050 the SCAF has probably become a 6,5th generation or even a 7th generation fighter.

A France and India hook up in theory makes sense from a requirement POV but workshare with India, probably more difficult than with Germany. As for Spain and Germany joining Tempest, they better hurry before Japan does. Would be interesting as to what would emerge from all three nations joining the UK and Italy (Sweden?).

 

[ngatimozart]

A France and India hook up in theory makes sense from a requirement POV but workshare with India, probably more difficult than with Germany. As for Spain and Germany joining Tempest, they better hurry before Japan does. Would be interesting as to what would emerge from all three nations joining the UK and Italy (Sweden?).

France and India negotiating on work share? Our Gallic friends wouldn't have the temperament or patience; they're excitable at the best of times. Be entertaining though.

 

[Vivendi]

France, Germany and Spain are moving forward with FCAS:
Aircraft makers lumber toward deal for Europe’s next-gen fighter jet (defensenews.com)

And Reuters claim the UK, Japan and Italy will make an announcment about the Tempest fighter early next week:
Japan, Britain and Italy to announce joint fighter project as early as next week - sources | Reuters

It will be interesting to see how these two projects develop. Given the latest news, I doubt they will merge. Getting France to collaborate with more than 2 partners would be extremely difficult. And with Japan onboard, the UK and Italy would have less incentives to go for a merge.

I wonder what Saab and Sweden will do, they were earlier on linked to the Tempest project, but it's been quiet recently.

 

[John Fedup]

France, Germany and Spain are moving forward with FCAS:
Aircraft makers lumber toward deal for Europe’s next-gen fighter jet (defensenews.com)

And Reuters claim the UK, Japan and Italy will make an announcment about the Tempest fighter early next week:
Japan, Britain and Italy to announce joint fighter project as early as next week - sources | Reuters

It will be interesting to see how these two projects develop. Given the latest news, I doubt they will merge. Getting France to collaborate with more than 2 partners would be extremely difficult. And with Japan onboard, the UK and Italy would have less incentives to go for a merge.

I wonder what Saab and Sweden will do, they were earlier on linked to the Tempest project, but it's been quiet recently.

The biggest problem with FCAS is France needs a CATOBAR fighter for its carrier. Spain's only option for replacing its Harriers is the F-35B. Spain can't afford a new CATOBAR carrier. Does Germany really want to fund a naval jet? I don't see how France can fund FCAS and also fund a second program (naval jet replacement). WRT Swedwn, Tempest seems the easier path forward.

 

[Meriv90]

French news spoke(I think a month ago) about the Germans wanting a 38T fighter.

Another problem is that the Bundestang (correct me if Im wrong Kato!) said that the MGCS and SCAF must go on parallel timing.

The French Senate also gave 10mln to study a domestic solution

French Senate submits budget request for national future fighter effort

My fanboyism hopes for a good Tempest deal with the Japanese and then a miraculous exchange of M346 for C-2 and P-1 at that point we will have the same exact future line as the JDSF (Tempest,F-35,M346,C-2,KC-46)

 

[Vivendi]

The biggest problem with FCAS is France needs a CATOBAR fighter for its carrier. Spain's only option for replacing its Harriers is the F-35B. Spain can't afford a new CATOBAR carrier. Does Germany really want to fund a naval jet? I don't see how France can fund FCAS and also fund a second program (naval jet replacement). WRT Swedwn, Tempest seems the easier path forward.

Well France, Germany and Spain seem to now agree on the workshare and overall development plan, and I believe a naval version is already part of the program, so it seems that at least at this point in time Germany is fine with France having a naval version. France managed quite well with the Rafale (only minor differences between the two variants) so I would not be too worried about that. Of course, it could be that some of the partners are playing games and also, things can (and most likely will) change during the long and complicated development process.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

It will be interesting to see how these two projects develop. Given the latest news, I doubt they will merge. Getting France to collaborate with more than 2 partners would be extremely difficult. And with Japan onboard, the UK and Italy would have less incentives to go for a merge.

I think the chances of merger are below 10% right now. We had a very unhappy experience with the Eurofighter development due to Germany trying to pull out and then reduce its numbers without reducing its workshare. There would be a huge risk of the same happening if countries tried to roll FCAS and Tempest into one project. Right now both FCAS and Tempest have three core participant nations. That's manageable. Six would be a nightmare - 50% more participants than the Eurofighter!

Then there's the issue John raises above about France wanting a carrier-compatible aircraft. Germany and Spain might go along with that, but the UK and Japan have STOVL aircraft for their carriers. What would happen if London and Tokyo insisted there also be a STOVL FCAS-Tempest?

No, it would be a recipe for a disaster.

Also I don't think there's any incentive for a merger from the perspective of the UK or Japan - unsure about Italy due to mixed signals. Japan wanted to start replacing the F-2 from the mid 2030s, which was a similar timeframe for Tempest even before Japan became interested. Whereas FCAS isn't due to be ready until 2040 or 2045 (even some disaster projections of 2050). Japan can't wait that long, it needs to keep advancing its technology to counter the PLAAF and Russian Air Force. And with Japan's deep pockets thanks to an increasing defence budget, Tempest should be fully funded now.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

Italy is and was always interested in solving the " redundacy " of the 2 programs by merging all the countries into 1 program.
There's some words about it here...

The Future of Italy's Armed Forces

Join the CSIS International Security Program for a conversation with Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, Italy's chief of defence, and Dr. Seth G. Jones, senior vice president and director, International Security Program.

www.csis.org

 

[Meriv90]

Regardless of Italians mentioning possible merger it would be a suicide.

Tempest vs FCAS
-No political problems
-Same line up with F-35A and B
-No conflict in who produces who, RR engines,Leonardo Elettronics
-Not skiping 5th generation like the french
-No need to connect it to MGCS
-Same needs, insular countries and not continental thus heavier and longer range.

The FCAS
-They have cash, that is the most important factor.

As Italian merging would be a suicide.

And about the STVOL by the moment the FCAS will be certified F-35B will be 40 years old. At this point UK and ITA could even consider a navalized FCAS if we have the right CVs.

IMHO that's the best outcome. The French make the navalized fighter for the EU, ITA/UK/GER/SPA we do the continental one agreeing that we will buy Tot amount of CVNs and FCAS.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Meriv, I don't really understand your comment. On the one hand you say that a merger would be suicide. On the other you say the best outcome is that the UK buys a navalised FCAS, which doesn't even have plans for a STOVL variant right now and probably wouldn't because the French wouldn't have any use for it.

Are you suggesting that the projects remain separate but, for a reason that's not entirely clear, the UK and Italy buys a STOVL FCAS that they would be made to pay 100% of the development costs of but probably have little sovereign control of because the main part of the plane would have been developed by other countries?

In that scenario we might as well develop a STOVL Tempest. Then we'd have 100% control over it, and Japan might also pay towards it. Buying FCAS means being reliant on good will from other countries for upgrades, as well as losing the profits and work generated.

Besides, depending on when you think that FCAS will be operational, like the F-16 (been flying for over 40 years) the F-35 will go through many upgrades over time. The UK, for example, is still receiving F-35Bs from our first tranche of orders. We're not going to chuck them in the bin after 15-odd years, nor will Italy.

You also claim that "FCAS - they have the cash". If Japan is going to work together with the UK and Italy, I would say that they have as much funding if not more.

The Japanese are completely serious about replacing the F-2 and are acting much more urgently than the FCAS partners. The US isn't offering Japan a partnership for NGAD, so they have nowhere to turn. The option of working with Lockheed Martin has been ruled out because LM won't offer Japan sovereignty over the new plane.

 

[kato]

Another problem is that the Bundestang (correct me if Im wrong Kato!) said that the MGCS and SCAF must go on parallel timing.

Not exactly. The budget committee of the Bundestag when okaying the last budget tranche for FCAS (in February 2020) stated that:

"The budget committee sees the projects FCAS and MGCS to be within the same context. This is due to timewise parallelity in the development of both projects. This parallelity is currently endangered."

What they are stating there is that what they see endangered is having both projects on a track with milestones (and financing requirements!) occuring around the same time or possibly alternatingly - either way not in such a way that one project could hit procurement stage while the other one is stuck at early prototyping. Nothing more, nothing less.

It should be noted that a) this is just the budget committee, b) it's simply a statement and c) since September 2021 we have a "new" budget committee with different people sitting in it.

 

[Meriv90]

Sorry Im still a bit drunk (last friday at work, they didnt renew the contract) i will write it better tomorrow more sober. (I will miss working with SuperYachts it was such interesting sector/machines)

 

[Meriv90]

I will try now:
Yes it is true, F-35 can go many iterations, but with a STVOL is that possibile? By the time the FCAS will be operative the F-35B will be old as the Harriers are old right now (the 2B version). Yes we will receive F-35B well over the next decade, but at the same time also FCAS wont enter in service in one bulk.

Yes also to be able to produce a navalized Tempest. But we are a Union, and putting your ally back against the wall will come and hurt you later. I don't want Dassault to fail, I don't want the french to go alone, regardless of how they treat us with superiority and arrogance. With that mentality we aren't going to form an EU. So yes even if it isnt perfect I prefer to offer them a way out of the industrial cul de sac they choose when they went alone with the Rafale.

I posted it already today but the concept is the right one. Or citing one of my connationals

Pareto efficiency - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pareto efficiency or Pareto optimality is a situation where no individual or preference criterion can be made better off without making at least one individual or preference criterion worse off. The concept is named after Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923), Italian civil engineer and economist, who used the concept in his studies of economic efficiency and income distribution. The following three concepts are closely related:

• Given an initial situation, a Pareto improvement is a new situation where some agents will gain, and no agents will lose.
• A situation is called Pareto-dominated if there exists a possible Pareto improvement.
• A situation is called Pareto-optimal or Pareto-efficient if no change could lead to improved satisfaction for some agent without some other agent losing or, equivalently, if there is no scope for further Pareto improvement.

As you saw also in the RAN topic I also offered a solution good for all Europe, I'm Pan Europeist. I would fail my values if I did like the Germans choosing Russian Gas over European Neighbors, or doing like the French invading Libya to take it from Italian influence.

No I prefer to have a solution where everyone earns something and can specialize, even if that means having to buy 100% developed naval french fighter in 2050 to put on some CVN with French nuclear Tech.

Japan has money, but it doesn't have German level of money. The world buys bunds even paying negative interest just to have "german security". Germany had 229bln of trade balance vs the negative trade balance from Japan in 2019 (my family was diplomatic in Japan and i studied also in Seoul). Japan has a lot of strong points but it isn't Germany.

To not even mention demographics. I grew in the middle of Japanese Nisei during my teenage years, Japan is like Italy, we are pretty unique, but we arent German efficient. There is a good reason why the anglosaxons always tried to tie down the Germans and not let them work together with Russia.

Going back on Tempest vs FCAS, we still have the advantage regardless of all of this because Germany's biggest enemy are the same Germans that bring everything to the extreme. Thus the Tempest has been way more streamlined than the competitor.

Edit: I do realize that this doesnt apply to Japan, and it has been Eurocentric from my side, and I'm sorry. Obviously between an ally now (if Tempest get signed) and a probable ally tommorow i choose an ally now (Japan) but it is compelling to keep the EU boat afloat.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

However you want to cut it, the UK isn't going to pay to develop a STOVL version of someone else's fighter if it's working on Tempest. And Italy isn't going to pay to do that itself. The rest is wishful thinking. The fact you're pro-EU doesn't change anything. If FCAS doesn't work out, it will be because of a problem between France and Germany that neither the UK nor Italy would be able to fix.

As for the issue of Japanese debt, I'm frankly bored of the discussion, I've had it with too many people. Japan's debt is high largely because they're able to get away with paying virtually no interest.

But more importantly, the Japanese government has made a sovereign decision to increase its defence spending and is discussing the best way to fund it. They need a sixth-generation fighter to replace the F-2. They have no options other than a domestically-made plane. Going alone makes no sense given the options available. Successfully developing a sixth-generation fighter may have significant economic benefits. There's really not much more to be said.

Also on Germany, you're exaggerating. People are not buying German debt in unlimited amounts at negative interest rates. It was a phenomenon seen in other countries like the UK too when interest rates were rock bottom and people wanted long-term security. Currently I think German 10 year gilts are a bit under 2%. Japan's are less than half a percent.

 

[John Fedup]

Setting aside the merger issue, wrt FCAS, two of the major partners, would be forced to accept a design that is a compromise. Land based jets can be bigger so more weapons and greater range. Germany and Spain would be better served with Tempest except for the workshare issue, just my 2 cents.

 

[seaspear]

With the involvement of Sweden in this program , Sweden's JAS 39 Gripen fighter is designed for low maintenance low cost flight hours and the ability to be dispersed to the road network for operations , is this a capability that a future sixth generation fighter should have for quick dispersal from its airfields , in regards to the R.N carriers replacing the F-35B in twenty or so years if a stovl type aircraft is not available it might be feasible to reconfigure the aircraft carrier for conventional aircraft then lol

 

[Meriv90]

I wasn't referring to a STVOL version. That is suboptimal. By FCAS time our STOVL carriers will need replacement. I hope we can get a CATOBAR CVN in 2050.

On debt. Yes coming from Italy I well know the public debt stereotype.
Where we need to explain composition, national debt, long short term debt etc... Etc...
By a fast research I looked for "Interest payments as % of revenue"
Germany 1%
Italy 8%
Japan in 2018 10%

But correct me if I'm wrong my objective is to learn not to win on a topics

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Ok, Meriv, so:

1. I would say there is no chance of Italy developing and operating a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. Its nuclear industry has shut down, and having a CVN would be too expensive for Italy - unless it started funnelling a vast sum of money into defence, far too much for its fragile political system to not be cancelled by someone else.

2. Granted that 2050 is a long way away, but I think your hopes are unrealistic based on the last 30-40 years. We're talking about an imminent decision on Tempest, not a theoretical project that will not see a contract signed for nearly two to three decades.

3. You're implying that Japan's finances mean it is not a reliable partner for Tempest, because even with the political will it simply can't afford it. My point remains that Japan has little choice but to fund a domestic project to replace the F-2. And rather than buying a foreign weapon platform, a locally developed option will plow money back into the economy.

Setting aside the merger issue, wrt FCAS, two of the major partners, would be forced to accept a design that is a compromise. Land based jets can be bigger so more weapons and greater range. Germany and Spain would be better served with Tempest except for the workshare issue, just my 2 cents.

You're probably right, but at this point FCAS is in part a political project, so it's too late to wind it up. Germany abandonning France because of the cost of a naval variant would cause screaming in Paris and uncertainty in other parts of the EU.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

I wasn't referring to a STVOL version. That is suboptimal. By FCAS time our STOVL carriers will need replacement. I hope we can get a CATOBAR CVN in 2050.

On debt. Yes coming from Italy I well know the public debt stereotype.
Where we need to explain composition, national debt, long short term debt etc... Etc...
By a fast research I looked for "Interest payments as % of revenue"
Germany 1%
Italy 8%
Japan in 2018 10%

But correct me if I'm wrong my objective is to learn not to win on a topics

I'm struggling to see the point of the last messages.
Tempest and FCAS are two different programs, doesnt matter that Italy Is not against having more countries in the Tempest program.
I dont see why talking about a CVN in 2050 ( nonsense? ), Whatever.
The problem Is simple: different interests and requirements.
While UK, Italy and JPN have similar requirements, France and Germany have different needs from Tempest and also between each other.

Also I really dont see whats the point in talking of public debt.
Italian debt Is by far the most expensive in terms of interest rates and the most insecure.
But, as I said, what does It have to do with the Tempest program?

The reality Is that the two programs are different in everything: requirements, politics, funding, time-span.
As long as the European Union doesnt turn into a Federal State ( very unlikely in the next 40-50 years ) or European defence companies start merging into each other, we Will continue to see those " redundanct " programs and nonsense...

 

[Meriv90]

As long as the European Union doesnt turn into a Federal State ( very unlikely in the next 40-50 years )

This is the big gap in beliefs between us two. I believe we will face more and more crisis and by 2035-2040 we will reach to some good solutions, more stable than what we agreed in 1992. 30 years separate us from 2050, 30 years ago(1992) a common fiscal policy (that was the break point with the NGEU next generation EU) would have been considered the same way we consider now 2050 scenarios.

or European defence companies start merging into each other, we Will continue to see those " redundanct " programs and nonsense...

But this is already happening, the reason why Tempest is going smoothly is simple because of Leonardo(augusta)-Westland merger, lets not beat around the bush, if we had competing company that could compete with RR we would be bashing our heads with the British the same way Germans and French are doing.

I dont see why talking about a CVN in 2050 ( nonsense? ), Whatever.

So we are going to keep having a STVOL CV in 30 years?
As Europe we will transit into a mutlipolar world with a multitude of mismatched carriers made of PANG, Cavours/Juan Carlos substitutes?
China, India and the US will eat us alive like that.
If the US wasn't there the Russians would have trampled the Ukrainians in a brutal way, we have to step up to be able to be more independent (this is also good for the US, any good relationship is based from mutual independence).

Also I really dont see whats the point in talking of public debt.
Italian debt Is by far the most expensive in terms of interest rates and the most insecure.
But, as I said, what does It have to do with the Tempest program?

I gave you data, our debt is cheaper than Japan one. And since Return equals Risk your second sentence is also false. Please provide other data that disputes this.

3. You're implying that Japan's finances mean it is not a reliable partner for Tempest, because even with the political will it simply can't afford it. My point remains that Japan has little choice but to fund a domestic project to replace the F-2. And rather than buying a foreign weapon platform, a locally developed option will plow money back into the economy.

I never implied that Japan is bad partner, i was just comparing Tempest vs Fcas, and just saying that Germany is the most economically reliable economy out there. It wasn't a judgment of Japan ability to finance per se. Simple comparative advantages of each program.

The reality Is that the two programs are different in everything: requirements, politics, funding, time-span.

For 2022 I agree 100% and what we are gaming on is probably the survival of each other national industry.
But as I wrote in this post our 2050 our interest will be way more in common IMHO.
In 2050 facing Indians and Chinese with just a PANG and something similar to a Cavour or Juan Carlos IMHO is criminal for our sailors regardless of how good and appropriate are the ships right now. And since we cannot finance ourselves a CVN that means buying French/ using french tech.


P.S. for non European readers, Im more than happy of a multi-polar world since I believe it will bring more weights and counterbalances that will translate into more peace.