Guillaume Faury, the chief executive of Airbus has called for a single European fighter jet programme, merging British and continental European efforts.
Speaking to John Collingridge in an interview in The Sunday Times, Faury said it would make sense to combine Europe’s two next-generation combat aircraft programmes — Tempest, which involves the UK, Italy and Sweden, and the Franco-German Future Combat Air System.
“Europe needs one strong project for securing its air and space sovereignty,” he said. “Can we do one project today at the time of Brexit? Probably not. So, it’s important that the FCAS [Franco-German project] keeps moving forward. Will there be a possibility to have one European project at a later stage? I hope so.”
The British Tempest programme was announced last year as France and Germany started work on their own Future Combat Air System. In July 2019, Sweden and the United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding to explore ways of jointly developing sixth-generation air combat technologies. Italy also announced its involvement in Project Tempest in September 2019, during DSEI 2019.
At the 2018 ILA Berlin Air Show, Dassault Aviation and Airbus announced an agreement to cooperate on the development of a stealth fighter jet as a replacement for French Rafale, German Eurofighter and Spanish F-18 Hornets, called Future Combat Air System.
Yet the EU has stabbed us in the back with the Galileo GPS.
Sure you can have all our design secrets… we can trust you can’t we?
It was the UK that insisted that the rules governing the Galileo project should exclude non-EU countries, so it’s our stupid government at fault there.
In this case, however, I think we should agree to combine our fighter project with that of France and Germany – so long as it is called ‘Tempest’ and the UK is the design authority for the project!
The stab-in-the-back from the EU relates to how the UK will not have access to the enhanced PRS GPS signal. Been treated by the EU in such a manner implies they do not trust us.
You are welcome to see this lack of trust as our fault.
Read again what I wrote: “It was the UK that insisted that the rules governing the Galileo project should exclude non-EU countries”. That was before we decided to leave, of course.
In any case, there are doubts over the future of Galileo after the failure of the system earlier this year.
A fair point, but its also fair to point out the investment the UK has made and the technological input and the Armed support the UK is likely to offer the EU in future. Pragmatism.
Not sure the French will go for that one lol
The EU could change the rules if they wanted to Dan. We need to work with partners who are motivated to work quickly and effectively with us and are not going to drop out or move the goal posts for various spurious political and financial reasons. If that means fewer partners so be it.
Many European projects do tend to get mired in bureaucracy, so you are probably right about keeping it to a small number of partners. My earlier comment was more of a joke that we should agree to combine with France and Germany only if we get to be in control!
The only European defence projects that ever really go well are the ones lead by only one or two countries, which are then widely adopted. Unfortunately, that means any project with France is doomed to fail because they demand project lead.
The French currently have design lead, at most they will only accept joint lead with UK. That in itself will be a tough sell but if both sides are realistic it’s the only possible outcome that makes sense. A project like this can only be afforded if we combine the two.
Brexit should not make any difference it’s only being used now by Macron to secure French dominance of FCAS which is a big hurdle to overcome it will need the Germans to make a move and at the moment that’s unlikely but over time possible.
Don’t like the idea of joining in with the French and Germans…..the French will be lazy and expect everyone else to do it for them and the German will try and boss everyone else about and be authoritarian….neither of which we should even entertain in my opinion.
I hope we tell them to jog on.
Hear hear
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Have we not learnt the hard way from the past co-operations. Surely Tempest is an opportunity to break free and do our own thing and stimulate our own industry and innovation (and retain jobs and profits in the UK).
Totally agree with you AlbertStarburst. If we want to see Tempest flying this side of 2030, leave well alone!
Thanks Nigel. I hope we remember the Concord(e), MRCA, and Eurofighter projects. Just watch the costs and timescales escalate exponentially if we don’t. far better to go the Commonwealth/Scandie route.
Apologies for raising this again but in some areas, such as this, i think we need a Sovereign capability and not export it willy-nilly to those who may turn against us one day.
I thought we were doing it with the Swedes! If Airbus gets involved the UK profit will dissipate, and I understood the Germans and the French were doing their own thing? In reality, and based on the success of the Typhoon, maybe it would be fiscally wise to spread the risks?
Typhoon was essentially a British aircraft project, of course, which the French did not wish to join. Not sure on this one, Faury is talking some sort of sense and I get the cautious feeling that, as a non-political Frenchman, he does wish to maintain close technological ties with the UK/EU on all fronts – don’t We All (as in Europeans and Trading), though? Used to work indirectly under the EU on some matters of trade and know that nearly all issues between countries where standards are in alignment are resolvable to the greatest extent if there is the wish to move away from a purely political standpoint.
The very tentative proposal concerning Navantia and H&W also attracts my interest, as much from the perspective of the Northern Irish as for any other reason.
Perhaps best to keep an open-minded watching brief on a number of fronts as we (hopefully!) move on to agreeing our future relationship before long.
Thanks for a very interesting overview Gordon, and I’ve given more thought to combined projects. From the standpoint of logistics, the more partners there are and apart from amortising the overall costs, the likelihood of having a greater and more widespread supply of spare parts, in a time of crisis can not be ignored.
We won’t be doing our own thing on Tempest, we already have Sweden. I would much rather we truly do our own thing with Tempest, but if we have to collab with anyone I’d much rather take France and Germany, 2 truly great European countries.
A couple of points.
This shows Tempest is gaining traction as Airbus are thinking there is a bigger prize at stake here and they are not involved. The French would then see an opportunity or feel left behind.
Also. Look what happened to Typhoon when France did not get their way, hence the two competing jets.
Too big a collaboration simply means more money, more time and less effective output. Let us stick with a small number of quality partners who have something to give and gain from, not disruptive members who will do their utmost to get their way of thinking. They can, again, build their own.
Too many cooks spoil the broth. Still true today.
Yes I agree. I wish we could do business with the French as they are a capable and determined partner. Unfortunately, that determination all too often spills into nationalistic self promotion to the exclusion of proper collaboration.
We need to push ahead with Tempest until such time as it is too good a project for the rest to ignore. We did something like that with the Meteor AAM which started life as a UK national project and went quite someway into the project cycle before we opened it up to others. In essence, we got a properly defined and an robust outline design matured that was attractive to a wide range of allied countries before we opened the project up on a kind of, ‘it ours, so take or leave it’ basis. It worked, so lets open we repeat that strategy with Tempest.
Noting the ‘we’ in your posting, perhaps you should submit a business plan and numbers together with how much you individually intend to invest?
I’d much rather we collabed with truly great European countries like France and Germany than 3rd tier European countries like Sweden. We will end up with a much better product if we collab with France and Germany, they have much, much more to offer us than Sweden. Rather it is us who offer Sweden something.
I’m this far down the thread and you have said “truly great European countries” in reference to France and Germany twice, you sound like Donald Trump ffs
Sweden have developed and delivered a very capable and moderately successful fighter, can Germany even get a squadron of Eurofighter in the air?
Sweden is an elder statesman of Europe and is ahead of France and Germany in a number of areas that give a collaboration like this much more chance of success
And Italy certainly are not 3rd tier in Europe
It’s not all about size and GDP that make countries “truly great”
Agreed. The UK should go it alone, or with Sweden. Every “joint ” project has been to the detriment of the UK.
The Swedes have been producing top quality product on a tiny budget. They bring cost control innovation and export customers. They are also, like us and unlike Franco-Germany, a frontline air defence state wrt Russia.
Mitteleuropa brings cost and politics. I mean Germany haven’t even lifted export restrictions on Typhoon they’re holding up future sales to the Saudis. We don’t need those kind of “partners”. Sweden and Italy will do just fine.
why do you think Sweden a 3rd tier country? Perhaps far smaller than UK but very capable and educated people with some great innovations
Always liked the look of the Gripen and don’t share the qualms bring aired here.
Love the word.
I really hope this doesn’t happen. Past endeavours should have taught us that not all our European partners are as reliable as we would like them to be.
France will demand the major work share and when she doesn’t get it will walk away with everyone else’s tech and knowledge to build a competing airframe. It will be typhoon all over again.
Lets get on and build our own airframe with partners that have something to bring to the table.
Except Typhoon has turned into a world beating capability. And the costs of going it alone would be eye watering for a 6th gen platform. Even the Americans struggled with the cost of developing and building 170 something F22’s. Let’s keep it real.
Hi Robert, I don’t disagree. The Rafael is a great plane too. How much better would typhoon have been if France had stayed onboard ? How much more advanced would it have been through its evolution and upgrades ? And how many more airframes would there be globally ?
We will never know because France decided to complete against typhoon, creating increased costs and reduced airframe numbers.
If we follow the same path with tempest we run the same risks. I’m glad Sweden are onboard they will bring a fresh approach and they are technically competent at building fighters. Italy is a good industrial partner with an excellent engineering sector. If we can bring other nations in as well then the development cost issue dissaptes.
Airbus wants a piece because they know that currently tempest has a better chance of becoming reality than a French / Germany co-operation.
A lot of weight is put on the term 6th gen but I’ve yet to see a definition, perhaps because there isn’t one, as it probably means different things to different constituencies. What I did take away from the Tempest program launch was a strong focus on spiral development out of Typhoon, which means leveraging existing, proven systems in an iterative way to advance capabilities while managing costs and avoiding commitment to project critical, expensive, unproven technologies.
For example, a 6th gen platform might only marginally improve radar stealth over F35 primarily through air frame and especially control surface design, while focusing more on other LO attributes like heat, noise and electronic signature management for a better overall LO aircraft.
What strikes me about aircraft development especially over the last 30 years or so is how long an air frame is flying before a plane becomes operational. It seems what goes in the aircraft is much more challenging than the airframe itself, F-35 being the poster child for this it seems. Perhaps Tempest largely reverses that trend?
Good morning Glass half full. I agree that the development timeframe for Tempest to become a reality needs to be much shorter compared to previous projects, and the technology feeding through the Typhoon will hopefully help achieve that. It depends on what the actual requirement will be from the MOD, and what type of platform we require.
That is the definition of –th Gen. A technology that is out of date by the time it is introduced.
We’re taking the Typhoon partnership and swapping Sweden for Germany – what’s the problem? Germany has no export track record and a declining military. In my mind it’s a net gain.
Noting the ‘us’ in your posting, perhaps you should submit a business plan and numbers together with how much you individually intend to invest?
Oh right so they weren’t interested when the Feanco German project was launched because they presumed there was no way the UK could itself form let alone lead such a project and would either lose its own expertise by buying American in the future or subservientlt beg to enter the Franco German project as a minor partner, giving them all our accumulated expertise with no real influence.
Seems that their initial somewhat arrogant presumption has turned out to have feet of quicksand as things stand with rather more interested parties in Tempest than they clearly expected. I doubt that they are shaking in their boots as yet it’s far too early, but I think these are the first signs that squeaky bum time in regard to the future is developing and the potential momentum it might gain and they certainly cannot simply write it off. After all they were expecting a compliant European marketplace and great opportunities abroad for sales which only faced US and Russian competition (for the most part) may now have another serious competitor, not to mention Tempest may at this stage arguably be more tempting to foreign collaboration than a tightly controlled Franco German effort might attract.
A long journey for this affair as yet certainly, but it will be interesting to see where it goes and whether Tempest will progress as a project in its own right or whether it is primarily a wedge for not only Britain, and Italy who has equally been deemed irrelevant by the European elite, but Sweden and perhaps others to gain relative equality in a united European effort.
We can build the knife for them that they can then stick on our back
As in take all the development data, have the jets built in Germany and France and then expect the RAF to put a large order in.
The French have realised that the Germans dont have the budget to be an equal partner and they wll end up shouldering most of the cost. it also makes common sense to tap into the brains that made the Eurofighter and the Grippen such effective combat platforms.
but weve been here before havent we? – Horizon Frigate, Typhoon…………
Think it’s more likely, the French have worked out that the Germans would probably veto sales to half the prospective customers!
And also renege on any potential purchases for spurious reasons. Air Defence Journal article 14 November 2019
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/germany-refuses-delivery-of-two-a400m-transport-aircraft/
“The Germans don’t have the budget” and Germany’s the only G6 nation with a large budget surplus each year, I wonder why.
Mainly because other European nations have a negative effect on the Euro if Germany had us own currency it’s exports would be more expensive.
It’s my opinion that we should be steering well clear of any Airbus/Franco-German involvement whatsoever.
Past lesson dictate the direction that will take… and it will not be a good one. So naturally expect an announcement that we are joining teams early next year (eyeroll).
I agree with steering clear of Airbus / Franco-German involvement.
Although I am not so sure about us just roling over to Franco-German overtures especially at this time. I actually think Tempest is part of our response to Brexit and it is a good one. We also have recent track record with regards to setting up, leading and controlling projects as the Meteor AAM started out as a UK only project and as I state above we went quite some way before inviting others on board pretty much on our terms.
In addition, we got very stroppy with US corporates / congress about 12 or 13 years ago when they tried to shut us out of the source code for the F35. We pushed very hard and even started to actively look at alternatives. I heard, much to the concern of the USMC. Eventually the US agreed and we got full access, to enable us to have full sovereignty over the future development and deployment of our aircraft. Since then the F35 / QEC projects have been very close to the US to significant mutual benefit.
I think that somewhere down the line we learnt a thing or two, may be even from the French 🙂
Sounds to me that Airbus are seriously concerned that any fighter that would be born from the ‘Team Tempest’ project could be a real threat to the Franco-German programme. Doesn’t help that Germany’s current attitude to the export market is that any potential customer needs a letter of recommendation from Amnesty International and whatever #movement is trending at the time (yes i’m being overly dramatic before anyone asks..)
Point is Team Tempest is a threat to them, and if they can’t beat us they would want to join us to get a slice of the action.
Sadly you just know we are daft enough to cave in, as always, with years of delay and wrangles over leadership and work share as the result.
HMG grow a pair. Partner with Sweden and Italy / Japan.
This.
All 3 seem to be solid partners, more so than the French and Germans.
Stick with reliable nations and we might just get a Tempest that’s roughly on time, roughly on budget, that we can afford in reasonable numbers.
Should keep this plane simple, in terms of design. One plane, one variant, not carrier capable. Direct replacement for Typhoon.
Then in time we can work on F35 replacement. I think if we stick to two combat airframes then it should be one carrier capable and one not, to remove temptation to reduce to a single type with fewer squadrons and spread them across the RAF and RN.
Spot-on
The TSR2 er Tempest will never fly if we don’t combine the programmes, The UK Sweden Italy ( although Italy is only looking at not actually signed up to ) Have neither the skills base or the finances to make a 6th gen fighter.
Im looking forward to the tubthumping replies of Great Britain / Empire / For queen & country…
Exactly what skills are we missing…
Enquiring minds would like to know..
That’s not true atall, Britain alone could design and build a 6th gen fighter if the funds where there to do it, we have some amazing company’s and people in the UK, and we could and would attract great people from all over the world just like USA does.
loads of big American projects have british people working in them, for eg Apple has a Brit designer Jony Ive who designed the iMac, Power Mac G4 Cube, iPod, iPhone, iPad, MacBook, but everyone thinks they were by an american! But they weren’t. That’s just one example.
I think the end statement – “Im looking forward to the tubthumping replies of Great Britain / Empire / For queen & country…”
Gives a big clue….
Funnily enough, when that old chestnut rears it’s head it is always those with a genuine issue / chip on shoulder / types that mention it, as if we are all foaming at the mouth.
Basically, the UK having any military power equals in their mind “Empire”
Pull the other one.
I’ve never met one person like that who still yearns for Empire.
I get the impression those that wish for an Independent Britain, believe we should have a part to play in world affairs commensurate with our status, economic power, soft power influence, P5 status, and the rest, are tared with that brush.
Jas is probably right on the finances side though. Which is why partnering with Sweden and others is being discussed rather than going alone.
Nothing “Empire” about that just having reliable partners with no history of stabbing you in the back concerning military projects.
You heard it hear first folks JAS who I might add is a renowned leading expert in the design of aerospace engineering and has a direct line to HM gov and the Tempest consortium says “We have neither the skills or the finance” ????????????????????????????
Lol Britain invented the JET ENGINE and he says we haven’t got the skills base ? Ridiculous statement from another hater
Why would we partner with the enemy? ?
We have Italy and Sweden onboard, time to look further a field for both technical contribution and opening up export markets.
Either Japan or South Korea would be a good choice, perhaps Australia too. Canada probably too much of a political nightmare given their antics with F35 purchase.
We are surely capable of producing the airframe. And as far as I can see we could produce the engine. It strikes me all of that is 5th generation. ie an improved F22. We can build that now with technology. Where do we go with “6th” Gen? Do any of us really know where that leads, beyond the glossy brochures.
We will need to replace Typhoon at some point, or just move on to an improved Typhooon II. Isn’t it that the hard parts are the radars and the computers … the quasi artificial intelligence … that is the really clever bit? We will have to reinvent the F35-like computers and beyond and fit them into an airframe. This will be a long programme and it’s hardly started. I also wonder about the pace of change. We do not want to produce something that is out of date before we’ve started. Plus, the F35 must have a long future ahead of it, and it’s clever avionics will be updated… as could Typhoon and it’s engines.
All I’m saying is we already have a lot of fingers in our pies that can run for a while. No need to worry about Airbus etc. Tempest has a long way to evolve before we have to worry about getting into bed with anyone yet.
I believe it was reported on UKDJ that Theresa May raised Japanese participation in Tempest when she visited Tokyo and the suggestion was not rejected out of hand at least.
South Korea is developing their own 5th gen stealth fighter at the moment for which UK companies are beginning to win systems orders, so I doubt they would get on board with another project just at the moment. Could be wrong of course.
I think Sweden in particular is a great partner. They developed 3 supersonic fighters since WW2, the Draken, the Vigen and of course the Gripen. All very capable and successful aircraft. I think that record suggests a degree of staying power.
Italy is potentially a good partner as well, their Naval programmes look very impressive at initial glance and from what I read on here recently they share the same concerns about the Franco-German link up as we do. Although, there is considerable support on their side for a future tie up with the French and Germans once Tempest is established… Not so sure about that myself, but they are edging on side it seems.
The UK has reportedlty (UKDJ) earmarked £1b for initial studies over the next couple of years so I think the UK is at the moment at least committed to the programme.
So far all very promising – hence perhaps this intervention from Airbus…
Tell them “NO” France and Germany did not want us in their next generation Fighter development at the outset and now its different because of the consortium we have . France would want design leadership as always. So carry on BAe
One size does not fit all – surely that is the thing we have learned with Horizon/T45, Typhoon/Rafale, etc? Even the French and Italian FREMM are rather different!
B*ll*cks to that. The French will just steal our ideas then withdraw anyway..
Airbus want to jump on as they are incapable of building 6th gen, they can’t even do 5th gen, as always the French will steal all the research and then go off and do their own thing, British governments have been complicit in this type of theft for decades
VERY bad idea IMO. Bring the Japanese onboard (they’re already talking) along with Oz. The Tempest project will be very viable.
Cheers
NO: In any case the French abandoned Eurofighter Typhoon project. So hardly a reliable partner.
Sweden has joined the project and it looks like Italy will. So that is enough.
We need a British Fighter jet for the prestige of the UK, to provide jobs in the UK, in particular after BREXIT,
So: To Guillaume Faury – Thank you but – No thank’s
We need to steer well clear of this…………can’t imagine a worse combination!
This only makes sense. Listen, the 3 big countries in Europe are Britain, Germany and France, if these 3 great countries combined our efforts we would end up with something spectacular.
3 great countries in economy yes! Defence Hellll No! ourUK needs to build our own fighter with help from junior partners like Sweden and Italy. Tell me the last time France and Germany built a world class defence platform
Together? U-boats I suppose
If we leave aside history, which granted is a big ask, then its also worth considering if its practical.
France needs a carrier capable aircraft to replace Rafale at some point, since they are unlikely to willingly give up carrier ops and it seems very unlikely they will buy F35C, or F35B if they went STOVL for their CdG replacement. This means FCAS must include a carrier option and any merger with Tempest would also require that capability.
However, if Sweden commits to a full air frame partnership in Tempest (not sure that’s the case yet?), then they would probably want hardened undercarriage for austere non-airfield operations. Arguably that might be desirable for many nations, including the UK, in the expectation of having airfields denied in a peer conflict.
So the question arises as to how much more expense/performance compromise would be required to engineer for a full carrier capability in Tempest? For example some historic airframe expense might be mitigated with EMALS as a more refined launching capability that better manages aircraft stress? Costs and performance on F35C, and on Super Hornet before it, suggest it shouldn’t be that great a premium versus the expanded sales/markets and usage options it might enable.
It seems like Britain never learns its lesson if it abandons Tempest and joins Franco German project or any foolish merger.
First the UK gets no invitation at all then they start a fuss about Galileo GPS… and after Merkel openly said post brexit we see the UK as a competitor they try to sabotage Tempest and have the UK anchored their project and extract UK expertise and later claim it was a Franco German led project and get all the credit for and screw the UK along the way.
France and Germany none of them have 5th generation aircraft experience and realised they can’t just skip 5th to 6th without British expertise, so are trying to save face by inviting Britain. Despite French and German project being older they could not even get a realistic mock up with cockpit and Britain in a short time demonstrated a realistic looking concept which quickly won over experts further demonstrating with fast speed what it can develop which shocked the French and Germans.
Britain has the industrial base expertise and money and customers and should man up and get on with Tempest just like they did with the carriers and type 45 after the French screwed the UK
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice? Shame on me!
Be confident be Great Britannia ✌
No, no, no. We’re an independent nation We can build this alone and support our industry – or contract with more reliable partners who won’t stab us in the back a la Galileo.
No we should definitely not join a French /German joint project. Small numbers will only get built or once French and Germans have had access to all UK Tempest technology they will shut the joint work down.
I think either go it alone or join Sweden, Italy and Japan and develop a world beater. The Franco Germanic effort is doomed to failure, if we plow on they will eventually purchase our jet, the jet they say we dont have the capability to build.
Good points Mr Bell.
One of the issues that sank France as a Eurofighter partner was their insisting on a Naval variant.
This would have limited the aircraft’s size and added extra weight.
If (got forbid) we got involved in “Eurofighter2”, we would have the French demanding carrier capability again, the Germans dragging their feet over payment and the whole thing descending into utter farce!
It would be heavily compromised, expensive and very late!
In case it isn’t clear, NO, NO, NO absolutely NO!
We need to forge new alliances, not take backward steps with insular, protective, isolationist EU countries.
Assuming the old adage of 400 airframes as a break even point, then we should be able to pass this point with RAF sales, Swedish sales, Saudi Arabian, perhaps Japanese and others…
Interesting times, we will have to see if either the European, or UK led project survive the next 5 years.
A UK citizen and most probably a brexiteer who talks about insular, protective, isolationist EU countries? The pot calling the kettle black no?
Hi Kenavo,
“Insular and protective” is at the very core of the EU, why do you think its having kittens at the UK leaving the institution?
Its a curious EU blinkered perspective on the world that would say a member state leaving to forge its own relationships with the globe is being insular?
Ironically the UK is doing the EU a favour (you are welcome by the way), its come to light the Germany and France, the main powers behind the EU, are now putting an increasing pressure to get the trade agreement sorted with the UK this year (our trade rules are currently in complete harmony anyway, so it is quite doable), this common sense approach will pull the EU bureaucracy back into line and into subservience with its main paymasters.
High time it was cut down to size, the sensible Germans and French, simply aren’t going to let an idealistic bloated bureaucratic European Union cause considerable damage their economies, just to make a point!
Consider it our New years gift to you … Happy New Year…
The penny clearly starting to drop for Airbus that they are backing a lame horse!
My very cynical and calculated response would be to leave them hanging for a few more years while Team Tempest forges ahead and then eventually let them in but not as full partners – only as tier 2 collaborators who can build their own fleets under licence but with very strict controls to stop intellectual theft by the French and export bans by the Germans. Maybe give them some export work-share if absolutely necessary.
Keep the grown-ups in control of the actual design & development work and only let the kids to the table once everything’s worked out.
Well..looks like that’s pretty unanimous. Sorry Mrs Merkel, Mr Macron…the answers NO.
NO NO NO it is a unanimous No on here ^^
Tempest is totally British concept and im not sure why when the UK partners with others its called a multi nations project? That never happens with the Americans. The F35 is called an American lead project and Britain is a tier 1 partner and others are tier 2 or 3 partner and those partners rarely get mentioned.. and why should they? It was not their idea to start of with they just are joining just to get a work share and benefit from the rewards.
So Britains partners should get their joining level ranking to know where they stand in the project and avoid confusion.
Britain must show confidence and others will not just come and join but respect you more for being capable ✌
Put simply: No.
What a daft suggestion. France and Germany are two terrible choices to partner with, for entirely different reasons. France will always put Dassault first and, despite being pro-EU has its own particular defence requirements and agenda. France is a great ally but not a great partner. Germany is the sick man of NATO. Italy and Sweden strike me as more compatible with the UK, we’ve had SAAB/BAE/SELEX/August Westland etc etc already and they have on the whole worked.
This would be the Airbus that repeatedly threatens to pull wing manufacturing over Brexit and that we foolishly gave control of our world leading satellite and pseudo satellite technology. Can we please just stand on our own two feet and allow our brilliant scientists and engineers to shine without some defeatist politicians or beauracrats messing it up and selling us down the river every time.
Well, that’s the strongest and almost unanimous message we sent for a while….
Summed up beautifully by Liam
“France is a great ally but not a great partner”
Germany will find that out too….
This statement seems to indicate the Europeans are increasingly worried as BREXIT seems almost cast in stone and Tempest gathers pace.
The next step in the project is of particular concern to them, as Tempest breaks out of fortress Europe and brings in players from SE Asia and elsewhere…
They desperately want to keep this as a European project, hopefully, a single European project…
“without some defeatist politicians or beauracrats messing it up and selling us down the river every time.”
I don’t think HM opposition parties are listening….
Airbus is the EU’s poodle! They always talk about European Sovereignty while forgetting there are Sovereign states in Europe that are not EU.
You cannot trust Airbus they are all political.
Erm No.
Lets look at some of the issues, the UK, Germany and France have diffrent needs and requirements when it come to air power. Germany for example needs two types of aircraft, a modern A-10 Warthog and a modern BAC Lightning. One is a well protected flying tank destroyer the other is a fast climbing dog-fighter. The UK needs range and deep penatration, so stealth. Yes for Germany and for that matter Poland a deep penatration/strike combat aircraft would be useful but it is not a must.
Then again all three countries have diffrent needs and requirements when it come to any form of defence equipment. We will just take battle tanks, does the UK really need them, in support of our NATO allies they are useful but for the UK itself not really, whereas Germany and Poland they are a must.
The UK and France have similar requirements but the French do seem to want everything for themselves. In fact it appars that France joins a project, gets ideas from the project team, breaks out of the project and then builds their own version of the joint idea, then to add insult to injury sells their version on the world stage more cheaply. Often leaving the design and development partners in the learch. So co-operation with France, I am trying to think of a single military project where we started with France that ended up being completed with France. The only one I can think of is the SEPCAT Jaguar. As for the British and French Navy, they both have similar tasking, area of responsibility and numbers and yet there is no co-operation, nuclear submarines and propulsion would be a good place to start, or radar. The T45 and Horizon class come to mind.
Airbus, I don’t want to mention Brexit but I must, Airbus has threatend in the past that if there is a hard Brexit then they will think about moving the Airbus plants in the UK to France. With that being the case then why the hell would we as a nation invest, develop and order a combat aircraft for it to be built in a diffrent country. Yes I know ‘but we do it with the F-35’, we do but we have also learnt a lot from the development of that aircraft, have about 15% of the industrial input into the aircraft and have the Tier 1 workshops for all European aircraft in the UK. With an expected world wide sales of up to 4600 aircraft that is an equivalant of 690 aircraft for British companies.
Co-operation with Sweden, Saab have a reputation for coming up with useful combat aircraft at reasonable prices. The Nordic peoples are known for being pregmatic but SAAb seems to be able to think outside the box and have a can do attitiude. So it is my opinion that this would be a good mix with British creative ideas.
The final point is this, for any modern combat aircraft to recoupe investment you must be able to sell it, it has been shown with Germany and the British Eurofighter sales that the Germans will block componants making sales impossible. When thinking about the Eurofighter we all think about good European co-operation, well don’t the Eurofighter was built to a British requirement to replace the Jaguar and Harrier, the P110 a twin engined single seat combat aircraft, this then developed into the Agile Combat Aircraft concept that was meant to get get some funding from Germany and Italy. The Germans withheld the funding and the Italians pulled out, so the UK government and the priviate sector in the UK went ahead and developed the aircraft as a advanced technology development aid. After flying 259 sorties and a 159 flying hours the aircraft was stood down. It was this design that was the basis for the Eurofighter. The Tornado is another example of European co-operation, Not. When the TSR2 was pulled the UK went into co-operation with Dessault for a swing wing multi role combat aircraft. Unbeknown to the British team Dessault was using some of the technical knowledge to design their own Mirage G8 swing wing. When the British team found out they were well not amused. The British pulled out but continued development whilst looking for new partners which they found in Germany, italy and the Netherlands. Even here the Germans were underhanded, to get control and the headquaters based in Germany for the aircraft development and to push their requirements they placed an inital requirement of 600 aircraft. Once they had got what the wanted they dropped the order to 324 aircraft. Thats what happens when working with the Germans or the French and Italians.
So would I want France or Germany to be involved with the Tempest project, no, I would like to see Japan, South Korea or even Taiwan involved, possibly even the US as a Tier 1 nation.
I do agree with a lot of what you’ve said, wherever you mention negative results, issues, problems etc, it always has one common denominator……..FRANCE!!!!! We must never do a project on this scale with the French, they’re an absolute disaster….
I wondered how long it was going to take for France/Germany to realise the Tempest aircraft has more potential then their FCAS project. Neither France or Germany are involved with building parts for the F35. Why is that important? It’s partially due to how the whole aircraft’s system networks together, which is a step change to how 4th generation aircraft systems operate. This determines how efficient the sensor fusion operates, but also defines how the aircraft’s future growth is planned out and developed. If we look at Typhoon/Rafale the system architecture does not lend itself for systems to be easily integrated. Yes they have 1553 data-buses etc, but these have limited bandwidth, which is why the F35 uses a dedicated local area network that has a much larger bandwidth.
The other issue is having the capability to build to 5th generation standards. Both the UK and Italy construct parts for the F35. The manufacturing tolerances have to more precise and to a higher standard. A lot of the aircraft’s stealth is not just the paint, but also because of the airframe’s material specification. Both France and Germany have built stealthy UAVs, however, these are not as complex as a manned fighter and cannot be easily scaled up. The principles perhaps, but by introducing a pilot and the requirement for them to operate the aircraft, involves a significant number of problems that require solving to maintain a very low RCS or infra-red signature.
The other main problem the FCAS will face compared to the Tempest, is the power-plant. The SNECMA M88 is very good and reliable engine, it still has another 20% margin of growth just like the EJ200. The FCAS will probably use a development of this engine. It will most like be a variable cycle engine and designed for continuous supercruise. However, it will still be constrained by the air that enters the engine. It has been more than rumoured that the Tempest will also use a development of the EJ200 with the similar variable cycle design and also designed for continuous supercruise. However, unlike the FCAS and significantly more importantly, it will have a derivative of the Reaction Engines pre-cooler. All gas turbines power generation is governed by the mass of air (oxygen) that enters the engine. As the engine gets higher the amount of air becomes thinner (less oxygen) therefore the power drops off. Now we install a pre-cooler, by dropping the air temperature the air becomes more dense and therefore allows more oxygen to be contained in a smaller volume. This will have two affects. 1. It will allow the engine to maintain power at a greater altitude, 2. It will allow the engine to develop more power throughout its operating range. Therefore, a Tempest aircraft with the pre-cooler can operate at a greater altitude, have the ability to fly faster and perhaps more importantly has more instantaneous power for high g manoeuvring and recovery (high g manoeuvres bleed off a lot of speed).
So straight from the drawing board, the Tempest aircraft will have a significant advantage over the FCAS. I think Airbus have realised this and are desperate to get access to this technology.
I’d love to like this post but instead I’ll settle for posting 🙂 Bravo!
I think it’s highly likely that Tempest will be cancelled. Too many big spending promises being made zero substance on defence from either party.
French left the euro fighter because they wanted french engines. Any project involving the cheese eaters ends in tears. We shouldn’t get involved with anything that has french involvement.
No, no, no!
We should make it a British fighter with maximum 2 partners. We don’t need another backstab from the French as with Typhoon/Rafael
As much as I dislike what certain European partners have done to us in the past, I am actually welcoming this news. Let’s hope we all stick to the program and get it done
Non, nein, no.
Industrially, the fffFrench have form for gutting British industry and form for being unreliable defence manufacturing partners; the Germans have form for being tighter than a shrimp’s arrse.
The Swedes have form for impressive aeronautics that see their whole life cost effective products in competition with American platforms, and winning.
BAE have form for being bog and expensive while the the Italians have form for style and performance, I’m not at all biased even though I do own PX200E.
Give the design to the Swedes and Italians through licensed IPR, sit back, (Sit down BAE) and enjoy the profits and performance from what will be an amazing, stylish aircraft.
Please, no thanks!
Have to agree with those that say no. Between the existing partners and correct me if I am wrong, possibly Japan coming on board, there is a potent group there. Certainly British and Swedish design Vs vision , Swedish cost effectiveness, robust design standards and Italian flair and avionics have the potential for a very powerful, cost effective and hi concept aircraft.
Certainly we don’t want a French led project as we know they would insist on a high proportion of French based production.
I can not disagree. Leave the French, Germans and Americans to furrow their own fields; Japanese, Italian, Swedish and British cooperation should deliver a remarkable platform.
NO No NO NO No No No
So many reasons no.
1) The French will take all the profit
2) The Germans will tie it up in red tape over order then cut their order back
3) They’re 4 years behind Tempest
4) To the best of my knowledge they don’t have an engine
5) Both are increasingly anti-US
thats enough for now
spot on
i read something about the Japanese & Lockheed martin potentially building an f22 repacement would it not be better to pitch in with then using Lockheed’s design as an all-weather fighter bomber and the tempest as an out and out fighter plus drown i did read at the outset tempest was meant to be a fighter plus un-mand project
If it’s a French aircraft, does it have an automatic “surrender” button or switch?
Pathetic.
We’d be better off partnering with Iran than France in terms of friendship and cooperation.
i honestly think we should go on a war footing y i say this we are a small but great country.but we are sort of every thing if war broke out to moz and this country was in Danger we would not have enough equipment or man & women power so that’s y we should go on a war footing. people say no on nurse’is doctor’s for Hospitals such come 2nd to Defence what good is having Care 1st if we cant Defend the country the money went care and not Defence. every Time a war broke out we all ways was court with our pars down. dont get me rong Hospitals we need but what good would they be if we were Taken over by some power cos we did not hard the right Defence.
No way. Galileo betrayal. German export restrictions. French likely demanding project leadership. Forget it