Utopia Talk / Politics / Berlin to build Combat Aircraft consorti

NeverWoods Member	Wed Jun 21 04:36:22 http://www...ircraft-system-consortium-6745 Berlin looks to build Future Combat Aircraft System consortium Germany is looking at the potential of building a next-generation combat aircraft with at least France, Spain and Sweden as possible partners. There are indications that preliminary talks with these nations have already taken place. Date: 19 June 2017 Luftwaffe Tornado over northern Germany. Credit: Gert Kromhout/Stocktrek Images By Douglas Barrie, Senior Fellow for Military Aerospace As of the second quarter of 2017, London remained outside of any recent discussions, despite the United Kingdom partnering Germany in the two previous generations of combat aircraft – the 1970s Tornado and 1980s Eurofighter programmes. The UK is already working with France on an unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) demonstrator, one of the main collaborative projects that has resulted from the 2010 Anglo-French Defence Treaty, with the UK’s BAE Systems and France’s Dassault involved. Both countries have also begun to consider possible crewed-combat-aircraft requirements for the 2030s and 2040s. However, the medium-term outlook for the joint UCAV project is unclear. The UK’s decision to leave the European Union is an unwelcome complicating factor in British participation in future collaborative projects, at least in the near term, as is the political uncertainty in London post the general election. The outcome of Germany’s deliberations and the possible emergence of a multinational project have far-reaching industrial ramifications. A tie-up between Berlin and Paris on a next-generation combat-aircraft development would place Airbus Defence in a strong position. What remains to be seen is how Dassault, France’s national combat-aircraft manufacturer, would be accommodated. Meanwhile, BAE Systems has carried out classified research into next-generation combat-aircraft concepts for the UK Ministry of Defence and is also involved in supporting Turkish aspirations to develop an advanced combat aircraft. Berlin is looking to use its Next Generation Weapon System (NGWS)/ Future Combat Air System (FCAS) as the potential basis for a European combat-aircraft programme that would provide a successor to the Tornado ground-attack aircraft by around 2035. A decision on how to pursue a replacement could be taken by the end of 2018. The requirement, however, could be made more complex by the likelihood of replacing the Eurofighter in the 2040s: the Eurofighter is a design optimised for air-to-air, but with a secondary air-to-surface capability. Furthermore, the German Tornado squadrons are tasked with a NATO nuclear role. Berlin has a number of options with regard to the timing and nature of the type of platform it selects to replace the Tornado – or at least some of the roles the aircraft fulfils. Alongside a new design, other nearer-term options include the acquisition of the US F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or ordering an additional batch of the Eurofighter. The dual-capable Tornado can carry the US B61 free-fall nuclear bomb, and the B61-12 version of this weapon is planned to be integrated on the F-35A by 2020. Were a new batch of the Eurofighter to be ordered, perhaps a ‘Tranche 4’ standard, then one option would be to integrate the B61 on the Eurofighter. If the F-35 or Eurofighter option was chosen, the Tornado could be replaced from around 2025, with 40–50 of the selected type to be purchased. An interim combat-aircraft purchase would not necessarily negate moving ahead with NGWS/FCAS, since Germany’s Eurofighter combat aircraft would still likely need replacing in the 2040s. The type selected as a ’stop-gap’, however, would likely influence the design emphasis for a NGWS/FCAS. Were an F-35 variant to be chosen, the FCAS emphasis might be more toward the air-to-air role, given that the F-35 is optimised for air-to-surface missions with a secondary air-to-air capability. The German Air Force is also looking at NGWS/FCAS as a possible way to exploit ’manned-unmanned teaming’, with the crewed aircraft also having the ability to operate with and to control off-board platforms such as unmanned combat air vehicles. --------------------------------------------- At this point I think EU is making an effort to ditch NATO. And make an EU so ever closer to an reality.
NeverWoods Member	Wed Jun 21 04:38:04 EU Army. Damn forgot to write in army.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 21 05:22:13 Not sure the UK would be interested. F-35 is ground attack and therefore replaces our tornados. Only ucav would be interesting, and we've got a fairly advanced programme on that. A German led consortium at this point is exactly the kind of divisive nonsense the West doesn't need. There's already more mature fighter and attack programs that overlap this period. Either go f-35 for attack or go into the Anglo French ucav program for air to air. Creating a "third" additional European option just further splits European and western defence cash increasing costs per unit and reducing overall capability procured. Similarly ditching NATO - what purpose does it serve? It means scraping established alliance systems and replacing them with less mature ones at a time when the West is struggling to come up with a counter to hybrid warfare. Result - it undermines collective defence by weakening structures that bind countries like Turkey and the US to European defence in a way that new structures won't be able to; and at the same time diverts political and defence efforts away from figuring out responses to new challenges into pointlessly creating inferior versions of existing capabilities. An EU led alternative to NATO is very similar to Brexit. It puts acquiring notional "sovereignty" that exists in paper only above retention of actual power and influence.
NeverWoods Member	Wed Jun 21 05:55:55 Not sure the UK would be interested. Does it matter? They are not a part of it. They are left out. "A German led consortium at this point is exactly the kind of divisive nonsense the West doesn't need." I disagree, this is exactly what the greater EU needs. A military tech collaboration.
NeverWoods Member	Wed Jun 21 06:09:38 "Similarly ditching NATO" About NATO, it's out done it's usefulness, It's a relic from the cold war. EU won't make an exit out of NATO, they will however lower the payments down to 1% and up EU defence spending to 2%. Not unlike US. An EU army is a reality at this point.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 21 07:30:45 1. The article speculates on UK involvement. 2. This is a German, not an EU initiative. 3. What value would a third European defence tech collaboration (whether under EU auspices or not) serve and what benefits would it confer? If you say it's "exactly what it needs" - surely you can articulate why that is the case? From my perspective, you've already got scores of EU members collaborating already: On F-35, on the drones initiative, on Eurofighter. Then you've got Rafale and Gryphon. At a time of squeezed budgets and military cutbacks, why spend more money on developing competing platforms rather than purchasing and operating actual units? It's absurd. And in an actual conflict what that means is multiple different logicistics chains and overheads to supply a force with lots of different types of kit designed to do the same role. As for NATO being redundant, in the years since the end of the cold war there have been at least three armed conflicts in Europe (four if you count the caucuses), and several in our immediate areas that have impacted us. So saying NATO is obsolete is odd. The EU army remains a paper thing. Whenever Europe has decided to deploy forces, they have done so either as bilateral ventures or through NATO. Even the much vaunted Battlegroups have been eschewed in favour of, e.g. joint Anglo-French or German-French forces (cf. Mali). I'm just not seeing the value add here at all - all it does it potentially reduce the number of allies that would be involved in a major conflict and for no real benefit that anyone can articulate. The US being in NATO has never stopped Europe from acting when it has decided to do so. Rather, the problem is more that Europe lacks either absolutely or independently key capabilities for force projection and war fighting. Creating new planning and command structures does nothing to address those concerns. Rather than spending the time and money on general staff and planning capabilities that overlap national and nato structures - why not actually spend them on better AWACS, theatre missile defence, cyber warfare and strike? NATO isn't financed in the way you suggest.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Jun 21 09:24:05 Dont let the spanish contribute to the design.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: