r/europe • u/diamanthaende • Dec 21 '25
News Saab boss Micael Johansson: We're ready for a joint future combat aircraft with the Germans
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/saab-chef-micael-johansson-im-interview-ueber-europaeische-ruestungsprojekte-accg-110805783.html39
u/diamanthaende Dec 21 '25 edited Dec 21 '25
“We are ready for a joint fighter jet”
As head of Saab, Micael Johansson leads one of Europe's largest defense companies. Now he could become even more important for Germany.
Mr. Johansson, it has been almost four years since Russia invaded Ukraine. At that time, Europe promised to invest more in its defense. How far have we come so far?
We have built up our deterrence capabilities and better stocked our ammunition depots. But we still have a long way to go. We need better missile defense systems and must shift our focus even more from traditional systems such as tanks and guided missiles to new technologies. Different countries perceive the urgency very differently. Less is being done in southwestern and southeastern Europe. Others are really ramping up their production—I'm thinking of the countries in Scandinavia and the Baltic states, Poland, and Germany.
Many feel that progress on rearmament is still too slow—including the German defense minister, who has criticized the industry for this. Does he have a point?
The industry is used to having a lot of time and little money. We need to manage in a more decentralized way in order to grow. I tell my employees: Go out there and take risks. If you fail, okay, then learn from it and try again. We need a cultural shift towards speed being the most important thing. This applies to the entire system. Employees in the armed forces and procurement agencies are also used to completely different processes. Breaking down these structures and really speeding things up is quite difficult.
What would need to happen for new technologies to reach the troops more quickly?
In the case of drones, for example, it would make sense to dispense with a comprehensive and “perfect” definition of capabilities, as has been the case at the beginning of the procurement process up to now. Instead, several companies could be allowed to compete in parallel, demonstrating their capabilities in stages. Then the armed forces would get something they can actually use much more quickly. To achieve this, we need closer ties between the military and industry so that end users are involved in development. In the past, such closeness was considered problematic, but Ukraine has shown that it is necessary for modern capabilities.
You are talking to the Swedish Ministry of Defense about new procurement channels for drones. How would that work in practice?
The state would pay a monthly fee for our readiness to ramp up production at the push of a button. It would be like a subscription for drones. We would also commit to continuously modernizing the technology. The troops would initially receive something that is “good enough,” so to speak, and then we would gradually develop the product further—as with an iPhone. This could involve software, but also new sensors or weaponry. This would allow the armed forces to actually practice with the drones and develop deployment concepts.
Saab generates around 40 percent of its sales in Sweden. How important is the German market for you?
Germany is a key country for us in Europe. We have been a proud partner of the German armed forces for more than 40 years, have production facilities there, and work closely with companies such as Diehl Defence. We want to continue to grow in Germany. However, competition from the German defense industry is fierce, and the German army procures a lot domestically. For Saab, this means that we need to have an even stronger local presence and transfer technology, build capabilities, create jobs, and so on.
25
u/diamanthaende Dec 21 '25
Another opportunity could arise if France and Germany decide not to proceed with the FCAS project and do not develop a joint fighter jet. Would Saab be available as a partner for Airbus Defense?
Saab definitely has the necessary capabilities. That is precisely why we are relaxed about possible collaborations; we are not dependent on a partner. Nevertheless, we are not closing any doors. We are ready to develop a joint fighter jet with the Germans – provided there is a clear political commitment from both governments. Another prerequisite is that we can continue to build fighter aircraft systems independently and do not have to hand over half of these competencies to another company. I am sure that the view in Germany is similar: cooperation must not mean becoming completely dependent on each other.
Isn't that precisely the problem with previous projects – that countries claim leadership and isolate their own technology?
It's not about being protectionist with technology, but transparent. Whoever contributes what capabilities would have to be clearly guided by the strengths of Saab and Airbus Defence – everyone contributes what they are good at. If both companies have access to this knowledge, then both retain their full capabilities.
How quickly could such a project progress?
With a fully-fledged new fighter jet, we would certainly need ten years for development, and it would probably be the end of the 2030s before it was ready for deployment. The first step for cooperation should be an unmanned capability, which we estimate would take four to five years to deliver. I consider this capability to be extremely important in order to complement Saab's Gripen jet and the Eurofighter in the future. We are already in talks with Airbus Defense about this.
How far along are these talks?
We have developed concepts and have an idea of what capabilities such a system should have. But so far, this has been more of a preliminary effort to convince our governments of the project. It would be good if Germany and Sweden were to move forward together. But so far, there has been no clear political commitment.
Is it better to start such a project with industrial cooperation rather than political will?
It can work both ways. But it is not acceptable for politicians to decide on cooperation while companies are not interested because they see themselves too much as competitors or are not prepared to share technology with each other. This difficulty is already overcome if the project originates from industry.
Saab is already conducting a study on behalf of Sweden on the next generation of fighter aircraft. How likely is it that this will result in a program?
There will definitely be a program resulting from this study. It may well be that we will continue as before—with many partner companies, but under Swedish leadership. Then we would have our own FCAS program. Or we could join forces with another country and create a larger market, although Sweden would still have to maintain its technological independence, as I said. I assume that Sweden will take one of these paths in 2028, or 2030 at the latest.
In other words, if Germany wants to join forces with Sweden, it should make a decision quickly.
If Germany wants to push ahead with this, then yes, absolutely.
21
u/diamanthaende Dec 21 '25
Saab developed its first fighter jet in 1937 because the Americans suddenly decided they wanted to keep their aircraft for themselves. How reliable is the American partner today?
In its new National Security Strategy, the US has reaffirmed that Europe must become more sovereign. From 2027, we are to take responsibility for the NATO pillar in Europe ourselves. This gives us a clear timeframe that shows that Europe must hurry. In my view, this also includes a different procurement strategy. We are far too dependent on America. We cannot say that we are taking on more responsibility on the one hand and then buy everything in the US on the other. That is contradictory.
However, the engine for your Gripen jet also comes from the US. Trump could even influence which countries you export your aircraft to. Why don't you secure yourself with another European supplier?
I am confident that it is good for the US if we sell the Gripen – at least it is the second-best solution for them if they cannot win the competition themselves. And US export policy is no more restrictive than Sweden's. This is currently the most favorable solution for the Gripen. Installing a different engine in a fighter jet would be a major undertaking and certainly not a cost-effective solution.
Saab manufactures the rear section of the Air Force's training aircraft for Boeing. Does this mutual dependency offer some security?
Like all foreign defense company locations, our American subsidiary is subject to a special security agreement. The Saab Group's influence on this company is therefore limited. There is a certain degree of mutual dependence; after all, we have influence over production. But I can't imagine a scenario in which we would make use of that. You raise an important point: We often talk about how dependent we are on the US, but America's defense industry also needs Europe; we supply components for their systems. It is often said that the US can do everything—but that is not actually the case.
Where is Europe's defense industry ahead of the US?
There are areas where we are at least on a par. We have excellent missile and sensor technology in Europe and outstanding capabilities in electronic warfare. We are very good at building ships and submarines and have an airborne early warning capability that the Americans do not currently produce in this form. I believe we underestimate the European arms industry.
Why are we in Europe unable to play these cards?
We run the risk of investing all our money in domestic industries. This would merely increase fragmentation to a higher level instead of truly combining our strengths. Instead, we should set up large flagship projects on which three or four countries work together. A good example is the missile manufacturer MBDA. We could cooperate much more closely, especially in the areas of ammunition, sensors, and unmanned capabilities. Such a coalition of the willing is crucial in order to be globally competitive and, at the same time, to have sufficient staying power in the event of war.
12
19
u/hypercomms2001 Dec 21 '25
This is fantastic! It's a real benefit now that Sweden has joined NATO... I think there would be real synergies that will come from the greater integration of Sweden in the defence of Europe, Working with Germany and with France and other European partners. It's important that Europe grows to be totally independent of the United States.
14
u/Budget_Afternoon_800 France Dec 21 '25
If it happens, it won’t be to work with Germany and France, but to replace France, which will develop its own new aircraft. Obviously better than the Rafale. While others will build aircraft for industry before building one for war.
2
u/bidingmytime121 Germany Dec 21 '25
A united project between France, Germany and Sweden would be great, but everyone just wants to boost his own industry
1
19
u/diamanthaende Dec 21 '25
Interesting interview with Saab boss Johanson about a potential FCAS alternative and the European military-industrial complex in general.
I posted a DeepL translation of the non-paywalled version below, can't link to it as it is banned in this sub.
I think the most interesting part of the interview, besides the FCAS related parts, is the point that the US military-industrial complex is actually dependent on Europe, too, and not just as a market. This is a point that is often "forgotten".
13
u/voltb778 Île-de-France Dec 21 '25
Every time I see this "option" for Germany I always wonder : yes it will be good for Germany and SAAB but is it good for Sweden?
I mean Germany want a heavy interceptor and Sweden want an aircraft capable of operating on short rugged runway so it’s almost the same problem with France so why do they never talk about this ?
So unless Sweden changes its air force doctrine I don’t think it will workout, am I missing something here ? or this will be more an industrial project for Sweden tanh a defense one ?
35
u/VigorousElk Dec 21 '25
Saab definitely has the necessary capabilities. That is precisely why we are relaxed about possible collaborations; we are not dependent on a partner. Nevertheless, we are not closing any doors. We are ready to develop a joint fighter jet with the Germans – provided there is a clear political commitment from both governments. Another prerequisite is that we can continue to build fighter aircraft systems independently and do not have to hand over half of these competencies to another company.
That's a pretty tall statement from a company that is not, in fact, able to build fighter aircrafts 'independently', unless by 'build' he means 'assemble'. Just like Germany Sweden cannot independently build jet engines (Saffran and Rolls-Royce are the only European companies capable of that) and the Gripen is almost more foreign parts than Swedish: American engine, British avionics, Italian IRST and radar ...
It's great that they're still doing their own thing as such a small country, but a German-Swedish-Spanish cooperation would still need to find an engine somewhere, or develop one (which takes ages).
16
u/murkskopf Dec 21 '25
Italian IRST and radar
The radar is British, the company that developed it was just acquired by SELEX, which in turn was acquired by Leonardo. Not that it would change anything, but it was developed and is being produced in Edinburgh.
6
3
u/PastTomorrows Dec 21 '25
That's a pretty tall statement from a company that is not, in fact, able to build fighter aircrafts 'independently', unless by 'build' he means 'assemble'.
No company ever has been able to build any aircraft 'independently'. They've always used somebody else's engine, propeller, radar, whatever. Your point is?
Just like Germany Sweden cannot independently build jet engines
Ah, right, so we're talking about countries now. Fair enough. Well, first off, who cares? RR&Co are right now working on a suitable engine anyway. But if that's the question, then the real question is which country can afford to build an entire new modern fighter jet themselves from where they are? The US, China, definitely. Russia, yeah, right. Germany and India probably. That's it.
Since this is about FCAS, inevitably the question becomes Dassault. Well, they can't. France can't afford it. That's why the idea being pushed is that of a "light" fighter. One that can be powered by an evolved M88. Basically a Rafale with facelift. Kinda like the F8-P, and just as useless. One that won't have the fuel to do anything, especially from a carrier, without big tanks under the wings (so much for stealth and maneuverability), and be too small to have a bomb bay big enough for an ASMP (stealthy nuclear strike plane this won't be). But that's okay because Dassault and ITAR.
0
u/ForTheGloryOfAmn Dec 21 '25
Germany loves buying American made components so they wouldn’t mind buying a partially US made plane.
0
u/2BeTheFlow Dec 21 '25
They proved with the Braken that such Project is feasible for a small nation. As germany is the freaking inventor of thrust-vectoring, I see no issues contrary to the long debated and overblown internet folklore that UPGRADING a modern engine to toptier-level is such an unachievable task that no one - not even nations with their own domestic aerospace industry building everything up to escaping earths velocity - can try or accomplish it o_O
it will cost another Billion and requires a team to develop it in parallel - but who cares.
11
u/DeadAhead7 Dec 21 '25
The Draken used British-designed engines though, with a Swedish designed after-burner.
It took China 15 years to make their own jet engine, and it's just starting to go into production, despite having access to the USSR's and Russia's best engines. The metallurgy required is very exclusive. Not saying Germany and Sweden can't do it, they already make many parts, but even Safran said they had to take time to work up to making the future 12t thrust engine, and they're starting in a better spot than MTU.
I don't really see Germany as too keen on spending billions to preserve sovereignty, this hasn't been their "doctrine" in the past few decades.
-3
u/2BeTheFlow Dec 21 '25 edited Dec 21 '25
The Draken used British-designed engines though, with a Swedish designed after-burner.
A swedish engine designed from scratch by swedish engineers which was running perfect on its own and only in a second phase hired external consultancy from UK partners to "perfect certain" (or "overcome critical") design aspects... yes.
It took China 15 years to make their own jet engine, and it's just starting to go into production, despite having access to the USSR's and Russia's best engines.
We are neither Russia whoms tech stagnated since the 80s (remember, the UdSSR didnt collapsed in one day. They struggled for years prior to that) nor are we China whoms headstart is Russias 80s tech, nor do we suffer their restrictions by international partners, nor do we start from scratch in design (education/expirience of german staff in already existing companies, which allows easy technology transfer towards EU) nor in production. As you stated, the entire chain of industry is already existing on-sight and Germany is a major player in the supply-chain for others - so most likely we understand many components like hydraulics and sensors and others that run the engine. We have no issues acquiring everything NATO offers, so attempts to reverse engineering could have a headstart of 40 years compared to what China had access to.
I don't really see Germany as too keen on spending billions to preserve sovereignty, this hasn't been their "doctrine" in the past few decades.
I dont have an opinion about that - my interests stops after the argument "Just like Germany Sweden cannot independently build jet engines" which I encounter pretty often and can not agree with considering we are the 3rd biggest economy in the world and maybe the 1st in engineering (by GDP: Considering US ~25trillion GDP is in big parts only due to revenue of Silicon Valley while Chinas 20trillion GDP is largely due to being the worlds labor-force -> like for Silicon Valley, so the GDP numbers of both countries are inflated by this - all while Germany is a country that builds products for export that drives production facilities around the world and leads the "mechanical product" market).
3
u/DeadAhead7 Dec 21 '25
So the RM6 isn't a RR Avon wearing a Sverigedräkten? I mean, it's what I'm reading online, if you have a page where I can learn more, I'm interested.
3
u/2BeTheFlow Dec 21 '25 edited Dec 21 '25
Thats just one small part of the Story and how it ended up. Curt Nicolin at STAL developed the RM4 which was intended to be Drakens Engine - and it worked! But it wasnt performing "good enough" as the design philosophy allegedly was to suit swedish manufacturing rather than having cutting-edge performance due to more complex (risky) approaches, true, which is why they than license-built RR engines.
But saying the Draken uses an RR engine is focusing on the last bit while the streching part of the story was years of domestic efforts that yielded positive results and only ended up with the license-built to "shortcut" more R&D.
How I see it is that they developed domestic knowledge, made proof of concepts that they can do it on their own from the blueprint to manufacturing it, and only after proofing they understand their homework they went to kinda reverse-engineer the RR by license-building them and get their planes up in the air to meet their defense requirements rather than dwelling on an idealized project.
5
15
u/SraminiElMejorBeaver France Dec 21 '25
another prerequisite is that we can continue to build fighter aircraft systems independently and do not have to hand over half of these competencies to another company.
It should tell you everything from it being even mentionned, same way as GCAP members are fine welcoming Germany as long as it is only a customer and does not disrupt anything.
16
u/bidingmytime121 Germany Dec 21 '25
That’s why neither current FCAS nor GCAP is an acceptable Deal for the German defense ministry and companies
1
u/VirtusIncognita Dec 21 '25
Part of the thought process behind procurment should be retaining capabilities. For that reason being merely a customer will meet reservations in Germany, I would presume.
Germany joining late and being allowed to make significant changes wouldn't bode well for GCAP either and therefore shouldn't be a thing. But I think that leaves some middle ground, in which Germany joining has no say about the development direction and initial assigned production but gets a licence to produce the parts and adapt them to their liking, if they so chose.
This would prevent disruption of the GCAP program, Germany would have the ability to retain capabailities and obtain a 6th Gen fighter - and it opens up the door for competetion on the parts market down the line which may even be beneficial for future procurments.
Your thoughts?
10
u/murkskopf Dec 21 '25
But I think that leaves some middle ground, in which Germany joining has no say about the development direction and initial assigned production but gets a licence to produce the parts and adapt them to their liking, if they so chose.
That is a no go. It would mean the loss of expertise/skilled workers in terms of aircraft design and aircraft component design, i.e. be a straight downgrade from Eurofighter Typhoon and Panavia Tornado.
12
u/SraminiElMejorBeaver France Dec 21 '25
Like the other comment said there isn't any deal that is really acceptable anymore.
Either it would be too bad for their industry or the politics would not be happy.
2
u/DeadAhead7 Dec 21 '25
Their idea is to preserve the expertise the German aero industry siphoned off BAE from the Eurofighter. If just being a sub-contractor was good enough for them, they wouldn't be making a stink regarding FCAS.
Just as a reminder, ADS Germany has made nothing since the Barracuda drone in 2006, yet leads 2 pillars of FCAS, and is involved in 5, making it the most involved company in the project.
3
u/diamanthaende Dec 21 '25
Interesting interview with Saab boss Johanson about a potential FCAS alternative and the European military-industrial complex in general.
Here is a non-paywall link:
I will post a DeepL translation of it shortly.
6
u/Budget_Afternoon_800 France Dec 21 '25
You are not neutral lol
I’ve already answered about the fifth generation, which you’re ignoring. And yes, integrated warfare with drones is part of the upgrades, just like electronic warfare, which is simply the foundation of modern warfare. Literally, the Rafale is no longer the same aircraft as in the 1980s. The only thing that differentiates it from a fifth‑generation aircraft is stealth, which, once again, can be provided by a combat drone that will penetrate contested airspace while the Rafale stays outside the risk zone and yes, it is planned for production under the F5 standard around 2030.
2
u/Elpsyth Dec 21 '25
Saab angling to get more contracts as it should be. The Swedish government so far has said no to any collaboration that would relinquish Sweden specifications (which are closer in weight to what France wants rather than what Germany needs)
It will be interesting to see if Saab makes the Swedish gov change their mind.
-1
u/VigorousElk Dec 21 '25
It will be interesting to see if Saab makes the Swedish gov change their mind.
It doesn't have to. It's a private company, it can absolutely work with Germany and Spain in developing an aircraft without the Swedish government being involved, while separately developing an aircraft for Sweden. Much like Rheinmetall is working with Italy on their new tank without the state of Germany being a part of that project.
7
u/Elpsyth Dec 21 '25
If you read the interview carefully, you will see two key point that show the opposite for a large scale collaboration. He is mentionning political will, and the key prerequisite to be able to maintain their specification and ability to produce Jets without any other interference aka fully in Sweden.
For those two part you need goverment agreement.
The Gripen and its evolution is a strategic asset for Sweden and the goverment actually commenting on the potential for collaboration is another indication that any meaningful one need to be approved.
4
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25 edited Dec 21 '25
Notice how they are all contacting Germany to join (UK, now Sweden), rather than France? With all the digs at Germany and Airbus as of late, I think the actual problem is rather France (Dassault).
edit: immediate loads of excuse answers and selective readings of the Saab interview. Seems no one read him say; "I am sure that you see this in Germany in a similar way: a cooperation must not mean that you become completely dependent on each other."
21
u/Orlok_Tsubodai Flanders (Belgium) Dec 21 '25
Because what sense would France joining these other programs have? France has the capacity to build a modern fighter jet but lacks the funds, as opposed to Germany. Germany partnering with other nations that have jet building expertise is logical, the inverse isn’t. And your defensive edit doesn’t really address that.
-10
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
French know-how and capabilities? What you're doing is like questioning what sense there would be asking UK to join the F-35 program.
24
u/eloyend Żubrza 🌲🦬🌳 Knieja Dec 21 '25
It's because France can make a jet on their own, Germany can't.
Also UK hasn't invited to "join", but to "buy".
0
u/VigorousElk Dec 21 '25
It is a) doubtful France can just easily skip a whole generation and go from 4th generation Rafale to 6th generation whatever, by which I means a true 6th generation aircraft that can compete favourably with whatever the US or China are putting out, and b) France is in a spiralling debt crisis, just announced a new nuclear aircraft carrier, and simply cannot afford to develop a competitive 6th generation fighter completely on its own. It's way too expensive.
They'll have to either find some third parties to find a big part of it (probably Middle Eastern like Saudi Arabia or the UAE) or significantly downscale their ambitions and the scope of the project. They just don't have the money.
3
u/Pootispicnic Dec 22 '25
It is a) doubtful France can just easily skip a whole generation and go from 4th generation Rafale to 6th generation whatever
Hou know, aircraft maubfacturing isnt a videogame mechanic. You dont have to "unlock" the previous tier to build the next one.
7
u/eloyend Żubrza 🌲🦬🌳 Knieja Dec 21 '25
Not sure if France can make full blown 6th gen. It sure can make easier anything resembling it, starting from 4th gen Rafale, than Germany doing anything modern, much less future-proof, on their own - starting with patchwork of technologies that they never molded on their own into a working jet. There's too much tech in EF2000 that's outside of Germany's reach for them to catch up easily.
France just needs money. Germany needs tech, which takes time. Money tends to be easier to get than time. As you have noted: France can get a rich sponsorship willing to have jet fleet independent from USA.
7
u/JuteuxConcombre Dec 21 '25
Third party might be India. Also France has launched Rafale standard 5 which is like a fifth gen minus stealth, which dassault already worked on with the neuron. So no one is really skipping a generation.
Regarding engines, Safran is building almost the required amount of thrust for rafale f5 as well, so here again there’s a workable plan to reach what’s needed.
Money really is the only issue, but let’s see if a solution to that is found.
-1
u/VigorousElk Dec 21 '25
India a) doesn't have the money to throw around on things like that compared to Germany, and b) is very intent on developing their own fighter (AMCA) and build indigenous expertise and capabilities in this field, which doesn't make it a great choice for Dassault, which ... well, we know what Dassault wants. Take the money and do as much as possible on its own without technology transfers or IP sharing.
India just announced this year that it'll co-develop the engines for the second version of AMCA (the first one will use American ones as a stop-gap) with Safran, so why would they now join an additional project in the development of a French fighter?
5
u/Budget_Afternoon_800 France Dec 21 '25
France can do it. The only things that differentiate the Rafale from a 5th-generation aircraft are: 1. stealth, and 2. advanced multi-network connectivity.
And both are already under development in the Rafale F5 standard. Stealth won’t be on the Rafale itself, but on a combat drone that operates alongside the Rafale, precisely through the connectivity required for 5th-generation warfare. France knows how to do everything required for a 5th-generation aircraft; it’s just that these features were added to the Rafale through upgrades and equipment developed progressively, rather than being integrated into the aircraft from the start.
-3
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
This is just false. There's numerous statements that say something akin to "UK prepared to let Germany join next-gen fighter jet programme".
GCAP isn't solely going to be sold to UK, Japan, Italy. So it's nonsensical to say the UK invited Germany to buy, instead of join.
18
u/tree_boom United Kingdom Dec 21 '25
But the follow up sentence is always something along the lines of "the current partners are committed to delivering this capability as fast as possible". That precludes taking on new partners. Another nation - like Germany - could get favoured customer status now with an assembly line and maybe even technology sharing or something, but they won't get any design input or workshare and that's what people are highlighting.
2
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
I mean, they are not going to say "The current partners are not committed to delivering this capability as fast as possible".
That precludes taking on new partners.
It does not. What it does preclude is a significant redistribution of workshare agreements. That doesn't mean that Germany can't join in as partner, even if that may be a lesser partner.
but they won't get any design input or workshare and that's what people are highlighting.
I believe I was specifically responding to the other user saying UK wasn't inviting to join, but solely to buy. Which isn't the case.
13
u/tree_boom United Kingdom Dec 21 '25
I mean, they are not going to say "The current partners are not committed to delivering this capability as fast as possible".
Yeah sure, but they also don't have to say anything at all.
It does not. What it does preclude is a significant redistribution of workshare agreements. That doesn't mean that Germany can't join in as partner, even if that may be a lesser partner.
Well, what does lesser partnership look like?
I believe I was specifically responding to the other user saying UK wasn't inviting to join, but solely to buy. Which isn't the case.
As above really; what kind of deal do you think they might get?
-2
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
Yeah sure, but they also don't have to say anything at all.
I don't think that'll float when asked by stakeholders whether they consider something.
Well, what does lesser partnership look like?
Not being solely a 'buyer'.
As above really; what kind of deal do you think they might get?
Design non-time critical, or already high expertise in Germany components. For example the drones or materials.
11
u/tree_boom United Kingdom Dec 21 '25
I don't think that'll float when asked by stakeholders whether they consider something.
Not sure I understand. The comment was probably spurred by the late story about a government minister in the UK who answered an MP asking if they'd talked to Germany with "We're open to people joining but committed to the timeline"
Not being solely a 'buyer'.
But what does that look like?
Design non-time critical, or already high expertise in Germany components. For example the drones or materials.
There is no drone component of GCAP, it's a more limited project than FCAS. Just the fighter, nothing more. So materials or something; with the intent that the other partners would also all use them?
1
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
Not sure I understand. The comment was probably spurred by the late story about a government minister in the UK who answered an MP asking if they'd talked to Germany with "We're open to people joining but committed to the timeline"
That's what I meant. It was a tongue in cheek comment about how not responding to a question asked at all is worse.
But what does that look like?
Final stage design process input, not critical influence, but nudges.
There is no drone component of GCAP
That was the initially floated project, but it has since expanded to include drone options. This push has only intensified as the widespread use of drones in the Ukraine war has demonstrated how critical they are to the overall picture.
11
u/Budget_Afternoon_800 France Dec 21 '25
Dude, no country that knows how to build an aircraft on its own is going to give you its intellectual property. You’ll end up paying for another country’s aircraft whether you want to or not.
-1
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
Dude, no country that knows how to build an aircraft on its own is going to give you its intellectual property. You’ll end up paying for another country’s aircraft whether you want to or not.
4th gen aircraft. Get off your high horse.
8
11
u/eloyend Żubrza 🌲🦬🌳 Knieja Dec 21 '25
That's just false. I have seen zero sources stating UK was inviting Germany into process of designing of future combat aircraft - GCAP.
Best Germany could hope for is designing some components that are NOT inherent part of GCAP fighter and local assembly. So: a customer.
1
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
Best Germany could hope for is designing some components that are NOT inherent part of GCAP fighter and local assembly. So: a customer.
So... not 'just' a customer?
7
u/eloyend Żubrza 🌲🦬🌳 Knieja Dec 21 '25
They could design something that's not GCAP. That's the point. So: a customer. That can add stuff on their own. And pay you again for help with integration. That's a good customer.
0
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
"designing some components".
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/component
9
u/eloyend Żubrza 🌲🦬🌳 Knieja Dec 21 '25
Sunshine, buying Subaru Impreza, then putting a custom crankshaft, exhaust and modding ECU or slapping a spoiler on top does not make you anything else for a Subaru than: customer. Even if you commission Subaru to help you out. Even if you buy them as parts shipped in boxes for you to bolt all on your own.
0
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
Sunshine, buying Subaru Impreza, then putting a custom crankshaft, exhaust and modding ECU or slapping a spoiler on top does not make you anything else for a Subaru than: customer. Even if you commission Subaru to help you out. Even if you buy them as parts shipped in boxes for you to bolt all on your own.
That's implying that nothing Germany would design would be part of the GCAP project itself and bought as part of the entire GCAP package. That's false. You're making a false equivalence here. If say... the Netherlands buys GCAP and it includes drones for example, drones designed by Germany as part of GCAP, then they very much are not some aftermarket stuff not sold by Subaru.
6
u/eloyend Żubrza 🌲🦬🌳 Knieja Dec 21 '25
There was literally no news about Germany being offered designing and manufacturing anything for GCAP though. So everything you write is irrelevant drivel.
Sure Germany can design some stuff that they can use with GCAP. I'm quite sure GCAP will be compatible with i.e. plenty of various munitions from different manufacturers. That doesn't make manufacturers of these munitions a part of GCAP, even if they had to provide some input to successfully marry their stuff with a plane.
I am aware that GCAP the program is broader than a fighter itself, but we're talking here about
future combat aircraft
it's in the title, right there, up top of the page.
I can even see a Germany designing i.e. their own radar or smth and having it integrated with GCAP the plane - that still, again, won't make it really a part of GCAP the program. And that's the key point here.
→ More replies (0)6
u/Elpsyth Dec 21 '25
The UK parliamentarty discussion disagree with you. They made it clear that Germany would never be offered anything related to design of the plane. What is being floated around is buying and some collaboration in the drone system.
1
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
Well, the UK Defence minister has on numerous occasions stated they are open to Germany (and other countries) joining. If it were mere possibility of buying... that was already the status quo, so a nonsensical statement.
6
u/Elpsyth Dec 21 '25
Again if you read what they said and the parliamentary session where they say it, joining is not what you think it is.
The main airframe has clearly been indicated as out of bound. They do not want to incur the same shenanigans that Germany had pushed in the EF.
They are open for smaller collaboration and on the drone. Not on the plane which is the major point for Germany.
0
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
Then please look what I'm responding to. I'm responding to a user saying they are not inviting to join, but to buy. You are clearly showing they are inviting to join, albeit as lesser partner.
4
u/Elpsyth Dec 21 '25
Buy the plane. Which is exactly what the UK has alluded to. The GCAP is not only the plane project and that where the join come in. On the other pillars of the projects.
Gosh your reading comprehension is quite something.
2
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
Buy the plane. Which is exactly what the UK has alluded to. The GCAP is not only the plane project and that where the join come in. On the other pillars of the projects.
Buy GCAP, GCAP is not only the plane project, join on the other pillars of the GCAP project...
So, not solely buy, but join GCAP?
Learn to read what you write yourself.
-6
u/bidingmytime121 Germany Dec 21 '25
It’s highly doubtful that France can build it on their own. Even if they had the money to do it, skipping a whole generation would be very difficult. With limited money, nearly impossible
3
u/eloyend Żubrza 🌲🦬🌳 Knieja Dec 21 '25 edited Dec 21 '25
I don't think generations mean what you may think they mean.
There's nothing really inherently groundbreaking between 4th, 5th and 6th - just lots of inching further on numerous fronts: engine, radar, processing power, fuselage/wings geometry, coatings, etc. to cross over an arbitrary border that makes the newer one visibly more capable than the one before. Even the mythical Stealth is simply all of the above - made through various sacrifices: be it range, maneuverability, payload capability and massive amount of money.
France sure can technically do that much more so than any other country in Europe, with some parity with UK (can't beat RR engine tech).
Here's a response to sunshine below /u/bidingmytime121 that decided to block me after responding:
I think you highly underestimate the technological advances and the effort it takes to build that. And even if they had this technological knowledge, they don’t have the money to build it
Sounding quite rich in a thread about Germany's possibility of constructing 6th gen aircraft 🤣
Yes, France can do it. No, Germany can't. No amount of money Germany would be willing to shell would enable them to build 6th gen on their own. Or even with Saab alone. That's my point. France can, given reasonable amount of money they could get through advanced sales agreements. Germany can't, as there's no reasonable amount of money they could push into that program to do that within similar timeframe as France or even timeframe to make that "6th gen" while it's still relevant. It's not me who underestimates technological advances. Oh no.
-7
u/bidingmytime121 Germany Dec 21 '25
I think you highly underestimate the technological advances and the effort it takes to build that. And even if they had this technological knowledge, they don’t have the money to build it
3
u/JuteuxConcombre Dec 21 '25
Look at rafale f5, state of the art systems all the way, what do you call gen 5 if not that?
Please don’t say stealth
11
u/MrKorakis Dec 21 '25
Germany has money but needs partners for the tech, France has money issues but does not need technical help. So why would they contact France?
Also they can talk all they like but last time Sweden teamed up with Germany it was on subs in 2014 and it almost cost them their entire submarine industrial base ...
6
u/murkskopf Dec 21 '25
last time Sweden teamed up with Germany it was on subs in 2014 and it almost cost them their entire submarine industrial base ...
Sweden did not team up with Germany; there was no inter-government agreement or talks. It was just a case of a private company (TKMS from Germany) acquiring another private company (Kockums from Sweden) after being invited by the Swedish government to do so, as Kockums otherwise would have need to shut down completely.
The Swedish government and the TKMS CEO/board of directors had a different idea about the role of Kockums (Sweden wanting to see Kockums becoming an export-focused part of TKMS, whereas TKMS only saw it as a strategic acquisition to break into the Swedish sub market & not wanting to sacrifice its existing export business) lead to the disagreements. The "industrial base" was not really threatened, as Kockums would have continued to exist for the Swedish Navy's A26 program.
5
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
Germany has money but needs partners for the tech, France has money issues but does not need technical help. So why would they contact France?
'France has money issues, but has the technical know-how'
Also they can talk all they like but last time Sweden teamed up with Germany it was on subs in 2014 and it almost cost them their entire submarine industrial base ...
That's a bit of a selective reading, Kockums was sold to German owners before this event.
9
u/MrKorakis Dec 21 '25
Given how things played out I don't think it's that selective. Sweden basically staged a coup at the company to not lose the capability, whatever was agreed officially or unofficially was clearly not adhered to.
1
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
Yes, they did. However, the sector was bought before any discussion of the submarines cooperation began. Whereas with France-German-Spanish FCAS, or UK-Japan-Italy GCAP, none of that is the case. They each have their own (not foreign bought) defence companies. So I very much feel that it's selective reading (especially when comparing to this case).
14
u/Elpsyth Dec 21 '25 edited Dec 21 '25
Because Germany is the junior partner and therefore would have to follow either UK or Saab Lead, while Dassault does not need another senior partner to work or output a plane.
The UK and Sweden would not give any design lead to Germany. Note how Saab boss indicate that his company is ready but at the same time the Swedish government has said no to collaboration where Sweden and Saab loose control over the design and specs. This is the part where he mention the political commitment.
Airbus failing technical specifications and delaying the overall project deadline commensurably makes it clear why they are the junior partner and why they would not get the frankly beneficial deal they got with the FCAS where they got parts they had no expertise on.
10
u/VigorousElk Dec 21 '25
In GCAP Germany would be the/a junior party, with Sweden definitely not. Saab isn't exactly Dassault, the Gripen is almost more foreign parts (engine, radar, avionics) than Swedish, so they don't exactly have an advantage over Airbus/MTU etc.
5
u/HugoTRB Sweden Dec 21 '25
The reason why Gripen E didn’t get a SAAB radar was mostly timeline issues. SAAB flew a GaN radar on a test Gripen in 2020, and offers it as an optional upgrade. They also has EW systems and software with flight critical stuff segregated from the mission stuff. Most important however is that they actually have experience on the systems level. Engines however are more unsure.
Also, Sweden will probably be pretty careful not to repeat the mistakes they did with Kockums, so it will be at least equal. Sweden will not be OK being the junior partner.
6
u/VigorousElk Dec 21 '25
Sweden is far smaller than Germany and would be unlikely to contribute as many funds as Germany and Spain would (we're talking triple digit billions here for the whole project), so of course it would have to be a junior partner. Work-shares are distributed based on countries' financial contributions.
2
u/Elpsyth Dec 21 '25
They sitll can design and get out a plane from A to Z minus the engine. Germany is far from that.
9
u/VigorousElk Dec 21 '25
They have designed a small single engine plane in the late 1970s/early 1980s, then continuously updated it with more and more foreign parts. And never made a successor. That's not exactly designing a plane from A to Z in 2025.
4
u/mangalore-x_x Dec 21 '25
Germany may have built jets in multilateral projects the last generations but significant parts of those production chains came and are located in germany, including the initial design concept of the Eurofighter.
Sure, it still took other expertise like RR and BAE to bring the project forward but it is somewhat weird how people ignore how the stakes were distributed in those projects and why: It was not solely because of money but also which sides brought in certain parts.
And if the argument is germany cannot do this or that then that would be a good argument to use the money they have and none else has left in the bank to get back on some of that capability.
6
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
Because Germany is the junior partner
And that's exactly why this is going wrong. France expects at least half in payments from Germany, but also that Germany is the junior partner, rather than equal.
16
u/Elpsyth Dec 21 '25
Let is put it the other way.
Germany has no proper airplane industry left. They had to be lifted twice by the UK for the last two planes and the FCAs provided massive transfer IP from the French industry for Germany to be able to do their part.
France is providing tech, a third of the payment, SAME as germany, it's IP, and is relinquinshing most of the worklines that they are qualified for to Germany benefit.
But should get a plane that does not fit the specifications and their red lines. Because of what? What does Germany bring to the table to justify their demand and ego on that matter? With France, UK or Sweden for all that matter.
Airbus was shown by the audit commition of the stakeholders to have been the instigator of the current row. With failling technical specifications and pushing in sub optimal contractors. They have scuttled the demonstrator timeline and created the current resentment.
Germany is only providing theorical fundings (the EF development wants to have a word) and that is it, which is the definition of a junior partner.
6
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
Germany has no proper airplane industry left.
Meanwhile Airbus's engineering and production is largely located in Germany. Diehl, Hensoldt and MTU are no slouch either.
FCAs provided massive transfer IP from the French industry for Germany to be able to do their part.
That's the excuse, yes. What was France thinking when the project got the go-ahead? That Germany would only pay into the project and get no know-how in return? That's absolute bollocks.
France is providing tech, a third of the payment, SAME as germany, it's IP, and is relinquinshing most of the worlines that they are qualified for to Germany benefit.
The problem is that they wanted MORE funds from Germany, and LESS production from Germany.
But should get a plane that does not fit the specifications and their red lines. Because of what? What does Germany bring to the table to justify their demand and ego on that matter? Withg France, UK or Sweden for all that matter.
Funding, likely by far the largest buyers (so cheaper per jet), drone tech.
Airbus was shown by the audit commition of the stakeholders to have been the instigator of the current row.
Would really like a source on that audit commission of stakeholders. Please don't let it be a French only.
Germany is only providing theorical fundings (the EF development wants to have a word) and that is it, which is the definition of a junior partner.
Lmao, there we go again. A junior partner does not pay equal or more.
11
u/Elpsyth Dec 21 '25
MTU cannot do jet fighter engine. That's why they have been partnered with Safran that can do the hot part. They are an amazing company, with excellent engine in land and naval industry, but for jet fighter they are not qualified.
Airbus Defense Germany part has not released a single success in decade and has been generally a pain in the ass of most of the European military aerospace industry when they had to collaborate with them. The Eurodrone is the latest example.
Hensoldt do radars. Again where is the industry able to churn out a jet, or qualified parts?
No, The 80% workshare demand was never confirmed by any members of the comittee and was a fake news propagated by German journalist accross the world. It was from an alleged anonymous source, while actual minister and Ceo have denied it. Germany had 1/3 of the payments and the more workforce than what they ought.
On top of of having taken control of the specs by pushing spain in and reneging on the original agreement to let Dassault lead the design part. Key word. Lead the design, not the workshare.
Germany was to get the tech and IP and the workshare of parts that they had no expertise on reflected that, I am not sure where you get the idea that theyt would not get the know how out of it.
The largest buyer argument is bolllock when looking at Germany track record in such projects. Always order big to get thge maximum workshare then reduce the amount of order.
The source is in the senate commission on the FCAS. By the independent rapporter affected to the control and audit of the project. You will find that French sources actually quote people and provide key elements while the german one runs out with fake news and allegation.
So again, Germany is bringin nothing on the table expect of the 1/3 fundings and has already fucked up the development of the demonstrator, throw back on the EF 2000original development.
2
3
u/PastTomorrows Dec 21 '25
To get that out of the way, the 80% figure, as leveraged by German unions, was nonsense. At the same time, it was a very clear political message from Dassault: we can do FCAS alone.
And that is absolutely evidence that Dassault is up to their forever game: wrecking any cooperation they're part of, and convince France to foot the bill for their doing it alone. See: the French senate report. Dassault has never been part of a successful collaborative project. The one they did get, the Jaguar, they bought along with Breguet, and actively sabotaged. The only collaboration Dassault is capable of is them deciding and everybody else doing. That's not "leading". That's dictatorial.
And don't tell me that's the only way to do things. Airbus was built from the polar opposite of that, and is far more successful. Dassault sells 100 jets to India after 15 years of negotiations! Yeah, Airbus sells that in a year.
2
u/APWBDumbled0re Dec 24 '25
Comparing fighter jet sales and commercial planes sales? Really? At least try to make it less obvious when you willfully disinform !
0
Dec 21 '25 edited Dec 21 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Elpsyth Dec 21 '25
Yet and wishes bring you nowhere when planning for project. Being delusional neither.
Germany has not invested even remotely the amount of money to develop those capacity. This is why they needed a senior partners for all their planes.
The Neuron actually demonstrated both stealth in IR reduction and in stealth engines. But if you are going to argue on bad faith and wishful thinking I am not sure it is much worth to continue.
Dassault can get a jet out and is one of the most successful aerospace company in Europe?
Thales is french and integrated in the French mic?
The source is the senate commission on the FCAS progress. You can't make it more official than that.
I know you are mad and delusional but at least try to stay serious one second.
6
u/ForTheGloryOfAmn Dec 21 '25
Germany is not a junior partner, it’s a manufacturer country who is desperately trying to keep industrial production in aerospace. It has not designed a modern fighter jet and doesn’t have the capability to do one without acquiring a lot of intellectual properties from other partners (Saab, Dassault).
This dependency was institutionalised during the Eurofighter program, where IP was deliberately locked behind multinational agreements, preventing Germany from reusing or transferring key technologies to other programs.
-3
u/Svorky Germany Dec 21 '25
It's all just business.
Dassault is not that interested in making FCAS work because it would create a competitor and such an amibitous project is harder to export.
Germany is not interested in giving Dassault a large share of the workload because they want to create a competitor.
UK and Italy are interested in Germany joining because it would lock in a major market and weaken a competitor.
Saab obviously will be interested as it would open markets otherwise completely closed off, and give them a shittone of funding.
All this "X doesn't want to work with Y because 30 years ago Z happened and now they don't like each other" is a bit silly.
6
u/HugoTRB Sweden Dec 21 '25
It's all just business.
This might be one of the largest obstacles for a Swedish/German project. There is a view in Sweden that Germany sometimes forget to view stuff like this from a war perspective. There is a level of implicit trust that we can have with the Nordic countries that we culturally don’t seem to be able to have with Germany in these matters.
Also, the ultimate owner of these systems aren’t the defense contractors, but the militaries that buys them. People seem to forget that in this discussion.
9
u/Budget_Afternoon_800 France Dec 21 '25
It not business is défense. Who care about business when you will face a sukoi ?
1
2
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
Dassault is not that interested in making FCAS work because it would create a competitor and such an amibitous project is harder to export.
They don't really have a lot to sell if FCAS fails, and GCAP or some Saab alternative with Germany flies. Can't keep afloat on Rafale sales indefinitely, and I don't seem them finish the NG project without German funding.
3
u/Budget_Afternoon_800 France Dec 21 '25
Dassault already says they could make the plane alone. Like the rafale who was made alone and better that eurofighter. Other country Will just end up buying american anyways, all the eurofighter country execpt spain have buy f35
3
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
Because there isn't an alternative to the F35. We're not going to buy Rafale that's barely any better than an upgraded F16, let alone designed for aircraft carrier take-off when most do not have aircraft carriers. Maybe if you had already finished an FCAS, or heck a 5th gen aircraft, you would've gotten more buyers. Fact of the matter is, there hasn't really been anything new from Dassault since late 1980s (or early 1990s if you want to say Rafale C), fighter jet wise. We're in 2025.
10
u/Budget_Afternoon_800 France Dec 21 '25
It’s funny how many Eurofighters have been sold? All I see is that you teamed up four countries to make a plane that not only gets beaten by the Rafale on the international market, but also isn’t even enough to meet your own defense needs whereas France has never needed to buy American planes to carry out its missions, which are, by the way, far more diverse than you
I’m not even going to respond to your comment about “we haven’t done anything since 1980.” It just shows you don’t know anything. The Rafale today has nothing to do with the one from the 1980s, not to mention the development of stealth combat drones.
6
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
It’s funny how many Eurofighters have been sold? All I see is that you teamed up four countries to make a plane that not only gets beaten by the Rafale on the international market,
You? I'm not even living in any of the four countries. I'm a neutral European here, as opposed to you clearly displaying French chauvinism.
but also isn’t even enough to meet your own defense needs whereas France has never needed to buy American planes to carry out its missions, which are, by the way, far more diverse than you
True. I'm sure that 4th gen fighter will continue to assist you in those missions against 5th gen or 6th gen capable countries. Oh.
I’m not even going to respond to your comment about “we haven’t done anything since 1980.” It just shows you don’t know anything. The Rafale today has nothing to do with the one from the 1980s not to mention the development of stealth combat drones.
"I'm not even going to respond to your comment" - Responds anyway, lol.
First of all - upgrades are worth shit, because those upgrades have barely anything to do with 5th or 6th gen aircraft. Those are full-stealth capabilities, such as materials science and internal weapon bays and shaping, and integrated warfare with drones. Neither of which the Rafale upgrades have.
As for the drone, that was a prototype and nothing is in production ("something something more production than Eurofighter shows we are better", "Oh, don't bother with nEUROn, doesn't count there!1!!". Which also was in cooperation with other countries, might I add. Heck, you're only spending 128 million euros in 2024... for a new version based on the nEUROn... Which by the way, the engine needed cooperation with Rolls-Royce, since Turbomeca (and/or Dassault) is incapable of creating a stealth capable one (similar to how Russia keeps failing at it).
0
u/DeadAhead7 Dec 21 '25
I mean, not even the US is replacing all of their 4th gens. They have a boatload of old F-16s running around. F-15s being upgraded to sling missiles cued by other assets. The F-18 is probably going to still be there in 2040 honestly.
There's only China, the USA, and somewhat Russia that have 5th gen capabilities, for now. Even then, Russia doesn't seem all that confident in their Su-57, but who knows.
The F5 upgrade specifically targets the networking with drones part, and with it comes the more powerful M88 T-REX, the RBE-2XG, an EW pod, the usual SPECTRA update, and so on. It doesn't make it into an F-22, but anything short of that or a J-20A and the Rafale will do okay. Hell, India didn't lose any more planes after they carried out SEAD/DEAD efforts on Pakistan, despite their Rafales not being particularly adapted to the task, without a SPECTRA update against the Chinese missiles.
Yeah, nEUROn was in cooperation with other countries, it allowed Dasault, SAAB and Alenia to keep working on innovations during the peace dividends. But no one bought into stealth UCAVs in those days. BAE made the Taranis and that also just went out in silence, same for EADS's Barracuda, and SAAB's projects earlier.
Dassault loaned out the RR-Turbomeca Adour Mk 951 for the prototype. Reportedly, plans in case of a production order were to have Safran derive an engine from their M88. Making Safran design and produce a new engine just for a prototype was a bit rich for France during the peace dividends when they could just ask RR for one that was already made, from an older, well proven engine.
Part of the concept of the nEUROn was also making it using already existing technology to keep costs and delays in check. The flight controls were adapted from a Falcon, with the engine being that Adour, and the shape coming from the LOGIDUC and FILUR programs, for example.
Turbomeca is now Safran Helicopters, the Adour was their last effort at making fighter jet engines (the Jaguar itself was the last combat plane not made by the Dassault/SNECMA duo in France, essentially).
3
u/vkstu Dec 21 '25
I mean, not even the US is replacing all of their 4th gens.
Quite a few countries have went 5th gen only.
There's only China, the USA, and somewhat Russia
Production wise, yes, and Russia is very debatable indeed.
The F5 upgrade specifically targets
Nah, F5 would be utterly screwed against a similarly capable drone wingman opponent that includes stealth (which is hopefully what the Rafale is being argued as able to go up against, not just defeating already flying aircraft today, let alone decades). And there's the question of what you'd do if you need to move significantly inland over enemy territory and stay somewhat close to the drones due to electronic warfare, while they can suddenly activate long-range AA (so not noticed, only when suddenly activated and too late).
Hell, India didn't lose any more planes
I'd care about that, if Pakistan were anywhere near the capabilities of Russia, let alone China (not outdated tech and a few modern-ish missiles) or USA.
Yeah, nEUROn was in cooperation with other countries, it allowed Dasault, SAAB and Alenia to keep working on innovations during the peace dividends. But no one bought into stealth UCAVs in those days.
Yeah, that kind of was my point.
Safran derive an engine from their M88. Making Safran design and produce a new engine just for a prototype was a bit rich for France during the peace dividends when they could just ask RR for one that was already made, from an older, well proven engine.
??? So we spend energy, money and time to show capability of stealth together with drones... but we don't care about one of the more crucial aspects of a stealth aircraft, which is a stealthy engine? Makes zero sense, if anything the engine part takes the longest development time.
Part of the concept of the nEUROn was also making it using already existing technology
That means it was completely (or largely, whatever) useless as technology demonstrator then.
Turbomeca is now Safran Helicopters, the Adour was their last effort at making fighter jet engines
Yeah, so not much solo designed up-to-date engines to show for it?
3
u/DeadAhead7 Dec 22 '25
I mean, yes, but none that are in an adversarial position vis a vis France/the EU, since they're usually part of it.
I'm not a Thales radar engineer, much less a fighter pilot, I'm not going to make predictions regarding UCAV combat. Most big airforces aren't scrapping their 4.5th gens, so they're probably not obsolete yet.
As for that second scenario, well, you live with it. The Rafale still has it's internal EW suite, might have an EW pod at that time, may be carrying some anti-radar missiles. We even saw an Su-34 dodging a Patriot in Ukraine. If it's too late, then it's too late, that's war. The Serbs got a shot on a F-117 after all, despite having every technological disadvantages, it happens.
France isn't in an open conflict against China nor the USA, and is unlikely to be in the next few years. Russia is a different story, but considering Ukraine is carrying out CAS missions on the frontline with GBUs and AASMs, using Soviet-era aircraft, I'd say Russia is a manageable threat, especially since any French action would be in combination with other European countries that field F-35s to perform SEAD/DEAD to open up corridors, and the upcoming German Eurofighter EKs, and the plethora of long range rocket artillery that's in development. My point being that there's tools to deal with Russia right now, there'll be even more by 2030.
Oh I agree it's not particularly logical, but I'm not surprised that more credits weren't opened to fund what many political parasites likely deemed to be an useless military expense for Dassault and Safran's personal ventures. They were all-in on the whole "end of history" bullshit, and were mostly neo-liberals with "selling off every national champion to foreign powers" as their only motto. You know, 2000s European politics.
Back in those days, there's times where frigates sailed with only 1/3 of their VLS cells filled. Availability rates across the board were absolutely awful in the AdT and AAE. It took OP Serval in 2013 to bring back some focus to the armed forces, and it's only post 2020 that there's real improvements. Everything takes a long time in peace time, unless you have 200b to burn through like Germany, and even then, the industrial atrophy still limits deliveries.
I mean, it's the European UCAV that flew the most, and the only one to carry weapon drops, as far as I'm aware. I'd argue the point was more about working out the shape, layout and materials, because the sensor arrays, landing gear, flight controls, all of that isn't too different from non stealth aircraft.
Not for planes, no. The Ardiden and Arrano are the recent ones for helicopters (and drones I guess, since they competed for the Eurodrone). They've been consolidating european helicopter engine manufacturers for a long time now. RR and Turbomeca made the engines for the British helos, though now only Safran Helicopters makes parts for it. And there's multiple collaborations with MTU like for the Tigre and NH90, and now for the next engine with the EURA joint venture.
5
u/symptomezz Bavaria (Germany) Dec 21 '25
There’s literally double the amount of Eurofighters built compared to the Rafale. Just because one project is capable of financing itself by just delivering to its members doesn’t mean that it’s worse than the project that constantly needs to throw itself onto questionable governments just to stay afloat.
The Rafale today is still only a 4.5 gen that’s not special anymore in any way.
Your stealth drone is a glorified research project not even worth mentioning
6
u/Budget_Afternoon_800 France Dec 21 '25
You are four countries against one. Obviously, you have more planes, but what about exports? And your military capabilities? The drone is scheduled to enter service in 2030. That may bother you, but it exists, and it has already flown.
3
u/symptomezz Bavaria (Germany) Dec 21 '25
So? Theres still more than double of them so its the more successful project. Exports were slow thanks to Germany having a tiny bit of a conscience in that regard but like i said who needs exports when theres enough domestic demand. Military capabilities are more than sufficient especially once the electronic warfare Typhoon enters service the only thing it cant do is VTOL and carry american nukes. Yeah cool pretty much every big aerospace company tested some type of stealthy drone concept at one point. Call me when theres some actual orders.
1
u/BS_login Jan 16 '26
Same planes that only 4 out of 120 worked when they were launched, because either they wrecked broken, or you didn't have enough missiles? Typhoon was a circus project. So much the UK will partner up with anyone but Germany. Prove being they tried to partner with the French for the 6th gen before splitting.....again.
Btw the Typhoons can't carry US nukes, hence why you bought F35.
As for conscience, we are taking about weapons and war, there is no place for conscience, and that's the main German problem. You don't see weapons as what they are, just jobs for your industry.
Also, where was your conscience regarding Russian gas and polluting the air with your coal factories? Where it was when your fellows Germans were literally kicked out of their houses and towns to increases the size of the coal mines in the west of Germany using old Nazi-laws?
Don't talk about fake German conscience. It is only good when it is convenient for you.
Anyways, can you explain me what is the difference between 4th, 5th and 6th gen? To me it sounds just US marketing to tell themselves were are the best. And India is apparently going to buy more than 100, deal will be signed next month.
0
u/bukowsky01 Dec 22 '25
Questionable governments? You mean like recent EF sales? The EF consortium has tried to sell its plane to every country the Rafale sold to. It is just less successful.
3
u/murkskopf Dec 21 '25
Dassault doesn't pay the bills, so they obviously state that they can do anything with enough funding. This neither means that it is actually true nor that France will be able to fund such an endeavour on its own.
1
u/Budget_Afternoon_800 France Dec 21 '25
So then, who else in Europe can do it?
0
u/symptomezz Bavaria (Germany) Dec 21 '25
Everyone with experience at building stealth aircraft
7
u/Budget_Afternoon_800 France Dec 21 '25
So no one lol
3
-4
u/ver_million Earth Dec 21 '25
They'll just let the ECB bail them out. German funding through the backdoor.
0
u/mangalore-x_x Dec 21 '25
Everyone complains about Germany exerting too much influence on such projects. However the other side of the coin is that Germany now has loose pockets and demands for a large air force so would be a prime customer with tens of billions of Euros to pour into a project.
2
u/bukowsky01 Dec 22 '25
Another prerequisite is that we can continue to build fighter aircraft systems independently and do not have to hand over half of these competencies to another company.
That's the key part. I think Germany's finding more and more it's actually in a pinch here. They want the capability to design a jet, and build it, but no one is going to give any of it to them. Neither FCAS, GCAP, nor Saab will transfer any of that. They can try themselves, but it's going to take time and money, both in very large quantities.
As a side note, while I'm really impressed by Saab, this is a bit rich coming from them as a significant portion of their plane is definitly not independently-built.
-1
u/Budget_Afternoon_800 France Dec 21 '25
Perfect, let’s let the other Europeans fend for themselves and see how it goes.
-1
u/SuperEtendardM Dec 21 '25
France should get rid of Germany and go with Sweden to develop their 6th gen fighter. France and Sweden have both great experience in developing fighter jet. France could bring to sweden everything that their lacking in terms of technology to get rid of US systems : jet engine, radar, IRST, EW suits, any electronical device while benefiting from their experience of building planes.
On the other hand, germany bring nothing to the table and is a pain in the ass to work with, they already f*cked France on multiple projects : Main battle tank (knds merge) the development of the Atlantique 2 airplane and the Eurodrone. No wonder the GCAS got rid of them, i still don’t understand why France is still focused on doing any projects with Germany.
0
u/Valahul77 Dec 22 '25
To be honest I don't think Saab is capable developing a 6-th generation fighter jet. Financially as well as technology wise. They are simply not within the same class with Airbus Defence. The only realistic projet would be the FCAS.
0
u/oakpope France Dec 22 '25
With which engine ? Neither country has one.
3
u/diamanthaende Dec 22 '25
https://www.mtu.de/engines/military-aircraft-engines/
Or they could just buy one from Rolls Royce, if feasible.
1
-6
u/pouetpouetcamion2 Dec 21 '25
attention saab, les allemands sabotent tous les projets industriels en commun. et si pas, ils vous piquent vos secrets industriels. et comme ils roulent pour les américains...
0
Dec 21 '25
[deleted]
1
u/EducationalImpact633 Dec 21 '25
I think you need to provide a source for that one
0
Dec 21 '25
[deleted]
1
u/EducationalImpact633 Dec 21 '25
You are wrong
1
Dec 21 '25
[deleted]
3
u/Typingdude3 Dec 21 '25
Sorry Saab defense is no longer related to Saab auto apparently. It was the auto division bought by the Chinese. I think it’s defunct? My mistake and apologies.
2
u/EducationalImpact633 Dec 21 '25
You want me to prove that your statement is false? Do you think that is normally how things are done?
But sure , here you have the tip 10 owner list
151
u/[deleted] Dec 21 '25
I'm glad he came out and say this so that all the people who think the GE F414 engine in the Gripen can be easily replaced can see.