Franco-German new generation fighter will be capable of operating from CATOBAR carriers

>More interoperability in NATO
they plan on exiting NATO.

They've been saying that since NATO started.

Nonsense. No EU or French bulletin talks about anything other than European army/armies integrated in the Atlantic alliance

likely not going to see this plane until at least 2030

It’s a 6th gen. 2035-2040

yes imagine being so poor that you spend billions on the latest fighter on the market

Dude the Autobahn in Germany can still be converted into emergency airfields within hours.
In the cold war that even was regularly trained

We're supposed to imagine the Germans honestly paying towards this and not just blowing smoke up French arses?
When they wouldn't even fund DASS and IRST for Eurofighter, and were 10 years behind everybody else in deciding it would be useful if it could drop bombs

Imagine spending billions for a subpar aircraft.

It’s part of a wider framework of Franco-German-EU joint-development projects, so it has a bit more space to breathe
Apparently Germany will mostly take care of the unmanned part of the system while France will develop the aircraft itself. I don’t know what Spain will do, maybe a bit of both

Wouldn't be surprised if more nations will build CATABAR carriers in the next decades.

The project is pretty clear for Germany.

Unmanned drones and loyal wingman will be developed in Germany
System integration will be handled by Airbus and the German side
Engine is co-developed by Safran and MTU, workshare is splitted by "hot parts" which will Safran take care while MTU gets the "cold parts" and maintenance and service.
Germany gets the leadership for the next-gen tank.
It's either both aircraft and tank or nothing.

Thales is actually trying to get a piece of Airbus's workshare, which is a red line for Germany. So France better not pushing their luck here.

they did it already, in 1966, but they came back in 2009

>Germany making the tank
>France making the plane
As it should be

nah France and Germany haven't even achieved 5th gen yet, but I could se this abortion existing as a 5.5 gen in 2060

It seems like France wants to merge Thales Alenia Space (Thales + Leonardo Finmeccanica) with Airbus Defence & Space. If Italy agrees and the EU Antitrust Commission gives its ok the merger would create a space defense company the size of Lockheed

>Unmanned drones and loyal wingman will be developed in Germany
Proof? France is making the nEUROn.
So far the only companies that have been announced are Airbus and Dassault Aviation for the JCS.

The drone carrier was presented together with the NGF
The nEUROn is still a thing btw. I think we may see a carrier/land launched nEUROn when you need more firepower and a more expendable Airbus-made air-launched drone

Attached: cover-r4x3w1000-5d0a414181d45-rc-airbus.jpg (1000x750, 118K)

Is that a new design? I've not seen it before? Also, I thought the French drone was years ahead of the Barracuda.

>Is that a new design? I've not seen it before?
It was shown at the Paris Air Show when the program was officialized. I don't know about the capabilities of the two but it's probably something Airbus built with the knowledge from the Barracuda

Attached: 65217300_908505762837781_1316462911366889472_n.jpg (1479x716, 110K)

very impressive plywood and fiberglass

That's what they use to make mockups usually, yes

>probably something Airbus built with the knowledge from the Barracuda
That's odd considering its issues. I guess it comes down to politics.

look they even used the swoopy 80s style model stand

What issues did the Barracuda have?

It crashes. I remember hearing about other issues but I can't remember. Like the rest of the drones not a huge amount of info around.

I think Airbus tested the swarm mode for the drone some months ago, so if there is an issue keeping it from flying correctly at least it isn't in the software

No idea why, I imagine the information is rather confidential. Anyway got a link to that test?

airbus.com/newsroom/stories/Airbus-demonstrates-MUT.html

I’ll believe it when I see it. This shit isn’t even on the drawing board yet, just a bunch of dweebs talking and fantasizing about building a eurofighter program that actually worked.

Ah, they used the Do-DT25 instead.

And video, I don't know why it doesn't work on the main page
youtu.be/ZnjQG8aInB8

>This shit isn’t even on the drawing board yet
All 6th gen designs aren't that far. Maybe the FA-XX is further, who knows. I guess you could point out that they are going through a feasibility study.
Thank you.

French Navy pilot go through the exact same carrier qualifications as USN pilots since 1996, and receive their USN wings along French Navy wings during the graduation ceremony.

Just make a flatter Rafale and call it a day

Attached: FCAS.jpg (1046x543, 46K)

EU EU EU

This, but with a retractable refueling probe this time.
Since Dassault senior is dead, it might be feasible this time around.

CG made it looks like the FCAS will operate with F-84's, that would be cool.

>ywn take your Gripen out on weekends after mowing the lawn

feels bad man

buy one

So it's basically now confirmed that this aircraft will be worse than Tempest?

You cant make a carrier capable aircraft without compromising RCS + speed (through wing area) and weight (through reinforced structural elements)

If it sticks to the Rafale design philosophy, it's mostly going to be used for mudhut bombing, technical hunting, and peace time interceptions

You can just make different versions

They specifically said they weren't going to make a dedicated carrier variant

>The NGF will follow a similar development path to that of the three variants of the Dassault Rafale fighter, the source added.

i'm not sure if you have any real concept of how expensive that would be?

There's a reason that F35 was so expensive to develop, it's three separate aircraft with only partial component sharing.

All versions of rafale are compromised to suit the carrier version and eve then then variants are almost identical - completely compaable to the tranches of Eurofighter rather than F35A, B and C

Yes, a development path common to the three variants, they say in the second paragraph after this sentence that they made a common airframe for all three variants that could withstand carrier landings

>i'm not sure if you have any real concept of how expensive that would be?
Very, but hey these projects are always pretty expensive

Depends what EMALS are like and the such.

Sure, but the last thing you do when you're struggling to pay for a project is say "fuck it lets make this 50-100% more expensive by making a whole other version. Imagine being that guy from Airbus or whoever trying to pitch it to government.

Trying a little hard here.

Meant for

How is any of what i've said even remotely "trying hard"

Those are common traits of pretty much every carrier aircraft. There is not a single carrier variant with superior performance to a land based sibling, be it Rafale, Su33/27/30/35 etc.

Launching isnt the limiting factor, landings are. Landings have higher g forces and more stress on the airfame - which requires the reinforcement. and the lower speed approach needs a larger wing which adds drag and weight (and increases RCS)

There's a reason F35C has the worst kinematic performance of the three versions.

Could the magnets not be used to soften the landing

Tbh the tempest should be carrier capable considering the UK is focused on expeditionary warfare.

>If it sticks to the Rafale design philosophy
This, the philosophy of France bitching until it gets what suits it best and throwing the toys out of the pram if it doesn't

>space defense company the size of Lockheed
But without competitors and sustained by the EU government like most of yoropean industry...

>But without competitors
Competitors are on the global market of course, just like Airbus today
>The NGF will follow a similar development path to that of the three variants of the Dassault Rafale fighter, the source added.
Implying Boeing doesn't receive subsides just the same from the US government

Luckily this time Dassault should make most of the plane so France can do what it wants

They don't have the carriers for that. They pushed themselves into a corner with the QE class carriers.

youtube.com/watch?v=F_cxkF6qSY8

Why are they not for that?

The magnets are not interacting with the plane at all.

EMALS moves the 'sledge' that the plane gets attached to on launch. It plays no part in landing.

F35B is fine for the next 25 years. It's also been stated that tempest's loyal wingman will be carrier capable.

The QE class have a 50 year lifespan, 25 years or so will be with F35 the rest with an unknown aircaft. The carriers have the ability to swap to CATOBAR if the need arises during a refit.

Because UK can only hope the USA will have a replacement for the F-35B.

And despite the claims the QE carriers can't be upgraded with EMALS without basically rebuilding the entire carrier.

>those A-10s

pure sex

There is a large amount of space left empty below the flight deck of QE an PoW for adding CATOBAR.

The idea that you have to 'rebuild the entire carrier' is laughable and poorly informed, the carriers were built with this option in mind.

Attached: qe0808b.jpg (1368x912, 236K)

So they are for that but the UK isn't developing a F-35B replacement?

>The carriers have the ability to swap to CATOBAR if the need arises during a refit.
Nope.

The idea to operate F-35C was canceled because of the massive rebuilding process necessary.

The Tempest isn't designed for carrier ops neither on the QE class nor catapult assisted.

It's too early to start work on the F35 replacement, Tempest is the Typhoon replacement, tempest will also be introduced with at least one type of UAV that will be carrier capable. F35 on QE could potentially be replaced by a totally unmanned fleet of aircraft but it's many years too early to say.

>The carriers have the ability to swap to CATOBAR if the need arises during a refit
You may as well build a whole new carrier at that point

That's a rather poor article by Janes.

Of course there are general design elements which were designed with carrier operations but the standard Rafale variant didn't suffer at all.

They really do, this was mooted after the 2010 SDSR but it would involve reversing too much work to be economical.

During mid life refit the ramp can be removed and the cats/traps be added in a few months.

Nothing at all like "rebuilding the entire carrier". Thats a laughable opinion.

Attached: 9213523515_22c2c99704_o (1).jpg (960x568, 86K)

>The decision to convert Prince of Wales to CATOBAR was reviewed after the projected costs rose to around double the original estimate. On 10 May 2012, the Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, announced in Parliament that the government had decided to revert to its predecessor's plans to purchase the F-35B rather than the F-35C, and to complete both aircraft carriers with ski-jumps in the STOVL configuration.[48] The total cost of the work that had been done on the conversion to a CATOBAR configuration, and of reverting the design to the original STOVL configuration, was estimated by Philip Hammond to be "something in the order of £100 million".[49] In later testimony before a parliamentary committee, Bernard Gray, Chief of Defence Materiel, revealed that even though the carriers had been sold as adaptable and easy to convert for CATOBAR, no serious effort had been made in this direction since 2002.[50]

>Europe thread
>some Bong tries to turn it into an UK thread

Is it that time of the day again?

are you the same person asBecause you seem to have zero grip on reality when it comes to costs.

The UK industry really pulled some shit regarding the QE-class. Reminds me how they selled the Typhoon as a possible carrier plane with only moderate changes necessary.

The issue with conversion in 2010 was that the carriers were partially complete. The shipyards would have to reverse their work then go on hold ( while paying thousands of workers every day to sit idle) while design changes were made.

As you quoted the commitment to STOVL was made in 2002, the next chance to change configuration would be in a mid life refit.

I pointed out a flaw in the European project and then i've seen nothing but dumb claims about the UK - each of which have been BTFO.

Pot & kettle

The claim that the QE class could operate catapults is coming from the French aircraft carrier PA2, which was based on the QE class.

But it would have a complete different internal layout.

Except that's already been addressed, the time was wrong to change configuration, this is well documented.

The wiki page is also talking about costs to change doubling not costs to build the whole carrier. You're deluded if you think it's cheaper to rebuild a whole ship rather than add CATOBAR.

>you do when you're struggling to pay for a project
? A project that barely started?
>Imagine being that guy from Airbus or whoever trying to pitch it to government
3 governments are already behind the project, this isn't an enterprise by Airbus

>Proof
Frog here, that's how the worshare was settled.
France is not "making" the nEUROn any further than a technology demonstrator for bricks that will go into the FCAS.

The envisionned wingman presented there is pretty much the size of a cruise missile (note the folding wings) meant to be launched en masse from a carrier plane and carrying a mission package, radar, ELINT, e-war, the likes. It is meant to be cheap, utterly expendable and replaceable, and not be an attempt at a large UAV that is almost as technologically, logistically and economically demanding as a manned fighter. That doesn't seem an entirely shitty idea to me.

Now If the Tempest ever turns to shit I could imagine the frogs and brits developping a large UAV for their navies, based on the nEUROn and Taranis, a bit like the MQ-25a (if the brit carriers can be at least converted to STOBAR). That would make a somewhat decend workshare if they ever need to find something to do for BAE. I don't see the small-ish wingman work out too well for the navies.

I used to like the idea of tailless body until i saw the wide-body v-tail model at the Bourget exhibition. May it carry all the dreams and hopes of the F-23.

On another note, to fit the NGF the next french carrier(s) will be around 75.000 tons, which makes my e-baguette hard.

Attached: 1564435911884.jpg (1920x1280, 352K)

The QE-class will end as amphibious assault carrier and drone carrier bastard longterm.

What's with the black markings? Carbon fiber? Some sort of composite? Something that houses sensors?

>The claim that the QE class could operate catapults is coming from the French aircraft carrier PA2,

No that debate predates P2A by decades. It literally goes back to the 70's.

>PA2, which was based on the QE class. But it would have a complete different internal layout

Correct, it would have a different internal layout. but this is because it's a different ship for a different navy, not because CATOBAR with an EM systems requires a different internal layout.

>The envisionned wingman presented there

This is not the wingman but the planned remote carrier.
youtu.be/e1ekX5uwnyw?t=70

MBDA is planning to develope two types of remote carriers. Small ones without returning capabilities and large ones which are supposed to return.

>On another note, to fit the NGF the next french carrier(s) will be around 75.000 tons, which makes my e-baguette hard.
With nuclear propulsion, I assume
Macron seems kinda based in regards to military expenditure and projects

Of course do they need two complete different internal layouts. Somehow the steam or energy need to come from somewhere.