>>65040543
>France's Dassault says 'weeks' left to save Europe warplane project
Dassault saying the partn... retarded and disgusting paypig to get bent surely seems to be working out as planned.

FCAS has been dead for months, it's just politics that's keeping it alive at this point, none of the actual industry partners are even trying at this point.

>>65040543
I want 6th gen fighters to launch AA missiles out of the poop chute and have them maneuver like in the expanse with thrusters.

>>65040575
They could salvage it into a tech sharing agreement, with both nations using common parts.

>>65040634
Dassault doesn't want to share IP with Airbus, a potential regional competitor.

Common parts only work if Dassault is willing to share the IP on how to build their shit, which they won't do.

It's why they wanted 80% of the workshare on the manned fighter, so dassault didn't have to share any of their good IP with airbus.

>>65040644
It's not uncommon for joint projects to have black box areas, not is it wrong to desire, there talk of them in GCAP.
Also the 80% figure wasn't them wanting to do 80%, it was them saying they could do 80% of the FCAS.

>>65040543
If either Italy or the UK manage to make France a GCAP customer I will forever worship them as Gods. I will eat ad drink tea and pasta every day.

>>65040693
That'll never happen, at most I could see france buy a GCAP CCA, but not GCAP itself.

Things would need to go tits up in a big way for france to ever consider GCAP over their own Rafale upgrades or a cleansheet 5/6th gen design like FCAS. Even if it's turboretarded expensive and they only build less than 100 of them.


They need nuclear missile integration which I dont think the GCAP partners would do for france, and it needs carrier launch/landing capability, which also isn't something GCAP will offer anytime soon if ever.

>>65040706
Italy is planning to build a nuclear catobar carrier. France could try to get them to switch to FCAS with the promise of tech transfer in the carrier

>>65040714
Italy is far too steeped in GCAP to back out now.

Further, the CATOBAR carrier plan is currently planning to field it sometime in the mid 2040s, a full 5-10 years after GCAP will be in hitting the skies.

Far more likely Italy instead focuses on advanced carrier-capable UCAVs to operate alongside their existing F-35Bs instead of trying to navalize GCAP, or buying FCAS. Then maybe if they REALLY want to double down on the carrier idea they might see if lockheed is still making F-35Cs in the 2040s for them to buy. As it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than trying to navalize GCAP by themselves (as neither the UK nor Japan have much interest in a catapult-launched GCAP).

>>65040736
>as neither the UK nor Japan have much interest in a catapult-launched GCAP).
I wouldn't be surprised if that changes. When the F-35Bs are out of date they will have to find a new plane to be carrier capable, and no one is looking at any future STOVL fighters. So it's give up the capabilities or go CATOBAR.

>>65040818
F-35Bs will be in service until the late 2070s or early 2080s under lockheeds current long term plans.

The F-35Bs of the 2050s/60s wont be the F-35Bs of the 2020s.

>>65040824
The F-35s will not be used for 70 years, that's a ridiculous claim. Also modification to a STOVL airframe will not be revolutionary due to its design limits.

>>65040844
It'll still be good enough for the 2070s and 80s, especially when paired with more modern CCA/UCAVs.

>>65040890
>It'll still be good enough for the 2070s and 80s
It won't be, there are significant issues with it currently, including maintance cost and range. It is a halfway measure. Also about CCAs and UCAVs, the future fighters of the world demanding high electrical energy. Part of that is for the command of the uncrewed assets. If their assumption about the need of greater electrical energy is true then these unmanned crafts will be gimped if controlled by an F-35B.
>>65040907
>I don't understand why India is screwing it's own Teja
Because they are incompetent and can not build a good fighter. They even struggle with the simple stuff.

>>65040714
>planning to
Those plans will vanish into thin air when mil planners realise that the range of GCAP means they'd be able to patrol the entire med and all of North Africa without refuelers easily, that kind of money would be better spent on a new fleet of littoral ships

>>65040693
The French are far too arrogant to do that, which is why they always hissy fit out of joint programs.

>>65040907
Corruption + Indians can't make anything good domestically ever.

>>65040943
Fuck off pidor

>>65041501
>Any criticism on a western system makes you Russian
Stop being an utter faggot.

>>65040714
>>65040736
>>65040818
Aircraft carriers Garibaldi (just sold to Indonesia) and Cavour are being turned into drone carriers, integrating the new Leonardo-Baykar Bayraktar TB3, just like the Anadolu carrier from TÜRKYİE.
A new hypotetical larger carrier would probably use larger more advanced Leonardo-Baykar drones, just to keep the Piaggio Aero production lines busy.

>>65041809
I think it's far more likely Italy does their CATOBAR studies and come back saying "nah we don't need it now that GCAP can fly 1500+ miles without refueling".

Then they can focus on regular UCAVs instead of navalized ones.

>>65041827
No one cares whether a nuclear carrier would actually make military sense, its main purpose would be to keep Fincantieri busy and allocate European defense funding to the developement of the Newcleo compact nuclear reactors for the future civil nuclear power plants.

>>65041853
Fincantieri doesn't really care what they're building, and Italy has plenty of smarter surface ships they can buy first. More FREMMs, Thaon di Revel class, or the new DDX destroyers.

Sure a nuclear carrier would be a big deal for Fincantieri, but it's hardly the ONLY work they could be doing.

Also the EDF money for big "prestige" programs like that generally requires at least 2 or 3 participants; this would be an italian carrier, and france already has their OWN nuclear carrier so they sure as fuck aren't going to greenlight EDF funds for italy to get a subsidized nuclear carrier.

>>65040736
It’s unlikely GCAP fits in a weight class to be navalized. Everything we’ve heard suggests that a very large plane is getting built, with the very long range figures to be achieved with a very large wing carrying a very large quantity of fuel, with large weapons bays leveraging the large airframe. That just won’t work when current western arresting gear maxes out at about fifty five thousand pounds.

>>65040943
There are compromises with the A and C that stem entirely from design choices necessary for the B. The Harrier is coming up on 60 years in service. It would not be at all strange for the F-35B to surpass that, as it’s not all that likely anyone is going to want to foot the significant bill that would come with developing another supersonic VLO STOVL fighter. The US Marines, British, Spanish, and Italian navies are the only customers for that sort of aircraft, and the biggest thing they have in common is that none of them can afford that sort of development program. JSF was already a massive handout to those services by the US Congress, largely at the expense of the US Air Force.

>>65041959
I mean, I largely agree, which is why I don't think it would ever happen even if Italy DID build a CATOBAR carrier.

And yeah, i'm pretty sure GCAP's empty weight is approaching 50-60k lbs, let alone once you add in reserve fuel and unexpended munitions.

>>65041380
They are rightfully arrogant. They are the only europeans that are almost fully soverein as far as defense industry go. They paid the price for this over the years, why should they share with fags who let their industry crumble as they bought american planes?

>>65042722
Because you can't say we all need to get together and join hands in European defense without giving up ANY IP/technology to your partners.

France wants to pretend they're pro-European defense, but what they really are is pro-French defense, and they would happily watch the rest of the European defense sector burn if it meant France could sell to whoever was left.

If france wants to swallow their pride and accept 40 billion euros from german to build a new fighter jet, then france needs to be willing to give germany something back in recompense, especially when you're asking germany to fund a jet that does a ton of VERY expensive shit that germany has no need for (CATOBAR capability + nuclear missile capability). Then you ALSO expect to stiff germany on the workshare portion of the jet you want them to fund half of on top of it all.

It's insulting, and frankly absurd that france expects anyone to take them seriously when they've done the exact same shit in the past to other european defense programs.

>>65040844
The radar for a block 4 F-35 won't even fit on a block 3 airframe. There will be lots of compatibility breaking changes along the way, but the F-35 will be the naval aircraft of choice for the foreseeable future.

>>65042737
>be German
>have nothing to add to a fighter program but money
>withhold the money
>get offended when dassault asks why they're being forced to work with the krauts who can't contribute anything at all

>>65042737
strawman and projection, I could write a whole 2k character post about defense procurement to prove you wrong but I don't care to reply to some retarded faggot in a serious and constructive way so I will just shit on Germany instead because you're probably from there either as a native or as some migrant from a shithole. Even if you are not, the germs deserve it anyway.
if anyone want to see anything in europe burn it's germany, always the most servile faggot to any outsider. Always buying american jets over european jets, flashback to that f-104 scandal where their biggest ace kept protesting against that shit plane. Always fucking up their neighbors economically, like trying to fuck over nuclear power including in France because it's somehow not eco-friendly enough then proceed to buy russian gas and finance another pipeline thanks to all those ex-stasis connections. Always being the image of a pussified EU who bend over at all time and just reply with "prayers and thoughts". Ursula got into some scandals as minister of defense yet the germs still shove her into an EU leadership position. The germs had a budget comparable to the French for their defense yet what did they had with that? I can tell you what they didn't have over the french, a native jet fighter, a native nuclear carrier, native nuclear submarines, a fully native nuclear weapon program, a fully native balistic missile program. Oh and the French are by far the most important contributor of the ESA thanks to their technological advance. What is german technology? Closing down nuclear plants and re-starting coal plants because it's the eco-friendly thing to do; truly they do science differently in germany.
Spain is also in that program yet you don't hear shit from them. Looking at both country's leadership, I would trust spain to not do a 360 and walk out only to buy more american shit unlike the other country. Ain't no way I'd give out my technological edge away to someone as unreliable
fag

>>65042970
I can basically guarantee if Germany leaves FCAS, Spain will follow.

>>65042970
>HOW DARE YOU BUY AMERICAN!?!?!?!? THAT'S A BETRALY OF EUROPE!

yet when france needs a CATOBAR AWACS, they bought american.

When france needs an electromagnetic catapult for their new aircraft carrier what do they do? Yep, they buy american.

France needs a new drone? You guessed it. American. France operates 12 MQ-9 Block 5 ER drones.


Then when Germany needed a new jet to keep up their nuclear sharing agreement with the US, Germany was forced to buy the F-35 as no other jet in the world was cleared to carry the B61 nuclear bomb. Did france offer to sell Rafale with french nuclear weapons to germany as an alternative? Nope. But when germany bought the F-35, which again, was the only plane in the world capable of fulfilling that mission, France acted like germany betrayed all of europe.

Yet anytime france needs something they can't get from anyone else, they're happy to buy american.

It's just fucking pathetic.

>>65042997
France bought the tech and research material for the EM catapult not the catapults themselves.
>sell french nuclear weapons to germany
Are you genuinely retarded? Nuclear sharing isn't the same as selling and selling is prohibited by the non-proliferation treaty. The b61 is a gravity dumb bomb, any plane can carry it with modifications.

Once again missing the main difference in mentality. France buy american as a last resort, while it's the German's default mode. This is explained by their lack of native industry which they lost over the years by buying and not spending time and money on it. The French played the long game and spent more to gain more in the long term. It's inconceivable that they would forsake all that to some untrustworthy partner. In the realm of aerospace defense, technology is EVERYTHING otherwise Saudi Arabia could make their own F-22 and B-21 if money was all that mattered. Germany bring fuck all to the table. France would gain more from taking 5-10years longer to build it while keeping their technological secrets and edge than give out the fruits of their labor like a whore running after a wealthy client.
You previously talked about France needing to give something in exchange for that deal, but you got it backward. If France could find someone to foot the bill instead of Germany, what difference would it make? None. If France can get some guaranteed buyer without any faggy german interference about the sale and usage of the plane, they would once again gain more and still get their money's worth.

tl;dr German is not a serious country when it come to making war jets, they are nobodies and trying to buy your way to the top doesn't make you a big dog in the game

>>65043048
>France bought the tech and research material for the EM catapult not the catapults themselves
No, they're officially buying 3 US made catapults, confirmed in the budget just a few weeks ago, and they have "possibilities" for french alternatives, but the current budget is paying for 3 US made catapults.

And while yes the B-61 is a "dumb" bomb that "any" plane "can" carry, the only new plane currently CERTIFIED to carry the B-61 is the F-35A. And the US isn't going to certify the Rafale to carry the B-61, so it's not like germany can buy the Rafale and just expect the US to magically certify the B-61 for deployment on it.

The US are the one that has to do the certification, it's not something france can do, or germany can do, it's something only the US can do.


Also I never meant france should SELL nukes to france, but do nuke sharing like the US does while selling the JETS to germany.

Even the nuke sharing stuff france JUST started talking about is talking about deploying french jets with french nukes and french pilots under french authority in other countries, it's not ACTUALLY nuclear sharing like the US does it (where the planes are yours and the pilots are yours, you're just getting the bomb from the US).


TLDR; you're totally uninformed, or are misrepresenting the situation to make france look better, in either case you're wrong.

>>65043077
>france should SELL nukes to france
france to germany, not france to france.

>>65041809
>Garibaldi (just sold to Indonesia) and Cavour are being turned into drone carriers, integrating the new Leonardo-Baykar Bayraktar TB3,
First of all, only the Garibaldi is being converted to drone carrier, and Indonesia will not use TB3 drones. Second, the Cavour will start hosting some TB3s, but its main role will still be as an F35/Heli carrier. Second, it's TURKEY. Stop pushing that retarded name.

>>65042722
I meant arrogant in that they think they know better than everyone else even when they are doing obviously stupid things.

They think everyone is so stupid that we can't see the only thing they're interested in is themselves and their own defence which is why they tried to sell weapons (Mistral) to Russia for years and do still sell weapons to India, which instantly compromises any kind of security around operating parameters (look at the Scorpene leaks for example).

>>65043077
>TLDR; you're totally uninformed, or are misrepresenting the situation to make france look better, in either case you're wrong.
This. Highly suspect he's French, you can always tell by the "we're the best we never do anything wrong and you're stupid for pointing out that we did exactly that" attitude.

You can see it when they talk about "untrustworthy partners" whilst not even 10 years ago France was selling tech specs for Mistral + Scorpene to India and Russia lmao. Same way YJ-8 missiles came about because China didn't pay the high price France wanted for exocets (ergo France was willing to sell fucking communist China exocets). Same way the Harbin Z-9 is a copy of a Eurocopter Dauphin because the French in their infinite intelligence thought it was a good idea to give TDPs to the Chinese to build up their helicopter industry.

But yeah, the Germans are untrustworthy partners lmao.

>>65043048
>France would gain more from taking 5-10years longer to build it while keeping their technological secrets and edge than give out the fruits of their labor like a whore running after a wealthy client.
Lmao, I should have included this amazing line in my last post. >>65043631

>>65043543
https://theaviationist.com/2025/02/17/baykar-indonesia-drone-factory-deal/

>>65042997
>yet when france needs a CATOBAR AWACS, they bought american.
>When france needs an electromagnetic catapult for their new aircraft carrier what do they do? Yep, they buy american.
>France needs a new drone? You guessed it. American. France operates 12 MQ-9 Block 5 ER drones.
>>65043631
>not even 10 years ago France was selling tech specs for Mistral + Scorpene to India and Russia lmao. Same way YJ-8 missiles came about because China didn't pay the high price France wanted for exocets (ergo France was willing to sell fucking communist China exocets). Same way the Harbin Z-9 is a copy of a Eurocopter Dauphin because the French in their infinite intelligence thought it was a good idea to give TDPs to the Chinese to build up their helicopter industry.


Yup, France is demonstrably the worst European "ally" and you can directly show how France has propped up Russian and Chinese military technology for coming up on 50+ years, all while pretending they're the only ones who actually care about European defense.

File: potionseller.png (401.2 KB)

401.2 KB PNG

>>65040693
>drink pasta

File: potionbuyer.jpg (41.9 KB)

41.9 KB JPG

>>65043989
Nevermind I'm retarded and read only half the sentence. Carry on.

>>65043989
>>65043991
Duality of man.

>>65043952
Adding to this, I didn't even mention that Type 054 frigates are powered by French engines and that HQ-7 SAMs are based on French SOLD data/tech specs for Crotale. Also Chinese Type 730 CIWS is ostensibly derived from French sold equipment.

In a funny turn of events some ships in the PLAN are basically entirely French armed/powered.

In fact even as late as 2018 Thales (which is part owned by the French Government) was supplying Russians with helmets for their jets among other various assorted electronic components for aircraft.

Going further back it was France who supplied Saddam with jets and exocets, exocets which eventually hit the USS Stark. Not even finally, the Chinese PL-7 air-air missile is a copy of a French R.550, I wonder how that happened?

I could go on but I think the point has been demonstrated. The French defence industry (and Government) basically sold to any despot who had enough money because they are extremely corrupt (Thales to this day still has multiple major ongoing corruption scandals), all of this required export permits from the French Government. When French people come here and bang their chest about how they're the best it's because they're either outright lying/scheming (French trait) or they are completely ignorant. Like you say, France basically propped up particularly the Chinese MIC in terms of R&D for decades.

>>65043997
Honestly when the FCAS meditation dies in a week or two, Der spiegel or similar should publish deep dive reports into these exact French deals.

Don't even mention FCAS, just write a dozen articles all directly pointing out french perfidy.

>>65042970
>no native nuclear submarines
Nuclear armed, yes. Nuclear powered, not even close to a necessity, with modern AIP advancements.
Small u212a could already made 3000 nautical miles from Portugal to Florida without any snorkeling. I doubt the larger 212cd would be any less, with the improvement in fuel cell efficiency, and hopefully a reformer. TKMS has been teasing with a submarine reformer for nearly two decades.
Tell me, will nuclear propulsion make a difference if chinks decide to flex their muscle and take French territory in the Far East ? Cause I’m pretty sure french cannot sustain a prolonged war that far away(desu, no one can, aside from the amerisharts)

>>65044031
France sure as fuck isn't steaming to polynesia at 20 knots sustained with an AIP system lol.

With AIP all your energy is precious limited currency every single joule spent reduces time on station. Any time spent in a less efficient running regime e.g. moving at speed to get ahead of a target, means you will have to start for home port sooner.

Nuclear's ability to steam faster in safe areas lets you range further before crew fatigue sets in, having no energy constraints lets them flank to position and bag prize targets even at the very end of a deployment. Ultimately it all comes together to nuclear just being the obvious option for nations which want to do blue water offensive operations with significant time spent away from port.

>>65044056
>blue water offensive with significant time spent away from port
Good, now we can agree on that. Except French SSNs is also among the smallest, and you sure as hell ain’t generating crew supply out of the reactor, and small SSNs also mean less space to effectively carry out all the noise dampening measures. So you are left with something that’s inferior in acoustic stealth to both AIP or advanced SSN like Seawolf, while being just a bit better in endurance than AIP.
Or French crew can somehow, magically conserve their supply during transit to their assigned patrol zone?
France is poor, henceforth anything they do is just a piss poor attempt at mimicking superpowers, except they haven’t been one since the 1800s. The same goes for nearly every French system, maybe aside from actual nook themselves

>>65044082
Buddy, i'm not French and i'm not here to defend their subs. I think their decision to use LEU is dumb as fuck - but i'm also not going to pull shit out of my ass like you and say they're definitely louder than AIP because I don't know that they are and neither do you. Some reactor designs are extremely quiet.

and again, you're ignorning time. A nuke can go a lot further in three months than an AIP and in a wartime emergency where you're out there a lot longer than expected you don't have to get anxious about your fuel and water, only your food.

>>65044100
>they're definitely louder than AIP because I don't know that they are and neither do you. Some reactor designs are extremely quiet.
Having a reading comprehension again? I didn’t even mention all nuclear sub, just the small design ones, much like what French are using. There’s a reason the usn forfeit on small SSNs, and even Russian, duo their limited budget, has never embraced the idea of small SSNs, aside from a few experimental hulls.
Rubis, and even the modern Suffren are definitely among the smallest SSNs out there. Stop equating French half assed solution with any proper built deep sea boats

>>65043834
The Cavour is still not being converted as a drone carrier, its main role is still deploying F-35s and helis, like the new Trieste. They're just giving it drone capabilities.

>>65044137
The convertion has started and manned short range fighters have no future

>>65044206
Sure thing roach.

>>65044181
The difference is the US doesn't pretend they're morally superior while doing these things.

They know they're being capitalists just looking for the best sale.

But even the US tries to avoid handing over technology directly to china when it can be avoided, unlike France who see it as a sales opportunity.


Then france wants to stand on the world stage and proclaim to europe they're the morally superior option over buying US arms and that the only way ensure European sovereignty is buying french defense goods, all while ignoring they're the primary reason china is anywhere close to the west in several key defense areas.

>>65044262
So what american programs were directly handed to china over the last 30 years?

We've already detailed around half a dozen from france.

YJ-8
HQ-7
R.550
Type 730 CIWS
SEMT Pielstick diesel engines
Harbin Z-9


And again, france sold exocets to saddam who then killed 30+ americans with them.

Your argument doesn't really hold much water in my eyes.

>>65044280
>>65044262
>Don't buy american weapons that's anti-european!
>when france does it though it's fine

>Don't sell weapons to evil countries!
>when france does it though it's fine

>stop supplying weapons to terrorists!
>when france does it though it's fine


Do you see the trend here?

>>65044311
>The point is they and Russia have proven more reliable suppliers than the US.
Ahhh, so you're just a pooskinned retard.

Please continue.

>>65044311
So your "reliable supplier" (France) is currently refusing to give you the source code for the $40 billion jet you're about to buy (Rafale F5), and your other "reliable supplier" (Russia) is so busy in Ukraine they can't even send you tank parts on time. It sounds like India isn't choosing France; India is being taken for a ride because they're too mad at GE to look at the math.

France is the perfect match for you, you'll be very happy together.

>>65044520
>>resorts to ad homenim because you couldn't refute the point
If the point refutes itself, there is no need for rebuttal.

>>65044559
>he's actually Indian
LMAO
>sanctions for buying Russian shit
Yes.
>sanctions for buying French shit
Literally never happened.

I'm sorry you feel bullied.
>404 engines
GE had to restart a dormant production line, COVID happened, poo's got to exercise penalty clauses in the contract and now deliveries are on track.

>>65044181
A. I'm not an American, just to clear that up, my beef with the French is their AUKUS meltie because it's incredibly hypocritical of them to play victim after their shitfuckery over the years.
B. India is an ally of Russia, Pakistan aren't exactly the ally of the West but India is very openly pro-Russian even if they play that "non-aligned" bullshit. Anything you give the Indians for sure is also accessible to Russia.

>>65044262
>Can't cry about French selling to whoever inc chinks unfortumately when US sold their wares to
Well the thing is, I equally think the US selling their kit to these groups was stupid, I'm singling out the French because they're relevant to the topic of this thread and the discussion being had (namely that the French can't go playing "everyone else isn't trustworthy" bs). I don't trust the Americans much either but bringing them up is whataboutism.

>>65044280
iirc USA handed over some engines for helicopters to China back in the 80s. Can't remember the specifics though. A lot of Chinese kit is reverse engineered from US kit to some extent but mostly kit that was gathered covertly not outright sold to them.

>>65044311
All of this operates on the assumption that the critique of France is null because the USA also does stupid things, it's completely fallacious.

>>65044520
Trust an Indian to come fuck up the thread with irrelevant nonsense, you're worse than the Turks for making everything about yourselves. Patriot has proven plenty effective against Russia in Ukraine and saying Russia is bogged down due to muh US policy is pure cope. It does prove my point about why France selling to India is retarded though, since Indians are massive Russia shills as you've demonstrated so well.

>>65044648
>I'd prefer to discuss the topic of the thread
So why haven't you then? all you've done is play whataboutism and draw conversation away from the actual point being made.

>>65044978
>iirc USA handed over some engines for helicopters to China back in the 80s. Can't remember the specifics though. A lot of Chinese kit is reverse engineered from US kit to some extent but mostly kit that was gathered covertly not outright sold to them.
Yeah the US stopped that shit in '89 though and haven't budged since.
Everything since '90 onwards has been pure espionage. France on the other hand was still actively dealing directly to china with western tech that they knew was going to be copied right up until 2018/19. A full 30 years after the US stopped selling shit to china.

>>65045028
Oh I know, French sales are by far the worst out of any Western nation. I was the guy posting about Z-9 and the DCNS Scorpene leaks originally before the Indian came here and decided to try make the thread about the USA/Pakistan.

You can sort of forgive the pre-Tiananmen stuff as naive Western Governments hoping to make a friend. Kind of like how we stupidly treat India at the moment. France gets really egregious with the scale, lack of care and continuation of it not just to China but to fucking everyone.

>>65045043
>You can sort of forgive the pre-Tiananmen stuff as naive Western Governments hoping to make a friend
Yup, same way we treated the former Soviet Union post-collapse. Cautious but extended some olive branches, then got burned and told them to fuck off.

Though of course it took france until ~2020-ish for them to stop selling thermal optics and similar high tech shit to russia. With the excuse being well the contract was signed before the 2014 invasion so it should be honored.

>>65044520
>Certainly more effective than THAAD/Patriot has proven against a far weaker Iran
I don’t recall pakistan having a huge MRBM stockpile, capable of saturating even the most sophisticated ABM shield, my dear scam call center poo.
And I got enough proof of how your wunderwaffe s-400 being dunked on even with hand-me-down ATACMS in far lower number. Even glorified flying lawnmower has break Russian ADN to pieces

>>65046212
>Nooo anyone not buying sandniggers bs has to be an amerimutt!!!
No, I don’t give a shit about poo smeared thirdie air defense, but I can show at least 3 rafails and 1 su-30 lost in less than 4 days though, isn’t those thing supposed to be more modern than F-15?
https://xcancel.com/swiftretort1/status/1923367877274431980

Also, do show me your operational 5th gen please, jeet? Sincerely hope Pidor didn’t scam you too badly on that failed joint program :^)

The ironic thing is both India and France are trying to screw each other in their dealings with one another.

It's likely when Germany leaves FCAS and france needs to find a new funding partner they'll likely turn to India and offer full technology transfer (with the understanding India will take 10-20+ years to actually make anything france gives them). India will be trying to steal IP/knowhow, France will be trying to slow roll the tech transfer and local india production line.

In the end it'll probably result in India getting pissed at france in 10 years when they've spent $10-20B and are still 5-10 years away from a jet and 15-20 years away from that jet being built in india.

The end result will be India has gained IP it can't fully understand or use/build at scale

France will have an 80% complete jet with no funding left to actually finish it and total orders so low that the per-unit costs will be astronomical, killing any potential export sales, which just makes the production scale even harder to manage.

>>65046306
>Rafail
You are a shitskin Paki lol. Imagine losing 2 AEWCs to s400

>>65044217
>The difference is the US doesn't pretend they're morally superior while doing these things
Keeeeek

>jeets seething
Crime that they were allowed on the internet.

What is France's deal anyways?
>No no zis fighter must be centibaguettes in length exactly it also has to have a plethora of features only our carriers and tech use and Germany will pay for it oui
Then they expect people to go along with that. I don't get it.

>>65047357
He's not wrong.

The US doesn't go around claiming to be morally superior and that's why you should buy their weapons.

They just have the best weapons.

France tries to sell their weapons as the "moral" option for weapons, when it's just bullshit to make morons believe that they're getting one over on America.

>>65040543
I see the french bashing squads are working extra time, the thread reads like a freaking r/europe.

>>65048238
Sorry, but when an objective look at the past 40 years tells a particular story, and that story is about France constantly being the one to fuck it up.

Do you think France is just SOOO unlucky that any time they work on a larger European defense program it falls apart, yet somehow it's never Frances fault its always the other party, whether it's Germany, Italy, England, whoever it is, it's through no fault of France.

>>65046121
I am pointing out whataboutism because it is, you are mad about it because I can say one word that instantly shows how your entire argument is fallacious bullshit. I don't give a shit about the rest of whatever regional Indian politics you're talking about. Whatever the reasons they are factually a Russian ally (you openly admit this) which was my point. They are not a reliable partner for Europeans nor do they care about European defence, which is the whole topic being discussed.

>>65047366
We need a great firewall for Europe/America.

>>65048238
I posted nothing but facts. If posting the truth is "French bashing" that's their problem not mine. French are more than happy to bash others over far less.

>>65048427
>We need a great firewall for Europe/America
So you can shit in the street without shame? I didn't know you guys had shame.

Based mods

>>65048238
The French deserve all they get, frankly.

https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/56_billion_project_gets_787m_down_payment_gcap_avoids_fcas_style_collapse_despite_uk_financial_crisis-18067.html

> The reason for such an interim solution is the United Kingdom, which currently cannot allocate sufficient funds for a full-fledged contract. Accordingly, they took a temporary option to avoid delays.

> Concerns about potential development delays arose due to British delays in adopting a 10-year defense investment plan. The reason is a shortage of 28 billion pounds, or approximately 32 billion euros, at the country’s Ministry of Defence.

> However, we see they found at least a temporary solution to the situation to somehow start development. This is better than competitors with FCAS, where disagreements between parties essentially brought the project to collapse.

>>65048860
I am European, we don't shit in the streets. A few centuries ago we invented this thing called plumbing and are waiting for the rest of the world to catch up.

>>65050953
>Shortage of 28 billion pounds
There isn't a shortage, there is a leach called the boomer generation who suck up £138 billion each year for pensions that cost double what they paid in. I reckon they could sacrifice 28bil and still be just fine.

>>65040644

I highly doubt this will happen though. Dassault from the beginning wanted a Rafale v2 to sell with the nEUROn v2 drone. The only supplier they "need" is Thales cortAIx combat cloud and SNECMA for an upgraded m88.

>>65040693

why would they do that? The GCAP is not carrier capable. Might as well stick to a "German-style" FCAS at this point.

>>65048238
>In 2014, amid international pressure led by the U.S. and the UK, France canceled a deal to sell two Mistral-class helicopter carriers to Russia due to its annexation of Crimea.

>France operates the Mistral-class LHDs, which have a 199-meter flight deck and a proven ability to support helicopters and amphibious operations. As a NATO member with global interests, France is investing in next-generation unmanned systems, including naval drones tied to its Future Combat Air System (FCAS). Converting *Mistral*-class ships to accommodate UAVs/UCAVs could enhance France’s power projection in regions like the Mediterranean or Indo-Pacific, especially for ISR and precision strikes, while preserving its nuclear carrier (*Charles de Gaulle*) for manned aviation.

some of it is deserved. why does the US has europes best interest in mind compared to the french?

>>65050953
>Concerns about potential development delays arose due to British delays in adopting a 10-year defense investment plan. The reason is a shortage of 28 billion pounds, or approximately 32 billion euros, at the country’s Ministry of Defence.
Just take the money from gibs that the imported niggers and arabs are getting

>>65051363
Majority of benefits in the UK go to boomers, universal credit is half as much money as pensions. Both are larger than the defence budget though so really slash any of them.

Problem is population in the UK are retarded and we have too many golden geese in the eyes of the public. Can't cut NHS, can't cut pensions, can't cut universal credit, can't raise taxes. Defence spending increases are popular mostly but cuts are not unpopular, so guess who has to deal with the smallest budget?

It's honestly amazing so much gets done defence wise in the UK when you compare it to the inefficiency of other aspects of our national budget (e.g. NHS).

>>65051743
Issue is there's a few nations looking to join, I think there's a limited number of tier 2 partners. It could be between Canada, Poland, Saudi or Germany.

>>65048235
>The US doesn't go around claiming to be morally superior
That was the initial claim and it's false
>and that's why you should buy their weapons.
That's what you added to try and win the argument.
>France tries to sell their weapons as the "moral" option
False. They never did so.

>>65051354
Oh yeah, america's interests are so pro european that trump left ukraine to die and is currently threatening to pull out from nato. It really takes imagination not to picture him as a total kremlin asset, frankly.

>this thread
Damn didn't know amerifats were such pissy little bitches at France having an independent military complex and foreign policy

>fucking pakistan is going to get 5th gen fighters before europe
unreal

>>65051743
GCAP is looking to be in the ballpark of a quarter billion per airframe minimum. Observe all you like but there’s no way the Canadian government is ever footing that bill.

>>65053548
Yeah people aren't ready for the sticker shock on these things yet.

If people thought the F-35 was bad, these are going to be ~$200-250M easily.

Japan at least is somewhat ready, they are already paying $130-150M per F-35A, so $200-250M for GCAP won't be too bad for them.

Not sure how the majority of export customers will afford it though.

I imagine eventually most air forces will bite the bullet with massively reduced fleet sizes, IE, canada is looking to buy 88 F-35s, but they'll probably only be looking at 20-35 GCAPs. Cutting the fleet to just 1/3 or 1/4 of what it is today.

>>65053564
F-35 is cheaper than 4.5 gens.

>>65053571
Nah, F-35 is cheaper than low production 4th gens.

Full rate production american 4th gens in their heyday were cheap because they were made at such mass scale, like the F-35 today.

The 4th gens still being built today are all low rate production of a couple of dozen airframes per year at most, which is obviously going to mean they're expensive.

When the F-16 was at it's peak rate, they were pumping out over 250 airframes in a single year.

Right now the highest production rate 4th gen made by a western nation is the Rafale, which saw 26 deliveries in 2025. Every other 4th gen had less than 16 airframes delivered in 2025.

Is it really a shock that a stabilized full rate 5th gen production line producing 140-160 airframes per year is going to be similar or cheaper than 4th gen production lines? They are barely able to produce a dozen or two dozen airframes per year.

>>65053571
This is a twin engine fighter billed as having transatlantic range. The empty weight will be upwards of 50k pounds. It will dwarf the cost of the F-35 before you even get around to factoring in the various electronic systems, while having much worse economies of scale as there are far fewer countries that can possibly afford this sort of aircraft.

>>65053575
You are conflating the current projected cost of the program with money spent already, two very different things. GCAP will significantly exceed F-35 in price per unit, there is no getting around that in a twin engine heavy fighter. Unless the Canadian government intends to content itself with a single squadron of fighters it is well outside Ottawa’s budget.

>>65053623
>>65053617
An argument can be made that the capabilities GCAP offers when paired with CCAs make it an acceptable trade off to accept just 1 or 2 squadrons.

>>65053575
>we're never getting those F-35s with this Iranian war
Because we'll be diverting your production in order to replace the zero F-35s destroyed during the war? Deliveries of munitions will be delayed, not aircraft.

>>65053626
We have effectively no solid info on its capabilities beyond a desire for a very long range. CCA control has also been back ported to fourth and fifth generation fighters in testing, it’s not a with generation exclusive. You also have to consider it is unlikely GCAP will have a high availability rate. It is every partner nations’ first foray into domestic stealth aircraft production, while also looking to be extraordinarily large for a fighter. Exact RAM compositions are a closely guarded secret by any country that has them, and historically they have all struggled greatly with durability. Durable RAM research has had a massive amount of money poured into it, but so far we haven’t seen any enter service. GCAP will have to reinvent the wheel here, and its large size means more effort will need to be spent maintaining it than on a smaller aircraft with identical RAM.

>>65053637
Yep, but being an observer today gives canada access to the development/testing data now, instead of having to find out in a decade or two.

If they observe for 5-10 years and decide it's not for them, then that's money well spent.

>>65053647
I don’t really have an opinion on them observing things, I’m more arguing against the idea the Canada is now guaranteed to make a massive order on GCAP, which is how many seem to be taking it.

>>65053662
oh yeah, well I agree there.

This is far from that.

But it's a good step to making future orders and ensuring they can maybe even secure some small manufacturing contracts or even local assembly. Or at least on the CCA side of things if not the main GCAP fighter.

So yeah I still see Canada joining GCAP as an observer as a good thing for canada.

If they need to tell a few white lies about why they're joining GCAP (so they can say they're looking at alternatives to the F-35), then that's fine by me.

>>65053675
Fair enough, though I don’t know how open they’d be to further splitting work share without money down on orders.

>>65053597
Okay, but there is no current production 4th gen or better fighter aircraft that's cheaper to purchase than the F-35. That includes "cheap" planes like Gripen E/F, F-16V, and Su-35.

>>65053720
...yes that's my point, did you read my post or are you retarded or something?

>>65053732
Did you read mine? There's not really two ways to read
>F-35 is cheaper than 4.5 gens

>>65053739
....yes and I explained WHY that is.


Are you functionally retarded or something?

File: SoyBooru.com - 60091 - arm berlin brown_skin closed_mouth clothes euromutt full_body germany glasses hoodie irl_background muslims smile soyjak stubble subvariant_euromutt variant_markiplier_soyjak.jpg (1 MB)

1 MB JPG

>>65040543
Euromutts, give up and buy our F-35s.

>>65053745
You don't typically start a post agreeing with and expanding on another post with "nah" and then follow it up with a bunch of bullshit no one asked about.

>>65042722
because french sovereignty is just that, it should not be confused with european solidarity. they merely want to be in the place that they think america occupies.

>>65053155
It really is thinly veiled.

>>65054061
To be fair, pivoting to GCAP ASAP still means you need F-35s for the next ~20 years.

GCAP wont even be getting produced for another decade, and it'll be at least 5-10 years after that point before any canadian orders could get filled.

If you begged the Italians, you might get the Cameri FACO to drip feed airframes to canada starting in the late 2030s. But it would probably be like 3-4/year until the mid 2040s.

So while I agree GCAP might be a good idea for canada in the long run, it doesn't solve the lack of fighters for the 2030s and early 40s.

>>65053746
>projecting

>>65055134
just buy a shitload of gripens. We've already seen how "effective" F-35s are lmao.

>>65055344
Sprey, dispossess that man immediately

>>65055344
Lol fuck off, that's THE dumbest thing canada could do.

Hey lets replace our aging 4th gens that aren't capable of surviving against even modern thirdie tier anti-air missiles with ANOTHER 4th gen that also isn't capable of surviving against modern thirdie tier anti-air missiles.

The only reason canada is even considering Gripen is because of the local production,but that would take ~5-10 years to get established, by which point Gripens will be even more outdated in any modern conflict.

If you want to sit here and pretend the Gripen is ANYWHERE close to the F-35 in the modern battlespace, you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about and shouldn't be making these decisions.

Canada is already bought and paid for 30 F-35A airframes, they can't back out of those 30, so what you're proposing is Canada takes those 30 F-35s, spends 5-10 years building a Gripen production line, build 40-50 Gripens by 2035, then start replacing the F-35 and Gripens by 2045 with GCAP.

It's just a waste of time and money. Just keep buying F-35s and replace them in the 2040s with GCAP. Save yourself the billions of dollars you'd have to spend on a Gripen factory that will at most be used for a decade or two and spend that money instead on GCAP.


I'm fine with Canada working with SAAB on a loyal wingman drone and GlobalEye AWACS that gets produced in Canada, that drone and the AWACS can work alongside the F-35As and GCAP.

But Gripen is just a dead end.

>>65054061
This emotionalism is making you support stupid decisions as though Trump is immortal and the annexation of Canada has ANY real legs at all.
It’s a baby’s first geopolitical retard litmus test, and failing it means that you’re a complete moron. Like Trump.

>>65055411
Canadians elected the libs despite everything they had done for the past decade because Trump said words words words. Dont speak to us about retard litmus tests.

>>65055389
The Gripen is necessary to kickstart indigenous fighter design and production and build up the technical talent necessary for that, something that was left to wither and die for too long. That alone justifies the purchase of the Gripen since our southern neighbours are currently jewing us and talk about Canada the same way Russia does about Ukraine.

The real dead end leading to extinction is the F-35. GCAP solves that in the long term, and the Gripen can be our stopgap solution to bridge the problem of our aging fleet. CAF pers who don’t like that can complain all they want as they toil in open air Labrador cobalt mines as penance for their sedition, and be grateful we still value the rule of law in regard to their dual-loyalties instead of a $0.50 lump of lead to the back of their head

>>65055411
Hey faggot. We have a full blown secession movement in the prairies trying to rip the country in half because of American meddling. Fuck off with your gaslighting.

>>65055486
Im pretty sure they want to leave because they have been treated like absolute shit since the first Trudeau

>>65055486
Only boomers are worried about annexation
We would be infinitely better off in every way as an American territory

>>65055472
If they aren't buying F-35's then they don't need an airforce, full stop
Buying 4th gen planes in 2026 is fucking retarded

>>65055472
This is anti-US delusion.

What you're describing will cost Canada billions more while decreasing Canada's security in the short/medium term.

Again, you can get the manufacturing jobs/experience doing a stealth CCA with SAAB, Gripen is a dead end, stop being moronic. The money, and the time required to establish Gripen is already going to take until 2032-35 even at the best pace. By which point GCAP will be just a few more years away. So why the fuck would you then spend a decade+ building Gripens?

>>65055530
The F-35 cannot patrol the Arctic efficiently and the Gripen can, another zone in which the USA is challenging our sovereignty and ownership of the seaways and archipelagos since Obama (but that’s another "anti-USA delusion" too, right?).

The F-35 is useful for judeo-american wars of aggression that are not in Canada’s national interest. The Gripen is useful for defending our territorial integrity, which is in our national interest. The GCAP as a dual engine fighter will fulfill both roles and breaks us free of American dependence, something the Gripen also does.

>>65055632
Again, YOU'RE ALREADY BOUGHT AND PAID FOR 30 F-35As.

You're not getting rid of them.

You can't just NOT accept delivery (well you can, but you're not getting your money back, so why the fuck would you?).


Gripen would take at LEAST 5-10 years to enter service from todays date, which means 2030-2035, and more realistically is 2033-38.

GCAP is supposed to enter production in the early to mid 2030s, Canada would be able to order GCAP in the early 2040s.


It just make ZERO fucking sense to spend BILLIONS of dollars on Gripen which will only be useful for ~5-10 years before you'll want to buy GCAP.


The F-35A isn't perfect, but it IS better than Gripen. To claim Gripen is better for the arctic ignores EVERY single way the Gripen is demonstrably worse than the F-35A.

Gripen allows canada to fly more often and for cheaper, but it DEMONSTRABLY is less performant compared to the F-35 in actual air combat.

If all you want is a plane in the air with a canadian pilot behind the stick, then sure Gripen would fit the bill. But if you want to ACTUALLY pose a threat to another nation in 2040 before you get GCAP, you'll need F-35s, not Gripen.

>>65055389
>outdated jet you own
vs
>killswitch

>>65055713
outdated pile of shit jet that will be bought only as a handout to quebec
vs
actually modern fighter jet

fact: They'll cost the same to buy or operate

>>65055713
>Why yes, I do make shit up to win arguments online, how could you tell?

Lol


Lmao even, then every western country in the world except the US, Sweden, and France are fucked into the 2040/50s I guess.

And Sweden and France are also fucked since we've already proven modern MANPADs can absolutely wreck any modern 4/4.5th gen fighter and Rafale and Gripen can't actually contend with F-22s and F-35s in real BVR combat scenarios.


So if you DO think the US is so evil and perfidious that they not only have an F-35 killswitch, but would actively use it against canada, then Canadian made Gripens are equally fucked against American F-22s and F-35s if the US decided to betray Canada.

They don't NEED an F-35 kill switch to take down the entire RCAF. F-35s or Gripens.

>>65055669
>If all you want is a plane in the air with a canadian pilot behind the stick, then sure Gripen would fit the bill.
That’s all we need. Adoption of NASAMS or comparable missile systems, a fighter capable of Arctic patrolling and building up our Artic and coastal radar network along with our naval presence is enough. The F-35 is for judeo-american wars that do not serve our national interests. We would only need the F-35 if we were joining another of your "coalition of the willing" adventures, but we aren’t and those days are behind us. We’re building oil pipelines to China and Europe, not plotting wars against them and shaking them down for territory. We’ll the GCAP when it’s ready and make due until then.

>>65055738
>>65055740
Curious at the mere mention that Canada might shift from buying mutt products is enough to get such a big meltdown.
>DO NOT REEDEEEEM

>>65055769
But again, you've already invested into the F-35 infrastructure, training, and airframes.

You can't back out now, it would be a waste of $10's of billions of dollars.

The only thing to do is keep operating the F-35s until GCAP is ready, then replace them outright with GCAP.

In the meantime you can work with SAAB on a CCA drone for the F-35 and GCAP.

>>65055776
Because it's fucking a waste of time/money to buy something that is worse and would end up costing more because of all the money already spent on the F-35 program that you're never getting back.

If you could magically pivot to Gripen with zero cost, then sure by all means, do so. But that's a fantasy. You've got sunk costs in the F-35 that you can't just hand wave away in favor of Gripen simply because it's not american.

>>65055769
>our national interests.
We do not have a nation or national interests
At the very least though, we can have a functioning airforce

>>65055804
Anything that stops us from buying more american junk after your own government threatened to invade us will never be a waste of money.

>>65055795
We backed out of it before, and we should back out it again. It was the wrong call then, the wrong call now, and the Americanophiles lurking in the RCAF rigging contests in favour of the F-35 should be drummed out. The Gripen is enough to deal with our present needs and dangers. China doesn’t want war with us and Russia is fucking done and on the verge of implosion.

>>65055776
Remember, we’re hysterical and delusional for not wanting to buy weapons from the people who talk about us the way Russia does about Ukraine, and currently funding their own version of little green Crimean men (this time wearing Stensons and cowboy boots). If we get the GCAP over the F-35 and its successor, it’s one less thing that makes us have to put up with their bullshit.

>>65055820
Sorry, but this is just a logical fallacy.

You've got sunk costs already in the F-35A fleet but because you feel SO spurned by US foreign policy that warrants paying ANY price to buy a non-US jet, even if it's worse, and a decade late, and has to be replaced a decade later?

What you're describing would be billions of waste for an industry that is ultimately worse off by 2050 because you spent 20 years working on 4th gen trash that had no room to develop into anything more.

>>65055826
You backed out when you had nothing committed; you've already long since committed, checks written and cashed. You can't back out now unless you want to be responsible for the single largest act of governmental waste in modern canadian history.

File: 1745269301220759.gif (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB GIF

>>65055820
You're proposing we spend $15B to cancel a working program, $10B to set up a new one for a worse jet, and $5B to keep 40-year-old CF-18s flying while we wait. That’s $30 billion spent just to 'feel better' about our neighbor, while leaving our pilots in a jet that can't survive a 2040 battlefield. That’s not 'sovereignty'; that’s a vanity project.

>>65055826
If you Canadians think you’ve got it one one-hundredth as bad as the Ukrainians, you’re getting terminally high on your own supply. This is pathetic nationalism.

>>65055838
Yes, we’ll keep the ones we’re on the hook for. Great. Fanstastic. I’ve already said this. In an ideal world, in which the Canadian government pursues objectives in favour Canada’s national interests and not AIPAC/Washington (and the one we are heading towards despite the CAF’s senior leadership best attempts at sabotage), we switch to Gripen production to resurrect and kickstart Canadian indigenous aircraft design and production and prepare for the GCAP and keep the F-35s we already paid for. We’re not going to war against anyone except reed seej faggots in Alberta and Saskatchewan and Quebec. The Gripen will be enough to bomb Ti-Jacques and Timmy squatting outside Lethbridge and Rouyn-Noranda clutching their copies of les Nègres Blanc de L’Amérique and Muh Constitution, not that this will happen either.

>>65055915
>we’re not going to war with anyone
FINALLY one of you losers acknowledges that Trump is full of shit and you’re under no real threat from the US, and that this is all pure fee-fees.

>>65055915
You're still proposing wasting billions because your feelings got hurt.

Just pretend it didn't happen and wait for GCAP, save the money on something that will actually have greater return on investment for canada than Gripen.

>>65055907
Riiiiight…. It starts with "Canada isn’t even a real country anyways. There is no such thing as a Canadian", then it turns into territorial claims against us, economic coercion to subjugate us, and then hybrid warfare to fund separatism to break us up from the inside and give a casus belli to invade. Hmmmm where did we see this exact playbook before? Oh right 2014, Donbass and Crimea.

So why is the State Dept meeting with separatists? Why won’t they reveal what was discussed in these meetings? Why are we being targeted for annexation? Why do we have a Provincial leader meeting the US President behind our backs to rig a fake referendum for secession?
>it’s all in your head! It’s just your fee fees!
>>65055942
>except reed seej faggots
See above.

>>65055960
The only one having a melty here are Americans because we don’t want your jet to fight jewjew desert wars that have nothing to do with us, we’re lining up to get the GCAP instead.

>>65055994
>we’re lining up to get the GCAP instead.
You're replying to a post that is telling you canada should get GCAP, check your head retard.

All i'm saying is that it makes more sense to just accept the fact you've already wasted money on the F-35 and so it's better to operate them for a decade or two and then buy GCAP than it is to waste billions of dollars buying Gripens that have minimal tactical use and will take 8-10+ years to enter service ANYWAY.

>>65055994
>It starts with "Canada isn’t even a real country anyways. There is no such thing as a Canadian"
This is the official position of our government for 30+ years now
How can you make land acknowledgements and then pretend you care about seperatism or US annexation

>Canadians are for some reason worried about being invaded by their far more advanced neighbor
>Instead of lining up to buy the super advanced alien tech that neighbor is offering them a chance at, they choose to buy some third world overpriced and underperforming crap that would make them incapable of defending themselves
Can someone explain this reasoning to me?

>>65056029
simple, that overpriced and underperforming crap is actually reliable and cheap hardware compared to yours, and prevents them from becoming dependent on your defense contractors and thus allow your politicians to have a leverage in your foreign and domestic policies.

>>65055994
>IT’S REEEEEEAL AAAAAAAA IT’S REAL! WE’RE TOTALLY AS BASED AND THREATENED AS THE UKRANIANS! AAAAAAAAAAA
lol suck my dick, you baby.

>>65056053
You're our direct northern neighbor; you're never going to be 100% divorced from the US, no matter how much you might want to be.

It just makes no economic OR strategic sense to waste money on Gripens right now. That decision needed to be made 3-5 years ago if that was going to happen, doing it now is just pumping money into a ditch. The costs to train pilots, mechanics, get the logistics set up, actually build the factory, train the factory workers, assemble the jets, test and verify everything, and then get them into service. You'll have already been operating the F-35As for 7-10+ years, and they'll be more capable (though cost more to operate per hour) than the Gripen.

As we've already established, you are going to buy at least 30 of them, which means you are going to maintain your existing F-35 supply chain/training contracts, you're going to keep training pilots and maintainers and support staff, and maintain a presence in the US for access to the JSF mission data files.

Running both the F-35 and Gripen training/logistics/operating pipelines at the same time will cost significantly more than if you just were doing the F-35 alone.


So again, I just don't see how you can argue against just biting the bullet, continuing with F-35 for the next 15 years and buying GCAP as soon as you physically can.

That's the only way Canada doesn't waste 10's of billions of dollars on what is ultimately a kneejerk reactionto a retarded US administration, but still comes out with the best jet for canada in the 2040s (GCAP).

>>65055820
You do know who owns the Gripen’s engine IP, right anon?

>>65056029
Canadians are suffering from terminal TDS

>>65056053
Not even your own government believes that.

>>65056053
what a weird cope.

If anyone has a Janes sub, post the full article

https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/air/governments-award-edgewing-first-gcap-contract

>>65058975
Here the rest:

>GCAP is a collaborative effort geared at fielding a ‘sixth-generation' combat aircraft for the mid-2030s, with associated unmanned ‘loyal wingmen' and other adjuncts to be developed at a national level.

>With the current design phases locked into the three partners, officials have said that there are future opportunities for other countries to join in differing capacities. “All three GCAP nations have highlighted an openness to working with other nations while keeping us on track with the programme schedule and helping us deliver our future military capabilities,” the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) said in 2025.

>While no further countries have yet committed to future participation, interest has been reported from Canada, India, Poland, and Saudi Arabia, among others.

>>65056053
>reformertard still desperately trying to shit talk the F35

>>65056366
To the point that they ignore the goings on of their own country

>>65055498
The Americans have no intention of making you their equal.

You will be Puerto Rico not Texas, resources will be extracted not to your benefit but the benefit of America (particularly Trumps supporters in the US industrial base who would conveniently receive all the contracts).

>>65055632
Nothing about the F-35 makes it useless for defending your territorial integrity. You are mixing up idealogy with technical reality. GCAP is coming in the long run, there is zero reason to shoot yourself in the foot by sacrificing capability in the immediate.

>>65055713
Personally I am not even sure a killswitch is possible on F35. I think it would have been noticed by partner nations doing weapons integration followed by an extreme "Wtf america?!". Proofs.

>>65055776
Canada should stop buying mutt products. But it's not feasible to cold turkey given how interlinked US arms manufacturers are with the entire NATO supply chain.

>>65056366
It's not really TDS when the US is actively doing these things. Trump did Venezuela, now he is doing Iran and here in Europe we are asking "well he talked a lot about Greenland, now he is emboldened is that next?" I imagine Canadians are thinking the same thing. It's derangement to think nobody is going to start looking mightily suspiciously at your country after everything your leader has said and done.

>>65059412
>Personally I am not even sure a killswitch is possible on F35. I think it would have been noticed by partner nations doing weapons integration followed by an extreme "Wtf america?!". Proofs.
Also didn't the dutch recently say they could "jailbreak" the F-35 if they needed to?

The idea of a "killswitch" is retarded, the real "killswitch" is access to the MDF threat library updates and the supply chain.

if the US cuts off your spare parts and software updates, good fuckin' luck.

Italian news outlets are reporting that Meloni will not confirm the current Leonardo CEO (Cingolani) under pressure from Washington to delay/destroy GCAP.

>>65059424
desu I'm not convinced supply chain is as much of an issue at least for Euros. We have really advanced manufacturing capability and reverse engineering isn't as hard as people think. Software for the F35 is partially written in Europe (along with some spares) already. Short term it's a problem but long term I don't really think it'd be a show stopper.

>>65059464
Americans probably aware GCAP is going to beat them to the punch and they want their kit to be the main export for soft power reasons. Any European nation pulling out at this point is pants shittingly retarded. But Euro Governments have a habit of seeing very real threat and just doing nothing about them until it's decades too late (Refugee crisis is a prime example of that)

>>65059549
Americans aren't even offering to export NGAD, they really just don't want GCAP to steal from Block4/5 F-35 sales in the 2030s.

>>65059556
Non-Americans can't afford NGAD anyway.

>>65059576
All of the GCAP nations know GCAP will cost $200-300M, and they're fine with it (even if they're lying to the public about the price).

NGAD might be $350-500M i guess. But even so they're ready to spend big on 6th gen. They'll just reduced the manned flight size and increase the number of CCAs they fly.

>>65059576
Ah already lining up the copium for when nobody wants to buy it are we?

>>65059939
Of course no one will want to buy it, they're all busy complaining about how the F-35 costs more to operate than shit from the 70s.

>>65059950
Wouldn't have anything to do with Americans being completely untrustworthy and politically untouchable would it?

>>65059984
No, it has more to do with everyone being poor. They're happy to buy our Patriots and HIMARS; they're only looking at alternatives because of a decade long waitlist.

>>65040543

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/india/tech-blackout-why-uae-has-pulled-out-from-key-rafale-deal/ar-AA20bsj1?uxmode=ruby

kek the UAE just pulled out of the rafale f5 program because they didn't get any tech for forking out $3.5b

>Why does nobody want to pay for le privilege to be our customer?! Sacre-bleu!

Arrogance will always be France's undoing

>>65060205
I seriously don't get how they're so arrogant.

Why the fuck would you expect anyone to pay you for the privilege of modernizing/upgrading your OWN product to then sell to me.

You're not giving me any of the IP i'm paying for, you're not giving me a discount on purchasing future airframes from you, so what the fuck am I doing here?

Good for UAE.

>>65060211
>>65060205
>I want increased capabilities on my Rafales
>Cool, but you are going to have to pay for development costs
Why wouldn't France charge them for developing an upgrade kit?

>>65060558
Because france are the primary F5 customer you dumb faggot cuck.


They're just too cheap to pay for it themselves and are trying to get some cuck to pay for it (india or UAE).

>>65060560
So? If UAE wants the development and have the fruits of it installed on their planes France shouldn't do it for free.

>>65059549
>reverse engineering isn't as hard as people think
Bold statement when there's so little evidence of it being done in Europe.

>>65060660
...now imagine if the US told Canada their F-35 order that was supposed to be for Block 4 jets was actually going to be hand-me-down Block 3 jets because canada didn't pay their extortion fee, sorry development fee?

France needs the F5 Rafale for themselves, and they're keep all the IP to themselves, so they should pay for it since they'll reap all the economic benefits of future F5 sales to export customers.

France wants the export customers to fund the upgrade AND buy the airframes, all without seeing any of the industrial economic return or the technology/IP they paid for.

The UAE rightfully told you to fuck off and go home, just like germany is actively doing with FCAS.

>>65060670
Where is the UAE going to buy their planes then

>>65060676
america, sweden, chinks

>>65060676
>we can extort them because they can't buy from anyone else
>this isn't extortion though
:^)

Disgusting, but nothing out of pocket for france.

And to answer your question, KF-21 or F-35 are the most likely choices.

J-20/J-31 is possible, but only if the US stonewalls them on the F-35 and the KF-21 looks like ass.

>>65060676
I hear the Eurofighter Just got a new radar...

File: 1000007476.jpg (202.7 KB)

202.7 KB JPG

who gives a fuck, France seems to have figured out stealth since since the 2010s with the neuron project. I don't see why they'd need other countries to come and steal their knowledge and manufacturing secrets. Their real problem is founding. Too bad they spent all their money helping third worlders that hate them and made the country a literal shithole, no refund

>>65060764
nEROn is a 20 year old project, the idea that it can be easily translated into a real stealth UCAV in ~8 years is a fucking joke. Especially since it was said back in March there still isn't a nEUROn derivative UCAV contract for Dassault from the french government yet. They're "waiting on partners" (IE, they wanted UAE or India to pay for it). And that the nEUROn derivative was as of March, still just in the conceptual study phase.

>>65060935
It's been flying since 2012 or something tho

>>65060679
>chinks
Imagine China selling fighters to a Western-aligned country so we could all see how shit they actually are.

>>65060764
nEUROn was a joint european project, the french didn't do all of it on their own

>>65061011
Yes, which means it's based on 2000's technology, and all the testing data was gathered using 2 or 3 generation old digital design platforms, not the more modern digital twinning stuff we've been doing in 2020+.

Further, any actual modern UCAV will need modern sensors, modern radios, and modern AI integration, which is the hard part.


Also nEUROn was a subsonic prototype; a modern stealth UCAV needs to be supersonic if it's going to keep pace with the Rafale F4+ and F5 and eventually FCAS. As Rafale can fly at Mach 1.8 at high altitude.

Since nEUROn wasn't designed for supersonic flight, france will need to redesign the wing shape, use a more powerful engine, and do a whole new series of flight tests and RCS testing.

Even if they're serious about doing a nEUROn derivative UCAV it'll take ~10-15 years and cost a half dozen to a dozen billion euros, and right now france is acting like it's gonna take 5-8 years and cost maybe 1-2 billion euros.

It's pure delusional arrogance being sold to the french public by Dassault who doesn't give a fuck as long as it forces france into continuing to feed Dassault contracts. It's why they're killing FCAS, it's not that Dassault and france can ACTUALLY afford to build FCAS alone, but it'll force france to shovel money into Dassault for the next 20+ years trying to, Trappier will be dead by the time any of the fallout actually happens and the french people realize they no longer have a real aerospace industry capable of building a jet.

I admit i'm being a bit doomsday here for france/FCAS, but the potential for that outcome is there. Right now france is betting everything on Rafale F5 and this nEUROn UCAV being cheap/easy to do while they figure out FCAS funding, and I just don't think it's gonna work out that way.

>>65061044
>Also nEUROn was a subsonic prototype; a modern stealth UCAV needs to be supersonic if it's going to keep pace with the Rafale F4+ and F5 and eventually FCAS. As Rafale can fly at Mach 1.8 at high altitude.
Even the F-47's wingman drones are going to be subsonic.

>>65061052
NGAD has 2 increments of CCAs, increment 1 are the cheaper, expendable, subsonic ones.

Increment 2 are the supersonic expensive ones.

nEUROn was designed as an ISR/deep strike UCAV prototype/demonstrator, not as a CCA for a 5th/6th gen fighter.

You're trying to bolt AI collaboration into a 2000's designed stealth drone prototype and claiming it'll be fine if it can only fly at ~550-600mph when the Rafale can fly at ~850-1100mph.

The Rafale's efficiency cruise speed is ~650mph, a solid ~50mph over the maximum speed of nEUROn, and a solid ~100-150mph over where it would normally cruise at. And if the Rafale were having to go anywhere for intercept, it'll leave nEUROn in the dust.

Again, France can do it, but Trappier's fantasy he's selling the french public is just a joke to anyone who isn't french and knows the state of their budget and the nEUROn program.

>>65061069
>Increment 2 are the supersonic expensive ones.
Where can I read about them?

>>65061094
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12740

TLDR: We just know it's happening, not much beyond that.

The original billed concept was that increment 1 was cheap, attritable, and could be fielded before 2030. Increment 2 was supposed to be the “exquisite” option, packed with sensors/tech, and would not be attritable, though it would ultimately still be programmed to “sacrifice” itself to save the manned fighter.

>>65061103
NTA but there isn’t anything set in stone for Inc.2 that we the public are privy to. There was originally talk that they would be more expensive, however recent war games have apparently shown that an even larger mass of attritable drones to be more valuable than a smaller number of high end ones. Last I’d seen in the news was that the Air Force is accepting bids from all levels of the cost spectrum while they decide what they want. Also notable that Northrop’s offering got an official designation, but only after being simplified from the original pitch.

>>65061044
I think that you make good points thanks for taking the time and effort anon. Good to hear real opinions other than France is le bad cause it is

>>65043048
>The French played the long game and spent more to gain more in the long term
and what have they gained? decent military they don't really use for anything but chasing niggers around while losing their influence in africa to ziggers? economy that's borderline broke, to the point they won't be able to sustain their nuclear power plants, much less replace them, in the coming decade?
don't get me wrong, france does a lot with what they have, but they don't exactly see much of a return on investment from any of it. they have murrican prices for worse hardware and they don't do tech transfer, and they produce less shit. why would anyone that can get murrican go for french instead? because p-please buy our inferior shit because m-muh europe, but actually we just want money?
how bout you offer a good deal instead

>>65050953
They just gave another huge freeby to boomers so no money my ass

>>65059991
I said it earlier, it isn't feasible to cold turkey in the short term, so of course people will buy HIMARS or Patriot. Those are available now. But we are talking about future programs.

Throwing in the poor thing is just overused bait. It's very typically American and very low class to obsess over wealth.

>>65060668
Nobody in Europe does it because unlike China we have strong courts, law enforcement and IP protections. Same reason it's relatively rare in the USA (although that's more because of your extremely litigous society). In China IP infringement is the default because it's either not properly enforced or actively ignored.

Most equipment used for metrology on high end parts is very easily usable for reverse engineering, European manufacturing facilities are peer with US ones in terms of capability, it's a question of legal issues not technical ability.

>>65061371
I think I mentioned it earlier but pensions + NHS are golden geese of British politics because old people dominate the voter base and truly do not give a shit about voting in any way which doesn't directly benefit them. Universal credit (benefits) is around half the cost of pensions alone despite this being often cited as the drain of funding.

NHS is more than 3x the cost of our entire defence budget. Which would be fine if it actually delivered the service it promised but it doesn't because it's an inefficient money pit whose primary job is looking after people who got themselves sick/injured by being fat/smoking/alcoholic or the elderly.

>>65060764
>zero RAM coating capabilities
>France seems to have figured out stealth
lol

>>65061539
>zero RAM coating capabilities
Why do you think this?

>>65061577
Because France has no capabilities to manufacture RAM coatings. They aren't even researching them. They might have to beg the GCAP countries to give them the secret sauce since it was mostly developed by Japan.

>>65061587
Or maybe you just don't know what European countries have stashed away in their MICs.

https://ueltd.co.uk/research-topics/radar-absorbent-materials-ram/

>>65061591
>random page on what RAM is from an uk website
>that'll prove france has RAM coatings!
ok?

>>65061210
Honestly I think it's easier to blame Trappier at this point than France on the whole. He is the current French emporer.

>>65061282
>why would anyone that can get murrican go for french instead?
No killswitch

>>65061884
Sure but in the real world we already know there isn't a kill switch. The Dutch already told the world they can "jailbreak" an F-35 if they need to.

Further no nation would be stupid enough to build a kill switch into their own airforce even if lockheed super sekrit pinky swore never to show anyone.

With modern AI development tools you can assume an AI would eventually find and exploit any backdoors/killswitch left by Lockheed.

Why did Canada approach Japan for joining GCAP?

You'd assume, since Canada and the UK have fairly long storied history, and share the same monarch, that Canada would've gone through the UK.


> Ottawa’s intent followed a March meeting in Tokyo between Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi and Canadian counterpart David McGuinty.Ottawa’s intent followed a March meeting in Tokyo between Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi and Canadian counterpart David McGuinty.

>>65061964
They know Japan is the bottleneck to joining the program as they are tightest on schedule constraints & foreign arms sales. Joining will require the consent of all parties but they know that the UK and Italy would be chill as fuck with them joining already.

>>65061895
Not just a literal killswitch but the political one

>>65061977
Traditionally, though, Canada would've gone through the UK as a middleman to broach the subject with Japan from an internal GCAP partner.

Instead, Canada sidestepped the UK entirely; it's a stark departure from what Canada would've done 10-20 years ago.

>>65061987
lol okay

>>65062028
Well, traditionally since 1867, Canada has been considered a sovereign country, able to make its own decisions and enact its own laws independently of any other nations.
But in a stark departure from the norm of 10-20 years ago, "a" country out there, now considers Canada to be their 51st state.
Times change Anon.

>>65062126
I don't disagree, i'm just saying they have lots of ties with the UK, and they've previously gone through the UK for exactly these kinds of defense programs. The fact they're trying to join a program the UK is a primary founding member of, and they're NOT going to them to join I think says something. I don't know exactly what it says, but it's significant.

>>65062155
Because Japan is the one shooting down possible partnership with Saudi. Italy and the UK are much more open to expanding the project. Also Canada is going to be using the Type 26 Frigate, so their military will be using many similar high end systems to the British if they go ahead with GCAP.

>>65062574
Sure but again, NORMALLY Canada would've gone to the UK, who then would've gone to Japan on Canada's behalf.

As far as japan is concerned, Canada has the same arguments for joining GCAP no matter what side it's coming from.

Canada choosing not to use the UK as their inroad into GCAP is telling.

>>65062587
I have already explained why. Saudi tried that and it failed.

>>65062753
Lol do you think if Saudi Arabia approached Japan directly, it would've worked?

Of course not.

It worked for Canada because Japan is already open to Canada joining. And it would've worked for Canada to go through the UK as well, but they chose not to because they clearly don't want to be the UK's +1 to the party.

>>65060670
you are trying to explain being greedy arrogant cunt to the frogposter...
>>65060660
let me explain it in simpler terms

Person (Germany/Spain or UAE) comes to Farmer (France)
>"Howdy, I want some eggs (FCAS/F5) !"

Farmer:
>"Sorry I only have land (past Dassault projects) but no Chickens or Coops (>gen4 tech). But how about this: You'll pay for the chickens the coop and the feed and you can buy the eggs off me afterwards."

Person:
>"That seems kinda like a bad deal. How about a kickback, partial ownership or free eggs for paying for the entire enterprise?!"

Farmer:
>"No can do mate! You know I got land and a tractor therefore I am the farmer! I should own everything and you should pay for it!"


Too be fair I am not sure if french are dense, incredible audacious or just have a terrible business sense.

File: 1767816496901933.png (161.4 KB)

161.4 KB PNG

>>65062835
AI says why not all 3

>>65040890
We have no clue what warfare will look like in 2080 that's insane to even attempt to predict such long scenarios. Roughly the same time as between first flight and moon landings.

>>65044280
Your own fault that you attacked Saddam.

>>65062908
>We have no clue what warfare will look like in 2080
lmao look at this faggot using sharpened sticks instead of archeotech like actual steel machete mounted on a stiff broom handle

The italian government has kicked out Cingolani, Leonardo's CEO. Cingolani was a minister under Mario Draghi, a supporter of pan european coopeation and development. Rumors say the change of CEO is a political move under pressure from Washington, the italian political landscape is fucking filled to the brim with 5th columns.

>>65062896
>Using chatgpt
Good way to invalidate everything you say.

>>65063985
What a shock, the euro-sceptic right wing party would suck off Washington and sell out European interests whilst claiming to be nationalists.

>>65064183
I didn't offer an opinion on it, for all you know I'm the other poster discrediting you by posting AI that backs you up.

Instantly dismissing something just because it's got AI saying the same things is a great way to allow yourself to be manipulated. Now I know to make you change your opinion on almost anything, I just have to post an AI summary that supports it.

>>65064412
You sound like a faggot and your shit is all retarded

>>65062776
>>65062587
NTA but your take is kind of retarded, you're trying to read too much into a conversation and again with trying to use it to paint the UK-CAN relationship as somehow diminished... You shills will try and make a storm out of the pettiest shitty non-events.

In any case, the announcement in the ft proves it, it's the UK that received the official request and letters were sent to the Ja & It govs afterwards

>>65065638
No, the FT says the formal request to become an observer was sent to the UK first.

We already know the conversation about becoming an observer (before they formally applied) was through japan back in march.

>>65065642
And spell it out to me because I'm clearly not as galaxy brained as yourself who is so obsessed with UK international relations they they will jump on a response calling you out a minute after it's posted... How are you sure that they didn't have a closed doors conversation with the UK first? And why does it even matter who the first conversation is with?

>>65040706
Thank you I am tired of repeating over and over that nobody in Europe has the same requirements as France.

>>65040824
70 years come on. Nobody's buying it

>>65065711
Clearly the Canadians already did

>>65051410
>Can't cut NHS, can't cut pensions, can't cut universal credit, can't raise taxes.

Cant cut green energy/carbon scam, cant cut migration, cant cut rent seeking private-public partnerships, cant cut debt based fiat money banking, cant cut anything that needs to be cut. Instead its cut the stuff that the government is supposed to do instead of giving up the ostentatious look-at-me-I-am-a-superpower toys that cost a lot of money but provide nothing tangible because they are not backed by the required industrial base to sustain any kind of war campaign lasting longer than two weeks if even that.

Bongladesh is a deeply corrupted country with a caste system similar to India. The bongler bottom castes absolutely refuse to vote for someone who is not from the proper upper bonglamin caste meaning that the rudder is locked and the course is set for the iceberg with the engine telegraph locked at flank speed. I mean, Bongladesh have already had one premier minister who was a literal pajeet. Isnt it pretty obvious now that we are looking at a copy of India but in Europe? And that the bongler, just like the pajeet, shittalks constantly in an attempt to raise the izzat level of Bongladesh?

>>65065711
Some Harriers are still in service today, close to 60 years after they entered service. It’s doubtful anyone puts money down on developing a better STOVL fighter in my lifetime.

>>65065711
The F-35B's will have especially long lives, as mentioned; there is unlikely to be another VTOL fixed wing fighter in our lives.

File: I smell seething.png (126.5 KB)

126.5 KB PNG

>>65065761

File: Public sector spending UK 2020-2021.jpg (118.8 KB)

118.8 KB JPG

>>65065761
>Green energy scam
Generated £69.4bn in 2022. Housing and environment in the UK cost £32bn in 2020/21.
>Migration
Even right wingers claim "lifetime net fiscal cost is £234 billion", enough to pay for the NHS for a year and a half.
https://cps.org.uk/media/post/2025/recent-migration-wave-may-cost-country-billions-warns-cps/
Migrants do disproportionately use universal credit though:
"In June, nearly eight million people received universal credit, 83.6% of whom were British and Irish nationals", this is because UC is acting as corporate welfare for low wage migrant workers who are the cause of net cost.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdx5pw8pwg5o
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
>Instead it cuts the stuff that the Government is supposed to do
The Government is supposed to be forking out billions to migrants who came here unable to support themselves because they're underpaid? billions to fat fucks and smokers who made themselves ill? the pensioners on triple lock all driving 25 plate cars? instead we should cut the tiny portion of the pie that is defence?
>any kind of war campaign lasting longer than two weeks
How many years were we in the Middle East? how many years have British warships been deployed to Hormuz or the pacific or the Falklands?
>refuse to vote for someone who is not from the proper upper bonglamin caste
Who might that be? Reform? you're in for a shock if you think they're salt of the earth working class types.
>Caste system
Just untrue, UK has equivalent social mobility to other European nations and exceeds nations like the USA, China and Russia:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/social-mobility-by-country
>Isnt it pretty obvious now that we are looking at a copy of India but in Europe?
Well being that you are consistently wrong about just about everything, proven even by a cursory search, no. Chip on your shoulder?

>>65067411
Ran out of word count but another reminder that majority of defence spending in the UK goes straight into deprived areas, providing jobs and effectively doing double service. There are entire towns in the UK like Barrow-in-Furness reliant on defence spending. The capability to produce these things also provides export orders and further income to the country e.g. AUKUS and M777.

What ROI do we get from triple lock or motability or NHS Ozempic?

But you know what would stop migration? not allowing corporations to offer dog-shit wages that natives won't take, leaving them "only" able to hire migrants who undercut local wages as a way to work around supply/demand.

>>65067424
>What ROI do we get from NHS Ozempic?
Getting rid of fat people? What fucking question is that

>>65068110
How does that pay society back? could they not do it themselves just by fucking dieting and running? Why is that something I am paying for whilst I watch actually important surgeries or treatments having wait times of 8 months to 3 years. Maybe the NHS should have a stricter mandate if it can't deliver on time?

>>65042970
8/10 rant

>>65068214
>How does that pay society back?
I an willing to waste some of my tax money on making fat people not fat so that I never have to see fat people again in my life.
glp-1 would be cheap if not for jews, so once the generics come online it’ll be a hige money saver as well since fat people are a disproportionate drain on the healthcare system. It still probably is a net benefit, even with jewish profit seeking of ozempic. This is just a nice side benefit though - the main benefit is no more fatties on earth.

>>65062896
>bringing up an AI to back himself
low iq behavior

>>65068239
>so that I never have to see fat people again in my life
I am open to your argument here.

>>65069900
We should just add that shit to the water along with the fluoride.

Bump

>>65063985
The replacement is his former number 2 though. It seems like not much will change except shifting focus back to making weapons instead of non-weapon defense technology. It is weird though because Cingolani was extremely successful during his tenure. He's a significant reason why people are even talking about Leonardo today.

>>65076764
Yeah the current read from defense analysts is that Cingolani was seen as too invested in non-kinetic technologies.

This shouldn't have any real impact on GCAP, and if any impact will be seen, it'll be a doubling down on GCAP for Italy.

>>65076780
I was worried at first but I think you're right that the Italians aren't second guessing GCAP at all. I wonder what they're setting Cingolani up for now since he must still be seen as a major asset.

>>65077000
Yea not sure about that, but GCAP seems unlikely to be impacted thankfully.

So is FCAS dead yet? I know there was a deadline coming up.

>>65077906
From what I understand the meditation technically was extended to the end of the month, but from the rumour mill, Germany has effectively stopped trying and has shifted to figuring out the best way to get out the program.

>>65077906
My guess is France is going to go ahead with the stealth drone part banking on a full on 6th gen jet not being necessary. The Germans clearly want a project that will salvage their withering aeronautical industry. I'm not sure they'll find one but it'll be many months before they give up, long after the FCAS deadline has passed.

>>65077979
Germany's budget is being finalized this month, so this is the deadline.

They can kick the can down the road one more time maybe into late 2026, but the April budget deadline will likely pass without any funding for FCAS phase 2. Which means the program if it were to continue, would be delayed another 6-12 months.

But more realistically they kick the can down the road to quietly kill it some time this summer or fall.

Germany is expected to approve another 15 F-35s soon which will be a confirmation FCAS is dead and Germany is pivoting to GCAP or just purely more F-35s.

>>65076780
>>65077000
Pretty sure he either asked to be moved somewhere else and they made it seem a certain way to appease people or the govt needed someone more focused on big gun instead of shit like combat AIs, I highly doubt he'll be uninvolved, at worst this is entirely about optics.

>>65078022
Supposedly it was because of his long term vision for Leonardo to focus on defense Ai technologies instead of actual weapon systems.

>>65078017
>Germany is pivoting to GCAP or just purely more F-35s.
Not going to happen. We need to keep and build up our own competences.

>>65078398
Lol sorry, but Germany already lost that chance. At best you can pivot to being a highend drone/CCA manufacturer for GCAP and F-35s in Europe.

There is no economically feasible avenue for Germany to make a domestic manned 5th or 6th gen fighter.

>>65078757
They basically have to create a jet just to relearn the process. I understand the dilemma because technically there is still a lot to salvage but a withering industry can't jump straight into competing on cutting edge technology and nobody wants to wait for Germany to unfuck itself.

>>65078939
That's not happening.

>>65077906
Worse, they've officially announced they're "restructuring" the program again, which means they're kicking the can down the road while putting more billions into it.

Also they've basically made it so that every level of the program is no longer joint.


The "joint" FCAS drone pillar is developing 2 (technically 3) different drones. France is taking the 20 year old nEUROn drone and upgrading it to fly with Rafale F5 (and FCAS). Germany is taking the VMware Kratos XQ-58 off the shelf and throwing their German software brain into it, and the finally there is a modular "true" 6th gen drone that was SUPPOSED to be the primary drone for FCAS, it's entirely unfunded right now.

The "joint" combat cloud is also actually just two separate national combat clouds being developed, Germany has the airbus cloud being designed as an open/extensible standard, and then France has the dassault cloud that is more "pilot centric" and the only "joint" part is they say they're going to design them to work together (despite being designed in their own work groups, with separate budgets, timeliness, etc).

And of course the larger problem and most public, the joint fighter. Current thinking is they'll can the joint fighter component entirely, or break off and do two separate national jets (just like they're doing two separate drones and two separate software stacks), with some technology/parts being shared between the two.

And really both countries "know" this is a dead program, but neither side can politically stomach being the one "responsible" for killing a €100B joint European defense program. So instead they'll both just pretend it's going fine for the next several years before killing everything and Germany is "forced" to buy more F-35s.

Also by delaying the death of FCAS, Germany has basically assured they're not getting into GCAP in the future unless they're just a regular export customer.

>>65080073
>VMware
That's what I get for phone posting I guess