EU Combined Military Thread

[seaspear]

Does that raise the question of why the Rafale was only built in a navalised version and not a consideration for another version that was not required for carrier landings if there was a performance advantage to be had ?

[SW1]

When you design an for carriers you are significantly strengthening the main structure for the landing gear loads and the structure supporting stores pylons. Your also sizing the planform of the wing around the glide slope requirements to approach a carrier.

All of this adds significant weight and potentially drag considerations in certain regime to the aircraft. So it very much depends on what performance characteristics you require at what altitude and at what range for your land based aircraft because you will either have to dial them back or drive costs way up.

By far the best way to do it is to have two different airframes which common major sub systems.

[Lord Jim]

Yet this didn't seem to have a major adverse affect on the F-4, F/A-18, A-4, and so on. In fact having a string fuselage and landing gear could be seem as a benefit, such as being able to land with heavier loads rather than having to jettison them. As for the Rafale, except for the commonly known adaptation made to the 'N' version to facilitate carrier operations such as those mentioned above as well as securing points and probably revised refuelling points, I do not know of any major differences in the airframe or the performance of the aircraft and its capabilities. It would be interesting to see the price difference between the Rafale 'C' and 'N' without taking into account the smaller number of the latter bought.

Anyhow I seem to have dragged the thread away from where it should be with all of the above, so to sum up I was just trying to find a way to make the FCAS cheaper overall given how expensive the programme is going to be considering how important it is going to be to the EU's military aviation industry over the coming decades.

[J. Tattersall]

Seems like the German defence minister has flatly rejected calls for European strategic defence autonomy https://mobile.twitter.com/BMVg_Bundesw ... 2517774344 and https://www.politico.eu/article/europe- ... ssion=true

, incidentally provoking a backlash from German Greens https://www.politico.eu/article/time-fo ... ssion=true

This is being portrayed as a pointed rejection of President Macron with France vigorously promoting the idea of EU strategic autonomy as a means of lessening reliance on the US and harshly criticising NATO (as brain dead).

[ArmChairCivvy]

portrayed as a pointed rejection of President Macron

While it is definitely that, too, it is the domestic political cross-pull that is being addressed (it may also be that the Biden Adm. sees Germany as the main partner for re-solidifying Atlanticism, and a hi-viz article in a magazine with mainly Anglo-Saxon... err, America included, readership is helping to prepare the next steps for that).
- As the Germans have grown too comfortable with the Russian troops a 1000 kn further than before, there is less of global view/ interest in the German politics:

" the West will only be able to stand firm and succeed in defending its interests as long as it remains united. Europe remains dependent on U.S. military protection, both nuclear and conventional, but the U.S. will not be able to carry the banner of Western values alone." a clear reference to the need for a wider than Europe-only view
AND
"Second, in order to give the West the joint economic firepower that it needs in today’s global competition over markets, rules, values, standards and influence, we should be ambitious about closing a U.S.-EU trade deal."
in the long term economic power is a close proxy for military power
... so let's not squander the prospects for the former, by not co-operating, as 'we' would come to regret it later (if and when challenged by one revisionist power or the other; a clear hint to the one with a more consistent growth record)

[SW1]

Or perhaps more about the withdrawal of US forces from Germany and the economic consequences that brings and a positioning to have a future president change there mind and not be quite so critical of the non 2% spend.

[Caribbean]

it may also be that the Biden Adm. sees Germany as the main partner for re-solidifying Atlanticism

That seems to be something of a Democrat obsession. I recall that the Obama administration expressed similar ambitions, but were somewhat astonished, when they actually got into power at the fact that there was "four times as much engagement" with the UK. and that the Gremans were not actually particularly useful (or helpful). Obviously the situation has changed with Brexit, and perhaps a dawning realisation in some quarters that Europe can now longer be so passive, but the signs seem to be that the UK has not stepped back from it's military engagement with the rest of Europe - rather the opposite (and also that we have a greater ambition to be an individual player in the World than before, rather than a component of the EU).

It will be interesting to see how it actually plays out when the plan meets reality.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Obviously the situation has changed with Brexit

indeed; we are less of a bridge to Europe than waht we used to be (seen as)

will be interesting to see how it actually plays out when the plan meets reality.

Yes, because I am not so sure the plans of those two parties are near to identical

@SW1 mentioned US Forces; there was a relocation plan (mainly for USAFE) and then the Trump thing abt forces in Germany kicked in... very unclear which formation will go where (except some to Poland)
- and whether there will be any sizeable relocations at all
... I think the dust around the debacle will settle fairly quickly

One thing to remember is that when the forces in Europe (and rotation thru) got a boost, it came from the Foreign Contingencies account, which is considered to be more occasional than permanent expenditure

[Lord Jim]

It is one thing for the EU to have the aspiration of Defence Autonomy, but are the member nations willing to greatly increase their Defence spending to match the capabilities that are provided by the US? How would certain member's react to having to rely on France's Nuclear Deterrent if the US withdrew its umbrella, or would other EU members want to instigate their own programmes.

Every time I see this brought up what I really see is France wanting to become the leader in European Defence, having the same level of control over other EU members that the US has in NATO's Command Structure. I can also seeing them wanting the equivalent of the NATO slots the UK occupies now the UK is outside the EU. To sum up the whole idea seems like a power grab by France.

[ArmChairCivvy]

seems like a power grab by France

Can't have that - possibly!

[ArmChairCivvy]

AlJazeera take:

The Democratic candidate’s narrow victory shows that the “American public did not repudiate Trumpism, and that has been disappointing for European leaders,” says Kristine Berzina, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund, a Washington, DC-based think-tank.

“What’s not clear yet, is whether Trump’s NATO-scepticism and anti-European policies will stick around in other Senate Republicans.”

... return to some form of Trumpism in the next four years?
Mr. Xi will sit for ever, and even Putin for longer than that [ the 4 yrs]

[muttbutt]

Five European allies sign on to build NATO’s next medium-lift helicopter

STUTTGART, Germany – Five NATO member nations have signed on to build the alliance’s next-generation helicopter, planned to replace existing fleets starting in 2035.

France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy and Greece each signed letters of intent to participate in the program, dubbed “Next-Generation Rotorcraft Capability,” or NGRC, per a Nov. 19 statement issued by NATO.

Over the coming years, these partners will work together to develop “an entirely new helicopter capability” that would replace a variety of medium multi-role rotorcraft fleets that are expected to retire between 2035 and 2040. The program was launched on the margins of the virtually held defense ministerial meeting in October, the alliance said.

“By investing our resources and channeling our development initiatives through a multinational framework, we are making sure allies are equipped with the best available capabilities, which helps to maintain NATO’s technological edge,” NATO Deputy Secretary-General Mircea Geoană was quoted as saying in the release.

The letters of intent are non-binding documents, and the initial cooperation effort is in principle open to other NATO allies and partners, subject to the approval of the existing participants, a NATO official said in an email to Defense News.

Details including cost, work share between the five nations and specific timelines have not yet been released. NATO envisions defense ministers from participating countries will sign a legally binding memorandum of understanding for the initial concept phase around 2022.

In the meantime, the allies will develop a statement of requirements to inform that concept phase, and hash out a cooperation plan to define, develop and field the next-generation helicopter. The NATO official noted that it will be critical to “get the intellectual foundation for NGRC right,” and that 2021 discussions to establish an initial common statement of requirements will not require “substantial” capital expenditures.

Next year’s efforts will provide “a robust starting point for the participants to discuss and design the subsequent concept phase and agree on the associated funding requirements for the following years,” the official said.
Sign up for our Early Bird Brief
Get the defense industry's most comprehensive news and information straight to your inbox

As a medium multi-role rotorcraft, this new capability would assist NATO allies in missions including insertion and extraction of special operations forces, and transporting small- and medium-sized cargo and troops within operational theaters. It would also be used in medical evacuation, search and rescue, and anti-submarine warfare.

NATO is launching this effort just as the U.S. Army is firming up requirements for its own new medium multi-role rotorcraft, via the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) competition. A draft request for proposals for this capability – part of the service’s next-generation Future Vertical Lift family of systems – is expected by the end of 2020. Bell and a Boeing-Sikorsky team have each already built a technology demonstrator, and are expected to compete for the contract award, with plans to field the new aircraft by 2030.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... witter.com

[J. Tattersall]

Five European allies sign on to build NATO’s next medium-lift helicopter

STUTTGART, Germany – Five NATO member nations have signed on to build the alliance’s next-generation helicopter, planned to replace existing fleets starting in 2035.

France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy and Greece each signed letters of intent to participate in the program, dubbed “Next-Generation Rotorcraft Capability,” or NGRC, per a Nov. 19 statement issued by NATO.

Over the coming years, these partners will work together to develop “an entirely new helicopter capability” that would replace a variety of medium multi-role rotorcraft fleets that are expected to retire between 2035 and 2040. The program was launched on the margins of the virtually held defense ministerial meeting in October, the alliance said.

“By investing our resources and channeling our development initiatives through a multinational framework, we are making sure allies are equipped with the best available capabilities, which helps to maintain NATO’s technological edge,” NATO Deputy Secretary-General Mircea Geoană was quoted as saying in the release.

The letters of intent are non-binding documents, and the initial cooperation effort is in principle open to other NATO allies and partners, subject to the approval of the existing participants, a NATO official said in an email to Defense News.

Details including cost, work share between the five nations and specific timelines have not yet been released. NATO envisions defense ministers from participating countries will sign a legally binding memorandum of understanding for the initial concept phase around 2022.

In the meantime, the allies will develop a statement of requirements to inform that concept phase, and hash out a cooperation plan to define, develop and field the next-generation helicopter. The NATO official noted that it will be critical to “get the intellectual foundation for NGRC right,” and that 2021 discussions to establish an initial common statement of requirements will not require “substantial” capital expenditures.

Next year’s efforts will provide “a robust starting point for the participants to discuss and design the subsequent concept phase and agree on the associated funding requirements for the following years,” the official said.
Sign up for our Early Bird Brief
Get the defense industry's most comprehensive news and information straight to your inbox

As a medium multi-role rotorcraft, this new capability would assist NATO allies in missions including insertion and extraction of special operations forces, and transporting small- and medium-sized cargo and troops within operational theaters. It would also be used in medical evacuation, search and rescue, and anti-submarine warfare.

NATO is launching this effort just as the U.S. Army is firming up requirements for its own new medium multi-role rotorcraft, via the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) competition. A draft request for proposals for this capability – part of the service’s next-generation Future Vertical Lift family of systems – is expected by the end of 2020. Bell and a Boeing-Sikorsky team have each already built a technology demonstrator, and are expected to compete for the contract award, with plans to field the new aircraft by 2030.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... witter.com

Looks like EU is nowhere to be seen on European defence helicopter project and has to defer to NATO.

[J. Tattersall]

It's unsurprising that so few European countries use the EU to cooperate if it'd can't even keep its own defence ministers' discussions confidential. Why would countries trust it with sensitive national defence data? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55027641

Dutch journalist gatecrashes EU defence video conference

[muttbutt]

Looks like EU is nowhere to be seen on European defence helicopter project and has to defer to NATO.

Some of the work that will go into this new helo has/will be developed under EU projects.

[muttbutt]

Missed this a few months back.

MBDA Patent Offers New Glimpse Into Europe’s Hypersonic Weapon Plans
Steve Trimble May 01, 2020
hypersonic missile interceptor MBDA has started working on solving some of the hardest challenges posed by development of an interceptor for maneuvering hypersonic missiles.
A newly filed patent application offers a rare glimpse inside European missile house MBDA’s hypersonic weapon technology program and shows how the company has started working to solve one of the most difficult challenges posed by hypersonic weapons.

The April 9 application filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by MBDA France comes as France and the UK deepen interests in pursuing hypersonic speed for a future class of cruise missiles, projectiles and interceptors.

Last November, MBDA accepted the lead in a five-nation pact called the Timely Warning and Interception with Space-based Theater surveillance (Twister) program, which seeks to develop by 2030 an interceptor against a range of threats, including hypersonic gliders and cruise missiles (AW&ST April 6-19, p. 14).
ADVERTISING

“This patent relates to applications linked to very high-speed missiles, including hypersonic,” MBDA tells Aviation Week. “Be aware that MBDA is pursuing a European program for an interceptor against hypersonic and maneuvering ballistic threats that could be an application for this patent.”

The application with the U.S. patent office, which follows French approval in 2018, focuses on a critical technology for an interceptor missile: a nose-mounted endgame seeker. Long-range flight above Mach 5 exposes the interceptor to airflow temperatures of several hundred degrees Celsius. As a result, the nose-mounted seeker must be shielded within a nose cone until the last few seconds.

The problem then becomes how to eject the nose cone without damaging the seeker. Using a pyrotechnic as the actuator for an explosive bolt is problematic; even if the skin temperatures do not accidentally set off the pyrotechnics, the explosion risks damaging or blinding the sensor.

MBDA’s patent proposes a one-piece assembly for the actuation device, which includes thermal insulation to shield a pyrotechnic charge and prevent an accidental explosion. At the right time, the charge would be set off inside the device. Instead of blowing open the bolt, the charge would generate an overpressure within the device. The overpressure would actuate a piston rod to slam into the shell of the nose cone. The sensor could then be activated to lock onto the target.

MBDA’s hypersonic development extends beyond interceptors: It also is creating the ASN4G, a scramjet-powered, air-launched cruise missile to replace the French ASMP-A nuclear deterrent by the mid-2030s.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... nic-weapon

[ArmChairCivvy]

under EU projects

the e 8.5 bn pot is nothing to sniff at (though UK participation will be agreed on a case by case basis, going forward)

creating the ASN4G, a scramjet-powered, air-launched cruise missile to replace the French ASMP-A nuclear deterrent by the mid-2030s.

looks like the same time table as for the a/c to carry it
- dual-key free-fall bombs until then (+ ASMP-As)

[J. Tattersall]

Looks like EU is nowhere to be seen on European defence helicopter project and has to defer to NATO.

Some of the work that will go into this new helo has/will be developed under EU projects.

and you know this how exactly?

[Gtal]

https://pesco.europa.eu/project/europea ... -mark-iii/

EU attack heliopter program

[J. Tattersall]

https://pesco.europa.eu/project/europea ... -mark-iii/

EU attack heliopter program

but that's not the Next Generation Rotorcraft Capability ( https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... witter.com ) we've been talking about, it's a different programme! Unless of course you're introducing a different topic?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Upthread, when I quoted 8.5 bn in the next MFF (as nothing to sniff at), it looks like I missed a new element:

European Defence Fund (EDF): €7.014 billion – To strengthen the technological and industrial base of European defence.
Military mobility: €1.5 billion – A contribution to the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) to adapt European transport networks to military mobility needs.
European Peace Facility (EPF): €5 billion – A new, off-budget instrument to finance actions in the field of security and defence.

EDF was already established through several forerunner programmes, and the military mobility contribution feeds into existing (NATO) programmes, but the novelty is the EPF.
- will allow the EU to support partner military forces either by funding their operations or by supplying them with military equipment

[Gtal]

"Looks like EU is nowhere to be seen on European defence helicopter project and has to defer to NATO."

You make it sound like EU countries cant build a helicopter without NATO.
I'm implying they've got their eyes on the big ticket item in this category and are happy to extend an olive branch to NATO structures and the UK in the area of medium lift capability.
Finding a way to cooperate industrially with the UK on more generic programs is in everybody's interest, inluding the EU. And doing it through NATO keeps the UK out of the EUs own new and experimemtal structures. Win-win.

[ArmChairCivvy]

And doing it through NATO keeps the UK out of the EUs own new and experimemtal structures. Win-win.

Will be interesting to see how these co-operation forms will pan out. The good old OCCAR has been also doing programme mgt, whereas the EDF just provides a ' slice of (bonus) funding' into JVs that may be structured as legal entities (can go bankrupt, heh-he) and the bonus is there to counter the extra overhead that co-operating (just like offshoring in normal businesses) always brings. Noting that without co-operation many of these things would not get off the ground at all; equally important as eliminating wasteful, parallel projects.

[muttbutt]

Looks like EU is nowhere to be seen on European defence helicopter project and has to defer to NATO.

Some of the work that will go into this new helo has/will be developed under EU projects.

and you know this how exactly?

Following various EU funded Horizon etc projects over the last couple of years, on helo's alone research has gone into, rotors/engines/gearboxes/avionics etc...all that has fed into Airbus/Leonardo's work.
It's combined EU funding that is assisting Leonardo ect develop their civvie tiltrotor aircraft.

[ArmChairCivvy]

EU funded Horizon etc projects

I think Ron has quoted how much the T45 radar (prgrm) cost as part of getting the whole solution together
... but that figure (high on its own) does not reflect what had been chipped in in the early stages by others

Bottom line: would we have a world-class AAW destroyer without such pooling of effort?
- applies (to various degrees) in other areas where only the biggest players can sustain the R&D to stay on the cutting... not the bleeding edge.