Back to news

May 28, 2020 | International, Aerospace

Three European air forces approve performance benchmarks for next-gen fighter jet

By:

COLOGNE, Germany — The air forces of Germany, France and Spain have agreed on a set of performance benchmarks to help their governments guide the development of a next-generation fighter jet set to fly in 2040, the German military announced Tuesday in a statement.

The document, approved earlier this month, is meant to help officials identify what features from a collection of 10 possible system architectures are worth keeping when the time comes to settle on a path forward for the Next-Generation Weapon System, or NGWS.

That system, with the manned next-gen fighter at its heart, is slated to become the central element of the Future Combat Air System, or FCAS, the most ambitious and expensive weapons program in mainland Europe. As envisioned, a small fleet of attack and surveillance drones, or “remote carriers,” would accompany each jet, and all elements would be interlinked by an artificial intelligence-powered “combat cloud,” according to a project description.

The 10 different system architectures for NGWS currently in the mix lean in different directions — for example, when it comes to armaments, maneuverability and range of the main jet and its companion drones, the German Bundeswehr statement explained.

The three air force top officials — Lt. Gen. Ingo Gerhartz of Germany, Gen. Philippe Lavigne of France and Javier Fernandez of Spain — also agreed on a “Common Understanding Connectivity,” a guide for connecting national systems into the future FCAS scenario.

The document will enable the program's partner nations to “synchronize” their respective development programs, according to the German statement.

The industry leads for the Future Combat Air System program, Airbus of Germany and Dassault of France, unveiled a mock-up of the future fighter jet at the Paris Air Show last year. The plan is to begin testing a prototype in 2026.

Earlier this year, France and Germany formally kicked off the next phase of the overall program, with each government contributing $85 million toward the development of technology demonstrators.

German lawmakers, who fear an overtly strong French industry influence in the FCAS program, have linked the project to progress on the Main Ground Combat System, another highly visible bilateral program aimed at building a common battle tank.

France has the lead on the next-generation fighter, while Germany leads the tank project.

The German parliament's strategy of keeping a close watch on the aerial program by approving only relatively small tranches of money has Dassault CEO Eric Trappier worried about the ability to hit deadlines, French newspaper La Tribune reported last week. Speaking before a French Senate committee in mid-May, Trappier proposed a Franco-German programming law to ensure a more rapid development pace, according to the newspaper.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/05/26/three-european-air-forces-approve-performance-benchmarks-for-next-gen-fighter-jet/

On the same subject

  • A consensus-driven joint concept for all-domain warfare will fall short

    September 23, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

    A consensus-driven joint concept for all-domain warfare will fall short

    Mark Gunzinger Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Hyten recently announced a new U.S. Department of Defense joint war-fighting concept will summarize capabilities needed for future all-domain operations and eliminate artificial lines on the battlefield used to deconflict U.S. operations in the past. Hyten also noted the concept will seamlessly integrate “fires from all domains, including space and cyber,” to overwhelm an enemy. While these aspirations are laudable, there are indications the concept could fall short of what is needed to inform cross-service trade-offs that must be made in an era of flat or declining defense budgets. The DoD creates operating concepts to define preferred approaches to perform specific missions or execute a campaign to defeat an enemy. They also provide a foundation for the services to assess new technologies, force alternatives and resource priorities. Said another way, they are the tissue that connects top-level National Defense Strategy guidance to actual plans and programs. While a joint all-domain war-fighting concept is urgently needed, Hyten has not made it clear the one in development will lead to trade-offs that maximize the DoD's war-fighting potential. For instance, Hyten has said it will call for every service to conduct long-range strikes: “A naval force can defend itself or strike deep. An air force can defend itself or strike deep. The Marines can defend itself or strike deep. ... Everybody.” This could mean the concept will support a degree of redundancy across the services that has never existed. Setting aside tough trade-offs that eliminate excessively redundant programs will waste defense dollars and reduce capabilities available to U.S. commanders. More specifically, the concept might endorse the Army's plan to buy 1,000-mile-plus, surface-to-surface missiles that cost millions of dollars each. Doing so would ignore analyses that have determined using large numbers of these weapons would be far more expensive than employing bombers that can strike any target on the planet for a fraction of the cost, then regenerate and fly more sorties. Furthermore, the Army's long-range missile investments could be at the expense of its ability to defend U.S. theater air bases against missile attacks. Not only has air base missile defense long been an Army mission — it has long neglected and underfunded the mission. Chinese or Russian strikes against under-defended air bases could cripple the United States' primary combat sortie-generation operations. If the concept does not consider these kinds of trade-offs, it could be due to the approach used to create it. The Joint Staff's doctrine development process is notorious for seeking consensus instead of making cross-service trade-offs necessary to maximize the DoD's war-fighting potential. Assuring bureaucratic service equities versus optimizing combat lethality can lead to operating concepts that fail to create clear priorities or — worse yet — declare everything a priority. If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority. Moreover, each service was asked to develop a subordinate concept that will be integrated into the whole. This piece-part approach could result in the services ladening their subordinate concepts with their own equities instead of working together to develop the most effective, decisive options. In short, a bottom-up, consensus-driven concept for all-domain warfare would not be an effective baseline to compare the DoD's force structure and capability alternatives. Three things could help to avoid this mistake. First, the secretary of defense should approve a new all-domain war-fighting concept, and the secretary's staff should be deeply involved in its development. Some say the latter is inappropriate, believing the military, not DoD civilians, should create war-fighting concepts. However, it is entirely appropriate for the secretary's staff to be part of the concept's creation if its purpose is to shape the DoD's plans and programs. Second, DoD leaders should rigorously examine the services' existing roles and missions during the concept's development, and make changes to reduce excessively redundant responsibilities, forces and capabilities. This may need to be driven by congressional language. Finally, the DoD should jettison the word “joint” as part of the concept's title. This would stress the concept is focused on integrating operations across all domains, not on the services that provide forces to combatant commanders. The point is not for all to participate, but instead for all options to be considered, and those that provide best combat value be prioritized. Otherwise, it becomes a case analogous to all the kids chasing a soccer ball. The 2018 National Defense Strategy was the beginning of the effort to shift the DoD toward preparing for peer conflict. Given that dollars and time are short, the DoD must now get a concept for all-domain warfare right. Like the National Defense Strategy, the concept must be top-down driven, not a bottom-up, consensus-driven product that fails to make trade-offs across the services and provides a rationale that supports what each service desires to buy. Rather, its ultimate objective should be to seek best-value capabilities and expand theater commander options to defeat peer adversaries. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/09/22/a-consensus-driven-joint-concept-for-all-domain-warfare-will-fall-short/

  • Six questions with France’s Air and Space Force chief

    June 15, 2023 | International, Aerospace

    Six questions with France’s Air and Space Force chief

    Gen. Mille discussed the French military’s efforts toward an all-Rafale fighter fleet, among other capability goals for the force.

  • Netherlands considers creating tank battalion, but needs funding

    February 6, 2024 | International, Land

    Netherlands considers creating tank battalion, but needs funding

    Furthermore, such a decision would be up to the next government.

All news