General / Off-Topic French pressident Macron unveils the mockup of the future European fighter!

It DOES look similar, but the SCAF model will resemble more a unidelta wing than a traditional plane.
135542


135543


They are both pretty much them same superficial design, just like the Eurofighter and Rafale- i.e. its going to be another case of splitting hairs and wasting money.
 
Really? Ace. Lets hope the F 35 B's do the job for all the fuss they've caused :D
What they're doing (my understanding based on everything I've read) is treating it like a two ship programme. Ones going to be used for deployments while the other sits alongside in a state of standby readiness and maintenance, so they'll comfortably meet their required operational lifespans.

Which neatly segues into my earlier point about how overdeployment wrecks a platform.
 
What they're doing (my understanding based on everything I've read) is treating it like a two ship programme. Ones going to be used for deployments while the other sits alongside in a state of standby readiness and maintenance, so they'll comfortably meet their required operational lifespans.

Which neatly segues into my earlier point about how overdeployment wrecks a platform.
I hope Prince Charles fixed his leaky shaft though. Lizzie had some trouble.
 
I hope Prince Charles fixed his leaky shaft though. Lizzie had some trouble.
To be honest, that was landsmen panicking over nothing, to sell newspapers. That's why they sold it with a vague 'up to 200 litres' figure rather than the honest figure which would be at worst about a fifth of a metre cubed per hour (and they omitted the normal bilge pump operating figures), and omitted the one key fact: that shaft seals are designed to leak.

I once sailed on a commerical ship that took on well over that figure as standard, and we went across the Atlantic on it, twice.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, that was landsmen panicking over nothing, to sell newspapers. That's why they sold it with a vague 'up to 200 litres' figure rather than the honest figure which would be at worst about a fifth of a metre cubed per hour (and they omitted the normal bilge pump operating figures), and omitted the one key fact: that shaft seals are designed to leak.

I once sailed on a commerical ship that took on well over that figure as standard, and we went across the Atlantic on it, twice.
It did amuse me when the actual leak was measured in litres and was made out to be like a giant rusty hole in the hull. Thats like a days worth of filling a kettle and making tea in my old place of work. Plus I always wanted to know what the tolerances were for that shaft, since it can't be watertight (otherwise you grind metal or introduce too much friction). Yes I said all that with a straight face :D
 
Would you rather have it and not use it, or need it and not have it ?
That goes for almost any object. And if you had unlimited resources your argument would be valid, and we'd buy infinite amounts of everything 'because it is better to have it and not need it'. But we do not have unlimited resources, we can not buy everything that would be 'better to have and not need' so we're going to have to think a bit more seriously beyond 'but it is nice, no?'.

Put very simply the question is: how much does a human life cost? How many lives do you safe when you invest another billion in healthcare? How much when you put it in police, fire brigades, education? And how does that compare with this project? I do not know the answer, but I can tell you it is more complex than 'but would you rather have it and not need it or need it and not have it?'.
 
An example: the UK and France were co-developing a drone, everything was great but it looks as if the UK and France want different things and now its on hold. Something will certainly fly, but for whom and who developed it will be a different matter. Thats not to say it can't happen, the Alpha trainer, Jaguar, Concorde etc all were completed, but these days combat jets are hugely complex and expensive. My bet would be on SAAB making a cost effective jet while this project gets bogged down in confusion and escalating cost. The UK has the know how and has done a huge amount of testing, its if it has the funding.
Err... didn't SAAB go broke?
 
Saab AB? They seem to be fine. They make excellent aircraft on time and are very practical, and currently have Flygsystem 2020 on the go along with the Saab JAS 39 Gripen.
Ahhh ......SAAB Auto's went west...I assumed the company was one and the same...that's where assumptions gets ya!!!

(I have actually had the pleasure of sitting in the cockpit of a SAAB Viggen many years ago)
135586
 
Last edited:
Best option would be to not need it and as a result not have it, but we're not living in a world concieved in a hippie fantasy. Unfortunately or not, you decide :)
 
That goes for almost any object. And if you had unlimited resources your argument would be valid, and we'd buy infinite amounts of everything 'because it is better to have it and not need it'. But we do not have unlimited resources, we can not buy everything that would be 'better to have and not need' so we're going to have to think a bit more seriously beyond 'but it is nice, no?'.

Put very simply the question is: how much does a human life cost? How many lives do you safe when you invest another billion in healthcare? How much when you put it in police, fire brigades, education? And how does that compare with this project? I do not know the answer, but I can tell you it is more complex than 'but would you rather have it and not need it or need it and not have it?'.
You are just trying to avoid the problem by deflecting with another problem.
The question was very simple, when you have the possibility to obtain an object that "could" be of use in the future but you are not certain of it, would you rather have it or discard it and take the risk that if the moment when you need it comes you will be unprepared.

And about a life's worth, is a question as old as humankind itself.
To answer this, one must first ask to oneself what kind of life you deem worth.

You tell me ALL life is equally precious. To this I ask you, If you have to choose to save ONE life between two. In a situation where you CANNOT save both.
Who would you save, a convicted murderer or a nobel price scientist?

Following your statement, you would consider saving the murderer, since for you all life's are equal.

Sorry, but that is not the case unfortunately.

Some people go as far as to claim that they would rather save their dog rather than some stranger dude. So, what are you going tot tell them?

Personally I would rather like not having to make that kind of choices in my life, sadly, this kind of choices are made all the time without you even being aware of it!

But between deciding to build a fighter that will help me in defending my interests and those of my fellow countrymen, and just abandon any kind of sovereignty and let myself as well as others be told what to do and what to think. Because "war is bad". sorry but I would rather build the fighter, in hopes that I never have to actually use it.
 
You are just trying to avoid the problem by deflecting with another problem.
The question was very simple, when you have the possibility to obtain an object that "could" be of use in the future but you are not certain of it, would you rather have it or discard it and take the risk that if the moment when you need it comes you will be unprepared.

And about a life's worth, is a question as old as humankind itself.
To answer this, one must first ask to oneself what kind of life you deem worth.

You tell me ALL life is equally precious. To this I ask you, If you have to choose to save ONE life between two. In a situation where you CANNOT save both.
Who would you save, a convicted murderer or a nobel price scientist?

Following your statement, you would consider saving the murderer, since for you all life's are equal.

Sorry, but that is not the case unfortunately.

Some people go as far as to claim that they would rather save their dog rather than some stranger dude. So, what are you going tot tell them?

Personally I would rather like not having to make that kind of choices in my life, sadly, this kind of choices are made all the time without you even being aware of it!

But between deciding to build a fighter that will help me in defending my interests and those of my fellow countrymen, and just abandon any kind of sovereignty and let myself as well as others be told what to do and what to think. Because "war is bad". sorry but I would rather build the fighter, in hopes that I never have to actually use it.
I think you've missed the point of what he was trying to say. Your thinking only makes sense in a world where things are made solely based on "need/not need" choice. In real world there are plenty more factors to consider.
 
Look the same as Project Tempest.

The key question is what type of technologies will it have and will it have anything revolutionary.

The kinds of things I'm thinking of is the technology being tested on the MAGMA drone where they have eliminated rudders, flaps, elevators, and ailerons.

Reaction Engines precoolers to improve range and efficiency of the engines.
 
Last edited:
Look the same as Project Tempest.

The key question is what type of technologies will it have and will it have anything revolutionary.

The kinds of things I'm thinking of is the technology being tested on the MAGMA drone where they have eliminated rudders, flaps, elevators, and ailerons.

Reaction Engines precoolers to improve range and efficiency of the engines.
The problem is one of funding and support though. The Eurofighter on paper is superior to the Rafale- the Eurofighter is faster and has more development potential ( thrust vectoring (for asymmetrical loads and super agility) conformal tanks and AESA radar sets etc) but because some of the nations involved cut development these things have not happened (and only the UK has advanced the design in any way). The Rafale, which is slower and has less development potential is the more rounded fighter (its navalised, carries nukes, has AESA radar and is cheaper). Its why the French often go it alone because they simply want things on their terms, and why I can't see any future in this project unless France is leading it.
 
The problem is one of funding and support though. The Eurofighter on paper is superior to the Rafale- the Eurofighter is faster and has more development potential ( thrust vectoring (for asymmetrical loads and super agility) conformal tanks and AESA radar sets etc) but because some of the nations involved cut development these things have not happened (and only the UK has advanced the design in any way). The Rafale, which is slower and has less development potential is the more rounded fighter (its navalised, carries nukes, has AESA radar and is cheaper). Its why the French often go it alone because they simply want things on their terms, and why I can't see any future in this project unless France is leading it.
Aha a Euro fighter made of paper! Yes we have a solution.
 
You are just trying to avoid the problem by deflecting with another problem.
The question was very simple, when you have the possibility to obtain an object that "could" be of use in the future but you are not certain of it, would you rather have it or discard it and take the risk that if the moment when you need it comes you will be unprepared.

And about a life's worth, is a question as old as humankind itself.
To answer this, one must first ask to oneself what kind of life you deem worth.

You tell me ALL life is equally precious. To this I ask you, If you have to choose to save ONE life between two. In a situation where you CANNOT save both.
Who would you save, a convicted murderer or a nobel price scientist?

Following your statement, you would consider saving the murderer, since for you all life's are equal.

Sorry, but that is not the case unfortunately.

Some people go as far as to claim that they would rather save their dog rather than some stranger dude. So, what are you going tot tell them?

Personally I would rather like not having to make that kind of choices in my life, sadly, this kind of choices are made all the time without you even being aware of it!

But between deciding to build a fighter that will help me in defending my interests and those of my fellow countrymen, and just abandon any kind of sovereignty and let myself as well as others be told what to do and what to think. Because "war is bad". sorry but I would rather build the fighter, in hopes that I never have to actually use it.
I agree with this.

It always irks me that those who want to send or expect people like us to trot off to war/humanitarian ops equipped with a butter knife and a bag of plasters are always the first to whine about poor spending on defence when we can't get the job done, and a resurgent Russia with modern kit is pouring through the Fulda gap.
 
It always irks me that those who want to send or expect people like us to trot off ...
yeah, that's a dilemma. and i agree, that once in this game, arms races are inevitable.

it's kinda funny to think that we have ever sent these birds on a defence/humanitarian cause, though, as it has invariably been in 'conflicts' that were all specifically engineered to keep this very particular industry rocking, of course at the expense of 'those', which is otoh nothing compared to the misery they spread around. this is why it will never get back to 'sticks and stones'.
 
Magnificent ! The planet is dying and us with it.

But the human species is planning to continue to kill each other for the future.

We are really a very intelligent species.

Wonderful !

:p
HEY!! We found two new planets close by, moar destruction full steam ahead!!! :devilish:
 
Top Bottom