Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20

Thread: European defence industry nearing crisis, report warns

  1. #1
    Senior Member Steak-Sauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Liberating Lingor
    Posts
    10,220

    Default European defence industry nearing crisis, report warns

    [SIZE=4]European defence industry nearing crisis, report warns[/SIZE]

    By: Craig Hoyle London


    Europe's ability to develop next-generation combat aircraft has been dangerously eroded, and will reach "a point of no return" unless collaborative funding decisions are made soon, a new industry study warns.

    Commissioned by the European Defence Agency (EDA), the Future Air Systems for Europe (FAS4Europe) group study says "the situation for future air systems is severe, with some important industrial capabilities and technologies already at risk".
    Article continued @ Flightglobal

  2. #2
    Defender of the Man Code
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Jesus, Mary and Josef Stalin's house
    Posts
    7,239

    Default

    Yep...ain't going to happen...no one wants to fund defence here.

  3. #3
    Senior Member NovocastrianUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy
    Age
    24
    Posts
    2,421

    Default

    So what is Taranis? or nEUROn? They seen quite developed already.

  4. #4
    Defender of the Man Code
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Jesus, Mary and Josef Stalin's house
    Posts
    7,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NovocastrianUK View Post
    So what is Taranis? or nEUROn? They seen quite developed already.
    Both of them are not even prototypes of a system. They are technology demonstrators. It's easy enough to fund a one off tech model...what about the decade plus long multinational effort to field a service aircraft?

    The Typhoon kind of showed the problems with that and the problems with getting it into service and now updating it.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Steak-Sauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Liberating Lingor
    Posts
    10,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NovocastrianUK View Post
    So what is Taranis? or nEUROn? They seen quite developed already.
    That doesn't matter. Even if some (alas, how many countries are we talking about?) European defense budgets have the money to buy a small number of these U(C)AVs, it's in no way a guarantee that our defense industries will survive and be able to continue to build fighter jets and/or unmanned systems. As for the latter, everyone and his dog is building these systems nowadays. The market literally exploded, or is about to do so, when the "traditional" companies are joined by some newcomers. Take a look at EADS, they just put the Talarion on ice because no government was willing to come up with the funding to continue development. Now they just have their Barracuda demonstrator and that's about it.

    Personally, I don't think that Europe will save the ability to develop and produce next generation combat aircraft. First you have to come up with the funds for such a program; second a huge crowd of collaborative members will ultimately lead to problems. Take a look at the NH90, Tiger, EF2000, A400M, for example. They were all meant as one piece of kit that can solve the problems of all nations involved. Hilarious, but an interesting lesson for the future.

    The EF started out with the French, and they wanted something else and produced the Rafale instead. This will happen again, potential customers will drop out of the development of combat systems because they are heavily delayed and over budget, and/or they will look for gapfillers, like the Finns (or Swedes?) are currently doing with the S-70 (because the NH90 is ****ing late).

    A "joint" European defense industry was proposed for a long time already, for all sorts of products (land vehicles, jet fighters, helos, frigates, weapons, etc.), but it failed in most cases (?) quite miserably, in my honest opinion.

  6. #6
    Senior Member tea drinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Putting on the kettle
    Age
    44
    Posts
    8,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by muttbutt View Post
    Yep...ain't going to happen...no one wants to fund defence here.
    Sheet, over next 10 years we could spend an additional 30 billion on defence if we didn't plow it into Anglo Irish Bank. We spent another 60 billion for the other banks so far. Money is being redirected, it's not necessarily gone, but WE sure as sh1t don't have it.
    The consequences of too big to fail are affecting most of the Western Nations. There must be 2 base closures every week in Europe now.
    The suppliers are going to feel the pinch. At least ME nations are still buying some of our toys.

  7. #7
    Senior Member happyslapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Windsor, United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steak-Sauce View Post
    Personally, I don't think that Europe will save the ability to develop and produce next generation combat aircraft. First you have to come up with the funds for such a program; second a huge crowd of collaborative members will ultimately lead to problems. Take a look at the NH90, Tiger, EF2000, A400M, for example. They were all meant as one piece of kit that can solve the problems of all nations involved. Hilarious, but an interesting lesson for the future.

    Thankfully europe's only 2 military powers have left the freeloaders behind to a large extent.

    I don't want the UK to have any more to do with european defence projects.
    The Tornado killed our domestic fighter industry (the Buccaneer 2 would have been far more capable, and carrier capable). The Eurofighter is late and a commerical flop. The A400 is a joke.
    Thankfully even the Labour party had the sense to steer clear of the diabolical NH90.

    With the work done on Taranis, and 'son-of-Taranis', we at least have a ray of light to remain a producer of first-rate fixed wing combat aircraft. The French are the only european country with the credentials to join us.

    All this ''further integration will save us [from the problems caused by previous integration]'' is utter bollocks.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Steak-Sauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Liberating Lingor
    Posts
    10,220

    Default

    In related news and worth a read:

    [SIZE=3]Europe Poised For Gradual Updates To Fighters
    [/SIZE]
    Mar 26, 2012

    By Robert Wall
    London


    The severe budget austerity gripping much of Europe does not augur well for air forces looking to achieve leaps in capability for the next decade. It is somewhat a matter of luck, then, that foreign demand is effectively pushing stingy treasuries to provide funding to field upgrades.

    The list of European militaries likely to benefit from these export-driven enhancements is long and includes the Swedish, French, British and German air forces.
    Article continued @ Aviation Week

  9. #9
    You buy me drinkie [RNZE]Sapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    788

    Default

    OMG! What are they saying? Some people are giving you important reasons to give them money?

  10. #10
    Senior Member Flamming_Python's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Spying on the Eurowoosies
    Posts
    12,076

    Default

    What Europe should have done, instead of creating a bloated 'all-European' monster of an arms industry, is simply to have issued tenders for everything and... let the best company win. In this case, each country's industry would have taken on a project that it was suited for; the end product of which would have been bought by other EU members.

    On an individual level; some French, Swedish, German, British, etc.. arms manufacturers and industries are very competitive - but encouraging them into artificial collaborative projects simply killed the end-product.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Steak-Sauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Liberating Lingor
    Posts
    10,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by happyslapper View Post
    The A400 is a joke.
    Although I tend to agree with the rest of your post, I think you will be proven wrong on this one.

    Granted, the Grizzly is late and costly, no questions asked and we all know it.

    But don't underestimate the commercial opportunity this cargo hauler could offer: Even with a reduced payload (for example: 30t), it should be still able to carry most MRAPs and wheeled APCs and/or IFVs that are currently being offered on the market. I'm speaking of Boxer, AMV, VBCI, and others in this class. Even a Super Hercules can't do that with its 20t maximum payload, and I sincerely hope you don't expect a whole lot of nations will go for a C-130J/C-17 combination. The A400M fills a gap between the Herc and bigger aircraft like the Il-76 and Galaxy. Given that quite a few C-130 customers will look for replacements, I'm pretty much certain that Airbus will gain additional orders for this type once production and deliveries are going ahead. Currently, the only aircraft in its class that could "oppose" the A400M is Japan's C-2, but it remains to be seen if this one will ever be sold to an international customer. Lockheed Martin needs to make up their mind about countering the A400M with a new aircraft, and while doing so, try to do something against the KC-390 and the joint Indian-Russian aircraft.

    That said, let's wait and see.

  12. #12
    Senior Member happyslapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Windsor, United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,518

    Default

    I hope you're right, but the C-130/C-17 combo is precisely what I would have gone for (more of). In the case of the UK, we already have the exisitng airframes, the training, the experience, the engineering setup, etc..
    Obviously, that isn't the case for most other potential A400 customers. What strikes me is how quickly and emphatically the Brazillians can churn out an approximate equivelant.
    If, for example, BAE had been told in 1982(!!!!!) to build a bigger more efficient BAe146, with an austere air to air refuelling capability, and a rear-loading ramp, then (anti-BAE quips aside), we'd have that flying on operations today.

    Almost irrespective of how successful the A400 eventually is, it's already demonstable of incompetence at every level of pan-european projects.

  13. #13
    Senior Member NovocastrianUK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy
    Age
    24
    Posts
    2,421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by happyslapper View Post
    With the work done on Taranis, and 'son-of-Taranis', we at least have a ray of light to remain a producer of first-rate fixed wing combat aircraft. The French are the only european country with the credentials to join us.

    All this ''further integration will save us [from the problems caused by previous integration]'' is utter bollocks.
    That's what I mean with the Taranis, with the lesser extent nEUROn. The UK is plowing ahead with its development solo which, I believe is a more sensible approach. When Europe puts all their eggs in one basket, it doesn't work as we've seen with the examples stated.

    Everyone wants their toys to do its own thing and with a multinational project doesn't turn out that way. A multinational European defence industry (favoured by the EU crowd) may be in crisis but single states in Europe can get it done. Germany are good with its tanks, UK her ships etc

  14. #14
    Senior Member Mark Sman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,659

    Default

    Honestly, what is next generation air power really going to be about. Air space control? Ground strike capability? Naval component? Manned aircraft or UAV?

    What are surface based defense systems going to be like in 10 years. I'm surprised SAM technology isn't already advancing at a far greater rate than airframes. Easier to mod or build ground based systems.

    The answers to these questions really depend on who you are and what you think you are going to want to do.

    The EU is now figuring some things out about what their mission might be and what that might cost.

    Besides, it will not be a one-size-fits-all war in the future. Defense Department's issue things in two sizes. Too big and too small.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,967

    Default

    With A400 the simpler solution was to update the Shorts Belfast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •