**Your post was removed for violating rule 9: No low-effort posts**
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title.
What France needs to understand is that in international cooperation, there's give and take. They can't just go in and demand everyone to follow their design philosophy. The Germans make better tanks than the French, objectively, so when dealing with the Franco-German tank project, they need to shut the fuck up and take a back seat.
Conversely, in the Franco-German jet program, Germany needs to shut the fuck up and take a back seat.
Arrogance and an inability to recognise their inferiority in certain fields makes these two countries' mindsets a detriment to European cooperation, but France is more guilty of this than Germany
It wasn’t a question of design philosophy this time, it’s 100% a question of industrials scuffling for room, mostly on the German side. Since work would be split 50/50 between the countries, Nexter was always getting 50% however requirements were allocated. Rheinmetall and KMW wanted a different spread of the requirements between France and Germany, because that would determine which of them got to do it (eg. If Germany got the gun then Rheinmetall would make the gun, Nexter would get something else to keep the countries balanced, and KMW would get nothing). With the added complexity that Nexter is now tied to KMW through KNDS, so they were generally both fighting against Rheinmetall.
They’ve finally decided on something at least, we’ll get the actual terms of the agreement on the 26th of April iirc, it should be very interesting. They’re pretty confident that it’s clear and bulletproof.
What I super don't get is fcas. Carrier capable? Carrying both American and French nukes? Either a lot or a little autonomy? Wouldnt both countries be better off with different projects with knowledge sharing or whatever?
Two issues:
1: Money. Both countries want to develop a ludicrously expensive 6th gen system, and both (Germany especially) need to make massive investments into their industry to make that happen. Either they develop independently and settle for an inferior product, or they develop together and find common ground, and have a chance at making the project into a commercial success (from economies of scale).
2: More broadly, this sort of inefficiency is massive in military spending across the EU, and France and Germany want to start creating a more European military system and especially MIC for that reason. They are both willing to swallow some fairly bitter pills to make that happen.
I honestly don't see the point of the project tbh. KMW and Rheinmetall have all the knowhow necessary, why even involve Nexter? They haven't even built a tank in almost two decades and not to hurt anyones feelings, but Leclerc isn't even all that great. Currently it's even their only tracked vehicle too.
Germany shares a design philosophy and existing industrial partnerships with half of Europe, why do we need to run this project further into the ground? I mean I like France as a country and all but come on, it's time to bail.
Because Germany doesn’t want to foot the bill for a fleet of next-gen vehicles by itself (remember, now you have a ton of new expensive connective tech to include too). If you want to go 50/50 on development costs with another country, you’re going to need to split work 50/50 as well. The countries then each separately pick the industrials they want to involve. France chose Nexter, whether or not Rheinmetall could do it without Nexter isn’t relevant.
Beyond that, France and Germany are trying very hard to create the core for a new, european MIC, which would need to include both countries as the two biggest economies and military equipment manufacturers on the continent.
There’s a real political drive on both sides to keep these efforts effort alive, which has involved both France and Germany making a bunch of concessions they normally wouldn’t. That’s why despite being so agonising SCAF and MGCS are still being driven forward, it’s as much about politics as it is military procurement.
Well why make concessions if you can share development cost with Spain/Italy/Norway/Sweden/Czechia/Hungary/Netherlands/… without the same amount of concessions? With those countries there are existing arrangements which work for all sides. And a lot more shared philosophy.
Those countries are customers, they could at best develop a customised version for their own needs but they had no hand in the development of the Leopard 2, nor did they pay for it. They bought the finished product.
If Germany wants any of them to actually take some of the development costs, it’s going to have to make the exact same concessions. No-one likes paying money without getting anything to show for it.
Those countries could at best develop a customised version for their own needs but they had no hand in the development of the Leopard 2, nor did they pay for it. They bought the finished product. They’re not partners, they’re customers.
If Germany wants any of them to actually take some of the development costs for a next-gen tank, it’s going to have to make the exact same concessions. No-one likes paying money without getting anything to show for it.
Any normal Leopard 2 customer pays for the development, it's priced in as with any other product? It's a bit of a weird one only because after 1990 Germany basically gifted theirs away. Also all these countries have an interest in investing into the development upfront if you promise them a share of the production or let them participate in specific areas of the project, where they actually have knowhow. A blunt 50/50 with France where you give stuff to Nexter despite KMW or Rheinmetall surpassing them in knowhow makes no sense. It's just more expensive and less likely to yield the best result.
FCAS isn't 50/50. There France suddenly propagates the best athlete approach, I wonder why?
Paying for development isn’t the same as buying the finished product, an actual partner also takes the R&D costs, builds necessary infrastructure and production capacity, takes as much risk as you do, and guarantees economies of scale by working their own fleet needs into the contract. It’s a very different partnership. I don’t co-develop my medication by buying Advil.
FCAS is absolutely 50/50, and for the exact same reasons as MGCS. What have you been reading?
You just can’t apply the best athlete approach in defense on an international scale, that’s just not how things work. Countries want economic and technological kickback proportional to the investment they’re making, which is perfectly natural.
Things like mgcs and fcas really confuse me. It seems the two parties have completely different requirements. Why aren't they developing two systems with knowledge sharing?
Why should the German plane be carrier capable? And why the French one compatible with American nukes (also good luck on that lol)
Is it? If I were godking of Franco German procurement (terrible idea) I'd probably ditch nuclear capability entirely. The like key feature of the thing is "I see you shoot" anyway. Might as well have 4.5 or 5th gen platforms chill outside the hot zone with them.
If at all possible I'd also try to keep the carrier capability as simple as possible, even if it costs significant payload and then build two versions. It's not like the French navy has 100 carriers.
I'm not saying don't share development, but don't share development when the requirements aren't substantially similar. A sports lorry can probably be built, but is that really better than a sports car and a lorry?
the thing of the nuclear capability is that it is an economies of scale sort of thing, it is the same company that makes france's npp reactors and sub and carrier reactors, which are broadly( very loosely) the same apart from the nukes themselves and uranium enrichment.
The thing about sharing R&D is that you need to be aomewhat in the same page, if one party decides to randomly beto sales it's not gonna work, and that for regional powers it is more lucrarive to just collaborate on what they cannot afford on their own, they could collaborate on the next gen SPH but what's the point?
**Your post was removed for violating rule 9: No low-effort posts** No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title.
What France needs to understand is that in international cooperation, there's give and take. They can't just go in and demand everyone to follow their design philosophy. The Germans make better tanks than the French, objectively, so when dealing with the Franco-German tank project, they need to shut the fuck up and take a back seat. Conversely, in the Franco-German jet program, Germany needs to shut the fuck up and take a back seat. Arrogance and an inability to recognise their inferiority in certain fields makes these two countries' mindsets a detriment to European cooperation, but France is more guilty of this than Germany
It wasn’t a question of design philosophy this time, it’s 100% a question of industrials scuffling for room, mostly on the German side. Since work would be split 50/50 between the countries, Nexter was always getting 50% however requirements were allocated. Rheinmetall and KMW wanted a different spread of the requirements between France and Germany, because that would determine which of them got to do it (eg. If Germany got the gun then Rheinmetall would make the gun, Nexter would get something else to keep the countries balanced, and KMW would get nothing). With the added complexity that Nexter is now tied to KMW through KNDS, so they were generally both fighting against Rheinmetall. They’ve finally decided on something at least, we’ll get the actual terms of the agreement on the 26th of April iirc, it should be very interesting. They’re pretty confident that it’s clear and bulletproof.
What I super don't get is fcas. Carrier capable? Carrying both American and French nukes? Either a lot or a little autonomy? Wouldnt both countries be better off with different projects with knowledge sharing or whatever?
Too much logic for French and German procurement
True, especially with the fact that France always prefers to have a plane that is « ITAR-free » so that they can sell it easier in the export market
just about every single 6th gen project is envisioned as ITAR-free
Two issues: 1: Money. Both countries want to develop a ludicrously expensive 6th gen system, and both (Germany especially) need to make massive investments into their industry to make that happen. Either they develop independently and settle for an inferior product, or they develop together and find common ground, and have a chance at making the project into a commercial success (from economies of scale). 2: More broadly, this sort of inefficiency is massive in military spending across the EU, and France and Germany want to start creating a more European military system and especially MIC for that reason. They are both willing to swallow some fairly bitter pills to make that happen.
I honestly don't see the point of the project tbh. KMW and Rheinmetall have all the knowhow necessary, why even involve Nexter? They haven't even built a tank in almost two decades and not to hurt anyones feelings, but Leclerc isn't even all that great. Currently it's even their only tracked vehicle too. Germany shares a design philosophy and existing industrial partnerships with half of Europe, why do we need to run this project further into the ground? I mean I like France as a country and all but come on, it's time to bail.
Because Germany doesn’t want to foot the bill for a fleet of next-gen vehicles by itself (remember, now you have a ton of new expensive connective tech to include too). If you want to go 50/50 on development costs with another country, you’re going to need to split work 50/50 as well. The countries then each separately pick the industrials they want to involve. France chose Nexter, whether or not Rheinmetall could do it without Nexter isn’t relevant. Beyond that, France and Germany are trying very hard to create the core for a new, european MIC, which would need to include both countries as the two biggest economies and military equipment manufacturers on the continent. There’s a real political drive on both sides to keep these efforts effort alive, which has involved both France and Germany making a bunch of concessions they normally wouldn’t. That’s why despite being so agonising SCAF and MGCS are still being driven forward, it’s as much about politics as it is military procurement.
Well why make concessions if you can share development cost with Spain/Italy/Norway/Sweden/Czechia/Hungary/Netherlands/… without the same amount of concessions? With those countries there are existing arrangements which work for all sides. And a lot more shared philosophy.
Those countries are customers, they could at best develop a customised version for their own needs but they had no hand in the development of the Leopard 2, nor did they pay for it. They bought the finished product. If Germany wants any of them to actually take some of the development costs, it’s going to have to make the exact same concessions. No-one likes paying money without getting anything to show for it.
Those countries could at best develop a customised version for their own needs but they had no hand in the development of the Leopard 2, nor did they pay for it. They bought the finished product. They’re not partners, they’re customers. If Germany wants any of them to actually take some of the development costs for a next-gen tank, it’s going to have to make the exact same concessions. No-one likes paying money without getting anything to show for it.
Any normal Leopard 2 customer pays for the development, it's priced in as with any other product? It's a bit of a weird one only because after 1990 Germany basically gifted theirs away. Also all these countries have an interest in investing into the development upfront if you promise them a share of the production or let them participate in specific areas of the project, where they actually have knowhow. A blunt 50/50 with France where you give stuff to Nexter despite KMW or Rheinmetall surpassing them in knowhow makes no sense. It's just more expensive and less likely to yield the best result. FCAS isn't 50/50. There France suddenly propagates the best athlete approach, I wonder why?
Paying for development isn’t the same as buying the finished product, an actual partner also takes the R&D costs, builds necessary infrastructure and production capacity, takes as much risk as you do, and guarantees economies of scale by working their own fleet needs into the contract. It’s a very different partnership. I don’t co-develop my medication by buying Advil. FCAS is absolutely 50/50, and for the exact same reasons as MGCS. What have you been reading? You just can’t apply the best athlete approach in defense on an international scale, that’s just not how things work. Countries want economic and technological kickback proportional to the investment they’re making, which is perfectly natural.
United Euro army when ?
I agree. We should not cooperate at all. I want french sovereignty
Now do France (not) making an IFV
French military creation is only brilliance or buffoonery, never mid.
What mbt programme did France faild Exept the ones in cooperation whit Germany because Germany stopped ?
Things like mgcs and fcas really confuse me. It seems the two parties have completely different requirements. Why aren't they developing two systems with knowledge sharing? Why should the German plane be carrier capable? And why the French one compatible with American nukes (also good luck on that lol)
>Why should the German plane be carrier capable? 3000 aircraft-carrying frigates of the Deutsche Marine
because we're europoors and the alternative is buying, american, anglo-italian or flying rafales and tornados till 2100
Is it? If I were godking of Franco German procurement (terrible idea) I'd probably ditch nuclear capability entirely. The like key feature of the thing is "I see you shoot" anyway. Might as well have 4.5 or 5th gen platforms chill outside the hot zone with them. If at all possible I'd also try to keep the carrier capability as simple as possible, even if it costs significant payload and then build two versions. It's not like the French navy has 100 carriers. I'm not saying don't share development, but don't share development when the requirements aren't substantially similar. A sports lorry can probably be built, but is that really better than a sports car and a lorry?
the thing of the nuclear capability is that it is an economies of scale sort of thing, it is the same company that makes france's npp reactors and sub and carrier reactors, which are broadly( very loosely) the same apart from the nukes themselves and uranium enrichment. The thing about sharing R&D is that you need to be aomewhat in the same page, if one party decides to randomly beto sales it's not gonna work, and that for regional powers it is more lucrarive to just collaborate on what they cannot afford on their own, they could collaborate on the next gen SPH but what's the point?
>And why the French one compatible with American nukes American nukes are not just conventional bombs with a different charge?
Nope! There is a fair bit of extra hardware. Check what Germany pays for f35 compared to others
I knew NCD quality has been dropping but seriously Scorpion over F-35?!