Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Lord_James said:

So should these projects be added under “failed French-German cooperation projects: part 2: revengance!”? 

 

I think the main problems is there are too many paralell R&D capacities, and both countries want to retain it' capabilites in certain areas. I mean if the 130mm gun will be accept for the MGCS the development of the 140mm gun will be sunk cost for the Nexter and it very probably means the end of large caliber gun development at the Nexter.

If we look at the Fremm frigates we can see that more or less just the ships' bodies are common. The sensor suits, weapons differs significantly on the french and italian ships. In the case of MGCS in theory it can design to it can use both the Nexter' and RM' IT architect and Thales/Hensoldt sensorsuits. Indeed, this solution will rise the costs significantly. But to design a turret which can fit to both the 130 and 140mm gun and the different autoloaders...uhhh...

IMHO french are a bit cheeky as they are the leaders of the FCAS but in the case of MGCS (which is lead by - in theory - the Germans) they want it will be made by the KNDS in which the Nexter has a higher share

another problem is that the industrial partners participating in MGCS and FCAS are different, so it is not very possible to come up with some kind of compensation: if I get less work from FCAS, I ask for more from MGCS

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, after a lot of thought on the subject (and absolutely 0 research :D), I see 2 ways this could still work out for them. I will clarify that this is a pragmatic approach where both parties benefit insomuch that they still have an MBT industry after this takes place. 
 

  1. Both nations build the tank with their respective industries. I was generally under the impression that the companies were arguing over who’s ideas the other would have to build, like “one nation proposes one thing. The other: another; and they would bid between those options”, or something sensible like that. Now? I don’t know what they’re doing. 
     
  2. If the situation is only one nation should build the new euro tank (as hilariously retarded as that would be, but is what I’m understanding from that article alzoc posted), the industry should obviously go to France. Germany already has the massively successful leopard 2 which will keep their industry alive and busy for another 2 decades. The leclerc is not as successful, and although the Caesar is an export success, that won’t replace the jobs and whatnot required by the industry. 
     

I know I’m missing some context, and I know I could very well have this whole situation backwards and nothing I said makes any sense, but I (possibly deludedly) think it’s a good idea to have an idiots opinion on the subject. After all, if you can’t effectively explain something to an idiot, how could it possibly be explained to a politician :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, speziale said:

I think the main problems is there are too many paralell R&D capacities, and both countries want to retain it' capabilites in certain areas. I mean if the 130mm gun will be accept for the MGCS the development of the 140mm gun will be sunk cost for the Nexter and it very probably means the end of large caliber gun development at the Nexter.

If we look at the Fremm frigates we can see that more or less just the ships' bodies are common. The sensor suits, weapons differs significantly on the french and italian ships. In the case of MGCS in theory it can design to it can use both the Nexter' and RM' IT architect and Thales/Hensoldt sensorsuits. Indeed, this solution will rise the costs significantly. But to design a turret which can fit to both the 130 and 140mm gun and the different autoloaders...uhhh...

this hits the nail on the head. i think the French position is understandable when you consider that German companies (KMW, Renk, MTU, DST) will almost certainly get the lead role in designing the automotive components for the tank. Nexters capabilities for heavy tracked vehicle mobility were severely reduced  by the end of Leclerc manufacturing. So France was hoping to get the lead on the turret and armament, arguing that they had the superior technology based on the Leclerc. From the german perspective, most innovation in MGCS will be in the Turret and weapon system (see Panther, EMBT) so as the lead on MGCS the want the biggest share. But that would leave only electronics for France and even there a possible entry of Italy and Leonardo into MGCS could mean giving up even more workshare.

Imo the French complaints about MGCS mirror the german ones about FCAS and so the German desire to link these 2 together makes sense even, bith that makes both programs an organisational nightmare.

8 hours ago, Lord_James said:
  • Both nations build the tank with their respective industries. I was generally under the impression that the companies were arguing over who’s ideas the other would have to build, like “one nation proposes one thing. The other: another; and they would bid between those options”, or something sensible like that. Now? I don’t know what they’re doing. 
     
  • If the situation is only one nation should build the new euro tank (as hilariously retarded as that would be, but is what I’m understanding from that article alzoc posted), the industry should obviously go to France. Germany already has the massively successful leopard 2 which will keep their industry alive and busy for another 2 decades. The leclerc is not as successful, and although the Caesar is an export success, that won’t replace the jobs and whatnot required by the industry. 

i think everyone agrees that most or all components should be single-source

My preferred solution, even if its not very realistic, is to let Dassault build the Plane, KMW the Tankhull and Rheinmetall the Turret while Airbus and Nexter only act as subcontractor. To make up for that both companies could get the lead on projects that are not essential to the main platform. So a MGCS equivlent of Airbus getting the ucav lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...