4 ms·

It really wouldn't surprise me. I don't know much about aviation but I worked in the naval defense industry in France and the gap in budget and production volum

by maeln 4y ago

It really wouldn't surprise me. I don't know much about aviation but I worked in the naval defense industry in France and the gap in budget and production volume with the U.S was just ludicrous. When the U.S Navy wants a new shinny nuclear aircraft carrier, they spend billions and the manufacturer has the insurance that it will produce a few. In France, large project like aircraft carrier or nuclear subs are produced usually at a single digit volume. So they have to work hard and blow a lot of budget on R&D for years just to produce one ship. It cannot be profitable if it was not bankrolled by the state. So yeah. Also the new F-35B looks like it is the most advanced fighter plane at the moment, so I don't think anyone can compete. The U.S defense industry is just so well funded.

creshal 4y ago
> In France, large project like aircraft carrier or nuclear subs are produced usually at a single digit volume. "Single digit" is extremely generous, 4 submarines over the course of a decade is the high point of French naval construction. With aircraft carriers it's closer to "one every thirty years", while the US tries to have two under construction at all times. At that point you're not even maintaining any institutional knowledge, engineers will retire before they see a second aircraft carrier being constructed. It's not as bad with aircraft: France would never export a nuclear submarine or carrier, nor would anyone be able to afford them (even the planned Australian contract wasn't nuclear, iirc). Aircraft are a lot cheaper, a lot less of a political minefield, and so sell easier. But, at the same time, the US poured $74 billions into the F-22, and $400 billions into the F-35. Just developing the F-35 would require 20% of France's GDP. Not military budget, not government budget, GDP. And while a competing design starting today would save a moderate amount of money on things like engines (France was just about able to keep up, R&D wise) and avionics (just due to general semiconductor advances in the private sector), a lot of the secret sauce of the F-35 is in its stealth technology (which is not just effective, but also easy to maintain, a very tricky balance that needs decades of experience – which the US collected with the F-117 and B-2, which collectively cost another $60+ billion) and its software stack (and the less said about the sad state of EU software dev, the better, we've been bleeding talent to the US for generations and it shows).
- maeln 4y ago
  > At that point you're not even maintaining any institutional knowledge, engineers will retire before they see a second aircraft carrier being constructed. This was a huge talking point when I was working there. "Maintien des compétences" is a huge issue that also plague the civil nuclear industry. > France would never export a nuclear submarine Naval Group doesn't sell nuclear subs made for the French marine but they do sell the technology transfer to help a country develop their own. The Brazilian contracts was also a mess (good engineer, bad sells man :D) but we were well on track to help them make their first nuclear sub. > (even the planned Australian contract wasn't nuclear, iirc) At their explicit demand I might add. It was always stated that the subs were supposed to be conventional. I remember that it was actually kind of an issue for the engineer because they wanted specs that were way above what most conventional subs were able to handle (in term of range and time submerged), and the main design was supposed to be more or less a retrofit of the Barracuda class.

by maeln 4y ago

creshal 4y ago

> In France, large project like aircraft carrier or nuclear subs are produced usually at a single digit volume. "Single digit" is extremely generous, 4 submarines over the course of a decade is the high point of French naval construction. With aircraft carriers it's closer to "one every thirty years", while the US tries to have two under construction at all times. At that point you're not even maintaining any institutional knowledge, engineers will retire before they see a second aircraft carrier being constructed. It's not as bad with aircraft: France would never export a nuclear submarine or carrier, nor would anyone be able to afford them (even the planned Australian contract wasn't nuclear, iirc). Aircraft are a lot cheaper, a lot less of a political minefield, and so sell easier. But, at the same time, the US poured $74 billions into the F-22, and $400 billions into the F-35. Just developing the F-35 would require 20% of France's GDP. Not military budget, not government budget, GDP. And while a competing design starting today would save a moderate amount of money on things like engines (France was just about able to keep up, R&D wise) and avionics (just due to general semiconductor advances in the private sector), a lot of the secret sauce of the F-35 is in its stealth technology (which is not just effective, but also easy to maintain, a very tricky balance that needs decades of experience – which the US collected with the F-117 and B-2, which collectively cost another $60+ billion) and its software stack (and the less said about the sad state of EU software dev, the better, we've been bleeding talent to the US for generations and it shows).

maeln 4y ago
> At that point you're not even maintaining any institutional knowledge, engineers will retire before they see a second aircraft carrier being constructed. This was a huge talking point when I was working there. "Maintien des compétences" is a huge issue that also plague the civil nuclear industry. > France would never export a nuclear submarine Naval Group doesn't sell nuclear subs made for the French marine but they do sell the technology transfer to help a country develop their own. The Brazilian contracts was also a mess (good engineer, bad sells man :D) but we were well on track to help them make their first nuclear sub. > (even the planned Australian contract wasn't nuclear, iirc) At their explicit demand I might add. It was always stated that the subs were supposed to be conventional. I remember that it was actually kind of an issue for the engineer because they wanted specs that were way above what most conventional subs were able to handle (in term of range and time submerged), and the main design was supposed to be more or less a retrofit of the Barracuda class.