As the Eurosatory exhibition comes to an end, after having been one of the richest editions of new products in the last 30 years, the feeling towards the French defense industry appears mixed to say the least..
Indeed, if certain French innovations were presented, and contracts signed, it appears that the strategies and equipment presented by other BITDs, particularly European ones, sometimes seemed more advanced, and often more voluntary, whether in the field armored vehicles, anti-aircraft systems or drones.
However, the perception of a possible partial downgrading of the French defense industry does not only affect land weapons, and may, in the long term, harm national exports in this area, and therefore the fragile balance at the heart of the industrial equation of French strategic autonomy.
To reposition this industry in its global ecosystem, as well as to provide armies with the equipment that will make them more effective and dissuasive in the decades to come, it would probably be relevant to rely on certain complementary, but more diversified, medium-term programs. , than those currently under study, and thus rediscover the dynamic that was that of France, in this area, at the beginning of the 90s.
In this article, four of these programs are studied, as relevant for the French armies in the emerging world, as they are essential for the French defense industries, in order to preserve all of their skills and their export markets: a new tracked armored platform in the 40 ton range, a 105 mm Caesar howitzer, a hybrid multipurpose destroyer with modular capabilities as well as a standardized mission module.
In this section:
A 40-ton multi-purpose tracked armored vehicle platform
Of all the developments in the field of land armaments, highlighted by the Eurosatory Exhibition, it is undoubtedly the return of the need for heavier, better protected and tracked armored vehicles, which stood out among visitors and analysts. specialized.
Indeed, with the Ukrainian conflict highlighting the limits of armored vehicles on wheels, particularly in terms of mass, therefore protection, and mobility in soft terrain, many armies, particularly in Europe, and industrialists, have massively reinvested in the field, presenting new models of combat tanks, but also versatile tracked platforms, such as the KF41 Lynx from Rheinmetall, the Spanish Ascod, or the Swedish CV90.
If these models were initially used to design infantry fighting vehicles of 35 to 40 tonnes, better protected and better armed than the French VBCI, they have since been derived in numerous specialized versions, as carriers of systems of artillery or drones, anti-aircraft systems and even light tanks and tank destroyers, simultaneously meeting the needs of their armies and strong European and global demand.
French industry, for its part, remains particularly absent from this field, which is in high demand, both to equip itself with infantry fighting vehicles and with mobile and under-armored anti-aircraft and artillery systems.
Indeed, apart from the Leclerc, and the very promising Leclerc Evolution, whose destiny is still far from assured, no tracked armored vehicle was presented during this show, KNDS France, like Arquus and Texelis, having presented exclusively models on wheels.
However, most French experts in the field, such as Marc Chassillan, or Yann Boivin, underline this purely French bias, aiming to favor only the wheel, to maintain projection capacities by air transport, to the detriment of line engagement capacities.
There are 75% of this article left to read, Subscribe to access it!
The Classic subscriptions provide access to
articles in their full version, and without advertising,
from €1,99. Subscriptions Premium also allow access to archives (articles over two years old)
Hello, late, I was on vacation and had read through the article. For my part, I don't think that the race for over-armed ships is necessary. the Yanks have cruisers with more than 100 missiles, but they always fire double to ensure (are their missiles insufficiently reliable). on our frigates 1 target, 1 missile, period. so yes 16 aster on a frigate is too tight, we would need at least 32, which is possible on the IDF since the Greek IDF are at this level. on the other hand the price of a cruiser will be so expensive that it will surely take the place of 3 frigates, in terms of cost, but will only be in one place. in case of serious damage or destruction, in his case there is nothing left! As for the LCS, for my part too complicated. let's stick to products that are simple but technically advanced, not too expensive and which sell. when we see the American excesses and the delusions of sophistication that the navy has had for several decades, let's not follow them stupidly for once. naval group, makes good boats, which work well, not very expensive (the proof is that many people are having fun at the moment), let's continue like this. our SNA are as efficient as the American ones, and more at sea than the English ones and cost 2.5 times less.
The conflict in Ukraine demonstrates that a 105mm cannon on vehicles would have no interest because, in addition to the significantly lower range and its power of impact, it would largely reduce them to targets for counter-battery fire.
As for an LCS type vessel and in the context of high intensity combat, a vessel cannot afford to return to port to change its arsenal according to changes in enemy tactics and/or strategy. On the other hand, significantly increasing the versatility of our large buildings would make it possible to establish a new functional standard.
For the mono fighter, I don't see the point for Dassault to go into this area. Between F16 and FA-50, the market for this class of aircraft is saturated and the initial investment far too high to be profitable.
On the other hand, it is obvious that the state must fill the end of life of the Alphajets with a device allowing them to get closer to the standards Rafale/SCAF. The Pilatus will never be able to play this role.
On the other hand, where I agree is that the state must participate, WHEN THE OFFER IS RELEVANT on the targeted market, in the credibility of French BITD projects and this is not the case with the suggestions stated.
I believe that a scorpionized Bradley type tracked armored vehicle would be particularly useful to us in non-expeditionary theaters of operation, for example.
Instead of the Caesar 105mm, I would see a light fighter, equivalent and successor to the Gripen. And why not with the Swedes. The Russians will return to this market with the Su-75. Not to mention a possible combat version of the American T-7.
Concerning modularity, on paper it is beautiful, but the failure of the LCS and the oldest Danish Stanflex program must encourage the greatest caution.
the failure of the mission module dates back to 2015. Since then, technology has evolved considerably, largely thanks to AI, which is crucial for mission modules, and especially for interfaces.
Concerning a mono fighter, yes, it could very well have had its place in this list. But as I spoke about it recently, and on several occasions, I wanted to emphasize other subjects.
In view of the failure of the American LCS program, this would not be the best idea unless it would bring happiness to industrialists and the ruin of our National Navy.