NEWS ONLY: France-Germany-Spain Future Combat Air System (FCAS / SCAF / FSAC)
This kind of BS is getting seriously tiresome to read. Specially on a forum where I supposed the members would know a bit better.
Does partners cooperating with France had to shut up and pay for :
Jaguar ?
Alphajet ?
Transall ?
A400M ?
Tiger helicopter ?
These are just the mil aero projects that come on top of my mind, feel free to add more instances where we screwed other nations please ...
Last edited:
kqcke for you
PUMA PUMA PUMA
- Joined
- 3 November 2022
- Messages
- 1,640
- Reaction score
- 2,390
How where they screwed in those projects? Im seriously curious about it.
That's my point @kqcke for you. France didn't screw any partner in previous multi-national programs.
so phrases like "Just like nearly every multi-national project France has been involved in the last 65 years." or "Germany is supposed to shut up, pay France" that I keep reading here and there are tiresome Bs, that Dassault's/France's "fans" repeat over and over again.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 5,198
- Reaction score
- 11,109
I've had a thought nagging at the back of my mind since that Trappier interview a few weeks ago, where he more or says that Dassault should be given the lead on SCAF and left to get on with its Neuron 2.0, but within the same breath says that both projects are long term aims and SCAF cannot be completed before 2040.
This implies that Dassault is working flat out at capacity but doesn't have enough gas to get up the hill quickly. It seems disingenious to claim that negotiating decisions with Airbus is slowing them down when he says that Dassault can't move any quicker. I would have thought that having two industrial partners would have halved the load and Airbus should have valuable technical contributions to make the design process given their experience with Eurofighter. If Dassault wants to take on 80% of the load fine, but if they make the wrong design choices or can't deliver on time then the egg is on their face.
This implies that Dassault is working flat out at capacity but doesn't have enough gas to get up the hill quickly. It seems disingenious to claim that negotiating decisions with Airbus is slowing them down when he says that Dassault can't move any quicker. I would have thought that having two industrial partners would have halved the load and Airbus should have valuable technical contributions to make the design process given their experience with Eurofighter. If Dassault wants to take on 80% of the load fine, but if they make the wrong design choices or can't deliver on time then the egg is on their face.
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 4,147
- Reaction score
- 7,740
Any concrete Info on this?
None. Zero. Zlish.
What the DGA response talks about is :
And yet we have people crying out loud like their money has already been stolen.
Last edited:
Jackonicko
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 4 February 2009
- Messages
- 463
- Reaction score
- 1,151
The DGA has been more measured (or perhaps just less specific) than Eric Trappier, whose interventions on SCAF/FCAS/NGF have been disrespectful (or worse) to his partners.
But you're right to point to some examples of successful co-operation between France and other partners (often Germany). Interestingly none of those examples involved Dassault, whose record on collaboration has been rather less impressive.
Any Dassault official "trolling" would sound disrespectful to you anyway, because in that "soap" as you describe it, they are your favorite vilains. So what can I say... either appreciate all the actors in the roles you put them, or change to another show ?
Still funny how you quickly jump on any chance to push your Dassault vilain narrative, so much so it makes you read the post you respond to a bit lightly.
I cited the Dassault/Dornier AlphaJet. If you know a bit of the development story, at one point there was two wings design, a Dornier, and a Dassault, and Dassault praised the Dornier wing as better, so that one was adopted.
But I'm sure you'll find a way to tell us that Dassault managed to screw Dornier in that "rather less impressive" AlphaJet program ?
Last edited:
- Joined
- 22 January 2006
- Messages
- 4,392
- Reaction score
- 2,674
Moving the FCAS thread from "Aviation" section to "News" should be logical since the ratio information vs speculation is definitely growing to the speculative side. This is an also a growing trend in the forum. I personally appreciate an informative focused forum. Originally it was proposed to clean up the threads to preserve the forum original intention. But this method is not practical because the flow of speculation is too strong to be reversed with the present moderation resources.
By the moment, I wouldn't like to move threads because I think this favours the speculative post flow.
Jackonicko
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 4 February 2009
- Messages
- 463
- Reaction score
- 1,151
I'm just pointing out that M Trappier's remarks about German and Spanish design capabilities have been disrespectful and unhelpful.
The Alpha Jet was based on a derived hybrid of the Breguet 126 and Dornier P.375 concepts (the TA501). Dassault took over Breguet during 1971, by which time the fundamentals of the collaboration had been settled. It was a Breguet product, from a Breguet Dornier root.
Last edited by a moderator:
And ? It can originally be a Breguet design, that doesn't change the fact that in the end was Dassault who managed his collaboration with Dornier in that program, since Dassault bought Breguet. The fact that the French design part was originally from Breguet is irrelevant, it was Dassault managing it by that time.
See ? You manage to turn any small single point, like that above, to spin in your narrative about Dassault...
It's a meme.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- 22 January 2006
- Messages
- 4,392
- Reaction score
- 2,674
We should try to avoid replicating KeyPublishing forum and preserve Secretprojects spirit.
Jackonicko
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 4 February 2009
- Messages
- 463
- Reaction score
- 1,151
We should indeed. That should include refraining from inaccurate characterisations of SPF members and ad hominem attacks against them.
For clarity, and for the record, I have never been anti-French, nor anti-Dassault. It's just that some French enthusiasts take any balance, any failure to accept a 'Dassault is best and anything they do is wonderful' world view as evidence of a deep and bitter enmity.
I always admired the Mirage 2000, and I happen to think that the Rafale is a great 4.5 gen fighter, and especially a great air-to-ground optimised striker, and I take my hat off to the Dassault and DGA sales teams who have scored so many export successes - especially in the UAE - which was a truly magnificent achievement, a great demonstration of the value of persistence and a great reversal of fortunes. But that kind of praise is not enough for the Rafale fanboys, to whom the aircraft is the epitome of aeronautical perfection, and anyone who does not accept that is viewed as a critic, a trouble maker and therefore a bitter foe.
In the case of SCAF, M Trappier's insistence that only Dassault is capable of leading the manned fighter pillar, because his partners are inexperienced and much less capable is neither entirely true nor entirely tactful, and risks killing the programme.
To say so is a calm and accurate reflection of what's happening, it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "drooling softly an ‘evil Dassault’ obssession." I do think that under M.Trappier, Dassault pursues its own interests with a single-mindedness that makes collaboration with equal partners difficult. That's self evident, surely?
It's not just me making that point. Even some parts of the French press have said as much. And just ask any German how they react to M.Trappier's arrogant and chauvinistic dismissal of their nation's capabilities.
How would you describe his dismissal of German aerospace capabilities, his demand for control, and his demand for 80% workshare? Even if you think he's right, ask yourself another question: How is that supposed to make his partners feel?
I'm not sure that any of that makes Dassault "the villain of the piece" - those are your words, not mine. I'd prefer slightly less incendiary terminology, personally.
I believe that the death of SCAF would be a wholly bad thing for Europe, which needs more than one 6th Gen air dominance system of systems, and especially for Germany. But it would probably be bad for France, too, which would struggle to fund such a family of systems without partners, and whose design would benefit from German and Spanish technology and design input. The end of SCAF wouldn't be good for the UK, either - bear in mind that GCAP is not open to new industrial partners, and dealing with a late German (say) application to join at this late stage could/would cause problems between us and our other partners.
Galgot, with the greatest respect:
You held up the Alpha Jet as an example of Dassault's record of successful collaborations. I'm just pointing out that it was a successful Breguet/Dornier collaboration that was subsequently 'bought up' by Dassault, which is a slightly different thing.
Breguet, Aerospatiale, and Airbus have been responsible for a number of successful collaborations, from Gazelle/Lynx/Puma, Jaguar, Transall, A400M, to Concorde. It's clearly not a French thing. Nor is it necessarily a Dassault/Trappier thing. These collaborations are hard, and you probably need a few 'less than successful' attempts and a couple of good partnerships before you really learn how to manage them, compromise, share and keep everyone on board. I'll bet that BAE Systems is better at it on GCAP than it was on Typhoon, and better still than it was as a Panavia player, which in turn benefited from experience on the Jaguar, which followed AFVG, and all the rest.
For clarity, and for the record, I have never been anti-French, nor anti-Dassault. It's just that some French enthusiasts take any balance, any failure to accept a 'Dassault is best and anything they do is wonderful' world view as evidence of a deep and bitter enmity.
I always admired the Mirage 2000, and I happen to think that the Rafale is a great 4.5 gen fighter, and especially a great air-to-ground optimised striker, and I take my hat off to the Dassault and DGA sales teams who have scored so many export successes - especially in the UAE - which was a truly magnificent achievement, a great demonstration of the value of persistence and a great reversal of fortunes. But that kind of praise is not enough for the Rafale fanboys, to whom the aircraft is the epitome of aeronautical perfection, and anyone who does not accept that is viewed as a critic, a trouble maker and therefore a bitter foe.
In the case of SCAF, M Trappier's insistence that only Dassault is capable of leading the manned fighter pillar, because his partners are inexperienced and much less capable is neither entirely true nor entirely tactful, and risks killing the programme.
To say so is a calm and accurate reflection of what's happening, it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "drooling softly an ‘evil Dassault’ obssession." I do think that under M.Trappier, Dassault pursues its own interests with a single-mindedness that makes collaboration with equal partners difficult. That's self evident, surely?
It's not just me making that point. Even some parts of the French press have said as much. And just ask any German how they react to M.Trappier's arrogant and chauvinistic dismissal of their nation's capabilities.
How would you describe his dismissal of German aerospace capabilities, his demand for control, and his demand for 80% workshare? Even if you think he's right, ask yourself another question: How is that supposed to make his partners feel?
I'm not sure that any of that makes Dassault "the villain of the piece" - those are your words, not mine. I'd prefer slightly less incendiary terminology, personally.
I believe that the death of SCAF would be a wholly bad thing for Europe, which needs more than one 6th Gen air dominance system of systems, and especially for Germany. But it would probably be bad for France, too, which would struggle to fund such a family of systems without partners, and whose design would benefit from German and Spanish technology and design input. The end of SCAF wouldn't be good for the UK, either - bear in mind that GCAP is not open to new industrial partners, and dealing with a late German (say) application to join at this late stage could/would cause problems between us and our other partners.
Galgot, with the greatest respect:
You held up the Alpha Jet as an example of Dassault's record of successful collaborations. I'm just pointing out that it was a successful Breguet/Dornier collaboration that was subsequently 'bought up' by Dassault, which is a slightly different thing.
Breguet, Aerospatiale, and Airbus have been responsible for a number of successful collaborations, from Gazelle/Lynx/Puma, Jaguar, Transall, A400M, to Concorde. It's clearly not a French thing. Nor is it necessarily a Dassault/Trappier thing. These collaborations are hard, and you probably need a few 'less than successful' attempts and a couple of good partnerships before you really learn how to manage them, compromise, share and keep everyone on board. I'll bet that BAE Systems is better at it on GCAP than it was on Typhoon, and better still than it was as a Panavia player, which in turn benefited from experience on the Jaguar, which followed AFVG, and all the rest.
Sure sure ... You are well known for your fervent but subtle Francophilia.
They'll have to deal with it or quit I guess.
Trappier clearly doesn't believe the program is feasible as is now. Is it genuinely because he just doesn't want any cooperations or because he is aware that the thing as it is can't work, I don't know.
One sure thing, German arms procurements and procedures + exports policy is not something Dassault is happy to deal with, given they makes their huge profits from export, it's understandable.
Making cooperations for the sake of cooperations is also not their goal. Their goal like any modern aerospace maker is to survive, if possible grow and make profit.
+ there is that German F-35 deal, as I told you, that was the cherry on the cake. A partner buying from what they see as their strongest competitors, moreover being US and for reasons that are seen as just pleasing the current US admin, in the middle of common European defense policy discourses, is seen as a slap on the face. So take a "80% workshare" slap...
You are indeed more subttle than me. Doesn't mean I don't understand it.
Who knows...
Jackonicko, with the greatest respect :
I first listed the AlphaJet as a successful example of French international collaboration.
You jumped to say that "none of those examples involved Dassault". Yet if that AlphaJet collaboration with Dornier indeed started with Breguet, it ended being Dassault finishing (successfully) the program with Dornier, which is a slightly different thing than "none of those examples involved Dassault".
You see, these are the spinnings I was mentioning earlier...
You mention some of the biggest European aerospace projects (you could also add Ariane, Airbus... ect) in which France take part, and yet manage to say "It's clearly not a French thing." Sorry, I don't follow... maybe subtle Francophilia again.
For sure. But can't say if is a good or a bad thing.
Well, gaining experience in collaborations is all fine and well, but thinking that it will always end up as every partners being equals and gaining the same is a bit naive. I'm not the one to teach you that this environment is super competitive, the one who gets the biggest share is the one who survives in the end. That is how Dassault do, that's their choice, and they are not doing too bad so far.
Other have their own way, and end up being Lockheed-Martin sub-contractors. But they loose the ability to do planes alone.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 11 February 2007
- Messages
- 3,823
- Reaction score
- 8,088
Who else were Germany supposed to buy from? It was never going to be a Rafale (would America even allow B61 integration?), so either they bought more Typhoons, which would need the B61 integrating, or they bought an American jet, and if you buy American, then F-35 is the obvious choice, with B61 integration already planned.
And the decision was made in 2022, so predates the more recent EU defence proposals and the current US government.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 5,198
- Reaction score
- 11,109
37% of Europe's air forces, and 13 (65%) of the top 20 military nations by capability in Europe have acquired, or will acquire F-35s.
That's a pretty staggering statistic that BAE, Dassault, Airbus nor Saab really shouldn't be happy about.
F-35 13/37 = 35.1%
Typhoon 5/37 = 13.5%
Rafale 4/37 = 10.8%
Gripen 3/37 = 8.1%
3 Typhoon users are of course F-35s users too, 1 Rafale user wants F-35s too and 2 Gripen users are seeking to replace with F-35s. Neither Edgy Tempest nor SCAF will supplant the F-35 with some/all of its intended home users.
The F-35 is here to stay, whatever magical sales pulling power it has, it's stomping all over anything Europe can, or is likely to produce.
That's a pretty staggering statistic that BAE, Dassault, Airbus nor Saab really shouldn't be happy about.
F-35 13/37 = 35.1%
Typhoon 5/37 = 13.5%
Rafale 4/37 = 10.8%
Gripen 3/37 = 8.1%
3 Typhoon users are of course F-35s users too, 1 Rafale user wants F-35s too and 2 Gripen users are seeking to replace with F-35s. Neither Edgy Tempest nor SCAF will supplant the F-35 with some/all of its intended home users.
The F-35 is here to stay, whatever magical sales pulling power it has, it's stomping all over anything Europe can, or is likely to produce.
Interesting stats—and they’ll only get more interesting over time, in favor of the F-35.
Despite the lock-in to the U.S. and how closed the whole system is, the F-35 is, under current circumstances, the best choice.
For all its issues (some of which were blown out of proportion by the media), it’s a great jet—smartly designed, well-built, full of potential, and only going to get better, more refined, and cheaper over time. Realistically, there won’t be any serious European alternative—maybe Saab, if the right decisions are made quickly enough.
Unfortunately, Europe’s defense industry fell asleep at the wheel and is now trying to catch up by signing complex political agreements that are supposed to result in 35-ton monsters “for the Pacific battlefield.” Try offering those to Slovakia, Austria, or Croatia—and then go explain to local taxpayers, or say, a Hungarian farmer, that sure, they’ll be insanely expensive jets, but hey, at least you’ll be able to use them against the J-36 or bomb artificial islands in the South China Sea.
Europe’s trying to build jets that will be worse than the F-47, more expensive, and arrive later.
They could have shelved the deal altogether, and finally realize that transatlantic relation as it as gone for the last 50 years is coming to an end. That 2022 wasn't 2025, that it is very optimistic to think it's gonna change for the better . That adapting these B-61 on new Typhoons would have send a strong signal to their EUROPEAN partners (you know, that famous European Union and stuff...that we Europeans are part of) that they are committed to the independent EUROPEAN defense policy that is most needed, while keeps their engagement to NATO for the time being. Sure their would not have had the F-35 wonder fighter to carry these B-61, but the necessity of building a common European defense policy/structure/industry not tied to a US ally that is getting more and more difficult to work with is more important on the long term than again paying billions to LM, in the hope that the current US admin keeps his commitment itself to NATO. I mean, it's like Denmark buying more F-35s to protect Greenland, and Belgium too in the middle of trade war threats... what are these people in charge thinking of ? That paying a bully is gonna guarantee their security on the long term ? Or is it time to finally realize that it's time to change policy ?
What's funny about these reactions about Trappier asking 80% workshare, is that it comes from countries who are already screwed, stuck by having a few shares in that F-35 program thus to buy more, and delusion that good US ally time is gonna last forever.
Sorry mods, this is politics, but the reasons for these buys goes far far beyond any technical matter or what's really the best plane for any mission.
Anyway, that's likely Trappier's views, and mines too, take it or leave it...
Last edited:
And 564 F-35s ordered by European countries so far, with more expected so very likely to surpass the 614 Eurofighter orders.
kqcke for you
PUMA PUMA PUMA
- Joined
- 3 November 2022
- Messages
- 1,640
- Reaction score
- 2,390
kqcke for you
PUMA PUMA PUMA
- Joined
- 3 November 2022
- Messages
- 1,640
- Reaction score
- 2,390
While i agree with you on that one could argue that the extra costs, time and the risk of having too hand the us a "key" to everything in Eurofighter for the integration. Of course one could also just bought F-18's before that....
But then one could also have used ASMP's with or without Rafale's which would have send an even stronger signal .... but would come with even more cost and time delays which would be probaly very extreme.
But i would argue that it wouldn't change a thing if the carrier plane is european or not simply because in the end we are only the courier. Developing a european alternative is would be the best option while being the hardest Road.
The biggest problem for the change you and many more want (same for me) is cost. Like you said politics controls the budgets and for example buying more F-35 or upgrading Patriots is easier and cheaper which is often preferred.
Its allways easier to go with a single fleet of jets than multiple but within FCAS only germany has F-35 with 35 being bought and with a (small) chance of buying 15 more which does have some sense given that the only other sensible option would be 15 more eurofighter which wont come anytime soon (but same can be said for F-35).
Amusing how the one that used to preach the end of stealth to not buy F-35 are the same jumping on the burning wagon titled the End of NATO.
There is definitely no ending of grands theories to keep someone hands down their pockets.
There is definitely no ending of grands theories to keep someone hands down their pockets.
Last edited:
EmoBirb
E.S.T
- Joined
- 18 January 2025
- Messages
- 2,209
- Reaction score
- 5,622
Sounds more like a GCAP issue rather than an FCAS issue though. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that CdG/PANG would deploy to the Pacific in a war. That's for the Anglos, not for us. FCAS is definitely more geared towards European interests and at least from the renderings and mock ups seems to be the more sophisticated aircraft, at least with regards to the main airframe of the fighter component.
FCAS weight and size is dictated by French naval requirements, but that was also the case with Rafale, which was widely successful on the export market. Furthermore, FCAS will undoubtedly find customers in the near east, as US options won't be offered an GCAP will be too large and specialized for the Japanese and British pacific ideas. French doctrine revolves around continental Europe and the Mediterranean, meaning North Africa and West Asia. This alone will lead to a more compact aircraft. It will at the end of the day probably be an expensive aircraft. But for countries who aren't looking for a cutting edge fighter, the drone component paired with their existing Rafales and Eurofighters will be an attractive offering. Which is why I believe the drone component to be so incredibly important, as they will be capable systems on their own, but also force multipliers for legacy aircraft.
F-47, if it will get exported, will still be expensive and only offered to the closest of US allies. If it's more capable than what FCAS will be? It's too early to tell, but the last time the US and Europe produced aircraft of comparable roles and era, the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen blew the F-15, F/A-18 and F-16 out of the water, precisely because they arrived later but were ultimately more sophisticated machines compared to their US counterparts. This doesn't even touch on things like ordnance, when the US is only now starting to procure a Meteor equivalent, a missile that's soon due for replacement or a major upgrade.
All in all, I don't think there is much reason to compare the European efforts to the US ones, as they serve different customer bases and especially FCAS is built around a different threat environment. While GCAP is roughly meant to do what the F-47 is meant to do. So while GCAP and F-47 have to measure up against the far more mature Chinese sixth gens, FCAS has to measure up against what's flying in the middle east, north africa and eastern europe.
There's a number of questionable assumptions wrapped in here (IMHO)...
1) First carrier aircraft aren't necessarily small... the F-14, F-111B and A-5 were all in the 33.5 - 36 tonne range (take-off weight)
2) PANG will have USN-standard catapults and arrestor gear, so FCAS will be able to be as big and capable as FA-XX (if desired). Unlike Rafale which was constrained by CdG's shorter catapults (75m vs 90m) and shorter angled deck (200m)...
3) Trappier himself has implied that FCAS will be 33-34 tonnes... 50% heavier than Rafale
4) French doctrine is now heavily focused on Indopac, especially the potential threat to French sovereign territories in the region (Reunion, New Caledonia, Polynesia)... which can only come from China. So FCAS will have to have sufficient range and capability for that theatre.
5) The design of PANG only makes sense in the context of a Pacific war against China. Nuclear propulsion, size of air wing, sortie generation, simultaneous launch & recovery capability etc are all geared towards long distance deployments against high-end threats (including enemy carrier task forces)... there is no other likely threat.
Bottom line is that the evidence so far points to FCAS being about as big as a loaded-up F-14 (or F-15E with CFTs). I haven't seen any indication that Germany or the French air force desired a bigger fighter, or that size had to be compromised due to French naval requirements.
Last edited:
According to Trappier, the SCAF will be a 33-34-ton aircraft. That's an elephant. If it comes to fruition, it will have two large, completely new engines, and the development costs will be factored into each of them. Overall, it will be an extremely expensive aircraft.
Unless the U.S. administration manages to push through an export version of the F-47 in one or two Gulf countries beforehand, finding buyers will be very difficult.
For European countries, the F-35 will be a much more attractive option.
The reason they plan to buy additional F-35s is simple: the current numbers are inadequate. What else are they supposed to buy? A mixed fleet would not make sense for them.
Last time the Gripen, Rafale, and Typhoon was developed and got into service at the same time as the F22.. not saying its impossible but developing an aircraft that can beat the F47 wont be cheap..
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,973
- Reaction score
- 24,080
I do think that SCAF will be very similar to the FAXX, both in size and in mission.
And I've come up with an ~80,000lb/36.3tonne MTOW rough concept based on carrier operational limits that seems to work for FAXX. 40klbs empty, 28klbs fuel, 12klbs ordnance.
And I've come up with an ~80,000lb/36.3tonne MTOW rough concept based on carrier operational limits that seems to work for FAXX. 40klbs empty, 28klbs fuel, 12klbs ordnance.
There is no way SCAF will carry 28klb of internal fuel. That would put the flight hours way on top of the affordability bracket for French AF and Navy...
Think fuel cost per hour and maintenance as a function of GW.
As a reference, a Mirage 2000 can fly 5+ hours with 8000L of fuel, something like 13klb of fuel. So more than the double of that, internally, would, not only, represent a significant burden on French infra and logistics, but also see budget skyrocket.
Think fuel cost per hour and maintenance as a function of GW.
As a reference, a Mirage 2000 can fly 5+ hours with 8000L of fuel, something like 13klb of fuel. So more than the double of that, internally, would, not only, represent a significant burden on French infra and logistics, but also see budget skyrocket.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,973
- Reaction score
- 24,080
How long can an M2K fly while carrying 12,000lbs of ordnance?
Because that's what we're comparing here.
Also, that M2K loses at least 2 pylons to carry 8000L of fuel, which means you're not even carrying 12klbs of ordnance. You're only carrying ~3000kg of ordnance and 2x2000L of drop tanks.
Now we're comparing the cost of two M2Ks to fly so that you can carry that 12klbs of ordnance.
Flying while stealthy is more expensive per flight hour, just in terms of more fuel burned.
12k of internal weapons?
@Scott Kenny 's numbers are theoretically possible if you imagine a modern stealthy A-5C Vigilante (or scaled up Mirage 4000 with more internal volume for weapons bays), about ~18t empty + ~9t internal fuel (similar to F-22 or Mirage 4000) + ~2.5t internal weapons, pilot, consumables etc.
That gives you just under 30t take-off weight clean in normal combat configuration... similar to an F-22.
Then add external load for optional heavy configurations: 4t of external fuel in 2x 2500L tanks (or ideally CFTs?), 2.5t of external weapons (e.g. 2x cruise missiles or 2,000lb class bombs), 1t for pylons, tanks etc...
That gets you to 37t max take off weight (or just over 80klbs), including 13t of fuel, 6t payload (of which 4-5t weapons).
That fuel weight would be reasonable - identical to a Mirage 4000 in fact. However, I don't think empty weight will be quite that high, more likely around 15-16t IMHO with all the rest staying the same, so 35-36 tonne MTOW would be possible with Trappier's 32-33 tonnes possibly representing a more typical operational configuration with a mix of internal and external loads (but not loaded to its limit).
That gives you just under 30t take-off weight clean in normal combat configuration... similar to an F-22.
Then add external load for optional heavy configurations: 4t of external fuel in 2x 2500L tanks (or ideally CFTs?), 2.5t of external weapons (e.g. 2x cruise missiles or 2,000lb class bombs), 1t for pylons, tanks etc...
That gets you to 37t max take off weight (or just over 80klbs), including 13t of fuel, 6t payload (of which 4-5t weapons).
That fuel weight would be reasonable - identical to a Mirage 4000 in fact. However, I don't think empty weight will be quite that high, more likely around 15-16t IMHO with all the rest staying the same, so 35-36 tonne MTOW would be possible with Trappier's 32-33 tonnes possibly representing a more typical operational configuration with a mix of internal and external loads (but not loaded to its limit).
Last edited:
- Joined
- 3 January 2006
- Messages
- 1,360
- Reaction score
- 1,287
Looking at the 80% French work share demand, I really do wonder if part of the arithmetic is to make up for the near total ban on export sales that any German work share will entail. However, is any combat aircraft in this size and weight category
exportable, aside from legacy Sukhois and F-15s?
A bigger problem going forward is the engine development program. Just how much can the Spanish and German partners contribute to Safran? At this very moment, only the Japanese have a full scale demonstrator for a next gen turbofan, and their partnership is the only thing making GCAP somewhat credible. And only Turkey has an actual flying demonstrator. My gut tells me that there are just too many competing European combat aircraft and engine programs and only the French have a truly proven track records for a fully indigenous solution. The only other entirely credible non-ITAR alternative is buying into the Turkish Kaan program and getting into an engine joint venture. At least the Kaan flies and is scaled around a suitably sized interim turbofan, unlike Britain’s upcoming (sub scale or merely underpowered?) EJ200 based demonstrator. And the overall Turkish program seems credible, especially if there was a partner to assist with production techniques for the Turkish indigenous turbofan. I have to admit that the Turks have a very plausible military airframe manufacturing capability, only just behind Dassault but ahead of the rest of Europe.
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 2,113
- Reaction score
- 3,599
But how often do you really need that?
If you ask for a regional bomber, you're going to get one.
With corresponding sortie rate and price. Which are decisive metrics for war aircraft.
In a real war against a near peer enemy you are not gonna fly directly over your enemy and drop 1000/2000 lbs bombs on them cus you get fckd up. Against goatfarmers in some shithole you can do that but not against another advanced enemy.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,973
- Reaction score
- 24,080
About that, yes.
That concept has space for 4x AGM-158Cs at ~2800lbs each, plus 2x 400lb BVRAAMs, and that makes 12klbs all internal. AGM-158B JASSM-ERs are 2600lbs each, so you'd come down to ~11,200.
4x ASALM would also fit internally, and those were 2700lbs each for a Mach 4.5, 500km range standoff weapon (mostly nuke, ~300lb warhead total weight). I suspect that the USN is going to end up with something very close to ASALM as their HALO or OASuW Increment 2 weapon. Yes, I know the idiots cancelled HALO. The operational need for a weapon of that type still exists.
If you stuff 2x AARGM-ERs (@1100ea) and some 2000lb JDAM-ERs in there, you're looking at 7000-9000lbs, depending on if the bays are set up to hold 3x 2000lb weapons or just 2x. AARGM-ERs are about the same width as AGM-158s, ~22", so the bay width is more or less there with 5" clearance around the weapons (5+22+5+22+5=59, 2000lb weapons are 19" wide each). The concern would be having the physical hardpoints in the bays. You'd need 5x hardpoints to swap between weapons like that, or you could just have 2x hardpoints and call it done.
If the bays are designed for it, you could fit 6x2000lb in there, so you'd hit 13-14k internal when it's time to BLU-109 someone.
2x AARGM-ERs, 2x Joint Strike Missiles, and 2x 400lb AAMs would probably be the lightest strike load, at ~5000lbs.
The bays are long and deep enough to hold AIM-174Bs, also, which makes an ~8800lb weapons load with 4x AIM-174s and 2x 400lb BVRAAMs.
There's enough volume in those bays to hold 4x AMRAAM-C3s or -Ds in the same volume as an LRASM or AARGM-ER, so you can definitely hold 8+2x BVRAAMs in the bays if not 16+2x. That's ~4000lbs for the low round count, ~7200lbs for the high count.
Israel will want something with that kind of range to strike Iran.
India might be in the market, depends on whether their attempts work out.
Crud, Indonesia needs the range.
Countries not willing to fall under China's or the US's lead would be interested.
Wasn't Safran building parts of the CFM-56 and LEAP engines? Those cores would be an option to start from for an appropriately sized fighter engine. F101/F110 sized.
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 2,113
- Reaction score
- 3,599
Similar threads
-
-
-
'Neuron 2.0' - New Dassault UCAS launched at Saint-Dizier, 8 October 2024
- Started by Jackonicko
- Replies: 20
-
-
What if, France never left the Eurofighter consortium- Started by helmutkohl
- Replies: 42