Why is the US developing AIM-260, if not for its stealth aircraft?
NEWS ONLY: France-Germany-Spain Future Combat Air System (FCAS / SCAF / FSAC)
@H_K has already pointed out cooperative targeting. There's also LPI functionality on AESA radars or using optical sensors for targeting paired with guidance over datalink. It's not some ancient SARH missile.
I think you guys don't understand, the AIM-260 has a requirement for a commum form factor. That it can be used as much by non-penetrative platforms than by those dedicated to air dominance. Same missile, same systems, same upgrades but one single logistics for different usages.
Alternatively, the range supports target sharing among a fleet of dispersed a/c.
The Meteor is an awkward weapon for a stealth aircraft. It is bulky, expensive (think that stealth assets are there to plink entire air forces... Those are not weapons for a Duel) and justify itself only for long range engagement. It should be straightforward to see that it doesn't fit the casting here.
Alternatively, the range supports target sharing among a fleet of dispersed a/c.
The Meteor is an awkward weapon for a stealth aircraft. It is bulky, expensive (think that stealth assets are there to plink entire air forces... Those are not weapons for a Duel) and justify itself only for long range engagement. It should be straightforward to see that it doesn't fit the casting here.
Last edited:
Optical?! At 100nm?!
So, Meteor is logically flabbergasting, or it's visually straightforward ...? Or both ? You've lost me here.
Meteor and the latest amraams can be launched with targeting data from ex Link 16. Target data can com from AWACS, ground radar, ship radar, or some platform with optical sensors. You see a target provided via Link16 on your tactical display you can fire at it without using your own radar.
kqcke for you
PUMA PUMA PUMA
- Joined
- 3 November 2022
- Messages
- 1,640
- Reaction score
- 2,390
You know those countries have invested quite a bit in meteor so reusing it on FCAS make sense. Also you know using RJ10 from FC/ASW as air to air weapons will be even more awkward.
Meteor actualy makes a lot sense. While yes its bulkier than an normal SRM given the need for an air intake but in combat irs good for long and medium range engaments. Afterall for short range combat we got our SRAAMs.
kqcke for you
PUMA PUMA PUMA
- Joined
- 3 November 2022
- Messages
- 1,640
- Reaction score
- 2,390
- Joined
- 23 August 2011
- Messages
- 2,272
- Reaction score
- 7,459
Meteor is actually the same price, or cheaper than AIM-120D3....with the advantage that most of the users get industrial benefits as well...
It is far cheaper than AIM-260 as well...
- Joined
- 23 August 2011
- Messages
- 2,272
- Reaction score
- 7,459
PIRATE IRST on Typhoon can pick up contacts at c150km.....and its based on late 90's technology...
KAI relaxed their initial stealth expectations as they had confidence in the balance using upgraded Meteor within the Korean theatre of Operation. FCAS is budgeted to be an uber stealthy platform per design objectives...
@timmymagic :
- AIM-260 known prices are based on initial delivery. Not decade long systems (Meteor is now a decade old missile)
- What are you picking at 180km? A coasting Scud or a F-117?
Its not only up to him to decide. He didnt want Belgium to join FCAS as an observer (because he was still butthurt that they bought the F-35 over the Rafale) yet he couldnt prevent it from happening. Now he is doing it again just after Belgium announced a F-35 follow-on order.
Trappier's attitude is really problematic. He is the biggest obstacle to the program. Personally i think he wants to kill FCAS.
Last edited:
The problem with Belgium is that they have announced no plans to order FCAS (or any 6th gen fighter), or even to move away from a single type fighter fleet. And by ordering more F-35s, they make it even less likely that they would buy another fighter in the next 30+ years... as why would they need more than 45 stealth fighters?? (Belgium's GDP is about 1/5th of France or the UK, 1/7th of Germany's, so their F-35 fleet is equivalent to 225 RAF or Armee de l'Air fighters, or 315 Luftwaffe fighters)
It's pretty simple really. They don't have a program of record, they don't have the budget, they don't have the intent. They are just looking for industrial offsets and to free ride on other countries' orders. Can you imagine the US giving them a cut of F-47 or the UK a cut of GCAP under those conditions?
Making everything sound like "Trappier is the problem" is rather tiring in my honest opinion.
Last edited:
Actually they are exploring the idea of having a mixed fleet in the long term (post-2040). It is mentioned in their new defense strategy that was unveiled last Friday. Quoting the relevant part of the document:
Still very hypothetical at this point of course but they are considering it.
Btw, 45 fighters is nowhere near enough to meet NATO obligations. In the revised NATO's capability targets that were adopted last month, Belgium now has to provide at least 55 fighters to the Alliance, and according to one study, 69 fighters would be the ideal number for Belgium.
Make no mistake, he is the biggest stumbling block to the program. His attitude is not conducive to a good cooperation at all. As i said, i dont think he wants the program to succeed.
Last edited:
OK. But 69 fighters would be the minimum to make a 2-type fighter fleet viable for Belgium... given 45 F-35s, anything less than ~24 FCAS would too small of a fleet to make operational sense.
Also, what's the incentive for the FCAS partners to accept such a small partner at this stage? They'd be better off waiting and avoiding all the complications. Then they could bring in a couple of Tier 2 Belgian suppliers as part of a future offset deal, if and ONLY IF Belgium actually orders the type.
(Warning - informed speculation!)
Adding an updated top view of my personal opinion of what FCAS/NGF might look like, based on what we know about Dassault's design preferences and the Onera/DLR Levcon studies, and a heavy dose of inspiration on my part from the A-5 Vigilante and Mirage 4000.
This is to illustrate one option that Dassault might choose in order to achieve conflicting requirements of minimum drag and good supersonic performance, high maneuverability, low carrier approach speed, large internal fuel volume, a long internal weapons bay for a single large store (French nuclear AS4NG missile), exportability etc. The key design choices illustrated are:
- Triple delta wing with LEVCONs (Onera/DLR studies)
- A-5 Vigilante style internal arrangement with high-fineness ratio, large payload volume between the 2 engines, and fuel tanks in area ruled dorsal hump
- Ruddervators (as on YF-23 / NGF mockup)
- Relatively small engines (10-12t thrust, similar to M88-4 or F414 EDE)
- Constrained size and emphasis on design choices that reduce structural weight (versus other 6 gen fighters), to lower costs and favor export sales... I am assuming an empty weight of ~13.5t, design combat weight of 18-20t, TO weight (clean) of ~25t (with 800-1,000nm combat radius), MTOW of ~34t (with 9t of external stores or CFTs)
I'll come back in 10 years and see how far off I was... if FCAS pans out lol.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 11 February 2007
- Messages
- 3,823
- Reaction score
- 8,088
Just to further elaborate on what range Germany intends defending itself at, Germany and the UK confirmed last Thursday that they plan on developing a Deep Precision Strike missile with a range of "over 2000km" within "the next decade", which puts it at the extreme end, or beyond, of the 1000-2000km range proposed for the European Long Range Strike Approach (France/Germany/Italy/Poland/Sweden/UK).
EmoBirb
E.S.T
- Joined
- 18 January 2025
- Messages
- 2,209
- Reaction score
- 5,622
Trappier is a complete fool and should be shoved into the deepest corners of the industry, far away from any important decision
EmoBirb
E.S.T
- Joined
- 18 January 2025
- Messages
- 2,209
- Reaction score
- 5,622
Intention and what's actually needed are two different things. I reiterate that the constitutional obligation of the Bundeswehr is Landesverteidigung as a primary goal. Bündnisverteidigung, especially in case of a fragile NATO full of questionable players like the US or Turkey, runs more or less contrary to the goal of securing the country.
Geopolitical goals and Realpolitik don't align in this case and to secure the German nationstate, there are many things that are required. Long range strike fighters and missiles (developed together with a non-EU member and historical threat to Germany no less) are in direct contradiction to the actual need of the German defence apparatus.
I don't know if you missed it, but the Iron Curtain isn't in Germany anymore. The defence of the "Western World" can be comfortably handed to the Baltics, Poland, Sweden and the likes, Germany isn't threatened by anything external at the moment and politicians intent on keeping their jobs would be wise to address the internal threat to the integrity of Germany instead.
But we're straying to far into the realm of politics here.
--------------------------------------------------
Back to FCAS, while it is unfortunate that we have to carry the unnecessary French requirements as well, having FCAS over not having it may in the end be better, as the Eurofighter is not getting younger. It's in the hands of the Government and the folks at Airbus to exert the necessary pressure to remind our French colleagues that this is a joint program and that Mr. Trappier is becoming a substantial obstacle for the continued progress of the program. He needs to go if FCAS is meant to succeed.
Ukraine has shown to everyone and the fool that deep conventional strike, inside Russia for example, is a must to have for an air force. Germany is not reading the tea leaves, they are making informed conclusions.
Well Miss, earlier you posted this :
To a suggestion that Germany and Spain may leave the program .
So according to you he is doing what should be done , what do you complain about ?... Strange logic, you apparently would applaud Germany leaving that program, in effect killing it, yet you blame Trappier for pushing Germany to do it. Go figure...
EmoBirb
E.S.T
- Joined
- 18 January 2025
- Messages
- 2,209
- Reaction score
- 5,622
It's a must when you're not under a nuclear umbrella or part of NATO and don't have several countries between yourself and Russia.
Meaning, it's not a genuinely relevant requirement for Germany (being in NATO, under the nuclear umbrella of the US with US nuclear weapons in Germany and having Poland and Ukraine between ourselves and the Russians). Although the shareholders of various defence giants will tell you otherwise.
And in a direct shooting war between NATO and Russia conventional strikes and fighter jets are your very last problem.
It makes not much sense to invest into something that has no real use case for our military. We don't have colonial ambitions like France, we have a huge buffer between us and our nearest threat, we're in NATO and have US nuclear weapons on our ground which can be carried by US supplied F-35s we bought. There is no conventional threat to our sovereignty. FCAS as it's laid out so far isn't something Germany needs. It's better than having nothing when the Eurofighters become obsolete, but it's very far from the ideal aircraft for what Germany needs*. It's pretty simple.
*German needs being vastly different than NATO needs in this day and age.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,975
- Reaction score
- 24,080
Honestly, that's quite a bit smaller than I am anticipating.
PANG will have the capability to throw a 45-tonne aircraft off the catapults, and the AdlA doesn't care how heavy it is.
I'm expecting something that can carry 4x Exocet/FCASW, or 4x AARGM-ER (equivalents), or 2 of each, internally. Call it ~35 tonnes with full internal fuel and max internal weapons load, with external space for another 10 tonnes or so. This does require engines roughly on the F110-132 or F119 class to be able to power the beast, though.
So it's possible that SCAF will be a smaller plane since that would allow tuned-up M88s or EJ270s to power it instead of having to develop an entire engine.
Waterballoon
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 27 October 2023
- Messages
- 206
- Reaction score
- 591
How can such a person become CEO of a multi billion $ company? Is there no board of directors to call him out?
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,975
- Reaction score
- 24,080
Or the CEO is not saying that and Xtwits are making a tempest in a teapot. Again.
It really doesn't make much sense for Belgium to do anything other than join as a "kickstarter backer" to get access to production runs sooner.
What systems can Belgium say "we are the best athlete" to get workshare?
Waterballoon
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 27 October 2023
- Messages
- 206
- Reaction score
- 591
Well, he did say that.
"At his company's quarterly meeting, he publicly voiced his displeasure. "If Belgium backs out of the idea of buying F-35s, they would be welcome," Trappier said. "If they don't, they're making a fool of us." Trappier believes that locally procuring defense equipment is a crucial condition for participating in the weapons program.
Trappier also criticizes the way FCAS is currently being managed. He says the FCAS program is already extremely complex with its current core partners (France, Germany, and Spain). Adding additional partners would further complicate and delay negotiations and the project's progress. If that doesn't change soon, Trappier wants to "go it alone," he says.
This isn't the first time Trappier has spoken out against Belgium's membership in FCAS. "I don't see why I would give work to the Belgians today," he said in a hearing before the French Senate in May 2023. He added that if it were "imposed" on him, he would fight against it."
'Architect' van ambitieus Europees defensieproject wil niet dat België partner wordt: "Ze maken ons belachelijk" | VRT NWS: nieuws
Vliegtuigbouwer Eric Trappier wil niet dat België 300 miljoen euro investeert en volwaardige partner wordt van 'zijn' ambitieuze Europese defensieproject FCAS. Dat heeft hij gezegd tijdens een toespraak op een bedrijfsevent. Hij vindt dat ons land door de aankoop van Amerikaanse F-35's de...
www.vrt.be
Afair Belgium was a significant industrial partner in the Rafale program, and was to be a major operator, only to change its mind and join the JSF. I'd say given past actions, Trappier's fears are at least justified.
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 2,113
- Reaction score
- 3,599
Ukraine did?
Neither Russia nor Ukraine lack range to fly to the desired targets. It's just too dangerous.
Both sides lack sortie generation and slam hard into maintenance limits, going the massed cheap stand off instead.
It is the very opposite from uralbomber everyone seems to be advocating for, and literally the largest failure big/long suffered since BoB.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,975
- Reaction score
- 24,080
Replace "[...] is a must to have for an air force" with "for a country" and it works better.
"Ukraine has shown to everyone and the fool that deep conventional strike, inside Russia for example, is a must to have for a country"
This thread should be renamed "France-Germany-Spain Future Combat Air System (FCAS / SCAF / FSAC) & Trappier, aka the French CEO you love to hate".
I think you are misremembering things. Belgium was invited to join the Rafale program way back in the late 80s when it was still in development. At the time, a replacement for the remaining and increasingly obsolete BAF Mirage 5Bs was needed by 2000 and so a participation in the Rafale program was considered. Other programs considered were the EFA and the GD Agile Falcon (a proposed F-16 version). In the end, Belgium chose... nothing. Winding down of the Cold War and declining budgets both played a part in the decision (or lack thereof) and the Mirages were put out to pasture by 1994.
Belgium didnt join the JSF program either. It was invited to join the SDD phase around the turn of the millennium but didnt take up the offer. When Belgium bought F-35s in 2018, it was an off-the-shelf purchase.
Last edited:
Yes Trappier is giving Belgium the same answer that they’d get from Lockheed Martin or BAE.
i.e. « Prove to me you’re serious » and « show me the money ».
Which Belgium is unable to do as they AREN’T serious about buying a second fighter fleet of 30+ fighters (which would be the minimum for this to make sense - for their own Air Force and for the other FCAS partners), having put all their budget into 45 F-35s.
It’s a mystery to me why everyone piles on Trappier when he says things that everyone actually agrees with… is it just that you all don’t like the way he says it?
Last edited:
yeetmahboi
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 April 2022
- Messages
- 957
- Reaction score
- 1,332
Also reassures most "easy thinkers" in their beliefs in the French => arrogants cliché.
OMG, a French is saying what he thinks frankly, and it's not something I like ... that's sooooo arrogant. Reddit level.
- Joined
- 23 August 2011
- Messages
- 2,272
- Reaction score
- 7,459
Normally I'd be laughing along with the rest...
But Trappier is right. For the pittance that Belgium would contribute, with no needed tech or orders I just can't see the point. The complications and additional administrative burden would likely swallow up what little contribution Belgium would make....and why should they get industrial offsets for such a small contribution?
- Joined
- 23 August 2011
- Messages
- 2,272
- Reaction score
- 7,459
Both AIM-260 and AIM-120D3 are more than most recent Meteor orders...
For the US it makes sense as US domestic pricing is far lower. But if you're an export customer....and if you've got industrial involvement it makes far more sense.
I said 150km. But its an aircraft, probably on the larger side. And you won't be able to ID (which might not be an issue in the Pacific for example...but as I said...its a 30 year old system....
kqcke for you
PUMA PUMA PUMA
- Joined
- 3 November 2022
- Messages
- 1,640
- Reaction score
- 2,390
Sure for Belgium to buy FCAS we need to wait atleast until the 60s as before that it doesnt make sense. That said given the right Contracts one can bind them to having to fulfill the contract or pay a very large compensation. If they want to have something different in design then they could have to offer something that would compensate for it which i honestly doubt would even happen. That said i don't agree with his attitude to this topic. Of course neither i nor we have the full picture but this seems to me like an good option. We get a good bit of Money, they probaly dont want a lot outside of integration for the respective numbers and WE legaly bind them to an number that they have to uphold like 45-54 jets which we then know will be bought or they have to go trought an even more severe punishment for breaking the contract.
Edith: with that the Ball is in belgiums hand. Either they accept and show that they want to invest into FCAS as an partner while honouring the agreement or say no and we don't have a problem anymore.
Last edited:
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