Like the Germans provides the duck, the Spanish provides the corn, and we provide the feeding skills ? Please, shooting on Trappier is one thing, but shooting on gastronomy is worst.
So, now we know what the F in FCAS stands for: Forcefed
NEWS ONLY: France-Germany-Spain Future Combat Air System (FCAS / SCAF / FSAC)
- Joined
- 11 February 2007
- Messages
- 3,823
- Reaction score
- 8,088
And only one of them determines procurement. However in this case the view of the Bundeswehr over what's actually needed, reinforced by the lessons from Ukraine, seems to more closely reflect reality than your idea of a defence just forward of the German border.
NATO's collective defence doesn't care where the border is.
So Panzerbrigade 45 “Litauen” (based in Rudninkai, Lithuania) can be ignored?
NATO Multinational Corps Northeast (HQ Szezcin, Poland), responsible for the defence of the Baltics, doesn't have a German commander for a third of the time? (The other two thirds it's a German deputy commander or chief of staff, rotating with the Poles and Danes).
Luftwaffe Jagdgeschwader don't take their part in the NATO air policing commitments in the Baltics?
Germany isn't subject to Article 5?
Germany didn't less than 10 days ago reaffirm the Trinity House Accord with the UK, committing it to "reinforcing the security of the Euro-Atlantic region, recognising that long-term European defence is key to the security of both Participants", with John Healey and Boris Pistorius meeting for the Trinity House Defence Ministerial Council in Berlin?
Your understanding of Germany's established treaty commitments beyond the borders of Germany seems rather lacking. Which means trying to apply your beliefs to the requirements for FCAS is going to come up rather short.
That's an extraordinarily naïve thing to say. Consider the murder of Zelimkhan Khangoshvilli in Berlin by the FSB, the planned assassination of Armin Pappenberger of Rheinmetall, the explosion and fire at DHL Leipzig (also DHL Birmingham and DHL Warsaw), and the various other established Russian espionage and subversion efforts,
"We are talking about a sharp increase in cases of espionage and hybrid measures,” Martina Rosenberg, head of Bundeswehr military counterintelligence, this week.
Dreamflyer
'Senior Something'
- Joined
- 13 July 2008
- Messages
- 553
- Reaction score
- 908
So, now we know what the F in FCAS stands for: Forcefed
No, the 'F' stands for 'Fries'. That´s why Belgium absolutely wants to join the program.
Sir, you are talking to someone mentioning of France's "colonial ambitions" and contesting the Arctic in another thread. Result of Russian disinformation at work I'd say.
No, the main point of contention is the F-35. Trappier still cant get over it that Belgium went for the F-35 over the Rafale because he is a petty and vindictive man. It resurfaced again now that Belgium announced a F-35 follow-on order.
Regarding financial contribution, the 300 million € earmarked is just for the phase 2 of the program which run from 2026 to 2030, not Belgium's entire contribution for the development program obviously. As for your assertion that they dont plan to order any, you dont know that. I litteraly wrote a few posts ago that they were considering a mixed fleet in the post-2040 period. But apparently it went right over your head...
Last edited:
Some officials reaction about the recent spats around FCAS and Belgium participation, the only country among all partners presently building stealth fighters components (I don't think that Rheinmetall has its assembly line started yet) ...
www.politico.eu
Belgium snaps back at ‘arrogant’ French warplane-maker in jet feud
Dassault chief Éric Trappier riles the government in Brussels.
www.politico.eu
This is going to be he said / she said, but no we are not.
The recent order of 11 extra F-35 is already going to stretch budgets, and Belgium will never reach 3.5% let alone 5%
At best we'll get some CCA or LW, and those will probably be American since they'll have to be fully integrated into F-35 ecosystem and into the Benelux IADS (ie Patriot).
There's 0 Chance Dassault will get anything from this.
The most European solutions would be the anduril/rheinmetall or kratos/airbus projects recently announced, so still very much American at large.
(to clarify : these are simply 2 recent examples, but it will likely be collabs between us and eu companies)
So yes he's absolutely right to call bullshit. Sadly
Last edited:
kqcke for you
PUMA PUMA PUMA
- Joined
- 3 November 2022
- Messages
- 1,640
- Reaction score
- 2,390
Those two cooperations are quite different.
Andruil and Rheinmetall will be working in becoming the european distributor of bespoke systems and develop new ones for that marked. Airbus and Kratos will use the XQ-58A Valkyrie to develop the Basis for the UCAV work for Airbus. That said we are talking about a single demonstrator for testing and developing skills at Airbus (its cheaper and faster than having to learn the stuff but also building an unmanned demonstrator at the same time. This will also allow the Bundeswehr to learn what they want and can achieve with sutch technology).
alberchico
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 14 January 2014
- Messages
- 887
- Reaction score
- 2,144
Nice job Belgium, arrogant industrialists indeed.
Ainen
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 25 August 2011
- Messages
- 2,113
- Reaction score
- 3,599
For sure other guys are going to share without orders.
FighterJock
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 29 October 2007
- Messages
- 6,692
- Reaction score
- 7,910
Belgium would be welcome into GCAP/Tempest I am sure if they get cold feet over SCAF at any point in the future.
That just happened. And good riddance
What's amazing with F-35s buyers, is that stealth works on them too, the customer doesn't feel a thing, or is even convinced that it's his own finger... Technology is such a wonderful thing.
Last edited:
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,973
- Reaction score
- 24,080
Still not sure that Belgium really brings anything to GCAP as a partner, either.
Well GCAP would be one layer more that very select club of nations that build every days 5th Gen Stealth Fighter jets and attempt to make one even better...
Last edited:
2 more languages and some political instability !
takacosta
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 21 January 2025
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 282
Does Belgium have any strengths or expertise when it comes to fighter jet development? For example, in areas like avionics development?
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,973
- Reaction score
- 24,080
None that I'm aware of, though I know that if/when I'm wrong this forum will correct me.
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,973
- Reaction score
- 24,080
I don't believe so.
With PANG allowing an aircraft up to 45 tonnes MTOW, I would not be surprised if the takeoff weight with internal weapons only was ~35-36 tonnes (~80,000lbs). So, 10% bigger than Mirage IVA, or about the size of the Tomcat or A-5. And that suggests engines in the ~32-35klbs thrust class for a fighter airframe. But that is the upper limit on how big a plane they could build.
France has not built or operated fighters that big before. Rafale is only 24.5 tonnes MTOW, and 15 tonnes gross. If SCAF is designed around ~30 tonnes MTOW, then M88-4 would be a viable engine (~26,500lbs/120kN thrust) for something "off the shelf," IMO.
Thanks.
I see it the same way. Still, it's a 60 percent increase over the current M88 thrust.
We can look at the German studies immediately preceeding FCAS (DLR Future Fighter Demonstrator, aka Project Diabolo).
The FFD’s net thrust requirement was 112.7kN dry / 177.1kN wet (per engine). This required a 5m long engine with 1m inlet diameter, weighing 1875kg. Thrust also quoted elsewhere as 124kN dry / 183kN wet… possibly gross (uninstalled) engine rating.
The FFD design is quite big… 20.3m long x 14.8m wide with a 100m2 wing. Empty weight is ~16.5t. Take off weight clean is 28.3t with 8x AAMs (1.8t) and 10t internal fuel, increasing to 29.4t in air to ground configuration with internal weapons (4x AAMs + 4x 1,000lb JDAMs). Max take off weight is ~35t with external load. Combat radius is 780nm hi-hi-hi with internal fuel and 2.5min combat, or 550nm with 1hr CAP loiter.
I find these thrust numbers rather high IMHO. Dry thrust is driven by the Mach 1.4 supercruise requirement and wet thrust by requirements for supersonic maneuverability and Mach 2.0 top speed… see charts below. In addition, the wing is oversized (100m2) in order to enable subsonic cruise at 50,000ft, which increases structural weight and thrust requirements.
So perhaps thrust requirements could be cut by 10-20% to ~100kN dry and ~150kN wet with a few performance compromises (eg. supercruise at Mach 1.2 vs 1.4, top speed Mach 1.8 vs 2.0, subsonic cruise at 45kft vs 50kft). Also I would expect Dassault to be able to optimize the design a fair bit (eg. FFD weapons bay volume seems quite oversized).
Attachments
Last edited:
Looking at the F-22's and Su-57's reported characteristics as well as the data provided for the DLR Future Fighter Demonstator by @H_K, it seems about feasible to achive a sensible internal payload and fuel volume and weight in a design having about a 35,000-38,000kg MTOW and a gross weight of around 30,000kg. This gives some headroom for heavy duty landing gear and arrestor hook or possibly things like stealthy CFTs (to achive combat ranges more in line with was is planned for other sixth gen designs of around 1000nm). That seems to require at least about 160kN of wet thrust per engine, when looking at the F-22 in particular. With the right internal layout it should be possible to carry an ASMP internally with such a design. Anything less than that would require making uncomfortable compromises either in multirole flexibility or air-to-air capabilities.
If we're realistically talking about an aircraft with a 35,000–38,000 kg MTOW and new developed engines w/ +- 160 kN wet thrust, then all that remains is to wish France — with its economy — and the average French citizens a great deal of resolve. Especially in light of the new trade agreement with the overseas partner.
I'm not sure the NGF would ever fly that heavy, it's just a reference value, as there are certain requirement for internal volume and weight capacity and certain kinematic characteristics that have to be met when flying at gross weight (estimated at around 30,000 kg). And you're probably not getting lower than that if you have to cram all the stuff currently carried by Rafales or Eurofighters externally into internal bays and larger internal fuel tanks to meet stealth requirements. Looking at how Safran believes it can push the M88 to 120 kN and considering the EJ200 has been originally designed with a growth potential to 120 kN and the respective size of these engines, I don't see why EUMET's engine couldn't reach ~160kN wet if it had i.e. similar external dimensions as the Snecma M53.
I think the DLR's FFD design represents the upper limit of the size range for FCAS/NGF, at 16.5t empty, 28-29t take off weight clean with internal weapons and ~35t MTOW with external stores, with 2x 180kN engines.
The initial target weights were 14.5t empty and 26-27t clean, with 2x 150kN engines, but FFD's size grew as they refined the structural weights and performance requirements. I expect French input will drive size back down, leveraging Dassault's experience and the French MoD's historical preference for more balanced requirements rather than all-out air-to-air performance.
To illustrate below... here's the German FFD study (left) compared with my hypothetical triple delta LEVCON fighter (right), which represents what might be achievable with a smaller ~13.5-14t empty fighter with 120kN engines and a more streamlined fuselage with high fineness ratio as on the A-5 Vigilante.
Air-to-air performance isn’t really the driver of weight and size here, it’s the necessity to carry things like the ASMP internally to meet stealth requirements. These requirements also preclude the use of drop tanks in combat missions. Unless the plan is to totally sacrifice high-altitude performance and speed, leading in effect to little more than a slightly better F-35. And if that were the final result, what’s the point of the whole exercise? The F-35 isn’t suitable to replace the Rafale or the Eurofighter in the air to air role, as exemplified by the US acquisition of the F-15EX, Germany’s, Italy‘s and the UK‘s continued reliance on the Eurofighter including additional purchases to the extent that production lines have to be expanded and Poland‘s interest in acquiring either the Eurofighter or the F-15EX as a dedicated air superiority platform. Sometimes you just need to be able to climb, accelerate and cover a distance in a timely manner.
The German DLR studies found the opposite.
First because carrying a full air to air load internally (6 Meteors + 2 IR SAMs) takes a lot of internal volume… 4 Meteors being about as much as an ASMP.
Second, and most importantly, because air to air maneuverability drives up thrust requirements and wing area to meet specific goals such as specific excess energy, Mach 2, supercruise, cruise at 50,000ft etc. And fuel requirements for long range CAP + several minutes combat at max AB thrust are also quite significant.
By contrast if A2G requirements were the only driver than 2x M88 ECO with 10t thrust and a fighter with a single internal bay for ASMP and CFTs might be sufficient.
Sure, let’s spend a lot of money on a European F-35 equivalent, that can’t really replace the Eurofighter or the Rafale in air-to-air and has no means of self defense beyond being hard to see in case it needs to deliver a nuke. /s
To even remotely make sense, the NGF needs to have decent kinematics, sufficient internal payload capacity and enough internal fuel to get to where it needs to go. Make that work with a gross weight of 25,000kg - great! But looking at available data suggests this isn’t feasible.
Why wouldn't 25 tonnes TO weight (clean) be feasible?
You could take a KF-21 today as your starting point, scale it up +15% in length x width (i.e. a scale-up factor of +30%), install F414 growth engines with +30% thrust (128kN)... that would give you:
- KF-21 : 11.8t empty, 19t clean TO, 16.9x11.2m
-> Minimum sized FCAS (~30% scale up): ~14t empty, ~25t clean TO, 19.5x13m
The scale up would allow for a bigger bay and more fuel to meet FCAS requirements... 9t internal fuel for example would give you a fuel fraction similar to an F-15E, with a combat radius (clean) of 800nm+. Then optimize to make it a true 6th gen fighter, e.g. higher fineness ratio for less supersonic drag, more advanced engines, replace the 4 post tail with ruddervators and LEVCONs etc.
So whether or not a 25t gross weight works will depend on payload/range and thrust requirements (obviously)... but not unrealistic compared to other designs out there. Obviously if the goal is to compete against F-47 and GCAP it will have to be a much bigger fighter... but not necessarily better from a balanced design perspective, especially if cost and exportability are a consideration.
Last edited:
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 2,093
- Reaction score
- 3,249
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,973
- Reaction score
- 24,080
F-35 is unusually short & fat and F135 is also unusually heavy for its thrust class, both linked to the STOVL requirements.
So KF-21 is probably a better starting point for sizing, being unencumbered by those constraints. Its length and wing area are both ~10% larger than an F-35A, while weighing 10% less, with equivalent thrust!
So what I’m saying - merely as a conceptual starting point mind you - is you could take much of the KF-21 almost as is (nose section, avionics, engines (uprated +20% using the latest tech obviously), with lighter YF-23 style ruddervators and then scale up the center section and wing by 20-30%… and that should give you a pretty good design baseline for FCAS.
Last edited:
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,973
- Reaction score
- 24,080
kqcke for you
PUMA PUMA PUMA
- Joined
- 3 November 2022
- Messages
- 1,640
- Reaction score
- 2,390
It will BE AS multirole AS it gets as none of them can afford to have 2 large fleets split between air dominance and strike. If we need more of one them then we use an remote carrier / ucav for optimised that mission set
Scott Kenny
ACCESS: USAP
- Joined
- 15 May 2023
- Messages
- 16,973
- Reaction score
- 24,080
You're missing my point.
You can design a plane primarily around strike, and you can design a plane primarily around air superiority.
The question is which side of the equation is the priority.
I'm honestly expecting SCAF to be a striker, with air superiority primarily handled by drones.
Or, like F/A-18 and Rafale, you can design it around both missions, no?
EmoBirb
E.S.T
- Joined
- 18 January 2025
- Messages
- 2,209
- Reaction score
- 5,622
Compared to F-15 or Eurofighter both (F/A-18E/F and Rafale) are very much leaning into the strike category, sacrificing performance metrics that are advantageous in air combat.
I however disagree with this:
I expect the aircraft to be fairly optimized around the air superiority/interceptor role, being designed around the absolute necessary A2G munitions but more so favoring VLRAAMs. On the other hand I expect the drone component of the FCAS program to take over the strike oriented missions for the most part, among other things. It's much more reasonable to leverage the unmanned system for dropping bombs and utilizing munitions of lesser range than full blown ALCMs. A stealthy striker has also use as a seperate system from the FCAS-NGF and export potential. More survivable and capable than most UCAVs today but also less costly than the next best thing, being an F-35. I'm thinking along the lines of nEUROn/S-70. And that's just the higher end strike component, I expect a whole array of unmanned companions which can be mixed and matched together with the NGF depending on what the mission at hand requires. Or even operating without the manned fighter in the loop but autonomously/or controlled from the ground or other airborne assets.
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