NEWS ONLY: France-Germany-Spain Future Combat Air System (FCAS / SCAF / FSAC)

EmoBirb said:
And it is simply a fact that no individual European nation has the resources and funds to create an NGAD style program on their own.
Click to expand...
It was already said during the EF & Rafale developpment.
Results : Rafale made alone is globally superior to EF and was less a burden to french finance than one third of EF to GB budget.
 
BonPlan2 said:
It was already said during the EF & Rafale developpment.
Results : Rafale made alone is globally superior to EF and was less a burden to french finance than one third of EF to GB budget.
Click to expand...

I refer to post #1869

Why Rafale (or even Eurofighter) are in no way representative of the challenges, cost and management of a true next generation fighter has been discussed ad nauseam
 
EmoBirb said:
I refer to post #1869

Why Rafale (or even Eurofighter) are in no way representative of the challenges, cost and management of a true next generation fighter has been discussed ad nauseam
Click to expand...
You forget just one thing : with the Rafale export success, the french aerospace industry has the money some others don't have.
 
BonPlan2 said:
Not so sure.

What is costly in a modern fighter? Weapon system. more than 50% of the whole cost.

In case of the end of multinational FCAS, an option may be to developp a new stealthy frame thanks to the FCAS studies (frame & engines) and to produce it with the Rafale F5 weapon system. Rafale road map is clear up to 2050, with already a F6 and probably a F7 std. Why not using it, with for exemple a bigger antenna radar (not too costly) and a Spectra fine tune for the stealthier bird, in this new frame ?
Advantage : it is a mature systeme, with from the beginning a complete A to A, At o G and A to ship capacities. And for export customers the leap from Rafale to FrenchonlyFCAS will be easier.
Click to expand...
It's most costly in fly away procurement.
Most expensive and treacherous part overall is testing and reaching operational capacity; i.e. while idea is solid and probably should've been pursued yesterday, making another airframe around same weapon system core isn't exactly free.
 
Ainen said:
It's most costly in fly away procurement.
Most expensive and treacherous part overall is testing and reaching operational capacity; i.e. while idea is solid and probably should've been pursued yesterday, making another airframe around same weapon system core isn't exactly free.
Click to expand...
Not free but far less costly than from scratch.
Rafale is short on 5th gen on VLO only. A new frame, stealthier, made it a perfect 5th gen fighter.
 
BonPlan2 said:
Not free but far less costly than from scratch.
Rafale is short on 5th gen on VLO only. A new frame, stealthier, made it a perfect 5th gen fighter.
Click to expand...
(1)VLO is not 'only', it's damn whole big thing. You need airframe, you need to redo all equipment and inconsistencies for conformal shapes while still controlling reflectoins. It isn't magic, it's just a big work, quite expensive when counted together, which France never did. And there will be little Rafale left if it's done.
"Just a new airframe" is KF-X. which left half the spending for later.

(2)nope, at least until F5, it isn't there on systems design level, and really up to debate F5 is there, as integrated as opposed to federated design must be done from scratch. Rafale is through a thorough 4.5 gen, child of late 1980s.

Especially if benchmark isn't F-22 but rather F-35(which is the 5th generation, F-22 stands out).
 
@Ainen I think no one is going to argue that the F-35's avionics set the benchmark for everyone else. Not surprisingly given the tens of billions spent on R&D, with individual standards like Block 4 costing $16 billion alone!

But ultimately, even if I have no clue how close Rafale F5 avionics will get to F-35 Block 4, it's *largely irrelevant* as the threat isn't going to be F-35. It's the current and future designs coming out of Russia, China, Russia, Turkey etc, as well as older US export products such as upgraded F-16Vs, F-15EXs etc. And as long as Rafale F5 avionics are very high quality (which there is no reason to doubt), fitting them on FCAS/NGF should still be enough to be "best of the rest" against those threats.

This is similar to how no one was really comparing Rafale/Eurofighter to F-22, as this was irrelevant. The design threat was evolved Su-30s and other "Super Sukhois". When looking at FCAS, GCAP, KF-21 etc, the same lens should be used.

Of course US-friendly countries who want the latest and greatest systems and don't mind being dependent on the US can (and will) continue buying F-35s, just like they bought F-16s, F-15s and F/A-18s in the past. A few (but not many) might go dual source and also buy FCAS/GCAP/KF-21... perhaps more likely today given recent US positions. Others will decide that they can get the same technology level (or close enough as to make no operational difference) from best-in-class niche suppliers outside the US (e.g. in Israel, Europe, Japan, South Korea etc). That's the niche where Rafale plays in today, and where FCAS will play in tomorrow.

Ainen said:
VLO is not 'only', it's damn whole big thing. You need airframe, you need to redo all equipment and inconsistencies for conformal shapes while still controlling reflectoins. It isn't magic, it's just a big work, quite expensive when counted together, which France never did
Click to expand...
Hmm... Dassault Neuron and current UCAV program don't count?
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
Hmm... Dassault Neuron and current UCAV program don't count?
Click to expand...
Absolutely they do, but with caveat that current stage is demonstrator. Ultimately, "capability" is when item reaches production and operational capacity. I.e. it can be used.
I.e. it isn't up to dabate that France can achieve 5/6 gen aircraft. It can. But it has yet to walk(and pay) most of this path.
 
Is that to discuss the future of FCAS TomcatVIP? I do wish that they could settle their differences and come to an agreement on the future of the program otherwise the whole FCAS program could fall apart.
 
EmoBirb said:
I'd love to see Airbus team up with Saab instead when this is all done. I imagine the German and Swedish visions and needs line up far more neatly than the German and French outlooks. Not a jab at France here, they just have very distinct needs that are rather unique in Europe.
Click to expand...
Very much agreed here.

In general, I've been seeing GCAP as comparable to NGAD/F-47 while SCAF has been comparable to F/A-XX. SCAF is a VLO naval strike fighter that happens to be competent at air-to-air (probably BVR only competency, and may suffer WRV). NGAD/F-47 is likely "F-22 on steroids", a pure air to air monster.

And Germany's needs are "replacing Typhoons" which are high end air to air fighters with minimal air-to-ground capabilities. If Germany needs strike, they have F-35s.
 
So antitank missiles, 500lb and 1000lb laser/GPS guided bombs, and a stealthy cruise missile for buried hard targets. Said stealthy cruise missile does not have a surface-target warhead. Not enhanced-fragmentation, not cluster, not sensor-fuzed weapon submunitions, not even passive attack via kinetic darts.

Almost all weapons that require getting a non-stealthy aircraft into the defended airspace to deploy. Which has worked so well for the Ukrainians and Russians.

So yes, I call that minimal ground attack capabilities. That the Germans were misguided enough to use an F-15 competitor to replace the Tornado IDS says all I need to.
 
Scott Kenny said:
So yes, I call that minimal ground attack capabilities. That the Germans were misguided enough to use an F-15 competitor to replace the Tornado IDS says all I need to.
Click to expand...
You're missing an essential point. Germany is in the process of retiring Tornado, it isn't there yet. The Typhoon doesn't need to be ready today, it needs to be ready when it's the only alternative - which isn't until 2030.
 
Scott Kenny said:
misguided enough to use an F-15[E?] competitor to replace the Tornado IDS
Click to expand...
Apart from the fallacy that Typhoon is air-to-air with strike as an afterthought, Typhoon was always intended to provide multi-role use involving a major contribution by German industry. To gain/maintain know-how in building combat aircraft. Which, at this time, looks like a wise decision.
 
mars-attaque.blogspot.com

Safran - Une feuille de route sur les moteurs des futurs appareils de combat pilotés ou non

Une étude de levée de risques préparatoire au lancement du programme T-REX a été notifiée début juin à Safran. La prochaine étape sera l...
mars-attaque.blogspot.com mars-attaque.blogspot.com
**A preparatory risk-taking study the launch of the T-REX program was notified to Safran at the beginning of June. The next step will be signing a contract development within 18/24 months, in order to achieve a more powerful engine the entry into service of the Rafale at Standard F5 planned around 2032-2033. Or an engine having previously filmed on a test bench, and flown on a test bench before being qualified around 2031.
To reach 9 tonnes of thrust (compared to 7.5 tonnes on the current Rafale M-88 engine), there will be no changes to the overall volume occupied by the engine compared to the current engine, so no modifications to the structure of the Rafale (internally or externally, for aerodynamics). The concept of maintenance will remain the same overall similar, with a search for commonality of spare parts as much as possible between engines of different generations. A resumption of programming of flight controls will obviously be necessary, as is the development of internal engine regulation software.

6 modules out of the 21 modules of the current M-88 will be modified, in particular those relating to air compression and cooling in the high-pressure turbine, with a recovery of air inlets and outlets, in addition to the use of new materials on certain hot parts, notably in the continuation of the Upstream Study Plan (PEA) known as Turenne. It is therefore a question of seeking efficiency gains, without strong variation in fuel consumption, to add punch to the Rafale while the trend is towards weighting on the sensors and effectors (radars, weapons, on-board processing capabilities data...).

A Turenne 3 PEA is already in progress preparation for the future NGF engine (New Generation Fighter) of the SCAF program (Air Combat System of the Future), in addition to the developments envisaged with the use of other new materials resistant to expected high heat variations, variable nozzles, etc. For the ***NGF, a 12 ton engine approximately thrust is expected***
From all these studies a family of engines for use will be born military for different applications, with the future M15, M30 and M50 (i.e. engines with 1.5, 3 and 5 tonnes of thrust), particularly for motorizing drones, including those accompanying manned devices for future standards Rafale and the post-Rafale (or the Collaborative Aircraft Combat or CCA). Reuse of modules as much as possible is sought after, with, for example, on the M50, a resumption of the architecture of the M88, but without afterburner, in order to power the future UCAS (Umanned Combat Air System) stealth which should weigh around 15 tonnes approximately.**







According to this, engine for SCAF fighter will be in 12ton thrust class( ~117.68 kn).


Engine envisoned for Indian AMCA mk2 is also in ~120kn thrust class.
Indian defense minister recently announced they are looking to cooperate with Safran for engine.
India recently increased mtow of its amca mk1 design from 25ton to 27 ton.
The engine being developed is for amca mk2 which is expected to be ~30 tons mtow.

If scaf will also use same engine, then its mtow can also be considered ~30tons, if France wants to keep supercruise(with internals weapons) aspect alive.
 
DWG said:
3200 Brimstone 3s on their way. Also GBU-48 and GBU-54 plus Taurus (and presumably Taurus Neo).
Click to expand...
No Taurus, it's not certified on the EF.
GBU-48, GBU-54 and Brimstone once delivered are the A/G weapons for GAF Eurofighters.
Of the 4 EF wings, the 31th wing is primarily tasked with A/G. They previously operated the Tornado IDS.
Tornado exclusive weapons for now are GBU-24, Taurus, HARM, B61.
 
Arjen said:
By that definition Tornado IDS has minimal ground attack capabilities too.
Click to expand...
Well, it indeed does though. I doubt in modern time and era it amounts to much in roles other than limited deep strike (taurus) and nuclear delivery.

Arjen said:
Apart from the fallacy that Typhoon is air-to-air with strike as an afterthought
Click to expand...
Is it fallacy though?
Unlike Rafale with its exceptional stand off/low altitude release precision package, Typhoon is medium altitude, LOS, stand in fighter bomber, but without stealth. I.e. it's effectively a second day bomb truck.
No boosted weapons, no gliding weapons. ATGM is unique and nice, but it's unique exactly because ATGM on a fast het is normally not anyone's primary or secondary concern.
 
Arjen said:
UK Typhoons carry SCALP/Storm Shadow. I don't see much daylight between Typhoon and Rafale.
Click to expand...
AASM - extended range, allowing omnidirectional, stand off, low altitude release.
Covers entire array of tactical targets（100....1000kg, all seeker options).

I.e. Rafale can conduct non-permissive tactical strike, CAS, and in case of low altitude penetration (risky, but) it can do tactical strike/interdiction without entering direct target area.

SCALPs - Rafale has too, not an advantage. Rafale has ASMP though, and, unlike current Eurofighter, allows active emission targeting(via very same AASM).

Basically, Rafale, as is, would be perfectly usable in Ukraine, as is, which is, for now, model ground conflict in Europe.
Eurofighter - not really, and at least until integration of additional american weapon systems, it isn't even equal to ukrainian migs and sukhois with ad-hoc integration of stand off/loftable munitions.

What Eurofighter can do is unique armored assault breaker thing, which is kind of irrelevant(and frankly, Brimstone was tried in the same conflict and failed to achieve anything notable).
Rafale problems are general problems of low altitude in modern conflicts, and, increasingly, felon factor. Otherwise, it's arguably best non-permissive non-stealth tactical a/c in the world.

BonPlan2 said:
False. it is called Neuron my dear.
Click to expand...
That's technology demonstrator. A rather basic one at that.
 
Ainen said:
Rafale problems are general problems of low altitude in modern conflicts, and, increasingly, felon factor.
Click to expand...
And a nose cone on somewhat smaller side for radar housing.
And a lack of a dedicated anti radiation missile.
 
Arjen said:
UK Typhoons carry SCALP/Storm Shadow. I don't see much daylight between Typhoon and Rafale.
Click to expand...
Main difference : the range.
Eurofighter can't carry 2 SCALP and 2 big external tanks together. Or 1 SCALP and 2 x 1700L tanks or the contrary.
Rafale can carry 2 SCALP and 3 x 2000l external tanks.

Return to topic now.
 
Ainen said:
I.e. Rafale can conduct non-permissive tactical strike, CAS, and in case of low altitude penetration (risky, but) it can do tactical strike/interdiction without entering direct target area.
Click to expand...
It hasn't demonstrated it can do it and survive. The RAF shifted to medium altitude as a direct result of the lessons of Desert Storm wrt low altitude penetration. I'm fairly confident we won't see SCAF taking the low-altitude penetration route.
 
Scott Kenny said:
So antitank missiles, 500lb and 1000lb laser/GPS guided bombs, and a stealthy cruise missile for buried hard targets. Said stealthy cruise missile does not have a surface-target warhead.
Click to expand...
You know Mephisto allways sounded funny as a warhead name but i don't remember why but hey can't have multirole fighter and weapons now can we
(MEPHISTO Multi-Effect Penetrator, High Sophisticated and Target Optimised).
Scott Kenny said:
Not enhanced-fragmentation, not cluster, not sensor-fuzed weapon submunitions, not even passive attack via kinetic darts.
Click to expand...
Like 99% of europe so ...
Scott Kenny said:
Almost all weapons that require getting a non-stealthy aircraft into the defended airspace to deploy. Which has worked so well for the Ukrainians and Russians.
Click to expand...
Bad mouths would say thats the same problem most of europe is facing...
Scott Kenny said:
So yes, I call that minimal ground attack capabilities. That the Germans were misguided enough to use an F-15 competitor to replace the Tornado IDS says all I need to.
Click to expand...
You mean the time when there where only 2 really big requierments for that replacement? When it was only about it being cheap and B61 capapable?
 
I'm not contributing to the topic well, but I want to mention that I blogged about this whole Tornado replacement topic in 2018 and came to the conclusion that it's 'miniature balanced forces' syndrome rather than thinking about the optimum deterrence and defence in an alliance context.

defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com

Luftwaffe: F-35 or Typhoon for air/ground?

This is blog about the defence against external threats and about the defence of civil liberties.
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com

Now we know about years of Russo-Ukrainian War in which American-style air/ground campaigns with DEAD campaign and strike packages simply didn't happen and instead a potentially decisive (refineries!) Ukrainian strategic air campaign is built on cheapo cruise missiles and big cheapo cruise missiles.
That's very close to what I wrote about as strike alternative.


Keep in mind these future whatever programs are sold to the public as being open regarding whether it's going to be an aircraft, an aircraft with drone wingman, some network mumbojumo or something else. The objective is to blow stuff up in order to weaken the enemy.
 
Ainen said:
Is it fallacy though?
Unlike Rafale with its exceptional stand off/low altitude release precision package
Click to expand...

There´s no particular difference between the two aircrafts except range based on external fuel tanks.

Ainen said:
AASM - extended range, allowing omnidirectional, stand off, low altitude release.
Click to expand...

Brimstone 2/3.

Cheers
 
Arjen said:
I still stand by my opinion that Typhoon is a true multi-role combat aircraft. That is what the Eurofighter partners ordered, that is what they have and are receiving more of. To replace air-to-air AND strike aircraft.
Click to expand...
Good old 1977 AST 403 literaly called for a Jaguar/Harrier replacement.
I´ve always felt (gut feeling, nothing else...) that the fact that in the 80´s France had a very good air defence fighter (the M2000) plus a relative short range/low ordnance Mirage 2000D/N and Italy/Germany/UK had a very good attacker (the Tornado) and the likes of the outdated F-4K/F-4G/F-104ASA in their fighter squadrons... affected the placement of the landing gears on Rafale and Typhoon.
The placement of the landing gear on the wings of Typhoon gives it the ability to receive four semi recessed MRAAMS in the fuselage wich is wonderful for transonic performance but a bit of a pain in the... for the placement of the pylons while the Rafale had the landing gear in the fuselage, something that allows all that magnificent real estate for external heavy loads. They were looking first and foremost for what at the time lacked most in their inventories...

Cheers

ps - I admit, i am quite awful at NOT diverting from the topic
 
Sintra said:
Good old 1977 AST 403 literaly called for a Jaguar/Harrier replacement.
I´ve always felt (gut feeling, nothing else...) that the fact that in the 80´s France had a very good air defence fighter (the M2000) plus a relative short range/low ordnance Mirage 2000D/N and Italy/Germany/UK had a very good attacker (the Tornado) and the likes of the outdated F-4K/F-4G/F-104ASA in their fighter squadrons... affected the placement of the landing gears on Rafale and Typhoon.
The placement of the landing gear on the wings of Typhoon gives it the ability to receive four semi recessed MRAAMS in the fuselage wich is wonderful for transonic performance but a bit of a pain in the... for the placement of the pylons while the Rafale had the landing gear in the fuselage, something that allows all that magnificent real estate for external heavy loads. They were looking first and foremost for what at the time lacked most in their inventories...

Cheers
Click to expand...
Rafale's LG was indeed designed that way for that purpose. It is explained in the vids posted here by someone who worked on the project.

But sorry for prolonging OT...
 
kqcke for you said:
Yes not until P4E so 2028...

Well there will be also AARGMs....
Click to expand...

Yes, I have omitted future capabilities. I would be cautious about the schedule but they want to keep Taurus after the Tornados retire, so chances are good Taurus will finally be certified. Similar situation in Spain with the EF-18.
 
Arjen said:
Apart from the fallacy that Typhoon is air-to-air with strike as an afterthought, Typhoon was always intended to provide multi-role use involving a major contribution by German industry. To gain/maintain know-how in building combat aircraft. Which, at this time, looks like a wise decision.
Click to expand...
Typhoon is highly maneuverable, with minimal air-to-ground capabilities installed. Four weapons cleared for use, 3 of which require the Typhoon to enter into engagement range of IADS. No SDBs for high capacity. No JDAM-ERs or JSOWs to launch from outside IADS, just the expensive Taurus cruise missile for standoff.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom