Future Combat Air System (FCAS / SCAF / FSAC) - Speculation and Theories

[H_K]

For 2010s Germany, letting the French take the lead with FCAS probably looked like a great decision because the Germans would be able to get their foot in the door on a Eurofighter replacement without the kind of investment that really needed. Now that they are prepared to make that investment, the whole situation that resulted in FCAS no longer conforms with the world we have today.

They were also getting the lead on MGCS and EuroMALE which were 2 programs German industry was very interested in and better equiped to lead. So FCAS was part of a broader partnership.

 

[FighterJock]

Also forgot that the UK pre-Brexit was also part of FCAS too, that was before GCAP was even thought of.

 

[kqcke for you]

The Germans should have thought about the GCAP program first before the FCAS then they would not have been in this mess up to begin with.

As the other guys said at that time FCAS was a great deal.

They where able to become (pretty mutch) the sole european tank powerhouse, got lead in other projects of interrest and still had someone who was keen on investing into a common plattform which arguable (like the tank) may not be even needed as your biggest problem where pirates and terrorists.

We see a similiar reason for the large reduction in budget since the cold war.
The conflict seemed gone, no new one was on the horizon (that they couldn't handle) and budgets where needed somewhere else

 

[WatcherZero]

Spain has opened talks with Turkey on KAAN, very early days they are just at the discussing the possibility stage. But it shows that perhaps Spain is less willing than Germany to move on to another sixth gen development and just wants something quick and cheap off the shelf.

 

[JS23]

The most positive news I've seen in a while, although it does strike me as "Who cares about the plane" type of dialogue.

Airbus CEO is 'optimistic' about FCAS combat system despite fighter jet dispute​

https://www.euractiv.com/news/airbu...as-combat-system-despite-fighter-jet-dispute/

So, FCAS is going to morph into a CCA drone program, GCAP is going to produce the Eurofighter 2 to go with it, and the French are probably going to end up making a Super Rafale?

 

[H_K]

The most positive news I've seen in a while, although it does strike me as "Who cares about the plane" type of dialogue.

Airbus CEO is 'optimistic' about FCAS combat system despite fighter jet dispute​

https://www.euractiv.com/news/airbu...as-combat-system-despite-fighter-jet-dispute/

I'm also intrigued by this statement... what invalid assumptions is he referring to??

"What’s more, the Airbus boss explained that this program was started before the war against Ukraine broke out, “under a number of assumptions which are no longer valid today”."

 

[jsport]

This animosity continues as Rome burns literally.

How about Dassault build a single seater & Airbus build a bigger 2xseat fighter bomber/drone mothership

 

[Not James Stockdale]

This animosity continues as Rome burns literally.

How about Dassault build a single seater & Airbus build a bigger 2xseat fighter bomber/drone mothership

That would be 2 full scale development programs, but the resources really only exist to support about 1 1/2 programs. That's better than when the French had the resources for 3/4 of one program, but the new German willingness to invest huge amounts of money has created additional questions because there are now additional options.

Unless the two seat strike fighter turns out to be something bigger than an F-111, the PANG has EMALS and AAS that should be able to support 80k - 100k pound aircraft, so a navalized version of the larger aircraft might be viable for the PANG, especially alongside CCAs to provide mass. Right now, the entire market for CATOBAR aircraft outside the US and China is France and India, and that is not going to support an entire 5th gen (or later) fighter program.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That would be 2 full scale development programs, but the resources really only exist to support about 1 1/2 programs. That's better than when the French had the resources for 3/4 of one program, but the new German willingness to invest huge amounts of money has created additional questions because there are now additional options.

Agreed. If France and Germany can agree to jointly develop the CCAs needed for the plan, they may be able to figure out a way to pay for two separate manned aircraft.

Unless the two seat strike fighter turns out to be something bigger than an F-111, the PANG has EMALS and AAS that should be able to support 80k - 100k pound aircraft, so a navalized version of the larger aircraft might be viable for the PANG, especially alongside CCAs to provide mass. Right now, the entire market for CATOBAR aircraft outside the US and China is France and India, and that is not going to support an entire 5th gen (or later) fighter program.

I think the real limit here is how big the French plane needs to be. Germany doesn't want to pay for something the size of an F-47 or FAXX. I think that's a foolish idea on their part, but that's what Germany has decided. (Remember, F-47 and FAXX are ~80,000lbs mission weight, 15klbs more than F-22. And likely ~95klbs MTOW with all drop tanks or 4x AGM-158s under the wings. Also, GCAP is looking even bigger than F-47, so that's unlikely to be what Germany wants to pay for.)

But we do know that the French plane needs to be pretty big to be able to carry the ASN4G internally. We've seen early suggestions that SCAF would be roughly Tomcat-sized, ~74klbs or 33-34 tonnes MTOW.

That said, I think the smallest aircraft in the Typhoon weapons load class is going to be the size of an F-22 (or maybe a little bigger like one of the FB-22 proposals with enough space in the main bay for 2000lb weapons). So that's what Germany is likely looking at having to buy. And probably balking at buying because "it's too expensive" when they failed to realize that the performance floor has risen to that level.

India is going to want to develop their own carrier fighter. I don't see them succeeding based on past performance, so in about 20 years they're going to panic-buy the SCAF because they don't want to be tied to the US or China.

And any country that has bought Rafales will be willing to consider SCAF simply because it's not US and not Chinese. Of course, they'll also be considering GCAP for the same reason.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That post was in the News as a direct reply to the news.

 

[kqcke for you]

I think the real limit here is how big the French plane needs to be. Germany doesn't want to pay for something the size of an F-47 or FAXX. I think that's a foolish idea on their part, but that's what Germany has decided. (Remember, F-47 and FAXX are ~80,000lbs mission weight, 15klbs more than F-22. And likely ~95klbs MTOW with all drop tanks or 4x AGM-158s under the wings. Also, GCAP is looking even bigger than F-47, so that's unlikely to be what Germany wants to pay for.)

Except this isn't the case. For what its worth the only insight in what we have about the german air forces needs are, again, is at minimum F-22 sized. And trought the different iterations FFD we see an increase in range demand for example so its likely grew too.

But we do know that the French plane needs to be pretty big to be able to carry the ASN4G internally.

Likely but then again we don't know how big ASN4G is. Even for ASMP the data is very rought (only length and diameter) so its very hard to estimate how mutch space is needed.

We've seen early suggestions that SCAF would be roughly Tomcat-sized, ~74klbs or 33-34 tonnes MTOW.

Slightly larger than the F-22 sized FFD design.

That said, I think the smallest aircraft in the Typhoon weapons load class is going to be the size of an F-22 (or maybe a little bigger like one of the FB-22 proposals with enough space in the main bay for 2000lb weapons). So that's what Germany is likely looking at having to buy.

Its the capability that requiered.

And probably balking at buying because "it's too expensive" when they failed to realize that the performance floor has risen to that level.

Except this level of performance isn't something that wasn't expected....

 

[Scott Kenny]

Except this isn't the case. For what its worth the only insight in what we have about the german air forces needs are, again, is at minimum F-22 sized. And trought the different iterations FFD we see an increase in range demand for example so its likely grew too.

Agreed. The German plane needs to be roughly an F-22, or more exactly an FB-22-2.

Except this level of performance isn't something that wasn't expected....

Germany has not indicated that they were willing to pay for this level of performance.

 

[H_K]

To clear up any confusion:

- French statements put NGF at 15t empty, 33-34t take-off (presumably MTOW including external weapons), 2x 12t thrust engines. This is basically 1.5x a Rafale or 1.15x an F-35A... not small, but definitely not huge either... smaller than F-22/YF-23, GCAP, Kaan and most of the Chinese and Russian stealth designs.

- German FFD Diabolo studies which ran concurrently (under FCAS Phase 1a) started in the same size range (14.5t empty, 32.5t MTOW) but grew in size over time. An intermediate version (FFD v3.2) had grown to 16.5t empty with 2x 17.5t thrust engines. This continued to grow with FFD v5 weighing a massive 19t empty with 2x 22t thrust engines. However keep in mind FFD was not a fully optimized real-world design, just a set of generic studies to help refine software design tools and test the impact of different requirements. Their thrust requirements in particular look rather excessive compared to real-world fighter designs.

So it's hard to tell if the German requirement or ideal platform size has diverged at all, depending on which FFD version you look at. We know that the air forces did agree to a common set of requirements. But we don't know what trade-offs were made to come to this agreement (if any) and where they set the performance cursor.

For example, we know that FFD evaluated several requirements which were heavily conflicting and could easily drive up size. This included supercruise at Mach 1.2-1.4 and max speed of Mach 1.8-2.0, both of which required lots of thrust in dry and afterburner. Especially since they explored a max speed altitude at 50,000ft, instead of the more usual best performance altitude of 36,000ft (tropopause limit). Ideally this speed requirement would lead to a smaller wing with higher wing loading but FFD was also evaluating a very high subsonic cruise altitude of 50,000ft which leads to a massive wing size... and therefore more thrust to compensate for the extra drag. By contrast the FFD range and fuel fraction requirements were more reasonable... 1hr CAP radius at 550nm, which translates to 750+nm combat radius on internal fuel. This led to a TO fuel fraction of ~0.35, which is probably not too different from what the French requirement would be. However, the ideal bypass ratio to meet this range requirement was 0.67, similar to a PW F100 but higher than most supercruise optimized engines (bypass ratio of ~0.25 to ~0.4) ... so more potential tradeoffs there.

 

[Scott Kenny]

To clear up any confusion:

- French statements put NGF at 15t empty, 33-34t take-off (presumably MTOW including external weapons), 2x 12t thrust engines. This is basically 1.5x a Rafale or 1.15x an F-35A... not small, but definitely not huge either... smaller than F-22/YF-23, GCAP, Kaan and most of the Chinese and Russian stealth designs.

Again, that's the size of a Tomcat loaded with 4x Phoenix, 2x Sparrow, 2x Sidewinder, and 2x drop tanks. The standard BARCAP load that they flew with 24/7.

You know, the "flying tennis court"?

For example, we know that FFD evaluated several requirements which were heavily conflicting and could easily drive up size. This included supercruise at Mach 1.2-1.4 and max speed of Mach 1.8-2.0, both of which required lots of thrust in dry and afterburner. Especially since they explored a max speed altitude at 50,000ft, instead of the more usual best performance altitude of 36,000ft (tropopause limit). Ideally this speed requirement would lead to a smaller wing with higher wing loading but FFD was also evaluating a very high subsonic cruise altitude of 50,000ft which leads to a massive wing size... and therefore more thrust to compensate for the extra drag. By contrast the FFD range and fuel fraction requirements were more reasonable... 1hr CAP radius at 550nm, which translates to 750+nm combat radius on internal fuel. This led to a TO fuel fraction of ~0.35, which is probably not too different from what the French requirement would be. However, the ideal bypass ratio to meet this range requirement was 0.67, similar to a PW F100 but higher than most supercruise optimized engines (bypass ratio of ~0.25 to ~0.4) ... so more potential tradeoffs there.

Honestly, figuring out a supercruising engine with a bypass ratio between 0.67 and 1 would be one hell of an engineering goal.

Maybe that's what the 3-stream engines manage to do?

 

[H_K]

Again, that's the size of a Tomcat loaded with 4x Phoenix, 2x Sparrow, 2x Sidewinder, and 2x drop tanks. The standard BARCAP load that they flew with 24/7.

Apples and oranges. NGF’s design take off weight for a similar CAP mission will be something like 25 or 26t, similar to an F-15C with conformal tanks (before the F-15E weight gain) but much less than a Tomcat.

The 33-34t weight refers to MTOW in bomb truck mode with far more ordnance… the equivalent F-14 weight with similar payload would be close to 40t, but that was not part of its mission set. They’re not at all the same size.

 

[Kurapika444]

Reuters, Spiegel, LaTribune and Handelsblatt are all reporting that the program is officially dead according to an inside source and Merz may announce it this wednesday at ILA Berlin Air Show.
I guess this is the right decision for everyone. When the trust is so broken between the companies, there's nothing you can do to reconcile them. I'm really impatient to hear what the future plan will be for both countries and which project Spain intends to join between France, Germany and Turkey.

"German, French leaders unable to resolve FCAS fighter jet dispute, sources say"​

https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...s-fighter-jet-dispute-sources-say-2026-06-08/

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deut...t-fcas-a-7e9fbe17-7f39-4259-981b-e3f00c0da9a9
https://www.latribune.fr/article/de...554979114223914/le-scaf-cest-bel-et-bien-fini
https://www.handelsblatt.com/politi...jet-ist-endgueltig-gescheitert/100231181.html

 

[FighterJock]

So FCAS is officially dead, hardly surprising really. The next step for Dassault is to go it alone and not be bothered about joint projects again as it never seems to work out in their favour.

 

[EmoBirb]

Time for Airbus and Saab to get cozy

 

[kqcke for you]

There still some parts to be developted together like the network for example.

Question is the next step for germany & spain.

 

[Kurapika444]

Time for Airbus and Saab to get cozy

France and Sweden have cozied up quite a lot lately... You never know...

There still some parts to be developted together like the network for example.

Question is the next step for germany & spain.

I'm guessing that there'll still be some form of cooperation on the cloud pillar because at the end of the day, the next gen is about networked warfare and it's useless if the European jets aren't perfectly interoperable without relying on Link 16/22. This includes the GCAP as well. Today the F-35 isn't that interoperable with the Rafale/Typhoon/Gripen. There's the EICACS initiative for that IIRC.
Also we shouldn't forget about Belgium which is an observer...

 

[Cjc]

So FCAS is officially dead, hardly surprising really. The next step for Dassault is to go it alone and not be bothered about joint projects again as it never seems to work out in their favour.

Good luck having enough money to do that, as is I was pretty dubious that they could make fcas with just Germany and France.

 

[lmaoxd]

Its 100 B USD no? How are the french expecting to foot that large of a bill on their own? even if that cost includes the combat cloud the fighter itself should be a pretty high percentage of that 100B.

 

[FighterJock]

France can do a brand new aircraft carrier on their own Cjc so why not a brand new 6th gen fighter? Never say Never.

 

[Kurapika444]

Its 100 B USD no? How are the french expecting to foot that large of a bill on their own? even if that cost includes the combat cloud the fighter itself should be a pretty high percentage of that 100B.

It wouldn't cost 100B€. Joint programs are always more expensive than national projects because the more partners you add, the less efficient the whole thing becomes due to duplication of tasks and additional requirements from each country. IIRC, the Rafale cost less to develop than Typhoon. But having partners means that you don't shoulder the whole cost (and cost overruns) and risks alone and that's attractive to goverments.

 

[Waterballoon]

Kaan's chances to Spain has just increased. It still depends whether the Spanish Left still retains majority until the next elections. Otherwise a PP victory will steer them back to the US option considering they still need a VTOL fighter.

PSOE maintaining their power in 2027 and a GOP victory in 2028 will be the ultimate combo for Kaan in Spanish service.

 

[H_K]

There still some parts to be developted together like the network for example. Question is the next step for germany & spain.

Another big question is whether the French agree to continue the EUMET engine partnership. That might give them some leverage.

Its 100 B USD no? How are the french expecting to foot that large of a bill on their own? even if that cost includes the combat cloud the fighter itself should be a pretty high percentage of that 100B.

It's not 100 billion euros... probably more like €25 billion for the upfront R&D investment for a new stealth fighter.

Best way to estimate this is to look back at past program costs for Rafale, F-22, F/A-18E etc and escalate to current prices:

• ~€2.5B for an advanced stealth demonstrator (~$1.4B for YF-22 Dem/Val in the late 80s)
• ~€10B for a production-ready aircraft (engineering, prototypes and flight testing), excluding engines & avionics (€6B for Rafale R&D in 1998 excluding Thales avionics and Snecma M88 engine)
• ~€5B for the extra R&D complexity for a stealth airframe ($2.5B delta between F-22 and F/A-18E airframe EMD costs in the mid 90s)
• ~€2B for a derivative engine re-using the M88 T-REX core and scaling it up ($1B for F414 development in mid 1990s)
• ~€4.5B for industrialisation and one-time production launch costs (€2.5B for Rafale industrialisation in 1998)

Total ~€24B for NGF development and production launch

This assumes re-use of some M88 T-REX engine technology. Add ~€1-2B if developing a completely new engine and core (€1.3B for Snecma M88 in the late 80s, $1.5B for F412 core + F414 scale-up in the early 1990s).
This also assumes re-use of Rafale F5 avionics, at least for the initial production standard. Add ~€3B for a completely new avionics standard (€1.5B for Rafale F1/F2/F3 avionics in 1998, $1.6B for F/A-18E avionics in 1990).

On the other hand, it's common for industry to self-finance some of this development cost. For Rafale, industry financed ~€3B (€1.8B in 2002)... so the final budget cost might perhaps be closer to €20B than €25B. There's no question IMHO that France can fund this, especially given likely export earnings and the tax multiplier effect of domestic R&D spend.

 

[timmymagic]

Time for Airbus and Saab to get cozy

Remember BAE mentioning that a smaller GCAP offering would make sense a year ago....thats the smart route for Germany and Sweden (and I suspect Spain). Get onboard the GCAP train and create a new smaller LO fighter using GCAP tech (like engines and sensors).

 

[snne]

Time for Airbus and Saab to get cozy

A bit late for that, innit?

Say Germany picks up right where it left off with FCAS, and Saab/Sweden nods along to everything Germany wants without trying to inject its own --frankly quite different-- requirements into the program. FCAS was still in the PDR phase AFAIK. It takes roughly 10 years for the PDR and CDR phases to be completed and for a demonstrator/early prototype to be built. That puts you at almost 2040 already, and you still have a couple of years of meticulous testing ahead of you, assuming everything goes according to plan.

By then, the US and China will already be moving on to whatever comes after 6th-generation aircraft...

 

[H_K]

Remember BAE mentioning that a smaller GCAP offering would make sense a year ago....thats the smart route for Germany and Sweden (and I suspect Spain). Get onboard the GCAP train and create a new smaller LO fighter using GCAP tech (like engines and sensors).

Aside from reusing the GCAP engine, I struggle to see how that option makes sense.

Germany will want a share of GCAP sensor development for Hensoldt or will want to fund its own sensors. They'll want their own assembly line. Now add the cost of an entirely new fighter airframe, which will likely be too small for German requirements (if single engined), and the added risk of a Saab-Airbus fighter program... it would just be a white elephant to subsidize Airbus DS and other German companies.

 

[EmoBirb]

France can do a brand new aircraft carrier on their own Cjc so why not a brand new 6th gen fighter? Never say Never.

Can they fund both simultanously? On top of expending and maintaining their other force elements?

 

[EmoBirb]

A bit late for that, innit?

Say Germany picks up right where it left off with FCAS, and Saab/Sweden nods along to everything Germany wants without trying to inject its own --frankly quite different-- requirements into the program. FCAS was still in the PDR phase AFAIK. It takes roughly 10 years for the PDR and CDR phases to be completed and for a demonstrator/early prototype to be built. That puts you at almost 2040 already, and you still have a couple of years of meticulous testing ahead of you, assuming everything goes according to plan.

By then, the US and China will already be moving on to whatever comes after 6th-generation aircraft...

Airbus has loads upon loads of studies and technology to fall back upon. Without Dassault disagreeing on fundamentals general progress can commence quickly. The 2040s timeline could still hold, when Airbus is given free reign and the necessary funds.

 

[H_K]

Airbus has loads upon loads of studies and technology to fall back upon. Without Dassault disagreeing on fundamentals general progress can commence quickly. The 2040s timeline could still hold, when Airbus is given free reign and the necessary funds.

They'll first need to get Saab & Sweden onboard and come to an agreement on workshare etc. In parallel figure out the engine. Also renegotiate with Spain to keep them involved and renegotiate with France on the cloud collaboration.

That doesn't sound like a quick process... without even getting into the uncertainties about Airbus DS's ability to deliver given their track-record.

 

[galgot]

Airbus has loads upon loads of studies and technology to fall back upon. Without Dassault disagreeing on fundamentals general progress can commence quickly. The 2040s timeline could still hold, when Airbus is given free reign and the necessary funds.

Well, seems Airbus don't need anybody at all then, formidable ! Wonder why they didn't start their stuff alone from the beginning...

And again, from earlier this year, about Saab joining the show in place of Dassault :

Saab Open to Airbus Defense Partnership as FCAS Next Generation Fighter Program Stalls.​

Swedish defense company Saab has said it would consider teaming with Airbus Defence and Space on a new combat aircraft if the Future Combat Air System remains deadlocked. The remarks highlight growing frustration with FCAS and underscore the risk that Europe’s next-generation fighter effort could fragment further.

Saab is keeping its options open as Europe’s flagship next-generation fighter program struggles to move forward. In an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published December 21, 2025, Saab CEO Michael Johansson said the company would be willing to explore cooperation with Airbus Defence and Space on a new combat aircraft should the Franco-German-Spanish FCAS program fail to break out of its prolonged industrial and technical stalemate. His comments come as disagreements over workshare, system architecture, and leadership roles continue to slow progress on one of Europe’s most ambitious defense projects.

FCAS is not limited to replacing France’s Rafale and Germany’s and Spain’s Eurofighter fleets around 2040. It is structured as a “system of systems” composed of several interdependent pillars. At its core is the New Generation Fighter (NGF), a manned combat aircraft intended to operate in highly contested environments. The NGF is to be supported by unmanned collaborative combat platforms, referred to as Remote Carriers, designed to conduct reconnaissance, electronic warfare, saturation, or strike missions. These elements are to be interconnected through a combat cloud responsible for data fusion, mission coordination, and integration with land, naval, space, and cyber forces.

From an industrial perspective, FCAS relies on a highly sensitive division of responsibilities. Dassault Aviation was designated as prime contractor for the NGF, reflecting its experience as the designer of the Rafale. Airbus Defence and Space represents German and Spanish interests across several pillars of the program, including collaborative systems, combat architecture, and selected mission functions. Safran and MTU are tasked with joint development of the propulsion system, while Thales, Indra, and Airbus are involved in sensors and avionics. Additional industrial players contribute to connectivity, effectors, and support systems.

This allocation of roles has become the central point of contention. Since 2021, Airbus has challenged the governance model proposed by Dassault for the NGF, arguing that the “best athlete” principle restricts access to critical technologies for the German industrial base. Dassault, in turn, maintains that the development of a next-generation combat aircraft requires a clearly identified industrial authority responsible for overall architecture, technical decisions, and performance accountability. These disagreements have delayed the transition to demonstration phases intended to validate key technologies such as low observability, propulsion, mission systems, and human-machine integration.

In this context, Johansson’s comments carry broader implications. Asked by the FAZ about a possible partnership with Airbus Defence in the event FCAS were abandoned, he stated that Saab possesses the capabilities required to develop a next-generation fighter aircraft. He emphasized, however, that any cooperation would depend on maintaining core industrial competencies and technological independence, a concern that mirrors several of the issues currently affecting FCAS.

Johansson also outlined a phased approach to future air combat development. He estimated that designing a fully new manned fighter would require approximately ten years, with operational entry not expected before the late 2030s. By contrast, he identified unmanned capabilities as a more immediate priority. Collaborative combat drones, which could be fielded within four to five years, are seen as complementary assets to existing platforms such as the Gripen and the Eurofighter. Saab and Airbus Defence are already engaged in preliminary discussions in this area, although these remain at an early, exploratory stage.

This perspective highlights one of FCAS’s structural challenges: the difficulty of aligning priorities among the manned aircraft, unmanned systems, combat cloud, and sensor architecture. While Saab advocates an incremental development path focused on deployable technological building blocks, FCAS remains organized around a comprehensive and tightly integrated architecture that has proven difficult to govern and synchronize among partners.

As Sweden continues national studies on a future air combat system led by Saab, the prospect of a German-Swedish industrial framework has emerged as a potential alternative for Berlin. Such an option would rest on a narrower industrial structure than FCAS, but it would also represent a departure from a program conceived as a cornerstone of European strategic autonomy. Whether European governments are prepared to reconsider this approach remains an open question, as FCAS continues to face unresolved technical, industrial, and governance challenges.

In case anyone doubts that Saab (just as Dassault did) would not have the same problems giving its IPs and expertise to a much bigger company that would eventually become a serious competitor.

 

[kqcke for you]

Another big question is whether the French agree to continue the EUMET engine partnership. That might give them some leverage.

Right now only drones & network are confirmed but i guess we would have to wait on the final end. I could see that they end the shared development part but if both go separate ways than its likely they tailor the engines to there needs.

It's not 100 billion euros... probably more like €25 billion for the upfront R&D investment for a new stealth fighter.

Best way to estimate this is to look back at past program costs for Rafale, F-22, F/A-18E etc and escalate to current prices:

• ~€2.5B for an advanced stealth demonstrator (~$1.4B for YF-22 Dem/Val in the late 80s)
• ~€10B for a production-ready aircraft (engineering, prototypes and flight testing), excluding engines & avionics (€6B for Rafale R&D in 1998 excluding Thales avionics and Snecma M88 engine)
• ~€5B for the extra R&D complexity for a stealth airframe ($2.5B delta between F-22 and F/A-18E airframe EMD costs in the mid 90s)
• ~€2B for a derivative engine re-using the M88 T-REX core and scaling it up ($1B for F414 development in mid 1990s)
• ~€4.5B for industrialisation and one-time production launch costs (€2.5B for Rafale industrialisation in 1998)

Total ~€24B for NGF development and production launch

This assumes re-use of some M88 T-REX engine technology. Add ~€1-2B if developing a completely new engine and core (€1.3B for Snecma M88 in the late 80s, $1.5B for F412 core + F414 scale-up in the early 1990s).
This also assumes re-use of Rafale F5 avionics, at least for the initial production standard. Add ~€3B for a completely new avionics standard (€1.5B for Rafale F1/F2/F3 avionics in 1998, $1.6B for F/A-18E avionics in 1990).

On the other hand, it's common for industry to self-finance some of this development cost. For Rafale, industry financed ~€3B (€1.8B in 2002)... so the final budget cost might perhaps be closer to €20B than €25B. There's no question IMHO that France can fund this, especially given likely export earnings and the tax multiplier effect of domestic R&D spend.

Didn't the 100 Billion also include airframes and live costs ish things?

 

[kqcke for you]

Now i do gotta say i would be very interrested into the actual demands from both sides

 

[Scott Kenny]

Its 100 B USD no? How are the french expecting to foot that large of a bill on their own? even if that cost includes the combat cloud the fighter itself should be a pretty high percentage of that 100B.

They built the Force d'Frappe back in the day, on top of building nuclear powered ships and subs. It sucked, but they did it.

Remember BAE mentioning that a smaller GCAP offering would make sense a year ago....thats the smart route for Germany and Sweden (and I suspect Spain). Get onboard the GCAP train and create a new smaller LO fighter using GCAP tech (like engines and sensors).

Except German companies don't seem to grok how the GCAP agreement has been assembled.

Can they fund both simultanously? On top of expending and maintaining their other force elements?

It's not going to be fun, but it's possible. Ride a wave of French nationalism to make the pain less, likely with a SCAF-specific tax for development versus operation.

 

[EmoBirb]

Ride a wave of French nationalism to make the pain less

How's that supposed to work in modern France? There's no audience for french nationalism and subsequently passing the funding for multiple high profile programs is a big if.

 

[timmymagic]

Germany will want a share of GCAP sensor development for Hensoldt or will want to fund its own sensors. They'll want their own assembly line. Now add the cost of an entirely new fighter airframe, which will likely be too small for German requirements (if single engined), and the added risk of a Saab-Airbus fighter program...

They'd be enough work to go around, CCA's, network, weapons etc all tied in to a single ecosystem. The idea would be to create a single engined GCAP to complement the twin engined, whilst not disturbing the work of the initial partners. Customers, including current members, could then be able to split fleets for different requirements. The export potential of the programme as a whole would also be enhanced...

subsidize Airbus DS and other German companies.

You're catching on.....

 

[Scott Kenny]

How's that supposed to work in modern France? There's no audience for french nationalism and subsequently passing the funding for multiple high profile programs is a big if.

I admit I'm on the other side of the Atlantic, but I think that is shifting.

 

[kqcke for you]

You might wanne change channel before the mods have to purge again

As expected. Sweden/SAAB's realities somehow coincides really well with that of Airbus DS/Germany. Though I guess we should see should this partnership be more akin to that between Britain and Sweden in the FCAS programme during the pre-GCAP, Tempest period, or should it look more akin to a proper joint programme.

If Team "Gen 6" / ig metal gets there will then IT should be at best like the first one as they don't want any "new" partner (or none at all really hard to say). Probaly very platonic with Saab being a subcontractor would be my guess.

Shall it be the latter, I think joint programme structure as well as programme leadership could again be a major problem. They are still partnering with a company who has complete system integration knowledge (Saab) as someone who doesn't
.

From the article, it consists of

I wonder if the Team Gen 6 design would resemble that of DLR Diablo, ie more tradition 5th gen plan form, or something more radical. Though, going by the "simpler, less complex" semantics, I think there is a good chance they will opt for a conservative air frame design.

Well DLR Diablo/ the most similiar FCAS would be possible but if its a really tight budget then a more similiar frame to what have been Seen before is more likely.