French 6th generation fighter

joshjosh said:
I fear this timeline is going to seriously endanger France's fighter export market. There are already other 4+ and 5th gen fighters in development and nearing production from the likes of Turkey and South Korea. GCAP's timeline, if Japan gets their way, will deliver an entire decade before France does. There are also multiple excellent Chinese options for those nations which can play in the unaligned geopolitical space, there are a couple of Russian options (although the war is sapping development funds from next-gen projects); and for those still willing to take the risk and pay the costs for American, there is the Block IV F-35, and potentially two 6th-gens available to close allies. Given how important arms exports are to France, I can't understand why they would simultaneously blow up FCAS while also moving at such a glacial pace for their sovereign project.
Click to expand...
Out of these, I believe none will be a serious export competitor. The main advantage of the French aviation industry, that has made them so successful with Rafale is that they provide a technologically competitive product (even if not necessarily the best) that is 100% French technology, which means that France alone exercises export control and historically they have been somewhat liberal in their export policy.

GCAP will be a technologically competitive product to the next generation French fighter, however it is developed by an alliance of several nations, which means that each of them can impose export restrictions, whereas with the French fighter, potential customers will only have to negotiate with France.

Turkey's KAAN and South Korea's KF-21 will be technologically inferior (and it remains to be seen if they will be 100% indigenous).

I think that as long as France develops a 100% indigenous next generation fighter that is somewhat technologically comparable to the contemporary (US, Chinese, Russian, etc) alternatives it will have an export success. There is a strong appetite on the international market for weapons from unaligned nations, that are neither US, nor Chinese, nor Russian (not to mention that the Russian reputation has taken a serious beating in recent years) and France is well positioned to capture this market.

The Rafale is a great contemporary example - it is performing excellently in terms of exports in an age where there are already 5th generation options (F-35 and more recently Su-57E and J-35) and even amongst 4th generation fighters it can be argued if it is the best all around machine (for example compared to the F-15QA, F-16 Block 70, Su-35, J-10, etc).
 
Last edited:
Event_Horizon said:
Out of these, I believe none will be a serious export competitor. The main advantage of the French aviation industry, that has made them so successful with Rafale is that they provide a technologically competitive product (even if not necessarily the best) that is 100% French technology, which means that France alone exercises export control and historically they have been somewhat liberal in their export policy.
Click to expand...
Agreed here.


Event_Horizon said:
GCAP will be a technologically competitive product to the next generation French fighter, however it is developed by an alliance of several nations, which means that each of them can impose export restrictions, whereas with the French fighter, potential customers will only have to negotiate with France.
Click to expand...
England and Japan learned from Typhoon, the GCAP agreement has clauses in it that prevent any single partner country from restricting sales.

Sales negotiations would be handled by the GIGO (terrible acronym).


Event_Horizon said:
Turkey's KAAN and South Korea's KF-21 will be technologically inferior (and it remains to be seen if they will be 100% indigenous).
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that's true. Turkey isn't cursed with Inshalla thinking, and the Koreans will never settle for not being the best lightweight 5th gen fighter (competing with F-35 and J-35)


Event_Horizon said:
I think that as long as France develops a 100% indigenous next generation fighter that is somewhat technologically comparable to the contemporary (US, Chinese, Russian, etc) alternatives it will have an export success. There is a strong appetite on the international market for weapons from unaligned nations, that are neither US, nor Chinese, nor Russian (not to mention that the Russian reputation has taken a serious beating in recent years) and France is well positioned to capture this market.
Click to expand...
Generally agree here.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm not convinced that's true. Turkey isn't cursed with Inshalla thinking, and the Koreans will never settle for not being the best lightweight 5th gen fighter (competing with F-35 and J-35)
Click to expand...
KF-21 is already entering IOC; Kaan is close to the first (proper) flight.
Not the same generation of aircraft.

p.s. at least for now, Koreans evidently settled on just that...
 
Event_Horizon said:
Out of these, I believe none will be a serious export competitor. The main advantage of the French aviation industry, that has made them so successful with Rafale is that they provide a technologically competitive product (even if not necessarily the best) that is 100% French technology, which means that France alone exercises export control and historically they have been somewhat liberal in their export policy.
snip..
Click to expand...

As the other poster mentioned, GCAP doesn't allow a German type of veto that caused billions in lost sales.

I also don't think GCAP is the plane the French one will be going against. You will be going up against the latest tranche of F35, the poundshop F47, the Turkish Gen 5 but the bigger issue will be the German 5.5 Gen.

GCAP is a differnt beast to what France is going to produce.
 
vikmto999 said:
As the other poster mentioned, GCAP doesn't allow a German type of veto that caused billions in lost sales.

I also don't think GCAP is the plane the French one will be going against. You will be going up against the latest tranche of F35, the poundshop F47, the Turkish Gen 5 but the bigger issue will be the German 5.5 Gen.

GCAP is a differnt beast to what France is going to produce.
Click to expand...
GCAP will be a so huge jet... it will never be exported because of its price.
 
GCAP is as big as a CF-105 Arrow - and somewhat amusingly those two have a lot in common: big internal weapon bay, 1200 sq ft delta wing area, 11 tons thrust engines, long range.
 
You already have Germany, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia and India having expressed an interest in purchasing GCAP. Despite its size there is certainly already export interest.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Agreed here.



England and Japan learned from Typhoon, the GCAP agreement has clauses in it that prevent any single partner country from restricting sales.

Sales negotiations would be handled by the GIGO (terrible acronym).



I'm not convinced that's true. Turkey isn't cursed with Inshalla thinking, and the Koreans will never settle for not being the best lightweight 5th gen fighter (competing with F-35 and J-35)



Generally agree here.
Click to expand...

I have a lot of respect for Korea and especially for Turkey for the same reason I respect the French aviation industry - they are working towards developing indigenous solutions. Turkey in particular seems to be going for 100% indigenous solutions in the future. At the same time, Turkey is just in the beginning of this journey, whereas France went in that direction decades ago and are now bearing the fruits of their thoughtful policy. I admit that I made an assumption and we can't know for sure, but with KAAN, for example, there are 2 scenarios - it will either use foreign key components (like engines, radar, etc) or they will eventually develop them domestically (which seems to be the plan). Either way it seems reasonable to me to assume that the next generation French fighter will be more technologically advanced. For starter, the KF-21 and KAAN are squarely a 5th generation fighters, whereas the French next generation fighter is still in development and they will be aiming for it to be technologically competitive towards contemporary fighters (which includes the likes of F-47, F/A-XX and the Chinese sixth generation fighters). Then even if Turkey manages to achieve its aspirational goal and develops a fully indigenous solution it will be their first fighter airplane, their first engine, their first radar, etc. It seems likely to me that they will have trouble matching companies like Safran who have been in this business for decades and this is not their first product.

I will admit, however, that if Turkey preserves their determination and thoughtful investments in defense, several decades from now they will probably be one of the top players.

As for GCAP, it is good for them if they are working towards reducing the potential for any single participant in the project to block export, but I still fail to see how the export will work if the potential buyer is politically unpalatable to one of the major contributors (let's say the UK or Japan).
 
BonPlan2 said:
GCAP will be a so huge jet... it will never be exported because of its price.
Click to expand...
The expense of it is the development. The cost to buy just has to be the cost to make. After that it is what sort of margins do the 3 nations think they can get.

I have a feeling GCAP will be more commander in the sky, rather than a deep strike aircraft. If I am right on that, then it means other nations would like to have that ability also.

It doesn't mean it is bad at deep strike or as an interceptor, just its role seems to serve more creating a bubble around itself to let other craft do the dirty work around it.
My guess of course but the french plane will be within that bubble, taking advantage of GCAP for other nations.
 
I have a lot of respect for Korea and especially for Turkey for the same reason I respect the French aviation industry - they are working towards developing indigenous solutions. Turkey in particular seems to be going for 100% indigenous solutions in the future. At the same time, Turkey is just in the beginning of this journey, whereas France went in that direction decades ago and are now bearing the fruits of their thoughtful policy. I admit that I made an assumption and we can't know for sure, but with KAAN, for example, there are 2 scenarios - it will either use foreign key components (like engines, radar, etc) or they will eventually develop them domestically (which seems to be the plan). Either way it seems reasonable to me to assume that the next generation French fighter will be more technologically advanced. For starter, the KF-21 and KAAN are squarely a 5th generation fighters, whereas the French next generation fighter is still in development and they will be aiming for it to be technologically competitive towards contemporary fighters (which includes the likes of F-47, F/A-XX and the Chinese sixth generation fighters). Then even if Turkey manages to achieve its aspirational goal and develops a fully indigenous solution it will be their first fighter airplane, their first engine, their first radar, etc. It seems likely to me that they will have trouble matching companies like Safran who have been in this business for decades and this is not their first product.
Click to expand...
This.
You know, the real, giant PITA when designing fighter jets has always been the jet engine: indigenous or take a licence ?
-Sweden, Turkey and South Korea picked US turbofans
-I do know that Turkey is working hard on an indigenous turbofan, BUT
-China needed 45 years (1970 - 2015) to get a decent turbofan
-India is still trying, after the Kaveri miserable failure
-In France SNECMA stuck waaaay too long with the Atar, then the M53 was passable - the real breakthrough was the M88.
-M88 design started in 1987, it was ground tested in 1989 and first flew on the Rafale demonstrator in 1990
-so it took France 1948-1988: 40 years to get a jet engine as good as a RB.199, F404 and EJ200.
-In the 1970s the excellent Viggen got his exports blocked by its engine - derived from the JT8D, itself derived from the J52.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_RM8

So in a sense, indigenous fighters often end trapped between a rock and a hard place - because jet engines are very complicated piece of engineering.
AFAIK one of the very few military jet engines designed entirely outside USA / Europe / USSR knowledge, during the Cold War was the Brandner E-300, of Marut and Ha-300 fame. Well ok, PS.13 Iroquois too.

Same for radars, in passing. It took a lot of (subpar) Cyrano II & RDM iterations to finally catch up, through the RDI / RDY; and finally the RBE-2. Again approximately 30 years, 1960-1990... RDI was turning point. So was the Cyrano IV in the F1EQ-5 for the Iraqis.

In the missile field the gap was much narrower if nonexisting. R530 and Magic-1 did not worked too well, albeit TBH no AAM really worked in a satisfying way before 1982, AIM-7F, AIM-9L, Falklands and Bekaa. Super 530F/D and Magic 2 had largely caught up with their rivals. Nowadays MICA and Meteor are top of the list
 
Last edited:
vikmto999 said:
I have a feeling GCAP will be more commander in the sky, rather than a deep strike aircraft. If I am right on that, then it means other nations would like to have that ability also.
Click to expand...
If true, only a very limited quantity of it will be built, increasing its price...
 
Archibald said:
-M88 design started in 1987, it was ground tested in 1989 and first flew on the Rafale demonstrator in 1990
Click to expand...
There was several R&D phases and study before 1987.
A french forumer, on another forum, explained me that he has in mind some publication of SNECMA in late 1970 about this engine. I was too youg to have this king of memory.
 
Archibald said:
-In France SNECMA stuck waaaay too long with the Atar, then the M53 was passable - the real breakthrough was the M88.
-M88 design started in 1987, it was ground tested in 1989 and first flew on the Rafale demonstrator in 1990
-so it took France 1948-1988: 40 years to get a jet engine as good as a RB.199, F404 and EJ200.
Click to expand...
ATAR were not bad engines. Only limited in power, but fitted to light fighter it was good.
M53 was studied for mach 3 jets, on a dual engine formula. After the abandon of Super mirage 4000, it was used on Mirage 2000, but was not optimised for that specific role. In a Mach 3 jet, it would have been formidable.

https://www.zupimages.net/up/26/27/thbn.png
 
Archibald said:
Same for radars, in passing. It took a lot of (subpar) Cyrano II & RDM iterations to finally catch up, through the RDI
Click to expand...
The RDM was only a stop gap radar (a Cyrano IV made for the Mirage 2000 nose) because the RDI was studied for a bigger jet (the Super Mirage 4000), and when the then French president decided not to purchase the SM 4000 but the single engine Mirage 2000, Thomson had to re examine fully the radar, so put an evolution of a old radar in M2000.
 
Ainen said:
KF-21 is already entering IOC; Kaan is close to the first (proper) flight.
Not the same generation of aircraft.

p.s. at least for now, Koreans evidently settled on just that...
Click to expand...
Only for first tranche because the Korean-designed engine isn't ready. IIRC Tranche 2 is getting the air-to-ground update and maybe the Korean engine if it's ready.

And of course Tranche 3 gets full internal bay, Korean engine, and it's now a very good 5gen.



Titus K said:
Why do French aviation threads always end up turning into “France vs. …” debates ?
Click to expand...
Because one of the significant selling points of French jets is that they don't tie you into one of the major powers politicially. Plus, France is more willing to sell than the major powers aside from Russia.

So while those aren't strengths of the jet in question proper, they are strengths of that jet in total.
 
It is hard to avoid the vs mode when you compare the export potential against competitors. As to whether this is on topic, I would argue that it is at least tangentially, considering the export potential of the future French fighter will be important to how viable this project will be financially.
 
Event_Horizon said:
considering the export potential of the future French fighter will be important to how viable this project will be financially.
Click to expand...
In terms of export what also matters is the replacement timeline for a handful of large air forces that will be shopping for a 6th gen fighter and that will want something that is either not tied to the US or dual-sourced:
  • India: 272 SU-30MKI delivered 2002-20 (if they don't go with 100% domestic AMCA)
  • Greece: 83 F-16 Block 52 delivered 2002-10, recently upgraded to F-16V standard
  • UAE: ~75 F-16Es delivered 2004-07
  • Saudi Arabia: ~70 Typhoon delivered 2009-17
  • Egypt: 54 Rafale delivered 2015-27
  • Qatar: 36 Rafale delivered 2019-22
There may be a few others but if you look at legacy F-16, F-15, F/A-18, Rafale and Typhoon users, these are the big ones for Dassault. Winning one or 2 of these replacement opportunities would significantly strengthen Dassault's export prospects and will probably matter more than chasing a bunch of small export opportunities. 2045 feels a little late for some of these... 2040 would be better IMHO, as there's only so much that Rafale F5 can do to bridge the gap in the 2030s.
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
In terms of export what also matters is the replacement timeline for a handful of large air forces that will be shopping for a 6th gen fighter and that will want something that is either not tied to the US or dual-sourced:
  • India: 272 SU-30MKI delivered 2002-20 (if they don't go with 100% domestic AMCA)
  • Greece: 83 F-16 Block 52 delivered 2002-10, recently upgraded to F-16V standard
  • UAE: ~75 F-16Es delivered 2004-07
  • Saudi Arabia: ~70 Typhoon delivered 2009-17
  • Egypt: 54 Rafale delivered 2015-27
  • Qatar: 36 Rafale delivered 2019-22
There may be a few others but if you look at legacy F-16, F-15, F/A-18, Rafale and Typhoon users, these are the big ones for Dassault. Winning one or 2 of these replacement opportunities would significantly strengthen Dassault's export prospects and will probably matter more than chasing a bunch of small export opportunities. 2045 feels a little late for some of these... 2040 would be better IMHO, as there's only so much that Rafale F5 can do to bridge the gap in the 2030s.
Click to expand...
Don't forget serbia and croatia.
 
vikmto999 said:
Don't forget serbia and croatia.
Click to expand...
Those aren’t major « anchor tenants » that could materially impact a program’s success. If you’re Dassault you’re looking at air forces that might order large numbers of jets in the 2040s, with fleet replacement needs of 36+ fighters delivered in the 2000-2020 timeframe probably the best predictor of future 6th gen export opportunities.
 
Dassault CEO on today's earnings call... future fighter demonstrator could fly in 2031 or 2032.
Discussions are underway to launch an alternative with France, on a purely French basis initially, or in cooperation of those who might wish to join this demonstrator. The aim is to have a demonstrator based on French requirements that might fly in the early 2031 or 2032
Click to expand...
 
Hmm... I would think that would be a little pessimistic on that point about Dasault flying a 6th generation fighter by 2031 or 2032 H-K.
 
FighterJock said:
Hmm... I would think that would be a little pessimistic on that point about Dasault flying a 6th generation fighter by 2031 or 2032 H-K.
Click to expand...
That’s about the timeline for the UK’s own CAFD demonstrator (development started 2022, first flight now expected end of 2027, but more likely 2028… ie. ~6 years).

I doubt we’ll see a GCAP demonstrator much earlier with detailed design scheduled to start in late 2027… so first flight 2030/31 at best?

I also wonder if Dassault is looking for a fast follower advantage where waiting just 1-2 years to see what competing designs look like may help tweak or validate some of the design choices?
 
H_K said:
I also wonder if Dassault is looking for a fast follower advantage where waiting just 1-2 years to see what competing designs look like may help tweak or validate some of the design choices?
Click to expand...
Doubt it. The French copy no one, and no-one copies the French.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Doubt it. The French copy no one
Click to expand...
Dassault have always been pragmatic and their designs have never been shy about taking what works elsewhere and adding a Dassault twist.

If you look at Rafale, for example, similar intakes and canard delta layouts had been studied in the US in the late 70s/early 80s, and of course there was Gripen (from 1982) to give them ideas.

Honestly if I were them I wouldn't hesitate to start with a known starting point like the F-22 fuselage shape, with a delta wing for increased wing fuel stowage / lower supersonic drag, Rafale F5 avionics, designing it for simpler maintenance / low cost of ownership, optimizing the engines for fuel efficiency rather than super cruise, simplifying some specs (e.g. eliminate thrust vectoring and the side bays in favor of larger ventral bays), and focusing on using advanced design techniques to reduce drag, optimize internal volume and weight.

You could do a lot worse than a Super F-22 in 2040... perhaps call it "Super Rapace"? :p
 
H_K said:
Dassault have always been pragmatic and their designs have never been shy about taking what works elsewhere and adding a Dassault twist.

If you look at Rafale, for example, similar intakes and canard delta layouts had been studied in the US in the late 70s/early 80s, and of course there was Gripen (from 1982) to give them ideas.

Honestly if I were them I wouldn't hesitate to start with a known starting point like the F-22 fuselage shape, with a delta wing for increased wing fuel stowage / lower supersonic drag, Rafale F5 avionics, designing it for simpler maintenance / low cost of ownership, optimizing the engines for fuel efficiency rather than super cruise, simplifying some specs (e.g. eliminate thrust vectoring and the side bays in favor of larger ventral bays), and focusing on using advanced design techniques to reduce drag, optimize internal volume and weight.
Click to expand...
So, an X-44?



H_K said:
You could do a lot worse than a Super F-22 in 2040... perhaps call it "Super Rapace"? :p
Click to expand...
LOL.

Yes, a tuned-up Raptor would be pretty wild. Stretch the fuselage right through the weapons bays to make the side bays long enough for Meteor and the main bays long enough for Storm Shadow (~60cm stretch). But IMO you'd still need an internal bay long enough to handle a single ASN4G.
 
DWG said:
If you have an aerodynamically unstable design with a constant desire to pitch up, then your canards need to constantly work to prevent that. Even in theoretically stable cruise you're likely to see constantly varying demand just because the atmosphere isn't a uniform fluid.
Click to expand...
For completeness: At higher speeds the center of lift shifts backwards so that the control function of canards become less important. The EF, for instance, becomes aerodynamically stable at supersonic speeds so the foreplanes are put into neutral position and do not move.
 
H_K said:
If you look at Rafale, for example, similar intakes and canard delta layouts had been studied in the US in the late 70s/early 80s, and of course there was Gripen (from 1982) to give them ideas.
Click to expand...
Super Mirage 4000 was flying 1979. It used fixed canards at the beginning, since mobile one (but not differentially).
 
DWG said:
If you have an aerodynamically unstable design with a constant desire to pitch up, then your canards need to constantly work to prevent that. Even in theoretically stable cruise you're likely to see constantly varying demand just because the atmosphere isn't a uniform fluid.
Click to expand...
Flaperons could do it for you. Or TVC.
 
Not James Stockdale said:
The Convair deltas were all descendants of the XF-92, which first flew in 1948. The first delta-wing Mirage I flew in 1955.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. And France was offered F-106 production from GD. No doubt that Dassault had a good eye at the airframe structure and main components. Assembly modes are fairly similar.
 
TomcatViP said:
Absolutely. And France was offered F-106 production from GD. No doubt that Dassault had a good eye at the airframe structure and main components. Assembly modes are fairly similar.
Click to expand...
There are not so many assembly modes....
Do you really think Dassault has to copy and paste any other ?
Do you really think GD gave drawings to Dassault even if no deal was inked ?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom