DLR Future Fighter Demonstrator (DLR-FFD) (Project Diabolo), Project WINGMATES etc.

flateric

flateric

ACCESS: USAP
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
1 April 2006
Messages
12,285
Reaction score
15,111

Attachments

  • AIAA-Paper-2022-3437-Schuette-Hummel.pdf
    10.1 MB · Views: 370
  • 570271.pdf
    4.8 MB · Views: 242
  • 570283.pdf
    1.7 MB · Views: 149
  • ICAS2022_0161_paper.pdf
    6.1 MB · Views: 270
  • FFD-V1-a15-b0-Field-Q-Criteria-Vx-cp_web.jpg
    FFD-V1-a15-b0-Field-Q-Criteria-Vx-cp_web.jpg
    67.4 KB · Views: 316
  • figure1.jpg
    figure1.jpg
    102.4 KB · Views: 218
  • 328271316_1619270371864696_1135001661478216078_n.jpg
    328271316_1619270371864696_1135001661478216078_n.jpg
    954 KB · Views: 204
  • image-2000-060704de08a9f8bf9031115fa78177cf.jpeg
    image-2000-060704de08a9f8bf9031115fa78177cf.jpeg
    81 KB · Views: 103
  • image-945-b6e663d6ef0103f8c83b8a3b3f969c28.jpeg
    image-945-b6e663d6ef0103f8c83b8a3b3f969c28.jpeg
    79.8 KB · Views: 89
Last edited:
Is this related to the new fighter or something different?

"DLR Future Fighter Demonstrator" (DLR-FFD) is a concept for a generic multi-role fighter aircraft whose requirements are aligned with the needs of a possible future German fighter aircraft.“

https://dlr.de/de/downloads/factsheet_ffd.pdf/@@download/file
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3925.jpeg
    IMG_3925.jpeg
    272.4 KB · Views: 676
  • IMG_3926.jpeg
    IMG_3926.jpeg
    146.3 KB · Views: 696
  • IMG_3927.jpeg
    IMG_3927.jpeg
    54.8 KB · Views: 696
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't this an old concept, studied much before the FCAS began?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
snne said:
Isn't this an old concept, studied much before the FCAS began?
Click to expand...

I wasn’t sure… found it on Twitter today and just out of mind I don’t remember if indeed older
 

Attachments

  • WingMates-Artist-Impression-03-1024x613.jpg
    WingMates-Artist-Impression-03-1024x613.jpg
    88.1 KB · Views: 114
  • Formation_Day_Front-1024x522.jpg
    Formation_Day_Front-1024x522.jpg
    55.9 KB · Views: 115
  • image-2000-7959e91332f1bf1e1f9dcbd67ea493bf.jpeg
    image-2000-7959e91332f1bf1e1f9dcbd67ea493bf.jpeg
    73.7 KB · Views: 116

Attachments

  • image-2000-67df6df043ccd90c97ff906559df9f0f.png
    image-2000-67df6df043ccd90c97ff906559df9f0f.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 100
  • image-2000-060704de08a9f8bf9031115fa78177cf.jpeg
    image-2000-060704de08a9f8bf9031115fa78177cf.jpeg
    81 KB · Views: 102
  • image-2000-3f362d41d6c9fc65ca40f891e9df28b2.jpeg
    image-2000-3f362d41d6c9fc65ca40f891e9df28b2.jpeg
    453.6 KB · Views: 105
  • image-600-91f7b61c0aa24621e9b356b56cc2b354.jpeg
    image-600-91f7b61c0aa24621e9b356b56cc2b354.jpeg
    34.9 KB · Views: 116
  • image-2000-ac2298eddd15258e9336398c8dc1792b.jpeg
    image-2000-ac2298eddd15258e9336398c8dc1792b.jpeg
    376.1 KB · Views: 137
"Air 2 air mission: 1820 kg internal"

It means 8 × Meteor (8×190 = 1520 kg) + 3 × ASRAAM (3×88 = 264 kg)

Wow!!! Wow...
 
TSARb said:
"Air 2 air mission: 1820 kg internal"

It means 8 × Meteor (8×190 = 1520 kg) + 3 × ASRAAM (3×88 = 264 kg)
Click to expand...
No it's stated as 6x MRAAM (Meteor) + 2x SRAAM (IRIS-T) in paper #570271 at the top of this page.

But honestly there's so much that's just plain weird about these DLR papers that I wouldn't put too much weight on anything they say.

(Like the fact that they need 2x 124kN dry thrust to supercruise at only Mach 1.4, vs. the F-22's 2x 116kN. Or the huge 100m2 wing area vs the F-22's 78m2. Or their empty weight of only ~16t with a larger internal weapon load than an F-22, 25% more internal fuel volume, more powerful engines, 25% larger wing area etc)
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
But honestly there's so much that's just plain weird about these DLR papers that I wouldn't put too much weight on anything they say.

(Like the fact that they need 2x 124kN dry thrust to supercruise at only Mach 1.4, vs. the F-22's 2x 116kN. Or the huge 100m2 wing area vs the F-22's 78m2. Or their empty weight of only ~16t with a larger internal weapon load than an F-22, 25% more internal fuel volume, more powerful engines, 25% larger wing area etc)
Click to expand...
Because the information supplied refer to 4 different iterations of the aircraft. :D
The first image is the simple first iteration presumly version V1.x.
Then there are versions V3.0; V3.2.0 and V5.0!!
Each version has different engines, different weapons bay arrangement, capacity, range and ofc different weights.
That said it looks to me like the design has superior aerodynamic air flow manipulation via vortex generators compared to the F22 which doesn't have any. Their calculations appear correct to me. It's just the F22'S information are not what people think they are from a pure design perspective. (The are deceiving.)
 
Seragina said:
Because the information supplied refer to 4 different iterations of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Sure but I was pointing out inconsistencies even within the same iteration (FFD v3.0, which is the best documented version).

There are also inconsistencies between versions, with v5.0 being an absolute monstrosity (19t empty, 14t internal fuel, 2x 227kN engines… 75% more fuel and 45% more thrust than an F-22, but same empty weight… yeah right). Not only is v5.0 25% heavier than v3.0, it requires 25% more thrust and 40% more fuel… but somehow has the same overall dimensions and same 100m2 wing area as v3.0… very strange.

So neither v3.0 nor v5.0 is particularly credible and the numbers seem almost intentionally distorted to hide the actual configuration data they may have been working on.
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
Sure but I was pointing out inconsistencies even within the same iteration (FFD v3.0, which is the best documented version).

There are also inconsistencies between versions, with v5.0 being an absolute monstrosity (19t empty, 14t internal fuel, 2x 227kN engines… 75% more fuel and 45% more thrust than an F-22, but same empty weight… yeah right). Not only is v5.0 25% heavier than v3.0, it requires 25% more thrust and 40% more fuel… but somehow has the same overall dimensions and same 100m2 wing area as v3.0… very strange.

So neither v3.0 nor v5.0 is particularly credible and the numbers seem almost intentionally distorted to hide the actual configuration data they may have been working on.
Click to expand...
That's because they increased range from 550 to 700+ (hence 1000 NM vs 1400 NM roundtrip => your fuel difference), and a bit of speed to M2.4 (more range and faster than F22 M2.2). They got more fuel by removing the 2nd center weapons bay while increasing the side weapons bay length. Hence, same empty weight. V5 is very close to NGAD except has less range but still higher payload.
Yes, there's some misinformation disguised as typo, and some planform detail are witheld. This is all supposed to be based on F23 planform, but there's also a F24 planform. They also vary the strakes for mutiple versions etc. not visually detectable unless you really do look. Cockpit, intakes also varies from version to version. Lots of interesting design details like those on the Japanese ones.
 
Last edited:
Looks like they want Kaan and Anka-III equivalents? I wonder whether this demo fighter will see the light of the day in case of FCAS falling apart?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom