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

[Scott Kenny]

Looks like a twin-engine version of the BAe-MDD JSF proposal.

 

[Kurapika444]

If France and Germany part ways, I wonder if Dassault will go back to something closer to the early tailless design, still a looker.

 

[BonPlan2]

During his recent speech, Macron said that France would not go back to tactical nukes so a small yield missile seems out of question.

Client Challenge

Doesn't Germany simply want to go beyond the 32-34 tons MTOW that the carrier requirement brings? They seem to want something sized between the French vision for NGF and GCAP. Well that's the rumor that has been circulating for a few years but I don't know if we've ever heard an official statement about this.

Probably.

Luftwaffe top-brass wants (or prefers) a 6th gen. jet optimized for air-superiority.

It was the same in the 80's. Result was a jet heavier, more expansive and only marginally better in air superiority.

 

[BonPlan2]

If France and Germany part ways, I wonder if Dassault will go back to something closer to the early tailless design, still a looker.
View attachment 804649

A without tail design for carrier operation is risky. I'm not sure Dassault will take such direction.

 

[fromage]

A without tail design for carrier operation is risky. I'm not sure Dassault will take such direction.

Perhaps this FCAS fiasco is a blessing in disguise as it will allow Dassault to explore more airframe configurations, starting with the UCAS.

If the UCAS can land safely and comfortably on the PANG maybe the Navy will reconsider their requirements.

 

[Grey Havoc]

During his recent speech, Macron said that France would not go back to tactical nukes so a small yield missile seems out of question.

Something tells me that as soon as he is out of office, the tactical nuclear plans will be openly back on the table.

 

[Kurapika444]

Surely we'll get to see something interesting at this year's Paris Air Show in June. FCAS will probably have died by then.

Edit: the next one will surely happen next year, right after the french presidential election.

 

[DWG]

Surely we'll get to see something interesting at this year's Paris Air Show in June. FCAS will probably have died by then.

Edit: the next one will surely happen next year, right after the french presidential election.

Paris is biennial, alternating with Farnborough, which this year will be 20-24 July.

 

[DWG]

During his recent speech, Macron said that France would not go back to tactical nukes so a small yield missile seems out of question.

French nuclear doctrine has ASMP allocated to 'pre-strategic' use, as the ultimate warning shot before unleashing M51s. You don't need a huge yield for that, or internal carriage. AS4NG's 1,000km range lets you target St Petersburg from over Bornholm, Minsk from over Berlin, or Moscow from Eastern Poland.

 

[BonPlan2]

French nuclear doctrine has ASMP allocated to 'pre-strategic' use, as the ultimate warning shot before unleashing M51s. You don't need a huge yield for that, or internal carriage. AS4NG's 1,000km range lets you target St Petersburg from over Bornholm, Minsk from over Berlin, or Moscow from Eastern Poland.

Some M51 (1 or 2 per sub) are fitted with a single warhead. For pre strategic use also.

 

[kqcke for you]

So after quoting it in the wrong channel (thats on me) ima do it in the right one.

… i think he means making 2 prototypes and then selecting the best ?

Maybe not the best but atleast 2 prototypes going into the direction both side want (i assume spain is inclined to atleast one but its hard to say considering how mutch they talk).
Because that shows exactly what they want, whats the same and where the differences are.

Otherwise why would you want both fighter to converge ?

In theory to make both happy while giving them what they want because it seems like neither side is backing down.

Also :

https://twitter.com/x/status/2031292331895189834

 

[Scott Kenny]

A without tail design for carrier operation is risky. I'm not sure Dassault will take such direction.

I think I'm expecting ruddervators for SCAF (like YF-23 and the MDD-BAe JSF proposal)

 

[fromage]

Since this thread is about speculations and theories, here is one:

What if all the German talk about not wanting the nuclear requirement, and wanting to build 2 planes, is related to the awkward ending of phase 1b of FCAS?

By now, only two models are left in the design phase. Rumor says that 1 is from Dassault, compatible with nuclear and naval requirements and in the 15T class; and the other from Airbus which is not compatible with nuclear and naval requirements and is heavier (18T?).

Then Airbus got spooked when they learned that Dassault, Safran and Thales will be able to provide 80% of the components of the Dassault's demonstrator. So they do what they do best, they lobbied hard to avoid the potential loss of workshare if Dassault's design is selected.

The only way of FCAS to progress further hangs on the decision to build 2 demonstrators instead of 1.
I'd say go for it with:

Team A includes Dassault, Thales, Safran.

Team B includes Airbus DS, Indra, MTU.

And watch Darwinism in action.

 

[galgot]

Btw, I also don't understand Germany discarding the nuclear requirement.
Do they expect the US owned nukes in Germany to the stay there forever, and thus also buying next US planes to carry them in the coming 50 years ? Is there not a bit of worrying about our times and strategic options, maybe thinking a bit ahead about an eventual European nuke force solution ? Go figure...

 

[H_K]

The only way of FCAS to progress further hangs on the decision to build 2 demonstrators instead of 1.
I'd say go for it with:

Team A includes Dassault, Thales, Safran.

Team B includes Airbus DS, Indra, MTU.

And watch Darwinism in action.

2 demonstrators could work in the short term to help everyone save face.

But what happens once both demonstrators have been evaluated? Is Team B willing to accept team A's win and become mere sub-contractors with possibly a 50% production workshare? And vice versa?

Sounds like a sure way to end up with a split and 2 European fighters (Eurofighter and Rafale all over again).

I think I'm expecting ruddervators for SCAF (like YF-23 and the MDD-BAe JSF proposal)

Those ruddervators are my favorite part of Dassault's NGF mockup and CGIs shown at the Paris Air Show. That and the very sleak fuselage which hints at low drag and lots of body lift (while still retaining a decent amount of internal volume).

 

[galgot]

2 demonstrators could work in the short term to help everyone save face.

But what happens once both demonstrators have been evaluated? Is Team B willing to accept team A's win and become mere sub-contractors with possibly a 50% production workshare? And vice versa?

Sounds like a sure way to end up with a split and 2 European fighters (Eurofighter and Rafale all over again).


Those ruddervators are my favorite part of Dassault's NGF mockup and CGIs shown at the Paris Air Show. That and the very sleak fuselage which hints at low drag and lots of body lift (while still retaining a decent amount of internal volume).

View attachment 805775

Nahhh... we ask the Swiss to do the serious independent evaluation between teams A and B for us, that way there can be more evaluations, each 2 - 3 years, again and again... All fun.

 

[Kurapika444]

Since this thread is about speculations and theories, here is one:

What if all the German talk about not wanting the nuclear requirement, and wanting to build 2 planes, is related to the awkward ending of phase 1b of FCAS?

By now, only two models are left in the design phase. Rumor says that 1 is from Dassault, compatible with nuclear and naval requirements and in the 15T class; and the other from Airbus which is not compatible with nuclear and naval requirements and is heavier (18T?).

Then Airbus got spooked when they learned that Dassault, Safran and Thales will be able to provide 80% of the components of the Dassault's demonstrator. So they do what they do best, they lobbied hard to avoid the potential loss of workshare if Dassault's design is selected.

The only way of FCAS to progress further hangs on the decision to build 2 demonstrators instead of 1.
I'd say go for it with:

Team A includes Dassault, Thales, Safran.

Team B includes Airbus DS, Indra, MTU.

And watch Darwinism in action.

Was there ever an internal competition? I thought both companies were to agree on a common design from the get-go?
Although that's probably what should've been done, like it's done in the US.

2 demonstrators could work in the short term to help everyone save face.

But what happens once both demonstrators have been evaluated? Is Team B willing to accept team A's win and become mere sub-contractors with possibly a 50% production workshare? And vice versa?

Sounds like a sure way to end up with a split and 2 European fighters (Eurofighter and Rafale all over again).


Those ruddervators are my favorite part of Dassault's NGF mockup and CGIs shown at the Paris Air Show. That and the very sleak fuselage which hints at low drag and lots of body lift (while still retaining a decent amount of internal volume).

View attachment 805775

I like this paint scheme

 

[BonPlan2]

Since this thread is about speculations and theories, here is one:

What if all the German talk about not wanting the nuclear requirement, and wanting to build 2 planes, is related to the awkward ending of phase 1b of FCAS?

By now, only two models are left in the design phase. Rumor says that 1 is from Dassault, compatible with nuclear and naval requirements and in the 15T class; and the other from Airbus which is not compatible with nuclear and naval requirements and is heavier (18T?).

Then Airbus got spooked when they learned that Dassault, Safran and Thales will be able to provide 80% of the components of the Dassault's demonstrator. So they do what they do best, they lobbied hard to avoid the potential loss of workshare if Dassault's design is selected.

The only way of FCAS to progress further hangs on the decision to build 2 demonstrators instead of 1.
I'd say go for it with:

Team A includes Dassault, Thales, Safran.

Team B includes Airbus DS, Indra, MTU.

And watch Darwinism in action.

Interesting.
But never forget that the nuc and carrier operations were requested by the french side from the very beginning.
The 80% history is true.... but only for the prototyp as Germany has nearly nothing to offer "on the shelf" because all the Eurofighter components are not free of propriety (the components of Rafale are 100% french, so easy to use in a prototyp, probably at 1/1.5 scale).

Darwinism ? Honestly Germany and Spain together are far away the french know how in this field. Despite the Germany financial power, such gap can't be recoverd in less than 20 years, at least (and during this time the french sida also move).

 

[BonPlan2]

But what happens once both demonstrators have been evaluated? Is Team B willing to accept team A's win and become mere sub-contractors with possibly a 50% production workshare? And vice versa?

If A product is clearly better than B, game is over for B team.
Remember Rafale A against EFA in 1986 Farnborough : one team clearly surpass the other.

 

[Kurapika444]

If the program fails, I still don’t clearly see what Germany’s options for a manned jet are.
There was a lot of talk about Sweden/Saab in the past but the Swedish requirements seem even more incompatible with the German ones than the French ones were.
Will Sweden go for a 18-ton+ jet? Their defense budget is so tiny, that may be out of reach.
If the partnership is just Airbus-Saab without involving the Swedish government, will SAAB be able to work on two projects at once? Will they have enough bandwidth for two and what about IP protection?
And a two-aircraft solution between Germany and Sweden seems even more outlandish than it was with France, Germany would simply be funding both aircraft for Sweden.

However if Germany wanted to focus on unmanned options then it would be less complicated indeed, though probably a bad strategy. Reliance on the US should be avoided.
I guess we’ll know soon, IGMetall is once again calling for Merz to put an end to the program and start the development of a fully Airbus jet (I don’t know if they’re including Spain in this, but no one seems to be including Spain in their plans...).

 

[Scott Kenny]

If the program fails, I still don’t clearly see what Germany’s options for a manned jet are.
There was a lot of talk about Sweden/Saab in the past but the Swedish requirements seem even more incompatible with the German ones than the French ones were.
Will Sweden go for a 18-ton+ jet? Their defense budget is so tiny, that may be out of reach.

If they're packing the same systems into a "Gripen II" as they are into SCAF, the price is going to be similar. To the tune that the total cost of a plane is going to be little more than the cost of a second engine.

Systems make up 40% of the cost of F-35, to use an example I know. I haven't seen the data for Gripen.

 

[Seragina]

Germany, South Korea, India, Sweden all need first and foremost a newer generation engine IP. If anything this should be their priority before an airframe. And where I see the most likelyhood of cooperation going around. For the rest it seems to me more of a guess work atm.

 

[EmoBirb]

It amuses me when people bring up lacking expertise in modern fighter jet development when everyone involved in the FCAS hasn't developed a new manned jet since the 80s.

None of the partners involved has anything to show for in that regard, with all the people involved with the Eurofighter and Rafale development already in or approaching retirement age. So it's all coming from zero anyway. Just that Airbus in particular enjoys the benefits of having conducted studies into low observability and access to German cold war studies on low observable aircraft. While Dassault can fall back on studies of...30 different variants of the Mirage family? And the multinational nEUROn (which emulates a dozen other UAV tech demos that preceeded and succeeded it over the entire world).

Given that Rheinmetall will partake in assembly of the F-35s fuselage and Germany operating the type soon, as well as Airbus offering to develop a wingman type drone to pair with jets, out of the three core members of the FCAS, Germany is by far the best off should this ship finally sink. It would be beneficial for France and to a degree Germany if collaboration on the engine between Safran and MTU continues though.

 

[H_K]

Just that Airbus in particular enjoys the benefits of having conducted studies into low observability and access to German cold war studies on low observable aircraft. While Dassault can fall back on studies of...30 different variants of the Mirage family? And the multinational nEUROn (which emulates a dozen other UAV tech demos that preceeded and succeeded it over the entire world).

Given that Rheinmetall will partake in assembly of the F-35s fuselage and Germany operating the type soon, as well as Airbus offering to develop a wingman type drone to pair with jets, out of the three core members of the FCAS, Germany is by far the best off should this ship finally sink.

?! I think it takes rather rose-tinted lens to equate Airbus's stealth experience with Dassault's. On one hand you have:

• The obsolete faceted stealth of the 1980s MBB Lampyridae program
• The checkered history of the EADS Barracuda UAV (15 flights, 1 crash, less than 10 flight hours)

On the other:

• 170+ Neuron test flights
• Ongoing Neuron 2.0 UCAS work

Both Airbus DS and Dassault have also experimented with various subscale and non-flying demonstrators, perhaps the only area where Airbus DS has demonstrated sustained work on stealth (but no different from Dassault's own Logiduc program).

 

[EmoBirb]

Subscale and non flying demonstrators are where the reasearch happens.



And while you were dismissive about Barracuda, it is the 'father' of aircraft like the YFQ-42A or XQ-58 and some of the Chinese drones with adopted it's general layout due to how the characteristics of signature reduction and flight performance are easier reconciled than on the flying wing types (where nEUROn is by far one of the less remarkable ones compared to the X-47B, S-70 or the behemoths China is producing). Phantom Ray with french accent isn't as ground breaking when one realizes that sanctioned Iran developed similar drones.

As for Lampyridae, it was never the only venture into low observable aviation, DASA's TDEFS study also existed, while EADS' Mako was a trainer that similarly to a KF-21 sought to integrate signature reduction measures while keeping cost down and thus not going all in on stealth.

Then there is obviously LOUT and there are reasearch articles that have never seen the sunlight, in either digital or physical form.

Lastly, if we want to talk mock ups like Dassaults new UCAV, then there's obviously this one as a comparison, the Airbus Wingman.


Superficially Dassault and Airbus are at a similar point, but upon closer inspection it's evident that Airbus not only has more resources, but also a broader knowledge basis and research history. Thanks to being comprised of several former European aviation companies.

 

[kqcke for you]

And it all doesn't matter if they can't get there ass up and stay stuck in the infinite delay of not going further in either direction

 

[BonPlan2]

It amuses me when people bring up lacking expertise in modern fighter jet development when everyone involved in the FCAS hasn't developed a new manned jet since the 80s.

M88-2 first flight on Rafale A was made in 1990.
M88-2 E4 was a deeply modified enine, built in early 2000.
M88 pack CGP (for cost reduction) or M88-4E with new improvement so as to increase life time 60% in 2005 (more or less).
M88-3, a 9 tons thrust engine studied for UAE, was built and tested in 2010 (more or less)
Now M88 T-Rex.

So at least one european company has a continuous road map on jet engine.

 

[kqcke for you]

Technically this article is not news, just commentary / industry lobbying. So it merits a quick fact check.

I disagree on that but thats mostly down to personal opinion.

I see several talking points that have been denied in official statements, such as the myth that Dassault is asking for 80% workshare.

Words against words. Both saying something nobody is saying anything. Blurry line in many ways.

It also contradicts official statements that the German, French and Spanish air forces have all signed off on common requirements... so the idea that German requirements are incompatible from France's appears to be more spin than reality.

You do know that requierments can change right? And that sometimes people choose to go with the affordable option because they only got it at that point.

 

[VTOLicious]

Quote from the news-thread:

Also confirmation that the NGF demonstrator is delayed and possibly cancelled completely (!).

Projet de loi, n° 2630

www.assemblee-nationale.fr

I wonder if a demonstrator is absolutely necessary? If both TAI and KAI manage to develop a prototype without building a demonstrator beforehand, why shouldn't experienced design/production organisations like Airbus and Dassault be able to do the same?

 

[H_K]

I wonder if a demonstrator is absolutely necessary? If both TAI and KAI manage to develop a prototype without building a demonstrator beforehand, why shouldn't experienced design/production organisations like Airbus and Dassault be able to do the same?

I imagine a demonstrator can really help with validating the aerodynamic/structural design, especially if the goal is to use a novel control arrangement (such as Pelikan-tails or LEVCONs), plus a high proportion of composites, RAM coatings etc.

e.g. They'll want to check aging of RAM coatings on an aircraft flying at supersonic speeds and high Gs, controllability at high/low speeds and high alpha, special control laws in stealth mode , weapons release from the bomb bay etc. That way you can parallel path the "flight sciences" and structural model while continuing sub-system design in parallel. Can't hurt to accelerate development this way and ensure you have a mature physical platform that's ready for the systems (which are probably easier to iterate).

 

[martinbayer]

Interesting piece in the Guardian:

France and Germany agreed to build the fighter jet of the future. Now they can’t agree who is in charge​

"A former senior French official, who asked to remain anonymous, said the project appeared to have been conceived “at a very high political level”, without wider discussions in the ministry of defence about whether the countries had the same needs. “We do not have the same way of doing war, Germany and France,” they said. “I was quite troubled by this.”"

"“Dassault is not easy,” said the former senior French official. “They have got amazing engineers … but on the political side they behave how they want. And now they don’t even need this programme, they have many export sales coming from Rafale. So they are very comfortable, and their collaborative spirit is not good. They piss me off."

"Bertrand de Cordoue, Airbus’s former head of EU and Nato public affairs, said tensions had existed between the two companies from the start, with Airbus engineering teams regarding Dassault as the competition.

“For the German part of Airbus, it was not natural to accept coming out of the existing Eurofighter scheme,” said de Cordue, who is now an adviser at the Jacques Delors Institute, a thinktank. “The teams working on Eurofighter were not spontaneously accepting the idea to totally change their mindset and work with a French company that, on the export market, was a competitor, not a partner.”

Dassault, in turn, has resisted handing over its fighter-building know-how to Airbus, fearing a competitor would acquire French expertise. De Cordoue argued that since the technology was funded by French taxpayers, it should be “more the ownership of the French authorities” – and that Dassault should cooperate."

"Germany’s more assertive approach is partly a result of a shifting power dynamic. When the FCAS programme started in 2018, its defence spending was modest. Now, after the decision to rearm following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Berlin expects to spend €150bn by 2029 – nearly twice France’s budget.

“France has 60 years of being the accepted leader,” said [Francis] Tusa. “Suddenly Germany is saying: ‘We don’t have to be deferential.’”

“I think they should have kept going with a single aircraft,” Tusa said. “They [Airbus and Dassault] need to go to counselling and basically be told: ‘Come on guys, play nice.’”

Dassault declined to comment."

"Macron, meanwhile, has continued to insist publicly that the project can be saved, telling the Munich Security Conference this month: “It’s hard for me to understand how we will build new common solutions if we destroy the few ones that we have.”

The former French official was more downbeat, pointing to Macron’s presidency ending in May 2027. His possible successor, Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally party, is softer on Russia and may abandon the project entirely.

“My feeling is that this project was born with Macron,” the official said, “and could die with Macron.”"

Apart from the comments from Francis Tusa (who is a British defence analyst), this all seems sourced from the French side, and it's the first significant criticism of Dassault's behaviour I think I've seen from French sources.

My prediction as a native non-resident German: Eventually Germany will roll over (again)...

 

[Brett Davidson]

Germany will roll over (again)...

Belgium, on the way to Paris.

SORRY!