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

[Scott Kenny]

Besides, depending on just how much F/A-XX is designed around that strike role, france neither needs it nor does the french FCAS fulfill that same role for the US.

?

SCAF is absolutely designed around a strike role. It must carry ASN4G. It must carry whatever conventional A2G weapons France also wants, like the Stratus RS.

ASN4G is going to be a really big weapon. Length, mostly. It's at least the size of ARRW, possibly longer, so 22ft/6.7m long at a minimum and likely much longer since it's a scramjet with an ARRW-sized booster.

Stratus RS is also likely the size of AGM-158B/C, 25"/53cm wide. Storm Shadow is that wide, and Stratus is intended as a replacement for Storm Shadow.

So the main weapons bay of SCAF is likely a single big hole about 10m long and about 1.3-1.5m wide and deep.

 

[insidersource]

What do you guys think of a possible swedish-german project setup where engine, and most of sensors and systems are shared, but each nation builds a different airframe, respectively for one and two engines?

This is highly unlikely due to basic economics.

The single engine airframe purchased in lower quantity would nearly match the cost of the larger airframe purchased in higher quantity.

For example I'll make up some numbers excluding the avionics and engine research and development

Germany spends $5 billion developing their unique twin engine airframe. They purchase 200 twin engine aircraft at $150 million each. Total spent is $35 billion.

Sweden spends $3 billion developing their unique single engine airframe. They purchase 100 single engine aircraft at $100 million each. Total spent is $13 billion.

Now a total of $48 billion has been spent on procurement in both countries for 300 aircraft.

If Sweden instead purchased the twin engine aircraft the price will reduce from the original $150 million due to economies of scale. Let's say it reduces to $140 million. Swedens same $13 billion then gets 93 more capable twin engine aircraft instead of 100 single engine aircraft.

Germany with its same $35 billion can now buy 214 twin engine aircraft instead of 200.

The KF-21 block 3 airframe is the perfect Eurofighter replacement. The partner percentages could be:

Germany: 45%
Korea: 45%
Sweden: 10%

Germany, Sweden and Korea co-develop an advaptive engine that can give the KF-21 Block 4 similar performance to the F-22.

Germany assembles the KF-21 aircraft for Sweden.

Sweden develops an advanced Gripen sized loyal wingman drone that uses one of these advanced engines. All three partners uses this advanced wingman drone.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Oops, missed this one.

What do you guys think of a possible swedish-german project setup where engine, and most of sensors and systems are shared, but each nation builds a different airframe, respectively for one and two engines? Also I always wondered if MTU AE would be able to develop an engine for such a project alone. They worked on many engine projects, but always in partnerships. The announced Team Gen 6 makes it seem they believe so. Perhaps with Volvo?

Assuming that airframe development is roughly equal to the proportion of total cost, that's not necessarily going to save a whole lot for Germany.

IIRC Airframe cost of F-35 is 40-45% of total, systems is 40%, and engine is 15-20%. So the shared/split costs of this development would be ~55-60%.

But an international project costs roughly the square root of the number of partners involved, so we're talking about a roughly 1.4x cost multiplier.

Let's also assume that the shared development costs are split based on numbers of airframes bought (with an equalizer clause to prevent either side from screwing the other over by saying "yeah, we're buying 300 airframes" for workshare or whatever and then only buying 150. *cough*Germany*cough*). Roughly speaking, the Swedes have ~60x Gripen C/Ds and ~60x Gripen Es on order, planned total fleet size of 120. GerAF has 200 Typhoons to replace. This means we're talking a split between 2:1 and 3:1, 66:34 to 75:25.

For easy math, let's assume that the total development cost for a plane with a single nation is 100bn (way high, but easy numbers for sake of explanation). The total cost of the co-developed materials is going to be (55-60bn times 1.4 =) 78-84bn. German portion of the split will be between 52-63bn, Swedish portion will be between 26 and 21bn. German total development costs will therefore be 92-108bn, while Swedish total development costs would be around 66bn either way.

So under what looks like a reasonably fair structure at first glance, Germany might save 8% over developing the whole plane alone, while Sweden saves 34%!

 

[zrav]

Germany with its same $35 billion can now buy 214 twin engine aircraft instead of 200.

That is not a huge difference. And the requirements of Sweden and Germany dictate a single and twin-engine airframe, respectively.

As for partnering with Korea, sharing IP could work, even though it already didn't happen once before. And I see too many obstacles for a licensed KF-21 airframe fabrication happening in Germany, not to mention they want to build a 6th gen, not 5+.

 

[EmoBirb]

The KF-21 block 3 airframe is the perfect Eurofighter replacement.

Except that it isn't, it's also not "next generation" (compared to the Eurofighter, maybe, but not compared to other advanced aircraft from around the world). Furthermore it's a Korean product that has already been developed by koreans, Germany wants a fully or majority german design, developed and assembled by German manufacturers.

Thus a new indigenous fighter is in order. Luckily the likes of Airbus, Hensoldt and MTU are even more capable than KAI, thus it shouldn't be an issue to develop an aircraft superior to the KF-21 that is also tailored to German needs.

 

[insidersource]

Except that it isn't, it's also not "next generation" (compared to the Eurofighter, maybe, but not compared to other advanced aircraft from around the world).

That's your opinion. The KF-21 with it's 30 year old F414 engines already has a thrust to weight ratio than the F-35. With a 20% thrust boost from new engines the KF-21 would have a higher thrust to weight ratio than a F-22, Su-57, J-20 and J-35. I am skeptical of the Chinese, Turkish and Russia stealth levels. Korea will easily be able to match them.

The KF-21 Block 3 is clearly next generation.

Furthermore it's a Korean product that has already been developed by koreans, Germany wants a fully or majority german design, developed and assembled by German manufacturers.

No, the Germans want full control and production in Germany with lots of German jobs. They would get this with the KGF-21. Germany can then concentrate on the exotic 6th gen tech to integrate onto the KGF-21.

Thus a new indigenous fighter is in order. Luckily the likes of Airbus, Hensoldt and MTU are even more capable than KAI, thus it shouldn't be an issue to develop an aircraft superior to the KF-21 that is also tailored to German needs.

Funding is the issue. It would take $10+ billion just to produce an equivalent aircraft to a KF-21 Block 3. If Germany wanted an aircraft 20% or 40% better than the F-35 then that would still be achievable using the KF-21 Block 3 as a foundation. There would be a significant cost saving by starting with the KF-21 Block 3 as a foundation.

Korea has stated that the KF-21 will become a clear 5th generation aircraft by definition with the Block 3. Korea has also stated the KF-21 will move towards a 6th generation aircraft in terms of capability by adding 6th gen tech to the airframe. This is similar to the Ferrari F-35 concept proposed by Lockheed Martin where NGAD tech will be integrated into the F-35 to deliver roughly 80% of 6th-generation fighter capability at about 50% of the cost.

Lockheed wants to turn F-35 into a ‘Ferrari’ with sixth-gen tech

Taiclet said souping up fifth-generation fighters like this would allow Lockheed to deliver “80% of the capability, potentially, at 50% of the cost per unit aircraft.”

https://www.defensenews.com/air/202...turn-f-35-into-a-ferrari-with-sixth-gen-tech/

 

[EmoBirb]

This isn't about thrust. Stealth "levels" of foreign aircraft are your opinion (you compared 3 full blown stealth fighters to a low poly F-15 with conformal hardpoints). And Airbus definitely wants their own design to be procured, which is also what Germany will do. Germany doesn't want a foreign aircraft and if the government did, the F-47 would be infinitely more appealing, even GCAP would be (btw the reason Germany won't join GCAP, foreign, no substantial Industrial involvement, mere customer Status). Lastly funding is no issue whatsoever, neither is commitment or competence, the only question mark is the engine. But that's either going to be developed by MTU with an interim engine being procured most likely from the US, or it'll go straight to a next-gen EJ200 succesor from MTU, depending on how much money the German government will throw at it and how many engineers will suffer from Burnout.

When Germany and France have one thing in common, then it's not having a desire to pick up a third rate foreign aircraft (developed by a company that makes Saab look experienced with regards to cutting edge aircraft) over a tailor made indigenous aircraft that may not match the top of the line from China or the US, but is more than adequate compared to everything else currently flying and in the near future.

The KF-21 has it's market in SEA and parts of the near east, not in Europe and definitely not in Germany. And there's no reason for you to cling to the thought of Germany procuring an aircraft that's not even holding any significant advantage over the most advanced Eurofighters in it's current form. Block 3 and Block 4 are all but imaginary right now, there are even questions if it's worthwhile to develop the KF-21"EX" or whatever they dubbed it at some airshow marketing event thingy.

 

[Ainen]

Korea has stated that the KF-21 will become a clear 5th generation aircraft by definition with the Block 3.

To be fair, even if it's going to happen(no financing yet), it'll be effectively a different aircraft.
You can't just make the current KF-21 stealthier.

And that's the whole issue, what's the point for Germany. They aren't that far from Korea as aircraft manufacturer, they start off same starting point (arguably Eurofighter T5 is overall higher), both need to develop a stealthy airframe/solutions, conduct new set of trials, etc.

Korea will easily be able to match them.

Current KF-21 honestly doesn't inspire confidence.
It's a lot of work of rather mediocre base. Frankly speaking, Korean government looking for an entirely new plane may make more sense.

 

[lmaoxd]

They can offer it but probably not with any success.

Besides, depending on just how much F/A-XX is designed around that strike role, france neither needs it nor does the french FCAS fulfill that same role for the US.

Not about to get into F/A-XX design requirements here though.

I think france is probably better off on its own requirements wise. I really cant think of another partner who would share requirments enough that it would make sense to be a partner with france without running into the same problems. Maybe India if we really had to come up with one (and even then, india is probably focusing resources on AMCA instead).

It might take them longer, but its not like they have any immediate security concerns like say ukraine does.

The SCAF or whatever the new standalone system is called would only work for India if the French are willing to design a naval aircraft that can do both STOBAR and CATOBAR. The IN is desperate for a 5th gen so they would be willing to fund it. The IAF in itself doesnt need it as much considering that the difference btw 5th and 6th gens are not as big as the difference btw 4th and 5th. It would 100% be a willing participant if a partnership surfaced but the IN would be the one that makes the actual decision.

The PMs current visit to france is going to be interesting although I expect no decision of note to come out of it apart from the rafale deal.

 

[Cjc]

What ends up happening if you combine both in one thread is that it’ll end up going off topic and become dominated by politics. Take a look at what happened to the gcap thread. It got shut down and had to to be cleaned up. It’s easier to thread ban repeat offenders

These are actively ongoing programs, keeping politics completely out is frankly nonsense (especially these complexe multi country programs). Honestly the mods probably need to make a destion on ether banning aircraft in active development or or losaning the political rules for an active program. As is trying to break up the threads like this just killed the conversation (and you end up with this thread wich is basically just the old thread at this point or gcap were there is no conversation at all anymore)

 

[insidersource]

To be fair, even if it's going to happen(no financing yet), it'll be effectively a different aircraft.
You can't just make the current KF-21 stealthier.

You can. Stealth coatings are evolving. Likewise the composition/layers of the exterior skin can change to improve radar absorption.

And that's the whole issue, what's the point for Germany. They aren't that far from Korea as aircraft manufacturer, they start off same starting point (arguably Eurofighter T5 is overall higher), both need to develop a stealthy airframe/solutions, conduct new set of trials, etc.

Starting with the KF-21 skips all the basic work that Germany has already mastered with the Eurofighter. Germany learns nothing new from the boring flight and fatigue testing stages.

Starting with the KF-21 means Germany can be go straight to developing high end 6th gen tech for the KF-21 Block 4. Adaptive engines, shaft starter/generators, energy weapons and AI assistants. These 6th gen features are much more valuable to Germany than machining aluminium bulkheads and making glass canopies.

Current KF-21 honestly doesn't inspire confidence.
It's a lot of work of rather mediocre base. Frankly speaking, Korean government looking for an entirely new plane may make more sense.

That is your opinion. Korea has stated the KF-21 will be the backbone of their fleet and will integrate 6th generation technology. This means they are confident it can have a very low radar cross section.

 

[EmoBirb]

Ultimately the Indians will have the desire to switch to catapult take off, no? So teaming up with the French would be a forward thinking move on their part.

 

[Ainen]

You can. Stealth coatings are evolving. Likewise the composition/layers of the exterior skin can change to improve radar absorption.

Coats by themselves don't do magic.

That is your opinion. Korea has stated the KF-21 will be the backbone of their fleet and will integrate 6th generation technology. This means they are confident it can have a very low radar cross section.

Integration of 6th gen technologies / being backbone doesn't mean belief in their sufficient stealth; much like integration of 5th generation technologies(aesa, fusion, etc) into same aircraft didn't and doesn't.
Everyone is going to be integrating AI/manned unmanned teaming, etc to their platforms which are to remain in service. Or else they'll grow outdated. In many such cases, nations don't have any choice - their non-stealth platforms will have to remain viable through 2030s one way or another.

As such, they're doing it from high level future fighter platforms (which are stealthy) to planes like F-15ex/force multipliers, (which are obviously not).

 

[jsport]

While Dassault by themselves could come up with a fairly advanced aircraft, even though it would most likely fall way short of true next generation fighters from China or the US, Saab couldn't develop an advanced, low observable, manned fighter on their own. So that was never a possibility to begin with.

Saab has the choice of Dassault, Airbus or some sort of minor participation in GCAP as a supplier or license production of components, but they never had the choice of doing anything significant by themselves. The resources and the money simply aren't there.

Maybe it is time for Dassault, Saab & Airbus to price & conceptualize independant paths as a new motivator.

 

[lmaoxd]

Ultimately the Indians will have the desire to switch to catapult take off, no? So teaming up with the French would be a forward thinking move on their part.

Yes a CATOBAR carrier is what India wants but it wants it to be a 75k tonne nuclear carrier. This will take at least until the early 2040s before its made and deployed. Even then the INS vikrant and a supposed vikrant-class repeat(replacing the INS vikramaditya) are set to join and these will be STOBAR. Both will operate for 30-40 years so until the early 2060s. You cant operate 2 carriers without any stealth aircraft until the 2060s.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Any 6th gen fighter program outside the US, Russia, China, would essentially be a multinational effort regardless of its structure.
No European country develops and manufactures all components of an aircraft on its own. There will be a lot of imports even without partners.
It then becomes a matter of finance. If parts are imported, they can be arranged to be locally manufactured as well. This is an economic boost, albeit back-loaded.
Partners are needed for funding the earlier phases.
But the idea that there aren't at least several European nations fully capable of footing the bill on their own - is not rooted in reason.

 

[Avimimus]

How can it do that if it can't even see the requirements for a US-only programme?

And the opposite way round for say NG or Boeing pitching proposals into whatever the new French 6th Gen programme gets called.

Also, a major source of success of the Rafale in the export market was that it was (eventually) completely outside of ITAR restrictions...

 

[red admiral]

Also, a major source of success of the Rafale in the export market was that it was (eventually) completely outside of ITAR restrictions...

Was it actually though?

 

[alberchico]

https://theconversation.com/germany...ions-for-european-defence-are-worrying-285090

It's shocking that many of the main issues that sunk this program were not addressed and resolved in the early stages. I wonder if the primary reason this ambituous venture failed was politicians ramming this project through and expecting their respective armed forces to make the necessary compromises to see this thing through.

 

[galgot]

Any 6th gen fighter program outside the US, Russia, China, would essentially be a multinational effort regardless of its structure.
No European country develops and manufactures all components of an aircraft on its own. There will be a lot of imports even without partners.
It then becomes a matter of finance. If parts are imported, they can be arranged to be locally manufactured as well. This is an economic boost, albeit back-loaded.
Partners are needed for funding the earlier phases.
But the idea that there aren't at least several European nations fully capable of footing the bill on their own - is not rooted in reason.

No. At the moment, one European country develops and manufactures all components of an aircraft on its own, airframe, engine, avionics, armament.
For a future fighter, if the price is going to be as enormous as it is being said (and I doubt it, unless we go for a F-47 type of thing which would be ridiculous and useless cause it's not the thing we need) , and if that country needs to share the financing of that future program, then yes, it will obviously be an international effort.
That said, if that country doesn't find a foreign partner, but still have the political will and thus funds it on his own, it is perfectly possible to do it on his own.
It is really a matter of political will, as expensive as it may be, if sacrifices had to be made, it's perfectly possible, and not beyond the reach of countries such as France, Germany, England or Italy.
Germany and Italy could do that only on their own if they really wanted to, though starting without fully experienced engine manufacturer in that field, they would start with a big handicap, cause developing an engine takes more time.

 

[VTOLicious]

...
So the main weapons bay of SCAF is likely a single big hole about 10m long and about 1.3-1.5m wide and deep.

Wait, what? Are you serious?

 

[kqcke for you]

Wait, what? Are you serious?

Its likely. I mean X51 one of the smaller hypersonic missiles (as far as i remember) is like almost 8m long and that thing didn't have a warhead and with only 740km mutch less range than ASN4G ask for.

 

[VTOLicious]

Its likely. I mean X51 one of the smaller hypersonic missiles (as far as i remember) is like almost 8m long and that thing didn't have a warhead and with only 740km mutch less range than ASN4G ask for.

Likely?
First of all that's an insanely large volume (~22 m³!), and secondly, a structural nightmare, especially for a carrier-based fighter.

 

[kqcke for you]

Likely?
First of all that's an insanely large volume (~22 m³!), and secondly, a structural nightmare, especially for a carrier-based fighter.

Depends on the definition of internaly but ++1000km range at hypersonic speed will be big. I can't tsll you how wide but i seriously doubt its shorter than X-51 so atleast ~8m* long and that thing had a similiar diameter to ATACMS so atleast ~600mm diameter but again those are the dimension for a Missile with neither the requiered payload nor range. So yeah its likely around 10m long and close to 0,8 to 1m wide.

Edit:
*Including Booster of course

 

[Titus K]

internaly but ++1000km range at hypersonic speed will be big

Where does this 1.000km range figure come from for ASN4G ?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Wait, what? Are you serious?

Yes. France wants an air-breathing hypersonic with serious range.

Which means a big missile.

Admittedly most of the width of ASN4G is wings, not booster diameter.

So my current mental image is "ARRW with a bigger front end"

And yes, fitting that big a bay into a carrier aircraft sucks.

Where does this 1.000km range figure come from for ASN4G ?

Defense News, Geopolitiki, and Opex360

 

[kqcke for you]

Where does this 1.000km range figure come from for ASN4G ?

What Scott says.

That said, considering only there stating it, lets assume its only the same as whats said for ASMP-A/R. Around 500 to 600km. Thats still X-51 size of around ~8m length and 0,604m width. Still a beast in size having to take that with you

 

[Titus K]

Defense News, Geopolitiki, and Opex360

Those aren't worth much

The things we know on ASN4G.

• Hypersonic cruise missile
• Nuclear warhead
• There will likely be 2 version (from air force chief hearing)
  • a smaller one for the Rafale F5, with less range (how much?) i guess ~6m
  • a larger one for NGF. full range version (how much?)
• A propulsion system capable of operating in a very extensive flight range, with the use of variable geometry (ONERA)
• We don't even know if it will be carried internally on the NGF...

 

[kqcke for you]

Those aren't worth much

The things we know on ASN4G.

• Hypersonic cruise missile
• Nuclear warhead
• there will likely be 2 version (from air force chief hearing)
  • a smaller one for the Rafale F5, with less range (how much?) i guess ~6m

Prometheus was that named. Or the study for it. Tho 6m made me allways wonder if this is the whole missile or only the cruise missile part.

• • a larger one for NGF. full range version (how much?)

Camosis should that be. My understanding was that only 1 would go trought because both looked at different aspects i.e. hypersonic for one and supersonic + stealth for the other.

• A propulsion system capable of operating in a very extensive flight range, with the use of variable geometry (ONERA)
• We don't even know if it will be carried internally on the NGF...

The big question afterall where i allways believed will be external but one never knows

 

[Titus K]

Camosis should that be. My understanding was that only 1 would go trought because both looked at different aspects i.e. hypersonic for one and supersonic + stealth for the other.

No the air force chief clearly stated in a hearing that the ASN4G would first enter service in a smaller version for the Rafale F5, because that airframe can't carry the final version planned for NGF, wich is still planned.

quote -> https://www.senat.fr/compte-rendu-commissions/20241021/etran.html#toc4

The F5 is a different Rafale altogether. This new aircraft must carry the ASN4G, the future hypersonic missile — its speed will indeed exceed Mach 5 — and it will also be highly agile, equipped with maneuvering capabilities throughout its flight. This represents a genuine technological breakthrough.​

​

The Rafale F5 will have to carry this missile, which will be of considerable weight. It will therefore require a new engine, conformal fuel tanks, as well as improved radar detection, connectivity, and electronic warfare countermeasures.​

​

Its successor, the FCAS (SCAF), for its part, will carry the final version of this missile, whose range will match what we had requested.​

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Yes. France wants an air-breathing hypersonic with serious range.

Which means a big missile.

Admittedly most of the width of ASN4G is wings, not booster diameter.

Where did you see an image of ASN4G?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Where did you see an image of ASN4G?

There were a couple of concept images shown on this forum, plus hypothesizing off the shapes of all air breathing hypersonic test airframes.

 

[VTOLicious]

No the air force chief clearly stated in a hearing that the ASN4G would first enter service in a smaller version for the Rafale F5, because the airframe can't carry the final version planned for NGF, wich is still planned.

quote -> https://www.senat.fr/compte-rendu-commissions/20241021/etran.html#toc4

The F5 is a different Rafale altogether. This new aircraft must carry the ASN4G, the future hypersonic missile — its speed will indeed exceed Mach 5 — and it will also be highly agile, equipped with maneuvering capabilities throughout its flight. This represents a genuine technological breakthrough.​

​

The Rafale F5 will have to carry this missile, which will be of considerable weight. It will therefore require a new engine, conformal fuel tanks, as well as improved radar detection, connectivity, and electronic warfare countermeasures.​

​

Its successor, the FCAS (SCAF), for its part, will carry the final version of this missile, whose range will match what we had requested.​

So there is no official statement that the ASN4G has to fit into the SCAF weapons bay.

 

[yeetmahboi]

AS4NG is a strategic standoff weapon with pretty hefty range so I'd be surprised if they want to see it lugged in the IWB.

 

[Titus K]

So there is no official statement that the ASN4G has to fit into the SCAF weapons bay.

Not that I know of.
All we know so far is that the NGF will have to be capable of carrying out the nuclear strike mission for both the FAS(Air Force) and the FANu(Navy).

 

[FighterJock]

It all depends on what the size of the ASN4G will end up being, right now we do not know the official dimensions will be of the missile.

 

[Titus K]

Well, Etienne Marcuz from the FRS thinktank also estimates a range of around 1,000 km, but this still remains speculative since no official source has ever stated a range target (the often quoted range for the ASMP-A still remains unofficial aswell).

https://letstalkdeterrence.substack.com/p/frances-hypersonic-leap-ensuring

A Game-Changing Weapon
​

This is why the DGA, ONERA, and the entire French defense industrial and technological base have been working continuously since the 1980s to increase the velocity and performance of the airborne vector for the FAS and FANu.

The ASN4G will be the latest in a series of high-velocity vectors. However, whereas the ASMPA-R is a derivative of the ASMPA, itself derived from the ASMP, the ASN4G is a technological breakthrough weapon whose performance will be incomparable to that of its predecessor:

• Its range will be at least doubled, reaching 1,000 km (whereas the ASMPA-R’s is estimated at ~500 km, or even less depending on the chosen flight profile);
• Its speed will also be doubled, reaching hypersonic speeds (> Mach 5) rather than supersonic (> Mach 2/3);
• Its cruising altitude will be higher (> 20,000 m), keeping it out of range of a significant portion of defense systems.

These performances will only be possible by mastering a number of new technologies, particularly in propulsion and materials.

 

[jsport]

https://www.twz.com/air/germany-and-spain-launch-team-gen-6-after-europes-next-gen-fighter-effort-collapses

 

[Scott Kenny]

AS4NG is a strategic standoff weapon with pretty hefty range so I'd be surprised if they want to see it lugged in the IWB.

Depends on what targets they're intended to hit.

How far is the target from the edge of the IADS?

 

[Titus K]

How far is the target from the edge of the IADS?

The IR signature produced by the booster ignition immediately after missile release will negate any potential benefits of carrying it inside the bay anyway in terms of avoiding early launch detection, especially if the range is indeed 1000km+...
The targets are likely to remain similar to those engaged by the Rafale with the ASMP-A, whose current range is considered sufficient. Also the air force talks more about improvements in speed with the ASN4G than about extended range. So i suspect that the missile will mainly be launched from greater stand-off distances

I really think that the ASN4G will be carried in the same manner as the ASMP-A on the Rafale … which likely implies that the NGF will need 2 small side bays for air-to-air missiles.