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

yeetmahboi said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think Airbus DS' CEO once said that the missile was to be carried externally, I don't remember where I've read that though.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Okay, speculation and theories:

SCAF and FAXX are very similar in overall limits and mission, save one: SCAF must carry ASN4G. This basically only matters in that the main weapons bays move to being tandem in the centerline instead of what our SPF designers have been working on for FAXX with the bays in parallel.

Do we think it might be possible for France/Dassault to make FAXX under license, if the whole SCAF program collapses?
Click to expand...
It remember me a story about a frankenstein jet made of a part of Rafale and a part of F/A18, with a F808 engine (F404 + M88 mix). It was a try of the US to kill the Rafale.
 
zrav said:
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?
Click to expand...
The swedish and german problem is nearly the same : engine. With hands tightened in the back with the engine, no free export... no free use.
MTU and VOLVO don't have the whole technology to do so.
 
insidersource said:
The KF-21 block 3 airframe is the perfect Eurofighter replacement. The partner percentages could be:

Germany: 45%
Korea: 45%
Sweden: 10%
Click to expand...
Why do you see the koreans leaving the stakes majority in their program ? They will keep > 50,01%.
 
Scott Kenny said:
?

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.
Click to expand...
Is it so sure? With an announced range of 1000km, is it absolutely essential to carry ASN4G in an internal bay?

Can a combo of a stealth jet with a stealth external weapon be not stealthy at all ?
 
BonPlan2 said:
Is it so sure? With an announced range of 1000km, is it absolutely essential to carry ASN4G in an internal bay?
Click to expand...
It is 1500-1800km from the eastern Polish border to the Ural mountains, Yekaterinburg or Chelyabinsk, etc.

It is 2800-3000km from the French border to the Ural Mountains, so we're talking a 3600-5000km round trip to the launching point.

Internal carriage would greatly reduce the amount of drag the plane would be dealing with on a 3600-5000km mission.



BonPlan2 said:
Can a combo of a stealth jet with a stealth external weapon be not stealthy at all ?
Click to expand...
Absolutely! You have to design the item being carried externally to work with the shape of the carrying aircraft in order to have a stealthy combination.
 
BonPlan2 said:
Why do you see the koreans leaving the stakes majority in their program ? They will keep > 50,01%.
Click to expand...
History shows that is standard practice. Money talks.

Korea would be getting a very good deal being equal share with Germany. Korea originally gave Indonesia 20% share despite Indonesia agreeing to purchase only 50 aircraft. Germany would most likely order 150+ aircraft so 45% seems fair.

Germany's defense budget is 3 times the size of Koreas. KF-21 built in Germany would most likely pick up additional customers. Korea having 45% of a 600 aircraft production run is much more profit/jobs for Korea than the current 92.5% of a ~120 production run.

Germany would give the KF-21 legitimatecy. Germany would be highly valuable when it comes to developing the 6th generation tech to integrate onto the KF-21. Not just funding but also expertise.

If we look at the existing Gripen/Eurofighter/Rafale customers they will all be up for replacement in 10-20 years. The KF-21 would be the ideal replacement for the countries that can't order F-35.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Internal carriage would greatly reduce the amount of drag the plane would be dealing with on a 3600-5000km mission.
Click to expand...
Internal carriage of a full missile of this size is possible only in either a plane approaching the size of J-36, or in a subsonic plane.

I.e., it's a mirage 4 all over, and for obvious reasons, it just won't happen.
In a way, France, on its own, has 3 compromises, and we saw them all.

Either,

You have a specialist theater bomber, but your main fighter will be Mirage 3(aka, light fighter) and its close variants.

or

You have a heavier, longer-ranged light fighter bomber(Mirage 2000), but long-range/nuclear strike will be done by its closely aligned variant.

or

You have a medium-class aircraft, but it does all.

Note that the first two variants didn't allow France to have their own fighter aircraft on their carrier decks.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
t is 1500-1800km from the eastern Polish border to the Ural mountains, Yekaterinburg or Chelyabinsk, etc.

It is 2800-3000km from the French border to the Ural Mountains, so we're talking a 3600-5000km round trip to the launching point.
Click to expand...
with a 1000km missile you can nuc Moscow from Poland border, with margin.
 
BonPlan2 said:
Compare the number of EF2000 germany INTENDED to purchase (to have workshare) and REALITY.....
Click to expand...
Everyone went done in the end as the need died. We see the opposite right now happening while they also bought more than promised in 1997 tho still spain is the only one who bought/ ordered more than they originaly asked for.
 
At ILA 2024 in Berlin, I had a very interesting chat with an executive from Airbus. Aside from the obvious topic of the Typhoon sale to Türkiye, most of our discussion was about the Loyal Wingman concept unveiled during the show. The gentleman offered a lot of insight into the CONOPS and the vision behind the LW design, with tons of references to interoperability with the F-35 and the Typhoon, but not a single word on FCAS. None. Zip.

That caught my attention. After all, such a next-generation armed drone should at least have some sort of alignment with Germany’s future air combat capability, which involves a sixth-generation fighter, drones, PGMs, and whatnot. Still, not a single mention of FCAS.

So I could not resist the urge any longer and asked, “Does the lack of any mention of FCAS anywhere in the program mean something, wink wink?"

The answer was simple, yet clear enough: “No comment,” accompanied by a thin grin.
 
orko_8 said:
At ILA 2024 in Berlin, I had a very interesting chat with an executive from Airbus. Aside from the obvious topic of the Typhoon sale to Türkiye, most of our discussion was about the Loyal Wingman concept unveiled during the show. The gentleman offered a lot of insight into the CONOPS and the vision behind the LW design, with tons of references to interoperability with the F-35 and the Typhoon, but not a single word on FCAS. None. Zip.

That caught my attention. After all, such a next-generation armed drone should at least have some sort of alignment with Germany’s future air combat capability, which involves a sixth-generation fighter, drones, PGMs, and whatnot. Still, not a single mention of FCAS.

So I could not resist the urge any longer and asked, “Does the lack of any mention of FCAS anywhere in the program mean something, wink wink?"

The answer was simple, yet clear enough: “No comment,” accompanied by a thin grin.
Click to expand...
So at least to Airbus, SCAF was dead clear back then.
 
kqcke for you said:
I think it was already dead for both back then
Click to expand...
I may be giving a lot more benefit of the doubt to Dassault than they deserve, then, because I was under the impression that Dassault was still willing to do joint development two years ago.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I may be giving a lot more benefit of the doubt to Dassault than they deserve, then, because I was under the impression that Dassault was still willing to do joint development two years ago.
Click to expand...
Honestly consdering dassaults history i was expecting them to be a lot more agenst the joint program (as compared to airbus wich was created as a joint program).
 
Scott Kenny said:
I may be giving a lot more benefit of the doubt to Dassault than they deserve, then, because I was under the impression that Dassault was still willing to do joint development two years ago.
Click to expand...
The problem is Airbus.
The SCAF have to be driven with french Leadership, where the next gen MBT under German leadership. It was the deal.
In the engine, SAFRAN had clearly the leadership (after some fierce battle with MTU...). Dassault, with its n@uron experience and seeing the administrative burdens of Eurofighter, wanted to be clearly the design leader. Airbus refused.

Result : Dassault has all the knowledge to move alone.
Airbus stall. And SAAB already explained that they are not keen to loose design authority and independance. As Dassault !
 
BonPlan2 said:
The problem is Airbus.
The SCAF have to be driven with french Leadership, where the next gen MBT under German leadership. It was the deal.
In the engine, SAFRAN had clearly the leadership (after some fierce battle with MTU...). Dassault, with its n@uron experience and seeing the administrative burdens of Eurofighter, wanted to be clearly the design leader. Airbus refused.

Result : Dassault has all the knowledge to move alone.
Airbus stall. And SAAB already explained that they are not keen to loose design authority and independance. As Dassault !
Click to expand...
Yes yes its allways only one in the relationship who is the problem.....

How about this stops doing circles every couple days?
 
Last edited:
BonPlan2 said:
The order expected from Germany at the beginning was 250 (same as UK). 165 for Italy and 100 for Spain.
Click to expand...
If you are going into pre fall of the Soviet Union then the ADLA was going to receive 250 Rafales, the MN would receive 86, the USAF would receive 700 ATF´s, the US Navy would receive 600 NATF, the Flygvapnet estimated a fleet of 300 plus JAS...

The 1998 Eurofighter production contract included 180 Luftwaffe Aircrafts.
 
Not James Stockdale said:
The Germans pulled the same thing with the Tornado in the middle of the Cold War.
Click to expand...
Well, generally, persisting with the procurement of unaffordable weapon systems hurts force structure more than not.

If something appears too expensive, in all likelihood, it is.
 
Last edited:
Ainen said:
Well, generally, persisting with the procurement of unaffordable weapon systems hurts force structure more than not.

If something appears too expensive, in all likelihood, it is.
Click to expand...
But when your international program is making industrial-workshare decisions based on artificially inflated procurement numbers, well, that could be called fraud if the inflation was deliberate to get the workshare.
 
Cjc said:
Honestly consdering dassaults history i was expecting them to be a lot more agenst the joint program (as compared to airbus wich was created as a joint program).
Click to expand...
To me, Dassault seemed to be happy as the Prime Contractor/head of design.


BonPlan2 said:
The problem is Airbus.
The SCAF have to be driven with french Leadership, where the next gen MBT under German leadership. It was the deal.
In the engine, SAFRAN had clearly the leadership (after some fierce battle with MTU...). Dassault, with its n@uron experience and seeing the administrative burdens of Eurofighter, wanted to be clearly the design leader. Airbus refused.

Result : Dassault has all the knowledge to move alone.
Airbus stall. And SAAB already explained that they are not keen to loose design authority and independance. As Dassault !
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Scott Kenny said:
To me, Dassault seemed to be happy as the Prime Contractor/head of design.



Exactly.
Click to expand...
Airbus D&S is the prime contractor of the Eurodrone as well. I think that the split of those 3 programs between the two countries was quite fair 10 years ago, it was intended to allow both countries to reinforce their industry without one dominating the other. It should have been successful, I still don't understand why everything fell apart like that.
 
Last edited:
Typical politics I would think Kurapika444, they should keep politics out of developing new military hardware. But who knows they obviously never learn. :rolleyes:
 
DA killed FCAS, and the campaign to do so has been going on for years. Even your king and god, Éric Trappier, openly admits it. DA wanted at least 50% of the NGF and sole decision-making authority. All of this is hidden behind the buzzword “best athlete.” The fact that France is only concerned with its own industrial stakes is clearly evident in the MGCS. If the “best athlete” principle had been applied, KNDS France wouldn’t have been involved in the project in the first place.There was no reason for Spain and Germany to submit to France and DA with FCAS , anyone who demands that is making a fool of themselves.

The technology for FCAS doesn’t exist in Europe, either at Airbus nor at DA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aegrotare said:
DA killed FCAS, and the campaign to do so has been going on for years. Even your king and god, Éric Trappier, openly admits it. DA wanted at least 50% of the NGF and sole decision-making authority. All of this is hidden behind the buzzword “best athlete.” The fact that France is only concerned with its own industrial stakes is clearly evident in the MGCS. If the “best athlete” principle had been applied, KNDS France wouldn’t have been involved in the project in the first place.There was no reason for Spain and Germany to submit to France and DA with FCAS , anyone who demands that is making a fool of themselves.

The technology for FCAS doesn’t exist in Europen, either at Airbus nor at DA.
Click to expand...
But isn't this what Dassault was promised since 2017? That they would get to lead the program as the prime contractor, not be Airbus' co-pilot? The inability of the 3 countries to formally clarify the role of Dassault and Airbus for the NGF pillar is what ultimately killed the program. I don't think Dassault ever hid the fact that they wanted to lead the development of the jet.

FCAS exists within a galaxy of Franco-German led programs: Eurodrone, MGCS, FCAS, CIFS, MAWS. Therefore when discussing FCAS, you have to consider the other programs as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aegrotare said:
The fact that France is only concerned with its own industrial stakes is clearly evident in the MGCS
Click to expand...
huh ?

There seems to be quite a bit of projection in your message. What appears more evident is that Airbus Defence and Space GmbH saw the large increase in German defence spending and the renewed investment in both procurement and the domestic industrial base, and understandably wanted to secure a share of that opportunity. Especially since Rheinmetall was chosen as main partner on the F-35.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, in my view. Germany’s defence budget is expected to exceed that of France + Spain combined in the coming years, so it is natural for major industrial players to position themselves accordingly.

The end of FCAS should be celebrated, no more whining on both sides
 
Last edited:
You are right in saying that the end of FCAS should be celebrated Titus K, it will be interesting to see where France goes with it's own 6th gen fighter program. We will have to wait and see.
 
Aegrotare said:
DA killed FCAS, and the campaign to do so has been going on for years. Even your king and god, Éric Trappier, openly admits it. DA wanted at least 50% of the NGF and sole decision-making authority. All of this is hidden behind the buzzword “best athlete.” The fact that France is only concerned with its own industrial stakes is clearly evident in the MGCS. If the “best athlete” principle had been applied, KNDS France wouldn’t have been involved in the project in the first place.There was no reason for Spain and Germany to submit to France and DA with FCAS , anyone who demands that is making a fool of themselves.

The technology for FCAS doesn’t exist in Europe, either at Airbus nor at DA.
Click to expand...
SOMEONE has to be appointed as leader of the project.

That's why they're called Prime Contractors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scott Kenny said:
SOMEONE has to be appointed as leader of the project.

That's why they're called Prime Contractors.
Click to expand...
There is an alternative model which is to set-up a Joint Venture, like Eurofighter GmbH or Edgewing Systems Ltd (GCAP).

The JV's personnel is multinational, with individuals hired or seconded from each country. They allocate work packages to each country's contractors, often with one contractor leading and other contractors responsible for subcompontents. All of which is managed by the JV to respect the agreed workshare splits.

Problem with the JV model of course is alignment, as every design decision can be endlessly debated or challenged, different design cultures may not agree on the same basic principles, and execution is not as strong with so many cooks in the kitchen.

A good example of that is if you compare at a detailed level how Rafale/Gripen vs. Eurofighter are designed for front line maintenance. The Rafale and Gripen were designed with easy access and line replacement of systems in mind. Simple details like whether hatches are easy to open, using the same tools and few screws, how many systems are in the way that need to be removed to access a specific electronics box, how easy it is to replace an engine, whether you need heavy, dedicated ground support equipment etc. That's because Dassault and Saab each had "their way" of doing things, and they knew what worked based on accumulated experience. On Eurofighter you have a mish mash of different types of access hatches, more screws to remove, more tooling required, systems in the way of each other... all because the individual contractors used different methods. Some were better than others, but overall no one was responsible or able to force everyone to align on a cohesive design approach.
 
Last edited:
I am quite surprised that France, Germany and Spain never thought about doing FCAS as a Joint Venture. To this day I will never know why.
 
Titus K said:
The end of FCAS should be celebrated, no more whining on both sides
Click to expand...
Indeed, sometimes a divorce is better than marriage.

It's just unfortunate that it took so long and went so public. Both sides at least got some development progress out of it.
 
FighterJock said:
I am quite surprised that France, Germany and Spain never thought about doing FCAS as a Joint Venture. To this day I will never know why.
Click to expand...
JV means double the cost for a lower quality end product. Vendor support is also often an issue in the long-run. (Look at Eurofighter or NH90)

The only benefit of a JV is it keeps everyone at the table when there's no natural prime contractor. In this case there was an agreement on paper that Dassault was the natural prime, but then growing unwillingness to let them make design or supplier decisions such as a prime was entitled to do.

Perhaps Dassault made things worse by being tone-deaf or uncooperative... we'll never know what really happened unless people who worked on the actual collaborative teams share their stories one day. Personally I don't trust Airbus DS's motives one bit, as their obstructionism happened right after Germany decided to spend hundreds of billions on defense (partly to make up for decades of underinvestment) and became more comfortable pushing its weight around... too much of a coincidence IMHO and I suspect that Airbus DS decided they could make a play for a much bigger share of that pie by sabotaging FCAS.
 
Last edited:
Titus K said:
huh ?

There seems to be quite a bit of projection in your message. What appears more evident is that Airbus Defence and Space GmbH saw the large increase in German defence spending and the renewed investment in both procurement and the domestic industrial base, and understandably wanted to secure a share of that opportunity. Especially since Rheinmetall was chosen as main partner on the F-35.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, in my view. Germany’s defence budget is expected to exceed that of France + Spain combined in the coming years, so it is natural for major industrial players to position themselves accordingly.
Click to expand...
Again it was DA that pushed to end this project because they wanted more of the pie, thats not a secret. Airbus just made it more public.
Titus K said:
The end of FCAS should be celebrated, no more whining on both sides
Click to expand...
You are right about that.
Scott Kenny said:
SOMEONE has to be appointed as leader of the project.

That's why they're called Prime Contractors.
Click to expand...
Yes that leader was France, and France pretty much got everything they wanted besides a blanco check.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom