NEWS ONLY: France-Germany-Spain Future Combat Air System (FCAS / SCAF / FSAC)

[red admiral]

• "We have already finalized the design, tested the shape in the wind tunnel, now we have to manufacture the aircraft". However, "the reality is that we have an organization that isn't optimal for making an ambitious demonstrator"
• "Most of the parts are Rafale parts" including the M88 engine, "because Eurofighter does not want to give us these parts"

Any idea what "finalized the design" means? Could be anything from out of the concept phase to past Critical Design Review and all parts released. If it's another 4-5 years before flight then I'd assume it's a lot closer to the first of these.

It's no good Eurofighter GmBH just giving Dassault "parts". They'd also need to transfer the associated design data in order for them to be used which obviously has significant IP as well as providing detailed information on Typhoon itself - which would be transferred for nothing in return. It's not about "copying".

 

[H_K]

It's no good Eurofighter GmBH just giving Dassault "parts". They'd also need to transfer the associated design data in order for them to be used which obviously has significant IP as well as providing detailed information on Typhoon itself - which would be transferred for nothing in return. It's not about "copying".

Agreed. I think the interesting question is who owns the Eurofighter IP, and who has the rights to release / reuse it?

For example, can Germany and Spain take the Eurofighter IP and contribute is as part of their share of SCAF/NGF? Or is it up to the individual companies like Airbus DS, and only for the components they are responsible for? Do they need sign off from Eurofighter or from other partner countries? With what restrictions or strings attached?

I can see how these practical IP hurdles can lead to a statement like the one above, ie. Dassault being frustrated with how little the other partners are bringing to the table.

 

[H_K]

Remember also that GE Aerospace reportedly holds a 46.2% stake in TEI and TEI has been producing multiple engines (incl F110) and parts under licence so it isn't as though TEI has no experience to tap into.

TEI has production experience, but no design experience, and even less materials experience for the engine hot section.

In engine manufacturing terms, that means they know almost nothing really useful. What little they do know may come wrapped in US technology and licensing restrictions, so is no good to the FCAS partners.

If Dassault needed a 35,000lbf engine and was desperate, then I’m sure Snecma could take the M88 core, scale it up, and wrap a new higher bypass cold section around it, in less time and with better results than what TEI is going to be able to achieve.

 

[TomcatViP]

The M88 has no modern nozzle. It's gonna be a lot of money to bring it to a modern/stealthy/Thrust vectoring real capability.

Trappier is referencing the Eurojet as is was the base (core) of the 3 streams engine in the UK-French joint FCAS engine program.
I think he has some credits stating such. If my mem stands right, €1.5b Brits and French taxpayers money were spent on the thing. At least a bit should contribute to what FCAS is to be today.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Long Q&A interview with Dassault CEO Eric Trappier, with a few NGF updates:

• First flight of the NGF demonstrator in 2029-30.
• "We have already finalized the design, tested the shape in the wind tunnel, now we have to manufacture the aircraft". However, "the reality is that we have an organization that isn't optimal for making an ambitious demonstrator"
• "Most of the parts are Rafale parts" including the M88 engine, "because Eurofighter does not want to give us these parts"
• NGF will weigh "33 or 34 tonnes"

https://www.challenges.fr/entrepris...nois-les-verites-du-patron-de-dassault_605879

So, F-15C MTOW, not even Tomcat.

Smaller than I expected.

 

[red admiral]

Agreed. I think the interesting question is who owns the Eurofighter IP, and who has the rights to release / reuse it?

Pretty sure its the joint company i.e. Eurofighter GmBH in this case. (Or this is normal at least). Its not individual countries or companies. But he individual countries do have more general technology experience that can be shared - just not that specific product. It would also be interesting to know how much IP / data from Rafale that Dassault is sharing with Airbus for this.

A follow up question would be who will own the IP for the joint NGF?

It gets complex very quickly

 

[totoro]

Sounds about right fit for the 3 nations plus most of their usual customers. After all, unlike gcap and f47, it's not designed to be used in the Pacific against China.

 

[Sintra]

TEI has production experience, but no design experience, and even less materials experience for the engine hot section.

In engine manufacturing terms, that means they know almost nothing really useful. What little they do know may come wrapped in US technology and licensing restrictions, so is no good to the FCAS partners.

If Dassault needed a 35,000lbf engine and was desperate, then I’m sure Snecma could take the M88 core, scale it up, and wrap a new higher bypass cold section around it, in less time and with better results than what TEI is going to be able to achieve.

Suspect that the bit of Eurofighter IP that Dassault would like to use is actually owned by Eurojet Turbo Gmbh.

 

[TomcatViP]

33-34 tonnes metric.

Assuming that’s a mission weight loaded with at least internal weapons that’s not really surprising, given that a clean F-15E is 28.5 tonnes (with CFTs and PW-229 engines ) and a clean Mirage IVA is 27.5 tonnes (with conformal ventral tank). Add 2-3 tonnes of internal weapons (A2G mission) and you’re in the same ballpark.

Thanks. But you are also mixing lb and kg with the IV and 15 reference.
The IV MGTOW is 33+t, metric (plus the scrap of earth that went up with them at every Jato takeoff)

 

[Hood]

I can't tell from that interview if Trappier is being serious or not. 40 years ago Dassault and SNECMA waltzed away from the EJ200 and Eurojet. I'm not sure what he is really referring to when he says 'parts'.
Safran is leading the SCAF engine but is partnered with MTU, who have a 33% stake in Eurojet Turbo GmbH.
MTU's responsibilities for the EJ200 are the LP and HP and the Digital Engine Control and Monitoring Unit. I guess the IP is tied up within Eurojet Turbo GmbH though.

Trappier still seems to want to be a one-man band. He is more or less implying they have done all the work and could build a cool demonstrator if only it wasn't for the pesky Airbus and Eurofighter folks forcing him to actually build a warmed-over Rafale with lo-viz shaping.

 

[Archibald]

I can't tell from that interview if Trappier is being serious or not. 40 years ago Dassault and SNECMA waltzed away from the EJ200 and Eurojet. I'm not sure what he is really referring to when he says 'parts'.
Safran is leading the SCAF engine but is partnered with MTU, who have a 33% stake in Eurojet Turbo GmbH.
MTU's responsibilities for the EJ200 are the LP and HP and the Digital Engine Control and Monitoring Unit. I guess the IP is tied up within Eurojet Turbo GmbH though.

Trappier still seems to want to be a one-man band. He is more or less implying they have done all the work and could build a cool demonstrator if only it wasn't for the pesky Airbus and Eurofighter folks forcing him to actually build a warmed-over Rafale with lo-viz shaping.

Some elements: Safran has eaten Turbomeca a decade ago, and gained their expertise in aero turbines. A looooong time ago in the 1950's Turbomeca tried their hand at turbojets (and competing with SNECMA) with the Gabizo - and it blew in their faces. Whatever, this means that Safran has aero turbine knowledge inherited from Turbomeca.

Meanwhile SNECMA military turbofan legacy, painfully learned since 1948, is considered a national strategic asset by the French government. Because building military jet engines is so damn hard, and it took SNECMA three atempts to get to the top. Atar was rugged but lasted way too long; M53 was leaky turbojet not on par with F100 / F101 / F110.

Which bring us to the M88. It was indeed one of three major obstacles that led to the Rafale / Typhoon split, the other two being a) naval fighter empty weight of 8-10 tons and b) nuclear strike.

Bottom line: SNECMA knows they have a strategic asset between their hands (a fully indigenous military turbofan capability, let's call it that way) and they won't budge over this, IMHO (or the french government won't).

With EJ200 legacy being split between three nations (RR Great Britain, Germany, Spain) it is no surprise the SCAF engine proves to be a headache.
It is kinda Turbomeca vs SNECMA vs "RR -and their EJ200 partners" that is Germany and Spain.

A case could be make that the reshuffling of Typhoon / Rafale "team nations" is creating headaches. Back in 1987, it was (almost)
-Rafale = France plus Spain
-Typhoon = GB + Germany + Italy

Now, compares that to a) SCAF / GCAP own nations groups* and b) how the european aerospace industry has changed and merged since 1985, 40 years ago when the Rafale / Typhoon split happened.

*SCAF: France plus Spain plus Germany
*GCAP: GB + italy

This totally reshuffles the Typhoon / Rafale respective "blocks". No surprise the whole thing is a quagmire.

 

[red admiral]

I can't tell from that interview if Trappier is being serious or not.

That is also my impression. I can't tell whether it's his actual view, a PR line to take, or massively sarcastic.

 

[Archibald]

That is also my impression. I can't tell whether it's his actual view, a PR line to take, or massively sarcastic.

Or just a little baffled lol.

 

[galgot]

That is also my impression. I can't tell whether it's his actual view, a PR line to take, or massively sarcastic.

He was been sarcastic, just banter.
Ever since the Eurofighter split, I've heard these kind of jokes occasionally from time to time. Remember Serge Dassault talking about "les entrées d'air en forme de poubelles du demonstrator Anglais" ("the dustbin-shaped air intakes on the English demonstrator") at the time of EFA demonstrator.

Basically Dassault sees ( right or wrong, and caricaturing ) the other big European manufacturers as :
BAe, le perfide Anglois, their main competitor, a European taking big part in the F-35 = can't trust them.
Airbus, the autistic giant gaz powerplant who doesn't know how to build a combat plane alone, and that the Fr Gov forces them to work with cause he doesn't have enough €€ to fund a new fighter alone.
The others...

Dassault know they are capable of doing a new fighter alone without the bother of having to deal with others (and I tend to agree with that), problem of course is funding. France can't pay for it alone.

 

[damawo]

When comparing FCAS Vs GCAP planned entries into service, do not forget the Japan factor. Japanese have been running a 5th Gen fighter program well before UK or France were teaming on the FCAS as it was known then.
Japan initially found positive inputs teaming with the UK industry that had a long reliable history developing 5th gen systems (and then with Italy).
That's why GCAP is planned to come earlier, unless something get wrong on the way.

I want to correct this part.
Japanese future fighter R&D project is also for next generation of 5thgen(not only next generation fighter project).
"Research and prototyping for Virtual Vehicle for the future fighter system in 2015 = 将来戦闘機システムのバーチャル・ビークルの研究試作"'s based recruitment shows same idea with now talking for GCAP(stealth, cognitive computing with RF and optical sensor, real time threat/awarness leaning, UAV capability, handling big data and data link, plug & active with open architecture, countering 5thgen fighter...) .
And individual component and technology to achieve this VVidea were developed in parallel and tested with FTB(F-2, T-4, UP-3, C-2... around 2018-2020)
Some research were started around 2013.

 

[BonPlan2]

Which bring us to the M88. It was indeed one of three major obstacles that led to the Rafale / Typhoon split, the other two being a) naval fighter empty weight of 8-10 tons and b) nuclear strike.

Bottom line: SNECMA knows they have a strategic asset between their hands (a fully indigenous military turbofan capability, let's call it that way) and they won't budge over this, IMHO (or the french government won't).

We can add that R&R wanted to developp a bigger engine than needed (the futur EJ200, coming from XG40 demonstrator) to replace the too weak RB199 in the ADV variant.... replacement that was never made.

 

[BonPlan2]

Dassault know they are capable of doing a new fighter alone without the bother of having to deal with others (and I tend to agree with that), problem of course is funding. France can't pay for it alone.

It was already said 40 years ago with Rafale....

 

[TomcatViP]

34t of a fighter is a lot of money... For what... Unrefueled range?
France has enough territory around the world to slingshot a Cessna to circum navigate the globe from one place to another. That gigantism is the wrong equation to solve the wrong problem.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Spare range can translate into endurance, and vice versa, though.

 

[TomcatViP]

Yes, of course, but endurance is done at best reduced power setting with a light weight configuration when long range strike penetration is at max cruise with heavy weapons...
A long range striker will always be heavier.

 

[Archibald]

It was already said 40 years ago with Rafale....

Well fact is that funding the Rafale across the 1990's and Peace Dividends proved to be a giant PITA. Just ask the Aéronavale : she needed Rafale M in 1996, got them in 2001 or, more realistically, in 2004.
Then again, Germany and its reunification burden did no good to the Typhoon...

I still have (somewhere) a newspaper scrap from February 1993 saying "320 Rafales, confirmés." We are still a long way from that number - or never at all.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

So, F-15C MTOW, not even Tomcat.

Smaller than I expected.

It's right around Tomcat or Su-33 size. Remember this thing needs to operate from the deck of PANG. If anything, 34 tonnes is as big as it can get.

Safran is leading the SCAF engine

Safran and MTU Turbo have equal stakes in EUMET.

 

[galgot]

It was already said 40 years ago with Rafale....

Agree, but alas, prices of each new generation of these flying beauties keep growing faster than the GDP.
Anyway, we'll see..

 

[red admiral]

We can add that R&R wanted to developp a bigger engine than needed (the futur EJ200, coming from XG40 demonstrator) to replace the too weak RB199 in the ADV variant.... replacement that was never made.

I don't understand this

EJ200 is bigger than M88 because it was to go in Typhoon that is heavier and had some higher air vehicle performance requirements than Rafale which drove higher thrust/weight. Combined these mean that EJ200 had to have higher thrust - it's not "bigger than needed"

I don't think there was ever a serious* plan for EJ200 in Tornado ADV. The push was for a new agile airframe, and lots of effort done to try to keep RB.199 derivatives.

Not much more serious than EJ200 in Hawk

 

[Mike Pryce]

I don't understand this

EJ200 is bigger than M88 because it was to go in Typhoon that is heavier and had some higher air vehicle performance requirements than Rafale which drove higher thrust/weight. Combined these mean that EJ200 had to have higher thrust - it's not "bigger than needed"

I don't think there was ever a serious* plan for EJ200 in Tornado ADV. The push was for a new agile airframe, and lots of effort done to try to keep RB.199 derivatives.

Not much more serious than EJ200 in Hawk

There was a plan to retrofit Tornado F.3 right at the outset of EFA with what the UK called the RB.540, also to be used in the P.120. It was basically a production XG.40. The only residual outcome was being able to fly early EFAs with RB199s as the EJ200 retained the same basic fan size/mass flow as the RB.540.

This also allowed UK/RR to claim key work share based on a bigger market, and dictate engine size, once collaborative horse trading started.

In no way was this meant to stiff the French M88 in the five nation FEFA.

Ahem.

 

[Scott Kenny]

34t of a fighter is a lot of money... For what... Unrefueled range?
France has enough territory around the world to slingshot a Cessna to circum navigate the globe from one place to another. That gigantism is the wrong equation to solve the wrong problem.

1) It takes a big airframe to hold 4x Taurus/Storm Shadows/ASMP or whatever internally. Big airframe = heavy airframe.

2) It's a strike fighter, so it's' carrying at least 12,000lbs of ordnance for a conventional mission.

3) big airframe can hold lots of fuel, and fuel is not light.

 

[kqcke for you]

34t of a fighter is a lot of money... For what... Unrefueled range?
France has enough territory around the world to slingshot a Cessna to circum navigate the globe from one place to another. That gigantism is the wrong equation to solve the wrong problem.

Well kinda because you have a lot of everything more and this giant hole for you're weapons. Afterall we can put them outside anymore but we also need an advanced EW Suite for example.

 

[TomcatViP]

1) It takes a big airframe to hold 4x Taurus/Storm Shadows/ASMP or whatever internally. Big airframe = heavy airframe.

2) It's a strike fighter, so it's' carrying at least 12,000lbs of ordnance for a conventional mission.

3) big airframe can hold lots of fuel, and fuel is not light.

1. VLO aircraft don´t need Taurus, Storm Shadows or ASMP...

2. There isn´t much need for a full weapon load to be carried internally. First, a VLO carries all its fuel more efficiently internally (no EFT that are part of the max ordonnance weight). Secondly, If that is the case that you need to turn up with 12000lb on every mission, you are not looking for a strike fighter but for a light bomber, a forgotten category that would fit many adjunct program...

3. Internal Fuel is light: it´s efficiently carried in structural tanks and depletes sympathetically in large portion before any hard maneuvering have to be done.*

I would like also emphasize that the trend to use drone warfare to populate military operations is a loud call for a fleet of light to medium affordable interceptors, something that a stealth heavy fighter is certainly not. Who´s gonna protect your home infra while the integrality of your defense budget for fighter a/c is drawn away on expeditionary operations?**

And last but not least, today, 200 Israeli light to medium aircraft reminded all AF top brass around the world that they can strike deep hitting strategic targets very efficiently (no loss reported with 100 different targets hit).

South China Sea in red with hidden China coast line Vs Middle East in blue (Israel is the notch on the left and Iran the top blob on the extreme right) :


*Think early F-101
**You can't go Genghis Khan, rampaging and looting cattle, water and oats. Those armored vehicles, tanks, ship, aircraft need spare parts, electronics and software upgrade engineered and built in your home country.

Edito:
The all problem lies, I am afraid, in the semantics drift that rebranded all abroad operations those last 20 years as expeditionary fights. Implicit was the colonial sense of a far and out of reach event.

Well, sadly, there isn't much of that in a 21st century peer to peer confrontation and, Ukraine and the Middle East wars even tell us that, it's even less and less the case against a determined opponent, at whatever military strength he is evaluated.

 

[kqcke for you]

1. VLO aircraft don´t need Taurus, Storm Shadows or ASMP...

There was the news that france wanted to have the capability to carry ASMP/ the replacement internaly.

 

[VTOLicious]

33-34 tonnes metric.

Assuming that’s a mission weight loaded with at least internal weapons that’s not really surprising, given that a clean F-15E is 28.5 tonnes (with CFTs and PW-229 engines ) and a clean Mirage IVA is 27.5 tonnes (with conformal ventral tank). Add 2-3 tonnes of internal weapons (A2G mission) and you’re in the same ballpark.

And it is less than F-22 after all... Actually it's between F-35 (30t) and F-22 (38t) MTOM.

 

[BonPlan2]

I don't understand this

EJ200 is bigger than M88 because it was to go in Typhoon that is heavier and had some higher air vehicle performance requirements than Rafale which drove higher thrust/weight. Combined these mean that EJ200 had to have higher thrust - it's not "bigger than needed"

I don't think there was ever a serious* plan for EJ200 in Tornado ADV. The push was for a new agile airframe, and lots of effort done to try to keep RB.199 derivatives.

Not much more serious than EJ200 in Hawk

It was possible to make a nice air defense fighter with 2 x 7.5 tons engine, or 2 x 8 tons.
The 9Tons was also (but not only) driven by the RAF need to change the engines of the fat Tornado ADV. Tornado ADV with turbo union engines was very apathic.

 

[Scott Kenny]

1. VLO aircraft don´t need Taurus, Storm Shadows or ASMP...

Sure they do, if you want a standoff weapon.

Otherwise you need to design a VLO bomb. (cue the scene from a Clancy book where the B-2 was invisible but the 2000lb bombs it was dropping were very visible and promptly got blasted out of the sky so the target was undamaged.)

2. There isn´t much need for a full weapon load to be carried internally. First, a VLO carries all its fuel more efficiently internally (no EFT that are part of the max ordonnance weight). Secondly, If that is the case that you heed to turn up with 12000lb on every mission, you are not looking for a strike fighter but for a light bomber, a forgotten category that would fit many adjunct program...

External carriage is not stealthy. End of discussion.

At the very least, you're talking about an aircraft carrying 4x2000lb bombs internally as your "heavy strike fighter". Weapons like LRASM or ASALM are pushing 3000lbs each, and are ~25" wide so you could be able to hang 3x 2000lb bombs (or SDB quad racks) in the space of 2x LRASM.

• Let's run a quick example "light" loadout for SEAD/DEAD: 2x AARGM-ER plus some AGM-154Cs. That would be ~4500lbs plus AAMs, probably a total of 5500-6000lbs.
• Assuming bays more or less the same size as I have been expecting for the FAXX, it's stuffing at least 5x AAMs in each of two main bays for a total of at least 10x AAMs plus whatever fits in the side bays. Meteor AAMs are ~450lbs each, so that's 4500lbs plus the side AAM bays, probably 5500-6000lbs again.
• Assuming super sidekicks in those same bays, you can fit up to 8x AAMs per bay for a total of 16x AAMs plus side bays. Again using Meteors, that's ~7200lbs plus side bays, probably 8200-8700lbs.
• A heavy combat air patrol mission would be 4x AIM-174/equivalents plus lighter AAMs, so again probably 9500lbs total.
• A strategic load would be 4x ASMPs, ~8000lbs plus AAMs, probably 9500lbs total.
• Heavy strike would be 4x 2000lb bombs plus AAMs, probably 9500lbs total.
• Heavy antiship mission you're looking at 4x~3000lb weapons, 12,000lbs plus AAMs.
• High-supersonic standoff weapons run about 2700lbs, 4 of those makes ~10,800lbs plus AAMs.

Also, don't forget that the F-35 is a 70,000lb aircraft. It only carries ~5000lbs internally, too.

3. Internal Fuel is light: it´s efficiently carried in structural tanks and deplete sympathetically in large portion before any hard maneuvering have to be done.*
[...]
*Think early F-101

Depends on how much range you want, and how thirsty your engines are.

But yes, ideally you'd burn half your fuel before you start maneuvering. Thing is, an F-35 carries 18,000lbs of fuel. So does an F-22. Both of those are considered annoyingly short ranged.

So we're probably talking on the order of 28,000lbs of fuel.

I would like also emphasize that the trend to use drone warfare to populate military operations is a loud call for fleet of light to medium affordable interceptor, something that a stealth heavy fighter is certainly not. Who´s gonna protect your home infra while the integrality of your defense budget for fighter a/c is drawn away on expeditionary operations?

That is not what SCAF is supposed to be. SCAF is supposed to be a heavy strike fighter that can also do air-to-air, basically a French F/A-XX.

Frankly, it may come down to whatever light trainer is used having the CCA control gear installed so that the trainer is controlling the cloud of AAM spear carrier drones for national defense.

 

[TomcatViP]

How brilliantly efficient that would be! A Mach 0.9 aircraft trying to intercept hundreds of cheap flying bombs via dozen millions dollars subsonic drones trying to place themselves in position to shoot hundred of thousands dollars munitions for a kill...

If you are modeling your defense posture on Uber Eat, I should tell you that's not the right way but to make money.

 

[TomcatViP]

There was the news that france wanted to have the capability to carry ASMP/ the replacement internaly.

To save the volume of a bomb bay (and hence MGTOW), old Dassault choose a semi-conformal carriage under the Mirage IV belly. Why wouldn´t that be possible for a very specific weapon proprietary of a single airframe? (see how LM added bumps on the F-35 doors bay to add contoured volume to the larger weapons sets).

 

[red admiral]

It was possible to make a nice air defense fighter with 2 x 7.5 tons engine, or 2 x 8 tons.
The 9Tons was also (but not only) driven by the RAF need to change the engines of the fat Tornado ADV. Tornado ADV with turbo union engines was very apathic.

There was a clear UK requirement for a higher performance fighter that resulted in the larger Eurofighter with higher thrust larger engines. A smaller aircraft was viewed as an unacceptable loss in capability.

https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/our-history/air-historical-branch/post-coldwar-studies/eurofightertyphoonpart1coldwarorigins1

 

[NikolasTz]

The PDF comes from ONERA's research; it's in French, but you can read it using a translation.

https://onera.fr/sites/default/files/espace-presse/dossier-de-presse/pas25/Fiche%20TITANS_2025%20VF.pdf

 

[EmoBirb]

VLO aircraft don´t need Taurus, Storm Shadows or ASMP

I'm not sure I'd agree, using stealthy stand off munitions for a stealth aircraft has only benefits with virtually no disadvantages.

However I would agree that these munitions are probably too bulky and not suited for the project at all. I expect a bespoke ALCMs similar to the Kh-69 for the FCAS in the future. Something that's deliberately designed around the NGF and has the corresponding form factor and most likely further improvements with regards to signature reduction.

 

[Scott Kenny]

To save the volume of a bomb bay (and hence MGTOW), old Dassault choose a semi-conformal carriage under the Mirage IV belly. Why wouldn´t that be possible for a very specific weapon proprietary of a single airframe? (see how LM added bumps on the F-35 doors bay to add contoured volume to the larger weapons sets).

Conformal carriage is good for low drag.

It is terrible for RCS.

ASMP/replacement will be internal carriage so that the SCAF is VLO.

I'm not sure I'd agree, using stealthy stand off munitions for a stealth aircraft has only benefits with virtually no disadvantages.

Exactly.

However I would agree that these munitions are probably too bulky and not suited for the project at all. I expect a bespoke ALCMs similar to the Kh-69 for the FCAS in the future. Something that's deliberately designed around the NGF and has the corresponding form factor and most likely further improvements with regards to signature reduction.

Almost certainly, but I expect the SCAF main bays to be designed around ASMP "box factor," ~5.4m long and at least a 380mm square box (I don't have a number for wingspan of the non-folding tail fins, but it looks like each fin is at least 380mm long, so ~800mm square box)

I did find a mention of the ASN4G, a 1000km range hypersonic under development.

 

[Pepin]

Almost certainly, but I expect the SCAF main bays to be designed around ASMP "box factor," ~5.4m long and at least a 380mm square box (I don't have a number for wingspan of the non-folding tail fins, but it looks like each fin is at least 380mm long, so ~800mm square box)

I did find a mention of the ASN4G, a 1000km range hypersonic under development.

To be precise, the ASMP will have long been replaced by the ASN4G by the time SCAF is operational. So there won’t be a need to carry an ASMP internall ... just something even bigger, haha !

By approx 2035, the ASN4G will enter service on the Rafale, in the new nuclear squadrons based in Luxeuil. At the same time as the UCAV I believe.

France To Expand Its Nuclear Deterrent With New Air Base

Luxeuil Air Base will receive 40 new Rafales and hypersonic missiles at a time when Europe looks for ways to expand its own nuclear protections. Luxeuil Air Base will receive 40 new Rafales and hypersonic missiles as NATO nations in Europe look at ways to expand their nuclear deterrence.

www.twz.com

But anyway, is really realistic to carry such massive missiles internally on a carrier based fighter ?
It sure would make things easier if we didn't have to make a naval variant of the scaf.

 

[Scott Kenny]

To be precise, the ASMP will have long replaced the ASN4G by the time SCAF is operational. So there won’t be a need to carry an ASMP internall ... just something even bigger, haha !

Fair enough. I was not sure about the expected introduction time of the ASN4G.

But anyway, is really realistic to carry such massive missiles internally on a carrier based fighter ?

Only because the land-based strike fighter will be carrying them.

~33-34 tonnes is a big plane, roughly Tomcat sized. Can you picture a Tomcat carrying 2+ ASMPs?

It sure would make things easier if we didn't have to make a naval variant of the scaf.

The only place it's really causing problems is the size of the weapons bay(s). You can more or less trade 9gees on the land-based plane for 7.5 gees on the carrier-based plane.

You get an overbuilt landing gear and wing/gear box for a land-based plane, but it's also got lots of high-lift equipment and a nice slow landing speed.

Remember, the F-4 Phantom was a carrier heavy fighter and was probably the single most-produced jet fighter ever.