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

www.flightglobal.com

Dassault ready to unveil Neuron-successor UCAV for French air force

The French air force's future unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) will break cover during the Paris air show, with developer Dassault Aviation to reveal a model of the type within its static display.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
“A pre-development contract is ongoing,” General Arvind Badrinath, head of combat air for France’s DGA defence procurement body, told FlightGlobal in a pre-show interview. “The next phase is to launch the development activity that will lead to a first prototype.”
Click to expand...
The UCAV will be paired with the future F5 standard of Dassault’s Rafale, followed from 2040 by the introduction of a New Generation Fighter.
Click to expand...

Bad omen for RRC for sure.
 
Interesting Pepin, that is the first time that I have heard that one squadron of naval Rafales is qualified for nuclear strike from the CdG. I would have thought that they would qualify all the naval squadrons for the nuclear role just in case they need them.
 
FighterJock said:
Interesting Pepin, that is the first time that I have heard that one squadron of naval Rafales is qualified for nuclear strike from the CdG. I would have thought that they would qualify all the naval squadrons for the nuclear role just in case they need them.
Click to expand...
That introduces a whole pile of paperwork and extra restrictions on personnel that aren't really necessary.
 
FighterJock said:
Thanks Scott Kenny, I did not know that.
Click to expand...
You're welcome.

It's only something that those who dealt with it tend to be aware of. Completely ridiculous levels of paperwork, required reading, continuous interviews about your opinions on following laws.

We had to fire one Missile Tech on the Georgia, in one of the regular personnel reviews he got asked if he would buy marijuana if his mother had cancer. He answered yes. And he was fired because he would knowingly violate a law, you cannot be a US weapons tech if you're willing to do that.

When I came home on leave that next cycle, I told the story to my dad and stepmom, and then told them for the record that if they got cancer they were to shut up and eat the brownies. Fortunately, we haven't had to execute that plan, though we've had some close calls.

I did have some required reading as part of this, but nowhere near as much as the guys directly involved. Everyone on the sub is Reaction Forces, even if you only push paper as your official job. So I had a small set of things to read, all security and response related. The Radiomen had a different set of things to read. Missile techs had an even bigger set of things to read.
 

Airbus Expects Bumpy Ride In FCAS Negotiations | Aviation Week Network

Airbus executives appear to be expecting a less than smooth ride as they negotiate the next stage of development for the pan-European Future Combat Air System.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

Adaptive-Cycle Engine Eyed To Power European Future Combat Air System | Aviation Week Network

The trinational engine effort aims to bring adaptive-cycle power and propulsion to the Future Combat Air System fighter.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

Phase 2 poised to start on 2026, as mentioned before, and would cost €4.5 billion. FCAS NGF system configuration will be decided by 2H of 2026 (if they don't repeat the PH1B problems, that is). Three options exist : one that focuses on traditional "fighter attributes", one that has focus on "remote-carrier capability" and the last finding a balance between the two.

EUMET and its partner ITP have offered two options for the powerplant and will be decided accordingly following the decision on NGF system configuration. Probably one conventional low bypass and another being VCE. NGF engine will have 30~40% higher thrust than M88 or EJ200. EUMET (MTU in the article) is actively pushing for VCE option. Engine developmental prototypes will be ready by early 2030s, followed by "more refined prototypes" (probably EMD representative?) to support NGF flight testing will be ready by mid 2030s.

Before the EUMET prototype is developed, they will develop a demonstrator engine based on M88, adapting the base design with new technologies. Work will begin in late 2026 following Phase 2 initiation, and the demonstrator engine programme will "run through to around 2029".

5 classes of remote carrier designs are being explored, varying in size, weight and intended role, as well as expendability/attritability. MBDA is already going through the flight trials of their ERC, the SHARCS (Small Highly Adaptable Remote Carrier System) in Germany since last summer.
 
Now, there's one thing that leaves me wondering, and that's the proposed engine thrust.

Even if we take the upper end on the estimate, 40% increase of thrust over EJ200, that leaves us with 18.900lbf dry and 28.000lbf reheat thrust. That is around the same ballpark as F110-GE-129 or F100-PW-229. Personally those figures seems very conservative for an engine meant for next generation fighter (that is going to be nearly as heavy as F-15E) that will be introduced in early 2040s.

Perhaps they want to keep the EUMET engine as small as EJ200? If they could achieve the same thrust level as GE-129 or PW-229 on a much smaller EJ200 class engine, that would make things much more easier for them to increase internal fuel fraction and weapons bay size. Though even if the new EUMET engine is M88~EJ200 sized, 30~40% increase in thrust is still around the same class of thrust as enhanced variants of EJ200 and M88 that were proposed in the early 2000s and 2010s. Those enhanced thrust variants generally called for increase in EPR, TIT (around 2200K) and mass flow.

On the other had, unlike those enhanced version of EJ200 and M88, the new EUMET engine would also be required to generate multiple times the electricity compared to EJ200 and M88, so it makes sense that the thrust increase could be rather limited. Balance between thrust, electricity generation and engine operational life is a zero-sum game, after all.
 
Pepin said:
I believe one of the navy’s Rafale squadron is qualified for nuclear strike from the CdG ?
They’ll probably want the same for the SCAF/PANG.
Click to expand...

You send me down a rabbit hole ! What I found is that, indeed, 12F is qualified ASMP-A. But how about the other two Rafale M squadrons, that is 11F and 17F ? couldn't find a clear answer. Will dig that further. I've asked it at airdefense.net forum.
But that's not the Rafale discussion thread here (and, drats, I've just remember I self banned from it because well ------)
 
Last edited:
Maro.Kyo said:
Now, there's one thing that leaves me wondering, and that's the proposed engine thrust.

Even if we take the upper end on the estimate, 40% increase of thrust over EJ200, that leaves us with 18.900lbf dry and 28.000lbf reheat thrust. That is around the same ballpark as F110-GE-129 or F100-PW-229. Personally those figures seems very conservative for an engine meant for next generation fighter (that is going to be nearly as heavy as F-15E) that will be introduced in early 2040s.

Perhaps they want to keep the EUMET engine as small as EJ200? If they could achieve the same thrust level as GE-129 or PW-229 on a much smaller EJ200 class engine, that would make things much more easier for them to increase internal fuel fraction and weapons bay size. Though even if the new EUMET engine is M88~EJ200 sized, 30~40% increase in thrust is still around the same class of thrust as enhanced variants of EJ200 and M88 that were proposed in the early 2000s and 2010s. Those enhanced thrust variants generally called for increase in EPR, TIT (around 2200K) and mass flow.

On the other had, unlike those enhanced version of EJ200 and M88, the new EUMET engine would also be required to generate multiple times the electricity compared to EJ200 and M88, so it makes sense that the thrust increase could be rather limited. Balance between thrust, electricity generation and engine operational life is a zero-sum game, after all.
Click to expand...
The F35 is a 30ton fighter with 190kN thrust.
Fcas with 33ton mtow and 240-250kN thrust and VCE dont seem bad at all.
 
Well, first, we don't know what base weight Trappier was referencing to. Empty, Gross, Max?!! Are you in the know yourself?
Secondly, the F-35 empty weight in METRIC tons (hence in 1000kg) is 13t and the Gross weight 22.5t. That Absolutely not bad and help to explain the super maneuverability demonstrated in public at airshows around the world...
Then, Trappier mumbling around the Eurojet should make us understand that no VCE is yet available to FCAS as the FCAS powerplant UK/French funded program was engineered around an EJ200 core...

So where do you get those numbers?

Regarding electrical power generation, GCAP got an EGD since inception. I have no doubts that original FCAS powerplant got a similar application.
(Proof? you can see in renders that the GCAP bypass tubes are most certainly not metallics)
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Well, first, we don't know what base weight Trappier was referencing to. Empty, Gross, Max?!! Are you in the know yourself?
Secondly, the F-35 empty weight in METRIC tons (hence in 1000kg) is 13t and the Gross weight 22.5t. That Absolutely not bad and help to explain the super maneuverability demonstrated in public at airshows around the world...
Then, Trappier mumbling around the Eurojet should make us understand that no VCE is yet available to FCAS as the FCAS powerplant UK/French funded program was engineered around an EJ200 core...

So where do you get those numbers?
Click to expand...
No i dont know. But most likely mtow. As it would not be able to take of with a 33000kg empty weight and 2 120kN engines.

33000kg gross weight? That point to a 20000+kg empty weight fighter. Doubt anyone would put 2 120kN engines on a 20+ton empty weight fighter aircraft.

I think the model of FCAS that they unveiled 5-6 years ago is pretty close to the real thing. Bigger than F35 but smaller than F22.

I was not slaming the performance of the F35, but trying to point out to Maro.kyo that 240-250kN of thrust does not have to be low if the mtow is 33-34 tons
 
Last edited:
Maro.Kyo said:
Now, there's one thing that leaves me wondering, and that's the proposed engine thrust.

Even if we take the upper end on the estimate, 40% increase of thrust over EJ200, that leaves us with 18.900lbf dry and 28.000lbf reheat thrust. That is around the same ballpark as F110-GE-129 or F100-PW-229. Personally those figures seems very conservative for an engine meant for next generation fighter (that is going to be nearly as heavy as F-15E) that will be introduced in early 2040s.

Perhaps they want to keep the EUMET engine as small as EJ200? If they could achieve the same thrust level as GE-129 or PW-229 on a much smaller EJ200 class engine, that would make things much more easier for them to increase internal fuel fraction and weapons bay size. Though even if the new EUMET engine is M88~EJ200 sized, 30~40% increase in thrust is still around the same class of thrust as enhanced variants of EJ200 and M88 that were proposed in the early 2000s and 2010s. Those enhanced thrust variants generally called for increase in EPR, TIT (around 2200K) and mass flow.

On the other had, unlike those enhanced version of EJ200 and M88, the new EUMET engine would also be required to generate multiple times the electricity compared to EJ200 and M88, so it makes sense that the thrust increase could be rather limited. Balance between thrust, electricity generation and engine operational life is a zero-sum game, after all.
Click to expand...
As long as aircraft weight when the fight starts is less than 56,000lbs, you're good for an A2A mission.

As I understand it, the PANG has the same elevator size/weights, same arresting gear, and same catapults as the Ford-class. Effectively SCAF has the physical limitations as F/A-XX.

We've already ground the numbers for F/A-XX based on carrier limitations, and we get a 40klb empty/80klb MMTOW aircraft, ~12klbs internal weapons and ~28klbs fuel (trap weight of 55klbs).

40klbs empty, plus 4500lbs of AAMs (~10x Meteor or 8x Meteor and 4x MICAs) plus 28klbs of fuel puts takeoff weight at 72,500lbs. You will want to be at around 12klbs fuel when air-to-air combat starts. Burning 16klbs fuel to your BARCAP area plus maybe some time loitering doesn't sound unreasonable.
 
Scott Kenny said:
As long as aircraft weight when the fight starts is less than 56,000lbs, you're good for an A2A mission.

As I understand it, the PANG has the same elevator size/weights, same arresting gear, and same catapults as the Ford-class. Effectively SCAF has the physical limitations as F/A-XX.

We've already ground the numbers for F/A-XX based on carrier limitations, and we get a 40klb empty/80klb MMTOW aircraft, ~12klbs internal weapons and ~28klbs fuel (trap weight of 55klbs).

40klbs empty, plus 4500lbs of AAMs (~10x Meteor or 8x Meteor and 4x MICAs) plus 28klbs of fuel puts takeoff weight at 72,500lbs. You will want to be at around 12klbs fuel when air-to-air combat starts. Burning 16klbs fuel to your BARCAP area plus maybe some time loitering doesn't sound unreasonabl
Click to expand...
 
Im thinking more of a 33000 lbs empty weight with about 18-20000 lbs of fuel.

40k lbs empty is SU57/J20/F22 empty weight.. not gonna happen with 120kN thrust class engines.

Gross weight will be around 22-25000kg. No way they will be going back to 1960`s t/w ratings when the enemy is getting more powerful fighters than ever before.
 
Last edited:
IRT said:
Gross weight will be around 22-25000kg. No way they will be going back to 1960`s t/w ratings when the enemy is getting more powerful fighters than ever before.
Click to expand...
They've already said that the SCAF is a 32-33 tonne aircraft. That's ~72klbs, Tomcat sized.
 
IRT said:
33ton Mtow.. 10% more than F35 mtow. Not typical mission weight.
Click to expand...
Right.

So you can squeeze the empty weight a bit, call it 36klbs empty to make a 72klbs MTOW. I'm still assuming large weapons bays with a ~12klbs air-to-ground weapons load, so that's 48klbs of plane+weapons and 24klbs of fuel.

But since we're talking air-to-air work right now the payload is ~4500lbs for 8x Meteor and 4x MICA. 64.5klbs for the air to air MTOW.

You'd be at 56klbs after burning 8,500lbs of fuel out of 24,000lbs total. EJ200+40% will work just fine.
 
Keep in mind that with a maximum takeoff weight of 33 tons, it's clearly not just internal load but also includes external stores—such as weapons and fuel tanks—for long-range air-to-ground missions. Most likely, with a pure internal air-to-air configuration, it will have a high thrust-to-weight ratio, comparable to or even greater than that of the Rafale.
 
IRT said:
The F35 is a 30ton fighter with 190kN thrust.
Fcas with 33ton mtow and 240-250kN thrust and VCE dont seem bad at all.
Click to expand...
Though we gotta keep in mind that everything comes in a relative sense. We are talking with 33~34 tons of MTOW since that is all that we really know. There is a high chance that NGF has a bigger planform than F-35, and SCAF partners will most definitely put much bigger focus on agility than it was put on JSF.

Comparing numbers from a fighter that was introduced in 2010s to a fighter that will be introduced in 2040s obviously needs context, too. On top of that, F135 is getting ECU, and as a result thrust increase as well.
 
NikolasTz said:
Keep in mind that with a maximum takeoff weight of 33 tons, it's clearly not just internal load but also includes external stores—such as weapons and fuel tanks—for long-range air-to-ground missions. Most likely, with a pure internal air-to-air configuration, it will have a high thrust-to-weight ratio, comparable to or even greater than that of the Rafale.
Click to expand...
For example: The F-22 has an 83klb MTOW, which it reaches with 2x 600gal external tanks. The way we usually see the F-22, no external stores with full weapons load and full internal fuel, gives us a ~65klb takeoff weight. And of course the F-22 makes about 70,000lbs thrust.

But I think that 6th generation aircraft are willing to take a bit of a hit to their takeoff performance, and have their MTOW reflect full internal fuel and full internal ordnance only.

Which brings us back to this:
Scott Kenny said:
[...] call it 36klbs empty to make a 72klbs MTOW. I'm still assuming large weapons bays with a ~12klbs air-to-ground weapons load, so that's 48klbs of plane+weapons and 24klbs of fuel.

But since we're talking air-to-air work right now the payload is ~4500lbs for 8x Meteor and 4x MICA. 64.5klbs for the air to air MTOW.

You'd be at 56klbs after burning 8,500lbs of fuel out of 24,000lbs total. EJ200+40% will work just fine.
Click to expand...

Typhoon loaded with full internal fuel, 4x Meteor and 2x ASRAAM is looking like 17 tonnes takeoff weight.
Rafale M loaded with full internal fuel, 4x Meteor and 2x MICA is looking like a little over 16 tonnes takeoff weight.

Typhoon, Rafale, and F-22 all have a "full internal fuel and basic AAM load" thrust to weight ratio a bit over 1.
 
Interesting that the drone (succeeding to the Neuron project) is apparently a recon carrier based airframe.
Given the complexity of its shapes and lack of paneling, the effort to put a real landing gear on something that coulld be a mockup points toward making sure the public get the message.
 
red admiral said:
And whether there's any money or engineering resource left over in France for NGF whilst concurrently doing this UCAV and Rafale F5...
Click to expand...
And like that the French Air Force will be obsolete when the UCAV will take the sky , great , good job. The reason you say is real there is still no money in France in the 2030 it will be more like a third world Air Force, a 4th gen no stealth aircraft with a stealth drone , each Air Force will be like that , when we see the production of Aerospace in Turkey they are well better than French now.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think that bay model is trying to tell us that 2x Feanix will fit into the same space as 1x FCAAM. Because it sure looks like that bay could hold 4x FCAAM.

On a side note, the FCAAM model sure is chunky. large diameter, small fins. Looks like it was optimized to fit into a VLS cell!
Click to expand...
It will never see the light trust me.....
 
dark sidius said:
And like that the French Air Force will be obsolete when the UCAV will take the sky , great , good job. The reason you say is real there is still no money in France in the 2030 it will be more like a third world Air Force, a 4th gen no stealth aircraft with a stealth drone , each Air Force will be like that , when we see the production of Aerospace in Turkey they are well better than French now.
Click to expand...
Turkey? Are u high?
 
IRT said:
No but zie germans do...
Click to expand...
Yes but in this case it will surely be a 6th gen German fighter , and Germany want to build the more powerfull army in Europe and they can, they don't have the same problem than France. The problem is that Dassault don't want to see the Germany becoming the leader on the FCAS so the battle will never end and this is the reason for the Rafale F-5 and the Neuron , but this is a real mistake , the French Air Force will be soon obsolete to stay like that, at a time of 5th gen and soon 6th gen fighters in the force worldwilde. The battle between Germany and France will never end on the FCAS this is the reason why I say you , it will never come to the light, realy register my words and we, speak with pleasure about FCAS in ten years.
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
Yes but in this case it will surely be a 6th gen German fighter , and Germany want to build the more powerfull army in Europe and they can, they don't have the same problem than France.
Click to expand...
Germany cant do it alone cuz cant build a new engine and other lack of experience. France can build a 6 gen fighter alone but lack $$$$ to do so.. so they will do it together.
 
dark sidius said:
Turkey is a regional power like France and they have soon the 5th gen KAAN fighter and a UCAV, France will have Rafale F-5 who is a 4th gen fighter and the Neuron UCAV, the level of aerospace technology start to be better in Turkey than France with the budget problems.
Click to expand...
France have experience with building modern fighters, Turkey not so much. France can build modern jet engines.. Turkey? Doubt it.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom