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

Maro.Kyo said:
MTU Aero Engines (MTU München) has nothing to do with RR Power Systems.
Click to expand...
Of course not, and RR Power Systems is only tangentially linked to RR Dahlewitz, which is RRs two shaft turbine centre of excellence. All this 'Germany doesn't build jet engines' stuff is forgetting RR Germany develops and builds all RR's smaller turbofans.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/p...9000-engine-delivery-amid-soaring-demand.aspx
And they're expressly developing a Wingman/CCA/ACP engine:

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/p...-forces-for-a-world-class-wingman-engine.aspx
 
timmymagic said:
Not seen any pics of it from there, but doesn't mean it isn't there...
They were punting it for Typhoon AND GCAP as well...
Click to expand...
"Our static display, located in Row A – No. 7, will showcase the latest versions of the Rafale, with a model of our unmanned combat air system (UCAS) intended to fly with the Rafale F5, and a model of a future combat aircraft. "

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/e...dassault-aviation-at-the-2025-paris-air-show/
"Notably, there was no major hubbub around FCAS at this year’s Air Show,... The model aircraft, which had been the centerpiece of the French military’s corral in 2023, was relegated to second fiddle at Dassault’s stand, with a new unmanned system taking a more prominent role."

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06...-dassault-again-hit-sixth-gen-fighter-effort/
 
DWG said:
Of course not, and RR Power Systems is only tangentially linked to RR Dahlewitz, which is RRs two shaft turbine centre of excellence. All this 'Germany doesn't build jet engines' stuff is forgetting RR Germany develops and builds all RR's smaller turbofans.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/p...9000-engine-delivery-amid-soaring-demand.aspx
And they're expressly developing a Wingman/CCA/ACP engine:

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/p...-forces-for-a-world-class-wingman-engine.aspx
Click to expand...
Ah, yes. I have forgot that Pearl was developed in Dahlewitz and have misinterpreted your comment as a result. My apologies.

On the other had, MTU Aero was also RRSP in multiple commercial and military aero engines including the V2500 which they had more commanding stakes, being responsible of LP and IP trubines and LP and HP compressors of the hot sections, among other parts. To say that Germany doesn't have expertise in building modern tubofan engines, even if we disregard RR Deutschland, is pretty dumb.

If anything, gas turbine innovation never stopped in Germany, and MTU was pioneers of blisk technology and brought it to commercial airliners, among other examples.
 
NikolasTz said:
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 TITANS_2025 VF.pdf
View attachment 773904
Click to expand...
Another pic and video of the Onera concepts... I like the 2 Loyal Wingmen:
  • Heavy fighter with LEVCONs (top), also known as "Superman" concept
  • Loyal wingman "stealth bomber" (right)
  • Loyal wingman fighter (left)... described as "not too sophisticated" (i.e. attritable)
  • "Low cost" drone (bottom) for decoy missions, electronic warfare, and saturation of air defenses (apparently unarmed)
GttTZzHaQAIHUfe?format=jpg&name=large

View: https://youtu.be/ezvav4zZIdQ
 
H_K said:
Another pic and video of the Onera concepts... I like the 2 Loyal Wingmen:
  • Heavy fighter with LEVCONs (top), also known as "Superman" concept
  • Loyal wingman "stealth bomber" (right)
  • Loyal wingman fighter (left)... described as "not too sophisticated" (i.e. attritable)
  • "Low cost" drone (bottom) for decoy missions, electronic warfare, and saturation of air defenses (apparently unarmed)
Click to expand...
Yep, those are the three primary CCA types I've been expecting.
 
Reddington777 said:
That stealth bomber on the right makes me wonder if the F-47's inlets and planform is going to look like that. Afterall it does have a shovel nose and the shape found in a lot of past renders.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting the F-47 inlets to be on the bottom, so that there's less disruption when the aircraft pitches up.
 
Guys how about we wait and see what happens? What some countries can and can't produce alone is very hard to to actualy proof and with ever so changing geopolitical situations everything becomes possible. Yes on the company side we see (as often described) that Dassault and Airbus are the hardly getting together but honestly it does feel like (too me) that the gouvernements are letting it happen. That Dassault wants to develop UAV's was allways a thing but the bigger question would be what are the rules they want to build on the foundation for the partnership and how are they enforcing them if Dassault for example wants too overstep Airbus FCAS pillar.

Edit: based of some news like from Breaking DEFENSE it sounds like NGF is actualy going very good so i would assume that they don't really want too show it that mutch anymore as the final design could be very close.

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06...-dassault-again-hit-sixth-gen-fighter-effort/
 
Last edited:
Jackonicko said:
I didn't. I thought that France would produce a solid, workmanlike fighter (albeit with some key weaknesses), and would struggle to sustain a viable production rate until exports materialised.

I'd argue that is exactly what happened.

A full sixth gen system of systems is less affordable for a single nation.
Click to expand...

Sure.
 
Ron5 said:
I suspect you said the exact same thing when France left Eurofighter.
Click to expand...
If you're equaling a not-so-groundbreaking Rafale with a sixth generation fighter and associated systems (keep in mind, Dassault never seriously dabbled in LO manned fighters), then I have a couple bridges to sell you.
 
Jackonicko said:
I didn't. I thought that France would produce a solid, workmanlike fighter (albeit with some key weaknesses), and would struggle to sustain a viable production rate until exports materialised.

I'd argue that is exactly what happened.

A full sixth gen system of systems is less affordable for a single nation.
Click to expand...

Only China and the US can afford one or even two 6th Gen programs currently on a purely national and individual level. With even the US being a bit vague if F/A-XX can be funded simultaneously with NGAD/F-47. Everyone else has to join together with someone else.

I think we can close this repeatedly surfacing and exhausting delusion (brought up always by the same individuals, not meaning @Jackonicko to which I'm replying here) with a final remark:

If France could have done FCAS alone, they would have done it from the very beginning. They can't and thus it's a joint development. Case closed, everyone move on.
 
EmoBirb said:
Only China and the US can afford one or even two 6th Gen programs currently on a purely national and individual level. With even the US being a bit vague if F/A-XX can be funded simultaneously with NGAD/F-47. Everyone else has to join together with someone else.

I think we can close this repeatedly surfacing and exhausting delusion (brought up always by the same individuals, not meaning @Jackonicko to which I'm replying here) with a final remark:

If France could have done FCAS alone, they would have done it from the very beginning. They can't and thus it's a joint development. Case closed, everyone move on.
Click to expand...
I don't know if it's the heat or what, but some people are having a master sergeant's day giving orders at the moment.......
 
EmoBirb said:
If France could have done FCAS alone, they would have done it from the very beginning. They can't and thus it's a joint development. Case closed, everyone move on.
Click to expand...
You're missing a fundamental point. If France wants FCAS sales to any of the major European powers, then they have to include them in development, because that's going to be a condition of purchase. Whether France needs their finances or not is irrelevant, Germany and Spain want their workshares (historically Germany was especially militant about getting its agreed workshare during Eurofighter development).
 
Last edited:
Jackonicko said:
Interesting that ONERA's sixth gen fighter concept should bear a much closer resemblance to the Airbus NGF concept than to the Dassault concept.
Click to expand...
Dassault's proposal is a strike fighter like FAXX.

ONERA's proposal looks more like F-47/NGAD, a pure air superiority fighter.
 
There are photos of models, cgi and other stuff to discuss, so there probably isn't the need for a quarrel, just to kill time ...
Just a clue: If you're reading your post before clicking the "Post reply" buton, and you see the word "you", it is highly recommended to think again, if direct adressing someone really is expedient for the discussion.
And yes, here the "you" actually is there for some reason ! ;)
 
DWG said:
You're missing a fundamental point. If France wants FCAS sales to any of the major European powers, then they have to include them in development, because that's going to be a condition of purchase. Whether France needs their finances or not is irrelevant, Germany and Spain want their workshares (historically Germany was especially militant about getting its agreed workshare during Eurofighter development).
Click to expand...
I'd be very tempted to tell Germany, "You want to buy workshare? You need to prove that those companies are the best in their class."
 
DWG said:
The company in question is Airbus. I think they have a fair crack at that.
Click to expand...
Airbus Military seems to have issues delivering A400s. And A400s have quality issues.

Now, if Eurofighter GMBH was competing that might be a good argument.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Now, if Eurofighter GMBH was competing that might be a good argument.
Click to expand...
And how much of Eurofighter is EADS/Airbus? Yeah you're talking complete nonsense.

Also, even in those cases where you are not a joint development partner but a mere customer, you could demand all sorts of things. What do you think got Rheinmetall their deal with Lockheed? Ever heard of offset trade? And Germany is much more than a mere customer in FCAS. They're paying a huge portion of the development bill on top of planning to procure the systems. They have every right to demand workshare. If anything, France should be happy that the workshare agreement prior to PH1B has panned out the way it is. It's actually pretty worrying already that their recent efforts seems to undermine the NGWS RC pillar where Germany is the development prime, as I've pointed out a few times on this thread already.

Moreover, they aren't "buying" any workshare in the first place and no need to prove anything. If you think that way your understanding of FCAS/joint development is fundamentally flawed. If France doesn't like the way things are, doesn't want to share any works and thinks they could foot the bill all by themselves or find partners apart from their current FCAS partners (now good luck with thay), they are the ones to walk out the door. And as things stand, it's not even "France" but mostly Dassault. Dassault better shut up for once and stick to work, because repeating the same kind of shitshow going into PH2 would be a very bad look for the programme.

Everyone wants to have their piece of cake and eat it, but there are only two countries that could afford to do that.
 
Last edited:
End of the game is getting closer and closer... :rolleyes:

https://militaeraktuell.at/en/dissent-over-the-fcas-fighter-jet-again/
Otherwise, for those who believe they see the final form of the NGF here or there, there remained 4 designs in the running last year and two had to be selected before the subsequent choice of the final design (and this was before the arrival of verticals on the ONERA Superman test model, dedicated from the start to the study of the Su-57 style LEVCON...). But, from what we know and, at this stage, there has still been no choice among the remaining 4. So, there are still not 1 but 4 possible designs for the NGF and nothing says that they correspond to one or more of all the designs already shown by different entities (Dassault, Airbus, MBDA, Thales, etc.).
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Airbus Military seems to have issues delivering A400s. And A400s have quality issues.

Now, if Eurofighter GMBH was competing that might be a good argument.
Click to expand...
You do realise the German, and Spanish, parts of Eurofighter Gmbh, and their Eurofighter production lines, are actually Airbus Germany and Airbus Spain?
 
Maro.Kyo said:
And Germany is much more than a mere customer in FCAS. They're paying a huge portion of the development bill on top of planning to procure the systems. They have every right to demand workshare.
Click to expand...
Dassault isn't criticizing the workshare rights though.

They are being very specific that their concerns are around the collegial FCAS governance model (3 governments + 3 companies each with equal decision rights) as opposed to having a single strong customer representative signing off on key decisions as was the case for Neuron (French DGA) and a prime contractor with ultimate accountability.

Secondarily they also point out issues with the lack of a "best athlete" rule as was the case for the F-35 partners, especially with regards to some of the critical design elements. There's no question that German companies can *build* FCAS and will get a large workshare, but Dassault is trying to avoid a situation where (to take just one example) a German company might be selected to make the landing gear (instead of Safran/Messier-Bugatti) and would have to relearn how to make a carrier compatible landing gear. Or if a Spanish company got to reinvent a new FCS software from scratch instead of building off Dassault's own proven solution...

Looking at Eurofighter / A400M / NH90 etc it's hard to deny that there is some validity to these concerns... these partnerships are notorious for delays, very expensive aircraft, with sometimes poorly thought-out design decisions, and some systems that were flawed or unreliable due to being allocated (due to rigid workshare rules) to companies with insufficient experience.
 
H_K said:
Heavy fighter with LEVCONs (top), also known as "Superman" concept
Click to expand...

Su-57XL isn't real it can't scare me.

Su-57XL:

(The LEVCONS really drive the similarities home. I'd be more than bewildered though if vertical stabilizers make it into the final design. Seems extremely backwards for a "next generation fighter")
 
H_K said:
Looking at Eurofighter / A400M / NH90 etc it's hard to deny that there is some validity to these concerns...
Click to expand...

I think it's worth noting however that France and the French aerospace industry was also involved with the A400M and NH90.

Joint developments are always far messier than purely indigenous ones, with a couple exceptions on either side.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom