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

You are confusing the impact of thrust at launch with that of lift.
If you don't have enough thrust at launch, you add lift, increasing wing surface or augmenting the lift force by flaps, LEF, angle of attack etc...
On the contrary, a fighter jet designed with performance in mind will be limited first by the thrust available in dynamic conditions (Flight maneuver, Acceleration, altitude... ). There the impact of lift augmentation devices being drastically diminished by the g number (divided by two, three... 9 in a matter of seconds). Thrust becoming the lead parameters.
Carrier launch and arresting design are only a fraction of the limitation an aircraft must meet. See how Naval fighters happens to outperform their land based rivals from time to time.

Then there is the cost. French MoD has certainly a good projection of Dassault aircraft cost by weight. Even factoring-in the impact of the diminishing parts count, they are probably able to make good projection of the maintenance cost.
And we all know that's not the good aspect of Dassault and Airbus designs. Hence see this reported limitation as a fairly prudent requirement to keep the project alive and perform.

Also, being rational, 16t is 60% higher than Rafale empty weight. It seems compatible with what we are given to see.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
You are confusing the impact of thrust at launch with that of lift.
Click to expand...
Nope. The catapult provides most of the thrust... that’s the whole point otherwise people would just use ski jumps.

The aircraft provides the lift, and only needs to provide enough thrust to continue accelerating once in the air… which for a fighter is never an issue.
 
H_K said:
45t at 130 knots translates to 35t at 147kts (simple energy conversion formula E=MC2).
Click to expand...
E=MC² is the formula for complete conversion of mass to energy, with C the speed of light.
The formula for the energy needed E to accelerate a mass M to a speed V would be E=½MV².
The speed for mass results are the same for that catapult, though :)
 
Theoretically correct, though. At the fraction of light speed we are currently able to reach with most anything heavier than elementary and composite particles - with great big accelerators - in nearly all cases the difference is negligible between matter at rest and matter in motion.
 
H_K said:
That still leaves plenty of room to build something bigger than an F-35.

F-35A is 13t, was supposed to be under 12t, and that’s with some of the weight penalties of needing a STOVL variant.
Click to expand...

The F-35C is almost 16 t though. And that is without a second engine, and its weapon bays are likely too small for what the French and/or Germans want to carry internally.
So definitely a constraint if you ask me.
 
kqcke for you said:
Very interresting article which also comes to FCAS. Some things i noticed:
- there ain't done on the industrial side with some problems between the companys but less on the political side
- there uncertain about what armament (when that is the easy part)
- french are looking for an empty weight of 16t (but couldnt they accept more with pang?)
https://www.hartpunkt.de/bundeswehr...lugzeuge-vor-einfuehrung-von-fcas-beschaffen/

While most stuff is nothing new those 16t empty weight does sound limiting. Do they plan / assume that they may have to use it on charles de gaulle?
Click to expand...
Or simply separate CTOL and CATOBAR?
 
eagle said:
The F-35C is almost 16 t though. And that is without a second engine, and its weapon bays are likely too small for what the French and/or Germans want to carry internally.
So definitely a constraint if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Hard to tell... F-35 was a very compromised design due to STOVL requirements, so probably far from optimal.

Perhaps a better starting point for a comparison would be the YF-23, which also weighed ~13t empty. The navalized NATF-23 wasn't any bigger than the YF-23, though it required a substantial configuration change (canards + traditional twin tail instead of Pelican tail). I suspect that the Franco-German Levcon studies for NGF have this naval constraint in mind, with the Levcons doing the same work as canards to increase lift and reduce take-off/approach speeds (in addition to enabling a very structurally-efficient, high-volume triple delta wing, which would help to reduce empty weight).
 
H_K said:
Hard to tell... F-35 was a very compromised design due to STOVL requirements, so probably far from optimal.
Click to expand...
True but that mostly resulted in aerodynamic compromises rather than structural I'd say. The F-35 even went on a substantial diet to meet STOVL weight requirements.
OK, I guess a twin engined design with a larger central weapon bay instead of two smaller ones could save some weight.

H_K said:
Perhaps a better starting point for a comparison would be the YF-23, which also weighed ~13t empty.
Click to expand...
That is without engines. 2 F119 engines add about 5 t. See the F-22: contractor weight i.e. empty without engines about 14.7 t, with engines 19.7 t ;)
 
Trappier says he sees no issue with more than one programme either. “Europe is a big continent. If you have two programmes, why not?”
Click to expand...

www.flightglobal.com

Dassault’s Trappier pours cold water on prospects of FCAS and GCAP merger

Hopes that Europe's two future fighter programmes could move closer together appear unlikely to be realised, with Dassault Aviation's chief executive distancing his firm from any such proposal.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

Dassault CEO just got a Boulevard to move forward with FCAS his own way. The recent defense budgets unexpected transmutation (red-hulk way, some would say) should not leave him hesitant.
What people could question however, is the relevancy of pushing a Rafale F5 extensive upgrade when French Nuke are now openly discussed as a transnational asset and in regard to the sense of urgency.

The F5 upgrade has been primarily a National program. I think then FCAS could get the way Rafale went 30+ years ago: FCAS F1 (for interdiction and nuclear strike) and then the rest.
 
TomcatViP said:
www.flightglobal.com

Dassault’s Trappier pours cold water on prospects of FCAS and GCAP merger

Hopes that Europe's two future fighter programmes could move closer together appear unlikely to be realised, with Dassault Aviation's chief executive distancing his firm from any such proposal.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

Dassault CEO just got a Boulevard to move forward with FCAS his own way. The recent defense budgets unexpected transmutation (red-hulk way, some would say) should not leave him hesitant.
What people could question however, is the relevancy of pushing a Rafale F5 extensive upgrade when French Nuke are now openly discussed as a transnational asset and in regard to the sense of urgency.

The F5 upgrade has been primarily a National program. I think then FCAS could get the way Rafale went 30+ years ago: FCAS F1 (for interdiction and nuclear strike) and then the rest.
Click to expand...
This fucking timeline. A year ago I was telling my coworkers that I'd lived through the tail end of one cold war, I was not happy to be in a second one, especially as I'm living in the blast radius of a likely nuclear strike due to proximity to a large railway yard.
And now we're talking about being under France's nuclear umbrella.

God. Fucking. Damnit.
 
had said:
At least some movement but is it enough?
I think, it is necessary to speed things up and to get the first batch operational in 2035 or Germany should switch to GCAP. If Frances wishes to operate only upgraded Rafales in the 2030ties, good luck to them.
Click to expand...
What makes you think the Brits, Italians and Japanese would welcome Germany in their program ? I think they are stuck with France and Spain (and Belgium)...
All in all, like us in Belgium, I expect that Germany will simply buy more F-35's to its security provider while the FCAS drags its feet.
 

Airbus and European innovation - Imagining a future combat aircraft cockpit

www.airbus.com

Airbus and European innovation - Imagining a future combat aircraft cockpit

Airbus develops voice/gesture controls & virtual assistant innovations as part of Europe’s EPIIC project.
www.airbus.com www.airbus.com

resize
​

 
red admiral said:
https://en.defence-ua.com/industrie..._compromise_with_germany_and_spain-14132.html

"This is all very difficult when Dassault has to work with companies"
Click to expand...
The title is misleading. The issue isn’t that Dassault won’t compromise, it’s that the German and Spanish partners are dooming any chances of success, by slow walking the program, relitigating every decision, claiming workshare over areas where they don’t have the technical know how, driving up costs, putting exports at risk etc.

Dassault has made it clear that a Neuron-style program would be much more successful than the current very fragmented partnership approach with weak governance, slow drawn out timeline with too many phases, too many veto rights, too many cooks in the kitchen etc. I haven’t seen anyone argue otherwise… it’s not like this hasn’t played out before (Eurofighter…).
 
had said:
Germany’s (and Belgium’s) need for the FCAS to carry American nuclear weapons shouldn't come as a surprise.
Click to expand...
Untrue as both operate F-35?
had said:
France probably speculates it can sell FCAS to foreign customers as well as the Rafale and therefore would ultimately not need Germany and Spain as fixed customers.
Could be, could be not.
Click to expand...
Hardly a solution when you need the money to develop the plain but wouldn't be the first time when someone sells something they doesn't have
had said:
It makes sense for France to omit Germany's veto rights if they want to sell it like they did with the Rafale. Don't see it happening otherwise. But that is nothing new
Click to expand...
Thats something you can simply omit with a rule book both agree too.
 
red admiral said:
https://en.defence-ua.com/industrie..._compromise_with_germany_and_spain-14132.html

"This is all very difficult when Dassault has to work with companies"
Click to expand...
I find it funny how most of the article is just about Sharing workshare and Dassault not being the project leader too "preserve" french independence.

Also the remark of germany wanting american nuclear weapons (probaly B-61) is something that was never a point before and would include the US even wanting this....
 
red admiral said:
Different countries have different views in what "successful" looks like.

"Do what we say" isn't partnership.
Click to expand...
That's a weak counter-argument.
Let's talk specifics. What makes you believe that this partnership is setup for success? (Or any flavor of the Eurofighter model with Germany involved) What would you do in Dassault's shoes?
Do you believe that the Neuron partnership didn't work?
 
Last edited:
Failed partnerships and consequently failed partnership-based programs, seem to me to have become a common theme in European acquisition.

If I may propose: Stop doing partnerships. If you can, develop your stuff on your own. Then if someone has any unique requirements - negotiate with them, let them sort them out in terms of how viable they are, and if you can do it, put a certain price and do it.
 
red admiral said:
Different countries have different views in what "successful" looks like.

"Do what we say" isn't partnership.
Click to expand...
Debacles like the Tiger, the ongoing MGCS, the current FCAS and countless previous attempts at joint aircraft, helicopter and tank development should have shown by now that anything akin to a true partnership with France is utterly impossible. At least when you're also a strong industrial nation that has no need or desire to be subservient to French wishes.

Imo FCAS has no future anyway.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Failed partnerships and consequently failed partnership-based programs, seem to me to have become a common theme in European acquisition.

If I may propose: Stop doing partnerships. If you can, develop your stuff on your own. Then if someone has any unique requirements - negotiate with them, let them sort them out in terms of how viable they are, and if you can do it, put a certain price and do it.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much to be expected. Especially when it involves countries with vastly different requirements and outlooks. France wants a carrier capable jet they can also throw on the export market. Germany and Spain have zero use for anything carrier related, something that will inherently compromise the entire aircraft by nature. How is any side of this mess supposed to come to a happy middle ground? And that's just the obvious one, the elephant in the room. It doesn't touch on sensor or radar requirements, which munitions should be integrated, range, etc.

Joint European programs can only prosper when the visions of the participants align, like with the 212CD, the Boxer AFV or previously the Tornado.

I certainly agree with you. Countries should develop whatever they can on their own, and what can't be developed independently should simply be bought. It's utterly pathetic tbh how inefficient and circus-like European procurement has become since the 90s. The FCAS and MGCS timelines in particular are pure nightmare fuel. You wouldn't expect industry giants like Dassault and Airbus to say they can give you a next gen jet in the 40s at the earliest, when the UK/Italy/Japan manage to do it in the 30s, not even bringing up the US and China here.
 
Even more when the real objective of FCAS is to be competitive with the F-35.

The late ending in budget deficit restraints has certainly open boulevards to Dassault and Airbus for going there own way.
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
That's a weak counter-argument.
Let's talk specifics. What makes you believe that this partnership is setup for success? (Or any flavor of the Eurofighter model with Germany involved) What would you do in Dassault's shoes?
Do you believe that the Neuron partnership didn't work?
Click to expand...
I think its just realistic

From the start its been set up as a Tornado/Eurofighter industrial approach which shares out responsibilities and workshare. It also shares costs. The trade off is time taken to get to product. It seems pretty clear that Germany and Spain are comfortable with that trade off in order to sustain their Industry and get workshare (things that are linked but not quite the same).

Whereas Dassault is still complaining that it isn't in charge almost 10 years later and much more seems to be the one trying to undo whqt has already been signed up to.

Neuron was subcontracting rather than partnering. Very standard aerospace practice.

Its obvious that more complex Industrial partnerships like Tornado/Eurofighter (or Airbus) do work, there are just trade offs. There were also trade offs in pursuing Rafale as a national-only programme.
 
TomcatViP said:
Even more when the real objective of FCAS is to be competitive with the F-35.

The late ending in budget deficit restraints has certainly open boulevards to Dassault and Airbus for going there own way.
Click to expand...
The FCAS will never come to light, the France is in a very bad économic situation I don't see how they will find billions to this program.
 
Forest Green said:
Only if the mass is at rest. The full equation is:

E²=(MC²)² + (pc)² where p = momentum.
Click to expand...
Not really. The E=m c^2 is always true, where the M is defined as

1744357406466.png
The m_0 is the rest mass.

For "E²=(MC²)² + (pc)²", the M should be the m_0.

Since v/c for a plane is almost 0, the energy of the aircraft can be rewritten as
1744356742415.png .
The first term is constant. Therefore, it is generally omitted. Considering the gravitational potential energy, the energy for an aircraft is

1744357093525.png
where m is the m_0. Therefore, the energy of an aircraft depends on its altitude h0 and speed v0.
 

Attachments

  • 1744356541273.png
    1744356541273.png
    3.1 KB · Views: 3
Big_Zukini said:
If I may propose: Stop doing partnerships. If you can, develop your stuff on your own. Then if someone has any unique requirements - negotiate with them, let them sort them out in terms of how viable they are, and if you can do it, put a certain price and do it.
Click to expand...
Problem is that nobody has enough budget to develop a new military vehicle on their own anymore, not when their national buy is under 200.

Crud, even the US is struggling to afford F-47s on a 200-unit buy.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Crud, even the US is struggling to afford F-47s on a 200-unit buy.
Click to expand...
Don't commit to too much expenditures around the world at your own detriment, don't develop something you can't afford in sufficient mass.
 
It's the same old lose-lose situation since AFVG 60 years ago.

1-European cooperation supposedly spreads fighter development costs over many countries rather than France alone; but is actually such a nightmare no cost savings happen, only overruns. Jaguar, cough, cough.
vs
2-Dassault can certainly do it alone (like Rafale) more efficiently and much faster, but the cost ain't split anymore, the whole burden falls on France.

There is no clear winner between 1 & 2.
 
Archibald said:
It's the same old lose-lose situation since AFVG 60 years ago.

1-European cooperation supposedly spreads fighter development costs over many countries rather than France alone; but is actually such a nightmare no cost savings happen, only overruns. Jaguar, cough, cough.
vs
2-Dassault can certainly do it alone (like Rafale) more efficiently and much faster, but the cost ain't split anymore, the whole burden falls on France.

There is no clear winner between 1 & 2.
Click to expand...
3-Dassault makes pitches early to air force planners, asking "what features do you think are needed for your country's next fighter" and then says "If we make a plane that just so happens to have those features or better, would you be willing to contribute development funds"
 
JetBrain said:
Not really. The E=m c^2 is always true, where the M is defined as

View attachment 766374
The m_0 is the rest mass.

For "E²=(MC²)² + (pc)²", the M should be the m_0.

Since v/c for a plane is almost 0, the energy of the aircraft can be rewritten as
View attachment 766371.
The first term is constant. Therefore, it is generally omitted. Considering the gravitational potential energy, the energy for an aircraft is

View attachment 766373
where m is the m_0. Therefore, the energy of an aircraft depends on its altitude h0 and speed v0.
Click to expand...
Very true, I was using m to represent rest mass.

energywavetheory.com

E=pc - EWT

Description When a particle is in motion, its momentum (p) needs to be considered in an energy equation. In 1928, Paul Dirac extended Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence equation (E=mc2) to consider motion. The complete form of the energy-momentum relation equation is E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2. When...
energywavetheory.com energywavetheory.com
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom