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

Suricato said:
Which version of the F-15?
It seems the F-22 with 38t MTOW is just a "better" F-15E with 37t.
Click to expand...
F-15C, the single seat pure fighter.


Suricato said:
The F-111B had an MTOW of 88,000 lb (39,900 kg) and the F-111C 110,002 lb (49,896 kg). So, the USN NGAD may be a downgraded USAF NGAD with less payload or less range.
Click to expand...
They're likely to be completely different airframes, just sharing engines and electronics.

In general, I'd expect the USN NGAD to have less range than the USAF, since the USN airfield can come to the plane to some extent.


Suricato said:
If an FCAS shall have good export chance than it has to beat the F-35 with 70,000 lb (31,800 kg) MTOW with payload and range.
Click to expand...
My recommendation would be greater internal payload than the F-35 as the differentiating factor. Greater range if it can be done, but I'd want more than 5000lbs internal load. Bare minimum I'd take is more like 10klbs, but 7k may be acceptable.
 
Well I was not expecting that TomcatVIP. Belgium joining FCAS, that was a surprise I wonder if that will add extra pressure onto Germany so that they will stay.
 
well, as a Belgian, i think joining the FCAS does not make sense on a military point of view, in fact the goverment hasnt even given the green light yet. and with elections next year, i doubt it will get approval soon.

another reason that the decision is controvertial is that everything is happening so fast, while other higher priority programs are falling behind. also, why buy FCAS when we are already commited to an order for 34 F-35A's? it would make more sense to buy more F-35's.

if you ask me, there's something fishy going on behind closed doors, and we might have another likely bribery scandal on our hands.reason im thinking this is that there are a lot of similarities in the deal with the Agusta-Dassault scandal from the 1990's.
 
Spey_Phantom said:
well, as a Belgian, i think joining the FCAS does not make sense on a military point of view, in fact the goverment hasnt even given the green light yet. and with elections next year, i doubt it will get approval soon.

another reason that the decision is controvertial is that everything is happening so fast, while other higher priority programs are falling behind. also, why buy FCAS when we are already commited to an order for 34 F-35A's? it would make more sense to buy more F-35's.

if you ask me, there's something fishy going on behind closed doors, and we might have another likely bribery scandal on our hands.reason im thinking this is that there are a lot of similarities in the deal with the Agusta-Dassault scandal from the 1990's.
Click to expand...
I suspect that the FCAS will occupy a different niche than the F-35 does. Likely longer range, and almost certainly greater carrying capacity. Plus able to wrangle drones.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I suspect that the FCAS will occupy a different niche than the F-35 does. Likely longer range, and almost certainly greater carrying capacity. Plus able to wrangle drones.
Click to expand...

A capability Belgium probably doesn't require. My guess is, if they become involved in the program, it will be for some manufacturing work share, more than anything else.
 
There's only one link to web-page (that actually doesn't have any pdfs per se), papers itself are attached to my post. You may have problems with downloading them on mobile - do it on desktop.
 
dark sidius said:
Nothing, nothing new about a new fighter in Europe instead BAE Tempest , I think that the German /French FCAS will never see the light
Click to expand...
France absolutely requires a 5th/6th gen replacement for the Rafale.

They might go so far as to kick Germany out of the group if the German requirements make the plane not carrier compatible. See also why there is a Rafale instead of French Typhoons.
 
Scott Kenny said:
France absolutely requires a 5th/6th gen replacement for the Rafale.

They might go so far as to kick Germany out of the group if the German requirements make the plane not carrier compatible. See also why there is a Rafale instead of French Typhoons.
Click to expand...
France have zero economic capacity to build a 6th generation fighter by its own, instead France is looking to evolution of the Rafale with F5 , but it is an enormous risk for the futur, Rafale in year 2040 will be outdated in face of NAGD or Chinese 6 the gen fighter.
 
dark sidius said:
France have zero economic capacity to build a 6th generation fighter by its own, instead France is looking to evolution of the Rafale with F5 , but it is an enormous risk for the futur, Rafale in year 2040 will be outdated in face of NAGD or Chinese 6 the gen fighter.
Click to expand...


That’s exactly the point, for France alone is is IMO economically not doable, Germany - and I’m sorry to admit this - is a shame to put it mildly but also the British-Japanese Tempest or whatever it may be called is IMO far from secured due to the economic situation in the UK.
 
If France's deal with Germany falls apart, and it might, they will look for other partners.

The French seem committed to military aviation and will certainly attempt to remain viable.
 
Jimmo952 said:
If France's deal with Germany falls apart, and it might, they will look for other partners.

The French seem committed to military aviation and will certainly attempt to remain viable.
Click to expand...
But they always want to be the people running the show and determining requirements. That's why we have both the Rafale and Typhoon.
 
sferrin said:
But they always want to be the people running the show and determining requirements. That's why we have both the Rafale and Typhoon.
Click to expand...

That is true but they have an excellent track record of designing and building world class fighter jets.
 
dark sidius said:
France have zero economic capacity to build a 6th generation fighter by its own, instead France is looking to evolution of the Rafale with F5 , but it is an enormous risk for the futur, Rafale in year 2040 will be outdated in face of NAGD or Chinese 6 the gen fighter.
Click to expand...
At this point, it's quite obvious that France does have exactly such an economic capacity, as well as reason (Rafale exports cover that part). Moreover, specifically without Germany.
F5 is an entirely different thing.
 
sferrin said:
But they always want to be the people running the show and determining requirements. That's why we have both the Rafale and Typhoon.
Click to expand...
Had the rest of the Eurofighter consortium been willing to accept France's hard limits on dimensions because France had carrier elevators the plane had to fit on, there probably wouldn't be a Rafale today.

That's a pretty fundamental dysfunction and failure to realize how critical some parts of the specifications are to a partner.
 
The Eurofighter consortium had no carrier requirement, but the Eurofighter has more or less the same dimensions as the Rafale.
To place a big aircraft on a carrier, you can add foldable wings like the A-5 Vigilante.

I guess more fundamental on the requirements are the payloads/range requirements and so on.
 
The EF is too heavy. Rafale itself just about worked from the Foch, with somewhat reduced payload iirc.
EF also doesn't meet landing speed and visibility requirements. A carrier (that is Foch) capable Eurofighter would basically have turned out like a Rafale.
 
The visibility may be improved with other ways like autopilot-landing. And the landing speed can be improved with a bigger wing. The EF is build for speed, agility and cheap, from my point of view. And as written on wikipedia, the internal structure of the EF is not carrier friendly. The Rafale is different.

But back to the FACS, is carrier capability a requirement for the FACS?
 
dark sidius said:
Europe will fall realy behind with their Air Force in time of NGAD and Chinese 6th gen fighter, France and Germany are near bankrupcy there is no money in fact to jump in 6 th gen
Click to expand...
Total bullshit...

If Germany doesn't follow, France will do it with Belgium or Spain - or both (Spain almost jumped into the Rafale bandwagon, between 1985 and 1988.)
Worst case: still can do it alone, even if admittedly, it will cost the country an arm, a leg and a testicle too. Dassault has built combat aircraft since 1948 and won't stop anytime soon, whatever the cost. And the French government follows the move. The positive arguments being: political autonomy, lucrative foreign sales, technology spinoffs, high-tech jobs.
 
Last edited:
dark sidius said:
Europe will fall realy behind with their Air Force in time of NGAD and Chinese 6th gen fighter, France and Germany are near bankrupcy there is no money in fact to jump in 6 th gen
Click to expand...
If Germany ever really goes full into that 2% of your GDP into defense like NATO asks, they're going to have to start buying fucking supercarriers to get rid of all the money.
 
Suricato said:
The visibility may be improved with other ways like autopilot-landing. And the landing speed can be improved with a bigger wing. The EF is build for speed, agility and cheap, from my point of view. And as written on wikipedia, the internal structure of the EF is not carrier friendly. The Rafale is different.
Click to expand...

Autopilot landing? Not in the 80s. Magic Carpet was introduced in 2021.
Bigger wing means more weight.
Making the internal structure carrier friendly means even more weight.
So yes, the Rafale is very different for a reason. There's no way around this, with the French aboard ( ;) ), Eurofighter would have looked very different.

Just like the French FCAS will look different than Tempest. Because it has to operate from a carrier. On the plus side, the new French carrier will be larger, so FCAS can be heavier too.
 
Suricato said:
The Eurofighter consortium had no carrier requirement, but the Eurofighter has more or less the same dimensions as the Rafale.
To place a big aircraft on a carrier, you can add foldable wings like the A-5 Vigilante.

I guess more fundamental on the requirements are the payloads/range requirements and so on.
Click to expand...
Then someone failed to pay attention to what France was wanting to buy EF for!
 
Broken said:
France isn't the problem here. European-level export control sounds properly mental.
Click to expand...
As far as i understand it france wants to have control over it / independent from the rest which germany propose as european level. But then again i think we dont have a lot of the accurate information needed to make a good assessment of whats really happening.
 
kqcke for you said:
As far as i understand it france wants to have control over it / independent from the rest which germany propose as european level. But then again i think we dont have a lot of the accurate information needed to make a good assessment of whats really happening.
Click to expand...
« European level » decisions typically mean every country gets a veto. ie. Germany gets to veto French exports, which is a dealbreaker.

The problem here is Germany is walking back on prior commitments that were made at the very start of the program. Perhaps « majority rule » could be a viable compromise, but that would mean Germany would have to be OK if France + Spain vote together.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom