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

VTOLicious said:
F-35A systems is rather 35%... https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...eight-multirole-fighter-lmf.38539/post-624350
Click to expand...
Apparently I did not remember correctly. Fixed.



Desertfox said:
Well you could do non-flying trainers without all the expensive avionics specifically for that role, you could even use the real things. The difference is that they are not racking up high-G flight hours in unforgiving environments.
Click to expand...
Yes, you could probably use some of the higher-hour airframes for all the weapons handling stuff, because you need to make sure the weapons get plugged into the data bus correctly.

You will save a lot of flying time because the CCAs will not need to fly every time, you can simulate them in the combat systems of the 6th gen plane.

But you're still going to have to fly some live hours for practice.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That depends mostly on the sensors and other systems fitted as to how expensive the CCA is. IIRC, well over 40% 35% of the cost of the F35 is all the sensors and systems. Cut the systems down to a single IRST/EOTS and no radar or DAS, you get a much cheaper aircraft even if it does used the same engine and skin materials as an F35.

Go down to LO shaping with minimal RAM usage and you save more money. Since most of the RCS is determined by external shape, you get a lot more leverage from shaping than from RAM.

Edit: obviously I didn't remember correctly... mea culpa.
Click to expand...

I can see removing some of the same systems, and maybe going cheap on a few, but if this thing is going to be autonomous at all it will need a suite of sensors just for the AI to fly it. Whether its radar, ultrasonic, IR, or TV it'll need to know where it is and what's around it to taxi, fly, and land. Not only that, having a higher quality radar or IRST would be extremely useful as you can send the cheaper unmanned drone ahead with its sensors and have it do the scouting for your manned fighter in the back.

Maybe that means one or two recon CCA's with all the sensors and a few strike CCA's with only basic guidance sensors, but I wonder if most governments will want to gimp their strike CCA's like that by relying on another craft for targeting.
 
Shoes31 said:
I can see removing some of the same systems, and maybe going cheap on a few, but if this thing is going to be autonomous at all it will need a suite of sensors just for the AI to fly it. Whether its radar, ultrasonic, IR, or TV it'll need to know where it is and what's around it to taxi, fly, and land. Not only that, having a higher quality radar or IRST would be extremely useful as you can send the cheaper unmanned drone ahead with its sensors and have it do the scouting for your manned fighter in the back.
Click to expand...
But do you need both a high end radar and an EOTS and a DAS installed on the same airframe?

If not you have whatever your AI requires and then either radar or EOTS or DAS. I know most of the CCA concepts were talking about EOTS only, even for the air-to-air capable versions. Not sure I agree with that, I'd rather have the CCA emitting radar and the manned plane flying passive.
 
Nicknamed 'Goblin Shark' now

hushkit.net

Stealthy supersonic robot fighter Wingman revealed by Airbus

Sleek new drone nicknamed ‘Goblin Shark’ Airbus has announced that they will present a full-scale model of their ‘Wingman’ concept at the upcoming ILA in Berlin. The Airbus announcement includes a …
hushkit.net hushkit.net

Here's its namesake.

537321-alamy-j7ye66-a3282fa69177742853997bb0b7e714fb.jpg sttxftlngdbqoooyk6xa.gif
 
Has there been any clarification about what's going on with the vertical tails?
 
flateric said:
By whom?
Click to expand...
Aha, good point! Not by Airbus, who call it the Wingman Concept of course. A nickname is a colloquial name, so I thought that the author might have picked it up from chatter at the show, but he coined the term himself. Oh well, it may end up in common use. I think it does look more like a goblin shark than a spiny lumpsucker.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1797988351284502541
View: https://twitter.com/Hush_Kit/status/1797988351284502541










Hush-Kit Aviation News, History & Satire

@Hush_Kit

Me. I thought the low intake makes it look a bit like a Goblin Shark.

There is actually a UAV called the Goblin Shark though:

www.flightglobal.com

Goblin Shark micro-UAV provides 360-degree vision

Tuscon, Arizona-based Brock Technologies has launched a new line of small, tube-launched unmanned air system (UAS) that can provide 360 degree situational awareness with a distributed camera system. Unlike the deep-sea monstrosity it shares a name with, the Goblin Shark has excellent vision...
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 
Last edited:
OMGI6CL5OFH2HA7UCGLFAT3K5Q.jpg


This chart should be made dimensionless by dividing each value by the yearly combined projected average total DoD budgets of the participants in each programs. Otherwise it doesn´t mean much.

What is the drain of resources in % for France, Germany, Spain regarding their defence effort? What is it for UK/Japan etc...
 
TomcatViP said:
What is the drain of resources in % for France, Germany, Spain regarding their defence effort? What is it for UK/Japan etc...
Click to expand...
Agree, good question. The GCAP and FCAS countries seem fairly similar in terms of their financial strength.

The US economy is 2x larger and defense spending is 2x higher in % so their total equipment spend is 5x higher. But they are also spending more than 5x as much based on the above graph….

GCAP (Japan, UK, Italy)
$14 trillion GDP (PPP)
x 1.7% defense spending
= $240B defense budget
Equipment budget is 24.5% so $60B/yr.

FCAS (Germany, France, Spain)
$12.2 trillion GDP (PPP)
x 1.6% defense spending
= $200B defense budget
Equipment budget is 27% so $55B/yr.

US
$28.5 trillion GDP (PPP)
x 3.5% defense spending
= $1,000B defense budget
Equipment budget is 29% so $300B/yr.
 
Last edited:
According to the nbr above (that I haven´t crosschecked myself):

So 2% for the USA per programs*
3% for FCAS countries**
3% for GCAP countries**

However, IMOHO, NGAD is somewhat at the end of a 10 years effort, hence R&D spending are maxed out regarding Euro prog that should see some drastic increase.

*value rounded at 6Bn each
**values rounded at 2Bn each
 
Last edited:
Poland plans to join Franco-German fighter plane and battle tank projects
www.euractiv.fr

La Pologne envisage de rejoindre les projets franco-allemands d’avions de chasse et de chars de combat

Le ministre polonais de la Défense, Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, a suggéré lundi (24 juin) que son pays pourrait envisager de participer aux projets de défense franco-allemands destinés à développer un avion de chasse et un char de combat européens.
www.euractiv.fr www.euractiv.fr
Asked about the possibility of Poland joining the MGCS and SCAF projects, Kosiniak-Kamysz responded to journalists after a trilateral meeting of defense ministers: “Regarding large-scale weapon systems, at the initiative of France and Germany, I showed openness today. I am open to our Weimar Triangle allies strengthening our ties in all these areas. » “We are interested in closer ties, including in the field of the defense industry,” he added.
Click to expand...
 
Deltafan said:
Poland plans to join Franco-German fighter plane and battle tank projects
www.euractiv.fr

La Pologne envisage de rejoindre les projets franco-allemands d’avions de chasse et de chars de combat

Le ministre polonais de la Défense, Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, a suggéré lundi (24 juin) que son pays pourrait envisager de participer aux projets de défense franco-allemands destinés à développer un avion de chasse et un char de combat européens.
www.euractiv.fr www.euractiv.fr
Click to expand...
Would be great if they could, but they were already rejected once in the MGCS front and considering all the outcry when Belgium joined as a mere observer status, I don't really see either of it happeneing.

GCAP Tier 2 seems much more plausible. Then again, it rather seems more politically motivated than based on actual possibilities, as this is definitely something the new heavily pro-EU and pro-Germany governement would like to pull off.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Would be great if they could, but they were already rejected once in the MGCS front and considering all the outcry when Belgium joined as a mere observer status, I don't really see either of it happeneing.
Click to expand...
It actualy would make sense to get poland in now given the new state of Europe and poland being a one with the largest tank fleets makes it perfect. Also would help against more orders outside of europe.
 
kqcke for you said:
It actualy would make sense to get poland in now given the new state of Europe and poland being a one with the largest tank fleets makes it perfect. Also would help against more orders outside of europe.
Click to expand...
That is true from a more pragmatic and rational point of view, but industrial protection and politics are often what gets in the way.

Though come to think of it, maybe the large export deal with Korea might have given France and Germany a reality check.
 
Now with this program, Germany and Spain will purchase a French design. The French developed Rafale, they did not want to mess or be involved with the Typhoon program, smart move.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Would be great if they could, but they were already rejected once in the MGCS front and considering all the outcry when Belgium joined as a mere observer status, I don't really see either of it happeneing.

GCAP Tier 2 seems much more plausible. Then again, it rather seems more politically motivated than based on actual possibilities, as this is definitely something the new heavily pro-EU and pro-Germany governement would like to pull off.
Click to expand...
Yeah but I’d bet that would be more France than Germany getting in the way. Mind you would a likely lockup in French politics maybe Germany will be able to get the Poles onboard. Personally I’m hoping the Germans take the opportunity to seize control of the program as then you’re likely to get a more pragmatic than dogmatic approach to things.
 
NikolasTz said:
View attachment 738676

View attachment 738677

Source (It's in French)
www.futura-sciences.com

Hypersoniques, ultra-manœuvrables : l'Onera prête à dévoiler les avions militaires du futur ce 14 Juillet

Lors de la célébration de la Fête nationale du 14 juillet prochain, l'Onera révélera ses récentes avancées dans le domaine de l'aviation militaire du futur à travers les projets « Espadon » et «...
www.futura-sciences.com www.futura-sciences.com
Click to expand...
So, vertical stabs on next gen fighters will linger on for another 50 years, eh?

The Brits and their gang are not deleting them and neither is the Franco-German team, NGAD seems less ambitious than originally thought and China always follows a step by step approach.

Heck It turns out the Americans don't even know what they want from the NGAD yet. So I see an opportunity for China and GCAP partners to shape the next generation of fighter aircraft.

--Turkey, South Korea and now Sweden are doing their own seperate things and Russia is following the leaders slightly from behind since it hasn't fully adapted LOity and other next gen technologies yet.--
 
Notice the different dihedral on both verticals in the tunnel model. I would say that they were here at a very early stage and the final configuration might still varies considerably.
But there is indeed legitimate questions regarding the level of VLO FCAS will reach. Would that be above or below what the F-35 achieves?
If you are not building the next generation fighter, one that could dominate for a couple of decades in the next decade, you might want to rebalance the overall effort toward something more iterative.

;But possible also that the verticals are optional, something like being added on a naval version only.
 
Last edited:
snne said:
and Russia is following the leaders slightly from behind since it hasn't fully adapted LOity and other next gen technologies yet.--
Click to expand...
1. Russia will wait for the rest to pay for the search work and use their results for free
2. Russia is not the initiator of the "Arms Race", so after "catch up and overtake"
 

Attachments

  • 52783811_10217761180843257_2856874720446382080_n.jpg
    52783811_10217761180843257_2856874720446382080_n.jpg
    170.4 KB · Views: 79
paralay said:
1. Russia will wait for the rest to pay for the search work and use their results for free
2. Russia is not the initiator of the "Arms Race", so after "catch up and overtake"
Click to expand...
What kind of wind tunnel model is this in the picture?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom