Because there ain't mutch pilots in there air forces which gives ous an aircraft limit which we can fly.
Recruiting and training say an extra 50 pilots doesn't seem a particular challenge. There's no way "hundreds" of these sort of high end wingmen (or whatever they're called) are affordable outside of USA/China
 
Is that an official render or a place holder?
I see the forward projected total surface and the chin inlet as sub-optimal for a design without vertical tails.

Notice however that there is a dual refueling system: Probe on the port apex marked area and boom receptable on the top.
 
Last edited:
Is that an official render or a place holder?
an official placeholder (if you have checked original twit)
 
Recruiting and training say an extra 50 pilots doesn't seem a particular challenge.
It can be but it isn't impossible. A lot of things have to happen so you can get them. For germany for example having an aging population means a lot of companies need people and most go to the one which offers the most. The Bundeswehr isn't it.
There's no way "hundreds" of these sort of high end wingmen (or whatever they're called) are affordable outside of USA/China
Well thats a question of costs. But if the loyal wingman cost 1/4 of NGF for example then it would be affordable as you can cut out the cost for the pilots making them even cheaper in the end.

In the end yes maybe 50 more pilots are possible until NGF is there maybe even more but if the loyal wingman is cheaper and may be faster to get then we probaly see them. Maybe a 50/50 fleet if possible. Now instead of only 250 NGF jets you got another 250 extra loyal wingman jets to it.
 
an official placeholder (if you have checked original twit)
For your correction, I did check the twit but not the Airbus link.
 
Last edited:
Where does those verticals erect from?!
It doesn't seems they are foldable. Hence bolted on for Beast mode? Probably not really practical.

Length of the model is 15+ meters. That´s F-16/Typhoon size!! That looks like something extremely expensive for a small weapon bay (see how the inlet has to be routed above the wb, reducing its inherent volume).
Notice also that the apex markings that I identified above as an emplacement for the refueling probe (deployable) is also present on the starboard side.
 
Last edited:
Where does those verticals erect from?!
It doesn't seems they are foldable. Hence bolted on for Beast mode? Probably not really practical.

Length of the model is 15+ meters. That´s F-16/Typhoon size!! That looks like something extremely expensive for a small weapon bay (see how the inlet has to be routed above the wb, reducing its inherent volume).
Notice also that the apex markings that I identified above as an emplacement for the refueling probe (deployable) is also present on the starboard side.

Gareth Jennings is saying its bigger than the Typhoon next to it...2 internal bays apparently...
 
Gareth Jennings is saying its bigger than the Typhoon next to it...2 internal bays apparently...
Side by side then. (see picture of the podium stand wih 2x2 wb door sets, side by side). Wb's length approx. 5m. So, roughly F-117 size but probably shallower.
 
Last edited:
That is a good idea pedrospe, that would save a lot of money in the process if they did that it would be good for the overall budget sharing the various technologies between the manned and unmanned variants.
 
It kind of reminds me of an F-16XL with canards.

Say 9t empty, 10-12t thrust class engine (EJ200 stage 2 or equivalent), 5-6t internal fuel, plus a 4.5m long weapons bay for 4 AAMs or 2x 400kg Remote Carriers (JSOW/JSM size class)… about 2/3rds an F-35A in weight, thrust and payload.

Airbus-Loyal-Wingman-50px-1m.png
 
Last edited:
It seems Germany has gone all the way back to uncrewed fighters? How is this going to be affordable or achievable alongside the crewed NGF? Or is this Germany's plan B?
 
It seems Germany has gone all the way back to uncrewed fighters? How is this going to be affordable or achievable alongside the crewed NGF? Or is this Germany's plan B?
I believe that the idea is to use CCAs as the low part of the high-low mix. They're nowhere near as capable as the NGF, but they're a lot cheaper because of that. See also the early F15s and F16s.
 
I believe that the idea is to use CCAs as the low part of the high-low mix. They're nowhere near as capable as the NGF, but they're a lot cheaper because of that. See also the early F15s and F16s.
But this for example looks way way higher end than the "CCA" type things going on in other countries, and will have an associated price tag.
 
But this for example looks way way higher end than the "CCA" type things going on in other countries, and will have an associated price tag.
And they are probaly willing to pay that because they may just not be able to get the needed manned fighter. We see both low and high end CCA stuff.
 
But this for example looks way way higher end than the "CCA" type things going on in other countries, and will have an associated price tag.
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.
 
Last edited:
That depends mostly on the sensors and other systems fitted as to how expensive the CCA is. IIRC, well over 40% 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.

The other thing is....sustainment is dramatically cheaper....

You just don't need to fly these things often. Give them a bit of maintenance every now and then, fly one or two in exercises and the rest is simulator driven. Hardly any airframe hours a year required....no pilots needing to keep their currency up...
 
That depends mostly on the sensors and other systems fitted as to how expensive the CCA is. IIRC, well over 40% 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.
F-35A systems is rather 35%... https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...eight-multirole-fighter-lmf.38539/post-624350
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230928_230130.jpg
    Screenshot_20230928_230130.jpg
    78 KB · Views: 48
What i find interresting is how small this NGF IWB is or it looks. Now this may be just a concept art for it or even only for a loyal wingman but still not that big.
 
Where does those verticals erect from?!
It doesn't seems they are foldable. Hence bolted on for Beast mode? Probably not really practical.

I think there are two alternative base configurations, one with verticals, one without. Probably not one model field convertible.
 
What i find interresting is how small this NGF IWB is or it looks. Now this may be just a concept art for it or even only for a loyal wingman but still not that big.

It's probably not representative. Look at the relationship between the inlet and the front of the IWB; it's probably not physically possible to have a functional duct behind that inlet.
 

 
Last edited:
You just don't need to fly these things often. Give them a bit of maintenance every now and then, fly one or two in exercises and the rest is simulator driven. Hardly any airframe hours a year required....no pilots needing to keep their currency up...
But where do the people to maintain, fuel, arm them come from? They need training too. Maybe they just sit around getting bored for 30 years waiting for a big enough war to break out that you can wheel out these UCAVs

The sort of boxed round sustainment approach works ok for weapons, and might be ok for really cheap expendable UAS, but its really difficult to see it being a credible capability for anything higher end.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom