When comparing FCAS Vs GCAP planned entries into service, do not forget the Japan factor. Japanese have been running a 5th Gen fighter program well before UK or France were teaming on the FCAS as it was known then.
Japan initially found positive inputs teaming with the UK industry that had a long reliable history developing 5th gen systems (and then with Italy).
That's why GCAP is planned to come earlier, unless something get wrong on the way.

Then, having talks around 2035 or 2045 just like if we were discussing interstellar events is plainly... Ridiculous. There are 10 YEARS b/w the two, with probably a large conflict happening during that interval of time that will see aviation modernizes drastically.

FCAS can not be compared to GCAP. If that is the plan, it's a failed one, inherently.

You can see trace of this understanding in the late French military planning speaking of Very High Altitude being dominant.*
[I used the term Hyperstealth (stealth + hypersonic) long ago but it might even only induce flying counter space mission where stealth is not a factor (since orbital assets have to fly... Orbits (at lest partially), you can probably choose often enough favorable airspace where to engage them outside of an enemy IADS).]

So the question remains: why does FCAS have to be extended that far into the fog of future wars?
Inherently that erases the clarity of the message being sent to our allies... But also toward our opponents.

*FCAS is neither advertised or known to be developed for such, even being contradictory with that.
 
Last edited:
FCAS can not be compared to GCAP. If that is the plan, it's failed one, inherently.
I'm starting to see FCAS versus GCAP as FAXX versus NGAD.

GCAP and NGAD are interceptors/fighters. FCAS and FAXX are strike planes that can shoot down other aircraft.

France needs a Rafale replacement, which means a carrier compatible striker.

Germany doesn't need a striker so much with their F-35s, so may be pushing their requirements more towards a fighter.
 
I think Spain is an interesting partner if only because of their air force past and present combat jet inventory. Also they are resisting F-35 so far despite their Harriers.
 
Lets
I'm starting to see FCAS versus GCAP as FAXX versus NGAD.
Yeah but there willing to go more risky (for example variable cycle engine) Wish could explain there longer timeline wish is planed with considerations for expected hardships.
GCAP and NGAD are interceptors/fighters. FCAS and FAXX are strike planes that can shoot down other aircraft.
I don't think that in germany there is a larger need for fighter compared to before while even when FCAS comes atleast 40 Eurofighter will still be there and assuming that FCAS will be similiar to Rafale compared to eurofighter then almost nothing on performance is gone. My guess would be increased interrest for larger payloads which are very hard to achieve with FCAS when you have to balance everything. But maybe some form of CFT solution could be designed? One would have to do it from the get go but an CFT equipped non navy fighter (like F-18L) could achieve similiar weights with either more fuel, weapons or both.
France needs a Rafale replacement, which means a carrier compatible striker.
Germany doesn't need a striker so much with their F-35s, so may be pushing their requirements more towards a fighter.
The strike armament for F-35 are very small with only some cruise missiles and bombs being an option for now. We also gotta assume that allways a part of the fleet needs to be in an ready state for a possible strike which reduces the total strike fleet even more.
 
Last edited:
Another way of putting it: Germany will soon have stealth, 5-gen fighter in the shape of F-35. Spain and France: not so much, they are presently stuck with Typhoon and Rafale. So it is not the same degree of emergency (which brings an interesting question: with France near-term plan being Rafale F5 + Neuron CCA, could Spain be a partner in the said CCA, to help their not-stealth Typhoons ?)

In the end it boils down to : Rafale F5 + CCA versus SCAF, which one is the correct mid-term strategic choice ?

This link provides an honest pros-and-cons.
https://www-opex360-com.translate.g...rancaise/?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr

Sticky point: Rafale F5 while not stealth will have some tricks under its sleeve, see below.

That being said, this "sensor" issue is intriguing. While an aircraft like the F-35 may be "invisible" to some detection means [this is a priori not the case for passive radars and it depends on the frequency bands used], its infrared signature – with its F-135 engine – can betray it. The IR channel of the Rafale's Front Sector Optronics [OSF] would be able to detect it head-on, subject, however, to weather conditions.

Incidentally, the Rafale will soon be equipped with an improved OSF, the General Directorate of Armaments having recently carried out tests on a new optic on the infrared channel of the OSF, this being supposed to improve the "image quality of the Night Identification function".

This development will be accompanied by the integration of Link 16 block 2, the CONTACT software digital radio, as well as the TRAGEDAC systems [which will give the Rafale a passive target location capability through networking of aircraft in the same patrol, editor's note] and CAPOEIRA [for improved connectivity for Rafale developments]. What's more, the development of an anti-radar missile is also underway, as part of the major impact program "Future Air-Surface Armament", which "meets the need for a capability to neutralize short and medium-range surface-to-air threats, an essential prerequisite for the Rafale's first entry capability".

It remains to be seen whether this little bag of tricks plus a fully stealth CCA sidekick drone will be enough to wait until SCAF, into the 2030's.
That's the 800 pound gorilla question.

I want to insist on two important points:

First, Rafale while not 5-gen full stealth and having flown in the late 1980's / early 1990's, still has a lot of growth potential: as shown by the F5 standard.

Second point: Dassault and the Armée de l'Air have a plan, and I think they can be reasonably trusted.
1- Rafale F5 smart tricks against stealth planes
2- The stealth CCA drone sidekick
3- SCAF, with or without Germany, plus Spain.
 
Last edited:
Why bash Dassault
"The French company weighs for only a third in decision making, with Airbus having two-thirds of the vote on behalf of Germany and Spain, Trappier said. That means the lead company on the NGF can’t divvy up the work as it sees fit, the CEO complained."

That's why. It's the same story as when France was part of Eurofighter, Dassault wanted, and now wants, complete dominance on decision making, even where the decision making is properly a political decision. The other partners won't forget that, so why is Trappier demanding complete control? From where I sit it reads as a deliberate attempt to alienate the other partners into quitting the programme so SCAF becomes a Dassault only aircraft, it'll cost them the German and Spanish buys, but he clearly thinks 100% of the French pie, + 100% of export sales, will more than make up for that.
 
Another way of putting it: Germany will soon have stealth, 5-gen fighter in the shape of F-35. Spain and France: not so much, they are presently stuck with Typhoon and Rafale. So it is not the same degree of emergency.

Which brings an interesting question: with France near-term plan being Rafale F5 + Neuron CCA, could Spain be a partner in the said CCA, to help their not-stealth Typhoons ?
Did they say there was a partner? Because i don't think they actualy have any real needs for an stealth fighter anytime soon but this may change with the upcoming possible SU-57s. That said with there TR-4(+) and assuming they upgrade TR-3A at similiar speed to P4E all of them get mutch more strike capabilitys (when they buy them).
In the end it boils down to : Rafale F5 + CCA versus SCAF, which one is the correct mid-term strategic choice ?

This link provides an honest pros-and-cons.
https://www-opex360-com.translate.g...rancaise/?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr

Sticky point: Rafale F5 while not stealth will have some tricks under its sleeve, see below.





It remains to be seen whether this little bag of tricks plus a fully stealth CCA sidekick drone will be enough to wait until SCAF, into the 2030's. That's the 800 pound gorilla question.
Even if its not enough can the 3 (maybe 4) get enough money to accelerate the development?
 
Second point: Dassault and the Armée de l'Air have a plan, and I think they can be reasonably trusted.
It's one argument, but France also has few other near term options unless they buy F-35 (unlikely being an understatement). Sweden is also in a similar position.

It'll be interesting to see how the global market for "CCA" actually turns out. They still cost money and effort.
 
It's one argument, but France also has few other near term options unless they buy F-35 (unlikely being an understatement). Sweden is also in a similar position.

It'll be interesting to see how the global market for "CCA" actually turns out. They still cost money and effort.
Yeah future CCA or in general more UCAV families could be really potent on the market but its also just as dangerous to share
 
Another way of putting it: Germany will soon have stealth, 5-gen fighter in the shape of F-35. Spain and France: not so much, they are presently stuck with Typhoon and Rafale. So it is not the same degree of emergency (which brings an interesting question: with France near-term plan being Rafale F5 + Neuron CCA, could Spain be a partner in the said CCA, to help their not-stealth Typhoons ?)

In the end it boils down to : Rafale F5 + CCA versus SCAF, which one is the correct mid-term strategic choice ?

This link provides an honest pros-and-cons.
https://www-opex360-com.translate.g...rancaise/?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr

Sticky point: Rafale F5 while not stealth will have some tricks under its sleeve, see below.





It remains to be seen whether this little bag of tricks plus a fully stealth CCA sidekick drone will be enough to wait until SCAF, into the 2030's.
That's the 800 pound gorilla question.

I want to insist on two important points:

First, Rafale while not 5-gen full stealth and having flown in the late 1980's / early 1990's, still has a lot of growth potential: as shown by the F5 standard.

Second point: Dassault and the Armée de l'Air have a plan, and I think they can be reasonably trusted.
1- Rafale F5 smart tricks against stealth planes
2- The stealth CCA drone sidekick
3- SCAF, with or without Germany, plus Spain.
Yet another way to put it: Germany is stuck in buying "5-gen" in the shape of F-35 just to carry these US B-61 nukes, hoping that pleases the US enough to keep these bombs there. Spain and France: not so much, they are presently using Typhoon and Rafale which still have development potential...

And if you think of what they could be facing, say in 10 years, I don't see Ru AF fielding 80 - 100 Su-57 (which we can even question the operational value, they are not even used in the current war) in that time scale given Russian economy now and even after that war.

Completely agree with the other points. Moreover again, with the fast progress in IA and drones nowadays, true unmanned A/A and A/G combat drones could become much more feasible than pouring billions in "6-gen" Stealth Macross super fighters everyone is dreaming of, just to be able to field a squadron of 12.
In Ukraine, cheap slow drones are already doing to work of cruise missiles to struck Ru refineries/airfields, kamikaze drones are used successfully to stop Ru advances in place of artillery on some parts of the front. Drones are regularly shot doing by other drones too... Things are changing .
 
Last edited:
Very specific (if not desperate) circumstances: by 1987 Crusaders were falling appart with severe attrition; they would not last into the 1990's; while Rafale M was hoped for 1996, best case except it was 2001 in the end.
So the Aéronavale requested 15 second-hand Hornets but Dassault and President Mitterrand blew a fuse and F-8P upgrade happened instead. It was very ugly political manoeuvering.

More generally, France has no problem buying american rather than re-inventing the wheel, see the E-3 AWACS and the Hawkeyes. But indigenous fighter is considering a core strategic capability so no compromise there. Last truly foreign combat jets were NATO / MAP F-100 Super Sabres, retired from Djibouti in 1977.
 
Yep, but if it isn't replacing all the fleet?
Just a supplementary 1st day of war force, say 24 a/c + spares.

Rafale tries to be everything, but isn't possible to make one aircraft perform all tricks at world level for half a century. Sport careers are shorter for a reason.
 
Another way of putting it: Germany will soon have stealth, 5-gen fighter in the shape of F-35. Spain and France: not so much, they are presently stuck with Typhoon and Rafale. So it is not the same degree of emergency (which brings an interesting question: with France near-term plan being Rafale F5 + Neuron CCA, could Spain be a partner in the said CCA, to help their not-stealth Typhoons ?)

In the end it boils down to : Rafale F5 + CCA versus SCAF, which one is the correct mid-term strategic choice ?

This link provides an honest pros-and-cons.
https://www-opex360-com.translate.g...rancaise/?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr

Sticky point: Rafale F5 while not stealth will have some tricks under its sleeve, see below.





It remains to be seen whether this little bag of tricks plus a fully stealth CCA sidekick drone will be enough to wait until SCAF, into the 2030's.
That's the 800 pound gorilla question.

I want to insist on two important points:

First, Rafale while not 5-gen full stealth and having flown in the late 1980's / early 1990's, still has a lot of growth potential: as shown by the F5 standard.

Second point: Dassault and the Armée de l'Air have a plan, and I think they can be reasonably trusted.
1- Rafale F5 smart tricks against stealth planes
2- The stealth CCA drone sidekick
3- SCAF, with or without Germany, plus Spain.

Many non-stealth jets have still a lot of growth potential, otherwise the likes of the Eurofighter, Rafale, Su-35, F-15 or F-16 wouldn't see consistent or planned upgrades right now or in the near future. However it is also undeniable that the modern state of warfare is incredibly hostile to such aircraft. ECM and IRSTs are nice, but stealth opens up a whole new dimension to combat aviation. And in my eyes it would be questionable to invest into a legacy airframe instead of a modern stealth aircraft. Ideally you have a top of the line stealth fighter that can operate in contested environments and a modernized legacy airframe that can support and supplement it.

So it's less about Rafale F5 over FCAS and more so about what should come first really, the Rafale upgrades or the stealth fighter. If France wants to remain competitive on the global stage they will need one regardless. That's either coupled to FCAS succeeding or giving up and either developing a stealth fighter on the basis of the Rafale in an (unlikely) attempt to reduce cost (it would still be virtually a new aircraft altogether) or buying a foreign model. And given the sorry state of Franco-Chinese and Franco-Russia relationships that immediately excludes the J-35, Su-57E and Su-75E. Only options left would be the F-35A/C, the KAAN and the later blocks of the KF-21. And how likely any of these are is written in the stars.

(On a different note, can we stop pretending like IRST is the end-all-be-all stealth counter? That stuff is being said since the F-22 arrived)
 
Yeah future CCA or in general more UCAV families could be really potent on the market but its also just as dangerous to share
Not only that, truly potent CCAs won't be cheap at all. Perhaps cheaper than full on stealth fighter, but they will still cost tens of millions. Definitely not expendable. And if we really mean collaborative combat aircraft, you also need to operate aircraft, be it fighters, fighter bombers or AEW&C type aircraft, that are able to operate with CCAs, probably through specialized upgrade systems sold with the CCAs.

It's a promising market, but I think it's a market that also is only available to nations which can afford to spend the necessary money.
 
You don't need stealth to combat other fighters, surely it helps but that's not the main reason as most countries operate majority non-stealth fleets anyway.

You need stealth aircraft to operate over an area despite the presence of modern GBAD networks and conduct SEAD/DEAD. The alternative is doing that with Ballistic Missiles, as been proven for 3 years now, but that costs significantly more than dropping/launching cheaper munitions from your stealth fighter.

That's where the current need for stealth fighters come from, it was also a force behind the development of the JSF, the proliferation of advanced and semi advanced AD.

And dedicated aircraft to escort SEAD sorties with electronic countermeasures like the E/A-18G or J-16D are also costly. While something like an F-35A rolls stealth, potent ECM capabilities and strike performance into a single airframe.

And if we look at the last decades, we simply see that fighters are more often than not used to engage targets on the ground, rather than in the air.

https://www-opex360-com.translate.g...rancaise/?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr

What's more, the development of an anti-radar missile is also underway, as part of the major impact program "Future Air-Surface Armament", which "meets the need for a capability to neutralize short and medium-range surface-to-air threats, an essential prerequisite for the Rafale's first entry capability".

 
Rumor is the French may drop out of the program.

Not a surprise really, at least to me.

The French has demonstrated time and time again the ability to design very competant, modern, military aircraft.

What they need is money, not necessarily engineering and project management support.

These multi-nation efforts sometimes collapse under the weight of convoluted decision-making and competing national interests.

I hope it all turns out well but I think it's an uphill climb.
 
So let's sum this up:

First you agree with me that stealth is a decisive advantage, but you weirdly frame it like you disagree.
Yes it is a advantage but you make it should like there is nothing else that matters anymore. Doesn't matter how we turn those arguments we and at both ends...
> Money can only do so mutch and testing takes time.

Money is what moves these sort of programs forward, money and people.
And money is a "fixed" asset with limit budgets and everyone needing more money for everything else. Putting everything on 1 project and then rushing it trought while only throwing money at it seems like a risky plan.
Which brings us back to the initial point of dassault slowing everything down when Germany wants to speed development up, DESPITE having ordered F-35As to replace the Tornado.
Dassault wants more power because airbus (being prime for germany and spain) has mutch more leverage (similiar situation in MGCS with KMW and Rheinmetall being both german). Does Rafale have big ties with the french goverment? 100% but so does airbus with the german (that said probaly not as strong) and developing an UCAV / Loyal Wingmann outside of FCAS/SCAF isn't against the decided work either but i can understand Airbus frustrations. Also as one can see F-35 as only a partial Tornado replacement (around half the fleet) with limit A2G armament and focused around the nuclear role. As far as i know they don't even have AARGM integreated into the external harpoints so they can only do a more passive Jammer role for SEAD/DEAD.
> They don't need to

So you think France, a nuclear power, a regional power in the mediterranen and North Africa, which involvements in Africa as a whole, doesn't need to be competitive in a world where potent AD systems become more and more common. Got it.
Okay lets splitt those arguments first. First of all most of those nations are hardly operating even cold war GBAD systems as they mostly are fighting warlords, terrorists, each other or themselfs. The few that actualy have something modern are actualy close to france so a conflict is very unlikely.
Did the French MoD also get that memo though?
I think they know very well where there threats are now and probaly tomorrow which is WHY they know what they need and are developing a stealthy UCAV/ Loyal Wingmann for Rafale F5 and later FCAS/SCAF. But let me rephrase that as they don't need to anytime soon. Better?

Anyway as we all can't change anything here we may aswell agree to disagree and wait for whats to happen.
 
Last edited:
Yeah but there willing to go more risky (for example variable cycle engine) Wish could explain there longer timeline wish is planed with considerations for expected hardships.
I'm honestly expecting the FAXX-B model to get adaptive engines. The Navy needed to cut the total development time short, so they're gambling like they did with the Tomcats. Buying the first batch with an F110 derivative that is probably mostly done already, then the "real" version of the fighter gets the A102/103 from the F-47.

But that's for the FAXX discussion thread. [/off topic]

My comparison was really about the two very different primary missions the two planes were designed for. How the F-47 is designed as a fighter first and foremost, while FAXX is designed as a striker that can shoot down airplanes. It's honestly unclear if the F-47 has a single pound for air to ground.



I don't think that in germany there is a larger need for fighter compared to before while even when FCAS comes atleast 40 Eurofighter will still be there and assuming that FCAS will be similiar to Rafale compared to eurofighter then almost nothing on performance is gone. My guess would be increased interrest for larger payloads which are very hard to achieve with FCAS when you have to balance everything. But maybe some form of CFT solution could be designed? One would have to do it from the get go but an CFT equipped non navy fighter (like F-18L) could achieve similiar weights with either more fuel, weapons or both.
How long do you think 40 Eurofighters will last in combat?

IF Germany wants a plane with larger weapons bays than the F-35, then yes FCAS would be the logical option.

But I'm still seeing Germany as wanting a stealthy replacement for their Typhoons, not a bigger F-35.


The strike armament for F-35 are very small with only some cruise missiles and bombs being an option for now. We also gotta assume that allways a part of the fleet needs to be in an ready state for a possible strike which reduces the total strike fleet even more.
F-35 is a stealthy A-7 that can go supersonic. It's a striker, not a particularly good dogfighter. It's only got 2x AAMs if it's doing a ground-attack mission, and IIRC the AIM260 was supposed to have an anti-radar mode to it as well.

It can carry AARGMs, it can carry bunker buster bombs, it can carry 8x SDBs if we're playing that game. It can also carry AGM-154 JSOW glide bombs if you need to.
 
I'm honestly expecting the FAXX-B model to get adaptive engines. The Navy needed to cut the total development time short, so they're gambling like they did with the Tomcats. Buying the first batch with an F110 derivative that is probably mostly done already, then the "real" version of the fighter gets the A102/103 from the F-47.

But that's for the FAXX discussion thread. [/off topic]

My comparison was really about the two very different primary missions the two planes were designed for. How the F-47 is designed as a fighter first and foremost, while FAXX is designed as a striker that can shoot down airplanes. It's honestly unclear if the F-47 has a single pound for air to ground.
And i assume that FCAS will be similiar to FAXX which atleast until now has shown to be just as good in most situations.
How long do you think 40 Eurofighters will last in combat?
Thats a good question but at the same time we could ask at which timepoint do they attack? How many eurofighter could be put in service again or how does SCAF far in air to air combat.
IF Germany wants a plane with larger weapons bays than the F-35, then yes FCAS would be the logical option.

But I'm still seeing Germany as wanting a stealthy replacement for their Typhoons, not a bigger F-35.
In the end the goal (as far as they said) is too replace everything with FCAS in the end (but considering the advent of of drones its a bit questionable).
F-35 is a stealthy A-7 that can go supersonic. It's a striker, not a particularly good dogfighter. It's only got 2x AAMs if it's doing a ground-attack mission, and IIRC the AIM260 was supposed to have an anti-radar mode to it as well.
It can carry AARGMs, it can carry bunker buster bombs, it can carry 8x SDBs if we're playing that game. It can also carry AGM-154 JSOW glide bombs if you need to.
I havent seen a single F-35 flying with AARGM so far which means any ground munition the Luftwaffe has for F-35 are 75 JASSM, ~420 JADMs (multiple sizes) and 344 SDBs outside of what the BW has in stock (mostly bombs). Even without maybe up too 20 of them in a ready stance, thoses F-35 wont be mutch as sole strike package next too TR4 (mostly). So germany has as mutch interest in strike as specific fighter design. Like i say with Rafale being a better strike solution than eurofighter even if we count in germanys f-35 they both have large needs of a strike and superiority fighter.

Outside of that one could use it as reference model to compare FCAS/SCAF with the capabilitys of most Nato fighters.
 
Last edited:
Just to be clear i do think that at the beginning the Luftwaffe wanted a F-22 like plane with F-35 electronics which is something we see in the DLR-FFD studies. For france this probaly wasn't a problem as any large payload munition against most african nation or other didn't even need to be internal. But even then they probaly came too the conclusion that any large payload could allways be outsized to a UCAV. That said the lastet geopolitical developments have shown that any nation needs to have A2A and A2G capabilitys which the existing loadout is well (taking the DLR-FFD as example configuration) inadequate i think. I mean they designed it with 2 SRAAM, 2 MRAAM and 4 1000 Ibs bomb. Better than F-22 but is that enough?

Thread too DLR-FFD:

Sidenote: looking at it those bays aren't that small. The big bay seems to be around 6m long and have a with of around ~1m. This is them supported by 2 smaller bays over 6.6m long (assuming 1 Iris-T and 1 meteor).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom