UK-France Future Combat Air System (FCAS)

[starviking]

Future Programmes and Services (FP&S)? Sounds like a City Hall planning committee!

 

[TomS]

I'm seeing "Future Programs and Support." And FP&S is not FCAS, it's the BAE effort to figure out ways to estimate the support costs of programs long into the future. As the slide says

"How do we estimate three decades of
Support Costs,
for something that won’t be on the line
for two decades,
utilising technology that hasn’t
been invented yet?"

FCAS just happens to be one of the programs they have to do this long-range support cost estimating for.

I sort of love that their example is a series of battlestars. You can do the methodology on anything, but making the study example totally fictional should prevent anyone from reading into it anything about actual programs.

 

[flateric]

I don't insist though. My bad, seems that I got things wrong.

 

[Grey Havoc]

On a possibly related note, via the UK Defence Journal blog:

https://youtu.be/LdHC7IuoATg

EDIT: I had totally forgotten that fightingirish had posted the same video back in 2014!

 

[mrmalaya]

Fresh from halloweene on the Key aviation forum; the CEO of Safran engines talks (in French) about the FCAS engine partnership with RR:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylsU---2kgA

Most areas of workshare for the power plant are decided and Britain and France have agreed on how to firm up the project before they open it up to other countries like Germany.

 

[mrmalaya]

Another agreement signature leading towards the flying demonstrator phase of the programme in 2017:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/179650/france,-uk-extend-fcas-program,-sign-new-agreements.html

 

[Flyaway]

More reporting on this.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-and-france-agree-on-interim-fcas-work-432509/

 

[Hood]

It seems BAE Systems and Dassault are keen to press on regardless of any political influences beyond the sphere of defence policy.
Doubtless though Dassault will have a Plan B ready in case there are problems, after all they are Europe's most successful military aircraft company and have the will and ability to go it alone.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dassault-plays-down-brexit-fears-over-anglo-french-u-435036/

 

[kaiserd]

Nice try but Dassault do not have either the will or the ability to go it alone anymore than BAE does. In fact they are currently busily telling financial analysts that the handful of Rafale export orders they have achieved are whats saving them in the face of falling business jet sales.

As for most successful, perhaps individually but they have been significantly outproduced by consortiums that have had heavy BAE involvement. 599 Typhoons have been ordered in total, Rafale is unlikely to get close to that based on current planned procurement by France and export orders to date.

In fairness Dassault doing at least as well as selling Rafales as any of the Eurofighter consortium members are doing selling Typhoons; indeed it's appears there is going to be a 2nd hand market for unwanted and unloved early Tranch Typhoons competing with the factory fresh model.
Dassault will be hopping for follow on orders from existing clients, any further large Eurofighter orders likely to rest on if Saudi Arabia goes for a follow up order.
It should be remembered that Saudi's current order wasn't actualy an addition to the overall order book but came off existing UK order numbers (similar case for other Typhoon orders coming off other partners existing orders). Less a new order won, more an expensive cancellation prevented.
(For the record I'm a fan of both aircraft.)

In reality even just in terms of what is politicaly and commercially viable neither BAE or Dassault capable of going it alone on a major UCAV or equivalent project.
For BAE the concern maybe that in a post-Brexit, Trump-as-president world it (and the British government as its principal customer for new planes) will struggle to be seen as a reliable or significant partner or player (at least in terms of new programmes).

 

[JFC Fuller]

As previously pointed out, Typhoon will exist in far greater numbers than Rafale ever will. Typhoon Tranche 1s are hardly competitors to new build Tranche 3s either- they are essentially different aircraft.

The UK government is seen as a reliable partner. Far more so than many other European countries.

 

[kaiserd]

As previously pointed out, Typhoon will exist in far greater numbers than Rafaela ever will. Typhoon Tranche 1s are hardly competitors to new build Tranche 3s either- they are essentially different aircraft.

The UK government is seen as a reliable partner. Far more so than many other European countries.

I wouldn't look to defend France's decision to go it alone be back in the 80's and your probably right about ultimately more Typhoons than Rafales. But given that the Eurofighter members are the UK, Germany, Italy & Spain then if the Typhoon didn't outnumber the Rafale (with only France as its "home" country) then sosomething must have gone massively wrong for that not to be the case.
There isn't much difference between the orders both have won in open international tenders; to be blunt this is a bit like arguing like who is the tallest drawf as both have faired badly against American competition (particularly the F-35, which BAE have a share of work in).
Again would emphasise that I'm a fan of both aircraft.

And while I appreciate that there substantial under the skin differences between Tranch 1 and Tranch 2/ Tranch 3 Typhoons (with latter far more capable long term, particularly in the air-to-ground role) it is a bit disingenuous to pretend that the availability of 2nd hand examples of the former won't impact the already limited demand for the latter.

And being as non-editorial as possible it would not be surprising if European Partner look at the UK differently after Brexit and it appears that the new US administration is generaly less interested in international partnerships and in more in "US-first" policies. As such it is reasonable for there to be concerns around how easily the U.K. based parts of BAE will find it to form new partnerships with European and/or US partners, such as substantial UCAV projects with remotely significant production numbers.
Ironically the US based subsidiary of BAE may do well out of increased US defense spending.

 

[mrmalaya]

My problem with this project is that for the past several months everything (in terms of PR) has been coming from the French. They tell us everything is progressing, they tell us everyone is really keen to continue and yet BAE have literally nothing to say on the subject.

BAE talk about Taranis and what it has done, but we have had no programme update, models or details from BAE or the project partners.

The latest rumours suggest that the shared design is to be along the French X47b lookalike lines, with a modified Rafale engine in it.....

The UK and BAE have the comfort blanket of the F35 work for decades to come, with the F35 doing LO work alongside Typhoon. The French have nothing to fly alongside Rafale in ten years time, and have consistently talked about FCAS as a buddy to Rafale. So does the UK need FCAS enough to continue?

 

[red admiral]

My problem with this project is that for the past several months everything (in terms of PR) has been coming from the French. They tell us everything is progressing, they tell us everyone is really keen to continue and yet BAE have literally nothing to say on the subject.

UK government security and other sensitivities generally mean there is little public info on UK position. The UK has said very very in substancecaround Taranis for example - still plenty of stories on it being supersonic with intercontinental range.

Whereas DGA/Dassault are happy to blab to the journalists, despite the fact that DGA has no money...

 

[kaiserd]

My problem with this project is that for the past several months everything (in terms of PR) has been coming from the French. They tell us everything is progressing, they tell us everyone is really keen to continue and yet BAE have literally nothing to say on the subject.

BAE talk about Taranis and what it has done, but we have had no programme update, models or details from BAE or the project partners.

The latest rumours suggest that the shared design is to be along the French X47b lookalike lines, with a modified Rafale engine in it.....

The UK and BAE have the comfort blanket of the F35 work for decades to come, with the F35 doing LO work alongside Typhoon. The French have nothing to fly alongside Rafale in ten years time, and have consistently talked about FCAS as a buddy to Rafale. So does the UK need FCAS enough to continue?

I agree that it is very easy to see the UK role & money for their share of the FCAS being seen to overlap/ be in competition with with a potential/ likely F-35A order to replace the early Tranch Typhoons.
In previous scenarios similar to this (for example the decision to go with the Tornado ADV) industry and political considerations mitigated towards the UK-European option.
Post-Brexit it is unclear what will be the stronger drive with the UK decision makers; to prove the UK remains interested in strong partnerships with its European neighbours, or a U.K. equivalent to Trumps "American-First" as may be expected from the most hardcore & vocal Brexiters.

And while I may disagree with the idealogy and politics of the later it is quite possible that the basic maths and cost versus capacity equation will favour prioritising a F-35A (which also has U.K. BAE workshare) buy over the UK portion of the FCAS.
Given that even the US isn't currently willing to put its deep strike eggs in the UCAV basket then for France & UK to do so would represent a significant risk which could turn out to be an expensive way to obtain assets that are potentially inherently less flexible or reliable (especially when facing a near-peer opponent) versus a manned alternative like the F-35.
FCAS is a necessary gamble for the likes of Dassault and the UK portion of BAE to remain relevant as independent producers of 1st grade military aircraft; its yet to be seen if both the Frence & UK governments have the same view of the necessity of this gamble or the stomach to see it through, especially in a post Brexit world neither foresaw when they started it.

 

[Hood]

BAE's silence could be secrecy or it could be practical cynicism. As I said in the T-X thread, BAE Systems is very risk adverse. It will do nothing without a partner and its shareholders probably see more profit and value in its electronic systems projects, most of which depend on sizable US contracts. You only have to look at the Advanced Hawk, a 50/50 risk share. BAE designed the new wing but they've left it to HAL to do the flying and assembly and any Advanced Hawk exports will come from HAL's factory not BAE's. And Hawk is BAE's only successful remaining military export aircraft. The RJX had no international partner and was scrapped.

One could question if BAE Systems was so busy on FCAS would they be willingly sending 100 engineers on a holiday jaunt to Turkey? (*tongue-in-cheek*). The truth is there is more profit and less risk in acting as a design consultancy. Developing nations like India and Poland are crying out for valuable offset production work so its a win-win for both parties, but it leaves companies like BAE Systems as niche players in cutting edge technology and makers of one-off prototypes.
Dassault, from what we've seen of their travails in India, seems to resist this trend and wants to produce its own stuff. With Airbus Military on its doorstep you can see why.

That's not to say BAE don't take FCAS seriously, the technology demonstrators will be essential to keep their cutting edge skills but given most other air forces haven't gone down the path of FCAS-like technologies means the chances for exports are low (classified systems and tech also play a part) and its a long-term gamble whether it will produce actual service aircraft. It's as much of a long term gamble of that a low-flying supersonic strike aircraft designed in the late 1950s would remain viable by 1970. History has been littered with thousands of words on the next big thing in the next 20 years from VTOL airliners, supersonic airliners and supersonic V/STOL fighters but that doesn't mean when you get there things have already moved on.

 

[mrmalaya]

I suppose it runs something like this: The UK embarked upon Taranis because it had years of research into UCAVs and had recently had its fingers burned over F35 source codes and thus needed to reinforce its sovereignty in such matters. Clearly BAE had a big say in this process.

Taranis testing appears to have been developing along the lines of deep penetration using its advanced aerodynamics and VLO design to do things other UK assets can't (even the F35 has the encumbrance of the pilot being at risk).

This has been achieved with no outside help.

The French view is that they use their less ambitious neuron, built with the help of everyone in Europe in order to get some experience of LO operations and feed that into the development of an unmanned wingman for Rafael (is their any evidence the French view FCAS as more than this?).

The suggestion is that the x47b lookalike is built with warmed over M88s and then the 2countries use their own avionics in operational test. The most optimistic slant you can put on this, is that BAE will use it as a cheaper and more financially secure way to get their advanced sensors and navigation package into operational testing.

Or, nothing is being said because the reality is that the 2 teams were not at the same place in terms of technology and that without a beneficial political climate to drive the cooperation, the whole thing is falling apart.

 

[red admiral]

Interesting to see people's perceptions of how they think the BAES - MoD (RAF, FMC, Dstl) relationship works.

@Hood

"Make in India" is the only reason that Advanced Hawk exists. Most customers want operating cost savings and more alignment to current fighter types, which T2 / 128 services. It doesn't even seem that India wants Advanced Hawk.

Risk avoidance is to be expected in current military aircraft design when initial costs are at 100s of £ms at the very least. No one is taking that sort of risk nowadays.

 

[mrmalaya]

Well I'm not sure any of the above branches of government/industry have a true fix on the nature of their relationship

I also don't want to get into an interminable discussion on the lineage of Taranis. Perhaps because of the above, we all have slightly different views on what the point of it is.

That said, I do think the project is more ambitious and the aircraft more accomplished than it's European counterpart. I also don't think that Dassault is as far ahead in the field of AI and LO as BAE, but that is only based on it's focus on Rafale as the pinnacle of it's work to date.

I had assumed that we would see two distinct demonstrators with some common sub-systems that would allow sovereignty in design, whilst sharing costly engine development. If it's the case that the airframe is essentially feeding off of French research and the engine likewise, that is not much of a partnership- more of an extension of Neuron isn't it?

 

[red admiral]

I had assumed that we would see two distinct demonstrators with some common sub-systems that would allow sovereignty in design, whilst sharing costly engine development. If it's the case that the airframe is essentially feeding off of French research and the engine likewise, that is not much of a partnership- more of an extension of Neuron isn't it?

Not sure why you think France is leading airframe design.

M88 vs. EJ200 vs. Something else - helps to not have international partners sometimes.

 

[mrmalaya]

Yes I take the point about engines (although the Turks seem to have enrolled RR to use the EJ200 for their jet and thrust vectoring -RR having bought IPT recently)).

That said, EJ200 wasn't on the cards really was it? Wasn't it either M88, a heavily modified M88 or something new?

As to my paranoia, it is fed by a well connected rumour and the distinct lack of PR from the UK. Time will tell

 

[Mike Pryce]

I'm not brave enough to post this in an F-35 thread, so will park it here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445708/f-35-replacement-f-45-mustang-ii-fighter-simple-lightweight

If the UK took up this idea in place of big unmanned Doritos, and added a dose of ASTOVL because, well, why not?, I would be happy as a taxpayer and airshow fan.

 

[kcran567]

I had the same idea a few years ago and posted here in a few threads. Next generation A-4 or F-5/20 with limited stealth, good performance and passive sensors. Built in higher numbers than current generation because the cost is astronomical and growing exponentially.

Stealth and expensive gadgets are good, but how can there be an effective lower cost solution? Unless this happens will end up with $500M fighters and $Trillion bombers very soon.

What if the old Sukhois and Migs find a good way to detect the F-22/35 in combat using old radars, jamming, and good IR sensors?? You then have have low numbers of very expensive fighter fleets that are extremely difficult to maintain and keep operational at parity with cheaper enemy aircraft.

 

[kaiserd]

Your going a bit off topic lads.
If what your are suggesting was such a good idea then one would expect that very few countries would be mistakenly pursuing F-22/F-35/Typhoon/ Rafale etc. equivalents and that many countries would be persuing the type of design you are proposing.
In reality the opposite is true; multiple countries are voting with their wallets and selecting the capable but expensive types with light weight fighters becoming rarer and very much niche players.
Even the Gripen has got larger and heavier to compete.

Re: UCAVs (and specifically re: the FCAS) there will of course be the same capability versus cost trade-off, with UCAVs perhaps offering greater scope for trading some survivability for lower costs and greater numbers but also with the cost of systems for true autonomy mitigating against going too far in this direction.
It is this aspect, and the fear that a survivable deep strike UCAV flexible enough to be worth having could be a challenging and costly endeavour, that helps drive up the risks for the FCAS.
And that's before you get to the politics.

 

[Triton]

How much does the F-16IN Super Viper cost?

 

[Mike Pryce]

All the later F-16s cost way more than they should, having become high tech bomb trucks, and taking on more of LM's overheads due to delays in the successor programmes.

Designing any kind of system and hoping for controlled costs, while making and supporting it in a high overhead firm, will end up with something expensive, even if the thing itself is simple.

 

[Flyaway]

I'm not brave enough to post this in an F-35 thread, so will park it here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445708/f-35-replacement-f-45-mustang-ii-fighter-simple-lightweight

If the UK took up this idea in place of big unmanned Doritos, and added a dose of ASTOVL because, well, why not?, I would be happy as a taxpayer and airshow fan.

Was that meant as some kind of comedy article?

 

[Flyaway]

Brexit could impact future European fighter development, Airbus warns

The United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union could have a major impact on Europe's plans to design, develop, and manufacture the next generation of combat aircraft, Airbus Defence and Space (DS) chief executive Dirk Hoke has warned.

Speaking to Germany's Handelsblatt newspaper on 31 March, Hoke said that, with the company currently working with the German government to define its Future Combat Air System (FCAS) requirements under the Next-Generation Weapon System (NGWS) future fighter programme, and France and the United Kingdom carrying out their own preliminary studies for the project, the Brexit decision by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union could be "significant".

"With regards to the United Kingdom, the next two years and the course of Brexit will have a significant impact on the decision of whether or not [the country chooses] to be involved [in NGWS]," he noted.

The UK decision on being involved in NGWS would be highly important to the overall success of the project as Europe can no longer realistically afford to develop multiple fighter types as it has done previously. It must pool its resources rather than set them against each other, as was the most recent case with the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, and Saab Gripen platforms.

http://www.janes.com/article/69272/brexit-could-impact-future-european-fighter-development-airbus-warns

 

[red admiral]

Airbus would say that, but the fact is that only UK and France have the money and industrial capabilities to do this.

I don't think either UK or France is going to set up another make-work collaboration like Eurofighter. Time for best athlete approach and consolidation.

 

[Mike Pryce]

News from Paris/AW:

http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show-2017/engine-planform-begin-shaping-anglo-french-ucav

M88 engine = more UK airframe share? Different sensors/software for each nation. A carrier version too! Wow. Someone been given a budget to blow?

 

[mrmalaya]

Hmm.

French engine (but arguable better choice for this application), French carrier compatible (as opposed to STOVL for QEC class) and the planform is very similar to that which the French have long favoured.

I have to wonder who is most motivated here.

 

[red admiral]

DGA wants to spend money it doesn't have. The whole article is obviously written from discussions with Dassault/DGA and as such represents their hopes and dreams viewpoint, not necessarily reality.

The UK has been all over double edge planforms since FOAS days if you look back

 

[FighterJock]

DGA wants to spend money it doesn't have. The whole article is obviously written from discussions with Dassault/DGA and as such represents their hopes and dreams viewpoint, not necessarily reality.

The UK has been all over double edge planforms since FOAS days if you look back

I am old enough to remember reading about some of the designs for FOAS and being impressed by some of them, including one that looked almost like Replica.

 

[mrmalaya]

I know you can say that the most imaged FOAS study was a double edge platform but the DGA/Onera one is very similar to what we are being shown for FCAS. That said, all we hear these days is the French side of things.

When did you last hear or see anything on the UK work?

 

[red admiral]

When did you last hear or see anything on the UK work?

Yes the MoD doesn't brief journalists or allow Industry to, beyond agreed things, as there's no benefit in doing so. This doesn't mean that nothing is happening.

Chris Lee has done his lecture on Taranis aerodynamics a few times now, which is a masterpiece in saying nothing.

 

[mrmalaya]

Well hopefully there is still scope for it to look a bit more refined than the Dassault imagery suggests. That is depicting their original design from a few years ago anyway.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Chris Lee has done his lecture on Taranis aerodynamics a few times now, which is a masterpiece in saying nothing.

How much could be said on the aerodynamics of a subsonic non manoeuvring drone anyway? "Keep. The. Flow. Attached."?

 

[Trident]

Having googled Mr. Lee's name in connection with Taranis, a lot seems to concern engine integration (nozzle & particularly inlet). Makes sense, given the rather eccentric, LO-driven inlet shape that is probably non-trivial to achieve decent flow quality with.

 

[Flyaway]

Europe’s Complex UAV Studies Delivering Tangible Results

Maturing UAV studies suggest Europe’s governments are taking sovereign unmanned capabilities more seriously

Meanwhile, the veil has been lifted on British and French plans to develop unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) demonstrators planned for flight in 2025.

The €2 billion ($2.2 billion) program, agreed to by the governments in March 2016 in Amiens, France, looks set to deliver two advanced UCAVs, one to each country—which while nearly identical, will feature sovereign capabilities in terms of the radar, electronic warfare and electro-optical systems.

Concluding the joint Future Combat Air System (FCAS) feasibility study, signed off on at the 2014 Farnborough Airshow, officials from both countries have agreed to proceed on a platform to be powered by a derivative of Safran’s M88 turbofan engine, which powers the Dassault Rafale fighter.

They have also adopted a so-called “cranked kite” planform for the system, similar to that used on Northrop Grumman’s X-47. The platforms will be as long as that of a Dassault Rafale or Eurofighter Typhoon but will feature a larger wingspan. Total weight will be comparable to the two fighter jets, with the platforms optimized for range and endurance at subsonic speeds.

While much of the FCAS program’s progress has so far been kept under wraps, a series of scenario videos shown by French defense procurement agency DGA, illustrated key areas of study. Among the ones being explored by the development teams are use of artificial intelligence (AI) to assist ground operators with mission planning, target acquisition and on-the-fly analysis of threats.

In one scenario, the AI identified which UCAV, from a flight of four, was best suited to attacking a particular target type based on the UCAV’s weapon load, fuel status and other parameter sets. And as BAE has already demonstrated with Taranis, the UCAV can be requested to search for a target and report its findings to the operator.

At the moment the focus, in France at least, has been on controlling the UCAVs from a ground station, but officials are also looking at how technologies such as augmented reality can ease operator workloads.

However, officials note that the capabilities being developed for the UCAV could also apply to Rafale upgrades. Technologies being developed for the UCAV’s radar will likely feature in the Rafale’s future development road map.

http://aviationweek.com/technology/europe-s-complex-uav-studies-delivering-tangible-results

 

[totoro]

So... operational UCAVs starting to enter french/british air forces in 2030-2035 period? If the political will to pursue to project is still there?

 

[mrmalaya]

Hmm.

Perhaps I had misinterpreted the "cranked kite" definition as applying solely to the French design?

http://aviationweek.com/shownews/bae-stealthily-posits-future-ucav-concept