Future Combat Air System (FCAS) - France/Germany

[randomradio]

The following link says that FCAS will have NGFE with 2x110 KN engines & i wonder how will it carry its big nuke, AShM, etc internally.
How can a Naval 6gen fighter be medium weight?

France’s top general: FCAS hinges on next generation engine

French General Fabien Mandon warns that developing a 11-tonne-class engine for the FCAS Next Generation Fighter is the program’s key technical challenge.

www.aerotime.aero

But a recent unofficial tweet says that NGFE will be 2x145-150 KN. It looks more like personal post rather from regular blogger, thinktank, news agency, etc.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2025953405433151766

108 kN is confirmed, it will give 11T of thrust.

The goal is to build a 14.5T jet based on a simple calculation. 22T/1.5 = 14.67T. That's roughly Rafale class TWR.

And yes, you are figuring out after all our discussions that we are chasing after this class of jets, not some magic AHCA.

At 14-15T and 7-8T of fuel, it should be able to carry 9-10T of payload. TEDBF too will weigh around 15T, carry 7T of fuel and 9T of payload powered by 120 kN engines. So both jets should be about 16 m long and 11 m wide.

MTOW could be 27-28T.

 

[Gautam]

then ADA will have no choice but to pursue 7th gen.

 

[_Anonymous_]

View attachment 50176

That's right . ADE with it's stellar record will be the developmental agency for 6th Gen FA program.

After all fora such as this need a raison d'etre too for the next 2 decades . Where will people vent ? X is too impersonal & not half as fun as fora such as this.

 

[randomradio]

Dunno what's so strange about 7th gen. All others are already working on it.

Both Britain and France skipped 5th gen development after Typhoon and Rafale. And Britain is buying 5th gen instead.

France, Espadon concept.

Onera, France's DARPA, bets on Espadon hypersonic fighter concept for 2050 flight - Breaking Defense

An Espandon model has already undergone wind tunnel testing, but the end goal of developing an aircraft capable of flying “beyond Mach 5” won’t happen for decades.

breakingdefense.com

An Espandon model has already undergone wind tunnel testing

“This new concept, at the end of the day, will be handed over to French industry in order to prepare for the future,” Mathurin told Breaking Defense at the Paris Air Show. “The timeline for this [aircraft to potentially fly] is 2050.”

“If they want to learn something, things can happen very quickly or maybe the need will be required in 10 years,” he said.

US, Mayhem.

Mayhem Hypersonic Strike-Recon Jet Contract Awarded To Leidos

The Air Force has said it wants the experimental Mayhem air vehicle to demonstrate strike and intelligence-gathering capabilities.

www.twz.com

Next Generation Responsive Strike Project.

New Hypersonic Strike-Recon Aircraft Effort Eyeing Prototype Development By 2030

The launch of the Next Generation Responsive Strike effort follows uncertainty around a previous hypersonic aircraft program called Mayhem.

www.twz.com

Unlike the strike projects, Espadon is seen as a successor to SCAF, making it obvious that others have such concepts for 2040-50 introduction too.

So prototyping within 10 years now. By the time AMCA becomes operational, 7th gen protoypes will be in the demonstrator/prototype era.

At best ADA continues with the IN's requirement as a bridging effort towards 7th gen.

 

[randomradio]

Hybrid engine, turboramjet.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1593249000794525697

https://twitter.com/x/status/1600934458345287682

 

[Bon Plan]

No its not.

July 4, 1986: Maiden flight of the Rafale-A technology demonstrator.

1988–1993: Contract for four prototypes (C01, M01, M02, B01) and subsequent maiden flights of these variants.

The first flight of the Dassault Rafale C01 (the prototype for the French Air Force single-seat version) took place on May 19, 1991

December 2004: The French Air Force received its first three F2-standard Rafale-B aircraft, marking a significant step towards operational capacity.


More than a decade from first flight of CO1 To receiving 1st IOC rafale.



And the talk is about much more complex 6th gen jet.

From design freeze to full rate production in 6 years is straight up delusional.

ONLY FOR BUDGET REASONS.
After the iron wall collapse, all the west europe weapons programme were reduced, delayed, canceled.
In France Charle de Gaulle carrier was deleyed twice, Leclerc MBT number cut by nearly 4, and Rafale deleyed (IOC expected in 1996 at the beginning. This is why France built 86 mirage 2000D for air to ground and improve 37 Mirage 2000C in -5 as a temporary and less costly measure.

 

[babablacksheep]

For example, most engines are single stream, whereas the VCE the Americans designed is 3 stream. But did you know M88 is two stream?

The performance achieved by xa100 are equally a matter of its materials and design refinements as they are of VCE architecture.

I will argue materials themselves are arguebly more important as VCE architecture has been experimented before successfully using old tech.

How? The French started working on the engine in 2021, even they are at the prototype stage.

Americans have already built the Xa100 prototype years ago now confident enough in its maturity that GE even offered it for F35.
Its not a demonstrator at all.

More than 1,000 engineers and over 100 domestic suppliers are engaged in the effort, working toward the next milestone – an Assembly Readiness Review – before the prototype build and ground testing later this decade.

The French are just 1 year away in reality. They will sign their engine deal this year and next year they will also talk about prototype build and ground testing "later this decade."

***The Group will have to show its capacity to innovate by developing—for the year 2025—an engine derived from the M88 engine to power the first SCAF demonstration aircraft. The demonstration engine is planned for 2027**

https://www.safran-group.com/news/futuristic-engine-scaf-2019-04-18#:~:text=What%20are%20Safran%27s%20challenges%20in,will%20help%20us%20stay%20competitive.&text=The%20Rafale%20jet%20engine%20will,thrust%20while%20improving%20its%20lifespan.

French plan to build a demonstrator engine by 2027 according to them, not directly prototype.

But its way past 2025 and we haven't seen m88 derived engine for scaf demonstrator, heck not even seen a scaf demonstrator.

But no, French are just 1 year away.

ECRS Mk2 is slated for IOC in 2030, and there's no guarantee they will achieve that date 'cause it slipped from "after 2025" to now 2030. It's expected to enter service in 2030 on a Typhoon alongside the F5

ERCS mk2 has gone into production now.
Not 2030.

2030 is the intentded timeline for Rafale f5 development to be completed, not it entering production.

Because it's already true. Scores of air force evaluations have actually proven that.

No its not, nothing has been proven.

Rafale F5 uses the same airframe and the electronics for it are more or less developed

For The radar for rafale f5, even the prototype is not revealed now.

Electronics are not ready, but in development.

Same with engine, prototype hasn't been revealed.

The links are about Rafale F5 and how it's different from older variants and how it uses a separate OFC channel for data, like the F-35

this is what you said

***So just like F-22 MLU, F-35, and Rafale F5, the GCAP will have FBW for flight controls and OFC for data. You are just backing the point I made.**

You made baseless claims about FBL, and no your links don't show anything about those claims.

GCAP will use copper wire, unless something changes midway,

Oh, Another baseless claim

Their demonstator looks like a tailless AMCA.

Already Know it, seen it before.

 

[babablacksheep]

Nope. Especially when it comes to 6th gen and MUMT, you need a combination of flight controls and data to work in tandem to help manage offboard networking.

This means you cannot have interference affecting the quality of data, including interference from sensors and other electrical signals. Copper wiring has to deal with a lot of interference, especially in 6th gen.

Upon doing more research on the interference, in fact I won't be surprised if the GCAP will actually come with fly-by-light when it is produced. The British are also experimenting with fly-by-wireless.

The UK's "Tempest" demonstrator, which informs the GCAP project, is testing advanced fly-by-wire and potentially fly-by-wireless, or fiber-optic flight control systems to replace traditional heavy wiring.

FBL is quite necessary for drones to sychronize with the main fighter. Which means we could see wireless or optics in the first prototype meant for 2030.

data parsing between the flight control and the comms is almost 0.

flight control is a closed system.

do you think planes just have like
naked copper running through the jet?

if interference was that big of an issue literally nothing that runs on electricity would work correctly.
a normal wire is more than enough to handle flight control data parsing



also how will mum-t affect data flow when on most jets the FCC and mission computer are *two different processors*?

 

[babablacksheep]

ONLY FOR BUDGET REASONS.
After the iron wall collapse, all the west europe weapons programme were reduced, delayed, canceled.
In France Charle de Gaulle carrier was deleyed twice, Leclerc MBT number cut by nearly 4, and Rafale deleyed (IOC expected in 1996 at the beginning. This is why France built 86 mirage 2000D for air to ground and improve 37 Mirage 2000C in -5 as a temporary and less costly measure.

Mirage 2000.

The design phase of the Dassault Mirage 2000 began in 1972 .

December 1975: l program go-ahead; three prototypes ordered.

July 1984: Operational service induction with the French Air Force (Armée de l'Air).

12 from design to service.

At the time when soviet threat loomed.

Mirage 2000.

The design phase of the Dassault Mirage 2000 began in 1972 .

December 1975: l program go-ahead; three prototypes ordered.

July 1984: Operational service induction with the French Air Force (Armée de l'Air).

12 from design to service.

At the time when soviet threat loomed.

• 2030: architecture definition and design freeze
• 2032–2033: first prototype flight
• 2035–2036: initial operational capability
• Post-2036: full-rate production and upgrades

As said before, 6 years from design freeze to production for a 6th gen jet is delusional timeline

 

[randomradio]

The performance achieved by xa100 are equally a matter of its materials and design refinements as they are of VCE architecture.

I will argue materials themselves are arguebly more important as VCE architecture has been experimented before successfully using old tech.

Materials, not much. Once something new is made, they stick with it for decades. The last time France made something was 40 years ago, and they have made new ones since only in the 2010s called MC-NG. Now they will use this for the next 40 years. The Americans are the same. This is an example of a foundational technology.

Americans have already built the Xa100 prototype years ago now confident enough in its maturity that GE even offered it for F35.
Its not a demonstrator at all.

Yes, its basic design was made for the F-35, and the engine was made as a drop-in upgrade, but it wasn't fully developed. Its development stopped at the same step as XA103, it needed a production contract to go ahead.

***The Group will have to show its capacity to innovate by developing—for the year 2025—an engine derived from the M88 engine to power the first SCAF demonstration aircraft. The demonstration engine is planned for 2027**

https://www.safran-group.com/news/futuristic-engine-scaf-2019-04-18#:~:text=What%20are%20Safran%27s%20challenges%20in,will%20help%20us%20stay%20competitive.&text=The%20Rafale%20jet%20engine%20will,thrust%20while%20improving%20its%20lifespan.

French plan to build a demonstrator engine by 2027 according to them, not directly prototype.

But its way past 2025 and we haven't seen m88 derived engine for scaf demonstrator, heck not even seen a scaf demonstrator.

But no, French are just 1 year away.

There are two engines. One is an M88-derived demonstrator (90 kN) and the other is a new design called NGE (108 kN). The demonstrator engine has to start flying in 2027, so it's probaby already under ground tests. But the new engine requires a new contract.

Although Safran and MTU have agreed to continue the program even if the wider program fails, who knows, with India sticking its neck in, and Germany joining GCAP or working things out with Sweden, things would change quite a bit.

ERCS mk2 has gone into production now.
Not 2030.

2030 is the intentded timeline for Rafale f5 development to be completed, not it entering production.

The F-35 is in production too, but Rafale F5 will be operational sooner than it. What's production got to do with operational maturity? It's about who finishes first.

For The radar for rafale f5, even the prototype is not revealed now.

Electronics are not ready, but in development.

Same with engine, prototype hasn't been revealed.

Yeah. But they don't reveal much anyway. And once they are ready, we will know.

this is what you said

***So just like F-22 MLU, F-35, and Rafale F5, the GCAP will have FBW for flight controls and OFC for data. You are just backing the point I made.**

You made baseless claims about FBL, and no your links don't show anything about those claims.

No, my link was about Rafale and how it needs a lot of new processing and transmission hardware that did not exist before, implying that it's carrying early 6th gen tech, the same sort Japan may supply to the GCAP. I was creating an equivalence between the data bandwidth necessary for Rafale and GCAP, that's very different from what Britain is doing on the Typhoon by just upgrading the radar. They are not creating a whole new aircraft like the French are.

 

[randomradio]

data parsing between the flight control and the comms is almost 0.

flight control is a closed system.

do you think planes just have like
naked copper running through the jet?

if interference was that big of an issue literally nothing that runs on electricity would work correctly.
a normal wire is more than enough to handle flight control data parsing



also how will mum-t affect data flow when on most jets the FCC and mission computer are *two different processors*?

Incorrect. While there is no direct communication between flight controls and data, they still use the same interface. And that interface is electrical if you are using copper.

Interference is a big problem in aircraft. They use a lot of shielding and it still leads to fires and other failures that lead to crashes.

MUM-T drones follow the cues of the main aircraft and that requires a direct link between the drone's FCS and fighter's FCS. Think synchronised swimming. To be able to do that, the MUM-T drones need access to not just the FCS, but even the sensor data, for networking. And of course FCS data and sensor data needs to be transferred offboard too, for coordination with other assets, like satellites and ISR aircraft. That's why you need everything using a common electronic interface. If you use copper wires, then the FCS data becomes data limited due to lower transmission speed and even your own aircraft won't be able to coordinate with your own drones never mind offboard aircraft and satellites. Bit data + latency is the name of the game.

It can be done using copper too, but it will be much slower. By that respect, it's possible that even Rafale F5 could make the transition to fly-by-light or similar.

 

[randomradio]

Mirage 2000.

The design phase of the Dassault Mirage 2000 began in 1972 .

December 1975: l program go-ahead; three prototypes ordered.

July 1984: Operational service induction with the French Air Force (Armée de l'Air).

12 from design to service.

At the time when soviet threat loomed.


As said before, 6 years from design freeze to production for a 6th gen jet is delusional timeline

Between what you listed and what Picdel wrote, the math is wrong.

Mirage 2000: Design to service. 12 years.
SCAF: Post-design to production start. No design or service. So his date is also 10-12 years, except SCAF's design is likely already complete for the most part, so 9 years.

Both AMCA and SCAF require up to 4 years of flight testing for IOC. Pretty much the same as NGAD. Everything checks out.

You can have this kinda schedule only if you have foundational technologies ready for implementation.

 

[Bon Plan]

As said before, 6 years from design freeze to production for a 6th gen jet is delusional timeline

Except if the weapon system is directly derived from the Rafale F5 one.
Because what takes time (and budget) ? Weapon system & engine.

 

[babablacksheep]

except SCAF's design is likely already complete for the most part

Even the demonstrator hasn't been flown, plus France and Germany arguing over larger or smaller design, carrier requirements etc.

So unless you can provide a concrete proof of design being mostly complete, I prefer to ignore your opinion.

Except if the weapon system is directly derived from the Rafale F5 one.
Because what takes time (and budget) ? Weapon system & engine.

It will still take more than 6 years to design, build a prototype, and all the testing even if its subsystems are derived from rafale f5

Plus then its not a 6th gen, atleast for the capability India would require to compete against China.

 

[babablacksheep]

Incorrect. While there is no direct communication between flight controls and data, they still use the same interface. And that interface is electrical if you are using copper.

Flight control commands and sensor data are SEPRATED in different avionics architectures for safety and redundancy ( partitioned buses or separate lanes). They don't literally "use the same interface" in a sense—there are dedicated data buses (like MIL-STD-1553, ARINC 429/664, ) for avionics/sensor fusion, while flight controls often run on isolated, deterministic, high-reliability links.

Copper is still common in many current systems, but the interfaces are not inherently "the same" across FCS and non-critical data.

Interference is a big problem in aircraft. They use a lot of shielding and it still leads to fires and other failures that lead to crashes.

Shielding, grounding, and hardening are standard mitigations, and they are highly effective.

MUM-T drones follow the cues of the main aircraft and that requires a direct link between the drone's FCS and fighter's FCS. Think synchronised swimming.

MUM-T relies on tactical datalinks, like Link 16 derivatives, MADL etc, for coordination. Drones receive high-level commands, sensor sharing, targeting cues, and sometimes flight path guidance from the manned aircraft. This is not a "direct link" between the two (FCS) in the real-time synchronized control way.

It's NETWORKED , with levels of interoperability (LOI per STANAG 4586), ranging from sensor sharing (LOI 1–2) to the manned platform commanding payload/flight path (LOI 3–5), up to semi-autonomous teaming.

True "synchronized swimming" is achieved with algorithms, shared data, and autonomy on the drone side—not by directly coupling FCS hardware.

That's why you need everything using a common electronic interface. If you use copper wires, then the FCS data becomes data limited due to lower transmission speed and even your own aircraft won't be able to coordinate with your own drones never mind offboard aircraft and satellites. Bit data + latency is the name of the game.

Again, that's not true, high speed ADCs and serial links can handle tens to hundreds of Gbps.

 

[randomradio]

Even the demonstrator hasn't been flown, plus France and Germany arguing over larger or smaller design, carrier requirements etc.

So unless you can provide a concrete proof of design being mostly complete, I prefer to ignore your opinion.

The engineering phase begins after the design phase is complete. SCAF finished its design Phase 1A and 1B, now moving on to the engineering phase with Phase 2.

 

[randomradio]

Flight control commands and sensor data are SEPRATED in different avionics architectures for safety and redundancy ( partitioned buses or separate lanes). They don't literally "use the same interface" in a sense—there are dedicated data buses (like MIL-STD-1553, ARINC 429/664, ) for avionics/sensor fusion, while flight controls often run on isolated, deterministic, high-reliability links.

Copper is still common in many current systems, but the interfaces are not inherently "the same" across FCS and non-critical data.

That's 5th gen. While you have separate data buses for both, the common interface is electrical.

Shielding, grounding, and hardening are standard mitigations, and they are highly effective.

But not as effective as optic fiber, hence the switch.

MUM-T relies on tactical datalinks, like Link 16 derivatives, MADL etc, for coordination. Drones receive high-level commands, sensor sharing, targeting cues, and sometimes flight path guidance from the manned aircraft. This is not a "direct link" between the two (FCS) in the real-time synchronized control way.

MUM-T requires direct link, it replaces the pilot's eyeballs.

It's NETWORKED , with levels of interoperability (LOI per STANAG 4586), ranging from sensor sharing (LOI 1–2) to the manned platform commanding payload/flight path (LOI 3–5), up to semi-autonomous teaming.

True "synchronized swimming" is achieved with algorithms, shared data, and autonomy on the drone side—not by directly coupling FCS hardware.

True synchronization requires optic fiber and patrol link connection with low latency. The lead aircraft directly sends signals to the drone's FCS for coordination so there's no latency between transmission, processing, and reaction. There's no time for the drone to process transmitted information.

Again, that's not true, high speed ADCs and serial links can handle tens to hundreds of Gbps.

Not at low latency, and not without packet loss, and all this without interference from high power sensor sources like radar or even lightning, all crucial factors to keep the mission going.

The wiring distances within fighters is very long so signal degradation when using copper is high. Not to mention upgrade potential is missing. Future requirement is in the terabytes.

 

[Rajput Lion]

Mirage 2000.

The design phase of the Dassault Mirage 2000 began in 1972 .

December 1975: l program go-ahead; three prototypes ordered.

July 1984: Operational service induction with the French Air Force (Armée de l'Air).

12 from design to service.

At the time when soviet threat loomed.


As said before, 6 years from design freeze to production for a 6th gen jet is delusional timeline

This is true. Don't think it is going into production before 2038/2040. Anyways, if we can get a 6th gen fighter from 2040 onwards, then it ain't too bad, me thinks

 

[Optimist]

I think some of you guys are starting to see through these French fairy tales, there is clarity
Dassault themselves are saying 2050 if the Germans and Spanish agreed last December, Cancelling and starting with new partners will only push this timeline

No doubt if they lose the sensors/computer stuff from the partnership, The French will use the Rafales tech and put it in a new frame and call it 6th gen, That is how the mirage became the rafale

 

[STEPHEN COHEN]

That is how the mirage became the rafale

Rafale is superior to Mirage 2000 in all aspects

1 ) Sensor Fusion
2 ) Fuel capacity , Range, Payload
3) SPECTRA and RBE2 AESA
4) Meteor missile
5) IRST