Rafale M replacement program launched...

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5348
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post26 Oct 2018, 16:56

mixelflick wrote:That looks about as good a conception as I've seen for PCA!!!

I realize it was for the ATF, but man - the flying wing layout and a few other particulars (looks like ENORMOUS engines) etc really jumped out at me. If I may, where did you find these photos?


Believe it or not, that Convair's Kingfish, the competitor to the Blackbird, as in clear back in the late 50s early 60s, (with comparable performance . . . and J58s). There isn't a ton of info on it but the rendering was done by a guy over on Secret Projects, who's done many others you'd recognize.

0cca63f14b20270a033e88cb2bc0ccd2--proposals-abandoned.jpg


f1c6700dae82e54a3ed96bf501acaec5_large.jpg


img_298_17592_3_jpeg.jpg
"There I was. . ."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4348
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post26 Oct 2018, 17:18

So, PCA is the YF-12 all over again huh?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5348
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post26 Oct 2018, 17:36

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So, PCA is the YF-12 all over again huh?


The YF-12 was a strategic interceptor offered by Lockheed to fill the gap left by the cancellation of the F-108 Rapier. PCA could fill that mission probably but is also meant to operate over enemy territory.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 543
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post28 Oct 2018, 14:20

So, a couple of questions to @aasm regarding this concept:

Question #1
aasm wrote:is just a little part of a system of sustems, alon with FCAS DP (UCLASS). Different phylosophy.


Since you've told us that F-35 does not follow "system of systems" approach, what other systems are part of Dassault NGF?

Question #2

aasm wrote:You see? You are still thinking in terms of platform, not system. I am talking about an open network/system of systems.


aasm wrote:It will be fully netcentric with... Other F-35. That is exactly what Gal Lanata was claiming when he said beware, the F-35 is becoming NATO standard. There is an inversion in order of standards. Instead of a mandatory NATO standard we're seeing a private (closed) owned standard getting mandatory. And this system was not designed from scratch to allow interconnection of other systems. That's why i call it 6th gen premise.

FCAS will be designed so as to be, from scratch, a collaborative system of systems and all its subcomponents (including weapons) will be also. To me (i might be wrong), the underlying change of paradigm is way deeper than what stealth brought.


aasm wrote: However, seen the number of different datalinks, VOIP etc. To manage? All those are why i said F-35 is a premise for 6th gen more than a gen in itself : it is extremely connected. [...]
However, its connectivity did not define its requirements aside of other interconnected platforms. F-35 was built and US are trying to build a network around it. It is not the same as if the definition phase was done for the whole system of systems architecture first, than the assets themselves. Uk attempt on this effect with their "modularity" of NGF is quite smart.


Since you've told us that F-35 was not designed with networking across platforms in mind, and that US "built the F-35 and now is trying to built network around it", which according to you is wrong, outdated approach, I would like to know what is the network that France is going to seamlessly plug this future fighter in? Link 22? Surely, if networking upcoming fighters using advanced tech and building "crutches" to connect legacy systems is wrong, then the opposite must be true and French will pump out the full spectrum of equipment for Army, Navy and Air Force in one go, without any sort of transition period?

Question #3

aasm wrote:And MADL is far from being able to sustain collaborative work due to frequency (range is too short) and directionnality. However, link 16 and madl are a start. Far from the bigger scheme. it is a tweaked up IFDL, not much more (which is already great).*Networking and collaborative are two different things, and it is exactly like some try to infer about stealth. Has to be included since the beginning (skin antennas, cooling, optionnaly manned, whatever).


Since you said that MADL is a mediocre datalink for "collaboration" because it is short range and narrowly directional, I would like to know what kind of data transfer solutions will be utilized in the true French 6th gen collaborative warfare? What is the difference between network warfare and collaborative warfare? Is NIFC-CA a network, or a collaboration? What range should "collaborative" datalink have, and why are directonal datalinks bad for "collaborative" warfare?

Question #4
aasm wrote:However Hornetfinn, SAAB advertized about "active stealth" concepts for their EW suite, aswell as french CEMAA did talk about active stealth also early this year. I'm perfectl aware that this type of jamming would be much easier to perfrom with a stealthy platform (where do "stealth" start in terms of angle and dB), but not to be discounted. People from SAAB, DAssault and Boeing aren't stupid and they wouldn't compete (and spend a lot of money) i they did not think their own solutions did not have their own advantages.


aasm wrote:About active stealth, i'm citing

"Find the right balance between active and passive furtivity" at 10'50. Plain and simle, from the horse mouth HEad of french Air Force, Gal P. Lavigne.


Why is Dassault NGF a tailless delta, with no canards and internal weapon carriage? Surely not to improve passive RCS reduction measures, because true French stealth is based on "finding the balance between passive and active stealth", and the perfect balance has already been found - it's Rafale! Surely any more investment into passive stealth is excessive over engineering? Or were they wrong about that one and the perfect balance needs more "passive" stealth? What are advantages of "active stealth" on a airframe that has some RCS reduction measures as opposed to VLO airframe that has a really advanced EW suite?

Question #5
aasm wrote:They think that future of combat is not only networked, but collaborative with an open architecture (vs F-35 being a closed ecosystem).


Since you've told us that F-35 is a closed system and americans are hoarding the source code, would like to know under what open source license will the NGF software (written in ADA, unquestionably) be distributed to buyers? In what way will Dassault NGF be an "open architecture?"


Question #7
aasm wrote:Already bombs are getting smart and can work as a wolfpack, but once again it is not in a fully integrated and adaptative network. F-35 network isn't so much adaptative (more than F22, certainly but...). F-35 is assembling as many capacities as possible on a platform, 6th gen will distribute capacities and assets so as to generate an effect. Feel to disagree.


aasm wrote:Networking and collaborative are two different things, and it is exactly like some try to infer about stealth. Has to be included since the beginning (skin antennas, cooling, optionnaly manned, whatever).


Okay, please describe "adaptive network" and what effect will be generated once "6th gen will distribute assets"? What is the difference between "collaborative" and "network" warfare? What does "cooling" and "optionally manned" have to do with collaboration?

Question #8
aasm wrote:I'd prefer saying that fifth gen is a force multiplier and that stealth is ONE of multiple capabilities allowing it. But we are far from the original discussion...
5th gen is the paramount of multirole airplanes. And first steps into 6th gen. Paramount will change when capacities, instead of being pulled into a single platform, will be directed by highly networked and specialized assets at a desired effect whatever the platform. (at least it is my opinion)


aasm wrote:For many of us, as i said somewhere, F-35 is both the paramount of fourth Gen (in terms of capabilities) and a premice to 6th (in terms of networking).


Since you've told us that F-35 is not a true 5tg gen but rather the ultimate 4th gen and a premise for 6th gen... I would like to hear your definition of " true 5th gen" - just 3-4 bullet points, maybe a couple of NOGO elements also? Additinal question, what is F-22?

Looking forward for your answers.
Offline

jakobs

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 70
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2015, 11:38

Unread post28 Oct 2018, 19:01

I have to say that it seems to me that BAE and the britts is taking a better approach to their new next generation fighter. The Tempest seems to be more straightforward and looks to be much more easily built than this new french/german plane. At least from what has been shown so far.

Going at it with a new super stealthy platform, that is also eliminating the rear stabilisators, is probably asking for delays and cost overruns if you ask me.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5577
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post29 Oct 2018, 06:30

jakobs wrote:I have to say that it seems to me that BAE and the britts is taking a better approach to their new next generation fighter. The Tempest seems to be more straightforward and looks to be much more easily built than this new french/german plane. At least from what has been shown so far.

Going at it with a new super stealthy platform, that is also eliminating the rear stabilisators, is probably asking for delays and cost overruns if you ask me.



The Tempest we've seen in the public is likely just a concept. So, don't expect that is what the real aircraft will look in the end. Same could be said of the Franco/German NGF. People we are still at the very early stages....
Offline

Fox1

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2005, 04:16

Unread post31 Oct 2018, 12:36

sferrin wrote:
mixelflick wrote:That looks about as good a conception as I've seen for PCA!!!

I realize it was for the ATF, but man - the flying wing layout and a few other particulars (looks like ENORMOUS engines) etc really jumped out at me. If I may, where did you find these photos?


Believe it or not, that Convair's Kingfish, the competitor to the Blackbird, as in clear back in the late 50s early 60s, (with comparable performance . . . and J58s). There isn't a ton of info on it but the rendering was done by a guy over on Secret Projects, who's done many others you'd recognize.

0cca63f14b20270a033e88cb2bc0ccd2--proposals-abandoned.jpg


f1c6700dae82e54a3ed96bf501acaec5_large.jpg


img_298_17592_3_jpeg.jpg


Wow, that design was really cool looking! With a few tweaks that same basic design could probably be turned into a pretty capable PCA platform. How awesome would it be to have a combat aircraft that could cruise around at 85k to 95k feet in altitude, at Mach 3+ when needed, with a combat radius of 1500+ nmi and possessing low observable features? And with a length of 73 feet and a wingspan of 60 feet, it would seem you'd have the option for quite a few internally mounted weapons stations. With that kind of performance, it really wouldn't even matter if the thing could turn well. What could be capable of challenging it?
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1180
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post31 Oct 2018, 23:27

Oh dear, the rocky road of Eurofighter in-fighting looks like it's about to repeat itself in the sequel:

Export constraints emerge as sticking point for future German-French combat aircraft.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ft-report/

COLOGNE, Germany — Franco-German plans for a joint fighter aircraft project may be off to a rocky start, as reports emerged last week about fundamental disagreements between the two partners over export restrictions for such a weapon.

According to a report on the website of the German magazine Der Spiegel, French negotiators made unlimited exportability of the so-called Future Combat Air System a prerequisite for getting started on the project.

The position is at odds with a more restrictive policy by Berlin, where arms deals to sensitive countries traditionally are more heavily scrutinized for the potential of human rights abuses by the recipient government.

The Spiegel based its report on a four-page confidential cable from Germany’s ambassador in Paris, Nikolaus Meyer-Landrut, describing the outcome of a Sept. 21 “crisis meeting” in the French capital.

So deep ran the diverging views at the gathering that Claire Landais, the French secretary-general for defense and national security, threatened to cancel further planning unless Germany would agree to French demands for unconstrained exports of the future combat aircraft, according to the Spiegel.

Airbus CEO Tom Enders, whose company is involved in the planning alongside Dassault Aviation, criticized the reported German insistence on export caveats. “Berlin can’t urge greater European cooperation in its Sunday speeches and then refuse it when concrete projects are taking shape,” he told the magazine.

The reported Franco-German disagreement on the exportability of FCAS comes on the heels of an interview by Airbus Defence and Space chief Dirk Hoke in the French business journal La Tribune on Oct. 18. Hoke said Airbus would take leadership of the overall system package of FCAS while Dassault would spearhead the fighter aircraft — a position that has the potential to create additional friction in the project.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5348
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post01 Nov 2018, 00:33

marsavian wrote:Oh dear, the rocky road of Eurofighter in-fighting looks like it's about to repeat itself in the sequel:

Export constraints emerge as sticking point for future German-French combat aircraft.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ft-report/

COLOGNE, Germany — Franco-German plans for a joint fighter aircraft project may be off to a rocky start, as reports emerged last week about fundamental disagreements between the two partners over export restrictions for such a weapon.

According to a report on the website of the German magazine Der Spiegel, French negotiators made unlimited exportability of the so-called Future Combat Air System a prerequisite for getting started on the project.

The position is at odds with a more restrictive policy by Berlin, where arms deals to sensitive countries traditionally are more heavily scrutinized for the potential of human rights abuses by the recipient government.

The Spiegel based its report on a four-page confidential cable from Germany’s ambassador in Paris, Nikolaus Meyer-Landrut, describing the outcome of a Sept. 21 “crisis meeting” in the French capital.

So deep ran the diverging views at the gathering that Claire Landais, the French secretary-general for defense and national security, threatened to cancel further planning unless Germany would agree to French demands for unconstrained exports of the future combat aircraft, according to the Spiegel.

Airbus CEO Tom Enders, whose company is involved in the planning alongside Dassault Aviation, criticized the reported German insistence on export caveats. “Berlin can’t urge greater European cooperation in its Sunday speeches and then refuse it when concrete projects are taking shape,” he told the magazine.

The reported Franco-German disagreement on the exportability of FCAS comes on the heels of an interview by Airbus Defence and Space chief Dirk Hoke in the French business journal La Tribune on Oct. 18. Hoke said Airbus would take leadership of the overall system package of FCAS while Dassault would spearhead the fighter aircraft — a position that has the potential to create additional friction in the project.


What is it the kids say today? "France is gonna France."
"There I was. . ."
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 408
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post16 Nov 2018, 16:05

This article has the most details on the French-German Next Generation Fighter that I have seen to date. There will be a demonstrator around 2025 and the design will be finalized in 2030 for fielding around 2040. Most newsworthy is that Spain will join the program! The fighter will of course carry French nuclear weapons and be able to operate from an aircraft carrier.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... plane-bid/

Spain is expected to formally join the project soon. The plan is to have Madrid sign similar cooperation documents as Berlin and Paris have already inked, including a finalized, high-level requirements document in the next few months.

The door is also open for the United Kingdom — which has its own next-generation air project cooking, the “Tempest” — to partake. “When it’s possible to include Tempest at a later time, we will do that,” Breton said.

Airbus and Dassault are the main contractors for the FCAS program. They are slated to receive initial study contracts early next year.
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1180
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post09 Feb 2019, 03:05

https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/air/4926 ... cepts.html

JOINT CONCEPT STUDY FOR FUTURE COMBAT AIR SYSTEM

In Paris on 6 February the French Minister for the Armed Forces, Florence Parly and her German counterpart, Ursula von der Leyden, announced the first contract to be awarded under the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) umbrella.

Starting on 20 February, a two-year Joint Concept Study (JCS) will be based on the bilateral High Level Common Operational Requirements Document (HLCORD), signed at the ILA Berlin Air Show in April last year, as well as respective national concept studies. Its aim is to conceptualise the various FCAS capabilities and to pave the way for future design and industrialisation, as well as an estimated full operational capability by 2040. The study will prepare and initiate demonstrator programmes for launch at the Paris Air Show in June this year, a joint statement by the companies revealed.

The decision by both countries represents a milestone to secure European sovereignty and technological leadership in the military aviation sector for the coming decades. The JCS will identify the preferred baseline concepts for major pillars of FCAS, such as the Next Generation Fighter (NGF), Remote Carriers (RC) and a system of sytems, as well as associated next-generation services. It will assess the operational and technical viability of these concepts and evaluate overall programme feasibility and will identify technology needs and the requirements for joint demonstrators.

This planned Next Generation Weapons System will consist of a highly capable manned NGF, teamed with a set of new and upgraded weapons, as well as a set of unmanned systems (Remote Carriers), linked by a Combat Cloud and its ecosystem, embedded in a system-of-systems FCAS architecture.

Furthermore, in the presence of the Ms Parly and Ms von der Leyen, Safran and MTU Aero Engines officially announced their partnership to jointly lead the development, the production and the after-sales support activities of the new engine that will power FCAS. Both partners are willing to ensure a strong and effective management of the program, and to supply the Forces with their longstanding experience in military engines, the best technologies and innovative engine architecture.

In the frame of this partnership, Safran Aircraft Engines will take the lead in engine design and integration, and MTU Aero Engines will take the lead in engine services. MTU Aero Engines will be in charge of the low and high-pressure compressors and the low-pressure turbine, while Safran will be responsible for combustor, high-pressure turbine and the afterburner. The existing joint venture Aerospace Embedded Solutions1 (AES) will be in charge of the engine control hardware and software under the responsibility and the lead of Engine integrator (Safran Aircraft Engines). The intention is to achieve a balanced French–German industry program share, assuming balanced funding by France and Germany.


Image
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jetblast16 and 14 guests