By: halloweene
- 20th June 2019 at 22:02Permalink- Edited 20th June 2019 at 22:07
Design is not definitely fixed but there should be that very flat tail. Probably also variable air intakes so as to go faster than mach 2. Infos are hard to get.
What i can tell you is that SDR (Uµ/VHF at the moment, awaiting for a NATO standardization of waveforms) and communication server are ready.. Btw, it is 18x14m (the mockup)
Thales want to get as many as mossibl allied waveorms, be it tempest or US.
All in all, 3 demonstrators will be built : on for airframe with M88 derived engines, one for a new engine (2100K) and one for connectivity.
In the end there should be 3 different waveforms possible, one national, one european (ESSµOR) and one NATO (could be essor also)
By: toan
- 24th June 2019 at 16:59Permalink- Edited 24th June 2019 at 17:11
According the information we know now, the NGF:
1. About 1/4 to 1/2 larger/heavier than Rafale.
2. MTOW that will be similar to Mirage IV in 1960s.
3. Requirement of significant better payload and combat range than Rafale and Eurofighter.
4. Two engines of 30,000 pounds class each.
My personal guess for NGF according to the information mentioned above:
1. Empty weight: 12.5 to 15.0 ton (Rafale: 10.0 ton; EF-2000: 11.0 ton; F-22A: 19.6 ton).
2. Internal fuel capacity: 6.5 to 8.0 ton (Rafale: 4.7 ton; EF-2000: 5.0 ton; F-22A: 8.0 ton).
3. Maximal payload: 10.0 to 12.0 ton (Rafale: 9.5 ton; EF-2000: 7.5 ton).
4. MTOW: 30.0 to 35.0 ton (Mirage IV: 33,450 kg; Rafale: 24,500 kg; EF-2000: 23,500 kg).
5. Weight for air-combat: 18.0 to 21.0 ton (50% internal fuel + 2.0 ton payload).
6. Thrust of engine: 30,000 Ib*2 (Rafale: 17,000 Ib*2; EF-2000: 20,250 Ib*2; F-22A: 35,000 to 39,000 Ib*2 ).
7. T/W ratio for air-combat: 1.3 to 1.5+ (Under the same conditions, Rafale: 1.07; EF-2000: 1.19; F-22A: 1.24 to 1.38).
Hmmm....not a bad start for a future European air superiority fighter, right?:D
yes, but we are talking about a fighter to enter service half a century after the Raptor.. might be they have some ideas about ways to achieve what they want in a certain weight class, no? ;)
Rememberthat i)this is only a model (smae for tempest who' model belly was 50 cms high). B. This is just one small part of a system. That is the real diference with F-35. SCAF is built first as lets say an "open OS" you can plug in. F-35 on the opposite, the rest of the system is completely built around and is as closed as Ios
Rememberthat i)this is only a model (smae for tempest who' model belly was 50 cms high). B. This is just one small part of a system. That is the real diference with F-35. SCAF is built first as lets say an "open OS" you can plug in. F-35 on the opposite, the rest of the system is completely built around and is as closed as Ios
Given they change the design completely every year or two.. I expect maybe 15 more new models before it flies.
will probably end up looking similar to whatever the British will make.
By then the market will probably been saturated with F35, j31 j20 and maybe the kfx
Nice planform for a start. If the size was larger, wing started at the nose, bury the inlets, lose the tails and add thrust vectoring, it would better match future requirements for combat load/radius and speed/altitude.
By: TomcatViP
- 2nd August 2019 at 21:18Permalink- Edited 2nd August 2019 at 21:20
It's a beautiful airframe when seen through Italian craftsmanship. However the mockup in Paris has a larger wing chord that kills a bit the effect (over designed wing surface = drag). But on overall this was a nice "surprise". Regarding Djcross remark , I am not sure that deleting verticals will be of any help regarding the level of stealth achievable by nations with no in-service experience of such. You have to start by something (as say the Russians). And TVC is among the targets ;)
Nice planform for a start. If the size was larger, wing started at the nose, bury the inlets, lose the tails and add thrust vectoring, it would better match future requirements for combat load/radius and speed/altitude.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 20th June 2019 at 22:02 Permalink - Edited 20th June 2019 at 22:07
Design is not definitely fixed but there should be that very flat tail. Probably also variable air intakes so as to go faster than mach 2. Infos are hard to get.
What i can tell you is that SDR (Uµ/VHF at the moment, awaiting for a NATO standardization of waveforms) and communication server are ready.. Btw, it is 18x14m (the mockup)
Thales want to get as many as mossibl allied waveorms, be it tempest or US.
All in all, 3 demonstrators will be built : on for airframe with M88 derived engines, one for a new engine (2100K) and one for connectivity.
In the end there should be 3 different waveforms possible, one national, one european (ESSµOR) and one NATO (could be essor also)
Posts: 992
By: toan - 24th June 2019 at 16:59 Permalink - Edited 24th June 2019 at 17:11
According the information we know now, the NGF:
1. About 1/4 to 1/2 larger/heavier than Rafale.
2. MTOW that will be similar to Mirage IV in 1960s.
3. Requirement of significant better payload and combat range than Rafale and Eurofighter.
4. Two engines of 30,000 pounds class each.
My personal guess for NGF according to the information mentioned above:
1. Empty weight: 12.5 to 15.0 ton (Rafale: 10.0 ton; EF-2000: 11.0 ton; F-22A: 19.6 ton).
2. Internal fuel capacity: 6.5 to 8.0 ton (Rafale: 4.7 ton; EF-2000: 5.0 ton; F-22A: 8.0 ton).
3. Maximal payload: 10.0 to 12.0 ton (Rafale: 9.5 ton; EF-2000: 7.5 ton).
4. MTOW: 30.0 to 35.0 ton (Mirage IV: 33,450 kg; Rafale: 24,500 kg; EF-2000: 23,500 kg).
5. Weight for air-combat: 18.0 to 21.0 ton (50% internal fuel + 2.0 ton payload).
6. Thrust of engine: 30,000 Ib*2 (Rafale: 17,000 Ib*2; EF-2000: 20,250 Ib*2; F-22A: 35,000 to 39,000 Ib*2 ).
7. T/W ratio for air-combat: 1.3 to 1.5+ (Under the same conditions, Rafale: 1.07; EF-2000: 1.19; F-22A: 1.24 to 1.38).
Hmmm....not a bad start for a future European air superiority fighter, right?:D
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 24th June 2019 at 17:59 Permalink
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
There is a reason the similar size Raptor comes along with an empty weight of >19 tons.
Posts: 630
By: H_K - 25th June 2019 at 13:32 Permalink
Toan, what’s your source for the NGF’s weight and engine thrust? Thx
Posts: 992
By: toan - 25th June 2019 at 16:46 Permalink
https://theaviationist.com/2019/06/18/dassault-and-airbus-fcas-6th-generation-fighter-mockup-unveiled-at-the-paris-air-show/
https://aviationweek.com/paris-airshow-2019/demonstrator-program-agreed-upon-spain-joins-european-fcas-program
Posts: 3,259
By: TooCool_12f - 25th June 2019 at 22:11 Permalink
yes, but we are talking about a fighter to enter service half a century after the Raptor.. might be they have some ideas about ways to achieve what they want in a certain weight class, no? ;)
Posts: 163
By: J-20 - 26th June 2019 at 04:37 Permalink - Edited 2nd October 2019 at 14:50
some new CG from Dassaulty.
its as if F-101 and Lockmart had a baby
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"FCAS.jpg","data-attachmentid":3866429}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQDSzeN9B4xB1C0OkcHuIXq11Q6X9RLQ0J-y-WOR4STAn0Mjt9SlA.jpg","data-attachmentid":3866430}[/ATTACH]
Posts: 1,050
By: Aurel - 26th June 2019 at 15:49 Permalink - Edited 26th June 2019 at 15:50
More like a twin engined version of this:
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 26th June 2019 at 16:47 Permalink
Rememberthat i)this is only a model (smae for tempest who' model belly was 50 cms high). B. This is just one small part of a system. That is the real diference with F-35. SCAF is built first as lets say an "open OS" you can plug in. F-35 on the opposite, the rest of the system is completely built around and is as closed as Ios
Posts: 163
By: J-20 - 27th June 2019 at 03:41 Permalink
Given they change the design completely every year or two.. I expect maybe 15 more new models before it flies.
will probably end up looking similar to whatever the British will make.
By then the market will probably been saturated with F35, j31 j20 and maybe the kfx
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 28th June 2019 at 12:21 Permalink
There are several reeasons to expect that there will finally be a v shaped tail, major one being landing speed on carrier.
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 28th June 2019 at 18:40 Permalink - Edited 28th June 2019 at 18:41
Definitively the name has to be "The cougar"...
SOurce:
The SecretProject Forum
Posts: 156
By: RALL - 29th June 2019 at 12:04 Permalink
I dont think wings will be on final model as this picture.
Posts: 163
By: J-20 - 2nd August 2019 at 11:16 Permalink - Edited 2nd October 2019 at 14:50
here is an accurate artist conception of FCAS in Uber alles Deutscheland colors
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"D9RTtN_U0AEYNsf?format=jpg&name=medium.jpg","data-attachmentid":3869666}[/ATTACH]
and one more from its Italian partner. Linguine
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"D9bk-ncU0AIL-2H?format=jpg&name=medium.jpg","data-attachmentid":3869667}[/ATTACH]
Posts: 1,050
By: Aurel - 2nd August 2019 at 14:33 Permalink
Yeah, that other Italy.
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 2nd August 2019 at 20:07 Permalink
Nice planform for a start. If the size was larger, wing started at the nose, bury the inlets, lose the tails and add thrust vectoring, it would better match future requirements for combat load/radius and speed/altitude.
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 2nd August 2019 at 21:18 Permalink - Edited 2nd August 2019 at 21:20
It's a beautiful airframe when seen through Italian craftsmanship. However the mockup in Paris has a larger wing chord that kills a bit the effect (over designed wing surface = drag). But on overall this was a nice "surprise". Regarding Djcross remark , I am not sure that deleting verticals will be of any help regarding the level of stealth achievable by nations with no in-service experience of such. You have to start by something (as say the Russians). And TVC is among the targets ;)
Posts: 163
By: J-20 - 3rd August 2019 at 01:01 Permalink
oh.. hallo!
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"t0107b23605c46b1c91.jpg?itok=2xJv36Ze.jpg","data-attachmentid":3869746}[/ATTACH]
Posts: 163
By: J-20 - 3rd August 2019 at 06:40 Permalink
Sorry wrong country. I meant Germany