Franco-German next generation fighter

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 4,168

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)

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 992

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

Member for

12 years 5 months

Posts: 630

According the information we know now, the NGF:

2. MTOW that will be similar to Mirage IV in 1960s.
4. Two engines of 30,000 pounds class each.

Toan, what’s your source for the NGF’s weight and engine thrust? Thx

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 3,259

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.

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? ;)

Profile picture for user J-20

Member for

2 years 4 months

Posts: 163

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]

Attachments

Member for

16 years 6 months

Posts: 1,050

More like a twin engined version of this:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/jsf/jast_mdd_ng_bae_03.jpg

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 4,168

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

Profile picture for user J-20

Member for

2 years 4 months

Posts: 163

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

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 4,168

There are several reeasons to expect that there will finally be a v shaped tail, major one being landing speed on carrier.

Member for

2 years 9 months

Posts: 155

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]

I dont think wings will be on final model as this picture.

Profile picture for user J-20

Member for

2 years 4 months

Posts: 163

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]

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]

Attachments

Member for

20 years 4 months

Posts: 5,397

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.

Member for

8 years 5 months

Posts: 5,892

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 ;)

Profile picture for user J-20

Member for

2 years 4 months

Posts: 163

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.

oh.. hallo!

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"t0107b23605c46b1c91.jpg?itok=2xJv36Ze.jpg","data-attachmentid":3869746}[/ATTACH]

Attachments
Profile picture for user J-20

Member for

2 years 4 months

Posts: 163

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]

Sorry wrong country. I meant Germany