John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Here's TWZ take on the F/A XX decision.
Boeing Wins F/A-XX Next Generation Navy Stealth Fighter Contract (Updated)
Boeing Wins F/A-XX Next Generation Navy Stealth Fighter Contract (Updated)
6th Generation Fighters Projects
- Thread starter Sandhi Yudha
- Start date
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #402
Let's see how this program goes, maybe as smoothly as the KC-46.
This might be the right fit for the R.A.A.F
Interesting to note it may not include spercruise because of thermal detection ,f-35 pilots may have their own opiions on this
www.aspistrategist.org.au
Interesting to note it may not include spercruise because of thermal detection ,f-35 pilots may have their own opiions on this
GCAP: a big fighter designed for Pacific (and Australian) distances | The Strategist
BAE Systems and its Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) partners pulled off a coup of technology theatre at the Farnborough air show in July, unveiling a new design for their GCAP figher, in full-scale model ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
Murse
Member
It would be my pick. My concerns lie around being too late to get production done in Australia and having a say on potential capabilities. Long range, big payload. Let's hope it has 2 seats for Ghost Bat control as I suspect 1 pilot may not be able to do this as well. Happy to be wrong though...This might be the right fit for the R.A.A.F
Interesting to note it may not include spercruise because of thermal detection ,f-35 pilots may have their own opiions on this
GCAP: a big fighter designed for Pacific (and Australian) distances | The Strategist
BAE Systems and its Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) partners pulled off a coup of technology theatre at the Farnborough air show in July, unveiling a new design for their GCAP figher, in full-scale model ...
Seems other single seat aircraft will also be expected to manage their remotes including the f-35,a
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
A fair article by Bill Sweetman explaining the thinking behind the Boeing win wrt the F/A XX. One interesting point was on exports. If both jets share the same secretive DNA then America will have no exportable jet from 2050 onwards. This could be a huge opportunity for Tempest and perhaps another future contender. His assessment of Boeing performance wrt the USN may be favourable (SH, Growler, P-8) but all that kit was designed a long time ago. Boeing still could disappoint the USN just like the USAF. The big question is how did the NG offering compare to Boeing’s? We won’t know this for a long time if ever.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Given LM’s crap performance on upgrades, the F-35 exports past 2050 are bleak IMHO. The ECU for the F135 engine does nothing for range enhancement, something that would be important for Australia, Canada, and a few other countries post 2050.
Terran
Well-Known Member
If your using F35’s current issues against it why don’t you hold Boeing by the same standard?
As they put in investment ads Past results do not necessarily reflect future outcomes.
I also question this argument as the F35 issues have less on LM and more on the Subcontractors. Why are F35 lacking radars? NG whom makes the radars is still developing the radar’s.
Why are the upgrades to the engines delayed? Because P&W is still doing the R&D for the upgrades.
Farther post 2040 we will likely be talking about an even farther upgrade package which if there are delays again wouldn’t necessarily be on LM. Also nothing says that alternative fighters couldn’t have similar experience.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Boeing and LM subcontractors, who is responsible for choosing them? The DoW? The F/A XX award going to Boeing which has the F-47 award is like the F135 award going exclusively to P&W and GE was shown the door with a GFY. Same with the LM award for the F-35. Sole source might seem cost effective from a logistics POV…until stuff happens. As for future alternative fighters, agree, stuff can happen with them as well.
2050 is a long time into the future and how airpower / CONOPS will evolve, especially with CCA/MUM-T.
There will be countries who do not need the expense nor the promised range and payload that 6th generation are supposed to deliver. These, IMO are is the target customers for any F-35++. There will be those who are keen to have those features, such as Canada/Australia for geopolitical reasons as well as the size of their geography.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
F-16 export still ongoing more than 50 years after first production F-16 come out. F-16 now being marketed as Gen 4++ or 4.5, and I can see after 2050, F-35 will also market as Gen 5++ or 5.5.
Just like now there will be market for Gen 4.5 in the market that already entering Gen 5 for some time. Single engine Gen 5.5 will still attract export customer that want F-16 of the future, when Gen 6 already in operation.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The F-16 and its later variants is an affordable and effective platform. The F-35 for many nations is unaffordable. Its cost of operation and readiness rate are disappointing. These drawbacks are somewhat overcome by the F-35’s stealth and situation awareness advantages. Gen 4.5+ together with CCA might be a better solution to than a F-35+ for many airforces.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Germany ‘Exploring’ GCAP Entry with UK, Reports Say
While discussions between London and Berlin are in the early stages, internal German government assessments reportedly favor a collaboration with Sweden
theaviationist.com
So seems German exploring 2 options:
- Join GCAP with UK, Italy and Japan,
- Work out new project with Spain and Sweden.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Sweden backed away from GCAP and I do not understand what advanatage a revived FCAS with Spain and Germany would have over GCAP. Sweden seems to be doing fine on its own.Germany ‘Exploring’ GCAP Entry with UK, Reports Say
While discussions between London and Berlin are in the early stages, internal German government assessments reportedly favor a collaboration with Sweden
So seems German exploring 2 options:
The 2nd one basically rebuild FCAS without France and put Sweden as replacement.
- Join GCAP with UK, Italy and Japan,
- Work out new project with Spain and Sweden.
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #416
Does Germany wishes that Spain will leave the FCAS- program and join them with Sweden to start a third European 6th generation fighterjet?Germany ‘Exploring’ GCAP Entry with UK, Reports Say
While discussions between London and Berlin are in the early stages, internal German government assessments reportedly favor a collaboration with Sweden
So seems German exploring 2 options:
The 2nd one basically rebuild FCAS without France and put Sweden as replacement.
- Join GCAP with UK, Italy and Japan,
- Work out new project with Spain and Sweden.
A situation were Spain stays with FCAS but also joins the third European program is unlikely and confusing for everyone.
After the Panavia Tornado and EF2000 programs, it was remarkable that Germany teamed up with France to begin with, it was to be expected that France would not be a flexible partner, and nobody is actually waiting for another (3rd) European program.
One question is engines. With these different programs, what engines will they end up with?
With GCAP, you have RR (UK), IHI (JP) and Avio (ITA) and with the original FCAS, it was EUMET which was a consortium with Safran (FR), MTU (GER) and that seems to be dead (link ).
So if the germans or french want to go their own way, it may well mean two different engine options that they have to figure out (since MTU and Safran also want a share of the industrial pie). The Swedes have always used licensed produced engines from third parties.
With GCAP, you have RR (UK), IHI (JP) and Avio (ITA) and with the original FCAS, it was EUMET which was a consortium with Safran (FR), MTU (GER) and that seems to be dead (link ).
So if the germans or french want to go their own way, it may well mean two different engine options that they have to figure out (since MTU and Safran also want a share of the industrial pie). The Swedes have always used licensed produced engines from third parties.
Last edited:
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
We can put it in simpler terms:
- GCAP (UK, ITA, JAP) is open for new participants but the program is already quite advanced. No room for major workshares or anything, unless you pay A LOT.
- DASSAULT will go for their own plane as always. I think in the end they will partner with some minor european partner and a major foreign one (INDIA?)
- GER, SWE, SPA, etc etc will have to figure out what they want to do and they have 3 choices:
1) join an ongoing program
2) buy off-the-shelf (unlikely)
3) make their own
- GCAP (UK, ITA, JAP) is open for new participants but the program is already quite advanced. No room for major workshares or anything, unless you pay A LOT.
- DASSAULT will go for their own plane as always. I think in the end they will partner with some minor european partner and a major foreign one (INDIA?)
- GER, SWE, SPA, etc etc will have to figure out what they want to do and they have 3 choices:
1) join an ongoing program
2) buy off-the-shelf (unlikely)
3) make their own
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Number 3 for Sweden by itself. Saab already builds most of the Gripen major components except for engines. Joining FCAS is reducing workshare for Sweden with minimal advantage, just my two cents, perhaps I am missing something.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
Sweden is not even close to have enough money to develop a 6th gen fighter.
They might go alone but the outcome will be at best a single-engine small 5th-ish gen fighter.
The Gripen itself is the result of decades of experience in making single-engine fighters and they still had to rely on foreign companies for most of the components.
