Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anglo-French UCAV (FCAS)

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Anglo-French UCAV (FCAS)

    I post this image here as the start to the new thread:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSCN3913.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	89.1 KB
ID:	3732953

    Which is from BAE as of last year.

    Which is not this, but nearly the same....

    Click image for larger version

Name:	thD850HLQ9.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	10.3 KB
ID:	3732954

    #2
    Here is another image:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	th.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	5.6 KB
ID:	3677506

    Similar but not the same. This could be the shared platform but with differing intake being the most obvious national change.

    Any other differences?

    It could be the shape\perspective but the BAE platform looks longer and sharper?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG04_FCAS_DEF-1-556x600.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	42.0 KB
ID:	3677507
    Last edited by mrmalaya; 12th November 2017, 21:21.

    Comment


      #3
      Looks like cranked kite is going to be another common flying wing UCAV/UAV configuration.

      I wonder how many articles will point out how it looks "suspiciously similar" to X-47B... :/

      Comment


        #4
        I wonder why the US didn't continue development of X47?

        It's almost like there was an agreement to hold off and give the European a chance in ucavs.

        Comment


          #5
          X-47 didn't continue because it was a one trick pony.

          Comment


            #6
            Well, it is suggested that the French are thinking of carrier compatibility and we know BAE looked at that configuration for FOAS, long before any of the X47b flew.

            Comment


              #7
              I do think the BAE model is longer in the nose, and the intake makes the fuselage a different shape, but as I said I'm happy for be corrected.

              Comment


                #8
                Looks so, slghtly but i wouldn't bet my head on that.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Well it's just a model, but a new one to BAE model aficionados and the fuselage joins the wing inboard of the French wing/fuselage join regardless of which angle you view it from.

                  There is often lots of chatter about aerodynamics on fighter posts, but less so here. When the first BAE design came out years ago at the signing of the agreement, we concluded there wasn't anything to read into. Now we are close to a tangible design and this one matches the reports we have from both sides, hypothetically what might the difference tell us about the performance requirements?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Hmm, still on my hypothetical one man comparison between BAE designs and Dassault designs, look at this FOAS model and compare it to the BAE model I discovered:

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	images.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	6.4 KB
ID:	3677621 Click image for larger version

Name:	imagesY0P86RLS.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	4.2 KB
ID:	3677622

                    Replace the cockpit with the Taranis style intake and there you go. Same leading edge sweep and wing join relative to fuselage.

                    Perhaps the French design has a broader fuselage more akin to the X47b because of carrier compatibility?
                    Last edited by mrmalaya; 18th November 2017, 16:09.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I remember the FOAS being designed to somewhat sneak at low alt behind enemy lines. Hence the difference appears to be logical (inlets on the underside, twin engined and manned) : more an evolution behind what can appears a change in mission pattern than some kind of copies or replicants, Rick.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Yes, if this is representative of the BAE FCAS, then it would be logical that they could draw on previous work to get things done.

                        I just noticed the forward fuselage matches very closely that of the FOAS model (which is the only one that went as far as being produced for executive desks) and when you see the two BAE designs together, it is easier to see the difference between them and the French FCAS design.

                        Blade Runner would be a cool name for the final product though.

                        Comment


                          #13

                          Comment


                            #14
                            BAE and MBDA working together to develop a fast-jet weapons bay that will work for systems that aren't about blowing things up (as well as releasing ordnance):

                            https://www.baesystems.com/en/articl...ay-is-complete

                            Comment


                              #15
                              A rather wordy article that seems to suggest the French view FCAS as a way to remain connected to the "Combat Cloud" system of systems that their partners and allies are training for.

                              Does seem to suggest Rafale will be flying for another 20 years at least and I therefor suggest that the RAF will be replacing their Typhoons with something built outside of Europe:

                              https://overthehorizonmdos.com/2018/...access-denial/

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Nice read but this
                                , or of equipping each foreign combat system with its own converter to allow it to connect to the Combat Cloud,” Lt. Gen. Taprest reports.
                                looks Weird..

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Not so weird, sincerely. Some F-35 UK techs are forbidden for FCAS (contractually) and Fr will always want to keep a private network.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    More on the flexible weapons bay, giving some idea of the scope of roles being considered by BAE et al.

                                    Click image for larger version

Name:	RS71035_Flexible-Payload-Bay-graphic-lpr.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	317.8 KB
ID:	3678916

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      RR talking about what can be done in the area of engine development (hinting that Taranis was the actual proving ground for this approach):

                                      https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-fight-445940/

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Definitely agree mrmalaya.
                                        Prezsently very hot parts are tested at DGA propulseurs ... And they are not designed specifically for M88, but more for the FCAS engine. Heat resistance is useful in this case for longer MTBI aka as few as ossible "opening the can" to reach the engine.

                                        Comment


                                         

                                        Working...
                                        X