It about the cost of a 5th generation fighter. Where its going to get the technology for the 5th generation. The F-22 is highly guarded and very hard to get the technology from. Unless you have a high official in the U.S. Air Force I don't see Dassault for another 20 years getting that technology by that time the U.S. Air Force have something better cause of better technology.The Rafale is a good jet but its not a F-22. The Rafale is like a F-16D until they get the stealth technology that's where they will remain.
UAE "5th Gen" Rafale?
- Thread starter fretburner
- Start date
Scorpion82
New Member
@Justone,
it's a widely spread predejuice that the Rafale or Typhoon for that matter are technologically completely inferior to the F-22. That's not the case, while the Raptor may lead in individual areas its overall technologies aren't automatically superior.
it's a widely spread predejuice that the Rafale or Typhoon for that matter are technologically completely inferior to the F-22. That's not the case, while the Raptor may lead in individual areas its overall technologies aren't automatically superior.
meat_helmet
New Member
I highly doubt that Western European technologies used in frontline aircraft are 27 years behind the United States technologies [if you are suggesting they will not have F22 like tech until 20 years from now; and as the F22 has been in service for 7 years]. The USA has traditionally had a bit of a lead in technology overall, however, the rest of the Europe is by no means in the dark ages, and in fact have pioneered many technologies before the USA.
While the technology around the F22 is well guarded, that hasnt stopped Russia from starting development on their own 5th gen 'stealth' fighter - and in fact they are already flight testing which suggests they have been developing these technologies for many years. And personally I would not consider russian technolgies to be much more advanced than Western European tech.
In the aero-space sector Russia has a significant over all lead on the Europeans. This is why the massively under-funded GLONASS is still far ahead of Galileo. Similar patterns can be seen in many other areas. And while Europe is rapidly closing the gap, the situation has not yet principally shifted in my opinion.
Thats nonsense. First off specify what technology you are talking about, there is a lot of technology in the F-22 but it is by no means best in everything. It has unique RCS reduction quality's and excellent flight characteristics. But the avionics are not as far ahead as its LO quality's, the F-35 will be more advanced and the F16 block 60 has AESA and the superbug will have aesa. There are also AESA projects in Europe and Russia.
Also the RCS reduction is not unique. Basically all aeronautical industry's to speak of have dabbled with these technology's and most have running projects with LO aircraft.
I think the F-22 is unique in that it has very very excellent flight characteristics without making concessions in RCS reduction. It has exciting avionics and those are well integrated. But I think the F-35 will be more advanced, and unless there are more F-22's built it will stay that way.
But to say that Dassault won't be able to build something like it in 20 is ridiculous.
I think to answer this question we need to ask ourselves what a 5th generation aircraft is, and what skills are needed to built one. I will list some I think you would need, please feel free to add to it.
- Advanced computer production
- Sensor design and built capability's
- Advanced aerospace industy's with experience in LO aircraft design and capable of very advanced avionics integration.
- High quality metalurgy
- High grade composite material industry's
- Engine industry capable of building very high output machines
I think bot Russia and Europe definitly contain those sorts of company's, but thats just my opinion.
localhost127
Member
ok - this will be a very general/bit of a tangent question - but how does one claim "20" years of being ahead from a technological perspective?
i can understand naval logistics, operations, coordination, training, etc - and putting a decade-incrementive marking on comparisons between navies ...
but with a slight nod to moore's law ... how can we continue to assume such massive gaps in technological capabilities (re: air superiority platforms, for sake of this question) -
i can understand from a 1980 +/- perspective of the US having such a massive leap in all such discussed fields ... but how can we make these "20 year ahead" claims today, when almost all countries enjoy massive computing and technological capabilities for relatively little cost?
when space-based assets are included in the discussion (a country's system) - that i can fully understand and comprehend, the massive generational gaps and evolution time periods (measured in decades).
but how can we make such "20 year+" claims (where do these figures come from??),,for example, an air-superiority fighter platform?
----------------------------------
and one last tangent-question i have ...
even though the f-22 was developed regarding cold war -era scenarios ... do you still think it would have taken the bulk of 2 decades to develop-->operational if the cold war were still ongoing today?
did the development path slow at all over the past 10-15 .... 20 years after the fall of the soviet union? (read: could the defense companies milk the development costs a bit further, knowing that the urgency was somewhat eased?). does the US possess the capability to design such a platform in a shorter period of time if we still had high probability of facing a peer adversary, today? but i suppose that opens a new box of questions regarding the state of US manufacturing...
I went totally offtopic in my previous post so this one will be about the Rafale and if it could be modified to a 5th gen standard.
First off, what constitutes a 5th generation aircraft? RCS reduction? Supercruize? AESA radar? Or all of that and more? I think the people that question the relevance of the generational valuation are right. But that does not mean we can not speculate about what the Rafale airframe could be capable of.
I think the sensors and its avionics are top notch the way they are, but it is totally feasible that a more advanced avionics package could be installed that could bring it on par with 5th gen aircraft.
It is rumored to be able to supercruize, I believe that the Rafale could be able to achieve low supersonic speeds without afterburners. But not with any meaningfull payload, maybe with a minimal air defense package with 2-4 missiles and no droptanks, sensor pods or any other ordanenance. But with more powerfull engines this capability could be worked on/expanded.
Now the tough one, could the Rafale be modified to achieve RCS reduction on par with F-35, F-22, T-50 or J-13? And the easy answer is no. The Rafale was designed for RCS reduction, but no (or not much) concessions where made with regards to aerodynamics and thats key! Altering the airframe would not only be very expensive, but would alter the aerodynamics which makes the Rafale such a good airframe.
The Rafale could be used as a basis for a 5th gen aircraft though. But it would be much bigger. There is currently no room for internal weapons bays and I dont think conformal pods are an option, It wouldn't achieve the required shape, and there are hard points under the body that would become useless. So the airframe would become wider to fit the weapon bays and longer to fit bigger engines and not screw up the dimensions to much. I do hope they would make it another delta winged plane, not for any practical reason, but they look soooo cool
.
Again, I am not a defense expert. But I base my comment on the fact that a continued presence of a credible adversary would mean that everything would be different. Most importantly it would be justification for a much larger defense budget.
So I think the US does have the infrastructure and the know how to develop such a plane in a shorter time. It just doesnt have the budget to do so without justifying the rediculous costs that come with it.
I'm sorry I cant come up with proof or sourcing, I'll leave that to someone else.
First off, what constitutes a 5th generation aircraft? RCS reduction? Supercruize? AESA radar? Or all of that and more? I think the people that question the relevance of the generational valuation are right. But that does not mean we can not speculate about what the Rafale airframe could be capable of.
I think the sensors and its avionics are top notch the way they are, but it is totally feasible that a more advanced avionics package could be installed that could bring it on par with 5th gen aircraft.
It is rumored to be able to supercruize, I believe that the Rafale could be able to achieve low supersonic speeds without afterburners. But not with any meaningfull payload, maybe with a minimal air defense package with 2-4 missiles and no droptanks, sensor pods or any other ordanenance. But with more powerfull engines this capability could be worked on/expanded.
Now the tough one, could the Rafale be modified to achieve RCS reduction on par with F-35, F-22, T-50 or J-13? And the easy answer is no. The Rafale was designed for RCS reduction, but no (or not much) concessions where made with regards to aerodynamics and thats key! Altering the airframe would not only be very expensive, but would alter the aerodynamics which makes the Rafale such a good airframe.
The Rafale could be used as a basis for a 5th gen aircraft though. But it would be much bigger. There is currently no room for internal weapons bays and I dont think conformal pods are an option, It wouldn't achieve the required shape, and there are hard points under the body that would become useless. So the airframe would become wider to fit the weapon bays and longer to fit bigger engines and not screw up the dimensions to much. I do hope they would make it another delta winged plane, not for any practical reason, but they look soooo cool
.Whow that's a first rate question. I'm not an expert, but I think the US govt. would have been more on the ass of the defense industy. I also think if there still was a credible Soviet threat they would already have fully replaced the F-15, and have a credible replacement for the F-14, not something thats "good enough". I also think they F-16's and the Bomber fleet wouldn't be in the state they are now. But then again, in that scenario the RAH-66 would've been pushed forward and the design would be evolving into a next gen AH-64 replacement instead of being canned.
Again, I am not a defense expert. But I base my comment on the fact that a continued presence of a credible adversary would mean that everything would be different. Most importantly it would be justification for a much larger defense budget.
So I think the US does have the infrastructure and the know how to develop such a plane in a shorter time. It just doesnt have the budget to do so without justifying the rediculous costs that come with it.
I'm sorry I cant come up with proof or sourcing, I'll leave that to someone else.
Last edited:
20 years? For stealth technology?
The UK, which is probably ahead of France, but certainly not by 20 years, built a stealth technology demonstrator (non-flying) in the 1990s. It was shown to the USA, to persuade the USA to allow the UK to be the only tier 1 JSF partner.
Germany built a stealth fighter technology demonstrator in the early 1980s. It used techniques similar to the F-117, but with considerably better aerodynamic performance.
France has had stealthy UAV technology demonstrators flying for many years.
All of the above was done with no US help or technology. European firms make RAM, & (as Dr Gerhard Löbert said 20 years ago, referring to this very subject) everyone has known the Maxwell equations for over 100 years. Applying them used to be difficult because of the sheer amount of calculating needed, but that ceased to be a problem quite a while ago.
If we look at the other features of the F-22 (avionics, engines, etc), we discover that, again, there is nothing where the USA is anywhere near 20 years ahead.
Okay !!!! I might took a little too far with 20 years. The Rafale is not a 5th generation aircraft that all I was trying to say The information I'm reading doesn't show where the Rafale can be a 5th generation aircraft
It can't. Not without a fundamental redesign.
Seriously eh? It will be truly world class with clear advantages and unique features. That's great! So, what are these clear advantages and unique features? And how much better is this 5th gen Rafale than the exceptional (compared to what?) previous generation?
Do you work for an advertising agency? Considering this aircraft has not been built - probably cannot be built just by modifying the existing design radically - essentially making it a different aircraft, these are big claims.
dragonfire
New Member
Since u read my post so clearly....
[Mod edit]Please use English. This is an internet forum, not Twitter or text messaging.[/Mod edit]
my complete post
Do u understand the words "would be", its a statement of expectation, based on past achievement of UAE funding and acquiring a pinnacle of F-16 advancement the -F16-Block 60.
Do u understand "The question here is what could be those additional features." Its a statement expressing a need for understanding what speculative advanced features could a '5th Gen Rafale' could posses. A question directed at the forum members to discuss and debate what one could expect in such an aircraft.
Last edited by a moderator:
A. Yes, I do understand the meaning of the words "would be" - its why I coached my initial reply with the words "will be" when referring to your expectation. Incidentally, just because a country has funded an upgrade (Block 60 is based on the F-16C/D Block 50/52. It features improved radar, avionics and conformal fuel tanks from Wiki) that was 95% about improved electronics and fitting CFT's that had already been developed for another variant - is a very long way from taking a 4.5 gen platform and making the wholesale changes to the airframe (probably a total redesign) to enable it to be considered a 5th gen platform.
So if you don't know what those additional features are how exactly can you say:
"would be truly world class with clear advantages and unique features compared to the current model which in itself is exceptional"
Being a recent western aircraft it probably has quite a few of the defining characteristics of a 5th gen airframe - the ability to swap data and network, sensor integration, supercruise etc. And we even know what additional features need to be fitted - umm, lets see a pizza oven would be nice - particularly for those remote airbases, but hey, probably not essential - OH! I KNOW HOW ABOUT AN LO AIRFRAME! Not something you just 'fit'.
I suppose I'm just pointing out you are sounding like a :clown
It'd help if there were a 'current 4.5 standard'. It's not like the world's aircraft manufacturers get together and work out some open standard for their designs a la the world of electronics (PCI, USB, wireless b/g/n etc.)
4.5 is a wonderful buzzword for Boeing and the Eurofighter consortium to throw around about their latest offerings to cover the fact that they're selling 70's airframes with 90's avionics* not a formal classification of an aircraft, or at least not (to my mind at least) a terribly useful one. In any case from what I've heard the Rafale is comparable with the F/A-18E/F albeit the French don't have quite the surrounding assets (AWACS, tankers, supercarrier groups etc.) which can cover a multitude of sins on the part of the fighting aircraft itself.
I agree though that while it may be possible to produce an update in the style of the 'Silent Eagle' to make the Rafale stealthier and it's always possible to update the avionics, any effort to turn the Rafale airframe into something comparable with the JSF would be in effect a complete redesign.
It could be that Dassault are planning to reuse as many sections of the Rafale as they can. The cockpit, engines and general dimensions may be intended to remain similar but with a '5th generation' airframe surrounding them. Some commentators have claimed this is what Sukhoi has done with the PAK-FA/T-50 which in many places looks rather like a Flanker, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Dassault may have something like that in mind.
*In case it's not obvious this is a slight hyperbole on my part. Nevertheless with the exception of the JSF project, all current 'fighter' aircraft are children of the Cold War and the expectation of NATO vs WarPac, producing the ultimate machine and damn the expense.
Beatmaster
New Member
Just a fast question,
What makes some of the posters think that US has superior tech?
Or what makes them think that other nation might have a leap ahead?
Keep in mind that weapons tech is most of the time a joined adveture between nations.
Some techs are created in EU some in asia some in russia and some in the US, and there is a number of systems are home breed.
But do the have a significant advantage? naaaah i think that there are little differences in overall tech between US & EU or Russia & Asia there are a number of specific regions where theone might have a little head lead while on a other aspect they might lack some.
Each western and asian nations have its own invetions and bright minds and overall most weapon systems are a joined projects around the planet.
The gap between tech levels has been closed fast in the past 10 years.
And perhaps that for example the US might have lost the edge on specific techs.
Because NON of its allies and enemies are sitting still.
Back to the topic......currently most nations use gen 4 and gen 4.5 tech aircraft and they all do just fine so why would a gen 5 be needed anyway?.
Research is always good and it can improve so mutch aspects but what does a gen 5 aircraft do that a gen 4.5 cannot? exept being alot more expensive
What makes some of the posters think that US has superior tech?
Or what makes them think that other nation might have a leap ahead?
Keep in mind that weapons tech is most of the time a joined adveture between nations.
Some techs are created in EU some in asia some in russia and some in the US, and there is a number of systems are home breed.
But do the have a significant advantage? naaaah i think that there are little differences in overall tech between US & EU or Russia & Asia there are a number of specific regions where theone might have a little head lead while on a other aspect they might lack some.
Each western and asian nations have its own invetions and bright minds and overall most weapon systems are a joined projects around the planet.
The gap between tech levels has been closed fast in the past 10 years.
And perhaps that for example the US might have lost the edge on specific techs.
Because NON of its allies and enemies are sitting still.
Back to the topic......currently most nations use gen 4 and gen 4.5 tech aircraft and they all do just fine so why would a gen 5 be needed anyway?.
Research is always good and it can improve so mutch aspects but what does a gen 5 aircraft do that a gen 4.5 cannot? exept being alot more expensive
The one big insurmountable difference between 5th gen and 4th/4.5 is the VLO, or in the popular vernacular 'stealth' technology. All modern aircraft make some effort to reduce the ability of the enemy to detect or engage them with RADAR/IR systems but 5th generation fighters subordinate everything to the goal of evading detection.
In a battle where to be seen is to be killed the victor is the one who sees first and can avoid being seen until it is too late. If the US were to find itself at war with (for example) Venezuala then the F-22's ability to evade detection would allow it to engage Venezualan MiG's and Sukhoi's from a position of considerable advantage. If the conflict were left to the US' F-15 then it would be a far more even fight* and any military commander will tell you that if you're fighting fair you're doing it wrong.
To put it another way, back in 1936, Great Britain's frontline fighter was the Gloster Gladiator, a biplane with four guns and a top speed of about 250mph. If we'd stuck with that rather than moving on to the Hurricane and Spitfire (double the firepower and an extra hundred miles an hour) then we would have lost the Battle Of Britain four years later. Yet, even though we didn't know we'd be fighting Hitler we advanced our military to make sure that if it did come to a fight we'd have all the advantages we could.
If you have a military then you must keep it competetive for your needs, it's no good just buying a bunch of aircraft, tanks and ships and saying 'we've got a military' because your rivals will not be content to let you retain any advantage you have.
*As I mentioned before, the US' ability to control the battlespace with it's other assets is massively superior to anyone else's so the F-15's would still have a considerable advantage but as a platform it is on a fairly even footing with Sukhoi's current offerings AFAIK.
In a battle where to be seen is to be killed the victor is the one who sees first and can avoid being seen until it is too late. If the US were to find itself at war with (for example) Venezuala then the F-22's ability to evade detection would allow it to engage Venezualan MiG's and Sukhoi's from a position of considerable advantage. If the conflict were left to the US' F-15 then it would be a far more even fight* and any military commander will tell you that if you're fighting fair you're doing it wrong.
To put it another way, back in 1936, Great Britain's frontline fighter was the Gloster Gladiator, a biplane with four guns and a top speed of about 250mph. If we'd stuck with that rather than moving on to the Hurricane and Spitfire (double the firepower and an extra hundred miles an hour) then we would have lost the Battle Of Britain four years later. Yet, even though we didn't know we'd be fighting Hitler we advanced our military to make sure that if it did come to a fight we'd have all the advantages we could.
If you have a military then you must keep it competetive for your needs, it's no good just buying a bunch of aircraft, tanks and ships and saying 'we've got a military' because your rivals will not be content to let you retain any advantage you have.
*As I mentioned before, the US' ability to control the battlespace with it's other assets is massively superior to anyone else's so the F-15's would still have a considerable advantage but as a platform it is on a fairly even footing with Sukhoi's current offerings AFAIK.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Taken from a LockMart page, but it does provide a general definition of what a "5th gen fighter" is.Just a fast question,
What makes some of the posters think that US has superior tech?
Or what makes them think that other nation might have a leap ahead?
Keep in mind that weapons tech is most of the time a joined adveture between nations.
Some techs are created in EU some in asia some in russia and some in the US, and there is a number of systems are home breed.
But do the have a significant advantage? naaaah i think that there are little differences in overall tech between US & EU or Russia & Asia there are a number of specific regions where theone might have a little head lead while on a other aspect they might lack some.
Each western and asian nations have its own invetions and bright minds and overall most weapon systems are a joined projects around the planet.
The gap between tech levels has been closed fast in the past 10 years.
And perhaps that for example the US might have lost the edge on specific techs.
Because NON of its allies and enemies are sitting still.
Back to the topic......currently most nations use gen 4 and gen 4.5 tech aircraft and they all do just fine so why would a gen 5 be needed anyway?.
Research is always good and it can improve so mutch aspects but what does a gen 5 aircraft do that a gen 4.5 cannot? exept being alot more expensive
What is generally regarded as the difference between a 4.5 Gen and 5th Gen fighter is the first characteristic, advanced "stealth". What this effectively means is that late block F/A-18 E/F/G Shornet/Growlers, late block F-16's and F-15's are 4.5 Gen, and that the Typhoon and Rafale either are currently, or will become 4.5 Gen once AESA are fitted. Even the Gripen C/D (or Gripen NG if it even enters production) would be considered 4.5 Gen. Incidentally, an AESA is not IMO a requirement for a 4.5 Gen or 5th Gen aircraft, but due to the capabilities of an AESA in terms of situational awareness, commlinking, and offensive and defensive EW it certainly helps.
In terms of the Rafale ever becoming a "5th Gen" aircraft based upon the above capabilities requirements, there are only two ways for that to happen. The first is for someone to develop an active sig management device able to achieve what is currently done with passive sig management. In effect, something like a 'cloaking device' which manages to contain or cancel out much of the emissions from an aircraft, without broadcasting its general presence like jammers can do. The second way it could happen would be for Dassault to design a totally new aircraft & airframe, and also call that the Rafale. Boeing did something like this with the Hornet/Super Hornet, but it still was given a slightly different name, and the aircraft have the same overall same and a high component commonality, with the Super Hornet actually being essentially a further development of the standard Hornet. The reason I say a whole new aircraft and airframe are needed is that to achieve the results possibly with advanced or significant LO management (like the F-22 or F-35) the overall shape of the aircraft has a major impact on sig management. Things like the size, shape and positioning of the radar aperture, air intakes and jet nozzles all impact RCS. The location of the fuel and how it is (or can be) circulated throughout the airframe can impact the thermal signature, and similar efforts is needed to maintain emissions control with the aircraft comms and avionics. Depending on how certain elements were designed, whole aircraft sections could need to be re-shaped and redesigned in order to achieve significant signature reductions. While changing one engine design out for another could be done with an upgrade, changing where the engine is within the aircraft, as well as where the intakes and outlets are would impact the integrity of the entire aircraft and thus trigger a re-design, making it essentially a whole new design.
-Cheers
i also think its a 2 way street of allies tech sharingJust a fast question,
What makes some of the posters think that US has superior tech?
Or what makes them think that other nation might have a leap ahead?
Keep in mind that weapons tech is most of the time a joined adveture between nations.
Some techs are created in EU some in asia some in russia and some in the US, and there is a number of systems are home breed.
But do the have a significant advantage? naaaah i think that there are little differences in overall tech between US & EU or Russia & Asia there are a number of specific regions where theone might have a little head lead while on a other aspect they might lack some.
Each western and asian nations have its own invetions and bright minds and overall most weapon systems are a joined projects around the planet.
The gap between tech levels has been closed fast in the past 10 years.
And perhaps that for example the US might have lost the edge on specific techs.
Because NON of its allies and enemies are sitting still.
Back to the topic......currently most nations use gen 4 and gen 4.5 tech aircraft and they all do just fine so why would a gen 5 be needed anyway?.
Research is always good and it can improve so mutch aspects but what does a gen 5 aircraft do that a gen 4.5 cannot? exept being alot more expensive
they use a lot of non-usa tech because if a country does have a good idea, odds are there is a manufacturing subsidiary in the usa to sell them the product or they will fund development for them and such help as needed in partnership
when you spend 1/2 of the world's budget allocations, when even your black budget exceeds frances or uk's total defense budget, it is an advantage
Last edited:
Scorpion82
New Member
These are no industry buzzwords from the manufacturers, but from the media! Neither Boeing, nor Eurofighter or any other western manufacturer for that matter uses this crappy 4.5 generation designations. You primarily find them in aviation forums. Just Russians use a 4+/++ labeling officially.
The French have AWACS aircraft and tankers and at least one nuclear carrier, though they don't have comparable naval battle groups.
Anyway all this discussions are crap in my opinion, as the Rafale is a current generation aircraft designed to meet different requirements. Adding this or that won't make it a new generation at all, though equivalent to a new generations capabilities is possible within the given constraints.