UAE "5th Gen" Rafale?

[jtm]

to answer the original question :

1) lots have been said : if the 5th gen mark is stealthiness, it won't happen because the rafale can't and will never be able to carry his weapons internally. If you're definition of 5th gen is electronic capabilities, counter measures, very advanced avionics, AESA and so on, then the rafale can become 5th gen at some distant point. Personnaly I'd say it's a 4.5 gen aircraft (with AESA on)

2) The UAE have decided a few years back to diversify their weapon procurements. They decided half their fighter planes would be from the US, and the other half from France. Today, they want to modernize their French half, that's it. So no, they won't just buy more F16s.

I am surprised that the UAE is going for a possibly very highly expensive acquisition so close to the Dubai debt default. But UAE has a knack of going for the best possible and customized options, it had cost them a whopping 3 billion dollars just to come up with the Block 60 F-16s apart from the price of the fighters. Also i am guessing Abu Dhabi has a lot of oil money in its coffers to fund acquisitions.

Stop reading mainstream newspapers. The Dubai debt is not a major event. First because Abu Dhabi bailed out the Dubai cousin. Plus Dubai's debt is around 2% of the GDP...which is nothing compared to US or Europe debt. To put it shortly, the guys bought lots of stocks during the 2000-2008 era, and didn't want to sell it in 2008-2009 because it was worth nothing at the time, so they got short on cash. Don't worry for them, they will make it i Assure you.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

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.

To be fair most 4.5th gen platforms are 90's airframes using 00's Avionics. Certainly the F/A-18F BII's avionics suite is lifted straight from a 5th gen solution.

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.

The F/A-18F BII ha a number of avionics options which the Rafale doesn't offer, including ATFLIR. The Rhino is a superior platform at the moment.

 

[AegisFC]

The F/A-18F BII ha a number of avionics options which the Rafale doesn't offer, including ATFLIR. The Rhino is a superior platform at the moment.

The BII's have a couple neat EW items as well, including that nice AN/ALE-55 towed decoy.

 

[Scorpion82]

The Rafale has SPECTRA and Damocles so what? Do you want to list up every system now?

 

[jack412]

making a list wouldnt be of value but based on public info, we could compare every system

 

[Scorpion82]

It's nonsense, the information in the public is just a fraction of what you need to know and just comparing the one or other system and claiming this makes the difference to which generation an aircraft belongs is pure BS.
Each aircraft has pros and contras. Limiting comparisons to the systems which favour your favourite pet toy is certainly fanboy brabbling and nothing else.

 

[Todjaeger]

It's nonsense, the information in the public is just a fraction of what you need to know and just comparing the one or other system and claiming this makes the difference to which generation an aircraft belongs is pure BS.
Each aircraft has pros and contras. Limiting comparisons to the systems which favour your favourite pet toy is certainly fanboy brabbling and nothing else.

It is certainly understandable that actual system performance capabilities are not in the public domain. However, the presence (or absence thereof) of certain types of systems can service as indicators of what type/sort of capabilities a given platform has.

In the case of the Rafale, the early claims of being a multi-role fighter did seem to be more hypothetical and/or marketing than actual fact, given that the Rafale deployment to Afghanistan required a concurrent deployment of Mirage 2000's to provide targeting/illumination.

I do understand that was a capability which was planned for but not yet completed trialling/testing on the Rafale, but it does serve to illustrate a point about mission systems. Different mission systems provide certain capabilities to platforms (radar, EW, ESM/ECM, EO, etc) if a particular type of mission system or an equivalent is missing, then a given platform will be missing a particular capability.

Now, generally speaking, fighter jet generations are measured in terms of broad capabilities in certain key areas. In terms of the differences between 4th and 5th generation fighters, this usually means improvements in two key areas, the first being the avionics, with a 5th gen (or 4.5 gen) fighter having significant avionics advances, leading to improvements in the type, quality, quantity and/or presentation of information to the pilot or WSO. The second key area of difference between 4th and 5th gen fighters is in sig management/reduction, with a 5th gen fighter having a signature an order of magnitude (or greater) lower than a 4th gen aircraft. The intended result would allow a 5th gen aircraft to close to WVR or evade combat situations altogether.

Given the impact aircraft shaping and layout has on an aircraft's signature using current technology, if a significantly reduced signature is a project goal, it is something which needs be factored/designed in, not something which can really be added in later on.

Now, specifically for the Rafale, can someone clearly illuminate what definition of "5th Gen" is being used? At present it appears people are either comparing apples to oranges, or suggesting a future capability which does not seem to fit within current design limitations.

-Cheers

 

[Scorpion82]

It is certainly understandable that actual system performance capabilities are not in the public domain. However, the presence (or absence thereof) of certain types of systems can service as indicators of what type/sort of capabilities a given platform has.

In the case of the Rafale, the early claims of being a multi-role fighter did seem to be more hypothetical and/or marketing than actual fact, given that the Rafale deployment to Afghanistan required a concurrent deployment of Mirage 2000's to provide targeting/illumination.

I do understand that was a capability which was planned for but not yet completed trialling/testing on the Rafale, but it does serve to illustrate a point about mission systems. Different mission systems provide certain capabilities to platforms (radar, EW, ESM/ECM, EO, etc) if a particular type of mission system or an equivalent is missing, then a given platform will be missing a particular capability.

Now, generally speaking, fighter jet generations are measured in terms of broad capabilities in certain key areas. In terms of the differences between 4th and 5th generation fighters, this usually means improvements in two key areas, the first being the avionics, with a 5th gen (or 4.5 gen) fighter having significant avionics advances, leading to improvements in the type, quality, quantity and/or presentation of information to the pilot or WSO. The second key area of difference between 4th and 5th gen fighters is in sig management/reduction, with a 5th gen fighter having a signature an order of magnitude (or greater) lower than a 4th gen aircraft. The intended result would allow a 5th gen aircraft to close to WVR or evade combat situations altogether.

Given the impact aircraft shaping and layout has on an aircraft's signature using current technology, if a significantly reduced signature is a project goal, it is something which needs be factored/designed in, not something which can really be added in later on.

Now, specifically for the Rafale, can someone clearly illuminate what definition of "5th Gen" is being used? At present it appears people are either comparing apples to oranges, or suggesting a future capability which does not seem to fit within current design limitations.

-Cheers

@Todjaeger,
I agree that you may get a clue about the availability of capabilities by the presence or absence of certain technologies, but it's mostly an incomplete picture.
European manufacturers to share the view of the US manufacturers definition of jet fighter generations.
For Dassault for example the Rafale is simply a 4th generation fighter, as it's the logical sequence with the Mirage 2000 being seen as a 3rd generation fighter as is the F-16 from a European POV.
With regards to capabilities and generations, these were ever rough guidelines and not must have all of it to earn the generation label. The airforces don't care about generation labels anyway, what matters is the capabilities that the platform brings to the table and that it meets the requirements imposed on it.
The Rafale's versatility is emerging now with the F3 standard and next year integration of all initially planned weapons should be completed. The aircraft entered service in a pure AD configuration (F1) with the MN as the service had an urgent need to replace its F-8s. The AdA operates newer and more advanced aircraft and could subsequently afford to wait for the availability of the more sophisticated and multirole capable F2 standard. The priority was placed on weapons not integrated on platforms operational with the AdA, meaning the Scalp-EG and AASM. LGBs were tested on the Rafale as early as 2001, together with a LDP which was tested even earlier if memory doesn't fool me, but the fact that both the MN SEMs and AdA M2k-D etc were already capable to use LGBs made that capability somewhat redundant for the Rafale at that time and was certainly no priority. With the AASM being delayed and the more politically motivated employment of Rafales to Afghanistan in 2007 LGBs were rushed into service, while the LDP wasn't operational, therefore third party designation was required. Meanwhile Rafales are primarily using the AASM in Afghanistan with the ability to receive GPS coordinates from JTACs, while complete integration of the LDP should be completed by now.

 

[swerve]

Now, specifically for the Rafale, can someone clearly illuminate what definition of "5th Gen" is being used? At present it appears people are either comparing apples to oranges, or suggesting a future capability which does not seem to fit within current design limitations.

-Cheers

I think that it is, as has been said elsewhere, the 5th generation of Rafale, i.e. the 5th iteration of Rafale, & has nothing to do with '5th generation' as in F-22, F-35 etc. There appears to have been a misunderstanding.

1 = Rafale A
2 = Rafale F1
3 = Rafale F2
4 = Rafale F3 (latest AdlA version)
5 = Rafale F4 - for UAE & AdlA in the future

 

[Cailet]

That makes a lot more sense, though the use of 'generation' seems a poor choice on the part of whoever penned the original article. It would perhaps have been better to call it by an equivalent to the the 'block' or 'tranche' term used for US and EF aircraft.

 

[Aussie Digger]

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.

I wouldn't say the USA's "tech level" is 20 years ahead of anyone else, but the gap between their ability to deliver operational platforms featuring these state of the art tech compared to everyone else is at least this great, at present, if not moreso.

Rolling out a demonstrator and delivering an in-service capability are 2 completely different things as we all know.

The reason for this, is the entire package. The excellence of their scientists and engineers. The level of funding these receive, the production capacity the USA has and the funding for the acquisition of systems that the USA maintains.

In most if not all of these areas, the USA leads the way by a massive margain. If anybody's pride is hurt by this, well too bad. That is the state of things...

 

[swerve]

That makes a lot more sense, though the use of 'generation' seems a poor choice on the part of whoever penned the original article. It would perhaps have been better to call it by an equivalent to the the 'block' or 'tranche' term used for US and EF aircraft.

It could have been translated from French by someone who was not au fait with the usage of ''5th generation' for fighter aircraft of a certain category.

We should be more aware that words don't always mean to most people what we, understanding them through filters imposed by the context in which we read them, understand. This context, i.e. a military aviation forum, is the only one in which anyone would think of '5th generation' as having such a limited meaning.

BTW, I don't think the French use 'tranche' for models of aircraft. It's French for 'slice', as in 'slice of cake', & I believe it has the connotation of cutting things up, as 'slice' does in English.

 

[jtm]

BTW, I don't think the French use 'tranche' for models of aircraft. It's French for 'slice', as in 'slice of cake', & I believe it has the connotation of cutting things up, as 'slice' does in English.

We actually do use "tranche" or "standard" to describe airplanes/weapon systems generations. We also use "block" (as in MM40 block 1/2/3) for certain things.
I even read articles where the F2 standard was designated as rafale block05, and the F3 as block10.

And all of this is totally different from the -X versioning of the mirages (2000-5, 2000-9 etc.).

 

[Toptob]

Still a nice thread, another reply then.

I give you this; talking about 5th generation aircraft design talks about much more than new, more modern systems and VLO.

Analysing all these components as components is madness. I am of the opinion that a new generation of aircraft design signifies a new way of thinking about combat aircraft, and all that entails. 5th generation is more than AESA radars, advanced targeting capabilities and RCS reduction. 5th generation aircraft are designed with a new vision on air combat, and are built to combine al these new gadgets in a way that has never been thought of before. Therefore an airframe has to be different from the skin to the skeleton.

If we look at the transition from 3rd to 4th gen technology we can compare the F-4 to the F-16, both staple crops of the USAF. The F-16 had to be able to do much more and combine different systems in a new way, it was designed with the lessons learned from 3rd generation aircraft.

Now when we get to 5th gen aircraft, we have to start with designing an airframe with stealth shapes, and internal weapon carriage capability's. In my mind these are the most significant problems for the structural design. The aircraft will have to have very advanced systems that where not available when 4th generation aircraft where designed.

In short, a new generation of fighter aircraft points to the design filosophy behind its conception. Not to the systems in an aircraft.

I also think 4.5gen is an empty term because the basic design filosophy of the airframe has not changed. Therefore the Rafale will never be 5th gen.

 

[Scorpion82]

I give you this; talking about 5th generation aircraft design talks about much more than new, more modern systems and VLO.

5th generation is more than AESA radars, advanced targeting capabilities and RCS reduction.

Sorry first this and than this:

Now when we get to 5th gen aircraft, we have to start with designing an airframe with stealth shapes, and internal weapon carriage capability's.

You basically first say its not all, but your argumentation in the end is exactly reduced to this!

If we look at the transition from 3rd to 4th gen technology we can compare the F-4 to the F-16, both staple crops of the USAF. The F-16 had to be able to do much more and combine different systems in a new way, it was designed with the lessons learned from 3rd generation aircraft.

Well what the Rafale offers in comparison to its predecessor Mirage 2000 is exactly that! An all new aircraft in any way, like the F-16 in comparison to the F-4.

Yet your conclusion is

Therefore the Rafale will never be 5th gen.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The Rafale has SPECTRA and Damocles so what? Do you want to list up every system now?

The Rafale does not have damocles, which is the point.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

@Todjaeger,
I agree that you may get a clue about the availability of capabilities by the presence or absence of certain technologies, but it's mostly an incomplete picture.
European manufacturers to share the view of the US manufacturers definition of jet fighter generations.
For Dassault for example the Rafale is simply a 4th generation fighter, as it's the logical sequence with the Mirage 2000 being seen as a 3rd generation fighter as is the F-16 from a European POV.

Dassault may call its aircraft whatever it wants, but there is a definition of a "5th gen platform" in general public use. We all have an understanding of what, in broad terms, most of us mean when we talk about a 5th gen fighter. When Dassault or anyone else talks about a "5th gen Rafale" the vast majority of people aren’t going to think an "F4" standard, they are going to think F-35A like capabilities.

With regards to capabilities and generations, these were ever rough guidelines and not must have all of it to earn the generation label. The airforces don't care about generation labels anyway, what matters is the capabilities that the platform brings to the table and that it meets the requirements imposed on it.

No air forces don’t care about labels, but they do care about capability which is precisely what a "5th generation" label represents. The US, Russia, China, Israel, South Korea, Japan, The UK, The Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, Singapore, Turkey, Italy and Canada aren’t looking at manned LO tactical fighters simply because they come with the "5th gen" label.

By the way to my knowledge the Europeans are the only ones who don’t share the general definition of 4th and 5th gen solutions, the Russians, Americans and Chinese certainly do. Still if you look at the previous generation Europe (bar France) did not follow the 4th gen design paradigm; the Teens/"Teenski's"/Mirage-2000/J-10 all share fundamental design principles, Tornado did not. Same with Eurofighter vis-à-vis the F-22A, F-35A, T-50 and J-XX.

The Rafale's versatility is emerging now with the F3 standard and next year integration of all initially planned weapons should be completed. The aircraft entered service in a pure AD configuration (F1) with the MN as the service had an urgent need to replace its F-8s. The AdA operates newer and more advanced aircraft and could subsequently afford to wait for the availability of the more sophisticated and multirole capable F2 standard. The priority was placed on weapons not integrated on platforms operational with the AdA, meaning the Scalp-EG and AASM. LGBs were tested on the Rafale as early as 2001, together with a LDP which was tested even earlier if memory doesn't fool me, but the fact that both the MN SEMs and AdA M2k-D etc were already capable to use LGBs made that capability somewhat redundant for the Rafale at that time and was certainly no priority. With the AASM being delayed and the more politically motivated employment of Rafales to Afghanistan in 2007 LGBs were rushed into service, while the LDP wasn't operational, therefore third party designation was required. Meanwhile Rafales are primarily using the AASM in Afghanistan with the ability to receive GPS coordinates from JTACs, while complete integration of the LDP should be completed by now.

That’s good for Rafale but the point we were making is many basic capabilities, such as a LDP/LGB capability, are even now not operational on the ADA Rafale’s, which is a symptom of Frances strategic independence. Comparatively you get more avionics and weapons capability on an F/A-18F BII flying around in operational units right now including a more advanced LDP and LGB/JDAM capability. I’m not sure how the above paragraph challenges either of those assertions.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Sorry first this and than this:



You basically first say its not all, but your argumentation in the end is exactly reduced to this!



Well what the Rafale offers in comparison to its predecessor Mirage 2000 is exactly that! An all new aircraft in any way, like the F-16 in comparison to the F-4.

Yet your conclusion is

I think what he means is 5th generation platforms are defined by the design paradigm which underpins its new capabilities. It’s the reason the platform has a massively reduced RCS in all aspects, internal weapons carriage, LPI sensors and comms and sensor fusion/advanced HUI. It's the oldest argument in the book to use the "capability list" in order to debunk the notion that somehow "5th gen" platforms are more advanced. A good one is "without a decent datalink that can talk to other types of platforms the F-22A doesn’t meet the definition of a 5th gen platform?" But that’s just semantics and substantially misses the point.

IMHO the real defining features of modern fighter generations are the guiding design principles which underpin the platform. 3rd gen fighters were defined by the emphasis on sprint speed and acceleration (culminating in the F-4/MiG 23), 4th gen platforms were designed around energy management principles (rather than top sprint speed) and true BVR capability. 5th gen platforms are defined by the emphasis they place on information dominance and the de-emphasis of energy-manoeuvre. 4.5th gen platforms are 4th gen airframes with as many 5th gen principles incorporated as the airframe would allow. The reason "5th gen" platforms have a massively reduced RCS, LPI sensors & comms and internal weapons carriage and "4th gen" platforms don’t is because 5th gen solutions rely upon out knowing and out thinking opponents rather than out flying & out shooting them.

Now of course there are individual capabilities which bridge the generational gap; the F-4 had a BVR capability in the 3rd generation and the F-16 did not at the start of the 4th generation, F/A-18E/F BII and F-15E BII (and in future likely Eurofighter and Rafale as well) have LPI AESA Radars yet the F-22A does not have proper NCW. But in my opinion that misses the point because these platforms are not defined by their individual systems and features but their aggregate capability in combination and the way this allows them to fight.

If you look at the last three generations of Russian and US fighter designs any objective observer should, in my opinion, see these fundamental design paradigm's in the way the fighters themselves operate. Given that statement do you think Rafale falls primarily in the 4th gen or 5th gen category? What does that design emphasise, kinematic and aerodynamic performance or RCS reduction? I'd wager the Rafale and Eurofighter would fight in much the same way as an F-15C would only better, however the tactics employed by an F-35A or T-50 would be all together different.

 

[swerve]

Dassault may call its aircraft whatever it wants, but there is a definition of a "5th gen platform" in general public use. We all have an understanding of what, in broad terms, most of us mean when we talk about a 5th gen fighter. When Dassault or anyone else talks about a "5th gen Rafale" the vast majority of people aren’t going to think an "F4" standard, they are going to think F-35A like capabilities. ....

No. Absolutely not. Most people in this little pond we're playing in here might think that, but this is a tiny, self-selected, subset of people. The vast majority of people won't think anything of it at all. '5th generation' does not have the meaning you say in general public use, but only in our little gang.

The day we condemn someone for using plain English (or French) words with their normal meanings, because we have a different, specialised understanding of those words is the day we need to step back & examine ourselves & how we're thinking.

 

[Vivendi]

By the way to my knowledge the Europeans are the only ones who don’t share the general definition of 4th and 5th gen solutions, the Russians, Americans and Chinese certainly do.

Actually I thought it was the Chinese that deviated the most in their use of generations; I believe they are referring to their future J-XX fighter as 4th generation, whereas e.g. their J-10B currently being developed is considered 3rd generation. But I may be wrong?