UAE "5th Gen" Rafale?

[Scorpion82]

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.

And here is the problem of that view. NCW which is quite often touted as one of the most prominent factors of 5th generation platforms can not be found on the F-22 in that way. So why are only those things excluded from the so called "must have" features and capabilities which can't be found on the F-22, while those found on the F-22 are the "must have's"?

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.

Well and there is the clue the features usually linked to a generation aren't necessarily present on all platforms which belong to that generation, but some of them can be found on earlier generation types as well. As I said it's more a loosely guideline than a strict definition.

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.

Well Russian fighters operate differently to US fighters, though some commonality of design characteristics is obvious. A Rafale or Typhoon were in fact designed to fight in a different way than a F-15 or F-16. The shift from sustained to instantaneous turning performance for example is owed to technologies/capabilities not being available at the time the F-15 or F-16 were designed for. Sustained turning performance was important to chase the enemies tail in a dogfight in order to fire guns or rear aspect heaters. Aircraft like the Typhoon or Rafale (and F-22 for that matter) were more designed with all aspect and HOBS capable IR AAMs in mind, with the subsequent result that the emphasis was more placed on instantaneous turning performance.
The way they were designed to fight BVR is different either. The teens/teenskis were still designed with SAHR missiles in mind, which were usually launched at subsonic speeds most of the time. The teens/teenskis were still quite fast, often faster than newer aircraft like the Rafale, F-22 or Eurofighter on paper. The difference is that the new generation fighters were also designed to fight BVR at supersonic speed, a greater emphasis was subsequently place on supersonic acceleration, agility and manoeuvrability.
The Rafale and Typhoon were designed fighting with an information edge as well, they were designed with sensor fusion and passive means of detection in mind, to not unveil their presence, with advanced MMIs and better integrated avionics to reduce pilot workload and subsequently contribute to their SA as well and with multi target engagement capabilities at BVR distances.

One factor that has to be taken into account is that the teens had to be kept much longer in service than originally planned and they were subsequently further developed and kept in production. A lot of technologies originally intended for the new generation eventually found its way into the existing platforms, narrowing the gap in capabilities. It's still the airframe which distinguishes those aircraft.

That late end aircraft of a generation can be more capable than the early versions of a new generation, at least in some areas is nothing new either. Your F-4 & F-16 BVR example is a good one for this, even if the AIM-7 would have been integrated onto the F-16 from the beginning it wouldn't have been really more capable in that area at that time.

The F-22s VLO characteristics are to a large extend owed to very specific mission requirements (destroying enemy aircraft over their own territory before they reach allied territory). Supercruise and high altitude performance were the other factors and this combination was supposed to provide the ATF with the required level of survivability. For Europe such an aircraft wasn't viable, to costly, to specialised etc. VLO and supercruise (at that level) are in fact the main distinguishing factors in comparison to the ECDs.

 

[fretburner]

UAE May Ditch Rafale

And the French are NOT happy. Apparently the UAE don't want to spend that much cash for a "5th gen" variant when the Super Hornet can offer the same tech with a much lower price tag:

Abu Dhabi is being asked to pay to upgrade the Rafale, while the F-18 is already at the desired technological level.

The Gulf source said, "The Super Hornet has everything we need. We don't need to co-develop or modify it."

 

[swerve]

The UAE paid a lot of money for Black Shaheen, & the Mirage 2000-9 to deliver it. Is that expensively-acquired capability no longer wanted? Or is the USA now willing to allow Black Shaheen to be integrated on US aircraft, or to sell JASSM? I've seen no reports to suggest that US policy has changed, any more than it has changed towards Saudi Arabia, which has not been allowed to buy JASSM, or to integrate Storm Shadow on F-15.

The whole reason for buying Rafale is that it is not subject to US restrictions on the weapons that can be used with it. I find it hard to believe that the UAE is now willing to accept those restrictions, after having spent billions to circumvent them.

I reckon this is a bargaining ploy.

 

[Vivendi]

The Mirage 2000-9 integrates
- the additional operating capabilities specified and tailored by the UAE AF & AD,
- together with a lots of new technologies
- and functionalities directly issued from the experience gained from the RAFALE aircraft development.

Mirage 2000-9: a very ambitious program
This Mirage 2000-9 version is a very ambitious and successful program which embedded an incomparable number of new capabilities:

→ Navigation and Weapon System:
Modular avionics, new RDY-2 multimode radar, digital terrain following system, new IMEWS countermeasures suite, Thomrad radio with frequency evasion and enhanced encoding, glass cockpit with new LCD visualisations, 4-display digital recording system and night vision goggles compatibility, tactical data-link, gyro-Iaser inertial navigation system, navigation Forward Looking Infra-Red system (NAHAR)….

→ Air-to-Air role:
A unique capability available on the Mirage 2000-9 version, allows to use simultaneously IR and EM MICA in BVR mode (Beyond Visual Range) to deceive electronic warfare system of the target.

→ Air-to-Ground strikes:
Conventional bombs, day/night video and laser-guided bombs, "Black Shaheen" stand-off cruise missiles, long range recce pod, and "SHEHAB" laser designation pod.

→ Plus an in-flight refuelling capacity and the automatic speed control system thanks to the implementation of the autothrottle function.

Modular avionics and countermeasures suite are particularly worth mentioning in view of their unusual nature.

The Mirage 2000-9 is equipped with a pioneering IT "core system" architecture as of last generation aircraft (Rafale, F-22 & F-35/JSF).

When it comes to countermeasures, they break new ground by adopting interferometry technology, providing the aircraft with high self-protection capability and accurate EW threats localisation.

Mirage 2000-9

Marketing speech apart; Mirage 2000-9 seems a very advanced and modern platform. If the main reason for purchasing it was to obtain the Shaheen, why not just keep some Mirage for that particular role?

They could then combine with e.g. the SH, a cheaper, mature and even more modern platform. Perhaps it could be an option if upgrading the Rafale to meet the UAE requirements becomes too expensive.

 

[swerve]

Marketing speech apart; Mirage 2000-9 seems a very advanced and modern platform. If the main reason for purchasing it was to obtain the Shaheen, why not just keep some Mirage for that particular role?.

It was not necessarily the main reason, but it was certainly one reason. The UAE wanted that capability. The USA refuses to provide it, & the Black Shaheen/Mirage 2000-9 was one way to get it.

What does the F-18E offer that the F-16E can't? What's the justification for adding it to the fleet as a third type?

 

[fretburner]

What does the F-18E offer that the F-16E can't? What's the justification for adding it to the fleet as a third type?

That is a VERY good question.

But maybe they want a bigger fighter with better radar which can also be converted to a jammer? Not sure if the towed decoy and better RCS is a factor in this? The JHMCS is not yet available for the F-16E, but from what I've read, it's wired for this upgrade.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

That is a VERY good question.

But maybe they want a bigger fighter with better radar which can also be converted to a jammer? Not sure if the towed decoy and better RCS is a factor in this? The JHMCS is not yet available for the F-16E, but from what I've read, it's wired for this upgrade.

The most obvious would be 2 engines vs 1. Same issue why the USN/USMC chose the F-18 instead of the USAF F-16.

One might ask the same question of the rafale vs F-16...

Tot they already integrated the JHMCS into the F-16. Maybe just not the blk 60s which shouldn't be an issue.

There's somethings that the F-16s have that the rafales doesn't. CFTs. That could represent another area of upgrade as the F-15s developments are going.

Another is TVC engines which might happen if India selects the F-16IN.

 

[Vivendi]

What does the F-18E offer that the F-16E can't? What's the justification for adding it to the fleet as a third type?

My guess would be that the SH does offer an incremental improvement over the F-16E in terms of: improved SA, lower RCS, improved sensors.

Also, on the basis of published information, it seems that Rafale could offer the same incremental improvement however only after a substantial upgrade, which will cost a lot of money, and perhaps that's the main problem.

I could be wrong of course.

Why would UAE want to replace the almost brand-new Mirage 200-9 with the Rafale, which seems only marginally better?

Perhaps the true answer can be summarized in one word: Politics...?

 

[OPSSG]

Perhaps the true answer can be summarized in one word: Politics...?

Beyond the usual suspects (Iran and Israel), GCC countries do not exactly get along and are also in competition with each other too. IIRC, a little while ago, UAE arrested some officials of another GCC member over a maritime dispute (ie. UAE and the Saudis are frenemies). I though I should mention it in passing should you have missed that - so there is intra-regional security/rivalry dynamics at work in these purchases too.

 

[Aussie Digger]

What does the F-18E offer that the F-16E can't? What's the justification for adding it to the fleet as a third type?

Price, newer generation tech (APG-79 v APG-80), better strike capability (de-coupled pits) etc, introduction to LO technology and greater access and familiarity with Boeing. (UAE are very interested in other Boeing capabilities including Wedgetail, Vigilaire C4I and their HF comms Modernisation package).

On the downside is obviously the additional platform costs, etc, but as is the case with any Rafale acquisition I expect the sale of the M2K-9's will be expected too, meaning UAE will operate a fleet of 2x combat aircraft types...

 

[jack412]

you may recall the rafale lost the original competition to the f-16
an interview with the french air force Deputy Chief of Staff, General Silvy adds some light to the current UAE deal
there seems to be unresolved issues with radar, engine, spectra, HMD because its not as developed as UAE would have hoped and dassault originally planed

Dassault-UAE May Have Rafale Deal This Year

General Silvy said
Radar,
They want the AESA, to have new functionalities on their Rafale, such as GMTT / GMTI (detection and tracking of moving ground target), interlacing between air/air and air/ground modes, as well as a 10% increase in range

spectra
the expansion of some frequency bands, an increased sensitivity, added functionalities;

UAE are also used to having very high quality weapons systems. They want to avoid any regression with the Rafale, at least on the radar range, compared to the F-16 Block 60

The only pertinent question to be asked is whether the will of similarity expressed by the Emirians will prevail over their performance requirement If performance is what counts, in fact we’ll get two quite different Rafale,... If the community is paramount, the Emirians will have to reduce their ambitions with regard to performance.

Their negotiators are experts who know exactly what a fighter plane is and are aware of the state of the art and of various constraints. Talking to people at this level is very pleasant for the Air Force. However, now the order must materialize.

 

[swerve]

Price, newer generation tech (APG-79 v APG-80), better strike capability (de-coupled pits) etc, introduction to LO technology and greater access and familiarity with Boeing. (UAE are very interested in other Boeing capabilities including Wedgetail, Vigilaire C4I and their HF comms Modernisation package).

On the downside is obviously the additional platform costs, etc, but as is the case with any Rafale acquisition I expect the sale of the M2K-9's will be expected too, meaning UAE will operate a fleet of 2x combat aircraft types...

1) Not enough. You don't replace half your combat fleet for 'familiarity with Boeing'. Radar etc. can be upgraded.

2) Sell the Mirage 2000s & replace them by F-18E & you lose a capability the UAE has previously deemed essential, & was willing to spend a great deal to get. What's changed? Why has it suddenly become insignificant? If you don't address this question, you're not covering the main point.

 

[jtm]

There's somethings that the F-16s have that the rafales doesn't. CFTs. That could represent another area of upgrade as the F-15s developments are going.

Just a quick reply, to say that CFTs have been developped by Dassault Aviation. The French AdA never expressed the need for CFTs, but Dassault designed them for the export version of the plane.

This picture was taken in 2001 at Le Bourget airshow, it shows a Rafale B01 equipped with CFTs :

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Miscdet/Images/3971.jpg


Back to the topic.

My understanding is that the UAE have chosen in the mid 90's to diversify their weapon systems procurements, and it was decided at the point that the AF would be composed of 2 types of planes, one French, one US. The 2000-9 is a pretty good plane, some would say as effective as Rafale F2 (even F3?) in service in the french AdA. So the UAE want to upgrade their French half of their AF. I don't think there is any competition, the discussions are bilateral. The deal could happen 10 years from now, as the UAE are in no hurry. They have a good plane (2000-9), but want to prepare for the future, so they asked Dassault for a new plane, with subtantial upgrades in regards to the 2000-9.

The question of the costs of developpement is not that much of an issue, since the UAE are forcing Dassault and the French AdA to share developpment costs for their upgrades (maybe even harpoon integration ??). My guess is that any statement by UAE officials telling the press the upgrades are too expensive is only a way to put pressure on the French government which is desperate to sell it's plane.

I'd be VERY amazed if the UAE bought american planes to replace the 2000-9. That doesn't fit their overall policy in terms of investments, especially in the defense area.

 

[Aussie Digger]

1) Not enough. You don't replace half your combat fleet for 'familiarity with Boeing'. Radar etc. can be upgraded.

2) Sell the Mirage 2000s & replace them by F-18E & you lose a capability the UAE has previously deemed essential, & was willing to spend a great deal to get. What's changed? Why has it suddenly become insignificant? If you don't address this question, you're not covering the main point.

1. Radar can of course be upgraded but the article which started this current debate stated that the UAE does NOT want to develop or co-develop this capability, but they DO want improved capability and tech levels and THEY believe the Super Hornet satisfies all these demands.

Familiarity is one reason why Super Hornet might be preferred to Rafale. UAE are replacing half their air force anyway, likely with Rafale or as it now appears, Super Hornets. Your argument is a non-sequitor. Half their airforce IS going to be replaced, I'm not saying UAE is going to choose Super Hornets would be chosen just to chummy up to Boeing, but closer relationships with major defence contractors is most definitely a valid reason for choosing a particular platform, ask Brazil...

2. Priorities change, UAE has pretty good experience with both American and French aircraft. Perhaps privately they are not as satisfied with their 'French' experience as they could be. They chose the F-16 in preference to the Rafale once before afterall...

There were also reports that the Black Shaheen missiles were significantly downgraded compared to their Storm Shadow base weapons, perhaps the American offerings are no longer so distasteful?

 

[A.Mookerjee]

In my humble opinion, the French Air Force, should develop a completely new multirole aircraft, as a fifth generation fighter. The United States did not modify an F/A-18 Hornet, or the F-16 to reveal the F-22 Raptor, as the fifth generation fighter.

 

[jtm]

In my humble opinion, the French Air Force, should develop a completely new multirole aircraft, as a fifth generation fighter. The United States did not modify an F/A-18 Hornet, or the F-16 to reveal the F-22 Raptor, as the fifth generation fighter.

It's a little off topic but...

R&D costs of such a project are far beyond France reach at that point. In France as in most European countries, the military faces budget cuts because of the economic crises. That's why you won't see a second Aircraft Carrier anytime soon, and why a new fighter plane is not to be seen before maybe decades.

The situation might be different if Dassault had been able to sell Rafales to foreign countries, which is not the case as you all know. This is a problem because the production lines of Dassault are not full, and the French AdA is contractualy tied to sustain them up to 11 aircraft every year. This is a problem because it costs far more than expected : French AdA buys planes they don't have the money to pay for, because Dassault can't export its plane.

In this context, I don't see Dassault or the French government invest in a new plane on their own. I seriously doubt there will ever be a 5th gen 100% French plane. As a matter of fact, i seriously doubt the UE countries will manage to get together and design a common one, see the industrial/political problems that the EF program has faced in the last decades, and still faces.

 

[swerve]

There were also reports that the Black Shaheen missiles were significantly downgraded compared to their Storm Shadow base weapons, perhaps the American offerings are no longer so distasteful?

Reduced maximum range, to keep within MTCR limits. That's all.

The USA has flatly refused to sell an equivalent, or to allow any equivalent to be integrated on any US aircraft sold to the UAE.

Dissatisfaction with the French is not a sufficient reason to buy Super Hornet. It's a reason not to buy French, which is not the same thing. There is, after all, a non-French Storm Shadow capable aircraft available, & already ordered by another Gulf country.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Reduced maximum range, to keep within MTCR limits. That's all.

The USA has flatly refused to sell an equivalent, or to allow any equivalent to be integrated on any US aircraft sold to the UAE.

Dissatisfaction with the French is not a sufficient reason to buy Super Hornet. It's a reason not to buy French, which is not the same thing. There is, after all, a non-French Storm Shadow capable aircraft available, & already ordered by another Gulf country.

UAE are intending to replace their M2k-9 aircraft. They have been discussing Rafale with Dassault, but are now openly speaking of Super Hornet. If you don't care for the idea fair enough, but it's a bit rich to be commenting on the validity of what the UAE nows says it's requirements are based on what they WERE when they acquired the M2k in the first place...

I am aware that the US did refuse to provide standoff weapons to the UAE a while back, but I'd be careful in stating what isand isn't the case today. Several other Gulf nations have now introduced standoff weapons capabilities and introducing a modern US standoff weapon would hardly 'upset the regional balance' as it might have 10-15 years ago...

 

[Waylander]

Which standoff weapons were aquired by Gulf States?
AFAIK Black Shaheen is the only one so far. No JASSMs, no Taurus and not even JSOWs.
Only JDAMs are in use in SA, Oman and UAE but they are not even close to offering the same capabilities like the Black Shaheen missiles.

I think Swerve's arguments are very important. The UAE really wanted the capability offered by the Black Shaheen/Mirage 2000-9 and were willing to invest a big amount of money to get it.

For sure they are now talking about other aircrafts like the SH but the point that they would loose this critical capability still stands.
And just like SA they also tend to diversify their weapons procurements. With a mix of F-16s and F/A-18s their air force would be fully dependent on the US.

With Iran being the major threat to them loosing the ability to reach out and touch a good portion of Iran shouldn't be a comforting thought for them.

 

[gf0012-aust]

With Iran being the major threat to them loosing the ability to reach out and touch a good portion of Iran shouldn't be a comforting thought for them.

the issue for them is the definition of "reach out" - anything that breaches the range principles embodied within MTCR means either self development, or proxy development via another. (aasuming that all the MTCR members abide by the rules literally)

a good example of looking like abiding by MTCR is the Brahmos partnership - but India has paid "twice" for the privilege.