UK next gen fighter

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 871
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post04 Dec 2019, 00:19

wil59 wrote:
vilters wrote:No country,
I WILL write that again:

NO country (or any combination of countries in Europe) has the funds to properly R&D a true stealth airframe/engine combination.

We missed that boat completely.

Really! Really! So tell me why France and England launched the 5/6th generation program with their respective partners! You are the Tempest program, and SCAF, I reassure you that they are not cars! but beautiful and well a 5 or 6 th generation fighter aircraft program. So you're going to say they can't do it, in short, don't answer my post anymore you'll do me a favor tdc.


Because both underestimate the true cost of these systems. I think the only country that is truly willing to expend the capital to develop a 5th Gen in Europe alone is Germany, where its largely seen as an industrial development investment rather than a military one. However there are real questions whether they will actually follow through on that objective. A big issue is the ancillary capabilities that go around a fighter, which, frankly, only the United States has invested in. The FCAS says they intend to do that, but in spite of clear limitations in critical capabilities, they've made a number of moves that will just cost more and increase the difficulty to themselves.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6034
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 Dec 2019, 04:44

wil59 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
marsavian wrote:As a collective group of aviation enthusiasts we should not get sucked up to manufacturers claims of post 5th generation aircraft until everyone agrees what 6th generation aircraft really are. Nothing I have seen proposed looks revolutionary compared to the F-35 which
is the quintessential mass produced 5th generation fighter. It really does have to have quantum leaps in capability to justify a next generation moniker.



Actually, I think the US is very wise to take it's time with the PCA/NGAD. As we haven't figured out half of what the F-35 can really do. Let alone the Generation (6th) beyond that....

This while Europe appears to be making the same mistake they did with both the Rafale and Typhoon. That is instead of developing them as 5th Generation Fighters. They took a small leap (less risky) and developed the two aforementioned as "4.5 Generation Fighters". Yet, by time they arrived the American 5th Generation F-22 and F-35 where hot on their heels....

Maybe it's just me but the FCAS and Tempest sure look more like a 5.5 Generation Fighter. Than a big leap 6th Generation one....
.
An error the 4.5 generation!?. Tell me when the 5 generations have participated in an armed conflict in the last 15 years?



Image

I eagerly await your goal post moving...
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6034
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 Dec 2019, 04:57

wil59 wrote:Apart from bombardment with a B2 ?! A bombardment with a 4 th generation aircraft would have given the same results.


pure ignorance.

wil59 wrote: Look at the problems that the F-35 has encountered during all these years since its design and it is not yet finished! Sorry if my honesty can drive you crazy here, I mean, he has a lot of F-35 boy fans here. But I repeat, apart from the F-35, which 5th generation aircraft was exported?
.


Its not your "honesty" its your glib and unserious fanboy nature. You don't get to whine about fanboyism while chugging Rafale kool aide on behalf of all of Europe! LOL

The rafale has been "in progress" since its inception. the F4 your touting is yet another iteration of the continually "evolving design" but don't worry one day they will get it "right" and it still won't be a 5th generation fighter.

wil59 wrote:his is why the 5ięme generation project is only now starting for France and England, which have the technical capacity to do so for a long time now, to see the Taranis or the Neuron. It was all about money, that's all! And since they had invested in the 4.5 generations they didn't have the attention to reinvest in the 5 consecutive generations.


They invested all that time and money into those great and 4.5 gen programs that left them too poor to keep up in the 21st century? why Wil59 your countering your own argument. :mrgreen:

Taranis and Neuron are hardly the equivalents of engineering, building, fielding and taking to war a 5th generation manned fighter. Russia just got to learn the hard way how expensive and difficult and the massive support and research required. The technical seeds must be planted years ahead and again it took years and years to field the European 4.5 gen fighters as you note, time and money they can't get back. and theyre still working on them. Its was absurd how long it took to get the Rafale and the Typhoon into initial service and then gobs of time and ever more money to get them to be the acceptable level they are now. to the point where even you agree its sapped them for other programs until now LOL not bad for programs that got started in the early 1980s.

And now theyre going to out do the F-35 and F-22? Do I get to watch that trillion dollars pay off around 2068 or 2075? :doh: and theyll field 100 of them and the 101st model will be Tempest Mk6-6B-F9a2 (block 67- flight IV) finally on par with the 2018 F-35...



wil59 wrote:
vilters wrote:No country,
I WILL write that again:

NO country (or any combination of countries in Europe) has the funds to properly R&D a true stealth airframe/engine combination.

We missed that boat completely.

Really! Really! So tell me why France and England launched the 5/6th generation program with their respective partners! You are the Tempest program, and SCAF, I reassure you that they are not cars! but beautiful and well a 5 or 6 th generation fighter aircraft program. So you're going to say they can't do it, in short, don't answer my post anymore you'll do me a favor tdc.



They can "launch" whatever program they want. In my lifetime Ive seen hundreds of programs "launched" with various results.

Image

They launched the EF Typhoon FEFA program in 1983. The decision to "launch" the Rafale was made back in 1982, and the prototype first flew in 1986, and only 15 short years later they finally got it into service and as of today still havn't built even 200 of them.


but thats ok because its only been 37 years...
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6034
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 Dec 2019, 05:24

I do not believe that the 4.5 generations are a mistake, they are cheaper to use


false.

and in order to make the Rafale feasible costwise, its required making it the only game in town for France--theyve retired or plan to retire all other types

I have never heard a Rafale pilot complain, but rather the opposite, saying that it is a reliable machine that perfectly executes what is required.


utterly irrelevant.

Stealth is good for some missions but it is possible to do otherwise with a non-stealth aircraft and I don't think they have s-400s on every street corner. In short, everyone's opinion.


Its like 5th generation can do what gen 4.5 can, but 4.5 can't do what 5th generation can do, so youre left coping about how thats ok somehow because Gen 4.5 is cheaper when its not. Typhoon alone is so insanely expensive and many Typhoon nations are also buying F-35-- and now seeking to replace it with the program you were just telling us they launched as soon as they could finally get away from the Gen 4.5 money sinks and seek to replace them LOL

France is sticking with Rafale because they have no other choice and the "national pride" you so readily display to everyone here in absence of actual facts and information
Choose Crews
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 222
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post04 Dec 2019, 10:28

XanderCrews wrote:
I do not believe that the 4.5 generations are a mistake, they are cheaper to use


false.

and in order to make the Rafale feasible costwise, its required making it the only game in town for France--theyve retired or plan to retire all other types

I have never heard a Rafale pilot complain, but rather the opposite, saying that it is a reliable machine that perfectly executes what is required.


utterly irrelevant.

Stealth is good for some missions but it is possible to do otherwise with a non-stealth aircraft and I don't think they have s-400s on every street corner. In short, everyone's opinion.


Its like 5th generation can do what gen 4.5 can, but 4.5 can't do what 5th generation can do, so youre left coping about how thats ok somehow because Gen 4.5 is cheaper when its not. Typhoon alone is so insanely expensive and many Typhoon nations are also buying F-35-- and now seeking to replace it with the program you were just telling us they launched as soon as they could finally get away from the Gen 4.5 money sinks and seek to replace them LOL

France is sticking with Rafale because they have no other choice and the "national pride" you so readily display to everyone here in absence of actual facts and information
. Um, look at the operating costs for a 5-generation aircraft and that of a 4-generation aircraft, maintenance for each flight hour, fuel cost for each flight hour, how many men for the maintenance of an aircraft vs. 4th generation! You will see, but you already knew that exploiting a 5th generation is much more expensive. And now calculated over 15/20 years?. In short, your arguments are false, as are all the points you have made against me. And I'm going to add that: Dassault Aviation would not embark on a 5th generation project if it could not do so both technically and financially. For the Rafale, the number of aircraft ordered has been a program that has been determined for many years, and when you look at the program, each version of the burst scrupulously respects the specifications pre-established since the beginning of the contract. Here again you are mistaken! I would like to know who you are as a specialist, how the F-35 behaves at supersonic speed and how long it can stay that way. How would the structures react if the F-35 had to maneuver at 1.4 mach to avoid a missile in front approach considering that it would have to take a large number of G to avoid it?
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5868
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post04 Dec 2019, 11:15

wil59 wrote:
France is sticking with Rafale because they have no other choice and the "national pride" you so readily display to everyone here in absence of actual facts and information
. Um, look at the operating costs for a 5-generation aircraft and that of a 4-generation aircraft, maintenance for each flight hour, fuel cost for each flight hour, how many men for the maintenance of an aircraft vs. 4th generation! You will see, but you already knew that exploiting a 5th generation is much more expensive. And now calculated over 15/20 years?. In short, your arguments are false, as are all the points you have made against me. And I'm going to add that: Dassault Aviation would not embark on a 5th generation project if it could not do so both technically and financially. For the Rafale, the number of aircraft ordered has been a program that has been determined for many years, and when you look at the program, each version of the burst scrupulously respects the specifications pre-established since the beginning of the contract. Here again you are mistaken! I would like to know who you are as a specialist, how the F-35 behaves at supersonic speed and how long it can stay that way. How would the structures react if the F-35 had to maneuver at 1.4 mach to avoid a missile in front approach considering that it would have to take a large number of G to avoid it?
[/quote]


Honestly, you need to cut back on the medication. Do you really understand what you just said???
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 222
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post04 Dec 2019, 11:40

XanderCrews wrote:
I do not believe that the 4.5 generations are a mistake, they are cheaper to use


false.

and in order to make the Rafale feasible costwise, its required making it the only game in town for France--theyve retired or plan to retire all other types

I have never heard a Rafale pilot complain, but rather the opposite, saying that it is a reliable machine that perfectly executes what is required.


utterly irrelevant.

Stealth is good for some missions but it is possible to do otherwise with a non-stealth aircraft and I don't think they have s-400s on every street corner. In short, everyone's opinion.


Its like 5th generation can do what gen 4.5 can, but 4.5 can't do what 5th generation can do, so youre left coping about how thats ok somehow because Gen 4.5 is cheaper when its not. Typhoon alone is so insanely expensive and many Typhoon nations are also buying F-35-- and now seeking to replace it with the program you were just telling us they launched as soon as they could finally get away from the Gen 4.5 money sinks and seek to replace them LOL

France is sticking with Rafale because they have no other choice and the "national pride" you so readily display to everyone here in absence of actual facts and information
What a bunch of bullshit
I would like to know why the British have embarked on a 5th generation program since they now have the F-35? It puzzles me since apparently the F-35 is the ultimate aircraft! As for Dassault if he launches it in the program you can be sure that they will go to the end. Dassault's approach is different from Lockheed Martin, the United States will spend a lot of money to implement a program even if it is technically difficult to design it because it will then be able to solve the various problems later with the money that the state gives them. For Dassault it is different the French state will not invest if the project presents too much uncertainty !Look at the Rafale program the cost in research and development then the realization of the project has scrupulously followed the specifications. Dassault had to respect the amount he was prescribed. How many debates the United States Congress has had about exceeding the costs for the realization of the F-35 simply too much! The United States and France have a different approach to this, so what? Was the 5th generation relevant for the current use: yes. A natural enemy which is Russia and China. Was the 5th generation relevant for France at the moment: no. The difference is also geopolitical, make no mistake! That's why making the program now for France is not a mistake!
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 222
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post04 Dec 2019, 11:53

Corsair1963 wrote:
wil59 wrote:
France is sticking with Rafale because they have no other choice and the "national pride" you so readily display to everyone here in absence of actual facts and information
. Um, look at the operating costs for a 5-generation aircraft and that of a 4-generation aircraft, maintenance for each flight hour, fuel cost for each flight hour, how many men for the maintenance of an aircraft vs. 4th generation! You will see, but you already knew that exploiting a 5th generation is much more expensive. And now calculated over 15/20 years?. In short, your arguments are false, as are all the points you have made against me. And I'm going to add that: Dassault Aviation would not embark on a 5th generation project if it could not do so both technically and financially. For the Rafale, the number of aircraft ordered has been a program that has been determined for many years, and when you look at the program, each version of the burst scrupulously respects the specifications pre-established since the beginning of the contract. Here again you are mistaken! I would like to know who you are as a specialist, how the F-35 behaves at supersonic speed and how long it can stay that way. How would the structures react if the F-35 had to maneuver at 1.4 mach to avoid a missile in front approach considering that it would have to take a large number of G to avoid it?



Honestly, you need to cut back on the medication. Do you really understand what you just said???[/quote]I understand myself, that's the main thing. You have your opinions, I have mine, say I'm taking medication without you saying why you didn't agree? Okay it's really easy, and without interest short...
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2873
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post04 Dec 2019, 12:22

wil59 wrote: Um, look at the operating costs for a 5-generation aircraft and that of a 4-generation aircraft, maintenance for each flight hour, fuel cost for each flight hour, how many men for the maintenance of an aircraft vs. 4th generation! You will see, but you already knew that exploiting a 5th generation is much more expensive.


Danish Air Force (and USAF) calculations disagree with that. F-35 was calculated to be cheaper to buy and operate than 4+ gen Super Hornet or especially Eurofighter Typhoon. USAF says that F-35 flight hour costs are not that much higher than in F-16C. F-22 is more expensive to operate than most 4th gen fighters, but it's also much larger and powerful aircraft than all current Western 4th gen fighters.
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 222
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post04 Dec 2019, 13:16

hornetfinn wrote:
wil59 wrote: Um, look at the operating costs for a 5-generation aircraft and that of a 4-generation aircraft, maintenance for each flight hour, fuel cost for each flight hour, how many men for the maintenance of an aircraft vs. 4th generation! You will see, but you already knew that exploiting a 5th generation is much more expensive.


Danish Air Force (and USAF) calculations disagree with that. F-35 was calculated to be cheaper to buy and operate than 4+ gen Super Hornet or especially Eurofighter Typhoon. USAF says that F-35 flight hour costs are not that much higher than in F-16C. F-22 is more expensive to operate than most 4th gen fighters, but it's also much larger and powerful aircraft than all current Western 4th gen fighters.

To be honest, I have seen on several publications that the flight time was much higher compared to an f-16 or even a Rafale ,so yes it is bigger too I obviously consider it but does it justify a cost of 30 to 40% more expensive? Here is an article I read recently on the operating cost of the F-35: We have been perceiving it for some time, the doctrine of the "all stealthy" with the F-22 and F-35 no longer appeals. This is due to the cost of purchases and flight hours that negatively affect staffing. However, it has become clear that the provision of enough aircraft to hold during external operations (OpEx) and to maintain an adequate number of aircraft to ensure the safety of the American territory, the training and education of new pilots is not compatible with a limited number of aircraft, even if they are stealthy. In Washington, the Congressional Budget Office presented the U.S. federal government with a number of ideas to reduce costs, including reducing the number of additional purchases of Lockheed-Martin F-35 "Lightning II", withdrawing the Rockwell B-1B Lancer bomber fleets and postponing the development of the Northrop Grumman B-21 stealth bomber.

Reduce the deficit:

As part of the report entitled "Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2019 to 2028", the CBO described dozens of reductions in discretionary spending, both within and outside the Department of Defense, that could reduce the gap between U.S. government revenues and expenditures. The agency's analysis was made in light of a federal deficit that is expected to average 5.1% of GDP between 2022 and 2025, losses that would cause the federal government's debt to rise to levels higher than those of the Second World War. The plan to cancel additional F-35 purchases between 2019 and 2028 is expected to save the Pentagon $13 billion, according to the CBO. Instead of buying the F-35, the US Air Force would buy 510 F-16 Fighting-Falcon with the standard "Block70/75" Viper and 250 F-15 "Advanced Eagle" and the Navy and Marine Corps would buy 394 F/A-18 "Advanced Super Hornets until 2028. These purchases would be made within the same timeframe as the one currently in place for the F-35s. The services would continue to operate the 429 F-35s already purchased.

"The advantage of this option is that it would reduce the cost of replacing older DoD fighter aircraft while providing the new F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 with improved capabilities (including modern radars, precision weapons and digital communications). These aircraft are capable of defeating most of the threats that the United States is likely to face in the coming years," says the CBO. "The F-35s already purchased would reinforce the stealth capability of the B-2 and F-22 bombers currently in service, which would improve the ability of the services to operate against adversaries equipped with sophisticated air defence systems." The risk of delaying the B-21:

However, the most significant change in the US Air Force's procurement plans could be to delay the development of the B-21 stealth bomber, which would save about $32 billion between 2020 and 2028, according to the CBO. The B-21 is expected to enter service between the mid- to late 2020s. One of the advantages of this approach would be that the B-21 program could take advantage of future aerospace technologies not yet available, says the CBO.

"Taking advantage of future technological developments could be particularly useful for weapon systems that are expected to be in use for several decades," the agency explains. "Even 10 years later, a new bomber would still be available before today's bombers have reached the end of their useful lives."
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 222
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post04 Dec 2019, 14:07

XanderCrews wrote:
wil59 wrote:Apart from bombardment with a B2 ?! A bombardment with a 4 th generation aircraft would have given the same results.


pure ignorance.

wil59 wrote: Look at the problems that the F-35 has encountered during all these years since its design and it is not yet finished! Sorry if my honesty can drive you crazy here, I mean, he has a lot of F-35 boy fans here. But I repeat, apart from the F-35, which 5th generation aircraft was exported?
.


Its not your "honesty" its your glib and unserious fanboy nature. You don't get to whine about fanboyism while chugging Rafale kool aide on behalf of all of Europe! LOL

The rafale has been "in progress" since its inception. the F4 your touting is yet another iteration of the continually "evolving design" but don't worry one day they will get it "right" and it still won't be a 5th generation fighter.

wil59 wrote:his is why the 5ięme generation project is only now starting for France and England, which have the technical capacity to do so for a long time now, to see the Taranis or the Neuron. It was all about money, that's all! And since they had invested in the 4.5 generations they didn't have the attention to reinvest in the 5 consecutive generations.


They invested all that time and money into those great and 4.5 gen programs that left them too poor to keep up in the 21st century? why Wil59 your countering your own argument. :mrgreen:

Taranis and Neuron are hardly the equivalents of engineering, building, fielding and taking to war a 5th generation manned fighter. Russia just got to learn the hard way how expensive and difficult and the massive support and research required. The technical seeds must be planted years ahead and again it took years and years to field the European 4.5 gen fighters as you note, time and money they can't get back. and theyre still working on them. Its was absurd how long it took to get the Rafale and the Typhoon into initial service and then gobs of time and ever more money to get them to be the acceptable level they are now. to the point where even you agree its sapped them for other programs until now LOL not bad for programs that got started in the early 1980s.

And now theyre going to out do the F-35 and F-22? Do I get to watch that trillion dollars pay off around 2068 or 2075? :doh: and theyll field 100 of them and the 101st model will be Tempest Mk6-6B-F9a2 (block 67- flight IV) finally on par with the 2018 F-35...



wil59 wrote:
vilters wrote:No country,
I WILL write that again:

NO country (or any combination of countries in Europe) has the funds to properly R&D a true stealth airframe/engine combination.

We missed that boat completely.

Really! Really! So tell me why France and England launched the 5/6th generation program with their respective partners! You are the Tempest program, and SCAF, I reassure you that they are not cars! but beautiful and well a 5 or 6 th generation fighter aircraft program. So you're going to say they can't do it, in short, don't answer my post anymore you'll do me a favor tdc.



They can "launch" whatever program they want. In my lifetime Ive seen hundreds of programs "launched" with various results.

Image

They launched the EF Typhoon FEFA program in 1983. The decision to "launch" the Rafale was made back in 1982, and the prototype first flew in 1986, and only 15 short years later they finally got it into service and as of today still havn't built even 200 of them.


but thats ok because its only been 37 years...
.
With the development of the ScaF programme, concerns have emerged about the evolution and longevity of the Rafale fighter aircraft. To this end, the French Air Force and the aircraft manufacturer Dassault explained last weekend how to maintain multi-role combat aircraft in air and naval service until about 2070.

Speaking at the IQPC international conference on combat aircraft in Berlin, Major General Frédéric Parisot, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programmes of the French Air Force, said there would probably be four other upgrade phases for the Rafale programme. The platform goes beyond the latest F3R configuration currently being deployed and envisages that the Rafale will consider serving as a force multiplier alongside the new generation fighter (NFG) currently being developed with Germany and Spain as part of the broader Future Combat Air System (ScaF / Future Air Combat System (SCAF).

The Rafale's current F3R configuration includes major software and hardware upgrades, including the integration of the MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile out of visual range (BVRAAM) and the latest laser-guided version of the Sagem Armement Air-Sol Modular (AASM) model. ) modular air-to-ground precision weapon, Thales' AESA active electronic scanning radar (RNA) RBE2, Thales' TALIOS long-range airborne targeting pod (as well as the SNIPER pod) and the automatic ground collision avoidance system (Auto-GCAS), an improved "buddy-to-buddy" refuelling module and the Spectra electronic warfare system.

The "F4" standard is expected to operate between 2023 and 2030 and includes improvements to the AESA radar (RNA2), as well as the TALIOS and Reco NG recognition modules. Upgrading the aircraft's communications suite, improved pilot helmet displays, a new engine control unit and the ability to carry new weapons such as the Mica Next-Generation (NG) air-to-air missile and the 1,000 kg MSAA. In addition to software and hardware improvements, the F4 upgrade will include a satellite antenna, as well as a new prognostic and diagnostic aid system designed to introduce predictive maintenance capabilities.

Then there will be two other update programs, F5 and F6. If no information has been provided regarding these two future standards, they will be directly involved to enable the Rafale fighter aircraft to operate in conjunction with the ScaF program. And even if the Rafale did not go that far, its future remains secure!
https://youtu.be/zvzcF-aZVto 14 ooo kilometres and 10 hours of flight! This is real life.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6034
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 Dec 2019, 18:35

. Um, look at the operating costs for a 5-generation aircraft and that of a 4-generation aircraft, maintenance for each flight hour, fuel cost for each flight hour, how many men for the maintenance of an aircraft vs. 4th generation!


the first thing is that CFPH has no set international standard and there are various methods even within the US about how to calculate it. moreover, its constantly shifting as in the US legacy airplanes cost more to CPFH every year. Eventually those curves meet and head in opposite directions.


You will see, but you already knew that exploiting a 5th generation is much more expensive. And now calculated over 15/20 years?.



If we are talking F-35 I'm going to bet heavily on a lower CPFH for F-35 than Rafale based on the fleet size and the fact that its a single engine alone. theres aready twice as Many F-35s in the world the last 10 years than there is the Rafale the last 38 years. This matters because one of the key notions behind the F-35 is a huge fleet size, economical manufacturing by mass and commonality within types. This is one of the reasons why F-35 is favorably compared with F-16 and other legacy platforms ALREADY. The sheer prices Rafale fetches on the international market, namely india also casts serious suspicion on its subsequent operating costs.

The F-22 is of course far more expensive and one of the reasons behind that is the SMALL FLEET SIZE.

I dont think the Rafale is cheap when theres even smaller numbers produced, with a very small annual production rate as well. Of all the Eurocanards Rafale has the smallest fleet size by far. India is a fiasco and its struggled with sales in Europe.

Dassault Aviation would not embark on a 5th generation project if it could not do so both technically and financially.



with enough time and money I have no doubt, but given the sheer amount of time and expense it took to create an airplane thats routinely outdone by the Super Hornet, you'll have to forgive me for being not really impressed at all.

on that note, as you whine about how theres no necessity for 5th generation, when 4th generation will do, then why is 4.5 necessary when Gen 4 will as you say, do just fine?

I think what started this argument was other like myself questioned with the benefit of hindsight if Gen 4.5 was really worth the time and expense that was put into it. Your arguments whether you mean to or not seemingly confirm that time and again.

Don't stop posting, you keep proving me right :mrgreen:

For the Rafale, the number of aircraft ordered has been a program that has been determined for many years, and when you look at the program, each version of the burst scrupulously respects the specifications pre-established since the beginning of the contract.


Here again you are mistaken! I would like to know who you are as a specialist, how the F-35 behaves at supersonic speed and how long it can stay that way. How would the structures react if the F-35 had to maneuver at 1.4 mach to avoid a missile in front approach considering that it would have to take a large number of G to avoid it?



you yourself specifically mentioned that fifth generation fighters handle things like the S-400 you specifically mentioned. So now your trying to come up with Xbox scenarios to prove what? you already conceded the point...

Make up your mind dude. one minute the Rafale is a cheap alternative for when the 5th generation is unnecessary overmatch and the next your telling us how superior Rafale is... and how 4th genaration can do what 5th can do, but 4.5 is totally necessary when Gen 4 will do:

wil59 wrote: a 4 th generation aircraft would have given the same results.


so 4.5 is unnecessary?

Image

worse than some of these Gripen Fanboys.

in fact your fanboyism is so over the top it only hurts your arguments and utterly lacks any objective looks or balanced factual accounting. This may not be the forum for you, we do actually try to avoid chatterboxing spamming fanboyism. There are many forums online that do support that. Your time may be better spent there, because you're not fooling anyone here.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6034
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 Dec 2019, 19:00

wil59 wrote: To be honest, I have seen on several publications that the flight time was much higher compared to an f-16 or even a Rafale ,so yes it is bigger too I obviously consider it but does it justify a cost of 30 to 40% more expensive?



INDIA: 36 Rafale jets was signed for €7.87 billion (according to XE.co m thats $8.54 Billion as of the moment)

BELGIUM: $6.5 billion Foreign Military Sales deal for 34 F-35 fighter jet. (And thats with the additional FMS fees... )

POLAND: September 11, 2019 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Poland of thirty-two (32) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft with support for an estimated cost of $6.5 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale on September 10, 2019.

Poland has requested to buy thirty-two (32) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) Aircraft and thirty-three (33) Pratt & Whitney F-135 Engines. Also included are Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communications, Computer, and Intelligence/Communications, Navigational, and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics; software development/integration; aircraft ferry and tanker support; support equipment; tools and test equipment; communications equipment; spares and repair parts; personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical documents; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, logistics, and personnel services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $6.5 billion. (again, with additional FMS fees)

Does the additional cost of the Rafale justify it?

Image

Here is an article I read recently on the operating cost of the F-35: We have been perceiving it for some time, the doctrine of the "all stealthy" with the F-22 and F-35 no longer appeals. This is due to the cost of purchases and flight hours that negatively affect staffing. However, it has become clear that the provision of enough aircraft to hold during external operations (OpEx) and to maintain an adequate number of aircraft to ensure the safety of the American territory, the training and education of new pilots is not compatible with a limited number of aircraft, even if they are stealthy. In Washington, the Congressional Budget Office presented the U.S. federal government with a number of ideas to reduce costs, including reducing the number of additional purchases of Lockheed-Martin F-35 "Lightning II", withdrawing the Rockwell B-1B Lancer bomber fleets and postponing the development of the Northrop Grumman B-21 stealth bomber.

Reduce the deficit:

As part of the report entitled "Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2019 to 2028", the CBO described dozens of reductions in discretionary spending, both within and outside the Department of Defense, that could reduce the gap between U.S. government revenues and expenditures. The agency's analysis was made in light of a federal deficit that is expected to average 5.1% of GDP between 2022 and 2025, losses that would cause the federal government's debt to rise to levels higher than those of the Second World War. The plan to cancel additional F-35 purchases between 2019 and 2028 is expected to save the Pentagon $13 billion, according to the CBO. Instead of buying the F-35, the US Air Force would buy 510 F-16 Fighting-Falcon with the standard "Block70/75" Viper and 250 F-15 "Advanced Eagle" and the Navy and Marine Corps would buy 394 F/A-18 "Advanced Super Hornets until 2028. These purchases would be made within the same timeframe as the one currently in place for the F-35s. The services would continue to operate the 429 F-35s already purchased.

"The advantage of this option is that it would reduce the cost of replacing older DoD fighter aircraft while providing the new F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 with improved capabilities (including modern radars, precision weapons and digital communications). These aircraft are capable of defeating most of the threats that the United States is likely to face in the coming years," says the CBO. "The F-35s already purchased would reinforce the stealth capability of the B-2 and F-22 bombers currently in service, which would improve the ability of the services to operate against adversaries equipped with sophisticated air defence systems." The risk of delaying the B-21:

However, the most significant change in the US Air Force's procurement plans could be to delay the development of the B-21 stealth bomber, which would save about $32 billion between 2020 and 2028, according to the CBO. The B-21 is expected to enter service between the mid- to late 2020s. One of the advantages of this approach would be that the B-21 program could take advantage of future aerospace technologies not yet available, says the CBO.

"Taking advantage of future technological developments could be particularly useful for weapon systems that are expected to be in use for several decades," the agency explains. "Even 10 years later, a new bomber would still be available before today's bombers have reached the end of their useful lives."


this is one of the many alternative concepts the CBO puts forth. its standard. moreover the issue isn't "generations" or "stealth" the concern is the balance of personnel and resources available to bring the number of aircraft required online. this is constant "ballet" the US Armed forces has been playing since the end of the cold war as it tries to replace the old with the new while also deploying and going to war for decades on end. The reason they're proposing improved legacy platforms is their logistics and infrastructure was established decades ago, and is already in place which would make adding to what is already been built helpful and easy as opposed to having to create and stand up new aircraft squadrons and the associated training, parts, infrastructure etc.

in short, this isn't what you think it is and you don't understand whats at the root of all this. naturally this careful explanation will probably go right over your head and be completely dismissed, but thats ok.

oh and For the record the CBO recommended the cancellation of the Gen 4.5 Super Hornet as it was considered unnecessary with the development of the 5th generation JSF :mrgreen:

Image

Image

wil59 wrote: What a bunch of bullshit I would like to know why the British have embarked on a 5th generation program since they now have the F-35? It puzzles me since apparently the F-35 is the ultimate aircraft!


to replace the Gen 4.5 Typhoon. :mrgreen: no idea why thats so puzzling...
Last edited by XanderCrews on 04 Dec 2019, 23:28, edited 3 times in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6034
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post04 Dec 2019, 19:14

hornetfinn wrote:
wil59 wrote: Um, look at the operating costs for a 5-generation aircraft and that of a 4-generation aircraft, maintenance for each flight hour, fuel cost for each flight hour, how many men for the maintenance of an aircraft vs. 4th generation! You will see, but you already knew that exploiting a 5th generation is much more expensive.


Danish Air Force (and USAF) calculations disagree with that. F-35 was calculated to be cheaper to buy and operate than 4+ gen Super Hornet or especially Eurofighter Typhoon. USAF says that F-35 flight hour costs are not that much higher than in F-16C. F-22 is more expensive to operate than most 4th gen fighters, but it's also much larger and powerful aircraft than all current Western 4th gen fighters.



well said.

This isn't even close really. Even if the Rafale cheaper, the fact that the Typhoon (another gen 4.5) is so notoriously costly would seemingly hurt the Gen 4.5 argument, the same way including the expensive F-22 into F-35 accounting would hurt the 5th gen argument. F-35 is going to be completely competitive and again that ALREADY BEEN SHOWN with 4th gen and gen 4.5 operating costs. The Danes even proved it saved money because it was qualitatively better, meaning fewer 5th generation aircraft were even needed in the first place! so its not even a matter of 1 vs 1 CFPH comparison when the danes and others are also saving by not being forced to by larger numbers of airplanes that will have to be supported and maintained for decades.

yet another nail in the coffin when people consider the Belgium/poland F-35 prices vs the Rafale India price-- and the Belgians and Poles are still getting BETTER AND MORE CAPABLE AIRPLANES
Choose Crews
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1115
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post04 Dec 2019, 23:07

Facts and figures.

The USA is gonna build some 3.000+ F-35's, and they have the logistical chain in place to maintain the lot.
As an extra bonus : They have decades of experience with stealth on a number of "combat proven" airframes.

France : No stealth experience and as for numbers? Some 200 Rafales?
UK : No stealth and Tiffy at also around some 200 airframes.

No further explanation needed.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests