UK next gen fighter

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.

yup

France : No stealth experience and as for numbers? Some 200 Rafales?

not even 200.

UK : No stealth and Tiffy at also around some 200 airframes.

No further explanation needed.

the EF Typhoon program too had some serious issues with logistics and work shares if i recall. added a lot of cost.

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...

Honestly, didn't think it was really worth my time.....

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.

The larger numbers of F-35's produced will also have a positive impact on future upgrades. As the cost of development will be spread over a large base. This to will help drive down the cost of those upgrades!

The competition won't have that luxury. They will have fewer such upgrades and will have to pay more for the ones they do have.

. 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

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:

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

so 4.5 is unnecessary?



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.

Now the F-18 surpasses the Rafale! Um, can you elaborate?. There is one thing you can do, look at the testimonies of the F18 pilots who have done exercises with the Rafale on American carriers, you will see that they do not have the same opinions as you! While trying to minimize things, pride obliges! And I will remind you that even if the F-18 super-hornet was better on some things and worse on others, the prototype Rafale released in 1991, the prototype super-hornet made are first flight in 1995, so 2 planes from the same decade, so I have no problem with that. Despite this, I sincerely believe that the Rafale is superior to the f-18, more versatile (omnirole for Dassault determination) and sharper in dog-fight, with its aesa and Meteor combined this must give it an AA air superiority. And I could associate nuclear capacity as well.

I think we've seen the last of UK designed fighters with the Typhoon. Granted it was a team effort, and it produced a fine aircraft. But the costs and expertise involved in designing a new, 5.5/6th gen fighter are just too much. And there's no guarantee it'll outperform the F-35, especially when unit cost, CPFH and integration into NATO's battlespace is taken into consideration.

No, with so many F-35's proliferating and bringing so much capability, a "new" next gen fighter for the UK isn't a smart investment. What I think will happen instead is the UK (and others) will produce more and better UAV's, which will be cheaper and compliment their F-35 fleets further out.

Too costly and entirely unrealistic IMO. I guess time will tell...

I'll gladly elaborate, but first lets do a review:

You said the 5th generation has never seen combat-- that was false.

You said that anything the 5th generation could do, the 4th generation could do too-- this totally subverted your own original argument of the need for Gen 4.5 aircraft at all

you made a glib comment about the UK's next gen fighter being unccessary since the F-35 is awesome-- yet the purpose of the next Gen fighter is to replace the Typhoon, not the F-35

You claimed the F-35 was Superior to the Rafale -- this was TRUE. but

You then said the F-35 cost more-- this was demonstrably false.

I feel its important to bring up these points as you seem to post with some kind schizophrenic style and can't even keep track of your own claims. so lets begin again now on this small subject shall we?

Now the F-18 surpasses the Rafale! Um, can you elaborate?. There is one thing you can do, look at the testimonies of the F18 pilots who have done exercises with the Rafale on American carriers, you will see that they do not have the same opinions as you! While trying to minimize things, pride obliges!

I really don't care about pilot testimonies. I think at best they're guidelines. and should always be taken with a grain of salt. You seem to put a lot of stock into them so thats great. unprofessional but great. we also have pilots who consider the Rafale Underpowered, but lets not talk about that.

And I will remind you that even if the F-18 super-hornet was better on some things and worse on others, the prototype Rafale released in 1991, the prototype super-hornet made are first flight in 1995, so 2 planes from the same decade, so I have no problem with that.

I have no idea why this is relevant at all.

Despite this, I sincerely believe that the Rafale is superior to the f-18, more versatile (omnirole for Dassault determination) and sharper in dog-fight, with its aesa and Meteor combined this must give it an AA air superiority. And I could associate nuclear capacity as well.

if you check the stats of the legacy hornet vs the Rafale vs the Super Hornet, the Rafale and Legacy hornet match up extremely closely. so in terms of a lot of physical performance the Super Hornet has far more capacity this directly translates to more versatility with ordnance, range, and mission types. The Super Hornet also has the dedicated Growler EW version. The Super Hornet has many classified systems and other aspects that the Rafale lacks. (you can see the Canada competition for an example of this) I'll gladly conceede the Meteor is a great missile, but the Rafale is still closer to the old legacy ybug the USN has shed itself of. in the meantime the Super Hornet has an air to air kill with the boring old AMRAAM. and this is before getting into the Super Hornets impressive high AOA and control-ability

The Super Hornet/Growler has had far far more example produced and notable export success. The simple fact is that the super hornet does more, in great numbers and is the backbone of the USN. It fills a much larger perfromance "box" than the Rafale, even if the Rafale outclasses it in very narrow aspects in very specific examples. The Super Hornet simple does more, with more versatility. So when everyone is comparing what the Super Hornet can do better than the legacy hornet in terms of fuel and capacity etc, we also know with the Rafale and Legacy hornet so close in weight, loadout capacity, bringback capacity (one of the big objectives of the Super Hornet) and a host of other metrics its thus superior to the Rafale. in fact if the USN was offered Rafale as the Legacy Hornet replacement rather than the Super Hornet, Rafale would be quickly rejected. Its simple can't do the things the Super Hornet improved on. Again compare the stats of the 3 airplanes. You'll quickly see the occasional kilo for kilo similiarity between Hornet and Rafale, and the the SH outclassing them both


oh and as for the nuke LOL, its very funny to hear you say you don't need something like the F-35 since there aren't S-400s everywhere and then jump to nuclear weapons. Do you see what I mean about schizophrenia? Nobody needs to worry about S-400s, but Nukes are critical. Well Wil59, are we more likely to be encountering advanced SAMs or launching Nukes? I'd love to know.

On a side note.
A very small side note.
Just a detail you know.

EVERYBODY that "had" 4 gen airframes is buying the F-35 (Including the UK , just another detail on an even smaller side note)

So ? ? Just as a detail you know.

Who on planet earth is going to buy the "next" European wonder? (never mind where it comes from France, Germany or UK)
All European countries are "served" for the next 50 years.

France and Germany?
Neither have the experience nor the resources to even start thinking about R&D.

And don't forget, each has the political obligation to protect its own industry. => Reason number ONE why nothing in Europe works.

Or are we waiting for the next Tornado, Tiffy, AM-400 failure.

Who cares, it's only taxpayers money.

On a side note.
A very small side note.
Just a detail you know.

EVERYBODY that "had" 4 gen airframes is buying the F-35 (Including the UK , just another detail on an even smaller side note)

So ? ? Just as a detail you know.

Who on planet earth is going to buy the "next" European wonder? (never mind where it comes from France, Germany or UK)
All European countries are "served" for the next 50 years.

France and Germany?
Neither have the experience nor the resources to even start thinking about R&D.

And don't forget, each has the political obligation to protect its own industry. => Reason number ONE why nothing in Europe works.

Or are we waiting for the next Tornado, Tiffy, AM-400 failure.

Who cares, it's only taxpayers money.

well the US only has decades of real world experience with 4th generation 4.5 generation and 5th generation, in some cased all 3 operating and fighting in the same AO. So surely they have no clue about the trade offs and advantages and attributes of the various types... all hail Rafale.

I can see where SH does some (but certainly not all) things better vs. Rafale. And that's been my issue with it from the get go: It's not absolutely dominant, and that IMO is what our brave pilots deserve.

It pains me to hear about how American F-18's found themselves lacking vs. Mig-29's in some cases, because of their inferior thrust to weight ratio. Ditto for the SH vs. Rafale. But the issue here again is the UK's next gen fighter.

I think the lesson from the F-18SH/Rafale etc. is that "multi-role" is the new reality. Translation? It won't be a dominant air to air machine like Tiffy or the F-22 - we don't design aircraft like that anymore. "Air to everything" means more capability, which means things will only get more expensive.

They're going to wind up with something LIKE the F-35, with no guarantees it'll be any better. In fact, it could be much worse. So the relevant questions are...

1.) Do they have the expertise to do it?
2.) Do they have the $ to do it?

I'm not convinced the answer to either is "yes". And even if one of them is yes, they can't afford the luxury of just one - it needs to be yes to both. Too tall an order, IMO. Just keep buying up-rated F-35's. Will take care of any problems they have for the next 50 years...

I can see where SH does some (but certainly not all) things better vs. Rafale. And that's been my issue with it from the get go: It's not absolutely dominant, and that IMO is what our brave pilots deserve.

It pains me to hear about how American F-18's found themselves lacking vs. Mig-29's in some cases, because of their inferior thrust to weight ratio. Ditto for the SH vs. Rafale.

The SH does far more than the Rafale does. The Rafale outclasses it in only very specific narrow aspects. while doind everything else better than the original Hornet. moreover, theres still plenty of people still using legacy hornets and harriers right now and will be for the next 10 years.

But the issue here again is the UK's next gen fighter.

I think the lesson from the F-18SH/Rafale etc. is that "multi-role" is the new reality. Translation? It won't be a dominant air to air machine like Tiffy or the F-22 - we don't design aircraft like that anymore. "Air to everything" means more capability, which means things will only get more expensive.

They're going to wind up with something LIKE the F-35, with no guarantees it'll be any better. In fact, it could be much worse. So the relevant questions are...

1.) Do they have the expertise to do it?
2.) Do they have the $ to do it?

I'm not convinced the answer to either is "yes". And even if one of them is yes, they can't afford the luxury of just one - it needs to be yes to both. Too tall an order, IMO. Just keep buying up-rated F-35's. Will take care of any problems they have for the next 50 years...

its entirely possible. What Wil59 is missing is not that the Rafale happened. It did. thats great and all, but the question is what they really got for what they paid vs the time and effort they put into all of it.

was the juice worth the squeeze? What a Euro next gen fighter has to do (especially if its Gen 5.5 or whatever) is outclass the F-35 and F-22 while not falling victim to the same problems of not only 5th gen development but that which happened with EF typhoon development. Thats an EXTREMELY tall order. "all we are asking is perfection on the first try of the most advanced fighter ever designed" yeah good luck with that!

Can they do it? sure. with enough time and money anything is possible. For as good as the Typhoon is, is it so amazingly incredibly amazing that an F-15C or E can't do a lot of the same stuff while also having some other uniqiue advantages? Typhoon is not amazeballs different enough to really bother with if your content with you F-15s. the exception is the RSAF?

everyone else is fine. Japan passed. RoK passed. the US LOL hell no. so lots of F-15 nations are perfectly content. outside of maintaining homegrown jobs and industry Europe probably could have gotten away with canceling these programs when the wall fell and just buying US. but whatever.

The UK next gen fighter is not about being better than F-22/F-35 its low bar main requirement is purely the continuation of UK, i.e. BAE, military aviation technology in this century. It will be the 5th generation equivalent of the Rafale while SCAF/NGF will be the 5th generation equivalent of Typhoon because it will have the guaranteed volume in Europe this time. Whether any of these two products will be better or cheaper than F-35 is immaterial to the sponsoring European governments where independent European military industrial considerations are the primary consideration. They may pick up foreign sales anyway due to US foreign policy barring F-35 from certain countries.

I'll gladly elaborate, but first lets do a review:

You said the 5th generation has never seen combat-- that was false.

You said that anything the 5th generation could do, the 4th generation could do too-- this totally subverted your own original argument of the need for Gen 4.5 aircraft at all

you made a glib comment about the UK's next gen fighter being unccessary since the F-35 is awesome-- yet the purpose of the next Gen fighter is to replace the Typhoon, not the F-35

You claimed the F-35 was Superior to the Rafale -- this was TRUE. but

You then said the F-35 cost more-- this was demonstrably false.

I feel its important to bring up these points as you seem to post with some kind schizophrenic style and can't even keep track of your own claims. so lets begin again now on this small subject shall we?

Now the F-18 surpasses the Rafale! Um, can you elaborate?. There is one thing you can do, look at the testimonies of the F18 pilots who have done exercises with the Rafale on American carriers, you will see that they do not have the same opinions as you! While trying to minimize things, pride obliges!

I really don't care about pilot testimonies. I think at best they're guidelines. and should always be taken with a grain of salt. You seem to put a lot of stock into them so thats great. unprofessional but great. we also have pilots who consider the Rafale Underpowered, but lets not talk about that.

And I will remind you that even if the F-18 super-hornet was better on some things and worse on others, the prototype Rafale released in 1991, the prototype super-hornet made are first flight in 1995, so 2 planes from the same decade, so I have no problem with that.

I have no idea why this is relevant at all.

Despite this, I sincerely believe that the Rafale is superior to the f-18, more versatile (omnirole for Dassault determination) and sharper in dog-fight, with its aesa and Meteor combined this must give it an AA air superiority. And I could associate nuclear capacity as well.

if you check the stats of the legacy hornet vs the Rafale vs the Super Hornet, the Rafale and Legacy hornet match up extremely closely. so in terms of a lot of physical performance the Super Hornet has far more capacity this directly translates to more versatility with ordnance, range, and mission types. The Super Hornet also has the dedicated Growler EW version. The Super Hornet has many classified systems and other aspects that the Rafale lacks. (you can see the Canada competition for an example of this) I'll gladly conceede the Meteor is a great missile, but the Rafale is still closer to the old legacy ybug the USN has shed itself of. in the meantime the Super Hornet has an air to air kill with the boring old AMRAAM. and this is before getting into the Super Hornets impressive high AOA and control-ability

The Super Hornet/Growler has had far far more example produced and notable export success. The simple fact is that the super hornet does more, in great numbers and is the backbone of the USN. It fills a much larger perfromance "box" than the Rafale, even if the Rafale outclasses it in very narrow aspects in very specific examples. The Super Hornet simple does more, with more versatility. So when everyone is comparing what the Super Hornet can do better than the legacy hornet in terms of fuel and capacity etc, we also know with the Rafale and Legacy hornet so close in weight, loadout capacity, bringback capacity (one of the big objectives of the Super Hornet) and a host of other metrics its thus superior to the Rafale. in fact if the USN was offered Rafale as the Legacy Hornet replacement rather than the Super Hornet, Rafale would be quickly rejected. Its simple can't do the things the Super Hornet improved on. Again compare the stats of the 3 airplanes. You'll quickly see the occasional kilo for kilo similiarity between Hornet and Rafale, and the the SH outclassing them both


oh and as for the nuke LOL, its very funny to hear you say you don't need something like the F-35 since there aren't S-400s everywhere and then jump to nuclear weapons. Do you see what I mean about schizophrenia? Nobody needs to worry about S-400s, but Nukes are critical. Well Wil59, are we more likely to be encountering advanced SAMs or launching Nukes? I'd love to know.

Look rapport F-35. https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2019 ... e-threats/

Citing POGO on the F-35? They have about zero credibility on modern weapons.

Citing POGO on the F-35? They have about zero credibility on modern weapons.

Yep, even the slightest bit of scrutiny of their claims reveals them to be highly misleading.

Eg, the claim of an average of $158.4 million per F-35 includes research and development, military construction, operations & maintenance, spare parts, etc.
If the same standard was applied to the costs of aircraft such as the Rafale, it would result in the cost being over $350 million per plane, and even the Gripen A/B/C/D being up around $100 million per plane.

Look rapport F-35. https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2019 ... e-threats/

Boy thats pure desperation right there. You also already admitted the F-35 was superior. we were debating about Rafale vs Super Hornet since F-35 is well beyond Rafale already.

I'll say it again:

You said the 5th generation has never seen combat-- that was false.

You said that anything the 5th generation could do, the 4th generation could do too-- this totally subverted your own original argument of the need for Gen 4.5 aircraft at all

you made a glib comment about the UK's next gen fighter being unnecessary since the F-35 is awesome-- yet the purpose of the next Gen fighter is to replace the Typhoon, not the F-35

You claimed the F-35 was Superior to the Rafale -- this was TRUE. but

You then said the F-35 cost more-- this was demonstrably false.


Your entire host of arguments have fallen utterly flat. The one redeeming quality of the Rafale is that you say its cheaper, but its not even that. I provided not just one example but 2 examples of where the F-35 comes in at a much lower cost than the Rafale, and I even went so far as to show everything that is included in the Polish Deal. (which is important because these deals can vary widely)

This is over, and the next time you want to fanboy post and trot out these obvious lies, I'm going to gladly refer you to this thread