Ill put it liek this

1st generation: Jet fighter Jet engines, guns, cannons.
2nd generation: Missiles, super sonic speed.
3rd generation: Early radar, variable geometry, guided missiles more advanced.
4th generation: Lifting bodies, Look down Doppler radar, advanced missiles.
4.5 generation: Advanced avionics, Tv nozzles minimum LO coatings, Aesa radars HOBs
5th generation: Conformal radars, Advanced AESA, internal carriage, extreme LO

So basically IMO to say you don’t need LO coatings is like saying you don’t need a radar. Its like saying you don’t need F-15 and typhoon because you have F-4 phantoms. The F-4 has a radar and can reach mach. why not throw AMRAAMs on it? I don’t you think you see the technological leap in the stealth. I don’t think you realize how difficult it is to build an aircraft that Not only is LO but that can manage emissions like the F-35 and f-22.
I would caution many nations, to not discount the leap in tech from 4.5 gen to 5th.

I don’t know about aviation technology, but stealth and aircraft generations are quantum leaps in terms of communication/marketing innovation, that’s for sure. Both Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon (and more generally the US) are taking advantage of this:

1) National security – Introducing a notion of “generation” among projection forces and certifying that the US are the only ones mastering the last generation add to the deterrence of the US forces. Added to that, a takeover of the fighter market by the JSF will decrease the innovation power of competitors dues to a decrease in market share and profits, thus lowering the odds of advanced technology ending in unwanted hands.

2) Domestic policy – American people feel safer with one straightforward and easy to understand notion: aircraft generations (5th is easily recognizable with faceted shape and matte paint). Side effect: the bill feels easier to swallow for the average taxpayer.

3) Foreign policy – The US have been able to strengthen ties with a number of nations that were given permission to participate financially in the development of the JSF – in return they can buy it, and even build parts of it. Consequently, these nations have the feeling that the US made it possible for them to take advantage of a part of US deterrence for their own needs.

4) Commerce – The overt confidence of the Pentagon in “5th-gen projects” is a strong marketing tool for selling the technology abroad.

Jessmo24, you seem to consider that the only way to go uphill is with stairs. Slopes also exist, and aircraft development history is made of plenty of slopes (flight controls, aerodynamics, MMI, situational awareness, data sharing, etc. and… radar/IR observability) with occasional quantum leaps (jet engines, airborne radars, and very few others). It seems rather obvious to me that any RCS level trying to define a limit between low observability (4th gen) and “stealth” (5th gen) would look utterly arbitrary and artificial. In other words, “stealth” is a fancy word that’s well suited for PR, but irrelevant when it comes to technical discussion and – by extension – defining so-called generations (except maybe if we take communication into consideration).

Hi,

It’s in the same generation time-frame and technology/structures wise as Typhoon and Rafale, didn’t mention F-35 though, unsure where that lies!

Expect LM stating in a communiqué that the F-35 is a 7th-generation fighter: you have to skip a generation so the future competitors can be categorised as 6th-gens (because 5.5th-gen sounds just as dumb as 4.5th-gen).

[EDIT]But one thing is sure: the Chengdu J-10 is the best looking of the 4.183th-generation fighters.

Hi Pepe and thank you for your interesting developments.

First of all, now I work at the Brazilian Congress, exactly at Senate’s Foreign Affairs and National Defence Committee, and I have a lot of inside info about Brazilian affairs. At that time, Gripen C/D hadn’t arrived at India and all pro-Gripen forums said that it was amongst the better performance planes… Only four twin engined planes flew from Leh at that time.

To be truthful, the Indian Air Force Commander visited Brazil a few days ago and a lot of new info about Leh affair leaked. The first point is that IAF is still discussing Gripen participation. The RFI and RFP established that all tests must be conducted with the real bidders. The tests at Leh were conducted with Gripen C/D and Demo and both of them are not representative of NG. The Raven radar still is not completely operational.

According Indian officers, two planes failed: MiG35 and F/A-18E/F. Gripen Demo takes off with the required load (only two tanks, four air-to-air missiles and a cargo of 1900kg bombs). Typhoon and Rafale takes off with full cargo but EADS bidder failed at some attack missions

What I also heard is that failing the tests at Leh wasn’t unacceptable since any problem of this kind (high altitude take-off issues) could be easily overcome with minor work on the engine(s). I’m not a specialist in turbofans, so I can’t decide whether or not this statement is true.

By the way I’m not surprised that the Rafale succeeded in Leh trials since high altitude performance was the reason why the IAF relied mainly on the Mirages 2000 during the Kargil war. So Dassault had no choice but to live up to IAF’s expectations when it comes to this particular issue. (And to prove that it’s not chauvinism from my part: this particular issue is unlikely to prejudge the overall assessment of the Rafale by the IAF.)

What is happening is that strong lobbies are using forums to infiltrate false info. The lobbies also used some big newspapers political reporters with no Defence affairs experience to manipulate public opinion. In January, the pro-Gripen group leaked the preliminary Brazilian Air Force report to Folha de S. Paulo. The official Air Force paper, approved by FAB High Command, putted F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as the winner. The paper was in Mr. Jobim hands in December 2009, one month before Ms. Cantanhende feature…

In the light of this, do the operational cost figures of $4000 for the Gripen and $14000 for the Rafale hold the water or they are part of a disinformation campaign?

When reading the forums, people seem to consider that the final contest is going to be played out between Saab and Dassault. But can’t we expect Boeing to cause a stir?

Dassault offer key technologies (I can not describe them here) for both: F-X2 and KC-390.

Do you mean transfer of technologies other contenders are not keen/able to transfer, or off-the-shelf technology offered by Dassault only (not necessarily implying ToT)?

Gripen NG is not a completely new aircraft, it’s more like a major MLU of a mature, existing 4.0 gen a/c. The differences between the C/D and NG are quite well known. It should be possible to estimate from the C/D costs what it would be for the Gripen NG.

Also by using existing components like the F414 (which has been produced in more than 1000 units and demonstrated high robustness and low operating costs, even in a harsh marine environment) the number of unknowns are kept down.

Edit: I would like to add that, also for the Rafale, the FAB can just arrive at some estimates of the operating costs. The FAB will not operate the Rafale as the French do, and their costs may be higher or lower depending on a number of different factors.

You make valid points, but I still think comparing operational cost predictions will be more relevant when both aircraft are in production stage.

On a side note: will the F414G be reworked by Volvo Aero for mass-produced NGs (just like the RM 12)?

…

“I managed to fool 19 million Frenchmen, why couldn’t I fool a few Brazilians?” :diablo:

Of course Thales is a French firm so by no means the PR department could understand an e-mail in plain English and make an answer in the same language. (Not to mention the Aussie accent!).

It’s good to see that Britain has all the knowledge and industrial capability to make an indigenous UAV from A to Z. That’s something precious for us Europeans.

Kudos to them!

For my information, do we know the approximate share of development costs dedicated to the B variant alone? In other words, is it possible to know/evaluate by how much the F-35 development costs could have been lowered if the B variant was scrapped from the very beginning?