Rafale is superior to Gripen and they still belong to the same generation according to LM, what’s your point?

The ‘borders’ of generations are intentionally set to highlight LM aircraft and I completely ignore them, if you ask me.

My main point was really the “stealth” thing; To me it seems to offer a higher degree of survivability in many scenarios. In any case it seems many countries are eager to get “stealth” fighters. And since, to obtain really low RCS you would need to go for weapons bays and “shaping” it means that one has to build the a/c with ultra-low RCS in mind.

My guess would be that both F-35 and PAK FA would offer a higher degree of survivability in many scenarios, compared to current fighters like Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen and SH. And that the ultra-low RCS would have something to do with that…

This keeps on going round . . . . and I’m afraid it’s nonsense. All the delays were on the Indian side, not Dassault’s.

Thanks Swerve 🙂

And sorry for repeating wrong claims … Good you’re here to correct us!

4.5 gen and 5th gen is a pure Lockheed marketing tool. Don’t fall for it. The US is not a generation ahead, or even half a generation ahead. It’s just propaganda.

Yes, to some degree I think you have a point — still, I think that having a strongly reduced RCS (which seems possible only by having internal bomb bays) seems important. The other parts of the “5. gen hype” that is often mentioned I think can be integrated into an existing airframe. But the ultra-low RCS? I am not so sure. But I may be wrong?

except that the french may be more interesteed in a imediate sale than a “intention letter” for an aircrft that they probably aren’t going to develop for a couple more decades

you also forgot one thing:

FAB prefers the gripen, but why? because they don’t appreciate that Lula takes the decision out of their hands. Normally, the military represent just a tool for the political decisions, but when the military goes out of their way to put political pressure on the civilian leaders (so called “leaks” and all these communications about their “preferences”), it’s definitely not just because they like more this or that piece of kit, but because they want to play a political role.

The 5. gen fighter would not be ready for quite some time, however the development would start in just a few years.

With my suggestion everybody will be happy: Lula because he will eventually have the strategic collaboration with France also in the fighter area; FAB, because they will get the Gripen, and Embraer because they will get the Saab collaboration.

France will not be too happy, however should not be too unhappy either; This would be a chance for France to develop a 5. gen fighter. Rafale is great but it remains a 4.5 gen fighter, and therefore becomes outdated quite rapidly — this will be demonstrated more clearly when more 5. gen fighters are flying. France has to either jump on the 5. gen bandwagon or abandon development of manned fighters. In 10 years I think it will be very difficult to sell Rafale; Those who live in a friendly neighborhood would prefer a single-engine cheap fighter like F-16 or Gripen. Those living in an “unfriendly” neighborhood would like a 5. gen fighter.

Those who cannot offer either a cheap single- engine 4.5 gen or a 5. gen will eventually be out of the fighter business, IMHO. It does not make sense to spend so much money on a 4.5 gen fighter (be it Rafale or Typhoon) when 5. gen fighters in the same price class (or below!) become available some 10 years from now. If France develops a 5. gen it can start to offer it on the market quite early, possibly leasing Rafale’s to those who need a stop gap.

France could of course put their money on UCAVs…

As for FAB pushing Gripen: I doubt they do it only for political reasons. Gripen was also their favorite in the original FX competition. Perhaps you are underestimating the technical qualities of Gripen 🙂

No, it was selected because Thales simply dropped out because of Dassault pressure. Thales was the prefered partner all along.

Do you have any sources for that?

But it also makes it more vulnerable for pressure, vetos…, Thales cancels AESA co-development, US veto against an AESA co-development with Israel, ToT is a problem if those companies are in the same competition…

Well, AFAIK Selex was chosen instead of Thales because the Selex tech was considered superior… And this demonstrates the point I was trying to make.

When Thales was chosen for the initial testing it was stressed that it may or may not be chosen for the commercial runs…

The Rafale program is in some ways more successful than the Typhoon, and I think this is because it has the advantage of being developed by one country only. However this advantage may be lost when partnering with another country. Look at the Eurofighter, think about the large number of a/c sold; in spite of this, it is still rather expensive, and it still lacks a full multirole capability (which Rafale seems to have with the F3).

I suspect Brazil and France will end up in the a similar mess as the Eurofighter countries; this will lead to delays and increased costs in development of e.g. a 5. gen a/c. The gain of being two countries financing future development instead of one will be lost because of delays and cost increases, the root of which will be mainly political meddling…

A different way of thinking is needed.

The Gripen model is much better since it is based on the idea of system integration of components from different manufacturers from different countries, based on a “best value” principle (although with also political considerations, e.g. no Russian parts yet in the Gripen…). Sweden was forced to go in this direction because they could not afford to develop everything by themselves.

The disadvantage is that one needs to rely on many vendors for the system. However unless Brazil becomes a superpower it will need to do that anyway. Developing a fighter has generally become too expensive for single countries.

Also, there is another lesson for Brazil in the Eurofighter story: France was initially in that collaboration but stepped out of it… there were many reasons however according to many people some of them were related to the fact that the French wanted and expected to have a rather leading role in the development… A Brazil/France collaboration will not be a partnership between two “equal partners” IMHO.

Brazil will be in for some very tough negotiations if/when they decide for Rafale. At some point (the point of no return) the French will surely make sure that they come out on top… :diablo:

Of course it could be that Brazil and France decide to not do much further development and just do regular upgrades of the Rafale, in which case some aspects of the Eurofighter story is less relevant. But that would not bode well for the Brazilian industry; the Rafale is complete, not much more to do, apart from assembly…