The difference between gripen E is and tejas is going to be similar to rafale and tranche 5+ Typhoons. Although Tejas might come close to the blk 70's when it comes to payload capacity.
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
F-22 and su-57 are the only real fifth gen fighters that fill up all parameters. Su-57 kinda fails on the vlo aspect but still it's rcs is low enough to threaten other fifth gen aircrafts.
Gripen doesn't supercruise. That's the only real advantage the rafale has over gripen E's. Top speed is irrelevant in modern bvr. Most aircrafts will peak at mach 1.6 before shooting up their bvr missiles.
Tejas MK2 will have everything Gripen-E has. GaN AESA, GaN EW, sensor fusion, QWIP IRST, dual-band MAWS. Payload is where Gripen-E has some advantages(7.2 ton vs 6.5 ton), rest MK2 is going to be every bit as capable.
F-22, Su-57 and J-20 are air superiority/multirole Stealth/5th gen fighters. F-35 is basically a strike/multirole fighter. So its specs and capabilities are slightly different. But it's every bit 5th gen as the aforementioned.
Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale all can supercruise when clean. Even Mirage-2000 can hit 1100kmph when clean. But when you load your 4th gen planes with missiles, EFTs, bombs then supercruising becomes counterproductive as fuel efficiency is hugely affected.
That's why you need a plane with IWB to take full operational advantages of supercruising.
This catfight between Rafale fans(our French members) and F-35 fans( Americans/Anglos) is bloody pathetic.
Both planes are very good in what they do and were supposed to do. But the fanboys continue to remain at each others' throats.
Last edited:
The tejas will have the same payload capacity as the gripen. There are more hardpoints on the tejas too. So it will surpass the gripen. The blk70's have 7.7 ton payload. The tejas mk2 if pushed to its full potential could have a payload of 7.5 tons. Keep in mind initially the gripen E was predicted to have a payload of 6.3 tons only after service with Brazilians did the payload capacity go up.
The j-20 cannot supercruise and has a smokier engine than the other two. It's essentially in the same class as the f-35. Now supercruise is an overrated meme in my opinion but still the f-22 and su-57 can easily do that. The j-20 is not capable of that neither is the f-35. The gripen's supercruise is similar to what the f-35's supercruise is.
Enjoy the show. You get more datapoints. I hope we get some Germans and Italians too so we can finally know how capable the Typhoons actually are
Typhoon is an amazing plane marred by its slow upgrade. Brits are going with Captor-E GaN based Radar 2. They claim it will be able to detect stealth fighters as well from far. They are also looking to upgrade PIRATE. Current PIRATE can detect F-22 from 50 kms away. Post upgrade over 100kms.
Maybe @BMD could add more points about Typhoon upgrade over what I did.
Yet it is something that you engage in. With your own, as you say, pathetic catfight
Bill Sweetman was just throwing around terms like they mean something.
In terms of avionics, the Gripen is ahead of the pack; the pack including the Rafale and the F-35. Rafale and F-35 are a lot more similar, whereas Gripen is half a generation ahead. Had the Swedes had the money for it, it would have been even more advanced with a GaN radar. So, because the Gripen was ahead, instead of being specific to avionics alone, Sweetman decided to call it 6th gen. I'd consider it 5.5th gen. Again, in terms of avionics.
But when it comes to performance, the Gripen is a modernised Mirage 2000. The LCA is similar to the Gripen, it is expected to carry more modern avonics than the Gripen does considering its a later development, but its performance expectations are similar to that of the Mirage 2000. So the Rafale is a generation ahead in terms of performance.
Given enough time, ie, the end of the decade, the Rafale is expected to get true 6th gen avionics, at least that's what the brochure says today. A unified radar, comm and EW suite will take it to a higher realm than what's on the Gripen, LCA or even the upgraded F-35 (2027) today, so its cousins will be the NGAD, modernised Su-57, J-XX, AMCA Mk2 etc.
Btw, Gripen's supercruise capability is not tactically relevant.
It's stuff from over a decade ago, it's not gonna be easy to find it. But...
The Rafale lost due to price in both countries. Although the French did not like to believe it, it was evident from the start given other contracts in comparison to the Indian contract, which is presumably the cheapest Rafale contract signed for export. And given new information, the Rafale was technically behind as well. The F4.2 was initially expected to be next gen, but they seem to have decided to push it all the way down to 2030. So the Rafale had no chance against the F-35 in either case. Today's Rafale has a decade old avionics, and its stealth, although effective and electronic, is still way behind the F-35's stealth.
Anyway, here's some old stuff from American sources:
The F-35 JSF: what is a fifth-generation fighter aircraft?
Any conversation about Australia’s commitment to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter refers to it as a fifth-generation fighter aircraft. But what exactly is a fifth-generation aircraft, and why is it important…
theconversation.com
Fifth-generation fighters combine new developments such as thrust vectoring, composite materials, supercruise (the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds without using engine afterburners), stealth technology, advanced radar and sensors, and integrated avionics to greatly improve pilot situational awareness.
Here's a very old respected member of this forum called Scorpion82, when it was under a different domain. The post dates back to 2007.
what defines a 4.5 generation aircraft?
I always hear this term being thrown around, but what exactly defines a 4.5 generation aircraft? Not in terms of raw specs, but the type of systems it uses that
.I think you're gonna have to respect Picdel and Bon's memories here. Both are old horses in the game.
NGAD will see both TVC and supercruise make a comeback.
We're pretty sure it's not faster than the Rafale. Its performance is in fact nowhere near the Rafale in pretty much any metric. Speed, acceleration, turn rates, climb, supercruise, its beaten everywhere. Where it does shine is a faster turnaround time, which is the selling point of such aircraft.
Gripen does not have future prospects unless someone funds and orders a larger number of a more modernised verison. Rafale has an established roadmap until 2060 at the minimum. Dassault says they will keep the jet relevant even in the 2050s. Saab doesn't have the financial ability to do the same.
Podcast: Inside Three Major Fighter Decisions | Aviation Week Network
Aviation Week editors provide context and insights into Finland’s decision to buy the F-35, the UAE’s deal for 80 Rafales and Canada’s looming fighter decision and look ahead at what’s next for the market.
aviationweek.com
Otoh, Gripen's roadmap has pretty much come to an end, at best until the end of the decade as a stopgap to whatever Saab's working on next.
I agree the devil is in the details. In this case the "devil" is the word "such as" which is not a definitive phrase, and ignoring other details like the fact the sentence right after that includes the F-35 in 5th generation, and then the rest of the report includes the F-35 in 5th generation, the same report quotes the US Navy, US Marines and US Air Force as saying the F-35 is a fifth generation fighter with the navy actually using the phrase a "true fifth generation" fighter. which by your standard of devil in details, implies the F-22 is the poser. I counted the phrases "next generation", "fifth generation" and "Latest generation" referring to F-35 about 9 times before I stopped bothering.
Other than misunderstanding a footnote and then ignoring the entire rest of the report, how do you think your analysis went?
I am still curious to see this devious LM marketing, and how horrible LM was to adopt the same language that was already officially adopted. There seems to be a group of people who think the LM marketing shifted the whole world, and yet you give us a report where the entire US government refers to F-35 as fifth generation and continues to this day.
footnote 19, from Page 7:
in 1995, in response to congressional direction, a program led by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop an advanced short takeoff and vertical landing (ASTOVL) aircraft was incorporated into the JAST program. This opened the way for Marine Corps and UK participation in the JAST program, since the Marine Corps and the UK were interested procuring a new STOVL aircraft to replace their aging Harrier STOVL attack aircraft. The name of the program was then changed to Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to focus on joint development and production of a next-generation fighter/attack plane.
I agree with much of what you say, the whole argument is rather pathetic. the F-35 has won against the Rafale in several recent high-profile competitions in Europe, the F-35 has swept Europe with a little help from Vladimir Putin. I am not even some massive raving fan of the F-35 but the truth is undeniable. I am an American, I don't hide that.
The rest is basically bitter Rafale fans who don't like being upstaged in their own continent deciding to make the "generational debate" the hill they want to die on. a very strange decision given how much bad press their is about the F-35 everywhere.
Its been nothing but ever-changing, pedantic, and shallow analysis in the vain hope that if they can convince everyone an F-35 is not "really 5th generation" or that their fighter is some other Generation "6th generation" like the Gripen E/F which is or is not a 6th generation fighter depending on pickled oil's mood. and of course all other fighters--typhoon which was conspicuously absent. All the American fighters, all the Russian and Chinese Fighters, even the Indian Tejas got no mention.
Gripen E/F was briefly a 6th generation fighter until I pointed out that Gripen actually surpasses Rafale in some aspects, then gripen was suddenly a Mirage 2000 as if by magic!! And remember the core of their whining was that LM changed definitions when it suited them!
Other aircraft are not even allowed to share the spotlight with Rafale once the mistake was realized. oops! Gripen actually does better in some areas! better tell everyone its a Mirage 2000 now! and that is actually a compliment you see!
it would be funny if it was not so obvious. or perhaps Mirage 2000 is a 6th generation? not even sure Rafale is the best fighter in Europe, let alone the world. I think at the very least Typhoon rates a mention in the European fighter market...
I don't even understand the goal of the generations argument. We all know that such a topic is never agreed upon. Even if everyone came out, governments military etc and said "on second thought, the F-35 is a generation 3.14 pi fighter." it doesn't change anything. The countries buying it will keep buying F-35. The F-35 could completely change its name tomorrow (maybe not a bad idea actually!) and the "F-36, F-37, and F-38" would do the same things. The whole thing is childish, but here we are.
I truly don't get it. Even if the entire military industrial complex of the western world, surrendered and said "ok F-35 not 5th generation, we will come up with a new name" what does anyone think will actually change? Will it reverse Switzerland? or Finland? will everyone wake from their trance and suddenly purchase Rafales by the thousands? This is what winning looks like. Losing competitions, engaging in pointless and tedious debate. I don't even know what "prize" there is to be won.
its very simple:
I agreed with this. I also agreed with him when he said that electronics moves very quickly. Once I brought up the fact that the Gripen E/F actually surpasses the Rafale in some aspects above even using that 20 years number he mentions --"it makes a difference"-- the same person above instantly withdrew the Gripen E/F from contention leaving only the ...Rafale! of course! He then renamed the Gripen E/F as equivalent to Mirage 2000. which is long past obviously. So the Gripen E/F was relegated like every other fighter on the planet.
promoted to 6th generation fighter, demoted to 4th generation. That was fast! what changed? was it the realization that the Gripen E/F actually does better in several key aspects that are made clear in the same quote?
As for the rest in terms of performance that you mention, the Gripen E/F specs as given by maker Saab are clear for all to see, and if you have a doubt about that, please see my signature where I qouted you directly. You don't think you know more than Saab do you?
Pickleoil changes his mind after daring to name a fighter other than Rafale and then it spectacularly backfired. Take it up with him, what he said was clear. what Saab says is clear. own it.
They have been singing about an engine update for the rafale. Since the first UAE competition long ago. they will continue to carry on about it. I doubt it will ever happen.They go nuts when I point out that Rafale's top speed in clean configuration is mach 1.8 however that top speed was done with the A model, and then tell them that the Rafale has gotten really heavy (F3) and has never gotten a thrust upgrade so there's no way in hell it can super cruise with a tanks and 6 missiles or reach mach 1.8 clean. Even Safran CEO said Rafale has gotten heavy and never gotten a thrust upgrade...
-French company Safran, which manufactures the M88 engine of the Dassault Rafale fighter aircraft plans to increase its thrust from 7.5 tone to nine tons.
La Tribune newspaper said yesterday quoting CEO of Safran, Philippe Petitcolin that, the engine upgrade in terms of thrust was necessary as the Rafale had grown heavier over the years due to addition of weapons and other systems.
He said that the original thrust of the Rafale engine was the same since the launch of the French fighter. The Rafale was designed over two decades ago.
However, the upgrade issue had not been discussed with Dassault Aviation, the Safran CEO added.
"It is time to ask the question whether it is appropriate to launch a study that would increase the engine thrust. Technically we can do. We are in discussion with the relevant authorities to see if possible. and if so, under what conditions and at what level of performance, it would be desirable to improve it, said Philippe Petitcolin (the quote has been translated from French).
Safran Plans Engine Upgrade For Dassault Rafale Fighter Jet
French company Safran, which manufactures the M88 engine of the Dassault Rafale fighter aircraft plans to increase its thrust from 7.5 tone to nine tons. La Tribune newspaper said yesterday quoting CEO of Safran, Philippe Petitcolin that, the engine upgrade in terms of thrust was necessary as...www.defenseworld.net
Rafail fanboys are the worst. Rafail's so-called super cruise is never mentioned by Dassault when courting customers.
Forget the Rafale engine upgrades pops. What about reports coming out of Congress that news of the P&W engine powering the Lightnings are underspecced / underpowered ?
Further , we've no idea if they'd be getting the uprated engines by the end of the decade now that the USAF / DoD has turned down the GE offer . At the end of the day does Oz employ the Rafale or the Lightnings in it's defence ?
Further , we've no idea if they'd be getting the uprated engines by the end of the decade now that the USAF / DoD has turned down the GE offer . At the end of the day does Oz employ the Rafale or the Lightnings in it's defence ?
He's been misquoted.
It would be more accurate to say the Gripen is a 4.5th gen aircraft with 5.5th gen avionics. That's only today. By the end of the decade, it would be a 4.5th gen aircraft with 5th gen avionics, because other aircraft will have much more modern 5th gen avionics. And in another decade, it would be a 4th gen aircraft with 4.5th gen avionics, 'cause it would be significantly inferior to everything else in the air without upgrades. Because that's how technology moves.
In the IAF, MKI was 4.5th gen until the Rafale came along, and has now been demoted to a 4th gen aircraft with a 3rd gen engine. An F-16 is a 3rd gen aircraft, because its 4th gen cousins like Gripen, Typoon and Rafale are significantly superior. So if these jets are called 4th gen, then the F-16 has to be called 3rd gen, in terms of airframe of course. Basically, an F-16V cannot be called 4.5th gen alongside the Rafale. It does a disservice to the Rafale, so the F-16 gets the downgrade. The Russians have divided the number further, so they are better at it. So the MKI is 4+ and the Su-35 is 4++.
This generation thing is very subjective. It's all screwed up, which is why experts don't like such terms. They just use the term "next gen" and end it. Like the Rafale is "next gen" compared to the F-16, so there's no need to put a number there.
So the Gripen is basically a Mirage 2000 with lower RCS and next gen avionics. There's no need to read too much into this. Rafale is far ahead in comparison.
I would like to see proof of something both said was everywhere. If LM was saying it everywhere it really shouldn't be that difficult to find and the old horses in the game would surely know where to look?
I get old forum posts, I get lots of opinions, I get a report from the CRS, I get lots of "dog ate my homework" excuses. I don't get what I was promised.
The task was very simple. Post proof that everyone says exists and yet mysteriously no one can find? I am not even saying "LM never said such a thing!" I am asking for simple proof of evidence of the claim. You don't need to carry France's water all over india. let them provide the proof. it shouldn't be hard. lets see it.
Remember when LM said this?
Can I see them saying that?
still nothing. everything but LM saying that. For as much as the old horse "remember" this happening, they can't actually find it. I begin to "wonder" if one of the reasons they can't find it, is that the LM won the JSF contract in 2001, and since JSF never ever required or specified super cruise, that LM never pushed such a narrative to the degree I am being told. Whether Gates, Boeing, The American Air Force, Europeans or others pushed such things is another matter, but for right now I would just like to see LM. I'm sure Scorpion82 is a nice fellow, and handsome too but I really would just like to see what I was promised.
in a few short pages we went from bold and sure declarations to "lets just trust their memory, and let it go"
Post the proof. I would just like to see it. its not about generations or opinions on them or who is right or wrong. I would just like to see a piece of the evidence in the debate I was told existed. it would not be the first time someone "accidently" or mistakenly attributed words to the wrong people. was it the USAF for example pushing this when the F-22 was in serious trouble? or was it LM? because it seems like LM would be the last group of people saying this, being such greedy *censored*s and all it doesn't take a master accountant to see that F-35 was going to be far more profitable than the F-22, so why push it?
its a direct quote, nothing changed or omitted.
do you mean to say you disagree with him?
It shows that the United States has a robust reporting apparatus that actually publicly discloses aircraft problems and then moves to fix them. Pointing out that Australia trusts F-35s and not Rafales for its defence is a great point. Indeed at the end of the day Oz employs F-35s.