In the first part of this article, we showed that a Super-programRafale, a 5th generation device coming to be inserted in 2035, between the Rafale F5 in 2030, and the SCAF in 2045, responded to numerous needs, ranging from the management of industrial and military risk surrounding the European program, to the assurance of preserving the effectiveness of French deterrence, while securing the presence of the French BITD, on the export combat aircraft market, over the period 2035-2045.
Two questions still remain at this stage of the analysis. The first concerns the Super-programRafale itself, to draw its broad outlines, on the basis of the objectives established previously.
The second concerns the crux of the matter, the financing of such a program, while everyone knows to what extent the budget of the French armies is today constrained, and offers no flexibility to integrate a program into it. as major as that concerning the development of a new combat aircraft.
Second part of a two-part article. The first part can be viewed here.
In this section:
What would the Portrait-Robot of the Super program be?Rafale ?
Without trying, of course, to draw what this Super-Rafale, the objectives and contexts, previously established, however make it possible to create a true sketch of the program itself, to delineate certain key aspects.
A true 5th generation fighter
First, the Super-Rafale must stand out from the Rafale F5, by equipping itself with some of the capabilities which, today, make the F-35 systematically preferred during international competitions. For this, it will be essential to fully anchor the Super-Rafale, in the 5th generation of combat aircraft.
The key characteristic, around this variable geometry classification, is none other than sectoral stealth, concentrated on the front and rear sectors. Unlike the SCAF, which will have overall stealth, this makes it possible to reduce the range of enemy radars, only when the aircraft are heading towards them, or moving away directly from them, as with the F-35.
The stealth of a SuperRafale However, it will certainly not need to reach that of the F-35 to be effective. Indeed, a difference of a factor of 10, between a radar equivalent surface (SER) of 0,1 m² and 0,01 m², only represents around ten km of difference in terms of detection against radars. modern. In addition, the expected arrival of low frequency radars, multistatism and passive radars will tend to reduce the absolute effectiveness of stealth in combat, at least, beyond a certain threshold.
However, the design constraints, to reduce the SER of an aircraft, increase with the targeted objective, in a geometric manner. Therefore, the stealth targeted by the Super-Rafale, must aim for the precise point synthesizing between operational efficiency, maintainability, costs and constraints.
Data fusion is also one of the components defining the 5th generation of combat aircraft. However, in this area, French manufacturers will be able to rely on the Rafale F5, which will already be largely equipped with it, which is why, moreover, this standard will not be backwards compatible, since it will require completely transformed cabling of the device, to ensure the transport of volumes of data much higher than those currently available. employees.
Two other features were mentioned for the 5th generation, although they subsequently disappeared, to allow the F-35 to integrate it, because it does not have either one. The first is Supercruise, which allows a fighter to maintain supersonic speed in level flight, without using afterburner, which is very fuel-intensive. The F-22 and Gripen E/F are equipped with super-cruise, and the Typhoon, Rafale, the J-20 and the Su-57, are supposed to be able to achieve this as well.
There are 75% of this article left to read, Subscribe to access it!
The Classic subscriptions provide access to
articles in their full version, and without advertising,
from €1,99. Subscriptions Premium also allow access to archives (articles over two years old)
A new coalition based not on a common platform but on common components, radar, engine etc., could exist with Sweden moving towards a twin-engine and a single-engine
thank you for your response, yes I understand that we are navigating a little by sight, but I think that for several years we have returned to the desire for programs common to several countries, and which do not correspond to our needs and our capacities export. everyone tries to pull the rug out for themselves and in the end we have a lame duck that satisfies no one. I think we have the necessary capabilities to design our weapons alone and competent engineers in all areas. Dassault has been making knowledge on its own for almost 80 years and knows how to sell them on the condition that no one puts obstacles in its way. why impose partners on him (whom he doesn't want) who will only plunder him. let's open our eyes, you say it yourself, cooperation only adds cost to the design and in the end we lose skills and jobs in manufacturing.
of course our politicians need to get some steam, if they read your articles from time to time, it could give them good ideas, for once...
false manipulation, I repeat: the hold must define the size of the plane, well I imagine, and so if it is not really useful why have such a big plane, except to please our German friends, who themselves don't care about the navalized scaf and the size of the future aircraft carrier. This gives the impression that in wanting to carry out joint programs, we are once again embarking on a gas factory for which we will bear the costs. we only have to look at the A400 program and all its setbacks and which is today unsaleable due to the German line on arms exports. there would certainly be food for thought about it and I think that Dassault's senior executives should think about it strongly.
I think that the question you are asking is exactly the one that the US Air Force is asking itself today regarding the NGAD, namely, what should be the characteristics of the 6th generation combat aircraft, knowing that these will be the drones that will carry fire. This is also why I think that a Super Rafale, in transition aircraft, would allow us to learn a lot, because we lack field experience in these areas, particularly on how to use stealth. In my opinion, even though there are very bright people working on the subject, we are moving largely blind in this area, because today we are completely incapable of imagining the air war environment in 2050, as the arrival of drones, AI, space, even quantum, will revolutionize all of this. A bit as if in 1920, we had to imagine the F-86 Sabre… see?
Until the day when Germany asks on behalf of the EU that France make its PA(s) available to the EU
to come back to the scaf, the definition of which if I understood correctly, is to have a heavy aircraft, with an ammunition bay, discreet and with a fairly large radius of action, therefore the needs of the Germans. why have a hold and be discreet if he has to direct (super discreet) drones which will do the work of penetrating the enemy and which will go into contact. the hold is no longer useful in this case and it somewhat defines the t
yes it's just one defines the size of the other. only if the scaf (falls into the water) is of course humor, the pang will be committed to its size of 80000 tonnes and it will no longer be possible to go back on the design because the studies take a lot of time. time, and the lifespan of the cdg is not eternal.
yes that's right, and maybe it would be available in a marine version, which would allow the Charles aircraft to be replaced before 2045, if they still fly? question the drones that must accompany the Rafale or SCAF are supposed to be what size, bigger or equal. because I am perplexed by the fact that the successor to the CDG must be 80000 tonnes. the price will be high while it would perhaps be more judicious to make 2 of 50/55000 tonnes and that we have a constant presence at sea as before 2000 with the Foch and the Clem.
What do you think ?
The dimensions of the PANG are the consequence of those of SCAF. To be able to take on board 24 to 30 SCAF, you need a boat weighing 80 tonnes. As long as SCAF continues, there is no choice except to turn to a Super Rafale of 25 tonnes, like the Rafale, which could, then, be satisfied with a 50/60 ton boat. It would then even be possible to make a nuke, and a conventional one, to be able to export it.
I'm doubtful. Dassault is developing a new cell for Rafale F5 from 2030, and the SCAF for 2045.
Is there the space, the teams and the means between the two to insert another project?
Shouldn't we better integrate from the Rafale F5 increased stealth to make it this famous Super Rafale ?
Yes, that would be common sense. That said, the problem is that today, we consider "15 years" as a short period, whereas it was a generational step before (gap between the Mirage III and the Mirage F1, between the F1 and the 2000, and between 2000 and Rafale). China is returning at a pace of 15 years, and the United States seems to want to return there as well (see today's article). We must not stay with this software stuck on one plane / one generation / 50 years. It is no longer relevant.
However, F5 is not a new cell, just new fiber optic cabling, to transport more data. No one will mistake the F5 for a new device, especially not on export. A great Rafale, on the other hand, it is precisely an F5 + a new stealth cell and two boosted M88s. And it will, indeed, be considered a new device.
Let's not forget, either, that the chances that SCAF will come to fruition do not exceed 50%, being optimistic.
I would really like to see planes rebuilt. I don't know what to say to my children with a Rafale which began to fly in 1986. The sclerotic aeronautics does not make anyone dream even if I like the Rafale. In their time, a team of engineers was given the task of producing P40 Warhawks. They clearly refused and designed the P51. Come on! We make a better cell!
Thank you for this beautiful analysis which, in a more rational world, should convince our leaders. It raises two questions on my part:
– what is plan B if our decision-makers are slow to follow, because Dassault Aviation will certainly not resume the financing model of the Mirage 4000…
– from a strictly marketing point of view, and without calling into question the characteristics described in the article, is it better, for customers who have placed an order, such as the UAE or prospects, to talk about Rafale F6 or SuperRafale ?
good article, well presented and clear. Will our politicians have for once a flash of lucidity to seize the advantages, instead of throwing themselves into the arms of joint programs which only lead to problems, especially with the Germans who in terms of exports only create trouble to their allies.
If we continue the Scaf with them, Dassault will no longer export any aircraft after 2050 and that will be the end of a great adventure...
May our politicians think about it, if they have time between their arguments about who will be the leader!