Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 10 of 22 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131420 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 636

Thread: MMRCA - has Rafale been illegally subsidised?

  1. #271
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by Kovy View Post
    That must be the most desperate argument I've ever read
    Kovy, It's not an argument, I don't do arguments that I do not know enough about.
    If you see that it was an argument, then i'm afraid that you do not understand and that it is your problem.
    One thing is for certain, I am not desperate and the likes of what I determine as nothing more than an ignorant comment will be treated exactly as that.

    My comments related to what was being perceived as 'UK engineering bashing' by someone from the same land as you, but somehow felt that in order to actually progress their career and give them more opportunities in that career, they had to come to the UK to study and get work experience in an engineering environment, as opposed to staying in their own country.
    I found this distasteful, dishonourable and hypocrytical.
    That said the poster has posted further giving some reasonable points from his side and even though one or two of my previous comments had been taken slightly out of context, they are not enough to bother me any more.

    As it was, the particular posting had nothing to do 'as part of the argument (slanging match)', that all the Rafale & Typhoon fanboys are determined to have about who's is best and which of the prospective customer nations are saying with regards to their evaluations etc etc etc.

    I have said before, I would rather a european manufacturer got the order as opposed to a US or Russian one.
    That fact that Rafale is in the preferred bidder status means that this is likely to happen and that as a result, I still see the UK getting a slice of the action one way or the other through subcontracts and the like.

  2. #272
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,344
    The fact is that as of today, the RAF is planning on retiring them between 2015 and 2018.
    Umm. No it’s not. That is an option, but it’s not yet a plan. (Indeed because of the proportion of two seaters in Tranche 1, it’s becoming less likely by the day).

    Until you kindly provide us with any "official" info backing up your claim, that's your opinion.
    No it’s a fact that EF GmbH were going to pay for the upgrade of Austrian Tranche 1 jets to Tranche 2 standards at their own expense, and this has been confirmed by Ays Rauen and Brian Philipson at EF GmbH Press Breakfasts at major trade shows at the time of the Austrian deal, and has been confirmed by others (eg Laurie Hilditch) subsequently. This isn’t “based only on my secret knowledge”, though you may not be able to find it on Wikipedia.

    It’s also a fact that various IPAs and ISPAs have been converted from Tranche 1 to Tranche 2 standards.

    The RAF already gave away some of theirs to SA, and Germany to Austria.
    As is typical from you, you’re talking bollyhocks. The Saudi jets diverted to Saudi Arabia were Tranche 2, and so are the Austrian aircraft.

    Yeah, I'm still waiting for any as official as possible statement about all the wonderful thing you said.
    Then read the original requirement documents, or indeed any of the authoritative sources on P1E.

    Again: It was always planned that Typhoon would enter service in the air-to-air role and that this would be the FOC standard. All Typhoon operators had a more urgent need for air defence aircraft than for air-to-ground, since there was a fleet of F-104, F-4, Mirage F1 and Tornado F3 fighters to replace, but there were Tornado IDS, F/A-18 and other types able to fulfill the air-to-ground role, at least in the short-to-medium term. It was always planned that in the 2012 timeframe, Tranche 2 jets would start to introduce elements of the planned air-to-ground capability at EOC. That work is proceeding according to plan under P1E/CP210. The RAF brought forward its own Air-to-Ground capability under CP193.

    Which part of that do you dispute, exactly?

    Captor-E will be better than RBE-2AA in that it has:
    1) A bigger antenna and more power
    2) It’s newer, and benefits from all of the increases in processor power and speed that Moore’s Law describes.
    3) It has a repositioner that removes all of the very real disadvantages that a conventional AESA has, dramatically increasing range off boresight.
    4) It’s also based on a better radar in the first place.

    4) Is opinion, but it’s a widely held opinion. The original PESA RBE-2 was a technological dead end, and not a great performer. I’m afraid that the other points are simply fact, Buddy.

  3. #273
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    4) Is opinion, but it’s a widely held opinion. The original PESA RBE-2 was a technological dead end, and not a great performer. I’m afraid that the other points are simply fact, Buddy.
    Held by mainstream UK defense "journalists"?

    Not held by the swiss air force if we are to believe the technical evaluation report.

    Nic
    "allah akbar": NATO's new warcry.

  4. #274
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,103
    As is typical from you, you’re talking bollyhocks. The Saudi jets diverted to Saudi Arabia were Tranche 2, and so are the Austrian aircraft.
    Well, the original contract for 18 aircraft was split between T1 and T2 examples (and later upgrade of T1 examples to T2 standart).

    But that never happened. As it stands now, all the T2 airframes have been traded for used Luftwaffe T1 examples amd the total order reduced to 15.
    In short, Austria operates a pure T1 fleet. (With all the associated issues with obsoleszences).

  5. #275
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    There, fixed it for you.
    Fixed it for you, buddy..

    Switzerland says: Rafale is better, but we are buying Gripen because it's cheap. Typhoon is neither good enough, nor cheap.
    Korea said: Rafale is better but Yanks can push us much more than Frogs
    India says: Rafale is better AND cheaper
    Last edited by MSphere; 21st February 2012 at 00:03.

  6. #276
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    4) It’s also based on a better radar in the first place.
    You might wanna check out that Swiss report, again..


  7. #277
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    Held by mainstream UK defense "journalists"?

    Not held by the swiss air force if we are to believe the technical evaluation report.

    Nic
    Hmm seems you may have missed the bit where the evaluation was subject to a capability weighting that measured the maturity of the proposed aircraft upgrades and reduced the capability in relation to the maturity level at time of test, and not the final capability level of the upgrades..

    i.e. if your proposed upgrade was more mature your capability was given a higher score, less mature penalised the capability score.

    That weighting if removed and showed the actual upgraded capability as planned may reverse the recommendations of the technical evaluation.


    Cheers
    Last edited by Jwcook; 21st February 2012 at 00:10.
    John Cook
    Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

  8. #278
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,591
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    India says: Rafale is better AND cheaper. Note: I don't have access to any info about the technical trials to determine which scored the highest, but I'll say "better" just to wave my little noodle about.
    Fixed that for you.


  9. #279
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Jwcook View Post
    Hmm seems you may have missed the bit where the evaluation was subject to a capability weighting that measured the maturity of the proposed aircraft upgrades and reduced the capability in relation to the maturity level at time of test, and not the final capability level of the upgrades..

    i.e. if your proposed upgrade was more mature your capability was given a higher score, less mature penalised the capability score.

    That weighting if removed and showed the actual upgraded capability as planned may reverse the recommendations of the technical evaluation.


    Cheers
    Hmm and you may have missed the first part of the evaluation where the Swiss praise the PESA RBE-2 and rank the Rafale above the "captor-M typhoon" in all Air 2 Air missions.
    There is no weighting here, only factual results from live evaluations.

    I should dig out some 2008-2009 keypub discussions where the typhoon was still discribed as an untouchable Air superiority beast, even able to shaken the mighty F-22 dominance. At that time you would have sworn on the bibble that the Rafale, with its small radar and lower raw speed/altitude specs, was underperforming in the A2A role.

    Eventually, the Swiss eval demonstrates the opposite.
    The Rafale international forum :
    http://rafale.freeforums.org/

    Rafale news blog :
    http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/

  10. #280
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    954
    I looked the evaluation report, but I cannot find in it anywhere information on how they evaluated the various criteria (in terms of definitions and methodology) and without that the evaluation report is context-less and not as useful or clear cut either way as made out by various people either side of the Raphale/Typhoon debate- after all the extract of the report makes the Gripen look less than useful but it has been selected by the Swiss who are sure it meets their requirements - in those circumstances you be right to be a bit sceptical about the reports accuracy.

    For anyone who accuses me of being pro-Typhoon, I am pretty unimpressed by it, but I am definitely not convinced that the Rafale is so much better than the Typhoon and I would have expected both to be roughly the same in capabilities with each have areas where they where marginally better.
    If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

  11. #281
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    878
    I would say that the attitude of French government for developing and upgrading Rafale project is far superior than the attitude of UK/German/Italian governments for developing and upgrading Typhoon project, and that should be the main decisive factor for the final result of MMRCA competition.

    Keep yelling your own fighter's potential superiority without paying the bill to make it become the truth is simply useless for persuading your potential foreign customers.
    Last edited by toan; 21st February 2012 at 07:04.

  12. #282
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,016
    Quote Originally Posted by Kovy View Post
    Hmm and you may have missed the first part of the evaluation where the Swiss praise the PESA RBE-2 and rank the Rafale above the "captor-M typhoon" in all Air 2 Air missions.
    There is no weighting here, only factual results from live evaluations.
    They were also impressed by the optronics which speaks volumes.
    John Cook
    Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

  13. #283
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by Kovy View Post
    Eventually, the Swiss eval demonstrates the opposite.

    Not that opposite. The Swiss airforce still admitted Typhoon's significant advantage in A2A flight performance and the relative advantage in MMI and engagement in its evaluation. Unfortunately, its relatively poor performance in EWS, IFF, and target acquistion & identification had screwed all its advantages up ~ another good evidence that the negative attitude of UK / German / Italian governments for slowly developing and upgrading Typhoon has kept screwing its chance and future up.

  14. #284
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Kovy View Post

    I should dig out some 2008-2009 keypub discussions where the typhoon was still discribed as an untouchable Air superiority beast, even able to shaken the mighty F-22 dominance. At that time you would have sworn on the bibble that the Rafale, with its small radar and lower raw speed/altitude specs, was underperforming in the A2A role.

    Eventually, the Swiss eval demonstrates the opposite.

    You've summed the situation up very accurately there. Rafale has been shown to be superb whilst Typhoon has been shown to be very lacking in many areas and generally a medicore performer in all but its speed. Much like the Mig-25, which only has its only speed going for it.
    The RAF should have bought F-15's like the RAF high command (and most of the pilots back then) wanted, they'd have saved billions and lost nothng in the long run. Instead a jobs program was created which resulted in a four year late, billions over budget Typhoon that went for the "fitted for but not with" formula, which has proved to be a disaster that we're now stuck with.

  15. #285
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,155
    Quote Originally Posted by EELightning View Post
    India says: Rafale is better AND cheaper. Note: I don't have access to any info about the technical trials to determine which scored the highest, but I'll say "better" just to wave my little noodle about

    Fixed that for you.

    Don't expect anyone break his legs to provide data if the other side scores with arguments "Captor-M is so much better than RBE2 because I say so and no Swiss tech eval saying the opposite can make me change my mind".

    Here to few claims which were presented and repeated by the Typhoon gang, for years taken for granted, without any evidence..

    Typhoon is second only in the A-A performer after the F-22 --> put in doubt
    Typhoon's MMI is more advanced --> disconfirmed
    Typhoon's radar is much better (even if mechanical) --> disproven
    Typhoon's DASS is superior to anything except ALR-94 --> rebuted
    Typhoon has unmatched hi-speed maneuvrability --> proven right
    Typhoon has better acceleration --> confirmed
    Typhoon is much cheaper --> proven wrong several times, it is not much cheaper, it is not even cheaper, at all
    Typhoon has bright future with full order books while the Rafale is an eternal loser --> so far looks seriously challenged

    Note that you don't see me claim "Rafale's AESA will be so much better" or "Rafale will beat the sh!t out of Tyffie in outselling it" but the endless BS myths about the EF have to be put to stop, finally.
    Last edited by MSphere; 21st February 2012 at 09:18.

  16. #286
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Jwcook View Post
    Hmm seems you may have missed the bit where the evaluation was subject to a capability weighting that measured the maturity of the proposed aircraft upgrades and reduced the capability in relation to the maturity level at time of test, and not the final capability level of the upgrades..

    i.e. if your proposed upgrade was more mature your capability was given a higher score, less mature penalised the capability score.

    That weighting if removed and showed the actual upgraded capability as planned may reverse the recommendations of the technical evaluation.


    Cheers
    Check again please: the first part of the evaluation tests the airplanes as they were flown in the testing. IE RBE2 PESA vs Captor. They conclude that the RBE2 PESA is a superb radar, and they don't even mention the performance of the captor, despite how outstanding it should be according to jackonicko.

    quote from the evaluation report:

    the strong points of the Rafale were the quality of its sensors, such as the PESA radar, the frontal optronics and the EW suite SPECTRA...
    No mention of the captor at all, so I guess it's not that outstanding after all.

    Only the second phase of the report compares the AESA RBE2 project, to the riskier Captor E project, and weights the risk of both in the grades. However the first part is a direct comparison between PESA RBE2 and Captor, which were both operational.

    Nic
    "allah akbar": NATO's new warcry.

  17. #287
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    408
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Don't expect anyone break his legs to provide data if the other side scores with arguments "Captor-M is so much better than RBE2 because I say so and no Swiss tech eval saying the opposite can make me change my mind".

    Here to few claims which were presented and repeated by the Typhoon gang, for years taken for granted, without any evidence..

    Typhoon is second only in the A-A performer after the F-22 --> put in doubt
    Unfortunatly this sprung from Joust which was Typhoon/meteor not typhoon fanboys have used this to make there points since.
    I think its fair to say Rafale doesnt want to meet a Tiffy up high and a Typhoon would be unwise to get low and slow with Rafale.


    Typhoon's MMI is more advanced --> disconfirmed subjective
    Typhoon's radar is much better (even if mechanical) --> disproven
    Typhoon's DASS is superior to anything except ALR-94 --> rebuted
    Typhoon has unmatched hi-speed maneuvrability --> proven right
    Typhoon has better acceleration --> confirmed
    Typhoon is much cheaper --> proven wrong several times, it is not much cheaper, it is not even cheaper, at all
    Typhoon has bright future with full order books while the Rafale is an eternal loser --> so far looks seriously challenged

    Note that you don't see me claim "Rafale's AESA will be so much better" or "Rafale will beat the sh!t out of Tyffie in outselling it" but the endless BS myths about the EF have to be put to stop, finally.
    You dont see me making similar claims either,

    but the endless BS myths about the EF have to be put to stop, finally Completely agree

    But the endless BS myths about how poor the EF / insert system is have to be put to stop and the endless BS about the Rafale (pro and anti) also has to stop.

    P.S before its misconstrued
    I agree with the view that the Typhoons AESA will probably have superior performance, however I make no claims of superior technology or processing. i simply refer to the advantages a larger antenna will bring.
    DACT Proves nothing.

  18. #288
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    A number of posters have referred to the Swiss report highlighting Rafale's 'MMI'. Where exactly was this? I saw references highlighting the excellence of Rafale's sensor fusion, and the way in which this enhanced situational awareness, but this is not quite the same thing, though good sensor fusion can be one important element within the MMI.
    As for myself, I wrote that about MMI:
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaZulu View Post
    That's a highly debated topic. I don't know the MMI of the Typhoon, but have had the chance to play some time with the Rafale's one, which seemed excellent to my untrained eyes (ergonomics & sensor fusion). I also remember lots of Rafale pilots praising that topic of their aircraft.
    Was the Typhoon MMI upgraded since the swiss contest in 2008? IIRC the swiss report ranked the Rafale's MMI as superior, but at the same time it ranked the Typhoon better in terms of pilot's workload.
    As you noted, there is no explicit reference to "MMI" in the swiss evaluation. I remembered wrong on that topic. Thanks for for pointing this out.
    I think I took a shortcut as: praised sensor fusion+praised global efficiency = good MMI.
    This point of view has undoubtedly been influenced by my knowledge of the Rafale cockpit and what its users think about it, which made me unconsciously add "good ergonomics" (*) to the equation, as follows:
    praised sensor fusion+praised global efficiency+good ergonomics = good MMI.

    Don't you agree?


    (*) about the Rafale ergonomics (please note: This is not intended to say "better than x", just facts):
    - HOTAS concept pushed to the limits of the conceivable (42 commands IIRC on the HOTAS + 2 "matches" for quick/effective management of the lateral displays); I personally had doubts about the displays without multi-function keys all around them, but the Rafale crews I had access to seemed to like that well enough, and pointed it helped "naturally" to declutter the displays.
    - sensor fusion: the aircraft does as much as it can to present a global situation rather than distinctive sources/inputs. The big center display is particularly impressive in that matter.
    - ...and other integration features; many functions are "mission oriented" rather than "system oriented". I'm not sure I should post details, so let's make a comparison: It's easier (better MMI in my opinion) to have a direct setting "french quiche" on your oven, rather than "thermostat 7" or "180°c" + timing X + convection mode OFF. Well Rafale has those direct settings. I'm not sure it makes french quiche nor coffee, though.
    - retained ability to finely tune everything (altough it's easier when having all tuned from the mission preparation on the ground, you're still able to configure/reconfigure "everything" in flight). On QRA mission, if you have to go from a french quiche configured oven to a beef roast setting, or a direct 250° max speed, just do it so via the... menus, of course.

    Bon appétit !
    AZ
    Last edited by AlphaZulu; 21st February 2012 at 09:43.

  19. #289
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    quote from the evaluation report:



    No mention of the captor at all, so I guess it's not that outstanding after all.

    Nic
    AFAIK the Swiss focus mainly on WVR, so perhaps range is not that important to them. If that's the case then the Rafale radar would not get minus points for it's shorter range, and the Typhoon radar would not get plus points for it's longer range...

    OTOH the PESA was praised since it is probably a good thing if you don't need the range.

  20. #290
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,344
    PESA/AESA is also good for 'lookdown' performance in very mountainous terrain. I wonder whether that might sway the Swiss a little....

  21. #291
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    PESA/AESA is also good for 'lookdown' performance in very mountainous terrain. I wonder whether that might sway the Swiss a little....
    What is the reason for that?

  22. #292
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,344
    Dr Steel,

    Cos you can do clever things with the beam!



    Alpha Zulu,

    Thank you for your careful, considered and courteous response. Many Rafale fans would do well to emulate your style.

    I am hesitant about getting into the subject of MMI, as it is widely misunderstood, and as in the past it has resulted in a lot of hurt feelings and tiresome whining and crying among a particular type of Rafale fan.

    I don’t know what your phrase ‘global efficiency’ means, nor do I recall it in the Swiss report.

    Like you, I do remember the Swiss explicitly praising Rafale’s sensor fusion, and I think I remember them criticizing Typhoon’s. That would not be a surprise, as PIRATE was then very immature, quite troubled, and was little more than a Trial Installation on the aircraft deployed, and I doubt that much work had been done on sensor fusion with PIRATE.

    As if that were not bad enough, there were known issues with DASS/Captor with the SRP 4.1 software load.

    And sensor fusion is of course important, and makes a major contribution to pilot Situational Awareness (SA).

    MMI is also aimed at improving SA, by reducing the proportion of a pilot’s capacity that is used in managing and exploiting the sensors and systems, and thereby freeing up capacity for fighting the engagement.

    I would not agree that great sensor fusion necessarily means a good MMI, however. You can have an aircraft with great sensor fusion that has a lousy MMI, or an aircraft with poor sensor fusion and a great MMI.

    In the first case, there can be great sensor fusion, but if the aircraft requires a lot of the pilot’s attention to fly and operate, and if the sensors and systems require lots of button pushing and mode changes, then the MMI would be judged poor.

    Generally speaking, low cockpit workload points to a good MMI, while a higher workload cockpit points to a less good MMI.

    And MMI is not entirely subjective – the test pilots do have a number of non-subjective tools that help them measure and evaluate MMI. (These include the Bedford, Modified Cooper Harper and NASA TLX Scales)

    That said, there are subjective elements to MMI, and a particular pilot might find an inferior MMI preferable, if it’s similar to the MMI he is used to.

    This will provoke howls of anguish and protest, but this does explain why AdlA pilots can be so enthusiastic about Rafale’s MMI, since those from a Mirage 2000 background will find much of the symbology and display modings very familiar (only much improved), while those from the Jaguar or Mirage F1 would find anything good! Indeed an experienced Mirage 2000 pilot might find a superior but conceptually very different MMI harder to use.

    I’m not saying that Rafale has a poor MMI, by comparison with many of today’s fighters, just that it is relatively poor when compared to Typhoon’s, which reduces pilot workload much more effectively, which is why the Swiss remarked on it.

    What you say about HOTAS is true to an extent, though pilots who have flown both Typhoon and Rafale view it slightly differently, finding that Rafale does require the pilot to work harder, making more switch selections, moving his hands from stick and throttle more often.

    Ensuring that display modes change intuitively, without requiring unnecessary switch selections (even by HOTAS) and adding DVI will always further improve MMI.

  23. #293
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    There have been whispers that EU competition authorities have been looking into MMRCA.

    Still, what cost getting your first export order?
    Designed to provoke a response? No not at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    Nirav,

    Competition rules don't allow dumping or illegal subsidies, or selling below cost price.
    Gasoline on a fire. No not at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    Snafu 352,
    I’m reporting what a French magazine has written. I'm able to do so, because a French chum e-mailed me about it. Unless you claim that there has been no such article, then my French sources are spot on, and you owe me an apology.

    J-20 hotdog,
    Thanks for your input. It’s exactly what I’d expect from you.
    Inability to response to a simple question alongside false outrage and a personal dig. Very professional and mature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    Rafale Unit Programme cost is €142 m.
    Rafale Unit Production cost is €101 m.
    Typhoon Unit programme cost is £99.14 m. That's working on the latest NAO figures, and takes account of Saudi costs.
    Typhoon Unit production cost is £70 m.

    Anything else is nonsense!
    Dodgy (Typhoon) figures computed by Jack claimed as gospel.
    Shown to be inaccurate. What price nonsense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    Unfair? Dry your eyes, Princess.

    Yes Rafale is closer to getting an operational AESA, but Typhoon is catching up and will have a vastly superior AESA when it does.

    But Typhoon's performance is superior and always will be, and Typhoon can supercruise with ease. Typhoon has a better MMI giving a lower pilot workload, and its advantage in this area will stretch further ahead when P1E enters service.

    Typhoon has a world-leading helmet, and a great IRST. Rafale has neither (save the handful of original and admittedly obsolete OSF sets).

    Stupid caricatures such as yours do not add to the debate.
    Personal insults with a load of Jack's "opinion" presented as fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    (Indeed the T1 to T2 conversion is a great deal more practical and viable than a Rafale F1 upgrade, as the Aéronavale is finding out).

    As to air-to-ground, it’s simple, though some of you knuckleheads seem incapable of grasping it.

    The reason that Captor-E will be better than RBE-2AA is that it has:
    1) A bigger antenna and more power
    2) It’s newer, and benefits from all of the increases in processor power and speed that Moore’s Law describes
    3) It has a repositioner that removes all of the very real disadvantages that a conventional AESA has, dramatically increasing range off boresight.
    4) It’s also based on a better radar in the first place.

    I don’t think you’re an Anglophobe, MilDave/Fonk. I think that you’re either a troll (or possibly a half wit). The reason that I think that you’re a troll, MilDave, is that you take any source that is positive about Rafale, or negative about Typhoon, and believe it absolutely and uncritically, you fail to engage your critical faculties, and you dismiss out of hand any evidence of Rafale weaknesses or Typhoon strengths, and there are plenty of both.

    You are also incapable of understanding that some public documents may be flawed, or give only a partial picture, and that they need to be interpreted with expert understanding, and via clarifications obtained via FOIA and other mechanisms. It’s not a matter of ‘twisting’, it’s a matter of explaining and putting in context – as TMor has endeavoured to explain the conflicting and contradictory figures emanating from different sources when it comes to Rafale pricing.
    More of Jack's "opinion" wrapped around some personal insults.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    Snafu,

    Thanks for your input, which is as predictable and as useful as always. (Eg utterly predictable and of no use whatsoever).

    It's becoming tired and boring that whenever the Rafale fanboys can't answer substantive points they choose to shoot the messenger, and to play the man, and not the ball.

    I have frequently acknowledged weaknesses in Typhoon and strengths in Rafale, and the same cannot be said for most of my detractors.

    The reason that I provoke such ire is that I dare question their assertions of Rafale's supposedly absolute superiority, and contradict the more nonsensical claims when they are made. And the fact that I don't accept their crude and nonsensical characterisation of Typhoon, Gripen and F-35 (indeed of anything that isn't 100% French).

    As to the criticisms I make of Mil Dave, I'm afraid that they can't reasonably be applied to me (though plenty of other criticisms can be levelled, of course).

    I question all sources, whether they are positive or negative about Rafale, or Typhoon, and I do not believe anything absolutely and uncritically. I always try to engage my critical faculties, and I have frequently and often acknowledged evidence of both Rafale strengths and Typhoon weaknesses. The Rafale fanboys are nothing like as open minded.

    I have pointed out that some public documents may be flawed, or give only a partial picture, and that they need to be interpreted with expert understanding, and I acknowledged that that applies to both aircraft, and I tipped my hat to TMor for his work in endeavouring to explain the conflicting and contradictory figures when it comes to Rafale pricing. The Rafale fanboys are nothing like as open minded.

    Feel free to argue with my points, but my supposed bias? Give it a rest.
    Your display when challenged on your personal agenda is illuminating.

    You set out to provoke and inflame then complain when the responses are less than complimentary to your opinion.

    The sad thing is i'm in agreement with the overall point that both programs have delivered the capabilities the users specified to date.

    I dislike the need you appear to have to antagonise others.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    Bertrand Russell

  24. #294
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,344
    Typhoon's MMI is more advanced --> CONFIRMED BY THE SWISS
    Typhoon's radar is much better (even if mechanical) --> Widely acknowledged, though of course an electronically scanned radar enjoys some huge advantages in particular areas
    Typhoon's DASS is superior to anything except ALR-94 --> Wasn't true in 2008, certainly
    Typhoon has unmatched hi-speed maneuvrability --> Only a fool would have disagreed
    Typhoon has better acceleration --> as above
    Typhoon is much cheaper --> I recall an awful lot of people claiming that Rafale was much cheaper. The official numbers show the relative costs to be very close, though Rafale was offered much more cheaply in India, though on the basis of what two of the committee thought were unvalidated assumptions
    Typhoon has bright future with full order books while the Rafale is an eternal loser --> EF GmbH deserved to lose a major campaign to Rafale to shake their complacency. It's a pity that it happened in India, but.....

  25. #295
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,073
    So what other competitions are left out there for Typhoon to potentially win?

    A couple of countries in the ME, but I believe that's all?

    One should never say never but I doubt they can win anything in Europe at this stage. Africa? Forget it. Ditto for America, both NA and Latin A.

    South East Asia perhaps? Doubtful, after losing in India and Japan.

    Rafale still has Brazil as an opportunity, in addition to UAE and perhaps some other ME country, and potentially Malaysia.

  26. #296
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,344
    Snafu,

    Most of what you characterise as my personal opinions are facts.

    Yes Rafale is closer to getting an operational AESA, but Typhoon is catching up and will have a vastly superior AESA when it does. FACT

    But Typhoon's performance is superior and always will be, FACT and Typhoon can supercruise with ease. FACT Typhoon has a better MMI FACT giving a lower pilot workload FACT, and its advantage in this area will stretch further ahead when P1E enters service FACT.

    Typhoon has a world-leading helmet FACT, and a great IRST FACT. Rafale has neither FACT (save the handful of original and admittedly obsolete OSF sets FACT).

    The Tranche 2 production contract shows a definite UPC for Typhoon of €55 m. FACT

    As to the rest, if anyone's a stirrer, it's you. I posted reporting that a French paper had said that France had proposed to India to sell its Rafale at bargain prices.

    You then made a big deal about my sources, which were irrelevant in this case. Le Canard Enchainé said what my source said it did.

    But you choose to personalise this and to attack me personally, rather than answering or challenging my substantive points.

    The sad thing is that the overall point is not that both programs have delivered the capabilities the users specified to date, it's that the Typhoon programme should have set more ambitious targets for capability delivery, and that by failing to do so, it has compromised the aircraft's export appeal.

  27. #297
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    Typhoon's MMI is more advanced --> CONFIRMED BY THE SWISS
    Not too hard since the Typhoon MMI has to work for half the functions that the Rafale MMI has to.

    BTW the Typhoon MMI is so good that in Libya, the RAF typhoon could do the whole range of ground attack missions despite being trained primarily in air to air. Oh snap

    Typhoon's radar is much better (even if mechanical) --> Widely acknowledged, though of course an electronically scanned radar enjoys some huge advantages in particular areas
    By you and Jon Lake, who are the same person quoting eachother to prove their points. Convenientissimo.

    Fact is the Swiss mention the PESA RBE2 is very good and make no mention of the captor. So in officialdom, only the RBE2 is proven superior. In lame journalism/propagandism world though, the captor is supposedly superior because Range > All

    Typhoon's DASS is superior to anything except ALR-94 --> Wasn't true in 2008, certainly
    And probably still isn't for a long while.

    Typhoon has unmatched hi-speed maneuvrability --> Only a fool would have disagreed
    Better kinematics certainly (acceleration, supercruise, altitude). Manoeuvrability has yet to be proven even at those high speeds. Nice try to make kinematics pass as manoeuvrability though.

    Typhoon is much cheaper --> I recall an awful lot of people claiming that Rafale was much cheaper. The official numbers show the relative costs to be very close, though Rafale was offered much more cheaply in India, though on the basis of what two of the committee thought were unvalidated assumptions
    Consistent claims from india mention 15-25% less cost, and for the better platform no less. That is indeed much cheaper, and not compliant with the less than 5% difference.

    Nic
    "allah akbar": NATO's new warcry.

  28. #298
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,344
    Loke,

    Typhoon could still win in Malaysia. The UAE is still wide open, as is Qatar. Kuwait is still a possibility.

    There is the chance of a follow on buy in Saudi Arabia.

    There is a requirement in Korea. There are other possibilities, including interim requirements likely to emerge as some JSF customers realise how long it will be before they get the capabilities they think they are buying.

    If asked to bet, I'd give Malaysia to Typhoon, and Brazil to Rafale. The others I wouldn't stake money on.

  29. #299
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,073
    Jackonicko,

    why do you think Typhoon has good chances in Malaysia?

    In the past they have often "shadowed" India, by. e.g buying the SU-30.

    If the leaks from the Swiss trial is still somewhat relevant then Rafale has an edge in overall maturity. And if the leaks from India are correct then the Rafale price is lower although that needs to be confirmed.

    Anyway, perhaps India would be happy to share their analysis with Malaysia like they did with Brazil.

    How is the Typhoon anti-shipping capabilities these days, by the way?

  30. #300
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,331
    Ahh I see certain French members are going with the cherry picking of evidence again, anything that shows Rafale as better is valid, anything which shows Typhoon as better is not valid! I wonder what conclusion they will come to, whilst analysing in such a manner

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    Captor-E will be better than RBE-2AA in that it has:
    1) A bigger antenna and more power
    2) It’s newer, and benefits from all of the increases in processor power and speed that Moore’s Law describes.
    3) It has a repositioner that removes all of the very real disadvantages that a conventional AESA has, dramatically increasing range off boresight.
    4) It’s also based on a better radar in the first place.

    4) Is opinion, but it’s a widely held opinion. The original PESA RBE-2 was a technological dead end, and not a great performer. I’m afraid that the other points are simply fact, Buddy.
    All very true, but I'm sure we won't let such clear facts as those above get in the way of cherry picked evidence viewed through tricolore tinted glasses...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES