Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 14 of 26 FirstFirst ... 410111213141516171824 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 420 of 759

Thread: Rafale Thread #13

  1. #391
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dijon , France
    Posts
    1,038
    I said :
    Exactly . The Swiss Hornet is overall around "6" but must be lower in some chart and higher in others .
    Discard it (and forget it) , I am wrong .

    Cheers .
    I say what I mean and I do what I say .

  2. #392
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    5) The low score in data dissimination isn't surprising as Switzerland is no NATO or EU member and its datalinks aren't compatible (or better said the other way round).
    I beg to differ. Mirage 2000-5F just spent two weeks in Switzerland (Epervier 2012) where they found NATO compatible datalinks, procedures and crypto keys.

  3. #393
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    Please always mention if you talk about phase 1 or phase 2 of the evaluation. What you say about the comparison between Rafale F4O4T vs Tranche 3A P1E is true, but it was the second phase of the evaluation. I have never seen anyone, including the more hardcore Rafale fans, say that the RBE2 PESA was evaluated in the phase 2, nor that it would be superior to the Captor-E. But in the first phase of the evaluation, the swiss clearly praise the PESA RBE2, and make no mention of the Captor-M. The 1st part of the report clearly concerns the PESA.

    Nic
    Re-read the very part of my post that you quoted. The first sentence states that it is related to the second part of the evaluation.
    At least Eagle1 appears to confuse the association of the score chart and falsey links it to the first phase as is evident from his post #344.
    btw Captor-E is not of relevance for the Swiss case as it wasn't on offer.

    @Bluewings
    The lacking DASS performance was owed to the immaturity of some of its components and possibly mission data which are of critical importance for the ESM, ECM and MAWS. I think that DASS with the refinement and rectification of issues has matured a lot and is more capable than it was back then. The "short range self defence system" is hardly a sustainable claim.

    @Opit
    Thanks for your input, but I wonder to what extend where these systems compliant. Obviously neither of the contenders was truely capable to communicate, otherwise it's quite dubious how the low score was justified.

    Edit:
    You state this exercise was just recently conducted. Maybe Switzerlandhas introduced such hardware over the past few years, but it wasn't available at the time of the evaluation? Where the M2ks able to communicate with the Swiss surveillance & command system during that exercise? I assume yes?
    Last edited by Scorpion82; 27th May 2012 at 19:41.

  4. #394
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dijon , France
    Posts
    1,038
    Scorpion :

    @Bluewings
    The lacking DASS performance was owed to the immaturity of some of its components and possibly mission data which are of critical importance for the ESM, ECM and MAWS. I think that DASS with the refinement and rectification of issues has matured a lot and is more capable than it was back then.
    Tell me more if you can , then .

    Cheers .
    I say what I mean and I do what I say .

  5. #395
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,344
    The lacking DASS performance was owed to the immaturity of some of its components and possibly mission data which are of critical importance for the ESM, ECM and MAWS. I think that DASS with the refinement and rectification of issues has matured a lot and is more capable than it was back then. The "short range self defence system" is hardly a sustainable claim
    Mission Data populates every system that is remotely reliant on software, so you can add radar and PIRATE to the list of systems relying on Mission Data.

    Typhoon has not, thus far, had four-nation Mission Data, so the work done by 17 Squadron in the USA will improve the DASS on UK aircraft, while leaving the DASS on German aircraft (say) very different.

    Mission Data lies behind the biggest differences between the Typhoons used by different nations, even where the hardware is the same.

    Mission Data has come a very long way since the Swiss evaluation, especially for the UK and, since Libya, Italy.


    Colibri

    I say again.

    Yes, single seat, clean Rafales flown by experienced pilots (ex M2K) beat two-seat Phase 3 twin stick Typhoons with full centreline tanks, flown by ex-Jag pilots. Some achievement!
    It's true.

  6. #396
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,334
    I don't know where you got your data from, guys but there is nothing like win or lose on most exercises. The scenario is strictly given and under normal circumstances the red side is supposed to lose if blue pilots do their job properly. During the last GUG exercise (Gripen User Group) there were several circumstances where participating Gripens were "shot down" by L-159A ALCA subsonic attackers armed with AIM-9M. Another exercise (forgot the name) saw few shotdowns of Rafale Bs scored by Danish F-16AM (AIM-9X/JHMCS) and even MiG-29AS (R-73/HMS).

    It doesn't really say anything.
    Last edited by MSphere; 27th May 2012 at 21:18.

  7. #397
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dijon , France
    Posts
    1,038
    Jackonicko :
    Mission Data populates every system that is remotely reliant on software
    When you say that , it sounds like if every "mission data" was equal . I am sorry to say , but they are not . If you think that the Typhoon users have better mission data than France , then you are mistaking .
    Without going into details who would force us to go off-topic , France is the second best in the World wrt the capability to map an entire war zone 's electromagnetic activity . Wrt adverse systems capabilities , our Intels are top notch and are reflected and implemented in systems like SPECTRA .

    You are also mostly wrong when you say :

    so you can add radar and PIRATE to the list of systems relying on Mission Data.
    That 's a negative . A radar ~even Aesa~ has its own settings and those are not related to the mission at hand , or very little . Same for PIRATE .
    I said mostly because from the mission planning , you can indeed set-up a way to use the radar wrt how the pilot should use it , but that 's all .
    You write too much BS , Sir . You should be more carefull .

    Cheers .
    I say what I mean and I do what I say .

  8. #398
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    Thanks for your input, but I wonder to what extend where these systems compliant. Obviously neither of the contenders was truely capable to communicate, otherwise it's quite dubious how the low score was justified.
    Nobody said the F-18 or any other system actually scores higher, so it might well be a theoretical level. Anyhow, data dissemination is a bit vague and I doubt anyone here knows what it's all about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82
    Where the M2ks able to communicate with the Swiss surveillance & command system during that exercise? I assume yes?
    I won't go any further on this, sorry.

  9. #399
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dijon , France
    Posts
    1,038
    Now , wrt the Swiss eval ..

    It 's the eval for the Swiss .
    Myself , I think that as long as the Swiss keep their Gripen up to date , it 's not a bad choice but it 's not the best choice . The Rafale is .
    Anyway , the Swiss eval did show something who has come as the shock for the typhoon Team : the Rafale is ahead in AtoA .
    The margin the Dassault fighter enjoys before the engagement is very good , or enormous , or huge , depending on where you stand .

    Since the Swiss are looking at a multirole fighter , interceptor orientated , their eval makes a lot of sense but some are clearly gobsmacked by the results .
    I am not .
    I hate to repeat myself but the Typhoon is 0.5 generation ahead of the M2000 (and on steroîds) and the Rafale is a whole gen ahead of the 2000 .
    A Captor-E wil close the gap and give a range edge to the Typhoon but the Rafale will stay ahead because fighting will still be easier with the Rafale .
    And this is what counts in the end .

    Now , I am not saying that the people who made the Typhoon are wank..s , they only had it wrong from the start , they did not foresee the futur , they lacked knowledge on some key factors and the 4 Nation 's partnerchip was a mistake , leading to a lack of fundings , will , understanding and mutual goals .
    I read some very interestings studies these past years like this one :
    http://icas-proceedings.net/ICAS1998/PAPERS/04.PDF

    and many others and when I compare them to studies from Dassault , I can see that whatever the Typhoon Team said and wrote , they did not have Dassault 's knowledge .
    By example , The argument "long-coupled canard/close couple canard" has been resolved by Dassault long ago .
    The USA with various prototypes found Dassault to be right (while not reaching Dassault 's expertise) , Russia canard fighters all use close couple canard , same with China (J-20) ...

    Cheers .
    Last edited by Bluewings; 27th May 2012 at 22:23.
    I say what I mean and I do what I say .

  10. #400
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dijon , France
    Posts
    1,038
    Oh and by the way , just keep an eye on this thread from typhoon.starstreak.net , it 's hilarious :
    http://typhoon.starstreak.net/forum/...php?f=1&t=2076



    Cheers .
    I say what I mean and I do what I say .

  11. #401
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluewings View Post
    I hate to repeat myself but the Typhoon is 0.5 generation ahead of the M2000 (and on steroîds) and the Rafale is a whole gen ahead of the 2000 .
    Now , I am not saying that the people who made the Typhoon are wank..s , they only had it wrong from the start , they did not foresee the futur , they lacked knowledge on some key factors and the 4 Nation 's partnerchip was a mistake , leading to a lack of fundings , will , understanding and mutual goals .
    Pity for you that your opinions aren't factual.

  12. #402
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,344
    the Typhoon is 0.5 generation ahead of the M2000 (and on steroîds) and the Rafale is a whole gen ahead of the 2000.
    Yeah yeah. The Rafale is half a generation ahead of the Typhoon. You really are a twit, Bluey.

    When you say that , it sounds like if every "mission data" was equal . I am sorry to say , but they are not . If you think that the Typhoon users have better mission data than France , then you are mistaking .
    Without going into details who would force us to go off-topic , France is the second best in the World wrt the capability to map an entire war zone 's electromagnetic activity . Wrt adverse systems capabilities , our Intels are top notch and are reflected and implemented in systems like SPECTRA .
    I wasn't engaging in stupid nationalistic Anglo-French willy waving. But since you seem to want to, I would just say that the UK has spent a great deal of time and effort on the Highrider deployments to the USA (we can guess what they are for, I think), and that the UK's SIGINT capabilities are generally no less advanced than are France's, though we are having something of a capability holiday between the retirement of Nimrod R and the introduction of Air Seeker. (I would point out that Sarigue remains unreplaced, making the French strategic Elint vacation rather longer and more permanent).

    You are also mostly wrong when you say :
    so you can add radar and PIRATE to the list of systems relying on Mission Data.
    That 's a negative . A radar ~even Aesa~ has its own settings and those are not related to the mission at hand , or very little . Same for PIRATE
    A radar relies heavily on the software which runs it, and that software relies heavily on Mission Data. It's you who are writing 'BS', not least in your pathetic and infantile bile-ridden nonsense about "they did not have Dassault 's knowledge."

    Close coupled canards have advantages and disadvantages. They're much easier, for starters, but if you want maximum control authority, they're plainly inferior. (Simple physics).

  13. #403
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Near Paris (France)
    Posts
    1,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    Yeah yeah. The Rafale is half a generation ahead of the Typhoon. You really are a twit, Bluey.
    Is BW the French Jacko ?:diablo:

    I wasn't engaging in stupid nationalistic Anglo-French willy waving. But since you seem to want to, I would just say that...
    Well, it's embarrassing enough to see BW playing with his willy, there is no need for you to show us yours.
    Rafale news blog by Kovy :
    http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/

    The Rafale international forum :
    http://rafale.freeforums.org/

  14. #404
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dijon , France
    Posts
    1,038
    EE :
    Pity for you that your opinions aren't factual.
    They are and they have been since 1985 (1978 I should say). :diablo:

    jackonicko :
    Yeah yeah. The Rafale is half a generation ahead of the Typhoon. You really are a twit, Bluey.
    Yes the Rafale is half a generation ahead of the Typhoon and that since 1985 .
    We could post for another 200 pages and you will still not beleive it but engineerers on both sides know it , unlike you and some others .
    Just an example : if the Eurofoghter Team knew a bit more about electromagnetic propagation on curved surfaces , the typhoon wouldn 't look like a M2000 with canards . The only other aircraft using the same shaping wrt the front RCS is the F-35 and that came after the F-22 .
    From the front , the Rafale 's RCS is probably 2 to 3 times lower than Typhoon 's .
    There is also the way both aircraft are showing their "nose" , a cruising Typhoon is flying with its nose higher (due to a different center of gravity and different instability , long coupled canard) , showing more its intakes and its under wings (and belly) . Typhoon 's canard also show a bigger surface at angles , when turning . Also , the canard don 't show any RAM thickness and sawtooth , unlike Rafale .
    Then , there are the avionics and onboard electronics , more advanced on Rafale .
    You can turn the problem around or even upside down , the result is telling Gentlemen .
    You want it or not ...

    @TMor , stop looking down on me and keep quiet .

    Cheers .
    Last edited by Bluewings; 28th May 2012 at 00:28.
    I say what I mean and I do what I say .

  15. #405
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluewings View Post
    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
    @TMor , stop looking down on me and keep quiet .
    For once I actually agree with him. But if you stop talking such nonsense then maybe you'd get a bit more respect from a lot of people including your fellow countrymen.

    I like to read upon the Rafale however, you're the last person I'd want to get knowledge from, well you're slightly better than Dare2, and even that doesn't classify as a complement, and claiming the same Gibberish over & over again is getting rather repetitive.

    You're entitled to your opinion but as I say, its a pity for you that it isn't factual.

  16. #406
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dijon , France
    Posts
    1,038
    I also forgot to speak about the pylons emplacement and their interaction on the overall RCS .
    Look at this :



    Do I need to say more ? (not talking about the range : no fuel tank since the laser pod uses the center pylon )

    And btw , check the differences in between the Swiss 2008 numbers and the evaluation phase 2 :



    The phase 2 Typhoon is not even reaching the 2008 Rafale ...
    This is not from BW but from the Swiss AF .

    Look closely at the charts .
    -1) The offensive capabilities of Rafale are rated higher than the defensive capabilities which also show the Interceptor capabilities of the Dassault fighter .
    -2) with time , the differences with the Typhoon keep increasing while the Typhoon is closing the gap (in %) from 2008 to phase 2 . Of course , it has such a catch up to do ...

    Cheers .
    Last edited by Bluewings; 28th May 2012 at 01:28.
    I say what I mean and I do what I say .

  17. #407
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluewings View Post
    EE :
    jackonicko :


    Yes the Rafale is half a generation ahead of the Typhoon and that since 1985 .
    We could post for another 200 pages and you will still not beleive it but engineerers on both sides know it , unlike you and some others .
    Just an example : if the Eurofoghter Team knew a bit more about electromagnetic propagation on curved surfaces , the typhoon wouldn 't look like a M2000 with canards . The only other aircraft using the same shaping wrt the front RCS is the F-35 and that came after the F-22 .
    From the front , the Rafale 's RCS is probably 2 to 3 times lower than Typhoon 's .
    There is also the way both aircraft are showing their "nose" , a cruising Typhoon is flying with its nose higher (due to a different center of gravity and different instability , long coupled canard) , showing more its intakes and its under wings (and belly) . Typhoon 's canard also show a bigger surface at angles , when turning . Also , the canard don 't show any RAM thickness and sawtooth , unlike Rafale .
    Then , there are the avionics and onboard electronics , more advanced on Rafale .
    You can turn the problem around or even upside down , the result is telling Gentlemen .
    Well, when you make sweeping statements then you would really do well to prove them, otherwise this is really a "I said...you said" situation.

    If you look at all those posts on who has won where - Korea, Singapore, Switzerland, India, etc, there is one major problem: there is no context even mentioned. For instance:

    - Korea: the Typhoon was found impressive by the ROKAF, I recall reading about it in an English edition of a Korean paper online.

    However, this was the turn of the century, at the time the jet was basically an interceptor that could carry a few dumb bombs. The Rafale was purpose-built as a multirole fighter from the start, the Typhoon as an interceptor/dogfighter with multimission work thrown in as an afterthought.

    Therefore there were different development time cycles for the 'multirole' part. The timing at the turn of the century suited the Rafale at that moment, and not the Typhoon.



    - Singapore: there was this time cycle lag here again for the Typhoon because it was not developed at the same pace. It did not have the Rafale export Block 10 version's AESA (an early RBE2AA model with American tiles supplied by Raytheon), nor advanced weapons for air-ground work.

    In the air-air role, the jet was hugely impressive - famously beating three F-16s and supercruising in hot conditions - but it was still an interceptor that was gradually being given multirole capability.

    I recall that the Singaporeans were not impressed by the Rafale. They were saying things like "show us what it can do" - this was from a RSAF source. They did not buy much into Dassault's so-called omnirole claim, to them it looked like just another multirole jet.



    - Switzerland: here we see that the Typhoon got a practically perfect score for performance/kinetics, and was the top scorer in engagement and MMI/workload. It means that for its chosen role, namely interdiction, it was the best of the bunch.

    It failed in other areas because it was not really developed as a multirole fighter, that capability was gradually added on and it is still early in the process. This is one hell of an underfunded program...so it takes a while to get going.

    The Rafale's scores are a revelation and show much more product maturity and development, but it is working on a different timing cycle. It had an AESA radar, but the EF consortium was also brewing a most excellent one in their labs, it was just too early to show it off. Likewise, new pods and weapons can come in for the Typhoon as well...the operative word is "can" because of the state of European economies.



    India: it was a close finish between the two. The Typhoon was "under weaponed" and did not meet certain test requirements. The EF consortium however could sort it out by integrating new missiles and gave the IAF choices.

    The French jet was by now even more mature and polished with an AESA and improved ground attack avionics, as well as a huge list of strike weapons. Again, the time cycle is on its side, because the EF consortium needs a customer to finish all the development plans they have.

    The Rafale did win (from IAF sources, also confirmed marginally in the press) but the gaps between the jets in final form (what would be available if all proposals were implemented) were not great. The gaps between the Typhoon and the Rafale were rather small overall - certainly not half a generation's worth...


    Certainly there are compromises in each of the designs and they relate to how the jets were originally desired.

    (a) Let's look at the Typhoon: It is "under designed" for weapons carrying, in the sense you can't carry too much fuel and weapons without spacing and payload issues. This is a product of the bombing role being added as an afterthought, as the original desire was for aerial engagement.

    (b) Now we'll look at the Rafale: It does not have the nose radome size for a powerful radar that would be useful for interception at farwaway ranges, and also does not have powerful engines. It's power is adequate but not efficient for supercruise (even if it can supercruise a bit, especially with a good wind). This is a product of it being developed for different tasks including aircraft carrier landings where a compact nose is an advantage.


    If you look at it this way, you cannot really compare the two jets as if they were tasked for the same missions. In surface attack the Rafale will forever retain an advantage because it was heavily focused on that, while in interception the Typhoon has the edge.

    The question is more of value - here I think that the Rafale is clearly ahead with better costing figures and more maturity. With AWACS planes its radar disadvantages can be balanced out or even converted to a stealthing advantage. But if I wanted to go for engagement - especially with a fifth gen fighter, the Typhoon with an uprated EJ230 and the Captor-E would offer undeniable advantages.
    Last edited by Shiv1971; 28th May 2012 at 03:35.

  18. #408
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    Well, when you make sweeping statements then you would really do well to prove them, otherwise this is really a "I said...you said" situation.
    Good, then maybe you'll start by providing sources and facts for your following claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    If you look at all those posts on who has won where - Korea, Singapore, Switzerland, India, etc, there is one major problem: there is no context even mentioned.
    Fact is Switzerland is the only competition where we've had a somewhat "official" look on what happened in the inside due to the nature or their very people centred democracy. No other country have offered us such an insight, and even that one doesn't tell the hole story...

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    For instance:

    - Korea: the Typhoon was found impressive by the ROKAF, I recall reading about it in an English edition of a Korean paper online.

    However, this was the turn of the century, at the time the jet was basically an interceptor that could carry a few dumb bombs. The Rafale was purpose-built as a multirole fighter from the start, the Typhoon as an interceptor/dogfighter with multimission work thrown in as an afterthought.
    Bottom line Rafale made it to the finale against the F-15 and Typhoon didn't. At the time Rafale's AtG capabilities were still mostly in development as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    Therefore there were different development time cycles for the 'multirole' part. The timing at the turn of the century suited the Rafale at that moment, and not the Typhoon.
    Eurofighter has always had multi-role capabilities in mind for the Typhoon (at least that's how the story goes), but limited funding and disagreement between the UK and Germany (mainly) led to making hard choices and finding a middle ground. Since at the time Germany was unwilling to fund an expensive multirole aircraft, that led the consortium to focus on AtA which was the only area were they could apparently all agree. At least that's my understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    - Singapore: there was this time cycle lag here again for the Typhoon because it was not developed at the same pace. It did not have the Rafale export Block 10 version's AESA (an early RBE2AA model with American tiles supplied by Raytheon), nor advanced weapons for air-ground work.
    The AESA at this stage was an very early prototype, and we don't know whether or not it played a significant role in the competition. Whatever Typhoon's development, and until we know the full story what we know is that Rafale was in finale while Typhoon wasn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    In the air-air role, the jet was hugely impressive - famously beating three F-16s and supercruising in hot conditions - but it was still an interceptor that was gradually being given multirole capability.
    Again how do you know that it was "hugely impressive" exactly? Have you seen any official report of the evaluation? Have you simply read some partisan press that found the Typhoon to be "hugely impressive" in any competitions/excercises/air show or simply sitting in the tarmac no matter what the real results are? Anyway how is your description of Typhoon been a interceptor being given gradual multirole capability different today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    I recall that the Singaporeans were not impressed by the Rafale. They were saying things like "show us what it can do" - this was from a RSAF source. They did not buy much into Dassault's so-called omnirole claim, to them it looked like just another multirole jet.
    They were so not impressed by it that they selected Rafale in their finale while eliminating the "hugely impressive" Typhoon... You should stick to serious investigative journalism when finding your sources...

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    - Switzerland: here we see that the Typhoon got a practically perfect score for performance/kinetics, and was the top scorer in engagement and MMI/workload. It means that for its chosen role, namely interdiction, it was the best of the bunch.
    Actually that's not what the Swiss report is saying. They're saying that for air interdiction Rafale is the best of the bunch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    It failed in other areas because it was not really developed as a multirole fighter, that capability was gradually added on and it is still early in the process. This is one hell of an underfunded program...so it takes a while to get going.
    As far as the Swiss eval is concerned Typhoon came second in every area including air defence/superiority. Even for QRA (Typhoon main mission so far), they found the Rafale to be ahead. Lack of multirole capabilities have nothing to do here. In today battle field, having the biggest engine is simply not enough. The F-14 might arguably have been a better plane overall than the F-15 on the aerodynamic front. Yet higher cost with less relevant sensors made it come second to even the SH... Something to think about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    The Rafale's scores are a revelation and show much more product maturity and development, but it is working on a different timing cycle. It had an AESA radar, but the EF consortium was also brewing a most excellent one in their labs, it was just too early to show it off. Likewise, new pods and weapons can come in for the Typhoon as well...the operative word is "can" because of the state of European economies.
    Well let's separate facts from wishes shall we? As far as facts are concerned, Rafale has proved to be more advanced, suitable, versatile, mature and relevant during evaluations, exercises and real world operation than the Typhoon.
    We're all wishes the see both planes mature and gain new capabilities and remain top notch for the foreseeable future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    India: it was a close finish between the two. The Typhoon was "under weaponed" and did not meet certain test requirements. The EF consortium however could sort it out by integrating new missiles and gave the IAF choices.
    We've no real idea what happened during the evaluation. All we know is that the IAF seems very happy so far with how the competition is going and with Rafale's selection. We'll have to wait a few more years to have some credible tongues start to loosen...

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    The French jet was by now even more mature and polished with an AESA and improved ground attack avionics, as well as a huge list of strike weapons. Again, the time cycle is on its side, because the EF consortium needs a customer to finish all the development plans they have.
    Again with you. What "huge" list of strike weapons? AASM, one LGB and Exocet IIRC, that's not really what one would call a "huge" list.

    I believe that one of the reason why Rafale is so effective is that the aircraft was designed from the start around the MICA for AtA engagement and around the AASM for strikes. These two weapons were designed from the beginning as part of the Rafale's weapon system and that's why they're so effective and so well implemented with the aircraft.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    The Rafale did win (from IAF sources, also confirmed marginally in the press) but the gaps between the jets in final form (what would be available if all proposals were implemented) were not great. The gaps between the Typhoon and the Rafale were rather small overall - certainly not half a generation's worth...
    We know they both passed the test in India, like they both passed the test in Switzerland (in both case Rafale and Typhoon were recommended). That's all we know for sure. According to the press the fly away cost difference was marginal but the life cycle cost was the deciding factor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    Certainly there are compromises in each of the designs and they relate to how the jets were originally desired.
    Oh boy...

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    (a) Let's look at the Typhoon: It is "under designed" for weapons carrying, in the sense you can't carry too much fuel and weapons without spacing and payload issues. This is a product of the bombing role being added as an afterthought, as the original desire was for aerial engagement.
    "Under designed", really? Typhoon does well what it was in the end optimized for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    (b) Now we'll look at the Rafale: It does not have the nose radome size for a powerful radar that would be useful for interception at farwaway ranges, and also does not have powerful engines. It's power is adequate but not efficient for supercruise (even if it can supercruise a bit, especially with a good wind). This is a product of it being developed for different tasks including aircraft carrier landings where a compact nose is an advantage.
    The rafale despite been one of the smallest if not the smallest MRCA in existence is able to carry more than any of them out there, hold its own against the F-22, Typhoon, F-15 etc. That's not what I call underpowered engines. If anything that a testimony of how good its handling characteristics are. One dreams of what would be with even more thrust!

    The radar's size isn't the biggest out there and while it might be limited in detection's range it won't be as far as engagement is concerned with the METEOR.

    And unless you can prove the "not efficient for supercruise" claims, please state it as your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    If you look at it this way, you cannot really compare the two jets as if they were tasked for the same missions. In surface attack the Rafale will forever retain an advantage because it was heavily focused on that, while in interception the Typhoon has the edge.
    If anything that claim has been proved wrong many many times over. Rafale has proved itself as good an air superiority fighter as any other out there, and an outstanding striker. Few aircraft in the world have achieved such a feat, and none that are carrier capable as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post
    The question is more of value - here I think that the Rafale is clearly ahead with better costing figures and more maturity. With AWACS planes its radar disadvantages can be balanced out or even converted to a stealthing advantage. But if I wanted to go for engagement - especially with a fifth gen fighter, the Typhoon with an uprated EJ230 and the Captor-E would offer undeniable advantages.
    You read the Swiss report and saw Typhoon being rated first in the engagement capability and so that's your conclusion. You forget that engagement is only the final part of the battle and before that Rafale as per the Swiss eval won every other important parts like detection, ID, acquisition.
    Captor-E is unlikely to provide Typhoon with a longer range for detection, so as I said here plenty of time before, the difference between the RBE2-AA and the Captor-E will be like 200 to 300 TRs, and we don't know if that's enough to guarantee the superiority of one system over the other over the spectrum of missions starting with detection.

    In the end the best advantage of the Rafale is its programme's management that is IMO more efficient and clearer from the start on designing a weapon system that include the aircraft + sensors + weapons that work together to form a single platform that can operate in single seat, two seats and from aircraft carrier with the same software and weapons. Heck Typhoon isn't even capable of using the same software for its entire fleet of one seater, and in the end the same weapons and sensors.

    As things goes you'll have the Rafale that will continue to be a one weapon system capable of being more and more versatile and capable, and you'll have Typhoon that will be a different plane for each airforces operating it.
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

  19. #409
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluewings View Post
    I also forgot to speak about the pylons emplacement and their interaction on the overall RCS .
    Looking at picture again are we? What do you think Rafale would looks like with the exact same weapons?

    I'm eager to see Rafale fly with bigger than 250kg bombs...
    “Nothing is impossible, the word itself says 'I'm possible'!”

  20. #410
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluewings View Post
    Oh and by the way , just keep an eye on this thread from typhoon.starstreak.net , it 's hilarious :
    http://typhoon.starstreak.net/forum/...php?f=1&t=2076



    Cheers .
    Except from the fact what Cola is saying is bang on....

  21. #411
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    646
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    Close coupled canards have advantages and disadvantages. They're much easier, for starters, but if you want maximum control authority, they're plainly inferior. (Simple physics).
    That's the other way around. All those who played with canards for decades choosed to place them close to the wing where interactions make things much more complicated.
    Maximum control authority is of no use as soon as you've enough authority to begin with. That, too, is simple physics.

  22. #412
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Near Paris (France)
    Posts
    1,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluewings View Post
    @TMor , stop looking down on me and keep quiet .
    This topic is totally ruined by the people who can't stop comparing (you're not the only one).

    What are we learning ? NOTHING ! We are going round in circles. It's even possible again to read the good old Jackonicko's argument : "simple physics" !!! We are back in 2005, and we are denied the most credible sources we could have to score some point !

    Any strong point of Rafale is called "maturity" while any strong point of Typhoon would be another proof that it's superior...

    The problem has nothing to do with Rafale and Typhoon (hey, in addition, we're in a Rafale thread, what's the Typhoon doing here ?). The problem comes from members.
    Rafale news blog by Kovy :
    http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/

    The Rafale international forum :
    http://rafale.freeforums.org/

  23. #413
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,344
    Maturity is a superiority TMor, albeit one which could, theoretically, be eroded.

    And Rafale has plenty of 'superiorities' - not least when it comes to payload/range - a superiority that will never be eroded by Typhoon.

    And Rafale is, as you say, the subject of this thread.

  24. #414
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    flying high
    Posts
    4,598
    One geration ahead for Rafale seems right. EF is 4th Rafale is rather 5-.
    Member of ACIG

    an unnamed Luftwaffe officer:"Typhoon is a warm weather plane. If you want to be operational at -20°C you have to deploy the F-4F."

  25. #415
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,304
    Quote Originally Posted by Mildave View Post
    I'm eager to see Rafale fly with bigger than 250kg bombs...
    Well to start with,
    the current AASM-250 weights something like 340 kg (I know the AASM is not a bomb )

    then you have the GBU-24 which is flying on the Rafale for trial since quite a long time now.

    http://rafalenews.blogspot.fr/2011/0...or-rafale.html

    The A2G weapon integration really starts to be impressive :

    In operational service at the end of 2012 (Air Force and Navy) :

    DEFA M791 AA/AG
    MK82
    GBU-12
    GBU-22
    GBU-24 A/B
    GBU-49
    SBU-38 (GPS/INS)
    SBU-54 (GPS/INS/IIR)
    Scalp-EG
    AM-39 bkII
    Damocles MP
    AREOS
    ASMP-A

    Planed after 2012

    SBU-64 (GPS/INS/laser) (2013)
    AASM 125 / brimstones / guided rockets (at least one among those 3)
    AASM 1000 (>2015)
    Damocles NG (2015-2016)
    The Rafale international forum :
    http://rafale.freeforums.org/

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

  26. #416
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Kovy View Post
    In operational service at the end of 2012 (Air Force and Navy) :

    DEFA M791 AA/AG
    MK82
    GBU-12
    GBU-22
    GBU-24 A/B
    GBU-49
    SBU-38 (GPS/INS)
    SBU-54 (GPS/INS/IIR)
    Scalp-EG
    AM-39 bkII
    Damocles MP
    AREOS
    ASMP-A

    Planed after 2012

    SBU-64 (GPS/INS/laser) (2013)
    AASM 125 / brimstones / guided rockets (at least one among those 3)
    AASM 1000 (>2015)
    Damocles NG (2015-2016)
    Which of these are actually in frontline service now, Kovy.

    Not GBU-49, not AM-39, not GBU-22, I think? Not GBU-24?

    How about Damocles XF? No plans?

  27. #417
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Mildave View Post
    Good, then maybe you'll start by providing sources and facts for your following claims.
    You point is so perplexing because it hardly makes much sense... Where are my claims a novelty? They are open press for almost all claims. If you want me to find links, well...you can do it yourself.

    On the other hand, claiming that the Typhoon is half a generation behind may work out for some aspects of the overall package...but this is not open press, and more like BW's opinions and those of Rafale fanbois...who are prone to glorification of their favorite jet. So this would be a novelty and is a sweeping accusation. I think that tells us why it needs rather better justification than grand claims.


    Bottom line Rafale made it to the finale against the F-15 and Typhoon didn't. At the time Rafale's AtG capabilities were still mostly in development as well.
    Bottom line is also that the Rafale lost as well - to an F-15, whose vintage is from circa 1973, albeit with improvements.

    And the bottom line is that you are so simplistic in how you look at things, you don't even ask why....

    Eurofighter has always had multi-role capabilities in mind for the Typhoon (at least that's how the story goes), but limited funding and disagreement between the UK and Germany (mainly) led to making hard choices and finding a middle ground. Since at the time Germany was unwilling to fund an expensive multirole aircraft, that led the consortium to focus on AtA which was the only area were they could apparently all agree. At least that's my understanding.
    And....? I did not say that multirole was not a capability to be added but the jet was primarily desired primarily with air-air in mind. Even the way its pylons are designed creates space issues, so that was added on more like an afterthought.

    The AESA at this stage was an very early prototype, and we don't know whether or not it played a significant role in the competition. Whatever Typhoon's development, and until we know the full story what we know is that Rafale was in finale while Typhoon wasn't.
    But the French offered the "very early prototype" to the RSAF, while the Typhoon had the Captor-M. The RBE2AA had been in testing for a couple of years by then...

    Again how do you know that it was "hugely impressive" exactly? Have you seen any official report of the evaluation?
    There were a number of press reports including from the Singaporean local press and international press. Specific details were provided that were impressive except to one like yourself perhaps.


    Anyway how is your description of Typhoon been a interceptor being given gradual multirole capability different today?
    They were later fitted with an advanced LDP and tested with hi-tech Paveway bombs (II, III & IV). I would call it a big step up in the field of precision attack, wouldn't you?

    They were so not impressed by it that they selected Rafale in their finale while eliminating the "hugely impressive" Typhoon... You should stick to serious investigative journalism when finding your sources...
    Your shallow analysis is the cause why you cannot see. You can't even grasp my point though it was stated in plain English.

    As for my sources, it includes the NTU, which is a university in Singapore and a serious enough source. More importantly, you don't even think about why things occur, when the evidence is out in the open.

    Actually that's not what the Swiss report is saying. They're saying that for air interdiction Rafale is the best of the bunch.
    I suspect that "engagement" did not mean any form of interception to you. There are several phases to intercepting an aircraft and the Rafale had some advantages, but in the end, the "engagement" score went to the Typhoon.

    As far as the Swiss eval is concerned Typhoon came second in every area including air defence/superiority. Even for QRA (Typhoon main mission so far), they found the Rafale to be ahead. Lack of multirole capabilities have nothing to do here. In today battle field, having the biggest engine is simply not enough. The F-14 might arguably have been a better plane overall than the F-15 on the aerodynamic front. Yet higher cost with less relevant sensors made it come second to even the SH... Something to think about.
    I looked at the score for engagement and A/C perf. The former deals with attacking jets in the air. The Typhoon got an 8 if I recall and the Rafale got a 7 or around there.

    Well let's separate facts from wishes shall we? As far as facts are concerned, Rafale has proved to be more advanced, suitable, versatile, mature and relevant during evaluations, exercises and real world operation than the Typhoon.
    Yes, as an overall multirole jet it is a league above. In interception, it has serious competition from the Typhoon. If you wanted to purchase a jet with the main focus on BVR warfare, the Typhoon has a chance to dominate as long as they integrate their radar being tested.

    We've no real idea what happened during the evaluation. All we know is that the IAF seems very happy so far with how the competition is going and with Rafale's selection. We'll have to wait a few more years to have some credible tongues start to loosen...
    How about the IAF chief? Credible enough for you? He said that either jet would be satisfactory. And he said that the differences were small.




    "Under designed", really? Typhoon does well what it was in the end optimized for.
    Apparently you read it but did not understand it. It was under designed for the strike role. Like where you send weapons to the ground.

    And I mentioned very clearly it was doing great for aerial engagement, where it scored the highest in the Swiss assessment and did so well in Singapore testing. But all that flew by you...

    The rafale despite been one of the smallest if not the smallest MRCA in existence is able to carry more than any of them out there, hold its own against the F-22, Typhoon, F-15 etc. That's not what I call underpowered engines.
    Who cares what you call underpowered engines? What do the test results say?
    (a) The Swiss specifically listed A/C performance, and the Typhoon got a perfect score, while the Rafale was quite a bit below.

    (b) The Swiss listed the Typhoon's supercruise capability at Mach 1.4 (probably clean), not the same done for the Rafale.

    A pilot who flew it found it under powered. And then there are those like Peter Collins and Arun Prakash who find it exciting and powerful. The difference is the first pilot also flew a Typhoon, while Collins flew old aircraft like Harriers and perhaps Jaguars,and as for Prakash...forget what he flew but it was old Indian Navy stuff.

    So power is relative. If you flew a Jaguar the Rafale would look like a mile ahead, but if you flew a Typhoon it would look like a hundred yards below.

    The radar's size isn't the biggest out there and while it might be limited in detection's range it won't be as far as engagement is concerned with the METEOR.
    The Captor-E has a ~50% range improvement if the test data for the initial CAESAR prototype with 64 T/R modules in an indicator (this is reported by BAE to Janes).

    Now the Captor-M was capable of detecting F-16s at long ranges, reported to be ~185 KM per a claim made by a Norwegian AF pilot.

    So don't tell us it is not the biggest radar around - I never said it was. But it has a huge advantage in detection range and azimuth angles compared to the Rafale's current set.

    And unless you can prove the "not efficient for supercruise" claims, please state it as your opinion.
    Funnily the Swiss distinguished the Typhoon for supercruise at Mach 1.4, and ZERO mention for this for the Rafale.

    In Singapore, there is anecdotal information in the press that the Rafale had a difficult time demonstrating supercruise. If you blip the afterburner you could do it, but the Typhoon was able to do so without AB use.
    Last edited by Shiv1971; 28th May 2012 at 15:34.

  28. #418
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,304
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiv1971 View Post

    Bottom line is also that the Rafale lost as well - to an F-15, whose vintage is from circa 1973, albeit with improvements.
    Indeed, but the final round of the contest was not about technical merit anymore (as in India). Political pressures from the US had to be hudge to overcome the advandage gained by the Rafale during the tech eval.

    I suspect that "engagement" did not mean any form of interception to you. There are several phases to intercepting an aircraft and the Rafale had some advantages, but in the end, the "engagement" score went to the Typhoon.
    The purpose of an Air policing mission is to id and intercept the target as fast as possible.
    When you take all the different stages of the mission into account, The Swiss eval states that the Rafale does that slightly better than the Typhoon.
    Again, in an Air policing mission, flying faster and having longer rage missiles is of little relevance if you need twice the time to get airborne in the first place.


    I looked at the score for engagement and A/C perf. The former deals with attacking jets in the air. The Typhoon got an 8 if I recall and the Rafale got a 7 or around there.
    This is related to Air policing only. We don't have the detailed results for the far more demanding DCA and OCA type of missions where the Rafale scored significantly higher than the typhoon.


    Yes, as an overall multirole jet it is a league above. In interception, it has serious competition from the Typhoon. If you wanted to purchase a jet with the main focus on BVR warfare, the Typhoon has a chance to dominate as long as they integrate their radar being tested.
    The Typhoon was supposed to be 2 leagues above the Rafale in all A2A scenario.
    The Swiss eval demonstrates that they are more or less equal for Air Policing and that the Rafale is a league above for DCA/OCA A2A missions.


    And I mentioned very clearly it was doing great for aerial engagement, where it scored the highest in the Swiss assessment and did so well in Singapore testing. But all that flew by you...
    where it scored the highest in the Swiss AIR POLICING assessment

    Who cares what you call underpowered engines? What do the test results say?
    (a) The Swiss specifically listed A/C performance, and the Typhoon got a perfect score, while the Rafale was quite a bit below.
    AIR POLICING Aircraft performances

    So power is relative. If you flew a Jaguar the Rafale would look like a mile ahead, but if you flew a Typhoon it would look like a hundred yards below.
    underpowered is an absolute qualification and implies that the aircraft is unable to reach required specification or to fulfil its tasks because of a lack of power.

    That's definitely not the case of the Rafale.
    The Rafale is less powered than the Typhoon or the F22, indeed, but is not underpowered, far from it.
    Last edited by Kovy; 28th May 2012 at 15:05.
    The Rafale international forum :
    http://rafale.freeforums.org/

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

  29. #419
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Near Paris (France)
    Posts
    1,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
    Which of these are actually in frontline service now, Kovy.

    Not GBU-49, not AM-39, not GBU-22, I think? Not GBU-24?

    How about Damocles XF? No plans?
    AFAIK, GBU-22 and 12 were in service at the same time.
    Rafale can already use the GBU-49 is needed. If not "in service", it's ready.

    Both GBU-24 and AM-39 were expected by the end of 2011 or early 2012. Last hints indicate that the qualification AM39 firing should happen this summer so as to get the weapon in service in the second semester of 2012.
    Rafale news blog by Kovy :
    http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/

    The Rafale international forum :
    http://rafale.freeforums.org/

  30. #420
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Kovy View Post
    Indeed, but the final round of the contest was not about technical merit anymore (as in India). Political pressures from the US had to be hudge to overcome the advandage gained by the Rafale during the tech eval.
    Political pressure apart the Rafale was also not found that impressive - remember, this is not as well-developed as the current Rafale, which is improved gradually. The F-15T had a much better radar (hugely powerful + more mature AESA) and a terrific bomb payload and fuel load.


    The purpose of an Air policing mission is to id and intercept the target as fast as possible.
    When you take all the different stages of the mission into account, The Swiss eval states that the Rafale does that slightly better than the Typhoon.
    Again, in an Air policing mission, flying faster and having longer rage missiles is of little relevance if you need twice the time to get airborne in the first place.
    What makes you think that the Typhoon is slow to get airborne? It was developed as an interceptor.

    And weapon range does allow some sort of 'first shoot' advantage, while hugely better radar range and azimuth allow broader and more flexible detection and attack patterns - with less dependence on AWACS radar planes. On the minus side it makes the aircraft more detectable.


    This is related to Air policing only. We don't have the detailed results for the far more demanding DCA and OCA type of missions where the Rafale scored significantly higher than the typhoon.
    I said "engagement" is where the Typhoon did better, not the larger and more demanding category of air policing. But engagement of BVR targets is a crucial point as well.

    And as stated by me, the Rafale's scores are a revelation and the jet is a league above the Typhoon as an overall mutlmission fighter.



    underpowered is an absolute qualification and implies that the aircraft is unable to reach required specification or to fulfil its tasks because of a lack of power.
    No, that would be "inability". If you look at the case of the IAF, they want to spend billions buying Honeywell engines for their Jaguars. For decades these guys have worked the Adour standard powerplants, but all of a sudden they decided it was underpowered and wanted new American engines along with avionics upgrades. It's a subjective assessment based off what is based on expert judgment rather than mission criteria.

    Moreover you have to set the criteria to decide what power settings work well for you. If you want the Rafale to supercruise at Mach 1.4, then it is underpowered for that.

    In a big sense, the power ratings are adequate for the French AdA needs, but the IAF wanted supercruise, and if you are benchmarking with the Typhoon (as we were before) the Rafale would be a few pennies short. That said, the Indians found the Rafale quite powerful in very demanding tests, and so it is not underpowered for them in most respects.

    It can supercruise easily with the AB blipped on for a bit, and I think that with a drop tank, you can still retain endurance and get effective supercruise speeds. I think that for most purposes the M88s are fine, but the M88-3 would be so much better for supercruise roles and dogfights (but not for fuel economy and cost savings in maintaining the engines).
    Last edited by Shiv1971; 28th May 2012 at 15:41.

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