Rafale Thread #13

[Kovy]

I would also add that it is now a known fact that the "leaks" in the Indian serious media after the eval were organised by the Indian Mod itself. It was their modus operandi in order to quiet all the false rumors spread by lobbies.

[uss novice]

Geez, people still wanting to play down Rafale's clear victory(ies)? I think the Indian MRCA race puts the nail in the coffin.... this bird is the best that has come out of European stables in recent times

There were plenty of indications before such as the ATLC exercises, the Singapore, Brazil and Korea competitions.

As such, logic dictates that unless an AF wants a lightweight fighter the Gripen does not stand a chance vs. the twin engined E'canards. And between these two, even discounting the many sources that put the Rafale ahead A2A, the strike role is without argument, played better by the French bird.

Lets move on....

Any news regarding the UAE deal? I'd like to think that their Mirages would be transferred to the IAF since the latter has spent an extraordinary amount in upgrading it's mirages and buying infrastructure/tech for their upkeep.

[J-20 Hotdog]

Geez, people still wanting to play down Rafale's clear victory(ies)?

its just the same two people.

[Bluewings]

About cheeses ...

Dear Jackonicko , after the Air Force , I have been a Chef for 20 years and I worked 7 years in England in various restaurants and 3 or 4 stars Hotels in Devon and in Cornwall and I can say that the Stilton is an English abomination ! Nothing to do with real "strong blue cheese" like the Roquefort ! I still remember making Broccoli-Stilton soup (a classic standard) and it was disgusting , even made by a French Chef with his own touch (add some unsalted bacon to cut the Stilton bad taste and few leaves of fresh basil to "help" the broccolis and ... go heavy on pepper) .
Cheddar is no way near a real Conté , etc ...
Then , there are more than 200 different goat cheeses in France , etc ...
If Wars were won with cheeses and wines , France would be the super-dooper World power .

J-20 Hotdog :

its just the same two people.

Yep .

Cheers .

[obligatory]

Since you added A2G as an extra,
there is no logic dictating that Rafale has anything whatsoever over Gripen NG in A2A, and EF have an advantage in some special applications over Rafale in A2G by virtue of having more thrust. (it's faster hauling those bombs over shorter distances) Even Gripen NG has some special A2G advantage over Rafale by virtue of the radar repositioner.
(it's radar can scan the ground parallel to the flight path)

[Bluewings]

Originally Posted by Pepe Rezende
By the way, FAB papers shows that Rafale, at attack configuration,
has 1% of F/A-18E/F radar signature at similar conditions...
I said the Rafale signature was 99% lower at FULL LOAD configuration.
I'm not only a journalist, I'm a Brazilian Legislative Government officer.

Pepe meant that the SH has twice the RCS of Rafale at full load (100% = x2) .
It is probably accurate as far as I am concerned .

Cheers .

[obligatory]

He first state that his favorite toy has 1% RCS vs F-18
he then go on to say that his favorite toy, or at least the a/c he is paid to promote, has 99% lower RCS than F-18, and claim these are FAB results.

With this in mind, perhaps we can safely dismiss AF "experts & test pilots" altogether ?
It appear certain Swiss "test pilots", real or imagined, suffer similar intellectual issues,
or how about this intellectual rant ?

And new AMRAAM and IRST installed on the aircraft were really only jokes. The real missiles themselves are far from being operational.

"It's like trying a new car but the mechanic told you that you do not have the right to exceed 80 km / h, or take turns too tight ... and as for the new radio with GPS you need iron in six years, "laments one of our sources. But mainly in Linköping was not to test the plane. Rather it was to do well in the media: some tests that were to be conducted during the fourth flight has even been sacrificed for a new photo shoot. Images taken during the previous flight, blowing our informant, were not beautiful enough.

It sound not like an engineer or test pilot pounding effectiveness of homeland security,
but rather a butt-hurt kiddo.

[Bluewings]

Obligatory :

there is no logic dictating that Rafale has anything whatsoever over Gripen NG in A2A

A Gripen what ? NG ? What is that ? Is it flying anywhere ?
You know what I mean ... I don 't need to go any further than that . :diablo:

and EF have an advantage in some special applications over Rafale in A2G by virtue of having more thrust.

And it 's all it has , more thrust . This is not enough to get the edge on Rafale , not enough .
I dare say that even with the Captor-Aesa and Meteor , the Typhoon will only reach parity at long BVR against a Meteor equipped Rafale (Rafale = lower RCS and better ECM sensitivity/interferometry) . If they can both dodge the incoming Meteors , the IR Mica will put the Typhoon at risk in the medium range where the Asraam can 't be fired yet .
If the fight ends up close , the Rafale will nail the Typhoon even if it has to use the cannon because it is a better and proven dogfighter .

I really would like to see a Typhoon loosing only 0-1 to a F-22 after 6 matches . (but hey , a M2000 scored against a F-22 , so ...)

Even Gripen NG has some special A2G advantage over Rafale by virtue of the radar repositioner.
(it's radar can scan the ground parallel to the flight path)

Yes , this is a very valid point and it can indeed make a difference in how a pilot can fire at a ground target . It can also help to map the ground from a safer distance . It 's all good .
It is the reason why Dassault has planned Aesa cheek arrays .

Cheers .

[Bluewings]

Obligatory :

His favorite toy , (...) his favorite toy , (...) , etc

It 's easy to see where you stand just by reading how you "judge" some people .
He admitted that he had a "brain fart" with numbers and percentages but his point of view is valid , as I pointed out .

No need to bash the man , he did provide some very good insights .

Cheers .

[obligatory]

No, he didn't admit farting, instead he claimed it was the "experts" at FAB,
that after extensive research came to this astonishing result,
no doubt to put extra credibility to his statement,
on the odd chance some infidels wouldn't simply take
"not only a journalist, but also a Brazilian Legislative Government officer's word for it"
This smell corruption from Pepe, or incompetence at FAB

[Bluewings]

Ok , we have to agree to disagree .

Cheers .

[Kovy]

No, he didn't admit farting, instead he claimed it was the "experts" at FAB,
that after extensive research came to this astonishing result,
no doubt to put extra credibility to his statement,
on the odd chance some infidels wouldn't simply take
"not only a journalist, but also a Brazilian Legislative Government officer's word for it"
This smell corruption from Pepe, or incompetence at FAB

While every "experts" were dismissing the Rafale as the weakest of the challengers in the MMRCA contest, he was the first to bring accurate insight on the IAF eval putting the Rafale as a front runner.
All his predictions proved right.

That said, he acknowledges that he is not a technical expert, therefore he could have misunderstood the RCS thing. That certainly doesn't make him a corrupted man

[f-35pwiii]

Obligatory :


A Gripen what ? NG ? What is that ? Is it flying anywhere ?
You know what I mean ... I don 't need to go any further than that . :diablo:



And it 's all it has , more thrust . This is not enough to get the edge on Rafale , not enough .
I dare say that even with the Captor-Aesa and Meteor , the Typhoon will only reach parity at long BVR against a Meteor equipped Rafale (Rafale = lower RCS and better ECM sensitivity/interferometry) . If they can both dodge the incoming Meteors , the IR Mica will put the Typhoon at risk in the medium range where the Asraam can 't be fired yet .
If the fight ends up close , the Rafale will nail the Typhoon even if it has to use the cannon because it is a better and proven dogfighter .

I really would like to see a Typhoon loosing only 0-1 to a F-22 after 6 matches . (but hey , a M2000 scored against a F-22 , so ...)



Yes , this is a very valid point and it can indeed make a difference in how a pilot can fire at a ground target . It can also help to map the ground from a safer distance . It 's all good .
It is the reason why Dassault has planned Aesa cheek arrays .

Cheers .

Most of what's written here is pathetic, from here on out I will dissmiss your posts and regard them as a pathetic attempt at trolling.

[Bluewings]

Fine ...

Cheers .

[Shiv1971]

And there were many credible reports indicating that Typhoon led after the technical evaluation, and then fell down when the L1/L2 decision was made.

The Indians and the Swiss evaluated the aircraft at different times, and were looking for different things. One of the Indian tick boxes was the helmet, for example.

Only initial reports were in the Typhoon's favor. At this time, the weapons testing had not been completed. So you are looking at early indications.

There are several things about the Typhoon that were impressive and the IAF specifically labeled MMI as an area of superiority - so the HMTD would have been an advantage. In a technical sense, the Typhoon had a more complex airframe (albeit with about a 1000 hours less on the clock for it - so do you want more complex inlets or longevity of 3-4 years more...), PIRATE IRST versus half-baked French solutions (until later when the new Sagem IRST comes in), and more power. The CAESAR radar would have been a plus factor had it not been on a chopper in early form.

There was a lot riding in the Typhoon's favor but in the end, how well a jet can fire weapons and how many tasks it can do at a time are the most decisive ones.... If you have a more advanced airframe or helmet but cannot hit targets then your technology does not work that well in that area.


I don't think that there was such a massive difference between circa 2008 and circa (early) 2010 Typhoon jets. The air-ground capability got more mature but the Typhoon also played second fiddle to the Rafale in other categories in Swiss testing - and in most parameters, which indicates a comprehensive defeat in strictly numeric terms.


You bring in the helmet - okay, the Striker helmet is better than the old TopSight design and even the TopOwl types available on export models. As I said, the IAF rated the MMI ahead. The Typhoon tested by the Swiss also had an HMTD, and that item was specifically listed as the Rafale's deficit - it was missing on the French jet. Despite that, the Swiss rated the Rafale better in all three areas.

In the IAF weapons tests, these were mainly air-surface experiments which does not rely on HMTD - even though an advanced helmet could be used for surface aiming. The Rafale finished all tests successfully. The Typhoon did not.


Moreover whole jet is hardly based off the MMI nuances. It's not like the French cockpits are hard to use....they actually drew praise from a Typhoon pilot though it was seen as a bit French. It's different but still works quite well. A TopOwl unit can be integrated on export models and I have seen a video with the French jet fitted with a TopSight system.

At the end, the press reports did change in favor of the Rafale. I think that has more to do with the sort of test results that were seen once all the results came in.

[Shiv1971]

He first state that his favorite toy has 1% RCS vs F-18
he then go on to say that his favorite toy, or at least the a/c he is paid to promote, has 99% lower RCS than F-18, and claim these are FAB results.

You did not read into what I said. Pepe was relying on memory of what he saw. He is not an aviation buff. When you use stats, you can get muddled here easily - especially when you don't understand RCS tech, or the multiplicity factor involved in signature reduction.

But it's much easier to remember things like conversations where you say that the Typhoon did not finish all tests or things like that. Those are easy things for a lay person to remember. So some reports are more credible, depending on the simplicity of the topic. The more you move to complex matters and figures, the more you get into errors.

[Scorpion82]

And it 's all it has , more thrust .

In the eyes of an utterly delusional and biased die hard fanboy like you yes.

[seahawk]

the helmet is a side-show, as the whole cockpit and man to machine interface on Rafale has been found way superior by all countries that tested Rafale and that other plane.

[Scorpion82]

the helmet is a side-show, as the whole cockpit and man to machine interface on Rafale has been found way superior by all countries that tested Rafale and that other plane.

Is this a fact? Show us!

[Jackonicko]

the helmet is a side-show, as the whole cockpit and man to machine interface on Rafale has been found way superior by all countries that tested Rafale and that other plane.

Utter nonsense. As is:

The Rafale finished all tests successfully. The Typhoon did not.

The Typhoon met more of the 643 tick boxes than Rafale

[TMor]

Here is the "leaked" end of the report as sent by one of my best contacts in IAF. He said that it reproduce the general feeling after reading of the full report.

Typhoon - Rafale

• 640 best radar : yes - no
• 641 best engines : yes - no
• 642 best HMDS : yes - no
• 643 Best overall in all missions as proven during test flights : no - yes.

True story, man.

[Shiv1971]

Utter nonsense. As is:



The Typhoon met more of the 643 tick boxes than Rafale

You don't read too well. I said weapons tests in context....not the whole slew of things. In that area, there is little doubt that the Rafale did better in both the Swiss and Indian contests. The former even gives us scores for the broad area - do you need to get more objective than that?

And there is no definitive proof of what you said (or could you show us? And don't imagine anecdotal stuff is the same thing...). It's not like we have charts like in the Swiss assessment.

Going by those, I seriously doubt your claim. The Swiss charts showed that in most parameters (and I am not referring to the three broad areas but individual parameters) the Rafale tended to win.

There were Indian stray press reports that the Rafale was found superior towards the tail end, when the final down select was made. Let's say that even if the Typhoon got more "passes" on parameters, these are not all weighted equally. If you read my bit, I said that in the end the things that matter most are areas like weapons delivery, because that's what you send your jet to do - deliver weapons. That's a more key area to do well in than being able to fly on a single engine at Leh with some payload.

[Bluewings]

Shiv :

in the end the things that matter most are areas like weapons delivery, because that's what you send your jet to do - deliver weapons.

Exactly ! Bangs for Bucks is what matter and the Rafale does a lot more (than the Typhoon) for a bit less money .

"Deal ! Where do I sign ?"

The Typhoon is a ground based M2000 on steroîds with good multirole capabilities (like the M2000) while the Rafale is a carrier capable omnirole fighter . If we forget for a moment the avionics and look at other features , like aerodynamics , anti-corrosion/salt materials , airframe robustness , low speed handling , fuel management , range , weapon load , available armory , the Rafale is ahead . What counts is to hit the enemy hard and to come back alive .
If you can get that for a decent amount of money , you sign the deal .

Cheers .

[Jackonicko]

The Swiss and Indian evaluations were not the same thing.

They were not conducted at the same time.

The requirements were not the same.

It's not surprising that the Indians MAY have reached a different conclusion to the Swiss.

The Indians evaluated service aircraft. The Swiss evaluation relied principally on IPA3.

The Indians made multiple informal evaluations during joint exercises. The Swiss did not. The Indians deployed pilots to Europe to do things that could not be done in India - in a three day visit to Warton they dropped a self-designated LGB, fired an AMRAAM and dropped a load of dumb 1,000-lb bombs.

Ask DAS Gupta about the evaluation....... :diablo:

[Shiv1971]

The Swiss and Indian evaluations were not the same thing.

They were not conducted at the same time.

The requirements were not the same.

It's not surprising that the Indians MAY have reached a different conclusion to the Swiss.

The Indians evaluated service aircraft. The Swiss evaluation relied principally on IPA3.

The Indians made multiple informal evaluations during joint exercises. The Swiss did not. The Indians deployed pilots to Europe to do things that could not be done in India - in a three day visit to Warton they dropped a self-designated LGB, fired an AMRAAM and dropped a load of dumb 1,000-lb bombs.

Ask DAS Gupta about the evaluation....... :diablo:

We've all agreed that they were not the same thing. The Typhoon matured a bit. Does that mean that most of the Swiss ratings for things like electronic warfare and what-not dissipate?

Concerning Libya - a Typhoon pilot spoke of trying to make sense out of a lot of complex information while he was praising the jet for being able to go into multirole work. The French and Greek pilots in earlier exercises spoke about how they could get information from the Rafale right away from one screen. Relating this bit to the Swiss assessment:

- The Swiss praised the Rafale for "data fusion"; and
- Panned the Typhoon for the same. I couldn't believe my eyes when they said it had poor data fusion given the Striker helmet and VOTAS and advanced MMI focus. (Both the Swiss and the IAF found the Typhoon's MMI superior, but the Swiss did not relate it with data integration - which to me would be part of the MMI.)

When I read the Typhoon pilot's remarks I could see how the Swiss rating applied here. And then I contrasted it with what Hellenic and French pilots have said in past exercises - again a match for the Swiss comments.

As can be seen from the example above, for all the differences in tests, there are common things that will show up in tests, and this can be related to the real world.


Interesting that you mention LGBs and dumb bombs for the Typhoon in weapon tests - because it shows how backward it is. This is something that could be done even by Tornados with TIALD in circa 1991. (BTW, the IAF will be going for Meteor missiles which will outrival the AIM-120C5 that was tested on the Typhoon - so AMRAAM means jack for the Indians. It would be a bad weapon to buy because the PAF had ordered it for Pakistani jets - that means parity rather than improvement, and also the Pakistanis have more opportunity to learn how to jam the seeker, which will be very close to what would have been given to the Indians.)

The Rafale was firing AASMs several tens of kilometers away and hitting within a few feet. You could fire it 40 to 50 kilometers and still get strikes... It hit all targets and needed half the amount of passes as the Super Hornet - which is not the Typhoon - but actually has a lot better avionics for air-ground work.


The EF consortium had to promise integration with more missiles and weapons as part of the MRCA deal. That's several years of testing which costs hundreds of millions. Most of the weapons on the Typhoon's brochure are hardly even tested on the jet, it was a marketing man's dream of what could be.

[f-35pwiii]

Shiv :


Exactly ! Bangs for Bucks is what matter and the Rafale does a lot more (than the Typhoon) for a bit less money .

"Deal ! Where do I sign ?"

The Typhoon is a ground based M2000 on steroîds with good multirole capabilities (like the M2000) while the Rafale is a carrier capable omnirole fighter . If we forget for a moment the avionics and look at other features , like aerodynamics , anti-corrosion/salt materials , airframe robustness , low speed handling , fuel management , range , weapon load , available armory , the Rafale is ahead . What counts is to hit the enemy hard and to come back alive .
If you can get that for a decent amount of money , you sign the deal .

Cheers .

LOL And you wonder why people call you delusional, and down right biased. It's a shame you know a tiny bit about the Tiffie, but anything else regarding aerodynamic and EW you know quite simply nothing and base your opinions/assumptions on heresay. But it's fine you can live in your own world;shared by no other person.

[Mildave]

Funny I was thinking the same about you...

[Bluewings]

f-35pwiii , nothing of what I said in my last post is false but feel free to explain yourself instead to just go "lol" .

I can assure you that I have a good knowledge of the Typhoon and some posters here know it . I don 't speak lightly and while I have my own opinion (like everybody else) , my posts are mostly based on known facts and/or numbers . Today , May the 20th 2012 , the Typhoon is not a multirole fighter yet as it still lack some capabilities and its armory is minimal .
For the past 15 years , I have been saying that the Eurofighter is a mistake .
It 's not a bad bird (far from it) but it is too much AtoA orientated and it 's not a Navy fighter . Today and for the foreseable futur , the carrier capable aircraft will become more and more important and they truely need to be multirole . Since WW2 , Navy fighters have been the spearhead of many Nations/Navies (USN , RN , MN) and it 's not going to change anytime soon .
Yesterday , the US Super-Hornet was the best Navy multirole fighter but it is not anymore . The Rafale is .
The Typhoon was designed to fight a hypotetical War where the Rafale was designed to ... fight . Note the difference and think about it , my words are not empty words .

Cheers .

[Bluewings]

Scorpion :

In the eyes of an utterly delusional and biased die hard fanboy like you yes.

Don 't make me laugh Scorpion , you perfectly know that the Rafale is a better aircraft than the Typhoon overall and there is no need to go personal .
While I have a great respect for you and for what you post on various forums , you must control your temper a bit and look at the big picture when you read me .
Saying that I am "utterly delusional" is wrong and remember that I have been 7 years in the Air Force and I know what is good and what is not when it comes to hit the enemy while preserving your own life and material .

Cheers .

[Scorpion82]

@Bluewings
I know that you have served, but you was neither a pilot or technicians, nor were you directly involved in air operations per se and your civilian occupation is unrelated to aviation as well. To cut it short your professional backgrounds bear no serious relevance to the discussions and that you bring them up in an attempt to somehow bolster your credibility and justify your claims shows that you are intellectually dishonest here. Who do you want to fool with that?

You consider yourself being knowledgeable about the Typhoon, funny enough no one else appears to consider your person to be overly well informed about the aircraft. From what I have seen over the past few years your knowledge about the Typhoon is mediocre at best and your judgment is to a large extend based on prejudices, pre-made phrases and arguments which look just too familiar and the absence of factual knowledge on the Typhoon. You are knowing a fair deal about the Rafale, but the same can not be said about the Typhoon as you have repeatedly proven with your claims about Typhoon's MMI, EWS and other aspects. I'm well aware that the Rafale is overall more developed, mature, capable and versatile at this point in time and that it comes in at a somewhat lower price as well translating into a "better bang for the buck". And while I happily acknowledge this, I don't respect your Typhoon bashing wrapped around "hey it's a good aircraft and I like it" phrases. You are one of the first to pop up in the defence of the Rafale and feel personally offended when someone is criticizing or bashing it, but yourself are not any better when it comes to other aircraft types, the Typhoon in particular. If someone would call your beloved Rafale a Mirage 4000 which got rid of its steroids or a souped up Mirage III NG you would certainly protest and complain, but you don't mind to come up with such claims about the Typhoon.

Wrt navalised aircraft being the way to go and naval air arms forming the spearhead of the armed forces there are less than a dozen operators of aircraft carriers and in most cases there is just a single carrier available, which is not permanently available. The ac operated from those carriers are in the majority of cases inferior to the land based types operated by those forces as well. I agree that carrier ac should be ideally multirole capable. But in which way are carrier aircraft of relevance to the vast majority of armed forces which have no carriers at all?