I do not understand the debate, in the WVR arena the current Raptor version is a little weak, especially vs. a 4th generation enemy who uses IRIS-T and a HMD.

From what I can gather, the Luftwaffe Typhoon pilots aren’t using an HMD – or HEA in Typhoon’s case at the current moment. Neverless they seemed to have coped rather well especially in the most recent exercises.

Any idea why the Luftwaffe Typhoons from JG74 aren’t fitted with PIRATE?

EE , are you looking for to get some stick or are you just kidding ? :confused:

I’m sure many think the same about you.

The Rafale is perfectly capable to pull 11gs with a central fuel tank and 6 Micas and other fighters can do it too (with a similar load) …

And they pull this amount of Gs with this configuration on a regular basis do they. I think not. Indeed most fighters can pull more than their stated Gs but theres a number of reasons why they’re limited to 9g ‘operationally’.

I know that on least one occasion a Blackburn Buccaneer achieved some 13gs, quite impressive but it paid a high price.

Regarding the Typhoon supplement in AIR International. Indeed, very good pieces and it would be helpful if some people that doubt the aircraft gave it some attention. Theres a lot to read upon, direct quotes from the pilots that operate the Typhoon.

Isn’t it a PR stunt that a ‘clean’ Rafale with minimal internal fuel is pulling 10/11+g at an air show at low level? After all its never going to pull that much with a ‘realistic’ A/A or A/G configuration with external drop tanks. :rolleyes:

In Typhoons news:

On-site performance tests will be held in June for the F-35, in August for the F-15 SE and in September for the Eurofighter, according to officials at the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), South Korea’s state arms procurement agency, on Thursday.

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2012/06/07/46/0301000000AEN20120607004200315F.HTML

I am only saying that Dassault pushed the know-how further than anybody else in Europe .

I don’t recall Dassault designing a 1/1 scale model of a ‘manned’ Stealth aircraft like MBB (EADS) of Germany did with their Lampyridae or BAE Systems have with their Replica:

STOVL is for losers who can’t afford an aircraft carrier.

Tell that to the pilots of 800 NAS & 801 NAS. Twit.

“Omni-Role”…???…

Sorry, I’ll shut the door behind me on my way out.*

:diablo: :diablo: :diablo:

To carry on a discussion on here from the Rafale thread, since this is the correct topic.

Bluewings:

EE , I am certainly not talking nonsense and I suspect that you only have a bit of a hard time to admit some of my points .

You’ve made some valid points but overall you’re doing what you normally do; play down the Typhoon’s capabilities, i.e. spouting nonsense.

First (and to make things clearer) , when I say that the long coupled canard design is a mistake , I should rather say that the Typhoon is a mistake .

So the Typhoon is a mistake now. I’m sure a lot of pilots think other wise. I’m sure the likes of the Luftwaffe’s Typhoon pilot Grune thought differently as did the Italian Typhoon pilot earlier this year when he claimed that; ’We were flying and shooting at them well above the maximum flying envelope allowed to the [Naval] Rafale!’.

Another example such as Exercise Bersama Lima ’11, which involved RAF Typhoons from No. 6 Squadron. Simulated kills, some from disadvantaged positions, were claimed against the likes of the Australian F/A-18A+s, Malaysian Mig-29s, F/A-18Ds, and Singaporean F-16s, F-15SGs etc,which impressed the RMAF pilots – or were “blown away” as it was put. An Australian pilot on exchange with No.6 also claimed that he would rather go to war in Typhoon than in an F/A-18! HEA was also used in this exercise – I believe for the first time internationally, from Tranche 2 aircraft.

Or how about during No.11 Squadrons deployment to Oman for Exercise Magic Carpet ’12 when they went up against Block 50 F-16s and reported by One-to-One: ‘which resulted in a resounding win for the Typhoon each and every time.’ .11 Squadron also performed COMAO with the RAFO fleet, they also dropped 25 live EPWIIs each with direct hits which involved; locating the targets, generate the coordinates, self designating – obviously before releasing them.

Or maybe Frisian Flag ’12, which involved; Swedish Gripens, American F-15Cs, Dutch, Norwegian & Belgian F-16s, Finnish F-18Cs, German and British No. 3(F) Squadron Typhoons. Concerning the RAF Typhoon fleet, at least, they were tasked to perform multi-role sorties while facing an A/A threat with the same weapons configuration (simulated) they operated with over Libya – 4x EPWII, 6x A/A missiles, 2x drop tanks. Mission Commanders generally put them out front to sweep the airspace or if they wanted a lot of weapons to be carried a long way. On one occasion a four ship RAF Typhoon fleet claimed between four and six kills each and within four minutes destroyed in excess of 20 aircraft. So, they were significantly outnumbered on that occasion yet they got out unharmed.

Not bad for something that’s a “mistake”, eh. :rolleyes:

Surely enough , a high altitude and fast interceptor has a good time with long coupled canard , we know that . So , to design the Eurofighter with long coupled canard is NOT a mistake as per say . It is just that nobody in Europe needs a fighter primarely AtoA orientated , period .

So it’s not a mistake now, is it. You’ve claimed many times in the past that the long-coupled canard configuration was/is. Once again you’re contradicting yourself.

At the time Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK lacked a credible A/A fighter/interceptor where as they had a significant number of various A/G aircraft – obviously an area where they didn’t lack, hence the need for the Typhoon and today the countries mentioned still have a rather compelling fleet of aircraft able to perform A/G sorties but lack a fair amount of A/A capabilities, Tornado GR4 for example. So in many ways theres a good mixed fleet to compliment each other. It goes back to the same old thing, requirements. But that’s not to say that the Typhoon won’t have a wide range of A/G capabilities which it was always slated to have.

While the Eurofighter can indeed undertake some (not very few) AtoG tasks , it doesn ‘t do it very well because it ‘s not made for !
As I said multiple times , the airframe and the fuel management are not tailored for . Then , some AtoG task (like deep penetration) can ‘t be undertaken by the Eurofighter .

All of this to say that the Eurofighter will never be a true good multirole fighter . I can sign and rest my case , no doubt .

As has been stated many times before, Typhoon was designed from the beginning to be a multi-role platform. You can sign and rest your case if you want but what you claim doesn’t mean you’re correct, far from it.

Of course, regarding fuel at least, is an area where the Typhoon won’t always manage to match the Rafale however, one can just as easily state the opposite in other areas – some being in multi/swing-role situations. Fair enough the Typhoon has a little way to go before it receives further A/G capabilities but you’re conveniently forgetting, as usual, what’s in the process regarding further upgrades, enhancements and integrations. P1E is now complete and is due rather soon, it is said that the RAF are committed to Storm Shadow and Brimstone (should be integrated under SRP-14 which should also introduce an initial operating capability of Meteor – fully added under SRP-16). Saudi Arabia are also pushing well ahead for A/G capabilities for their Typhoon fleet even before they receive P1E. They’ve performed a number of live A/G drops, I believe, but not sure which weapons have been dropped and they also have an UOR for the AASM Hammer since they’ve been denied Paveway IV by the US. And the HEA of the Typhoon isn’t just used for A/A but for A/G too.

No. 17(R) Squadron are probably in the process this Spring to be deployed to the US for High Rider for further A/G trials.

No Thomas , we aren ‘t going round in circles . Some posters are trying to push things forward by reminding others of some known facts to avoid confusion and mistakes .

No, Bluewings. You’re making people going around in circles by posting nonsense such as this:

What am I trying to say ? I am trying to say that the long coupled canard design is a mistake . The Eurofighter Team discarded the enormous Dassault ‘s knowledge on the matter and went on their own for a design they didn ‘t master . They made the mistake to think that forward placed canards provide more authority when they actually don ‘t , unless someone is flying real high where the air density is lower . The other problem with long coupled canard is to manage to nose “wobbling” with the FCS , which is close to impossible (even for Dassault) . The nose instability is just too great .

This:

The Typhoon design shows a real emphasis on high altitude flight characteristics at the expense of … everything else .

And this:

I said half a generation ahead .
The M2000 is 4th gen , the Typhoon 4.2 and the Rafale 4.7 (F-22 is the 5th gen benchmark) . I know that ‘s a bit silly but I need a rating to make things clearer .

As I more or less said, your “opinion” don’t represent facts. And you’ve more or less contradicted yourself.

You say Eurofighter GmbH went for a design they didn’t master, the lower and slower the Rafale goes the more it is comfortable and has an edge (which I would agree in some cases), and you also stated that, “long coupled canard design is a mistake”. As well as, “The Typhoon design shows a real emphasis on high altitude flight characteristics”. (Excluded the last part of that sentence since its bollox*) Now obviously you’re showing your own little narrow-minded logic to be somewhat, flawed. Can you tell what it is yet?

Well this is a turd of yours that can be polished.

If the long couple canard design is a “mistake” and a design they “didn’t master” then how come the Typhoon’s performance is regarded potent at and above the supersonic regime at very altitudes where as the Rafale is regarded potent at the opposite end of the performance chart? If we go by your narrow-minded logic then we can claim that the close couple canard design on the Rafale is a mistake too since the Typhoon seems to hold the advantage at the performance regimes I just mentioned.

You’re looking at the pictures that suite your own mind and you’re not looking at the bigger picture.

Both the close coupled and long coupled canard configurations aren’t mistakes, they’re both not wrong, they’re both right for what their designers want for their requirements.

Now, any chance we can have at least one page without a mention of any other aircraft other than the Thread’s name has?