PuffadderHi Sens
“Not answering my question before, shows that you are aware of that shortcomings, but prefer to distract from this.”
Which question was that exactly? The Rafale in it’s F1 version is operational. Typhoon is not yet operational. Right now the Aeronavale needs air- air capability more more than it needs air-ground. The Typhoons delivered have no greater capability. Eurofighter is still basking in the glow of their recent success in managing to destroy a Mirach drone with an AMRAAM- my hearty congratulations! :diablo:
“The intended number of Typhoon for UK alone is 232 examples…”
If “intended” is good for you then it’s good for me. France intends to buy 294 Rafales. Like I said, no Typhoon customer is “intending” to buy more Typhoons than France is “intending” to buy Rafales.
“…Germany, Italy, Spain and Austria will bring this number to 638 alone”
Actually, it is 620- if Tranche 3 ever sees the light of day.
“Every cost of development and coming changes will be covered by that higher number and thereby keeping lifetime-cost cheaper compared to Rafale.”
The Typhoon participants have never built a low maintenance fighter before. Dassault has.
“The EJ-200 engines deliver much more thrust than the 60/90 kN values still published.
The allowed “war-settings” are 69-102 kN till today.”
A R-R engineer on the development team told me that a thrust increase of more than 10% will not be possible without a considerable redesign. Why are you so thrust-obsessed? Is 180 kN not enough?
“The weaponary shows, that both are very similar. None is surprised, when both were intended for the same role at first.”
Wrong. The two planes WERE NOT designed to fulfill the same role. That is why the Typhoon put on weight later on in it’s development. It is also the reason why the Rafale has a superior hardpoint layout.
To SteveO
“Is Typhoon better supersonically? can it give more energy to its missiles giving them better performance…”
You may be right Steve, but I do ask you to consider that the AIM 120 is 40 kg heavier the MICA, thus a AMRAAM sixpack is 240 kg heavier than an equivalent MICA load (that’s quite a bit).
PuffadderHow about 2005?!
The Typhoon flies in how many units and is gaining hours?”
And?
What has the build numbers got to do with the aircraft’s performance?
No Typhoon partner is buying more Typhoons than France is buying Rafales.
Repeat after me
Aahh Dassault !
Puffadder“As for journalists they do sometimes get muking fuddled!!!, What exactly rattled your cage?”
Hi JW.
Sorry about the delay. Some years ago AFM ran an edition (1997or 1998) with a long article about the EF2000 and invited some journalists and politicians to put forward their arguments, pro and contra.The politicians didn´t have a clue what they were talking about (nothing new), but I was suprised by some of the vitriol levelled against the Rafale (quote: cheap and cheerful)- eg. with an identical missile/ fuel loadout the Typhoon has a TWR of 1.33 and Rafale barely manages 1 (run that through your calculator). Even then it was known that the empty weight was going upward toward the 11000 kg level. One of the contributors unquestioningly referred to RAF mission specialists who, while admitting that Rafale has more hardpoints than Typhoon, believed it is still more restricted in what in can carry! My mouth would have accomodated a baguette sideways as I read that. Even then it was clear that the Rafale had more heavy hardpoints and more wet hardpoints than Typhoon.
More generally it was a case of “Typhoon WILL does this..Typhoon is contractually committed to doing that..” while completely ignoring what Rafale was already doing in the air.
Of course Typhoon’s radar latest generation mech antennae is superior to Rafale’s 1st. generation array antennae. 😉
I´ll try find out about the FCS problem- it left the Luftwaffe restricting their Typhoons to not fly further than twenty minutes from an AB.
And then of course the 50% and 82% thing- simply infantile!
Take a look at the archive- you´ll find that this topic (Raf vs. Typhoon) has been my favourite over the last four or five years. :dev2:
Allow me to predict that Typhoon will be competing with the F35 for funding-three of the Typhoon partners are also F35 participants- and that it will lose the funding fight.
My suggestion: turn the Typhoon into a target drone (QF2000) and sell them cheap to the AdlA 😀 😀 😀
PuffadderPlease give the data, when the first Rafale with F3 capability will enter service?! :diablo:
No idea, but the French have invented this thing called gravity (it makes bombs seperate from the carrier plane- cool stuff) . Gravity, combined with a couple of lines of code in the Weapons Computer allow for fairly accurate results. 😀
Puffadder“Less flexable in what way?, it could be just the number of weapons due to be cleared on each airframe there refering to!!.”
Hi JW, the undercarriage folds inward and restricts the length of the stores that can be loaded onto the outboard shoulder hardpoints. Rafale can carry more than the Typhoon and has demonstrated heavy carriage- and I mean heavy carriage- in conditions that likely customers would find themselves in- to wit: without the squillions of support planes that the Americans can avail themselves of.
Without being patronising, I didn’t mean to trash the Typhoon per se, but the (mis)information put out into the public domain by Typhoon Inc. and some aviation journalist and authors (who are old enough to know better) has in the past fairly rattled my cage :dev2:
The Typhoon is going to be just fine (it’s just going to take a while), but I never cease to be amazed by the assumption, expressed by many, that somehow the Rafale is inferior to most everything else out there (probably because it’s French). Typhoon will be a little better (theoretically) than Rafale in the dogfight (this assumes that Typhoon Inc. get the FCS to work properly), but Rafale is going to be a lot better than Typhoon in air-to-mud.
Right now, only Dassault can deliver the goods.
Aahh, Dassault 🙂
Puffadder“Those figures were from the DERA test, If you can provide any credable sources that disagree with these figures then I’d be interested.
You can argue the merits of the DERA evaluation, but in the absence of any other BVR combat comparisons carried out by a competant agency, they should stand.
One of the ‘differences’ in the DERA evaluation was the Rafale used Mica while the Typhoon used AMRAAM.”
Hi JwCook.
I like your site- have visited it several times. You’re a Typhoon fan- fine, but don’t you ever look at performance claims and wonder why Brand X is supposedly so infererior to Typhoon.
Rafale, as Glitter pointed out, will not be getting the F3 engine- it doesn’t need them. With identical fuel fractions and similar missile loadout the Rafale’s TWR is about 2 or 3 % behind that of the Typhoon- whoopee. Wing loading is slightly better on the Rafale at those weights too, if I remember. The AMRAAM does fine against non-manouevring targets. A distant BVR shot won’t work too well against an evading Rafale. Typhoon will have a harder time of it evading a TVC Mica that will Rafale evading a nice heavy coasting AMRAAM, especially at altitude where the MICA generates more lift than AMRAAM does. That’s rocket science- literally. But that´s OK because MICA will fit on a Typhoon.
Were DERA the ones who said that Rafale’s weapons carrying capability was going to be less flexible than Typhoon’s? That was a load of rubbish then as it is now. The undercarriage layout of the Typhoon says it all.
Let me guess- DERA probably also said that the Typoon´s chin double inlet would make one engine immune to a flame-out from the other engine. (who knows, maybe DERA signed off the SA80). Dassault had other ideas- remember the Spanish crash thing? Some years ago (read again- some years ago) a former Typhoon test pilot flew a Rafale with a 2 SCALP, 2 wing tank layout. His report was published in Flight International- read it.
11 Billion huh? Typhoon’s gonna need it!
PuffadderMagic viedo
Great video- the WSO with his rubber death mask on looked cool and the music is great too. But it´s difficult to condone that kind of fooling around at low altitude and buzzing that truck was pretty reckless.
My Media Player 10 didn´t want to open the video with the codec that I downloaded, the the VLC player works just fine.
Maybe we can get the AdlA to release a rock video collection 🙂
PuffadderBecause they have ressources, they know all very secret datas ?
Hey, look only at the MICA. The range was underestimated (by MDBA himself) at that time, around 45-50km but taiwan manage to reach 70km.
Hi Glitter.
MDBA did not underestimate the range. They merely quote the maximum range at which the MICA will still engage a fighter turning left or right at 9G’s. The ranges quoted often for the AIM-120 are completely unrealistic or perhaps only to be realised when fighting an enemy who has no counter-MRAAM training.
The advantage claims of the Typhoon crowd are simply rubbish, but we’ve known that for years.
PuffadderHi PhantomII
the fighting spirit of old has not diminished one jot, I’m glad to say. Some years ago the Chief of the IDF/AF mentioned that if the Phantom II were to be taken out of service, the IDF/AF would be left with weapons that cannot be carried by any other platform currently in service. I don’t know what an F4 can carry that an F15I cannot but it must be pretty impressive. The F4 was designed to conduct BVR- the missiles failed but the F4 didn´t. However, I’m still reminded of a conversation that I had with a Lockheed Martin employee who had previously been a F4 crew chief in the USAF at the time of the F16 entry-into-service. He said that transferring from the F4 to the F16 was like going on vacation. All countries using the F4 have been served well by it, but you have to agree with me that were it not for the tons of spares available gratis, most operators would have major problems keeping the Rhino in the air- unless you go the whole nine yards and replace absolutely everything. I’m sorry that no operator has taken up the challenge and re-engined the F4 airframe with fuel effecient F414 or some European equivalent. CFT’s ? – who needs ’em.
As regards our duell, you can use ’60s technology BVR missles anytime.
Aahh Nesher! :dev2:
PuffadderHi PhantomII
When I penned that line I had you in mind. I imagined you lining up your INS, entering my co-ords into you weapons computer, gunning the J79’s and taxiing to the holding point. But then I remembered that your plane would probably go unservicable before you rotated- and then I relaxed. I´ll see you at 20.000 Ft in my trusty Nesher- I´ll wax you :diablo:
Giasou ‘tasma, ti kanis ‘re; nice to be back
Hi A29, I have Huertas’ book on the Mirage 3, but I haven´t been able to source a copy of Combat Log
PuffadderRE: Iraq; a question of oil.
Iraq´s oil belonging to the Iraqis?
You thought wrong. It belongs to the Americans and the British. Didn´t you know that?
Nothing new of course. Last year at a meeting in London a senior American diplomat warned French and Russian oil companies that any deals signed with the Iraqis would be torn up after the removal of Saddam Hussein. To then hear Tony Blair still trying to defend the American stance is enough to make me puke.
PuffadderRE: Iraq; a question of oil.
Iraq´s oil belonging to the Iraqis?
You thought wrong. It belongs to the Americans and the British. Didn´t you know that?
Nothing new of course. Last year at a meeting in London a senior American diplomat warned French and Russian oil companies that any deals signed with the Iraqis would be torn up after the removal of Saddam Hussein. To then hear Tony Blair still trying to defend the American stance is enough to make me puke.
PuffadderSA80 vs M16 & Co.
Ink
at the time the SA 80 was being developed the M16 was actually a so-so weapon- no great shakes. The Galil would have been an infinitely better choice. The 5.56mm version of the HK G3 would also have been far better.
PuffadderSA80 vs M16 & Co.
Ink
at the time the SA 80 was being developed the M16 was actually a so-so weapon- no great shakes. The Galil would have been an infinitely better choice. The 5.56mm version of the HK G3 would also have been far better.
PuffadderRE: SA80 in Afghanistan
Hi Garry
about 1700 rifles were deployed to Afghanistan. Approximately 30 failures were experienced. The soldiers were told that if they cleaned the “new” SA80 in accordance with the “new” cleaning methods then there shouldn´t be a problem. The Marines aren´t exactly a bunch of idiots and it´s difficult to believe that they wouldn´t look after a rifle properly. All in all a sad affair. I´m dismayed that no heads are going to roll regarding this whole affair. Even as the weapon was undergoing troop trials more than a decade ago MoD observers witnessed troops running around with rifles that had the forearm held on with duct tape. One observer was allowed to inspect a SA 80 that had been field stripped. He was suprised to discover that the walls of the receiver(the “box” that carries all the innards including the bolt carrier)could be squeezed inward with only mild finger pressure. He was told that the receiver was a lot stiffer when everything was reassembled
I´ve actually got something that gets stiff when mild finger pressure is applied 😉
You like Bullpups? I don´t. A standard stock, receiver and forearm arrangement is a lot more ergonomic.
Sign In
