eagle1The SDB is an excellent weapon with one drawback : it takes too long to glide and hit time sensitive targets which limits its operational efficiency. That makes it less reactive than an AASM that can be fired off bore sight with aggressive trajectories with less need to repositioning.
This is not my words but those of an F15E pilots met at the paris air-show in 2009 (who kindly gave me an access to USAF static display).
Also a 250kg, 500kg, 1000Kg AASM will provide excellent performances against hardened targets at considerably cheaper costs than a cruise missile.
eagle1A more appropriate weapon. A MUCH cheaper weapon (7.5 times cheaper). A helmet mounted sight. A better Laser designator.
In this narrow area, of course that’s an edge, Opit.
That’s not even true. a 500Kg bomb for the typhoon was hardly appropriate and the gbu-12 was even cheaper and more effective waiting for the dual mode gbu-49.
eagle1I don’t think it is boring and childish.
It is not because a lobby think differently than you that it should be automatically dismissed. Especially with the experience of the authors and the level of details. Otherwise the same type of argument could be applied to anyone who has a preference/opinion starting with Lake.
Rather than attacking the aim of the report or the credentials of the author you should stick to the arguments. You can’t dismiss such a piece of work (detailed and relatively comprehensive) in just one or a few laconic posts.
I can also see that this is a pro navy report but that does not mean the arguments brought are not valid and unfunded.
eagle1the cost of a basic AASM is still expected to ship at around $300,000 a piece
A much smaller, yet equally precise, stand-off capable weapon is the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB), sold for around $40,000 each
settled,
now bring something cheaper yet, and with less collateral damage
http://defensetech.org/2012/04/19/video-atks-hatchet/#more-17027
The AASM is more appropriate than the SDB for more hardened target and has specific operational advantages link to the fact that it has a booster. That being said the AASM is certainly expensive but this has not prevent france to acquire large quantity of it and a country like Morocco to purchase it.
Also one big asset that some forgot is that it is a french weapon so you are less restricted than with the US which is important for some countries.
For less defended targets the GBU-49 will do the job nicely or you can integrate the SDB which should not represent such an heavy burden if you can afford the rafale.
It is not like the rafale had to go for a new engine, airframe, AESA etc…Most probably a customer willing for a SDB on a gripen or a Typhoon will also have to pay for SDB integration so the lack of SDB can hardly be taken as an argument against the rafale.
eagle1Here are the report credentials :
Introduction to the Submitters :
iv. This Submission has been prepared by Members of the Phoenix Think Tank:
· Admiral Sir John Woodward GBE KCB – Commander Carrier Battle Group, Falklands, 1982
· Commander N D MacCartan-Ward DSC AFC – Air Warfare Instructor
· Captain Michael Clapp CB – Commander Amphibious Task Group, Falklands 1982
· Commander Laon S G Hulme OBE – MiD Falklands War – Two Sea Commands
· Dr Paul Arnison-Newgass – Royal Dragoons, Army Air Corps, CMP RAF, RAMC (TA), Royal Fleet Auxiliary
And is supported by:
· Admiral Sir Ian Garnett KCB – formerly Chief of Joint Operations and Chief of Staff, SHAPE
· Admiral Sir John Devereux Treacher KCB – formerly CINC Fleet and Vice CNS
· Major General Julian H A Thompson CB OBE Royal Marines
· Rear Admiral Terry Loughran CB FRAeS – Command of HMS Ark Royal (Bosnia) and Flag Officer Naval Aviation
· Dr Harry Bennett – Associate Professor History, University of Plymouth
· Alexander Clarke – MSc, BA, PhD Candidate Kings College London (War Studies)
· C J A COPE – Political Editor, Warship World magazine
· Lieutenant-Commander Lester May RN
eagle1The funny thing during that campaign is that far left candidate Jean Luc Melenchon is a big Dassault and rafale fan (even invited by dassault family at le bourget presidential Chalet) which created a little controversy among its party.
He spoke on the record on how great Dassault and the rafale were and how it was important for france.
eagle1But very often different platforms will have different, complementary capabilities. For many years, Mirage 2000 had a designator while Rafale did not. Today, I suspect, the Mirage 2000 may still have some capabilities in advance of Rafale because it is more mature, and has had longer to develop and refine capabilities. There may be weapons cleared on Mirage 2000 that have not been cleared on Rafale. Mirage 2000, on the other hand, might benefit from operating with Rafale because of Spectra. Or Rafale might operate with a coalition type with a helmet and a better LDP. In all cases, a mixed pair is better than a pair of ‘same type’ aircraft.
You talk about complementarity as an argument. But this is a forced complementarity as the typhoon and tornado lacked some capabilities that the other aircraft of the pair has.
So you are in fact twisting the truth here. You won’t see an F15E, a SH or a rafale (since libya) acting in complementarity for a strike mission.
The tornado+typhoon pair worked well but with a significantly higher cost than if one aircraft had all the capability required. Two fully autonomous and capable jet will be more effective than two complementar jet that are dependent each other.
Working in pair like the typhoon and tornado did also mean putting more at strain the tanker fleet and has both does not have the same endurance there will always be some operational inneficiencies.
But it didn’t have it in Libya and hasn’t got it now, and by the time it does, Typhoon will have Paveway IV.
The GBU-49 is already integrated or in the verge to be. Any difference iof induction are marginal. The point is that the rafale does or will have soon a cheap all weather capability with the more expensive and more capable AASM.
That’s simply not the case, since having only laser guidance will have imposed significant limitations, as illustrated by the number of times those with dual mode weapons used the GAINS option.
with no weather issue and very limited anti-air threat after initial strikes the GBU-12 was entirely appropriate and cheaper to use. If a situation where a GPS guided bomb was needed you had the AASM which could also works with the damocles to extract coordinates. All in all with the more expensive AASM and cheaper GBU-12 any situation could be faced with great efficency while the 500Kg typhoon bombs were the single option and not very adapted for libyan theatre fo operation.
to conclude : with AASM, gbu-12, gbu-22, gbu-24 the rafale was already more flexible than the typhoon in Libya with its too big bombs albeit dual mode.
Now with the GBU-49 the rafale will have a cheap all weather weapon as well so the lead remain. Any difference in capability between the latter and the paveway IV are too marginal to make a significant difference on the bettlefield.
And you are being over-simplistic in ignoring the significance of PW IV, the helmet, etc., and in insisting that range/endurance (playtime ) and a larger number of weapons integrations automatically means that Rafale trumps Typhoon ‘across the board’ and in every subset of the air-to-ground mission.
The PIV does not offer much more over a GBU-49 if anything more at all and for the narrow situation where max performance would be required the AASM will do even better from an even greater range. as for even lower cost operation the gbu-12 is already largely sufficient for a large prportion of Atg operations. With the gbu-12, 49 and AASM the rafale is perfectly able to tackle any sitation with even greater efficiency
Speaking of the range/endurance is entirely relevant as far as “efficiency” is concerned especially for CAS/opportunity targetting.
eagle1http://www.raytheon.co.uk/capabiliti…ms/paveway_iv/
“Paveway IV’s unique manoeuvrability means that, if necessary, following launch it can turn and attack a target behind the delivery aircraft.”
Good one but then I see no reason that GBU-12 or GBU-49 could not achieve the same or close to the same type of manoeuvre as they have the same or close to the same areodynamic kit. Any difference should be minor. See blue apple comments above.
False as demonstrated, and ignoring the real advantages of a mixed pair – in which the overall effect was greater than the sum of its parts.
As demonstrated a mix pair of typhoon and tornado was only set up because they are some capabilities lacking. If one aircraft has all the capabilities necessary it is way more efficient. It is not worth the the sum of its part. Two fully developed aircrafts will always be better than two half capable jets.
No need to insult me it does not work and I could return you the same words.
NONSENSE. Aircraft operate in pairs – even Rafale. One aircraft in a mixed pair is no more likely to go tech than one aircraft in a ‘same type’ pair.
Typhoons and Tornados routinely went to their tankers at the same time.
The fundamental difference is if one of the rafale in the pair is forced to abort the mission the second one is still fully autonomous while it is not the case for the typhoon/tornado. Perhaps that tornado and typhoon “routinely” went to their tankers at the same time but one was short of fuel while the other one could still do its works as a bomber.
Currently, any scenario where a cheap dual mode capability is required, or where a helmet is useful, or where having a good LDP is essential. In the future, any scenario where you are going to use PWIV’s capabilities, any where a helmet is useful, any where you want a better pod than Damocles.
There may be many scenarios where a Rafale is going to be better, but to deny that Typhoon has a few strengths in air-to-ground is risible, infantile bol.locks and is typical of the hysterical and childish denial that characterises the worst of the Rafale fanboys. I’m surprised that you should espouse such nonsense. I thought you better than Fonk/Dare 2/Thunder….
A cheap dual mode scenario : the rafale has the GBU-49 or is close to get it. The question was more libya specific as in any situation the typhoon could use a dual mode weapon the cheaper and more apprpriate gbu-12 was sufficient. Then I admitted the typhoon has a better LDP but that was largely balanced by the lack of adapted weapons and small playtime. Overall the rafale still has the lead. Just that you are being a bit oversimplistic forgeting that mission efficiency relies on much more than a better LDP.
One more note : it is not because a person fundamantaly disagree with you that it’s a crime. All those comparisons are simply not working on me. In my opinion when one starts insulting it means he is lacking credible arguments.
eagle1That’s what Raytheon claim.
source please. You are not going to remake the law of physics. A gravity bomb with the same or almost the same aerodynammic kit than a paveway II is not going to become suddenly a high off boresight bomb. Trajectory optimization yes but nothing really more. And I would also like to have a source for trajectory optimization.
Except that Rafale didn’t operate with 6,000 L of external fuel, and instead used AAR, just like Typhoon…..
it did for some deep strike missions and 4000L is still twice the value of a typhoon is AtG configuration with 4LGB and even more in a 6LGB configuration (4000L vs 0)
That’s not why they operated as mixed pairs, as I explained.
“Typhoon didn’t NEED support from Tornado – Typhoons frequently operated without Tornado support, self designating for LGBs. The decision was taken that for some missions the Tornado/Typhoon combination was a useful and effective one, and that it was mutually beneficial. And that was more about providing a combination of weapon effect (Tornado didn’t have a 1,000-lb LGB, Typhoon didn’t have PWIV or Brimstone), about giving Tornado access to Typhoon’s SA, DASS and AD capabilities, and about providing the Typhoon force (largely untrained in Air-to-ground ops at that point) access to Tornado crews’ expertise.”
The typhoon /tornado combo was necessary due to the limited type of weapons integrated on the typhoon leading to costly innefieciencies and operational limitations. I fully stand with what I said.
You also have twice the chance that something will go wrong : if a technical issue occur prior or in flight that’s two aircrafts that are going to abort the mission.
Except that it didn’t. It may be a theoretical constraint but in reality….
It did. A typhoon with 2*1000L or 0 external liter is not going to have the playtime of a tornado.
A rafale is both more efficient and more performant than a typhoon for mass AtG duties.
When it wants to be cheap: it has the GBU-12 which is cheaper than the paveway-IV. Job done at better costs. You want performance? : You have the AASM family which far outclasses the paveway IV. You want a cheap all weather weapon ? Here is the GBU-49 which is basically the same as a paveway IV.
There is simply close to no situation where the typhoon AtG package would make any difference especially when you look at the broader picture with its playtime limitation. Tell me about a recurring scenario that a typhoon could handle more efficiently than the rafale in Libya? I fail to see one.
eagle1Paveway IV allows you to attack widely separated targets (including behind the launch aircraft) and to attack each target from the optimum direction (through particular windows, or attacking the weakest ‘face’ of an armoured vehicle) and with the optimum impact angle. That’s HUGE!
I fear that you lack any sense of reality. Being a gravity bomb with the same or close to the same aerodynamic kit than other paveway II you will hardly get anything beyond trajectory optimizations and certainly not “aggressive” off bore sight firing let alone 180° off the axis behind the aircraft. You are mixing up a missile with a bomb which was quite amusing indeed.
Second point: A rafale is both more efficient and more performant than a typhoon for mass AtG duties.
When it wants to be cheap: it has the GBU-12 which is cheaper than the paveway-IV. Job done at better costs. You want performance? : You have the AASM family which far outclasses the paveway IV. You want a cheap all weather weapon ? Here is the GBU-49 which is basically the same as a paveway IV.
With the rafale you have double or triple the playtime of a typhoon (6000L vs 0L or 2000L), a wider range of weapon choice and it is used independently from other aircraft unlike the typhoon which was often used in pair with the older and expensive tornado due to lack of maturity.
There is simply close to no situation where the typhoon AtG package would make any difference especially when you look at the broader picture with its playtime limitation. Tell me about a recurring scenario that a typhoon could handle more efficiently than the rafale in Libya? I fail to see one.
I see no operational constraints, and no real cost disadvantage, either.
Let me help you :
Operational constraint: the typhoon needs to refuel more often than the tornado leading to operational inefficiencies.
You also have double the chance that an aircraft would not be available leading to the cancelation of the mission.
Operational costs: one aircraft is cheaper than two and one aircraft easier to cope for the air tanker fleet.
eagle1You are being incredibly obtuse, Eagle.
The point isn’t that Typhoon is a better A-G platform ‘across the board’, it’s that it has advantages in certain narrow areas, both right now, and in the future.
I know what you meant but your are misunderstanding me. The typhoon has a better LDP for instance. Fine but if you don’t have the playtime or your bombs are too big I don’t see any advantage in the end.
The cheap vanilla gbu-12 was even more appropriate in Libya as :
1) it is smaller (but still too big) comprad to typhoon bombs and thus more adapted to libian theater of operation.
2) weather was a non issue
3) Visual ID was often important making a man in the loop laser designation apprpropriate.
4) SAM threat was low after a few days of intensive strike
6) It is cheaper
All in all I don’t see close to any situations where the typhoon would have performed significantly better than the rafale in AtG. The GBU-12 was the most efficient solution. Even assuming that the typhoon had the paveway IV for Libya. Mission done at the best price and that what counts.
And with the GBU-49 the cheap all weather weapon argument doesn’s stand anymore.
May be? There’s no suggestion that there have even been any drops, yet. Paveway IV integration on Typhoon is complete. P1EA testing is complete. At least one customer – the RAF – has completed end-to-end fully designated drops.
The drop have been done in march. Anyway any difference is schedule is a matter of weeks/moth hardly something important at the scale of 40 years program.
Um, err. No. It isn’t ‘BS’ (some of you Rafale fans are so childish….) Nor is it exaggerated. It’s a for-real PW IV capability.
With regard to Libya, the pairing of Typhoon and Tornado worked well, and there was no real disparity in the number of times aircraft went to the tanker. Of course Typhoon would have been even more useful had it been able to carry PWIV and Brimstone. And it did prove very supportable, turning in excellent availability and DCO rates.
No-one at the CAOC ever said that Typhoon was the ‘least available Fast Jet in the operation.’
Even I’m getting bored with this, now. Isn’t there any Rafale news.
Actually I think you are a bit naive. The paveway IV is a gravity bomb with the same or almost the same aerodynamik kit. Just use your common sense. Except a few improvements in trajectory optimization you are not going to be any better.
As for Typhoon and tornado combo it worked but at significant cost and other operational constraints. If your super modern jet needs some support from a 30 years old jet you shoud start to wory a little bit about the considerable investment you made.
eagle1Paradoxically it could even help the rafale case in Brazil as Dilma Roussef is close to some of the french socialist leaders.
Then Hollande like all other candidate did not spoke directly of defense affairs so it is hard to tell. To be honest one can expect some cuts but perhaps not in the big programs manufacturing as “industry” was one of the main theme of the presidential election and he took great care repating he will be defending french industry.
The only thing known is that he will withdraw french troops from afghanistan end of 2012. For the rest he seems to be in the same gaullist independent mindset than most of the french political class which is more or less a consensus in France. But certainly less pro-nato and overtly pro-american than Sarkozy.
eagle1Selectable in the cockpit is a game changer.
Being able to attack targets from any direction and at various impact angles is a game changer.That’s not ‘delirium’, it’s reality.
It is hardly a game changer but just a small improvement. Usually you know what kind of target and in what area you are striking. For instance In Atsan with vanilla GBU-12 for CAS the fuse mode was set to avoid collateral damage you know that you are not likely going to use it in Airburst mode. You can perfectly cope operationally with a pre-programmed fuse. And now with the GBU-49 the rafale can select the fuse mode in cockpit as well so there is not even a small advantage anymore.
As for attacking target from any directions that’s also BS or widely exaggerated. It is still a gravity bomb with the same or almost the same aerodynamic kit than other PWII bombs. It will have limited maneuverability and need to be vectored appropriately.
Laser AASM comes in with F3 O4T.
First Rafale F3 04T is delivered in just three months, operational in 2013 and first squadron formed in 2014 so we are speaking of tomorrow.
GBU-49 may be close on Rafale, but probably not as close as PWIV on Typhoon.
The GBU-49 may be fully integrated on the rafale as we speak or it is a matter of days or weeks. Don’t think the typhoon is as close to get the paveway IV.
I would agree that 1,000-lb bombs may not be optimal for urban operations, but this can be tackled by using inert or part-filled warheads.
The use of mixed Typhoon/Tornado pairs proved remarkably successful, and both types benefited from the arrangement.
Describing the tornado/typhoon combo as remarkably successful is just marketing spin. Certainly it works but at what cost! That’s terribly inefficient. You can imagine that with limited range the typhoon had to refuel more often than the venerable tornado leading to operational inefficiencies when one of the aircraft was remaining alone. Add the fact that it was limited to 500Kg bombs and I would not describe typhoon performance as great despite all the communication effort toward potential export customers.
Palomeros is contradicted by sources from the CAOC, with regard to the relative availability of Typhoon/Rafale.
I don’t think he is unless you have a source to share. Past operational deployments of the rafale also showed excellent availibity rate. He also inderecty compared rafale footprint to the typhoon which was interesting in regard to the indian competition.
And Jane’s credits PW IV with proportional controls, not ‘bang-bang’.
The fundamental point is that Typhoon has had a dual mode Enhanced Paveway II for some years, Rafale is still waiting to get one. Typhoon has a helmet and a better LDP.
There is therefore at least one small part of the A-G mission where Typhoon is ahead.
I’ve seen no mention of proportional control from Raytheon. Why wouldn’t they mention it if it was so important in their commercial brochure. I fear you let your imagination being very creative.
I don’t see any realistic AtG mission profile where the typhoon is ahead. It has a better LDP indeed but with limited external fuel (0L with 6*LGB and an LDP) it is a very unpractical AtG platform with limited playtime on the battle field unless putting considerable constraint on the tanker fleet. If you take all parameters into accounts (weapons choice, payload, range, sensors) the rafale is still far ahread.
eagle1
eagle1Paveway IV is an Enhanced Paveway II kit* mounted on a UK bomb body and a UK fuse.
*including the optional hardened GPS receiver
The GBU-49 used by the Aeronavale has the same abilties (insensitive bomb body using the CBEMS and in-flight programmable fuse with the Junghans – ex TDA – FBM21 fuse) although it’s not integrated on the Rafale yet (but that’s a matter of months, the qualification trials are underway).
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities…s04_018951.pdf
According to Raytheon themselves, Paveway IV is referred as an “enhanced Paveway II DMLGB Lot 4”. As I said, it’s the same basic unit as any other EPWII, just modified to fit on English bombs.
And it doesn’t use proportionnal navigation BTW.
Thanks for the informative post Blue apple 🙂
That should clarify things and put an end to Lake BS. Most probably the GBU-49 and Paveway IV offer almost exactly the same capabilities with only the name and a few national specific items fitted. (A bit like SCALP vs storm shadows)
Sign In
