Jackoniko,

The paveway IV offer nothing exceptional over a GBU-49 except minor improvements in flight envelop. Nothing revolutionary nor game changing. Fusing options already exist even for the vanilla Paveway II and it is widely used in Afghanistan by the french air force. Whether it is selectable in cockpit I am not sure. Speaking of “seismic shift” or “game changer” is simply your own delirium.

I fully stand behind scorpion’s comment :

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. PW IV doesn’t reflect a huge quantum leap in capabilities in comparison to EPW II, but offers advantages. GBU-48 definitely offers cockpit selectable fuze options as well, so it’s not to far strethed that GBU-49 offers it as well. Whether fuzes are cockpit selectable might not be a given in any case and PW IV may offer a serious range advantage due to its improve aerodynamics and flight profiles plus variable angle of impact (like AASM).

I am not denying that the paveway IV offer some advantages albeit nothing extraordinary but to speek of “seismic shift” is grossly exaggerated. A slightly improved flight envelop (slightly because it is still a gravity bomb) is not what I call a game changer but rather a simple improvement or incremental iteration.

I consider it to be a great weapon (especially the triple carriage option), and for the stand off capability it allows to be really useful. But it’s still a GPS guided weapon for now, albeit with IIR terminal guidance coming on, and with laser terminal homing promised. And if you don’t need to stand off, then you can’t yet fire an AASM to ‘corkscrew’ onto a target from above…..

The IR version of AASM is fully operational now and was used in Libya just before being officialy declared operational for the rafale. The laser version is expected to be in service in 2013 if I am not mistaken. The GBU-49 should be integrated on the rafale as we speek or very close to full integration.

But nonetheless adequate for Typhoon to routinely fly eight hour missions.

At the expense of extensive in flight refueling which is hardly efficient. Just like using 500Kg bombs often in urban environment against vehicles is not what I would call efficient. The typhoon was often used in pair with the tornado rather than a stand alone asset which is also not very efficient.

Today the rafale is both more efficient and more performant in AtG duties by quite a significant margin. Especially when you put everything together.

It did all that was asked or expected of it, and more, and did so with a higher availability rate than Rafale.

According to General Palomeros the rafale had an 95% availability rate with the rest of the older feet and it was less maintenance extensive than the competition (ie the typhoon in opposition to the gripen) which close to be has good as you can get. Beyond that it is simply impossible to know as no one was here to directly compare.

General Palomeros: “The Rafale is the best aircraft in the world”
France Soir , Feb 1

EXCLUSIVE. By the time New Delhi has selected the Rafale, General Jean-Paul Palomeros, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, told France-Soir in what the French intervention in Libya has demonstrated the qualities of the aircraft to potential buyers.

F-S: Is Operation Harmattan, Libya – during which the Rafale was involved – has played a decisive role in this export success?

General Jean-Paul Palomeros: It is clear that the success of the Air Force and the Rafale during Harmattan were studied by every army in the world. My counterparts in other countries want to talk with me. They are surprised that we were able to send the Rafale as quickly to perform all types of missions. This was a demonstration of the versatility of the aircraft.

F.-S. Can you elaborate on these missions?

J. Gal-PP: We had to both impose a flight ban over Libya, help ground forces against Gaddafi who were at the gates of Benghazi and obtain information on enemy military plan. On March 19, 2011, from the first patrol, these three objectives were achieved. In addition to the imposition of the no flight zone, we used our arms of precision and fed our data for the following tasks. Thanxs to its warning and protective ground/air systems, the Rafale was able to intervene without destroying in advance all the Libyan anti-aircraft facilities, including missiles ramps which for us was the most worrying threat.

F.-S. You have been directly involved in negotiations to sell the Rafale with the Indian authorities. What was your role alongside engineers, commercial and political and French?

J. Gal-PP: I play my role as Chief of Staff. The partnership with the Indian army is old. For years, we do exercises with the Indian Air Force (IAF) which uses Mirage 2000 an aircraft very much appreciated in its ranks. My role is that this relationship is maintained at the highest level, by promoting the qualities of our equipements and those of the training of our pilots.

F.-S. And for the Rafale, specifically?

J. Gal-PP: to show the operational qualities of the aircraft, its benefits in terms of availability and maintenance. The availability of the fleet is the responsibility of the Chief of Staff. It was 95% during Operation Harmattan. In this area, France has set a high bar. To maintain a Rafale continuously, we need seven or eight mechanics. For some of our competitors is almost twice. The cost of maintenance of the aircraft is thereby reduced. It was one of the essential criteria incorporated into the design of the aircraft.

F.-S. What is this sale going to change for the Air Force?

Gal J.-PP The main interest for us is to work with the armed forces of friendly countries which have the same weapons systems than ours. The Indian Air Force will bring us an original feedback that will allow us to develop the capacity of the unit. That’s what happened with the crews of Qatari Mirages that participated with us in operations in Libya. Finally,by increasing the numbers, it will reduce production costs and maintenance. Yesterday, one explained that the Rafale was very expensive. He has demonstrated today that he is probably the best aircraft in the world and in the end, it is not expensive.

Paveway IV is a dual mode bomb, sure, but with better aerodynamics, better flight performance, better accuracy, more flexible targeting and advanced fusing options.

It’s a generational leap ahead of Enhanced Paveway II.

RAF Typhoon aircrew have already done end-to-end designated drops of Paveway IV, which comes in with P1EA and did so many, many months before Rafale dropped an EPWII. Typhoon first flew with Paveway IV in 2008….

Rafale still doesn’t have Enhanced Paveway II (EPWII).

Typhoon used EPWII in action in Libya, and has been using it for years.

Typhoon has been self designating LGBs for rather longer than Rafale.

Rafale is most certainly NOT getting a cheap all weather bomb before the Typhoon. Typhoon has had the weapon you’re waiting for for some time. And in fact, Typhoon will have the next gen Paveway before Rafale has the last generation weapon.

And I’ll bet that the Saudis have AASM on Typhoon before the French have Brimstone on Rafale.

I am not saying that there isn’t any difference between the GBU-49 and Pavway IV, just that those differences are rather minor and nothing like a game changer. Not like jumping from an AIM7 sparrow to an amram for instance. This is no mystery as it remains a gravity bomb after all. So as they have the same GPS/INS/LASER guidance type you won’t have plenty of other parameters to play on a gravity bomb. There is no generation gap at all but just a few improvements.

Besides the rafale does just fine with the gbu-12 and for better trajectory optimization there is the option of the GBU22 available.

And if really you need max performance the rafale has the AASM option so you are going to be more performant when you need performance and cheaper when you need to be cheap. All in all the rafale will be more efficient whatever the situation.

You’re joking.

Paveway IV does things that Paveway II can’t. It does things that even Paveway II Plus (Frankenbomb) could never do.

It’s a MUCH bigger step change in capability than Paveway III was over Paveway II.

It has proportional, not ‘bang-bang’ guidance, so flies more efficiently and can use a narrower ‘basket’.

It can be programmed to attack targets from any direction.

It has a very wide range of fusing options, all selectable from the cockpit, enabling effect to be very precisely tailored.

GBU-49 is already old hat.

Paveway IV is the weapon of the future.

Much of the reason that Tornado was more important in Libya than Typhoon was that it carried Paveway IV, instead of PWII/EPWII.

The RAF aren’t even bothering integrating Paveway II and Enhanced Paveway II on P1E Typhoon.

What’s the source for GBU-49 being integrated now? My notes say that it is part of the ‘roadmap’ post F3 O4T.

That’s what I said there is no significant capability gap but merely optimizations and a few improvements. It is still a LGB/INS/GPS like the GBU-49.

as for rafale GBU-49 integration it was A&C that reported it is curently being integrated (I get it every week). It was also reported by Kovy and Olybrius :

Air & Cosmos has published several articles entitled “How is Dassault preparing ?” We can learn that the integration of the GBU-49 is underway, requested by the Marine Nationale.

http://rafalenews.blogspot.fr/2012/03/3-weeks-in-one-post.html

GBU 49 on Rafale:
Requested by the Navy, the integration of GPS/Laser guided bomb GBU 49 is underway with the first launch test planned in the very next day. The aim is to use this weapon, already acquired for Mirage 2000 and SEM, on all Rafale

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?137433-Rafale-News/page229

So the rafale is getting a cheap all weather bomb before the Typhoon. Just waiting for brimstone and it will have a pretty comprehensive AtG weapon suit…

I can – even for some EF partner nations, just as soon as you look at ops that might be conducted outside a coalition environment. The proliferation of advanced ‘Flankers’, MiG-29s and F-16s could very easily produce a scenario where the highest possible kill:loss ratio would be of vital import, and where knocking the enemy off at the longest possible range would be advantageous.

Even within a coalition effort, if the USAF are unable or unwilling to deploy F-22s, Typhoon’s capabilities suddenly become very relevant.

Which country do you think of more precisely for partner nation ? As for india if the Typhoon advantage was so great they would have selected it but they didn’t.

As far as the gripen is concerned it is quite limited in terms of range and payload. If you start to hang some weapons there is little room left for external fuel and little practical range is left. The impact of performance is also greater. An F16 would be the minimum appropriate size for a first line fighter jet if you want to have an impact.

If cost effective, all weather, non-stand-off PGM missions are the task, you could therefore say that Typhoon is better here and now.

In future, P1E will give Typhoon Paveway IV. Paveway IV is a weapon with fusing options that AASM doesn’t have, and that costs a fraction of the price.

Gbu-12 and now GBU-49 are available for the rafale so in terms of cost effectiveness the rafale hasn’t anything to envy to the typhoon. One parameter you are overlooking is that with 3*2000L and 6 LGB the rarale is much less asking for tankers which is a considerable economy.

Indeed Nic,

The fundamental assessment mistake from Lake is its over focus on AtA performance which is over-simplistic and even childish.

Any design is a compromise between thrust to weight ratio, range, payload, stealth and maneuverability. Depending on initial priority the performance “mix” will be different.

The real question is what is the most appropriate performance mix to face the threat that Britain, France or other Nato countries are facing ?

The typhoon certainly offer excellent kinetic performance but at the detriment of range and payload hampering its intrinsic multirole performance. certainly there is room for improvement but even developed it will still have limitations compared to the rafale.

The rafale on its side is certainly an intrinsic more versatile platform (range & payload layout) and has even a naval version available. In short it offer more useful capability for the real battle fields that NATO countries are currently facing. And that what’s count !! Not imaginary scenarios. You can add that having one fighter type for your airforce and navy add to the rafale value.

Lake is still living in a cold war mindset and epic one on one duels which is a flawed approach of modern military aviation, hence the over-focus on AtA performance letting aside the fact that the typhoon has yet to prove clearly its superiority in this area.

Sorry scorpion I misunderstood you at the end of your post. I was indeed answering specifically on the Solenzara event.

Well even if you are lacking any basic sense of reality…I would remind that :

1) A&C state that they are far from beginner (re-read the report on previous page)
2) all pilots looks way too old to be rookies. I have the original picture no doubt possible.

everything put together and there is not a single doubt remaining as far as pilot experience is concerned.

next answer for latter

When 2 training squadrons meet, why should they not bring their students? Operational flying is not something out of a top-gun movie.

the students in question are just learning how to fly and land the typhoon and the rafale. They are not yet ready for this kind of demanding dogfights. As simple as that. Transformational squadron is mostly about learning how to fly a fighter jet. Once you join your operational squadron they will teach you how to become an “operational” fighter pilot which take generally a full year. It’s a bit like asking a young student learning to read, count and write to take a very difficult exam for instance. And even then this “student” would not be risking his life and his aircraft.

Besides it is clear that the british and french pilots are too old to be rookies.