eagle1Scorpion,
It is perfectly normal than in a stand up conference you will not get as deep in the details, there is nothing shocking with that. The fact that he accepted several interviews in the open press his a proof of confidence.
I know that there were other DACT and I know at least another one who turned in favor of the rafale (dogfight and rafale M). And I got this info first hand from Benco two years ago. (yes I was formerly arthuro here to be transparent).
In a few weeks there is the new Paris Air-show. I have a professional permanent pass (with my firm) and other professional invitations from Thales and Dassault Aviation. I promise I will bring back plenty of nice pictures 🙂
eagle1Air&Cosmos is not always friendly to dassault to say the least. The issue reported was with the stom-shadow.
Now I bring the piece of info and its up to everyone to make an opinion.
eagle1It is more than just increment development. Just this week Air&Cosmos reveals that one of the reason that delay integration of heavier weapons on the typhoon (above financial restriction) is that the separation with the aircraft is problematic and risky. To overcome this issues a significant work must be done.
That clearly shows that some issues with the AtG role were not anticipated from the outset as explained in the quote from Pprune above.
eagle1It is overstretched to say the typhoon was designed as a multirole fighter. Or you have to set the standard very very low….There is an obvious hierarchy in what you can call multirole.
Here is an insight from someone who actually worked for the Typhoon program.
I joined the project just before the ESR-D was signed off and was involved in drafting specs (as an OR Rep) during the mid to late 80s. I left the project about the time you started work, although I became involved in testing later on. I struggle to recall any detailed discussion of the air to ground capability at all in my area on the defensive side of life during those early years. You would have known my colleague TB quite well as he did the similar job on the AI Sub System and you designed against his specs.
I maintain my line. The design driver was the air to air role. The secondary air to surface functionality was included but was subordinate when a conflict in requirement arose. There’s a good reason why it was not in the early sw releases. Germany, emphatically, did not even require an A-G capability to be tested during the early years. Air to air capability was paramount and incidentally, the Italian F104 was purely an air to air platform. As an aside, if our cost increases are bad, for the Italians add the price of a Tornado F3 lease and bizarrely, an F16 lease to tide them over. Remember the context. For air to ground roles, Germany had the F4 but at that time was not allowed to operate outside of its own airspace. Italy had the Tornado GR1 and Spain had bought the dual role F18. We had Jaguar, Harrier and Tornado GR1 so no one envisaged the secondary A-G capability as being anything other than for operational flexibility. In retrospect, it’s a good job that the UK “senior management” were indeed visionary and pressed the other Nations so hard but that’s not the point.
As for OT, all the original testing was purely A-A based. It was only in 2005 that the emphasis switched and even then only on a National basis.
As I wrote the scenarios for spec compliance for one of the other sub systems and then supported much of the operational testing I am confident that I am 100% correct.
So to answer your criticism, whilst I didn’t write the requirement, I was responsible for interpreting that requirement for MOD PE and Industry. I hope, therefore, that I wasn’t ill informed. If you interpreted those specs in any other way during development, it may be quite illuminating.
To reemphasise my original point, it is mischievous for NAO to criticise a project for not delivering a capability which was not part of the original ESR-D other than as a secondary role. The aircraft costs more because industry was employed for 10 years longer than planned and Nations cut their production numbers. It should come as no surprise that it has cost us as much for fewer aircraft because the Industry contracts branches were careful to include punitive termination clauses tied to workshare.
As an aside, it is our lack of corporate memory that allows such discussions to ensue.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/444353-typhoon-bargain-75-over-budget-2.html
eagle1Actually the new upgraded engine should be more efficient than the EJ2000 by a good margin. The new M88 (a 20% redesign) for the F3+ standard is at least a decade younger than the current EJ2000. France decided to go for reduced cost of ownership and more life span. It is less sensational than a thrust increase but for an airforce it is very good to take.
We should not forget that the development of these new M88 engines is done or almost done with prototypes currently flying and tested.
More efficient engines for the Rafale
Air&Cosmos 2228, july 23
By the year 2012, the Rafale should have engines with increased availability and reduced maintenance costs. Snecma is currently flight testing the M88-4E.
This new standard, previously called TCO Pack (for total cost of ownership ), has been tested in flight for the first time March 22 at Istres, on the CEV’s (Flight Test Center) Rafale MO2 (development aircraft).
Since then, more than 30 flights were performed on the 70 necessary for the qualification of this new standard. The goal of the standard-4E is to reduce the cost of ownership of the M88 jet engine and to have longer intervals between the inpectiuons of the main modules by increasing the lifetime of the hot and rotating parts. Snecma does not want to specify exactly how much the cost of ownership will be reduced, but it indicates that for some elements of the hot parts, it is possible to remove up to 3 inspections in their lifetime.Hot Parts
With this new evolution of the M88 , 20% of the engine is modified with improvements in the stator and rotor modules of the high pressure (HP) parts.
The six-floor HP compressor which had already undergone substantial modernization with the step 4 (M88-2 E4), adopts new rectifier, a new rear crankcase and a new improved material for his fifth disc.
The HP turbine receives new redesigned blades with increased cooling . Finally, the M88-4E has the same mass than the M88-2. “One of the requirements of this new standard is to be transparent from the perspective of the aircraft compared to the M88-2 standard”, explains Michel Caunes, Director of M88 Operations.
The first 25 flight tests allowed to test a first engine configuration, a mix between -2E and -4E standard. The second configuration, entirely 4E, was installed on the aircraft and is being tested for ten days. “The goal is to demonstrate that the engine installation is identical for the aircraft.” These tests validate the equivalence of all the parameters of the flight envelope.
Meanwhile a endurance campaign runs at the Saclay CEPr where the engine is pushed at its maximum. “One can thus calculate the maximum length of life” says Jerome Bonini, chief engineer of the M88 at Snecma.
Snecma expects a qualification of the M88-4E and the first shipments to Dassault for late 2011,. to enter service in 2012 in the French forces
The first equipped aircrafts will be the latest of the French tranche 3. Moreover, at the end of 2011, the M88-4E will be the only Snecma standard production, both for France and for export customers. It is expected that all the M88 in service will be put to this standard through the gradual introduction of -4E modules during maintenance operations.
“The modularity of the M88 allows this mix of standards,” said Michel Cannes.ECO
The first test bed of the M88-4E began in September 2009 and continued with a first campaign in a simulated altitude chamber at Saclay in last February.
The TCO pack program is based on a research, development and production contract notified in 2008 by the DGA. It consists in introducing a number of technological developments, studied and validated during the PEA (upstream study plan) ECO.Towards 9t thrust
The PEA ECO – which validated the developments of the TCO pack – had also helped to demonstrate the feasibility of an M88 with an increased thrust, from 7.5 to 9 t.
This more powerful M88, named M88-9 (formerly M88-X, cf. A&C No. 2181), is among the UAE specification as part of a possible purchase of the french fighter. Reportedly, the M88 should integrate a more powerful new LP compressor with a larger diameter in order to increase the flow of the engine from 65 kg/ to 72 kg/s.
The 3 floors of this module will be DAM (vaned monobloc disks). The compression ratio will be also increased in the proportions shown by the ECO program (including a compression ratio of 27).
eagle1First of all I am not saying that a rafale will always win in BVR, just that this encounter proved that the rafale has no complex vis a vis a Typhoon in the AtA arena (BVR and WVR) and that it has some nice tricks that should not be overlooked.
secondly as you rightly point out a media can be sometimes bias. But here the level of details prevent from making vague claims. The facts said in the interview are precise and accurate. So it is not really a matter of interpretation.
eagle1The fact that those encounters are used for marketing purpose is one thing, saying it is a lie is another.
When the rafale repeatedly dominate the typhoon in its own field (AtA) why would the AdA/dassault be silent and shameful about that ? Besides-perhaps it is a scoop for some…But the french press is independent. DSI and A&C are highly regarded aeronautic magazines that sometimes reports the bad news when something bad happen. Those are the same magazines that some quote to argue against the rafale (radar range story in the UAE) ! Talk about double standard !
eagle1I recall every details of all this story and he never changed his tune (or prove me otherwise with actual quote). What could arguably mislead you is that this story first erupted during a press conference so his words were sometimes changed according to journalists interpretation and the way they write the story. Or were you influenced by the rafale enthusiast that read between lines and asserted things before he clarified this event ?
He then made several interviews to give further details and I can ensure (unless you give me precise exemples) that there is no contradictions or change in tune. If you look captain romain’s view of the event it is also fully consistent.
As for the american there were no denial. They said the F22 was undefeated which is totally consistent with Grandclaudon’s claims. 5 draws and one loss against the F22. I agree they did not mention the mirage 2000-9 encounter but then of course it is the evil french that are the liars. (knowing that this event was covered in several independent specialized magazines). ANd of course it is known that the french have interests in the UAE and the american are innocent and candid with no interest in supporting their gear. The french are really evil.
The truth is that event while being obtained in specific circumstances (and circumstances are always specific as there is always a ROE) is significant enough to make a comparison and compare how the two aircrafts works.
eagle1You are wrong : there were F22 vs rafale encounter but in WVR only. Most encounters (six in total) ended with a draw except one loss for the rafale. The mirage 2000-9 vs F22 encounter was also widely reported in A&C and with other sources. (I’m sure other french poster will confirm that).
He did mention in the interview that british pilots were relatively less experienced but with a 2 vs 4 and fox one missile it is still a big performance.
PS : the idea that a squadron commander would lie in the open press in several occasion is just grotesque. He gave enough details to have a fair view of the strengths and weaknesses of both side. It is also grotesque to think that this kind of interview is needed to convince/influence the UAE air force as they simply have the first hand info. Lying would just be counterproductive.
eagle1I bought the magazine with grandclaudon interview and it was very coherent and well explained. Actually the quoted article just above come from DSI which came later.
I understand you don’t like the content but he did gave many details on the ROE and was never debunked in anyway. The fact that he supported the UAE sale is certainly true but that doesn’t mean he lied which would be stupid as the UAE observers know what really happened.
eagle1Just for reminder :
1) rafale vs Typhoon in UAE from Lcl Grandclaudon :
The Typhoon were inferiors.
Concurrently, November 16, the Rafale gave, according to the french pilot, a memorable beating to the RAF Typhoon – the most recent version – which were also deployed in the UAE for the ATLC. To put it bluntly, Lieutenant-Colonel Grandclaudon said the two air battles – battles with IR-guided missile and cannon – which opposed Rafale and Typhoon gave a score of 7 wins for the first and 0 for the second, the only Rafale considered as having been destroyed flew below the allowed flight floor ! Obviously this statement has immediately raised an outcry among British pilots, relayed by the media and the Anglo-Saxon specialized blogosphere, including claims that the Typhoon did not fly as such during the fighting, but simulated “red” attackers, MiG-29 and Su-27 in that case. So, the 1/7 Provence squadron leader made a point to recall that 2 of his Rafale were also”red chest” (MiG-29 index “Charlie”) when they shot down 4 “blue” Typhoon – flying as Typhoon – while being reduced to use virtual russians AA-10C missiles to be guided by the Rafale until the impact on their target, which forbade to shoot multiple targets at once . For Fabrice Grandclaudon, the limitations of the “red” plastron role don’t prevent a weapons system to show its real capabilities, because the pilots are taking advantage of the real human-machine interfaces and sensors on board, one of the Rafale has benefited from a refresh of its tactical situation by his teammate via Link-16. In other words, even if some of them simluated Su-27, the British pilots virtually shoot down were using the sensors and the avionics of their Typhoon and not those of a Su-27! And the french pilot to recognize, with great sportsmanship, that the Typhoon pilots who had been opposed to the Rafale the week preceding the ATLC were young and relatively inexperienced, as the French already benefits from lessons learned from 3 operational detachments in Afghanistan (one year of presence in all) and 4 of its pilots had participated in Red Flag 2008.
Some advantages that make the difference.
However, he heavily emphasized the performance of the french system in the field of arms data fusion, from his point of view the main reason of the superiority obtained. Instead of each sensor to display its studs (aircraft detected) on a specific screen, forcing the Typhoon pilot to operate an intellectual gymnastics , annoying in combat stress, to check if the plot of its corresponding screen of electronic warfare was or was not the one visible on the radar screen or IRST, the Rafale’s systems present to the pilot a single plot on a screen, the system automatically compares the plots provided by the various sensors on board and decides if it is or not the same plane. The french pilots have also appreciated the agility of the antenna of the electronic RBE2 radar – The Typhoon has for now only a mechanical antenna – allowing to refresh the situation in the whole volume monitored. But they insist, for close combat, on the perfect controllability of their Rafale, thanks to the excellence of FBW, to the extreme limits of the flight envelope.. To point the nose toward the target and to design it to the weapons system in the absence of a viewfinder-HMD while operating at very low speed. What are not necessarily capable of the main opponents of the Rafale …
Well obviously, one should not rejoice in excess. The extremely positive results of these meetings have been obtained in special circumstances. The pilots had been set specific roles by the commander of the COMAO device and were therefore not free to exploit in depth all the potentials of their weapons system. The results have been different perhaps in other circumstances (nevertheless, some time ago, another meeting between Typhoon and Rafale, in Corsica, was also turned into “massacre” at the expense of the first 8 losses to 0 ). But, simply put, the EC 1 / 7 pilots are particularly satisfied with their stay in UAE. Their demonstration has , aptly, made a strong buzz [noise] among the aviators of the region and troubled the Anglo-Saxons until now convinced of the utter superiority of their planes. A disturbance also compounded by the loss – virtual of course – of an F-22 gun shot by an UAE Mirage 2000-9 flown, this time, by a French experimented pilot. Really, when everything goes wrong … P
2) rafale vs Typhoon from captain Romain :
Let’s talk now about the results of this exercise. Your squadron commander speaks of ” to have put sheets” to the British participants equipped with Eurofighter with a ratio of 7 victories for 1 defeat, with degraded armament on the side of the Rafale. What is called degraded armament and which were the rules of engagement?
During an ATLC engagement, 2 Rafale engaged, using their whole system but simulating a weapon that requires taking more risk than normal, 4 Eurofighter. The 2 Rafale killed the 4 Typhoon which used all their normal capacities, without loss.
The rules of engagement were “beyond visual range”.
(For the experts, the Rafale had then simulated the use of a semi-active missile while the missile normally used by the Rafale is an active missile, which allows to take cover more quickly after a shot.)What are the differences between the two weapon systems, whether in terms of sensors and situation awareness for the pilot?
All have always dreamed of hundreds of Mirage F1 and Mirage 2000 pilots became reality in the Rafale. It is the result of a long common adventure between Dassault and the French Air Force. The Rafale is the culmination of decades of experience in military aviation.
Finally, the Rafale fighter is a very complete aircraft:
The rafale is extremely maneuvering and thus awesome in dogfight. For example, confronted with a Eurofighter, engaged in a within visual range combat with a neck to neck start, we know we need a few dozens of seconds to validate a ‘gun kill’.
In BVR air combat (beyond visual range, ie at ranges of several dozens of kilometers), the Rafale system provides synthetic information coming from multiple sensors. This information is therefore more accurate. We can do without 1 or 2 sensors during a whole combat while remaining extremely dangerous for the enemy. This gives us access to new tactics of particular interest.
And with an greater extension than the previous generation aircraft, the Rafale carries twice more air-ground weapons.
The AASM, the new auto-powered GPS French bomb, gives a Rafale the ability to replace several Mirage while being more efficient and taking less risk.
The Eurofighter is a plane built for aerial combat and it fares worse than the Rafale, which is a versatile aircraft (air combat, bombing, reconnaissance).
Cne Romain:
The Rafale merges the informations coming from its sensors to give a very reliable and clear picture to the pilot. It’s already a considerable advantage over previous-generation aircraft, including EF and Gripen. When the pilot decides to fire a air to air missile, the missile leaves the aircraft taking automatically into account all available informations.
When the radar is not used, the missile can use the OSF (a TV camera coupled with a laser rangefinder), the informations provided by another aircraft via the MIDS, a heat source detected by the OSF or a MICA IR, or finally a localization by SPECTRA. Faced with these sensors, stealth is useless and we know, thanks to our tests ,that our missiles are very effective in such context.
eagle1No mistake made,
These remarks were made from visits in the mki aircraft on the ground with indian comments and seeing how it works. French pilots were perfectly aware that they did not have a link16 datalink to communicate with AWACS. Nevertheless that was there analysis. The Mki has a big powerful sensor with its radar but the weapon system architecture is from an older generation thus makes it more work intensive. The scope of this analysis went beyond the specific red flag event.
eagle1rafale vs mig 29 is a joke. The 29 is two leagues behind. In terms of sensor integration, sensor fusion, sensor technology, EW…the mig is dropped completely. Having talked to rafale pilots in Paris two years ago who did red flag with the indians, even the Mki is quite far behind in this regard. The level of situation awarness is totally different. The mig and the sukhoi are pretty work intensive while with the rafale you can grasp the tactical situation in just one look. That the fundamental difference with those platform. Talking only about radar size is just over simplistic.
eagle1Jangbogo,
Without offence intended I think you don’t really know what you speaking about.
The rafale doesn’t suffer any lack of trust to weight ratio : 1) it already proved to be vastly superior in dogfight against all the competition which tells a lot on it trust/response engine performance and aerodynamics 2) it can carry more weapons than it weight and actually more than the rest of the competition. 3) It demonstrated super-cruise capability with 1 supersonic drop tank and 4 AAM in operational condition (and that was with a rafale M, the heaviest rafale in the hand of Lcl Prazuck from the french navy). 5) All reports/test flight say otherwise. Just read Petter Collins flight test on flight global or shiv Aroov flight on the rafale (the last actually felt that the rafale was the most powerful aircraft he flown among the mmrca contender).
Radar, your point of view is over simplistic. Having talk to several rafale pilots, this is not a matter of concern as long that you have sufficient range to support your weapons in their envelop. Rafale relies heaviliy on passive detection and third party targeting to elaborate surprising tactics. This tactic already proved to be successful in the UAE against the bigger radar section typhoon.
Last but not least I would like to point out that Pepe rezende (member of the brazilian defence committee) was actually right on many points regarding the MMRCA competition. Now look again at the details he gave on the performance of the rafale in the competition in Brazil (stealth, EW etc). If this is indeed true no wonder the rafale ended top in the MMRCA competition.
Also remember that the two aircraft that failed in the test at Leh are the SH and… the Mig-35…Which is according to you (and I think this is wrong) has a better TW ratio.
eagle1A new roadmap to further increase rbe2 aesa capabilities is awaited at the end of the year. (source : air et cosmos). We Will know more in a few monthes. I bet they will take the indian competition into account to keep the lead…
Sign In
