LindermyerI could have sworn that ive read Taranis has flown, was either stateside of oz.
Of course i could be confusing Taranis with another Bae project.
LindermyerSnafu
Sorry should have been clearer I meant that I think the Tiffy will be a better defensive aircraft than the F35.
Mr Malaya
“Dact Proves nothing”
My signiture for the Sarm Accord
LindermyerWhat if the “weaknesses” are not weaknesses and “strengths” not strengths for the users intended deployment of the Rafale and vice versa for the Typhoon?
Completely agree and my point exactly although perhaps better put, extrapolating the best aircraft from a test, a competition etc is meaning less because the winner is best fit.
For example the Japanese if they were not to go US (fat chance) should have gone with the Typhoon as it offers the best pure a2a performance (F22 ignored) which is the primary mission they require with potential for shipping and land strike in the future.
I agree (and not because im a Fanboy) I do think that the Typhoon will be the better Defensive Air fighter.
Am I right in my recollection that Dassault didnt bid because they believed the winner would be american regardless
Lindermyerperhaps its time to boycott Ryan air, until they dismiss the odious man
LindermyerSome typhoon fanboys like Jackoniko are pretending that the other side of the debate can’t accept strength and weaknesses of both aircrafts.
With the exception of dare2 this argument is only a lame attempt to discredit the otherside of the debate.
add mildave to that list and a couple of others but I agree most posters in both camps are prepared to accept both have pluses and minuses.
1)Let’s start with aircraft design leaving aside the “sensors and EW stuff”
Certainly the typhoon offer better kinetics due to a very healthy trust to weight ratio…But on the other hand the rafale offers more range and payload and its own kinetic performance is far from lacking so it is all about design priorities
with the bold Couldnt agree more, if only a few other individuals would accept that different decisions (long Coupled canards, or a smaller nose /fixed probe) are not Glaring errors or poor decisions or stupid choices or poor design work they are the results of comprimises based on the priorities.
Starting from this observation and recognizing each design its “strengths and weaknesses” I believe the rafale design is much more relevant and balanced operationally unless you want to replay the battle of England with a high intensity BVR scenario with a symmetric enemy which is very unlikely especially when you belong to NATO.
I think youre being a bit over simplistic, but at this point in time I agree, and that is hurting typhoon in the export market, again as the a2G comes on line Typhoon will become more relevant as an all rounder.
Rafale will I suspect always be a better striker, but hey thats what the F35 is for (eventually)
The rafale is currently offering a much better value over real battlefield than the Typhoon and that is unlikely to change for many years. Agreed
The risk is that if the typhoon will eventually get all the necessary capabilities it will be too late to be regarded as a successful aircraft.
I agree with the gist of what your saying, but i dont think it is a real risk
1) The RAF need those upgrades so they will happen
2) EF will be licking there wounds after India and realising that its no good waiting for customers to pay for this they need to do at least some of it off there own back.Ironically where many people are saying that india could be the death knell for tiffy upgrades, I think it may spure them on
2) Sensor end EW :
Like it was stated by several posters already many typhoon myths that often had a single origin (Namely Jon Lake) are now failing apart.
The case in point was the rafale sensor suite including its PESA radar that gained Swiss praise unlike its competitor. I don’t buy the simple software issue. This might be a cause but there is no certitude about it despite the fact that some wants to reassure themselves. That’s only speculation.
The better sensor fusion and SA advantage is also consistent with grandclaudon’s claim and that of Captain Romain who both stated that was a winning advantage versus the typhoon.
All in all any Typhoon “strengths” seem too marginal to gain any clear edge even in the AtA arena.
I think it depends on the flight regime I suspect both have distinct advantages in different regimes. but overall there probably not much in it
Modern aircrafts have to be considered as a system. You can’t only focus on one aspect of its performance. While anyone can understand and accept each aircraft “strengths and weaknesses”, that does not prevent anyone to have an opinion on an aircraft as a whole and there is nothing reprehensible about that.
The argument that the French posters can’t accept each aircraft strengths and weaknesses are simply untrue and hypocrite with the notable exception of Dare2. It is also funny to see Jon Lake pretending having “facts” when most of his myths are more than seriously challenged.
Im assuming by Jon Lake you mean jackinocko, It is also fair to say that some of his Facts that are constantly reffered to as myths are actually facts but a couple of posters wont accept this.
Others are perhaps not yet undisputed facts but do make sense see 2)
But yes some perhaps need substantiating (which he may be able to do)Examples to the above (and i will use my favourites)
1)A2G was not an afterthought and was allways planned, this is constantly refuted by individualls but it is a Fact.2)Typhoons AESA will have superiour performance to Rafales. Unfair to call this Fact cast in stone, but it is entirely probable that this will be the case simply owing to the physics of the larger antenna.
3) typhoons aesa is based on a better design and yes that needs substantiating.
It does sometimes appear there is a witch hunt against Jackinocko – I dont know the history of why.
Edit
Nic 10
If your definition is to cross the sound barrier in military power, then I don’t know if the Rafale can do it. Maybe the typhoon can, but it would be much more fuel efficient to use afterburner to go over mach 1 and turn it off once out of transonic region.
I believe Typhoon can but like F22 and concorde usually uses ABs as this is more economical.
Lindermyer… and that is exactly why I want the French leading the design!
Look at the current mess the RAF finds itself in.
– Needed to replace, or rather find a substitute for the capabilities offered by, the Jaguar.
Typhoon has allways been the Jaguar replacement, typhoons late and Jaguar went early hence the gap.– Need to replace Tornado GR4 in the near future.
The RAF allways intended (with good reason) to operate a 2/3 type fast jet fleet, The Rafale is not a good fit for a Tornado replacement when looking to the future, the F35 will be a better choice–Need to acquire naval CATOBAR capability.
Catobar was a major reason for the split and to be fair neither the RN ever expected to be CATOBAR again, that requirement is less than 12 months old, but had the projects stayed together it may have been convinient if only until the F35 comes online.
The Eurofighter has difficulty fulfilling both these due to poor design requirements – oh, but look, the Rafale can perform both roles very well.
The Typhoons problems do not relate to poor requirements but poor managment and funding, and it will fulfil the specified requirements. .
If the UK had built the Rafale instead of the Eurofighter, we’d have already saved ourselves a bucketload of money and problems in interim upgrades to GR4s and in throwing funds at a money pit (F-35).
Disagree the RAF would still have wanted F35 as the penetration aircraft looking to the future.
You are too stubborn to realise the French are significantly better at gazing through the crystal ball than us. Hopefully those running this UAV program aren’t as shortsighted.
I agree with alot of your points regarding project structure etc so I am posting where i disagree with youre assessment, Ive lost where it was posted and by who
,but to the suggestion that the RAF should have bought the F15 which is what was wanted.
1) The F14 and F15 were both considered by the RAF but they Got the Tornado F3
2) F15 was not considered for SR(a)414 which led to the typhoon, particuarly as the design is getting long in the tooth, would fail to meet any requirements regarding RCS and would be entering service at a time where our principle ally was withdrawing the type (only with the benifit of hindsight do we know the F22 production was cut short.
F15 was probably to big for use as a jaguar replacement
LindermyerFrench press (esp leftist) tries to undermine everything that’s related to France independance and sovereignty. Some jump at the Rafale program and call it a failure many times because it’s expensive and didn’t sell abroad. They don’t mind that France is a sovereign state. They wish France was just a region of a woldwide socialist country.
Nic
we have the same problem this side of the channel
In fact if you look at how the media behaves its almost synomenous with this side of the atlantic
Lindermyerpretty much all official representatives, PA’s etc.
LindermyerDon’t expect anyone break his legs to provide data if the other side scores with arguments “Captor-M is so much better than RBE2 because I say so and no Swiss tech eval saying the opposite can make me change my mind”.
Here to few claims which were presented and repeated by the Typhoon gang, for years taken for granted, without any evidence..
Typhoon is second only in the A-A performer after the F-22 –> put in doubt
Unfortunatly this sprung from Joust which was Typhoon/meteor not typhoon fanboys have used this to make there points since.
I think its fair to say Rafale doesnt want to meet a Tiffy up high and a Typhoon would be unwise to get low and slow with Rafale.Typhoon’s MMI is more advanced –> disconfirmed subjective
Typhoon’s radar is much better (even if mechanical) –> disproven
Typhoon’s DASS is superior to anything except ALR-94 –> rebuted
Typhoon has unmatched hi-speed maneuvrability –> proven right
Typhoon has better acceleration –> confirmed
Typhoon is much cheaper –> proven wrong several times, it is not much cheaper, it is not even cheaper, at all
Typhoon has bright future with full order books while the Rafale is an eternal loser –> so far looks seriously challengedNote that you don’t see me claim “Rafale’s AESA will be so much better” or “Rafale will beat the sh!t out of Tyffie in outselling it” but the endless BS myths about the EF have to be put to stop, finally.
You dont see me making similar claims either,
but the endless BS myths about the EF have to be put to stop, finally Completely agree
But the endless BS myths about how poor the EF / insert system is have to be put to stop and the endless BS about the Rafale (pro and anti) also has to stop.
P.S before its misconstrued
I agree with the view that the Typhoons AESA will probably have superior performance, however I make no claims of superior technology or processing. i simply refer to the advantages a larger antenna will bring.
LindermyerSome puzzling things in the first leak:
1. in figure 2.4 all three candidates score very low on “Data dissemination”; what is meant by “data dissemination”, and why would all 3 score so low!?
Obviously i have no idea but Perhaps because non are as yet linked into the swiss data sharing network
2. Same figure: Why do all 3 score so low on “identification” compared to the the F18? How do the Swiss do Identification?3. It is said that the Swiss F18 was used as a benchmark. How come then that even the Rafale has “endurance/AAR/loiter time” that is not better than the old F18? I thought endurance and range was one of the strong points of the Rafale?
Does seem odd but perhaps it was evaluated on a nominal fuel load not full internal and external.
4. Why on earth is the Typhoon scoring so low on the QRA? And why is the Rafale scoring so high compared to the Typhoon? Any thoughts?Perhaps the Typhoon takes longer to start up, or perhaps when the evaluation was done there were issues with Typhoon servicability so more aircraft would be required hence a lower score.
I am also wondering what they mean by “QRA”; naively I would have thought that subtasks like detection and identification could be part of the QRA subtask, but it seems they have a different definition?
The problem is nobody knows how the tests were evaluated, also more recent evaluations/ assesments may have given different results which is why grippen was selected but apears to be unsuitable in the leaked report.
To many people look at a Dact result or a press release or a competition winner and say “look this Proves X is better than Y” when in fact without context it means nothing.
Grippen Was more suitable for the swiss
Rafale is more suitable for the indians
Typhoon may well be more Suitable for another customer.
certain individuals need to under stant that best fit does not necaserilly mean best aircraft.And before it gets mentioned i think we all agree Typhoon has lost competitions because of the lack of A2G integration.
LindermyerAmiga perhaps use of the term prime contractor rather than project leader could assuage egos.
LindermyerThere will not be a Naval Typhoon, nobody really believes that to be a good idea.
As for costs well initial estimates are probably a 1/3rd what rafale M costs.
However strengthening will be more complicated than origionally envisaged so double that figure.
Stobar is worst of both so attempts to make it CATOBAR will double the previous figure.Add the previous 2 together to revert to Stobar.
After which it will either be cancelled or we will buy 6.
LindermyerAbout the NH90 floor weakness, i believe this is also the case with the EH101. I remember a brief talking i had with a FAP Merlin pilot back in 2006 about the subject and he confirmed the Merlin’s floor can’t stand much weight concentrated in a small space. That’s why they have signs forbidding women in high heels entering Merlins open to public during events:
Abraços
No composite aircraft floor likes high heels and as such are often banned on bare flooring when the aircraft are on maintenance (company reps, office staff VIPs etc, obviously not the engineers – well not usually).
I hadnt heard of any merlin floor problems in service (not to say there hasnt been) from my various contacts at wastelands.
I was under the impression that the floor issue on the NH90 was resolved some time back, is this not the case or did the origional fix not work.
LindermyerQuote:
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
The idea that the supposedly short life of T1 aircraft makes the Typhoon price invalid is simply infantile and stupid.
You’ve a problem differentiating between you personal opinion and facts.
As do many people including youreself
At the end of the day weather the T1 still has potential in them or not doesn’t matter much. The fact is that as of today, the RAF is planning on retiring them between 2015 and 2018. If they go through with such a measure then the price of acquiring Typhoon T1 cannot be compared with any other jet that will be used over a much longer period of time.
Should you not apply that to the F1 Rafale then as well
But You
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
In any case, the supposed obsolescence centres around the processors, which can easily and cheaply be replaced, and a Tranche 1 > Tranche 2 conversion is possible, practical, and has been undertaken on a number of aircraft in the test fleet, and was planned (free of charge) for Austria when Austria was due to take a mix of T1 and T2 jets.
Until you kindly provide us with any “official” info backing up your claim, that’s your opinion. Because an M2k was used as test bed for many of the Rafale electronics doesn’t mean you can upgrade an M2K fleet with them at a technical and cost effective way.
I would suspect that if it was planned to upgrade austrian T1s to T2s then there is no reason RAF ones cannot be upgraded, this is certainly indicative that Jacinocko is correct here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
(Indeed the T1 to T2 conversion is a great deal more practical and viable than a Rafale F1 upgrade, as the Aéronavale is finding out).
Personal opinion.
I offer no opinion I do not know and nor do you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
The idea that T1 jets are going to be thrown away in 2018 because they are no longer fit for purpose is, frankly, risible and beneath contempt. The fact is (and the RAF do not want to hear this, fearful that their tiny T3 allocation will vanish) that the Tranche 1 jets remain fully viable, and upgrading them would be a cost effective solution.
I don’t know if they’ll no longer be fit for purpose, but fact is the RAF is actually planning to get rid of them. Rumours has it, Spain is discussing with an potential buyer in South America (well rumours are usually not very serious but still). The RAF already gave away some of theirs to SA, and Germany to Austria. I’m keeping an eye in SA to know more about how upgradable these variant really are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
As to air-to-ground, it’s simple, though some of you knuckleheads seem incapable of grasping it.
1) It is entirely normal and routine for aircraft to enter service with only a portion of their planned capabilities, and indeed operating in only one of their planned roles. Look at the F1 Rafale Ms. Look at the later introduction of LGBs on AdlA Rafales.
2) It was always planned that Typhoon would enter service in the air-to-air role and that this would be the FOC standard. All Typhoon operators had a more urgent need for air defence aircraft than for air-to-ground, since there was a fleet of F-104, F-4, Mirage F1 and Tornado F3 fighters to replace, but there were Tornado IDS, F/A-18 and other types able to fulfill the air-to-ground role, at least in the short-to-medium term. It was always planned that in the 2012 timeframe, Tranche 2 jets would start to introduce elements of the planned air-to-ground capability at EOC. That work is proceeding according to plan under P1E/CP210. The RAF brought forward its own Air-to-Ground capability under CP193.
Yeah, I’m still waiting for any as official as possible statement about all the wonderful thing you said. Statement 1 is moot.
You’re saying a general statement that nobody contest, and then you add your own opinion. Example: the sky is blue, the sea is blue, black matter is blue. You hope to convey consensus since everybody will agree on the first to assumption, but very few could say whether the last is true or not. Journalistic maybe, scientific ? Certainly not.
Point 2 isnt personal opinion or journalistic, why can you not comprehend the typhoon was allways supposed to have a2G abilities, but A2A was priority and A2G has been (sales wise fatally delayed). :[/COLOR]
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
The reason that Captor-E will be better than RBE-2AA is that it has:
1) A bigger antenna and more power
2) It’s newer, and benefits from all of the increases in processor power and speed that Moore’s Law describes
3) It has a repositioner that removes all of the very real disadvantages that a conventional AESA has, dramatically increasing range off boresight.
4) It’s also based on a better radar in the first place.
Point and case:
1)True.
2)False. How do you know its false, it is entirely probable if it is based on newer technology
3)True. But not all the truth is to be find here. Off boresight can be compensated by other technologies (see F-22).
Agreed but the F22 is yet to get its Cheeks, and not all aircraft will have that capability so generally speaking its an advantage
4)False. And utterly based on your opinion. Again you have no intimate knowledge of the system so you cannot say its false, it could well be based on a better Radar II am not familliar with the 2 systems. You can however point out its only Jackinockos opinion unless he can validate the statementQuote:
:
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
You are also incapable of understanding that some public documents may be flawed, or give only a partial picture, and that they need to be interpreted with expert understanding, and via clarifications obtained via FOIA and other mechanisms. It’s not a matter of ‘twisting’, it’s a matter of explaining and putting in context – as TMor has endeavoured to explain the conflicting and contradictory figures emanating from different sources when it comes to Rafale pricing.
According to you all public documents in the UK are flawed except your opinion…
No the man said some are flawed, some require clarification and some are not representitive of all the facts, a point Tmor has also made.
[COLOR=”blue”]Again you are displaying an inability to comprehend any fact that doesnt fit youre hypothosis, inconvinient facts are branded false, that is in effect you accuse people of lying.
I point out the latter because that may not be youre intent but it is the way it appears sometimes. COLOR]
Lindermyer@Lindermyer
The cooperation on ASW is because Britain scrapped it’s Nimrod, so actually France is probably taking the lead there. Interestingly, Britain is “exporting” UAVs to France (simplification), not the other way around.
There is the more immediate cooperation of assets and also future design and development discussed in the press release.
I was refering to the mooted Submarine/ Sonar/ USV development, which obviously will have nothing to do with nimrods retirement.
Re the nimrod I suspect P8 will be bought a few years down the line.
Sign In
