redreidyThat’s what you think.
I really don’t know what we can get which would be more concrete that pilots’ testimony, reported at several occasions (official press conference and private interview) by several newspapers not even all french.
Of course, we could have Typhoon pilots acknowledging that they lose to Rafale in A2A, but see my previous message, I don’t think Typhoon pilots would say : “to be honest in the A2A regime, Rafale kicks our botterm and this Typhoon isn’t worth the metal in its retractable refuelling probe….”
So, dear mrmalaya, please stop calling every sources which doesn’t feet your opinion “hearsay, rumour and spin”. 😉
I totally understand your reticence to accept it as truth, but please, wait something new, maybe French pilots will be disputed one day, who knows ?
Well if a typhoon pilot came out in the English press tomorrow and said i have participated in several A2A exercises against it he Rafale and it is a poor aircraft compared to the typhoon. Would you change your opinion based on this, no you would not!
Would this be considered worthy proof of which aircraft was superior no it would not be? This is the point which I don’t think you French posters seem to understand your French pilots have vested interest in your plane. The fact that no British, German, Italian or Spanish pilots come out talking about the results of exercises in which the information is not made public, for me only speaks of the professionalism of those pilots that these French pilots seem to lack.
redreidyits clear that illusions fights reality into the spining world of europhoon!
you can’t fight Myths that Ecaptor that doesn’t exist has a bigger gimbal than Thales one, neither compagny did comunicate on it “mmics, diam”, and by the way with advanced AESa technologies seize doesn’t matter because MMics are to be spread all over the airframe, and that big seize fighters can’t compensate thier loss in rcs with lil more mmics anyway!
its the same with old myth of engines power, an A320 is more powerfull than a Falcon 7X but still slower, as the over hyped europhoon power can barely provide a edge over Rafale in T/W , the laster outperforming his challenger on fuel fraction!
its like Silvy badly translated interview, where he doesn’t say that rbe2 AESA is less powerfull than a apg 80 , but talk about what are exigence of UAE who doesn’t use awacs and what could be involved on a fighter aka “rafale” if they need only 10% increase “being useless” for the hype!
even the fact he point that OSF is regulary improved, he point the fact that UAE might need specials features !can’t fight Myth and spinners with reality and facts!
sorry mate but at first your posts made me laugh a tad bit but now your just getting anoying please stop posting.
redreidysorry snafu i didnt see that part of your post! 😀
redreidyFrom what you can actually read on various sources rafale has better weapons (mica-IR, AASM, reco-ng) (and more types) as well as a better radar cross section.
The typhoon does have a better TW ratio and a bigger radar (+40% in terms of modules) around 1000 vs 1421 for the Typhoon according to DSI.
But theses criterion are not the only ones.
Sorry i was referring to A2A missiles, can you tell me were u have read that the Rafale has a better RCS, not that i don’t believe u I’d just like to read it myself.
redreidyASRAAM is quite “long ranged” for a short range missile (if that makes sense!) but not to the extent that the MICA IR is capable of both short and medium / long range. At least that is my understanding.
IRIS T is short range (based on the AIM 9).
But then again it is quite a short ranged long ranged missile in comparison to the AMRAAM – R-77, although doubtless a good weapon i still prefer an AMRAAM – Short range missile mix.
Also i was under the impression granted through reading forums, Wikipedia (which i stand by as an excellent reading resource) and the odd articles that the typhoon had better radar cross reaction from the frontal aspect. If anybody has any information to the contrary i would love to read it.
redreidyThe tankers do spend a fair amount of time loitering, and remember, they’re heavily loaded the whole time, until they head home.
On the other hand, the carrier would be cruising conservatively (relatively) much of the time.
i appreciate that my point was that they can land and will be used as and when required. whereas a deployed CVF will be constantly active plus i expect aircraft from a CVF would still make use of tankers in meny situations.
redreidySo is your personal opinion backed up by factual evidence or are you simply basing it on: “it’s (allegedly) got a bigger radar?”
i Believe that it has a bigger better radar, better weapons, better trust to weight, from everything i have read a better radar cross section from a frontal aspect, better climb rate….. but as i said i have only formed these opinions from what i have read no doubt you will provide reading that states the opposite the fact of the matter is that neither of us know the truth we can only choose what we believe.
redreidyFor fuel? :diablo:
lol ermmm how much does plutonium cost?
redreidyThere would be a lot more to say, too, but we are probably going out of topic now.
Haha who cares its interesting and i think i could argue that it’s on topic if the need arose! :diablo:
I hear what you’re saying about staffing but even those extra people will cost and on balance I personally believe that an airbase uses less personal than a CVF, it’s not a perfect comparison but the 904 EAW currently has roughly 950 personnel at Kandahar (10 fast jets), whereas I believe the CVF will have a standard compliment of around 600 with an aircrew estimated at around 900 and an average compliment of roughly 1200 according to navy matters and one assumes that will be with about 10-20 fast air.
Plus refuelling aircraft don’t spend 24/7 up in the air. The carrier & escorts on the other hand I doubt ever sit idle in the open, and in many cases i.e. us navy F-18s (over Saudi in the gulf war) will still uses air refuelling assets.
And granted the missions from Marham in my opinion were a stupid waste of money but I am referring to Gioia Del Colle which I am told is much closer!
redreidythanks for another quality post
redreidyEscorts…? For Libya’s ops?
If CVF was, absurdly, around now, its escort would be HMS Liverpool, which is in the area anyway, and if they weren’t there they would be somewhere else, for the exact same cost. Just as Marham continues to exist and cost hundreds of millions each year even when its Tornadoes are abroad. With the difference that Marham cannot move and a carrier can.Then i have to remember you the cost of having the RAF personnel into hotels in Italy because Gioia del Colle does not have enough accomodation. And that’s, from MOD sources, 700.000 pounds a month, while here in Italy it has been said that actually the hotels are making over a million pound out of it, which is also the Telegraph-reported figure.
And you don’t fly the airbase, but you fly the air tankers to it and from it and you also fly the weapons in from the UK to Gioia, along with the ground crew that maintains and mounts them on the airplanes. All stuff that comes around with you on the carrier without needing the cargo fleet of the RAF to fly back and forth all the time.
The airplanes, besides, can fly only N hours before going into mainteinance: the Harrier GR9 was around 780 hours before Minor and 2800 before Major mainteinance, the Tornado i do not know. The more hours you pointlessly have to fly over the sea to reach the target, the sooner your available hours end, and the plane has to be dismantled, checked over, or even sent back to the UK if it hits Major mainteinance.
Aircraft carriers are not just cool. They are useful and often vital. Much as someone tries to say the opposite, overlooking nearly a century of international experience of aircraft carrier ops. And that’s why CVF is so important, without even considering that the UK shipbuilding would have died without the two carriers.
Meanwhile the Goliath crane is being tested: http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Fif…at-rosyth.html
In the photo can be seen dear old Lusty too.
I’m not really arguing with you i would love to see a CVF of Libya but i do feel that it would be more expensive than running the sorties from an airbase. For personnel (less), fuel, escorts (i don’t believe the CVF will go anywere with just one destroyer) and supply issues i think for sustained ops a land base is better.
Certainly in a situation where the targets need to be hit hard and fast then a carrier would be far better, but to have a carrier steaming around the med for months on end would uses colossal amounts of fuel. In an ideal world the carrier would have been there first then gradually the air bases would take over in my opinion. But then I don’t have the facts and figures to back this up, it would be interesting to see the French’s bill for the Charles de Gaulle in the operation
redreidyAnyway, the operations in Libya provide a scale on which we can reason to put things into prospective about the airwing. Many have called the 12 F35C figure ridiculous, but that 12 planes already would beat, on their own, the current RAF contribution to Libya, considering the limits the Typhoon still has in ground attack and considering that Gioia del Colle is at the very least 400 miles away from the targets, which probably means that the Tornados and Typhoons more often than not refuel in flight twice, once on the way to the targets and once on the way back home, depending on the time spent “on station”, eventual “sprints” with afterburner if there’s a SAM alert and other factors.
They swallow fuel and money and consume flying hours much faster, just to get to the targets, and inexorably have longer respense times than a carrier wing would have from 50 miles away from the coast.
[/url]
But on the other hand you have to take into account the price of having an aircraft carrier plus escorts on station for months on end! I bet you that the CVF will use a quite a bit more fuel than tiffy and tornados use refuelling twice on every sortie. Also you don’t have to sail an airbase so you don’t have to pay as many people.
But then again aircraft carriers are cool so I want us to have them!!
redreidyyou bomberboy are correct! kudos.:o
redreidyLots of military aircraft were at first, for a good number of years, quite basic in the A/G department.
Paveway IV is planned to be introduced into operational service early next year. Actually they were dropped during tests in 2009, although dummy IVs. From IPA 1 if I remember correctly. Storm Shadow and Taurus are more than likely to enter service with the Typhoon along with the likes of Brimstone. SDBs have been mentioned in various articles as well has an anti-radar A/G version of Meteor and a number of anti-ship missiles.
Theres likely to be other new types of munitions introduced over time, 20, 25 years ago, I’m sure the Tonka never thought it’d operate Storm Shadow & Brimstone.
sorry i ment forgive me if im wrong but isnt the typhoon not going to have more A2G weapons than the rafale
redreidySeriously all these French magazines seemingly do is on how they have “information” on how bad the typhoon is? Once again both aircraft will have their merits.
Just because the typhoon doesn’t have A2G right now does not mean it will make a bad air to ground platform F-15 springs to mind of how an airframe designed for A2A can also be a Quality A2G aircraft.
Also i may be mistake but is there no more A2G Munitions types planned to be integrated to the tiffy in the future.
As others have pointed out the reason why the tiffy doesn’t have full multirole capability yet is because there is not a massive pressing need for it, the partner nations all have very capable ground attack platforms (tornado, hornet) that are more than adequate. And with money being tight at the moment there is no pressing need to rush this.
Sign In
