toani was talking to a Tornado F3 pilot a few years back at fairford and asked him the question and he said ” yeah we have flew against f-14a, B and Ds, the f-14a were fairly easy to beat in training however the b, ds were alot harder” thats all the information i have.
F-14B/D used two F110-GE-400 engines, which offered near 30% more thrust than the original TF-30P-414A engines for F-14A.
toanMy personal opinions for Mirage 2000-5Mk2 vs Gripen-C/D in A2A combat:
1. Mirage has the better climbing performance and supersonic acceleration for the mission of emergent interception. On the other hand, Gripen C/D has the better STOL capability and operating/maintenance costs.
2. For the head-to-head BVR combat of more than 50 km away, Gripen C/D shall take the advantage over Mirage because of the lower frontal RCS, the longer effective range and more energy of AIM-120C5, and possibly better datalink.
3. For the head-to-head BVR combat at the range of 20 to 50 km, Mirage may have the advantage over Gripen because of MICA IR the BVR EM-stealthy killer, the better speed and acceleration for hit-and-run, and possibly the better EWS.
4. For the head-to-head WVR combat at the range of 5 to 20 km, both fighters shall be on par with each other: MICA IR is better in speed and energy, IRIS-T is better in maneuverability and agility, and both sides has HMDs ~ May the pilot with the better skill, or just the better luck, win the fight…..:D
5. For the dogfight within 5 km ~ I think Gripen shall have significant advantage over Mirage in this area because of its new generation aerodynamic design and the more agile IRIS-T…….
toanAn old comparison that was made in 10-plus years ago I think, and of course, many things are different for both Gripen and Mirage since then…..
For Mirage 2000-5MK2:
1. RDY-2 has 15% improvement in detective range compared with the original RDY.
2. The newest ICMS MkIII EWS is declared to be one of the best European fighter’s EWS right now, which is even better than the EWS for latest F-16C/D Block50/52+ according to some Hellenic AF pilots’ opinion.
3. Completely new generation of mission computers and cockpit from Rafale.
4. The new capability of using MICA IR AAM as an EM-stealthy BVR weapon.
For Gripen C/D：
1. A possible improvement in detective range for the late PS-05A radar.
2. A possible improvement in frontal RCS reduction.
3. Completely new generation of mission computers and cockpit.
4. The new capability of using AIM-120C5 and IRIS-T AAM.
5. 2% to 15% improvement in engine thrust if any customer requires.
toanOriginally Posted by quadbike
Bigger worry is about Rafale, even the AA radar don’t have that much of a range advantage over the F 16 Block 52 radar. AMRAAM c-5 > MICA in range. IS the Rafale going to come with Meteor right away ?
1. No matter which of the two fighters are chosen as the final winner of MMRCA, the Meteor BVRAAM shall be the main BVR weapon choice for it.
2. The Meteor BVRAAM shall be ready for entering service at the time of 2015, which shall be just in time for the in-service date of MMRCA.
3. Although FAF will not formally introduce Meteor BVRAAM until 2018, the Rafale’s manufacturer said that the full integration between Rafale and Meteor BVRAAM can be done at the time of 2015 if the foreign customer wants.
4. The detective/tracking range RBE-2 AESA is declared to be 50% greater than RBE-2 PESA, and shall be at least 90% of the detective/tracking range of APG-80 for F-16E (PS). The effective detective/tracking range of APG-80 is declared to be two to three times of the APG-68(V)5, while the effective detective/tracking range of APG-68(V)9 is around 33% longer than APG-68(V)5 ~ In other word, the effective detective/tracking range of RBE-2 AESA shall be at least 35% to 103% longer than the APG-68V9.
PS: According to UAE airforce’s requirement: The UAE AF’s RBE-2 AESA shall be 10% longer in detective/tracking range than French AF’s RBE-2 AESA in order to not be inferior to the performance of APG-80.
According to the informations mentioned above, the ratio of radars’ detective/tracking range capability shall be:
* APG-68(V)5: 100.
* APG-68(V)9: 133.
* RBE-2 PESA: 120 ~ 180.
* RBE-2AA, Fr: 180 ~ 270.
* APG-80 and RBE-2AA, UAE: 200~300.
So the main questions shall be how many Meteor AAMs will IAF be able to procure, and how soon IAF wants it to be fully integrated into the final winner of MMRCA.
toanNo, just made it simple.
Anyway.
So, calculations for the life cycle costs of both aircraft have begun which apparantly – “determine the lowest bidder and the ultimate winner of the medium multi-role combat aircraft MMRCA deal.”
What are ones thoughts of these then? Which aircraft is cheapest to run?
Difficult one.
I believe what an UK scholar said a few years ago: “Any attempt that trying to predict the change of expense for a big project more than 5 years later from now on is nothing more than absurdity.”:D
It is simply impossible to predict the 40-years life cycle costs of Typhoon and Rafale precisely. Therefore it shall be very easy for Indian governement and MOD to declare the fighter of their favorite side (German/UK or France) as the cheaper one finally…..
toanI’m hoping for a dual-role AAM/ARM version of Meteor, just like JDRADM
The flexibility of this weapon is a stroke of brilliance
Then you will get an extremely expensive missile that most airforces in the world may not be able to afford it.
The anticipated unit cost of Meteor BVRAAM has already been near two times of the unit cost of MICA EM/IR. It is so expensive that even a relatively mighty airforce like French AF can only procure 200 missiles after 2018 ~ Considering what will happen to its own price if it adopts dual- or multi- sensors techonology…..
toan1. If your opponent is so advanced that it can use AESA radar or active cancellation techonology to hard-kill or soft-kill the incoming missiles with active seekers, then I see no reason why it can’t equip DIRCM or Laser CIWS to hard-kill or soft-kill the incoming missiles with IR seekers ~ DIRCM is a much more mature defensive techonology than active cancellation or AESA electronic attack today, and according to the American previous study, the laser energy that is required to destroy an IR missile seeker is only 1/10 of the laser energy that is required to destroy an active missile seeker.
2. In addition, any future fighter (F-22 Block30/35, F-35A/B/C, PAK-FA, EF-2020, Rafale F3-O4T, Gripen NG etc….) that is so advanced to have AESA electronic attack capability and / or active cancellation techonology shall also have the most advanced MAWS with 360° spherical IIR +/- ultraviolet early warning senors, which shall be able to provide the enough early warnings for the passive SAM/AAM attacks.
3. It is true that a missile with IIR seeker and datalink offers better combat flexibility, more tactic choices, and even some degrees of anti-stealth capability during an A2A engagement. However, it still has its own weakness and limitation, that is why almost all the SAM and AAM systems on earth nowadays and in the foreseeable future with the effective range of > or = 100 km still use active seekers, not IIR ones.
toanI think so – but it would need a targeting solution from another source, whether PIRATE or off-platform sensors.
The upgraded F/A-18C/D with the latest standard LINK-16 has been declared to have such kind of capability (One fighter fires the missile with its radar switched-off, and the missile’s midcourse guidance is provided by another fighter…..). I see no reason why Eurofighter doesn’t have such kind of capability right now.
toanOPIT just told us that in 2 minutes Rafale also reaches M1.6 at 40.000ft.
What would be interesting is to know how fast the Typhoon is after 90sec.
Well, I would like to know who or which information source told Mr.OPIT that Rafale can reaches M1.6 at 40.000ft in 2 mins at first ~ This is really something new to me……
toanData from Official website of Eurofighter:
Typhoon with full internal fuel and standard A2A missile loads:
1. From brake-off to fly-off: less than 8 seconds.
2. From brake-off to supersonic: less than 30 seconds.
3. From brake-off to 36,000 fts, Mach 1.6: less than 2 mins 30 secs.
Flight International, 2007/04/27:
Double seater, one belly 1,000 L fuel tank + ASRAAM*2:
1. Taking-off distance with miltary thrust: around 500 m.
2. Accelerating from 200 kts to Mach 0.9: less than 20 secs (The A/Bs had been switched-off before the fighter reached Mach 0.9 in order not to break the sonic barrier).
The former BAE SYSTEMS Test Pilot Craig Penrice declared that Eurofighter could reach the altitude of 40,000 fts (12,200 m) in one minute after taking-off.
toanTyphoon is more like Eagle, while Rafale is more like a Hornet.
Both Eagle’s radar and engine are more powerful than Hornet ~ However, Hornet can still be a fatal enemy to Eagle during many DACT exercises if the Hornet’s pilots use their fighter’s advantages well.
And I think the difference of SEP / supersonic flight performance between Eurofighter and Rafale shall be much less than the difference of SEP / supersonic flight performance between F-15C and F/A-18C/D.
toanWRONG WRONG WRONG! How many times does this have to be explained!!!:mad:
INDIA IS NOT DEALING WITH MULTIPLE COUNTRIES AND ASSEMBLY LINES!
They are dealing with the manufacturer and the designated sales representative…in this case Germany.
Transport of components from suppliers in different countries is normal in this modern world unless you are a member of Rafale fan brigade whereapon it is a massive problem. Non of the Eurofighter nations will restrict access to parts!!!
In the case of manufacture and upgrade India will deal with the manufacturer and will not have to go to each supplier seperately…thats the manufacturers problem! India will not have to go into negotiations with each country just the manufacturer that represents the consortium!
SIMPLES!
My previous post said nothing about the possible future cost of an Indian licensed-built Eurofighter, so what are you angry for ?
Of course there shall be no restriction for Eurofighter nations to transport the Typhoon’s components from one country to another. However, the more components and the longer distance you have to transport from one area to another, the higher cost of transportation you shall have to pay for ~ Or do you want to tell me that sending the Typhoon’s main structural components from German, Italy, and Spain to UK for final assembling is totally free of charge? or cheaper than the same kind of transporting cost for Rafale, whose main structural components are built and assembled in the same company?
toanSilly question, but nontheless:
Why is the Typhoon more expensive than the Rafale (even if by a little) given the much larger production numbers and total order book?
Rafale:
* Built in one country with one assembly line.
* Any upgrading requirement just needs the agreement of French government itself.
Eurofighter:
* Five assembly lines in order to make every partners happy, but the total order book of Eurofighter is much less than five times of Rafale’s order book.
* You have to transport the fighter’s major components and systems from the factories of four different countries to the one of the five assembly lines before building an Eurofighter, which shall be more complicated, expensive, and time-consuming than building a Rafale.
* None of the four partners of Eurofighter has the complete designing, developing, and future upgrading rights of Typhoon. Therefore, if any airforce of the four partners wants some new upgradings for their own Typhoons, it has to ask for the agreement of all the four partners at first ~ which is often a time-consuming and money-wasting job…..
toanIt seems that Indian Defence Ministry still needs 6 to 8 weeks to calculate the life cycle costs of two fighters and then decide whom will be the final winner…..
The ministry will also need to verify and cross-check the costs proposed by the companies against its own benchmark for the deal to procure 126 new fighters.
While the French Rafale came out to be slightly cheaper than the European Consortium’s Eurofighter in terms of ‘fly away cost’ per unit, as expected, the difference was less than 5 per cent. This throws the competition open.
While till now the multi-billion contract strictly followed the technical procedure — four contenders including the American F-16 and F-18 were knocked out as they failed the flying trials — the narrow difference between the fly away costs will give Indian decision-makers the leeway to make a political decision on the purchase.
“We do not know the winner right now. Many things like the life cycle costs have to be calculated. It is expected that the exercise will finish in six-eight weeks,” a Defence Ministry official said.
toanBarak-2 MR-SAM／LR-SAM family.
Sign In
