arthuroF22 tracked through rafale’s OSF :
arthuroIf they really want to become a “first tier world power” one could argue that they should consider a 5. gen VLO fighter….
Because it is not available soon and won’t come with ToT like the rafale. Do you see US giving source codes to Brazil ?
I would argue that since F-35 is not an option the only sensible option for Brazil would be a Hi-Lo mix, with a small number of quite expensive VLO a/c, and a larger number of cheaper 4.5 gen fighters. This is basically what USN will do with F-35/SH, and also the Russians will do this with a combination of Pak FA and their 4.5 gen fighters.
The rafale allow to avoid a mixed fleet of aircraft which is cost saving. France will rely only on the rafale and this shouldn’t be an issue. As you already read in the rafale news thread, further develoments beyhond the F3+ standard are already in the pipe with development and funding satrtin now. That is guarantee that the rafale will remain relevant for the years to come.
Then the question becomes: does it make sense to use the rather expensive Rafale as the “lo” in such a Hi-Lo mix…?
Again a common fleet of rafale should be less expensive if you have a broader look. Common training, logistics, facilities, weapons…With a total order of around 100+ planes with all the batches I doubt that brazil could afford a mixed fleet of fighter aircraft in the long run. Rationalizing the number of fighter types seems the way to go.
arthuroThe question was about the gripen NG with two heavy LGB (see SAAB artwork). I don’t think there is any room left for a LDP.
arthuroI somewhat agree with this :
If your goal is to do some COIN or other operations near your airbase then yes the gripen NG is very appropriate at a tactical level and would be more cost effective.
If your country intends to have a true “strategic reach” against strategic/vital ennemy facilities then the rafale is more appropriate. It would be a better detterent than the gripen. In terms of political clout it matters during negociations…It gives you stronger status as a regional power.
A rafale has a strategic dimension that a gripen lacks at least not in the same measure. So it is more than purely technical datas it is also about the political reach and the military ambition of a country.
You could rightfully say that Brazil will probably not carry this type of “strategic” operations and that the gripen NG would be more cost effective at doing the dayli job…But you should not forget that Brazil is looking forward becoming a first tier world power and with a possible permanent seat at the UN…This strategic role adverts for the rafale. Especially as being a future possible permanent member, Brazil will have to flex their muscles to be credible.
arthuroI think all the examples given by Signatory included the LDP
Range can also be increased by using tankers.
Rafale can carry more fuel but will also use more fuel so the difference in range may not be as big as one would initially think. Don’t forget that tiny NG with an empty weight of 7 tons can carry 3.5 tons of fuel internally!
And the final trick is (as stated before) to distribute heavy stuff on more a/c.
Loke,
1) It still has to be shown that with the heavy LGB you have the room to fit an LDP. If it were possible I am sure that SAAB would have show the gripen with it in those AtG art work.
2) Tankers are not always available and when you need to make a long range deep strike mission tankers can’t follow the fighter jet. With more range with heavy config you are just more comfortable and more flexible. (being able to change your flight pass to avoid SAM sites or defending yourself against hostiles for instance)
3) As you said size implies bigger or more engines and more fuel consumption. However if you weight the pros and cons it is still in favor of bigger aircrafts otherwise why even bother designing bigger aircrafts ? If a F16 would have outperformed an F15E in terms of range with a large payload that would be certainly known…
size matter for range and this is even more true when you start increasing the payload.
Just an “extreme” example to vizualise the thing : would a theorical scalled down gripen NG beat the current gripen NG in terms of range ? of course not…And a huge gripen NG like 30m long (for the sake of the example !!) would fly much furher than the current one.
4) Two gripen ng will not necessarly beat a rafale. When you don’t have the legs you don’t have the legs. It must be proven that a gripen could practically fly with an assymetrical load of one taurus for instance and for startegic/important missions you can also task two rafales…
arthuroSome additional infos about rafale vs Typhoon, rafale vs SH block2 and rafale vs F22 coming from air&cosmos special edition
For the typhoon :
>>in WVR dogfights the quality of the FBW system associated to the close coupled canard configuration allows to generate a lot of lift a slow speed and point the nose very rapidely without exessive energy bleeding. This is what allows to score 9-1 (or 8-0 for DSI and AFM) during dogfights against the typhoon in corsica according to pilots
>>in BVR encounters the Typhoon has a bigger radar and Amram have a slight advantage in terms of range over the mica Air&cosmos told. But rafale proved to be superior (ATLC : 7-1 for the rafale) for the following reasons according to pilots :
-a smaller radar cross section which according to them compensate the advantage of typhoon bigger radar.
-a better sensor fusion and MMI which allows rafale pilots to have a better understanding of the tactical situation.
-the use of some specifics tactics which are considered as quite surprising.
Against the Superhornet block 2
-In dogfihts the rafale was clearly superior. Rafale pilots told that the SH has an impressive ability to take a lot of angle of attack…Up to 65° in defensive manoeuvres. But that resulted in a lot of energy loss and were then easy prey as the SH tend to “sink” after such manoeuvres
-In BVR against the SH block2 rafale pilots acknowledge that SH AESA radar has a greater range than the rbe2 PESA and that lattest amrams versions have a bigger reach than micas. However the OSF, sensor fusion, correct use of link 16 and surprising tactics helped the rafale to keep an edge.
Against the F22
5 draw and one loss during WVR gun dogfights against the F22 during ATLC.
-rafale pilots said that in dogfight it is quite even. The F22 also offer exellent very slow speed maneuvrability due to TVC but it burns a lot a fuel with a big IR signature whereas the rafale bleeds less enrgy and thus doesn’t need the same level of thrust to achieve similar performance.
-In BVR they conceed that the F22 would hardly be defeated as stealt+speed+altitude+more powerful radar makes it an untouchable opponents in that field.
Conclusion : even in its current form (F3) the rafale proved to perform very well against the mosts modern threats. With the arrival of the AESA radar and meteor it should even widen the gap.
arthuroSo with your own words: from an operational standpoint, Rafales ability to carry heavy loads of AtG weapons is more an attractive advertisement rather than a realistic config. And your selling point of Rafale is that it has a cannon.
I think you misunderstood me obligatory,
When I said “unrealistic” for the gripen when reffering to certain AtG artwork from SAAB, I meant that these configuration could not be practically used operationnaly at least with much less flexibility than the rafale.
Carrying a full load of SDBs without external fuel or heavy LGBs without a ldp limitates your operationnal flexibility.
A rafale could carry the same load if not more but with up to 6000L of external fuel and even CFTs (2*1300L) if required by a customer. That gives a true strategic reach for the rafale as well as a greatter flexibility during ops planning. Again rafale ability to strike far and hard is out of reach for the gripen. Not that the gripen is a bad aircraft, just that the size matter. Besides as one of the two vectors of the nuclear detterence the rafale as being designed with the ability to make long range deep strike missions. It has taken the role from the much larger Mirage IV and the mirage 2000N.
Being the smallest gives you other advantages as being cheaper to buy and maintain which is truelly relevant for some airforces. And I agree that usually smaller aircraft tend to sell more. Afterward it is a question of ambition for your armed forces. Not everyone needs or is willing to pay for the extra performance.
arthuroRafale without ldp is Astan is not an optimal config. It needs another aircraft to designate the target or ground troops. Hopefully in just 3 months this issue will be address for rafale next deployment in september with the navy and early 2011 for the Airforce. The difference is with gripen carrying the big LGBs there is no room left for the ldp when it was just a matter of integration for the rafale.
However the rafale had the AASM and cannon which proved to be useful. In the new Air&cosmos issue you can see a rafale C with 9 AASM painted below the cockpit as well as cannons marks.
arthuroSome news about the 9-1 for the rafale against the typhoon in corsica from Air&Cosmos. (Some other sources like in DSI said 8-0)
>>That were WVR gun dogfights only. (Nice pictures of Typhoon gun-locked in the magazine)
All the pilots from RAF and AdA were very experimented and the goal was to assess both aircraft when pitched against each other. RAF pilots were specialized in Air superiority missions only whereas rafale pilot dedicated a significant part of their flying hours to other missions.
The mission profile was chosen by the RAF in a configuration that would have theoretically put the Typhoon at an advantage.
aircrafts met at 18000 ft and 350kts with the same trajectory for 2km and then turned 45° (external turn) and then went head on against each other to start the dogfight.
Usually rafale pilots needed less than 40 seconds and three turns to have the upper hand and score a shot. For french pilots the results is explained by rafale superior FBW system and rafale ability to point its nose even at extremely slow speeds.
arthuroAs you said size implies bigger or more engines and more fuel consumption. However if you weight the pros and cons it is still in favor of bigger aircrafts otherwise why even bother designing bigger aircrafts ? If a F16 would have outperformed an F15E in terms of range with a large payload that would be certainly known…
The kinematic advantage grow bigger and become more and more significant when you start increasing the payload.
As for specific config this is often not very relevant as with multiple hard points you could theoretically carry even more lgbs/maverick on a rafale for instance if ever it were relevant operationally. A rafale could carry up to 14 LGBs/maverick if needed. But that is totally irrelevant and thus not ordered by the AdA. The real question is to assess the operational relevance of a particular payload and what is the performance margin left with the aircraft.
The important things is that the rafale is able to carry heavy loads of AtG weapons with a lot of external fuel and a bigger safety/performance margin than the gripen which makes these configurations more practically useful in most of the scenarios than with the gripen. Most of gripen AtG artwork are not very realistic on an operational standpoints with loads of sdbs without drop tanks or LGB without LDP. It is more an attractive advertisement rather than a realistic config.
arthuroA new rafale special edition that I just bought :
http://www.journaux.fr/air-cosmos-hors-serie-rafale_avions_auto-moto_137147.html
I’ll give a detail report latter and probably scan the most interesting elements when I have time.
I made a quick overview : beautiful exclusive pictures but also some crispy shots of Typhoon through rafale HUD (gun dogfights) as well as OSF pictures with F22 silently tracked by the rafale from long distances.
arthurolol ! 🙂 the gripen comes nowhere close the rafale when you starts talking about payload. It is a lost cause;)
it is like comparing a F16 to a F15E. rafale brings much more punch, further and with better kinetics.
Even at similar load the rafale will perform better having a smaller penalty in performance. That is not only about the few extra thousands kilo it can carry, the size has an impact on the whole flight envelop when you compare similar payload for both aircrafts.
You will have a better safety margin during missions giving you much more flexibility and useful performance.
Rafale ability to strike hard and far is unmatched by the gripen. It can boasts for many other things like being cheaper to buy and operate but you cannot only have advantages when being by far the smallest.
arthuroIt seems that the french government is preparing the Brazilian post-election period to secure a rafale deal :
Dilma comes to Paris to meet Sarkozy
Estadao , June 15The PT candidate for the presidency, Rousseff, arrived this morning to Paris, where she started her five-day tour through Europe.
[…]The political commitments only happen tomorrow. In late morning, Dilma can find the general secretary of the Socialist Party (PS), Martine Aubry, on a schedule not yet confirmed. At 17 hours, it happens the most important meeting with President Nicolas Sarkozy at the Elysee Palace. It is hoped that the two will address, among other things, the sale of the French Dassault Rafale fighter jets to the Brazilian government.[…]
arthuroYes the 125kg AASM was already tested with a mirage 2000 but according to last DSI article the AdA is more interested in a 1000KG variant (with a bigger booster) and also laser guided kits in addition to the GPS/INS and IR/GPS/INS ones.
The 125kg version uses the same booster as the 250kg version and with the same control surfaces. That would have been a pretty good weapon with the range and maneuvrability increases associated with the smaller bomb body. Range was quoted as close to 100KM by Air&Cosmos. It would be more a missile or a cruise missile than a bomb !
Anyway this version is mainly targetting export and some of the hottest prospects would be…Gripen users ! (according to Air&Cosmos)
arthuroFrom what the F15E pilot told me it was more linked to the fact that the time before impact was too long for the troops (due to the glinding kit). He told me that future versions would allow a more vertical trajectory to adress this issue.
You can’t shoot it right above the target…it has to glide so the firing process is more complex as you need to be at the right distance (further than classic bombs with more time to reach the target). That is why this new version is envisioned with optimized trajectory for that role. I don’t know what the satus of this new version I was told about.
Conversely the asset of AASMs (praised by pilots) is that you are much more reactive as its exotic kinetics enables it to be shot over the shoulder if needed. The firing domain is much more flexible due to the rocket booster.
Sign In
