MildaveWould it not be fairer to compare the Gripen with the J-10 ?
MildaveNothing wrong with that, I understand that they would prefer a new aircraft no matter what than no aircraft at all… However the polemic isn’t about that. It’s why they haven’t made it clear from the beginning that only the cheaper package would be selected no matter what you put inside ? It is was so then ET would not have be pre selected (i.e Brazil), Rafale would have bid on a different number of airframe, and Gripen would have cost way more…
Anyway I hope they solve that issue soon before the US can find a way to sell them some F-35… somehow !
MildaveUndersized is a matter of perspective. That said radome is smaller than the SH, and EF even though the range is considered adequate.
Yeah yeah, smaller than SH, yet the SH technologies were considered outdated… Smaller than ET but I’m yet to see where it’s proved an disadvantage.
Huh? Should RN, MN ship radars be limited by the range of the Aster 30 too?
Really ?! You’re really trying to compare air defence destroyer with fighter aircraft ? Should Rafale, ET, F-22 have two different set of radars ? Should they be able to detect any threat with 360 degree coverage over ~400km ?
I’m amaze at the length you’ll go to try and prove your point.
The only way one arrives at that conclusion is if you decide that the radar’s sole purpose is to enable the platform to launch a missile.
That’s it primarily role on a fighter aircraft. The fact that a radar is said to be able to fully exploit the missile envelop doesn’t mean the radar can only see as far as the missile can go. It mean the radar is capable to detect, ID and then launch the missile within its envelop. Do you see the nuance ?
What if the aircraft is required to operate as a mini-AWACS for other aircraft? What if you’re target is a LO/VLO aircraft? By rejecting the utility of a longer range, you’re restricting the crew’s situational awareness. The IRST and TV units have range and FoV limitations while ELINT systems require the target to emit EM radiation.
Well the enemy aircraft can only attack you at long BVR ranges by emitting. No matter how powerful the radar is, new compact ELINT/SIGNIT system like spectra will always have first warning way before the emitting aircraft detect the Rafale. The longer the range, the easier the jamming/decoying, the more power hungry your radar is, the less effective your coordinates are especially with a M-Scan radar vs modern counter measure technologies.
The current PESA is largely enough to use the full envelop of the MICA missile which is ~> 100km and the AESA will be more than enough for METEOR. That’s what you call effectiveness and resource management.
For that matter, no longer ranged successor to the Meteor has been conceived let entered development – yet that hasn’t stopped Thales from working on GaN technologies, has it? Lets not be too hasty while dismissing the merits of a longer range sensor.
GaN will improve range, but that is not its first merit. Less heat, better conductivity mean less complex and expansive electrical construction, better reliability, better for electronic attack and jamming (more energy can be focused for longer period of time with less heating) etc.
MildaveJust jumping in because i think this one of those points that causes a lot of bad feeling but may be down to nothing more than a misunderstanding.
The claim is that Typhoon has a larger radar which will translate (assuming all things being equal) into better range.
This appears to be misinterperated into a criticism that the Rafales radar is to small, the truth is that the typhoon has a large radar for its size (I believe a comparison was F15 size Radar F18 sized aircraft).
Im pretty sure the rafales radar size is fairly typical of that sized aircraft.
Which is misleading since the only situation where “all things could be equal” is in a lab.
The only criticism about Rafale capabilities come from ET fans and at one time the UAE. The latter seems to have suddenly changed its mind…
All the evaluations to date where Rafale was admitted among the three or two finalist demonstrated that Rafale’s radar, engines etc. are on par (to respect your sensibilities) with F-15, ET, F18 etc. Now this artificially created deficiency about the Rafale having a smaller radar than other aircraft therefore having less capabilities in that field has already been proved wrong.
In fact the most praised competition in India has kicked the most modern version of SH and F-16 in the teeth.
So I would say the criticism should go the other way round. How come with such a “big” antenna isn’t ET making a clear win when it comes to sensors, engines etc. over Rafale ?
MildaveDassault beg to differ, but feel free to call Dassault a fanboy 🙂
http://www.electronicaviation.com/aircraft/Dassault_Rafale/819
From the same source you quote:
The Rafale is an almost unparallelled achievement for a single nation, as equivalent fighter programmes have been undertaken by much larger companies or collaboratively by several nations. As an aircraft to meet French requirements (combining a robust carrier capability and good air-to-ground potential) Rafale could not be bettered, while the programme’s unilateral nature afforded great focus, and protected it from many of the political factors which have so dogged the rival Eurofighter. Any problems (and those listed here are disputed) should be viewed in this light.
[…]many of Rafale’s problems (which have been similar in nature, scope and extent to those suffered by the rival Eurofighter) have seldom emerged until long after they were solved, or remain unsubstantiated rumour, though there have been exceptions.
Now please show me one official source from Dassault itself saying what Defence Analysis is reporting.
As usual a lot of butter but without the bread…
MildaveThat’s the version of ET allegedly offered to India and the UAE. I hope we won’t have to wait for 2020 because that looks more like a MLU to me…
MildaveEagle1, would you agree that it’s accurate to say that the F1 upgrade is finally taking place now because of India (and soon, UAE) export contracts which can occupy the Dassault production line for new products? Or would the upgrade take place IN ADDITION to the new F3-AESA orders that France has been making, beyond the optimal level with the current budget situation in order to have a stable assembly line, etc…?
Upgrades for the Rafale M F1 was decided before the final decision by India.
MildaveThey’ve done detailed structural design, and tunnel tested the CFTs. It is not a ‘reasonable assumption’ that integration is ‘not easy’. The CFTs are ready, should any user require them, and T3 aircraft are being built with the required interface, which could be easily retrofitted to all earlier aircraft.
Tunnel test aren’t enough, it’s however pure speculation without proper flying. So we cannot say either way that it’s a done thing, or that it’s difficult to integrate. We simply don’t know. But I guess we will any time now…
Nonsense. Typhoon still has a useful unrefuelled radius of action, just not as long as Rafale’s.
It would be interesting to know about the fuel efficiency of the ET at low altitude, or with heavy load. In any case ET can go as far as any other aircraft so long as you get the proper support in the air like tankers. Whether or not such a solution prove effective will depend on each customer. I don’t see the UAE liking to depend heavily on tankers, but other nations might… or might not have any choice on that matter lol.
Are you sure? I think that GBU-24 can fit on the inner pylons, and in any case, in an era of low collateral damage, 2,000-lb LGBs are a bit passé.
Good. I think many things too… However 2000-lb LGB are still useful as bunker buster or in the destruction of other heavily fortified structure (aircraft hangars, command and control etc.). Low collateral damage is only useful in CAS, and striking near civilian targets. Go ask Isreal if they will bother with low collateral damage when they will go bombing Iran nuclear infrastructures.
No they’re not.
They may not be excluded but seriously limited, or be more costly or complex to achieve. The integration of fire and forget AtG weapons might improve the capabilities of ET…
It may be that the case for turning Typhoon into a dedicated very long range heavy strike aircraft is weak, but again, you’re being so black and white as to be effectively wrong.
It depends what missions will be required of it in the future. A lesser range can be compensated by longer ranged stand off weapons, but again at greater cost and complexity. Fact remain that the actual ET wasn’t meant as a dedicated striker and it would take more fund to achieve such a capability. Only customer commitment will achieve that and so far no nations operating the ET have the urgent need to do so. Even SA will already have strong AtG capabilities with their F-15 and with the US agreeing to sell them stand off weapons, the necessity for them to pay for ET becoming a equal striker might just not be there. That leaves Germany but I wouldn’t count on them yet…
CFT development is done and dusted. There’s nothing difficult about it.
Hum…
At last, one good point! It is certainly true that the reluctance of the partner nations to fund particular capabilities long before they are needed by the partner nations means that investment in those capabilities is not being made early, even though such early investment might be useful for the export market.
The days when an aircraft could rely on good aerodynamics alone to impress export customers is long gone.
What a lot of tosh! Close-coupled canards won’t make CFT integration any easier.
CCC will make any addition of weight easier. There is a reason why despite “underpowered” engines and smaller size, the Rafale is already capable to carry more, further than ET. But like most thing with the ET I guess we will know soon enough…
It’s always good to free up underwing hardpoints. Though whether Rafale can realistically carry more than it already does with those M88s is certainly a pertinent question!
Which is been answered for you every years. In any case it can do as well as any air superiority fighter out there, and in heavy strike configuration it won’t do any worse than a F-35 so…
MildaveThe more I read about the Rafale, the more it becomes apparent it was the right choice for India and the IAF. About the only gripe with the plane would be its undersized radar aperture. Even there though, with a 40% increase over the PESA RBE-2, things are probably not as bad as they seem.
Undersized radar aperture like other allegedly undersized engines or undersized imagination is a matter of legend, false claim and propaganda that ET fanboys have been telling for years without any substance. The AESA is capable to fully use the meteor envelop and that is the only thing that matter.
MildaveActually, these days they use robotic arms to make machines such as jets and cars, which is why a single car factory in the US can easily pump out hundreds of thousands of cars, which are much more complex than the ones decades ago, within any given month. AVIC can easily make thousands of J-10s within any given month.
What :confused: … Go away :mad::o
MildaveIt looks like the production od RBE2 AESA is well under way now with the 10 000th active module delivered.
How many F3+ have been ordered again ?
Mildave😮 who said drones were cheaper than manned aircraft again ?
MildaveAnd how did you come up with a figure of 100 miles away ?!
MildaveLol it just get better and better !
MildaveUnlike the EF, the Tornado isn’t really a multi-role aircraft, and these upgrades simply make it more efficient strike/recon aircraft, the only role it can currently perform.
My reply
Right now the Tornado is certainly more multi-role than the Typhoon. Right now the Typhoon has more modern avionics which is probably what is going to be upgraded first on the Tornados. Since both aircraft are using ESM in pods that might be very advantageous for the Tornado, but I supposed new computers etc would be needed which might be expansive…
But since everyone seems stuck on my first sentence let me redraw it for the sake of your sensibilities (BTW the article used to launch this thread is referring to the type as “multirole combat-ready beyond 2025”).
Since its introduction in 1980, the country has operated two versions of the jet: the fighter bomber IDS (Interdiction Strike), which is also used for reconnaissance missions, and the electronic warfare ECR (Electronic Combat and Reconnaissance).
According to the Air Force, the upgrade will allow either version to fulfill any mission.
BTW (I just couldn’t help myself) the ECR variant should have some capabilities in BVR combat.
Now as anyone any thought on the rest of my post concerning the feasibility to use the ET’s ESM pod on the Tornado ?
Sign In
