MildaveCooperation projects ok but with a leader on each projets: one project with France as leader, another project for the UK, etc. Keeping in mind that leadership isn’t synonymous with work share or funding share.
Research should be done in common, but then each country should be allowed to go its own way.
I’m thinking about creating centre of excellences in different area, then provide the technologies to the countries that participated financially and then allow national companies to built whatever they need.
MildaveThat is my point.
They always should have been in the requirements.
The French seen that and didn’t accept compromises to it – that is why I’d want them in charge and not the UK MoD/RAF/BAe.
What does the EF-T do better than the Rafale? Not much by very little.
What does the Rafale do better than the Eurofighter? Quite a bit by either default or a proverbial cricket score.
Its all about requirements – get them right, your set. Get them wrong, you’ll never recover.
Yep! +1
What would you choose between vista and 7 ? Close isn’t good enough.
MildaveSo the Swiss evaluation is useful after all…
On kinematic performances Typhoon and Rafale have both the same “potential” due to their common delta canard configuration. The difference will be felt mainly due to the canard placement in subsonic speed regime and transonic-supersonic speed regime, depending on configuration.
It would be more accurate to say that “it’s pretty much aknowledged that the Typhoon T1 supercruises faster than the Rafale F3.”
Currently the Typhoon T1/T2(early version) has a engine that allows it to better exploit these advantages.
It would also be good to take into account the special requirements of Rafale M, B and C due to the fact that Dassault strengthened the airframe to better suit naval operation and strike missions requirement been taken into account from the beginning.
As such it would be interesting to compare the Kinematic performances of the Typhoon 3b circa 2015-2018 to see how real “multi-role” capabilities affect its performances.
As of today, it’s too early to rate the Typhoon’s AESA. Only the Typhoon 3A will be delivered with the option to replace the front end by the AESA dish. The older versions will need a much larger retrofit. As such it’s likely going to take more time for the hardware and software to mature. I do not expect the AESA to be fully operational before 2018 at the earliest. Both radar are likely to use the same generation of processor. They are likely to be off the shelf and open architecture and as such been upgradable every 2-3 years or so.
One might argue that because of a bigger dish, the Typhoon will have a better performance, but such an argument is completely baseless if one doesn’t evaluate the quality of the software, the real power available to the radar, the cooling etc. One of those little problem in physics is that the more power, the higher the heat, the higher the heat the less reliable the hardware and the less accurate the data is.
Have they developed a cooling system that’s leaving enough power left to correctly cool the radar for long range search ? The rotating antenna will also take an extra bit of power. So is the radar in the same philosophy as the M-Scan (see first shoot first)? Well if we’re to believe the Swiss, there is a wide gap between one’s philosophy and reality (BTW the Russian are usually fielding large dish radar in a similar philosophy of long range detection. Must I conclude that most Russian made radar are vastly superior to the one found in F-16 and such ?).
It’s easy to forget that by increasing off boresight detection one limit the overall detection in the opposite way !
The original PESA RBE-2 was an interim solution allowing Thales to develop its software and capabilities, which will not have to be significantly changed for the AESA, reducing risk and cost.
Now if one here can provide me with evidence of coding efficiency, vastly superior power management, cooling management, reliability, versatility etc. Then we will all accept the “widely held opinion” of vast superiority from Mr/Ms Jackonito.
Concerning the pilot workload I saw an higher value for the Typhoon on the evaluation graph. Does it mean the Typhoon has a higher workload, or that the workload is better managed ? It seemed clear for me that the former was the case, but so be it…
Yes Typhoon has a shiny new helmet whose performances are said to be very high. Rafale has nothing similar to offer for the moment. However I wouldn’t get too excited since no evaluation of the helmet as been revealed to the public.
Rafale FSO was quoted among its sensors has been very satisfactory for the Swiss, and that should include the IRST.
The original contract for the 18 Typhoon to be bought by Austria was about 2 billion. That’s about 105.6 m at today’s rate.
They finally bought 15 aircraft at 1.63 billion. That about 108.6 per aircraft including support. So they saved 370 m by buying 3 aircraft less, or 123.3 m per plane. IIRC the support contract was renegociated. But what appear clear to me is that the price of Typhoon T1 if costing only 55 m then Eurofighter is ripping its client off on part and support. Or the price of the T1 is more than 55 m. Either way, that’s quite expansive for a T1 with only “air surveillance” capability which mean no BVR.
Are you sure you really want to keep your assumption that it’s not possible for the Rafale F3 to be 25% cheaper than Typhoon T3b ?
To finish I just can’t get it how it’s possible some are so blinded by propaganda that they cannot see a simple fact. Experience + funding + clear requirements almost always make for a better product. That has nothing to do with patriotism. Jackonito has been preaching the gospel about vastly superior Typhoon is more than 4 volumes, and when proved wrong and cornered we should congratulate him because he finally admit he was day-dreaming ? Come on.
Dassault has been building delta airframe for decades, Rafale is almost a direct upgrade of the Mirage 4000. The AdA and Dassault were able to have much more feedback on the limitation of such a configuration in operational condition thanks to Mirage 2000 (Mirage III) and export customers. It’s simply not surprising they’ve made so little mistakes. Dassault had a small succes with the F1, but they realized that if they were to bring something truly new against the F16 they had to go back to what they were doing best. Microsoft might not be the best out there, but it certainly is the more user friendly, affordable and widely used OS in existence for the general public because of the package it provide. Rafale is arguably the best two engines delta canard currently operational for the same reason (plus the fact that they are working 70% on civil jets with much harder worldwide competition leading to much better management practices than almost 100% defence companies). I’m sure BAE or even the Israeli can teach more than one thing to Dassault and the French about stealth technologies and UAVs as they have done on many subjects.
MildaveBTW Jackonicko since you seem to have quite a bit of privileged knowledge poor lad like me don’t have, do you think you could provide me with an estimate cost of Rafale M vs Typhoon “M” ?
MildaveThe US has 3 carrier groups + a few nato assets in the region already. How many military asset does Russia has in the region ?
The reasonable argument why the West wouldn’t go in militarily without Russia is political and logistical. They need Russia to supply their bases in Afghanistan. They need Russia to give some legitimacy to any usage of force via the UN.
MildaveLol thanks for that picture.
MildaveSince I can already see some arguing that the Swiss evaluation was specific to Swiss need, I can consider that the pure range performance wasn’t a important factor due to the limited air space. However I can understand the RBE been rated highly due to its versatility, resistance to jamming and over all performances (other than range).
MildaveThanks for that information.
I am indeed interested for the following.
I’ll make an assumption that your obviously not and old chap early to mid 20’s which means you have spent much time on the learning path you have selected and would wish you all the best with that.
Having said that, you would therefore not have been able to spend the time researching and will therefore likely not have much actual hard evidence and certainly no involvement in the subject matter, other than from selective reading.
You have then bombarded and berrated a number of people on here that MAY, (I do not say that they do, because I know not a single one of you on this forum, but again I make an assumption), have much more knowledge on the subject than you do. They MAY even have involvement, but that has not made you stop and think.
It is likely that typhoon fanboys are Brits and that Rafale fanboys are French, so it’s easy to get drawn into nationalistic drivel.
As a Frenchman, you realised and therefore made a decision that in order for you to percieveably have bigger / better / more opportunities whatever, in this world, you realised that to get qualifications and experience in the UK was the answer. What does that tell you, particularly about UK engineering relative to French engineering and I spose to a degree, the qualifications from the faculties within our two countries and their acceptance around the world?
I really do not see why you give the impression that French manufactured kit is in many / some / allways superior to UK made kit, because I doubt you actually have any decent sizable comparison experience to work with and FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE, it is not! Just like some UK kit is Rubbish.The UK is at the end of the day your host nation which you decided to come to so please be more gracious to that nation because I suspect you will personally benefit from having spent your time here as a result.
I never said A SINGLE time, that there is something wrong about UK’s engineering. I said about the Typhoon that the program is badly managed, has been badly managed leading to a “potentially great” but in reality flawed aircraft. If you have any experience in this country you will know that it’s not the first time a “potentially great” design has been scr* up because of bad management.
Bad management is one of this country biggest problem and if I’m Anglophobe for just stating that, then so be it. But then you should listen to my co-workers.
Let’s be honest, any person with real knowledge of defence program would not be posting here. All those present here are fanboy with too much time on their hand basing their opinion of their experience in their respective field. So unless you can find someone here able to leak a classified document (and willing to take that risk for the greater good) to prove his/her point, you can only rely on whatever information that leaks through evaluations and air forces practices.
I’m not an aeronautic engineers and I cannot look at both plane and tell you that and that. But claim are been made by our forum’s “experts” they cannot back up with hard evidence. So they will try and talk you into some nebula they only have the secret.
You can only have a sensible discussion is you take into account data everybody can look at and study. I’ve heard about active cancellation for the Rafale and I’ve seen some evidence of study by MBDA and Thales that could sustain such a claim, but because I’ve no proof what so ever I won’t come here and call names on other people because they will be sceptical.
So until then, you either provide proof, or you accept someone can have a different opinion. And so far all the claims by Jackonicko&Cie have been lacking in substance or based only on his secret knowledge…
MildaveSo, on a simple footing, would this pose a problem if the Indians insist they want to build more of the Rafales for themselves?
I know that there are varying build numbers being quoted, but if the French only end up building a relatively limited number, can we assume that the production line longevity will struggle?
Of course any pending further orders that they are sucessful with would more than likely change that anyway?
The Indian can buy/build as many Rafale they want and keep their production line open til 2050 if they so wish.
Small and medium companies in France are already complaining about offset requirements. There is not a chance before 2025 of seeing the Rafale production relocated in India. That would be politicly suicidal, and I haven’t find a single source stating such a possibility contrary to what has been said.
Dassault might choose later on to outsource its supplier in India, but that will have to be seen.
MildaveThe 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. 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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
3)True. But not all the truth is to be find here. Off boresight can be compensated by other technologies (see F-22).
4)False. And utterly based on your opinion.
I don’t think you’re an Anglophobe, MilDave/Fonk. I think that you’re either a troll (or possibly a half wit). The reason that I think that you’re a troll, MilDave, is that you take any source that is positive about Rafale, or negative about Typhoon, and believe it absolutely and uncritically, you fail to engage your critical faculties, and you dismiss out of hand any evidence of Rafale weaknesses or Typhoon strengths, and there are plenty of both.
That’s all right. I don’t think you’re an dishonest person who lack basic politeness and any form of professional courtesy and skill.
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…
MildaveIf you say you’re done, then do so. Don’t say you’re done and then start with another bit.
That statement was addressed to Lindermyer.
If this poster is so anti-british engineering-esk or some other reason, why carry on working and living in the UK?
I live in the UK because I’ve just finished my master degree in computing science and information system if you’re interested. I’m working in the UK because with an UK diploma and work experience I can then choose to work in Europe, the US, Canada, Australia etc. quite easily. I thinking about moving to Canada soon, or Switzerland. I haven’t made up my mind yet.
MildaveThe next fighter is supposed to be “optionally” manned… So I don’t think what you propose would be practical.
MildaveWhat about second hand Gripen or an aid packages for F-16 like for Poland IIRC ?
MildaveWhile there are two main variants, every country is asking for its own equipment to be put inside. Each need to be flight tested etc. Leading to cost increase.
It might take some time for the helicopter to become fully operational but it seems to be doing its job. We need to wait for more testing by the different armed forces to have a better idea of the capabilities. The German version that was tested and found lacking was a prototype so it’s not surprising it had problems. The first to receive it will have to iron out the bugs…
MildaveThat article is quite grim.
The real question is, is the press simply doing its job (for once), or are they taking a risk to delay the whole process because of some internal influence (read Dassault) ?
Also the govt needs to make up its mind. One day they say they’re still open to proposals, the next that the Gripen’s choice is 100% final.
Also in another article Maurer complained he had not been able to link the purchase to any political of financial deal with France or the Eurofighter consortium… So what exactly is he trying to get ?
Sign In
