JackonickoNic/Zedro,
It may be even easier to swap Rafale’s flawed PESA array for an AESA array than it is to swap Captor’s M-Scan antenna for an E-Scan array, but it’s not difficult.
Just because Captor has a mechanically scanned array, people seem to be assuming that it has an old-fashioned ‘back end’ too, and this is far from being the case. In many respects, Captor (aft of the antenna) is one of the world’s most advanced radars – you must remember that most in service AESAs (on the F/A-18E/F and the F-15, for example) use more old fashioned ‘back end’ technology.
Like RBE-2 Captor is already designed to be able to accept an AESA array, and includes the required software and modes.
Plugging in the CAESAR array has already been demonstrated on DA5, which will begin flying with CAESAR in June.
It took roughly five hours to swap out the mechanical array for the AESA antenna.
As to a centre stick versus sidestick – if you can achieve the necessary g tolerance without it, a less steeply raked seat is an advantage, and if you have a less steeply raked seat, there’s little need for a sidestick.
Vector,
You may be incapable of understanding the significance of sensor fusion and MMI, but fortunately the professionals who procure combat aircraft are not. In the real world, only the USA is operating a top-of-the-line Stealth aircraft, which represents a very expensive way of trying to beat a ‘Flanker’ level threat.
Moreover, stealth is not a panacea, except in 1 vs 1 engagements between opponents at co-altitude. Tactics (and especially a displaced wingman) can rapidly negate many of the advantages of radar stealth.
Interestingly, in the recent Av Week reports of the F-22’s experience at Red Flag, the effectiveness of some very old fashioned tactics against F-22 were outlined – dragging the F-22 down to low level, and turning into the Doppler notch proved effective, apparently – to my astonishment.
TMor,
He was talking about how many modules there was space for, not how many are planned to be incorporated.
JackonickoArthuro,
1) Korea: Remind me how many Rafale’s have been delivered again? 😉
I have seen no reliable evidence for the claim that Rafale ‘won’ in Korea, and this has been explicitely denied by the Korean MoD and the RoKAF. I’m afraid that unsubstantiated French and Korean press reports aren’t enough ON THEIR OWN. Rafale may have been the RoKAF’s favoured solution, and I tried very hard to try and find out (because F-15 winning twice against the preferred solution would have made a good story :dev2: ), but I could not stand up the story.
I suspect that Rafale ‘lost’ more for political reasons and reasons of timescale than anything else (remember how immature Rafale was at that time), because timing was everything for the ROKAF. Typhoon was a non-starter in Korea for exactly this reason.
2) A number of nations evaluated F-16 and Rafale among other types before shortlisting. Norway and Greece, for example.
3) There was no evaluation in the Netherlands – only a low level, poorly staffed, INTERNAL paperwork exercise. The Dutch did have more information available on Rafale, because as long ago as 1985 the Dutch Secretary of Defense (Van Huwelingen?) had proposed Rafale as an F-16 replacement, before the Dutch opted for the F-16 MLU. Since then, moreover, senior Dutch people have flown both aircraft, and interestingly, every time the Dutch have looked at fall-back options in the event of a withdrawal from JSF, Typhoon (not Rafale) has been the favoured alternative. Just ask Lieutenant General Dick Berlijn what he thinks. I have done!
4) Singapore. I would believe what I’ve been told by Singaporeans who flew both types, by members of the Dassault bid team, by what Francis Tusa said in Defence Analysis, and even in the official MinDEF bid response before I’d believe what anyone from BAE ore Dassault might say officially, on the record.
The sheer weight of evidence in support of the fact that Typhoon won the tech evaluation in Singapore is simply overwhelming for me.
5) Note that Typhoon has 90 export orders, and firm contracts for 492 aircraft. Rafale has none, and firm contracts for 112. That cannot simply be because Dassault are the “great engineers who ignore PR and don’t spend money on advertising”, while the EF partners are “technological incompetents who somehow manage to fool the customers with their lies and spin.”
There is a much simpler explanation, which is that when they evaluate both aircraft, more air forces have found that Typhoon meets their requirements better than Rafale. The Air Force’s choice is not always what is purchased, of course, as Singapore showed.
6) F4 is interesting, of course, but even though I’m not a French tax-payer I’m personally far more interested in seeing how quickly already planned capabilities are actually available to the frontline, and in seeing when the orders for Rafale finally creep above the 112 aircraft now on contract than I am in speculation about possible future capabilities that may become available in the distant future. I’m similarly more interested in FCP on Typhoon than I am in Tranche 3.
TMor,
OK I’m getting angry.
This apparent belief that “if you don’t name your sources they are of no use” is bonkers.
You’re not normally quite such a bigot nor quite such a fool. Let me make it plain. I give no more credence to what Colonel Moussez has to say ‘on the record’ in French magazines than I do to what Wing Commander Hitchcock has to say – or Archie Neil. AND NOR SHOULD YOU. They all have jobs which require them to support the PR issue and to ‘talk up’ their respective aircraft. If they were to talk honestly about problems and disadvantages, they’d be sacked. You will never, ever get the full story (nor even a broadly accurate story, necessarily) from that kind of source.
I remember the kind of positive tosh spouted by pilots wheeled out by the MoD to talk about Tornado F2 when it first entered service (when the truth was that the dam.ned thing was flying around with lead weights in the nose instead of radar), and I remember similarly optimistic and boastful claims from AdlA spokespeople when the Mirage 2000 entered service – when privately people were happy to talk about the many problems they were having.
That’s why I’m far more interested to read what Doug Barrie, Nick Cook, Craig Hoyle, or other journos have to say (having had more open and honest conversations with the people who know) than I am in reading more PR nonsense from Yves Robin and his mouthpieces, or from the Typhoon Press people.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Journalists often get their best information and their best insight from people who speak to them off the record. That’s what makes what they write more useful than what you find on the official Rafale and Typhoon websites.
If you would take more attention of quotes attributed to Hitch, to Archie, to Charlie Chan (the first 17 Sqn boss), to Matt Elliott (the RAF Typhoon display pilot) or to Group Captain Bob Judson, my job would be so much easier. On the record they’ll be happy to tell you that there are no problems with Typhoon and that it’s the best fighter in the world – exactly the kind of positive PR message that Moussez pushes about Rafale – but perhaps with more foundation in reality! :p
But aren’t you more interested in getting a degree of insight that you couldn’t get yourself off the web, or from talking to a PR-briefed pilot in the static park at RIAT?
Jackonicko1) Well there’s no arguing with brochure figures on radar range…..:rolleyes:
2) A-G limited? Yes, I guess. In that it’s not a B-1B. Refresh my memory again as to how many Storm Shadows F-22 can carry? Or even F/A-18E/F
2,000-lb weapons are big enough.
3) Not competitive? Austria paid €62 m per jet. The UK unit flyaway is down to less than £42 m. That’s rather cheaper than anyone has paid for an F-15E in recent years.
JackonickoAgreed, but with the proviso that I’d rather see DEC (TA) deciding what capabilities he ‘can’t live without’ and which he can sacrifice than to have the priorities being decided by the Daily Mail and its readers (or even AFM).
No gun for Typhoon is an easy, emotive issue to campaign about, but if the stark choice was (for example) between supporting the gun and improving LDP functionality, or retaining dual TRD, or whatever, then I’d suggest that uninformed public pressure might influence the decision the wrong way.
JackonickoRob L,
Thanks for pointing out the Typo. Doh!
And you’re probably right about responding to Foofoone Fonk
Ignoring a fool is always better than getting dragged into an argument with one. It’s a difficult dilemma, though.
Casual visitors could read through, not realising who Foofoone is, and even without realising just how silly some of his claims are.
And while most of what he says is patently wrong, or obviously childishly nationalistic rubbish (and clearly the product of a deranged mind), they might think that some of his claims appear to be factually correct, since he states them calmly, and since numbers are quoted:
So it’s important to contradict his claims that:
In Singapore “they was flying the 9.7tons eurofighter and not the T1 one who is 11.3t.”
or that Typhoon “took 20% more weight.”
Etc.
Jackonicko“a lot of the ‘extras’ you quote are already in place.”
Though “the ranges are already there” and though “the target tugs are already there” they could have been withdrawn and sold off without the Typhoon requirement.
And while there are armourers you need far more of them to support a gun, and you need to spend huge amounts on training them and maintaining a training infrastructure.
It’s a similar story with ‘storage facilities’ which could be used for other things were there no requirement for a gun.
Don’t get me wrong. I agree with the decision to keep the gun, and I hope that they do decide to support it and use it, but I am aware that it’s not a no-cost option, and scrapping it would have saved really significant amounts of money.
JackonickoNow it’s in service, pilots are being impressed by the aircraft’s awesome aerodynamic performance, power and agility (especially at very high speeds). In all of these areas, Typhoon is way ahead of Super Hornet and any of the Teen series, as you’d expect from a new generation highly unstable Delta Canard with a CCV configuration.
When fully developed, weapons integration will be far in advance of the Super Hornet, but it isn’t now.
It’s not the case that “the avioincs need some some serious improvement”, however. Development is still underway, and full integration of all the planned elements is yet to be achieved, and though Captor-M has proved much better than people dared expect, some users do require AESA, even with a radar performance penalty.
I don’t know whether Star is confused, but while Rafale has a narrow nose, Typhoon does not have “a smallish nose” and it will be able to accomodate more than 2000+ T/R modules. The heaviest weapons it can carry are 2,000-lb Paveways and the Storm Shadow cruise missile. More than enough for a swing-role tactical aeroplane.
What is unique to Typhoon is it’s superbly designed cockpit and beautifully streamlined, intuitive and graceful man-machine interface, including VTAS (eg DVI and HOTAS_. The Typhoon ‘office’ was designed in an innovative way, with unparallelled input from frontline pilots with massive experience of a wide variety of fighter cockpits from the earliest stage.
As a result, the pilot has a very low workload, and has enough ‘capacity’ to maintain situational awareness. This is what makes Typhoon ‘awesome’.
The F-22 is faster than Typhoon, more agile in some areas of the envelope, and MUCH stealthier. It costs nearly twice as much, however, and the one area where Typhoon does have an edge, even over F-22 and F-35, is in its cockpit and MMI.
JackonickoFACT: Dassault is not “the sole and most successfull delta fighter builder in the world.”
FACT: Foofoone is a liar and a nationalistic buffoon.
“No one in europe can match Thales in electronics systems, and no one can match Snecma in knowledges from ariane to most tiny engines for aircrafts!” is unsupportable nationalistic nonsense. Selex? Rolls Royce? MTU?
In Singapore the Rafale was NOT “clearly better” than Typhoon – it is a fact that the RSAF rated Typhoon higher, and rejected it on grounds of timescale.
The Typhoons flown in the Singapore evaluation were standard T.Mk 1s, taken straight off the flightline at RAF Coningsby. All in service Typhoons are the same weight, and the only heavier aircraft are the IPAs and ISPAs which are weighed down by test instrumentation. Typhoon has not increased in weight by 20%.
The idea that “they was flying the 9.7tons eurofighter and not the T1 one who is 11.3t.” is fantasy.
LPI is important, of course, but there are many ways to skin a cat, and first look/first shot is vital.
Typhoon is not underpowered and T2 will be no heavier than T1.
M88 “consumption, price and maintenance interventions are almost twice than his challenger…”
M88 sfc is marginally higher than EJ200. M88 price is marginally higher. M88 TBOs are significantly shorter.
“The eurostuff never was but to counter a supposed 90’s USSR massive attack….”
More nationalistic nonsense and simply, demonstrably false.
Eurofighter was not beaten in all foreign contests (Rafale, however, has been beaten by Typhoon, F-16 or F-15 in every single competition and/or evaluation it has entered, and was rated above Typhoon ONLY in Korea). Typhoon won the evaluation in Singapore, was selected in Greece, was shortlisted in Norway, and has won two orders in Austria and Saudi Arabia.
Well done to Dassault on a great aircraft (it’s better than most aircraft out there), and well done to the AdlA and MN on getting the type into service and to a state where Rafales will soon be operating Missions in Afghanistan. Good Luck and Bon Chance to the guys who will be flying them.
Jackonicko“The results of the first rafale M F1 vs italian typhoon confrontation despite not beeing officially published, are quite encouraging for the rafale according to rafale pilots.”
this is a comment of a rafale M F1 pilot about the rafale vs other air superiority fighters and the typhoon. You can conclude that:
1)rafale was the winner if you are optimistic or pesimistic (depends on the side you are) if you think the sentence is ironic
2) or at least they were approximatelly equal and the rafale has “not many thing to envy” in that role
So it really leaves place for your personnal interpretation, but in both cases the rafale has done well.
Or you could conclude that like every fighter pilot worth his salt, the Rafale bloke will insist that his is the best fighter in the world, and that he can beat anyone else, flying anything else. He might be exaggerating or even lying, in other words.
Certainly empty, unsubstantiated and unsupported puffery stated by Rafale pilots, and printed in pro-Rafale French magazines are not what I would call reliable or impartial evidence.
And nor are similar statements by a known Dassault PR mouthpiece, Colonel Moussez.
Moussez said that in dogfight exercises, the Rafale had outflown F-15, F-16 and F-18 opponents, and in technical and performance evaluations “we have systematically won against the F-15 and the Eurofighter Typhoon.”
and the RAF Typhoon pilots did not avoid Rafale during TLP, they weren’t on opposing sides. It was left to an RAF Jaguar to prick the Rafale’s bubble, in just the way that the Greek F-16s had done.
Nor did the Spanish avoid combat.
And the Italians claim (admittedly with no more evidence than the French have provided) that they kicked Rafale’s ‘ass’. But without evidence, I’d view that as the same sort of empty, unsubstantiated and unsupported puffery that I accuse the Rafale pilots of.
Weapons integrations
The claim that the Scalp cruise missile has been cleared for air force use is misleading. It’s operational on Mirage, but the planned clearance trials for the weapon on Rafale (in Djibouti) remain unflown.
JackonickoJust as an example, Rafale was always intended to operate from the Charles de Gaulle with a meaningful load.
Even when the M F1 entered service (carrying only a pair of AAMs) the M88 was under-powered, to the extent that the EGT limiters had to be recalibrated to allow the engine to run hotter – halving the life of the hot section to just 300 hours between overhauls.
As another example, the Rafale was always intended to be able to supercruise at Mach 1.4, something that won’t be possible until the M88 reaches its third revision.
You can go back and look at the thrust ratings predicted before Rafale flew. They still haven’t been achieved, although empty weight and MTOW have crept up….
Feel free to doubt my account of the Singapore evaluation. Ignore Aviation Week, Flight Daily and Defence Analysis, too. If you don’t like the facts just bury your head in the sand. C’est la mode Francais, comme ca? :rolleyes:
JackonickoIn the interests of dragging the thread back to the Rafale, can anyone tell me, definitively, how the Rafale conversion syllabus is structured, with numbers of sim trips before flying starts, sortie numbers and flying hours in each phase, etc?
Come on TMor, you read French better than I do, you keep tabs on Air et Cosmos and the French magazines, etc.
JackonickoYes, massive cost.
The gun entails:
Huge number of extra flying hours to achieve and maintain currency.
Need for specialised range facilities.
Need for target towing for A-A.
Need for loaders, ground support equipment, servicing bays, specialised personnel.
Ammunition cost and storage facilities.
More wear and tear on the airframe.
JackonickoNot quite:
Objective: Save some money.
Idea: Scrap the gun (all Harrier experience suggests that you don’t need it).
Problem: Too complicated, you’ve already paid for the gun itself, and designing ballast costs more money.
Solution: Keep the gun, obviating the need for ballast, but don’t spend anything on keeping it in tip-top firing condition, or on ammunition.
Conclusion: Massive amounts of amount of money saved on equipment and manpower, ammunition and training flying hours.
Operational Experience in Afghanistan results in a re-evaluation of the usefulness of gun.
JackonickoMadrat,
A longer moment arm would have a massive effect on stability.
You propose increasing volume around the centre of gravity (no compensatory elongation of the nose would be required) which would entail massive and expensive structural changes.
There are easier and better ways of increasing the volume available for fuel, and your proposed changes are difficult and pointless, except in improving Rafale’s looks, which are already fine.
Zedro,
To precis: No-one I’ve spoken to who has flown Rafale (French, Korean, Singaporean or otherwise), believes that Rafale doesn’t need a bit more power. It was one of the main conclusions of the Singapore evaluation. The aircraft has far less power than Dassault had originally planned.
JackonickoThe gun has always been fitted.
It was proposed that it could be omitted to save money.
The RAF was used to not having a gun in its primary OS/CAS platform after the Harrier GR5/7.
In RAF Tranche 1 aircraft, the design and clearance effort had gone too far to simply omit the gun.
Brief consideration was given to designing and installing a ballast weight in place of the gun, but this would have to have used the same mounts, have been the same weight, and to have undergone clearance and testing.
It was soon clear that using the gun itself as ballast, but not servicing and supporting it, and not buying loaders, ammunition, etc. would be a cheaper option.
There is now a proposal that the gun will be supported and used.
Sign In
