Someone will be telling us that Rafale has afterburning turbofans, next, and will carefully explain how much better such powerplants are than piston engines driving a propeller.

I think I know who you think I am, with this ‘John’ stuff, and I’ll tease him about it when I see him next. Does he know who you are, because I don’t!

What I would say is that one naturally learns to filter PR bull$hit from ‘pukka’ information, and that one gives more credence to some sources and to some types of source than to others.

Clearly a Test Pilot employed by EF GmbH or Dassault is more likely to put a positive spin on something than a service pilot frustrated by the latest ****-up, but if you’ve known that person for 25 years, they might be less likely to spin you a yarn….

But if a Typhoon TP tells me that everything’s going brilliantly with Typhoon, I’ll treat it with scepticism, while if he tells me about problems I’ll probably believe it much more. And if someone from a competing programme tells me something positive about Typhoon (if a French source grudgingly tells me about the ease with which Typhoon supercruised in Singapore, for example) then I’ll treat it more seriously than if a BAE bloke tells me the same thing.

And while I may be wrong to do so, I give much greater credence to uncommitted export customer pilots, since they have no ulterior motive in presenting positive ‘spin’.

You also learn to compare what you are told with what you know to be true – so that the idea that “Typhoon is a generation behind (Rafale) in terms of philosophy of conception” simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

There may be a danger that one asks questions whose answers will reflect what one wants to hear. I’m always most keen to hear about problems and ****-ups, because I can sell stories about those, and they can give me something to campaign about. Procurement delays, price increases, unacceptable military aircraft release recommendations, FCS problems, tailplane skins being manufactured wrongly, incompetence in the Singapore bid, all represent good stories (and really remunerative stories), and present an opportunity to try and get things put right to help out our servicemen.

Does this mean that I go looking for faults and problems? I don’t know. Probably.

I know that’s not what you meant, but my interests are not simply nationalistic, and a smooth running, successful, trouble free programme (which I’d want if my only interest was as a patriotic enthusiast and tax payer) is not necessarily the best thing for me. And when Rafale is doing well, it gives me a stick to beat EF GmbH with, and more opportunities to earn money.

It’s a sad fact of life, but bad news sells better than good.

Opit,

“Are you running out of arguments to ask for help to fuel your propaganda?”

I’m not ‘making propaganda’, I’m just interested to see which of you Rafale fans are prepared to look at the object of your affection with clarity and rigour.

Arthuro,

“You can also quote people (pilots, designers…) which are talking about their programme on internet.”

You can, but I’m interested in what people say that isn’t for public consumption AS WELL, since they are often more honest when speaking anonymously.

TMor

I read that DGA quote as saying that the value of the AESA work is equivalent to the price of 8 Rafales, and that the order has therefore been stretched out – reducing this order from 59 to 51 aircraft, but adding them in later in production. The production schedule has been revised to ensure that the unit cost of the remaining aircraft will remain stable.

I see that this is also what Defense News said on 15 January – but this contradicted what Reuters said a week before, and marks a change from what was reported during 2006, when outright cancellation of the eight jets was predicted/reported.

But when did it change from cancellation to delay, if it did, and how and why?

They say that Contracts have been signed for 120 aircraft.

By my reckoning that’s 61 from the original contract (contracts?)

10 Rafale M F1 (How many were delivered as LF1s?)
15 Rafale M F2 (or are two of these F1s?)
36 Rafale B/C F2 (are all AdlA Rafales F2s?) – what’s the breakdown between Bs and Cs?

(Teal said 26 M – not 25 – 8 C and 27 B – so 35 for AdlA, not 36)

and 51 of the 59 aircraft ordered in 2004.

13 Rafale M F3
46 Rafale B/C F3 (what was the breakdown between Bs and Cs?)

(Teal said 12 M – not 13 – 36 C and 11 B – so 47 for AdlA, not 46)

This doesn’t seem to match up with the Vincon report – since the total above includes 51 F2s, and not 66 as set out in the Vincon report – 15 Rafale M F2s instead of 18, and 36 AdlA F2s instead of 48?

The latter 48 jets were presumably those with OSF – so will there be 12 spare sets, or will 12 of the F1s get them, or the first 12 F3s?

Teal give a different breakdown of contracts:

First – May 97 (retrospective):
10 M
3 C (for demonstrating the Rafale’s capabilities to export customers – were these really F2s?)

Second – 99
15 Ms (7 and 8 options)
12 Cs (7 and 5 options)
21 Bs (14 and 7 options)

Third – 2004
59 total.

Can anyone explain the disparities?

Which eight aircraft are being delayed? How many Ms, Bs and Cs are within the eight?

Do the Aéronavale actually have any F2s in squadron service?

How many of EC330’s jets are Bs, and how many are Cs?

(Why is this so difficult – you can get exact numbers of every block for Typhoon, with serials, set numbers and con numbers).

3) I do know M.Grolleau. He’s a good photographer and one of the better enthusiast journos. But it strikes me that if they’d dropped one GBU for Korea and began (or may have begun) drops in October, there will be a great deal of clearance and envelope expansion left to be done.

The 1,000-lb Paveway has been a mainstay in Afghanistan, and is essential against some targets, though the lighter 500-lb bomb may be more useful generally. I’m intrigued that no 1,000-lb class weapon is being integrated.

“Paveway 3 is significantly more accurate than the Paveway 2.” That’s questionable. It can be more accurate, because it has proportional guidance (not bang-bang) and more control power, and so can use a bigger basket. But it can also miss by much, much greater distances if it does go ‘stupid’ because it glides better.

EPW may not be a priority for France, but it is for Afghanistan! Unless the deployment is a pure PR opportunity, the ability to drop relevant weapons would be useful.

Scalp might well be useful in Afghanistan if they ever find Osama’s cave….. but I was really hoping that you’d tell me that it still isn’t in service and that the trials (in Djibouti?) haven’t yet been started….

Three aircraft is an odd number to send when the standard tactical unit is a pair…… Unless you expect VERY poor serviceability.

Have the frontline units really not yet fired a Mica?

Re-check your sources on sensor fusion and the exact capabilities of the laser warning system on in-service aircraft……

Guys,

I don’t get my information from the internet, so I don’t have links.

I sit down with engineers, designers and pilots and note down what they tell me.

You can believe it or not, if I’ve given you the facts and stubborn nationalism prevents you from taking notice, that’s not my problem.

And if you’d prefer to think that collecting figures from Jane’s is more valuable than real insight, then that’s your problem too.

While I’m pleased that this hasn’t descended into the stupidity that Typhoon/Rafale threads usually do, I’m coming to a realisation. And that is that while most Brits seem happy to acknowledge that F-22 is a better fighter than Typhoon, and that as a stealthy day one attack aircraft, so is the F-35, they don’t get upset by that, any more than most Swedes would get upset if anyone pointed out the obvious fact that Gripen is some way behind Typhoon and Rafale.

But not only do French Rafale fans get upset if anyone has the temerity to suggest that Rafale is second best to F-22, Typhoon and (in some roles) F-35, they react just as badly if anyone suggests that the French aircraft is second best in any single isolated area. Mature, intelligent debate is impossible if one side refuses to acknowledge any weaknesses at all.

Life’s too short for the other kind of debate, so I’ll try to be polite and answer a few points and then retire from this. I’ve given you the wherewithal to reach an informed conclusion about the relative merits of Typhoon/Rafale MMI – it’s up to you to accept or reject it.

Go and take a look at the MMI of Typhoon at Paris (I expect an active cockpit will be there). Just look over the pilot’s shoulder and look at how little he needs to do. Then go and compare the workload in Rafale’s cockpit (which will be harder to achieve, because it’s not something that Dassault are keen to show). Paris might be a VERY good place to learn this year, as AESA should be flying in DA5 by then, and there will be plenty of people on hand to talk to about that.

Zedro

I say Equal or better, because that’s what people who know have told me. It’s too uncertain to say ‘better’ because some sources of data that will be fused are not yet integrated in both platforms.

Why are there no quotes from named Singaporeans? Because they are obsessed with secrecy and would be in deep trouble if journos named them, and if they thought you were going to run off and publish their names, or type them out on an internet bulletin board they would not speak to you.

Why don’t the French work more on DVI? Because it’s difficult and very expensive, and they’ve already had to reduce Rafale numbers to fund other development activities. It’s a very new technology, and there is a resistance to it. EF GmbH were lucky in that EAP had already demonstrated its usefulness, and had led to a demand for DVI from the pilots.

Dassault didn’t start the cockpit design process with an aircrew-led design committee, they went the conventional route, with aircrew providing input after the design engineers had done their stuff. It was an iterative process – not an integrated and inclusive single process. I’ve never heard of anyone doing it that way before the EAP, but I suspect that everyone will do it that way in future.

Why did Typhoon fail in South Korea? It should never have been bid, it was far too immature.

In your last post you say that: “The Eurofighter team was clearly conventional in its MMI design, with only the DVI coming as an innovation.”

You are confusing cockpit LAYOUT with MMI – layout is a factor, but is, if you like ‘hardware’ whereas MMI is more like ‘software’ – it’s about how the information is presented to the pilot, not only about the means by which it is presented. What’s revolutionary about Typhoon’s cockpit and MMI (apart from the very wide angle frameless HUD, the high brightness displays, the degree of HOTAS controls – none of which are ‘behind’ Rafale) is the way in which the pilot can achieve tasks with fewer button pushes, with the displays needed being called up automatically in response to mode changes, etc.

This is the problem with an enthusiast level debate about MMI – with no piloting experience, one is bound to pay attention to those factors that can be seen (especially those that can be seen in a still photograph), and easily understood (display size, HOTAS functionality, etc.) whereas the user can see the tactical utility and applicability of DVI, for example.

And the result of the Singapore evaluation in particular showed that the evaluation pilots preferred Typhoon – not just because of its MMI, but also on the grounds of performance and radar performance. The reason for Typhoon’s rejection (By MINDEF) was the perception of risk that capabilities would not be delivered within the timescale required – and since the Tranche 2 production contract had not been signed, nor the Future Capabilities Package finalized, it’s hard to blame the Singaporeans for being cautious. But the result was no reflection on Typhoon’s performance, radar or MMI. By your logic, you’d have to assume that Rafale enjoys no advantage over the F-15, since the US jet has been selected twice in preference to Rafale. F-15 is clearly superior to Typhoon and Rafale in every area, right?

You might say:

“there were the Singapore and South Korean competitions, where each time the F-15 went further than the Rafale. So, even if the Rafale’s technology, handling and performance is such a bleeding edge advantage over the 1970s designed Eagle, it didn’t provide the plane a significant enough advantage to beat the Eagle. Nothing revolutionary maybe…”

But we would both agree, I’m sure, that would be the height of stupidity.

DVI isn’t a matter of processing power alone, and that’s why your point about Moore’s Law (that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit for minimum component cost doubles every 24 months) is flawed. It’s not easy, and that’s why F-22 turned to the Eurofighter system of DVI to form the basis of its own planned DVI implementation.

Nicholas,

Target sorting on Rafale (or rather any alterations to the weapons’ systems prioritisation) has to be done via the HOTAS controls or via the screen hot keys.

The Typhoon cockpit design committee approach was adopted because of the success of the approach in the EAP. It wasn’t politically driven.

A DVI that is flying and undergoing constant development, based on a system that is in frontline service cannot be compared with a system that was developed to a certain point and then put on hold. EF GmbH are offering advanced air-to-ground capabilities to export customers – but you’d still have to admit that the F-15E has superior air-to-ground capabilities at the moment.

There was no evaluation in Holland – it was a paper exercise. Rafale was preferred over F-15 in Korea, according to some sources, but not in Singapore. Typhoon was preferred by the evaluation pilots in Singapore, and by the only two Koreans who I spoke to, but who may not be representative. The big difference between Singapore and Korea was that Singapore’s air force wanted to accept the possible delays to Typhoon A-G capabilities, whereas the Korean attitude seemed to be that Typhoon would have been great had they been able to wait, but that they really couldn’t. I don’t believe that anything other than F-15 was ever possible in Korea because of the timescales.

Kovy,

“Those who know don’t speak and those who speak don’t know.”

That’s very often true. And when those who do know do speak, they very often insist on anonymity.

TMor,

Sensor fusion: See above

Radio silent intercepts aren’t the point – the point is being able to sort and allocate targets using DVI.

The Rafale cockpit [i]is[/i] a higher workload environment. The MMI happens to be an area where Typhoon excels – why get quite so upset about it? There are plenty of areas where Rafale enjoys an edge.

DVI: It’s primarily about money and not having had the ‘head start’ that EF GmbH had through EAP.

There were plenty of reports about why BAE screwed up their Singapore bid so badly. Go and read Av Week Show News and Flight Daily News from the time.

Radar. If you remember, EF and Dassault were faced with the same problem at the same time, since no AESA radar was available to them, and both chose different solutions.

The only thing that matters is radar performance. EF GmbH took the easy option and lucked out when all their ducks lined up. The French approach was more ambitious and deserved success, but they were less lucky.

AESA will be a leap ahead for both platforms, but (and here is an opinion that is mine and mine alone) I think that Rafale needs to make that leap more urgently. Once it does so, however, Typhoon will have to follow, because once all serious competitors are using AESA, Typhoon may have to.

I understand Rafale fine, thanks, because I don’t have an emotional stake in it. It’s just another European programme to me, like Gripen, and I judge it on its merits.

You began the thread responding to what I wrote elsewhere about the MMI, and that’s why I’ve concentrated on that aspect of the programme.

Though you’re more polite than Fonk/Foofone, I’m not inclined to debate with you if you’re going to drag it down to a “You know nothing about Rafale” level and start casting doubt as to my honesty.

Talk about the real advantages that Rafale has, and you’ll have no problem with me, but claim advantages in areas where none exist and I’ll politely contradict you.

Kovy,

And you’re letting nationalist pride blind you to the truth.

Nic,

Thought you chaps wanted better information than you can find in brochures and Jane’s.

Since you clearly don’t, I’ll stop wasting my time.

Sorry Nic, I thought that I’d made it clear.

You can sort and resort the target/threat priority list by using DVI and you can allocate targets to other aircraft in the formation by using DVI.

EG:

“Target Alpha – Red Two. Go.” would allocate target A to your wingman, and this would be displayed on his TSD, and his weapons system would show Target A as his immediate priority.

This is particularly important when sorting and allocating multiple targets within a two- or four-ship formation.

I have, LM Raptor (I’ve sat in or ‘looked over the ledge’ in the Rafale M and C, and in Typhoon DA2, DA4, DA5 and the T.Mk 1).

And I’ve flown the Typhoon ‘Active Cockpit’ rig and the Gripen rig.

But what do I know? I’m a relatively low time PPL with no more than UAS training and a few fast jet famil flights under my belt – a Hawker Hunter seems advanced and capable compared to what I used to fly routinely!

My personal opinion of Rafale and Typhoon is of little value, and I would not bother stating it here. I’m not a test pilot, I’ve never been a frontline fast jet pilot, I don’t have an aero eng degree, I’m not a professional aerodynamacist. What I say and think is of no interest – but what people I’ve talked to think should be.

Because I have been watching these programmes for years, and because I have good contacts in industry and the operators and customer air forces. I have spoken and corresponded with people who have flown both types, and my ‘acquired knowledge’ of the programmes has paid my wages on many occasions.

Some will have the wit to realise that I have no reason to make up stories, and others won’t. I could not care less if those whose national sensibilities are offended by what I say choose to believe that the views I’ve articulated are some kind of invention, or if they choose to disbelieve anything if it’s described as being “What I’ve been told.” But I am not articulating “my claims” I’m simply repeating what wiser, better qualified people think.

Because that’s what journalists do, and in areas where information may be commercially or technically sensitive, we’re often forced to rely on sources who insist on anonymity. The reader has to decide for themselves whether the journalist in question has the experience and knowledge to sort the wheat from the chaff, and whether he has the contacts to get good information.

Not everyone has access to frontline aircrew, and to their opinions on MMI (for example). I’ve accurately conveyed what I’ve been told, and I’ve given folk here the opportunity to read informed opinion (theirs, not mine). Whether or not you choose to listen is up to you.

And I don’t bash Rafale. I am rigorously honest about its shortcomings, and I do correct people who post erroneous information, and that often offends French posters here, because they find it very hard to accept ANY criticism.

In print I’ve been far more critical of some of the programme issues that have caused delays and cost increases in the Eurofighter programme, and I’ve had far more complaints about being unduly harsh or unfair from BAE and EF GmbH than I have from Dassault.

Nick/Zedro,

If you carefully read what I’ve said about MMI you should find that the reasons why people rate Typhoon higher than Rafale in this area are explained. (It’s down to more intuitive display modings, fewer inputs to achieve the desired effect, and significantly lower workload). You should get an idea of who thinks that Typhoon is superior in this regard, and why the opinion of AdlA and Aeronavale pilots should be put into context.

Repeating the information on threads like this, when many are not willing to listen, is sterile and pointless, but if there’s anything that’s not clear to you, and if you have an open mind and a desire to learn the facts, then feel free to PM me.

Despite his protestations, TMor started the thread in a confrontational way (“your Typhoon didn’t even want to fight against our Rafale at TLP”, “they failed to create a proper HOTAS” (an utterly baseless charge) RBE2 is “not a dead-end as much as Captor”, etc.). For someone who doesn’t want to talk about Typhoon, he talks about it a lot. And unfortunately, no military aircraft exists in a vacuum, and depending on the context, we will always want to be comparing it with what went before, and with its rivals and competitors.

Foofone is beneath contempt, and his barely comprehensible pidgin English is not worth reading. Insult is the only proper response when he starts talking about Typhoon as a ‘fat mama’ and when he starts trying to deliberately provoke a reaction by insulting the Queen. 😮

I’m astonished that you should choose to put your own reputation on the line by defending quite such a childish and imbecilic idiot. :rolleyes:

As to Typhoon and Rafale, since they were not pitted against each other on TLP, there wasn’t much opportunity for the Typhoon boys to shoot down your Rafales, since the RAF doesn’t usually target its allies. No RAF Jaguar has managed to shoot one down so far, though they didn’t seem to have much trouble bagging a Rafale. :p 😎 :diablo:

PESA is a technological dead end, and its out performed by the best M-Scan radars, including Captor. Moreover, having gone down the PESA route, Rafale has been left with a small nose cross section, so that the number of T/R modules will be limited (or they’ll be very tightly packed). OK, you can retrofit an AESA antenna – but you can with Captor, too, as you’ll shortly see flying on DA5. The Captor E-scan antenna switch is estimated at five hours, by the way, and they have actually done it in that time.

The M88 is producing much less thrust than was ORIGINALLY intended, and that is now the target of a separate growth programme. Under-powered may be harsh, but it’s more accurate than Foofone’s constant inaccurate jibes about Typhoon’s weight and aerodynamics.

As to MMI, as a non-pilot perhaps you don’t appreciate that the physical design and layout of the cockpit is a relatively minor factor – and that what’s important is how the displays, display modes and controls actually work. You can’t judge MMI by sitting in a ‘dead’ cockpit or by looking at a still picture, because its all about how many button pushes it takes to achieve a particular result, or how intuitively displays change in response to mode changes.

Just as you can’t evaluate a display without seeing it in action in full glare, or can’t judge handling characteristics by examining the stick.

EF GmbH will let pretty well anyone fly the Typhoon rig and see the MMI at first hand, and it’s the one element of Typhoon that’s acknowledged by pilots (not just pilots from the customer nations and partner nations) as being world-beating. Even the F-22 blokes regard Typhoon’s MMI with envy.

Dassault is much less forthcoming, but even if you can only watch someone flying their rig, or see video of a Rafale pilot at work “it’s immediately clear that he’s working like a one-armed paper hangar.”

Rafale has its strengths, and to anyone used to Mirage 2000, it would seem to have a very advanced and efficient MMI – but by comparison with Typhoon (or F-35) it’s in a different league, and MMI is one area where it’s half a generation behind.

Since you mention DVI, the Typhoon pilot can change frequencies, update the nav system, demand display changes, and can sort, prioritise and allocate targets across the formation using DVI.