As demonstrated a mix pair of typhoon and tornado was only set up because they are some capabilities lacking. If one aircraft has all the capabilities necessary it is way more efficient. It is not worth the the sum of its part. Two fully developed aircrafts will always be better than two half capable jets.

But very often different platforms will have different, complementary capabilities. For many years, Mirage 2000 had a designator while Rafale did not. Today, I suspect, the Mirage 2000 may still have some capabilities in advance of Rafale because it is more mature, and has had longer to develop and refine capabilities. There may be weapons cleared on Mirage 2000 that have not been cleared on Rafale. Mirage 2000, on the other hand, might benefit from operating with Rafale because of Spectra. Or Rafale might operate with a coalition type with a helmet and a better LDP. In all cases, a mixed pair is better than a pair of ‘same type’ aircraft.

The fundamental difference is if one of the rafale in the pair is forced to abort the mission the second one is still fully autonomous

Only if both have the same loadout (and they may not) and only if both have Damocles (which is unlikely, as you have procured so few pods).

while it is not the case for the typhoon/tornado.

It was often the case for Typhoon/Tornado, though not when a particular unique-to-one-platform weapon was required.

Perhaps that tornado and typhoon “routinely” went to their tankers at the same time but one was short of fuel while the other one could still do its works as a bomber.

Which proves that minor differences in endurance and range may not be mission critical.

A cheap dual mode scenario : the rafale has the GBU-49 or is close to get it.

But it didn’t have it in Libya and hasn’t got it now, and by the time it does, Typhoon will have Paveway IV.

The question was more libya specific as in any situation the typhoon could use a dual mode weapon the cheaper and more apprpriate gbu-12 was sufficient.

That’s simply not the case, since having only laser guidance will have imposed significant limitations, as illustrated by the number of times those with dual mode weapons used the GAINS option.

Then I admitted the typhoon has a better LDP but that was largely balanced by the lack of adapted weapons and small playtime.

Overall, yes, but not in this narrow area. And now Typhoon has a helmet, PWIV, a further enhanced and adapted swing role MMI and a superior LDP. In some roles, and in some scenarios that equals superiority.

Overall the rafale still has the lead.

Overall, yes, but not in this narrow area.

Just that you are being a bit oversimplistic forgeting that mission efficiency relies on much more than a better LDP.

And you are being over-simplistic in ignoring the significance of PW IV, the helmet, etc., and in insisting that range/endurance (playtime :rolleyes:) and a larger number of weapons integrations automatically means that Rafale trumps Typhoon ‘across the board’ and in every subset of the air-to-ground mission.

you will hardly get anything beyond trajectory optimizations and certainly not “aggressive” off bore sight firing let alone 180° off the axis behind the aircraft.

That’s what Raytheon claim.

With the rafale you have double or triple the playtime of a typhoon (6000L vs 0L or 2000L)

Except that Rafale didn’t operate with 6,000 L of external fuel, and instead used AAR, just like Typhoon…..

unlike the typhoon which was often used in pair with the older and expensive tornado due to lack of maturity.

That’s not why they operated as mixed pairs, as I explained.

“Typhoon didn’t NEED support from Tornado – Typhoons frequently operated without Tornado support, self designating for LGBs. The decision was taken that for some missions the Tornado/Typhoon combination was a useful and effective one, and that it was mutually beneficial. And that was more about providing a combination of weapon effect (Tornado didn’t have a 1,000-lb LGB, Typhoon didn’t have PWIV or Brimstone), about giving Tornado access to Typhoon’s SA, DASS and AD capabilities, and about providing the Typhoon force (largely untrained in Air-to-ground ops at that point) access to Tornado crews’ expertise.”

Operational constraint: the typhoon needs to refuel more often than the tornado leading to operational inefficiencies.

Except that it didn’t. It may be a theoretical constraint but in reality….

You also have double the chance that an aircraft would not be available leading to the cancelation of the mission.

Nonsense! They operated as mixed pairs. They would otherwise have operated simply as pairs. Why is there more chance that one aircraft would go u/s from one Tornado and one Typhoon than from two Tornados?

Operational costs: one aircraft is cheaper than two and one aircraft easier to cope for the air tanker fleet.

Again: Typhoon/Tornado pairs did not replace single Tornados, but pairs of Tornados.

If you take all parameters into accounts…..

You are being incredibly obtuse, Eagle.

The point isn’t that Typhoon is a better A-G platform ‘across the board’, it’s that it has advantages in certain narrow areas, both right now, and in the future.

For example, but not limited to:

A better LDP.
A better LGB as of right now (Typhoon has had EPWII for years), and in the future (PWIV).
A helmet mounted sight (a really useful enabler in A-G operations).

If you go bacik and read my post number 683, it’s an entirely reasonable and proportional response to Bluewings’ query (“I would like to know where you see Typhoon superior to Rafale in any AtoG task , even in the futur …”)

GBU-49 may be fully integrated on the rafale as we speak or it is a matter of days or weeks. Don’t think the typhoon is as close to get the paveway IV.

May be? There’s no suggestion that there have even been any drops, yet. Paveway IV integration on Typhoon is complete. P1EA testing is complete. At least one customer – the RAF – has completed end-to-end fully designated drops.

As for attacking target from any directions that’s also BS or widely exaggerated.

Um, err. No. It isn’t ‘BS’ (some of you Rafale fans are so childish….) Nor is it exaggerated. It’s a for-real PW IV capability.

With regard to Libya, the pairing of Typhoon and Tornado worked well, and there was no real disparity in the number of times aircraft went to the tanker. Of course Typhoon would have been even more useful had it been able to carry PWIV and Brimstone. And it did prove very supportable, turning in excellent availability and DCO rates.

No-one at the CAOC ever said that Typhoon was the ‘least available Fast Jet in the operation.’

Even I’m getting bored with this, now. Isn’t there any Rafale news.

China shall be the world #1 because it has better freedom than most other countries and free speech and thought are protected by law in that country

Tell that to anyone who actually tries to exercise free speech in China…..

No, indeed Scorpion. Anything can drop six bombs during a single pass, and then getting them to hit different targets is not rocket science, either. (Though it’s rather easier to achieve with Litening or Sniper than with Damocles or TIALD).

But getting those bombs to go into their targets from all points of the compass is something that Enhanced Paveway II just can’t do, and nor is having pilot selectable impact angles and fusing.

If EPW was “all that”, then the RAF would not have judged it insufficient for Afghanistan, and would not be junking it in favour of Paveway IV.

Even with austere air to ground (in frontline service since early 2008) Typhoon can do something that Rafale still can’t (self designate a dual mode bomb), and by the time Rafale gains the same capability with GBU-49 (I wish we could still call it ‘EGBU-12’ like we used to), then Typhoon will have moved on to Paveway IV.

This is one (admittedly tiny and very niche) area where Typhoon has a clear and unequivocal advantage. How typical that as usual, the Rafale fanatics can’t bear to acknowledge the patently obvious, and argue that a previous generation weapon is just as good.

It would be like us arguing that AIM-9L was just as good as Mica IR. They’re both IR homing missiles, after all. It would be technically correct, but entirely misleading, and would ignore so much of the real story.

I fear that you are living in a fery tale. All what you list is available on the GBU-49. You can attack in all whether and multiple target at a time with fuse options.

No, it isn’t. GBU-49 is simply an Enhanced (dual mode) Paveway II. Apart from its warhead (US Mk 82 or BLU-111) it is directly equivalent to the UK Enhanced Paveway II. Same weapon.

The UK view the EPWII as being on the verge of obsolescence, and as being inadequate for Afghanistan, where PWIV is ‘theatre entry standard’. When the PWIV wasn’t ready for the Harrier GR9, the UK developed the EPWII Plus, which was a hybrid combining PWII body with PWIV seeker.

The basic paveway II has also different fuse modes which are already used in Astan to limit collateral damage. Just read Captain Romain’s book when the fuse was activated once the bomb was buried.

PWII has nothing like the same fusing options, nor are they selectable from the cockpit, in flight.

It is absolutely not a game changer and there is nothing special to a paveway IV. It is still a LGB/INS/GPS gravity bomb like a GBU-49 with minor improvements. Once again you are using hyperbolic words that are simply not appropriate. “game changer” “seismic shift” that just makes you look a bit stupid (if not more) when talking of a gravity bomb with a guidance technology that has nothing extraordinary.

Again, you are showing your ignorance. In the field of ‘gravity bombs’ PWIII marked a pretty seismic shift over PWII simply because of the impact of switching from ‘bang bang’ to proportional guidance. With its ability to have cockpit selectable fusing, variable impact angles and complete freedom of attack direction, PWIV is an even more complete game changer in the field of laser-/GPS-guided weapons.

If you consider the paveway IV as a “seismic shift” compared to a GBU-49 then what to say about the AASM ? The “earthquake or the revolution of the universe?”

I consider it to be a great weapon (especially the triple carriage option), and for the stand off capability it allows to be really useful. But it’s still a GPS guided weapon for now, albeit with IIR terminal guidance coming on, and with laser terminal homing promised. And if you don’t need to stand off, then you can’t yet fire an AASM to ‘corkscrew’ onto a target from above…..

To put it short : when you need to be cheaper the rafale is cheaper (GBU 49, GBU12,22,24) and when you need performance the rafale is more performant (AASM).

WRONG!! Typhoon has PWII (equivalent to GBU-12), EPWII (equivalent to GBU-49), and will have Paveway IV before Rafale gets a weapon that the RAF views as being on the verge of obsolescence. So Rafale is not cheaper, and crucially lacks a weapon in PWIV’s class which combines economy with precision and performance. And in many respects (not stand off range, obviously) Paveway IV is ‘more performant’ than AASM. (Which is being integrated on Typhoon anyway….)

The GBU-49 was not yet available in Libya but it is now (or is on the verge to be) but the weather was an non issue in Libya and the AASM was available if needed.

Again. The RAF used EPWII extensively in Libya, and made more use of GAINS than of laser. For France (with a limited supply of Damocles, which is an inferior LDP to Litening) dual mode weapons would be even more vital.

AASM was available, but each one costs multiples of what a Paveway IV costs.

As for the typhoon in Libya : attacking pick ups or tanks with 500Kg bombs,

It did much more than that.

limited external fuel

But nonetheless adequate for Typhoon to routinely fly eight hour missions.

and external tornado target designation

Typhoons self-designated, and designated for formations of Tornados, often being the sole aircraft in the package with an LDP.

is not what I would call efficiency at all.

That seems to be evidence that you must be blind, wilfully biggoted, and woefully badly informed and ignorant. I’m sure you’re not, but you’re giving a great impression of being all of those things.

Its performance in Libya was not the best advertisement for the typhoon despite all the communications effort.

It did all that was asked or expected of it, and more, and did so with a higher availability rate than Rafale.

[Sarcasm mode]Yeah. Compelling evidence.[/sarcasm mode]

A mobile SAM, fortuitously and unpredictably deployed in just the right place, splashed an F-117 which made the mistake of following a predictable flightpath.

And that solitary very lucky success, against a subsonic faceted Stealth aircraft which always relied on clever flight planning to present a particular aspect to threat radars, somehow invalidates the LO characteristics of a next generation, supercruising stealth aircraft?

I think not.

Appart minor changes and optimizations I can’t see any fundamental difference.

You’re joking.

Paveway IV does things that Paveway II can’t. It does things that even Paveway II Plus (Frankenbomb) could never do.

It’s a MUCH bigger step change in capability than Paveway III was over Paveway II.

It has proportional, not ‘bang-bang’ guidance, so flies more efficiently and can use a narrower ‘basket’.

It can be programmed to attack targets from any direction.

It has a very wide range of fusing options, all selectable from the cockpit, enabling effect to be very precisely tailored.

GBU-49 is already old hat.

Paveway IV is the weapon of the future.

Much of the reason that Tornado was more important in Libya than Typhoon was that it carried Paveway IV, instead of PWII/EPWII.

The RAF aren’t even bothering integrating Paveway II and Enhanced Paveway II on P1E Typhoon.

What’s the source for GBU-49 being integrated now? My notes say that it is part of the ‘roadmap’ post F3 O4T.