JackonickoIn retrospect, not only should the Obama administration terminated F-22 production, all existing F-22 jets should have been scrapped and refunded by LM
Scrapped?
It’s still the best air dominance tool the USAF has, bar none. It still guarantees air supremacy in a way that no other fighter can.
It can still penetrate a hostile IADS like no other USAF type.
It has greater potential as a survivable, penetrating ISTAR platform, or as a silver bullet delivery platform for PGMs.
And as they ceased production, the marginal costs of extra F-22s was lower than the cost of new F-35s.
Far from scrapping them they should have bought a couple of hundred more, at the cost of a couple of hundred of early, immature F-35s.
JackonickoWhich country do you think of more precisely for partner nation ? As for india if the Typhoon advantage was so great they would have selected it but they didn’t.
India shortlisted Typhoon and Rafale. Rafale was L1 bidder, and was therefore selected. Anything more than that is speculation.
As far as the gripen is concerned it is quite limited in terms of range and payload. If you start to hang some weapons there is little room left for external fuel and little practical range is left. The impact of performance is also greater. An F16 would be the minimum appropriate size for a first line fighter jet if you want to have an impact.
Gripen was good enough for Switzerland, and would be good enough for many nations.
Gbu-12 and now GBU-49 are available for the rafale so in terms of cost effectiveness the rafale hasn’t anything to envy to the typhoon. One parameter you are overlooking is that with 3*2000L and 6 LGB the rarale is much less asking for tankers which is a considerable economy.
GBU-12 is a vanilla PWII. GBU-49 is an enhanced Paveway II, so is dual mode, but is FAR short of a Paveway IV. Moreover while Typhoon is using EPWII operationally, right now, GBU-49 is merely on Rafale’s future roadmap.
As I said, there are small subsets of the air-to-ground role where the Typhoon is better than Rafale.
JackonickoReally?
On the Rafale News thread?
OK. But you asked me to do so.
Firstly I did say ‘may’. I did NOT say will.
And I would want to reiterate that nothing will take away from the fact that when it comes to toting a heavy load a long way, Rafale will always be better.
But even today, there is one area of A-G ops where Typhoon is superior, and that’s in that it has a better laser designator, and that laser designator can be slaved to the helmet sight. The helmet sight can be used to update the nav system. The helmet sight can provide FLIR imagery (or the Link 16 picture) in the pilot’s line of sight, overlaid on the real world. That can all be pretty important in certain types of air-to-ground operation.
The Typhoon currently has, in frontline service, a for-real dual mode GPS/laser guided weapon, and that weapon is very affordable. I don’t think laser AASM is in frontline service yet, and indeed isn’t due to be for some time.
If cost effective, all weather, non-stand-off PGM missions are the task, you could therefore say that Typhoon is better here and now.
In future, P1E will give Typhoon Paveway IV. Paveway IV is a weapon with fusing options that AASM doesn’t have, and that costs a fraction of the price.
For a narrow but important subset of Air-to-ground missions, that gives Typhoon an advantage.
Further into the future, the combination of helmet and dual mode Brimstone (or SPEAR 2) will give Typhoon a capability that Rafale won’t have.
The bigger, more powerful CAPTOR-E, with its repositioner, will also give some advantages in some aspects of air-to-ground, and perhaps in electronic attack. Certainly the Euroradar partners have done a great deal of work in the field of using AESA for EA, both in the ARTS programme and in Bright Adder.
Now on balance, of course Rafale will be more versatile. Of course Rafale will have a nuclear strike role and a recce role while Typhoon will not. Rafale will be able to carry out those roles from shore bases or from a carrier.
You might well therefore conclude that it will be a better A-G aircraft, overall. I’m not necessarily saying otherwise.
All that I said was that “while in some areas, Typhoon will remain inferior to Rafale, in others (even in some aspects of air-to-ground) it may even be superior”, and I did mean in future when I posted it, but in one or two very narrow areas, that may even already be true today.
JackonickoI can hardly realistically see a scenario where a Typhoon would be used at full capability against a symmetric threat.
I can – even for some EF partner nations, just as soon as you look at ops that might be conducted outside a coalition environment. The proliferation of advanced ‘Flankers’, MiG-29s and F-16s could very easily produce a scenario where the highest possible kill:loss ratio would be of vital import, and where knocking the enemy off at the longest possible range would be advantageous.
Even within a coalition effort, if the USAF are unable or unwilling to deploy F-22s, Typhoon’s capabilities suddenly become very relevant.
And for some potential export customers, the possibility of air-to-air is very real indeed.
But this is a Rafale news thread, and we should not be harping on about the Typhoon here.
In my opinion a gripen is a bit short range and lack the punch to effectively cope with kosovo, iraq and Lybia type of threats.
I disagree. Had you been able to wave a magic wand and make the Cold War vanish, and could have given me give me a cast iron guarantee that’s all that the RAF would ever have to do, I’d have taken Gripen over Typhoon back in the 1990s. We’ve got Typhoon now, but if that cast iron, copper-bottomed, rock solid guarantee were still on the table, I’d ditch JSF in a heartbeat and take shed-loads of Gripens for the expeditionary stuff. Or maybe second hand A-10s, even!
And in the same circumstances, France would be mad to stick with Rafale over a cheaper, single engined jet too. ASMP? Who needs it? Strategic range? Pah! Even Scalp and Storm Shadow look pretty disproportionate and extravagant for Libya…..
JackonickoRange and payload will always be a Rafale advantage. But there is more to air-to-ground effectiveness than that, and Typhoon is making progress towards greater multi-role versatility. And while in some areas, Typhoon will remain inferior to Rafale, in others (even in some aspects of air-to-ground) it may even be superior.
If we only ever need to be prepared to fight Kosovo/Afghan/Libyan type wars, then Rafale is probably always going to be a better bet than Typhoon, but then a cheaper Gripen or F-16 might be even more cost effective.
But if that were the case, then Rafale itself represents ‘overkill’.
However, there may well be times when an air force will face a more robust air threat, and when a focus on Air to Air will not be ‘childish’ or simplistic. Focusing on the ‘current’ threat to the exclusion of all else is foolish.
Had Typhoon won in India, I would not have expected an article about that to have shied away from talking about Rafale, and about the strengths and weaknesses of Rafale. The first half of 2012 – with Switzerland, the UAE and India, was all about the competition between the two aircraft, and articles were bound to try and set Rafale’s victory in that context, and to examine why it gave its rival such a walloping!
JackonickoHighly selective quoting, Nic.
WRT Cameron’s statement, the article says:
“Such simplistic claims make it look as though the UK’s political representatives are either poorly informed, dishonest, or are unwilling or unable to give the Indian side the credit for being able to accept and understand the truth, which is a slightly more complicated picture, and a less compelling soundbite.”
The Swiss report was described as a “humiliating put down” to Typhoon.
“The Swiss report revealed that the Rafale enjoyed an apparently clear superiority over the rival Typhoon, and one that seemed to undermine the Typhoon’s long-claimed dominance over the Rafale in air-to-air missions.
“Even in the air policing role, the Typhoon’s effectiveness was rated behind that of Rafale, and several deficiencies were noted that would prevent good execution of mission essential tasks.”
“As a multi-role tactical fighter… the Rafale is more mature than the Typhoon, and has already had a wider range of air-to-ground weapons integrated.”
“There is a future credibility gap, since although the Eurofighter nations have plans in place to integrate new weapons… many believe that these plans are tenuous, as yet unfunded in many cases, and likely to encounter difficulty, delay, cost growth or even cancellation…. improvements beyond P1E are neither funded nor even timetabled, while many see the consortium’s AESA radar plans as being similarly flimsy.”
Pro-Typhoon propaganda? It looks like Typhoon got a bit of a shoeing to me.
JackonickoGood input!
JackonickoAh but the Jaguar is the finest air superiority aircraft in the world.
It must be, Flt Lt Lloyd and his chums famously kicked some Rafale butt before No.6 Squadron got rid of the mightiest mud mover of them all.
JackonickoBrilliant!
Now to incorporate that lot in my notes!
JackonickoMy provisional notes on F2. Comments and corrections welcome.
Rafale F2
The original plan envisaged that 33 air force and 15 naval F2 versions (total 48) would be ordered in the period 1997-2002). These were to have followed the 13 F1s that had been ordered up to 1996. These 48 F2s were to have been followed by orders for 15 F3 standard B/Cs per year from 2003.
In 1997, the DGA (the French defence procurement agency), agreed a multiyear procurement of the 48 aircraft with Dassault, in return for a ten per cent cost reduction, but this was later suspended.
In the event authorisation to order the first 13 Rafales (the 13 F1s) was eventually granted in May 1997.
Plans for the first 10 air force Rafales to be rushed into service to equip an operational trials unit (which was also to be tasked with promoting exports)were soon abandoned.
Funding for F2 development was granted on 31 December 1998;
Eventually, the go-ahead for 48 F2 aircraft (including 20 options) was given on 14 January 1999, and this was confirmed on 21 December 2001. Some sources date order at 9 June 2001.
Initially, the 28 firm aircraft were to include ?? Rafale Bs, ?? Rafale Cs and 7 Rafale Ms, with an option for 20 more, including ?? Rafale Bs, ?? Rafale Cs and 8 Rafale Ms, giving a total of 33 Rafales for the AdlA and 15 for the Marine Nationale.
21st December 2001 The 20 options were switched to firm orders?
This was later changed to 32 AdlA aircraft and 16 Aeronavale aircraft, consisting of 25 Rafale B (B302-327), 7 Rafale C (C102-C108), and 16 Rafale M (M11-M26).
The first three Rafale F2s for French Air Force (indeed the first Rafales for the AdlA) were delivered to EC 5/330 Côte d’Argent at Mont-de-Marsan. This functioned as a conversion squadron though it was embedded within the CEAM trials establishment.
No. 304 was delivered on 22 December 2004; No 305 on 28 December; and No. 303 on 29 December. The first AdlA single-seater (C102) was delivered on 3 June 2005.
The unit later formed the basis of EC 1/7 ‘Provence’, which was declared operational at St Dizier on 27 June 2006 initially equipped with eight Rafale Bs and four Rafale Cs.
The first four (Nos. 308 to 311) were transferred from Mont-de-Marsan on 20 April 2006. By 2007, EC 1/7 was fully equipped with five single-seat and 16 two-seat Rafales.
The first F2 standard Rafale M for the Aeronavale, M11, was delivered to the CEAM at Mont-de-Marsan on 19 May 2006.
The F2 standard was the first MULTI-ROLE standard for Rafale, and added ground attack capabilities to the air-to-air capabilities of the F1 standard.
The F2 standard introduced the MICA IR air-to-air missile, and the OSF frontal sector optronics package (air to air and air to ground). It also introduced a new mission computer (the new MDPU – modular data processing unit), and Link 16 MIDS (according to Paringaux). The F2 could carry 2000 l tanks, and up to five 1250 l tanks (opposed to three on LF1/F1).
The MPDU was more than a ‘simple mission computer’, but was rather a full set of IMA-compliant avionics that replaces all the usual navigation, communicaton, display handling, and mission computer modules. Thus with the F2 upgrade all the Rafale avionics were replaced by software modules running on the MDPU.
There were two iterations of the F2 Standard. Early aircraft (how many? JAWA said: “first 20 in interim configuration…”) were delivered to the F2.1 standard (qualified in December 2005), which lacked AASM capability and “Spectra self-defence capability” (according to Jane’s, though Scorpion says: “Full SPECTRA (hardware)”. Presumably this means a limited or austere SPECTRA capability.
Scorpion suggests that the F2.1 had M88-2E4 engines, and TRN.
That the RBE2 had DBS mapping, FTT, and AGR modes:
The F2.1 standard had an analogue integration of MICA IR.
Scalp-EG (carriage and simulated employment only!?)
The F2.2 Standard (qualified June 2006) introduced expanded capabilities – notably compatability with the AASM guided bomb and presumably some SPECTRA enhancements. 14 were expected to have been received by end of 2006.
Initially the F2.2 Standard Rafales had only air to air weapons. A six missile AAM fit with four EM MICA and two IR MICA was available from the end of 2007.
The F2 Rafale Ms were able to carry a buddy tanker pod, as previous Rafale Ms had done.
The first drop of an AASM was made from Rafale C No. 101 at Cazaux on 26 July 2006. A service clearance followed on ????
Rafale B No. 302 had earlier been equipped with supplementary software to enable a demonstration of LGB capability (for the RoKAF) carrying out test separations of GBU-12 bombs in April 2000, followed by live drops in October 2000, but this had not been incorporated in the F2.
Initial French Air Force Rafale weapon configurations incorporating the Scalp cruise missile, the Armament Air-Sol Modulair (AASM), and the GBU-12/B and GBU-22/B Laser-guided bombs were approved on 6 October 2006 for incorporation from January 2009.
Jane’s described the “Primary attack fit of six 250 kg GBU-12 bombs beneath wings, plus Damocles designator pod (yet to be funded, as of 2006); one 1,000 kg GBU-24 on ventral hardpoint; or two SCALP ASMs, one under each wing.” F2 standard had the ability to carry two SCALP and four MICA missiles in conjunction with three 2,200-litre external tanks.
In the event, LGBs, MICA (?), AASM (?) and SCALP were integrated early (from February 2007) as urgent operational modifications, under programme Echo. This resulted in the F2+ standard?. Some Rafale Bs featured the Scarabee datalink.
On 7 March 2007, France dispatched three AdlA Rafales to Dushanbe, Tajikistan, for support of international operations over Afghanistan. They were joined by three Naval aircraft deployed to the theatre on Charles de Gaulle from 15 March to 16 April. Following their arrival on 12 March, the first Air Force operation was undertaken two days later.
The Rafale made its first live weapons drop on 28 March 2007, when an Aeronavale Rafale dropped two GBU-12 LGBs in support of Dutch troops. The first AdlA offensive Rafale mission followed on 1 April. By 25 May, the Navy flew 110 Rafale sorties and the Air Force had flown 92 sorties.
The F2 never had AM39 Exocet/ASMPA/Reco NG/Damocles capability.
47 surviving Rafale F2s were modified to F3 standard. (Rafale B B316 (113-HL) EC 01/007 ‘Provence’ had been lost in a fatal accident on 6 December 2007). The first two F2s to be converted to F3 standard were M11 and B307, which were completed in ****. The conversion process took 6-8 weeks per aircraft.
By July 2008 35 aircraft remained to be converted.
By July 2009 17 F2s remained to be converted.
JackonickoIt’s not the avionics, it’s aspects and elements of the software. And that is not quite the same across all six Typhoon operators.
Not all of the operators of T1 jets are fully on board the drops, for example, and not everyone uses the same MD. DASS is the same basic hardware (Germany’s slightly austere version notwithstanding) but has completely different capabilities on different nations’ jets.
Talk to the Luftwaffe and you’ll get a very different impression than you’d get talking to the RAF at one end of the spectrum, or the Austrians at the other end.
I’m not remotely surprised that the Swiss evaluation went as it did.
JackonickoOnly since then?
I’d rather written him off as being one of the more rabid Rafale fanboys long ago.
I apologise to him if that was unfair, back then.
Certainly his last contribution on this thread was sheer buffoonery.
JackonickoIt had been said by Jon Lake over on Starstreak; the typhoon force were made up of ex helicopter, ex C-130 loamasters and even some ex F-3 navigtors. He also said they were OCU students.
The RAF Typhoon force includes a handful of guys with those backgrounds, but the vast majority are ex-F3 and ex-Jag, including some with exchange tours on ‘teen series’ fighters. I don’t think Lakey said that they were the people involved in this.
(Or for those who think I am Lake, I don’t think “I” said that….:rolleyes:)
JackonickoOpit,
Thank you for an excellent and considerate post.
Equating C101, B301 and B302 to IPAs is an excellent illustration for an English reader.
I think you’re right with regard to your other points.
JackonickoThere are pilots on the Typhoon force who have the backgrounds described, and lots of Jag and Harrier pilots who have never had an aircraft with a radar, but I have never heard that the ex-F3 Nav, nor the ex C-130 Loadie were involved in the Solenzara exercise.
Sign In
