JackonickoRAF Typhoons used Litening 3 and Paveway 2/Enhanced Paveway 2 only over Libya (plus the normal A-A weapons, of course). Until the introduction of P1E later this year, Paveway 2 is effectively the RAF Typhoon’s only A-G weapon.
Jackonicko@AZ/Kovy,
This is something of an over-simplification. For the most complex scenarios, with very large numbers of bogeys, and assuming no MIDS and no AWACS, the AESA does theoretically have advantages in some Air-to-Air scenarios.
However, in less complex (but still multi-bogey) engagements, the wider ‘look’ angle of the mechanically scanned array (MSA), coupled with greater gimbal limits, longer range (and especially longer range at those limits) give the MSA compelling advantages in many (some would say most) real world air-to-air scenarios.
Certainly to suggest that the MSA has advantages only in 1 v 1 intercept scenarios is so grossly simplistic as to be effectively incorrect.
@Swerve,
Indeed. And the ability to integrate third party weapons on Gripen (eg Israeli or FSU/Warpac) was always a design driver for the export market, and is a capability that is not matched by either Rafale or Typhoon.
JackonickoAs for the rest of your post; which part of the following make me a “fanboy” and of what exactly?
If you make an accusation it is rather behoven upon you to back that accusation with some solid evidence.
None of the highly selective elements that you chose to extract from your posts in your latest post make you a fanboy.
I say again that what makes you a fanboy in my eyes is: “your continued failure to address the substantive points, your determination to argue about semantics and my motivation/identity/unfairness/rudeness rather than about the actual debate, and (crucially) your inability to acknowledge Typhoon’s strengths, or Rafale’s weaknesses……. I notice that your contributions to this thread have all been to attack me, or my credibility, and you don’t seem to have made a single constructive point about the actual subject whatsoever.”
Perhaps I mean troll rather than (or as well as) fanboy?
But frankly, Snafu, when you want to engage in debate about Rafale, or Typhoon, then I’d love to debate with you further, but as long as you want to pursue this single-minded and boring debate about me, it’s really not very compelling or inviting. I hope that doesn’t sound rude or dismissive, it really isn’t meant to be.
JackonickoNic,
Thanks for the clarification on Le Canard.
I don’t imply that Rafale has been subsidized (though that would explain how such a lower price was offered), I just reported that Le Canard had suggested it.
“Either Rafale is sold at an inflated price for the French, or this is dumping, special discount under cost” states the magazine.
I’m not trying to undermine Rafale, I’m just trying to get a better quality of debate, with more openness on your side, and an acknowledgement that some of your side’s long and deeply held convictions are actually nonsensical.
And on price, it is clear that the difference between the aircraft is wafer thin, as my figures and TMor’s figures show only too well, and Rafale is not, as has long been claimed, significantly cheaper than Typhoon.
Nor am I rabidly anti-Rafale, in fact it’s a programme I rather admire. I’m just not as rabidly and blindly pro-Rafale as some of your side. And it may surprise you to know that one reason for that admiration is precisely because Rafale is indeed “a proof that a national industry can still in this day and age develop a top of the line and successful fighter itself.”
You have estimated wrongly on my attitude to TSR2, as well.
And that’s why I rate Gripen as being an even greater achievement, as it is the product of an even smaller nation, and one that has been pretty successful to date.
I have argued myself that Rafale is a success precisely because it meets French requirements so brilliantly, and is giving such good service to the MN and AdlA. Nor do I underestimate its importance in helping to retain not only critical industries but also high value manufacturing jobs (and lots of them) in France.
And I am indeed jealous that Britain has not done the same, though I believe that the collaboration with Germany, Italy and Spain has, on the whole, produced a successful aircraft, and has resulted in a programme that was more resistant to cancellation, which was always a danger in the 1980s and 1990s in the UK.
MilDave
I’d meant to pick up on your previous reference to Microsoft, where you praised it for its user-friendliness and ease of use. This struck me as bizarre, as if Apple have done anything, it has been to produce a more user-friendly, more simple and more intuitive user interface.
But then IT folk (and I know you’re an IT professional) do tend to be almost illogically anti-Mac, so perhaps I should not be surprised. That’s not an insult, by the way, merely an observation.
JackonickoAnd you, my dear chap, are obsessed with semantics.
This thread isn’t based on a misunderstanding of International Law, it’s based on reservations expressed in a French magazine about the Rafale having been sold more cheaply to India than to the French armed forces. That Rafale is being subsidised.
I made the mistake (and I’m happy to admit to mistakes) of assuming that such subsidies were illegal under International, European, French or Indian law. They may not be illegal, but any such subsidy is interesting, in view of the fierce debates we’ve seen for years over price.
I don’t need to prove that you have claimed superiority for Rafale in order to label you as a fanboy, I need only point to your continued failure to address the substantive points, your determination to argue about semantics and my motivation/identity/unfairness/rudeness rather than about the actual debate, and your inability to acknowledge Typhoon’s strengths, or Rafale’s weaknesses.
As to my alleged abusive pleasantries – unless greeting your input with ‘Ooh Goody’ is deemed abusive (which would be a shame, as it was actually expressing my delight at being able to be rude about the Daily Mail), then actually it was you who began the ‘abuse’, with your comment about my being a naughty s**t stirrer.
Which was an interesting choice of insult, as I notice that your contributions to this thread have all been to attack me, or my credibility, and you don’t seem to have made a single constructive point about the actual subject whatsoever.
JackonickoGlitter,
Which is the most efficient for reaching mach 1 ? Using AF or not?
That’s exactly the point.
If you can do it without using afterburner, then not burning all of that extra fuel is a good idea.
If you’re going to criticise others on the basis of their supposed bias or lack of objectivity, it’s a bit inconvenient if they can demonstrate that they are more objective and less biased than you are.
Snafu,
And again you post a long diatribe about me, or about who I’m supposed to be, rather than about the subject.
(And looking back at my posts, you must be extraordinarily thin-skinned if you can detect anything approaching insults or personal attacks. I’m simply not that interested in you to be bothered to want to attack you, to be frank).
And I can assure you that the bulk of my positive impressions of Rafale have been formed as a result of what you would call anecdotal evidence, by actually talking to the people who fly it, operate it, support it, build it and developed it.
Post 390 on page 13 of this thread demonstrates my relative neutrality (and certainly my willingness to acknowledge Rafale’s strengths). There is no evidence that you have anything like the same open-mindedness, which marks you out as a biased and impartial fanboy.
JackonickoSnafu,
You again spent the bulk of your post waffling on about irrelevances.
Let me make it plain. I don’t care what you think about me, and it has been you that has been ‘crying’ and coming the ‘victim’ about the lack of respect that I have accorded you. If it matters to you, then follow the example set by our friend Alpha Zulu and I’ll treat you with courtesy. Continue to personalize it, and I’ll accord you the level of respect that that deserves.
Some of the evidence on which I base my arguments is anecdotal. SOME.
In any case, anecdotal does not mean inaccurate, it does not mean unreliable, and I would suggest that it often means quite the reverse. Imagine that (say) Guillaume Steuer spoke frankly and off the record to a Rafale TP – his report of that conversation would be better evidence than something published in Fox 3, or that appeared on Wikipedia, though we would have no link to back it up.
If we limited ourselves to internet validated evidence, or to named sources we’d be stuck at a very low level of information, and we’d be unable to do much more than make crude ‘Top Trumps’ type comparisons. We’d often also be stuck using older information. Perhaps that’s what you’d like, since it’s in such simplistic comparisons, and when using historic comparisons that Rafale appears to do best.
As an example of the applicability of anecdotal evidence, I said that Typhoon had a lower cockpit workload than Rafale years ago, based on conversations with pilots and engineers. My argument was immediately refuted and challenged, and I was personally attacked and abused by people just like you. And now, years on, that Typhoon advantage has been highlighted in the leaked Swiss report. Had it not been leaked, people like you would still be arguing the toss.
As a result of anecdotal evidence, I can tell you that Malaysian pilots have been flying Typhoon at Coningsby this week. I can tell you that Qatar still hasn’t rearranged the flight evaluation it had planned for last April, and that was cancelled because the pilots concerned were flying in the Libyan operation.
But the Rafale fanboys are congenitally incapable of hearing anything that reflects badly on their beloved aeroplane (nor that which reflects any credit on the hated Typhoon) unless they are forced to do so, and take particular delight in trying to rubbish any evidence that reflects poorly on their aircraft that is not carved in stone.
By contrast read my post 390, and then try to accuse me of not being ready and able to acknowledge Rafale strengths (acknowledgement of many of which absolutely relies on anecdotal evidence), or of not being more than willing to criticize Typhoon as an aircraft and as a programme.
You and those like you characterize me as being lacking in balance, as being biased, and as being a lobbyist, but the truth is that I am a great deal more balanced, more open minded and more neutral than you are.
AlphaZulu,
Thanks for your courteous reply.
Firstly, ergonomics are not the same as MMI, and (the Russian jets aside) all modern fighters have great ergonomics anyway. The big differences in MMI nowadays come in the way in which information and data can be called up, and, when called up, how that data is presented, and in how easily the weapon system and aircraft can be managed and operated. Pilot workload is a great indicator (probably the greatest indicator) of the efficacy and efficiency of the MMI.
It’s a common thread among people who’ve flown Rafale who are familiar with Typhoon that the pilot has to work harder to achieve the same ends. That marks it as an inferior MMI – even though it may mark a quantum leap over the MMI of the Mirage 2000 (say).
Secondly, if one MMI is inferior until people are used to it, familiar with it and trained to use it, then it’s an inferior MMI, albeit one whose inferiority may be partly compensated for through experience and exposure.
But if you spend the same time training a pilot to use a better MMI and he will be more efficient.
I have to confess that I find arguing about MMI irksome. This is such a clear advantage for Typhoon that arguing about it seems as pointless and fruitless as it would be to argue about the Rafale’s maturity advantage, or about its wider range of integrated weapons. And since the Swiss report highlighted Typhoon’s lower cockpit workload, it ought to be something that could simply be accepted, in the way that we all accept some Rafale advantages.
PS: By cake slice, I just mean the shape of the radar scan, emanating out from the nose.
JackonickoSnafu,
What a load of waffle!
However, if we’re getting into semantics you’re being a bit too selective and disingenuous about the helmet.
You said:
“Helmet & IRST: Both aircraft have these. To claim that Rafale does not is strange and does expose a bias.”
This was tantamount to a claim of equality.
Confining ourselves to the operational aircraft, Typhoon has a helmet and is using IRST, and Rafale does not and is not.
I have never tried to claim equality between Typhoon and Rafale in A-G based on planned future integrations, because to do so would be pointless and foolish.
I realise better than anyone that you can’t compare unfunded items on either aircraft’s long term wish lists with kit that’s actually in service on the other.
As to courtesy, respect and politeness beget respect and politeness. If you want to be treated properly, then take a leaf out of AlphaZulus etiquette book, rather than Fonk’s.
There is plenty of evidence (some of it admittedly anecdotal) for the neutral observer to concede MMI/cockpit workload, Captor M BVR capability and Captor E as Typhoon advantages. If you can’t, then that’s your problem.
With regard to strengths and weaknesses, there may not be, and does not have to be, numerical parity. My point is that anyone who claims not to be a fanboy should be able to list as many weaknesses for ‘their’ aircraft as I do for ‘mine’, and should be able to list as many strengths for the opposition as I do. It’s just an indicator of open-mindedness, not a strict mathematical formula.
Japan is interesting. I would agree that a non-US solution was never likely, though the AW101 shows that it was at least notionally possible.
Of the three aircraft under consideration, it won’t surprise you to know that I would rate Typhoon as being the best pure air-to-air aircraft, though I’m not sure that I’d be quite as sanguine about future anti-shipping capability, just yet.
I’m not sure that AD was the driver in Japan’s requirement, however. Selection of the F-35, and the shortlisting of Super Hornet (rather than F-15SE) would suggest that air-to-ground was more important than many of us thought. I don’t pretend to know what goes on behind the closed doors of the Japanese MoD, but maybe the nature of the threat (especially from NorKor WMD) convinced Japan that a much more aggressive and proactive means of defence was required?
Or maybe the primary requirement was to demonstrate Japan’s continuing loyalty to its big superpower ally, and to procure an aircraft that would ‘fit’ with US forces based in the region? It’s interesting, I think, that US forces in Japan have hardly been scaled back at all, despite massive reductions elsewhere.
JackonickoTMor,
Yes, Typhoon enjoys those advantages, though Captor-M is not ‘vastly better’ than PESA RBE-2, only ‘better’ in certain areas of A-A. Nor is Typhoon really catching up in A-G, just yet, but its always planned A-G capability is gradually coming in. You could say that Typhoon will never truly catch up, in that it will never have such a wide range of A-G capabilities. I do believe that Captor-E will be much better than RBE-2AA.
Rafale enjoys many other advantages.
Range (an edge which Typhoon will never overturn),
Heavy weapons capabilities, significantly better radar capabilities in many areas.
Operational Maturity.
Operational flexibility.
More weapons integrations, and a more useful suite of air-to-ground weapons.
AASM Hammer (yes I know it’s included in the above, but it’s great….)
A real SEAD capability.
A real nuclear strike capability.
A real traditional reconnaissance capability (which is therefore superior to Typhoon’s planned NTISR capability using RecceLite).
Familiarity for former Mirage 2000 aircrew and apparently some logistics commonality.
An AESA radar that is literally just around the corner.
Some very low speed/post stall manoeuvrability advantages.
A longer range passive A-A missile.
An especially comfortable cockpit with excellent ergonomics and lovely soft touch switch actions.
A big export order, providing funds for enhancements and upgrades, and potentially providing a really low cost manufacturing capability.
Historically, the Rafale has enjoyed huge advantages programmatically, and has a fully-developed, in-service, uncompromised Naval variant.
Then there are advantages that Rafale has enjoyed, and may still enjoy – but that it would be foolish to assume are still definitely a Rafale advantage, and that are certainly being eroded and ‘caught up’.
Better EW performance.
Better Sensor fusion.
TV channel performance in the IRST.
Eagle,
Let’s nail this Dutch evaluation thing, shall we?
1) The ‘evaluation’ was carried out by the CPB in October 2001, updated in March 2002 (page 36 citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid…?doi…) .
I invite you to look back at the programmes at that point in history. Then tell me that ANY evaluation from then is relevant today.
NB: The aircraft themselves were not flown or analysed.
No data was sought from or provided by the manufacturers.
2) The CPB is the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis – “an institute that makes economic policy analysis.” (see http://www.cpb.nl/en)
What do you think the focus of their interest was – technical/operational or economic/industrial?
I know that it’s tempting to latch onto anything that seems like good news, but honestly, one needs to know when its just a bit too desperate.
That’s why you won’t find me making a massive deal over one nation (of four) committing to fund the integration of Storm Shadow and Brimstone on Typhoon.
Re MMI, I’m content that I’ve put the real gen out there. Feel free to reject it, or fail to understand or believ it.
NB: Grandclaudon and Romain’s accounts were contradicted by other ATLC participants, including the CO of the 27th FS.
NB: P1E includes enhancements to DASS, EW, DVI, and sensor fusion. Just read up on P1E.
Mildave
I’d given up on you, but you do raise one interesting point.
On the MMI topic perhaps it’s better to concede that each side will think fondly of its own system ? After all we’re not all talking the same language (nor give the same meaning to even the same language…) are we ?
There is an element of truth in this, in that familiarity will make an inferior system easier to use (initially, at least) to some pilots. However, MMI is not subjective, or entirely subjective, and, while it may irritate the Rafale fans, the fact is that Typhoon’s MMI is superior, which is why the Swiss found that it had a lower cockpit workload.
As to ineptitude, then EF GmbH and the UK MoD and RAF have been every bit as inept as any of the others that you list.
Indeed the Swiss AF process has resulted in selection of the aircraft best suited to meet their requirements, so I wouldn’t call them inept. They also identified many of the weaknesses and shortcomings that afflicted Typhoon in 2008, and gave it a deserved kicking.
The only thing one can criticise is the weighting/credibility factor that failed to give credit to Typhoon’s planned upgrades, but looking back to the state of the programme then, I can’t blame them for viewing EF GmbH’s promises with some skepticism.
And India, required to select the cheapest alternative that meets their requirements have selected the L1 bidder. I see no ineptitude.
As to Brazil, that’s obviously your view, it’s not mine.
JackonickoEagle 1,
The Dutch ‘evaluation’ was conducted by the CPB – an economic organization, not a military or aeronautical one. It included no flying. It included no technical evaluation of real aircraft. It received no data or assistance from manufacturers.
It was not an evaluation in the real sense.
Anyone who wishes to can look into this and see that I’m speaking the truth. I am not the sole source on this.
As to Singapore, I spoke to people from industry, from supporting air forces and the customer air forces. Not many people did. You are at liberty to believe me or not.
I pointed out that Typhoon had a lower workload cockpit years ago, based on what TPs who had looked at both types, and pilots who had flown both told me. Until the Swiss report was leaked, and until it confirmed that Typhoon enjoyed a lower workload cockpit, I was howled down by the angry and anguished crowd of Rafale fans who refused to accept that such a thing might be true. They now have to acknowledge that point.
Typhoon’s MMI is superior to that of Rafale, too. I make that judgement based on what pilots who have flown both have said, and on the basis of the testimony of expert Test Pilots.
You suspect that Typhoon’s lower workload is down to DVI. It is, in part, but it’s also down to intuitive display modings and more streamlined menus.
Typhoon routinely goes supersonic in dry power. It is not “more efficient” to use afterburner, as specific fuel consumption rises dramatically when reheat is engaged.
You talk as though Rafale is unique in having good sensor fusion. It certainly had better sensor fusion at the time of the Swiss evaluation (PIRATE was effectively test equipment, with poor integration/fusion) but Typhoon’s sensor fusion is in a whole different league to where it was back then, and it may now be equal or even superior to Rafale’s. We don’t know for sure, but we do know that things have changed, and that it is no longer safe to assume that Rafale enjoys any real superiority in this area.
AlphaZulu,
Captor is not just superior in ‘raw’ range. It has a bigger scan ‘cake slice’ (that’s a characteristic of M-scan radars compared to ESAs) and has wider gimbal limits (which has obvious applicability to A/F-pole). It has longer range and MUCH longer range at the azimuth limits.
This isn’t rocket science, and shouldn’t be contentious. AESA and PESA arrays have their advantages (especially for air-to-ground), but for pure BVR A-A use, Captor’s advantages are, or should be, self evident.
As to Captor-E, the bigger antenna, with more T/R modules, the repositioner and the later development timeline all make it pretty obvious that it’s going to be a better radar than RBE-2AA.
With regard to MMI, the Swiss report is not my source, it’s just a useful public source that tends to confirm what I’ve been saying for years. I’ve spoken to a number of ‘neutral’ US SETP members, as well as to British, Danish, German, Italian, Swedish and French TPs, and to pilots who have flown both types. They are my source.
I’m not an expert on MMI, and have never flown a modern fast jet (the Jag’s as modern as I get). I have to look up the names of the tools used to measure MMI (or at least double check them). But when people who really do know about MMI say something then I listen, and I take it seriously.
My comments about Rafale’s MMI are shamelessly parroted from what they have said. I am absolutely convinced about the superiority of Typhoon’s MMI over Rafale’s as a result of what I have been told, and view it as probably Typhoon’s biggest single advantage (even bigger than the edge in performance). I recognize that it’s not something that is easy for the lay person to get their head around, and that it isn’t something that can easily be validated by using easily accessible internet sources.
Similarly my comment that “”Rafale does require the pilot to work harder, making more switch selections, moving his hands from stick and throttle more often” is not my opinion, but a simple statement of what pilots who have flown Rafale have said to me, and what TPs who have watched French pilots flying the rig and sim have remarked upon.
Typhoon does have switches around displays, but they are little used. In practise, the Typhoon pilot calls up new display formats using DVI, when they are not automatically generated in response to other selections.
Your comment about radio channel selection is particularly appropriate. This is an ideal application for DVI.
NB that MMI is not the same as cockpit design or architecture. It’s not about ergonomics. You can tell little about MMI from looking at the cockpit layout and design as MMI is all about what happens on the displays, symbology, how information is delivered in the minimum number of steps, etc.
The RAF’s upgraded Jaguar had some great MMI features – such that selecting the fire drills page in the EFRC automatically called up further pages in sequence, set up diversions, and called up approach plates from the ETAPs. That alone doesn’t make a great MMI, but it’s a neat illustration of what MMI is about.
Typhoon’s cockpit might look like that of an F/A-18, for example, but Rafale’s very different looking cockpit might have a more similar MMI (it doesn’t in fact, but it could do).
JackonickoNick,
No-one’s calling anyone a liar.
But if group A define Supercruise as one thing, and group B define it as something different, and more challenging, then you can’t compare the two claims of supercruise performance.
That’s all.
Just trying to make sure that we’re using the same definition of supercruise.
We could say both aircraft are equally operational in the air-to-ground role, but when that means chucking a few Paveway IIs about in one case, but having a full Nuke/Scalp/AASM/LGB capability on the other, plus Exocet and recce in the other, then we’re not using the same definition of air-to-ground, are we?
JackonickoAcknowledging only those Typhoon strengths that can’t be denied (ie supersonic performance) just confirms my point.
A genuinely honest debate would see an acknowledgement of Typhoon’s superior MMI and lower cockpit workload, better radar for BVR, and the inevitability of better AESA radar performance for starters.
Then we have the unwillingness to accept some of the things that came out of the Singapore evaluation, the DACT with Luftwaffe Typhoons, etc. etc. etc.
But every Typhoon advantage is shouted down, denied, or dismissed as irrelevant, while every Rafale weakness is denied or dismissed.
Unless and until you can admit to as many Rafale weaknesses as I can describe for Typhoon, and as many Typhoon strengths as I can list for Rafale, then you’re a biased fanboy.
JackonickoLoke, re your last:
“Also you cannot use that to conclude that “Rafale PESA is better than Typhoon AESA”); first; as mentioned before it seems the Swiss don’t care that much about the range of the radars; second, the scores are influenced by numerous parameters the radar being one of them, and third the already mentioned infamous “credibility factor”. And fourth the Swiss did not evaluate or assess Typhoon’s AESA.
Snafu
A lobbyist? As in “a person employed by a particular interest to lobby”. Employed? For money? Are you sure? Can you prove it? Where is your evidence? Without it you’re libeling someone.
Or are you just being as rigorous with facts as you are with your claims for Rafale?
At no point was it claimed by me or anyone else that the helmet and IRST for Rafale were in service and use.
You implied that there was some comparison between Typhoon and Rafale in this area. You said:
Helmet & IRST: Both aircraft have these. To claim that Rafale does not is strange and does expose a bias. As with the Typhoon and the a2g capability, for the IRST it is merely a case of funding and limited development, the helmet exists but has simply not been funded for deployment by the AdlA.
Typhoon has a helmet and IRST, in service. Rafale does not. AFAIK they haven’t even mapped Rafale’s cockpit yet (the task that prevented helmet integration in the F-22). You can’t compare an unfunded item on Rafale’s long term wish list with kit that’s actually in service.
So why was it so hard to state that in the first place when i asked?
Frankly I was enjoying your posturing and indignation. It made you look like a buffoon.
Loke,
It’s a name.
You can’t see where Typhoon fits in in Malaysia? Perhaps it’s seen as being the only contender that gives sufficient margin of superiority over neighbouring air forces and potential threats?
Glitter,
Of course we should consider both the positive and negative information about both Eurofighter and Rafale. I’ve posted far more about Typhoon weaknesses than you’ve ever posted about Rafale’s negative aspects.
The point about supercruise is that if Rafale needs A/B to get through the transonic regime, then it’s not supercruising, according to the most stringent definition of the term. Typhoon doesn’t need burner to get to and sustain Mach 1.4, and if you want to compare like with like, then you need to use the same definition…..
MSphere,
I was interested in how Rafale had been offered so much more cheaply that Typhoon, since comparative official figures seem to show that the two aircraft are very similar in price. I don’t think that anything that the French do to sell an aircraft would have any political or electoral consequence in the UK, but it might in France. Accusing me of being ‘one-sided’ is hypocritical. I’ll say to you as I said to Glitter, I’ve posted far more about Typhoon’s weaknesses than you’ve ever posted about Rafale’s negative aspects.
JackonickoYes, but without a clear definition, that could mean the ‘easy’ definition of supercruise – eg sustaining Mach 1.3 in dry power – NOT accelerating to that speed without a/b and sustaining it.
And the recollection of what was written on a board in a static display (you think) really isn’t great evidence.
I’m not being difficult, it’s just that there really hasn’t been proper evidence of Rafale being able to supercruise, and plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that it can’t, or that it’s supercruise performance is marginal at best.
If this is true, it’s a big deal for Rafale.
JackonickoSo Fox 3 – a Dassault PR publication – mentions Supercruise. Would Vortex, or Eurofighter World convince you as good sources, I wonder, Nic?
Personally I don’t dismiss Fox 3 out of hand. So, does it specify reaching and sustaining supersonic speed without using afterburner? Does it specify what loadout the Rafale carried when it achieved supercruise? Does it specify Mach 1.3?
If so, please point me at the issue and page number.
Sign In
