And with a risk weighting, Rom-Un.

And in 2008, Typhoon’s AESA looked very risky indeed.

(And what makes you think that EW, IFF and RWR aren’t used in the acquisition phase in air policing?)

Sekant,
You may be right, I may well have been misinformed. Thanks for the clarification. I’m looking into it.

PPP,
Rom_un might also bear in mind that the Swiss score of 7 for the Rafale with Pesa radar was after the application of a risk weighting, as was the 6.49 score for a Typhoon with AESA, at a time when Typhoon’s AESA was little more than a gleam in Selex’ eye!

Glitter,
So are you denying that Captor-E uses newer processors than RBE-2AA?

The repositioner moves slowly, and simply rotates. The benefits it gives more than outweigh any marginal increase in maintenance demands. With regard to RCS, Selex don’t agree with you. Go and ask Bob Mason about it at Farnborough.

Romun,
The Register? Please! I don’t hold up the Canard as being a great source, I just reported what it said because I thought that it would be of interest. I did not suggest for one moment that it was right or wrong, hence the question mark in the thread title.

As to the Swiss evaluation, yes, it was damaging and disappointing, but it happened in 2008. I respect the thoroughness of the Swiss process and note that it resulted in selection of the Gripen NG.

The so-called Dutch evaluation was a paperwork exercise by the CPB (an economic watchdog) with no proper technical evaluation of the aircraft, no flying, and no data from the manufacturers.

Snafu,
My facts are facts. You may not like them, but Captor E is widely acknowledged as superior to RBE-2AA. As to MMI, read the Swiss report that you’re so keen on.

P1E will stretch the advantage because it introduces MMI improvements, new modings and display symbology, etc. because it isn’t just a weapons integration.

Typhoon has an in-service helmet, fully integrated and in day-to-day use by the frontline. PIRATE is in daily use by the frontline.

Rafale does not have an integrated helmet, nor a decent IRST.

Claiming that Rafale has a helmet and an IRST and that it’s just waiting for funding is like me claiming that Typhoon’s Storm Shadow capability is equivalent to Rafale’s Scalp integration.

As to my sources on the Canard story. Reread the first post and my post 8 and my post 23. I reported what the Canard said based on what a French source e-mailed me (that’s what “my French sources” meant). Had it been from a website I’d have given a link, or had it been from a magazine I’d have named it.

Loke,
India evaluated Typhoon in India, in 2008.

Malaysia are evaluating it at Coningsby, right now, as I write these very words.

They’ll be looking at current operational jets, talking to 17 Squadron blokes who’ve flown lots of P1E jets, who have done end-to-end Paveway 4 testing, they’ll be talking to enthusiastic guys who have flown Typhoons on VERY long range overseas deployments, on Ellamy, ATLC and Magic Carpet, who fly with the helmet and PIRATE every time they fly, and who have flown operational tours on F-4, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-117, MiG-29, Mirage 2000 as well as the more usual GR4, Harrier, Sea Harrier, Jaguar, and Lightning. I suspect they’ll have been to Warton and chatted to their TPs and flown the rigs, simulating Storm Shadow and Brimstone firings, and maybe even an anti-ship missile or two…..

My spies tell me that on at least one sortie with a Malay in the front seat, the bloke in the back was T*m C*e*e*t*. He’s one of the blokes who has also flown R*f*l*!

If those organising their trip had any sense, they’ll have spent time with Selex and will have seen Captor-E and Bright Adder enough to form their own opinion as to whether the AESA timeline is credible.

It’s not 2008 any more, and the Malays will be seeing stuff that the Indians didn’t, and they’ll be seeing an aircraft where the helmet and PIRATE are in daily use, not test items, and where PW4 and a non-austere Litening integration are flying pretty much every day, and will be in frontline use by mid-year.

The weighting of risk may be very different today to the Swiss weighting, and the Malay determination of scores in Sensor Fusion, Detection, Acquisition and Identification will be different too. Things have moved on a long way in the Typhoon world since 2008.

Snafu,

Most of what you characterise as my personal opinions are facts.

Yes Rafale is closer to getting an operational AESA, but Typhoon is catching up and will have a vastly superior AESA when it does. FACT

But Typhoon’s performance is superior and always will be, FACT and Typhoon can supercruise with ease. FACT Typhoon has a better MMI FACT giving a lower pilot workload FACT, and its advantage in this area will stretch further ahead when P1E enters service FACT.

Typhoon has a world-leading helmet FACT, and a great IRST FACT. Rafale has neither FACT (save the handful of original and admittedly obsolete OSF sets FACT).

The Tranche 2 production contract shows a definite UPC for Typhoon of €55 m. FACT

As to the rest, if anyone’s a stirrer, it’s you. I posted reporting that a French paper had said that France had proposed to India to sell its Rafale at bargain prices.

You then made a big deal about my sources, which were irrelevant in this case. Le Canard Enchainé said what my source said it did.

But you choose to personalise this and to attack me personally, rather than answering or challenging my substantive points.

The sad thing is that the overall point is not that both programs have delivered the capabilities the users specified to date, it’s that the Typhoon programme should have set more ambitious targets for capability delivery, and that by failing to do so, it has compromised the aircraft’s export appeal.

Dr Steel,

Cos you can do clever things with the beam!

Alpha Zulu,

Thank you for your careful, considered and courteous response. Many Rafale fans would do well to emulate your style.

I am hesitant about getting into the subject of MMI, as it is widely misunderstood, and as in the past it has resulted in a lot of hurt feelings and tiresome whining and crying among a particular type of Rafale fan.

I don’t know what your phrase ‘global efficiency’ means, nor do I recall it in the Swiss report.

Like you, I do remember the Swiss explicitly praising Rafale’s sensor fusion, and I think I remember them criticizing Typhoon’s. That would not be a surprise, as PIRATE was then very immature, quite troubled, and was little more than a Trial Installation on the aircraft deployed, and I doubt that much work had been done on sensor fusion with PIRATE.

As if that were not bad enough, there were known issues with DASS/Captor with the SRP 4.1 software load.

And sensor fusion is of course important, and makes a major contribution to pilot Situational Awareness (SA).

MMI is also aimed at improving SA, by reducing the proportion of a pilot’s capacity that is used in managing and exploiting the sensors and systems, and thereby freeing up capacity for fighting the engagement.

I would not agree that great sensor fusion necessarily means a good MMI, however. You can have an aircraft with great sensor fusion that has a lousy MMI, or an aircraft with poor sensor fusion and a great MMI.

In the first case, there can be great sensor fusion, but if the aircraft requires a lot of the pilot’s attention to fly and operate, and if the sensors and systems require lots of button pushing and mode changes, then the MMI would be judged poor.

Generally speaking, low cockpit workload points to a good MMI, while a higher workload cockpit points to a less good MMI.

And MMI is not entirely subjective – the test pilots do have a number of non-subjective tools that help them measure and evaluate MMI. (These include the Bedford, Modified Cooper Harper and NASA TLX Scales)

That said, there are subjective elements to MMI, and a particular pilot might find an inferior MMI preferable, if it’s similar to the MMI he is used to.

This will provoke howls of anguish and protest, but this does explain why AdlA pilots can be so enthusiastic about Rafale’s MMI, since those from a Mirage 2000 background will find much of the symbology and display modings very familiar (only much improved), while those from the Jaguar or Mirage F1 would find anything good! Indeed an experienced Mirage 2000 pilot might find a superior but conceptually very different MMI harder to use.

I’m not saying that Rafale has a poor MMI, by comparison with many of today’s fighters, just that it is relatively poor when compared to Typhoon’s, which reduces pilot workload much more effectively, which is why the Swiss remarked on it.

What you say about HOTAS is true to an extent, though pilots who have flown both Typhoon and Rafale view it slightly differently, finding that Rafale does require the pilot to work harder, making more switch selections, moving his hands from stick and throttle more often.

Ensuring that display modes change intuitively, without requiring unnecessary switch selections (even by HOTAS) and adding DVI will always further improve MMI.

The fact is that as of today, the RAF is planning on retiring them between 2015 and 2018.

Umm. No it’s not. That is an option, but it’s not yet a plan. (Indeed because of the proportion of two seaters in Tranche 1, it’s becoming less likely by the day).

Until you kindly provide us with any “official” info backing up your claim, that’s your opinion.

No it’s a fact that EF GmbH were going to pay for the upgrade of Austrian Tranche 1 jets to Tranche 2 standards at their own expense, and this has been confirmed by Ays Rauen and Brian Philipson at EF GmbH Press Breakfasts at major trade shows at the time of the Austrian deal, and has been confirmed by others (eg Laurie Hilditch) subsequently. This isn’t “based only on my secret knowledge”, though you may not be able to find it on Wikipedia.

It’s also a fact that various IPAs and ISPAs have been converted from Tranche 1 to Tranche 2 standards.

The RAF already gave away some of theirs to SA, and Germany to Austria.

As is typical from you, you’re talking bollyhocks. The Saudi jets diverted to Saudi Arabia were Tranche 2, and so are the Austrian aircraft.

Yeah, I’m still waiting for any as official as possible statement about all the wonderful thing you said.

Then read the original requirement documents, or indeed any of the authoritative sources on P1E.

Again: It was always planned that Typhoon would enter service in the air-to-air role and that this would be the FOC standard. All Typhoon operators had a more urgent need for air defence aircraft than for air-to-ground, since there was a fleet of F-104, F-4, Mirage F1 and Tornado F3 fighters to replace, but there were Tornado IDS, F/A-18 and other types able to fulfill the air-to-ground role, at least in the short-to-medium term. It was always planned that in the 2012 timeframe, Tranche 2 jets would start to introduce elements of the planned air-to-ground capability at EOC. That work is proceeding according to plan under P1E/CP210. The RAF brought forward its own Air-to-Ground capability under CP193.

Which part of that do you dispute, exactly?

Captor-E will be better than RBE-2AA in that it has:
1) A bigger antenna and more power
2) It’s newer, and benefits from all of the increases in processor power and speed that Moore’s Law describes.
3) It has a repositioner that removes all of the very real disadvantages that a conventional AESA has, dramatically increasing range off boresight.
4) It’s also based on a better radar in the first place.

4) Is opinion, but it’s a widely held opinion. The original PESA RBE-2 was a technological dead end, and not a great performer. I’m afraid that the other points are simply fact, Buddy.

Jack , whilst i don’t necessarily disagree with your sentiments here and i do completely agree with the fact that both the Rafale and the Typhoon are fine aircraft, both with their strengths and weaknesses i do feel that many of the characteristics and faults you point out for Mildave could equally be leveled at yourself.

This is what causes the sometimes less than thought out respones to your postings.

Please don’t go off the deep end and claim no such thing; i’ll simply reply by posting examples of your bias which i genuinely do not wish to highlight any further.

Snafu,

Thanks for your input, which is as predictable and as useful as always. (Eg utterly predictable and of no use whatsoever).

It’s becoming tired and boring that whenever the Rafale fanboys can’t answer substantive points they choose to shoot the messenger, and to play the man, and not the ball.

I have frequently acknowledged weaknesses in Typhoon and strengths in Rafale, and the same cannot be said for most of my detractors.

The reason that I provoke such ire is that I dare question their assertions of Rafale’s supposedly absolute superiority, and contradict the more nonsensical claims when they are made. And the fact that I don’t accept their crude and nonsensical characterisation of Typhoon, Gripen and F-35 (indeed of anything that isn’t 100% French).

As to the criticisms I make of Mil Dave, I’m afraid that they can’t reasonably be applied to me (though plenty of other criticisms can be levelled, of course).

I question all sources, whether they are positive or negative about Rafale, or Typhoon, and I do not believe anything absolutely and uncritically. I always try to engage my critical faculties, and I have frequently and often acknowledged evidence of both Rafale strengths and Typhoon weaknesses. The Rafale fanboys are nothing like as open minded.

I have pointed out that some public documents may be flawed, or give only a partial picture, and that they need to be interpreted with expert understanding, and I acknowledged that that applies to both aircraft, and I tipped my hat to TMor for his work in endeavouring to explain the conflicting and contradictory figures when it comes to Rafale pricing. The Rafale fanboys are nothing like as open minded.

Feel free to argue with my points, but my supposed bias? Give it a rest.

A number of posters have referred to the Swiss report highlighting Rafale’s ‘MMI’. Where exactly was this? I saw references highlighting the excellence of Rafale’s sensor fusion, and the way in which this enhanced situational awareness, but this is not quite the same thing, though good sensor fusion can be one important element within the MMI.