JackonickoThe lacking DASS performance was owed to the immaturity of some of its components and possibly mission data which are of critical importance for the ESM, ECM and MAWS. I think that DASS with the refinement and rectification of issues has matured a lot and is more capable than it was back then. The “short range self defence system” is hardly a sustainable claim
Mission Data populates every system that is remotely reliant on software, so you can add radar and PIRATE to the list of systems relying on Mission Data.
Typhoon has not, thus far, had four-nation Mission Data, so the work done by 17 Squadron in the USA will improve the DASS on UK aircraft, while leaving the DASS on German aircraft (say) very different.
Mission Data lies behind the biggest differences between the Typhoons used by different nations, even where the hardware is the same.
Mission Data has come a very long way since the Swiss evaluation, especially for the UK and, since Libya, Italy.
Colibri
I say again.
Yes, single seat, clean Rafales flown by experienced pilots (ex M2K) beat two-seat Phase 3 twin stick Typhoons with full centreline tanks, flown by ex-Jag pilots. Some achievement!
It’s true.
JackonickoThere have been successful (but expensive) attempts to replace separate EFT/BFT phases with a single type (eg the RAF all-JP experiment), but I can think of no successful instance of replacing EFT, BFT, AFT, and LIFT with a single aircraft type.
That’s not to say that it could not be done, but logic would suggest that it would be hugely wasteful (all of the basic ‘effects of controls’, aeros, formation, etc. is best done in a cheap, lower performance aircraft) and that there would be a huge wastage rate (some student pilots need a more gradual process) and you might end up losing some students who would have gone on to be real ‘aces’ under a more phased approach. How many times have blokes who’ve come close to being chopped on the Tucano have emerged from Valley at the top of their course?
And logic would dictate that if you were going to attempt a single-type solution, you would have to do it with an aircraft at the top end of the performance/sophistication spectrum, for AFT and LIFT to be successful.
A Hawk could do the whole job – especially if you used the Mk 65/65A for EFT/BFT and the Hawk T2 for AFT/LIFT. I would say that the PC-21 could not.
Cross countries at 360 kts are just a bit too leisurely to impose a realistic workload on a student, and you don’t have the power to be able to manoeuvre ‘realistically’.
(There’s an argument to say that the Hawk is a bit too docile and ‘tame’ for LIFT – the PC-21 certainly would be).
JackonickoA great post, Fedders.
However, I would not want to take anything away from the PC-21 as a BASIC trainer, as it’s short (Turbo Firecracker influenced?) wing gives the aircraft jet-like handling at turboprop costs.
If I could have any aircraft as a private runaround (and bearing in mind my own piloting limitations) the PC-21 would be at the very top of my list.
JackonickoThe typhoon has been bested by the rafale in every single competition they took part (6 in total)
WRONG.
1) Korea –
FACT: Rafale and Typhoon both lost to F-15.
SUPPOSITION: Rafale won on technical grounds but F-15 preferred politically
Advantage Rafale.
2) Netherlands. No competition. No evaluation, paperwork exercise only.
Meaningless, but Advantage Rafale.
3) Singapore –
FACT: Rafale and Typhoon both lost to F-15.
SUPPOSITION (in this case supported by a lot of anecdotal evidence): Typhoon won on technical grounds but F-15 preferred politically
Advantage Typhoon.
4) Saudi Arabia –
FACT: Typhoon selected. RSAF offered Rafale and rejected it.
Advantage Typhoon.
5) Brazil –
FACT: Typhoon eliminated and not shortlisted.
Advantage Rafale.
6) Switzerland –
FACT: Rafale and Typhoon both lost to Gripen. Rafale won on technical grounds but Gripen preferred politically and economically.
Advantage Rafale.
7) UAE –
Rafale humiliatingly rejected after having been the sole aircraft under consideration….. leading to Eurofighter RFI/RFP
Advantage Typhoon.
8) India –
FACT: Rafale won after being selected as L1 bidder.
SUPPOSITION: Typhoon probably won the technical evaluation.
Qualified Advantage Rafale.
Then it failed to demonstrate any superiority in AtA against its main rival when this area was supposed to be its forte.
Apart from Major Grühn, and the AMI, and…..
ATLC,
Conflicting accounts and claims.
solenzara
Yes, single seat, clean Rafales flown by experienced pilots (ex M2K) beat two-seat Phase 3 twin stick Typhoons with full centreline tanks, flown by ex-Jag pilots. Some achievement!
the RAF afraid to confront the rafale
Utter nonsense. There was no DACT in the recent 3 Squadron/EC 1/7 visits because they were weekend social events. (But hats off to the AdlA for getting jets airborne for air to air photography).
“Engagement” starts when the detection is made and not before , when the identification is made and not before and just before the acquisition. Do you understand ?
I understand. You clearly don’t. You can’t engage until you’ve acquired. Engagement is the physical fight (WVR and BVR) and it follows detection (ooh there’s something over there!), identification (oh dear, it’s hostile!), acquisition (it’s exactly there, I can see it with my sensors (or eyes) and I’m going to engage it).
Engagement can be BVR, WVR, with missiles or gun.
Jackonickobut in surface attack tests it flunked some tests.
Rubbish! Unsubstantiated supposition, and actually not the case.
I know what weapons were dropped, when, where and with what results, so I know that you’re making this claim up, or repeating someone else’s made up nonsense.
I suppose Typhoon ‘flunked’ the hot and high tests at Leh, too? I know what happened at Leh…..
And the radar tests? Do you even know what the targets were? I do!
The simple fact is that Typhoon got more of the 643 tick boxes than Rafale did, and led after the technical evaluation. After Switzerland, I have to say that that surprised me, but the Swiss and the Indians were looking at different things, and evaluated very different aircraft.
The Swiss never looked at P1E in the air or in the active cockpit, for example, and didn’t get to do a guided LGB drop or an AMRAAM firing. The Indians did.
No sane person would doubt the superiority of Rafale after the Swiss evaluation
No sane person would doubt Rafale’s superior ability to meet specific Swiss requirements, at a particular point in time, more like. Anything else is a stretch.
Hudos and thanks to Bluewings for his pretty red green and blue bar chart, by the way! Knowing what standard of aircraft the Swiss saw, and knowing what went wrong, I find it frankly remarkable that Typhoon came so close to Rafale in SA, Detection, Identification and Data Dissemination, and am amazed that it didn’t do worse in Acquisition, CNI and EW.
And it’s nice to see Typhoon ahead in engagement (that’s not just BVR, you realise), getting top marks in performance, and being so far ahead, and the score for pilot workload. There’s more for a Typhoon fan to take comfort from than we realised at the time – especially in view of how far the aircraft has come since the evaluation (with the drops in Tranche 1, and P1E in Tranche 2, as well as Strongbow), and in view of what the Swiss saw in terms of MD.
JackonickoOnly the UK Tranche 1 aircraft CURRENTLY uses Litening.
It was integrated under ‘Project Gordian’, the so-called austere air to ground capability was embodied in response to Change Proposal 193 (CP193).
The integration of Litening is ‘austere’ in that it uses a pessimistic airframe mask and lacks some features of a full integration.
The aircraft on Magic Carpet, Ellamy and Frisian Flag with Litening were Tranche 1 aircraft.
A full Litening Integration has been incorporated in P1EA in response to CP210. Without P1EA, the Tranche 2 jet has an air-to-ground capability, but cannot use Litening.
Testing of P1EA is complete, but the upgrade is now being cleared prior to a full release to service early next year. We will expect to see it in service for training/opeval before that full release.
JackonickoBAE will have enough problems as it is dealing with the lesser functionality of the TMk2 vs the PC-21
Swerve asked you to explain that charge, Tester.
I don’t begin to understand how such a charge could be arrived at or justified, I have to say.
JackonickoNo targeting capability? What were those Litening pods for, then?
And how did the Typhoons spike for Tornados?
More idiocy! :rolleyes:
JackonickoIf very low speed agility and post stall capability was more significant than being a niche capability, the MiG-29 and Su-27 would rule the roost in air combat.
They don’t.
While the ability to fly right down to the edge of departure (and Rafale will depart, eventually, as any fixed wing aircraft will depart) is interesting and admirable, and may even occasionally be useful, no fighter pilot worth his salt will deliberately throw away energy by getting that slow.
In any event, a helmet sight and HOBS missile will obviate the need to get that slow.
There is also the point that the degree of truly carefree handling conferred by ALSR allows the pilot to concentrate more of his attentions on the fight, which can be an absolute game changer in the WVR fight.
JackonickoThe problem is that the new fleet is simply too small to replace the old, even without the fact that the RSAF is supposed to be doubling in size.
Therefore they will either be buying more trainers, or possibly retaining some of the existing ones.
I’d be surprised if the PC-9s are ‘that’ clapped out, they’re relatively ‘young’ airframes that have been pretty well cared for, while a Hawk upgrade has been mooted for some time that would give them a more modern cockpit at reasonable cost.
JackonickoI don’t call this great news, personally. Good news, perhaps, but 22 Hawks is not that big a deal. Moreover, this raises far more questions than it answers.
22 Hawks, 55 PC-21s and 25 (unspecified) primary training aircraft does not sound like enough to service the RSAF’s existing training needs, let alone those of an RSAF that is expected to double in size (as predicted by Ignatius in the Washington Post).
One wonders whether (and if so how many of) the existing Hawk 65/65A aircraft will be retained/upgraded, for a PC-21 (basic)>Hawk 65/65A (advanced)>Hawk T2 (LIFT) syllabus?
Or whether (and if so how many of) the existing PC-9 aircraft will be retained/upgraded – for a PC-9 (basic)>PC-21 (advanced)>Hawk T2 (LIFT) syllabus?
Or whether the 22 initial Hawks will be followed by a further batch of aircraft?
Or whether the RSAF are waiting to see what decision the USAF makes on TX, so that it will have different LIFT aircraft for the Typhoon and Eagle forces?
As to the cost of the deal, with 102 aircraft and a variety of advanced Aircrew Training Devices, upgraded training facilities, and initial spares support, $3 Bn sounds like a bit of a bargain to me!
I wonder if the RSAF will opt for a live weapons training capability, rather than going ‘all synthetic’ like the RAF?
JackonickoWhat makes you believe that the clean range is better at all?
Good question. Because it isn’t.
Clean, Typhoon can sustain higher combat manoeuvring performances (ie sustained turn rates) than the Rafale’s maximum sustained turn rate, even at lower intermediate thrust levels. This means that Typhoon can reduce the amount of fuel consumed (while achieving higher performance) to below the Rafale figure (NB the Rafale figure is for lower performance).
Rafale is a great jet, but this is not its ‘comfort zone’.
And tempting though it must be for Rafale fans to glory in Solenzara, the Typhoon they encountered there was far from representative, both in terms of pilot skills and aircraft performance. Scorpion seems to be a bit of a wizard when it comes to the history of Typhoon FCS and software standards, and may have some idea of the exact limitations and constraints on a Typhoon T.Mk 1 with Phase 3 FCS and full centreline tanks, but it’s clear that at Solenzara, Rafale came up against asthmatic sitting ducks.
JackonickoThe winning -9X design was selected primarily for reasons of cost and supportability, since it used the same warhead, fuze and rocket motor as the AIM-9M.
JackonickoYou don’t half talk nonsense Shiv.
Wrong on ASRAAM.
Wrong on Mica.
Wrong on Solenzara.
As will become clear.
You’re no better than those who Scorpion mocked when he said:
“Typhoon never stands a chance at all against the piece of magic pixie dust called Rafale which is leagues ahead, a generation above and superior across the board in comparison to this utter flawed piece of crap called Eurofighter.”
JackonickoExactly. Radar gives SA, and you want SA well beyond the reach of your weapons – especially as with high closing speeds the target that was 200 miles away may be 100 miles away three minutes later.
(Two Typhoons closing at Mach 1.4 have a closing speed in excess of 2,000 mph, or 33 miles per minute. Closing speeds increase once your Typhoons light the burners…..)
Moreover, while Shiv and the other Rafale fanboys go on as though Rafale is unique in having passive means of detection and tracking, it isn’t. DASS can detect and accurately locate another aircraft’s emissions, and PIRATE can see enemy aircraft from further away than OSF can.
Sign In
