TMor,

I thought that you were suggesting that those were the tactics used in ID (they weren’t for the obvious reasons) and that what you wrote could have been misinterpreted as meaning that Typhoon’s close in performance was poorer than anyone else’s.

J

Satorian,

That’s what I said. I could have impressed him with the Maule’s rate of climb. The point is that Dassault have flown Chris Yeo and Fred George in Rafale (both ex fighter pilots), while EF GmbH have managed James May, some no-nothing Fleet Streeters, Craig Hoyle and almost got David Beckham in one.

Dassault are clearly doing a better job in getting useful comment on their aircraft.

But it could be even better, and even more useful.

MAC CG is a measure of where the Centre of Gravity is in relation to the Mean Aerodynamic Chord.

It’s not, in itself, a measure of instability, though it can provide some useful indication.

It appeared to me that many of those quoting the figure did not know what the acronym actually stood for.

TMor/OPIT

1) MAC CG – Centre of Gravity measured as a percentile of Mean Aerodynamic Chord. NB Centre of pressure and centre of lift are not fixed in relation to Mean Aerodynamic Chord.

Therefore: MAC CG is not a measure of instability, in itself, though it is usually a useful indicator.

Nor is a rearward shift of CG with external stores unusual.

TMor

2) Someone praising Rafale isn’t painful to me at all. Indeed I’d expect anyone given a flight in one to find plenty to praise without trying too hard.

(I’d also point out that I have myself praised Rafale a great deal more generously than many of the French posters here have ever praised Typhoon, and I’ve never come out with offensive nonsense about France having no aircraft/fighter design heritage as some of your countrymen have. There are also a number of French/British comparisons where I’d favour the French aircraft – and even one where I’d put an avion Belgique ahead of many people’s all time favourite Anglo airplane….. You may even note that I was the first to jump in to defend the AdlA in Afghanistan. I’m a good European, me…. 😉 )

But nor do I read praise for Rafale uncritically, any more than I read gushing praise for Typhoon (by James May, the various Fleet Streeters who’ve flown it, or Craig Hoyle) without taking into account their previous experience.

James May said that Typhoon ‘climbed like a homesick Angel’. So what, he’s an automotive journo, and I could probably have provoked the same comment out of him in my local flying group’s Maule.

Unlike some of the gush-fests about Typhoon (which are frankly worthless as an accurate indicator of the aircraft’s real capabilities) I did find the Show News article interesting in places, and I would happily concede that Dassault have done a better job in getting people with a clue into Rafale that EF GmbH have done in getting clued-up people into Typhoon.

I just found Fred’s breathless enthusiasm about the fact that Rafale has FBW and instability surprising, unless he’s only used to older generation aircraft, and I was surprised that he didn’t remark on the 29° Alpha limit and 270° roll rate limit, nor on the 22° AoA limit or the 6 g manoeuvre limit with tanks, beyond reporting them. Neither of those sets of figures tallied with what I would expect from Rafale, and they raised questions in my mind. I was also surprised that he did not underline that the 3,540-lb tanks are clearly carefree when carried inboard (even if limited to 6 g/22°)…… and even more surprised that blokes like you didn’t pick that one up, as it counters one common criticism of Rafale.

I was frustrated that he commented on the ergonomic cockpit (eg layout) which is no great surprise, but did not comment on the MMI (eg the way the cockpit worked). That’s probably unfair, as his sortie was a handling exercise, and he may have held stuff back for the full report in AWST.

I’d also have expected a Hornet pilot to emphasise different aspects of what he was shown, and perhaps to talk about gun tracking stability, HUD symbology, and to give a bit more feedback on the ‘user experience.’

Don’t get me wrong, it was the best Rafale/Typhoon journo report I’ve seen, but clearly the aviation press can and should do better.

What we need, of course, is for Dassault to let someone like Craig Penrice loose on the Rafale simulator (or the aircraft) and for EF GmbH to let Eric G have a flight in the Typhoon active cockpit (or the aircraft). Or perhaps Magnus Olsson could fly both. Then we might get some real insight.

As to the accusation that John Lake wrote about Typhoon as if FBW had never existed, I’d be astonished. Any UK author writing about FBW would always begin with FBW and ACT Jaguar, F-104CCV and EAP, and I’d be surprised if he didn’t mention F-16 as well. I don’t think anyone thinks that FBW/ACT/CCV was new to Typhoon, Gripen or Rafale – however much it is improved in those aircraft compared to the first systems.

I guess that our US friends just aren’t as used to highly unstable FBW aircraft as we Europeans are, with Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale on our doorstep.

Glitter,

I don’t for one moment suggest that the small Japanese buy of a handful of Merlins indicates that the market is ‘fully open’, only that it is not fully closed. And those are two different things.

And if the Japanese can’t get F-22, and can’t wait for the standard of F-35 they’d want (even if F-35 meets their requirement) then I’d say that Rafale would be ‘in with a shout’. Moreover, even if Rafale was not selected, a positive evaluation by the JASDF could be a useful tool for those marketing the Rafale elsewhere.

Most of those killed by Allied bombers in Afghanistan are Taliban, and a lot of our troops are dying as a result of the care and scruples being exercised to avoid unnecessary collateral damage.

I would strongly suspect that the AdlA crews flying over Afghanistan are doing better than most in getting their bombs onto their planned and briefed targets.

They are members of one of the most professional air arms there is, and in my opinion you’re not fit to lick their boots.

I’ve removed Otaku’s offending post so lets please remain civil and constructive. Thanks, M’Pacha.

TMor,

The Flight Test article in Show News was an interesting read when I read it at Paris, and I was glad to see it again. It was well written and informative, insofar as it went. I don’t remember having seen the promised ‘full feature’ in the weekly Av Week since.

Reading it made it sound as though Rafale was the only unstable aircraft that required a FBW FCS to remain in the air, however, as though the F-16 and Gripen had never happened. It also makes it sound like the most unstable aircraft in the world.

I don’t know what Fred flew in the US Navy, but would be MOST interested to know if it was the F/A-18, because he really did seem impressed by the Rafale.

There were some interesting figures, too – though without comparable figures for competing aircraft (and in my case without someone spoon-feeding me the significance of a particular disparity in the raw numbers) a 10 to minus six probability (I make that 1 in 10 million?) of failure just sounds impressive, but I don’t know how impressive – I haven’t a clue whether its an order of magnitude better than aircraft x or an order of magnitude worse, nor whether such a magnitude is of any practical relevance. 10 to minus six would give one failure in a fleet of 100 aircraft every 100,000 flying hours……

I was surprised that you seized on the MAC figure.

A MAC CG of 45.61% is not, in itself a measure of instability. It just tells you where the CG (centre of gravity) is, in relation to the average aerodynamic chord of the wing …..

I know that a centre of gravity at 45% of the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) is likely to be behind the centre of pressure – but the percentage of MAC is irrelevant – the key is the difference between the CG and the CP.

And that’s static stability – with the canard ahead of the CP and the CG, it further destabilizes the aircraft. The longer the moment arm, the greater the instability, and the greater the control power.

Canards and flaperons can handle the job of an airbrake in some situations, but in others, an airbrake is better, since it allows you to use the airbrake to increase drag, while using the canards and flaperons to manoeuvre and optimize lift.

Opit,

The MAC figure my have come from Dassault, but that’s not why I distrust it. I’m surprised that someone who hints at being a pilot would view a CofG measurement alone (without measuring its distance from the centre of pressure) as “suggesting that the Rafale is more unstable than the Typhoon.”

Kovy,

As this figure is not validated by JOUSTS or SLIVE we can’t trust it.

Good attempt at a joke, mate, but unfortunately (as explained above) the figure is not to be trusted because it’s not a measurement of instability…..

Yan,
“Germany built the Eurofighter (UK , Italy and Spain gave a small contribution too)”

Yeah, right.

“UK is highly capable , don’t you kow BAE ? it’s one of the leading companies in Europe if not the biggest … but in the EF , i don’t know , i say that because it’s the German who contributed more , i see you took offence , sorry for this then.”

It’s not a matter of offence, it’s simply incorrect. While the UK and Germany pioneered much of the aerodynamic design, all of the partners made major contributions, in terms of systems design, the flight control system, cockpit and MMI, materials science, production engineering, etc.

You might credit Germany with major elements of the aircraft configuration, but BAE’s P106 and P110 (and especially the EAP) also added a great deal.

But the UK contributions to Typhoon are obvious, so it’s not worth a Brit being offended by suggestions that Typhoon is a German aircraft (it’s obvious that it isn’t). The people you will really offend are the Italian and Spanish partners in EF GmbH, whose major contributions are often over-looked, and without who Typhoon would be a poorer aircraft.

But how about Thrust Vectoring? F-22 is probably more agile over more of the low speed/WVR envelope.

And how much can Typhoon exploit ASRAAM’s capabilities without a helmet?

Who has the better DASS in this particular environment?

TMor,

There have been loads of interviews with Typhoon pilots, often anodyne and careful. Serviceability is great, and teething troubles mercifully few – technically. But there are huge weaknesses of course – the jet is massively delayed (the stand up plan has been blown to pieces with real implications for QRA, the Falklands commitment and now Afghanistan), and there have certainly been logistics and support teething troubles. Spares provisioning has been appalling, for example (you know the wheel nut story, I assume?).

It may not seem a big deal to a Frenchman (in view of the Rafale helmet saga) but the fact that Typhoon doesn’t have a helmet is a huge deal. At OED EFT Squadron 1 was supposed to be ready to deploy and the aircraft was expected to be the RAF’s Air Defence Fighter of choice for deployed operations, able to operate in four-ship formations with active BVR AAMs and ASRAAM, and to have an air defence capability that was “at least equivalent to that offered by the Tornado F.Mk 3.” It was expected to be at CRR 3 (Contractors Release Recommendations ) standard, with MIDS, sensor fusion, IFF, Helmet mounted display and full ECM/ESM. That was scheduled for January 06……

It’s a great aircraft, but it has been far from a great programme.

Nick-76,

When EFs get plastered by Raptors or Rafales or Flankers in any exchange or exercise, there’ll be good Jacko/JL, with all the EF brochures telling them that the bad bad Americans didnt follow the rules. The EFs are invulnerable, the pilots wear golden underwear and are blessed by Saint Jack himself.

This is the kind of courtesy you were referring to on another thread, Nick?

1) It’s not going to happen, except facing the F-22.

2) Of course the Typhoon isn’t invulnerable, nor are its pilots supermen. It’s just better, overall, in the A-A role than Rafale or Su-30. JOUST doesn’t prove it, of course but it’s a useful piece of supporting evidence. Just like the evidence provided by evaluation pilots from potential customer nations, and from numerous Typhoon pilots, frontline and TPs, and those who’ve come up against the jet in combat. It’s about building a picture and it’s about weight of evidence. It’s really not rocket science.

JOUST
Care to show which nations aircraft type did well in JOUST apart from the EF?

F-22 did exceptionally well. Typhoon did well. F-15 did better than you’d have expected. The reason that I get annoyed with the half wits is that it’s actually very simple. The performance of most aircraft was over-stated where there was any doubt, in order to make things realistically tough for Typhoon.

You object to simple answers to simple questions and would prefer to wait for what you call credible evidence to show that JOUST was in anyway better than the bulk of simulations worldwide.

JOUST was praised by the US Defense Intelligence Agency and the US Air Force. It was used by the JSF programme for its own operational analysis. Rand called it an “impressive “pilot in the loop” simulation and described the modelling techniques and JOUST as “the most sophisticated anywhere” and as “the most rigorous capability scrutiny ever undertaken for any defence procurement in UK history.”

The notional threat aircraft was given parity in radar, missiles, pilot training, and support assets. Only if you think that the Su-30 has better than parity in these areas (BARS better range than Captor, R73 better than ASRAAM, etc.) would JOUST be unrealistic.

You say: [i]“only a blind person would think that assumptions made so long back, in an era of limited transparency would stand the test of time.” Unless you think that ‘Flanker’s capabilities have overtaken those of Typhoon, assumed parity takes care of real-world development. In any case, JOUSTS results have been mirrored by SILVE – whose assumptions and scenarios were much more recent, and much more relevant. In any case, I’m not suggesting that JOUST on its own, or SILVE, are proof positive of anything, only that they are useful bits of supporting evidence.

There’s nothing wrong with questioning JOUST – those I describe as half wits are those who claim that JOUST made assumptions that it did not, or who claim that it’s Su-27 model was too optimistic, or that Rafale was modelled with AIM-9B, or whatever the latest made up excuse happens to be.

MMI
You say: “There is no proof that the EF has any huge advantages over the Flanker in either (SA or MMI)”. I don’t have proof, because I’m bound not to name some of my sources, and even if I did, I don’t have written documents detailing the NASA TLX, Cooper H and other MMI evaluations. But I do have an overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence, sufficient to satisfy anyone but a dyed in the wool Rafale (or Su-30 fanboy).

“In heavy jamming, the AWACs has far better chance of burning through or combating it, then a small sized fighter radar. And no, if the issue is crucial- the AWACs wont be elsewhere. Do show me how many times first class AFs operate without AWACs nowadays. How often were AWACS on scene when the US Navy encountered Libyan fighters? Were E-3s always there, every time, in the Balkans or Southern Watch? The AWACs will be where the air dominance fight is. They might not be able to get close enough, if enemy air is active. The air force that sends its AWACs elsewhere is plain stupid or operating in the real world, with real world constraints. They have eliminated their greatest advantage or piece on the chessboard.”

How many AWACS orbits were the coalition able to mount, 24:7 in Desert Storm? Think that the UK or France could even ensure a single AWACS orbit round the clock, in operations that fall short of major warfighting operations which might still see fighter vs fighter engagements?

What matters is whether the Rafale cannot support its armament to maximum range and that it obtain tactical surprise. It might do well for you to read about BVR conflict in the real world – which has the element of surprise as the key determiner. The Rafale or for that matter the EF will routinely practise on lighting up only when they have missile launch ranges.

I speak to people who fight the BVR battle regularly, and I’ve interviewed pilots with real world BVR kills. Range is not always the be all and end all, but greater sensor range is always an advantage.

”the AdlA is not too gungho about an AESA either” Gung ho enough to fund it, accept a delay to eight of its 120 aircraft, and to issue a requirement…..

” The Su-30 has more than enough fuel to burn and turn and do so for quite some time,” fuel isn’t the issue. The ‘Flanker’ wipes the floor with most aircraft at very low speeds, especially in its TV form, but its supersonic agility is nothing like as good as Typhoon’s (or even Rafale’s).

You say: “the exercise is over, and the EF didnt walk all over the Flanker.”

Where’s the evidence for that, then? There’s some anecdotal evidence to suggest the reverse – though it’s of limited value given the severe constraints of this exercise.

There’s far less evidence of any meaningful engagements between F-22 and Typhoon – though I don’t take ‘Dozer’s word for it, since he is apparently unaware that his aircraft won’t be getting a helmet, and that no advanced datalink has been funded.

I suspect that there are areas of the envelope where Typhoon might have an edge over Raptor with TV, but not many, and though I believe that something ‘spooked’ the USAF sufficiently to cancel planned F-22 vs Typhoon engagements, I don’t think it was the supposed ‘detecting F-22 at 80 miles on radar’ incident.

But Typhoon with helmet and ASRAAM versus F-22 with no helmet and AIM-9M looks more evenly matched…..