JackonickoSimplified BVR for Nick 10
The aim is to kill the enemy, to not be killed one’s self, and then to continue with the sortie.
On detecting the enemy (longest possible radar range is an advantage, here) you accelerate and climb to optimum missile launch parameters. The enemy does the same. Supercruise is an advantage here, because you won’t have so far to accelerate to get to the optimum speed (about Mach 1.6)
(This is outside the range of IRSTs and the like, which “might” be useful for a re-engagement, but not the first. If a Typhoon is bearing down on the enemy and launches an AMRAAM at max range, sure, he’ll know it’s coming, but the combination of IRST and Mica IR will be useless for some while yet, so what is he going to do? Wait until he can launch, some time after the AMRAAM has gone active?)
You launch the missile and ideally would turn smartly through 180° to run away bravely. Unfortunately, however, until your missile ‘goes pitbull’ you have to remain pointing in roughly the same direction, and have to keep the enemy in the ‘cone’ formed by your radar scan limits. In practise this means that you turn away as hard as possible while still keeping him at the ‘edge’ (the gimbal limit) of your radar coverage.
He does the same.
NB: If your radar has inadequate range at the gimbal limit, you can’t turn away as far.
NB: If your radar ‘sees’ out to 60° and his ‘sees’ out to 70°, you are at a disadvantage. (The Su-27 had an advantage here, as it had a very impressive gimbal).
Missiles can miss, or be spoofed, or the enemy’s wingman can survive, so you may need to turn back in, accelerate and re-engage. If you haven’t got good supersonic agility, or if you’ve bled away your energy and can’t get it back, you’re at a disadvantage.
Radar gimbal limits (azimuth limits) and range at the gimbal/azimuth limit remain just as critical in each subsequent re-engagement.
JackonickoScorps
Ays Rauen and Brian Phillipson don’t agree with you. Austere A-G on Block 8 is not contracted and won’t happen.
Glitter
[i]”And the aeroplane itself has some impressive features – and the French did a great job in getting it into service with a wide variety of useful weapons. Quoting one of the main rafale weakness and state it as a strong point, funny. [/i]
Paveway, AASM, Mica (IR and EM), and Apache is what I’d call a “wide variety of useful weapons” at this very early stage (one squadron operational).
But a “raw” impressive max range doesn’t automaticaly translate into an excellent range in real life.
It tends to. And in the case of a mechanically steered array, max range at the boresight is the same as max range at the gimbal, whereas on a PESA/AESA, max range at the azimuth limit is often about half of the max range straight ahead. If, therefore, your max range is half that of an M-scan radar looking straight ahead, then it will be one quarter of the range at the azimuth limit.
According to the CAPTOR AESA, the Typhoon should get the AESA BEFORE the rafale.
There’s no funded requirement for an E-scan Captor, so unless DRAAMA is very, very, very slow, Rafale will have an AESA (which it badly needs) long before Typhoon.
According to many Typhoon cheerlearders, the CAPTOR has nearly ALL the advantage of an AESA BUT the upgrade is on the way. Translation: the captor isn’t as good as some have written on internet for years.
Wrong. The position is that Captor-M out-performs RBE2, handsomely, and that the theoretical advantages of PESA/AESA (beam agility, etc.) are not yet sufficient to compensate for the advantages of Captor-M. The ‘translation’ is that Captor is so good that there is little pressure from the users for an early integration of AESA.
1) Strange that the Korean journalists have to disagree with you
2) Are you sure it isn’t the opposite ? Singapore couldn’t wait … ?
I believe Korean evaluators more than I believe Korean journos. An RSAF pilot involved in the evaluation told me directly that the RSAF’s preferred choice was Typhoon, and that was their recommendation to MinDEF. He said that they were happy to wait for the A-G capabilities. What he said was confirmed by Singapore Rafale bid team and Typhoon bid team insiders.
3) They can’t speak ? I’m sorry for them. In france, many journalist spoke of the french secret service information about a direct fund from BAE to a relative of the greek MoD on a lebanon account.
Unsubstantiated ********.
JackonickoBlock 5 – Partner nations
Block 5A – Austria new build
Block 5B. 5C designations not now used
Block 8 – Partner nations and Austria and Saudi
Block 8A – designation not now used
Block 8B – two seat Block 8.
“Less capable in the strike role…”
Typhoon doesn’t have a strike role. No nukes. Less capable in the air-to-ground role and therefore less capable, since in the air to air role, Block 5 and Block 8 are designed to use identical software and to have identical capability.
“I don’t think it will be such a great deal to introduce the austere package for block 8 aircraft as well.”
Ays Rauen and Brian Phillipson don’t agree. It’s not contracted and won’t happen.
There is no separate Block standard for the austere AG package, and PIRATE, while the helmet won’t happen until Block 10, and then by retrofit.
Captor D is due with Block 10, and then by retrofit/modification/upgrade. Radar sets may be fitted before that, but they’ll effectively be Captor Cs, because they’ll be limited to Captor C performance.
FCP is still FCP – it’s just split into FCP Phase 1 enhancements and Phase 2 enhancements.
“I’m just a little bit careful with claiming things which are difficult to back up.”
If a senior TP from an independent air force tells me that his air force thought that aircraft X was better than aircraft Y, and that was their recommendation, then I check it, and if it checks out, that’s what I report.
If a whole gang of TPs and frontline blokes, including evaluation pilots from potential customer air forces, and including blokes who have flown both types tell me that X’s MMI is streets ahead of Y’s, and explain why, then that’s what I report.
Truth is my business, and life isn’t a popularity contest.
JackonickoI saw some Typhoons today, and saw something I’d never seen at an airshow.
A clean 29 Squadron jet took off very, very smartly, after what seemed to be a notably short take off run, and then pulled steadily into what was effectively a vertical climb. It reminded me of nothing more than a Lightning rotation climb – but without the aircraft having been held down to gather speed. I haven’t seen anything quite like it since Lightning days.
Jackonicko120 ordered (final 8 delayed, not cancelled). Aspiration for 294.
Numbers of B, C, M set for 120, but not thereafter.
No funded path to upgrade F1 or F2 to F3 standard. Aspiration to upgrade all to F3.
Strike role likely to be a two-seat only job.
JackonickoThough both use the same software (re-hosted on new hardware on the Block 8) Block 8 aircraft are not contracted to have (and so won’t feature) the Austere Air to Ground capability, and so will actually be less capable than the Block 5s.
I’d also add a note of caution about Captor-D, DASS enhancements, etc. The Typhoon programme manager is quite categoric in denying ANY capability improvement between Block 5 and Block 8, and this might suggest that -D won’t come in until FCP (Block 10).
Scorps also seems to have ignored Block 5A (the originally planned new-build Austrian jets) and Block 8B (the two-seat Block 8s)
JackonickoIt’s one heck of a useful niche capability, to be sure. But its usefulness does depend on how much the radar range reduces as a result of being used simultaneously for air-to-air and air-to-ground.
And don’t the Aéronavale blokes say that they’ll be able to swing seamlessly from air-to-air to air-to-ground – engaging a BVR threat even while flying the IP to target run, for example? The Typhoon blokes certainly do.
In the real world, any simultaneous A-A and A-G is going to be a bit limited – you’re not going to be able to accelerate and climb to optimum AAM launch parameters while firing an AASM or dropping an EPW, so it’s about defending yourself or engaging a target of opportunity during an attack.
At that point in time, there’s no doubt that it’s going to be better to have two people in the jet, each taking care of one job, (and taken to its logical conclusion, you might even want a third bloke managing the EW systems, and a fourth dedicated to secure comms) but if the MMI allows it easily enough if a single pilot can pause, engage an enemy and then complete his bombing attack, I’m not sure that the advantage is huge.
JackonickoKovy,
The official answer is that there is no need for an operational two-seat Typhoon, because the MMI (sorry) allows a single pilot to operate effectively, with an acceptable workload, in all of Typhoon’s planned roles. There have been criticisms of some competitors (eg the F-15) on the grounds that their less developed MMI requires two crew for some missions.
You might also consider that a nuclear strike role would place a huge emphasis on having two crew (the French, like the Brits, have done single-seat nuclear strike, but it’s not a great idea). Typhoon, of course, does not have a nuclear strike role.
JackonickoRafale made an appearance on this thread because it was a natural part of discussions of Typhoon (N). It’s entirely natural that competing aircraft will sometimes be compared, and it’s only to be expected that the wilder claims of the Rafale fan boys will be corrected. If you have a problem with that, I can’t help your insecurity.
I’ve praised Rafale – the aircraft and the programme – whenever and wherever it deserves praise. You and your ilk have not done the same to Typhoon.
I’ve said:
“And the aeroplane itself has some impressive features – and the French did a great job in getting it into service with a wide variety of useful weapons.
And while it can hold its head up among other land-based fighters, the basic aircraft proved adaptable to the carrier role with astonishingly little modification.
Low speed agility is as impressive as anything out there (to the extent that comparisons with Typhoon will rely on the alpha and g limits set by the users, so close are the two aircraft in that area).”
I have a balanced view of both aircraft, readily admitting that each has different advantages and disadvantages. You have no such balance, going so far as to deny Typhoon’s superior MMI, supersonic agility, raw radar performance, and even the reported and recorded preference of the Singaporeans. It’s hard to argue with such illogical denial and prejudice.
I’ll happily admit that overall, I do rate Typhoon as being a better aircraft, and as being a much better air-to-air aircraft, just as I happily rate the Rafale as being a better air-to-ground aircraft, and a much better carrier aircraft the F-22 as being a better air-to-air aircraft (not perfect, but better overall) than Typhoon.
That’s much, much more than you’ve ever done when it comes to Typhoon.
I’ll take lessons from you only when you are able to swallow your nationalistic prejudice and admit to Typhoon’s advantages, and not before.
Jackonicko“I assume that neither party/consortium is stupid or inept.”
That’s a dangerous assumption. Though pretty well run now, there have been times in the recent past when the Eurofighter consortium (due more to politics and the vagaries that has imposed on the customer – NETMA/NEFMA) has seemed staggeringly inept, and both the EF partner nations and France have made some amazingly stupid decisions.
The Rafale programme has, in general, and especially in the past, run more smoothly than Typhoon, which is a great achievement, but to assume that either programme has been well run is a bit of a leap.
JackonickoJSF, Typhoon, and many other programmes would kill to count ten years as a big delay.
France has done exceptionally well with Rafale – especially in terms of the programme and PR/comms aspects.
JackonickoNo need for excuses when it comes to Japan.
The JASDF blokes loved the jet when they flew it at Coningsby, and flew missions in the rig at Warton.
It’s plainly the JASDF’s second choice.
If the F-22 is cleared for export, the JASDF will buy their first choice.
If it isn’t – and if the JASDF continue to rule out the F-35 on timescale, the Typhoon’s looking good.
The time for excuses/explanations comes if the JASDF buy F-15 or F/A-18E.
As to helmet vs AESA, every Typhoon pilot I’ve spoken to is as happy as Larry with Captor M, which they all seem to regard as the best radar out there. AESA simply isn’t a priority for them. Whereas large numbers of them are REALLY unhappy that they haven’t got the full Typhoon HEA, and many disagree with the decision not to procure an interim helmet.
Perhaps when they start flying more swing role missions the priorities will shift, but in the A-A role, RIGHT NOW, the advantages of AESA would be offset by the disadvantages.
JackonickoNo.3 Squadron already has a USAF F-16CJ pilot on exchange. His name has been published, but I’m not going to repeat it.
I’d expect to see exchange pilots from other EF partner nations eventually, and I’d expect a US Marine, a Norwegian, and at least one Dutchman, eventually.
Glitter, you’re a naughty boy!
You imply that I only listed ‘programme’ Rafale strengths, and not ‘technical strengths’ ignoring the fact that I said:
“And the aeroplane itself has some impressive features – and the French did a great job in getting it into service with a wide variety of useful weapons.
And while it can hold its head up among other land-based fighters, the basic aircraft proved adaptable to the carrier role with astonishingly little modification.
Low speed agility is as impressive as anything out there (to the extent that comparisons with Typhoon will rely on the alpha and g limits set by the users, so close are the two aircraft in that area).”
That’s hardly saying Rafale is “behind the Typhoon in EVERY aspect.”
There’s plenty on MMI in the real world. Craig Penrice has written about it under his own name, and I can quote what Singaporean and Korean pilots said, they just don’t want their names published.
Radar performance isn’t just the max range, though that’s the key parameter. It’s also about range at max azimuth. It’s about scan coverage. It’s about gimbal. And yes, it’s about LPI, beam agility too. Rafale will “get the AESA asap.” It’s less urgent for Typhoon.
And the evaluation teams in Singapore and South Korea preferred Typhoon. The Koreans didn’t want to wait for the aircraft, the RSAF were keen to wait but were overruled.
JackonickoThere was an article about Red Flag (?) that detailed some adversary tactics that the F-22s found ‘challenging’, as I recall. I’m not going to go dragging through the last two years’ issues to find it, I’m afraid.
JackonickoI can!
The lack of criticism of Rafale is one symptom of a fierce pride in what is, after all, a GREAT French achievement, and one should be proud of what your country achieves.
More widely, it’s a symptom of a broader patriotism, which is good, and of a lack of cynicism and other negative feelings.
It helps to ensure that the programme retains political support, and it helps ensure that it is funded, and it minimises trouble-making opposition.
It can be frustrating, because it makes rational debate and sensible discussion more difficult, but pride in Rafale is an impressive thing, and it contrasts with the attitude to military programmes in the UK, Germany and Italy.
Sign In
