Isn’t it Swiss Cheese that’s renowned for the holes?

The author makes a couple of very interesting and telling points, but so much of the detail is so badly wrong that he utterly undermines his case.

Defence Secretary Balances MOD Budget

“……continued investment in Typhoon and Joint Strike Fighter”

My understanding is that this budget announcement is NOT good news for Typhoon, and that specific post P1EA/B/X items that we were expecting to see commitments to remain covered by this ‘catch all’, and are not yet necessarily funded. There is a woeful lack of detail in all of this – even in CAS’s briefing note.

Does anybody know how exactly did they eliminated that £38bn while keeping all major programs alive?

Bernard Grey explained it all pretty well at the media brief on Monday, but the quick answer is: All of the cuts announced in SDSR, plus switching from F-35C to F-35B, plus personnel reductions, plus reductions in future AFVs.

And actually they eliminated more than that, as there’s now £8 Bn of overhead, and £4 Bn unallocated over the ten year period.

Hammond has previously committed to Storm Shadow and Brimstone, with the partner nations or without. Contract One means that ‘without’ is now actually possible.

Bloody hell,

This thread’s off to a good start.

Excellent post Kovy. Good thoughtful analysis. And how refreshing not to have a “Rafale is always superior, in all missions, in all circumstances” post.

I’d take issue with just one of your Rafale advantages

“better targeting in bad visibility due to better IR sensor and laser”, which isn’t actually true, especially when all factors are taken into account.

and I’d put a cautionary flay against two Typhoon ‘cons’

“higher cost per flight hour” is unproven.

And while “higher charge effect not suitable for low collateral damage strikes” is true, there are work-arounds, as explored in Libya, with part filled warheads and even inert warheads.

You’d also have to look at Typhoon with PW IV if you’re going to look at GBU-49 on Rafale, as both are on the verge of being operationally available.

One might also consider range on internal fuel as being one possible differentiator.

And of course, Typhoon is signally missing a stand off weapons capability – and I have always said that I wish that we had AASM to fill that gap, though Dual Mode Brimstone might be even more useful.

How ironic that Saudi Typhoons look set to gain AASM, which they will pair with EPWII and PWII+ in the short term.

H-K

You appear to flip flop between arguing that Typhoon is superior today and arguing that it will deliver on its “superior” potential tomorrow… but in both cases, you insist on finding areas where you make black & white (and sometimes unsupported) claims of superiority even though other posters such as Scorpion82 and Tmor will admit that the reality is a lot more gray.

The problem is that I made what should have been an uncontentious remark – that while range and payload will always be a Rafale advantage, and while Rafale is currently a much more versatile air to ground platform, with a wider choice of more useful weapons, Typhoon is making progress towards greater multi-role versatility, and that while Typhoon will remain inferior to Rafale in some areas, in some aspects of air-to-ground it may even be superior.

I was not saying (and have not said) that Typhoon is superior in air to ground today (I would say that Rafale is superior in air to ground), nor have I even said that it will be superior tomorrow – though I believe that Rafale’s advantages in air-to-ground will be eroded.

The superiorities I have talked about are advantages in narrow areas.

In the future, Brimstone and the bigger, more powerful AESA may give advantages.

For today, the fact that Typhoon has a dual mode (IN/GPS+Laser) capability in service, and a helmet, does represent an advantage in some parts of the broader air-to-ground role.

I pointed out that none of this adds up to an overall Typhoon superiority in air-to-ground, and that Rafale’s air-to-ground crown remains undisputed today and in the future.

But what you call the ‘rabid anti-Eurofighter members here’ were unable to accept that Typhoon might enjoy even the smallest advantage over Rafale, in even the narrowest area.

I think the source of contention here is that you appear to be counting your chickens before they’ve hatched. You describe Typhoon capabilities using the present tense, while dismissing Rafale capabilities as “not in-service yet.”

Well, it won’t be news to you that none of the capabilities you describe are in service yet on Typhoon…. not Paveway IV or Litening II (beyond the austere Tranche 1 implementation), certainly not air-to-ground cueing using the helmet mounted sight, and even less so Brimstone.

The RAF has done end-to-end testing of PWIV, dropping and self designating. P1E is now going through the NETMA clearance procedure, with all flight testing complete. It’s not in service, but it’s awfully close.

Litening 3 is in service. The integration may be austere, but it still allows four successive attacks in a single pass.

No.3 Squadron have done air-to-ground with the helmet, according to their CO.

I did not suggest that Brimstone was in service.

There was some argument about Litening 3 – both as to the UK’s decision to integrate it on the centreline (giving better look angles, and simplifying the task of making the airframe mask), and as to its superiority over Damocles.

Kovy

Better, in the view of the RAF, than sacrificing one of the MRAAMs.

I’m not sure it was the main concern of the RAF. But never mind.

Bluewings

Any pilot will happily swap a missile for a ton or two of fuel .

Mildave

It’s also widely acknowledged that SA is likely to integrate Damocles on Typhoon and did just that for their Tornados…

The EF consortium had the choice of moving the LDP for P1E and chose not to. While Typhoon doesn’t have as much external fuel as Rafale, it clearly has enough to meet the requirements of its operators. As to Damocles, Saudi chose to integrate it (instead of Litening) for three reasons.
1) It’s not Israeli
2) AEC already manufacture it in Kingdom
3) It’s already in service on RSAF Tornados
The UAE didn’t like Damocles and wanted an alternative, and the Saudis took it reluctantly. Litening is simply a better LDP. That may or may not change with XF.

Kovy,

Honnestly I’m seriously questioning the low cost argument of jacko.

In a real 4 hours mission, I’m not sure that 2 Rafale with 6 AASM each (ie 12 targets) is that much more expensive than a flight of 3 Typhoon with 4 EPWII each and a tanker to compensate for the much lower fuel capacity (3 times less)

But there will be times when you need to fly a one hour sortie, which either aircraft can do with internal fuel, and when the pair of Typhoons could take six EPWII each. Or when you need to fly an eight hour sortie, and when you know that you’re going to be going to the tanker anyway.

The point is that for some missions, the ability to use a cheaper dual mode weapon will be an advantage, and others where it will not.

Just as there will be many occasions where stand off capability is a really vital advantage, and others where you are going to want to be able to engage targets that are directly below you. I read one article criticizing AASM for not being able to spiral down against such targets – a relatively unimportant shortcoming, admittedly, but a shortcoming in some scenarios.

TMor,

Rafale F3 was already capable to use both GPS/INS and laser guided bombs.
I guess it’s why everybody can read in RAIDS Aviation n°1 on page 25 that Rafale is already qualified to use the GBU-49…

That contradicts what eagle1 was saying in his post No.690 at the bottom of page 23 of this thread. It also contradicts what we know of F3 versus F3O4T contents.

H_K

Let me rephrase, just to make sure I understand your argument…

That wasn’t what I was saying at all.

I was saying that as of right now, Typhoon has a better low cost dual mode IN/GPS LGB capability than Rafale.

Typhoon has a capability while Rafale does not. That’s a superiority.

Though the helmet wasn’t used in Libya, it’s being used now, and it brings a great deal to the party in the Air-to-ground role, especially in the LGB role. That gives Typhoon a powerful advantage in some aspects of air-to-ground.

I was saying that (probably before Rafale gets GBU-49) P1E will further extend that lead (but only in this one very narrow area), because PW IV is a better weapon than GBU-49. That’s a superiority.

NB that AASM Laser is a different class of weapon and isn’t in service yet.

I would agree that it’s not a massive margin of superiority, and it certainly isn’t enough for anyone to claim an overall superiority in CAS, let alone in Air-to-Ground.

The only official unit cost data for AASM is €50,000,000 for 650 units. This is from the full CPRA report

That’s interesting. Perhaps you’d provide a link?

Your Paveway IV costs and quantities are inaccurate, by the way.

Bluewings

when you look with an unbiaised eye at both fighters and compare them in AtoG tasks , you can see that one is tailored for and the other not.

And where, pray, do I say anything different? Where do I claim that Typhoon is Rafale’s equal across the broader spectrum of air-to-ground missions?

My original point was that

Range and payload will always be a Rafale advantage. But there is more to air-to-ground effectiveness than that, and Typhoon is making progress towards greater multi-role versatility. And while in some areas, Typhoon will remain inferior to Rafale, in others (even in some aspects of air-to-ground) it may even be superior.

In anti-tank ops, Brimstone will give Typhoon an advantage.

In electronic attack, the bigger Typhoon AESA promises an advantage.

The helmet provides a ‘niche advantage’. Etc.

For all we know, one aircraft might be much better at strafe than the other.

But none of this adds up to an overall Typhoon superiority in air-to-ground. Rafale’s air-to-ground crown remains undisputed today and in the future.

None of this ought to be terribly contentious.

sacrifying the central fuel tank to fit the LDP is telling

Better, in the view of the RAF, than sacrificing one of the MRAAMs.

Mildave

Rafale has a dual mode GBU since 2008 implemented as an interim measure while waiting for AASM.

No, it doesn’t. Rafale does not have a dual mode weapon (excepting the IN/GPS & IIR version of AASM) and will not have one until GBU-49 and SBU-64 come on stream.

Lightening isn’t a better LDP than Damocles

Litening is a better LDP than Damocles, which is why the AdlA looked at procuring it, or Sniper, instead. It’s more a matter of resolution, quality, stability and handling than parametrics, and it’s widely acknowledged.