KovyI don’t think that amounts to a bribe, and I’m sure that the USA, Sweden and France were engaged in similar activities that were designed to help win political influence.
Any hard evidences to back that up ?
KovyA: This conclusion can be truth, if Swiss AF decided to just take the configuration of three external fuel tanks into consideration and not to buy the 2,000 L external fuel tanks for Rafale…..
Air policing mission was most probably assessed with one or 2 supersonic tanks (ability to go supersonic is mandatory for that mission), hence the small difference with the swiss hornet.
Kovy@AZ/Kovy,
However, in less complex (but still multi-bogey) engagements, the wider ‘look’ angle of the mechanically scanned array (MSA), coupled with greater gimbal limits, longer range (and especially longer range at those limits) give the MSA compelling advantages in many (some would say most) real world air-to-air scenarios.
You are underestimating the loss of FOV and range of MSA radar in TWS modes.
KovyHi snafu352,
Actually, I heard that one too, and more than once. In fact, it was about range: RDY has apparently more range than RBE-2 and/or is more efficient at long range (all of that in A-to-A, of course).
AZ
One should be carefull when comparing range of MSA and ESA radars
MSA radar Range is not a constant it depends on many factors, especially the number of targets tracked at a time and how spread those targets are in the sky.
As pointed out by Scorpion MSA radar enjoy a raw wider scan volume but when when you put time (scanning speed) in the equation this is the other way around. For a given amount of time, an ESA will always scan a much much greater volume of sky than a MSA (albeit with narrower FOV limits) at a potentialy longer range depending on the numbers of targets managed by the system.
Conclusion : for single target interception, MSA will do the job… but for multiple bogeys management and complicated A2A picture, ESA is the way to go.
KovyI’m not sure whether the RBE2 offers more AA functions than the Captor, but its range of AG modes is definitely more comprehensive and the ability to interleave some functions is a plus in operational flexibility. What favours the RBE2 and any other ESA radar for that matter is the beam agility. In AA the ability to scan the entire FOV several times a second is a great plus for Situational awareness and reduces the probability that potential targets slip through the radar coverage. The ability to update target tracks more frequently has implications on track stability and reliability, which I think is the main reason why the Rafale scored better in the acquisition domain in the evaluation. Potential implications on ECM resitence are another factor as is the greater greater compliance to LPI requirements, though a PESA is still restricted in comparison to AESA solutions.
Argueably there was just that single person who insisted this. However, the evaluation doesn’t in state one radar being better than the other as such, the PESA was reportedly praised, but the “sensor” weaknesses could be linked to other sensors on the Typhoon as well and the score charts talk about the general abilities of detection etc., it’s repeatedly stated that the MET for detection includes the ability to detect a target with all sensors. Details like this must be kept in mind. Over at starstreak I made an attempt to elaborate on the meaning of the MET scores, I can’t say whether my interpretation is right or not, but I’m missing a somewhat more serious and analytical discussion from all sides.
Both aircraft are similar in a number of areas, but differ in details. Depending on the scenario and what tactics are chosen either aircraft can best the other. I rate both among the worlds best fighters, which one deserves this or that rank I don’t know and I’m subsequently not argueing about it at all.
Dunno wether all of them could be regarded as Typhoon fans as such, but of course there are several people who argue along similar lines, but that’s true for both sides. Interestingly people love to refer to a single person when it comes to the critics. “Jon Lake like” was a response to me and I wondered whether people consider his claims as being unique and his only. There are points where I agree with Lake and there are those I disagree with or challage. The other way round many quickly assert that this or that Rafale fan must be Sampaix, that’s equally delusional.
Lol well if you had been on the other side I’m not sure whether everyone would have been that moderate.;)
Well either side has its black sheeps, it’s just a pity that those are often regarded as representative by the other sides.
It’s unfortunately often the case. In a lot of cases I would even be satisfied if people can reasonably explain there arguments. But that often insists a level of knowledge and understanding that is often not given.
Of course, but there is always a risk wrt future developments and rating certain future capabilities is certainly not easy.
I could name a couple, but I prefer to leave it at that. Why are we wasting so much time to debate people anyway? My vote goes for a subkect related debate, possibly elsewhere as this thread is pointless and dead as far as the original topic is concerned.
Cheers
+1000
KovyIndeed I forgot the HMD. DVI in HMD are great additions in the MMI but it does not replace a good sensor fusion and situational awarness due to performant fused sensors.
I’m not that convinced by DVI.
It is certainly a good thing for casual flying, but I would not bet on it in high stress situation.
AFAIC, in such situation, I prefer to remain silent and concentrate.
Well i guess it depends on the pilot.
KovyHi all,
so what is true about the Rafales ability to super cruise? Some places say it can some say it cant
It can. With 4 BVR missiles and one supersonic tank. Period.
it’s in official Dassault publications
It’s in specialized aviation magazines.
It’s confirmed by all the Rafale pilots I’ve asked the question to.
KovyHmm seems you may have missed the bit where the evaluation was subject to a capability weighting that measured the maturity of the proposed aircraft upgrades and reduced the capability in relation to the maturity level at time of test, and not the final capability level of the upgrades..
i.e. if your proposed upgrade was more mature your capability was given a higher score, less mature penalised the capability score.
That weighting if removed and showed the actual upgraded capability as planned may reverse the recommendations of the technical evaluation.
Cheers
Hmm and you may have missed the first part of the evaluation where the Swiss praise the PESA RBE-2 and rank the Rafale above the “captor-M typhoon” in all Air 2 Air missions.
There is no weighting here, only factual results from live evaluations.
I should dig out some 2008-2009 keypub discussions where the typhoon was still discribed as an untouchable Air superiority beast, even able to shaken the mighty F-22 dominance. At that time you would have sworn on the bibble that the Rafale, with its small radar and lower raw speed/altitude specs, was underperforming in the A2A role.
Eventually, the Swiss eval demonstrates the opposite.
KovyThe Swiss Air Force also forgot to mention the ‘superior’ PIRATE. :diablo:
But, the Swiss Air Force did mention that DASS was crappy though.
Please, Colibri, One step at a time.
We must be very gentle with the sensitive Typhoon boys :p
KovyQuote:
Should you not apply that to the F1 Rafale then as well
No, for 2 reasons :
1- the Rafale F1 (only 10 a/c BTW) are all Rafale M so they are out of the scope of the cost comparison with the Typhoon
2- they are currently being being upgrade to the last standard and as such will serve for another 20-25 years
Again you have no intimate knowledge of the system so you cannot say its false, it could well be based on a better Radar II am not familliar with the 2 systems. You can however point out its only Jackinockos opinion unless he can validate the statement
The Swiss air Force which has assessed both planes during real trials put the PESA RBE-2 (And also the SFO and spectra BWT) in the strong points of the Rafale but didn’t bother mentioning the captor M in the typhoon ones…
The conclusion of this, is that it takes much more than a big moving dish and Jackonicko opinion to get the best radar setup.
KovyThe UK is at the end of the day your host nation which you decided to come to so please be more gracious to that nation because I suspect you will personally benefit from having spent your time here as a result.
That must be the most desperate argument I’ve ever read 😀
KovyBTW shouldn’t we factor in airframe life in the cost. If a plane gets an airfraime life of 7000 hours, while the other gets a service
life of 6000 hours, shouldn’t we factor in the cost per flying hour?Or should we do like the cost of the development (and overcost for every navy airframe) of a naval version, and just forget about it?
Nic
very true
It is so convenient for some to forget about those “details”
KovyThis looks like the annual convention for rafale´s fanboyism.
I see no fanboyism in the attempt to correct the inaccurate and misleading biased analysis of a “journalist” so desperate to find credible sources that he even has to quote himself to make his point.
KovyWhat’s certain for the next 5 years :
1- Typhoon production pace is going to slow down while rafale production pace is going to increase (within 5 years the rafale production pace could be twice higher than typhoon if not more)
2-Typhoon basic developments are still uncertain while Rafale developments will enjoy another significant boost.
Therefore, I don’t expect the Eurofighter to catch up at all, neither in cost nor in capabilities and I fear that the gap will get even wider.
KovyCome on you don’t really believe in this fairytale do you?
Nic
Being 200% cynical doesn’t give you a better insight on the matter either.
Opportunities to get rid of people like gaddafi legaly are rare enough not to miss them.
Sign In
