firepower : tornado. The Mirage 2000D can only take 2 small GBU or 1 scalp. The Tornado double that capacity
availability : mirage 2000D. The complexity of the tornado make it much more difficult to maintain than the 2000D.
Survability. Difficult to say. The tornado has 2 engines that can save the plane if hit by a manpad but the mirage is smaller (raw size and RCS) and much more agile.
If 126 rafales are ordered the price will decrease accordingly. But the fact is that people make as if the NG will cost the same as previous generation Gripens, and it’s very likely to cost more.
Nic
Sweden magical aerospace industry : the more complex the plane, the less expensive it is.
If they had developed an F-22, it would have cost the price of a piper club :p
and if you think of “NG” like “stealth”, as it was already pointed out before, the french prefer the electronic approach to stealth, so, again, no need to fundamentally change the airframe today neither
True but the stealthier the airframe is, the easier it will be for the engineers to develop and upgraded efficient ECM against modern air defense systems.
The same could be said for the Super Hornet. Which, is also available in a Highly Capable Electronic Warfare Model. (i.e. Growler) Plus, did I add that its cheaper than both the Rafale and Typhoon. (and share the same engine with the LCA MK2);)
Is the EA-18G cleared for export ?
AASM ability to strike with a vertical trajectory and high speed can’t be matched by a paveway.
At the end of its flight, an AASM have much more energy to apply trajectory corrections. Conversely, in the same case, a traditional paveway has to trade accuracy for range.
The greater speed of the AASM is also an advantage : less time for the target to react.
The current max. of MICAs is in fact 6, as the current max of AAMs on the Typhoon is in fact 8.
Let’s be accurate :
current Rafale max : 6 BVR missiles (which can also be used as CAC missiles)
current typhoon max : 4 BVR missiles + 4 CAC missiles
Which solution is better ? well difficult to say.
No back seater ?:confused:
sorry, but i’m don’t understand. St Dizier is like 2200km away from Bamghazi. Why are Rafales flying all the way from there to patrol the sky? They have ablut 3000km range. Right? Even with in air refueling, its a grueling flight.
Why not just use carriers?
Because they were based at St Dizier and it was urgent to stop Gaddafi strikes on Benghazi. No time to deploy the weapons and logistic stuff elsewhere
The first Rafale reached Benghazi in about 2 hours
Now they have returned to Corsica apparently.
The CdG will leave France tomorrow morning and it will take 48 h to reach Libya
I think it’s worth noting that the Rafale have been operating over the Libyan air space prior to any SEAD operation.
ppp,
there is a difference between people who are just uninformed and people who obviously try to disrupt ongoing discussions to suit their own agenda. Those people like to provoke and charge up the more attention they get from regular members. Ignoring them is the best way to deal with them. If no one spent attention those people will sooner or later leave, but they won’t if you feed them over and over again. I’ve learned it myself from previous events. Let the pony be the pony and just ignore it (him) and everyone else with a rightful mind should do the same.
As always, you’re right.
ppp is first on my ignore list.
Then you probably know Saab is an enginering company that survived on good requirement evaluation and riskmanagement in every buisness opportunity.
Do not forget the rather dirty BAE support in the equation.
The trackrekord stand for it self. no need to worry. Hi EMC and radar enviroment isnt nothing new for saab, the got there own test enviroment. Marine environment isnt new ither..
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Naval/
Nobody is worrying about Saab’s technical expertise. But even for Saab, the trials to validate a navy fighter will take time and money.
There are not many”A2G Typhoon pictures”.
Or maybe, the RAF, the AMI and the Luftwaffe had capable AG platforms unlike Adla who untill very recently was forced to use the 2000D in theatre?
Lets put it bluntly, untill very recently the RAFALE deployment to A´stan had a lot more to do with sales propaganda than any meaningfull combat capability. Sending an aircraft who had zero capability to designate a target to do medium level CAS was simply absurd in military terms.
Not when there are dozen of TAC-P on the ground and dozen of french LDP (PDL-CT, ATLIS, Damocles) in the air to designate all the target you need.
Not when you can use all weater GPS bombs (ground gps coordinates can be uploaded thanks to the radar or the OSF)
BTW, the mirage F1 deployed to Afghanistan don’t have a self laser designation capability neither… and off course they were useless and only there for sales propaganda :rolleyes:
Not to mention the king of CAS, the A-10, which didn’t have any LDP to play with in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2005…
It was there for sale propaganda too I presume.
Yeah rite, says Arka_Voltchek, who has not even study basic engineering.
The forces on both the catapult and hook is easy to calculate as landing speed and weight is known.
There are soooo much more parameters involved….
operating a “naval” fighter with 50knt of wind on the deck, a flat sea and no payload bring back constrains… sure, that’s easy.
The real question is not if your naval fighter can operate from a carrier in ideal conditions but :
– how much time can it sustain the catapult launches and carrier “crash landings” before falling into pieces.
– How much payload can it take (if it can take off at all) when there are zero wind and the aircraft carrier is running at 30% of it’s max speed because of a sea skimming strike.
– How much payload can it bring back to the carrier ?
– How much carrier landings those payloads (LDP, Recce pod, high value missiles) can sustains
– What about the ability to comply with the severe electromagnetic conditions of an aircraft carrier in war mode ?
It takes so much more than a few CG pictures to make a true naval fighter.
Tnot to mention that it equals the typical RAFALE (or USAF Viper) load for the same mission.
Yes, but with half the range though.
So much A2G Typhoon pictures for so few real A2G combats…
Why ?
Too complex and too expensive to operate in raw conditions (Even worst than the tornado which was already the hangar queen of his time!)
@ H K shouldn’t there be around 100 Rafales in service right now?
You can add to H_K list :
9 Rafale M stored and waiting for their F3 retrofit
At least 5 Rafale used for trials (M1, C101, C102, B301 and B302)
And 4 machines lost (B316, M22, M25, M18)