FonkCooler head writing:
:diablo:
Anyway, is this noise just to play the famous “mine’s biger than yours” and “we got more than you do game”?
you understand, it’s not you two guys who write BIASED informations, and cannot elaborate on the aircraft capabilities otherwise than by “someone i know told me” who can actually pretend that what the French Armee de l’Air says is propaganda and French readers a bunch of ineducated morons.
Of course you are those on the knows are the only one to possess true datas and better sources than the very people who are working and flying the aircraft themself, weapons specialists can’t apreciate the difference between dumb and kitted LGB dummies you know…
We all know that there is no propaganda on the Eurofighter side, that the datas given are not unchanged for as long as the aircraft have been designed, and we’re supposed to be impressed by the level of accuracy you are displaying.
“in 2005 was scheduled 15 deliveries yes?”
So what? The year is not over yet why are you so anxious?
“So far there is a huge total of 3.”
Sorry mate, you are loosing track of two at least not to mention those built and not yet delivered. Or delivered elsewhere… as for Rafale production rate there is nothing in it which can make a member of S’pore MinDef ticking, they certainly are the one in the know right now.
“And 2 of those only just in miraculous time for the Paris Salon in June!”
What is that supposed to mean? The only miracle is that some guys can still take you two seriously posting stuff of this “quality”, particularly those who can be impressed.
But you fail to impress me and by a margin and i still can see where you guys get it wrong, i believe more and more people are begining to see through too.
“You ask before how I know. It seems you are the only one like the ostrich head buried in the sand.”
Is that how you know? Well i’ll try this one but if it prevent you to remember that there was two two-seater at M-D-M for some time now it’s not going to improve on my usual, at least i undestand delivery and clearence procedures.
We still wait for an answer or any hard evidences that Typhoon haven’t been dismissed from S’pore competition on its lack of overal capabilities and growth potential…
Same for the reason why we’ve been lied to as for the real status of the aircraft from both manufacturers and the reason for your insistance in trying to make a totally irrelevant point.
“All other informed persons know. These are facts.”
Meaning the DGA/AdA doesn’t; and facts is what you write without backing it up ever… did you actually read the rest of the press?
“You can find yourself all delivery and acceptance data for both types. Hypocrite, no, when you say Jacko is lazy for the same thing?”
Jacko is lazy in not doing enough in terms of accuracy and honnesty yes i persist an sign, it seems that this suite you well too.
As for me i have already told you that i have some other ways to know before these datas are actually released.
you see i’m French, can actually read French, AdA have been my home for some time as a professional, not a conscript and there are still people like me working there today..
More to the point, i’m not a member of the press so i have to do otherwise.
The real PR coup is the number of Typhoon “in service” as well as the actual advance of their systems and weapon integration, capabilities, growth potential, performances, price etc, but this is not going to fool the guys that really matters, the customers.
The best example is the LGB issue: Who could have displayed as much arrogance as to actually pretend to know better than the EMA what AdA need on top of their list of priority as well as to why AASM and Rafale were delivered together to the 1/7 first?
The best “recette” for pure desinformation:
First; do your best to try to blur the difference between CEV and CEAM, then the actual status of Typhoon squadrons, then the real expected capabilitiers of the aircrafts once operational in F1 standard hoping that the reader knows nothing of it in the first palce etc.
Call the French officials propagandist again…
We don’t really care about it, in fact you do a lot to prove that the French gouvernement, the DGA, AdA and Rafale GIE are the worst liars on hearth, that you know better than they do, as well as the rest oftheBritish specialised press while distorting facts on a permanent basis, and it seems to me, counterdicting the RAF top brass in the process.
When Typhoon and Rafale squadrons will be declared operationals we all will know, and so we will also know who is telling the truth today.
Untill then all you write about it is quasy irrelevant as you don’t seems to be able to understand the procedures nor the eventual reasons as to why they don’t deliver them one by one (that’s the funniest thing i read in this topic so far) or why one or two might be missing from your sheet list. Looks like your spooks aren’t so good after all.
I have noticed that if you can’t come up with anything solid, you always go through the same tactics over and over again. I call it, take on the poster not the topic.
This is another atempt to tell the rest of us, “we know better than the French AdA specialist working on the aircraft either at M-D-M or Istres and all of you thinking otherwise are idiots”.
Not knowing about what you are talking about is difficult to defend when you’re a writer, im’ not a professional journalist and i can’t believe the low level of the informations you’re posting…
What if i was one pro then, with the press card giving me access to yet more sources than friends and family?
“Only point in Jackos 1st post I see I differ with is the Rafale v Last Gunfighter abilities.”
A six years old Airfix kit collector would have told you that one when are you going to get serious?
Now go on and try to convince us, my guts feelings tells me you can’t otherwise than with the usual how do you call this? Twist spin, etc.
You guys failed to provide us with any factual information so far, appart for the usual, and i got more than this on the subject, i am waiting to be able to validate, something that you fail to do too for obvious reasons.
Production rate is one thing, delivery rate another, and the Paris airshow haven’t got remotly the smalest to do with this, nEURON was the star there, Rafale C F2 wasn’t.
To help you realise how little you know, the aircrafts are liable to be used fore more purposes than delivery to CEAM and for very good reasons…
Your problem it seems, is not only what you post, it is also what you don’t, and if i don’t post much of what i already know it is because i am not prepared to emulate Jack and write whatever.
Appart from for his more advanced english, there is little i envy him, it seems to me that his undertstanding of anything French or Dassault’s is as alien to him as Quantum mechanics are to my goldfish and i wont mention to often what i consider as been of a primary importance when one is writing about aircrafts comparative performances.
Considering that there are automatic translators on line, it’s hardly forgiveable and the more i read him, the more i suspect that he is somehow on Eurofighter payroll, you sudently beggin to give me this impression too. Bloody laughable.
I’m not working for Dassault nor have any shares on the GIE, i’m only a passionate fan with some good contacts and a sense of observation which i think the both should be working on pronto.
FonkAhem..
Did it occur to you that Active cancellation wasn’t mayby only useable vs adverse radars? How about AAM active seekers? As for your theory it implies a one vs two in favour of non-SPECTRA-equiped aircraft.
Aslo Thales are not only on it, they are fielding the only flying ESA in service in the EU, flying two ESA demonstrators; one for more than two years and at the heels of the US manufacturers when it come to radar technology.
So weihter they don’t know how to counter them is more than debatable.
As for stealth, it’s already been defeated by passive sensors. I personally won’t debate on weither there is active cancellation or not involved with SPECTRA untill i validated my researches on it, so far i only got evidences that Dassault and ONERA teamed up on studying “active stealth”, but further than this i don’t really know.
Fonk“What Fonk try to demonstrate about the Rafale is the Dassault’s expertise in aerodynamics.”
Who needs it? As you say yourself, trying to imply that they are not the most experienced in the field in the EU is simply a lie. But we are not about one more little lie come to commercials from the E-F consortium.
“Since noone can bring me a strict analyse of the Typhoon airframe, as Fonk do with the Rafale, i will align with him.”
I’ll do one for you no fuss, in fact it was more of a comparison between the two, and as opposed to what some might be thinking, the history all involved in the design of both is of a primary importance.
“I’d like to add something. Jackonicko, are you the kind of journalist who write in a way that make some technologies appear to be invented for Typhoon ???”
You could add that none other than Typhoon designers have/had the expertise and knowledge requiered to do better, and that everything you read saying otherwise is a (from a well informed professional source) lie.
“I’ve read a lot of article about this aircraft, and each time, it was like if things like instability, FCS, carefree handling, ECM (radar and laser receiver…) was totaly new in aviation.”
These are mostly copy/paste exercises, you’d be surprised how many writers are actually not really up to it or simply not bothered.
First, i thought it was an impression…. “worl air power journal” book sold with the DiD’s game F22 ADF). etc
There again, there is so much i notice time and time again, it looks like the world started with Typhoon you see. But the most striking is the lake of understanding of Rafale in the first place. As i said, it’s much easier to rewrite history than actually learn about it and my lack of coolness has little to do with it appart from being the result of a very appearent insistance in doing it time repeatedly and insulting everyone else intelligence in the process.
Tell me; do you consider yourself and I as being totally stupid?
Fonk@TMor That’s the problem with him.
Well thank you my dear sir: ” Whereas I suspect that Gegene/THX/Fonky “
You obviously aren’t my side of the prose are you? I personnaly dislike these sort of familiarity to the highest degre, and if of you’re a mod i’d respectfully sugest you pass on the word to this “pro” and get him to show some reasonable level of respect to people. Thanks in advance. 😡
Looks to me he is specialised on winding up people and smoke screenning….
“or which are simple reports of what the real experts have told me, sometimes on the record, often off it.”
What you can’t and won’t back up, i haven’t seen anything remotly accurate about Rafale writen by you, some of us are done believing on credentials…
“credibility, reliability and impartiality of his sources.”
I’ts not only the sources, which are aslo something you won’t disclose, it’s also your interpretation of what’s been said to you which is so obiously suspect of high degree of time related decay.
“Actually that last question is one I’d like an answer to!”
Best source is AdA, unless they are aslo writing propaganda on the last flight of the Jag; and if this is the way you got your infos, none will be surprised that you keep yourself on the spotlight, any luck on Tornados?…
“reliance on brochure figures (which are seldom accurate), and an uncritical respect for data presented by Jane’s (which is no better, and often worse),”
You fail to read enough from other “sources” methink, see topic one, not everyone writes papers one single sources a soon as it looks like what you want to see. The previous lines also give us a good indication on where you are usually diging your infos from.
RAFALE – Flushed with confidence: AirForces Monthly Magazine – AUGUST
“of the effects of the degree of pitch instability one or other of the aircraft might have, or whose interpretation is rather more complex than a PPL holder might assume.”
I think everyone can see you trying to crawl out from under the rubbles of the house you brought down by showing publicly how little you know about the subject you persits on writing about.
The old tactic “can’t tackle the subject, take on the poster”: Low level jabs sir, twist spin; better write about politics than showing anything remotly displaying your level of undertsading of “the effects of the degree of pitch instability one or other of the aircraft might have”. This i can; you can’t.
I thought these were ranging from basic to moderate in term if difficulty, writnig these in your language myself it shouldn’t have been much of a problem for an educated English journo. I think you still have to learn them as well as a lot on the history of aviation, though rewriting it is a lot easier than learning about it.
As for my PPL it was in 1975 at the age of 16, i moved on since.
“There’s also a degree of over-concentration on that which can be easily measured, and a complete disregard for that which cannot be reduced to simple numbers.”
Politics mate, still trying to avoid the sad reality of your ignorance of basic aerodynamics, over concentration is never been your problem either, i suspect it was rather the lack of it. I’m amused.
“Thus the Typhoon/Rafale argument is reduced to arguments about aerodynamics, wing sweep angles and some interesting speculation about high Alpha capability (but leaving out other factors)”.
Any specialist would know why these are primaries and why unless you get these right there is no point trying to get the other factors which i doubt you know more than the basics.
Like an historic fact, the best aerodynamic platform with the best avionics/Systems eqaul a real world beater.
Typhoon lacking at least the first doesn’t impress me for this very reason. Or is that not an historical fact?
As for speculation, they are all yours, aerodynamic laws doesn’t suffer approximation and mediocrity…
“resulting in a conclusion which runs directly counter to everything I’ve been told about the two aircraft”
Sure, you haven’t been told enough nor by the right people apparently, certainly not by your flight instructors or do you actually have a problem listening?
“by expert analysts and aerodynamacists from European and US companies and agencies.”
Those who repeatedly get it horriblty wrong about most French aircraft and particularly those designed by Dassault, as you do yourself. Not the same school.
“And arguments about the MMI (where one aircraft has a significant advantage, though one which cannot easily be measured, objectively) are ignored.”
Perhaps because this so called advantage is part of the myth you’re trying to create among other things without actually knowing much more about it than your basic aerodynamics.
“The waters are muddied further by an astonishing degree of nationalistic pride and prejudice (Dassault and France have never produced anything but world beaters,”
You know some sun? Re-writing history is not going to work for you, to ignorance it also add the qualification of deshonnesty, why am i surprised? You are definitly very good at muddying water, this doesn’t make a good specialied writer, it generally undo a mediocre one.
“if you believe everything that some forum members claim, and Typhoon is inferior to Rafale in every respect), and by a tendency to believe that unless you’ve read it in Jane’s (preferably in black and white numbers), and if it doesn’t support your preconceived ideas, then it’s some kind of filthy and perfidious English lie.”
This is the best way to portrait yourself at the way you keep writing about your “sources”, i really think you have a problem listening and interpreting but since you write mainly for the less educated, you still manage a little audiance here and then.
“I suppose it depends whether you’re going to believe what informed enthusiasts, with access to unreliable and very limited figures,”
Another self portrait exercise tainted with a little political spin for a change,
“coupled with schoolboy aerodynamics,”
Well mate you’re definitly NOT in the sameleague here,
Go back to school schoolboy!
“believe about aircraft A and aircraft B, or whether you believe what some unknown English journo (who may have some axe to grind, or who may even be on company D’s payroll)”
That’s you again. Journo? NO E.D.I.T.O.R.S! Note the plurial form and the fact that you’re the weakest link and lowest food chain element here.
unknown? NO this is your status, sister editions, Name withold/unsigned articles, not good enough a writer for RAF staff deployed in S’pore etc.
“claims to have heard from people who have fuller access to more detailed information, and who have greater expertise with which to interpret that information.”
You’re definitly good at picturing yourslef no doubt, you should try politics, tabloids are good payers i’ve been told.
“The one sure-fire thing is that busy journos will not stick around in this kind of environment, and will not engage in debate on fora like this one, if the automatic response to what they say is to make personal attacks on them, to question their professionalism, their knowledge, their credibility and/or their impartiality.”
Since you’re hardly capable of any of these qualities, not surprisingly you’re stocked to the lower category and i agree, they don’t have much time to waste with you, you weren’t even the third issue discussed there, just the last.
And I say that as someone who admires Dassault and its achievements,”
And think of Mirage 2000, 4000 as unstable aircraft, even my 6 years old nefew know more than you, start building your collection of Airfix kits from now.
“and who has a ‘realistic’ and often highly critical view of BAE Systems , and who does not have any shares that have just hit the £3.00 mark.”
Well you can’t claim they are not making a realistically bad record on weapon integration and design faults for themself can you?
“Do I have any ulterior reason or motive to conclude that Typhoon will be a better A-A aeroplane than Rafale? None at all,”
Certainly no more arguments than E-F commercial brochures and a huge lack in capabilities/knowledge, precisely what would dig you out of the trench you burried yourself deeper lately.
Whereas I suspect that Gegene/THX/Fonky et al would struggle to find UK or collaborative programmes involving the UK that they rated as being superior to the direct French equivalent. I suspect they’d even argue Alpha Jet over Hawk…..
Well don’t you? I think again that the specialist buying them ion the export market didn’t struggle too much finding Tornados inferior to Mirages at the way they went for the French aircraft… I didn’t know Hawk was a collaborative programme, you might have thought of the T-45 here.
As for Hawk vs Alpha Jet it’s pilot’s aircraft vs better trainer. A question of choice i’d love to fly ’em both.
And i note that you persist and sign in associating me with some guys you would love me to be for obious reasons, this would expain to yourself why you have the strangest of feeling that you goofed big time and get noticed again for the wrong reasons. Too bad, this time i realy believe it’s the wrong forum to do this.
All this little exercise of yours didn’t do any good for your growing reputation as a fake with a position, the problem i think is to see the rest of the world as you are, while lacking most of the basics and showing the fact repeatedly. You’re responsible for this sir, not others.
Something else, keep your vulgar familiarities for your fan club and if possible at all your personnal matters out of this topic too. Cheers.
Fonk2PILOTHGT
“Look at numbers: in 2005 was scheduled 15 deliveries yes?
No the number doesn’t matter; what matter is the squadron 15 aircraft to be delivered before the date of the service entry for the type after OPEVAL.
Then the squadron will be declared Operational.
There were i think two dual seaters to already at Mont de Marsan before this order, plus three dual seater and one (the first) single seater delivered this year)…
“So far there is a huge total of 3. And 2 of those only just in miraculous time for the Paris Salon in June!”
Sorry my friend but you’re totally out of touch with reality.
Plus you apparently don’t read the real thing. I know it was first posted in French, but it’s no reason for cuting the number by two.
For your info, a friend of mine is a weapon specialist in AdA, i got new from the all thing before they reach the specialised press or official press room..
So i think you’re rather miss-informed unless the French AdA is aslo desinforming us… I don’t think so.
Best source is the French AdA don’t you think? Unless you know better than them what aircraft they are delivered…
19/05/05 – Le 4ème Rafale en service
19/05/05 – The 4th Rafale in service
Le Rafale biplace en version F2
Le quatrième Rafale biplace N°306 est arrivé aujourd’hui vers 16 heures 30 au centre d’expériences aériennes militaires (CEAM) de Mont-de-Marsan. Cet appareil supplémentaire s’inscrit dans la montée en puissance de la flotte Rafale de l’armée de l’air. Le prochain est attendu vers la mi-juin.
La base aérienne 118 « colonel Rozanoff » de Mont-de-Marsan va servir à le tester avant sa mise en service opérationnelle au sein de l’escadron 1/7 “Provence” de St-Dizier à l’été 2006 . Déjà à la fin décembre 2004, l’équipe de marque a commencé à évaluer les premiers Rafale réceptionnés. Ils avaient été escortés à leur arrivée par deux Mirage 2000 de l’escadron de chasse 5/330 « Côte d’Argent » du CEAM. D’ici la fin 2005, une quinzaine de Rafale devraient être livrées à Mont-de-Marsan.
Le succès de cet avion réside dans sa technologie moderne. Conçu par Dassault Aviation, le Rafale livré à l’armée de l’air est un appareil au standard F2 à capacités air-air et air-sol. Pour celles-ci, il dispose notamment du radar à balayage électronique RBE2.
19/05/05: 4th delivered to Mont de Marsan, next for Mid-june (5 by now)
15 expected for end of year 2005
Full Operational status for 1/7 “Provence” St-Dizier summer 2006 .
Source somewhat more informed than yours, AdA on French gouvernement site. Cut the bull.
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/ai…ale_en_service/
These were two seaters. The one delivered mid-June must be the single seater seen at the Paris salon.
Just in case you don’t understand what is going on there, they are training the squadron members i.e pilots/mechanics, and qualifying them, just as the RAF/GAF are doing, the total number for this particular squadron will be 15 not necessarly delivered this year as the schedule for Opreational readiness for the squadron is next summer.
I see no reason why they couln’t do this with new aircrafts, false argument.
FonkSINGIT/ELINT
Are two functions of SPECTRA, as well as recording any new emissions type.
FonkMost editors aren’t in accordance with your writing on the subject to start with.
This is WHY you’re NOT good enough sir.
Your little political exercise cannot hide your lack of knowledge so as i said for a so called pilot you’re rather short in the argument that matter most.
I think most editors can spot a fake when they see/read one.
As i have spoken to a few about a few of your articles on the subject i can see a pattern there. Get back to the theoric for begginer and come back to us when you’ve learnt your basics.
Now, How about the ethics of journalism?
FonkJack you’re not good enough to argue.
Wrong topic as well.
I would like you to stop your familiarities we’re not; definitly not family nor pals.
As for your prose, for a so called pilot with a “lot of stick hours” you’re rather short of the one that matters the most.
I suggest you give it a break and stick to the topic subject, ethics of journalism and reader’s role as opposed to providing the rest of us with yet another bad example of it. Thanks in advance.
FonkRight, firstthank you for your replies.
I didn’t realised you could look for private messages i will.
And i was more thinking about generalities than the last topic i visited.
But it’s good to see people are conscious of the fact that readers have a role to play. Cheers. PS’m not in conflict with any mags…
FonkI don’t want to give the impression that Typhoon is a bad airplane…
Because it isn’t. All i am saying is that the Eurofighter consortium have managed to create a myth as to is superiority over Rafale, they coudln’t do it for obvious reasons in A2G so they tackeld A2A…. Wrongly.
This is something the French companies doesn’t do and if they point out some truth on Rafale actual advanced in developement and service entry (Which is true regardless of the numbers) look at the reaction from some members of the British press…. There was nothing remotly exagerated in this add, but i think we can all see where the desinformation and exageration are.
Fonkread the previous i added some…
read the previous i added some…
FonkAbout the pic in the targetlock.org.uk
They stil managed to post a picture of Typhoon without Pirate…
FonkFirst replies
“The Rafale doesn’t seem to be a threat to the Typhoon too.
What are your sources ??? (about the F35) I’ve already seen that you think that the Rafale is to be a stealth aircraft killer, but it’s hard to prove…”
French assemblee nationale. Your problem is that you guys can’t read French for most… we call it the S.O.D syndrom. Speak English Or Die.
“I’ll be back later, or tomorrow… This thread is the most interesting i’ve seen.”
Same here i already done it in another forum but my image bank and datas is HUGE it takes time…
TMor
You must be the only person who dont know what OPEVAL is and NO AdA Rafales are NOT with CEV but an ADA OPEVAL squadron CEAM based at Mont de Marsan. Jack got you where it hurts most, desinformation.
Best source is Jane’s or RAF….
Typhoons are not in Operational service yet. RAF is only planning 6 of them in quick alert reaction with only A2A clearence for 2007.
“Already declared that ‘Provence’ will not be at Saint Dizier for at least another 13 months. Lets see if 2007 is still on the horizon at that time.”
Best source is the French AdA don’t you think?
19/05/05 – Le 4ème Rafale en service
Le Rafale biplace en version F2
Le quatrième Rafale biplace N°306 est arrivé aujourd’hui vers 16 heures 30 au centre d’expériences aériennes militaires (CEAM) de Mont-de-Marsan. Cet appareil supplémentaire s’inscrit dans la montée en puissance de la flotte Rafale de l’armée de l’air. Le prochain est attendu vers la mi-juin.
La base aérienne 118 « colonel Rozanoff » de Mont-de-Marsan va servir à le tester avant sa mise en service opérationnelle au sein de l’escadron 1/7 “Provence” de St-Dizier à l’été 2006 . Déjà à la fin décembre 2004, l’équipe de marque a commencé à évaluer les premiers Rafale réceptionnés. Ils avaient été escortés à leur arrivée par deux Mirage 2000 de l’escadron de chasse 5/330 « Côte d’Argent » du CEAM. D’ici la fin 2005, une quinzaine de Rafale devraient être livrées à Mont-de-Marsan.
Le succès de cet avion réside dans sa technologie moderne. Conçu par Dassault Aviation, le Rafale livré à l’armée de l’air est un appareil au standard F2 à capacités air-air et air-sol. Pour celles-ci, il dispose notamment du radar à balayage électronique RBE2.
19/05/05: 4th delivered to Mont de Marsan, next for Mid-june (5 by now)
15 expected for end of year 2005
Full Operational status for 1/7 “Provence” St-Dizier summer 2006 .
Source somewhat more informed than yours, AdA on French gouvernement site. Cut the bull.
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/air/base/breves/190505__le_4eme_rafale_en_service/
“Then you post a page from Fox 8 pdf which dont even have correct the number of Rafale with CEAM at MdM”
How do you know? As far as i’m concerned they always will know better than you and I appart for the fact that doc is what it is; given at one date out-dated the following day by new events. Update your infos.
As for the Typhoon OPEVAL time, it variates from one country toanother, they say “in service” but they are like the French in service with an OPEVAL squadron. For RAF it can take up to 18 month.
1/7 will be fully operational with full A2A/A2G capabilities berfore any Typhoon squadron can align a full strehngth of A2A only.
—–
PILOTHGT
“all rafale engines will be retrofited with M88-2E4, lower consumtion and better truth and life time, i seen the typhoon weight on the facts sheets pdf on official site”
All Rafale have been retrofitted with the M88-2E4 by now. 2002.
TMor
Fonk, what about this
——————————————————————————–
A text about Typhoon very instructive
“Reports suggest that the F-22 was proposed to the UK, a historical fact which would explain the peculiar fixation on comparing the EFA to the F-22 in much of the marketing literature. The comparison is curious in the sense that the EFA is conceptually an evolution in the teen series fighter paradigm, whereas the F-22 combines sustained supercruising engines and Very Low Observables (stealth), thus representing a completely new paradigm. ”
Man you got some intersting sources. Please pass them on to me.
“The combined delta canard configuration and 538 ft^2 wing size confer very low wing loading on 50% internal fuel, and are optimised for transonic manoeuvre and supersonic dash performance.”
“Optimised for transonic manoeuvre”
Man you got some intersting sources. Please pass them on to me.
“The Typhoon is unlikely to match the supersonic high G envelope of F-16XL/E due to a lower wing sweep angle, but will have a useful advantage over most teen/teenski series types optimised for transonic turning. In transonic manoeuvre, the automatic full span leading edge slats are used to adjust the wing camber and therefore reduce the lift induced drag at high G characteristic of classical deltas in this regime. Fuselage vortex generators on either side of the cockpit are employed to promote vortex formation at high AoA and low speeds, and thus increase lift.
The paired inlet is optimised for high AoA performance, using forebody flow to promote air ingestion, as well as a boundary layer splitter above the inlet. The combination of vortex lift and inlet geometry used by the Typhoon exploits the same ideas used in the F-16A/C/XL/E.
The loosely coupled canard is intended to provide high control authority at high angles of attack, by placing the surfaces ahead of the main vortices, but also to provide lower trim drag in supersonic flight. “
Dunno who wrote this, from whre i’m standing, aooart for AoA (27.* vs 28*) #Typhoon should outperform F-16 easly
Man you got some intersting sources. Please pass them on to me.
the Typhoon is without doubt optimised for […] supersonic BVR interception and close in combat at transonic speeds.
No need for a rocket scientist only a little bit of reading on the aircraft history..
Man you got some intersting sources. Please pass them on to me.
About the EJ200 :
Quote:
The 0.4:1 bypass ratio is characteristic of modern fighter engines, and is optimised for transonic performance
I wery much doubt so: To high fuel comsumption for this at htese regimes but it am not an engine specialist…. I’ll ask mine..LOL
Then comes something pro-Typhoon won’t like to read, because a little in contradiction with usual comments :
“An experienced F/A-18 pilot who flew the Typhoon simulator commented to the author that the aircraft’s manoeuvre/handling performance did not appear to be a dramatic improvement over the F/A-18, and rudder authority at high AoA did not match the F/A-18. It is however possible that further refinement of the flight control software could have yielded handling improvements since the mid nineties.”
But that was a simulator…
Simulators are ment to be accurate.. I’m not surprised i know the design of typhoon doesn’t land itself for wery high level of control in Yaw/roll at hgher AoA.
“The assertion that the aircraft has a “stealth” capability is curious by any measure, since there is no evidence of planform alignment, panel edge alignment, blending or faceting. […]Unless the Europeans have invented new laws of radar scattering, the aircraft is at best a conventional fighter with reduced forward sector RCS, comparable to evolved F/A-18, F-16 variants, the Rafale or the B-1B.”
Olease your source!!!
“In comparing the Typhoon against the only other fighter in its weight class, the F/A-18A/C, the benefits of using later generation technology show very clearly. The Typhoon outperforms the F/A-18A/C in BVR weapon system capability as well as aerodynamic performance. While much better than the F/A-18A/C in operating radius and agility, its optimal operating radius is not in the class of the F-15 and Su-27/30. “
Man you got some intersting sources. Please pass them on to me.
Man you got some intersting sources. Please pass them on to me.
Quote:
The notion that the aircraft is “almost as good as an F-22” is not supportable, indeed upgrading the F-15 with engines and a radar/IRS&T/AAM package of the same generation as that of the Typhoon would equalise almost all advantages held by the Typhoon over older F-15C/E variants.
???
Quote:
The strength of the Typhoon is its very modern and comprehensive avionic package, especially that in the RAF variant, and its excellent agility when operated around its optimum combat radius of about 300 NMI (a figure to be found in older Eurofighter literature, which has since disappeared with the export drive to compete against the bigger F-15 and F-22).
Quote:
In terms of where to position the Typhoon in the current menagerie of fighter aircraft, it can be best described as an F/A-18C sized fighter with BVR systems and agility performance better than older F-15 models, similar to growth F-15 models with same generation systems and engines, but inferior to the F-15 in useful operating radius. The Typhoon is not a stealth aircraft, despite various assertions to this effect, nor is it a genuine supercruiser like the F-22. Its design incorporates none of the features seen in very low observable types, nor does the EJ200 incorporate the unique design features of the F119 and F120 powerplants.
I’d like to read such a report about Rafale. But as you see, Fonk, the Typhoon is also optimised for transonic manoeuvre.
I might have not understood all the quotes, but i did all i was able to do.
————————————————————————–
“But i thought the Typhoon demonstrated its supercruise capability later… Up to mach 1.3, with 4 amrams and 2 sidewinder.”
For your info, M 1.3 is the Max speed of Super Etendard Modernise which doesn’t have After-Brurners, meaning that technically they also supercruise, this is a 35/40 years old design…
“The Rafale can “supercruise” with 4 micas (and a tank ?) but how fast ? I believe Dassault is cheating,”
They are, i keep saying it but NOT the way you think: They disclose wrong (sanbaged) datas since the creation of the GIE.
As for the 12F pilots report, it’s not Dassault it’s GIE and trust me they’re not, if they were even getting close to consider this the penalty would be unaforable.
Rafale C-01 supercruised during its first flight.
This woudln’t be too much of an event if you didn’t know that SNECMA porocedures are NOT to used the A-B for the first flight of a combi new-engine/aircraft.
So the C did what Typhoon did minus the 6 AAMs of course but with brand new engines and they have increased in thrust too since the pre-production sets, enough to allow it to equal Typhoon performances with the AAM…
“because i think the Rafale just reached mach 1, but actually, supercruise is when the speed exceed mach 1.3. Between 0.9 and 1.3, it’s just called transonic.”
Tell me something: Who in his rigt mind would think that Super Etendard can reach M 1.3 dry and Rafale cannot?
Who in his rigt mind would think that Mirage III Avon could reach M 1.3 dry in 1963and Rafale cannot?
Just compare their respective thrust and weight (TWR),
I personnaly canot think of too many people capable of coming up with that sort of stuff and still have it published, even anonymously…
The more people seems to be thinking this, the more the GIE seems to enjoy themself. And Rafale aerodynamics are optimised for this flight regime.
i.e. more blended wing/fuselage junctions, decreasing transonic and supersonic wave drag and loads of other refinements.
Thast’s why i eventually keep posting pics to allow you guys to downlaod and figure it at some point, if you are interested in the subject, you’ll learn naturally…
“pilotTHX, i believe that the Euro consortium has really opened the Typhoon flight envelop since 97…
So did Rafale mate. 100* AoA vs 70* for Typhoon.
“Contrary to M88 wich is an economic engine, EJ200 is really a powerful an engine.”
This is another Myth#
M88 and EJ-200 are two different class of engines.
M88 is significantly lighter, shorter and have also a smaller diameter.
In fact both engines boast a similar TWR, with a very small advantage to EJ-200 but i actually don’t have its manufacturer’s datas. I’ll check on these as i really think they are important, for the moment here are the datas from Jane’s on the two engines.
———————————————————-
M88/EJ-200 Jane’s
M 88 Length 3m.538
EJ200 Length 4m.000
M 88 Diameter 696mm
EJ200 Diameter 850mm
M 88 weight 897 Kg
EJ200 weight 990 Kg
M 88 Dry Thrust 45kN
EJ200 Dry Thrust 60kN
M 88 with Reheat 75kN
EJ200 with Reheat 90kN
M 88 By-Pass Ratio 0.3:1
EJ200 By-Pass Ratio 0.4:1
M 88 Total Pressure ratio 24.5:1
EJ200 Total Pressure ratio 25:1
M 88 Air mass flow, 65 kg/s
EJ200 Air mass flow, 77 kg/s
———————————————————-
Rafale is significantly smaller, lighter than Typhoon too and EJ-200 wouldn’t fit in its engines bays.
—–
So all in all, depending on the configuration:
Typhoon will often have an advantage in TWR and wing load due to the fact that its fuel fraction is inferior to that of Rafale by a fair margin. (empty weight/internal fuel: range is also inferior on internal fuel only.)
But with the same range on internal fuel, Rafale would be better because it will always have the advantage of better aerodynamics and its TWR/Wing load would be similar/better too.
About rough perf:
Considering their respecive aerodynamic arangements and TWR/Wing loads.
For the same configuration, and the following scenario:
Take off and immediate low altitude acceleration in dry power constant low atitude:
Tyhoon woul’d have a sligh advantage from runway Alt/speed 0 position to <> (more or less) M 0.75/0.80.
This is due to the 58* sweep angle of its wings.
At M 0.80, Rafale drag characteristic would be better and it would go through M 1.0 with less effort.
The explaination is on what is called the Mach line:
Around M 1.0, in fact from M 0.75 to M 1.01, a phenomenon due to the appearence of the compressibility effect is more and more noticeable.
It takes root at the leading edge of the wing and wing fuselage junction. It is proportional to the wing sweep angle and affect the whole of the leading edge.
Typhoon 58* sweep angle is good but since it is the angle at the wing root which determines the Mach line, Rafale designers have given it a 70* sweept LEX which is far better and allow for the 48* sweept wing to beneficiate from better transonic characterisitcs than Typhoon’s 58*.
So the LEX on Rafale have not one function but two.
This is another example of Rafale level of aerodynamics optimisation which Typhoon cannot compare with.
Passed M 1.0, they should be fairly equal, Rafale have a proportionally larger front section but this is ofset by the fact that the blended wing/fuselage area causing this, also reduces drag wave from transonic to supersonic flight regimes.
So it’s a trade off, allowing for more internal volume/fuel and a significant reduction in Radar cross section.
Obviously this is for level flight. As soon as the aircrafts would put any AoA, Rafale advantage would grow proportionally to it.
Climbing always induce a certain amount of AoA increasing with altitude with the air density droping.
This is why Rafale can show a better climb rate with higher loads i.e. Supersonic (M 1.6 cleared) central drop tank and make the comment of the F12 pilots more likely to be accurate.
This aslso apply for turning flight as i stated previously.
On the M 88 pic and Rafale air intakes: The clue is the ring at the hot end of the engine and the small airscoop behind the spliter plate (A).
M 88 nozzles are surrendered by a carbon-fiber ring and the hot part (After-burner corps of the engine plus lines and tubes fixed on it) is cooled within the engine bay. Literraly there is a cool layer of air around the engine exhaust plume. The nozzles are also reccessed within this arrangement:
This is a fully developed IR reduction measure unknown of other aircraft.
Fonk“where the typhoon could get supercruise in singapore, the consortium last news released the typhoon empty was actually 11.7t, while the performances datas was all done in 1997 when the plane was 9.7t!”
Supercruise is no big deal: As i said, Mirage III Avons (For the Austrailian bid) was supercruising at M 1.3 in 1963.
All these figures means nothing if your aircraf cannot carry more than a match boxeth lenght of a football pitch.
The most important are Operational performance as they are the one deciding weihter the aircraft are going to survive and carry their mission whatever it is. The rest is airshow stunts.
For Singapore bid: I thought there was some twick. As i perfectly know that Rafale is capable to go through M 1.0 and still accelerate in dry power, i couldn’t believe the “Eastern smile” article stating that they couldn’t.
Rafale rarely flies clean, there is little operational interest to this configuration, appart training new pilots. Therefore it’s more likely that they were in SU-02 configuration minimum with 4 AAMs and 1 1,250l central tank, with an internal furel capacity equal to that of Typhoon it put them at disadvantage from the runway untill the fuel is burned. M 88 are more fuel effiscients than the EJ-200 by a iota so there are chances that Typhoon actually never was in the same configuration and equal weight at all. Even totally clean.
“Typhoon grew up of 2t and without engines upgrade, so his climbing, ITR and supercruise abilities ares far from the 97’s datas!”
I’ll be interested by your source/link i thought Typhoon was actually 1.115 Kg empty.
“the meteor devlopments would be first on Rafale, but Adla just asked to modify the seeker closer to Mica, Mica have a very special seeker, TVC missiles need very advanced seeker!”
It’s irrelevant to say the least. Meteor will be tested simultaneously in Sweeden and France. Aerodynamics have already been simulated by ONERA in wind tunel and the basic software distributed to all platform manufacturers, MICA is very capable and Singapore are well aware of this, so untill RBE2 AESA is ready it’s not necessary to hurry the integration of METEOR.
I suspect the new seeker will be an IR as they already have developed the couple MICA IR/OSF to make it a totally passive search/track/lock and fire system.
It was demonstrated beyhond MICA engagement envelope through a thin layer of cloud to foreign pilots.
The goal is technically being capable to take on F-35 at its service entry, the Typhoon is not perceived as a threat to Rafale by all French speciaslists so there is sometihng there we still don’t know…
About what the aerodynamics of Rafale can do as a difference:
More AoA (Angle of Attack)and lift at all speed, Typhoon is limited by its FCS which take the speed into acount to prevent the pilot to put too much AoA on it a lower speeds, Rafae can go through a “soft” limit” and still pull up where Typhoon would not.
AoA at higher speed, and particularly a delta also means drag, this looses the aircraft energy/speed, it cost altitude/Power-fuel to recover it.
Delta wing have better transonic accelerations than more conventional designs.
In Air combat, both BVW/WVR the advantage goes to the aircraft capable of puting itself into an advantageous position firts; this applies to evasive manoeuvers too.
To this extend Rafale posses better transcient characteristics and would allow its pilot to change direction quicker, sustain Gs longer and loose less speed energy. The higher the warload, the more the difference between the two because of their respective designs.
In A2G the difference is striking, Rafale would carry, more farther, loiter for a longer time too. So its actual operational capabilities in real life are higher and more valuable to any commanders.
FonkDuring the Afghan campaign, French pilots flying Rafale N were mixing it up with US Navy’s F14, F18 (From the USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS John C Stennis) and Spanish Matadors From the Italian carrier Garibaldi (which anyone knows to be Harrier Jump Jets).
An Air Force exchange test pilot and graduate of the US Air Force Test Pilot School, Commandant Santiago explains “the Rafale quickly gained the upper hand over the F14, F18 Hornets and AV-8B+ harriers”. “The tomcat is an outdated fighter and not a match for a Rafale”. “fighting against a Hornet is a bit harder, but thanks to low wing loading and extreme agility, the Rafale is markedly superior, and has the leading edge”.
“Also, the hornet is less protected against a departure from controlled flight at very low speed, and a FA18 pilot have to be more careful than us. As a result, we can devote all our attention to tactics whereas they have to constantly think about their flying parameters”. (AFM July 2002).
Sign In
