LokeDoes anybody know the diameter of the Rafale antenna? I have seen 550 mm (vs 600 mm for the Gripen).
600 mm gives roughly 1000 T/R modules, if each module occupies 2.8 cm2. 550 mm gives roughly 850 modules of the same size…
Perhaps, one day we will know the answers… in the mean time we can merely speculate.
In any case I am sure the Rafale will have enough modules, a range increase of more than 50% should be sufficient!
LokeWithout much effort, Flight could have found an ex-RAF pilot with experience of the F-16MLU and Typhoon, and such a pilot would have been able to make much more interesting comparisons.
I found the interview with the Danish pilot — according to Signatory this Danish pilot had already flown the Typhoon.
From Signatory’s post at mp.net:
At the end of May a Danish test pilot flew the Gripen on his own. He is well experienced and already flew the Typhoon in Germany last year.
This is the video news from the Danish military TV in case some missed it. His comments after the flight: “absolutely fantastic.. A pilot’s dream!” In fact, he said “fantastic” three times.
To me it seems that all the three Eurocanards are fantastic flying machines 🙂
LokeOk so do you admitt that inline RBE2 AESA will have approx 1000 module as officially stated ? Because I find it hard to believe so called geek specialists versus an official thales statement.
Secondly from my brief personnal experience in the defense industry (SAFRAN group) I can tell you that they are usually cautious to “make up” hardware to fight against industry espionnage. Basically by presenting slightly ill proportionate dummies in the case of missiles for instance (it is the case for Sagem défense et sécurité, a subsidiary from SAFRAN). So to tell the truth I am a bit skeptical to say the least that the photo correspond to a real radar. If some forumers can find so precise infos then imagine what a competitor could do !
Arthuro,
Some time ago there was a lot of discussion around the number of T/R elements for the Gripen NG AESA; Swerve settled that discussion by emailing Selex and asking. And they answered!
Perhaps you volunteer to contact Thales to ask them? 🙂
I could have done it myself but my French is poor — or rather non-existing…
LokeOne hopes that Saab will now give him a ride in the Gripen NG, and that EF GmbH will fly him in Typhoon, so that we can get the perspective of someone who has flown all three. He may, of course, still rate Rafale highest, but it would be interesting to know.
Jacko,
Excellent point.
I still remember the interview with the Danish test pilot that was flying the Gripen D as part of the Danish evaluation; Before the test flight he seemed calm, almost bored; when he was interviewed immediately after the test flight, he simply could not hide his enthusiasm… I don’t know what other planes he had flown at that time, apart from the Danish F-16.
It seems to me that the Eurocanards (and possibly the SH?) do have an edge to the other fighters in terms of MMI, carefree handling, and maneuvrability.
But how do they compare to each other? Hopefully Saab and Eurofighter will listen to your advice and let Collins do some more test flying. 🙂
LokeJacko, where are you ? 😀
LokeI think you are right, either they fix some typos or they put this out way too early.
It’s there now:
Nice pictures! 🙂
LokeNot only the text but also the whole page in “my document” and Rafale folders.
So if there is any issue about it at least i can’t be caught lying, i got the original. TWICE. 😀
Try to put this into google:
site:flightglobal.com “rafale ” “I would, without question, choose the Rafale”
and google returns:
FLIGHT TEST: Dassault Rafale – Rampant Rafale9 Nov 2009 … If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale. Read more of our flight tests …
http://www.flightglobal.com/…/flight-test-dassault-rafale-rampant-rafale.html – 1 hour ago – Similar
However the normal Google Cache is not available… which to me means that Flightglobal is making an effort to avoid people reading this.
I think you are right, either they fix some typos or they put this out way too early.
One thing that bothers me though is that he did not mention the rather short range of the radar. In BVR I would still think this would be a disadvantage compared to the Typhoons radar…
LokeDATE:09/11/09
SOURCE:Flight International
FLIGHT TEST: Dassault Rafale – Rampant RafaleBy Peter Collins
The classic definitions of aircraft combat roles really do not do justice to this aircraft; the Rafale is Europe’s force-multiplying “war-fighter” par excellence. It is simply the best and most complete combat aircraft that I have ever flown. Its operational deployments speak for themselves. If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/09/334383/flight-test-dassault-rafale-rampant-rafale.html
Thanks, interesting piece. Perhaps the Rafale is more powerful than I imagined…
I am surprised Peter Collins would not have preferred the Typhoon for a2a missions? According to many people the Typhoon is the superiour a2a platform second only to F-22.
For some reason the link does not work?
LokeBS. The admiral GUILLAUD who pilot the Brazilian projet French side has tackled SAAB latelly for all the bull****s they sell to the press and the public place.
The Rafale is not twice as expansive as the Gripen it’s ridiculous. A little more expansive yes, but certainly not X2.
Now the Rafale provides the impact of two Gripen NG as the admiral Guillaud says 😀
But the French newspaper “Liberation” has just revealed that the Air Force Brazilian, who is responsible for assessing the bids submitted by three competitors, disagrees with the brainchild of President . Tenant compte principalement du prix, elle s’oppose fermement à Rafale et soutient Gripen NG. Taking into account primarily the price, it strongly opposes Rafale and Gripen NG supports.
😉
LokeIt will have: 1000-element AESA in design stage, if ever fielded , dramatic increase in range still needing EFTs for anything but point defence , 20% increase in thrust badly needed for any decent load , supercruise in a2a config to quote a SAAB offical in a cold day , reduced RCS a guess to stay polite…, reduced IR signature idem, improved MMI, MAWS, a very good IRST could you name it ?, increased payload, more pylons, satellite comms, and one thing that has not been discussed much; some very interesting EW capabilities… but that’s rather hush-hush. At the same time it will keep it’s fantastic low-drag and highly manouvrable airframe, with a minimum of weight added
I think this is pretty good. But is it a “5. gen plane”? I would say No. However I think that it can hold it’s own against most 4.5 gen jets out there, and do pretty well in a2g missions. Can it carry as much as the Rafale on long-range missions? Perhaps not, but by sending 4 NG instead of 2 Rafale and spreading the a2g munitions on more a/c that can actually also be addressed.
It will beat any teen and compare well to Rafale, Typhoon and SH.
I’m sure it will be some orders for the terrible Swedish fighter… Some 6-12 of them for 1th class AFs such as Hungary, Czech Rep or Thailand…
I was talking about the NG not the Gripen C…;)
The NG will have AESA, there is no doubt about that…
It’s the current Gripen C that can supercruise “on a cold day”; the NG has been designed to sc (> mach 1.2) w. 6 a2a missiles and one drop tank.
1300 km radius mission with 30 min on station with one drop tank only, is that what you call “point defence??”. The NG will also be able to perform a 5 hour maritime recce mission without refueling. What are the similar number for the F-35?
The IRST system of Gripen NG will be the “IR-OTIS” AFAIK.
LokeLoke,
-I am not sure about the 850 TR elements for the rafale…I think it is around 1000 actually (I am quite sure to have read it in A&C and elswhere). The fact that the RBE2A antenna is vertical should give it an advantage in range head on.
-As for RCS, this is mere speculation : no official datas exists. And in the game of specualting about RCS the only article I have (Michal FiszerJun. 6, 2005) comparing Rafale RCS to other Eurocanard gives the rafale with the lowest RCS.
-The rotating gimbal antenna is a big asset in BVR but in a network centric warfare environement this asset will disappear.
-As for meteor integration chances are the rafale will be the first eurocanard with operational meteor thanks to the UEA deal. 20 meteors (testing) were officially ordered by the french MOD for year 2010.
-WVR is almost irelevant as a mica IR will be fired long before the merge and before an IRIS-t shot to be possible.
-In the Brazilian competition the french (see the brazilian thread) argue that the rafale provides the impact of two gripen NG. This is debatable, (how to define impact or performance here ?) but I don’t think that they would come with totally fake arguments in an official tender.
My source for the 850 elements is floating around on the web — somebody has simply counted the number of elements from a picture. And a PR department could easily state that 850 is “around 1000”. However I agree that this number may be wrong; currently it’s the most reliable I have seen. If you have other sources I would love to see them.
RCS: I agree it is somewhat speculative. Perhaps the Rafale had lower RCS than the Gripen A; as I said the C has significantly lower RCS than the A; and the NG will have a significantly lower RCS than the C. In lack of info one could assume that they are in the same ballpark; OTOH if the RBE2 antenna is vertical would that not increase the frontal RCS?
It is not clear to me how in a network centric warfare environment the advantages of a swashplate antenna will “disappear”; perhaps slightly reduce but “disappear”? I don’t see that.
Your point of not entering WVR is interesting… OTOH then you are still in the BVR realm and then we are talking Meteor vs Meteor (or Meteor vs Mica).
IF BVR is not possible due to ROE then I am not sure if the longer range of the Mica will help? Also, if the fighters simply do not detect each other until they are WVR (however I don’t know how probable that is with their AESAs) the longer range of the Mica will also not help.
However if the fighters exhaust their “BVR” missiles and need to switch to “WVR missiles” then I agree you have a good point.
As for the “one Rafale is worth two Gripen”; well I guess they had to state that given the much higher price for Rafale… 😀
Joking aside, for long-range a2g mission with heavy munitions, they do have a point; however for most missions I think the statement is incorrect. And since the price difference is so large, to me it would make more sense to buy a larger number of Gripen NG.
LokeThanks for the link. What is LOROP?
I am not sure — I think in most cases it means “LOng-Range Oblique Photography” however I have also seen “LOng-Range OPtic”
I will try to find out.
LokeInformation on Gripens current and future ISTAR capabilities:
Future ISTAR capabilities
Capability as an ISTAR-asset, acquire and distribute information, in an interoperable network
Video downlink of LDP picture
New LOROP sensor
Link 16 and VMF
Full night capability, incl MPRS II and HMD/NVC
Enhanced EWS, incl MWS/LWS
IRST
AESA radar
Sensor fusion
In-flight analysis & reporting
Broadband link
SATCOM
LokeThe Rafale is a great airplane, but it’s actually too small for the mission. Which is why it hasn’t sold well.
???
Rafale has not sold well because of it’s high price and because of politics. It has also been hindered by a longer-than-anticipated development. It has been somewhat “immature” in some respects. Now it finally starts to mature with e.g. AESA and Rafale may get some well-deserved sell.
It’s a great 4.5 gen. multi-role fighter. But too expensive for most countries.
But too small? I don’t think so. The fighters that have sold well (the F-16 and the Mirage) have been even smaller. Also, don’t let the small size and low weight fool you; look at how much it can carry, and at what distances… 😉
Also look at what it actually contains in terms of equipment…
I do agree that it’s AESA is at the small end, that’s the only really weak point it has IMHO.
But is it a 5. gen VLO fighter? No. It has reduced RCS, but it’s not VLO.
LokeI look at Gripen and always am impressed even with the baseline version though, this is why i was comparing (as a succesor in the class) to Mirage 2000.
Mirage was a “fantastique” fighter, and IMHO under-rated in particular in the US….
Gripen pilots have said Mirage was a much tougher challenge in a2a than the F-16…
And as we all know, the Indian MMRCA competition was basically arranged because the IAF did not get to buy a large number of upgraded Mirage… Gripen NG is more or less what the Mirage could have been if Dassault had kept developing it for another 20 years!
Sign In
