glitterNo. The biggest danger for the Rafale was to have the F18 on front of it for the final (proven AESA, A2G and above all: garantied L1 price!)
That’s only to eliminate this one that we can imagine a game. On another hand, the Americans have been good enough to eliminate themselve so…
If India is really serious about the question of ToT, all american fighters are out of the selection since the beginning.
According to Stratpost article, if Rafale was IAF choice from the very beginning then why would they risk it pitting against EuroFighter for the Bureaucrats to make the decision, where Eurofighter bid could easily have been cheaper.
Because the eurofighter has always been MORE expensive than the Rafale, specially now with the AESA coming on the Rafale while the equivalent for Typhoon is in need of more budget.
No really, that article use many rumors against the Rafale, but nothing consistent.
glitter+1000
+1001.
After writing that, and since I don’t want to offend any Typhie-fan (and since Jacko just shown how little he understand of the concept of MMI) I will leave that thread , now pointless.
glitterIf you can do it without using afterburner, then not burning all of that extra fuel is a good idea.
Efficiency, as I wrote.
Using 5 secondes of AF is more efficient than 30 secondes of full military thrust.
If you’re going to criticise others on the basis of their supposed bias or lack of objectivity, it’s a bit inconvenient if they can demonstrate that they are more objective and less biased than you are.
Do you really think you have demonstrated anything here ?
BTW, I noticed you changed your mind about the “obvious superiority” of the captor over the RBE2. 😮
glitterso what is true about the Rafales ability to super cruise? Some places say it can some say it cant
Not “some places” only one person, John Lake, wrote that, from his usual “anonymous source”, and in a quite funny article where the Eurofighter was suppose to have destroy the competition.
The following week, the plane was kicked out of the competition.
And who says you should consider the good points of the Typhoon only, or deny that of the Rafale?
We have here a clear example with the Swiss report.
The question of the radar is very interesting. By the technologies used (PESA vs MSA) we knew that:
– the Typhoon had a better detection range
– the Rafale had much more functions and flexibility.
And what can we read on that thread ? The definitive superiority of the captor over the RBE2, while we have a report stating (in the condition of the test) the opposite. Either you (I’m not talking about you Scorpion, most posters must know that you’re a fair member of that forum) can dismissed the test, either you must conclude that “In most case the Captor enjoy an advantage over the RBE2”.
Just after the result of the 2 exercises during ATLC, where the Rafale won 7-1 versus the Eurofighter, the only conclusion is that the difference of A-A capabilities between the two planes must be limited.
Isn’t the same true the other way round anyway? You guys are complaining about the evil “Eurofighter propaganda” etc. and project the claims of a single person on the entire community
Jacko and PPP (with his xenophobic comments) here, Leopardus, Ger_Mark, Eric and Chris on WAFF, Ohm1860 or Cola on Starstreak, no, there isn’t only one person.
but did you guys prove to be any better!?
We proved to have been much better in regard of the flow of insults toward India and Indians (and sometimes France and French) we have seen since January 31.
You are equally over critical towards the Eurofighter and uncritical towards the Rafale as it happens the other way round.
Some of the Rafale fans are like that, no doubt.
Should I remind you that Sampaix called me “son of a bitch” when I wrote that I don’t think Spectra can’t detect, track and launch a missile without amitting radiation ?
That there are points about that evaluation which won’t apply these days anymore is a given, the main problem was software development and maturity,
Wow wow wow, I wrote on a french forum that the RBE2 AESA lack lots of software functions in regard of the possibilities available with an AESA and I have been said I was totally wrong without a single source.
And yes, we are quite a lot here to know that a report has a quite limited range.
BUT in Switzerland, that report was supposed to be future-proof too.
it’s not like everything on the Typhoon is wrong or that the aircraft enjoys absolutely no advantages in any area.
My god, except Sampaix, who ever wrote such a stupid things ?
glitterOf course we should consider both the positive and negative information about both Eurofighter and Rafale. I’ve posted far more about Typhoon weaknesses than you’ve ever posted about Rafale’s negative aspects.
I’m sorry, but I dont have anything to prove on forums, and I don’t think I must show that I try to be objective.
And don’t worry that when you post a message with 5 arguments against the Rafale and I react over 3 of them, you can be sure it’s that it’s because I think the two others were right.
The point about supercruise is that if Rafale needs A/B to get through the transonic regime, then it’s not supercruising, according to the most stringent definition of the term. Typhoon doesn’t need burner to get to and sustain Mach 1.4, and if you want to compare like with like, then you need to use the same definition…..
But we aren’t in a nice and cosy cafe in Saint Germain, we are talking about military weapons
Which is the most efficient for reaching mach 1 ? Using AF or not ?
The rest is intellectual masturbation from the marketing office.
glitterIndeed, and why should we do the opposite? :p
Really, you can do as you wish, as long as you’re honest about yourself.
If you say that you’re a Typhoon fanboy, no problem if you deny the Swiss report about the point of the better radar from the Rafale.
If you say that you’re impartial and you deny the same point, no problem, but you should explain why.
Now looking at the improve in scores from 2008 eval and the eval of what is expected to fly in 2015 looked rather dissappointing for the Typhoon.
If I understood correctly, there is only evaluation for 2015.
You misunderstand me. They mention the Typhoon supercruise performance because they’re superior. They mention the PESA RBE2 because it is superior. It works both ways.
Don’t forget that we brought PESA and an AESA Rafale during those test.
glitterPersonally I don’t dismiss Fox 3 out of hand. So, does it specify reaching and sustaining supersonic speed without using afterburner? Does it specify what loadout the Rafale carried when it achieved supercruise? Does it specify Mach 1.3?
If so, please point me at the issue and page number.
If it’s the same FOX3 I have in mind, the question about if afterburner has been used or not, to reach Mach 1 is not answered.
In that article it is specified several A-A missiles + one superosnic tank.
Anyway, what is more interesting is what is most efficient ? Using AF for a short period of time of full military thrust for a longer time ?
glitterFunny enough that “not being mentioned” means crap when it comes to the Typhoon, but is ignored when it comes to the Rafale. Rafale’s supercruise capability isn’t mentioned in the Swiss report either, so must we conclude it can’t or isn’t worth to be mentioned? Every sword has to sides.;):p
Since the beginning, we have been explained by the typhoon brigade that this report is totally pointless and/or outdated.
Which bring me to that important question, why should we consider only the positive information about Eurofighter and deny the good one about Rafale ?
glitterGlitter,
So are you denying that Captor-E uses newer processors than RBE-2AA?
as I wrote, it’s not magic, it’s computing.
Show me the two processors and the source code.
The repositioner moves slowly, and simply rotates. The benefits it gives more than outweigh any marginal increase in maintenance demands. With regard to RCS, Selex don’t agree with you. Go and ask Bob Mason about it at Farnborough.
I might be wrong on that, it’s true.
But I don’t get it. Any French source is a nest of liars, any british source is a foutain of pure truth. Could you explain me that phenomenon ?
My facts are facts. You may not like them, but Captor E is widely acknowledged as superior to RBE-2AA. As to MMI, read the Swiss report that you’re so keen on.
“Widely acknowledge by Typhoon fanboys, for sure.
And be careful with the question of MMI:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-u9A1B1CJxwY/TziFDQ6i_YI/AAAAAAAACYw/Zw1pk2MaDoQ/s1600/Swiss_eval_AP1.png
The worload is lower in the mission of air-policing, it’s the only conclusion.
Because, the MMI of the typhoon for missions of “nuclear strike; very low altitude attack; naval mission” is quite limited for what I heard.
Rafale does not have an integrated helmet, nor a decent IRST.
What do you call “decent” IRST ?
As to my sources on the Canard story. Reread the first post and my post 8 and my post 23. I reported what the Canard said based on what a French source e-mailed me (that’s what “my French sources” meant). Had it been from a website I’d have given a link, or had it been from a magazine I’d have named it.
To make it short, you started that thread with a french article that you don’t understand ?
Because obviously, the journalist who wrote it don’t know much neither.
My spies tell me
I hope it’s not the same anonymous source from Singapore who told you the Typhoon gave a spank to Rafale and Eagle.
glitterAgain, I challenge you to come up with the legal basis that makes dumping/subsidies in the arms industry illegal and therefore to back up your claims.
There are no limits placed on the subsidies for the military sector (production and export), at the EU level (for your information, this is article 346 of the European Constitution/Lisbon Treaty, production and trade in arms exception) or on the global/WTO scale (Article XXI, GATT, Security Exceptions)).
I am waiting.
You will have to wait for a long time, he doesn’t give an answer when he is stuck in the corner.
glitter2) It’s newer, and benefits from all of the increases in processor power and speed that Moore’s Law describes.
Obviously, you don’t understand the meaning of that “law”. It’s not pure f* magic.
Who will pay the devellopement of those processors ?
3) It has a repositioner that removes all of the very real disadvantages that a conventional AESA has, dramatically increasing range off boresight.
But:
– Is a source of maintenance/problem
– Show the plate in several direction, thenm increase the RCS, doesn’t it ?
4) It’s also based on a better radar in the first place. Is opinion, but it’s a widely held opinion. The original PESA RBE-2 was a technological dead end, and not a great performer. I’m afraid that the other points are simply fact, Buddy.
What you call “good performance” is just “pure range”. It’s just like comparing two cars only by looking at their max speed.
BTW, it was considered from the start that the PESA is a transition to AESA.
glitterThe next fighter is supposed to be “optionally” manned… So I don’t think what you propose would be practical.
Whilst the manned fighter aspect may have more pride value, it’s also the most likely to be axed, and the most likely to face cuts in numbers.
Could you point which AF will rely only in unmanned fighters in the following decades ?
The airframe essentially defines the capabilities of the aircraft, what sensors will be integrated ect. Considering we are discussing equal partnerships, each side should have 50% effective control. So if France had airframe control, Britain should have subsystems control. That said my preference would still be combined control for most of the UAV. A BAE + Dassault airframe will be vastly superior to a BAE or Dassault airframe alone, only those with inflated egos say otherwise.
The future european projects musn’t forget the lessons learn from Eurofighter and A400M programs.
1) You work on your field of expertise.
2) Not too many technical and political request that can only lead to blurry goals
More xenophobic comments… This isn’t a surprise!
After what have been written about India and France after the Indian decision to select the Rafale, I think we are all used to xenophobic comments.
I’m arguing control should be shared, you are arguing one country is better than the other, clearly it is you that is the nationalist/hung up on prestige/being in charge, not I 😎
See the point 2.
If we know how to share, fine. If we don’t know, we don’t share, end of the discussion.
glitterIf France takes the lead, the majority of the “best” work will get done by French engineers and the scraps will go to the British.
I think your fear is legitimate by what we saw in the past.
Come on, let’s those companies to be imaginative.
Can’t we imagine two program, lets say manned fighters and unmanned drones, one program leaded by Bae and the other by Dassault ?
glitterIn any case, the global Tranche 2 production contract is unarguable – and gives us an absolutely accurate Unit Production Cost (the marginal cost of actually making another Typhoon, without RAB, without any R&D elements) of €55 m per aircraft (£37 m). That’s cheaper than equivalent, contemporary Rafale UPCs.
There’s not much in it, and the point is a simple one. Rafale fans have claimed for a decade that Rafale is significantly cheaper than Typhoon, and it isn’t. In fact it’s marginally more expensive (10% on a unit programme basis, rather more on a unit production basis).
55 millions for the Eurofighter
53 millions for the Rafale.
You’re right, we claimed for a decade that the fly-away cost is much lower than the Eurofighter, while it’s just a bit cheaper.
glitter(In any event, the point is that the home nation price of Rafale is more expensive, the whole point of this thread is that the more expensive aircraft seems to have been able to underbid the notionally cheaper.
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/budget/plf2006/a2572-08.asp
En 2004, le montant de la commande de 59 Rafales F3 s’élève à 3,114 millions d’euros.
Less than 53 millions of euros per Rafale F3.
Sign In
