Just a question : I often read that the Rafale stealth features were developed to a great extent (as far as possible without too deep structure changes), making it a lot stealthier than the EF for example. As usual, it’s for sure not the same level as the F22, but then again 😉 lol

What do you think of it ?

Does anyone have some input of this topic ?

I’m told that it’s as close to ‘plug and play’ as makes no difference.

But how wil they deal with functionnality which are on an AESA radar and not on a mechanical one ? Maybe the software is already written and has been tested on test bench or plane ? This way they would indeed just have to change the radar and update the software (or maybe the software will be already present). And then test it in “real life”.

But you can’t just write off all this part of the job I think. And it’s exactly where the Rafale team has some advance since its PESA radar allowed it to already have tested “in real life” all the new functionnality of an electronical array.

BTW, do the EF team use american T/R modules or European ones ?

Just a question : I often read that the Rafale stealth features were developed to a great extent (as far as possible without too deep structure changes), making it a lot stealthier than the EF for example. As usual, it’s for sure not the same level as the F22, but then again 😉 lol

What do you think of it ?

“CAESAR has been specifically developed to fit in the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft and builds upon the highly successful Captor mechanically scanned radar which has already proved to be extremely effective. CAESAR will introduce AESA technology which enable E-Scan capability to be fully exploited by the existing Captor radar, while retaining all features and capabilities of the original system.” (Press release, March 2006)

I’m quite surprised here because French posters used to say that the way of dealing with a mechanical array information is completely different from the way of dealing with a electronical one. I personally find it makes sense due to the very different nature of the incoming data (as least up to me).

As you love to say, Jackonicko, it may just a PR operation “as usual”. Indeed, one could say the hardware behind the CAESAR won’t change, and so this press release is right in a way, even if on the other hand the software behind needs to be completely different.

I find this could be particularly true considering an AESA array provides some capabilities a mechanical one can’t and thus, for sure, the software behind the radar must change to take them in account. So this press release is at least misleading on this part.

And that says someone who considers himself as a big fan of the Eurocanards.

Replace Eurocanards with Rafale and the sentence is accurate.

…

Keinerlei.. Bin öfter aus Regensburg extra nach Manching gefahren um Testflüge der Eurofighter zu beobachten. Ist es etwa nicht fan-nisch genug?

Nice. Don’t worry… 😀 I’m just pulling your leg. :p

No, Rob, you’re just trying to kill the messenger instead of the message, or to put it in a more “politically correct” way : you’re trying to discredit his comment on the plane by saying he’s biased. Really a poor behaviour. Or I may seriously lack humor. Who knows ?

Whatever, back to the plane.

On technical facts, I could just say that the plane uses a “central joystick”, which it’s a fairly conservative move and almost a surprising one for such a recent plane.

Regarding radar and is mechanical array, Rafale lovers have left the impression upon me that you can’t reuse much of a mechanical array’s software for a AESA one, whereas it’s the case for a PESA array. Personally, I don’t have the knowledge to confirm on infirm it, so I will gladly take your input.

Finally, I would add that the EF and the Rafale are the poor recipients of years longs of French and English bashing (by respectively some English and some French posters).

This is quite a pity since these 2 countries have worked many times together, achieving great things, and that such fight is always unproductive for all the parties involved. However, having to prove “mine is bigger” seems still to be attractive to many.

Fortunately, the USA came with such a “mine is bigger” thing, aka the F22. So at least English and French agree on something : the F22 should be better than both the Rafale and the EF. 😀 lol I’m quite sure the USA citizens are laughing of both of them ! lol

To precis: No-one I’ve spoken to who has flown Rafale (French, Korean, Singaporean or otherwise), believes that Rafale doesn’t need a bit more power. It was one of the main conclusions of the Singapore evaluation.

I don’t a lot about aeronautics, but how can such a thing be knowing that the Rafale is able to carry more than the EF ? It should then have a much larger power reserve than the EF…

For the Singapore evaluation conclusions, have you something like a source to it or once again is it only the “people in the know” source ?

The aircraft has far less power than Dassault had originally planned.

Where did you learn that please ? Rafale supporters seem to disagree on this point, which should be easy to prove (it’s only history and facts normally, nothing like “people in the know” knowledge).

Rafale was a single nation venture.

F22 is too. Does it mean this plane is bound to be less efficient than other ones ? 😀 lol

Seriously, before saying such things, look at the country you’re speaking of. Dassault has made plenty of fighters since a while on their own, there is no surprise in their ability to achieve a plane like Rafale.

On the other hand, Germany, Italia and Spain doesn’t have such a background as far as I know. For the UK I guess they could as well as done so, more or less, they too have the required background.

Rafale, a fast jet, excels in the a-g role; and second to only:
1)F-22
2)Typhoon
in the a-a role. Remember this was a single nation fighter program.

As I said before, the end of your sentence is nonsense. For the ranking, it’s just yours. On my side, I won’t even dare to do such a thing. It’s way too stupid as well, there are way too many factors, ranging from the plane itself, its equipment, its weaponry, the conditions of engagement, the precise context and so on. This kind of ranking always feels like “mine is bigger”. Whatever, one could never prove his point here.

I find some other approaches, like trying to learn as much as possible from all aircrafts, a lot more interesting. It gives a better idea and insight of each plane and the work which has been done on it. It gives as well a clearer idea of its capacity, beyond the usual “mine is bigger” thing.

The only pertinent ranking would be “which airplane sold most”, but it would only mean… which airplane sold most, nothing more, nothing else. I don’t find such a ranking interesting in itself personally. However, the stories behind all the sales are usually pretty interesting of the current states of affaires of the world, whatever the plane and the country involved. But then again, it’s a completely different topic.

EDIT : interesting as well to see DVI is in fact present in some Rafales… It makes me wonder a lot about many things told here. Thanks a lot !