I’m pretty sure the nuclear strike version will also have mission specific equipment levels and changes, otherwise, why the need for -D, -B, -C, -M, -N?

Not really the aircraft is just wired and has this or that security equippment for the nuke weapon delivery. Not a big deal and nothing which could be added to other aircraft if required. The “D” as the original designation for the land based version latter replaced by B/C (twin-/singleseater). The M is the single seat navy version, while the N (initially called BM) was a projected, but cancelled, twin seat navy version.

@Taygibay,
nonsense as stated above. Nothing of what you said invalidates what I have said. You claim that pods add capacity which is already present is nonsense as well, because without these pods the Rafale CAN’T self designate targets, do reconnaisance or refuel other aircraft. That it doesn’t need a separate pod for doing SEAD is fine, neither do some other aircraft, not even the F-16, hang a HARM under its wing and the F-16 can still do SEAD. And for the record the F-16CJ isn’t a dedicated SEAD platform, it’s a multirole fighter which can perform the SEAD role if required. The F-35 features a built in TGP, the Rafale doesn’t so must we conclude that the F-35 is more omnirole than the Rafale? Certainly not, as stated above omnirole is a marketing and nothing else and there are certainly many roles the Rafale CAN’T perform. As simple as that!

Omnirole seems to indicate that non specced Rafales do SEAD Lite.
whereas non-specced F-16CJs don’t even though they are SEAD jets.
Same day, same skies, same threats!
In other words and for the last time, please pretty please, the Rafale
is a system of systems before even getting specific sensor equipment
and uses them in synergy to obtain more correlated infos at any time.
That it can do so stripped naked ( Which should include OSF however! )
is what makes it OMNI-role as in you don’t have to go back home ’cause
the wife forgot her handbag.

Cost is, sadly for my camp, something you are right to say that should not change ( although higher ToT can compensate for it ).

Rafale, if you forget the lenghty F1 episode, is a relatively new fighter and
has not yet finished growing, more like adolescence than teething pains.
As such and since it performed quite well in its training and war duties so
far, i’ll hold opinion on precise placing against other offerings.
But I cannot follow you in believing it to be any less than podium!

No problem with your assessment of the Typhoon but that it is not YET
as versatile as the others.
Then again, it is not a demo plane so that it can be either in front or behind the NG depending on what exactly our Indian buddies desire.

Finally, you are right, the ball is US now.
I wonder if the main difference will not be, between those two 120-ish
contests that distrust of America’s past ways will tip differently in each?

Good day all, Tay.

Omnirole is an overhyped marketing term invented to make the Rafale look somewhat special. But it isn’t half as special as it sounds or people like you want to make us belive!

Can the Rafale perform all missions without being fitted with pods? Wonders why there are AREOS and Damocles or possibly jamming pods in the future! Can the Rafale transport troops and material, can it do SAR or ASW, can it act as AWACS or JSTARS? You see what I’m aiming at, there are many missions the Rafale CAN’T perform. There are still missions the Rafale needs to be configured for by fitting appropriate weapons and pods, like any other swingrole/multirole fighter.
The Rafale can perform all missions required by the AdA/MN from a tactical combat aircraft, but it can’t perform all missions of military aircraft in general. It may offer a unique combination of possible missions roles (not too sure about that), but so do others.

You may be right. I was under the impression that the inlet on the EJ200 was 33″, but according to most sources it is the same as the RB.199 at 29″. The length of the EJ200 appears to be nearly a foot longer than the RB.199. While that might seem like the Tornado would need to be altered to use the EJ200, apparently the EJ200 was designed as the RB.199 replacement IN the Tornado before it made its way into the Eurofighter. If that is the case then it must not take too much to fit these longer engines in the Tornado.

There is just a 2 cm difference in inlet diameter, max diameter is the same for both, but the RB199 is shorter. It’s not correct that the EJ200 was meant to be a replacement for the RB199. It was specifically designed for the EF2000 and was never meant to equipe the Tornado. The compatibility in diameter was a requirement to allow fitting the RB199 as well.

It’s highly unlikely that the modes of the RBE2 aren’t carried over to the RBE2AA. There is no indication of that and the original RBE2AA demonstrator was merely a RBE2 with the PESA antenna being replaced by AESA. DRAAMA aimed at further extending modes and functionality. It’s by that not very probable that the RBE2AA lacks anything which was offered by the RBE2. The addition of modes such as the GMTI/T was never stated in any of the F-standard lists. It was mentioned as a mode/capability of that radar back in the 90s like many other features. The sea mode or SAR are only available since F3 and not before, while AG modes in general were introduced with F2.

I don’t think that the RBE2AA will miss any modes in comparison to the current RBE2. There are simply some functions which were at least planned/reported about in the past, but which aren’t implemented as of now. The same is true for many radars, be it the RBE2, PS05/A or Captor. All these radars entered service with just a fraction of their planned modes/capabilities and have evolved over the years. Some of the planned functions are still not implemented however and some may just find their way into these radars in their latest reincarnations.
Wrt the range performance of PS 05/A and Captor it’s reasonable to assume that Captor offers a greater range, given the most likely higher power output and larger antenna aperture. Available data support this, albeit they might not be definitive figures.

No, it is a fixed angle. The array in that demo also rotates to maintain its up-and-down orientation, but the plane of the array is always at the same angle off boresight.

Just take a look at the beginning where the antenna looks straight forward. The point is it doesn’t point outwards all the time. It’s subsequently not limited in the way you have decribed above. If required the antenna can be straight to offer maximum performance in boresight and around. The repositioner can flexibly move the array. Wrt to the N-035’s gimbal you have to take into account that that’s a PESA which is still lighter than an AESA.

PS-05a have today about the same range as Captor M, so i dont see this change in the future..

:confused: ~120 km detection range vs. fighter = >160 km tracking range vs fighter? Doesn’t sound like “same range”.