@Arthuro
Yes it’s indeed a pleasure to discuss this way, exchanging information, sharing knowledge and elaborate together, rather then peeing contests.
I would like to sent you a PM, but your inbox is full.;)

cheers
Scorps

@TMor,
I don’t think that makes sense. If earlier and thereby less capable standards would have already achieved such results, it would be even more remarkable for the Rafale…

Hi Arthuro

I think that this is your own interpretation. The level of sensor fusion can be different with for instance MIDS+ radar fused but not IRST and EW. That is how I interpret it. I think it is correct as I remember a debate about Typhoon PIRATE with a capture of a specific IRST display (with track symbols) in the typhoon which indicate that the IRST has a dedicated screen.

It is true that there are some separate display formats in the Typhoon such as the IRST/FLIR, DASS and attack formats, but they also include sensor fused information to a certain extend. The purpose of these dedicated formats is to provide more detailed information. The PA format presented on the centre MHDD provides similar sensor fused information as the HLD on the Rafale. It provides fewer details than the dedicated attack & DASS formats. The F-22 uses a similar approach offering a SA display format and dedicated attack & defensive formats which present more details relevant for attacks and defensive actions, this leaves the main tactical SA format de-cluttered.

Well you don’t need to make a full flight onboard to know this. A short tour in the cockpit with an introduction of Typhoon capabilities by a RAF pilot is sufficient. A debriefing of encounters with pilots talking to each other is sufficient as well to understand how the aircraft works in the main lines. Usually pilots are curious to know about other systems.

Might or might not, while pilots have the tradition to introduce each other to the others office, it is often just a basic introduction with some small talk next by. You may get a rough idea, but experiencing a working MMI is something entirely different. Debriefs are usually not to the extend that they accurately describe their own systems capabilities. In debriefs you may watch the aircraft’s position imposed on a map and the pilots discuss the various actions happening in a chronological order. The recording is stopped and the pilot describes what he has done at that point, potential kills/misses etc. are assessed and weighted against the recordings and claims of the opposing party. In the case of radar sites the crew reports for example when they got a spike from where and this is matched against the SAM crews reports about their activity for example etc.

I don’t think someone with the experience of Grandclaudon would be so patently wrong. If we, forumers can have an idea of how it works why wouldn’t pilots (especially with the experience of grandclaudon) that can have access to their colleagues from other nations as well as the hardware and practise against them.

To put it into the correct perspective, Grandclaudon spoke about inferior sensor fusion, it was A&C which claimed no sensor fusion. Whether the fusion of the Rafales sensor data is superior to that of the Typhoon is out of my scope. The Rafale definitely offers some unique capabilities (at least not reported for other types) and it might well be that the overall sensor fusion is better. But the pilots description is too unspecific and the A&C claim definitely wrong and contradictional to what Typhoon pilots have reported so far and what is known about the system.

I agree with you. But firing a single target missile that has to be guided until impact is pretty restrictive against a blue Typhoon. As explained by grandclaudon being “red” doesn’t prevent you from showing the real capabilities of the aircraft as you are using the systems, sensor fusion and MMI of your aircraft not that of a SU27 or mig29.

That is why according to him you can still learn lessons of about an aircrafts even when being red as only the “missiles” performance and characteristics changes compared to the real ones.

Well agreed, but there are aircraft better suited to represent MiG-29 or Su-27 style performance due a lesser integration/automation of the avionics. Single target SAHR shots are indeed a huge limitation in a 2 vs 4 BVR engagement, but one really wonders how it is possible that way. SAHR guidance clearly requires CW illumination, something modern radars don’t do as SAHR missiles aren’t used any longer by types such as the Rafale or Typhoon etc. To hide such is virtually impossible and one wonders why the other two aircraft haven’t reacted accordingly. In the end we don’t know the specifics to further elaborate.

I think it is a little bit hypocrite to assume that if the rafale pilots didn’t talk about other confrontations then it automatically means that they lost or that something is hidden…

Don’t get me wrong on that, it doesn’t mean that the French are hiding something as such or that they lost all other encounters. But as they are so happily carrying over the results from Corsica and the UAE to the public one would assume they would do the same, IF they had achieved similarly impressive results on other occasions. I just don’t think that the difference between the two aircraft is that big, that the Rafale would dominate the Typhoon so clearly in general. In those exercises the Rafales did and I can just applaud them, but I think it had much to do with the pilot skills/tactics/preparations. The Rafale certainly has its qualities, particularly in dogfighting situations with guns only and also BVR, but given how both types regularly demonstrated a relative clear and mostly one sided dominance over teens it is difficult to believe that the Rafale would be so dominant over the Typhoon just because of its performances/capabilities. We know that both types had suffered looses against types which would be considered as far inferior either, those F-5 twin-seaters from the EdA with Typhoon kill marks or the Luftwaffe F-4F with “Rafale Eater” slogan and 5 kill marks…
They are both certainly not unbeatable. It’s a pity that we never hear the other side, this behaviour could reflect good on the Rafale or just indicate a more gentle behaviour of the other side.

I think it is a revelator that typhoon supporters hang on to the slightest thing to debunk Grandclaudon.

I don’t have an interest to debunk Grandclaudon, I infact believe most of what he says though I have to criticise that he just came out with relevant details after month of speculations and when he was directly confronted by the AFM editor during the interview.

I believe it is a weak argument and that we are lucky enough, for once, to have the results and an analysis. Besides the only other encounter I was personally told about during last Paris airshow was also in favor of the rafale (by “Benco” from the aeronavale) and his analysis was roughly the same as grandclaudon (as regard MMI, sensor fusion and FBW).

But wasn’t Bencos experience the very first of the Rafale & Typhoon encounters? It was WVR only and little edge for the Rafales in the results.

The current T-50-1 features nothing except for the most basic equippement and flight test instrumentation. The T-50-4 is said to be the first prototype with avionics. It’s quite evident that the current OLS is just a dummy and the huge antennas at the aircraft’s nose clearly indicate that there is no radar fitted. It has been said radar tests would start around summer in a Tu-134 and there are rumours that the Su-30MK #504 might be used for radar testing as well. So far the claim that the T-50-1 is an empty shell is not untrue with regards to what will be found in a production airframe.

@Kiwinopal,
yes RIAN from Wiki, great:rolleyes:
Don’t feel offended but up to date we have a lot of fanboy wish numbers floating around the internet. I see no officially confirmed numbers except for the takeoff distance and in flight refuelled range. When Sukhoi is finally releasing numbers itself I will start listening.

Lockheed says F-35 can compete on price with the F/A-18E/F & F-16 blk 60, if…
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/06/18/01.xml&headline=Lockheed:%20F-35%20Can%20Compete%20On%20Cost

If so that would be great and the F-35 would be affordable, not to say cheap for what it offers. If the costs can be brought down to that level the F-35 could be seen as one of the best aircraft ever designed from a value for money perspective.

A very interesting clip here…

http://rutube.ru/tracks/3340831.html?v=f6295d73a736dba8284290888faac6e7

If accurate , imho that explains the quite remarcable flying display from yesterday ,done WITHOUT afterburner …the plane is a bit lighter than thought (17 500kg), and i assume ( i can be wrong offcourse) that the 30610 Kg figure for the “in-flight weight” refers to the aircraft with full internal fuel + internal AAMs…same for the F-22.

It looks like T-50 beats F-22 hands downs at the airframe performance chapter ( including supercruise???),and range, boy that thing has legs or what … (oh ,and offcourse , morale!:D)

I’ve some doubts about the accuracy of these comparison charts in that video. 17500 kg empty weight sounds incredibly low for an aircraft of that size, with all the support structure for the weapon bays etc. I have some doubts that the PAK FA is about 2t lighter than the smaller F-22, makes not much sense if you ask me.
I’m also a bit reserved about the range claims, 4300 km range on internal fuel and just 5500 km range with one in flight refuelling. If we remember the claims about older Flankers the range difference was much more significant! For example 3000 km for the Su-30 and 5200 km with one IFR or 4200 km for the Su-27M and 6800 km with one IFR, similar for the Su-34. I would actually expect a range around 3500 km at best on internal fuel as the AL-41F1 is more powerful than the AL-41F1S while likely offering a similar SFC. The Su-35s stated range is 3600 km internal fuel, though one would expect a significantly longer range in comparison to the equally sized and not much lighter Su-27 whose range is given with 3680 km to 4000 km. At the same time the Su-35 has a much larger internal fuel load.

Edit:
this is becoming ridiculous with the compressor face. The engine actually needs air to breath! How could this be ensured with the compressor face being hidden. given the relative straight inlet. half the compressor face being visible is not to bad and looks reasonable given the intake design.