Scorpion82Then some time AFTER said fantacy came out the F-22 & Typhoon actually DID meet
Did they meet? Where is the prove? Any official confirmation?
It is an RAF Typhoon pilot who sad ‘
No it was a US guy who claimed that a RAF pilot said…
Scorpion82Neither story is confirmed. That doesn’t stop you and Jwkook from peddling it over and over and over again though does it?
Does I? Where? I just commented what Jwcook said, not more not less and pointed that I see no reason why one of these stories should be believed and the other not. The situation is quite the same for both: An unknown source says…
Scorpion82Ones a no-nothing BBC report (and who in thier right mind would believe a word they say these days especially on military matters) and the other says absolutly nothing about the Typhoon coming out on top, just that they worked together. I think Mr Cook your are unwittingly being swept up by nationalistic fantasies of having the best jet.
An Australian being nationalistic about a foreign country? Sounds a bit odd, doesn’t it?! Further more this source was more meant to show that there were reports about that event itself, something which is often denied. Interestingly everyone believes this story from a US guy who posted it in a forum:rolleyes: Was there any confirmation from any official source had the RAF or USAF commented that story?
Scorpion82AFAIK F-15s, F-16s and Mirage 2000 were involved in that exercise as well.
Scorpion82I have to disagree, you know that competitions are not only based on “performance” but also include politics and economics… For instance it was widely reported by the korean press that the rafale won against the F15 in technico operational evaluation. But the fact that 36000 GI are stationed there has also its weight.
In Singapore it was publicaly stated that the depretition of the dollar by 30% has made the F15 a winner despite a rafale lead in technico operational evaluations.After that you are free to believe it is all lies or bias, but if you put all the different sources together it starts to have its weight…there are something like 10 sources of different types and if you do some cross checking it has its coherence.
I find suspect that when it comes to the hard truth some people have their own “extremely requiring standard of information quality“…Here there are about ten different sources from independent journos, french paliament reports or firm officials.
If you dismiss a so wide variety of sources I am wondering what are your criterions and how you can consider an information valuable ? This is “sophistic” skeptimism from someone who don’t want to see the truth in my opinion.Certainly a technical evaluation is relevant for a national need and it can’t be an absolute truth, certainly the typhoon suffred from underdevelopment but I have yet to find claims that the rafale lost (or that the F15 was superior) on technical grounds…I think that if it was the cas then Boeing would have make much more advertising. Surprinsingly there are about ten sources claiming that the rafale won.
The few people that I met from dassault confirmed this in informal discussions. (of course you could say that there are bias, but I genuinely think they weren’t). Besides in the dutch evaluation Edelstenne doesn’t deny that the rafale came second behind the F35…In this matter there are many sources including “specialist” ones.Again I am ready to be proven wrong but I am only asking some evidences.
You misunderstood my post, but I’ll try to explain it better what I meant.
I’m perfectly aware of the fact that performance and technologies aren’t the sole factors in competitions nowadays. Politics and economics are in fact overruling factors in many of them. I’m also aware about the reasons cited for the Rafale’s loses against the F-15 in South Korea and Singapore and I’m aware of the fact that the Rafale scored much better in the dutch evaluation. At first I want to make clear that I neither had any doubts about that at any time, so don’t worry we don’t disagree here. What I wanted to say is that drawing a conclusion like the Typhoon must be technically inferior to the Rafale because it was eliminated earlier from the competion might be wrong. Not more not less.
We don’t know where the Rafale scored so much better during the dutch evaluation. In South Korea I don’t have much difficulties to believe the superiority of the Rafale here due the fact that the aircraft was simply more mature and developed. Eurofighter would have never been able to deliver a mature multirole capable product by 2005 (the ROKAFs schedule) and while a more mature platform could have been delivered to Singapore in 2009, it still would have lacked the required multirole capabilites. There is no doubt or question that the Rafale is ahead of Typhoon when it comes to AG capabilities and that is the main reason why the Typhoon didn’t scored many points in such competitions and the fact that still a lot of weapons, which would be required to make a truely flexible multirole platform is not even agreed right now, which might affect even some upcoming decisions in the near future. I can’t see a basic technological inferiority of the Typhoon however. In some areas definitely, but not in general.
Scorpion82Probably biased but can he afford to distort the truth in front of the defense comitte, the shareholders or the finacial autorities ? Also when a military firm communicate it is usually for governments or the militaries which can have access to first hand datas so I don’t see the need to spin the truth as it won’t help them winning contracts if it isn’t the case.
Well the costs for Typhoon have been given publically available are fly-away costs for T2 Typhoons and the difference to F3 standard Rafales is by no means 60%. More a 20% to 25% difference. But depends what you include as Edelstenne did not specify the exact costs, he mentioned the Rafale’s fly-away price, but no price for the Typhoon. As he stats fly-away for the Rafale and mentioned 60% more for the Typhoon, we can conclude it’s the fly-away price he compares and by that we know from several sources (has been discussed here a thousend times) that Typhoon is more expensive, but for sure not 60% more. So call it as you want, it is obviously wrong and to be honest I rather believe the the numbers given by Austria, Germany and the EF GmbH than to believe the CEO of Dassault for whom the Eurofighter is a concurent product.
So knowing how the french assembly works I am quite confident about the accuity of its reports and they are telling that the rafale was superior to the typhoon during evalautions. Besides praising the rafale programme for free would be counter productive in the long run for everyone in france if it was bad…
I don’t think anybody suggest that the Rafale programme is bad. True is the Typhoon was eleminated earlier from several competitions and by that the Rafale was found to be the better suiting product (if you want to call that superiority do it). The conclusion that the Rafale won performance/technical evaluations against the Typhoon is a bit misleading however, especially when you see the quote “systematically won against the F-15 and Eurofighter Typhoon” because it was the F-15 which was selected in end. By that logic (Rafale must be superior to the Typhoon, because Typhoon was eleminated earlier) we must conclude that the F-15 must be superior to the Rafale. Suddenly other reasons are found for the Rafale lose, but the Typhoon of course just lost because it performs worse and is technically inferior. That’s a little bit one sidened view. Might also depend on how you interpret this or that. In Singapore for example it wasn’t just reported by journos, but also claimed by MINDEF itself that the Typhoon was eliminated on the grounds of time scales. EF GmbH couldn’t deliver the multirole configured Eurofighter at the schedule specified by MINDEF. You could conclude that the Typhoon lost on the technical ground it wasn’t multirole capable enough and by that Rafale won on the technical ground. But that doesn’t say anything about the aircraft in general and doesn’t prove technical superiority in every area (which some seems to conclude by that).
Scorpion82I would choose the SH block 2 with AESA EW capability for BVR over a typhoon.
The main question is, does the AN/APG-79 feature the EA capability right now? To my understanding it is proposed for the future, but not a capability available at this time. And there is the differenciating factor. If we have to compare the aircraft in their current form we have to do it for both!
EW, stealth, HMS + HOBS missiles will mitigate (when not anihilate) the benefits of these performances.
Ture but the Super Hornet seems not to provide the advantages here in the way you present it. The SH isn’t much more stealthy if stealthier at all than a Typhoon especially in a combat configuration. HMS is not yet in operational service with the Typhoon, though close to be delivered, but HOBS missiles are available and they can be used at HOBS angles to a certain extent even without HMS. As long as the EA capability isn’t confirmed as an operational reality for the APG-79 I don’t see any advantage for the SH in terms of EW capabilities.
Scorpion82Well, I was being generous as many claim the Gripen is really a “late” 4th Generation Type. Which, would put it in the class of the F-16, F/A-18, and Mirage 2000. Which, I have to agree because its not in the class of true 4.5 Generation Fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale, and Super Hornet. That said, the lines can easily get blurred………….
If, you want you could call the Gripen a 4.25 Generation if you like……..:D
To be honest, I see it as Fedaykin. The generation blah blah has become nothing else than marketing BS.
Scorpion82If it is not the case, why would the RAF be so desperate ot get out of Tranche 3 and sell the Tranche 1 aircraft?
As Fedaykin said it’s budget pressures. It is not the RAF that says reduce Typhoon or give us more F-35. It is the MoD which has a difficult time to fund so many costly projects including EF, JSF, carriers and by the same time has to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The UK doesn’t have a 600 bln $ budget like the US!
And it is not about canceling T3 and selling T1, but selling T1 to fund T3 or cancel T3 and keep T1. While the first option would be preferable.
Why does the German EF fleet have w worse readniness record then the old F-4F and Tornados?
Why does the RAF and AMI Typhoons have not? Might it have to do with the operator rather than the aircraft? And BTW the Luftwaffe states the readiness is already as good if not better than that of the Tornado or Phantom, so I wonder from where your claim comes from?
Why did every published report in recent competitions put the EF behind Rafale and or F-15?
Why did the F-15 won, while the Rafale systematically won against it?;)
Scorpion82In fact the Typhoon is a 4.5 Generation Fighter.
Example……..of 4th Generation
F-16
F/A-18
Mirage 2000
Mig-294.5 Generation
Typhoon
Rafale
Gripen
Super Hornet5th Generation
F-22
F-35
PAK-FA
J-XX
Gripen
Wow Gripen is 4.5 and 5th generation wouldn’t that make it a 4.75 generation fighter?:diablo:
Scorpion82ceasar isn’t what we could call an “aesa” as raytheon or Thales produce, first this is just an antena and not a radar system!
It’s called CAESAR (Captor Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar). CAESAR is in the end nothing else than a demonstrator based on the T2 Captor-D. A potential operational version will be more than that and it will be dubbed Captor-E, where the E doesn’t necessarily stand for Electronic, but it’s just the number in row following the T2 examples Captor-D.
Scorpion82For the AtA role it might be a close call in a real war will all options running…
The APG 79 radar with its powerfull EW capability will probably give the SH a decisive edge over the Typhoon. I see a much higher probability of a hit by the SH in BVR.
The question here is, is the EA function already available and if yes how effective does it work. In the end EA looks very much like another jamming technology, which might or might not bring a decisive edge.
In WVR the typhoon is more maneuvrable and powerful but as both have HOBS missiles+HMS it should be the lottery to know who is going to win… Here is an interesting report about it. HOBS missiles + HMS is an equalizer;
Haven’t french MN said they found tactics to counter the HMS+HOBS combo of the Super Hornet and if so is it to far stretched to assume that the Typhoon could do that too, plus adding the HMS+HOBS combo in addition?
Scorpion82There is no comparison for the Typhoon and F/A-18 SH as carrier born aircraft. It is true that BAES has conducted studies to navalize the Typhoon, but it is extremly unlikely to happen and therefore a moot point.
As a strike aircraft the Super Hornet is far further developed and capable at the moment, so no real comparison for now either.
As a fighter the Super Hornet enjoys very few advantages. The AESA radar might be one, but that alone is unlikely to be decisive, especially as the Captor is still a quite advanced and capable design. I wouldn’t give the Super Hornet a general better rating in terms of avioncs, because the AESA radar apart I see no advantages.
Scorpion82Hello scorpion !
Aren’t you mixing with the Norway competition ? Here it is about the Netherlands.
Just asking.
No earlier this year when the dutch opposition requested a reopening of the competition for possible alternatives to the F-35 Saab, Dassault and Eurofighter were invited to join, just Saab did it and offered 85 Gripen NG, while Dassault and Eurofighter refused to join. AFAIK even a more advanced F-16 something like blk 60 was considered as possible alternative to the F-35. Can be found here somewhere on the forums for sure.
Scorpion82Amazing that the Nederlands wanted the rafale back in the competion two monthes ago !
Hmm I knew that they asked Dassault to return at the time when the opposition issued the alternatives. Dassault and Eurofighter refused to enter the competition and I think that is the best what they could have done. Just Saab did it.
Sign In
