Considering the operational priorities Typhoon’s payload is perfectly fine. Those values are more theoretical anyway and by these standards the Flanker is lagging far behint the Rafale either while being much larger and heavier. The fuel load of the Typhoon is larger than that of the Rafale, but fuel fraction is more important and here the Rafale has a slight edge on internal fuel and a significant edge when we add external drop tanks.

That’s done by the respective EWS that is doing the jamming, not by the radar. The jammers job is to counter the radar and such systems adapt their jamming techniques to the threat. How do you want to distinguish between different types when they will replicate your radars emissions?

1) Yes, Rafale is stealthier than Typhoon (which is stealthier than previous fighters), but we are talking about two of the “stealthiest conventional” planes, so that difference is far from being relevant in “combat” between both planes.
And that’s about “radar stealth”. If we talk about “IR stealth” and “sensor stealth”, Typhoon is ahead thanks to it’s operational supercruise, HMS and IRST (more capable or useful for attacking an enemy than OSF and DDM).

Typhoon greater supercruise performance isn’t overly significant and tactially of questionable utility. There aren’t too many opportunities where this limited supercruise capability makes operationally sense. For most part the aircraft will either be subsonic or use reheat to accelerate to higher supersonic speeds. This would make no serious operational difference at all. More importantly, unlike Rafale Typhoon lacks any meaningful IR suppression measures. The M88 engines feature double nozzles through which air is channelled to cool down the engine exhausts. That’s more significant and in fact should make the Rafale stealthier in this department. For “sensor stealth” the HMS is no sensor as such and IRST is also available to the Rafale, not all, but it can be easily ported from one aircraft to another.

2) It’s true that Captor is a Mech radar but it’s also true that its performances are far over the APG-73, -68(v), -63(v) or similar radars, and generalised Captor (all Typhoons have it) it’s globally better than generalised RBE2 PESA.

Globally better is relative. It’s assumed that Captor is the overall better AA radar, but it’s not superior in all aspects. In some aspects RBE2 has considerable advantages and these may or may not make the difference in reality.

3) Talking about EW, both systems are amazing, I almost wouldn’t claim any difference… but the Typhoon EW suite can also have TRD (towed radar decoy, which all Typhoon can use) to decept enemy radars, but no the Rafale (and it’s not expected, only maybe active chaff that it’s not the same). So, both have internal jamming but only the Typhoon can also have external jamming.

Both systems have their merits and most relevant aspects are classified anyway. Some details are known however and there are some stronger and weaker points for both systems. DASS has a TD at its disposal yes and its active MAWS, at least in theory provides advantages such as accurate range and time of arrival data to determine a threat missile position more accurately overall and permit for accurate timing of support, evasive, last ditch maneuvers and employment of active and passive countermeasures. Other advantages of the active MAWS include better all weather capability and a better tracking performance after the burn out phase of the rocket motor. The passive system likely offers better angular accuracy, is jamming resistant, doesn’t vetray the aircraft’s presence and has fewer issues with ground clutter, while likely offering superior raw detection performance in permissible weather conditions. SPECTRA’s RWR employs more advanced technologies and has confirmed capabilities that are not present on DASS, such as emitter geolocation and targeting. With regards to the ECM the SPECTRA offers the advantage of two forward facing ECM antennas which allow for greater ERP and enable some jamming techniques that are not possible with just a single array, cross eye jamming for example. To what extend such jamming techniques are exploited is yet another question and most likely one that will not be answered anytime soon if ever.

4) Also, Typhoon has an operational IRST (again all Typhoons, not a few), ideal for passive tasks, better than old OSF (not good IR channel) and also better than OSF-IT (only TV channel, with less range and, most important, useless at night and in cloudy environments.) [Note: MICA IR seeker is not an IRST. It’s like saying that ASRAAM/Iris-T seeker it’s almost as good as a real IRST: it’s a poor excuse to the absence of a IR channel.]

I would basically agree, albeit it’s a bit simplified. The OSF/IT’s TV camera serves a different purpose and provides better visual ID and accurate (laser) ranging capability. The IT variant operates in the near visibility IR spectrum and should thus offer at least better performance at night than the legacy system. The MICA-IR seeker is integrated into the sensor fusion process and dedicated search modes are available. While I agree that the performance is unlikely to match that of a dedicated IRST, it’s not just your daddies IR seeker search capability. It’s noteworthy that not all Typhoons are fitted with PIRATE either, but the same applies as for the Rafale, it could be easily ported from one aircraft to another as required.

5) Finally, and because it’s also a way to detect, track and lock a target, Typhoon also has HMS (helmet mounted sight, again all Typhoon can use it), and no the Rafale (again not expected).

The HMS does nothing of the sort you describe. What it does is to rapidly cue sensors and missile seekers to the pilot’s LoS and providing situational awareness by displaying relevant information and target positions (delivered by the onboard systems) irrespective of the pilot’s actual direction of view.

So, I don’t see any superiority in sensors nor EW because some Rafales will have AESA, as some of you are claiming.

Objectively spoken and limiting it to what’s publicly available both have some pros and cons, there is no unilateral superiority for either type.

Indeed pretty nice those shots of the Su-35S. I suppose it’s from the OpEval conducted at Akthubinsk?

My understanding of the versions is N001V as proposed for the Su-27UBM & Su-30KN upgrade formed the base for what became the VE export variant for the Su-30MKK. The radar was further developed translating into the V as fitted to the Su-27SM etc. and its export derivative is the VEP as installed on the Su-27SKM and Su-30MK2. VEP1 might be the latest addition for export, never heard about it before!? I suppose it equips the latest MK2?

Agree with what you said Kovy.

Thanks for the summary TMor. 🙂 Wasn’t ROVER also part of 3.3 or was it inteoduced with 3.2 already? Any idea what else was included in 3.2 vs 3.1 some weapons apart?

Could someone of our French users post a summary of what has been covered by The new magazine wrt the different F-stanards? 🙂