@PilotTHX

me pueril????

lol

“Rafale/Typhoon:
Top Speed: M 2/M 2,02
Top Speed at S/L: 1390 kph (M 1,14)/1390 kph (M 1,14)
Supercruise: M 1,2/M 1,2-1,3
Ceiling: 18000 m/18000 m
Climb rate: >305 m/sec /~315 m/sec
Climb time to: 40000 ft in <2 min/42000 ft 1,5 min
G-Load: – 3,2 to 3,6 g/+9 g /-3 G/+9 g
g-acceleration: 10-12 g/sec /15 g/sec
ITR: 32°/sec />30°/sec
STR: 24°/sec /25°/sec
Operational AoA: 32°/30°-35°
Rollrate: 270-290°/sec /250°/sec
range on internal fuel: >2100 km/2600 km
ferry range: 5593 km/3700 km+
max. CAP range: 1853 km/1389 km”

pueril is the guy that know nothing more than chauvinistic, optimistic or biased datas over the net, or immaginaries quotes from “pilots” that he takes as accurate or worst “the truth”!

so, open yours eyes, and as i said that isn’t insulting le ridicule ne tue pas!

insulting is when a guy can see the ferrari green, and try to make beleive to others when thousands see it red!

so get a life!

That’s my last reply answering or commenting one of your nothing saying posts. I’m tired of you and your non sense making statements which have at least no background.

You aren’t able to lead a civilized discussion at a normal level. You only dis people and it seems so that you do it as you have no arguements you could discuss with.

You contribute nothing to that topic here except your senseless, stupid and unqualified comments.

So what do you know about Eurofighter Typhoon to judge about it? Not much as I can figure out of your posts which are like “Eurofighter with it’s 80’s cockpit” etc. Your are at least the person which makes it self ridiculous.

You say my data/information are all wrong and biased, but you fail to prove it. So from where do you get your information? I doubt you are a pilot to judge so you have to rely on what other people are saying to you. Be it aviation magazines, websites, manufacturer brochures, interviews with pilots and representivs etc.

So we’re waiting, what’s on the design that is so amazing to allow the Rafale to reach M 2.0? Because you didn’t actually answer the question but i’m sure you wouldn’t mind bother writing more of t he same…

Correct me if I’m wrong, but according what I understand Rafales intakes are not best suited for such supersonicspeeds, as they may be “to” small. At altitude air is more thin so it’s more difficult to supply engines with the necessary airflow…

It seems to me that you are only making assumptions here, climb rate, what does it result from? Turn rate very much the same, what the difference between the range you give for Typhoon and reality, how can an aircraft with the less economical engines and the lower fuel farction have a longwer range; do you think before writing etc. Loads of questions here…

Of course you’re free t okeep at it, but don’t be surprised if some of us are critical. Here are some to help you rup.

I make some assumptions as said and I give the data I have researched. Read again my post for that…
About the range Typhoon has actually a little bit more internal fuel. I don’t care about if you believe it as that is a fact.
And why has Typhoon less economical engines? According to the data I have about the two engines (M88-2 and EJ200) the fuel consumption is relative equal at all.

Critical is ok, I’m critical as well…

Hum. When Dassault was developping the Rafale (in the 90s), even the Raf C was to be easy enough to fly and to use for a/g mission. Nevertheless AdA prefered to buy two seaters in greater number than C because they were not convinced by dassault.
Now, and all recently, AdA has changed its opinion since at CEAM, pilots have realized that the single seater was good enough to handle lots of mission, testimony that the Rafale’s systems are very efficient.
I really don’t think that the argument of price is the most important.

Hi TMor,
Rafale C is easy to operate in AG as well, however as long as you have no two weapon release buttons (and I doubt the Rafale as) and as long as even widely automated systems can’t be managed by a single pilot when it goes to AG and AA target aquisition it’s very unlikely that a Rafale M or C pilot will be able to designate air and ground targets at once. BUT RBE-2 can track and prioritise the targets and the pilot has nothing more to do than selecting AA and chosing the MICA to engage and then switch back to the AG weapon to release it.
For Scalp release for example you have to calibrate the INS (pressing a button) and then starting it’s engine if in range. Once it is released break away to avoid collision. To make both at once a second crew member is required. The backseater respectivly handles the Scalp while the front seater would engage an enemy with MICA or Meteor (in future 😉 ). The systems of Rafale it self could handle both tasks at once but a single pilot would be overstrained, not to say unable to do that.

AdA originally intended to receive 225 C and 25 B, but after Operation Desert Storm AdA experienced that a second crew member would be invitably a good work reduction for complex AG or at least multirole tasks.

Out of the topic : what have become the 10 first Typhoons of the RAF (which were to be sold…) ?

Also I could provide better informations on Luftwaffe Typhoons, the RAF sold non of it’s Typhoons (15 at the moment). That was political nonsense some british politicians spoke about and it was never realized and is also unlikely to happen. 😉

greets Scorpion

Let’s say that the rafale is the first carrier anable with electronic array fighter 🙂

About omnirole, well, no doubt that future version of superhornet and typhoon and all F-35 or f-22 would be as omnirole as the Rafale. :confused:

Perhaps that fonk is right and that Dassault manage the get the best aerodynamic materpiece. then what ?

Yes that’s right and I fully agree with that (frist two sentences).

About the aerodynamics. Yes the Rafale seems to have at least one interesting feature for a delta/canard and that is the LEX. I personally prefer the look of Rafale over that of Typhoon. However Rafale hasn’t proven that it is so much better than Typhoon in terms of performance.

No one here flys the aircraft, we have no exact and all covering data/performance charts so that we can only roughly judge. And the result we might get is not coercively definite and right.
Most data are reference to orientate on and some might be definitive, but some of them are also only an assumption…

PilotTHX

Scorpion you are a gugus wasting his time requoting false or biased datas!

If you mean Fonk with “his”, I was answering you not him! So all my data should be wrong or biased that is what I call childish. All what doen’t suit your mind in terms of data/information about Rafale is automatically wrong. That’s what is biased in my opinion.

you even forget that the eurofighter was deigned for quick air attack alert from the red, it’s first role is AoA superiority, Rafale first rolme is AoA, Strike, carrier and nuke and was designed with that in mind, your talks about multi role is so ridiculous, the F18 was designed in mind to replace the tomcat, and reveleted as a good swing role plane later!

You should read my posts much more carefully before blaming me for things, for which you couldn’t blame me if you had read and understand my posts.

About F/A-18 you are wrong it was intended to be a carrier born fighter and attack aircraft replacing F-4 and A-7 in USN service and complement F-14 and A-6. Originally they planned to develope 2 dedicated versions the F-18 as fighter and the A-18 as attacker. They finally managed it to develope a swing-role fighter capable of performing both AA and AG. The F/A-18 was born…

how could you eurofighter would do the same rates of mission, doing the same as a Rafale that have 2 more weight points under wings, where do you place your tanks and SCALP? dumby! a Rafale will always have the edge of payload and best versatility, i remind you that Rafale have 14 points 5 weight “heavy load”, eurofighter have 13 with 3 wet!

Let’s take a precision strike with stand-off missiles as an example.

Rafale: 2 Scalp+3 tanks+ 6 MICAs that was it.
The 2 forward underfuselage stations of Rafale are only used to put on targeting pods or hanging light weight free fall bombs. Second centre line hardpoint can’t be used when tank is loaded. You are effectivly using 11 hardpoints in that configuration.

Eurofighter: 2 KEPD-350/StSh+3 tanks+6 AAMs+2ARMs

Let’s take an Air Superiority mission as an example:
Rafale: 2 tanks+10 AAMs or (more typical) 3 tanks+8 AAMs
Eurofighter: 3 tanks+10-12 AAMs (depends on stations 2/12 weapon (selection)

These are two practical and typical loadouts. You see Rafale has no advantage here, except the superior external fuel load. But it doesn’t carry more weapons.
We do not argue about the fact that Rafales external fuel load capacity and maximum pay load is higher than that of the Typhoon. So Rafale is superior in that area that’s a fact. However you also see that in different configurations Rafale carries at least not more weapons than Typhoon. That’s a fact too!

and pls don’t speculate a weight of Rafale on the B302, you looklike more ridiculous!
for your information the B302 is a tester, i mean this planes is fulfilled with control devices and systems checkers, all tester ares around 10% heavier, since the plane history started!

Ridiculous seems to be your favorite word. Don’t take that “speculation” to earnestly. I primary wanted to figure out the normal takeoff weight for the Rafale B with that light configuration and that was given with 16,4 t. And it was a french who claimed that in the report, you probably also know. The report was very positive why should he lie?

Empty weight for Rafale will not be a topic here for me any more. Maybe the aircraft really weights that less as Fonk says. But he failed to really prove it. Who says that Dassault really managed it to keep the targeted weight exactly? No that should be no wish from an “Eurofighter fan boy”, it’s only a thought. And Fonk also only believes the goal and what was said by the manufacturer or who ever in the past.

so i like you all pointing the 13g g limit of the eurofrighter, good, but your pilot would be prying to have side stick and a 32° seat to cope with all this G “limit”, lol, he would dream to be into a rafale, isn’t it?

To express it like you… You make your self ridiculous!
I never ever spoke about a 13 g limit here and if I would be Fonk then I (he) would say now: “You don’t understand the aircraft (Eurofighter in this case) and you have no idea what your’re talking about.”

In fact the Eurofighter Typhoon is a pilots aircraft. It was designed with the input of operational pilots from the very beginning. A side stick was not wanted as well as a heavy inclined seat.
The reasons are:
1.) Pilots felt that a centred stick comes accross more natural
2.) A heavy inclined seat was simply not wanted as your head hangs down while climbing in the vertical and as you have to wrench to look around and to stretch to reach all controlls.

Luftwaffe Typhoon pilots are wearing the Libelle-G Multiplus anti-g suit. It’s claimed to be the best and most effective up to date! It works with fluid muscles covering arms, legs and upper part of body (front and back) as well. The advantage of liquid compared to air is that the liquid generates the required pressure without delay exactly where it is needed.
This suit does not require any ports to connect into the cockpit. With this suit pressure breathing is a thing of the past as pain in the arms is. You can even speak without problems while flying with 9 g and even more. A Luftwaffe pilot sustained 86 seconds with 9 g (world record).
So no he wouldn’t dream to sit into the cockpit of Rafale because of it’s pretended superior cockpit.

you liltle buggers try to convince with a short leg overweight plane who crashed and was delyaed, that politicians don’t beleive in no more, who lost challenges around the world against older fighters, with a 80’s type cockpit, a stick between the legs without modern anti g device, poor charge and wet points, and a mechanical sensor that ares usual in this type actually on fighters, with a bit upgraded FLIR/IIR systems to be the F22 challenger, or Rafale one, hey, vous nous faites beaucoup rire!

Lol I wonder why you guys can’t stay polite. If you are so convinced by your self that you are right and all others are wrong then it should be the other way round and people like me should dis you… :confused: :diablo:

At least the mentioned crappy arguements above need no comment. Is it called BIASED? lol

no, i say that rafale will do it 2 times better to do AoA and AoG simultanously, eurofighter will not, Why??????

because you’ll have to reconfigurate you plane to have the same performances than a rafale mate, Rafale will haven’t need to change asraam by more amraam or to remove tanks to put SCALP or mixing both with fews effect, Mica do the job of an asraam and amraam meaning each time you put 2 missiles a short and MVR rafale will economise one point and lot of weight, an more you even can launch it and recalculate the targeting later, you eurofighter can’t fiht with this reality!

At least only Rafale B will be really capable of performing AA and AG at once as a single pilot can hardly handle both tasks at one time.

“We” haven’t to reconfigure our plane as Eurofighter is easily able (ok will be) to switch from AA to AG during flight as often as the pilot wants to do that. And Eurofighter can carry enough different weapons during a SINGLE flight to defeat different threats.
With the POSSIBLE load of: 2xStorm Shadow+2 ALARM+6 Brimestone+1xtank+2xASRAAM+4xMRAAM
A single Eurofighter could make a precison strike, defeat enemy air defences, beat enemy aircraft and rough up some enemy ground troops (i.e. a smaller tank convoi) in a single flight!
Ok to admit it will probably not be practicied but it would be possible.

Another thing. Typhoon carries 2 SRAAM and 3-4 MRAAM in EVERY configuration be it AA or AG!

And that’s reality!

I don’t like when people say that the Rafale is multi-rôle. Espacially since the F18 (first real swing role), severak aircraft are designed to be swing role. This include AT LEAST the Rafale, the Typhoon, the Gripen.

I personally use multirole for aircraft like F-16, Eurofighter… In german language there is at least no real translation for “swingrole” or “omnirole” so we say Mehrzweck (multi-role) or some people also use the original english acronyms.
F/A-18 was the first aircraft to be designated as swing-role fighter, however the F-16 has the same capabilities, but you never hear swing-role in combination with F-16.
Gripen is designated as multi-role fighter by it’s manufacturer but it has swing-role capabilities too.

But not all of the swing-rôle are really omnirole and optimised for all the mission…

So what are all missions? Airdefence, Ground Attack and Recconaissance? Nuclear strike is at least a kind of ground attack. Tanker role ok, but it only requires a buddy-buddy pod and does not require special design or other equipement. Recconassaince tasks are simply handled by installing a pod for modern combat aircraft.
What I want to say is most, if not all modern fighters today could fullfil the tasks which Rafale can or will be able to fullfil, if it would be required.
For Eurofighter for example there was no requirement for nuclear strike capabilities. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be possible and integrate nuclear weapons and carry out that task…

Also RAC MiG works on a new fighter AFAIK. I read it somewhere but I forget where.

AFAIK Russia cooperates with India and maybe China for the developement of the new 5th generation fighter with stealth.

@PilotTHX

when i talk about specialised aircrafts, i don’t speak about brands, i’m talking about Missions specialised planes and roles, so what the diferences between a Tornado, F18, F16 etc etc etc etc launching an air missile??

Rafale will replace Mirage IV recce, the SEM and the Nuke Mirage 2000..
is the typhoon doing same? lol

Rafale should originally replace the following types:
AdA Mirage F1 (Airdefence, tactical reconaissance, CAS today)
AdA Jaguar (ground attack)
AN F-8E (Airdefence)
AN Etentard IV (ground attack including anti ship, tactical reconaissance)
AN Super Etendard (same as E.IV+AA-refueling, tactical nuclear strike)

As Rafale is very late it’s also intended now to replace:
AdA Mirage 2000C/RDI (Airdefence)
AdA Mirage 2000N (tactical nuclear strike)

Maybe Mirage IV is another one (tactical reconaissance former nuclear strike).

You are right that these types are specialized, but you also see that many of them have the same tasks.

An F/A-18E/F could theoretically also replace all these types…

no no, Omnirole , multi role are first designed around one main mission, and have abilities to do others!

Omnirole is a Dassault designation which expresses the often praised ability to carry out various tasks (at least two) at once.
Gripen is designated as multirole fighter but the type was developed for AA, AG and RECCE from the very beginning. So your definition of multirole fighter seems to be questioned. Or we have to call the Gripen now a omnirole fighter too (if we take your definition).

and Scorpion, Dassault anticipated all missions and futur devices coming up , they placed ballasts and mock up into the rafales from the first flight! all that to set up the roll CoG and all aerodynamics comportment of the plane!!

It’s not that I don’t want to believe you, however a source would be nice for that, if possible. I also accept them in french language.

Flug is german and janes british, all journalists ares ex national aerospace ingeneers, that get them close relationship with thier ex compagnies, in return to downgrade the challengers performances, its obvious in each countries!

Ah yes you know all members of FR and Janes and what they have done before :rolleyes: It’s very easy to allege all non french sources talking about Rafale only want to disrate the aircraft.

When Dassault speak about 10t plane, i will repreat for the last time, it’s because Rafale have so much derivated that putting 7 weight is ridiculous, anyway it’s classified!

But why is it classified when it was released for the prototypes in the 90s and especially if empty weight has not been increased? You are going into a blind alley! You finally admit that you can’t be sure your self how much the type weights. So if you giving numbers here it’s not less ridiculous than if I do so 😉

now reprocess all your datas about typhoon performances!

I will come to that topic later in the part 3 of my comparison.
Only one thing. There was a nice report from a french journalist flying in the backseat of Rafale B302. He claimed the takeoffweight was 16,4t with a 1250 l tank and 4 MICAs.
So let’s subtract 16,4 t minus 1,4 t (should be the weight of tank and for MICAs). So you have 15 t.
Oh it’s becoming interesting let’s subtract 4,3 t of internal fuel and we have at least 10,7 t empty weight for a Rafale B.
oohps weight topic again :p