I don’t think it’s worth the time let alone effort to debate whether the Rafale will replace existing types in AG roles and others or not. It will, that’s the plan being pursuit and there is no plan B other than introducing UCAVs at some point in time which might take their share. That airdefence is stated in the first position proves absolutely nothing and is most likely just coincidence and not intentional to “highlight” priorities. And I believe our French collegues here might be able to point you to the right source stating that 3 out of 5 major operational requirements were related to AG, while the other 2 were related to AA. Given the number of platforms the Rafale replaces and taking their roles into account it’s save to conclude that AG was a greater priority, albeit they didn’t sacrifice much of AA capability to achieve this, thanks to a smart design benefiting from advanced technologies. The Typhoon is undeniably more leaned towards AA in comparison from a requirements and actual development perspective, but from a design perspective there isn’t too much of a difference as far as balance is concerned. The Typhoon trades the ability for heavy weapons carriage plus significant fuel carriage, for conformal carriage of AAMs and basically excellent payload capabilities for AA and lighter AG/AA weapon mixes. Rafale trades conformal AA carriage and AA loadout to a lesser extend for an arrangement that allows for the carriage of multiple large stores including large drop tanks plus heavy weapons and it trades a more powerful radar for sufficient downwards visbility for carrier operations. Other than these factors there isn’t anything particularly critical that makes a real difference to balance and that could be considered as a design inherent limitation. Overall I tend to give the Rafale a slight edge in balance, but the difference isn’t that significant from a pure design perspective, at least IMHO.

just my 2ct

Because the UK’s fleet of Lightning IIs is limited, it makes sense to use them to penetrate the IADS and locate targets for Storm Shadows, Spears or other standoff weapons carried by Typhoons. If Lightning II uses omnidirectional Link -16 it immediately becomes a SAM magnet. This is why LPI communications between Lightning II and Typhoon makes sense. The Typhoons, being outside the reach of the IADS threat, can act as a communications gateway to other RAF and RN assets. Leverage the stealth and sensors of Lightning II and the load-carrying capability of Typhoon.

It makes little sense if you sent in an F-35 for searching targets for Storm Shadow or SPEAR equipped Typhoons. The latter is not overly long ranged and would be better employed by the F-35 itself if it can carry it. The former in return is a weapon designed to take out high priority pre-planned targets.

Wrt to LPI DL sure it would make sense, albeit it’s doubtful that a LINK16 using platform “immediately” becomes a “missile magnet”, at least at this point in time and most likely over the coming years as well. As said interoperability is given via LINK16 and might be given if other DLs might be integrated in the future. SATCOM is offer for Typhoon, but no ordered by anyone yet.

Why spend money developing exotic ground attack capabilities for Typhoon when Lightning II will provide them? That money would be better spent providing interoperability between Typhoon and Lightning II through LPI data links and SATCOM.

This view ignores 2 fundamental facts:
1.) The Tornado GR.4 force is slatted for retirement before the F-35B will become operational and would thus leave a capability gap until the F-35B is ready at some time in the feature, yet to be confirmed.

2.) While the UK hasn’t made up its mind on the quantities of F-35Bs, it is said that RAF & RN may have to cope with only around 50 airframes which might be insufficient, so a duplication of capabilities or at least a certain overlapping might be unavoidable.

Interoperability will be given via LINK16, albeit an LPI-link would be desirable, but such a link shouldn’t necessarily be limited to Typhoon <=> F-35 as it would be short sighted.

Indeed, retrofit costs are built into the program, something that was not done with the early model Rafales or Eurofighters for instance…

And you are aware of the contractual agreements of the European programs? Doubtful! And for someone criticising people for “not knowing about costs” you are surprisingly clueless. Comparing apples with oranges and call it apples with apples.

It’s over when it’s over i.e. a contract is signed between the UAE and one of the manufacturers who wins the award. Until then I wouldn’t give too much credit to the media gossip.

Thanks for the reply Aereo, I was of the impression that 111 received its first aircraft in May 2006 and I’m still looking for the exact date.

T1s are more capable in AG at this point in time due to the Austere AG capabilities introduced under CP193 (i.e. Litening 3 and EPW II integration). With the Drop 1 & 2 enhancements in place further enhancements have been introduced to boost AG capabilities. That’s not available to current T2s, but it will change with the introduction of the P1E upgrade for T2 examples, albeit some P1E changes wrt to the MMI for AG will be or have been ported to T1s already, before P1E is actually released to the customers.

Thank you for the answer.
Apologies if these are very broad questions.

1- Can the T1 block 5 be upgraded to something better.
2- What sort of missions does the T1 B5 carry out.
3- Is it expensive to operate.
4- Is the t1 b5 a good air to air plane at leat comparable to the F-15.

Regards

1 – Block 5 doesn’t say to much. Capability is defined by PSCs and SRPs, T1 AC have evolved continuously and they are still being upgraded with the next major step being the T1 Evolution Package 1 which is centred around Drop 3 and will include a number of other changes, including further induction of T2 hardware to increase commonality/interchangability

2 – Those that are permitted by their weapon options; The Litening 3 LDP is softwarewise integrated on all Typhoon’s since SRP 4.3 and additional changes have been introduced with Drops 1 & 2 (UK only, soon GE) and will be part of T1EP1 (refer to 1)

3 – Depends on the definition of expensive, but it ain’t cheap in any case

4 – superior in most aspects and thus overall at this point in time

Do the pilots of the T1 B5 wear the BAE guardian HMD helmet and if so, do the Spanish pilots use it as part of their flight gear.
Thank you all.

No it’s the HEA aka HMSS aka Striker. How far the Spanish have progressed with HEA introduction is unknown to me, but it’s available per se.

@Lighting
I have not seen a reference about R2Q, only T2Q (for T2 AC only). But it might be that some T1 compliant variant will be inducted on T1s latter. It’s noteworthy that some T2 radar LRIs are being requalified on T2s. Can’t go into details…

R2P is thus far the lattest and used by the GAF (interim clearance) and RAF and IIRC AMI. It will be introduced for all with T1EP1 (including Spain and Austria).