Scorpion82Supercruise isn’t just for speed but also to reduce the IR signature as such improving stealth.
Been able to drop 8 SDB on 8 different targets is quite something (which Typhoon can’t do and won’t do for a while), and it make the F-22 as multi-role as it needs to be when considering the flexibility that the AESA and other sensors provide.Else please describe what is a “true multi-role” aircraft?
The F-22 can’t engage AG 8 targets at the same time, only two! And that’s possible and soon to be bettered by the Typhoon.
Scorpion82I would say fighting 5th generation jets, the lower RCS, better low speed handling, better nose pointing capability, better ECM and ECCM and the AESA that is in production and not some wet dream, is a huge advantage for Rafale.
EF2000 is paper plane, always has been always will be. Eurofighter is all about promises, Rafale is about delivering.
Lol and the somewhat lower RCS is going to help the Rafale in fighting a truely stealthy opponent in which way? And how much better are the ECM and ECCM capabilities in reality? I’d take a somewhat lesser low speed manoeuvrability with an HMD instead and a dedicated IRST/FLIR senor rather than a missile IR seeker. :p
Scorpion82Care to explain? Can the Typhoon engage 6 ground targets simultaneously while firing 3 AtA missiles half a minute later?
How exactly are Shiv’s claim about “better ability to fight 5th generation fighters” and your response linked to each other?
First you’ll have to get CAESAR operational. Then what makes you think the RBE2AA can’t do jamming?
CAESAR won’t become operational at all as it was just an AESA demonstrator of the Captor radar.
That has already been solved with F3 standard upgrade, and the AESA will bring even more performances. Given that Rafale has far more avionics installed on it that do Typhoon so far, and that Typhoon will need to upgrade its generators in order to implement CEASAR, I would say that Rafale is doing quite well for itself.
And what “far more avionics” are you talking about? Generators of the Typhoon have been upgraded on T2 examples already to cope with enhancements like DASS and AESA radar upgrades.
They will both use the same BVR weapon and they’ll both be able to use it to its maximum range, making the CAESAR just more expansive.
Should CEASAR be able to detect targets at further ranges, then assuming proper L16 integrating and the capability to use it properly it could provide an advantage in directing other “passive” aircraft toward their targets.
There are a couple of other advantages for a more powerful radar with a bigger aperture, including higher resolution mapping, target discrimination and identification or directing more power in an electronic attack scenario.
Longer range of the radar doesn’t mean better tracking of stealth targets, and given the limited range of IRST vs radar how can PIRATE and CASEAR work better than any other radar+IRST combo?
A more powerful radar has better odds to detect and track low RCS targets than a weaker radar and PIRATE is actually in production and available right now, production of the OSF IR sensor was ceased years ago and a new must yet be developed and fielded. One could consider it as a draw situation (Rafale lacks IRST in its current iterations and Typhoon the AESA radar).
In addition Rafale do have an IRST. But why buy it in significant number when you’re planning on changing it soon, and its quite expansive? Why bother when you can easily swap the systems you have between your fleet? Well it’s a shame other aircraft can’t but that their problems…
Are the French selling their existing OSF suits to other customers? I doubt so.
Can you rephrase that please? I’m not sure I understood that properly.
SPECTRA protects the Rafale against hostile emissions and threat in the EM, laser and IIR bands. It also provide an accurate location of these threat allowing Rafale to engage them by cuing other sensors if it’s necessary.
That requires SPECTRA to detect the threat in the first place. If the threat is for example a stealthy fighter like the J-20 not using its radar than the odds of detecting it are rather small as the radar won’t provide sufficent performance and the IRST isn’t available yet, albeit it might be available by the time the J-20 is in service.
Rafale could hold its own in dogfight against the F-22 during exercises in the UAE, and gave more than a beating to the Typhoon on numerous occasions.
It managed not to be shot down by guns in 4 or 5 out of six controlled set ups. In real combat such situation would unlikely materialise that way.
While we’ll never truly know the true performances of these jets in BVR, we can for now say that ESA radars (especially AESA) have clear advantages over mechanical radars, that medium range IR MICA has clear advantages over short range IR missiles, that good SA beats mediocre SA, that true swing-role, multi-targets are clear advantages in real war against the enemy etc.
What “mediocre SA” are you talking about? That mediocre SA of the Typhoon which scored a notch lower than the Rafale and that with MSA vs AESA?
Scorpion82@Bluewings
I know that you have served, but you was neither a pilot or technicians, nor were you directly involved in air operations per se and your civilian occupation is unrelated to aviation as well. To cut it short your professional backgrounds bear no serious relevance to the discussions and that you bring them up in an attempt to somehow bolster your credibility and justify your claims shows that you are intellectually dishonest here. Who do you want to fool with that?
You consider yourself being knowledgeable about the Typhoon, funny enough no one else appears to consider your person to be overly well informed about the aircraft. From what I have seen over the past few years your knowledge about the Typhoon is mediocre at best and your judgment is to a large extend based on prejudices, pre-made phrases and arguments which look just too familiar and the absence of factual knowledge on the Typhoon. You are knowing a fair deal about the Rafale, but the same can not be said about the Typhoon as you have repeatedly proven with your claims about Typhoon’s MMI, EWS and other aspects. I’m well aware that the Rafale is overall more developed, mature, capable and versatile at this point in time and that it comes in at a somewhat lower price as well translating into a “better bang for the buck”. And while I happily acknowledge this, I don’t respect your Typhoon bashing wrapped around “hey it’s a good aircraft and I like it” phrases. You are one of the first to pop up in the defence of the Rafale and feel personally offended when someone is criticizing or bashing it, but yourself are not any better when it comes to other aircraft types, the Typhoon in particular. If someone would call your beloved Rafale a Mirage 4000 which got rid of its steroids or a souped up Mirage III NG you would certainly protest and complain, but you don’t mind to come up with such claims about the Typhoon.
Wrt navalised aircraft being the way to go and naval air arms forming the spearhead of the armed forces there are less than a dozen operators of aircraft carriers and in most cases there is just a single carrier available, which is not permanently available. The ac operated from those carriers are in the majority of cases inferior to the land based types operated by those forces as well. I agree that carrier ac should be ideally multirole capable. But in which way are carrier aircraft of relevance to the vast majority of armed forces which have no carriers at all?
Scorpion82the helmet is a side-show, as the whole cockpit and man to machine interface on Rafale has been found way superior by all countries that tested Rafale and that other plane.
Is this a fact? Show us!
Scorpion82And it ‘s all it has , more thrust .
In the eyes of an utterly delusional and biased die hard fanboy like you yes.
Scorpion82Will the AdA now cancel all potential exercises with the IAF for Rafale bashing?:dev2:
Scorpion82The B/D models are actually some 70 cm longer than the A/C models which may allow for retaining the fuel while addig a second seat.
Scorpion82Internal fuel load of the twin seaters should be similar to that of the single seaters. Btw dry thrust of the F414 is around 14k lb not 10k lb.
Scorpion82@EEL
P1E is not a simple software upgrade, but a hardware and software upgrade.
Scorpion82I pointed out multiple factors affecting range performance and endurance and that your calculations are simplified ignoring a range of factors including the different impact of weight and drag from stores demanding different power settings, speed obtainable and altitude. Add that the static thrust figures are benchtest uninstalled thrust figures whih greatly vary when the engine is actually installed, which changes with speed and altitude with subsequent implications on consumption. Not even public data from Saab would suggest that the Gripen NG is actually out ranging either of the larger types, at best comparable range performance s being achieved in comparison to the Typhoon whose current external fuel tanks are rather small. As simple as that. For me it’s not a “my favourite a/c offers a better range than your favourite a/c”. It’s a general critics towards the oversimplified misrepresentation of facts by yourself, irrespective of whether you are talking about the Gripen here or not.
Scorpion82Your stubborn ignorance and stupidy doesn’t deserve any further comments.
Scorpion82Yes, you boys are clearly better off by relying on “unnamed sources” by a newspaper, rather than presentations and math.
Nothin beats conspiracies to fit your preferred truth
Says the boy who is shaving off a number of variables to tilt the calculation in favour for his favourite aircraft.:rolleyes: Believe in what you want, but don’t expect others to uncritically swallow your wet dreams.
Scorpion824-6 AAM is insignificant, and those twin engines would consequently need 2 droptanks, making that a moot point as well.
Yes, other calculations that take altitude etc into consideration can increase time +40%,
but since they are all subject to changes in altitude, climb, reserve & whatnot,
why include it at all ?
we want the relation between the aircrafts, and static simple test gives us exactly that
With much less power the Gripen may require more afterburners to execute certain passages and whether the single engined Gripen can effectively sit in the same altitude bands as the other two types is another question. You also have to add the drag related to the pylons on top of the missiles and the “needs two drop tanks” arguments is merely an optimistic assumption of yours to somehow validate your claim.
Scorpion82At least the FoxThree issue vol 15 states that the IR variant is the SBU-64 and I’m almost certain that the same has been stated elsewhere.
This might require some investigation amd cross checking of sources. Check out the last page here:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_15.pdf
Sign In
