@Shiv
Your arguments are somewhat simplistic in their approach and by that flawed as well. If you believe that a RWR can “track” a radar source in the same way as a radar can track a contract than you are grossly mistaken. A RWR provides a bearing indication and range estimate at best with the associated emitter ID if known. It will be more restricted when it comes to determine the vector, speed, closure rate and even altitude of the contact and the firing solution is subsequently much more inaccurate. It also doesn’t solve the problem of mid-course guidance. Further more if one aircraft of the formation is flying behind the rest to stay save while providing radar information to the rest you better have a radar with long range performance to stay away from the action and act as some kind of command post. You can’t always rely on AWACS support, let alone fixed GCI stations which can’t look through mountains in the Himalaya for examples and AWACS which need to stay away from the front to be safe are more restricted as well. There is no perfect unhindered radar coverage. Of course there are different approaches to deal with different problems, but it’s not like Rafale is offering certain capabilities which no one else has at his disposal. Networking of different platforms, passive sensors and the ability to operate with radar silence that’s not unique for the Rafale, though the Rafale is certainly very good at it and can do it better than many other types. But you shouldn’t be to ignorant towards what other platforms are capable of.

The Luftwaffe will keep the Tornado until 2025 at least and possibly even longer. That’s enough of a reason to keep them updated, otherwise it would be a waste to keep them in service whatsoever. The special case some appear to make out of this is ridiculous. That the Tornado will be upgraded doesn’t mean that the Typhoon won’t receive upgrades. Sure they could directly spend the money on the Typhoon, but it would nonetheless translate into a capability gap. If something happens rather soon the Luftwaffe would have no tools at hand to perform certain missions for some time.

Correct the 1500 l tanks were planned as under wing tanks. Flight trials were conducted, but the tanks were found to be insufficient imposing envelope limitations on the aircraft which aren’t operationally viable or the Typhoon, especially not in the A2A role.

That new antenna seems to be part of the ROVER III or are the French pursueing yet another data exchamge system?

We have here a clear example with the Swiss report.
The question of the radar is very interesting. By the technologies used (PESA vs MSA) we knew that:
– the Typhoon had a better detection range
– the Rafale had much more functions and flexibility.

I’m not sure whether the RBE2 offers more AA functions than the Captor, but its range of AG modes is definitely more comprehensive and the ability to interleave some functions is a plus in operational flexibility. What favours the RBE2 and any other ESA radar for that matter is the beam agility. In AA the ability to scan the entire FOV several times a second is a great plus for Situational awareness and reduces the probability that potential targets slip through the radar coverage. The ability to update target tracks more frequently has implications on track stability and reliability, which I think is the main reason why the Rafale scored better in the acquisition domain in the evaluation. Potential implications on ECM resitence are another factor as is the greater greater compliance to LPI requirements, though a PESA is still restricted in comparison to AESA solutions.

And what can we read on that thread ? The definitive superiority of the captor over the RBE2, while we have a report stating (in the condition of the test) the opposite. Either you (I’m not talking about you Scorpion, most posters must know that you’re a fair member of that forum) can dismissed the test, either you must conclude that “In most case the Captor enjoy an advantage over the RBE2”.

Argueably there was just that single person who insisted this. However, the evaluation doesn’t in state one radar being better than the other as such, the PESA was reportedly praised, but the “sensor” weaknesses could be linked to other sensors on the Typhoon as well and the score charts talk about the general abilities of detection etc., it’s repeatedly stated that the MET for detection includes the ability to detect a target with all sensors. Details like this must be kept in mind. Over at starstreak I made an attempt to elaborate on the meaning of the MET scores, I can’t say whether my interpretation is right or not, but I’m missing a somewhat more serious and analytical discussion from all sides.

Just after the result of the 2 exercises during ATLC, where the Rafale won 7-1 versus the Eurofighter, the only conclusion is that the difference of A-A capabilities between the two planes must be limited.

Both aircraft are similar in a number of areas, but differ in details. Depending on the scenario and what tactics are chosen either aircraft can best the other. I rate both among the worlds best fighters, which one deserves this or that rank I don’t know and I’m subsequently not argueing about it at all.

Jacko and PPP (with his xenophobic comments) here, Leopardus, Ger_Mark, Eric and Chris on WAFF, Ohm1860 or Cola on Starstreak, no, there isn’t only one person.

Dunno wether all of them could be regarded as Typhoon fans as such, but of course there are several people who argue along similar lines, but that’s true for both sides. Interestingly people love to refer to a single person when it comes to the critics. “Jon Lake like” was a response to me and I wondered whether people consider his claims as being unique and his only. There are points where I agree with Lake and there are those I disagree with or challage. The other way round many quickly assert that this or that Rafale fan must be Sampaix, that’s equally delusional.

We proved to have been much better in regard of the flow of insults toward India and Indians (and sometimes France and French) we have seen since January 31.

Lol well if you had been on the other side I’m not sure whether everyone would have been that moderate.;)

Some of the Rafale fans are like that, no doubt.
Should I remind you that Sampaix called me “son of a bitch” when I wrote that I don’t think Spectra can’t detect, track and launch a missile without amitting radiation ?

Well either side has its black sheeps, it’s just a pity that those are often regarded as representative by the other sides.

Wow wow wow, I wrote on a french forum that the RBE2 AESA lack lots of software functions in regard of the possibilities available with an AESA and I have been said I was totally wrong without a single source.
And yes, we are quite a lot here to know that a report has a quite limited range.

It’s unfortunately often the case. In a lot of cases I would even be satisfied if people can reasonably explain there arguments. But that often insists a level of knowledge and understanding that is often not given.

BUT in Switzerland, that report was supposed to be future-proof too.

Of course, but there is always a risk wrt future developments and rating certain future capabilities is certainly not easy.

My god, except Sampaix, who ever wrote such a stupid things ?

I could name a couple, but I prefer to leave it at that. Why are we wasting so much time to debate people anyway? My vote goes for a subkect related debate, possibly elsewhere as this thread is pointless and dead as far as the original topic is concerned.

Cheers

The case in point was the rafale sensor suite including its PESA radar that gained Swiss praise unlike its competitor. I don’t buy the simple software issue. This might be a cause but there is no certitude about it despite the fact that some wants to reassure themselves. That’s only speculation.

The better sensor fusion and SA advantage is also consistent with grandclaudon’s claim and that of Captain Romain who both stated that was a winning advantage versus the typhoon.

It would be interesting to see the MET score charts for the 1st phase of the evaluation. According the 2nd the discrepancy in SA is marginal only and that’s based on the RBE2AA vs Captor-M (other sensors are part of that equation). The PESA certainly has its advantages like larger scan volume, better track stability due to much higher update rates and likely better performance against low flying targets in mountain terrain areas, as the radar scans more frequently. I think these factors are playing strongly for the RBE2 and probably any ESA radar in general.

Modern aircrafts have to be considered as a system. You can’t only focus on one aspect of its performance. While anyone can understand and accept each aircraft “strengths and weaknesses”, that does not prevent anyone to have an opinion on an aircraft as a whole and there is nothing reprehensible about that.

Fully agree every aircraft should be judged on base of the whole package. It’s not up to a single parameter in general, but the synergies between a lot of different parameters.

Maybe they did’nt give any CAESAR data to the Swiss because they read somewhere that captor-M is better than actual AESA radar ?

Maybe they didn’t even offered an AESA radar for the Typhoon at all. Do they state the AESA radar for the Typhoon for the 2nd phase of the evaluation? No! But they state it for the Rafale and the Gripen MS21!

Acknowledging only those Typhoon strengths that can’t be denied (ie supersonic performance) just confirms my point.

A genuinely honest debate would see an acknowledgement of Typhoon’s superior MMI and lower cockpit workload, better radar for BVR, and the inevitability of better AESA radar performance for starters.

Then we have the unwillingness to accept some of the things that came out of the Singapore evaluation, the DACT with Luftwaffe Typhoons, etc. etc. etc.

But every Typhoon advantage is shouted down, denied, or dismissed as irrelevant, while every Rafale weakness is denied or dismissed.

That’s a little bit over simplified don’t you think so? A quality of a radar as a whole depends on more than just coverage, aperture and power output. That all this has its merits and translates into some undeniable advantages in some areas is the one side of the coin. Maturity, software development and algorithms play an important part as well. Of course you can update the software when you have the right hardware, it’s certainly better than the other way round. So in theory a Captor-E should be superior to the RBE2AA, but whether that turns out to be true in praxis remains to be seen.

Unless and until you can admit to as many Rafale weaknesses as I can describe for Typhoon, and as many Typhoon strengths as I can list for Rafale, then you’re a biased fanboy.

And the number of strengths and weaknesses is mandatory? What’s the number?