I am happy that I was wrong about the outcome. I expected EF to win.

I expected the opposite there was just to much speaking for the Rafale in this competition anyway. So the result isn’t that surprising for me.

The only thing sure is that the “highlight” of Switzerland evaluation was a scenario where each competitor had to scramble to intercept a high altitude Mach 1.5 F18 SH. This scenario should have been made for the Typhoon yet it scored worse than the rafale.

And who says that Typhoon scored worse during this specific test?

Well I didn’t try to justify anything. just increasing the size of the M88 to the specs of the EJ200 would bring pretty much the same TWR, and that’s not even mentioning the fact that the 90KN version of the M88 is available although the AdlA and MN chose more service life instead.

Then again you have many other variables like sfc and MTBO… and of course the fact that to accomodate the bigger engine you need a bigger airframe hence added weight. Considering the Rafale can carry more weight and bigger payloads (2000L tanks and Scalp fits more pylons), I don’t see any justification for a bigger/ heavier plane.

Basically I think it’s heresy to make a bigger Rafale to fit the EJ200, and I’m not sure there would be anything to gain at all.

The suggestion to slightly scale up the Rafale airframe wasn’t purely made on base of accommodating the EJ200 or an hybrid EJ200/M88, but for other reasons stated before as well. You are right that there are more factors like TBO and SFC, but the former appears to favour the EJ200 by a significant margin, while the latter is about equal for both.

I disagree with you here. Complexity should be avoided anywhere it could be avoided.

As said every solution has its pros and cons. If you design an aircraft with “discretion” in mind you should try to reduce the RCS and not add counter productive stuff like probes sticking out of the airframe. The scaled up airframe would offer a bit more room to accommodate a retractable refuelling probe as well. And if it would hve been a Tornado style bold on probe with a stealthy cover.

I don’t think any Rafale supporter denies that more power is an advantage, I’ve seen many of them say so and I’ll say it again here: more power is always better than less range. However, bigger radar has also got some drawbacks, for instance:

– Costlier (have to pay for those extra modules)
– Draggier (bigger nose)
– Heavier (and even more so if you need to add balast to the rear of the plane)
– Bigger electronic signature, so easier to detect from far away
– Bigger electrical consumption, so more drain on the engine power (which already have to compensate for the extra weight)

It’s not only about power output, but the aperture size affecting an antenna’s gain and thus range performance and resolution, even with the same power output. The possible shift in CG would be countered by somewhat heavier engines anyway which might provide more electrical power as well.

So all things considered, and since your radar isn’t your primary sensor anymore (for Rafale it is spectra and link 16), you may be more and more willing to sacrifice pure range and get rid of the drawbacks that I’ve just listed.

A Spectra has its limitations and a LINK16 is of no use if you can’t gather data to share with others. A more or less accurate bearing towards a threat emitter and possibly range estimate (accuracy is certainly a fair deal lower against an airborne emitter than against fixed ground based emitters). How does your Spectra provide MCG and what is it doing if the opposition decides to stay silent? Your Spectra is becoming useless as far as detection of the threat is concerned.

Hello Opit
The idea was a fictional what if European fighter, if France was kept in the Eurofighter programme and how a potential aircraft could have looked like. See my post from yesterday 14 o’clock.

Well adding the IR signature cooling channel on EJ200 would probably bring the TW ratio REAL close to that of the M88, so what’s the point of those changes? Increase size and weight just so that you can fit a retracting refueling probe to add complexity/cost/weight?

The engine would nonetheless be more powerful and with the increased sized and thus weight of that proposed configuration in mind it would be worth it. What would be interesting to know is how much weight is really added by the cooling channel? Thus far I only see claims about the weight penalty per se, but no specific data at all. Sounds a bit like an excuse to me from those who like to do the data twisting in favour for their favourite fighter.

Complexity has its drawbacks, but also its merits. A retractable refuelling probe isn’t permanently exposed to the external environment which may have implications on maintenance as well! It also increases drag and RCS, though the impact might be rather small. Every design solution has its pros/cons.

I get your drift wrt bigger antenna size, although I don’t think it’s really an issue as long as you can use your weapons at max range. But the PESA solution was a step to get an ESA quickly before AESA modules got cheaper, so I don’t see how it is a drawback to work on an ESA and it’s codes/modes before you switch to AESA when you can afford it?

Nic

My suggestion was to switch to an AESA from the beginning with the combined funds of the partner nations, otherwise a PESA solution may have been a good compromise. The radar is still the most important sensor on an aircraft due to its performance, versatility and overall accuracy. Always relying on external sources isn’t possible in every single scenario and when we add the benefits of greater resolution for SAR mapping for example, greater detection/tracking performance in the “sensor/shooter” model etc. I see benefits for a more powerful radar. It’s interesting that its only the Rafale supporters who don’t see the increased performance as an advantage and not as a drawback.

My take:
Airframe/engines:
Scale up Rafale a bit to accommodate the EJ200 and implement the M88’s cooling channel to reduce the IR signature. Adapt the air intakes to cope with the increased airflow requirements of the EJ200. Implement a retractable refuelling probe and adopt the integrated ejector rails for MRAAM type missiles on the fuselage with the option to install a TGP on one of the front stations.

Cockpit:
Rafale cockpit with APA flying suite, DVI, HUD and HMSS of the Typhoon, lower position of the lateral MFDs and add electronic ADI/HSI and engine RPM/fuel indicators on the other side.

EWS:
SPECTRA with TRDs integrated on modified wingtip launch rails. Re-locate flare dispensers from karman fairings to the inner trailing edge flap actuators and install combined IIR MAWS & LWR on top and below Karman fairings, front fuselage (current location of DAL), add active AESA MAWS to complement IIR MAWS.

TV/IRST:
Re-locate OSF sensors to offset position, adopt PIRATE based system instead of current OSF IRST.

Radar:
With slightly increased nose diameter and offset position of the OSF, move the radar backwards and increase nose diameter. Settle for an AESA solution early on instead of PESA/MSA.

In March the F-4F will provide QRA for Iceland as well. That’s probably the last time the F-4F is deployed to provide QRA for other nations. Next year the type is scheduled for retirement.