About the debate of the rafale being the only aircraft being able to do silent BVR kills and to answer scorpion I would say that to date as far as I know the rafale is the only one using quite extensively this technique. I mean as a standard tactic. We could hear example from the ATLC exercise or from captain Romain.

It seems that the Typhoon counts more on its powerful radar and its kinetik performance.

As I understand it is two different philosophy in this BVR realm.

Much depends on the exact environment, threat assessment etc. There are situations where you would prefer to use your radar and there are those where you would stay silent. There is no doubt that the Rafale has excellent passive detection and targeting capabilities and maybe it’s the best at that right now, I don’t know. However I think that you guys are a little bit ignorant towards the capabilities of other aircraft and just because you don’t hear about something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or isn’t used. I can’t speak for all aircraft as I don’t know the exact details for all of them or the way the customers employ their aircraft. What I know about the Typhoon is that passive targeting was very much part of the concept as well. It was anticipated that the radar would be insufficient in some situations and that covertness might be required in others. The significance of PIRATE+DASS+MIDS+passive radar+sensor fusion of the Typhoon is entirely underestimated, if not unknown by you guys. Whether it’s as good as that of the Rafale’s or not is nothing I’m qualified to judge about as this would require much more than what’s available in the public. IRIS-T and ASRAAM both offer a limited BVR capability and AMRAAM or in the future Meteor could be launched completely passive as well, they would only go active in the terminal phase. Gripens in their current form can rely on offboard data as well using TIDLS, the BOW21 RWR is quite accurate and the PS05/A offers a passive mode as well, but the aircraft currently lacks an IRST. Soviet fighters were often approaching targets silently using DL guidance from the ground and their IRSTs. They could fire missiles by that only, though the effective range was more limited back then. Today things might be different as well. The F-22 is largely using offboard/ESM data as well possibly combining it with specific LPI modes of the radar if required to conduct passive shots. There is certainly more than this and I’m not really going to call the one better than the other, but you would do well in looking a bit deeper into the subject and not just as one sided as you do now. Another factor to consider is that the scenarios created are mostly simplified best case scenarios (true for all sides!) which often overlook limitations in application.

Besides, could those fighters target enemy fighters through their ESM suite?
Which of those fighters would positively identify enemy fighters at around 40km, and then launch an entirely passive missile at close to no escape range?

Targeting AA threats via RWR/ESM only is pretty tricky as the ranging solution is difficult to achieve against a target which is moving fast and whose exact direction of movement is difficult, if not impossible to determine with accuracy. Even the F-22 reportedly uses a specific LPI mode of its AN/APG-77 to provide accurate range data for a targeting solution when “tracking” an emitter with its ALR-94. Accurate geo-location as is possible against fixed emitters on the ground is not the same as against a fast moving target in the sky. Visual ID can be provided by many modern EO systems. PIRATE, OLS-UEM and most likely the Sky Guard slatted for the Gripen NG all provide a vis ident capability of that sort and EOTS will be able to do so as well. A lot of TGPs these days permit this as well.

1 Rafale detects radar emitting plane

Can be done with any RWR/ESM, though accuracy might differ.

2 Rafale manoeuvers out of the dangerous zone and supercruises towards the emitter

Only works against radars which aren’t powerful enough and only if the opposing radar characteristics are known to estimate the potential scan arcs of the thread emitters.

3 Rafale aims OSF onto target thanks to SPECTRA track and identifies said target at about 40km

I’m certain this can be done with great enough satisfaction by other platforms as well. Modern RWR/ESM systems should all be capable of determining the angular position of a threat emitter with enough accuracy to cue the EO sensor and IRSTs with a search capability may not even require cueing, especially not at ranges where vis ID is usable. What surprises me is that you ignore the capability of the RWR to ID itself, pre-condition is that the emitter type must be known!

4 Rafale launches Mica IR at that range pretty much from no escape zone OR another Rafale fires from about 60-70 km to be sure to avoid detection by enemy MAWS

MAWS may also detect an approaching missile, though at much smaller distances. There is actually a certain difference between a true MAWS and a more simple MLD.

No warning before the plane is shot down. Which other plane can do that?

See above a MAWS can still detect an approaching AAM even if it doesn’t detect it at launch distance. Thus far the MICA IR is very much unique, dunno whether possibly newer R-27ET versions feature a LOAL capability or not, though a number if modern SRAAMs offer a limited BVR capability and LOAL as well.

Engagements at long ranges are particularly tricky however as without MCG the pk isn’t going to be overly high and I’m not sure which aircraft can use its fighter-missile DL independent of the radar and the aircraft will emit if it can and such beams won’t be necessarily that thin that they can’t be detected either. Of course it could work with cooperative tactics (2+ ac) where one ac is the sensor and the other the shooter. A number of aircraft are capable of doing this and ARH AAMs won’t go active before the terminal phase.

Btw it’s just MICA IR not IIR.;)

@eagle1
The possible impact of the M2k upgrade deal on the MMRCA decision has been brought up several times. It may indeed have an impact on the L1 calculations or not, depending on what terms the IAF dictates. Possible synergies could indeed include common weapon stocks and some electronics like some navigation systems or even MDPU, but that depends on the scope of the M2k upgrade. It would be helpful to know what this upgrade includes in greater detail. I’m of the impression that the weapons as such are not part of the MMRCA package itself, but will be negotiated separately. It would be interesting to know what weapons the IAF purchases along the M2k upgrade deal and what requirements it have wrt the weapons used by the Rafale. I don’t think that the synergies between the M2k and Rafale will be that great at all, though certainly still better than nothing. In terms of simplifying the logistics purchasing the Rafale might be reasonable in the light of the M2k upgrade deal.

Most sources indeed just state “fighter sized” target. The 5 sqm stems from what I have read about the RDY, while the 3 sqm figure was stated for the RBE2. Both were from a special issue of A&C IIRC. I can look it up when I’m back to my second home in a few weeks. Might well be that the 100 km figure was in look down condition, I mean to remember to have read/heard something along these lines as well.

According to DSI rafale radar has 1001 modules. I would like to stress that this same magazine revealed long ago that the typhoon had 1421 modules, we learned a year or two latter that it was 1427. I my opinion I’ll trust DSI.

Can you specify when?

Captor today should have higher figures correct?

I guess the small size does have an impact after all, those numbers are not exactly awe-inspiring.

Pilots commented that the Captor tracks fighter sized targets (some source declared this to be 5 sqm) at distances “well beyond” 160 km. Some sources state >185 km, but I in fact believe that this comes from the conversion. 100 miles was the original statement (1 mi = 1.6 km). Some apparently use nautical miles for conversion (1 nm = 1.852 km). That’s the most probable explanation between the two widely spread figures. I usually stick with the minimum figure and keep a possible higher figure in mind.

I have underlined “tracks” as some people tend to over read this.

I don’t really know. The original HOPE was a quite large and heavy weapon, but Diehl proposed a HOSBO/HOPE as kits compatible with a wider range of bomb bodies. Without knowing it I believe that Pilum might be offered in different weight classes from smaller versions ~250 kg to heavier versions 1000+ kg. We’ll hopefully learn more in the future.

Well yes, they did give figures with their JOUST interpretation…showing the Rafale as cleary (not slitly) inferior.

Well I have to agree on that these figures don’t suggest a marginal superiority only, but those figures aren’t Eurofighter’s interpretation but those given by DERA.

And the result is that (Quoting Seer a few post above) :

“Even a top of the line upgraded Flanker, at Chinese levels of tech., will at best be equal to the Rafale in A2A IMO, and worse than the EF which is optimized for A2A.”
This is not proven and only based on Eurofighter wild claims

Maybe we should ask Teer himself how he arrives at his opinion, instead of claiming “it’s Eurofighters fault”. The perception of what’s relevant and not relevant for air combat isn’t defined by Eurofighter, you can find similar arguments from other entities.

Tell me why the Rafale could not performed as well as the EF against Seer’s “top of the line upgraded Flanker” ?
Both aircraft may use different ways to achieve air superiority but I would certainly not rank the EF way of doing A2A (raw force) above the Rafale one (smart force)

It’s in both cases simplified. The Typhoon isn’t a good fighter because of “raw force” only and the Rafale is certainly not an underpowered slouch either. That’s basically the ill perception among many people. Good supersonic and high altitude performance makes the Typhoon a “dedicated high speed/altitude interceptor” and “one trick pony”. A stronger emphasis on AG makes the Rafale a “low level bomb truck with mediocre AA fighter”. Rafale’s higher payload capacity makes the Typhoon an aircraft with “low capacity and capability in AG” and a lower static thrust makes the Rafale “underpowered”. It’s the oversimplified and I even tend to say ignorant and stupid box thinking like this which is frustrating for all sides. People often tend to compare individual factors in isolation, ignoring the grand scheme of things and draw such silly conclusions like the phrases I cited above. You are as much aware as me about silly claims like these and if you are honest you realise that neither side is actually doing worse or better here. Many of the claims you hear about either aircraft are often exaggerated in a positive or negative way, depending on the side. It’s in many ways the media itself, but also the rather narrow minded internet crowd who creates and spreads such myths, albeit some of them might have a core of truth in them.

Now, they have waken up (a bit late though) and you can see that through the various French Air Force debriefings.

You can also see that by a better reckognition of the Rafale among non French aviation enthusiasts and by a wider international aviation press coverage of the Rafale programme. This was long overdue, but you won’t easily eliminate all prejudices, many of which exists since a long time. But the later isn’t only true for the Rafale, but for a number of other aircraft as well.

That’s my point. I’ve just said that the Typhoon didn’t manage to show any superiority over the Rafale and you interpret that as “The Typhoon has not proven to be a good fighter” …
…as if being equal to the Rafale was meaning “not very good in A2A”.

I should have made it clear that this was a general statement. Many claim that the Typhoon isn’t “living up to its promises” as a fighter because it have been beaten a few times and not demonstrated superiority over Rafale.