Scorpion82actually, when he talks about 2 bribery scandals, it’s about the Typhoon alone (the two sales outside the partner nations), which is a way of sorts to disqualify the “exports” of the Typhoon as an argument of quality
Not necessarily. The inquiry in the BAE/KSA bribery allegations were linked to the Al Yamaha deal from the 1980s which included the delivery of Tornados and other military equipment. It was NOT linked to the Typhoon deal (Al Salam). It’s fair to say that there were/are investigations about some dubious money movements since the late 90s, but as of now it doesn’t look like there that the Saudi deal was secured by bribes in this case. However it seems not to have been competitive either, though the French offered the Rafale as well. I remember very well how the French press stated that a deal with Saudi Arabia about 96 Rafales is “close to be finalised” years ago. In the end the Typhoon deal in SA wa a government to government deal, as would be the deal between France and the UAE, which will hopefully materialise in the not to distant future.
In Austria the Bundesrechnungshof (equivalent to the GAO or NAO) confirmed Eurofighter’s offer to be the best bid of those submitted and that the selection of the Typhoon was legitimate. There are investigations about possible bribes, but as of now most, if not all people suit are Austrian citizens and neither of them is working for Eurofighter or EADS IIRC. Considering that the F-16 failed to meet some technical requirements and that Saab offered a package price just 3% below that of Eurofighter it’s relative safe to say that the Typhoon was selected on grounds of the best offer, whether some arms sellers/politicians tried to increase the odds or not.
However I agree that neither deal is proving any “superiority” at all and regard that “Rafale 0 export sales = bad aircraft” as a rather poor bashing attempt in the first place.
Scorpion82AA prowess during TLC 2006 were accomplished while being part of the strike package (self escorting).
Same for ATLC, for example, this Rafale shooting AASM and Mica nearly at the same time.
All fine, the point is they are training AA as well and AG only, though it’s true that they have to train more for AG than their Typhoon colleges within the different AFs. I’ve also seen Rafales performing fighter sweeps while simulating the employment of AASMs for SEAD/DEAD.
Scorpion82Rafale:
* Built in one country with one assembly line.
* Any upgrading requirement just needs the agreement of French government itself.
Eurofighter:
* Five assembly lines in order to make every partners happy, but the total order book of Eurofighter is much less than five times of Rafale’s order book.
* You have to transport the fighter’s major components and systems from the factories of four different countries to the one of the five assembly lines before building an Eurofighter, which shall be more complicated, expensive, and time-consuming than building a Rafale.
* None of the four partners of Eurofighter has the complete designing, developing, and future upgrading rights of Typhoon. Therefore, if any airforce of the four partners wants some new upgradings for their own Typhoons, it has to ask for the agreement of all the four partners at first ~ which is often a time-consuming and money-wasting job…..
The single source production of major components like the wings etc. isn’t a great problem and not such a major contributor to overall costs, of course it’s adding some costs, but you will virtually never find a modern combat aircraft in the west (dunno about the Russians, Chinese etc.) to built a complete aircraft in a single location. Even the Rafale isn’t built at a single place, there are in fact 4 Dassault plants involved in the manufacturing process of the Rafale. Argenteuil is responsible for the fuselage, Martignas builts the wings and Biarritz the fin. Final assembly is conducted at Bordeaux-Merignac.
More problematic is the fact that even minor components are built on a multinational level. There are computers which are partly built in each country, though a single company designed it as part of its development responsibility. It ensures full ToT, but adds to the costs. Obligatory’s argument about greater size/weight is another factor, next to the airframe’s greater complexity (integrated ejectors, built in ladder, retractable refuelling probe, separate airbrake etc.).
Wrt the upgrades of the Typhoon, every country could further develop the aircraft on its own, as it was the case with the Tornado for example or as shown by the Luftwaffe’s sort lines programme in conjunction with the NSC or the UK’s CP193 for example. There is no restriction for any of the core nations to upgrade the Typhoon on their own, but thus far the policy has been “as much commonality as possible”. It’s apparently blocking the progress of upgrading the aircraft, but in the longer term a unified fleet is easier to support and of course everyone is interested to share development costs, to save money as well. However if a country wants to upgrade the Typhoon on its own it can do it without real restrictions. The basic split between the partners is limited to the contractually defined number of ac only. You can even find some differences in the national equipment when it comes to DASS (LWR and TRDs) for example.
Scorpion82reasonable People don’t clame superiority. They only observe that the Typhoon don’t show the overwelming A2A superioty advertised during 15 years.
And they also observe that it can sometimes be defeated severely. That’s a fact.
I basically think it is a moot point to discuss that the aircraft can be beaten, every aircraft can be beaten! It’s not really surprising except for those who have absolutely no clue. I agree that the Typhoon hasn’t demonstrated an overwhelming superiority vs the Rafale, though it’s certainly not exactly what Eurofighter aims at with this claim. It’s not about whether the Rafale fights the Typhoon and wins or the other way round, but about the general performance/capabilities as an AA platform in a force construct on a broader scale. Even here the Typhoon has not demonstrated a vast superiority, at least not publicly.
With the Rafale, Dassault was promising “omnirole” capability. I think they have proven it now. and especially in Libya where the plane was able to perform almost all the missions from land and aircraft carrier (only antiship and nuke was not conducted… even though they were available)
I agree, though Dassault has always playing the “omnirole drum” long before the aircraft was even remotely omnirole. In the end the Rafale holds its promises. However, I wouldn’t describe the Typhoon as a failure or as having not proven to be a good fighter per se. It’s largely oversimplified to conclude this from two DACT events, when the aircraft has been in service for years and performing well during countless different exercises and evaluations as well. To loose a part of the game, thus far the Typhoon appears to be quite capable as a fighter in general and its customers are obviously happy with it. Lack of AA performance was apparently never a reason to reject the aircraft from various competitions either.
With the Typhoon, Eurofighter gmbh is claiming huge A2A superiority over the Rafale. I’m sorry, but that still an empty claim despite 300 typhoon in service and countless exercises.
Do they really claim “huge” superiority? They claim superiority, but do they claim that the Rafale is a bad or incompetent fighter? I don’t think so! And stuff like this from the Eurofighter World issue 2/2010 page 10 doesn’t read like it either:
This vast area of requirement will see a real race to update the local air forces in the next few years and like in the recent past, the competitors are very different in terms of characteristics and performance. These competitors range from lightweight fighters such as the Gripen or the F-16 (both who claim to be low cost but as the attached F-16 contracts chart demonstrates are not) the mid-size twin engined F-18 and MiG-35
through to the best representatives of fighter class aircraft on the market, the Rafale and the Eurofighter
Well it’s obvious. They talked about these 2 because the results were exeptionaly good. other A2A exercises were probably tighter.
Also, I think you would agree not to take into account all the exrcises where the Rafale were tasked A2G missions. It’s worth noting that it was their most common role during the last 5 years as they had to train for real war in Afghanistan… unlike the typhoon pilots who only had to think about A2A.
Largely agree though you can see surprisingly many AA and multirole missions being performed by Rafales as well. If it weren’t the case you wouldn’t read so much about Rafale’s AA prowess from various different exercises.
Scorpion82Investing in European Platforms may not be a good idea. China may demand lifting of European Arms Embargo for helping the EU.
Lifting the arms embargo doesn’t mean that they would get anything they want. And China has been aiding the US for many years now financially.
Scorpion82Eurofighter Gmbh has been insidiously undermining the Rafale A2A capabilities since the JOUST times. JOUST is a DERA study indeed, but perfidiously used by the eurofighter consortium to present the Rafale as vastly inferior to the Typhoon to counter su-27 types threat.
The damages of this propaganda on the Rafale A2A capabilities perception are still there despite what you say, and the Eurofigter gmbh own interpretation of the Joust sim pops up on a regular basis even nowadays in very popular and specialized aviation website (and almost everytime in non specialized media). Here in Brazil in 2010 for example:
Don’t you think that you make it yourself a bit to easy? It’s always easier to blame the others! Bu is it Eurofighter’s fault that Dassault and co follow a more restricitve information policy and were never overly communicative? Is it Eurofighter’s fault that the Rafale project is a si gle nation programme whose programme language is less well understand than the language used by the Eurofighter programme? Is it Eurofighter’s fault that the Rafale prpgramme was less well covered in the international press? If the French side would have been more communicative I think people would be better aware of the French fighter. Eurofighter may have “belittled” Rafale’s AA prowess, but it’s a bit far stretched to acfuse them for being solely responsoble for this. And aren’t Dassault and co argueing along the same lines the other way round!? Omnirole by design in comparison to the competition etc? Isn’t the Typhoon of described as a narrowly focussed cold war interceptor only, also by the French? Haven’t Dassault officials stated that the Eurofighter team had ‘no clue’ when they were opting for their configuration… Dassault is no better than Eurofighter, that it is less present is not Eurofighter’s fault.
So when somebody ask me to provide “the list of results of every single Typhoon deployment in A/A engagements that took place at every altitudes other than high” in order to disprove this selfclamed superiority I hope you understand how puzzled I am.
I understand this, but you should try to understand the other side as well. People now claim superiority based on a single DACT event (or two when you don’t distinguish between WVR & BVR) and present this as fact. We know that there were more DACTs than these two events, it’s even known that there were more set ups at Al Dhafra so why does the French trumpet out the results of only these two and no others? Weren’t these results as favourable or what’s the reason for this? People are somewhat curious about this and even more about the reaction of other people.
Scorpion82Give the M2000-5 a 12,000kg thrust engine (2,300kg more than the actual engine) and you end up with a M2000 probably capable to rival the Typhoon ‘s manoeuvrability and sustained turn rate at high mach .
Sure when it comes to Rafale vs Typhoon it’s just aerodynamics, but when it comes to M2k vs Typhoon it’s just the engine? Do you even think about the nonsense you write here?
Dassault ‘s people often said that the Typhoon ‘s design is not what it should be for a high altitude interceptor (because IT IS an interceptor) .
And Eurofighter people state the Typhoon is a better fighter by design… So who is right and who is wrong? Could it be that both are competitors which try to promote their respective products and downplay the competition to make their own product look better…!?
I say again , when one build a true multirole fighter he/she keeps in mind very important things like heavy weapon load and great range .
Do I have to repeat again that the Typhoon only has 3 (three) true heavy hardpoints (and not 5) if it wants to carry an heavy load far away ?
And who is defining multirole? You? Dassault? Ever heared about requirements and priorities? Ever consodered force structures and conops? Probably not!
The Rafale has 5 (five) true heavy hardpoints , all of them wet and all of them usable for real , unlike the Typhoon because of its crazy gear system .
Show me a SINGLE Rafale with all 14 hardpoints loaded up! I can show you more than enough images with Typhoon’s 13 HPs being loaded. Good luck on that. There are configurations where Typhoon excels and there are those where the Rafale excels. If you would be even remotely honest and objective you would actually see it…
Since we are on externals , the Typhoon ‘s CFT can take 1.500l of jet fuel when the Rafale CFTs (called fast pack) can take 2.3000l of jet fuel .
You don’t even get your facts right about the Rafale! 2300 l is for BOTH CFTs combined (2 x 1150 l)!
All of this to say that the Rafale is extremely strongly build and can emport more than the Typhoon while weighting a ton less for the same size .
It is telling much .
It tells us that this was the Rafale’s design bias. Criticising an aircraft for something it wasn’t designed for demonstrates your level of ignorance! And for the record the Rafale is actually smaller and has a less complex airframe as well. To operationalize a Rafale you have to add more additional pylons and chaff dispensers which are already part of Typhoon’s baseline design! But I’m not surprised that such tiny little details are ignored…
Yes the Typhoon Team managed to get the aerodynamics wrong , or at least not optimum .
And you have designed exactly how many aircraft? Optimum for what? Your pleasure?
It is all about instantaneous turn rate and not about sustained turn rate . Turning inside the other is the idea but I already said that .
and Typhoon’s ITR is bad in which way? Does your Rafale cool aid stuff makes you believe this?
Rafale “Fast Packs” are cleared and operational since 2001 but have never been used (no need so far) .
Some flight test to verify the impact on aerodynamics = cleared & operational? In what parallel universe do you live? And what exactly have those CFTs to do with FAST? Do you even know what FAST stands for?
To make it short :
A lot of empty phrases and copy pasts from your beloved friend sampaix…
Scorpion82We can use the numbers provided by both sides and they show that the Rafale turns tighter , we can also use pilots reports (from both sides) as they show the same outcome : the Rafale turns tighter . In fact , the Dassault fighter smack the Eurofighter in dogfight from begining (high speed) to end (slow speed) .
Do you have any performance charts to bolster that claim? I doubt so!
The Typhoon design is for high mach combat (1.8-2.2) and for “hit and run and come back again” tactics (52degree wing angle + high thrust = excellent sustained turn rate) .
The Rafale is designed to fight lower mach combat (1.4-1.6) with excellent intantaneous turn rate (48degree wing angle + closed coupled canards)
The AoA are also different : 70% for Typhoon , 100% for Rafale .
Also , low flight departure is impossible on Rafale while Typhoon has to be very carefull :
Sampaix would be proud of you repeating his claims. Like him you fail to read that EADS slice properly!
Then , the Typhoon ‘s canards CAN ‘T be used for roll control (nose too unstable and bad vortices behavior interaction with the wings) .
Rafale’s canards are as useless for rolling as those of the Typhoon. Have you ever seen flow diagramms for either aircraft with related data? Have you ever seen any cl and cd charts and other performance charts?
It is a matter of design and competence in aerodynamics .
It’s a matter of design requirements and priorities.
Scorpion82Eurofighter has been using JOUST widely to spread the idea that only F22 and Typhoon were worth the money against future air threats. Rafale was depicted as barely on pare with upgrades of the Su27 family.
JOUST is a man in the loop simulator network for study purposes and these studies were conducted by DERA, not Eurofighter. We have been through all of this counless times since years and I think we can all agree on the fact that those study results from the early 90s are hardly representive or relevant today. And for the record the Rafale was apparently the third best western fighter in that study! Actually not too bad and certainly not a “bomb truck only certification”! Anyway I think it’s long overdue to move ahead, but it looks like many of you French guys are stuck with JOUST. I always understood the French frustration in the past, but nowadays I have to say that I’m disappointed by the course many of you have taken. You can’t complain all the time about the evil (often falsly assigned) Eurofighter propaganda and prejudices against the Rafale when many of you are just as ignorant, unfair towards other non French types, the much hated Typhoon in particular! I see so many prejudices and myths spread about the Typhoon that it’s not even remotely funny anymore! What’s even more curious is that most of you should know better, but you don’t. I really wonder whether I was just utterly wrong when it came to my perception of you guys or whether you just have changed? I want to note tgat this later part isn’t specifically aimed at you TMor, more to some of your colleges about whom I had a higher opinion in the past than I have today. Just food for thought and my 2ct
Scorpion82Why ? because the Rafale is one of the deadliest A2A opponent today despite all the eurofighter gmbh propaganda which used to present it as an average/poor A2A fighter only good as a bomb truck.
So is the Typhoon. Feel free to show us a single source from Eurofighter itself stating that the Rafale is just a low level bomb truck! And no Jon Lake isn’t Eurofighter!
Scorpion82Still Typhoon paradigm is high altitude BVR fights. Long range radar with good side looking performance, good supersonic maneuverability to deny your opponent to fire back and super-cruise to vector favorably your attack and escape quickly.
Typhoon was primarily designed as an interceptor and AtG missions were only seriously considered latter when the cold war was over and that funding was lacking to have dedicated assets.
Of course that does not mean you can’t hang bombs and other stuff and do Low level attack…But that’s not the original design philosophy. The best example is the unpractical AtG weapon and external fuel layout of the typhoon which does not reflect a multirole bias from the beginning like the rafale.
Now some might have exaggerated/oversimplified the difference but it is true that the design goals were different.
The Typhoon wasn’t that narrowly designed as often stated. Deep strike missions were apparently not part of the rwquirements. The limitations come with heavy/large stores the aircraft was not meant to employ when it was conceived for weapins up to the 500 kg class and AGMs the aircraft is very well suited and not limited when it comes to fuel either.
Scorpion82Ireally wonder which clueless chap starzed to spread the idea that the Typhoon is a dedicated high altitude interceptor!? That rumour is as right as the perception that the Rafale is a pure low level bomb truck. Appears not to bother anyone as long as people can push their BS agenda.
Scorpion82Correct negotiations are led by a single country only. Others may offer support, but that’s about it. There are a lot of false rumours making their rounds these days and I’ve to admit that I’m somewhat tired of correcting the clueless.
Scorpion821º On top of my head around 140 fighters
2º Nothing, if the four partners agree to delete the entire T3B, wich IMO is almost a certainty
124 to be exact (48 UK, 37 GE, 25 IT, 14 ESP)
Scorpion82I don’t know why everyone makes a big deal out of the Germans likely reduction of T3B. This has been indicated 2 years ago already. The UK has already reduced its buy from 232 to 208 and plans to cancel the T3B as well as the Italians. Only the Spanish haven’t indicated a will to cancel the T3B, but they might not be able to afford it anyway. If all partners agree to cancel the T3B there would be no penalties at all. We’ll see how this works out.
Wrt the Meteor DL, I’ve never seen any sources indicating that different DLs would be used. The Rafale’s RBE2 doesn’t support the bi-directional DL, but as BlueApple said it could still use it one way. The RBE2AA should support the two-way DL as well.
Sign In
