Scorpion82Here’s a pretty nice video from Neuburg AB with a lot of aircraft being shown, including the Polish MiG-29s on their way back home from Albacete and some training for the 50 years celebration of JG 74 as well as operational flying from the resident Eurofighters.
Scorpion82Seriously, what is spinned as EF exclusivity is common practice since 1977 on the F16; and 1978 on the M2000
Like performing different roles in a single sortie is nothing exlusive and done since the early 80s…:p
Scorpion82@EEL,
while the configuration you suggested would be possible it isn’t operationally feasible. Some kind of ARM would be a more useful addition just in case. Bear in mind that the CFT option exists for the Rafale as well, so regardless how you turn it the Rafale would outrange a Typhoon if all options are exercised for both aircraft.
@TMor,
thanks for the correction.
Scorpion82Thanks mack8, so I guess the concensus that the device on the right is a Russian EO-DAS ‘analogue’, on of several mounted around the airframe.
Amazing how in some fields the Russkies have come on leaps and bounds, but they’ve yet to deploy a targeting pod…utterly incredulous.
The OLS appears new too.
The OLS is indeed new, it’s the OLS-35. Wrt the “EODAS” I would say it’s more likely a laser or infrared warning sensor and nothing else.
Scorpion82For those who want to understand the design choices by the Eurofighter team have a look here:
http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-035///MP-035-01.pdf
Scorpion82… and Dassault are building what, 1.5 Rafales a month? Divide the number of Typhoon deliveries by the number of final assembly lines and that rate doesn’t look so impressive anymore either.
Depends on the assembly line. Alenia and Cassidian Spain likely produce even less aircraft per year than Dassault, whereas BAES and Cassidian Germany built more these days.
Scorpion82The way it’s worded sounds more like the British weren’t able to use Typhoon’s excess power advantage to their benefit.
Edit:
The bad wording (if it means what you insist) could also be owed to an inadequate translation.
In general I believe that the Rafale is a somewhat better dogfighter, at least at subsonic speeds between low and medium altitudes. The Rafale’s design is more optimised for lift than that of the Typhoon which trades some lift for lower drag affected acceleration and supersonic performance.
The Rafale has a slightly lower wing loading at light aircombat weights and the lower wing sweep angle translates into a lower AoA induced drag meaning that less drag is produced for the same AoA. This in turn means that the aircraft will bleed off less energy when turning at high AoAs. The LEX further improve the lifting characteristics, especially at low speeds where the lift creation of the wings is less effective, energizing the airflow over the wings using the LEX is a good way to get some more lift and this improve the manoeuvring characteristics. The close coupled canards additionally contribute to the overall lift to a greater extend than the long coupled canards of the Typhoon by slowing down the airflow separation over the wings and affecting it in the best way to optimise the lift/drag ratio. Rafale’s fuselage is additionally wider and thus generating more lift as well. Add the less restrictive FCS and less conservative FCS limits and you get an airplane with superior low speed characteristics and more lift at a given AoA translating into superior turn rates. This is particularly true for low to medium speeds which are those at which dogfights are fought out. Wrt instantaneous turn rates the difference might not be that great due Typhoon’s great pitch authority of its long coupled canards and very unstable design. Rafale’s roll rates are also much faster in unloaded conditions, whereas the Typhoon is more powerful and can regain lost energy more quickly and has a better ability to fight in the vertical.
At high subsonic speeds there is probably no real difference between the two as both can pull the same amount of g and sustain it at lower altitudes. At high altitudes Typhoon’s more powerful engines pay off and may offer better sustained turn rates whereas the ITR remains to be similar in relation to that at lower altitudes.
Just my 2ct
Scorpion82This is not what I can read in the article. What’s your source?
It was at least the OCU and the French claim about “power is nothing without mastery” stated in the very same article sounds contradictory to the claim of experienced pilots.
However, my point was just to tell you that Rafale has nose authority even when its speed nears 0 kts (I can’t remember about the C01, maybe 10kts ?).
Nose authority is questionable. At such speeds there is no control authority at all. The aircraft may not stall and may move with the rest energy from higher Speeds but that’s it.
Scorpion82What’s curios for me is how this loadout is supposed to be heavier. A 2000 l drop tank holds some 1600 kg of fuel, whereas a Scalp-EG weights about 1300 kg… Could it be that the UAE wants CFTs to further boost the range? Otherwise I can’t see how this loadout is heavier to the 2 Sclap and 3 2000 tanks configuration. :confused:
Scorpion82Algeria…
Scorpion82Eurofighter will have complete multirole capability only in 2018.
The great question is, what is “full/complete multirole capability”? Everyone and his mother appears to be rather focussed on weapons integration alone, ignoring that requirements are changing and simply ignoring that multirole/swingrole doesn’t specify the number of weapon options or even missions to be performed by an aircraft, but the ability to perform different missions and swing roles in flight.
It was 9-1 :diablo:
French sources are inconsistent on this one, some say 8:1, others 9:1. Who knows maybe it’s in fact 0:1.:p:dev2:
It was already published by flugrevue in 2008 :
Yes but not the details…:rolleyes:
Scorpion82Depends on the circumstances. In a real combat situation both would try to employ their IR guided missiles instead of dragging into a gun fight which most of these DACTs present.
Scorpion82ALSR doesn’t kick in at 50 kts it should prevent the aircraft from falling below that value. The ALSR kicks in at higher speeds, but the exact speed depends on various circumstances.
Scorpion82+1 with you TMor:D
It’s ever about gains and trade-offs and I think we slowly but surely get a somewhat clearer picture. Maybe the RAF jocks should have selected higher starting altitudes at Solenzara not to get their ar$es kicked.:diablo:
Scorpion82I said :
“We already know that the Rafale has better sustained and instantaneous turn rate than the Typhoon in low altitude and/or at Sea level .“
and redreidy , you responded :Well , everytime the Typhoon has been messing around with the Rafale in WVR , it has been a spanking . The AdlA even said after watching the videos from the guncam that Rafale needed 40 seconds and three turns to kill a Typhoon.
Wrong and it was “Benco” a MN pilot who made that 40 sec claim from ONE encounter. In DSI something similar was claimed along the lines (<1 min, 3 turns).
We also spank F-16s (flying with the US TopGun school) while the Typhoon get spanked by Pakistanis F-16s.
And Greek pilots in their F-16s felt overwhelmed by the Typhoon… see post #422 above!
Really , I never understood why they put the canards in the wrong place , why they forgot APEXs (LREX) and why the wings ‘s curvature is not optimized for lateral lift .
Probably because they don’t think they are in the wrong place and the designers are certainly more aware of what they are doing, but funny how you plep insist to be smarter than them.:rolleyes: They selected long coupled canards for greater controll authority and high AoA recovery characteristics and enabling a higher degree of instability. The trade-off is a lower lift contribution opposed to close coupled canards. See Keith Hardleys article about the Eurofighter’s aerodynamics.
I believe that his drag coefficient is not accurate snce the Rafale showed in the real world a greater lead in WVR than what the paper is showing , but it is telling already .
Oh dear he actually states that he assumes some unknown factors to be identical for the sake of a fair base and focus on the known differences instead.
I get the “stick” when I say that the Rafale is superior to the Typhoon in almost every situation bare the high altitude BVR combat but not one poster can prove me wrong with a clever talk , good numbers and decent links .
Well spare some great sounding claims and Solerenzara 8:1 results there isn’t that much with which you can come up either.
Rafale never defeated by Typhoon WVR? No?
“…Besting the Rafale
Speaking of the Eurofighters close-in combat prowess, Major Marc Grüne, CO of 742 (Zapata), the second squadron of the wing, described to assembled aviation journalists how, on a recent visit to France to demo the aircraft, he had won ‘two out of two’ battles against the Dassault Rafale in mock withinvisual range dogfights. Both fights were a ‘standard set-up’ and merge at 21,000ft and 30,000ft he recounted, adding that the “higher the fight the better the Eurofighter liked it”. He singled out the Eurofighter’s excess power as its trump card over the Rafale…”
More about this in the Eurofighter news thread.
Sign In
