Keinerlei.. Bin öfter aus Regensburg extra nach Manching gefahren um Testflüge der Eurofighter zu beobachten. Ist es etwa nicht fan-nisch genug?

Nice. Don’t worry… 😀 I’m just pulling your leg. :p

P.S. The first flight of the first Austrian Eurofighter Typhoon is in a couple of days. The first Austrian pilots have started training in Germany on Luftwaffe Eurofighter Typhoons.

Some of them are more advanced than that, I think. Isn’t the Seaspray 7000E in operational evaluation with the USCG? They ordered it for their C-130 MPAs. i.e. it’s not just “developed and ready to go”, it’s in production, has been delivered to customers, is in use, & on the verge of being declared fully operational. That’s where the APG-79 is.

Well, it is of course correct to say that some are in production and not just “ready to go”. The Seaspray 7000E will be fitted to the Future Lynx. The Seaspray 7500E will be fitted to the USCG C130s.

The Vixens (500, 750 & 1000) are variations on a theme, basically the same radar but with different sized arrays, AFAIK.

Is that really the only difference? I don’t know but it makes sense with the same name and just the numbers changing.

AMSAR is a technology development project, not a radar: its results are showing up in the other radars.

I thought a demonstrator was supposed to be built? But I am not sure on AMSAR at all, there doesn’t seem to be much information, nor news on it.

And ARTS is a requirement which may be met by one of the radars already listed, e.g. CAESAR (i.e. Captor-E, which should fit), rather than a separate development.

Really? I guess CAPTOR-E is the only viable solution (except they want to put a probably less capable Vixen 500/750/1000 into it) then as the ARTS/Tornado GR4 demonstrator is supposed to fly in 2007. Actually if it was to be the CAPTOR-E that would be great news as the ever more likely Tornado GR4 upgrade could pay for much of the CAPTOR-E development and thus bring it to the Eurofighter Typhoon too. 🙂

But there are also others which you’ve not mentioned, e.g. Picosar, a lightweight AESA radar for ground surveillance, designed for tactical UAVs & lightweight aircraft. It was in the news last year, undergoing tests in a helicopter. It’s now being integrated on the Italian Falco UAV.

Yeah, I knew of that one and had included it (though not explicitly naming it) in my 4-5 “ready to go” ones. One I didn’t include was an Anglo-Italian effort a bit above the Vixen series that was announced some time ago, I didn’t include it because I’m not sure what happened to it.

So it is more like 2-3 in production (the Seasprays), then the Vixen series and the PicoSar, the CAPTOR-E and M-AESA (Italian side of operations). So that makes it about 7 AESAs for Selex or 5 AESAs if you group the Seasprays as a family like the Vixen series. Still pretty good. 😀

as about AESA, Thales in the most advanced in this domain in europe, RBE2 AESA is just on phase 3 with years of developpment and with 5 tmes more budget than the starting Selex tiny mess!

Well, of course your whole post was rather funny, but this got me really laughing. You do realize that Selex in the UK has like 4-5 AESAs for fighters and helicopters in their product portfolio right now, developed and ready to go. And they have another 4-5 AESAs for fighters under development? I think they are part in the development of: Vixen 750, Vixen 1000, Captor-E, AMSAR and ARTS. And that is only the UK side of operations. The Italian part of Selex work on following AESAs: Captor-E and M-AESA (with Sweden). So Selex has something like 9-11 AESAs (of which about 7 are fighter AESAs) either being offered to the market or in development (of course they can already be offered when under development). Am I claiming a Selex superiority? No, because I don’t know which is better or bigger in radars, but I certainly wouldn’t talk of a Thales superiority.

no problem rob, it is because I have already posted the comments on page 2 of this thread.

Thanks, as said I hadn’t read the whole topic. The comments are interesting but as you said they are rather open to interpretation. As for the first comment, it would be rather embarrasing if Eurofighter or Rafale had to envy F16s or F15s. The comment makes it difficult to differentiate between all the aircraft named and where envy is appropriate and where not. The second statement I’m not sure of, but a reluctance to have a clash when the RAF planes were just Tranche 1 Block 2s might well be the case (perhaps Eurofighter wanting to avoid a situation like the story when Greek F16s had a 50%+ kill ratio against Rafale M F1s). But that is just a perhaps, I wouldn’t want to conclude a reluctance from the Spanish incident and the TLP (with the RAF not going to the Landivisiau being imo a total no-brainer), especially as iirc the Italians did engage Rafale Ms. The third statement again seems very vague and is from a date where Typhoon and Rafale hadn’t met. Anyway, it seems I have read these statements on another forum already. 😎

the entire article about singapore is also posted on page 2 of this thread; It is quite clear i think; the articles you quote are written by journalists that are pro typhoon (imagine fonk writting an article about rafale even if Iclearely don’t put them in the same bag/level as him lol..!). But that is just my personnal opinion. But I don’t conclude rafale absolute superiority also.

Quote:
Moussez said that in dogfight exercises, the Rafale had outflown F-15, F-16 and F-18 opponents, and in technical and performance evaluations “we have systematically won against the F-15 and the Eurofighter Typhoon.”

There are in my opinion some problems with this:

a) Mr. Moussez is hardly impartial (just like the Eurofighter source, but journalists in well know publications imo are better sources)
b) The source in your quote does not explicitly say if he also means Singapore. Perhaps he thinks South Korea and the Netherlands are enough to stamp “systematically” on it
c) Whilst the Eurofighter source is not impartial, it is precise and official, which means that if they lied in that publication it could easily hurt Eurofighters credibility if Singapore came out and said: “That’s not true”.
d) Then there are also several journalists in well known publications, which I at least like to think are rather impartial.
e) The official Singapore MINDEF statement seems to back Eurofighter and the journalists up on the reasons why it was rejected

Conclusion: I think a definitive conclusion is perhaps not possible, but imo the Arguments/sources in favour of the view Eurofighter GmbH has on it are better.

Here is an interesting article from AW&ST, I was under the impression, mainly due to French posters, that the Rafale was way ahead of Eurofighter in integration of weapons and LDPs, but this article at least seems to show that the gap isn’t that huge (the main things I was taken by surprise by in bold). So, can anyone tell me when what will actually be integrated so I can make an informed decision how big the gap really is at the moment?

French Rafale Heading to Afghanistan

Mar 11, 2007

By Robert Wall

French Rafale strike fighters will be operational in Afghanistan within days, after undergoing a crash course to integrate precision-guided bombs and other wartime enhancements.

Both the French air force and navy are participating in the surge of combat capability, aimed at bolstering NATO’s International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

The French air force was to deploy three F2 standard Rafales late last week to Dushanbe, Tajikistan, where they will be primarily based, although excursions to Kabul are possible. The aircraft should be operational within days of arrival and remain there about four months, says a senior air force officer planning the deployment. It is the first operational mission since the air force declared Rafale operational last year.

The navy will also have Rafales in the F2 standard in the region of operations. The deployment represents the first of the type for the navy, which is only starting to field this version.

Last week, three F2s were sent to join the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, which was already deployed near the Horn of Africa. The ship is now heading close to Afghanistan, with Rafale operations likely to commence mid-month, says a senior navy aviator. The de Gaulle will operate a mix of Rafales, with the three F2s supplemented by nine early-model F1s, which have only an air-to-air capability and a different processor.

Although much of the focus of the French military activity since December has been to give the fighter the ability to drop laser-guided bombs, other enhancements have also been undertaken more quietly. For instance, the threat libraries have been upgraded to properly reflect what the Spectra self-protection system is likely to encounter, says French air force Brig. Gen. Eric Rouzaud, head of the CEAM aviation development and test center. The threat libraries are similar for the two services, but the naval version carries additional information to distinguish different types of maritime radars.

But without the weapons upgrade, which was formally launched in mid-December when aircraft prime contract Dassault Aviation began its work on the effort, the deployment would not have taken place. French government officials raised the prospect of the air force mission in November.

Flight trials to pave the way for the deployment involved seven weapon releases from air force Rafales and another five from naval versions. The integration went smoothly, although some buffet issues were encountered, says a development officer.

The focus of the development activity was integrating the 611-lb. GBU-12 (Paveway II) and 720-lb. GBU-22 (Paveway III) laser-guided bombs on the aircraft. The latter has larger control surface and offers more range and maneuverability, but French military officials expect to use both.

A standard load-out when operating from Dushanbe or the carrier will be three drop tanks (with 2,000 or 1,200 liters [528 or 317 gal.] of fuel) and three bombs under each wing, in addition to four Mica air-to-air missiles (both the radar and infrared seeker models). At this point, the military has not cleared the use of mixed loads.

Development work also is ongoing to clear the operational use of the 30-mm. GIAT 791B cannon. Those efforts have encountered some problems, including vibration, says a senior officer monitoring the progress. Nevertheless, he holds out hope the issues can be resolved, so that the weapon can be employed later in the deployment. Fighter aircraft have frequently had to resort to strafing runs to assist ground forces, particularly special operations units, because those are often in such close contact with Taliban forces that the use of bombs is deemed too dangerous.

The rapid-response program for the Rafales, however, leaves the strike fighter largely dependent on other aircraft. The Rafale itself is not yet fitted with its Damocles laser-designator pod, so someone else has to provide the targeting information. Operational plans for the air force foresee the use of Rafales in conjunction with Mirage 2000Ds, three of which are also in Dushanbe. They will perform the lasing, with the Rafales delivering ordnance. For the navy, the so-called buddy-lasing duties will be performed by Super Entendards. Ground forces can also be used for target designation.

Next in the development plan for Rafale is the addition of further weapons. For instance, although the Scalp cruise missile has been cleared for air force use, mission-planning equipment isn’t up to standard yet for its operational employment. Additionally, later this year the service hopes to fully field the inertial navigation system/global positioning system (INS/GPS)-guided AASM (armament air-sol modulaire) air-to-ground weapon. Next year or in 2009, the air force also expects to field the EP2 Enhanced Paveway, which marries INS/GPS and laser guidance. Those features will phase in as the F3 standard Rafale becomes operational next year.

Another round of upgrades looms soon after, as elements of the post-F3 upgrade package materialize. It includes, most notably, an active electronically scanned array antenna for the Rafale radar, which should enter development testing in 2010 for fielding in 2012. Enhancements to the optical sight system and integration of a data modem are also in the cards.

Notionally, military officials are starting to discuss an F4 standard, while stressing that nothing concrete is planned right now. That configuration would be targeted for fielding around 2015-18. At the moment, it serves largely as a brainstorming function, says one project official.

It would likely be a large overhaul, on the scale of the shift from F1 to F2, which changed out the processing backbone of the fighter. The navy program official notes that around that time, the current processing capability will likely be headed toward its maximum and will need to be replaced. The F4 is being likened to the Mid-Life Upgrade program that the F-16 fleet has undergone.

Also on the agenda are subsystem enhancements and new weapons, including whether to add a suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) capability, electronic attack functions or a towed-decoy for self-protection. Right now, the latter is low on the priority list and the penalty in terms of loss of maneuverability is not seen as compensating for the added protection. Interest in a decided SEAD capability is relatively mild, as operational planners realize the combination of Spectra’s geolocation capability and the coming AASM bomb will give them an ability not just to suppress, but to destroy radar sites.

Link: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw031207p2.xml&headline=French%20Rafale%20Heading%20to%20Afghanistan

Perhaps Jack is what you claim (though I don’t think so), but it is clear that you C-Seven are even worse, clearly saying in your above post that Rafale is better or equivalent in EVERY ASPECT. lol Something Jack has iirc never said for Eurofighter. That is why I would put him seven ranks higher than you in “respectable sources”. By the way Jack is not the only one to make the claim that Eurofighter topped Singapore’s technical evaluation, the same claim is made by the official Eurofighter Review publication. Of course I’m sure whilst the Dassault Rafale newsletter is absolute gospel in everything it says the Eurofighter newsletters is evil propaganda.

In the Export market, despite proving its capabilities to be above and beyond those of the rival aircraft, Eurofighter Typhoon was
eliminated from the Singapore Fighter Competition. Singaporean officials acknowledged the capability supremacy, but added that the core programme schedule did not match the time schedules of the Singapore Air Force.

Link: http://www.eurofighter.com/documents/general/EFReview01screen.pdf

Just so you don’t erase the proof:

I don’t belive also that the EF is more agile, not even that it’s more powerfull and all in all I don’t think the EF is better in anything important, even in pure AA role.

[…]

To sum it: the Eurofighter is a super-F16 or even more relevantly: a Mirage 4000-5 (mk2 is you want) which is good enough. Next one only will be on par.

Though this one made me laugh too:

So I don’t belive one word of what you’re saying jacko, no offense. That’s all propaganda, rumors, covered words, etc… There’s a nice bunch of PR and “journalist de conivence” working for BAE, they are very good for that (better than designing planes)

Dassault in another hand are stingy to make advertizing except if there is a deal on the way somewhere, they are arrogant, pure ingeneers, have contempt for paper pushers and tend to believe that their planes must be deserved by their customers (that a critic in case you didn’t get it)

IDEALY…….what I would LOVE to see is, the carrier embarking 3 12 plane sqdns, plus 849 Hawkeyes and 5-6 Merlins…..of course it would be CTOL! This would mean at least FOUR FAA JSF sqdnsand the purchase of E-2s. This would give 46 a/c embarked. VERY doable on a 62000 ton platform. Even CdG could do that……

No, actually not. The latest reports on http://www.meretmarine.com indicate that the CdeG can effectively operate just 24 Rafales.

The only catch with that is France doesn’t want to use a superblock approach but rather build it from the hull up in one yard. So any work for the UK would have to be sections that will be added on during the build process like the bridge modules and deck lifts etc.

On Navy Matters I read the French were considering letting the UK build the whole PA2! And that was Autumn 2006 I think. So I’d think there is a lot of space left for negotiations. On the other hand I think the superblocks for the UK CVFs have already been allocated to UK yards. 😀 Also the UK not getting all the superbloc work would be inacceptable because the whole flight deck etc… just accounts for 40% of the ships and that would mean France buying 33% of all CVFs getting more than 60% of the work. The UK has the better cards imo in the negotiations and we should insist on UK superbloc construction for all ships and UK final assembly, the French would get the 40% or so that is the flight deck [more than 33% because the Uk would get final assembly of all three CVFs] or if they don’t agree just seperate build programmes.