Jackonicko

Ah yes. These great success stories for Rafale. That’s the same Koreans who bought F-15 rather than Rafale (and who did so during that window when Rafale was mature enough to be credible, and Typhoon wasn’t), the same Dutch who never evaluated Typhoon (except on paper) and the same Singaporeans who made it abundantly clear that their favoured choice was Typhoon. B*gger me they were all highly impressed by Rafale, weren’t they?

How about the Austrians (who have ordered 18 aircraft, which are already in build – how many firm export orders does Rafale have again)? They must have been impressed. Or the Greeks, before the Olympics bankrupted them? Or the Norwegians?

Or how about the four major league European nations who have ordered 620 aircraft? It impressed them.

And who has Rafale impressed? Hmmm. That would be the French. And the……… French Navy.

That’s the same Koreans who bought F-15 rather than Rafale

All Koreans agreed with the final decision, do you remember ?

the same Dutch who never evaluated Typhoon (except on paper)

Hum… http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_168#news_67
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_133#news_122
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_105#news_229
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_105#news_228
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_63#news_454
Just on paper…
This also replies to Jon Lake who told me that there had been no bid offer to Dutch… No bid ? All but a bid. Think about it.

the same Singaporeans who made it abundantly clear that their favoured choice was Typhoon.

According to your papers and Jon Lake’s (and some more from Britain), yes, it’s true…

How about the Austrians (who have ordered 18 aircraft, which are already in build – how many firm export orders does Rafale have again)? They must have been impressed. Or the Greeks, before the Olympics bankrupted them? Or the Norwegians?

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_189#news_35
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_182#news_46
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_175#news_60
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_175#news_66
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_168#news_69
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_161#news_78
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_161#news_80
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_154#news_84
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_154#news_85
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_154#news_86
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_133#news_136
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_119#news_166
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_119#news_183
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_119#news_190
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_112#news_203
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_105#news_243
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_98#news_249
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_91#news_303
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_63#news_456
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_42#news_530
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_35#news_550
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/news/_28#news_687

Now I stop. All these links show us several facts : for Norway (evaluated Rafale in 1996) and Austria, the main Typhoon’s concurrent was the F16. Seems that the Rafale is in another class of aircraft.
Second, Saab and Lockheed found a little surprising that Austria has chosen the Typhoon. But for the Greece… Oooh… The same story, even the F16 was prefered to the Rafale (and later to the Typhoon). This show that they were not searching for the best aircraft in all areas, they were searching for something in the class of the F16. Not speaking about political decision.

Compared to that, the Netherland evaluated F35 (6.97/8.5) Rafale (6.95) and Typhoon (5.9). And all you find to say is “there was no bid offered to Netherland”, or “they evaluated Typhoon on the paper” wich is obviously wrong.

Or how about the four major league European nations who have ordered 620 aircraft? It impressed them.

Of course, after lots of development costs, they were to buy concurrent Rafale. 620 / 4 = 155. France alone = 234. No comment.

Cheers

PS : Fonk, Scorpion : bravo ! The debate is going in a better way ! 😉

Flight performance was once the key to success in air combat. But today it’s only one of many factors that makes up a superior fighter.
The data I will post here were reasearched over the last ~10 years. They primary come from official sources as web sites, aviation magazines, brochures and informations from manufacturers as well as test/operational pilot statements.

ok

I will comment the different data.

Me too.

However it should be taken into account that this comparison is theoretical and isn’t necessarily conclusive as many data are missing and that which is given isn’t ineviteably the maximum performance possible.

Honesty. Ok.

Rafale/Typhoon:
Top Speed: M 2/M 2,02

Rafale : 2,100km/h -> mach 2 ok.

Top Speed at S/L: 1390 kph (M 1,14)/1390 kph (M 1,14)
Supercruise: M 1,2/M 1,2-1,3

Rafale A could supercruise at mach 1.3 on its first flight with 2 F404-GE-400

Ceiling: 18000 m/18000 m

Are Typhoon restriction over ? Ok…

Climb rate: >305 m/sec /~315 m/sec

305 was already the figure quoted for Mirage 4000. I think Rafale does better. Sometimes given as >330m/s.

Climb time to: 40000 ft in <2 min/42000 ft 1,5 min

Rafale ok, but with 4 Micas + 1 1250L drop tank. Typhoon with 4 Amraam + 2 SRAAM.

G-Load: – 3,2 to 3,6 g/+9 g /-3 G/+9 g

g-acceleration: 10-12 g/sec /15 g/sec
ITR: 32°/sec />30°/sec
STR: 24°/sec /25°/sec

May need proofs or sources.

Operational AoA: 32°/30°-35°

Well, but Typhoon seems to be still limited to 27.5° up to now.

Rollrate: 270-290°/sec /250°/sec

Rafale : 290° in clean, 270 in A-A, 160° in the heaviest config.

range on internal fuel: >2100 km/2600 km
ferry range: 5593 km/3700 km+
max. CAP range: 1853 km/1389 km

Nothing to add.

Thrust to weight ratio:
Depending on which weight you take as reference for Rafale C TW ratio is 1,116:1 (9 t empty weight) or 1,05:1 (9,85 t).

Hard to say.

Typhoons TW ratio is 1,1475:1 (11 t).
This results are calculated with empty weight+full internal fuel load.
Engine thrust as mentioned in PART II.
As you can see Typhoon has a slightly better T/W ratio even if you take 9 t empty weight for Rafale as reference. Rafales MTOW is 1 t higher than that of Typhoon so the TW ratio of Typhoon will be significantly better with higher payloads.
TW ratio with MTOW is at least 0,624:1 for Rafale and 0,78:1 for Typhoon.

Do not forget to remember us that Rafale MTOW is at least 3t heavier than the Typhoon’s (24.5t / 21.5t)

Wing loading:
Wing loading is another important factor for performance, especially related to maneuverability.
Using the same basics as for TW ratio wing loading for Rafale is ~300 kg/m² (9 t) or 318 kg/m² (9,85 t). Typhoon wing load is 320 kg/m². You see Rafale has a slightly better or at least equal wing load factor. However this would significantly increase with payload. Facts for MTOW are:
Rafale 536 kg/m²
Typhoon 470 kg/m²

Same comment as above.

Speed:
It is impressive that Rafale reaches Mach 2, …

Wow ! Not that impressive.

…because it was designed for Mach 1,8 or better said may be not designed but that was the speicification. Rafale has demonstrated it’s ability to fly with that speed. Unfortunadly there’re no information available whether the aircraft is able to do so with at least some AAMs nor at which altitude this performance is reached.

At least 2 AAMs, the Rafale A reaches this speed at 13000m.

Some sources (said Fonk) suggests M 2,1. I assume that could be possible, but it seems to be not proven or at least not confirmed.

No idea.

Typhoon was designed for high supersonic performance and Mach 2 was the goal. Already in 1997 DA2 reached Mach 2 with less stronger Tornado engines. Also weight has been increased the EJ200 are more than 20% stronger than RB-199 MK104D used by DA2. So it’s a simple logic that Typhoon probably can fly even faster. Many sources suggests Typhoon could reach Mach 2,2 but that hasn’t been demonstrated nor confirmed. Mach 2,02 was quoted as the achieved top speed by a single seat prototype so far.
But it is important to note that even DA2 reached Mach 2 with 2 Sidewinder and 4 AMRAAM! Altitudes between the aircraft can reach Mach 2 is given with 8536 m – 16765 m (28k ft – 55k ft).

Nothing to add.

To sum it up Typhoon could be a little bit faster, but that’s only an assumption as some important data are missed for the Rafale. At all they are both nearly equally fast and Mach 2 might be a nice number but is totally irrelevant in combat.

Right.

Normally Typhoon would accelerate to ~Mach 1,6 in AA configuration to fire a missile in BVR. The aircraft has demonstrated it’s ability to reach that speed with 3 drop tanks. If I remember right Rafale has demonstrated that ability too.

I’m not sure, but the Rafale’s tanks are cleared for that speed.

At S/L top speed of both fighters is claimed with 1390 kph. Rafale was designed for that and this number is given by the manufacturer. Same speed was given for Typhoon. Most reliable source confirming that for Typhoon was test pilot Chris Worning.

Chris Yeo has found that the Rafale was very stable at low altitude and high speed. Typhoon ?

In terms of supercruise both fighters have demonstrated their ability to fly faster than sound without reheat. Exact numbers are difficult to find however the few sources I found for Rafale are suggesting Mach 1,2 and for Typhoon up to Mach 1,3 (1,2 was definitely demonstrated by DA7[?]).

As I said above, Rafale A reached mach1.3 on its first flight. Then, the Rafale M is able to supercruise with drop tank and 4 AAMs. Don’t know about exact number with 6 AAMs, but should be good.

Ceiling:
Dassault gives Ceiling (service ceiling might be important to note) with 16765 m (55k ft). However there’re sources suggesting 18000 m for Rafale and I think the last mentioned figure is quite realistic. Even the Mirage 2000 with less lift and thrust could operate at ~17000 m at max, so I assume Rafale should be able to reach 18000 m.

As for M4000.

Service Ceiling design goal for Typhoon was 18000 m and EADS confirmed that the type has achieved that altitude. So both aircraft are equal at all, even if the real performance might even be better. But the exact altitude isn’t that important, more important is the acceleration and turning performance at such altitudes. As there are no compareable data given for both aircraft I makes no sense to compare as it’s impossible to judge, even if some people could suggest that Typhoons airlift intake designe and higher thrust might give the aircraft an advantage.

Climb rate:
Dassault gives Rafales climb rate with >305 m/sec that means it could be 307 m/sec as well as 320 m/sec. As long as there’re no definite data we only know the Rafale climbs faster than most other aircraft in the world. For Typhoon there were no data released AFAIK. However I calculated the 315 m/sec figure by information given by Wolfgang Schirdewahn EADS testpilot. He said Typhoon climbs at least ~25% faster (with 4+2 AAMs) than a clean F-16. F-16s climb rate is given with up to 254 m/sec that divided through 4 and than summate with 254 you have 317 m/sec. That value isn’t necessarily correct, but could be an orientation.

As I said above, the 305 figure was given for the M4000. I think the Rafale is an improvement of M4000, and so 305m/s is the minimum. I’ve a site where it’s given as >330m/s. I’ll gave the link at the end.
For Typhoon, the funny thing is that you’re not the only one to give that figure.

A little bit more concrete are the information given by operational pilots.
Rafale reaches 12200 m (40k ft) with 4 AAMs and 1 1250 l tank (no information about after takeoff or from brakerelease) in under 2 minutes. British pilot says same altitude from brake release in only one minute and german pilot says 12800 m (42k ft) in 1,5 min. Basically climb times can change by different pitch angles, however I personally doubt a bit the 40k ft in one minute figure however I won’t allege the opposite…

Oooh… I’ll let you the “40,000ft in one minute” because the Mirage 4000 could do the same. But this may be in a very clean configuration of Typhoon (no AAMs this time !).

Acceleration:
In this area no comparison is possible by now as I wasn’t able to find any acceleration data for the Rafale, but I have some for the Typhoon. Most sources suggests Typhoon has a slightly better acceleration than Rafale, but I won’t judge as a fair comparison isn’t possible by now with the missing Rafale data.

Ok, it’s honnest.

Maneuverability/Agility:
This topic is another difficult, but as some data are available a small, if also only more informativ comparison is possible. May be not for judging which one is the more maneuverable/agile one but at least a kind of confrontation.

Lol… I’ve seen a forum (hey Fonk) on pprune where one of our friend, who is a journalist, said that on Paris Airshow this year, the Typhoon had shown more impressive than the Rafale. He became ridiculous at the moment when he added that even the Mirage 2000 add performed better.

Rafale is definitely superior in terms of negative g’s, but that are the FCS limited data…
Further more negative g’s have nearly no importance in combat if any.
Essential are positive g’s and here both fighters are limited 9 g by their FCS’s. They both provide g-override functions but I will not take that into account here.

There’re a number of factors which are not less important, if not even more, than the exact g number. G-Acceleration, speed range where it is achieved and time an aircraft can hold such high g-loads. The only data I have here is the g-acceleration meaning how fast can the aircraft built up it’s g-loads. Typhoon’s g-accel is given with 15 g/sec according to a test pilot (I mean to remember it was Wolfgang Schirdewahn).

Ok, thanks for the source.

Rafales g-accel is given with 10-12 g, but that number is from a guy from a forum. So it’s not really possible to judge here.

Huum…

There’re also no information available about how fast they loose speed while maneuvering at different speeds with different loads. ITR of the Rafale is given with 32°/sec.

I’ve a document where it’s given 35°/s for Rafale, wich matches what I tried to measure on video (clean conf), though finding it too impressive. It’s very hard to affirm such a thing, but the link makes me believe it easier. This also makes me believe the 32°/s as being for A-A conf.

For Typhoon it’s only known that more than 30°/sec is possible that could be 30,5°/sec as well as 34°/sec for example so we can only say both fighters can turn equally fast initionally. I could also not find definite data for STR. A french guy in a forum stated 24°/sec for Rafale, Fonk gives his 30°/sec. So what is right? I personally doubt the 30°/sec figure to hark back at my simulation experience, but I will also not deny it. The ~25°/sec for Typhoon is a simple estamination again harking back at simulation experience and what I’ve seen and the other data I know. So also here no definite comparison is possible.

I agree. 30°/s appears to be VERY VERY VERY high, and i’m not sure i’ve understood Fonk on this point.

Roll rate of the Rafale seems to be higher however there’re no informations available about Typhoon. The 250°/sec figure was measured by me by analysing an airshow video. That means this value is definite, but that doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be more!

Ok.

For AoA Rafale has reached 100° according people like Fonk. I believe it and if Typhoon has “only” reached 70° ok (never heared about that before). So maybe the design of Rafale is more suited for very high max AoA.

From my readings, the 70° figure come from the max AoA that auto-recovery can cope with. Lost my source.

However it’s as the Cobra for Su-27 an airshow maneuver with little to non importance in combat. Su-27 even reached ~120° so is it more maneuverable than the Rafale because of that? Definitely not…

Hehe… Who knows. The need to be able of reaching high AoA do not come from the need for higher maneuvrability. This comes from the need to shoot a SRAAM is a (desperate?) situation. See the F22 : it should be able to fire a sidewinder at AoA of 60°.

Operational AoA of Rafale is 32° that of Typhoon will be up to 35° but again there’re no exact data released. Quoting a test pilot (roughly translated)”The exact number of AoA is not that important, it’s more important how the aircraft reacts and can be controlled at high AoA.”

We agree. The Rafale turns better than Mirage 2000 but with lower AoA.

And yes again my simulation experience confirms that. Which of both has better high AoA handling or also low speed handling is difficult to say. Both fighters are performing well at low speed and high AoA. Maybe the Rafale has a small advantage in terms of minimum speed…

Some people takes the figure of 100kts as being the minimum speed of the Rafale. But actually, this is a software limit, not loss of control which doesn’t occure (in clean). I’ve read that 100kts is also the same limit on the Typhoon (speed at which the AutoRecov take control from the pilot).

At all both fighters are very maneuverable at various speeds and they should be equal at all. I’m pretty sure no one of us can definitely say one of both really performances better in terms of maneuverability. Ok some people would say Rafale must be better due to it’s aerodynamics, however they have no valid data whether for Rafale nor for Typhoon to verify that.

Hehe… Fonk tried to explain us the validity of Rafale concept. Noone did it for the Typhoon…

Another thing I want to touch for a short time. Topic corner speed. It is given with 350-360 kts for Rafale, but there’re not data about Typhoon. However I re read an interview with an italian test pilot who said “No other aircraft can match the turning performance of Typhoon at 670 kph (360 kts).”
Ok this pilot has probably not flown the Rafale, however it could be an indication for corner speed of Typhoon. Just for info

In my link at the end, it is also that “Rafale agility can snap into a 180* turn in less space than any other in the world!”. Ok this pilot has probably not flown the Typhoon !!! 😀

Range:
It’s currently not necessary to discuss that Rafale has a far superior range with full external fuel load with 3×2000 l plus 2×1250 l at once. Typhoon can currently only carry 3×1000 l only a third of that what Rafale can carry external.

But what about range with internal fuel only? Typhoon has a slightly higher load and it’s range is given with 2600 km (source FR and Luftwaffe). For Rafale I only found a 2100 km info. But I give it as >2100 km as I could imagine range of Rafale is higher than 2100 km. Has anybody more informations on that?

No, sorry.

But only as an information 2000 l tanks are planned for Typhoon and in an officially briefing from the manufacturer it is proposed to make the inner hardpoints wet as well. Meaning if required Typhoon could have 5 wet stations as well and than with larger tanks the current range penalty between Rafale and Typhoon could be balanced

Ok.

The link

Feel free to correct me.

Fonk…

Fonk, your knowledge is far from being discussed. On the contrary ! I’m sure I’m not the only one here to read your posts with a great interest.

But once again, I have to side with Scorpion (not the pro-Typhoon clan !!! :p ).

The fact is that we try to discuss on a gentle tone, exchanging the few figures and facts we can find. Sadly, it’s true, we may not have the knowledge necessary for understanding. That’s why what YOU bring to us interests us.

We’re not making advertising for Eurofighter, nor Dassault.

…but you fail to prove it.

LOL… Scorpion, you’re too good… The guy didn’t even try to prove any thing !!! 😉

Scorpion, what should be added as comments in your data

http://www.snecma.com/en/group/history/1975.php

In February 1990, the M88-2 made its first flight on the Rafale A demonstrator built by Dassault Aviation. It showed exemplary performance throughout its test flights. During the first flight, it hit Mach 2 and almost 15,000 meters (almost 50,000 feets), without using its afterburner.

As Fonk explained us, the Rafale A could reach mach 2.0 with only one AB :
One of the two engine was the F404 (full AB). The M88 was at full dry power. This show that the Rafale reaches mach 2 with 120 kN of thrust maximum (M88-2 -> max 50kN, F404GE400 -> 70 kN with AB) in clean configuration at 50,000 ft.

Then, have a look in : http://www.safran-group.com/IMG/pdf/1SNEMAG006_ENG_baf.pdf
There are two good articles : one on the Red Shark exercise, and another about the Mirage 4000.
British, German and Italian shouldn’t read the one about the Mirage (there are some comments from Dassault’s team wich are very stupid), but it is mentionned that the Mirage could climb 40,000ft in an only minute.
I think it is quite obvious that the Rafale could (can) achieve such a figure (though in clean conf) due to its better aerodynamics and better TWR.

——– Fonk ??? —– I need your point of view —-
It is said that the 4000 reached mach 1.6 on its first flight. Was it with AB or not ?
———- Thank you Fonk ————————-

PilotTHX

Should we ask for you to be banned ???

Your comments are stupid and useless. You’ve nothing to learn to us. Cerise sur le gateau, tu es insultant. 😡

I’d better find data by yourself, with correct sources instead of critisizing Scorpion.

You come here with no arguments. Scorpion tries to gather data, and that’s all, because getting a good clue of the two aircraft is very hard. As simple guys on fora, the truth is impossible to discover and what Scorpion is doing is more than honorable.

Please stop your stupid game. You’re puerile and uninteresting.

esp 49129

Excellent…
It’s too bad that our friends Fonk and PilotTHX insult so often.

To my mind, Fonk, you’re very capable of defending your ideas, but be careful ! There no need to say them “you don’t want to understand…”, or “the guy don’t understand…”… They may feel insulted. Be more positive 🙂 tell them :” I will explain you…” and add some modesty “Correct me if I’m wrong” and be polite “Thank you for this information”(even if you don’t believe it :p ), “Please could you…” or little words in French “Amicalement” “Au revoir”…
Such things are soft enough not to hurt anybody even if you keep saying that Rafale is better. In addition, it’s not very hard to do.

Je sais pas pourquoi, les Anglais voient toujours les Français comme des gros cons vulgaires. Sortons des clichés. Ne leur montre pas ce que nous ne sommes pas.

Scorpion is the kind of guys who try to find data on both aircraft. We (as pro-Rafale) may find he is not neutral, but actually, when you try to gather data on the aircraft, the advantage is hardly for Rafale in terms of performance, simply because Dassault is doing is best not to publish anything. That’s why when I discovered the Chris Yeo report about the Rafale, I was astonished to see what the Rafale was going to be (I’m only 22yrs old and not rich enough to buy magazines).
Compared to that, Eurofighter has published lots of data absolutely incredible.
You know what I mean ?

Amicalement,
Au revoir

Thanks Scorpion… That’s normal.

But a bit frustrating. Because I’m as sure as Fonk that the Rafale is better, but Dassault do not reveal any good information 😡

Nevertheless, each type someone A insults someone B, B wants to defend itself, so the debate run to the death. This do not make more interesting data appear. Critics are necessary, but it’s hard to make it without being offensive. Fonk ??? Hey ! Fonk ???… Ok, let’s try someone else ! Jackonicko ??? Hey ! Jack! 🙂