Dassault beg to differ, but feel free to call Dassault a fanboy 🙂

http://www.electronicaviation.com/aircraft/Dassault_Rafale/819

Posting old news again?

Mildave was talking about the new AESA, and the article you posted refers to the old PESA. But let’s not get the fact get in the way of your bias 😉

Nic

They’ve done detailed structural design, and tunnel tested the CFTs. It is not a ‘reasonable assumption’ that integration is ‘not easy’. The CFTs are ready, should any user require them, and T3 aircraft are being built with the required interface, which could be easily retrofitted to all earlier aircraft.

True although the test flying has to be carried out, which isn’t cheap. Not saying it’s going to be hard, but it will have a cost.

Nonsense. Typhoon still has a useful unrefuelled radius of action, just not as long as Rafale’s.

Not as long lol. Just 1000L of external fuel vs up to 6000L of external fuel 😀

Are you sure? I think that GBU-24 can fit on the inner pylons, and in any case, in an era of low collateral damage, 2,000-lb LGBs are a bit passé.

I also think they fit on the inner pylons. But unlike you I think 2000lb weapons will still be useful. AASM 1000kg is being developped AFAIK.

No they’re not.

Yes they are. With 1000 L external fuel how far can you go inside enemy territory to reach deep sensitive targets? If you have to re-route to avoid air defense or potential fighters, you will soon run out of fuel without achieving any decent range.

It may be that the case for turning Typhoon into a dedicated very long range heavy strike aircraft is weak, but again, you’re being so black and white as to be effectively wrong.

Typhoon can’t be turned into a very long range heavy strike aircraft, yet the Rafale, which is 1t lighter than the Typhoon, can already do that. What does it tell us?

CFT development is done and dusted. There’s nothing difficult about it.

The flying remains to be done AFAIK. It is going to cost money, and you never know. Some problem might arise (although I hope/think not).

It’s always good to free up underwing hardpoints. Though whether Rafale can realistically carry more than it already does with those M88s is certainly a pertinent question!

The MTOW with the current M88 engines is well known. Even the UAE agree that the M88 are sufficient AND they require a configuration with 3 Scalps + 2 2000L tanks (and the complement of Mica missiles).

12 AASM = 4080 kg
3 Scalps = 3900 kg
That’s 180 kg more only.

Now compare the fuel:

2000L + 2x1250L= 4500L
vs 4000L.

So basically you get 180 kg + 500L of fuel more than some envisaged configurations, which is about 600 kg difference. Still under MTOW:

3900kg + 4500L fuel = 7590 kg
You’ve got almost 2 tons left for the CFT, Pylons, and the central tank + AtoA missiles.

And contrary to the Typhoon, the Rafale can do buddy buddy refueling. So if you don’t have aerial tankers, or if the area is too dangerous for them, you can refuel your fully ladden rafale by another Rafale.

In term of operational flexibility nothing compares.

Nic

10,000 modules is only enough for say 10-12 Rafales (depending how many TRM the radar has actually), right ?

Minus whatever number were used on demonstration radars or prototypes.

Nic

I don’t think there would be room for 2 triple racks of AASM on each wing. Maybe 10 would be possible though. Or 6 250 kg AASM + 2 1000 kg AASM.

BTW the CFTs are integrated, it’s only a matter of needing and ordering them. CFTs could be useful in a aerial refueling configuration, although I’m not sure if a Rafale can take off with 4 full underwing tans + one buddy buddy pod + 2 full CFTs.

Nic

Hmmm?…All of a sudden I fully support going for the ‘B’ variant. :diablo:

+1

Well, i read it. And did not bother answer, such idiotic statments. F-5 fighters is replaced, so i think you can understand all by yourself what that means for the requirements.

Stop it with this fallacious argument that anything better than a F-5 would replace it succesfully. It is ridiculous. You have no idea if the SAF wants to replace their aircrafts type for type or go for an all in one force when they retire the Hornets. And even if you knew it’d still be a silly argument.

Nic

Actually, no such thing is ‘clear’. We can argue all day about the figures – you can pick the Typhoon and Rafale cost figures that best support your argument, and I could pick different, equally official figures that show the exact opposite.

What the figures show is that the UPC of both aircraft is close, and that by using different figures each aircraft can be made to look more expensive than the other.

To claim that either is ‘clearly cheaper’ is empty posturing, and repeating it does not make it any more true.

The only thing that is ‘clear’ is that Rafale was offered to India more cheaply than Typhoon.

Wasn’t it you who said in an other thread that the Typhoon was proved cheaper than the Rafale. Now you’re saying it’s impossible to tell? Make up your mind will you?