Nicolas10Because there were two Rafale´s in tests and on of them had a standar d production PESA radar and the other had a prototype AESA?
Loke, there was one flying AESA set in the B302 that was extensively tested by the Swiss, this is a fact, do you really believe that data wasnt incorporated in the reports?
The fact is that they mention the RBE2 PESA specifically in the first part of the report should lift any doubt that in your mind that it’s what the version tested in the first part of the report. The Rafale however must have scored pretty high on the uncertainty factor for the 2015 version (2nd part of the report), because they actually managed to test the radar.
Nic
Nicolas10If your definition is to cross the sound barrier in military power, then I don’t know if the Rafale can do it. Maybe the typhoon can, but it would be much more fuel efficient to use afterburner to go over mach 1 and turn it off once out of transonic region.
So whatever definition you want to use, in the end the only important factor is max speed in military power, and it’s pretty much aknowledged that the Typhoon supercruises faster than the Rafale.
Nic
Nicolas10You mean that pdf released on the Paris Airshow website? That document which states things like:
Combat radius: 3700 km
Cruise speed: Mach 1.8+etc.? That was a bad joke and I wouldn’t wonder if Le Grande Troll managed to somehow get a badly compiled doc up there and presented it as “proof”.
Well whatever. Fox 3 quoting Rafale M pilots talk about a supercruising ability, and that’s enough for me if Dassault and the MN say so. Rafale M being heavier than Rafale C… if the M supercruises the C will supercruise too.
If you want to follow jackonicko and call Dassault or Rafale pilots liars be my guest.
Nic
Nicolas10Well you’re trying to make the fact that the SAF report doesn’t mention that the Rafale can supercruise proves that it can’t. That’s not logics, that’s wishful thinking.
Most readers here remember that supecruise statement on the Rafale data sheet, as it was talked about here extensively.
BTW every plane will use afterburner to cross the transonic region as it’s much more efficient than trying to go through it. The Concorde has an afterburner solely for that purpose. The F22 does that too. It’s got nothing to do with the capability for supercruise.
Nic
Nicolas10So Fox 3 – a Dassault PR publication – mentions Supercruise. Would Vortex, or Eurofighter World convince you as good sources, I wonder, Nic?
Personally I don’t dismiss Fox 3 out of hand. So, does it specify reaching and sustaining supersonic speed without using afterburner? Does it specify what loadout the Rafale carried when it achieved supercruise? Does it specify Mach 1.3?
If so, please point me at the issue and page number.
Mach 1.3 was, IIRC written on the datasheet next to the Rafale on the salon du bourget. Was for 4 AAM+ 1 tank if I remember right.
edit info for the paris air show confirmed by dassault, Mach 1.3 with 6 Mica and Mach 1.2 with 4 Mica + 1 1250l ank.
Nic
Nicolas10Funny enough that “not being mentioned” means crap when it comes to the Typhoon, but is ignored when it comes to the Rafale. Rafale’s supercruise capability isn’t mentioned in the Swiss report either, so must we conclude it can’t or isn’t worth to be mentioned? Every sword has to sides.;):p
You misunderstand me. They mention the Typhoon supercruise performance because they’re superior. They mention the PESA RBE2 because it is superior. It works both ways.
There is nothing in the report that states that the Rafale can’t supercruise or that the Captor is a ****ty radar.
Nic
Nicolas10MSphere
The magazine said that: “Either Rafale is sold at an inflated price for the French, or this is dumping, special discount under cost.”
Perhaps the magazine thought that this might be problematic under French law?
Or perhaps it’s not a matter of illegal subsidy, but of politically difficult or electorally dangerous subsidy?
But the core of the question was as to whether there had been a subsidy, I was less interested in its legality, and judging by the responses to this thread, that seems to have been the concern of most respondents.
French press (esp leftist) tries to undermine everything that’s related to France independance and sovereignty. Some jump at the Rafale program and call it a failure many times because it’s expensive and didn’t sell abroad. They don’t mind that France is a sovereign state. They wish France was just a region of a woldwide socialist country.
Nic
Nicolas10Nicolas, (fixed)
I’d meant to ask you. Where’s the evidence of Rafale reaching and sustaining supersonic speed without afterburner, and with a proper A-A weapons loadout? If it can do it now then why could it not be demonstrated in Singapore? If Rafale had demonstrated Mach 1.3 supercruise in Switzerland, you can be sure that the Swiss report would have said so. The authors of that report wanted Rafale, and had Typhoon’s advantage been that slender they’d have said so. I don’t believe that Rafale demonstrated supercruise in Switzerland at all (do, please, prove me wrong).
Fox 3 documents from dassault mention the Rafale supercruises. That’s enough for me. Maybe it couldn’t in Singapore because of weather conditions, and I don’t know whether it did in Swizerland. The SAF mentionned the M1.4 supercruise capability of the typhoon because it is impressive. Since the Rafale can’t beat that there’s no reason to mention it in the report, just like captor M wasn’t mentionned (as opposed to PESA RBE2) and yet is a very capable radar.
Nic
Nicolas10But I am certainly not holding my breath, this entire thread and its very title are only one additional wind up on your part. That goes with your insulting several persons in this thread (calling them halfwits et al). I suppose that since you are english, that is fine for the mods.
I am waiting.
Not only that but his alter ego writes for air international
Nicolas10If you could show us this in the 16 pages of this part of the evaluation that was not shown I would be very grateful.
By definition, any competition has weighting. In this example, we have no idea about the height, number of opposition etc.
Yes, but kovy was replying to a post where the author said the weighting was for the uncertainty of systems that had yet to be developped. He was right pointing out that the RBE2 PESA and Captor M were both operational for some time when the test flying was made. There were probably weighting parameters, but not for uncertainty since both radars were in service and operational
Nic
Nicolas10Snafu,
Most of what you characterise as my personal opinions are facts.
Yes Rafale is closer to getting an operational AESA, but Typhoon is catching up and will have a vastly superior AESA when it does. FACT
Except at the rate things are going, who will finance the AESA? Which country will get it first? Most Eurofighter countries are trying to get rid of the things through export contracts. Losing MMRCA is a serious blow to the chances of seeing a Typhoon with an AESA anytime soon except on a test aircraft. The Rafale could get side AESA arrays at the same time the typhoon gets its own AESA radar.
And bigger radar doesn’t translate in superior technology. So while the typhoon AESA will be bigger, it will not necessarily be better. The swiss eval clearly proved that bigger range doesn’t translate in better radar. BTW all those countries who have tried the RBE2 AESA have been impressed by it. Who has tried the Captor E? Nobody.
I know it’s your job to repeat silly stuff enough so that people start do believe it, but the lie is just too big.
But Typhoon’s performance is superior and always will be, FACT
Not sure. The Rafale is going to be in service about 40 years in two major air forces, it is bound to be upgraded. The typhoon? We’ll see about that. A 90KN engine is ready for the Rafale, in a few years it could be proposed with decent MTBO and become a viable option for an MLU.
and Typhoon can supercruise with ease. FACT
At about 0.1 mach more than the Rafale. Whoopdeedoo.
Typhoon has a better MMI FACT giving a lower pilot workload FACT, and its advantage in this area will stretch further ahead when P1E enters service FACT.
Please do tell what features exactly give it better MMI. Except DVI which is available on Rafale should a customer order it.
Typhoon has a world-leading helmet FACT, and a great IRST FACT. Rafale has neither FACT (save the handful of original and admittedly obsolete OSF sets FACT).
haha typhoon gives good helmet for sure. BTW the SAF report rates also the OSF as one of the strong points of the Rafale (along with PESA RBE2). No mention of Pirate for some reason 😮
This is so funny. You’ve been parroting the same thing for years, but EVERY single news that come out of the various evals, exerices, interview prove your wrong time and time again. I wonder how you still have the guts to come here repeating the same BS again.
The Tranche 2 production contract shows a definite UPC for Typhoon of €55 m. FACT
I think F16A with amraam capability was probably much cheaper than F16C block52+, but feel free to compare the cost of a multirole Rafale to a air to air typhoon 😎
As to the rest, if anyone’s a stirrer, it’s you. I posted reporting that a French paper had said that France had proposed to India to sell its Rafale at bargain prices.
You then made a big deal about my sources, which were irrelevant in this case. Le Canard Enchainé said what my source said it did.
This is a lame political leftist paper, and definately not a serious military or aviation paper. Their articles are tainted by their own leftist political agenda.
But you choose to personalise this and to attack me personally, rather than answering or challenging my substantive points.
lol
The sad thing is that the overall point is not that both programs have delivered the capabilities the users specified to date, it’s that the Typhoon programme should have set more ambitious targets for capability delivery, and that by failing to do so, it has compromised the aircraft’s export appeal.
Should have but hasn’t. Net result: Rafale > Eurofighter.
Nic
Nicolas10Typhoon’s MMI is more advanced –> CONFIRMED BY THE SWISS
Not too hard since the Typhoon MMI has to work for half the functions that the Rafale MMI has to.
BTW the Typhoon MMI is so good that in Libya, the RAF typhoon could do the whole range of ground attack missions despite being trained primarily in air to air. Oh snap 😮
Typhoon’s radar is much better (even if mechanical) –> Widely acknowledged, though of course an electronically scanned radar enjoys some huge advantages in particular areas
By you and Jon Lake, who are the same person quoting eachother to prove their points. Convenientissimo.
Fact is the Swiss mention the PESA RBE2 is very good and make no mention of the captor. So in officialdom, only the RBE2 is proven superior. In lame journalism/propagandism world though, the captor is supposedly superior because Range > All
Typhoon’s DASS is superior to anything except ALR-94 –> Wasn’t true in 2008, certainly
And probably still isn’t for a long while.
Typhoon has unmatched hi-speed maneuvrability –> Only a fool would have disagreed
Better kinematics certainly (acceleration, supercruise, altitude). Manoeuvrability has yet to be proven even at those high speeds. Nice try to make kinematics pass as manoeuvrability though.
Typhoon is much cheaper –> I recall an awful lot of people claiming that Rafale was much cheaper. The official numbers show the relative costs to be very close, though Rafale was offered much more cheaply in India, though on the basis of what two of the committee thought were unvalidated assumptions
Consistent claims from india mention 15-25% less cost, and for the better platform no less. That is indeed much cheaper, and not compliant with the less than 5% difference.
Nic
Nicolas10Hmm seems you may have missed the bit where the evaluation was subject to a capability weighting that measured the maturity of the proposed aircraft upgrades and reduced the capability in relation to the maturity level at time of test, and not the final capability level of the upgrades..
i.e. if your proposed upgrade was more mature your capability was given a higher score, less mature penalised the capability score.
That weighting if removed and showed the actual upgraded capability as planned may reverse the recommendations of the technical evaluation.
Cheers
Check again please: the first part of the evaluation tests the airplanes as they were flown in the testing. IE RBE2 PESA vs Captor. They conclude that the RBE2 PESA is a superb radar, and they don’t even mention the performance of the captor, despite how outstanding it should be according to jackonicko.
quote from the evaluation report:
the strong points of the Rafale were the quality of its sensors, such as the PESA radar, the frontal optronics and the EW suite SPECTRA…
No mention of the captor at all, so I guess it’s not that outstanding after all.
Only the second phase of the report compares the AESA RBE2 project, to the riskier Captor E project, and weights the risk of both in the grades. However the first part is a direct comparison between PESA RBE2 and Captor, which were both operational.
Nic
Nicolas104) Is opinion, but it’s a widely held opinion. The original PESA RBE-2 was a technological dead end, and not a great performer. I’m afraid that the other points are simply fact, Buddy.
Held by mainstream UK defense “journalists”?
Not held by the swiss air force if we are to believe the technical evaluation report.
Nic
Nicolas10BTW shouldn’t we factor in airframe life in the cost. If a plane gets an airfraime life of 7000 hours, while the other gets a service
life of 6000 hours, shouldn’t we factor in the cost per flying hour?
Or should we do like the cost of the development (and overcost for every navy airframe) of a naval version, and just forget about it?
Nic
Sign In
