Well I suppose that’s fine then. I was looking at it from the perspective of a possible customer, like say the IAF.

I agree, which is why I said that many of the features that are available on the Rafale aren’t used by the AdlA/MN either because they don’t need them, or because they don’t have the money for them.

I’m making a fair assumption that CFTs are a good deal more aerodynamic than drop tanks.

I agree that CFTs are much more aerodynamic than regular fuel tanks, but in the configuration we were talking about, each fighter was to carry the same numbers of CFTs and of fuel tanks. So one bigger tank doesn’t translate as much more drag than if you just replaced the tank by a CFT, and IMHO it may just be compensated by the 2 bigger CFTs.

Again if we were talking 2 CFT vs 2 ET I’d agree completely.

Also IIRC, the Eurofighter can carry 2 x 2000L tanks but they were never operationalized because a strong emphasis was laid on the performance of the aircraft. 1000L are cleared for supersonic flight while the 2000L tanks aren’t. That’s good indicator of the drag created by each. Should at least be enough to compensate for 300kg of fuel.

I’m not sure such supersonic ET have limitations because of drag only. If it was that, I suppose they could be clear for whatever speed the aircraft managed to reach with them. I think it’s more due to weight constraints, especially at high speed and high load factors. There was an article in defensenews (I think) that said the Rafale could cruise at mach 0.9 with 6 AASM and 2X 2000L tanks at 50% throttle, so drag doesn’t seem to be THAT bad, and it’s pretty certain it could go well over Mach 1 with those tanks if they wanted to.

We may still see 2000L on the EF in the future as it starts taking over the Tornado’s role in the RAF and Luftwaffe.

I suppose they could fit some underwing, but where do you put the storm shadows then?

Assuming there is an escorting aircraft with an LDP, the EF should be able to carry 8 PGMs as well – 4 Paveway-IVs on pylons, and another 4 on racks (on the two wetpoints) in addition to 4 Meteors + 2 ASRAAMs.

True but that is not ideal. And the other plane can’t be your wingman, or else he needs to carry either 1000L less or 1000L more, so your pair of AC doesn’t carry the same range. Unless they make an asymetrical loadout with a 1000L tank on one side, and a multi bomb rack on the other side. Actually, I think it would look awesome.

Actually its 6 AASMs + (optional) 6 AASMs that was puzzling (at least it sounded like that was what you were saying). I assume the 4 wetpoints are too close together to equip each with 3 x AASM?

Well after watching some pics I don’t think you could fit 12 AASM. I’m not sure but there doesn’t seem to be enough room to fit them there. Maybe they could fit 3+2 on each side if you remove the AASM on one side of the rack for a total of 10, which wouldn’t be too shabby.

Nic

BTW

It can carry an ASMP/A

Good luck matching that one too :diablo:

Nic

After furious googling, it appears that the Typhoon has a max payload of 7,5 tons, so good luck matching something even remotely similar, even if the landing gear and pylons layout allowed it 🙂

Nic

I remember reading a post from Arthuro (or was it you?), that quoted an AdlA
as deciding the ability to carry more than 6 PGMs had limited utility.

Yes and AdlA also don’t want to order more powerful engines because they don’t find the need for them… AdlA didn’t order CFTs, because they don’t see any use for them, they don’t want to carry 3 storm shadows because they see two as enough… we’re not talking what AdlA wants, but the potential of both fighters.

Comparable fuel load – 4000L (EF) vs 4300L(Rafale) but with lower drag especially at high velocities.

Drag wouldn’t change that much, okay the fuel tank would be smaller on the EF, but the CFTs will be bigger on the EF. I don’t know how you can tell there would necessarily be lower drag on one. Not saying it isn’t, but I don’t know how you can be so sure.

I’m a little fuzzy here – how does this work? The Rafale has 13 hardpoints for munitions. Centre tank + 6 AASM + 4 AAMs leaves two pylons for either the GBU-24s or AAMs.

Center tank
6 AASM or EPWII (3 on each middle wing hardpoint)
2 GBU 24 (1 on each inboard wing hardpoint instead of the usually carried fuel tank)
2 Meteors (1 on each fuselage hardpoint)
1 Damoclès LDP on its dedicated pylon
2 Mica / Meteor (if possible) (1 on each outboard wing pylon)
2 Mica IR (1 on each wingtip pylon)

You are confused because the outboard wing pylons are never carried, AGAIN because up to now the AdlA didn’t feel the need for them. There was talk of integrating laser guided rockets on those, or AAMs. And since they are talking about integrating brimstone, those hardpoints would be perfect to carry two brimstones instead of the AAMs.

Nic

well mica is Bvr but its not comparable to the meteor. were talking 40k range differnce.

True, I’m not saying they’re comparable nor did I suggest anything remotely similar, but for self defense with such a huge loadout, 2 meteors and 4 Micas are nothing to sneer at. It’s pretty much like carrying two meteor and 4 AMRAAMs, only more agile and with an IR version available.

Nic

I wasn’t making that comparison (ref: OPIT). I was drawing parallels between an ideal configuration of CFTs + centre tank for each aircraft, and making an assumption that further addition of fuel tanks was unnecessary.

Even then, there would still be more volume to carry more stuff on the 4 wet hardpoints of the Rafale. Heck with CFTs and a 2000L tank you could probably carry six AASM and a big load of brimstones and still have 6 BVRAAM and your laser designation pod.

Or four storm shadows

Or 6 250 KG AASM and 2 1000 KG AASM
Nic

But again you forget the fact that every serial Rafale is ALREADY plumbed for CFTs, and it’s only a matter of purchasing them to start using them.

I do believe that CFTs have yet to be integrated to the Typhoon though… but even if they are to, I don’t understand why you would want to compare a Typhoon with CFTs to a Rafale without CFTs.

Nic