Originally Posted by Pepe Rezende
By the way, FAB papers shows that Rafale, at attack configuration,
has 1% of F/A-18E/F radar signature at similar conditions…
I said the Rafale signature was 99% lower at FULL LOAD configuration.
I’m not only a journalist, I’m a Brazilian Legislative Government officer.

Pepe meant that the SH has twice the RCS of Rafale at full load (100% = x2) .
It is probably accurate as far as I am concerned .

Cheers .

jackonicko :

(TMor’s an exceptionally bright young man, and I’m sure that he’ll spot them)

While TMor is a very clever bloke , he is surely not the only one to spot the rubbish and the few good points written in that BS report , if I may say 🙂
I am going to talk about the only good point against the Rafale (yes , there is one) . The Dassault fighter ‘s electrical power generation system is just enough to run the actual plane (with RBE2-AA) and the Dassault/Thalès plan to introduce Aesa cheek arrays will need a new electrical system .
The Thalès Airborne Electronic Attack pod (AEA) will also need some good “juice” .

About the rest , well … , Abhijit Iyer-Mitra is clueless …

Cheers .

Mildave :

Come on a plane doesn’t have to be carrier capable to be multi-role

I say the opposite ! : a carrier capable aircraft has to be multirole . It is what I said , Mildave .

Jackonicko :

In anti-tank ops, Brimstone will give Typhoon an advantage.

Who ‘s gonna get the Brimstone first , Typhoon or Rafale ? Bets are on …

In electronic attack, the bigger Typhoon AESA promises an advantage.

Very marginal if any . Dish size and numbers of modules are only one part of the equation (like output power) , most is done through software .
Anyway , “promises, promises” … For now , the radar is nowhere to be seen , sorry to say .

Overall , I understand what you are saying and you indeed never said that the Typhoon was a better mud mover than the Rafale . I had it in mind all of the time when I responded to you .

Better, in the view of the RAF, than sacrificing one of the MRAAMs.

Which shows again where the emphasis is : AtoA . And btw , the RAF has a strange way of thinking 😮 Any pilot will happily swap a missile for a ton or two of fuel .

Cheers .

@Mildave : +1
@H_K : +2

I begin to wonder if Jackonicko is just misinformed , or trolling . I guess it ‘s the first option , at least I hope so .

Anyway , when you look with an unbiaised eye at both fighters and compare them in AtoG tasks , you can see that one is tailored for and the other not . You don ‘t cheat with aerodynamics , with fuel management and with engines . Onboard systems are also to be considered .
Then , looking at the available (and possible) armory is an eye opener . How the various loads can be carried is also another eye opener . As an example , sacrifying the central fuel tank to fit the LDP is telling … Etc , etc …
I said for ages that I can ‘t see the Typhoon superior to the Rafale in any AtoG tasks I can think of and I rest my case . 😎

Cheers .

I believe a little reminder is needed , a sort of “taps on top of the head” (Benny Hill style :D)

To start with , no Paveway with or without kit(s) can be compare to the AASM .
With the AASM , we are talking about a very different kind of weapon designed with a very different goal in mind . It was designed to work where a GBU (LGB or else) can ‘t work . The AASM can be fired when flying rather low in a valley and it will gain altitude , go over the crest and hit the target hidden behind . Paveways and LGBs can ‘t .
The AASM is a kind of very short range small cruise missile which fits perfectly with some French low level penetration tactics = it has been designed for ! Could some posters keep that “onboard” , please ? 😎

So far , the weapon has been used in its most basic way , from medium to high altitude in clear sky and on fixed targets . So some people scream “hey , a GBU or a Paveway can do that too ! . Of course they can .
But it ‘s all they can do , they can ‘t do more .
The AASM is not just about having a better range , fired at a medium stand-off range but also having new capabilities . It is now also capable to hit a fast moving target with close proximity laser designation (from ground Operatives) . This in itself shows how accurate the guidance system is , keeping in mind that the weapon is unpowered at this time . In France , we call such archievement a “Tour de Force” , in english a Feat .
Videos are often better than words :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ_Y7P4bBa8

But this capability is the sherry on the cake , without it , the weapon is still a powerfull “spear” helping the low observability concept of Rafale (firing undetected , ie from the bottom of a valley) .

So , one can understand that the combo Spectra-AASM is a formidable threat to any SAM network and it is why the Rafale can do SEAD-DEAD .
Basicaly , if you want to penetrate and kill stuff , don ‘t use Typhoons if Rafales are available .

Cheers .

Kovy :

Workers don’t grow on trees. You first need students and teachers to form them. So teachers do create values… yet indirectly and students are the next generation workers. They are of primary importance.

Yes they all are , no doubt . They are the futur , but J Boyle said :

But without entrepreneurs to create jobs, wealth, and opportunities (and pay taxes) a country can’t thrive.

and I can only agree with him . The French “left” always forget that the wealth and economy of the country is driven by the ones who make things happen and not by the “workers” themselves . While they are part of the overall effort , it is not them who fund the growth .
Here is my motto :
When a nation is on a bad slope , give the command to the “Right” because they know how to make money then , when the Nation is rich , give the command to the “left” to make sure that everything is shared fairly .

The French people made a mistake by electing F. Holland . 😮
But I wish Him luck and I hope He will do a good job .

Cheers .

I ‘m learning few good bits here , outstanding work I have to say 🙂

Cheers .