lukosLeaving aside the powerpoint acronyms and definition of operational; anything equipped with Storm Shadow can offer a VLO strike capability.
Anything that purports to be modern and built within the last 15 years has RWR, MAWS and most have IRST and FLIR.
Electronic attack using the AESA radar is relatively new on the scene; I had read somewhere that the AdlA were intending to use the RBE2 for electronic attack. Can’t find it now though.
Very limited analysis. Storm Shadow offers VLO strike but at what range, if the target is over 1000km inside enemy territory, then it can’t.
And they’ve had radar since the 1940s. Does that make a Do-217 equivalent to AESA? There are many RWR and MAWS technologies out there and they don’t offer the same capability as EODAS and ASQ-239. IRST is forward looking only, both EODAS and EOTS are multi-directional. EOTS is equivalent to having IRST on a swashplate mount. Do any other aircraft incorporate them on a VLO platform? Nope.
And the Rafale’s radar is small and its RCS relatively large, so guess which aircraft wins that game.
lukosit’s something you don’t know, and then, HCMS isn’t some kind of magic that just obliterates the target as soon as you look its way… it’s a bit more complicated than that… again , you have some reading to do.
Nope. I never said it worked like that at all, but even the ability to aim at targets all across the frontal hemisphere is a massive advantage over HUD.
good, so you’ll get a cruise anti-ship missile.. remind me, what does it have with:
– aircraft update – you can hang it under any aircraft once the integration is done.. however, I wonder how the separation will work with the SH, considering they already had to put canted pylons for smaller stuff. On the Rafale, for example, they started working on the possibility to integrate GaN modules into the skin of the aircraft for example… now, if (or I should say “when” ) they pull that one off, try to imagine for a second the capability of what would become pretty much a radar antenna limited only by the size of the surface of the aircraft and your ability to provide power to it . For now nobody can say here how far the study went or what it will really bring, but that is an upgrade to the aircraft itself, not a weapon that has little to nothing to do with the aircraft
– swiss market… the biggest water surface in Switzerland is the Leman lake, hardly something where they’ll need a long range anti ship missile
Next generation jammer is on the cards. Please, conformal radar on the Rafale isn’t funded and is at study stage, which means it’s roughly where Taranis is, also at study stage. Hell, even whatever they’re doing with the BAE Replica is at ‘study’ stage. Offering that as being applicable to the Swiss contract is like offering the nEUROn, Taranis or Replica for it.
again, go read… one example:
you have a quote in obligatory’s signature: “the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
-Robert L Shaw”
And that’s factually based on what. It’s a common misconception based on a missile having to follow the direct path of an aircraft which is a massively flawed assertion that the correct of mind can reason out for themselves. If that were the case, there’d never have been a single missile kill in history. Because the aircraft’s speed is so low relative to the missile, even with much higher deg/s turning, they don’t actually move much in the remnant time before intercept and the missile, closing at 5 times their speed, only has to adjust course very slightly.
now, according to that rule, and considering that the missile can pull 50G during it’s propulsion phase and that ability decreases rapidly once it’s in the ballistic phase, the 9G Rafale stands a correct (and increasing) chance of evading it as soon as the available G for the missile drop below 45G.. and the further it drops (as the missile slows down) the bigger the chance to evade it. for the SH the same limit will be around 38G only which will be quite a longer distance away from the shooter – the NEZ for the SH as a target is bigger than a 9G fighter (Rafale, Typhoon, F-16; F-15, F-35, and so on…
The rule’s wrong. You need to be more skeptical about what you read. A 9g Rafale – at what altitude? It won’t be 9g at 11,000m, whereas the missile’s speed increases at altitude because its thrust is anaerobic and therefore available lift increases, keeping manoeuvrability more consistent. Misses are nearly always related to energy and guidance rather than manoeuvrability.
lukosArmée de l’Air did not buy HMD, But it is available for export. In fact it was a request for MMRCA. Are you sure it is not integrated?
Well you’re the only modern airforce not using it.
lukosThanks for so neatly illustrating my points. Do you expect payment for such a good job?
Another ridiculous response as per usual.
Yes really. The post you have linked to shows criticism not hatred. Your inability to distinguish the two is pathetic. Grow up.
Well then you should be able to take criticism of the Rafale and distinguish that form hatred instead of crying about it. After all people only mentioned the small radar, lack of swash-plate and relatively poor acceleration and climb.
Claiming that the operations in Libya were some great success for Rafale (and Typhoon, Tornado, or any other type involved for that matter) means nothing. A Vietnam era Skyraider would have probably been just as successful, while costing a minute fraction of the aformentioned types.
Precisely.
Yes of course, because it doesn’t justify the F-35 does it. Yawn.
Well are we designing new planes and capabilities to take on ’70s/’80s ADSs?
lukosI don’t hate nor the Typhoon nor the F35. Both have their own strenghts and limitations. And unlike you I don’t spend my life on other aircrafts thread to bash, bash and bash. I can criticize but that’s certainly not my main motive like the trio of hatters we have here.
Oh really?
Yes, but you must admit its still funny. Not least because you know you’re in trouble if the SH is your yardst
Ha, well actually several of your comrades have, hence why the F-35 thread is currently closed, so I guess the debate has to take place here.
F3-R next standard is already flying on experimental plane at CEAM (Centre d’Expérimetations Air Mont de MArsan) and will be delivered to forces in 2018.
And that doesn’t in any way counter any of my points. No planned AESA RF-attack capability.
You were also guilty of disrupting the F-35 thread:
That is indeed rich. Addressing wild claim or tendencious questionning of FAF operation in lybia,is not destroying the threads it is indeed sanitizing it.Even recall inviting to debate in another thread, but to no avail, the very same kept putting coins in the jukebox, so one may look in the mirror before playing the blame game.
Oh BS, go read the last 10 pages of the F-35 thread, and you’ll see the usual Rafale suspects infecting the thread before I even joined it. Like you were on page 35 before Libya even came up along with assertions that the USN and their EA-18G weren’t able to take on the 1980s Libyan air defences as well as the Rafale and Spectra and therefore needed cruise missiles. You call that sanitisation? If that’s santisation, then so is defecating in a sink.
lukosIn no way do I hate the F-35. It will eventually be a decent mid 2010’s strike fighter. Sometime in the 2020’s.
Some, including me, see this as being slightly problematic for a number of reasons.
So you don’t hate the F-35 but you do? What operational fighter currently (mid-2010s) offers VLO strike capability with VLO-equipped EODAS, EOTS and 1676 module AESA radar with RF attack? There just isn’t anything even remotely that capable. There is currently no VLO strike fighter anywhere in the world with incorporated EOTS and EODAS. That’s just a plain fact that your willful ignorance and hatred allows you to deliberately disregard. You act like the whole RCS part isn’t a big deal, when it simply is, even after detection, if your RCS is 100 times less, jamming is far easier and that goes for aircraft and missile radar.
lukosthe RCS isn’t a single value, you may have 0.1m² from the front and a lot more from a more lateral view. as for the HMCS, considering the costs to introduce it and the weight of materials when it was worked upon, it was decided to put it to a side.. not worth it, I’m not the one saying it, the French officials do. besides, if it was such a game changer, the hornets would’ve wiped the floor with the Rafales every time they met.. guess what.. it didn’t happen
And of course you have evidence that the Rafale’s RCS is less, even though the F-18E can from a country with stealth technology? If they were using the JHMCS the F-18Es would have wiped the floor with Rafales. You can’t win against HMCS in a dogfight without one, it’s physically impossible. My guess is they were doing back-to-basics dogfighting as practice, HUD-only.
we’ll see how many upgrades it gets once the production chain is stopped
It’s due to get LRASM for a start.
er, go read a bit about flying, relation between G-load and turning and so on… you may learn things and avoid post such nonsense
You can’t pull more g than a 50g missile, so it’s irrelevant.
I’m sorry, those numbers are not even remotely comparable with each other.
Based on what?
lukosCheapest according to whom?
Official prices, even Gripen C cost more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale
lukos“similar maintenance” is something you don’t do in aeronautics.. your people go through training for the aircraft they have to maintain. You can say it has a bigger radar, it also may have quite a bigger RCS with all the angles around it, negating any eventual advantage it may provide. as for “key technologies”, what does count is that you can do the job, and until now, helmet cueing system for the Rafale development has been put on stand by, considered that its benefits weren’t worth the cost and strain on pilots under G-loads. If a customer wants one, it can be integrated.
Does it have a bigger RCS. All RCS estimates have been ~0.1m^2, which is at least as good as a Rafale. HMCS benefits not worth the costs? LOL. Much like the Meteor 2-way datalink LOL. Case of higher-hanging fruit I think.
Besides, the SH also has a slight timing problem, if the Swiss start making their evaluation by 2017, it will be out of production several years before it is eventually ordered, making it somewhat complicated to put into service. What’s more, an aircraft that is out of production, and whose main user (USN) won’t buy anymore while they move progressively to their next platform has little chance to get a lot of new upgrades.
The F-18E/F will still be supported with upgrades until the F/A-XX, it isn’t due to be replaced by the F-35, which replaces the F-16, F-18A-D and AV-8B.
The Rafale, on the other side, while somewhat costlier to buy has a lower fuel consumption (over the life of the aircraft it may very well catch up the costs), better aerodynamics, higher G-load available and brings also several options that may appeal to swiss general public, like opening of french air space for training of the swiss pilots, reducing the nuisances for the swiss in the same time
Higher g-load without HMCS is no use.
lukosWith the recent rafale successes following the positive feedbacks from past technical evaluations, rafale haters like lukos, mig 31 bm and Vnomad felt compelled to perform their usual rafale bashing and jumped in the rafale news thread. There is so much jealousy behind this…Spending so much time to downplay rafale performance really means they feel unease about the rafale and their so called “certitudes”.
They know that their rhetoric does not match reality since many countries ranked the rafale highly in their technical evaluation and now with those exports order it makes them mad. Just like the reports from international exercises. They will use rhetoric, irony and other lame arguments to counter this idea, but this is so evident that it is not even worth answering. Their obsession against the rafale speaks for itself.
I mean supporting an aircraft A or B is one thing, but when you spend so much time and energy to bash the rafale, its certain that the psychological aspect is very important.
But I take it as a testament of rafale achievements. Certainly this is better than being ignored as it cannot be ignored actually.
I am reading this thread with pop corn smiling at the resentment and the jealousy against the rafale knowing this is the clear mark of its success. A great feeling of satisfaction. I wish I could participate more but I currently lack the time to be fully in. Anyway a lot of fun.
That’s rich coming from an affirmed Typhoon/F-35/non-Rafale hater. I seem to remember that until recently a lot of Rafale people were destroying the F-35 thread and managed to get it closed yet again! Any resentment there I wonder?
Nah, actually, we only start to come here after tired of Rafale lover like Xman, Msphere, Snapfu35, ToolCool_sf, Halloween constantly
come to F-35, EF-2000 thread and perform their usual bashing
Spot on accurate.
lukosRafale’s development is faster even today and most likely always will be. By the time the forthcoming upgrades of the Typhoon will have come “to turn the situation around completely”, the Rafale will have made another two steps ahead. When it comes to overall capabilities, Typhoon is doomed to spend all its life looking at Rafale’s exhaust nozzles, so it seems.
Incorrect, the next Rafale upgrade is due late this decade and the Typhoon update is due in the next few years. The proposed Rafale update is nowhere near as extensive because they’ve already near max’d out radar capability and there are no plans or ability to use a swash-plate mount and AESA RF warfare capacity isn’t due in the next update, it was referred to as a long term thought, and even then, guess what, limited by the smaller radar again. Ultimately, for any given technology level, the Typhoon is the better airframe physically, no way of changing that without building a new aircraft.
Looking at Rafale’s exhaust nozzles? Now I’d love to see that in the actual air is an acceleration of climb contest. I think we know who would win there.
lukosRafale is supposed to be capable to operate on STOBAR carriers – nothing tested however, I’d give you that.
Not my fault if RN chose the least capable variant of the all 3 tho.
Depends on scenario. There are definitely cases where VSTOL is better. Rough seas, especially with smaller carriers, and forward operating bases with unprepared runways.
Fact is : what the F-35A/C can do, the Rafale can do too, lessen low observability, which are, again, negated when it comes to deep strike or long loiter time missions.
BS.
lukosPlease do not reverse history.
The Eurofighter team did not booted France – France booted the Eurofighter and the launched ACX combat aircraft program instead, resulting in a much more capable aircraft, be it at its IOC or at the present day, and successfully doing 7 former French aircrafts’ job, plus more.
Much more capable in who’s opinion? Avionics can be easily upgraded, the physical structure of the aircraft can’t. Call it being booted, call it throwing the teddy out of the pram, same difference.
Rafale held the F-35 promises more than 10 years before its IOC, and promises that the Eurofighter will probably never fulfill.
That doesn’t even make sense.
“but the forthcoming upgrades will turn that around completely and show the Typhoon as the higher performing aircraft that it is.”
Yeah, bla bla bla, pure speculation..
You had fairly rational arguments (yet wrong) but now you start to spite some nonsense and “in the future, Eurofighter will probably, maybe, potentially, be better.. nah!” things. That’s very significant. Maybe did you forget that Dassault Aviation, as well as its military and civilian partners were still working on the Rafale, with F3R and upcoming standards ? 😉
Plain and simple fact, higher TWR, ramped intakes, recessed BVRAAM carriage, retractable IFR probe, better engine performance at high-AoA, larger radome. Once the Captor-E radar 2 is in place, you have a way more advanced radar, with more T/R modules, more capability and swash-plate mounting. Factor in SPEAR for SEAD and you just have a whole range of air-superiority and SEAD capability that the Rafale can’t get anywhere near with RBE2-AA and AASM. The capability gap will be massive.
lukosSure… the Rafale is today at something like 280 orders (only India’s remain to be signed) plus several dozens of options, all from Dassault assembly chain in France alone. Your 500 aircraft spread over 4 factory chains that’s 125 per country on average, when you get 300 per country (where the Rafale is headed, talk
India yet to be signed? After 3 years.:highly_amused: Enjoy the short reprieve before Captor-E radar 2. Those countries don’t need 300 Typhoons because they’re getting a 5th generation stealth fighters, meanwhile France will be left with an airforce that’s completely outdated by 2020 consisting of Rafales and Mirages.
lukoshttp://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/04/21/report-europes-airbus-wins-polish-chopper-deal/26122175/
alea iacta est
EC725? That’s no even an attack helicopter?
That’s the Mi8 replacement competition, Airbus won it with the Caracal. This topic is about the future replacement of the Mi24.
Oh, I see.
Sign In
