By: Aurel
- 30th April 2005 at 22:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1 Rafale F3 = 52 millions.
1 German tranche Eurofighter =50 millions (68 aircraft, contract volume € 3,4 billion) Even if I repeat myself, could you please provide any information what is included in the French F3 order ?
The RAfale F3 is already lower than the Typhoon.
How can you make it go down by pouring more money into that program ?
Simply because that money that is now invested is laughable in comparison to the sums that had to be paid off with tranche 1 and 2. And I'm speaking about fly away prices, not global program costs.
Yes, the mecanical one.
What does the shark care about being the oldfashioned design compared to the seal. We know who wins this fight.
I fear it's a bit more complicated.
Uhh, yes ? The Typhoon's radar has more range and is the only one with a third processing channel to deal with ECM. It's supersonic performance is better and it got more internal fuel. Additionally it got a towed decoy to improve it's defenses in BVR combat. The AMRAAM is longer ranged than the MICA. In close combat the (German) typhoonpilot got the Libelle flight suit, which improves g-tolerance significantly. The rafalepilot got a HMS, while the typhoonpilot got HMCS. In favour of the Rafale is the MICA IR as medium range IR-missile. Unknown factors are the effectiveness of their respective ECM/ECCM systems. All together there is more in favour of the Typhoon then vice versa.
Better range and better playload are nothing ?
Did I say nothing ? But what is it with this better (theoretical) payload ?
Is there any realistic configuration where we get into trouble with the maximum loadout of the Typhoon ? It is able to deliver the same ordnance as the Tornado + 3-4 additional BVRAAMS. Seems to be enough for our needs.
And the longer range ? Hm, as long as we don't fly CAPs over central siberia the ferryrange is long enough. Completely sufficient to visit the States, buy some new sunglasses in the local BX and spend some time at the local cultural highlights. (For example the Le Girl's in Phoenix :D )
@ Phil
You got some points, but what got the Rafale to do with a more unified Europe ? The Typhoon is the European Fighter, while the Rafale is to a certain extend a venture of Dassault. And if we look at Singapore or Saudi Arabia, then the decisions made by Dassault seem to proof right. They had their "big" fighter, the Mirage 4000. It didn't sell, so the conclusion of Dassault was to build a efficient, small multirole fighter. The British asked for a larger Radar, the Germans for excellent shortrun and climbing characteristics. So the larger Radar caused a larger fighter, larger engines and didn't fit therefore in Dassault's vision of the small, exportable multirole fighter.
From that perpective, that lightweight fighter became pretty fat and expansive. (And of course capable, but this is another story)
New
Posts: 181
By: Castor
- 1st May 2005 at 01:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If we speak about unified Europe, both the brits and the french should learn from the germans. They aren't anywhere near as nationalistic as the others.
By: glitter
- 1st May 2005 at 02:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1 German tranche Eurofighter =50 millions (68 aircraft, contract volume € 3,4 billion) Even if I repeat myself, could you please provide any information what is included in the French F3 order ?
Since I'm totally drunk, I will provide you an answer tomorrow.
Moderators, feel free to delete this post :D
New
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder
- 1st May 2005 at 08:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is that assembly or production line, Phil? :D :D :D
Let's just be thankful we don't have 10.2% unemployment :diablo:
Steve
:diablo: Let's be thankful that we don't have the 2nd rate education system, the 3rd healthcare system and the transport infrastructure that is beyond rating :diablo:
By: Phil Foster
- 1st May 2005 at 09:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You got some points, but what got the Rafale to do with a more unified Europe ?
Yep. Sorry I am losing the plot slightly now.
Phil :)
New
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder
- 1st May 2005 at 12:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Aurel.
The Typhoon's radar has more range and is the only one with a third processing channel to deal with ECM.
I’m not doubting the capability of Captor, but the RBE2 has exceptional ECM capabilities. The ECM protection architechture is quite different to that of Captor. The antennae is cryogenically cooled and very efficient and it’ offers simultaneous A2A and A2G capability that Captor realistically doesn’t. The captor radar plate simply cannot be rotated as quickly as can the RBE2 polariser. It just can’t (at least not reliably). The Captor has a greater range but the range of RBE2 matches that of the RDY which is highly regarded in the AdlA. French pilots regularly fly DACT against European and American adversaries and they’re most satisfied with the RDY- and RBE2 is just at the beginning of it’s long career. It’s 30% lighter than the RDY and occupies half the volume of RDY. BTW the RBE2 has Texas Instruments written all over it.
It's supersonic performance is better and it got more internal fuel
Yes, the Typhoon is a better supersonic performer than the Rafale- for reasons that I already mentioned and have never disputed. As regards fuel capacity the Typhoon does indeed carry more yet Rafale has the better fuel fraction.
The Towed Decoy is a good idea. Why can’t a TD be mounted on a Rafale?
In close combat the (German) Typhoon pilot got the Libelle flight suit, which improves g-tolerance significantly.
Now this really tickled me. The first solo flight of the Libelle was conducted in a M2k-5 and the first flight in a 4th Gen aircraft was in, you guessed it, a Rafale – ‘nuff said. You can look it up.
In favour of the Rafale is the MICA IR as medium range IR-missile. Unknown factors are the effectiveness of their respective ECM/ECCM systems.
Indeed true. The same goes for the AMRAAM which to date has been used against aircraft piloted by 2nd banana pilots belonging to the 3rd banana airforces of 4th banana countries.. I’m keen to remind you that originally the RAF were fairly underwhelmed by it’s capabilities. Obviously it has been improved over the years. When it is used against a trained opponent we’ll know more.
Is there any realistic configuration where we get into trouble with the maximum loadout of the Typhoon ? It is able to deliver the same ordnance as the Tornado + 3-4 additional BVRAAMS. Seems to be enough for our needs.
I agree. The Typhoon, together with the Tornado will make a good hi/medium mix. You can sleep easy.
As regards the “theoretical” advantage of the Rafale’s loadout it isn’t theoretical. The five hard/wet points of the Rafale give it a real advantage. It can carry 6000 litres externally, two Storm Shadows, four MICA’s and a Damocles pod. Typhoon simply cannot do that.
Phil, the Rafale /Typhoon (together with the F18E) debate has gone on for years here and protagonists on both sides have occasionally gone over the top. Have I done that? I don’t think so. You’ll correct me if I’m wrong- but show me the offending posts first.
BTW, you all underestimate the difficulties that would be encountered if the Typhoon were to be navalised. THAT intake cannot be navalised- it just can't. :D
By: danrh
- 1st May 2005 at 12:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I’m keen to remind you that originally the RAF were fairly underwhelmed by it’s capabilities. Obviously it has been improved over the years. When it is used against a trained opponent we’ll know more.
Are you referring to the less than inspiring performance of the AMRAAM on the F.3s prior to the F.3s receiving a datalink to allowing the full exploitation of the missiles performance?
By: ogami musashi
- 1st May 2005 at 12:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
puff:
In theory the configuration of the Eurofighter is best for supersonic than the rafale, however some little points makes it not so sure(remember the eurofighter is still in a limited supersonic performances era for safety concerns):
-First, the greater the instability, the greater the manoeuvrability, yes IF the fly by wire works well, if the air probes gives enough information to the FBW and if the aerodynamique devices don't waste to much time equilibrating the plane(in the case of the Sukhoi S-37/SU-47 the instability was so big than they had to make a long nose and big canards that nicked all their authority just making the plane able to flight level).
In the case of the EF2000 the FBW were, last time i saw the plane (in late 2004) not developped enought, the plane still had parasite movements.
Well, let's say than in supersonic it may be still superior, but for subsonic manoeuvrability the real advantage, at this time, are the engines that provide better Ps.
-While the eurofighter nose is pretty conventional, the rafale ones comprises a big lerx like.
It is my opinion that this one has to do with decreasing downwash from the canards onto the wing.
Then one has to remember that we're dealing with new generation planes , using new generation aerodynamics.
The truth will be know with the years, i may be wrong, but i'm pretty sure at least, thing are not as simple as the theory you mentionned.
New
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder
- 1st May 2005 at 16:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you referring to the less than inspiring performance of the AMRAAM on the F.3s prior to the F.3s receiving a datalink to allowing the full exploitation of the missiles performance?
Daniel
Yes but also before that. But as I said, things have changed.
Hi Ogami.
Typhoon is more agile than the Rafale at higher speeds, I'm sure of that.
As for the Su-37 you must remember that it is a development of the Su-27. The Typhoon has been a long coupled canard delta from the word go. The FCS has experienced problems but those are being ironed out. The thrust to weight ratio is only part of the equation- there isn't much difference between the Rafale and the Typhoon. This is especially true if you take into account the difference in weight between an AIM-120 sixpack and a MICA sixpack and if you factor in the same fuel fraction.
More generally, a point that I have made in the past but seems to be ignored is the fact that three of the four Typhoon partners are also buying the F35.
The Typhoon will face domestic competition as regards funding.
France is sticking to the Rafale. The avionics upgrades will also go into the Mirage 2000. That just has to be an advantage.
By: Aurel
- 1st May 2005 at 17:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@ Puffadder
Since you know all those advantages of an PESA you shurely know the disadvantages,too. At the moment, I think (this) mechanical antenna offers the better performance for a2a compared to a PESA.
Otherwise I agree with you. The PESA is a more flexible system.
I had wished we would get the AESA with batch 5 block 10, since this is the first batch which will be delivered to a fighter-bomber Sqadron (JaboG 31 "Boelcke").
I think it should have been introduced directly after the new mission computer.
But yes, as you already mentioned, there is the JSF and here the politicians can't delay payments for the development. :mad:
I fear somehow we will never see an AESA on our Typhoons. At least no retrofit to tranche 1 and 2 aircraft.
And now we are at this "priority for Europe"- point. Indeed it has nothing to do with Rafale, only with Typhoon and JSF. :(
New
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder
- 1st May 2005 at 20:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Aurel
As I said the ECR90 has greater range than the RBE2. It's a good radar but the AdlA and the Aeronavale needed a terrain-following capability and good mapping capabilities. And all of this in a package that would withstand carrier landings reliably. RBE2 does that.
IMHO the biggest mistake that Typhoon Inc made was not to go to the halfway solution ie. a passive array. They would then be able to add the active array at a later stage and it would probably be cheaper than modifying the Captor later- assuming that it can be modified. They say it can. Let's wait an see what happens.
The RBE2 architecture originated in the USA- from Texas Instruments actually (Thomson was a partner on the program). The USAF was considering going for a passive array but then dropped the idea and went "balls to the wall" for an active array. That's how the PESA technology migrated to France.
Let's face it- they're the only ones who could actually pay for the development.
It may well happen that Germany is left out in the cold because the others are investing in the F35 whose costs are going up as numbers go down.
As regards "priority for Europe" it is indeed correct to say that the Rafale is of no consequence. It's a pity.
New
Posts: 11
By: antoine
- 1st May 2005 at 22:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Puffadder,
I'm new on this forum.I'm surprised by what you suggested below:
[QUOTE=Puffadder]
The RBE2 architecture originated in the USA- from Texas Instruments actually (Thomson was a partner on the program). The USAF was considering going for a passive array but then dropped the idea and went "balls to the wall" for an active array. That's how the PESA technology migrated to France.
Let's face it- they're the only ones who could actually pay for the development.
QUOTE]
Have you any evidence of this ? May you give some details ? I have really difficulties to admit that TI gave enough information on such technologies to Thomson ...
By: Sens
- 1st May 2005 at 23:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The ECR90 is a modular design prepared for further upgrade to ASEA from the start. Development for such is under the way. The modern Achiles heel is as always the software for that. It takes several years to create that for every modi wanted. None could ashure the customers of EF, that this will be at hand in time and promised price therefore. So not to delay service entry of EF any longer the ECR90 option was choosen. The Singapore decision showed, that those are not convinced by promises alone.
By: Aurel
- 2nd May 2005 at 00:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As I said the ECR90 has greater range than the RBE2. It's a good radar but the AdlA and the Aeronavale needed a terrain-following capability and good mapping capabilities. And all of this in a package that would withstand carrier landings reliably. RBE2 does that.
No, I don't mean only range. That is one aspect in favour of the MSA, there are to additional aspects. First you lose scanning angle. Additional, the larger the scanning angle, the shorter the range of a ESA. That means the situational awareness is definately worse with a PESA. Shorter range and less coverage.
The MSA of the CAPTOR is for shure not that fast in scanning as a PESA, nor is it that flexible in multirole performance, but it is nethertheless the fastest MSA I know. With the same amount of money, it is for pure a2a by far more capable then the RBE2.
And this discussion we have here with the radars, we could have with nearly all parts of both aircraft. For example the engines: M-88-2 got the better SFC, the EJ-200 the better thrust to weight ratio. Or the jetintakes, Dassault designed a simple but amazing effective inlet, while the one of the Typhoon has this lips, that regulate the airflow and thus improve performance at high AOA and supersonic speed. Thousend little parts where the Typhoon offers a little bit more performance, at the expense of a little bit higher costs.
In all those decisions that had to be taken by the designers, we see the different aimes. Dassault tried to build an aircraft that should be cheap to export it (always with the economical failure Mirage 4000 in mind) while the empasis on the Eurofighter had always been a2a combat.
And I like it that way. Let's imagine we have gulfwar IV, the Saudis are our enemies, and our combined EF and Rafale squadrons blow the Saudi Rafales out of the Sky. Nobody will talk about the help that we got from the French in figuring out the weak points of the Rafale. Instead a nice little Rafale bashing will come up. And then people as you and me have to defend it. Not all those guys that today run around and tell everybody that the Rafale got the *cooler* stuff build in.
By: ogami musashi
- 2nd May 2005 at 20:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes but also before that. But as I said, things have changed.
Hi Ogami.
Typhoon is more agile than the Rafale at higher speeds, I'm sure of that.
Well, if you already said this, may i ask you to repeat why?
[/quote]
As for the Su-37 you must remember that it is a development of the Su-27.
I'm talking about the berkut.
The instability is a major key to a successful FSW design.
However in this case, the instability was so high that both in design and in FBW logic this instability was a constant problem and totaly removed the beenfits.
The Typhoon has been a long coupled canard delta from the word go. The FCS has experienced problems but those are being ironed out. The thrust to weight ratio is only part of the equation- there isn't much difference between the Rafale and the Typhoon. This is especially true if you take into account the difference in weight between an AIM-120 sixpack and a MICA sixpack and if you factor in the same fuel fraction.
FBW will progress i'm sure!
If you're talking about combat ready configurations you may be right, but if we're talking about near clean configs then the eurofighter still have this advantage of higher T/W ratio.
I talked some years ago with a Rafale test pilot and he told me the typhoon had its advantage, according to him the T/W was the reason why and that's why he really hoped the m88-3 would come fast.
More generally, a point that I have made in the past but seems to be ignored is the fact that three of the four Typhoon partners are also buying the F35.
The Typhoon will face domestic competition as regards funding.
France is sticking to the Rafale. The avionics upgrades will also go into the Mirage 2000. That just has to be an advantage.
ya i agree, i was only discussing aerodynamics ^_^
my pleasure.
See you.
New
Posts: 6
By: cb_lima
- 3rd May 2005 at 17:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have few question about this comparison between Rafale and EF2k
What about...
payload x range on...
A2a BVR scenario?
A2g Stand-off?
A2g "Dumb"/"Smart" bombs?
A2g "anti-ship"?
"Multi mode" scenario?
Datalink capability?
ECM and "passive" sensors?
and "Stealthiness" with all these payloads... which aircraft would get more affected?
Posts: 1,403
By: Kovy - 30th April 2005 at 20:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Your lack of arguments is not an excuse to insult the other members of the forum.
Posts: 1,050
By: Aurel - 30th April 2005 at 22:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1 German tranche Eurofighter =50 millions (68 aircraft, contract volume € 3,4 billion) Even if I repeat myself, could you please provide any information what is included in the French F3 order ?
Simply because that money that is now invested is laughable in comparison to the sums that had to be paid off with tranche 1 and 2. And I'm speaking about fly away prices, not global program costs.
What does the shark care about being the oldfashioned design compared to the seal. We know who wins this fight.
Uhh, yes ? The Typhoon's radar has more range and is the only one with a third processing channel to deal with ECM. It's supersonic performance is better and it got more internal fuel. Additionally it got a towed decoy to improve it's defenses in BVR combat. The AMRAAM is longer ranged than the MICA. In close combat the (German) typhoonpilot got the Libelle flight suit, which improves g-tolerance significantly. The rafalepilot got a HMS, while the typhoonpilot got HMCS. In favour of the Rafale is the MICA IR as medium range IR-missile. Unknown factors are the effectiveness of their respective ECM/ECCM systems. All together there is more in favour of the Typhoon then vice versa.
Did I say nothing ? But what is it with this better (theoretical) payload ?
Is there any realistic configuration where we get into trouble with the maximum loadout of the Typhoon ? It is able to deliver the same ordnance as the Tornado + 3-4 additional BVRAAMS. Seems to be enough for our needs.
And the longer range ? Hm, as long as we don't fly CAPs over central siberia the ferryrange is long enough. Completely sufficient to visit the States, buy some new sunglasses in the local BX and spend some time at the local cultural highlights. (For example the Le Girl's in Phoenix :D )
@ Phil
You got some points, but what got the Rafale to do with a more unified Europe ? The Typhoon is the European Fighter, while the Rafale is to a certain extend a venture of Dassault. And if we look at Singapore or Saudi Arabia, then the decisions made by Dassault seem to proof right. They had their "big" fighter, the Mirage 4000. It didn't sell, so the conclusion of Dassault was to build a efficient, small multirole fighter. The British asked for a larger Radar, the Germans for excellent shortrun and climbing characteristics. So the larger Radar caused a larger fighter, larger engines and didn't fit therefore in Dassault's vision of the small, exportable multirole fighter.
From that perpective, that lightweight fighter became pretty fat and expansive. (And of course capable, but this is another story)
Posts: 181
By: Castor - 1st May 2005 at 01:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If we speak about unified Europe, both the brits and the french should learn from the germans. They aren't anywhere near as nationalistic as the others.
Posts: 1,403
By: Kovy - 1st May 2005 at 01:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The last rafale F1 built was the rafale M10 back in 2002.
All rafale delivered since this date are F2 machines.
BTW, the only "non-M" rafale F1 was the B301 but she has been retrofited for the F2/F3 standard trials.
Posts: 1,842
By: glitter - 1st May 2005 at 02:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Since I'm totally drunk, I will provide you an answer tomorrow.
Moderators, feel free to delete this post :D
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder - 1st May 2005 at 08:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:diablo: Let's be thankful that we don't have the 2nd rate education system, the 3rd healthcare system and the transport infrastructure that is beyond rating :diablo:
Hi Steve, you silly twisted boy. :D
Posts: 1,515
By: Phil Foster - 1st May 2005 at 09:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If it barks and wags its tail I call it a dog. Puffadder is perpetuating the accusation.
Phil :)
Posts: 1,515
By: Phil Foster - 1st May 2005 at 09:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yep. Sorry I am losing the plot slightly now.
Phil :)
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder - 1st May 2005 at 12:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Aurel.
I’m not doubting the capability of Captor, but the RBE2 has exceptional ECM capabilities. The ECM protection architechture is quite different to that of Captor. The antennae is cryogenically cooled and very efficient and it’ offers simultaneous A2A and A2G capability that Captor realistically doesn’t. The captor radar plate simply cannot be rotated as quickly as can the RBE2 polariser. It just can’t (at least not reliably). The Captor has a greater range but the range of RBE2 matches that of the RDY which is highly regarded in the AdlA. French pilots regularly fly DACT against European and American adversaries and they’re most satisfied with the RDY- and RBE2 is just at the beginning of it’s long career. It’s 30% lighter than the RDY and occupies half the volume of RDY. BTW the RBE2 has Texas Instruments written all over it.
Yes, the Typhoon is a better supersonic performer than the Rafale- for reasons that I already mentioned and have never disputed. As regards fuel capacity the Typhoon does indeed carry more yet Rafale has the better fuel fraction.
The Towed Decoy is a good idea. Why can’t a TD be mounted on a Rafale?
Now this really tickled me. The first solo flight of the Libelle was conducted in a M2k-5 and the first flight in a 4th Gen aircraft was in, you guessed it, a Rafale – ‘nuff said. You can look it up.
Indeed true. The same goes for the AMRAAM which to date has been used against aircraft piloted by 2nd banana pilots belonging to the 3rd banana airforces of 4th banana countries.. I’m keen to remind you that originally the RAF were fairly underwhelmed by it’s capabilities. Obviously it has been improved over the years. When it is used against a trained opponent we’ll know more.
I agree. The Typhoon, together with the Tornado will make a good hi/medium mix. You can sleep easy.
As regards the “theoretical” advantage of the Rafale’s loadout it isn’t theoretical. The five hard/wet points of the Rafale give it a real advantage. It can carry 6000 litres externally, two Storm Shadows, four MICA’s and a Damocles pod. Typhoon simply cannot do that.
Phil, the Rafale /Typhoon (together with the F18E) debate has gone on for years here and protagonists on both sides have occasionally gone over the top. Have I done that? I don’t think so. You’ll correct me if I’m wrong- but show me the offending posts first.
BTW, you all underestimate the difficulties that would be encountered if the Typhoon were to be navalised. THAT intake cannot be navalised- it just can't. :D
Posts: 661
By: danrh - 1st May 2005 at 12:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you referring to the less than inspiring performance of the AMRAAM on the F.3s prior to the F.3s receiving a datalink to allowing the full exploitation of the missiles performance?
Daniel
Posts: 223
By: ogami musashi - 1st May 2005 at 12:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
puff:
In theory the configuration of the Eurofighter is best for supersonic than the rafale, however some little points makes it not so sure(remember the eurofighter is still in a limited supersonic performances era for safety concerns):
-First, the greater the instability, the greater the manoeuvrability, yes IF the fly by wire works well, if the air probes gives enough information to the FBW and if the aerodynamique devices don't waste to much time equilibrating the plane(in the case of the Sukhoi S-37/SU-47 the instability was so big than they had to make a long nose and big canards that nicked all their authority just making the plane able to flight level).
In the case of the EF2000 the FBW were, last time i saw the plane (in late 2004) not developped enought, the plane still had parasite movements.
Well, let's say than in supersonic it may be still superior, but for subsonic manoeuvrability the real advantage, at this time, are the engines that provide better Ps.
-While the eurofighter nose is pretty conventional, the rafale ones comprises a big lerx like.
It is my opinion that this one has to do with decreasing downwash from the canards onto the wing.
Then one has to remember that we're dealing with new generation planes , using new generation aerodynamics.
The truth will be know with the years, i may be wrong, but i'm pretty sure at least, thing are not as simple as the theory you mentionned.
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder - 1st May 2005 at 16:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes but also before that. But as I said, things have changed.
Hi Ogami.
Typhoon is more agile than the Rafale at higher speeds, I'm sure of that.
As for the Su-37 you must remember that it is a development of the Su-27. The Typhoon has been a long coupled canard delta from the word go. The FCS has experienced problems but those are being ironed out. The thrust to weight ratio is only part of the equation- there isn't much difference between the Rafale and the Typhoon. This is especially true if you take into account the difference in weight between an AIM-120 sixpack and a MICA sixpack and if you factor in the same fuel fraction.
More generally, a point that I have made in the past but seems to be ignored is the fact that three of the four Typhoon partners are also buying the F35.
The Typhoon will face domestic competition as regards funding.
France is sticking to the Rafale. The avionics upgrades will also go into the Mirage 2000. That just has to be an advantage.
Posts: 1,050
By: Aurel - 1st May 2005 at 17:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@ Puffadder
Since you know all those advantages of an PESA you shurely know the disadvantages,too. At the moment, I think (this) mechanical antenna offers the better performance for a2a compared to a PESA.
Otherwise I agree with you. The PESA is a more flexible system.
I had wished we would get the AESA with batch 5 block 10, since this is the first batch which will be delivered to a fighter-bomber Sqadron (JaboG 31 "Boelcke").
I think it should have been introduced directly after the new mission computer.
But yes, as you already mentioned, there is the JSF and here the politicians can't delay payments for the development. :mad:
I fear somehow we will never see an AESA on our Typhoons. At least no retrofit to tranche 1 and 2 aircraft.
And now we are at this "priority for Europe"- point. Indeed it has nothing to do with Rafale, only with Typhoon and JSF. :(
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder - 1st May 2005 at 20:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Aurel
As I said the ECR90 has greater range than the RBE2. It's a good radar but the AdlA and the Aeronavale needed a terrain-following capability and good mapping capabilities. And all of this in a package that would withstand carrier landings reliably. RBE2 does that.
IMHO the biggest mistake that Typhoon Inc made was not to go to the halfway solution ie. a passive array. They would then be able to add the active array at a later stage and it would probably be cheaper than modifying the Captor later- assuming that it can be modified. They say it can. Let's wait an see what happens.
The RBE2 architecture originated in the USA- from Texas Instruments actually (Thomson was a partner on the program). The USAF was considering going for a passive array but then dropped the idea and went "balls to the wall" for an active array. That's how the PESA technology migrated to France.
Let's face it- they're the only ones who could actually pay for the development.
It may well happen that Germany is left out in the cold because the others are investing in the F35 whose costs are going up as numbers go down.
As regards "priority for Europe" it is indeed correct to say that the Rafale is of no consequence. It's a pity.
Posts: 11
By: antoine - 1st May 2005 at 22:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Puffadder,
I'm new on this forum.I'm surprised by what you suggested below:
[QUOTE=Puffadder]
The RBE2 architecture originated in the USA- from Texas Instruments actually (Thomson was a partner on the program). The USAF was considering going for a passive array but then dropped the idea and went "balls to the wall" for an active array. That's how the PESA technology migrated to France.
Let's face it- they're the only ones who could actually pay for the development.
QUOTE]
Have you any evidence of this ? May you give some details ? I have really difficulties to admit that TI gave enough information on such technologies to Thomson ...
Thank you
Antoine
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 1st May 2005 at 23:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The ECR90 is a modular design prepared for further upgrade to ASEA from the start. Development for such is under the way. The modern Achiles heel is as always the software for that. It takes several years to create that for every modi wanted. None could ashure the customers of EF, that this will be at hand in time and promised price therefore. So not to delay service entry of EF any longer the ECR90 option was choosen. The Singapore decision showed, that those are not convinced by promises alone.
Posts: 1,050
By: Aurel - 2nd May 2005 at 00:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, I don't mean only range. That is one aspect in favour of the MSA, there are to additional aspects. First you lose scanning angle. Additional, the larger the scanning angle, the shorter the range of a ESA. That means the situational awareness is definately worse with a PESA. Shorter range and less coverage.
The MSA of the CAPTOR is for shure not that fast in scanning as a PESA, nor is it that flexible in multirole performance, but it is nethertheless the fastest MSA I know. With the same amount of money, it is for pure a2a by far more capable then the RBE2.
And this discussion we have here with the radars, we could have with nearly all parts of both aircraft. For example the engines: M-88-2 got the better SFC, the EJ-200 the better thrust to weight ratio. Or the jetintakes, Dassault designed a simple but amazing effective inlet, while the one of the Typhoon has this lips, that regulate the airflow and thus improve performance at high AOA and supersonic speed. Thousend little parts where the Typhoon offers a little bit more performance, at the expense of a little bit higher costs.
In all those decisions that had to be taken by the designers, we see the different aimes. Dassault tried to build an aircraft that should be cheap to export it (always with the economical failure Mirage 4000 in mind) while the empasis on the Eurofighter had always been a2a combat.
And I like it that way. Let's imagine we have gulfwar IV, the Saudis are our enemies, and our combined EF and Rafale squadrons blow the Saudi Rafales out of the Sky. Nobody will talk about the help that we got from the French in figuring out the weak points of the Rafale. Instead a nice little Rafale bashing will come up. And then people as you and me have to defend it. Not all those guys that today run around and tell everybody that the Rafale got the *cooler* stuff build in.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 2nd May 2005 at 08:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe some newer datas around now?! Sofar:
M88-2 SFC g/kNs 24,9 dry - 49,9 wet
EJ200........g/kNs 23,0 dry - 49,0 wet
Posts: 223
By: ogami musashi - 2nd May 2005 at 20:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, if you already said this, may i ask you to repeat why?
[/quote]
I'm talking about the berkut.
The instability is a major key to a successful FSW design.
However in this case, the instability was so high that both in design and in FBW logic this instability was a constant problem and totaly removed the beenfits.
FBW will progress i'm sure!
If you're talking about combat ready configurations you may be right, but if we're talking about near clean configs then the eurofighter still have this advantage of higher T/W ratio.
I talked some years ago with a Rafale test pilot and he told me the typhoon had its advantage, according to him the T/W was the reason why and that's why he really hoped the m88-3 would come fast.
ya i agree, i was only discussing aerodynamics ^_^
my pleasure.
See you.
Posts: 6
By: cb_lima - 3rd May 2005 at 17:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have few question about this comparison between Rafale and EF2k
What about...
payload x range on...
A2a BVR scenario?
A2g Stand-off?
A2g "Dumb"/"Smart" bombs?
A2g "anti-ship"?
"Multi mode" scenario?
Datalink capability?
ECM and "passive" sensors?
and "Stealthiness" with all these payloads... which aircraft would get more affected?
:)