Typhoon VS Rafale?

[stilton]

As a civilian pilot I have extremely limited knowledge of the two types.

Curious as to how they would fare against each other, thoughts, opinions?

[ZH875]

No contest, the RAF pilot would see and honour the Frenchies white flag:ok:

[jwcook]

IIRC they have just had a exercise together, I don't know if they were pitched against each other or if they were on the same side though!!, anyone know the name of the exercise?

[toddbabe]

Isn't their a major problem with the canairds ( spelling? ) on the Typhoon being directly in the line of sight of pilot and ground?
Not a great design feature!

[Pontius Navigator]

There was a study the results of which I posted a year back. Essentially, IIRC, the Typhoon would have a kill rate of 4.5:1 compared with Rafael at about 1:1 or slightly less. The F22 was even better than the Typhoon as you would expect, something like 10:1

But if you could afford 1000 Rafael!

[LateArmLive]

The canards won't really be a problem as you rarely fly S+L when looking at the ground. Most of the time you'll either be dipping a wing for a look or in the wagon wheel.

Having said that, I've only flown the sim.........:)

[Raymond Ginardon]

"Isn't their a major problem with the canairds ( spelling? ) on the Typhoon being directly in the line of sight of pilot and ground?"

No, you don't even notice them unless you are bored and think "I'll look at the canards".

Ray :-)

[NutherA2]

Canard is French for a duck; in English the first definition of “canard” in Chambers 20th Century Dictionary is “a false rumour”. Is either of these relevant to this post/forum? :confused:

[toddbabe]

Well I would have thought seeing a spiraling smoke trail coming from ontop a hill in Afghanistan might be quite important!:eek: about four seconds to impact! oops can't see in my canard blind spot unless I am weaving all the over the place!!!

[QFIhawkman]

Well what a load of bolleaux has been posted on this very young thread.

The canard foreplanes, to give them their correct names, are not an issue visibility wise once airborne.

They assist in the excellent dynamics of this particular aircraft by a huge margin. It's no coincedence that the Typhoon is the most popular display on this year's circuit!

As for figures and facts versus the Rafale: I couldn't comment. They both seem extremely capable aircraft. Having flown niether, I'm not best placed to offer an opinion.

[Archimedes]

Stilton, just as a heads up, since this question has been asked before -

Do not be surprised to see your thread take the following course:

1. Shortly after about this point in the thread a rabidly nationalist French loon materialises to explain that the Typhoon is utterly, utterly rubbish and that the Rafale (and for that matter anything French) is vastly superior to the appalling anglo-saxon rubbish the RAF is buying.

2. Other Ppruners question the troll's credentials to comment. French chap - invariably busily fighting similar campaign on Key Publishing Forum - responds with lots of technical detail which is shot to pieces by an array of people who know what they're on about (not a hazard our troll faces on the Key forums).

3. He then denigrates Typhoon's performance claims saying this is all marketing spin...

4. ...before regurgitating Dassault marketing spin as gospel evidence of Rafale's brilliance.

5. Jackonicko endeavours to put the case for Typhoon.

6. Troll, incapable of rebutting JN's points, libels Jackonicko

7. Hostilities between Jacknicko and French Troll commence.

8. Surrender banter breaks out amongst spectating Ppruners. Troll fails to grasp that this is banter and becomes even more vehment (usually itself in more libelling of JN and anti-English sentiment)

9. Comments about the correlation between cheese consumption, simians and capitulation are deployed. Troll becomes almost incoherent with nationalistic rage. Libels JN some more. JN, pushed beyond endurance, abandons politeness and embarks upon pointed sarcasm.

10. Thread collapses into chaos as Troll lashes out in increasingly xenophobic manner, blaming UK for all world ills.

11. Moderater (usually PPrune Pop) sighs deeply. Thread is closed. Danny invites troll to depart these hallowed portals.

12. Thread originator, upon careful examination, discovers that answer to question is buried somewhere in the wreckage...

Have I missed anything?

[Jackonicko]

Archimedes, old chap.

You have summarised it perfectly.

[9.81m/s/s]

we will find out which is ' best ' when the French sell Rafale to the Iranians and we go to war wearing the stars and stripes on our beautiful new Typhoons..... dog fighting, turning in, requesting a fly by when the pattern is full....... flying below the hard deck.......... all the stuff we have managed to do the last 15 years WITHOUT Typhoon...mmm !




what a load of f :mad: arrse the Typhoon is !!!!

[jwcook]

Hey hey hey your not French! havn't you read Archimedes Thread rules #1.

There are a Couple of Typhoons in the US now, there are exercises scheduled which the Typhoon are invited in various locations, lets wait for the PR machine to leak some good news on their performance..

Cheers

[ZH875]

I wouldn't hold your breath......:\

But I bet the Typhoon pilot is back first!


http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_8_11.gif

[stilton]

I consider myself enlightened..

[Monty77]

Just before the Frogs get here, and before it all kicks off, I would like to reiterate RIGHT NOW, that felllow EU members urinating in my general direction will not be tolerated under Brussels legislation and my mother did NOT smell of elderberries. More like gin, actually.

[Lazer-Hound]

Will the Luftwaffe be basing Typhoons in the US for training as it does with the Tornados at Holloman? If so, we'll see F22's and Typhoons at the same base, which could be interesting.

[toddbabe]

The canard foreplanes, to give them their correct names, are not an issue visibility wise once airborne.
why is that then QFI? do they become transparent at V1 :O.
Note the relative differences below, who's got the best viz?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Typhoon.t1.zj807.arp.jpg/250px-Typhoon.t1.zj807.arp.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Typhoon.t1.zj807.arp.jpg)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Rafale2_ag1.jpg/180px-Rafale2_ag1.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rafale2_ag1.jpg)

[BootFlap]

Excellent rearwards view from the Rafale cockpit allegedly, this may fit in perfectly with traditional ConOps!;)

[ballsintheair]

Can't speculate on how they'd perform one on one but do know that Typhoon has been impressing the US military aviators (F15,16,18) with its capabilities.

[BluntedAtBirth]

It is a very close call, but I think BAES will just be able to scr*w more money out of the British Taxpayer for Typhoon than Aerospatiale will rake in Euros from the French.

You didn't think there was any other performance issue at stake, did you?

[Bob Viking]

My first point is that the French aircraft is called RAFALE!
Not bloody Rafael as several people seem to think!
Secondly, the exercise brought up in an earlier post was TLP at BAF Florennes just last week and the Typhoon and Rafale never flew against each other so there was no direct duel. I can say though, that the Rafale cockpit is a work of art.
BV:rolleyes:

[SirToppamHat]

BV
the Rafale cockpit is a work of art
Do you mean like an un-made bed surrounded by fag ends and used condoms, or more like the Mona Lisa?
;)
What I will say about Typhoon is that it's nice at last to have a fighter that can actually fight in 3 dimensions. Compared to it, the performance of the F3 is an embarassment, though, personally, I am not convinced about the concept of single-seat ops, especially for some of the things we want to use Typhoon for.
I am led to believe that the Typhoon is not terribly popular with some of the civvy ATCOs, who, having got used to the way in which the F3 climbs and descends (or doesn't!) find it hard to believe how quickly a Typhoon can comply with coordination requirements. On more than one occasion I have had to pull radar 'tapes' to prove that a Typhoon reached a particular level in time to maintain agreed standard separation from a civvy.
In the 'fights' I have seen, the Typhoon normally does pretty well against most types, but I suspect it will be a while before the tactics are sufficiently well established to form a reliable opinion. BVR performance with Meteor will be interesting, though in my view, BVR isn't everything as the ROE in most modern scenarios make the use of BVR weapons dodgy at best. For now, I am just delighted that Typhoon will get to where I need it as quickly as it can.
Looking forward to seeing it on QRA(I) duties.:)
STH

[OCCWMF]

Interestingly the Jaguar and Rafale did meet on the above excercise.

Score: Jag 1 - Rafale 0.:ok:

Vis is nothing without lookout! Sorry BouBou.;)

[LowObservable]

The Typhoon and Rafale are like teenage brothers. They like to be competitive but hate to admit that they're really quite alike.

If there's a big difference, the Typhoon is more of an air-to-air aircraft and the Rafale is more inclined to move mud. Surprise, surprise: when they got started, which of the sponsors had a relatively new bomber in service?

This relates to another difference. The 'phoon is really, really good at supersonic turn and burn, better than the PR machine gets across. This led to some very laborious development in flight control, but it seems that it is sorted now.

On the other hand, the Rafale can really carry freight - it's a bit like a 25 ton supersonic A-4 - so if you want to go a long, long way with big gas tanks and a load of weapons, it's your airplane. The Typhoon's better than you might expect, but can't quite do what the Rafale does. And the videos of the Rafale barreling through the Pyrenees at 5.5 g and 600 mph with a load of iron are quite impressive.

Whatever the French word is for bibbedy-bobbedy-boo, the Rafale's stealth relies on it. The Typhoon is front-sector RCS reduction plus jamming, a reliable technique if not as flash and mysterious.

Both aircraft can land on a carrier but the Rafale can do it more than once...

The French tried to get cute with the radar and backed a dead-end idea, especially combined with the restricted nose volume that is characteristic of most non-huge carrier jets. They need an AESA.

The Typhoon's radar reminds me of the $6000 turntables that you find in audiophile stores because some people don't trust CDs yet. But if it works as well as they say, it does some things better than an AESA, and does a lot better than the sort of AESA you could have baselined in 1996-98.

I bow to Officer Viking's comment about the cockpit, with the observation that it's French. That is, it's a bit like getting into a Citroen DS in 1957 and going "why the *&^% did they do it like this?" and then realizing it makes sense. The oddest feature is what looks like a What The Butler Saw machine sticking out of the panel.

The choice between the two comes down to price and (even more importantly) support, which is why 'phoon salesmen remind you every two minutes that they have contracts for 600-plus aircraft.

[ProfessionalStudent]

IIRC they have just had a exercise together...

The French and the Typoo. 2 Forces that never see any action...

[Jackonicko]

Anyone who has sat in a Rafale, looked at the uncluttered panel, seen the big AMLCDs and felt the deliciously smooth, silky switch action will love it, as BV obviously did, and as I did when the Rafale M (was it the M?) made its first Farnborough appearance.

But I'm told that the switches are not likely to last like the Typhoon's more agricultural tested-to-death items, and that once you want to actually operate the systems in the Typhoon's visually less appealing cockpit it's an intuitive joy, but in the better looking Rafale you're working like a one armed paper hangar, with less intuitive modings and with nothing quite falling to hand.
I wonder which Jagmate got the Rafale? Can't have been BV - he'd have told us!

LO:

Very nicely written summary, and nice analogies. With a touch that sure, and that light, a lot of people will recognise who that writer is! But that turntable has provision for a plug in CD player, with all the buttons, all the software in place, and the makers have demonstrated the ability to plug the CD player in and play CDs in moments.

[Bob Viking]

Jacko,
That was OCCWMF bragging!
Although, I feel it is my duty to point out that it was an easy shot and my Grandmother could have made it!
BV:}

[Jackonicko]

Bob,

Yeah but your gran, being a senior citizen, obviously flies Harriers. Would she therefore have caught up with a Rafale unless it had its gear down?

I hope that you noticed that I refrained from cheap jokes about this not being the first time someone had been surprised by a Jagmate sneaking up from behind.....

Hat, coat, I know the drill.

[Maple 01]

Come on chaps, where's the blood fest as promoted by Archimedes?

Vous allumer les pilotes de français, défendez l'honneur de de votre tas volant de jonque !

[OFBSLF]

Have I missed anything?Yes. Where's the requisite Yank-bashing?

[Maple 01]

The JSF is poo.........

[brickhistory]

Where's the requisite Yank-bashing?

For once, can we not stand shoulder to shoulder, as did in days gone by? And repel the common enemy, the French?


Or do we, once again, have to save your sorry asses with our superior equipment and overwhelming numbers?




(Note: it's suppossed to be funny. If not that, than at least an attempt at banter, not to be taken seriously ((unless you live in Idaho..))

[Jackonicko]

Bottom of page 2.

The f***ers can't even get to an argument on time.

[brickhistory]

The f***ers can't even get to an argument on time.

Ah, jacko....I guess until the cheese-eating surrender simians arrive, a journo will have to do........not much difference really.......

[TMor]

Aaaaaaaaah... :uhoh:
I'm the French chap in the party ! :\ Hi Jack !
1. Shortly after about this point in the thread a rabidly nationalist French loon materialises to explain that the Typhoon is utterly, utterly rubbish and that the Rafale (and for that matter anything French) is vastly superior to the appalling anglo-saxon rubbish the RAF is buying.
No... The guy you were talking about is no more. He's banned nearly every time he appears on a forum.
Low Observable : your summary is really funny and interesting !
The French tried to get cute with the radar and backed a dead-end idea, especially combined with the restricted nose volume that is characteristic of most non-huge carrier jets. They need an AESA.
The Typhoon's radar reminds me of the $6000 turntables that you find in audiophile stores because some people don't trust CDs yet. But if it works as well as they say, it does some things better than an AESA, and does a lot better than the sort of AESA you could have baselined in 1996-98.
But that turntable has provision for a plug in CD player, with all the buttons, all the software in place, and the makers have demonstrated the ability to plug the CD player in and play CDs in moments.
Well... The RBE-2 is not a dead end. It was developped, with in mind the active array coming after. The passive antenna is working well (requirement to detect a 0.1m2 target at 35Nm, according to "Air & Cosmos"), and all the softwares are ready for use with the active antenna (already demonstrated).
Of course, the improved performance of the array will allow to use improved softwares, as well as "advanced modes" currently in development. DRAAMA should fly in 2007.
The first Rafale with an active antenna will leave the plant in January 2012.
But I'm told that the switches are not likely to last like the Typhoon's more agricultural tested-to-death items, and that once you want to actually operate the systems in the Typhoon's visually less appealing cockpit it's an intuitive joy, but in the better looking Rafale you're working like a one armed paper hangar, with less intuitive modings and with nothing quite falling to hand.
:)
Well... Not a single source in France isn't counterdicting you.
Using the Rafale HMI need training, because it's really different. But once it's ok, from every comment's I've read, and even in a report written in french (La polyvalence du Rafale, ou l'objet total, by the "Centre d'études en sciences sociales de la défense"), the systems is clearly very efficient and revoltionary ( "an intuitive joy" ). There's no doubt on that.
« Il y a beaucoup d’informations sur cet avion mais c’est un avion relativement naturel, tu comprends vite où tout se trouve. Tout tombe sous la main. »
=
There are a lot of information in this aircraft, but it's a relatively natural plane, you quickly understand where to find everything. All is falling to hand
Sorry for my english skills... I did my best to translate it the more accurately.
In this report, the author also said that when the pilots says that the Rafale is "high tec", they actually refer to the cockpit (HMI -switches, HOTAS, screens and interface readability-, and ergonomics).
For the switches, the requirements are the same (this is what i was told by a man who have worked on both pits, and he also added that the Rafale's cockpit was more innovative, but the two used different philosophies, and so, weren't not comparable).
They only lack DVI for frequency changing.
The design phase of the cockpit came after a comprehensive study on the human body feelings and on cognition, on the body strenghs and weaknesses (resistance under high G, wrong sensations...). This is how they designed the switches (with different shapes and pressures according to the function), this is what they took under consideration for the symbology and colors on the screens... They tested all of this during years to improve it, for all the 3 standards (F1, F2, F3).
The PDF from the MoD site (http://http://www.c2sd.sga.defense.gouv.fr/html/recherche/FTP/c2sd_polyvalence_rafale_2006.pdf) Sorry it's in french...

I hope this helped.

[ErgoMonkey]

likewise the Typhoon Cockpit Ergonomics have been a concept from the late 70s early 80s, everything down to colour, size and shape have followed a strict display philosophy, the layout and lighting systems have taken the cockpit to a whole new dimension, one of the only cockpits to reject glaresheild blinds (data entry interference) and use stray light technology down the nth degree to minimise canopy and windscreen reflections, again the only cockpit to use programmable softkeys on MHDDs that give the operator a direct input, reducing the need to select from on-screen menus, DVI, huge HOTAS functionality, and a widescreen class 1 HUD...........a truly great cockpit

[TMor]

ErgoMonkey, you're true to remind us what the Typhoon pit is made of.
But don't believe I intended to prove that it's just crap. :) ;)
I just wanted to comment the Jackonicko opinion (with no offense) and maybe bring some information.
Maybe I should add these data for the Rafale :
-30x22° degrees HUD wich become the main navigation tool. FLIR view superposable
-LHD (middle) 20x20°, collimated to infinity, so as to ensure the eye won't have to accomodate when the pilot was watching through the HUD just before. Used for SA, "divine view", as well as missile envelop information...
-side screens for systems... no keys around, as these are touchscreens to save place (and have greater screens)...
-all of this fully compatible with NVG
-HOTAS with up to 37 functions (switches, buttons and trackballs). It is said that Dassault pretend to be the inventors of the HOTAS concept (in French 3M "Main sur Manette et Manche").
-Contrary to what is often said, the lateral stick has a slite movement (not like the F-16)...
-the 29° inclined seat allow the pilot to cope with 2 additional Gs compared to a classicaly inclined seat (Mirage 2000), wich is much less tiring.
-DVI fully ready for foreign customer (not used on French aircraft to save money).
-HMS for F3 standard.
A truly great cockpit too ! :ok:
No doubt that the engineers made their best, for both planes.

[High_lander]

JSF is poo


I thought it was called Dave?

[LowObservable]

Merde alors TMor, votre 'yper-linque ne marche pas! Pardon the Franglais... best I could muster at the moment. And have the tightwads in Paris approved production for the AESA?

By the way, a search on "rafale polyvalence 2006 pdf" brings it up on Google and that link works. It looks very interesting as long as you weren't one of the ones who sat in French surreptitiously looking up rude words in the dictionary.

[LuckyBreak]

Is anyone reading this in a position to mess up the saudi deal to open up some Abo slots in the next few months? I'll make it worth your while!

[TMor]

LuckyBreak, I'm sorry, I can't help anyone translating this document... Even if it's worth a reading, even for me, it's quite difficult, as it is really full of scientific words... :bored: That's a study report. And so, it is full of interesting comments from pilots, but the analysis behind are complicated... ! :ugh:
Whatever is written inside, I think that the Saudis must have a summerized idea of it ! :cool:
About the AESA :
Le 6 octobre dernier, la DGA a notifié à Dassault Aviation, Thales et MBDA un marché visant à doter le Rafale à l'horizon 2012 d'équipements électroniques aux performances accrues. Ce marché ne porte pas seulement sur des développements mais conduit à la sortie de chaîne en janvier 2012 d'un Rafale doté d’un radar à balayage antenne active et d’un détecteur de départ de missile de nouvelle génération. Ces travaux avaient été préparés par les différentes démarches d'étude amont menées par la DGA et en particulier la commande dès 2004 d'un démonstrateur de radar à antenne active. Le montant des travaux équivaut au prix de 8 avions, soit environ 400 M€. Un réaménagement du calendrier de production des 59 avions permet d’échelonner ce paiement et donc de rester dans l’enveloppe prévue, sans augmentation du prix des avions.
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/ the exact page is dead.
To sum up : on the 6th of October 2006, the decision was made by the DGA to delay the delivery of 8 Rafale, so as to gain 400M€. This money will be used to found the development, but also the production of the RBE-2 AESA and of a new DDM (missile launching warner). That's why, in January 2012, the first AESA equiped Rafale will roll out of the plant.
After the failure in Singapore, it was realised that further developments were at stakes, and so, with Michèle Alliot-Marie, new objectives were planned. This plan is called "Roadmap Rafale", and is intended to ensure that France will pay for what is proposed to export, whatever the next governement will be.
This is what led to the financing of the AESA, DDM... In addition, for 2009, the Damocles pod will be integrated, and works are under progress to facilitate and reduce the costs of non french weapons integration (JDAM, PVIV... the goal is to limit the integretion to a few flight tests and dropping).
For 2012, a new OSF is to be designed too (OSF IP -ImProved-). But I don't know if it has yet to be financed, though I think it's done, as the 59 OSF hasn't be payed for the F3 standard. :cool:

[exMudmover]

Why are we wasting time arguing about agile Air Defence fighters? I spent the last 10 years of my RAF service trying to convince every senior officer I could buttonhole that we didn’t need another Lightning replacement. What we were desperately short of – and still are – is a capable long-range attack/recce machine. Apart from impressing Air Marshals and small boys at air displays, what are we going to use Typhoon for? As far as British air forces are concerned (I include the navy), the last time we did proper Air Combat in wartime – against an enemy who was prepared to fight back – was the Korean War. I know, Air Combat Training is great fun and a great recruitment factor, far more interesting than formation aeros, for example. I was an Air Combat Instructor for many years and flew Air Combat in the Hunter, Harrier, Tornado and Starfighter, but I never convinced myself that it was anything more than a supremely challenging sport.

[LowObservable]

<<I spent the last 10 years of my RAF service trying to convince every senior officer I could buttonhole that we didn’t need another Lightning replacement>>

Which is why they were the last 10 years of your service... :E

Seriously... The reason that it looks as if the RAF is buying agile fighters is that, today, everyone buys the theory that (I think) Northrop first formulated in the late 60s, early 70s, to wit:
(1) You can change an agile jet into a bomber by loading it with bombs and fuel, reducing its thrust/weight ratio and increasing its wing loading and range. That's the idea behind an F-16E/F, a Rafale or an Su-34.
(2) You can't do the opposite. Tonka F.3... F-111B... I rest my case, melud.

[Rakshasa]

Yeah but should we only arm ourselves for the sort of conflicts were engaged in now, where we're reliant on US airpower or for those Falkland like occasions where we find ourselves on our own?

That said, I'm not a spokeman for sharp grey pointy things inc. and I'd love to to see some nice shiny AT/AAR a/c that aren't knackered 40 year old airline cast-offs, kept on soley to keep contractors sweet come election time. (Couple of sqns worth of extra wokkas and crew for em would be pretty nice too while I'm dreaming).

I'd love it to happen but I don't think crapping on Typhoon or JSF is pertinent to the simple fact that the AT & SH fleet have been neglected for a long time and the government needs to get off its Arrse and fund us properly not cut us even further to the bone.

[soddim]

Shame to see the Worlds' oldest independant air force arguing about which role of air power is the most deserving of funding. Truth is that all the air power roles need funding to do the job effectively and survive.

Good to see the First Sea Lord put his career on the negotiating table - this government needs to fund its' military if it wants to wave one on the international platform.

Come on air force - start beating the drum louder. Can do won't do!

[TMor]

I'm not sure to understand it all, but maybe from a more european point of view, the agility is important...
I mean that at the very begining of the Eurofighter program, GB was looking for an aircraft mainly to replace Jaguars and Tornados, but for the cooperation to take place, other requirements were considered. Of course, the Typhoon may look a bit above want GB really needed, but, then, as LowObservable said :
Northrop first formulated in the late 60s, early 70s, to wit:
(1) You can change an agile jet into a bomber by loading it with bombs and fuel, reducing its thrust/weight ratio and increasing its wing loading and range.
This led on to a win-win situation, were the final aircraft isn't simply the expected replacer but also an agile aircraft.
Add to this the fact that some of the european partners are willing to create a more independant (non US relying) defense, at a european scale... :ok: No more need for an external air dominance aircraft... Everything is in our forces.
Am I wrong ? :confused:

[Jackonicko]

Deliverance,

Absolutely! Even if some of those 'single type' squadrons operate a two-seater with bloody great conformals, and others operate one with a new wing, gear and hook.

TMor,

What became Typhoon was, from a UK PoV, originally an RAFG F-4 and Jaguar replacement.

The F-4 element of the requirement drove the aircrafts A-A requirements, and the Jag element drove the A-G, rapid deployment and out-of-area requirements.

[TMor]

TMor,
What became Typhoon was, from a UK PoV, originally an RAFG F-4 and Jaguar replacement.
Ok... According to the books, history's really a mess... :uhoh:


As I was giving news about Rafale, GBU-12 and GBU-22 are under qualification on Rafale (still without laser pod). Up to 6 of these weapons can be brought by the aircraft, versus only two for a Mirage 2000. The Rafale also has a much greater range. Three aircraft are to be sent next month in Afghanistan (in addition of the two first Marine F2).
http://www.ec17provence.org/

[BluntedAtBirth]

A more important question, as we are living in a time of constrained budgets, is why are we pursuing a front line force of more than one FJ type? Surely there must be huge savings to be had in operating a Typhoon only front line FJ force.


There's a job for you in the Treasury, Deliverance!

[Jackonicko]

TMor,

No-one is disputing that the hardware and overall layout of the Rafale's cockpit isn't impressive.

It's simply that once you need to use the fully powered up cockpit, the MMI is not as good as that of the Typhoon - it has less intuitive modings, it's less streamlined, it requires more input and it imposes a higher cockpit workload.

It may be better for someone coming from the Mirage 2000, who will find it comfortable and familiar, but that represents a small slice of the potential user base.

Nor would anyone dispute that Rafale is ahead when it comes to the timetable of most equipment integrations and clearances. But that's a temporary advantage.

And you'd also have to be pretty pig-headed to ignore the disadvantages - the poor MMI, the 'dead end' RBE-2 (the French are spending €400m to replace the RBE-2/EW suite/cockpit/OSF combination ASAP).

And then there's the thrust issue. In S Korea, Singapore, AND Saudi Arabia, the lack of power in hot and high was mentioned repeatedly, and you may recall that the one area that was intended for a major upgrade on Rafale was the engines.

Throughout the 1990s, SNECMA were telling us that the M88 was intended to be at 20,000-lbs of thrust by 1998, with 22,000-lbs by 2002-03, and with a potential ceiling of 24,000-lbs being reached by 2006-08.

According to SNECMA today, the M88 actually produces 50 kN dry (11,500 lbs), and 75 kN (16,800 lbs) with afterburning.

[TMor]

Jack, there is a little trouble with what you say.
Re-read what I wrote :
you said :
But I'm told that the switches are not likely to last like the Typhoon's more agricultural tested-to-death items, and that once you want to actually operate the systems in the Typhoon's visually less appealing cockpit it's an intuitive joy, but in the better looking Rafale you're working like a one armed paper hangar, with less intuitive modings and with nothing quite falling to hand.
It is particularly the "nothing quite falling to hand" wich made me react, and this is this particular part of a sentence that was counter-dicted by my sources. Otherwise, I've noticed the begining was "I'm told that...".
I just posted my message to counter balance yours, because I think it's exagerated, and maybe scornful.
I'm not here to say "Rafale's HMI are better", ok ? ;) This was far from being my intention. On the contrary, it is clear that it is yours (Typhoon better). You may say your word is truth... as you wish, sir. I do my best to bring in English what people here can't read in our papers.
the MMI is not as good as that of the Typhoon
MAYBE !
I'm not able to post anything counter dicting this. Because no French pilot (AdA MN or Dassault) told that to a French journalist (or not a single French journalist have reported it in a newspaper).
It may be better for someone coming from the Mirage 2000
Well, now, look at a M2000C pit... Then, look at a M2000-5/9 cockpit. The Rafale A cockpit was the same kind as the Mirage 2000-5/9, with common screens with buttons all around. Nonetheless, Dassault have fully changed the layout with the Rafale. I draw no conclusion at all (no irony). Please notice the FACT that I'm not comparing to the Typhoon, ok ? :rolleyes:
Even in my 2/17 post, I never compared the Rafale to the Typhoon. Intentionaly.
Nor would anyone dispute that Rafale is ahead when it comes to the timetable of most equipment integrations and clearances. But that's a temporary advantage.
Actually the only ones you recognize. But in a few time, you're going to dispute it also. ;)
I am not the one who wanted to put one ahead of the other. Is this a whim you have ? :p
And you'd also have to be pretty pig-headed to ignore the disadvantages - the poor MMI, the 'dead end' RBE-2 (the French are spending €400m to replace the RBE-2/EW suite/cockpit/OSF combination ASAP).
Here comes what strikes me in your message.
You're just defying me to think otherwise, by the use of the "pig-headed" expression. I don't care. I'm "pig-headed", just to make you pleased. :p
"poor MMI" : is this scorn ? I do find that scornful. I don't even understand. Rafale MMI AREN'T poor. MAYBE it is inferior to Typhoon's MMI, but they surely aren't "poor". This is exactely why i gave details... This would make sens if they weren't even more efficient than the M2000-5/9 HMI, but it's wrong.
"'dead end' RBE-2" : again, passive array was meant to be replaced by active array as soon as such a development would cost a reasonably low price. The time has come. The efforts will be less costly now. (actually, efforts are under progress since 2002 at LEAST, with the DRAA, and now the DRAAMA).
"(the French are spending €400m to replace the RBE-2/EW suite/cockpit/OSF combination ASAP)" : ASAP, the aircraft throughlife development has no trouble.
I have the feeling that i have a voluntarily pessimistic reading of the facts about Rafale. And again, exageration : EW suite won't be replaced, it's only for the DDM (Rafale may use the same as for the A400M).
Just scorn or what ?
And then there's the thrust issue.
:confused: What the hell are you talking about ?
I came to correct an assertion about the MMI, and you're going to make of this thread another "Typhoon superiority" thread.
The Rafale is designed for 2x75kN max thrust. It will fly all its mission with this thrust. With these engines, it has the required ranges. And, believe it or not, it's already an all-superlatives aircraft, well better to all former generation types.
Since the begining, the Snecma is planning to build a more powerful engine (M88-3,4 etc...), with a potential increase in thrust of 50%.
BUT, money's lacking, and in addition, the AdA doesn't need such a powerful engine. Not now.
This doesn't help the Snecma. However, the M88-3 has been tested on the bench, and two prototypes are being tested currently, under the name of M88 ECO (one with 50% longer life pieces, one with 90kN of max AB thrust).
If you want my opinion, my humble opinion, it's a shame that the DGA do not help the Snecma. That was my opinion :O
I'm not sure to answer you again. I just think it's to bad. I remember having read interesting things from you, but about the Rafale, that's different... :{ Maybe you just want to taunt me (maybe it's especially against me ? I'm becoming paranoï :oh: )
I hope nobody will dare to tell me that's because i'm nationalistic. :ugh:

[LowObservable]

TMor,
I support you on this one. This is really a Mac/PC argument and not an issue of how the red, white and blue are arranged on your flag. But you brush on a real issue for Rafale, which is that there is only one sponsor and if they say 75 kN's enough for them, or that they can get by with RBE2's range as long as they have AWACS/E-2, that's what gets funded.
While the Typhoon has four sponsors with lots of resources to pay for anything. And of course terribly well organized so that they agree well in advance on what needs doing :E.

[ErgoMonkey]

TMor,

Apologies, I feel ive started a (cockpit MMI) fire here, my last post was not to pick any arguments, merely waving the flag a little, I've spent a huge amount of time around Typhoon Cockpits and had a sniff at the Rafale, and a good cockpit it is too, unfortunately I haven't spend enough to give it any solid opinion, however from what I've seen it got some slick points, particularly the infinity focused PA format, that is superb..........:D

[TMor]

No need to apology ErgoMonkey. You've posted an excellent and detailed message, without trying to compare anything ! ;)
Wave your flag as you wish, there's no problem with that. I'm sure that engineers and workers can be proud of their results. But, for both aircraft...
And so, my problem was just on some particular points in what said Jackonicko... I consider it's settled now. I don't want to bother.
Maybe Jack has some memories of me being a bit agressive or something on other fora... But the more I learn individually on each type, the more I find them interesting. That's why I don't like direct comparison, as they always look filled of something wrong, subjective... Except if it's explicitely for fun.
Maybe Jack is right (and Rafale MMI are poor, a full generation behind Typhoon, the M88 is underpowered...), but I've yet to find an other source to clear these points. :) And as Typhoon and Rafale are extremely new aircraft, such credible data are difficult if not impossible to find.
Only pilots who've flown both can really compare, but that's not even enough to get an good idea of the picture... (fighter pilots are humans after all !) :}
The interest of the whole topic has growned with the TLP, as the two aircraft could have met each other (though it still wouldn't have prove anything...). But it hasn't occured.
It is said that the MN Rafale M have met the Italian Typhoon this month ( the carrier "Charles de Gaulle" is going to Afg) ... I don't know anything more about that.

LowObservable,
But you brush on a real issue for Rafale
Yes, it's right. Nonetheless, it's heavily relying on the current government, you know... That's why Michèle Alliot-Marie has accepted to make things move a bit faster : she knows that if socialists (for example) come after, defense budgets will not be favoured. AdA and MN can thank her again for that ! :ok: Futur evolutions for 2012 are secured. :D (except the engine...)

TMor, playing the role of the French chap... :p


Confirmed :
Italian Typhoon have trained against the French Navy Rafale M F1 :
Pour l'occasion, les Italiens ont engagé leur tout nouvel Eurofighter, l'avion de combat européen, réalisé en coopération avec la Grande-Bretagne, l'Allemagne et l'Espagne. Des exercices de combat aérien l'ont opposé aux Rafale Marine de la flottille 12 F, embarqués sur le Charles de Gaulle. Aussi redoutables l'un que l'autre, les deux chasseurs se sont donc mesurés au dessus de la Méditerranée, dans un combat fictif dont le résultat n'a pas été communiqué.
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=103934
It was on the 15 and 16 of february. The results haven't been disclosed ! :(

[FougaMagister]

Interestingly, the Rafale has now been cleared for operations in Afghanistan. Up to six aircraft (two Navy F2 standard Rafale M and four Air Force Standard 2 aircraft - probably twin-seaters, from EC 1/7 "Provence" at Saint-Dizier and/or EC 5/330 "Cote d'Argent" at Mont-de-Marsan) will reinforce the Mirage 2000Ds currently based at Manas in Kyrgizstan. The Rafales will use LGBs, "slick" 500-lb and AASM (GPS-guided).

Operating the Rafale along the 2000D will allow some interesting comparisons - and with its extra range, take some pressure off the C-135FR tankers.

Cheers :cool: