Eurofighter vs Rafale

[beachbumflyer]

Hi guys,

Eurofighter vs Rafale.
Which one is better?

[Thelma Viaduct]

Hi guys,

Eurofighter vs Rafale.
Which one is better?

Didn't realise either was ill???

[TBM-Legend]

Looks like the flying frog when it comes to attacking Libyan tanks etc...

[Archimedes]

The answer looks something like this.

Shortly, a French nationalist troll will appear here, under his umpteenth PPrune name, to tell you that Rafale is all-conquering and that Typhoon is completely hopeless, attempting to convince you by displaying a degree of supposed expertise which is entirely spurious and based upon reading a Dassault brochure, some fanciful ideas about air combat and assertions about the supremacy of French engineering over the rest of the world, all couched in terms which gives a slight sense that the Typhoon vs Rafale debate leads to a certain degree of arousal on his part of the sort that even Sigmund Freud would've found worrying.

At this point, other contributors will join in, your question will get lost as banter over Napoleon, the Fall of France in 1940/Dunkirk/Battle of Britain, Google's 'French Military Victories' in their 'I'm feeling lucky' search category turns into vitriolic nationalist abuse, with at least one failure to identify some posts as banter, followed by the thread getting locked, along with the troll being unmasked as the latest incarnation of Gegene/Fonc [sic].

And you'll still be none the wiser, because the answer that both are damned good aircraft, with some flaws and some outstanding qualities, and that it's a bit hard to make an outright decision as to which is better at this stage in their careers will be submerged in the above and go entirely un-noticed.

Anyway, that's been the way the answer's looked for the last decade whenever the question's been asked.

[Wholigan]

Good summary Archimedes. So I guess I should just lock this now then eh? Save some time and angst. ;)

[hanoijane]

Seconded. Why should we permit discussion on this subject when it may not;

a) follow a format of which we approve or,
b) reach a conclusion which is meaningful to us?

Dear god, the very thought is making me dizzy. Lock it! Right now!

PS. The answer is, of course, the Rafale. It looks cuter.

[Willard Whyte]

Another plus is that it can also fly off a boat.

[Finningley Boy]

Can't the Tiffy go a little bit faster though? Also, its got a fair old chunk of extra thrust over the Rafael, so its bound to be a little bit better!?:ok: At what though?:confused:

FB:)

[airborne_artist]

Can you fit a set of golf clubs in one of them?

[keesje]

The french decided earlier on in the process, air to ground became more important and adjusted their requirements.

They did not have to negotiate (except over price) within a group of nations and their industrial and political forces, because they are sole customer and most politics and industries are classmates in France.

I think the Rafale's radar is capable of acquiring ground targets.

No opinion of which is the best for what.

[dakkg651]

At least the French bother to think of unique names for their aircraft.

To me a Typhoon was a Hawker product powered by an awesome sounding Napier Sabre engine.

Apparently we are not going to put the thinking cap on either when the long awaited F35 appears. It will, I believe, be christened Lightning although it will have a II after it. Come to think of it, why didn't the useless jobsworths in the MOD aircraft naming department have the grace to name the modern version Typhoon II?

By the way, the original Typhoon was designed as a pure fighter but ended up as a ground attack aircraft. Funny how history tends to repeat itself! :E

[Jabba_TG12]

Ah, you've been here before then, Archimedes??? :};)

[Union Jack]

Ah, you've been here before then, Archimedes?

Archie - If that's true, this time please don't run through the streets ballocky buff shouting "Eureka!":ok:

Jack

[Bob Viking]

I weep for the future of our nation when people can't read properly. Some people still think the French jet is called a Rafael. They don't just pronounce it that way, they also manage to write it as well. Is it really that hard to read six letters and pronounce it properly?!
BV:rolleyes:
(Maybe a bit over the top but it bugs me and I had a crap night's sleep!)

[Jollygreengiant64]

Rafale... It looks better therefore it flies better.

[Finningley Boy]

I weep for the future of our nation when people can't read properly. Some people still think the French jet is called a Rafael. They don't just pronounce it that way, they also manage to write it as well. Is it really that hard to read six letters and pronounce it properly?!
BV:rolleyes:
(Maybe a bit over the top but it bugs me and I had a crap night's sleep!)

I believe I deliberately misspelled it this way in a moment of light heartedness. Soory about that old plum.:O

FB:)

[Geehovah]

I'm struggling here but IIRC, the reason the French left the project was that they wanted a 9 ton aircraft and Eurofighter was well in excess of a 10 ton "girth".

If you go light it means, in theory, packaging and functionality are compromised. Trying to shoehorn everything into EF was tough but, at 9T, it must have been a nightmare. Mind you, as a single Nation project the French chose the funtions they wanted and not what the other partners might want.

That said, I have no knowledge of how Rafale turned out. Typhoon wasn't a bad compromise in the end.

[LeCrazyFrog]

Some very sharp answers, especially from Archie...

1/ It doesn't matter which is better : results! And for the moment, not a Tiffy to be seen in Libya, are there any in A'stan?
2/ I agree with Jollygreen, as Marcel Dassault said : "Quand un avion est beau il vole bien"...some might argue that it flies better as long as there is some fuel in it (preempting some cheap banter here...)
3/ Brits seem to have the habit to buy/design a plane for a specific mission and then to use it for something totally different...
4/ Napoleon's honor will be revenged the day when you'll have no other options than to buy Rafales to put in your carrier...;)You know it makes sense...:ok:

[Mike7777777]

Both aeroplanes are no doubt fine machines, but are they meaningfully better than EELightning/Bucc/TSR2? (Delete according to personal preference) ;)

[Trim Stab]

The french decided earlier on in the process, air to ground became more important and adjusted their requirements.


They also realised that a two seat version was better in dedicated ground attack role.

Would any Typhoon experts care to comment on how that might translate to Typhoon?

[barnstormer1968]

As some posters have mentioned operational results, I feel the need to add another aircraft to the debate.........And one which I feel would be far better than both in the current theatres!

The Canberra

Not the RAF one but the USAF copy one, the B57. It had very good visibility and low light TV etc. Long endurance, very strong and plenty of kinetic bang stuff.

Back to normality, a quick question.
When did the RAF receive its first Typhoon (in reality, and not in PR speak), and when did the Armee d le'air receive their first Rafale?

[qwertyuiop]

What is the price of each aircraft?

[LeCrazyFrog]

4 years after the Rafale, the Typhoon interceptor dropped its first PvwyII against Lybian tanks...

BZ :E

[plebby 1st tourist]

It probably didn't need an old Mirage along to designate for it though:ok:

Edit: Although, reading the other thread, it might have had an old Tornado!

[LowObservable]

As I said four years ago:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/264234-typhoon-vs-rafale-2.html#post3128645

I think that has stood the test of time pretty well. Although from a customer standpoint, the big issue today is which (if indeed either of them) has the better, more robust-against-economic/strategic-turbulence upgrade plan.

[galaxy flyer]

A flight of either would be easy prey for opposing F-22s.

GF

[Finnpog]

And when was the last time that that aircraft dropped a Paveway?:cool:

[LeCrazyFrog]

A flight of either would be easy prey for opposing F-22s.

GF

As long as it dares showing up in some Operationnal area...:hmm:

Irak?...noo
Libya? nooo...

Where are they???

This is starting to look more and more to my old schooldays recess philosophical conversations...:rolleyes:

[LowObservable]

A flight of either would be easy prey for opposing F-22s.

So it's just as well that nobody can afford to buy, support, operate and deploy them, and that "nobody" may well, in the medium term, include the USAF.

[keesje]

I think as Europe, we failed bringing up the right aircraft after the cold war.

We spent tens of billions in a Eurofighter that has no stealth, thrust vectoring, a lot of range and needs to be rebuild to offer credible AtoA capabilities.

An interceptor can carry bombs, but there is more.

[BEagle]

Until Uncle Spam equips F-22 with a datalink which is compatible with all other players (i.e. Link 16) it isn't going to deploy anywhere in a coalition environment....

Never mind, I'm sure Alaska's nice....:bored:

[LowObservable]

But you can't use Link 16 because when you transmit in a way that allows lots of people to pick up your message, you also let lots of other people know you are there, and where you are, and the last time I looked, the whole point of this stealthy business was somewhat opposed to that concept.

So instead you have the secret-squirrel pencil beam link that only talks to other F-22s - but wait, there's a fix for that, you just transmit data back to a Global Hawk that then relays on the Link 16...

Until someone on the other side says, "err, what's the Global Hawk stooging around there for, outside its sensor range?"

[BEagle]

But you can't use Link 16 because when you transmit in a way that allows lots of people to pick up your message, you also let lots of other people know you are there, and where you are, and the last time I looked, the whole point of this stealthy business was somewhat opposed to that concept.

Only a very capable enemy would be capable of detecting, let alone making use of, L16 transmissions with their exceptionally low probability of intercept characteristics.

F-22 - so stealthy as to be useless as a coalition player.

[Wrathmonk]

F-22 - so stealthy as to be useless as a coalition player

Or so stealthy that no one, not even the coalition, knows it's there ;)

[TEEEJ]

To clarify the designation pod debate.

http://www.abload.de/img/ellamy9061104160075outfxfs.jpg

A RAF Typhoon departs from Gioia del Colle, equipped with Enhanced Paveway II bombs, air to air missiles and a Litening pod in support of the UN sanctioned No Fly Zone over Libya. 16 April 2011 Picture: Sergeant Pete Mobbs RAF, Crown Copyright/MOD 2011

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/gallery/17DBF7AE_5056_A318_A88AFE1B2284D779/ellamy1_big.jpg

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/gallery/17F1D938_5056_A318_A84A0662A87DDAFD/ellamy2_big.jpg

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/gallery/183853F4_5056_A318_A8DB85D534789746/ellamy3_big.jpg

From page 2 of Typhoon and Tornado gallery.

RAF - Typhoon and Tornado (http://www.raf.mod.uk/gallery/TyphoonandTornado.cfm)

TJ

[jindabyne]

Another view -----

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb59/malgrosse/0000.jpg

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

@ Archimedes, perfect abstract it seems :ok:
A balanced conclusion, too :)
the answer that both are damned good aircraft, with some flaws and some outstanding qualities, and that it's a bit hard to make an outright decision as to which is better at this stage in their careers will be submerged in the above and go entirely un-noticed.


@ airborne_artist, may I suggest to use a modified droppable fuel tank for your golf clubs ? Both aircraft do carry such tanks. :p

@ Geehovah
I'm struggling here but IIRC, the reason the French left the project was that they wanted a 9 ton aircraft and Eurofighter was well in excess of a 10 ton "girth".
(...)
That said, I have no knowledge of how Rafale turned out. Typhoon wasn't a bad compromise in the end.
It indeed was one of the reasons. One other reason (and this being as important as the weight issue, if not more) was the A2G importance as noted by keesje.
(...)
Rafale turned out well, according to its users. Not an export success so far, but clearly multirole by now (just in time for Libyan ops), and slightly ahead of Typhoon on that particular aspect.


@ Trim Stab
They also realised that a two seat version was better in dedicated ground attack role.
Well, on a side note on this :
- the EC 1/7 Provence squadron, first AdlA unit on the Rafale, now(*) flies with single pilot on board (even in Rafale Bs) for A2A, A2G, Recce roles.
- the 12.F (naval squadron) only uses Rafale Ms (carrier version - single seater), and does A2G amongst many other roles (A2A, Refuel, Recce, Nuke)
- on the other hand, the EB 1/91 Gascogne uses only two seaters Rafale Bs with a pilot and a WSO according to the AdlA rules for its main role (nuclear deterence).

(*) i.e. since a separate & dedicated OCU, ETR 2/92 Aquitaine, was created.


@ Jollygreengiant64
Rafale does indeed look better IMO. Mais bon, les goûts et les couleurs !! :cool:


@ barnstormer1968
The first user of the Rafale was the Marine Nationale:
- first two aircrafts (Rafale M - F1 i.e. A2A role only) delivered in december 2000
- 10th aircraft (last F1) delivered in october 2002
- FOC on Rafale F1 in june 2004
- first Rafale M - F2 (limited multirole) delivered in may 2006
- FOC on Rafale F2 in may 2008
As for the Armée de l'Air:
- deliveries begun in late 2004, directly on the F2 standart
- FOC on Rafale F2 in june 2006

All F2s have (MN & AdlA) have now been upgraded to the F3 (full multirole) standart. F1s are stored, awaiting upgrade.

Cheers
AZR

[tonker]

How do either compare to a big ugly aircraft with a bloody great bug gatling gun, two bulk standard commercial engines and a job lot of Titanium?

[glad rag]

How do either compare to a big ugly aircraft with a bloody great bug gatling gun, two bulk standard commercial engines and a job lot of Titanium?

Well, having lain in the couches in a -135 and seen how it struggled to match the refueler I think that there might just be a bit of life left in the "run away bravely" FJ's actually....however once the "big" rockets are gone, Yes it comes into it's own, provided there are enough deployed to cover the ground (in time).

Pity "they" won't spend to open the line again...:hmm:

[FR8R H8R]

The french make better cuisine, therefore better-looking and flying aircraft.

[AlphaZuluRomeo]

@ tonker : Is your question serious? :confused:

@ Ozymandias : Nice try, but I still smell a bit of google translate :cool:
And I do prefer belgian beers. No offense, though. ;)

Cheers
AZR

[rodneyn]

Thursday, 28. April 2011

The Hindu, India - NEW DELHI: The Ministry of Defence on Wednesday asked European consortium's Eurofighter and French Dassault's Rafale to extend the commercial bids for the 126 Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft that are due to expire on Thursday.


The move could be interpreted as ‘down selection' from six competitors in the Rs. 45,000- crore deal that is expected to be finalised this fiscal.

Sources in the government told The Hindu that the Ministry despatched the letter, based on the Technical Evaluation Committee's report.

The commercial bids, which were re-submitted last year by the competitors, need to be extended. Once the bids are opened, the cost negotiation committee would start work.

Offset clause

The calculation would also have to factor in the steep offset clause as determined by the Defence Procurement Policy.

As per the terms of the deal, the competitors would have to show that they have the requisite tie-ups to fulfil the 50-per cent offset clause, which means that half of the value of the deal would have be sourced from Indian companies.

The Indian Air Force had handed over its report to the Ministry last year after rigorous and
extensive flight evaluation trials of the six fighter planes bidding for the deal.

Besides Eurofighter and Rafale, the others in the race are American companies Lockheed Martin (F-16IN Super Viper) and Boeing (F/A-18 Super Hornet), Swedish SAAB Gripen NG and Russian Mikoyan MiG35.

The sources said the Ministry's team undertook an elaborate exercise to determine the offset obligations of the competitors, and once the task was complete, the next stage would be determined on the basis of the technical evaluation.

[Trim Stab]

Indian Air Force chooses Rafale and Typhoon for final procurement decision -

BBC News - India chooses European fighters over US rivals (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13233177)

[Anvil]

To reach the potential capabilities of Typhoon, Rafale requires a couple of minor alterations:

1) More powerful engines (say some extra 20% thrust)

2) A new radar (an active e-scan to replace the poor performing passive e-scan)

Both items have been requested by the UAE, as they have realised pretty quickly the key shortcomings of the French design.
An AESA radar should be available from 2012, but a new engine is still far away, if it will ever come.
Typhoon will eventually re-establish its superiority in radar performance with the new AESA radar due around 2015. This will be maintained going forward, as Typhoon´s antenna diameter is bigger than Rafale´s and thus can house more receive/transmit modules. Size matters!

For a prospective buyer considering the two jets one can summarise that Rafale will never be able to reach Typhoon´s air-to-air capabilities (aerodynamics and sensors in particular), whereas Typhoon will easily match Rafale´s air-to-surface roles. Just a matter of time and customer´s requests.

Another major difference with Typhoon (and most modern fighters) is the lack of towed decoys, which have proved very effective in enhancing the platform survivability.

Some of the reasons the original five-nation European Fighter went two separate ways are evident from what said above:

1) French strong bias towards air-to-ground vs Eurofighter optimisation on air superiority
2) French insistence on an electronic scan radar whose technology was flawed (and lack of appreciation of antenna size)
3) French insistence on their national engine (underpowered)
Last but not least the governance issue (French leadership of the project).

[despegue]

Quote"None taken, I enjoy them myself on occasion. Doesn't translate into exceptional Belgian fighter aircraft though, does it?"

No, but we DO have the best NATO fighter Pilots:E:}

[V1nce]

Hi all, if someone here is curious how Eurofighter-bashing looks like, visit Eurofighter vs Rafale (http://defenceforumindia.com/showthread.php?t=13701&page=2) on defenceforumindia.com. There you got THE french military aviation expert who is all knowing to such an extent that he doesn't even require Dassault brochures, as Archimedes described it ;) Look out for "Armand"!