Typhoon VS Rafale?
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bx
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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... 
That's a study report. And so, it is full of interesting comments from pilots, but the analysis behind are complicated... ! 
Whatever is written inside, I think that the Saudis must have a summerized idea of it !
About the AESA :
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.
That's a study report. And so, it is full of interesting comments from pilots, but the analysis behind are complicated... ! Whatever is written inside, I think that the Saudis must have a summerized idea of it !
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.
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.
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.
<<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...
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.
Which is why they were the last 10 years of your service...
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bx
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 :
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...
No more need for an external air dominance aircraft... Everything is in our forces.
Am I wrong ?
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.
(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.
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...
No more need for an external air dominance aircraft... Everything is in our forces.Am I wrong ?
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bx
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TMor,
What became Typhoon was, from a UK PoV, originally an RAFG F-4 and Jaguar replacement.
What became Typhoon was, from a UK PoV, originally an RAFG F-4 and Jaguar replacement.
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/
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: my own, private hell
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bx
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack, there is a little trouble with what you say.
Re-read what I wrote :
you said :
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.
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).
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 ? 
Even in my 2/17 post, I never compared the Rafale to the Typhoon. Intentionaly.
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 ?
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.
"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 ?
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
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 
)
I hope nobody will dare to tell me that's because i'm nationalistic.
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.
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
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
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.
I am not the one who wanted to put one ahead of the other. Is this a whim you have ?
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).
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.
"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.
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
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 )I hope nobody will dare to tell me that's because i'm nationalistic.
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.
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
.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: England
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..........
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..........
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bx
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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,
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 ! Futur evolutions for 2012 are secured. (except the engine...)
TMor, playing the role of the French chap...
Confirmed :
Italian Typhoon have trained against the French Navy Rafale M F1 :
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=103934
It was on the 15 and 16 of february. The results haven't been disclosed !
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
Futur evolutions for 2012 are secured. (except the engine...)TMor, playing the role of the French chap...
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.
It was on the 15 and 16 of february. The results haven't been disclosed !
Last edited by TMor; 22nd Feb 2007 at 08:54.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
