Eurofighter vs Rafale
 

Hi guys,

Eurofighter vs Rafale.
Which one is better?

Didn't realise either was ill???

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

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.

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

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.

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

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:)

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

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.

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

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

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

RAFALE
 

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!)

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

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

FB:)

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.

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:

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

Two seat Typhoon?
 

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?