Sea Jet
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
Naval,
You of all people should know that it is advisable to check your facts before posting.
Two seperate sources have the Rafale's range at 1,800km (1,000nm) and the F-35's at 1,000km (600nm).
I will give you the internal weapons bay as the Rafale does not have one.
I will contend the varying degrees of stealth on the two aircraft as I cannot find a comparison online from a reputable source (if you can then let me know)
As to the generational jump I would strongly disagree. The current thinking is that aircraft as diverse as the Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, Raptor and F-35 (when are they going to give this thing a reporting name???
) are at best generation 4.5 (although some American sites refer to the Raptor as 5th generation)
Cheers
BHR
You of all people should know that it is advisable to check your facts before posting.
Two seperate sources have the Rafale's range at 1,800km (1,000nm) and the F-35's at 1,000km (600nm).
I will give you the internal weapons bay as the Rafale does not have one.
I will contend the varying degrees of stealth on the two aircraft as I cannot find a comparison online from a reputable source (if you can then let me know)
As to the generational jump I would strongly disagree. The current thinking is that aircraft as diverse as the Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, Raptor and F-35 (when are they going to give this thing a reporting name???
) are at best generation 4.5 (although some American sites refer to the Raptor as 5th generation)Cheers
BHR
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
From: Sheffield
The Rafale will indeed be a generation behind the Typhoon, F35 and Raptor by 2012 - it was a cynical attempt (yep another!) by France to poach Eurofighter's business when they childishly pulled-out of the programme in typical French tradition. The Mail's notion that we'd be stupid enough to buy them was insulting if not comical!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,682
Likes: 7,366
From: Peripatetic
As point of history.
The reason the French pulled out of Eurofighter was because of problems over weight and size. The French required an aircraft of no more than 10 tons in order for it to be able to operate off the Foch and campaigned vigorously for that to be the limit for Eurofighter. The remaining members of the consortium didn´t have that limit and either could not get the capabilities that they required inside the limit or weren´t willing to accept the restrictions in payload, range etc. Hnece the French pulling out and doing their own thing.
The reason the French pulled out of Eurofighter was because of problems over weight and size. The French required an aircraft of no more than 10 tons in order for it to be able to operate off the Foch and campaigned vigorously for that to be the limit for Eurofighter. The remaining members of the consortium didn´t have that limit and either could not get the capabilities that they required inside the limit or weren´t willing to accept the restrictions in payload, range etc. Hnece the French pulling out and doing their own thing.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
From: Sheffield
Indeed - that's what the French always do. They whine and bitch until everything suits their own requirements, or they run-off and go it alone. It's something of a tradition with them. In effect, the French concept of a joint design is a "French aircraft paid-for by someone else". Gawd bless em!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,682
Likes: 7,366
From: Peripatetic
Welllll, it is true they also wanted design lead on the airframe.....and the engine....oh, and the radar. Err, just about everything actually. 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
Dear all,
Damn those Frenchies.
Imagine not wanting to waste time and taxpayers money to end up with a machine that does not meet the requirements of your armed forces.
How dare they take only 3 years from the setting of the requirement to the first flight of the prototype.
Who do they think they are having the drive and ability to design, test and produce a completely new aircraft, as opposed to not even being able to efficiently upgrade a 50 year old design, so that the wings still fit the fuselage.
The cheek of those across the ENGLISH Channel, do they not know their place?
Cheers
BHR
Damn those Frenchies.
Imagine not wanting to waste time and taxpayers money to end up with a machine that does not meet the requirements of your armed forces.
How dare they take only 3 years from the setting of the requirement to the first flight of the prototype.
Who do they think they are having the drive and ability to design, test and produce a completely new aircraft, as opposed to not even being able to efficiently upgrade a 50 year old design, so that the wings still fit the fuselage.
The cheek of those across the ENGLISH Channel, do they not know their place?
Cheers
BHR
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
From: Sheffield
Imagine only taking three years - anyone would think that we were just throwing a design together in order to spoil the export potential of a competing design. No, surely not, that would be underhand and spiteful, and obvsiously not something the French would ever do.
Ahh now zee Engleesh, they certainly do know their place, always at the forefront of innovative and effective aerospace design. If only there weren't so stupid as to never back-up their ingenuity with money, but then if they did, us French wouldn't have anything to er... steal.
Now, where did we put those plans for the Balzac and the Mirage 4000 and the Alpha Jet and the Transall... there must be some more export markets we could try and spoil...
Ahh now zee Engleesh, they certainly do know their place, always at the forefront of innovative and effective aerospace design. If only there weren't so stupid as to never back-up their ingenuity with money, but then if they did, us French wouldn't have anything to er... steal.
Now, where did we put those plans for the Balzac and the Mirage 4000 and the Alpha Jet and the Transall... there must be some more export markets we could try and spoil...
Suspicion breeds confidence
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,406
Likes: 15
From: Gibraltar
to spoil the export potential of a competing design
Interesting CVF article here from Strategypage
March 9, 2006: Britain and France finally signed the deal to build three new aircraft carriers. This followed several years of negotiations. What's surprising about all this is not the large size of the carriers (about 58,000 tons, the largest ships ever for both navies), or the unique cooperation (two of the carriers are British, one is French, and both nations will cooperate on design and construction, with the Brits taking the lead.) No, what is amazing about all this is the aggressive plans for automation. These "Queen Elizabeth" class carriers are planning on having a ships crew of 800 (or less) and an air wing complement of 600 personnel. Currently, you need a ship crew of about 2,000 for a carrier that size. The reduction in size of the air wing personnel is even more aggressive.
These carriers are going to cost about $4 billion each, and are to be in use for half a century (including several refits and refurbs). But the biggest cost will be personnel. Currently, it costs the U.S. Navy a bit over $100,000 per sailor per year. Do the math ($7 billion in crew costs over the life of each carrier.) So the smaller the crew, the greater the savings, and the more you can spend on upgrading the ship, buying new aircraft and the like.
The carriers will haul 34-45 aircraft and helicopters and be able to handle about 110 flight operations every 24 hours. That's with current aircraft. The F-35B will be the primary warplane on the British carriers. But it's also likely that many, or all, of the next generation of aircraft on these ships will be robotic. But first, the ship has to be equipped with an unprecedented degree of automation. While 250,000 ton oil tankers can operate with a crew of under 40, all those large vessels do is move their cargo from place to place. An aircraft carrier must fight, and find the enemy, and do a lot of other stuff. The new class of 100,000 ton American CVN-21 carriers are trying to get their ship crew down from 4,000 to 2,500.
Warships have a lot of unique functions, like damage control, and manning many systems for high alert, and combat, situations. Some crew reduction ideas are pretty obvious, like installing conveyers to help move supplies when ships are replenished at sea, or even when in port. Many maintenance tasks can be eliminated by using materials that require less effort to keep clean, and are just as safe as those used in the past. It's also been noted that many maintenance tasks can be left for civilians to do when the ship is in port. Most navies has also not kept up on automation. There is still a tendency to have sailors "standing watch" to oversee equipment that, with the addition of some sensors, can be monitored from a central location. If there is a problem, a repair team can be sent. But in the meantime, thousands of man hours a week are saved, and another few dozen sailors are not needed. Another angle is removing a lot of administrative jobs from the ship altogether. All warships are connected, via satellite, to military networks. So many sailors can stay ashore, and do their work without ever going near the ship. Some sailors have long noted that their administrative jobs aboard a carrier rarely brought them in touch with the people they were serving. Carriers have phones and email. Why use it aboard ship when you can use it from some (much cheaper) shore location? Moreover, many of these admin jobs can be done, more cheaply, by civilians.
But the new British/French carriers aim to take warship automation into uncharted territory. This should be interesting, and it is certainly bold and daring. All three carriers are expected to be in service by the middle of the next decade. Just in time for the centennial of the First World War. Hmmm, that's ominous.
Last edited by Navaleye; 9th March 2006 at 10:49.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 391
Likes: 1
From: In the dark
Originally Posted by ORAC
As point of history.
The reason the French pulled out of Eurofighter was because of problems over weight and size. The French required an aircraft of no more than 10 tons in order for it to be able to operate off the Foch and campaigned vigorously for that to be the limit for Eurofighter. The remaining members of the consortium didn´t have that limit and either could not get the capabilities that they required inside the limit or weren´t willing to accept the restrictions in payload, range etc. Hnece the French pulling out and doing their own thing.
The reason the French pulled out of Eurofighter was because of problems over weight and size. The French required an aircraft of no more than 10 tons in order for it to be able to operate off the Foch and campaigned vigorously for that to be the limit for Eurofighter. The remaining members of the consortium didn´t have that limit and either could not get the capabilities that they required inside the limit or weren´t willing to accept the restrictions in payload, range etc. Hnece the French pulling out and doing their own thing.
MTOW for Rafale is 19 500 kg
Hardly a big difference, and hardly worth developing a new aircraft for. The motives of the French are never simple.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,682
Likes: 7,366
From: Peripatetic
Rafale M: Single-seat carrierborne fighter; navalisation weight penalty, 610 kg (1,345 lb); take-off weight from French carrier Foch limited to 16,500 kg....
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
Tim/Naval,
Nice to see you are not going to let the facts interfere with your pre-conceptions
.
It is a shame that your jealousy of the French ability to fend off the death of their aviation industry when we here in the UK could not.
Cheers
BHR
Nice to see you are not going to let the facts interfere with your pre-conceptions
.It is a shame that your jealousy of the French ability to fend off the death of their aviation industry when we here in the UK could not.
Cheers
BHR
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
From: UK
Could someone just explain why Rafale is a generation behind Typhoon? Equally can someone explain why selling a great aircraft such as the Mirage 2000 is 'spoilling an export market'?
It's easy (and traditional) to knock the French but the truth is simple. They make good planes, quicker than a bureaucratic nonsense of a consortium could ever hope to, in all probability at a fraction of the cost.
Mirage 2000 vs Tornado F3, no brainer. Rafale vs Euro-still not in service-fighter, i suggest would be a closer call than fans of the fantasy would like to admit.
It's easy (and traditional) to knock the French but the truth is simple. They make good planes, quicker than a bureaucratic nonsense of a consortium could ever hope to, in all probability at a fraction of the cost.
Mirage 2000 vs Tornado F3, no brainer. Rafale vs Euro-still not in service-fighter, i suggest would be a closer call than fans of the fantasy would like to admit.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,236
Likes: 80
From: Just behind the back of beyond....
While I hate to spoil the fun and drag this thread back on track, I do feel that it's appropriate to congratulate the SHar force on yesterday's mission, which proved that in the air to air role, they can still more than hold their own.
And perhaps we should commisserate with the F-15 pilots?
As to Rafale, though the unilateral focus did allow Dassault to escape some of the awful delays that have afflicted Typhoon, the aircraft is still not in full service. The nine F1 aircraft assigned to the Aéronavale's Flotille 12 act as an opeval unit and have only a limited operational capability, while the Armée de l'Air's CEAM is a test and evaluation unit (with sufficient conversion training capability to fulfil its own needs and seed the first 'proper' conversion unit). As such it's comparable to 17 Squadron - with an embedded flight from 29.
EC7, which will stand up with 8 jets in the summer, and which will become operational with 20 jets next year will be equivalent to 29 with an embedded 'op' flight from 3.
No.3 Squadron, the first operational RAF Typhoon squadron, stands up on 1 April, and in Italy the Typhoon is already operational, having stood Q since before Christmas.
Nor is Rafale immune from the kind of teething problems that afflict all new generation fighter programmes - though it does seem immune to the kind of national press hostility that Typhoon gets.
And perhaps we should commisserate with the F-15 pilots?
As to Rafale, though the unilateral focus did allow Dassault to escape some of the awful delays that have afflicted Typhoon, the aircraft is still not in full service. The nine F1 aircraft assigned to the Aéronavale's Flotille 12 act as an opeval unit and have only a limited operational capability, while the Armée de l'Air's CEAM is a test and evaluation unit (with sufficient conversion training capability to fulfil its own needs and seed the first 'proper' conversion unit). As such it's comparable to 17 Squadron - with an embedded flight from 29.
EC7, which will stand up with 8 jets in the summer, and which will become operational with 20 jets next year will be equivalent to 29 with an embedded 'op' flight from 3.
No.3 Squadron, the first operational RAF Typhoon squadron, stands up on 1 April, and in Italy the Typhoon is already operational, having stood Q since before Christmas.
Nor is Rafale immune from the kind of teething problems that afflict all new generation fighter programmes - though it does seem immune to the kind of national press hostility that Typhoon gets.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
From: Racedo blows goats
Orca
I've no knowledge of the Rafale so cannot comment on the generation or obsolesence issues and am not particularly interested in seeing who can reach highest up the wall.
However, to bring equipment into service quickly you have to reduce design risk. Essentially this means buying off the shelf equipment that is some way into its design life. To keep it up to date you have to look at a technology refresh earlier in the aircraft life cycle and this costs a lot.
If you are starting with a clean sheet and are accepting a lot of risk to make a technology leap, you have to start from a paper design. This adds years to the introduction of the aircraft but delays the point at which a technology refresh is required. This does have the advantage of being able to plan redundanct capability or tailor the design to your percieved future needs.
Essentially, you have to adopt a strategy that fits your need and that you can afford, and be able to absorb the cost and delay of technology risks biting you. However, by making the higher investment at the outset you may reduce your life cycle costs by reducing the number of technology injects or shortening the steps to achieve them.
I agree with the cumbersome nature of the partner nations organisation but again it is a balancing act. You can spread initial and subsequent development costs however many ways.
As to who made the right decision only time will tell but I would suggest that the export sales put Typhoon in the lead because money will become available from outside the organisation for product investment. Given development costs for a 6th generation it is hard to see France stand alone again. That is not an anti-french sentiment, I admire both them and swedish for what they have achieved, but is a cold economic fact. Even the US had to look for investors in F-35.
regards
retard
I've no knowledge of the Rafale so cannot comment on the generation or obsolesence issues and am not particularly interested in seeing who can reach highest up the wall.
However, to bring equipment into service quickly you have to reduce design risk. Essentially this means buying off the shelf equipment that is some way into its design life. To keep it up to date you have to look at a technology refresh earlier in the aircraft life cycle and this costs a lot.
If you are starting with a clean sheet and are accepting a lot of risk to make a technology leap, you have to start from a paper design. This adds years to the introduction of the aircraft but delays the point at which a technology refresh is required. This does have the advantage of being able to plan redundanct capability or tailor the design to your percieved future needs.
Essentially, you have to adopt a strategy that fits your need and that you can afford, and be able to absorb the cost and delay of technology risks biting you. However, by making the higher investment at the outset you may reduce your life cycle costs by reducing the number of technology injects or shortening the steps to achieve them.
I agree with the cumbersome nature of the partner nations organisation but again it is a balancing act. You can spread initial and subsequent development costs however many ways.
As to who made the right decision only time will tell but I would suggest that the export sales put Typhoon in the lead because money will become available from outside the organisation for product investment. Given development costs for a 6th generation it is hard to see France stand alone again. That is not an anti-french sentiment, I admire both them and swedish for what they have achieved, but is a cold economic fact. Even the US had to look for investors in F-35.
regards
retard
Suspicion breeds confidence
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,406
Likes: 15
From: Gibraltar
While I hate to spoil the fun and drag this thread back on track, I do feel that it's appropriate to congratulate the SHar force on yesterday's mission, which proved that in the air to air role, they can still more than hold their own.
I must have missed this, could you elaborate please?
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
From: Sheffield
BillHicks; I don't have any pre-conceptions about the French at all, I just happen to write about military aviation as a job, and experience/history is more than enough on which to base my dislike for the French. You don't need any pre-conceptions - just take a look at the history of our respective programmes and see for yourself what a bunch of two-timing, self-interested rats the French are. I agree that they are brilliant at maintaining their industry, and it's something that Britain has always failed to do, and the French do build some good (if not great) aircraft (they've also built more than a few "stinkers" too) but does that entitle the French to any respect? I think not.
Orca; try looking at it this way - the Rafale has been in service for some time, and the Typhoon is just starting its RAF career. Move forward to 2012 (or more likely 2015-plus) and while the Typhoon is not even approaching its MLU (wonder if the promised thrust-vectoring will be affordable?!) the Rafale will be obsolete, as you can bet that the French won't be spending much more money on it, once they've established that they can't actually flog any to anyone. That's not even taking into account that the Rafale was/is inferior to the Typhoon in the first place! Make no mistake, the only reason Rafale was developed was because the French failed to persuade the rest of Europe to build an aircraft that only France wanted and in typical tradition, they threw their proverbial rattle out of their proverbial pram and decided to go it alone yet again. They thought that Eurofighter would either fail or be too complex and expensive to be exported and that they'd be able to sell Rafale instead (I think the term is "doing a Mirage") but this time they got their fingers well and truly burned.
As for your Rafale-v-Typhoon fantasy match Orca, you could put your money on the winner there any day, and it sure wouldn't be the French. In fact, I'd be reluctant to take the bet off even if it was a Rafale-v-F3 scrap, as it really wouldn't pay to underestimate the skills of the RAF's fighter community, even if they're driving Tornado F3's. Bear in mind that France is the country that consistently assigns twin-seat Mirage 2000's for display routines because the forward fuselage is just a bit larger, and thus delivers a slightly better turning performance. Talk about smoke and mirrors...
I assume from the comments here that some Shar drivers prevailed over some F-15's yesterday, but that shouldn't come as much of a surprise - the RAF soundly embarrassed the F-15 community something like twenty years ago, when they went head-to-head with TWU Hunters!
Orca; try looking at it this way - the Rafale has been in service for some time, and the Typhoon is just starting its RAF career. Move forward to 2012 (or more likely 2015-plus) and while the Typhoon is not even approaching its MLU (wonder if the promised thrust-vectoring will be affordable?!) the Rafale will be obsolete, as you can bet that the French won't be spending much more money on it, once they've established that they can't actually flog any to anyone. That's not even taking into account that the Rafale was/is inferior to the Typhoon in the first place! Make no mistake, the only reason Rafale was developed was because the French failed to persuade the rest of Europe to build an aircraft that only France wanted and in typical tradition, they threw their proverbial rattle out of their proverbial pram and decided to go it alone yet again. They thought that Eurofighter would either fail or be too complex and expensive to be exported and that they'd be able to sell Rafale instead (I think the term is "doing a Mirage") but this time they got their fingers well and truly burned.
As for your Rafale-v-Typhoon fantasy match Orca, you could put your money on the winner there any day, and it sure wouldn't be the French. In fact, I'd be reluctant to take the bet off even if it was a Rafale-v-F3 scrap, as it really wouldn't pay to underestimate the skills of the RAF's fighter community, even if they're driving Tornado F3's. Bear in mind that France is the country that consistently assigns twin-seat Mirage 2000's for display routines because the forward fuselage is just a bit larger, and thus delivers a slightly better turning performance. Talk about smoke and mirrors...
I assume from the comments here that some Shar drivers prevailed over some F-15's yesterday, but that shouldn't come as much of a surprise - the RAF soundly embarrassed the F-15 community something like twenty years ago, when they went head-to-head with TWU Hunters!