Why France was right to develop its Rafale

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by Drsomnath999, Jun 17, 2012.

  1. Drsomnath999

    Drsomnath999 lord of 32 teeth Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,223
    Likes Received:
    1,220
    Location:
    BHUBANESHWAR
    Why did he not been a single European combat aircraft, rather than the current two (Rafale and Eurofighter), and even three with the Swedish Gripen?

    Obviously not everything is white or black, on a question like that, so that there has been attempt to focus energies on a single plane. Perhaps he would have been possible to reconcile the approaches, and to balance the interests quite different? It is likely that if there had been more experience of fruitful cooperation, such as Airbus, during discussions in 1985, compromises win / win would have been found.

    But, in retrospect, the choice to withdraw from the French consortium in creation has led to an excellent aircraft, efficient, versatile, no real equivalent of the Atlantic, and at a reasonable cost, in spite of the development costs far below those planes U.S..

    It is true that export sales of the Rafale are not (yet) to go, but unfortunately they are not extraordinary for the Eurofighter. In our article " The obvious advantages of the Rafale vs Eurofighter ", very complementary, we show that export sales depend in fact, addition of the superpower United States via its home market of Defense (50% of military spending world), previous non-US sales

    Different needs between France, Germany and Great Britain


    One of the reasons why France has withdrawn from the European consortium in creation (Eurofighter) is that their needs were very extensive, and she wanted a single plane for all its missions, a truly multi-role aircraft, and if possible omnirole:
    One of these requirements was the availability of a naval variant of this airplane. Otherwise France was forced to purchase a second aircraft model very expensive and probably American (F-18 Hornet)?
    In addition, France wanted a camera "swing-role", that allows to switch roles during an exit. [ 1 ]

    And each camp (French Mirage, Tornado vs-British-German-Italian-) wanted to extend his experience and capitalize on weight characteristics similar aircraft already made Mirage Light (8 tons empty, like the American F-16), Tornado heavier (14 tons). [ 2 ]

    [​IMG]

    Or design a single plane for all of these missions was refused by England and Germany, who preferred a model then "Cold War": a pure interceptor (air combat). [ 3 ] [ 4 ]:
    the Germans had no reason to buy the naval version of a common plane. They wanted, however a pure interceptor, agile at high altitude, whose characteristics make it impossible for a naval version (such as ducks in the front, that promote agility at high altitude but prohibit landing on an aircraft carrier; and navalisation Typhoon is a possibility of near impossibility), they wanted a plane above all light (<10t.) to operate above the front line.
    the English wanted the carrying capacity of an interceptor ocean, and no naval version of everything: their aircraft carriers without catapults were not required for aircraft (Harrier) vertical takeoff.
    French and English were in competition for the supply of engines: new Snecma M88, versus development of the RB-199 British Tornado, and the French did not want a double source (engine) on the same plane.

    The German will to a light aircraft could match the French program. If the Germans have accepted the British technical choice, it is most likely to benefit from the skills associated with such a program.

    Since, especially after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the consortium has realized the importance of a multi-role aircraft, with such ground support (air-ground), available at best in 2018 [ 5 ] and with huge budgets, and some missions (naval version) are impossible (it would review the entire design of the Eurofighter into a plane catobar (catapultable appontant with strands and stop, the U.S. aircraft carriers and French , and the cost is excessive).

    By the way, would have been if the Eurofighter Daussault had the cell following the specifications in English and using English engines? Well "a high-performance aircraft in the climb, with little longer and less good evasive skills in Very Low Altitude (and incidentally perhaps no possibility of an operation for Aircraft Carrier)". "This plane could not replace the Jaguar, F-8 and French Mirage F1-CT, it would have been a very serious contender for the Mirage 2000-5 (but more expensive)."

    France does not want to reproduce the events of the European missile or Dassault be spoil his skills

    In addition, France did not wish to be associated with a project without clear leadership, and to lose the advance of his champion Dassault, following a pattern of ineffective cooperation.



    The project management requires an undisputed leadership, project owners and implement clear, otherwise the problems are inevitable. European projects abound that show this need:
    Europa rocket (before the success of the Ariane 1) with three floors were divided between countries without common project management
    A400M program without leading country, which led to cost overruns and delays that have hit the headlines last two years
    Galileo project, where the definition of a non-project management has led to severe spiraling costs and delays, contributing to a delay of several years and of course the Eurofighter program, which also accumulated costs and delays.

    But another factor also plays is the presence or absence of rules for real cooperation: collaboration uncontrolled can lead to transfer of skills from the most competent to less competent, while slowing the joint work, thus increasing the time and cost.

    See the video (INA, TV news at the time) Interview with Bruno Revellin FALCOZ, General Manager Technical Dassault. .

    It is feared that Dassault, and history proved him right: the Eurofighter program has cost more than the Rafale, while leading a flight less efficient and less versatile!

    According to Germain Chambost [ 7 ], the British demands for a Rolls Royce engine, upgraded version of Tornado RB199 engine RR penetration, played a decisive role. As this would 're-engine of their Tornado air defense, sometimes qualified "asthmatics" above 20,000 feet (6,000 meters), ie lacking breath, rather annoying feature for devices to respond to high altitude. The British were thus two things at once. Support for Rolls Royce was their creed permanent, their near obsession '. ...

    'Even if they are willing to make that Dassault is the prime work of the cell, the British did not give an inch on the rule left to Rolls Royce for the engines. Which condemns the Snecma to become, at best, a subcontractor of the English engine manufacturer, and pass written off almost all work on the M88. '

    Because the willingness of Rolls Royce, absolute, to develop an engine of the same size (same diameter) than the RB 199 in order to re-engine the Tornado was perhaps that the official version. The unstated goal could be relegated to the status of the SNECMA subcontractor, while the French engine was very advanced (for extensive studies began in the late 1970s, and Snecma in 1985 had all the elements of M-88 required). But there is still no EJ-200 or derivative in Tornado reactor, and this has not been to the agenda ... [ 8 ] Moreover, if EuroJet 200 has a diameter close to that of RB 199 (Tornado), while 2 cm wider, the reactor with the Eurofighter is 32 cm long (4 m), This is no small thing for an aircraft [ 9 ]. The question is: Rolls Royce could not achieve what he wanted (same dimensions as the Tornado), or it was it qu'affichage?

    In any case, the withdrawal of France might sound like a warning shot, and could have resulted in redefining the rules of collaboration, for an aircraft suitable for British and German, with controlled costs.

    It is clear that this was not the case, with a Eurofighter both heavy, expensive and less versatile than the Rafale, keyed to the needs (extended) of France.

    And "it was essential for Avions Marcel Dassault and Snecma to keep for the future a complete technical know-how of both the engine and the plane"


    A plane very responsive French, for a total price reasonable, thanks to this versatility


    The least we can say is that the program is successful, with a plane really omnirole, as opposed to only multi-role:

    "The versatility of the Rafale will allow a rationalization of the air weapon which, from 1995 to 2030, will increase from more than 650 combat aircraft to 286, as just pointed out the Minister of Defense".

    "As an illustration, a Rafale perform the tasks of two Mirage 2000.

    French armies then will operate one device for the air force and naval aviation, resulting in significant savings in terms of support, where the English have had two and three Americans! "[ 11 ]

    One point that is rarely highlighted: not only the Rafale can be used on 7 different missions, but also a Rafale can perform several tasks during the same output: recognition bombing AND AND dogfight for example, which is to surer (self-protection) and effective. It can even perform two different tasks (air-ground and air to air) at the same time, providing self-protection.

    In addition, compatibility with U.S. aircraft carriers (especially with their catapults and their strands arrest) was demonstrated in 2008: six Rafale were able to easily integrate the group's air carrier "Theodore Roosevelt" in As part of the exercise interoperability JTFEX large, organized by the U.S. Navy. This seamless interoperability with U.S. air and naval units and Allied was emphasized by the U.S. Navy. [ 12 ]

    'The hundred of aircraft delivered to date can get an idea of ​​its qualities. The Rafale has already participated in two wars (Afghanistan and Libya) and ensures the daily air defense missions (permanent Security Posture) and nuclear deterrence. Its versatility is its strength: it can carry out missions of air-air interception, reconnaissance, ground attack and strategic strikes, from the ground or an aircraft carrier. The only comparable aircraft in the world is the F-18 E / F '

    Burst(Rafale), the only real airplane "omnirole" in the world

    And again, if the F-18 E and F (Super Hornet) are multi-role (with the two major roles that are aerial combat and ground attack), and swing-role (change roles during the same output) and use on aircraft carriers,
    they are less versatile and less powerful than the Rafale (with exceptional data fusion, for example, the internal system and electronic warfare - SPECTRA, which is the basis of the excellent survivability against threats Rafale air to air and surface to air last generation.) [ 14 ] [ 15 ]
    and they can not simultaneously fire a missile Mica air-air, and a bomb or a missile guided AASM air-ground ... [ 16 ] [ 17 ]

    Positioning are some specialized aircraft on this route / multi-role / swing-role / omni-role, and whether they have a naval version or not.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    The Rafale is the most versatile! This is the concept of Dassault aircraft "omnirole": both all roles, but also several roles in the same output [ 20 ], simultaneously. [ 21 ]

    This is the paradox for France, the less silver than the United States: we need a fleet cheaply as possible, while having all missions to complete, and can perform several roles at the same time ...

    Note, after aircraft built very specialized, the Americans came as the multi-role, and developers of the Eurofighter too!

    The United States undertook the same replacement of several aircraft (F-14, A6 Intruder, Lockheed S-3 Viking, KA-6D), the only F / A 18 E, F ("Super Hornet") [ 22 ] , and the EA-18G replaces the EA-6 Prowler. The annual American economy has been estimated at one billion dollars through the replacement. To our knowledge the French economy has not been quantified, but it is perhaps even more important, relatively, since the number of aircraft is also halved, from 600 to less than 300 aircraft.

    Incidentally, the F/A-18, like the Rafale, is one of very few had recently developed that satisfy the expected costs (the Rafale close to 4.7%, according to the Court of Accounts (page 68 ), who noted along with the Rafale program was disrupted several times in funding [ 23 ]). While U.S. planes F-22 [ 24 ], C-17, C-130J and F-35 more recently were the subject of significant deviations in cost and time.

    Pilots thrilled, whatever their nationality


    A major advantage of the Rafale is its ability to merge information from its various sensors providing the pilot a tactical situation unique, easily interpretable, this function is called for FSST "Function Summary of situational awareness." [ 25 ]

    And pilots are unanimous testimonies, for all those who have had the opportunity to try it, especially in the testing phases of bidding. For example the Swiss pilots.

    Or that British driver (old driver of the Royal Air Force, and who flew in especially aerobatic Red Arrows), reflecting the specialized site "Flightglobal" [ 26 ], with translation in French by " Flight Test : the Dassault Rafale, the ultimate fighter by Peter Collins , "and concludes with these sentences:

    "Providing an answer to my own assessment objectives, it is clear that the Rafale actually deserves its designation airplane" omnirole ", even though I've only scratched the extent of its capabilities, in terms sensors and weapons systems. This aircraft offers an astounding level of performance, as befits a camera of the fourth generation and, despite the high complexity and the extreme demand for the output evaluation that I conducted onboard the Rafale, I felt perfectly at ease in this plane, at any time maintaining a full assessment of the situation. If this plane was able to ensure my safety, no doubt he will do the same with Young drivers have to face the Tactical Operations ..

    Indeed, the classical definitions associated with the roles to be fulfilled by combat aircraft does little justice to make this aircraft. The Rafale fighter by European excellence and, as such, a true force multiplier. It's just the fighter the best performing and most comprehensive that I have had the opportunity to fly. Deployments in operation are also eloquent. If I had to go to a theater of operation, regardless of the type of mission that is my responsibility, regardless of the opponent, it is clear that I would choose the Rafale. "

    On blogs Site "Flight International", the pilot and the editors are adding to it, especially in an article entitled: " Rafale beats F-35 & F-22 in Flight International "which is discussed with dozens of comments.

    The F-35 and F-22, "fifth generation", are considered, because of their stealth, and against the Rafale, too expensive and insufficiently armed. The Rafale, like fourth-generation device, is then an excellent competitor, according to the UK site:
    This is the crisis and expenses of the Kingdom must be lowered
    This is the only device to be offered in European embedded version also
    The Rafale has won its definition of device "omnirole"
    The Rafale is "Europe's strength-the war-fighter Multiplying" par excellence

    That praise from across the Channel, while here the journalists (non-aeronautical) make fun of the device, without knowing anything in military aviation.

    See also the conclusion of the Greek F16 pilots, who in 2006 had the opportunity to compare the aircraft (Rafale M F2 standard, while we're at F3) on the Charles de Gaulle: "In the air, the Rafale is very agile, aim for the greek sense of the pilots flying was very different from That of the F16. It Was commented as perfectly stable, with very good response in all speeds and manouvers. Were Very good impressions left by the automatic aussi pilot as well as the Ability of Maintaining very low speed DURING approach, Prior to landing. "

    A very positive feedback, Libya

    Operations in Libya (2011) have verified the many benefits of Rafale, from the perspective of drivers, "those interviewed clearly adore their plane.

    In addition to the avionics "that helps a lot, through a man-machine interface unusual," they appreciate the comfort of their seat and its semi-reclined position, the efficiency of air conditioning in the cockpit (" I've never seen condensation, "said one driver) and the adaptability to the handle side, on which the Rafale replaces the conventional central shaft.

    These are not necessarily major aspect, a pilot notes, "but after a few days of fighting high-intensity, a Rafale pilot will be in much better shape as a pilot of another plane. '"


    The performance and quality of the Rafale regularly noticed

    The availability of Rafale was also excellent "As far as the availability of the Rafale goes, in the duration of 18 outputs, It Was Proved high (94%), while only one flight delayed and WAS in one more There Was a minor technical DURING flight problem. "

    And for the tender Indian: 'The performance and quality of the Rafale were regularly noticed during various tenders. For example, for India: the flight evaluations, which took place during the spring and summer of 2010, lasted over a month for each aircraft in contention. Everyone went to the tail single file, the F / A 18 and F 16, Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon finally Mig.

    Indian pilots have been busy! All configurations were tested: flight at high altitude, low altitude, in a desert environment, emergency landing, engine shutdown and restart ...

    Similarly, the Indians fired weapons, missiles and cannon. They combed through the deployment capabilities of their aircraft maintenance crews and mechanics, with for example, the timing of exposure time-table engines.

    Any cancellation of a flight for technical reasons - and it can happen in this kind of evaluation - was taken into account. According to sources, the Rafale and Typhoon have scored valuable points on such criteria. "A potential customer is not only a fighter jet super-efficient, they also want a reliable machine whose operating cost is reasonable at least 30 years," said one expert.

    The planes were also in contention to face Indian MiG in simulated dogfights. And for all this to be possible, the Indian pilots had to go in each country concerned to train on simulators and actual flight. Dassault received them on his site at Istres in early 2009, more than a year before the assessments themselves. A real marathon! ' [ 29 ]

    If both European aircraft were finally selected in 2011, after such a grueling series of tests, which is a plus for European industry, the Rafale program is also distinguished by its adherence to cost and time (the French Cour des Comptes speaks of a drift of ± 4.7%, compared for example to increase 51.8% for the Tiger helicopter, or + 70% for the Eurofighter).

    Delays and additional costs of the Eurofighter



    Unlike the Rafale, costs and delays of the Eurofighter [ 30 ] are very important, and the result, in terms of versatility and value-price performance, is unquestionably in favor of the Rafale.

    For details on the poor efficiency of cooperation on the Eurofighter, see the excellent paper " The JSF/F-35 in Europe: the price of pragmatism "which here is an excerpt:

    "The way of unanimous decision adds to the decision making process. If the signing of an MOU multilateral intergovernmental cohesion increases, it does not prevent the revisions of orders and changes in technical specifications due to national budgetary constraints.

    The rule of fair industrial return, while maintaining the industrial skills and jobs on the floor of each Partner State, promotes technical and political haggling, the partners did not hesitate to overestimate their ordering intentions to receive a load larger work.

    The multiplication of assembly lines and testing facilities, which ensures an autonomy of maintenance and modernization of the unit, resulting costs and delays.

    Moreover, the issue of technology transfer is a major source of tension between business partners. Such transfers generally prove favorable to manufacturers wishing to acquire new technologies. "

    Other extracts are included in our article " How to cooperate effectively? Rafale vs Eurofighter Examples and nEUROn ", which also addresses cooperation in contrast set up by Dassault Aviation for the UAV demonstrator" nEUROn ".

    We can see, any other choice than the Rafale would have cost much more expensive in French taxpayer.

    And if that plane has problems in its marketing, it is also because France is no longer perceived as a few decades ago as an alternative "neutral" to major U.S. & USSR. Which had enabled us to sell Mirages everywhere ... and it is partly this that plays against the Rafale abroad today.
    Google-Traduction
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2012
    Kunal Biswas and pankaj nema like this.
  2.  
  3. Drsomnath999

    Drsomnath999 lord of 32 teeth Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,223
    Likes Received:
    1,220
    Location:
    BHUBANESHWAR
    RAFALE RULEZ

    [​IMG]
     
    A chauhan and Koovie like this.
  4. Mr.Ryu

    Mr.Ryu Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    348
    Location:
    Land of first Tejas
    Hope we get them soon and they tear our sky like thunder :XD
     
  5. Drsomnath999

    Drsomnath999 lord of 32 teeth Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,223
    Likes Received:
    1,220
    Location:
    BHUBANESHWAR
    what thunder did u mean man???
    jf 17 thunder

    MY A$$$ :rofl:
     
    Koovie likes this.
  6. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    France's braking away from the Eurofighter project and development of the Rafale made it sure that the Eurpoeans (including the French) will not be able to mount a credible fighter challenge to the Americans. Just look at what they can do when they're working together. I mean look at Airbus against Boeing in the commercial aviation market.
     
  7. Godless-Kafir

    Godless-Kafir DFI Buddha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    5,829
    Likes Received:
    1,799
    Why did they not settle for two versions of EF-2000 instead of the French leaveing the program and going in for a Ground-Attack based MRCA?

    They surely could have modified the air frame with required Avionics suited for each nation, instead of just ditching the whole conglomerate? :confused:
     
  8. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,274
    Likes Received:
    11,287
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Part of the reason could have been national pride, ego and probably eye on exports to earn big bucks though it didn't work out as well for the French.
     
  9. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    There are major differences why aircraft are built the way they are. Rafale isn't a pure ground attack aircraft like the F-35, neither is it a pure air to air fighter like the Typhoon or Flanker.

    It is like how Nascar cars are built for flat stretches while WCG cars are built for dirt tracks. The differences may be subtle to an untrained eye. The thing is both these cars look the same, but inside, the working of the cars is different, the engine, transmission, suspension etc. Similarly, an aircraft right from the nuts and bolts is built for a particular purpose and other purposes becomes secondary or tertiary based on the need.

    Strictly speaking a Rafale can never match the EF in a high speed supersonic fight. Neither can it strafe the ground like an A-10. It has always been meant to be in the middle of all performance parameters. So, it is trying to do well in everything.

    So, we cannot simply modify the EF to become good at ground attack. That would require massive changes and the other countries would never accept the extra costs. France did well by going alone. They managed to keep all their money within the country while supporting their local industry. Overall, what Britain is paying for 33% of EF's development and a fleet of 160 units was very similar as to what France is paying for 180 planned units including development. I think UK is assumed to pay 46 Billion Euros while France will pay over 45 Billion as well.

    Their luck seems to be changing this time around. India is nearly in the bag for 126. France has UAE(60) with the highest hopes of following suit and Brazil(36) is leaning towards Rafale too. That's over 200 Rafale's if confirmed, even without adding follow on orders from the three countries.

    Malaysia, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar could fall next in line. Qatar and Kuwait are waiting for UAE's decision, seems they will buy what UAE buys. Malaysia seems to buy what India buys for joint operations and training I suppose. So, that's another 100 aircraft between the 4 countries.
     
  10. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    So, what is the bottomline as far as India is concerned?
     
  11. Apollyon

    Apollyon Führer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,600
    Likes Received:
    2,380
    Location:
    आर्यावर्त
    Eurofighter has air-ducts in front which makes it agile at high-altitude where as makes it nearly impossible to adapt for a Naval Role (landing on ACC)
    Germany and Britain wanted a fighter which is agile at high-altitude, a pure air-to-air interceptor whereas France wanted a plane which is multi-role or preferably omni-role and availability of a Naval version.

    Also there was disagreement on who will supply the engine, British and Germans wanted a Engine based on RB-199 (same dimensions, but it turned out to be 2cm wider at the end ) but French who started extensive study on a new-generation engine in 1970's and have all the elements by 1985 wanted their.
    :pray:
     
  12. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    BTW, what's omnirole and how is it different from multi-role? I'm still confused.
     
  13. Apollyon

    Apollyon Führer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,600
    Likes Received:
    2,380
    Location:
    आर्यावर्त
    It can perform Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground task's simultaneously

     
  14. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    Aren't they the same? I also heard of "swing role" which is defined by the military dictionary as "swing-role is the ability to employ a multi-role aircraft for multiple purposes during the same mission." ... :confused:
     
  15. Apollyon

    Apollyon Führer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,600
    Likes Received:
    2,380
    Location:
    आर्यावर्त
    means at a same time it can launch AASM on a ground target and achieve a lock-on on enemy's fighter and guide both AASM and AAM simultaneously ... :confused:

     
  16. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    IAF is looking at replacing the fleet of Mig-27s and older Jaguars. It makes sense they look at an equivalent replacement. Rafale performs very well at both low altitudes and thin air like the Himalayas. The avionics carried is already mature and you can say more proven than even the MKI.

    Comparatively the MKI does everything the EF can and still more because MKI can employ ground attack missiles, unlike the EF. It makes no sense purchasing an aircraft for a similar role. So, MKI and Rafale takes care of both our High and Low end components.

    This would mean IAF has a high altitude fighter like the MKI, followed by a low and medium altitude strike fighter like the Rafale and LCA for point defence. At the same time, MKI and LCA are capable of handling strike role as a secondary role while Rafale's avionics already gives it an air to air capability that is at par with the MKI.
     
    Mad Indian and A chauhan like this.
  17. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Yeah.

    What he said. Except that when it comes to real missions it may not be employed the way they are advertizing it to be. A set of Rafales will still cover the strike package optimized Rafales. Datalinks remove the need for all aircraft to do everything.

    Omnirole is a marketing term for multirole. You can say it is the first true "multirole" aircraft. Eventually all aircraft will have similar capability.
     
  18. mayfair

    mayfair Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,585
    Likes Received:
    1,763
    Location:
    India
    I am just curious about the European consortium's decision to go for a purely air-superiority fighter. Admiteddly, they wanted an aircraft that could go up agianst the Soviet/Eastern block Flankers and Fulcrums, but surely they would have realised that it would leave them awfully short-changed in the ground attack department, especially with the possibility of facing the Soviet doctrine of making massive infantry movements into the European heartland.

    I find it unlikely that they had not realised that Tornadoes, while good, would be outdated by the time Typhoon was available and that they would face the lack of a modern replacement for a ground attack aircraft. I am not sure the X-35 programme had commenced by then.

    Could anyone elaborate on this?
     
  19. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Europe was desperate for a Flanker/Fulcrum killer. They actually thought the Mig-31 will be another air superiority fighter to worry about.

    There are a lot of F-16s in the area to be replaced with F-35s, including USAF with their heavy bombers. NATO works together. So, it wasn't a major issue. F-35 was a program developed from the 90s, right after YF-22s first flight.

    NATO had more strike fighters than air superiority fighters apart from hundreds of heavy bombers.
     
    Mad Indian and Singh like this.
  20. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976

    The F15 was initially an air superiority fighter. Now its 2-seat variant is now the benchmark of multi-role fighters. Maybe the Eurofighter consortium was navigating along this line in starting with an uncompromising all-superiority fighter and then later on developing it into a multi-role fighter.
     
  21. Drsomnath999

    Drsomnath999 lord of 32 teeth Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,223
    Likes Received:
    1,220
    Location:
    BHUBANESHWAR
    Dassault market Rafale by omni role by design which means it is designed for both air to air & air to ground capabilties at same mission
    Omnirole by design


    well they are nt same u see Typhoon was primarily designed as an air superiority fighter
    thats why it can carry semicomfromally 4 air-air missiles attached to it's fuselarge meanwhile rafale cant carry 4 air to air missiles semi conformally
    [​IMG]

    meanwhile typhoon is nt optimized for air to ground capabilities like rafale. let me explain u
    see EF has only 3 wet/heavy stations. IF it ever integrates cruise missiles for example, which are too big to be carried on the centerline station, it can only carry this config:

    1 x 1000l centerline fuel tank
    1 x cruise missile on each wing

    So although its payload limit is not reached it can't add a single fuel tank anymore, because the other 11 hardpoints are not useful for it!

    Rafale in the same scenario:
    [​IMG]
    3 x 2000l fuel tanks
    2 x cruise missiles

    Way more range and endurance and if needed the centerline fueltank could be replaced with another cruise missile too.


    As you can see it has nothing to do with the payload, but with the layout of the hardpoints and design prioirties! EF was design to for air superiority, that's why the 4 BVR missile stations at the fuselage were more important, than additional wet/heavy stations or a dedicated pod station in strike roles and the only way out of this limitation is the addition of CFTs. So deep strike capability only if the weapon + increased fuel capacity were integrated/developed.
     
    Singh, Mad Indian and A chauhan like this.

Share This Page