Eurofighter vs Rafale

[StealthSniper]

 

[p2prada]

Rafale is a superior bomb truck compared to EF-2000. Only Tranche 3 EF will be able to match Rafale and that is still some time away from induction. Rafale is more mature.

As for Air to Air I bet the EF as well as the Rafale are quite similar in capability. The technological base in Europe is quite similar in most respects so expect the technology to be similar as well.

Typhoon does not yet carry an internal EW suite while Rafale has the Spectra. Dunno if we are allowed to have either and that we can modify it to our heart's content along with the radar. Both countries have promised full ToT. However promise isn't delivery.

If the Passive capability of the Spectra is supposed to be impressive then so is the PIRATE on the EF-2000.

Both aircraft have great chances of winning and France has the upper hand. The last I heard the Rafale is a notch above the EF-2000 in performance.

 

[DrunkenMaster]

@Armand:

Obolete Litening III. Sorry, but again rubbish. Look, your Damocles Pod is the same thing as Litening III and guess what, the Scalp EG is exactly the same thing as the Stormshadow because it is a british/french/italian jointly deployed weapon. If the IAF will choose the Typhoon they also have the option to use the german Taurus for example. The Typhoon is/will be capable of using the following a/g weapons: AGM-65 Maverick, AGM-88 HARM, Storm Shadow (AKA Scalp EG), Brimstone, Taurus KEPD 350, Penguin, AGM Armiger, Paveway II/III, E-GBU, JDAM, HOPE/HOSBO. Seems like a "bit" more of a choice than the limited weaponsystems that can be fired by the Rafale.

http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/misc/WFOEnglishWEB.pdf
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/weapons.html

@p2prada:

The Typhoon has the Preatorian. From what I have read the two systems are equal.

http://www.deagel.com/Aircraft-Protection-Systems/EuroDASS_a001493001.aspx

 

[Armand2REP]

@Armand:

Obolete Litening III. Sorry, but again rubbish. Look, your Damocles Pod is the same thing as Litening III

haha.... no. Damocles is in competition with high end pods like Sniper ATP. L3 is the economy version with much less designation and identification ranges.

and guess what, the Scalp EG is exactly the same thing as the Stormshadow because it is a british/french/italian jointly deployed weapon.

It is the same, because they are all made in France except for British penetrator warheads. It is just the next generation of Apache missile.

If the IAF will choose the Typhoon they also have the option to use the german Taurus for example. The Typhoon is/will be capable of using the following a/g weapons: AGM-65 Maverick, AGM-88 HARM, Storm Shadow (AKA Scalp EG), Brimstone, Taurus KEPD 350, Penguin, AGM Armiger, Paveway II/III, E-GBU, JDAM, HOPE/HOSBO. Seems like a "bit" more of a choice than the limited weaponsystems that can be fired by the Rafale.

Um... no. Tranche 3B was slated to carry most of those MBDA missiles but it is suspended due to lack of funding. It will never carry the American weapons unless a customer pays for it. Partner nations can't even afford to integrate their own missiles. The only integrated choices are...

Eurofighter T1-3A
1) Paveway II/IV LGBs

Rafale
1) Paveway II/IV LGBs
2) BGL series LGBs
3) AS-30L ASM
4) AASM GPS/INS with IR or Laser seekers
5) Apache anti-runway LACM
6) Scalp EG LACM
7) AM-39 Exocet ASM
8) ARMAT ARM
9) ASMP-A Mach 3 nuke
10) JASSM if signed with UAE

Not to mention the 2000kg extra payload and Reco NG pods. :thumb:

 

[DrunkenMaster]

haha.... no. Damocles is in competition with high end pods like Sniper ATP. L3 is the economy version with much less designation and identification ranges.

LOL! The Lockheed Sniper XR is a direct competitor to the Rafael/Northrop Litening III... both are 3rd generation-FLIR targeting pods, have the GPS/INS capability and similar detection ranges. The Litening is in fact the way more cost effective solution but just because of similaritys between version I, II, III and over thousand pods produced so far.

Um... no. Tranche 3B was slated to carry most of those MBDA missiles but it is suspended due to lack of funding. It will never carry the American weapons unless a customer pays for it. Partner nations can't even afford to integrate their own missiles. The only integrated choices are...

Wrong again, all Tranche2 Typhoons have undergone enhancement program phase 1 for Paveway II/IV. Phase 2 is scheduled for 2014 and will implement the other named a/g weapons.

Not to mention the 2000kg extra payload

...then you got a sitting duck with a thrust/weight ratio of 0.6... thats nearly the ratio of a commercial airliner, lol

And now a fact about the incredible slow production rates of the Rafale: delivery of all 228 jets will take till 2025! Meantime France should think about a replacement of the first built Rafales from 1997... thats nearly a 30 year gap between the first and the last produced units - world record I guess xD Not to mention the already produced 250 units of the Typhoon with the overall more sophisticated avionics suite!

source: http://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/CC/documents/RPA/Premiere-partie-rapport-public-annuel-2010.pdf

 

[Armand2REP]

LOL! The Lockheed Sniper XR is a direct competitor to the Rafael/Northrop Litening III... both are 3rd generation-FLIR targeting pods, have the GPS/INS capability and similar detection ranges. The Litening is in fact the way more cost effective solution but just because of similaritys between version I, II, III and over thousand pods produced so far.

Sure... Thales views the Sniper as its direct competitor according to Alain Picard, director of strategy and marketing of Thales Joint Systems.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3658019

Scrolling through F-16.net... one pilot said,

"Having flown with both, sniper is waaaaaaayyyyyyy better. Better range, better a-a capes etc. The only drawback to sniper is that you have to know that you are looking through a "soda straw". I.E if you are right on top of the target and the coordinates are off...you may not see the target in the pod right away. In my humble opinion, Litening (AT) is better for CAS and sniper is better for AI or A-A."

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14512-view-next.html

Domacles is a long range pod like the Sniper ATP, LITENING G4/III are for closer range CAS. USAF selected Sniper for its ATP-SE strike role leaving the LITENING ATs for its USMC Harriers... strictly CAS. The prices for the pods make it apparent. $1.5 million for LITENING III and $3 million for a Sniper or Domacles. If LITENING ATs could sell the same capability for half the price, nations wouldn't be selecting Domacles and Sniper in its place.

Wrong again, all Tranche2 Typhoons have undergone enhancement program phase 1 for Paveway II/IV. Phase 2 is scheduled for 2014 and will implement the other named a/g weapons.

Wrong again... Phase 2 aka P2E is CANCELED!

Phillipson revealed that the second phase of capability enhancements planned for Tranche 2 Typhoons – a 'big bang' step change known as P2E – would now disappear to be replaced by an incremental programme, with many smaller steps.

http://www.flightglobal.com/article...rofighter-announces-new-development-team.html

...then you got a sitting duck with a thrust/weight ratio of 0.6... thats nearly the ratio of a commercial airliner, lol

2000kg more load means more maneuverability at smaller loads. It also means greater range at similar loads thanks to its low wing loading and high T/W. It is also what makes it one of the best dog-fighters.

Rafale regularly practise dissimilar air-combat training against American fighters from USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS John C. Stennis and AV-8B+ Harrier IIs from Italian carrier Garibaldi. According to the pilots, the F-14 Tomcats, F-18 Hornets and AV-8B+ Harriers are no match for the Rafales: thanks to their high thrust to-weight ratio, low wing loading, and extreme agility, the Rafales quickly gain the upper hand.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_4.pdf

And now a fact about the incredible slow production rates of the Rafale: delivery of all 228 jets will take till 2025! Meantime France should think about a replacement of the first built Rafales from 1997... thats nearly a 30 year gap between the first and the last produced units - world record I guess xD Not to mention the already produced 250 units of the Typhoon with the overall more sophisticated avionics suite!

The low rate production is supposed to be bad for India? It is operating less than half capacity to keep the line open for exports. It it the WHOLE POINT. lol Far better than selling our production batches like RAF to third parties leaving half the aircraft for our Air Forces.

P.S... IOC for the Navy was 2000 and the air force in 2006. Rafale has a lifespan of 7000hrs and 5300 landings with no structural changes. At 200hrs a year gives it a lifespan of 35 years with no MLU. MN replacement or structural upgrade not needed until 2035 for first batch and 2041 for the ALA.

source: http://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/CC/documents/RPA/Premiere-partie-rapport-public-annuel-2010.pdf

Really... did you bother to read that document? Or can you even read it??

Page 50... Rafale Quantité actuelle - 286

 

[p2prada]

@DM

The Euros DASS is not yet active. It is a year away from being operational while the Spectra is already operational. I don't doubt the capabilities of the DASS. It is just that some key components are already operational on the Rafale as compared to EF-2000.

I am also quite certain many of EF's planned upgrades will be billed to India.

The only advantage is that EF offers partnership while Rafale offers only a buyer seller relationship. EF deal is beneficial to the Indian industry while Rafale is more useful to the air force. From what we have already seen, Indian industry will be secondary to the IAF's requirements.

 

[Armand2REP]

Rafale.. say bomb what? Bomb this...

 

[Yusuf]

is the re-fuelling probe not retractable on the Rafale?

 

[ashdoc]

is the re-fuelling probe not retractable on the Rafale?

no ,it isnt..........

 

[Yusuf]

Wonder why have they kept it jutting out like that. Takes away from the look of the bird. Any practical reason for it? Most planes have it retractable.

 

[Tolaha]

Wonder why have they kept it jutting out like that. Takes away from the look of the bird. Any practical reason for it? Most planes have it retractable.

Armand might feel a little uneasy saying it, but the reason is 'cost cutting'!

 

[Armand2REP]

Wonder why have they kept it jutting out like that. Takes away from the look of the bird. Any practical reason for it? Most planes have it retractable.

There is no room to retract it in its present size and position, it was built much larger and further out than say RAF jets to aid in the ease of refueling.

French jets have little problem hooking up to the cow.


You can see how hard it is for RAF jets to hook up. It isn't that RAF pilots are bad, it is just that much easier with the extended probe on French jets.

 

[Yusuf]

What kind of effect would that have on the aerodynamics. Also at high speed maneuvering the stress on the probe would be quite high and would have to be made with pretty good material so that it doesn't get torn off taking with a section of the frontal area of the plane.

 

[Armand2REP]

What kind of effect would that have on the aerodynamics. Also at high speed maneuvering the stress on the probe would be quite high and would have to be made with pretty good material so that it doesn't get torn off taking with a section of the frontal area of the plane.

Very little, it is designed for optimal air flow. The probe is low drag so it isn't going to rip-off. It is actually a detachable probe so if you don't need a refueler, you can take it off. The benefits of doing away with the 150kg of extra retracting gear make the plane that much lighter meaning better fuel economy and making up for the loss in maneuverability with the probe. As mentioned, it makes refueling much easier. If your probe gets jerked too hard it will simply break off on Rafale, in Typhoon it will tear a hole exposing the cockpit. What happens if your EF probe gets stuck... I guess you crash?

 

[Tronic]

Wonder how much it affects the RCS of that aircraft?

 

[SpArK]

Rafale vs EF comparison, based on reports, or analysises from journalists, or IAF officials, part 1


According Mr. A. Tellis and his carnegy report and his view on the operational requirements of IAF, the wining MMRCA has to be a multi role aircraft, ...

1) that is equally good in A2A and A2G roles - Advantage Rafale (designed for balanced multi role capabilities, while it's only a secondary aim of EF design)

2) that is highly versatile to fulfill a wide range of missions - Advantage Rafale (the aim was to replace 7 different fighters in their roles and this is already proven in combat!)

3) that has a low RCS, high maximum speed, long range sensor and weapons, as well as a sophisticated EWS for C-AISR missions - Tie (EF is faster and has the better radar, while Rafale has the better general sensors and EWS capabilities

4) that has a variety of PGMs and standoff weapons - Advantage Rafale (Laser, GPS and IR guided PGMs, as well as Scalp cruise missile. Integrated, ready and proven.)

5) that will takeover the main strike role in IAF from older ground attack fighters - Advantage Rafale (all said before)

6) that offers advanced radars with A2G modes, LDPs, superior EWS that enable the fighter to enter the an airspace with a dense SAM threat and is able to fulfill the strike attack in the first pass over - Advantage Rafale (although radar modes might need some improvements, SPECTRA EWS is a big advantage here and the integrated Damocles pod on a dedicated pod station adds even more. The biggest advantage though is that it can attack up to 6 different ground targets in 1 pass over with the AASM and according AFAIK IAF was impressed by this capability during the trials as well!)

7) that offers highly capable direct attack and standoff weapons, for deep penetration strike missions, but not neccesarily dedicated SEAD weapons - Advantage Rafale (AASM is even more capable then the US JDAM, that could be integrated into EF in future, both fighters offer the same cruise missiles, but with different names)

8) that still offers the high maneuverability that IAF requires for the A2A role - Tie (both are highly maneuverable with the delta canard design)

9) that can offer a maritime attack capability for the future - Advantage Rafale (already available with Exocet, EF won't have it, because no customer wants it so far and even the radar is said to have no air to sea mode. Both can be added, but requirers further fundings from us)


Results:

Rafale - 7
EF - 0
Tie - 2


Report: MRCA News & Discussions



According a chhindits.blogspot report on the MMRCA...

... the RFP, a copy of which is with DNA, the IAF states the following engine combat ASQRs:

1) the MMRCA should have sea-level static thrust-to-weight ration of 1:1 or better with maximum afterburner - Advantage EF (both have TWRs above 1, but EF is better)

2) should be able to carry an external load of atleast 5000 kilograms (comprising air-to-air and air-to ground weapons) - Advantage Rafale (both can carry more than required, but Rafales has 2t more payload and the design is more suited for higher loads)

3) fly for a minimum eight hours with air-to-air refueling - Advantage Rafale (Both fulfill the requirement, but if high endurance patrol, or deep penetration missision, comparable to MKI is the aim, Rafale is more suited with the operational twin seat version and not only a twin seat trainer.)

4) should be a 9G aircraft, Tie

5) the twin-seat trainer should be exactly like the single-seat fighter - Advantage Rafale (EFs twin seat version fulfills the requirements, but is mainly used as a trainer only, while Rafales twin seat version is in operational service, especially in the strike roles).


Results:

Rafale - 3
EF - 1
Tie - 1


Reports: Chindits: MMRCA Update : F-18 Has Underpowered Engine, No One 100% Compliant, Says Report, Vendors Revise Their Prices !!

Courtesy :Sancho, Fellow Raffian.

 

[SpArK]

Rafale vs EF comparison, based on reports, or analysises from journalists, or IAF officials, part 2


Former Air Marshal B K Pandey pointed out in his analysis "Selection of MRCA for the IAF" (about the intial competition with Mirage 2000-5, F16 B52...):

...Apart from the technological attributes, versatility and operational capability of the machine, they need to bear in mind a number of other important factors such as:

1) assurance of long-term logistic support - Advantage Rafale (Europeans are known in India for quality products and good after sale supports, be it Mirage 2000s, Jaguars, Eurocopter helicopters, or German subs, all with clearly less technical problems and without spare supply issues like Russian counterparts. But the official reports from England about canibalisations of EFs and limited training time for pilots caused by several problems in the spare supply should be a major concern for Indian forces, especially with the recent issue of the BAE Hawk trainer and not supplied toolings)

2) problems of integration with the IAF inventory - Advantage Rafale (there are a few weapons on Jags, that could be used with EF as well, but the the Rafale is based on the Mirage 2000 and shares the full weapon pack and several avionics with it, more over the maintenance routines are based on Mirage as well, which makes it easier for the ground crews as well)

3) technological gains for the Indian aerospace industry - Tie (EFs offer of ToT is very good and the partnership offer gives indian companies the chance to be involved in a big foreign project, which will improve their capabilities. Rafales offer will be very good in ToT as well and the French companies have the advantage of already beeing involved in several JV, co-developments with the Indian industry...)

4) sanctions and denial regimes - Advantage Rafale (all main techs are developed by French companies, no major components comes from the US and can be sanctioned, France has proven to be reliable in the past sanctions, was the first who supported accepted us an official nuclear power and supported us for a permanent UNC seat. French government cleared ToT and no EUM for the Rafale from the start and Dassault was the first who offered radar source codes and full ToT of the radar. Is there anything left how they could prove their reliability to us?

5) financial implications and the nuances of the political dimension - Advantage Rafale (In terms of costs of the deal, the Rafale should have an advantage, it's unit cost is already lower and the EF T3 B requires further fundings of upgrades, that to make it equally capable. With UK as a veto power and Germany as one of the most influential countries in Europe they have a lot o offer on the political side, the problem is their close relation to the US. France on the other hands remained to be an independent country although they are a NATO member and showed in the Libyan conflict how influential they can be, especially by the fact that Qatar and the UAE was ready to send (mainly French) fighters. So although it is only 1 country, the political point is strong and only the US could offer more here from the western countries.


Results:

Rafale - 4
EF - 0
Tie - 1


Reports: Security Research Review: Volume 1(3) Selection of MRCA for the IAF - Air Marshall(r) B K Pandey


Former Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi major said in an interview:

The Air Staff Requirements are secret documents and cannot be revealed. However, I can assure you that the ASRs are designed to be contemporary and futuristic, and also have a cost-benefit angle.

In a generic sense, we want:

1) a medium weight, multi role combat aircraft that can undertake air defence, ground attack, maritime attack (anti-ship) and reconnaissance roles with ease - Advantage Rafale (with 9.5t emptyweight it is the 2nd lightest fighter in the competition, but is able to carry the highest payload. With AESA radar, multi spectra passive sensors, MICA IR, EM and METEOR, it offers 3 weapons for BVR combats, which is a unique capability for air defence. For ground attack it offers Laser and GPS and IR guided bomb kits, as well as cruise missiles, with the latest Reco NG pods, it already is deployed in reconnaissance missions over Afghanistan and Libya, while target aquisition and assessment of strikes can be visually identified with the Damocles pod as well. For maritme attack it uses the Exocet missile and in addition is also deployed is SEAD missions with the SPECTRA / AASM combo)

2) the aircraft to have adequately long range and endurance to meet our operational requirements - Advantage Rafale (it has the higher fuel fraction, has more wet station for fuel tanks and has also bigger fuel tanks)

3) extension of range through air-to-air refueling is also desired - Tie (both fighters can be air refuelled. If at all, one could say Rafale squads are not dependend on refuelling aircrafts, because they can act as mid air refuellers as well, but the requirement is not aimed on that)

4) ease of maintenance and low life cycle costs would form part of the selection criteria - Not rated (all hints shows an advantage for Rafale, very few ground crew are needed, provenly high reliability rates in oversea deploymeants be it in wars, or exercises, reported in Brazil to have slightly higher per hour costs than F18SH, but there are too less infos known about the EF from comparabel competitions to make a fair comparison. From what is known of EF customers like the RAF, German Bundeswehr, or the Austrian air force, operating the EF turned out way costlier than expected and the official reports about difficult spare supply are reasons to worry. But any country rates these costs differently, so only figures from the same evaluation would be a base to compare them)


Results:

Rafale - 2
EF - 0
Tie - 1


Report: ..:: India Strategic ::.. Indian Navy: All new MRCA to be purchased from one company



Four different reports, but for all their requirements, the Rafale is clearly the fighter that suits IAF the most!

Feel free to disagree, comment and discuss about it.

Courtesy :Sancho, Fellow Raffian..

 

[SpArK]

 

[JAISWAL]

here is an interesing table for compering research cost of few mordern planes .