Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is Rafale Better Then Eurofighter?  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 4 months 22 hours ago) and read 18287 times:

I think the Rafale radar is more powerful en versatile then the Eurofighters mechanical one.

The electronic warfare system Spectra seems to be very advanced as well as the sensor integration system.

The rafales range was improved by conformal fuel tanks.
How does this compare with the Eurofighter Typhoon range ?

Rafale was redesigned in the 90's to make it more stealthy.
How does the radar cross section compare with the Eurofighter Typhoon ?

Judge yourself which one is more sleek :
http://airfriend.net/Wall/rafale-best1.jpg
http://www.aerotechnews.com/starc/091498/Eurofighter.jpg

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7958 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 18108 times:

From what I know the Rafale

- is more expensive
- has a less powerfull radar (though the concept is more modern)
- is better in the air-to-ground role
- but inferior as far as AD is concerned.*
- has a longer range
- has a less economical cockpit.

* Below the assumed "kill-ratios" against the Su-27 (according to an Swedish investigation). A kill ratio of 10 (or 10:0) reads: The aircraft always wins -> the higher the ratio the better.

EF 2000: 8.x
Rafale: 5.0
F-15: 4.x
F-16C: 2.x (?)
F-22: 9.x

But the Rafale looks better.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 18073 times:

Different aircraft for different requirements.
Rafale is a multirole aircraft, therefore a compromise on any given role.
Typhoon is an air defense aircraft with secondary ground attack capability.

Naturally Rafale might be somewhat better at air-ground missions but lacking at air-air.
Rafale due to its smaller size might have the advantage in a dogfight and is possibly also more stealthy.

But its larger size gives Typhoon longer range and/or higher payload which is an advantage in the intended mission of air defense over the North Sea and Scotland (and can come in handy in long range interdiction missions over enemy territory (a.k.a. the USSR)).

Typhoon also has the advantage of being compatible with all NATO weapons systems as standard, while Rafale will accpet only French systems (though they can probably adapt it to take NATO systems as well as an optional extra).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 18068 times:

- has a less powerful radar (though the concept is more modern)

I know the Rafale radar can track 32 targets at the same time and engage (theoretically) 8. It has extensive track while scan and simultaneous land mapping capability??s.
Those things are IMO impossible by a conventional radar as the Typhoon. So why should that one be more powerful ?

I doubt the positive statistics. Why should the win ratio of the Typhoon be so high ?

Apart from that I think Typhoon and F22 are to close (8-9), the F22 has stealth, phased array radar, thrust vectoring and real super cruise. What can the Typhoon do better to match those ?

I also tend to believe the Typhoon is expensive. It is heavy, multinational and took 15 (?) yrs to develop. I have not seen objective real cost pictures.

No I am still not convinced ....


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7958 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 15 hours ago) and read 18048 times:

So why should that one be more powerful ?

Captor (Typhoon's radar) can track targets from a greater distance.

. Why should the win ratio of the Typhoon be so high ?

Because it's a new AD aircraft?

What can the Typhoon do better to match those ?

The comparison bases on the Su-27, the then possible Russian counterpart - not the F-22.

I also tend to believe the Typhoon is expensive.

Still less expensive than the Rafale and the Super Hornet. Boeing announced to lower the price tag after the last plane is delivered to the U.S. Navy, though. Dassault did not take part at the Austrian fighter competition (obviously) because the Rafale is too expensive.

It is heavy, multinational and took 15 (?) yrs to develop.

Bigger plane - more weight. At the same time Typhoon is faster and at least as agile as Rafale is.
"Multinational" is no bad thing - except for the long time the EF 2000 was under development. So far, Dassault didn't export Rafales.

Jwenting: As far as I know the Rafale has a longer range than the Eurofighter:
http://www.airforce-technology.com (among other sources)

I think it is fairly safe to say that Rafale is Europe's best multirole aircraft while Typhoon is the most capable European AD fighter. If you want to have only one fighter in your fleet, then the Rafale may be the best choice (assumed you don't want to safe money and go for the Gripen or F-16, instead). But if your AF has Tornados or AMX, it is likely that Typhoons fit better.

[Edited 2003-06-05 01:51:37]


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 10 hours ago) and read 18031 times:

I also tend to believe the Typhoon is expensive. It is heavy, multinational and took 15 (?) yrs to develop

Yes, Typhoon took 15 years to develop.
But if a long leadtime is a factor making it a bad aircraft, Rafale must be worse as it took (so far...) 20 years.
Heavy isn't necessarilly a bad thing, the F-15 and F-14 are heavier and they're excellent aircraft.

Comparing Rafale with Typhoon like you do is like comparing an F-15 with an F-16 and saying the F-16 is the better aircraft because it's smaller and lighter and isn't optimised for any one role.
You need to compare Rafale with Gripen or JSF instead in which case you'll see that Rafale is more expensive, larger, less flexible, and maybe a bit more powerful.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13218 posts, RR: 77
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 18003 times:

They are very similar, and electrically scanned radar and conformal tanks are under development for EF.
Rafale's slightly smaller size and weight was dictated by the French Navy, Rafale has been under development slightly longer than EF, when the programme started the French Navy were operating 2 30,000 ton carriers, rather than the larger nuclear one they have now.
EF is every bit a multi role aircraft as Rafale, the RAF will certainly use it for air to ground, they are replacing the Jaguars with it.
EF will carry Storm Shadow missiles, Brimstone missiles, Alarm missiles, LGB/GPS bombs in RAF service, as well as ASRAAM and AMRAAM missiles, (AMRAAMs to be replaced by Meteor MR-AAM from 2010, France is also buying this weapon for Rafale as the MICA radar guided variant missile needs a longer ranged supplement).
There has been a lot of work to reduce EF's frontal radar cross-section, like Rafale.
But they are both good aircraft.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 17911 times:

Comparing Rafale with Typhoon like you do is like comparing an F-15 with an F-16 and saying the F-16 is the better aircraft because it's smaller and lighter and isn't optimised for any one role.

You need to compare Rafale with Gripen or JSF instead in which case you'll see that Rafale is more expensive, larger, less flexible, and maybe a bit more powerful.


Jwenting ... pls check some backgrounds .. Rafale is very comparable to Typhoon and both were multirole aircraft from the start. http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/SwingRole/

I think non-political sales in the next 10 yrs will show the lighter, longer range, sleeker Rafale will sell better.



User currently offlineCharleslp From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 17875 times:

Very funny photo Keesje  Insane, but I don't think the US Navy will ever get THAT desparate for a fighter.

User currently offlineCharleslp From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 336 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 17863 times:

Or any other arm of the US military for that matter. The JSF will do us just fine.

User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7958 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 17901 times:

The "lighter and sleeker" argument doesn't hold much water:

Wingspan:
Eurofighter: 10.95 m
Rafale: 10.90 m 

Length:
Eurofighter: 15.96 m
Rafale: 15.30 m 

Empty weight 
Eurofighter: 10.995 kg 
Rafale: 9060 kg

(Source: Flug Revue)



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 17826 times:

sleeker means that it doesnt look like it flew into a wall.

IMO Typhoon and Tornado look that way.


Lighter, 2 tons doesn´t hold much water on similar seized 9 ton aircraft, are you kidding ?

Folks, I cannot say I´m really swept away by many good reasons why Typhoon is the better aircraft ...

Guess the Brits and Italiens were lucky the Germans were Europe minded enough not to step out of the project and join e.g France ..


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2933 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 17822 times:

Can someone please explain to me the ties between the typhoon and Rafale to the EAP back in the early 80's? I have out of date sources, and all the politics involved confused the hell out of me.

T.J.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7958 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 17768 times:

Lighter, 2 tons doesn?t hold much water on similar seized 9 ton aircraft, are you kidding ?

Right, must be a typo. Globalsecurity.org says 9750 kg approx, so it's some 700 kg more.
But this "sleeker" argument really doesn't hold water. Both aircraft are absolutely comparable in both - size and capabilities. Typhonn is optimized for the AD-role, though.

sleeker means that it doesnt look like it flew into a wall.
IMO Typhoon and Tornado look that way.


As far as the Tornado is concerned, you are right. And I agree, Rafale looks better than Typhoon. However, that's no argument for potentional clients.
BTW: Here are some more pics:  Big grin





Doesn't look THAT fat, huh? Here comes the Rafale again:






I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 17742 times:

Typhoon : it looks fatter. Especially when it has the neccesary drop tanks....

Typhoon : Max. take-off weight 21,000 kg
Rafale : Max. take-off weight 24,500 kg

http://klu.tigerteam-security.net/eurofighter.htm

Oops, is this the truth ?

Typhoon : heavier but & less load ?



User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7958 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 17725 times:

Yes, this should at least be close to the truth.
Fact is, Eurofighter has one hardpoint less than Rafale (with the exception of Rafale M, AFAIK) and the ratio of aircraft weight to its wing area (the wing aspect ratio) is a bit lower which is good for the AD-role (less aerodynamically stable -> maintains a high degree of maneuverability), though at the expense of some additional take-off weight. However, AD-missiles are comparatively lightweight, so it's not really an issue.

This proves again that you can't have all possible benefits combined: the small, long-range aircraft with high degrees of maneuverability and maintainability, high weapon load and stealth. Not to mention low costs.
What politicans look for in modern multirole fighter-planes is simply contradictory.

Please keep in mind that Britain and Germany have Tornados for the ground-attack role and Italy has some AMXs. That's why they focussed on the air defence role. The French on the other hand wanted to replace six different aircraft with the new fighter and saw their security better served by a plane primarily for a ground-attack role.

Spacepope: I basically said it in the last paragraph, but the whole story is actually a bit longer and more complex. If you want more information, read pages 8 and 9 of this PDF-file: http://www.bicc.de/weapons/brief5/brief5.pdf



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7958 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 17657 times:

BTW: I found this article on Rafale. It's sort of a flight test:
http://flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH0307/FR0307e.htm



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 17649 times:

As far as I know, the French navy should have 60 Rafales in 2013.
Do anybody know if any other country is willing to buy rafales (which I doubt considering the history of sales of French planes and tanks) and how many Eurofighters are going to be bought and by who ?



User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3369 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 17650 times:

which I doubt considering the history of sales of French planes

I thought the Mirages sold quite nicely abroad?



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 17638 times:

Tornado´s were not suppossed to be used only for ground attacks. The original MRCA requirements were politically adjusted to fit the aircraft when it became clear it was not really suitable for AA missions.

Germany probably would have bought more if it was fit for AA, instead of flying on with the old Phantoms ... Italians got into comparable problems .. Brits solves the tornado problem by designing the ADV.

buy rafales, which I doubt considering the history of sales of French planes and tanks

French fighters (mirage3/5, mirage2000, F1, mystere) have always sold very well abroad. This will probably continue with Rafale.



Apart from the political correct Austrian sale I doubt they will be much export for Typhoon, just like for Tornado.


User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 17619 times:

French fighters (mirage3/5, mirage2000, F1, mystere) have always sold very well abroad. This will probably continue with Rafale.

Indeed they have. Many countries operate Mirage 3/5, 2000 aircraft as well as their own versions of them (Kfir, Cheetah, etc). But the Mirage 2000 recently lost a contract in S. Korea and Poland. I'm wondering, are there any other countries that it's being offered to, or has the Mirage 2000 run its course? (thus paving the way for Rafale sales no doubt)

B4e-Forever New Frontiers


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13218 posts, RR: 77
Reply 21, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 17599 times:

As has been explained before, ADV Tornado was for the RAF's long range, long-loiter time, heavy armament, two crew for heavy ECM requirement, UK/Eastern Atlantic air defence against Soviet bombers.

As for exports, Well Austria has Typhoons on order and Greece is expected to re-instated theirs once they are done with the Athens Olympics.

Rafale suffers from a lower initial production rate just for France, whereas Typhoon is initially of course for 4 airforces of the nations developing it.
But maybe if Germany had pulled out, it would not have been delayed so much, they held things up in 1985 and 1992/3.

Recently, Germany largely pulled out of the Meteor long range missile programme, (for Eurofighter and Rafale), but the UK took on most of the work they left.
Hence the A400M finally happening, Germany was getting a reputation for delay, while ordering more than they require to grab workshare.
If A400M had collapsed, they would have lost all credibility in collaborative projects, which is their industries lifeblood.

20 years ago, France was a partner in the initial studies for what separately became Typhoon and Rafale, but Dassault wanted the lion's share of the work and control, so the others told them to do it themselves, in any case the French wanted a lighter aircraft for their (then) smaller aircraft carriers.

You have to laugh when the UK gets moaned at for being on projects such as F-35. by French and German government officials, despite the fact the UK needs a STOVL Harrier replacement as do the USMC, so what choice did they have?
Yet those who say BAE and R/R should not be involved with Lockheed Martin have been involved in the troubles with Rafale/Eurofighter and A400M, while the UK has a 100% record of not pulling out of or delaying collaborative European projects, quite apart from being involved in very many of them.




User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 17562 times:

UK had some enlighted contributions to Typhoon specification such as :

- as removal of the gun (dogfighter ?!!)
- opposing thrust vectoring
- ignoring stealth during the start of the project.

The Germans trying top update the concept were put aside as "delaying"

An Airforce that introduces a fighter based on a 13 yrs old cold war strategy should ask itself serious questions anyway ...

http://www.courts.fsnet.co.uk/eurofighter.htm



User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 17561 times:

From what I understand the earlier Mirages, such as the II, IV and 50 where fairly inexpensive aircraft to purchase in the mid-80's. The 50 in particular was fairly cheep since they didn't have the avionic fits.

But when the Mirage 2000 came around the price jumped up to about 50 mil a pop, because they had to put the electronics in it to make it competitive with the other aircraft comming around.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13218 posts, RR: 77
Reply 24, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 17591 times:

The UK also pressed for increased range, developed and flew the EAP technology development predecessor to Eurofighter (remember that aircraft? Germany pulled out of that too, yet again!), are leaders in European radar absorbent material technology-as is applied to Eurofighter and have not opposed thrust vectoring.
Remember too that Typhoon is basically a BAe P.116 design, which was an all-UK fall-back option had the much preferred multinational solution not happened in the late 1980's.
A few years ago, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee reported that going multi-national on this project may have made post cold-war cancellation much less likely and would have saved money, but the political delays made the Eurofighter late, and therefore more expensive.
Oh, but we are somehow the BAD Europeans!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Is Rafale Better Then Eurofighter?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Which Is Sound Better A B-52 Or A B-1 Bomber posted Sun Nov 6 2005 18:49:37 by 747400sp
Mix Of F22s And Gripen Better The Eurofighter? posted Mon Dec 22 2003 11:27:30 by Keesje
Is Super Hornet That Much Better Than F-14? posted Sat Dec 11 2010 11:10:28 by bmacleod
Who's Eurofighter Is This? posted Thu Jan 3 2008 13:38:42 by Braud65
Singapore: Eurofighter Is Out! posted Thu Apr 28 2005 09:31:56 by Greaser
Why Army Aviation Is So Much Cooler Then Air Force posted Mon Feb 23 2004 15:04:18 by L-188
Obama Says F-22A Raptor Is "outdated" posted Thu Sep 15 2011 13:47:31 by Geezer
Eads Desperately Sought Eurofighter Deal posted Fri Sep 2 2011 17:10:48 by mffoda
First Rafale In Normandie-Niemen Sqn posted Thu Sep 1 2011 06:16:25 by breiz
Is The Pima Air & Space Museum Restoring An EC-121 posted Sun Aug 21 2011 18:27:55 by fanofjets
Is Super Hornet That Much Better Than F-14? posted Sat Dec 11 2010 11:10:28 by bmacleod
Who's Eurofighter Is This? posted Thu Jan 3 2008 13:38:42 by Braud65
Singapore: Eurofighter Is Out! posted Thu Apr 28 2005 09:31:56 by Greaser
Why Army Aviation Is So Much Cooler Then Air Force posted Mon Feb 23 2004 15:04:18 by L-188
Is It True That A F-35C Is Super Heavy. posted Mon Dec 12 2011 09:10:34 by 747400sp
Rafale:Production To End In 2030? posted Wed Dec 7 2011 22:52:24 by Chamonix
Which Fighter Is The Most Automated? posted Wed Dec 7 2011 03:06:57 by Chamonix
Nighthawk 1 At Kjfk Now, Who Is It? posted Sun Nov 27 2011 10:06:27 by EGSUcrew
Rafale Lowest Bidder In Indian Mmrca Competition posted Tue Jan 31 2012 04:11:42 by jouy31
Royal Navy Considers Purchasing Rafale Fighters posted Mon Jan 30 2012 01:18:13 by chuchoteur
Is It True That A F-35C Is Super Heavy. posted Mon Dec 12 2011 09:10:34 by 747400sp
Rafale:Production To End In 2030? posted Wed Dec 7 2011 22:52:24 by Chamonix

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format