Typhoon operators
Germany - 141 with 33 being retired and 38 new ones on order
UK - 101 operational, 8 more withdraws planned
Italy - 95
Spain - 68
Saudi Arabia - 72 with 48 on order (but the order is stalled and unlikely to be fulfilled)
Qatar - 24 on order
Kuwait - 28 on order
Oman - 12
Total: 446 (and 90 on order discounting the Saudi order)

Rafale Operators
France - 137
Egypt - 24 and 30 more on order
Qatar - 31 and 5 on order
India - 35 and 1 more on order
Greece - 6 and 18 on order
Indonesia - 42 on order
UAE - 80 on order
Total: 233 (and 176 on order)

Given this list of operators, what's the future of the Typhoon? Germany, the Uk, and Italy all have ordered at least some F-35s. Spain is about to order the F-35 (maybe). Germany and Spain are already investing in the FCAS, while the UK has Tempest.

Who is going to pay for updates for the Typhoon?
Can you see anyone ordering new Typhoons? Anyone Germany is willing to export to?

Meanwhile .. France seems wedded to the Rafale forever. Even if MCAS comes, they will likely keep the Rafale around. (They currently have 68 Mirage 2000s, due to be modernized again in 2025!)

Basically, I'm thinking the Rafale has a longer term future than the Typhoon. If you wanted to order a non-F35 for delivery in 8 years, to be operating and updated in 2040, the Rafale looks like a better bet! And France can export without German permision.

Germany will order additional Eurofighter - maybe even replace the Tornados on a 1 : 1 base. The EF will also get upgrades for electronic warfare.

This should sustain the EF line for some time to enable the FCAS transition.

Germany has already selected the F-35 to replace the Tornado in the (nuclear) strike role and the EF to replace the Tornado ECR. If anything I expect the Luftwaffe to order more F-35s to replace the remaining Tornado IDS fleet.
I agree with the OP that the Rafale has better long term prospects than the Typhonn, but it still has to catch up with the total amount sold.
What shocks me is that the RAF has retired over half of their Typhoon fleet (if those numbers are correct)!

The French optimized the Rafale for strike, stealth and two men crew early on, in the nineties. They could do so because the French AF was the only customer. Political, industrial, contractual obligations of the 4 partner countries mostly prevented so on the Typhoons.

Spain is ordering 20 more Tranche 4 Typhoons to replace its oldest Hornets.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... y-upgrades

keesje wrote:

The French optimized the Rafale for strike, stealth and two men crew early on, in the nineties. They could do so because the French AF was the only customer. Political, industrial, contractual obligations of the 4 partner countries mostly prevented so on the Typhoons.

I really don't know why they wasted their time with the RAM and minimal RCS integration. It's NOT A STEALTH AIRCRAFT in any way / shape / form. Its' RCS is likely several times larger than the F-117, which was shot down by a (relatively) primitive SAM system decades ago. Have fun flying that into any battlespace protected by a modern SAM system.

The war in Ukraine is proof that if you can't clear ground-based threats, you're pretty much dead in a few days. Period.

estorilm wrote:

keesje wrote:

The French optimized the Rafale for strike, stealth and two men crew early on, in the nineties. They could do so because the French AF was the only customer. Political, industrial, contractual obligations of the 4 partner countries mostly prevented so on the Typhoons.

I really don't know why they wasted their time with the RAM and minimal RCS integration. It's NOT A STEALTH AIRCRAFT in any way / shape / form. Its' RCS is likely several times larger than the F-117, which was shot down by a (relatively) primitive SAM system decades ago. Have fun flying that into any battlespace protected by a modern SAM system.

The war in Ukraine is proof that if you can't clear ground-based threats, you're pretty much dead in a few days. Period.

Yes, because NATO air forces with over twice the annual flying hours, extensive and sophisticated training, of which Red Flag is just one example, are just like the amateur hour Russian AF.
Real operations are not like Top Trumps comparisons.

estorilm wrote:

It's NOT A STEALTH AIRCRAFT in any way / shape / form. Its' RCS is likely several times larger than the F-117, which was shot down by a (relatively) primitive SAM system decades ago.

Stealth is not an on/off option. The RCS simply determines the range at which the aircraft can be picked up by a radar, as well as the range at which burn-through occurs if ECM is used. Even the F-35 or F-22 aren't invisible on radar.

Less RCS means more options where you can operate safely. For this reason, all other 4th-gen fighters and bombers also employ RCS-reduction measures.

mxaxai wrote:

estorilm wrote:

It's NOT A STEALTH AIRCRAFT in any way / shape / form. Its' RCS is likely several times larger than the F-117, which was shot down by a (relatively) primitive SAM system decades ago.

Stealth is not an on/off option. The RCS simply determines the range at which the aircraft can be picked up by a radar, as well as the range at which burn-through occurs if ECM is used. Even the F-35 or F-22 aren't invisible on radar.

Less RCS means more options where you can operate safely. For this reason, all other 4th-gen fighters and bombers also employ RCS-reduction measures.

Then there is what they can carry, a longer ranged, Low Observable weapon makes these aircraft credible against heavily defended targets;
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... first-time

https://www.businessinsider.com/watch-a ... ?r=US&IR=T

Don't forget to mention the German Taurus criuse missile

Kaanere wrote:

Spain is ordering 20 more Tranche 4 Typhoons to replace its oldest Hornets.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... y-upgrades

True!

(Also, did you know there is no easily findable list of Rafale or Typhoon operators with a count of each. So I'll update my tables.)

Typhoon operators
Germany - 141 with 33 being retired and 38 new ones on order
UK - 101 operational, 8 more withdraws planned
Italy - 95
Spain - 68 with 20 more on order
Saudi Arabia - 72 with 48 on order (but the order is stalled and unlikely to be fulfilled)
Qatar - 24 on order
Kuwait - 28 on order
Oman - 12
Total: 446 (and 120 on order discounting the Saudi order)

Rafale Operators
France - 137
Egypt - 24 and 30 more on order
Qatar - 31 and 5 on order
India - 35 and 1 more on order
Greece - 6 and 18 on order
Indonesia - 42 on order
UAE - 80 on order
Total: 233 (and 176 on order)

mxaxai wrote:

estorilm wrote:

It's NOT A STEALTH AIRCRAFT in any way / shape / form. Its' RCS is likely several times larger than the F-117, which was shot down by a (relatively) primitive SAM system decades ago.

Stealth is not an on/off option. The RCS simply determines the range at which the aircraft can be picked up by a radar, as well as the range at which burn-through occurs if ECM is used. Even the F-35 or F-22 aren't invisible on radar.

Less RCS means more options where you can operate safely. For this reason, all other 4th-gen fighters and bombers also employ RCS-reduction measures.

You can't compare a yoga ball to a marble - even that's being rather kind, honestly. The losses we are seeing in MODERN WARFARE with Ukraine are proof of my argument, you simply can't fly 4th gen or 4+ gen aircraft in contested airspace. You'll die.

It absolutely is an on/off thing, which is why I brought up the F-117; again - it's stealthier than the Rafael and is much older, and still got shot down by SAMs which were also older.

You're either stealth from the drawing-board up, or you're not.

I don't believe in "stealth-optimized" - it's just a sales pitch. You're a marble or a yoga ball, which one do you want to fly in?

TheSonntag wrote:

Germany will order additional Eurofighter - maybe even replace the Tornados on a 1 : 1 base. The EF will also get upgrades for electronic warfare.

This should sustain the EF line for some time to enable the FCAS transition.

Maybe. Which will be better supported 30 years from, Rafale or Typhoon? Because if you're buying one of these now, getting delivery of the last plane in your order in 5 years, and want to operate it for 25 years that's the timeframe.

estorilm wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

estorilm wrote:

It's NOT A STEALTH AIRCRAFT in any way / shape / form. Its' RCS is likely several times larger than the F-117, which was shot down by a (relatively) primitive SAM system decades ago.

Stealth is not an on/off option. The RCS simply determines the range at which the aircraft can be picked up by a radar, as well as the range at which burn-through occurs if ECM is used. Even the F-35 or F-22 aren't invisible on radar.

Less RCS means more options where you can operate safely. For this reason, all other 4th-gen fighters and bombers also employ RCS-reduction measures.

You can't compare a yoga ball to a marble - even that's being rather kind, honestly. The losses we are seeing in MODERN WARFARE with Ukraine are proof of my argument, you simply can't fly 4th gen or 4+ gen aircraft in contested airspace. You'll die.

It absolutely is an on/off thing, which is why I brought up the F-117; again - it's stealthier than the Rafael and is much older, and still got shot down by SAMs which were also older.

You're either stealth from the drawing-board up, or you're not.

I don't believe in "stealth-optimized" - it's just a sales pitch. You're a marble or a yoga ball, which one do you want to fly in?

Just to be clear ...

A Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen might have an RCS of about 1 meter. An F-15/Su-35 might have an RCS of 5 meters. You see no practical, operational difference?

kitplane01 wrote:

estorilm wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Stealth is not an on/off option. The RCS simply determines the range at which the aircraft can be picked up by a radar, as well as the range at which burn-through occurs if ECM is used. Even the F-35 or F-22 aren't invisible on radar.

Less RCS means more options where you can operate safely. For this reason, all other 4th-gen fighters and bombers also employ RCS-reduction measures.

You can't compare a yoga ball to a marble - even that's being rather kind, honestly. The losses we are seeing in MODERN WARFARE with Ukraine are proof of my argument, you simply can't fly 4th gen or 4+ gen aircraft in contested airspace. You'll die.

It absolutely is an on/off thing, which is why I brought up the F-117; again - it's stealthier than the Rafael and is much older, and still got shot down by SAMs which were also older.

You're either stealth from the drawing-board up, or you're not.

I don't believe in "stealth-optimized" - it's just a sales pitch. You're a marble or a yoga ball, which one do you want to fly in?

Just to be clear ...

A Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen might have an RCS of about 1 meter. An F-15/Su-35 might have an RCS of 5 meters. You see no practical, operational difference?

I am old enough to have gone to the 1980 Farnborough Airshow, that was when the first leaks about the US developing a 'Stealth' aircraft became known, (the Have Blue project had been going for some years, the first F-117 I think flew the following year), in TV coverage the BBC aviation correspondent, though like most people had no idea what such an aircraft looked like, used a model of a F-15 to demonstrate how the shape of the airframe, the slab sides, tails, intakes, all reflected radar and speculated how this Stealth aircraft could possibly avoid or mitigate it.

kitplane01 wrote:

estorilm wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Stealth is not an on/off option. The RCS simply determines the range at which the aircraft can be picked up by a radar, as well as the range at which burn-through occurs if ECM is used. Even the F-35 or F-22 aren't invisible on radar.

Less RCS means more options where you can operate safely. For this reason, all other 4th-gen fighters and bombers also employ RCS-reduction measures.

You can't compare a yoga ball to a marble - even that's being rather kind, honestly. The losses we are seeing in MODERN WARFARE with Ukraine are proof of my argument, you simply can't fly 4th gen or 4+ gen aircraft in contested airspace. You'll die.

It absolutely is an on/off thing, which is why I brought up the F-117; again - it's stealthier than the Rafael and is much older, and still got shot down by SAMs which were also older.

You're either stealth from the drawing-board up, or you're not.

I don't believe in "stealth-optimized" - it's just a sales pitch. You're a marble or a yoga ball, which one do you want to fly in?

Just to be clear ...

A Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen might have an RCS of about 1 meter. An F-15/Su-35 might have an RCS of 5 meters. You see no practical, operational difference?

You're being extremely generous with the RCS; a Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen is in the same category as an F-16 or F-18 E/F... easily.

But nope, zero difference - you're all dead. S-300s, S-400s... no way. If you're not in a modern 5th gen aircraft, it's over. Even Buks and older systems have zero issue with 4th gen aircraft, that's what they were designed for! Your argument is that "you're a little bit less likely to die" and mine is that "you're *almost* perfectly safe" in an F-35/22.

Reminds me of the F-18 E/F "stealth" improvements... does anyone even remember those? Talk about those? Nope - it's worthless. It might as well be a city bus on modern SAM radars.

I'm thinking that Western/NATO SEAD is just a little bit better than what the Russians are capable of...

Yes - losses to SAMs in Desert Storm and Kosovo were minimal. Not saying the S400 isn't an entirely different system - it is much more capable - but the West has been rather well in SEAD.

TheSonntag wrote:

Yes - losses to SAMs in Desert Storm and Kosovo were minimal. Not saying the S400 isn't an entirely different system - it is much more capable - but the West has been rather well in SEAD.

The first action for post war Germany, (excluding GSG-9 in 1977), SEAD over Bosnia in 1999 with the Tornado ECR IIRC.

Basically Rafale has won the match for 4.5 fighter- bombers while f35 has won the stealth compétition for air superiority.
Now is reset time ! A new game has begun for the future fighter- where Tempest and FCAS will compete for nextgen best plane, along with the Americans of course...

estorilm wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

estorilm wrote:

You can't compare a yoga ball to a marble - even that's being rather kind, honestly. The losses we are seeing in MODERN WARFARE with Ukraine are proof of my argument, you simply can't fly 4th gen or 4+ gen aircraft in contested airspace. You'll die.

It absolutely is an on/off thing, which is why I brought up the F-117; again - it's stealthier than the Rafael and is much older, and still got shot down by SAMs which were also older.

You're either stealth from the drawing-board up, or you're not.

I don't believe in "stealth-optimized" - it's just a sales pitch. You're a marble or a yoga ball, which one do you want to fly in?

Just to be clear ...

A Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen might have an RCS of about 1 meter. An F-15/Su-35 might have an RCS of 5 meters. You see no practical, operational difference?

You're being extremely generous with the RCS; a Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen is in the same category as an F-16 or F-18 E/F... easily.

But nope, zero difference - you're all dead. S-300s, S-400s... no way. If you're not in a modern 5th gen aircraft, it's over. Even Buks and older systems have zero issue with 4th gen aircraft, that's what they were designed for! Your argument is that "you're a little bit less likely to die" and mine is that "you're *almost* perfectly safe" in an F-35/22.

Reminds me of the F-18 E/F "stealth" improvements... does anyone even remember those? Talk about those? Nope - it's worthless. It might as well be a city bus on modern SAM radars.

This shows the RCS of a Rafale as 1 meters, an F-16C as 1.2 meters, an F-15 as 25 meters, and an Su-27 as 15. In a different chart they say the Rafale is "0.1 meter class". So of course they are just guessing. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ft-rcs.htm. Here's another source that says the Rafale is 1 square meter. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... f42s-66727, and another source that says the F-15 is 25 square meters https://militaryembedded.com/radar-ew/s ... of-stealth

If you really believe the Rafale is 1, and the F-15 is 25, then the F-15 should be visible on radar at 100 nm if the Rafale is visible at 44 nm. That *seems* tactically relevant.

If you want to argue the numbers that's fine (but no one with published data really knows).

kitplane01 wrote:

estorilm wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Just to be clear ...

A Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen might have an RCS of about 1 meter. An F-15/Su-35 might have an RCS of 5 meters. You see no practical, operational difference?

You're being extremely generous with the RCS; a Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen is in the same category as an F-16 or F-18 E/F... easily.

But nope, zero difference - you're all dead. S-300s, S-400s... no way. If you're not in a modern 5th gen aircraft, it's over. Even Buks and older systems have zero issue with 4th gen aircraft, that's what they were designed for! Your argument is that "you're a little bit less likely to die" and mine is that "you're *almost* perfectly safe" in an F-35/22.

Reminds me of the F-18 E/F "stealth" improvements... does anyone even remember those? Talk about those? Nope - it's worthless. It might as well be a city bus on modern SAM radars.

This shows the RCS of a Rafale as 1 meters, an F-16C as 1.2 meters, an F-15 as 25 meters, and an Su-27 as 15. In a different chart they say the Rafale is "0.1 meter class". So of course they are just guessing. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ft-rcs.htm. Here's another source that says the Rafale is 1 square meter. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... f42s-66727, and another source that says the F-15 is 25 square meters https://militaryembedded.com/radar-ew/s ... of-stealth

If you really believe the Rafale is 1, and the F-15 is 25, then the F-15 should be visible on radar at 100 nm if the Rafale is visible at 44 nm. That *seems* tactically relevant.

If you want to argue the numbers that's fine (but no one with published data really knows).

I don't really believe any of that is reliable, one look at the Rafale shows that it's not stealthy in the least bit - that's just common sense given deflection angles and contemporary paint coatings, pylons, seam gaps, etc - as I stated above, it's basically a school bus. You're either stealth or you aren't.

The issue is that it doesn't really matter if it's 10m2 or 25m2, virtually ANY SAM or decent aircraft radar / AWACS-type system will pick you up with zero issues. So again, as I said above, you're either ACTUALLY stealthy, or you're not. I just don't buy in to any of this "stealth optimized" crap. It's a sales pitch any that's IT. Period.

People are bragging about these new SAM radars picking up F-35's with the RCS of a marble; it's probably TOTALLY bogus, but that's what you're up against. 1m2 or even 25m2 doesnt make a difference, you're already 100 times larger than aircraft that S400s are being designed to target.

Rumours are that this radar can see any stealth aircraft and the RCS is meaningless to it.

https://www.hensoldt.net/products/radar ... ive-radar/

estorilm wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

estorilm wrote:

You're being extremely generous with the RCS; a Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen is in the same category as an F-16 or F-18 E/F... easily.

But nope, zero difference - you're all dead. S-300s, S-400s... no way. If you're not in a modern 5th gen aircraft, it's over. Even Buks and older systems have zero issue with 4th gen aircraft, that's what they were designed for! Your argument is that "you're a little bit less likely to die" and mine is that "you're *almost* perfectly safe" in an F-35/22.

Reminds me of the F-18 E/F "stealth" improvements... does anyone even remember those? Talk about those? Nope - it's worthless. It might as well be a city bus on modern SAM radars.

This shows the RCS of a Rafale as 1 meters, an F-16C as 1.2 meters, an F-15 as 25 meters, and an Su-27 as 15. In a different chart they say the Rafale is "0.1 meter class". So of course they are just guessing. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ft-rcs.htm. Here's another source that says the Rafale is 1 square meter. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... f42s-66727, and another source that says the F-15 is 25 square meters https://militaryembedded.com/radar-ew/s ... of-stealth

If you really believe the Rafale is 1, and the F-15 is 25, then the F-15 should be visible on radar at 100 nm if the Rafale is visible at 44 nm. That *seems* tactically relevant.

If you want to argue the numbers that's fine (but no one with published data really knows).

I don't really believe any of that is reliable, one look at the Rafale shows that it's not stealthy in the least bit - that's just common sense given deflection angles and contemporary paint coatings, pylons, seam gaps, etc - as I stated above, it's basically a school bus. You're either stealth or you aren't.

The issue is that it doesn't really matter if it's 10m2 or 25m2, virtually ANY SAM or decent aircraft radar / AWACS-type system will pick you up with zero issues. So again, as I said above, you're either ACTUALLY stealthy, or you're not. I just don't buy in to any of this "stealth optimized" crap. It's a sales pitch any that's IT. Period.

People are bragging about these new SAM radars picking up F-35's with the RCS of a marble; it's probably TOTALLY bogus, but that's what you're up against. 1m2 or even 25m2 doesnt make a difference, you're already 100 times larger than aircraft that S400s are being designed to target.

I don't get my own opinion, but smart people with money who design airplanes all seem to think that some RCS reduction is better than none. They think it reduces detection range, increases your ability to avoid detection by the very small radars on the noses of missiles, and increases the effectiveness of decoys and jamming.

The fact that the designers of every modern high end tactical combat aircraft all take some measures to reduce RCS tells me that the experts believe it has value.

ReverseFlow wrote:

Rumours are that this radar can see any stealth aircraft and the RCS is meaningless to it.

https://www.hensoldt.net/products/radar ... ive-radar/

The bit I get is that being passive is an advantage:

The system uses existing electromagnetic energy from radio- and TV-broadcast transmitters and evaluates their echoes when reflected by an object.

In the military field, Twinvis combines several advantages. In addition to its high mobility, the system itself remains invisible and therefore cannot be jammed or eliminated in a targeted action.

They do not explain why it has an advantage in detecting stealth aircraft:

At the same time, it can also be used to discover stealth aircraft which, due to their low observable technology, have until now remained undetectable for conventional radar systems.

art wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

Rumours are that this radar can see any stealth aircraft and the RCS is meaningless to it.

https://www.hensoldt.net/products/radar ... ive-radar/

The bit I get is that being passive is an advantage:

The system uses existing electromagnetic energy from radio- and TV-broadcast transmitters and evaluates their echoes when reflected by an object.

In the military field, Twinvis combines several advantages. In addition to its high mobility, the system itself remains invisible and therefore cannot be jammed or eliminated in a targeted action.

They do not explain why it has an advantage in detecting stealth aircraft:

At the same time, it can also be used to discover stealth aircraft which, due to their low observable technology, have until now remained undetectable for conventional radar systems.

Because:

"The system uses existing electromagnetic energy from radio- and TV-broadcast transmitters and evaluates their echoes when reflected by an object."

I'd guess that the stealth aircraft aren't invisible across the whole electromagnetic spectrum.
Rumour has it, at the last ILA they were able to 'see' the F35. ( https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spiege ... 3-amp.html)
But I think there was then the question of a fire-control radar that would also need to lock on.


It's like the Lockheed stealth ship Sea Shadow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shado ... prov=sfla1)

Ben Rich (ex-head of Skunk Works) joked in his autobiography that the place to look for the ship was where there were no radar reflections, as even the waves reflect radar.

But I'm by no means knowledgeable on radars.

ReverseFlow wrote:

art wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

Rumours are that this radar can see any stealth aircraft and the RCS is meaningless to it.

https://www.hensoldt.net/products/radar ... ive-radar/

The bit I get is that being passive is an advantage:

The system uses existing electromagnetic energy from radio- and TV-broadcast transmitters and evaluates their echoes when reflected by an object.

In the military field, Twinvis combines several advantages. In addition to its high mobility, the system itself remains invisible and therefore cannot be jammed or eliminated in a targeted action.

They do not explain why it has an advantage in detecting stealth aircraft:

At the same time, it can also be used to discover stealth aircraft which, due to their low observable technology, have until now remained undetectable for conventional radar systems.

Because:

"The system uses existing electromagnetic energy from radio- and TV-broadcast transmitters and evaluates their echoes when reflected by an object."

I'd guess that the stealth aircraft aren't invisible across the whole electromagnetic spectrum.
Rumour has it, at the last ILA they were able to 'see' the F35. ( https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spiege ... 3-amp.html)
But I think there was then the question of a fire-control radar that would also need to lock on.


It's like the Lockheed stealth ship Sea Shadow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shado ... prov=sfla1)

Ben Rich (ex-head of Skunk Works) joked in his autobiography that the place to look for the ship was where there were no radar reflections, as even the waves reflect radar.

But I'm by no means knowledgeable on radars.

Exactly, and even many of the IRST sensors that Russia likes to brag about do NOT have fire-control capability, in fact I don't think any of them do. You're also dealing with an extremely narrow beam, which means you pretty much need to know where to look. In a combat situation where an adversary knows this, they will approach at unpredictable altitudes and angles.

Still - it's pointless, if their IRST system thinks it sees something, what's their next step? Their fire control radar can't see it, and the missiles CERTAINLY can't see or target it. Meanwhile the hypothetical 5th gen already has a passive lock and can go active, fire, jink the adversary, and get out without them being even close to taking a shot back (they'll be immediately defensive at that point anyways once their RWR goes off.)

I know I sound like a broken record, but there's just no replacement for (real) stealth. The aircraft in question (F-35, F-22) also have some of the most powerful radars and advanced sensors (F-35 at least) ever fit to a fighter - even without stealth, they'd theoretically detect and target first anyways.

estorilm wrote:

Because:
being even close to taking a shot back (they'll be immediately defensive at that point anyways once their RWR goes off.)

I know I sound like a broken record, but there's just no replacement for (real) stealth. The aircraft in question (F-35, F-22) also have some of the most powerful radars and advanced sensors (F-35 at least) ever fit to a fighter - even without stealth, they'd theoretically detect and target first anyways.

Are there only 2 stealth aircraft in existence? Are you US-centric? What kind of aircraft are the Su-57 and J-20? Not stealth?

art wrote:

Are there only 2 stealth aircraft in existence?

He did put in some caveats

Because we all know about the F117 and the B-2, and some of us believe in the rumors of nondisclosure stealth fighters currently in the US inventory

bt

ReverseFlow wrote:

art wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

Rumours are that this radar can see any stealth aircraft and the RCS is meaningless to it.

https://www.hensoldt.net/products/radar ... ive-radar/

The bit I get is that being passive is an advantage:

The system uses existing electromagnetic energy from radio- and TV-broadcast transmitters and evaluates their echoes when reflected by an object.

In the military field, Twinvis combines several advantages. In addition to its high mobility, the system itself remains invisible and therefore cannot be jammed or eliminated in a targeted action.

They do not explain why it has an advantage in detecting stealth aircraft:

At the same time, it can also be used to discover stealth aircraft which, due to their low observable technology, have until now remained undetectable for conventional radar systems.

Because:

"The system uses existing electromagnetic energy from radio- and TV-broadcast transmitters and evaluates their echoes when reflected by an object."

I'd guess that the stealth aircraft aren't invisible across the whole electromagnetic spectrum.
.

That too, but this mostly makes use of stealth aircraft not reflecting back to the sender. If you just look for reflections of signals generated far away from the receiver, stealth pretty much is out of the window.

Best regards
Thomas

The issue is not only reflection but also absorbtion. Theoretically, you could see a stealth plane by the shadow it makes in the surrounding electromagnetic radiations.
The same way that if you put a black object in the sky, it won't reflect any light you shine on it but will still prevent part of the solar radiation to reach tou

Latest weapon upgrade to RAF Typhoons;
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/asraam- ... n-typhoon/

The F-35, as the F-104 in the 60s, is heavily "lobbied" by the US.
It's history how Lockeed bribed EU Governments to sell the F-104s, very short lived in the US Air Force.
We in Italy saw Obama and Trump coming to close F-35 deals. I read an article on a now-defunct newspaper on how the IT AF Generals ditched the Typhoon in favour of the F-35. The journalist, citing a source in a small but high-tech industry in Italy, unveiled the mechanism: this factory makes titanium screws and rivets, simply one day the price of those screws passed from € 20,- each to € 200,- each. The Government will pay anyway, but the Cost Commission will report that by the way, buying a new F-35 is more economical than maintaining the fleet of Typhoons. The same screws, by the way, are used on the F-35 also, but at the older price. Extra margin will then be divided as a bribe between the General and the factory.
Too bad I cannot find the article anymore. It was 2012 or 2013 and the newspaper ("l'Unità", founded in the 1920s, a left-oriented newspaper) toghether with the website closed shortly after.

Does anyone know which aircraft "most" pilots would rather take into combat - the Typhoon or the Rafale? Let's use eastern Ukraine as the theatre and the aircraft being operated by the Ukrainians with their support assets.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Does anyone know which aircraft "most" pilots would rather take into combat - the Typhoon or the Rafale? Let's use eastern Ukraine as the theatre and the aircraft being operated by the Ukrainians with their support assets.

Which aircraft is better has been widely debated ... but the consensus might be that they are close with small advantages to the Typhoon in the air-air and Rafale in the air-ground.

kitplane01 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Does anyone know which aircraft "most" pilots would rather take into combat - the Typhoon or the Rafale? Let's use eastern Ukraine as the theatre and the aircraft being operated by the Ukrainians with their support assets.

Which aircraft is better has been widely debated ... but the consensus might be that they are close with small advantages to the Typhoon in the air-air and Rafale in the air-ground.

I've heard the same.

The French have a pretty great track record, for over 50+ years, of supporting various Dassault Mirage generations globally to various customers, a key advantage long term to potential buyers vs. the Eurofighter consortium (whose customer base is essentially Europe plus the ME).

Beyond the capabilities (present or future), I think this is what will keep the Rafale line going longer. It’s also among the prettiest aircraft of it’s generation, imho, so I always look forward to seeing them. Finally, I think the Rafale has many more export customers (and much more over the past five or 10 years) vs. the Typhoon.

I doubt FCAS is produced/operational in significant numbers to be available for export prior to around 2045 or so. I could easily see the Rafale anyway remaining in production until that time.

Rafale has a backlog of about 200 frames. The Typhoon I believe is around 50.
Plus there is the pending large orders for the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy with the Rafale being a strong contender for both.

LHAM wrote:

Plus there is the pending large orders for the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy with the Rafale being a strong contender for both.

How many years have they been trying to make up their minds?

LHAM wrote:

Rafale has a backlog of about 200 frames. The Typhoon I believe is around 50.
Plus there is the pending large orders for the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy with the Rafale being a strong contender for both.

I think your Typhoon backlog is too low.

Kuwait - in January 2022 Kuwait had received 2 frames out of 28 ordered
Qatar - no deliveries yet of 24 frames ordered
Info source: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wi ... st%20month.

Germany - no deliveries yet of 38 frames ordered
Info source: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wi ... st%20month.

Spain - order for 20 frames approved
Info source: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... y-upgrades

In addition I do not think that all tranche 3a aircraft have been delivered to all partner nations, so I think that 100+ frames are yet to be delivered

Why not quote the official numbers from Airbus for the Eurofighter? As of 30th April 2022:

Orders: 661
Deliveries: 575
In Operation: 568 (doesn't seem to take account of retired aircraft)

That's 86 aircraft yet to be delivered, but this number doesn't include possible further orders from Spain (20 approved), Germany (at least 15 expected in a new ECR configuration to be developed) or Saudi Arabia (memorandum of intent for 48) .

Country - Orders - Deliveries
Austria - 15 - 15
Germany - 181 - 143
Italy - 96 - 96
Kuwait - 28 - 4
Oman - 12 - 12
Qatar - 24 - 0
Saudi Arabia - 72 - 72
Spain - 73 - 73
UK - 160 - 160

Noray wrote:

Why not quote the official numbers from Airbus for the Eurofighter? As of 30th April 2022:

Orders: 661
Deliveries: 575
In Operation: 568 (doesn't seem to take account of retired aircraft)

That's 86 aircraft yet to be delivered, but this number doesn't include possible further orders from Spain (20 approved), Germany (at least 15 expected in a new ECR configuration to be developed) or Saudi Arabia (memorandum of intent for 48) .

Country - Orders - Deliveries
Austria - 15 - 15
Germany - 181 - 143
Italy - 96 - 96
Kuwait - 28 - 4
Oman - 12 - 12
Qatar - 24 - 0
Saudi Arabia - 72 - 72
Spain - 73 - 73
UK - 160 - 160

Wiki says Spain has 72 Hornets. Approval has been given for 20 to be replaced with Eurofighters. Any reason to think that Eurofighter will not replace the others as well?

Are the Saudis still interested? Why buy more fighters from a supplier that has embargoed you when alternatives are available?

art wrote:

Noray wrote:

Why not quote the official numbers from Airbus for the Eurofighter? As of 30th April 2022:

Orders: 661
Deliveries: 575
In Operation: 568 (doesn't seem to take account of retired aircraft)

That's 86 aircraft yet to be delivered, but this number doesn't include possible further orders from Spain (20 approved), Germany (at least 15 expected in a new ECR configuration to be developed) or Saudi Arabia (memorandum of intent for 48) .

Country - Orders - Deliveries
Austria - 15 - 15
Germany - 181 - 143
Italy - 96 - 96
Kuwait - 28 - 4
Oman - 12 - 12
Qatar - 24 - 0
Saudi Arabia - 72 - 72
Spain - 73 - 73
UK - 160 - 160

Wiki says Spain has 72 Hornets. Approval has been given for 20 to be replaced with Eurofighters. Any reason to think that Eurofighter will not replace the others as well?

Are the Saudis still interested? Why buy more fighters from a supplier that has embargoed you when alternatives are available?

Who has even threatened to embargo the Saudi’s?
Many think they should be, they are an autocratic absolute Monarchy, nothing at goverment level has ever come of it.
The links to the Typhoons comes from the 1980’s buy of Tornados, as part of a package from the UK that included Hawk trainers, minesweepers etc, expanded support which dates back from the 1960’s and the BAC Lightning fighters and Strikemaster trainers and essentially setting up their air force.

20 years later, France, who sell to anyone (Putin almost got two LPH assault ships brand new from France only stopped, under huge international pressure after Crimea in 2014, second only to the USSR with Saddam’s Iraq, including two attempts at a nuclear reactor, one blown up in 1974 by Mossad in the French factory, the second bombed from the air in Iraq in 1981), was pole position for a new huge Saudi order.

However they not only tried to foist on the Saudis stuff they did not want, their main product was the proposed Mirage 4000, I saw that at airshows in the 1980’s very impressive it seemed to. But a prototype which France, if a deal was made, expected the Saudis to finance it’s development into a production aircraft.
Whereas BAe could send Tornados straight off the line and there was that well established training and support too.
(Similar to India and the Jaguar, France tried to stop the deal already signed but 40 Jaguars from RAF stocks were sent the IAF from 1980).

That left the US, the Israeli lobby in Washington had already tried to stop the F-15C/D deal signed a few years before, hard as it might be to imagine now but that lobby was not as powerful then as in more recent times.

Typhoon made sense to the Saudis in the 2000’s, though it delayed deliveries to the RAF again since they started getting the aircraft and updated Hawk trainers, plus a renewed support and training package now dating back 40 years.

The Saudis don’t have nukes, nor a nuclear armed hostile neighbour who they have fought several wars with since their respective independence. Yet anyway.
That’s the Indian beef with sanctions.

Saudi Arabia arms embargo by Germany

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... -industry/
https://battle-updates.com/unilateral-g ... isory-ltd/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKCN1Q41VK

art wrote:

Wiki says Spain has 72 Hornets. Approval has been given for 20 to be replaced with Eurofighters. Any reason to think that Eurofighter will not replace the others as well?

The current "special military operation" is leading more and more countries to decide that they need the F35.

johns624 wrote:

art wrote:

Wiki says Spain has 72 Hornets. Approval has been given for 20 to be replaced with Eurofighters. Any reason to think that Eurofighter will not replace the others as well?

The current "special military operation" is leading more and more countries to decide that they need the F35.

Are F-35's made in Spain? If so, I'm sure the Spanish government will find out where and order a few.

About the "special military operation", would F-35 be a lot less vulnerable to Stingers or similar? Just curious.

LHAM wrote:

Rafale has a backlog of about 200 frames. The Typhoon I believe is around 50.
Plus there is the pending large orders for the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy with the Rafale being a strong contender for both.

When I started this thread I found 176 orders. See first post.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Does anyone know which aircraft "most" pilots would rather take into combat - the Typhoon or the Rafale? Let's use eastern Ukraine as the theatre and the aircraft being operated by the Ukrainians with their support assets.

Whichever aircraft said pilots have been trained on. No point fighting for your life in something you don't know how to use.

This thread is a dumpster fire; but here's my opinion concerning the question that is the title. The Typhoon is a better plane while the Rafale is a better weapons platform. At the end of the day, countries do not buy planes simply because they are good. They buy a good weapons platform. Looking at total production numbers presents a skewed picture: The Typhoon was designed by a committee (more on that later) for 4 nations. The Rafale was designed by 1 nation with a view to sell on the export market. The Rafale has a more varied export base that is more than just oil rich arab nations, from countries which buy/bought Western equipment, Russian equipment... and both! Although most Rafale customers so far are or have been previous Dassault fast jet customers. (Dassault make a heck of a lot more than just planes).
The Typhoon was designed by committee by countries with very different needs and desires of what they wanted from the program. It is no surprise that France dropped out early.The result is a program that has become legendary for its political squabbling, moving of the goalposts, catastrophically late and overbudget that only partially meets the needs of the Air Forces that wanted it in the first place. Yes, the Typhoon is now also a mature strike platform. But it took the retirement of the Tornado and ISIS to bring the Typhoon up to speed to a capability it should have had in the first place. It has also not had the same support for upgrades (at least in the public eye) that the Rafale has had.
The Typhoon is a fantastic air to air platform, most likely better than the Rafale in air to air fights, at least when equipped with Meteor missiles. But there is more to modern warfare than just shooting down other planes.
Meanwhile, the Rafale was not designed by committee, was relatively on time, relatively on budget. Made it into meaningful service before the Typhoon (although IOC and FOC dates are very similar) and has a design that better reflects modern warfare, or at least our perception of what modern warfare is. The Rafale (all variants) can carry more fuel, have a WSO, carry more stores, use tactical nuclear weapons, has a lower RCS and land and take off from aircraft carriers. It has more combat experience. Its upgrade path is well known, simple to understand and is projected all the way through to its mid life upgrade. As said above it has a more varied and successful export base and a has a brighter future than the Typhoon. Rafale has won Typhoon vs Rafale.

Yet as we look to the future, FCAS with France and Germany is seemingly making the same mistakes that Eurofighter made in its design. Mainly the political squabbling of what either nation wants.
But it would appear that Britain & partners with the Tempest have learnt their lesson. Weird how all news relating to the Tempest program goes a bit like this: Progress X and Y has been made, we are plodding along and getting the work done, nothing to write home about. Meanwhile most news relating to the FCAS program goes a bit like this: France and Germany still at each other's throats over what they want and how they want it done. Shit's fucked and already late. More news at 10.
Funny how some learn their lesson and some don't. Based on the last 50 years it appears that partnering with France or Germany is a very bad idea if you want your plane to be on time, on budget and for it do what you want to do.

Raptormodeller wrote:

Yet as we look to the future, FCAS with France and Germany is seemingly making the same mistakes that Eurofighter made in its design. Mainly the political squabbling of what either nation wants.
But it would appear that Britain & partners with the Tempest have learnt their lesson. Weird how all news relating to the Tempest program goes a bit like this: Progress X and Y has been made, we are plodding along and getting the work done, nothing to write home about. Meanwhile most news relating to the FCAS program goes a bit like this: France and Germany still at each other's throats over what they want and how they want it done. Shit's fucked and already late. More news at 10.
Funny how some learn their lesson and some don't. Based on the last 50 years it appears that partnering with France or Germany is a very bad idea if you want your plane to be on time, on budget and for it do what you want to do.

I think you have much more hope for the Tempest. I doubt the UK will ever spend the money to make a working airplane. I fear instead, just progress that never reaches and end goal. I wonder if it's just to many pounds for them to swallow. But good luck to them.

kitplane01 wrote:

Raptormodeller wrote:

Yet as we look to the future, FCAS with France and Germany is seemingly making the same mistakes that Eurofighter made in its design. Mainly the political squabbling of what either nation wants.
But it would appear that Britain & partners with the Tempest have learnt their lesson. Weird how all news relating to the Tempest program goes a bit like this: Progress X and Y has been made, we are plodding along and getting the work done, nothing to write home about. Meanwhile most news relating to the FCAS program goes a bit like this: France and Germany still at each other's throats over what they want and how they want it done. Shit's fucked and already late. More news at 10.
Funny how some learn their lesson and some don't. Based on the last 50 years it appears that partnering with France or Germany is a very bad idea if you want your plane to be on time, on budget and for it do what you want to do.

I think you have much more hope for the Tempest. I doubt the UK will ever spend the money to make a working airplane. I fear instead, just progress that never reaches and end goal. I wonder if it's just to many pounds for them to swallow. But good luck to them.

.

It’s never been a UK only program. Not long after a potential aircraft in mock up was unveiled in 2018, three years after the program quietly started, Italy and Sweden came on board, now it seems Japan is too.
This makes sense not only technically, financially but also policy and has been since the 1960’s, sophisticated combat aircraft are to be multi national projects, to spread the costs and ensure a decent production run across the partners. Hence the previous generation of RAF combat aircraft being the tri national Tornado and the Anglo French Jaguar. And the current main one being the Typhoon.

On the Tempest thread, I had to explain, several times, the history and precedent which is linked with Typhoon and Tempest.
Both started as a UK only mock up at the Farnborough Airshow, (I saw the P.110 mock-up there in 1982), with the intention of being part of a new European combat aircraft.
Aside from that BAe looked at a number of configurations, the P.116 being a doppelgänger of what became Typhoon. With the implication that in theory at least, they could go it alone.
As noted above, France pulled out after causing delays, after demanding, within a 5 nation program, a 46% workshare, their engine and a smaller aircraft than the others, citing the need for a carrier version for their 35000 ton carriers. Many observers thought all this was just delaying tactics while they got their own national program going while trying to undermine a rival.

In the early 90’s it was Germany playing silly games, now wanting out or as panned out, a more ‘austere’ version which just caused delays and ironically for them too, added costs (for everyone).
As also noted above, lessons seemed to have learned by the Tempest team and FCAS seems to have a mix of the issues France and later Germany ‘brought to the party’.
Another factor, to maintain VSTOL in particular to make carrier aviation still affordable (an idea much mocked until tested in a very challenging war 40 years ago), as well as getting BAE into low observable fuselage fabrication (an ability proved to LM with the Replica full scale fuselage constructed in 1999), the UK entering the F-35 program early on.

This gives breathing space capability wise for the UK, now with events in Ukraine finally forcing the issue with Germany and their Tornado replacement they too are buying F-35, albeit in limited numbers for a specific primary role. They too have some breathing space and I would also expect as many upgrades on their Typhoon fleet, beyond a top up order, for them too.