Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The typhoon also has some stealth measures like the Rafale. THe typhoon, at leats the UK version has a very sophisticated missile defense system wich warns the pilot of any incoming missile including IR, estimation of impact transmited via voice warnings, plus drone decoys for radar missiles.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well AFAIK , The Typhoon is larger and doesn't have as much advanced stealth technology of the Rafale (F-22 and in a lesser extent F-35 are in a completely different league , much more stealthy of course , at the slight expense of aerodynamic performances apparently ,as i read that the F-22 has more or less same performance in manoeuvrability , acceleration , climb rate as the F-15 acording to General Everest Riccioni of USAAF : http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf , its superiority will come mainly from the most advanced electronic technology/avionic and stealth ) , the cross section of Rafale is diminished by a factor of 20 compared to Mirage 2000-5 .

 

Both aircraft were conceived at the same time , Typhoon cannot perform deep penetration in ennemy lines or chase on sea like Rafale , it has twice less fuel in external and thus far less range , and a bigger profile . Typhoon has been conceived initially to be a supersonic interceptor/air superiority (but with good capabilities in ground attack ) , and probably will be the best at this in the years to come (with F-22 and a future Russian plane surely :) ) , its aerodynamics and profile , engines have been optimized for this task .

 

The choice of a pivotal wing delta , centre of gravity very excentrated are excellent to have high supersonic manoeuvrability but on the other hand , in high subsonic speed at low altitude air-to-ground operation isn't very good , and it will take a lot of time and energy to change that in the Typhoon . The position of its pylons handicaps the Typhoon for air-to-ground( Amraam position ) thus the designation nacelle will lack visibilty and it prevents it to take more heavy air-to ground weapons (UK , Italy , Holland etc.. will have F-35 for these tasks and Spain , Germany will have models for this too ) , also its radar for air-to-ground with mechanical antennas is of little use compared to the PESA of Rafale or AESA technology of the Super Hornet .

 

 

Maximum range of a radar doesn't compensate its agility and can be double edged (ennemy can spot you from much farther than your radar can see ) , Typhoon will be a superb interceptor with ground pounding ability , probably the best interceptor , but will never be able to perform long missions of penetration behind ennemy lines or struggle on seas against vessels, submarines etc.. or be as good in air-to-ground ( take less armament , and currently less equipped for this ) because it cannot compete with the Super Hornet and Rafale for this and will be easier to spot for the ennemy , but in air-air , it is true that it has for the moment more punch as the engine is more powerful ( but EF is also heavier ) , better performance in supersonic , better RCS , although everything will change in a few years for both planes in this aspect .

 

For example , on Rafale there is the Magic II with vectorial thrust , biggest "nose" in the world and data link , SPECTRA detection exclusive to Rafale , special EOS sensors , and soon , OSF MkII , new more powerful Snecma M-88-3 reactor that consumes less etc.. will be integrated , for instance at this present moment (will change in just a few years ) , Typhoon who is the latest a/c has a radar advantage on Rafale with "Captor " , it can track 20 targets at 160 km , but more efficient system will be installed soon on Rafales , thus the advantage disappears .

 

I still think Rafale has the better airframe , and will need only small retouches to further improve it , and that Typhoon will be the best European asset for pin-point air defence and superiority over the borders , both EF-2000 and Rafale are 4/5 generation plane , and will evolve a lot in the next 20-25 years , before a real 5th generation project comes out to match the F-22 or future Russian planes in effectiveness and technology advancement (hopefully :) ) , sorry for my English if i made mistakes , but at least i try :) .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mirage, the Typhoon doent lack any stealth measures the rafale has. Im sorry but your a bit mistakened about this fact. The typhoon is Europes Top of the line even though the rafale is priced next to it, because in reality its overpriced like the mirage2000 is, and pretty much like all french hardware is. I have personal proffesional experience on this fact.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mirage, the Typhoon doent lack any stealth measures the rafale has. Im sorry but your a bit mistakened about this fact. The typhoon is Europes Top of the line even though the rafale is priced next to it, because in reality its overpriced like the mirage2000 is, and pretty much like all french hardware is. I have personal proffesional experience on this fact.

 

I have been taught to answer with arguments and not belittle other people's countries , but fair enough . It's very likely that is has more stealth , besides we cannot not have a clue because most of stealth features in the Rafale are strictly classified , so it says a bit about the intention of your post as you bring judgement on a plane you cannot have information on , but i will answer one last post as it is off-topic ;)

 

What you can see of stealth element on Rafale is next to the extremity of wings and on the canard empennage features and the dedication about this element since the beggining of the project is high , that's why i think this , and besides it is backed by reality and real life exercises with Swiss pilots and in other events where Rafale shone and got the highest esteem of International military experts and pilots , both Eurofighter and Rafale have stealth , Rafale has a smaller profile .

 

Rafale is Europe's Top of the line as much as Typhoon (and the Gripen by the way which will be further improved ) , initially , the project had to be common and started at the same time , but as i said before , France wanted also a carrier based plane and multi-role one . Both planes answered different needs of European Air Forces and will work together .

Besides , top and finest European electronic and aeronautic firms are British , French or partly French (Thales , EADS , Alcatel etc.. ) German and partly German as well Swedish (they have a very good airforce and plane ) and those who spend more on military Research are UK and France .

 

About the attack on my country's technology (which is esteemed by worldwide military experts ) you should ask the Indian Air Force pilots or Greek Air Force what they think of their Mirage 2000-5 , they are far more reliable and unbiased about this , they love the plane , Mirage was an international success , so your statement apart from being unkind is untrue , most of world Armies are using helicopters , tanks , missiles , planes , ships etc.. of France , or using its rockets to send satellites or trains , engines etc.. and transfers of technology between European countries like France and Germany is high as strong allies , both planes are of the same generation and use comparable technology , the difference is in the role , one is specialized in air superiority while still being able to carry ground attack ops , the other gives a little in aerial superiority to be able to perform all kind of tasks and operations , from nuclear vectoring , sub harassing , aerial superiorty , ground attack etc..

 

Btw , i had many problems with my Opel car these last two years , but i still keep in the highest esteem , the savoir-faire and quality of manufacturing of our German friends , beyond the fact that comparing the quality standards of the civilian and affordable technology with standards of quality of the top military material is a bit silly i have to say .

 

Also prices reflects the technology handed and components but also the cost of development .... in this industry and in this context of competition , nobody has interest to raise the prices really

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well let's face it!

 

EF-2000 development started before Rafale and total amount of money spent made Franch withdraw from the programme.

 

On the other hand Rafale was always kept as a backup option in case this happens but even though testing begun much later than Typhoon, Rafales became operational in the '90s. I remember operation "Deny Flight" from '96 over Bosnian skies already had Rafales operating from French carriers in Adriatic.

 

Typhoons, however didn't participate in any canflict nor operation so far.

 

I believe EF is a great plane but designs dating from early '80s might become obsolete pretty soon.

 

Some RAF squadrons switched to EF-2000 from Jaguars, so I believe it's great in strike roles too.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem...

 

This was a topic about the first stranger-carrier tests of the Rafale, with very nice pic, some interesting questions (what about the shoes) and so on. :thumbup:

 

Can't you refrain for comparing the Rafale and the Typhoon each time it's about one or the other ? Sorry to interrupt, but that's and old and useless debate. AFAIK most of the RCS/Spectra-DASS/radar perfs... are classified. As usual, those who know cannot speak... :smilewink:

 

Back to subjet : I still don't know about the catapult shoes, but I learned why the Rafale shows itself on other decks than the CDG one only now : Those are Rafale F2 (new standart) which can align their INS on a GPS signal. The precedent Rafale F1 need specific equipement for that, which is only available on the french carrier.

 

++

Az'

 

PS1 : Sorry for annoyance

PS2 : If anybody has other pics, or an explanation on the shoes switch, let us know :)

spacer.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahem...

 

 

Back to subjet : I still don't know about the catapult shoes, but I learned why the Rafale shows itself on other decks than the CDG one only now : Those are Rafale F2 (new standart) which can align their INS on a GPS signal. The precedent Rafale F1 need specific equipement for that, which is only available on the french carrier.

 

++

Az'

 

PS1 : Sorry for annoyance

PS2 : If anybody has other pics, or an explanation on the shoes switch, let us know :)

 

Interesting! Is a GPS signal precise enough to align an INS on? I thought GPS only provided decametric precision, and most INS systems an do better?

 

Are precise data transmitted from the carrier itself to guide the ILS approach? I'm ot familiar with how this all works.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well let's face it!

 

EF-2000 development started before Rafale and total amount of money spent made Franch withdraw from the programme.

 

On the other hand Rafale was always kept as a backup option in case this happens but even though testing begun much later than Typhoon, Rafales became operational in the '90s.

 

As I understood, the Rafale was not a backup option. The French had it in development in parallel to the concepts of other nations and had no plans to accept any other programme for their new fighter. Other nations could join their programme but would have little to nothing to say in the matter so they decided to continue with the development of the EAP demonstrator.

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting! Is a GPS signal precise enough to align an INS on? I thought GPS only provided decametric precision, and most INS systems an do better?

 

I know from my AF-days here in Norway that it was quite possible to use the GPS to align the INS (Unless I'm wrong, it was done on some of the RS15-Vipers), but that it's not an oft-used procedure. In the case of the RNoAF-Viperpilots, standard SOP is to start the alignment of the INS just after SEC/BUC-testing (unless I remember COMPLETELY wrong, that is). Good thing about this is that the groundcrew get adequate time to do the checks they need to.

 

If they do things otherwise on carriers, though, is something I can't say anything about. I simply don't know :) I would think that because the carrier is a moving platform, aligning the INS to where the carrier was when you took off an hour 30 ago might be a tad awkward when you're low on fuel and shot to hell :P

Regards

Fjordmonkey

Clustermunitions is just another way of saying that you don't like someone.

 

I used to like people, then people ruined that for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe EF is a great plane but designs dating from early '80s might become obsolete pretty soon.

 

Heres another misconception. Your not the only one to do it. I have been combating this on more than 1 forum. The EF is NOT going to be obsolete anytime soon. All fighters now in service have been all designed starting 1980's, but I have no Idea why people aim at the EF alone with this fact to diss it.

 

F-22, F-35, Rafale, gripen programs have all been strated in late 80's. So what makes the Typhoon stand out negatively?

 

And if you look at the likes of Su-30MKI's or Mig35 then you have to trace them back to the 70's. Then youll realize its not the measure of advanced technology that rates them but the degree of obselescense! :huh:

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mirage, the Typhoon doent lack any stealth measures the rafale has. Im sorry but your a bit mistakened about this fact. The typhoon is Europes Top of the line even though the rafale is priced next to it, because in reality its overpriced like the mirage2000 is, and pretty much like all french hardware is. I have personal proffesional experience on this fact.

Hi Pilotasso, :)

 

Sounds kind of rude to make of your personnal opinion / experience an absolute and complete truth on french 'hardware'...;) :) The world is slighly more complex... ;) :)

 

Hub out.

-

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
If they do things otherwise on carriers, though, is something I can't say anything about. I simply don't know :) I would think that because the carrier is a moving platform, aligning the INS to where the carrier was when you took off an hour 30 ago might be a tad awkward when you're low on fuel and shot to hell :P

 

I think I start to understand. I suppose on board the PAN CDG the Rafale's could align their INS with special equipment; and being able to align it with GPS data is a more generic way, that they can use also on board of a foreign carrier.

 

BTW, and of topic, I found a good article explaining some fundamentals: http://www.photogrammetry.ethz.ch/general/persons/sultan_pub/GPS_INS_Integration_SKocaman.pdf

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Pilotasso, :)

 

Sounds kind of rude to make of your personnal opinion / experience an absolute and complete truth on french 'hardware'...;) :) The world is slighly more complex... ;) :)

 

Hub out.

 

ikarus.gif

 

It ceases to be so complex when you have only one source for parts for french hardware.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting! Is a GPS signal precise enough to align an INS on? I thought GPS only provided decametric precision, and most INS systems an do better?

Yes the GPS is precise enough. Other way is to place the plane on a know location and enter its coordinates in the INS system, but on a carrier, the know location of a parking place is... not so accurate :smilewink:

I don't know if INS have a better precision than GPS. They are smoother while in movement, but they derivate, too.

 

Are precise data transmitted from the carrier itself to guide the ILS approach? I'm ot familiar with how this all works.

It may be so if the carrier is equipped with an ILS (a specific one as the platform is moving).

But most carriers approachs are visual.

 

One question about this whole process though.......what profile did the arresting cable crew use to get her down safely without ripping the hook off or breaking the wire? I would of imagined they set tension to almost the same as a standard F/A-18.

Before landing on a carrier, the pilot always announces (on the radio) :

- the type of aircraft (=> A/C weight)

- the remaining charges if significative (=> weapons weight)

- the remaining fuel (=> fuel weight)

Then the cable brake system is set for the A/C on final with those data provided by the pilot. There are no standart settings for one aircraft type.

 

++

Az'

spacer.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never looked up close at this plane before. I think this si the prettiest fighter I have ever seen :)

S = SPARSE(m,n) abbreviates SPARSE([],[],[],m,n,0). This generates the ultimate sparse matrix, an m-by-n all zero matrix. - Matlab help on 'sparse'

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes the GPS is precise enough. Other way is to place the plane on a know location and enter its coordinates in the INS system, but on a carrier, the know location of a parking place is... not so accurate :smilewink:

I don't know if INS have a better precision than GPS. They are smoother while in movement, but they derivate, too.

 

Basically, it depends on the flight time. Over a short period of time, an INS will be more accurate (assuming you have your exact start point), but they do drift. Once the accumulated error exceeds the potential error in your GPS system . . . . you reset the INS from the GPS position :)

 

Modern INS is very, very good - but the fundamental problem is that they accumulate any error in the system and drift off.

 

 

IIRC GPS can get down to single-figure metre accuracy these days. Much less on land with LAAS systems broadcasting corrections, but that's not a possibility at sea.

 

 

And I too think the Rafale is a magnificent-looking aircraft . . . . it's just a real shame about all those big pods and tanks they have to hang on the bottom for the pesky business of blowing stuff up. Spoils the lines a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Before landing on a carrier, the pilot always announces (on the radio) :

- the type of aircraft (=> A/C weight)

- the remaining charges if significative (=> weapons weight)

- the remaining fuel (=> fuel weight)

Then the cable brake system is set for the A/C on final with those data provided by the pilot. There are no standart settings for one aircraft type.

 

No. They dont have the information for any of that. During a normal landing the pilot will call its designation, state, type, and navigation.

 

Say I was landing an F-14 on a carrier deck I would say..."AJ101, state full, type F-14, automatic"

 

Its all in the profiles and the arresting cable crews doesnt know anything of the weight of the aircraft (The Rafale) landing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No. They dont have the information for any of that. During a normal landing the pilot will call its designation, state, type, and navigation.

 

Say I was landing an F-14 on a carrier deck I would say..."AJ101, state full, type F-14, automatic"

 

Its all in the profiles and the arresting cable crews doesnt know anything of the weight of the aircraft (The Rafale) landing.

 

Hey, maybe they can actually work stuff out on the fly on the Charles de Gaulle? ;)

 

And if it's all done on profiles on the American carriers, then I imagine someone with glasses and a calculator developed (shock) a NEW profile for a Rafale visit . . . it's not exactly like they just decided to land there one day on a whim . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Modern INS is very, very good - but the fundamental problem is that they accumulate any error in the system and drift off.

Thanx for the precision. And yes, "drift off" is better than "derivate". Sorry about that horrible frenglish word. :doh:

 

 

No. They dont have the information for any of that. During a normal landing the pilot will call its designation, state, type, and navigation.

Ahem, are U sure the pilot don't say how much fuel he has onboard ? :huh:

 

For the other informations, yes, I agree, they have "profiles". What I wanted to say is that the arrestor cable settings may be different for 2 aicrafts of the same type, depending on their payload and fuel remaining, as britgliderpilot said here :

Hey, maybe they can actually work stuff out on the fly on the Charles de Gaulle? ;)

 

And if it's all done on profiles on the American carriers, then I imagine someone with glasses and a calculator developed (shock) a NEW profile for a Rafale visit . . . it's not exactly like they just decided to land there one day on a whim . . .

 

Regards,

Azrayen'

spacer.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...