Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Eurofighter Typhoon v/s Dassault Rafale - Analysis

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by jagjitnatt, Apr 29, 2011.

?

which aircraft do you prefer

  1. RAFALE

    177 vote(s)
    54.1%
  2. TYPHOON

    150 vote(s)
    45.9%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wily

    Wily REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2
    Just an additional little question: What does MMRCA means ?
    Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft
    (Correct me if I'm wrong)

    Which plane is more Multi-Role than the other ?

    Heu.. that make two questions.
    Sorry.
     
  2. nicolas10

    nicolas10 Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    466
    Likes Received:
    153
    This is a cheap shot. Only one Rafale was lost due to a technical problem (fuel system problem), and even then it could have been avoided given proper following of the procedures IIRC.

    The three other Rafale crashes were due to G-LOCK and a midair collision.

    Nic
     
  3. Raf Khan

    Raf Khan REGISTERED

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    7
    About service ceiling :
    I am sure that EF does have a ceiling around 5,000ft above Rafale, thanks to its powerful RR EJ200 engines.
    The value in itself (50,000 to 65,000 depending of the fuel and the configuration) is not the purpose.
    The main point is to be upper the opponents : JF-17, J-20. Who knows what are their operational ceilings ?
    Because if you're above the other you double your advantage :
    1) you have better radar detection as airframes RCS are optimized for front and ground stealth,
    2) your missile has a better range and your enemy's one will lose energy in its climb to reach you.
    So EF has an a2a advantage on this point. No doubt about that.
    The point is : how long can EFT stay operational at that ceiling ? considering the fuel needed to climb that height, how much will remain for a2a interception ? This is the key factor to be taken under consideration, and i don't have the answer (nor for the Rafale).

    In fact the real main a2a tactical advantage consists in Radar range, strategy and mutual support between aircraft inside the formation.
    Rafale can have one Radar emitting and the 3 other aircraft completely passive with L16 datalink, Spectra EW suite, FSO tracking, and able to fire on the target provided by the emitting Rafale (or even an Awacs track). And MICA IR with passive seeker can be launched as well as EM : the ennemy don't know what counter-mesures to use.
    EF Tranche2 lacks this passive shooting capability. I don't know about T3 and others, but i do believe that IAF requested that in Typhoon MMRCA version.

    So better ceiling compared to passive shooting ? The good question is how many aircraft can you shoot in a2a war.
     
  4. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Hi Nic. Long time no see.

    When you consider how much aircraft are in service for each:

    Eurofighter 300+
    Rafale 100+
    Gripen 160+
     
  5. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Eurofighter has PIRATE that can target 200 aircraft if thats any good:

    Systems.jpg picture by Theg777 - Photobucket

    Meteor has datalink capability but not sue if the datalink is passive.
     
  6. Scorpion82

    Scorpion82 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    326
    Hi littlejohn
    You are welcome. There are a lot of different figures floating around the public domain and it's subsequently difficult to determine which data are correct and which are not. On top of that it may happen that the same terms are used for what is in fact different. There are multiple different weight definitions for example.

    Here are the definitions translated from my working papers in German.

    Standard empty weight:
    - airframe
    - propulsion
    - standard equipment/systems (hydraulic lines, electrical system etc.)
    - Weight measurement deviations (production tolerances etc.)

    Empty weight:
    - standard empty weight plus fixed mission equipment (radar, EWS etc.)

    Basic weight:
    - Empty weight plus removable role equipment (depending on what is defined as role equipment and what is already payload)

    Operational weight:
    - Includes consumables (hydraulic fluid, oil, coolant) and even crew

    How weights are certified may differ from aircraft to aircraft, in some cases unusuable fuel (that in the fuel lines) is already included in the certified empty weight and thus basic weight for example. What is determined as role equipment and what is still considered as fixed equipment or even payload may differ as well to a certain extent.

    Wrt the empty weight figures of the Rafale we have seen countless different figures over the years, most state empty weight, when some may in fact mean operational (empty) weight.

    Back in the 90s Dassault published the following EW figures:
    C : 9060 kg
    B : 9400 kg
    M : 9670 kg

    These data were possibly correct at a certain point and reflecting that of the prototypes. They have long been used by the aviation press as well.

    It was not before 2004 that I have seen new empty weight figures released by the German aviation magazine Flug Revue:
    C : 9400 kg
    B : 9600 kg
    M : 9900 kg

    No idea from where FR got that data as I haven't seen them elsewhere.

    Around the same time Janes released different specs, actually the same as you have listed above with the exception of the Rafale M, I loaned the 2004 issue in early 2005 from our military libary:
    C : 9850 kg
    B : 10460 kg
    M : 10450 kg

    Back then those data weren't specified as OEW IIRC. But it's clear that the difference between the B and M can't be that small and that these data are subsequently not to reliable.

    In 2006 the programme document I have posted already new weight figures were stated:
    C : 9500 kg
    B : 9720 kg
    M : 10130 kg

    This may reflect the standard empty weight or empty weight. The 9.5 t figure for the Rafale C is also stated in other places such as the EC 1/7 website, the Rafale solo display team website for example.

    For the Rafale M a new empty weight figure is given by the French MoD/MN stating 10196 kg which may indicate a slight weight growth of the F3 over the F2 or simply the difference between empty weight and basic weight.

    The 10340 kg empty weight figure stated by the Rampant Rafale article from Flight Global may indeed indicate the OEW of the aircraft and the same might be true for the 10.2t/10220 kg figure stated by Dassault for the Rafale C as visible on Rafale International websites for Brazil and Switzerland which state exactly these figures.

    So to cut it short I think that the figures are as follows:
    Empty weight (including fixed mission equipment):
    C : 9500 kg
    B : 9720 kg
    M : 10130 - 10196 kg

    OEW (including pilot, consumables, chaff dispensers, possibly decoy load and gun ammo):
    C : 10220 kg
    B : 10340 kg
    M : probably ~10900 kg

    The internal fuel load of a single seat Typhoon is around 4950 kg as told to me. And as I think that pictures tell more than a thousand words could:
    [​IMG]

    This is a cockpit shot from Eurofighter prototype DA7. I marked the fuel indictions on the HUP and R/H MHDD. As you can see on the MHDD fuel page the rear fuselage tank and the wing tank aren't 100% full, there is already a very small black area and the indicators read 4940 kg. I think there is no need for further speculation!
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. Scorpion82

    Scorpion82 Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    326
    Typhoon's service ceiling at subsonic speeds with dry thrust (no afterburners) is at least 55k ft. 65k ft is the max. altitude the aircraft can reach at supersonic speeds with afterburners. Above that there might be a risk that the engines flame out as air density isn't sufficient to keep the engines running. The life support equipment is another limiting factor and might be the reason why 55k ft is stated as the "max". The aircraft can still operate up to 55k ft in an operational load out with 8 AAMs and 2 drop tanks at least, albeit fuel state isn't specified. Life support equipment is an important factor and probably one of the limiting factors for the Rafale as well. Dunno about the flying suite worn by Rafale pilots, but the APA of Typhoon pilots acts as a partial pressure suite as well to provide protection of the pilot at high altitudes.

    Already T1 Typhoons can do about as much. The aircraft lacks a long range IR missile option, but remote targeting with LINK16 is possible on the Typhoon and PIRATE/DASS provide enough data to initiate attacks as well as has been discussed in this very thread before and backed with a number of links. While the Rafale might be able to do this better in general due to some qualities is a fair point to note, but people appear to be unaware of Typhoon's capabilities in this area and are subsequently underestimating them.
     
  8. littlejohn

    littlejohn 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    23
    I would have thought that structurally the amount of fuel does have an influence depending on whether it is stored in the wings (which would aleviate the bending moment seen by the wings at the root joint) or in the fuselage tanks (which would increase the bending moment in the wings). But in sizing the airframe they probably conservatively assumed the worst scenario in terms of fuel distribution in the aiframe?

    I am just thinking again about that test specimen that broke at 1,85LL, it would be interesting to know:
    1) what is the load case that they apply to the test specimen to validate the ultimate structural strength? (presumably a max upbending case but in what configuration)?
    2) if the main design driving case is actually a carrier landing at 15.5T total weight then this may at least partially explain why there end up with such a healthy margin in the test.

    A certain amount of structural weight in the Rafale C is there only because it is been sized against the more demanding navy Rafale M variant, this presumably may allow for additional wing loading in the C version. So the two additional hard points in the Rafale B which you posted the picture in post 8510, I wonder whether this is affordable without any limitation and/or modification on a Rafale M...

    If I am not mistaking the increase of total weight of the aircraft would reduce the residual amount of AoA available to pull G's, but if I understand right this is generally not the what limits the max G then....
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. littlejohn

    littlejohn 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    23
    I am only second Lieutnant
    how many posts do I need to fire away to get promoted to next level?
    :flame:
     
  10. SpArK

    SpArK SorCeroR Staff Member ADMINISTRATOR

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    2,111
  11. Mr_Breaker

    Mr_Breaker Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    63
    1 person likes this.
  12. Mr_Breaker

    Mr_Breaker Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    63
    talking about service seiling.... I remember the English Electric lightning service ceiling being about 60,000ft but was capable of reaching (not sustaining)88,000ft with the proper life support, But i never heard about the Avon 300 engines having to be modified for that altitude. I would of thought the EJ200 is a more capable engine.
     
  13. Mr_Breaker

    Mr_Breaker Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    63
    Dare 2 do u even know how to debate with out been offiensive?
     
  14. arulcharles

    arulcharles Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    137
    Country Flag:
    India
  15. halloweene

    halloweene Major MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,346
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    Recent news, and already discussed btw i think :victory:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page