My friend send it to me. He got it from another aviation forum. A Frenchman making his stand on the Rafale. Happy reading! Very Happy
Always an interesting subject, rivalry between two aircraft can often lead to polemics, as some manufacturers have a marked tendency to emphasize their own products strength as well as
superiority over that of the competition.
In the case of a comparative between Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale, this is very
apparent as the Typhoon have been consistently declared to be of a superior breed by its makers.
Whether this was the case or could be translated into concrete figures remain to be seen and one
have to do some home work (a lot of research on the subject) in order to sort the truth from the usual
commercial propaganda.
I propose to share my finding by editing as much information as I have been able to dig,
my sources of information, as well as making myself the advocate of Dassault and this for only
one reason. I like the aircraft and when I see it I see as much genius on its design as I could see on the
F16 when it won the “market of the century”, beating Dassault and SAAB in the process.
As we all know, the aircraft went on to become the most successful fighter of all time, not the
French aircraft, nor the Swedish.
So you guys might think IÂ’m biased because IÂ’m French and this is your right, but I know for
myself that if this aircraft was a not French, I still would see it as the most aerodynamicaly advanced
design in service today. I also propose to demonstrate why, in my view its airframe is more advanced
than that of EurofighterÂ’s Typhoon.
To do that I will have to start with the genesis of both fighter and put thing right when it come to
the reasons why did Dassault leave the Eurofighter program.
The Genesis
At the end of the 60Â’s Dassault was all ready well established as a successful manufacturer with
its delta series of airframes, the famous Mirage. In the hands of the Israelis, the aircraft became a
real Mig-killer, it was versatile, adaptable, came at an affordable price and was well liked by both
pilots and ground crews. Nevertheless it had its shortcoming and Dassault kept experimenting with
diverse solutions in order to reverse them. (Picture MirageIIIO_01).
The main problem was inherited from its delta configuration which while providing the aircraft
with good transonic and supersonic acceleration, as well as a high top speed, did induce an excessive
amount of drag at high angle of attack (AOA).(Picture MirageIIIC_01).
This in turn translated into a rather high landing speed and less than ideal stall characteristics.
From a purely aerodynamic point of view, the delta wing was ideally suited to the Armee de lÂ’Air
early requirements for a day-light Mach2+ interceptor but started to fall short of it when the Mirage 3E
was introduced into service. (Picture MirageIIIE_01). With its heavier avionics and air to ground
mission often requiring the use of external tanks, the 3E became tricky to fly and to land.
Its wing loading and thrust to weight ratio did suffer and it required the most experienced aircrew
to be flown safely, especially the way the French pilots where flying them, by all weather
at high speed/low altitude (Mach1 <500Ft) with heavy loads.
Meanwhile, the IAF, certainly the most famous user of Mirages, did feel the need for more power
as well as a general increase in performances and it have to be said that probably near simultaneously
to Dassault own studies, IAI started to develop the Nesher which achieved its first flight on Sept 1969,
and was the ancestor of the KFIR. (Picture Nesher_01)
Another factor was the Embargo of Mirages5J by the French Government.
Both Air Forces came up with the same solution, and after some experiments with retractable
canards (Dassault Milan) and strakes over the air intakes in the case of the KFIR C2, revealed
publicly on June 20th 1969 (Picture KFIR_Plans_01).
The canard surface made its first appearances on Mirages 5/50 a little earlier on May 1969.
(Picture MirageIII S_01).
The result was an aircraft which combined the “best of two world” with the advantages of the
delta configuration, but also far better stall characteristics, lower landing speed and higher maneuverability at high AOA. The KFIR in particular, saw combat action with the IAF mostly in the Air to Ground role and was loved by its pilots for these very reasons. Only with the introduction of the F16 in the IAF inventory did the Israelis progressively retire it. (Picture KFIR_02).
As an ordonanceman with the French Air Force in 1975/76, BA-102 Dijon, I have had the pleasure to work on the 3E, eared or read of the pilots problems and nearly never saw them flying without external tanks.
The weapons in use at the time where; two 30mm Defa, 1 Matra R 530 (IR and EM),
2 Sidewinder AIM9 B, 2 68mm rockets pods, 2x 700kg dumb or retarded bombs. We also had to maintain the Martin Baker seats which had explosive cartridges situated at the base of a tube called “gun”. (No rocket and progressive acceleration at the time but a real kick in the back side, also these seat weren’t Zero-Zero specs).
Now, why did the Armee de l’Air never introduce a “canard” Mirage into service? I guess money is the answer. Instead the French Air Force did wait for the next generation which turned out to be completely a different design in the form of the Mirage F1. (Picture F1C_01). Also, while recognizing the 3E excessive high landing speed, it had enough experienced crews to handle them until better days; indeed the “guys” actually flew them with ZERO visibility at Mach1 at altitude below 500ft following the indication of the Doppler radar which equipped the 3E. I could barely SEE them taking off from outside our workshop less than 500 yards from the runway. Nevertheless, Dassault DID gain a lot of experience from its own prototype as well as sharing a useful amount of data’s with the IAF, other Mirage 5/50 operators, like the Swiss A-F for example(Picture MirageIIIS_02), and most probably IAI, the maker of the KFIR, although I could be wrong on the latest.
From the outset, it may sound strange that the F1 reverted to a more conventional configuration, but a look at the A-A requirements of the time provide us with a clue as to why Dassault F1 wasnÂ’t a delta not even a canard-delta. It wanted a dual role aircraft capable of Mach2,5 dashes at up to 50,000 feetÂ’s, and good for a steady mach2,2 sustainable speed, maneuvering at 3G at Mach 2.
Weaponry was basically the same as that of the Mirage 3E, with new weapons being developed
along with a new radar and engines (Picture F1C_02) (Note; Despite the comments on the quality of the Matra R 530, it should be noted that the first “kill” ever achieved by a Mirage was by IAF’s
Yoram Agmon flying a MirageIIICJ, he used a Tahalom, the Hebrew for the Matra R530, on our National Bastille Day, 14th of July 1966 bringing down a Syrian Mig 21. Having had to work on the missile myself, I know well about its service record and can say that it wasnÂ’t much worse than that of the AIM9B, also used by the two MirageIIIE squadrons based at Dijon, but it did require a serious amount of maintenance, testing and conditioning to stay as reliable).
What Dassault learned and developed with the entry into service of the F1 was pure aerodynamics. If a conventional design could out-perform the Mirage 3 consistently over such a wide range of areas, then something new and good must have happened. The wing was quiet well designed, developed and used. Less drag, more lift than the Mirage 3? (Picture F1CT_01)
In fact it was better than the delta in transonic, reduced the amount of AOA needed when landing with an approach speed of 190Kts, touch down at 135-140Kts. Basically, R&D at Dassault never stopped, its engineers acquiring a real experience of a continual development program with noticeable improvements, but maybe in the engine department as well as application of electric or Fly by wire technology, a little too late. The F1 is a good aircraft capable of superior performances, it didnÂ’t develop enough to beat the Lockeed F16 at the Paris Air Show in 1975. I know, I saw them flying
during the Air Show and was greatly impressed by the F16.
(Pictures F1E_01/)
The Spanish Air force pits its F1s against Vipers regularly, and reckon they can win against it,
the Armee de l’air turned it into the best NATO tactical Recce Fighter (Picture F1CR_01). I reckon with a“Big” engine and the right radar / weapon system, a F1 could take on a F15C despite being a lot smaller, which makes it more difficult to see in Airc Combat. (Picture F1CT_02)
The use of fly-by-wire and relaxed stability came with the next generationÂ’s Mirage which had to be a Delta, the Mirage 2000.(Pictures Mirage2000C_01). Then, what Dassault engineers and test pilots had learned was used to develop what was to become the basis for the making of Rafale. (Picture Mirage 4000_01).
The mirage 4000 was the real aircraft Dassault wanted to make, as it was throwing the base of
the 4th generation concept of the future aircraft for both the Marine Nationale and Armee de lÂ’Air
its weight played against it as it was considered to be unaffordable by the French Air Force which
had to do with its little brother, the 2000. (Picture Mirage2000D_01).
The 4000 airframe was far more efficient than that of the F15C to the point that despite the comparatively low power of its engines it did out-perform its climbing rate performances significantly,
instantaneous and sustain turning rate also were equal or superior to the US fighter.
(Note; engine development have always been one major weakness of all French aircrafts, until the M88, often being less powerful than their American counterparts, they were instead biased toward reliability an optimized for medium/high altitude).
A good look at the picture representing the Mirage 4000 from front (Mirage 4000_02)
reavels the main differences between itself and Rafale.
The combination of shoulder-mounted air intakes and canard surface is striking. By comparison, Rafale wing root posses a small LEX going to the air-intakes lips(Picture Rafale C01_01). This provide for extra-lift when the AOA increases, regardless of the speed but obviously induces more drag.
In order to create the extra lift generated by the LEX surfaces, both Mirage 2000 and Typhoon resorts to the use of strakes placed above the air intakes. These small surfaces creates vertices which
run over the wing root surface, adding to the lift a high AOA. They do not allow for controlled lift like
mobile surfaces would and their action increases drag as well. (Picture Strakes_01).
To compensate for that, Dassault dispensed with the “old tech” strakes and limited the LEX size, opting instead for a controllable way of increasing lift over the wing by positioning the canard so that they are controlling lift together with pitch movement, in combination with leading edge flaps, flaps, but also ailerons. At Mach 2, a 9G turn is likely to generate a huge amount of drag with virtually any design, so the trick would be to minimize it, optimize both aerodynamics, relaxed stability and Fly-by-wire control, this come with a perfect integration of the aerodynamic devices to the airframe in the
First place, as Fliy-by-Wire technology will only allow for the aircraft to fly WITHIN its real
aerodynamic flight envelope.
The optimization of RafaleÂ’s aerodynamics is there to minimize drag and increase lift all together separately or simultaneously, a lower RCS and higher was also achieved with design changes from the A to other Rafales. (Compare Picture Rafale A_01, with Pictures RafaleM&C-01).
An instable aircraft, like the F16, Grippen or Typhon, Rafale can generate a huge amount of pitch movement in very little time, to counter this, they all need to be constantly controlled by their flight computer. So why not use this characteristic for reducing drag, optimizing lift, as well as increasing instantaneous turn rate? Rafale doesnÂ’t loose anything by having its canard surfaces positioned at shoulder level, it actually pushes the development of the canard delta combination a step further than any other design. This means also that the performances of the airframe reflect this level of development. With a minimum controlled speed of 80Kts, Rafale would eats F16 and F18 for breakfast lunch and diner in a dog-fight, and would no doubt be more at ease than Typhoon at the sort of
speed where the majority of these engagements occurs. (Picture R91_Trap_01).
How is that? During the Afghan campaign, French pilots flying Rafale N were mixing it up with US NavyÂ’s F14, F18 (From the USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS John C Stennis) and Spanish Matadors From the Italian carrier Garibaldi (which anyone knows to be Harrier Jump Jets).
An Air Force exchange test pilot and graduate of the US Air Force Test Pilot School, Commandant Santiago explains “the Rafale quickly gained the upper hand over the F14, F18 Hornets and AV-8B+ harriers”. “The tomcat is an outdated fighter and not a match for a Rafale”. “fighting against a Hornet is a bit harder, but thanks to low wing loading and extreme agility, the Rafale is markedly superior, and has the leading edge”. Meaning: Rafale is better in all areas, including low speed, high AOA where fA18 excels; “Also, the hornet is less protected against a departure from controlled flight at very low speed, and a FA18 pilot have to be more careful than us. As a result, we can devote all our attention to tactics whereas they have to constantly think about their flying parameters”. (AFM July 2002).
The other aspect of RafaleÂ’s features which strikes me as geniuses is the combination nose cone/ air intakes/ canards. It differs from Mirage 4000 by a superior use of the aerodynamic characteristics of
the three and allow the aircraft to reach Mach2 with single-shock air intakes, something that the F16 and FA18 cannot achieve. Such an air intake contains NO mobile parts, making it lighter and less vulnerable to ground fire for example. There also, simplicity and sturdiness are achieved by a better integration of the diverse components, which in turn make for a lighter, cheaper airframe but also
a more maintainable and easier one to repair.
According to Mr. Revellin-Falcoz, from Dassault, visibility in the froward sector was a priority as well as a requirement, especially for the “Guy in the back” or WSO during air to ground missions. But it wasn’t the only gain possible. The aerodynamics where also improving as well. (Compare picture
Rafale B_01 to Rafale A_02).
So situated, the canards provides with an unobstructed forward view, more efficiency and better control at low speed for carrier operation, (all of which are missing on Eurofighter’s design). They take advantage of the flow induction over the wing and can be used to create lift as well as lowering the drag ratio at a given AOA, and this include high speed/high G turns, and “aerobreaking” as Rafale dispenses with the air brakes, their vulnerability and weight penalty. In a few words, the less part there are, the more damage-resistant and light the structure can be. There is a slight increase in AOA when Rafale “brakes” with the help of it canards, leading edge flaps, flaps and ailerons and thinking of it, it could be an advantage while chasing a Hornet or Viper. At high AOA, a Rafale pilot having the option
to modulate the thrust of the engines while “aerobraking” increasing the AOA, minimizing the amount of correction in pitch to get the gun piper on target. Mach2 fights haven’t really happened so far,
I havenÂ’t eared about mach2 kills until Eurofighter decided to bring it up. Also, this is a cold war requirement which might not be of the relevance it once was. Problem is, if an opponent can get you at lower speed, partly because of more developed aerodynamics, chances are it will also get you at Mach2 if it can go that fast and Rafale can do Mach2 as well as super-cruise. (Picture R91_Deployment_01).
Dassault reckon it WILL do it at Mach1,6 when equipped with Snecma M88-3, in Air Superiority configuration.
The most comparable model of Rafale to Typhon is the C model, it is dedicated mainly for Air Defense and I think it is the one I would fly if I could get my hands on one, (but then again, it could take time, and then some!). Rafale C pictures reveals what it and Mirage 4000 really have in common.
In the case of the Mirage, (Picture Mirage 4000_02), the nose cone seems disproportionately large, creating a rule area from just before the wind shield root, a curved line going right behind the “souris” where the splitter plate separates the fuselage from the air intakes. During transonic to supersonic tests with the aircraft, someone at Dassault noticed that the souris were losing part of their efficiency without significantly affecting the performances. As this phenomenon occurred near Mach2, they concluded that it was possible to achieve Mach2 without the souris or any other mobile device.
The key was the shape of the forward section of the fuselage down to the edge of the splitter plates behind the cockpit. At around Mach 1,8, an area of high pressure build-up in front of the engine compressor as it is no longer capable of recycling the amount of air feed by the air intake, pressures
Behind and in front of it start to grow appart. This creates a shock wave which reduces intake pressure dramatically. At around this speed, the F16 intake suffers a loss of pressure of around 25%, thrust loss is>< 45%, increase fuel consumption is ><21%, and all steadily going up. This prevent it to reach Mach2 and the same applies for the FA18/E/F, both are limited to Mach 1,8 by the design of their air intake and so will be JSF with a top speed of Mach 1,75.
The technology used to counter this effect is called Multi-shock intakes and is used by F14/15 as well as other Mach 2+ Aircrafts, Mig 21 to 31, Shukoi 30 serie, and MiragesIII/F1/2000/4000 in the form of mobile plates or “souris” as is the case of the French aircrafts and the Mig 21. It is for this reason that the Greek Air Force have figured that the Mirage 2000 was getting better than the F16 at higher altitude, this, despite its less powerful engine and a lower thrust-to-weight ratio. These devices work in two ways; by reducing the airflow speed before it reached the compressor blades, but also by creating one or more shock waves to reduce the amplitude of the one created by the air intake lips.
Rafale design does that by using a shaped area where the formation of high pressure is controlled aerodynamically and retarded until the desired speed is achieved. I believe strongly that the larger cross section of the nose actually creates a slight shock wave but also that the design of the all airframe in front of the air intake retards the build up of the high pressures which are causing the problem,
and this, without the need for mobile parts which is saving complexity, weight and vulnerability.
The F35 uses the same sort of technology but is not Mach2 capable, which says a lot about
Dassault Aerodynamics know-how and its Engineers capacities to implement it.
The idea was simple but the all thing had taken some serious expertise to put together and that is something that Dassault had by the bucket. Eurofighter simply did NOT have that level of experience.
Typhoon air intakes are qualified of “bizarres” at Dassault, (picture Eurofighter_03),
they see them as “as advanced as that of Concorde as far as the reacquired specs were concerned”.
As a matter of fact, they have a rather good point there, as the air intakes of Concorde are of the same design but well above 20 years old when it come to their technology.
If there is no need for a higher speed than Mach 2, there is no need for anything moving in the air intakes. Also, when an engine suddenly cuts off, the change of pressure in the affected air intake doesn’t cause the other engine to “surge”, flame out and die if the air intakes are well separated. This particular point is of a primary importance when it come to fighter technology, I does not have any official data’s on the crash of the Spanish Typhoon but I’ll bet that this had some to do with this particular aspect of its design.
After all, it was an engine-off test and both engines went dead on the pilot (which is not something youÂ’d wanted to happen while on a bomb run at low level, doing 750 Kt with a loadful of ordonance).
(Picture Eurofighter_Loss_01).
A lateral positioning of the air intakes also helps pressure recovery, as well as reducing the amount of weight brought by structural strengthening needed for naval operations, TyphoonÂ’s intake design was simply coming with an excessive weight penalty and this is probably why there is no
Naval version of the Typhoon. So all in all, it was more a case of having no choice, as it is obvious that Typhoon is was not capable of meeting the French specifications, and the only option for Dassault was either to claim design leadership (which was refused by other partners), or go its own way and develop its own design in the form of the ACX. (Picture ACX_01).
It is well possible that Rafale will never achieve the commercial success of Typhoon,
but this is certainly not due to EurofighterÂ’s superiority when it come to its level of aerodynamic
development nor will it be because a superior available power as SnecmaÂ’s M88/2 thrust to weight
ratio is well on par with EurojetÂ’s EJ200, and that, to make Typhoon fully Air to Ground capable,
its weight had to grow by nearly a ton to around 11000kg.
(Air & Cosmos Aviation International Sept 199
.
Later version of M88 will also provide a higher thrust (9500kg+ target), a lower consumption and
reduced maintenance level.
One could argue that Dassault never claimed the Rafale top speed to be Mach 2, but Rafale A
achieved just that with a lower thrust to weight ratio than Rafale C or M and one canÂ’t see why
these models would not do that speed with more power installed. A close examination of Dassault
own figure reveals an interesting fact, they describe the aircraft as 10 tons class and Mach 1,8+,
now thatÂ’s what I call sandbaging, so the clues lies somewhere else when it come to top speed.
After a few month operating it, the French Navy own web sites claims Rafale N
top speed to be Mach2. Knowing them a little I canÂ’t see them inflating such figures
just for the stake of showing off, if they say Mach 2 capable, they pushes them at Mach 2
and surely knows they can do it, as does the US Navy F14 and FA18 pilots by now.
Approach speed during carrier ops is about 160Kts at 16* AOA, less than the
Super-Etendard while being easier to fly throughout the all flying envelope.
The all landing procedure is done with minimum stick input (a two finger thing),
autothrottle taking care of engine regime change, allowing for a constant AOA and speed.
If ever the question as why to build Rafale was ever asked, the answer is that the specs are
meet brilliantly and both the French Navy and Armee de lÂ’Air have their 4th generation fighter,
which would have been impossible to achieve with Eurofighter Typhoon.
Weighting >< 590 kilos more than C, due to structural strengthening, Rafale M manages
to carry 9500kg of external load, (against >< 8050Kg for FA18 and 6500Kg for Typhoon),
have a higher fuel ratio than the both of them, 2 more hard point than the FA18E/F, five of them
“wet”, it is also better suited to Low speed/ High AOA flying than both of them. If anyone needed
more evidence of Rafale more advanced design it lies on its performances, not on its makerÂ’s
commercial gift or the French Government of the time, which did little to promote it,
let alone help developing it.
Meanwhile both Typhoon and FA18 E/F are entering service or achieving Opval status at
squadron level. Both these two fighter are very capable indeed, but cannot claim to better Rafale
nor to bring as much an innovative solution to the challenges given to their manufacturers by
their customerÂ’s requirements.
As it turned out, Rafale C was assigned to the French Flight Test Center (CEV) and used conjointly by Dassault, Snecma and CEV for test and trials while Rafale N was developed and produced in view of its service entry with the French Aeronavale as it was perceived as being most urgently needed, the Navy having to replace its agingF8 “Cruzes” ASAP.
The Concurrency
It would be easy for anyone to make claims such as “our aircraft is superior to this of the concurrence” but does this come with any concrete evidence?
In the case of Eurofighter, I think NOT and I intend to prove my point. There are several aspects where an aircraft can be superior to another one; Airframe, engine(s), avionics. The first must be as advanced as the available technology allows simply because a basic design requires a lot more work time and money to be changed. This is not the case with the later, or at least by a much smaller extend as they always can be upgraded as technology progresses.
EurofighterÂ’s EF 2000 was born from a cold-war requierment, when Britain, France, what was then West Germany and Italy felled the need for an Agile Combat Aircraft to enter service in the 1990.
It was to be a single seater canard delta, twin engines, with a primary role of Air superiority, but also an Air to Ground capability. This is where the discordances between partners began to appear;
the French wanted to keep the aircraft weight to a 8,5 tones target, the British wanted something in the neighboring of 10 tones. As they though rightly to be the most experienced in the canard-delta field, Dassault also wanted design leadership. This created an insolvable problem and this early study group saw its most competent partner leave to “do it alone”.
When Spain joined in 1985, EFA consortium experience was limited to British V bomber serie, a couple of more or less successful delta prototypes and more to the point, MBBÂ’s work with
Rockwell on the Enhanced Manoeuverability Technology demonstrator, the X31.
(Picture X31_Infos_01). It was based on MBBÂ’s work on the TKF and Rockwell HiMAT
research drone. No doubt that it provided the two companies with a lot of useful dataÂ’s but never evolved into a really advanced aerodynamic concept as it was not designed to.
First flight occurred in August 1988 and it laid the basis for EFA basic configuration,
with a cranked delta, long moment harm canards and box like intake, mounted under the
nose as is Typhoon’s today. The point made by Rockwell/DASA staff at the time was; “This airframe is designed to provide us with valuable data’s on some flight regimes and part of the flight envelope that interest us; thus we make it simple to keep the price down”. It was conceived from the outset for use of thrust vectoring but its aerodynamics were not as developed as that of Rafale simply because this wasn’t the goal. This is where I personally think EFA lost an opportunity to capitalize on MBB’s research, they kept the basic design, adding only a second engine to it instead of developing it further and OPTIMISE it. They simply ran short of experience and know-how when it came to it
and EFA airframe simply wasnÂ’t given the opportunity to show the true potential of the delta canard formula. Has it not been a question of pride for BAE, the resulting aircraft would probably have
looked very much like a slightly oversized Rafale C with a pair of EJ 200 engines. I understand that it could have been unthinkable for DassaultÂ’s partner to accept its design leadership, but history shows that it would have been the best choice for all. Especially now that the basic requirements have shifted so dramatically from Air Superiority to Multi-Role, which includes low level/high speed capability.
While testing FA18/E, McDonnell Douglas did encounter a wing drop problem at high AOA, only partially sorted with modifications to the wings folding systems, the airflow diffusers on the upper surface of the LEX, and software.
From EAP, its technology demonstrator, Typhoon saw its wing design change from a crancked-delta to a simple delta platform (Picture EAP_01).
The funny thing is these two problems were related, in the case of Eurofighter, inexperience with delta wing pushed them to opt for a configuration which induced the problem by design, it was kind of expected as EFA was so closely inspired by MBBÂ’s research on the F31 and that the wing platform of X31 IS a double delta. As everyone must know at Eurofighter as well at McDonnell Douglas by now such a configuration have the characteristic to posses not one but two distinct center of lift (related to both distinctive parts of the wing) moving aft at a different rate with the increase of AOA. This cause the two different wing area to interfere with each others upper wing flow so that a lateral instability occurs when the AOA increases.
Curiously, by increasing the wings LEX surface by a huge amount compared to the original
Hornet design, McD replicated exactly the same problem when designing the E/F, the couple LEX/wing acting just as a double delta configuration, thus inducing the wing drop problem encountered during FA18E development. As it is not a delta and does not rely on relaxed stability, FA18 did not need such a drastic redesign as in the case of EFAÂ’s wing. But the fact remains that they both encountered aerodynamic difficulties during development and that their performances are not superior to Rafale but in some case inferior, as their own manufacturers figures shows.
The interesting fact is that Dassault never really tried to capitalize on that, and restrained themselves to mild comments such as “We don’t have the wing drop problems that the FA18 encounters” , or “We never had to change anything on the basic design or the FBW software”.
From a projected 8.500Kgs, Rafale C itself had to take on half a ton in airframe strengthening in order to allow it to meet a 750Kts speed at low level against a required 800Kts. This increase in empty weight also apply to Typhoon and from a “superior” thrust to weight ratio and wing loading, it actually turn out to become a less attractive solution when in its multi-role form.
To meet its latest requierments, Typhoon lost the very edge that was supposed to make it superior to its competitors and that, with a less advanced airframe than Rafale. Its fuel ratio is lower than both Rafale and fa18 E/F and when its critics pointed out that the canard surfaces would be in the field of view of the crews during Air-to-Ground missions, Eurofighter answer was that low level flying was NOT part of its requierments and that, since threats were very unlikely to appear in this sector, it would not be a problem. Well IÂ’m afraid it is a problem now, and if Typhoon is going to fulfil the role of the Tornado in the future, It might well turn out to be quiet one for the aircrews flying it, which will have to refuel more often, or trade weapons load against fuel.
The front view issue is also creeping back up, particularly for the back-seater if not the pilot.
As the Afgan campaign have showed, the capacity for an aircraft to loiter during long period and carry a heavy warload is becoming more and more important. The same aircraft is now expected
to hit several different targets during the same mission at the call of ground troops which lives might well depend on the ability of the crew and aircraft to deliver in time. (Picture Eurofighter_04).
This is where Typhoon falls short, with its lower fuel fraction, its combat radius is given for 250 to 300nm with a max external load of 6,5tons (fuel and weapon), FA18 E/F claims is 390nm with 4x 455Kg bombs (1280Kg) two AIM9L Sidewinders and external tanks, max external load of 8050kg, Rafale is doing 590nm with three drop tank, 12x 250Kg bombs (3000Kg), and four Micas AAMs, max external load of 9500kg. With 13 hard points, Typhoon scores no better than Rafale N which posses one less than other Rafales, but have two more than FA18 E/F.
(Picture 21st Century Combat Aircraft_01).
One can argue that one or the other avionics are more advanced, I would leave that for a further debate, simply adding that future Radar developments are likely to become joint-European ventures
in order to cut prices and harmonize European future armament industry. Weapon systems are also likely to become an European matter and at the end of the day, the main difference might well be
limited to engines and airframe. With both aircraft due to see upgrades and further improvement in their respective engine/avionics departments, the importance of a fully developed aerodynamic formula is now more apparent than ever. The rest is up to the salesmen and I have to say that in this department, Eurofighter might well have the edge over Dassault, but that at a simple technical level, the upper
hand lies with the French manufacturer. Marcel Dassault*, had a motto: If it look good, it flies good.
You might well think otherwise but my personal experience tells me that it is true.
Here is a list of my references and links:
Air International/ Air Force Monthly/ Air &Cosmos/ Flight International/ Combat Aircraft/
Air Zone/ Air Fan/ Aircraft Model Monthly/ Air& space/ AIR Enthusiast-The historic Aviation Journal No 96/Le Fana de lÂ’Aviation/Warships International Review/Scale Aviation Modeller International/ International Air Power Review- special publication- Carrier Aviation-Air Power Directory/ International Air Power Review Vol 4/ WorldAir power Journal Vol 10 and 17 / Rafale; Les ailes du Future by Francois Robineau (Le cherche midi editeur)/ Design for the kill by Mike Spick (Airlife)/ Fundamentals of Fighter Design by Ray Whitford (Airlife)/ The international directory of Military Aircraft 1996/97 by Gerard Frawley and Jim Thorn (Airlife)/ www.janes.com &/ www.dassault-aviation.fr
I will be open to debate but if you think that IÂ’m wrong, but would greatly appreciate if you could back up your claims with some substantial datas. About Typhoon, I reckon I find it difficult to dig, so if you have any serious source, I will be more than happy to have a look at it.
ThereÂ’ no point in making assumptions on the subject as it turn up too often to be a loss of time, everyone is more than welcome to come up with more infos, references or links, if there are any aspects of this that you doesnÂ’t understand, I can try to help.
Also, as a Frenchman, English is not my first language, so if you find me difficult to read sorry,
I will try to improve on my writing !
Thunder bugging out.
*(Previously Marcel Bloch, the maker of several French WWII Fighters like the Bloch152 or the 157 which, captured as a prototype during the German Army advance, did so much to inspire the FW190!)
the truth will be out soon