Yeah no wonder the Rafale was cheaper it piggy backed off of a ton of development already conducted.
Care to remind me who had experience in unstable delta fly by wire jets ?
Oooooh
Israelis
They came up with the whole canard system did they not.
Mirages were also not aerodynamically unstable.
1 Like
Man forgot the entire Mirage 2000 family.
Israeli jets were also not fly by wire. They indeed added canards, but that’s not what I said. Reading problems ?
2 Likes
It’s barely relaxed in stability the aerodynamic design of the 2000 is not advanced enough to keep the nose down if it was as unstable as the EFT/rafale.
Most jets actually have a level of CG shift as the 2000 does. On the other hand most do not have the CG shift of EFT and Rafale.
Rafale had 2 stakeholders The French air force and the Navy.
Typhoon had to meet the differing requirements of the 4 different nations!
If you have ever tried to manage a project the fewer stakeholders you have the easier the whole programme is. Germany didnt want the Captor-M they wanted the APG-65 a US made Radar, ready to go and cheaper.
We are also being disengenous and not comparing the earlier Rafale with earlier 2005 Typhoon.
We are comparing the Rafale from 2018 with the Typhoon of 2008ish
When Captor-E is rolled out and the upgrades to PIRATE their will not be a huge ammount of difference in the Radar department with the Captor-E probably being superior in some areas.
Still closer (and thus more experience) to the eurocanards design than the Tornado, going back to who initially brought more expertise.
Well. The tornado does have the benefit of being a jet I guess. And it has 2 engines ! That’s 1 entire more engine than what France used to do
2 Likes
The max targets change is a mistake. I’ve raised it with a Dev.
5 Likes
The single engined delta wing
design…what a good idea that was.
2 Likes
Going back to more civilized discussion (I was being petty ik ik), I would say the requirements of the 4 different actors are not more difficult to obtain than the requirements of something so different than the French Air Force and the French navy. The constraints of having to have a jet that must be catapulted for the navy constrains a lot the potential for the airforxe. The balance between those 2 are much harder to find than say between a country that wants a bomber, another an interceptor… Well, a multirole jet (which both consortium ended up having).
Plus France needed a nuclear capable aircraft, which is yet another layer of complexity
Lets compare earlier variants of the rafale, say from 2008. They already had a PESA back in the 90s. The sensor fusion of the aircraft was already present. All it would lack would be some ground ordinance and an upgrade to its SPECTRA suite (all the elements are there, just not upgraded).
If we keep to war thunder, the main difference would be the radar (and it would probably work the exact same way knowing gaijin), 2 missiles, and the AASM. Knowing the EFT community, they would complain just as much.
2 Likes
Saab was doing the whole relaxed thing for a while too.
The difference is with stakeholders from one nation it is far easier to mediate you dont get bogged down and can focus on the delivery. Of course there are always pinch points in any project. You can also overule the Navy and AF bickering. You cannot politely tell a partner nation that installing said Radar or omitting this system is dumb.
We know Dassult rushed to have the Rafale delivered to the French Navy as they were strongly considering the F/A-18!
In terms of EW suppression and Radar the Rafale takes it. However it would be far closer than it currently is with the Radar department. Typhoon guys are sad with how bad Captor is in game, if Gaijin have fixed this the majority will be happy.
At least until Russian and US jets new meta is just to shoot down all our missiles…leaving us defenceless
1 Like
Saab did not participate in the EFT consortium
Did I say they did?
Change your language this is not appropriate for the forum
I am wondering when they finally gave us the GMTI mode back )))
My original statement was that the Eurofighter consortium lags behind other countries. The fact that RBE2-AA was delivered to French forces in 2012, whilst the Eurofighter still does not possess (or only recently possessed) an AESA radar only proves my point.
Still three times as much money was invested into the Eurofighter compared to the Rafale. And still, the consortium opted for mostly already existing technology: a mechanical radar, an already existing GEC-Marconi radar MAWS, etc.
There is nothing to support this to be honest. If anything, the Eurofighter consortium has only just caught up to other countries in terms of radar technology.
2 Likes
Well tbf having the German and British working together is almost as much of a feat as the French and German
And yes, dassault was pushed very much to deliver quickly. That’s one of the reason the rafale took so long receiving all of its main loadout, hence why the 2008 comparaison is fairer to both jets than let’s say late 90s early 2000s
IRL I think ESA radars have inherent advantages that a mechanical just can’t achieve. You guys often mention that the speed of the mechanical CAPTOR-M allows it ti mimic ESA radar when tracking multiple targets, but it always will be blind to other targets when changing its pattern, even if for a fraction of a second, while ESA just don’t care. It also allows ESA radars to have much better terrain following algorithms. (And there’s probably a lot more advantages)
As for in game, I strongly believe thePESA would literally not have been worse than what’s in game.
Even if the CAPTOR-M is absolute garbage in the current state, the RBE2, while absolutely gold and usable, is also terribly underperforming compared to what an AESA should be able to perform
France launched and funded their own studies for unstable canard designs before engaging with the rest of EFA consortium. Even then, France undertook studies with MBB and British Aerospace for little over a year and a half before abandoning the programme. So no, there was not a “ton of development” which France was involved with.
1 Like
It does and they wasted nearly 2 years with additional Radar studies to placate Germanies needs. Addding to huge increase in development costs and then going with the Radar that Britain, Italy and Spain wanted in the first place. That is the side effect of multi nation developments.
They did and at the time the decision was made for the M Scan Radar over the PESA and the burgeoning AESA technology. They did continue to work on an EASA Radar with the mindset it will be replaced with later models. If they had gone for an AESA Radar straight away they really risked delaying/derailing the programme.
It’s going to be brand new it should at least be the equal to current in service AESA Radars.