There’s nothing like the confidence of a French fighter pilot! The Rafale and Typhoon are from a similar era, but backed by four nations and with five export customers the Typhoon has better growth potential. As the Boss of 1 Squadron we always had a French Rafale pilot on exchange, so I had a real insight into both platforms. For the air-to-air missions, an AESA equipped Typhoon with METEOR, AMRAAM-D and ASRAAM packs a powerful punch with the Helmet Mounted Sight and IRST (called PIRATE).
The Typhoon Force has also received upgraded Paveway 4 (penetrating warhead and moving target capability), which is a great weapon for Close Air Support in combination with Brimstone, which can also be used against fast inshore attack craft. For longer-range strikes, Storm Shadow and SPEAR 3 (the small, long-range, cruise missile) offer significant stand-off, precision, low collateral damage and electronic warfare capabilities. The Litening 5 targeting pods will offer high-definition imagery and a reconnaissance capability. And of course, there is the 27-mm cannon that I have fired in anger. With that weapon load-out you can take on any mission set. So my response to the French pilot, is that given the choice I would take the Typhoon every time. - Source
So basically, the French pilot claims the Rafale is better, and the British pilot says the Typhoon is better.
I also dont see anywhere where it says the CAPTOR-M is “bad”. The Rafale pilot just snuck up behind the Typhoon where even the AESA wouldnt see it.
I also dont see how this is evidence that the CAPTOR-M isnt a buggy mess that is missing loads of critical features, let alone the fact we dont have 99% of our sensor fusion modeled yet.
I have been told that nothing can out-climb the Typhoon, would you agree? Absolutely, the SEP of the Typhoon is unmatched. What’s the best way to defeat an F-16 in within visual range fight? How difficult is it as an opponent? The Typhoon is a superior fighter within visual range though we must always remember that we are not fighting the aircraft but the pilot. Which aircraft have you trained against, which was the hardest opponent and why? I fought a Top Gun instructor out of Nellis Air Force base and he was in an F-16. I was not very experienced at the time though managed to defeat him – he did, however, make it very difficult! - Source
Interestingly, when asked about the Rafale, the British typhoon pilot brings up an AESA equipped typhoon to compare to it even though none are in British service nor does he clarify that he had ever flown one.
Atleast he somewhat clarifies that he didn’t have Meteors on his Eurofighter so never had the chance to compare, but iirc AIM-120D was delivered same time as Meteor or even later to UK.
So he has to bring up from his point of view an aircraft with missiles that did not exist from his time in service to a Rafale that was back during his time.
AESA Typhoons have been around since 2007/2008. As commander of 1 Sqd, hes probably seen it in action or at the very least read reports/spoken to pilots that have.
From what I recall. Meteors are better at long range whilst AMRAAM-D are better at medium range due to being faster off the rails. I think the Luftwaffe was cosnidering outfitting their Typhoons with both at the same time, though they also run the shorter range IRIS-T over the longer ranged ASRAAM, so they do have a medium range gap.
Though proper comparison is tricky given no Meteor has been fired in anger.
He headed Op Shader from 2014 onwards, Meteor entered service in 2016. So it was close.
Didnt even realise Britain took delivery of any until F-35 and the US feet dragging
It’s also much more proven, and like Morvran mentioned better at shorter range shots which tbh are more common. AMRAAM-D probably performs better at medium range than ASRAAM, so there’s a place for it
I dont necessarily think that is fair. There is no evidence to say Meteor is in anyway “bad”. Only that European nations tend to not get involved as much / US sells a lot more weapons to a lot more countries.
Id say its entirely dependent on exact ranges.
30-35km? Probably the ASRAAM as it would give no warnings, but past about 35+km, the BVRAAM missile would clearly have a surplus of more energy
Well tbf IRL fox 3 seekers are much, much better, the one on an AIM-120D or D-3 would be just as difficult if not harder to deal with than an IIR seeker at range otherwise theyd put IR seekers on them
Not necessarily talking about defeating the seeker. But rather you would have warning the AMRAAM was coming at you on your RWR, and so you could defend. The IIR seeker would not. The limit on IIR is usually lock rnage, though the ASRAAM was designed for short-medium range. So… Not really its fault. There is plan to outfit the Tempest with a longer ranged ASRAAM with an ARH seeker
Maybe, but it is a little disappointing he didn’t talk about his own experience or sticking to what he knows for sure rather than speaking theoretically.
The primary deployments so far for the Typhoon, including those headed by Mike Sutton were in ground attack and not air superiority. So im not that surprised.
I’ve read his book, and does showcase the capabilities of the Typhoon within that role a lot, including insights into the RWR dealing with soviet advanced SAMs.
(they kept locking up Typhoons crossing from akrotiri, but the RWR knew exactly what state the SAM was in and so they could ignore it)
