So BW - the conclusion I can draw from your comments above are:

 

1 - Rafale has no export sales

2 - Rafale has no laser designator

3 - Rafale has no AESA

4 - Never use Carlo Copp as a reference

 

Coming soon does not count today.  Even the Typhoon - which you did elect to say was not qualified to be a strike fighter - has demonstrated its capability to use a laser designator - a requirement for its customers.

 

Didn't I post that somewhere before?

 

Sure Rafale can fire anti-ship missiles - so can the Hornet and the Falcon - all kinds of anti-ship missiles.

Sure Rafale can launch GPS guided munitions - so can the Hornet and the Falcon.

Sure Rafale mounts the best electronics that France can muster on a jet - sans an AESA - but so can the Hornet and Falcon and they have AESA now.

 

I am certain that the Rafale is the best thing since the invention of Camembert but it would appear that potential customers have elected to go with Cheese-Wiz or Wensleydale.

That'll be the Typhoon that was cleared for A2G operations by the RAF over a month ago then.

h**p://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/defencenews/equipmentandlogistics/typhoonsdeclaredreadyforgroundattackrole.htm

Granted it's not a full suite of weapons yet, but it is self-designating.

Thanks for the update on Typhoon FK :-)

That is indeed great news . The RAF now only needs ~as they said~ few software updates for a real "swing-role" mission and I have no doubt that the job will be done quickly . Now Europe has 2 world beating aircrafts as the RAF likes to say .

 

Softwar , your conclusions are also mine , no worries .

 

Cheers .

I would like to know something , in the link posted by FK , we see a Typhoon with 6 big LGBs , the Litening III designator pod but with no A2A missile or external fuel tanks . It is obviously a testing load , but it made me think .

 

1) What could be the load for a Typhoon going for a deep strike mission with one refueling involved .

2) What range would the aircraft archive with that load

 

Any help welcome as my doc might be out of date as FK proved me .

 

Cheers .

 

I dunno what the problem is with Carlo Kopp...

 

In any case, the T/W ratio of the SH is lesser but comparable to Rafale's... at least in after burning mode you mentioned for maneuvering, 1.44 vs 1.52 empty (dry, it is about .9 vs. 1.1). Wet, the Block 25 F16 is at 1.45 and Block 60 at about 1.6.

 

Its problem is dealing with the Flanker which is clearly faster, more powerful and more maneuverable with Thrust Vectoring. That said, the wet T/W is 1.53 for the 27 and 1.51 for the 30MKI, but the flanker has a greater range of speeds and ownership of the airspace over all. It's no surprize that a F-18 lost to a Mig25 during the Gulf war, because speed and altitude are still valuable ballistic surprize attack and evasion methods.

 

That being said, the SH's survivability features such as stealth and agile missiles make Thrust Vectoring of little advantage (at least in the missile domain). Now in the gunfight domain, perhaps TV is nice to have, but even Helicopter pilots know better to use a swiveling gun controled by a WO than to rotate the whole airframe around while being shot at. In other words, the survivability feature precludes the need to bleed airspeed and the need for TV because it's what agile missile technology is for. Recent sidewinders can shoot at passing aircraft head on up to 90 degrees away. I believe the Russians are developing 180 degree radar missiles, using an additional rear facing radar and WO in some heavier flankers (SU 32, I believe).

 

The key is the system of survivability, and not some single minded feature like stealth or TV, which is why the F117 has been retired as being obsolete and TV is still considered too costly in weight to be practicable in the US except for some very specific dedications. It's a cost and calculated risk analysis... and not some "plan" or jaded determined government wish for a plane that does everything that is "needed"/wanted. It takes years of actual experience, exposure and research to come up with good airframes, and the SH might very well be the right evolution model to follow instead of coming up with new technologies or plans as a base for construction.

 

The fighter jet is lesser a fighter than a rapid deployment platform for the launch of missiles within an area, and the Mig25 is interesting in that respect. The SU27 seem an attempt to take from both worlds. UAVs in the future might provide even more stages in between or in concert with a piloted fighter jet.

I dunno what the problem is with Carlo Kopp...

Violentnuke :

Bluewings,

Please explain, with reference to Newton's second law, how increased mass reduces acceleration when thrust-to-weight ratio remains the same.

Pardon my interuption. Admittedly, I have nothing to bring to the discussion. I know next to nothing about current topic, thread, or even "Fighters, Bombers and Recon". I am only fascinated and peruse this particular board like many others on Strategypage I wish to learn about. However, what I do know is a good argument. In true Aristotlean fashion especially. The above, however, is not one of them. In fact, it runs counter to a claim that jet a is better than jet b because of c. C of course being a 6-2 conclusion. You'll excuse my confusion, but aren't those numbers? What is it again you always say about numbers?

 

 

?

FK :