Eurofighter VS Rafale

Which one is better? They are both conceptually similar planes. Both are multirole fighters with modern avionics. Rafale is cheaper and is already here, while eurofighter can supercruise. What do you think?

I'd say the Eurofighter, primarily because I don't like the French and the only real advantage the Rafale has is that it can take off from a carrier.

But only because its been modified to take off from a carrier, Typhoon would also have this rability if the equirement existed.

For me Rafale is prettier but Typhoon is better, the new age Spitfire! (That must make the F-22 the new Mustang, but does that make the F-35 the new Brewster Buffalo?)

Eurofighter no doubt about it. It incorporates the best tech of dozens of countries while the Rafale is just French.

Some of you may find this article of interest?
Both fighters mentioned:
The Eurofighter debacle

How much would you pay for a new �fourth generation� fighter jet subject to an �official warning that its pilots should not fly in cloud�?

seekerof

Originally posted by longbow Rafale is cheaper

Rafale is not cheaper than Eurofighter. The true problem of Rafale is that it's a too expensive plane, even for the french army.

The Euro fighter is a shambels. Too many cooks come to mind. It's now getting to heavy to even fly. The R.A.F should have just bought from the yanks or even bought some Migs. IMO join ventures in building fighter planes never really work.
Even the JSF is starting to have troubles and the UK thinking of not buying as many as they said they would.

This is why planes need to be developed in secret. When minor growing pains occur the public flips out and says it is in trouble and should be cancelled. More money is wasted because of public concern than is wasted in a black development

seekerof, the angle from which that article is coming is highlighted at the very top of the page in very big letters! It is unresearched biased rhetoric of the highest order. for example;

"Originally the Eurofighter was to be produced by a coalition of the EU�s military powers. But France dropped out of the Eurofighter project while the getting was good. ..........But the U.K., Germany, and Spain stuck with the loser. "

When in actual fact Britain (ACA) Germany (TKF90) and France (ACF) each brought their own advanced fighter project to teh table to debate how these similar requirements might be incorporated in a multinational programme. After much debate France stormed off in a huff after Britain and Germany refused to allow design leadership, final assembly, export marketing and all flight testing to be given to France, who then went off and evolved ACF into Rafale by themselves while Spain and Italy replaced them in what became Eurofighter. Not quite how the 'American Thinker' sees it, in no sense was the Eurofighter the loser.

"It will cost a lot of extra money to fly all those new planes, which almost certainly will face an expensive period of debugging.
"
Doh, like ALL new programmes then?

there are of course truths in there but they have been blown out of proportion and the overall vitriolic tone of the article is typical of much US attitude to British or European, or in fact any foreign aircraft programme down the years.
Canberra was dismissed as obsolete until the USAF wanted it, Harrier was useless until the USMC wanted it, the list goes on.

OK we're far from perfect ourselves. We screwed up the Phantom and threw away the TSR 2 among many others but at the end of the day the Typhoon is a damn fine aircraft whose detractors have to resort to sensationalisn because the facts are against them. The biggest reason the US has for trashing the Tiffie is , as it was with the Mirage 2000, the fear that other countries might actually want it instead of the latest US wonderjets. For some reason the Pentagon can't handle this, as Singapore found out when it was deliberating between buying Typhoon, Mirage 2000 or F-16, only to be told by the US "you are for us or against us" and I thought we were all allies!

Originally posted by waynos
I thought we were all allies!

Try telling that to the Germans and French with Iraq

all i have to say is that they are both fish food for the almighty Raptor

[edit on 18-6-2004 by WestPoint23]

It all depends on the pilot. If the pilot sucks, then the plane sucks also.

It basically come down to that

Originally posted by WestPoint23
all i have to say is that they are both fish food for the almighty Raptor

[edit on 18-6-2004 by WestPoint23]

Eurofighter VS Rafale




Dont forget... OK?

Out,
Russian

Eurofighter is better if they can fix all of its problems it will be a good fighter for European countries.

The Eurofighter and Rafale need thrust vecttoring to compete with teh new Sukhoi's that are being developed. Even the Raptor which is the ulttimate BVR fighter usses it so why not the european planes?

Don't know about Rafale but it is to be added as an update to the Typhoon once in service as a way of spreading the cost a little.

Because developping true TVC costs money and the European nations haven't done it yet? The F-22 dosen't have full TVC either just 2d compared to the Su-37s 3d trust vectoring....... makes a big difference. They could try and work out a contract to get the Russians to make the engiens for them though.

no, its because it adds to the overall initial purchase price of the aircraft and that is a political hot potato that no one wants to be caught holding. However once Typhoon is in service an upgrade like (the already developed) TVC can be passed off as a value for money enhancement. BUT the press will then latch onto this as a reason to castigate Eurofighter for not including it in the first place. You can't win against the press, they're deadlier than the F/A-22.

Personally I was shocked to read that RAF Typhoons wouldn't be fitted with a gun! Thankfully a decisiion now reversed.

Eurofighter is better but could be even more better it doesnt have stealth and uses 2 engines but only goes 1300 when the f-16 whups it with one it has a hightech cockpit though.

How exactly does the F-16 'whup it with one'? Speed hasn't been a primary factor in A2A combat for decades.

The F-16 was thoroughly evaluated by the RAF against the Typhoon, as well as the F-15 and F-14 when it looked as if the Germans would force the cancellation of the European project. The RAF's conclusion was that Typhoon MUST be continued with as none of the US alternatives fully met our requirements. F-14 was too big and heavy, F-15 was closest but still not quite there while the F-16 was nowhere. The choice of two engines was made in order to give 'engine-out' flyabilty which no single engine type can possibly have. The EJ200'S were thus sized accordingly so criticism being based on engine number is hardly credible. Also top speed of Typhoon is actually 1,495mph according to the RAF's own website.