Spectre11

The closest in my opinion is the F/A-18C. From a pure systems and capability point of view, at least in the AA domain. I'm not talking about AG or particular weapons here and not about the differences in raw performance.

The ultimate structural load factor was reduced from 1.5 to 1.4.

Some perspective and context needs to be added to your perception. 1.) The twin fins are not the primary reason for the aircraft's limited AoA performance, but could have helped. 2.) TVC was not a requirement at all, so it wasn't cut. 3.) M-Scan was a sensible choice at that time, as the AESA technology wasn't mature and utterly expensive. That the aircraft still lacks such a system in 2021 is without doubt a serious drawback. 4.) The incremental build up of capabilities is common practise in all military aircraft programmes, so the lack of certain DASS elements in earlier aircraft was not owed to cuts or omissions. 5.) The lack of PIRATE on German or Austrian aircraft is the politically owed decision of these nations, but the sensor is available. Actual cuts comprised airframe structural strength, nuclear hardening requirements relaxion, cancelatiin of several AG weapons and 1500 l drop tanks, limiting the use of FO databusses, omission of a maintenance datalink and IR signature reduction measures for the EJ200. There were more ambitous plans about the scope of the DASS fit (incl. a fin tip pod mounting additional equipment) and the budget for national equipment on top of the baseline configuration. There might have been other things, but those you have listed are not among them.

@Berserk Which "radical ideas" were removed?

That's apparently an omission that you have to accept for any sim for the public consumer market.

TVC could help improving roll rates at higher AoA, but not so much at unloaded conditions.

AMK is retrofitable, it was actually to IPA7, which was afterwards converted back. AMK is still on the table for LTE. We may know more in a few months.

You mean that Smithers guy

That's indeed a pretty lame argument.

I agree that everything has its price. Your statement that Rafale's LERX are necessary to build up the vortices in the first place is odd though. A 48° sweep angle is perfectly good enough. The LERX are there for the benefits they add and from which Typhoon would benefit in the same way. The results from the original strakes programme culminating in the 2007 flight trials on DA5 and the subsequent evolution towards AMK and the associated flight trials on IPA7 in 2014/2015 are a testimony of this very fact. In its current gorm the Typhoon is constrained in that field and actually non-compliant with its performance spec. The EFEM programme was launched precisely for that reason, to recover performance shortfalls which were serious enough to warrant the effort behind it, but not serious enough to become a top priority for the operators.

@Hummingbird Typhoon's fuselage strakes are a rather poor substitute for LERX. As is evident from the image you posted the strakes' vortices disperse in parallel to the wing vortices and their impact on wing lift is relatively most. If that wouldn't be the case the AMK wouldn't propose the introduction of LERX. The fuselage strake vortices first and foremost interact with the airflow around the fin to improve lateral/directional stability and to increase rudder authority in high AoA flight. The close coupled canards on the Rafale primarily act as dynamic vortice controllers. Ofcourse they deflect when the aircraft maneuvers, but their much closer position relative to the CoG limits their effectiveness as pitch control surfaces, compared to the long coupled arrangement on the Typhoon. With regard to the figures, I already made clear that there are some inaccuracies and variations. I don't pick the "best data" to make a case, but the figures that are the most reliable. Arguavly the data I have on the Typhoon are definitely more accurate. Rafale's OEW is 10220 kg acc. to data from Dassault on the F3 standard. Typhoon's OEW is around 11840 kg. That includes the pilot, gun rounds, expendables, certain store stations and consumables like oil, unusable fuel etc. Even you own figures show no notable differences in wing loading.

Unfortunately not. It's still on the table. We may know more in a few months.

Would mimic the memory alignment mode.

It's a little bit subjective anyway. For A/A the controls are ok. For multirole they are not optimal IMO, albeit P3E has introduced some notable improvements. DVI is redundant as no functions are mutually exclusive to DVI.

The strakes on the Typhoon don't interact with the wings and the foreplanes doesn't to the extend close coupled canards do. The LERX directly enhance wing lift and keep the airflow attached up to higher AoA. A steeper sweep angle also produces more drag. So everything has its pros and cons and every design reflects a choice of compromises. Talking about ratios, maybe we should add some numbers here. Rafale C F2 / Typhoon Blk5 Basic Empty Weight = 9500 kg / 11150 kg Internal fuel load = 4700 kg / 5000 kg Static Reheat thrust = 2 x 7650 kg / 2 x 9180 kg Wing area = 45.7 sqm / 51.2 sqm Wing loading = 310 kg/sqm / 315 kg/sqm TWR = 1.077 / 1.137 As you can see Rafale's wing loading is in fact slightly lower. Arguably there are variations in these data. The given static thrust is uninstalled and more a thrust class. Fuel weight is dependent on density and operational empty weight is probably a better measure. Weight growth of newer build standards not accounted. Anyway the two are not too far apart, albeit the devil is in the details. I wouldn't want to hazard a guess about actual lift/drag ratios which are as important for sustained turn rates as well. My take from what I know. Rafale prevails up to 20000 ft, especially below 400 kts. Above that speed both are relatively evenly matched, but the higher it goes the better gets the Typhoon. It is in the higher altitude bands where Typhoon's SEP advantage plays out. Arguably it's just a fraction of what drives the overall weapon system performance. Once Typhoon would get its AMK I'd inclined to believe that Rafale will lose much of the advantages it has in terms of ITR and nose pointing authority. The long coupled foreplane configuration of the Typhoon works entirely different to the close coupled canards of the Rafale. The former are pitch control surfaces with a lever arm, the later are lift enhancing surfaces with no real controll authority.

I was talking about the leading edge root extension, or wing apex strakes, whatever you want to call it. What counts exactly into the wing reference area on both aircraft isn't known. Rafale has a smoothly blended wing/body design, it is smaller and also lighter than the Typhoon. It's more about the ratios rather than the absolute numbers. That's why many people are fooled in believing a larger wing area or higher thrust means superior TWR and lower wing loading. That's only true if everything else is identical and that's not the case. The Rafale is lighter than the Typhoon and this has to be taken into account. It's called thrust WEIGHT ratio for a good reason. The FCS restrictions of the Typhoon are a result of its aerodynamic design and associated deficiencies. The proposed aerodynamic modification kit may address the extant problems adversly impacting the aircraft's performance in these areas.

The underlying principles of the aerodynamic layouts share some commonality, but are also different. Rafale's combination of close coupled canards, a slightly lower sweep angle, leading edge extensions and a wider fuselage certainly contribute to greater lift generation capabilities. In terms of wing loading and TWR the Typhoon and Rafale are fairly evenly matched with a comparable loadout. Typhoon certainly offers a better SEP, which plays out at greater altitudes. It's thrust/drag ratio is probably superior, lift/drag might go to the Rafale. Close in the Rafale can turn tighter and point its nose faster. The Rafale is notably more maneuveravle at lower speeds. Typhoon's strengths lies in its ability to regain energy and maintain high energy levels. At the end iz depends on the pilot and who is capable of dictating his terms on the opponent. Typhoon is certainly excellent up high and fast for long range BVR shots and intercepts, but Rafale isn't a slouch either. An accurate comparison of the sensor performance and capabilities is different though. As has been said Rafale features an AESA since 2013 and its SPECTRA utilizes more sophisticated ESM technology.

That manual wasn't really declassified, but leaked. It reglects the very early PSC 1.X standard, but nonetheless gives an idea of the original moding philosophy leaned towards A/A operations. Much of this is still applicable, but there have been some serious changes with the latest standards.

The bright red (actually orange) pickle button is hidden behind the cover on the right side of the stick top. You have to flip it aside to uncover and press the pickle button aka A/S weapons commit. The actual HOTAS moding depends on the aircraft standard. For the time being it's certainly to early to comment on the details. It's not too different to that of the F/A-18C, albeit there are a total of 22 controls, incl. a shift button and long/short press functionality to access up to four function per button. Remodding dependent on the Phase of Flight you are in may also occur dependent on the capability standard we are talking about.

It isn't integrated yet. Therefore no images.

Germany had no DASS whatsoever. They bought into the EuoDASS consortium only in 2001. It was to late to equip dome of the T1s and they subsequently had none at all. There was no German version. Consideration was given to use the EADS developed Sky Buzzer TRD, but they eventually opted for the Ariel like anybody else. PIMAWS was also never integrated on the German aircraft. Those receiving the DASS got the same system as everybody else, with exception of the LWR.

Yes very much like the PW II itself. There should be around 30 single seaters still in service. The twins have been reitred, the remainder will soldier on for a decade or so for QRA and aggressor training.

Yes the KFF was a notable exception. The Mk80 series is planned to be integrated on the Kuwaiti jets. Initially the Mk82/83 , later on the Mk84. Other than these it's not particularly likely that unguided munitions will be integrated though. Btw nice image.

It would have been more likely yes. In contrast to popular believe the Typhoon was from the onset conceived as a multirole platform. This is evident by the number of store stations, the specification of several A/S radar modes, FLIR modes, but also by tje scope of the DASS and other features which are more unusual for a typical fighter. Integration of unguided munitions was originally planned, as was the integration of the Maverick, HARM and ALARM. in the post Cold War era requirements changed. A/S has become of greater importance, but the mission priorities changed as well. LGBs and dual-mode bombs became important for CAS/COIN ops.

I think it has been mentioned somewhere in the early 2000s that CRV-7 and BL-755 integration was omitted. There have been some images of DA7 with dual racks holding two BL-755. There were a couple of images of the prototypes with a lot of weapon configurations. But in RL most of them never made it onto the jet.