LibriumArcana.Games

Okay, since we have been discussing about fighters, which one do you think is better in general? Rafale, or Eurofighter Typhoon? From pure performance standpoint, which one is better? From price-to-performance ratio, which one is the winner?

The EF has supercruise capability, the only fighter in service besides the F-22 that has such an ability. That alone makes it a significantly better machine than the Rafale, IMO.

Supercruise being the ability of a fighter to reach Mach on just turbines, without afterburners, it significantly increases ranged and decreases IR signature. I'll let the others weigh in, but that's my two cents on it.

Again, as Typhoon has yet to see squadron service I'd say it's a little early to judge its actual worth at this time. ON PAPER it's certainly the superior aircraft by and large-greater weapon capacity, better thrust/weight ratio, equal if not greater range, marginally higher top speed (though that's of course not particularly important), and of course supercruise, as Ra mentioned. On the other hand Rafale has what is arguably the superior radar-RBE2 is a passive phased array radar while Typhoon's CAPTOR still uses a mechanically actuated antenna, meaning Rafale can scan a given volume of space much faster. Of course being younger, CAPTOR might (or might not) compensate for that with other advantages, but a phased array radar (even if only a passive one) is a major step up from the classic pulse doppler radar, of which CAPTOR is merely another iteration.
Offhand it looks like Typhoon will be slightly superior to Rafale, mainly due to age (or lack thereof) and a small size advantage, but the only major advantage I see for Typhoon is supercruise (which Rafale was SUPPOSED to have, and might yet with another engine).
As for the price/performance ratio, so far up for grabs until we find out what a Eurofighter actually costs using whatever method of determining such you want to use. Remember, the bird is still under development.
If we consider aesthetics, Rafale all the way. The Eurofighter looks depressingly german.

Well, the design was developed in cooperation with a German aircraft manufacturer, wasn't it?

If by 'in cooperation with' you mean 'was originally a german project, with Germany remaining one of the primary partners' then yes. Still I had hoped for the italian/british contribution to have a positive effect on the aesthetics. Hell the british EAP had by and large the same configuration and it still looked better.

If we consider aesthetics, Rafale all the way.

One does not judge a bloody weapon by it's fucking prettiness.

frigidmagi wrote:

If we consider aesthetics, Rafale all the way.

One does not judge a bloody weapon by it's fucking prettiness.

Call me silly but I DO judge a weapons's prettiness by it's prettiness.

I happen to like that which is depressingly german....

Batman wrote:

frigidmagi wrote:

If we consider aesthetics, Rafale all the way.

One does not judge a bloody weapon by it's fucking prettiness.

Call me silly but I DO judge a weapons's prettiness by it's prettiness.

The stupidity comes from judging a weapon by it's looks at all. It's meant to hurt people, not look pretty.

Though admittably there are few sights more gorgeous than a SR-71 Blackbird once she hits her stride and the metal skin expands.

And let's face it, given the choice between two weapons of equal effectiveness, you'll proboably choose the prettier one.

Batman wrote:

frigidmagi wrote:

If we consider aesthetics, Rafale all the way.

One does not judge a bloody weapon by it's fucking prettiness.

Call me silly but I DO judge a weapons's prettiness by it's prettiness.

You're silly. A weapon's prettiness is not judged by its prettiness! Its prettiness is judged by it's ability to do its job quickly, easily, efficently, and repeatedly with the minimum of downtime and maintenance. A weapon can look good, sleek, sexy, or elegant, but that doesn't make the gun pretty.

But I can tie a pink ribbion around a kalasnikov for you if you like.

I happen to like the Eurofighter's lines, to be honest. The Rafale, on the other hand, just looks wierd with those funky air intakes.

If I were to chose a jet on grounds of "prettiness", I'd much rather have the dead-sexy Su-27 or one of its variants. It's strong and predatory while at the same time sleek and flowing, something the comparatively chunky-looking F-22 lacks, even if an F-22 could pwn even the latest model Su-30. But I'm getting off-topic.

frigidmagi wrote:

If we consider aesthetics, Rafale all the way.

One does not judge a bloody weapon by it's fucking prettiness.

The Rafale is a vehicle, and judging any vehicle in terms of aesthetics is perfectly reasonable.

The Rafale is a vehicle, and judging any vehicle in terms of aesthetics is perfectly reasonable.

I will attempt to explain.

A bulldozer is a vehicle, a bus is a vehicle, even a bloody scooter is a vehicle. The Rafale, Typhoon and Raptor are not vehicles. Nor is a T-55, M1A2 or Chieftain. They are weapons. It is pure and simple fooliness to judge weapons on their appearence. Prettiness does not matter, what matters is how well they do their bloody job.

Before you ask, yes the Strikker is a vehicle.

frigidmagi wrote:It is pure and simple fooliness to judge weapons on their appearence. Prettiness does not matter, what matters is how well they do their bloody job.

It is pure foolishness to judge a weapon's capabilities on the aesthetics of their design, because the latter is a qualitative and subjective appreciation of something while the former, the actual capabilities of the vehicle (or weapon, if you prefer) are things that can be measured and quantified. Saying "The Rafale is prettier, therefore it is the superior weapon" is a pointless and foolish exercise because it doesn't tell us a great deal. However, that is not what has happened here.

From my perspective, there's nothing wrong with judging something's prettiness if all you are doing is judging things based on their aesthetics.

But I feel that the main problem we're having is our subjective views on what is a vehicle and what is a weapon. I don't consider a fighter jet or tank to be weapons, but vehicles with weapons attached. So in my mind, a minigun fired bullet, a missile affixed to a hardpoint, or a tank shell fired from a turret mounted gun, these are all weapons that are connected to a parent vehicle. I couldn't care less if a missile looked 'pretty' or not, but I consider that to be different to a fighter jet, which look damn nice (well, some of them do).

Let me put it another way: why do we paint pictures or take photographs of ships or fighter planes, or make models of these vehicles, if there wasn't some subjective appreciation that can be had from doing so? This wouldn't have any value in objectively evaluating something based on measurable quantities (how fast it can go, how many and what type of ordnance it can carry, etc), but I don't think Batman was attempting to do so. I certainly wasn't. (Hell, I don't even know what the Rafale or Eurofighter looks like)

Stofsk wrote:

frigidmagi wrote:It is pure and simple fooliness to judge weapons on their appearence. Prettiness does not matter, what matters is how well they do their bloody job.

It is pure foolishness to judge a weapon's capabilities on the aesthetics of their design, because the latter is a qualitative and subjective appreciation of something while the former, the actual capabilities of the vehicle (or weapon, if you prefer) are things that can be measured and quantified. Saying "The Rafale is prettier, therefore it is the superior weapon" is a pointless and foolish exercise because it doesn't tell us a great deal. However, that is not what has happened here.

From my perspective, there's nothing wrong with judging something's prettiness if all you are doing is judging things based on their aesthetics.

But I feel that the main problem we're having is our subjective views on what is a vehicle and what is a weapon. I don't consider a fighter jet or tank to be weapons, but vehicles with weapons attached. So in my mind, a minigun fired bullet, a missile affixed to a hardpoint, or a tank shell fired from a turret mounted gun, these are all weapons that are connected to a parent vehicle. I couldn't care less if a missile looked 'pretty' or not, but I consider that to be different to a fighter jet, which look damn nice (well, some of them do).

Let me put it another way: why do we paint pictures or take photographs of ships or fighter planes, or make models of these vehicles, if there wasn't some subjective appreciation that can be had from doing so? This wouldn't have any value in objectively evaluating something based on measurable quantities (how fast it can go, how many and what type of ordnance it can carry, etc), but I don't think Batman was attempting to do so. I certainly wasn't. (Hell, I don't even know what the Rafale or Eurofighter looks like)

Agreed. And even if a tank or a jet is a weapon there is no reason we cannot judge these weapons by their appearance -- provided we recognize this has no bearing on their effectiveness as weapons/vehicles which mount weapons.

EDIT: By the way, the French fighter is not nearly as pretty as I hoped when I read some of the comments. Bletch.

The Silence and I wrote:EDIT: By the way, the French fighter is not nearly as pretty as I hoped when I read some of the comments. Bletch.

Yup. Rafale is still ugly compared to YF-23 Black Widow --the prettiest fighter aircraft in my book.

KAN wrote:YF-23 Black Widow --the prettiest fighter aircraft in my book.

Quoted for truth.

It looks like flying dogshit. The F-22 is much better looking.

I will even put Russian warplanes as better looking than the YF-23. But Russian hardware does look excellent anyway; I really dislike the YF-23. The main reason is because of the wings.

Your opinion, of course. I think the F-22 looks clunky, especially from the side. And regardless, the -23 still looks better than the Rafale.

HERETIC!!! Cthulhu will eat you last. Ia! Ia! :P

I looked at the Rafale just now. I'm not impressed by it at all. I think the Eurofighter is prettier.

Beauty is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder (I'm still waiting for some intrepid adventurer to determine which eye, and what kind of beholder, but that's beside the point for now).
I maintain that Typhoon looks meh, Rafale looks pretty, and YF-23, while looking cool, futuristic and certainly more interesting than Rafale, does not look PRETTY. (YF-23 would make one damn nifty SciFi aerospace fighter).

Batman wrote:YF-23, while looking cool, futuristic and certainly more interesting than Rafale, does not look PRETTY. (YF-23 would make one damn nifty SciFi aerospace fighter).

Well personally I find YF-23's futuristic shape, diamond-shaped wings, diagonal tails, and bulging engines make the plane beautiful. Also, the aircraft's nose is not as sharply tapered as that of F-22; to me the nose is actually better looking that way.



But of course, things like beauty and looks are subjective. Mind you, there are people who think that Janeway is beautiful. In fact, isn't she beautiful? *fap fap fap fap fap* Oooh, yeah!

Ah, back to the topic, if you're a decision maker in buying fighter aircraft, which one will you buy? The Rafale, whose performance is lower but already proven, or the Eurofighter, which is a more superior aircraft on paper?

Nothing compares to the graceful aesthetics of the F-4 Phantom. All these newfangled toys just flat flunk in the looks department.

But whatever makes you young'uns happy. *shrugs*

Petrosjko wrote:Nothing compares to the graceful aesthetics of the F-4 Phantom. All these newfangled toys just flat flunk in the looks department.

But whatever makes you young'uns happy. *shrugs*

The F-4 Phantom looks like a flying blowjob. I look at it and feel pleasured.