Same old Blue Wings lies and same old Blue Wings recycled garbage,-some of it years old.

 

At Blue Wings. You don't dictate the terms of this debate, fan boy.

As always, I do.

 

Herald

The TV camera is not very useful for searches.  You may be familiar with the analogy of looking through a straw.

Having the best gun is like having the best biplane in 1943.

Climb rate is inferior to Typhoon and F-22.

Rafale wasn't shot down at Red Flag because French cowards wouldn't merge.   They didn't even go there to really participate they went there to steal radar signals.

 

You can explain to us why a "long range IR missile" is almost a contradiction in terms.  Having an IR missile with lots of energy is good,but they don't make good BVR weapons for a reason.

The fanboy returns!

 

Despite crippling ignorance bluewings will defend his favorite airplane to the death.

 

First things first, I noticed you forgot your little writing assignment.... here it is again:

 

 

Good for you! You found some marketing brochures! lol

 

The problem with you kid, is that you just don't know enough to make sense of what you are reading. You see the shiny pictures released as part of a marketing campaign, and don't know enough to see through to the facts.

 

 

Spectra is an advanced EW suite, but its capabilities are similar to those found on other advanced 4th generation aircraft, it is not an offensive or escort jammer.  It is not a magic box that will solve all of the Rafale's problems in any mission.  Anyone with any experience whatsoever would know that.

The Rafale's radar was obsolete almost the day it was released, which is why France is now rushing out a replacement as fast as they can. (As of the last I heard, France doesn't even have the money to upgrade their own planes, so all of the already produced Rafale's will remain crippled for years to come.)

 

OSF is obsolete and out of production, even France is no longer buying the system for their new Rafales.  At some point in the future perhaps France will develop an upgraded system, but it isn't likely to be for a long time.

 

Mica is a lightweight dual role missile. It is better than the Aim-9x at BVR shots, and better than the AMRAAM at WVR shots.  On the other hand... it is not as capable as the Aim-9x at WVR shots, and not as capable as the AMRAAM at BVR shots.  That is what you get when you go cheap and try to avoid building two missiles. 

 

Try not to be such an idiot kid, do you really think France cooked up this wonder-weapon you keep talking about, but that nobody wants to buy it?  Take a look at how many countries are flying with AMRAAMs and then compare that to how many countries are flying with Micas.  Even a kid, a smart one, should be able to figure out something is going on.  

 

While we are on the subject of export success... where is the Rafale?  This wonderful plane that just does everything so super well, according to our fanboy, has yet to find a single customer.   If half the stupid things you said about the Rafale were true there would be a line of people begging to buy it. 

 

It is stealthy! It has an "unmatched" A2G weapon!  It is "easily" "in the top three for best interceptor and dogfighter."(lol, you do know those are two different sets of requirements right?) It has the "best single revolver cannon of all fighters." blah blah blah

 

... and yet its production rate has dropped to almost nothing because there is no demand for it.  What does the new French budget put Rafale production at? Something like 1 per month?   Even France isn't buying the magic wonder plane.

 

 

 

 

Let's see if a Fanboy can be educated:

 

Do these three things:

 

1.  Finish Leroy's writing assignment.

2.  Calculate an estimated RCS for Rafale given the 20X lower than M2000 figure, then calculate how much this helps against a  threat radar.  Explain why this is or isn't tactically useful.

3.  Explain why IR has less range than radar for BVR missiles.

 

 

Earl,

 

No offense meant; I'm saying this in an attempt at preventing you from suffering disappointment.  To ask these things is to call into question your very sanity, since it has been well said that the definition of such is to repeat the same action and expect different results!  We've gone over all these subjects, and others, with FS and BW ad nauseum, with no appreciable and noticable good effect.

The someone else should answer the questions.  After all, it is a discussion board. I'm surprised the fanboys are still around, they take quite a beating. 

 

I still say French fanboy is more educated, more intelligent, and more entertaining than Russian fanboy.  I still hold out hope of French fanboy seeing the light.

 

Go for the head on aspect for the joust which is the favorite scenario of fanboys. 

 

The whole "totally passive" intercept sounds less appealing when you look at the facts for IR missiles.

Note that some of the manufacturer literature on MICA emphasizes that the data link between the firing aircraft and missile is optional.  Either the range is really short and/or you're supposed to fire salvos to try and get a hit.  The missile was designed for export success anyway.

Well, to be fair, the reason the datalink is optional is to allow the missile to be used like a conventional WVR missile.  This allows e.g. the Mirage 2000D to carry it; the Mirage 2000D does not have a BVR-capable radar but can carry the Mica IR as a self-defense WVR missile.

 

On the other hand, without the datalink, you can't do any kind of BVR attacks anyway.  BVR shots simply don't work without range data, and IR sensors alone cannot provide range to a target.

Ok, since we are all trying to be good sports and use the fanboy's posts as opportunities to give meaningful explanations,  I think I will take a minute to single out this particular bit of wishful thinking:

 

"- Rafale is easily in the top three for the best interceptor and dogfighter"

 

As I said in my original response to his post, an "interceptor" is not the same thing as a "dogfighter."  Like many fanboys he does not seem to realise that there are multiple types of air-to-air missions that a fighter aircraft might perform. 

 

When you start talking about a plane's capabilities as an "interceptor" you are dealing with a specific set of requirements that need to be met in order to perform the mission.

 

An interceptor's job is to fly out, often long distances, to locate and destroy aerial targets.  This requires an aircraft that has the following qualities, in no particular order:

 

A large fuel capacity, enabling long range flights and supersonic intercepts without relying heavily on aerial refueling.

 

An extremely capable and long range radar system, allowing it to search large volumes of airspace autonomously without heavy support from a dedicated airborne radar aircraft. 

 

The ability to sprint at high speeds for relatively long periods of time.  This is dependent on both the aircraft's fuel capacity, and its aerodynamics/engines.

 

What do these requirements result in when an aircraft is designed as an interceptor?  A very large aircraft that can carry a lot of fuel and a very large radar. 

 

Some examples of aircraft that were designed largely as interceptors include the Mig-31, Su-27, F-14 and F-22.

 

Now, to put the relevant information on one page: (note, I grabbed these stats off the internet in a hurry, errors may exist)

 

Mig-31

Empty weight: 21,800kg

Internal fuel capacity: 14,200kg

Radar diameter: ~1.1 m

 

Su-27

 

Now I will add in the stats of a couple fighters, that were not designed primarily as interceptors. 

 

Mig-29

Empty weight: 11,000kg

Internal fuel capacity: 4000kg

Radar diameter: ~.62m

 

Rafale

Empty weight: 10,220kg

Internal fuel capacity: 4500kg

Radar diameter: ~ .55 m

 

The differences between these aircraft should be obvious.  The first four aircraft are simply much larger, with much larger radars and much larger fuel capacities.  This is not somehow an accident. These aircraft are roughly technological contemporaries with the two fighters at the bottom but they are very different designs. The point here is that different requirements resulted in different designs. There is no simple "right" or "wrong" answer.  The only question is what aircraft is best suited to a certain mission. 

 

Any time any aircraft is designed, certain trade-offs must be made.  In recent years most new designs have trended towards jack-of-all-trades multi-role designs because costs prevented the world's various air-forces from buying dedicated types designed for specific missions.

 

Back when the US Navy was debating about retiring the F-14, the ultimate question was not simply, "is the SH better?"  The question the Navy had to ask itself was, "do they really want/need a true interceptor?"  A SH is not as well suited to long range intercept missions as a modernized F-14 would have been.  In the end the navy decided that the SH would be sufficient for their needs.  If they had had enough money, they probably would have bought both.

 

Going back to the Rafale, it was clearly not designed primarily as an interceptor.  With enough fuel tanks hung on it and with enough support from offboard  radars and tankers,  it can certainly do those missions, but it isn't ideal.  Those are the trade-offs that had to be made in order to keep the Rafale within its size and budgetary constraints.

 

Thus, when bluewings spouts off about how the "Rafale is easily in the top three for the best interceptor and dogfighter," it shows that he just doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.  He is thinking about the problem like a fanboy, trying to imagine which aircraft would "win" in an imaginary fair fight, on a clear day, over neutral ground, when both fighters are trying to kill each other for no particular reason.

 

 

You all surely post some interesting stuff but I am still amazed by all the rabbits you pull out of a magic hat , without any proofs or links .

Stuff like (in disorder) :

ROTFLMAO.

 

An example of the latest LIEs::

 

MICA when used as an IRST can detect and track at 35km (do the maths and find the gimble angle) . Btw , this is actually the main reason why the FAF did not order yet the OSF-NG . Secondly , the up-link work the same as an EM MICA . Thirdly , the end game is totally passive as you know it . Ypu 're just pulling stuff out of a hat .

 

40 degree off boresight? Yeah right. What happened to your claims that OSF could identify targets 40+ kilometers away and steer a missile passuvely to its target.

 

At 35,000 meters you are WVR in 10 seconds at a combined  cl;sing rate of 1000 mps  But of course the Archer salvo is already in urts endgame and you are DEAD at 35,000 meters distance of separation. They already off the rails 15 seconds before your alleged MICA IRST tries to scan anything. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another batch of lies:

 

 

You were not able and are not able to duplicate the APG-79 because we caught you trying to steal our radar tech. As to your current AESA, its based on the leavings and droppings WE gave you when you asked us for help to make your RBE2 AESA work.

 

Get used to hearing the word RAYTHEON poseur 2.

 

Its their OBSOLETE radar technology you LICENSED-or rather your German allies did because we refuse to sell or give your THALES thieves access directly.

 

And even at that, you won't see it in numbers before 2012 as you STILL have to integrate it into new Rafale production. Hope your software works. 

 

Herald

 

 

 

 

Preparatory remarks:

1)   I'm a "fanboy" like you, an interested amateur. 

2)   Herald has a habit of posting very long "articles" that may or may not have to much bearing on the issue at hand.

3)   Herald's MLU release WAS a sales brochure for the F-16 MLU.

 

That having been said.

 

The Body

Note the Danes adopted the MLU to "tide" themselves over until the F-35 came along.  They COULD have adopted Rafale.  However, they chose not to, because, for the price, the aviation advance wasn't significant enough.  It was better, in their minds, to upgrade the 1970's a/c and wait for the F-35 rather than adopt the 1990's Rafale.

 

The lengthy technical details of the release don't matter, they were fascinating, but irrelevant.  The key point to take home, and Herald underlined it, was that the Danes and others felt it made  more sense to soldier on with the F-16 rather than replace the F-16 with the Rafale.  That for the cost v. benefit, it was more beneficial to wait for the F-35.

 

Now you can dismiss that article all you want, but that was the bottom-line of it...for what you pay, what you get from the Rafale isn't worth it.  If it  WERE worth it, Rafale would have more export orders.  La Belle Pays is interested in its domestic a/c industry and employment, hence the Rafale and its deployment in the AdA and your Navy.  But everyone else who has confronted the procurement decision of whether or not to buy Rafale or "something else" has opted for the "something else."  Because employing French citizens and enriching a French company and ensuring that La France has the capacity to develop high performance a/c is NOT their prime goal in selecting an a/c for their nation's armory.

 

All this not to say that Rafale is a BAD a/c.  You confuse a critique and a conclusion with criticism.  The critique is that the Rafale has many good points.  It is a good a/c.  Were France to fly the Rafale in combat, against more than the Taliban, the Rafale would give a good account of itself.  The but the CONCLUSION is, that if you are going to spend tens of millions on a multi-role a/c (which the Rafale IS) and tens of millions more over a twenty year period, that at the end of the day most nations are better off with a Gripen or an F-35.  The Gripen costs less and does less, but it is more maintainable, in austere conditions, and if you are a developing nation the Gripen gives you good value for your money...Yes, the Gripen is NOT as capable as the Rafale, but cost-wise the increase in Rafale price v. the Gripen, is NOT equal to the increase in Rafale v. Gripen PERFORMANCE.  So, too the F-35...the F-35 may cost more, but it delivers MORE, too...and that "more" is commensurate with the increased cost and delivery time.

 

Conclusion

The Rafale was a project undertaken by France to remain "relevant" in the high performance jet inventory.  That was its primary goal, to enable France to continue to be a "modern" aviation nation, in line with French Industrial/Foreign/National Security Policy(ies).  France has produced an a/c that meets those goals, the Rafale.  It IS a good plane, if you peel away Herald's attacks-and even he doesn't dismiss the Rafale, you will see that many on this board object to your MIS-CHARACTERIZATION of the Rafale, not the Rafale. 

 

It's a very good plane, but it's purpose was NOT to deliver ordnance on target or missiles onto "bogeys."  Its purpose was to make sure that France could stay in the game of designing, building, and deploying high performance jet a/c...the price was relatively secondary to that goal.  The result is an a/c whose performance is NOT equaled by its cost.  You have produced a fairly expensive Super Hornet or fairly costly F-16.  All three of which, are excellent a/c...HOWEVER, when you get down to cost v. benefits the Rafale is found wanting, and no amount of fanboy wishing and Denial will make it any different.  You can quite as many Thales Press Releases, as many French Ministry of Defense briefing papers as you care to, but the one unanswered and unanswerable criterion of judgment remains; THE RAFALE HAS FAILED TO SECURE A SINGLE EXPORT ORDER.  IF, what you write were anywhere close to true, THEN other Ministries of Defense would surely have seen the truth of your and the Rafale's claims.  To date, they have not done so. 

 

Some of this is bad luck, some bad decisions.  The Rafale, to succeed, needed to go ahead at the end of the Cold War, not be cut back...bad decision.  Bad luck....that the Rafale has come on the scene when a number of Cold War legacy forces need replacement, BUT that there is also a Gripen or F-35 to compete with it.  Had the Rafale come out sooner, then a number of air forces would have opted for the Rafale, as a better alternative to waiting for their F-16 fleets to fall apart, before the F-XX came on-line.  Sadly, for the Rafale, these air forces DO get to chose between the Gripen, the Rafale, and the F-35, and to the man they have NOT chosen the Rafale.

 

Bottom-Line:

The market has spoken and the Rafale has been found wanting.  If you can't accept this, I feel pity for you.  Stop debating the little technical minutiae, and look at the big picture, no one but France wants to buy the Rafale.  You don't have to be an expert in MICA or EW Systems, or jet engines, or Material Science...the order book(s) speak for themselves.  Those who are experts in those fields don't find the Rafale appealing.