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

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

My partner and I frequent a small chain restaurant.  A meal costs US $30.  Is it a great meal, is it a Morton's of Chicago or a Maxim's (assuming Maxims still exists)?  No, it isn't....but it only costs 10-15% of the cost of going to the "high end" restaurant, too.  And the value is certainly GREATER than 10-15% of the high end, so when you do the cost v. benefit, it works out that the $30 meal is a really good value...

 

On the reverse, there is another chain restaurant we will NOT go to.  It cost us $50 for a meal there.  It was a good meal, but not a $50 meal...and in analysis, it follows that $50 spent here is not $50 well spent.  In comparison to the $30 meal it IS better, but not 66% better.

 

And that seems to be Rafale's problem...it IS better than many competitor's, but not say 66% better...and so many opt for the $30 meal rather than the Rafale.

It delivered as promised.

I already wrote that I don't have to be polite, when I don't respect the individual at the other end of the discussion.

 

The Rafale FAILED outside of France against the FALCON MLU option across the board when professionals assessed it.

 

As you said, similar is NOT better.

 

And as I said, the French screwed up the upgrade path in that bird.

 

We will see if their T/Rs in the RBE2 AESA actually WORK. That is a quality control problem which THALES is not to0o good at.

 

Remember the RUSSIANS are now actually ahead of the French when it comes to airborne AESA fighter radars.

 

Epaulet A was out in breadboard about 4 years ago-100% RUSSIAN with no outside help and from what I can find out, it works.

 

Think about that.

 

I do.

 

Herald

 

 

Yes, I never said the MLU DIDN' T happen....I merely point out that the CORE of your argument was in the very first part, the part you bolded...that the Danes opted for MLU over Rafale, because the cost of a Rafale did not match the performance of the Rafale.   The rest was interesting, but not necessary...and it WAS a blurb touting the MLU program, an advertisement, if you will.  Simply because something is propaganda doesn't make it untrue, just one-sided.

 

I liked your blurb because the opening paragraphs encompassed the problem with Rafale, not worth the increased cost versus the increase in performance that Rafale gives, either versus an F-16 MLU or a Gripen or an F-35.

 

I don't doubt the Russian ability to develop an ASEA...Is your point if Russia, not a world-class economic power, can do it, why not France?  If that's the question, I'd say because France seems to have adopted "the one company" solution...you know Thales is the ONE Company that's going to do the ASEA R&D?  Am I right?  And that may be because France is limited in the number of companies it CAN support in this area?

 

If so, that's the European conundrum.  The EU, collectively, has more people, and more money than the US...BUT a EUROPEAN program rapidly devolves into a scramble for individual nation's to employ their factories and workers, at the expense of the program as a whole.  France withdrew from the EuroFighter, to develop Rafale, because France didn't think France was going to benefit from the program, enough.  I think that the Typhoon is the poorer for it and so is France...after all Britain, Italy and Germany can afford a better a/c than France, alone.

WITHOUT French input.

 

Otherwise Eurofighter Consortium, would be stuck with MICA and the CRAP RBE2 radar.

The Typhoon was brought to a screeching halt when the Germans finally looked at some Russian aircraft and A2A rockets first hand. Call it the East German Windfall. The Russian AA 11 and AA 12 rockets aren't half bad.

 

The AA 11, R-73 is actually a truly terrifying RH missile. It WORKS.

 

The AA 12 R-77 would also work but the Russians lag about a half generation in telemetry update and computerized FCS software as well as have an inferior active radar seeker in that rocket. On the other hand, the rocket's agility thanks to its nocvel steering lattice fins is phenomenal. Its hard to dodge at the last munite when it does acquire a lock

 

The Russians make do with the R-77s (RH and IR) by adjusting their tactics and salvo firing their rockets in chase pairs  to try and get at least one through Western countermeasures.

 

The French adopted much the approach; but unlike the Russians, they screwed MICA up so badly, I'd rather they go back to the Super 530, until the British get METEOR to work.

 

Herald.

 

 

 

.

I make some stupid careless mistakes when I'm tired and in a hurry. I try to catch them when I can.

 

Herald