What is the problem?  Rafale works for the French.  It delivers a decent a/c, at a cost.  BUT, the French consider the cost worth it, because they keep the ability to design and produce a high performance a/c and it is a FRENCH high performance a/c.  To that extent, BRAVO...IF you value that ability then it's worth the cost, to France.

 

But what I don't understand is this compulsive need to make the Rafale something that apparently it's not.  An exportable commodity.  I just listen here, but it seems that Rafale delivers Capacity "1" for Cost "1".  Now France is willing to buy that capacity for that cost.

 

BUT, other groups see they can buy Gripen and get capacity .9 for cost .75.  Yeah you get less, but it costs a lot less too.  So that for some markets Rafale is too costly, for what you get.

 

Others see that they can get an F-35 at cost 1.5 but with capacity 2.  Yeah it costs more but it does more, and for a high end user that can afford the price, the increased benefit is well worth it.

 

I guess the question is where does the Super-Hornet fit on that scale, it's not cheap, it's not as capable as an F-35....so mayhap the Rafale ought to be able to compete with the SH.  But again it doesn't seem to.

 

My point, tiny as it is, is for the French posters just accept the Rafale for what it is, a decent plane, that fulfills France's military/political/economic needs.  As not everyone has those needs, in fact it seems the Rafale fits a very small niche, of FRANCE's needs, then it follows that it's export potential is fairly low.

 

I'd buy a Rafale if I wanted to fly low, fly fast, AND make sure French aviation workers have jobs.  Generally speaking Belgium, Gabon, or South Korea, don't see the need to keep FRENCH workers employed as a "feature," and so have a tendency to buy a plane that doesn't have as one of its primary goals continued employment in La France.

 

That's not a "knock" on anyone.  It says France had a desire for a FRENCH a/c, not everyone feels that pull...but because the Rafale is as much about FRANCE as it is about Combat Capacity, you really can't expect a lot of foreign sales.

 

Bottom-Line: Rafale works for France.  Rejoice if you're French.  But please stop trying to spin your a/c as something it isn't.  Almost no one says you have a "dog" of a plane, just that it's a plane that isn't what it's fanboyz claim it is.  Accept Rafale for what it is, and be happy.

I should have been more specific. I mean I like to read things about the joint training such as with the HAF for instance. I generally don't care to research the specifics of things like touch sensitive displays in a particular platform because its not really important to me directly. But when people discuss it here, its just one more thing to know even if it's just platform trivia. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a bunch of post about Plasma Stealth and how the Su-35 can fly backwards and carries missiles with 400km range. But sometimes those discussions do produce interesting spin off discussion. It isn't necessarily Rafale or platform specific.

Let us all be honest too. I strongly disagree with a lot of BW claims with regard to that plane as do most here. But to say we get nothing out of the discussion begs the question of why we participate in the first place? I'm also interested in the point of view of others as well. My 0.02

 Regards

DA

In order for the French to AFFORD Rafale as they desired, they need exports and paying customers to justify a production run of at least 350 aircraft including roughly 100 export orders. The foreign customer was/is expected to foot the bill for the development costs for the future goodies like a better radar, better avionics, and finally a better air to air missile.

Well guess what? This Dassault/French government combine of the time (Chirac) scheme backfired. The rest of the world (Eurofighter) decided that they didn't want to fund a French fighter to French requirements. They decided after much squabbling among themselves what they wanted and they designed it with a set of upgrade paths that they would fund for themselves as political and technical decision points in their program (Typhoon). They bought and paid, baseline, for what they wanted up front without overpromising to their chief customers (themselves) or lying too much to each other what they could or would do..

 

They built it to a very good marketable baseline aircraft among themselves (everyone of them had slightly different requirements, so Typhoon had to be adaptable) and  then they went out and looked for customers.

 

The Sparky Combine was a little different. LockMart went around shopping for partners and customers and promised workshare, techshare and market share. It used its reputation and a BIG customer (Uncle) to sell the plane off paper to its market buddies, designed it for a global market, and then LockMarted them into the program with ongoing paid work.

 

Eurofighter and LockMart didn't pull a Wimpie.

   

Those of you familiar with Popeye, the Sailor, will understand the reference.

 

Herald

 

 

I totally agree.  I probably wouldn't bother reading detailed results of this or that DACT exercise or some competition between two aircraft I don't have any stake in, if it wasn't to settle this or that point of contention.  And while the arguments themselves get tedious, the research is pretty interesting.  Frankly, it's a little bit like any scientific discipline: you learn the most when you're trying to solve a problem.

 

I do wish these things were a little less adversarial.  It would be nice if, for example, the response to articles about the latest Red Flag were along the lines of: "that's great, we had Rafales doing low level penetration strikes against high value targets, Hornets doing SEAD, Eagles doing top cover, and F-16s doing follow-up strikes; each using its strengths to balance the others."  Instead we get chest-thumping nonsense about being the most valuable platform and the like.

 

But what are you going to do?  Airplanes are phallic symbols (with the exception of the B-2) so I guess it makes sense these things turn into a p*ssing contest.  Er I mean a d*ck waving competition.  Well, you get the, uh, point.

Agreed. And we should all make an effort to remain respectful in spite of the flag/d*ck waving. For instance, if I told BW the Rafale is a horrible plane and a SuperHornet would dominate it all day, thats fine. But I don't see the need to jump right into somethig directed at the person. I understand we are all people and tempers can and do flare however. But the value in being able to participate in an open forum is something I think all should be able to enjoy. Unlike a book or spec sheet, you never know where the discussion will go. It's interactive learning.

-DA 

Agreed. And we should all make an effort to remain respectful in spite of the flag/d*ck waving. For instance, if I told BW the Rafale is a horrible plane and a SuperHornet would dominate it all day, thats fine. But I don't see the need to jump right into somethig directed at the person. I understand we are all people and tempers can and do flare however. But the value in being able to participate in an open forum is something I think all should be able to enjoy. Unlike a book or spec sheet, you never know where the discussion will go. It's interactive learning.

-DA 

have you looked at some of your earlier posts wrt French Stratege and Bluewings?  You make Herald look like a nun... :)

Sure do don't I...;) But I've since matured past that point minor backsliding aside and thanks to a lot of you.

-DA 

As I have said plenty of times before, the problem isn't that Bluewings is ignorant, although he is.  The biggest problem is that he is unwilling to discuss topics like an adult and learn from the information made available to him.

 

How many times have we had to correct the same lies/mistakes from him?  Nothing ever changes. 

 

Over and over and over again he shows up and starts making ridiculous claims about the Rafale and/or bashing US aircraft.  

 

I couldn 't answer earlier as I was in Belgium with my Truck .

So many things have been said in the last 2 days that I cannot answer everybody , sorry in advance .

To start with , Leroy :

NO SALE. Not even to states that buy Russian equipment.

 

For your benefit, poseur 2 that is called OCCAM's RAZOR.

 

I just slit your throat with it. 

 

Herald

Very poor post poseur3 .

Btw , France may sold 100 or more Rafales in 2009 and 2010 which I disagree with but it 's another story .

 

Cheers .

100 Rafale's in the midst of the worst economic downturn in 60 years?  Yeah right....IF they are sales I'll eat my hat...the sale and re-purchase of Mirage's in complex swap-backs or buys isn't really a sale is it?  Or if it is, the question is what does the French taxpayer get from it as compared to D'assault and French politicians?

 

And at .5 air frames a month that'll take what, 200 months to fill the order(s)?  Only about 15 years....

"First , I am not ignorant . "

 

lol

 

"In the past 6 years or so , I believe that I 've demonstrated quite a good knowledge of the FAF ."

 

What is sad is that you really haven't, you are continually being corrected by various posters here on all sorts of topics related to the FAF.  All you want to talk about all day long is your favorite plane, but you are still making clueless fanboy mistakes. 

"If I was unwilling to discuss like an adult , you wouldn 't even bother to respond to my numerous posts and I always learn something new at every thread ."

 

Kid, if you were learning something new in every thread you have screwed up with your idiocy you wouldn't still be making the dumb mistakes that you are.

 

"I know that I 've an entire Website against me but I coudn 't care less ."

 

People here are sick of you because you are a troll, and an idiot.  Over and over and over again you have jumped into threads that have nothing to do with the Rafale and posted dozens of posts full of nothing but stupidity. 

 

"I am not there to polish my Ego , I 'm here with a different voice and a diffrent opinion than yours . "

 

You are here to protect the honor of your favorite airplane because you can't stand the thought that France wasn't able to produce the very best.  You are just like any other fanboy on the internet.  Some like a certain car, or a certain sports team, or perhaps a certain type of computer.  You just happen to like a particular airplane.  Sure, you know basically nothing about aircraft in the first place, but why should that prevent you from lecturing people who know ten times what you do?

 

 

"The answer is simple and I wander why you ask : SPECTRA + IR MICA .

I explain with the help of few factsheets : First , SPECTRA RWR will detect and track the opposite radar with a 1deg accuracy and pass on the information to the IR MICA . Within less than 2 minutes (if the pilot did not ask earlier) , the IR MICA will act as an IRST . Note than the Pilot can choose to use the MICA as an IRST without having any kind of detection or lock ."

 

Lets get something straight kid... while it is of course possible to cue a missile seeker to look in a particular location, and it is even possible for the missile to perform a limited sort of autonomous target search, neither a MICA nor another other IR missile provides a meaningful IRST capability.  There is a vast difference in the level of sophistication and performance between an actual IRST and the seeker in the nose of a missile.  

? Delivery of tracking and guidance orders to the missile autopilot

? Autonomous threat search capability in a very large field of regard

? Lock-on before and after launch in any presentation against fighters "

 

LOL  First you go and try to claim that you aren't ignorant... then you misuderstand something like this and try to lecture people.   Yes, modern IR missiles are capable of a searching for targets within certain constraints.  What you just don't seem to get is that these capabilities are intended for use at very short ranges, either at the edge of visual range, or during a lock on after launch engagement where the target was beyond the seeker's range at launch. (Forcing the missile to aquire its target in flight.)

 

 

"Your questions have been answered Warpig . Write it down , this way you will not come back at me with the same questions over and over again (that goes for all posters) ..."

 

And this goes back to why nobody has any patience with you... not only do you give an answer that shows you lack even the slightest clue what you are talking about... but you then go and act like a jackass on top of it.

 

 

I will let someone else correct the rest of the stupidity in this post, virtually everything you said was wrong or at the very least misunderstood.

 

 

I was just thinking the other day about this, because I was wondering if you understood this or not.  Your recent comment above regarding MICA, it's supposed 80km range, and taking a shot at a target when it's 150km away tells me you still don't.  This has been explained to you before, but here it is again. 

 

Do you understand what it means when a missile is credited with having a range of, for example, 60km?  Let's say Points A and B are two locations in the air, separated by 60km.  If your missile has a range of 60km, that does NOT mean that if you are flying directly toward Point A and fire your missile exactly as you reach it, that then the missile will fly out toward the target until it hits it just as the target reaches Point B, 60km away from Point A.  In other words, if an air-to-air missile has a range of 60km, that does not mean it can travel 60km before it hits its target.  The reason it doesn't mean that is because that isn't really a very useful way of measuring an air-to-air missile's range.

 

Similar to other subjects, like RCS, the range of a missile is dependent on multiple variables, and thus citing a single value as its "range" is about as meaningful as citing a single value as an "RCS":  *IF* you know what the conditions are for that value, it is useful, or *IF* you know the general assumptions that value represents as a sort of average value over the possible ranges of the different variables, then that value is somewhat useful.

 

Missile ranges are based on the distance to the target at the time of launch, not based on the distance between where the launch occurred and where the target was eventually hit.  Therefore the range depends heavily on what the target's heading is compared to yours, what the bearing to the target is at the time of launch, whether those relationships change during the duration of the missile's fly-out, what altitude the target is at, what speed the target is at, what altitude the launch aircraft is at, what speed the launch aircraft is at, and maybe some others I don't remember (I don't claim to be an expert at aerial combat).

 

The *only* way a MICA could hit a target "84km away" is if both were closing directly toward each other at the time of launch, the target continued on that vector for basically the entire engagement, both were at high altitude, and both were at high subsonic speed at least, and maybe even one or both were supersonic, and the target was 84km away from the launch aircraft at the time of launch.  Thus the total distance traveled by the missile would have been much less than 84km.