The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Rafale Thread
Softwar    3/9/2009 9:47:25 AM
Started with hope that BW will limit his comments here instead of in every other Fighter thread. I'll start off with:

1 - no export sales
2 - no laser designator
3 - no AESA
4 - overpriced 4th gen fighter
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34   NEXT
Bluewings12       6/14/2009 5:37:52 PM
Herald :
 
""A forty year old+ fanboy who has trouble with basic science and physics, doesn't know the first thing about rocketry and ballistics, tries to argue for French honeur, but doesn't remember that the first thing a Frenchman is, is HONEST, and tries to conveniently forget the last fantasy he invents?""
 
-1) I have never been a scientist or a physicist , sorry , but I am not stupid and I learn when I can .
-2) Rocketry is not my strong point but I know my bit about Air weapons .
-3) I believe to be honest and what I post can be verified quickly 
-4) My last fantasy was to argue on active cancellation . I stopped talking about it more than a year ago .
 
Herald , my knowledge on Rafale is better than yours because you do not keep yourself up to date , also I am not biaised . You probably do with the US hardware but you don 't with the French 's .
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       6/14/2009 6:25:59 PM
Herald, absolutely agree with you, there are many people out there who humbly take on roles that are far beneath their true ability, people who have in their times outshone the best, and continue to do so. Many 
 
I did try to make clear I was not denigrating truck drivers in general, it was merely the fact that BW said something along the lines of the fact that (after a long spiel of life accomplishments) "I am trusted to drive a truck worth 250 000 euros" As if that was itself some sort of insight into his vast knowledge of fighter design.
 
BW:
Never given a satisfactory reason as to why many nations that are actually reasonably pro-french have no interest in it. The reason is that they can't guarantee parity with top of the line russian fighters currently being sold on the open market. It's a question of confidence, that's all. 
 
The eurofighter certainly isn't perfect, it's not a great or true multirole,  it's a generation behind the US, it's expensive, I would quite honestly trade 2 EF's for 1 Raptor, perhaps even 3, and furthermore believe that for what the Raptor can actually achieve, it is astoundingly cheap per unit, but the point is this, it doesn't matter, because what I am interested in is understanding and.. I guess, appreciating both good design, and bad design.
 
The french haven't come up with a great plane in the Rafale, perhaps you might be correct that it is underrated, but it is difficult to see how that could be given that it has had the opportunity to demonstrate its capabilities in several procurement programs.
 
Anyway, people have put this to you in so many different ways, it's not like you'll listen to me any more than you'll listen to them.
 
But you ARE biased.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       6/14/2009 6:38:26 PM
And might I add, CVF is one good example of a design that is headed for problems, I have a problem with many many areas of the UK ministry of defense when it comes to procurement, if Eurofighter was dogmeat I'd absolutely admit it, just like I'd happily admit that boudicea's fighting force was inadequate tactically when it came to the final showdown with Rome. Nationality is a ridiculous benchmark on which to assess good and bad design. 
 
IF you were not french, do you honestly believe that you would have independantly come to the same realisation with the same degree of conviction that you currently hold? I don't think the regular posters here are massively anti french, I think in any case that Ariane is a far greater acheivement in many ways than britain can boast of, that the french have some of the best civil engineering in the world.
 
You're french and proud, and that's great, but it doesn't change reality and that means that one day, whether it's now, or in 10 years, you will have to accept that quite a lot of what you said was wrong, and not just wrong, but it will exist in the annals of strategypage for an awful long time after the rafale has been sold to zimbabwe in exchange for a cow.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       6/14/2009 6:58:06 PM
Reactive , I am really glad that you changed your tone and attitude and I thank you . I lived for 7 years in the UK (Sidmouth , near Exeter , Devon) and I love the English , I know you well ;-) .
 
The reasons while Rafale is not selling are numerous and well known : France did not back-up Dassault for the last 15 years in the Fighter market thus the customers did not trust the Dassault deal , France did not use an aggressive marketing approach , the USA are proposing bargains and are ready to loose money on some deal just to sign contracts , the UK is bribing , etc ...
 
The mistake people is making is to rate the Rafale from its sales which are none so far . As it stands , the Rafale is by far the best European operational aircraft today .
I would certainly not swap 2 Rafales for a single Raptor , no way . If it was A2A only maybe I might but the Rafale is a true multi-role Fighter and can land on a Carrier .
 
""The french haven't come up with a great plane in the Rafale""
 
Yes we did and it shows (various NATO excercises , 4 years in war Ops , an excellent RedFlag , etc ...)
 
""The reason is that they can't guarantee parity with top of the line russian fighters currently being sold on the open market""
 
Do you care to back-up your saying ? As far as I know , the Russians CAN 'T DEAL with French ECMs and missiles .
A latest SU-27M against a Rafale will be as blind as a bat as soon as the French ECM kicks in . Trying to "burst through" the discreet Rafale will not help and only make the Russian Fighter more vulnerable to jamming . We don 't have the parity with the Russian aircrafts , we outfight them .
 
Reactive , I am not "biaised" , I know what the FAF and MN Aircrafts can do .
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       6/14/2009 8:52:56 PM

 

 

Beazz you still carry on on outrageously twisting my words so for the last time , here is what I said :



""2) they want to reach 30.000ft as fast as possible because they are less than 150nm away from the Iranian border .""

 

Where did I say that Rafale needs 150nm to reach 30.000ft ??? Can 't you read english ? 

Having a Rafale capable of a 360m/s climb rate with twins M88-3 is something highly desirable if your country is rather small and close to a potential enemy . I do not know where the problem is ...


 

Cheers .




BW,
I read just fine. Stop trying to wiggle your way out of your pathetic statement. Your statement implys that the Rafail cannot get to 30K *fast* enough so the customer wants a new engine in order to do so. I am telling you based on 30 years of experience working airplanes on a daily bases that if ANY modern day jet fighter cannot reach 30K in all the time it could possibly need over a distance of 150 miles then it is a flat out piece of junk!! Any military fighter should be able to reach 30K, have a smoke, cup of coffee and discuss what the plan is over a distance that great. If your plane cannot get you there in a timely enough maNNER then it is junk. Plain and simple BW.
 
What I am also emplying is you don't know what you are talking about. I would be willing to bet the Rafail can get to 30K in plenty of time and THAT has nothing to do with why the UAE wants a new engine. It is obviously performance related, but NOT getting to 30K in a timely enough fashion in a distance of 150 miles is not the issue is my bet!!
 
Beazz
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       6/14/2009 9:07:11 PM
Beazz , you are useless , sorry to say :-(
 
Since you cannot read english , do you want us to carry on this discussion in another language ?
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       6/14/2009 9:40:51 PM

Reactive , I am really glad that you changed your tone and attitude and I thank you . I lived for 7 years in the UK (Sidmouth , near Exeter , Devon) and I love the English , I know you well ;-) .

 

The reasons while Rafale is not selling are numerous and well known : France did not back-up Dassault for the last 15 years in the Fighter market thus the customers did not trust the Dassault deal , France did not use an aggressive marketing approach , the USA are proposing bargains and are ready to loose money on some deal just to sign contracts , the UK is bribing , etc ...


 

The mistake people is making is to rate the Rafale from its sales which are none so far . As it stands , the Rafale is by far the best European operational aircraft today .

I would certainly not swap 2 Rafales for a single Raptor , no way . If it was A2A only maybe I might but the Rafale is a true multi-role Fighter and can land on a Carrier .


 


""The french haven't come up with a great plane in the Rafale""

 

Yes we did and it shows (various NATO excercises , 4 years in war Ops , an excellent RedFlag , etc ...)


 


""The reason is that they can't guarantee parity with top of the line russian fighters currently being sold on the open market""

 

Do you care to back-up your saying ? As far as I know , the Russians CAN 'T DEAL with French ECMs and missiles .

A latest SU-27M against a Rafale will be as blind as a bat as soon as the French ECM kicks in . Trying to "burst through" the discreet Rafale will not help and only make the Russian Fighter more vulnerable to jamming . We don 't have the parity with the Russian aircrafts , we outfight them .


 

Reactive , I am not "biaised" , I know what the FAF and MN Aircrafts can do .


 

Cheers .


 

 



 

 

In terms of parity, I mean that I think a rafale equipped with a non-aesa radar, mica, is unlikely to handle the russian designs that are currently being manufactured in a large enough Win/Loss ratio to be a good risk.I think you overstate the subsystems on the Rafale, and I think the EF would win A2A with a healthy margin, I think that the data from the indian procurement this year might just provide something of a final word on the issue. (and I don't suggest the EF will win the competition but I firmly expect it to come 1st in A2A performance).
 
 I think your reasoning as to why the plane lost out (and yes, we did indeed bribe the Saudis with Typhoon) is selective, I think that you are putting forward a view that does not conflict with how you have elected to describe the Rafale's capabilities.
 
I am coming to the conclusion that the best way to sort this post out is to go to war, we start with the early teen series fighters and work our way up (being careful not to splash all rafales at once mind) until we have a nice and healthy set of win/loss ratios, which we could all then agree would be the final word on the matter.
 
Anyway, it doesn't really do any harm if you prefer the french plane to the european plane, but I do think you probably deep down know that the countermeasures aren't a silver bullet, as with IRIS-T etc, I do feel that the "professional" opinions supported by a lot of supporting evidence is against you there. 
 
One day, soon, we will know who is right, I suspect if you look at some of the data regarding Rafale vs HAF you will see that there really should have been a greater disparity between airframes seperated by the same amount of time that elapsed between the sopwith camel and the spitfire.
 
 And btw, the same appleis to the EF, but NOT to the raptor, which is, in my view, the most "peerless" aircraft that has ever been constructed. 
 
ReactivE
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

breaka       6/15/2009 1:00:51 AM
Beazz,
 
I think you are misunderstanding the time to climb requirement for the interceptor role.  The point isn't to climb to 30k by the Iranian border, it is to get to altitude to intercept an attacking force before it can get to a launch position against key targets or the defending fighters.
 
  To illustrate, lets say the Iranian border is 150nm away, which puts the edge of Iranian airspace 138nm away (assuming standard 12nm rules).  Let's say UAE radar detects a force traveling at around Mach 1 (keep my math easy), and takes 2 minutes to decide that it is indeed hostile force, and to send an alert launch message to the ground alert base.  In that time the fighters would travel 20nm, so they are now 118nm away.  Let's say that the UAE keeps their fighters at a very high alert state, so they get airborne in 5 minutes.  In this time, the force covers another 50nm, now just 68nm from Dubai, and able to threaten shipping along the coast with cruise missiles.  Let's say it takes the alert jets 2.5 minutes to climb to 30k feet and get supersonic, covering 15nm in the process, plus the Iranian fighters travel 25nm, bringing them to just 43nm from the coast and 28nm from the interceptors (assuming the are flying straight at each other and the interceptors started straight over the target).  If Iran had any decent BVR jets (not sure about the state of F-14/AIM-54, but they are way old), the defenders may have given up first launch opportunity while climbing to meet the attack, and are about a minute from a merge.  If you could save 30 seconds off the time to climb and get fast, that buys you 10-15nm more pad to work your intercept and have some fall back room or to kill aircraft with standoff weapons before they launch.
 
These numbers are all just wags to illustrate the concept.  Even if its climb characteristics are similar to the Typhoon, it could be that the shorter launch range of the Mica vs AMRAAM would lead the UAE to desire improved performance.
 
In regards to the heat issue, aircraft don't care about humidity as far as performance, its temperature, altitude and takeoff weights that are the problem.  Heat and altitude result in thinner air, which means less lift and thrust than at sea level/cooler weather.  this means it needs to accelerate to a higher true airspeed and it accelerates slower.   For Air to Air jets it's not too bad, but lets say you want to do a deep strike role.  Once you put 2xBlack Shahines on (6000lbs of ordnance, plus maybe 1000lbs for the racks), 4 MICAs (1000lbs in missiles, maybe 200lbs for rails), and 4,500lbs of external gas in 2 bags (plus maybe another 1000lbs for the tanks/racks), and another 100lbs for gun ammo, plus 170lbs for pilot & equipment.  All of a sudden, you go from a jet that's about 21k lbs empy, plus 10k internal gas ends up being a 45k lb jet.  The extra power sure would be nice if you lose an engine on takeoff, particularly on a hot day and would let it keep some performance at medium altitude.

As the Rafale stands now, it pretty much weighs the same empty and has the same thrust as an F-16 Blk 60.  Its not that it's thrust to weight ratio sucks, but if you want to take advantage of the full advertised payload capability, performance will drop off rapidly.  You can load more on it, but the performance will drop off quickly unless its thrust gets upgraded to match.  The 8.5:1 TWR of the current engine is pretty much in line with or slightly ahead of legacy teen series motors, the problem is the nearly 10:1 advertised by EJ and the great performance of the F-22's F-119s set the bar really high.
 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    That's very good.   6/15/2009 8:31:36 AM

Beazz,

 

I think you are misunderstanding the time to climb requirement for the interceptor role.  The point isn't to climb to 30k by the Iranian border, it is to get to altitude to intercept an attacking force before it can get to a launch position against key targets or the defending fighters.

 

  To illustrate, lets say the Iranian border is 150nm away, which puts the edge of Iranian airspace 138nm away (assuming standard 12nm rules).  Let's say UAE radar detects a force traveling at around Mach 1 (keep my math easy), and takes 2 minutes to decide that it is indeed hostile force, and to send an alert launch message to the ground alert base.  In that time the fighters would travel 20nm, so they are now 118nm away.  Let's say that the UAE keeps their fighters at a very high alert state, so they get airborne in 5 minutes.  In this time, the force covers another 50nm, now just 68nm from Dubai, and able to threaten shipping along the coast with cruise missiles.  Let's say it takes the alert jets 2.5 minutes to climb to 30k feet and get supersonic, covering 15nm in the process, plus the Iranian fighters travel 25nm, bringing them to just 43nm from the coast and 28nm from the interceptors (assuming the are flying straight at each other and the interceptors started straight over the target).  If Iran had any decent BVR jets (not sure about the state of F-14/AIM-54, but they are way old), the defenders may have given up first launch opportunity while climbing to meet the attack, and are about a minute from a merge.  If you could save 30 seconds off the time to climb and get fast, that buys you 10-15nm more pad to work your intercept and have some fall back room or to kill aircraft with standoff weapons before they launch.

 

These numbers are all just wags to illustrate the concept.  Even if its climb characteristics are similar to the Typhoon, it could be that the shorter launch range of the Mica vs AMRAAM would lead the UAE to desire improved performance.

 

In regards to the heat issue, aircraft don't care about humidity as far as performance, its temperature, altitude and takeoff weights that are the problem.  Heat and altitude result in thinner air, which means less lift and thrust than at sea level/cooler weather.  this means it needs to accelerate to a higher true airspeed and it accelerates slower.   For Air to Air jets it's not too bad, but lets say you want to do a deep strike role.  Once you put 2xBlack Shahines on (6000lbs of ordnance, plus maybe 1000lbs for the racks), 4 MICAs (1000lbs in missiles, maybe 200lbs for rails), and 4,500lbs of external gas in 2 bags (plus maybe another 1000lbs for the tanks/racks), and another 100lbs for gun ammo, plus 170lbs for pilot & equipment.  All of a sudden, you go from a jet that's about 21k lbs empy, plus 10k internal gas ends up being a 45k lb jet.  The extra power sure would be nice if you lose an engine on takeoff, particularly on a hot day and would let it keep some performance at medium altitude.





As the Rafale stands now, it pretty much weighs the same empty and has the same thrust as an F-16 Blk 60.  Its not that it's thrust to weight ratio sucks, but if you want to take advantage of the full advertised payload capability, performance will drop off rapidly.  You can load more on it, but the performance will drop off quickly unless its thrust gets upgraded to match.  The 8.5:1 TWR of the current engine is pretty much in line with or slightly ahead of legacy teen series motors, the problem is the nearly 10:1 advertised by EJ and the great performance of the F-22's F-119s set the bar really high.


 



I'd just add that humid air is kind of "draggy" and wet air sucked into a SNECMA degrades combustion a bit, a funny characteristic not shared by either British or Russian jet engines. Kind of funny that..

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       6/15/2009 2:38:57 PM

Beazz,

 

I think you are misunderstanding the time to climb requirement for the interceptor role.  The point isn't to climb to 30k by the Iranian border, it is to get to altitude to intercept an attacking force before it can get to a launch position against key targets or the defending fighters.

 

 
Breka,
I do understand that. What I am saying is the distance stated by BW is MORE then suffecient for any fighter to get to that altitude in order to do every thing you just said. If the Rafails engines cannot do that as they are, then I stick to what I said. And that is they are pure junk. Also like I said, I do NOT believe that is the reason new engines are required. BW is simply pulling numbers out of his backside and making up a reason for the requirement for new engines is my point.
 
I am very familiar with how heat and the like affects a/c climb rates. I saw it every single day for my entire working life. I get it ok. I'd be willing to bet I get it a lot more then most of the experts on this forum as well. I don't know a lot about all the other techno gobbly gook that is spouted on here routinely, but I do know how heat and cold affects how an aircraft climbs.
 
Unless the UAE is going to require France to put rocket engines on the Rafail, they should be able to meet the role stated as is.
 
Beazz
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       6/15/2009 2:42:55 PM

Beazz , you are useless , sorry to say :-(

 

Since you cannot read english , do you want us to carry on this discussion in another language ?


 

Cheers .



Thanks for the laugh BW. YOU calling anyone useless is a classic. ;-))
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       6/15/2009 2:48:29 PM

Beazz,

 

In regards to the heat issue, aircraft don't care about humidity as far as performance, its temperature, altitude and takeoff weights that are the problem. 
I didnt notice this before, but you are wrong. Humidity most certainly does have an affect on a/c perfromance. It does not have as *much* as heat alone, but it does have a negative affect.
 
Beazz
 
Quote    Reply

breaka       6/15/2009 9:39:35 PM

Beazz, 

OK, it sounded to me like you were saying it couldn't get to 30k feet in 150nm.  It may not have been your intent, but I think that is how BW understood you too.   I wouldn't say that it has to meet requirements as is or the jet sucks, since the same could be said of nearly every other fighter.  The UAE didn't settle for a standard Block 50 F-16 as it was.  They got uprated motors, bigger CFTs, AESA, IRST/FLIR internally, new ECM system etc to meet their requirements.  The Super Hornet is looking at getting a similar 20% increase in thrust to compete for sales, the F-15E got about a 20% increase in thrust going from -220 to -229 motors, as did the F-16 going from block 40s to 50s (then the -132 motors pushing up an additional 10%).  If you are getting a jet that's been in production for over 10 years, you probably want some upgrades.  Jane's indicates that the UAE is also trying to get unspecified avionics upgrades past the F3 version.  Perhaps that is adding weight and requiring more thrust.

As far as the humidity thing, you are right, I made too sweeping of a statement.  Humidity will have some effect, but not as measurably or predictably as altitude and temperature.  The other factor is that the hotter the air is, the more water vapor it can hold, thus increasing PA.  The Pilot's Encyclopedia of Aeronautical Knowledge says it better than I did:

"Humidity alone is usually not considered an important factor in calculating density altitude and airplane  performance; however it does contribute."

I've never seen an aircraft chart factor in humidity, but it will have some effect.  Still, the temperature in the UAE coastal regions average 25-30 degrees F more than Florida and is much more difficult on aircraft takeoff performance.  I have no idea what the climb requirements were for the jet, or if that was even a reason. 

Now that I've done some defending of the Raf, I want to do some bashing.  Even if it does sell to the UAE, I wouldn't take that as proof of superiority.  France has done a lot of political maneuvering and it could be a reward for putting a permanent naval base there and developing nuclear power (again, from Jane's):


"The new base - France's first in the Persian Gulf - will include a naval base and logistical base, an air base with three Mirage and Rafale jet fighters and a training camp, spread across three sites on the banks of the Strait of Hormuz, near Iran. It will house up to 500 French troops at any one time, and will make France the only Western country other than the United States to have a permanent military presence in the region. The base is designed to support French naval operations in the Gulf and Indian Ocean, making it easier to supply French ships, and is France's first overseas base to be opened in 50 years. France already has a larger military base at Djibouti on the Horn of Africa.

However, the main purpose of the base is probably diplomatic. France is a leading military supplier to the UAE; the countries signed a defence pact in 1995 and conduct some 25 joint troop manoeuvres every year. From Abu Dhabi's point of view, the establishment of the base breaks the monopoly of the US on security in the region, and the country can expect a greater commitment from France to the UAE and other countries in the region in technology and industrial programmes.

Sarkozy hopes to position France for several important defence and energy deals. The UAE plans to build a number of nuclear reactors to meet an expected need for an extra 40,000 megawatts of electricity by 2017, and Total and Suez, as well as state-run nuclear reactor maker Areva, announced that they planned to develop nuclear reactors in the UAE. Sarkozy will also be lobbying on behalf of Dassault Aviation, which is aims to sell between 60 and 100 Rafale fighter jets."

I suspect those who were sour grapes over the F-15K winning over the Rafale and blamed it on political pressure will have no problem if a similar situation helps sell there jet.  Call it a hunch.  The fact that the UAE is also trying to unload their M2K-9's/MICAs to get Rafale w/AESA & Meteor may indicate some lacking performance from one or both of the aforementioned systems.  That doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement of the MICA to me.

 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       6/16/2009 1:07:56 AM
breaka       6/15/2009 9:39:35 PM

Beazz, 

OK, it sounded to me like you were saying it couldn't get to 30k feet in 150nm.  It may not have been your intent, but I think that is how BW understood you too.
 
Don't know how you or him would think that is what I was saying. Here is exactly what I said: Any military fighter should be able to reach 30K, have a smoke, cup of coffee and discuss what the plan is over a distance that great. Seems clear to me.
 
That was in ref to this by BW: 2) they want to reach 30.000ft as fast as possible because they are less than 150nm away from the Iranian border .
 
My statement clearly says that ANY modern day fighter should be able to reach 30K in plenty of time to take whatever action they are required to take. BW's statement makes it sound as if the Rafail cannot do that.
 
  I wouldn't say that it has to meet requirements as is or the jet sucks, since the same could be said of nearly every other fighter.
 
Sorry but I simply don't agree with that analogy.
 
 The UAE didn't settle for a standard Block 50 F-16 as it was.  They got uprated motors, bigger CFTs, AESA, IRST/FLIR internally, new ECM system etc to meet their requirements. 
 
The UAE wanted all the fancy wizz bang American tech they could get. That is understandable. That does not mean they would have no part of it without it. The F16 is operated by 20 countrys as it is. The Rafail is operated by ONE. And has ZERO exports. The requirement they placed on the Rafail was a MUST have and the French have to pay for it whereas THEY paid for what they wanted on the F16/60. There is a BIG diff in saying we would like all these neat little additions and btw, WE are willing to pay to get it (American F16) OR your A/C does not meat our requirements and IF you wish to sell it to us YOU must pay for new engines and everything else we want or we will NOT buy it (French Rafail)? And oh, btw. also if you wanna sell us your plane you gotta buy back your old ones from us as well? lol I just am having a very very hard time seeing how this deal even remotely compares with the American sale of the F16's to UAE.
 
 The Super Hornet is looking at getting a similar 20% increase in thrust to compete for sales, the F-15E got about a 20% increase in thrust going from -220 to -229 motors, as did the F-16 going from block 40s to 50s (then the -132 motors pushing up an additional 10%).
 
Don't see the relevance here. Of course these a/c over time are getting upgrades. BUT they are still being sold to and operated by numerous nations with what they already have on them. Again, the Rafail is NOT. You seem to be confusing a standard policy of upgrades and enhancements over time with a MUST have right now for the very FIRST export order of the Rafail.
 
The F15,16 & 18 will no doubt get even more upgrades before they are all retired. That does not change the fact numerous nations all over the world currently operate them *as is* is my point.
 
 If you are getting a jet that's been in production for over 10 years, you probably want some upgrades.  Jane's indicates that the UAE is also trying to get unspecified avionics upgrades past the F3 version.  Perhaps that is adding weight and requiring more thrust.
 
Yea, I agree people would like all the upgrades they can afford and get. Notice they are NOT willing to pay for the French upgraded requirement? Wonder why that is? And maybe what you say as to the reason for the Rafail being REQUIRED to have a better engine is true. But that is not what BW said is my point. He's just pulling numbers and reasons out of his backside. I'd be happy to read where the UAE said what you just said. That would be understandable. Got a link maybe?

As far as the humidity thing, you are right, I made too sweeping of a statement.  Humidity will have some effect, but not as measurably or predictably as altitude and temperature.  The other factor is that the hotter the air is, the more water vapor it can hold, thus increasing PA.  The Pilot's Encyclopedia of Aeronautical Knowledge says it better than I did:

"Humidity alone is usually not considered an important factor in calculating density altitude and airplane  performance; however it does contribute."
I agree and don't think I ever implied otherwise. I simply stated it as *one* of the factors that negatively impacts a/c climbs in Florida.
 
I've never seen an aircraft chart factor in humidity, but it will have some effect.  Still, the temperature in the UAE coastal regions average 25-30 degrees F more than Florida and is much more difficult on aircraft takeoff performance.  I have no idea what the climb requirements were for the jet, or if that was even a reason. 
That is simply not so. I am not disputing the fact the mideast is hotter longer then Florida. I simply am saying they do closely compare. Temps in Florida throughout the summer range from the mid 90's to low 100's routinely. That time frame is not however as long as is the mid east and I admit that. I also agree with what you say ref NO idea what the climb requirements are OR if that is the reason. That's actually my beef with BW. NEITHER does he. Yet he is trying to act as if he knows this somehow.
 
The average temperature throughout the year is around 75°F (24°C). The summer season extends from May to October during which the temperature varies between 113°F to 122°F (30°C-47°C). (UAE)
 
I'll agree with ALL your Rafail bashing below ;-))))

Now that I've done some defending of the Raf, I want to do some bashing.  Even if it does sell to the UAE, I wouldn't take that as proof of superiority.  France has done a lot of political maneuvering and it could be a reward for putting a permanent naval base there and developing nuclear power (again, from Jane's):


"The new base - France's first in the Persian Gulf - will include a naval base and logistical base, an air base with three Mirage and Rafale jet fighters and a training camp, spread across three sites on the banks of the Strait of Hormuz, near Iran. It will house up to 500 French troops at any one time, and will make France the only Western country other than the United States to have a permanent military presence in the region. The base is designed to support French naval operations in the Gulf and Indian Ocean, making it easier to supply French ships, and is France's first overseas base to be opened in 50 years. France already has a larger military base at Djibouti on the Horn of Africa.

However, the main purpose of the base is probably diplomatic. France is a leading military supplier to the UAE; the countries signed a defence pact in 1995 and conduct some 25 joint troop manoeuvres every year. From Abu Dhabi's point of view, the establishment of the base breaks the monopoly of the US on security in the region, and the country can expect a greater commitment from France to the UAE and other countries in the region in technology and industrial programmes.

Sarkozy hopes to position France for several important defence and energy deals. The UAE plans to build a number of nuclear reactors to meet an expected need for an extra 40,000 megawatts of electricity by 2017, and Total and Suez, as well as state-run nuclear reactor maker Areva, announced that they planned to develop nuclear reactors in the UAE. Sarkozy will also be lobbying on behalf of Dassault Aviation, which is aims to sell between 60 and 100 Rafale fighter jets."

I suspect those who were sour grapes over the F-15K winning over the Rafale and blamed it on political pressure will have no problem if a similar situation helps sell there jet.  Call it a hunch.  The fact that the UAE is also trying to unload their M2K-9's/MICAs to get Rafale w/AESA & Meteor may indicate some lacking performance from one or both of the aforementioned systems.  That doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement of the MICA to me.

 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       6/16/2009 4:57:01 AM

Beazz , you are useless , sorry to say :-(

 

Since you cannot read english , do you want us to carry on this discussion in another language ?


 

Cheers .



I can't speak for Beazz, but after that post, BW, I would like to conduct a discussion with you in your native language.  Sadly, I don't speak Complete Asshole.
 
Normally I can put down your crappy attitude towards Gallic patriotism, which is fine.  But that post really crossed the line.  If I was Sysops, you'd think a Rafale had fallen on you.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy