No you don't; or you wouldn't have made the basic  physics mistakes you made.


Simpler plane interface is not better. We have to integrate a lot of decison making into the Super Hornet. Plus the Rafale doesn't have much of a pilot assistant artilect to help the pilot does he? Stores management being a shortcoming in that regard. you flew in a groundside gameboy version of the RAPTOR? I'm not impressed by that.. 


The datalink failed. I wonder why?

"Please stick to cartesian arguments."

 

Cartesian logic. 

 

You FAIL. 

 

I demonstrate provable knowledge by giving you easily verifiable evidence. You assert. I know your assertions are wrong because they do not match physical reality. PHYSICS to me is a verifiable repeatable observable phenomenon driven science. When you speak nonsense therefore. I KNOW it.    

 

Herald.

 

 

 

 

 

I got lost in the techiespeak.  The Rafale isn't designed to work with the E-2?  I'm assuming that's what Herald meant.  That makes no sense at all.

 

But it is not designed to hand-off to HAWKEYE and through HAWKEYE to the task force add to the overall task force  battle-space picture. Super Hornet is designed to be eyes as well as a directed shooter..

 

To clarify:

 

The naval strike fighter always gets the biggest radar it can carry so that it can air and surface search as far as it can. So when an "expert" claims the RBE2 was chosen to maximize its performance in the mid-range merge and in the multiple target track environment  I guffaw. Interval detect threshhold is important to maximize usable fly-out of weapons. Whether or not you have HAWKEYE compatibilty you still need own tracking capability to use the A2A or A2G weapon that you launch ahaoinst a maneuvering target. For the RAFALE this means that the SARH or RS rocket is matched to the radar as it means for every strike fighter. In sum, you can look at the aircraft radar to see if it can use a certain family of weapons.  

 

The RBE2 as stated can see an FA-18 sized and shaped object at roughly 100-150 kilometers at 5000 meters altitude clear dry air. This effectively limits A2A ordnance to a designed rocket with about 8 seconds burn to velocities of 800-1100 meters per second.  Given that this yields a maximum range in  the pop-up launch of about 80,000 meters and a maximum MER of 60,000 meters head-on pass, its no wonder that the most likely comparisomn to MICA is either Python 5 or ASRAAM and that comparison to thbe MICA IR and that to MICA IR unfavorably. 

 

A2G the RAFALE comes out better, at least versus fixed targets. The RBE2 was supposed to get some help from the OSF for ground attack but that system proved degradable and inferior to the American  introduced laser targeting pods. The Rafale curiously should be able to use ATLIS and PDLCT, but I've not seen this. . 

 

Hence DAMOCLES. Decent tech. That pod will shortly show up on Russian Sukhois, probably this year. Hence THALES will profit by more STOLEN US tech and we will face our own developed tech on Chinese J-11s shortly.. 

 

Note that the Russians will have it force wide before the French will? 

 

Anyway with such avionics addons, some of the new build RAFALES will finally be able to hit moving (ship sized) targets at up to 45,000 meters from high altitude (about 15,000 meters) with their own French rocket boosted laser guided weapons. Otherwise its EXOCET, SCALP, or APACHE and its against a fixed target.. 

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

Strategic or tactical reconnaissance imaging (RECO NG) pods, do nothing for you in this regard. In fact those are the wrong kind of tools when you seek to MAP an IADS as those do nothing to establish a signals library or allow you to plot by ESM enemy  signal emitters. SPECTRA self-protection jamming is a very poor substitute for a genuine EW system or EW aircraft (escort GROWLERs and ) . One thing is certain. RAFALES will outfly their current iteration HAWKEYE ESM coverage and will never have SENTRY support except in metro France, unless the US/NATO supplies it.

 

All, the pieces of the puzzle means all the poeces of the puzzle.  AN/ALQ-218(V)s (antennas, processors and software) +AN/ALQ 99s (offensive EW jammers and spoofers) for example in a dedicated escort EW aircraft-which is just ONE small piece of the puzzle...

   

Herald

This claim makes no sense.

 

Can you name a fighter that has had it's performance compromised by the size of it's radar? It's the overall aerodynamics of the airframe that determine the performance, not the size of it's radar. If you stick a big radar in, you adjust the aerodynamics of the airframe to match. The SR-71 was a huge aircraft and it's still the fastest jet ever built.

 

The US has successfully operated quite large radars on the F-4 (roughly 70cm) and F-14s (71 cm) off of carriers and they were both excellent aircraft. Numerous US carrier aircraft have been physically far larger than the Rafale and they worked just fine.

 

Smaller has no inherent virtues in radars. The Rafale may have need to be small to fit on your carriers, but that's basically just a liability.

To me it seems that the Rafale was designed to specific French requirements with French technological limits in mind and also to gain the M2000 export market share as well as what could be siphoned off from the F-16 and Mig-29 market. IN that regard it is a mid weight multirole strike platform with respectable capabilities for nations with limited resources who can't field dedicated EW escort birds or afford dedicated mission specific fighters. Because of that and it's size there are obvious compromises. The problem for the Rafale is that the French have had a hell of a time with some of the key technologies involved and cant keep the cost of the platform low enough to be competitive in the market.

I have no doubt that when protecting the CdG or French forces against opponents like the Ivory Coast or making punitive strikes against known fixed targets in places like Algeria, defending France proper against small airspace violations, bombing Taliban or conducting anti piracy operations the Rafale would do its job well. But against a higher level threat, and there aren't many, the Rafale is going to have to work within the framework of an alliance to defend French foreign interest. Otherwise, attrition will be much higher and capability would be very limited. The effectiveness of the CdG small Rafale compliment is militarily insignificant outside of a punative publicity strike unless they deployed nuclear weapons and the CdG is effectively incapable of operation anywhere near a credible land based threat with it's small fighter compliment. All red air has to do is schedule their sorties right and the few Rafales would be overworked to the point of the CdG having to pull back out of range which would kill any offensive momentum for the French. Then, due to relative parity with aircraft like Mig-29, F-16, Su-27 the Rafale squadron would be incapable of sustaining a air campaigh due to attrition.

Think about it. If France had to attack along the Pakistani coast, those 18 AMRAAM armed F-16s it will be getting would be a significant challenge. Granted, France has a lot of other means to deal with such threats such as possible SOF raid or other operation to ground them at the key moment but it is by no means an easy thing. In other words, the CdG relying on it's Rafales would have far fewer options than a US CVN relying on it's F/A-18E/F squadrons. There are differences at both the platform and systems level. 

-DA 

 

Minor correction, which takes away nothing from the excellent point you are making: the F-14's radar (AWG-9 and APG-71) had a 36" diameter, or about 91cm.

 

The F/A-18 also has a 70cm radar and obviously operates from carriers as well.

I am amazed by such hatred and aggresivity. 

Same s*it, different topic

Bla bla bla french Rafale sux, Leclerc sux, famas milan aster crotale cobra fremm CDG sux...

boring

Y'all never get BW to admit he's wrong (in your opinion), and BW you'll never get Herald and the other to admit Rafale is a decent plane (in your opinion). 

And I don't know enough about this topic (Rafale, MICA, etc) to give my opinion...im just trying to learn something here and its hard considering the amount of different information and interpretations.

Of course what you say is true (maybe because the Rafale is 10y late), though it might change in 2009 with Brazil, Switzerland or UAE. 

However you CANNOT deny that arms sales are also VERY political and include a lot of negociation "under the table" (and im not saying France never did that). Its not a good criterion IMO. 

Finally, im not saying the Rafale is a good plane, nor a bad plane. Again, I don't know enough. I like the idea of a polyvalent plane (is that the right word?), but i think having different planes for different missions was also good (Mirage 2000-5 + SEM + Mirage F1 just to name a few). 

But i don't see any other plane than the Rafale for the AdA and MN

Let's look at the current market, what should we have bought instead of Rafale?? Aging Super Hornets for the CDG + Typhoon for a2a + F16 for a2g ??  Let's not talk about F-35 until we see it fly (though it would be funny if France actually bought F-35, dont you think?)

Please give me a convenient solution ! (again, im here to learn) 

Of course what you say is true (maybe because the Rafale is 10y late), though it might change in 2009 with Brazil, Switzerland or UAE. 

However you CANNOT deny that arms sales are also VERY political and include a lot of negociation "under the table" (and im not saying France never did that). Its not a good criterion IMO. 

Finally, im not saying the Rafale is a good plane, nor a bad plane. Again, I don't know enough. I like the idea of a polyvalent plane (is that the right word?), but i think having different planes for different missions was also good (Mirage 2000-5 + SEM + Mirage F1 just to name a few). 

But i don't see any other plane than the Rafale for the AdA and MN

Let's look at the current market, what should we have bought instead of Rafale?? Aging Super Hornets for the CDG + Typhoon for a2a + F16 for a2g ??  Let's not talk about F-35 until we see it fly (though it would be funny if France actually bought F-35, dont you think?)

Please give me a convenient solution ! (again, im here to learn) 

No one says, "Rafale 'sux.'"  What the debate is about is how good it is.  Now BW has it beating F-Teens, and F-35's and doing all sorts of amazing things...things that aren't, apparently, within its technologic capabilities.

 

It's not about getting BW to admit the plane sux...or getting Herald to say it doesn't suck, he DOES say that, BTW.

 

Example, you're dating someone...you claim this person is Brad Pitt/Anna Nicole Smith (non-fat version)...we say, no but s/he is very pretty/handsome.  You spend the next three hours trying to demonstrate that your partner is Helen of Troy/Alexander the Great...that's what's going on here.

 

BW says that the Rafale rates about a 9 on a scale of 10...whilst the others say, it's about 7.5 to 8.0....

Of course what you say is true (maybe because the Rafale is 10y late), though it might change in 2009 with Brazil, Switzerland or UAE. 

However you CANNOT deny that arms sales are also VERY political and include a lot of negociation "under the table" (and im not saying France never did that). Its not a good criterion IMO. 

Finally, im not saying the Rafale is a good plane, nor a bad plane. Again, I don't know enough. I like the idea of a polyvalent plane (is that the right word?), but i think having different planes for different missions was also good (Mirage 2000-5 + SEM + Mirage F1 just to name a few). 

But i don't see any other plane than the Rafale for the AdA and MN

Let's look at the current market, what should we have bought instead of Rafale?? Aging Super Hornets for the CDG + Typhoon for a2a + F16 for a2g ??  Let's not talk about F-35 until we see it fly (though it would be funny if France actually bought F-35, dont you think?)

Please give me a convenient solution ! (again, im here to learn) 

Again, I don't know enough. I like the idea of a polyvalent plane (is that the right word?),

 

I think Multi-Role is the word you are looking for. IE. capable of performing A/G, A/A, etc...

 

But i don't see any other plane than the Rafale for the AdA and MN

I think you are underestimating the SuperHornet or at least the E/F models. They have almost everything the Rafale is supposed to have, like an AESA radar now (not in 2012), reduced radar signature, there's a E/W variant (EA-18G) that has to be far superior to SPECTRA, etc...

However you CANNOT deny that arms sales are also VERY political and include a lot of negociation "under the table" (and im not saying France never did that). Its not a good criterion IMO. 

But i don't see any other plane than the Rafale for the AdA and MN 

Probably not, but no one is saying that the french should buy anything else.  they obviously are commited to build and develop locally and thats fine

 

Let's look at the current market, what should we have bought instead of Rafale?? Aging Super Hornets for the CDG + Typhoon for a2a + F16 for a2g ??  Let's not talk about F-35 until we see it fly (though it would be funny if France actually bought F-35, dont you think?)

The F-35 has flown a number of times, it's at 80% of its software development and the first 4 USN ships are in production