Oh, really.  I guess that explains why Australian F/A-18s use ASRAAMs, Japanese F-15s use Japanese AAMs, and Israeli F-15s and F-16s use their respective indigenous AAMs.  I'm sure there are other examples, these are just the ones that leap to mind.  Meanwhile not a single French fighter uses a foreign AAM.

Reading back, I now see I misunderstood what BW was trying to say there.  What he actually said was even dumber than what I thought he said.

 

A fleet of Block 60s has more-modern systems in every category -- radar, EW, SP jammers, working IRST and FLIR, HMS, and AESA with all of the nice navigation and automatic terrain following features, not to mention integrating every weapon in the U.S. arsenal.  They have greater range and are more surviveable due to their better weapons and sensors in BVR and WVR.  And unlike the Rafale, the Block 60s can do SEAD, OCA, and every form of strike from anti-tank to CAS.

 

Which is not to say that Block 60s are all you need -- ideally you would partner them with AEW, offensive EW, and dedicated ELINT platforms -- but that is true of any tactical fighter.  On the other hand, they can do so many more types of missions than the Rafale that the support requirements pale in comparison.

Slight correction, Phaid.  Older Mirage III/5s are equipped with Sidewinders, and I believe the Mirage F.1 can carry them as well (though most use Magics).  Now if you're referring to AdA Mirages, then no, but export Mirages can and do carry Sidewinders.

 

What I don't understand is, and maybe someone can correct me here, why can't the Rafale carry something besides Mica? Whatever your opinion on the Mica vs. AMRAAM, it makes sense to me to be able to carry your allies' missiles in case supplies get tight. 

 

 

That's true.  I was actually trying to think of a concise way to say "recent / in-production" but was too tired so I gave up and forged ahead.

correction: (brain fart and a loss in translation) should be:

 

First of all, apologise for the length of my post. But much had to be said.

 

Second: insults are not going to convince me I'm wrong, quite the opposite. Please stick to cartesian arguments.

 

Third: I gather from the comments of Herald and Co that you Rafale bashers are tech oriented (engineers etc) with access to inside info on US jets and/or Typhoon. I'm the opposite: military fighter and tester with inside knowledge of the Rafale. So I do know my stuff, with a different perspective. So you might challenge my data when we get in specific details on US hardware but I have read enormous amounts of unfounded assertions concerning Rafale's techno level, which is obviously very much underestimated. Whether by lack of recent info or straightforward hostility, I prefer not to try and guess. E.g. of course I know the difference between bolting on a pod and doing a clean integration. We have moved in recent years from solutions 1 to 2, the development is funded and well under way and =to my knowledge= (I might be off a couple of months either direction) it is qualified although not yet fielded - just a question of deliveries and fleet configuration management (not to mention ? flow).

I made a point about optimisation, any engineer will understand. My comment about antenna size was intentionally provocative. What I meant was:

1. depending on the numbers, better have a small and powerful antenna than a big lousy one. Total efficiency is what counts, not one isolated factor

2. it's no use having an antenna the size of an E-3 field if you then can't land the aircraft properly or end up having the agility of an airliner. Conclusion : the bigger the better is true only up to a point and there is no ideal size, the compromise depends on your mission requirements. Typhoon is mostly AtA focused hence big dish, Rafale is more diversified plus has the carrier reqts., hence smaller dish. Typhoon sees better at very long range (beyond missile range) but Rafale is much more comfortable at the merge, when range is not an issue but multi target tracking is.

MMI: I used to know the Rafale's inside out (including in flight, not only in ppt presentations or from aviation week) and still remember a lot. F-22 : I happened to get a ride in a demo sim at Lockheed Martin Marietta a couple of years ago. Certainly not production representative and void of any classified stuff. But it does give away the general philosophy : to me it was more an evolved version of an F/A 18 (have flown it) type, with nice big colour MFDs and a lot of pushbuttons all around, than some of the really innovative solutions tested on Rafale. In the latter case you get a much cleaner cockpit, less buttons and less screens, and a lot of work put into the way info is displayed, hence much more easy to process during fight.

 

Last comment before I go to sleep: Reco NG is NOT a laser designation pod, but a world class recce pod event he US doesn't have. Buffoonery to be avoided.

 

Cheers to all and see you all soon