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

typo error

Rafale is obviously a good plane for french requirements.  those requirements do not appear to have relevance for any other potential buyer at this point in time.  

The world is not anti-french.  They will buy french kit when there is tactical, strategic, political and economic sense to do so.

The French (Dassault) should have stuck with their partners (Eurofighter)and TYPHOON as they originally agreed. But 1%ers (Mitterand) and Gallic pride.left France with the SQUALL.

 

Sarkozy understands this. He has a long struggle on his hands to overcome the de Gaulle burden. 

 

French taxpayers didn't even get that for what they paid.

 

The Mirage 2000-5 isn't that bad an aircraft. Its a very good aircraft. Its old, though, and needs replacement. The RAFALE compared to it is hardly as much an improvement as the SUPER HORNET is to the HORNET. THAT is what galls me-that for a program that cost twice what the SUPER HORNET actually cost over its life to the present, that Dassault has produced such a pierce of underachievement.^1    

 

What is the excuse? ARIANESPACE produced the ARIANE 5-a very good satellite launcher. The M-51 Mer-Sol-Balistique-Stratégique is a great technical achievement. No failures in that rocket so far. 

 

What is the excuse for the RAFALE with this kind of track record?  None.

Herald

 

^1 merde

 

Even from the standpoint of someone who is merely a military enthusiast, it is so obvious that in today's environment of limited military budgets that issues such as risk management and cost containment are paramount. 

 

With all due respect to the French and as much as I appreciate the fine lines of the Rafale, it would be extremely difficult for a country such as Canada to purchase it when one considers such issues as interoperability with allies, familiarity with existing systems, commonality of parts, etc.  It is fine and good to speak of potential and future developments but what is the point when other planes already have proven capabilities and integrated systems.   If Canada were to purchase the Rafale, what is the justification for the added cost and potential risk of integrating existing inventory items such as AIM-9, AIM-120, JDAM, LGBs, Mavericks, and Nitehawk targeting pods? 

 

And when comparing the Rafale to the JSF, it is a virtual nobrainer if one has the budget when one considers the level of systems integration that was designed from the outset for things like a helmet mounted sight, helmet display, AESA, the amazing array of sensors built into the aircraft, stealth,  etc.  It is one thing to bluesky (sic) about potential capabilities, but in the real world practical factors come into play and as others have pointed out one is purchasing an entire system and it is reassuring to know beforehand that the system works.

So much has been said since yesterday , I just can 't answer everything ...(sorry)

 

Herald :

""Man machine interface......that is a joke. An obsolete pit by 1980s standards versus 21st Century distributed information""

 

So , you say that the Rafale 's pit is obsolete by 1980s standards ???

What are you smoking again ?

""versus 21st Century distributed information""

 

lol Herald ! Check if the F-22 has voice recognition and touch screen technology , then check how work the right stick on the F-22 , then check the one on Rafale . Does the F-22 Pilot has an integrated "match-stick" used as a PC mouse to switch from screen to screen , weapons to weapons , radar modes to radar modes , change the Autopilot on the fly , etc  ?..

Nope .

Then , the avionic integration is of the same generation on both aircrafts . The "Net Concentric Circle" managed through sensors and ECMs is present on Rafale too . We also have a 360 deg EM/EW coverage and the F3 will also bring the 360 deg IR coverage . But since we have an excellent interferrometry technology coupled with some extremely strong ECM algorythms , it 's not 2moro that a missile will hit a Rafale .



Phaid :

""Finally, as far as "FrNavy and FAF never meeting anything like SPECTRA", the M2000-9 already have a system that even Thales states is better than Spectra.""

 

The ICMS MarkIII capabilities (onboard the M2000-9) has been updated and integrated into the lastest version of SPECTRA (less than a year ago if I remember well) . I 'll look for the official paper and post it there in a short time .

 

""Tell you what, you provide evidence for your assertions about the F-22's MMI being inferior to Rafale's, and I'll provide links about this.  Of course the difference is I actually can.""



Well , let 's see them Phaid ...

 

Phaid :

""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.""

 

Unusually , you are wrong on almost all calls . To start with , the F-16 with stores is a barndoor and it cannot compete on the RCS factor . Secondly , RBE2 will get a clear lock onto it and will never loose it , wich is not the case for the Blk 60 because the ECMs on the Viper simply can 't compete with SPECTRA . Where and when the F-16 will be shot , the Rafale will go through while killing the opposition if needed . It is as siimple as that . Now , regarding the automatic terrain following , the Rafale is way ahead . While the F-16 is a very old airframe built primarly as a slow to fast A2A platform , the Rafale is the best low flyier around (by miles) and its avionics are superiors when flying low level (which is also true at high altitude) .

Phaid , the F-16 Blk 60 can 't reach Moscow . Rafale can and has been built for , it even has the Nukes to go with .

 

Before to carry on answering your posts , let me tell you one thing Gents :

Many of us are internet fans , some are knowledgeable , some have nothing to do with the military , some have been in the Forces (or still are) , some are Google addicts , some are working in a field and can speak with ease in few subjects , some are just interested and they are reading with interest , others are people in the know .

 

JP Bergerac is obviously one of them . I know it because I recognize the talk . I have been in the French AirForce long enough to "click" on JP . As He said , he 's not an engineerer but who do you think He is ? Anyone of you is a Fighter Pilot who flew on M2000 , Hornet or Rafale ???

 

This is why I said to Him in the first place "maybe you shouldn 't be there" .

The difference is enormous in between what people read on the internet and what the real life is . I can surely talk about Commando Ops because I was in charge and I had Troopers (friends) under my command and I can tell some stories while I can 't speak about others , but I 'm not a Pilot . I know the Rafale well enough and I have some good friends who are sometimes friendly enough to discu