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
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: 2009 displays of the F-22 and the Rafale
Bluewings12    6/24/2009 5:03:48 PM
Let 's watch them first :-) The F-22 h*tp://www.air-attack.com/videos/single/cAhL7lJCk4I The Rafale : h*tp://www.dailymotion.com/user/ministeredeladefense/video/x9ma8h_demonstration-du-rafale_news Both aircrafts are pulling nice stuff . Rafale only does it twice faster . Explaination and details to follow . Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
MK       7/30/2009 9:58:26 AM
What a mess over here! I have seen a lot, but this is truely the tip of the mountain or should I say ground of the sea!? It's hard to believe that some here are grown up, educated individuals while they behave like kids rather than men. Might be worth to say that I don't aim at a particular person, but the general climate here and in similar threads leaves right this impression.
 
Back to topic, I haven't read everything, but from what I've seen there are some valid arguments on both sides, though not from everyone and not on everything. As usual two parties are bashing each other, with each of them defending their POV. But this discussion is marked by the lack of understanding and knowledge about the other sides aircraft and its related technologies and capabilities, paired with national pride in the wrong place. 
 
Just a few comments on some topics which were raised here:
1.) The Rafale is certainly not of the same generation as the teens/teenskis, as the Mirage 2000 is the french counter part to those types, being designed at the same time, featuring similar technologies and capabilities.The Rafale was designed more than one decade later.
 
2.) The Rafale is certainly not a stealth aircraft like US designs such as the F-117, B-2 or F-22. It was never meant to be, but it is also wrong to assert that the signature reduction measures were all applied as an afterthought. There were clear requirements besides the AdA for reduced signatures and claiming these are useless is quite surprising as you have to ask yourself why do so many manufacturers add signature reduction measures or have included them from the design stage when they have no effect? There several reasons why the Rafale is no full stealth a/c. Costs and requirements are the most important ones. Unlike the F-117, B-2 or F-22 which were all designed as specialised aircraft for very specific missions, the Rafale was designed to replace a varity of types in a number of roles at sufficient quantity! The F-35 is in fact the first stealth a/c to be designed as a versatile multirole fighter. All previous US made stealth designs are niche aircraft, no other country can afford. 
 
3.) If some people would actually bother to calculate the static TWR values of the Rafale they would come to the conclusion that the Rafale is by no means underpowered. Engine thrust alone is no indicator.
 
4.) Regarding the capabilities of the SPECTRA's RWR, the ranging capabilities, coupled with the high accuracy and ELINT/SIGINT capabilities are in sum somewhat unique, but it has to be taken into account that the technology haven't stood still elsewere. Ranging capabilities and accuracy of other systems of that kind aren't way of at all and many of the claimed "unique" capabilities of the Rafale are in fact not unique to the aircraft and the opinion which leads to that conclusion is based on the lack of knowledge. Direction finding is something RWRs are capable of since decades, albeit the accuracy was lower than it is now adays.
 
Quote    Reply

Wingman       7/30/2009 11:54:29 AM

StevoJH    
1) Buy F-22 instead of F-35 because they think that the F-35 is crap and that the F-22 is the only thing that can match the big bad flanker.

  Well at least, performance-wise they are right.

  Looking at F-35 requiered specs one can clearly see (With the appropriate aerodynamic knowlege) that its design feature matches them.

  Then a look at its politico-industrial history tell you the rest.

  You can't expect an aircraft designed primarily for the A2G role with only A2A as secondary, with a lower celling (actually equivalent ot that of the aircraft it was designed to replace in USMC service, the Harrier II+) NO supercruise and mainly transonic to low-supersonic speeds to carry the same Kinetic energy than the Flanker, whatever version of it.

  If all the advantages enjoyed by F-22 are to be tanken into account then they also apply vs F-35.

 
StevoJH
2) Hire their company to upgrade the RAAF's F-111's into super powerful Stealth Bombers with an AESA radar or something or other.

  Not my field, i wouldn't know what the RAAF best option would be, i know too litle about it.

 

StevoJH
Thankfully the F-111's get retired this year to be replaced by Super Hornets in the Strike Role with F-35's replacing the F/A-18A+'s in the next 5-10 years with the SH's eventually replaced by F35's as well.

  I don'T think the f-35 will replace the F/A-18 it doesn't enjoy enough performances advantages to justify this not even in USN service, it will mor elikely complement it.

 

StevoJH
As an example of his opinions, the article here is a quick read (two pages of dodgy looking typing).

  I know that F-35 fans are quiet disliking koops but it is forgeting that the guy, if VERY opinionated have still more knowlege of the subject than many of us, in some fields, clearly more than me,. even so he can be accused of bein BIASED one way he still have the skills necessary to claim being a proiper analyst.

  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

MK   
What a mess over here! I have seen a lot....
  Lot of trolling you are right...

MK
But this discussion is marked by the lack of understanding and knowledge about the other sides aircraft and its related technologies and capabilities, paired with national pride in the wrong place.

 Form what i can see personaly people talk about aircraft forgeting it is AIR as an element which make them fly... 


MK
1.) The Rafale is certainly not of the same generation as the teens/teenskis, as the Mirage 2000 is the french counter part to those types, being designed at the same time, featuring similar technologies and capabilities.The Rafale was designed more than one decade later.
 
 Rafale A flew only a few years before YF-22 this hardly justifies the difference of "generations"...

2.) The Rafale is certainly not a stealth aircraft like US designs such as the F-117, B-2 or F-22. It was never meant to be.
  This is not the point.

  The definition of Low Observability can beasly be breaken down in categories and if anything, RAND, using official US datas defines F/A-18 as L.O as opposed to V.L.O for those you qyoted, Rafale is a L.O aircraft by their own definition standards.

 
MK
3.) If some people would actually bother to calculate the static TWR values of the Rafale they would come to the conclusion that the Rafale is by no means underpowered. Engine thrust alone is no indicator.

 We did this long ago, and even one better, TWR is only part of the issue, combat TWR calculated on 50% internal fuel and all AAM weapons is more realistic and actually a military standard for this.

 
MK
4.) Regarding the capabilities of the SPECTRA's RWR, the ranging capabilities, coupled with the high accuracy and ELINT/SIGINT capabilities are in sum somewhat unique...

Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       7/30/2009 1:56:02 PM
Again i dont know which thread said what but i think we all know the jist
 
A few responses
 
1 the quote that the talked about cockpits and performance and ended saying the Typhoon is superior.  the way it was quoted implys aircraft performance was meant. Im pretty sure it was merely an opinion of the cockpit.
 
Rafale being the french answer to the typhoon as quoted by a journalist means nothing, the tornado wa the RAFs equivelant to the F1-11.  Used for the same role totaly different aircraft in terms of performance.
 
A few opinions
 
Im sure i will fall foul of a few people but i personally feel that the typhoon will be a better air to air Fighter than the F 35 - thats not to degenerate the F 35 in any way shape or form but the tiffy is designed  primarilly for a2a. It has (i understand) a reasonably small RCS from the front (though in no way a stealth aircraft) and for its size a bloody great big radar.
 
Any protrusions will affect RCS - nothing with bloody great sticky out and hangy off bits will ever be stealthy or for that matter discrete.  I also find it hard to believe a RAM coating is applied to the a2a refuel probe. The terms bonding static potential differenc and arcing concern me - i may be wrong.
 
Now questions
 
1. the 2 thermal shots of rafale and Tiffy to me are meaningless the tiffy photo is much highrer quality which could mean a different camera, or weather conditions, or editing without any confirmation that conditions and hardware used were the same i do not feel comfortable drawing conclusions
 
so with that in mind  does the typhoon have an excessive thermal signature , and is it significantly higher than the rafale
 
2. RCS why is the rafale discrete (0.3M quoted on this site) the M2000 discrete (1M as quoted on this site) but the typhoon 0.5M not.
 
3. The tiffy carries the  AMRAAM in recesses on the belly (i believe to reduce drag and RCS (please confirm) does the rafale do this- im pretty sure the teens do.
 
3a I thought the typhoon could maintain supercruise with 4 amraam on the belly - is this correct or am i mistaken
 
Im not to aufait with combat aircraft so i appreciate people enlightening me.
 
4 Stealth - the f22 (alleged) and B2 have had maintainability problems regarding RAM etc am i alone here in worrying about the f35s durability - for carrier and sTOVL ops.
 
Spectra - and range / bearing accuracy  
im pretty sure all aircraft ECM systems can give a bearing, hell comercial aircraft can gain a rough bearing of +- 10 deg on a TCAS antenna (4 antenna in the arial - phase difference across them) im not sure given ths small distances between antennas on the rafale if an accurate fix as implied by BW is possible, id hate to try triangulating to get range and bearing on  a fast moving airborne set.
 
and what the fuck is interfermoretty (whatever).  Never heard of it except on here so somebody enlighten me
 
Regards
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A few responses
A few opinions
a Few questions
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       7/30/2009 2:09:42 PM
"1.) The Rafale is certainly not of the same generation as the teens/teenskis, as the Mirage 2000 is the french counter part to those types, being designed at the same time, featuring similar technologies and capabilities.The Rafale was designed more than one decade later."
 
Generations refer to technology and design philosophy.  There is a clear divide between 5th generation aircraft and 4th generation aircraft.  The Rafale is unquestionably a 4th generation aircraft, just like the Gripen, Super Hornet(also claimed by marketers to be a 5th generation plane), F-10 and Typhoon... as well as the earlier aircraft of the 4th generation.
 
2.) The Rafale is certainly not a stealth aircraft like US designs such as the F-117, B-2 or F-22. It was never meant to be, but it is also wrong to assert that the signature reduction measures were all applied as an afterthought.
 
The Rafale's signature reduction work was an extremely low priority in its design process.  That is obvious from its overall layout and lack of significant RCS reduction features.  It was simply designed too early for RCS reduction to have been considered a major design goal.  More recently Dassault's marketing department and of course an army of fanboys, have tried and tried to claim that there was some serious effort made to give the Rafale a reduced RCS, but this is simply "marketing" or in other words... 95% untrue.
 
"There were clear requirements besides the AdA for reduced signatures and claiming these are useless is quite surprising as you have to ask yourself why do so many manufacturers add signature reduction measures or have included them from the design stage when they have no effect?"
 
They have some effect.  Even incremental improvements in RCS reduction are useful, at least up to the point that external stores dominate the RCS, which is why these efforts have been made on most 4th generation fighters to one extent or another, but it is grossly inaccurate to say that France had a clear requirement for reduced signatures.  There are numerous aspects of the Rafale's layout that would simply never have been designed the way they were if that were the case.  (one of the best examples being the vertical tail)  It is like claiming that a car with a high boxy profile(think of a Hummer perhaps) was designed to be aerodynamic.  GM probably made some small effort to make the Hummer aerodynamic, but it is obvious from its design that the efforts were extremely limited and generally low priority.   That is the case with the Rafale's RCS reduction.
 
"There several reasons why the Rafale is no full stealth a/c. Costs and requirements are the most important ones. Unlike the F-117, B-2 or F-22 which were all designed as specialised aircraft for very specific missions, the Rafale was designed to replace a varity of types in a number of roles at sufficient quantity! The F-35 is in fact the first stealth a/c to be designed as a versatile multirole fighter. All previous US made stealth designs are niche aircraft, no other country can afford. "
 
This is true, but it is also important to point out that at the time the Rafale was first being designed very very little was known about the successes the US was having with stealth aircraft. The first Rafale demonstrator was finished in 1985... The F-117 was not even revealed to the world until 1988, the same year the first Rafale production orders were placed.  By that point the Rafale was simply too far along in its design to incorporate significant RCS reduction, especially considering that its engineers didn't have the benefit of the massive research and demonstrator programs that had allowed the US to create the F-117.  Even if they had WANTED to design a stealthy fighter, they didn't have the technology.
 
To put it simply, the French, like the Russians and for that matter everyone else were taken by surprise by the speed with which stealth aircraft emerged and their technology matured.  I know the fanboys here are motivated primarily by national pride and hate the thought that their country is behind the curve on such a key military technology, but making up lies about he Rafale being designed as a LO aircraft doesn't do a thing to change the facts in the real world.
 
 
3.) If some people would actually bother to calculate the static TWR values of the Rafale they would come to the conclusion that the Rafale is by no means underpowered. Engine thrust alone is no indicator.
 
Quote    Reply

MK       7/30/2009 3:58:32 PM
Generations refer to technology and design philosophy.  There is a clear divide between 5th generation aircraft and 4th generation aircraft.  The Rafale is unquestionably a 4th generation aircraft, just like the Gripen, Super Hornet(also claimed by marketers to be a 5th generation plane), F-10 and Typhoon... as well as the earlier aircraft of the 4th generation.
 
The problem today is that people define generations around some very specific things. The overall design reflects the requirements it was designed for however. There were ever differences between different aircraft of the same generation. Soviet fighters for example featured LRF, IRST, HMS and datalink when most western fighters featured neither of them. Does that mean the US designs were a generation behind? Definitely not! They had other strengthes such as glass cockpits and digital FBW in case of the F/A-18 for example, yet those aircraft were still of the same generation. Nowadays many ressort to the stealth or not stealth matter. The truth is the F-22 for example was designed with a specific mission in mind, the requirements for other aircraft of its time (Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter...) were totally different. Hence you have different aircraft suited to the needs of the respective customers. I'm steadily amused how people ignore the Mirage 2000 which is in fact an aircraft of the MiG-29s or F-16s generation and it is the precursor of the Rafale. 


The Rafale's signature reduction work was an extremely low priority in its design process.  That is obvious from its overall layout and lack of significant RCS reduction features.  It was simply designed too early for RCS reduction to have been considered a major design goal.  More recently Dassault's marketing department and of course an army of fanboys, have tried and tried to claim that there was some serious effort made to give the Rafale a reduced RCS, but this is simply "marketing" or in other words... 95% untrue.

I don't know where exactly signature reduction measures stood on the Rafale's requirement list, it certainly wasn't the top priority as it was for the F-22 for example, but it was required by the AdA and this was taken into account when the aircraft was designed. That's my point, not more not less. I think in the previous discussions here people from both sides were talking past each other and that's the problem. Just because the Rafale is no true stealth aircraft, doesn't mean the manufacturer didn't seriously tried to reduce the signatures within the design limits. The aircraft was certainly not compromised towards stealth unlike the US designs.
 They have some effect.  Even incremental improvements in RCS reduction are useful, at least up to the point that external stores dominate the RCS, which is why these efforts have been made on most 4th generation fighters to one extent or another, but it is grossly inaccurate to say that France had a clear requirement for reduced signatures.  There are numerous aspects of the Rafale's layout that would simply never have been designed the way they were if that were the case.  (one of the best examples being the vertical tail)  It is like claiming that a car with a high boxy profile(think of a Hummer perhaps) was designed to be aerodynamic.  GM probably made some small effort to make the Hummer aerodynamic, but it is obvious from its design that the efforts were extremely limited and generally low priority.   That is the case with the Rafale's RCS reduction
 
As said the AdA had such a requirement, but it seems to me people have difficulties to understand that while reduced signatures were a requirement, full allspect stealth wasn't. From frontal aspect and that's the area were most non allspect stealth designs are optimised for, a single fin is highly irrelevant, not to say better than having a twin fin. The Rafale's fin is largley made of radar transparent materials, which lower the effect, albeit it's a straight "reflector" in shape. Stealth isn't about shaping only, though it is an important part of it.
 
This is true, but it is also important to point out that at the time the Rafale was first being designed very very little was known about the successes the US was having with stealth aircraft. The first Rafale demonstrator was finished in 1985... The F-117 was not even revealed to the world until 1988, the same year the first Rafal
 
Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       7/30/2009 4:23:02 PM


Generations refer to technology and design philosophy.  There is a clear divide between 5th generation aircraft and 4th generation aircraft.  The Rafale is unquestionably a 4th generation aircraft, just like the Gripen, Super Hornet(also claimed by marketers to be a 5th generation plane), F-10 and Typhoon... as well as the earlier aircraft of the 4th generation.

 

The problem today is that people define generations around some very specific things. The overall design reflects the requirements it was designed for however. There were ever differences between different aircraft of the same generation. Soviet fighters for example featured LRF, IRST, HMS and datalink when most western fighters featured neither of them. Does that mean the US designs were a generation behind? Definitely not! They had other strengthes such as glass cockpits and digital FBW in case of the F/A-18 for example, yet those aircraft were still of the same generation. Nowadays many ressort to the stealth or not stealth matter. The truth is the F-22 for example was designed with a specific mission in mind, the requirements for other aircraft of its time (Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter...) were totally different. Hence you have different aircraft suited to the needs of the respective customers. I'm steadily amused how people ignore the Mirage 2000 which is in fact an aircraft of the MiG-29s or F-16s generation and it is the precursor of the Rafale. 






The Rafale's signature reduction work was an extremely low priority in its design process.  That is obvious from its overall layout and lack of significant RCS reduction features.  It was simply designed too early for RCS reduction to have been considered a major design goal.  More recently Dassault's marketing department and of course an army of fanboys, have tried and tried to claim that there was some serious effort made to give the Rafale a reduced RCS, but this is simply "marketing" or in other words... 95% untrue.




I don't know where exactly signature reduction measures stood on the Rafale's requirement list, it certainly wasn't the top priority as it was for the F-22 for example, but it was required by the AdA and this was taken into account when the aircraft was designed. That's my point, not more not less. I think in the previous discussions here people from both sides were talking past each other and that's the problem. Just because the Rafale is no true stealth aircraft, doesn't mean the manufacturer didn't seriously tried to reduce the signatures within the design limits. The aircraft was certainly not compromised towards stealth unlike the US designs.







 They have some effect.  Even incremental improvements in RCS reduction are useful, at least up to the point that external stores dominate the RCS, which is why these efforts have been made on most 4th generation fighters to one extent or another, but it is grossly inaccurate to say that France had a clear requirement for reduced signatures.  There are numerous aspects of the Rafale's layout that would simply never have been designed the way they were if that were the case.  (one of the best examples being the vertical tail)  It is like claiming that a car with a high boxy profile(think of a Hummer perhaps) was designed to be aerodynamic.  GM probably made some small effort to make the Hummer aerodynamic, but it is obvious from its design that the efforts were extremely limited and generally low priority.   That is the case with the Rafale's RCS reduction


 

As said the AdA had such a requirement, but it seems to me people have difficulties to understand that while reduced signatures were a requirement, full allspect stealth wasn't. From frontal aspect and that's the area were most non allspect stealth designs are optimised for, a single fin is highly irrelevant, not to say better than having a twin fin. The Rafale's fin is largley made of radar transparent materi
 
Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       7/30/2009 4:27:19 PM


Generations refer to technology and design philosophy.  There is a clear divide between 5th generation aircraft and 4th generation aircraft.  The Rafale is unquestionably a 4th generation aircraft, just like the Gripen, Super Hornet(also claimed by marketers to be a 5th generation plane), F-10 and Typhoon... as well as the earlier aircraft of the 4th generation.

 

The problem today is that people define generations around some very specific things. The overall design reflects the requirements it was designed for however. There were ever differences between different aircraft of the same generation. Soviet fighters for example featured LRF, IRST, HMS and datalink when most western fighters featured neither of them. Does that mean the US designs were a generation behind? Definitely not! They had other strengthes such as glass cockpits and digital FBW in case of the F/A-18 for example, yet those aircraft were still of the same generation. Nowadays many ressort to the stealth or not stealth matter. The truth is the F-22 for example was designed with a specific mission in mind, the requirements for other aircraft of its time (Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter...) were totally different. Hence you have different aircraft suited to the needs of the respective customers. I'm steadily amused how people ignore the Mirage 2000 which is in fact an aircraft of the MiG-29s or F-16s generation and it is the precursor of the Rafale. 






The Rafale's signature reduction work was an extremely low priority in its design process.  That is obvious from its overall layout and lack of significant RCS reduction features.  It was simply designed too early for RCS reduction to have been considered a major design goal.  More recently Dassault's marketing department and of course an army of fanboys, have tried and tried to claim that there was some serious effort made to give the Rafale a reduced RCS, but this is simply "marketing" or in other words... 95% untrue.




I don't know where exactly signature reduction measures stood on the Rafale's requirement list, it certainly wasn't the top priority as it was for the F-22 for example, but it was required by the AdA and this was taken into account when the aircraft was designed. That's my point, not more not less. I think in the previous discussions here people from both sides were talking past each other and that's the problem. Just because the Rafale is no true stealth aircraft, doesn't mean the manufacturer didn't seriously tried to reduce the signatures within the design limits. The aircraft was certainly not compromised towards stealth unlike the US designs.







 They have some effect.  Even incremental improvements in RCS reduction are useful, at least up to the point that external stores dominate the RCS, which is why these efforts have been made on most 4th generation fighters to one extent or another, but it is grossly inaccurate to say that France had a clear requirement for reduced signatures.  There are numerous aspects of the Rafale's layout that would simply never have been designed the way they were if that were the case.  (one of the best examples being the vertical tail)  It is like claiming that a car with a high boxy profile(think of a Hummer perhaps) was designed to be aerodynamic.  GM probably made some small effort to make the Hummer aerodynamic, but it is obvious from its design that the efforts were extremely limited and generally low priority.   That is the case with the Rafale's RCS reduction


 

As said the AdA had such a requirement, but it seems to me people have difficulties to understand that while reduced signatures were a requirement, full allspect stealth wasn't. From frontal aspect and that's the area were most non allspect stealth designs are optimised for, a single fin is highly irrelevant, not to say better than having a twin fin. The Rafale's fin is largley made of radar transparent materi
 
Quote    Reply

MK       7/30/2009 4:43:20 PM
I think spectras issue is parts obsolecance - seems to be a problem with a few systems.
 
If you take it serious every aircraft is effected by parts obsolence to a more or lesser extend. I don't see the SPECTRA suffering extraordinarily from that part obsolence in comparison to the systems of other types. This system includes some technologies and capabilities, which combined exceed that of many competors. Take the digital RWR with large frequency coverage (2-40 GHz), interfereometry and ELINT/SIGINT capabilities or the ECM with AESA and DRFM. Or the combination of radar, IR and laser warning devices. Not every piece of the SPECTRA is extraordinary, but in sum the system seems to be quite impressive, at least on paper. And from what I gathered the customer as well as foreign evaluators were quite impressed by the system.
 

 

 

 

 



 
 
Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       7/30/2009 4:51:08 PM
i appreciate what your saying but the rafale does appear to have managed it before it entered service
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       7/30/2009 5:15:22 PM
 

usajoe1      
Nobody in Europe wants it, they are either flying the Typhoon or the Gripen, and are waiting for a real 5th gen fighter, the F-35.

  The F/A-18 for example? Because just in case you didn't realise it yet, the famous "Generation" thing is muchmore of a commercial argument than anythnig else, Boeing advertises their F/A-18s are 5th generation.
Who is talking about the SH? Why would they buy the SH when they are producing their own fighters like the Typhoon and Gripen. Now the Hornet family has been exported to many coutries and the latest SH is entering service in Australia, and has a good chance at winning in India and Brazil, so the Hornet has been very successful in the export market. Now, as far as the Generation thing goes, it does matter. A 5th gen fighter is a true stealth fighter like the F-22 and the F-35. The Typhoon, SH, Rafale, and Gripen are all still 4th gen fighters.

usajoe1
 While good old France is going to be the lone operator of  the Rafale.

  If you nkew about the technologies involved in these aircraft you would understand that for our forces it doesn't matter the slightest, even a Mirage 2000 Mk2/9 have more advanced systems than the Typhoon T3, only the Gripen NG can compare with the Rafale F2/F3s.
The Mirage 2000 mk2/9 has more advanced systems than the Typhoon T3. LOL! proof please!

It doesn't matter the slightests if France is the sole operator of Rafale as long as the aircraft is more advanced than the competition and it is, best example; 5th generation core system architecture.

The Rafale is not the most advanced in its competition. It can not supercruise, and its radar is not as powerful as the Typhoon's, nor those it have the a2a missiles of the Typhoon, which combined with the Typhoons HMS, give it the edge in BVR and WVR combat. Where the Rafale is better than the Typhoon is in the deep strike package. In this area it has an advantage on almost all the 4th gen fighters, except the SH. The SH is the only 4th gen fighter that has an advantage today against the Rafale In a2a and a2g. The AESA radar, AIM-120, AIM-9X, HMS, powerful ECM suite, much larger paylod, of SO weapons, give it the edge against any other MR fighter out there today.
 

usajoe1
In Asia it already lost to BW's (barndoor) F-15 twice. S. Korea and Singapore.

 While being the techgnologic winner, so at the end of the day the problem remians the same.
Proof please!

 

usajoe1
There is only Libya that might buy a dozen or so.

  Switzerland, Brazil, the EAU, India and a few more...
If you read my whole post, you would of seen that I said the UAE was most likely going to get the Rafale, and Brazil also had a chance. There is almost no chance India will buy the Rafale.


 
usajoe1
Than again if the Rafale had a more powerful radar, HMS, a targeting pod, more powerful engines, better a2a missiles on time, and did not cost an arm and a leg it would not be in this situation.

  For your information:

Rafale is the only European fighter to have an AESA radar developed AND ordered for production.

Really! have you heard of the Captor-E AESA radar? which will be in the Typhoons, in about the same time the Rafale gets its AESA radar, around 2011-12.

  The Damocles pod will be in service at year end and the NG version has alredy been tested vith PGMs.
How many years behind the SH, Typhoon, F-16,15 and Gripen? not a smart move for the export market.

  HMD is available for any customers wanting it, the fact that the French forces doesn't invest in it doesn't mean it doesn't have one.

The Sukhoi, Mig, SH, Typhoon, Teens and the Gripen were offering a fully developed systems years ago, where was the Rafale? another bad export move. Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics