I was able to read first 30 pages of this topic,but I gave up before I have finished all 39 pages. I have a question, do you really think that you have to have Spectra,ALQ-165,AESA and all of this sophisticated stuff to bomb talibans?  99% of last 15 years military actions is against enemies which are usually without any chances and nobody expects war with China or Russia.  You were talking for 20 pages about MICA vs AMRAAM, but for example in Cosovo I don't think that any Fulcrum was destroyed from more than 30km so what's the point of the disscusion if MICA's range is 50 or 80km? You were talking about no exports for Rafale, but I think you forgot that choosing a fighter is 90% political decision. It was obvious that for example South Corea would choose american bird, because they got aircraft which was good enough for them and the best possible political benefits. It is quite pointless to disscuss F-22 vs Rafale because for 99,9%  if they would ever meet on battlefield they would be on the same side.You won't be able to compare any 2 planes as long as you take under consideration pilot's factor. In Poland during exercises F-16 block 52+ is facing Mig-29 Fulcrum (version 9-12) and although on paper the Fulcrum should be without any chances it appears that in real live it is quite equal fight and it's  funny, but the biggest dream of  Mig's pilots is to get SMT version of it. I think it's bullshit that Rafale is "pedestrian bomb truck" and it's quite similar to the Air Power Australia propaganda about F-35 or SH and also I think that the statement that Rafale is "the best dogfighter in the world" is a bullshit as well . It's quite safe to say that Typhoon, Rafale and SH are capable of doing all missions required by today's battlefield and their performance against each other would be quite equal in most situations.The fact that Rafale's RCS is 0,2m bigger or smaller of Typhoon's one is quite meaningless to the Mig's 21 pilot from North Korea who won't be able  to detect both of them from more than 10km. By the way, I'm not French, I'm from Poland. Have fun for another 30 pages

 

I can understand the general tone of your comment, but how about while we consider whether we need our latest jets, you consider if Poland really needs F-16s or MiG-29s?  We're all NATO now, and after all nobody expects war with Russia, so why should Poland waste money on an air force at all?  Who are you going to fight with it?

 

I was able to read first 30 pages of this topic,but I gave up before I have finished all 39 pages. I have a question, do you really think that you have to have Spectra,ALQ-165,AESA and all of this sophisticated stuff to bomb talibans?  99% of last 15 years military actions is against enemies which are usually without any chances and nobody expects war with China or Russia.  You were talking for 20 pages about MICA vs AMRAAM, but for example in Cosovo I don't think that any Fulcrum was destroyed from more than 30km so what's the point of the disscusion if MICA's range is 50 or 80km? You were talking about no exports for Rafale, but I think you forgot that choosing a fighter is 90% political decision. It was obvious that for example South Corea would choose american bird, because they got aircraft which was good enough for them and the best possible political benefits. It is quite pointless to disscuss F-22 vs Rafale because for 99,9%  if they would ever meet on battlefield they would be on the same side.You won't be able to compare any 2 planes as long as you take under consideration pilot's factor. In Poland during exercises F-16 block 52+ is facing Mig-29 Fulcrum (version 9-12) and although on paper the Fulcrum should be without any chances it appears that in real live it is quite equal fight and it's  funny, but the biggest dream of  Mig's pilots is to get SMT version of it. I think it's bullshit that Rafale is "pedestrian bomb truck" and it's quite similar to the Air Power Australia propaganda about F-35 or SH and also I think that the statement that Rafale is "the best dogfighter in the world" is a bullshit as well . It's quite safe to say that Typhoon, Rafale and SH are capable of doing all missions required by today's battlefield and their performance against each other would be quite equal in most situations.The fact that Rafale's RCS is 0,2m bigger or smaller of Typhoon's one is quite meaningless to the Mig's 21 pilot from North Korea who won't be able  to detect both of them from more than 10km. By the way, I'm not French, I'm from Poland. Have fun for another 30 pages

Incidentally, the Fulcrum's chief defect is that it falls apart, not that it can't get the job done. One more thing: if you are a bomb truck, then you  are expected to enter any of the late model Russian radar and SAM IADS networks and exploit its seams. If your aircraft  can't do that, then you murder pilots. Guess what the Rafale can't do without expensive and scarce French standoff weapons and MASSIVE ASSISTANCE from allied aircraft like Typhoon and Gripen and yes the F-series jets from the US?

By the way, good luck with ASTER! You'll need it.

 

Herald

 

The reason these threads are so long is purely that people here refuse to let a bunch of ignorant french people post fake propoganda about their favourite plane.

 

I think people feel compelled to reply to this becuase otherwise It just ends up with Bluewings beating off post after post with lies, propoganda, and total ignorance.

 

I think it is a credit to this forum that people go out of their way to spend time correcting these r-tards and producing weighted arguments that will in the days and months ahead provide people with a more balanaced, less teenage mastabatory perspective here.

 

Remember, the french are able to take credit for the liberation of Paris and France without mentioning the US or American troops that actually did 99 percent of the work, they are able to delude themselves that they as a nation  exemplified the tradition of defiance, no nation demonstrates such a propensity to live in a self-made dream world that ignores all observable reality. If Germany put such a spin on history there would be a worldwide outcry.

And that's why this post is so long..  By the way, I hope I don't give the impression that I find the french people here objectionable, many contradict the idiot and it is to their credit.

Hmm... I think you're being a bit carried away there. First, what proof do you have that Rafale can't "thread its way into a latest model Russian IADS" ? Of course it didn't, but then who did ? The closest such experience was over Serbia, and even though they were arguably more competent than the Iraqi, Serbia was still a small and relatively impoverished country. And Rafale wasn't operational back then.

F22 and F35 are supposed to have that capability, although it hasn't been demonstrated in "real" operations (or did I miss the USA vs China war ?). Not that I don't believe the F22 couldn't, but it is in a class of its own. It has its limits as well. Dropping JDAMs is good, but can it launch cruise or anti-ship missiles ? No it can't. Rafale can... Does that make the latter superior to the former ? I suppose not, for a nation that can afford to have F22 and all the rest (thousands of Teen-series, a dozen carrier groups with SHs, etc).

And the F35 is not operational yet, AFAIK. It's not a paper plane like the PAK-FA, but it still has to prove itself... against the kind of IADS you're speaking about, otherwise it's all speculation, interpreted exercise results, and manufacturer's claims, don't you agree ? Is the F22 even battle-tested or did it achieve all its "kills" in simulated engagements ? I know, I'm being snarky here. 

As for "relying on expensive stand-off weapons"... isn't it what everyone's doing nowadays ? The "expensive" part is mostly from being French built and bought in small series compared to the American hardware, but then even a JDAM or Paveway costs a little mre than a dumb Mk 82... what are you trying to imply here ? That Rafales should somehow, in the hypothesis of a "big war" (in the NATO vs Warsaw Pact style) attack by overflying its target and dropping iron bombs on it ? Then why isn't it the advertised tactic for F22s and F35s, then ? Less macho ? 

Oh well, I guess, from the Red Flag-related article, that USAF operators were impressed by a "pedestrian bomb-truck".

Herald

 

 

means that  you can get CLOSER to the radars and kill them with glide weapons as opposed to rocket-boosted ones. Hence US JDAMS and GPS guided bombs with strongback wing glide kits are CHEAPER and far more plentiful than French rocket boosted lob munitions. Once the IADS Russian style rocket launchers are blinded, then the targets they defend, are easier to kill. (F-117 experience) I hope that answers your question, as to WHY the US adopts :LO strategies and why that solutiion is better than the ones the Dassault engineers adopted. We have seen this solution demonstrated in BATTLE and compared it to the French solution many times now, so we know that our approach works and that the French solution doesn't.   

Damn, this board really needs a better quote feature :-/ It's painful as it is now.

I understand what you say, and it boils down to "American tech, purchasing power and combat experience are (generally) greater". Which is true, but everyone knows that already... 

I think F22-launched JDAMs still qualify as "stand-off" weapons even though they're not rocket-boosted. Especially in view of the claim that high supercruising Raptors can lob those bombs at distances measured in 2-digit kilometers. 

Are those bombs stealthy, by the way ? Would be too bad if they were shot down during their long ballistic flight down, and a Raptor doesn't have the sheer carrying capacity as a B52 either. I could argue that a salvo of AASMs coming from behind a hill with a much shorter flight time are less interceptable. 

The "it's more expensive !" argument sounds pretty weak ("the F22 is too expensive !"). The important thing is "does it do the job and can we afford it". Turns up the F22 does but America can't afford more (concurrently with the costs of an onging war and all the other needed stuff and an economic crisis as a bonus).

Heh, it looks oddly symmetrical seen like this. Super-expensive F22 with relatively cheap JDAM/SDB vs relatively cheap (in comparison) Rafale with more expensive AASM.

Now which one is better... it would take a bigger war than Kosovo/Iraq to say (not to belittle anything but the USAF beating the crap out of Third-World (or very weak kinda-First-World) countries hardly passes as extraordinary).

In any case the whole "which has the bigger schlong" internet debate is ultimately irrelevant. France couldn't have afforded a plane like the F22. As much as everyone likes to wank about his country's hardware the important matter is "can it fulfill its requirements".

Replacing every F22, (future) F35 and teen-series by a Rafale F3+ (with all the goodies finally coming to it) would still yield the most powerful air force in the world.

Replace every French plane with F22s and F35s, and maybe the Armée de l'Air would gain even more of an edge than it currently has against any realistic opponent, but the added costs would hardly be worth it.

Cheaper than a Rafale Sparkie with its inexpensive glide munitions does the bomb work. The Raptor kills Sukhois and hots the occasional radar site and AWACs.

The IADS is the measure, not the country that happened to buy it. I'm satisfied that we have good combat validation data out of Iraq and SYRIA.

Indeed. I don't know which side started the current "climate" whenever there's a Rafale thread, that is, Rafale "superfans" come in with, let's say, over-enthusiastic arguments, to which some Rafale- or French-bashers (I distinguish the "bashers" and the "critics") reply with over-dismissive judgments, and both sides argue back and forth in that vicious circle that way (case in point : "Spectra's crap, it doesn't work" "No, it's better than anything else, it can even make the Rafale invisible and brew the pilot's coffee !" - cue the same distorted "facts" and suppositions being thrown again and again...). It made SP a rather useless place to actually discuss the plane (too much time wasted separating the grain from the chaff). 

Generally comes from forgetting real-world context in order to indulge in the "dickwaving" internet forum contests. It only produces stupid arguments over "would Rafale take Raptor in a 1v1 fight" or some similar theme when 1) Planes don't fight 1v1 any more 2) DUH America and France are ALLIES ! They may have differences as is to be expected for two sovereign countries but the chance of them fighting each other in a war is essentially zero, therefore the smart debate should be "how well could Rafales and Raptors complement each other in case they were engaged in operations together" ! (actually, I'm tempted to start this one - in a thread of its own).

Not saying it would be better than today's F22+legacy platforms or tomorrow's F22 + F35 combo, but an (even minimally) Americanized Rafale deployed in the thousand+ quantities only America can afford and with all the existing force multipliers... that would still be more powerful than everything else, was what I meant. Less of an edge, but still able to kick everyone's ass, if only by breaking more of a sweat. 

Of course it's nothing like a realistic scenario.

Herald

Guys, I think we can trust the French of making an accurate accelleration sensor within 5%. This is not ueber technological wizardry in my opinion.

 

So the plane pulls 11g so what? The US know how make a plane that does the same and better.

They choose not to.

 

 

As for all the "experts" on RCS and radar absorbent coating. I'm slightly amazed why none has mentioned some very obvious problems (for me at least) you would run into when coating the entire plane with RAM.

 

Problems which they seem to have solved with the F-35 and the F22 but not the F-117. (I have a vague hunch on how they solved it).

 

 

 

 

Let's look at French rocket-boosted ordnance and standoff weapons.

 

Storm Shadow 

 

Actually German and called TAURUS 

 

ASMP 

 

Exocet. 

 

BLU 107 : [positive proof that if theirs is better, then the US will use it.]

 

Type
General purpose or fragmentation bomb.

Development
This family of low-drag free-fall bombs was developed by the French company Société des Ateliers Mécaniques de Pont-sur-Sambre (SAMP) to meet a French Air Force requirement for a series of 250 kg bombs that were general purpose, anti-personnel/anti-light vehicle and penetration. The bombs had to be compatible with all standard 2 in nose and tail fuzes, aerodynamic or retarding tail assemblies, and with the GBU-12 Paveway II laser guidance system. The programme consisted of three bombs designated BL EU2, BL EU2FR (also known as the BL 74) and BL EU2P. The BL EU2 was a General Purpose (GP) bomb interchangeable with the US Mk 82, the BL EU2FR was an anti-light vehicle (ALV) fragmentation type, and the BL EU2P was a penetration (PE) type. Development included a new method of body construction. The technique involved forging a steel body with a specially computed distribution of thicknesses in order to give an optimum fragmentation pattern on detonation. The design of all three bombs complied with NATO standards and they could be fitted to NATO 356 mm (14 in) pylon/bomb racks. The bombs would have been cleared for carriage on the SEPECAT Jaguar, Dassault Super Etendard, Mirage F1, Mirage III and Mirage 5 aircraft. Further development resulted in the fitting of an inertial guidance system and rocket motor to the BL EU2 family of bombs (in a proposed developmental weapon known as Excalibur).In 1997, a BL EU2P penetration bomb was displayed fitted with a TDA/Northrop Grumman GPS Guided Munition (GGM) tail

=======================================================================

 

QED.

 

QED

That I can quote that the French tried and failed.

 

Nice of you to walk into that one, too.

 

FJV reply.

 

Early RAM had three major drawbacks, weight, susceptibility to friction damage, poor heat conductivity, and oxidation, all defects, of course, which continue to plague many of the matrices tried by many of America's competitors down to the present. 

 

Herald

     

 

 

That I can quote that the French tried and failed.