"The point is, if Rafale were to suddenly secure two or three customers, or acquit themselves in a war (either of which could easily happen),"

haha i appreciate your sense of humour, jj, don't forget though that i could post links of various forums where the Harrier, for example, is ripped apart. many claimed and still claim that it is useless because of the massive development costs, the fact that it has never scored a kill in AtoA combat, etc etc

But the fact is, that the harrier has serves and continues to serve an important role. it does have shortcomings, but any weapons system does....

 

Now, as for the technical claims of the French contingent, i cannot opine, not having a background in these matters.... usually in such technical matters i rely on the wisdom of senior posters such as Herald, GF, warpig and FS to guide me....

 

It's quite hilarious though, after reading these threads, to read the wikipedia entry on the Rafale. It discusses all the same design "issues" but in a completely dispassionate manner, without the hyperbole or personal attacks. the difference is striking... makes you wonder how relevant these issues are. 

 

Funny, in French "rafale" means "burst", usually referring to bullets. Little did the manufacturers of the Rafale know that the "bursts" the Rafale elicited were not in combat but on internet pages! hahaha

i was making no comment on the veracity of the wiki entry, gf; what i meant in my own clumsy way is that the wiki discussion is completely dispassionate and the contrast with these threads is quite funny... well, to me it is at least, though it just may be my sense of humor:)

 

i am sort of surprised to see BW speaking with such authority on this board since if i remember right he was a sniper; how is it that he is discussing stealth tech and radar signatures?!! quite interesting....

 

thanks for the compliment, btw, but i'm not a scholar.... just a normal joe.

 Zuma case. 

OOPS.  Ever wonder why Thales is regarded as incompetent?  

 

The Germans did all the engineering. The French pit in a project manager (lawyer/politician) like they usually try to do. THERE IS A HINT THERE, MK..

Look my point is that you stated the Rafale is underpowered and has a bad (high) wingloading. That is certainly bollocks and that is what I countered by bringing up data (from the operators/manufacturers). I could have further elaborated, but felt it should be sufficient. This is not a Rafale vs Typhoon issue for me, but rather a conter against unfounded claims. Compare the Rafale's TWR and wingloading  with that of other aircraft as well, not just the Typhoon and you'll see that your claims are overly exeggerated in a negative direction, albeit I agree that the view of some Rafale fans here is exeggerated in the opposite direction (the positive/optimistic one). I assess it from an objective view and try to be as neutral as possible on that.

 

I actually value that comparison as a fair assessment and one can clearly see the good intentions of the creator to provide an objective assessment on the base of PUBLICALLY available data. He got the Rafale's empty weight and Typhoon's fuel load wrong, albeit on a 50% internal fuel computing base the ratio of the results remains  unchanged. I actually pointed out that the guesses leave room for errors. The results can be both better or more worse for both aircraft in reality. The conclusions may give us a rough indication in the right direction, but they aren't definite.

A broader overview of TWR & wingloading parameters for different modern combat aircraft, kept simple but on purpose.

 

Computations for wingloading and TWR with 50% and 100% of internal fuel:

 

Sequence of data as follows:

Empty weight/internal fuel/static reheat thrust/wing area

 

F-15C (F100-PW-200):

12800 kg/6103 kg/2 x 10800 kg/56.49 m²

 

 

F/A-18C400/402 (F404-GE-400/402):

10455 kg/4926 kg/2 x 7257 kg (8053 kg)/38 m²

 

Values at 50% of internal fuel:

TWR: 1.12:1 (1.24:1)

Wingloading: 340 kg/m²

 

Values at 100% of internal fuel:

TWR: 0.94:1 (1.04:1)

Wingloading: 404 kg/m²

 

 F/A-18E:

14318 kg/6682 kg/2 x 9980 kg/46.45 m²

 

 

F-16C blk 52+ CFT:

9500 kg/4463 kg/13200 kg/27.87 m²

 

 

 

Well the views on why the Rafale lost out in several competitions differ, depending on who you ask. What is true or wrong is particularly difficult to determine. The Rafale also made it further in several competitions than some other aircraft (also it lost to some  of the same types in others). The Rafale has certainly drawbacks which speak against it on the export market. At the time an aircraft enters service it is obselete in the way that technologies found on that aircraft has been superseded, albeit they aren't obsolete in the way as those newer technologies will require years of development, debugging and testing before being fielded and by that time they are superseded again.

I read the same crap ten years ago when we first came up against the bird. "The only reason the Americans won five for five was because they out marketed us!", is what that article boils down too. If that was the case then there wouldn't be French Lafayettes in Singaporean service. Those would be Ingersoll ot Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding frigates. Not even bribes could get Dassault or Thales over the Singapore competition, and believe me they tried. The French lost on the MERITS, as in that their bird had no merits in the air, where it counts.. 

Well, facing Rafale in a true competition, US won Korean market and Singaporian with F15 in both case.

Report on criterias and notes were never published in both markets even both Rafale and F15 were finalists.

Some says that pressure of USA on Korea or Singapore on defense issues (like futur availability of F35 or some weapons syetems) since US protect both countries, let them won.

Moreover S vs euro parity did not help.

Before Rafale was not mature and we had nothing to show except paper.

On paper Rafale was ranked same than F35 in Dutch competition.Still Dutch choose F35 (on price issues!)

 

Air power is key of USA power and USA try to get monopoly on that as a supplier for western world.

Beating other competitors is important, especially if losing would give credibility to a competitor and a competitive product that USA has no control on like France.

US naval industry is not competitive since targeted on superships like Seawolf, Virginia, super carriers, DD 51 which are unaffordable.No affordable medium size product proposed on market or SSK.

Competition on naval systems is between France, Germany and Italy.

 

Now Rafale is maturing, is in service in the first 4th+ F3 version, has an AESA and range of weapons is extending.

Its roadmap is evolving toward a 5th generation fighter parity.

F18E or F15 (or Eurofighter) are less and less potent competitors.

Potential buyer has something to see now and can have more confidence in the futur of the program and its roadmap funding and updates.They have also a better view of F35 and its availability and cost and it makes Rafaleconcept more interesting than in the past.

Any customer who have not possibility to get F35 with control on, and can buy outside USA, will look for Rafale now (or Pak Fa).

 

m²No you didn't. The cross sensor work among the Australians, British, Germans, Americans, Italians, Norwegians, and the Dutch (even the Turks) never stopped. Guess whose names you significantly don't see? Israel, Korea, and France,   Guess what all the named have in common? (Its the F-35, Some are in, some are OUT. Gee (treachery, selling restricted technologies to none NATO and untrusted adversary states) I wonder why?).

On paper Rafale was ranked same than F35 in Dutch competition.Still Dutch choose F35 (on price issues!)

Was it just on cost grounds? I know the rating was 697 points for the F-35 (which did not even exist at that time) and 695 points for the Rafale. But it was merely a paper exercise rather than a true evaluation of the RNLAF.

Now Rafale is maturing, is in service in the first 4th+ F3 version, has an AESA and range of weapons is extending.

The current Rafale F3s don't have an AESA. The sole demonstrator is currently fitted to B301 which is not in frontline service. 

 

Its roadmap is evolving toward a 5th generation fighter parity.

With the difference that the Rafale will never achieve the level of stealthyness  of the F-22 or F-35, at least not when it comes to RCS.

 

F18E or F15 (or Eurofighter) are less and less potent competitors.

All of these types will be further developed as well. I hardly see why they should become less competitive over time.

 

Potential buyer has something to see now and can have more confidence in the futur of the program and its roadmap funding and updates.They have also a better view of F35 and its availability and cost and it makes Rafaleconcept more interesting than in the past.

The problem is how will the situation look like in 10+ years. You have a roadmap for the next few years up to 2018, albeit not everything seems to be funded right now. We don't know if the french can/will afford the specified total number of 294 and while the prospects in some markets look promising at the moment, no deals have been signed up to date! What will be the cost for spares and upgrades in the long term? As the Rafale will form the back bone for the AdA and MN it will certainly be further developed for the next 2+ decades, the question is at what pace.

 

Any customer who have not possibility to get F35 with control on, and can buy outside USA, will look for Rafale now (or Pak Fa).

TEST

 

They can also opt for the Gripen NG, Eurofighter or Su-35 and possibly MiG-35. The Super Hornet remains an option as does the F-15 and the F-16 though not all of them might be in production any more in a few years which will narrow the selection down. 

It depends on the article when it comes to Wikipedia--I've noticed that the further removed from "modern" history or controversy, the more accurate it is.  The article on, say, Otto II is probably safe; not too many internet trolls looking for trouble with the Middle Ages.  Sarah Palin, not so much. 

 

The Rafale article addresses both the shortcomings and the advantages of the Rafale; it's probably accurate to a point.

 

The current Rafale F3s don't have an AESA. The sole demonstrator is currently fitted to B301 which is not in frontline service. 

AESA radar production is launched and available end of next year in 2010, and any order of a Rafale now can includes it.

In fact if you launch an order now , you need 3 years to get your Rafale.
 

Its roadmap is evolving toward a 5th generation fighter parity.

With the difference that the Rafale will never achieve the level of stealthyness  of the F-22 or F-35, at least not when it comes to RCS.

I have never said that.However rafale RCS can still diminish probably by a ten factor and ECM add equivalent of a further 10 to 100 time reduction equivalent:

F18E or F15 (or Eurofighter) are less and less potent competitors.

All of these types will be further developed as well. I hardly see why they should become less competitive over time.

Few improvment is possible to their basic airframe shortcoming regarding RCS optimisation or manoeuvrability unless Boeing invest a lot on its own funds and develop a potent active signature management.