Rafale Thread

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: Rafale Thread
Softwar 3/9/2009 9:47:25 AM

Started with hope that BW will limit his comments here instead of in every other Fighter thread. I'll start off with: 1 - no export sales 2 - no laser designator 3 - no AESA 4 - overpriced 4th gen fighter

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NEXT

Bluewings12 3/30/2009 6:44:34 PM

DA :

""Would you agree or disagree with this post?""

I agree .

Of course , I am waiting few months to have some decent intels on our new AESA ...

Cheers .

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 3/30/2009 6:44:45 PM

Regarding the Carrier Operations , Rafale is indeed an excellent bird if not the best . It is lighter than any other aircraft currently deployed on any Carrier , it has a better loading for weight ratio than any other aircraft currently deployed on any Carrier . It needs a cheaper catapult , less deck space for take off and landings and because of its extreme low speed during landing , it can bring back more stuff under its wings without troubles than any other aircraft currently deployed on any Carrier . It has one of the best range as a bomber and can be refuelled by other Rafales . It also have the latest Exocet Blk-3 (ouch) and the Nuclear ASMP . It is also being flown by some of the best Pilots in the World who all have an extensive experience of Carrier Ops in War time .

Cheers .

No one is questioning the viability or efficiency of the Rafale as a design. It's amazing on paper. But in practice, A Vietnam era USN CVW could probably conduct more sorties and bomb more targets with it's F-4s than the CdG can today with it's Rafales which aren't even deployed in numbers that exceed squadron strength. Heck, those USN F-4's could probably penetrate and overwhelm the CdG Rafale CAP compliment by sheer weight of numbers. Do you see what I'm getting at?

You are comparing spec sheets and advertised future capability vs what is actually available and has been for war. This is whats hurting the Rafale in the market.

-DA

Quote Reply

VelocityVector BW 3/30/2009 6:53:23 PM

Many BW "technicals" have been rebutted convincingly -- you are one of a very few who choose to ignore this. France has but a single operational, problem-plagued catobar carrier from which to stage naval Rafale and hence project power absent landing rights. No foreign Rafale customers despite aggressive sales attempts -- ?!

v^2

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 3/30/2009 6:57:49 PM

DA :

""A Vietnam era USN CVW could probably conduct more sorties and bomb more targets with it's F-4s than the CdG can today with it's Rafales""

??? Is it a kind of humour or do I miss something ?

Do you know how much normal iron bombs a Rafale can drop with a far better efficiency than a F-4 ? Fully loaded with Tanks and iron bombs , a Rafale has more power than a F-4 (obviously) , a better targeting system and the aircraft will comeback alive .

You must be joking DA :-)

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 3/30/2009 7:01:33 PM

V^2 , bla-bla-bla ...Just try to prove me wrong .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 3/30/2009 7:22:26 PM

DA :

h*tp://img403.imageshack.us/img403/449/dassault10he7.jpg

Up to 20 250kg/Mk82 or 10 400kg/Mk83 .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

warpig 3/30/2009 7:35:10 PM

Missile range , we both agree but you want to talk No Escape Zone (NEZ) , ok . But we all know that it is different from max range , again we 'll most probably agree with you loosing yourself into details ... Nevermind .

Warpig , your last bit is irrelevant regarding AirWarfare but is it nevertheless interesting . You said :

""As an analogy to how initial conditions need to be specified, imagine a company publishing something saying, "Our 120mm tank gun can penetrate 950mm of armor." Why, "obviously" that must mean that any tank with exactly 950mm of armor will be destroyed by a hit from this gun, right?

Obviously not right, except under a specific set of conditions, entailing things like type of ammo used, range to the target for some types of ammo, effect of reactive armor if any, angle of incidence at impact, armor thickness of the target at the location hit vs. that type of ammo (and possibly its velocity at impact), resistance/effectiveness of the armor versus that type of projectile at that angle of incidence, and definition of penetration (amount and probability of the penetration), and probably others.""

While I strongly disagree on some points , you 're correct in the general meaning . Unlike you , I will not go into details but accept your post as it is . There is no need for me to win on details while you win on the main point . Do you understand that I would like you to do the same with me Warpig ?

When Raytheon says : AIM-120C-5 range : 105 km (65 miles) and when MBDA says MICA range : 80km+ , they 're both talking about the same thing , they 're not talking about NEZ or best conditions . Anyway , I took the 2 missiles as an exemple , I did not want to compare them . We are discussing something else for now ...

No, BW, what I'm talking about absolutely is *not* a missile's no escape zone. If I were one of the other experts around here that you have pulled this sort of move on in other arguments over the years, I'd tell you that your attempt to Google up some sort of response has failed, but I won't do that. If you would actually try to answer the questions you might learn what several of us are trying to teach you about air-to-air missiles.

Also, feel free to say anyhting you want regarding armor penetration data. I am not trying to assert that anything in that attempted analogy must be right. I don't argue like you do. If you think I've said something wrong or know of any other factors involved or whatever, feel free to fire away. Right or wrong regarding main gun penetration data has nothing to do with the AAM range issue.

I'd say it is a practical certainty that those range values from Ratheon and MBDA most certainly *are* talking about best conditions, or at least that it certainly is for one specific set of conditions. What do you think, they're going to post their "maximum range" under their worst conditions without stating that they are under the worst conditions?

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 3/30/2009 7:39:57 PM

TV Cam on the OSF 2nd generation :

h*tp://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8382/thalesdocosf2.jpg

This baby can zoom on your aircraft ID number at over 80km , just to be sure that you are a Blue aircraft ;-)

Coupled with the IRST :

h*tp://frenchnavy.free.fr/aircraft/rafale/images/rafale-0127.jpg

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 3/30/2009 7:48:56 PM

Warpig :

""I'd say it is a practical certainty that those range values from Ratheon and MBDA most certainly *are* talking about best conditions, or at least that it certainly is for one specific set of conditions.""

It is what I 've been saying since day one , thank you .

You can see that we have no argument there ...

Cheers .

Quote Reply

VelocityVector 3/30/2009 8:08:03 PM

TV Cam on the OSF 2nd generation :

h*tp://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8382/thalesdocosf2.jpg

This baby can zoom on your aircraft ID number at over 80km , just to be sure that you are a Blue aircraft ;-)

Coupled with the IRST :

h*tp://frenchnavy.free.fr/aircraft/rafale/images/rafale-0127.jpg

Very pretty telescope.

But so what - it cannot even discern tail numbers at night. BW, among other claims in this thread you have stated that Rafale can rely upon a totally passive intercept against a stealth a/c target. The opposing stealth a/c, according to you, would be detected by F1/F2 Rafale FSO or Mica and then ranged by laser to compute a firing solution before Rafale itself was detected. What is the range of your Rafale laser? What is the range of RP-31E or better agile radars?

v^2

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NEXT