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 8:13:51 PM

V^2 :

""Very pretty telescope.""

Thank you .

""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?""

I already answered this question . Passively , the Rafale is unable to get a high PK kill on a real stealth aircraft at more than 60km . The Raptor has the edge and always had .

The Rafale has not been built to fight the Raptor .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 3/30/2009 8:18:32 PM

V^2 :

""But so what - it (TV Cam F2) cannot even discern tail numbers at night""

Do you want the French Pilots to see the colour of the enemy Pilot 's eyes before firing ? Well , that is going to be hard to archive ;-)

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 3/30/2009 8:27:48 PM

Btw , here is a picture of the Bugatti front gear . I post it because it seems that every USN mech or Deck driver had a close look on it :

h*tp://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5328/0073z.jpg

The English and the Russian should get a close look on it and they would understand the trick to help a fully loaded Fighter to take off . A very clever trick is built into it , the real amateurs will know .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 3/30/2009 8:50:36 PM

I would like people to keep something very important in mind :

The Rafale has been built from day one to replace the Crusaders and the SEMs .

Do you want me to repeat or do you get it ?

It is a Navy Fighter and it has been later tailored to fit the AdA needs.

From day one , Rafale had a huge lead on the Typhoon/Gripen/Sukhois . It has been carrier capable from day one and it is why it is such a good airplane NOW for a well equipped Navy .

France made the right choice , whatever you may say ...

Cheers .

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 3/30/2009 8:52:29 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 .

I'm not joking at all. Nor am I doing a direct platform comparison. This is an issue of quantity having a quality of it's own. Notice I never compared the F-4 and Rafale directly except to note numbers? There is a reason why no one is buying the Rafale that goes beyond platform comparisons.

-DA

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 3/30/2009 9:10:58 PM

DA , chill out and let 's have a beer ;-)

You made a mistake and I drink to you , no worries . You are not Herald in my book .

I would enjoy the posters saying with me that for the last 8 years , mostly for the WoT , the only aircrafts who have been fighting and bombing the Talibans fools are the NATO F-16s , F-18s and the French M2000s and Rafales .

Where are the so-called (?) better Typhoons , Gripens and alike ???

Cheers .

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 3/30/2009 9:57:58 PM

DA , chill out and let 's have a beer ;-)

You made a mistake and I drink to you , no worries . You are not Herald in my book .

No, No mistake at all. France hasn't yet deployed with a full compliment of Rafales on the CdG. I'm sure you are aware of that? That matters to potential customers. They take a huge risk to adopt a platform that hasn't even made it out of the IOC stage with the primary user. That kind of thing makes a difference.

I'm definitely not Herald. I don't do that kind of posting anymore. It's beneath me.

-DA

Quote Reply

warpig 3/30/2009 9:58:40 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 ...

Oh, really? Then what do you think those conditions are? Not even necessarily the numerical values, I mean at least first of all just what are the various factors that are taken into account? If you would actually try to understand them, then you would (or at least ought to) understand why missile "maximum range" must specify or at least assume a certain set of values for those factors in order to make sense.

It is just like the armor penetration analogy in this way: what type of projectile, HEAT, APC, APCBC, Composite, APDS, APDSFS, one made of tungsten or one made of DU, etc.; what type of armor, face-hardened, RHA, Chobam, etc.; velocity at impact if it is a purely KE penetrators; the effect of slope v. that specific projectile nose and penetrator shape for the inert KE penetrators, the effectiveness of that particular type of armor v. a purely KE projectile or v. a HEAT projectile; whether you score a complete penetration or merely a partial penetration and whether you score it as a penetration if it penetrates only 50% of the time, or 80% of the time, etc.; are all possible factors. I do not dispute that I may have stated them improperly and that there may be others. That's not my point.

What are the conditions for the flight of those missiles when Raytheon or MBDA says they have a certain range?

Quote Reply

leroy 3/31/2009 1:50:19 AM

This whole change is just beyond stupid. We might as well be arguing with a kid who thinks his favorite pro-wrestler is simply unbeatable.

"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"

Oh really? And what exactly are they talking about? Warpig has already invested more time in explaining this to you than you are worth. Those numbers require certain assumption, period. There is no reason to believe these numbers represent similar conditions, or similar probabilities of kill.

"You are correct in your first sentence but you should have understood by now that the maximum detection range of a good IRST is around 150km+ (small field of view) , what you do NOT understand is that the same IRST can easily do Search &Track in wide field of view at 100km+ . Unless you do some research on the Net and acknowledge the fact , we can 't have a discussion because I 'm going to be right all along while you 're going to be wrong the all time , sorry ."

Don't try to play the expert kid. I doubt there is one person here who is honestly confused enough not to recognize that you are completely clueless about these topics. I am not going to keep going back and forth on you on the IRST subject. I have no interest in trying to debate a kid who doesn't know enough to know when he looks like a fool. Anyone, besides you, who has a question can ask me and I will answer.

"it is the best radar in Europe"

"No one in Europe as such a radar and the AESA RBE2 is operational ."

"But Hey , the Rafale is still the best bird in Europe ."

etc etc etc

Best radar huh? Why then are all potential export customers demanding it be replaced before they consider the Rafale? Why is it that other European planes are happily accepted with their current radars? (You know, the ones that offer better performance in many critical areas, such as range...)

Best bird in Europe? Same story, if it is so great, why isn't there a line of countries waiting to buy it? Why is it that the other European planes have all achieved export success, and relatively large production runs, while the Rafale's production has all but stopped and your best bet for a foreign customer is dependent on you accepting trade-ins on some nearly new Mirages?

You are a fanboy bluewings, and a clueless idiot.

Quote Reply

leroy 3/31/2009 2:07:20 AM

"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 . "

Ah, the fanboy also thinks the Rafale is the best carrier aircraft in the world, I find that really really surprising. (lol)

Lighter than any other aircraft currently deployed on any carrier?

Hello? Fanboy? What do you think a Harrier weights? How about a Super Entendard? How about an A-4? (Brazil)

For someone that spends all day dreaming about your favorite airplane, you sure haven't managed to learn much have you?

"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 ."

LMAO

The only reason you still have qualified carrier pilots is because the US was nice enough to let you practice on one of their carriers while your carrier was being refitted and repaired. (I hear it is now broken again and back in dock... even with the US's help it is a miracle you are even able to keep your pilots qualified to perform carrier operations with that hanger queen of a carrier to call home.)

From the way you talk you would think the French Navy had more than a handful of mostly early-model Rafales operational, and had a carrier that hadn't spent 18+ months of the last two years in dock. (With the latest repairs expected to take "weeks if not months...")

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