Dassault VP : Rafale's successor will join Eurofighter Consortium-like Euro Consortium.

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: Dassault VP : Rafale's successor will join Eurofighter Consortium-like Euro Consortium.
SlowMan 10/19/2009 4:07:06 PM

New York Times article < http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/business/global/20jets.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2 > "Dassault appears to be thinking along the same lines. Eric Trappier, executive vice president at Dassault Aviation, said that Rafale’s “successor will probably be designed through a European cooperation, from 2025.” " So this is the end of all-French fighter aircraft.

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 NEXT

jackjack 10/27/2009 2:33:03 AM

"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),"

welcome, do you think one bag of pixie dust will be enough, or will we need 2 bags for this to happen

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emteeth.gif" alt="" />

but why encourage them .. they will print out your words and pin it to the head of the bed and read it aloud at night, as they self-pleasure themselves

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers 10/27/2009 3:59:38 AM

"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),"

welcome, do you think one bag of pixie dust will be enough, or will we need 2 bags for this to happen

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emteeth.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" />

but why encourage them .. they will print out your words and pin it to the head of the bed and read it aloud at night, as they self-pleasure themselves

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

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 10/27/2009 4:06:17 AM

"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),"

welcome, do you think one bag of pixie dust will be enough, or will we need 2 bags for this to happen

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emteeth.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" />

but why encourage them .. they will print out your words and pin it to the head of the bed and read it aloud at night, as they self-pleasure themselves

Not usually one to be Pedantic but in 1982 the Harrier scored a few.

If you meant in US service probably correct but as its a CAS aircraft i wouldnt expect it to.

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....

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers 10/27/2009 4:20:37 AM

Ah that's great. I'm happy to be corrected. I think the Harrier is a fantastic piece of work.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/27/2009 4:25:55 AM

gg, for a scholar I am surprised at your comment. (rhetorical) you are aware that anyone can edit wiki, and that it is regarded as an almost useless source unless quoting empirical data? data vs opinion. referenced data vs extrapolation. data vs agenda. 'tis a no brainer. its why modern militaries allow internal wikis (which can't be seen by the public) but advise staff not to gather material on wiki (as supporting material).

give me half an hour and I could run up a web page extolling the virtues of stalin and provide all manner of references to "prove" that he never had a moustache.

nobody uses OS wiki as a source to validate their position (unless it's empirical measurable references)

no offence, but you're a self admitted francophile :). technology needs to be discussed without national bias or rose coloured glasses.

I deal with french defence companies through work, I don't see the same nonsense coming out of their shop - and they certainly give us more data than what you see on open forums. (hence why my eyes roll to the back of my head when people make claims about Rafale technical issues etc and claim technical primacy. Hence my revulsion at cavalier implications of truth.

as I said, you may be more patient, but I am well and truly over some of the idiots.

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers 10/27/2009 4:56:57 AM

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.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/27/2009 5:14:35 AM

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

you're far more sage than scholar... :)

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers 10/27/2009 6:52:43 AM

"Scholar", "sage", there are so many words for "bum" in English heheh

Quote Reply

MK 10/27/2009 8:14:56 AM

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?).

I don't dispute that there was some collaboration and sharing of technology in general, I just don't believe that there was/is a full transfer of technology. Otherwise we wouldn't see so many independant seperate AESA research and development programmes with the same goal besides various nations/manufacturers including those you listed. We would see standardized TRMs and other related tech on US and European AESA systems, europeans wouldn't opt for a european solution and they wouldn't competing in the way they do.

But they screwed it up. Let me write it again. They screwed the RBE2 up. It radiates side-lobe noise.

I mean to remember that I have read about the side lobe issues, but can't judge further on that as I lack additional details.

Actually the software claim is also fallacious. especially if the code model for the PESA beam steer is WRONG.

You mean related to the side lobe issues?

I wouldn't trust THALES to tell me how to wire a lightbulb. Nor would I trust them to tell me the first thing about how to pour water out of a boot. As much as they've screwed up in avionics I'm surprised they've not been prosecuted for fraud.

Zuma case.

OOPS. Ever wonder why Thales is regarded as incompetent?

What has Thales to do with the Captor? And what has bribery to do with the quality of the actual product (it might have but that's not a must)?

CAESAR doesn't rely on gallium arsenide, MEADS does.

It actually did. If they will opt for GaN on a Captor-E production version remains to be seen. The TRMs used on the CAESAR demonstrator were actually GaA based.

Not for the Americans apparently or they would gimbal their sets. Wonder why?

They might have reduced the looses of performance when directing the beam at higher angles, but the issue of a small aperture of a fixed array at its gimbals remains. Unless the americans found a way around physical laws, which can't be changed their ESA designs will underlay the same physical principles as any other ESA design.

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..

Could you please share that hint if possible?

Its better than the gibberishg you tried to pass off, as its actually better and more generous assumpyions to the Squall than the numbers you tried to use. It also goes into far more technical detail than you asked.as it looks at burden loads and fuel fraction.s as an operating condotion than just quoting numbers off some wiki page .

There is no gibberish, if you had actually read what I wrote and compared the data I supplied with that stated in the document you linked to, you would realise that the data I provided were actually more worse for the Rafale. The empty weight stated in the document is actually ~450 kg lower than the one stated by official sources! That means if the guy who has assembled that document had used the empty weight I supplied (stated in a programme document and on the EC 1/7 website) the results for the Rafale would be a bit more worse!

In effect look at page 7 of the powerpoint. That extra thrust the Typhoon has means that dirty at altitude it can point better than the Squall. There is no way to escape what are good guesses based

Quote Reply

french stratege 10/27/2009 8:16:39 AM

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).

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 NEXT