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

MK 10/23/2009 5:36:25 PM

The Super Hornet is vastly superior to the Rafale as is the standard Hornet simply because of the radar, the missiles, and two generations of air warfare experience that showed what worked and what didn't. The French made a 1985 guess about what air warfare, air to air and air to ground, would look like, and they guessed wrong. They chose the wrong radar development path, tried to build the wrong kind of missile to go with that radar, and they developed an underpowered set of engines to go with that aircraft. Their partners had access to Russian and American data, and refused to follow the French into a blind dead end plane. Its sad, really, because Dassault was warned by Aeromachi and MBB that they were headed the wrong technical way.

Sorry but that's bollocks. The french chose the PESA approach for the RBE2 due multirole operations and as they expected the PESA to be upgraded to AESA easier. An AESA was just not part of the Rafale or the Typhoon for that matter as the technology was not mature for airborne application. The fact that you see the radar as the only reason to argue against the Rafale speaks volumes and is hardly worth further elaborating.

Now the French belatedly develop a whole class of standoff weapons, and they try to fix the RBE2 radar with a new AESA front end copied from the Americans (don't be deceived by the advertusing fluff, it's a blatant Thales copy of American NG tech) as well as update and product improve the less than satisfactory M-88 engines which, as reported from the Rafale's brief Afghanistan foray, failed to even meet the minimum hours mean hours between teardown, the French Air Force expected. TEST

The Rafale's TWR isn't worth in comparison to any other modern fighters in the NTOW AA configuration. Do the math yourself instead of repeating anyones unfounded nonsense. And if it would be a copy of US tech it would certainly be Raeython not NG. Thales draw its experience from the tri-national AMSAR programme and its own research.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 10/23/2009 6:18:20 PM

I was going to kick Hamilcar (or Herald, whatever) in the nuts one more time when MK did the job .

Regarding the Mica being the "wrong type of missile" (?) , I can 't see how Hamilcar is reaching this conclusion . The Mica has been designed specifically for the Rafale and it takes into accounts ~as I just said~ the Rafale 's design : LO platform + ECMs . Thing like very short burst , high speed , first rate EM and IR seekers with anti-towed decoys feature for the EM version and impervious to flares for the IR version with dual-band imaging , second to none end game BVR , over the shoulder and 180deg off bore turning capability .

Hamilcar , name me an Amraam who can do this kind of job . Oh and by the way , it is also as deadly in dogfight ...

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Hamilcar 10/23/2009 6:31:28 PM

1. They may have chosen PESA for that reason, but they were wrong, weren't they as it can't even support air to grpind weapons delivwery as they thought? (Afghanistan again) AESA was the right tech jump, and they (Thales) did not take that path. The Americans DID as they introduced AESA into their legacy aircraft about the same time as the Rafale actually IOCed. Timing is everything when you make a decision and Dassault got that wrong too.

2. Eurofighter planned an AESA upgrade path as soon as they thought it might be practical. CARSAR waits because CAPTOR is good enough for the Typhoon's indicated air to air mission emphasis, and the Consortium doesn't have the money for it yet. If the Saudis insist, then CAESAR will be fitted. Its sort of what then French hoped they could do, get some one else to fund all the promised Dassault upgrades never delivered. Now France has to fund that herself, and she finds she lacks the Euros and the tech base to do it all. Just getting the jet engines fixed will eat a huge chunk of programmed Rafale funding.

Now the French belatedly develop a whole class of standoff weapons, and they try to fix the RBE2 radar with a new AESA front end copied from the Americans (don't be deceived by the advertising fluff, it's a blatant Thales copy of American NG tech) as well as update and product improve the less than satisfactory M-88 engines which, as reported from the Rafale's brief Afghanistan foray, failed to even meet the minimum hours mean hours between teardown, the French Air Force expected.

Its NG, based on the same garbage that went into Werdgetail. As for Thales original research, that is a joke. CECAR is based on original research. AMSAR was more or less a tech share of that, with Thales holding its hand out and with little actual contribution. The chief contrbutors EADS (German branch) and BAE systems did most of the work and the research.

Want to tell me why acceleration + wingloading would not be an air combat factor, and why an engine that shows poor acceleration would not handicap a fighter designed as a bomber first and an air to air fighter second, as it applies the designed low altitude intrusion tactics for which that plane was deliberately designed?

Aircraft do not fly unburdened, nor fly into their worst regimes as a deliberate choice. The Rafale is unnecessarily dragg

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 10/23/2009 6:49:44 PM

Herald , you gave me a hard time to find something true in your long BS post .

I am warning you : if you keep posting your opinion as true and proven fact , I will ask Sysop to do something about it even if it is bound to end up nowhere . You just can 't post this kind of biaised opinion without bringing not even a shadow of a proof to save you from sinking and drowning . What you have to keep in mind is that any poster has to be responsable of his/her words and we can 't take people for fools . If someone does so , this persone is insulting the readers in facto .

How many time have you been banned for insulting people ? 3 times ? Am I correct ?

I see that you start again , Hamilcar .

I believe that there is no need for any poster to counter your last post . You failed as soon as you touched your keyboard .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Hamilcar 10/23/2009 6:53:55 PM

Statements of fact are not opinion.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 10/23/2009 7:17:47 PM

Keep digging or prove your case .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Hamilcar 10/23/2009 7:36:12 PM

There seems to be a problem here.

Fact as defined.

The plane has been the object of discussion. Its shortcomings are laid out with direct reference to same.

Personalities have nothing to do with the plane. The plane's defects are very well known and reported within the French technical community as they try to fix it.

It is.

Example:

Science Abstract.

Specifically it reviews fatigue micro-fractures in turbine blades with some mention of the M-88 as particularly troublesome and as deficient in that regard with manufacture quality control.

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 10/24/2009 3:04:57 AM

Herald , you gave me a hard time to find something true in your long BS post .

How many time have you been banned for insulting people ? 3 times ? Am I correct ?

I see that you start again , Hamilcar .

I believe that there is no need for any poster to counter your last post . You failed as soon as you touched your keyboard .

Cheers .

Really, BW? Because there's been a lot of opinions you've posted that aren't supported by facts, or facts cherrypicked to support your conclusions. We've all done it. That's why it's an internet chat board, not Aviation Week and Space Technology. So if you report Hamilcar for basically disagreeing with you, you'd better report yourself right along with him. Or I'll be happy to do it for you.

I won't get into another Rafale pissing match, but name me how many kills the Mica has. No, don't bother, I'll answer for you: none. The AMRAAM has nine. It's hardly a failure as a missile. The Mica I'm sure is a good missile, and if called upon, will likely score kills as well. But don't start building it into a world-beater when it's never been tested in combat, as the AMRAAM has.

We've been fairly civil as of late. Don't ruin it.

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 10/24/2009 8:32:41 AM

jack :

(Me)""Dassault ' s prototypes of early Rafales were very much within the DGA requirement :

(You) what ? you mean they wanted a first batch of planes to put in a warehouse and never fly""

Huh ??? Do you understand "requirement" ? You know, stuff like aerodynamics , weight , thrust , range , max load , hard points , etc ...

Lynstyne :

""Thank you for a more reasoned reponse.""

You 're welcome Lynstyne .

""the Rafale was designed more as a Mirage succesor (f16 / grippen competitor)""

I disagree strongly and I don 't see it this way at all because your way is wrong on every accounts .

---First error : why the Mirage successor would compete in the F-16/Gripen class and /or league ??? The F-22 is the "successor" (if I may say) of the Eagle , but the difference is enormous in between the two . The difference in between a Mirage 2000-5 and a Rafale is also enormous .

The difference between the F35 and F16 is also enormous, however the F35 is envisaged as a successor - each generous is more advanced than than its predecessor.

l also suggested that perhaps the Rafale be less sophisticated than it is in order to fill a lighter aircraft requirement . Howevere as was pointed out by (i think) sentinel my export replacement mirage plan may well have yielded an aircraft not advanced enough

to convince people an upgrade was worthwhile.

---Second error : you rate the successor of the Mirage in the F-16/Gripen league when the Mirage is already amongst the best in this very league . You are underrating or looking down on the M2000

When i refered to Gripen / F16 class i meant the smaller less sophisticated light er weight class of fighter my not mentioning the current mirage was purely incidental.

""It could sill have been Marinised fulfilling that requirement.""

No . Dassault and the Marine Nationale tried to turn the Mirage into a Carrier capable aircraft and the blueprints suggested a 80% change with the airframe (which was in itself a show stopper) , a complete redesign of the under carriage and frame support , new hard points and then , a single engine aircraft was simply ... unthinkable anymore .

Just to clarify my mirage succesor plan was not a Mirage upgrade but a cheaper Rafale. in no way would i ever suggest tryig to marinise the mirage or any in service design (VSTOL not included) for carrier ops.

This idea also need not havre been single engined

MK , excellent post . As usual :-) May I ask you who you are by the way ?

Cheers .

DAs Kardinal I appreciate i omitted the Jag etc mainly as i didnt see these as significant.

However does raise the point that even buying going Hi Lo mix as ive suggested the french would still have reduced aircraft types

Quote Reply

jackjack 10/24/2009 10:15:56 AM

The Rafale is more orientated towards maritime strike role.

... but the MN decsision to go 2 crew may not be indicative of any aircraft deficiency simply doctrianl or operational requirements""

i agree, it isnt an aircraft deficiency, what they found was ......

" Initially the Rafale B was to be just a trainer, but Gulf War and Kosovo experience showed that a second crew member is invaluable on strike and reconnaissance missions, and therefore more Rafale Bs were ordered, replacing some Rafale Cs. 60% of the aircraft will be two seaters.^[9] The navy investigated a naval version of the two-seat version. However, no production or prototypes were built."

so as such i say that the single seat marine rafale is lacking as quoted "a second crew member is invaluable on strike and reconnaissance missions"

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