I was just a lurker who felt compelled to jump in on this silly debate.  It's almost like you and FS are trying to convince yourselves more than us Yanks that the Rafale is infact all you hype it up to be.

I'm just saying no one wants to buy it and you guys won't tell us why.  Lots of things throughout history have looked good on paper and ended up being extreme disappointments.  I'm only speculating that it's a turkey because no one wants to buy it.  For the life of me I can't figure out why no one would want to buy an aircraft that was the 2nd best A2A behind the Raptor and the best A2G in the world, all in one?  There must be some reason.  Either it's too expensive, or it doesn't do what has been advertised because if it did, they should be selling by the hundreds. 

 

You claim that Rafale has "active" stealth..maybe potential buyers aren't as convinced as you are that this "active" stealth will be effective. How did they develop the EW suite for the Rafale?  Did they develop it based off of assumptions about adversary capabilities, or off of actual intel about adversary capabilities?  You see, a large part of developing a capable weapons system is knowing what your enemy is capable of, which requires some very well placed spies, or a massive amount of ELINT collection capabilities.  I'm guessing the French don't have much of either given Western Europe's aversion to being able to defend itself post-WWII.  For all we know. the Rafale's supposed greatest asset, it's EW capability, would be useless against an advanced adversary.  Once again, it might look good on paper but until it has been proven, it is all empty speculation.  The advantages of the F-22 passive stealth and supercruise in combat are much more easily quantifiable without actually seeing them used in combat...there is no denying that going mach 1.7 in supercruise gives a huge advantage in terms of survivability, combat radius, and weapons delivery.

 

And how good is this passive shooting capability of the Rafale?  Once again, here is a weapons system that has not been proven in combat but looks great on paper.  You know what..the AIM 7 Sparrow looked great on paper in its time as well, but as it turned out, it was all but useless in combat.  Seriously, if the Rafale BVR IR missiles are as good as you claim they are, it would revolutionize air to air combat...and that feature alone should be enough to sell these planes like mad.   Can you imagine what that would do to air combat if you had a reliable and effective missile that could consistently kill in BVR engagements with NO active guidance?  So if your jet has this capability, why then is it not selling?

Interesting observations gf.. it looks like the US intends to leapfrog the competition and likely obsolete a lot of legacy systems with hypersonic tech.. but that's the nature of the beast.

the US is partnered with australia on a number of hypersonic programs, japan is also conducting hypersonic trials in australia.

 

if you going to take the buck rogers view, then in 20 years time, if you don't have constellation space based weapons platforms, then you're really only going to have a chance on killing LOS weapons. superficially, IMO, ground based ADS will struggle.

Alexd
For the life of me I can't figure out why no one would want to buy an aircraft that was the 2nd best A2A behind the Raptor and the best A2G in the world, all in one?  There must be some reason.  Either it's too expensive, or it doesn't do what has been advertised because if it did, they should be selling by the hundreds.

Good question 

 

 

 

Moreover mica IR add an advantage in practical range.

Indeed a BVR missile claim maximum range on specific target performance.

For exemple a missile claiming 80 km range is on a non manoeuvering target like a subsonic mach 0,9 plane at medium altitude which does not manoeuver.

If target is an high performance fighter manoeuvering at 9 g to escape, range is reduce to the non escape zone which closer to half the maximum claim range.

So it explains that AMRAAM have been never shoot in real combat at range better than 30 To 40 km (see known data in Gulf war or Kosovo) because once RWR detect missile in its last seconds, pilot do a sharp turn to try to avoid missile.

With a pure passive BVR missile, ennemy pilot has no warning and so usable range can be extended closer to maximum range.

 

It will.

The AASM weapon is also only available now .

Its range, 3 time of a JDAM (for a price also 3 time more expansive) give Rafale an additional protection versus IADS and with Spectra to add, or very low level penetration ability, compensate for lower RCS compare to a F35

Those capabilities are starting to be demonstated and AASM use has impressed everybody even US observers in Red Flag.

Last Red Flag show that Rafale performed all ground missions, without being shoot one time.Ok, it is DACT but it is still better than what have done SU30MKI.

So I wanted to figure out what was so great about this MICA IR missile so I did a little research.  At first, I was like "why would the need an RF version if they have this great, passive IR version" ?  Oh, then it all made sense.  As it turns out, this is not a completely passive BVR engagement system.  The MICA relies on inertial navigation and updates through an uplink with the fighter until it gets close enough to detect the target itself.  Now this missile doesn't seem nearly as good as I originally imagined it.  You do realize that uplink signal can be characterized and included in both early warning and electronic warfare packages don't you?  That means that not only can an enemy fighter know that you've fired a MICA at him (or someone near him, aside from being able to detect the missile on radar), but that uplink can be jammed rendering the missile worthless in BVR engagements.

No you are wrong

 

it is entirely passive, the seeker can track a target at 130KM. with no other queing the OSF can identify a target the mica is launched the tatget is dead.

 

The f3 uses the seeker head as an IRST as OSF is obsloete.

 

You just bash all french technology but f22 is to expensive we could have built if we had the budget.

the f35 is a turkey  and the typhoon is no good at air 2 air because  the canards are in the wrong place and its barn door RCS will let rafale see it at 3 times the range.

 

the rafale will be stealthier than the F35 because it has low RCS and sPECTRA

 

 

            this will be the Gist of the next 500 + posts on this subject any claim against the rafale is bashing any claim against it is fact. the above will be repeated  irrespective of evidence to the contrary.

 

see RAM coated refuelling probe - see valid explanations of why it isnt, see valid explanations of wht it has to be metal (in fact the ball is probably stainless steel)

see the well versed and technical responses to whit   DASSAULT doesnt agree, they have done this, I cannot find any data to support my opinion but am not going to let facts distract me from my reality.

 

Now im no fighter expert but I am in the industry and I have worked tankers  L1011 , so I (in my opinion) am probably qualified to make an educated assesment as to what criteria certain technologies have to meet.

You may have guessed from the tone of my response ive lost my patience with all the Fan boys. (esp US/UK walts on the SF board)

 

 

 

 

 

Hahahahaha.  Are you serious?  Lower RCS than the F-35?  How do you figure that?  One fully armed hardpoint on the Rafale probably has a larger RCS than the F-35.

As for all that crap you claim about the MICA, please send me a link, I would love to read about it myself instead of relying on your fan-boyism.  130km lol.  Seriously, you should be selling thousands of these jets if what you say is true.  As for cost, the F-22 is $130mill/plane.  That's how much the Rafale cost from what I read.  I don't know where you get your information from.

If its top speed clean is mach 2 you can't expect more than 1.6 with 1 tank and 6 missiles with 6 pylons not in tandem.