One element which is known is that rafales flew close or in Libyan airspace to spy SAM systems and update their jamming libraries a few days prior to the military intervention.

Source please?

AFAIK, no Rafale were involved in such flights.

Rafale’s librairies certainly were updated, but EM reccon were made by F1/ASTAC, C-160 Gabriel, E-3F AWACS, an air defense frigate and a SSN (Rubis).

Until a few days (or even hours?) before march 19th, the 1/7 squadron was focused on the preparation to its upcoming detachment in A-stan (KAF).

mrmalaya, you’re speaking about actually nuking someone’s city. You can do that with a sub or with an aircraft (or even with a land or ship launched weapon). But when you’re there, deterrence is already a failure.

I agree with you, there:

I’m not convinced that France nuking a nation in revenge wouldn’t kick off the same chain of events that the UK (for example) launching a pre arranged SLBM in revenge would.

What we’re saying is that:
– a sub can’t execute a staged escalation visible to your opponent.
– a sub isn’t the best way to launch a weapon to detonate on desertic region of your opponent’s country, and/or in high altitude above it.

Why? Because France has one sub on patrol at all times. A second sub may be at sea while doing rotations (or for training purpose), but “only” one is always ready. This one is your joker. You don’t play with it, you don’t reveal its position, you don’t use it except for the worst case.

So France maintains (for now) its Forces Aériennes Stratégiques. For that.
It costs, sure. Much, but not that much.
And the capabilities built are a good investment for other things: French tankers were bought for the FAS needs, but we also use them for a lot of other things. Technology developped for the aircrafts (M2K, Rafale) for the nuke mission can be used for other missions (deep strike, low level penetration…). Same goes for the missile technology.

AZ

Why do France feel the need to operate the ASMP and is the Nuclear Strike mission of great importance these days?

The ASMP-A / aerial component adds flexibility, show-offability (!) and the capacity to easily do a “final warning” before the engagement of the full oceanic force, without disclosing the position of a submarine.

As to ASMPA being impervious, its a lot slower and will get to the target later than an SLBM, and I doubt it is as hard to find and destroy as you say…

ASMP-A certainly is slower than a SLBM in re-entry phase. That said, it’s not easy to intercept either. ASMP was already not, and ASMP-A is even tougher.

Plus military satellites are proliferating. Right now its mainly for communication but soon enough most great powers will have their own network of IR satellites that can detect any SLBMs launch pretty effectively. You won’t see the ASMP-A coming.

Huh?
That’s a strange idea… It’s far easier to detect an air raid than a sub launch.
And once the nukes are on their way, either you launch a ripost or you don’t, but in both cases its pretty much “end of game” for you…

If you have just one vector it’s much easier for your potential enemy to know where the threat comes from and try to deny it.

On paper, you’re right. But…

Say you have 2 or 3 nuclear subs at sea. If your opponent know the location of them they can act accordingly. If you have three subs, and dozens of fighters capable of launchink air launch nuclear missiles, then things get more interesting.

… as said above, locating a SSBN is hard. That’s the point. Except perhaps (if you got the right tools) when she launchs its missiles, but then it’s too late.
On the other hand, a handful of undercover guys with binoculars, or an imagery satellite would know easily what’s going on on your opponent’s nuclear air-bases: those don’t move, and are pretty hard to hide underwater… 😉

Let’s be clear: Both vectors are credible & complementary. Since France got SSBN (and the now decommissionned land-based missiles), the subs are for when it matters, constant vigilance & immediate alert. The aircrafts for the “show-off”, no more 10 or 15′ permanent alert. But when needed, activity on a nuke airbase is “visible”, and participate to send a “message” (that’s not me saying that, but FAS & FOST officers together…)

———-

Anyway, back to the Rafale:
M10 @ AIA Clermont-Ferrand, first “F1” to be upgraded to “F3”.
French text, nice pics.
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=119261

Cheers
AZ

the two seat naval rafale is developed, it is the Rafale N ( there was one built if my memory serves well)

it’s just that the MN decided to order single seaters only as they considered it suited their needs better

As pointed already by other posters, I’m afraid your memory failed you, there.
The N was neither developped nor build, due to budget constraints.
As you can read french, see here: http://defense-jgp.blogspot.com/2010/01/rafale-marine-biplace-jsf-et-collision.html

As for airframes the logical choice would be the 9 ones that were always going to be brought up to the latest standard. It wouldn’t require much in planning changes to loan them to the FAA instead. The refit to current standard could be performed well before the first cat equipped carrier is ready and it would involve three more airframes then the UK planned to start carrier operations with.

Well, the refurbishment/upgrade is already under way AFAIK, @ AIA Clermont-Ferrand.
As no deal has been made so far, I think the MN is waiting for those airframes, and the production may have been adjusted in Merignac (less M, more B & Cs).

AZ

Hi snafu352,

Anecdotally i spoke to French Mirage 2000-5F pilots last year who stated that at present the RDY they employ is “better” than the RBE2 PESA on the Rafale for a2a.
(I guess they would say that being fighter pilots ;))

Actually, I heard that one too, and more than once. In fact, it was about range: RDY has apparently more range than RBE-2 and/or is more efficient at long range (all of that in A-to-A, of course).

AZ

Hi Jackonicko

Captor is not just superior in ‘raw’ range. It has a bigger scan ‘cake slice’ (that’s a characteristic of M-scan radars compared to ESAs) and has wider gimbal limits (which has obvious applicability to A/F-pole). It has longer range and MUCH longer range at the azimuth limits.
This isn’t rocket science, and shouldn’t be contentious.

I don’t know what means “scan ‘cake slice’”, sorry.
I agree that wider gimbal limits is an advantage.
OTOH, in the pure A-to-A role, ESA also have inherent advantages. For example the agility in conducting track while scan functions, particularly on multiple targets.
Also using less power also means you’ll stay longer (closer) undetected. That’s an advantage in a BVR scenario.
Please don’t “limit” the ESA advantages to the A-to-G use (or the mixed mode use).
Finally, if we were to assess as a fact which radar is better (in this or that role), we would have to rank the data processing each does: speed, reliability… etc. IIRC such data are classified. Heavily classified.

AESA and PESA arrays have their advantages (especially for air-to-ground), but for pure BVR A-A use, Captor’s advantages are, or should be, self evident.

Indeed, Captor’s advantages are evident. But you translate “Captor has those advantages” into “Captor is better (overall) in BVR A-to-A role”. That’s one step too far if you want to stick to known, sure facts.

As to Captor-E, the bigger antenna, with more T/R modules, the repositioner and the later development timeline all make it pretty obvious that it’s going to be a better radar than RBE-2AA.

That’s an opinion. I think it’s a good opinion, BTW, cause it’s based on credible data. But still, it cannot be presented as a fact. And I daresay I still hope that some “magic trick” will allow the RBE2-AA to come closer.

With regard to MMI, the Swiss report is not my source, it’s just a useful public source that tends to confirm what I’ve been saying for years. I’ve spoken to a number of ‘neutral’ US SETP members, as well as to British, Danish, German, Italian, Swedish and French TPs, and to pilots who have flown both types. They are my source.

I’m not an expert on MMI, and have never flown a modern fast jet (the Jag’s as modern as I get). I have to look up the names of the tools used to measure MMI (or at least double check them). But when people who really do know about MMI say something then I listen, and I take it seriously.

OK, thanks. As for myself, I have never flown a modern fast jet either. When it comes to MMI (particularly computer-based systems), I have some experience, but not related to aeronautics. That helps anyway.
On a side note, I think we must be careful with pilots who have flown both types. I’m not trying to downplay an argument, but I think the Rafale’s MMI is not that user friendly ‘at first glance’ (see what I wrote about the HOTAS and the time needed to operate efficiencely with it). As I presume that pilots who have flown both types will have low hour number on both, or at last low number on one of them, if that one is the Rafale I’m not that surprised they judged the MMI as poorer. But I don’t buy it as a proof that it really is, when fully trained on type (which is, in my opinion, what matters).

I am absolutely convinced about the superiority of Typhoon’s MMI over Rafale’s as a result of what I have been told, and view it as probably Typhoon’s biggest single advantage (even bigger than the edge in performance). I recognize that it’s not something that is easy for the lay person to get their head around, and that it isn’t something that can easily be validated by using easily accessible internet sources.

Noted. I’m not absolutely convinced about the superiority of Typhoon’s MMI over Rafale’s as a result of what I have been told, too.
Rest assured that I’m aware it isn’t something easily validated by using (only) internet sources. I hope you weren’t implying I was relying solely on open (internet or other) sources to undermine my PoV: It’s not what I do, hence my repeted disagreement.

Your comment about radio channel selection is particularly appropriate. This is an ideal application for DVI.

Indeed, it is. And DVI is there an advantage for the Typhoon. But I regard this particular example as anecdotic in the global picture.

In your answer to Eagle1, you said: “You suspect that Typhoon’s lower workload is down to DVI. It is, in part, but it’s also down to intuitive display modings and more streamlined menus.”
OK for DVI, even if I have doubts (see my previous post), I recognize that should be an advantage for Typhoon.
I never had the opportunity to play myself with the Typhoon’s system, I cannot comment on its displays and menus. OTOH, I had the opportunity to do so on a Rafale’s system (I think it was an F2.2 or even an F3), and did not note any particular issue with automatic displays adjustements/mode change nor particularly bad streamlined menus. Quite the opposite, in fact.
As I said, I’m not able to compare, but based on my personal “play” and pilot’s talks, I have serious difficulties in imagining what may give such an edge in favour of the Typhoon, here…
As I’m under the impression you advocate the edge is clear, I’m sorry but I don’t get it. Either you can elaborate if you have the patience to do so, either we have to let that topic be with the conclusion we did not reach an agreement on it, based on our respective sources/experiences.

NB that MMI is not the same as cockpit design or architecture. It’s not about ergonomics. You can tell little about MMI from looking at the cockpit layout and design as MMI is all about what happens on the displays, symbology, how information is delivered in the minimum number of steps, etc.

I disagree. As you said, displays, symbology and the automation of those surely are an important part of MMI, but if we stick to its litteral definition, so is ergonomics & architecture. I stick to this. For that reason, as I think sidestick is better fitted for fighter operation, I count sidestick as an advantage for the Rafale. It’s part of ergonomics, so it’s part of MMI in my PoV.

Cheers
AZ

A number of posters have referred to the Swiss report highlighting Rafale’s ‘MMI’. Where exactly was this? I saw references highlighting the excellence of Rafale’s sensor fusion, and the way in which this enhanced situational awareness, but this is not quite the same thing, though good sensor fusion can be one important element within the MMI.

As for myself, I wrote that about MMI:

That’s a highly debated topic. I don’t know the MMI of the Typhoon, but have had the chance to play some time with the Rafale’s one, which seemed excellent to my untrained eyes (ergonomics & sensor fusion). I also remember lots of Rafale pilots praising that topic of their aircraft.
Was the Typhoon MMI upgraded since the swiss contest in 2008? IIRC the swiss report ranked the Rafale’s MMI as superior, but at the same time it ranked the Typhoon better in terms of pilot’s workload.

As you noted, there is no explicit reference to “MMI” in the swiss evaluation. I remembered wrong on that topic. Thanks for for pointing this out.
I think I took a shortcut as: praised sensor fusion+praised global efficiency = good MMI.
This point of view has undoubtedly been influenced by my knowledge of the Rafale cockpit and what its users think about it, which made me unconsciously add “good ergonomics” (*) to the equation, as follows:
praised sensor fusion+praised global efficiency+good ergonomics = good MMI.

Don’t you agree?

(*) about the Rafale ergonomics (please note: This is not intended to say “better than x”, just facts):
– HOTAS concept pushed to the limits of the conceivable (42 commands IIRC on the HOTAS + 2 “matches” for quick/effective management of the lateral displays); I personally had doubts about the displays without multi-function keys all around them, but the Rafale crews I had access to seemed to like that well enough, and pointed it helped “naturally” to declutter the displays.
– sensor fusion: the aircraft does as much as it can to present a global situation rather than distinctive sources/inputs. The big center display is particularly impressive in that matter.
– …and other integration features; many functions are “mission oriented” rather than “system oriented”. I’m not sure I should post details, so let’s make a comparison: It’s easier (better MMI in my opinion) to have a direct setting “french quiche” on your oven, rather than “thermostat 7” or “180°c” + timing X + convection mode OFF. Well Rafale has those direct settings. I’m not sure it makes french quiche nor coffee, though. :confused:
– retained ability to finely tune everything (altough it’s easier when having all tuned from the mission preparation on the ground, you’re still able to configure/reconfigure “everything” in flight). On QRA mission, if you have to go from a french quiche configured oven to a beef roast setting, or a direct 250° max speed, just do it so via the… menus, of course. 😉

Bon appétit !
AZ