AlphaZuluA water-bombing-kitted An-22 I presume ?
AlphaZuluI was under the impression Mirage 2000-9 is the same type as Mirage 2000-5 mk2?
Yep:
“The Mirage 2000-9, ordered by the United Arab Emirates, belongs to the family of the new Mirage 2000-5 Mk2, purchased by Greece.”
(source: manufacturer)
As weird as it seems its actually the case for the -5, there was also a -3 called that way for the same reasons.
Oh! Thanks Ero_Senin, I was beginning to think I heard voices on this one. 😀
I’m not mad, then? Nice, I’ll sleep better tonight 🙂
Back to the Rafale 🙂
AlphaZuluShame on me ! You’re totally right, I ought to check better next time…
The story about the screens number was nice, but then it was just a story, it seems. 😡
Thanks, swerve, for not letting this mistake spread. 🙂
Cheers
AZ
AlphaZuluSorry AlphaZulu, me again….:)
Kein Problem 😉
I managed to find some pics of the UAE Rafale proposal, and they were all two-seaters – is that just coincidence, or are they all intended to be two-seaters?
Well, I have no data on this, you’ll have to ask Kovy or some other Rafale Bible Guy 🙂
My guess would be :
The Rafale, being a complex/multirole machine, should be better served by 2 people : even if the french 1/7 & 12.F seem to be pretty efficient with one pilot only, 2xMk-1 Eyballs (with most of the times 2 attached brains) is better for task sharing, complex SA and/or failure managing, X-control (CRM)… etc.
As for the UAE, unless I’m mistaken, they have (only) 2 seaters M2000 (-9s, the “9” being the number of screens in the cockpits, a single seater is a -5), so they have trained crews of 2. Why change habits, if they work well ?
[edit] forget the striked through part, my mistakes (2 in one sentence, how efficient…)
Cheers
AZ
PS : Note that french 1/7 squadron pilots, who share the St Dizier planes with 1/91 (nuclear strike) and 2/92 (OCU Rafale) squads sometimes use Rafale Bs (2 seaters) with only one pilot on board. He who can do more can do less… (and no, I couldn’t find the apply form to become SLF on such flights, pity isn’t it ?)
AlphaZuluNow that’s just naughty!…:D
Indeed, thanks for pointing it, I hadn’t read this paragraph.
Cheers for the answers about Rafale’s development path (AlphaZulu and TooCool_12f) – so the only external change is likely to be the intakes? Any artist’s impressions of the new intake shape? No vectored thrust engines?
Happy to help. But I’m in no way an artist, so no graphic impression, sorry. Intakes should be bigger, to allow more airflow, but not sure their global shape will really differ (like the F-16, light difference).
AFAIK no vectored thrust. Official reason is : “not needed” (and off comment follows : “see ATLC”)
Pragmatic reason IMO is : not enough value for the (rare) money french defense budget got left. Same for the HMS.
The external changes you’ll see in the (relatively) next future :
– DDM-NG replacing the DDM (MLWS) on the fin
– Upgraded OSF (TV+FLIR+LRF) on the nose (after, perhaps, a “TV+LRF only” intermediate solution)
So there hasn’t been any feverish: ‘Don’t buy that overpriced, under-spec F-35: Buy the Super-Rafale (which we will develop in partnership with anyone who wants some) instead!’ complete with super-slick illustrations and promises?
No, the proposed deal is :
‘Don’t buy that overpriced, under-spec F-35: Buy the mature, combat proven, fair priced and tech access included Rafale instead!’
Unfortunately for Dassault, it doesn’t seems to be enough to beat politics so far… Perhaps a better luck with the now heavily-seen-on-TV “combat proven” tag ? 🙂
Note : The UAE, as ever, want a super-plane. As for the Rafale, it would be the current F3 + AESA RBE-2 + 90kN M-88s + some improved electronic gadgets + perhaps CFTs (Erf… ugly…) + a bit more weapons integrated + alloy wheels + nespresso machine. :p
Note 2 : I’m sure Rafale super-slick illustrations and promises do exist, on the other hand. Parce que vous le valez bien 😀
Cheers
AZ
AlphaZulu@ c-seven : “Balard”. 😉
AlphaZuluhttp://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_03/20110331_110331-placemat-libya.pdf
Mhmm… I don’t understand the 2nd column. I read for France : Boat contribution = 1.
Hu ? Is the whole CDG TF accounted for one ship only ? Or were french ships removed from the operation, carrier excepted ?
Cheers
AZ
AlphaZuluAh ah ah 😀
Very good, indeed :p
Didn’t know Dassault hired Berlusconi…
AlphaZuluOne correction from AlphaZulu : The Rafale 6 lgb/AASM config is also cleared for navy operations. There are several pictures / video available with appontage and catapult launch in this config.
Oh, really ? Well, thanks for the info, that would be good news for the global punch of a MN strike raid 🙂
Are you sure the pic/vids you refer to are from Libyan ops (or another ops/exercice) ? I didn’t find any “6x” conf flight pic from the CDG, unless you count tests flights (Dassault/CEPA) which I discarted.
If you’ve a link to such a pic/vid, don’t hesitate to post it here (or via MP if it’s not relevant to the libyan ops) ; it would be much appreciated 🙂
Cheers
AZ
PS : Wee Willy II, french Jaguars were decommissioned before AdlA’s Rafales enter service, and before Brit ones (which were upgraded). The plane still flies in India and the middle east IIRC (Oman ?) /OT.
AlphaZuluLoke : My pleasure, Sir. 🙂
Indeed, Rafale is now mature & versatile, but it was a long road and “just in time” for operations above Libya : Reco-NG was very recently integrated, for example.
Note about the fuel tanks. Like the M2000, the Rafale can carry 2 types of fuel tanks :
– 1250L, supersonic cleared, mostly for A2A configs. They allow “A2A” FCS setting, with 9g / ~30° AoA limits.
– 2000L, non supersonic (even if… on some M2000… stories…:rolleyes:), for A2G/multirole/recce configs. FCS then limits the plane (5.5g / ~20°AoA max) due to heavy stores.
AZ
AlphaZuluImagine Germany and the UK would have bought Rafale and would so far only have trained their crews in using the capabilities of the F1 standard. They would not drop bombs over Libya today.
Sure, I don’t think either the RAF nor the LW would ask their crews to perform missions for which they’re not trained on a war theater. 🙂
May I add that I don’t think German & UK would have limited their training, should they have bought Rafale ? Based on the french example, ex-A2A 12F MN flottille is now multirole, as well as ex-A2G 1/7 AdlA squadron.
Training courses are shorter on the Rafale than on older aircrafts. Example : count in weeks to train for the Scalp-EG on a Mirage 2000D. Count in days for the same missile on the Rafale.
Is it “only” because the Rafale is “easier” than the 2000D ? Clearly not. Rafale crews will be cleared to use the missile with less experience on it than a 2000D crew.
Would it endanger them, or the mission success rate ? Well, I’m not qualified here, but manifestely AdlA doesn’t think so, and so far it seems to me that Rafale holds its rank in exercices as well as in combat, isn’t it?
For the EF users it is not the aircraft that is holding them back, it is the crew training.
I know nothing of the crew training of EF users, and that’s not my point here. Besides, EF isn’t the topic here.
MSphere asked “How did [the french] get all these weapons integrated so fast?”
You answered, unless I’m very mistaken, that it was because French integrated A2G duty first, wheras other Nations choosed A2A first (on EF).
I “quibbled” by reminding that the first aircraft Rafale replaced was the MN Crusaders, in a pure A2A role.
I was not trying to “suggest” anything about the Rafale/EF contest. Merely pointing that the reason you gave for explaining the current capability gap was based on uncomplete data. Nothing more. 🙂
————-
@tsz52 :
I’m afraid not to be a true fan, then. Shame on me 😀
AFAIK, there is an “F3+” standart to come. Then a F4 (not funded IIRC).
– AESA RBE2 and DDM-NG (NG MAWS) are on their way.
– More powerfull M-88s (along with redesignated intakes) for UAE prospect.
Nothing as “revolutionnary” as a full NG plane (like Gripen NG). Step by step approach seems preferred.
Cheers
AZ
AlphaZuluWhat loadouts have the Rafale and F-16 been flying with so far in this conflict?
As for the Rafale :
CAP
– 4xMICA EM + 2xMICA IR + 2 or 3 fuel tanks
– 2xMICA EM + 2xMICA IR + 2 or 3 fuel tanks
RECCE
– Reco-NG + 2xMICA EM + 2xMICA IR + 2 fuel tanks
– Reco-NG + 2xMICA IR + 2 fuel tanks
CAS / BAI
– 4xAASM + 2xMICA EM + + 2xMICA IR + 2 or 3 fuel tanks
– 4xAASM + 2xMICA IR + 2 or 3 fuel tanks
– 4xAASM + Damocles TGP + [2xMICA EM +] + 2xMICA IR + 2 or 3 fuel tanks
– 6xAASM + [2xMICA EM +] + 2xMICA IR + 2 fuel tanks (Damocles : possible, not seen)
– 4xGBU-12 + [Damocles TGP +] [2xMICA EM +] 2xMICA IR + 2 or 3 fuel tanks
PINPOINT
– 1xSCALP-EG + [2xMICA EM +] 2xMICA IR + 2 fuel tanks
– [not sure for this one] 2xSCALP-EG + [2xMICA EM +] 2xMICA IR + 1 fuel tank
BUDDY-BUDDY (Rafale M only)
– 1xDOUGLAS REFUEL POD + 2x2000L fuel tanks + 2x1200L fuel tanks
The 6xAASM conf is for AdlA only. As would the 6xGBU-12 (not seen it for the moment) : this is’nt done from the carrier (weight issue), neither as previously stated the 2xSCALP-EG loadout.
Can’t say for the F-16.
[edit] Following a press conference, data for french forces (source) :
1,600 combat flight hours in 250 missions since March 19th, of which 80% were AdlA, 20% MN (**)
– 48 strike missions (Rafale, Mirage 2000D, SEM)
– 10 recce missions (Rafale, F1-CR)
– 8 AWACS missions (E-2C, E-3F)
– 21 refuel missions (C-135FR, Rafale(*), SEM (*))
France is 2nd coalition contributor for air missions, with 20 to 25% of total coalition missions flown.
(*) buddy-buddy
++
AZ
(**) this has to be confirmed, as a second ratio published -after complaint from the MN PR service, it seems- gives 50-50 or 60-40.
AlphaZuluMy pleasure, Rookh. 🙂
No idea for the M-III, sorry. And I won’t make any (un)educated guess, for fear of making to topic drift too far.
AZ
AlphaZuluhere is my quibble: It is not correct to say that in any of the cases (SPain, UK, Germany or Italy) A2G was not needed.
I was quoting from memory, bad habit actually… I was thinking about Italy & Austria for the “not needed” part. Didn’t check for Italy. And Austria isn’t a member of the program, “only” a client. Point taken.
Now back to the Rafale 😉
AZ
AlphaZuluOne thing that does intrigue me. I’d read that when a targeting pod (at least in the case of ATLIS…not sure about Damocles) was fitted that the twin 30-mm cannons have to be removed? Is this true?
Mhmm… I already confirmed that on my post #802 😉
The reason is the gun is “podded” in a removable frame/mounting underbelly.
You can’t hang anything under this frame (don’t know the details, i.e. structural issues, vibrations, weight… It’s possible the main reason is “just” the (un)available space. Tiny aircraft)
To load a TGP (or a tank / buddy-buddy system, or recce frame CRM 280), you have to remove the gun frame and replace it.
See here the guns and their frame : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Super-Etendard_3.jpg (left of the pic, in front of the children)
Cheers
AZ
Sign In
