AlphaZuluPerhaps the term ‘combat proven’ is not always a selling point after all? :rolleyes:
Yep, perhaps politics is not always as simple as such a tag, indeed.
And perhaps can one write Libya and not use the Syrian way :rolleyes:
No hard feelings 🙂
AZ
AlphaZuluSure, but for the most part the Rafale has been replacing strikers, whereas Typhoon has mostly been replacing fighters.
Agreed 🙂
In the AdlA :
– 1/7 was pure A2G (Jaguar), now it’s multirole (Rafale). Don’t know the balance A2A / A2G in training.
– 1/91 is a FAS unit, first mission = nuclear strike. A2G. Extreme, but A2G.
In the mean time, in the navy… :
– 12F was pure A2A (Crusader), now it’s multirole (Rafale). Don’t know the balance A2A / A2G in training.
What does it change? Typhoon has so far been mainly given to air-to-air defence orientated units.
I’m not trying to “change” anything. Just providing data.
One of the (many) reasons which led France to leave the Eurofighter program in the 80s was that France wanted an A2G with (very) good A2A capabilities aircraft. Other nations wanted firstly an A2A aircraft, A2G was secondary or not needed.
Cheers
Az’
AlphaZuluIndeed, the current capability gap between Rafale and Typhoon is rather astounding. How did they get all these weapons integrated so fast?
Depending on the need. Rafale did not replace the 2000C/2000-5s first but also SEMs, F1CTs and even M2000Ns. EF on the other hand replaced F3s, F-4Fs, F-104s/F-16ADF first. And tehcnically the EF can use most weapons (or similar loads) as currently used by the Rafale, but the user nations are not equally trained in AG work, as most new units are air defence units first and foremost.
The Rafale begun its operationnal career (in 1999 or 2000, can’t remember) as a pure A2A (F1 standart) only for the MN (french navy), replacing -at last- Crusaders.
Now all operationnal aircrafts are F3s (new crafts or updated F2s). Still ~10 F1 in storage (Marine), to be updated.
About replacing the F1s : they don’t replace “only” F1-CT (pure A2G), but more capable F1-CR (CT missions + recce role) (and, partly, M-IVs) with the new Areos/Reco-NG pod.
Cheers
Az’
AlphaZuluThe issue of the Super Etendards off the CdG intrigues me so if anyone has any information on their use (…)
SEMs are Standart 7 (i.e. regularly updated, which is more rare in France than in… US, for example).
They were paired with Crusaders and the first Rafale batch (F1) for the A2A role.
– Ground attack role, from dumb bombs/rockets (no more), precise CAS, to nuclear strike (ASMP). Gun can be loaded in a pod underbelly, in this case no buddy-buddy nor TGP.
– Refuel (buddy-buddy).
– Recce.
SEMs’ll leave service when Rafale Marine will be in sufficient number, with trained pilots, ground crews… etc.
At the moment, 3 fighter flottilles (naval squadrons) in the MN :
– 12F = Rafale
– 11F = SEM / due to transition on Rafale in 2011
– 17F = SEM / can’t remember if it’ll be deactivated or transitionned
Sort of strange that they’d go for 2x small tanks instead of 1x 1,100L underwing tank
Balance issue ? When releasing the bomb…
Are both of those ECM pods? The pod under the port wing seems to be the Barracuda (?) while the pod on the starboard wing looks to be the Phimat countermeasures dispenser.
You’re not wrong, those are Barracuda & Phimat. 🙂
Does this loadout mean that the GBU-49’s are being used in the GPS role or are they perhaps operating with another SEM (or Rafale) and the Damocles pod?
GBU-49 can be used in both modes, and a 3rd “combined” GPS/laser mode.
Happened in anger in A-stan (in 2008 IIRC) with ~50 bombs, of which one (two ?) used this combined mode.
The laser mode can use any third part designation (another SEM, a Rafale, a JTAC…), or self lasing. See this article (in french), with pics of SEMs @ KAF during the CDG rehaul.
Note that GBU-49s (EP2 for brits) aren’t part of the Rafale loadout (only GBU-12 & AASM for the Rafale), but are being (have been ?) integrated under the AdlA’s Mirage 2000D.
Cheers
Az’
AlphaZuluIn any case, the props aren`t a problem when landing because they will be disengaged and not rotating.
Ahem… No : on the proto (at last), the props are also used for antitorque & yaw control. Pretty useful.
Cheers
Az’
AlphaZulucan someone tell me if I am understanding the diagram below correctly of the current CVF layout. It looks like there are two short runways for STOL operations and an angled longer runway suitable for CATOBAR operations.
As the diagramm legend is in french (tonnes for tons), I presume the CVF design shown here is the one for the Marine Nationale, based on UK’s CVF plans, but modified for CATOBAR operation as it was envisaged for the french carrier “PA2”.
Regards,
AZ
AlphaZuluF/A-18E/F is a nice airplane, but does not possess the technology to prevail without an F-35 clearing its path and finding targets for it. If this was not true, USN would have no desire to procure hundreds of F-35Cs.
Err… That’s funny ’cause last time I checked, I was under the impression that USN actually has no desire to procure hundreds of F-35Cs, and was therefore totally cool with the delays in the program, as it gives USN an excuse to ask for more Superbugs…
Well, anyway, if RN is to ditch F-35B, and go for CATOBAR, my preference will be Rafales (of course, as a French ;)). Even if I don’t think it possible (politically). Too bad, we just had plans to sell, which by happy coincidence happen to be those of a CATOBAR version of the CVF design…
Cheers
Az’
AlphaZuluHi
If my French still works, it said that “the planes of the new tranche (59 in total) will be equiped with a new system OSF-IT that abandon the IR channel for a new, improved TV channel”.
Your french still works, more or less. 🙂
The 59 planes of the 3rd tranche have been delivered without OSF, for economic reasons. But the [system is easy to mount/dismount, within half a day].
The planes in the next tranche [i.e. the 4th one] will be equiped with a new OSF-IT system that abandon the IR channel for a new, improved TV channel.
Cheers,
AZ
AlphaZuluHello
I never heard of such a (developped/tested/operationnal) system on the Mirage IV, even in my (little) book about the plane.
It says :
“On étudia la possibilité de développer un Mirage IV ayant la capacité de ravitailler un autre Mirage IV, mais cette solution multipliait le problème, un Mirage IV ravitailleur devant lui-même être ravitaillé.”
=> “Studies were made about the possibility of developing a Mirage IV having the ability to refuel another Mirage IV, however this solution multiply the problem, as a tanker Mirage IV would have himself needed being refueled.”
I understand that this was never built, nor tested.
The book also says that :
“Consideration was also refueling by SO 4050 Vautour A and Vautour B with a Douglas’ refueling pod, but this required two to four Vautour mobilized for a single Mirage IV.
The obvious conclusion was that the only fast and economic solution was the U.S. plane KC-135 Stratotanker A, widely used by the U.S. Air Force.”
@ H_K : This book also contains a number of pictures of the plane, with different kind of bombs (nuclear, mock-up, dumb bombs, training bombs…) and other payloads.
If you’re interested :
Hervé Baumont, GAMD Mirage IV : du bombardement à la reconnaissance stratégique, Histoire & Collections Editions, Paris 2007, 66 pages, ISBN: 978-2-35250-024-7
Cheers,
Az’
AlphaZuluthis seems to be placed in the middle of the panel and sits proud from it
i havent seen this done before
I think I did. On the raptor.
http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle3/f-22a_01-4019/images/f-22a_01-4019_18_of_24.jpg
http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/michael_block/f-22a_raptor/images/f-22a_raptor_22_of_81.jpg
http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle3/f-22a_02-4032/images/f-22a_02-4032_20_of_40.jpg
http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/bill_spidle3/f-22a_02-4032/images/f-22a_02-4032_21_of_40.jpg
Before someone asks : No, I’m not talking about doors (gear doors, maintenance doors…) but about middle panel saw structures. On the F-22 they seem to be far less “common” than on the Rafale.
No clue about RCS limitation efficiency, though.
Cheers
Az’
AlphaZuluIt’s just been a major waste of time.
The capability […] has nearly zero operational value and thus it is very unlikely to be tested and/or talked about.
Whether you accept it or not, and whether it’s true or not, won’t change the facts. So there’s no need to discuss this “story” further.
I must say I do fully agree with OPIT (except for the removed […] part for which I have no clue).
Cheers,
Az’
AlphaZuluIf that is the case, it proves the point of Boeing supporters, that EADS/Airbus being an independent commercial firm is nothing more than a charade.
Fair enough.
On the other hand, Boeing isn’t more “independent” nor less supported by US gvt members / US representatives than EADS is by European nationals.
Aircraft manufacturers are indeed strategic assets for their homeland countries, which defend/support them by a numbers of actions.
Cheers
Az’
AlphaZuluWhoops… 😮
Please accept my sincere apologies, then, for this misunderstanding.
Cheers,
Az’
PS my pleasure
AlphaZuluin exercises, normally everyone has the same missile and max launch distance
I must disagree here : It’s true that no one (in an international exercise) uses its missile real range, to not let one’s partners know it precisely.
However, Blue Air uses its own missiles characteristics (AMRAAM / MICA EM : Fox 3, range X (X being agreed among participants before the exercice, and not being the missile’s true range).
Red Air uses “ennemy” generic missiles, such as the Fox 1 Alamo with range Y (equally greed among participants).
X does not have to be equal to Y.
there is probably a full text of what he said, but i have no doubt it wasnt selectivly part quoted
Aren’t you suggesting my quote was inaccurate and/or biased ? How nice of you ! :rolleyes:
Well, check MP and make up your mind. 🙂
Cheers,
Az’
AlphaZuluso he acceptes the 2 rafales on 4 phoons as a training exercise for phoon’s newish pilots and is another example of why you cant draw a conclusion about “who has the best plane”
Well, of course you cannot say who has the best plane on one or two encounters, biased by training needs and many many other factors. Neither can you say so using simulation, nor guestimations, and so on. 😉
On the other hand, one can point out that :
– in a four ship flight, not all 4 pilots are green (unless RAF has a really stunning way of managing its flights)
– Red Air’s finality is to loose : less capable missiles, numeric inferiority
I can understand that, given this situation, scoring what has been scored makes a CO proud of his pilots, and the pilots proud of their aircraft.
Cheers
Az’
Sign In
