If you compare the RDY-3 & RC400 brochures (note that the latter has gone from the Thales website, but I have a copy on my PC), you see that the RDY-3 brochure is simply a modified RC400 brochure, with most of the same pictures & text. The radars depicted are identical. I therefore concluded, on this forum 2 years ago, that RDY-3 was just a new name for RC400, & this was confirmed by DTJJ, who had it from the Thales head of the Moroccan Mirage F.1 upgrade.

RDY-3/RC400 fits in the Mirage F.1: it’s smaller than RDY or RDY-2.

I second that.

for the AESA evolution, the side looking capability is a suggestion by the industry according to pilots’ feedback. It has yet to be approved and find money for development. Its too early to know if this upgrade will be adopted.

Same goes for the (GAN?) AESA improvement. This 5th batch is schedulded in 2017-2018 so there is quite some time. For the moment it is more a brain storming from the industry than something sure. But one can expect to be reasonnably optimistic when you see the pace of the improvements of the rafale. A case in point are the laser guided rockets, the LGB and damocles integration + rover which were not schedulded at the beginning.

very good work/compilation Toan !

You can add the M88 Pack GCP (reduction of life cycle costs) for the F3+ french standard. Also the AESA radar and the new engines should arrive in the current batch (the last three rafales of this current batch)

Rover should come with the current F3 batch also.

Future very likely weapons are also a laser guided variant of the AASM (pilots are pushing for it) and different bomb size for the AASM family.

An HMS should be integrated “as soon as there is enough money” according to a DGA source as they admitted that it can be a drawback when looking at the competition. (DSI)

first rafale F3 delivery was in August 2008.

This is quite an accusation…But I won’t go in this direction/speculation. If you want to believe this video is fake fine for me…

For me it is the same demo that I saw Tuesday without a shadow of a doubt…

EDIT : I just relized that there are tens of video of the rafale demo on you tube…Have a look an you’ll see…Exactly the same one, I carefully looked to the maneuvre and the timing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvOTBvJJw4E&feature=related

No, but I have now. As I’m an non-French speaker I will take your word for it.

I think that Cola which has some good french notions can attest it…look at his comment in the previous page about it. (reply 93)

Surely this is a ground-based observer, if its the pilot here, they are hardly even breathing hard! At the very end there is commentary with the pilot not even moving his lips.

Yes it is the pilot commenting its own demo but as you perfectly noticed it he was ground based when making these comments…He is commenting the video of his own demo.

ok jacko let’s try to cool down…that doesn’t mean that I agree with you but we can live with it don’t we ?

Guys, the thing is in control force mechanics.
Now, let’s take Rafale (EF, Gripen,…) and SH or any other elevator-ed aircraft including F22.
With elevatored aircraft the thing is they, first and foremost, need to overcome AoA (push tail down) and only after that, they’ll begin to rotate around lateral axis. This quick AoA buildup at such planes, causes “WOW” effect. However, during this same “WOW” moment the plane still flies straight forward vector!
In comparison canard+delta doesn’t push the tail down, but lifts its nose (canards generate positive lift vector, while elevators generate negative lift vector). In the end the effect is the same (nose goes up), but the force mechanics is different. So, as Rafale pulls its nose up (and is still low on AoA), it has already begun moving its flight vector around the lateral axis.
So, while ppl “WOW” on SH’s AoA buildup, the Rafale has already did some flight vector deflection, but more smoothly and that’s not so much “WOW”. In reality, “WOW” is, well, just “WOW”, but with very limited combat value, if any, because it generates enormous amount of drag and doesn’t actually move flight vector around, making the performing aircraft a prime candidate for “low, slow and out of ideas”.
However, this is only one of the advantages the canard+delta has over elevatored aircraft. The same goes for EF and Gripen, too.

This is a view that I share 100% Cola.

Short of being in the cockpit, or looking at the G meter afterwards, it’s impossible to say with certainty what g was being pulled at Le Bourget. It didn’t look like an aggressive, high g display to me, however, and it looked a bit tame to me, and to others. Had it been a succession of 9 g turns it would have had more of a wow factor, in my opinion.

Jacko I mean are you really serious ?? You are starting to be ridiculous …Did you ever, ever noticed that in my previous post I provided you a LINK…Could you please kindly take it into account…ask other forumers about it and asks them to count the 9G turns (official rafale pilot comments) and you will reach a dozen….

I don’t care whether or not you believe that the Rafale service limit is 8 g, and that 100FI is equal to 7,000 hours at planned usage. If it’s important to you, then you can call your own sources at Dassault and the Armee de l’Air as I did.

I don’t have a French aeromedical source, but UK aeromedical sources tell me that they’re pretty certain that 8 g is NOT an aeromedical limitation in France (they share papers, do joint research, attend the same conferences) – and pointed out that Alpha Jet and Mirage 2000 pilots are allowed to (or have been allowed to) go to 9 g at different times. Moreover it would be most unusual if French pilots were more cosseted in their exposure to g than their Dutch, Belgian, German, Italian, Spanish and UK colleagues – all of whom routinely go to 9 g.

Not convinced at all sorry…Again I have nothing against these limits but I have some reasons to be very skeptical about your claims…Your attitude or the fact that the numbers you took as a conclusion believing that it was Tmor’s fit your conclusion and your sources by some “mysterious” phone calls…If this story would wame from a poster like scorpion I would believe it but you are a different story.

I don’t want to be offensive but the truth is that I don’t believe you…And this is not because I am a “fanboy” as you call me because I don’t care about this limit in itself…its just that your few phone calls are too big to be true in my opinion….

However, I remain unconvinced that I saw it much at Le Bourget this year.

I guess that you are not serious…

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fr/aviation/salon-du-bourget-2009/videos.html

there is a good dozen 9G turn in this year demo as the demo pilot comments attest it…Cola which understand french can attest it. Here you are simply losing credibility…

And I don’t buy the few phone calls…Too easy…Not that I have something against the 7000h/8g limit but well sometimes it is hard to believe you. So the conclusion you reached via simple forum datas would be miraculously right…mmm… give me the contacts via PM, (I’ll give you mine in exchange) then I would be convinced. I would like to challenge your sources a bit…

And under Tmor control, that is not what he meant…the 8G limit is for human body restriction, nothing to do with airframe fatigue…Caught at your own trap ? A bit too fast in your conclusions ? (re-read his posts…). I liked how you tried to take Tmor in your side to try to gain credibility…