The 8 rafale canceled from batch 3 have been ordered (budget 2008), but the AdA is still waiting for the next big order (60 aircrafts).

This order is expected next year but it need to be approved by the big military “programme review” of the french government. The Findings of the “review” are awaited for spring 2008. Many thigs could change…Aircraft carrier etc etc…

I found an intresting tv documentary about the rafale. test pilots and a top executive from dassault are interviewed.

The only problem is it is in french, but I know that some non french people here can understand it, so it may intrest them.

5 parts:

http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/rafale/video/x39wuk_rafale-01_news

http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/rafale/video/x39wum_rafale-02_news

http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/rafale/video/x3a03t_rafale-03_tech

http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/rafale/video/x3a05d_rafale-04_tech

http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/rafale/video/x3a05k_rafale-05_tech

I have no figures like everybody, but fom what I have heard from people working for Dassault (I have several relatives who works/worked for this firm starting by my father) they say the AdA choosed the F probe for several reasons:

-The AdA and The MN considers that the refueling probe is a critical element of the aircraft. A failure can have very bad consequences over A-stan or during blue water operations from the CdG

-It saves internal space and weight

-It needs less support. If you look at the bigger picture, it is just one of the solutions found to reduce maintenance and costs. Fixed air intake (for RCS reasons also) and no dorsal brake but the ability to use its canards to be in the max drag configuration.

-effects on the RCS or drag are marginal. From what I have been told, the rafale has a surprisingly low RCS. The whole aircraft have been redisigned with special algorithms to make it stealthier after the “A” demonstrator. A case in point is the junction of the fuselage and the wings. The following rafales after the demonstrator have a blended fuselage and were made more compact to reduce global radar signature (see picture below about the junction). To simplify a little bit, the process went further to just hide the engine blades and put radar absorbant paintings. The shape of the whole airframe changed after the A to make it stealthier. Of course it is not a LO aircraft such as the F22 or the F35, but the process of reducing radar signature went furhter than competing 4.5th gen aircrafts.

Finally, a F.R.P won’t change the outcome of a combat situation unless it fails…:D

For those who are speculating, I think that The AdA is in a better position to know what it needs. Other airforces can come with another solutions according to their own experiences….It is just OK.

PS: rafale isn’t that expensive. I had the opportunity to talk with dassault’s international support manager (Jean-paul latrige) during the last paris air show and I asked him for the price. He told me very directly 55M€, and I think he was refering to the navy variant as we were talking about the rafale M previously just under the aircraft’s nose at the static display.

To conclude, I found this beautiful high quality mirage 2000 video where you can admire the aesthetics of its fixed refueling probe.:D

http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/phi729/2422/large

enjoy:)

sealordlawrence,

I respectfully disagree with some of your points.

First, the f22 will never be as versatile as the typhoon, SH, F16, F35, rafale…
The SDBs and the JDAMs don’t cover the full spectrum of threats and situations; It can’t provide efficient CAS without LGBs, nor it can treat efficiently deeply burried/fortified threats or big facilities. and there are many other things it can’t do. The limitation is obvious with the lack of space in the internal bays.
The f/A 22 despite his “A” is still a specialised aircraft, arguably the best for what it have been desingned for. Only the USA can afford to have a vaste scope of specialised military aircrafts even though it has been criticized for its prohibitive costs and its maladjustment to war against terror.

The typhoon while it hasn’t the very restrictive internal bay constraint, is still limited by the general layout of the aircraft. The wing is to close from the ground to carry a significative load of external fuel in AtoG configuation. You will always have this limit. (I wasn’t thinking about the slow process of AtoG modes certifications). I think, (and this is not a reproach) it shows that it was firstly developed as an air dominance figther, and I don’t think it is a scoop. a lot of work , inovations and money were needed to focus on pure performances, such as SC, supersonic agility…

-As you perfectly stated, the slow process of aircraft development makes it very difficult to find the “usefull” performances to invest on. For the moment (and it will probably last for a long time), air superiority is of second importance in Astan or Iraq; Performances such as persistence, versatility or situation awarness are much more decisive.

About the possible scenario of a possible superior or equal threat, I honestly don’t see what can challenge in a forseeable future NATO’s global military strenght in a symetric warfare, even without F22. Global mean the combination, of navies, ground forces, airforces in a network centric warfare environement which enable highly reactive/intensive use of force. A country may have some equal or superior military stuff in one or two aeras, but without the NCW environement, commanding facilities…But It won’t change the outcome of the confrontation. The f35, SH… would be highly sufficients.

for instance, Venezuela’s Su 30 are very potent aircrafts, but be sure that in a conflict the airfields, the commanding facilities, the refineries… will be hit thanks to massive use of standoff weapons. And the Su30 alone, witout any supports are a little threat against AWACS plus hundreds of SH, F15(some AESA), F16 and soon F35.

Just to say that the utility of an aircraft which was designed about 20 years ago as an air dominance fighter for its main mission, revealed to be a “mistake” (the word mistake is a little bit strong, I lack some voabulary) at the light of modern conflicts.

I know there is some speculations in my post, no one can be 100% sure of what is going to happen, but I still think it is somewhat true.

The fact that the f22 programme was called into question and the number of aircrafts ordered diminished are good indicators. And we will probably see the typhoon doing CAS soon!:)

regards.

for the typhoon as it is its thread!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APiiKsH0dR4&mode=related&search=

very nice videos!

We will never know if the pilot take off as soon as it is possible. Some prefer to let it roll longer and pull hard to make a bullet climb
At the end of the day this little controversy to know which aircraft can take off first is of very really little importance.

Wich matters on the battle field are survivability lethality and persistance.

I do not want to re ignate any of the old flame wars, but I realise that when we debate about performance as it is the case know, we always tend to forget the bigger picture to focus on a very perticuliar kind of performance. A combat aircraft is part of a whole.

If we want to evaluate a military aircraft I think we have three possibilities.

-The first possibility is to evaluate the aircraft in the light of what it has been design for. In this case most aircraft fulfill very well their requierments; The typhoon as an air dominance fighter, the SH as a versatile navy fighter etc etc…

-The second possibility is to compare combat aircraft to each others. But we all know that this exercise is very difficult and highly flammble due to jingoism, diffrence of criteria And the simple fact that they are not desingned with the same priorities, requirements etc etc ….

-The last one, and the most sensible one I think is to evaluate the aircraft at the light of the true added value it brings to the battlefields. To do so you don’t need to develop every aspects of performance endlessely, but evaluate the aircraft as a part of a whole and to wonder if it helps a nation in its war objectives.

with this last idea in mind I have always been more convinced by a SH, F35, F15E or a rafale rather than a F22 or the typhoon. You lose too much in terms of playload and/or range and/or versatility for a gain of performance which is not justified in modern wars. (I would also add that for the typhoon the gain of performance is somewhat anihilated by something stealth like the F35.)
PS: no offense intended;)

In todays war against terror I understand the criticism against the F22 or to a lesser degree the typhoon. Too much money have been invested in performance which don’t bring a lot of added value on the battlefields. Some money could had been saved to support the war effort on the ground.

I know Supercruise or awsome vertical climbs are “cool” for air enthusiast as we are, but in the real life of military operations, I would ask more range, more smart ordonance and better situational awarness. I think that today people who need CAS don’t really care about supercruise…

More combat persistence is always useful; especially in the case you are facing time critical targets like in Astan. You need to create a permanent threat against Taliban to help soldiers which are fighting on the ground. So the longer you will provide air coverage the better it is for them. Moreover, the conflict area is very widespread so you will probably operate far from your ground base or from an air tanker. Range or combat persistence are key factors of performance in this type of conflict.
I read that SuE needed approximately 45 minutes to join the tanker, refuel, and go back to the assigned area. Just to say that air refuelling is not ideal compare to better endurance.

So I find your statement weird and hardly believable. It seems to be an explanation that fits your rhetoric but it is not close to the reality.