This discussion is irrelevant as no country in the world not even the US would go against the latest integrated air defence network especially of Russian origin with manned aircraft.
Even for a country like Libya with a very low SAM threat, the coalition spent weeks flying ELINT aircraft, submarines and almost certainly special forces and drones in combination with their ELINT/IR satellites to map Libya radar’s network. Human intelligence and covert action likely played a role in order to asses whatever surprises they might find.
Then they used massive volley of cruise missiles to take down whatever air defence Libya had.

It’s a combination of forces that will defeat an potential enemy not just one vector even when looking at modest foes like Libya.

Even the B-2 will likely stay clear of S-400, S-500 and other latest air defence systems, and will only target those with long range cruise missile.

The point here is that VLO aircraft have proven to be very expansive to build, maintain and operate, from the F117 to the F22 and that Rafale offers a cost effective alternative albeit with significant trade-off in survivability which is why Dassault is working on Neuron. In the future dangerous mission into enemy defended air space will be conducted by such platform whether in the USAF or in the AdA, and those looking closely at cost will find Rafale/Neuron combo more suitable for them.

The fact that the US provided more than 3/4 of the ISR and refuelling is irrelevant with Rafale/SPECTRA or whatever.

Was hoping someone could shed light:

I did some calculations of Rafale Trust to weight, on empty, loaded and maximum take off, and it is quite competitive, often better, then most contemporaries, light heavy or medium. For example, it is marginally better TWR in both dry and AB, then the Su-35, at loaded and empty weights. The Su-35 is better by a larger margin on maximum load though. I guess the Rafale would suffer in practical use from large draggy stores (fuel tanks etc), but thats an issue on most fighters aside from the huge Flanker. So why the complaint by the UAE? The more thrust due to conditions should apply to most every aircraft out there.

Is there something specific about the behavior of the M88 that led to these comments?

Many people and so called experts (mainly from EFT’s world) have been comparing the EJ 2000 with the M-88 and because the M-88’s thrust is lower they’ve concluded that Rafale is underpowered. They don’t bother themself with looking at the TWR, or the MTOW of the aircraft. After more than 10 years of bashing, that has done its work.

The UAE is a very hot place, and they’re demanding very heavy load for the Rafale (something like 3 Storm Shaddow was reported) + more power for the electronics leading to more demand in thrust and electric generation.
Since they know SNECMA had a more powerful engine demonstrator in the lab, it’s only logical that they ask for it. They’ll always ask for the best available.

But as we’ve been able to see, many of their demands have been dropped after Libya, which shows that most of their requirements were superfluous, since they would not have dropped them if they were critical.

I think you’ll find there were multi-role types in WW2.

lol by that standard WW1 aircraft were multirole as well since the pilot could carry either a pistol for AtA or drop bombs by hand:D!! They could also serve for reconnaissance… and they were stealthy!!:diablo:

According to Dassault the initial concept is:

When the RAFALE programme was launched, the French Air Force and French Navy published a joint requirement for an omnirole aircraft that would have to replace the seven types of combat aircraft then in operation.

The new aircraft would have to be able to carry out a very wide range of missions:

Air-defence / air-superiority,
Reconnaissance,
Close air support,
Air-to-ground precision strike / interdiction,
Anti-ship attacks,
Nuclear strikes.

These requirements were taken into account from the start of the RAFALE’s development, leading engineers to invent an aircraft which goes beyond the needs of each type of mission.

Versatile and best in all categories of missions, the RAFALE is a true “Force Multiplier”.

The RAFALE has exhibited a remarkable survivability rate during the latest French Air Force and Navy operations, thanks to an optimized airframe and to a wide range of smart and discrete sensors. It is slated to be the French armed forces prime combat aircraft until 2040 at least.

Now extracts from interviews conducted during the Libyan campaign in “Rafale’s town”:

Dassault describes its Rafale as being an “omnirole” fighter, a tag that it says denotes the type’s ability to perform multiple mission types simultaneously. This differs from the widely adopted multi-role description used by its rivals largely as a result of the aircraft’s ability to provide its pilot with data fused from onboard sensors, it says. These range from its Thales RBE2 fire-control radar, Spectra electronic warfare suite and passive front sector optronics equipment to the seekers on its MBDA Mica air-to-air missiles.

“The intention from the beginning was to develop a joint and omnirole Rafale,” says Stéphane Reb, programme manager for France’s DGA defence procurement agency.

“It was intended to perform air-to-air missions, deterrence, air-to-ground and reconnaissance,” adds Reb.

This vision was realised in July 2008, with the introduction to service of the current F3 production-standard aircraft, the broad capabilities of which have been showcased during the Libyan campaign since hostilities commenced in mid-March.

The Rafale’s ability to adapt to the changing nature of the Galeb strike reflects the flexibility needed to react to events in Libya. While a master air campaign plan is issued 48h in advance of a sortie and a more detailed air tasking order arrives 24h before the aircraft fly, Pierre says his aircraft are routinely re-tasked once airborne. “Air-to-surface, air-to-air, all weather, day and night. Over Libya we are flying those kinds of omnirole missions,” he says. “It is very easy and practical to task us – it reduces the complexity of missions and reduces the tasking plan.” According to the French air force, a two-ship formation of Rafales can provide NATO with the same payload and situational awareness as a flight of four Mirage 2000Ds and two Mirage 2000-5s.

So while keeping in mind that the latest article is also a PR exercise for Dassault and AdA, it shows how the “omnirole” concept from Dassault ended up like. I believe that should settle the issue…

My fault, I changed the words “very low” to “small” – which now means I have wasted the time of Mercurius! We all know he is a very busy man.

For the record (I am now off to the real world for a spot of jousting and sword fighting over the weekend) I know that RCS was a design driver for the Rafale.

I was merely suggesting that if they wanted to penetrate deep into the Soviet Union then the final product would look more like the B2 than the Typhoon.

And I love the Rafale, and I think they have done a good job on reducing RCS, but its still not yer ideal stealth warplane.

Still would love to see more on the Rafale D as a product of the Cold War rather than an MLU option.

First you need to understand that there isn’t a common standard for what LO or VLO really mean. Each manufacturer will apply its own definition.

As far as I know, the Rafale D was supposed to be a variant like the C and B, but was latter cancelled and instead its attributes were given to all Rafale’s variants but with some compromises due to cost.

Rafale wasn’t designed to be a long range bomber capable to deliver nuclear bombs directly over their targets within Soviet territory (that would be the B2). It LO concept was designed around RCS reduction for the airframe coupled with long range stand off weapons, IR reduction, low level penetration and high ELINT/Jamming capabilities. The ASMP-A was developed for the Rafale in order to increase its stand-off capabilities (and as such reduce its observability) making it a tactical nuclear bomber rather than strategic (that’s the job of submarines).

Worried? Why? The RAAF is still committed to the F-35, even if that program’s rebaselining by the US DoD forced the ADF to delay their initial purchases by a couple of years. Given the economic situation in Europe, what are the chances that Gripen NG will be developed, in production and delivered before the F-35 enters squadron service? And how will it then compare to the F-35?

I suspect the ADF will make a further small (12 aircraft) buy of F-18Fs…so that they can proceed to the acquisition of an EF-18G capability without directly impacting on the number of airframes available for air to air and air to ground in the medium term.

I’d also consider whether the ADF is likely in the near to medium term to be involved in a conflict, other than as part of a coalition, with an adversary with highly advanced and extensive IADS.

Plus with proper AWACS and the AMRAAM, they should have no problem as long as they’re used in a defensive role. Anti access only apply when flying into or near hostile territory or unless something has gone very wrong.

There were generations of combat aircraft performing that very role long before the Rafale. The Mirage 2000 was hardly specifically designed for that role either, yet they develope the N variant to perform that very mission. It’s also foolish to believe that the Rafale was specifically designed for that mission only, otherwise “omni-role” is a pure marketing gag.

IIRC Mirage 2000D/N are structurally different from the 2000 C/B, and while “successfully” adapted to AtG missions, that wasn’t the wishes of the AdlA in the very first place, but they had to do with it. That’s why they make sure they got with the Rafale the AtG capabilities they had always wanted, and they got something quite good.

While it’s possible to do the job with almost any aircraft nowadays once couple with precision weapons, it’s clear that comparing the Rafale, F-15SE with the likes of F-16s and Mirages is a bit unfair. Maybe Typhoon 2020 should be renamed Strike Typhoon…